text:
# Coulomb effects in dynamics of polar lattices

## I Introduction

Electrostatic dipole–dipole interactions play an important role in the theory of lattice vibrations. It is common knowledge  that the degeneracy of phonon modes at the Brillouin zone-center (e.g., in the cubic 3C-SiC crystal) is removed if the atomic displacements are accompanied by the Coulomb field. Then the frequency of the longitudinal optical mode becomes larger than the frequencies of transverse modes. For noncubic crystals (e.g., for the hexagonal or rhombohedral SiC polytypes), the long-range Coulomb field gives rise also to an angular dependence of the zone-center modes: at $`𝐤=0`$ the optical-phonon frequencies depend on the propagation direction.

Such a phenomenon is rather unusual from both the physical and mathematical point of view: the eigenvalues of dynamical matrix calculated for $`𝐤=0`$ depend on the $`𝐤`$-direction. This is caused by the nonanalytic k-dependence of the dynamical matrix which results from the long-range dipole–dipole interaction. In polar cubic crystals, the Coulomb field splits the three-fold degeneracy of optical modes at the Brillouin zone-center, but the frequency dependence on the propagation direction as well appears in uniaxial crystals due to the long-range electrostatic field.

The electrodynamic part of the problem was formulated by Loudon . The Coulomb contributions in the dynamical matrix are usually calculated be means of an Evald summation . The angular dispersion of optical modes is clearly demonstrated by the recent numerical calculations of the zone-center phonons  and for the whole Brillouin zone  in the case of semiconductors $`A^3B^5`$ with the wurtzite structure. The Coulomb field is also taken into account in the theory of phonon–plasmon coupled modes (polaritons) , when the effect of free carriers is studied.

The main aim of this paper is i) to calculate the angular dispersion for the zone-center phonons in uniaxial crystals using the symmetry arguments and ii) to consider the effect of free carriers on these modes. For the sake of definiteness, we are interested in the phonon modes of uniaxial SiC polytypes which are very popular now in technical applications.

## II optical modes at the zone-center of cubic crystals

Among the hexagonal and rhombohedral SiC polytypes, there is the cubic 3C-SiC one with two atoms in the unit cell. First we consider the optical modes in this simplest case. For the nearest vicinity of Brillouin zone-center $`k\pi /d`$, where $`d`$ is the lattice parameter, the acoustic and optical modes can be divided using the series expansion in $`𝐤`$ of the dynamical matrix. As the result, we obtain in the zero approximation in $`𝐤`$ for the optical displacements $`u_i`$ ($`i=x,y,z`$) the system of three equations

$$(\varphi M^{}\omega ^2)𝐮=𝐟,$$
(1)
where $`M^{}`$ is the reduced mass of two atoms (Si and C) in the unit cell, $`\varphi `$ is the diagonal element of the force-constant matrix (the only one diagonal element of the $`3\times 3`$-matrix exist in a cubic crystal). The value of $`\varphi `$ can be calculated in the nearest-neighbor approximation. As for the long-range Coulomb interaction, it can not be considered in such a way. The Coulomb effect is described by a force $`𝐟=Ze𝐄`$ acting on an effective charge $`Z`$, where the electric field $`𝐄`$ is found from Maxwell’s equations. Eliminating the magnetic field from Maxwell’s equations, one can express the electric field $`𝐄`$ in terms of polarization $`𝐏`$:

$$𝐄=\frac{4\pi [𝐤(\mathrm{𝐤𝐏})\omega ^2𝐏/c^2]}{k^2\omega ^2/c^2}.$$
(2)
We are interested in $`\omega `$ of the order of optical mode frequencies, i.e., $`\omega /c`$ 103 cm-1. If the phonon is exited by light, its wave vector has the value of the photon wave vector, i.e., of the order of 105 cm-1. Then the condition $`k\omega /c`$ is fulfilled, and the terms with $`c^2`$ have to be omitted in Eq. (2) which becomes:

$$𝐄=4\pi 𝐤(\mathrm{𝐤𝐏})/k^2.$$
(3)
In the long-wave limit $`(k\pi /d)`$, the polarization is related to the phonon displacement and electric field by the macroscopic equation:

$$𝐏=NZe𝐮+\chi 𝐄$$
(4)
where $`\chi `$ is the atomic permittivity and $`N`$ is the number of unit cells in 1 cm3. Sometimes, the local field is used in equations like (4) instead of the macroscopic field $`𝐄`$. But for cubic crystals (when the simple Lorentz relationship exists only), the local field can be eliminated renorming the force constant $`\varphi `$.

Using Eqs. (3) and (4), the electric field $`𝐄`$ can be expressed in terms of $`𝐮`$. Then Eq. (1) gives the frequencies of transverse and longitudinal optical modes in the cubic crystal

$$\omega _{TO}^2=\varphi /M^{}\text{and}\omega _{LO}^2=\varphi /M^{}+\rho $$
(5)
where

$$\rho =Z^2e^2N/\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}\text{and}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}=1+4\pi \chi .$$
(6)
Although the relation (3) between $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐏`$ involves the k-direction explicitly, the frequencies of optical modes (5) are independent of the propagation direction as it must be for a cubic crystal.

## III optical modes at the zone-center of uniaxial crystals

The crystal anisotropy of the noncubic SiC polytypes is known to be small because the nearest neighbors of any given atom conserve the cubic symmetry. Let us introduce the strain tensor $`e_{ij}`$ which describes a small difference between the dynamic matrices for the noncubic polytype and the cubic one. Then the phonon spectrum of the noncubic polytype can be obtained in the following way. In the first step, we transform the Brillouin zone of the cubic polytype (”the large zone”) using the strain $`e_{ij}`$. Hence, we find the frequencies of the so-called strong modes. For the zone-center, they can be obtained by the expansion of the dynamic matrix in the strain $`e_{ij}`$.

In the second step, we take into account that noncubic polytypes have more than two atoms in the unit cell and the additional optic modes appear. Phonon branches of the large zone are folded  into the Brillouin zone of the noncubic polytype giving additional weak modes. The weak-mode intensity in optics and Raman scattering was calculated in . Therefore in the present paper, we consider only strong modes.

The dynamic matrix can contain only components $`e_{ij}`$ invariant under the symmetry transformations of the crystal. There are two invariants of first order, $`e_{zz}`$ and $`e_{xx}+e_{yy}`$, the $`z`$-axis being parallel to the $`c`$-axis. We can fix the crystal volume, i.e., impose the condition $`e_{ii}=0`$. Then we have only one invariant, for instance, $`e_{zz}`$ which can be written only on the diagonal of the force-constant matrix of Eq. (1). The coefficients of the $`xx`$ and $`yy`$ elements are equal because of the rotation invariance around the c-axis. At last, we can omit the common frequency shift. Therefore instead of Eq. (1), we obtain

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\beta +\rho n_x^2\omega ^2& \rho n_xn_y& \rho n_xn_z\\ \rho n_xn_y& \beta +\rho n_y^2\omega ^2& \rho n_yn_z\\ \rho n_xn_z& \rho n_yn_z& \alpha +\rho n_z^2\omega ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_x\\ u_y\\ u_z\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(7)
where $`𝐧=𝐤/k`$ and

$$\alpha =\varphi /M^{},\beta =\alpha +be_{zz}.$$
(8)
We take the vector $`𝐤`$ in the $`yz`$-plane and denote $`\theta `$ the angle between $`𝐤`$ and the $`c`$-axis: $`n_x=0,n_z=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`n_y=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Then we see from Eq. (7) that there are one transverse mode (TO1) vibrating in $`x`$-direction and two modes in the $`yz`$-plane with the frequencies

$`\omega _{TO1}^2=\beta ,`$ (9)
$`\omega _{y,z}^2(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\rho +\alpha +\beta )\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{[\rho +(\alpha \beta )\mathrm{cos}2\theta ]^2+(\alpha \beta )^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \right\}^{1/2}.`$ (10)
Emphasize that Eq. (9) gives the phonon frequencies in the zone-center, but they depend on the propagation direction $`\theta `$. This dependence has its origin in the simultaneous effect of the Coulomb field (described by the constant $`\rho `$) and crystal anisotropy ($`\beta \alpha `$). In absence of the Coulomb field ($`\rho =0`$), we have $`\omega _z^2=\alpha `$, $`\omega _y^2=\beta `$, and there is no angular dispersion. For the isotropic case ($`\alpha =\beta `$) , Eq. (9) gives the modes for the cubic crystal.

If the Coulomb effect is small in comparison with the crystal anisotropy ($`\rho |\alpha \beta |`$), we can omit the off-diagonal terms in the matrix (7). So there are one mode vibrating close to the $`c`$-direction with the frequency $`\omega _z^2=\alpha +\rho \mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ (with an accuracy to $`\rho ^2/(\alpha \beta )^2`$), and the other mode near the $`y`$-direction with the frequency $`\omega _y^2=\beta +\rho \mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

In the opposite limiting case of the small crystal anisotropy, it is useful to pass to the coordinate system with the $`z^{}`$-axis along the $`𝐤`$-vector, making in Eq. (7) the unitary transformation

$$U_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)$$
(11)
Then we arrive to the diagonalization problem of the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\beta & 0& 0\\ 0& \beta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\theta & (\beta \alpha )\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \\ 0& (\beta \alpha )\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta & \beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\rho \end{array}\right)$$
(12)
We see that besides the TO1 mode, in the case $`|\alpha \beta |\rho `$, there are another nearly transverse TO2 mode and the nearly longitudinal LO mode with the frequencies

$`\omega _{TO2}^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (13)
$`\omega _{LO}^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho +\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (14)
which can be obtained also by the expansion of Eq. (9) with an accuracy to $`(\alpha \beta )^2/\rho ^2`$. The dispersion curves (9), (13) are shown schematically in Fig. 1. The angular dispersions of the form (13) were obtained by Loudon .

One can see from Eq. (9) that a conservation law exists. Namely, the sum of the squared frequencies of the $`yz`$ modes is independent of the propagation direction, e.g.,

$$\omega _y^2(\theta =0)+\omega _z^2(\theta =0)=\omega _y^2(\theta =\pi /2)+\omega _z^2(\theta =\pi /2).$$
(15)
As an example let us consider 6H-SiC polytipe. The angular dispersion of its optical modes is known from the experiment , . For $`\theta =0`$ (propagation parallel to the $`c`$-axis) the TO1 and $`y`$ mode are degenerate, and their frequencies are equal to $`\sqrt{\beta }`$. The experimental value is 797 cm-1 (with uncertainty about 1 cm-1). The corresponding value for the longitudinal mode is $`\omega _{LO}(\theta =0)=\sqrt{\rho +\alpha }`$. For $`\theta =\pi /2`$ (propagation perpendicular to the $`c`$-axis) $`\omega _{TO2}(\theta =\pi /2)=\sqrt{\alpha }`$ (experimental value is 788 cm-1) and $`\omega _{LO}(\theta =\pi /2)=\sqrt{\rho +\beta }`$ (970 cm-1). It immediately follows that: $`\rho =552.9^2`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2},\alpha =788^2`$ cm-2 and $`\beta `$=7972 cm-2. Thus one calculates $`\omega _{LO}(\theta =0)=\sqrt{\rho +\alpha }=`$962.6 cm-1, which should be compared with the experimental value 964 cm-1. The small difference between these two values can be attributed to the anisotropy in the atomic permittivity which is considered in the following section.

## IV effects of the permittivity anisotropy and free carriers

We assumed in the previous section that the uniaxial anisotropy affects only the short-range contribution to the force-constant matrix. But in uniaxial crystals the atomic permittivity $`\chi `$ is a tensor with two independent components $`\chi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ corresponding to the crystal axes. This effect is small because each atom has nearly cubic surroundings, but it should be included for a careful comparison with experiments. In a similar way, free carriers make a contribution to the angular dispersion of the longitudinal optical mode.

To take into account both the anisotropy of atomic permittivity and the conductivity of free carriers $`\sigma `$, we write instead of Eq. (4) the following

$`P_{}=NZeu_{}+\left(\chi _{}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{}}{\omega }}\right)E_{},`$ (16)
$`P_{}=NZeu_{}+\left(\chi _{}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{}}{\omega }}\right)E_{}.`$ (17)
Using Eqs. (3) and (16), we obtain the equation of motion in the form (7) and the phonon frequencies (9), but the conservation law (15) does not work now because $`\rho `$ becomes the function of $`\theta `$:

$$\rho (\theta )=Z^2e^2N\left[\left(\epsilon _{}^{\mathrm{}}+4\pi i\frac{\sigma _{}}{\omega }\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\left(\epsilon _{}^{\mathrm{}}+4\pi i\frac{\sigma _{}}{\omega }\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]^1,$$
(18)
where $`\epsilon _{}^{\mathrm{}}=1+4\pi \chi _{},\epsilon _{}^{\mathrm{}}=1+4\pi \chi _{}`$. Notice, that the vibration modes obtain same damping due to conductivity. In addition, the optical phonon has a natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by its probability to decay into phonons of lower energy, and the term $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should be added to $`\omega `$ in Eq. (7).

Then we can use transformation (11) and obtain matrix (12) with the function $`\rho (\theta )`$ instead of constant $`\rho `$. We see that in the limiting case of the weak anisotropy, $`|\alpha \beta |\rho (\theta )`$, the Coulomb field (and therefore the carriers) affects only the longitudinal mode. Its frequency is determined by the equation

$$R(\omega )\rho (\theta )+\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ^2=0,$$
(19)
where $`\rho (\theta )`$ given by Eq. (18) depends on $`\omega `$ explicitly and by means of the conductivity $`\sigma `$.

Equation (19) gives the frequency of the LO-phonon–plasmon coupled mode in uniaxial semiconductors. Notice that in the isotropic case, Eq. (19) coincides with the condition $`\epsilon (\omega )=0`$, where the dielectric function $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ is given by the well-known expression

$$\epsilon (\omega )=\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}\left[1+\frac{\omega _{LO}^2\omega _{TO}^2}{\omega _{TO}^2\omega ^2i\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega (\omega +i\gamma )}\right],$$

and the plasmon frequency

$$\omega _p^2=4\pi ne^2/\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}m.$$

In this case, Eqs. (5), (6), and (8) give $`\omega _{TO}^2=\alpha =\beta `$, $`\omega _{LO}^2=\omega _{TO}^2+Z^2e^2N/\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}`$, and the Drude formula for conductivity reads $`\sigma =ne^2/m(i\omega +\gamma )`$.

The function $`R(\omega )`$ from Eq. (19) is measured in Raman experiments. Namely, the Raman intensity as a function of frequency transfer $`\omega `$ is

$$I(\omega ,\theta )\text{Im}\frac{1}{R(\omega )}$$
(20)
for the LO mode excitation with the propagation direction $`\theta `$. If the incident or scattered light has a finite aperture, Eq. (20) should be integrated over allowed $`\theta `$.

Eq. (20) can be used in experimental studying the effect of carriers on the Raman scattering in uniaxial semiconductors. Then the conductivity tensor in Eq. (18) is given by the Drude-like formula with the diagonal components $`m_,`$ and $`\gamma _,`$, for instance, $`\sigma _{}=ne^2/m_{}(i\omega +\gamma _{})`$.

Let us emphasize the main result of the paper: the effects of crystal anisotropy ($`\alpha \beta `$) and Coulomb field $`\rho (\theta )`$ on the phonon dispersion are explicitly separated as one can see in Eqs. (9), (19).

## V acknowledgments

This study was initiated by discussions with J. Camassel and P. Vicente (GES, UM2-CNRS, France), and the author would like to thank them. The author acknowledges the kind hospitality of the Max-Planck-Institute für Physik Komplexer Systems (Dresden) where this work was completed.

Figure caption Angular dispersion of optical-phonon modes in uniaxial crystals at the zone-center. The angle $`\theta `$ is the angle between the c-axis and the wave vector $`𝐤0`$. The TO1 mode is polarized perpendicular to the c-$`𝐤`$ plane. The LO and TO2 modes have a nearly longitudinal and transverse character, respectively, if the Coulomb force effects dominate over the crystal anisotropy.


format: text

text:
# GEOMETRY AND DYNAMICS OF THE BRANE-WORLD Based on an invited talk at EREs2000, Spanish Relativity Meeting.

## I Introduction

At high enough energies, Einstein’s theory of general relativity breaks down and is likely to be a limit of a more general theory. In string theory/ M theory, gravity is a truly higher-dimensional theory, becoming effectively 4-dimensional at lower energies. Recent developments may offer a promising road towards a quantum gravity theory . In brane-world models inspired by string/M theory, the standard-model fields are confined to a 3-brane, while the gravitational field can propagate in $`3+d`$ dimensions (the ‘bulk’). The $`d`$ extra dimensions need not all be small, or even compact: recently Randall and Sundrum  have shown that for $`d=1`$, gravity can be localized on a single 3-brane even when the fifth dimension is infinite. This noncompact localization arises via the exponential ‘warp’ factor in the non-factorizable metric:

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\mathrm{exp}(2|y|/\mathrm{})\left[dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right]+dy^2.$$
(1)
For $`y0`$, this metric satisfies the 5-dimensional Einstein equations with negative 5-dimensional cosmological constant, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{}^2`$. The brane is located at $`y=0`$, and the induced metric on the brane is a Minkowski metric. The bulk is a 5-dimensional anti-de Sitter metric, with $`y=0`$ as boundary, so that $`y<0`$ is identified with $`y>0`$, reflecting the $`Z_2`$ symmetry, with the brane as fixed point, that arises in string theory.

Perturbation of the metric (1) shows that the Newtonian gravitational potential on the brane is recovered at lowest order:

$$V(r)=\frac{GM}{r}\left(1+\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{3r^2}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
Thus 4-dimensional gravity is recovered at low energies, with a first-order correction that is constrained by current sub-millimetre experiments . The lowest order term corresponds to the massless graviton mode, bound to the brane, while the corrections arise from massive Kaluza-Klein modes in the bulk. Generalizing the Randall-Sundrum model to allow for matter on the brane leads to a generalization of the metric (1), and to a breaking of conformal flatness, since matter on the brane in general induces Weyl curvature in the bulk. Indeed, the massive Kaluza-Klein modes that produce the corrective terms in Eq. (2) reflect the bulk Weyl curvature that arises from a matter source on the brane.

At a classical level, the brane-world models have a rich geometrical structure, in which the bulk Weyl curvature tensor and its interaction with the curvature of the brane play an important role. The classical geometry and dynamics of brane-world models are important because they provide a foundation for testing the astrophysical and cosmological predictions of these models against observations. Any modification of Einstein’s theory that arises in the quest for quantum gravity needs to pass the tests provided by increasingly accurate observations. Observers are necessarily bound to the brane, unable to access the bulk. Bulk effects are felt indirectly via their imprint on the brane geometry and dynamics. A covariant Lagrangian approach to the brane-world  brings out clearly the role of the Weyl tensors, the kinematical and dynamical quantities, and their relation to observations.

## II Field equations on the brane

Instead of starting from a metric ansatz in special coordinates, one can generalize the Randall-Sundrum model by a covariant geometric approach, given by Shiromizu, Maeda and Sasaki . (See also  for related geometrical results). The unit normal to the brane $`n^A`$ defines the induced metric on the brane (and on all hypersurfaces orthogonal to $`n^A`$),

$$g_{AB}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}n_An_B,$$
(3)
where we use tildes to denote the 5-dimensional generalization of standard general relativity quantities. Without loss of generality, we can take $`n^A`$ to be geodesic. A natural choice of coordinates is $`x^A=(x^\mu ,y)`$, where $`x^\mu =(t,x^i)`$ are spacetime coordinates on the brane and $`n_A=\delta _A^y`$. The extrinsic curvature orthogonal to $`n^A`$ is

$$K_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}_ng_{AB}=g_A{}_{}{}^{C}\stackrel{~}{}_{C}^{}n_B,$$
(4)
so that $`K_{[AB]}=0=K_{AB}n^B`$, where square brackets denote anti-symmetrization and $``$ is the Lie derivative.

The Gauss equation gives the 4-dimensional curvature tensor as

$$R_{ABCD}=\stackrel{~}{R}_{EFGH}g_A{}_{}{}^{E}g_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{F}g_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{G}g_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{H}+2K_{A[C}K_{D]B},$$
(5)
and the Codazzi (or Mainardi-Codazzi) equation determines the change of $`K_{AB}`$:

$$_BK^B{}_{A}{}^{}_AK_B{}_{}{}^{B}=\stackrel{~}{R}_{BC}g_A{}_{}{}^{B}n_{}^{C}.$$
(6)
The 5-dimensional Einstein equations are

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}+\delta (y)\left\{\lambda g_{AB}+T_{AB}\right\}\right],$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2=8\pi /\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}^3`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}`$ the fundamental 5-dimensional Planck mass, which is typically much less than the effective Planck mass on the brane, $`M_\mathrm{p}=1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV. The brane tension is $`\lambda `$, and fields confined to the brane make up the brane energy-momentum tensor $`T_{AB}`$, with $`T_{AB}n^B=0`$. The Randall-Sundrum model may be further generalized by allowing for a scalar field in the bulk .

Using Eqs. (5) and (7), it follows that

$`G_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}g_{AB}+K_C{}_{}{}^{C}K_{AB}^{}K_A{}_{}{}^{C}K_{CB}^{}`$ (9)
$`+\frac{1}{2}[K^{CD}K_{CD}(K_C{}_{}{}^{C})^2]g_{AB}_{AB},`$
where

$$_{AB}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{ACBD}n^Cn^D,$$
(10)
is the projection of the bulk Weyl tensor orthogonal to $`n^A`$, with $`_{[AB]}=0=_A^A`$. Evaluating Eq. (9) on the brane (strictly, as $`y\pm 0`$) will give the field equations. First, we need to determine $`K_{AB}`$ at the brane. The junction conditions across the brane imply that $`g_{AB}`$ is continuous, while $`K_{AB}`$ undergoes a jump due to the energy-momentum on the brane:

$$K_{AB}^+K_{AB}^{}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2[T_{AB}+\frac{1}{3}(\lambda T_C{}_{}{}^{C})g_{AB}].$$
(11)
The $`Z_2`$ symmetry implies that

$$K_{AB}^{}=K_{AB}^+,$$
(12)
and then

$$K_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2[T_{AB}+\frac{1}{3}(\lambda T_C{}_{}{}^{C})g_{AB}],$$
(13)
where we have dropped the $`(+)`$ and we evaluate quantities on the brane by taking the limit $`y+0`$.

Finally we arrive at the induced field equations on the brane :

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^2T_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4S_{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu },$$
(14)
where $`\kappa ^2=8\pi /M_\mathrm{p}^2`$. The energy scales are related to each other via

$$\lambda =6\frac{\kappa ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4},\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\lambda ^2\right).$$
(15)
The higher-dimensional modifications of the standard Einstein equations on the brane are of two forms: first, the matter fields contribute local quadratic energy-momentum corrections via the tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$, which arise from the extrinsic curvature, and second, there are nonlocal effects from the free gravitational field in the bulk, transmitted via the projection $`_{\mu \nu }`$ of the bulk Weyl tensor. The local corrections are given by

$$S_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{12}T_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha }T_{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{1}{4}T_{\mu \alpha }T^\alpha {}_{\nu }{}^{}+\frac{1}{24}g_{\mu \nu }[3T_{\alpha \beta }T^{\alpha \beta }(T_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\alpha })^2].$$
(16)
The Weyl tensor $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ABCD}`$ represents the free, nonlocal gravitational field in the bulk. The local part of the bulk gravitational field is the Einstein tensor $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}`$, which is determined locally via the bulk field equations (7). Thus $`_{\mu \nu }`$ transmits nonlocal gravitational degrees of freedom from the bulk to the brane, including tidal (or Coulomb), gravito-magnetic and transverse traceless (gravitational wave) effects.

There may be other branes in the bulk. Branes interact gravitationally via any Weyl curvature that they generate. On the observer’s brane at $`y=0`$, the presence of other branes is felt indirectly through their contribution to $`_{\mu \nu }`$.

As a consequence of the Codazzi equation (6), the form of the bulk energy-momentum tensor (which means that $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{BC}g_A{}_{}{}^{B}n_{}^{C}=0`$) and $`Z_2`$ symmetry, it follows that the brane energy-momentum tensor is conserved:

$$^\nu T_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(17)
When there are scalar and other fields in the bulk, this is no longer in general true , and non-conservation of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ reflects an exchange of energy-momentum between the brane and the bulk. In the case when there is only a cosmological constant in the bulk, there is no such exchange. Using Eq. (17) in Eq. (14), the contracted Bianchi identities on the brane, $`^\mu G_{\mu \nu }=0`$, imply that the projected Weyl tensor obeys the constraint

$$^\mu _{\mu \nu }=\frac{6\kappa ^2}{\lambda }^\mu S_{\mu \nu }.$$
(18)
This shows that $`_{\mu \nu }`$ is sourced by energy-momentum terms, which in general include spatial gradients and time derivatives. Thus evolution and inhomogeneity in the matter fields can generate nonlocal gravitational effects in the bulk, which then ‘backreact’ on the brane.

The dynamical equations on the brane are equations (14), (17) and (18). It is important to note that these equations are not in general closed on the brane , since Eq. (18) does not determine $`_{\mu \nu }`$ in general, as further discussed below. This reflects the fact that there are bulk degrees of freedom which cannot be predicted from data available on the brane, for example, incoming gravitational radiation which impinges on the brane. One needs to solve the field equations in the bulk in order to fully determine $`_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane.

## III Covariant interpretation of gravity localization

In the Randall-Sundrum model, with a flat brane, localization of gravity at the brane is understood perturbatively via Eq. (2). For a general matter distribution on a curved brane, we can provide a qualitative non-perturbative and covariant interpretation of gravity localization via tidal acceleration.

Consider a field of observers on the brane (e.g., observers comoving with matter) with 4-velocity $`u^\mu `$, and let $`u^A`$ be an extension off the brane (the result does not depend on the extension), so that $`u^An_A=0`$, $`u^Au_A=1`$. The tidal acceleration in the $`n^A`$ direction measured by the observers is $`n_A\stackrel{~}{R}^A{}_{BCD}{}^{}u_{}^{B}n^Cu^D`$. Now

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{ABCD}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{ABCD}+\frac{2}{3}\left\{\stackrel{~}{g}_{A[C}\stackrel{~}{R}_{D]B}+\stackrel{~}{g}_{B[D}\stackrel{~}{R}_{C]A}\right\}\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{g}_{A[C}\stackrel{~}{g}_{D]B},$$
(19)
so that by the field equation (7) (and recalling that $`T_{AB}n^B=0`$),

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{ABCD}n^Au^Bn^Cu^D=_{AB}u^Au^B+\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(20)
Taking the limit $`y+0`$, we get

$$\text{tidal acceleration in off-brane direction }=\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu .$$
(21)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}<0`$, it contributes to acceleration towards the brane. This reflects the confining role of the negative bulk cosmological constant on the gravitational field in the generalized Randall-Sundrum type models. Equation (21) also shows that localization of the gravitational field near the brane is enhanced if $`_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu >0`$, which corresponds to a negative effective energy density on the brane from nonlocal bulk effects.

## IV Covariant decomposition of local and nonlocal bulk effects

The general form of the brane energy-momentum tensor for any matter fields (scalar fields, perfect fluids, kinetic gases, dissipative fluids, etc.), including a combination of different fields, can be covariantly given as

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\rho u_\mu u_\nu +ph_{\mu \nu }+\pi _{\mu \nu }+q_\mu u_\nu +q_\nu u_\mu .$$
(22)
Here $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the energy density and isotropic pressure, and $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+u_\mu u_\nu `$ projects orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$ on the brane. The energy flux obeys $`q_\mu =q_\mu `$, and the anisotropic stress obeys $`\pi _{\mu \nu }=\pi _{\mu \nu }`$, where angled brackets denote the projected, symmetric and tracefree part:

$$V_\mu =h_\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu }V_{\nu }^{},W_{\mu \nu }=\left[h_{(\mu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }h_{\nu )}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\frac{1}{3}h^{\alpha \beta }h_{\mu \nu }\right]W_{\alpha \beta },$$
(23)
with round brackets denoting symmetrization. In an inertial frame at any point on the brane, we have $`u^\mu =\delta ^\mu _0`$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(0,1,1,1)`$, $`q_\mu =(0,q_i)`$, $`\pi _{\mu 0}=0`$.

The tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$, which carries local bulk effects onto the brane, may then be irreducibly decomposed as

$`S_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{24}\left[2\rho ^23\pi _{\alpha \beta }\pi ^{\alpha \beta }\right]u_\mu u_\nu +\frac{1}{24}\left[2\rho ^2+4\rho p+\pi _{\alpha \beta }\pi ^{\alpha \beta }4q_\alpha q^\alpha \right]h_{\mu \nu }`$ (24)
$`\frac{1}{12}(\rho +2p)\pi _{\mu \nu }+\pi _{\alpha \mu }\pi _\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+q_\mu q_\nu +\frac{1}{3}\rho q_{(\mu }u_{\nu )}\frac{1}{12}q^\alpha \pi _{\alpha (\mu }u_{\nu )}.`$ (25)
This simplifies for a perfect fluid or minimally-coupled scalar field:

$$S_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{12}\rho ^2u_\mu u_\nu +\frac{1}{12}\rho \left(\rho +2p\right)h_{\mu \nu }.$$
(26)
The quadratic energy-momentum corrections to standard general relativity will thus be significant for $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\rho ^2>12\kappa ^2\rho `$, i.e., in the high-energy regime

$$\rho >\lambda \left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}}{M_\mathrm{p}}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}.$$
(27)
The lower bound arising from current tests for deviations from Newton’s law is

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}>10^5\mathrm{TeV},\lambda ^{1/4}>100\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(28)
(A much weaker limit is imposed by nucleosynthesis constraints.)

Nonlocal effects from the bulk are encoded in the brane tensor $`_{\mu \nu }`$, which can be decomposed as

$$_{\mu \nu }=\frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }\left[𝒰\left(u_\mu u_\nu +\frac{1}{3}h_{\mu \nu }\right)+𝒫_{\mu \nu }+𝒬_\mu u_\nu +𝒬_\nu u_\mu \right].$$
(29)
The factor $`6/\kappa ^2\lambda `$, which is $`(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }/\kappa )^4`$ by Eq. (15), is introduced for dimensional reasons, and also since it ensures that in the general relativity limit, $`\lambda ^10`$, we have $`_{\mu \nu }0`$. We have written $`_{\mu \nu }`$ as an effective energy-momentum tensor: the bulk Weyl tensor imprints on the brane an effective energy density, stresses and energy flux.

The effective nonlocal energy density on the brane, arising from the free gravitational field in the bulk, is

$`𝒰=(\frac{1}{6}\kappa ^2\lambda )_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu .`$

This nonlocal energy density need not be positive . Since $`_{\mu \nu }`$ is tracefree, the effective nonlocal pressure is $`\frac{1}{3}𝒰`$. There is an effective nonlocal anisotropic stress

$`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=(\frac{1}{6}\kappa ^2\lambda )_{\mu \nu }`$

on the brane, arising from the free gravitational field in the bulk, and

$`𝒬_\mu =(\frac{1}{6}\kappa ^2\lambda )_{\mu \nu }u^\nu `$

is an effective nonlocal energy flux on the brane, arising from the free gravitational field in the bulk.

If the bulk is anti-de Sitter (AdS5), as in the Randall-Sundrum model, then $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$, since the bulk is conformally flat:

$$\text{AdS}\text{5}\text{ bulk:}_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(30)
The Randall-Sundrum model has a Minkowski brane, but AdS5 can also admit a Friedmann brane, and satisfy the Einstein equations (7). However, the most general solution with a Friedmann brane is Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter spacetime . Then it follows from the Friedmann symmetries that

$$\text{SAdS}\text{5}\text{ bulk, Friedmann brane:}𝒬_\mu =0=𝒫_{\mu \nu },$$
(31)
where $`𝒰=0`$ only if the mass of the black hole in the bulk is zero. The presence of the black hole leads to a ‘dark radiation’ term in the Friedmann equation (see below). For a static spherically symmetric brane (e.g. a static stellar interior or the exterior of a nonrotating black hole) :

$$\text{static spherical brane:}𝒬_\mu =0.$$
(32)
This condition also holds for a Bianchi I brane .

The local and nonlocal bulk corrections may be consolidated into an effective total energy density, pressure, anisotropic stress and energy flux, since the modified field equations (14) take the standard Einstein form with a redefined energy-momentum tensor:

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^2T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{tot}},$$
(33)
where

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{tot}}=T_{\mu \nu }+\frac{6}{\lambda }S_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(34)
Then it follows from Eqs. (25) and (29) that

$`\rho ^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\lambda }}\left(2\rho ^23\pi _{\mu \nu }\pi ^{\mu \nu }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^4\lambda }}𝒰`$ (35)
$`p^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\lambda }}\left(2\rho ^2+4\rho p+\pi _{\mu \nu }\pi ^{\mu \nu }4q_\mu q^\mu \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa ^4\lambda }}𝒰`$ (36)
$`\pi _{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}[(\rho +3p)\pi _{\mu \nu }+\pi _{\alpha \mu }\pi _\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+q_\mu q_\nu ]+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^4\lambda }}𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ (37)
$`q_\mu ^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`q_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\lambda }}\left(4\rho q_\mu \pi _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^4\lambda }}𝒬_\mu .`$ (38)
These general expressions make clear the local and nonlocal effects. They simplify in the case of a perfect fluid (or minimally coupled scalar field, or isotropic one-particle distribution function), i.e., for $`q_\mu =0=\pi _{\mu \nu }`$. However, we note that the total energy flux and anisotropic stress do not vanish in this case in general:

$$q_\mu ^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{6}{\kappa ^4\lambda }𝒬_\mu ,\pi _{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{6}{\kappa ^4\lambda }𝒫_{\mu \nu }.$$
(39)
Nonlocal bulk effects can contribute to effective imperfect fluid terms even when the matter on the brane has perfect fluid form.

## V Local and nonlocal conservation equations

The brane energy-momentum tensor and the consolidated effective energy-momentum tensor are both conserved separately, by virtue of Eqs. (17) and (18). Conservation of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ gives the standard general relativity energy and momentum conservation equations

$`\dot{\rho }+\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho +p)+\text{D}^\mu q_\mu +2A^\mu q_\mu +\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\pi _{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (40)
$`\dot{q}_\mu +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }q_\mu +\text{D}_\mu p+(\rho +p)A_\mu +\text{D}^\nu \pi _{\mu \nu }+A^\nu \pi _{\mu \nu }`$ (41)
$`+\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu [\omega ,q]_\mu =0.`$ (42)
In these equations, an overdot denotes $`u^\nu _\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=^\mu u_\mu `$ is the volume expansion rate of the $`u^\mu `$ congruence, $`A_\mu =\dot{u}_\mu =A_\mu `$ is its 4-acceleration, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\text{D}_\mu u_\nu `$ is its shear rate, and $`\omega _\mu =\frac{1}{2}\text{curl}u_\mu =\omega _\mu `$ is its vorticity rate. On a Friedmann brane, $`A_\mu =\omega _\mu =\sigma _{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=3H`$, where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble rate.

The covariant spatial curl is given by

$$\text{curl}V_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta }\text{D}^\alpha V^\beta ,\text{curl}W_{\mu \nu }=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta (\mu }\text{D}^\alpha W^\beta {}_{\nu )}{}^{},$$
(43)
where $`\epsilon _{\mu \nu \sigma }`$ is the projection orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$ of the brane alternating tensor, and $`\text{D}_\mu `$ is the projected part of the brane covariant derivative, defined by

$$\text{D}_\mu F^\alpha \mathrm{}{}_{\mathrm{}\beta }{}^{}=(_\mu F^\alpha \mathrm{}{}_{\mathrm{}\beta }{}^{})_{}=h_\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu }h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}\mathrm{}h_\beta {}_{}{}^{\delta }_{\nu }^{}F^\gamma \mathrm{}{}_{\mathrm{}\delta }{}^{}.$$
(44)
The covariant cross-product is $`[V,Y]_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta }V^\alpha Y^\beta `$. In a local inertial frame at a point on the brane, with $`u^\mu =\delta ^\mu _0`$, we have: $`0=A_0=\omega _0=\sigma _{0\mu }=\epsilon _{0\mu \nu }=[V,Y]_0=\text{curl}V_0=\text{curl}W_{0\mu }`$ and $`\text{D}_\mu F^\alpha \mathrm{}{}_{\mathrm{}\beta }{}^{}=\delta _\mu {}_{}{}^{i}\delta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{j}{}^{}\mathrm{}\delta _\beta {}_{}{}^{k}_{i}^{}F^j\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}k`$.

The conservation of $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ gives, upon using Eqs. (35)–(42), what we can call nonlocal conservation equations . The nonlocal energy conservation equation is a propagation equation for $`𝒰`$:

$`\dot{𝒰}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }𝒰+\text{D}^\mu 𝒬_\mu +2A^\mu 𝒬_\mu +\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ (45)
$`=\frac{1}{24}\kappa ^4[6\pi ^{\mu \nu }\dot{\pi }_{\mu \nu }+6(\rho +p)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\pi _{\mu \nu }+2\mathrm{\Theta }(2q^\mu q_\mu +\pi ^{\mu \nu }\pi _{\mu \nu })+2A^\mu q^\nu \pi _{\mu \nu }`$ (46)
$`4q^\mu \text{D}_\mu \rho +q^\mu \text{D}^\nu \pi _{\mu \nu }+\pi ^{\mu \nu }\text{D}_\mu q_\nu 2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\pi _{\alpha \mu }\pi _\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu ].`$ (47)
The nonlocal momentum conservation equation is a propagation equation for $`𝒬_\mu `$:

$`\dot{𝒬}_\mu +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }𝒬_\mu +\frac{1}{3}\text{D}_\mu 𝒰+\frac{4}{3}𝒰A_\mu +\text{D}^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }+A^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }+\sigma _{\mu \nu }𝒬^\nu [\omega ,𝒬]_\mu `$ (48)
$`=\frac{1}{24}\kappa ^4[4(\rho +p)\text{D}_\mu \rho +6(\rho +p)\text{D}^\nu \pi _{\mu \nu }+q^\nu \dot{\pi }_{\mu \nu }+\pi _\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu }\text{D}_{\nu }^{}(2\rho +5p)`$ (49)
$`\frac{2}{3}\pi ^{\alpha \beta }\left(\text{D}_\mu \pi _{\alpha \beta }+3\text{D}_\alpha \pi _{\beta \mu }\right)3\pi _{\mu \alpha }\text{D}_\beta \pi ^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{28}{3}q^\nu \text{D}_\mu q_\nu `$ (50)
$`+4\rho A^\nu \pi _{\mu \nu }3\pi _{\mu \alpha }A_\beta \pi ^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{8}{3}A_\mu \pi ^{\alpha \beta }\pi _{\alpha \beta }\pi _{\mu \alpha }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }q_\beta `$ (51)
$`+\sigma _{\mu \alpha }\pi ^{\alpha \beta }q_\beta +\pi _{\mu \nu }[\omega ,q]^\nu \epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta }\omega ^\alpha \pi ^{\beta \nu }q_\nu +4(\rho +p)\mathrm{\Theta }q_\mu `$ (52)
$`+6q_\mu A^\nu q_\nu +\frac{14}{3}A_\mu q^\nu q_\nu +4q_\nu \sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\pi _{\alpha \beta }].`$ (53)
All of the matter source terms on the right of these two equations, except for the first term on the right of Eq. (53), are imperfect fluid terms, and most of these terms are quadratic in the imperfect quantities $`q_\mu `$ and $`\pi _{\mu \nu }`$. For perfect fluid matter, only the $`\text{D}_\mu \rho `$ term on the right of Eq. (53) survives, but in realistic cosmological and astrophysical models, further terms will survive. For example, terms linear in $`\pi _{\mu \nu }`$ will carry the photon quadrupole in cosmology or the shear viscous stress in stellar models.

In general, the 4 independent equations determine 4 of the 9 independent components of $`_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane. What is missing, is an evolution equation for $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ (which has up to 5 independent components). Thus in general, the projection of the 5-dimensional field equations onto the brane, together with $`Z_2`$ matching, does not lead to a closed system. Nor could we expect this to be the case, since there are bulk degrees of freedom whose impact on the brane cannot be predicted by brane observers. Our decomposition of $`_{\mu \nu }`$ has shown that the evolution of the nonlocal energy density and flux (carrying scalar and vector modes from bulk gravitons) is determined on the brane, while the evolution of the nonlocal anisotropic stress (carrying tensor, as well as scalar and vector, modes) is not.

In special cases the missing equation does not matter. For example, if $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$, as in the case of a Friedmann brane, then the evolution of $`_{\mu \nu }`$ is determined by Eqs. (47) and (53). If the brane is stationary (with Killing vector parallel to $`u^\mu `$), then evolution equations are not needed for $`_{\mu \nu }`$. However, small perturbations of these special cases will immediately restore the problem of missing information.

If the matter on the brane has a perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor, the local conservation equations (40) and (42) reduce to

$`\dot{\rho }+\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho +p)=0,`$ (54)
$`\text{D}_\mu p+(\rho +p)A_\mu =0,`$ (55)
while the nonlocal conservation equations (47) and (53) reduce to

$`\dot{𝒰}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }𝒰+\text{D}^\mu 𝒬_\mu +2A^\mu 𝒬_\mu +\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (56)
$`\dot{𝒬}_\mu +\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }𝒬_\mu +\frac{1}{3}\text{D}_\mu 𝒰+\frac{4}{3}𝒰A_\mu +\text{D}^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }+A^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }+\sigma _{\mu \nu }𝒬^\nu [\omega ,𝒬]_\mu `$ (57)
$`=\frac{1}{6}\kappa ^4(\rho +p)\text{D}_\mu \rho .`$ (58)
Equation (58) shows that  if $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and the brane energy-momentum tensor has perfect fluid form, then the density $`\rho `$ must be homogeneous. The converse does not hold, i.e., homogeneous density does not in general imply vanishing $`_{\mu \nu }`$. A simple example is the Friedmann case: Eq. (58) is trivially satisfied, while Eq. (56) becomes

$$\dot{𝒰}+4H𝒰=0.$$
(59)
This equation has the ‘dark radiation’ solution

$$𝒰=𝒰_o\left(\frac{a_o}{a}\right)^4.$$
(60)
If $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$, then the field equations on the brane form a closed system. Thus for perfect fluid branes with homogeneous density and $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$, the brane field equations form a consistent closed system. However, there is no guarantee that the resulting brane metric can be embedded in a regular bulk.

It also follows as a corollary that inhomogeneous density requires nonzero $`_{\mu \nu }`$. For example, stellar solutions on the brane necessarily have $`_{\mu \nu }0`$ in the stellar interior if it is non-uniform. Perturbed Friedmann models on the brane also must have $`_{\mu \nu }0`$. Thus a nonzero $`_{\mu \nu }`$ is inevitable in realistic astrophysical and cosmological models.

For a perfect fluid at very high energies, i.e., $`\rho \lambda `$, and for which we can neglect $`𝒰`$ (e.g., in an inflating cosmology), Eqs. (35) and (36) show that

$`w^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^{\mathrm{tot}}}{\rho ^{\mathrm{tot}}}}2w+1,`$ (61)
$`(c_\mathrm{s}^2)^{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{p}^{\mathrm{tot}}}{\dot{\rho }^{\mathrm{tot}}}}c_\mathrm{s}^2+w+1,`$ (62)
where $`w=p/\rho `$ and $`c_\mathrm{s}^2=\dot{p}/\dot{\rho }`$. Thus at very high energies on the brane, the effective equation of state and sound speed are stiffened. This can have important consequences in the early universe and during gravitational collapse. For example, in a very high-energy radiation era, $`w=\frac{1}{3}`$, the effective cosmological equation of state is ultra-stiff: $`w^{\mathrm{tot}}\frac{5}{3}`$. In late-stage gravitational collapse of pressureless matter, $`w=0`$, the effective equation of state is stiff, $`w^{\mathrm{tot}}1`$, and the effective pressure is nonzero and dynamically important.

## VI Gravitational collapse to a black hole on the brane

The dynamics of gravitational collapse on the brane is not yet properly understood, given the complications that are introduced by local high-energy effects and nonlocal effects. In general relativity, it is known that nonrotating collapse to a black hole leads uniquely to the Schwarzschild metric, with no ‘hair’, i.e., no trace of the dynamics of the collapse process. On the brane, this is no longer true. The Schwarzschild metric cannot describe the final state of collapse , since it does not incorporate the 5-dimensional behaviour of the gravitational potential in the strong-field regime (the metric is incompatible with massive Kaluza-Klein modes). The appropriate metric on the brane to describe the black hole final state is not known, but a non-perturbative exterior solution should have nonzero $`_{\mu \nu }`$ in order to be compatible with massive Kaluza-Klein modes in the strong-field regime. In the end-state of collapse, we expect a nonlocal field $`_{\mu \nu }`$ which goes to zero at large distances, recovering the Schwarzschild weak-field limit, but which grows at short range. Furthermore, $`_{\mu \nu }`$ may carry a Weyl ‘fossil’ record of the collapse process.

The known black hole solutions on the brane include the Schwarzschild solution, for which $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$, but also other solutions with nonzero nonlocal effects. A vacuum on the brane satisfies the field equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }=_{\mu \nu },R^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}=0=^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{},^\nu _{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(63)
It follows that Einstein-Maxwell solutions in general relativity produce vacuum solutions on the brane, where the electromagnetic field is replaced by a nonlocal Weyl energy-momentum tensor . Examples are the Reissner-Nördstrom-like solution discussed below, and a Vaidya-like solution . The equations (63) form a closed system on the brane in the stationary case, including the static spherical case, for which

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=0=\omega _\mu =\sigma _{\mu \nu },\dot{𝒰}=0=𝒬_\mu =\dot{𝒫}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(64)
The nonlocal conservation equations reduce to

$$\frac{1}{3}\text{D}_\mu 𝒰+\frac{4}{3}𝒰A_\mu +\text{D}^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }+A^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(65)
and the general solution of this and the remaining brane field equations, with metric of the form,

$$ds^2=F(r)dt^2+F^1(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(66)
is then

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_\mathrm{p}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}},`$ (67)
$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\left[u_\mu u_\nu 2r_\mu r_\nu +h_{\mu \nu }\right],`$ (68)
where $`r_\mu `$ is a unit radial vector.

This solution has the form of the general relativity Reissner-Nordström solution, but there is no electric field on the brane. Instead, the nonlocal Coulomb effects imprinted by the bulk Weyl tensor have induced a ‘tidal’ charge parameter $`q`$. This parameter depends on the mass $`M`$ on the brane, i.e., $`q=q(M)`$, since this is the source of bulk Weyl field (leaving aside the more complicated case where there may be additional Weyl sources in the bulk). In order to preserve the spacelike nature of the singularity, we need $`q<0`$. This is in accord with the intuitive idea that the tidal charge strengthens the gravitational field, since it arises from the source mass $`M`$ on the brane. By contrast, in the Reissner-Nordström solution of general relativity, $`q=+Q^2`$ weakens the gravitational field. Negative tidal charge, $`q<0`$, means that there is one horizon on the brane, outside the Schwarzschild horizon:

$$r_+=\frac{M}{M_\mathrm{p}^2}\left[1+\sqrt{1q\frac{M_\mathrm{p}^4}{M^2\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{p}^2}}\right]>r_\mathrm{s}.$$
(69)
The tidal-charge black hole metric does not satisfy the far-field $`r^3`$ correction to the gravitational potential , as in Eq. (2), and therefore cannot describe the end-state of collapse. However, Eq. (67) shows the correct 5-dimensional behaviour of the potential ($`r^2`$) at short distances, so that the tidal-charge metric should be a good approximation in the strong-field regime. This is the regime where the Schwarzschild metric on the brane fails, whereas the Schwarzschild metric is a good approximation at large distances.

The bulk solution corresponding to the tidal-charge brane metric is not known, although numerical investigations have been performed . For the Schwarzschild special case $`q=0`$, the brane is the surface $`z=1`$ in AdS5, in conformal coordinates :

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\left(\frac{3}{\kappa ^2\lambda }\right)\frac{1}{z^2}\left[ds^2+dz^2\right].$$
(70)
Here $`ds^2`$ is the 4-dimensional Schwarzschild metric, given by Eqs. (66) and (67) with $`q=0`$. The singularity $`r=0`$ is a line along the $`z`$-axis, so that this bulk metric describes a ‘black string’. The 5-dimensional horizon is the surface $`g_{tt}=0`$ in the bulk, which is $`r=2M/M_\mathrm{p}^2`$. This bulk horizon is a sphere of radius $`r=r_\mathrm{s}`$ on each $`z=`$constant surface, so that it has a cylindrical shape in the $`z`$-direction. The bulk is singular at the AdS5 horizon, and the black string horizon is unstable .

If the physically realistic black hole bulk metric has the form

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=F(r,y)dt^2+J(r,y)dr^2+L(r,y)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2+dy^2,$$
(71)
in Gaussian normal coordinates, then the bulk horizon is the surface $`F(r,y)=0`$. Perturbative studies  and exact lower-dimensional solutions  have been used to probe the shape of the bulk horizon, but a non-perturbative 5-D solution has not yet been found.

Clearly the black hole solution, and the collapse process that leads to it, have a far richer structure in the brane-world than in general relativity. Another intriguing issue is how Hawking radiation is modified by bulk effects .

## VII Exact cosmological solutions

By Eqs. (60) and (100), the generalized Friedmann equation on a spatially homogeneous and isotropic brane is

$$H^2=\frac{1}{3}\kappa ^2\rho \left(1+\frac{\rho }{2\lambda }\right)+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{K}{a^2}+\frac{2𝒰_o}{\kappa ^2\lambda }\left(\frac{a_o}{a}\right)^4,$$
(72)
where $`K=0,\pm 1`$. The nonlocal term that arises from bulk Coulomb effects (also called the dark radiation term) is strongly limited by nucleosynthesis :

$$\frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }\left(\frac{𝒰}{\rho }\right)_{\mathrm{nucl}}<0.005.$$
(73)
This means that the nonlocal term is always sub-dominant during the radiation era, and rapidly becomes negligible after the radiation era.

If we neglect the nonlocal term, and take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0=K`$, then the Friedmann equation during very high-energy inflation and early radiation-domination becomes

$$H^2\frac{\kappa ^2}{6}\frac{\rho ^2}{\lambda }.$$
(74)
The enhanced expansion rate, compared to general relativity (where $`H\sqrt{\rho }`$), introduces important changes to the dynamics of the early universe  and leads to an increase in the amplitude of scalar  and tensor  perturbations generated by inflation. If $`\rho \lambda `$ at the start of the radiation era, then the solution of the Friedmann equation gives $`at^{1/4}`$.

The generalized Raychaudhuri equation (83) (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0=𝒰`$) reduces to

$$\dot{H}+H^2=\frac{1}{6}\kappa ^2\left[\rho +3p+(2\rho +3p)\frac{\rho }{\lambda }\right],$$
(75)
and shows that the condition for inflation on the brane ($`\ddot{a}>0`$, i.e. $`\dot{H}+H^2>0`$) is

$$w<\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{2\rho +\lambda }{\rho +\lambda }\right).$$
(76)
As $`\rho /\lambda 0`$, we recover the general relativity result, $`w<\frac{1}{3}`$. But in the very high-energy regime, we find $`w<\frac{2}{3}`$.

The dynamics of homogeneous but anisotropic Bianchi branes has also been investigated . In particular, high-energy bulk effects can strongly alter the dynamics near the singularity, because matter can dominate over shear anisotropy, opposite to the case of general relativity .

The bulk metric for a flat Friedmann brane may be given explicitly :

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=N(t,y)^2dt^2+A(t,y)^2d\stackrel{}{x}^2+dy^2,$$
(77)
where $`A(t,0)=a(t)`$ and $`t`$ is proper time on the brane, so that $`N(t,0)=1`$. The metric functions are

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{\dot{a}}},`$ (78)
$`A^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\lambda }}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\right)a^2{\displaystyle \frac{6𝒰_oa_o^4}{\lambda ^2a^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\right)a^2\mathrm{sinh}(2\mu |y|)`$ (80)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho }{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{6𝒰_oa_o^4}{\lambda ^2a^2}}\right]\mathrm{cosh}(2\mu y),`$
with $`\mu =\kappa ^3\sqrt{6/\lambda }.`$ This bulk metric is Schwarzschild-AdS5 spacetime  (in Gaussian normal coordinates), with the mass parameter of the black hole in the bulk proportional to $`𝒰_o`$.

## VIII Propagation and constraint equations

Section V gave propagation equations for the local and nonlocal energy density $`𝒰`$ and flux $`𝒬_\mu `$. The remaining covariant equations on the brane are the propagation and constraint equations for the kinematic quantities $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`A_\mu `$, $`\omega _\mu `$, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$, and for the nonlocal gravitational field on the brane. The kinematic quantities govern the relative motion of neighbouring fundamental world-lines. The nonlocal gravitational field on the brane is given by the brane Weyl tensor $`C_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$. This splits into the gravito-electric and gravito-magnetic fields on the brane:

$$E_{\mu \nu }=C_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta =E_{\mu \nu },H_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta }C^{\alpha \beta }{}_{\nu \gamma }{}^{}u_{}^{\gamma }=H_{\mu \nu },$$
(81)
where $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ must not be confused with $`_{\mu \nu }`$. The Ricci identity for $`u^\mu `$ and the Bianchi identities $`^\beta C_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=_{[\mu }(R_{\nu ]\alpha }+\frac{1}{6}Rg_{\nu ]\alpha })`$ produce the fundamental evolution and constraint equations governing the above covariant quantities . The field equations are incorporated via the algebraic replacement of the Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ by the effective total energy-momentum tensor, according to Eq. (33). The brane equations are derived directly from the standard general relativity versions  by simply replacing the energy-momentum tensor terms $`\rho ,\mathrm{}`$ by $`\rho ^{\mathrm{tot}},\mathrm{}`$. For a perfect fluid or minimally-coupled scalar field, the general equations  reduce to the following.

Generalized Raychaudhuri equation (expansion propagation):

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu \mathrm{D}^\mu A_\mu +A_\mu A^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +3p)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (82)
$`=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(2\rho +3p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒰.`$ (83)
Vorticity propagation:

$$\dot{\omega }_\mu +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }\omega _\mu +\frac{1}{2}\text{curl}A_\mu \sigma _{\mu \nu }\omega ^\nu =0.$$
(84)
Shear propagation:

$$\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _{\mu \nu }+E_{\mu \nu }\text{D}_\mu A_\nu +\sigma _{\alpha \mu }\sigma _\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+\omega _\mu \omega _\nu A_\mu A_\nu =\frac{3}{\kappa ^2\lambda }𝒫_{\mu \nu }.$$
(85)
Gravito-electric propagation (Maxwell-Weyl E-dot equation):

$`\dot{E}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }E_{\mu \nu }\text{curl}H_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +p)\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ (86)
$`2A^\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta (\mu }H_{\nu )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }3\sigma _{\alpha \mu }E_\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+\omega ^\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta (\mu }E_{\nu )}^\beta `$ (87)
$`=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}[4𝒰\sigma _{\mu \nu }+3\dot{𝒫}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }𝒫_{\mu \nu }+3\text{D}_\mu 𝒬_\nu `$ (88)
$`+6A_\mu 𝒬_\nu +3\sigma ^\alpha {}_{\mu }{}^{}𝒫_{\nu \alpha }^{}+3\omega ^\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta (\mu }𝒫_{\nu )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }].`$ (89)
Gravito-magnetic propagation (Maxwell-Weyl H-dot equation):

$`\dot{H}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }H_{\mu \nu }+\text{curl}E_{\mu \nu }3\sigma _{\alpha \mu }H_\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }+\omega ^\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta (\mu }H_{\nu )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }+2A^\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta (\mu }E_{\nu )}^\beta `$ (90)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\left[\text{curl}𝒫_{\mu \nu }3\omega _\mu 𝒬_\nu +\sigma ^\alpha {}_{(\mu }{}^{}\epsilon _{\nu )\alpha \beta }^{}𝒬^\beta \right].`$ (91)
Vorticity constraint:

$$\text{D}^\mu \omega _\mu A^\mu \omega _\mu =0.$$
(92)
Shear constraint:

$$\text{D}^\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }\text{curl}\omega _\mu \frac{2}{3}\text{D}_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }+2[\omega ,A]_\mu =\frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }𝒬_\mu .$$
(93)
Gravito-magnetic constraint:

$$\text{curl}\sigma _{\mu \nu }+\text{D}_\mu \omega _\nu H_{\mu \nu }+2A_\mu \omega _\nu =0.$$
(94)
Gravito-electric divergence (Maxwell-Weyl div-E equation) :

$`\text{D}^\nu E_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\kappa ^2\text{D}_\mu \rho [\sigma ,H]_\mu +3H_{\mu \nu }\omega ^\nu `$ (95)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\rho }{3\lambda }}\text{D}_\mu \rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}(2\text{D}_\mu 𝒰2\mathrm{\Theta }𝒬_\mu 3\text{D}^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }+3\sigma _{\mu \nu }𝒬^\nu 9[\omega ,𝒬]_\mu ),`$ (96)
where the covariant tensor commutator is $`[W,Z]_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta }W^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}Z_{}^{\beta \gamma }`$.

Gravito-magnetic divergence (Maxwell-Weyl div-H equation):

$`\text{D}^\nu H_{\mu \nu }\kappa ^2(\rho +p)\omega _\mu +[\sigma ,E]_\mu 3E_{\mu \nu }\omega ^\nu `$ (97)
$`=\kappa ^2(\rho +p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\omega _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\left(8𝒰\omega _\mu 3\text{curl}𝒬_\mu 3[\sigma ,𝒫]_\mu 3𝒫_{\mu \nu }\omega ^\nu \right).`$ (98)
Gauss-Codazzi equations on the brane ($`\omega _\mu =0`$:

$`R_{\mu \nu }^{}+\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\text{D}_\mu A_\nu A_\mu A_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒫_{\mu \nu },`$ (99)
$`R^{}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }2\kappa ^2\rho 2\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\rho ^2}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{12}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒰,`$ (100)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is the Ricci tensor for 3-surfaces orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$ on the brane and $`R^{}=h^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }^{}`$.

The standard 4-dimensional general relativity results are regained when $`\lambda ^10`$, which sets all right hand sides to zero in Eqs. (83)–(100). Together with Eqs. (54)–(58), these equations govern the dynamics of the matter and gravitational fields on the brane, incorporating both the local (quadratic energy-momentum) and nonlocal (projected 5-D Weyl) effects from the bulk. Local terms are proportional to $`\rho /\lambda `$, and are significant only at high energies. Nonlocal terms contain $`𝒰`$, $`𝒬_\mu `$ and $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$, with the latter two quantities introducing imperfect fluid effects, even though the matter has perfect fluid form.

Bulk effects give rise to important new driving and source terms in the propagation and constraint equations. The vorticity propagation and constraint, and the gravito-magnetic constraint have no direct bulk effects, but all other equations do. Local and nonlocal energy density are driving terms in the expansion propagation. The spatial gradients of local and nonlocal energy density provide sources for the gravito-electric field. The nonlocal anisotropic stress is a driving term in the propagation of shear and the gravito-electric/ -magnetic fields, and the nonlocal energy flux is a source for shear and the gravito-magnetic field. The Maxwell-Weyl equations show in detail the contribution to the nonlocal gravito-electromagnetic field on the brane, i.e., $`(E_{\mu \nu },H_{\mu \nu })`$, from the nonlocal 5-dimensional Weyl field in the bulk.

The system of propagation and constraint equations, i.e. Eqs. (54)–(58) and (83)–(100), is exact and nonlinear, applicable to both cosmological and astrophysical modelling, including strong-gravity effects. In the next section we will linearize the system in order to study cosmological perturbations on the brane. A different linearization scheme could be developed for studying compact objects.

In general the system of equations is not closed: there is no evolution equation for the nonlocal anisotropic stress $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$. As noted above, closure on the brane can arise in special cases, when the nonlocal conservation equations (47) and (53) are sufficient to determine $`_{\mu \nu }`$. These special cases include:

$`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$, as on a Friedmann brane;

$`_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`\text{D}_\mu \rho =0`$, with perfect fluid matter, as in special cases of Friedmann and Bianchi branes;

stationary brane, with $`\dot{}_{\mu \nu }=0`$, so that Eqs. (47) and (53) reduce to constraint equations;

branes with isotropic 3-Ricci curvature, $`\omega _\mu =0=R_{\mu \nu }^{}`$.

The last case follows from Eq. (99), which becomes an equation defining $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ in terms of quantities already determined via other equations. Special cases are Friedmann and Bianchi I branes. In general, for anisotropic 3-Ricci curvature, Eq. (99) is an equation determining $`R_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ in terms of other quantities.

Although the special cases above can give consistent closure on the brane, there is no guarantee that the brane is embeddable in a regular bulk. This is the case for a Friedmann brane, whose symmetries imply (together with $`Z_2`$ matching) that the bulk is Schwarzschild-AdS5 . A Schwarzschild brane can be embedded in a ‘black string’ bulk metric, but this has singularities .

## IX Cosmological perturbations

The dynamics of the background homogeneous brane provides important constraints on brane-world cosmologies. Roughly speaking, these constraints amount to the statement that the brane-world should reproduce the standard Friedmann dynamics from nucleosynthesis onwards. However, much stricter constraints are implied by the growing body of data on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and large-scale structure (LSS), since this data indirectly probes earlier times. In order to confront brane-world models with the data, we need to study perturbations on the brane.

As is apparent from the exact nonlinear equations in the previous section, cosmological perturbations on the brane are qualitatively more complicated than in general relativity. Not only is the background more complicated, but effects from the bulk that are imprinted on the brane include degrees of freedom that cannot be predicted from data available to brane observers. A complete understanding of brane perturbations therefore necessarily involves the analysis of bulk perturbations – for which the mode equations are partial differential equations, with nontrivial boundary conditions.

A covariant brane-perturbation theory has been developed  and applied to large-scale density perturbations . Metric-based general formalisms for bulk perturbations have been developed , and large-scale perturbations generated from quantum fluctuations during de Sitter inflation on the brane have also been partly computed . Large-scale scalar perturbations and their impact on the CMB have been analysed .

The results so far may be summarized as follows:

Tensor perturbations:Bulk effects produce a massless mode during inflation and a continuum of massive Kaluza-Klein modes , with $`m>\frac{3}{2}H`$. The massive modes stay in the vacuum state, and on large scales there is a constant mode with enhanced amplitude (compared to general relativity) . We expect no qualitative change on large scales to 4-dimensional general relativity tensor modes in the CMB and LSS, but there could be a significant change on small scales due to the massive modes.

Vector perturbations:Bulk effects can support vector perturbations, even without matter vorticity , but these modes, which do not arise in general relativity, are massive (there is no normalizable massless mode), and stay in the vacuum state during inflation on the brane . The momentum can be determined on large scales without solving the bulk perturbations, but the vector Sachs-Wolfe effect cannot be found on-brane , because of the nonlocal anisotropic stress, which is undetermined on the brane. There are possibly qualitative changes to 4-dimensional general relativity vector modes in the CMB and LSS on large scales.

Scalar perturbations:Bulk effects introduce a non-adiabatic mode on large scales . Density perturbations on large scales can be solved on-brane, without solving for the bulk perturbations , but the Sachs-Wolfe effect cannot be found on-brane , because of the nonlocal anisotropic stress, which is undetermined on the brane. There are possibly qualitative changes to 4-dimensional general relativity scalar modes in the CMB and LSS, even on large scales, and probably significant changes on small scales.

The quantitative results up to now are confined to large scales. Further progress requires the integration of the bulk mode equations. In the simplest case, for tensor perturbations on a flat Friedmann brane, the mode equation is

$$\frac{}{t}\left(\frac{A^3}{N}\frac{}{t}\right)\frac{}{y}\left(A^3N\frac{}{y}\right)+k^2AN=0,$$
(101)
where $`A`$ and $`N`$ are given by Eqs. (78) and (80). The perturbed metric, in Gaussian normal coordinates, is

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=N(t,y)^2dt^2+A(t,y)^2\left[\delta _{ij}+_{ij}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)\right]dx^idx^j+dy^2,$$
(102)
where $`_i{}_{}{}^{i}=0=^j_{ij}`$ and

$$_{ij}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=(t,y)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{e}_{ij},$$
(103)
with $`\mathrm{e}_{ij}`$ a polarization tensor. At the brane, the boundary condition is

$$\left(\frac{}{y}\right)_{y=0}=\pi ^\mathrm{t},$$
(104)
where $`\pi ^\mathrm{t}(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{e}_{ij}`$ is the anisotropic stress of matter on the brane.

In order to illustrate some of the features of perturbations on the brane, we can use the brane-based covariant approach . The exact nonlinear equations in previous sections can be linearized as follows. The limiting case of the background Friedmann brane is characterized by the vanishing of all inhomogeneous and anisotropic quantities:

$$\text{D}_\mu f=V_\mu =W_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(105)
where $`f=\rho ,p,\mathrm{\Theta },𝒰`$, and $`V_\mu =A_\mu ,\omega _\mu ,𝒬_\mu `$, and $`W_{\mu \nu }=\sigma _{\mu \nu },E_{\mu \nu },H_{\mu \nu },𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$. These quantities are then first-order of smallness in the linearization scheme, and since they vanish in the background, they are gauge-invariant . The linearized conservation equations (assuming adiabatic matter perturbations) are

$`\dot{\rho }+\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho +p)=0,`$ (106)
$`c_\mathrm{s}^2\text{D}_\mu \rho +(\rho +p)A_\mu =0,`$ (107)
$`\dot{𝒰}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }𝒰+\text{D}^\mu 𝒬_\mu =0,`$ (108)
$`\dot{𝒬}_\mu +4H𝒬_\mu +\frac{1}{3}\text{D}_\mu 𝒰+\frac{4}{3}𝒰A_\mu +\text{D}^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{6}\kappa ^4(\rho +p)\text{D}_\mu \rho .`$ (109)
Linearization of the propagation and constraint equations leads to:

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2\mathrm{D}^\mu A_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +3p)\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(2\rho +3p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒰,`$ (110)
$`\dot{\omega }_\mu +2H\omega _\mu +\frac{1}{2}\text{curl}A_\mu =0,`$ (111)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }+2H\sigma _{\mu \nu }+E_{\mu \nu }\text{D}_\mu A_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒫_{\mu \nu },`$ (112)
$`\dot{E}_{\mu \nu }+3HE_{\mu \nu }\text{curl}H_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +p)\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ (113)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\left[4𝒰\sigma _{\mu \nu }+3\dot{𝒫}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }𝒫_{\mu \nu }+3\text{D}_\mu 𝒬_\nu \right],`$ (114)
$`\dot{H}_{\mu \nu }+3HH_{\mu \nu }+\text{curl}E_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\text{curl}𝒫_{\mu \nu },`$ (115)
$`\text{D}^\mu \omega _\mu =0,`$ (116)
$`\text{D}^\nu \sigma _{\mu \nu }\text{curl}\omega _\mu \frac{2}{3}\text{D}_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }={\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒬_\mu ,`$ (117)
$`\text{curl}\sigma _{\mu \nu }+\text{D}_\mu \omega _\nu H_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (118)
$`\text{D}^\nu E_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\kappa ^2\text{D}_\mu \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\rho }{3\lambda }}\text{D}_\mu \rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\left[2\text{D}_\mu 𝒰2\mathrm{\Theta }𝒬_\mu 3\text{D}^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }\right],`$ (119)
$`\text{D}^\nu H_{\mu \nu }\kappa ^2(\rho +p)\omega _\mu =\kappa ^2(\rho +p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\omega _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\left[8𝒰\omega _\mu 3\text{curl}𝒬_\mu \right].`$ (120)
Equations (106), (108) and (110) do not provide gauge-invariant equations for perturbed quantities, but their spatial gradients do.

A covariant, gauge-invariant (and purely local) splitting into scalar, vector and tensor modes is given by (compare )

$`V_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\text{D}_\mu V+\overline{V}_\mu ,`$ (121)
$`W_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\text{D}_\mu \text{D}_\nu W+\text{D}_\mu \overline{W}_\nu +\overline{W}_{\mu \nu },`$ (122)
where an overbar denotes a transverse (divergence-free) quantity (note that $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ is already tracefree). Purely scalar modes are characterized by

$$\overline{V}_\mu =\overline{W}_\mu =\overline{W}_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(123)
and standard identities , the vorticity constraint equation (116) and the gravito-magnetic constraint equation (118) then show that

$$\text{curl}V_\mu =0=\text{curl}W_{\mu \nu },\text{D}^\nu W_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{3}\text{D}^2(\text{D}_\mu W),\omega _\mu =0=H_{\mu \nu }.$$
(124)
Vector modes obey

$$V_\mu =\overline{V}_\mu ,W_{\mu \nu }=\text{D}_\mu \overline{W}_\nu ,\text{curl}\text{D}_\mu f=2\dot{f}\omega _\mu ,$$
(125)
and it then follows that

$$\text{D}^\nu W_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\text{D}^2\overline{W}_\mu ,\text{curl}W_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\text{D}_\mu \overline{W}_\nu .$$
(126)
Tensor modes are covariantly characterized by

$$\text{D}_\mu f=0=V_\mu ,W_{\mu \nu }=\overline{W}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(127)
### A Density perturbations on the brane

We define the density and expansion scalars (as in general relativity )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{a^2}{\rho }\text{D}^2\rho ,Z=a^2\text{D}^2\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(128)
and scalars describing inhomogeneity in the nonlocal quantities:

$$U=\frac{a^2}{\rho }\text{D}^2𝒰,Q=\frac{a}{\rho }\text{D}^2𝒬,P=\frac{1}{\rho }\text{D}^2𝒫.$$
(129)
Then we take the comoving spatial Laplacian of Eqs. (106), (108) and (110), using standard identities . This leads to a system of 4 evolution equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`Z`$, $`U`$, and $`Q`$. In general the system is under-determined, since there is no evolution equation for $`P`$. However, $`P`$ only arises via its Laplacian, and on large scales, the system closes and brane observers can predict density perturbations from initial conditions intrinsic to the brane. The system on large scales is

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`3wH\mathrm{\Delta }(1+w)Z,`$ (130)
$`\dot{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`2HZ{\displaystyle \frac{6\rho }{\kappa ^2\lambda }}U\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2\rho \left[1+(4+3w){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{12c_\mathrm{s}^2𝒰}{(1+w)\kappa ^4\lambda \rho }}\right]\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (131)
$`\dot{U}`$ $`=`$ $`(3w1)HU\left({\displaystyle \frac{4c_\mathrm{s}^2}{1+w}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒰}{\rho }}\right)H\mathrm{\Delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{4𝒰}{3\rho }}\right)Z,`$ (132)
$`\dot{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`(13w)HQ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3a}}U+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8c_\mathrm{s}^2𝒰}{(1+w)\rho }}\kappa ^4\rho ^2(1+w)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ (133)
In standard general relativity, only the first two equations apply, with $`\lambda ^1`$ set to zero in Eq. (131), so that we can decouple the density perturbations via a second-order equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, whose independent solutions are adiabatic growing and decaying modes. Bulk effects introduce a new non-adiabatic mode: there are 3 coupled equations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`Z`$ and $`U`$, plus a decoupled equation for $`Q`$, which is determined once the other 3 quantities are solved for. Some solutions are found in  for $`𝒰=0`$ in the background, and they show how the fluctuations $`U`$ in $`𝒰`$ introduce effective entropy perturbations, and how $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ evolves differently from the standard general relativity case when $`\rho \lambda `$ (see also ).

### B Vector perturbations on the brane

The linearized vorticity propagation equation (111) does not carry any bulk effects, and vorticity decays with expansion as in standard general relativity, reflecting the fact that angular momentum conservation holds on the brane. The gravito-magnetic divergence equation (120), becomes

$$\text{D}^2\overline{H}_\mu =2\kappa ^2(\rho +p)\left[1+\frac{\rho }{\lambda }\right]\omega _\mu +\frac{2}{\kappa ^2\lambda }\left[8𝒰\omega _\mu 3\text{curl}\overline{𝒬}_\mu \right],$$
(134)
on using Eq. (126). This shows that the local and nonlocal energy density and the nonlocal energy flux provide additional sources for the brane gravito-magnetic field. In standard general relativity, it is necessary to increase the angular momentum density $`(\rho +p)\omega _\mu `$ in order to increase the gravito-magnetic field, but bulk effects allow additional sources. In particular, unlike in general relativity, it is possible to source vector perturbations even when the vorticity vanishes, since $`\text{curl}\overline{𝒬}_\mu `$ may be nonzero.

We can find a closed system of equations on the brane for $`\omega _\mu `$ and $`\text{curl}\overline{𝒬}_\mu `$, on large scales. Using Eqs. (109), (111), (125) and (126), we find

$`\dot{\overline{\alpha }}_\mu +\left(13c_\mathrm{s}^2\right)H\overline{\alpha }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (135)
$`\dot{\overline{\beta }}_\mu +(13w)H\overline{\beta }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}H\left(3c_\mathrm{s}^21\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝒰}{\rho }}\kappa ^4(1+w)^2\rho ^2\right]\overline{\alpha }_\mu ,`$ (136)
where

$$\overline{\alpha }_\mu =a\omega _\mu ,\overline{\beta }_\mu =\frac{a}{\rho }\text{curl}𝒬_\mu ,$$
(137)
are dimensionless vector perturbations. Thus we can solve for the matter and nonlocal vorticity on large scales, without solving the bulk perturbation equations, similar to the case of scalar perturbations. The matter vorticity sources nonlocal vorticity, but during slow-roll inflation this only leads to a highly damped mode $`a^8`$. In very high-energy radiation domination however, there is a weakly growing mode:

$$\overline{\alpha }_\mu =b_\mu ,\overline{\beta }_\mu =c_\mu +Bb_\mu \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a}{a_o}\right),$$
(138)
where $`\dot{B}=\dot{b}_\mu =\dot{c}_\mu =0`$.

### C Tensor perturbations on the brane

For the transverse traceless modes on the brane, the scalar equations reduce to background equations, the vector equations drop out and we can derive a covariant wave equation for the tensor shear from the remaining equations (112)–(115) and (118):

$`\text{D}^2\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }\ddot{\overline{\sigma }}_{\mu \nu }5H\dot{\overline{\sigma }}_{\mu \nu }\left[2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho 3p)\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +3p){\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\lambda }}\right]\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ (139)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}\left[\dot{\overline{𝒫}}_{\mu \nu }+2H\overline{𝒫}_{\mu \nu }\right].`$ (140)
In standard general relativity, the right hand side falls away, and once $`\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ is determined, one can determine $`\overline{E}_{\mu \nu }`$ from Eq. (112) and $`\overline{H}_{\mu \nu }`$ from Eq. (118) (the shear is a gravito-electromagnetic potential). Nonlocal bulk effects provide driving terms that are like anisotropic stress terms in general relativity . In the latter case however, the evolution of anisotropic stress is determined by the Boltzmann equation or other intrinsic physics. The nonlocal anisotropic stress $`\overline{𝒫}_{\mu \nu }`$ from the bulk Weyl tensor is not determined by brane equations, and can in principle introduce significant changes to the shear via Eq. (140).

## X Conclusion

By adopting a covariant approach based on physical and geometrical quantities that are in principle measurable by brane-observers, we have given a classical analysis of intrinsic cosmological and astrophysical dynamics in generalized Randall-Sundrum-type brane-worlds. We have emphasised the role of the Weyl tensors in the bulk and on the brane, and we have carefully delineated what can and can not be predicted by brane observers without additional information from the unobservable bulk. Intriguing new effects are introduced by the extra dimension, and there are exciting problems to be solved, especially on brane-world black holes and gravitational collapse, and on cosmological perturbations and the CMB and LSS.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organisers of EREs2000 for support and warm hospitality, and David Wands and Filippo Vernizzi for helpful comments.


text:
# Effects of Entanglement in Controlled Dephasing

## I Introduction and main results

Recently, the progress in nanofabrication opened technological possibilities to fabricate mesoscopic devices consisting of pairs of capacitively coupled (no particle exchange) mesoscopic systems. The primary motivation was to carry out controlled experimental studies of dephasing in quantum electronic systems. In such experiments one system plays the role of the ”dephasor” which causes decoherence in the other system - the ”dephasee”. The possibility to experimentally adjust the type of dephasor and to vary its parameters should permit the production of various patterns of decoherence in the dephasee.

The direct observation, by means of interference experiments, of coherent transport through mesoscopic structures, is making it possible to study these patterns. The first realization of controlled dephasing was the so called “Which Path Detector” (WPD) . It consisted of an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer in a four terminal configuration  with a pinched Quantum Dot (QD) inserted in one arm playing the role of the dephasee. A biased Quantum Point Contact (QPC) located close to the QD played the role of the dephasor. The resulting suppression of interference was measured by looking at the reduction of the amplitude of A-B oscillations.

It is useful to think of the dephasor-dephasee interaction as of a scattering process. The source of dephasing (e.g., the suppression of the A-B oscillations in the WPD experiment) is the presence of inelastic channels, i.e., the possibility to change the state of the dephasor . It should be stressed that in this context “inelastic” is not necessarily associated with “energy transfer”, since in some situations it is possible to change the state of the dephasor without energy exchange.

In order to detect dephasing, one can ideally insert the dephasee in one arm of an interferometer  as in the WPD. The wave function of the interferometer-dephasor system is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}+\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$, the two terms describing respectively the reference arm and the arm containing the dephasee. If the dephasor-dephasee interaction is switched off both terms are product states, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}=\varphi _{ref}\chi _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_d=\varphi _0\chi _0`$, where $`\chi _0`$ is the initial state of the dephasor and $`\varphi _{ref}`$, $`\varphi _0`$ are the states in the two arms of the interferometer. In the presence of the interaction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ is an entangled state $`_{mn}a_{mn}\varphi _m\chi _n`$ where the sum, far away from the interaction region, is restricted to the energetically available states of the subsystems.

The dephasing is related to the reduction from unity of the modulus of the elastic amplitude $`a_{00}`$. For the particular case of a ”rigid” dephasee, whose initial state does not change as a result of the interaction, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_d=\varphi _0_na_{0n}\chi _n=\varphi _0\chi _{fin}`$ and $`a_{00}`$ is given by a simple overlap $`a_{00}=\chi _0\chi _{fin}`$. In this case, only a dephasor with degenerate initial state can cause dephasing as the “rigid” constraint forbids any exchange of energy between the two subsystems. The number of open inelastic channels is then proportional to the degeneracy of the initial state of the dephasor. However, in the general case as a result of entanglement the number of open inelastic channels depends on both subsystems and not only on the dephasor. The above simple considerations are clearly schematic and applicable for an idealized pure state situation. They are however helpful to elucidate also more realistic cases (cf., below).

In this paper, we will illustrate the previous discussion using the WPD experiment as an example. In the WPD, the flux-sensitive part of the transmission probability through the interferometer is

$$𝒫_{AB}\mathrm{Re}\left[t_{ref}t_{QD}e^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi i𝚽/𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}}\right],$$
(1)
where $`t_{ref}`$ is the transmission amplitude  through the arm without QD and $`t_{QD}`$ is the elastic amplitude to cross the arm containing the QD. Referring to the preceding general discussion $`t_{QD}`$ is proportional to the amplitude $`a_{00}`$.

It is convenient to characterize the dephasing by means of a positive function $`\nu `$, defined as

$$t_{QD}=t_{QD}^0(1\nu (eV,𝒯)).$$
(2)
where $`t_{QD}^0`$ is the transmission amplitude when the interaction with the QPC is switched off, $`𝒯`$ is the transparency of the QPC, and $`eV`$ is the bias applied to it.

The bias, transparency, and the temperature dependence of $`\nu `$ have recently been investigated both experimentally  and theoretically . The theoretical results indicated that for temperatures $`T<eV`$

$$\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \lambda _d^2\frac{eV}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(3)
Here $`\lambda _d`$ is the coupling between QD and QPC. It is conventionally expressed as

$$\lambda _d^2\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯)^2}{𝒯(1𝒯)},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯`$ is the change in the transparency due to the presence of an electron in the QD. These results were tested experimentally  in the following regime

(i) the QD was tuned to the maximum of a Coulomb Blockade (CB) peak and

(ii) the temperature was much higher than the coupling to the leads, $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

At such temperatures the number of inelastic channels is mainly determined by $`T`$ and $`eV`$. In order to investigate the dephasor-dephasee interplay we focus in this work on the opposite low-temperature limit, $`T\mathrm{\Gamma },eV`$. In Section II we present the details of our calculation and derive a general expression for $`\nu `$ (Eq. (29)- (31)). Here we summarize our main findings.

According to the standard description of a QPC , the bias $`eV`$ represents the difference in chemical potentials between left and right going scattering states. Therefore, the two energy scales of the problem $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`eV`$ characterize the windows of states in the QD and QPC which can participate in mutual scattering processes leading to dephasing. The idealized “rigid” dephasee limit is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ for which the states in the QPC can only scatter to states with the same energy. The number of open inelastic channels is then proportional to $`eV`$. Therefore, the calculation of $`\nu `$ performed in this limit  gives the result of Eq. (3). For a finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we find that the “rigid” approximation is valid only in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }eV`$.

As the bias is reduced, the function $`\nu `$ crossover smoothly to the opposite regime ($`eV\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) where the dephasee cannot be approximated as “rigid”. The scattering in QPC can occur between any states in the $`eV`$ interval and the number of open inelastic channels is proportional to $`(eV)^2`$. In this case we find accordingly

$$\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\lambda _d^2\left(\frac{eV}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^2.$$
(5)
Thus in this regime the dephasor-dephasee interplay significantly modifies the ”rigid” dephasee result leading in a sense to observable effects of entanglement on dephasing. In practical terms it also means that as a consequence of entanglement the dephasing ability of a dephasor is not universal but depends on the particular properties of the dephasee.

In Section II we study as well the dependence of $`\nu `$ on the detuning of the QD away from the maximum of a CB peak and show that also in this respect the two regimes discussed above are significantly distinct (cf., Eq (32) and Eq (33)).

## II The model and calculation

In order to describe the WPD, we can focus on the arm containing the QD. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`eV`$ are less than the mean level spacing in the QD we can represent it by a resonant level model

$$\widehat{H}_{QD}=ϵ_0d_0^{}d_0+\underset{k,i}{}(ϵ_kc_{ki}^{}c_{ki}+(A_{ki}c_{ki}^{}d_0+c.c))$$
(6)
where the operators $`c_{ki}^{}`$ and $`c_{ki}`$ refer to states in the left-right leads ($`i=L,R`$) connected to the QD, and the operators $`d_0^{}`$, $`d_0`$ to the resonant level in the QD.

We describe the QPC by means of the standard picture in terms of scattering states . For simplicity we assume that a single transversal channel is open. Therefore the total Hamiltonian is $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_{QD}+\widehat{H}_{QPC}+\widehat{V}`$ with

$`\widehat{H}_{QPC}={\displaystyle \underset{q,j}{}}ϵ_qb_{qj}^{}b_{qj},`$ (7)
$`\widehat{V}=d_0^{}d_0{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q,q^{}}{}}V_{qq^{}}(j,j^{})b_{qj}^{}b_{q^{}j^{}},`$ (8)
where the operators $`b_j^{}`$ ($`b_j`$) create (annihilate) left-right going scattering states ($`j=L,R`$). The application of a bias shifts the chemical potentials of the right-left going scattering states such that $`\mu _R\mu _L=eV`$. Moreover we take the matrix elements $`V_{qq}(j,j)`$ to zero if $`ϵ_q<\mu _L`$. This corresponds to the inclusion of the equilibrium Hartree shift in the definition of $`ϵ_0`$.

We are interested in the modification of $`t_{QD}`$ due to the presence of the QPC. This transmission amplitude is

$$t_{QD}=i\sqrt{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}𝑑\omega f^{}(\omega )G_d(\omega ),$$
(9)
where $`f^{}`$ is the derivative of the Fermi function and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L(R)}`$ is the elastic coupling to the left (right) reservoirs ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\pi _kA_{ki}^2\delta (\omega ϵ_k)`$) assumed energy independent.

Information about the QD and its interaction with the QPC is contained in $`G_d(\omega )`$ which is the Fourier transform of the retarded Green’s function, $`G_d(\mathrm{t})=\mathrm{i}\theta (\mathrm{t})\{\mathrm{d}_0(\mathrm{t}),\mathrm{d}_0^{}(0)\}`$. In order to calculate it, we use a real time perturbation expansion in the interaction $`\widehat{V}`$ between the QD and the QPC. The general result is

$$G_d(\omega )=\frac{1}{(\omega ϵ_0)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the proper retarded self-energy.

In the weak coupling limit, we can approximate the self energy with the diagrams of Fig. 1. We expect this approximation to describe correctly the scattering processes leading to dephasing, provided that at every step of the expansion the broadening of the QD resonant level due to the coupling to the leads is taken into account. Therefore, we calculate the diagrams of Fig. 1 using for the QD the noninteracting Green’s functions

$`G_0^<(\omega )=if(\omega )A_0(\omega ),`$ (11)
$`G_0^>(\omega )=i(1f(\omega ))A_0(\omega ),`$ (12)
where $`A_0(\omega )=2\mathrm{\Gamma }/((\omega ϵ_0)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$ is the noninteracting spectral density. The analogous Green’s functions of the QPC are

$`g_{qj}^<(\omega )=2\pi if^{(j)}(\omega )\delta (\omega ϵ_q),`$ (13)
$`g_{qj}^>(\omega )=2\pi i\left(1f^{(j)}(\omega )\right)\delta (\omega ϵ_q),`$ (14)
where the thermal factor $`f^{(j)}(\omega )=f(\omega \mu _j)`$ distinguishes left and right-going scattering states by their chemical potential difference.

The first order term (Fig. 1a) provides a shift of the QD level

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2\underset{q,j}{}V_{qq}(j,j)f^{(j)}\left(ϵ_q\right),$$
(15)
the factor of two coming from the summation over spin in the QPC.

An important contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ comes from the second order bubble diagram (Fig. 1b) describing the scattering between electrons in the QD and in the QPC. This contribution can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega )=i\frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^>(\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^<(\omega ^{})}{\omega \omega ^{}+i\delta },$$
(16)
where the self energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^>`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<`$ can be expressed in terms of the greater and lesser Green’s functions  of the QD and of the QPC as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^<(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q,q^{}}{}}V_{qq^{}}(j,j^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1d\omega _2}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ (18)
$`G_0^<(\omega ^{}\omega _1)g_{qj}^<(\omega _2)g_{q^{}j^{}}^>(\omega _2\omega _1),`$
and a similar equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^>`$ with interchanged symbols $`<`$ and $`>`$ . Substituting the expressions for the Green’s functions into Eq. (18), after some straightforward algebra, we arrive at the result

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}d\omega ^{\prime \prime }}{2\pi }}\rho _0(\omega ^{\prime \prime })[{\displaystyle \frac{A_0(\omega ^{})f(\omega ^{})}{\omega +\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{}+i\delta }}`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A_0(\omega ^{})f(\omega ^{})}{\omega \omega ^{\prime \prime }+\omega ^{}+i\delta }}],`$
where the spectral density

$`\rho _0(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^{}}{}}\lambda ^2(j,j^{}){\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2\delta (\omega _1\omega _2\omega )}`$ (22)
$`f^{(j)}(\omega _2)\left(1f^{(j^{})}(\omega _1)\right),`$
describes particle-hole excitations in the QPC. Here we introduced the dimensionless couplings $`\lambda (j,j^{})=LV(j,j)/(2\pi v_F)1`$.

We are interested in $`T\mathrm{\Gamma },eV`$ which amounts to taking the limit $`T0`$. From Eq. (9),(10) it follows that in order to calculate the transmission amplitude $`t_{QD}`$ one needs $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ at the Fermi level $`ϵ_f`$ in the the arm containing the QD. In the following we will set $`ϵ_f=0`$ without loss of generality. The real and imaginary parts of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ at the Fermi level can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_d\text{Re}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]=P{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}d\omega ^{\prime \prime }}{\pi }\frac{\rho _0(\omega ^{\prime \prime })A^{}(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^{}}f(\omega ^{})},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]={\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}f(\omega ^{})A^+(\omega ^{})\rho _0(\omega ^{})},`$ (24)
where $`A^\pm (\omega )=A_0(\omega )\pm A_0(\omega )`$.

From Eq. (23) it follows that, because of the symmetry of $`A_0(\omega )`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ goes to zero as $`ϵ_0`$ goes to zero. For $`ϵ_0<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can estimate

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_d\lambda _e^2ϵ_0(\xi _0/\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(25)
where $`\lambda _e=\lambda (j,j)`$ and $`\xi _0`$ is a cutoff of the order of the Fermi energy in the QPC. Therefore $`ϵ_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_d(1\lambda _e^2\xi _0/\mathrm{\Gamma })ϵ_0`$ from which we see that in the weak coupling regime this shift can be neglected.

The imaginary part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ controls the dephasing caused by the interaction with the QPC. At zero temperature and with the QPC in equilibrium the spectral density $`\rho _0`$ is finite only for positive frequencies. As expected, this gives vanishing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. If a finite bias is applied to the QPC we have

$$\rho _0(\omega )=\lambda _d^2(\omega +eV)\text{for}\omega <0,$$
(26)
where we used the notation $`\lambda (j,j^{})=\lambda _d`$ for $`jj^{}`$. Substituting Eq. (26) in Eq. (24) and performing the frequency integration we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\{\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1+\xi _0^2)^2}{(1+\xi _+^2)(1+\xi _{}^2)}}\right)`$ (29)
$`+2\left(\xi _+\right)\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left(\xi _+\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left(\xi _0\right)\right]`$
$`+2\left(\xi _{}\right)[\mathrm{arctan}\left(\xi _{}\right)+\mathrm{arctan}\left(\xi _0\right)]\},`$
where we introduced the dimensionless variables $`\xi _\pm =(eV\pm ϵ_0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\xi _0=ϵ_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ on the transparency $`𝒯`$ of the QPC is contained in the coupling constant $`\lambda _d`$ (Eq. (4)).

Using Eq. (29) together with Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) we finally obtain the transmission amplitude

$`t_{QD}={\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}}{(ϵ_0+\mathrm{\Delta })i(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)}},`$ (30)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\lambda _eeV`$ ($`\lambda _e=\lambda (j,j)`$) can be easily obtained from Eq. (15). In this formula both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ renormalize the transmission amplitude. However, the effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not related to dephasing and in real experiments $`ϵ_0`$ is typically (e.g., by means of a plunger gate) so that $`ϵ_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_0=ϵ`$ is maintained constant.

It is now possible to relate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ to the suppression of Aharonov-Bohm oscillations $`\nu `$ defined in Eq. (2). We write $`t_{QD}`$ in terms of the renormalized level $`ϵ`$ and expand it up to second order in $`\lambda `$. The result is

$`\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+ϵ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\right).`$ (31)
When the amplitude of A-B oscillations is measured, the relevant scale on which $`ϵ`$ is varied near the Fermi level is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this interval one can obtain from Eq. (29) two simple expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ in the opposite limits of large and small bias

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\lambda _d^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+ϵ^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(eV)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\text{for}eV\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \lambda _d^2eV\text{for}eV\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ (33)
Substituting these expressions in Eq. (31) with $`ϵ=0`$ we recover the two results anticipated in Section I (Eq. (3) and Eq. (5)). One moreover observes that the QD-QPC entanglement leaves another fingerprint in the dependence on the detuning of the QD resonance $`ϵ`$. Indeed, for $`eV\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ is very sensitive to the variations of $`ϵ`$ , while in the other case these variations are negligible.

In Eq. (30) the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ appears as a correction to the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, we emphasize that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ is the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ at a specific energy ($`\omega =0`$). Examining the energy dependence of $`\text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]`$ we discover another profound difference between the two regimes. Taking for simplicity $`ϵ_0=0`$ we obtain $`\text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\omega )]\mathrm{\Gamma }_d+2\lambda _d^2\omega ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this interval the relative variation of $`\text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]`$, defined as $`\delta \text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(\mathrm{\Gamma })]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$, is given by

$`\delta `$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{eV}}\right)^21\text{for}eV\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (34)
$`\delta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{eV}}1\text{for}eV\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (35)
It therefore follows that only in the large bias case (“rigid” dephasee limit) $`\text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]`$ is well approximated by a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. Only then it is possible to interpret $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ as a dephasing rate and the dephasing-induced time dependence of the QD Green’s function is exponential ($`G_d(t)\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)t]`$). In the opposite regime the strong variations of $`\text{Im}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_2]`$ with $`\omega `$ imply that the characterization of the dephasing by dephasing rate   is impossible , i.e., the dephasing is not described by a simple exponential decay of $`G_d(t)`$.

We would like to express special thanks to Y. Levinson for many useful and stimulating discussions. We are also thankful to Y. Imry, M. Heiblum, B. Rosenow, D. Sprinzak, I. Ussishkin, M. Rokni, and M. Schechter for valuable discussions. We acknowledge the support of the DIP grant no.DIP-C7.1.