text:
# Dynamical Instabilities of the Randall–Sundrum Model

## I Introduction

Until now, string theories are the most promising fundamental quantum theories at hand which include gravity. Open strings carry gauge charges and end on so-called D$`p`$–branes, $`(p+1)`$–dimensional hypersurfaces of the full spacetime. Correspondingly, gauge fields may propagate only on the $`(p+1)`$–dimensional brane, and only modes associated with closed strings, such as the graviton, the dilaton and the axion, live in the full spacetime . Superstring theories and especially M theory suggest that the observable universe is a $`(3+1)`$–dimensional hypersurface, a $`3`$–brane, in a $`10`$ or $`11`$ dimensional spacetime. This fundamental spacetime could be a product of a four–dimensional Lorentz manifold with an $`n`$–dimensional compact space of volume $`V_n`$ ($`n`$ being the number of extra dimensions). Then, the relation between the $`(4+n)`$–dimensional fundamental Planck mass $`M_\text{f}`$ and the effective four dimensional Planck mass $`M_{\text{eff}}\sqrt{1/(8\pi G_N)}2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is

$$M_{\text{eff}}^2=M_\text{f}^{n+2}V_n.$$
(1)
If some of the extra dimensions are much larger than the fundamental Planck scale, $`M_\text{f}`$ is much smaller than $`M_{\text{eff}}`$ and may even be close to the electroweak scale, thereby relieving the long-standing hierarchy problem . For example, if one allows for two ‘large’ extra dimensions of the order of $`1`$mm, one obtains a fundamental Planck mass of $`1`$TeV. However, a new hierarchy between the electroweak scale and the mass scale associated with the compactification volume $`\frac{1}{V_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/n}}`$ is introduced.

Clearly, this idea is very interesting from the point of view of bringing together fundamental theoretical high energy physics and experiments, which have been diverging more and more since the advent of string theory. While the four dimensionality of gauge interactions has been tested down to scales of about $`1/200`$GeV$`{}_{}{}^{1}10^{15}`$mm, Newton’s law is experimentally confirmed only above $`1`$mm. Therefore, ‘large’ extra dimensions are not excluded and should be tested in the near future by refined microgravity experiments . The fundamental string scale might in principle be accessible to the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) .

In the past, it was commonly assumed that the fundamental spacetime is factorizable, and that the extra–dimensional space is compact. Recently, Randall and Sundrum  proposed a five–dimensional model, in which the metric on the $`3`$–brane is multiplied by an exponentially decreasing ‘warp’ factor such that transverse lengths become small already at short distances along the fifth dimension. This idea allows for a noncompact extra dimension without getting into conflict with observational facts. In this scenario the brane is embedded in an anti–de Sitter space, and a fine–tuning relation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\kappa _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{6}V^2,$$
(2)
between the brane tension $`V`$ and the negative cosmological constant in the bulk $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has to be satisfied. Here, $`\kappa _5`$ is related to the five–dimensional Newton constant by $`\kappa _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=8\pi G_5=M_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$. Randall and Sundrum also proposed a model with two branes of opposite tension which provides an elegant way to relieve both hierarchy problems mentioned above . However, also this model requires the fine–tuning (2). Here, we will only consider the case of a single brane.

The main unattractive feature of the Randall–Sundrum (RS) model is the fine-tuning condition (2). Both from the particle physics and the cosmological point of view this relation between two a priori independent quantities appears unlikely. One would like to put it on a physical basis, such as a fundamental principle, or explain it due to some dynamical process.

The purpose of this paper is to point out the cosmological problems associated with the fine–tuning condition (2). The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sec. II, we derive dynamical equations describing the gravitational field and the dilaton in the bulk coupling to fluid matter and a scalar field on the brane. These equations allow for a dynamical generalization of the RS model, which is a special static solution of our equations with vanishing dilaton. Our equations also provide a starting point for further studies of various issues in cosmology, for example inflation. In Sec. III we discuss a cosmological version of the RS model and show that the fine–tuning condition (2) cannot be stabilized by an arbitrary scalar field or fluid on the brane. In Sec. IV we discuss linear perturbations of the static RS model and derive gauge invariant perturbation equations from our general setup. We prove that the full RS spacetime is unstable against homogeneous processes on the brane such as cosmological phase transitions: The solutions run quadratically fast away from the static RS spacetime. This instability reminds that of the static homogeneous and isotropic Einstein universe . In linear perturbation theory we also find a mode which represents an instability linear in time. In the last section we present our results and the conclusions.

## II Equations of motion

In this section we derive the equations of motion. For generality and for future work we have included the dilaton, although it does not play a role in the present discussion of RS stability. Works on dilaton gravity and the brane world have also been done by the authors of Refs.  and .

### A General case

We consider a five–dimensional spacetime with metric $`g_{MN}`$ parametrized by coordinates $`(x^M)=(x^\mu ,y)`$, where $`M=0,1,2,3,5`$ and $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$, with a $`3`$–brane fixed at $`y=0`$. We use units in which $`2\kappa _{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$. In the string frame the action is

$`S_{\text{string}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}e^{2\varphi }\left(R+4(_M\varphi )(_N\varphi )g^{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )\right)}`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}e^{2\varphi }\left(\frac{1}{2}(\overline{}_\mu \phi )(\overline{}_\nu \phi )\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }+V(\phi )+_{\text{fluid}}\right)},`$ (4)
which describes the dilaton, $`\varphi `$, coupling to gravity as well as to a scalar field $`\phi `$ with a potential $`V(\phi )`$ and to a fluid. The graviton, dilaton and ‘bulk potential’ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ live in the five dimensional (bulk) spacetime, whereas the fluid and the scalar field are confined to the brane. The induced four–dimensional metric is***Where confusion could arise, we overline four dimensional quantities.

$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\delta _\mu ^M\delta _\nu ^Ng_{MN}(y=0).$$
(5)
The action in the Einstein–frame is obtained by the conformal transformation

$$g_{MN}e^{\frac{4\varphi }{D2}}g_{MN}$$
(6)
with $`D=5`$. We find

$`S_{\text{Einstein}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{4}{3}(_M\varphi )(_N\varphi )g^{MN}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )\right)}`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(\overline{}_\mu \phi )(\overline{}_\nu \phi )\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }+e^{(2/3)\varphi }\left(V(\phi )+_{\text{fluid}}\right)\right)},`$ (8)
where $`g`$ now denotes the metric tensor in the Einstein–frame, and $`R,`$ and $`\overline{}`$ are constructed from $`g`$. The equations of motion are obtained by varying this action with respect to the dilaton, the brane scalar field and the metric

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}^2\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )e^{(4/3)\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}}}{\sqrt{g}}}\delta (y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(\overline{}\phi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(V(\phi )+_{\text{fluid}})\right)=0,`$ (11)
$`e^{(2/3)\varphi }(\overline{}^2\phi )e^{(2/3)\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{V(\phi )}{\phi }}=0,`$
$`G_{MN}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left((_M\varphi )(_N\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}(\varphi )^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}}}{\sqrt{g}}}\delta (y)\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \left(e^{(2/3)\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((\overline{}_\mu \phi )(\overline{}_\nu \phi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(\overline{}\phi )^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }e^{(2/3)\varphi }V(\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(T_{\text{fluid}})_{\mu \nu }\right),`$ (12)
where $`G_{MN}`$ is the five–dimensional Einstein tensor of the metric $`g_{MN}`$.
As we are interested in cosmological solutions, we require the $`3`$–brane to be homogeneous and isotropic and make the ansatz

$$ds^2=e^{2N(t,y)}dt^2+e^{2R(t,y)}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+e^{2B(t,y)}dy^2,$$
(13)
where the ordinary spatial dimensions are assumed to be flat. Note that this metric is not factorizable as the scale factor on the brane $`e^{R(t,y)}`$ and the lapse function $`e^{N(t,y)}`$ depend on time as well as on the fifth dimension. The factor $`e^{B(t,y)}`$ is a modulus field. The energy–momentum tensor of a homogeneous and isotropic fluid, representing matter in the universe, is

$$\left(T_{\text{fluid}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}(t)\right)=\text{diag}(\rho (t),p(t),p(t),p(t)),$$
(14)
and for the dilaton and the brane scalar field we shall assume $`\varphi =\varphi (t,y),\phi =\phi (t)`$. Finally, the Lagrangian density of the fluid, $`_{\text{fluid}}`$, is given by its free energy density $`F`$ (see Ref. ).
With these assumptions the equations of motion take the following form. (An overdot and a prime refer to the derivatives with respect to $`t`$ and $`y`$, and quantities on the brane carry a subscript zero, for example $`N_0N(t,y=0)`$.)

$`\varphi :`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}e^{2N}(\ddot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }\dot{N}+3\dot{\varphi }\dot{R}+\dot{\varphi }\dot{B}){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}e^{2B}(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\varphi ^{}N^{}+3\varphi ^{}R^{}\varphi ^{}B^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`e^{(4/3)\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )}{\varphi }}+\delta (y)e^B\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }e^{2N}\dot{\phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(V(\phi )+F)\right)=0,`$ (16)
$`\phi :`$ $`e^{2N_0}(\ddot{\phi }\dot{\phi }\dot{N_0}+3\dot{\phi }\dot{R_0})+e^{(4/3)\varphi _0}{\displaystyle \frac{V(\phi )}{\phi }}=0,`$ (18)
$`\text{fluid}:`$ $`p=p(\rho ),`$ (20)
$`\text{00}:`$ $`3e^{2N}(\dot{R}^2+\dot{R}\dot{B}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\dot{\varphi }^2)+3e^{2B}(R^{\prime \prime }2R^2+R^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\varphi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ (22)
$``$ $`\delta (y)e^B\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }e^{2N}\dot{\phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(V(\phi )+\rho )\right)=0,`$ (23)
$`\text{11}:`$ $`e^{2N}(2\ddot{R}\ddot{B}3\dot{R}^2\dot{B}^2+2\dot{N}\dot{R}+\dot{N}\dot{B}2\dot{R}\dot{B}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\dot{\varphi }^2)`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`e^{2B}(N^{\prime \prime }+2R^{\prime \prime }+N^2+3R^2+2N^{}R^{}N^{}B^{}2R^{}B^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\varphi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ (26)
$``$ $`\delta (y)e^B\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }e^{2N}\dot{\phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(2/3)\varphi }(pV(\phi ))\right)=0,`$ (27)
$`\text{05}:`$ $`\dot{R}^{}+\dot{R}R^{}N^{}\dot{R}R^{}\dot{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\dot{\varphi }\varphi ^{}=0,`$ (29)
$`\text{55}:`$ $`3e^{2N}(\ddot{R}2\dot{R}^2+\dot{N}\dot{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\dot{\varphi }^2)+3e^{2B}(N^{}R^{}+R^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\varphi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(4/3)\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )=0.`$ (31)
In order to have a well defined geometry, the metric has to be continuous across $`y=0`$. However, first derivatives with respect to $`y`$ may not be continuous at $`y=0`$, and second derivatives may contain delta functions. Such distributional parts can be treated separately by writing

$$f^{\prime \prime }=f_{\text{reg}}^{\prime \prime }+\delta (y)[f^{}],$$
(32)
where

$$[f^{}]\underset{y0}{lim}\left(f^{}(y)f^{}(y)\right)$$
(33)
is the jump of $`f^{}`$ across $`y=0`$, and $`f_{\text{reg}}^{\prime \prime }`$ is the part which is regular at $`y=0`$. By matching the delta functions from the second derivatives of $`\varphi ,N`$ and $`R`$ with those in equations (16), (23) and (27), one obtains the junction conditions

$$[\varphi ^{}]=\frac{1}{8}e^{(2/3)\varphi _0}e^{B_02N_0}\dot{\phi }^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{(2/3)\varphi _0}e^{B_0}(V(\phi )+F),$$
(34)
$$[N^{}]=\frac{5}{12}e^{(2/3)\varphi _0}e^{B_02N_0}\dot{\phi }^2+\frac{1}{6}e^{(2/3)\varphi _0}e^{B_0}(3p+2\rho V(\phi )),$$
(35)
$$[R^{}]=\frac{1}{12}e^{(2/3)\varphi _0}e^{B_02N_0}\dot{\phi }^2\frac{1}{6}e^{(2/3)\varphi _0}e^{B_0}(V(\phi )+\rho ).$$
(36)
Equations (35) and (36) are equivalent to Israel’s junction conditions . Our equations agree with those found by other authors in special cases, see e.g. Refs.  and .

To ensure that the brane does not move, we assume $`Z_2`$ symmetry in the rest of this paper. Furthermore, we neglect the dilaton and consider a simple cosmological constant in the bulk. For the sake of generality these assumptions were not made so far.

### B Special case: The Randall–Sundrum model

The RS model is a special static solution of the equations derived in the previous section with $`N(y)=R(y),B=0`$, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is taken to be a pure cosmological constant, and $`V`$ represents a constant brane tension. All other fields are set to zero. The RS metric is

$$ds^2=e^{2\alpha |y|}(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2)+dy^2.$$
(37)
Our equations of motion then reduce to

$`6R^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}},`$ (38)
$`3R^{\prime \prime }=\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}.`$ (39)
Equation (38) can now be solved by

$$R(y)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{12}}|y|\alpha |y|,$$
(40)
which respects $`Z_2`$ symmetry and leads to an exponentially decreasing ‘warp factor’. To satisfy simultaneously equation (39), one must fine-tune the brane tension and the (negative) bulk cosmological constant

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{V^2}{12}=0.$$
(41)
This is the RS solution. A priori, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V`$ are independent constants, and there is no reason for such a relation. However, in a realistic time-dependent cosmological model this relation must be satisfied in order to recover the usual Friedmann equation for a fluid with $`\rho V`$ see Ref. . In the next section we study whether Eq. (41) can be obtained by some dynamics on the brane.

## III A dynamical brane

We first consider a dynamical scalar field on the brane. The fine-tuning condition (41) corresponds to the requirement that the negative bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be canceled by the brane tension $`V`$ which we try to identify with the potential energy of the scalar field $`\phi `$. If, starting with some initial conditions on $`\phi `$ and $`\dot{\phi }`$, the evolution of the system would stabilize at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{V^2}{12}=0`$, the cancelation could be accomplished dynamically. If this would be the case for a ‘large class’ of initial conditions, the RS solution (40) would be an attractor of the system.

We start from Eqs. (18)-(31) for the case of a vanishing dilaton. Taking the ‘mean value’ of the $`55`$ equation across $`y=0`$, inserting the junction conditions (35), (36) and taking into account $`Z_2`$ symmetry, one obtains (see Ref. )

$$\ddot{R}_0+2\dot{R}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{144}\rho _b(\rho _b+3p_b)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6},$$
(42)
where $`\rho _b=\rho +\rho _\phi `$ and $`p_b=p+p_\phi `$ are the total energy density and the total pressure on the brane due to the fluid and the scalar field. In this section the overdot denotes the derivative with respect to the time coordinate $`\tau `$ given by $`d\tau =e^{N_0(t)}dt`$. Using the energy conservation equation on the brane,

$$\dot{\rho _b}=3\dot{R}_0(\rho _b+p_b),$$
(43)
one can eliminate the pressure and integrate Eq. (42) to obtain a ‘Friedmann’ equation for the expansion of the brane (see Ref. )

$$H^2=\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{144}\rho _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{𝒞}{a_0^4},$$
(44)
where $`a_0(t)e^{R(t,y=0)}`$ denotes the scale factor on the brane, $`H=\dot{a}_0/a_0=\dot{R}_0`$, and $`𝒞`$ is an integration constant. If the dilaton vanishes, Eq. (18) becomes the ordinary equation of motion for a scalar field

$$\ddot{\phi }+3H\dot{\phi }+\frac{V}{\phi }=0$$
(45)
with an energy density and pressure

$`\rho _\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\phi }^2+V(\phi ),`$ (46)
$`p_\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\phi }^2V(\phi ).`$ (47)
We now assume that the energy density of the scalar field dominates any other component on the brane, that is $`\rho _\phi \rho `$. This may be the case in the early universe. Later in this section we will see that this assumption does not affect our result. In the same sense we neglect the radiation term, so that Eq. (44) reduces to

$$H=+\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\rho _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{12}\right)}.$$
(48)
The positive sign corresponds to an expanding brane. The question of whether the system evolves towards $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{V^2}{12}=0`$ is now translated into the question of whether the Hubble parameter vanishes at some time $`\tau _1`$. From Eqs. (45) and (48) together with Eq. (46) one finds

$$\dot{H}=\frac{1}{48}\rho _\phi \dot{\phi }^2,$$
(49)
which is always negative. (The case $`\dot{\phi }(\tau _1)=0`$ simultaneously with $`H(\tau _1)=0`$ will be treated separately.) Starting with an expanding universe, $`H>0`$, this implies that $`H`$ is indeed decreasing and $`H=0`$ may well be obtained within finite or infinite time depending on the details of the potential $`V(\phi )`$. However, at $`\tau _1`$ the scale factor has reached a maximum ($`\ddot{a}_0(\tau _1)=a_0(\tau _1)\dot{H}(\tau _1)<0`$) and, after a momentary cancelation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\rho _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, $`H`$ changes sign and the brane begins to contract with

$$H=\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\rho _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{12}\right)}.$$
(50)
In order for $`H`$ to stop evolving at $`\tau _1`$ when the RS condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\rho _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/12=0`$ is satisfied, we need $`\frac{d^n}{d\tau ^n}H(\tau _1)=0`$ for all $`n0`$, which implies $`\frac{d^n}{d\tau ^n}\rho _\phi =0`$ and also $`\frac{d^n}{d\tau ^n}\phi (\tau _1)=0`$ for all $`n1`$. Therefore, the scalar field has to be constant with value $`\phi _1\phi (\tau _1)`$ and $`V(\phi _1)=\sqrt{12\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. But this is only possible if $`V_1`$ is a minimum of the potential, and we have to put $`\phi `$ into this minimum with zero initial velocity from the start. This of course corresponds to the trivial static fine-tuned RS solution.
We conclude that the fine-tuning condition (41) cannot be obtained by such a mechanism. Note that our arguments have been entirely general and we have thus shown that the fine-tuning problem cannot be resolved by an arbitrary brane scalar field.
To illustrate the dynamics, we consider the potential $`V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2`$. Eq. (48) then takes the form

$$H^2=\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{144}\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2\right)^2.$$
(51)
It is convenient to use dimensionless variables $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ and $`\eta `$ related to $`\phi `$, $`\dot{\phi }`$, $`H`$ and $`\tau `$ by

$`\phi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{24}{m}}}x,\dot{\phi }\sqrt{24m}y,Hmz,\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\eta .`$ (52)
Equations (45) and (51) are equivalent to a two–dimensional dynamical system in the phase space $`(x,y)`$ with

$$x^{}=y,y^{}=x3zy,$$
(53)
with the constraint equation

$$z^2=K+(x^2+y^2)^2.$$
(54)
The prime denotes the derivative with respect to the ‘time parameter’ $`\eta `$ and $`K\frac{1}{12m^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In Fig. 1 two typical trajectories found by numerical solution of the system (53)-(54) are shown in the phase space $`(x,y)`$. For large initial $`y`$, the damping term first dominates and lowers $`y`$ until the potential term becomes comparable. Then, the system evolves towards the minimum of the potential until the curve hits the circle $`x^2+y^2=\sqrt{K}`$ (after finite time), where the damping term changes sign, and the trajectories move away nearly in the $`y`$ direction. In Fig. 2 the corresponding evolution of the Hubble parameter $`z`$ is shown.

In ordinary four–dimensional cosmology there exists a ‘no–go theorem’ due to Weinberg , which states that the cosmological constant cannot be canceled by a scalar field. The argument is based on symmetries of the Lagrangian. In brane cosmology it is known  that for a $`3`$–brane, embedded in a five–dimensional spacetime, Einstein equations on the brane are the same as the usual four–dimensional Einstein equations, apart from two additional terms: A term $`S_{\mu \nu }`$, which is quadratic in the energy–momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane

$$S_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}T_{\mu \alpha }T_\nu ^\alpha +\frac{1}{12}TT_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{8}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }T_{\alpha \beta }T^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{24}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }T^2,$$
(55)
and a term $`E_{\mu \nu }`$, which is the projection of the five–dimensional Weyl–tensor, $`C_{}^{A}{}_{BCD}{}^{}`$, onto the brane

$$E_{\mu \nu }C_{}^{A}{}_{BCD}{}^{}n_An^C\overline{g}_\mu ^B\overline{g}_\nu ^D,$$
(56)
where $`n_A`$ is the normal vector to the brane and $`T`$ the trace of the energy momentum tensor. Being constructed purely from $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ does not introduce additional dynamical degrees of freedom. It just contributes the term $`\rho _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ to the ‘Friedmann’ equation (44). It is also clear that $`E_{\mu \nu }`$, which is traceless, cannot cancel the cosmological constant on the brane. However, since the effective Einstein equations on the brane cannot be derived from a Lagrangian, and since $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ contains additional information from the bulk, it is not evident that Weinberg’s theorem holds in our case.
More generally, our ‘no-go’ result also holds for any matter obeying an equation of state $`p=\omega \rho `$ when $`\omega >1`$. This can be seen in a similar way: Initially the Hubble parameter is

$$H=+\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\rho ^2}{12}\right)}.$$
(57)
Using the energy conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }=3H(1+\omega )\rho ,$$
(58)
one finds

$$\dot{H}=\frac{1}{48}(1+\omega )\rho ^2,$$
(59)
and hence $`\dot{H}<0`$ as long as the weak energy condition, $`\omega >1`$ (or $`p>\rho `$) is satisfied. To relate our finding to previous results , let us note that Eqs. (57) and (59) imply the following condition for inflation on the brane

$$\frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}=\dot{H}+H^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{12}\frac{2+3\omega }{144}\rho ^2>0.$$
(60)
For a brane energy density given by the brane RS tension $`V=\sqrt{12\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and an additional component indicated by a subscript f, so that $`\rho =V+\rho _f`$ and $`p=V+p_f`$ this gives

$$\frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}=[V(1+3\omega _f)+\rho _f(2+3\omega _f)]\frac{\rho _f}{144}>0,$$
(61)
which coincides with Eq. (8) of Ref . If the RS term dominates, $`V\rho _f`$ we obtain the usual strong energy condition for inflation, $`1+3\omega _f<0`$, but if $`V\rho _f`$ the condition is stronger, namely, $`2+3\omega _f<0`$.

As in the case of the scalar field, the brane starts to contract as soon as $`H=0`$ is reached. We have thus shown that a relation such as Eq. (41) cannot be realized in a cosmological setting which does not violate the weak energy condition.

After this section, in which we adopted the viewpoint of the brane, we now come back to the full five dimensional spacetime to investigate the stability of the RS model.

## IV Gauge Invariant Perturbation equations

We formally prove that the five dimensional RS spacetime is unstable under small perturbations of the brane tension.

### A Perturbations of the Randall–Sundrum model

The equations of motion derived in Sec. II provide with $`N(t,y),R(t,y)`$, and $`B(t,y)`$ a dynamical generalization of the RS model. We consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V`$ to be constant and set the dilaton, the scalar field on the brane and the energy-momentum tensor of the fluid to zero. Equations (23)-(31) now reduce to

$`\text{00}:`$ $`3e^{2N}(\dot{R}^2+\dot{R}\dot{B})+3e^{2B}(R^{\prime \prime }2R^2+R^{}B^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^BV=0,`$ (62)
$`\text{11}:`$ $`e^{2N}(2\ddot{R}\ddot{B}3\dot{R}^2\dot{B}^2+2\dot{N}\dot{R}+\dot{N}\dot{B}2\dot{R}\dot{B})`$ (63)
$`+`$ $`e^{2B}(N^{\prime \prime }+2R^{\prime \prime }+N^2+3R^2+2N^{}R^{}N^{}B^{}2R^{}B^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^BV=0,`$ (64)
$`\text{05}:`$ $`\dot{R}^{}+\dot{R}R^{}N^{}\dot{R}R^{}\dot{B}=0,`$ (65)
$`\text{55}:`$ $`3e^{2N}(\ddot{R}2\dot{R}^2+\dot{N}\dot{R})+3e^{2B}(N^{}R^{}+R^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.`$ (66)
The RS solution (40) is a static solution of these equations, provided that condition (41) holds. We now derive linear perturbation equations from Eqs.(62)–(66) which describe the time evolution of small deviations from RS. To this goal we set

$`N(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |y|+n(t,y),`$ (67)
$`R(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |y|+r(t,y),`$ (68)
$`B(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`b(t,y),`$ (69)
where $`\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{12}}`$ and $`n(t,y),r(t,y),b(t,y)`$ are small at $`t=0`$. The perturbed metric is

$$ds^2=e^{2\alpha |y|+2n}dt^2+e^{2\alpha |y|+2r}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+e^{2b}dy^2.$$
(70)
We consider an energy-momentum tensor deviating from RS only by a slight mismatch of the brane tension

$$T_{MN}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{MN}\delta (y)\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu e^bV\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(71)
with

$$V=\sqrt{12\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(72)
where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|1`$ parameterizes the perturbation of the brane tension, $`g_{MN}`$ is the perturbed metric (70) and $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is its projection onto the brane. Clearly, if already this restricted set of perturbation variables contains an instability, the RS solution is unstable under homogeneous and isotropic perturbations. Inserting this ansatz into equations (62)– (66) and keeping only first order terms, we find

$`r^{\prime \prime }4\alpha ^2b+\theta (y)\alpha (4r^{}b^{})\delta (y)2\alpha (b+\mathrm{\Omega })=0,`$ (73)
$`e^{2\alpha |y|}(2\ddot{r}+\ddot{b})n^{\prime \prime }2r^{\prime \prime }+12\alpha ^2b\theta (y)\alpha (4n^{}+8r^{}3b^{})+\delta (y)6\alpha (b+\mathrm{\Omega })=0,`$ (74)
$`\dot{r}^{}\theta (y)\alpha \dot{b}=0,`$ (75)
$`e^{2\alpha |y|}\ddot{r}+4\alpha ^2b\theta (y)\alpha (n^{}+3r^{})=0,`$ (76)
where

$$\theta (y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1\hfill & \text{for }y>0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{for }y<0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(77)
The junction conditions are

$$[r^{}]=[n^{}]=2\alpha (b_0+\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(78)
Since we want to consider $`Z_2`$-symmetric perturbations, we require the functions $`n`$, $`r`$ and $`b`$ to be symmetric in $`y`$. In order to make coordinate-independent statements, we rewrite these equations in a gauge invariant way.

### B Gauge invariant perturbation equations

Under an infinitesimal coordinate transformation induced by the vector field

$$X=T(t,y)_t+L(t,y)_y,$$
(79)
the metric perturbations $`g^{(1)}`$ transform according to

$$g^{(1)}g^{(1)}+_Xg^{(0)},$$
(80)
where $`g^{(1)}`$ corresponds to the first order terms in the metric (70), and $`_Xg^{(0)}`$ is the Lie derivative of the static background metric (37). One obtains the following transformation laws for the variables $`n`$, $`r`$ and $`b`$:

$`nn+\theta (y)\alpha L+\dot{T},`$ (81)
$`rr+\theta (y)\alpha L,`$ (82)
$`bb+L^{}.`$ (83)
Since we require the 05 component of the metric to vanish, it must remain zero under the coordinate transformation. This implies

$$\dot{L}=e^{2\alpha |y|}T^{}.$$
(84)
From Eq. (83), together with $`Z_2`$ symmetry, one finds that $`L^{}`$ must be continuous and symmetric in $`y`$. Therefore $`L`$ must be continuously differentiable and odd in $`y`$, which implies $`L(t,y=0)=0`$. Hence, the perturbation $`r`$ restricted to the brane $`r_0`$ is gauge invariant. Note that $`L(t,y=0)=0`$ also follows from Eq. (82) and $`LC^1`$. Hence the gauge invariance of $`r_0`$ is not a consequence of $`Z_2`$ symmetry, but is also preserved for non–$`Z_2`$ symmetric perturbations. By computing the Lie derivative of the background energy-momentum tensor from Eq. (71) one finds that the perturbation of the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is gauge invariant. Condition (84) and the symmetry property of $`L^{}`$ ensure that there is no energy flow onto or off the brane. With the following set of gauge invariant quantities

$`\mathrm{\Phi }r^{}\theta (y)\alpha b,`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }n^{}\theta (y)\alpha b\theta (y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}e^{2\alpha |y|}\ddot{r},`$ (86)
$`r_0r(t,y=0),`$ (87)
$`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (88)
we can rewrite the perturbation equations (73)–(76) in terms of these variables

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\theta (y)4\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\delta (y)2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }=0,`$ (89)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\theta (y)4\alpha (\mathrm{\Psi }+2\mathrm{\Phi })+\delta (y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha }}\ddot{r}_06\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }\right)=0,`$ (90)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0,`$ (91)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }+3\mathrm{\Phi }=0.`$ (92)
The junction conditions are

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }]=2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },[\mathrm{\Psi }]=2\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }\frac{2}{\alpha }\ddot{r}_0.$$
(93)
The solutions of equations (89) with (91) and (92) are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }(y)=\theta (y)\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }e^{4\alpha |y|}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0e^{4\alpha |y|}.$$
(94)
$`Z_2`$ symmetry requires $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be odd in $`y`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$. Inserting Eq. (92) in (90) one obtains

$$\ddot{r}_0=4\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(95)
and after integration

$$r_0(t)=2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }t^2+𝒬t,$$
(96)
where $`𝒬`$ is a small but arbitrary integration constant determined by the initial conditions. (An additive constant to $`r_0`$ can be absorbed in a redefinition of the spatial coordinates on the brane.) The scale factor on the brane is

$$e^{2r_0(t)}1+2r_0(t)=1+4\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }t^2+2𝒬t.$$
(97)
We have thus found a dynamical instability, which is quadratic in time, when the brane tension and the bulk cosmological constant are not fine–tuned. Our statement is valid in every coordinate system as $`r_0`$ is gauge invariant. In addition, more surprisingly, in linear perturbation theory there is no constraint on $`𝒬`$, and it cannot be gauged away. This linear instability remains even for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, that is if the brane tension is not perturbed at all.
Let us finally discuss our solutions in two particular gauges. As a first gauge condition we set $`r^{}=0`$, which fixes $`L^{}=\theta (y)\frac{1}{\alpha }r^{}`$. The integration constant on $`L`$ is determined by the condition $`L(t,y=0)=0`$. (Note that $`r^{}`$ contains a $`\theta `$ function and therefore $`L^{}`$ is continuous.) For all values of $`y`$ we have

$$r(t)=2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }t^2+𝒬t.$$
(98)
Since $`b(y)=\theta (y)\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$,

$$b(y)=\mathrm{\Omega }e^{4\alpha |y|}.$$
(99)
From the definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ it follows that

$$n^{}=3\mathrm{\Phi }+\theta (y)\alpha b+\theta (y)\frac{1}{\alpha }e^{2\alpha |y|}\ddot{r}_0,$$
(100)
which can be integrated to give

$$n(t,y)=\mathrm{\Omega }e^{4\alpha |y|}2\mathrm{\Omega }e^{2\alpha |y|}+𝒩(t).$$
(101)
These $`n,r`$, and $`b`$ solve Eqs. (73)–(76). The integration constant $`𝒩(t)`$ can be absorbed in the gauge transformation $`T`$. Together with the choice of $`L^{}`$, this fixes the gauge, and the solutions are therefore unique up to an additive purely time dependent function to $`T`$.
Another possible gauge is $`b=0`$. Then, from $`r^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$r(t,y)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4}e^{4\alpha |y|}+(t),$$
(102)
with

$$(t)=r_0(t)+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4}=2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }t^2+𝒬t+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4}$$
(103)
and

$$n(t,y)=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }e^{4\alpha |y|}2\mathrm{\Omega }e^{2\alpha |y|}+𝒩(t).$$
(104)
Again, the integration constant $`𝒩(t)`$ can be gauged away by choosing an appropriate $`T`$, and the solutions are uniquely determined by the gauge fixing.
Inserting these solutions in the perturbed metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\alpha |y|+2n}dt^2+e^{2\alpha |y|+2r}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+e^{2b}dy^2,$$
(105)
we find that the full RS spacetime, not only the brane, is unstable against homogeneous perturbations of the brane tension.

We must require the initial perturbations to be small, that is at some initial time $`t=0`$, the deviation from $`RS`$ has to be small for all values of $`y`$. In the case of a compact spacetime $`|y|y_{\mathrm{max}}`$, this just requires $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|e^{4\alpha y_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ (remember that $`\alpha `$ is a negative constant). For a noncompact spacetime $`\mathrm{}<y<\mathrm{}`$, we have to require $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. In other words, for $`V\sqrt{12\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ there exists no solution which is ‘close’ to RS in the sense of $`L^2`$ or $`sup_y`$ at any given initial time.
Finally, we present a geometrical interpretation of the gauge invariant quantities $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Since the five–dimensional Weyl tensor of the RS solution vanishes, the perturbed Weyl tensor is gauge invariant according to the Steward-Walker lemma . The 0505 component of the Weyl tensor of the perturbed metric (70) is up to first order

$$C_{0505}=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\alpha |y|}(n^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime \prime }+\theta (y)\alpha (n^{}r^{}))+\frac{1}{2}(\ddot{r}\ddot{b}),$$
(106)
which can be expressed in terms of gauge invariant quantities

$$C_{0505}=\frac{1}{2}e^{\alpha |y|}\left(e^{\alpha |y|}(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })\right)^{}+\delta (y)\frac{1}{\alpha }\ddot{r}_0.$$
(107)
All other nonvanishing Weyl components are multiples of $`C_{0505}`$:

$`C_{0101}=C_{0202}=C_{0303}=C_{1212}=C_{1313}=C_{2323}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{2\alpha |y|}C_{0505}\text{ and}`$ (108)
$`C_{1515}=C_{2525}=C_{3535}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_{0505}.`$ (109)
In first order the projected Weyl tensor (defined in Ref. ) is $`E_{11}=E_{22}=E_{33}=\frac{1}{3}E_{00}=2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`E_{}^{\mu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}=0`$. The Weyl–tensor completely vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.

## V Results and Conclusions

In this paper we have addressed two main questions: First, we investigated whether the RS fine–tuning condition can be obtained dynamically by some matter component on the brane. As a concrete example, we studied a scalar field on the brane and found that a bulk cosmological constant cannot be canceled by the potential of the scalar field in a nontrivial way. This result can be generalized for any matter satisfying the weak energy condition.

Second, we studied the stability of the RS model in five dimensions. We have found that the RS solution is unstable under homogeneous and isotropic, but time dependent perturbations. For a small deviation of the fine–tuning condition parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, this instability was expected. It is very reminiscent of the instability of the static Einstein universe, where the fluid energy density and the cosmological constant have to satisfy a delicate balance in order to keep the universe static. But even if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, there exists a mode ($`𝒬0`$), which represents an instability in first order perturbation theory. It is interesting to note that in a non–$`Z_2`$ symmetric setting this mode can be absorbed into a motion of the brane. In a cosmological context, our result means that a possible change in the brane tension, e.g. during a phase transition, or also quantum corrections to the bulk energy density (see Ref. ) could give rise to instabilities of the full five–dimensional spacetime. For related work see Refs. , , .

Even if one would consider a dynamical scalar field in the bulk (which does not couple to brane fields), which settles into a vacuum state such that its energy density is constant along the fifth dimension, one would not be able to solve the cosmological constant problem without falling back to some fine–tuning mechanism. From our results we can conclude that in order to have a chance to solve the RS fine tuning problem dynamically, we have to consider fully dynamical bulk fields. This can in principle be done with the system of equations, which we have presented in Sec. II, and which also applies to the effective five–dimensional low–energy theory suggested by heterotic M theory .

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Arthur Hebecker, Kerstin Kunze, Marius Mantoiu Danièle Steer, Toby Wiseman and Peter Wittwer for useful discussions and comments. C.v.d.B thanks Geneva university for hospitality. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. C.v.d.B was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).


format: text

text:
# NONLOCAL REGULARIZATION AND SPONTANEOUSLY BROKEN ABELIAN GAUGE THEORIES FOR AN ARBITRARY GAUGE PARAMETER

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Standard Model \[SM\] is a renormalizable local quantum field theory \[QFT\] with a local gauge invariance . Calculations in the SM require the use of a regularization that respects its local gauge invariance.There are various schemes of regularization appropriate for nonabelian gauge theories: the dimensional regularization \[DR\] ,and also a combination of Pauli-Villars and higher derivatives were employed in the early gauge theory literature . However, most attempts to go beyond standard model involve supersymmetry for which a regularization so efficient as the DR cannot be employed.New regularizations have been proposed in the last decade that can be employed in supersymmetric field theories and these are nonlocal regularization  and differential regularization .For a comparative statement regarding the benefits of the nonlocal regularization vis-a-vis other regularizations,the reader is referred to the Introduction of Ref. and to Ref.5 In this work, we study nonlocal regularization further in some of its aspects.

Nonlocal regularization proposed by Moffat  and Evans et al  and given an elegant formulation by Kleppe and Woodard  has been studied extensively since . Renormalization procedure has been established upto two loop order in scalar theories.In Ref.,it has been shown how the nonlocally regularized field theory can be constructed from a local QFT in a systematic fashion. More importantly, it has been established there that the local/global symmetries can be preserved in their nonlocal form and the WT identities of local QFT’s derivable from local symmetries such as gauge invariance/BRS symmetry find their natural nonlocal extensions. This has been done for the abelian gauge theories to all orders  and for nonabelian gauge theories in Feynman gauge  upto one loop order \[limited,in particular, by the existence of measure beyond one loop\].The nonlocal theories have also found applications in the clearer understanding of the renormalization program.

As mentioned earlier, we shall study a further aspect of non-local regularization which we shall now elaborate on.In the work of Ref. ,a procedure for nonlocalization of local Lagrangians was presented. It was further applied to the nonlocalization of the nonabelian gauge theories and to the preservation of its BRS symmetry in a nonlocal form for the Feynman gauge.It was emphasized that the nonlocal theories with a finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can themselves be looked upon as physical theories . The significance of this view-point has been elaborated in ref.9 to which the reader is referred to for more details. We shall work in the context of these. In the Ref. , which we shall refer to as I henceforth,we studied nonlocal regularization of pure nonabelian unbroken gauge theories with an arbitrary gauge parameter $`\xi `$ . For an arbitrary $`\xi `$, we established the necessity of a modified treatment for constructing the nonlocal Lagrangian, as compared to that given in  for the Feynman gauge. We ,then, gave a way to regularize the nonabelian gauge theory for an arbitrary $`\xi `$ and established the WT-identities that would imply the $`\xi `$-independence of the observables for this theory.Now, the SM calculations are calculations in a *spontaneously broken* gauge theory and that is what is relevant in actual calculations of S-matrix elements. Also, in an unbroken theory, the S-matrix elements may not exist due to infrared divergences and it is harder to test the $`\xi `$-independence there. In view of these facts ,therefore, we wish to study in this work, the nonlocal regularization in a *spontaneously broken* model and for *an arbitrary* $`\xi `$,. Apart from its relevance as mentioned above, we find we have a few other motivations. In a spontaneously broken abelian-Higgs model with chiral couplings to be introduced in Sec.3 \[ which in many ways mimics the GWS model, yet is simpler to deal with\], we explicitly perform, in this work,the calculation of a simple 1-loop observable: the analogue of the g-2 for the muon in the model with an arbitrary $`\xi `$ and find a $`\xi `$-dependent result. An analogous calculation was done earlier by G. Saini and one of us  in the context of an actual SM calculation  and we had found a $`\xi `$-dependent result there. The above model of Sec.3 is studied here to explicitly bring out this in a much simpler model with essentially those features that lead to this $`\xi `$-dependence: viz. spontaneously broken model with chiral couplings. With this motivation in mind,we study the application of the modified way of nonlocal regularization proposed and formulated in unbroken pure Yang-Mills theories to the spontaneously broken theory in I, and study the WT-identities in the theory and the $`\xi `$-independence of the resulting Green’s functions.

We now present the plan of the paper. In Section two, we present the earlier results, viz.:(a) the results in the Ref. 6 on the nonlocalization of a local theory that in particular,preserves the local BRS invariance of the theory in the Feynman gauge,(b) some of the essential results on the nonlocalization procedure, and (c) the conclusions of I regarding the need to modify the general procedure outlined in  while dealing with a general $`\xi `$ and also with calculations in the Feynman gauge in higher loops. In section three, we introduce the abelian- Higgs model with the chiral couplings for an arbitrary $`\xi `$ and introduce nonlocalization of the Rξ\- gauge local Lagrangian following the procedure of the Ref.6. In section four, we evaluate the analogue of the 1-loop contribution to the (g-2) of the muon in this model with a finite mass scale and show that it exhibits $`\xi `$-independence.In section 5 we study the application of the modified regularization used in I and study the WT-identity.We evaluate $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$ and simplify the result using the WT-identities. In section 6, we then discuss the $`\xi `$independence of the S-matrix elements.

## 2 PRELIMINARIES

In this section, we shall introduce the notations and review the earlier results on the non-local regularization of reference 6 and of I. For brevity , we rely heavily on I , to which the reader is often referred to for any further details.

(A) NON-LOCAL REGULARIZATION:

We shall, very briefly, review the essential properties of the non-local regularization.We keep the introduction to bare essentials; referring the reader to I for a more detailed introduction.

We write the local action for a field theory ,in terms of a generic field $`\varphi `$, as the sum of the quadratic and the interaction part:

S\[$`\varphi ]`$=F\[$`\varphi ]`$+I\[$`\varphi ]`$ (2.1)

and the quadratic piece is expressed as

F\[$`\varphi ]`$= $``$ d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ $`\varphi _i(x)\mathrm{}_{ij}\varphi _j(x)`$ (2.2)

We define the regularized action in terms of the smeared field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ ,defined in terms of the kinetic energy operator $`\mathrm{}_{ij}`$ as,

$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ = $`\epsilon `$$`{}_{}{}^{1}\varphi `$ (2.3)

with $`\epsilon `$= exp {$`\mathrm{}`$ /$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$.The nonlocally regularized action is constructed by first introducing an auxiliary action $`S`$\[$`\varphi ,\psi ]`$.It is given by

$`S`$\[$`\varphi ,\psi ]`$= F\[$`\widehat{\varphi }`$\] -A\[$`\psi ]`$\+ I \[$`\varphi +`$$`\psi ]`$ (2.4)

where $`\psi `$is called a “shadow field” with an action

A\[$`\psi ]`$=$``$ d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ $`\psi _iO_{ij}^1\psi _j`$ (2.5)

with $`O`$ defined by

$`O`$ = \[$`\frac{\epsilon ^21}{\mathrm{}}`$\] (2.5a)

The action of the non-local theory is defined as

$`\widehat{S}`$ \[$`\varphi ]`$= $`S`$\[$`\varphi ,\psi ]`$$`_{\psi =\psi [\varphi ]}`$ (2.6)

where $`\psi [\varphi `$\] if the solution of the classical equation

0= $`\frac{\delta S}{\delta \psi }`$ (2.7)

The nonlocalized Feynman rules are simple extensions of the local ones. The vertices are unchanged but every leg can connect either to a smeared propagator

$`\frac{i\epsilon ^2}{\mathrm{}+iϵ}`$=-i$``$$`__1`$$`^{^{\mathrm{}}}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}exp\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\}`$ (2.8)

or to a shadow propagator \[a line crossed by a bar\]

$`\frac{i\left[1\epsilon ^2\right]}{\mathrm{}+iϵ}=`$-iO =-i $``$1$`{}_{_0}{}^{}\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}exp\{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\}`$ (2.9)

A set of detailed comments on the Feynman rules and the diagrams that need to be considered are found in I.We only need to remember that in a Feynman diagram, the internal lines can be either shadow or smeared lines with the exception that no diagrams with closed shadow loops are counted.

A number of theorems that finally relate to the construction of the nonlocal symmetry transformations of the nonlocal theory given the local ones for the local theory are established in  and are found enumerated in I. We only recall that related to the nonlocal BRS symmetry.

Theorem B.3:\[We stick to the theorem numbering of  \]. If S{\[$`\varphi `$\]} is invariant under $`\delta \varphi _i`$= Ti \[$`\varphi ]`$, then $`\widehat{S}`$ \[$`\varphi ]`$ is invariant under

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\varphi `$i= $`\epsilon _{ij}^2`$ Tj \[$`\varphi `$+$`\psi `$\[$`\varphi `$\]\] (2.10)

(B) NONLOCAL REGULARIZATION OF A GAUGE THEORY FOR AN ARBITRARY GAUGE PARAMETER

We shall first review briefly the results, in Ref. 6, on nonlocalization of the nonabelian gauge theories in the Feynman gauge .We consider the Feynman gauge local effective action :

S$`{}_{F}{}^{}=`$$``$ d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ \[-$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`_\mu A_\nu `$ $`^\mu A^\nu `$-$`^\mu \overline{\eta }`$$`_\mu \eta `$\] \+ I \[$`A^\mu ,\overline{\eta }`$$`,\eta `$\] (2.11)

Ref. 6 outlines the results as to how a local action is converted to a non-local action.Briefly put,it is done in the present context by first noting the quadratic operators $`\mathrm{}_{ij}`$ = $``$2$`\delta `$4(x-y)$`\eta `$μν for the gauge field and $``$2$`\delta `$4(x-y) for the ghost fields and employing these to construct the smeared fields $`\widehat{A_\mu }`$ =exp{$``$2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$ Aμ ;$`\widehat{\eta }`$=exp{$``$2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$$`\eta `$;$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$=exp{$``$2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$$`\overline{\eta }`$. In terms of these,and the corresponding shadow fields Bμa,$`\psi `$a, $`\overline{\psi ^a}`$;we have the non-local action:

$`\widehat{S_F}`$=$``$ d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ \[-$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`_\mu \widehat{A_\nu }`$$`^\mu \widehat{A^\nu }`$-$`^\mu \widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`_\mu \widehat{\eta }`$ -$`\frac{1}{2}`$BaμO-1Baμ\+ $`\overline{\psi ^a}`$O-1$`\psi `$a\] + I \[$`A^\mu +B^\mu ,\overline{\eta }`$\+ $`\overline{\psi }`$$`,\eta `$+$`\psi `$\] (2.12)

The local action of (2.11) has a local BRS symmetry.The non-local action ,correspondingly, has a *nonlocal* BRS symmetry obtained from the result in Sec.2(A). As emphasized in Ref.6, it is found convenient to combine this with a “trivial” i.e. equation of motion symmetry so that the resultant BRS variation of $`\overline{\eta }`$ is proportional to $`.A^a`$,the field corresponding to the longitudinal degree of freedom.This helps in establishing the WT that establishes the decoupling of the longitudinal degree of freedom.These nonlocal BRS transformations are:

$`\widehat{\delta }`$Aaμ= \[ $`_\mu `$$`\eta `$a -g fabc $`\epsilon ^2`$ (Aμ \+ Bμ )b$`(\eta `$+$`\psi )`$c\]$`\delta \zeta `$ (2.13a)

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\eta ^a`$ =- $`\epsilon ^2`$$`\frac{g}{2}`$fabc$`\eta `$$`{}_{}{}^{b}\eta `$c$`\delta \zeta `$ (2.13b)

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$a=-$`.A^a`$$`\delta \zeta `$ (2.13c)

As emphasized in I, however, when this procedure of nonlocalization as outlined in Sec 2(A) is applied in the straightforward manner, to the case of Yang-Mills theory with an arbitrary gauge parameter $`\xi `$ , it fails to yield WT identities that would yield a $`\xi `$-independent observables.Moreover,the procedure outlined above in Ref.  cannot be employed directly to go beyond 1-loop even for the Feynman gauge,as the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ gets renormalized and in effect the action in terms of the bare parameters does contain a gauge parameter $``$1. As a consequence, a formulation valid for all $`\xi `$, must be employed if one is to go beyond 1-loop in this case also.In I, we presented a formulation valid for all $`\xi `$ and established the relevant WT identities that would imply $`\xi `$-independence of observables.To illustrate this consider the Yang-Mills effective action for an arbitrary $`\xi `$:

$`\widehat{S}`$ξ=$`\widehat{S}`$F+$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\widehat{S}`$

where $`\widehat{S}`$F has been given in (2.12) and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\widehat{S}`$ = (1-1/$`\xi `$)$``$ d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ ($``$.$`\widehat{A}`$ )2

The smeared field operators depend only on the quadratic form in $`\widehat{S}`$F. Hence, for an arbitrary $`\xi `$, we have $`\widehat{A}`$μ= ($`\epsilon _F^1`$)μνAν=exp{$``$2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$ Aμ and $`\widehat{\eta }`$=($`\epsilon _\eta ^1`$)$`\eta `$=e xp{$``$2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$$`\eta `$;$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$=exp{$``$2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\}`$$`\overline{\eta }`$. We note that $`\epsilon _F=`$$`\epsilon _\eta `$$`\epsilon `$ here. Further,$`O`$ = \[$`\frac{\epsilon ^21}{\mathrm{}}`$\] is the same for B and for $`\psi `$ and is independent of $`\xi `$. The nonlocal BRS symmetry for the case of an arbitrary $`\xi `$ has been obtained in I.It reads , for an arbitrary $`\xi `$,

$`\widehat{\delta }`$Aaμ= \[ $`_\mu `$$`\eta `$a -g fabc $`\epsilon ^2`$ (Aμ \+ Bμ )b$`(\eta `$+$`\psi )`$c\]$`\delta \zeta `$ (2.14a)

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\eta `$a =- $`\epsilon ^2`$$`\frac{g}{2}`$fabc$`\eta `$$`{}_{}{}^{b}\eta `$c$`\delta \zeta `$ (2.14b)

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$a=-$`\frac{1}{\xi }`$$`.A^a`$$`\delta \zeta `$ (2.14c)

In I,we have discussed the WT identities arising from this symmetry and have seen that it leads to a result that would imply the $`\xi `$-independence of those S-matrix related physical quantities that exist.

## 3 NONLOCAL REGULARIZATION OF A SPONTANEOUSLY BROKEN ABELIAN MODEL WITH CHIRAL FERMIONS

In this work,we shall study an aspect of non-local regularization as related to the spontaneously broken gauge theories. In order to do so,we shall first introduce in this section a simple model - an abelian Higgs Model with Chiral couplings.It is perhaps worthwhile to elaborate and to iterate the context in which we found it essential to study this model.In the work of Ref. ,a procedure for nonlocalization of nonabelian gauge theories and preservation of the BRS symmetry in a nonlocal form was presented for the Feynman gauge. Subsequently, in I, we studied nonlocal regularization of pure nonabelian unbroken gauge theories with an arbitrary gauge parameter $`\xi `$ . For an arbitrary $`\xi `$, we established the necessity of a modified treatment for constructing the nonlocal Lagrangian as compared to that given in  for the Feynman gauge. We ,then, gave a way of regularize the nonabelian gauge theory for an arbitrary $`\xi `$ and established the WT-identities that would imply the $`\xi `$-independence of the observables for this theory. In view of the fact that the calculation of an observable in the SM generally involves a spontaneously broken gauge theory ,the extension of an analogous treatment to the case of spontaneously broken case is of value.In this work,therefore, we wish to study , for an arbitrary $`\xi `$, the nonlocal regularization in a spontaneously broken model. Apart from its relevance as mentioned above, we find we have a few other motivations. In section IV, we shall perform the calculation of a simple 1-loop observable: the analogue of the g-2 for the muon in the model with arbitrary $`\xi `$ explicitly and find a $`\xi `$-dependent result. An analogous calculation was done earlier by G. Saini and one of us \[10 \] in the context of an actual SM calculation and we had found a $`\xi `$-dependent result.The above model is studied here to explicitly bring out this in a simpler model with essentially those features that lead to this: viz. spontaneously broken model with chiral couplings. With this motivation in mind,we study the application of the modified way of nonlocal regularization proposed and formulated in unbroken pure Yang-Mills theories to the spontaneously broken theory in I and study the WT-identities in the theory and the $`\xi `$-independence of the resulting Green’s functions. Therefore, in this section,we shall introduce an abelian Higgs model with gauge fields coupling to vector and the axial vector currents.As mentioned earlier, this simpler model incorporates in it several essential features of the standard model such as coupling of gauge fields to chiral fermions and a spontaneously broken nature of the model. Both these features are essential in the example that we shall discuss in the next section.

Consider the Lagrangian for the model with a local U(1)XU(1) symmetry ,having a complex scalar $`\phi `$ ,a fermion $`\psi `$ and two U(1) gauge fields A and B , coupling respectively to vector and the axial vector currents and the quantum numbers for the fields as indicated below:111The model below has the chiral anomaly.It can be removed by adding another fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with electric charge $`\pm 1`$ and opposite axial charge. Introduction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ does not alter the one-loop calculation of (g-2) for $`\psi `$ presented in the next section. Hence, to this order we ignore the question of the anomaly .

|  | U$`{}_{V}{}^{}(1)`$ | UA$`(1)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\phi `$ | 0 | 2 |
| $`\psi `$L | 1 | 1 |
| $`\psi `$R | 1 | -1 |

Table 1:Quantum Numbers

Linv= (D$`{}_{\mu }{}^{}\phi `$)(D$`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\phi `$)- $`\mu ^2\phi ^{}\phi `$-$`\lambda `$$`(\phi ^{}\phi )^2`$-1/4 FμνFμν-1/4 GμνGμν\+ $`\overline{\psi }_L(i\text{/}`$ +gB/-eA/)$`\psi `$L+$`\overline{\psi }_R(i\text{/}`$-gB/-eA/)$`\psi `$R \+ f$`(\overline{\psi }_L`$$`\psi `$R$`\phi `$+$`\overline{\psi _R}`$$`\psi `$L$`\phi `$\*) (3.1)

where,

$`\phi =`$$`\frac{\phi _1+i\phi _2}{\sqrt{2}}`$ ; $`\phi `$1, and $`\phi `$2 real.

Dμ =$`_\mu `$-2igBμ

Fμυ=$`_\mu `$Aν$`_\nu A_\mu `$

Gμυ=$`_\mu `$Bν$`_\nu B_\mu `$ ; (3.2)

the (mass)2parameter$`=\mu `$2 \< 0 and $`\phi `$ develops a vacuum expectation value given by:

\<$`\phi ^{}\phi `$\>= -$`\mu `$2/2$`\lambda `$$``$$`\frac{v^2}{2}`$ \> 0 . (3.3)

Further, the gauge-fixing Lagrangian in the Rξ-gauges is given by222We keep the gauge parameter associated the unbroken U(1) field equal to 1.

Lgf=-1/2 ($`.A)`$2 -$`\frac{1}{2\xi }`$($``$.B \+ $`\xi `$M$`\phi `$2)2, M$``$2gv (3.4)

Thus,we can now re-express the net Lagrangian in terms of the shifted fields: $`\phi `$$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$=$`\phi `$1-v, and $`\phi `$2’=$`\phi `$2 as L=L0+LI ,with:

L0= $`\frac{1}{2}`$\[($`_\mu \phi _1^{}`$)2 \+ 2$`\mu `$2$`\phi _1`$2\] $`+\frac{1}{2}`$\[($`_\mu \phi _2^{}`$)2-M2$`\xi \phi _2`$2\] -$`\frac{1}{4}`$($`_\mu `$B$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$$`_\mu `$Bν)$`(^\mu `$B$`_^^^\nu `$-$`^\nu `$Bμ) \+ $`\frac{1}{2}`$M2BμBμ-$`\frac{1}{2\xi }`$($``$.B)2-$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`_\mu `$Aν$`^\mu `$A$`_^^^\nu `$+$`\overline{\psi }(i\text{/}`$-m)$`\psi `$ (3.5a)

LI = $`\overline{\psi }_L(`$gB/-eA/)$`\psi `$L+$`\overline{\psi }_R(`$-gB/-eA/)$`\psi `$R-$`\frac{m}{v}`$$`\overline{\psi }_L`$$`\psi `$R($`\phi _1^{}`$+i$`\phi `$$`{}_{2}{}^{})`$-$`\frac{m}{v}`$$`\overline{\psi _R}`$ $`\psi `$L($`\phi _1^{}`$-i$`\phi `$$`{}_{2}{}^{})`$

+2gBμ ($`\phi _2^{}_\mu \phi _1^{}`$$`\phi _1^{}_\mu \phi _2^{})`$ \+ 2 g2BμBμ ( $`\phi _1^2`$+$`\phi _2^2)`$ -$`\frac{\lambda }{4}`$( $`\phi _1^2`$+$`\phi _2^2)`$2 \+ 4 g2vBμBμ$`\phi `$$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$-$`\lambda `$v$`\phi _1^{}`$( $`\phi _1^2`$+$`\phi _2^2)`$ ; (3.5b)

here m=-fv/$`\sqrt{2}`$ stands for the fermion mass.

We now assume333In the case of spontaneously broken gauge theories,there are potentially two ways of nonlocalising. The one is as shown here in this work. The other is to start from the model in an unbroken form, nonlocalize the model and then break symmetry.In the latter case,we cannot ,of course, add the gauge fixing in the Rξ-form in the unbroken action. However, the entire procedure in the latter case turns out to be very cumbersome.  that the procedure for nonlocalizing the above local Lagrangian is as elaborated in Sec. 2(A).To this end, we recall the quadratic structures in L0 and introduce the shadow fields for each of the fields in L as indicated in the following table:

| fields | $`\phi `$$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ | $`\phi `$$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ | $`\psi `$ | A | B |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`shadow`$ fields | $`\rho _1`$ | $`\rho _2`$ | $`\varsigma `$ | H | D |

Table 2

| field | propagator |
| --- | --- |
| $`\phi _1^{}`$ | -i$``$$`{}_{_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2+2$`\mu ^2`$)} |
| $`\phi _2^{}`$ | -i$``$$`{}_{_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2-M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\xi `$)} |
| $`\psi `$ | -i$``$$`{}_{_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2-m2)} (k/ +m) |
| A | i$``$$`{}_{_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$k2} $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ |
| B | i$``$$`{}_{_1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2-$`M^2`$)}\[$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$-$`\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\{1exp(`$-$`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$k2(1-$`\frac{1}{\xi }))\}`$\]; |

Table 3

| $`shadow`$ field | propagator |
| --- | --- |
| $`\rho _1`$ | -i$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2+2$`\mu ^2`$)}; |
| $`\rho _2`$ | -i$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2-M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\xi `$)}; |
| $`\varsigma `$ | -i$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2-m2)} (k/ +m) |
| H | i$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$k2}$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$; |
| D | i$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`\frac{d\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(k2-$`M^2`$)}\[$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$-$`\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\{1exp(`$-$`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$k2(1-$`\frac{1}{\xi }))\}`$\] |

Table 4

## 4 A CALCULATION TO TEST $`\xi `$-INDEPENDENCE

In this section,we shall present a calculation to test the $`\xi `$-dependence of a physical quantity.The quantity we consider is the analogue, in the context of the present model,of the (g-2) of a muon in the standard model.The calculation proceeds very much along the lines of the reference  ,where the (g-2) of the muon was calculated in the non-local Standard model.The essential points to note in this 1-loop calculation are :

(a) The quantity we are calculating is finite both in the local and the nonlocal theories;hence so is the difference. This difference is of order O\[$`\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$\] as compared to the local result for (g-2).

(b) The difference between the local and the nonlocal results is given by the various 1-loop diagrams having a shadow loop; and the total of these as seen above are finite in value;

(c) As a result, the conclusion of the calculation we are to perform below, is independent of a renormalization procedure;

(d) The local contribution is known to be $`\xi `$-independent; so that the $`\xi `$-independence, or the lack of it, is determined by the *finite 1-loop shadow diagrams.*

We enumerate these diagrams involved .These are shown in Fig.1 and correspond to the exchanges of H,D , $`\rho _{1,}\rho _2`$.Noting that vertices are $`\xi `$-independent, a glance at the Table 4 in Section 3 will show that the $`\xi `$-dependence of the result can possibly come only from the D and the $`\rho _2`$-exchange.These are the diagrams of Fig.1(b) and 1(d).

In evaluating the $`\xi `$-dependence to the leading order, the following observation about a loop integral comes handy: Consider an integral of the form

$`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}`$$``$$`\frac{d^4l}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}`$exp {$`\alpha `$( $`\xi `$)$`l^2`$/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2 \+ $`\beta `$($`\xi `$) m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2} (4.1)

We can evaluate the above integral by expanding exp$`\{\beta `$($`\xi `$) m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2} in powers of $`\beta `$($`\xi `$) m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2 since each term is a finite integral.Then, we have

$`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}`$$``$$`\frac{d^4l}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}`$exp {$`\alpha `$( $`\xi `$)$`l^2`$/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2 \+ $`\beta `$($`\xi `$) m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2} = $`\frac{A}{\alpha (\xi )^2}`$\+ terms of higher order in 1/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2. (4.2)

Thus, as far as the leading terms arising from (4.1) are concerned, the contribution to the $`\xi `$-dependence from $`\beta `$($`\xi `$) m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2 can be ignored; and to the leading order, the $`\xi `$-dependence of (4.1 ) is determined by $`\alpha `$( $`\xi `$).

With this in mind, we turn our attention to the diagrams 1(b) and 1(d).We recall the propagator of $`\rho _2`$ in 1(d) from the Table 4. We shall first show that the diagram of Fig.1(d) does not have $`\xi `$-dependent term on the leading order \[ O (m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2) \].To see this, we write out the expression for the diagram using the propagators from Table 4:

i$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$(1)α= $``$$`\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}`$\[-i$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau _3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau _3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$((p-l)2-M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\xi `$)}\]$`\overline{u(q)}`$$`\frac{m}{v}\gamma _5`$

$`[`$i$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$``$$`\frac{d\tau _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(($`lp+q)`$2-m2)}($`l\text{/}p\text{/}+q\text{/}`$+m)\](-i$`e\gamma _\alpha `$)\[-i$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau _2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau _2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$($`l`$2-m2)} ($`l\text{/}`$+m)\]$`\frac{m}{v}\gamma _5`$u(p) (4.3)

We now let $`l`$–\>$`l`$ \+ $`\frac{\tau _{1+}\tau _3}{\tau }`$$`p`$\- $`\frac{\tau _1}{\tau }`$$`q`$; with $`\tau =\tau _{1+}\tau _{2+}\tau _3`$.This gives

i$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{_\alpha }{}^{}`$(p,q) =e$`[\frac{m}{v}]`$$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$$`\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}`$$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau _2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$$``$$`{}_{_0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^1}`$$`\frac{d\tau _3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$$`\overline{u(q)}`$$`\gamma _5`$($`l\text{/}`$ -$`\frac{\tau _2}{\tau }`$p/ +$`\frac{\tau _{3+}\tau _2}{\tau }`$q/+m) $`\gamma _\alpha `$($`l\text{/}`$ +$`\frac{\tau _{1+}\tau _2}{\tau }`$$`p\text{/}`$-$`\frac{\tau _1}{\tau }`$q/+m)$`\gamma _5`$u(p) exp { $`\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\text{l}`$2-2$`\frac{\tau _1\tau _2}{\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$$`p.q`$-$`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}[\tau _3`$M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\xi `$+$`\frac{\tau _{1^^2+}\tau _2^2}{\tau }m^2`$)} (4.4)

We now recall the remark made below (4.2). The above expression, as result of this remark ,does not have a $`\xi `$-dependent contribution to (g-2) to the leading order \[ O (m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2) \].

We now turn our attention to the diagram 1(b).The expression for this shadow diagram is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$`{}_{}{}^{\left(2\right)}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$=$``$$`\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}`$$`\overline{u(q)}`$(-ig$`\gamma ^\mu `$$`\gamma _5`$)\[i$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`\frac{d\tau _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$($`l`$2-$`M^2`$)}\[$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$-$`\frac{l_\mu l_\nu }{l^2}\{1exp(`$-$`\frac{\tau _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$$`l`$2(1-$`\frac{1}{\xi }))\}`$\]

$`[`$-i$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`\frac{d\tau _2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau _2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$(($`lq)`$2-m2)}(-$`l\text{/}+q\text{/}`$+m)\](-i$`e\gamma _\alpha `$)\[-i$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`\frac{d\tau _3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$exp { $`\frac{\tau _3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$((p-$`l`$)2-m2)} (p/-$`l\text{/}`$+m)\](-ig$`\gamma ^\nu `$$`\gamma _5`$)u(p) (4.5)

For reasons mentioned in paragraph below eq.(4.2) , it is easily seen that the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ term in the D-propagator cannot contribute to the $`\xi `$-dependence of the (g-2) in the leading order.Thus we need to consider the contribution of the $`l_\mu l`$ν/$`l^2`$ term only. These terms contribute essentially due to the chiral nature of vertices and give a contribution proportional to m2.The result for terms that contribute to (g-2) reads:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$`{}_{}{}^{\left(2\right)}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$ = $`\frac{e}{2m}`$$`\frac{g^2}{2\pi ^2}`$$`\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$$`\overline{u(q)}`$ $`\sigma `$μνu(p) (p-q)ν$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$d$`\tau `$1$``$$`^^1`$$`__0`$$`d\tau _2`$$`^^1`$$`__0`$d$`\tau `$3

$``$\[ $`\xi `$-independent terms from the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$\- term + $`\frac{\tau _2}{3[\tau +\tau _1(11/\xi )]^3}`$-$`\frac{\tau _3\tau _2}{4[\tau +\tau _1(11/\xi )]^4}`$\]+\[ O (m2/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2)2 \].

A direct evaluation of the above integral shows that it is $`\xi `$-dependent.

We thus note the presence of $`\xi `$-dependent terms of O\[$`\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$\] which are the only $`\xi `$-dependent terms contributing to (g-2).

We summarize the result of this section. We considered an abelian Higgs model with axial and vector couplings. We then wrote down the spontaneously broken Rξ-gauge local action and nonlocalized the action using the recipe of the reference 6 for an arbitrary $`\xi `$.We then considered a physically measurable quantity viz. (g-2) of the fermion to check the $`\xi `$-dependence of the result.We note that the calculation of this quantity in 1-loop does not depend on renormalizations that need to be carried out.We noted that the nonlocal contribution was finite and given by the negative of the relevant shadow diagrams. We isolated the diagrams that could be $`\xi `$-dependent.We then showed that the $`\rho _2`$-exchange diagram does not lead to a $`\xi `$-dependence in the leading order contribution to (g-2). We evaluated the contribution to (g-2) from the diagram with the D-exchange and it turned out to have $`\xi `$-dependence in order O\[$`\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$\].

Keeping in mind that the mass here has arisen due to spontaneous symmetry breakdown, we see that the above demonstration of gauge-dependence has been dependent on the two features of a spontaneously broken model and of having the axial couplings: *both of which are present in the standard model*. In fact a calculation along the lines of reference 11, gives a $`\xi `$-dependent result for (g-2) of the muon in the standard model  if the above procedure is used for nonlocalization there.

## 5 NONLOCAL REGULARIZATION FOR AN ARBITRARY $`\xi `$ AND THE WT-IDENTITIES

As shown in the previous section, the general procedure of nonlocalization,when applied to the spontaneously broken local action in Rξ-gauges for the model considered there, leads to a $`\xi `$-dependent physical observable . In I , we had formulated an alternate procedure for nonlocalization of the nonabelian gauge theories and established a WT-identity that would imply the $`\xi `$-independence of the physical observables. We wish to carry out an analogous exercise here for the model presented in section 3. \[We note that since this is a spontaneously broken model,a larger class of S-matrix elements themselves (rather than cross-sections with an energy cut-off) exist.\]We shall write down the WT identities for the model and obtain $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{\xi =1}}`$.Then, in the next section,we shall discuss the gauge-independence of the S-matrix using these results.

LBRS =Linv+Lgf +Lgh

=(D$`{}_{\mu }{}^{}\phi `$)(D$`{}_{}{}^{\mu }\phi `$)- $`\mu ^2\phi ^{}\phi `$-$`\lambda `$$`(\phi ^{}\phi )^2`$-$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`_\mu `$Aν$`^\mu `$A$`_^^^\nu `$-1/4 GμνGμν\+ $`\overline{\psi }_L(i\text{/}`$ +gB/-eA/)$`\psi `$L

+$`\overline{\psi }_R(i\text{/}`$-gB/-eA/)$`\psi `$R \+ $`\frac{\sqrt{2}m}{v}`$$`(\overline{\psi }_L`$$`\psi `$R$`\phi `$+$`\overline{\psi _R}`$$`\psi `$L$`\phi `$\*) -$`\frac{1}{2}`$($``$.B + $`\xi `$M$`\phi `$2’)2\+ $``$μ$`\overline{\eta }`$ $`_\mu \eta `$-2Mg $`\phi _1`$$`\overline{\eta }`$$`\eta `$ (5.1)

has the following BRS symmetry \[arising from the U$`{}_{A}{}^{}(1)`$ local symmetry\] in the Feynman gauge $`\xi `$=1:

$`\delta \phi _1`$=2$`\eta `$$`\phi __2`$$`\delta \zeta `$; $`\delta \eta `$=0 ; $`\delta B_\mu `$=-$`\frac{1}{g}`$$`_\mu \eta `$$`\delta \zeta `$

$`\delta \phi __2`$=-2$`\eta `$$`\phi _1`$$`\delta \zeta `$ ; $`\delta \overline{\eta }`$ =- $`\frac{1}{g}`$($``$.B + M$`\phi `$2)$`\delta \zeta `$; $`\delta A_\mu `$=0

$`\delta \psi `$= -i$`\eta \gamma _5`$$`\psi `$$`\delta \zeta `$ (5.2)

The nonlocal Feynman gauge action is obtained by using the quadratic forms in (5.1) and following the procedure as in Sec 2. It reads,

$`\widehat{S}`$F =$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`${$`\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\phi _1^{}}`$(-$`^2+2\mu ^2)`$$`\widehat{\phi _1^{}}`$+$`\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$(-$`^2M^2)`$ $`\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$+$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`\widehat{B}`$μ($`^2+M^2)`$$`\widehat{B}`$μ\+ $`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`\widehat{A}`$μ $``$2$`\widehat{A}`$μ

+$`\widehat{\overline{\psi }}`$i$`\text{/}`$$`\widehat{\psi }`$-m$`\widehat{\overline{\psi }}`$$`\widehat{\psi }`$\- $`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`^2`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$-2Mgv$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$}-$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`${$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`\rho `$1O-1$`_{\phi _1^{}}`$$`\rho `$1+$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`\rho `$2O-1$`_{\phi _2^{}}`$$`\rho `$2

+$`\frac{1}{2}`$DμO-1BDμ+$`\frac{1}{2}`$HμO-1AHμ+$`\overline{\zeta }`$O-1ψ$`\zeta `$-$`\overline{c}`$O-1ηc} \+ I , (5.3)

where the interaction term I is

I=$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ {-2Mg$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$ \+ 2g(B +D)μ$`[(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)$`_\mu `$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)-$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)$`_\mu `$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)\]

+2g2(B +D)2\[$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)2$`+`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)2\]-$`\frac{\lambda }{4}`$\[$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)2$`+`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)2\]2

+4g2v(B +D)2$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)-$`\lambda `$v$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)\[$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)2$`+`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)2\]

+($`\overline{\psi }_L+\overline{\zeta _L})[`$g(B/ +D/)-e(A/ +H/)\] $`(\psi `$L$`+\zeta `$$`{}_{L}{}^{})`$+($`\overline{\psi }_R+\overline{\zeta _R})[`$-g(B/\+ D/)-e(A/ +H/)\]$`(\psi `$R$`+\zeta `$R) -$`\frac{m}{v}`$($`\overline{\psi }_L+\overline{\zeta _L})[`$$`\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1$`+i\phi __2`$’+i$`\rho `$2\]$`(\psi `$R$`+\zeta `$R)

-$`\frac{m}{v}`$($`\overline{\psi }_R+\overline{\zeta _R})`$$`[`$$`\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1$`i\phi __2`$’-i$`\rho `$2\]$`(\psi `$L$`+\zeta `$$`{}_{L}{}^{})`$ (5.4)

The nonlocalized symmetries of the nonlocal action in the Feynman gauge then are

$`\widehat{\delta }\phi _1^{}`$=2$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }\phi _2^{}`$=-2$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1+v)($`\eta +c`$ $`)\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\eta `$=0;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$= - $`\frac{1}{g}`$$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$\[$``$.(B +D)+ M$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)\]$`\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`B_\mu `$=-$`\frac{1}{g}`$$`\epsilon _{B\mu \nu }^2`$$`^\nu (\eta +c)`$$`\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`A_\mu `$=0, (5.5a)

In addition, we shall find it convenient to employ the trivial symmetry as in Ref.  .When it is added to those in (5.5a), the net symmetry transformations read:

$`\widehat{\delta }\phi _1^{}`$=2$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }\phi _2^{}`$={-2$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)2v\eta \}\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\eta `$=0;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\overline{\eta }`$= - $`\frac{1}{g}`$\[$``$.B+ M$`\phi __2`$’\]$`\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`B_\mu `$=-$`\frac{1}{g}`$$`_\mu \eta `$$`\delta \zeta `$;

$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`A_\mu `$=0, (5.5b)

We note the essential similarity with the nonlocal Y-M theory:The *linear* parts of the net transformation are *same* as the local case, while the quadratic parts of the net transformation are unmodified by the trivial transformation.We note that the measure for the nonlocal theory will be determined *with respect to these non-local transformations of (5.5b).*

In an arbitrary gauge $`\xi `$, we follow the procedure of I \[see also ref.7\] , and smear the fields with the quadratic forms of the *Feynman gauge* action of ( 5.1).The nonlocalized action then reads

$`\widehat{S}`$ξ=$`\widehat{S}`$F+$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\widehat{S}`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\widehat{S}`$ = $``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`${-$`\frac{1}{2\xi }`$($``$.$`\widehat{B}`$ \+ $`\xi `$M$`\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$)2+$`\frac{1}{2}`$($``$.$`\widehat{B}`$ \+ M$`\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$)2\+ 2(1-$`\xi `$)gMv$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$

+2(1-$`\xi `$)gM$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$} (5.6)

We shall now establish the WT-identities for this action and discuss the $`\xi `$-independence of the physical observables in it. In order to do this , we shall consider the generating functional

W\[sources\] = $``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]} (5.7)

where

\[D$`\phi `$\]= \[D$`\phi _1^{}`$\]\[D$`\phi `$$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$\]\[D$`\psi `$\]\[D$`\overline{\psi }`$\]\[D$`\eta `$\]\[D$`\overline{\eta }`$\]\[D$`A_\mu `$\]\[D$`B_\mu `$\] (5.7a)

and the source terms are

\[source terms\]=i$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ \[JμBμ+KμAμ+$`\chi ^1\phi `$$`{}_{1}{}^{}+\chi ^2\phi `$$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$+$`\overline{\lambda }`$$`\psi `$+$`\overline{\psi }`$$`\lambda `$+$`\overline{\theta }`$$`\eta `$+$`\overline{\eta }`$$`\theta `$\] (5.7b)

We then have for the gauge variation of W with respect to the bare gauge parameter $`\xi `$ keeping other *bare parameters fixed*444We shall account for the variation of these bare parameters with $`\xi `$ later in sec.6 *,*

-i$`\frac{W}{\xi }`$=$``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]}$`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{S_\xi }}{\xi }`$

=$``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]}{$`\frac{1}{2\xi ^2}`$$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`${($``$.$`\widehat{B}`$)2-$`\xi `$2M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$2)-2Mgv$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$ -2gM$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$ } (5.8)

We shall confine ourselves to the gauge variation around $`\xi `$=1:

$`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{\xi =1}}`$=i$``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]}{$`\frac{1}{2}`$$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`${($``$.$`\widehat{B}`$)2-M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$2)-2Mgv$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$ -2gM$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$} (5.9)

=1/2$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ $``$μ$`\epsilon `$$`{}_{B}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$$`\frac{\delta }{\delta J_\mu (x)}`$$``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_F}`$ \+ \[source terms\]}$`\epsilon `$$`{}_{B}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$$``$$`.B`$(x)

-$`\frac{M^2}{2}`$$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ $`\epsilon `$$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$$`\frac{\delta }{\delta \chi _2(x)}`$$``$ \[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_F}`$ \+ \[source terms\]}$`\epsilon `$$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$$`\phi `$$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$(x)

-2iMgv$``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]}$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`${$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$+$`\frac{1}{v}`$$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$} (5.9a)

To simplify this further we use the WT identity555As remarked earlier, our model has a chiral anomaly.It can be removed by adding an additional fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of appropriate quantum numbers stated in sec.3 .Then the WT below will contain additional terms that have to be carried forward .They do not however alter the discussion of gauge-independence to one loop qualitatively.  at $`\xi `$=1:

0 = $``$\[D$`\phi `$\]exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]}{$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ \[ Jμ$`\widehat{\delta }`$Bμ+Kμ$`\widehat{\delta }`$Aμ+$`\overline{\lambda }`$$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\psi `$+$`\widehat{\delta }`$$`\overline{\psi }`$$`\lambda `$+$`\chi ^1\widehat{\delta }\phi _1^{}+\chi ^2\widehat{\delta }\phi _2^{}+\overline{\theta }\widehat{\delta }\eta +\widehat{\delta }\overline{\eta }\theta `$\]$`_{\xi =1}`$ (5.10)

To simplify the algebra, we shall set $`\overline{\lambda }`$=$`\lambda `$=0; as these terms do not play a nontrivial part in the algebraic manipulations below.At the end, we shall put back the net contribution of these terms.This gives

0 = \<\<$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$ \[- Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$+$`2g\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`[(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$$`[(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$$`]+v\eta \}+\theta `$\[$``$.B+ M$`\phi __2`$’\] \>\> (5.11)

where \<\< O \>\> stands for $``$\[D$`\phi `$\]O exp { i$`\widehat{S_\xi }`$ \+ \[source terms\]}.Differentiating with respect to $`\theta `$(y) and setting $`\theta `$ = 0, we obtain the WT identity useful for our purpose:

0 = \<\<-i\[$``$.B+ M$`\phi __2`$’\](y)

+$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$\[- Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$+2g$`\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\+ v$`\eta `$}\]$`\overline{\eta (y)}`$\>\> . (5.12)

We now operate on this by (-i/2) $`_\mu ^y`$$`\frac{\delta }{\delta J_\mu (y)}`$$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$(y).

We find \[ note:$`\epsilon _B^2`$=$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$ \]

0 = \<\<-$`\frac{i}{2}`$$``$.B(y)$`\epsilon _B^2`$\[$``$.B+M$`\phi __2`$’\](y) +$`\frac{1}{2}`$ $``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$\[-Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$ \+ \[2g $`\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\+ v$`\eta `$}\] $``$.B(y)$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y) +$`\frac{i}{2}`$$``$2$`\eta \epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y)\>\> (5.13)

Now operating by \[$`\frac{Mi}{2}`$ $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \chi _2}`$$`\epsilon `$$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\eta }{}^{}`$\](y) on (5.12),we obtain,

0=\<\<$`\frac{iM}{2}`$$`\phi __2`$$`\epsilon _B^2`$ \[$``$.B(y) + M$`\phi __2`$’(y)\]+ iMg$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y){$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$(y)\]+v$`\eta `$ ) +$`\frac{M}{2}`$$`\phi __2`$$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y) $``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$\[-Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$ \+ 2g$`\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]+ v$`\eta `$}\] \>\> .. (5.14)

We now add (5.13) and (5.14) and integrate over d4y to obtain666We recall $``$ a $`\epsilon `$-2b =$``$ b $`\epsilon `$-2a =$``$ $`\epsilon `$-1b $`\epsilon `$-1a etc as easily seen in momentum representation.  ,

0=\<\<{-$`\frac{i}{2}`$$``$d4y{($``$.$`\widehat{B}`$)2-M$`{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{\phi _2^{}}`$2)(y)-$`\frac{i}{2}`$$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`^2`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$+$`\frac{i}{2}`$M2$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$

+igM$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y)$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\] -$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y)\[$``$.B(y)-M$`\phi __2`$’\](y)$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$\[-Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$ \+ 2g$`\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$

-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]+ v$`\eta `$}\]}\>\> . (5.15)

We substitute (5.15) in (5.9) to obtain,

$`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{\xi =1}}`$=\<\<{ -$`\frac{1}{2}`$$``$d4y $`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y)\[$``$.B(y)-M$`\phi __2`$’\](y)$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$\[-Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$ \+ 2g$`\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]+ v$`\eta `$}\]+ ghost terms\>\> (5.16)

where the *net* ghost terms are

$``$d4y{-$`\frac{i}{2}`$$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`^2`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$+$`\frac{i}{2}`$M2$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$ +igM$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y) $`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]

-2igM\[v$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}`$$`\widehat{\eta }`$ +$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$(y)\] } (5.17)

These can be simplified using integration by parts in the third term \[$`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$=$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\].We get777We recall that while differentiating the *net* *action,*we need not differentiate shadow fields in it as such terms vanish . ,

$`\frac{i}{2}`$$`\overline{\eta }`$$`\frac{\delta \widehat{S_F}}{\delta \overline{\eta }}`$ \- igM $`\overline{c}`$ $`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$ (5.18)

We shall now put back the fermion source terms that we had dropped earlier in the intermediate algebra for our convenience.We thus arrive at the total and simplified expression888Recall the footnote earlier about the chiral anomaly.  for $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{\xi =1}}`$:

$`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{\xi =1}}`$ =\<\<{ -$`\frac{1}{2}`$$``$d4y $`\epsilon _\eta ^2`$$`\overline{\eta }`$(y)\[$``$.B(y)-M$`\phi __2`$’\](y)

$``$$``$d$`{}_{}{}^{4}x`$\[-Jμ$`_\mu \eta `$ \+ 2g$`\chi ^1`$$`\epsilon _{\phi _1^{}}^2`$$`(\phi __2`$’+$`\rho `$2)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$-2g$`\chi ^2`${$`\epsilon _{\phi _2^{}}^2`$\[$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\]+ v$`\eta `$} + ig$`\overline{\lambda }`$$`\epsilon _\psi ^2`$ $`\gamma `$5($`\psi `$+$`\zeta `$)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\+ ig$`\epsilon _\psi ^2`$($`\overline{\psi }`$\+ $`\overline{\zeta }`$)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$ $`\gamma `$5$`\lambda `$ \]+ $`\frac{i}{2}`$$`\overline{\eta }`$$`\frac{\delta \widehat{S_F}}{\delta \overline{\eta }}`$ \- igM $`\overline{c}`$ $`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$\>\> (5.19)

We shall utilize the above equation while discussing the $`\xi `$-independence of the S-matrix.

## 6 GAUGE INDEPENDENCE OF THE S-MATRIX ELEMENTS

In section 5 ,we have presented a modified way of constructing nonlocal field theory for an arbitrary $`\xi `$, for the spontaneously broken model, by analogy with our work in I. We expect from our results in I, that unlike the usual scheme of Ref.6, the S-matrix elements with this modified regularization are now $`\xi `$-independent.In the last section, we formulated the WT identity for the model and obtained an expression for $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{\xi =1}}`$ in a simplified form.We shall now use it to verify the gauge-independence in a limited sense: in one-loop approximation and around $`\xi `$=1999We recall that the possible gauge-dependent part of S-matrix elements is intrinsically at least one loop; so we can regard within it $`\xi `$R= $`\xi `$UR=1 to this order. So we need not distinguish between the two. . We shall find it necessary to construct a way to deal with the extra ghost term in (5.19), that, as we shall see, is specific to the nonlocal theories. We shall do this in one-loop approximation.

To this end, we shall first make a number of observations:

(a) We have evaluated $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$ keeping the bare quantities \[*bare* sources,*bare* masses and couplings\] fixed. To show gauge-independence, we need to first evaluate $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`__R`$ i.e. the derivative with *renormalized* parameters and sources held fixed. Denoting by SR and pR the renormalized sources and parameters \[masses and couplings\], and by SUR and pUR, the unrenormalized ones,we can write:

$`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`__R`$ = $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{UR}}`$ \+ $``$$`\frac{S^{UR}}{\xi }`$$`__R`$ $`\frac{\delta W}{\delta S^{UR}}`$ +$``$$`\frac{p^{UR}}{\xi }`$$`__R`$ $`\frac{\delta W}{\delta p^{UR}}`$ (6.1)

To show gauge independence, we have to show that the contribution to an S-matrix element from $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{UR}}`$ is canceled by the last two terms.We verify this at $`\xi `$=1. For this purpose, we make several observations on (5.19).

(i) We can ignore the $``$.J term as it does not contribute to Green’s functions with physical polarization vectors \[$`ϵ`$.p =0\] attached.

(ii) We can set $`\chi `$2 =0, as it refers to an unphysical scalar.We can also set sources for the ghost fields to zero for similar reasons.

(iii) We can set \<\<$`\overline{\eta }`$$`\frac{\delta \widehat{S_F}}{\delta \overline{\eta }}`$\>\> to zero by the ghost equation of motion.There, we need to recall that the one-loop measure is independent of $`\overline{\eta }`$ and the Jacobian term is a constant independent of sources and does not contribute to Green’s functions \[See e.g. appendix of Ref. 9\].

(iv) The source terms proportional to $`\chi `$1,$`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ are of the same kind as they appear in the discussion of the gauge-independence of the local theory ; except that they have a modified appearance on account of non-locality.The treatment of these terms is very similar to that for the local theory. To sum up these terms contribute to (a) the two-point functions of the respective fields and this contribution is related to the $`\xi `$-dependence of the 2-point function of the wave-function of the renormalization;(b) to the on-shell physical Green’s functions in the form of *external line insertions only* ( barring “exceptional momenta” ) (c) the net contribution to an S-matrix element is canceled by the second term on the right hand side of (6.1) which has the $`\xi `$-dependence of Z’s.

That leaves us with a term of the term:

\- 2igM$``$d4y $`\overline{c}`$ $`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$ (6.2)

We note that if the local limit ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\mathrm{}`$) is taken first, this term would vanish \[ see (6.4) below\]; and thus is a new type of term that arises only in the nonlocal model.We shall show that this term does contribute to the 2-point function of the scalar $`\phi __1`$’, and corresponds to a (finite) $`\xi `$-dependence of the bare mass. In higher point on-shell physical Green’s function, it contributes again as ghost tadpole insertions and is similarly canceled by opposite contributions from the last term in (6.1).

By power counting,the above term is an operator of dimension 3. As we shall see, moreover, it can be cast as operator of an effective dimension 2. To see this,we recall:

$`\overline{c}`$=\[$`\frac{\epsilon _\eta ^21}{\mathrm{}_\eta }`$\]$`\frac{\delta ^PI[\varphi +\psi ]}{\delta \eta }`$$``$ (6.3)

where $`\delta `$P denotes partial derivative with respect to a “$`\varphi `$” keeping “$`\psi `$” fixed; and the vertical line implies that the result is to be evaluated at $`\psi `$=$`\psi `$\[$`\varphi `$\]. We can simplify this as

$`\overline{c}`$ = 2 Mg \[$`\frac{\epsilon _\eta ^21}{\mathrm{}_\eta }`$\]{$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )} (6.4)

\[ as noted earlier,$`\overline{c}`$$``$0 as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\mathrm{}`$\].Thus, this extra term in (6.2) becomes,

i(2Mg)2$``$d4y \[$`\frac{\epsilon _\eta ^21}{\mathrm{}_\eta }`$\]{$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\overline{\eta }+\overline{c}`$ )}$`(\phi __1`$’+$`\rho `$1)($`\eta +c`$ $`)`$ (6.5)

where we note *two* powers of M before the \[nonlocal\] operator.

We note several things about the operator in (6.5).

(i) We need to consider the Green’s functions only with physical external lines.Then the ghost fields above must necessarily be contracted (in a loop). Then the factor \[$`\frac{\epsilon _\eta ^21}{\mathrm{}_\eta }`$\], in momentum space, involves an *internal* momentum, and thus counts for (-2) momentum dimensions in such diagrams.Thus, it behaves, for power counting purposes, an operator of dimension *two*.

(ii) The only two-point function of physical fields,to which it can contribute in one loop is the two-point function of $`\phi __1`$’.The corresponding diagram, is by naive power counting, log-divergent. However , in view of the fact that \[$`\frac{\epsilon _\eta ^2(p)1}{\mathrm{}_\eta (p)}`$\]$``$ 0 as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2$``$ $`\mathrm{}`$, it is rendered convergent, as a direct calculation also confirms.It leads to a *finite* contribution to the $`\xi `$-dependence of the mass of $`\phi __1`$’.

(iii) When we consider the insertion of this operator in higher point Green’s functions in one loop approximation,we note that there are two kinds of diagrams: one in which the ghost loop has no additional vertices and the other in which the ghost loop has additional lines emerging out of it. The second class of diagrams contain \[1-loop\] 1PI subgraphs with more than 2 external lines.These subgraphs are convergent by naive power counting itself. In these diagrams, the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2$``$ $`\mathrm{}`$ can be taken inside.But then as pointed out the diagram contains a factor \[$`\frac{\epsilon _\eta ^2(p)1}{\mathrm{}_\eta (p)}`$\] that vanishes as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2$``$ $`\mathrm{}`$. Thus , such proper subgraphs \[and therefore such one loop diagrams which have no other divergences\] vanish as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2$``$ $`\mathrm{}`$ is taken in them. \[This has been explicitly verified for the 3-$`\phi __1`$’ and the 4-$`\phi __1`$’ proper vertices\]. Also the diagrams having a ghost tadpole ,a finite quantity, attached to a vertex \[rather than a line\], which can arise when a shadow field in the operator is expended, also vanish as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2$``$ $`\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the only diagrams for higher point functions, in which this operator insertion matters are those with a ghost tadpole insertion on any one $`\phi __1`$’ line \[internal or external\]. Such contributions to $`\frac{W}{\xi }`$$`_{_{UR}}`$ are canceled by opposite contributions to $``$$`\frac{p^{UR}}{\xi }`$$`__R`$ $`\frac{\delta W}{\delta p^{UR}}`$ with the parameter ’$`p`$ ’ referring to the bare mass of $`\phi __1`$’. We further note that in view of the fact that there are no higher point 1PI graphs surviving as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$2$``$ $`\mathrm{}`$, correspondingly, there is no $`\xi `$-dependence induced by this term in bare couplings and $``$$`\frac{p^{UR}}{\xi }`$$`__R`$ $`\frac{\delta W}{\delta p^{UR}}`$ does not have nonvanishing terms when ’ $`p`$ ’ refers to any other parameter.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

We finally summarize our results. We considered, in this work , the elegant nonlocal formulations of gauge theories of Ref.6 and applied it to a simple abelian model with spontaneously broken symmetry and in Rξ -gauges. We applied the process of constructing the nonlocal theory with a finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ starting from the Rξ -gauge local Lagrangian. We chose a theory with both the vector and axial couplings, as this mimics the Standard Model and conveys our results in a simpler context. We found by explicit calculation that when the formulation of nonlocalization of Ref. was applied to such a model, it lead to a $`\xi `$-dependent physical observable, the (g-2) for the fermion. \[ A similar result had also been checked  in the Standard Model earlier\]. We then applied the alternate procedure of nonlocalization suggested and tested for the unbroken nonabelian gauge theories .We formulated the WT identities for this model. As a test of the modified regularization scheme, we also verified the $`\xi `$-independence of observable S-matrix elements in one loop order in the vicinity of the Feynman gauge.