text:
# Critical temperature of Bose–Einstein condensation in trapped atomic Bose–Fermi mixtures

## I Introduction

The achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in ultracold, trapped dilute alkali gases, beyond realizing a striking and spectacular experimental confirmation of a long-standing, fundamental prediction of quantum theory, has initiated and stimulated as well a whole new field of research in the physics of quantum gases in confined geometries . Nowaday, many different atomic species and isotopes can be succesfully cooled and trapped in the gaseous state, to investigate in exceptional conditions of purity and isolation the properties of interacting Bose and Fermi systems, or Bose-Fermi mixtures.

In particular, the experimental realizations of trapped gaseous mixtures of bosons and fermions are both an interesting new instance of a quantum many-body system and a very useful tool to reach the regime of quantum degeneracy for a Fermi gas via sympathetic cooling of the fermions by the bosons . From a theoretical point of view, dilute Bose-Fermi mixtures have been the object of recent investigations addressing, for example, the determination of the density profiles of the two components in trapped systems , the problem of stability and phase separation , and the effect of boson-fermion interactions on the dynamics  and on the ground-state properties  of the mixture.

Boson-fermion interactions in a Bose-Fermi mixture can induce a net attractive interaction between the fermions, thus introducing a further mechanism toward the achievement of the BCS transition in trapped Fermi gases . In this paper we address the reverse problem, i.e. how the transition temperature of Bose-Einstein condensation is affected by the presence of the fermions in a trapped mixture. The shift of the transition temperature $`T_c`$ due to interactions in a pure trapped Bose system has been calculated within the mean-field approximation in Ref. . In the present work we extend the perturbative methods of Ref.  to obtain the shift of $`T_c`$ to lowest order in both the Bose-Bose and Bose-Fermi coupling constants. To this order the effect on $`T_c`$ of boson-boson and boson-fermion interactions are independent and add linearly. The relative importance of the two effects depends on the relevant parameters of the trapped mixture: number of bosons and fermions in the trap, ratio of the masses and of the oscillator frequencies for the two species and the ratio of the Bose-Bose and Bose-Fermi coupling constants. The calculation is carried out in local density approximation which is valid provided that the number of bosons and fermions in the trap is large. Finite size effects have not been included in the present treatment.

The plan of the paper is as follows: in Section II we generalize the scheme derived for pure Bose systems in Ref. , to include the effects of boson-fermion interactions. In Section III we derive analytical results for the shift of $`T_c`$ in the limits of a highly degenerate (Thomas-Fermi) and a classical (Boltzmann) Fermi gas, and we provide the full numerical solution for the intermediate regimes. We finally compare the theoretical predictions with the current experimental situations and we draw our conclusions.

## II Theory

In a non-interacting Bose gas confined by the external harmonic potential $`V_{ext}^B(𝐫)=m_B(\omega _x^2x^2+\omega _y^2y^2+\omega _z^2z^2)/2`$, the critical temperature for Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) is given by

$$k_BT_c^0=\mathrm{}\omega _B\left(\frac{N_B}{\zeta (3)}\right)^{1/3}0.94\mathrm{}\omega _BN_B^{1/3},$$
(1)
where $`\omega _B=(\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z)^{1/3}`$ is the geometric mean of the oscillator frequencies and $`m_B`$, $`N_B`$ are respectively the particle mass and the number of bosons in the trap. The above result is obtained using the local density approximation (LDA), where the temperature of the gas is assumed to be much larger than the spacing between single particle levels: $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _{x,y,z}`$. In this case the density of thermal atoms can be written as

$$n_B^0(𝐫)=(\lambda _T^B)^3g_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{[V_{ext}^B(𝐫)\mu _B]/k_BT\}),$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _T^B=\mathrm{}(2\pi /m_Bk_BT)^{1/2}`$ is the boson thermal wavelength, and $`g_{3/2}(x)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}x^n/n^{3/2}`$ is the standard Bose function of order $`3/2`$. At $`T=T_c^0`$ the boson chemical potential takes the critical value $`\mu _B=\mu _c^0=0`$, corresponding to the bottom of the external potential, and the density $`n_B^0(0)`$ in the center of the trap satisfies the critical condition $`n_B^0(0)(\lambda _{T_c^0}^B)^3=\zeta (3/2)2.61`$ holding for a homogeneous system.

Finite size effects modify the prediction of the critical temperature (1) resulting in a reduction of $`T_c^0`$. The first correction due to the finite number of atoms in the trap is given by :

$$\left(\frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}\right)_{fs}=\frac{\zeta (2)}{2\zeta (3)^{2/3}}\frac{\overline{\omega }_B}{\omega _B}N_B^{1/3}0.73\frac{\overline{\omega }_B}{\omega _B}N_B^{1/3},$$
(3)
where $`\overline{\omega }_B=(\omega _x+\omega _y+\omega _z)/3`$ is the arithmetic mean of the oscillator frequencies.

Interparticle interactions have an effect on the BEC transition temperature as well. The presence of repulsive interactions has the effect of expanding the atomic cloud, with a consequent decrease of the density. Lowering the peak density has then the effect of lowering the critical temperature. On the contrary, attractive interactions produce an increase of the density and thus an increase of $`T_c`$. This effect, which is absent in the case of a uniform gas where the density is kept fixed, can be easily estimated within mean-field theory. For pure bosonic systems the shift $`\delta T_c=T_cT_c^0`$ has been calculated in Ref. ,

$$\left(\frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}\right)_{BB}=1.33\frac{a_{BB}}{\mathrm{}_B}N_B^{1/6},$$
(4)
to lowest order in the coupling constant $`g_{BB}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{BB}/m_B`$. In the above equation $`a_{BB}`$ is the boson-boson $`s`$-wave scattering length and $`\mathrm{}_B=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_B\omega _B}`$ is the harmonic oscillator length. Result (4) has been obtained within LDA and neglects finite size effects.

In the case of trapped Bose-Fermi mixtures the shift of $`T_c`$, due to both Bose-Bose and Bose-Fermi couplings can be calculated in mean-field approximation using the methods of Ref. . The transition temperature $`T_c`$ of a trapped Bose gas is defined by the normalization condition

$$N_B=𝑑𝐫n_B(𝐫,T_c,\mu _c),$$
(5)
where $`n_B`$ is the thermal density of bosons and $`\mu _c`$ is the critical value of the boson chemical potential. Within LDA the boson density above $`T_c`$ is given by

$$n_B(𝐫)=(\lambda _T^B)^3g_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{[V_{eff}^B(𝐫)\mu _B]/k_BT\}),$$
(6)
where

$$V_{eff}^B(𝐫)=V_{ext}^B(𝐫)+2g_{BB}n_B(𝐫)+g_{BF}n_F(𝐫),$$
(7)
is the effective potential acting on the bosons which is generated by the external field $`V_{ext}^B`$ and by the mean field produced by interactions with the other bosons and with the fermions. Notice the factor 2 present in the Bose-Bose contribution and absent in the Bose-Fermi term due to exchange effects. In the above equation $`n_F(𝐫)`$ is the fermion density and $`g_{BF}=2\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{BF}/m_R`$ is the Bose-Fermi coupling constant, fixed by the boson-fermion $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{BF}`$ and by the reduced mass $`m_R=m_Bm_F/(m_B+m_F)`$, where $`m_F`$ is the fermion mass.

For a fixed value of the boson chemical potential $`\mu _B`$ and a fixed temperature $`T`$, the boson density (6) can be expanded to first order in $`g_{BB}`$ and $`g_{BF}`$ as

$$n_B(𝐫,T,\mu _B)=n_B^0(𝐫,T,\mu _B)[2g_{BB}n_B^0(𝐫)+g_{BF}n_F^0(𝐫)]\frac{n_B^0}{\mu _B},$$
(8)
in terms of the non-interacting boson (2) and fermion density

$$n_F^0(𝐫)=(\lambda _T^F)^3f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{[V_{ext}^F(𝐫)\mu _F]/k_BT\}).$$
(9)
In the above equation $`\lambda _T^F=\mathrm{}(2\pi /m_Fk_BT)^{1/2}`$ is the fermion thermal wavelength, and $`f_{3/2}(x)`$ is the Fermi function of order $`3/2`$ defined as

$$f_{3/2}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{\sqrt{z}}{e^z/x+1}.$$
(10)
Result (9) has been obtained in LDA for a Fermi gas in the trapping potential $`V_{ext}^F(𝐫)=m_F(\omega _x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x^2+\omega _y^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}y^2+\omega _z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}z^2)/2`$. The fermion chemical potential $`\mu _F`$ is fixed by the normalization condition

$$N_F=𝑑𝐫n_F^0(𝐫),$$
(11)
where $`N_F`$ is the total number of fermions in the trap. The condition of validity for LDA requires the Fermi temperature of the fermionic system to be much larger than the harmonic oscillator energies $`k_BT_F\mathrm{}\omega _{x,y,z}^{}`$. For a non-interacting trapped Fermi system the Fermi temperature, or equivalently the Fermi energy, is given by $`k_BT_F=ϵ_F=\mathrm{}\omega _F(6N_F)^{1/3}`$, where $`\omega _F=(\omega _x^{}\omega _y^{}\omega _z^{})^{1/3}`$ is the geometric mean of the fermion oscillator frequencies.

To first order in $`g_{BB}`$ and $`g_{BF}`$, the critical value $`\mu _c`$ of the boson chemical potential can be written as

$$\mu _c=\mu _c^0+2g_{BB}n_B^0(𝐫=0)+g_{BF}n_F^0(𝐫=0).$$
(12)
By writing $`T_c=T_c^0+\delta T_c`$, one can expand Eq. (5) obtaining the following result for the total relative shift of the condensation temperature:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}}\right)_{BB}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}}\right)_{BF}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_{BB}}{T_c^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑𝐫n_B^0/\mu _B[n_B^0(𝐫=0)n_B^0(𝐫)]}{𝑑𝐫n_B^0/T}}`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{BF}}{T_c^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑𝐫n_B^0/\mu _B[n_F^0(𝐫=0)n_F^0(𝐫)]}{𝑑𝐫n_B^0/T}},`$ (14)
where the derivatives of the non-interacting boson and fermion densities $`n_B^0`$ and $`n_F^0`$ are evaluated at the ideal critical point $`\mu _c^0=0`$, $`T=T_c^0`$. The first term $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BB}`$ in the above equation accounts for interaction effects among the bosons and coincides with the shift (4). The second term $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BF}`$ accounts instead for interaction effects between bosons and fermions, and its determination will constitute the main result of the present paper. Some comments are in order here. (i) The shift $`\delta T_c`$ derived above is a mean-field effect which originates from the fact that in a trapped Bose-Fermi mixture the total number of bosons and the total number of fermions are fixed, but not the density profiles of the two species. This effect is peculiar of trapped systems, since it vanishes identically in the case of uniform systems, and should not be confused with the shift of $`T_c`$ occurring in homogeneous Bose systems, which is instead due to many-body effects . (ii) The shift originating from the Bose-Fermi coupling, similarly to the one arising from the Bose-Bose one, is negative if $`g_{BF}>0`$ and is positive if $`g_{BF}<0`$. If $`a_{BB}`$ and $`a_{BF}`$ have opposite sign, the corresponding shifts of $`T_c`$ go in opposite directions. (iii) Result (14) holds to lowest order in $`g_{BB}`$ and $`g_{BF}`$ and, since it has been obtained using LDA, is exact if the number of bosons and fermions is large. Finite-size corrections are not included in (14). For a finite system, a reasonable estimate of the total shift of the critical temperature can be obtained by adding to result (14) the finite-size correction (3) of the non-interacting model.

## III Results

We now concentrate on the relative shift $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BF}`$ due to the boson-fermion interaction. First of all we observe that

$$\frac{n_B^0(𝐫)}{\mu _B}=\frac{1}{(\lambda _{T_c^0}^B)^3k_BT_c^0}g_{1/2}(\mathrm{exp}[V_{ext}^B(𝐫)/k_BT_c^0]),$$
(15)
and $`T_c^0𝑑𝐫n_B^0/T=3N_B`$, where the derivatives are evaluated at the condensation point of the non-interacting gas $`\mu _c^0=0`$, $`T=T_c^0`$. Using Eq. (9), the relative shift can then be rewritten as:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}}\right)_{BF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{BF}}{3N_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\lambda _{T_c^0}^B)^3(\lambda _{T_c^0}^F)^3k_BT_c^0}}`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫g_{1/2}(\mathrm{exp}[V_{ext}^B(𝐫)/k_BT_c^0])}`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`[f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\mu _F/k_BT_c\})f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{[\mu _FV_{ext}^F(𝐫)]/k_BT_c^0\})].`$ (18)
In the following we shall assume that even if the trapping potentials of bosons and fermions can have different oscillator frequencies, nevertheless $`\omega _x/\omega _x^{}=\omega _y/\omega _y^{}=\omega _z/\omega _z^{}=\omega _B/\omega _F`$, i.e. the anisotropy is the same for the bosonic and fermionic trapping potentials. This is always the case in today’s experiments, and assuming otherwise would introduce unnecessary complications. In fact, the assumption of equal anisotropies holds in general in magnetic traps since the confining potentials depend only on the (common) external magnetic field, the magnetic moments, and the masses of the atoms. Eq. (18) contains the fermion chemical potential $`\mu _F(N_F,T_c^0)`$ which has to be determined from Eq. (11). Eqs. (18) and (11) have then to be solved simultaneously. We notice that Eq. (11) can be rewritten in dimensionless form as

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_F^3=3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\mathrm{exp}(t\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F)+1}},`$ (19)
where we have introduced the reduced chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F=\mu _F/k_BT_c^0`$ and the reduced Fermi temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F=T_F/T_c^0`$. Eq. (19) reveals that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F`$ is only a function of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$, which in turn is a measure of the degeneracy of the Fermi gas at $`T=T_c^0`$. In terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ Eq. (18) then becomes

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}}\right)_{BF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi g_{BF}}{3N_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_F^3}{(\lambda _{T_c^0}^B)^3(\lambda _{T_c^0}^F)^3k_BT_c^0}}`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ss^2g_{1/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha s^2\})}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`[f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\})f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\stackrel{~}{T}_Fs^2\})].`$ (22)
In writing Eq. (22) we have rescaled each integration coordinate by the appropriate Thomas-Fermi radius of the fermion cloud $`R_i^{}=(2ϵ_F/m_F\omega _i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^{1/2}`$. We have then introduced the mean Fermi radius $`R_F=(R_x^{}R_y^{}R_z^{})^{1/3}`$ and named $`\alpha =m_B\omega _B^2/m_F\omega _F^2`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F`$ depends only on $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ through Eq. (19), the integral in Eq. (22) above depends only on the values of the two parameters $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ and $`\alpha `$.

The system of Eqs. (22) and (19) for general $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ and $`\alpha `$ can only be solved numerically, and later we shall present the full numerical results for some specific choices of the parameters. However, analytical solutions exist in two limits: when $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$ (i.e. $`T_FT_c^0`$) where the Fermi gas is completely degenerate at $`T=T_c^0`$ (Thomas-Fermi regime), and when $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$ (i.e. $`T_FT_c^0`$) so that at $`T_c^0`$ fermions behave as a classical gas (Boltzmann regime).

In order to clarify the connection between the two limits and the general numerical solution, it is useful to further manipulate Eq. (22). By explicitly evaluating the prefactor, it can be finally recast in the convenient form

$$\left(\frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}\right)_{BF}=\frac{2^{5/3}}{3^{5/6}\pi \zeta (3)}\left(\frac{m_F}{m_B}+1\right)\frac{a_{BF}}{\mathrm{}_F}N_F^{1/6}F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha ),$$
(23)
where

$`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{T}_F{\displaystyle 𝑑ss^2g_{1/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha s^2\})}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`[f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\})f_{3/2}(\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\stackrel{~}{T}_Fs^2\})],`$ (25)
and $`\mathrm{}_F=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_F\omega _F}`$ is the fermionic oscillator length. Notice the formal analogy between Eq. (23) and Eq. (4) for the shift $`(\delta T_c/T_c^0)_{BB}`$ due to the boson-boson interactions alone.

Let us begin by considering the Thomas-Fermi limit ($`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$). In this limit the chemical potential of the fermions $`\mu _F`$ tends to the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F=k_BT_F`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$. The limit of the Fermi functions in Eq. (10) for $`x\mathrm{}`$ is $`f_{3/2}(x)4(\mathrm{ln}x)^{3/2}/3\sqrt{\pi }`$. This implies that the density profile of the fermion cloud takes the well known Thomas-Fermi shape

$$n_F^0(𝐫)=n_F^0(0)\left[1(x/R_x^{})^2(y/R_y^{})^2(z/R_z^{})^2\right]^{3/2},$$
(26)
with $`n_F^0(0)=(2ϵ_Fm_F/\mathrm{}^2)^{3/2}/(6\pi ^2)`$, whenever the expression inside the square brackets is positive, and $`n_F^0(𝐫)=0`$ otherwise.

The function $`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ then goes to the limiting form

$`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi }}}\alpha ^{3/2}(\stackrel{~}{T}_F)^{5/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ss^2`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`e^{n\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha s^2}[1(1s^2)^{3/2}],`$ (28)
since $`g_{1/2}(x)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}x^n/n^{1/2}`$.

We obtained Eq. (28) in the limit $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$. Therefore, if $`\alpha `$ is not too small (so that $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha 1`$ still holds), then, for every $`n`$ in the series, the exponential is non-vanishing only for values of $`s1`$, and we can adopt the expansion $`1(1s^2)^{3/2}3s^2/2`$. The integral in Eq. (28) becomes $`_0^1𝑑ss^4e^{n\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha s^2}3\sqrt{\pi }/[8(n\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha )^{5/2}]`$. Finally, therefore, $`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )3\zeta (3)/4\alpha `$ and the Thomas-Fermi prediction for the relative shift reads

$$\left(\frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}\right)_{BF}=\frac{3^{1/6}}{2^{1/3}\pi }\left(\frac{m_F}{m_B}+1\right)\frac{m_F\omega _F^2}{m_B\omega _B^2}\frac{a_{BF}}{\mathrm{}_F}N_F^{1/6},$$
(29)
where $`3^{1/6}/(2^{1/3}\pi )0.304`$. We notice that in the Thomas-Fermi regime the shift is independent of the number of bosons $`N_B`$ and varies as the first inverse power of the parameter $`\alpha =m_B\omega _B^2/m_F\omega _F^2`$.

We now consider the Boltzmann limit for the Fermi gas ($`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$). In this case the chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F`$ is large and negative and depends on $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ as: $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_F\mathrm{ln}\{(\stackrel{~}{T_F})^3/6\}`$. In the limit $`x0`$, $`f_{3/2}(x)x`$, and then

$`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{3/2}(\stackrel{~}{T}_F)^4}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss^2`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`\left[e^{n\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha s^2}e^{(n\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha +\stackrel{~}{T}_F)s^2}\right].`$ (31)
Evaluation of the integrals is straightforward and yields

$$F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{24}(\stackrel{~}{T}_F)^{5/2}f(\alpha ),$$
(32)
with

$$f(\alpha )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\frac{1}{n^{1/2}(n+\alpha ^1)^{3/2}}\right),$$
(33)
so that:

$$\left(\frac{\delta T_c}{T_c^0}\right)_{BF}=\frac{1}{2^{4/3}\pi ^{1/2}3^{11/6}\zeta (3)}\left(\frac{m_F}{m_B}+1\right)\frac{a_{BF}}{\mathrm{}_F}N_F^{1/6}(\stackrel{~}{T}_F)^{5/2}f(\alpha ),$$
(34)
where the numerical prefactor is $`0.025`$.

We notice that $`f(\alpha )`$ in Eq. (33) is a monotonically decreasing function of $`\alpha `$. In particular, one finds the following behaviours: $`f(\alpha 0)=\pi ^2/6`$, $`f(1)0.85`$, and $`f(\alpha \mathrm{})=3\zeta (3)/2\alpha `$. As one should expect, in the Boltzmann limit ($`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$), the Bose-Fermi shift is negligible.

We now turn to the full numerical solution of Eqs. (23), (25), and (19) for more general values of the degeneracy parameter $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$. In Fig. 1 we show the dimensionless function $`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ for three different values of the parameter $`\alpha =m_B\omega _B^2/m_F\omega _F^2`$, $`\alpha =0.1`$, $`1`$, and $`10`$. For fixed $`\alpha `$, $`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ is a monotonically nondecreasing function of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$, which saturates for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F\mathrm{}`$ at the value predicted in the Thomas-Fermi regime $`3\zeta (3)/4\alpha 0.9\alpha ^1`$. For fixed $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$, $`F(\stackrel{~}{T}_F,\alpha )`$ increases by decreasing $`\alpha `$. For the largest value of $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =10`$) the function $`F`$ reaches its asymptotic Thomas-Fermi value already at $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F5`$. For $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\alpha =0.1`$ the function saturates for larger values of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F`$ not shown in the figure. The reason for this difference can be understood by recalling that the Thomas-Fermi result requires not only $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$, but also $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F\alpha ^1`$ (see the discussion below Eq. (28)).

The physically relevant regimes in current experiments fall roughly around $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F1`$. In this respect, a particularly interesting situation is the one realized in the Florence experiment , where a quantum degenerate trapped atomic mixture of fermionic <sup>40</sup>K and bosonic <sup>87</sup>Rb has been recently produced. One of the appealing features of this system is that the measured boson-fermion scattering length is large and negative: $`a_{BF}=22`$ nm, giving rise to a fairly strong attractive boson-fermion interaction. The shift $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BF}`$ is thus positive and opposite to the shift $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BB}`$, since for pure <sup>87</sup>Rb the boson-boson scattering length is $`a_{BB}=6`$ nm, giving rise to a repulsive boson-boson interaction. In the Florence experiment the two atomic species are magnetically trapped, and are both prepared in their doubly polarized spin state. These states experience the same trapping potential so that $`\alpha =m_B\omega _B^2/m_F\omega _F^2=1`$, while the number of bosons and of fermions are respectively $`N_B=2\times 10^4`$, $`N_F=10^4`$, so that $`N_F/N_B=0.5`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F=T_F/T_c^02.3`$. For the conditions of the Florence experiment the shift (4) due to the boson-boson coupling turns out to be: $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BB}0.037`$, and is comparable with the shift (3) due to finite size effects, which is given by: $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{fs}=0.044`$. For $`\alpha =1`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{T}_F2.3`$ the function $`F`$ is at about 1/3 of its asymptotic value in the Thomas-Fermi regime, resulting in a Bose-Fermi shift considerably smaller than the Bose-Bose one: $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BF}0.012`$. In Fig. 2 we show the shift $`\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BF}`$ as a function of the ratio $`N_F/N_B`$, with all the other parameters entering Eq. (23) fixed at the values of the Florence experiment . In the same figure we include as a reference value the modulus of the boson-boson relative shift $`|\left(\delta T_c/T_c^0\right)_{BB}|`$, calculated using the values of the parameters given by the Florence experiment.

From Fig. 2 we see that, while in the present experimental situation the boson-fermion shift is about $`1/3`$ of the boson-boson one, by increasing the number of trapped fermions the two shifts become comparable at $`N_F5N_B`$. The boson-fermion shift is instead dominant at still larger values of $`N_F`$. It is important to remark that, even if the Bose-Fermi shift of the critical temperature is a small effect for the present experimental conditions, it might be observable. Since the fermions can be eliminated from the trap, one can look for the differences in the transition temperature with and without fermions.

In conclusion, we have determined the relative shift of the critical temperature of Bose-Einstein condensation in a trapped atomic Bose-Fermi mixture to lowest order in both the boson-boson and the boson-fermion coupling constants. We have determined numerically the general behaviour of the boson-fermion shift, and we have provided full analytical solutions in the quantum degenerate Thomas-Fermi regime and in the classical Boltzmann regime. We have applied our predictions to a specific experiment (the Florence experiment , chosen for the interesting value of the Bose-Fermi scattering length), and discussed the relative importance of the shifts due to boson-boson and boson-fermion interactions.


format: text

text:
# A new mechanism for a naturally small Dirac neutrino mass

## Abstract

A mechanism is proposed in which a right-handed neutrino zero mode and a right-handed charged lepton zero mode can be localized at the same place along an extra compact dimension while having markedly different spreads in their wave functions: a relatively narrow one for the neutrino and a rather broad one for the charged lepton. In their overlaps with the wave function for the left-handed zero modes, this mechanism could produce a natural large hierarchy in the effective Yukawa couplings in four dimensions, and hence a large disparity in masses.

The possibility that a neutrino has a small non-vanishing mass (of order of a few electronvolts or less) is by now universally accepted and backed by various neutrino oscillation experiments osc . However what is not established at this moment is the nature of the mass itself. Is it of the Dirac type or is it of the Majorana type? There are ongoing and planned experiments designed to address this very issue onubeta ; katrin . Despite the general belief that the masses of the neutrinos are of the Majorana type, it is prudent to keep in mind that they could be of the pure Dirac type and to explore scenarios pertaining to this latter possibility. The final words must evidently come from experiments.

The common prejudice in favor of a Majorana mass is a very natural one. The see-saw mechanism seesaw  with a ratio of a small scale (electroweak) /a large scale (Grand Unified scale, etc..) provides a plausible explanation for the smallness of the Majorana neutrino mass. If one simply enlarges the minimal SM by endowing it with right-handed neutrinos, the neutrino masses would naturally be of the Dirac type and $`m_\nu /m_l=g_{Y\nu }/g_{Yl}10^9`$. It is then considered to be highly unnatural (fine tuning) to put in by hand $`g_{Y\nu }O(10^{11})`$ if $`g_{Yl}10^2`$ (roughly the value of the Yukawa coupling of the heaviest charged lepton). It would be more natural if $`g_{Y\nu }O(10^{11})`$ were to arise dynamically. This was the motivation of Ref. hung1  where Dirac neutrino masses arise at the one-loop level and can be “naturally” small.

In this paper, another approach concerning a naturally small Dirac mass for the neutrinos is presented. A very interesting connection to the quark sector will be shown. It makes use of the interesting notion that the effective Yukawa coupling (in four dimensions) controlling in part the value of the fermion mass is proportional to the size of the wave function overlap between left-handed and right-handed fermions along the compact fifth (spatial) dimension.

Let us start with the case where there is one extra spatial dimension- denoted by $`y`$\- compactified on an orbifold $`S_1/Z_2`$ and having length $`L`$. This has been shown to contain chiral zero modes in four dimensions georgi:2000wb , a desirable feature in the construction of the SM. These chiral zero modes (for either left or right-handed mode) can be written as $`\psi _{L,R}^0(x,y)=\psi _{L,R}(x)\xi _{L,R}(y)`$, where $`xx^\mu `$. For free fields, $`\xi _{L,R}(y)`$ = constant and the wave function is uniformly spread over the extra dimension. When a background scalar field with a kink solution is introduced and is made to interact with the fermion, it was found that the zero mode is localized at the center of the domain wall (the zero of the kink) and rapidly vanishes outside it. As it has been discussed in Ref. arkani:1999dc , one can arrange domain walls at various locations along $`y`$ so as to place fermions at different points.

What has not been discussed so far is the possibility that each fermion interacts with more than one background scalar field and the ensuing implications on the shape and location of the wave function along $`y`$. This turns out to be very relevant to the issue of naturally small Dirac neutrino masses, as well as to the splitting between the up and down sectors of the quarks.

Let us first start with the simple case of one fermion, $`\psi `$, interacting with two background scalar fields, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, as follows

$$_Y=f_1\overline{\psi }\psi \varphi _1+f_2\overline{\psi }\psi \varphi _2.$$
(1)
For simplicity, let us take the non-vanishing chiral zero mode to be a right-handed one. This can be accomplished by choosing the appropriate $`Z_2`$ parity. (The other chirality can be treated in the same way.) As in Ref. georgi:2000wb ; arkani:1999dc , kink solutions will be assumed for $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, which will be denoted by $`h_1(y)`$ and $`h_2(y)`$ and are given by

$$h_{1,2}(y)=v_{1,2}\mathrm{tanh}\{\mu _{1,2}(yy_{1,2})\},$$
(2)
where $`\mu _{1,2}=(\lambda _{1,2}/2)^{1/2}v_{1,2}`$ ($`\lambda _{1,2}`$ being the coefficients of the quartic couplings), and where we have allowed for the locations of the zeros of the kinks to be at $`y_{1,2}`$. The equation for $`\xi _R`$ is given by

$$_y\xi _R(y)+(f_1h_1(y)+f_2h_2(y))\xi _R(y)=0,$$
(3)
The normalized zero mode wave function for the fermion is now given by

$$\xi _R(y)=k\mathrm{exp}(_0^y𝑑y^{}(f_1h_1(y^{})+f_2h_2(y^{}))),$$
(4)
where $`k`$ is a normalization factor so that $`_0^L\xi _R^2=1`$. To illustrate the above discussion, let us, for simplicity, set $`y_1=y_2=0`$ and call $`f_{1,2}/(\lambda _{1,2}/2)^{1/2}=C_{1,2}`$. It can easily be seen that $`\xi _R(y)`$ now takes the simple form

$$\xi _R(y)=ke^{C_1\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _1y))C_2\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cosh}(\mu _2y))}.$$
(5)
To illustrate (5) graphically, we shall simply put $`C_1=\pm 1`$, $`C_2=\pm 1`$, with the appropriate normalization factor $`k`$ and, in an arbitrary unit of masses, $`\mu _1=1`$, $`\mu _2=0.9`$. (A more general case can be straightforwardly carried out.) Since $`1/\mu `$ corresponds to the thickness of the domain wall, these illustrative numerical values correspond to two domain walls of comparable thicknesses. (However, this is not “fine tuning”.) In Fig. 1, we show two cases (the sum and the difference respectively): (a) $`C_1=1`$, $`C_2=1`$; (b) $`C_1=1`$, $`C_2=1`$. These two cases correspond to two different wave functions which are denoted by WFa and WFb respectively. Also shown are the two kinks located at the same point but endowed with slightly different profiles. We also show another fermion wave function (e.g. a left-handed one), denoted by WFL which is localized separately at a point far enough from the two domain walls. The domain wall with which it interacts is chosen to be of comparable size to the other two.

From Fig. 1, one can see that WFa is markedly different from WFb. It is much narrower while the latter is rather broad. (The difference in the maxima of WFa and WFb reflects the two different normalization factors which are computed numerically here.) For illustrative purposes, the (left-handed) wave function, WFL, on the left of Fig. 1 is chosen to have a tiny overlap with WFa. However, its overlap with WFb is large, due to the spread of WFb. In the parlance of effective couplings in four dimensions, WFL-WFa and WFL-WFb overlaps would give rise to two markedly different effective couplings: a tiny one and a much larger one respectively. If these were the Yukawa couplings responsible for the masses, one would have obtained two widely separated masses. One could envision the possibility that the (right-handed) fermion involved in the WFL-WFa overlap is the right-handed neutrino and the one involved in the WFL-WFb overlap is the (right-handed) charged lepton. But how does one realize this scenario in a realistic model?

Although we have alluded to a scenario where the aforementioned fermions are leptons, one can also imagine a similar one for the quarks, with a notable difference: The split of the overall mass scales between the up and down sector is about a factor of 60 or so. In this case, one might imagine moving WFL closer to the center of WFa and WFb, and reverse the coupling of the right-handed quarks (coupling to the sum for the down quark (WFa) and to the difference for the up quark (WFb), all to the same background scalar fields). Fig. 2 illustrates this scenario. By choosing the appropriate location for WFL, one can reproduce the above desired ratio. It is intriguing that, with the same two background scalars, the ratio of the overall mass scales between the up and down sectors for both leptons and quarks can be obtained by choosing the appropriate relative (to the right-handed fermions) distance for WFL(lepton) and WFL(quark). (Only these relative distances are relevant here.) For simplicity, the “origin” in Fig. 1 and 2 really means the relative location of the right-handed fermions and not their actual positions along $`y`$.

To summarize, given two background scalar fields and two different fermions, the coupling of one fermion to the sum of the scalars (Case (a)) gives rise to a “narrow” localized wave function while the one which couples to the difference (Case (b)) gives rise to a “broad” localized wave function. Similar conclusions can be reached for other values of $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ as long as they are not too different from one another.

Notice that a fermion in five dimensions is a Dirac fermion which can be written as $`\psi =(\psi _L+\psi _R)`$, where $`\psi _{L,R}=P_{L,R}\psi `$, with $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ being the usual four-dimensional chiral projection operator. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry in conjunction with the boundary conditions will select one of the two chiralities to have a non-vanishing zero mode, depending on the chosen $`Z_2`$ parity. In addition to the SM, let us introduce an extra symmetry $`SU(2)_R`$ which could either be global or gauged as in the L-R model LR . The notations used for the lepton doublets in four dimensions are as follows: $`l_L=(\nu _L,e_L)`$ ($`SU(2)_L`$ doublet) and $`l_R=(\nu _R,e_R)`$ ($`SU(2)_R`$ doublet), where $`\nu `$ and $`e`$ are generic names for the neutral and charged leptons. Let us now embed these leptons in five-dimensional spinors, namely $`L^{\{L\}}(x,y)=(l_L^{\{L\}}+l_R^{\{L\}})`$ and $`L^{\{R\}}(x,y)=(l_L^{\{R\}}+l_R^{\{R\}})`$. Here, $`l_L(x)`$ is the zero mode of $`l_L^{\{L\}}(x,y)`$, and $`l_R(x)`$ is the zero mode of $`l_R^{\{R\}}(x,y)`$. In the absence of interactions, these zero modes depend only on $`x`$ and are not localized along $`y`$.

Let us now concentrate on $`L^{\{R\}}`$. Let us introduce two background scalar fields: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=\stackrel{}{\varphi }_T.\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2}`$ and $`\varphi _S`$, which are a triplet and a singlet under $`SU(2)_R`$ respectively, and hence the subscripts $`T`$ and $`S`$. Furthermore, as usual, these background scalars are assumed to transform under $`Z_2`$ as $`\varphi _S(x,y)\varphi _S(x,Ly)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }_T(x,Ly)`$ as in Ref. georgi:2000wb . The Yukawa coupling (in five dimensions) can now be written as

$$_{Y2}=f_T^{(l)}\overline{L}^{\{R\}}\mathrm{\Phi }_TL^{\{R\}}+f_S^{(l)}\overline{L}^{\{R\}}\varphi _SL^{\{R\}}.$$
(6)
With $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ being an $`SU(2)_R`$ triplet, its minimum energy configuration can be written as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=\varphi _T^3\tau _3/2`$, and explicitely as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_T(y)& 0\\ 0& h_T(y)\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
For $`\varphi _S`$, one has $`\varphi _S=h_S(y)`$. Let us write the zero mode for $`l_R^{\{R\}}(x,y)`$ as $`l_R^{0,\{R\}}(x,y)=l_R(x)\xi _R(y)`$. The equation governing the behaviour of $`\xi _R`$ is now

$$_y\xi _R(y)+(f_T^{(l)}\mathrm{\Phi }_T+f_S^{(l)}\varphi _S)\xi _R(y)=0.$$
(8)
With $`\xi _R=(\xi _R^\nu ,\xi _R^e)`$, (8) splits into

$$_y\xi _R^\nu (y)+(f_S^{(l)}h_S(y)+f_T^{(l)}h_T(y))\xi _R^\nu (y)=0,$$
(9)
$$_y\xi _R^e(y)+(f_S^{(l)}h_S(y)f_T^{(l)}h_T(y))\xi _R^e(y)=0,$$
(10)
The solutions are

$$\xi _R^{\nu ,e}(y)=k_{\nu ,e}\mathrm{exp}(_0^ydy^{}(f_S^{(l)}h_S(y^{})\pm f_T^{(l)}h_T(y^{})),$$
(11)
where $`k_\nu `$ and $`k_e`$ are normalization factors and where $`f_{S,T}`$ are assumed to be positive. Eq. (11) has the same form as Eq. (4). The analysis is identical to the generic case discussed above when one makes identifications of various coefficients, namely $`1,2S,T`$ and $`kk_{\nu ,e}`$. As for the quark sector, one would like the right-handed Up wave function to be “broad” and the right-handed Down wave function to be “narrow”. This can be accomplished by writing the following term $`f_T^{(q)}\overline{Q}^{\{R\}}\mathrm{\Phi }_TQ^{\{R\}}+f_S^{(q)}\overline{Q}^{\{R\}}\varphi _SQ^{\{R\}}`$, with $`f_{T,S}^{(q)}`$ assumed to be positive. With this, $`\xi _U(y)`$ will behave like $`\xi _e(y)`$, and $`\xi _D(y)`$ like $`\xi _\nu (y)`$. Eqs. (11) is seen to be an explicit realization of the phenomenon presented in this paper.

In the following discussion, we will ignore fermion mixings and concentrate on the overall mass scales, which usually mean the heaviest fermion for each sector. A Yukawa interaction responsible for the masses would be of the form $`g_{Y,l}\overline{L}^{\{L\}}HL^{\{R\}}+h.c.`$, where $`H`$ is a Higgs field, and similarly for the quarks. If $`SU(2)_R`$ were a global symmetry then $`H`$ would be a $`2\times 2`$ matrix of the form $`H=(\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=i\sigma _2\varphi ^{}`$. Assuming an even $`Z_2`$-parity for $`H`$ so that it has a non-trivial zero mode $`H^{(0)}`$, it follows that $`H^{(0)}=diag(v,v)/\sqrt{2}`$ with $`v=246`$ GeV. If $`SU(2)_R`$ were a gauge symmetry as in the LR model then $`H^{(0)}=diag(v_1,v_2)`$ with $`v_1^2+v_2^2=246`$ GeV. For simplicity, we will first concentrate on the global $`SU(2)_R`$ case and see what we can learn from there. In this case, one only has to deal with one fundamental scale $`v`$. If we denote by $`\xi _L`$ the corresponding wave function for the left-handed zero mode, the effective Yukawa couplings in four dimensions are

$$g_{eff,\nu }=g_{Y,l}_0^L𝑑y\xi _L^l\xi _R^\nu ;g_{eff,e}=g_{Y,l}_0^L𝑑y\xi _L^l\xi _R^e,$$
(12)
and similarly for the quark couplings, $`g_{eff,U}`$ and $`g_{eff,D}`$. The overall mass scales will then be: $`g_{eff,\nu }v/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`g_{eff,e}v/\sqrt{2}`$ for the neutrino and charged lepton sectors respectively, and $`g_{eff,U}v/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`g_{eff,D}v/\sqrt{2}`$ for the Up and Down quark sectors respectively. In this scenario, the ratio of the two mass scales for the leptons and for the quarks are simply ratios of the overlaps. The fundamental Yukawa couplings $`g_{Y,l,q}`$ will come in when one wants to set the absolute scales of the masses.

Although our original motivation was to find a natural reason for a small Dirac neutrino mass, one can turn the argument around and apply the proposed mechanism to the quark sector first followed by a “prediction” for the lepton sector. Basically, the main philosophy of arkani:1999dc  is that the effective Yukawa couplings $`g_{eff}`$ can be small even if the fundamental Yukawa couplings $`g_Y`$ were of O(1). Let us assume here- for the sake of discussion- that all fundamental Yukawa couplings $`g_{Y,l,q}0.1`$. (There is no deep reason for this lower bound other than a generous definition of what O(1) means.) Let us illustrate our scenario with the parameters chosen for Figs. (1,2). (A general discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.) From Fig. 2, the “broad” wave function represents $`U_R`$ and the narrow one for $`D_R`$. Since $`g_{Y,q}v/\sqrt{2}`$ is common, $`m_t/m_b`$ is just the ratio of overlaps and is about 60. The actual value for $`m_t(m_t)166`$ GeV yields $`g_{Y,q}2.5`$. (Remember that, in four dimensions, it is $`g_{eff,U}`$ which is used in perturbation theory and, in this particular case, is about unity.) It is the same two kinks which interact with the leptons, albeit at a different location. We then move to Fig. 1, where the origin now refers to the location of the right-handed doublet. We can then move the left-handed doublet (WFL) to the left until the fundamental coupling $`g_{Y,l}0.1`$ (from $`m_\tau `$). There, $`m_\nu /m_\tau 10^7`$. The neutrino mass is very small, albeit one with the presently-believed wrong value ($`160`$ eV). Moving futher to the left until $`m_\nu /m_\tau 2\times 10^9`$, one gets $`g_{Y,l}0.16`$ and $`m_\nu 4.4`$ eV. It is amusing to push further to the left until $`g_{Y,l}1`$ giving $`m_\nu /m_\tau 2\times 10^{16}`$ and $`m_\nu 4\times 10^7`$ eV. This last example shows that the neutrino mass is automatically very small when $`g_{Y,l}g_{Y,q}`$ and when one fixes the overlap $`_0^L𝑑y\xi _L^l\xi _R^e`$ so that the charged lepton acquires a mass of the right magnitude.

From the above examples, one cannot fail but notice a deep connection between quark and lepton masses. The ratios of masses for each sector are basically ratios of effective Yukawa couplings, namely $`R_Lg_{eff,\nu }/g_{eff,l}`$ and $`R_Qg_{eff,D}/g_{eff,U}`$. The only difference between these ratios is the distances between WFL and WFa,b for the quark ($`d_q`$) and lepton ($`d_l`$) sectors, and they might come from a deeper theory unifying quarks and leptons. What this might mean is that, if such a unification exists, one might be able to relate these two distances so that using e.g. $`d_q`$ to calculate $`R_Q`$, one can deduce $`R_l`$ since $`d_l`$ and $`d_q`$ will then be related. What does the above numerical example tell us? The mechanism which splits the right-handed doublet into a “broad” and a “narrow” wave functions fixes the ratio of the Up and Down masses for the quarks as well as for the leptons and naturally gives rise to a tiny Dirac neutrino mass if one requires that the fundamental Yukawa couplings (in the higher dimensions) are of O(1).

This paper is concentrated mainly on a mechanism for the disparity of the overall mass scales, and has not discussed the issue of mixings. This will be carried out in a separate publication for the lepton sector. The mass matrices for the quark sector were investigated in hung2 .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in parts by the US Department of Energy under grant No. DE-A505-89ER40518. I would like to thank Sally Dawson for discussions and the High Energy Theory Group at Brookhaven National Laboratory for hospitality where part of this work ws carried out. I would also like to thank G. Pancheri for the hospitality at LNF(Frascati).


text:
# 1 Introduction and summary

## 1 Introduction and summary

Recently there has been a large interest in field theories with extra dimensions. When these extra dimensions have boundaries, one has to consider field theories with fields living both in the bulk and on these boundaries. As those theories are presumably some sort of low–energy description of string or M–theory, they often contain some remnant of supersymmetry. At the same time one would hope that they allow for phenomenology which resembles physics of the (supersymmetric) standard model.

A central question in the discussion of these field-theoretic orbifolds concerns the stability with respect to ultraviolet effects as, for example, quadratic divergences of scalar mass terms. One way to insure stability in this respect would be the consideration of supersymmetry . In the presence of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ gauge groups, however, supersymmtery is not enough as there might appear quadratically divergent Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) terms even within the supersymmetric context. To obtain a stable theory such FI-terms have to be cancelled by a specific choice of the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ charges of scalar fields. Higher order corrections are absent due to a nonrenormalization theorem. The stability question of field theoretic orbifolds has been discussed extensively in the literature; see ref.  for a review and references.

This discussion is quite relevant for phenomenological considerations as the standard model contains the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ gauge group of hypercharge. Quadratically divergent FI-tadpoles will appear if the sum of the hypercharges of the scalar fields does not vanish. A theory with a single Higgs multiplet (as in the standard model) will thus generically suffer from an ultraviolet instability. The simplest way to avoid this problem is the introduction of a second Higgs multiplet with opposite hypercharge (as e.g. in the minimal supersymmetric standard model).

In higher dimensional theories with bulk and brane fields the above discussion will become even more complex as localized FI-tadpoles (at some boundary or fixed point) might appear. In the present talk we shall elaborate on these complications and discuss the physical consequences of localized anomalies and FI-tadpoles. For simplicity we consider supersymmetric gauge theory in five dimensions compactified on $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$, coupled to hyper multiplets in the bulk and chiral multiplets on the boundaries. Before discussing these aspects in more detail, let us summarize the results that are reviewed in this talk:

The shape of the FI–terms over the fifth dimension leads to intriguing physical effects: it can cause the localization of the zero modes of the bulk hyper multiplets to the branes. Another important issue in field theory is the structure of anomalies. For orbifolds the anomaly structure can be quite rich: the gauge anomalies tend to be localized at the branes, and their cancellation may involve some contributions of a five dimensional Chern–Simons term. Another type of anomaly, the so–called parity anomaly, may lead to difficulties in defining the orbifold theory in the first place.

## 2 The setup of the 5D supersymmetric orbifold

We consider a five dimensional bulk on $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$ with one vector multiplet $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{V}`$ and a set of hyper multiplets $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\}}`$. The vector multiplet $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{V}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ contains a five dimensional vector field $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}`$, a Dirac gaugino $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }`$, a real scalar $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, and a triplet of auxiliary fields $`\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}}`$ in the off–shell formulation. The hyper multiplets $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ consist of two complex scalars $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$, called the hyperons, two sets of chiral spinors $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}`$, the so–called hyperinos, and complex auxiliary scalars $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}}`$. They are charged under the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ gauge field, with charge operator $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}`$. The orbifolding leads to the following parity assignments

$$V:\begin{array}{cccccccc}\text{state}\hfill & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\\ & & & & & & & \\ \text{parity}\hfill & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\end{array}H:\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{state}\hfill & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}}& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\\ & & & & \\ \text{parity}\hfill & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }& \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }\end{array}$$

From the five dimensional supersymmetry transformations, one can obtain the unbroken four dimensional supersymmetry transformation with Majorana parameter $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\eta }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}`$, which exists at the orbifold fixed points. This implies  that the four dimensional vector multiplet on the branes is given by $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{V}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\lambda }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ with “modified” auxiliary field $`\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. In addition we allow for an arbitrary number of chiral multiplets $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ on the branes $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}`$.

## 3 Fayet–Iliopoulos tadpoles and localization of bulk fields

Now we turn to the first central topic of this talk: the structure of the one loop induced FI–tadpoles. As $`\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}`$ not $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}`$ is the relevant auxiliary field for the vector multiplet at the branes, the one-loop FI-terms due to brane chiral multiplets, $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ or $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }`$, are proportional to $`\stackrel{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}`$

$$\text{}\text{}\xi _{branes}(y)=g_5\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^2}\underset{I=0,\pi }{}\delta (yIR)\text{tr}(q_I).$$
(1)
The situation for tadpoles due to the bulk fields is more subtle. In ref.  it was shown that hyper multiplets may lead to a quadratically divergent zero mode FI–term, and in ref.  it was argued that the counter term for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}`$ is located at the branes. This localization on the branes implies that there exists tadpole for the $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ as well. In ref.  it was shown that the bulk hyperinos $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }`$ give rise to a tadpole for this operator. The bulk induced tadpoles involve a double derivative acting on the brane delta functions:

$$\text{}\text{}\xi _{bulk}(y)=g_5\frac{\text{tr}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}(\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^2}+\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^2}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_y^2}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}})\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right].$$
(2)
The derivative $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ arises because of the Kaluza–Klein mass coupling of the hyperinos to $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, which is dictated by five dimensional supersymmetry. Combining both the brane and bulk contributions to the FI–terms gives

$$\xi (y)=\underset{I=0,\pi }{}(\xi _I+\xi _I^{\prime \prime }_y^2)\delta (yIR),$$
(3)
$$\xi _I=g_5\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^2}\left(\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\text{tr}(q)+\text{tr}(q_I)\right),\xi _I^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}}g_5\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }^2}\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\text{tr}(q).$$
(4)
The second main issue of this talk is the question how these FI–terms can cause an instability that finally leads to localization of bulk hyper multiplet fields. For this we first investigate the background for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in the presence of the FI–tadpoles. Its (BPS) field equation, that respects four dimensional supersymmetry, is given by

$$D_3=_y\mathrm{\Phi }=g_5(\varphi _+^{}q\varphi _+\varphi _{}^{}q\varphi _{})+\underset{I=0,\pi }{}\delta (y\pi R)g_5\varphi _I^{}q_I\varphi _I+\xi (y).$$
(5)
There are supersymmetric vacua which do not spontaneously break the gauge symmetry (all charged scalars vanish in the vacuum) if the following integrability condition is satisfied

$$0=_0^{\pi R}dy_y\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\xi _0+\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\xi _\pi \text{tr}(q)+\text{tr}(q_0)+\text{tr}(q_\pi )=0.$$
(6)
Note that this condition is identical to the requirement that the mixed $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ gauge gravitational anomaly is absent in the effective four dimensional theory. Therefore, from now we always assume that $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$. Even with this requirement fulfilled, the shape of the background expectation value of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$ is non–trivial. Its integral, for example, takes the form

$$_0^ydy\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\xi _0\left(\pi R|y\pi R|\right)+\xi _0^{\prime \prime }\left(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right).$$
(7)
This affects the shape of the zero mode in a dramatic way. The shape of the zero mode $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}`$ of an even bulk field with charge $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}`$ is given by

$$_y\varphi _{0+}^bg_5q_b\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi _{0+}^b=0\varphi _{0+}^b(y)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{g_5q_b_0^ydy\mathrm{\Phi }\right\}\overline{\varphi }_{0+}^b,$$
(8)
where the integral has been evaluated in (7). The remaining $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{N}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}`$ four dimensional supersymmetry implies that the zero mode wave functions of the even bulk scalar $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}`$ and the chiral fermion $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}`$ with charges $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}`$ are identical. The delta functions in that expression requires some form of regularization that takes the normalization $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{d}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}`$ into account. Skipping the computational details (which can be found in ref.) we find that the shape of the zero mode crucially depends on the sign of the product of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\prime \prime }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}`$ (the special case $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\prime \prime }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ has be studied in refs.):

$$(\varphi _{0+}^b)^2(y)=\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{g_5q_b\xi _0y}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right],\xi _0^{\prime \prime }q_b>0;$$
(9)
$$(\varphi _{0+}^b)^2(y)=\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_5\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_b\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_0\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{g_5q_b\xi _0y}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{g}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\hfill & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\hfill \\ \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\hfill & \textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\hfill \end{array}\xi _0^{\prime \prime }q_b<0.$$
(10)
Hence, for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\prime \prime }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ the zero mode has the delta function support on the two fixed points, but the height at these two fixed points is not the same: while, for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\prime \prime }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{q}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}`$ the zero mode vanishes at both branes identically, but has an exponential behavior on the open interval $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{]}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{[}`$. In both cases, displayed in figures 1, the value of $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\prime \prime }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}`$ does not appear anymore; it has been absorbed in the regularization of the delta functions when implementing the normalization of the modes.

The shapes of the zero modes in the limit of the cut–off $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{}}`$ are depicted in figure 2.

When a zero mode becomes localized, it is natural to ask what happens to the other (massive) states in the KK–towers. Taking into account the non–trivial background for $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}`$ induced by the FI–terms, the KK–mass spectrum is given by

$$(m_n^b)^2=\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}}(g_5q_b\xi _0)^2+\frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}^2}{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}^2},n.$$
(11)
Clearly, in the limit of large cut-off $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ all non-zero mode states become extremely heavy, and should decouple from the theory.

## 4 Orbifold anomalies

The remainder of this talk is devoted to the subject of anomalies that can be associated to orbifold models. First we briefly mention the parity anomaly on the circle and then turn our attention to the gauge anomalies on the orbifold. The construction of the orbifold field theory relies on the fact that

$$\psi (y)=i\gamma ^5\psi (y),A_\mu (y)=A_\mu (y),A_5(y)=A_5(y),$$
(12)
is a symmetry of the theory on the circle which can be modded out, so as to obtain the orbifold theory. However, one has to be careful since this symmetry can be anomalous as was observed in ref. . This anomaly can be canceled by adding the parity anomaly counter term $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}`$ with $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ the Chern-Simons $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}`$-form. (See for example ref. for the definitions of forms $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}}`$ and $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}`$.) But then invariance under non–contractible gauge transformations may be lost. If this happens, it may not be possible to define a consistent quantum field theory on this orbifold. Here we do not go into detail but just state a rule of thumb: if the number of bulk fermions and the sum of their charges is even, no parity anomaly arises .

Next, we consider gauge anomalies on the orbifold $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$. Using a variant of the argumentation of Horava and Witten , we infer that the gauge anomaly of this five dimensional theory is localized at the fixed points

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=N\pi i__5\left(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{4|F}^1(A;\mathrm{\Lambda })dy,$$
(13)
where $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ denotes the effective action with the fermions integrated out. Here the anomaly is normalized to the fundamental representation $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}`$ to fix the normalization $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{N}`$ of the anomaly uniquely. (Using a perturbative calculation a similar result was obtained in ref.. See also refs. for a discussion on the orbifold $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}^\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\times }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}`$.) When there are chiral fermions on the boundaries we may obtain additional anomaly contributions: the variation of their effective action $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$ reads

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_I(A)=N_I\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi i_{S^4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{4|F}^1(A;\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{IR}.$$
(14)
In addition we can allow for a five dimensional Chern-Simons action $`\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{C}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}`$:

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CS}(A)=N_{CS}\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi i__5\mathrm{\Omega }_{5|F}(A)$$

$$=N_{CS}\pi i__5\left(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{4|F}^1(A;\mathrm{\Lambda })dy.$$
(15)
To have a theory which does not have any anomaly we find the requirements

$$N_{CS}=N_0N_\pi ,N+N_0+N_\pi =0.$$
(16)
Notice that the consistency requirement takes the form of a sum rule, and is determined by the fermionic zero mode spectrum of the bulk and branes only. Furthermore, a Chern-Simons term is required only if the anomalies at both branes are not equal to each other.

In the final part of this talk we combine the localization effects and the discussion on the gauge anomalies. One may define a “massive” anomaly as the anomaly of the bulk fields minus the bulk zero mode. Now if due to FI–terms the zero mode gets localized at a brane, the massive anomaly equals the variation of the Chern–Simons term. Pictorially this may be represented as

$$\text{ }\text{}\text{ }=\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{ }.$$
(17)
This shows that the localized bulk zero mode cancels the anomaly of the brane chiral fermions; while the heavy stuff from the four dimensional effective field theory point of view (the anomaly due to the massive KK–states and the Chern–Simons variation) cancel among themselves, leaving no trace in the zero mode four dimensional theory.

## Acknowledgments

Work supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contracts HPRN–CT–2000–00131 Quantum Spacetime, HPRN–CT–2000–00148 Physics Across the Present Energy Frontier and HPRN–CT–2000–00152 Supersymmetry and the Early Universe. SGN was partially supported by CITA and NSERC.


text:
# The chemical composition of White Dwarfs as a test of convective efficiency during core He-burning

## 1 Introduction

White dwarfs (WDs) are dead stars, which supply the energy irradiated from the surface by consuming their thermal reservoir. Since the thermal content of a WD depends on its chemical composition (see Van Horn 1971), evaluation of the cooling time scale requires a good knowledge of the processes that modify the original composition of the progenitor. In addition, some observed features of type Ia Supernova outburst depend on the detailed internal composition of the exploding WD (Domínguez, Höflich & Straniero, 2001). According to the theory of stellar evolution, the majority of WDs are post Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars (Paczińsky 1970a). In such a case, they would consist of the primary ashes of He-burning, essentially carbon and oxygen: C is initially produced by the $`3\alpha `$ reactions and, subsequently, O is synthesized via the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O.

During their long cooling time, white dwarfs cross the instability strip and undergo stable pulsations. These pulsations can be observed as variations in brightness, which could be used to provide constraints on the internal structure of these condensed objects. This is an important tool to test the reliability of progenitor models. Metcalfe, Nather and Winget (2000) analysed seismic data of the variable GD 358, a DB type white dwarf, and estimated the WD mass, the effective temperature and the mass of the thin helium-rich envelope. This method was recently extended to provide a description of the internal chemical profile (Metcalfe, Winget, Charbonneau, 2001; see also Metcalfe, Salaris & Winget, 2002). In particular, a large oxygen abundance was found in the innermost region, namely $`0.84\pm 0.03`$. By comparing this chemical profile with those predicted by theoretical models of WD progenitors, it was concluded that the reaction rate of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O is definitely larger than those recently derived in laboratory experiments (Buchman et al. 1996, Kunz et al. 2002).

We believe that these constraints on the rate of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction are model dependent. We will show how the predicted WD composition changes when the scheme for the convective mixing is changed. The connection between nuclear reaction and convection and their influence on the final amounts of C and O in the He-exhausted cores of stars with a mass between 0.8 and 25 M have been recently revised by Imbriani et al. (2001). In particular, they showed that oxygen production via 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O may be substantially increased by extending the central mixing during the late stage of the core He-burning phase, when the central He mass fraction falls below about 0.1.

Unfortunately, in spite of the many theoretical works published over the last three decades, the physics that determines the extent of the convective region within the He core is still poorly known. The theoretical calculations available so far leave various scenarios open. Classical models, those based on a bare Schwarzschild criterion (as early presented by Iben & Rood, 1970), are still calculated and widely used in many studies (e.g. Umeda et al. 1999, Althaus et al. 2002). Nonetheless, models that include some algorithm to handle the discontinuity of the opacity that forms at the external border of the convective core, as a consequence of the conversion of He into C (and O), should be considered as more reliable (Paczińsky 1970b, Castellani, Giannone & Renzini 1971a and 1971b, Demarque & Mengel 1972, Robertson & Faulkner 1972, Sweigart & Demarque 1972, Sweigart & Gross 1976, Castellani et al. 1985, Iben 1986, Sweigart 1990, Lattanzio 1991, Dorman & Rood 1993, Domínguez et al. 1999, and references therein). We remind that this phenomenon naturally leads to the growth of the convective core (the so called induced overshoot) and to the formation of a semiconvective layer outside the fully convective region. Alternative models assume that a mechanical overshoot (i.e. due to the inertia of the material accelerated by the buoyancy forces) takes place at the boundary of the convective region (Saslaw & Schwarzschild 1965, Shaviv & Salpeter 1973, Maeder 1975, Bertelli, Bressan & Chiosi 1985, Bertelli et al. 1990, Shaller et al. 1992, Bressan et al. 1993, Herwig et al. 1997, Girardi et al. 2000, and references therein). The existence of this phenomenon can not be questioned in the framework of a reliable physical scenario. However, the quantitative relevance of the mechanical overshoot is a matter of a hard debate (see e.g. Renzini 1987). The most recent attempts to calibrate the extension of the convective overshoot for centrally H-burning stars conclude that it should be confined within 0.2-0.3 $`H_p`$, where $`H_p`$ is the pressure scale height (Stothers & Chin 1992, Bressan et al. 1993, Demarque, Sarajedini & Guo 1994, Mermilliod, Huestamendia & del Rio 1994, Schröder, Pols & Eggleton 1997, Testa et al. 1999). Concerning the core He-burning phase, a moderate mechanical overshoot mimics the effect of the induced overshoot. On the contrary, a large mechanical overshoot (say 1 $`H_P`$ or larger) would cancel out the semiconvective zone and major changes in the theoretical scenario are expected.

Since the theoretical uncertainty does not provide a satisfactory answer to the problem of stellar convection, some observational constraints have been investigated. In particular, the luminosity function of bright Globular Cluster stars could be used to provide some indications on the correct mixing scheme. The larger the mixing during the core He-burning, the less He fuel will be left for the subsequent AGB evolutionary phase. Thus, the ratio $`R_2`$ (number of stars observed in the AGB/number of stars observed in the Horizontal Branch) may be used to constrain the mixing efficiency (see, for example, the discussion in Renzini & Fusi Pecci 1988). The measured values of $`R_2`$ in Globular Clusters ($`0.15\pm 0.01`$: see Buzzoni et al 1983, Buonanno et al. 1985) support semiconvective models. An alternative method, based on Red Giant Branch stars, has been proposed by Caputo et al. (1989); their conclusions agree with those based on the $`R_2`$ parameter.

The knowledge of the internal composition of WDs, provides an independent method to constrain the physics controlling chemical variations in the core of He-burning stars. In this context, the result obtained by Metcalfe and co-workers appears in contrast with the indications derived from the Globular Cluster luminosity functions. In fact, they showed that semiconvective models can not reproduce the large value of the oxygen measured in GD 358. As a possible solution of this problem, they propose a substantial enhancement of the rate of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction with respect to the experimental values. In this paper we review various convective schemes and we discuss their impact on the predicted core composition. Contradicting previous claims, we will show that fully semiconvective models can account for a relatively high value of the central oxygen, even if a moderate rate of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction is used, in agreement with the most recent laboratory measurements.

## 2 Five models for the core He-burning phase

In this section we revise the theoretical expectations for core He-burning models. The stellar structure at the beginning of the core He burning phase has been obtained by evolving a 3 M model with solar composition (Z=0.02, Y=0.28), since the pre-Main Sequence. Then, five He-burning models have been calculated under different assumptions for the convective scheme. We have selected the mixing algorithms by searching in the recent literature for the models more representative of the theoretical scenarios typically adopted for He-burning stars. The choice for the initial stellar parameters is adequate for the progenitor of a disk WD with mass of about $`0.65`$ M, which is the mass estimated by Metcalfe, Winget & Charbonneau (2001) for the variable WD GD 358. Variations of the initial mass and chemical composition do not significantly affect the main conclusion of the present work. In any case, a detailed description of the internal chemical stratification in WDs generated by progenitors with masses ranging between 1 and 7 M and metallicity in the range Z=0 to Z=0.02 has been reported by Domínguez, Höflich & Straniero (2001). All the five models were obtained by using the rate provided by Kunz et al. (2002) for the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction. The value of this rate is about a factor 2 lower than the one claimed by Metcalfe, Salaris & Winget (2002) to explain the observed composition of GD 358.

Some relevant properties of the computed models are reported in Tab. 1.

### 2.1 Bare Schwarzschild Models

In the case of classical models (Iben & Rood 1970) the extension of the convective core is simply determined by the condition $`_{rad}>_{ad}`$ (the so-called Schwarzschild criterion). No special algorithms to account for the induced overshoot and semiconvection are considered. We are well aware that this kind of He-burning models is out-of-date. Nevertheless, they are still used, particularly in studies of stellar progenitors of WDs (Althaus et al. 2002) and of SNe Ia (Umeda et al. 1999).

Since bare Schwarzschild criterion only provides a lower limit to the size of the convective core, the resulting He-burning lifetime is particularly short and the final central oxygen abundance is definitely lower than the one derived from seismic data of variable WDs (see Tab. 1). The evolution of the central composition for this model (BSM - Bare Schwarzschild Model) is shown in panel A of Figure 1. On the other hand, a large fraction of He remains unburned and a longer AGB phase takes place. Then, the predicted value for the $`R_2`$ parameter is rather large ($`0.7`$), in clear disagreement with the value obtained for Globular Cluster stars.

### 2.2 Semiconvective models

In this case we have used a numerical algorithm to handle the induced overshoot and the consequent semiconvection (see Castellani et al. 1985). Starting from the center of the star, a small mass fraction (namely a mesh-point) is added to the top of the convective core. Then, this procedure is iterated until convective neutrality is achieved at the external border (convective core) or inside the well mixed region (convective core plus semiconvective zone). In the latter case, a detached convective shell forms, whose external border is moved outward until $`_{rad}=_{ad}`$. The resulting evolution of the internal He profile is shown in Figure 2 (left panel). Note the ongoing growth of the fully convective core (the most internal and flat zone) and the formation of the outermost partially mixed region (semiconvective zone).

As it is well known, when the central He is substantially depleted, some instabilities (named breathing pulses) take place at the external border of the convective core. In this phase, even a small ingestion of fresh He causes a significant increase of the nuclear energy production, thus leading to a convective runaway. Basing on both theoretical and observational constraints, breathing pulses are usually attributed to the adopted algorithms rather than to the physics of convection. Following the suggestion of Dorman and Rood (1993), we have suppressed these instabilities by setting to zero the gravitational (thermal) energy in the core when the central mass fraction of He drops below 0.1. Note that in this phase, the gravitational energy generally accounts for a small positive contribution to the total energy (less than 1%). Only during a breathing pulse, to counterbalance the sudden increase in the thermonuclear energy flux, does the contribution of the gravitational energy become large and negative. By neglecting this term in the energy balance equation, the external border of the mixed region slowly recedes and breathing pulses are avoided. This case is reported in Table 1 with the label SM (semi-convective model). The corresponding evolutions of the central abundances of He and C are reported in panel B (solid lines) of Figure 1. Note the evident decrease of the He consumption rate in the final part of the core He-burning phase. This is due to the efficiency of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction that releases almost the same energy as the 3$`\alpha `$ with 1/3 of fuel consumption. This delay of the final part of the He-burning have a great influence on the final core composition: a large oxygen mass fraction (0.79) is left at the center. This value is only slightly lower than that found for GD 358. We have already recalled that semiconvevtive models also provide the best reproduction of the $`R_2`$ ratio observed in Globular Clusters.

Obviously, the artificial suppression of the breathing pulses may be obtained by means of different methods. In principle, there are no evident reasons to prefer one method with respect to another. A rather diffused algorithm has been proposed by Caputo et al. (1989). The growth of the convective core is limited by the constraint that the central He abundance can not increase with time, when the central He mass fraction drops below 0.1. In practice, this method strongly reduces the effects of the induced overshoot and semiconvection during the late stage of core He-burning. As a result, the He-exhaustion phase of this model is similar to the one found in the case of classical models. The evolutions of the central mass fractions of He and C for this model are shown in panel B of Figure 1 (dashed lines). This model is reported in Table 1 with the label PSM (partially semiconvective models). As in the case of SM, PSM provides a quite good reproduction of the observed $`R_2`$ ratio. However, since the C depletion essentially takes place during the late stage of the core He-burning, PSM predicts a moderate oxygen production, very similar to the one obtained in the BSM case. Note that PSM is the model adopted by Metcalfe, Winget & Charbonneau (2001) in their analysis of the chemical composition of GD 358.

### 2.3 Mechanical overshoot

An alternative scenario could arise if a sizeable mechanical overshoot induces an efficient mixing of the region located beyond the external border of the fully convective core. In this case, no special algorithms are used to handle semiconvection or breathing pulses (see e.g. Girardi et al. 2000) The case of a moderate overshoot, namely 0.2 $`H_p`$ (LOM-low overshoot model), is illustrated in Figure 3, where we show the radiative and the adiabatic temperature gradients for three different epochs, namely when the residual mass fraction of He at the center is: 0.76, 0.44 and 0.2, panel A, B and C, respectively. At the beginning of the He-burning (Panel A), mechanical overshoot brings the discontinuity of the radiative gradient (solid line) below the level of the adiabatic gradient (dashed line), so that the external border of the convective core is stable. It goes without saying that mechanical overshoot mimics the job done by the induced overshoot in semiconvective models. However, as shown in the other two panels, when He-burning goes ahead, a convective shell forms, whose external boundary is unstable. A partial mixing beyond this boundary (semiconvection) or some form of overshoot, capable to restore the convective neutrality, is obviously required. The resulting evolutions of the central He and C are reported in panel C of Figure 1. When the central He mass fraction drops below 0.6, some rapid variations of the core composition take place. Their origin is easily understood by looking at the sequence reported in Figure 3. Owing to the overshoot, the size of the convective core increases until its external boundary reaches the base of the previous convective shell and, in turn, a substantial amount of fresh He is suddenly ingested.

The inconsistency of such kind of models may be removed if a moderate overshoot is also applied to the external border of the convective shell. In this case, the resulting final composition would be very similar to the one obtained in the case of a semiconvective model. On the contrary, a significantly different scenario arises if a large mechanical overshoot takes place at the external border of the convective core. In this case, the semiconvective zone would be swept away. We have calculated an additional model by applying an overshoot of 1 $`H_P`$ (HOM-high overshoot model). Under this assumption, the mass of the material within the classical border is about half of the mass actually mixed. As the He-burning proceeds, the mixing rapidly extends up to about 0.3 M, so that any trace of semiconvection is canceled out (see right panel in Figure 2) and no convective shells form. The evolution of the central composition is shown in panel C of Figure 1 (solid lines).

It should be noted that overshoot models are not immune to breathing pulses. For this reason, LOM and HOM have been calculated by adopting the same method used in SM to avoid these instabilities. A second clarification regards the fact that no overshoot has been considered for the computation of the H-burning phase. As it is well known an overshoot occurring during this phase would produce a larger He core mass, which is equivalent to the case of a larger stellar mass without overshoot. However, as we have already reminded, a change of the stellar mass does not substantially modify the final central amounts of C and O.

In summary, the late stage of the core He-burning in overshoot models is particularly fast. As a consequence, a smaller amount of oxygen is produced with respect to fully semiconvective models. However, if the overshoot is small enough, a semiconvective layer survives, thus increasing the oxygen production. For these models, a suitable reproduction of the $`R_2`$ ratio may be obtained by tuning the size of the overshoot zone. However this is a calibration of the model rather than a prediction. In this framework, a large overshoot is ruled out, because it would imply too low a value of the $`R_2`$ parameter (Renzini & Fusi Pecci, 1988).

### 2.4 Time dependent convection

All the models previously described have been obtained, as usual, by assuming an instantaneous mixing within the convective core and, eventually, in the overshoot region. In the last few years some papers report calculations of AGB models obtained by adopting a time dependent mixing scheme (Herwig et al. 1997; Mazzitelli, D’Antona & Ventura 1999, Cristallo et al. 2001, Chieffi et al. 2001). Note, however, that since the convective velocities are evaluated in the framework of the mixing length theory, the resulting mixing within the convective regions is very efficient, practically instantaneous. Nevertheless, the relevant point for the present work is that during the TP-AGB phase the convective envelope penetrates the He-rich intershell (the so called third dredge up). Since the opacity at the base of the convective envelope (H-rich) is larger than that found in the layer located just below (He-rich), a discontinuity in the radiative gradient takes place. This is exactly the same phenomenon that occurs at the external border of the convective core during the central He-burning phase. Indeed, such a discontinuity should induce a further mixing below the formally unstable region, namely the one defined by the bare Schwarzschild criterion. Herwig et al. (1997) propose to add an extra-mixing (or overshoot) outside the boundaries of the formally convective regions. In the overshoot zones they assume an exponential decay of the convective velocity, in agreement with hydrodynamical simulations of shallow stellar surface convective zone (Freytag et al. 1996). A similar decay of the convective velocity has been also found by Asida & Arnett (2000) in hydrodynamical calculations of convective regions driven by an oxygen burning shell in massive stars. Then, in order to check the effect of a time dependent mixing on our result, we have tentatively computed a model of core He-burning star by assuming an exponential decay of the convective velocity beyond the boundaries of the formally convective zones (see Chieffi et al. 2001 for details on the numerical algorithm). In such a way, a partial mixing is found above the fully convective core and, eventually, above the convective shell. The depth of the partially mixed regions is modulated by the difference between the radiative and the adiabatic gradient at the formally convective boundary, but depends on the adopted strength of the velocity exponential decay, which is free parameter. In any case, the overall properties of the model and, in particular, the final oxygen abundance are similar to those obtained in the case of semiconvective models, thus confirming the previous investigation reported by Sweigart (1990).

## 3 Discussion and conclusion

Table 1 summarizes the results of the five models described in the previous section. Some internal profiles of C and O at the beginning of the thermally pulsing AGB phase are shown in Figure 4. The innermost region keeps track of the mixing experienced during core He-burning phase. In semiconvective models, as well as in the model with mechanical overshoot, a sharp variation of the chemical composition around M$`{}_{r}{}^{}0.3`$ M separates the region that is partially or totally mixed during the core burning from the external layers, whose composition remains unchanged111namely, as fixed by the first dredge-up up to the beginning of the double shell burning phase (early-AGB). In the case of a large overshoot (HOM - panel C of Figure 4), this sharp discontinuity coincides with the maximum extension attained by the convective core (including the overshoot). Therefore, its location depends on the assumed value of the overshoot parameter. In semiconvective models (panels B of Figure 4) two different regions may be distinguished below the chemical discontinuity: a central homogeneous region, created by the fully convective core, and an intermediate region, which coincides with the semiconvective zone. A bump in the oxygen distribution characterizes this intermediate region. Owing to the partial mixing induced by semiconvection, a small amount of He still survives in this zone at the epoch of central He exhaustion. Therefore, at the beginning of the early-AGB, the temperature rises and the residual He is rapidly consumed, mainly through the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction, so that a considerable amount of O is accumulated. Salaris et al. (1997) suggested that this bump in the oxygen profile is smeared off by a Rayleigh-Taylor instability. In principle, the sharp discontinuity at M$`{}_{r}{}^{}0.3`$ M could be smoothed by the chemical diffusion operating during the long cooling time scale. However, only minor effects are expected in the case of bright variable WDs. In such a case, the location of the chemical discontinuity might be derived from seismic data of pulsating WDs. The last column of Table 1 shows the expected location of this discontinuity ($`M_D`$) for semiconvective and overshoot models. This may be compared with the value of the $`q`$ parameter reported by Metcalfe, Winget & Charbonneau (2001) for GD 358. According to these authors, $`q`$ is the ratio between the innermost, almost homogeneous, region and the total mass of the WD. Metcalfe et al. (2001) report $`q=0.49\pm 0.01`$, which would imply MD=0.29 and 0.32 M for MWD=0.6 and 0.65 M respectively. An inspection of Table 1 shows that the calculated values are in very good agreement with the measured quantity. As noted by Metcalfe, Salaris & Winget (2002), since the location of $`M_D`$ depends on the value of the overshoot parameter, its measure could be used to test the efficiency of the mechanical overshoot. We merely comment that this may be done only if overshoot is particularly strong ($`1H_P`$ or larger), otherwise $`M_D`$ will be in any case fixed by the extension of the semiconvective region, as discussed in section 2.3.

In the case of the classical model (panel A of Figure 4), the innermost flat region coincides with the maximum extension of the convective core during core He-burning. In this model, the small convective core does not cover the whole region where nuclear burning is efficient. Toward the end of the core burning phase, the He depletion takes place well outside the convective core. Later on, at the beginning of the early AGB, the incoming He-burning shell terminates the task initiated during the previous phase. The maximum in the oxygen profile coincides with the base of the radiative region, where only a small amount of He survives at the end of the core He burning.

The second, more stringent, comparison between theory and asteroseismology concerns the central oxygen abundance. The predicted values are in the fourth column of Table 1. The largest oxygen abundance is obtained in the case of the SM. The calculated mass fraction does not differ greatly from the value derived from GD 358 by Metcalfe et al. (2001) and is probably well within the error bars of the seismic data. This result has been obtained by using a moderate rate for the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction, as recently reported by Kunz et al. (2002). All the other models lead to lower abundances for the central oxygen. As already discussed by Metcalfe et al. (2002), a very large rate of the carbon destruction would be required to reconcile these models with the measured central oxygen abundance in GD 358 .

The evaluation of the experimental error affecting the measurements of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O reaction rate is a hard task. A complete bibliography of the published experimental reports may be found in the paper of Kunz et al. (2002). The laboratory experiments have been extended down to about 1 MeV. Below this energy, the extremely small value of the cross section ($`<10`$ pb) hampers direct detection of $`\gamma `$-rays and extrapolation procedures have to be used to extract the astrophysical S-factor at the energy relevant for core He-burning ($``$300 keV). Such an extrapolation is based on the fitting of differential cross sections in the investigated region and requires the inclusion of the phase correlation between the two incoming partial waves that contribute to the two multipoles. A global analysis that attempts to take into account all the possible sources of uncertainty has been reported by Buchmann (1996, 1997). According to this work, at $`T=1.810^8`$ K (about 300 keV), the possible value of the reaction rate ranges between $`N_A<\sigma ,v>=0.5`$ and 2.2 ($`10^{15}cm^3/mol/s`$). A recent compilation by NACRE (Angulo et al. 1999) adopts a slightly smaller range of accepted values, namely between 0.9 and 2.1 ($`10^{15}cm^3/mol/s`$). Finally, the latest experimental investigation by Kunz et al. (2002) reports $`N_A<\sigma ,v>=1.25`$ ($`10^{15}cm^3/mol/s`$) $`\pm 30\%`$.

We have investigated the influence of this uncertainty on our conclusions. Some additional models have been obtained by multiplying the rate of the 12C$`(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}`$O by a factor of f=0.4 and 1.6. This corresponds to an error bar which is double the one quoted by Kunz et al. (2002) and similar to the one accepted by Buchmann (1996). The resulting central oxygen abundances for SM and HOM are reported in the last four rows of Table 1. Even by considering such a large error, the maximum amount of central oxygen in models without semiconvection is definitely lower than that claimed by Metcalfe et al. (2001) for GD 358.

In summary, by combining the uncertainty on the relevant nuclear reaction rate and that due to convective efficiency, the theoretical predictions on the final central oxygen mass fraction range between 0.3 and 0.9. The large value reported by Metcalfe et al. favors semiconvective models. However, a moderate mechanical overshoot, which leaves unchanged the semiconvective layer, is still possible.

We are grateful to T. Metcalfe and G. Fontaine for their enlightening illustrations on the potential of the asteroseismology applied to WDs and to F. Terrasi and L. Gialanella for their contributions to our understanding of the latest developments in nuclear physics experiments. This work has been partially supported by the Italian grant MURST-Cofin2001 and by the Spanish grants AYA2000-1574 and FQM-292.