text:
# Neutrino Democracy, Fermion Mass Hierarchies And Proton Decay From 5D SU(5)

## Abstract

The explanation of various observed phenomena such as large angle neutrino oscillations, hierarchies of charged fermion masses and CKM mixings, and apparent baryon number conservation may have a common origin. We show how this could occur in 5D SUSY $`SU(5)`$ supplemented by a $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry and additional matter supermultiplets called ’copies’. In addition, the proton decays into $`pK\nu `$, with an estimated lifetime of order $`10^{33}10^{36}`$ yrs. Other decay channels include $`Ke`$ and $`K\mu `$ with comparable rates. We also expect that BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$.

BA-02-35

The neutrino sector of electroweak interactions is one of the windows which sheds light on physics beyond the standard model. The SuperKamiokande (SK) experiments provide credible evidence for atmospheric atm  and solar sol  neutrino oscillations. The atmospheric neutrino anomaly suggests $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2210^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and nearly maximal mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1`$. For solar neutrinos the preferred solution seems to be the large mixing angle MSW (LAMSW) one with parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2610^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }0.8`$. In contrast to this, the quark CKM mixing angles are small and there is noticeable intergeneration hierarchies between the charged fermion masses. It is tempting to think that there is some underlying framework responsible for the generation of fermion masses and mixings. A particularly attractive possibility is an abelian $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry feru1  which can be quite effective in the charged fermion 1feru1  and neutrino nuu1  sectors.

With a $`𝒰(1)`$ (or for that matter any flavor) symmetry perhaps the most intriguing and challenging task is to understand the origin of large (for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ even maximal!) neutrino mixings versus the small CKM mixing angles. One promising scheme is the democratic approach to neutrinos dem , ourdem  in which the left handed lepton doublets $`l`$ are not distinguished by $`𝒰(1)`$ and consequently can mix strongly. In contrast to $`l`$, the quarks and right handed leptons have distinct $`𝒰(1)`$ charges so that the mass hierarchies between them can be realized.

In a recent work ourdem  we examined the democratic approach within MSSM and the GUT framework. It was shown that it is difficult to realize neutrino ’democracy’ in $`SU(5)`$ in a straightforward way, whereas an extended version of flipped $`SU(5)`$ allows such an implementation. The difficulties faced in $`SU(5)`$ mainly arise because the $`(10+\overline{5})_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2,3`$ is a generation index) multiplets unify the quark and lepton fields, leaving us with less freedom in their $`𝒰(1)`$ charge assignments. To overcome this, one can think of some reasonable extension in such a way as to ’split’ the fermion fragments of GUT multiplets and thereby relax the unwanted constraints on $`𝒰(1)`$ charges. This may not be a trivial task in $`SU(5)`$ from one’s earlier experience with the doublet-triplet (DT) splitting problem in the scalar sector which ends up requiring a rather complicated extensions. However, these arguments and also the discussions of ref. ourdem  are valid for four dimensional constructions. Recent developments in higher dimensional orbifold constructions kawa -mu3  have shown that many outstanding problems of GUTs can be resolved in an extra-dimensional setting. Namely, the orbifold setting can be exploited to yield natural DT splitting, GUT symmetry breaking and baryon number conservation (to the desired level). Note that the concept of ’split’ multiplets has previously appeared in the framework of superstring theories split .

In this letter we will apply the orbifold approach for realizing the observed fermion mass pattern consistent with neutrino democracy within 5D SUSY $`SU(5)`$, supplemented by a $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry. We show how the problems discussed above can be nicely avoided by invoking a fifth dimension, with additional supermultiplets (so-called ’copies’) playing an essential role. The $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry also helps ensure sufficient proton stability. Due to democracy in the left handed lepton sector, the decays $`pKe`$, $`pK\mu `$ are expected to proceed at comparable rates. Similarly, the branching rates in the lepton sector satisfy BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$, which may be testible in the future.

Consider 5D $`N=1`$ SUSY $`SU(5)`$ compactified on an $`S^{(1)}/Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ orbifold, such that the ’low’ energy theory has the MSSM field content kawa . In 4D $`N=1`$ superfield notation, the 5D gauge supermultiplet is $`V_{N=2}=(V,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ respectively are vector and chiral superfields, both in the adjoint $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}`$ representation of $`SU(5)`$. In terms of $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YG_{321}`$, $`V(24)=V_c(8,1)_0+V_w(1,3)_0+V_s(1,1)_0+V_X(3,\overline{2})_5+V_Y(\overline{3},2)_5`$, where the subscripts denote the hypercharge $`Y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{60}}\mathrm{diag}(2,2,2,3,3)`$ in the units of $`1/\sqrt{60}`$. Similar decomposition holds for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(24)`$. It is assumed that the fifth space like dimension $`y`$ describes a compact $`S^{(1)}`$ circle with radius $`R`$. Under the $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ symmetry $`Z_2`$: $`yy`$, $`Z_2^{}`$: $`y^{}y^{}`$ ($`y^{}=y+\pi R/2`$), all states should have definite $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parities $`(P,P^{})`$. With the following parity assignments for the fragments from $`V_{N=2}(24)`$

$$(V_c,V_w,V_s)(+,+),(V_X,V_Y)(,+),$$

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,\mathrm{\Sigma }_w,\mathrm{\Sigma }_s)(,),(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X,\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y)(+,),$$
(1)
on the fixed point $`y=0`$ (identified with our 4D world) we will have $`N=1`$ SUSY with massless $`G_{321}`$ gauge bosons. The remaining states in $`SU(5)/G_{321}`$ acquire large (GUT scale) masses. Thus, states with parities $`(\pm ,\pm )`$, $`(\pm ,)`$ respectively have masses $`(2n+2)/R`$, $`(2n+1)/R`$, where $`n`$ denotes the quantum number in the KK mode expansion.

The $`SU(5)`$ ’higgs’ superfields, which contain the pair of MSSM higgs doublets, are also introduced in the bulk. Namely, there are two $`N=2`$ supermultiplets $`_{N=2}(5)=(H,\overline{H}^{})`$, $`\overline{}_{N=2}(\overline{5})=(\overline{H},H^{})`$, where $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ are $`5`$, $`\overline{5}`$ plets of $`SU(5)`$ and $`\overline{H}^{}`$, $`H^{}`$ respectively are their mirrors. In terms of $`G_{321}`$, $`H(5)=h_u(1,2)_3+T(3,1)_2`$, $`\overline{H}(\overline{5})=h_d(1,\overline{2})_3+\overline{T}(\overline{3},1)_2`$ and similarly for $`H^{}`$, $`\overline{H}^{}`$. With $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parity assignments

$$(h_u,h_d)(+,+),(h_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{},h_{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{})(,),$$

$$(T,\overline{T})(,+),(\overline{T}^{},T^{})(+,),$$
(2)
only $`h_u`$, $`h_d`$ have zero modes and can be identified with the MSSM doublets. All colored triplet partners become superheavy and in this way the DT splitting occurs naturally. Note that since $`h_u`$, $`h_d`$ arise from different $`N=2`$ supermultiplets, the mass term $`M_hh_uh_d`$ is not allowed in 5D. This can be considered a good starting point for obtaining an adequately suppressed $`\mu `$-term (however, at 4D level additional care must be exercised mu2 , mu3  for avoiding a large $`\mu `$-term).

In orbifold constructions with a minimal setting, the introduction of fermions in the bulk is not straightforward. For example, the $`d^c`$ and $`l`$ states, which come from the same $`\overline{5}`$ plet, are involved in a 5D kinetic coupling $`l^+V_Xd^c`$ and, since the $`V_X`$ boson has parity $`(,+)`$ \[see (1)\], either $`d^c`$ or $`l`$ should have parity $`(,+)`$. This would mean loss of some (zero mode) MSSM chiral states. For overcoming this difficulty, one could attempt to introduce chiral states not in the bulk but directly on a brane with no KK excitations. Although the theory would be fully selfconsistent, we follow here a different procedure and introduce in the bulk additional supermultiplets arch  called ’copies’ (see $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ and $`3^{\mathrm{rd}}`$ refs. in symbr ), denoted by $`10^{}+\overline{5}^{}`$ (per generation). By suitable prescription of $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parities, these states allow one to realize at low energies complete three generations of MSSM massless chiral states. It will turn out that the introduction of these copies enables us to realize the democratic approach for neutrinos and obtain a nice picture for the charged fermion sector. From this point of view, the motivation for introducing copies therefore becomes twofold.

In the bulk we introduce three generations of $`N=2`$ supermultiplets $`𝒳_{N=2}=(10,\overline{10})`$, $`\overline{𝒱}_{N=2}=(\overline{5},5)`$ together with their copies $`𝒳_{}^{}{}_{N=2}{}^{}`$, $`\overline{𝒱}_{}^{}{}_{N=2}{}^{}`$. Recall that in terms of $`G_{321}`$ $`10=e^c(1,1)_6+q(3,2)_1+u^c(\overline{3},1)_4`$, $`\overline{5}=l(1,\overline{2})_3+d^c(1,\overline{3})_2`$ and likewise for $`10^{}`$, $`\overline{5}^{}`$. The $`\overline{10}`$, $`5`$, $`\overline{10}^{}`$, $`5^{}`$ are mirrors and their fragments have conjugate transformation properties under $`G_{321}`$. The following orbifold parity assignments

$$(q^{},l,u^c,d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{},e^c)(+,+),$$

$$(q,l^{},u_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{},d^c,e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{})(,+),$$
(3)
with opposite parities for the corresponding mirrors (we assume generation independent parities), are consistent with the prescriptions in (1), and it is easy to verify that all $`N=2`$ SUSY invariant terms also possess $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ invariance. From (3) we see that the states $`e^c,q^{},u^c,l,d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}`$ contain zero modes which we identify with the three chiral quark-lepton families of MSSM.

In addition, we introduce a $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry (on whose origin we will comment later) and a singlet superfield $`X`$ carrying $`𝒰(1)`$ charge $`Q_X=1`$. We assume $`\frac{X}{M}ϵ0.2`$ ($`M`$ is some cut off close to the fundamental scale). Because of the fact that the ’matter’ states come from different $`SU(5)`$ multiplets, the constraints on $`𝒰(1)`$ charge assignments are more relaxed (this turns out to be sufficient to obtain a nice and consistent picture). We have only one constraint

$$Q[u_{}^{c}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}]=Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}].$$
(4)
The $`𝒰(1)`$ charges for matter states are chosen as follows:

$$Q[d_{1}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}]=b+ca+k+2,Q[d_{2}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}]=Q[d_{3}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}]=b+ca+k,$$

$$Q[u_1^c]=Q[e_1^c]=b+5,Q[u_2^c]=Q[e_2^c]=b+2,$$

$$Q[u_3^c]=Q[e_3^c]=b,Q[l_1]=Q[l_2]=Q[l_3]=c+k,$$

$$Q[q_1^{}]=a+3,Q[q_2^{}]=a+2,Q[q_3^{}]=a,$$
(5)
($`k\stackrel{>}{_{}}0`$ is an integer and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ are some phases undetermined for the time being). Note that (4) is satisfied for each generation and $`l_\alpha `$ all have the same $`𝒰(1)`$ charge. Assuming $`Q(h_u)=ab`$, $`Q(h_d)=bc`$, the relevant couplings generating the up and down quark and charged lepton masses respectively are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}u_1^c& u_2^c& u_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1^{}\\ q_2^{}\\ q_3^{}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^8& ϵ^5& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^7& ϵ^4& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)h_u,& \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}d_{1}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}& d_{2}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}& d_{3}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1^{}\\ q_2^{}\\ q_3^{}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^kh_d,& \end{array}$$
(6)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}e_1^c& e_2^c& e_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\\ l_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^kh_d.& \end{array}$$
(7)
The entries in textures (6) and (7) are taken for simplicity to be real and are accompanied by factors of order unity (here we will not concern ourselves with CP violating phases). Diagonalization of (6), (7) yields for the Yukawa couplings

$$\lambda _t1,\lambda _u:\lambda _c:\lambda _tϵ^8:ϵ^4:1,$$
(8)
$$\lambda _b\lambda _\tau ϵ^k,\lambda _d:\lambda _s:\lambda _bϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(9)
$$\lambda _e:\lambda _\mu :\lambda _\tau ϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(10)
which have the desired hierarchical pattern. From (6), we find

$$V_{us}ϵ,V_{cb}ϵ^2,V_{ub}ϵ^3,$$
(11)
values that are consistent with the observations.

From (7) the expected values for the lepton mixing angles are

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }1,$$
(12)
which nicely fit with the SK data. To generate neutrino masses we introduce two right handed neutrinos $`N`$, $`N^{}`$ \[in 5D they are accompanied by appropriate mirrors $`\overline{N}`$, $`\overline{N}^{}`$ with parities $`(,)`$\] with $`𝒰(1)`$ charges $`Q(N)=p+1/2`$, $`Q(N^{})=q+1/2`$ ($`p,q`$ are positive integers). With

$$a+b=\frac{1}{2},c=0,$$
(13)
and taking into account (5) the relevant couplings are

$$ϵ^{k+p}(\lambda _1l_1+\lambda _2l_2+\lambda _3l_3)Nh_u+ϵ^{2p+1}M_NN^2+$$

$$ϵ^{k+q}(\lambda _1^{}l_1+\lambda _2^{}l_2+\lambda _3^{}l_3)N^{}h_u+ϵ^{2q+1}M_N^{}N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+$$

$$ϵ^{p+q+1}M_{NN^{}}NN^{},$$
(14)
where $`\lambda _\alpha `$, $`\lambda _\alpha ^{}`$ are dimensionless coefficients of order unity. With $`p>q`$, $`ϵ^{2q}M_N^{}ϵ^{2p}M_{NN^{}}`$, $`M_{NN^{}}^2M_NM_N^{}`$ (these assumptions are needed for the correct scales of lepton number violations whose origin is still unexplained in this setting), integration of $`N`$, $`N^{}`$ states leads to the neutrino mass matrix

$$m_{\alpha \beta }^\nu =\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta m+\lambda _\alpha ^{}\lambda _\beta ^{}m^{},$$
(15)
where $`m=ϵ^{2k1}h_u^2/M_N`$, $`m^{}=ϵ^{2k1}h_u^2/M_N^{}`$. For $`M_N/ϵ^{2k1}210^{14}`$ GeV and $`M_N^{}/ϵ^{2k1}1.210^{15}`$ GeV we have $`m510^2`$ eV, $`m^{}810^3`$ eV. Ignoring the subleading term in (15), one finds that only $`m_{\nu _3}`$ acquires a mass $`m_{\nu _3}=(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2+\lambda _3^2)m`$, while in this limit $`m_{\nu _1}=m_{\nu _2}=0`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2m_{\nu _3}^310^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The second term in (15) gives rise to a mass $`m_{\nu _2}m^{}`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}610^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, the scale relevant for LAMSW solution. We therefore conclude that the desirable $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$, $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation scenarios are realized within our 5D framework.

Let us now turn to the issue of baryon number and matter parity violation. With the selections (5), (13), it is easy to verify that matter parity violating operators $`lh_u`$, $`e^cll`$, $`q^{}ld_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`u^cd_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are forbidden to all orders if $`a`$ is either an integer, or $`a>2k+1/2`$. The $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry can also forbid dimension three and four baryon number violating operators. As fas as the $`d=5`$ operators are concerned, because of the absence of zero modes in colored triplet ’scalar’ states, potential nucleon decay through their exchange does not arise in orbifold SUSY $`SU(5)`$. The non-renormalizable $`d=5`$ operators $`q^{}q^{}q^{}l`$ and $`u^cu^cd_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}e^c`$ are eliminated if both $`3a`$ and $`5a`$ are non integers (this choice is also compatible with matter parity conservation).

Dimension five nucleon decay at measurable rates could occur through the couplings $`\frac{\overline{\lambda }}{M}q_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}q_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}q_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}l_\alpha `$ if $`a=(3m+1)/3`$, such that $`\overline{\lambda }ϵ^{9+3m+k}`$. For $`M10M_G`$ and $`(k,m)=(0,1),(1,1),(2,1),(3,0)`$, we find $`\tau (pK\nu _\alpha )10^{33}10^{36}`$ yr (note that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{m_t}{m_b}ϵ^k`$). The above couplings also lead to proton decay with emission of charged leptons. However, their rates are smaller by a factor of $`10`$. The democratic scenario predicts that $`pKe`$ and $`pK\mu `$ proceed with nearly equal rates, such that $`\tau (pKe)\tau (pK\mu )10^{34}10^{37}`$ yr.

As far as dimension $`6`$ nucleon decay is concerned, with all matter introduced in the bulk and due to the copies, the 5D bulk kinetic terms are irrelevant for nucleon decay arch . This is because through the exchange of $`V_X`$, $`V_Y`$ bosons, the light quark-lepton states are converted into heavy states with masses of order $`1/R`$. The only source for nucleon decay could be some brane localized non-diagonal kinetic operators allowed by $`G_{321}`$ and orbifold symmetries. Such operators have the form locop  $`\delta (y)\psi _1^+(_5e^{2\widehat{V}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}e^{2\widehat{V}}e^{2\widehat{V}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})\psi _2`$, where $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ denote quark and lepton superfields respectively, and $`\widehat{V}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are fragments from the coset $`SU(5)/G_{321}`$. In order for these operators be invariant under $`𝒰(1)`$, the multiplier $`(X^+)^{Q_1}X^{Q_2}`$ will be present, where $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$ are the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges of $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2`$. If either $`Q_1`$ or $`Q_2`$ is not an integer, the corresponding operator is not allowed. From (5), (13) we verify that either $`Q[q_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]`$ or $`Q[u_\alpha ^c]=Q[e_\alpha ^c]`$ is not an ineger, and consequently the couplings $`(q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}e^c+u_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{+}q^{})_5V_X`$, $`(e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{+}q^{}+q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u^c)_5V_Y`$ are absent. For $`a=(2m+1)/4`$ ($`m`$ is an integer), the couplings $`l^+d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}_5V_X(X^+)^kX^{mk}`$ will appear, but these terms alone do not induce nucleon decay. Thus, thanks to the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry, $`d=6`$ nucleon decay is absent.

We conclude with some observations:

a) The leptonic mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{23}`$ receive contributions both from the charged lepton and neutrino sectors. In the absence of cancellations between these contributions we expect (12) to hold naturally. However, the CHOOZ data chooz  requires $`\theta _{13}\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.2(ϵ)`$, so that some cancellation between contributions from the two sectors is needed. If future measurements turn out to favor a much smaller ($`ϵ`$) $`\theta _{13}`$, then some new explanation would be required.

b) The democratic approach also has important implications for lepton flavor violating rare proccesses. Since the neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings in (14) for different families are all of the same order, one can expect that BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$. For universal (at high scale) sparticle masses$`300500`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2550`$, the constraint BR$`\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^{14}`$ (the most stringent expected bound for $`\mu e\gamma `$ BR ) requires $`p>q=2,3`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 15`$ we can have $`p>q=0`$.

c) The origin of lepton number violation scale (masses of right handed neutrinos) is unexplained in this setting. This is not surprizing in $`SU(5)`$, but in GUTs such as $`SO(10)`$ or even $`SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$, the violation of lepton number is directly related to the $`BL`$ breaking scale which, in a minimal setting, is close to $`10^{16}`$ GeV. Thus, it would be interesting to extend the present discussion to such models.

d) While the $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry can provide an understanding of why proton decay has so far not been seen, it remains to be seen if dimension five operators should be expunged or not. Hopefully, future measurements will shed more light on this fundamental question, help determine some of the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges and test the democratic approach by comparing decays with emission of charged leptons.

e) The $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry can be global or even can be substituted by some discrete $`𝒵_N`$ symmetry which arises in the fermion sector from some more fundamental theory. If $`𝒰(1)`$ is introduced in 5D as a vector-like gauge symmetry bl , after compactification it can cause localized anomalies on the orbifold fixed points locan . Their cancellation could occur through bulk Chern-Simons term, with possibly some additional states playing an essential role 1su3w , mu2 , bl .

f) One could imagine extending the $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry to non-abelian flavor groups such as $`SU(2)_H`$ or $`SU(3)_H`$ within the orbifold constructions. Such flavor symmetries, apart from providing an expanation of hierarchical structures, may yield additional predictions and relations between fermion masses and their mixings.

We acknowledge the support of NATO Grant PST.CLG.977666. This work is partially supported by DOE under contract DE-FG02-91ER40626.


format: text

text:
# Brane World Gravity in an 𝐴𝑑𝑆 Black Hole Brown-HET-1316: This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Contracts No. DE-FG02-91ER40676 and No. DE-FG02-91ER40688

## 1 Introduction

An interesting idea that has emerged in recent years is that the energy scale of gravity might not be significantly higher than the scale of other fundamental interactions . Models to achieve this goal have invoked extra dimensions, which may be either compact circles, or “effectively compact” directions where the spacetime metric decreases exponentially with the proper distance in the internal direction . Gravity lives in all the dimensions, while matter is confined to a hypersurface (the brane).

We study a model that follows the spirit of the latter class of theories, but which has some interesting features  not found in earlier models. Our compact direction ends in a smooth way at some value of the internal coordinate , instead of terminating in a second brane or continuing forever. Thus the “warped spacetime” lies in the region $`r_{min}<r<r_c`$, with the graviton localized near a brane at $`r_c`$ and $`r=r_{min}`$ being a smooth end to the internal radial direction $`r`$. Such a metric ending smoothly at $`r=r_{min}`$ (and becoming approximately anti-de-Sitter at large $`r`$) arises in the $`AdS^7\times S^4`$ Black Hole gravity dual of d=4 QCD at strong coupling . We modify the metric emerging from this construction, by placing a “Planck brane” at $`r=r_c`$ and impose reflection symmetry about $`r=r_c`$.

The original AdS/CFT dual description for $`QCD_4`$ at strong coupling suggested by Witten  is in fact a finite temperature 5-d Yang-Mills theory at the boundary of a deformed AdS space with radial coordinate $`r_{min}<r<\mathrm{}`$. Anti-periodic boundary condition on the thermal axis for fermions breaks conformal and SUSY symmetries giving rise to a discrete “glueball” spectrum with mass scale set by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{qcd}=r_{min}/R_{ads}^2`$ or equivalently by the temperature of the resultant Black Hole. In our present analysis we find the following features. The Planck brane at $`r=r_c`$ must be asymmetric – it must have one tension along the “spacetime” directions of the brane, but a different tension along the “thermal” direction $`\tau `$, the ratio of these two tensions fixing the brane location to $`r=r_c`$. We construct a model, which yields a brane with effective tensions that are asymmetric in the desired manner.

We then look at the small fluctuations around this background. We find a massless graviton “localized on the brane”. But we also have a “radion” mode that is essentially a fluctuation of the proper distance from the brane at $`r_c`$ to the horizon of the Black Hole at $`r=r_{min}`$. For our microscopic construction of the asymmetric brane, we find that this radion mode is an unstable solution. We then examine a 1-parameter family of “effective potentials” for the brane, which generalize the behavior found in this explicit brane construct and solve analytically for all zero-mass excitations. We find that beyond a certain critical value for this parameter the radion mode indeed becomes stable. However we have not been able to find an explicit construction of branes which leads to these effective potentials.

An interesting feature of the model is the presence of both a graviton mode localized at the Planck brane and a discrete set of radial “KK states” analogous to the glueball modes found in the dual description of QCD. The large mass hierarchy required for the effective 4-d Planck mass relative to the QCD scale is exponential in the proper distance from $`r_{min}`$ to $`r_c`$. The “glueball states” suffer only an exponentially small correction due to the fact that the coordinate $`r`$ has an UV cut-off at $`r=r_c`$ instead of continuing to infinity. It is true that the model we are considering has not strictly been derived from string theory and therefore may not exhibit Gravity/Gauge duality. But we have chosen the metric for $`r<r_c`$ to be equal to that found in the strong coupling dual to d=4 QCD, so it is interesting to speculate that these “glueball modes” still represent some kind of gauge excitations in the current model as well. The fact that both gravity and glueball modes are excitations of a single string description in AdS space opens up interesting questions on the relations between these two entities, and we comment on these issues at the end of the paper.

## 2 The Model

We introduce an effective low energy model for brane world gravity interacting with non-conformal matter. Our approach is based on modifying the AdS/CFT example proposed by Witten  as a gravity dual for $`QCD_4`$ in the strong coupling limit. We modify the UV behavior with the insertion of a so called “Planck brane” in the spirit of Randall-Sundrum  brane world gravity.

Let us recapitulate Witten’s suggestion of the gravity dual of $`QCD_4`$. One begins with the AdS/CFT correspondence for the 11-d M-theory background metric $`AdS^7\times S^4`$. The 11th coordinate is compactified on a small circle (with radius $`R_{11}=g_sl_s`$) reducing M-theory to IIA string theory and the boundary (0,2) 6-d CFT to 5-d SUSY Yang-Mills. Then a second circle is introduced with anti-periodic boundary coordinate for all fermionic modes so that conformal and all supersymmetries are broken. The second circle will be designated here by $`\tau `$ or simply the thermal coordinate. It is conjectured that at weak coupling the corresponding field theory is a confining 4-d Yang-Mills theory. This new metric is an AdS Black Hole solution to the bosonic sector of 11-d supergravity,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{11}}d^{11}x\sqrt{g_{11}}(R_{11}|F_4|^2)+\frac{1}{12\kappa _{11}}A_3F_4F_4+\text{fermions},$$
(1)
written in term of the metric tensor $`g_{MN}`$ and the 3-form gauge field $`A_{MNL}`$ and its field strength. In the black brane solution a constant background for $`A_{MNL}`$ for N units of magnetic flux gives rise to an effective cosmological constant; ignoring fluctuations in $`A`$ and nonzero R charges in $`S^4`$, it is adequate for our present purpose to consider a simpler action in the $`AdS^D`$ subspace,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa _D}_Md^Dx\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(2)
$`M_D1/\kappa _D^{1/d}`$ is the bulk Planck mass in $`AdS^{d+2}`$ with $`D=d+2`$. The $`D=d+2`$ coordinates are designated by $`x^M=(r,\tau ,x^\mu )`$ with $`\mu =1,\mathrm{}d`$. We also find it convenient to consider a general $`AdS^{d+2}`$ instead of restricting our discussion to $`AdS^7`$ appropriate for the M theory construction.

### 2.1  Black Hole Background

Substituting in to Einstein’s equations the ansatz

$$ds^2=\widehat{g}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N\frac{1}{f(r)}dr^2+f(r)d\tau ^2+f_0(r)g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu ,$$
(3)
with one “radial” coordinate $`r`$, one angular coordinate $`\tau `$ periodic in $`[0,\beta )`$ and $`f_0(r)k^2r^2`$, one finds the general solution, $`f(r,c)=c+(kr)^2(kr_{min})^{d+1}/(kr)^{d1}`$, with $`c=0,1,+1`$ for $`ds_d^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ being Minkowski (or Euclidean), de Sitter and anti-de Sitter respectively. These spaces are all asymptotic to $`AdS^{d+2}`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ with the AdS radius $`R_{ads}=1/k`$ fixed by the cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(D1)(D2)k^2/2.`$ In particular we are interested in the asymptotically flat Minkowski background $`ds_d^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$, thus r $`c=0`$ and

$$f(r)(kr)^2\frac{(kr_{min})^{d+1}}{(kr)^{d1}}$$
(4)
The period for the thermal axis ($`\tau \tau +\beta `$), or inverse “Hawking temperature”, is fixed to be $`\beta =(4\pi )/((D1)k^2r_{min})`$ by the requirement that the horizon is a coordinate singularity at $`r=r_{min}`$. For the case $`r_{min}=0`$, the space becomes pure AdS, $`f(r)f_0(r)=k^2r^2`$ and there is no horizon and no condition on the periodicity. Often it is more convenient to work with units where $`R_{ads}k^1=1`$. We shall do so for the most part, when necessary restoring $`R_{ads}`$ by dimensional analysis.

The $`r\text{-}\tau `$ manifold , $`r[r_{min},\mathrm{})`$ and $`\tau [0,\beta )`$, at fixed $`x^\mu `$ can be regarded as the entire 2-d plane with origin at $`r=r_{min}`$. At times we will prefer to replace $`r`$ by the proper distance from $`r=r_{min}`$,

$$y(r)_{r_{min}}^r\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)}}=\frac{2}{(d+1)}\mathrm{log}\left[(r/r_{min})^{(d+1)/2}+\sqrt{(r/r_{min})^{d+1}1}\right],$$
(5)
or $`r(y)=r_{min}\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{2}{d+1}}(\frac{d+1}{2}y)`$. In terms of $`y`$, the metric becomes

$$ds^2=dy^2+r^2(y)\mathrm{tanh}^2(\frac{d+1}{2}y)d\tau ^2+r^2(y)dx^\mu dx_\mu ,$$
(6)
with the AdS form recovered in the large y limit where $`r/r_{min}\mathrm{exp}[ky]`$.

### 2.2 Low Energy Effective Action

Next we introduce a Planck brane at $`r=r_c`$ replacing the $`r\text{-}\tau `$ plane by a compact disk, with a $`Z_2`$ reflection $`rr_c^2/r`$. These two disks are then patched together to form a $`S^2/Z_2`$ orbifold of the 2-sphere. In order to see how this effects the spectrum, we must build a model of the brane and study the small fluctuations of Einstein’s equations subject to the Israel junction condition. We model the Planck brane as an infinitely thin shell by adding a surface term to the action,

$$S_{eff}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _D}_Md^dx𝑑\tau 𝑑r\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })+\frac{1}{2\kappa _D}_Md^dx𝑑\tau \sqrt{q}V_{brane},$$
(7)
where $`q`$ is the determinant of the induced metric. As we will argue below, a particular microscopic construction can lead to a potential of the form

$$V_{brane}=\lambda _1+\lambda _2\mathrm{exp}[\sigma (x)],$$
(8)
where $`g_{\tau \tau }\mathrm{exp}[2\sigma (x)]`$. Unlike the Randall-Sundrum construction, two independent parameters, ($`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$), are needed because the cusp due to the $`Z_2`$ orbifold is not the same in $`\tau `$ direction versus the Euclidean $`x^\mu `$ directions. We shall demonstrate shortly that in order to have a metrically flat brane on a $`Z_2`$ orbifold at $`r=r_c`$ the parameters in Eq. (8), must be adjusted to fit the background metric

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\mathrm{log}f_0(r_cϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2d}},`$
$`\lambda _\tau {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\mathrm{log}f(r_cϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2\sqrt{f}}}.`$ (9)
The ratio of $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _\tau `$ fixes the position of the Planck brane $`r=r_c`$.

Let us now see if it is possible to construct such an asymmetric brane from the microphysics that we are allowed to assume. The brane must be characterized as an object defined in an intrinsically covariant fashion, in order that we may place it in the ambient geometry and consistently couple its fluctuations to the fluctuations of the metric. This fact places constraints on how we may obtain the asymmetric brane. Consider a set of $`d`$-branes with world volume extending over all the directions $`(x^\mu ,\tau )`$; these branes have the usual isotropic tension. Now take a collection of $`(d1)`$-branes, and place them perpendicular to the $`\tau `$ direction. These branes have tension only along $`x^\mu ,\mu =1\mathrm{}d`$. We let the density of these branes be uniform along the circle $`\tau `$. This model leads to a brane world potential give by Eq. (8). The combined tension of this set of branes is clearly asymmetric. The two kinds of branes are not bound to each other, but since we only consider symmetric fluctuations, by symmetry both kinds of branes will stay at the same location $`r=r_c`$. We will also study fluctuations that are independent of the coordinate $`\tau `$, so the distribution of the $`d`$-branes in the $`\tau `$ direction will automatically remain uniform.

In this construction we see the difficulties with other ways of achieving asymmetric tensions. The basic objects that we have in our theory are (i) branes and (ii) momentum modes. Suppose we put a set of 1-branes wrapping the direction $`\tau `$, distributed uniformly in the directions $`x_i`$. We do of course want to have vibrations that are functions of the $`x_i`$. But after such a wave passes through this gas of 1-branes, the 1-branes will no longer be uniformly distributed in the coordinates $`x_i`$. Thus their stress tensor will not be mimicked by a single asymmetric brane; rather we will have to introduce a density function $`\rho (x_i,t)`$ to characterize the evolving distribution of the 1-branes in the directions $`x_i`$. The same applies to momentum modes carrying momentum in the direction $`\tau `$, which we could naively have considered as another way to generate asymmetric tensions.

Since we want our physics to be $`x^\mu `$ dependent (but we can choose $`\tau `$ independence), the above construction using $`d`$-branes and $`(d1)`$-branes appears to be the only simple choice available. However our subsequent analysis of this brane world leads to instability signaled by a tachyonic radion mode. To understand this instability, we have generalized our model to an effective brane world potential,

$$V_{brane}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2\mathrm{exp}[\alpha \sigma (x)],$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2`$ are appropriately redefined to give the flat brane solution. The free parameter $`\alpha `$ allows one to adjust the quadratic term about the background, i.e., varying $`V_{brane}^{\prime \prime }(\sigma _0)`$ while holding $`V_{brane}(\sigma _0)`$ and $`V_{brane}^{}(\sigma _0)`$ fixed in the background metric ($`\mathrm{exp}[2\sigma _0]=f(r)`$), thus shifting the radion to positive mass squared and in turn stabilizing the brane.

### 2.3 Definition of Spectral Problem

To find the spectrum around this background solutions we must find the linearized Einstein’s equations. More precisely the linearized Euler-Lagrange equations of bulk gravity coupled to our low energy effective brane world action. Our approach is to write down the EOM in an axial gauge ($`h_{Mr}=0`$ for $`Mr`$) and integrate from the IR horizon at $`r=r_{min}`$ to the UV boundary at the Planck brane where $`r=r_c`$. Although the actual Minkowski time is parallel to the brane, we are in a sense treating the radial coordinate as a sort of time variable. This appears to be the best way to approach the spectral problem.

We begin by parameterizing the metric in the traditional Kaluza-Klein form,

$$ds^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}dx^mdx^n+e^{2\sigma }(d\tau +A_mdx^m)^2.$$
(11)
with $`x^m=(r,x^1,\mathrm{}x^d)`$. As we noted previously in our glueball analysis , it is natural to classify modes with respect to the number of $`\tau `$ indices ( zero for $`g_{mn}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}+\mathrm{exp}[2\sigma ]A_nA_m`$, one for $`g_{m\tau }=\mathrm{exp}[2\sigma ]A_m`$, and two for $`g_{\tau \tau }=\mathrm{exp}[2\sigma ]`$ respectively). Expanding to linear order in the fluctuations in axial gauge ( $`h_{rM}=0`$ for $`Mr`$),

$$ds^2=f(r)^1(1+\rho )dr^2+r^2(\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu })dx^\mu dx^\nu +f(r)(1+S)d\tau ^2+2f(r)A_\mu dx^\mu d\tau ,$$
(12)
and ignoring $`\tau `$ dependence (or excitation in the thermal direction) the trace reversed Einstein equations in the bulk as follows.111To be precise about our conventions, the linearized Einstein equations are written in the form, $`h^M{}_{N}{}^{}{}_{;L}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{L}+h_L{}_{;}{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{M}{}_{N}{}^{}h^M{}_{L}{}^{}{}_{;}{}^{N}{}_{L}{}^{}h_{NL}{}_{;}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{ML}+2(D2)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }h^M{}_{N}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^M_N`$ where the bulk energy momentum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^M=2\kappa (T^N{}_{M}{}^{}(D2)^1g^N{}_{M}{}^{}T)`$ has been introduced to set the normalization. The M-index is raised by the background metric (12) except when we use Lorentzian signature $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ (mostly positive) for flat Minkowski space.

Equations of Motion: We enumerate these equations as 3 second order wave equations, (tensor, vector and scalar), followed by 3 constraint equations,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=`$ $`^2h_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}[_\mu _\nu (h+S+\rho )_\mu ^\lambda h_{\lambda \nu }_\nu ^\lambda h_{\mu \lambda }]`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{f}{r}}(h^{}+S^{}\rho ^{})2(d+1)\rho ]\eta _{\mu \nu }=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\tau {}_{\mu }{}^{}=`$ $`^2A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}_\mu ^\lambda A_\lambda +r^2({\displaystyle \frac{f}{r^2}})^{}A_\mu ^{}=0,`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\tau {}_{\tau }{}^{}=`$ $`^2S+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}}(h^{}+S^{}\rho ^{})2(d+1)\rho =0,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{\mu }{}^{}=`$ $`f^\lambda (h_{\lambda \mu }^{}\eta _{\lambda \mu }(h^{}+S^{}))+({\displaystyle \frac{f}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}})_\mu S+({\displaystyle \frac{(d1)f}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}})_\mu \rho =0,`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{\tau }{}^{}=`$ $`f^\lambda A_\lambda ^{}=0,`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{r}{}^{}=`$ $`f(S^{\prime \prime }+h^{\prime \prime })+{\displaystyle \frac{3f^{}}{2}}S^{}+({\displaystyle \frac{2f}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}})h^{}({\displaystyle \frac{df}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}})\rho ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}^\lambda _\lambda \rho 2(d+1)\rho =0,`$ (18)
where $`h^{}=_rh`$, etc. We note that the diagonal $`rr`$-equation is second order in $`r`$-derivatives; it only becomes a first-order constraint in “trace-unreversed” form, e.g., for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{r}{}^{}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{r}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda ^\lambda +\mathrm{\Sigma }^\tau {}_{\tau }{}^{})`$. We also note that not all these equations are independent due to the Bianchi identity.

It is interesting to point out that these equations have the expected pure AdS ($`f(r)f_0(r)=r^2`$) limits. It is easy to see that the 3 wave equations, (2.3)-(15), collapse into a single tensor equation for $`h_{ab}`$, $`a,b=\tau ,1,\mathrm{},d`$, with the identification $`A_\mu h_{\tau \mu }`$ and $`Sh_{\tau \tau }`$. Similarly, the first two constraints, (16) and (17), after taking into account that $`\tau `$ derivatives have been dropped, also become a single vector equation. Thus in pure AdS we have the 3 equations,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ab}=`$ $`^2h_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}[_a_b(h+\rho )_a^ch_{cb}_b^ch_{ac}]+[r(h^{}\rho ^{})2(d+1)\rho ]\eta _{ab}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{a}{}^{}=`$ $`r^2^c(h_{ca}^{}\eta _{ca}h^{})+dr_a\rho =0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r{}_{r}{}^{}=`$ $`r^2h^{\prime \prime }+3rh^{}+(d+1)\rho ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}^c_c\rho 2(d+1)\rho =0.`$
Lastly, we introduce for later convenience a differential operator in r, $`_r^2\varphi \sqrt{g}^1(\sqrt{g}f\varphi ^{})^{}`$, where $`\sqrt{g}=r^d`$, so that the covariant Laplacian can be expressed as

$$^2\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_N\varphi )=_r^2\varphi +\frac{1}{r^2}^\lambda _\lambda \varphi =f\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(\frac{df}{r}+f^{})\varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{r^2}^\lambda _\lambda \varphi .$$

Boundary Conditions: The tension on the Planck surface must be adjusted (or fine tuned) to preserve the Black Hole metric with a metrically flat ($`R^d\times S^1`$) brane world at $`r=r_c`$. This is done through the Israel junction conditions, which can also be expressed conveniently in Gaussian normal coordinates (or axial gauge $`g_{Mr}=0`$ for $`Mr`$) with the brane fixed at $`r=r_c`$. The extrinsic curvature takes the form,

$$K_{ab}(r_c\pm ϵ)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{g_{rr}}}_rg_{ab}(x,r_c\pm ϵ),$$
(19)
and jump condition,

$$K_{ab}(r_c+ϵ)K_{ab}(r_cϵ)=2\kappa _D_{r_cϵ}^{r_c+ϵ}𝑑r(T_{ab}^{brane}\frac{1}{D2}g_{ab}T^{brane}),$$
(20)
where $`g_{ab}`$ is the induced metric (namely $`a,b`$ take on all coordinates except $`r`$).

The trace-reversed energy-momentum on for our brane model is given by

$$2\kappa _D(T_{ab}^{brane}\frac{1}{D2}g_{ab}T^{brane})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _\tau [\sigma ]g_{\tau \tau }& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill \lambda [\sigma ]g_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right]\delta (rr_c),$$
(21)
where we define the “tensions” in an arbitrary background, $`\sigma `$, by $`\lambda [\sigma ](V[\sigma ]+V^{}[\sigma ])/2d`$ and $`\lambda _\tau [\sigma ](V[\sigma ](d1)V^{}[\sigma ])/2d`$. To zeroth order in the background metric $`\mathrm{exp}[2\sigma _0(r)]=f(r)`$, their values are now fixed by (19)-(21): $`\lambda [\sigma _0]=\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _\tau [\sigma _0]=\lambda _\tau `$. These reduce to Eq. (9) for $`\alpha =1`$, as promised.

To first order, the Israel junction conditions provide boundary conditions for our EOM at $`r=r_c`$,

$`h_{\mu \nu }^{}=[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\rho +({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \lambda _\tau }{2\sqrt{f}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{d}})S]\eta _{\mu \nu },`$
$`S^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{2}}\rho +({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \lambda _\tau }{2\sqrt{f}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{d}}+\alpha )S,`$
$`A_\mu ^{}=0.`$ (22)
(We have also imposed $`Z_2`$ symmetry so that the jump condition is defined through the radial derivative to the left of the cusp at $`r_cϵ`$.) Note that the simplest model for an asymmetric brane, Eq. (8), corresponds to having $`\alpha =1`$ in which we must further restrict $`A_\mu (r_c)=0`$. To maintain the horizon as a coordinate singularity also dictates that

$$S(r_{min})=\rho (r_{min}),$$
(23)
and requires that $`\rho `$, $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`S`$ are regular at $`r=r_{min}`$ .

## 3 Analysis of Zero Mass Spectrum

Randall and Sundrum have observed that the gravitational field in the bulk spacetime AdS space gives rise to a zero mass graviton. The graviton is a domain wall state confined to the Planck brane with an exponential tail into the bulk when measured in proper distance. We will see below that their mechanism for producing brane world gravity generalizes to our spacetime background as well. However in the first Randall-Sundrum model  there is another massless bulk mode, the “radion”, representing the fluctuations in the proper distance separating the positive and negative tensions branes at the $`Z_2`$ orbifold planes. We wish to see if we have a similar radion mode in our model.

To enumerate clearly the physical modes, we choose to completely fix the gauge. It is natural in our argument to study each wave equation, as a function of the radial coordinate, by imposing first the boundary condition at the Black Hole horizon and then integrating out to the Planck brane. A convenient gauge for this analysis begins with our choice of an axial gauge

$$h_{ra}h_{ra}^{}=h_{ra}+\xi _{a;r}+\xi _{r;a}=0,\text{for}a=\tau ,1,\mathrm{}d,$$
(24)
in a coordinate system with the Planck brane fixed at $`r=r_c`$ and the horizon at $`r=r_{min}`$, independent of the flucutations around the background. In the above gauge there remains one additional r-dependent transformation $`rr+\xi ^r(x,\tau ,r)`$ with

$$\xi ^\mu (x,\tau ,r)=r^2^\mu ^r𝑑r\frac{\xi ^r(x,\tau ,r)}{r^2f(r)}\text{and}\xi ^\tau (x,\tau ,r)=f(r)^\tau ^r𝑑r\frac{\xi ^r(x,\tau ,r)}{f^2(r)},$$

as well as $`d+1`$ r-independent gauge transformations, $`x^ax^a+\xi _0^a(x,\tau )`$. These residual gauge transformations will be used to eliminate additional unphysical states. Since the charged KK modes do not contribute to the zero mass states we may simplify the discussion by dropping all $`\tau `$-dependence in what follows, leaving us the usual gauge transformation $`\xi _0^\tau (x)`$ for the KK “photon”, $`h_{\tau \mu }=A_\mu (x)`$, and d r-independent gauge transformations, $`\xi _0^\mu (x)`$, for our brane world gravity.

### 3.1 Graviton Solution

We begin by looking for the analog of the Randall-Sundrum solution, thus obtaining the propagating degrees of freedom for the massless graviton on the brane. Our Planck brane spans a d-dimensional Lorentz space and a compact $`\tau `$-axis. We set the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ to zero. By inspection we see from Eq. (2.3) that the traceless ($`_ih_{ii}^{}=0`$) transverse plane wave state, $`h_{ij}^{}(r)\mathrm{exp}[ip_\mu x^\mu ]`$, satisfy the equation for minimally coupled scalar,

$$_r^2h_{ij}^{}+\frac{m^2}{r^2}h_{ij}^{}=0.$$
(25)
We note that the constant polarization vectors, $`h_{ij}^{}(r)=ϵ_{ij}`$, are the solution for a zero-mass graviton in transverse gauge, (with two helicity states, $`\lambda =\pm 2`$, for $`d=4`$).

To see that these modes indeed represent only a single graviton in the boundary theory, we must see that the gauge freedom and gauge constraints arising from the bulk description agree exactly with the gauge properties expected from a graviton propagating in the boundary. It is useful to review the standard arguement in flat space by dropping the r-dependence and the coupling to the additional longitudinal modes $`S,\rho `$ in Eq. (2.3). In this case we would have the usual linearized Einstein equation for the tensor field,

$$h_{\mu \nu ,\lambda }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }+h_{,\mu \nu }h_{\mu \lambda ,\nu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }h_{\nu \lambda ,\mu }{}_{}{}^{\lambda }=0.$$
(26)
To be explicit, we work in Minkowski space with conventional lightcone axes, $`e_\pm ^\mu =(0,\mathrm{},0,1,\pm 1)`$, so that all vector indices $`\mu `$, (e.g., $`V_\mu `$), are replaced by $`i,+,`$, (e.g., $`V_i,V_\pm e_\pm ^\mu V_\mu ,`$), with $`i=1,..,d2`$ and metric $`\eta _+=\eta _+=2`$. All states are taken to be plane waves with momentum $`p_\mu =(0,\mathrm{},p,E)`$, $`m^2=p^2=p_+p_{}`$ and $`p_+=p+E=2p`$ for $`m0`$ so that graviton solution in momentum space is

$$h_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu }e^{ip_+x^+}.$$
(27)
In Eq. (26), setting $`\mu \nu =i+,++`$, and $`+`$, we find

$`ϵ_i=0,`$ (28)
$`ϵϵ_+=0,`$ (29)
$`ϵ_{}=0,`$ (30)
respectively where we have defined $`ϵ=ϵ_{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$. Thus the polarizations found from the bulk analysis must have the gauge freedom

$$ϵϵ_{\mu \nu }+p_\mu \xi _\nu +p_\nu \xi _\nu ,$$
(31)
and be subject to exactly the above three constraints. By the standard arguement  the physical states in the quotient space are the transverse graviton polarization $`ϵ_{ij}`$ given above.

We now must generalize this argument keeping track of possible r-dependence and the longitudinal coupling to $`S`$ and $`\rho `$. For this we need to be more precise about the spectrum of the radial equation for a minimal scalar. This is a Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem of the form,

$$_r^2\varphi _n(r)=\frac{m_n^2}{r^2}\varphi _n(r),$$
(32)
with orthonormal condition, $`_{r_{min}}^{r_c}𝑑r\sqrt{g}r^2\varphi _n(r)\varphi _m(r)=\delta _{nm}`$ and a Neumann boundary conditions, $`\varphi ^{}(r_c)=0`$ at the Planck brane and regularity at the origin, $`r=r_{min}`$. At $`r=r_{min}`$, the solution has the form $`C_1+C_2\mathrm{log}(rr_{min})`$. Regularity requires that we set $`C_2=0`$. The resulting operator is self-adjoint with a discrete positive semi-definite spectrum, $`m_n^20`$, and a single null vector, which is a constant in r: $`\varphi _0(r)=C`$. Thus the graviton arises as the unique normalizable state which is present only for finite $`r_c`$. Our earlier tensor glueball calculations  with $`r_c=\mathrm{}`$ exhibited a mass gap simply because this state was excluded from the Hilbert space due its logarithmically divergent norm. We postpone to Section 5 a more detailed comment on the effective gravity theory implied by this solution and its relation to the orginal Randall-Sundram construction.

### 3.2 Longitudinal Modes

We proceed by solving the full set of equations, Eqs.2.3-18, for massless modes. The KK “photon” $`A_\mu (r)`$ has a zero mode but this equation decouples from the rest and in our effective theory we have set $`A_\mu (r_c)=0`$ eliminating this mode. Viewed from the perspective of the little group for a light-like state, the tensor field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, in addition to the graviton, has in general 2(d-2) massless vector modes, ($`h_{i\pm }`$), and 4 scalars, ($`h_{},h_{++}`$,$`h_+`$ and $`h=\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }=_ih_{ii}+h_+`$). These mix with an additional KK scalar, $`S`$, and the radion, $`\rho `$. By finding explicitly all solutions for $`m^2=0`$, we can settle the issue concerning the existence of additional propagating scalars, i.e., the radion. A careful analysis of this sector is a bit involved. Here we give the outline of the argument.

First, consider first a pair of equations from Eq. (2.3):

$$_r^2h_i=0,_r^2h_{i+}=\frac{2h_i}{r^2}.$$
(33)
Let us integrate the first equation from $`r_{min}`$ outwards. Imposing regularity at $`r=r_{min}`$ and satisfying boundary conditions at $`r_c`$ gives $`h_i^{}=0`$, i.e., a null state $`h_i=constant`$. But the second equation leads to a contradiction if this constant is non-zero – we get a logarithmic singularity in $`h_{i+}`$ at $`r=r_{min}`$. Put suscinctly, the image of our radial operator in the Hilbert space cannot include the null vector. Thus we conclude that we must have $`h_i=0`$, which reproduces (28), and we then find that $`h_{i+}=const`$ is also a null vector. This latter constant can be gauged away to zero by a diffeomorphism $`\xi ^ix^+`$, just as would be expected for a graviton on the brane.

Similarly there is a pair of equations for

$$_r^2h_{}=0,_r^2[h_+\frac{2}{d}h]=\frac{2(d2)h_{}}{dr^2}.$$
(34)
These give the condition $`h_{}=0`$, which reproduces (30) above, and the condition that $`h_+\frac{2}{d}h=constant`$; this constant can again be gauged away by a $`r`$-independent diffeomorphism.

Next, we note that there are 3 equations for the remaining 4 scalars, $`S,\rho ,h_{++}`$, and $`h`$. This would appear to be an undetermined system, but we can perform an $`r`$-dependent diffeomorphims to reduce the radion field to a single constant, $`\rho (r)\rho _0`$, representing the fluctuation for the proper distance separating the Planck brane (at $`r=r_c`$) from the Black Hole horizon (at $`r=r_{min}`$).

Consider the $`++`$ component of the tensor equation for $`h_{\mu \nu }`$

$$_r^2h_{++}=\frac{4}{r^2}(S+\rho _0+hh_+),$$
(35)
and the “trace-unreversed” form of $`\tau \tau `$ and the $`rr`$ equations:

$`_r^2h{\displaystyle \frac{3f^{}}{2}}r^{d1}h^{}d(d+1)\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}h_{},`$ (36)
$`d{\displaystyle \frac{f}{r}}S^{}+((d1){\displaystyle \frac{f}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}})h^{}d(d+1)\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}h_{}.`$ (37)
Since we have shown that the function $`h_{}`$ is zero, the last two equations can be integrated rather trivially from $`r=r_{min}`$, yielding

$$S(r)=\frac{f^{}\rho _0y}{2\sqrt{f}},\text{and}h(r)=\frac{d\sqrt{f}\rho _0y}{r}+h(r_{min}),$$
(38)
where $`y(r)=_{r_{min}}^r𝑑r/\sqrt{f(r)}`$ is given in Eq. (5). Note that $`S(r_{min})=\rho _0`$ and both $`h`$ and $`S`$ are regular at $`r_{min}`$. The integration constant $`h(r_{min})`$ remains to be specified. When we substitute this solution into the boundary condition at $`r=r_c`$,

$`S^{}(r_c)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\tau }{2}}\rho _0+({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \lambda _\tau }{2\sqrt{f_c}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{d}}+\alpha )S_c,`$
$`h^{}(r_c)={\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2}}\rho _0+({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \lambda _\tau }{2\sqrt{f_c}}})(1\alpha )S_c,`$ (39)
we see that we are forced to set $`\rho _0=0`$, (unless we arbitrarily tune $`\alpha `$ to a special value as discussed in the next section). It follows from Eq. (38) that we also get $`S=0`$ and $`h=const`$. Returning to the $`h_{++}`$ equation and using arguments similar to those above, we find that we must have $`hh_+=0`$, thus reproducing (29). (We have previously shown that $`h_+\frac{2}{d}h=constant`$. It follows that a single r-independent diffeomorphism can gauge both $`h_+`$ and $`h`$ to zero.) Lastly, we also have $`h_{++}=constant`$, which can again be gauged away to zero.

Thus we see that the radion vanishes in the zero mass sector, unless we tune the parameter $`\alpha `$ in the above relations to a specific value; we will discuss such tuning further in the next section. One might hope that without such tuning we have eliminated the radion and obtained just a massless graviton on the brane. But as we will see below the radion actually has negative $`m^2`$ at $`\alpha =1`$, which is the value of $`\alpha `$ for our physical construction of the ‘asymmetric brane’. Thus the brane construction we started with is actually unstable. We will explore the nature of the solutions for arbitrary $`\alpha `$ in the search for a stable solution; however we do not know if these other values of $`\alpha `$ can be reproduced by a well-defined microscopic matter Lagrangian.

## 4 Radion Instability

To address the question of stability, imagine expanding the Euclidean action, Eq. (7), to quadratic order in the fluctuating fields relative to the AdS Black Hole background. The quadratic terms will take the form

$$S_E=\frac{\beta }{4\kappa _D}d^dp_1^{r_c}𝑑r\sqrt{g}\left[\varphi ^{}(r)\varphi (r)+\frac{p^2}{r^2}\varphi ^{}(r)Z\varphi (r)+_rX_{surface}+X_{brane}\delta (rr_c)\right],$$
(40)
choosing units so that $`k=r_{min}=1`$. $``$ and $`Z`$ may in general have Lorentz indices (see examples below). The general concept of stability of a classical solution requires that all fluctuations increase the action so perturbations in the partition function ($`𝑑g_{MN}\mathrm{exp}[S_E]`$) are well defined. However it is well known that off-shell Euclidean Einstein-Hilbert action is unbounded and does not even satisfy this stability condition to quadratic order in flat space. Consequently we restrict ourselves to a narrower criterion for on-shell stability where all eigenmodes are neither tachyonic (negative $`m^2`$) nor ghost-like (negative norm, i.e., negative coefficient for the $`p^2`$ kinetic term ). To investigate the question of on-shell stability, one looks at the condition of stationarity. Stationarity of the the surface terms ($`X_{surface},X_{brane}`$) is equivalent to imposing the Israel matching condition, so once we impose these boundary conditions we can drop the surface terms from the action. Thus we are led back to the problem of finding the spectrum by solving the eigenvalue equations, $`\varphi (r)=(p^2/r^2)Z\varphi (r)`$, for each eigenvector $`\varphi ^{(n)}(r)`$ with eigenvalue $`p^2=m_n^2`$. The sign of the norm of an eigenvector is defined by sign of the kinetic term,

$$_1^{r_c}𝑑r\frac{\sqrt{g}}{r^2}\varphi ^{(n)}(r)Z\varphi ^{(n)}(r),$$
(41)
in the Euclidean action.

### 4.1 Radion Mass

To see if the radion is tachyonic, we begin by examining the constraint of the two boundary conditions at the Planck brane more carefully for our potential with a single variable parameter $`\alpha `$. Since $`S`$, $`S^{}`$ and $`h^{}`$ are homogeneous in $`\rho _0`$, the trivial solution $`\rho _0=0`$ always exists corresponding no massless radion, as indicated earlier. When can we have a solution with $`\rho _00`$? Substituting the solution for $`h`$ and $`S`$, (38), into the junction conditions, we find remarkably that both equations lead to a single condition:

$$\left(\alpha 1\frac{2df(r_c)}{r_cf^{}(r_c)}\right)\rho _0=0.$$
(42)
When $`\alpha `$ takes on a critical value,

$$\alpha _{critical}=1+\frac{2df(r_c)}{r_cf^{}(r_c)}=1+d\frac{\lambda }{\lambda _\tau },$$
(43)
both boundary conditions for $`S^{}`$ and $`h^{}`$ at $`r_c`$ are met, with $`\rho _00`$. Therefore a massless radion can exist by fine tuning $`V_{brane}`$.

With $`\alpha =\alpha _{critical}`$, the remaining fluctuation $`h_{++}`$ can next be found by solving Eq. (35). We obtain the solution

$$h_{++}^{}(r)=\frac{4}{r^2\sqrt{f}}y\rho _0\frac{4r_c}{r^3\sqrt{f}_c}y_c\rho _0,$$

with $`h_+=2h/d`$. Regularity at $`r=r_{min}`$ has fixed the integration constant for $`h`$ so that

$$h(r_{min})=\frac{d(d1)r_c}{(d2)\sqrt{f_c}}y_c\rho _0.$$

The last remaining gauge freedom can be used to specify the integration constant, thus providing a complete specification for fluctuations associated with the massless radion.

As one smoothly varies $`\alpha `$ so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \alpha \alpha _{critical}0`$, one expects this mode to survive with the radion acquiring a mass. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ small, this mass can be calculated perturbatively. Denote $`SS_0+m^2S_1`$ and $`hh_0+m^2h_1,`$ where $`S_0`$ and $`h_0`$ are solution at $`\alpha =\alpha _{critical}`$. Substituting these into Eqs. (15) and (18), we find, to first order in $`m^2`$, a set of equations for $`S_1`$ and $`h_1`$:

$$r^2f(S_1^{\prime \prime }+h_1^{\prime \prime })+(2rf+\frac{r^2f^{}}{2})h_1^{}+\frac{3r^2f^{}}{2}S_1^{}=\rho _0\text{and}r^2fh_1^{\prime \prime }+2rfh_1^{}drfS_1^{}=S_0\rho _0.$$
(44)
By imposing appropriate boundary conditions at both $`r=r_{min}`$ and $`r=r_c`$, these first order perturbations can be obtained. In particular, the radion mass is fixed to this order. For $`r_c`$ large, one obtains a simple analytic expression

$$m^2\frac{(d2)(d+1)}{2}(\frac{r_{min}}{r_c})^{d1}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .$$
(45)
Consequently the system becomes tachyonic when reducing $`\alpha `$ below $`\alpha _{critical}`$ in the direction of our model for the Planck brane at $`\alpha =1`$. We have check this result numerically that finding for $`\alpha <\alpha _{crit}`$ a small negative $`m^2<0`$ of order $`0((r_{min}/r_c)^{d1})`$ set by the mass hierarchy. At $`\alpha =1`$, it remains negative, giving $`m^235(r_{min}/r_c)^{d1}`$.

### 4.2 Ghost Analysis

To establish our sign conventions consider first the physical transverse traceless tensor field for tensor glueballs or graviton mode, $`h_{\mu \nu }^{}(r)`$ with $`p^\lambda h_{\lambda \nu }^{}(r)=h_{\mu \lambda }^{}(r)p^\lambda =\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }^{}(r)=0`$. Their contribution to the action is

$$S_E=\frac{\beta }{4\kappa _D}d^dp𝑑r\sqrt{g}\left[h_{\mu \nu }^{}_r^2h_{\mu \nu }^{}+\frac{p^2}{r^2}h_{\mu \nu }^{}h_{\mu \nu }^{}\right].$$
(46)
The signs are such that all on shell massive modes are neither tachyonic nor ghost-like. More subtle problem of the decoupling of null states for the zero-mass graviton has already been discussed leading to only two physical states to the on-shell graviton to with $`\pm 2`$ helicities for d=4.

In the massive scalar sector, we have a coupled problem for four amplitudes, $`h(r,p)=\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }(r,p)`$, $`h_T(r,p)(\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2})h_{\mu \nu }(r,p)`$, $`S(r,p)`$, and $`\rho (r,p)`$, with

$`S_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4\kappa _D}}{\displaystyle }d^dpdr\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d1}}h_T^{}_r^2h_T+h_T^{}_r^2h+h^{}_r^2h_T+S^{}_r^2h+h^{}_r^2S`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(d+1)f}{2}}(h^{}S^{}S^{}h^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{r^2}}\varphi ^{}Z\varphi +𝒰(\varphi ^{},\varphi )]`$
The “kinetic” term is expressed in a matrix form, with

$$\varphi ^{}Z\varphi =\frac{d2}{d1}h_T^{}h_T(h_T^{}S+S^{}\rho +\rho ^{}h_T+\text{h.c.}),$$
(48)
where the matrix $`Z`$ defines the norm for these scalar fluctuations. The remaining non-vanishing terms for $`\rho 0`$ are

$$𝒰(\varphi ^{},\varphi )=(\frac{f^{}}{2}+\frac{(d+1)f}{r})(\rho ^{}h^{}h^{}\rho ^{})+\frac{df}{r}(\rho ^{}S^{}S^{}\rho ^{})\frac{d(d+1)}{2}(\rho ^{}(h_T+S+\rho )+\text{h.c.}).$$

Unlike the traceless-transverse tensor modes, the situation is now more complicated. Since the Z-matrix has both negative and positive eigenvalues, the possibility of ghosts is present. Consequently one must solve the coupled eigenvalue condition and check the actual norm, $`_1^{r_c}𝑑rr^{d2}\varphi ^{}Z\varphi `$, for each mode.

Without the Planck brane, positivity of the norm for on shell physical states presumably is required if the Maldacena hypothesis relating a unitary Yang-Mills theory to a ghost free super string is in fact valid. Nonetheless the quantization and proof of the no-ghost theorem in Ramond-Ramond backgrounds is far from trivial. Nonetheless for all the massive glueball states which survive when the Planck brane is removed are expected to be stable — neither tachyonic nor ghost-like. However, in the presence of the Planck brane new states do appear.

For the radion we have calculated its norm near the critical point ($`\alpha \alpha _{critical}`$) to zeroth order in $`m^2`$. With $`h_T=(\frac{d1}{d})h_0+0(m^2)`$, and, for $`rr_c`$ large, $`S_0(r)y(r)\rho _0,`$ $`h_0(r)d[y(r)(\frac{d1}{d2})y_c]\rho _0,`$ it follows that

$$_1^{r_c}𝑑rr^{d2}\varphi ^{}Z\varphi \frac{1}{(d2)}r_c^{d1}y_c^2\rho _0^2>0,$$
(49)
so radion appears not to be a ghost. We have checked numerically that this result holds for a range of values of $`\alpha `$ including our model for the Planck brane at $`\alpha =1`$. Therefore, the radion is a perfectly normal physical mode with a tachyonic mass for our microscopic construction of the asymmetric brane.

## 5  Brane World Gravity

Now let us return to discuss the graviton in our model and compare it with the Randall-Sundarm constructions. As noted above the transverse tensor $`h_{\mu \nu }^{}=ϵ_{\mu \nu }(p)T(r,p)e^{ipx}`$, obeys the same equation as a minimally coupled massless scalar,

$$\frac{1}{r^d}(r^dfT^{})^{}\frac{p^2}{r^2}T=0,$$
(50)
with $`T^{}(r_c)=0`$. A minimal scalar field, $`^2\varphi +M^2\varphi =0`$, of mass $`M`$ has two possible asymptotic forms, $`\varphi (r)(r)^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, or $`\varphi (r)(r)^{\mathrm{\Delta }(d+1)}`$, for conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(d+1)+\sqrt{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}(d+1)^2+(R_{ads}M)^2}`$. By a general argument for $`AdS^{d+2}/CFT`$ duality, only the first normalizable mode corresponds to an operator in correlation function for the boundary Yang-Mills theory — in our present example, $`T(r)(r)^6`$ with conformal mass $`M=0`$ corresponding to the energy-momentum operator in the boundary theory. The second non-normalizable mode is present only when the boundary theory is deformed by including the operator in the Yang-Mills Lagrangian. Our new graviton solutions, $`T(r)=\text{const}`$ with $`p^2=0`$, apparently corresponds to the second possibility where the Planck brane defect provides the deformation in terms of a UV cut-off so that this state can be normalized.

For a direct comparison with the Randall-Sundrum solution, it is instructive to convert to the proper distance (5) from the Black Hole horizon and introduce an integrating factor, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{W(y)}T`$, so that the tensor equation has the SUSY form,

$$[\frac{}{y}W^{}(y)][\frac{}{y}+W^{}(y)]\mathrm{\Psi }(y)=\frac{p^2}{r^2}\mathrm{\Psi }(r).$$
(51)
The “prepotential”

$$W(y)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(r^d\sqrt{f(r)})={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{sinh}((d+1)y))+\text{const}$$

is defined in the interval $`y[0,y_c]`$ between the Black Hole horizon ($`y=0`$) and the Planck brane ($`y=y_c`$). The effective potential $`V_{eff}(y)=(W^{})^2W^{\prime \prime }`$ is plotted the Fig 1. In the limit $`r_{min}0`$ (or large $`yy_c`$), we recover the Randall-Sundrum solution, $`V(y)(d+1)k|yy_c|`$, for pure AdS.

Note the “volcano” potential at the Planck brane is a delta-function at the edge of the disk. In addition, our effective potential has an attractive double pole at the origin of the disk ($`y=0`$) at the Black Hole horizon ($`r=r_{min}`$), which accounts for the discrete glueball or radial KK spectrum. In this representation, the zero-mass bound-state graviton has wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{exp}(W(y))`$ localized close to the Planck brane. Conversely the glueballs are localized close to the Black Hole horizon with mass on order of $`m_{GB}k^2r_{min}`$. Note that, with $`r_{min}=0`$, there would be no confinement, and one reverts back to the standard graviton equation  with no mass gap.

Without the Planck brane, the zero mass solution is no longer a normalizable state in the tensor spectrum. With the Planck brane, the graviton appears but the massive states are very slightly shifted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m/m_{GB}=O(r_{min}/r_c)`$. The mass hierarchy between the low energy glueballs and the Planck scale is therefore a reflection of the fact that glueballs wave functions are confined to a region close to $`r=r_{min}`$ where the graviton is exponentially suppressed as a function of proper distance, $`r_{min}/r_c\mathrm{exp}[k\mathrm{\Delta }y]`$.

Once we have a graviton and general covariance in the d-dimensional Minkowski space parallel to our $`d+1`$ dimensional Planck brane we expect to find a low energy effective theory for classical brane world gravity coupled to matter. To see explicitly how this low energy theory emerges, we should split the metric into heavy and light modes, $`g_{MN}(r,\tau ,x)=\widehat{g}_{MN}(r,x)+h_{MN}(r,\tau ,x)`$. Assuming that the graviton is the only zero mode, the new background metric $`\widehat{g}`$ includes the gravitation fluctuations $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ to all orders: $`ds^2=\frac{1}{f(r)}dr^2+f(r)d\tau ^2+r^2\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu `$. Expanding the Euclidean action (7) in the $`h_{MN}(r,\tau ,x)`$, we arrive at an effective action. The zeroth order term gives the dimensionally reduce Einstein-Hilbert action,

$$M_D^dd^dx_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _{r_{min}}^{r_c}𝑑r\sqrt{\overline{g}}(kr)^{d2}\overline{R}(x)=M_{Planck}^{d2}d^dx\sqrt{\overline{g}}\overline{R}.$$
(52)
The linear term in $`h_{MN}`$ should vanish and the quadratic terms provide the kinetic energy of the massive glueballs coupled covariantly to gravity. Higher terms correspond to glueball/graviton scattering, etc.

The strength of the brane world gravity is given by the effective Planck mass which is related to the transverse volume by $`M_{Planck}^{d2}=M_D^dV_{}`$, where

$$V_{}=\beta \frac{(kr_c)^{d1}(kr_{min})^{d1}}{k(d1)}.$$
(53)
Specifically if we start with 11-d M-theory for the deformed $`AdS^7\times S^4`$ background, the above analysis can be summarize by

$$M_{Planck}^2=\frac{1}{l_p^9}\times (\frac{R}{2})^4Vol(S^4)\times 2\pi R_{11}\times \frac{R\beta }{4}(\frac{r_c}{R})^4,$$
(54)
where the factors reading from left to right respectively come from: the 11-d Planck scale $`M_{11}^9=1/l_p^9`$, the volume of $`S^4`$, the length of the 11-th axis and the volume of $`r\text{-}\tau `$ disk 222Explicitly we use $`Vol(S^n)=2\pi ^{(n+1)/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }((n+1)/2)`$, $`R^3=8\pi Nl_p^3`$, $`r_{min}=R^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{qcd}`$, $`\alpha _{qcd}^{}=R^3l_s^2/r_{min}^3`$, $`R_{11}=g_sl_s`$, $`\beta =2\pi R^2/(3r_{min})`$, and $`l_p^3=g_sl_s^3`$.. The result is

$$M_{Planck}^2=\frac{32\pi ^6N^2}{9\alpha _{qcd}^{}}(r_c/r_{min})^4.$$
(55)
It is also worth noting that our radion instability is an extremely small scale set by the inverse of this hierarchy: $`m_{tachyon}^2/\alpha _{qcd}^{}=O(\alpha _{qcd}^{}/M_{Planck}^2)`$. Nonetheless such an instability is still probably too large on a cosmological time scale.

If we regard the Black Hole horizon at $`r=r_{min}`$ as the location of a “QCD brane”, this simple expression can be seen as the standard Randall-Sundrum mass hierarchy  between the Planck mass and the “QCD” scale given by the exponential ( $`r_{min}/r_c\mathrm{exp}[k\mathrm{\Delta }y]`$) of the proper distance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$, separating the Planck brane from the “QCD brane”. In addition there is a factor $`N^2`$, which sets the scale of the 6 remaining compact dimensions in units of the fundamental Planck length of M-theory. In fact we have found a Randall-Sundrum like mechanism without any explicit introduction of a second matter brane. Moreover we have a truly large $`GeV`$ scale extra dimensions; however there is no obvious contradiction with gravity at short distance since the radial KK modes that give exponential corrections to gravity are simply intermediate glueball states that are the obvious consequent of QCD corrections to the graviton propagator. An alternative way to understand the hierarchy is to observe that the coupling of glueballs to the graviton represents an overlap of the graviton wavefunction with the square of the glueball wave function (see Fig. 1). The small coupling is now a result of the exponentially small overlap.

## 6 Conclusion

It is tempting to speculate that our construct can serve as a simple model of gravity interacting with non-conformal matter in the confined phase where both the matter and the graviton are a consequence of excitations of the same higher dimensional string fields with no need for external sources. Of course we are aware that this scenario is a long way from a realistic model that can be rigorously constructed within the context of non-perturbative string theory. Even in this limited context, we have found that our first attempt at a microscopic theory for the Planck brane, intersecting $`d1`$ and $`d`$ dimensional branes, actually leads to a tachyonic radion mode. Future efforts will explore other approaches to a microscopic theory to see if this instability can be circumvented.

Finally let us remark on the spectrum in our M-theory approach to the strong coupling $`QCD_4`$ glueballs, imagining for now that some suitable model can be found to stabilize the radion. The glueball spectrum has been studied in details . The lowest mass “glueball” states found on the gravitational metric $`g_{MN}`$ restricted to the $`AdS^7`$ subspace, obey the inequalities

$$m(0^{++})<m(2^{++})=m(1^+)=m(0^{++})<m(1^+)=m(0^+).$$

The degeneracy in the spectrum reflect an accidental $`O(4)`$ symmetry at strong coupling due to the fact that the compact 11th coordinate acts like an extra spatial axis. In effect we have a 5-d theory with tensors, $`g_{\tau \tau }`$, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g_{\mu \tau }`$, where $`\mu =1,2,3,4,11`$. The massive (“glueball” states) are very slightly displaced by the presences of a Planck brane due the exponential hierarchy discussed above. However, after introducing the Planck brane, there are a finite number of new “light” states. The new additional states are: (i) A 5-d zero mass tensor graviton with five physical degrees of freedom which gives rise to Kaluza-Klein gravity on $`R^{(3,1)}\times S^1`$ or in 4-d language a $`2^{++}`$ graviton, a $`1^{}`$ KK photon and a zero mass $`0^{++}`$ KK dilaton; (ii) a new radion state, stabilized by some unknown mechanism; and (iii) a new light 5-d vector again assuming a way is found to introduce a mass term for the $`A_\mu `$ field coupled to the brane. This decomposes in 4-d into a vector $`1^+`$/scalar $`0^{++}`$ multiplet. Note there is no Planck domain wall state corresponding to the lowest scalar glueball $`0^{++}`$ associated with $`g_{\tau \tau }`$. Instead the radion is an entirely new degree of freedom due to fluctuations in the finite proper distances, $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$, of the Planck brane form the Black Hole horizon. Away from strong coupling, the $`m(2^{++})=m(0^{++})`$ glueball degeneracy is expected to be broken since the 11-th axis is distinguished in many ways (being a compact axis on which the membrane is wrapped) and in fact lattice QCD data also exhibit a significant splitting. Consequently a similar fate should lift the mass of the dilaton. Once $`A_\mu `$ is reintroduced a standard Higgs mechanism can lift its mass. Of course without a viable microscopic model, it is not possible to be precise, but clearly higher dimensional branes world models, such as the 5+1 dimensional one we are considering here, can give very interesting new low mass states.

We have sketched the effective low energy theory on the gravity side of the AdS/CFT duality. Here the “glueballs” and the graviton are seen as excitations of the same supergravity (or weak coupling string) modes. This suggests an intriguing possibility for the relationship between the “QCD string” and the “fundamental string”. In the confined phase of QCD both strings may merge into a single entity. One possibility is that when (and if) a phenomenologically satisfactory vacuum is found for superstring theory, one may have a phase diagram, which continuously connects quantum gravity to the lower energy confined QCD phase coupled weakly to low energy gravitational modes. Of course such a theory would have to have additional scales in between the Planck brane and the QCD scale for all of the rest of the standard model, TeV physics and whatever might “grow” in the desert. This need not contradict the alternative dual description of a weak coupling Yang Mills limit in which gravity is seen as an additional (semi-classical) background left over from the superstrings in the IR. Since the graviton mode is a non-normalizable state in the standard AdS/CFT dictionary, it presumably corresponds to adding the Einstein-Hilbert action (at low energy) to the Yang-Mills Lagrangian. Although the QCD string in this picture appears simply as a trick for reformulating the color singlet sector of the confined phase by String/Gauge duality it is in fact more directly a consequence of superstring in extra dimensions. It would be nice to be able to make this dual view of the QCD string more precise.

Appendix A: Global Radion Analysis in Randall-Sundrum Two-Brane Scenario

Consider a pure $`AdS_5`$ background, with two fixed branes located at $`r=r_{min}`$ and $`r=r_c`$, ($`0<r_{min}<r_c`$), and assume $`Z_2`$-orbifolding at both branes, (we shall adopt notations as close to our $`AdS/BH`$ case as possible.) We are interested in providing a “global” solution for a massless radion and also in the limit $`r_{min}0`$ where the proper distance between branes diverges. Introducing analogous “reduced” fluctuations, $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\rho `$, the metric, for $`r_{min}rr_c`$, becomes, $`ds^2=(1+\rho )\frac{dr^2}{r^2}+(\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu })r^2dx^\mu dx^\nu .`$ There are now two sets of junction conditions, at $`r=r_{min}`$ and $`r=r_c`$, where $`h_{\mu \nu }^{}(r_{min}+ϵ)=\frac{\rho (r_{min})}{r_{min}}\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }^{}(r_cϵ)=\frac{\rho (r_c)}{r_c}\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ respectively.

Leaving aside the transverse graviton, other massless modes can again be analyzed as done for the case of AdS/BH using lightcone variables. There are four vector fluctuations, $`h_{i\pm }`$, $`i=1,2`$, and four scalar fluctuations, $`h`$, $`h_{++}`$, $`h_{}`$, and $`h_+`$. One easily finds that, after global gauge fixings, $`h_{i\pm }=0`$, $`h_{}=0`$, and $`h=2h_+`$, with $`h`$ and $`h_{++}`$ remaining to be specified.

We next choose the gauge where $`\rho \rho _0`$. Linearized Einstein equations,

$$rh^{}4\rho _0=0,_r^2h_{++}\frac{(2h+4\rho _0)}{r^2}=0,$$
(A.1)
can be solved after enforcing boundary conditions, leading to

$`h(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4\rho _0\left\{\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_{min}}})({\displaystyle \frac{r_c^2}{r_c^2r_{min}^2}})\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{r_c}{r_{min}}})\right\},`$
$`h_{++}^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\rho _0}{r^3}}\left\{\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_c}})+({\displaystyle \frac{r_{min}}{r}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{r_c^2r^2}{r_c^2r_{min}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{r_c}{r_{min}}})\right\}.`$ (A.2)
The integration constant for $`h_{++}`$ can be fixed by the last r-independent gauge transformation. It is straight forward to verify that the norm for this mode is positive. This massless radion is therefore physical.

Finally, let us find out what happens if one pushes $`r_{min}`$ to zero. In this limit, the proper distance between branes $`_0^{r_c}\frac{dr}{r}\mathrm{}`$, thus reducing to a one-brane RS scenario . As $`r_{min}0`$, both $`h`$ and $`h_{++}^{}`$ approach well-defined limits: $`h(r)4\rho _0\mathrm{log}(\frac{r}{r_c}),`$ and $`h_{++}^{}(r)\frac{4\rho _0}{r^3}\mathrm{log}(\frac{r}{r_c}).`$ However, for $`h`$ and $`h_{++}`$ to be bounded at $`r=0`$, one finds that

$$\rho _0=0,$$
(A.3)
so that the radion decouples, as it should.


text:
# Five-Loop Critical Temperature Shift in Weakly Interacting Homogeneous Bose-Einstein Condensate

## Abstract

Using variational perturbation theory, we calculate the shift in the critical temperature $`T_c`$ up to five loops to lowest order in the scattering length $`a`$ and find $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c/T_c^{(0)}(1.14\pm 0.11)an^{1/3}`$, where $`n`$ is the particle density. Our result is lower than the latest Monte Carlo result $`(1.32\pm 0.02)an^{1/3}`$.

The effect of a small repulsive interaction upon the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) has been a matter of controversy for many years, and the various results are converging only very slowly towards a common answer. Here we want to contribute to the ongoing discussion with a further result obtained from a resummation of Feynman diagrams up to five loops.

The interacting Bose-Einstein condensate is described by the euclidean action

$$𝒜_E=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau d^3x\left\{\psi ^{}(𝐱,\tau )\left(_\tau \frac{1}{2M}^2\right)\psi (𝐱,\tau )\mu \psi ^{}(𝐱,\tau )\psi (𝐱,\tau )+\frac{2\pi a}{M}\left[\psi (𝐱,\tau )\psi ^{}(𝐱,\tau )\right]^2\right\},$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the bosons, $`\beta `$ the inverse temperature in natural units with $`\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$, $`a`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length, and $`\mu `$ the chemical potential. The free system has a transition temperature

$$T_c^{(0)}=\frac{2\pi }{M}\left[\frac{n}{\zeta (3/2)}\right]^{\frac{2}{3}},$$
(2)
where $`n`$ is the particle density. A small relative shift of $`T_c`$ with respect to $`T_c^{(0)}`$ can be calculated from the general formula

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c^{(0)}}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n^{(0)}},$$
(3)
where $`n^{(0)}`$ is the particle density in the free condensate and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ its change at $`T_c`$ caused by the small interaction. For small $`a`$, this behaves like gordon ; second

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c^{(0)}}=c_1an^{1/3}+[c_2^{}\mathrm{ln}(an^{1/3})+c_2]a^2n^{2/3}+𝒪(a^3n).$$
(4)
where $`c_2^{}=64\pi \zeta (1/2)/3\zeta (3/2)^{5/3}19.7518`$ can be calculated perturbatively, whereas $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ require nonperturbative techniques since infrared divergences at $`T_c`$ make them basically strong-coupling results. The standard technique to reach this regime is based on a resummation of perturbation expansions using the renormalization group zj ; KS , first applied in this context by Ref. st . Recently, however, it has been shown by calculating the best known critical exponent $`\alpha `$ of superfluid helium from Satellite experiments Lipa  that the accuracy of strong-coupling results can be surpassed by much simpler variational perturbation theory SC3 ; SCE ; KS .

Up to now, $`c_2`$ has been inferred only from Monte Carlo data to be $`c_275.7\pm 0.4`$. In order to find the leading coefficient $`c_1`$, one may take advantage of an important simplification due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ can be calculated from the classical limit of the field theory, which is governed by the three-dimensional action

$$𝒜_{3d}=\beta d^3x\left\{\psi _0^{}(𝐱)\left(\frac{1}{2M}^2\mu \right)\psi _0(𝐱)+\frac{2\pi a}{M}\left[\psi _0^{}(𝐱)\psi _0(𝐱)\right]^2\right\}.$$
(5)
This is a special case $`N=2`$ of the more general O($`N`$)-invariant $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory

$$𝒜_\varphi =d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}|\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{u}{4!}(\varphi ^2)^2\right],$$
(6)
where the $`N`$-component field $`\varphi =(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _N)`$ is related to the original field $`\psi `$ for $`N=2`$ by $`\psi (𝐱)=\sqrt{MT}[\varphi _1(𝐱)+i\varphi _2(𝐱)]`$. The square mass is $`m^2=2M\mu `$, and the quartic coupling is $`u=48\pi aMT`$. Using this relation, the shift of the critical temperature (3) can be found from the formula

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c^{(0)}}\frac{2}{3}\frac{MT_c^{(0)}}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2=\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{(MT_c^{(0)})^2}{n}4!\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}{u}a=\frac{4\pi }{3}(2\pi )^2\frac{1}{[\zeta (3/2)]^{4/3}}4!\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}{u}an^{1/3},$$
(7)
corresponding in Eq. (4) to

$$c_11103.09\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}{u}.$$
(8)
The three-dimensional theory is superrenormalizable and requires only mass counterterms which shift the original bare mass $`m`$ to the renormalized mass $`m_r`$. A calculation of the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1 yields the following five-loop perturbation expansion for the expectation value $`\varphi ^2/u`$ ramospr ; braat

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`F\left(u\right){\displaystyle \frac{N}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_r}{u}}a_2{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(2+N\right)}{18(4\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}+a_3{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(16+10N+N^2\right)}{108(4\pi )^5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}\right)^2`$ (9)
$`[a_{41}{\displaystyle \frac{N(2+N)^2}{324(4\pi )^7}}+a_{42}{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(40+32N+8N^2+N^3\right)}{648(4\pi )^7}}+a_{43}{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(44+32N+5N^2\right)}{324(4\pi )^7}}`$
$`+a_{44}{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(2+N\right)^2}{324(4\pi )^7}}+a_{45}{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(44+32N+5N^2\right)u^4}{324m_r^3(4\pi )^7}}\left]\right({\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}})^3+\mathrm{}.`$
where $`a_2\mathrm{log}(4/3)/20.143841`$ and the other constants are only known numerically braatexp :

(11)
Writing the above expansion up to the $`L`$th term as $`F_L(u)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l=1}^Lf_l(u/4\pi m_r)^l`$, the expansion coefficients for the relevant number of components $`N=2`$ are braatexp :

$`f_1=126.651\times 10^4,f_0=0,f_1=4.04837\times 10^4,f_2=2.39701\times 10^4,f_3=1.80\times 10^4.`$ (12)
We need the value of the series $`F_L(u)`$ in the critical limit $`m_r0`$, which is obviously equivalent to the strong-coupling limit of $`F_L(u)`$. As mentioned above, this limit should be most accurately found with the help of variational perturbation theory SC3 ; SCE ; KS .

If the series were of quantum mechanical origin, we could find this limit by applying the rules of naive variational perturbation theory PI . We form the sequence of truncated expansions $`F_L(u)`$ for $`1,2,3`$ and replace each term

$$(u/m_r)^lK^l[11]_{Ll}^{l/2}$$
(13)
where the symbol $`[11]_k^r`$ is defined as the binomial expansion of $`(11)^r`$ truncated after the $`k`$th term

$$[11]_k^r\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}\right)(1)^i=(1)^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r1}{k}\right).$$
(14)
The resulting expressions must be optimized in the variational parameter $`K`$. They are listed in Table 1.

The approximants $`W_{1,2,3}^{\mathrm{QM}}`$ have extrema $`W_{1,2,3}^{\mathrm{QMext}}0.00277,+0.00405,0.0029,`$ corresponding, via (8), to $`c_13.059,4.46,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.01}`$. These values have previously been obtained in Ref. ramospr  in a much more complicated way via a so-called $`\delta `$-expansion. Note the negative sign of the second approximation arising from the fact that an extremum exists only at negative $`K`$. According to our rules of variational perturbation theory one should, in this case, use the saddle point at positive $`K`$ which would yield $`W_2^{\mathrm{QM}}=0.00153`$ corresponding to $`c_11.69`$ rather than -4.46, leading to the more reasonable approximation sequence $`c_13.059,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.69},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.01}`$, which shows no sign of convergence. In $`W_3^{\mathrm{QM}}`$, there is also a pair of complex extrema from which the authors of Ref. ramospr  extract the real part Re $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{3\mathrm{complex}}^{\mathrm{QM}}0.00134`$ corresponding to $`c_11.48`$, which they state as their final result. There is, however, no acceptable theoretical justification for such a choice Ham .

This lack of convergence is not astonishing since naive quantum mechanical variational perturbation theory is inapplicable to field theory, contrary to ubiquitous statements in the literature ubi . A simple but essential modification is necessary to allow for the well-known fact that there are anomalous dimensions in the critical regime of fluctuating fields. This modification was discovered in Ref. SC3  and tested by the fact it reproduces in $`D=4ϵ`$ dimensions exactly the known $`ϵ`$ expansions of renormalization group theory SCE . In $`D=3`$ dimensions, it leads to the most accurate critical exponents so far (see in particular Chapters 19 and 20 in the textbook KS ).

The correct procedure goes as follows: We form the logarithmic derivative of the expansion (9):

$`\beta \left(u\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}F(u)}{\mathrm{log}u}}=1+2{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{f_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}\right)^2+3{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{f_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}\right)^3+\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{f_1}}2{\displaystyle \frac{f_1^2}{f_1^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}\right)^4+\mathrm{}.`$ (15)
In order for $`F(u)`$ to go to a constant in the critical limit $`m_r0`$, this function must go to zero in the strong-coupling limit $`u\mathrm{}`$. Writing the expansion as $`\beta _L\left(u\right)=1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l=2}^Lb_l(u/4\pi m_r)^l`$, the coefficients are

$$b_2=0.0639293,b_3=0.056778,b_4=0.0548799.$$
(16)
The sums $`\beta _L(u)`$ have to be evaluated for $`u\mathrm{}`$ allowing for the universal anomalous dimension $`\omega `$ by which the physical observables of $`\varphi ^4`$-theories approach the scaling limit zj ; KS . The approach to the critical point $`A+B(m_r/u)^\omega ^{}`$ where $`\omega ^{}=\omega /(1\eta /2)`$ rem . The exponent $`\eta `$ is the small anomalous dimension of the field while $`\omega `$ is related to the famous Wegner exponent Wegner  of renormalization group theory $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \nu `$. Here it appears in the variational expression for the strong-coupling limit which is found SC3 ; SCE  by replacing $`(u/m_r)^l`$ by $`K^l[11]_{Ll}^{ql/2}`$, where $`q2/\omega ^{}`$. Thus we obtain the variational expressions

$`W_3^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f_1}{f_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2f_1q}{f_1}}\right)K^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3f_2}{f_1}}K^3`$ (17)
$`W_4^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f_1}{f_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3f_1q}{f_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1q^2}{f_1}}\right)K^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3f_2}{f_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9f_2q}{2f_1}}\right)K^3+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4f_3}{f_1}}\right)K^4`$ (18)
The first has a vanishing extremum at $`\omega _3^{}=0.592`$, the second has neither an extremum nor a saddle point. However, a complex pair of extrema lies reasonably close to the real axis at $`\omega _4^{}=0.635\pm 0.116`$, whose real part is not far from the true exponent of approach $`\omega _{\mathrm{}}^{}0.81`$ zj ; KS , to which $`\omega _L^{}`$ will converge for order $`L\mathrm{}`$ SC3 . Given these $`\omega ^{}`$-values, we now form the variational expressions $`W_L`$ from $`F_L`$ by the replacement $`(u/m_r)^lK^l[11]_{Ll}^{ql/2}`$, which are

$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`f_1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q^2\right)K^1+f_1K,`$ (19)
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`f_1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{11}{13}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}q^3\right)K^1+f_1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\right)K+f_2K^2,`$ (20)
$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`f_1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{25}{24}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{96}}q^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{96}}q^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{384}}q^4\right)K^1+f_1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q^2\right)K+f_2(1+q)K^2+f_3K^3.`$ (21)
The lowest function $`W_2`$ is optimized with the naive growth parameter $`q=1`$ since to this order no anomalous value can be determined from the zero of the beta function (15). The optimal result is $`W_2^{\mathrm{opt}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{log}[4/3]/6}/8\pi ^20.00277`$ corresponding to $`c_13.06`$. The next function $`W_3`$ is optimized with the above determined $`q_3=2/\omega _3^{}`$ and yields $`W_3^{\mathrm{opt}}0.000976`$ corresponding to $`c_11.078`$. Although $`\omega _4^{}`$ is not real we shall insert its real part into $`W_4`$ and find $`W_4^{\mathrm{opt}}0.000957`$ corresponding to $`c_11.057`$. The three values of $`c_1`$ for $`\overline{L}L1=1,2,3`$ can well be fitted by a function $`c_11.053+2/\overline{L}^6`$ (see Fig. 2). Such a fit is suggested by the general large-$`L`$ behavior $`a+be^{c\overline{L}^{1\omega ^{}}}`$ which was derived in Refs. PI . Due to the smallness of $`1\omega ^{}0.2`$, this can be replaced by $`a^{}+b^{}/\overline{L}^s`$.

Alternatively, we may optimize the functions $`W_{1,2,3}`$ using the known precise value of $`q_{\mathrm{}}=2/\omega _{\mathrm{}}^{}2/0.81`$. Then $`W_2`$ turns out to have no optimum, whereas the others yield $`W_{3,4}^{\mathrm{opt}}0.000554,0.000735,`$ corresponding via Eq. (8) to $`c_1=0.580,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.773}`$. If these two values are fitted by the same inverse power of $`\overline{L}`$, we find $`c_10.8314/\overline{L}^6`$. From the extrapolations to infinite order we estimate $`c_{1,\mathrm{}}0.92\pm 0.13`$.

This result is to be compared with latest Monte Carlo data which estimate $`c_11.32\pm 0.02`$ arnold1 ; russos . Previous theoretical estimates are $`c_12.90`$ baymprl , $`2.33`$ from a $`1/N`$-expansion baymN ), $`1.71`$ from a next-to-leading order in a $`1/N`$-expansion arnold , $`3.059`$ from an inapplicable $`\delta `$-expansion prb  to three loops, and $`1.48`$ from the same $`\delta `$-expansion to five loops, with a questionable evaluation at a complex extremum ramospr  and some wrong expansion coefficients (see braatexp ). Remarkably, our result lies close to the average between the latest and the first Monte Carlo result $`c_10.34\pm 0.03`$ in Ref. Grue .

As a cross check of the reliability of our theory consider the result in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Here we must drop the first term in the expansion (9) which vanishes at the critical point (but would diverge for $`N\mathrm{}`$ at finite $`m_r`$). The remaining expansion coefficients of $`\varphi ^2/u/N`$ in powers of $`Nu/4\pi m_r`$ are

$`f_1=\mathrm{6.35917\hspace{0.17em}10}^4,f_2=\mathrm{4.7315\hspace{0.17em}10}^4,f_3=\mathrm{3.84146\hspace{0.17em}10}^4.`$ (22)
Using the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`\omega ^{}`$ which is equal to $`1`$ implying $`q=2`$ in Eqs. (20) and (21), we obtain the two variational approximations

$`W_2^{\mathrm{}}=0.00127183K+0.00047315K^2,W_3^{\mathrm{}}=0.00190775K+0.00141945K^20.000384146K^3,`$ (23)
whose optima yield the approximations $`c_11.886`$ and $`2.017`$, converging rapidly towards the exact large-$`N`$ result $`2.33`$ of Ref. baymN , with a 10% error.

Numerically, the first two $`1/N`$-corrections found from a fit to large-$`N`$ results obtained by using the known large-$`N`$ expression for $`\omega ^{}=18(8/3\pi ^2N)+2(104/39\pi ^2/2)(8/3\pi ^2N)^2`$ omN  produce a finite-$`N`$ correction factor $`(13.1/N+30.3/N^2+\mathrm{})`$, to be compared with $`(10.527/N+\mathrm{})`$ obtained in Ref. arnold .

Since the large-$`N`$ results can only be obtained so well without the use of the first term we repeat the evaluations of the series at the physical value $`N=2`$ without the first term, where the variational expressions for $`f`$ are

$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`f_1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\right)K+f_2K^2,`$
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`f_1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}q^2\right)K+f_2\left(1+q\right)K^2+f_3K^3.`$ (24)
The lowest order optimum lies now at $`W_2^{\mathrm{opt}}=f_1^2(2+q)^2/16f_2^2`$, yielding $`c_10.942`$ for the exact $`q=2/0.81`$. To next order, an optimal turning point of $`W_3`$ yields $`c_11.038`$.

At this order, we can derive a variational expression for the determination of $`\omega ^{}`$ using the analog of Eq. (15) which reads

$`\beta \left(u\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}F(u)}{\mathrm{log}u}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{f_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{f_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_2^2}{f_1^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{m_r}}\right)^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (25)
After the replacement (13) we find

$`W_3^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{f_2(1+q/2)}{f_1}}K+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{f_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_2^2}{f_1^2}}\right)K^2+\mathrm{}`$ (26)
whose vanishing extremum determines $`\omega ^{}=2/q`$ as being

$$\omega _3^{}=\left(2\sqrt{2f_1f_3/f_2^21}1\right)^10.675,$$
(27)
leading to $`c_11.238`$ from an optimal turning point of $`W_3`$. There are now too few points to perform an extrapolation to infinite order. From the average of the two highest-order results we obtain our final estimate: $`c_11.14\pm 0.11`$, such that the critical temperature shift is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c^{(0)}}(1.14\pm 0.11)an^{1/3}.$$
(28)
This lies reasonably close to the Monte Carlo number $`c_11.32\pm 0.02`$.
Acknowledgment:
The author acknowledges useful communications with M. Pinto and R. Ramos on their work, as well as F. Nogueira and A. Pelster for many discussions. He also thanks B. Kastening for proofreading the paper, for confirming the approximate correctness of the Feynman integrals of Ref. braat  leading to the coefficients (11) rather than those of Ref. ramospr  (which are listed in braatexp  for comparison).

Note added in proof:
Since this paper appeared on the Los Alamos server last October, the Feynman diagrams where recalculated more accurately

and extended to six loops in Ref. Kas . The more accurate $`f_3`$ has increased by about $`6\%`$ to $`1.92\times 10^4`$, and the new expansion coefficient is $`f_4=1.873\times 10^4`$. Using the new numbers to perform a variational evaluation fits of the first type including the anomalous first term $`f_1`$ we find the curves shown in Fig. 2 yielding $`c_10.98\pm 0.06`$, only slighly larger than than the previous five-loop number $`0.92\pm 0.13`$. The upper curve is now associated with the self-consistent $`\omega ^{}`$-values $`\omega _3^{}=0.626`$ and $`\omega _4^{}=0.745`$, the last being almost equal to the exact value $`0.81`$.

The evaluation of the second type where the anomalous term is omitted yields now $`c_1=0.942,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.056},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.120}`$, for $`\omega ^{}=0.81`$, and $`c_1=1.409,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.384}`$ for the variationally determined $`\omega _3^{}=0.621`$ and $`0.638`$, as shown in in Ref. Kas . Combining the last two results one obtains the larger value $`c_11.23\pm 0.12`$, lying closer to the Monte Carlo number $`c_11.32\pm 0.02`$ than our five-loop result (28).