format: text

text:
# Quantum Communication between N-partners and Bell’s Inequalities

## Abstract

We consider a family of quantum communication protocols involving $`N`$ partners. We demonstrate the existence of a link between the security of these protocols against individual attacks by the eavesdropper, and the violation of some Bell’s inequalities, generalizing the link that was noticed some years ago for two-partners quantum cryptography. The arguments are independent of the local hidden variable debate.

Historically, entanglement was essentially a source of controversy on the foundations of quantum mechanics, as illustrated by the lively debate about the local hidden variable program and Bell’s inequality . Today, it is widely recognized that entanglement is a resource from which tasks can be achieved that are classically impossible, as illustrated by many quantum information protocols . Among these protocols, quantum cryptography — better described as quantum key distribution (QKD) — is the one that has almost reached the level of application . In this work, we study the link between the security of quantum communication protocols and the violation of Bell’s inequalities. Previous works  pointed out such a link in QKD between two partners Alice and Bob. We begin by reviewing these results, that will help to clarify the initial intuition and the motivation for the present work.

Consider the following QKD setup . Alice prepares an EPR state, say $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_z^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00+|11\right)`$, where we write $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ for the eigenstates of $`\sigma _z`$. She keeps one qubit and sends the other one to Bob. Alice and Bob measure either $`\sigma _x`$ or $`\sigma _y`$, then publicly communicate the choice of the measurement basis. Whenever they have used the same basis, their results are perfectly correlated, and they can establish a key. This protocol is equivalent to the BB84 protocol . Its distinguishing feature is the fact that the bits are encoded into orthogonal states belonging to two conjugated bases.

To study the security of the protocol, consider an eavesdropper (Eve) that acts on the quantum channel linking Alice to Bob, trying to get some information but inevitably introducing perturbations. To establish a key in spite of these perturbations, A and B can run a one-way protocol called error correction and privacy amplification if and only if

$$I(A:B)>\mathrm{min}[I(A:E),I(B:E)]$$
(1)
where $`I(A:B)=H(A)+H(B)H(AB)`$, $`H`$ the Shannon entropy, is called mutual information. In the following, we shall consider (1) as the condition for security, although it is known that a secret key can be established under less restrictive conditions by using two-way communication .

In our context, Eve’s best attack is defined as the attack that maximizes $`I(A:E)`$ for a fixed $`I(A:B)`$. The best attack is not known in all generality ; but it is, if we suppose that Eve performs an individual attack, that is, that she makes only measurements on individual qubits . Moreover, it is also known that Eve can perform the best individual attack by using a single qubit as resource , by implementing the following unitary transformation affecting her and Bob’s qubits:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U_{BE}|00\hfill & =\hfill & |00\hfill \\ U_{BE}|10\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\varphi |10+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |01\hfill \end{array}.$$
(2)
Here, $`|00`$ etc. are shorthand for $`|0_B|0_E`$ etc. (by convention, we supposed that Eve prepares her qubits in the state $`|0`$), and $`\varphi [0,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ characterizes the strength of Eve’s attack. Thus, after eavesdropping the system of three qubits is in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ABE}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_AU_{BE}|00+|1_AU_{BE}|10)`$. Note that the roles of B and E are symmetric under the exchange of $`\varphi `$ with $`\frac{\pi }{2}\varphi `$. The mutual information between any two partners can be calculated explicitly : condition (1) for security is fulfilled if and only if $`\varphi <\frac{\pi }{4}`$.

As we said above, there is a remarkable link between the security of the BB84 protocol against individual attacks and the violation of Bell’s inequalities. For any set of four unit vectors $`\underset{¯}{a}=\{\stackrel{}{a}_1,\stackrel{}{a}_1^{},\stackrel{}{a}_2,\stackrel{}{a}_2^{}\}`$, let’s define the two-qubit Bell operator

$`B_2(\underset{¯}{a})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sigma _{a_1}+\sigma _{a_1^{}}\right)\sigma _{a_2}+\left(\sigma _{a_1}\sigma _{a_1^{}}\right)\sigma _{a_2^{}}`$ (3)
with $`\sigma _a=\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$. The CHSH inequality  reads $`S_2=\mathrm{max}_{\underset{¯}{a}}\text{Tr}(\rho B_2(\underset{¯}{a}))2`$, while the maximal value allowed by QM is $`S_2=2\sqrt{2}`$ . The CHSH inequality is optimal, in the sense it is violated if and only if the statistics of the results cannot be accounted for by local hidden variables (lhv) . The Horodecki criterion  allows an explicit calculation of $`S`$ for each two-qubit state obtained from $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ABE}`$ by tracing out the third qubit. We find that the pair B-E never violates the inequality, while

$`S_{AB}=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ $`,`$ $`S_{AE}=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (4)
Then obviously $`S_{AB}>2`$ if and only if $`S_{AE}<2`$: the inequality is violated by the pair A-B if and only if it is not violated by the pair A-E. In conclusion, for the QKD protocol that we consider, (1) holds if and only if $`S_{AB}>2>S_{AE}`$ (fig. 1).

The previous paragraphs summarize the present knowledge about the link between security and Bell’s inequalities. In the following, we shall generalize this link for QKD protocols involving an arbitrary number of partners. But before turning to this, let’s address the following purely algebraic problem, which is naturally related to this discussion. Consider three partners A,B and C (here there is no more reason to single out an Eve), each possessing a qubit. Are there pure or mixed states of the three qubit system such that more than one pair can violate the CHSH inequality? The answer to this question is negative:
Theorem 1: Let $`\rho `$ be a three-qubit state, and $`\rho _{AB}`$, $`\rho _{BC}`$ and $`\rho _{AC}`$ be the two-qubit states obtained from $`\rho `$ by tracing out one of the qubits. If one can find four unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{a}^{},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b}^{}`$ such that $`\text{Tr}(B_2\rho _{AB})>2`$, then for all choice of four unit vectors $`\text{Tr}(B_2\rho _{BC})<2`$ and $`\text{Tr}(B_2\rho _{AC})<2`$.
We present a proof inspired by Cirel’son’s proof that the maximal violation of CHSH allowed by quantum mechanics is $`2\sqrt{2}`$ . Let’s define the operator

$$V=B_{AB}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{a}^{},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b}^{})+B_{AC}(\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{A}^{},\stackrel{}{c},\stackrel{}{c}^{}).$$
(5)
where $`B_{AB}=B_2\text{11}_C`$, and similarly for $`B_{AC}`$. Using $`\sigma _a\sigma _a^{}=(\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{a}^{})\text{11}+i\sigma _{aa^{}}`$, lengthy but standard algebra leads to $`\left(\frac{V^2}{4}2\text{11}\right)^2=f\text{11}`$, where $`f`$ is a function of the unit vectors that satisfies $`0f4`$ . This entails $`\left|V_\rho \right|4`$, that is $`\text{max}\left|B_{AB}+B_{AC}_\rho \right|4`$, where the maximum is taken over the eight unit vectors that define $`V`$. But due to the symmetry $`B_{AB}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{a}^{},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b}^{})=B_{AB}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{a}^{},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b}^{})`$, it holds that $`\text{max}\left|B_{AB}+B_{AC}_\rho \right|=\text{max}\left|B_{AB}_\rho \right|+\text{max}\left|B_{AC}_\rho \right|=S_{AB}+S_{AC}`$. In conclusion, $`S_{AB}+S_{AC}4`$ for all $`\rho `$ and for all choice of unit vectors. This proves the theorem.

Two remarks: (i) It is easy to imagine experimental protocols in which, for suitable states, both pairs A-B and A-C end up with a violation of the inequality: e.g., a pair can analyze their data conditioning on the results of the third partner, if they know this result through classical communication; or, a pair may apply a filtering procedure . (ii) There are states depending on one or more parameters such that one can ”shift” the violation from one pair to another by varying the parameters: the state introduced above in the context of QKD, in particular, is such that $`S_{AB}(\varphi )>2`$ if and only if $`S_{AC}(\varphi )<2`$ .

We explore now the generalization of the link between Bell’s inequalities and security to QKD protocols involving more than two partners. The protocols that we consider are characterized by the fact that the sender distributes the key between several partners, in such a way that all partners must collaborate to retrieve the key. We call these protocols N-partners quantum secret sharing (N-QSS) . For simplicity, we discuss in detail the protocol 3-QSS involving three partners, and discuss later how this generalizes to an arbitrary number of partners. Without eavesdropping, 3-QSS works as follows. Alice prepares the 3-qubit GHZ state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000+|111)`$; she keeps one qubit and sends the others to her two partners Bob and Charlie. The three of them measure $`\sigma _x`$ or $`\sigma _y`$; the GHZ state is such that $`\sigma _x\sigma _x\sigma _x=\sigma _x\sigma _y\sigma _y=\sigma _y\sigma _x\sigma _y=\sigma _y\sigma _y\sigma _x=1`$, and the other expectation values vanish. Then A, B and C publicly announce the bases they used, and keep only those measurements when all measured $`\sigma _x`$, or when one measured $`\sigma _x`$ and the others $`\sigma _y`$. It is easy to see that each partner alone has no information on the key of any other partner, but if two partners collaborate then they have all the information about the key of the third partner. Therefore the meaningful information measure is the information that B and C together have on A’s sequence of bits, that is $`I(A:BC)=H(A)H(A|BC)=1H(A|BC)`$. In the absence of eavesdropping, $`H(A|BC)=0`$.

Two eavesdropping scenarios can be imagined:
Scenario 1: An external Eve tries to eavesdrop on both channels A-B and A-C. We still restrict to attacks that are ”individual” in the sense that each pair of qubits is attacked independently from all the other pairs; but we allow coherent measurements on the two qubits of each pair.
Scenario 2: Charlie is dishonest: he would like to retrieve the key alone, against the will of Alice who would force him and Bob to collaborate. Then C collaborates with Eve, who tries to eavesdrop on the line A-B in order to get as much as possible information about Bob’s qubit.

The security issue on these protocols is analogous to the two partners case. We sketch the argument, see  for all details. The key of the demonstration is the fact that the time ordering of the measurements is not important: if (say) the time of Alice’s measurement would change something in the local statistics of her partners or in their correlations, the protocol would allow signaling. Therefore, we can discuss security on completely equivalent protocols in which some partners measure their qubits first, this measurement acting as a preparation on the state of the other qubits.

Take Scenario 1 first: When Alice measures her qubit, she prepares one of the four states $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\pm |11)`$, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\pm i|11)`$. Therefore, one can see this protocol as a two-partners communication, Alice sending information to Bob-Charlie. Since we want to maximize $`I(A:E)`$ for a fixed $`I(A:BC)`$, Eve’s best individual attack can be copied directly from (2), replacing $`|0_B`$ and $`|1_B`$ by $`|00_{BC}`$ and $`|11_{BC}`$ respectively:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U_{BCE}|000\hfill & =\hfill & |000\hfill \\ U_{BCE}|110\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\varphi |110+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |001\hfill \end{array}.$$
(6)
In particular, Eve can still perform the best individual attack by using a single qubit. This is surprisingly simple, because a priori Eve needs an increasing number of qubits ($`2^{2n}`$) to perform the most general attack on $`n`$ qubits. However, even if Eve does not need a larger probe, she must be able to implement a coherent operation on a bigger number of qubits. Under this respect, eavesdropping on several channels is more complicated than on a single channel.

Scenario 2 can be discussed in the same way: When A and C measure their qubit, we have a single qubit flying to B, encoded as in the BB84 protocol, and on which E eavesdrops. We just have to be careful because the direct analogy with the two-partners case gives us the optimum of $`I(A:E)`$ for a given value of $`I(AC:B)`$, not of $`I(A:BC)`$. However, by the very definition of the protocol, B and C are not correlated, whence $`I(AC:B)=I(A:BC)`$. Therefore, in Scenario 2 Eve’s best individual attack on Bob’s qubit is (2).

The same arguments can be worked out for the protocol N-QSS involving $`N`$ partners. The general eavesdropping scenario is shown in fig. 2: $`n<N1`$ partners (Charlies, $`\underset{¯}{C}`$) are dishonest, and want to retrieve the key without the help of the $`N1nh`$ other partners (Bobs, $`\underset{¯}{B}`$). Then again Eve can perform the best individual attack using a single qubit, which must interact coherently with all the $`h`$ qubits that are to be spied. The state of the $`N+1`$ qubits after eavesdropping is

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0^{Nh}|0^h|0+\mathrm{cos}\varphi |1^{Nh}|1^h|0`$ (8)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |1^{Nh}|0^h|1)`$
where the first ket are A and the dishonest $`\underset{¯}{C}`$, the second ket are the honest $`\underset{¯}{B}`$ that are spied, the third ket is Eve. Let $`I_a=I(A:\underset{¯}{B}\underset{¯}{C})`$ the information between the authorized partners, $`I_u=I(A:\underset{¯}{C}E)`$ the information between the unauthorized partners. In analogy with the case of two partners QKD, it can be shown that $`I_a>I_u`$ if and only if $`\varphi <\frac{\pi }{4}`$ . Now we can tackle the link with Bell’s inequalities.

For our study, we consider the family of inequalities known as Mermin-Klyshko (MK) inequalities . This choice will be discussed below. The Bell operator for $`M`$ qubits is defined recursively as

$`B_M={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{a_M}+\sigma _{a_M^{}}}{2}}B_{M1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{a_M}\sigma _{a_M^{}}}{2}}B_{M1}^{}`$ (9)
where $`B_n^{}`$ is obtained from $`B_n`$ by exchanging all the $`\stackrel{}{a}_k`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}_k^{}`$. The maximal value allowed by QM is $`S_M=2^{\frac{M+1}{2}}`$, achieved for $`M`$-qubit GHZ states. An important property of these inequalities is the following: the bound $`S_M2^{\frac{m+1}{2}}`$, with $`m<M`$, can be violated only by states in which more than $`m`$ qubits are entangled . We shall say that a $`M`$-qubit state violates the inequality if for this state $`S_M>2^{\frac{M}{2}}`$, that is, if the violation can be accounted for only by having $`M`$-qubit entanglement.

Having settled these notions, we can prove
Theorem 2: The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nh}`$ given in (8) is such that the authorized partners violate the $`N`$-qubit MK inequalitiy (in the sense just described) if and only if $`\varphi <\frac{\pi }{4}`$; and in this range, the unauthorized partners do not violate the $`(Nh+1)`$-qubit MK inequality. At $`\varphi =\frac{\pi }{4}`$, both sets of partners are exactly at the border of the violation; and for $`\varphi >\frac{\pi }{4}`$ the roles of the authorized and the unauthorized partners is reversed.

The proof (see  for all details) is a direct optimization of expressions like $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nh}|B_N(\underset{¯}{a})\text{11}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{Nh}`$ over all sets of $`2N`$ unit vectors $`\underset{¯}{a}`$. This optimization is not easy. We could perform it analytically when $`N`$ and $`h`$ have different parities (in particular, this is the case if $`h=N1`$, that is when all partners are honest and Eve is external); and some cases where $`N`$ and $`h`$ have the same parity were checked on the computer. Therefore, to within the limitations of this proof, we can safely say that: for the N-QSS protocols, and whatever the eavesdropping scenario in which Eve uses the best individual attack, the security condition $`I_a>I_u`$ is satisfied if and only if the authorized partners violate the MK inequality, and in this case the unauthorized partners do not violate the MK inequality. We recall that ”violation” here does not merely mean $`S_M>2`$, the limit imposed by lhv, but $`S_M>2^{\frac{M}{2}}`$, i.e. that all the qubits are really strongly entangled.

One might ask if a purely algebraic result like Theorem 1 holds for the violation of any $`M`$-qubit MK inequality. The answer is negative. As a counterexample, the four-qubit state $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha (|0011+|1100+i|0101+i|1010)/2+\mathrm{sin}\alpha (i|1001+|1111)/\sqrt{2}`$ gives $`S_{ABC}=S_{BCD}=3>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{2}`$ for $`\alpha 0.955`$. However, we have numerical evidence that no such states can be produced by Eve. Our current knowledge on this question can be found in . In any case, the fact that a general algebraic theorem does not hold in all cases strengthens the link between security and violation of a MK inequality: even though in the Hilbert space we can find states that violate two inequalities for some shared qubits, these states do not appear in the individual eavesdropping on a N-QSS protocol.

This leads us naturally to the question of the choice of the optimal Bell’s inequalities. Our choice of the MK inequalities is natural in the following sense: we are considering QKD protocols in which each partner measures two conjugated observables; therefore, we choose also inequalities with two measurements per qubit. Werner and Wolf have recently classified all the inequalities of this class, and have demonstrated that the MK inequalities are those that give the highest violation, for GHZ states . It is not impossible that other inequalities may be better suited for the study of security in other protocols with more than two settings per qubit. For instance, in the six-state QKD between two partners it is known that $`S_{AB}>2>S_{AE}`$ is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for security .

Of course, we share the open questions of the whole field of quantum cryptography: which is Eve’s best attack in all generality? Or, does something change if the partners share higher dimensional systems instead of qubits? Note also that no satisfactory Bell’s inequality has been found yet for higher dimensional systems. Under these respects, the study of the link between Bell’s inequalities and security seems to be a promising field of research, at the border between quantum information and foundations of quantum mechanics.

We conclude by stressing that Bell’s inequalities appear here in a context that is disconnected (at least at first sight) from the studies on lhv: we have only discussed entanglement — to be precise, an entanglement that is ”useful” for some quantum communication protocols. In other words, Bell’s inequalities seem to have a role to play in ”present-day” quantum information processing, and not only in the ”old” debate on lhv.

We acknowledge partial financial support from the Swiss FNRS and the Swiss OFES within the European project EQUIP (IST-1999-11053).


text:
# Imperfect nesting and Peierls instability for a two-dimensional tight-binding model

## I Introduction

The low dimensional electronic materials are known to be very susceptible to a Peierls instability towards a charge density wave (CDW) state driven by the electron-phonon interaction . The presence of a lattice distortion is usually favorable to lower the electronic energy and once this reduction overcomes the increase of lattice deformation energy the Peierls transition takes place. It has been extensively studied in a lot of quasi-one dimensional (1D) materials such as organic conjugated polymers (CH)x  or inorganic blue bronzes A0.3MoO3 (A=K, Rb, Tl) , as well as quasi-two dimensional (2D) materials such as purple bronzes AMo6O17 (A=Na, K, Tl)  and monophosphate tungsten bronzes (PO2)4(WO3)2m ($`4m14`$) .

It is believed that in the Peierls transition the structure of the Fermi surface (FS) plays an essential role. In ideal 1D systems, the FS, being composed of two points seperated by $`2k_F`$ (Fermi wave vector), is always perfectly nested. The lattice distortion opens a gap at the Fermi level with the consequence that the energy gain from the electronic energy is always dominant, so that the Peierls instability with a metal-insulator transition always takes place (if quantum effects of phonons are not considered ).

The situation becomes richer in two dimensions because of a more complex FS structure. In general, the FS is not nested, i.e., a single mode of lattice distortion can connect only two points in the FS, and the gain of electronic energy from this distortion is not enough to overcome the increase of lattice energy. However, in some special cases the FS is still nested and the electronic energy may be lowered substantially by the lattice distortion even if a gap may be not fully opened at the FS as in one dimension. The simplest realization is the 2D square lattice tight-binding model with only nearest-neighbour (n.n.) hopping at half-filling, i.e., the 2D version of the well-known Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model . In this case the FS consists of parallel straight lines: $`|k_x|+|k_y|=\pi `$ as illustrated in Fig. 1 by the solid line. One of the Fermi lines may be completely moved to another by a translational vector $`Q=(\pi ,\pi )`$, i.e., the FS is perfectly nested with nesting vector $`Q`$. The Peierls instability for this model was theoretically studied one decade ago in connection to high $`T_c`$ superconductors . Unlike in one dimension, there are several possible alternation patterns for the lattice distortion and the corresponding bond hopping, as discussed by Tang and Hirsch . In Fig. 2 two possible dimerization patterns are shown. Both of them correspond to phonons with wave vector $`(\pi ,\pi )`$, which is exactly $`Q`$ so that the reduced Brillouin zone boundary after distortion perfectly meets the original FS. The difference between them is that for case (a) the dimerization is in both directions, while it is only in one direction for case (b). It was found that even arbitrarily small lattice elastic strength will induce a lattice distortion into case (a) or (b), i.e, the Peierls instability is sure to occur even for this 2D model . On the other hand, however, it may be noticed that the present perfect nesting of the FS may be easily broken, for example, by introducing next nearest-neighbour (n.n.n.) hopping which is often not negligible. Then the following problem naturally arises: does the above Peierls instability still survive the imperfect nesting of the FS?

Actually, for those quasi-2D materials which show a Peierls instability perfect nesting of their Fermi surfaces is never present, but an approximate, so called hidden nesting exists . Also, it may be reasonable to expect that the Peierls instability will be suppressed if the FS is so far away from nesting that even no hidden nesting is present. As far as real materials are concerned the shapes of the Fermi surfaces are obtained by band structure calculations and may be often rather complicated. Nevertheless, the tight-binding model with the n.n. and n.n.n. hopping should already be sufficient to simulate an essential property of real Fermi surfaces: whether they are nesting or not. Thus it is necessary to clarify how sensitive the Peierls instability is to the deviations of the FS from perfect nesting which is controlled by n.n.n. hopping. This is the topic addressed in this paper. A similar problem was studied previously by Lin et al. , however, their study was only limited to the dimerization pattern (a). (Actually this pattern is not favorable in a large region of $`t^{}`$ as will be seen later.) In addition, the main result Fig. 7 in their work was not convincingly presented. We will include the two possible patterns (a) and (b) and address the unexpected competition between them.

## II FS nesting and Peierls instability

We begin with the following Hamiltonian based on a square lattice with a half-filled band:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}[1+\alpha (u_{i,j}^xu_{i+1,j}^x)](c_{i,j,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,j,\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)t{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}[1+\alpha (u_{i,j}^yu_{i,j+1}^y)](c_{i,j,\sigma }^{}c_{i,j+1,\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (2)
$`t^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}(c_{i,j,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,j+1,\sigma }+c_{i,j,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,j1,\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}[(u_{i,j}^xu_{i+1,j}^x)^2+(u_{i,j}^yu_{i,j+1}^y)^2],`$
where $`c_{i,j,\sigma }^{}(c_{i,j,\sigma })`$ denotes the creation (annihilation) operator for an electron at site $`(i,j)`$ with spin $`\sigma `$ ($`i`$ denotes $`x`$ coordinate and $`j`$ denotes $`y`$ coordinate), $`u_{i,j}^{x/y}`$ represents the displacement component of site $`(i,j)`$ in $`x/y`$ direction, $`t,t^{}`$ are n.n and n.n.n. hopping parameters and $`\alpha `$ is the electron-lattice coupling constant. The last term above describes the lattice elastic potential energy with $`K`$ the elastic constant. The lattice kinetic energy is omitted here since we do not study the dynamic behavior of phonons. For the lattice distortion patterns investigated here, the distance between n.n.n. sites remains unchanged, therefore no dimerization of $`t^{}`$ is considered in Hamiltonian (2).

The lattice distortion, as shown in Fig. 2 having the wave vector $`Q`$, may be explicitly introduced as

$$u_{i,j}^xu_{i+1,j}^x=(1)^{i+j}u,u_{i,j}^yu_{i,j+1}^y=(1)^{i+j}u$$

for case (a) and

$$u_{i,j}^xu_{i+1,j}^x=(1)^{i+j}u,u_{i,j}^yu_{i,j+1}^y=0$$

for case (b), where $`u`$ is the amplitude of dimerization determined by minimization of the ground state energy. For convenience, two dimensionless parameters are defined as follows: the dimerization amplitude $`\delta =\alpha u`$ and the electron-lattice coupling constant $`\eta =\alpha ^2t/K`$. The n.n. hopping integral $`t`$ is taken as the energy unit.

Before proceeding, we would like to mention that two further possible lattice distortion patterns as discussed in previous works on the 2D Peierls instability, which correspond to wave vector $`(\pi ,0)`$ and/or $`(0,\pi )`$ , are excluded in our study. We omit them because at $`t^{}=0`$ their energy gains are much smaller than those for the patterns considered here . (They are possibly favorable only when a large Hubbard $`U`$ term is switched on .) This is physically understandable: they have a different wave vector from the nesting one. Very recently, a more complex lattice distortion pattern with incommensurate structure was studied by Ono and Hamano in the case of $`t^{}=0`$ . However it will not be included here since it is not unique . The patterns considered in Fig. 2 may be regarded as typical structures for the study of the Peierls instability in two dimensions. In the following the Peierls instabilities for $`t^{}=0`$ and $`t^{}0`$ are discussed respectively.

### A $`t^{}=0`$

For completeness, we first reproduce the results for the perfect nesting case $`t^{}=0`$, which are straightforward but helpful. In momentum space the electronic spectra for case (a) and (b) are respectively written as

$`\epsilon _{𝐤,a}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2+\delta ^2(\mathrm{sin}k_x+\mathrm{sin}k_y)^2},`$ (3)
$`\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2+\delta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x}.`$ (4)
In the ground state only the lower band is fully occupied for each case (i.e., the chemical potential is zero). Then the ground state energy is given by

$$E=2\underset{𝐤}{}\epsilon _{𝐤,a}^{}+N\delta ^2/\eta $$

for case (a) and

$$E=2\underset{𝐤}{}\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^{}+N\delta ^2/2\eta $$

for case (b), where the summation is over the wave vector $`𝐤=(k_x,k_y)`$ in the Brillouin zone $`\pi <k_x\pm k_y\pi `$ and $`N`$ is the total number of lattice sites. The factor $`2`$ in front of the summation is due to spin degeneracy. Obviously the increase of elastic energy for case (a) is two times of that for case (b).

The results are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In Fig. 3 the optimal dimerization parameter $`\delta ^{}`$ with lowest energy vs. the electron-lattice coupling $`\eta `$ is plotted, and Fig. 4 gives the corresponding ground state energies $`E^{}`$ at these $`\delta ^{}`$ values (with respect to the energy of the undimerized lattice $`E_0`$ which is equal to $`16/\pi ^2`$ times $`N`$). From these figures it can be seen that the Peierls instability takes place as long as the electron-lattice coupling is non-zero for either case (a) or (b). Although the magnitude of $`\delta ^{}`$ is small when $`\eta 0`$, it is proven to be finite, with an exponential dependence of $`\mathrm{exp}(c/\eta )`$ on $`\eta `$ ($`c`$ is a constant). This confirms the related statement made in the Introduction. Moreover, it is seen from Fig. 4 that the energy $`E^{}`$ for case (b) (solid line) is always lower than the corresponding one for case (a) (dashed line) in the full region of finite $`\eta `$, which means that the case (b) is the more favorable dimerization pattern for $`t^{}=0`$. Unfortunately in their works, Mazumdar as well as Tang and Hirsch incorrectly prefered case (a), see Ref. . A similar conclusion as ours was reached by Ono and Hamano .

### B $`t^{}0`$

For $`t^{}0`$ the perfect nesting of the FS is broken. In Fig. 1 the Fermi surfaces for the undimerized lattice are plotted for several $`t^{}`$ values. One may see that the bigger $`t^{}`$ is the farther the FS deviates from perfect nesting.

Still the Hamiltonian can be easily diagonalized, but the final results are quite nontrivial. Now the electronic spectra become

$`\epsilon _{𝐤,a}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\pm 2\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2+\delta ^2(\mathrm{sin}k_x+\mathrm{sin}k_y)^2},`$ (5)
$`\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\pm 2\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2+\delta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2k_x},`$ (6)
and the ground state energy is

$$E=2\underset{\epsilon _{𝐤,a}^\pm \mu _a}{}\epsilon _{𝐤,a}^\pm +N\delta ^2/\eta $$

for case (a) and

$$E=2\underset{\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^\pm \mu _b}{}\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^\pm +N\delta ^2/2\eta $$

for case (b), where $`\mu _a`$ and $`\mu _b`$ are chemical potentials for case (a) and (b), respectively. By solving the equation $`E/\delta =0`$ we may single out the optimal value $`\delta ^{}`$ for each $`t^{}`$ with fixed $`\eta `$. In the following a typical value $`\eta =0.5`$ is adopted .

The results for $`\delta ^{}`$ are shown in Fig. 5. It is clearly seen that $`\delta ^{}`$ goes to zero with increase of $`t^{}`$ in both cases, which means that the Peierls instability is suppressed at some $`t^{}`$, as expected. And more interestingly, the details for both cases are different. For case (a) $`\delta ^{}`$ first decreases weakly with increase of $`t^{}`$, but at some critical $`t_{c,1}^{}0.1733`$, it drops suddenly to zero, showing a first-order transition. On the other hand, for case (b) $`\delta ^{}`$ first retains its $`t^{}=0`$ value, and after $`t^{}`$ is beyond about $`0.12`$ it begins to decrease gradually and approaches zero smoothly at $`t_{c,2}^{}0.1704`$ — the transition is of second-order. The value $`t_{c,2}^{}`$ is close to, but different from $`t_{c,1}^{}`$.

To see the above transitions more clearly, we plot in Figs. 6 and 7 the dependence of the ground state energy on the dimerization parameter $`\delta `$ for several different $`t^{}`$ values for case (a) and (b), respectively. For case (a) it is seen that when $`t^{}`$ approaches the critical value $`t_{c,1}^{}`$, the energy $`E`$ first increases with $`\delta `$ and then decreases towards a minimum, as shown in the inset of Fig. 6. Thus this minimum may be only a local one. It is expected that at $`t_{c,1}^{}`$ the energy $`E`$ at such a minimum is the same as that at $`\delta =0`$, see the inset. And then once $`t^{}`$ is beyond $`t_{c,1}^{}`$ the $`\delta `$ value with absolutely lowest energy should be taken zero, i.e., $`\delta ^{}=0`$. So a first-order transition arises. On the other hand, for case (b) the energy $`E`$ always decreases first with increase of $`\delta `$ until a minimum is reached. So this minimum is actually a global one. It shifts continuously towards zero with increase of $`t^{}`$, which explains the second-order transition.

It deserves to point out the physical reason for the constant value of $`\delta ^{}`$ in the small $`t^{}`$ region (about $`t^{}<0.12`$) for case (b). Actually, in this region the two energy bands $`\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^\pm `$ do not overlap when one takes relatively large $`\delta `$ value like $`\delta ^{}`$, so that the lower band $`\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^{}`$ is fully occupied and the upper band $`\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^+`$ is empty in the ground state. Then the electronic energy is simply given by $`_𝐤\epsilon _{𝐤,b}^{}`$, which is independent of $`t^{}`$ due to $`_𝐤\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y=0`$. Therefore the ground state energy for $`t^{}0`$ is the same as that for $`t^{}=0`$, so is the solution $`\delta ^{}`$.

While so far the results of the Peierls instabilities for the two patterns have been given separately, it is now natural to think of the competition between them. The competition becomes evident when the respective lowest energies $`E^{}`$ at different $`t^{}`$ values are compared, as shown in Fig. 8. It is interesting to see that the energy $`E^{}`$ for case (b) is first less than that for case (a), but later becomes larger with increase of $`t^{}`$. Consequently, a transition between these two dimerization patterns is predicted. To summarize, the evolution of the stable state for the system with increase of $`t^{}`$ may be described as follows: at $`t^{}=0`$ the dimerized state stabilizes due to the perfect FS nesting, and moreover the dimerization pattern takes form (b). This state remains stable until at some $`t^{}`$ value (which is about $`0.13`$ for $`\eta =0.5`$) it is replaced by the other dimerized state (a). Finally, the dimerized state breaks down, i.e., the Peierls instability is suppressed at some critical value $`t_c^{}`$ which is equal to $`t_{c,1}^{}`$ as can be seen in Fig. 8. Thus the suppression is a first-order transition.

Above, only the results for $`t^{}>0`$ are presented. What is expected for $`t^{}<0`$? Actually, taking $`t^{}t^{}`$ reflects all the results as shown by Figs. 5 and 8 about $`t^{}=0`$. This conclusion may be proven as follows. From Eq. (6) one may get the relations between the electronic spectra $`\epsilon _𝐤^\pm `$ and their corresponding ones ($`\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤^\pm `$) after reflection $`t^{}t^{}`$: $`\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤^\pm =\epsilon _𝐤^{}`$. (Because of the irrelevance of the proofs to the dimerization pattern the subscript which differentiates case (a) or (b) is omitted.) Then one obtains that the chemical potential $`\overline{\mu }`$ for the spectra $`\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤^\pm `$ is just the negative of that for the $`\epsilon _𝐤^\pm `$, i.e., $`\overline{\mu }=\mu `$ at half-filling, due to the following equations:

$$\underset{\epsilon _𝐤^\pm <\mu }{}1=\underset{\epsilon _𝐤^\pm >\mu }{}1=\underset{\epsilon _𝐤^\pm <\mu }{}1=\underset{\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤^\pm <\mu }{}1=N/2.$$

In addition, one needs to notice that the summation for all energy levels $`_𝐤\epsilon _𝐤^\pm =_𝐤8t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y=0`$. Finally the following relations hold:

$$\underset{\epsilon _𝐤^\pm <\mu }{}\epsilon _𝐤^\pm =\underset{\epsilon _𝐤^\pm >\mu }{}\epsilon _𝐤^\pm =\underset{\epsilon _𝐤^\pm <\mu }{}\epsilon _𝐤^\pm =\underset{\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤^\pm <\overline{\mu }}{}\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤^\pm .$$

Note that the first and the last terms in the above formulas are nothing but the electronic parts of the ground state energies for $`t^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$, respectively. They are proven to be the same, so are all the subsequent results derived from them.

Up to now all results have been shown for fixed $`\eta `$. In the last part of this section we will look at the role of $`\eta `$. Since the parameter $`\eta `$ only appears in the elastic energy, i.e., it is irrelevant to the electronic part of the ground state energy, the qualitative properties of curves $`E`$ vs. $`\delta `$ as shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are expected to be retained, so are the above qualitative results for the Peierls instability. Quantitatively one may think, the smaller the electron-lattice coupling $`\eta `$ is (or equivalently the larger the elastic strength $`K`$ is), the smaller the critical value $`t_c^{}`$ for the suppression of the Peierls instability should be. As a check, the case for $`\eta =0.3`$ is calculated. The results are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, which confirm the above predictions.

## III Discussion

In the previous section the Peierls instability for two dimerization patterns has been carefully studied in its dependence on $`t^{}`$. The results are instructive. It is now known that low-dimensional metals show two types of electronic instabilities: either a Peierls instability or a superconducting one. The Peierls instability may prevent some metals from entering a superconducting state. For example, in the transition metal bronzes, the Peierls instability is the dominant mechanism and superconductivity was only found in LiMo6O17 . Our results suggest that the Peierls instability may be suppressed by some way of increasing imperfect nesting, for example, by applying pressure to enhance the n.n.n. hopping. Moreover, the possible transition between different dimerized states is reminiscent of the experimental results in monophosphate tungsten bronzes like P4W12O44, where double Peierls transitions occur with change of temperature . The competition between two dimerization patterns at finite temperatures is believed to be interesting and will be left for future investigation.

A further problem is the consideration of effects of electron correlations, e.g., the Hubbard $`U`$ term which is not included in this work. For $`t^{}=0`$ the problem has been studied by Tang and Hirsch by numerical calculations . It was found that the on-site Coulomb interaction weakens the dimerization in two dimensions as soon as $`U`$ is present . The possible explanation is that the $`U`$ term favors the appearance of antiferromagnetic (AF) spin order in 2D half-filled Hubbard model, while the dimerization stabilizes local spin singlets which are unfavorable for strong $`U`$. Above, we showed that $`t^{}`$ also suppresses dimerization. Does this indicate that the simultaneous presence of both $`U`$ and $`t^{}`$ will speed the suppression of the dimerization? We leave this issue for future work and only give some clues here from previous analysis in the large $`U`$ limit (for the moment the concrete dimerization pattern is not considered). In this limit we are facing a problem of localized electrons interacting via an effective n.n. exchange $`J`$ ($`t^2/U`$) and n.n.n. exchange $`J^{}`$ ($`t^2/U`$). The Peierls system then transforms into the corresponding spin-Peierls (SP) system. The 2D (or quasi-1D) spin-Peierls instability without n.n.n. exchange $`J^{}`$ was studied by some authors . It was found that the SP transition does not spontaneously occur unless the so called spin-lattice coupling (analogous to $`\eta `$ here) exceeds a threshold. On the other hand, it was known that the n.n.n. exchange $`J^{}`$ will frustrate the AF order for the 2D spin system. So one may assume that the additional inclusion of $`J^{}`$ will be favorable to the formation of a SP state. Thus it is not unreasonable to believe that the effects of $`t^{}`$ and $`U`$ on the Peierls instability may cancel in part when acting simultaneously, although each of them separately tends to suppress it.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, a 2D tight-binding model with n.n. hopping $`t`$ and n.n.n. hopping $`t^{}`$ is used to study the effect of imperfect FS nesting on the Peierls instability of the ground state. Two possible dimerization patterns corresponding to a phonon vector $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ are considered as case (a) and (b). It is found that the Peierls instability will be suppressed with an increase of $`t^{}`$ which characterizes the deviation from perfect nesting. The details for the two cases are different: for case (a) the suppression is a first-order transition while for case (b) it is of second-order. Also a transition between the two dimerized states is investigated.

We acknowledge the financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through SFB 484 and the BMBF 13N6918/1. Q. Yuan also acknowledges the partial support by the Chinese NSF.


text:
# Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.

## Abstract

We consider “brane universe” with nonzero tension in the models with large extra dimensions. We find exact solutions of higher-dimensional Einstein equations with single flat Minkowsky brane of arbitrary large tension (or brane cosmological constant) and compact extra dimensions. The brane curves the bulk space-time in a small region around it. There is no fine tuning of energy scales in our model.

Phenomenological models with large extra space-time dimensions  have attracted considerable attention recently. Like in conventional Kaluza-Klein models, in the models with large extra dimensions higher-dimensional space-time is supposed to be a direct product $`^{4+n}=R^4\times K^n`$ of a four-dimensional plane with a compact manifold $`K^n`$ (for example, an $`n`$-dimensional sphere $`S^n`$ of radius $`R`$). The metric on $`^{4+n}`$ is just a sum of flat Minkowsky metric on $`R^4=\{x^\mu \},\mu =0,1,2,3`$ and a standard metric on $`K^n=\{y^a\},a=1,..,n`$

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +g_{ab}(y)dy^ady^b$$
(1)
The key difference of models with large, or infinite extra dimensions from the conventional Kaluza-Klein models is that matter fields of the Standard Model of particle physics are confined to a four-dimensional surface (3-brane) $`M^4`$ embedded into $`^{4+n}`$. The brane $`M^4`$ can be viewed as a topological defect in higher-dimensional space. The Standard Model particles can be localized on this defect either due to some field-theoretical mechanism  or in a way supposed by String Theory .

If matter fields of the Standard Model are localized on the brane, the size $`R`$ of extra dimensions is not limited to be very small. If $`R`$ is large enough, the higher-dimensional Planck mass $`M_{pl(4+n)}`$ which is related to the four-dimensional one $`M_{pl(4)}10^{16}`$ TeV as

$$M_{pl(4+n)}^{n+2}=M_{pl(4)}^2R^n$$
(2)
can be as small as several TeV, which opens up a possibility of testing the presence of extra dimensions and quantum gravity effects in future collider experiments.

Even if the higher-dimensional Planck mass is much larger than TeV, phenomenological models with brane universe have generically another testable feature . The presence of the brane brakes spontaneously a part of translational invariance in higher-dimensional space-time. Goldstone bosons associated to this symmetry breaking behave themselves in first approximation as massless scalar particles localized on the brane. These particles interact with Standard Model fields. Such interaction produces an essential contribution to particle collisions on energy scales higher or approximately equal to $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/4}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the typical energy density on the brane. Even if $`M_{pl(4+n)}`$ is essentially higher than 1 TeV, the energy scale $`\mu `$ can be accessible to accelerators. The lower bound on $`\mu `$ imposed by requirement of consistency with electroweak physics  and astrophysical bounds  turns out to be

$$\mu 10^1\text{ TeV}$$
(3)
The scale of the energy density on the brane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must, therefore, be much larger than the natural cosmological energy density scale

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu ^4\rho _{cr}=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G_4}10^{58}\text{ TeV}^4$$
(4)
where $`\rho _{cr}`$ is the critical energy density of the universe, $`H`$ is the Hubble constant and $`G_4`$ is the four-dimensional gravitational constant. All the energy density $`\rho \rho _{cr}`$ provided by the visible matter in the universe is just a small perturbation of the energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the brane. The energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be ascribed, for example to the topological defect itself or to the vacuum energy of the Standard Model fields localized on the brane.

The higher dimensional space-time $`^{4+n}`$ must be a solution of higher-dimensional Einstein equations with compact extra dimensions and a brane with flat Minkowsky geometry and nonzero tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The general maximally symmetric stress-energy tensor of the brane has the form

$$T_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\delta (M^4)$$
(5)
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on the brane which is equal to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ for the Minkowsky brane.

Since the stress-energy tensor of the brane is not zero, the brane must curve bulk space-time around it. In general, it is not obvious that there exists a static solution of higher-dimensional Einstein equations with single Minkowsky brane of nonzero tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and compact extra dimensions. Moreover, we know that in the absence of extra dimensions the presence of nonzero stress-energy tensor of the form (5) leads to exponential expansion of the universe. In the presence of extra dimensions large vacuum energy can curve extra dimensions, leaving the four “physical” dimensions flat . There exists a number of static solutions of higher-dimensional Einstein equations with bulk cosmological constant and a brane of nonzero tension -. But in the known static solutions the extra dimensions are either infinite  or they are finite but there is another “hidden” brane  or curvature singularity of another kind  at a finite distance from the “observable” four-dimensional brane. It is possible to get rid of the “hidden” brane making the compact extra dimensions nonstatic .

In what follows we present solutions of higher-dimensional Einstein equations with a flat brane of nonzero tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and compact extra dimensions. The scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not fine tuned neither to the higher-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{pl(4+n)}^4`$ nor to the Kaluza-Klein scale $`R^4`$ and is defined by internal properties of the brane.

Typical size of the space-time region around the brane in which the background geometry is essentially deformed by the presence of the brane is much smaller than both the higher-dimensional Planck length and the size of the extra dimensions even if the brane tension is as high as $`M_{pl(4+n)}^4`$. Therefore, in description of classical and quantum fluctuations of the brane around its equilibrium position we can use the approximation of test brane on a fixed background space-time in a way supposed in .

We consider a space-time $`^{4+n}=R^4\times S^n`$ with compact extra dimensions with topology of the sphere $`S^n`$. Let us restrict our attention to the case $`n=4`$, although the construction is easily generalized for arbitrary $`n4`$. The set of coordinates on $`M^4\times S^4`$ is

$$x^A=(\underset{R^4}{\underset{}{x^\mu ,}}\underset{S^4}{\underset{}{r,\psi ,\theta ,\varphi }})$$
(6)
In the absence of the brane the metric on $`S^4`$ is the standard metric on a sphere of radius $`R`$

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\left(1\frac{r^2}{R^2}\right)d\psi ^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{R^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(7)
The coordinate $`r`$ is defined within the interval $`r(0,R)`$, the coordinate $`\psi `$ is periodic with the period $`2\pi R`$ and $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ are the standard angular coordinates on a two-dimensional sphere. The coordinate system $`(r,\psi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ becomes singular at $`r=0,R`$. In the vicinity of $`r=0`$ the radius of two-dimensional sphere parameterized by $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ goes to zero so that the region $`0r<\widehat{r}`$ for some small $`\widehat{r}`$ has topology $`D^3\times S^1`$ of direct product of three-dimensional disk parameterized by $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ and a circle parameterized by $`\psi `$. Singularity of coordinate system at $`r=0`$ is just the singularity of three-dimensional spherical coordinates at $`r=0`$. In the vicinity of $`r=R`$ radius of the circle $`S^1`$ parameterized by $`\psi `$ goes to zero and topology of a region $`\widehat{r}<rR`$ is $`S^2\times D^2`$ where $`S^2`$ is parameterized by $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and two-dimensional disk $`D^2`$ is parameterized by $`(r,\psi )`$. Singularity of the coordinate system at $`r=R`$ is the same as at the origin of polar coordinates on a two-dimensional plane. The whole sphere $`S^4`$ is a connected sum $`S^4=(D^3\times S^1)\mathrm{\#}(S^2\times D^2)`$ of the above two manifolds with boundaries.

The space-time (7) is a solution of the eight-dimensional Einstein equations with stress-energy tensor

$`T_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\rho \delta _\nu ^\mu `$
$`T_b^a`$ $`=`$ $`w\rho \delta _b^a`$ (8)
where the energy density $`\rho `$ and parameter $`w`$ which describes the equation of state are

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi G_8R^2}}`$
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`1/2`$ (9)
Here $`G_8`$ is the eight-dimensional gravitational constant.

Let us now consider a brane $`M^4`$ embedded into $`^8`$ as $`M^4:\{r<\widehat{r}\}`$ where $`\widehat{r}R`$ is a small brane thickness. Presence of the brane destroys the maximally symmetric form of the bulk metric (7). A general form of metric in the bulk is now

$$ds^2=e^{A(r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +e^{B(r)}\psi ^2+e^{C(r)}dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\psi ^2)$$
(10)
with arbitrary functions $`A(r),B(r),C(r)`$. Outside the brane the metric must be a solution of eight-dimensional Einstein equations with the same bulk stress-energy tensor (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.). The most simple choice is

$`ds_{r>\widehat{r}}^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R^2}}\right)d\psi ^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R^2}}\right)^1dr^2+`$
$`r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)`$ (11)
the sum of Minkowsky metric along $`x^\mu `$ directions and Eucledian Schwarzschild-deSitter black hole with gravitational radius $`r_0`$. The coordinate $`\psi `$ is defined now with the period $`2\pi \stackrel{~}{R}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is chosen in such a way that the space-time has no conical singularity at $`r=r_1`$ where $`r_1`$ is the larger root of cubic equation $`r^3+R^2(r_0r)=0`$. If we are interested in the case when both the thickness $`\widehat{r}`$ and the gravitational radius $`r_0`$ are much smaller than $`R`$, then $`r_1\stackrel{~}{R}R`$.

The metric “inside” the brane in the region $`r<\widehat{r}`$ depends on details of the brane structure and behavior of the functions $`A(r),B(r),C(r)`$ (10) in the vicinity of $`r=0`$ can be different for different types of four-dimensional topological defects in higher-dimensional space. The metric in the region $`0<r<\widehat{r}`$ inside the brane must satisfy the boundary condition

$$ds_{r=\widehat{r}}^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\left(1\frac{r_0}{\widehat{r}}\frac{\widehat{r}^2}{R^2}\right)d\psi ^2+\widehat{r}^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(12)
in order to match the outer metric (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.) continuously. For example, let us take the metric

$$ds_{r<\widehat{r}}^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\left(1\frac{r^2}{a}\right)d\stackrel{~}{\psi }^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{a}\right)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(13)
In this case the complete space-time with the brane is constructed as follows. We cut a small region $`0<r<\widehat{r}`$ of the four-dimensional sphere $`S^4`$ of large radius $`R`$ and glue a space locally isometric to a smaller sphere of radius $`\sqrt{a}`$ on inside $`r=\widehat{r}`$ as it is schematically presented on Fig. 1.

The coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is defined with an arbitrary period $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(0,2\pi L)`$ and the relation between $`a`$ and $`L`$ is found from the requirement that the induced metric on the surface $`r=\widehat{r}`$ is equal to (12)

$$L^2\left(1\frac{\widehat{r}^2}{a}\right)=R^2\left(1\frac{r_0}{\widehat{r}}\frac{\widehat{r}^2}{R^2}\right)$$
(14)
The matter stress-energy tensor in the region $`0<r<\widehat{r}`$ can be calculated from the Einstein equations

$$T_B^A=\frac{1}{8\pi G_8}\left(R_B^A\frac{1}{2}\delta _B^AR\right)$$
(15)
It has the form (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.) with

$`\rho _{r<\widehat{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi G_8a}}`$
$`w_{r<\widehat{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`1/2`$ (16)
The surface stress-energy tensor at $`r=\widehat{r}`$ can be found from Israel junction conditions across $`r=\widehat{r}`$ which relate it to the jump of extrinsic curvature $`K_B^A`$ of the surface $`r=\widehat{r}`$

$$T_B^A=\frac{1}{8\pi G_8}\left([K_B^A]\delta _B^A[K]\right)$$
(17)
(square brackets denote the jump $`[K]=K(\widehat{r}+0)K(\widehat{r}0)`$). Substituting the metrics (13) and (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.) into (17) we find

$$T_{\nu (r=\widehat{r})}^\mu =\frac{3r_0R^2(2RL)+2\widehat{r}R(L^2+2RL3R^2)+6\widehat{r}^3(RL)}{16\pi G_8\widehat{r}^2L^2R\sqrt{1\widehat{r}^2/a}}\delta _\nu ^\mu $$
(18)
The effective four-dimensional stress-energy tensor of brane is obtained by integrating the eight-dimensional stress-energy tensor over the brane volume

$$𝒯_\nu ^\mu =4\pi \underset{0}{\overset{\widehat{r}}{}}r^2𝑑r\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi L}{}}𝑑\psi T_{\nu (r<\widehat{r})}^\mu +4\pi \widehat{r}^2\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi L}{}}𝑑\psi \sqrt{1\widehat{r}^2/a}T_{\nu (r=\widehat{r})}^\mu $$
(19)
Substituting (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.) and (18) into (19) we get

$$𝒯_\nu ^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\nu ^\mu $$
(20)
where the brane tension, or the cosmological constant on the brane is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\pi }{G_8}\left(\left(\frac{3}{R}\frac{1}{L}\right)\widehat{r}^3+\left(L2R+\frac{R^2}{L}\right)\widehat{r}+\left(\frac{3}{2}RL\right)r_0\right)$$
(21)
Depending on the values of parameters $`L,\widehat{r},r_0`$ the brane tension can be both positive or negative. We consider several particular cases. If take $`L0`$ so that the size of $`S^1`$ parameterized by $`\psi `$ is very small at $`r=0`$, the brane tension is approximately

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\pi \widehat{r}R^2}{G_8L}$$
(22)
If we choose $`LR`$ so that the size of $`S^1`$ is large at $`r=0`$, but becomes small at $`r=\widehat{r}`$ if $`\widehat{r}r_0`$, the brane tension is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\pi r_0R}{2G_8}$$
(23)
Thus, the cosmological constant on the brane depends on the internal structure of the brane.

Let us discuss the question of fine tuning of parameters in our model. Within four-dimensional General Relativity cosmological constant must be fine tuned to zero in order to explain flat Minkowsky geometry of space-time. In the models with extra dimensions the presence of nonzero cosmological constant on the brane (5) does not necessary cause the exponential expansion of the brane universe. The brane tension (21) is not fine tuned neither to Kaluza-Klein scale $`R^4`$ nor to the Planck scale $`M_{pl(8)}^4`$. Flat Minkowsky geometry of the brane universe is explained in our model by a special choice of matter equation of state, rather than fine-tuning of the energy scale.

Indeed, let us first consider the space-time $`^8=R^4\times S^4`$ without brane. If the geometry of $`R^4`$ sections of this space-time is Minkowsky, $`^8`$ is a solution of eight-dimensional Einstein equations with stress-energy tensor (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.), (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.). Such a stress-energy tensor can be generated, for example by a massless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }^a:^8S^4`$ which takes values on a four-dimensional sphere. The stress-energy tensor of this field is

$$T_{AB}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{,A}^a\mathrm{\Psi }_{,B}^a\frac{1}{2}g_{AB}g^{CD}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,C}^a\mathrm{\Psi }_{,D}^a$$
(24)
If we consider a topologically nontrivial configuration where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ “winds” once on the sphere

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^a(x,y)=consty^a$$
(25)
the parameter $`w`$ (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.) which describes the equation of state for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is

$$w_\mathrm{\Psi }=1/2$$
(26)
Now, suppose that the geometry of the $`R^4`$ part of $`^8`$ is deSitter or anti-deSitter with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, rather than Minkowsky. Such a space-time is a solution of eight-dimensional Einstein equations with the stress-energy tensor of the form (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.) with energy density

$$\rho =\frac{1}{8\pi G_8}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{6}{R^2}\right)$$
(27)
and equation of state

$$w=\frac{3+2\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2}{6+\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2}$$
(28)
We see that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ the matter equation of state must be different from (Brane world cosmological constant in the models with large extra dimensions.). Thus, if we take matter with equation of state $`w=1/2`$, for example, the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in topologically nontrivial vacuum (25), the four-dimensional sections of $`^8=R^4\times S^4`$ will have flat geometry.

In the same way geometry of the brane is flat if the equation of state of matter in the region $`r\widehat{r}`$ inside and on the boundary of the brane is adjusted in appropriate way.

The size of space-time region around the brane in which the background metric is essentially deformed by the brane is very small $`r_0M_{pl(8)}^1R`$ even for a brane of very high tension. This enables us to treat the brane as a test brane on a fixed background. The situation is analogous to the one encountered in particle physics where one can neglect gravitational (self) interaction of particles because their gravitational radius is much smaller then the Compton wavelength. Fluctuations of the brane around its equilibrium position can be excited in particle collisions or astrophysical processes at the energy scales close to $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/4}`$ (3) .

We note also that cosmological models with a brane universe of nonzero tension must be very different from the conventional four-dimensional ones. Indeed, the large four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not cause exponential expansion of the universe in our model. If we add some matter on the brane with equation of state $`p=\rho `$ ($`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are four-dimensional pressure and energy density), the brane universe still can remain static, since we just change the brane cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+\rho `$ which would lead to the change of gravitational radius $`r_0`$ of the brane. The expansion of the brane universe is caused only by matter with equation of state different from $`p=\rho `$.

I would like to thank V.Rubakov, I.Sachs and S.Solodukhin for many useful discussions of the subject. The work was supported by SFB 375 der DFG fur Astroteilchenphysik.