text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, a lot of attention has been paid to topological objects such as domain walls , , junctions  in field theories, and branes in string theories . An interesting idea has been advocated that our four-dimensional world may be realized on these topological objects embedded in higher dimensional spacetime . In this “brane world” scenario, most of the particles in the standard model should be obtained as modes localized on the topological defects. These models are based on the fact that the Newton’s law for the gravitational force is tested only at short distances of the order of a hundred microns . In view of the possibility of a fundamental theory in higher dimensions such as the ten-dimensional superstring, it is desirable to have a model with more extra dimensions and with supersymmetry. In fact, a model for supersymmetry breaking has been proposed based on the coexistence of branes .

Another fascinating possibility has also been proposed to consider walls in five-dimensional spacetime with a negative cosmological constant . It has been recognized that the graviton in our four-dimensional world can be obtained as a zero mode localized on the wall embedded in the five-dimensional curved spacetime . The model has been extended to intersections of walls in higher dimensional AdS spacetime . Topological defects of codimension two ,  and more  have also been studied. Following the Kaluza-Klein idea, the graviton field in the bulk is decomposed into spin 2 graviton, spin 1 graviphoton, and spin 0 graviscalar fields in four-dimensional spacetime. It has been shown that the spin 0 field becomes unphysical for an isolated wall, but becomes a physical scalar field called radion if there are two or more walls . The graviphoton has also been studied in the case of walls in five dimensions . However, these scalar and vector fields are not well studied in the case of topological defects in higher dimensional spacetime. The contributions from the spin 2 gravitons to the Newton potential for the gravitational force have been obtained, but the contributions from spin 1 and spin 0 fields are still an open question in these higher dimensional models. A number of works also explored the possible extensions of the model to higher extra dimensions . It is important to study the coexistence of these topological defects in higher dimensional spacetime to build a model from a fundamental theory with higher spacetime dimensions and/or higher supersymmetry .

The purpose of this paper is to construct a model for our four-dimensional world as an intersection of a wall (codimension one) and a string-like defect (codimension two) and to obtain corrections to the gravitational Newton potential by working out the spin 2 modes on the background. We find a configuration of a four-dimensional intersection of a wall and a string-like defect in seven-dimensional spacetime. We obtain a four-dimensional graviton as a zero mode localized on the intersection. It turns out necessary to have a matter energy-momentum tensor besides the cosmological constant on the topological defects. The correction to the Newton’s law is found to be similar to that of the wall in five dimensions contrary to the string-like defect in six dimensions. We also work out generalizations to intersections of a string-like defect and $`n`$ orthogonally intersecting walls in ($`6+n`$) dimensional spacetime. A single massless graviton is found to be localized at the intersection and the leading correction to the Newton potential is found to be similar to the single wall case. We leave the study of the spin 1 and spin 0 fields for a future work.

In sect. 2, we will study the solution of the Einstein equation representing the intersection of walls and a string-like defect embedded in seven-dimensional spacetime. The modes on the background of intersection of walls and a string-like defect are obtained, and the correction for the gravitational Newton potential is worked out in sect. 3. In sect. 4 the extension of the solution is obtained for the intersection of a string-like defect and $`n`$ orthogonally intersecting walls in higher dimensional spacetime.

## 2 Intersection of a Wall and a String-like Defect

In order to consider an intersection of parallel walls and a string-like defect, we will work on a seven-dimensional spacetime. The indices for the bulk spacetime coordinates are denoted by capital alphabets $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ throughout this paper. Following Ref., we will compactify one of the extra dimensions and make an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ by identifying points under the reflection : $`yy`$. Two parallel five-branes (walls) with vanishing widths are placed at the fixed points of the orbifold: $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_c`$. The polar coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ for the two more extra dimensions perpendicular to the $`y`$ direction take values $`0r<\mathrm{}`$, and $`0\theta <2\pi `$. Perpendicular to the walls lies a four-brane (string-like defect) at $`r=0`$. We will consider an infinitesimal thickness of radial size $`\epsilon `$ for the string like defect following Ref.. Denoting the metric and scalar curvature in seven dimensions by $`\widehat{g}`$ and $`\widehat{R}`$ respectively, the action is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^7x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(\frac{1}{2}M_7{}_{}{}^{5}\widehat{R}\mathrm{\Lambda }_7\right)}+{\displaystyle _{y=0}}d^6x\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(1)}}\left(_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)}\right)`$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle _{y=y_c}}d^6x\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(2)}}\left(_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(2)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)}\right)+{\displaystyle d^7x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_{\mathrm{string}}}.`$
where $`M_7`$ is the seven-dimensional Planck scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_7`$ is a bulk cosmological constant and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)}`$ are tensions of five-branes (walls) which lie at $`y=0,y_c`$ respectively. The matter part of the Lagrangian for the walls are denoted as $`_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(1)},_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(2)}`$ and that for the string-like defect as $`_{\mathrm{string}}`$. Here we explicitly separated out the wall tensions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)}`$ from the matter Lagrangians on the walls, but we included the string tension in the Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{string}}`$ of the string-like defect. The induced metrics on the five-branes are denoted by $`\overline{g}`$

$`\overline{g}_{AB}^{(1)}\widehat{g}_{AB}|_{y=0},\overline{g}_{AB}^{(2)}\widehat{g}_{AB}|_{y=y_c},`$ (2.2)
for indices $`A,B=0,1,2,3,r,\theta `$. Indices for the coordinates of our four-dimensional spacetime are denoted by Greek alphabets as $`x^\mu =0,\mathrm{},3`$.

We will look for a solution that respects four-dimensional Poincaré invariance in the intersection. Let us assume the following ansatz for the seven-dimensional metric

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{AB}dx^Adx^B`$ (2.3)
$`=`$ $`\sigma (y,r)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dy^2dr^2\gamma (y,r)d\theta ^2.`$
This metric has two kinds of warp factors $`\sigma (y,r)`$ and $`\gamma (y,r)`$. The seven-dimensional Einstein equations for the action (2.1) is given by

$`\widehat{R}_{AB}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{AB}\widehat{R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_7\widehat{g}_{AB}+\widehat{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}+(\overline{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{wall1})}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}}^{(1)}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\overline{g}_{AB}^{(1)}\delta (y)`$ (2.4)
$`+`$ $`(\overline{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{wall2})}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}}^{(2)}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\overline{g}_{AB}^{(2)}\delta (yy_c)],A,B=0,\mathrm{},3,r,\theta ,`$
if the indices $`A,B`$ do not contain $`y`$ component. If at least one of the indices $`A,B`$ corresponds to the $`y`$ component, the Einstein equation becomes

$`\widehat{R}_{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{AB}\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_7\widehat{g}_{AB}+\widehat{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}\right],A\mathrm{or}B=y.`$ (2.5)
The energy-momentum tensors for the string-like defect and the walls are defined as

$`\widehat{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_{\mathrm{string}}\right)}{\widehat{g}^{AB}}},`$
$`\overline{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{wall1})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(1)}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{\overline{g}}_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(1)}\right)}{\overline{g}^{(1)}^{AB}}},\overline{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{wall2})}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(2)}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(2)}}_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(2)}\right)}{\overline{g}^{(2)}^{AB}}}.`$ (2.6)
Let us note that the ratios $`\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(1)}}/\sqrt{\widehat{g}}`$ and $`\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(2)}}/\sqrt{\widehat{g}}`$ at the five-branes in Eq.(2.4) reduce to $`1`$ for the metric (2.3).

The non-zero components of the energy-momentum tensor from the matter sources on the wall at $`y=0`$ are assumed as

$`\overline{T}^{(\mathrm{wall1})}{}_{\nu }{}^{\mu }=t_0^{(1)}(r)\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\overline{T}^{(\mathrm{wall1})}{}_{r}{}^{r}=t_r^{(1)}(r),\overline{T}^{(\mathrm{wall1})}{}_{\theta }{}^{\theta }=t_\theta ^{(1)}(r),`$ (2.7)
where the $`r`$-dependence of $`t_0^{(1)},t_r^{(1)},t_\theta ^{(1)}`$ will be given later. A similar form is assumed for the energy-momentum tensor $`\overline{T}^{(\mathrm{wall2})}_B^A`$ on the other wall at $`y=y_c`$. On the other hand, we assume that the matter source for the string-like defect is distributed continuously within the core of radius $`\epsilon `$ and vanishes outside of it. The non-zero components of the energy-momentum tensor are assumed as

$`\widehat{T}^{(\mathrm{string})}{}_{\nu }{}^{\mu }=f_0(y,r)\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\widehat{T}^{(\mathrm{string})}{}_{y}{}^{y}=f_y(y,r),\widehat{T}^{(\mathrm{string})}{}_{r}{}^{y}=f_{yr}(y,r),`$
$`\widehat{T}^{(\mathrm{string})}{}_{r}{}^{r}=f_r(y,r),\widehat{T}^{(\mathrm{string})}{}_{\theta }{}^{\theta }=f_\theta (y,r),`$ (2.8)
where the $`(y,r)`$-dependence of $`f_0,f_y,f_{yr},f_r,f_\theta `$ will be given later.

Using the ansatz of the metric (2.3) and the energy-momentum tensors (2.7) (2.8), the Einstein equations (2.4), (2.5) now become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}}{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }}{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\gamma }}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }^2}{\gamma ^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_7+f_0(y,r)+(t_0^{(1)}(r)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)})\delta (y)+(t_0^{(2)}(r)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)})\delta (yy_c)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}}{\gamma }}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma ^2}}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }}{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\gamma }}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }^2}{\gamma ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_7+f_y(y,r)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }^{}}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }^{}}{\gamma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}f_{yr}(y,r),`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}}{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\gamma }}{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }^2}{\sigma ^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_7+f_r(y,r)+(t_r^{(1)}(r)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)})\delta (y)+(t_r^{(2)}(r)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)})\delta (yy_c)\right],`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }^2}{\sigma ^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^5}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_7+f_\theta (y,r)+(t_\theta ^{(1)}(r)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)})\delta (y)+(t_\theta ^{(1)}(r)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)})\delta (yy_c)\right],`$ (2.13)
where the dash $`(^{})`$ and the dot $`(\dot{})`$ denote partial differentiations $`_y`$ and $`_r`$ respectively.

The boundary conditions at $`r=0`$ are assumed as

$$_r\sigma |_{r=0}=0,_r\sqrt{\gamma }|_{r=0}=1,\gamma |_{r=0}=0.$$
(2.14)
These conditions are consistent with the usual regular solution in flat space so that $`r=0`$ can be regarded as a regular origin of the polar coordinates ($`r,\theta `$).

We assume that the solutions outside the core of the string-like defect ($`r>\epsilon `$) take the form

$`\sigma (y,r)=e^{a|y|br},\gamma (y,r)=R_0{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{c|y|dr},`$ (2.15)
which is consistent with the orbifold symmetry $`yy`$ . The coefficient $`R_0`$ is a constant for the length scale and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$ are constants with the dimension of mass. We assume that the warp factors do not diverge as $`r`$ goes to infinity

$$b0,d0.$$
(2.16)
Substituting Eq.(2.15) into the Einstein equations (2)–(2.13), we obtain solutions

$`c=\pm 2b,d=2a,`$ (2.17)
where the upper and lower signs are for $`a0`$ and $`a0`$ respectively. The constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ are related by

$$a^2+b^2=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_7}{5M_7^5},$$
(2.18)
which means that this solution requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_7<0`$. Here we have one parameter family of solutions that are locally related by an $`SO(2)`$ rotation of $`(y,r)`$-space, apart from the range of $`(y,r)`$ that is covered.

From the boundary conditions at $`y=0,y_c`$, the components of the energy-momentum tensor from the walls for $`r>\epsilon `$ must be

$`t_0^{(1)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M_7{}_{}{}^{5}(3a\pm 2b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},`$
$`t_r^{(1)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M_7{}_{}{}^{5}(4a\pm 2b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},`$
$`t_\theta ^{(1)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4M_7{}_{}{}^{5}a\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},`$ (2.19)
$`t_0^{(2)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M_7{}_{}{}^{5}(3a2b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)},`$
$`t_r^{(2)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`M_7{}_{}{}^{5}(4a2b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)},`$
$`t_\theta ^{(2)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4M_7{}_{}{}^{5}a\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(2)}.`$ (2.20)
Therefore we can find a solution for $`a`$ and $`b`$ only if the energy-momentum tensors $`t^{(1)},t^{(2)}`$’s from matter sources are present on the walls. It is also interesting to observe that the matter energy-momentum tensors $`t^{(1)},t^{(2)}`$’s on the walls are independent of the position $`(r,\theta )`$ on the wall outside the intersection region $`r>\epsilon `$.

Let us examine the Einstein equations near the core of the string-like defect $`0r<\epsilon `$. The components of the string tension are obtained by integrating over the disk of small radius $`\epsilon `$ containing the string core as

$`\mu _I={\displaystyle _0^\epsilon }𝑑r\sigma ^2\sqrt{\gamma }f_I(y,r),`$ (2.21)
where $`I=0,y,yr,r,\theta `$. Even without specifying the warp factors inside the string core explicitly, the Einstein equations (2)-(2.13) and the boundary conditions (2.14) require the components of the string tension to satisfy the following relations

$`\left[\sigma (_r\sigma )\sqrt{\gamma }\right]_0^\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{M_7^5}}(\mu _r+\mu _\theta ),`$ (2.22)
$`\left[\sigma ^2_r\sqrt{\gamma }\right]_0^\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_7^5}}(4\mu _0+\mu _r3\mu _\theta ),`$ (2.23)
$`4\mu _04\mu _y+\mu _r+\mu _\theta =0,`$ (2.24)
neglecting the order $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$ contributions. These quantities can be obtained solely in terms of the values of warp factors at the boundaries of the core $`r=0`$ and $`\epsilon `$, without specifying the warp factors explicitly inside the string core. Note that $`\mu _I`$ are functions of $`y`$ as there are warp factors which change the scale of the theory along the $`y`$-direction. Since our solutions (2.15) relate the left-hand sides of Eqs.(2.22) and (2.23), we find the following relation between the components of the string tension,

$`\pm a(\mu _y\mu _\theta )+2bM_7{}_{}{}^{5}(\mu _r+\mu _\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`b\sigma ^2(y,0).`$ (2.25)
Since more explicit form of the warp factors inside the core $`r<\epsilon `$ of the string-like defect is needed to obtain each component of the energy-momentum tensor $`\widehat{T}^{(\mathrm{string})}`$ separately, we will take the following warp factors inside the core as an illustrative example

$`\sigma (y,r)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{a|y|b\epsilon _2}\mathrm{\Theta }(\epsilon _2r)+e^{a|y|br}\mathrm{\Theta }(r\epsilon _2),`$
$`\gamma (y,r)`$ $`=`$ $`r^2\mathrm{\Theta }(\epsilon _1r)+\left\{A(y)(r\epsilon _1)+\epsilon _1^2\right\}\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }(r\epsilon _1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r\epsilon _2)\right\}`$ (2.26)
$`+R_0{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{2b|y|\pm 2ar}\mathrm{\Theta }(r\epsilon _2),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a step function, $`0<\epsilon _1<\epsilon _2=\epsilon 0`$ and

$`A(y){\displaystyle \frac{R_0{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{2b|y|\pm 2a\epsilon _2}\epsilon _1^2}{\epsilon _2\epsilon _1}}.`$ (2.27)
The behavior of the warp factors are shown in Fig.1,

The components of the string tension needed for this solution of the warp factors are given for $`y0`$ as

$`\mu _0`$ $`=`$ $`M_7{}_{}{}^{5}\{({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}b\pm a)R_0e^{(2a\pm b)|y|}e^{2a|y|}\},`$ (2.28)
$`\mu _y`$ $`=`$ $`M_7{}_{}{}^{5}\{(2b\pm a)R_0e^{(2a\pm b)|y|}e^{2a|y|}\},`$ (2.29)
$`\mu _{yr}`$ $`=`$ $`bR_0M_7{}_{}{}^{5}|y|^{}e^{(2a\pm b)|y|},`$ (2.30)
$`\mu _r`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.31)
$`\mu _\theta `$ $`=`$ $`2bR_0M_7{}_{}{}^{5}e_{}^{(2a\pm b)|y|}.`$ (2.32)
We observe that $`\mu _{yr}(y)`$ has a discontinuity at the wall $`y=0`$. Since $`\mu _{yr}(y)`$ is an odd function of $`y`$, the nonvanishing value of $`\mu _{yr}(y+0)`$ implies the discontinuity. We believe that the discontinuity comes about because we assumed a vanishing width for the wall, and that it will be smoothed out if the four-brane and five-branes are intersecting smoothly. Therefore we should understand the solution (2.3), (2.15), (2.26) as a limit of the vanishing width for the walls including the intersection region.

When we assume the above warp factors (2.26) even at the intersection region, we also obtain the energy-momentum tensor for the walls even inside the string core $`0r<\epsilon `$. We find, for instance, $`t^{(1)}`$’s are modified from Eq.(2.19) by multiplying the constant $`b`$ with a function $`B(r)`$

$$bbB(r),B(r)\left[1+\frac{\epsilon _2r}{r\epsilon _1}\left(\frac{\epsilon _1}{R_0}\right)^2\mathrm{e}^{2a\epsilon _2}\right]^1.$$
(2.33)
Therefore the components of the energy-momentum tensor $`t^{(1)}`$’s on the wall change from the constant value (2.19) outside the string core $`r>\epsilon `$ to another constant value at the center ($`0r<\epsilon _1`$) smoothly through the string core region $`0r<\epsilon `$ where the wall intersects with the string-like defect. The components of the energy-momentum tensor on the other wall $`t^{(2)}`$’s also exhibit a similar behavior.

The four-dimensional reduced Planck scale $`M_4`$ is related to the seven-dimensional Planck scale $`M_7`$ as

$$M_4{}_{}{}^{2}=M_7{}_{}{}^{5}_{0}^{y_c}dy_0^{\mathrm{}}dr_0^{2\pi }d\theta \sigma \sqrt{\gamma },$$
(2.34)
which gives after integration

$$M_4{}_{}{}^{2}=\pm \frac{2\pi R_0}{b^2a^2}(1e^{(a\pm b)y_c})M_7^5$$
(2.35)
for $`a\pm b0`$, and

$$M_4{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{\pi R_0y_c}{b}M_7^5$$
(2.36)
for $`a\pm b=0`$. If we want to consider a single wall configuration which is obtained by taking $`y_c\mathrm{}`$ and by removing the regulator brane at $`y=y_c`$, we must choose a solution which satisfies $`a\pm b>0`$.

The choice of $`b=0`$ reduces to a rather trivial solution giving a tensor product of the model of parallel walls in the five-dimensional spacetime  and a two-dimensional model with a string-like defect similar to Ref., because then the $`(r,\theta )`$-directions become completely separated from the other directions. Instead, in the rest of this paper, we will concentrate on the $`a=0`$ case solution and choose the upper sign The change of sign merely exchanges the role of two walls in this case. The choice of the upper sign corresponds to choosing the wall at $`y=0`$ as the brane with positive cosmological constant.  in (2.17) in order to obtain a finite four-dimensional reduced Planck scale even in the limit $`y_c\mathrm{}`$. We will eventually take $`y_c\mathrm{}`$ to consider the configuration of a single wall intersecting with a string-like defect at $`y=0`$ and $`r<\epsilon `$. The metric solution for $`r>\epsilon `$ (outside of the string-like defect core) now becomes

$`ds^2=e^{br}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dy^2dr^2R_0{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{2b|y|}d\theta ^2,`$ (2.37)
where

$$b=\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{5M_7^5}}.$$
(2.38)
Taking the upper sign in Eq.(2.15), excluding the regulator wall at $`y=y_c`$, and setting $`a=0`$ in Eq.(2.19), we find the energy-momentum tensor of matter fields on the wall at $`y=0`$ satisfying the Einstein equations as

$$t_0^{(1)}(r)=2bM_7{}_{}{}^{5}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},t_r^{(1)}(r)=2bM_7{}_{}{}^{5}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)},t_\theta ^{(1)}(r)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)}.$$
(2.39)
In this case, we can explicitly construct the energy-momentum tensor on the wall at $`y=0`$ by means of matter fields. Let us consider two scalar fields $`\phi ^a,a=1,2`$ on the wall with a Lagrangian density

$`_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}^{AB}_A\phi ^a_B\phi ^aV(\phi ),`$
$`V(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\phi ^a\phi ^av^2)^2,`$ (2.40)
where the indices $`A,B`$ span only over coordinates on the wall $`A,B=0,\mathrm{},3,r,\theta `$. The energy-momentum tensor is then given by

$`\overline{T}^{(\mathrm{wall1})}{}_{B}{}^{A}=\overline{g}^{AC}_C\phi ^a_B\phi ^a\delta _B^A({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}^{CD}_C\phi ^a_D\phi ^aV(\phi )).`$
The minimum of the potential $`V`$ in Eq.(2.40) is at $`\phi ^a\phi ^a=v^2`$. Therefore we can have a winding configuration of the scalar fields

$$\phi ^1=v\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\phi ^2=v\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(2.41)
which becomes stable for large values of $`\lambda `$. Then the scalar field gives an energy-momentum tensor on the wall with components

$$t_0^{(1)}=t_r^{(1)}=t_\theta ^{(1)}=\frac{v^2}{2R_0^2}.$$
(2.42)
Therefore the energy-momentum tensor (2.39) satisfying the Einstein equation is obtained if the vacuum expectation value of the scalar fields is related to the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)}`$, the Planck scale $`M_7`$ in the bulk and the warp factor slope $`b`$ in Eq.(2.38) as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{(1)}=M_7{}_{}{}^{5}b=\frac{v^2}{2R_0^2}.$$
(2.43)
## 3 Graviton on the Background of a Wall and a String

### 3.1 Massless and Massive Spin-2 Fields

Having obtained a solution for the system, we wish to find the modes on the background of the solution. We first examine whether spin 2 graviton is localized on the four-dimensional intersection region, and then check whether the resulting gravitational force is consistent with the four-dimensional experimental gravity. For these purposes, let us consider linearized equations for gravitons. We will only consider the spin 2 fields and neglect the spin 1 and spin 0 fields, which must be included for the complete analysis eventually. Let us consider the following fluctuations of metric,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=\sigma (r)\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x^A)\right].$$
(3.1)
We will choose a gauge

$$_\mu h^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}(x^A)=h^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}(x^A)=0.$$
(3.2)
Then the linearized equations of motion takes the form

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}_A\left(\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{AB}_Bh_{\mu \nu }(x^A)\right)=0.$$
(3.3)
Since we take $`a=0`$ case (2.37), we can separate the variables as

$`h_{\mu \nu }(x^A)={\displaystyle \underset{m,k,\mathrm{}}{}}h_{\mu \nu }^{(mk\mathrm{})}(x^\alpha )\varphi _{(mk)}(r)\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(y)e^{i\mathrm{}\theta },`$ (3.4)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is an integer angular momentum. Substituting the decomposition (3.4) into the linearized equations of motion (3.3), we obtain the following separated equations

$`\eta ^{\lambda \rho }_\lambda _\rho h_{\mu \nu }^{(mk\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2h_{\mu \nu }^{(mkl)},`$ (3.5)
$`_r\left(\sigma ^2_r\varphi _{(mk)}\right)+k^2\sigma ^2\varphi _{(mk)}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\sigma \varphi _{(mk)},`$ (3.6)
$`_y\left(\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}_y\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}\right)+\mathrm{}^2\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}.`$ (3.7)
Eq.(3.5) shows that the eigenvalue $`m0`$ corresponds to the mass of the four-dimensional field $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(mkl)}(x^\alpha )`$. For the differential operator in the left-hand side of Eq.(3.7) to be self-adjoint we impose the boundary conditions<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§ Another possible boundary condition is the Dirichlet boundary condition $`\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(0)=\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(y_c)=0`$. However, modes satisfying the Dirichlet boundary condition do not contain the zero mode that we are most interested in. Moreover $`Z_2`$ projection allows only the Neumann boundary condition (3.8). To obtain the corrections to the Newton potential (3.36), it is sufficient to consider (3.8).

$$\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}^{}(0)=\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}^{}(y_c)=0.$$
(3.8)
Then, we can demand the modes $`\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}`$ to satisfy the orthonormal condition

$$_0^{y_c}𝑑y\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}^{}\chi _{(k^{}\mathrm{})}=\delta _{kk^{}}.$$
(3.9)
Multiplying $`\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}`$ to Eq.(3.7) and integrating the first term of the left-hand side by parts, we obtain

$$k^2=_0^{y_c}𝑑y\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left|\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}^{}\right|^2+\mathrm{}^2_0^{y_c}𝑑y\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left|\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}\right|^20.$$
(3.10)
This equation together with Eq.(3.9) shows that $`k^2`$ is non-negative, more precisely

$`\mathrm{}0`$ $``$ $`k^2>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_0^2}},`$ (3.11)
$`\mathrm{}=0`$ $``$ $`k^20,`$ (3.12)
where the equality $`k^2=0`$ holds if and only if $`\chi _{(00)}(y)`$ is independent of $`y`$. Our boundary condition (3.8) is the most natural one as long as the gravity can be treated semiclassically. We will examine the question of the validity of semiclassical gravity at the end of this subsection.

A similar analysis applies to Eq.(3.6). We can impose the boundary conditions We do not choose the Dirichlet boundary condition by the same reason as that for $`\chi _{(kl)}(y)`$ except that we do not have $`Z_2`$ projection in $`r`$.

$$\dot{\varphi }_{(mk)}(0)=\dot{\varphi }_{(mk)}(\mathrm{})=0,$$
(3.13)
for the differential operator in Eq.(3.6) to be self-adjoint. Then the modes $`\varphi _{(mk)}`$ can be made to satisfy the orthonormal condition

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\sigma \varphi _{(mk)}^{}\varphi _{(m^{}k)}=\delta _{mm^{}}.$$
(3.14)
where quantum numbers $`k`$ are not summed. Multiplying $`\varphi _{(mk)}^{}`$ to Eq.(3.6) and integrating the first term of the left-hand side by parts, we obtain

$$m^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\sigma ^2\left|\dot{\varphi }_{(mk)}\right|^2+k^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\sigma ^2\left|\varphi _{(mk)}\right|^20,$$
(3.15)
where the equality $`m^2=0`$ holds if and only if $`k=0`$ and $`\varphi _{(00)}(r)`$ is independent of $`r`$. We now obtain from Eqs.(3.10) and (3.15) that $`m=0`$ requires $`k=\mathrm{}=0`$. Since $`m`$ is the mass of the four-dimensional field $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(mk\mathrm{})}(x^\alpha )`$, we find that there is only one massless four-dimensional mode for spin 2 graviton as required by experiment.

It is easy to see from the wave equations (3.6), (3.7) and the orthonormal conditions (3.9), (3.14) that the unique massless mode is the zero-mode solution with $`m=k=\mathrm{}=0`$,

$`\chi _{(00)}(y)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R_0(1\mathrm{e}^{by_c})}}},\varphi _{(00)}(r)=\sqrt{b}.`$ (3.16)
These constant wave functions are normalizable. The definition (2.34) of the four-dimensional reduced Planck scale implies that the probability density of the wave functions $`\varphi _{(mk)}(r)\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(y)`$ in the extra dimensions is given by $`\sigma (r)\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}(y)|\varphi _{(mk)}(r)\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(y)|^2`$. The probability density of the zero mode $`m=k=\mathrm{}=0`$ wave function is sharply peaked around the intersection $`y=0,r=0`$. Therefore the spin 2 graviton represented by the zero mode is localized around the intersection region.

In order to evaluate the density of states of the non-zero modes precisely, we reintroduce a regulator brane at a finite radial distance cutoff $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Accordingly, the boundary condition (3.13) at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ is modified to a similar boundary condition imposed at $`r=r_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

Now consider the non-zero modes. First, let us solve the wave equation (3.7) for $`\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(y)`$.

(i) $`\mathrm{}=0`$ modes

The $`k=0`$ mode solution is a constant $`\chi _{(00)}`$ given in Eq.(3.16). The $`0<k\frac{b}{2}`$ mode solutions turn out to be excluded from the spectrum by the boundary conditions (3.13). The $`k>\frac{b}{2}`$ mode solutions are

$$\chi _{(k0)}=N_{k0}e^{\frac{b}{2}|y|}\left(e^{i\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4k^2b^2}|y|}+\alpha _{k0}e^{i\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4k^2b^2}|y|}\right),$$
(3.17)
where $`N_{k0}`$ are normalization constants and $`\alpha _{k0}`$ are constants which are determined by the boundary condition at $`y=0`$ as

$$\alpha _{k0}=\frac{bi\sqrt{4k^2b^2}}{b+i\sqrt{4k^2b^2}}.$$
(3.18)
In addition, there is a boundary condition at $`y=y_c`$ which leads to the quantization of $`k`$ as

$$k^2=\frac{b^2}{4}+\frac{\pi ^2}{y_c^2}n_k^2,$$
(3.19)
where $`n_k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Thus we find that there is a gap in the spectrum of $`k`$ between $`k=0`$ and $`k>b/2`$ even in the limit of $`y_c\mathrm{}`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{}0`$ modes

Changing the variable from $`y`$ to $`u\frac{\mathrm{}}{bR_0}e^{b|y|}`$ and redefining the wave equation by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(k\mathrm{})}u^{\frac{1}{2}}\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}`$, Eq.(3.7) can be rewritten in the form

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{b^2}}\right)\right\}\right]\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(k\mathrm{})}=0.`$ (3.20)
The solution to this equation is a linear combination of modified Bessel functions. Therefore, the solution is of the form

$`\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}=N_k\mathrm{}u^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[K_{\nu _k}(u)+\alpha _k\mathrm{}I_{\nu _k}(u)\right],`$ (3.21)
where

$`\nu _k=i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}},`$ (3.22)
$`N_k\mathrm{}`$ are normalization constants and $`\alpha _k\mathrm{}`$ are constant coefficients. Irrespective of the detailed spectrum for the $`\mathrm{}0`$ modes, Eq.(3.11) shows that there is a gap in the spectrum of $`k`$ as $`k>1/R_0`$.

Next, let us turn to Eq.(3.6) to obtain the wave function $`\varphi _{(mk)}(r)`$.

(i’) $`m=0`$ mode

As stated before, there is only one $`m=0`$ mode corresponding to $`m=k=\mathrm{}=0`$. The $`m=0`$ mode solution is a constant which reduces to the $`\varphi _{(00)}`$ in Eq.(3.16) in the limit $`r_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}`$.

(ii’) $`m>0`$ modes

Changing the variables to $`v\frac{2m}{b}e^{\frac{b}{2}r}`$ and redefining the wave equations by $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(mk)}v^2\varphi _{(mk)}`$, Eq.(3.6) can be rewritten in the form

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dv^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dv}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{u_m^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{b^2}}\right)\right\}\right]\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(mk)}=0.`$ (3.23)
The solutions to this equation are linear combinations of Bessel functions. Therefore the solution takes the form

$`\varphi _{(mk)}=\stackrel{~}{N}_{mk}e^{br}\left[J_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}(v)+\beta _{mk}Y_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}(v)\right],`$ (3.24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{mk}`$ are the normalization constants, $`\beta _{mk}`$ are the constant coefficients and

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k=2\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{b^2}}}.`$ (3.25)
From the boundary condition (3.13) at $`r=0`$, we obtain

$`\beta _{mk}={\displaystyle \frac{(2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k)J_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}(v_0)+v_0J_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k1}(v_0)}{(2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k)Y_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}(v_0)+v_0Y_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k1}(v_0)}},`$ (3.26)
where $`v_0\frac{2m}{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k=2\sqrt{1+\frac{k^2}{b^2}}`$ . Since the boundary condition at $`r=r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ gives $`\dot{\varphi }_{(mk)}(r_{\mathrm{max}})=0`$, we find

$`\beta _{mk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k)J_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}(v_{\mathrm{max}})+v_{\mathrm{max}}J_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k1}(v_{\mathrm{max}})}{(2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k)Y_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}(v_{\mathrm{max}})+v_{\mathrm{max}}Y_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k1}(v_{\mathrm{max}})}}`$ (3.27)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k1}(v_{\mathrm{max}})}{Y_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k1}(v_{\mathrm{max}})}},`$
where $`v_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{2m}{b}e^{\frac{b}{2}r_{\mathrm{max}}}`$. In the limit $`\frac{m}{b}1`$, Eq.(3.26) for the $`k=0`$ mode is approximated by

$`\beta _{m0}={\displaystyle \frac{J_1(v_0)}{Y_1(v_0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}v_0^21.`$ (3.28)
Eqs.(3.27) and (3.28) imply that the mass spectrum is quantized as

$`mm_n\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi b}{2}}e^{\frac{b}{2}r_{\mathrm{max}}},`$ (3.29)
where $`n`$ is an integer. The mode function $`\varphi _{(m0)}`$ at $`r=0`$ becomes

$`\left|\varphi _{(m0)}(0)\right|^2\left|\stackrel{~}{N}_{m0}\right|^2\pi me^{\frac{b}{2}r_{\mathrm{max}}}.`$ (3.30)
On the other hand, Eq.(3.26) for the $`k>0`$ modes in the limit $`\frac{m}{b}1`$ is approximated by

$`\beta _{mk}v_0^{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}1.`$ (3.31)
So the mass spectrum is quantized as

$`mm_n\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi b}{2}}e^{\frac{b}{2}r_{\mathrm{max}}},`$ (3.32)
and the mode function $`\varphi _{(mk)}`$ at $`r=0`$ becomes

$`\left|\varphi _{(mk)}(0)\right|^2\left|\stackrel{~}{N}_{mk}\right|^2v_0^{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_k}.`$ (3.33)
Let us recall that there is a gap in the spectrum of $`k`$ between $`k=0`$ and $`k>b/2`$ for the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ modes and $`k>1/R_0`$ for the $`\mathrm{}0`$ modes. On the other hand, the normalization factor $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{mk}`$ is insensitive to the values of $`k`$. Therefore we find that

$`\left|\varphi _{(m0)}(0)\right|^2\left|\varphi _{(mk)}(0)\right|^2,`$ (3.34)
and that the wave function at the intersection $`r=0`$ is negligible for the modes with nonvanishing values of $`k`$.

Let us discuss the question of the validity of semiclassical gravity. The metric (2.37) is locally a product of $`AdS_6`$ (for $`r,x^\mu `$) and Euclidean $`AdS_2^E`$ (for $`y,\theta `$) and exhibits a conical singularity near $`y\mathrm{}`$, since the effective radius for the angular variable $`\theta `$ shrinks to zero. Because of this conical singularity, semiclassical gravity may not be reliable as the regulator brane goes to infnity $`y_c\mathrm{}`$. Therefore our boundary condition (3.8) at $`y=y_c`$ is, strictly speaking, reliable only for the regulator brane not too much far away from our brane and may be modified as $`y_c\mathrm{}`$.

Recently a nice resolution of a conical singularity has been proposed by Ponton and Poppitz  in a simpler case of string-like defect in six-dimensional gravity. They observed that the string theory as the fundamental theory of gravity offers a dual description of the strong gravity in terms of the conformal field theory. Starting from a solution of supergravity corresponding to the type $`I^{}`$ D4-D8 brane system, they obtained the $`AdS_6\times S^4`$ gravity background. From the AdS/CFT correspondence and a chain of duality arguments, they concluded that one way of resolving the singularity leads to a semiclassical gravity description for a long-distance behavior of the gravitational field which is the same as the Randall-Sundrum model in five dimensions. Another resolution provides a mass gap for all the Kaluza-Klein modes. Consequently the gravitational Newton potential for the first case receives the same power corrections as those of the model with one extra dimension (i.e. the Randall-Sundrum model ), whereas the gravitational Newton potential for the second case receives only the exponentially suppressed corrections corresponding to no extra dimensions effectively.

In order to address the issue of strong gravity and the resulting possible modification of the boundary condition (3.8) at $`y=y_c`$ for our model, we need to find a system of branes in string theories which provides a solution of supergravity corresponding locally to our metric (2.37) in the Maldacena limit. We expect that the solution corresponds to a number of coincident branes localized on other branes, in order to provide two radial coordinates $`r`$ for $`AdS_6`$ and $`y`$ for $`AdS_2^E`$. Semi-localized solutions have been obtained for cases which reduce to a product of an $`AdS`$ space and compact internal spaces such as spheres . It is an extremely interesting problem to work out those supergravity solutions which give a product of noncompact “internal space” and the $`AdS`$ space and to investigate the corresponding system of branes in string theories. We hope to address these problems in future. The result of ref. suggests that there may be choices of boundary conditions also in our case. On the other hand, our analysis using the semiclassical gravity gives a mass gap which makes two of the extra dimensions ineffective at low energies. This will lead to the correction of the Newton potential with the same power as the model with only one extra dimension (i.e. the Randall-Sundrum model ), as we will see in the next subsection. It is interesting to note that this result resembles the result of ref. which takes full account of the strong gravity effects.

### 3.2 Gravitational potential

If we place point sources $`\overline{m}_1`$ and $`\overline{m}_2`$ on the four-dimensional intersection ($`r=y=0`$) with a large distance $`R\sqrt{(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2}`$ apart, we obtain a gravitational potential coming from the exchanges of zero mode and nonzero modes. The zero mode for spin 2 graviton gives the usual Newton’s law

$`V(R)=G_N{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_1\overline{m}_2}{R}},G_N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi M_4^2}},`$ (3.35)
where $`G_N`$ is the Newton’s constant and $`M_4`$ is the reduced Planck scale defined in Eq.(2.34). The nonzero modes contribute corrections to the Newton potential as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V(R)=G_N{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_1\overline{m}_2}{R}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{(mk)}(0)\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(0)}{\varphi _{(00)}(0)\chi _{(00)}(0)}}\right|^2e^{m_nR}.`$ (3.36)
Because of the gap in the spectrum of $`k`$ and $`m`$, contributions from the $`k>0`$ modes are suppressed exponentially. The leading contribution to the gravitational potential comes from the exchange of the nonzero modes of $`m0,k=\mathrm{}=0`$. In the limit $`r_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}`$, the spectrum (3.29) becomes continuous and the summation of $`n`$ is converted into an integral

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi b}}e^{\frac{b}{2}r_{\mathrm{max}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m.`$ (3.37)
Consequently, Eq.(3.36) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V(R)`$ $``$ $`G_N{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_1\overline{m}_2}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{b^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑mme^{mR}`$ (3.38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G_N}{b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_1\overline{m}_2}{R^3}}.`$
One should note that the correction term behaves $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(R)1/R^3`$ in the case of the wall in five dimensions , and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(R)1/R^4`$ in the case of the string-like defect in six dimensions  This $`1/R^4`$ behavior of the correction term is modified to $`1/R^3`$ behavior or to no power corrections by taking acount of the strong gravity effects in ref.. . This is natural since the gravitational flux tends to spread out if there are more extra dimensions. The correction term (3.38) to the Newton potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(R)1/R^3`$ falls off precisely like the case of a wall in five dimensions even though we have seven dimensional bulk spacetime. Our counter-intuitive result can be understood as follows. The gap for $`k>0`$ modes implies that only the $`k=0`$ mode contributes without being suppressed exponentially. Both the gapless continuum massive graviton modes ($`k=\mathrm{}=0`$) as well as the zero mode are localized on the wall at $`y=0`$, and moreover the zero-mode ($`m=k=\mathrm{}=0`$) is localized at the intersection of the wall and the string. Since the $`k=0`$ mode is localized at $`y=0`$, the gravitational flux does not spread out into the direction $`y`$. This effectively reduces one dimension. Since the $`\mathrm{}0`$ modes are also exponentially suppressed because of the mass gap, only the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ mode contributes to the leading correction. Therefore the angular direction is not effective either. On the other hand, the remaining direction $`r`$ acts precisely like the coordinate of the single extra dimension $`y`$ in the original wall model in five-dimensional spacetime. Therefore the same mechanism applies to our case as the wall model in five dimensions, leading to the same correction (3.38) as the wall model.

We have to examine the contributions from spin 1 and spin 0 fields coming from the seven-dimensional graviton in order to obtain the full gravitational potential and also to ascertain the stability of the background metric , . It has also been noted that the contributions from the bending of the brane due to the backreaction of the matter source will modify the coefficient of the $`1/R`$ term in Eq.(3.35) and consequently the relative normalization of the correction term (3.36) . Finally we should have in mind that the strong gravity effects near the conical singularity as the regulator brane goes to infinity $`y_c\mathrm{}`$ may modify the boundary condition at $`y=y_c`$ and the corrections to the gravitational Newton potential.

## 4 Intersection of $`n`$ Walls and a String-like Defect

In the following, we extend the idea of the previous section to a configuration of mutually intersecting $`n`$ walls (namely $`(5+n)`$-branes) and a string-like defect (namely $`(4+n)`$-brane) in $`(6+n)`$ spacetime dimensions. Our four-dimensional world will come out as an intersection of these walls and the string-like defect.

We can perform the extension along the lines of , where they worked $`n`$ orthogonally intersecting walls in a locally $`AdS_{4+n}`$ bulk geometry. Since the bulk geometry of the metric (2.37) is locally $`AdS_5\times AdS_2^\mathrm{E}`$ where $`AdS_2^\mathrm{E}`$ denotes two-dimensional Euclidean anti-de Sitter space in ($`y,\theta `$) directions, we are prompted to extend the $`AdS_2^\mathrm{E}`$ geometry to $`AdS_{n+1}^\mathrm{E}`$. We will work on a $`D6+n`$ dimensional spacetime with the coordinates $`x^A(x^\mu ,z_j,r,\theta ),j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. As in the previous case, $`(r,\theta )`$ are polar coordinates of extra dimensions transverse to the string-like defect, which is placed at $`r=0`$. The coordinate for the direction normal to the $`j`$-th wall is denoted as $`z_j`$ ($`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$). The action of the extended system is

$`S=S_{\mathrm{gravity}}+S_{\mathrm{string}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(j)},`$ (4.1)
$`S_{\mathrm{gravity}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(\frac{1}{2}M_D{}_{}{}^{D2}\widehat{R}\mathrm{\Lambda }_D\right)},`$ (4.2)
$`S_{\mathrm{string}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r<\epsilon }}d^Dx\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_{\mathrm{string}},`$ (4.3)
$`S_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{z_j=0}}d^{D1}x\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(j)}}_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(j)},`$ (4.4)
where $`M_D`$ is the fundamental $`D`$-dimensional Planck scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ is a bulk cosmological constant. We included the cosmological constants on branes in the Lagrangians $`_{\mathrm{string}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(j)}`$’s. The $`j`$-th wall is placed at $`z_j=0`$, on which the induced metric is

$`\overline{g}_{A_jB_j}^{(j)}\widehat{g}_{A_jB_j}|_{z_j=0},`$ (4.5)
where $`A_j,B_j`$ are the $`(D1)`$-dimensional indices along the $`j`$-th wall. Therefore the subscript $`j`$ on $`A,B`$ denotes an exclusion of the coordinate $`z_j`$.

Einstein equations for this action are

$`\widehat{R}_{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{AB}\widehat{R}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_D^{D2}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_D\widehat{g}_{AB}+\widehat{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(j)}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{A_jB_j}^{(j)}\delta _A^{A_j}\delta _B^{B_j}\delta (z_j)\right],`$ (4.6)
where $`\widehat{T}_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{A_jB_j}^{(j)}`$’s are the energy-momentum tensor obtained from $`_{string}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{wall}}^{(j)}`$’s as defined in Eq.(2.6). The tilde ($`\stackrel{~}{}`$) on $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{A_jB_j}^{(j)}`$ is to denote that the wall tensions are included into the energy-momentum tensor.

We assume an ansatz for the metric of a diagonalized form with warp factors<sup>\**</sup><sup>\**</sup>\** The warp factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the angular coordinate $`\theta `$ has to vanish at the origin of the two-dimensional polar coordinates $`r=0`$ like Eq.(2.14) in order to have no singularity. Since there is no such requirement for the other coordinates $`z_j`$’s, the warp factors $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`\theta `$ and $`z_j`$’s can differ inside the string core $`0r<\epsilon `$.  $`\sigma (r,z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r,z)`$

$`ds^2=\sigma (r,z)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dr^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2(r,z)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}dz_j^2+R_0{}_{}{}^{2}d\theta ^2\right).`$ (4.7)
The ratios of the determinant of metrics reduce as follows,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}^{(j)}}}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\delta (z_j)=\sqrt{\widehat{g}^{jj}}\delta (z_j)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\delta (z_j).`$ (4.8)
As a natural extension of the solution considered in the last section, we look for a solution of the form

$`\sigma (r,z)e^{br},\mathrm{\Omega }(r,z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_{j=1}^n|z_j|+1}},`$ (4.9)
for outside of the string-like defect core ($`r>\epsilon `$). We assume that the non-zero components of the energy-momentum tensor from the matter sources on the $`j`$-th wall for $`r>\epsilon `$ are

$`\stackrel{~}{T}^{(j)}{}_{\nu }{}^{\mu }=\stackrel{~}{t}_0^{(j)}\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{T}^{(j)}{}_{r}{}^{r}=\stackrel{~}{t}_r^{(j)},\stackrel{~}{T}^{(j)}{}_{k}{}^{i}=\stackrel{~}{t}_z^{(j)}\delta _k^i,\stackrel{~}{T}^{(j)}{}_{\theta }{}^{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{t}_\theta ^{(j)},`$ (4.10)
where $`i,kj`$. We assume that the string-like defect is a strictly local defect, i.e., $`T_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}0`$ for $`r<\epsilon `$ and $`T_{AB}^{(\mathrm{string})}=0`$ for $`r>\epsilon `$. From the metric ansatz (4.7) and the energy-momentum tensor ansatz (4.10), Einstein equations (4.6) for $`r>\epsilon `$ become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2(n+1)}{2}}K^22n{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta (z_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_D^{D2}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{~}{t}_0^{(i)}\delta (z_i)\right],`$ (4.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }^2}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2(n+1)}{2}}K^22n{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta (z_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_D^{D2}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{~}{t}_r^{(i)}\delta (z_i)\right],`$ (4.12)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }^2}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2(n1)}{2}}K^22(n1){\displaystyle \frac{K}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta (z_i)\delta (z_j)\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_D^{D2}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{t}_z^{(i)}\delta (z_i)\stackrel{~}{t}_z^{(j)}\delta (z_j)\right\}\right],`$ (4.13)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\sigma }}{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }^2}{\sigma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2(n1)}{2}}K^22(n1){\displaystyle \frac{K}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta (z_i)\delta (z_j)\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_D^{D2}}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{~}{t}_\theta ^{(i)}\delta (z_i)\right].`$ (4.14)
The solution to the above Einstein equations is found to be

$`b=nK,K=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_D}{n^2(n+4)M_D^{D2}}}}.`$ (4.15)
Therefore the negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D<0`$ in the bulk is required. The $`\delta `$-functions at $`z_j=0`$ ($`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) imply that the energy-momentum tensor on the walls must satisfy

$`\stackrel{~}{t}_0^{(j)}=\stackrel{~}{t}_r^{(j)}=2nKM_D{}_{}{}^{D2},\stackrel{~}{t}_z^{(j)}=\stackrel{~}{t}_\theta ^{(j)}=2(n1)KM_D{}_{}{}^{D2}.`$ (4.16)
The solution inside the string-like defect core $`r<\epsilon `$ can be obtained by adjusting appropriate string tension components to satisfy the boundary conditions imposed at $`r=0`$ as in Eq.(2.14). A concrete example may be worked out following the illustrative example in Eq.(2.26).

The four-dimensional reduced Planck scale for this solution is given by

$`M_4^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_D{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{D2}_{0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d^nz{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}`$ (4.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R_0}{nn!K^{n+1}}}M_D{}_{}{}^{D2}.`$
Let us now consider metric fluctuations around the background of the solution (4.7), (4.9), (4.15). As in the last section, we will concentrate only on the linearized fluctuations of spin 2 modes $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^A)`$ as in Eq.(3.1). The linearized Einstein equations are also given by Eq.(3.3). In order to solve the equations, we separate the variables as

$`h_{\mu \nu }(x^A)={\displaystyle \underset{m,k,\mathrm{}}{}}h_{\mu \nu }^{(mk\mathrm{})}(x^\alpha )\varphi _{(mk)}(r)\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z)e^{i\mathrm{}\theta },`$ (4.18)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is an integer angular momentum. Then, the wave equation is separated into

$`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta h_{\mu \nu }^{(mk\mathrm{})}(x^\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`m^2h_{\mu \nu }^{(mk\mathrm{})}(x^\alpha ),`$ (4.19)
$`_r\left(\sigma ^2_r\varphi _{(mk)}\right)+k^2\sigma ^2\varphi _{(mk)}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\sigma \varphi _{(mk)}(r),`$ (4.20)
$`_j\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}_j\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{R_0^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z),`$ (4.21)
where $`_j`$ denotes partial differentiation with respect to $`z_j`$, and two eigenvalues $`k^2`$ and $`m^2`$ are introduced. It is worth emphasizing that the mode equation (4.20) for $`\varphi _{(mk)}(r)`$ is identical to the previous case (3.6). The differential operator in Eqs.(4.21) is self-adjoint if we impose the following boundary conditions<sup>††</sup><sup>††</sup>†† We choose the Neumann boundary condition by the same reason as the $`n=1`$ case in the previous section. We should have in mind that this boundary condition at $`z_j=\mathrm{}`$ may be modified when the strong gravity effects are taken into account. ,

$`_j\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z)|_{z_j=0}=_j\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z)|_{z_j=\mathrm{}}=0.`$ (4.22)
With these conditions we can require the mode $`\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}(z)`$ to satisfy the orthonormal condition

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d^nz\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}(z)\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}^{}(z)\chi _{(k^{}\mathrm{})}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{kk^{}}.`$ (4.23)
Then we obtain from Eq.(4.21)

$`k^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d^nz\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}\left|_j\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{R_0^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d^nz\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}\left|\chi _{(k\mathrm{})}\right|^20.`$ (4.24)
The equality holds if and only if $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`\chi _{(00)}(z)`$ is the zero mode (independent of $`z_j`$). For $`\varphi _{(mk)}(r)`$, the boundary conditions (3.13), orthonormal condition (3.14), and positivity condition (3.15) still apply as before. Therefore $`m^20`$ and the equality holds if and only if $`k=0`$ and $`\varphi _{(00)}(r)`$ is a zero mode (independent of $`r`$). These results tell us that there is only one massless spin 2 mode $`m=k=\mathrm{}=0`$ of graviton, $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(000)}(x^\alpha )`$. The zero mode wave function in the extra dimensions is

$`\chi _{(00)}=\mathrm{const}.,\varphi _{(00)}=\mathrm{const}.,`$ (4.25)
The zero mode is localized on the four-dimensional intersection region, since the probability distribution in the extra dimensions is strongly peaked around the intersection $`r=0,z_j=0`$ similarly to the case in the previous section. Thus the zero mode corresponds to the massless graviton localized at the four-dimensional intersection. Moreover, we can at least work out all the massive graviton fields $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(m00)}(x^\alpha )`$ with $`k=\mathrm{}=0`$, since we know the zero mode $`\chi _{(00)}(z)`$ for $`k=\mathrm{}=0`$ and we have already solved the mode equation for $`\varphi _{(m0)}(r)`$ in the previous section. Therefore we find that there is a continuum of massive four-dimensional fields $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(m00)}(x^\alpha )`$ starting from $`m=0`$ similarly to the previous case (and to the original model in Ref.), even though we have not worked out the full spectrum of massive modes corresponding to nonvanishing values of $`k`$.

The exchange of the massless four-dimensional graviton between two sources $`\overline{m}_1,\overline{m}_2`$ on the four-dimensional intersection with a large distance $`R`$ gives the usual Newton potential (3.35) also in the present case of $`n`$ walls. Although we have not worked out the massive modes with nonvanishing $`k`$ in detail, we have at least corrections coming from the continuum of massive fields $`h_{\mu \nu }^{(m00)}(x^\alpha )`$ starting from $`m=0`$. Since these wave functions are identical to the previous case of the seven-dimensional spacetime with $`n=1`$, we find that there is at least the same correction term $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(R)`$ for the Newton potential as the previous $`n=1`$ case (3.38). If it turns out that there is a gap in the spectrum of $`k`$ as in the $`n=1`$ case, all the additional contributions are exponentially suppressed. Then the above correction term is the leading contribution to the correction of the Newton’s law of gravitational forces.

### Acknowledgments

The authors thank Tsuyoshi Sakata for his participation and contributions in the early stages of this investigation. One of the authors (N.S.) acknowledges a useful discussion with Csaba Csaki on the scalar modes and other issues. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Ministry of Education, Science and Culture for the Priority Area 291 and 707.


format: text

text:
# Does the Sun Shrink with Increasing Magnetic Activity?

## 1 Introduction

Measuring the sun’s radius, and its variability, are significant, long-standing problems, especially in the context of understanding the cause of solar irradiance variations. Recently, it has been pointed out that helioseismology can provide a useful measure of the solar radius. Schou et al. (1997) and Antia (1998) showed that f-modes frequencies are good probes of the radius, and they inferred a value of the solar radius which is about 300 km smaller than the one adopted in solar models at that time. The model values were based on a direct measurement of the sun’s photospheric radius. The smaller radius has been confirmed by Brown and Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) from many years of transit measurements using the Solar Diameter Monitor. The connection between the “true” solar radius and that inferred from f-modes is explained in Section 3.1.

Following the suggestion of Schou et al. (1997), Dziembowski et al. (1998, 2000) used f-mode data from the MDI/SOHO instrument to determine the evolution of the seismic solar radius through the rising phase of the present activity cycle. They reported statistically significant variations that showed no apparent correlation with activity measures. On the other hand, with GONG f-mode frequencies (ranging between 1.015 mHz to 1.425 mHz, or equivalently $`\mathrm{}`$ from 100 to 200), covering the rising phase of activity to the beginning of 1999, Antia et al. (2000) found a net decrease of about 5 km in the solar radius. They attributed the difference with Dziembowski et al. (1998) to the latter’s use of higher degree modes (up to $`\mathrm{}`$=300). They pointed out the latter $`\mathrm{}`$-modes are more likely to be effected by factors other than an evolving radius.

In the present work, we use oscillation data from SOHO/MDI covering 1996.3-2000.5. We first use f-mode data in an effort to infer a signal of radius change. We then modify our earlier analyzes to consider other sources of the variations. Our analysis is preceded by an explanation of the meaning of the “seismic” radius inferred from f-modes. We then compare our results to those of Antia et al., and interpret the inferred rates in terms of magnetic field and temperature changes.

Our interpretation of p-mode frequency changes is predicated on the work of Goldreich et al. (1991) who analyzed BBSO measurements from the rise of the previous cycle (cycle 22). We use our inference on the behavior of the sub-photospheric layers to constrain radius changes arising there.

## 2 Frequency data from SOHO/MDI

In the present study, we use 19 MDI data sets containing centroid frequencies determined from measurements made between May 1, 1996 and June 21, 2000, with a break between June 16 and October 22, 1998, when there was no contact with SOHO. The sets are typically 72-days long, except those immediately before and after the break, which are shorter. The centroid frequencies, $`\nu _{\mathrm{},n}`$, were determined by the method described by Schou (1999).

The sets contain between 112 and 203 f-mode frequencies, with earlier sets having more data. The maximum $`\mathrm{}`$-value is 300 and the minima range from 89 to 137. The number of p-mode frequencies range from 1589 to 1906. Again, the earlier sets are mode abundant. The p-modes range between $`\mathrm{}`$=0 and 200. The differences in mode composition are not important in the case of p-modes. The number of overlapping modes is large enough for a detailed study of frequency changes. In the case of f-modes, the difference in the $`\mathrm{}`$-range may be important, and therefore in our study of the solar radius changes, we used only modes with $`\mathrm{}137`$.

## 3 Inferences from f-mode frequency changes

### 3.1 Helioseismic radius

All helioseismic determinations of the solar radius to date have relied on the following asymptotic relation for f-modes frequencies,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{}}}{\nu _{\mathrm{}}}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}.$$
(1)
Antia et al. (2000) pointed out that using this relation for modes with $`\mathrm{}`$ extending up to 300, as Dziembowski et al. (1998) did, is not justified because of significant departures from $`\nu R^{1.5}`$ are present in higher $`\mathrm{}`$’s. The departure increases with $`\mathrm{}`$, which as Brown (1984) first suggested could be accounted for as an effect of turbulence in the upper convective zone. Detailed models of this effect have been developed by Murawski & Roberts (1993a, 1993b). (For the most recent work on the subject see Mȩdrek & Murawski 2000). However, surface magnetic fields may also have significant effects on f-mode frequencies (Evans & Roberts, 1990; Jain & Roberts). With these two sources of perturbation to f-mode frequencies, we must contemplate solar cycle changes beyond that of a simple radius change. The relative contribution of the near-surface changes are expected to increase with $`\mathrm{}`$, because such changes should be inversely proportional to mode inertia, $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$, which sharply decreases with $`\mathrm{}`$.

There is another problem in applying Eq.(1) in a search for the radius variations correlated with activity. This problem follows from the fact that the induced modifications are quite non-uniform, and each f-mode has it is own radius, $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is given by

$$R_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{1}{I_{\mathrm{}}}r^3𝑑I_{\mathrm{}}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(2)
With this definition, we get from the variational principle for oscillation frequencies (see Appendix)

$$\nu _l=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{(L2)\frac{GM}{R_{\mathrm{}}^3}},$$
(3)
where $`L=\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}`$. This is a very accurate expression. The relative departures from equality range from $`2\times 10^4`$ at $`\mathrm{}=100`$ to $`8\times 10^5`$ at $`\mathrm{}=300`$. In a linear approximation in terms of $`(RR_{\mathrm{}})`$, this is the same as the formula obtained by Gough (1993).

For high degree modes, the f-mode radii are close to the solar radius. The values of $`R_{\mathrm{}}/R`$ range from 0.9883 at $`\mathrm{}=100`$ to 0.9946 at $`\mathrm{}=300`$. While we have $`R_{\mathrm{}}R`$, a corresponding approximation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is quite problematic. When the f-mode frequencies were used to refine the value of the radius for modeling the sun, we could expect an approximate, homologous relation, $`R_{\mathrm{}}R`$. But such a relation cannot be expected in the case of the activity induced changes, which we believe to be confined to the outermost part of the sun. If the data show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{}}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, as Antia et al.(2000) found, then the simplest interpretation is that, indeed we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}`$ being constant over the range of considered $`\mathrm{}`$-values. Then, the inferred value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ in Eq.(1) refers to the range of depths beneath the photosphere corresponding to the range of $`\mathrm{}`$’s in the data sets. Antia et al. (2000) used modes in the 100–200 range, which translates to 10–6 Mm in depth. Their finding implies that this layer was moved downward by about 5 km during the two years they considered. The truth is, with these data, we cannot say anything about what happened in the layers above. Thus, we have no information about the evolution of the photospheric radius of the sun.

### 3.2 Formal determination of the rate of shrinking from f-modes

To account for the effect of the near-surface changes on f-mode frequencies and possible differential changes, we modified Eq.(1) into

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_f}{R}\nu _{\mathrm{}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _f}{I_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f`$ denotes the radius change inferred from a particular set of f-modes. For the calculation of $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$, we adopted the following normalization of the eigenfunctions

$$(\xi _r)_{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{2\times 10^4}{\sqrt{\overline{\rho }R^5}}Y_{\mathrm{}}^m,$$
(5)
where $`\xi _r`$ denotes radial displacement of the fluid element. With such a normalization, the values of $`I_{\mathrm{}}(\nu )`$ are of the order of unity for p-modes in the 2–4 mHz range. For the f-modes, the $`I_{\mathrm{}}`$ values are significantly larger (see Table 1).

We determined $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f`$ and $`\gamma _f`$ by a least-squares fitting. In Fig. 1, we show values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ for selected data sets. The first two sets were obtained at solar minimum. The 1999.4 set was taken near the middle of the phase of rising activity, and the last is at the current maximum. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the difference between the solar data and the reference model. The reference solar model is that of Christensen-Dalsgaard et al.(1996). It has the same radius used by Dziembowski et al. (1998). That is, the model uses the “old”, too large value of the solar radius (not that of Brown and Christensen-Dalsgaard 1998), and this is why the frequency differences are rather large. A small difference in the reference model radius is inconsequential for the inferred temporal changes.

We assumed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _f`$ is $`\nu `$-independent, and as we see in Fig. 1, the solid line is a good fit to the data. The $`\chi ^2`$’s vary from 1.2 (2000.4 set) to 1.84 (1996.4), except for the significantly worse fit ($`\chi ^2=3.55`$) found for the 1998.9 set, which was the first one taken after the recovery of SOHO. We also tried fitting $`\gamma _f`$ as a low-order polynomial depending on frequency, but this did not improve the fit.

We see the departure from the linear relationship implied by the the radius adjustment sharply increases with $`\nu `$. Antia et al. (2000) considered only modes with $`\nu <1.44`$ mHz, and it seems that the departure from a straight line is still small. However, this is somewhat misleading because we used a model with much too large a radius. As we shall see in Table 1, at the level of changes of a few nanohertz (i.e. radius changes of a few km), the difference is quite significant. We emphasize that high $`\mathrm{}`$-modes are important because with increasing $`\mathrm{}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ approaches the solar radius. For such modes, including $`\gamma _f`$ is essential, which implies that we have to rely on Eq.(4) rather than Eq.(1). With Eq.(1), we get a much poorer fit ($`\chi ^2=4.416.5`$) and the correction to the solar radius is larger by some 20 km. This illustrates the trade-off – increasing $`\mathrm{}`$ moves us closer to the surface, but such high $`\mathrm{}`$’s are more strongly contaminated.

In Fig. 2, we show the variations of the solar radius and $`\gamma _f`$ inferred from f-modes from the truncated data sets. The rise of the current activity cycle began in 1997.4 which was marked by a sharp rise of the seismic activity indicators (Dziembowski et al. 1998). A corresponding sharp rise of p-mode frequencies beginning at this time may be seen in Fig. 3 here. That is why we choose 1997.4 to begin our linear fits. We have no explanation, as yet, for the relatively large fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f`$ which appear to have a one-year period. For comparison, we also show the result obtained when the $`\gamma _f`$-term is ignored. There is a difference, but not as large as one might anticipate by looking at Fig.1. The rate of radius decrease is only insignificantly higher than in our standard version, and the error is larger.

In detail, we found from our linear fit, with the $`\gamma _f`$,

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=(1.51\pm 0.31)\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{y},$$
(6)
and without the $`\gamma _f`$-term,

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=(1.82\pm 0.64)\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{y}.$$

The values are similar to those found by Antia et al. (2000). To make a closer comparison, we truncated our data sets at $`\mathrm{}=200`$, and then we found

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=(1.80\pm 0.38)\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{y}.$$

Having in mind that we still miss modes between $`\mathrm{}=100`$ and 137, it is fair to say that there is no disagreement between our findings and theirs, implying that at a depth of from 6 to 10 Mm the sun shrank by some 4 to 6 km during the rising phase of this activity cycle.

How reliable is this finding? The main concern is the role of the near-surface perturbation and the cross-talk between the two terms on the right hand side of Eq.(4). In the lower panel of Fig. 2, we show the $`\gamma `$’s. The linear fit for $`\gamma `$, which is visibly poorer, yields

$$\frac{d\gamma _f}{dt}=(0.180\pm 0.051)\mu \mathrm{Hz}/\mathrm{y}.$$
(7)
The relative contribution of the two terms to overall f-mode frequency variations depends on $`\mathrm{}`$. In Table 1, we compare these two contributions, denoted by$`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\gamma `$ for selected $`\mathrm{}`$-values. The increasing role of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\gamma `$ is a consequence of decreasing mode inertia. It should be noted that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _\gamma `$ yields an appreciable contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ even for modes with $`\mathrm{}200`$. Caution is necessary, but we will proceed further assuming that the effect is indeed real.

### 3.3 Accounting for the rate of shrinkage

Even as small as it seems, a shrinking of the sun’s radius during the rising phase of activity is not easy to explain. To investigate, we write the Lagrangian change of the local radius in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r(r_0)=rr_0=_{r_b}^{r_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }\left(\frac{x}{r_0}\right)^2𝑑x,$$
(8)
where $`r_b`$ is the radius at the bottom of the layer perturbed by activity, and $`r_0`$ is the radius at a specified fractional mass, $`M_r/M`$, at activity minimum and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ denotes the horizontally averaged change of density. We obtain a more revealing form of Eq.(8) by expressing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in terms of the averaged entropy and magnetic field changes.

For the horizontally averaged gas pressure in the presence of a random magnetic field we have, after Goldreich et al. (1991),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P_g=\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta P_m),$$
(9)
where

$$P_m=\frac{\overline{B_h^2}+\overline{B_r^2}}{8\pi }$$

is magnetic pressure and

$$\beta =\frac{\overline{B_h^2}\overline{B_r^2}}{8\pi P_m}$$

is a measure of the statistical anisotropy of the field.

With the use of thermodynamical relations, we determine

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r=_{r_b}^{r_0}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta P_m)}{P_g}+(\rho _T)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S}{c_p}\right]\left(\frac{x}{r_0}\right)^2𝑑x,$$
(10)
where $`\rho _T`$ denotes the logarithmic derivative of density at constant pressure. The remaining thermodynamical quantities have their standard meanings. At the relevant depths, the gas is nearly ideal. Thus, we may use $`\rho _T=1`$, $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.6`$, and find

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S}{c_p}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}0.4\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_g}{P_g}.$$

The irradiance from an active sun is higher than average. If the same is true about luminosity then we should have $`\mathrm{\Delta }S<0`$. Hence, a negative contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$. However, this must be very small. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ refers to the whole convective zone then a $`10^3`$ luminosity increase translates to an annual decrease in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S/c_P`$ of $`10^7`$. Another possibility is an increase in the superadiabatic gradient, $`_{\mathrm{con}}_{\mathrm{ad}}`$, but this seems unlikely too. The annual decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f=1.5`$ km refers to the layer of $`r/R=0.9880.995`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f`$ must arise mostly beneath $`r=R_{137}=0.988R`$. At this depth, according to a mixing-length model, $`_{\mathrm{con}}_{\mathrm{ad}}2\times 10^4`$, which rapidly decreases going inward. We would need an order of magnitude increase in the superadiabatic gradient to account for our rate of shrinking.

A more acceptable explanation would be a variation in the magnetic field. The consequences of a magnetic field increase depend on $`\beta `$. For a purely radial field ($`\beta =1`$), the increase implies contraction. For an isotropic field ($`\beta =1/3`$) the increase implies expansion. The field geometry implying the minimum increase to account for the rate of the shrinking corresponds to $`\beta =1`$. Then, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }<B>_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }(B_r^2)}}`$, and assuming a constant rate across the lower convective zone, we infer

$$\frac{d<B>_{\mathrm{rms}}}{dt}7.2\mathrm{kG}/\mathrm{y}.$$

The value at $`R_{137}`$ may be reduced, for instance, to 1 kG/y if one allows an exponential increase of the rate to about 43 kG/y at the base of the convection zone.

Thus, what we have inferred from the f-mode frequency change is a non-trivial constraint on the internal magnetic field change. Let us note that if the field increase were predominantly isotropic, we would see an expansion rather than a contraction. The field increase inferred from the residual (after removing the near surface contribution) part of the p-mode frequency change was about 60 kG at 25-100 Mm (Dziembowski et al., 2000). This high value could be consistent with the shrinking rate only if $`\beta `$ is close to zero, that is if the field is essentially force-free, which is not a likely possibility. Thus, we are now skeptical about the reality of that large field change we reported earlier.

Our inference regarding the solar radius change is limited by the lack of accurate information about what happened in the outer 4 Mm of the solar interior. This is the region where we may expect the largest activity induced variations for two reasons. First, the rapid decline of gas pressure and second, the thermal structure of this layer is more susceptible to changes in the efficiency of the convective energy transport induced by the field changes. The f-mode data we have at hand provide some information about changes in this layer through the $`\gamma _f`$. Similar, but much more accurate information is available in the p-mode data, which we now consider.

## 4 Inference from p-mode frequency changes

### 4.1 The near-surface source of the p-mode frequency changes

The p-mode spectrum of MDI frequency data is about 13 times richer than that for f-modes. Unfortunately, p-modes are not directly useful for determining changes in the solar radius. The simple relation, $`\nu R^{1.5}`$ would be valid for p-modes only if the changes were homologous throughout the whole sun. This is far from the truth for the changes we are considering here. However, from p-modes one may make a much more precise determination, than from f-modes, of the near-surface perturbation. For p-modes, we call it $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p`$, and it describes frequency changes caused by a variable perturbation localized near the surface. In the present application, however, taking into account the $`\nu `$ dependence is required for an accurate fit. We express the dependence in the form of a Legendre polynomial series with argument

$$s=\frac{\nu (\nu _l+\nu _h)/2}{\nu _h\nu _l},$$

where $`\nu _l`$ and $`\nu _h`$ denote the lowest and the highest frequencies in the data set. Thus, we write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{},n}=\frac{1}{I_{\mathrm{},n}}\underset{0}{\overset{J}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{p,j}P_j(s).$$
(11)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is with respect to the 1996.4 data set. The number $`J`$ was increased until $`\gamma _{p,0}`$ stabilized within the errors and $`\chi ^2`$ stabilized. This occurred for $`J=2`$. In Fig. 3, we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _{p,0}`$ for $`J=0`$ and 2. Variations of $`\gamma _p`$ are indeed much more accurately determined than those of $`\gamma _f`$. For $`J=2`$, we find the rate

$$\frac{d\gamma _{p,0}}{dt}=(0.149\pm 0.008)\mu \mathrm{Hz}/\mathrm{y}.$$
(12)
The dependence of $`\gamma (\nu )`$ yields an important constraint on the localization of the source of solar cycle variations in p-mode frequencies.

Following Goldreich et al. (1991), we link the frequency change to the change of the mean squared magnetic field and a Lagrangian change of a single thermodynamic parameter. For the latter, we prefer to use temperature rather than entropy which was used by Goldreich et al. From Eqs. (14) and (15) of Goldreich et al., we get the following expression for the change of $`\gamma _p`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\nu }}{\displaystyle }d^3\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{\xi }|^2\{P\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho )\rho _T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}}`$ (13)
$`+[1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_P+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \rho _P)`$
$`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_11+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\rho _P)]\mathrm{\Delta }P_m\}.`$
Here, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$, the logarithmic derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. The ideal gas equation cannot be used in the layers where most of the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p`$ arises.

Goldreich et al. (1991) explained the p-mode frequency changes during the rising phase of cycle 22 in terms of magnetic field and temperature changes, with former being dominant and causing the frequency increase. They invoked a chromospheric temperature increase to explain the reversal in the increasing trend in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\nu )`$. We do not see such a trend in our data. Thus, as a first guess we interpret $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p`$ in terms of magnetic field changes. Later, we will discuss other sources of the p-mode frequency changes.

We considered two values of $`\beta `$, -1 and 1/3, and the following form for the depth, $`D`$, dependence of magnetic field increase

$$\mathrm{\Delta }<B>_{\mathrm{rms}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}B_b\hfill & \text{ if }DD_b\hfill \\ B_b+\lambda \left(\frac{DD_b}{D_bD_m}\right)\hfill & \text{if }D_t<D<D_b\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }<B>_{\mathrm{rms}}(D_t)\hfill & \text{if }DD_t\hfill \end{array},$$

where $`D_m=0.485`$Mm denotes $`D`$ at the temperature minimum, and $`B_b`$, $`D_b`$, and $`\lambda `$ were determined by fitting the three terms in the series given by Eq. (11). For $`D_t`$ we adopted either $`D_m`$ or 0.

In Fig. 4 we show two examples of the field’s changing behavior that would be consistent with the observed $`\gamma `$’s, and compare them with two cases that are clearly inconsistent. One of the two inconsistent cases is a depth independent increase, and the other is an example of the field gradually increasing to about 3 kG at 8Mm. In all four examples, we used $`\beta =1`$. We see that indeed the $`\gamma _p(\nu )`$ provides a strong constraint on the localization of the source of frequency changes, but clearly not a unique answer. For the two fitted cases, the inferred values of $`B_b`$ are 290 and 250 G. Corresponding values of $`B_{\mathrm{ph}}\mathrm{\Delta }<B>_{\mathrm{rms}}(0)`$ are 62 and 94 G. An equally good fit was obtained with the choice $`\beta =1/3`$. Data on the three models of the magnetic field change fitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p(\nu )`$ data are given in Table 2. The result for $`\beta =1/3`$ is not significantly different from that found by Goldreich et al. (1991). To explain the p-mode frequency increase between minimum and maximum, we require an increase of the rms magnetic field growing from 0.2 kG in the photosphere to 0.84 kG at 4.25 Mm. The corresponding numbers of Goldreich et al. are 0.25 and 1 kG.

In the bottom panel of Fig. 4, we plot the relative temperature changes, which gives the same local contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p`$ as the corresponding changes in the magnetic field. We see that the required change of temperature is unacceptably large in the atmospheric layers. However, in sub-photospheric layers we cannot exclude the rms $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ at the $`10^3`$ level. Such a temperature decrease would be a significant contributor to the observed frequency increase. Brüggen and Spruit (2000) argue that one expects a lower subsurface temperature from an increasing magnetic field, and that the effect should be searched for by means of helioseismology. A contribution from temperature decrease would lower the requirement for the magnetic field increase in the sub-photospheric layers.

Yet another potential contributor to the frequency increase is a decrease in the turbulent velocity. Roughly, the relative change in the turbulent velocity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_t/v_t=q`$, has the same effect as a relative temperature change $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T=0.5q^2`$ , where $``$ is the turbulent Mach number. In the sub-photospheric layers, $``$ is in the 0.1–1 range. Thus, the effect may be significant, and we may expect a decrease in $`v_t`$, with increasing activity, because the magnetic field should inhibit convection.

### 4.2 Shrinking or expanding of the outermost layers

In Table 2, we provide the values of the contribution to the rate of the photospheric radius change due to the magnetic field increase inferred from the $`\gamma _p`$ changes. We emphasize that the rate does not refer to photosphere but to the mass point corresponding to the unperturbed (solar minimum) photosphere and that the value does not include the part that was inferred from f-mode frequency changes.

The solar photosphere is defined as a surface of specified optical depth $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}=M_{\mathrm{ph}}\overline{\kappa }`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is column-mass depth and $`\overline{\kappa }`$ is the mean opacity in the atmosphere, or, which is closely related, the place where the local temperature equals the effective temperature. Thus, if we want to assess the rate of movement of the photosphere, we have to take into account a possible change in $`\overline{\kappa }`$. To keep $`\tau _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ unchanged, an additional radius shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\kappa }(dr/d\overline{\kappa })_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is needed. Hence, the rate of the photosphere’s change may be assessed as

$$\frac{dR_{\mathrm{ph}}}{dt}=\left(\frac{dR}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{ph}}\left(\frac{d\overline{\kappa }}{dt}\frac{dr}{d\overline{\kappa }}\right)_{\mathrm{ph}},$$
(14)
An estimate shows that the second term may not be negligible if $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)_{\mathrm{ph}}10^3.`$

The connection between $`R_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ and the solar disk radius, $`R_d`$, determined from the inflection point in the limb-darkening function was discussed recently by Brown and Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). They find $`R_dR_{\mathrm{ph}}500\text{ km}`$. Again a $`10^3`$ temperature perturbation within the atmosphere may be significant at the level of the radius changes discussed here. Thus, the difference between the solar radius variations inferred by means of seismology and photometry has to be kept in mind when a detailed comparison is made.

The total value of $`(dR/dt)_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ may be estimated as the sum of -1.5 km/s inferred from the f-mode data and one of the values inferred from p-modes data shown in Table 2. These are model dependent. We do not expect that by including the nonmagnetic contributors to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _p`$, we would infer rates significantly beyond the range of values quoted in this table. We note that the net effect may imply both contraction and expansion. Possible net values of $`(dR/dt)_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ range from -3 to 1 km/y.

Finally, we point out that there is no contradiction between our inferences from f- and p-mode frequency changes. The effect of the field increases needed to account for the $`dR_f/dt`$ value have a negligible effect on p-modes frequencies, if the outward decrease of $`d<B>_{\mathrm{rms}}/dt`$ from the bottom of the convective zone is steep enough.

## 5 Conclusions

Results of our analysis of f-mode frequency confirm the evidence, first found by Antia and Basu (2000), for a contraction of the sun’s outer layers during the rising phase of the magnetic activity. The rate we determine is 1.5 km/y and is only somewhat different than found by our predecessors. We pointed out, however, that there may be another interpretation for the observed frequency variation. Further, we stressed that the rate does not refer to the surface radius, but to the layer at 4 – 8 Mm depth below the photosphere. In spite of the fact that the dispersion relation for high-degree f-modes approaches that for the surface gravity waves, the two types of modes are essentially different. While the latter are discontinuity modes which see the same gravity for each horizontal wave number, the f-modes see different effective gravities depending on $`\mathrm{}`$.

The rate of shrinking is most easily explained as resulting from the rise of the radial component of the random magnetic field beneath a depth of 8 Mm. There is an integral constraint on the magnetic field which may be the most important finding from the data on f-mode frequency changes. To account for the shrinking rate, we need an increase in the radial component of the random magnetic field with a modest annual rate. An isotropic increase would imply an expansion in the f-mode region. We pointed out that this new constraint is likely to be in conflict with the much larger change of the interior field inferred by Dziembowski et al.( 2000) from the inversion of p-mode frequency changes.

The p-mode frequency change may be accounted for in terms of magnetic field changes. Our analysis was based on the formalism of Goldreich et al. (1991), and we found similar implications regarding the required field increase as these authors, who analyzed BBSO data from the previous solar maximum. In particular, the increase must be larger below the photosphere than in the atmosphere, if this is the sole effect causing p-mode frequency changes. We pointed out, however, that a temperature decrease and/or decrease of turbulent velocity in sub-photospheric layers could be significant contributors to the frequency decrease. Depending on the field anisotropy, the changes in the outermost layers may lead to additional shrinking or to net expansion.

Our estimated rates of radius change during the rise of cycle 23 range from -3 to 1 km/y. This differs from the rate of about 5.9$`\pm `$0.7 km/y determined by Emilio et al. (2000) from the direct radius measurements based on SOHO/MDI intensity data. Perhaps the difference may be explained by the difference between $`dR_d/dt`$ and our $`(dR/dt)_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. Both results, however, imply a negligible contribution of the radius change to the solar irradiance variations. Furthermore, the two estimates of the radius change between maximum and minimum activity are by two orders of magnitude less than found by Nöel (1997) from his measurements with the astrolabe of Santiago. He finds the difference between the 1991 (previous maximum) and 1996 radii which is exceeding 700 km. The data from the Solar Diameter Monitor (Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard, 1998) are inconsistent with such large variations, although there is a hint of possible radius increase during 1987 of some 30–40 km. On the other hand, a theoretical constraint on radius given by Spruit (1994) is even tighter than than that from helioseismology. The number he quotes for the maximum to minimum difference is $`2\times 10^7R_{}=0.14`$ km.

We thank an anonymous referee for careful and detailed comments that improved our paper.

SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. This research was supported by the SOI-MDI NASA contract NAG5-8878 at Stanford University, and partially supported by NASA-NAG5-9730, NASA-NAG5-9543 and NSF-ATM-97-14796 grants to Big Bear and KBN-2-P03D-014-14 to W.A.D..

APPENDIX

We assume the Cowling approximation and write the equation for adiabatic oscillation in the following form

$$\rho \omega ^2𝝃=\mathbf{}P^{}+\rho ^{}g𝐞_r𝐅𝝃.$$
$`(A1)`$
The notation here is a standard one and does not require explanation. The variational expression for eigenfrequencies is

$$\omega ^2=\frac{d^3𝐱𝝃^{}𝐅𝝃}{d^3𝐱\rho |𝝃|^2}\frac{K}{I}.$$
$`(A2)`$
The f-modes are nearly incompressible. Thus, for the approximate $`𝝃`$ to be used in this expression, we assume

$$\mathbf{}𝝃=0.$$
$`(A3).`$
Then for the Eulerian perturbation of density and pressure, we have

$$P^{}=g\rho \xi _r\text{ and }\rho ^{}=\frac{d\rho }{dr}\xi _r.$$
$`(A4)`$
We express in a standard way the displacement eigenvector in terms of the spherical harmonics,

$$𝝃=[y(r)𝐞_r+z(r)\mathbf{}]Y_{\mathrm{}}^m.$$
$`(A5)`$
With this expression (A3) becomes

$$\frac{dy}{dr}+2\frac{y}{r}L^2\frac{z}{r}=0$$
$`(A5)`$
and the integrals in (A2) become

$$I=_0^R(y^2+L^2z^2)\rho r^2𝑑r$$
$`(A6)`$
and

$$K=_0^R\left[2L^2yz+\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}g}{d\mathrm{ln}r}2\right)y^2\right]\frac{g}{r}\rho r^2𝑑r,$$
$`(A7)`$
where we made use of (A4). We may use

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}g}{d\mathrm{ln}r}=2,$$

because for modes considered here the logarithmic derivative of the local mass, $`M_r`$, is less than $`10^2`$ in the layers contributing to $`I`$ and $`K`$, which implies less than a $`10^4`$ fractional contribution to frequencies. From the ratio of radial to horizontal component of (A1), we obtain approximately

$$\frac{y}{z}=L^2\frac{z}{y}$$

and, taking into account the inner boundary condition, $`y=Lz`$. Now, we have from (A6)

$$I=2_0^Ry^2\rho r^2𝑑r$$
$`(A8)`$
and from (A7)

$$K=2(L2)_0^Ry^2\frac{g}{r}\rho r^2𝑑r$$
$`(A9).`$
Eqs.(2) and (3) follow immediately from (A2), (A8), and (A9) upon setting $`M_r=M`$ and $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$.