text:
# IIT-HEP-01/1hep-ex/0101024 Prospects for low-energy antiproton physics at FermilabTo appear in Proceedings of the LEAP 2000 Conference, Venice, Italy, Aug. 20–26, 2000.

## 1 $`\overline{𝒑}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$ WORKSHOP: FUTURE OF $`\overline{𝒑}`$s AT FERMILAB

The $`\overline{p}2000`$ Workshop was held Aug. 3–5, 2000 at Illinois Institute of Technology. Its goal was to explore the physics potential of a possible new low-energy antiproton storage ring at Fermilab and begin the process of planning for its construction and exploitation. Thirty-nine physicists attended from Europe, Asia, and the U.S., and promising ideas were presented. The major questions addressed could be summarized as follows:

1. What will be Fermilab’s capabilities in $`\overline{p}`$ physics during the next several years?
2. Can a strong physics program be identified to take advantage of these capabilites?

### 1.1 Physics motivations

In particular, we considered two motivating ideas and four general physics areas in which significant progress might be made in a program at Fermilab:

* Fermilab is now starting to define its directions for the post-LHC era. Further broadening of the non-“energy frontier” physics program (beyond BTeV and the neutrino and Main Injector fixed-target efforts) could be an appealing option if a strong clientele can be found.
* Fermilab already has the world’s highest-intensity antiproton source, and the available $`\overline{p}`$ intensity will continue to increase.
* The physics reach in $`\overline{p}p`$hyperons might benefit from greater luminosity.
* The physics reach in $`\overline{p}p`$charmonium might benefit from greater luminosity, higher energy, and improved energy precision.
* The physics reach in $`\overline{p}p`$glueballs or gluonic hybrids might benefit from more running and higher energy.
* A facility for decelerating and trapping antiprotons at Fermilab could provide much more beam than the AD.

### 1.2 Current capabilities

The $`\overline{p}`$ source now produces cooled antiprotons at a maximum “stacking rate” of $``$10 mA/hr. Given the circumference of the antiproton accumulator, this corresponds to a production rate of $`10^{11}`$antiprotons/hr and can support a maximum luminosity of about $`2\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, i.e. beyond this luminosity collisions would consume antiprotons faster than they are produced. The goals for Tevatron Run II are 20 mA/hr by March, 2001, and 100 mA/hr by Run IIB ($`2005`$).

The antiproton fixed-target run of Experiment 835 (charmonium production) ends in November, 2000, after which no further experimental running in the accumulator is expected. Once Run II begins, the accumulator is expected to be fully dedicated to supplying antiprotons for the Tevatron Collider, in support of two (and, once BTeV is running, possibly three) 2 TeV collision regions operating simultaneously at $`2\times 10^{32}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Thus once Run II begins, Fermilab’s approved and existing capabilities in low-energy antiproton physics will be nil.

### 1.3 Possible low-energy-$`\overline{𝒑}`$ upgrade

In recent months Fermilab’s G. Jackson has been exploring the possibility of building a new, small, low-energy $`\overline{p}`$ facility at Fermilab. The immediate motivations for such a facility come from fields outside nuclear and particle physics : NASA is pursuing ideas for $`\overline{p}p`$-annihilation-fueled interstellar travel in the long-term future and is interested in a source of trapped antiprotons to begin investigating them. Ideas have also been discussed for possible medical applications of trapped antiprotons: production of short-lived isotopes for positron-emission tomography and use of antiprotons for cancer therapy. Exploratory efforts to investigate provision of trapped antiprotons for these purposes are going ahead, subject to the boundary condition that they remain parasitic to commissioning and high-energy running of the Tevatron Collider and that they consume at most a few percent of the available antiprotons.

As discussed below, a stacking rate consistent with $`10^{33}`$cm-2s-1 luminosity may be a desirable capability for a future facility; at least it is a plausible upper limit. Such a high stacking rate is quite conceivable but may require upgrading the proton source. It has been estimated  that the proposed “Proton Driver” upgrade  will increase the intensity in the Main Injector by a factor $``$4. If other bottlenecks in the $`\overline{p}`$ production process can be overcome, this will translate into a similar factor in stacking rate.

## 2 A PHYSICS EXAMPLE

To understand some of the issues for a future low-energy antiproton facility (in particular, the need for $`10^{33}`$ luminosity), we consider in some detail a challenging physics example: hyperon $`CP`$ violation.

### 2.1 Hyperon $`𝑪𝑷`$ violation

In addition to CP violation in kaon decays , the Standard Model predicts a slight CP asymmetry in decays of hyperons . The most accessible signals involve comparison of the (nonuniform) angular distributions of the decay products of polarized hyperons with those of the corresponding antihyperons . For a precision measurement, it is necessary to know the polarizations of the initial hyperons and antihyperons to high accuracy.

By angular-momentum conservation, in the decay of a spin-1/2 hyperon to a spin-1/2 baryon plus a pion, the final state must be either S-wave or P-wave. As is well known, the interference term between the S- and P-wave decay amplitudes gives rise to parity violation, parametrized by Lee and Yang  in terms of two independent parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$: $`\alpha `$ is proportional to the real and $`\beta `$ to the imaginary part of this interference term. CP violation can be sought as a difference in $`|\alpha |`$ or $`|\beta |`$ for a hyperon decay and its CP-conjugate antihyperon decay or as a particle-antiparticle difference in the partial widths for such decays .

Table 1 summarizes the experimental situation. The first three experiments cited studied $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay only , setting limits on the CP-asymmetry parameter

$$A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}},$$
(1)
where $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$) characterizes the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) decay to (anti)proton plus charged pion and, if CP is a good symmetry in hyperon decay, $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$.

Fermilab E756  and CLEO  employed a new technique in which the cascade decay of charged $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hyperons is used to produce polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s, in whose subsequent decay the slope of the (anti)proton angular distribution in the “helicity” frame measures the product of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If CP is a good symmetry in hyperon decay this product should be identical for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ events. The CP-asymmetry parameter measured is thus

$$A_{\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{\Xi }\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{\alpha _\mathrm{\Xi }\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}A_\mathrm{\Xi }+A_\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(2)
The power of this technique derives from the large $`\alpha `$ value for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ decay ($`\alpha =0.64`$). A further advantage in the fixed-target case is that within a given $`{}_{}{}^{^(}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^^)`$ momentum bin the acceptances and efficiencies for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ decays are very similar, since the switch from detecting $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ to detecting $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ is made by reversing the polarities of the magnets, making the spatial distributions of decay products across the detector apertures almost identical for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$. (There are still residual systematic uncertainties arising from the differing cross sections for $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ and for $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ to interact in the material of the spectrometer.)

Subsequent to E756, this technique has been used in the “HyperCP” experiment  (Fermilab E871), depicted schematically in Fig. 1, which ran during 1996–99. Like E756, HyperCP used a secondary charged beam produced by primary protons interacting in a metal target. The secondary beam was momentum- and sign-selected by means of a curved collimator located within a 6-m-long dipole magnet. No measurements were made until after the 13-m-long (evacuated) decay region. HyperCP recorded the world’s largest samples of decays of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, amounting to $`2\times 10^9`$ and $`0.5\times 10^9`$ events, respectively. When the analysis is complete, these should determine $`A_{\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ with a statistical uncertainty

$$\delta A=\frac{1}{2\alpha _\mathrm{\Xi }\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{\frac{3}{N_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}+\frac{3}{N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+}}}=1.4\times 10^4.$$
(3)
The Standard Model predicts this asymmetry to be of order $`10^5`$ . Thus if HyperCP sees a significant effect, it will be evidence for CP violation in the baryon sector substantially larger than predicted by the Standard Model.

### 2.2 A future experiment

Whether or not HyperCP observes a statistically-significant effect, it is of interest to ask whether an experiment with substantially larger event samples is feasible . Since HyperCP sensitivity is an order of magnitude short of the Standard Model prediction, a desirable goal would be two orders of magnitude in sample size.

We have begun to explore this question. While we believe that the approach taken in HyperCP is near the limit of what is possible with present-day particle-detection technology,111The high rate of secondary beam in HyperCP — about 20 MHz spread over an area of several cm2 — caused detector inefficiencies in the beam region at the percent level (in the most upstream MWPCs) due to MWPC deadtime. an alternative approach pioneered by the PS185 Collaboration at CERN may have the requisite “head room.” The PS185 experiment  operated at the Low-Energy Antiproton Ring (LEAR) at CERN between 1984 and 1996 and utilized $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation slightly above the threshold for production of a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pair. (In this case, the requirement that the hyperon and antihyperon polarizations be precisely known is modified, since by $`C`$-parity conservation in the strong interaction the polarizations of the hyperons and antihyperons are equal.222This assumption is in fact not experimentally tested at the level required for this measurement, but the limit $`B(\pi ^03\gamma )<3.1\times 10^8`$  suggests that it is a good one ; in any case, $`C`$ violation in the strong production process would be as interesting a discovery as CP violation in the weak decay .)

Limited by the available antiproton intensity at LEAR, PS185 has achieved a sensitivity of only 1.5% . However, in the early 1990s the CERN “CP-Hyperon Study Group” designed a hyperon CP-violation experiment for SuperLEAR aimed at $`10^4`$ sensitivity  (see Fig. 2). While SuperLEAR was never built, the antiproton production rate at the Antiproton Source at Fermilab is already at least four orders of magnitude beyond that achieved at LEAR, and, as mentioned above, substantial improvements to its capabilities are planned. A new antiproton storage ring at Fermilab capable of producing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ events at a 60 kHz rate may be feasible at relatively modest cost . This would allow the accumulation of a sample of order $`10^{11}`$ good events within a few years’ running time . Challenges that will need to be met include the design of beam optics and a gas-jet target that permit $`10^{33}`$cm-2s-1 luminosity, detecting the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay products and reconstructing their tracks with good efficiency at $``$200 MHz charged-particle rate, triggering with good efficiency and adequate background rejection at $``$100 MHz interaction rate, and acquiring data at the resulting high trigger rate .

### 2.3 Additional physics

Beyond hyperon CP violation, a low-energy ($`p2`$GeV/$`c`$), high-intensity antiproton storage ring equipped with a high-luminosity fixed-target spectrometer may be able to carry out experiments designed to study rare hyperon decays, hyperon beta decays, quark confinement, and soft QCD effects . A “universal” fixed-target $`\overline{p}p`$ spectrometer is under study . Studies of charmonium and possible gluonic-hybrid charmonium states would require higher antiproton energies ($`p_{}`$\< 10 GeV/$`c`$). Experiments in this energy regime could address several open issues related to charmonium and QCD, including the relative $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ decay widths, $`\chi _c`$ widths, masses of the charmonium pseudoscalar states, the value of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ at the charm-quark mass, existence and properties of higher radial excitations of charmonium, and the $`J/\psi `$-nucleon cross section in the kinematic regime relevant to the interpretation of heavy-ion quark-gluon-plasma searches . Additional topics include the possible existence of glueballs or gluonic hybrids in the $`>2.5`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ mass region (where their interpretation may be clearer than at low mass) and precision measurements of the $`\tau `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ masses . Experiments with trapped antiprotons include a variety of CPT tests, for example precision studies of the hyperfine structure of antihydrogen and of the gravitational interaction between antihydrogen and the Earth . These might best be pursued in an atomic-beam approach rather than at rest, thus a storage ring may have advantages over the pulsed beam provided by the AD .

## 3 A SCENARIO FOR A NEW FERMILAB FACILITY

Jackson has outlined a scenario leading to a new low-energy antiproton storage-ring facility at Fermilab . The proposed approach is to use the Main Injector to decelerate cooled antiprotons from the accumulator down to the injection momentum of a new small storage ring ($``$2 GeV/$`c`$). While this is below the Main Injector’s design momentum range, the ability of the Main Injector magnets and their power supplies to operate stably at this momentum has already been demonstrated, and a suitable operating mode for the RF system has been devised and demonstrated to decelerate a proton beam down to 3 GeV/$`c`$ . (In the Oct. 2000 test, a software limitation prevented the demonstration of deceleration to 2 GeV/$`c`$, but this is expected to be rectified soon so that a test of deceleration to 2 GeV/$`c`$ will become feasible .)

If the Main Injector indeed can provide 2 GeV/$`c`$ antiprotons, the next steps require construction of an extraction system for the decelerated antiprotons followed by a transfer line to a location (say the MI-8 service area) convenient for installation and operation of experimental trapping apparatus. At this stage a low intensity of trapped antiprotons could be provided, using a degrader to lower the momentum sufficiently for trapping.

To provide a higher-quality and higher-intensity beam, the 2 GeV/$`c`$ ring will be needed. It should be equipped with enough RF to decelerate down to the tens to hundreds of MeV/$`c`$ range. With electron cooling in this ring, very high luminosities ($`10^{33}`$) should be feasible. At this stage, hyperon experiments, etc. (as discussed above) become feasible, provided that sufficient antiproton flux is available to satisfy their needs. Interleaved operation of other lower-flux experiments, including trapped-$`\overline{p}`$ studies using degraders or RFQ deceleration, should be possible with only minor impact on the duty factor of the “major user.”

To provide a maximum of flexibility, an additional, larger storage ring could be added to the facility to provide antiprotons over the $``$1–10 GeV/$`c`$ range, allowing both experiments at higher momenta and periodic filling of traps with minimal impact on the high-luminosity rare-hyperon-effect studies. However, whether such a ring would be worth installing at Fermilab would depend on how the GSI upgrade proposal  fares.

The scenario just presented is being pursued aggressively by a private company, Technanogy, LLC, with funding from NASA, and the small storage ring could be in operation within the next several years. It will soon behoove potential users of the facility to work seriously on the design of the challenging experimental apparatus that will be required, as well as to specify needed machine capabilities so that these may be folded into the design process.

## 4 Acknowledgements

I thank the organizers for inviting me to speak at this stimulating conference, convened at so striking a location. This work was supported in part by grants from the Illinois Board of Higher Education, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, and the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# Hysteresis in layered spring magnets

## 1. Introduction

Exchange-spring coupled magnets (spring magnets, for short) hold significant promise for applications in information recording and storage devices. Spring magnets consist of nanodispersed hard and soft magnetic phases that are coupled at the interfaces. (In a hard material, the magnetic moment tends to be aligned with the easy axis; in a soft material, it is more or less free to align itself with the local magnetic field.) The superior magnetic properties of a spring magnet stem from the fact that the soft phase enhances the magnetization of the composite . Since the performance of a spring magnet is determined by the stability of the soft phase against magnetization reversal, it is important to identify the factors affecting the reversal process.

Thin films provide an interesting class of simple models for which one can perform both physical and computational experiments. A spring-magnet structure can be realized by interleaving hard and soft magnetic layers, and because the magnetic properties vary predominantly along the normal direction, the structure of such spring magnets is essentially one dimensional.

In this article we investigate magnetic reversal in a hard/soft bilayer—a layer of soft material on top of a layer of hard material—with strong coupling at the interface. The hard and soft layers both consist of several atomic layers; each atomic layer is treated as uniformly magnetized, and spatial inhomogeneities within an atomic layer are neglected. The state of the bilayer is thus described by a chain of spins, each spin representing the magnetic moment of an atomic layer.

The dynamics of a magnetic moment are entirely local. A magnetic moment is like a spinning top, which is driven by the effective magnetic field and subject to damping. The relevant equation was first formulated by Landau and Lifshitz  and later given in an equivalent form by Gilbert . The local effective field is derived variationally from an energy functional .

The Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation preserves the magnitude of the magnetic moment, and it is important to maintain this property in numerical approximations. Our first purpose in this article is to present an integration scheme that conserves magnetization at all times.

Our second purpose is to present some results of numerical simulations for a bilayer. They show two types of rotational hysteresis: one at moderate fields with a basic period of $`2\pi `$, which is associated with the irreversible behavior of the chirality (“handedness”) of the chain of magnetic spins in the soft layers; another at strong fields with a basic period of $`\pi `$, which is associated with the irreversible behavior of a full-length transition of the chain of magnetic spins in both the hard and the soft layers. These results explain the experimental observation of hysteresis in some torque measurements . They also agree qualitatively with some magneto-optical measurements of the magnetization angle . However, they differ at the quantitative level. The discrepancy is due to the one-dimensional model, which does not allow for the nucleation and motion of nanodomains.

The remainder of this article consists of three sections. In Section 2, we describe the mathematical model, together with the numerical approximation procedure. In Section 3, we present some simulation results for hard/soft bilayers. (Additional results are presented in .) In Section 4, we summarize our conclusions.

## 2. Mathematical model

A layered spring magnet is a multilayer structure, which consists of $`N_h`$ atomic layers of a hard magnetic material adjacent to $`N_s`$ atomic layers of a soft magnetic material,

$`\text{Hard layers}:`$ $`iI_h=\{1,\mathrm{},N_h\},`$
$`\text{Soft layers}:`$ $`iI_s=\{N_h+1,\mathrm{},N_h+N_s\}.`$
We put $`I=I_hI_s`$ and $`N=N_h+N_s`$. The atomic layers are homogeneous, and variations occur only in the direction normal to the layers. We assume for convenience that the atomic layers are equally thick; their thickness $`d`$ is of the order of angstroms (1 Å $`=1.010^8`$ cm).

We adopt a right-handed Cartesian $`(x,y,z)`$ coordinate system, where the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes are in the plane of an atomic layer, the $`x`$ axis coincides with the easy axis of the hard material, and the $`z`$ axis is in the direction normal to the layers; $`𝒆_x`$, $`𝒆_y`$, and $`𝒆_z`$ are the unit vectors in the direction of increasing $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$, respectively. In a polar $`(\varphi ,\theta )`$ coordinate system, $`\varphi `$ is the out-of-plane angle and $`\theta `$ the in-plane angle measured counterclockwise from the positive $`x`$ axis.

The state of the bilayer is completely described by the set of magnetic moments,

$$𝑴=\{𝑴_i:iI\}.$$
(1)
Each $`𝑴_i`$ is a vector-valued function of time $`t`$, with components $`M_{i,x}`$, $`M_{i,y}`$, and $`M_{i,z}`$. The magnitude $`M_i`$ of $`𝑴_i`$ is the magnetization, the unit vector $`𝒎_i=𝑴_i/M_i`$ is the magnetic spin in the $`i`$th layer. The magnetization is constant at all times and equal to the local saturation magnetization,

$$𝑴_i(t)=M_i𝒎_i(t),\text{with }M_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}M_h\hfill & \text{ if }iI_h,\hfill \\ M_s\hfill & \text{ if }iI_s.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Here, $`M_h`$ and $`M_s`$ are the values of the saturation magnetization for the hard and soft material, respectively. Each magnetic spin can be specified in terms of its Cartesian or polar components,

$$𝒎_i=(m_{i,x},m_{i,y},m_{i,z})^\text{t}=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i,\mathrm{sin}\varphi _i)^\text{t}.$$
(3)
Thus, $`\theta _i`$ is the in-plane angle of $`𝒎_i`$ with the easy axis of the hard material (measured from the positive $`x`$ direction), $`\varphi _i`$ the out-of-plane angle of $`𝒎_i`$.

### 2.1. Dynamics of the magnetic moment

A magnetic moment is like a spinning top, which is driven by the local effective magnetic field and subject to damping. The equation of motion for $`𝑴_i`$ is the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert (LLG) equation,

$$\frac{𝑴_i}{t}=\gamma (𝑴_i\times 𝑯_i)+\frac{g}{M_i}\left(𝑴_i\times \frac{𝑴_i}{t}\right),iI.$$
(4)
Here, $`𝑯_i`$ is the effective magnetic field in the $`i`$th layer, $`\gamma `$ the gyromagnetic constant, and $`g`$ a (dimensionless) damping coefficient. Note that the LLG equation yields a magnetic moment whose magnitude is constant in time. An equivalent form of the LLG equation is

$$\frac{𝑴_i}{t}=c\left[(𝑴_i\times 𝑯_i)+\frac{g}{M_i}𝑴_i\times (𝑴_i\times 𝑯_i)\right],iI,$$
(5)
where $`c=\gamma /(1+g^2)`$. We rescale $`t`$ by a factor $`c`$ and take $`c=1`$ from here on.

The effective magnetic field is found by taking the variational derivative of the free energy,

$$𝑯_i=𝑯_a\frac{\delta F}{\delta 𝑴_i},$$
(6)
where $`𝑯_a`$ is the externally applied field, which we take to be uniform and constant in time. The free-energy density $`F`$ is the sum of the exchange energy, the anisotropy energy, and the demagnetization energy,

$$[𝑴]=_\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\frac{1}{2}A(z)\left|\frac{𝒎}{z}\right|^2+K(z)\left|𝒎\times 𝒆_x\right|^2+\frac{1}{2}(4\pi )(𝑴𝒆_z)^2\right].$$
(7)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the $`z`$ interval occupied by the entire multilayered structure, $`A`$ is the exchange coupling coefficient, and $`K`$ is the anisotropy coefficient. The demagnetization tensor for a layer has only one element, $`D_{zz}`$; $`4\pi `$ is its value for an infinitely thin flat ellipsoid . In practice, one approximates $`𝑯_i`$ by the expression

$`𝑯_i=𝑯_a`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_i}}\left[J_{i,i+1}(𝒎_{i+1}𝒎_i)J_{i,i1}(𝒎_i𝒎_{i1})\right]2{\displaystyle \frac{K_i}{M_i}}𝒆_x\times (𝒎_i\times 𝒆_x)`$ (8)
$``$ $`4\pi M_i(𝒎_i𝒆_z)𝒆_z,iI,`$
where

$$𝒎_0=𝒎_1,𝒎_{N+1}=𝒎_N.$$
(9)
The coupling coefficient $`J`$, which is related to $`A`$ ($`J=Ad^2`$), has the same value between layers of the same material; similarly, the anisotropy coefficient $`K`$ is constant within the same material,

$$J_{i,i+1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}J_h,\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},N_h1,\hfill \\ J_{hs},\hfill & i=N_h,\hfill \\ J_s,\hfill & i=N_h+1,\mathrm{},N,\hfill \end{array}K_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}K_h,\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},N_h,\hfill \\ K_s,\hfill & i=N_h+1,\mathrm{},N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
The actual values of these material parameters depend on the temperature; $`K_sK_h`$ in all practical cases.

### 2.2. Integration of the LLG equation

The LLG equation maintains a constant magnetization, so the only quantity that changes in the course of time is the direction of the magnetic moment. We therefore begin by rewriting the LLG equation in terms of $`𝒎`$. As the equation is entirely local to each layer, we drop the index $`i`$ temporarily. We use the prime  to denote differentiation with respect to time.

Let $`H`$ be the strength of the magnetic field, and let $`𝒉=𝑯/H`$ be the unit vector in the direction of $`𝑯`$,

$$𝑯(t)=H(t)𝒉(t).$$
(11)
Then the LLG equation is

$$𝒎^{}=H\left[(𝒎\times 𝒉)+g𝒎\times (𝒎\times 𝒉)\right].$$
(12)
We decompose the equation by means of the projection operators $`P`$ and $`Q`$,

$$P𝒖=(𝒖𝒉)𝒉,Q𝒖=𝒖P𝒖=𝒉\times (𝒖\times 𝒉),𝒖𝐑^3.$$
(13)
Equation (12) is equivalent to the two equations

$`P𝒎^{}`$ $`=`$ $`HP\left[(𝒎\times 𝒉)+g𝒎\times (𝒎\times 𝒉)\right],`$ (14)
$`Q𝒎^{}`$ $`=`$ $`HQ\left[(𝒎\times 𝒉)+g𝒎\times (𝒎\times 𝒉)\right].`$ (15)
Notice the identities

$`P(𝒎\times 𝒉)=\mathrm{𝟎},P[𝒎\times (𝒎\times 𝒉)]=(𝒎Q𝒎)𝒉=[1(P𝒎P𝒎)^2]𝒉,`$ (16)
$`Q(𝒎\times 𝒉)=JQ𝒎,Q[𝒎\times (𝒎\times 𝒉)]=(𝒎𝒉)Q𝒎,`$ (17)
where $`J`$ is the square root of the negative identity in $`𝐑^2`$,

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),J^2=I.$$
(18)
Hence, we can recast Eqs. (14) and (15) in the form

$`P𝒎^{}`$ $`=`$ $`gH[1(P𝒎P𝒎)^2]𝒉,`$ (19)
$`Q𝒎^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H[Jg(𝒎𝒉)I]Q𝒎.`$ (20)
Suppose that the direction of $`𝑯`$ does not change on an interval $`(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$,

$$𝒉(s)=𝒉(t),s(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(21)
Then $`P𝒎^{}=(P𝒎)^{}`$ and $`Q𝒎^{}=(Q𝒎)^{}`$ on $`(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, so Eqs. (19) and (20) reduce to a coupled system of differential equations for the scalar $`u=(P𝒎𝒉)`$ in $`𝐑`$ and the vector $`𝒗=Q𝒎`$ in $`𝐑^2`$,

$`u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`gH(1u^2)\text{on }(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$ (22)
$`𝒗^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H(JguI)𝒗\text{on }(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).`$ (23)
From these equations we conclude that the critical states are $`u=1`$, $`𝒗=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝒎=𝒉`$, magnetic moment parallel to the magnetic field) and $`u=1`$, $`𝒗=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝒎=𝒉`$, magnetic moment antiparallel to the magnetic field). The former is linearly stable, the latter unstable under infinitesimal perturbations.

We now turn to the integration of Eqs. (22) and (23). The former is independent of $`𝒗`$ and can be integrated immediately. If not only the direction, but also the magnitude of $`H`$ is constant on $`(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$,

$$𝑯(s)=𝑯(t),s(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t),$$
(24)
we find

$$u(s)=\frac{u(t)\mathrm{cosh}(gH(t)(st))+\mathrm{sinh}(gH(t)(st))}{\mathrm{cosh}(gH(t)(st))+u(t)\mathrm{sinh}(gH(t)(st))},s(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(25)
Next, we turn to Eq. (23). We replace the constant $`gH`$ by $`u^{}/(1u^2)`$ (from Eq. (22)) and use the identity $`uu^{}/(1u^2)=(\mathrm{ln}(1u^2)^{1/2})^{}`$ to convert the equation into a differential equation for the vector $`𝒘=(1u^2)^{1/2}𝒗`$,

$$𝒘^{}=HJ𝒘\text{on }(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(26)
This equation can be integrated,

$`𝒘(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{H(t)(st)J}𝒘(t)`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`[\mathrm{cos}(H(t)(st))I+\mathrm{sin}(H(t)(st))J]𝒘(t),s(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).`$
From the expression (25) we obtain

$$(1u(s)^2)^{1/2}=\frac{(1u(t)^2)^{1/2}}{\mathrm{cosh}(gH(t)(st))+u(t)\mathrm{sinh}(gH(t)(st))},$$
(28)
so

$$𝒗(s)=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(H(t)(st))I+\mathrm{sin}(H(t)(st))J}{\mathrm{cosh}(gH(t)(st))+u(t)\mathrm{sinh}(gH(t)(st))}𝒗(t),s(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(29)
These results suggest the following choice of the integration scheme for Eq. (12):

$`𝒎_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒎_n𝒉_n)\mathrm{cosh}(gH_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\mathrm{sinh}(gH_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{\mathrm{cosh}(gH_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)+(𝒎_n𝒉_n)\mathrm{sinh}(gH_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)}}𝒉_n`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(H_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)I+\mathrm{sin}(H_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)J}{\mathrm{cosh}(gH_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)+(𝒎_n𝒉_n)\mathrm{sinh}(gH_n\mathrm{\Delta }t)}}𝒉_n\times (𝒎_n\times 𝒉_n),`$
where $`𝒎_{n+1}=𝒎(t_{n+1})`$, $`𝒎_n=𝒎(t_n)`$, $`𝒉_n=𝒉(t_n)`$, $`H_n=H(t_n)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{n+1}t_n`$.

The algorithm (30) is unconditionally stable for all values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Of course, the quality of the approximation suffers as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ increases. However, the algorithm explicitly displays the relationship between the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the local error in the time integration. The rate of precession of $`𝒎`$ around the polar axis is governed by $`H`$, the magnitude of the local effective field: in one time step, $`𝒎`$ precesses through an angle $`H\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Therefore, by properly choosing $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, we can resolve the fastest precessional motion in a given number of time steps per period. Since $`H`$ varies over the course of a simulation, we have a natural and direct means to adjust the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to the current dynamical state, while maintaining the resolution of the precessional motion.

Other algorithms for the numerical integration of the LLG equation have been proposed recently by Nigam  and E and Wang .

### 2.3. Computing equilibrium configurations

The analysis in the preceding section suggests the following algorithm for finding equilibrium spin configurations. Starting from a given equilibrium state $`𝑴=\{𝑴_i:iI\}`$ at time $`t_0`$, one uses Eq. (8) to compute the magnetic field $`𝑯_i`$ in each layer at $`t_0`$. Having found $`𝑯_i(t_0)`$ for all $`iI`$, one advances in time to $`t_1=t_0+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and uses Eqs. (2) and (30) to compute $`𝑴`$ at $`t_1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is sufficiently small, $`𝑴(t_1)`$ is a close approximation of the state of the system at time $`t_1`$. One continues this process, finding approximations at successive times $`t_n=t_0+n\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ , until equilibrium is reached.

## 3. Numerical results

The algorithm of the preceding section has been used to study hysteresis phenomena in hard/soft bilayers that are driven by an applied field $`𝑯_a`$ that is uniform, constant in time, and parallel to the planes of the atomic layers. The expression for the effective magnetic field, Eq. (8), decomposes into an in-plane component,

$`𝑯_i\times 𝒆_z=𝑯_a\times 𝒆_z`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_i}}\left[J_{i,i+1}(𝒎_{i+1}𝒎_i)J_{i,i1}(𝒎_i𝒎_{i1})\right]\times 𝒆_z`$ (31)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{K_i}{M_i}}(𝒎_i𝒆_y)𝒆_x,iI,`$
and an out-of-plane component,

$`𝑯_i𝒆_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_i}}\left[J_{i,i+1}(𝒎_{i+1}𝒎_i)J_{i,i1}(𝒎_i𝒎_{i1})\right]𝒆_z`$ (32)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{K_i}{M_i}}𝒎_i𝒆_z4\pi M_i𝒎_i𝒆_z,iI.`$
When the system is in an equilibrium state, the effective magnetic field is parallel (or antiparallel) to the magnetic spin; see Section 2.2. Hence, each $`𝑯_i`$ is a multiple of $`𝒎_i`$, and Eq. (32) reduces to a homogeneous system of linear algebraic equations for the set of scalars $`\{𝒎_i𝒆_z:iI\}`$. In general, this system admits only the trivial solution, so the magnetic moments lie in the plane of the atomic layers. In the notation of Eq. (3), $`\varphi _i=0`$ for all $`iI`$ at equilibrium, and the only relevant variables are the in-plane angles $`\{\theta _i:iI\}`$. (Of course, the magnetic spin may have an out-of-plane component during the transient phase of the computation.)

In the numerical simulations we focus on the in-plane angle of the magnetic spin at equilibrium and investigate its behavior as a function of the strength $`H_a`$ and the direction $`\theta _a`$ of the applied field,

$$𝑯_a=H_a𝒉_a,𝒉_a=(\mathrm{cos}\theta _a,\mathrm{sin}\theta _a,0)^\text{t}.$$
(33)
The following computations refer to a bilayer configuration consisting of $`N_h=115`$ atomic layers of Sm-Co (a hard material) and $`N_s=100`$ atomic layers of Fe (a soft material). A different configuration is used in Section 3.3, where we make a comparison with some magneto-optical measurements. Table 1 gives the values of the material parameters $`A`$, $`K`$, and $`M`$, as well as the values of the coupling coefficient $`J`$ ($`J=Ad^2`$, $`d=2`$ Å). In all cases, the damping coefficient $`g=0.5`$.

### 3.1. Rotational hysteresis

The case $`H_a=4800`$ oersteds is typical, at least for moderate values of $`H_a`$ (see Section 3.2).

The simulations show that the equilibrium spin configurations for increasing $`\theta _a`$ ($`0<\theta _a<2\pi `$) and decreasing $`\theta _a`$ ($`2\pi >\theta _a>0`$) are mirror images of each other. Figure 1 shows two sets of magnetic spin configurations at equilibrium for various values of $`\theta _a`$, one set (left) as $`\theta _a`$ increases from 0 to $`2\pi `$, the other set (right) as $`\theta _a`$ decreases from $`2\pi `$ to 0. The heavy dots represent the endpoints of the magnetic spin (a unit vector) in each layer for various angles $`\theta _a`$; the values of $`\theta _a`$, in degrees, are indicated near the top layer. (The dots merge into a solid line where the magnetic spins in adjacent layers are close.)

Notice that the chirality (“handedness”) of the chain of magnetic spins changes from positive at $`\theta _a=301.5`$ to negative at $`\theta _a=301.6`$ degrees and from negative at $`\theta _a=58.5`$ to positive at $`\theta _a=58.4`$ degrees. Figure 2 shows this change in a different way.

Here, we have plotted the in-plane angle $`\theta _i`$ against the layer index $`i`$ for increasing values of $`\theta _a`$. (The graphs for decreasing values of $`\theta _a`$ are obtained by symmetry.) First, the graph changes continuously (but not monotonically) as $`\theta _a`$ increases from 0 to 301.5 degrees, $`\theta _i`$ increasing with $`i`$ (positive chirality). Then it changes discontinously as $`\theta _a`$ increases to 301.6 degrees: $`\theta _i`$ suddenly becomes decreasing instead of increasing with $`i`$. Finally, it changes continuously again as $`\theta _a`$ increases further, $`\theta _i`$ decreasing with $`i`$ (negative chirality), to return to the original graph ($`\theta _i=0`$ for all $`iI`$) as $`\theta _a`$ reaches 360 degrees. In all cases, the spin is fixed along the easy axis ($`\theta _i=0`$) in most of the hard layers; it begins to deviate from the easy axis only as one approaches the interface ($`i=115`$). The first derivative is discontinuous at the interface, and the tangent is vertical in the top layer ($`i=215`$).

The change in chirality is irreversible and induces rotational hysteresis. The in-plane angle of each spin vector traverses a different trajectory as the applied field rotates 360 degrees in the forward and backward direction. The hysteresis loop has the same shape, and particularly the same width, in all layers. Its vertical dimension contracts gradually as one descends through the soft layers, to disappear entirely in the hard layers somewhat below the interface; see Fig. 3.

### 3.2. Two types of rotational hysteresis

When the strength of the applied field is varied, we observe different modes of irreversible behavior. We recall (Fig. 3) that, as $`\theta _a`$ increases from 0, the chirality changes discontinuously from positive to negative as the direction of the applied field deviates sufficiently from the easy axis. We denote the critical value of the angle $`\theta _a`$ by $`\theta _c`$ ($`\theta _c=301.5\mathrm{}`$ at $`H_a=4800`$ oersteds). Figure 4 shows the variation of $`\theta _c`$ with $`H_a`$.

As long as $`H_a`$ is sufficiently small, the magnetization process is reversible. At a first critical value of $`H_a`$, marked $`H_{c1}`$, the chirality of the chain of magnetic spins changes for the first time, and rotational hysteresis of the type discussed in the preceding section (with a basic period of 360 degrees) sets in. The width of the hysteresis loop, which is symmetric around $`\theta _a=\pi `$, increases monotonically from 0 at $`H_a=H_{c1}`$ to some value less than $`2\pi `$.

At a second critical value of $`H_a`$, marked $`H_{c2}`$, a sharp discontinuity occurs. The hysteresis loop narrows significantly and continues to narrow as $`H_a`$ increases beyond $`H_{c2}`$. The cause of this discontinuity becomes obvious in Fig. 5, where we have plotted $`\theta _i`$ against $`i`$; cf. Fig. 2. (The bottom 80 layers of hard material, where $`\theta _i`$ does not deviate noticeably from 0, are not included in this figure.) As $`H_a`$ reaches the value $`H_{c2}`$, the chain of spins has been stretched to its widest extent; it can no longer support the span in the top layer, stiffens suddenly, and becomes more like a rigid rod. The rod-like behavior is apparent from the increasing range where the chain is almost vertical.

The structural change in the chain of spins has some of the characteristics of a phase transition. For example, we observe a significant increase in the equilibration time (by two orders of magnitude) as $`\theta _a`$ approaches $`\theta _c`$; see Fig. 6. Also, the increasing size of the rigid domain near $`H_{c2}`$ is reminiscent of a diverging correlation length.

At a third critical value of $`H_a`$, marked $`H_{c3}`$, another significant change occurs. The field has now become sufficiently strong to move the spins in both the soft and the hard materials. From here on, the chain of spin vectors changes over its entire length, maintaining its chirality. Figure 7 gives $`\theta _i`$ vs. $`i`$ for increasing values of $`\theta _a`$. (The graphs for decreasing values of $`\theta _a`$ are obtained by symmetry.) The value $`H_a=10,400`$ oersteds is just above $`H_{c3}`$. This figure should be compared with Fig. 2 for the standard case, $`H_a=4800`$ oersteds. The exact determination of $`H_{c3}`$ is delicate; in our numerical simulations we found a slight rate dependence in the regime near $`H_{c3}`$.

Because the chain of spins behaves more like an elastic spring than a stiff rod, a new type of rotational hysteresis emerges, whose basic period can be any multiple of 180 degrees. Figure 8 shows three graphs: one graph (c) is along the diagonal; the other two (a and b) are symmetric with respect to the diagonal. The outer graph (a) shows $`\theta _i`$ for $`i=85`$ (hard layer). The part below the diagonal is traversed in the upward direction as $`\theta _a`$ increases from 0; the part above the diagonal is traversed in the downward direction as $`\theta _a`$ decreases from 360 degrees. The spin is oriented in either the positive or the negative $`x`$ direction. Transitions occur at $`\theta _c`$ and at every multiple of $`\pi `$ beyond $`\theta _c`$. The center graph (c) shows $`\theta _i`$ for $`i=215`$ (top layer). The orientation of this spin varies continuously with $`\theta _a`$ and is perfectly reversible. Finally, the middle graph (b) shows $`\theta _i`$ for $`i=115`$ (at the interface). Here, the spin rotates continuously until it jumps. The jumps occur at $`\theta _c`$ and at every multiple of $`\pi `$ beyond $`\theta _c`$. The graphs for the remaining layers fill the space between the ones drawn in the figure. The main point to observe is that the graphs for $`\theta _a`$ increasing always increase and stay below the diagonal, while those for $`\theta _a`$ decreasing always decrease and stay above the diagonal. Hence, chirality is preserved in both cases.

When the direction of $`\theta _a`$ is reversed, $`\theta _i`$ crosses the diagonal as soon as $`\theta _a\theta _c`$ is a multiple of $`\pi `$; after crossing, it remains on the part of the graph situated on the newly reached side of the diagonal. Because there is a gap between the graphs for $`\theta _i`$ in the interior layers and the diagonal, the orientation of the magnetic spin shows rotational hysteresis in all interior layers. This hysteresis is caused by a full-length transition of the chain of magnetic spins, rather than the partial-range transition that was responsible for the hysteresis below $`H_{c3}`$.

### 3.3. Comparison with experiment

Quantities such as the magnetic moment are fundamental to describe the state of the system, but they are not directly measurable in an experiment. Measurable quantities are the torque density $`T`$ and the magnetization angle $`\alpha `$,

$$T=H_ad\underset{iI}{}M_i\mathrm{sin}(\theta _a\theta _i),\alpha =\mathrm{tan}^1\frac{_{iI}M_i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i}{_{iI}M_i\mathrm{cos}\theta _i}.$$
(34)
Both $`T`$ and $`\alpha `$ reflect the hysteretic behavior of the magnetic moments. Figure 9 shows the torque density computed at $`H_a=4800`$ and $`10,400`$ oersteds.

Experimental torque measurements at comparable values of $`H_a`$ show similarly shaped graphs, with extrema at approximately the same values of $`\theta _a`$, but significantly narrower hysteresis loops .

In Fig. 10, we compare results for the magnetization angle with experimental data. The data were obtained by magneto-optical means for a bilayer consisting of $`N_h=100`$ atomic layers of Sm-Co and $`N_s=250`$ atomic layers of Fe; the simulation curves also refer to this configuration . The measurements were done at relatively low fields ($`H_a=360,600`$, and 840 oersteds) and for a limited range of directions ($`\theta _a=0:10:230`$ degrees).

There is certainly qualitative agreement, but the simulations generally yield wider hysteresis loops than the experiments, and the discrepancy becomes greater as the field strength increases. This behavior can be explained by the fact that the model used in the simulations is a single-domain model, which does not allow for the important phenomenon of nucleation and motion of nanodomains. As a result, the demagnetization energy is seriously overestimated. In realistic simulations, one must use multidimensional models and allow for lateral inhomogeneities .

## 4. Conclusions

In this article we have addressed an important issue in micromagnetics: magnetization reversal in layered spring magnets. We have used a one-dimensional model of a film consisting of atomic layers of a soft material on top of atomic layers of a hard material with strong coupling at the interface, assuming no variation in the lateral directions. The state of such a system is described by a chain of magnetic spin vectors. Each spin vector behaves like a spinning top driven by the local magnetic field and subject to damping. The dynamics are described by a system of LLG equations, Eq. (5), coupled with a variational equation for the magnetic field, Eq. (8).

We have presented an integration procedure that maintains the invariance of the magnetization (the magnitude of the magnetization vector) and proposed an algorithm for finding the equilibrium state of the system.

We have applied the algorithm to simulate magnetization reversal in layered spring magnets. The results show that a layered spring magnet exhibits rotational hysteresis with a basic period of 360 degrees at moderately strong fields and rotational hysteresis with a basic period of 180 degrees at strong fields. The former type of hysteresis is induced by a partial-length transition of the chain of magnetic spins; the transition occurs only in the soft material and causes a change of chirality. The hysteresis in strong fields is induced by a full-length transition of the chain of spins in both the hard and the soft layers; it is much weaker than the rotational hysteresis at moderately strong fields and can cover any period that is a multiple of the basic period.

The numerical results for the torque and magnetization angle agree qualitatively with the experimental data but differ at the quantitative level. In particular, the one-dimensional model seriously overestimates the demagnetization energy, since it does not allow for the nucleation and motion of nanodomains. In realistic simulations, lateral inhomogeneities must be taken into account.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences Division subprogram of the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38. Most of the numerical simulations were carried out by Jaime Hernandez Jr. (University of Texas at El Paso), who was a participant in the Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship program at Argonne National Laboratory (summer 2000).

Received January 2001.


text:
# Untitled Document

BROWN-HET-1255

Solving the Hierarchy Problem with Brane Crystals

Steven Corley and David A. Lowe

Department of Physics

Brown University

Providence, RI 02912, USA

scorley, lowe@het.brown.edu

Abstract

The brane world scenario advocated by Arkani-Hamed et al. transmutes the hierarchy problem into explaining why extra dimensions have sizes much larger than the fundamental scale. In this paper we discuss possible solutions to this problem by considering the compactified dimensions to be populated by a large number of branes in a crystal lattice. The experimental consequences of this scenario are described, including the presence of large energy gaps in the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein modes.

January, 2001

1. Introduction

Around two years ago  pointed out that it was consistent with known experiments for extra dimensions to exist with sizes of order a millimeter. The motivation for this observation came from string theory, where additional “curled up” dimensions are required for the consistency of the theory. String theory also allows for the existence of D-branes, which give a way to restrict the Standard Model fields to a three dimensional slice of the higher dimensional space. Without this additional entrapment of the Standard Model fields to a brane, large extra dimensions would be in immediate contradiction with atomic physics.

The hierarchy problem becomes re-expressed as explaining why the size of the extra dimensions $`r_0`$ is much larger than the fundamental length scale. Denoting the fundamental scale by $`M_{}`$ (which we can take to be of order $`1`$ TeV), and the four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{Pl}=10^{19}`$ GeV, one finds

$$M_{Pl}^2=r_0^nM_{}^{n+2},$$

for $`n`$ flat extra dimensions with size $`r_0`$. For $`n=1`$, $`r_0`$ is required to be of cosmological scales, which is immediately ruled out. The $`n=2`$ case requires $`r_0`$ of order one millimeter. There remains a hierarchy between $`r_0`$ and $`1/M_{}10^{19}`$m.

Current rounds of experiments ,  are beginning to place direct constraints on the simplest scenarios. Short-range gravity experiments now probe down to $`200`$ $`\mu `$m strongly constraining the $`n=2`$ case. Accelerator experiments constrain $`M_{}1`$ TeV . The strongest constraints arise from astrophysical considerations. Production of Kaluza-Klein modes in supernova SN 1987A places a bound $`M_{}30`$ TeV for $`n=2`$ .

One of the main theoretical challenges in implementing some of the proposed large extra dimension scenario’s is how to stabilize the size of the extra dimensions, without introducing additional fine tuning problems. This problem should be more readily addressed in the large extra dimension scenario, versus the traditional approach of compactification at the fundamental scale, because the analysis may be carried out at the classical level. A variety of solutions have been proposed \[49\] in the warped compactification scenarios, where by warped we mean not only the Randall-Sundrum warped metric scenarios \[1013\] but also cases where some other field, eg., a scalar as in , has a non-trivial profile in the extra dimensions.

Another proposed solution in the unwarped compactification context of  is to have a large number of branes $`N`$ (one of which would be our world) interacting in such a way that they form a crystal lattice in the internal dimensions . The interbrane separation could be the size of the fundamental length scale, but the size of the extra dimensions would nevertheless be large enough to solve the hierarchy problem for a large enough number of branes. While it is still not clear how to realize such a brane lattice crystal from a more fundamental theory such as string theory, these models are nevertheless of interest from a phenomenological point of view, especially in light of the fact that they could be tested experimentally in the near future.

One is still left with the problem of explaining the large integer $`N`$. We take the point of view that replacing a fine tuned continuous parameter by a large integer parameter is an improvement, as one can set the integer $`N`$ once and for all using initial conditions, and under suitable circumstances, this integer will be stable with respect to time evolution. Since the hierarchy is set by a conserved number $`N`$, it is automatically stable with respect to radiative corrections.

In the following we begin by discussing the approach to brane crystals of Arkani-Hamed et al. . They propose a number of scenarios for stabilizing the extra dimensions. One particularly compelling example does this without introducing additional fine tuning, aside from the usual problem with the four-dimensional cosmological constant. A problem with this scenario is the presence of unbalanced charge on a compact space. Balancing the charge leads us to consider a scenario where neutral non-BPS branes interact via a nearest neighbor potential. We show this does lead to a natural solution of the hierarchy problem. The crystal potential leads to a distinctive experimental signature for this scenario – the existence of large energy gaps in the Kaluza-Klein spectrum. Such energy gaps have also been noticed in the Randall-Sundrum scenario brane lattices discussed in \[15,,16\].

2. Brane Crystal Review

We begin by reviewing the model considered in . They consider a 3-brane embedded in a universe with 3 large spatial dimensions and $`n`$ small spatial dimensions. The system is described by a bulk action

$$S_{bulk}=d^{4+n}x\sqrt{detg_{4+n}}\left(M_{}^{2+n}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{matter}+\mathrm{}\right)$$

and a brane action

$$S_{brane}=d^4x\sqrt{detg_4}(f^4+\mathrm{}),$$

where $`_{matter}`$ is the Lagrangian of the bulk matter fields and the ellipses denote higher derivative terms which may be dropped at low enough energies. Here $`g_4`$ denotes the induced metric on the brane, $`g_{4+n}`$ denotes the bulk metric, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk cosmological constant and $`f^4`$ is the brane tension. Interaction terms between the branes are not included. In the next section we discuss scenarios where such interaction terms are relevant.

The metric is assumed to take the form

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^n(dt^2R^2g_{ij}dx^idx^j)r^2g_{IJ}dx^Idx^J,$$

where $`R=R(t)`$ is the scale factor of the three large dimensions and $`r=r(t)`$ that of the $`n`$ small dimensions, with $`r_0=r(0)`$. 1  do not include the conformal factor $`r^n`$ multiplying the large dimensions. We find it more convenient however to include it as it will lead to diagonalized kinetic terms for $`r`$ and $`R`$ in the action below and is the ordinary conformal factor appearing in Kaluza-Klein reductions.. Also we use lower case Latin indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ to denote the 3 large spatial dimensions and upper case Latin indices $`I,J,\mathrm{}`$ for the $`n`$ small spatial dimensions.

Inserting this form of the metric into the bulk (2.1), and brane (2.1) actions and integrating over the spatial coordinates results in

$$S=𝑑tR^3\left(M_{}^{n+2}r_0^n\left(6\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2+\frac{n(n+2)}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{r}}{r}\right)^2\right)\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^{2n}V_{tot}(r)\right),$$

after an integration by parts. In obtaining this result we have assumed that $`d^3x\sqrt{detg_{IJ}}=1`$ and $`d^nx\sqrt{detg_{ij}}=1`$. The potential $`V_{tot}(r)`$ is given by

$$V_{tot}(r)=\mathrm{\Lambda }r^n\kappa n(n1)M_{}^{n+2}r^{n2}+f^4,$$

where the term proportional to $`\kappa `$ arises from the curvature of the $`n`$ dimensional space. For an $`n`$-sphere $`\kappa =1`$ and for an $`n`$-torus $`\kappa =0`$. A similar term could be added for the three large spatial dimensions, but for large $`R`$ would be negligible so we drop it.

For static solutions the equations of motion are simply given by

$$V_{tot}(r_0)=0,V_{tot}^{}(r_0)=0,$$

assuming that $`R(t)=R_0`$ is constant. Note that with the potential (2.1) $`r_0`$ is fixed entirely in terms of the bulk interaction. For the above potential (2.1) these equations constrain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ assuming that $`r_0`$ is chosen to solve the hierarchy problem (1.1). Specifically let’s assume that the brane tension is set by the higher dimensional fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ so that $`f^4M_{}^4`$. From (2.1), assuming the internal space is an n-sphere, it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{M_{}^{n+2}}{r_0^2}M_{}^{n+4}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{Pl}}\right)^{4/n},$$

where we have used (1.1).

For $`N`$ branes with equal tensions, the $`f^4`$ term in (2.1) is replaced by $`Nf^4`$. Solving the $`V_{tot}(r_0)=0`$ equation leads to

$$N\left(\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_{}}\right)^{2(n2)/n}.$$

This varies from $`1`$ for $`n=2`$ to $`10^{20}`$ for $`n=6`$. Note one is still left with an extra fine tuning problem, in order that the bulk cosmological constant satisfy the relation (2.1). Also note the brane number $`N`$ plays no role in fixing the size of the extra dimensions – this is entirely determined by fine tuning $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`N`$ is fixed only by requiring the four dimensional cosmological constant vanish.

For a single brane, stability of this solution follows from the condition $`V_{tot}^{\prime \prime }(r_0)>0`$ where $`r_0`$ solves the equations of motion (2.1). This is straightforward to see by expanding the action to quadratic order in the small perturbation $`\delta r`$ where $`r=r_0+\delta r`$ and then rescaling $`\delta r`$ so that the kinetic term is canonically normalized. The mass can then be read from the action and is given by

$$m_r^2=\frac{1}{n(n+2)}\frac{r_0^2V_{tot}^{\prime \prime }(r_0)}{M_{Pl}^2}.$$

Evaluating this for (2.1) gives $`m_r1/r_0`$. Note the static equations of motion (2.1) and stability condition do not depend on the specific form of $`V_{tot}(r)`$, and yield strong constraints on the parameters of more general potentials.

This analysis presumes that derivative couplings of the radion to higher spin Kaluza-Klein modes may be neglected, which is not true in general. However this should not change the qualitative conclusions. The analysis also neglects the Hamiltonian constraint, which would take the form

$$M_{}^{n+2}r_0^n\left(6\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2+\frac{n(n+2)}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{r}}{r}\right)^2\right)+\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^{2n}V_{tot}(r)=0.$$

This tells us if we really considered perturbations independent of the three noncompact spatial dimensions, we would generate an non-zero energy density everywhere in space, which would lead to expansion or contraction of $`R`$. This is easily remedied by generalizing to perturbations localized in the noncompact spatial dimensions.

3. Interbrane Forces

We now consider in more detail the effect of an interbrane potential on the above analysis. We continue to work in an approximation where the compactification is not warped, i.e. the $`4+n`$-dimensional metric does not depend on the internal coordinates $`x^I`$. This presumes the brane separation will be stabilized at a size parametrically larger than the fundamental length scale $`1/M_{}`$, so that treating gravity at the classical level is sufficient. We also continue to treat perturbations homogeneous in the spatial directions, with only time dependence, with the metric ansatz (2.1).

Let us generalize the brane action to $`N`$ branes, with a Born-Infeld type action

$$S_{brane}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^4x\sqrt{\mathrm{det}\left(g_{\mu \nu }g_{IJ}_\mu X_{(k)}^I_\nu X_{(k)}^J\right)}\left(f_k^4+\underset{l<k}{}V_{brane}\left(r|X^{(l)}X^{(k)}|\right)\right),$$

with an interbrane potential $`V_{brane}`$. Here we have assumed the metric is $`g=g(t)`$ induced on each brane is the same, and we use $`X_{(k)}=X_{(k)}(t)`$ to denote worldvolume fields corresponding to the brane positions in the transverse space. Indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ label the coordinates $`(t,x^i)`$. The brane potential has been chosen to depend on the proper distance separating the branes. This leads to the factor of $`r`$ in potential term. In writing the Born-Infeld action we have used the worldvolume diffeomorphism invariance to fix the gauge $`X_{(k)}^\mu =x^\mu `$. Note that had we included spatial dependence of the fields, the brane potential would take a complicated non-local form, that is difficult to write down explicitly. A useful analogy for the branes interacting with the bulk gravitational field is gravitational waves interacting with a resonant gravitational wave detector, , as we will comment further below.

A natural candidate for $`V_{brane}`$ is a simple Coulomb coupling. This leads to the most interesting brane crystal scenario studied in  with“non-extensive bulk cosmological constant”, where the hierarchy problem was solved without the additional fine tuning associated with the bulk cosmological constant. The radion was stabilized in the infra-red using a negative curvature term in the internal space, and the Coulomb force was used to provide a short distance stabilizing force. The difficulty with this picture is that a collection of like charged branes on a compact space carries infinite vacuum energy, since the electric flux has nowhere to end.

To remedy this, one could consider brane configurations with zero charge per unit cell. Of course, once branes with opposite sign are present there will be attractive forces. For supersymmetric D-branes in string theory, oppositely charged branes will annihilate. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there are no known neutral and stable branes.

The description of D-brane charges as living in K-theory groups  however predicts the existence of stable non-BPS branes which carry charge in a finite, or torsion, group. This charge is not associated with a gauge symmetry and there is therefore no Gauss law preventing us from considering $`N`$ such branes on a compact space. It remains an open question as to whether such branes could be used to construct a stable lattice configuration.

For the moment we take a phenomenological point of view and assume that a stable lattice can be constructed. These objects will then not experience a Coulomb interaction. A Van der Waals interaction is one natural interaction between such objects, arising from the interaction of induced electric dipole moments, falling off like $`1/r^{2n}`$. To obtain a stabilizing potential, this must be combined with a hard-core repulsive interaction. Taking our motivation from molecular crystals, a possible potential would be the $`n`$-dimensional version of the Lennard-Jones potential

$$V_{brane}(rX)=M_{}^4v(M_{}rX),v(x)=\left(\frac{\beta }{x}\right)^{4n}\left(\frac{\gamma }{x}\right)^{2n},$$

where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are both $`𝒪(1)`$. One could also imagine an ionic lattice of branes, with screened Coulomb interactions. An importance difference with the Coulomb force example is that now $`V_{brane}`$ will scale like the number of branes $`N`$, rather than $`N^2`$ since nearest neighbor interactions will be dominant. The precise form of the potential will not be important for what follows.

We now want to show that the size of the internal space is fixed in terms of the number of branes $`N`$, rather than by using the bulk quantities $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which generally introduce extra fine tuning problems. We shall therefore set $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to zero, the former implying that the compact extra dimensions are flat and for simplicity we take their geometry to be the torus $`(S_1)^n`$.

Consider an interbrane potential of the form

$$V_{brane}(r|X^{(k)}X^{(l)}|)=M_{}^4v(|X^{(k)}X^{(l)}|rM_{}),$$

where $`v(x)`$ is not fine tuned. The fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ sets the scale of the interaction. We assume $`v(x)`$ is short ranged, so only nearest neighbor interactions are dominant. The static equations of motion are then roughly given by $`v(x_0)=𝒪(1)`$ and $`v^{}(x_0)=0`$. These have solutions $`x_0=𝒪(1)`$, or more explicitly

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X\frac{\alpha }{rM_{}},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ denotes the coordinate separation between nearest neighbor branes and $`\alpha `$ is a constant of order 10 or so, which we will discuss momentarily. Using the fact that the coordinate periodicity around any of the $`S^1`$’s of our extra dimensions is 1 and summing up the $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$’s along one of these dimensions yields the static value of $`r`$,

$$r_0\alpha \frac{N^{1/n}}{M_{}}.$$

We find therefore that the size of the internal dimensions is set by the number of branes along with the fundamental scale. The value of $`r_0`$ however was already fixed in (1.1) and thus yields the necessary number of branes

$$N\frac{1}{\alpha ^n}\left(\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_{}}\right)^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^n}10^{32}.$$

$`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to one brane per fundamental volume in the internal space, saturating the number of branes. We have therefore required that $`\alpha `$ is of order 10 or larger (but not so large that we have another fine tuning problem) in order that classical gravity be a good approximation.

The effective potential induced for $`r`$ takes the form

$$V_{tot}(r)=Nf^4+NV_{brane}(r/N^{1/n}),$$

where integrating out the brane coordinates sets the coordinate distance between neighboring branes to $`1/N^{1/n}`$. Vanishing of the four-dimensional cosmological constant requires one fine tuning, corresponding to $`V_{tot}=0`$, but note no additional fine tuning is needed. The mass of the radion may be obtained using (2.1), which gives

$$m_r=M_{}/\alpha ^{n/2}.$$

We have so far taken vanishing bulk cosmological constant. This is expected at tree-level if supersymmetry is unbroken in the bulk. However if supersymmetry is broken on the branes then a cosmological constant will appear at one loop and could change the results. If the breaking takes place at the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ on the branes then the induced mass splittings in the bulk are given by a tree-level gravitational effect

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2N\frac{M_{}^4}{M_{Pl}^2}=\frac{M_{}^2}{\alpha ^n},$$

where the last expression was obtained by evaluating $`r_0`$ at (3.1). By dimensional analysis, this induces a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{quantum}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^{(4+n)/2}`$ so that the potential gets a contribution of

$$V_{quantum}(r)\frac{M_{}^{4+n}}{\alpha ^{(4+n)n/2}}r^nM_{}^4N\left(\frac{x_0}{\alpha ^{(4+n)/2}}\right)^n,$$

where $`x_0`$ was defined above. Therefore at $`x_0\alpha `$ the induced cosmological constant contribution to the potential is subdominant and our original estimates above still apply.

We expect the brane crystal scenario will only work when the number of extra dimensions $`n3`$. This follows from  where it is shown that classical crystal lattices do not exhibit long-range order in dimensions two or less. For $`M_{}1`$ TeV, (1.1) places $`r_010^7`$ m for $`n=3`$.

4. Experimental Consequences

To understand the experimental consequences of our scenario we must investigate the spectrum of the theory as well as the couplings to Standard Model fields. To do this it is convenient to first fix the $`(4+n)`$ dimensional diffeomorphism invariance. For linearized perturbations $`h_{MN}`$ about a flat metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}`$ (with $`M,N`$ labeling the $`4+n`$-dimensional space) an infinitesimal diffeomorphism generated by a vector $`\xi _M`$ acts on the metric as

$$h_{MN}h_{MN}+_M\xi _N+_N\xi _M,$$

where we have decomposed the metric into a background part $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}`$ and a fluctuation $`h_{MN}`$ as

$$g_{MN}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}+h_{MN}.$$

On the $`X_{(k)}^I`$’s this will act as

$$X^IX^I\xi ^I.$$

Part of the gauge symmetry can be fixed by demanding

$$^M\overline{h}_{MN}=0,$$

where

$$\overline{h}_{MN}=h_{MN}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}h,$$

and indices are being raised and lowered with the background metric. This gauge choice does not fix the diffeomorphism invariance corresponding to vectors satisfying the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional wave equation $`^M_M\xi _N=0`$.

We begin by expanding the Born-Infeld piece of the brane action for a general perturbation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d^4x\sqrt{\mathrm{det}G_{\mu \nu }}& =d^4x\sqrt{\mathrm{det}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }}(1+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }n_{\mu \nu }+\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{8}(\stackrel{~}{g}^{\gamma \beta }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \gamma }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\nu \beta }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \gamma }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\nu \beta })n_{\gamma \beta }n_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the full induced metric on the brane, and

$$n_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu I}\frac{X^I}{x^\nu }+h_{I\nu }\frac{X^I}{x^\mu }+\stackrel{~}{g}_{IJ}\frac{X^I}{x^\mu }\frac{X^J}{x^\nu }.$$

Since $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ picks up a nontrivial second-order contribution under diffeomorphisms of the form $`\xi ^\mu =0`$, $`\xi ^I0`$

$$h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu I}_\nu \xi ^I+h_{\nu I}_\mu \xi ^I,$$

as may be seen by expanding (4.1), it is convenient to write $`h_{\mu \nu }=j_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu I}h_\nu ^I`$, so $`j_{\mu \nu }`$ will then be invariant under such diffeomorphisms. This redefinition also makes clear that (4.1) gives rise to a mass term for the four-dimensional vector fields $`h_{\mu I}`$. A different approach to seeing the vector fields become massive is discussed in . However since we are tuning the four-dimensional cosmological constant to zero, the overall coefficient of (4.1) will vanish, and the vectors will be massless (as is the graviton).

To examine terms arising from the brane potential, we again restrict to perturbations independent of the spatial directions. We gauge fix the fluctuations of the brane coordinates $`X_{(k)}^I`$ to zero, as explained in more detail in appendix A. At quadratic order in the fluctuations, then only the radion modes $`\overline{h}_{IJ}`$ couple to the brane coordinates $`X_{(k)}^I`$ in the action.

The modes independent of the internal dimensions will therefore be a massless graviton $`\overline{j}_{\mu \nu }`$, a set of massless vector fields $`\overline{h}_\mu ^I`$, and a set of massive radion scalars $`\overline{h}_{IJ}`$ with mass given by (3.1), following through the same calculation. Each of these modes will be at the bottom of a tower of Kaluza-Klein states which are standing waves in the internal dimensions. These may be treated in the same way as Bloch waves . For the low lying modes, the effects of interactions may be neglected (at least for sufficiently large $`\alpha `$). This is precisely analogous to the case of gravitational waves propagating through a resonant detector, where one needs to go to next order in the equations of motion to see the effect of gravitational interactions on the response of the detector . This gives rise to a typical Kaluza-Klein spectrum for the spin-two and vector modes $`m_k=|k/r_0|`$, while for the radion modes $`m_k^2=m_r^2+(k/r_0)^2`$.

It is also interesting to calculate the energy band gap at the edge of the Brillouin zone boundary, where we have standing waves commensurate with the lattice spacing of the crystal. In general, interaction effects will become large there. For the radion modes, we can get a reasonable estimate of this band gap by taking into account only the interaction of the radion through the brane potential. For plane wave modes propagating in the $`I`$’th direction, the equations of motion are the same as that of an electron moving in a periodic array of delta function potentials. This is a special limit of the Kronig-Penney model . The wavefunction takes the form

$$r(x)=e^{ikx}u(x),$$

where $`x`$ is the $`x^I`$ in question, and $`u(x)`$ is periodic under lattice translations. Solving the equations of motion for $`u(x)`$ a linear combination of $`e^{\pm iKx}`$ yields

$$\mathrm{cos}(ka)=\mathrm{cos}(Ka)+\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{n2}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(Ka)}{Ka},$$

where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing $`r_0/N^{1/n}`$. Here $`Ka`$ is to be identified with $`\alpha m/M_{}`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the mode. For the first Brillouin zone boundary $`k=\pi /a`$. Solving this equation yields the band gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2M_{}^2/\alpha ^n`$. This is the same form as the mass gap of the radion near $`k=0`$.

Higher order interactions also lead to a band gap for the spin-two and vector modes at the Brillouin zone boundary. Estimating the energy difference between a standing wave with nodes on the branes versus a standing wave with peaks on the branes leads to the same calculation as in (3.1). We therefore expect the band gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to be of roughly the same order of magnitude as for the radion modes. The picture of the band structure that emerges is illustrated in figure 1.

Fig. 1: Illustration of expected band structure in the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein states. The mass squared is plotted versus the wavevector in the internal dimension $`k`$ times the lattice spacing $`a\alpha /M_{}`$. The orders of magnitude of the scales of the band width and band gaps are indicated.

The Standard Model fields are coupled to the induced metric on the brane via the usual covariant couplings. Expanding these terms about the background metric we find that the coupling between the bulk metric fluctuations discussed above and the Standard model fields will be suppressed by $`1/M_{Pl}`$. The analysis of the phenomenological constraints of  will therefore carry over to the brane crystal model unchanged.

Acknowledgments We thank A. Houghton, R. Myers, R. Pelcovits and L. Randall for helpful discussions. This research is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FE0291ER40688-Task A.

Appendix A. Gauge fixing the brane coordinates

As noted above, the linearized Einstein equations in covariant gauge $`^M\overline{h}_{MN}`$ have a residual gauge freedom associated with diffeomorphisms satisfying $`^M_M\xi _N=0`$. This freedom can be used to set the fluctuations of the transverse brane coordinates to zero given some assumptions. Specifically the brane coordinates transform under a diffeomorphism as

$$X_{(k)}^I(x^\mu )X_{(k)}^I(x^\mu )\xi ^I(x^\mu ,x^J),$$

where we have assumed that $`\xi ^\mu =0`$. To set the brane coordinate fluctuation to zero therefore only requires fixing $`\xi ^I`$ on the brane, and it’s extension off the brane can be chosen at our convenience. In this case we choose it’s extension off the brane so that it solves the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional wave equation. In general this will not be possible. This follows by noting that the $`\xi ^I`$ live in the bulk spacetime and therefore must satisfy the periodicity conditions of the extra dimensions. As a result the $`\xi ^I`$ cannot have arbitrary dependence on the $`x^\mu `$ coordinates if they are to satisfy the wave equation. To be explicit consider a mode decomposition of $`\xi ^I`$ where one of the modes satisfies $`^\mu _\mu \xi ^I=m^2\xi ^I`$. For $`\xi ^I`$ to satisfy the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional wave equation we then need $`^J_J\xi ^I=m^2\xi ^I`$. For generic values of $`m`$ there will be no solution to this equation that satisfies the required periodicity conditions in the extra dimensions. Rather the $`4`$-dimensional mass $`m`$ will be quantized according to $`m=\sqrt{q_1^2+\mathrm{}+q_n^2}/r_0`$ for arbitrary integers $`q_i`$. There is no such constraint on the dependence of the brane coordinates on $`x^\mu `$ however because they are functions only of the $`x^\mu `$. We assume for simplicity nevertheless that the brane coordinate fluctuations can be gauged away in this manner. In other words we assume that the mode decomposition of the brane coordinates contains only fluctuations with the quantized masses given above therefore allowing us to gauge them away.

Appendix B. Alternate derivation of linearized equations

Given these gauge conditions described in appendix A, we now give a more general derivation of the linearized equations of motion describing the metric fluctuations. We could try to write down a potential term describing the interactions between the branes and then gauge fixing as described above, but this turns out to be somewhat subtle. We therefore argue using symmetry considerations. The bulk contribution comes only from the Einstein-Hilbert term in the action (2.1). In the gauge (4.1) it is well known that this contributes only $`^P_P\overline{h}_{MN}`$ to the linearized equations of motion. From the brane terms in the action we expect the linearized equations of motion to contain a sum of $`\delta `$-function terms in the extra dimensions corresponding to the fixed brane positions with coefficients determined by symmetry and dimensional analysis. Specifically we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}& ^M_M\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{M_{}^4}{M_{Pl}^2}\underset{(k)}{}(a_{(k)}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }+b_{(k)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\overline{h}_4)\delta ^{(n)}(X^IX_{(k)}^I)\hfill \\ & ^M_Mh_{\mu I}=\frac{M_{}^4}{M_{Pl}^2}\underset{(k)}{}c_{(k)}h_{\mu I}\delta ^{(n)}(X^IX_{(k)}^I)\hfill \\ & ^M_M\overline{h}_{IJ}=\frac{M_{}^4}{M_{Pl}^2}\underset{(k)}{}(d_{(k)}\overline{h}_{IJ}+e_{(k)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{IJ}\overline{h}_n)\delta ^{(n)}(X^IX_{(k)}^I)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\overline{h}_4=\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\overline{h}_n=\stackrel{~}{g}^{IJ}\overline{h}_{IJ}`$, and the coefficients $`a_{(k)},\mathrm{},e_{(k)}`$ are all $`𝒪(1)`$. The overall factor of $`M_{}^4/M_{Pl}^2`$ on the right-hand-sides of all equations is easy to understand by going to a coordinate system $`\stackrel{~}{X}^I=r_0X^I`$. In these coordinates $`M_{}`$ is the only dimensionful parameter so that $`M_{}^{2n}`$ would have to be the overall coefficient following from dimensional analysis. Going back to the $`X^I`$ then yields the above coefficient.

Decomposing the fluctuations $`\overline{h}_{MN}`$ into eigenstates of the 4-dimensional wave operator yields

$$^M_M\overline{h}_{MN}=(r_0^2_I_I+m^2)\overline{h}_{MN}$$

for a mode with 4-dimensional mass $`m`$. It is now straightforward to estimate the spectrum of metric fluctuations following the discussion around (4.1). In particular taking a plane wave ansatz for the metric fluctuations one recovers the relation (4.1) from which we find that the first excited state and mass gap energies will be or order $`m^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m^2M_{}^2/\alpha ^n`$ respectively.

The discussion so far applies for all three equations of motion in (B.1), so in particular it implies that the lowest energy fluctuation of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ would have four-dimensional mass of order $`M_{}/\alpha ^{n/2}`$. This is of course unacceptable if we are to recover Newtonian gravity on our brane. For the $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ equation therefore we must tune the $`a_{(k)}`$ and $`b_{(k)}`$ coefficients so that we have a massless fluctuation, or massless four-dimensional graviton. This corresponds to fine tuning the four-dimensional cosmological constant to zero. Note however that this fine tuning will not in general imply that the low lying vector fluctuations $`h_{\mu I}`$ or radion fluctuations $`h_{IJ}`$ will be massless.

References

relax Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 263; Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B436 (1998) 257. relax G.L. Smith, C.D. Hoyle, J.H. Gundlach, E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and H.E. Swanson, Short-range Tests of the Equivalence Principle , Phys. Rev. D61 022001 (2000); C.D. Hoyle, U. Schmidt, B.R. Heckel, E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, D.J. Kapner and H.E. Swanson, Submillimeter Tests Of The Gravitational Inverse Square Law: A Search For ’large’ Extra Dimensions, hep-ph/0011014. relax G. Landsberg, Mini-Review on Extra Dimensions, hep-ex/0009038. relax W.D. Goldberger and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4922, hep-ph/9907447. relax I. Antoniadis and C. Bachas, Phys. Lett. B450 (1999) 83, hep-th/9812093. relax N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and J. March-Russell, Logarithmic unification from symmetries enhanced in the submillimeter infrared, In “The many faces of the superworld”, ed. M.A. Shifman, pp. 627-648, hep-th/9908146. relax G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B459 (1999) 489, hep-ph/9905204. relax N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Hall, D. Smith, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 105002, hep-ph/9912453. relax A.G. Cohen and D.B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B470 (1999) 52, hep-th/9910132. relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370, hep-ph/9905221. relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4690, hep-ph/9906064. relax M. Gogberashvili, Hierarchy problem in the shell universe model, hep-ph/9812296. relax M. Gogberashvili, Europhys. Lett. 49 (2000) 396, hep-ph/9812365. relax Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and John March-Russell, Stabilization of Sub-Millimeter Dimensions: The New Guise of the Hierarchy Problem, hep-th/9809124. relax S. Nam, JHEP 04 (2000) 002, hep-th/9911237. relax N. Kaloper, Crystal Manyfold Universes in AdS Space, Phys. Lett. B474 (2000) 269, hep-th/9912125. relax See for example, C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco). relax E. Witten, D-Branes And K-Theory, JHEP 9812 (1998) 019, hep-th/9810188. relax N.D. Mermin, Crystalline Order in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev.  176 (1968) 250. relax See for example, C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. relax R. de L. Kronig and W.G. Penney, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A130 (1931) 499.