text:
# Superconducting zero temperature phase transition in two dimensions and in the magnetic field

## I Introduction

In the last decade it became well appreciated that the superconducting transition can be tuned not only by changing temperature, but also by varying some other parameter, like the level of disorder, magnetic field, film thickness, or doping of a high-$`T_c`$ material, at zero temperature ($`T=0`$) . This is an example of a quantum phase transition , where the order-disorder transition is not brought about by increasing the entropy of the system, as in the finite temperature case, but by changing the quantum mechanical ground state in a fundamental way. A particularly interesting example is the superconductor-insulator transition in two dimensions (2D) , where the superconducting state at $`T=0`$ is destroyed by increasing the level of static disorder in the system. For a while it has been thought that the magnetic field would have a similar (but not exactly the same) disordering effect on the superconducting ground state ; recently, however, the experiments of Mason and Kapitulnik  have suggested that by increasing the magnetic field at $`T=0`$ the 2D system undergoes a superconductor-metal phase transition, and, moreover, that this transition may actually be discontinuous. The metallic state they found seems to be quite unusual, in that its resistivity is anomalously low, and it exhibits a very large magnetoresistance. Only at a higher magnetic field the expected 2D insulating state is recovered .

Motivated by these intriguing results, in this paper we study theoretically the $`T=0`$ superconducting phase transition in 2D and in the perpendicular magnetic field. We begin by demonstrating that, due to the pair-breaking nature of the magnetic field, in 2D (and without disorder) there exists a regular Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson (GLW) theory for the fluctuating superconducting order parameter even at $`T=0`$. Long time ago, it was shown by Maki and Tsuzuki  that the GLW theory in the magnetic field and in 3D is almost regular at $`T=0`$; the quartic term coefficient was singular only weakly (logarithmically) as $`T`$ approaches zero. We show that in 2D this singularity is removed by the absence of the third direction along which the motion would be unaffected by the field. The resulting GLW theory describes the quantum fluctuations of the lowest Landau level (LLL) superconducting order parameter (OP), and bears close resemblance to the finite-$`T`$ GLW theory for a 3D superconductor. Based on the existing understanding of the finite-$`T`$ Abrikosov transition in 3D, we then argue that the quantum Abrikosov transition in 2D and without disorder is generically first-order, and propose a phenomenological criterion for determining the first-order superconductor-metal transition field $`H_{sm}`$. In particular, we show that the true transition field $`H_{sm}`$ at $`T=0`$ is always below the mean-field critical field $`H_0`$, and that the quantum phase transition is from the superconducting into a zero-temperature equivalent of the vortex liquid phase: a metallic phase, strongly renormalized by the superconducting fluctuations, which we propose may be related to the anomalous metal observed by Mason and Kapitulnik.

In a real experiment, of course, disorder is always present, and may actually be quite strong, so it can be expected to play an important role in determining the nature of the transition. In principle, quenched disorder lifts the degeneracy of the LLL for the order parameter, and, we argue, if strong enough could bring back the continuous phase transition to a glassy superconducting phase. We provide a qualitative discussion of this phase transition at strong disorder within the framework of a self-consistent Hartree approach. The superconducting transition in this approach would correspond to the condensation into the lowest extended Hartree eigenstate, that in principle needs to be computed numerically. At weak disorder, on the other hand, based on the existing renormalization group studies of the thermal Abrikosov transition, we expect that the superconducting transition at $`T=0`$ remains discontinuous.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we derive the effective GLW action appropriate for the superconductor-metal quantum phase transition in 2D in the magnetic field and without disorder. In Sec. III, we show how this effective action leads to a fluctuation induced first-order transition, and calculate the critical field. In Sec. IV, we discuss the qualitative effects of quenched disorder on the phase transition, and in Sec. V, we relate our results to experiment and other theoretical studies and provide a brief summary. Technical details are relegated to the Appendices.

## II Quantum action at $`T=0`$

We begin by considering the $`T=0`$ action for a system of 2D fermions in a magnetic field ($`\mathrm{}=c1`$)

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle }d^2𝐫d\tau [\psi _\sigma ^{}_\tau \psi _\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}|(ie𝐀)\psi _\sigma |^2\mu \psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma `$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}\psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma \psi _\sigma ],`$ (2)
where $`\psi \psi (𝐫,\tau )`$, $`\sigma `$, $`e`$, and $`m`$ denote the spin, charge, and mass of fermions, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and $`𝐇=\times 𝐀`$ is the external magnetic field. The integration over the imaginary time $`\tau `$ is over the whole real axis ($`T=0`$), and we neglect the Zeeman coupling of the magnetic field to spin. We assume the interaction $`V>0`$ which corresponds to the $`s`$-wave attraction. The partition function is the functional integral over Grassman fields $`\psi `$ with the action $`S`$ as the Boltzmann weight. Following the standard Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling procedure  in the Cooper channel, the action can be rewritten as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2𝐫d\tau [\psi _\sigma ^{}_\tau \psi _\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}|(ie𝐀)\psi _\sigma |^2\mu \psi _\sigma ^{}\psi _\sigma `$ (3)
$``$ $`|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\tau )|^2\sqrt{V}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\tau )\psi _{}^{}\psi _{}^{}\sqrt{V}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐫,\tau )\psi _{}\psi _{}]`$ (4)
in terms of the fluctuating superconducting order parameter (OP) $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\tau )`$. (The sum over the repeated spin indices is here assumed.) Since the action now became quadratic in the fermionic fields, in principle they could be integrated out so that one is left with the action in terms of the OP only. Furthermore, one could attempt to expand the resulting action in powers of the OP,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_2+S_4+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle d\mathrm{𝟏}d\mathrm{𝟐}K_2(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟐})}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d\mathrm{𝟏}d\mathrm{𝟐}d\mathrm{𝟑}d\mathrm{𝟒}K_4(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟒})\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟐})\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\mathrm{𝟑})\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟒})}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ (7)
where we denoted $`\mathrm{𝟏}(𝐫_1,\tau _1)`$ for brevity. The partition function is the functional integral over all configurations of the fluctuating OP. The quadratic and the quartic terms in the action can be represented diagrammatically as in Fig. 1. As well known, without the magnetic field these diagrams would lead to singular expressions for $`K_2`$ and $`K_4`$ at $`T=0`$, as the system would always be unstable towards the formation of Cooper pairs. Finite magnetic field, however, acts as a pair-breaker, and one may expect it to regularize the kernels in the GLW expansion, similarly as disorder does for the $`d`$-wave pairing . In the rest of this section we will show how this happens in 2D, and obtain the GLW theory for the superconducting transition at $`T=0`$.

In the magnetic field the momentum is no longer a good quantum number, but the gauge invariance has to be maintained in the theory. This dictates that instead of the standard gradient expansion, the kernels in the GLW action can now be expanded in powers of the covariant derivative $`ie^{}𝐀`$, with $`e^{}=2e`$. Furthermore, assuming a weak coupling $`V`$, the transition into the superconducting state can be expected at a low magnetic field, so to calculate the diagrams in Fig. 1 one may follow Gor’kov and use the “semi-classical” approximation , for the single-particle Green’s function

$$G_\nu (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=e^{i\varphi (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)}G_\nu ^0(𝐫_1,𝐫_2).$$
(8)
Here $`\nu `$ is the Matsubara frequency. The phase is determined by $`\varphi (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=e_{𝐫_2}^{𝐫_1}𝐀𝑑𝐥`$, integrating the gauge field over the straight path from $`𝐫_2`$ to $`𝐫_1`$, and $`G^0`$ is the propagator in the absence of magnetic field. Finally, since the OP feels the magnetic field, one may expand it in terms of the Landau levels, which are the solutions of the single-particle Schrödinger equation in the magnetic field for charge $`2e`$. Near the superconducting transition only the lowest Landau level (LLL) configurations of the OP need to be retained in the effective action , since the higher Landau levels are not critical, and their effect in principle could be only to renormalize the coefficients in the GLW expansion for the LLL modes. Choosing the Landau gauge $`𝐀=H(0,x,0)`$ to represent the magnetic field $`𝐇=H\widehat{z}`$ perpendicular to the 2D plane, the OP may then be expanded in terms of the LLL functions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\tau )\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(\tau )e^{ikny}\psi _n(x);\psi _n(x)=e^{eH(x\frac{kn}{2eH})^2},$$
(9)
where $`k=2\pi /L`$ ($`L`$ is the linear size of the system) and $`n`$ is an arbitrary integer.

Going to Matsubara frequency space, the quadratic part of the action can be written as $`S_2=𝑑\omega \overline{S}_2(\omega )`$, and to the lowest order in small parameter $`\omega \tau _H`$ we find (see Appendix A)

$$\overline{S}_2(\omega )=[1g\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _H)+\sqrt{\pi }g\tau _H|\omega |]|\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫)|^2,$$
(10)
where $`\tau _H=\mathrm{}/v_\mathrm{F}`$ is the cyclotron time with $`\mathrm{}=1/\sqrt{2eH}`$ the magnetic length for charge $`2e`$ and $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ the Fermi velocity. $`g=𝒩V/2`$ is the dimensionless coupling ($`𝒩=m/2\pi `$ is the constant density in 2D), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\tau )`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the usual ultraviolet cutoff. Also

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫|\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫)|^2}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|C_n(\omega )|^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2eH}}}.`$ (12)
Similarly, the quartic part of the action $`S_4=𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2\overline{S}_4(\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2)`$, where at zero frequencies  (see Appendix B),

$$\overline{S}_4(\omega =\omega _1=\omega _2=0)=a\frac{g^2\tau _H^2}{𝒩}|\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫)|^4$$
(13)
with the constant $`a=4\pi [\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2})]^2`$ and the average

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫)|^4={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega =0}(𝐫)|^4}`$ (14)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,p,q}{}}\delta (nm+pq)C_n(0)C_m^{}(0)C_p(0)C_q^{}(0)`$ (15)
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4eH}}}e^{\frac{k^2}{4eH}[(n^2+m^2+p^2+q^2)(n+m+p+q)^2/4]}.`$ (16)
Note that the coefficient before $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫)|^4`$ is finite in a finite magnetic field. At zero field it diverges, as well-known. In 3D the same coefficient is $`\mathrm{ln}(T/H)`$, and logarithmically divergent as $`T0`$ . This is a consequence of the fact that the motion in the $`z`$ direction remains unaffected by the magnetic field. In 2D, however, the singular behavior of the Landau expansion around the normal state $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for the $`T=0`$ action is completely cured.

The effective GLW action for the superconductor-metal phase transition in 2D at $`T=0`$ can thus be written as

$`S_{\mathrm{GLW}}[\mathrm{\Phi }]={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑\tau \left[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|_\tau |\mathrm{\Phi }+\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+\beta |\mathrm{\Phi }|^4\right]}`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,\tau )`$, and the partition function is $`Z=D[\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{exp}(S_{\mathrm{GLW}}[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$. In principle the action contains higher powers of the field and the higher order time derivatives, but we make the usual approximation in retaining only the most relevant terms. The operator $`|_\tau |`$ corresponds to $`|\omega |`$ in Matsubara space and we have rescaled the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\sqrt{\pi }g\tau _H)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to bring the coefficient of the $`|\omega |`$ term in (17) to unity. Thus $`\alpha =[g^1\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _H)]/(\sqrt{\pi }\tau _H)`$ and $`\beta =a/(\pi 𝒩)`$.

## III Fluctuation induced first-order transition

When the fluctuations of the OP are ignored (the mean-field approximation), the system described by the action (17) at $`T=0`$ undergoes a continuous phase transition from normal to the Abrikosov superconducting phase as the magnetic field is decreased, at the point where $`\alpha =0`$. The mean-field critical field is thus $`H_0=2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/(ev_\mathrm{F}^2)e^{2/g}`$, and exponentially small for a weak coupling $`g`$. One can easily verify that this satisfies the standard relation $`H_0\xi ^21`$ where $`\xi `$ is the superconducting coherence length. This mean-field critical field is simply the end ($`T=0`$) point of the standard $`H_{c2}(T)`$ Abrikosov line in the $`H`$-$`T`$ phase diagram of a 2D type-II superconductor. However, today it is well established both theoretically  and experimentally , that at finite $`T`$ Abrikosov transition is one of those rare cases where fluctuations even qualitatively alter the nature of the transition, turning it into a first-order in the clean case. This may be understood as a consequence of the macroscopic degeneracy of the LLL manifold, which is a unique feature of the Abrikosov transition, and which greatly enhances the effect of fluctuations. Any OP configuration within the LLL can be parametrized in terms of its zeroes (vortices), and the Abrikosov transition is equivalent to a freezing transition of a complicated classical many body system, which is then typically first order . Our quantum action at $`T=0`$ is almost identical to the finite-$`T`$ GLW theory for a 3D superconductor in the magnetic field (except for a linear instead of a quadratic derivative with respect to the third coordinate), and one may expect that, in this case, quantum fluctuations of the OP may also turn the $`T=0`$ transition into first order. To approximately obtain the critical magnetic field $`H_{sm}`$ of the first-order transition, it is convenient to work with dimensionless quantities and first rescale the fields, lengths, and time as $`(4\pi \mathrm{}^2\tau _H\beta )^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`r/(\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{})r`$, and $`\tau /\tau _H\tau `$. The action in (17) then becomes

$`S_{\mathrm{GLW}}[\mathrm{\Phi }]={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑\tau \left[g_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }^{}|_\tau |\mathrm{\Phi }+g_\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+\frac{1}{4}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^4\right]},`$ (18)
where the two dimensionless couplings are $`g_{\tau ,\alpha }=(1/\tau _H,\alpha )(\pi \mathrm{}^2\tau _H/4\beta )^{1/2}`$. First, consider only the OP configurations that have no $`\tau `$ dependence ($`\omega =0`$ modes). For those the first term of (18) vanishes, and the thermodynamics of the system would depend exclusively on the single dimensionless coupling $`g_\alpha `$. The theory would then look zero-dimensional, however, this is deceiving: the macroscopic degeneracy of the LLL still remains. In fact, without the first term the partition function with the action (18) would be identical to the finite-$`T`$ partition function that describes the vortex-liquid-to-solid transition, and which is known to have a weak first-order transition at $`g_\alpha =g_\mathrm{M}6.7`$. This has been established in detailed Monte Carlo simulations , as well as in the density-functional theory . To find the transition field with the full $`\tau `$-dependence of the OP included we assume that the transition is driven by the same mechanism of growing positional correlations between vortices, the only difference now being that the vortices are “straight” in $`\tau `$-direction over an imaginary time scale $`\overline{\tau }`$, instead of $`\tau _H`$. We identify this time scale with the correlation “length” in $`\tau `$ direction. This ansatz works remarkably well in describing the finite-$`T`$ first-order transition line in clean YBCO , and on that basis we expect it to be a good approximation here as well. The transition field is then determined by the condition

$$g_\mathrm{M}=g_\alpha \overline{\tau }^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(19)
for $`\overline{\tau }>1`$ in units of $`\tau _H`$. To approximately determine $`\overline{\tau }`$ we will use the self-consistent Hartree approximation  to the action in (18). The correlation time is then defined as

$$\overline{\tau }=\frac{g_\tau }{g_\alpha +|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|^2/4},$$
(20)
where the quantum mechanical average appearing in (20) is determined self-consistently as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|^2=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d\omega }{g_\tau |\omega |+g_\alpha +|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|^2/4}.$$
(21)
Solving Eqs. (19)-(21), one obtains the equation for the first-order transition field

$$H_{sm}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{ev_\mathrm{F}^2}e^{2/g_{\mathrm{eff}}},$$
(22)
where the effective coupling satisfies

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^1=g^1+\frac{4a|g_\mathrm{M}|\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}}{\pi }\frac{\sqrt{2eH_{sm}}}{k_\mathrm{F}},$$
(23)
in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{}`$ limit. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is a dimensionless upper cutoff we introduced to regularize the integral in (14). It may be chosen to yield the correct answer when the next order in “frequency” (i.e., $`\omega ^2`$) term is kept in the effective action, for example. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ appears only under a log the result is little sensitive to its precise value. More importantly, it is evident that $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is smaller than $`g`$ which in turn implies that the true transition field $`H_{sm}`$ is below the mean-field $`H_0`$, which would correspond to the $`g_\mathrm{M}=0`$ case.

In Fig. 2 we present the $`H`$-$`g`$ phase diagram for the 2D system in the magnetic field and at $`T=0`$. The superconductor-metal phase transition induced by the order parameter fluctuations is first-order. The mean-field result represented by the dashed line is included for comparison. Her we have assumed $`\mathrm{\Omega }=ϵ_\mathrm{F}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=10^4`$, and $`g_\mathrm{M}=7.0`$. The mean-field and the true transition field are indistiguishably close at very small coupling, but they start to differ significantly at larger couplings. In principle, one may also expect a somewhat renormalized value of $`g_M`$ from the static value ($`7`$), but the difference does not qualitatively alter our results.

## IV Effects of disorder

So far we have completely neglected the effects of static disorder on the superconducting transition. Since the inclusion of disorder complicates the problem significantly, we will discuss its effects only qualitatively. First, it should be possible to model disorder by including a random potential term $`V(𝐫)|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|^2`$ into the OP effective action in (18). That such a term indeed arises in the OP theory was demonstrated by one of us  in a related problem of disordered $`d`$-wave superconductor. For simplicity one may assume that the random potential is uncorrelated in space. With this term included one faces an interacting theory with quenched disorder (and in the LLL) which is notoriously difficult to analyze. So in what follows we assume that disorder is strong (compared to the quartic term), so that the self-consistent Hartree treatment of the interaction may be a reasonable starting point . In this spirit we replace the quartic term in (11) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^4\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2,$$
(24)
where the average is self-consistently determined as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|^2=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}𝑑\omega \frac{|\varphi _n(𝐫)|^2}{g_\tau |\omega |+\epsilon _n},$$
(25)
where $`\varphi _n`$ are the LLL eigenfunctions, and $`\epsilon _n`$ eigenvalues of the random potential, Hartree ”screened” by the interactions

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐫)=g_\alpha +V(𝐫)+\frac{1}{4}|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)|^2.$$
(26)
The superconducting phase transition in this approach would correspond to the vanishing of the lowest eigenvalue $`\epsilon _n`$ and condensation into the corresponding extended random eigenstate . This transition is expected to be continuous, but to verify this scenario one needs to implement the self-consistent procedure numerically, which we leave for future work. The reader should note however, that the main effect of disorder is to lift the degeneracy of the LLL manifold, and thus restore the possibility of a continuous transition.

In case of weak disorder the above Hartree approximation becomes inadequate and we may only speculate what happens with the transition. Our prejudice, which we discuss more shortly, is that the transition remains first order for weak disorder, and turns continuous only at some critical disorder strength.

## V Summary and discussion

Our conclusion of a first order transition in the clean case is in agreement with the renormalization group studies of Brézin, Nelson, and Thiaville  and more recently of Moore and Newman . These authors have shown that due to macroscopic degeneracy of the LLL the renormalization group flow in dimensions less than six is always unstable, which is usually interpreted as a sign of a first-order transition. Although they studied a thermal, and not quantum, Abrikosov transition, their methods and conclusions can be readily translated to our case. Furthermore, our conclusion is also in agreement with the large-$`N`$ treatment of the Abrikosov transition  at finite temperature. As for the disorder case, Moore and Newman  also demonstrated that with weak disorder the renormalization group flow remains unstable, which would indicate that the transition is still discontinuous. The case of strong disorder is outside the domain of validity of their perturbative approach, and we feel that the self-consistent Hartree treatment of the interaction term we discussed is more appropriate.

Our theory offers a natural explanation for the hysteretic behavior observed at the $`T=0`$ superconductor-metal transition by Mason and Kapitulnik. We argue that it is a consequence of the fluctuation induced first-order transition. Also, that the non-superconducting state appears metallic, and not insulating, may be related to the fact that a weak magnetic field cuts off the weak-localization effects, and thus relegates the localization effects in 2D to lower tempereatures . The observed anomalously small resistivity and the large magnetoresistance of the Mason and Kapitulnik metal could be related to the strong superconducting fluctuations near the critical field. Additional support for this picture comes from the experimental observation that the resistivity away from the critical field $`H_{sm}`$ vanishes as $`R(HH_0)`$, where $`H_0>H_{sm}`$ . This power-law follows naturally from our theory as follows. Away from the critical field (outside the critical region dominated by the OP fluctuations) the transition appears continuous, and the resistivity should vanish according to the simple (Aslamazov-Larkin like) scaling

$$R\xi ^{d2},$$
(27)
where $`\xi `$ is the superconducting correlation length. The GLW action (10) for the OP at the mean-field level implies $`d=0`$ (since the OP is confined to the LLL which completely eliminates the gradient terms in 2D). At the mean-field level $`\xi 1/(HH_0)^{1/2}`$, so the power counting implies

$$R(HH_0),$$
(28)
in the crossover region, precisely as seen in the experiment . This, of course, ceases to be valid upon entering the critical region, in which, as we argued, fluctuations eventually drive the transition first order at a lower critical field $`H_{sm}`$.

Finally, we note that the GLW theory in Eq. (10) has the frequency dependence characteristic of a dissipative system. This is analogous to what was found in the theory of disordered $`d`$-wave superconducting phase transition at $`T=0`$ , and is related to the pair-breaking nature of the magnetic field. This may provide the theoretical basis for the Mason and Kapitulnik interpretation of the superconductor-metal transition .

To summarize, we have studied the $`T=0`$ superconducting phase transition for a 2D system in a magnetic field. We derived an effective Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson action for the fluctuating superconducting order parameter which enables one to investigate the effects of quantum fluctuations and the order of the phase transition. It is argued that without, or with weak disorder, the quantum superconductor-metal phase transition is of first order. For the case of strong disorder we expect that the possibility of a continuous phase transition is restored.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Prof. S. Sachdev and Dr. D. Lee for useful discussions. This work is supported by NSERC of Canada and NSC of Taiwan (under the grant No. 89-2112-M-003-027). IFH is also supported by an award from Research Corporation.

## A Derivation of $`S_2`$

In this Appendix we give the explicit derivation of quadratic $`S_2`$ in (10). If we write $`S_2=𝑑\omega \overline{S}_2(\omega )`$, based on the diagram in Fig. 1, one has at $`T=0`$ (apart from the constant term)

$`\overline{S}_2(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}\times `$ (A1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi }𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2G_{\nu +\omega }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)G_\nu (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega ^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫_2)},`$ (A2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$ is given by (9) with $`C_n(\tau )C_n(\omega )`$ in terms of LLL. In the semi-classical approximation, the 2D single-particle Green’s function $`G`$ is given by (8) in which

$`G_\nu ^0(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i𝐩(𝐫_1𝐫_2)}\frac{1}{i\nu ϵ_𝐩}}`$ (A3)
where $`ϵ_𝐩=𝐩^2/2mϵ_\mathrm{F}`$ and the phase $`\varphi (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=eH(x_1+x_2)(y_1y_2)/2`$. We have assumed that the field $`𝐀=H(0,x,0)`$, which leads to $`𝐇=H\widehat{z}`$. After substitution of the above into (A1) and carrying out the integrations over $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, one obtains

$`\overline{S}_2(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}(2\pi )^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi }}dx_1dx_2{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐭}{(2\pi )^2}}C_n^{}(\omega )\times `$ (A4)
$`C_m(\omega )\delta [t_y+eH(x_1+x_2)kn]\delta (knkm)\times `$ (A5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{it_x(x_1x_2)}}{[i(\nu +\omega )ϵ_𝐩][i\nu (ϵ_𝐩𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐭)]}}\psi _n(x_1)\psi _m(x_2).`$ (A6)
Here we have set $`𝐭𝐪+𝐩`$ and $`ϵ_𝐪ϵ_𝐩𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐭`$ with $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}`$ the Fermi velocity.

Using $`\frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^2}=𝒩𝑑ϵ_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }`$ (with $`𝒩=m/2\pi `$ as the 2D density of states) and the integral ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the usual ultraviolet cutoff)

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[i(\nu +\omega )ϵ][i\nu (ϵ𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐭)]}}`$ (A8)
$`=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{(𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐭)^2+\omega ^2}}\right],`$
one obtains after some calculation

$`\overline{S}_2(\omega )=K_2(\omega )|\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫)|^2,`$ (A9)
where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (𝐫)|^2`$ is defined in (11) and

$`K_2(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\pi eH}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐭e^{\frac{t^2}{2eH}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{(𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐭)^2+\omega ^2}\right]}.`$ (A10)
Here $`g=𝒩V/2`$. Expanding $`K_2(\omega )=K_2(0)+A|\omega |+B\omega ^2+\mathrm{}`$, we found the zero-frequency term

$`K_2(0)=g\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _H)`$ (A11)
with $`\tau _H=\mathrm{}/v_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1/\sqrt{2eH}`$, and the first-order coefficient

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{K_2(\omega )}{\omega }}|_{\omega 0}=\sqrt{\pi }g\tau _H.`$ (A12)
The combination of (A11) and (A12) gives the result in (10).

## B Derivation of $`S_4`$

The quartic action $`S_4`$ is expressed diagrammatically in Fig. 1. The similar diagram has been calculated by Maki and Tsuzuki  for 3D and finite-$`T`$. Here we need $`S_4`$ in 2D and at $`T=0`$. One can write the quartic term as $`S_4=𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2\overline{S}_4(\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2)`$, where at zero frequencies ($`\omega =\omega _1=\omega _2=0`$)

$`\overline{S}_4(0)={\displaystyle \frac{V^2}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi }}d𝐫_1d𝐫_2d𝐫_3d𝐫_4G_\nu (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)G_\nu (𝐫_3,𝐫_2)\times `$ (B1)
$`G_\nu (𝐫_3,𝐫_4)G_\nu (𝐫_1,𝐫_4)\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}(𝐫_1)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}(𝐫_3)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫_4).`$ (B2)
In analogy to Appendix A, after a lengthy calculation we find

$`\overline{S}_4(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}gVv_\mathrm{F}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,p,q}{}}C_n^{}C_mC_p^{}C_qR(n,m,p,q),`$ (B3)
where for brevity, $`C_nC_n(0)`$, and

$`R(n,m,p,q)=\delta (nm+pq){\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}\times `$ (B4)
$`{\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2dx_3dx_4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(1,3;2,4)}{|x_1+x_3x_2x_4|}}\times `$ (B5)
$`e^{i\mathrm{tan}\theta eHT}\psi _n(x_1)\psi _m(x_2)\psi _p(x_3)\psi _q(x_4).`$ (B6)
Here $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle in 2D,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(1,3;2,4)`$ $`1,\mathrm{if}x_1,x_3>x_2,x_4\mathrm{or}x_1,x_3<x_2,x_4`$ (B8)
$`0,\mathrm{otherwise},`$
and

$`T=(x_1{\displaystyle \frac{kn}{2eH}})^2+(x_2{\displaystyle \frac{km}{2eH}})^2(x_3{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{2eH}})^2`$ (B9)
$`+(x_4{\displaystyle \frac{kq}{2eH}})^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2eH}}\right)^2(n^2m^2+p^2q^2).`$ (B10)
One can further solve

$`\overline{S}_4(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}gVv_\mathrm{F}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4eH}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m,p,q}{}}\delta (nm+pq)\times `$ (B12)
$`e^ZC_n^{}C_mC_p^{}C_qf,`$
where

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4eH}}\left[n^2+m^2+p^2+q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n+m+p+q\right)^2\right]`$ (B13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{16eH}}[(nm)^2+(np)^2+(nq)^2+`$ (B15)
$`(mp)^2+(mq)^2+(pq)^2]`$
and

$`f=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}t𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^u}𝑑ve^{eHt^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (B17)
$`\mathrm{cosh}(\sqrt{eH}t\mathrm{\Sigma }).`$
Here ($`\alpha =\mathrm{tan}\theta `$)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1i\alpha )(1u)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+i\alpha )v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1+\alpha ^2)`$ (B18)
and

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\sqrt{eH}}}\times `$ (B20)
$`[(1i\alpha )(1u)(np)+(1+i\alpha )v(mq)].`$
As pointed out by Maki and Tsuzuki, due to the factor of $`e^Z`$ in (B12), there is a dominance of $`n=m=p=q`$ when $`k^2/4eH1`$ (i.e., in the weak-field limit). In this limit $`\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$, and thus drops out of $`f`$ in (B17). As a consequence, $`f`$ becomes independent of $`n,m,p,q`$ and Eq. (B12) is simplified to

$`\overline{S}_4(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{𝒩v_\mathrm{F}^2}}f|\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫)|^4,`$ (B21)
where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐫)|^4`$ is given in (14). To the leading order in field, we found

$`f=f(H)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{eH}}[\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2})]^2.`$ (B22)
It is interesting to note that for 3D and finite-$`T`$, the same term will be $`f\mathrm{ln}(T/H)`$, and divergent at $`T0`$ .


format: text

text:
# Reflection symmetry breaking scenarios with minimal gauge form coupling in brane world cosmology

## 1 Introduction of minimal coupling

The proverbially fundamental complementarity of “brain versus brawn” has an analogue in the purely mathematical context associated with names such as Cartan and de Rham wherin gauge equivalence classes of $`p`$–forms (i.e. covariant antisymmetric tensor fields) arise as the homological complement of $`p`$–surfaces. Conversely, in the higher dimensional physical context associated with names such as Polchinski and Witten, $`(p1)`$–branes (i.e. $`p`$–surface supported systems) emerge naturally as concentrated source distributions for gauge $`p`$–form fields. Thus given any $`(p1)`$–brane one of the first questions that comes to mind is what about the corresponding “brawn”, i.e. the associated gauge $`p`$–form? In the case of a point particle (i.e. a zero brane) the answer is usually that it is the ordinary Maxwellian electromagnetic field. In the case of the recently much studied theories that treat our world as a 3–brane in a 5–dimensional “bulk”, the question of the corresponding gauge 4–form has been generally overlooked, perhaps because the ensuing “brawn” force would have to vanish anyway in the reflection symmetric scenarios that are most commonly  considered.

Several authors have discussed models in which the usual Z2 symmetry postulate in homogeneous isotropic cosmological scenarios treating our four dimensional world as a 3–brane in a 5–dimensional “bulk” was dropped. Ida  and then Krauss  showed that such a reflection symmetry breaking can arise due to the choice of different integration constants for the solution of the vacuum Einstein equations on either side of the brane, and the general question of the observable consequences of dropping this symmetry been addressed by Davis et al. . A different kind of symmetry breaking has been considered by Deruelle and Doležel  and Perkins, who considered bubble walls separating two distinct five dimensional anti–de Sitter spacetime domains with different cosmological constants. Finally, the possibility that both kinds of symmetry breaking occur simultaneously has been considered by Stoica et al.  and by Bowcock et al. , who have shown how to obtain a generalisation of the usual first integrated Friedmann equation giving the square of the Hubble expansion rate as a sum of terms in which, as well as the the ones that are now familiar  in “conventional” (meaning force free reflection invariant) brane world cosmology there is a new term (including the extra contribution considered in ) that could have been important at some stages in the early universe.

The present article provides a synthesis that develops the underlying physics giving rise to such scenarios by incorporating allowance for the simplest conceivable coupling to an external antisymmetric “brawn” gauge field, $`A_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ say (where Greek indices run from 0 to 4). This minimal coupling case  is governed by an action consisting just of an external kinetic contribution of the usual purely quadratic type, together with a coupling contribution given by an action density of the (generalised Wess Zumino) form

$$_{_{\mathrm{co}}}=(4!)^1𝐣{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }A_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }^{},$$
(1)
for a Dirac distributional source given by some dimensionless coupling constant $`e_{_{\{4\}}}`$ as

$$𝐣{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }=\overline{𝐣}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }\delta [\zeta ]\text{with}\overline{𝐣}{}_{}{}^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }=e_{_{\{4\}}}^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau },$$
(2)
where $`\zeta `$ is a coordinate measuring othogonal distance from the 4–dimensional worldsheet of the 3–brane. Here $`^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ is the antisymmetric tangent element of the worldsheet normalised as $`^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }=4!`$ . It can be used, in conjunction with the measure tensor $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ of the 5–dimensional background tensor, to construct the unit normal covector $`\lambda _\mu _\mu \zeta =(4!)^1\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$. The scalar coefficient $`e_{_{\{4\}}}`$ must necessarily be uniform over the worldsheet in order for the source current to satisfy the conservation law $`_\mu 𝐣^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=0`$ that is necessary for gauge invariance. The corresponding “physical” (i.e. gauge invariant) 5–form is defined by the exterior derivative of $`A_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ as

$$F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }5_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau ]}=F\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau },$$
(3)
where $`F`$ is a pseudo scalar (it is not strictly a scalar because its sign is parity depenent) in terms of which the purely external Lagrangian action governing the gauge field has the form

$$_{_{\mathrm{ex}}}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }F^2$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is a coupling constant. Varying this Lagrangian (4) with respect to the 5–dimensional spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ defines the external stress energy density tensor ($`𝒯_{_{\mathrm{ex}}}^{\mu \nu }=2\delta _{_{\mathrm{ex}}}/\delta g_{\mu \nu }+_{_{\mathrm{ex}}}g^{\mu \nu }`$) as

$$𝒯_{_{\mathrm{ex}}}^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }F^2g_\nu ^\mu .$$
(5)
A coupling Lagrangian $`_{_{\mathrm{co}}}`$ of the most general kind would give rise to another contribution, $`𝒯_{_{\mathrm{co}}}`$, to the stress energy density tensor but this can be shown  to vanishing in the minimally coupled case (1) we are considering here. article. Varying the coupling and external Lagrangians with respect to the “brawn” field $`A_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ leads to the field equation of motion

$$^\mu F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }=\alpha 𝐣_{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }.$$
(6)
It can thereby be concluded that in the source free region outside the brane the pseudo scalar field $`F`$ is uniform, i.e. that $`_\mu F=0`$.

An important consequence of this is that outside (but not in) the world brane, the “brawn” stress energy tensor (5) acts just as an effective addition to the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that appears in the 5–dimensional Einstein equation according to which the effect of the total stress energy tensor $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ (including both external and brane contributions) is given by

$$𝒢_{\mu \nu }=\kappa 𝒯_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },$$
(7)
in which $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Ricci tensor and $``$ is its trace. The traditional unrationalised coupling constant $`\kappa `$ is related to the quantity $`\kappa _{_{(5)}}`$ used by several authors (e.g. ), and to the 5–dimensional analogue $`G`$ of Newton’s constant and its associated gravitational mass scale $`m__\mathrm{G}`$ as defined according to the appropriate  rationalisation procedure, by

$$\kappa =\kappa _{_{(5)}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=6\pi ^2\mathrm{G},\mathrm{G}=m__\mathrm{G}^3.$$
(8)
Thus, in the external region on either side of the brane, substitution of (5) for $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ reduces the Einstein equation (7) to the pseudo vacuum form

$$𝒢_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^_\pm g_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Lambda }^_\pm =\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\kappa }{2\alpha }F^{{}_{\pm }{}^{}2},$$
(9)
where $`F^_+`$ and $`F^{_{}}`$ are the constant values taken by the pseudoscalar “brawn” field in the respective external coordinate ranges $`\zeta >0`$ and $`\zeta <0`$. This minimal coupling case may be seen as the five dimensional analogous of the standard $`p=1`$ dimensional case of a charge particle in electromagnetism in which $`e_{_{\{1\}}}`$ is the particle charge, and $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ is just the analog of the electromagnetic tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ while (6) is the Maxwell equation.

## 2 The generalised (Birkhoff type) bulk staticity theorem

So long as we are concerned just with cosmological models of homogeneous isotropic type, the consideration that the external gravitational field is of pseudo vacuum type allows to invoke the generalised Birkhoff theorem (see the treatise of Misner et al. , whose sign conventions we are following). Its original version showed that spherical symmetry necessarily entails the staticity property that was merely assumed as a simplifying ansatz when Schwarzschild first derived his famous solution. A recent demonstration with the range of applicability needed in the present context has recently been provided by Bowcock, Charmousis and Gregory , who deal with the case of a 5–dimensional vacuum metric $`\mathrm{d}s_\mathrm{V}^2=g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu `$ that has the symmetry of a 3–sphere, a 3–plane, or an anti 3–sphere with metric given, respectively for positive, vanishing, or negative curvature parameter $`k`$, by

$$\mathrm{d}s_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}}^2=\frac{\mathrm{d}\chi ^2}{1k\chi ^2}+\chi ^2(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi ^2).$$
(10)
The conclusion is that wherever equations of the vacuum form (9) are satisfied, and thus on either side of the (minimally coupled) 3–brane under consideration, the metric must be static and hence of the generalised Schwarzschild (anti)–de Sitter form

$$\mathrm{d}s_\mathrm{V}^2=r^2\mathrm{d}s_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}}^2+\frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{𝒱}𝒱\mathrm{d}t^2,$$
(11)
with

$$𝒱=k\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^_\pm }{6}r^2\frac{2\mathrm{G}^_\pm }{r^2},$$
(12)
where $`^_+`$ and $`^{_{}}`$ are constants of integration, having the dimensions of mass, that characterise the solution in the respective ranges $`\zeta >0`$ and $`\zeta <0`$. (This generalisation is analogous to that for the charged black hole case, for which the Birkhoff theorem still applies, giving the static Reissner–Nordström solution.) In the compact case $`k>0`$ the quantity $`r/\sqrt{k}`$ is interpretable as a Schwarzschild type radial coordinate and the mass constants is given by $`^_\pm =k^2M^_\pm `$ where $`M^_+`$ and $`M^{_{}}`$ are interpretable as the masses of distant source distributions, such as other 3–branes (or in their absence, of black holes) on either side. For this positive curvature case it would commonly be convenient to fix the scale so as to obtain $`k=1`$, but such a canonical normalisation is not possible in the spacially flat case ($`k=0`$) that is accurate within observational uncertainties for the large scale representation of our actual universe.

The fact that the static nature of the external metric is unaffected by the dynamical evolution of the brane means that there is no way it can signal its presence to, and thereby perhaps avoids collision with, any other brane that may be present outside (at a distance whose value as a function of time is what is commonly referred to as the “radion”). The avoidance of this so called “radion instability” problem is one of the motivations for the development of generalisations  involving the presence in the “bulk” of a dilatonic scalar field that can carry information from one brane to a neighbouring brane. What we have shown here is that minimal coupling to what is effectively a pseudo scalar field does not offer any such escape from this “radion instability” problem. If only a single brane is present the problem of the “radion” as such will not arise, but if either $`^_+`$ or $`^{_{}}`$ is non zero (which, as we shall see, is necessarily the case in the kind of reflection symmetry breaking scenarios envisaged in ) one might still need to worry about the possibility of colliding with its source or (if it is source free) of falling into the corresponding black hole.

When one is mainly interested in what is going on in the brane itself rather than in the “bulk” outside, it is commonly convenient to use a brane based reference system depending on the use of the coordinate $`\zeta `$ that measures the orthogonal distance from the worldsheet. In the homogeneous isotropic case this gives an expression of the well known form

$$\mathrm{d}s__\mathrm{V}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=r^2\mathrm{d}s_{_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\mathrm{d}\zeta ^2\nu ^2\mathrm{d}\tau ^2,$$
(13)
in which the quantities $`r`$ and $`\nu `$ are functions just of $`\zeta `$ and $`\tau `$. The latter is normalised in such a way that in the limit $`\zeta 0`$ (i.e. on the worldsheet) we have $`\nu 1`$. It means that $`\tau `$ is interpretable as a measure of the proper cosmological time on the world brane. The corresponding limit $`ra`$ defines a function $`a(\tau )`$ interpretable as a cosmologically comoving scale factor, whose proper time derivative $`\dot{a}`$ specifies the relevant Hubble expansion rate $`\dot{a}/a`$.

Although the two versions (11) and (13) have long been separately well known, the relationship between them was not satisfactorily clarified until the recent work by Mukohyama, Shiromizu, and Maeda . These authors showed explicitly how a metric of the static form (11) can be transformed to the brane based version obtained (in terms of hyperbolic functions of $`\zeta `$) by Binétruy, Deffayet, Ellwanger and Langlois . The self contained treatment provided here avoids getting into these explicit details  by following a more economical approach that does not depend on the particular (explicitly integrable) form (12) of the function $`𝒱`$, and that could thus be useful in a broader context (such as might arise if, as well as the “brawn” field $`A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ considered here, a lower order gauge field, $`A_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ or $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ was also present in the bulk).

The essential point is that (in each radial $`\{r,t\}`$ 2-surface) the distance function $`\zeta `$ is orthogonal to lines of constant $`\tau `$ that are automatically geodesic. The stationarity of the metric (11) therefore implies that the unit tangent vector $`x^\mu `$ (employing the usual convention that dash and dot indicate partial differentiation with respect to $`\zeta `$ and $`\tau `$ respectively) will contract with the time symmetry Killing vector, as specified by $`k_\mu dx^\mu =d\tau `$, to give a constant of the geodesic motion $`E=k_\mu x^\mu `$ (that would be intepretable as energy if instead of being spacelike the geodesic was timelike). Though independent of $`\zeta `$, this quantity $`E`$ depends in general on the new time variable $`\tau `$ whose normalisation it is now convenient to fix with respect to the rate of change of the scale length $`a`$ on the worldsheet by imposing the identification $`E=\dot{a}`$. The definition of $`E`$ then provides the relation $`\dot{t}=\dot{a}/𝒱`$, and hence the unit normalisation condition $`g_{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu =1`$ takes the form

$$\dot{a}^2=r^2𝒱.$$
(14)
In order to preserve coordinate orthogonality, $`\dot{x}^\mu x_\mu ^{}=0`$, the required transformation, $`dt=\dot{t}d\tau +t^{}d\zeta `$ and $`dr=\dot{r}d\tau +r^{}d\zeta `$, must evidently satisfy the condition $`\dot{r}r^{}=𝒱^2\dot{t}t^{}`$, so substitution in (11) now leads directly to q.e.d., namely the brane based form (13), in which the coefficient $`\nu `$ can be seen to be given simply by

$$\nu ^2=\dot{r}^2/\dot{a}^2.$$
(15)
This short cut derivation of (13) has made no use of any specific prescription for the dependence of $`𝒱`$ on $`r`$, but it is now to be observed that when $`𝒱`$ is given in terms of the relevant generalised Schwarzschild AdS formula (12), the relations (14) and (15) take precisely the form to which the (bulk) Einstein equations were shown to be reducible by Binétruy et al. .

The condition of metric continuity on the brane worldsheet (where $`ra`$) is trivially satisfied by (15), but (14) provides interesting matching conditions. We use square and angle brackets respectively for the difference and average of the values limits on opposite sides, so that in particular for the effective cosmological constant we have

$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }]\mathrm{\Lambda }^_+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\frac{\kappa }{\alpha }F[F],\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{_1}{^2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^++\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\kappa }{2\alpha }F^2.$$
(16)
One finds that subtraction of (14) gives the relation

$$r^{}[r^{}]=a^2\frac{[\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{12}\frac{\mathrm{G}[]}{a^2},$$
(17)
which is of no interest in the Z2 reflection symmetric case where all the terms vanish, while averaging (14) gives the more generally useful expansion rate formula

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}+\frac{r^2k}{a^2}+\frac{2\mathrm{G}}{a^4}.$$
(18)
## 3 Solution of the Junction conditions

To determine the evolution of the system we are interested in, we need to use the well known  Darmois Israel junction conditions according to which the active gravitational effect of the surface stress energy density $`\overline{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }`$ of the brane is governed by the equation

$$\left[K_{\mu \nu }\right]\left[K\right]\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\kappa \overline{𝒯}_{\mu \nu }$$
(19)
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ are respectively the first and the second fundamental forms ($`K`$ being its the trace), defined as

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu ,K_{\mu \nu }\gamma _\nu ^\rho _\mu \lambda _\rho ,$$
(20)
$`\lambda _\mu =_\mu \zeta `$ being the unit (i.e. $`\lambda _\rho \lambda ^\rho =1`$) vector normal to the brane (i.e $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }\lambda ^\mu =0`$).

It is also necessary to solve the equations governing the passive evolution for the worldsheet, which has often been worked out ad hoc in particular applications, but which can also be expressed  in a simple generally valid form as

$$\overline{𝒯}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }K_{\mu \nu }=\overline{f},$$
(21)
where $`\overline{f}`$ is the force density acting on the brane. This will be given in terms of the contraction of the external (bulk) stress energy density as

$$\overline{f}=\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu \left[𝒯_{_{\mathrm{ex}}}^{\mu \nu }\right].$$
(22)
This must of course vanish in the reflection symmetric configurations that are most commonly considered, but need not do so in the more general context considered here. It can be seen from (6) and from the expression (5) for $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }`$ that $`\lambda _\mu ^\mu F=\alpha e_{_{\{4\}}}\delta [\zeta ]`$, which implies that

$$[F]=\alpha e_{_{\{4\}}}.$$
(23)
The force density is found to have a constant but generically non vanishing value given by

$$\overline{f}=e{}_{_{\{4\}}}{}^{}F=\kappa ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }].$$
(24)
In order to apply the preceeding formulae one has to work out the exact expressions of the first and second fundamental forms as defined in equation (20). The first fundamental form is obviously given by

$$\mathrm{d}s_{_{\mathrm{IV}}}^2=\gamma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu =a^2\mathrm{d}s_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}}^2\mathrm{d}\tau ^2,$$
(25)
and the second fundamental form by

$$K_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu =ar^{}\mathrm{d}s_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}}^2+\nu ^{}\mathrm{d}\tau ^2.$$
(26)
We also need to know the form of the worldsheet stress energy density tensor $`\overline{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }`$. To be compatible with the hypothesis of a homogeneous isotropic geometry, $`\overline{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }`$ must itself be of the homogeneous isotropic form, i.e.

$$\overline{𝒯}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=𝒰u^\mu u^\nu 𝒯(\gamma ^{\mu \nu }+u^\mu u^\nu )$$
(27)
with respect to the preferred unit vector defined by $`u_\mu =_\mu \tau `$. Here $`𝒰`$ is the total energy density and $`𝒯`$ is the total brane tension. It is normally assumed that the directly observable energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`P`$ (i.e. of the cosmic fluid) represent small deviations from an isotropic (inflationary) limit state given by $`\overline{𝒯}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is a fixed tension (approached by both $`𝒯`$ and $`𝒰`$ in the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$ ) in terms of which the actual tension and energy density are given by

$$𝒯𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}P,𝒰𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}+\rho .$$
(28)
Substitution of (27) in (19) gives explicit jump conditions of the well known  form

$$[r^{}]=\frac{a\kappa }{3}𝒰,[\nu ^{}]=\frac{\kappa }{3}\left(2𝒰3𝒯\right).$$
(29)
Now, from (21) we obtain the relation

$$𝒰\nu ^{}+3𝒯\frac{r^{}}{a}=\overline{f},$$
(30)
which differs from the usual version by the presence of the force density term on the right.

Using the expression (29) for $`[r^{}]`$, we obtain, from (17), that $`2r^{}`$ (which is the same as the quantity “$`d`$” introduced as a measure of the deviation from reflection symmetry by Davis et al. ) is given by

$$2r^{}=\frac{3}{\kappa 𝒰}\left(\frac{a[\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{6}+\frac{2\mathrm{G}[]}{a^3}\right).$$
(31)
This generalises the corresponding formula of Davis et al. by the inclusion of the $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ term representing the effect of the “brawn” force, and it also provides a more specific interpretation of their “$`F`$” term by showing that (as observed by Ida ) it is proportional to the (reflection symmetry breaking) difference $`[]`$ between the mass terms on opposite sides, and hence that it would have to be absent if both mass terms were zero (as was assumed in the work of Deruelle and Doležel  and Perkins ). It is to be observed that the gravitational coupling coefficients can be cancelled out of (31) and hence also out of the expressions for the components of the mean value of the first fundamental form (26), which vanish in the reflection symmetric case, and which will be given in the general case by

$$𝒰r^{}=\frac{[]}{2\pi ^2a^3}+\frac{a}{4}e_{_{\{4\}}}F,𝒰\nu ^{}=\frac{3[]𝒯}{2\pi ^2a^4𝒰}+\left(1\frac{3𝒯}{4𝒰}\right)e_{_{\{4\}}}F.$$
(32)
Using (31) and the first equation of (29) respectively for $`r^{}`$ and $`[r^{}]`$ and using the decomposition $`r^2`$ $`=r^{}^2+[r^{}]^2/4`$ to evaluate $`r^2`$ in (18), we can now proceed directly to the relevant generalisation of the Friedmann equation, which takes the form

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\kappa 𝒰}{6}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{2\mathrm{G}}{a^4}+\frac{1}{\left(2\kappa 𝒰\right)^2}\left(\frac{[\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{2}+\frac{6\mathrm{G}[]}{a^4}\right)^2.$$
(33)
This agrees with what was obtained in a rather more circuitous manner by Stoica et al , and by Bowcock et al. , who were the first to undertake a systematic investigation of reflection symmetry breaking scenarios with the degree of generality considered here, but who used a system in which the 5–dimensional gravitational coupling constant $`\kappa `$ was set to unity, thereby obscuring the way it affects the various terms. As well as directness, the present approach has the advantage of showing more explicitly how the various coupling coefficients contribute, and in particular how $`\kappa `$ actually cancels out of the formulae (32) and, as will be demonstrated immediately below, from last term of (33) which is the only one whose presence depends on reflection symmetry breaking.

## 4 Investigation of the parameter space

In order to interpret the Friedmann–like equation (33), we use (28) to rewrite it in terms of the ratio $`\epsilon \rho /𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$, as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \mathrm{G}__4}{3}}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }__4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{G}}{a^4}}+\left(\pi ^2\mathrm{G}\rho \right)^2`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\epsilon )^2}{(2𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}})^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{[]}{\pi ^2a^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{[]}{\pi ^2a^4}}+e_{_{\{4\}}}F\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{e_{_{\{4\}}}F}{2}}\right)^2\left(3+2\epsilon \right)\epsilon ^2\right\}`$
in which the first three terms of the r.h.s. are those of the standard Friedmann equation, with the effective 4–dimensional Newton constant $`\mathrm{G}__4`$ and the effective 4–dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__4`$ given by

$$8\pi \mathrm{G}__4=\frac{6}{𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}}\left(\left(\pi ^2\mathrm{G}𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^2\left(\frac{e_{_{\{4\}}}F}{4𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}}\right)^2\right),$$
(35)
and

$$2\mathrm{\Lambda }__4=\mathrm{\Lambda }+6\left(\left(\pi ^2\mathrm{G}𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{e_{_{\{4\}}}F}{4𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}}\right)^2\right).$$
(36)
In terms of the brane mass scale given by $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$, and of the ordinary Planck mass scale given by $`m__\mathrm{P}^2\mathrm{G}__4`$, it is convenient to parametrise the relative importance in (3536) of the gauge field contribution $`F`$ and of the bulk gravitational coupling constant given by $`m__\mathrm{G}^3\mathrm{G}`$, in terms of a dimensionless hyperbolic angle $`\chi `$ such that

$$e_{_{\{4\}}}F=\left(\frac{\pi }{3}\right)^{1/2}\frac{8m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{6}\mathrm{sh}\chi }{m__\mathrm{P}},\mathrm{G}=\left(\frac{\pi }{3}\right)^{1/2}\frac{2\mathrm{ch}\chi }{\pi ^2m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}m__\mathrm{P}}.$$
(37)
Besides the three independent parameters involved in (37), namely $`\chi `$, $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$ and $`m__\mathrm{P}`$, of which only the latter is experimentally known in advance, this model involves four more independent parameters which are the bulk mass scales $`^_\pm `$, the ordinary cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__4`$ and the cosmological curvature scale $`k`$. Only the two latter are roughly known in advance, neither of them differing from zero by an amount that can be reliably measured yet. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__4`$ is at most of the order of the present day cosmological closure value (i.e. $`m_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}}<10^{60}m__\mathrm{P}`$), it is effectively negligible for our present purpose, i.e. we can set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__4=0`$. This means that the effective bulk cosmological constants and the corresponding curvature length and mass scales $`\mathrm{}__\mathrm{\Lambda }=m__\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ as defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }6\mathrm{}__\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ on either side of the brane will be given (using (37) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and using (24) and (37) for $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ ) by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^_\pm =6m__\mathrm{\Lambda }^{{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=8\pi \frac{m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^4}{m__\mathrm{P}^2}\mathrm{e}^{2\chi },\mathrm{}__\mathrm{\Lambda }^_\pm =\left(\frac{3}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\frac{m__\mathrm{P}}{2m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\pm \chi }.$$
(38)
In order to place some limits on the four independent unknown constants $`𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$, $`\chi `$, and the bulk mass constants it is convenient to replace $`^_\pm `$ by variable mass parameters

$$\mu ^_\pm 2\mathrm{G}^_\pm \left(1\pm \frac{\mathrm{th}\chi }{(1+\epsilon )^2}\right).$$
(39)
With this notation, we can convert (34) to the form

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi \rho }{3m__\mathrm{P}^2}\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }__4}{3}+\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(40)
in which the final term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents the deviation from the traditional Friedmann equation and is expressible as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\pi ^2\mathrm{G}\rho \right)^2\left(1+\frac{(3+2\epsilon )\mathrm{th}^2\chi }{(1+\epsilon )^2}\right)+\left(\frac{[]}{2\pi ^2a^4𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}(1+\epsilon )}\right)^2+\frac{\mu }{a^4},$$
(41)
in which the first two terms are manifestly positive definite. Furthemore if (unlike some authors who, in scenarios involving more than one brane, have envisaged negative mass densities) we make the traditional assumption that all external mass distributions must be positive (hence $`^_\pm 0`$), then it can be deduced from the expression (39) that both variables $`\mu ^_+`$ and $`\mu ^{_{}}`$ must also be everywhere positive, though in the case of the latter only marginally if $`\chi `$ is large.

Before proceeding to exploit these positivity properties for the purpose of placing limits on the parameters involved, we need to start by choosing a convenient normalisation for the scale factor $`a`$. Since the spacial curvature factor $`k`$ is too small to have been reliably measured yet ($`k=0`$ being a plausible possibility and certainly a good approximation), the mathematically convenient choice $`k=1`$ is in practice unavailable. Whatever $`k`$ may be, a physically convenient choice is to normalise the present value of the scale factor $`a`$ to agree with the length scale characterising the cosmological background radiation temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, i.e. to simply to take $`a=\mathrm{\Theta }^1`$. This normalisation has the advantage that it holds when extrapolated backwards in time so long as photon creation processes remain insignificant, which means ever since the temperature dropped below the electon positron pair creation threshold given by $`\mathrm{\Theta }2m_\mathrm{e}`$.

In particular the temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}`$ of nucleosynthesis, which is of greatest interest for the purpose of obtaining rigourous observational constraints, lies in the range $`0<\mathrm{\Theta }<2m__\mathrm{e}`$ in which the product $`a\mathrm{\Theta }`$ remains constant. Moreover throughout the radiation dominated era during which

$$\rho =\frac{\pi ^2g_{}}{30}\mathrm{\Theta }^4$$
(42)
the order of magnitude relation $`\mathrm{\Theta }a^1`$ will still be valid as a useful approximation so long as the dimensionless coefficient $`g_{}`$ representing the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom remains comparable with its usual value $`g_{}10.75`$ at nucleosynthesis. Under such conditions, with $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__4`$ now set to zero (since they are negligible in that era), one can rewrite (40) as

$$\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi \rho }{3m__\mathrm{P}^2}+\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(43)
The deviation term (41) can be expressed in terms of correspondingly normalised “bulk” mass scales $`m__\mathrm{B}^_\pm ^_\pm /2\pi ^2`$ (representing the distant external mass associated with a small comoving volume of size $`a^3)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{4\pi }{3𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}}\left(\frac{\rho \mathrm{ch}\chi }{m__\mathrm{P}}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{(3+2\epsilon )\mathrm{th}^2\chi }{(1+\epsilon )^2}\right)+\left(\frac{[m__\mathrm{B}]\mathrm{\Theta }^4}{𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}(1+\epsilon )}\right)^2+\frac{\mu ^_+\mathrm{\Theta }^4}{2}+\frac{\mu ^{_{}}\mathrm{\Theta }^4}{2}.$$
(44)
Since each terms is positive, the condition that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be small compared with the leading term in (43) when $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}`$ imposes this smallness requirement on each of the four separate terms in (44). The constraint on the first term gives the basic requirement that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{ch}\chi \sqrt{\frac{15}{2\pi ^2g_{}}}m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},$$
(45)
with the convenient corollary that the value of $`\epsilon `$ at the time of nucleosynthesis satisfies $`\epsilon __\mathrm{N}1`$ throughout the range $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}`$ (and considerably beyond if $`\chi `$ is large). From the second term, one obtains the requirement

$$\left|[m__\mathrm{B}]\right|\sqrt{\frac{4\pi ^3g_{}}{45}}\frac{m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{4}}{m__\mathrm{P}\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$
(46)
One can understand these two constraints by expanding $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in series with respect to $`\epsilon 1`$; they simply state that the terms scaling faster than $`\mathrm{\Theta }^4`$ (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Theta }^8`$…) are negligible at the time of nucleosynthesis, thus explaining the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}`$ in (45) and (46). The third and fourth terms in (44) scale as radiation, thus behaving like extra relativistic degrees of freedom which are constrained by the fact that $`g_{}`$ cannot deviate for more than 20% from its expected value $`g_{}=10.75`$. If we choose an orientation convention so that $`e_{_{\{4\}}}F`$ is positive (thus implying that $`\chi 0`$) then the constraint on the third term of (44) gives the requirement

$$m__\mathrm{B}^_+\mathrm{ch}\chi \frac{2\pi ^2g_{}}{15}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}\frac{m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m__\mathrm{P}}.$$
(47)
Due to the possibility of partial cancellation, the condition obtained from the last term in (44) is less restrictive: by (45), since $`\epsilon __\mathrm{N}\mathrm{ch}^2\chi 1`$, it is expressible as

$$\frac{m__\mathrm{B}^{_{}}}{\mathrm{ch}\chi }\frac{2\pi ^2g_{}}{15}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}\frac{m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m__\mathrm{P}}.$$
(48)
As expected, these two conditions are independent of $`\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}`$ since the contributions of the terms in $`\mu ^_\pm `$ are proportional to that of the radiation.

Using that $`\left|[m__\mathrm{B}]\right|<m__\mathrm{B}^_++m__\mathrm{B}^{_{}}`$ and that $`\mathrm{ch}\chi +1/\mathrm{ch}\chi <2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\chi `$, we deduce that $`\left|[m__\mathrm{B}]\right|<4\pi ^2\sqrt{\pi /3}m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/(15m__\mathrm{P})`$, and thus that the condition (45) on $`\chi `$ leads to the constraint (46). This means that (46) is not needed as an independent condition, but is an automatic consequence of the other three conditions (45), (47) and (48).

Furthermore experimental limits on deviations from the Newtonian law of gravity imply an upper bound  on the length scale $`\mathrm{}__\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and a corresponding lower bound on the mass scale $`m__\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the bulk. Since no such deviation has been detected above a millimeter , the present bound is $`m__\mathrm{\Lambda }>10^3`$eV, which happens to be comparable with present temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }__0`$ of the cosmic microwave background, and can thus be written as

$$m__\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Theta }__0.$$
(49)
Previous discussions  of this bound considered only scenarios characterised by Z2 reflection symmetry. When this symmetry is broken, the bound on the cosmological length scale, and by (29 and (32) on the corresponding asymptotic curvature limit $`K_{\mu \nu }^_\pm \pm m__\mathrm{\Lambda }^_\pm \gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ as $`a\mathrm{}`$, must presumably be satisfied on each side separately. Since our orientation convention is such that $`\mathrm{}__\mathrm{\Lambda }^_+`$ is greater than $`\mathrm{}__\mathrm{\Lambda }^{_{}}`$ we deduce that in the generic case the mass values given by (38) will be characterised by

$$m__\mathrm{\Lambda }^{_{}}m__\mathrm{\Lambda }^_+>\mathrm{\Theta }__0.$$
(50)
## 5 Implications and conclusions

The requirement (50) is evidently most severe for what, according to our convention, is the negative side of the brane, so by (38) it gives an order of magnitude restriction expressible as

$$m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}>\sqrt{\frac{3}{\pi }}\mathrm{\Theta }__0m__\mathrm{P}\mathrm{ch}\chi .$$
(51)
This is evidently strong enough to ensure that (45) will be satisfied as an automatic consequence. Nucleosynthesis and laboratory experiments on the gravitational force thus provide just three independent constraints. One of them is given by (51), and the two others are (47) and (48), which can be combined as

$$m__\mathrm{B}^_\pm \frac{2\pi ^2}{15}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}\frac{m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m__\mathrm{P}}\left(\mathrm{ch}\chi \right)^1.$$
(52)
If $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$ has the minimum value allowed by (51), i.e. $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`(3/\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{\Theta }__0m__\mathrm{P}\mathrm{ch}\chi `$, then (52) simply gives

$$m__\mathrm{B}^_+\frac{2\pi ^2}{15}\mathrm{\Theta }__0,m__\mathrm{B}^{_{}}\frac{2\pi ^2}{15}\mathrm{\Theta }__0(\mathrm{ch}\chi )^2.$$
(53)
To estimate the orders of magnitude imposed by the three constraints (51) and (52), we use the approximate values $`\mathrm{\Theta }__02\times 10^{13}`$GeV, $`m__\mathrm{P}10^{19}`$GeV and $`\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}1`$MeV, respectively for the cosmic background radiation temperature, the Planck mass and the nucleosynthesis temperature. It is convenient to distinguish two regimes as follows.

1. Type I scenarios, characterised by $`\chi <1`$: in these scenarios the contribution $`e_{_{\{4\}}}F`$ is relatively unimportant both in (35) and (36). Using $`\mathrm{ch}\chi 1`$, we deduce from (51) that the mass scale specifying the limiting value of the brane tension, $`𝒯_{_{\mathrm{}}}=m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$, must satisfy

$$m_{_{\mathrm{}}}>10^6\mathrm{\Theta }__\mathrm{N}1\text{TeV},$$
(54)
which is the same as in the usual Z2 reflection symmetric scenarios. In this case, from (52), the two external mass scales satisfy the same constraint

$$m__\mathrm{B}^_\pm \frac{2\pi ^2}{15}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3}}\frac{m_{_{\mathrm{}}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m__\mathrm{P}},$$
(55)
which in the limit $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}1\text{TeV}`$ gives $`m__\mathrm{B}^_\pm 10^{10}\text{MeV}`$.
2. Type II scenarios, characterised by $`\chi 1`$: in these scenarios the contribution $`e_{_{\{4\}}}F`$ from the gauge field is very large, so there has to be a a fine tuning between its value and that of the correspondingly large five dimensional gravitational constant $`\mathrm{G}`$ to as to get the relatively small observed value of $`\mathrm{G}__4`$ by (35). In this case (54) is to be replaced by a more restrictive condition of the form

$$m_{_{\mathrm{}}}>(\mathrm{ch}\chi )^{1/2}\text{TeV}.$$
(56)
In such scenarios the external mass scales satisfy different constraints. In particular if the brane mass scale has the minimum value $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}(\mathrm{ch}\chi )^{1/2}\text{TeV}`$ allowed by (56) we get $`m__\mathrm{B}^_+10^{10}\text{MeV}`$ which is the same as before, but on the other side (52) gives the potentially much less restrictive condition $`m__\mathrm{B}^{_{}}10^{10}(\mathrm{ch}\chi )^2\text{MeV}`$.

To sum up, in this article we have introduced the simplest conceivable coupling to an external gauge field, which has been shown to be compatible with staticity. Like the effect  of external masses, this “brawn” coupling breaks the Z2 reflection symmetry and gives a mechanism for the set up considered for instance by Deruelle and Doležel , Stoica et al. , Perkins , Davis et al.  and Bowcock et al. . We have given a simple self contained derivation of the generalised Friedmann equation which now depends on five adjustable parameters, and we have used its Friedmannian limit to identify the four dimensional Newton constant and cosmological constant. The 4 independent parameters involved, namely the hyperbolic angle $`\chi `$, the brane tension mass scale $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$, and the external masses per thermal volume $`m__\mathrm{B}^_+`$ and $`m__\mathrm{B}^{_{}}`$ (2 more than are needed for the reflection symmetric case in which $`\chi =0`$ and $`m__\mathrm{B}^_+=m__\mathrm{B}^{_{}}`$) have been shown to be subjet to 3 independent constraints (one more than in the symmetric case) of which two arise from nucleosynthesis measurements and one from gravitational laboratory experiments above a millimeter. We distinguish two kinds of regime depending on the value of the hyperbolic angle $`\chi `$ that characterises the relative importance of the “brawn” field. In the type II case for which this parameter is large the external mass scale can (on one but not both sides) be much larger than in the usual reflection symmetric case, but for this to be possible the brane mass scale $`m_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$ must also be much larger that its usual lower limit of the order of a TeV.


text:
# Hyperbolic hypersurfaces in ℙ^𝑛 of Fermat-Waring type

(Date: January 12, 2001)

## Abstract.

In this note we show that there are algebraic families of hyperbolic, Fermat-Waring type hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ of degree $`4(n1)^2`$, for all dimensions $`n2`$. Moreover, there are hyperbolic Fermat-Waring hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ of degree $`4n^22n+1`$ possessing complete hyperbolic, hyperbolically embedded complements.

Research of the first author partially supported by NSF grant #DMS-9800479.

Many examples have been given of hyperbolic hypersurfaces in $`^3`$ (e.g., see \[ShZa\] and the literature therein). Examples of degree 10 hyperbolic surfaces in $`^3`$ were recently found by Shirosaki \[Shr2\], who also gave examples of hyperbolic hypersurfaces with hyperbolic complements in $`^3`$ and $`^4`$ \[Shr1\]. Fujimoto \[Fu2\] then improved Shirosaki’s construction to give examples of degree 8. Answering a question posed in \[Za3\], Masuda and Noguchi \[MaNo\] constructed the first examples of hyperbolic projective hypersurfaces, including those with complete hyperbolic complements, in any dimension. Improving the degree estimates of \[MaNo\], Siu and Yeung \[SiYe\] gave examples of hyperbolic hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ of degree $`16(n1)^2`$. (Fujimoto’s recent construction \[Fu2\] provides examples of degree $`2^n`$.) We remark that it was conjectured in 1970 by S. Kobayashi that generic hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ of (presumably) degree $`2n1`$ are hyperbolic (for $`n=3`$, see \[DeEl\] and \[Mc\]).

The following result is an improvement of the example of Siu-Yeung \[SiYe\]:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`d(m1)^2`$, $`m2n1`$. Then for generic linear functions $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_m`$ on $`^{n+1}`$, the hypersurface

$$X_{n1}=\{z^n:\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}h_j(z)^d=0\}$$

is hyperbolic. In particular, there exist algebraic families of hyperbolic hypersurfaces of degree $`4(n1)^2`$ in $`^n`$.

Equivalently, $`X_{n1}`$ is the intersection of the Fermat hypersurface of degree $`d`$ in $`^{m1}`$ with a generic $`n`$-plane. The low-dimensional cases $`n4`$ of Theorem 1 were given by Shirosaki \[Shr1\]. Our construction is similar to those of \[SiYe\] and \[Shr1\].

On the other hand, examples were given in \[Za2\] of smooth curves of degree 5 in $`^2`$, with hyperbolically embedded, complete hyperbolic complements. Examples of hyperbolically embedded hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ with complete hyperbolic complements were given in \[MaNo\] for all $`n`$, and in \[Shr1\] for $`n4`$ (with lower degrees). The following result generalizes the result of Shirosaki \[Shr1\] to all dimensions.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`dm^2m+1`$, $`m2n`$. Then for generic linear functions $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_m`$ on $`^{n+1}`$, the complement $`^nX_{n1}`$ of the hypersurface of Theorem 1 is complete hyperbolic and hyperbolically embedded in $`^n`$. In particular, there exist algebraic families of hyperbolic hypersurfaces of degree $`4n^22n+1`$ in $`^n`$ with hyperbolically embedded, complete hyperbolic complements.

In particular, Theorem 2 provides algebraic families of curves of degree 13 in $`^2`$, of surfaces of degree 31 in $`^3`$, and so forth, whose complements are complete hyperbolic and hyperbolically embedded in projective space.

We shall use the following notation and lemma in our proofs of Theorems 1 and 2: We let $`\mathrm{Gr}_{m,k}`$ denote the Grassmannian of complex codimension $`k`$ subspaces of $`^m`$, and we write

$$Q_{m,k}=0_k\times ^{mk}\mathrm{Gr}_{m,k}.$$

Furthermore, for

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& & a& & c& & m\hfill \\ 1& & b& & c& & a+b\hfill \end{array},$$

we define

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m,a,b,c}=\{V\mathrm{Gr}_{m,a}:dimVQ_{m,b}mc\}.$$

###### Lemma 3.

$`dim\mathrm{Gr}_{m,a}dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m,a,b,c}=(mc)(a+bc).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{Mat}_{m,a}=\mathrm{Hom}(^m,^a)`$, and let $`\mathrm{M}_{m,a}\mathrm{Mat}_{m,a}`$ denote the surjective homomorphisms. We consider the fiber bundle

$$\begin{array}{ccc}GL(a)\hfill & \hfill & \mathrm{M}_{m,a}\hfill \\ & & \pi \pi (A)=\mathrm{ker}A\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{Gr}_{m,a}\hfill \end{array}.$$

We let

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}:=\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{A\mathrm{M}_{m,a}:dim\left(\mathrm{ker}A|_{Q_{m,b}}\right)mc\};$$

whence

$$dim\mathrm{M}_{m,a}dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=dim\mathrm{Gr}_{m,a}dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m,a,b,c}.$$

Suppose $`A\mathrm{M}_{m,a}`$; i.e., $`A`$ is an $`a\times m`$ matrix of rank $`a`$. We consider

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\left(\begin{array}{c}I_b0\\ \\ A\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_b& 0\\ B& A^{}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{M}_{m,a+b},$$

where $`B\mathrm{Mat}_{b,a},A^{}\mathrm{Mat}_{mb,a}`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{A}=\mathrm{ker}A|_{Q_{m,b}}`$ and thus

$$A\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}dim(\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{A})mc\mathrm{rank}\stackrel{~}{A}c\mathrm{rank}A^{}cb.$$

It is easily seen that

$$\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{Mat}_{k,l}}\{C\mathrm{Mat}_{k,l}:\mathrm{rank}Cr\}=(kr)(lr).$$

Therefore,

$`\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{M}_{m,a}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{Mat}_{mb,a}}\{A^{}:\mathrm{rank}A^{}cb\}`$
$`=`$ $`[(mb)(cb)][a(cb)]`$
$`=`$ $`(mc)(a+bc).`$
Proof of Theorem 1: Consider the Fermat hypersurface

$$F_d:=\{(z_1:\mathrm{}:z_m)^{m1}:\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}z_j^d=0\}$$

of degree $`d`$ in $`^{m1}`$. Suppose that $`d(m1)^2,m2n1`$. We must show that $`X_d:=F_dV`$ is hyperbolic for a generic $`V\mathrm{Gr}_{m,mn1}`$.

Suppose that $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m):X_d`$ is a holomorphic curve. By Brody’s theorem \[Br\], it suffices to show that $`f`$ is constant. We write $`J_m=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Let

$$I_0=\{jJ_m:f_j=0\}.$$

(Of course, $`I_0`$ may be empty.) We let $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_l`$ denote the equivalence classes in $`J_mI_0`$ under the equivalence relation

$$jkf_j/f_k=\text{constant}.$$

We let $`k_\alpha =\mathrm{card}I_\alpha `$ and we write

$$I_\alpha =\{i(\alpha ,1),\mathrm{},i(\alpha ,k_\alpha )\},$$

for $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},l`$, and also for $`\alpha =0`$ if $`k_01`$.

The result of Toda \[To\], Fujimoto \[Fu1\], and M. Green \[Gr\] says that for $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},l`$, we have $`k_\alpha 2`$ and furthermore the constants

$$\mu _{\alpha j}:=f_{i(\alpha ,j)}/f_{i(\alpha ,1)}\{0\}(1\alpha l,2jk_\alpha )$$

satisfy

$$1+\underset{j=2}{\overset{k_\alpha }{}}\mu _{\alpha j}^d=0.$$

Geometrically, the image $`f()`$ is contained in the projective $`l`$-plane $`Y_\mu ^{}`$ given by the equations

$$z_{i(\alpha ,j)}=\mu _{\alpha j}z_{i(\alpha ,1)},2jk_\alpha ,1\alpha l;z_{i(0,j)}=0,1jk_0.$$

Here, $``$ denotes the partition $`\{I_0,I_1,\mathrm{},I_l\}`$ of $`J_m`$, and $`\mu =\{\mu _{\alpha j}\}`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\mu ^{}^m`$ be the lift of $`Y_\mu ^{}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\mu ^{}\mathrm{Gr}_{m,ml}`$. If $`l=1`$, then $`Y_\mu ^{}`$ is a point. Otherwise, we consider $`Y_\mu ^{}V`$ for generic $`V\mathrm{Gr}_{m,mn1}`$. Applying Lemma 3 with

$$a=mn1,b=ml,c=m2$$

(changing coordinates to make $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\mu ^{}=Q_{m,ml}`$), we conclude that $`Y_\mu ^{}V`$ is either a point or is empty, i.e. $`dim(\stackrel{~}{Y}_\mu ^{}V)<2`$, unless $`V`$ lies in a subvariety of $`\mathrm{Gr}_{m,mn1}`$ of codimension

$$s=\left[m(m2)\right]\left[(mn1)+(ml)(m2)\right]=2(mnl+1).$$

But given a partition $``$, the $`\mu `$-moduli space of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\mu ^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{Gr}_{m,ml}`$ has dimension

$$\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{l}{}}(k_\alpha 2)=mk_02lm2l.$$

Since $`m2n1`$, we have $`sm2l+1`$ and thus for generic $`V\mathrm{Gr}_{m,mn1}`$, $`Y_\mu ^{}V`$ is at most a point for all $`(,\mu )`$. Since $`f()Y_\mu ^{}V`$ for some $`Y_\mu ^{}`$, it follows that $`f`$ must be constant.∎

Proof of Theorem 2: Suppose that $`dm^2m+1,m2n`$. Since by Theorem 1, $`X_{n1}`$ is hyperbolic for generic $`h_j`$, it suffices to show that any entire curve $`f:^n\backslash X_{n1}`$ is constant (see e.g., \[Za2\]).

We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 1. Suppose that $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m):^nX_{n1}`$ is a holomorphic curve. As before, let $`I_0=\{jJ_m:f_j=0\}`$, and let $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_l`$ denote the equivalence classes in $`J_mI_0`$ under the equivalence relation

$$jkf_j/f_k=\text{constant}.$$

Since $`d>m(m1)`$, by \[To, Fu1, Gr\] we have

$$k_\alpha 2\text{and }1+\underset{j=2}{\overset{k_\alpha }{}}\mu _{\alpha j}^d=0\text{for }2\alpha l,$$

after permuting the $`I_\alpha `$ and using our previous notation. (Also, $`k_11`$, but $`1+_{j=2}^{k_1}\mu _{1j}^d0`$.) The proof of this result proceeds by considering the map $`(f_0,\mathrm{},f_m):F_d^m`$, where $`f_0=_{j=1}^mf_j^d=e^\phi `$. (We let $`I_1=\{j:f_j/f_0=\text{constant}\}\mathrm{}`$.) The better estimate for $`d`$ arises from the fact that $`f_0`$ has no zeros.

As before, the image $`f()`$ is contained in the projective $`l`$-plane $`Y_\mu ^{}`$, and $`Y_\mu ^{}V`$ is either a point or is empty, unless $`V`$ lies in a subvariety of $`\mathrm{Gr}_{m,mn1}`$ of codimension $`s=2(mnl+1)`$. But this time, the $`\mu `$-moduli space of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\mu ^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{Gr}_{m,ml}`$ has dimension

$$k_11+\underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{l}{}}(k_\alpha 2)=mk_02l+1m2l+1.$$

Since $`m2n`$, we have $`s>m2l+1`$ and hence for generic $`V\mathrm{Gr}_{m,mn1}`$, $`Y_\mu ^{}V`$ is a point or is empty for all $`(,\mu )`$. ∎

Remark: Note that the algebraic family of degree $`d=(m1)^2`$ hyperbolic hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ constructed in Theorem 1 has dimension $`(n+1)m1`$, as does the family of Theorem 2. (Recall that in Theorem 1, $`m2n1`$, whereas in Theorem 2, $`m2n`$.) By the stability of hyperbolicity theorems (see \[Za2\]), in the corresponding projective spaces of degree $`d`$ hypersurfaces, both families possess open neighborhoods consisting of hyperbolic hypersurfaces, with hyperbolically embedded complements in the second case. We note finally that the best possible lower bound for the degree of a hypersurface in $`^n`$ with hyperbolic complement should be $`d=2n+1`$ (see \[Za1\]), and the degree $`2n3`$ hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ are definitely not hyperbolic because they contain projective lines. (In fact, starting with $`n=6`$, these lines are the only rational curves on a generic hypersurface of degree $`2n3`$ in $`^n`$; see \[Pa\].)

Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Jean-Pierre Demailly and Junjiro Noguchi for useful discussions. The first author also thanks Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, and the University of Tokyo for their hospitality.