text:
# A One-sided, Highly Relativistic Jet from Cygnus X-3

## 1 Introduction

Cygnus X-3 is one of the few X-ray binaries that is consistently strong in both radio and X-ray emission. In fact, in both quiescent and flare states, Cygnus X-3 is the most luminous X-ray binary at radio wavelengths (Waltman et al., 1995). Its companion is thought to be a Wolf-Rayet star (van Kerkwijk et al., 1992), and a 4.8 h period has been seen at X-ray (e.g., Mason & Sanford (1979)) and infrared (Mason, Córdova, & White, 1986) energies. This period is generally interpreted as the orbital period of the binary system. Schmutz, Geballe, & Schild (1996) used the velocity shifts of lines in the infrared to estimate, assuming the orbital system is seen edge-on, that the compact object is a black hole with mass $`7`$ $`M_{}`$.

Giant radio outbursts have been known in Cygnus X-3 since 1972 (Gregory et al., 1972). Large radio flares are always preceded by a quenching of the radio emission (Waltman et al., 1994). The hard X-ray is usually anti-correlated with the radio except during quench-flare periods, although the quench period in hard X-ray is generally longer than in the radio (McCollough et al., 1999). Similarly, the soft thermal X-ray and radio emission is usually correlated except during quench-flare periods (Watanabe et al., 1994). In other words, before a large radio/hard X-ray flare the soft X-ray is more luminous than usual, and during a flare the soft X-ray intensity briefly drops. Observations with the VLA (Geldzahler et al., 1983), MERLIN (Spencer et al., 1986), and VLBI (Schalinski et al., 1995; Molnar, Reid, & Grindley, 1988; Schalinski et al., 1999), during or shortly after large radio flares, suggest ejection of radio-emitting plasma in the north-south direction. Spencer et al. (1986), Schalinski et al. (1995), and Molnar, Reid, & Grindley (1988), assuming a two-sided jet, estimated an expansion rate of $``$$`\mathrm{mas}/\mathrm{day}`$. This corresponds to an apparent transverse speed of $`0.3c`$ for a distance of 10 kpc, which we adopt for the remainder of the paper (based on H I absorption; see Dickey 1983). However note a recent H I absorption observation by S. J. Bell Burnell & W. M. Goss (priv. comm) which implies a distance of $`11.5\pm 1\mathrm{kpc}`$ based on $`R_0=8.5\mathrm{kpc}`$; and, a Chandra observation of Cygnus X-3’s X-ray scattering halo from which a geometric distance of $`9\pm _2^4\mathrm{kpc}`$ was calculated (Predehl et al., 2000).

Here we present high resolution images of Cygnus X-3 taken with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA)111The VLBA is a facility of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory which is operated by Associated Universities, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation, following a large radio flare in February 1997, showing a one-sided radio jet directed south from a highly-variable core. §2 details the observations and data reduction, while §3 describes the images and model fits, and §4 the conclusions.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

Cygnus X-3 was observed with all 10 antennas of the VLBA in three 13 hour sessions, two, four, and seven days after the source flared to above 10 Jy at 15 GHz on 4 February 1997. Figure 1 shows the epochs of the VLBA observations in the context of the radio light-curves, taken from the Green Bank Interferometer (GBI) and the Ryle Telescope (to be discussed in a later paper). During most of the first epoch (6 February) observations the source as a whole was optically thin ($`\alpha 0.6`$, $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) and rapidly decaying, from $`2.1`$ to $`1.75\mathrm{Jy}`$ at 8.4 GHz. Unfortunately there were no total flux density measurements during the second epoch (8 February); by the third (11 February) Cygnus X-3 had begun a series of smaller flares with quite rapid declines, the flux density at 15 GHz varying by a factor three or more during the VLBA observations.

A third and potentially more serious complication is the motion of the jet during the observations. As discussed below, the proper motion of the jet is $`20\mathrm{mas}/\mathrm{day}`$, corresponding to moving by two beams or more during our $`1/2\mathrm{day}`$ observations.

The VLBA observations were carried out with a 16 MHz bandwidth centered on 15.365 GHz, using dual polarization and two-bit sampling. The data were correlated using the VLBA correlator in Socorro, NM, USA, and amplitude calibration and fringe fitting were performed using NRAO’s Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS). Scans on Cygnus X-3 were “sandwiched” between scans on the calibrator J2025+334, $`7^{}`$ away, with a three-minute cycle time, allowing the use of antenna amplitude and phase gain solutions from that source as a first estimate for those on Cygnus X-3.

There were several additional complications to the data reduction. First, J2025+334 was too far away from Cygnus X-3 to track the latter’s phase variations accurately; although the position of the northern-most component (presumably the core) was stable to within a few milliarcseconds, self-calibration was required to bring out the full structure of the jet. Second, both Cygnus X-3 and J2025+334 are scatter-broadened, as indicated by the fall-off in the interferometric amplitudes on the longest baselines even when the core completely dominates the image (as in the third epoch). This may of course be intrinsic source structure, but is consistent with the scattering sizes previously measured (see §3.1). In general we concentrate on the more extended jet emission, and the images of all three epochs, shown in Figure 2, are made with a $`30\mathrm{M}\lambda `$ full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) Gaussian taper. The corresponding synthesized beams are roughly 3–5 mas FWHM.

Simulations showed that proper motions of this order would have only minor effects on the images, and would not affect any of our major conclusions. In particular, we modeled the source as a stationary core with a straight jet 60 mas in length beginning 10 mas away, oriented along a position angle of $`175^{}`$. The total flux density in the jet was taken to be about 10 times that of the core, and fell off as $`r^{0.5}`$, where $`r`$ is the distance along the jet; this roughly matches the image from the first epoch (Figure 2a). The simulated jet was taken to move outward as a whole along the same position angle at 20 mas/day. The core, and the jet perpendicular to the ejection axis, were modeled as unresolved, but convolved with a Gaussian of 2 mas FWHM to simulate the effect of interstellar scattering. The Fourier transform of this model was then projected onto the observed baselines in the uv-plane, and the entire 13 hour data set imaged and deconvolved following the same procedure as used for the observed data. The resulting image showed a slightly elongated version of the model as it appeared at the mid-point of the observations, with the elongation corresponding to the proper motion of the jet over 13 hours; this seems intuitively reasonable, and shows that proper motion does not significantly affect our conclusions. Following individual radio components between epochs is not advisable, but the apparent curvature and rough extent are real.

The February 6 data were further compromised by poor a priori amplitude calibration of several antennae due to snow over most of the southwestern United States. This epoch required correspondingly more drastic self-calibration and careful imaging, and the resulting map (Figure 2a) is still not nearly as good as those from the second epoch.

The 8 and 11 February data were taken in much better weather, and for these epochs the major complication is the intrinsic variability of the source. This produces artifacts which dominate the noise in the maps, and makes imaging even the core itself quite difficult. During the second epoch (8 February) most of the variability, as well as the total flux, was concentrated in the core. We therefore created a core-only data set by subtracting a first (crude) model of the jet, self-calibrated that data set in hour-long segments, transferred the antenna gains thus derived to the original data, and subtracted CLEAN-component models (Högbom, 1974) of the time-variable core. This produced a jet-only data set phase-referenced to the core. Figure 2b shows the image produced from this data set with one round of phase self-calibration applied and a Gaussian model of the core with an average flux added. The improved calibration reduced the rms noise in the image by a factor of 5, showing that the jet extends an additional 90 mas beyond what could be seen in the maps which were phase-referenced solely to J2025+334.

Unfortunately this method did not improve the 6 and 11 February data sets. For 6 February this could be because of the poor initial amplitude calibration, or because the flux variability was primarily in the jet rather than in the core; most likely, both effects contribute. The 11 February map (Figure 2c) by contrast is entirely dominated by the core, but the above procedure while reducing the noise level did not reveal any convincing jet, to a limit of 10–20 mJy/beam in a 5 mas beam. This noise level is far higher than that in the 8 February map (Figure 2b), presumably because the core is much stronger and its flux variations far greater (a factor 3–4 during these observations; see Figure 1). With this noise level one could not expect to see any emission corresponding to the 8 February jet, even if that emission had not faded at all.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Is the Northern Component the Core?

One of the primary conclusions of this work is that the jet in Cygnus X-3 is one-sided, making this the first severely asymmetric Galactic relativistic source. This conclusion rests on the premise that the northernmost component is associated with the core. The evidence for this is quite compelling. Although phase-referencing was not entirely successful, the maps before self-calibration did show that the brightest (northernmost) component is stationary to within 3 mas. Further, the strong variations seen with the Ryle telescope on 11 February are mirrored exactly in the amplitudes measured on the shortest VLBA baselines, consistent with the corresponding image (Figure 3), which shows no evidence for any but the compact northern component. This variability, on timescales of minutes to hours, is most easily explained by assuming this component is indeed the central core, with the variations caused by short-timescale ejection and decay of unresolved jet segments. Finally, simultaneous measurements with the GBI towards the end of the VLBA observations show that the source was optically thick ($`\alpha 0`$), a characteristic of emission on very small scales; the fact that the emission at this time came solely from the northern component is another argument that that component is indeed the core.

One possible counter-argument is that the northern component is clearly resolved, as seen both in images and more directly in the uv-plane, where the visibility amplitude drops off rapidly with radius. This might be either intrinsic structure or broadening due to interstellar scattering; Cygnus X-3 is one of the most scatter-broadened sources known (e.g., Wilkinson, Narayan, & Spencer 1994; hereafter WNS), and so might be affected even at these high frequencies. To check this quantitatively, we used K. Desai’s private AIPS task OMFIT to fit half-hour segments of the 11 February uv-data directly, both with and without simultaneous short time-scale (10–120s) phase self-calibration. Segmenting the data was required to disentangle the source size from the extreme flux variability; fitting in the uv-plane is preferable to more normal image-plane fitting, both because those data are the observed quantities, and because the poor uv-coverage in such short periods makes mapping and deconvolution difficult. In any case the results from OMFIT were consistent with more standard fitting in the map plane, and the residuals were reasonable both in the map and in the uv plane. The best-fit Gaussian has a FWHM (geometric mean of major and minor axes) of $`1.7\pm 0.3\mathrm{mas}`$, an axis ratio of $`0.8\pm 0.25`$, and is elongated along a position angle of $`50\pm 20^{}`$ (the error bars reflect both statistical errors in the individual fits, and the full scatter between the fits for the half-hour segments). This and previously published size determinations are shown in Figure 4. Our measurement, as well as the 22 GHz observation of Molnar, Reid, & Grindley (1988), is consistent with a $`\nu ^2`$ extrapolation from earlier low-frequency ($`5\mathrm{GHz}`$) measurements of the scatter broadening, but disagrees both with 8.4 GHz observations by Geldzahler, Kellermann, & Shaffer (1979; hereafter, GKS) and with 15 GHz observations by Newell, Garrett, & Spencer (1998; hereafter, NGS). The disagreement with GKS (who obtain a size of $`1.3\pm 0.2\mathrm{mas}`$) might be dismissed on the grounds that their result was based on a single short observation with poor sensitivity and only four useful baselines; their measurement also falls well below any reasonable extrapolation of the lower frequency data. NGS on the other hand observed for 9 hours with the full VLBA, producing a data set quite comparable to ours, and obtained mean FWHMs of between 1 and 1.8 mas at roughly the same frequency (15.3 GHz); they also found that the FWHM was strongly correlated with the flux density on short VLBA baselines. (At the current stage of analysis our data do not demand that the source change size, and in any case show with high confidence that the size at all times lies within the bounds noted above.)

It is difficult to reconcile NGS’ lower bound on the size (1 mas) with the previous measurements and any reasonable scattering model, since it lies significantly below a $`\nu ^2`$ extrapolation of those data. On the other hand, the size (1.8 mas) and orientation (position angle $`60`$$`70^{}`$, based on their images) NGS found when the source was brighter matches our own. Further, both the ellipticity and position angle derived from our data are within the errors identical with those derived at 1692 MHz by WNS (1.32 and $`62^{}`$, respectively) and at 1665 MHz by Molnar et al. (1995, $`1.31\pm 0.02`$ and $`52\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\pm 1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$). Admittedly most of the observations, as well as our own, were taken during or shortly after flares, and NGS found their larger sizes during short-lived ‘mini-flares’ to 200–300 mJy. But while NGS find a much smaller size ($`1\mathrm{mas}`$) during quiescence ($`S_\nu 40`$$`60\mathrm{mJy}`$ at 15 GHz), Fender et al.’s (1995) three-day MERLIN observations at 1658 MHz during another quiescent period (40-50 mJy at both 18 and 2cm) gave a size which was only slightly smaller than earlier flaring measurements ($`142\pm 5\mathrm{mas}`$, vs. 150–160 mas from Spencer et al. 1986, WNS, and Molnar et al. 1995 at 1660–1692 MHz) but with a virtually identical axis ratio ($`1.31\pm 0.08`$) and position angle ($`62^{}\pm 3^{}`$). The Fender et al. (1995) result seems fairly solid, given the large amount of data (three full tracks, yielding an rms noise of $`38\mu \mathrm{Jy}`$) and high resolution (0.15 arcsec). If the NGS result is correct their observations must have coincided with a very unusual period of lower and much more isotropic scattering.

So we are left with two possibilities: either the NGS result for some reason is spurious, and the northern component is an unresolved source broadened by interstellar scattering; or the NGS result is correct, and the northern component we see has roughly the same size and orientation as they observe during mini-flares. Either way it is difficult to imagine that the northern component is not closely associated with the central object, and it seems most reasonable to assume that it is the origin of the extensive jet ejected during the February radio flare. All the evidence therefore indicates that our images of Cygnus X-3 indeed show a one-sided jet source.

### 3.2 The Jet

Accepting the northern component as the core, the jet, shown in Figure 2, is at least 50 mas long on 6 February, and 120 mas long by 8 February. These are lower limits on the true length of the jet, as it fades into the noise towards the south. In both maps the jet is curved, and that curvature changes between the two epochs.

What can we learn from these images? Most obviously, the ejection must be fairly continuous, a stream rather than one or a few ‘blobs.’ This is reminiscent of the jets seen in SS433 (Vermeulen et al., 1987) and GRO J1655-40 (Hjellming & Rupen, 1995), but unlike the easily-separable components seen in GRS 1915+105 (Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1994; Fender et al., 1999a). Unfortunately this, combined with the poor quality of the 6 February image, makes it impossible to measure the proper motions of individual components directly.

Based on the radio light curves (Figure 1) it seems likely that the jet was ejected at the time of the large radio flare, beginning roughly at MJD 50482.1$`\pm `$0.1 (MJD – Modified Julian Date: JD$``$2400000.5). This is not absolutely conclusive — the amount of flux in the most extended structures is not so great that it would necessarily have dominated the light curve even a week or more before the flare, if it did not decay over time. But the jet emission has clearly declined significantly from the first to the second VLBA images (Figures 2a and 2b), and this together with the quite sharp decline seen in most of the smaller radio flares strongly suggests that the emission we see originated in the main radio flare on MJD 50482.1.

Table 1 lists the epochs of observation, inferred ages, proper motions and apparent jet speeds. These proper motions ($`1421\mathrm{mas}/\mathrm{day}`$) are significantly higher than those previously cited for this source, which range from 8.4 (Schalinski et al., 1995, corrected for a one-sided jet) to $`10\pm 2`$ (Geldzahler et al., 1983) to 4.6–18 mas/day (Spencer et al., 1986, with the range corresponding to the uncertainty in the ejection date). Given the limitations of those earlier observations, which could easily have missed the sort of low-level extended structure on which we base our higher estimate, there is no evidence that the proper motion has changed with time. To the contrary, the agreement between the position angles measured in those earlier observations (in all cases almost directly north-south) and our own suggests that the ejection axis at least has remained remarkably stable since at least 1982.

One possible inconsistency is that the uv-plane fits to the data from the third epoch do not suggest such large source motions. Probably the explanation is that the emission associated with short timescale flares is intrinsically different from the longer-lived emission characteristic of larger flares like that of 4 February; for instance, it might be that the emission associated with the short flares decays too rapidly to be seen outside the scattering disk. For the remainder of this section we assume that the third epoch provides no relevant information on the motions of the jet seen in the first two epochs.

#### 3.2.1 Physical Parameters

Our images give three basic observables useful for deriving the intrinsic properties of the jet: the apparent proper motion; a limit on the ratio of the brightness of the approaching to that of the receding jet, if the system is intrinsically symmetric; and the appearance of the jet itself, in particular its curvature and evolution with time. The first two are susceptible to direct mathematical analysis; the last requires more heuristic modeling, which is deferred to the next subsection. Note that we implicitly assume that the observed proper motion is related to a physical velocity, rather than a group speed or some optical illusion involving e.g. scattering screens or the simultaneous ‘lighting up’ of well-separated hot spots.

Under this assumption, according to special relativity (e.g., Hughes & Miller 1991), a jet moving at an intrinsic speed $`\beta c`$ at an angle $`i`$ to the line-of-sight will be observed to have an apparent transverse motion $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}c`$, where

$$\beta _{\mathrm{app}}=\frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}i}{1\beta \mathrm{cos}i}$$

The minimum $`\beta `$ for the approching component, for a given $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$ is

$$\beta _{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{app}}}{\sqrt{1+\beta _{\mathrm{app}}^2}}$$

corresponding to an inclination of $`\mathrm{sin}^1\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\beta _{\mathrm{app}}^2}}`$. As discussed above, for our observations $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}(1.241.14)\pm 0.02`$, implying $`\beta _{\mathrm{min}}(0.780.75)`$. Since $`\beta 1`$, the inclination lies between $`0^{}`$ and

$$i_{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{sin}^1\frac{2\beta _{\mathrm{app}}}{1+\beta _{app}^2}$$

For Cygnus X-3 this implies an inclination between $`0^{}`$ and $`(7883)^{}\pm 1^{}`$. The corresponding Doppler boosting (see below) is unconstrained; for inclinations above $`59^{}`$, the source could actually be de-boosted, i.e. appear fainter than it would without relativistic effects, as has been seen in GRS 1915+105 (Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1994; Fender et al., 1999a).

If the source were intrinsically symmetric, the ratio of the flux in the approaching to that in the receding jet would provide an additional constraint. Since we do not detect a jet on the opposite side, we have only an upper limit on this ratio: $`R_{\mathrm{obs}}330`$, determined by integrating the flux in the southern jet and comparing that to the noise to the north, integrated over a somewhat smaller region to account for the slower (apparent) motion of the receding jet. The Doppler factor for a relativistic jet is

$$𝔇=\frac{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}{1\beta \mathrm{cos}i}$$

The corresponding Doppler boosting of the observed flux density is (Pearson & Zensus, 1987)

$$\frac{S_\nu }{S_\nu ^{}^{}}=𝔇^{k\alpha }$$

where $`\nu `$ is the frequency, $`S_\nu `$ the flux density, $`k`$ is a constant ($`k=2`$ for a continuous jet, $`k=3`$ for an unresolved blob), and $`\alpha `$ is the spectral index ($`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$). The primed quantities refer to the rest frame of the object. The predicted flux ratio (between the approaching and receding jets) is then

$$R=\left(\frac{1+\beta \mathrm{cos}i}{1\beta \mathrm{cos}i}\right)^{k\alpha }$$

where $`i`$ is now taken as the inclination of the approaching jet. Solving for the intrinsic as a function of the observed quantities, we have

$$\beta \mathrm{cos}i=\frac{R^{\frac{1}{k\alpha }}1}{R^{\frac{1}{k\alpha }}+1}$$

Since both $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}i`$ can be at most 1.0, $`R1`$, and $`(k\alpha )>0`$ for synchrotron emission at these frequencies, an observed lower limit on $`R`$ corresponds to a lower limit on $`\beta `$ and an upper limit on $`i`$. The GBI radio light curves during the period when these observations showed a jet suggest $`\alpha 0.6`$, typical for optically-thin synchrotron emission; since the jet appears fairly continuous, we take $`k=2`$. $`R330`$, as discussed above. We have then that

$$\beta \mathrm{cos}i0.806$$

implying $`\beta 0.81`$ and $`i36^{}`$. These limits are consistent with, and more stringent than, those based on the proper motion.

Clearly it would be useful to place limits on the maximum as well as the minimum proper motion. Each epoch’s observations took place over 13 hours; one could therefore hope to check for changes in source structure within a given observing run. Unfortunately the limited uv-coverage within a small segment makes it virtually impossible to image such a complex structure as the curved jet; further, the corresponding point spread function changes drastically as the earth rotates, making even an unchanging source appear quite differently when imaged with short segments of data separated by even a half hour.

#### 3.2.2 Jet Curvature and Precessing Jet Models

The simplest explanation for the curvature of the jet, and the change in that curvature between the first and the second image, is that the jet is precessing (cf. Hjellming & Johnston 1988). The fact that the jet curves out to the west, then back to the east, with no sign of another westward bend, implies that the ejection occured over at most one full precession period. Given the length of the jet this implies a joint limit on the speed and the period:

$$P\left(c\beta \mathrm{sin}i\right)l_{jet}$$

with $`l_{jet}`$ being the length of the jet, $`6.7`$ light-days on 8 February, assuming a distance of 10 kpc. The precession period $`P`$ must therefore be

$`Pl_{jet}/\left(\beta \mathrm{sin}ic\right)6.7\mathrm{days}/\beta \mathrm{sin}i`$
Since $`\beta \mathrm{sin}i1`$, $`P6.7\mathrm{days}`$.

To proceed further requires more detailed modeling. Given the complex radio light curve and the various imaging problems mentioned above, and to avoid the additional assumptions involved in physically modeling the ejecta, we attempt to fit only the shape of the jet and its evolution between the two epochs, not the jet’s brightness distribution. That is, we only require that the models trace the jet geometry in both the first and the second epoch. We further assume, as in the last paragraph, that the observed jet was produced within a single precession period.

The precessing jet model as described by Hjellming & Johnston (1988) has eight important parameters: the distance, $`d`$; the precession period, $`P`$; the intrinsic velocity, $`\beta c`$; the inclination angle of the jet axis to the observer, $`i_{ja}`$; the cone opening angle, $`\psi `$; the position angle of the jet on the sky, $`P.A.`$; the phase of the precession at some fiducial time, $`\varphi _0`$; and the sense of rotation of the jet (clockwise or counter-clockwise, as seen from the jet origin). The distance of the source is kept fixed at 10 kpc; the other parameters are to be found by fitting the observed VLBI images. In order to find the full range of allowed parameters, we searched for the best alignment between the images and the model, based on $`\chi ^2`$ minimization (Press et al., 1986), using several million randomly-chosen sets of input parameters. The initial guesses uniformly covered the full range of physically meaningful model parameters (see Table 2, with the maximum period (600 days) chosen as an approximation of ‘very long’. The agreement between the model and the data was measured by the weighted sum of the squares of the distances between the closest points in the model, and $`10`$ positions measured along the ‘spine’ of the jet in each of the first and second epoch images (see Figure 5a). The weights were taken from rough error bars based on the believability of a feature and the approximate accuracy of its position, taking into account uncertainties due to noise in the images, deconvolution artifacts, the local width of the jet, etc. While the absolute value of the resulting $`\chi ^2`$ is not very meaningful, models with lower $`\chi ^2`$ do match the images better, which is all that is necessary for the minimization.

The initial parameters, and the positions and error bars measured off the two images, were passed to a $`\chi ^2`$-minimization routine based on the downhill simplex method (Press et al., 1986), producing about a million converged solutions. Based on those results several hundred thousand more models were run, using a more restricted set of inputs chosen to maximize the number of ‘good’ solutions (defined below), in order to flesh out the range of acceptable model parameters. We have three constraints on these solutions. First, they must match the observed jet morphology. Empirically $`\chi ^28`$ corresponds to a good chi-by-eye fit. Second, if the extended jet did indeed originate at MJD 50482.1$`\pm `$0.1, the jet as seen in the first image can be at most 4.0 days old (as seen by us), while the jet seen in the second image can be at most 6.0 days old. Finally, if the jet is intrinsically two-sided, the jet/counter-jet ratio on 8 February is $`330`$ (see §3.2.1). Without a model for the jet brightness distribution and its evolution, this last constraint is impossible to apply fully to these models. We take a conservative approach, requiring that at least one observed point along the jet have a boosting factor, relative to the corresponding component in the purported counter-jet, of at least $`330^{1/2.6}=9.3`$ (see §3.2.1). Figure 5b-c shows the images with examples of the major families of solutions superimposed.

The results are given in Table 2. Good fits, as measured by $`\chi ^2`$, may be obtained for a wide range of parameters (see Figures 6 & 7). In particular, jets pointing away from the observer can match the observed morphologies in both images. There is a lower limit on the period of about 15 days, analogous to the analytic limit discussed above. More surprisingly, there is also a lower limit on the age of the ejecta: they must have been expelled at least 2.5 days before the first image, and at least 3.5 days before the second. Note that this is derived simply by fitting the morphology, without any additional constraints from the radio light curves, and results from the requirement that both images be fit simultaneously within one period, which limits the proper motion and therefore the age. Interestingly, this lower bound on the age corresponds to the peak in the radio light curves around MJD 50483.5.

Requiring in addition that the jet in the first image be no more than 4.0 (and the second no more than 6.0) days old, restricts the possible solutions enormously. Jets pointing away from the observer are entirely eliminated, because they cannot produce a long enough jet in the required time. Solutions with clockwise rotation (as seen from the jet origin) are also excluded, as they give poor fits to the observed morphology (minimum $`\chi ^2=8.5`$). The solutions in which the jet rotates counter-clockwise are themselves split into two basic families: low-inclination jets ($`i_{ja}20^{}`$) with a linear relationship between inclination and cone opening angle, and relatively long periods ($`P50\mathrm{days}`$); and high-inclination jets ($`i_{ja}50^{}`$) with large cone opening angles ($`3590^{}`$) and relatively short periods. The latter branch is eliminated if sufficient boosting is required to conceal the counter-jet in an intrinsically symmetric system. The solutions obtained using all three constraints then form a one-parameter family, with

$`\mathrm{rotation}`$ $`\mathrm{counter}\mathrm{clockwise}`$
$`P`$ $`60\mathrm{days}`$
$`\beta `$ $`\left(11.89/P\right)+0.989`$ $`0.81`$
$`i_{ja}`$ $`\left(785\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5/P\right)0.25^{}`$ $`14^{}`$
$`\psi `$ $`0.79i_{ja}0.08^{}`$ $`12^{}`$
$`P.A.`$ $`145\pm 5^{}`$
$`\varphi _0`$ $`70\pm 10^{}`$
With these additional constraints, the minimum age for the first image is $`2.8\mathrm{days}`$, corresponding to ejection on MJD 50482.7–50483.2. The limit on $`\beta `$ arises directly from the jet/counter-jet ratio; the maximum ages for the two images constrain $`\beta _{app}`$, which is a combination of $`\beta `$ and $`i`$; those in turn constrain the period, assuming the jet seen in the image was formed within a single precession period. The requirement to match the observed curvatures reduces this two-dimensional space of solutions to a single dimension, and further requires the above restrictions on the cone opening angle $`\psi `$ and the other geometric properties ($`P.A.`$, $`\varphi _0`$).

In sum, the simple precessing-jet model of Hjellming & Johnston (1988) can fit the observed jet quite well, for either a one- or a two-sided jet. To conceal the counter-jet requires substantial Doppler boosting — in these models the intrinsic (as compared to the differential jet/counter-jet) Doppler boosting of the flux is at least a factor 13, and could be much higher. Also, for these low-inclination models, temporal variations in the jet’s frame are significantly compressed in ours because of time dilation (e.g., in one model 6 months of jet evolution looks like only 6 days to the observer of the jet). This might help explain both the unusual strength and the rapid variability of Cygnus X-3 as a radio source, although it should be noted that this time dilation would not affect variability that originates in the accretion disk or any other part of the system that is not moving towards us at relativistic speeds. The small range of position angles observed over the years is also consistent with the small range of ejection angles in these models – jet models more nearly in the plane of the sky require much larger cone angles to fit our images, giving correspondingly wider position angle swings over the full precession period.

One argument against the low-inclination models is that the periodic dips in the X-ray and infrared light-curves are usually modeled as opacity effects in a reasonably edge-on disk (e.g., Mason, Córdova, & White 1986). If the radio jet were perpendicular to the disk this would suggest the jet must be in the plane of the sky. However, Ghosh et al. (1981) showed that the X-ray light curves could be matched in detail even for disks with inclinations up to $`70^{}`$, and observations at other wavelengths are also consistent with a wide range of inclinations (Schmutz, Geballe, & Schild, 1996; Hanson, Still, & Fender, 2000). Also, we clearly see precession in the jet, which implies that the jet is not perpendicular to the binary system’s plane of orbital motion. So our solutions do not put a tight constraint on the inclination of the binary system.

It is also possible that the system is edge-on and the jet in Cygnus X-3 is in the plane of the sky. The one-sided jet could then be explained either as intrinsic or, as suggested by Fender et al. (1999b), by obscuration. Obscuration seems very unlikely, since it would require not only an odd geometry, blocking out one side of the jet but not the core or the other side of the jet, but also material opaque at 15 GHz out to $`1200\mathrm{AU}`$.

## 4 Conclusions and Implications

The main result of these observations is to show that the radio emission from Cygnus X-3 during flares is dominated by a one-sided relativistic jet with an intrinsic speed of at least $`0.81c`$. Assuming the jet to be intrinsically symmetric, precessing jet models give a maximum inclination to the line-of-sight of $`14^{}`$. Cygnus X-3 is the most luminous X-ray binary at radio wavelengths, and the observed asymmetry and high proper motion make it tempting to speculate, as mentioned in the previous section, that this high luminosity is due to significant Doppler boosting of a jet pointed almost directly towards us. This might also help explain the rapid and extreme radio variability of this and other known relativistic jet sources. However, since no counterjet is seen, the VLBA observations do not require such boosting, and, unless the X-rays are also associated with the jet (contrary to most current models), boosting of the jet would not explain why Cygnus X-3 is also one of the brightest X-ray sources in the Galaxy ($`10^{37}10^{38}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$, Bonnet-Bidaud & van der Klis 1981).

There are three other relativistic jet sources in the Galaxy which have been studied in some detail: SS433, GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655-40. Cygnus X-3 is the only one-sided jet among the four, presumably because at the time of the flare it was aligned more nearly along the line-of-sight, although the jet GRO J1655-40 is sometimes intrinsically asymmetric (Hjellming & Rupen, 1995). Like GRO J1655-40, Cygnus X-3 is a strong black hole candidate based on its mass function, a conclusion strengthened by the limit derived here on the inclination of the jet, which is probably roughly aligned with the angular momentum axis of the orbit. Cygnus X-3 is however the first consistently strong X-ray source to exhibit such highly relativistic jets; GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655-40 are both X-ray transients, often undetectable but occasionally among the brightest sources in the sky, while SS433 is at best an undistinguished X-ray source. Similarly, only Cygnus X-3 and SS433 are detectable in the radio even when they are not flaring, though GRS 1915+105 can remain in a plateau state for months or longer (Foster et al., 1996). The radio and X-ray states are closely coupled for all three of the highly relativistic jets, while for SS433 the lack of an obvious connection may simply be due to the relatively poor X-ray coverage. Intriguingly, both GRO J1655-40 and GRS 1915+105 have a very unusual, hard power-law X-ray tail to energies of several hundred keV, while Cygnus X-3 has become famous as an occasional source of these (Matz et al., 1996) and even higher energy photons (certainly up to 100 MeV; see Lamb et al. 1977 and Fichtel, Thompson, & Lamb 1987).

The clear implication is that changes in the accretion disk produce changes in the radio jet, and that an excess of high-energy photons may indicate a source capable of producing highly relativistic radio jets. It is not particularly surprising that the high-energy photons and the high-energy electrons should be fairly closely coupled. What is new here is that an X-ray binary, with consistent and reasonably strong X-ray and radio emission — and hence, a relatively stable accretion rate, and accretion disk — can give rise to the highly relativistic jets previously associated only with very unusual X-ray transients.

An obvious question is whether the quiescent radio emission is also in the form of a relativistic jet. In SS433, it clearly is, and neither the intrinsic speed nor the orientation of the jet depend on the strength of the X-ray or radio emission. Neither of the highly relativistic X-ray transients has been detected in radio quiescence, although observations during the smaller flares of GRS 1915+105 are broadly consistent with the long-lived flare imaged by Mirabel & Rodríguez (1994). Unfortunately the current data on Cygnus X-3 are still too fragmentary to convince one way or the other. Our 11 February observations suggest at most a much slower expansion rate than during giant flares, while NGS find something much faster. Despite this confusion Cygnus X-3 offers the unique opportunity to check the behavior of a highly relativistic jet source over its whole range of X-ray and radio states; we and doubtless others will be observing this source for some time to come.

Finally, with a convincing jet found in an X-ray binary like Cygnus X-3, it is beginning to seem that every Galactic X-ray source with radio emission turns out, when imaged, to be a relativistic jet. While the four discussed so far are the only truly compelling examples, there are hints that several others are jets as well (possible polarization in 4U 1630-47, Buxton et al. 1998; elongated structure in GX 339-4, Fender et al. (1997); suggestions of elongation and high-speed expansion in LSI+$`61^{}303`$, Peracaula, Gabuzda, & Taylor 1998; VLA images of one-sided jet in V4641 Sgr, Hjellming et al. 2000). On the other hand, all the relativistic sources currently known are very peculiar in some ways, although few of those peculiarities are the same for all four sources. The next challenge is to image some of the fainter, more common radio X-ray binaries, to see whether more ‘normal’ systems also give rise to relativistic jets.

This project could not have been done without the Green Bank Interferometer (GBI), which provided the flux measurements which triggered our target-of-opportunity observations. Those observations themselves could not have succeeded without the eager help of many people associated with the VLBA, particularly the site techs who ran up various mountains to change tapes at very odd hours; we are most grateful both to them and to the scheduling committee for their timely efforts. M.R. enjoyed a month’s hospitality at the RCfTA at Sydney University. Finally, Ketan Desai kindly provided, discussed, and improved his uv-plane fitting program in response to our requests. The GBI is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in support of NASA High Energy Astrophysics programs. NRAO is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. A.M. acknowledges support from the European Commission’s TMR/LSF Programme (Contract No. ERB-FMGE-CT95-0012). Basic research in radio astronomy at the Naval Research Laboratory is funded by the Office of Naval Research. The Ryle Telescope is supported by PPARC.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, an idea that our world is a 3-brane embedded in a higher dimensional space-time, with some of extra dimensions being macroscopically large, has attracted a lot of attention as a resolution of the hierarchy problem, the supersymmetry breaking and the cosmological constant problem and so on. In particular, Randall and Sundrum have found a solution to the five dimensional Einstein’s equations with a Minkowski flat 3-brane in $`AdS_5`$ and shown that the effects of the four dimensional gravity on the brane are reproduced without the need to compactify the fifth dimension . (This model was generalized to the case of many branes in Ref. .)

One disadvantage in Randall-Sundrum model  is the presence of a brane with negative tension. Although this brane is located at a fixed point of $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold in such a way that the fluctuation modes associated with the brane, which are necessarily physical ghost modes, do not appear, the existence of the negative tension brane violates the weak energy theorem in the bulk .

Another disadvantage in the Randall-Sundrum model is related to the localization of bulk fields on a brane . In the conventional brane world scenario, the Standard Model gauge and matter fields are assumed to be localized on our brane, whereas gravity freely propagates in a bulk space-time. But this assumption is quite unnatural since we tacitly discriminate gravity from the other fields. Since the graviton corresponds to the fluctuation mode of the space-time geometry, it automatically sees the whole structure of the space-time and consequently lives in the bulk space-time. The physically plausible setup is then to treat the Standard Model gauge and matter fields on an equal footing with gravity and consider all the local fields as the fields living in the bulk space-time. From this context, we can regard the Randall-Sundrum model  as a successful model for the localization of gravity on a brane. However, it is well known that in the original Randall-Sundrum model it is very difficult to localize the gauge fields  and the massless fermions, those are, spin-1/2 massless Dirac spinor  and spin-3/2 massless gravitino , on a brane by a gravitational interaction.

Recently, there has been an interesting development which circumvents simultaneously the two disadvantages mentioned above . The models deal with a single or two positive tension anti-de Sitter $`AdS_4`$ brane(s) in a five dimensional anti-de Sitter space-time $`AdS_5`$, where four dimensional gravity is induced on the $`AdS_4`$ brane owing to the localization of a massive and normalizable bound state . Moreover, it was shown that all the Standard Model particles are localized on the $`AdS_4`$ brane only through the gravitational interaction . For instance, the appearance of zero-mode with dependence of a fifth dimension supplies us with a novel mechanism for the localization of the bulk gauge field on the brane. Even if nature seems to favor a Minkowski brane $`M_4`$ with zero cosmological constant rather than an $`AdS_4`$ with negative cosmological constant, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that our world might have a very tiny negative cosmological constant which is consistent with the present observations. Interestingly enough, in the $`AdS_4`$ brane model the existence of a $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠}`$ ’photon’ on a brane demands that the brane cosmological constant must be small in Planck units enough not to violate experiment .

The aim of this paper is to generalize this interesting model to higher dimensions. Such a generalization is of course of importance from the viewpoint of a underlying fundamental theory in higher dimensions such as ten dimensional superstring theory.

We will regard the branes as $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ defects with the number $`p`$ of longitudinal dimensions in a higher dimensional space-time with $`D`$ bulk dimensions and $`n`$ extra transverse ones (so the equality $`D=p+n`$ holds). A set of $`n`$ scalar fields with the Higgs potential, thereby breaking the $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ $`SO(n)`$ symmetry to $`SO(n1)`$ symmetry, are utilized to generate the $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ defects . A topological argument $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{n1}(SO(n1))=Z`$, which expresses the fact that a mapping of configuration space at spatial infinity to a vacuum manifold is topologically nontrivial, guarantees the stability of the defects under deformations.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section we review the model setup and then in section 3 we look for solutions to Einstein’s equations. In section 4, we study the metric fluctuations and derive a Schrodinger-like equation. Because of a complicated form of the solution and the lack of the knowledge inside the core, it is difficult to understand an exact formula of Newton’s potential so we shall be contented with some qualitative understanding of the solution. In section 5, we show that the zero-mode of bulk gauge field is normalizable owing to the presence of the cosmological constant, thereby leading to the localization of gauge field on a brane. But it is shown that the localization is not so sharp on the brane and spreads rather widely in a bulk. Section 6 is devoted to the treatment of fermionic fields. Discussions and future works are summarized in section 7.

## 2 Model setup

In this section, we shall review the construction of ’$`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$’ topological defect model in higher dimensions . The solutions to Einstein’s equations which we shall derive below can be found in essence in the article of Olasagasti and Vilenkin , but we shall not only derive the solutions in a more unified metric ansatz but also examine their physical properties in detail from a different viewpoint. In this paper, we shall follow the notations and the conventions in our previous papers .

The action with which we start is that of gravity in general $`D`$ dimensions, with the conventional Einstein-Hilbert action and some matter action which will be specified later:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _D^2}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}+{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}L_m}.`$ (1)
Taking the variation of the action (1) with respect to the $`D`$-dimensional metric tensor $`g_{MN}`$ we obtain Einstein’s equations in $`D`$ dimensions:

$`R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{MN}+\kappa _D^2T_{MN},`$ (2)
where the energy-momentum tensor is defined as

$`T_{MN}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{MN}}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}L_m}.`$ (3)
To find the spherically symmetric solutions in the bulk, we shall adopt the following metric ansatz:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+g_{mn}dy^mdy^n`$
$`=`$ $`e^{A(r)}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{B(r)}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2,`$
where $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ denote $`D`$-dimensional space-time indices, $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`p`$-dimensional brane ones, and $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ $`(n1)`$-dimensional extra spatial ones, so the equality $`D=p+n`$ holds. (We assume $`p4`$.) We sometimes denote $`g_{mn}=\text{e}^{B(r)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(x^l)`$. Note that the reason why we take account of this metric ansatz comes from the holographic principle where the ’radial’ coordinate $`r`$ plays the role of scale of the $`AdS`$ renormalization group, so it is straightforward to extend various results of AdS/CFT correspondence such as ”c-theorem” to the present case. Moreover, we shall take an ansatz for the energy-momentum tensor respecting the spherical symmetry:

$`T_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\nu ^\mu t_o(r),`$
$`T_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`t_r(r),`$
$`T_{\theta _2}^{\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\theta _3}^{\theta _3}=\mathrm{}=T_{\theta _n}^{\theta _n}=t_\theta (r),`$ (5)
where $`t_i(i=o,r,\theta )`$ are functions of only the radial coordinate $`r`$.

Under these ansatzs, after a straightforward calculation, Einstein’s equations reduce to the forms

$`e^A\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{p(n1)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+(n1)(n2)e^B2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_r=0,`$ (6)
$`e^A\widehat{R}+(n2)B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(n2)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+(n2)(n3)e^B+pA^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+1)}{4}}(A^{})^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_\theta =0,`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{p}}e^A\widehat{R}+(p1)(A^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}A^{}B^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}(A^{})^2`$
$`+(n1)[B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}(B^{})^2+(n2)e^B]2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_o=0,`$ (8)
where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to $`r`$, and $`\widehat{R}`$ is the scalar curvature associated with the brane metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. Here we define the cosmological constant on the $`(p1)`$-brane, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$, by the equation

$`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }.`$ (9)
In addition, the conservation law for the energy-momentum tensor, $`^MT_{MN}=0`$ takes the form

$`t_r^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}A^{}(t_rt_o)+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}B^{}(t_rt_\theta ).`$ (10)
The formulation reviewed thus far  is rather general in that we have assumed only the metric ansatz (4). Here let us specify the model by fixing the matter action. Following Refs. , we shall take a multiplet of $`n`$ scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ with the Higgs potential:

$`L_m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{MN}_M\mathrm{\Phi }^a_N\mathrm{\Phi }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a\eta ^2)^2,`$ (11)
from which the energy-momentum tensor takes the form

$`T_{MN}=_M\mathrm{\Phi }^a_N\mathrm{\Phi }^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}_P\mathrm{\Phi }^a^P\mathrm{\Phi }^a+g_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a\eta ^2)^2.`$ (12)
Then, the familiar ’hedgehog’ ansatz leads to a global defect

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=f(r)\widehat{r}^a,`$ (13)
where $`\widehat{r}^a`$ is the unit vector on the $`(n1)`$-sphere and the function $`f(r)`$ takes the form

$`f(0)=0,\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}f(r)=\eta .`$ (14)
Namely, it is considered that the defect has $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=0`$ at the center of the core and approaches the radial ’hedgehog’ configuration $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\eta \widehat{r}^a`$ outside the core. In this paper, we limit ourselves to the exterior solutions, where the configuration is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\eta \widehat{r}^a`$. Note that this configuration becomes an accurate approximation as the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ gets large. A big question about ’global’ defects is whether there could be a stable localized core or not 222In the absence of gravity, in other words, in the Minkowski space, Virial theorem tells us that for $`D3`$ there are no such static solutions. This theorem is circumvented when gravity switches on and there is a negative cosmological constant as in the case at hand.. This problem is closely connected with physics inside the core so now we cannot answer this important problem.

## 3 Solutions

In this section, we solve a set of Einstein’s equations (6)-(8) derived in the previous section. In this paper, we pay attention to only the case of the bulk cosmological constant being negative, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ in order to search higher dimensional analogs corresponding to an $`AdS_4`$ brane solution in $`AdS_5`$ .

First of all, let us notice that with the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\eta \widehat{r}^a`$ which holds only outside the defect core, the energy-momentum tensor takes the forms

$`t_o=t_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n1)\eta ^2e^{B(r)},t_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n3)\eta ^2e^{B(r)},`$ (15)
which obviously satisfy the conservation law (10).

Next, to find analytic solutions we need to set up a more specific metric ansatz, for which we shall take the form

$`B(r)=cA(r)+d,R_0^2\text{e}^d,`$ (16)
where $`c`$ and $`d`$ (or $`R_0`$) are constants, which will be later fixed by Einstein’s equations. Then it is straightforward to solve Einstein’s equations (6)-(8) whose solutions can be divided into two kinds of cousins. One cousin, being a trivial extension of branes in $`AdS_5`$, belongs to a class having $`c=0`$. According to the signature of the brane cosmological constant, let us separate this class of solutions to three branes’ solutions, de-Sitter brane $`dS_p`$, Minkowski brane $`M_p`$, and anti de-Sitter brane $`AdS_p`$ 333In this paper, we consider only the maximally symmetric solutions on a brane..

(i) $`dS_p`$ brane:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}^2\omega rd\widehat{s}_+^2+dr^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{n+p2}}>0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dS}=\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{(p1)(p2)}{p(n+p2)}}>0.`$ (17)
(ii) $`M_p`$ brane:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{2\omega r}d\widehat{s}_0^2+dr^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M=0.`$ (18)
(iii) $`AdS_p`$ brane:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega rd\widehat{s}_{}^2+dr^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{n+p2}}<0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS}=\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{(p1)(p2)}{p(n+p2)}}<0.`$ (19)
Here $`\omega ,R_0^2`$ are respectively given by

$`\omega =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p(n+p2)}}},R_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(n+p2)(n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2),`$ (20)
where $`R_0^2>0`$ requires $`n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2<0`$. This class of solutions have been first derived in Ref. . The common feature in this class is that the $`(n1)`$-sphere has a constant radius $`R_0`$, because of which we have called it a $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑙}`$ extension of branes in $`AdS_5`$ in the above. Indeed, it is easy to show that this class of solutions share the same properties such as the corrections to Newton’s law as for corresponding five dimensional cases. Thus we shall not consider this class of solutions any more in this paper.

A different class of solutions are provided when $`c=1`$. Again we shall present the solutions below by following the signature of the brane cosmological constant.

(i) $`dS_p`$ brane:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}^2\omega rd\widehat{s}_+^2+dr^2+R_0^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\omega rd\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p}{n+p1}}>0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{dS}=\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{n+p1}}>0,n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2>0.`$ (21)
(ii) $`M_p`$ brane:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{2\omega r}d\widehat{s}_0^2+dr^2+R_0^2\text{e}^{2\omega r}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M=0,n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2=0.`$ (22)
(iii) $`AdS_p`$ brane:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega rd\widehat{s}_{}^2+dr^2+R_0^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega rd\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p}{n+p1}}<0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS}=\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{n+p1}}<0,n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2<0.`$ (23)
Here $`\omega ,R_0^2`$ are respectively given by

$`\omega =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(n+p2)(n+p1)}}},R_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(n+p2)|n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2|,`$ (24)
but in the case of the Minkowski brane $`M_p`$, $`R_0`$ is a free parameter. This class of solutions have been also in essence derived in Ref.  but with a different metric ansatz from ours. Note that one advantage of our metric ansatz (16) over the ones in Ref.  is that we have derived two classes of solutions in a unified way, while the authors in Ref. (16) have set up different metric ansatzs and needed the change of variables to reach the forms listed in the above.

Now let us attempt to understand the solutions (21)-(23) in more detail. To do so, let us calculate the D-dimensional scalar curvature under the ansatz (4) whose result is given by

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`g^{MN}R_{MN}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^A\widehat{R}+pA^{\prime \prime }+(n1)B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+2)}{4}}(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{p(n1)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+`$ $`(n1)(n2)\text{e}^B.`$
In particular, the last term in $`R`$ reveals that the cases of $`n=1,2`$ are qualitatively different from higher dimensional cases $`n3`$. The reason is that for $`n=1`$ (domain wall) the extra space is flat and for $`n=2`$ (string-like defect) the extra space is still conformally flat, while for $`n3`$ the extra space is essentially curved . The presence of this term makes many solutions to Einstein’s equations in higher dimensions physically uninteresting owing to the appearance of the naked curvature singularity in the bulk space-time. Some people do not regard the appearance of the naked curvature singularity as a sick property of solutions by taking the optimistic attitude that such a singularity would be smoothed by quantum effects or string theory corrections. In contrast, we consider the naked curvature singulariy to be a serious problem of solutions and take a strict criterion such that classical solutions to Einstein’s equations should be free from the naked curvature singularity 444The existence of the curvature singularity at the origin $`r=0`$ might be admissible since in some cases this singularity could be identified with core of the brane ..

Imposing the singularity-free condition as the physical requirement, for $`n3`$ $`dS_p`$ brane in Eq. (21) must be dismissed from physical solutions. Note that in this case, the real problem is that the line element is singular at $`r=0`$ $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛}`$ in the absence of a defect ($`\eta =0`$) . For $`n=2`$, $`dS_p`$ brane is not the solution owing to the relation $`n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2>0`$ when there is no defect ($`\eta =0`$), so we also dismiss this case. Of course, for $`n=1`$, $`dS_p`$ brane is physical and corresponds to the $`dS`$ domain wall solution.

Next, in $`M_p`$ brane Eq. (22), for $`n3`$, the solution with the upper sign has the naked curvature singulaity at the spatial infinity, so we dismiss this solution. On the other hand, the solution with the lower sign is free from the curvature singularity, but it turns out that the solution cannot localize gravity on a defect, so we also dismiss this case. The remaining possibilities are when $`n=1,2`$. For $`n=2`$, the solution corresponds to Gregory’s solution  and as seen from the relation $`n2\kappa _D^2\eta ^2=0`$ this solution describes a $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙}`$ string-like defect so we also dismiss this solution from our present consideration. The solution in the case of $`n=1`$ is nothing but the Randall-Sundrum solution  (when $`p=4`$).

We are ready to analyse $`AdS_p`$ brane Eq. (23) in a similar manner. For $`n=1`$, the solution obviously corresponds to an $`AdS_p`$ brane in $`AdS_{p+1}`$ . Note that for $`n2`$ the solution is completely free from the curvature singularity and constitutes of a higher dimensional, nontrivial extension of an $`AdS_p`$ brane in $`AdS_{p+1}`$. Remarkably, as shown later, this solution localizes all local bulk fields on a defect only through the gravitational interaction.

Before closing this section, let us summarize the results obtained in this section. We have derived two classes of classical solutions to Einstein’s equations in higher dimensions. One class of solutions are a trivial extension of the domain wall solutions. The other class of solutions are a nontrivial extension, but almost all solutions except $`AdS_p`$ brane are unphysical because of the existence of the naked curvature singularity and the non-localization of gravity on a defect. It is rather surprising that in higher dimensions ($`n2`$) only the $`AdS_p`$ brane solution is selected as physical solution, while in the case of $`n=1`$ domain wall three types of brane, those are, $`dS_p`$, $`M_p`$ and $`AdS_p`$ branes are permissible.

## 4 Gravitational fluctuations

In the following sections, we shall turn our attention to the properties of an $`AdS_p`$ brane solution (23) in higher dimensional space-time. The aim of this section is to study the gravitational fluctuations around the background (23).

First, let us rewrite the metric (23) in terms of the conformal coordinates

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega r\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+R_0^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega rd\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\text{e}^{A(z)}\left(\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2\right),`$
where $`\text{e}^{A(z)}`$ and the relation between two coordinate symtems are respectively given by

$`\text{e}^{A(z)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\omega z}},`$
$`\text{e}^{\omega r}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega z.`$ (27)
Since the ’radial’ coordinate $`r`$ runs from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, this relation yields the range of $`z`$, which is $`\frac{\pi }{2\omega }z\frac{\pi }{\omega }`$.

We will only consider the transverse, traceless fluctuations around the background metric (26) in the conformal $`z`$-coordinates

$`ds^2=\text{e}^{A(z)}\left[(\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x^M))dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2\right],`$ (28)
where $`^\mu h_{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }=0`$. Then, it is straightforward to show that Einstein’s equations reduce to the form of the linearized equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_Nh_{\mu \nu })2\mathrm{\Lambda }h_{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (29)
Given the symmetries of the background metric, we separate variables as

$`h_{\mu \nu }(x^M)=\varphi _{\mu \nu }(x^\mu )\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_{lm}(z)Y_{lm_i}(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (30)
where $`Y_{lm_i}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are the spherical harmonics for the $`(n1)`$-sphere with eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l=l(l+n2)`$. And $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }(x^\mu )`$ satisfy the equations of motion $`(\widehat{\mathrm{}}2\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{e}^A)\varphi _{\mu \nu }=m_0^2\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$ with the definition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}_\mu (\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }_\nu )`$. The equations (29) then reduce to

$`\text{e}^{\frac{D2}{2}A}_z(\text{e}^{\frac{D2}{2}A}_z\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_{lm})+m^2\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_{lm}=0,`$ (31)
where $`m^2=m_0^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_l}{R_0^2}`$. After changing to a new function

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_{lm}=\text{e}^{\frac{D2}{4}A}Z_{lm},`$ (32)
we find a Schrodinger-like equation for $`Z_{lm}`$:

$`[_z^2+V(z)]Z_{lm}(z)=m^2Z_{lm}(z),`$ (33)
where the potential is of the form

$`V(z)={\displaystyle \frac{(D2)^2}{16}}(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}A^{\prime \prime },`$ (34)
with the prime denoting the differentiation with respect to $`z`$. If we introduce a new variable $`w\omega z`$, taking the range $`\frac{\pi }{2}w\pi `$, instead of $`z`$ and make use of the concrete expression of $`A(z)`$ in (27), we finally arrive at the equation:

$`[_w^2+U(w)]Z(w)=EZ(w),`$ (35)
where we have omitted to write the indices $`l,m`$ on $`Z(w)`$ explicitly, and $`U(w)`$ and $`E`$ are respectively defined as

$`U(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(D2)^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D(D2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2w}},`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\omega ^2}}.`$ (36)
To have the second-rank linear differential equation well-defined, we need to impose boundary conditions at $`w=\frac{\pi }{2},\pi `$. The boundary condition at $`w=\pi `$ is the Dirichlet condition, $`Z(\pi )=0`$ since the potential $`U(w)`$ becomes an infinity there. The delicate problem is what boundary condition we have to impose at $`w=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ where there is the core of a topological defect. We have only solved Einstein’s equations in the exterior region outside the core so that in principle we have no knowledge about physics inside the core, which makes it difficult to set up the boundary condition at $`w=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. However, the condition that the differential operator should be self-adjoint, which is necessary for $`Z`$ to have a complete basis, requires us to choose a homogeneous boundary condition at $`w=\frac{\pi }{2}`$

$`\xi _1Z^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})+\xi _2Z({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})=0,`$ (37)
where $`\xi _1,\xi _2`$ are constants and the prime now denotes the differentiation with respect to $`w`$. Thus physics inside the core of a defect should satisfy this boundary condition to have a smooth continuity between inside and outside the core of a defect. (Here for simplicity we have neglected the core size.)

With these results in hand, we are ready to study a solution to the equation (35). After some elementary manipulation , a solution is given by a linear combination of Gauss’s hypergeometric function $`F`$:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{(\mathrm{sin}w)^{\frac{D2}{2}}}}F({\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\mathrm{cos}^2w)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2\mathrm{cos}w}{(\mathrm{sin}w)^{\frac{D2}{2}}}}F({\displaystyle \frac{D4}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{D4}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};\mathrm{cos}^2w),`$
where $`A_1,A_2`$ are integration constants. At this stage, given the boundary condition $`Z(\pi )=0`$, we find an equation

$`A_2=2A_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+2}{4}\frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+2}{4}+\frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{4}\frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{4}+\frac{\sqrt{4E+(D2)^2}}{4})}}.`$ (39)
The remaining work is to impose the boundary condition (37) to fix the integration constants $`A_1,A_2`$, but it is a very delicate problem because of a complicated structure of Gauss’s hypergeometric function and in consequence only the numerical analysis is available. We leave this numerical analysis for a future work. Here we shall investigate only a set of massive excited states which are supported by $`U(w)`$. Then the natural choice of the boundary condition at $`w=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ is the Neumann boundary condition $`Z^{}(\frac{\pi }{2})=0`$. Together with this boundary condition and Eq. (39), we obtain $`A_2=0`$ and eigenvalues of Eq. (35)

$`E_k=k(k+D2),`$ (40)
where $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. This equation then gives the natural higher dimensional generalization of mass formula of KK states in $`AdS_4`$ brane

$`m_k^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(p2)(n+p2)}}k(k+D2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS},`$ (41)
where we have used (23), (24) and (36). Hence, in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS}0`$ limit, these states become massless degenerate states, thereby giving rise to corrections to Newton’s law whose size is of the order $`𝒪`$($`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS}}`$).

On the other hand, a massive bound state, which is trapped and generates gravity on an $`AdS`$ brane, is supported by the attractive potential around the core. In the model at hand, the information about this attractive potential is implicitly included in the boundary condition (37). Recall that the boundary condition of $`AdS_4`$ brane in $`AdS_5`$ certainly satisfies this equation. Anyway in order to understand this problem completely, it would be necessary to construct a physically plausible core model.

## 5 Localization of gauge fields

In this section we are willing to consider the localization of spin-1 $`U(1)`$ vector field on an $`AdS_p`$ brane (23). Incidentally the generalization to the nonabelian gauge fields is straightforward. As mentioned in section 1, it is well known that in the original Randall-Sundrum model the gauge fields cannot be localized on a domain wall by the gravitational interaction . Since we have various gauge fields in our world, the impossibility of confining gauge fields to a brane imposes a serious drawback on the scenario of brane world. Of course, there might be some ingeneous mechanism for the localization of gauge fields by invoking additional interactions except the gravitational one , but we believe that such a mechanism is artificial and the universal interaction, that is, the gravitational interaction should provide us with the localization mechanism for the whole local fields including gauge fields. From this context, it is of interest to ask whether or not $`AdS_p`$ brane (23) presents the localization mechanism for the gauge fields.

Let us start with the familiar action of $`U(1)`$ gauge field

$`S_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{MR}F_{NS}},`$ (42)
where $`F_{MN}=_MA_N_NA_M`$. The equations of motion become $`_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{NS})=0`$. To study the localization of the gauge field, it is convenient to use the conformal $`z`$-coordinates (26). In the coordinates, for simplicity, we shall focus on only the brane gauge field $`A_\mu (x^M)`$ and set $`A_z=A_{\theta _i}=0`$. Then, we look for a solution with the form of $`A_\mu (x^M)=a_\mu (x^\lambda )u(z)\chi (y^m)`$ where $`y^m`$ denote the angular coordinates. Here we assume the following equations of motion $`\widehat{}^\mu a_\mu =^\mu f_{\mu \nu }=_m(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}_n\chi )=0`$ where $`f_{\mu \nu }=_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu `$. With these ansatzs, the equations of motion reduce to a single differential equation:

$`_z\left[e^{(\frac{D}{2}+2)A(z)}_zu(z)\right]=0.`$ (43)
In the case of a Minkowski brane, we have selected a constant zero-mode solution $`u(z)=const`$, which leads to non-localization of the vector fields . On the other hand, in the case of an $`AdS`$ brane, a new solution is available, which is given by $`e^{(\frac{D}{2}+2)A(z)}_zu(z)=const0`$. (Note that this solution is not localized on a Minkowski brane, either.) As a result, we obtain the following solution to Eq. (43). For $`D=2k+3`$ ($`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$),

$`u(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{2^{2(k1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}(1)^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k1}{l}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}[(2k2l1)\omega z]}{2k2l1}}+\beta ,`$ (44)
and for $`D=2k+4`$ ($`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$),

$`u(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{2^{2k}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}(1)^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k}{l}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[2(kl)\omega z]}{kl}}+(1)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k}{k}}\right)\omega z\right\}+\beta ,`$ (45)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are integration constants.

We would like to investigate whether this solution is localized on an $`AdS_p`$ brane or not. The substitution of this solution into the action leads to

$`S_1^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{MR}^{(0)}F_{NS}^{(0)}}`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^pxdzd^{n1}y\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\text{e}^{(\frac{D}{2}+2)A(z)}\times `$
$`\left[u^2\chi ^2\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\rho \sigma }f_{\mu \rho }f_{\nu \sigma }+2(_zu)^2\chi ^2\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu +2u^2\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}_m\chi _n\chi \widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu \right]`$
Here we have carefully kept the KK-mass term since we wish to examine later whether this solution leads to $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠}`$ ’photon’ on a brane. The localization condition of this mode on a brane requires the integral over $`z`$ in front of the kinetic term to be finite since the integral over the angular variables $`d^{n1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\chi (y)^2`$ is in general finite. Thus let us consider this integral first:

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ze^{(\frac{D}{2}+2)A(z)}u^2(z)}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2\omega }}^{\frac{\pi }{\omega }}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{sin}\omega z)^{D4}}}u^2(z).`$
The expressions (44), (45) for $`u(z)`$ become more complicated as the number of space-time dimensions gets larger, so below we shall present explicitly only the results of the two simplest cases $`D=5,6`$, belonging to each branch of solutions although we have exmained some remaining lower dimensional cases and found similar results and repeated pattern depending on $`D=2k+3`$ or $`D=2k+4`$.

In the case of $`D=5,p=4,n=1`$, that is, an $`AdS_4`$ brane in $`AdS_5`$ , from Eq. (47) the integral $`I_1^{D=5}`$ reads

$`I_1^{D=5}={\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2\omega }}^{\frac{\pi }{\omega }}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\omega z}}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\omega }}\mathrm{cos}\omega z+\beta )^2,`$ (48)
which is in general divergent, but only when the equality $`\beta =\frac{\alpha }{\omega }`$ holds, it becomes finite. Henceforth, we shall consider this specific case. Then, it is straightforward to calculate the above integral as well as the second integral over $`z`$ in Eq. (46) associated with the KK-mass term. (Note that in $`D=5`$ there does not exist the third term in the right-hand side in Eq. (46).) The result is given by

$`S_1^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\frac{\alpha ^2}{\omega ^3}(1+2\mathrm{log}2)\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\rho \sigma }f_{\mu \rho }f_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{2\alpha ^2}{\omega }\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu \right]}.`$ (49)
The quantities in front of the kinetic and the mass terms are obviously finite, so the gauge field is localized on an $`AdS_4`$ brane, which is to be contrasted with the case of a Minkowski brane .

At this stage, it is worthwhile to examine the mass of the brane gauge field. Provided that we redefine the brane gauge field $`a_\mu `$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\omega ^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\sqrt{1+2\mathrm{log}2}a_\mu a_\mu ,`$ (50)
Eq. (49) reads

$`S_1^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\rho \sigma }f_{\mu \rho }f_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{2\omega ^2}{1+2\mathrm{log}2}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu \right]}.`$ (51)
From this equation, we can read off the mass of the brane gauge field, which is expressed in terms of the brane cosmological constant by using Eqs. (23), (24) as

$`m^2={\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{1+2\mathrm{log}2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2\mathrm{log}2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{AdS}.`$ (52)
The physical condition that the $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`a_\mu `$ must be $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠}`$ ’photon’ on an $`AdS_4`$ brane requires that the brane cosmological constant is small enough. It is very intriguing that in the present brane model the smallness of the brane cosmological constant is directly connected with the smallness of mass of the brane gauge field, which, we think, is a miracle in the brane world scenario. From the current experimental data, the bound on the photon mass is $`m<2\times 10^{16}eV`$ so our relation (52) yields a weaker constraint on the four dimensional cosmological constant although it does not conflict with the current experimental data.

As a remark, let us notice that when the equality $`\beta =\frac{\alpha }{\omega }`$ holds, our solution reduces to the form

$`u(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\omega }}\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega z}{2}}.`$ (53)
Like the graviton considered in the previous section, this solution satisfies the Dirichlet condition at $`z=\frac{\pi }{\omega }`$, where $`u(z)=0`$. It is quite of interest that the requirement of the localization for the gauge field naturally leads to the same boundary condition as the other bosonic fields. (We can show that scalar field also satisfies the same boundary condition $`z=\frac{\pi }{\omega }`$.)

As another remark, let us check if the bulk gauge field is sharply localized on a brane or spreads rather widely in a bulk. For this, it is useful to change the $`z`$-coordinates to the radial coordinate whose relation can be found in Eq. (27) and then examine the normalized zero-mode in an $`AdS_4`$. In the radial coordinates, the normalized zero-mode in an $`AdS_4`$ has the form

$`\widehat{u}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{I_1^{D=5}}}}u(r)`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{1+2\mathrm{log}2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\text{e}^{2\omega r}}}.`$
The present observations require $`\omega \sqrt{G_N}1`$ where $`G_N`$ is the four dimensional Newton’s constant, so it turns out that this zero-mode is not sharply localized but spreads rather widely in a bulk.

Next, let us consider $`D=6,p=4,n=2`$ case, that is, a string-like defect model in six space-time dimensions. In this case, we also follow a similar path of arguments to the case of $`D=5`$ domain wall. The concrete expression for $`u(z)`$ is different between $`D=2k+3`$ and $`D=2k+4`$, so it is valuable to investigate this simplest case in the branch of $`D=2k+4`$.

In the case of $`D=6,p=4,n=2`$, from Eq. (45) the integral $`I_1^{D=6}`$ takes the form

$`I_1^{D=6}={\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2\omega }}^{\frac{\pi }{\omega }}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\omega z}}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\omega }}\mathrm{sin}2\omega z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha z+\beta )^2,`$ (55)
which is also generally divergent, but only when the equality $`\beta =\frac{\alpha \pi }{2\omega }`$ holds, it also becomes strictly finite. Again, from now on we shall confine ourselves to this specific case. Then, after a bit calculations the integral $`I_1^{D=6}`$ reduces to

$`I_1^{D=6}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{16\omega ^3}}(1+4\pi \mathrm{log}28{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\zeta \zeta \mathrm{cot}\zeta ),`$ (56)
which is finite since the last integral is known to be finite. Thus, the gauge field is also localized on an $`AdS_4`$ brane in a six dimensional space-time with negative cosmological constant.

Evaluating the integrals over $`z`$, the classical action is of form

$`S_1^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}𝑑\theta R_0\left\{I_1\chi ^2\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\rho \sigma }f_{\mu \rho }f_{\nu \sigma }+[\frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{2\omega }\chi ^2+\frac{2I_1}{R_0^2}(_\theta \chi )^2]\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu \right\}}.`$ (57)
With respect to integrations over $`\theta `$, as mentioned before, they are always finite, whose fact can be shown as follows. As seen in the derivation from (42) to (43), $`\chi (y^m)`$ must satisfy the equation of motion, $`_m(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}_n\chi )=0`$, which now reduces to $`_\theta ^2\chi =0`$, so a general solution to this equation is given by $`\chi (\theta )=\chi _1+\theta \chi _2`$ where $`\chi _1,\chi _2`$ are integration constants. Thus the integrals over $`\theta `$ appearing in Eq. (57), $`_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \chi ^2,_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta (_\theta \chi )^2`$ are finite quantities as long as the integration constants are finite. We are now ready to examine the mass of the brane gauge field. To make the kinetic term take a canonical form, let us redefine the brane gauge field $`a_\mu `$ as follows:

$`\sqrt{R_0I_1{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta \chi ^2(\theta )}}a_\mu a_\mu .`$ (58)
As a result, it turns out that Eq. (57) becomes

$`S_1^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\rho \sigma }f_{\mu \rho }f_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{8\pi \omega ^2𝑑\theta \chi ^2+\frac{2}{R_0^2}K𝑑\theta (_\theta \chi )^2}{K𝑑\theta \chi ^2}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a_\nu \right]},`$ (59)
where $`K1+4\pi \mathrm{log}28_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}𝑑\zeta \zeta \mathrm{cot}\zeta `$. Since it is reasonable to regard value of the integrals over $`\theta `$ as being of the order 1, the smallness of mass of the brane gauge field requires $`\omega ^20,\frac{1}{R_0^2}0`$, both of which imply that the brane cosmological constant is extremely tiny as desired.

As a final check, let us study the zero-mode $`u(z)`$. When the equality $`\beta =\frac{\alpha \pi }{2\omega }`$ holds, our solution reduces to the form

$`u(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\omega }}\mathrm{sin}2\omega z+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\omega }}(\omega z\pi ).`$ (60)
This solution also satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition at $`z=\frac{\pi }{\omega }`$, where $`u(z)=0`$. For the investigation of the localization of this mode on a brane, we also use the radial coordinates instead of the $`z`$-coordinates. In the radial coordinates, after some calculations, the normalized zero-mode in an $`AdS_4`$ is proportional to

$`\widehat{u}(r)\sqrt{\omega }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{e}^{\omega r}+\text{e}^{\omega r}}}\mathrm{tanh}(\omega r)\mathrm{tan}^1(\text{e}^{\omega r})\right].`$ (61)
Again, for $`\omega \sqrt{G_N}1`$, it turns out that the brane gauge field is not sharply localized on an $`AdS_4`$ brane.

## 6 Localization of fermionic fields

Next let us turn to fermionic fields, those are, spin-1/2 spinor field and spin-3/2 gravitino field. First, let us consider spin-1/2 spinor field. The starting action is the conventional Dirac action with a mass term in D dimensions:

$`S_{1/2}={\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i(\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M+m\epsilon (z))\mathrm{\Psi }},`$ (62)
where the covariant derivative is defined as $`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }=(_M+\frac{1}{4}\omega _M^{AB}\gamma _{AB})\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with the definition of $`\gamma _{AB}=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _A,\gamma _B]`$, and $`\epsilon (z)`$ is $`\epsilon (z)\frac{z}{|z|}`$ and $`\epsilon (0)0`$. Here the indices $`A,B`$ are the ones of the local Lorentz frame and the gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^M`$ and $`\gamma ^A`$ are related by the vielbeins $`e_A^M`$ through the usual relations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^M=e_A^M\gamma ^A`$ where $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^M,\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\}=2g^{MN}`$ and $`\{\gamma ^A,\gamma ^B\}=2\eta ^{AB}`$. A feature of the action is the existence of a mass term with a ’kink’ profile. We have just introduced this type of mass term in the action since the existence has played a critical role in the localization of fermionic fields on a Minkowski brane in an arbitrary dimension .

In this section, we shall consider a more general metric ansatz than Eq. (4) in the ’radial’ coordinates. The metric ansatz we take into consideration is the following one:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`e^{A(r)}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{B(r)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(y^l)dy^mdy^n,`$
where we have replaced a metric on $`S^{n1}`$ in Eq. (4) with a general curved metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(y^l)`$ depending only on extra dimensions $`y^l`$ except $`r`$. In this background metric, the torsion-free conditions yield an explicit expression of the spin connections:

$`\omega _\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A^{}(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu +\widehat{\omega }_\mu (\widehat{e}),\omega _r=0,\omega _m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^{}(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_m+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m(\stackrel{~}{e}),`$ (64)
where we have defined $`\omega _M\frac{1}{4}\omega _M^{AB}\gamma _{AB}`$. And $`\widehat{\omega }_\mu (\widehat{e})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m(\stackrel{~}{e})`$ are the spin connections constructed out of $`\widehat{e}_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_m`$, respectively. Using Eq. (64), the Dirac equation $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M+m\epsilon (r))\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ can be cast to the form

$`\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^r(_r{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4}}A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{4}}B^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (_\mu +\widehat{\omega }_\mu )+\mathrm{\Gamma }^m(_m+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_m)+m\epsilon (r)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (65)
Let us find the massless zero-mode solution with the form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^M)=\psi (x^\mu )u(r)\chi (y^m)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \widehat{D}_\mu \psi =\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\stackrel{~}{D}_m\chi =0`$ and the chirality condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\psi =\psi `$ is imposed on the brane fermion. Then, Eq. (65) is reduced to a first-order differential equation for $`u(r)`$ and is easily solved to be

$`u(r)=u_0\text{e}^{\frac{p}{4}A(r)+\frac{n1}{4}B(r)m\epsilon (r)r},`$ (66)
with an integration constant $`u_0`$.

In order to check the localization of this mode, let us plug this solution into the Dirac action (62). Then the action reduces to the form

$`S_{1/2}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(0)}i(\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M+m\epsilon (z))\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`u_0^2{\displaystyle d^{n1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\chi ^{}(y)\chi (y)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑re^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)2m\epsilon (r)r}d^px\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu \widehat{D}_\mu \psi }+\mathrm{}.`$
The condition of the trapping of the bulk spinor on an $`AdS_p`$ brane requires that an integral over $`r`$ has a finite value since an integral over $`y`$ is finite. The integral is easily evaluated as follows:

$`I_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑re^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)2m\epsilon (r)r}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\omega r}}e^{2m\epsilon (r)r}.`$
This integral is obviously finite so the bulk spinor is confined to a brane by the gravitational interaction. In particular, in the case of massless fermion, the above integral can be integrated to be

$`I_{1/2}^{m=0}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\omega }}.`$ (69)
Namely, even in the massless spinor, the bulk spinor is localized on a brane, whose fact should be contrasted with the case of a Minkowski brane, where only the massive bulk fermion with a ’kink’ profile is localized on the brane whereas the massless one is not so. This fact can be traced in Eq. (69) since $`I_{1/2}^{m=0}`$ at $`\omega =0`$ is divergent. (Note that in both the Minkowski brane and the AdS brane, the form of the zero-mode solution of fermion, (66), is the same so this consideration is legitimate.) In the case at hand, irrespective of the presence of mass term, the bulk spinor can be localized on the brane through the gravitational interaction as long as the brane cosmological constant is nonvanishing.

However, there is a caveat. As seen in the concrete form of $`u(r)`$ in (66), the zero-mode $`u(r)`$ can be written to

$`u(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{R_0^{\frac{n1}{2}}}}(\mathrm{cosh}\omega r)^{\frac{D1}{2}}\text{e}^{m\epsilon (r)r}`$ (70)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{R_0^{\frac{n1}{2}}}}2^{\frac{D1}{2}}\text{e}^{\frac{D1}{2}\omega rm\epsilon (r)r}.`$
The last expression was derived under the condition $`\omega r1`$. This expression tells us that provided that $`\omega \sqrt{G_N}1`$, the zero-mode spreads more widely in a bulk in the massless limit. To avoid such a situation, we might also need the presence of a mass term with ’kink’ profile. Incidentally, note that the results obtained so far are independent of a concrete form of $`B(r)`$, so only the warp factor $`\text{e}^{A(r)}`$ in front of the $`p`$-dimensional metric controls the results.

Next, let us consider the gravitino field of spin-3/2. The action for the spin-3/2 bulk gravitino is given by the Rarita-Schwinger action

$`S_{3/2}={\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_Mi\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[M}\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^{R]}(D_N+\delta _N^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_rm\epsilon (r))\mathrm{\Psi }_R},`$ (71)
where $`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N=_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^R\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\frac{1}{4}\omega _M^{AB}\gamma _{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ and the square bracket denotes the anti-symmetrization with weight 1. From the metric condition $`D_Me_N^A=_Me_N^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^Re_R^A+\omega _M^{AB}e_{NB}=0`$, we obtain the concrete expression for the affine connections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MN}^R=e_A^R(_Me_N^A+\omega _M^{AB}e_{NB})`$. With the gauge condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_r=0`$ and assuming $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m=0`$ for simplicity, the equations of motion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[M}\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^{R]}(D_N+\delta _N^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_rm\epsilon (r))\mathrm{\Psi }_R=0`$ can be cast to the form

$`g^{\mu \nu }\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^r(_r{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{4}}A^{}(r){\displaystyle \frac{n1}{4}}B^{}(r))+m\epsilon (r)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =0,`$ (72)
where we have used equations $`\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =\widehat{D}^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =\gamma ^{[\mu }\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^{\rho ]}\widehat{D}_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_\rho =\mathrm{\Gamma }^m\stackrel{~}{D}_m\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =0`$. Let us look for a solution with the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (x^M)=\psi _\mu (x^\lambda )u(r)\chi (y^m)`$. If the chirality condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\psi _\mu =\psi _\mu `$ is utilized in Eq. (72), we can get a solution

$`u(r)=u_0\text{e}^{\frac{p2}{4}A(r)+\frac{n1}{4}B(r)m\epsilon (r)r},`$ (73)
with an integration constant $`u_0`$.

Substituting this solution into the action (71), we arrive at the following expression

$`S_{3/2}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^{(0)}i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[M}\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^{R]}(D_N+\delta _N^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_rm\epsilon (r))\mathrm{\Psi }_R^{(0)}}`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`u_0^2{\displaystyle d^{n1}y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\chi ^2(y)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑re^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)2m\epsilon (r)r}d^px\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\overline{\psi }_\mu i\gamma ^{[\mu }\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^{\rho ]}\widehat{D}_\nu \psi _\rho }+\mathrm{}.`$
Again the condition for the localization of the gravitino on a brane requires the integral over $`r`$ to take a finite value. Namely, the following integral over $`r`$ must be finite

$`I_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑re^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)2m\epsilon (r)r}`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\omega r}}e^{2m\epsilon (r)r}.`$
Here let us notice that this condition has the same form as in spin 1/2 spinor field, Eq. (68), so the spin 3/2 gravitino is also localized on a brane. The form of $`u(r)`$ in (73), however, is similar to that of spin-1/2 spinor field (66), so as in the spinor field it might be necessary to include a mass term with a ’kink’ profile in order to have a sharp localization on a brane.

## 7 Discussions

In this article we have discussed locally localized gravity models in higher dimensions. As a solution to Einstein’s equations with a set of scalar fields with $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ $`SO(n)`$ symmetry, we have found two types of $`AdS_p`$ brane solution in a unified metric ansatz. Though these solutions have been already found in Ref. , our derivation is more concise than their derivation and we furthermore spelled out the physical properties of the solutions. An important issue that we have found in this paper is that in higher dimensions the solutions which are free from the naked curvature singularity and possess the property of gravity localization are very few. Apart from a type of trivial extension of the Randall-Sundrum solutions, in higher dimensions the physical solution corresponds to only an $`AdS_p`$ brane in a space-time with negative bulk cosmological constant. It is quite curious that there are no nontrivial solutions in higher dimensions which correspond to a $`dS_p`$ brane and a $`M_p`$ brane solution with needed physical properties. From this point of view, more study about an $`AdS`$ brane seems to be deserved in future. In higher dimensions, intersection brane solutions with two different warp factors might be needed in order to satisfy the physical properties .

Concerning the localization of various bulk fields on an $`AdS`$ brane only by the gravitational interation, we have explicitly considered spin-1/2 spinor, spin-1 vector, and spin-3/2 gravitino fields. We have also implicitly considered spin-2 graviton where we have stressed that a complete understanding of the gravity localization requires us to find a reasonable core model. The local fields which we have left aside are spin-0 scalar and higher-rank antisymmetric tensor fields. It is well known that a real scalar field satisfies the same equation of motion as that of the transverse, traceless graviton modes, so a real scalar field shares the common localization properties with the graviton. The treatment of higher rank tensor fields is completely parallel to that of the gauge fields, so we have skipped these cases.

It is worth stressing here that the localization mechanism, that we have found in this paper, in particular, is new and novel for spin-1 vector and fermionic fields. For the former, it is known that the gauge field is not localized on a Minkowski brane in the original Randall-Sundrum model. On the other hand, in an anti-de Sitter brane, the gauge field $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}`$ localized due to the presence of the brane cosmological constant. However, there is a caveat. Namely, although the gauge field is anyway localized near the brane, it is not sharply localized, by which we meet some phenomenological problems such as the violation of the charge conservation law in our world. Moreover, we have found a new phenomenon that the size of the brane cosmological constant is determined by that of mass of ’$`\mathrm{𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑛}`$’ on a brane. Also for the fermionic fields, the presence of the brane cosmological constant provides a novel localization mechanism where massless fermions are localized on an $`AdS`$ brane whereas only massive fermion with a ’kink’ profile can be localized on a $`M`$ brane as in the Randall-Sundrum model. However, as in the gauge field, the zero-mode of massless fermions also spreads rather widely in the bulk space-time, so we might need a mass term with a ’kink’ profile to have a sharply localized brane fermion.

Of course, if we wish to construct a fully successful brane world model in higher dimensions on the basis of global defects, it is essential to understand physics inside the core of the defects. Without knowledge of it, we cannot fully answer several questions such as stability of the defects. Another unsolved problem within the context of the present formulation is how to construct a model with two or more branes, which would be necessary to understand the mass hierarchy problem between the Planck scale and the electro-weak scale. There are also future works of the construction of a supersymmetric model corresponding to the present model and of deriving the model at hand from superstring theory. We wish to clarify these important problems in a future publication.