format: text

text:
# Poisson sigma models and deformation quantization

## 1. Introduction

A Poisson manifold is a smooth manifold endowed with a Poisson bivector field, viz., a skew-symmetric contravariant tensor $`\alpha `$ of rank $`2`$ satisfying the Jacobi identity

$$\alpha ^{i[j}_i\alpha ^{kl]}=0,$$
(1)
where $`[\mathrm{}]`$ denotes a sum over cyclic permutations of the indices included in the square brackets. Using a Poisson bivector field one can define the Poisson bracket $`\{f,g\}:=\alpha ^{ij}_if_jg`$ of any two smooth functions $`f`$ and $`g`$. Two typical examples are $`i`$) a symplectic manifold, and $`ii`$) $`M=𝔤^{}`$ with $`𝔤`$ a Lie algebra and $`\alpha ^{ij}(x)=f_k^{ij}x^k`$, where $`f_k^{ij}`$ are the structure constants in some basis.

The Poisson sigma model  is a sigma model whose worldsheet is a connected, oriented, smooth $`2`$-manifold (possibly with boundary) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and whose target is a (say, $`m`$-dimensional) Poisson manifold $`(M,\alpha )`$. The fields of the model are a map $`X:\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ together with a $`1`$-form $`\eta `$, with $`\eta (u)`$, $`u\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, taking values in the cotangent space of $`M`$ at $`X(u)`$. We will use Greek indices for worldsheet coordinates and Latin indices for target coordinates. The action functional of the Poisson sigma model reads then

$$S(X,\eta )=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[\eta _{\mu i}_\nu X^i+\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _{\mu i}\eta _{\nu j}\right]du^\mu du^\nu .$$
(2)
If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has a boundary, we choose the boundary conditions $`v^\mu (u)\eta _{\mu i}(u)=0`$, $`u\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, for any vector $`v`$ tangent to the boundary.

In Section 2 we review some results of  about the classical reduced phase space and its groupoid structure. In Section 3 we describe briefly the critical points of the action functional (2), its symmetries and its perturbative quantization and explain its connection with star products. For more details, we refer to . Finally, we comment on the action of target diffeomorphisms and on the relation between Kontsevich’s star product and Weinstein’s program based on symplectic groupoids.

###### Acknowledgment.

A. S. C. thanks the organizers of the meeting “BRANE NEW WORLD and Noncommutative Geometry,” held in Turin in October 2000, for a kind invitation to this most interesting conference.

## 2. Classical Hamiltonian approach

The action (2) describes the propagation of a topological open string. Let us choose locally a time coordinate $`t=u^0`$ and denote by $`u=u^1`$ the space coordinate. As we are describing an open string, $`u`$ will belong to a closed interval $`I`$ which we may as well identify with $`[0,1]`$. Then the Lagrangian function corresponding to (2) reads

$$L(X,\zeta ;\beta )=_I\left[\zeta _i\dot{X}^i+\beta _i\left(X_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\zeta _j\right)\right]du,$$
(3)
with $`\beta _i=\eta _{0i}`$, $`\zeta _i=\eta _{1i}`$, $`\dot{X}=X/t`$ and $`X^{}=X/u`$. The first term in the Lagrangian tells us that $`\zeta `$ and $`X`$ are canonically conjugated variables;111In order to make the discussion mathematically precise, one should actually introduce a structure of manifold on the space of fields. This requires specifying which kind of maps one takes into consideration. If one chooses the minimal conditions for (5) to make sense—i.e., $`\zeta `$ continuous and $`X`$ $`1`$-differentiable—, one can then give the space of fields the structure of an infinite-dimensional symplectic manifold locally modeled on a Banach space; in this case, most facts about finite-dimensional manifolds remain true. viz., we have the Poisson brackets

$$\{\zeta _i(u),X^j(v)\}=\delta _i^j\delta (uv),$$
(4)
while all other Poisson brackets vanish. In the second term the new variable $`\beta `$ appears. It has to be thought of as a Lagrange multiplier imposing the constraints

$$X_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\zeta _j=0.$$
(5)
We will denote in the following by $`𝒞`$ the space of solutions to (5). Equivalently, we may define $`𝒞`$ as the common zero set of the functions

$$H_\beta =_I\beta _i\left(X_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\zeta _j\right)du,$$
(6)
for all $`\beta `$ vanishing on the boundary of $`I`$ (since $`\beta _i=\eta _{0i}`$ and $`\eta _{0i}`$ is the component of $`\eta `$ tangent to the boundary). It is now easy to check that the $`H_\beta `$s are first-class constraints: viz., their Poisson brackets vanish on $`𝒞`$, i.e., upon using (5). In fact, let

$$\delta _\beta X^i(u):=\{H_\beta ,X^i(u)\},\delta _\beta \zeta _i(u):=\{H_\beta ,\zeta _i(u)\}$$

denote the Hamiltonian vector field of $`H_\beta `$ applied to the fields of the model: viz.,222The expression on the right hand side of (7b) is clearly not covariant under target coordinate transformations. However, one can easily check that the error is proportional to the constraint (5). So on $`𝒞`$ the symmetries are well-defined.

$`\delta _\beta X^i`$ $`=\alpha ^{ij}(X)\beta _j,`$ (7a)
$`\delta _\beta \zeta _i`$ $`=\beta _i^{}+_i\alpha ^{rs}(X)\zeta _r\beta _s.`$ (7b)
Then we have,

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _\beta \left(X_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\zeta _j\right)=(\alpha ^{ij}(X)\beta _j)^{}_l\alpha ^{ij}(X)\alpha ^{lr}(X)\beta _r\zeta _j+\hfill \\ \hfill +\alpha ^{ij}(X)\beta _j^{}+\alpha ^{ij}(X)_j\alpha ^{rs}(X)\zeta _r\beta _s,\end{array}$$

which vanishes upon using (5) and (1). So we define the reduced phase space $`𝒢`$ as $`𝒞`$ modulo the symmetries (7).

### 2.1. “Topological” nature of the model

The absence of a Hamiltonian in (3) implies that the system has no dynamics, so it is invariant under diffeomorphisms in the time direction. As for the space direction, consider an infinitesimal diffeomorphism of the interval $`I`$, i.e., a vector field $`\nu `$ (which we may identify with a function on $`I`$) vanishing at the boundary. Its action on the field $`X`$ is given by the Lie derivative

$$\mathrm{L}_\nu X^i=\nu X_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{\text{on }𝒞}{=}\nu \alpha ^{ij}(X)\zeta _j.$$

Thus, we can identify the action of $`\nu `$ with a symmetry (7a) generated by $`\beta _i=\nu \zeta _i`$. Also observe that $`\mathrm{L}_\nu \zeta =(\nu \zeta )^{}=\beta ^{}`$ ($`\zeta `$ is a $`1`$-form on $`I`$). Since $`\zeta _r\beta _s`$ is symmetric in $`r`$ and $`s`$ for our choice of $`\beta `$, it turns out that the action of $`\nu `$ on the pair of fields $`X`$ and $`\zeta `$ corresponds to a symmetry transformation (7).333This construction actually works only if we consider smooth maps $`X`$ and $`\zeta `$ which seems to be in contradiction with the assumptions of footnote 1. The point is that one can show that each class of solutions contains a smooth representative. As a result, the model is invariant under worldsheet diffeomorphisms.

We also observe that the actual number of degrees of freedom is finite. Namely, one may show that the dimension of the tangent space of $`𝒢`$ is finite and equal to $`2m`$, with $`m=dimM`$. In fact, let $`(X,\zeta )`$ be a representative of a class of solutions to (5) modulo (7). Consider infinitesimal perturbations $`\xi `$ and $`\varsigma `$ of $`X`$ and $`\zeta `$ respectively. The linearization of (5) then reads

$$\xi _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}+A_k^i\xi ^k=\alpha ^{ij}(X)\varsigma _j,$$

with $`A_k^i(u)=_k\alpha ^{ij}(X(u))\zeta _j(u)`$. This has a unique solution once $`\xi ^i(0)`$ and $`\varsigma `$ are given:

$$\xi ^i(u)=(V^1(u))_k^i\left(\xi ^k(0)_0^uV_r^k(v)\alpha ^{rs}(X(v))\varsigma _s(v)dv\right),$$
(8)
where $`V`$ is the path-ordered integral of $`A`$, i.e., the solution of $`V_i^j(u)^{}=V_k^j(u)A_i^k(u)`$, $`V_i^j(0)=\delta _i^j`$. The symmetry transformation (7a) does not change the boundary values of $`X`$ since $`\beta `$ vanishes on the boundary; so the $`m`$ parameters $`x^i:=\xi ^i(0)`$ are well-defined. Now consider the linearization of the symmetry (7b) on $`\varsigma `$: $`\delta _\beta \varsigma _i=\beta _i^{}\beta _sA_i^s`$. It follows that $`p_j:=_0^1\varsigma _i(u)(V^1(u))_j^idu`$ is another set of $`m`$ invariants.

Thus, every infinitesimal perturbation $`(\xi ,\varsigma )`$ determines uniquely $`2m`$ parameters $`(x,p)`$. Conversely, given $`(x,p)`$, we can first choose $`\varsigma _i(u)=p_j(K^1)_i^j`$, with $`K_j^i=_0^1(V^1(u))_j^idu`$, and then compute $`\xi `$ using (8).

### 2.2. “Noncommutativity” of the end-points

Since $`\beta `$ vanishes at the boundary, the boundary values of $`X`$ are invariant under (7a). We set $`x^i=X(0)`$ and $`y^i=X(1)`$. We want to show that, using the Poisson bracket induced from (4) on $`𝒢`$, we get

$$\{x^i,x^j\}=\alpha ^{ij}(x),\{y^i,y^j\}=\alpha ^{ij}(y),\{x^i,y^j\}=0.$$
(9)
The main problem in this computation is that the functions $`X^i(0)`$ and $`X^i(1)`$ do not possess Hamiltonian vector fields. However, upon using (5), we can equivalently define the “regularized” versions

$`x^i`$ $`=X^i(u)+{\displaystyle _0^u}\alpha ^{ij}(X(v))\zeta _j(v)dv,`$
$`y^i`$ $`=X^i(u){\displaystyle _u^1}\alpha ^{ij}(X(v))\zeta _j(v)dv,`$
for any $`u(0,1)`$. So we can compute

$$\{x^i,x^j\}=\{X^i(u)+_0^u\alpha ^{ij}(X(v))\zeta _j(v)dv,X^j(0)\}=\alpha ^{ij}(X(0)),$$

and proceed similarly for the other identities in (9). (Observe that there is no need to regularize the second entry in the Poisson bracket as it is enough that the first entry admits a Hamiltonian vector field, and then one applies this field to the second entry).

### 2.3. Composing solutions

If we are given two solutions $`(X_1,\zeta _1)`$ and $`(X_2,\zeta _2)`$ to (5) such that $`X_1(1)=X_2(0)`$, we may compose them into a new solution $`(X_3,\zeta _3)`$:

$`X_3(u)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}X_1(2u)\hfill & 0u<\frac{1}{2},\hfill \\ X_2(2u1)\hfill & \frac{1}{2}u1,\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\zeta _3(u)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\zeta _1(2u)\hfill & 0u<\frac{1}{2},\hfill \\ 2\zeta _2(2u1)\hfill & \frac{1}{2}u1.\hfill \end{array}`$
To avoid a singularity at $`u=1/2`$, we should assume that $`\zeta `$ vanishes at the boundary points;444This makes $`\zeta _3`$ continuous and $`X_3`$ $`1`$-differentiable as required by footnote 1. one can indeed prove that each class $`[(X,\zeta )]𝒢`$ contains a representative with this property.

This way we have constructed a partially defined product $``$ on $`𝒢`$; viz., we have a map $`:𝒢\times _M𝒢𝒢`$, where $`𝒢\times _M𝒢`$ is the space of pairs of classes of solutions with the end-point of the first coinciding with the starting point of the second. By the discussion of subsection 2.1, we obtain immediately that this product is associative; in fact, the two possible ways of combining three solutions are related by a reparametrization of the interval $`[0,1]`$, which—as we have seen—can be obtained by a symmetry transformation. Moreover, for each point $`x`$ of $`M`$, we have a very peculiar solution: viz., $`X(u)x`$ and $`\zeta (u)0`$; this solution plays the role of a unit at $`x`$ for the product $``$. Finally, for every solution $`(X,\zeta )`$, we have an inverse solution $`(\overline{X},\overline{\zeta })`$, with $`\overline{X}(u)=X(1u)`$, $`\overline{\zeta }(u)=\zeta (1u)`$.

The existence of all the structures described in the previous paragraph is expressed by saying that $`𝒢`$ is a groupoid for $`M`$. Actually, in the lucky cases when $`𝒢`$ turns out to be a smooth symplectic manifold, one can further prove that $`𝒢`$ is a symplectic groupoid for $`M`$. This notion was introduced by Karasev , Weinstein  and Zakrzewski . It means that some extra conditions are satisfied; the main ones are the identities displayed in (9) and the fact that $`\{(a,b,c)𝒢\times _M𝒢\times 𝒢:ab=c\}`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $`𝒢\times 𝒢\times \overline{𝒢}`$, where $`\overline{𝒢}`$ as a manifold is the same as $`𝒢`$ but with opposite symplectic structure.

### 2.4. The formal symplectic groupoid

Locally one can use (7b) to set $`\zeta `$ constant. If one denotes by $`p`$ this constant, then a point of the reduced phase space may be taken as a solution of

$$X_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}(u)+\alpha ^{ij}(X(u))p_j=0.$$
(10)
This set of equations defines globally a space $`𝒢^{}`$ that coincides only locally with our $`𝒢`$. This space $`𝒢^{}`$ was studied in  and called the local symplectic groupoid: it always admits the structure of a smooth symplectic manifold (globally, despite of the name) but has an associative product that is defined only in a neighborhood of the constant solutions. This is the price to pay with respect to our $`𝒢`$, which has a globally defined groupoid structure (but may fail to be globally a manifold).

It is possible however to take an intermediate point of view and get a globally defined groupoid structure compatible with a globally defined smooth symplectic structure but in a formal sense. Namely, we may consider solutions to (5) modulo symmetries (7) as formal power series in $`\alpha `$ and its derivatives. We will denote this formal symplectic groupoid by $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}`$. Let us describe briefly its construction. As a manifold $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}`$ is just $`T^{}M`$. In fact given a point $`(x,p)T^{}M`$, we associate to it the pair $`(X,\zeta )`$, where $`\zeta p`$ and $`X`$ is the formal solution of (10) with initial condition $`X(0)=x`$. Conversely, given a solution to (10), it is possible to construct a formal path of symmetries (7) that makes $`\zeta `$ constant. Then we set $`x=X(0)`$ and $`p=\zeta `$.555Notice however that the expression of $`p`$ in terms of the original nonconstant $`\zeta `$ will be rather complicated, though in principle iteratively computable. It will involve a formal series of iterated integrals of $`\zeta `$ and of $`\alpha `$ and its derivatives, giving a sort of generalization of the analogue expansion of the holonomy in the case when $`M`$ is the dual of a Lie algebra and $`\zeta `$ can be viewed as a connection. The symplectic structure can be easily discussed by changing coordinates $`(x,p)(y,p)`$ with $`y=_0^1X(u)du=x+O(\alpha )`$ where $`X`$ is the solution corresponding to $`(x,p)`$. These are Darboux coordinates; in fact, the symplectic structure on the space of maps corresponding to (4) is the differential of $`_0^1\zeta _i(u)\delta X^i(u)du`$ (where $`\delta `$ denotes the differential on the space of fields). Restricting this one form to $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}`$ one gets $`p_i\mathrm{d}y^i`$, whose differential is the symplectic form $`\mathrm{d}p_i\mathrm{d}y^i`$. Repeating verbatim the construction of subsection 2.3, we can define a product on $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}`$ which will be denoted by the same symbol $``$.

Let us now consider the case when $`M`$ is a domain in $`^m`$. Then $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}`$ is $`M\times ^m(y,p)`$, and we have two globally defined projections. We see then $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}\times 𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}\times \overline{𝒢}_{\mathrm{form}}`$ as a trivial bundle over $`^m\times ^m\times M`$. The fact that the groupoid product defines a Lagrangian submanifold of $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}\times 𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}\times \overline{𝒢}_{\mathrm{form}}`$ can now be expressed in terms of a generating function; viz., there exists a function $`F(p_1,p_2,y_3)`$ on $`^m\times ^m\times M`$ such that

$$(\frac{F}{p_1},p_1)(\frac{F}{p_2},p_2)=(y_3,\frac{F}{y_3}).$$
(11)
Following an idea of Weinstein ,666In terms of geometric quantization, we consider a trivial line bundle over $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}\times 𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}\times \overline{𝒢}_{\mathrm{form}}`$ with connection $`A=(y_1\mathrm{d}p_1y_2\mathrm{d}p_2p_3\mathrm{d}y_3)/\mathrm{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}F(p_1,p_2,y_3)}`$ is covariantly constant when restricted to the Lagrangian submanifold determined by $`F`$. Moreover, it is covariantly constant along the polarization generated by $`/y_1`$, $`/y_2`$ and $`/p_3`$. On the other hand, if we choose $`A=y\mathrm{d}p/\mathrm{}`$ as a connection on $`𝒢_{\mathrm{form}}`$, then $`f(y)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}py}`$ is covariantly constant along the polarization $`/p`$ (which is transverse to the above $`/y`$). we can define a “semiclassical” product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ by the formula

$$f_{\mathrm{sc}}g(y)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}F(p_1,p_2,y)}f(y_1)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}p_1y_1}g(y_2)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}p_2y_2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^my_1\mathrm{d}^mp_1\mathrm{d}^my_2\mathrm{d}^mp_2}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^{2m}},$$
(12)
with $`py:=p_iy^i`$. An explicit computation shows that $`F(\mathrm{}p_1,\mathrm{}p_2,y_3)=\mathrm{}y_3^i(p_1+p_2)_i+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\alpha ^{ij}(y_3)(p_1)_i(p_2)_j+O(\mathrm{}^3)`$, so that $`f_{\mathrm{sc}}g=fg+\frac{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{2}\alpha ^{ij}_if_jg+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$. Moreover, one can check that $`F(p_1,0,y_3)=y_3p_2`$ and that $`F(0,p_2,y_3)=y_3p_2`$ which implies $`f_{\mathrm{sc}}1=1_{\mathrm{sc}}f=f`$. Finally, the structure of $`F`$ implies that $`f_{\mathrm{sc}}g=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^nB_n^{\mathrm{sc}}(f,g)`$ where the $`B_n^{\mathrm{sc}}`$s are differential operators w.r.t. both entries.

Unfortunately, although $`_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ is defined using the associative groupoid product $``$, nothing guarantees that it is associative. This happens in some lucky instances; e.g., in the case of the dual of a Lie algebra, the above construction yields $`F(p_1,p_2,y_3)=y_3\mathrm{CBH}(p_1,p_2)`$, where $`\mathrm{CBH}`$ is the Campbell–Baker–Hausdorff formula. In general, we may expect that (12) is only an approximation to an associative product obtained by adding to $`F`$ corrections in $`\mathrm{}`$, as we will see in the next Section.

## 3. Perturbative Lagrangian approach

We now turn back to the action functional (2). Its critical points are solutions to the equations

$$_\nu X^i+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _{\nu j}=0,$$

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu }\left(_\mu \eta _{\nu i}+\frac{1}{2}_i\alpha ^{jk}(X)\eta _{\mu j}\eta _{\nu k}\right)=0,$$

where $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor. There are particular critical points, which we will call trivial, consisting of a constant map $`XxM`$ together with $`\eta 0`$.

The symmetries of the action functional can be deduced from the symmetries (7) obtained in the Hamiltonian formalism. More precisely, we can introduce a ghost $`\beta `$ (with $`\beta (u)`$ in the cotangent space of $`M`$ at $`X(u)`$ and $`\beta 0`$ on the boundary) and the BRST operator $`\delta `$ acting as follows:

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=\alpha ^{ij}(X)\beta _j,`$ (13a)
$`\delta \eta _{\mu i}`$ $`=_\mu \beta _i+_i\alpha ^{rs}(X)\eta _{\mu r}\beta _s.`$ (13b)
The BRST variations of $`\beta `$ may be taken to be
$`\delta \beta _i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\alpha ^{jk}(X)\beta _j\beta _k,`$ (13c)
so that $`\delta `$ squares to zero on shell. However, apart from some simple cases (e.g., when $`M`$ is the dual of a Lie algebra), this BRST operator does not square to zero off shell. So one has to use the BV formalism instead. A simple way of applying it to this case is to use the AKSZ formalism  as explained in . We will not enter into details here. Only observe that the AKSZ method provides a solution to the classical master equation, but one has then to check that the quantum master equation is also satisfied. This is done in  by using a regularization that breaks the rotational symmetry of the disk. If however $`_i\alpha ^{ij}=0`$ in given coordinates, this regularization is not necessary, and one obtains a cyclic product: $`(fg)h\mathrm{d}^mx=(gh)f\mathrm{d}^mx`$, see .

The main observation now is that the boundary condition on $`\beta `$ together with (13a) implies that for any function $`f`$ on $`M`$ we may define a BRST invariant observable $`f(X(u))`$ where $`u`$ is any point on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.777More generally, one can consider observables of the same form but with $`u`$ in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if $`f`$ is a Casimir function, i.e., $`\alpha ^{ij}_jf0`$. Let us consider the simplest topology, i.e., assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a disk. After picking three points $`0`$, $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ on its boundary, we may define a product on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\mathrm{}]]`$ by

$$fg(x)=f(X(1))g(X(0))\delta _x(X(\mathrm{}))_0,$$
(14)
where $`\delta _x`$ is the delta function peaked at $`xM`$ and $`_0`$ denotes the (perturbative) expectation value w.r.t. the action (2) around the trivial critical point.888Taking into account all critical points may yield restrictions to the possible values $`\mathrm{}`$ can assume. It is not difficult to check that $`f1=1f=f`$, that $`fg=fg+\frac{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{2}\alpha ^{ij}_if_jg+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$ and that in general $`fg=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^nB_n(f,g)`$ where the $`B_n`$s are differential operators w.r.t. both entries (bidifferential operators). Finally, the topological nature of the model allows us to move points on the boundary, and this leads to the associativity of $``$. Thus, (14) defines a so-called star product .

In  this perturbative expansion has been studied mapping the disk to the upper half plane (the marked point $`\mathrm{}`$ being mapped to infinity) with the gauge fixing $`g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \eta _{\nu i}=0`$, where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Euclidean metric. It turns out to coincide with Kontsevich’s formula  of which it provides a field-theoretical motivation. Let us briefly describe the Feynman diagrams of this expansion. A diagram of order $`n`$ (i.e., producing a coefficient $`\mathrm{}^n`$) contains $`n`$ vertices in the upper half plane and two vertices at the points $`0`$ and $`1`$ on the boundary: we call the former internal vertices and the latter external vertices. From each internal vertex there depart two ordered, oriented edges. The head of an edge can then land on another internal vertex (internal edge) or an external vertex (external edge).999Tadpoles (i.e., edges that land on their own starting point) would yield singular contributions and have to be removed, as usual, by renormalization. Again this is not necessary if $`_i\alpha ^{ij}=0`$ in given coordinates. Each diagram then gives a bidifferential operator by putting an $`\alpha `$ on each internal vertex, putting the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ on the external ones, and associating to each edge a partial derivative acting on the object it lands on and with its index contracted with the corresponding index of the $`\alpha `$ placed at its starting point. The bidifferential operator is then multiplied by a weight obtained by multiplying propagators corresponding to edges and integrating over the configuration space of all vertices. For more details, we refer to .

Observe that the perturbative expansion requires to Taylor expand the Poisson bivector field $`\alpha `$ and the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$, and this in turn requires choosing local coordinates on $`M`$. Changing coordinates is then rather involved. In particular, if $`\xi `$ is a vector field on $`M`$, its usual action (Lie derivative) on functions is not compatible with the star product (i.e., it is not a derivation). Its correct deformation (see ) is given by the formula

$$A_\xi (f)(x)=f(X(1))𝒪_\xi \delta _x(X(\mathrm{}))_0=\xi ^i(x)_if(x)+O(\mathrm{}),$$

where $`𝒪_\xi `$ is the BV observable whose classical part is $`_\gamma \eta _{\mu i}(u)\xi ^i(X(u))du`$, where $`\gamma `$ is a path that separates the disk into a component containing $`1`$ and a component containing $`\mathrm{}`$. This deformed Lie derivative is a component of Kontsevich’s quasiisomorphim , and using its properties one understands how to globalize the star product .

We now want to discuss the relations between Kontsevich’s star product (14) and its semiclassical (possibly nonassociative) counterpart (12). Assume $`M`$ to be a domain in $`^m`$ and let $`py`$ denote $`p_iy^i`$ for $`yM`$ and $`pT_y^{}M^m`$. Define $`\varphi _p(y)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}py/\mathrm{})`$ and set

$$\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{F}(p_1,p_2,y;\mathrm{})}:=\varphi _{p_1}\varphi _{p_2}(y).$$
(15)
Then, by linearity, we can write

$$fg(y)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{F}(p_1,p_2,y;\mathrm{})}f(y_1)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}p_1y_1}g(y_2)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}p_2y_2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^my_1\mathrm{d}^mp_1\mathrm{d}^my_2\mathrm{d}^mp_2}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^{2m}},$$
(16)
which is the correct (associative) generalization of (12). We observe that $`\widehat{F}`$ has three interesting properties: $`i`$) it is a formal power series in $`\mathrm{}`$ (i.e., no negative powers); $`ii)`$ the function $`F:=\widehat{F}|_{\mathrm{}=0}`$ is a generating function of a symplectic groupoid on $`T^{}M`$ with canonical symplectic structure—i.e., $`F`$ satisfies (11)—; $`iii)`$ the coefficients of the strictly positive powers in $`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to Feynman diagrams containing internal loops (i.e., loops consisting only of internal edges).

The first and the third properties follow from the fact that a Feynman diagram contributing to $`\varphi _{p_1}\varphi _{p_2}`$ will carry a coefficient $`\mathrm{}^{ne}`$ if it has $`n`$ internal vertices and $`e`$ external edges. Observe moreover that $`\widehat{F}`$ is defined in terms of only those Feynman diagrams that are still connected after deleting all external legs. This means that if the diagram has $`n`$ vertices, it can have at most $`n+1`$ external legs, and this proves $`i)`$. To prove $`iii)`$ observe that strictly positive orders in $`\widehat{F}`$ correspond to diagrams whose number of external legs is at most equal to the number of internal vertices; but this means that the number of internal edges is at least equal to the number of internal vertices, so that there must be an internal loop. Property $`ii)`$, viz. equation (11), is instead obtained by computing in saddle-point approximation the products $`(fg)h`$ and $`f(gh)`$ which must be equal thanks to associativity.

## 4. Discussion

In this note we have reviewed some early results of ours, in particular  and , and described some related ideas. In Section 2, after a brief description of the structures of the classical reduced phase space of the Poisson sigma model found in , we have discussed how to apply an old idea of Weinstein’s  to define a star product, see (12). At this level however there is no clue that the product defined this way is associative. In Section 3, after recalling the results of  about the perturbative quantization of the Poisson sigma model and its relation with Kontsevich’s formula , we have seen how to obtain in this context a correction to Weinstein’s formula, see (16).

The natural question at this point is that if it had been possible to find directly the corrections to (12) to make it associative. A related idea stems from the observation that (12) looks like an expectation value of a lattice formulation of the Poisson sigma model with a particular gauge fixing. Namely, let us consider a lattice of three triangular plaquettes. To each plaquette we associate a point $`y`$ of the domain $`M`$ and to each edge not on the boundary we associate an element $`p`$ of $`^m`$. We take then $`F`$ as the plaquette action. Formula (12) is then obtained by setting the variable of one plaquette equal to the given $`y`$ and by placing functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ in the two remaining plaquettes and setting the $`p`$-variable corresponding to the edge between the latter two plaquettes equal to zero (“gauge fixing”). Can this be reformulated by constructing a lattice BV action for the Poisson sigma model corresponding to the above description? It may then happen that this action does not satisfy the quantum master equation and that its iterative solution explains the higher order terms in $`\widehat{F}`$. Another possibility is that, on such a small lattice, we cannot obtain associativity which might however be recovered by taking a bigger one. How big should it be? Does it have to be infinite as long as $`\alpha `$ is not linear, or can one expect to be able to adjust the lattice size according to degree of $`\alpha `$ in the given coordinates?

Finally, the definition of $`\widehat{F}`$ in (15) has a nice interpretation in terms of quantum field theory; viz., we may absorb the terms $`p_1X(0)`$ and $`p_2X(1)`$ in the action (2). These singular terms can be regularized by removing a small neighborhood of $`0`$ and $`1`$ from the integration domain of the action and adjusting the boundary conditions of $`\eta `$ consequently. The result is an expansion not around a trivial solution but around a solution that maps the negative real axis, the interval $`(0,1)`$ and the interval $`(1,\mathrm{})`$ to the three points $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$ and $`y`$, respectively, obeying the formula $`(y_1,p_1)(y_2,p_2)=(y,p)`$ (for a uniquely determined $`p`$).


text:
# INTRODUCTION TO LOW 𝑥 PHYSICS AND DIFFRACTION aafootnote aIntroductory talk presented at the 30th International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics (ISMD 2000), 9-15 Oct 2000, Tihany, Lake Balaton, Hungary.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Albert De Roeck and Dino Goulianos for their kind invitation to Tihany and I congratulate Thomas Csörgő and Wolfram Kittel for organising an excellent meeting. This research has been partially supported by the EU Framework TMR programme, contract FMRX-CT98-0194.

## References


text:
# Spin-orbital motion and Thomas precession in the classical and quantum theories

## 1 Introduction

In the initial form the classical spin theory was constructed by Ya.I. Frenkel  almost at the same time when the spin was discovered. The main theses of quantum spin theory were formulated by W. Pauli. Later with appearance of the Dirac relativistic equation the quantum spin theory was consecutively developed.

For a long time the classical and quantum spin theories developed independently from each other. It seemed that there was no connection between them. A large number of authors, including the authors of well-known books , assumed that there was no the classical spin theory in general (see also ).

Later the Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi (BMT) classical spin equation  in accordance with the Frenkel spin equation (see ) was obtained on the basis of the relativistic quasiclassical spin theory \[8, 9-11\] and the Heisenberg equations of operators motion in the relativistic quantum mechanics (see ). After that the situation has changed. BMT equation successfully confirmed the results of experiments on precision determination of the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron , muon  and also the masses of a number of heavy elementary particles . As it turned out well to explain the experimentally observed effect of radiative self-polarization of electrons  within the frameworks of the quasiclassical spin theory as well as the Dirac quantum theory. Moreover, it was found that even purely quantum effect such as spin-flip radiation has classical description .

Nevertheless there is no united point of view about the fundamental principles of construction of the classical spin theory in the modern scientific and educational literature. There is a great variety of the classical methods of spin description, which are not confirmed with each other in many respects (see, for example, ). In this work the attempt in constructing of a correct classical spin theory was made on the basis of the general principles of classical electrodynamics. Of course, the classical and the quantum spin theories have to be correlated at $`\mathrm{}0`$.

A discussion of this problem is actual because many problems of the spin properties of elementary particles (noncollinearity of the particle momentum and velocity, the origin of the Thomas precession and emission of spin particles etc.) can be apparently resolved only by means of the classical theory. The correctly formulated classical spin theory allows also to understand more profound some of purely quantum properties of spin particles as phenomena of creation of pairs and Zitterbewegung, the problem of maximal acceleration et al.

## 2 Equations of motion of a spin particle in the classical electrodynamics

Here we obtain the equations of motion of a classical spin particle by means of the Lagrange method and the energy-momentum tensor formalism.

### 2.1 Lagrangian formulation of the problem

We introduce the Lagrange function of a charged particle with intrinsic magnetic moment in the additive form

$$L=L_e+L_s,$$

where

$$L_e=\frac{1}{2}m_0v_\rho v^\rho +\frac{e}{c}v_\rho A^\rho $$

is the well-known Lagrange function of the relativistic charged particle (see, for example, ),

$$L_s=\frac{\mu }{2}H_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }$$

is the spin addition taking into consideration the interaction between the intrinsic magnetic moment of the particle and an external electromagnetic field.

In the adduced above relations the following notations were taken: $`v^\rho =(v^0,𝒗)=c\gamma (1,𝜷)`$ is the four-dimensional velocity of a particle, $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$ is the Lorentz-factor, $`A^\rho =(\phi ,𝑨)`$ are the potentials of an external field, $`H^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu `$ is the electromagnetic field tensor. We take the metric $`g^{\mu \nu }=(1,1,1,1)`$ and therefore $`v_\rho v^\rho =c^2`$, $`H^{10}=E_x`$, $`H^{12}=H_z`$ etc. Spin tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }`$ is separated out the tensor of the intrinsic magnetic moments $`\mu ^{\alpha \beta }`$ (the Frenkel tensor) and therefore it is dimensionless

$$\mu ^{\alpha \beta }=\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta },\mu =g\mu _0s.$$

Here $`\mu _0=e\mathrm{}/2m_0c`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`s`$ is the spin number, which we put equal to $`1/2`$. It is supposed that $`g`$-factor contains the anomalous part. As known $`g=2(1+\alpha /2\pi )`$ for an electron.

The tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }`$ is space-like and satisfies the Frenkel condition

$$v_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(1)
The more acceptable functional dependence in $`L`$ is given by the formally equivalent expression

$$L=\frac{1}{2}m_0\left(1\frac{\mu }{2m_0c^2}H_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }\right)v_\rho v^\rho +\frac{e}{c}v_\rho A^\rho +\frac{\mu }{4}H_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2)
The first term contains a factor

$$m=m_0\left(1\frac{\mu }{2m_0c^2}H_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }\right),$$
(3)
which can be presented as the mass of a particle with spin. The spin mass (3) was introduced in the works of many authors (see \[7, 20, 22-31\] et al.) by various means.

Substituting (2) into the Euler-Lagrange relativistic equations we obtain

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(mv^\rho \right)=\frac{e}{c}H^{\rho \lambda }v_\lambda +\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\rho H^{\alpha \beta },$$
(4)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time. The equation (4) can be also presented in the form

$$m\frac{dv^\rho }{d\tau }=\frac{e}{c}H^{\rho \lambda }v_\lambda +\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\rho H^{\alpha \beta }\frac{dm}{d\tau }v^\rho .$$
(5)
The calculation of $`dm/d\tau `$ can be carried out only after formulation of spin equations of motion (see further) and then we can obtain with an accuracy to terms of orders $`\mathrm{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{}(g2)`$

$$\frac{dm}{d\tau }=\frac{\mu }{2c^2}v_\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\lambda H^{\alpha \beta }.$$

In this case equation (5) really takes the space-like form (see )

$$m\frac{dv^\rho }{d\tau }=\frac{e}{c}H^{\rho \lambda }v_\lambda +\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }H_{}^{\alpha \beta },$$
(6)
where

$$\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }=^\rho +\frac{1}{c^2}v^\rho v_\lambda ^\lambda $$

is the space-like derivative.

The equation (4) was obtained by Frenkel  in the other form by means of the Lagrange variational multipliers.

### 2.2 Energy-momentum tensor formalism

The density of the energy-momentum tensor of a spin particle is represented as (radiation field is neglected)

$$𝒫^{\alpha \beta }=𝒫_e^{\alpha \beta }+\stackrel{~}{𝒫}^{\alpha \beta },$$

where

$$𝒫_e^{\alpha \beta }=c_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau ^{}mv^\alpha (\tau ^{})v^\beta (\tau ^{})\delta \left(R^\rho r^\rho (\tau ^{})\right)$$
(7)
is the energy-momentum tensor density of the charge, $`\tau ^{}`$ is the invariant parameter which after integration with $`\delta `$-function

$$\delta \left(cTct(\tau ^{})\right)=\frac{\delta (\tau \tau ^{})}{c\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau ^{}}\right)_{T=t}}=\frac{1}{c\gamma }\delta (\tau \tau ^{})$$

gives the proper time $`\tau `$:

$$𝒫_e^{\alpha \beta }=mv^\alpha (\tau )u^\beta (\tau )\delta \left(𝑹𝒓(\tau )\right),$$
(8)
where $`u^\beta (\tau )=(c,𝒖)`$, $`𝒖`$ is ordinary velocity of the particle.

The formula (7) is written under assumption that a force acting on the particle is defined by the relation $`F^\alpha =mw^\alpha `$. In the general case $`F^\alpha =dP^\alpha /d\tau `$, where $`P^\alpha `$ is the momentum of the particle. Then instead of (7) and (8) we have

$$𝒫_e^{\alpha \beta }=c_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau ^{}P^\alpha (\tau ^{})v^\beta (\tau ^{})\delta \left(R^\rho r^\rho (\tau ^{})\right)$$
(9)
and

$$𝒫_e^{\alpha \beta }=P^\alpha (\tau )u^\beta \delta \left(R^\rho r^\rho \right).$$
(10)
The energy-momentum tensor of electromagnetic field is specified, in the usual fashion, by expression

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(H^{\alpha \rho }H_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta }+\frac{1}{4}g^{\alpha \beta }H_{\rho \gamma }H^{\rho \gamma }\right).$$

In the differential form the conservation energy-momentum law has the form

$$D_\beta 𝒫^{\alpha \beta }=0,$$

where $`D_\beta =/R^\beta `$. Using the ordinary manner (see, e.g., ) one can integrate the expression over the four-volume $`d\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Then omitting details of calculations 111Here we take into account that total current density is made up the current density of the charge $`j_e^\alpha `$ and the current density of the magnetic moment $`j_s^\alpha `$, that is
$$j^\alpha =j_e^\alpha +j_s^\alpha ,$$
where
$$j_e^\alpha =ec𝑑\tau ^{}v^\alpha (\tau ^{})\delta \left(R^\rho r^\rho (\tau ^{})\right),j_s^\alpha =\mu c^2𝑑\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \lambda }(\tau ^{})D_\lambda \delta \left(R^\rho r^\rho (\tau ^{})\right).$$
we obtain

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }mv^\alpha =\frac{e}{c}H^{\alpha \beta }v_\beta +\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }^\alpha H^{\rho \lambda }$$
(11)
in the case (8) and

$$\frac{dP^\alpha }{d\tau }=\frac{e}{c}H^{\alpha \beta }v_\beta +\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }^\alpha H^{\rho \lambda }$$
(12)
in the case (10).

It is easy to see that the first equation (11) coincides with the equation obtained by the Langrangian method. The second equation (12), generally speaking, differs from the above equation because the momentum $`P^\alpha `$ is not determined. In the following we shall use the more general second case. As we shall see later, the problem of agreement between equations (11) and (12) is not trivial and will be discussed below.

## 3 Spin equations and the problem of noncollinearity of momentum and velocity

Let us start by considering the successive derivation of the spin equations in the classical relativistic mechanics.

### 3.1 Formalism of angular momentum tensor

We introduce the density tensor of total angular momentum of a particle in the electromagnetic field

$$M^{\alpha \lambda \beta }=R^{[\alpha }𝒫^{\lambda \beta ]}=R^\alpha 𝒫^{\lambda \beta }R^\beta 𝒫^{\lambda \alpha }.$$

The conservation law of angular momentum in differential form is

$$D_\lambda M^{\alpha \lambda \beta }=0.$$

If we then act as in section 2.2. one obtains the following equation of motion of the angular momentum $`M^{\alpha \beta }`$

$$\frac{dM^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=\mu H^{[\alpha \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta ]}+r^{[\alpha }(\frac{e}{c}H^{\beta ]\rho }v_\rho +\frac{\mu }{2}H_{\rho \lambda }^{\beta ]}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\rho \lambda }),$$

or, taking into account the momentum form of the equation of motion (12),

$$\frac{dM^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(r^{[\alpha }P^{\beta ]}\right)v^{[\alpha }P^{\beta ]}+\mu H^{[\alpha \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta ]}.$$
(13)
Using the definition of orbital momentum

$$L^{\alpha \beta }=r^\alpha P^\beta r^\beta P^\alpha $$

we can represent the equation (13) as

$$\frac{dM^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(L^{\alpha \beta }+S^{\alpha \beta }\right).$$

It follows that $`S^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the spin moment of the particle. By separating from $`S^{\alpha \beta }`$ the factor $`\mathrm{}/2`$ we come to the dimensionless spin equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=v^{[\alpha }P^{\beta ]}+\mu H^{[\alpha \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta ]}.$$
(14)
It is also evident that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\left(d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }/d\tau \right)=0`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{const}`$ is well known spin invariant. We emphasize that equation (14) was derived under assumption that the Frenkel condition (1) is valid.

### 3.2 Spin equations in the Frenkel formalism

If, as usual, the momentum of a particle is defined by relation $`P^\alpha =mv^\alpha `$, i.e. momentum and velocity are collinear, the spin equation (14) can be simplified to

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=\mu H^{[\alpha \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta ]}.$$

This equation differs essentially from experimentally verified BMT equation since formally it does not contain in the pure state the terms with anomalous magnetic moment $`\mu _a=\mu \mu _0=\mu _0(g2)/2`$. Matters can be improved by replacement

$$P^\alpha =mv^\alpha +\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }.$$
(15)
Additional term $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ must be concerned with anomalous magnetic moment in a way. In general, it leads to noncollinearity of the momentum and the velocity of the spin particle. Taken along, this fact is not unexpected. It is reasonable that the spin particle moving along curved trajectory executes a peculiar trembling motion (Zitterbewegung).

Notice that the relation of the type (15) was first adduced in the original Frenkel theory . Thus we can say that the first definition of spin mass $`m`$ was made by Ya.I.Frenkel ($`m`$ is the Langrange uncertain multiplier $`\lambda `$ in the Frenkel theory).

Next we shall assume that the additional term $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ is space-like vector which satisfies condition

$$v_\alpha \stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=0.$$
(16)
It follows that in the system of rest the particle energy is equal to $`mc^2`$ and contains the potential energy of the intrinsic magnetic moment of the particle (see definition $`m`$ in (3)). According to (15) and (16) we obtain

$$v_\alpha P^\alpha =mc^2.$$
(17)
By substituting (15) into the spin equation (14) we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=v^{[\alpha }\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\beta ]}+\mu H^{[\alpha \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta ]}.$$
(18)
It is interesting that the spin mass drops out of the equation. To determine $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ equation (18) should be multiplied by $`v_\beta `$. Then we find

$$\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }w_\beta \frac{\mu }{c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha {}_{\rho }{}^{}H_{}^{\rho \beta }v_\beta .$$
(19)
Rewriting $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ with regard for the equation of motion (6) and the Frenkel condition (1) we obtain

$$\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }(\frac{\mu \mathrm{}}{4mc^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }\underset{\beta }{\overset{}{}}H^{\rho \lambda }\frac{\mu _a}{c^2}H_{\beta \rho }v^\rho ).$$
(20)
Thus, here we can see not only the expected anomalous magnetic moment $`\mu _a`$ but also a gradient in field term which is proportional to $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\mathrm{}^2,\mathrm{}(g2)`$ the spin mass in (20) is replaced by the rest mass $`m_0`$.

It is significant from definition of $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ (20) it follows that a free particle does not undergo the spin perturbation of trajectory. If we assume that $`g=2`$ (anomalous magnetic moment is absent) $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ will coincide with the expression found by Frenkel222In notation of Frenkel we have (see formula (22a) in Ref. )
$$\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\mu ^{\alpha \beta }a_\beta ,a^\beta =\frac{1}{2e_0c}\mu _{\rho \lambda }^\beta H^{\rho \lambda }.$$
in a different way

$$\stackrel{}{Z}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }|{}_{g=2}{}^{}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mu _0\mathrm{}}{m_0c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }\underset{\beta }{\overset{}{}}H^{\rho \lambda }.$$

For arbitrary values of $`g`$ the expressions $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ in (19) and (20) are associated with definition of the momentum in the Corben theory .

By substituting $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ (20) into equation (18) we obtain the spin equation

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }}{d\tau }=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}H^{[\alpha \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\beta ]}+v^{[\alpha }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\beta ]\rho }(\frac{g2}{2}\frac{e}{m_0c^3}H_{\rho \lambda }v^\lambda \frac{\mu }{2m_0c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\eta \lambda }\underset{\rho }{\overset{}{}}H^{\eta \lambda }).$$
(21)
This equation is written with an accuracy to terms of orders $`\mathrm{}`$, $`g2`$. The spin equation (21) was first obtained by H.Corben  (see also ). In particular case of uniform fields this equation transforms to the tensor form of the BMT spin equation (see ).

Now we can refine the expression $`dm/d\tau `$ in the equation (5). According to (17) and (12) we have 333The exact expression $`dm/d\tau `$ has the form (see also )
$$\frac{dm}{d\tau }=\frac{\mu }{c^4}w_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \rho }H_{\rho \beta }v^\beta \frac{\mu }{2c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }v_\alpha ^\alpha H^{\rho \lambda }.$$
However, it can be shown that the first term has just an accuracy of $`\mathrm{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{}(g2)`$.

$$\frac{dm}{d\tau }=\frac{1}{c^2}\left(w_\alpha P^\alpha +v_\alpha \frac{dP^\alpha }{d\tau }\right)\frac{\mu }{2c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }v_\alpha ^\alpha H^{\rho \lambda }.$$

This expression is written with an accuracy to $`\mathrm{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{}(g2)`$ since we assume that the equation of charge motion has an accuracy of the first order in $`\mathrm{}`$.

Hence, if we substitute $`dm/d\tau `$ in the equation of charge motion (5) it will taken the form of the equation (6) considered in subsection 2.1.

### 3.3 Spin equation in the Shirokov formalism

Instead of the Frenkel condition (1) many authors (see, for example, in Ref. ) use the auxiliary condition introduced by Yu.M.Shirokov  444It will be noted that the condition (3) was first formulated by Yu.M.Shirokov for spin four-vector. As it is known (see, for example, ) the spin four-vector $`S^\mu `$ is connected with tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }`$ by relation
$$S^\mu =\frac{1}{2m_0c}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }P_\nu ,\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{m_0c}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }S_\rho P_\sigma .$$
It follows that in the Shirokov formalism condition (3) have the form $`P_\mu S^\mu =0`$. Sometimes the condition (3) is called as Nakano condition  (see also ).

$$P_\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(22)
In this case the intrinsic angular momentum is specified with respect to the inertial center of the spin particle in the covariant form. The classical Zitterbewegung is a result of the fact that coordinates of the inertial center do not coincide with coordinates of the particle.

On the lines of Shirokov formalism the expansion of the momentum (15) can be rewritten in the form

$$P^\alpha =mv^\alpha +Z^\alpha ,$$
(23)
where vector $`Z^\alpha `$ satisfies the condition

$$P_\alpha Z^\alpha =0.$$
(24)
By analogy with preceding case we obtain instead of (19) the following expression

$$Z^\alpha =\frac{m}{P_\alpha P^\alpha }\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }\frac{dP_\beta }{d\tau }+\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha {}_{\rho }{}^{}H_{}^{\rho \beta }v_\beta \right).$$
(25)
With due regard for smallness of square $`Z_\alpha Z^\alpha \mathrm{}^2`$ we have

$$P_\alpha P^\alpha m^2c^2.$$
(26)
It should be noted that this relation remains valid also within the framework of Frenkel formalism.

Using the equation of motion (12), conditions (24) and relations(26) we come to the following expression

$$Z^\alpha =\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }\left(\frac{\mu \mathrm{}}{4m_0c^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \lambda }_\beta H^{\rho \lambda }\frac{\mu _a}{c^2}H_{\beta \rho }v^\rho \right).$$
(27)
for the linear approximation in field.

The expression (27) differs from $`\stackrel{}{Z}^\alpha `$ in (20) only by derivative (there is $`^\alpha `$ instead of $`\stackrel{}{}^\alpha `$). However, it is unimportant what derivative presents in the spin equations in the Frenkel formalism, $`\stackrel{}{}^\alpha `$ and $`^\alpha `$, as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^\beta =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }.$$

It is very interesting that in the Shirokov formalism the spin equation (14) has the same form as in the Frenkel formalism. Therefore, in the Shirokov and Frenkel formulations the spin equations coincide with the equation (21) up to terms linear in the external field. As far as the charge equation of motion are concerned they coincide with equations (11) and (12) in the linear approximations in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ and in field (see also in Ref. , p.51).

## 4 Thomas precession as a kinematical spin-orbit effect

It is best to perform the analysis of the spin equations of motion by use of spin vector $`𝜻`$ given in the rest frame. This vector is connected with components of the tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\alpha \beta }`$ by means of Lorentz transformation

$$𝜻=\frac{1}{\gamma }𝚷+\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}𝜷(𝜷𝚷)$$

and the corresponding spin equation has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝜻}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg}{2m_0c}}[𝜻𝑯]{\displaystyle \frac{e(g2)}{2m_0c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}}[𝜻[𝜷[𝜷𝑯]]]{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_0c}}\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}}\right)[𝜻[𝜷𝑬]]+`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ge\mathrm{}}{4m_0^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}}[𝜻[𝜷\mathbf{}]]\left\{(𝜻𝑯)+(𝜷[𝜻𝑬]){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}}(𝜷𝜻)(𝜷𝑯)\right\}.`$
This equation is known in literature (see, for instance, ) for particular case of homogeneous fields. In this case the equation of spin precession can be presented in the form

$$\frac{d𝜻}{dt}=[𝛀𝜻].$$
(29)
In some papers (see, for instance, )) it was shown that the precession frequency $`𝛀`$ consists of two fundamentally different parts

$$𝛀=𝛀_\mathrm{L}+𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}},$$

where

$$𝛀_\mathrm{L}=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma }𝑯[𝜷𝑬]\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}[𝜷[𝜷𝑯]]\right)$$
(30)
is the Larmor frequency and

$$𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{e}{m_0c}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}\left([𝜷𝑬]+[𝜷[𝜷𝑯]]\right)$$
(31)
is the Thomas precession frequency which, as known, has the kinematical origin

$$𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}[𝜷𝒂],$$

where $`𝒂`$ is the particle acceleration.

Transforming in equations (30) and (31) the electromagnetic fields to the rest frame of a particle we obtain the simple result

$$𝛀_\mathrm{L}=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}\frac{1}{\gamma }𝑯_0,𝛀_{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{e}{m_0c}\frac{1}{\gamma +1}[𝜷𝑬_0].$$

The Thomas precession  is considered in a large number papers (see \[25, 43-48\] et al.). Here we want to show how the separation of spin equations into dynamical and kinematical parts can be carried out via covariant form of spin equation (21). For simplicity, as above, we limit ourselves by the case of homogeneous fields (BMT approximation).

The equation (21) is considerably simplified via introduction of a certain effective field with physically distinguished kinematical part which meets the Thomas precession

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\alpha \beta }=\stackrel{}{H}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{2m_0}{egc}v^{[\alpha }w^{\beta ]},$$
(32)
where

$$w^\beta =\frac{e}{m_0c}H^{\beta \rho }v_\rho ,$$

$`\stackrel{}{H}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the space-like part of an electromagnetic field

$$\stackrel{}{H}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }=H^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{c^2}v^{[\alpha }v_\rho H^{\rho \beta ]},v_\alpha \stackrel{}{H}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$

Then the spin equation (21) takes the simple form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }}{d\tau }=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{[\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Pi }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\nu ]}.$$

The equation (28) for vector $`𝜻`$ is also considerably simplified

$$\frac{d𝜻}{d\tau }=\frac{eg}{2m_0c}\left[𝜻\left(𝑯_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}[𝜷𝑬_{\mathrm{eff}}]\right)\right].$$

Separating here the kinematical part of fields according to (32)

$$𝑯_{\mathrm{eff}}=\stackrel{}{𝑯}+\frac{2}{g}\gamma ^2[𝜷(𝑬+[𝜷𝑯])],$$

$$𝑬_{\mathrm{eff}}=\stackrel{}{𝑬}+\frac{2}{g}\gamma ^2(𝑬+[𝜷𝑯]𝜷(𝜷𝑬)),$$

where $`\stackrel{}{𝑯}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝑬}`$ are components of $`\stackrel{}{H}^{\alpha \beta }`$, we obtain equation (29) with separated frequencies.

Thus one can compare the kinematical field

$$H_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{2m_0}{egc}v^{[\alpha }w^{\beta ]}$$

with Thomas precession.

One can also introduce the kinematical field dual to $`H_{Th}^{\alpha \beta }`$

$$E_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }H_{\rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{2m_0}{egc}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }w_\rho v_\sigma .$$

It is interesting that $`E_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }`$ is space-like tensor:

$$v_\alpha E_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }=0,$$

and

$$E_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }H_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Th}}=0.$$

Another invariant of kinematical field is proportional to the square of acceleration

$$H_{\mathrm{Th}}^{\alpha \beta }H_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Th}}=\frac{8m_0^2}{e^2g^2}w_\mu w^\mu .$$

We note also that

$$\frac{1}{2}H_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=(𝜻𝑯_0).$$
(33)
Hence it follows that the Thomas precession gives no addition to the effective mass (3).

Thus we satisfy ourselves that the Thomas precession is a purely kinematical spin-orbit effect.

## 5 Correspondence principle in the spin theory

In the quantum theory of the Dirac particles the spin description is given via the Poincare-invariant spin operators . Thereat the operator equations of motion are obtained from the Heisenberg proper time equations with the Dirac covariant Hamiltonian . To found a correspondence between the classical and quantum equations of motion it is necessary to separate out the terms responsible for quantum Zitterbewegung. We remind that this phenomenon unlike the classical Zitterbewegung (see above) is accounted for interference of charge conjugate states (see, for example,  et al.).

The problem of separation (not exception!) of Zitterbewegung is successfully solved by means of quantum theory with definite parity of operators . It is found that the general classical relations like the spin mass (3), momentum invariant (26) and spin invariants (33) have the corresponding quantum analogues with even operators (see  for $`m`$, see  for $`P_\alpha P^\alpha `$, and see  for $`H_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$). For instance, instead of (26) we obtain

$$\underset{\alpha }{\overset{}{P}}\stackrel{}{P}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\stackrel{}{m}c^2,$$
(34)
where

$$\stackrel{}{m}=m_0(1\frac{\mu }{2c^2}H_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }),$$

$`\stackrel{}{P}^\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\alpha \beta }`$ are the even operators which correspond to $`\widehat{P}^\alpha `$ and $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }`$. Operator $`\stackrel{}{P}^\alpha `$ passes into the ordinary spin operator with external field at $`\mathrm{}0`$, spin operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\alpha \beta }`$ (Hilgevoord-Wouthuysen operator) does not contain the Plank constant. It is interesting that Eq. (34) is invariant with respect to replacement of the degree of operators parity, i.e. $`\mathrm{}`$ (see ).

Operator equations of motion for $`\stackrel{}{P}^\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\alpha \beta }`$ are the Heisenberg proper time equations with the Dirac or Dirac-Pauli squareable Hamiltonian taking into account the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron. The obtained in this way operator equations coincide completely in form with corresponding classical equations at $`\mathrm{}0`$, but provided the terms with the Plank constant in the latter equations should be also tended to zero (see also quasiclassical BMT approximation  et al.). At the same time this result means that the problem of correlation between the classical and quantum Zitterbewegung remains vague. It is possible that this problem will be solved via construction of a quantum theory with the invariant parity degree of operators, or other methods.


text:
# Localization of Kaluza-Klein gauge fields on a brane.

## I Introduction.

A possibility to treat observable gauge fields as arising from dimensional reduction of higher-dimensional General Relativity has a long history . If we suppose that the space-time is a direct product of four-dimensional Minkowsky space $`R^4`$ with coordinates $`x^\mu ,\mu =0,..,3`$ on an $`n`$-dimensional “internal space” $`K^n`$ parameterized by coordinates $`y^a,a=1,..,n`$, the four-dimensional gauge fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ can be described by the $`\mu a`$ components of the higher-dimensional metric

$$g_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\mu \nu }+g_{ab}A_\mu ^aA_\nu ^b& g_{ab}A_\mu ^b\hfill \\ & \\ g_{ab}A_\mu ^b& g_{ab}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(1)
In this simple form such an approach to the gauge interactions faces certain problems as, for example, the problem of obtaining realistic pattern of four-dimensional fermions with different charges with respect to $`A_\mu ^a`$ after dimensional reduction of higher-dimensional fermion fields . The problem of chiral fermions can be solved in models with additional fundamental higher-dimensional gauge fields fields in topologically nontrivial configurations , or in models with noncompact internal spaces .

If we deal with noncompact internal spaces, we face a problem how to explain the observable four-dimensional structure of the universe. One is forced to consider the observable space-time as a surface (brane) embedded in a higher-dimensional manifold . The idea of the “brane world” received a considerable attention recently due to new developments in the string theory. A new impulse to higher-dimensional model building was given by papers  where the possibility of having “large” or infinite extra dimensions was considered in relation to the hierarchy problem of particle physics. The observational consequences of the brane world picture for the accelerator physics , astrophysics  and cosmology  were extensively studied recently. The possibility of solving the fermion mass hierarchy , cosmological constant , supersymmetry breaking  problems with large extra dimensions was also discussed.

An important problem which must be addressed in phenomenological models with a brane universe is how the observable matter fields of the Standard Model of particle physics are localized on the brane. The mechanism of localization of fermions is known since a long time  while mechanisms of localization of gauge fields  were found recently.

In this paper we discuss the question whether it is possible to localize the Kaluza-Klein fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ on the brane and to treat them as observable gauge gauge fields. If the brane is embedded in a space-time with $`n2`$ extra dimensions there is a “natural” symmetry group associated to the brane: the group of rotations of its normal bundle. In the case of $`n=2`$ extra dimensions the brane can be treated as a string-like defect in a higher-dimensional space-time. The symmetry group of the normal bundle is $`U(1)`$ and corresponds to rotations of normal vectors around the brane. We analyze the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ which corresponds to this symmetry in Kaluza-Klein Ansatz (1). We show that $`A_\mu `$ can be localized on a four-dimensional string even if the extra dimensions are noncompact and have infinite volume, as it is, for example, in the space-times considered in . We consider coupling of the field $`A_\mu `$ to the localized fermion fields in a particular model where a four-dimensional brane is embedded into a six-dimensional asymptotically anti-deSitter space-time . In this space-time both the Kaluza-Klein field $`A_\mu `$ which corresponds to the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of rotations of the normal bundle and the fermion zero modes which have nonzero momentum of rotation around the string are localized. We calculate the effective four-dimensional fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ in this model and find that it is related to the curvature radius of anti-deSitter space-time and to the thickness of the brane.

## II Gauge fields associated to the group of rotations of normal bundle.

In the models with large or infinite extra dimensions the gauge fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ which appear by dimensional reduction mechanism (1) are not considered as observable gauge fields of the Standard Model because of the following reasons. The Kaluza-Klein fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ (1) are, in general, not confined to the brane and can propagate in the bulk. The tower of Kaluza-Klein excitations of these fields starts from very low masses. For example, in the model with submillimeter extra dimensions  the mass scale of Kaluza-Klein excitations is of order of $`10^3`$ eV which means that there must be corrections to Coulomb law at distances of order of $`1`$ mm. In the case of noncompact extra dimensions one encounters another difficulty. Consider the case of single extra dimension. A four-dimensional brane $`M^4`$ is embedded in higher dimensional bulk $`^5`$ as a level surface of some function $`F(x^A),A=0,..,5`$

$$M^4:\{F(x^A)=0\}$$
(2)
If we take coordinates $`x^\mu `$ on the brane and the function $`F`$ as a coordinate system in the vicinity of the brane, the metric on $`^5`$ takes the form

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +g_{44}dF^2$$
(3)
since vector $`\stackrel{}{N}_A=F_{,A}`$ is a normal to the surfaces $`F(x^A)=const`$. Comparing (3) with (1) we find that it is always possible to find a coordinate system in the neighborhood of the brane in which

$$A_\mu (x^A)0$$
(4)
If the extra dimension is noncompact, such a coordinate system can be chosen globally and $`A_\mu `$ can be always removed by a gauge transformation of five-dimensional theory.

The situation changes if the number of extra dimensions is $`n2`$. In this case we have $`4+n`$ coordinate transformations

$$x^Ax^A+\xi ^A(x)$$
(5)
at our disposal. Therefore we can impose $`4+n`$ gauge conditions on the metric. For example, $`g_{4\mu }=0`$, $`g_{44}=1`$, $`g_{4a}=0,a=1,..,(n1)`$. After such a gauge fixing the metric becomes

$$g_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}g_{\mu \nu }+g_{ab}A_\mu ^aA_\nu ^b& 0& g_{ab}A_\mu ^b\\ & & \\ 0& 1& 0\\ & & \\ g_{ab}A_\mu ^b& 0& g_{ab}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
The fields $`A_\mu ^a,a=1,..,(n1)`$ can not be removed by a coordinate transformation. These fields have a clear geometrical meaning. Let the coordinate $`r=x^4`$ be a distance from the brane $`M^4`$ placed at $`r=0`$. Then the fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ are the gauge fields associated to the symmetry group $`G`$ of rotations of the normal bundle of the brane. In the simplest case of a thin four-dimensional brane $`M^4`$ embedded into a higher-dimensional manifold $`^{4+n}`$ the coordinates $`\theta ^a,a=1,..,(n1)`$ parameterize a small $`(n1)`$-dimensional sphere around the point $`r=0`$ of location of the brane and the group of the normal bundle is $`SO(n)`$. The group $`G`$ may be more involved if we consider branes of nonzero thickness. The stress-energy tensor of the brane is different from zero in a region $`M^4\times K^n=\{rϵ\}`$ for some small $`ϵ`$. The surface $`r=ϵ`$ is a $`3+n`$-dimensional boundary $`M^4\times K^n`$ of the thick brane. The group $`G`$ is the group of isometries of $`K^n`$. It can be quite arbitrary. For example, in the model considered in , this group is $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$.

If we introduce a coordinate system $`(x^\mu ,\theta ^a)`$ on $`M^4\times K^n`$, the background metric (with $`A_\mu ^a=0`$) in the vicinity of the brane can be written in the form

$$ds^2=e^{\nu (r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +e^{\lambda (r)}dr^2+\phi (r)g_{ab}(\theta )d\theta ^ad\theta ^b$$
(7)
where $`g_{ab}(\theta )`$ is a $`G`$-symmetric metric on $`K^n`$. The functions $`\nu (r),\lambda (r)`$ and $`\phi (r)`$ are found from the $`4+n`$-dimensional Einstein equations

$$R_{AB}\frac{1}{2}g_{AB}R+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{AB}=8\pi G_{4+n}T_{AB}$$
(8)
where $`G_{4+n},\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are $`4+n`$-dimensional gravitational and cosmological constants and $`T_{AB}`$ is stress-energy tensor generated by the brane.

We are interested in dynamics of small perturbations $`A_\mu ^a`$ around the background metric $`g_{AB}^{bg}`$ (7). In what follows we will analyze in detail the case of two extra dimensions when there is single angular coordinate $`\theta `$. The generalization on the case $`n>2`$ is straightforward.

## III Equations of motion for $`A_\mu `$.

The Ricci tensor for the metric (7) perturbed by the fields $`A_\mu `$ (6) in the linear in $`A_\mu `$ approximation has the form

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\nu \lambda }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{4}}+\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\phi ^{}}{4\phi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\dot{A}_{\mu ,\nu }+\dot{A}_{\nu ,\mu })`$ (9)
$`R_{\mu \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\nu \phi }{2}}(A_{\nu ,\mu \nu }A_{\nu ,\mu \mu })+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi e^\lambda }{2}}[A_\mu ^{\prime \prime }+({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{2}}\nu ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5\phi ^{}}{2}})A_\mu ^{}+`$ (11)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\phi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{\prime \prime }}{\phi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}\nu ^{}}{\phi }})A_\mu ]`$
$`R_{\mu r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\phi }}(\phi \dot{A}_\mu )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{2}}\dot{A}_\mu `$ (12)
$`R_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`2\nu ^{\prime \prime }\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\phi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{\prime \prime }}{\phi }}\right)`$ (13)
$`R_{r\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi e^\nu }{2}}A_{\mu ,\mu }^{}`$ (14)
$`R_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\phi e^\nu \dot{A}_{\mu ,\mu }+e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}\lambda ^{}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{\prime \prime }}{2}}\phi ^{}\nu ^{}\right)`$ (15)
When $`A_\mu =0`$ we get from (8), the expression of $`\nu (r),\lambda (r)`$ and $`\phi (r)`$ through the brane stress-energy tensor $`T_{AB}`$. In the presence of $`A_\mu `$ the $`\mu \nu `$, $`\mu r`$, $`r\theta `$ and $`\theta \theta `$ components of Einstein equations (8) become

$`\dot{A}_{(\mu ,\nu )}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (17)
$`\left(e^\nu \phi \dot{A}_\mu \right)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (18)
$`\dot{A}_{\mu ,\mu }=A_{\mu ,\mu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
Here prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`r`$ and dot denotes the $`\theta `$ derivative. The only nontrivial equation is the $`\mu \theta `$ component of Einstein equations. In the most simple case of flat extra dimensions when the background metric is

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2$$
(20)
it reduces to

$$A_\mu ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{5}{r}A_\mu ^{}+F_{\mu \nu ,\nu }=0$$
(21)
where we have denoted

$$F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\mu ,\nu }A_{\nu ,\mu }$$
(22)
First of all we can see that the “zero mode” $`A_\mu (x^\nu )`$ which does not depend on $`r,\theta `$ and satisfies

$$F_{\mu \nu ,\nu }=0$$
(23)
is a solution of the six-dimensional Einstein equations. The last system of equations is just the four-dimensional Maxwell equations on electromagnetic field $`A_\mu (x)`$. The $`U(1)`$ gauge group of electromagnetism is identified with the group $`SO(2)`$ of rotations of the normal bundle of the brane. Indeed, let us make a coordinate transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta +v(x^\mu )$$
(24)
which rotates normal vectors to the brane at the point $`x^\mu `$ on a small angle $`v(x^\mu )`$. The background metric (20) in new coordinates takes the form

$`ds^2=(\eta _{\mu \nu }+r^2v_{,\mu }v_{,\nu })dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+r^2d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^22r^2v_{,\mu }dx^\mu d\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ (25)
from where we see that in new coordinates

$$A_\mu =v_{,\mu }$$
(26)
Since the metric (25) differs from (20) on coordinate transformation, it is again a solution of the Einstein equations.

Obviously, by the same way of reasoning, the pure gauge configuration (26) must be a solution of the perturbed Einstein equations on a general background of the form (7). The $`\mu \theta `$ component of the Einstein equations in the general case is

$`\left(e^{\nu \lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}A_\mu ^{}\right)^{}+e^{\lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}F_{\mu \nu ,\nu }=0`$ (27)
Taking the $`\theta `$ derivative of (27) and combining it with (18) we find that $`A_\mu `$ does not depend on $`\theta `$. Making a coordinate transformation (24) we can always fix the coordinate system in such a way that the condition

$$A_{\mu ,\mu }=0$$
(28)
is satisfied on a particular surface $`r=r_0`$. Then, from (19) we conclude that the condition (28) remains valid for all $`r`$. The equation (27) in the gauge (28) reduces after the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (p,r)=d^4xe^{ip_\nu x^\nu }A_\mu (x,r)`$ to

$$\left(e^{\nu \lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{}\right)^{}+e^{\lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}m^2\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =0$$
(29)
where we have denoted $`m^2=p_\mu p^\mu `$. This equation can be solved, for example, in the case of flat extra dimensions (20), $`\lambda =\nu =0`$, $`\phi =r^2`$. The modes with $`m^20`$ which are regular at $`r=0`$ have the form

$$A_\mu =\frac{C}{r^2}J_2(mr)$$
(30)
where $`J_2(z)`$ is the Bessel function and $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant.

Although the zero mode $`A_\mu (x)`$ is always a solution of Einstein equations locally, it can fail to be a global solution if the rotation invariance (24) is spontaneously broken. A simple example of this is when the flat extra dimensions (20) are compactified on two-dimensional torus $`T^2`$.

## IV Localization of $`A_\mu `$ on the brane.

If the rotation symmetry (24) is not broken, the zero mode of the field $`A_\mu `$ is a global solution of higher-dimensional Einstein equations which, from the four-dimensional point of view, describes massless gauge field propagating along the brane. The equation (29) is a Strum-Liouville equation and the zero mode $`A_\mu (x^\nu )`$ is its normalizable solution in a space-time (7) which satisfies the condition

$$N=𝑑re^{\lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}<\mathrm{}$$
(31)
In such a space-time the massless field $`A_\mu (x^\nu )`$ mediates a Coulomb-like interaction between particles localized on the brane. For example, if we take a space-time with compact extra dimensions with topology of a sphere $`S^2`$, the bulk metric is

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\frac{1}{(1+r^2/a^2)^2}dr^2+\frac{r^2}{(1+r^2/a^2)^2}d\theta ^2$$
(32)
where $`a`$ is the radius of the sphere. This corresponds to

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (33)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{log}(1+r^2/a^2)`$ (34)
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`r^2/(1+r^2/a^2)`$ (35)
and the integral $`N`$ (31), obviously, converges.

Zero mode of the field $`A_\mu `$ can be normalizable also in space-times with noncompact extra dimensions. Let us take, for example, a space-time considered in . This space-time is a solution of six-dimensional Einstein equations coupled to cylindrically symmetric magnetic field

$$f_{r\theta }=B_0\sqrt{\phi }e^{\lambda /22\nu }$$
(36)
where $`B_0`$ is an arbitrary magnetic field strength. In the case when the cosmological constant in the bulk and on the brane are zero, the space-time metric is

$$ds^2=\left(1+\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)^{2/3}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2\right)+\frac{r^2d\theta ^2}{(1+r^2/a^2)^2}$$
(37)
where the parameter $`a`$ is related to the field strength (36)

$$a^2=\frac{2}{3\pi G_6B_0^2}$$
(38)
The geometry of extra dimensions is schematically presented on Fig.1. The size $`R_\theta `$ of the circle parameterized by $`\theta `$ shrinks to zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

Figure 1: The geometry extra dimensions.

The integral $`N`$ (31) converges

$$N=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{r^5dr}{(1+r^2/a^2)^{14/3}}=\frac{27a^6}{440}$$
(39)
and the zero mode $`A_\mu (x^\nu )`$ is a normalizable solution of (29) Note, that the volume of extra dimensions

$$V=\sqrt{g}𝑑r𝑑\theta =\left(1+\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)^{2/3}r𝑑r𝑑\theta $$
(40)
is infinite so that the metric (37) does not localize gravity.

It is interesting to consider situation when both gravity and the gauge field are localized on the brane. This can be achieved in a six-dimensional generalization of Randall-Sundrum model which was considered in . The space-time is a solution of Einstein equations (8) with negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A string of finite size $`ϵ`$ is placed at $`r=0`$ so that the stress-energy tensor $`T_{AB}`$ is different from zero in a small region $`0r<ϵ`$ around $`r=0`$. Outside the string in the region $`ϵ<r<\mathrm{}`$ the space-time metric is the six-dimensional anti-deSitter metric

$$ds^2=e^{cr}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{cr}R^2d\theta ^2$$
(41)
Here $`R`$ is an arbitrary constant which sets the size of the circle $`S^1`$ parameterized by $`\theta `$. Parameter $`c`$ is related to the bulk cosmological constant (8) as

$$c=\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{5}}$$
(42)
The geometry of extra dimensions in this case is similar to that of space-time (37): the size of the circle $`S^1`$ parameterized by $`\theta `$ goes to zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$ (see Fig.1). The metric inside the brane is determined by the detailed structure of the brane stress-energy tensor $`T_{AB}(r)`$.

The equation (29) on $`A_\mu `$ reduces for the metric (41) to

$$\left(e^{7cr/2}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{}\right)^{}+e^{5cr/2}m^2\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =0$$
(43)
Its general solution in the gauge (28) is

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^0=e^{7r/4}\left(C_1J_{7/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m}{c}}e^{cr/2}\right)+C_2Y_{7/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m}{c}}e^{cr/2}\right)\right)`$ (44)
The zero mode solution $`A_\mu (x)`$ of (43) is a normalizable solution of (43) since the integral $`N`$ (31) is converging

$$N=\frac{2R^5}{5c}$$
(45)
Note that the zero mode of $`A_\mu `$ is normalizable even in a more general space-time of “global string”, considered in

$$ds^2=e^{c_1r}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{c_2r}d\theta ^2$$
(46)
Here $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are arbitrary positive constants related to the stress-energy tensor $`T_{AB}(r)`$ of the string which is nonzero even when $`r\mathrm{}`$.

## V Matter fields bound to the brane.

The field $`A_\mu `$ interacts with matter fields bound to the brane. As an example we consider fermion fields propagating on the background (7).

Consider a six-dimensional Dirac spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which satisfies the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^AD_A\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(47)
The six-dimensional gamma matrixes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^A`$ are defined with the help of vielbein $`E_{\widehat{B}}^A`$ and flat space gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{A}}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^A=E_{\widehat{B}}^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{B}}$$
(48)
(the indexes with hat are six-dimensional Lorenz indexes). The covariant derivative is defined as

$$D_A\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{,A}+\frac{1}{2}\omega _A^{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}}\sigma _{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}}\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(49)
where $`\omega _A^{\widehat{B}\widehat{C}}`$ is the spin connection expressed through vielbein $`E_{\widehat{B}}^A`$ and $`\sigma _{\widehat{B}\widehat{C}}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{B}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{C}}\right]`$. Taking the coordinate vielbein for the metric (7)

$`E_\mu ^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\nu /2}\delta _\mu ^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ (50)
$`E_r^{\widehat{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\lambda /2}`$ (51)
$`E_\theta ^{\widehat{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\phi }`$ (52)
we find

$`\omega _\mu ^{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}}\sigma _{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{2}}e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\mu }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}`$ (53)
$`\omega _\theta ^{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}}\sigma _{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}}{2\sqrt{\phi }}}e^{\lambda /2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}`$ (54)
Let us consider the solutions of (47) which satisfy the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{0}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\theta }}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(55)
and can be presented in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{iq\theta }\chi (r)\psi (x^\mu )$$
(56)
where $`q`$ is an integer. The two-component spinor $`\chi (r)`$ satisfies

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\theta }}\chi =\chi $$
(57)
while the four-component spinor $`\psi (x)`$ is chiral in four-dimensional sense

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{0}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{3}}\psi =\psi $$
(58)
and satisfies the four-dimensional massless Dirac equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{\mu }}_\mu \psi =0$$
(59)
From (47) we derive an equation on $`\chi `$

$$\chi ^{}+\left(\nu ^{}+\frac{\phi ^{}}{4\phi }+\frac{e^{\lambda /2}}{\sqrt{\phi }}q\right)\chi =0$$
(60)
which is readily integrated

$$\chi (r)=const\phi ^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\nu q\underset{r_0}{\overset{r}{}}𝑑r^{}\frac{e^{\lambda /2}}{\sqrt{\phi }}\right\}$$
(61)
The solutions of (47) must be normalizable with respect to the norm

$$\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }=d^4x𝑑r𝑑\theta \sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=𝑑re^{2\nu +\lambda /2}\sqrt{\phi }|\chi |^2$$
(62)
In the case of space-time (41) the normalized solutions of equation (60) are given by

$$\chi _q(r)=\frac{4q^{3/2}}{R\sqrt{8q^2+4qcR+c^2R^2}}e^{5cr/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2q}{cR}(1e^{cr/2})\right\}$$
(63)
The solution with $`q=0`$ with trivial dependence on $`\theta `$ grows at large $`r`$ and is not localized on the brane. But the solutions with $`q>0`$ decrease far from the brane. Here we have neglected a contribution from the region $`0r<ϵ`$ inside the brane into the integral (62). In principle, the requirement of convergence of (62) in the limit $`r0`$ will impose restrictions on the number of normalizable zero mode solutions of (47).

## VI Coupling of $`A_\mu `$ to matter fields.

The fermion field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (47) produces a stress-energy tensor

$$T_{AB}^\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{i}{2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(A}D_{B)}\mathrm{\Psi }D_{(A}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B)}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)$$
(64)
The $`\mu \theta `$ component of $`T_{AB}^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is

$`T_{\mu \theta }^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e^{\nu /2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\mu }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\theta }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{,\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\mu }}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\phi }}{4}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\theta }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\mu }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{,\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\theta }}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)+`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\phi }}{4}}e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}\left(\nu ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}}{\phi }}\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\mu }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\theta }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$
If we restrict our attention to the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ configurations of the form (56), (57), (58), then (66) reduces to

$$T_{\mu \theta }^\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{e^{\nu /2}|\chi (r)|^2}{2}\left(me^{\lambda /2}\frac{\sqrt{\phi }}{2}\left(\nu ^{}\frac{\phi ^{}}{\phi }\right)\right)\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\mu }}\psi $$
(67)
We see that $`T_{\mu \theta }^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is proportional to the four-dimensional current

$$j_\mu =\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\mu }}\psi $$
(68)
Substituting the stress-energy tensor (67) into the Einstein equations (8) we find that equation (29) on $`A_\mu `$ is modified

$`\left(e^{\nu \lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{}\right)^{}+e^{\lambda /2}\phi ^{5/2}m^2\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =8\pi G_6e^{2\nu +\lambda /2}\phi ^{3/2}|\chi |^2Q\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu `$ (69)
where $`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu `$ is the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu (p,r)=d^4pe^{ip_\mu x^\mu }j_\mu (x,r)`$ of the four-dimensional current. We also have denoted

$$Q=qe^{\lambda /2}\frac{\sqrt{\phi }}{2}\left(\nu ^{}\frac{\phi ^{}}{\phi }\right)$$
(70)
We can write a solution of this equation in terms of a Green function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p,r,r^{})`$

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =8\pi G_6\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu 𝑑r^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p,r,r^{})Qe^{2\nu +\lambda /2}\phi ^{3/2}|\chi |^2$$
(71)
The Green function of equation (69) is expressed in terms of normalized solutions $`A_m^0(r)`$ of homogeneous equation (29) for a fixed $`m^2`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p,r,r^{})=\frac{1}{Np^2}+\underset{m^2>0}{}\frac{A_m^0(r)A_m^0(r^{})}{p^2+m^2}$$
(72)
where $`N`$ is the normalization constant (31). If we are interested in the behavior of $`A_\mu `$ at large distances from the source, we can restrict attention to the limit $`p^20`$ in which zero mode solution of (29) gives the leading contribution into the Green function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In this limit

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \frac{8\pi G_6}{N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu (p)}{p^2}𝑑r^{}Q\phi ^{3/2}e^{2\nu +\lambda /2}|\chi (r^{})|^2$$
(73)
In the case of asymptotically anti-deSitter space-time (41) the normalization constant $`N`$ is given by (45) while the charged zero modes of Dirac field have the radial profile $`\chi (r)`$ given by (63). In the limit

$$cR1$$
(74)
when the curvature radius $`\rho =c^1`$ of anti-deSitter space is much larger than the thickness of the brane $`R`$, the expression (73) for $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ reduces to

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\frac{20\pi cG_6}{R^3}\frac{(q\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu )}{p^2}$$
(75)
Comparing the last equation to the standard expression of the four-dimensional Maxwell theory we find the effective fine structure constant

$$\alpha =\frac{5cG_6}{R^3}$$
(76)
From (63) we can see that the fermion zero modes with nonzero charge $`q`$ are localized in a region with a size of order of the brane thickness $`R`$. If $`R`$ is small enough we can approximate the profile $`\chi (r)`$ by delta function

$$|\chi |^2\frac{1}{R}\delta (r)$$
(77)
If we are interested in interactions of particles localized on the brane we need only the expression for the Green function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ at $`r,r^{}=0`$. The exact expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ can be found in a way similar to the one used in  for the calculation of the Green function for gravitational perturbations of Randall-Sundrum model. For $`r,r^{}=0`$ we get

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)=\frac{5c}{2k^2}\frac{1}{k}\frac{H_{3/2}^{(1)}(2k/c)}{H_{5/2}^{(1)}(2k/c)}$$
(78)
where $`k^2=p^2`$. Expressing the Hankel functions $`H_{3/2}^{(1)}(z)`$ and $`H_{5/2}^{(1)}(z)`$ through the elementary functions we get for $`A_\mu `$

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\frac{8\pi G_6}{R^3}\left(\frac{5c}{2k^2}+\frac{2(c2ik)}{4k^2+6ick3c^2}\right)q\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu $$
(79)
In the case of static configurations $`p_0=0`$ the first term in the last equation gives the conventional Coulomb law at large distances from a static source. The second term of (79) results in corrections of order of $`O(1/L^3)`$ to Coulomb law at distances $`Lc^1`$ along the brane.

## VII Conclusion.

We have considered models in which a brane universe $`M^4`$ is embedded into a space-time $`^6`$ with $`n=2`$ warped infinite extra dimensions. The Kaluza-Klein field $`A_\mu `$ associated to the $`U(1)`$ group of rotations of the normal bundle of $`M^4`$ is localized on the brane if the background metric (7) is such that the integral $`N`$ (31) is converging. In the case of asymptotically anti-deSitter metric in six-dimensional bulk the fermion zero modes which possess nonzero rotation moment $`q`$ around the brane are localized on $`M^4`$ (see (63)). They are charged with respect to $`A_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu `$ mediates Coulomb-like interaction between these zero modes. We have calculated the effective four-dimensional fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ (76) in such a model. It is expressed through the inverse curvature radius $`c`$ of the bulk anti-deSitter space and the brane thickness $`R`$. The presence of infinite extra dimensions results in modification of the four-dimensional photon propagator and in power-law corrections to the Coulomb law at the distances of order of the inverse curvature radius $`c`$ of anti-deSitter space (79).

## VIII Acknowledgement.

I am grateful to A.O.Barvinsky, V.F.Mukhanov, V.A.Rubakov, I.Sachs, and S.Solodukhin for fruitful discussions of the subject of the paper. This work was supported by SFB 375 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.