text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Randall and Sundrum  have shown that, with fine tuned brane tension, a flat 3-brane embedded in $`AdS_5`$ can have a single, massless bound state. Four-dimensional gravity is recovered at low-energy scales. It has also been proposed that part or all of gravitational interactions are the result of massive gravitons. For example, in one model, gravitational interactions are due to the net effect of the massless graviton and ultra-light Kaluza-Klein state(s) . In another proposal, there is no normalizable massless graviton and four-dimensional gravity is reproduced at intermediate scales from a resonance-like behavior of the Kaluza-Klein wave functions .

Recently, it has been shown that an $`AdS_4`$ brane in $`AdS_5`$ does not have a normalizable massless graviton. Instead, there is a very light, but massive bound state graviton mode, which reproduces four-dimensional gravity . The bound state mass as a function of brane tension, as well as the modified law of gravity, were explored in .

A brane world in which two extra infinite spatial dimensions do not commute has recently been used in order to localize scalar fields as well as fermionic and gauge fields . Also, the cosmological evolution of the four-dimensional universe on the probe D$`3`$-brane in geodesic motion in the curved background of the source D$`p`$-brane with nonzero NS $`B`$ field has been explored .

In this paper, we consider brane world models which arise from a sphere reduction in M-theory or string theory, as the near-horizon of $`p`$-branes  with a constant, background $`B`$-field on the world-volume. The dual field theory is non-commutative Yang-Mills .

We consider string theoretic $`p`$-brane solutions for $`p=3,4,5`$ with $`0,1,2`$ world-volume dimensions wrapped around a compact manifold, respectively. For $`p>5`$, the space of the extra large dimension has finite-volume, with a naked singularity at the end, for which case the localization of gravity is trivial.

For all of the cases we study, we find that there is no normalizable massless graviton, but there is a massive bound state graviton which plays the role of the four-dimensional graviton. This yields another class of examples for which gravitational interactions are entirely the result of massive gravitons. As we will see, the bound mass increases continuously from zero as a constant, background $`B`$ or $`E`$-field is turned on, except for the case $`p=5`$, for which there is a mass gap.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we find the graviton wave equation in the background of five-dimensional domain-walls that originate in string theory as $`p`$-branes in constant background $`B`$ and $`E`$-fields. In section 3, we show that the massless graviton wave function is not normalizable for nonzero background $`B`$ or $`E`$ fields, indicating that the massless graviton is not localized on the brane. In section 4, we show that there is a massive graviton localized on the brane for nonzero $`B`$ and $`E`$-fields. Lastly, an appendix shows how the graviton wave equation can be solved exactly for $`p=5`$.

## 2 The graviton wave equation

### 2.1 With background B field

Consider the metric of a $`p`$-brane (expressed in the string frame) in a constant NS $`B`$ field in the $`2`$,$`3`$ directions :

$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{1/2}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+h(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+dy_i^2\right)+l_s^4H^{1/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2),`$ (2.1)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{l_s^4u^{7p}}},h^1=H^1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$
where $`u=r/l_s^2`$ is a dimensionless radial parameter and $`i=1,..,p3`$. The $`B`$ field and dilaton are given by

$$B_{23}=\mathrm{tan}\theta H^1h,e^{2\phi }=g^2H^{(3p)/2}h,$$
(2.2)
$$\mathrm{cos}\theta R^{7p}=(4\pi )^{(5p)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)g_sl_s^{p3}N,$$
(2.3)
where $`N`$ is the number of $`p`$-branes and $`g_s`$ is the asymptotic value of the coupling constant. $`\theta `$ is known as the non-commutativity parameter, and is related to the asymptotic value of the $`B`$-field: $`B_{23}^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{tan}\theta `$.

Consider the following decoupling limit, in which we take the $`B`$ field to infinity :

$`l_s0,l_s^2\mathrm{tan}\theta =b,`$ (2.4)
$`\stackrel{~}{x}_{2,3}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{l_s^2}}x_{2,3},`$
where $`b,u,\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ and $`g_sl_s^{p5}`$ stay fixed. Thus,

$$l_s^2ds^2=\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^{(7p)/2}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(d\stackrel{~}{x}_2^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_3^2)+dy_i^2\right)+\left(\frac{R}{u}\right)^{(7p)/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2),$$
(2.5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}^1=1+b^2(u/R)^{7p}`$. The dual field theory is Yang-Mills with noncommuting $`2,3`$ coordinates . For small $`u`$, the above solution reduces to $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, corresponding to ordinary Yang-Mills living in the IR region of the dual field theory, which is also the case if we had taken the decoupling limit with finite $`B`$-field. From this point on, we drop the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on the coordinates. For $`p5`$, we change coordinates to $`u/R(1+k|z|)^{2/(p5)}`$ :

$$l_s^2ds^2=(1+k|z|)^{\frac{7p}{p5}}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+dy_i^2+dz^2\right)+(1+k|z|)^{\frac{p3}{p5}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2,$$
(2.6)
For $`p=5`$, we change coordinates to $`u/Re^{k|z|/2}`$ :

$$l_s^2ds^2=e^{k|z|/2}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+dy_i^2+dz^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right).$$
(2.7)
After dimensional-reduction over $`S^{8p}`$, the above metric corresponds to a $`p+2`$-dimensional domain wall at $`z=0`$. We will consider the case where $`y_i`$ are wrapped around a compact manifold, so that there is a $`1+3`$-dimensional dual field theory on the remaining world-volume coordinates. The equation of motion for the graviton fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Phi }=g^{00}h_{01}`$ is

$$_M\sqrt{g}e^{2\phi }g^{MN}_N\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2.8)
where $`h_{01}`$ is associated with the energy-momentum tensor component $`T_{01}`$ of the Yang-Mills theory. For $`p5`$, consider the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi (z)e^{ipx}=(1+k|z|)^{\frac{9p}{2(5p)}}\psi (z)e^{ipx}.$$
(2.9)
Thus,

$$\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+U\psi =m^2\psi ,$$
(2.10)
$$U=\frac{(p9)(3p19)k^2}{4(5p)^2(1+k|z|)^2}+\frac{p9}{5p}k\delta (z)+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(1+k|z|)^{2(7p)}5p},$$
(2.11)
where

$$\alpha b\sqrt{(p_2^2+p_3^2)},$$
(2.12)
and $`m^2=p^2`$.

For $`p=5`$, consider the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi (z)e^{ipx}=e^{k|z|/2}\psi (z)e^{ipx}.$$
(2.13)
Thus, $`\psi `$ satisfies (2.10) with

$$U=\frac{1}{4}k^2k\delta (z)+\alpha ^2e^{k|z|}.$$
(2.14)
For more general directions of the world-volume $`B`$ field, $`\alpha b\sqrt{p_i^2}`$, where $`p_i`$ are the momenta along the large, non-commuting directions in the world-volume. Thus, if only the wrapped $`y_i`$ coordinates are non-commuting, then $`\alpha =0`$.

### 2.2 With background B and E fields

Consider the metric of a $`p`$-brane in a constant two-component NS $`B`$ field background :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{1/2}\left(h_e(dt^2+dx_1^2)+h_m(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+dy_i^2\right)+l_s^4H^{1/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2),`$ (2.15)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{l_s^4u^{7p}}},h_m^1=H^1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _m+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _m,h_e^1=H^1\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta _e+\mathrm{cosh}^2\theta _e.`$
The $`B`$ and $`E`$ field components and dilaton are given by

$$B_{23}=\mathrm{tan}\theta _mH^1h_m,E_{01}=\mathrm{tanh}\theta _eH^1h_e,e^{2\phi }=g^2H^{\frac{3p}{2}}h_eh_m.$$
(2.16)
Consider the following decoupling limit :

$`l_s0,\mathrm{cosh}\theta _e={\displaystyle \frac{b^{^{}}}{l_s}},\mathrm{cos}\theta _m=\mathrm{fixed},`$ (2.17)
$`x_{0,1}={\displaystyle \frac{b^{^{}}}{l_s^2}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{0,1},x_{2,3}=l_s\mathrm{cos}\theta _m\stackrel{~}{x}_{2,3},`$
where $`b^{^{}},u,\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ and $`g_sl_s^{p7}`$ remain fixed. Thus,

$$l_s^2ds^2=H^{1/2}\left(\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^{7p}(d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2)+\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^{7p}\stackrel{~}{h}_m(d\stackrel{~}{x}_2^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_3^2)+H^1dy_i^2+du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2\right),$$
(2.18)
where we define

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_m^1=1+\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^{7p}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _m.$$
(2.19)
The dual field theory is Yang-Mills with noncommuting $`0,1`$ and $`2,3`$ coordinates . Once again, we drop the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on the coordinates. For $`p5`$, we change coordinates to $`u/R(1+k|z|)^{2/(p5)}`$:

$$l_s^2ds^2=H^{1/2}\left((1+k|z|)^{\frac{2(p7)}{5p}}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}_m(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+dz^2\right)+H^1dy_i^2+(1+k|z|)^{\frac{4}{p5}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2\right).$$
(2.20)
For $`p=5`$, we change coordinates to $`u/Re^{k|z|/2}`$:

$$l_s^2ds^2=H^{1/2}\left(e^{k|z|}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}_m(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+dz^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)+H^1dy_i^2\right).$$
(2.21)
As in the case of a one-component $`B`$-field, we consider a dimensional-reduction over $`S^{8p}`$ and $`y_i`$ wrapped around a compact manifold. One effect of the $`E`$-field, as opposed to the $`B`$-field, is to add a breathing-mode to $`S^{8p}`$. For $`p5`$, we insert this metric into the graviton equation of motion (2.8) with the ansatz (2.9) and obtain (2.10) with $`U`$ given by (2.11) and with

$$\alpha \frac{\sqrt{p_2^2+p_3^2}}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _m}.$$
(2.22)
For $`p=5`$, we use the wave function ansatz (2.13) and obtain (2.10) with $`U`$ given by (2.14). Again, in general $`\alpha \sqrt{p_i^2}/\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$, where $`p_i`$ are the momenta along the large, non-commuting directions.

In this paper, we will focus on the $`p=3`$ case, for which the volcano potential $`U`$ is plotted in Figure 1, for $`\alpha =0`$ (solid line) and $`\alpha =2`$ (dotted line).

As can be seen, the effect of the B and E fields is the raise the peak of the potential. This is the case in general for $`p5`$.

## 3 The massless graviton

Consider the coordinate transformation

$$u/R(1+k|w|)^1$$
(3.1)
and the wave function transformation

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(w)=(1+k|w|)^{\frac{p3}{4}}\psi (z).$$
(3.2)
applied to the graviton wave equation (2.10). Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{^{\prime \prime }}+V\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{m^2}{(1+k|w|)^{p3}}\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(3.3)
where

$$V=\frac{(6p)(8p)k^2}{4(1+k|w|)^2}(6p)k\delta (w)+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(1+k|w|)^4}.$$
(3.4)
For the massless case, this is a Schrödinger-type equation. The wave function solution can be written in terms of Bessel functions as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(w)=N_0(1+k|w|)^{1/2}\left[J_\nu \left(\frac{i\alpha }{1+k|w|}\right)+A(\alpha )Y_\nu \left(\frac{i\alpha }{1+k|w|}\right)\right],$$
(3.5)
where $`\nu =(7p)/2`$ and $`N_0`$ is the normalization constant, in the event that the above solution is normalizable. $`A(\alpha )`$ is solved by considering the $`\delta (w)`$ boundary condition:

$$A(\alpha )=\frac{2\nu J_\nu (i\alpha )+i\alpha [J_{\nu +1}(i\alpha )J_{\nu 1}(i\alpha )}{2\nu Y_\nu (i\alpha )+i\alpha [Y_{\nu 1}(i\alpha )Y_{\nu +1}(i\alpha )]},$$
(3.6)
where we used $`2J_n^{}(x)=J_{n1}(x)J_{n+1}(x),`$ and likewise for $`Y_n^{}(x)`$. In order for the massless graviton to be localized on the brane, the corresponding wave function must be normalizable, i.e., $`_0^{\mathrm{}}|\psi (w,m=0)|^2𝑑w<\mathrm{}`$. (3.5) can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(w)=(normalizablepart)+A(nonrenormalizablepart),$$
(3.7)
as can be seen from the asymptotic forms of the Bessel functions. Thus, the massless graviton is only localized on the brane if $`A=0`$. In this limit, there are no background B or E fields and we recover the Randall-Sundrum model.

As shown in Figure 2, for the case of the D$`3`$-brane, as $`\alpha `$ increases, the modulus of $`A`$ approaches unity.

$`A`$ has the same characteristics for $`p5`$ in general. The issue arises as to whether there is a massive graviton state bound to the brane for nonzero $`A`$.

## 4 Localization of the massive graviton

We will first concentrate on the case of the brane world as the dimensionally-reduced near-horizon of the D$`3`$-brane. For this case, the massive wave equation (2.10) with $`U`$ given by (2.11) is a modified Mathieu’s equation , supplemented by the $`\delta (w)`$ boundary condition. The exact solution of the modified Mathieu’s equation is known, and has been applied to absorption by $`D3`$-branes and six-dimensional dyonic strings . However, it is rather laborious to use the exact solution in this context and so we content ourselves with plotting numerical solutions– except for the case $`p=5`$, for which the exact solution is a sum of Bessel functions (see appendix A).

In order to solve for the unnormalized wave function, we input the $`\delta (z)`$ boundary condition and solve the Schrödinger-type equation outwards. We then numerically integrate in order to find the correct normalization factor.

As can be seen from the dotted line in Figure 3, for the case of the D$`3`$-brane with no background B and E fields, there is a resonance in the modulus of the wave function on the brane for $`m=0`$, which implies that the massless graviton is localized on the brane. This behavior can also be seen from Figure 2, by the fact that $`A=0`$ and the massless solution is normalizable.

We may arrive at the same conclusion via Figures 4 and 5, where the massless wavefunction has a peak on the brane at $`z=0`$ whereas the wavefunction of mass $`m=1.5k`$ oscillates without feeling the presence of the brane .

In the case of nonzero B or E fields, the resonance in the modulus of the wave function on the brane is at a nonzero mass. Thus, for a nonzero, constant background B or E field, a massive graviton is localized on the brane. This behavior is shown by the solid line in Figure 3, where the $`|\psi (z=0)|^2`$ is plotted for $`\alpha =.02`$, and there is a large resonance in the wave function on the brane for $`m/k=.0822`$. Again, this behavior may also be ascertained from plots of $`|\psi (z)|^2`$ for various values of $`m/k`$. For a mass significantly less than the resonance mass, the wave function has a peak at $`z=0`$ that is not relatively high, while a wave function with a mass significantly greater than the resonance mass oscillates without feeling the brane.

It is straight-forward to repeat the above analysis for $`p=4,5`$. Note that a D$`4`$-brane reduced on $`S^1\times S^4`$ yields the same graviton wave equation as a M$`5`$-brane reduced on $`T^2\times S^4`$. Likewise, the D$`5`$-brane reduced on $`T^4\times S^3`$ and a M$`5`$-brane intersection reduced on $`T^4\times S^2`$ or K3 $`\times S^2`$ yield the same graviton wave equation. This was initially observed in  in the case of zero $`B`$-field.

Figure 6 shows the resonance mass versus $`\alpha `$ for $`p=3,4,5`$. We classify them by the corresponding near-horizon brane configurations in ten or eleven dimensions. The solid line corresponds to the D$`3`$-brane. The dotted line corresponds to the D$`4`$ or M$`5`$-brane. The bold line corresponds to the D$`5`$-brane or an M$`5`$-brane intersection. It is rather curious that the three lines appear to intersect at the same point, at approximately $`\alpha =2.688`$ and $`m/k=.976`$.

## Appendix A $`p=5`$ as an exactly solvable model

Consider the equations (3.3) and (3.4). Although this is not in Schrödinger form, for $`p=5`$ this equation is easily solvable for the massive case. The solution for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=N(1+k|w|)^{1/2}[J_{i\gamma }\left(\frac{i\alpha }{1+k|w|}\right)+A(\alpha )Y_{i\gamma }\left(\frac{i\alpha }{1+k|w|}\right)],$$
(A.1)
where

$$A(\alpha )=\frac{2J_{i\gamma }(i\alpha )+i\alpha [J_{i\gamma +1}(i\alpha )J_{i\gamma 1}(i\alpha )}{2Y_{i\gamma }(i\alpha )+i\alpha [Y_{i\gamma 1}(i\alpha )Y_{i\gamma +1}(i\alpha )]},$$
(A.2)
and $`\gamma \sqrt{4(m/k)^21}`$. Transforming back to the $`z`$ coordinate and $`\psi `$ wave function using (3.1) and (3.2) we obtain the wave function solution

$$\psi (z)=N_0\left[J_{i\gamma }(i\alpha e^{k|z|/2})+A(\alpha )Y_{i\gamma }(i\alpha e^{k|z|/2})\right].$$
(A.3)
For the massless graviton

$$\psi (z)e^{k|z|/2}+A(\alpha )e^{k|z|/2},$$
(A.4)
and so the massless graviton wave function is not normalizable for nonzero $`B`$ or $`E`$ fields.

As in the zero $`B`$-field case, there is a mass gap and so we must have $`m^2\frac{1}{4}k^2`$ for the massive wave functions. Expanding the Bessel functions for large $`k|z|`$ yields

$`\psi (z)`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i\gamma )}}([1+iA(\alpha )\mathrm{csch}(\pi \gamma )\mathrm{cosh}(\pi \gamma )]\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{iq}|\mathrm{z}|\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{ln}(\alpha /2)}`$
$`iA(\alpha )\mathrm{csch}(\pi \gamma )\mathrm{e}^\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mathrm{i}\gamma )}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{iq}|\mathrm{z}|+\mathrm{i}\gamma \mathrm{ln}(\alpha /2)}),`$
where $`q\sqrt{m^2k^2/4}`$. We numerically normalize the wave function, and find the resonant mass by solving for the maximum of $`|\psi (z=0)|^2`$ for a given $`\alpha `$. The resonant mass versus $`\alpha `$ is plotted for $`p=5`$ as the bold line in Figure 6. With this exact solution to the wave function, one can then find an analytic expression for how the gravitational potential is modified by the presence of the constant, background $`B`$ and $`E`$ fields.

Note that, for the case of zero $`B`$-field, the $`p=5`$ wave equation that results from not dropping the ”1” in the harmonic function $`H`$ is also exactly solvable as a sum of Bessel functions , using the $`w`$ coordinate. This is of interest if one wishes to explore the localization of gravity analytically in two-scalar domain-wall solutions .

## Appendix B Acknowledgements

I would like to thank M. Cvetič, G. Shiu, A. Karch, A. Naqvi and A. Vázquez-Poritz for useful discussions. I am especially grateful to H. Lü for extensive and very helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# State dependent effective interaction for the hyperspherical formalism with noncentral forces

## I Introduction

In the last years great progresses have been achieved in microscopic calculations of few-body systems. Quite a few different exact approaches have been developed. Among those the effective interaction method is particularly interesting since it is a typical many-body rather than a few-body approach. In fact effective interactions are used in shell-model calculations of complex nuclei, where the wave functions are expanded in a model space consisting in a truncated single particle harmonic oscillator (HO) basis. The introduction of an effective rather than a bare interaction is necessary in order to compensate for the truncation of the space. A few years ago such an effective interaction method has also been introduced in few-body physics. So called no-core shell-model calculations have been carried out, where one keeps all the nucleons active and where one also removes the spurious center of mass motion finally leading to HO basis functions that depend on the Jacobi coordinates .

Recently we have proposed a different effective interaction method  using instead of the HO basis an expansion of the wave function in hyperspherical harmonics (HH). In the HH formalism the Jacobi coordinates are replaced by a single length coordinate, the hyperradius, and a set of $`3A4`$ hyperangles. The HH are the A-body generalization of the 2-body spherical harmonics, and likewise depend only on the hyperangular (angular) coordinates in the hyperspherical (spherical) decomposition of the A-body (2-body) system. In general, the wave function can be expanded in a series consisting of products of HH basis functions and hyperradial basis functions. The HH basis is widely used in the calculation of few-body wave functions, though the convergence is very often problematic. In order to improve the convergence one may introduce proper correlation functions (see, e.g., ). The correlation functions, however, lead to various undesirable features in the calculation. One not only looses the orthogonality of the basis functions but also has no unique way to determine the correlation functions. Therefore, as an alternative approach, we have studied the HH effective interaction (EIHH) method to accelerate the slow convergence of the expansion. Employing simple central NN potential models as bare NN interaction for light nuclei in the mass range of $`A=36`$ we could show that the EIHH method leads to an extremely rapid convergence for the investigated observables. One important reason for the excellent convergence behavior is due to the fact that the effective interaction becomes state dependent in a natural way, i.e. the interaction does not only depend on the state of the two interacting particles, but also on the state of the rest system.

Due to the excellent convergence the EIHH method has proven to be a very promising tool in few-body physics. On the other hand, in Ref.  only central potential models have been considered while realistic NN interactions are much more complicated and in principle could deteriorate the convergence rate. Therefore it is of great importance to check whether the EIHH method leads to similarly good results also for more realistic NN potentials. In this paper we investigate the method for two noncentral NN interaction models (AV6, AV14 ) calculating ground state energies and radii for the $`A=3,4`$ nuclei. To this end the convergence patterns are studied in detail and the final results are compared to results in the literature.

The paper is organized as follows. The EIHH method for noncentral forces is described in Sec. II. Numerical results, including a comparison with results obtained with other few-body techniques, are given in Sec. III and conclusions are drawn in Sec. IV.

## II The HH Effective Interaction

Before introducing the effective interaction we first give a short summary of the HH formalism. To illustrate the hyperspherical coordinates we start from the definition of the center-of-mass coordinate $`\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{1}{A}_{i=1}^A\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ and the normalized reversed order $`N=A1`$ Jacobi coordinates

$$\stackrel{}{\eta }_i=\sqrt{\frac{Ai}{A+1i}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}_i\frac{1}{Ai}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{A}{}}\stackrel{}{r}_j\right).$$
(1)
The Jacobi coordinate $`\stackrel{}{\eta }_j`$ consists of a radial coordinate $`\eta _j`$ and a pair of angular coordinates $`\widehat{\eta }_j(\theta _j,\varphi _j)`$. These coordinates are then transformed into the hyperangular coordinates $`\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _N`$ through the relations

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha _n=\eta _n/\rho _n,\rho _n^2=\rho _{n1}^2+\eta _n^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _j^2.$$
(2)
Note that the hyperradial coordinate $`\rho \rho _N`$ is symmetric with respect to permutations of the underlying single particle coordinates. The $`3N=3(A1)`$ internal coordinates for the $`A`$-particle system consist of the hyperradial coordinate $`\rho `$ and the $`3N1`$ “hyperangular” coordinates $`\mathrm{\Omega }_N\{\widehat{\eta }_1,\widehat{\eta }_2,\mathrm{},\widehat{\eta }_N,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\mathrm{},\alpha _N\}`$.

With the hyperspherical coordinates one can write the Laplace operator for $`n`$ Jacobi coordinates $`n=1\mathrm{}N`$, as a sum of two terms

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\frac{1}{\rho _n^{3n1}}\frac{}{\rho _n}\rho _n^{3n1}\frac{}{\rho _n}\frac{1}{\rho _n^2}\widehat{K}_n^2.$$
(3)
The hyperspherical or grand angular momentum operator $`\widehat{K}_n^2`$ of the $`n`$ Jacobi coordinates can be expressed in terms of the squared angular momentum associated with the nth Jacobi coordinate, $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_n^2`$, and $`\widehat{K}_{n1}^2`$ as follows

$$\widehat{K}_n^2=\frac{^2}{\alpha _n^2}+\frac{3n6(3n2)\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha _n)}{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _n)}\frac{}{\alpha _n}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _n}\widehat{K}_{n1}^2+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _n}\widehat{\mathrm{}}_n^2,$$
(4)
where we define $`\widehat{K}_1^2\widehat{\mathrm{}}_1^2`$. The total angular momentum operator associated with $`n`$ coordinates is $`\stackrel{}{\widehat{L}}_n=\stackrel{}{\widehat{L}}_{n1}+\stackrel{}{\widehat{\mathrm{}}}_n`$. The operators $`\widehat{K}_n^2`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_n^2`$, $`\widehat{K}_{n1}^2`$, $`\widehat{L}_n^2`$ and $`\widehat{L}_{n_z}`$ commute with each other. The hyperspherical harmonic functions $`𝒴_{[K_n]}`$ are the eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{K}_n^2`$ with eigenvalues $`K_n(K_n+3n2)`$. The symbol $`[K_n]`$ stands for a set of quantum numbers including, e.g., $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_n`$, $`L_2,\mathrm{},L_n`$ and $`K_2,\mathrm{},K_n`$. For more detailed information on the HH functions see .

The HH functions do not possess any special properties under particle permutation. Therefore the first step in applying the expansion to the A-body problem is the symmetrization of the HH basis. In the current work we employ two powerful algorithms  recently developed for the construction of a HH basis with well defined permutational symmetry.

Employing noncentral potentials it is usually more convenient to work in a $`jj`$ coupling scheme. However, constructing symmetrized basis functions in this coupling scheme is more complicated, roughly by a factor $`2^A`$, in comparison to the $`LS`$ scheme. Therefore we work in the $`LS`$ scheme coupling HH basis functions with definite permutational symmetry with spin-isospin basis functions into anti-symmetric many-body states with total angular momentum $`J`$.

Now we turn to the question of the effective interaction. In general we would like to use the HH basis functions to solve the A-body Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2m}+\underset{i<j}{\overset{A}{}}V_{ij},$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ is the momentum of the $`i`$th particle and $`m`$ the nucleon mass, while

$$V_{ij}=V(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})=\underset{p}{}V^{(p)}(r_{ij})\widehat{O}^{(p)}(\widehat{r}_{ij};\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j,\stackrel{}{\tau }_i,\stackrel{}{\tau }_j)$$
(6)
is the NN interaction which also depends on the spin ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$) and isospin ($`\stackrel{}{\tau }_i`$) operators of the two interacting particles. As already mentioned one usually introduces correlation functions in order to obtain sufficiently converging results . In our alternative EIHH method of Ref.  we use instead of the bare NN interaction an effective interaction inside the model space. Defining $`P`$ as the projection operator onto the model space and $`Q=1P`$ as the projection onto the complementary space, the model space Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H_P=P\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2m}\right]P+P\left[\underset{i<j}{\overset{A}{}}V_{ij}\right]_{eff}P.$$
(7)
In the HH formalism the model space can be defined as a product of the hyperradial subspace and the set of HH basis functions with generalized angular momentum quantum number $`KK_{max}`$.

In general the effective interaction appearing in Eq. (7) is an A-body interaction. If it is determined without any approximation, then the model-space Hamiltonian provides a set of eigenvalues which coincide with a subset of the eigenvalues of the original full-space Hamiltonian, Eq. (5). Since the effective interaction has to contain the whole A-body information of Q-space the calculation of this A-body effective interaction is as difficult as finding the full-space solution. Because of these difficulties we introduced in Ref.  instead of the exact A-body an approximate two-body effective interaction which, however, satisfies the following properties: (i) $`V_{2eff}V_{ij}`$ as $`K_{max}\mathrm{}`$ and (ii) the eigenvalues, $`E_i(K_{max})`$, and eigenvectors of the effective Hamiltonian converge to their limiting values faster than the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the bare Hamiltonian.

We expressed the HH effective interaction in terms of the matrix element of the $`N`$th Jacobi coordinate, i.e. the “last” particle pair,

$$\underset{i<j}{\overset{A}{}}V_{2eff}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})=\frac{A(A1)}{2}V_{2eff}(\stackrel{}{r}_{A,A1}).$$
(8)
The relevant hyperspherical degrees of freedom associated with $`V_{2eff}(\stackrel{}{r}_{A,A1})`$ are $`\widehat{\eta }_N`$ and the hyperangle,

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha _N=\frac{r_{A,A1}}{\sqrt{2}\rho }.$$
(9)
For the construction of $`V_{2eff}(\stackrel{}{r}_{A,A1})`$ in Ref.  we made the following ansatz for the hyperspherical “2-body” Hamiltonian

$$H_2(\rho )=\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\widehat{K}_N^2}{\rho ^2}+V(\sqrt{2}\rho \mathrm{sin}\alpha _N\widehat{\eta }_N).$$
(10)
It is a natural choice since $`\widehat{K}_N^2`$ contains the canonical kinetic energy associated with the two-body variables $`\alpha _N`$ and $`\widehat{\eta }_N`$ (see Eq. (4)). Such an $`H_2`$ is in fact an A-body Hamiltonian. It contains the hyperspherical part of the A-body kinetic energy and thus becomes a function of the collective coordinate $`\rho `$. The hyperradial kinetic energy operator has not been included in $`H_2`$. The reason is that we can use a complete basis set for the $`\rho `$-space and therefore we do not need to define an effective interaction for the hyperradial part.

Due to the collective coordinate, $`\rho `$, in $`H_2`$ one has automatically a confinement of the 2-body-system: for moderate values of $`\rho `$ the relation $`0r_{A,A1}\sqrt{2}\rho `$ ensures localization of the 2-body wave function and for large values of $`\rho `$ the Hamiltonian coincides with the bare one, since the NN interaction vanishes. Therefore large overlaps between the model space states and the eigenvectors of the 2-body problem are ensured and thus, different from the HO effective interaction, there is no necessity for an additional confining potential.

In order to diagonalize $`H_2`$ we have to recouple the last 2 particles into good spin $`s`$, isospin $`t,t_z`$ and $`j`$ states

$`T_2T_3\mathrm{}T_AT_{Az}(([K_{N1}]L_{N1};\mathrm{}_N)K_NL_N;S_2S_3\mathrm{}S_A)JJ_Z|`$ (11)
$`H_2|T_2^{}T_3^{}\mathrm{}T_A^{}T_{Az}(([K_{N1}^{}]L_{N1}^{};\mathrm{}_N^{})K_N^{}L_N^{};S_2^{}S_3^{}\mathrm{}S_A^{})JJ_Z`$ (12)
$`=\delta _{[K_{N1}][K_{N1}^{}]}\delta _{S_2,S_2^{}}\delta _{S_3,S_3^{}}\mathrm{}\delta _{S_{A2},S_{A2}^{}}\delta _{T_2,T_2^{}}\mathrm{}\delta _{T_{A2},T_{A2}^{}}`$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{ss^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{jJ_{A2}}{}}(1)^{2S_{A2}+S_A+S_A^{}}\sqrt{(2S_{A1}+1)(2S_{A1}^{}+1)(2s+1)(2s^{}+1)}`$ (14)
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}S_{A2}& \frac{1}{2}& S_{A1}\\ \frac{1}{2}& S_A& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}S_{A2}& \frac{1}{2}& S_{A1}^{}\\ \frac{1}{2}& S_A^{}& s^{}\end{array}\right\}`$ (19)
$`\times \sqrt{(2L_N+1)(2S_A+1)(2J_{A2}+1)(2j+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_{N1}& \mathrm{}_N& L_N\\ S_{A2}& s& S_A\\ J_{A2}& j& J\end{array}\right\}`$ (23)
$`\times \sqrt{(2L_N^{}+1)(2S_A^{}+1)(2J_{A2}+1)(2j+1)}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_{N1}& \mathrm{}_N^{}& L_N^{}\\ S_{A2}& s^{}& S_A^{}\\ J_{A2}& j& J\end{array}\right\}`$ (27)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{tt^{}}{}}(1)^{2T_{A2}+T_A+T_A^{}}\sqrt{(2T_{A1}+1)(2T_{A1}^{}+1)(2t+1)(2t^{}+1)}`$ (28)
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}T_{A2}& \frac{1}{2}& T_{A1}\\ \frac{1}{2}& T_A& t\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}T_{A2}& \frac{1}{2}& T_{A1}^{}\\ \frac{1}{2}& T_A^{}& t^{}\end{array}\right\}`$ (33)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{t_z}{}}T_{A2}T_{(A2)z}T_AT_{Az}|tt_zT_{A2}T_{(A2)z}T_A^{}T_{Az}|t^{}t_z`$ (34)
$`\times K_N(\mathrm{}_N;s)jtt_z|H_2|K_N^{}(\mathrm{}_N^{};s^{})jt^{}t_z_{K_{N1}}`$ (35)
where $`S_n`$ ($`T_n`$) is the total spin (isospin) of the particles 1, 2,…, n. The recoupling leads to the following result for the matrix elements of $`H_2`$ depending on the A-body HH functions and on the spin-isospin states of the last two particles

$`K_N(\mathrm{}_N;s)jtt_z|H_2|K_N^{}(\mathrm{}_N^{};s^{})jt^{}t_z_{K_{N1}}=`$ (36)
$`\delta _{K_N,K_N^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{}_N,\mathrm{}_N^{}}\delta _{s,s^{}}\delta _{t,t^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_N(K_N+3N2)}{\rho ^2}}+V_{K_N\mathrm{}_Nstt_z,K_N^{}\mathrm{}_N^{}s^{}t^{}t_z}^{K_{N1}j}(\rho ),`$ (37)
where

$$V_{K_N\mathrm{}_Nstt_z,K_N^{}\mathrm{}_N^{}s^{}t^{}t_z}^{K_{N1}j}(\rho )=\underset{p}{}W_{K_N\mathrm{}_N,K_N^{}\mathrm{}_N^{}}^{(p)K_{N1}}(\rho )O_{\mathrm{}_Nstt_z,\mathrm{}_N^{}s^{}t^{}t_z}^{(p)j}.$$
(38)
Here

$$W_{K_N\mathrm{}_N,K_N^{}\mathrm{}_N^{}}^{(p)K_{N1}}(\rho )=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_N𝒴_{[K_N]}^{}V^{(p)}(\sqrt{2}\rho \mathrm{sin}\alpha _N)𝒴_{[K_N^{}]},$$
(39)
and

$$O_{\mathrm{}_Nstt_z,\mathrm{}_N^{}s^{}t^{}t_z}^{(p)j}=(\mathrm{}_N;s)jtt_z|\widehat{O}^{(p)}|(\mathrm{}_N^{};s^{})jt^{}t_z,$$
(40)
is the usual 2-body matrix element for the operator $`\widehat{O}^{(p)}`$. One sees that $`H_2`$ is diagonal in the quantum numbers $`[K_{N1}],j,t_z`$ and

normally, as in case of the potential models considered in this work, also diagonal in $`s`$ and $`t`$.

Due to the hyperangular integration $`H_2`$ explicitly depends on quantum numbers of the residual system, i.e. $`K_{N1}`$, while it is independent of the other quantum numbers in $`[K_{N1}]`$. As a result the below defined HH effective interaction depends on the state of the residual $`A2`$ particle subsystem. Such a ”medium correction” of the 2-body force is of course a great advantage. On the other hand one has to pay for it with greater numerical effort, since the effective interaction has to be calculated for all the various states and in addition it also depends on the specific $`A`$-body system considered. It is similar to the HO multi-valued effective interaction . We solve the hyperradial equation on a grid, where $`H_2`$ is diagonalized for each grid point $`\rho _i`$ and for all the possible values of $`K_{N1},j,s,t,t_z`$ in our model space.

Having defined $`H_2`$ we employ in Ref.  the Lee-Suzuki  similarity transformation method to construct the effective interaction. We follow an analogous procedure as that of Barrett and Navrátil  for the HO effective interaction. To this end the eigenvectors, $`\{|i\}`$, and eigenvalues, $`\{ϵ_i\}`$, of

$`H_2(\rho )`$, given by Eq. 36, are used to construct the effective interaction. Denoting by $`|\alpha `$ the HH functions that belong to our model space, i.e. the HH function $`|[K_N]`$ with $`K_NK_{max}`$, and by $`|\beta `$ the states that belong to the $`Q`$ space, $`Q=\{|[K_N];K_N>K_{max}\}`$ the Lee-Suzuki effective Hamiltonian takes the form,

$$P\stackrel{~}{H}_2P=PH_2P+PH_2Q\omega P,$$
(41)
where the transformation operator $`\omega =Q\omega P`$ is given by the equation

$$\beta |i=\underset{\alpha }{}\beta |\omega |\alpha \alpha |i.$$
(42)
If $`n_P`$ is the number of model-space HH basis functions that belong to the subspace $`[K_{N1}]`$, we may solve Eq. (42) for $`\omega `$ by choosing a set, $`𝒜`$, of $`n_P`$ eigenvectors with the lowest eigenvalues $`|i`$ and inverting the matrix $`\alpha |i`$. The resulting effective 2-body Hamiltonian

$$\alpha |\stackrel{~}{H_2}(K_{N1},\rho )|\alpha ^{}=\underset{i}{\overset{n_P}{}}\left[\alpha |iϵ_ii|\alpha ^{}+\underset{\beta }{}\alpha |iϵ_ii|\beta \beta |\omega |\alpha \right],$$
(43)
will have the property that $`P|i`$, $`|i𝒜`$, is a right eigenvector of $`\stackrel{~}{H_2}`$ with eigenvalue $`ϵ_i`$. The effective Hamiltonian is in general a non-hermitian operator, however it can be hermitized, using the transformation

$$H_{2eff}=[P(1+\omega ^{}\omega )P]^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{H_2}[P(1+\omega ^{}\omega )P]^{1/2}.$$
(44)
The effective interaction can be now deduced from $`H_{2eff}`$, by subtracting the kinetic energy term,

$$V_{eff}=H_{2eff}\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\widehat{K}_N^2}{\rho ^2}.$$
(45)
## III Numerical results

We apply the EIHH method to the three- and four-body nuclei calculating ground state energies $`(E_B)`$, matter radii ($`<r^2>^{1/2}`$), and two-body correlation functions. We have chosen to perform the calculation with two standard noncentral potential models, AV6 and AV14 . They are frequently used in other few-body approaches and thus allow to compare to other results in the literature. The model AV14 is a fully realistic potential, while AV6 contains besides spin and isospin dependent central force only the tensor forces in addition.

In Fig. 1 we show the triton binding energy as function of the hyperspherical quantum number $`K`$. The convergence pattern looks very similar for both noncentral potential models. One sees that quite precise results are already obtained with rather small $`K`$ values. In fact deviations from the converged results amount to less than 0.1 MeV and 0.01 MeV for $`K8`$ and $`K14`$, respectively. It is evident from the figure that the additional potential terms of AV14 do not have any important impact on the convergence behavior. In Fig. 1 we illustrate in addition our EIHH results from Ref.  for the central potential model MTI-III . The comparison with the AV6 result shows that the tensor force does not lead to a deterioration of the convergence.

In Fig. 2 the results for the triton radius are shown. One sees that also in this case an extremely good convergence behavior is obtained. For $`K6`$ one has only very small deviations of less than 0.005 fm from the converged AV6 and AV14 results. As for the binding energy additional potential terms of AV14 do not affect the convergence behavior. Again we show the MTI-III results. Contrary to the case of the binding energy the convergence is slowed down a bit by the tensor force.

Binding energy and radius are typical examples of observables which are not very much affected by high momentum components of the wave function. One has to realize that our effective interaction approach can be considered in some way as a momentum expansion, since with increasing $`K_{max}`$ higher and higher momentum components can be incorporated in the wave function. To study this question better we show in Fig. 3 the two-body correlation function

$$\rho (r)=\mathrm{\Psi }|\delta (rr_{A,A1})|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(46)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the ground state wave function ($`𝑑r\rho (r)=1`$). One sees in Fig. 3a that $`\rho (r)`$ exhibits a rather broad and asymmetric maximum at about 2 fm. The convergence pattern of Fig. 3b shows that at larger distances convergence is obtained with rather low values of $`K`$. Further increase of $`K`$ improves the convergence at shorter and shorter distances. In Fig. 3b we also illustrate a result with the bare interaction. For an intermediate distance between about 1 and 3 fm one finds a slight overestimation of $`\rho (r)`$, while at smaller and larger $`r`$ the correlation function is considerably underestimated.

For the three-nucleon system it is possible to take into account rather high $`K`$ values in the calculation, in fact, e.g., for the highest value we considered ($`K=32`$) one has 374 hyperangular basis functions. Adding just one further nucleon leads to a considerable enhancement of the number of basis functions. Therefore our <sup>4</sup>He calculation is carried out only up to $`K=18`$, where one already has 1975 hyperangular basis functions.

The results for the <sup>4</sup>He binding energy and radius are depicted in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. One notes that the convergence behavior is again very good. On the other hand the results do not converge as rapidly as for the three-nucleon case. In fact with $`K=8`$ one still lacks about 1 MeV binding, while only about one tenth of this value is missing for the triton case at the same $`K`$. For the convergence of the radius the differences are smaller between the <sup>3</sup>H and <sup>4</sup>He results. For $`K=6`$ the <sup>4</sup>He radius is overestimated by 0.015 fm, which is only about three times larger than the corresponding overestimation for the triton case. However, also for <sup>4</sup>He one finds a rather good convergence for the higher $`K`$ values.

From Figs. 4 and 5 it is evident that there are no important differences between the convergence patterns of the AV6 and AV14 cases showing again that the additional AV14 potential terms have a rather unimportant effect on the convergence behavior. Also for <sup>4</sup>He we illustrate the results of the central potential model MTI-III in the figures. They exhibit a little better convergence behavior than the potential models with tensor force.

In Fig. 6 we show the two-body correlation function of <sup>4</sup>He. The convergence pattern is not as good as for the triton case of Fig. 3. Even at larger distances one needs a higher value of $`K`$ in order to reach the same precision. The lower convergence rate can be attributed to the higher density of the alpha particle.

In Table I we compare our results for the three-nucleon system with other results in the literature. Inspecting the table one sees a very good agreement among the various methods. It is evident that the binding energy can be calculated with a precision of about 0.01 MeV in most methods. For the alpha particle we obtain the following results: $`E_B=25.61(4)`$ MeV, $`<r^2>^{1/2}=1.4739(4)`$ fm (AV6, no Coulomb force) and $`E_B=24.34(5)`$ MeV, $`<r^2>^{1/2}=1.5297(3)`$ fm (AV14, with Coulomb force). The comparison with other results in the literature is not as good as for the triton case, e.g., comparing with the SVM result  one finds a difference of 0.2 MeV for the binding energy with AV6. One has similarly large differences comparing our $`E_B`$ for AV14 with that of Ref. . It shows that further investigations of the various groups  have to be made in order to reach a better agreement. Such a bench mark study is currently under way.

## IV conclusion

In this work we have applied the recently developed hyperspherical effective interaction method to noncentral potential models including the realistic NN force AV14. In this approach the two-body effective interaction depends on the A-body hyperradius and on the state of the A-2 rest system explicitly. Our results for the ground state properties of three- and four-nucleon systems show that the method leads to an excellent convergence of the hyperspherical expansion. The convergence is extremely fast in case of triton, while it is a bit slower for the alpha particle. The difference is explained by the higher density of the four-nucleon system, since our approach can be interpreted as a kind of momentum expansion.

In view of further applications it will be important to incorporate also three-nucleon forces in the EIHH method. Therefore we would like to mention that, similar to the HO approach , the present formalism can be extended to derive an HH three-body effective interaction.

Acknowledgement: We thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the Department of Energy for partial support during the completion of this work. This research is also supported by the Italian ministry for scientific and technological research (MURST).


text:
# Integrability for Relativistic Spin Networks

## 1. Introduction

In formulating a state sum model for 4-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity, Barrett and Crane  used the notion of a ‘relativistic spin network’, which is simply a graph with edges labelled by nonnegative real numbers. These numbers parametrize a certain class of irreducible unitary representations of the Lorentz group. The model involves a triangulation of spacetime, and for each 4-simplex one must calculate an amplitude associated to a relativistic spin network whose underlying graph is the complete graph on 5 vertices:

To calculate this amplitude one must do an integral. In  this integral was conjectured, but not proven, to converge. Here we prove that it does in fact converge. More generally, one can associate a similar integral to any relativistic spin network. To ‘evaluate’ a relativistic spin network one must do this integral. We prove that this integral converges whenever the underlying graph of the spin network lies in a certain large class. This class of graphs includes the tetrahedron and all graphs obtained from it by repeatedly adding an extra vertex connected by at least 3 edges to the existing graph. Thus in particular this class includes the complete graph on 5 vertices.

The results of the paper are formulated in Section 2 and proved in Section 3. These sections are developed in a self-contained manner, so that the reader interested in the mathematical details can simply start there.

The remainder of the introduction contains some background material placing the results in their mathematical and physical contexts. The mathematical part of the introduction explains how the integrals we consider arise from the representation theory of the Lorentz group. The physics part of the introduction sketches how this representation theory has been used in constructing models of fundamental physics.

### 1.1. Mathematical context

Calculations in the representation theory of compact Lie groups are conveniently expressed in terms of diagrams. Let $`a`$, $`b`$, …, $`n`$ and $`p`$, $`q`$ ,… , $`z`$ be representations of the group and $`A:ab\mathrm{}np\mathrm{}z`$ an intertwining operator (a linear map which commutes with the action of the group). This can be represented by a diagram:

Usually we fix some particular operators and represent them by diagrams like this; these operators are called the elementary operators, or sometimes vertices, corresponding to the fact that the graph in the diagram has just one vertex.

The identity operator is represented by a vertical line with no vertex. Tensoring corresponds to joining diagrams together horizontally, and composition of operators corresponds to joining diagrams vertically. A trace on a representation, say $`a=p`$ in the above diagram, is represented by joining the edge for $`a`$ round in a loop to the edge for $`p`$. These processes allow us to build various operators from the elementary ones, with the description in terms of elementary operators being captured by a diagram: a graph with vertices labelled by elementary operators and a certain number of free ends on the bottom and top, corresponding to ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’:

The power of this method comes from the fact that relations between these intertwining operators correspond, in many cases, to deformations of the diagram which can be interpreted as moving the vertices and edges in either two- or three-dimensional space (isotopies). This theory was developed to its fullest extent in the generalisation from compact Lie groups to a certain class of Hopf algebras, particularly the quantum groups. Since a diagram with no free ends corresponds to an intertwining operator from the trivial representation to itself, i.e. essentially just a complex number, such Hopf algebras yield invariants of knots and graphs embedded in three-dimensional space.

However in this paper we are concerned with a generalisation in a different direction, namely from compact to non-compact Lie groups, and study a particular class of unitary representations of the Lorentz group, $`\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)`$. The subscript here indicates the connected component of $`\mathrm{SO}(3,1)`$ that contains the identity. This is the group covered by $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$.

We restrict attention to a particularly simple class of elementary operators (vertices) which are invariant under all permutations of the edges in the diagram. In essence, as will be explained below, the composite intertwining operators depend only on the underlying graph of the diagram and not on the way in which it is drawn on the plane; the knot-theoretic considerations are absent. The difficulties in the theory are of a different nature. The trace cannot be defined in all circumstances since the representations are infinite-dimensional, and the ordinary trace of the identity operator is infinite. However we will show that there is another perfectly good notion of trace provided that the diagram is sufficiently connected.

The representations of the Lorentz group considered here are as follows. There is one for each real number $`p0`$. The Hilbert space of this representation (also denoted $`p`$) is the space of solutions to the equation $`^2f=(p^2+1)f`$ on three-dimensional hyperbolic space, $`H`$, which have square-integrable boundary data on the sphere at infinity . This Hilbert space is characterised by a reproducing kernel on $`H`$, $`K_p(x,y)`$, which is a smooth, bounded, symmetric integral kernel that solves the equation $`^2K=(p^2+1)K`$ in both $`x`$ and $`y`$. The formula for $`K`$ is given in Section 2. The Lorentz group acts by translations on this Hilbert space, and the resulting representation is unitary and irreducible.

The elementary operator $`A:p_1\mathrm{}p_mq_1\mathrm{}q_n`$ is defined by

(1)
$$f_1\mathrm{}f_m\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_HK_{q_1}(y_1,z)\mathrm{}K_{q_n}(y_n,z)f_1(z)\mathrm{}f_m(z)dz$$

The result of applying the operator $`A`$ is a function of the variables $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n`$ in $`H`$. However it is not clear that this function lies in the Hilbert space $`q_1\mathrm{}q_n`$. For now, we simply consider the formal expressions that are obtained by composing these operators. We postpone the question about whether these converge to the consideration of closed diagrams (those with no free ends).

The operator $`A`$ can be thought of as an integral operator, albeit with a distributional integral kernel,

(2)
$$A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_1,\mathrm{},y_n)=$$

$$\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_HK_{q_1}(y_1,z)\mathrm{}K_{q_n}(y_n,z)\delta (z,x_1)\mathrm{}\delta (z,x_m)dz$$

with $`\delta (x,y)`$ the delta function for integration on $`H`$. With this notation, the composition of operators consists of multiplying their kernels and integrating the common variables over $`H`$. The trace is naturally expressed using the integral kernels in the same way. For example, the trace of $`A`$ over the first variable is

$$_HA(z,x_2,\mathrm{},x_m;z,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n)dz.$$

Combining the elementary operators as described above gives a description of the operator for a general diagram. Since composition and trace both involve joining a free end at the bottom of the diagram to a free end on the top, the calculation always gives a factor of

$$_HK_p(y_1,x)\delta (x,y_2)dx=K_p(y_1,y_2)$$

for each internal edge, with variables $`y_1,y_2`$ corresponding to its two vertices.

The operator for a diagram with just two free ends

can be described as follows. Associate a variable $`y_iH`$ to each vertex in the diagram. Let $`E`$ be the set of all edges in the interior of the diagram (i.e., not meeting the boundary box). The corresponding operator is

$$f\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{d}y_i}{2\pi ^2}\left(\underset{E}{}K\right)K_q(y_1,x)f(y_0).$$

In the main body of the paper we consider closed diagrams, those with no free ends on the boundary rectangle. The naive idea for associating a number, or evaluation, to this graph would be to take the trace of the previous graph. But this trace is always infinite. However, by Schur’s lemma

$$\text{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{}$$

for some constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and in fact both sides are proportional to $`\delta (pq)`$.

In what follows, we show that a good definition for the evaluation of the closed diagram

$$\text{}.$$

is the above constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; this constant is given by a multiple integral of products of $`K`$’s which converges in many cases. This definition is presented afresh in Section 2 with no reference to the representation theory sketched here. In that section, it is shown that this gives an invariant of the graph which does not depend on the way in which the diagram is drawn in the plane, nor on which edge is chosen to break it into a diagram with two free ends.

### 1.2. Physics applications

The study of spin networks was initiated by Penrose  in the early 1970’s, as part of an attempt to a find a description of the geometry of spacetime that takes quantum mechanics into account from the very start. These spin networks were simply graphs with edges labelled by irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ (i.e. spins $`j=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$) and vertices labelled by intertwining operators. Such spin networks are also implicit in Ponzano and Regge’s state sum model of 3-dimensional quantum gravity, published in 1968 . However, this was only realized much later .

The real surge of work on spin networks came in the early 1990’s, when they were generalized to other groups and even quantum groups. At this point, people began to use them systematically to construct topological quantum field theories. For example, Reshetikhin and Turaev  used spin networks to give a purely combinatorial description of Chern-Simons theory and prove that it satisfies the Atiyah axioms for a 3-dimensional TQFT. Shortly thereafter, Turaev and Viro  used them to construct a $`q`$-deformed version of the Ponzano-Regge model and prove that it, too, is a TQFT. We now recognize this theory as a Euclidean signature version of 3d quantum gravity with nonzero cosmological constant. Later, Crane and Yetter  used spin network technology to construct a state sum model of a 4d TQFT. This appears to be a quantization of $`BF`$ theory with cosmological constant term.

One reason these topological quantum field theories are interesting is that they share some features with a physically more important but also far more problematic theory: 4-dimensional quantum gravity. The success of spin network methods in constructing TQFTs prompted various attempts to apply spin networks to 4d quantum gravity. These attempts came from two main directions.

The first was work on ‘loop quantum gravity’, an approach to the canonical quantization of Einstein’s equations. Here Rovelli and Smolin  realized that $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ spin networks embedded in a 3-manifold representing space can serve as an explicit basis of kinematical states. Using this basis they showed how to construct operators corresponding to observables such as the areas of surfaces and volumes of regions . This work was soon made rigorous by Ashtekar, Lewandowski, Baez and others, and spin networks quickly became a standard tool in this field .

The second direction was work on state sum models of 4d quantum gravity. Models of this sort were proposed by Barrett and Crane, first in the Euclidean  and then in the Lorentzian signature . Their original models involve a triangulation of a fixed 4-manifold representing spacetime, but there is also great interest in more abstract ‘spin foam models’, where there is no underlying manifold . Again, these models come in both Euclidean and Lorentzian versions. The Lorentzian versions are more physically realistic, but they involve extra difficulties due to the noncompactness of the Lorentz group $`\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)`$, the solution of which forms the main topic of this paper.

## 2. Evaluating relativistic spin networks

As discussed informally in the introduction, a relativistic spin network is a graph with an assignment of a real number $`p0`$ to each edge. In what follows only relativistic spin networks whose underlying graph is connected are considered.

The idea of an evaluation is a function that gives a number for each relativistic spin network. In  an integral was defined which determines a number for the relativistic spin network, if it converges. The integral is based on the following kernel:

(3)
$$K_p(x,y)=K_p(r)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}pr}{p\mathrm{sinh}r}$$

where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are two points in three-dimensional hyperbolic space, $`H`$, and $`r`$ is the distance between them. This formula defines the function $`K_p(r)`$ for $`p,r>0`$, but it extends uniquely to a continuous function of $`p,r0`$, with $`K_p(0)=1`$ and $`K_0(r)=r/\mathrm{sinh}r`$.

The integral is defined as follows. First, to each vertex $`vV`$ of the graph we associate a variable $`x_vH`$. Each edge $`eE`$ thus has two variables, $`x_{s(e)}`$ and $`x_{t(e)}`$, associated to its endpoints. Next, to each edge $`e`$ of the graph we associate a factor of $`K_p(x_{s(e)},x_{t(e)})`$, which depends on the edge label $`p`$.

The idea is then to integrate the product of these factors $`_EK`$ over the variables in hyperbolic space. However, since this product is invariant under the action of $`\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)`$ as isometries of $`H`$, one of the integrations is redundant, and would lead to an infinite value for the integral. Thus we arbitrarily choose one vertex, say $`w`$, and omit the integration over the variable associated to that vertex. Let $`V^{}=V\{w\}`$ be the remaining set of vertices, and $`n`$ the total number of vertices.

The integral is then given as follows:

(4)
$$I_w(x_w)=\frac{1}{(2\pi ^2)^{n1}}_{H^{n1}}\underset{E}{}K_{p(e)}(x_{e(0)},x_{e(1)})\underset{vV^{}}{}\mathrm{d}x_v$$

The measure $`\mathrm{d}x`$ on hyperbolic space is the standard Riemannian volume measure for the unit hyperboloid. In spherical coordinates where $`r`$ is the distance from a fixed origin

$$\mathrm{d}x=\mathrm{sinh}^2r\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Lebesgue measure on the unit 2-sphere.

If the integral converges, it defines a function of the remaining variable, $`x_w`$. However the Lorentz invariance gives $`I_w(x_w)=I_w(L(x_w))`$ for any $`L\mathrm{SO}_0(3,1)`$, so the integral is actually a constant, say $`I_w`$.

The Lorentz invariance also implies that $`I_w`$ is independent of the choice of the vertex $`w`$. This follows from the formula

$$I_w(x_w)=_HI(x_w,x_v)dx_v$$

where the integrand is obtained by integrating over all but two variables. This function is an invariant function on $`H\times H`$, and therefore a function of the hyperbolic distance between its two arguments. Any such function is symmetric in its arguments. This establishes the equality $`I_w(x_w)=I_v(x_v)`$.

###### Definition 1.

The evaluation of a relativistic spin network is defined as the common value of $`I_w(x_w)`$ for any choice of vertex $`w`$ and $`x_wH`$.

Clearly this definition only works in the cases when the integral converges. We have not yet been precise about what this means. The best situation is when the integrand in the definition is integrable, i.e., when the Lebesgue integral of its absolute value exists. In this case we say that the relativistic spin network is integrable. The results in this paper refer to the integrable case. If the network is integrable for all values of the edge labels $`p`$, then the graph will be called integrable, and the evaluation defines a function of these edge labels. Our first result is that this function is bounded:

###### Theorem 1.

For an integrable graph, the relativistic spin network evaluation is bounded by a constant that is independent of the edge labels.

A more general situation is where the integral defines a generalised function, or distribution, in the $`p`$ variables. In this situation the relativistic spin network may not be integrable for specific values of the edge labels $`p`$. However, the integrand in the definition of the evaluation will become integrable after smoothing with suitable test functions in the $`p`$ variables. We are not going to be precise about the details of the test functions, but will confine ourselves to noting some simple examples where this phenomenon occurs. In this case, the graph will be called distributional. If the graph is not even distributional, it will be called divergent.

Some simple cases, calculated in , illustrate these definitions. A graph given by a single loop with one vertex on it:

has the evaluation

$$K_p(x,x)=1.$$

A graph with two vertices on a loop:

has the evaluation

$$\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_HK_a(x,y)K_b(y,x)dy=\frac{2}{\pi ab}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}ar\mathrm{sin}br\mathrm{d}r=\frac{\delta (ab)}{a^2}.$$

This is an example of a relativistic spin network that is not integrable for any values of $`a`$ and $`b`$. However the result is well defined after smoothing in $`a`$ and $`b`$, so the graph is distributional. In general this phenomenon occurs whenever the graph has a bivalent vertex.

In the simpler case of a closed network with two vertices joined with just one edge:

the evaluation is a divergent integral for all values of the label $`p`$.

$$\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_HK_p(x,y)dy=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2p}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sinh}r\mathrm{sin}pr\mathrm{d}r.$$

More generally, any graph with a univalent vertex is divergent.

The theta graph with two vertices and three edges:

is integrable and has the evaluation

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_HK_a(x,y)K_b(x,y)K_c(x,y)dy=\frac{2}{\pi abc}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}ar\mathrm{sin}br\mathrm{sin}cr}{\mathrm{sinh}r}dr\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{4abc}(\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\pi }{2}(b+ca))+\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\pi }{2}(c+ab))\\ \hfill +\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\pi }{2}(a+bc))\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\pi }{2}(a+b+c)))\end{array}$$

The graphs with two vertices and more than three connecting edges are also integrable and can be evaluated explicitly.

Now we can extend these examples by stating our main results on integrability. In what follows, we call the complete graph on 4 vertices the ‘tetrahedron’:

and call the complete graph on 5 vertices the ‘4-simplex’:

###### Theorem 2.

The tetrahedron is an integrable graph.

###### Theorem 3.

A graph obtained from an integrable graph by connecting an extra vertex to the existing graph by at least three extra edges is integrable. A graph obtained from an integrable graph by adding extra edges is integrable. A graph constructed by joining two disjoint integrable graphs at a vertex is integrable.

Theorem 3 allows the construction of a large class of integrable graphs. Starting with a graph which is known to be integrable, such as the theta graph or the tetrahedron, then one can construct larger integrable graphs by successively carrying out the operations described in the theorem. In particular, the 4-simplex is integrable because it is obtained by adding a vertex connected by four edges to the tetrahedron.

## 3. Proof of the Main Results

In equation (4) we defined the evaluation of a relativistic spin network as a certain integral over $`n`$-tuples of points in hyperbolic space. To prove Theorems 2 and 3, we need to show this integral converges. Before starting the proofs, we give an informal outline of the procedure.

Our procedure is to integrate over one point (variable) at a time, treating the remaining ones as fixed. This is justified by the theorems of Fubini and Tonelli concerning the Lebesgue integral of a function of several variables .

For an example of this procedure, consider the integral

$$_HdxK_{p_1}(x,x_1)K_{p_2}(x,x_2)\mathrm{}K_{p_n}(x,x_n)$$

for fixed $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nH`$. To prove that this integral converges we need a bound on the kernel $`K`$ (proved below in Lemma 1): for any $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a constant $`c`$ (independent of $`p`$) such that

$$|K_p(r)|ce^{(1ϵ)r}.$$

Using this, it follows that the integral is bounded by

$$c^n_Hdxe^{(1ϵ)(r_1+\mathrm{}+r_n)}$$

where $`r_i=d(x,x_i)`$. Now suppose we can find a ‘barycentre’ for the points $`x_i`$, that is, a point $`bH`$ such that

$$r:=d(x,b)\frac{1}{n}(r_1+\mathrm{}+r_n)$$

for all $`x`$. Then if we work in spherical coordinates centered at $`b`$, we see that the integral is bounded by

$$4\pi c^n_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{(1ϵ)nr}\mathrm{sinh}^2r\mathrm{d}r.$$

which converges for all $`n3`$ providing we pick $`0<ϵ<1/3`$.

This example illustrates the importance of adding 3 or more new edges for each new vertex in the graph. To prove our main results, we now prove the above bound on the kernel $`K`$, construct the required barycentres, and give an improved version of the above estimate. Finally, we give a careful treatement of the tetrahedron graph.

We begin the formal proofs by bounding $`K`$. First note that $`|\mathrm{sin}pr|pr`$ so that for $`p>0`$

(5)
$$|K_p(r)|=\frac{|\mathrm{sin}pr|}{p\mathrm{sinh}r}\frac{r}{\mathrm{sinh}r}.$$

This bound on $`K_p(r)`$ also holds when $`r`$ is zero, as long as we define $`r/\mathrm{sinh}r`$ to equal $`1`$ when $`r=0`$. The right-hand side of the inequality is $`K_0(r)`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

By inequality 5, the evaluation of a relativistic spin network is bounded by the evaluation of the network with the edge label $`p=0`$ for each edge. ∎

Now we give the detailed estimates needed for Theorems 2 and 3.

###### Lemma 1.

For any $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a constant $`c`$ such that

$$|K_p(r)|ce^{(1ϵ)r}$$

for all $`p0`$ and $`r0`$. Also, $`|K_p(r)|1`$ for all $`p,r`$.

###### Proof.

Since the function $`r/\mathrm{sinh}r`$ is bounded and is asymptotic to $`2re^r`$ as $`r+\mathrm{}`$, for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`c`$ with

$$\frac{r}{\mathrm{sinh}r}ce^{(1ϵ)r}.$$

The second part follows because $`r/\mathrm{sinh}r`$ is bounded by 1. ∎

Next we construct a barycentre for any finite collection of points in hyperbolic space, beginning with the case of two points.

###### Lemma 2.

Suppose $`p_1,p_2H`$ and let $`p`$ be the midpoint of the geodesic from $`p_1`$ to $`p_2`$. For any point $`qH`$ we have

$$d(p,q)\frac{1}{2}(d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q))$$

###### Proof.

Using notation as in this picture:

we need to show $`r\frac{1}{2}(r_1+r_2)`$. By the law of cosines for hyperbolic trigonometry  we have

$$\mathrm{cosh}d\mathrm{cosh}r=\mathrm{cosh}r_1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}d\mathrm{sinh}r,$$

$$\mathrm{cosh}d\mathrm{cosh}r=\mathrm{cosh}r_2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}d\mathrm{sinh}r.$$

Adding these equations we obtain

$$\mathrm{cosh}d\mathrm{cosh}r=\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{r_1r_2}{2})\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{r_1+r_2}{2}).$$

By the triangle inequality we have $`|r_1r_2|2d`$, so

$$\mathrm{cosh}r\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{r_1+r_2}{2}),$$

from which the desired result follows. ∎

There are a variety of ways of constructing a barycentre for 3 or more points. First we give an intuitive method for 3 points, followed by an proof that a barycentre exists for any finite number of points.

A barycentre for 3 points can be constructed by an iterative process. Begin by constructing midpoints of the geodesics between the points $`p_1,p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ as in this picture:

Lemma 2 implies the inequality

$$d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+d(p_3,q)d(p_1^{},q)+d(p_2^{},q)+d(p_3^{},q).$$

Iterating this process, we obtain a sequence of nested triangles in hyperbolic space:

The vertices converge to a point $`p`$, the unique point contained in all the triangles. By repeated use of the above inequality

$$3d(p,q)d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+d(p_3,q),$$

so that $`p`$ is a barycentre.

The following constructions work for all $`n`$. First, consider the case where the points lie along a straight line, i.e. a geodesic $`\gamma H`$. Then since $`\gamma `$ is isometric to the real line with its usual metric, the arithmetric mean of the points is defined. The next lemma shows that this is a barycentre.

###### Lemma 3.

Suppose $`\gamma H`$ is a geodesic, and $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n\gamma `$. Then the arithmetic mean $`p`$ of the points has the property that for any point $`qH`$ we have

$$d(p,q)\frac{1}{n}(d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+\mathrm{}+d(p_n,q)).$$

###### Proof.

This is proved by iteration. Suppose $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are two points in the set which are the farthest distance apart. Then using Lemma 2, we can replace both $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ by the barycentre of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ without increasing the quantity

$$d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+\mathrm{}+d(p_n,q).$$

By iterating this process, all of the points in the set converge to the arithmetic mean $`p`$. ∎

Now the main result on barycentres is proved.

###### Lemma 4.

Suppose $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_nH`$. Then there exists a point $`p`$ such that for any point $`qH`$ we have

$$d(p,q)\frac{1}{n}(d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+\mathrm{}+d(p_n,q)).$$

###### Proof.

This is proved by induction on $`n`$. The induction starts with $`n=2`$ by Lemma 2. Let $`b`$ be a barycentre for the first $`n1`$ points. Then by the induction hypothesis

$$(n1)d(b,q)+d(p_n,q)d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+\mathrm{}+d(p_n,q).$$

Next we find a barycentre $`p`$ for $`n1`$ points at $`b`$ and 1 point at $`p_n`$. To do this, note that all these points lie on a geodesic, and so the barycentre is constructed by Lemma 3. We thus have

$`nd(p,q)`$ $``$ $`(n1)d(b,q)+d(p_n,q)`$
$``$ $`d(p_1,q)+d(p_2,q)+\mathrm{}+d(p_n,q).`$
Next we prove an improved version of the estimate given at the beginning of this section. Suppose $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ are fixed in $`H`$ and $`r_{ij}=d(x_i,x_j)`$.

###### Lemma 5.

If $`n3`$, the integral

$$J=_Hdx|K_{p_1}(x,x_1)K_{p_2}(x,x_2)\mathrm{}K_{p_n}(x,x_n)|$$

converges, and for any $`0<ϵ<1/3`$ there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that for any choice of the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$,

$$JC\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n2nϵ}{n(n1)}\underset{i<j}{}r_{ij}\right)$$

###### Proof.

Define $`r_i=d(x_i,x)`$. Using Lemma 1 we obtain

$$|K_{p_1}(x,x_1)\mathrm{}K_{p_n}(x,x_n)|c^ne^{(1ϵ){\scriptscriptstyle r_i}}.$$

The summation here, and in the rest of the proof of the lemma, is over values of $`i`$ from $`1`$ to $`n`$. If we work in spherical coordinates using the barycentre of the points $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ as our origin, this implies

$$J4\pi c^n_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{(1ϵ){\scriptscriptstyle r_i}}\mathrm{sinh}^2r\mathrm{d}r.$$

We next break this integral over $`r`$ into two parts, and estimate these separately using two bounds:

$$r_inr$$

from Lemma 4, and

$$r_inM$$

where

$$M=\frac{1}{n}\underset{x}{\mathrm{min}}r_i.$$

We obtain

$`J`$ $``$ $`4\pi c^n\left[{\displaystyle _0^M}e^{n(1ϵ)M}\mathrm{sinh}^2r\mathrm{d}r+{\displaystyle _M^{\mathrm{}}}e^{n(1ϵ)r}\mathrm{sinh}^2r\mathrm{d}r\right]`$
$``$ $`\pi c^n\left[{\displaystyle _0^M}e^{n(1ϵ)M+2r}dr+{\displaystyle _M^{\mathrm{}}}e^{n(1ϵ)r+2r}dr\right]`$
$``$ $`Ce^{(n2nϵ)M}`$
for some constant $`C>0`$ depending only on $`ϵ`$ and $`n`$. Finally, the triangle inequality implies

$$r_i\frac{1}{n1}\underset{i<j}{}r_{ij}$$

for all choices of $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$, so

$$M\frac{1}{n(n1)}\underset{i<j}{}r_{ij}.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 3.

Firstly, consider introducing an extra vertex connected to an integrable graph $`\gamma `$ by three or more extra edges. Lemma 5 shows that doing the integral over the extra vertex first introduces an extra multiplicative factor of $`J`$ in the integral of $`_E|K|`$ for the graph $`\gamma `$. However the function $`J`$ is bounded so the new graph is also integrable.

Adding an extra edge does not affect the integrability of a graph because $`|K|<1`$, by Lemma 1.

Finally, for two integrable graphs joined by identifying one vertex we have that the evaluation of the resulting graph is the product of the evaluations of the two pieces, and so in particular the graph is integrable. This follows from taking the vertex where the two pieces are joined as the vertex which is not integrated over in the definition of the evaluation. ∎

By using Lemma 5 to evaluate a bound for the integral one vertex at a time, one can actually prove that the $`n`$-simplex is integrable for $`n5`$. However to do the important cases of the tetrahedron and the 4-simplex requires a more sensitive bound at the stage where there are 3 vertices.

###### Proof of Theorem 2.

We need to show for any choice of numbers $`p_{ij}0`$ for $`1i<j4`$ and a point $`x_1H`$, the integral

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{H^3}}dx_2dx_3dx_4|K_{p_{12}}(x_1,x_2)K_{p_{13}}(x_1,x_3)K_{p_{14}}(x_1,x_4)`$
$`K_{p_{23}}(x_2,x_3)K_{p_{24}}(x_2,x_4)K_{p_{34}}(x_3,x_4)|`$
converges.

First we integrate out $`x_4`$ using Lemma 5, obtaining

$$IC_{H^2}dx_2dx_3e^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)(r_{12}+r_{13}+r_{23})}|K_{p_{12}}(x_1,x_2)K_{p_{13}}(x_1,x_3)K_{p_{23}}(x_2,x_3)|$$

where $`r_{ij}=d(x_i,x_j)`$.

Next integrate over another variable, say $`x_3`$. With

$$L=_Hdx_3e^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)(r_{13}+r_{23})}|K_{p_{13}}(x_1,x_3)K_{p_{23}}(x_2,x_3)|$$

this gives

(6)
$$IC_Hdx_2Le^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)r_{12}}|K_{p_{12}}(x_1,x_2)|.$$

By equation (5) we have

(7) $`L`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _H}dx_3{\displaystyle \frac{r_{13}r_{23}e^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)(r_{13}+r_{23})}}{\mathrm{sinh}r_{13}\mathrm{sinh}r_{23}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _H}dx_3{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{13}+r_{23})^2e^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)(r_{13}+r_{23})}}{\mathrm{sinh}r_{13}\mathrm{sinh}r_{23}}}`$
To get a good bound on the integral here, we resort to a coordinate system in which two of the coordinates are

$$k=\frac{1}{2}(r_{13}+r_{23}),\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}(r_{13}r_{23}),$$

while the third is the angle $`\varphi `$ between the plane containing $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ and a given plane containing $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. The ranges of these coordinates are

$$r/2k<\mathrm{},r/2\mathrm{}r/2,0\varphi <2\pi ,$$

where we set $`r=r_{12}`$. Coordinates of this sort can also be defined in Euclidean space, where they are closely akin to prolate spheroidal coordinates , but here all the formulas are a bit different, since we are working in hyperbolic space. The main thing we need is a formula for the volume form in these coordinates,

$$\mathrm{d}x_3=2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}r_{13}\mathrm{sinh}r_{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}r}\mathrm{d}k\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\varphi $$

which is proved in the Appendix.

Using this formula we can do the integral (7) in the $`(k,\mathrm{},\varphi )`$ coordinate system, obtaining

$$L8_0^{2\pi }d\varphi _{r/2}^{\mathrm{}}dk_{r/2}^{r/2}d\mathrm{}\frac{k^2e^{\frac{1}{3}(13ϵ)k}}{\mathrm{sinh}r}$$

or doing the integral over $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ and then $`k`$,

(8) $`L`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi r}{\mathrm{sinh}r}}{\displaystyle _{r/2}^{\mathrm{}}}k^2e^{\frac{1}{3}(13ϵ)k}dk`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Ar^3+B)e^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)r}}{\mathrm{sinh}r}}`$
for some constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ independent of all the parameters in this problem.

We conclude the proof by using this bound on $`L`$ to bound the integral $`I`$. By (5) and (6) we have

$`I`$ $``$ $`C{\displaystyle _H}dx_2Le^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)r}|K_{p_{12}}(x_1,x_2)|`$
$``$ $`4\pi C{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}Lre^{\frac{1}{6}(13ϵ)r}\mathrm{sinh}r\mathrm{d}r`$
and by (8) this gives

$$I4\pi C_0^{\mathrm{}}r(Ar^3+B)e^{\frac{1}{3}(13ϵ)r}dr.$$

The right-hand side is finite so the proof is complete. ∎

## 4. Remarks and Conclusions

Theorem 3 gives a large class of integrable graphs, starting with the theta and tetrahedron graphs. However there are further examples of integrable graphs. For example, the graph in Figure 1 is also integrable, but cannot be constructed from any integrable graph by the methods of Theorem 3. Its integrability follows by applying Lemma 5 to one of the trivalent vertices.

It seems reasonable to conjecture that any 3-edge-connected graph is integrable. A 3-edge-connected graph is one that remains connected when any edge is removed or any pair of edges are removed.

It seems that the bound in Theorem 1 should be dramatically improved. Indeed, $`K`$ satisfies the bound $`|K|<1/(p\mathrm{sinh}r)`$ for $`r>1/p`$, thus for large $`p`$ one expects the evaluation to behave like $`1/p`$ for each edge variable. By inspection, this is the case for the theta-graph. We conjecture that a similar bound is true for all graphs not containing edge-loops (edges with both ends at the same vertex).

It would also be interesting to consider the obvious generalization of this theory to other dimensions. For applications to quantum gravity, one would want the $`(n+1)`$-simplex to be an integrable graph when labelled by any representations of $`\mathrm{SO}_0(n,1)`$ appearing in the direct integral decomposition of the space of $`L^2`$ functions on $`n`$-dimensional hyperbolic space.

## 5. Appendix: Spheroidal Coordinates in Hyperbolic Space

If we fix two points $`x_1,x_2`$ in three-dimensional hyperbolic space, and pick a hyperbolic plane containing the geodesic between these points, we can define spheroidal coordinates on hyperbolic space as follows. Given any point $`x_3`$ in hyperbolic space, its first two coordinates are

$$k=\frac{1}{2}(r_{13}+r_{23}),\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}(r_{13}r_{23}),$$

where $`r_{ij}`$ is the distance from $`x_i`$ to $`x_j`$. The third coordinate is the angle $`\varphi `$ between the plane containing $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ and the given plane containing $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. The ranges of these coordinates are

$$r/2k<\mathrm{},r/2\mathrm{}r/2,0\varphi <2\pi ,$$

where we set $`r=r_{12}`$.

In these coordinates, the volume form on hyperbolic space is given by

$$\mathrm{d}x_3=2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}r_{13}\mathrm{sinh}r_{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}r}\mathrm{d}k\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\varphi .$$

To prove this, it is easiest to consult the following picture and use the method of infinitesimals (or differential forms):

The area of the infinitesimal parallelogram formed as we vary $`r_{13}`$ and $`r_{23}`$ by amounts $`\mathrm{d}r_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{d}r_{23}`$ is $`\mathrm{sin}\theta a_1a_2`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the geodesics from $`x_3`$ to $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. Evidently $`\mathrm{sin}\theta a_i=\mathrm{d}r_{i3}`$, so this area is $`\mathrm{d}r_{13}\mathrm{d}r_{23}/\mathrm{sin}\theta =2\mathrm{d}k\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}/\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. As we vary $`\varphi `$ by an amount $`\mathrm{d}\varphi `$, this parallelogram sweeps out an infinitesimal paralleliped of volume

$$\mathrm{d}x_3=2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}y}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\mathrm{d}k\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\varphi ,$$

where $`y`$ is the distance from $`x_3`$ to the geodesic between $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. With the help of the following picture:

repeated use of the hyperbolic law of sines gives

$$\mathrm{sinh}y=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}r_{13}\mathrm{sinh}r_{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}r}\mathrm{sin}\theta $$

and thus

$$\mathrm{d}x_3=2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}r_{13}\mathrm{sinh}r_{23}}{\mathrm{sinh}r}\mathrm{d}k\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\varphi .$$