format: text

text:
# Dynamical localization simulated on a few qubits quantum computer

## I Introduction

Recent experimental progress in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based quantum processors allowed the demonstration of quantum algorithms , including Grover’s algorithm  and quantum Fourier transform . More recently, it has been possible to implement the simplest instance of Shor’s algorithm, namely the factorization of 15, using 7 qubits and a sequence of about 300 spin-selective radio-frequency pulses . In parallel, thanks to the development of techniques for the manipulation of cold atoms in linear traps, the realization of up to 50 two-qubit control-not gates within the relevant decoherence time scale is currently becoming possible. Solid state realizations are also under way in several experimental groups working with various solid state devices. In particular, it has been demonstrated that a superconducting tunnel junction circuit can behave as an artificial spin 1/2 atom, whose evolution can be controlled by applying microwave pulses. The quality factor of quantum coherence is sufficiently high to envisage the realization of two-qubit gates based on capacitively coupled circuits of this type .

In this context, it is of primary importance to find efficient quantum algorithms, that could be usefully simulated with a small number of qubits. Such algorithms would naturally become the ideal software for demonstrative experiments in the coming generation of quantum processors. Dynamical models represent a natural testing ground for quantum information processors. The algorithm for the quantum baker’s map  has been recently implemented on a three qubit NMR quantum processor . These experiments tested the sensitivity to perturbations, in a system which is characterized by chaotic unpredictable dynamics in the classical limit.

In this paper we show that quantum computers can simulate efficiently the quantum localization of classical chaos. Dynamical localization is one of the most interesting phenomena that characterize the quantum behavior of classically chaotic systems: Quantum interference effects suppress chaotic diffusion in momentum, leading to exponentially localized wave functions. This phenomenon was first found and studied in the quantum kicked rotator model  and has profound analogies with Anderson localization of electronic transport in disordered materials . Dynamical localization has been observed experimentally in the microwave ionization of Rydberg atoms  and is now actively studied in experiments with cold atoms .

In this paper, we study dynamical localization for the quantum sawtooth map, using the algorithm developed in Ref. . This algorithm has some specific advantages with respect to similar algorithms for the simulation of other dynamical systems, for instance the kicked rotator . There are no extra work space qubits, namely all the qubits are used to simulate the dynamics of the system. This implies that less than 40 qubits would be sufficient to make simulations inaccessible to present day supercomputers. We note that this figure has to be compared with the more than 1000 qubits required to the Shor’s algorithm to outperform classical computations. We will also show that in this model dynamical localization could be observed already with 6 qubits.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe the sawtooth map model, focusing on the regime of dynamical localization. In Section III we show that a quantum computer operating with few qubits can indeed perform simulations of dynamical localization. In Section IV we discuss how to extract information (the localization length) from the quantum computer wave function. In Section V we study the stability of those computations in the presence of static imperfections in the quantum computer hardware. In Section VI we discuss the transition to quantum chaos, induced by static imperfections, in the quasienergy spectral statistics. In Section VII we present our conclusions.

## II The model

The quantum sawtooth map is the quantized version of the classical sawtooth map, which is given by

$$\overline{n}=n+k(\theta \pi ),\overline{\theta }=\theta +T\overline{n},$$
(1)
where $`(n,\theta )`$ are conjugated action-angle variables ($`0\theta <2\pi `$), and the over bars denote the variables after one map iteration. Introducing the rescaled momentum variable $`p=Tn`$, one can see that the classical dynamics depends only on the single parameter $`K=kT`$. The map (1) can be studied on the cylinder ($`p(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$), which can also be closed to form a torus of length $`2\pi L`$, where $`L`$ is an integer. For $`K>0`$, the motion is completely chaotic and exhibits normal diffusion: $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2>D(K)t`$, where $`t`$ is the discrete time measured in units of map iterations and the average $`<\mathrm{}>`$ is performed over an ensemble of particles with initial momentum $`p_0`$ and random phases $`0\theta <2\pi `$. For $`K>1`$ the diffusion coefficient is well approximated by the random phase approximation, $`D(K)(\pi ^2/3)K^2`$.

The quantum evolution in one map iteration is described by a unitary operator $`\widehat{U}`$ (called Floquet operator) acting on the wave function $`\psi `$:

$$\overline{\psi }=\widehat{U}\psi =e^{iT\widehat{n}^2/2}e^{ik(\widehat{\theta }\pi )^2/2}\psi ,$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{n}=i/\theta `$ and $`\psi (\theta +2\pi )=\psi (\theta )`$ (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$). The classical limit corresponds to $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`T0`$, and $`K=kT=\text{const}`$. In Refs.  we studied the map (2) in the semiclassical regime. This is possible by increasing the number of qubits $`n_q=\mathrm{log}_2N`$ ($`N`$ is the total number of levels), with $`T=2\pi L/N`$, $`K=\text{const}`$. In this way, the number of levels inside the “unit cell” $`\pi p<\pi `$ ($`L=1`$) grows exponentially with the number of qubits ($`N/2n<N/2`$), and the effective Planck constant $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{}/k1/N0`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Differently from previous studies, in this paper we study the map (2) in the deep quantum regime of dynamical localization. For this purpose, we keep $`k,K`$ constant. Thus the effective Planck constant is fixed and the number of cells $`L`$ grows exponentially with the number of qubits ($`L=TN/2\pi `$). In this case, one studies the quantum sawtooth map on the cylinder ($`n(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$), which is cut-off to a finite number of cells due to the finite quantum (or classical) computer memory. We stress again that, since in a quantum computer the memory capabilities grow exponentially with the number of qubits, already with less than 40 qubits one could make simulations of systems inaccessible for today’s supercomputers. Similar to other models of quantum chaos , the quantum interference in the sawtooth map leads to suppression of classical chaotic diffusion after a break time

$$t^{}D_n(\pi ^2/3)k^2,$$
(3)
where $`D_n`$ is the classical diffusion coefficient, measured in number of levels ($`<(\mathrm{\Delta }n)^2>D_nt`$). For $`t>t^{}`$ only $`\mathrm{\Delta }nD_n`$ levels are populated and the localization length $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ for the average probability distribution is approximately equal :

$$\mathrm{}D_n$$
(4)
Thus the quantum localization can be detected if $`\mathrm{}`$ is smaller than the system size $`N`$.

In the following we consider $`K=\sqrt{2}`$, two values of $`k`$, $`k=\sqrt{3}`$ and $`k=2`$, and $`6n_q21`$, so that the above analytical estimate gives $`\mathrm{}(k=\sqrt{3})10`$ and $`\mathrm{}(k=2)13<N`$. We assume that at $`t=0`$ the system is in a momentum eigenstate, $`\widehat{\psi }(n)=\delta _{nn_0}`$. Since this is a quantum register state, it can be obtained in $`O(n_q)`$ one-qubit operations starting from the fiducial state (“ground state”) $`\overline{n}`$ of the quantum computer hardware.

## III Simulation of dynamical localization

An exponentially efficient quantum algorithm for the simulation of the map (2) was described in Refs. . It is based on the forward/backward quantum Fourier transform  between momentum and coordinate bases: On the whole, it requires $`n_g=3n_q^2+n_q`$ gates per map iteration ($`3n_q^2n_q`$ controlled-phase shifts and $`2n_q`$ Hadamard gates). This number has to be compared with the $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ operations required to a classical computer to simulate one map iteration by means of the fast Fourier transform.

In Fig. 1, we show that, using our quantum algorithm, exponential localization can be clearly seen already with $`n_q=6`$ qubits. After the break time $`t^{}`$, the probability distribution over the momentum eigenbasis decays exponentially,

$$W_n=|\widehat{\psi }(n)|^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2|nn_0|}{\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(5)
with $`n_0=0`$ the initial momentum value. Here the localization length is $`\mathrm{}12`$, and classical diffusion is suppressed after a break time $`t^{}\mathrm{}`$, in agreement with the estimates (3)-(4). This requires a number $`N_g3n_q^2\mathrm{}10^3`$ of one- or two-qubit quantum gates. The full curve of Fig. 1 shows that an exponentially localized distribution indeed appears at $`tt^{}`$. Such a distribution is frozen in time, apart from quantum fluctuations, which we partially smooth out by averaging over a few map steps. The localization can be seen by the comparison of the probability distributions taken immediately after $`t^{}`$ (full curve in Fig. 1) and at a much larger time $`t=30025t^{}`$ (dashed curve in the same figure).

We also note that the asymptotic tails of the wave functions decay as a power law(see Fig. 2),

$$W_n\frac{1}{|nn_0|^4}.$$
(6)
This happens due to the discontinuity in the kicking force of Eq. (1), $`f(\theta )=k(\theta \pi )`$, when the angle variable $`\theta =0`$. For that reason the matrix elements of the one period evolution operator $`\widehat{U}`$ for the quantum map (2) decay as a power law in the momentum eigenbasis: $`U_{nm}=n|\widehat{U}|m1/|nm|^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =2`$. This case was investigated for random matrices, where it was shown that eigenfunctions are also algebraically localized with the same exponent $`\alpha `$ . We also note that dynamical localization in discontinuous systems was studied in . Since the localization picture is not very sensitive to the behavior of the tails of the wave function, a rough estimate of the crossover between the exponential decay (5) and the power law decay (6) is given by their crossing point,

$$n_c\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{},W_n(n_c)\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^4\mathrm{log}\mathrm{}}.$$
(7)
This implies that by increasing $`\mathrm{}`$ the exponential localization is pushed to larger momentum windows and down to smaller probabilities.

## IV Measurements

We now discuss how it would be possible to extract information (the value of the localization length) from a quantum computer simulating the above described dynamics. The localization length can be measured by running the algorithm several times up to a time $`t>t^{}`$. Each run is followed by a standard projective measurement on the computational (momentum) basis. The outcomes of the measurements can be stored in histogram bins of width $`\delta n\mathrm{}`$, and then the localization length can be extracted from a fit of the exponential decay of this coarse-grained distribution over the momentum basis. In this way the localization length can be obtained with accuracy $`\nu `$ after the order of $`1/\nu ^2`$ computer runs. It is important to note that it is sufficient to perform a coarse grained measurement to generate a coarse grained distribution. This means that it will be sufficient to measure the most significant qubits, and ignore those that would give a measurement accuracy below the coarse graining $`\delta n`$. Thus, the number of runs and measurements is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$. However, it is necessary to make about $`t^{}\mathrm{}`$ map iterations to obtain the localized distribution (see Eqs. (3,4)). This is true both for the present quantum algorithm and for classical computation. This implies that a classical computer needs $`O(\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{})`$ operations to extract the localization length, while a quantum computer would require $`O(\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{})^2)`$ elementary gates (classically one can use a basis size $`N\mathrm{}`$ to detect localization). In this sense, for $`\mathrm{}N=2^{n_q}`$ the quantum computer gives a square root speed up if both classical and quantum computers perform $`O(N)`$ map iterations. However, for a fixed number of iterations $`t`$ the quantum computation gives an exponential gain. For $`\mathrm{}N`$ such a gain can be very important for more complex physical models, in order to check if the system is truly localized .

## V Effects of static imperfections

In order to study the effects of static imperfections on the stability of the above described algorithm, we model the quantum computer hardware as a linear array of qubits with static imperfections, represented by fluctuations in the individual qubit energies and residual short-range inter-qubit couplings . The model is described by the following many-body Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}_\text{s}=\underset{i}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\delta _i)\widehat{\sigma }_i^z+\underset{i<j}{}J_{ij}\widehat{\sigma }_i^x\widehat{\sigma }_j^x,$$
(8)
where the $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$i’s are the Pauli matrices for the qubit $`i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the average level spacing for one qubit. The second sum in (8) runs over nearest-neighbor qubit pairs, zero boundary conditions are applied, and $`\delta _i`$, $`J_{ij}`$ are randomly and uniformly distributed in the intervals $`[\delta /2,\delta /2]`$ and $`[J,J]`$, respectively. We model the implementation of the above algorithm on this hardware architecture as a sequence of instantaneous and perfect one- and two-qubit gates, separated by a time interval $`\tau _g`$. Therefore we study numerically the evolution in time of the quantum computer wave function in the presence of the following many-body Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}(\tau )=\widehat{H}_\text{s}+\widehat{H}_\text{g}(\tau ),$$
(9)
where

$$\widehat{H}_\text{g}(\tau )=\underset{k}{}\delta (\tau k\tau _g)\widehat{h}_k.$$
(10)
Here $`\widehat{h}_k`$ realizes the $`k`$-th elementary gate according to the sequence prescribed by the algorithm. We assume that the phase accumulation given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is eliminated by standard spin echo techniques . In this case, the remaining terms in the static Hamiltonian (8) can be seen as residual terms after imperfect spin echoes and give unwanted phase rotations and qubit couplings.

The effect of static imperfections on the probability distribution over the momentum basis is shown in Fig. 2, for $`k=2`$, $`n_q=11`$, $`t=100`$, $`J=0`$, and different rescaled imperfection strengths $`ϵ=\delta \tau _g`$. For $`ϵ=10^4`$, the localization peak is reproduced with high fidelity, while the tails of the wave function are strongly enhanced. This is due to the fact that errors affecting the most significant qubits can induce a direct transfer of probability very far in the momentum basis . For $`ϵ=10^3`$ a measurement of the decay of the localization peak would overestimate the localization length by a factor two, while for $`ϵ=10^2`$ any trace of dynamical localization has been destroyed.

In order to study in a more quantitative way the stability of quantum computation in the presence of static imperfections, we consider the following two quantities:
(i) the diffusion coefficient $`D_n(ϵ)`$, obtained from the relation

$$<(\mathrm{\Delta }n)^2>D_n(ϵ)t.$$
(11)
This is an important characteristic related to transport properties of the system;
(ii) the inverse participation ratio

$$\xi =\frac{1}{_nW_n^2};$$
(12)
this quantity determines the number of basis states significantly populated by the wave function and gives an estimate of the localization length of the system. We stress that, differently from the previous quantity, $`\xi `$ is local in the localized regime, i.e. it is insensitive to the behavior of exponentially small tails.

In Fig. 3 we show $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }n)^2>`$ as a function of time, for $`n_q=11`$ qubits, $`J=0`$, and different imperfection strengths $`ϵ`$. By means of these curves we extract the diffusion coefficients $`D_n(ϵ)`$ from linear fits extended to the first few map steps. In the same figure, we show that similar curves are obtained for $`J=\delta `$. The dependence of the inverse participation ratio on $`t`$ is shown in Fig. 4, again for $`k=2`$, $`n_q=11`$. We note that, for imperfection strengths strong enough to induce huge variations in the diffusion coefficient ($`D_n(ϵ)D_n(0)`$), $`\xi `$ is only slightly modified ($`\xi (ϵ)\xi (0)`$). Iterating the map (2) long enough ($`t>\xi (ϵ)`$), we get the saturation value $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}(ϵ)`$. This quantity increases with $`ϵ`$ and one has complete delocalization when $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}(ϵ)N`$ (this is evident for $`ϵ=5\times 10^{}3`$ in Fig. 4; in this case $`\xi `$ saturates after $`t<100`$ map iterations). Again we note that similar curves are obtained for $`J=\delta `$ (see Fig. 4).

In Fig. 5 we plot the dependence of diffusion coefficient $`D_n`$ on $`ϵ`$ for different $`n_q`$ values. From each curve we extract the critical imperfection strength $`ϵ_D(n_q)`$ corresponding to doubling of the diffusion coefficient, $`D_n(ϵ_D)=2D_n(0)`$. The data of Fig. 7 show that $`ϵ_D`$ drops exponentially with $`n_q`$. This result is similar to the one found in  for noisy gate errors and can be explained by means of the following argument. Static imperfections can couple states very far in momentum space via a single spin flip. As a consequence, they create $`n_q`$ peaks  with probability $`W_pϵ_{\mathrm{eff}}^2t`$ in each peak. Here $`ϵ_{\mathrm{eff}}\delta n_q^2\tau _g=ϵn_q^2`$ is the effective perturbation strength, with $`n_q^2\tau _g`$ time between Hadamard gates acting on a given qubit. These gates transfer the accumulated phase error $`ϵ_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ into amplitude errors. Integrating the contribution of each peak, one gets

$$<(\mathrm{\Delta }n)^2>W_pN^2\overline{D}_ϵt,$$
(13)
with

$$\overline{D}_ϵϵ^2n_q^4N^2.$$
(14)
One can estimate the critical value $`ϵ_D`$ to double the exact ($`ϵ=0`$) diffusion coefficient from $`\overline{D}_ϵ=D_n(ϵ=0)`$, giving

$$ϵ_D\frac{\sqrt{D_n(0)}}{n_q^2N},$$
(15)
in good agreement with the data of Fig. 7.

In Fig. 6 we show the dependence of the inverse participation ratio $`\xi (ϵ)`$ on $`ϵ`$ for different number of qubits $`n_q`$. From each curve we extract two critical imperfection strengths:
(i) $`ϵ_{\xi E}`$, to get an inverse participation ratio equal to a given fraction of the full Hilbert space, for example $`\xi =N/4`$. This threshold is significant of the transition to ergodic completely delocalized wave functions.
(ii) $`ϵ_\xi `$, to double the exact inverse participation ratio. We stress that this quantity gives a rough estimate of the imperfection threshold for reliable quantum computation of localization in the absence of error correction.

The dependence of $`ϵ_{\xi E}`$ and $`ϵ_\xi `$ on $`n_q`$ are shown in Fig. 7. These quantities drop polynomially with $`n_q`$, in sharp contrast with the exponential drop of $`ϵ_D`$. This algebraic threshold can be understood as follows. The eigenstates of the unperturbed ($`ϵ=0`$, J=0) Floquet operator $`\widehat{U}`$ in (2) can be written as

$$\varphi _\alpha ^{(0)}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_\alpha ^{(m)}u_m,$$
(16)
where $`u_m`$ are the quantum register (momentum) states. In the localized regime, $`c_\alpha ^{(m)}`$’s are randomly fluctuating inside the localization domain of size $`\mathrm{}`$, and exponentially small outside it. Wave function normalization imposes $`|c_\alpha ^{(m)}|1/\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$. Due to exponential localization, static imperfections couple significantly the unperturbed eigenfunctions only when their localization domains overlap. We estimate in this case the transition matrix elements according to perturbation theory. For $`J=0`$, they have a typical value

$`V_{\mathrm{typ}}|\varphi _\beta ^{(0)}|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_q}{}}}\delta _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^z\tau _gn_g|\varphi _\alpha ^{(0)}|`$ (17)
$`\tau _gn_q^2|{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_\alpha ^{(m)}c_\beta ^{(n)}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_q}{}}}\delta _iu_n|\widehat{\sigma }_i^z|u_m|`$ (18)
$`ϵn_q^{5/2}|{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_\alpha ^{(m)}c_\beta ^{(m)}\eta ^{(m)}|ϵn_q^{5/2}\mathrm{}^{1/2}.`$ (19)
In this expression, the typical phase error is $`\delta \sqrt{n_q}\eta ^{(m)}`$ (sum of $`n_q`$ random detunings $`\delta _i`$’s), with $`\eta ^{(m)}`$ random sign, and $`\tau _gn_g\tau _gn_q^2`$ is the time used by the quantum computer to simulate one map step. The last estimate in (18) results from the sum of order $`\mathrm{}`$ terms of amplitude $`|c_\alpha ^{(m)}c_\beta ^{(m)}|1/\mathrm{}`$ and random phases. Since the spacing between significantly coupled quasi-energy eigenstates is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E1/\mathrm{}`$, the threshold for the breaking of perturbation theory can be estimated as

$$V_{\mathrm{typ}}/\mathrm{\Delta }Eϵ_{\xi E}n_q^{5/2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}}1.$$
(20)
The analytical result

$$ϵ_{\xi E}\frac{1}{n_q^{5/2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}}}$$
(21)
is confirmed by the numerical data of Fig. 7. For the case $`J=\delta `$, the threshold $`ϵ_{\xi E}`$ is reduced (see Fig. 4) since residual inter-qubit interactions introduce further couplings between Floquet eigenstates. However, an estimate similar to (18), which does not modify the functional dependence (20), can be derived. We stress the striking difference between this polynomial scaling and the exponential scaling for the mixing of unperturbed eigenstates obtained in the ergodic regime (in which $`\mathrm{}N`$) and in the more general quasi-integrable regime . We also note that the different sensitivity of local and non local quantities was pointed out in . However, the authors of Ref.  considered the effect of noisy gates, while we consider internal static imperfections.

## VI Spectral statistics

In this Section, we show that spectral statistics is an ideally suited tool to detect the destruction of localization by static imperfections. We study the spectral statistics of the Floquet operator for a quantum computer running the quantum sawtooth map algorithm in the presence of static imperfections,

$$\widehat{U}_ϵ=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^{\tau _gn_g}𝑑\tau \widehat{H}(\tau )\right),$$
(22)
where $`H(\tau )`$ is the Hamiltonian (9) and $`n_g`$ the number of gates per map iteration. We construct numerically the Floquet operator in the computational (momentum) basis, using the fact that a single map iteration of each quantum register state gives a column in the matrix representation of this operator. Then we diagonalize the Floquet matrix and get the so-called quasienergy eigenvalues $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(ϵ)}`$ and eigenvectors $`\varphi _\alpha ^{(ϵ)}`$,

$$\widehat{U}_ϵ\varphi _\alpha ^{(ϵ)}=\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda _\alpha ^{(ϵ)})\varphi _\alpha ^{(ϵ)}.$$
(23)
A convenient way to characterize the spectral properties of the system is to study the level spacing statistics $`P(s)`$, where $`P(s)ds`$ gives the probability to find two adjacent levels (quasienergies) whose energy difference, normalized to the average level spacing, belongs to the interval $`[s,s+ds]`$ (see e.g. ). In the localized regime, Floquet eigenvectors with very close eigenvalues may lay so far apart that their overlap is negligible. As a consequence, eigenvalues are uncorrelated, that is their spectral statistic is given by the Poisson distribution,

$$P_P(s)=\mathrm{exp}(s).$$
(24)
On the contrary, in the delocalized regime wave functions are ergodic, and their overlap gives a significant coupling matrix element between states nearby in energy. In this case the spectral statistics $`P(s)`$ follows the Wigner-Dyson distribution,

$$P_{WD}(s)=\frac{32s^2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4s^2}{\pi }\right),$$
(25)
typical of random matrices in the absence of time reversal symmetry  (static imperfections break this symmetry). In Fig. 8 we show that static imperfections indeed induce a crossover from the localized regime with the Poisson statistics to quantum chaos characterized by Wigner-Dyson statistics. We have also studied this crossover as a function of the number of qubits (data not shown): the threshold $`ϵ_c(n_q)`$ for the emergence of quantum chaos is consistent with the scaling $`ϵ_c(n_q)n_q^{5/2}`$, in agreement with the threshold (21) obtained for the mixing of unperturbed eigenfunctions.

## VII Conclusions

In summary, we have shown that a quantum computer operating with a small number of qubits can simulate efficiently quantum localization effects. The evaluation of the localization length $`\mathrm{}`$ with accuracy $`\nu `$ requires a number of computer runs of order $`1/\nu ^2`$, followed by a projective measurement in the computational (momentum) basis. We stress that, in the presence of static imperfections, a reliable computation of the localization length is possible even without quantum error correction, up to an imperfection strength threshold which drops only algebraically with the number of qubits. We also stress that localization is a purely quantum phenomenon, which is quite fragile in the presence of noise . Therefore we believe that the simulation of the physics of localization can be an interesting testing ground for the coming generation of quantum processors operating in the presence of decoherence and static imperfections.

This research was supported in part by the EC RTN contract HPRN-CT-2000-0156, the NSA and ARDA under ARO contracts No. DAAD19-01-1-0553 and No. DAAD19-02-1-0086, the project EDIQIP of the IST-FET programme of the EC and the PRIN-2000 “Chaos and localization in classical and quantum mechanics”.


text:
# The X-ray afterglow of GRB 020322

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows are most often detected at X-ray energies (Piro 2001), the majority of bursts producing no detectable optical afterglow emission (Fynbo et al. 2001). Most redshift estimates, however, are made from the absorption spectrum of the optical transient or the apparent host galaxy. Recently however, emission lines have been detected in X-ray afterglows, allowing estimates to be made of the cosmological redshifts and the outflow velocities of at least the line-emitting component of the afterglow material (Piro et al. 2000, Reeves et al. 2002b, Watson et al. 2002). In particular, the fact that metal-enriched thermal emission models fit the highest-signal afterglow spectra better than power-law models (Reeves et al. 2002b, Watson et al. 2002) has led to the strengthening of the case for the association of long duration GRBs with the recent collapse of a massive star (Woosley 1993, Vietri & Stella 1998, Lazzati et al. 2001) and to the assertion that thermal emission may be common in GRB afterglows (Watson et al. 2002). *XMM-Newton* (Jansen et al. 2001) has managed relatively rapid responses to GRB alerts (on the order of half a day) and, with its large effective area, has captured the high-quality spectra that have allowed these detections to be made.

Previous detections of emission lines in GRB afterglows with *BeppoSAX*, *ASCA* and *Chandra* have concentrated on emission from highly-ionised iron (Piro et al. 1998, 2000, Antonelli et al. 2000, Yoshida et al. 2001); however the recent observations with *XMM-Newton* have shown emission features at lower energies (due in part to its very good sensitivity in the soft X-ray band).

In Sect. 2 we report on the observations of the afterglow of GRB 020322, explaining the data reduction procedure in Sect. 3 and presenting the spectrum and lightcurve in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5 the implications of these results are discussed. Conclusions are in Sect. 6. Unless otherwise stated, all errors quoted are 90% confidence limits for one parameter of interest, upper and lower limits are 99.7% ($`3\sigma `$) confidence limits and coordinates are equatorial, J2000.

## 2 Observations of GRB 020322

GRB 020322 was detected by *BeppoSAX* with the wide field camera (WFC) on 22 March 2002, 03:51:30 UT (Piro 2002) and followed 7.5 hours later with a detection in the MECS instrument (Gandolfi 2002). The position, (MECS: RA = 18h 00m 49.4s, Dec. = +81° 06′ 10.8″), was well-determined, with an error-radius of 3′ in the WFC and 1.5′ in the MECS (see Fig. 1).

*XMM-Newton* began observing this position at 18:46 UT with EPIC-MOS and 19:17 UT with EPIC-pn, approximately fifteen hours after the burst, Ehle et al. (2002) reporting detection of a bright source with a positional accuracy of $`6`$″. A fading optical source was detected within this initial *XMM-Newton* error-circle (Bloom et al. 2002b, Greiner et al. 2002, McMillan et al. 2002) at RA = 18h01m 02.98s, Dec. = +81° 06′ 28″.17 (Bloom et al. 2002c) with R-band magnitudes of $`23.26\pm 0.32`$ and $`23.80\pm 0.30`$ at 10:39 UT and 23:46 UT respectively, suggesting an early-time power-law decay slope of $`0.5`$. The field was imaged with the STIS instrument on *HST* on 8 April and 5 May 2002, no optical transient was detected (implying a late-time power-law decay slope steeper than 2.0, Burud et al. 2002), however a galaxy of magnitude $`27`$ was detected at the position of the optical transient, probably the host. No redshift has so far been determined for the GRB or the host galaxy.

## 3 *XMM-Newton*-EPIC data reduction and analysis

Effective exposure durations were 24 ks and 28 ks for the EPIC-pn (Strüder et al. 2001) and MOS (Turner et al. 2001) cameras respectively, each in full frame mode using the thin filters. The data were processed and reduced with the SAS, version 5.3, datasets from both EPIC-MOS cameras were co-added. MOS and pn spectra were fit individually, yielded consistent results and were therefore fit simultaneously; the lightcurves were compared for each instrument and were, again, consistent and were therefore co-added and fit as a single dataset. Source extraction regions were 40″ in radius and off-source background extraction regions of 80″ radius were chosen. Both single and double pattern (as well as triple and quadruple pattern for the MOS), good (FLAG=0) events were used with response matrices generated for each spectrum. The spectra were binned with a minimum of 20 counts per bin. The final X-ray source positions were determined after cross-correlation with the USNO A2.0 optical catalogue based on the SAS task *eposcorr* (see Tedds & Watson 2002).

Three sources were detected in the *BeppoSAX*-MECS error-circle (Fig. 1). The brightest, with coordinates RA = 18h 01m 03.1s, Dec. = +81° 06′ 27″.9, and a 68% error radius of 0.5″, (source ‘A’ in Fig. 1) was seen to fade (Fig. 2), with a probability of constancy of $`6\times 10^{12}`$. It is interesting to note the very good correspondence ($`<0.5`$″ separation) between this source position and that of the optical transient of Bloom et al. (2002c), at RA = 18h01m 02.98s $`\pm 0\mathrm{}.30`$, Dec. = +81° 06′ 28″.17 $`\pm 0\mathrm{}.35`$.

A power-law decay ($`Ft^\beta `$) with index $`\beta =1.26\pm 0.23`$ fits the lightcurve well ($`\chi _\nu ^2=1.05`$). We identify this source as the afterglow of GRB 020322. The Galactic hydrogen absorbing column in this direction is $`4.6\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (Dickey & Lockman 1990, using the FTOOL *nh*). Its mean observed 0.2–10.0 keV flux was $`3.5\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, making it the brightest GRB afterglow observed by *XMM-Newton* so far, roughly comparable in source counts to the afterglow of GRB 011211 (Reeves et al. 2002b, a). The other sources (‘B’ and ‘C’ in Fig. 1) are both on the edge of the MECS error-circle, are fainter (‘B’ = $`6.3\pm 0.5\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 and ‘C’ = $`2.5_{1.0}^{+0.3}\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1) and show no evidence for variability (null hypothesis probabilities of 0.95 and 0.69 respectively).

## 4 Results

The complete EPIC spectrum (Fig. 3) is not well fit with a Galactic-absorbed power-law model, $`\chi ^2=437.4`$ for 234 degrees of freedom (DoF).

Adding redshifted neutral absorption, the fit becomes acceptable ($`\chi ^2`$/DoF = 241.5/232), equivalent to a best-fit local excess hydrogen column density of $`1.6_{0.2}^{+0.3}\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2, however there are no significantly detected absorption edges in the spectrum, indicating that the redshift is probably greater than 0.7 (the 90% confidence limit, derived largely from the lack of detection of the neutral Oxygen absorption edge), with a best-fit redshift of $`1.8_{1.1}^{+1.0}`$. The best-fit neutral absorbing column density at $`z=1.8`$ is $`1.3\pm 0.2\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. It is possible that the metal abundance in the absorbing gas is low, which would also explain the lack of absorption edges (this seems unlikely however, given the probability that GRBs occur in star-forming regions, e.g. Holland & Hjorth 1999). At $`z=0`$, abundances $`<0.4`$ times the solar values are required to fit the data.

It has been posited that GRBs in dense star-forming regions will photoionise the circumburst medium (Böttcher et al. 1999), giving rise to a NEI plasma. Ionised absorption cannot be ruled out in this case, with an upper limit of 140 erg cm s-1 to the ionisation parameter of the absorber; a fit where the excess absorption is ionised, with variable iron abundance, gives as good a fit as the neutral absorption case ($`\chi ^2`$/DoF = 239.4/230). The redshift in the case of the ionised absorber is still constrained, primarily by the Fe-L shell and O viii-K absorption edges. Fixing the ionisation parameter at the upper limit gives a 90% confidence interval for the redshift of 2.4–2.9. In the case where the absorber is not in equilibrium (see for instance the marginal detection of, and possible explanations for, a transient absorption feature in Amati et al. 2000, Lazzati & Perna 2002), the range of ionization states will be increased, however it is the non-detection of an absorption feature that is the primary lower constraint on the redshift, implying that the redshift limits still hold in the case of a non-equilibrium absorber.

An absorption edge is marginally detected ($`\chi ^2`$/DoF = 233.5/230, $`98`$% significance) at 2.8 keV in the observed frame. Attributing this to the K-edge of neutral iron (at 7.1 keV) implies a redshift of 1.6, neutral Co (at 7.7 keV) implies $`z=1.8`$, neutral Ni (at 8.3 keV) implies $`z=2.0`$; all of which are within the $`1\sigma `$ error bounds of the redshift determination from the fit to the absorption. Allowing the abundance of iron to vary in the model excess absorber however, does not improve the fit significantly.

There is no evidence for any significant detection of emission features in the spectrum. The best-fit parameter values are presented in Table 1.

In order to assess spectral variability, the data were divided in two parts. The data were extracted from the first 11 ks and from the remaining 15 ks in order to have roughly equal numbers of source counts in each spectrum. The start time of the pn exposure was used as the start time for both the MOS and pn datasets. There is no significant difference between the best-fit parameters for the first and second part spectra (Table 1).

The data were also divided into 5 ks parts to assess spectral variability on a shorter time scale; again there is no significant difference between the spectra.

Given the recent results from *XMM-Newton* implying that thermal emission features may be common in early-time X-ray afterglows (Watson et al. 2002), these data were tested to determine limits on thermal emission with the plasma model used in Reeves et al. (2002b) and Watson et al. (2002). The addition of a collisionally-ionised plasma model (the ‘mekal’ model, Mewe et al. 1985, Liedahl et al. 1995) to the absorbed power-law model does not improve the fit significantly, ($`\chi ^2`$/DoF = 239.1/229, giving an $`f`$-test probability for the addition of three extra terms of 0.49) and yields significantly worse fits when fit instead of a power-law ($`\chi ^2`$/DoF = 342.1/231). Similar results are obtained in the time-divided spectra. The results of these fits are summarised in Table 2. Assuming a metal abundance nine times the solar value and a plasma temperature of 4.1 keV (the best-fit values from Reeves et al. 2002a), an upper-limit to any thermal emission of $`3.7\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 is determined, 11% of the total flux.

## 5 Discussion

The afterglow of GRB 020322 is the brightest observed to date by *XMM-Newton*, with $`30\%`$ more source counts than the detection of GRB 011211. It shows no evidence for line emission, permitting at most $`10\%`$ of the flux to come from a line-dominated thermal component similar to that observed in GRB 011211. This result contrasts with the detection of luminous emission lines and the good fit achieved with a thermal plasma model to the three previous detections of GRB afterglows with *XMM-Newton* (GRB 001025A, GRB 010220 and GRB 011211). It is worth noting that under similar time constraints (i.e. $`15`$ hours after the burst) significant thermal emission is not detectable in the afterglow spectrum of GRB 011211 either. It is possible therefore that thermal emission could have dominated the early-time spectrum of the afterglow of GRB 020322 *before* the time of this observation. The uncertainty surrounding the line-dominated component of the afterglow spectra (due to the few available results) also allows us to speculate that the afterglow spectrum of GRB 020322 may have become line-dominated *after* the end of the *XMM-Newton* observation. The resolution of this question requires continuous monitoring of GRB X-ray afterglows for as long as two days after the burst. This may soon be possible using a combination of *Swift* (Gehrels 2000) and *XMM-Newton*.

It seems very likely that GRBs are highly collimated, relativistic events, with the beam angle constrained to less than $`30\mathrm{°}`$ (Frail et al. 2001, Panaitescu & Kumar 2001, Quilligan et al. 2002). Bursts observed with small viewing angles to the jet may have apparently brighter synchrotron afterglows. In this case, where the angle of the jet to the line of sight is small and a brighter afterglow is observed, isotropic line emission would be more difficult to detect.

A notable difference between this spectrum and that of GRB 011211 is the excess absorption required to fit the data in this case. It is possible that the absorbing gas is ionised. However, in either case the redshift must be high enough to shift the absorption edges out of the band (where the gas has metal abundances similar to or greater than the solar value, a reasonable assumption given that many GRBs are associated with strongly star-forming regions, e.g. Holland & Hjorth 1999).

Extrapolating the best-fit unabsorbed X-ray (synchrotron) power-law model into the optical R-band, gives an upper limit to the unreddened magnitude of $`19.4\pm 0.6`$ (though this extrapolation may be further complicated by the presence of inverse Compton emission in the X-ray spectrum, see for example Harrison et al. 2001). The observation of Greiner et al. (2002) occurred during the *XMM-Newton* observation where they detect an optical transient with an R-band magnitude of $`23.80\pm 0.30`$. This implies an observed-frame extinction of, at most, A$`{}_{\mathrm{R}}{}^{}=4.4\pm 0.9`$, a degree of extinction at least concurrent with the fact that some GRBs are associated with regions of vigorous star-formation (see for example Holland & Hjorth 1999). This value is consistent with the detected X-ray column density at $`z=1.8`$, assuming a Galactic gas-to-dust ratio.

The detection of a potential host galaxy with a magnitude of $`27`$ (Burud et al. 2002) is also consistent with the redshift range derived from the X-ray absorbing column, assuming a distribution of host galaxy magnitudes similar to either the Hubble Deep Field North (Cohen et al. 2000) or a sample of GRB host galaxies (Bloom et al. 2002a).

## 6 Conclusions

*XMM-Newton* detected the afterglow of GRB 020322 with a mean observed 0.2–10.0 keV flux of $`3.5\pm 0.2\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, making it the brightest X-ray afterglow observed with this satellite so far. Fitting a power-law to the lightcurve yields a best-fit decay index of $`1.26\pm 0.23`$. The spectrum – the best quality spectrum of a GRB X-ray afterglow to date – is well fit with a power-law absorbed with neutral or ionised gas significantly in excess of the Galactic column at redshift $`1.8_{1.1}^{+1.0}`$ and/or with low metallicity. No emission features are detected in the spectrum and a thermal (mekal) model fits the data poorly, the upper limit on its contribution to the spectrum (assuming a 4 keV plasma with nine times the solar metal abundances) is $`3.7\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 ($`10\%`$ of the total flux), indicating that if a thermal component was present in the early-time afterglow, it faded below a detectable level within the first $`15`$ hours, making it much fainter than the synchrotron emission.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is based on observations obtained with *XMM-Newton*, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA).


text:
# Fat Branes in Infinite-Volume Extra Space

## I Introduction

The weakness of the gravitational force has been successfully explained by postulating the existence of extra dimensions bib1 ; bib2 ; bib3 ; bib4 ; bib5 . The effect of the extra dimensions is a high-energy modification of Newton’s Law of gravity due to the tower of Kaluza-Klein modes. When the extra dimensions are of infinite volume, light Kaluza-Klein modes may dominate even at low energies bib6 ; bib7 ; bib8 . Thus, unlike with finite-volume extra space, Newton’s Law is modified at astronomically large distances bib5a ; bib5b ; bib5c ; bib5d ; bib5e ; bib5f ; bib5g ; bib5h ; bib5i . Dvali and Gabadadze bib7  showed that this is not the case if the infinite space in which the brane lives has dimension $`D>5`$. They studied a three-brane of the $`\delta `$-function type and showed that the graviton propagator has a four-dimensional momentum dependence on the brane even at low energies. This feature is expected to persist if the brane is of finite thickness (“fat”) in the transverse directions for phenomenologically relevant values of the momentum. For extremely low energies, a fat brane should lead to a higher-dimensional behavior of the propagator. This was discussed qualitatively in bib7 .

Here, we present a quantitative study of a fat brane in infinite volume extra space. By linearizing gravity in the harmonic gauge, we arrive at an explicit expression for the graviton propagator. First, we obtain the propagator for the trace of the metric field over the transverse directions. The trace is a scalar field from the four-dimensional brane point of view. This scalar then contributes to the four-dimensional graviton propagator as a source, in addition to the matter fields. This complicates the tensor structure of the graviton propagator which becomes momentum dependent. We explicitly obtain the solution for the graviton propagator and analyze its momentum dependence and pole structure. We find two infinite towers of massive modes and tachyonic ghosts. In the thin-brane limit we recover four-dimensional Einstein gravity on the brane.

Our discussion is organized as follows. In section II, a brane-bulk action is considered which is similar to the action of ref. bib7  but generalized to allow for a brane of finite thickness in the bulk. In section III, we solve the linearized Einstein field equations in the harmonic gauge and obtain an explicit expression for the graviton propagator. In section IV, we analyze the pole structure of the graviton propagator and compare our results to the Dubovsky-Rubakov model bibVVVV . In section V, we analyze the momentum dependence of the graviton propagator both on the brane and in the bulk. We finally conclude with a summary of our results in VI.

## II  $`D`$-Dimensional Fat Brane Model

We are interested in the dynamics of a 3-brane in a $`D`$-dimensional infinite space. The 3-brane is allowed to have finite thickness in the bulk-space with extent governed by the density function $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)`$. The action is similar to the one discussed in ref. bib7 ,

$$S=M^{D2}d^4xd^{D4}y\sqrt{g}^{(D)}+\overline{M}^2d^4xd^{D4}y\sqrt{\overline{g}}\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\overline{}^{(4)}+S_{matter}$$
(1)
where $`g_{AB}`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional metric which generates the $`D`$-dimensional Ricci scalar $`^{(D)}`$, whereas $`\overline{}^{(4)}`$ is generated by the four-dimensional metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ which is the induced metric on the slice $`\stackrel{}{y}=`$ const.. Capital Latin indices run over $`D`$-dimensional space-time $`(A,B=0,1,2,\mathrm{},D)`$, Greek indices run over the four-dimensional brane worldvolume spanned by coordinates $`x^\mu `$ $`(\mu =0,1,2,3)`$ and lowercase Latin indices run over the extra space spanned by $`y_m`$ $`(m=4,5,\mathrm{},D)`$. $`M`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional Plank mass. $`S_{matter}`$ is the (unspecified) matter action giving rise to the fat brane configuration. We set $`y=|\stackrel{}{y}|=\sqrt{y_1^2+y_2^2+\mathrm{}+y_{D4}^2}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)`$ is a smooth function of width $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approximating a $`\delta `$-function. The mass scale $`\overline{M}`$ is related to the four-dimensional Newton constant. In general, $`\overline{M}`$ will depend on $`M`$, but here they will be treated as independent scales.

For explicit calculations, we will choose a step-function form of the density $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)=\frac{(D4)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D4}}{\omega _{D4}}\mathrm{\Theta }(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }y)$$
(2)
where $`\omega _n`$ is the surface area of the unit $`n`$-dimensional sphere. The careful reader may wish to smoothen the step-function first and then take the limit in which $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes discontinuous. Our results are not altered. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the density $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approaches a $`\delta `$-function: $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\delta ^{D4}(\stackrel{}{y})`$. This continuous distribution of the 3-brane may be thought of as the continuous limit of a discrete set of the four-dimensional hypersurfaces (infinitely thin 3-branes) discussed in bib7 .

The Einstein field equations are

$$M^{D2}G_{AB}^{(D)}(x^\mu ,y^m)+\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\overline{G}_{AB}^{(4)}(x^\mu ,y^m)=T_{AB}(x^\mu ,y^m),$$
(3)
where $`G_{AB}^{(D)}`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional Einstein tensor and $`\overline{G}_{AB}^{(4)}`$ only has brane worldvolume components. Expanding around a flat background,

$$g_{AB}=\eta _{AB}+h_{AB}$$
(4)
the first-order Einstein equations are as follows. The transverse components give

$$2^A^nh_{An}_n^nh_A^A_A^Ah_n^n=(D4)(^C^Dh_{CD}_C^Ch_D^D)$$
(5)
The mixed components give

$$_A^Ah_{\alpha n}=_\alpha ^Ah_{An}+_n^Ah_{A\alpha }_\alpha _nh_A^A$$
(6)
and the brane worldvolume components imply

$`M^{D2}(_\alpha ^Ah_{\beta A}+_\beta ^Ah_{\alpha A}_A^Ah_{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta h_A^A`$ $``$ $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }(^A^Bh_{AB}_B^Bh_A^A))`$
$`+\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)(_\alpha ^\nu h_{\beta \nu }+_\beta ^\nu h_{\alpha \nu }_\nu ^\nu h_{\beta \alpha }_\alpha _\beta h_\nu ^\nu `$ $``$ $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }(^\mu ^\nu h_{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\mu h_\nu ^\nu ))`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`T_{\alpha \beta }(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})`$
where we have chosen a matter source described by the stress-energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ whose transverse components vanish ($`T_{mn}=T_{\mu n}=0`$). Indices are raised and lowered by the flat metric tensor $`\eta _{AB}`$.

To solve the field equations, we shall choose the harmonic gauge,

$$^Ah_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}_Bh_A^A.$$
(8)
We obtain from eqs. (5) and (6), respectively,

$`(6D)_A^Ah_n^n`$ $`=`$ $`(D4)_A^Ah_\mu ^\mu `$ (9)
$`_A^Ah_{m\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
so we may set

$`h_{m\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
$`(D6)h_n^n+(D4)h_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
Then the brane worldvolume components of the Einstein equations can be written in the following form:

$`M^{D2}_A^A\left(h_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }h_B^B\right)`$ $`+`$ $`\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(_\nu ^\nu h_{\alpha \beta }+_\alpha _\beta h_n^n\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu (h_n^nh_\nu ^\nu )\right)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`T_{\alpha \beta }(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})`$
Performing a Fourier transform in the brane worldvolume coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and multiplying by an arbitrary conserved stress-energy tensor $`T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }`$, which for simplicity is assumed to have no $`\stackrel{}{y}`$-dependence, we obtain

$`\left(M^{D2}(p^2+_n^n)+\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }p^2\right)\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }(p^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu \left(\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }p^2(\stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_n^n)+M^{D2}(p^2+_n^n)\stackrel{~}{h}_A^A\right)`$
where the Fourier transformed, $`D`$-dimensional d’Alembertian is $`_A^A=_n^np^2`$ with $`p^2=p_0^2\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ the worldvolume Minkowski four-momentum. In the next section, we shall solve this equation for the graviton propagator.

## III  Graviton Propagator

In general, the spread functions of the brane and the matter source are different. However, it was argued by Dvali, et al. dghs  that the two spreads coincide at lowest order with correction terms suppressed by factors $`o(M/\overline{M})`$. We shall therefore adopt a source stress-energy tensor of the form

$$T_{\alpha \beta }(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})=T_{\alpha \beta }(x^\mu )\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)$$
(15)
in the explicit calculation of the tensor structure and momentum dependence of the graviton propagator. Taking the trace of eq. (13), we obtain

$$\frac{(D2)}{(D4)}M^{D2}(p^2+_s^s)\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n+\frac{2(D5)}{(D4)}\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }p^2\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n=\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)$$
(16)
where we used eq. (12) to express $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^\mu `$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n`$. This is an equation for the field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n`$ (trace over transverse directions of the metric field), which is a scalar from a four-dimensional point of view. The solution is obtained on the brane and in the bulk in terms of the Green function to the wave equation,

$$\left(M^{D2}(p^2+_s^s)(\lambda 1)\overline{M}^2p^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝒢_\lambda (p,y)=\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)$$
(17)
as

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n(p,y)=\frac{(D4)}{(D2)}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha 𝒢_\lambda (p,y),\lambda =\frac{3(D4)}{(D2)}$$
(18)
After some algebra, we obtain a spherically symmetric solution expressed in terms of Bessel functions as

$$𝒢_\lambda (p,y)=\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2(\lambda 1)}\left(1\frac{1}{_\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{y\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{(D6)/2}H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })I_{(D6)/2}(k_\lambda py)\right)$$
(19)
inside the brane ($`y1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), and

$$𝒢_\lambda (p,y)=\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2(\lambda 1)}\frac{k_\lambda }{B_\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{y\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{(D6)/2}I_{(D4)/2}(k_\lambda p/\mathrm{\Lambda })H_{(D6)/2}^{(1)}(py)$$
(20)
in the bulk ($`y>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), where

$$_\lambda =k_\lambda I_{(D4)/2}(k_\lambda p/\mathrm{\Lambda })H_{(D6)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })+I_{(D6)/2}(k_\lambda p/\mathrm{\Lambda })H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(21)
and we have introduced the constant $`k_\lambda `$ given by

$$k_\lambda ^2=(\lambda 1)\frac{(D4)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D4}\overline{M}^2}{\omega _{D4}M^{D2}}1(\lambda 1)\frac{(D4)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D4}\overline{M}^2}{\omega _{D4}M^{D2}}$$
(22)
To obtain the graviton propagator, we will also need the Green function which is the solution to eq. (17) when $`\lambda =0`$. Notice that when $`\lambda =0`$, eq. (17) turns into the wave equation for a scalar field in the thin-brane limit. It is derivable from a scalar field action. Explicitly,

$$𝒢_0(p,y)=\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}\left(1+\frac{1}{}\left(\frac{1}{y\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{(D6)/2}H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })J_{(D6)/2}(\kappa py)\right)$$
(23)
inside the brane ($`y1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), and

$$𝒢_0(p,y)=\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}\frac{\kappa }{}\left(\frac{1}{y\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{(D6)/2}J_{(D4)/2}(\kappa p/\mathrm{\Lambda })H_{(D6)/2}^{(1)}(py)$$
(24)
in the bulk ($`y>1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), where

$$=\kappa H_{(D6)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })J_{(D4)/2}(\kappa p/\mathrm{\Lambda })H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })J_{(D6)/2}(\kappa p/\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(25)
and (see eq. (22))

$$\kappa ^2=k_0^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\frac{(D4)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D4}\overline{M}^2}{\omega _{D4}M^{D2}}\frac{(D4)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D4}\overline{M}^2}{\omega _{D4}M^{D2}}$$
(26)
Notice that inside the brane, $`𝒢_0(p,y)`$ oscillates rapidly over the transverse width of the brane.

We are now ready to deduce the full graviton propagator. To this end, let us massage eq. (14) into the form

$$\left(M^{D2}(p^2+_n^n)+\overline{M}^2p^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\right)\left\{\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p,y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{(D5)}{3(D4)}\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n(p,y)\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\nu \right\}$$

$$=\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\nu \right\}\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)$$
(27)
The solution for the graviton propagator is readily obtained in terms of the scalar propagators,

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p,y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }=\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\nu \right\}𝒢_0(p,y)+\frac{(D5)}{3(D2)}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\nu 𝒢_\lambda (p,y)$$
(28)
where we used eqs. (17) and (18).

## IV  Poles of the graviton propagator

Next, we analyze the pole structure of the graviton propagator. We then compare the results of our model with that of Dubovsky and Rubakov bibVVVV .

### IV.1 Our model

Using the expressions (23) for $`𝒢_0(p,y)`$ and (19) for $`𝒢_\lambda (p,y)`$, the graviton propagator (28) inside the brane ($`y1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) can be written in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p,y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }=\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}+\left(\frac{1}{y\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{(D6)/2}H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}}\left[\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}J_{(D6)/2}(\kappa py)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{_\lambda }}I_{(D6)/2}(k_\lambda py)\right]`$ (29)
For convenience, we have separated the term that corresponds to the tensor structure and momentum dependence of the four-dimensional graviton propagator. To study the pole structure, we shall introduce the average value of the graviton propagator over the transverse directions of the brane (see bibkir  for problems associated with the definition of observables on the brane) defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)=d^{D4}y\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p,y)$$
(30)
Integrating (29), we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}}+\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}{\displaystyle \frac{(D6)}{(\overline{M}\kappa p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2[1\mu _0(\kappa p/\mathrm{\Lambda })]}}`$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{(D6)}{(\overline{M}k_\lambda p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2[1+\mu _\lambda (k_\lambda p/\mathrm{\Lambda })]}}`$
from which we may easily deduce the pole structure of the graviton propagator inside the brane. The above expression is valid for $`D>6`$ (for $`D=6`$, we obtain logarithmic corrections, but the results are similar and will not be explicitly discussed here). The functions that appear in the denominators in (31) are

$$\mu _0(z)=\frac{D6}{z}\frac{J_{(D6)/2}(z)}{J_{(D4)/2}(z)},\mu _\lambda (z)=\frac{D6}{z}\frac{I_{(D6)/2}(z)}{I_{(D4)/2}(z)}$$
(32)
for $`D>6`$. The poles of the propagator are solutions to the equations

$$\mu _0(\kappa p/\mathrm{\Lambda })=1,\mu _\lambda (k_\lambda p/\mathrm{\Lambda })=1$$
(33)
Using (32) and the Bessel function identity

$$zJ_{\nu 1}(z)+zJ_{\nu +1}(z)=2\nu J_\nu (z)$$
(34)
for $`\nu =(D6)/2`$, it is easily shown that the solutions to $`\mu _0(z)=1`$ are the roots of $`J_{\nu 1}=J_{(D8)/2}`$. As is well-known, there are infinitely many zeros for $`\nu >0`$, i.e., $`D>6`$, which is the case we are considering here. We shall denote them by $`z_j`$,

$$J_{(D8)/2}(z_j)=0,j=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(35)
We therefore obtain an infinite tower of massive poles with masses given by

$$m_j^2=z_j^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\kappa ^2}$$
(36)
Similarly, the condition $`\mu _\lambda (z)=1`$, together with the Bessel function identity

$$zI_{\nu 1}(z)zI_{\nu +1}(z)=2\nu I_\nu (z)$$
(37)
and the relation $`I_\nu (z)=e^{\pi \nu i/2}J_\nu (iz)`$, lead to a tower of tachyonic poles with masses given by

$$m_j^2=z_j^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{k_\lambda ^2}$$
(38)
To obtain the behavior of the propagator near a massive pole, observe that

$$1\mu _0(z)=\frac{J_{(D8)/2}(z)}{J_{(D4)/2}(z)}=\frac{J_{(D8)/2}^{}(z_j)}{J_{(D4)/2}(z_j)}(zz_j)+o((zz_j)^2)$$
(39)
Using the Bessel function identity

$$zJ_{\nu 1}^{}(z)=(\nu 1)J_{\nu 1}(z)zJ_\nu (z)$$
(40)
together with (34), we deduce

$$1\mu _0(z)=\frac{1}{2(D6)}(z^2z_j^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(41)
near $`z=z_j`$. It follows that the graviton propagator on the brane (31) behaves as

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}\frac{2(D6)^2/z_j^4}{\overline{M}^2(p^2m_j^2)}$$
(42)
near the massive pole $`p^2=m_j^2`$. Similarly, near the tachyonic pole $`p^2=m_j^2`$, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \frac{2(D6)^2/z_j^4}{\overline{M}^2(p^2m_j^2)}$$
(43)
The minus sign of the residue of the tachyon implies that the tachyon is a ghost.

Notice that both the massive modes (36) and the tachyons (38) are expressed in terms of the same mass scale parameter $`p_c`$, where

$$p_c^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\kappa ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{k_\lambda ^2}\frac{M^{D2}}{\overline{M}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D6}}$$
(44)
In the thin-brane limit ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$), we have $`p_c0`$ and the infinite twoers of massive modes and tachyons turns into continuous spectra. The form of the propagator in this limit is easily deduced from eq. (31). For momenta away from the critical scale ($`|p|p_c`$), the two terms in (31) that give rise to the massive and tachyonic poles become vanishingly small and we are left with

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}$$
(45)
recovering four-dimensional Einstein gravity.

### IV.2 The Dubovsky-Rubakov model

It is interesting to note that similar results have been obtained by Dubovsky and Rubakov bibVVVV  using a slightly different model. In order to directly compare our results with theirs, we shall assume that the spread function (denoted by $`f^2(y)`$ in bibVVVV ) is given by eq. (2). Then the Einstein field equations proposed in bibVVVV  can be written as

$$(\mathrm{}^{(D)})G_{AB}^{(D)}(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})+\overline{M}^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)d^{D4}y^{}\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y^{})\overline{G}_{AB}^{(4)}(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y}^{})=T_{AB}(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})$$
(46)
to be compared with the Einstein eq. (3) in our model. In eq. (46), the four-dimensional Einstein tensor only has brane worldvolume components (i.e., $`G_{aB}^{(4)}=0`$) and the form-factor $`M^{D2}`$ at low energies. Also, the matter source on the brane will be assumed to have only space-time components $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ and a spread function same as that of the brane,

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=T_{\mu \nu }(x)\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)$$
(47)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is conserved in the four-dimensional sense (cf. eq. (15) in our model). The inverse width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the spread function is assumed to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M`$ in bibVVVV  to be contrasted with our model in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{M}`$, since it coincides with the inverse width of the brane bib7 .

Working as in section II, we linearize the Einstein equations and obtain the graviton propagator in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{𝒞}\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\lambda ^\lambda \right\}𝒢_1(p,y)\frac{1}{3𝒞_{}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\lambda ^\lambda 𝒢_1(p,y)$$
(48)
where we multiplied by the arbitrary stress-energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ to absorb the longitudinal part which is not gauge-invariant. It is given in terms of the Green function which satisfies eq. (17) for $`\lambda =1`$,

$$M^{D2}(p^2+_s^s)𝒢_1(p,y)=\sigma _\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)$$
(49)
(denoted by $`D_f`$ in bibVVVV ). The denominators are

$$𝒞=1+\overline{M}^2p^2\overline{𝒢}_1,𝒞_{}=1\overline{M}^2p^2\overline{𝒢}_1$$
(50)
where $`\overline{𝒢}_1`$ is the average of $`𝒢_1`$ over the spread function (defined as in eq. (30) and denoted by $`D_{ff}`$ in bibVVVV ). Explicitly,

$$\overline{𝒢}_1(p)=\frac{\kappa ^2}{\overline{M}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}f(p/\mathrm{\Lambda }),f(z)=\frac{1}{z^2}[1\frac{i\pi }{2}(D4)H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(z)J_{(D4)/2}(z)]$$
(51)
where we introduced the function $`f(z)`$ for convenience and the scale $`\kappa `$, which coincides with our earlier definition (26) in the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit,

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{(D4)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D4}\overline{M}^2}{\omega _{D4}M^{D2}}$$
(52)
The poles of the propagator (48) are the zeros of $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$. They can easily be seen to correspond to small $`z`$, therefore we may approximate $`𝒞1\kappa ^2f(0)p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, whose root is

$$m^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\kappa ^2f(0)}\frac{M^{D2}}{\overline{M}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D6}},$$
(53)
which is a massive pole. Similarly, the root of $`C_{}`$ is a tachyonic pole

$$m_{}^2m^2\frac{M^{D2}}{\overline{M}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D6}}$$
(54)
Notice that the mass scale is similar to the mass scale of the poles in our model (44), although in this model only one pair of poles is obtained instead of the infinite tower we found in our model. This scale matches the one found in bibVVVV  if we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M`$, in which case $`mM^2/\overline{M}`$.

## V Momentum Dependence of the Graviton Propagator

Having understood the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit, we now turn to a study of the momentum dependence of the graviton propagator keeping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ finite. By introducing the width $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we have added a scale to the theory in addition to the mass scales $`M`$ and $`\overline{M}`$. It follows from the explicit form of the propagator that the relevant scales are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$, where $`kk_\lambda \kappa `$ is a dimensionless parameter given by (26) or (22). Phenomenologically, one expects $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{M}`$ and $`M\overline{M}`$. So we shall restrict attention to momenta that are well below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). This range is divided by the scale given by eq. (44) into a small momentum ($`pp_c`$) and a large momentum ($`pp_c`$) regime. Qualitatively, one expects four-dimensional behavior of the graviton propagator for large momenta and $`D`$-dimensional behavior for small momenta bib7 . We wish to study this behavior quantitatively.

For small momentum, $`pp_c`$, we have

$$𝒢_0(p,y)𝒢_\lambda (p,y)$$
(55)
as can easily be verified from eqs. (20) and (24) in the bulk and eqs. (19) and (23) on the brane. The resulting tensor structure of the graviton propagator (28) is

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p;y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{(D2)}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}𝒢_0(p,y)$$
(56)
In the bulk, we deduce from (24),

$$𝒢_0(p;y)i\left(\frac{1}{py}\right)^{(D6)/2}H_{(D6)/2}^{(1)}(py)$$
(57)
which is the propagator for a $`D`$-dimensional scalar field. Therefore, the graviton behaves as a $`D`$-dimensional field in both its momentum dependence and its tensor structure in the bulk.

On the brane, after averaging over its transverse width, eq. (56) yields in the regime $`pp_c`$

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(D2)}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}`$ (58)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D4}{2}\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa p}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{(D6)/2}H_{(D4)/2}^{(1)}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)`$
where we used eqs. (23) and (30). It is easy to see that the $`1/p^2`$ pole vanishes. The first non-analytic term can be found from the expansion for small argument

$$H_\nu (z)=\frac{i}{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^\nu (1+\mathrm{})+\frac{2i}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^\nu \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(59)
for integer $`\nu `$, where the dots represent higher-order and analytic terms. Applying this to eq. (58), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{(D2)}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}\left(\frac{p}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{D6}\mathrm{ln}(p/\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(60)
exhibiting $`D`$-dimensional behavior. Similar conclusions may be drawn for the trace $`\stackrel{~}{h}_n^n`$ in the small momentum regime ($`pp_c`$).

In the large momentum regime ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }pp_c`$), the results are similar to those in the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit, which we discussed in the previous section. In this regime, the scalar Green functions are related by

$$𝒢_0(p,y)(\lambda 1)𝒢_\lambda (p,y)$$
(61)
to be contrasted with the relation (55) in the regime $`pp_c`$. Thus the tensor structure of the graviton propagator (28) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p;y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}𝒢_0(p,y)$$
(62)
exhibiting four-dimensional behavior. Inside the brane, we deduce from (23)

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{Brane}}(p)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }=\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}+o\left((p_c/p)^2\right)$$
(63)
exhibiting the distance dependence of Newtonian gravity with the tensor structure of four-dimensional Einstein gravity. This is in agreement with our earlier conclusion (45) in the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit. In the bulk ($`y>1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), we deduce from (24)

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(p,y)\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{i\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D6}{2})}\frac{1}{\overline{M}^2p^2}\left(\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^{(D6)/2}\left\{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{T}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{T}_\alpha ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{T}_\beta ^\beta \right\}\left(\frac{1}{py}\right)^{(D6)/2}H_{(D6)/2}^{(1)}(py)$$
(64)
Therefore, the propagator vanishes in the thin brane limit ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$). These results for the momentum dependence of the tensor structure of the graviton propagator are in agreement with the qualitative suggestions of bib7 .

## VI  Conclusion

The main objective of the present work was to analyze quantitatively the gravitational effects on a brane of finite extent in the transverse directions (“fat”). We obtained an equation for the graviton propagator which we then proceeded to solve in two steps. First, we obtained the propagator for the trace $`h_n^n`$ over the transverse directions of the metric field, which is a scalar from the four-dimensional point of view. The trace $`h_n^n`$ acted as an effective source term for the graviton propagator in addition to the contribution from the matter source. This complicated the tensor structure of the graviton propagator which became momentum dependent. We found a solution for the graviton propagator which explicitly revealed its pole structure. We obtained infinite towers of massive gravitons and tachyonic ghosts with a discrete mass spectrum. We found the contributions from the massive gravitons and tachyonic ghosts in the thin-brane limit and showed that the tensor structure and distance dependence of four-dimensional Einstein gravity is recovered in this limit. We then analyzed the tensor structure of the momentum dependent graviton propagator for a brane of finite thickness. In the small momentum regime, the graviton propagator exhibited a $`D`$-dimensional behavior, which was in contrast to the large momentum regime (above the critical scale $`p_c`$ (eq. (44)) but well below the inverse brane width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), where the contributions from the massive gravitons and tachyonic ghosts conspired to produce a propagator on the brane whose tensor structure and distance dependence was that of four-dimensional Einstein gravity.


text:
# Extended Anomaly Mediation and New Physics at 10 TeV

## I Introduction: The Supersymmetric Flavor Problem, and Anomaly Mediation

Extending the standard model of particle physics into a supersymmetric theory is attractive for many reasons, most notably stabilization of the electroweak scale against radiative corrections, and coupling constant unification. A significant drawback to supersymmetric theories is our lack of understanding of supersymmetry breaking. A phenomenological parametrization of the soft supersymmetry breaking effects in the minimal supersymmetric extension leads to 104 new free parameters. Most of this parameter space is ruled out by low energy constraints on flavor changing neutral currents, lepton number violation, and CP violation. The supersymmetric flavor problem is how to explain the absence of indirect evidence for supersymmetry via flavor changing neutral currents and lepton flavor violation. The supersymmetric CP problem is why virtual superpartner exchange has not led to CP violation in conflict with experiment.

In the simplest solutions to the supersymmetric flavor and CP problems the superpartner masses are insensitive to Planck scale physics, and can be predicted. Such UV insensitivity can arise if the supersymmetry breaking scale is low, as in low energy gauge mediation, where the fundamental supersymmetry breaking scale is between 10 TeV and $`10^9`$ GeV and the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$ is between $`10^3`$ eV and 1 GeV Dine and Nelson (1993); Dine et al. (1995, 1996). Typically Planck scale physics gives contributions to soft supersymmetry breaking masses of order $`m_{3/2}`$, and so with a low gravitino mass the effects from the Planck scale are negligible. This line of reasoning implies that the gravitino should be the lightest superpartner (LSP), and the LSP would not be a candidate for cold dark matter.

Recently there have been several interesting proposals for UV insensitivity of superpartner masses with $`m_{3/2}`$ as high as 10 TeV Randall and Sundrum (1999); Fox et al. (2002), or even higher Luty (2002). Randall and Sundrum Randall and Sundrum (1999) proposed that the hidden supersymmetry breaking sector and the visible supersymmetric extension of the standard model should live in separate (3+1) dimensional subspaces (known as 3-branes) embedded in extra dimensions. They also proposed that if the bulk contains only supergravity, and the 3-branes are far apart in units of the Planck length, then the visible sector learns about supersymmetry breaking only via the breaking of conformal invarianceRandall and Sundrum (1999); Giudice et al. (1998). In this “anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking” (AMSB) scenario, the susy breaking parameters at any given scale can be found from an exact solution to the renormalization group equations, known as the anomaly mediated trajectory. Heavy particle threshold corrections will maintain the soft masses and couplings on this trajectory, provided the masses of the heavy particles come from supersymmetric terms. Since the superpartner masses are a loop factor below $`m_{3/2}`$, and since the weak scale can be determined from the effective supersymmetry breaking scale in the MSSM, a gravitino mass of order 10 TeV will give the weak scale to be of order 100 GeV. Thus to leading order in supersymmetry breaking, all the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters at any scale can be computed in terms of the gravitino mass, tree level violation of conformal invariance, and the beta functions and anomalous dimensions, and is insensitive to UV physics.

This predictive scenario would be extremely attractive were it not for the fact that in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), the slepton masses squared are predicted to be negative. Another potential problem with AMSB is that it is not known how to realize this scenario from string theory, and generic extra dimensional models do not realize its predictions—simply separating the 3-branes is insufficient Anisimov et al. (2001). However, recently, Luty and Sundrum have shown that AMSB may be obtained from four dimensional theories with a supersymmetry breaking sector which is embedded in a superconformal sector with certain properties Luty and Sundrum (2001a, b), so a special extra dimensional set up is unnecessary for AMSB.

One appealing solution to the negative slepton mass squared problem is “deflected anomaly mediation” (DAM) Pomarol and Rattazzi (1999), in which some particles with nontrivial standard model charges obtain large masses from additional light ($`<m_{3/2}`$) singlets with large vevs. Integrating out heavy fields leads to a “deflection” from the trajectory at a high energy scale. DAM typically retains some UV sensitivity as it requires running the soft parameters from the threshold to the weak scale. Flavor violation below the threshold would generically reintroduce the flavor problem. There are a number of other viable solutions to the flavor problem with a gravitino which is heavier than 100 GeV. Most Kaplan et al. (2000); Chacko et al. (2000a, b); Kaplan and Kribs (2000); Chacko et al. (2001); Nomura and Suzuki (2001); Chacko and Luty (2001); Nelson and Weiner (2001) are sensitive to physics up to some high scale, but not to the Planck scale.

Solutions to the negative slepton mass squared problem which retain UV insensitivity may be found in refs. Jack and Jones (2000a, b); Arkani-Hamed et al. (2001); Carena et al. (2001). These models depart from the anomaly mediated framework by additional supersymmetry breaking effects which lie on a different, but UV insensitive, trajectory. Other UV insensitive solutions include Allanach and Dedes (2000); Katz et al. (1999).

In this paper we will explore anomaly mediation in theories which go beyond the MSSM at the 10 TeV mass scale, where nondecoupling effects are important. We will argue that 10 TeV is a natural scale for physics beyond the MSSM. Since anomaly mediation is still the dominant contribution to supersymmetry breaking parameters, we dub this framework Extended Anomaly Mediation (EAM). In the EAM framework, for any given extension of the MSSM, all supersymmetry breaking parameters can be computed in terms of the gravitino mass and supersymmetric parameters.

## II Extended Anomaly Mediation

We start with the following assumptions about the effective theory of physics below the Planck scale:

* Anomaly mediation is the dominant source of supersymmetry breaking in the visible sector.
* Above $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$ all soft supersymmetry breaking terms are on the anomaly mediated trajectory.
* The visible sector is some general extension of the MSSM. Typically this will include some new fields charged under the SM gauge group whose masses are not prevented by a gauge symmetry, but which are nevertheless light.
* No additional mass scales in the vicinity of the weak scale other than $`m_{3/2}`$ should be input by hand, as it would seem to be overly coincidental for a theory to produce several mass scales of disparate origin so close together.
* For at least some of the new fields, tree level Kähler potential terms are allowed which will generate masses of $`O(m_{3/2})`$ from the coupling to $`\varphi `$, the conformal compensator Giudice and Masiero (1988); Randall and Sundrum (1999); Nomura and Suzuki (2001).

We shall see that the resulting low energy superpartner spectrum is not that of minimal anomaly mediation, and we can easily generate spectra with positive slepton mass squared. We begin by reviewing the manner in which fields can become massive with couplings to the conformal compensator Randall and Sundrum (1999). For instance, consider a chiral superfield $`S`$ with a bilinear coupling in the Kähler potential.

$$d^4xd^4\theta \lambda \varphi ^{}\varphi S^2.$$
(1)
Upon rescaling by $`S\varphi S`$ we have

$$d^4xd^4\theta \lambda \frac{\varphi ^{}}{\varphi }S^2$$
(2)
Since $`S^2`$ is a chiral superfield, only terms involving the $`F`$-component of the conformal compensator appear in the Lagrangian. In this example, assuming $`\varphi =1+m_{3/2}\theta ^2`$foo , we are left with

$$d^4x(d^2\theta \frac{\lambda }{2}m_{3/2}S^2+h.c.)+\frac{\lambda }{2}m_{3/2}^2s^2.$$
(3)
Since we roughly identify the weak scale with $`m_{3/2}/16\pi ^2`$, $`S`$ naturally has a mass of order $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$.

The low energy phenomena of the theory depend critically on the value of $`\lambda `$. The scalar mass matrix for $`S`$ is

$$\frac{m_{3/2}^2}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^2& \lambda \\ \lambda & \lambda ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
For $`|\lambda |>1`$ the mass matrix has positive determinant, and the situation is straightforward. However, with $`|\lambda |<1`$, this matrix has a negative eigenvalue, and $`s`$, the A-component of $`S`$, will acquire a vev. The size of the vev will be determined by the presence of additional operators. If the superpotential contains a term $`S^3`$, the vev will naturally stabilize at the scale $`m_{3/2}`$. One might think that if the vev is stabilized by higher dimension operators that it would become quite large, as in DAM. However, within this framework, the presence of fields with masses $`O(m_{3/2})`$ is quite natural, and hence upon integrating them out, one would be left with higher dimension operators suppressed by this mass scale. As a consequence, it is easy to find natural ways to stabilize the the vev of $`s`$ at $`O(m_{3/2})`$ .

This is our main point: with a gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}O(10\mathrm{TeV})`$, a natural scale for physics beyond the MSSM is $`O(10\mathrm{TeV})`$. This physics could consist of new heavy particles, or a new symmetry breaking scale. Furthermore, in AMSB, threshold effects at 10 TeV or below do not decouple, and the low energy superpartner mass spectrum is significantly changed. We will now examine two attractive scenarios for physics at this scale. We find that AMSB need look very little like the minimal case. In some cases the spectrum is similar to a variant of gauge mediation.

### II.1 N-viable Anomaly Mediation or Positive Deflection at $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$

We begin with the simplest example of additional chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Xi },\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ in a nontrivial vector-like representation of the standard gauge group and the Kähler potential term

$$d^4\theta \lambda \varphi ^{}\varphi \mathrm{\Xi }\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}=d^2\theta \lambda m_{3/2}\varphi \mathrm{\Xi }\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}+h.c.$$
(5)
We assume $`\lambda >1`$ to prevent color-charge breaking.

When we rescale the messenger fields $`\varphi \mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }`$, the remaining superpotential term is

$$d^2\theta \frac{\lambda m_{3/2}}{\varphi }\mathrm{\Xi }\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}.$$
(6)
Notice that when we Taylor expand this in powers of $`\theta `$, the $`B\mu `$ term arising from the conformal compensator now has the opposite sign when compared with the usual anomaly mediated piece. These messengers will decouple in the usual fashion (up to higher powers in $`F/m^2`$) when considering only the scalar masses squared. However, their effects on the gaugino masses will remain. The gaugino masses at the threshold are

$$M_i=\frac{b_i+2n}{4\pi }\alpha _im_{3/2},$$
(7)
where $`n`$ is the Dynkin index of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ fields and $`b_i`$ is the coefficient of the one loop beta function for $`\alpha _i`$.

Because the gaugino masses are no longer on the anomaly mediated trajectory, running from the threshold scale can change the masses of the sfermions considerably. Their soft masses at a scale $`\mu <m_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are given by

$`m_f^2`$ $`=m_{3/2}^2\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_ic_{f,i}\alpha _i^2(m_\mathrm{\Xi })}{8\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{f,i}(b_i+2n)^2}{8\pi ^2b_i}}(\alpha _i^2(m_\mathrm{\Xi })\alpha _i^2(\mu )),`$
where $`i`$ indexes the gauge group, $`f`$ indexes the sfermion representation,and $`c_{f,i}`$ is the quadratic Casimir. For $`n5`$, we obtain positive slepton masses squared. Notice that the case $`n=0`$ reproduces the ordinary anomaly mediated result.

### II.2 $`SU(3)`$ electroweak at $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$

Possibly the most interesting way to solve the negative slepton mass squared problem is to change the gauge structure of the MSSM matter fields at the $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$ scale. For instance, if we can place all the MSSM fields into asymptotically free gauge groups, their soft masses at $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$ will be positive. In minimal anomaly mediation, enlarging the gauge group of the standard model above the scale $`m_{3/2}`$ is irrelevant due to decoupling, as only the gauge group structure at the weak scale determines the soft scalar masses at the weak scale. However in EAM, the gauge contributions occur at the scale $`m_{3/2}`$ and do not decouple.

It is interesting to extend the electroweak gauge group to include an additional $`SU(3)_W`$ factor, with all the leptons transforming as triplets Konopinski and Mahmoud (1953); Weinberg (1972). Dimopoulos and Kaplan Dimopoulos and Kaplan (2002) showed that this naturally gives a successful prediction for the weak angle when the extended gauge group is broken at a few TeV, and the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ couplings are fairly large. Such an extension is attractive for EAM, since with the leptons transforming under an asymptotically free group the anomaly mediated contribution to their masses squared is positive. Here we build an EAM model with positive slepton masses squared and weak gauge group $`SU(3)_W\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$, which breaks to $`SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$ at a scale of order $`m_{3/2}`$ 10 TeV. The matter content is as follows.

3 3 2 1 model Chiral Superfields

Quark, lepton and spectator sector (R parity odd)

|  | $`SU(3)_c`$ | $`SU(3)_W`$ | $`SU(2)`$ | U(1) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}_i`$ | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| $`q_i`$ | $`3`$ | 1 | 2 | 1/6 |
| $`\overline{u}_i`$ | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 | -2/3 |
| $`\overline{d}_i`$ | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 | 1/3 |
| $`\chi _2`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 2 | -1/2 |
| $`\chi _1`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 |

(9)
Higgs sector (R parity even)

|  | $`SU(3)_c`$ | $`SU(3)_W`$ | $`SU(2)`$ | U(1) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`H`$ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1/2 |
| $`\overline{H}`$ | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1/2 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 2 | -1/2 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | +1 |
| $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$ | 1 | $`3`$ | 2 | +1/2 |
| $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1`$ | 1 | $`3`$ | 1 | -1 |

(10)
Note that $`i=1,2,3`$ is a generation index. The $`\chi _{1,2}`$ are spectators which obtain mass at the scale $`m_{3/2}`$, and for three generations, cancel the triangle gauge anomalies from the quarks and leptons.

We include superpotential terms

$$\varphi ^3(g\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\overline{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1)$$
(11)
and Kähler terms

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}(\lambda _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1+\lambda _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2)$$
(12)
For simplicity, we set $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda `$ and assume all couplings to be real. For $`|\lambda |<1`$ the potential is unbounded from below along the direction where the $`3\times 3`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2)=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are rank one. However, for $`\lambda <1`$ and $`g,\overline{g}`$ of the same sign, the global minimum can break $`SU(3)_W\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ to $`SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$ at a scale of order 10 TeV, with both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ proportional to the identity. If we relax the requirement that $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$, we will still break to $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, in stages. Either we have $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)SU(2)^2\times U(1)SU(2)\times U(1)`$ or$`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)SU(2)\times U(1)^2SU(2)\times U(1)`$. Quantitatively, this will contribute only a threshold loop effect to the low energy value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.

To compute the scalar masses, we follow Giudice and Rattazzi Giudice and Rattazzi (1998). We treat each vev as a superfield with both $`F`$\- and $`A`$\- components, and extract the scalar masses from wave function renormalization. If the vev $`X`$ is driving the breaking $`SU(3)SU(2)\times U(1)`$, we parametrize $`F_X/X`$= $`\gamma m_{3/2}`$, we can write the mass of the sleptons as (considering only gauge interactions)

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2=m_{3/2}^2\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w^2c_{f,w}b_w}{8\pi ^2}}(1\gamma )^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _Y^2\gamma c_{f,Y}}{8\pi ^2}}(b_Y\gamma +2b_Y^{}(1\gamma )+6b_w(1\gamma ))`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^2\gamma c_{f,2}}{8\pi ^2}}(b_2\gamma +2b_2^{}(1\gamma )+2b_w(1\gamma )))`$
where $`\alpha _{Y,2}`$ are the couplings of the low energy groups, and $`b_i^{}`$ and $`b_i`$ are the beta functions of the $`i`$th gauge group above and below the $`SU(3)`$ breaking scale, respectively. $`\gamma =0`$ corresponds to retaining the SUSY breaking masses of the theory above $`m_{3/2}`$ while $`\gamma =1`$ maintains the anomaly mediated trajectory, with negative slepton masses squared. For sufficiently small (but still order one) $`\gamma `$, the scalar masses squared will be positive. Radiative effects from the top-stop loops will drive electroweak symmetry breaking via the vev of $`H`$. Masses for quarks, leptons and spectators arise from the superpotential couplings

$`\varphi ^3(`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}^2}}h_{ij}^l\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\overline{H}+h_{ij}^uq_i\overline{u}_jH+h_{ij}^dq_i\overline{d}_j\overline{H}`$ (15)
$`+h_1\chi _2^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+h_2\chi _1\chi _2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2+\xi _i\chi _2\mathrm{}_iH).`$
The nonrenormalizable operators giving rise to lepton masses can arise, for instance, from integrating out vector-like leptons charged under $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ at the scale $`m_{3/2}`$. The fields responsible for the lepton Yukawas will affect the gaugino masses but not the scalar masses at leading order in supersymmetry breaking, as described in the previous section. The light lepton fields will mix weakly with the vectorlike leptons carrying $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, but this need not lead to large corrections to the masses.

Note that the neutral $`\chi _2`$ fields can mix with the neutrino components of the lepton fields via the $`\xi _i`$ couplings—this could lead to lepton number and flavor violation in the neutrino sector. For $`\xi _i=0`$, a linear combination of a global symmetry and an $`SU(3)_W`$ generator remains unbroken in the ground state, and can be identified as total lepton number. It would be interesting to study whether the observed neutrino oscillations can be accounted for in this model.

## III The Higgs $`\mu `$ parameter

So far we have avoided dwelling on a potential embarrassment for EAM, the fact that in the MSSM the Higgs fields are in a real representation of the MSSM gauge group and so, according to our philosophy, should either remain massless or obtain masses of order 10 TeV. The most popular solution in the MSSM is to simply allow a bilinear Higgs term to appear in the Kähler potential Giudice and Masiero (1988); Randall and Sundrum (1999); Nomura and Suzuki (2001), which will give a Higgs $`\mu `$ parameter of order $`m_{3/2}`$. With $`m_{3/2}10`$ TeV this won’t work. Even if one were to simply put in an small parameter so that the $`\mu `$ parameter for the Higgs fields were in the phenomenologically desirable range of several hundred GeV, the $`B`$ parameter would be 10 TeV and there would be no stable minimum of the potential. To get an acceptable spectrum, we therefore extend the MSSM at the TeV scale. The minimal such extension is to add a singlet $`S`$ to the MSSM, with superpotential couplings $`\lambda SH_uH_d+kS^3`$. $`S`$ must get an $`𝒪(100)`$ GeV vev at the minimal of its potential. In minimal AMSB the $`S`$ mass squared term can be computed to be positive. One way for getting $`S`$ a large negative mass squared, suggested in ref. Dine and Nelson (1993) in the context of gauge mediation, is to add new colored fields $`Q,\overline{Q}`$ to the MSSM in a vector-like representation and with superpotential coupling $`hSQ\overline{Q}`$. This mechanism will also work in anomaly mediation. Unless it is quite large, the coupling constant $`h`$ is asymptotically free, and will give $`S`$ a negative mass squared.

## IV Summary

In anomaly mediated theories of supersymmetry breaking, 10 TeV is a natural mass scale for new physics beyond the MSSM. Such new physics makes a strong imprint on the superpartner spectrum, but can naturally preserve flavor universality. We have presented two simple models for new physics, and shown that the resulting superpartner mass spectrum is acceptable, and resembles none of the standard supersymmetry breaking scenarios. In particular, the gaugino masses are neither of the anomaly mediated nor unified type. In conclusion, anomaly mediation is a much richer framework than has been previously realized.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by DOE contract DE-FGO3-96-ER40956. We thank M. Luty, Y. Nomura, Z. Chacko and P. Fox for useful conversations, and A. Pierce for pointing out mistakes in an earlier version.