1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: %
3: \input epsf.tex
4:
5: \textwidth 6.5in
6: \oddsidemargin 0in
7: \evensidemargin 0in
8: \textheight 8.6in
9: \topmargin -0.5in
10:
11: % Jim's macros
12: \newcommand{\sperp}{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}
13: \newcommand{\spm}{{\scriptscriptstyle\pm}}
14: \newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}
15: \nc{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
16: \nc{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
17: \nc{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \nc{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \nc{\lra}{\leftrightarrow}
20: \def\sfrac#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over #2}}}
21: \nc{\sss}{\scriptscriptstyle}
22: {\nc{\lsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{~$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$~}}}
23: {\nc{\gsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{~$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$~}}}
24: \def\VEV#1{{\langle #1 \rangle}}
25: \def\eps{\epsilon}
26: \def\sL{{\!\sss\Lambda}}
27: \def\bL{\bar\Lambda}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \begin{titlepage}
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: \begin{flushright}
34: McGill 00-35\\
35: hep-ph/0012090\\
36: \end{flushright}
37:
38: \vskip.5cm
39: \begin{center}
40: {\Large{\bf A Small Cosmological Constant \\
41: \vskip0.4cm
42: from Warped Compactification with Branes}}
43: \end{center}
44: \vskip1.5cm
45:
46: \centerline{ James M.\ Cline and Hassan Firouzjahi}
47:
48: \centerline{Physics Department, McGill University,
49: Montr\'eal, Qu\'ebec, Canada H3A 2T8}
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52: \vskip 3pt
53:
54: We present a possible explanation for the smallness of the observed
55: cosmological constant using a variant of the
56: Randall-Sundrum(RS)-Goldberger-Wise paradigm for a warped extra dimension.
57: In contrast to RS, we imagine that we are living on the positive tension
58: Planck brane, or on a zero-tension TeV brane. In our model there are two
59: solutions for the scalar field in the bulk and the corresponding brane
60: separations, one of which is tuned to have zero cosmological constant.
61: We show that in the other solution, which is a false vacuum state, the 4-D
62: cosmological constant can be naturally small, due to exponential
63: suppression by the warp factor. The radion is in the milli-eV mass range,
64: and if we live on a TeV brane its couplings are large enough that it can
65: measurably alter the gravitational force at submillimeter distances. In
66: this case the Kaluza-Klein excitations of the graviton can also contribute
67: to submillimeter deviations from Newtonian gravity, and we have in
68: addition the collider phenomenology of the usual TeV-scale radion.
69:
70:
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \vfill
74: \end{titlepage}
75:
76:
77: {\bf 1. Introduction.} There is mounting evidence that we live in a
78: universe with a vacuum energy density $\Lambda$ which is about 0.7 of the
79: critical density \cite{SN}. This value is close to 120 orders of
80: magnitude less than the Planck density, $M_p^4$, which would be the
81: natural expectation for the size of $\Lambda$ from quantum field theory.
82: If there exists some mechanism to make $\Lambda$ small, it would seem much
83: simpler if its value was zero than $10^{-120} M_p^4$. Our motivation in
84: this letter is to present a possible explanation for this enormous
85: hierarchy of scales, taking advantage of recent ideas involving 3-branes
86: embedded in an extra dimension.
87:
88: A similar hierarchy problem, though much less severe, is that of the weak
89: scale (100 GeV) versus the (reduced) Planck scale, $M_p = (8\pi
90: G_N)^{-1/2} = 2.43\times 10^{18}$ GeV. Randall and Sundrum (RS) presented
91: an interesting way of explaining this small ratio using two 3-branes in a
92: 5-D anti-deSitter space with a compact extra dimension
93: \cite{RS}-\cite{RS2}. It is tempting to look for a similar application of
94: the RS idea for the cosmological constant problem; several attempts to use
95: one or more extra dimensions to get a small $\Lambda$ have recently been
96: made \cite{self-tuning}-\cite{others}. In this paper we will suggest that
97: the RS idea can, with only minor changes, account for the smallness of the
98: observed $\Lambda$. Our model relies heavily on stabilization of the
99: distance between two branes using a bulk scalar field, as was suggested by
100: Goldberger and Wise \cite{GW2}.
101:
102: Our explanation only partially addresses the cosmological constant
103: problem, in that we assume there is some unknown mechanism which forces
104: the ground state of the universe to have vanishing 4-D vacuum energy.
105: We show that there can be a false vacuum state with $\Lambda$ nonzero and
106: exponentially small, as illustrated in figure 1. Its size is determined
107: by the separation between the two branes, which in turn depends on the
108: potential of the bulk scalar field $\phi$. The degree of freedom which is
109: varying between the true and false vacua is the {\it radion}, the
110: dynamical field associated with fluctuations in the size of the extra
111: dimension.
112:
113: To set the stage, we will be working in a 5-D theory with the
114: extra-dimensional coordinate $r$, whose metric is parametrized by
115: \beq
116: ds^2 = e^{2A(r)}\left(dt^2 - e^{2\sqrt{\bL}t}\sum_i dx_i^2\right) -
117: dr^2.
118: \eeq
119: We note that slices of constant $r$ represent 4-D deSitter spaces with
120: vacuum energy $\Lambda = 3\bL/(8\pi G)$, where $G$ is the 4-D Newton
121: constant.
122: There are two 3-branes, located $r=0$ and $r=r_1$ respectively.
123: There is also a scalar field $\phi$ with potential $V(\phi)$ in the bulk,
124: and separate potentials $\lambda_0(\phi)$ and $\lambda_1(\phi)$ on the
125: two branes. $V(\phi)$ contains a negative bulk cosmological constant
126: which induces the behavior $A(r)\propto -r$, so that $e^{2A(r)}$ is
127: exponentially decreasing. Using notation similar to that of reference
128: \cite{DeWolfe}, the action is
129: \beq
130: \label{action}
131: S = \int d^{\,5}x \sqrt{g}\left(-\frac1{4\kappa^2} R + \frac12
132: (\nabla\phi)^2
133: -V(\phi)- \lambda_0(\phi) \delta(r) -
134: \lambda_1(\phi)\delta(r-r_1)\right)
135: \eeq
136: Here $\kappa^2 =\frac{1}{2} M^{-3}$ defines the 5-D gravity scale
137: $M$, which is assumed to be of order $M_p$.
138: To simplify the analysis, we will take the brane
139: potentials to have the form
140: \beq
141: \label{bps}
142: \lambda_i(\phi) = T_i + \gamma_i(\phi^2 - \phi_i^2)^2
143: \eeq
144: with $\gamma_i\to\infty$, {\it i.e.,} the brane potentials are
145: stiff. This will make the boundary conditions for the scalar field
146: simply
147: \beq
148: \phi(0) = \phi_0,\qquad \phi(r_1) = \phi_1,
149: \eeq
150: and the potentials will have the values $\lambda_i(\phi_i) = T_i$, where
151: $T_i$ denotes the tension of the respective brane.
152:
153: In the remainder we will show that for the same simple choice of bulk
154: potential used in the exact solution of ref.\ \cite{DeWolfe},
155: it is possible to find a metastable solution to the equations of motion
156: whose false vacuum energy (in the 4-D effective theory) is exponentially
157: close to that of the true vacuum. By assuming the latter has vanishing
158: cosmological constant, we can thus explain the small observed value of
159: $\Lambda$ in our universe by imagining that we are stuck in the false
160: vacuum.
161: \bigskip
162:
163: {\bf 2. Superpotential method.} To construct solutions to the
164: coupled equations for 5-D gravity and the scalar field, we will take
165: advantage of the superpotential method discussed in ref.\ \cite{DeWolfe}.
166: One introduces a superpotential $W(r)$ and a function
167: \beq
168: \gamma(r) = \sqrt{1 + {9\bL\over \kappa^4W(r)^2}\, e^{-2A(r)}}
169: \eeq
170: such that the desired potential $V(\phi)$ is given by
171: \beq
172: \label{Veq}
173: V(\phi(r)) = {1\over 8\gamma^2} \left({\partial W\over \partial
174: \phi}
175: \right)^2 - \frac{\kappa^2}{3} W^2.
176: \eeq
177: Then solutions to the coupled equations for $A$ and $\phi$ can be generated
178: from the first order equations
179: \beq
180: \label{eom}
181: A' = -\frac {\kappa^2}{3} W \gamma;\qquad \phi' = {1\over 2\gamma}
182: {\partial W\over \partial \phi} \,.
183: \eeq
184: For flat branes (when $\Lambda=0$), $W$ can be regarded as a function of
185: $\phi$ alone, but for bent branes ($\Lambda\neq 0$), it must be considered
186: as a function of $r$, and in that case one interprets ${\partial W\over
187: \partial\phi} = {1\over\phi'}{dW\over dr}$. The boundary conditions
188: at the brane positions $r=0$ and $r=r_1$ are
189: \beqa
190: \label{bc0}
191: \lambda_0(\phi_0) &=& W\gamma|_{r=0\phantom{_1}};\qquad
192: \phi(0) = \pm\phi_0
193: \\
194: \label{bc1}
195: \lambda_1(\phi_1) &=& -W\gamma|_{r=r_1};\qquad \phi(r_1) =
196: \pm\phi_1
197: \eeqa
198:
199: {\bf 3. Solutions with vanishing $\mathbf\Lambda$.}
200: Let us first present a ground state solution in which the branes are flat
201: and the 4-D cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is tuned to be zero, hence
202: $\gamma(r) = 1$. We will
203: later perturb this solution with a small positive value of $\Lambda$.
204: The unperturbed functional form for the superpotential is taken to be
205: \beq
206: \label{Weq}
207: W_0(\phi) = {3\over \kappa^2 L} - b\phi^2,
208: \eeq
209: where $L$ is a length scale that turns out to be the curvature radius of
210: the 5-D
211: anti-deSitter space in the limit where the back reaction of the scalar
212: on the geometry is small. The resulting scalar potential is simply a
213: polynomial in $\phi$ of degree 4. It is easy
214: to integrate the equations of motion (\ref{eom}) to obtain the solutions
215: \cite{DeWolfe}
216: \beqa
217: \phi &=& \phi_0\, e^{-br}\nonumber\\
218: A &=& \hat{A}-{r\over L}
219: -\frac{\kappa^2}6 \phi_0^2\, e^{-2br},
220: \eeqa
221: where $\hat{A}$ is a constant of integration (we have already chosen
222: $\phi_0$ so as to satisfy the boundary condition on $\phi$ at $r=0$.)
223: The value of $\hat{A}$
224: is physically irrelevant, so we can for convenience choose it such that
225: $A(0) = 0$. Applying the boundary condition on $\phi$ at the second
226: brane determines $r_1$, the size of the extra dimension:
227: \beq
228: e^{-br_1} = {\phi_1 \over \phi_0}
229: \eeq
230: This solution is essentially the same as the ones found in references
231: \cite{GW2} and in particular \cite{DeWolfe}, differing from the latter
232: only
233: by our choice of stiff brane potentials. The stability of this solution
234: against small perturbations has been demonstrated in \cite{CGK}.
235: The large hierarchy of energy scales between the two branes is generated
236: by assuming that $b$ is parametrically small compared to $1/L$. In this
237: case, although $e^{-br_1} \lsim 1$, the warp factor will be
238: exponentially small, $e^{-r_1/L}\ll 1$.
239:
240: The remaining boundary conditions are satisfied by the constraints
241: \beqa
242: \label{Teq0}
243: T_0 &=& {3\over \kappa^2L} - b\phi_0^2 \\
244: \label{Teq1}
245: T_1 &=& -{3\over \kappa^2L} + b\phi_1^2
246: \eeqa
247: on the brane tensions. The fact that we have two fine-tunings instead of
248: the one which is expected on the basis of counting parameters
249: \cite{DeWolfe} is due to our choice of superpotential $W_0$. There is
250: actually a family of superpotentials giving rise to the same physical
251: potential, and these can be found by integrating the differential equation
252: (\ref{Veq}). A new constant of integration would then arise, which we
253: have already fixed by our choice of $W_0$. If the brane tensions were not
254: related to each other as prescribed by (\ref{Teq0}-\ref{Teq1}) we would be
255: forced to find the appropriate form of $W_0$. Thus there is only one
256: essential fine-tuning, and this is the one that corresponds to setting the
257: 4-D cosmological constant $\Lambda$ to zero.
258:
259: It is important to notice that, in addition to the solution at finite
260: brane separation, there is another one with the second brane at
261: $r=\infty$. In other words, the second brane is simply removed from the
262: picture. The extra boundary conditions associated with the second brane
263: are no longer relevant when it is at infinity since (due to the vanishing
264: warp factor) it makes no contribution to the action.
265: \bigskip
266:
267: {\bf 4. Nearby solutions with nonzero $\mathbf\Lambda$.} Let us suppose
268: that the tuning of brane tension $T_0$, eq.\ (\ref{Teq0}), is enforced, so
269: that the solution where the second brane removed still exists, with
270: vanishing 4-D cosmological constant. Consider what happens to the other
271: solution if the tension $T_1$ is no longer tuned according to
272: condition (\ref{Teq1}). We expect that $\Lambda$ is no longer zero in
273: this case. The equations of motion with nonzero $\Lambda$ are difficult
274: to solve exactly, so we will instead solve them perturbatively, to first
275: order in $\Lambda$.
276:
277: The first step in this procedure is to realize that, although $V(\phi)$
278: should still have the same functional form as in the $\Lambda=0$
279: solutions, the superpotential need not be the same. In general, it must
280: be corrected in such a way that $V(\phi)$ is unchanged. Let us denote
281: the new solutions and superpotential by
282: \beqa
283: \phi_\sL &\cong& \phi + \delta\phi;\qquad A_\sL \cong A +\delta A
284: \nonumber \\
285: W_\sL(r) &\cong& W(\phi_\sL(r)) + \delta W(r)
286: \eeqa
287: where the quantities $\phi(r)$ and $A(r)$ refer to the bulk solutions with
288: $\Lambda=0$ found in the previous section, and $W(\phi)$ is the
289: corresponding superpotential (\ref{Weq}). By taking the variation of
290: eq.\ (\ref{Veq}) and keeping terms which are first order in $\Lambda$ we
291: get a differential equation for $\delta W$,
292: \beq
293: \delta W' - \frac{4}{3}\kappa^2 W\delta W = \frac{9}{4\kappa^4} \bL
294: e^{-2A} \left({1\over W}\, {\partial W\over \partial \phi}\right)^2
295: \eeq
296: which by using the equations of motions (\ref{eom}) can be written as
297: \beq
298: (e^{4A} \delta W)' = \bL e^{2A}\left(\phi'\over
299: A'\right)^2.
300: \eeq
301: This can be formally integrated to solve for $\delta W(r)$,
302: \beq
303: \label{dWeq}
304: \delta W = \bL e^{-4A}\int_0^r e^{2A}\left(\phi'\over
305: A'\right)^2 dr + C e^{-4A}
306: \eeq
307: To determine the constant of integration $C$, we should impose the
308: boundary condition (\ref{bc0}) on the tension of the first brane.
309: Recall that the value $T_0$ was already fixed by demanding the existence
310: of the solution with only one brane and $\Lambda=0$. Since the brane
311: potentials are assumed to be stiff, $\lambda_0(\phi_0) = T_0$ regardless
312: of whether $\Lambda=0$ or not. This leads to the requirement that the
313: variation of eq.\ (\ref{bc0}) vanishes:
314: \beq
315: \delta W(0) + {9\bL e^{-2A(0)}\over 2\kappa^4
316: W(\phi_0)} = 0.
317: \eeq
318: Recalling the definition $A(0) = 0$, this fixes $C$ to be
319: \beq
320: \label{Ceq}
321: C = -{9\bL\over 2\kappa^4 W(\phi_0)}
322: \eeq
323: In fact, because of our assumption that $b \ll 1/L$, needed to get
324: a large hierarchy of scales, the $C$ term is the dominant one in $\delta W$.
325: The first term in (\ref{dWeq}) is of order $\phi'^2 \sim b^2$ and can
326: therefore be neglected.
327:
328: Once $\delta W$ is known, it is straightforward to find the perturbations
329: $\delta\phi$ and $\delta A$. In particular, the equation for $\delta\phi$
330: is
331: \beq
332: \delta\phi' = {\delta W'\over 2\phi'} - {9\bL e^{-2A}\over 2\kappa^4
333: W(\phi)^2} \phi' + {1\over 2} {\partial^2 W\over \partial
334: \phi^2} \delta\phi
335: \eeq
336: Again, since $b\ll 1/L$, the first term dominates. We thus find the
337: approximate solution
338: \beq
339: \label{dphi}
340: \delta\phi \cong {3\bL L\over 4\kappa^2 b\phi_0}\left(
341: e^{4r/L}-e^{-br}\right).
342: \eeq
343: To obtain this result, we have assumed that $1/L \gg b,
344: b\phi^2$. (The fact that $b\phi_0$ appears in the denominator of
345: this result might seem to upset our perturbation expansion; we will
346: address this potential problem presently.)
347: The constant of integration was chosen so that
348: the boundary condition $\phi(0) = \phi_0$ is respected by the perturbed
349: solution.
350:
351: All that remains is for us to impose the two boundary conditions at
352: the second brane. These will determine the new position of this brane,
353: $r_{\sL}$, and the 4-D cosmological constant $\Lambda$. The b.c.\ on
354: $\phi$ is
355: \beq
356: \label{phibc}
357: \phi_1 = \phi_0\, e^{-b r_{\sL}} +
358: {3\bL L\over 4\kappa^2 b\phi_0}\left(
359: e^{4r_{\sL}/L}-1\right)
360: \eeq
361: and the condition for the brane tension is
362: \beq
363: T_1 = -W(\phi_1)\left(1 + {9\bL e^{-2A(r_{\sL})}\over 2
364: \kappa^4W(\phi_1)^2}\right) - \delta W(r_{\sL})
365: \eeq
366: Using the hierarchy $e^{-4A(r_\sL)} \gg e^{-2A(r_\sL)} \gg 1$,
367: this can be approximately
368: solved for $\bL$ to give
369: \beq
370: \label{mainresult}
371: \bL \equiv {8\pi G\over 3}\Lambda \cong \frac{2\kappa^2}{3L}\, e^{-4r_ \sL/L} (T_1 + W(\phi_1) )
372: \eeq
373: This is our main result: if the interbrane distance is around $r_\sL\sim
374: \ln(10^{30})L \sim 70L$, then the physical 4-D cosmological constant can
375: be the observed value even if $(T_1 + W(\phi_1)$ is of order the Planck
376: energy density. (Recall that $T_1 = -W(\phi_1)$ is the fine-tuned value
377: that gave us $\Lambda=0$ in the previous solutions.) To see if such a value
378: of $r_\sL$ is natural, we must solve the $\phi$ boundary condition
379: (\ref{phibc}):
380: \beq
381: \label{rsLeq}
382: e^{-b r_{\sL}} = {\phi_1 \over \phi_0}
383: - {\left(T_1 + W(\phi_1)\right)\over 2 b\phi_0^2}
384: \eeq
385: However we must consider the fact that the second
386: term on the right hand side of this equation is of order $1/b$.
387: A small amount of tuning is required so that
388: $(T_1 + W(\phi_1)$ is of order $b^2$, so that the new term can be
389: treated perturbatively. Once this is done however, there
390: is no great difficulty in achieving the enormous hierarchy of 120 orders of
391: magnitude for $\Lambda$. For example if $bL = 0.01$, the r.h.s.\ of
392: (\ref{rsLeq}) need only be as small as 0.5 to achieve the required
393: separation of $r_\sL = 70L$. We have therefore succeeded ameliorating
394: the cosmological constant hierarchy problem in the same way as the
395: original Randall-Sundrum model addressed that of the weak scale.
396: The mild fine-tuning we demanded for the second brane tension
397: might be merely a technical requirement for the convenience of
398: analytically demonstrating the mechanism. Possibly it still works
399: even without this small amount of tuning, though the solutions are harder
400: to find in that case.
401:
402: Recently ref.\ \cite{GKL} pointed out that any warped compactification
403: solution involving a scalar field must satisfy certain consistency
404: conditions, notably that $\sum_i T_i + \int \phi'^2 dr \cong 0$ in the
405: case where $\Lambda \ll M_p^4$. The present solution has already been
406: shown in \cite{GKL} to satisfy this relation when $\Lambda =0$, so we
407: should verify that our perturbed solution also satisfies it. To first
408: order in the perturbation, we should find that $\delta T_1 + 2\int \phi'
409: \delta\phi' dr = 0$, where $\delta T_1$ is the mistuning of $T_1$ away
410: from its $\Lambda=0$ value, $\delta T_1 = T_1 + W(\phi_1)$. It is
411: straightforward to show that in the regime where $b\ll 1/L$,
412: $2\int_0^{r_1} \phi' \delta\phi' dr = \delta W|^{r_1}_0 \cong C
413: e^{-4A{r_1}}$, and using (\ref{Ceq}) and (\ref{mainresult}) that the
414: consistency condition is satisfied.
415:
416: To complete our argument we should demonstrate
417: that the 4-D Newton constant $G$ can take its observed value without
418: requiring
419: any fine tuning. By integrating over the extra dimension in the 5-D
420: action (\ref{action}) to obtain the 4-D effective action, one finds the
421: relation
422: \beq
423: {1\over 16\pi G} = {1\over 4\kappa^2}\int_{-r_\sL}^{r_\sL} dr\, e^{2A}
424: \cong {L\over 4\kappa^2}
425: \eeq
426: Thus it is natural to assume that $G$, $\kappa^2$ and $L$ are all of
427: the order $M_p$ to the appropriate power, and no additional tuning
428: is needed to localize gravity.
429:
430: Although we have succeeded in constructing the approximate solution
431: corresponding to the local minimum of the radion potential, one might
432: wonder why we are not able to find the unstable solution at the local
433: maximum. Evidently this is nonperturbative in $\Lambda$. Recall that we
434: needed to do some mild tuning, $T_1+W(\phi_1)= O(b^2)$ to keep our
435: perturbation expansion under control. Yet the unstable solution exists
436: even when $T_1+W(\phi_1)$ is exactly zero. It thus seems plausible that
437: the barrier height is large, although we expect in order of magnitude that
438: its size is governed by the same warp factor $e^{-r_\sL/L}$ which
439: suppresses the perturbative solution value.
440:
441: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in\epsfbox{pot.eps}}
442: \vspace{0.in}
443: \noindent {\small
444: Figure 1: Qualitative form of the radion potential,
445: for the two cases $\Lambda>0$ and $\Lambda=0$. The
446: false vacuum state at $\varphi=\varphi_+$
447: naturally has $\Lambda\sim 10^{-120} M_p^4$.}
448: \bigskip
449:
450: {\bf 5.\ Lifetime of the false vacuum.} Our proposal is only viable if the
451: false vacuum has a sufficiently large lifetime that we could still be in
452: it at the present time. To study this we should construct the bounce
453: solution of the Euclideanized radion action and check that the lifetime
454: $\tau \sim \Lambda^{-1/4} e^{S_b}$ exceeds the age of the universe, where
455: $S_b$ is the bounce action and $\Lambda^{-1/4}\sim 10^{-4}$ eV is the
456: typical energy scale that will appear in the prefactor in the saddle point
457: approximation for the path integral for the rate of false vacuum decay.
458: We will take the following ansatz for the radion potential:
459: \beq
460: V(\varphi) = {\lambda\over4} \varphi^4 \left[ \left(
461: \left({\varphi/f}\right)^{\epsilon} - \eta \right)^2
462: + (\alpha\eta\epsilon)^2 \right]
463: \eeq
464: Note that $\varphi = f e^{-r_1/L}$ is the radion field, not to be
465: confused with the bulk scalar $\phi$. In this notation, the small
466: parameter
467: $\epsilon$ is related to our superpotential parameters by $\epsilon =
468: bL$, $\eta = \phi_1/\phi_0$, the quartic coupling is
469: $\lambda\cong 4\phi_0^2 / (9 L M_p^4)$, and
470: $f \cong \sqrt{6}M_p$ \cite{CF1}.
471: When $\alpha=0$, this agrees with the approximate form found by
472: ref.\ \cite{GW2} in the case where $\Lambda = 0$. It has two degenerate
473: minima at $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi = f\eta^{1/\epsilon}$, corresponding
474: to the solutions with infinite and finite interbrane distance,
475: respectively, which we found above. (This can be seen through the
476: relation $\varphi/f = e^{-r_1/L}$ between the radion field and the
477: brane separation.)
478: By adding the term $(\alpha\eta\epsilon)^2$, we have lifted the minimum near
479: $\varphi \cong f \eta^{1/\eps}$ to a nonzero value of the 4-D cosmological
480: constant:
481: \beq
482: \Lambda = {\lambda\over 32}\, \varphi_+^4 \eta^2 \epsilon^2
483: \delta
484: \eeq
485: where in the limit that $\epsilon\ll 1$, the value of $\varphi$ at the
486: metastable minimum is given by
487: \beq
488: \varphi_+ \cong f \eta^{1/\epsilon} e^{-\delta/4}; \qquad
489: \delta \equiv 1 - \sqrt{1 - (4\alpha)^2}
490: \eeq
491:
492: To estimate the bounce action, we use the thin wall approximation of
493: ref.\ \cite{Coleman}. For a bubble of radius $R$ in 4-D Euclidean space,
494: with false vacuum energy density $\Lambda$,
495: \beq
496: \label{Sb}
497: S_b = -{\pi^2\over 2} \Lambda R^4 + 2\pi^2 R^3 S_1
498: \eeq
499: where $S_1$ is the action for the 1-D instanton corresponding to the
500: $\alpha=\Lambda=0$ limit of the radion potential,
501: \beq
502: S_1 = \int_0^{\varphi_+} d\varphi \, \sqrt{2 V}
503: =\frac{1}{9} \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2}} \,\epsilon\eta
504: (f\eta^{1/\epsilon})^3,
505: \eeq
506: and the radius of the bounce solution which minimizes (\ref{Sb}) is
507: $R = 3 {S_1\over\Lambda}$. Substituting this value into the (4-D) Euclidean action, we obtain
508: \beq
509: S_b \cong {17 \pi^2 e^{3\delta} \over \epsilon^2 \eta^2 \lambda
510: \delta^3}
511: \eeq
512: which is so large for the parameters of interest for getting
513: a large hierarchy of scales ($\epsilon\sim 0.01$) that the false vacuum
514: state is easily more long-lived than the present age of the universe.
515:
516: The 1-D instanton obeys the equation of motion
517: $\ddot\varphi = {dV\over d\varphi}|_{\alpha=0}$,
518: which can be solved in terms of the Lerch transcendental function $\Phi$,
519: \beq
520: \epsilon \eta \sqrt{\lambda/2}\, t = {1\over\varphi}
521: \Phi\left( \eta^{-1}(\varphi/f)^\epsilon,\, 1,\, -1/\epsilon\right),
522: \eeq
523: as illustrated in figure 2. (We take $\epsilon=0.011$ since
524: $\Phi(x,1,-1/\epsilon)$ is singular when $1/\epsilon$ is a positive
525: integer.)
526: This has the desired behavior that
527: $\varphi\to
528: 0$ as $t\to-\infty$ and $\varphi\to\varphi_+$ as $t\to\infty$.
529:
530: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.0in\epsfbox{bounce.eps}}
531: \vspace{0.in}
532: \noindent {\small
533: Figure 2: 1-D instanton solution for $\epsilon=0.011$ and $\delta=0$. The axes are
534: scaled such that ``time'' $= \epsilon f \eta^{1+1/\epsilon} \sqrt{\lambda/2}
535: \,t$ and ``radion'' $= (\varphi/f)\eta^{-1/\epsilon}$.}
536: \bigskip
537:
538: We can verify that the thin-wall approximation is valid when $\delta\ll
539: 1$. From figure 2, the width is $\Delta R = \Delta t \cong 10
540: (\epsilon f \eta^{1+1/\epsilon} \sqrt{\lambda/2})^{-1}$.
541: Comparing to the bounce radius
542: $R = 3S_1/\Lambda$, we find that $\Delta R/R \cong \delta$.
543:
544: In ref.\ \cite{CF1} we studied a similar problem, that of transitions from a
545: false to a true minimum of the radion potential in the original
546: Goldberger-Wise mechanism. There it was necessary to consider
547: thermally-induced transitions because the radion would have been in thermal
548: equilibrium in the early universe. In the present case, assuming that
549: inflation is driven by an inflaton on the observable brane, the
550: radion is so weakly coupled that it does not come into thermal
551: equilibrium. This is also true of the variant model we propose below in
552: which the observable brane is at the TeV rather than the Planck scale.
553: \bigskip
554:
555: {\bf 6.\ Physical consequences.} In the false vacuum state, the radion
556: will
557: have a very small mass, somewhat below the milli-eV range, since it has
558: been shown that \cite{CGK}
559: \beq
560: \label{radion_mass}
561: m_r \cong \sfrac83 b e^{-r_\sL/L}.
562: \eeq
563: Since $M_p e^{-r_\sL/L}$ is supposed to be the meV scale and $b\sim 0.01/L
564: \lsim 0.01 M_p$, this is a dangerously small mass if the radion were to
565: couple to matter as strongly as does gravity.
566: We have investigated the corrections to this formula due to the
567: $O(\Lambda)$ perturbations and found that they are of the same
568: order as the unperturbed value if $\Lambda\sim b^2$. Hence there is the
569: possibility that corrections to the radion mass which we cannot compute
570: by perturbing in $b$ make it somewhat larger than the value
571: (\ref{radion_mass}).
572:
573: However, if we live on the positive tension (Planck) brane, the radion's
574: exponentially small couplings to matter make it impossible to observe
575: directly. Let us denote the renormalized trace of the stress energy
576: tensor by $(\tilde T^\mu_\mu)_i = e^{-4r_i/L} (T^\mu_\mu)_i$ at the two branes
577: located respectively at $r=r_0=0$ and $r=r_1=r_\sL$. Because the
578: radion wave function grows like $e^{2r/L}$ away from the Planck brane
579: \cite{CGR}, its coupling to matter on the respective branes goes like
580: \cite{CGRT, GW3}
581: \beq
582: {\cal L}_{\rm radion} = {\varphi\over \Lambda^{1/4}}\left( (\tilde
583: T^\mu_\mu)_{_1} +
584: e^{-2r_1/L} (\tilde T^\mu_\mu)_{_0} \right).
585: \eeq
586: (In the original RS model, the TeV scale appeared in place of the
587: milli-eV scale $\Lambda^{1/4}$.)
588: If we are living on the Planck brane and $(\tilde T^\mu_\mu)_{_0}$
589: represents standard model physics, then the radion coupling to
590: the standard model is negligible since $e^{-2r_1/L} \Lambda^{-1/4}\sim
591: \Lambda^{-1/4}/M_p^2$.
592:
593: There is a slightly better chance of detecting the effects of such a
594: radion through cosmology. The shift in size of the extra dimension due to
595: physical energy density $\rho$ on the Planck brane is \cite{CGK,CGRT,CF2}
596: \beq
597: {\Delta r_1\over r_1}
598: \cong {L \rho \over 6 r_1 m_r^2 M_p^2}
599: \eeq
600: which becomes of order unity at temperatures $T\sim \sqrt{m_r M_p}\sim
601: 1$ TeV. However this is still such a high temperature that it is
602: difficult to imagine any surviving remnant of the changes to physical
603: scales and the Hubble expansion rate which would arise from a variation
604: in $r_1$ during this era.
605:
606: A more testable and interesting situation is to imagine that we are living
607: on a third brane located approximately halfway between the original two,
608: instead of on the positive tension brane. This is desirable apart from
609: considerations of the cosmological constant problem, in that it preserves
610: the natural resolution of the weak scale hierarchy which was the original
611: motivation of Randall and Sundrum. An intermediate brane can be inserted
612: into our solution if it has zero tension and a potential of the form
613: $\gamma_{1\over 2}(\phi-\phi_{1\over 2})^2$, with $\gamma_{1\over
614: 2}\to\infty$ for ease of analysis. The position of this new TeV brane can
615: be adjusted to the desired value by satisfying the approximate boundary
616: condition $e^{-br_{1/2}}\cong \phi_{1\over 2}/\phi_0$. There are now two
617: radions, one at the TeV scale associated with fluctuations in the distance
618: between the Planck and TeV branes, and the original milli-eV radion.
619:
620: If there does exist a TeV brane, the coupling of the light radion to
621: particles there will be significantly larger than on the Planck brane:
622: \beq
623: {\cal L}_{\rm radion-\atop TeV\ brane} \cong {\varphi\over
624: \varphi_+}
625: % \Lambda^{1/4}}
626: \, e^{2(r_{1/2}-r_1)/L} \, (\tilde T^\mu_\mu)_{1\over 2} \sim
627: {\varphi\over M_p} (\tilde T^\mu_\mu)_{1\over 2},
628: \eeq
629: which means the radion is coupled with approximately the same strength as
630: ordinary gravity. This is precisely the range of scalar masses and
631: couplings which is presently being probed by measurements of the
632: gravitational force at submillimeter range \cite{Eotwash}. The new
633: contribution to the potential energy for two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$
634: separated by a distance $r$ is
635: \beq
636: \Delta V = -{ 4\pi G_N m_1\, m_2\,
637: e^{-m_r r}\over 3 r}\, e^{(4 r_{1/2}- 2 r_1)/L}
638: \eeq
639: The exponential factor should be of order (meV)$^2 M_p^2 /$(TeV)$^4 \sim
640: 6$ for the warp factors to naturally explain the TeV and meV scales of the
641: standard model and cosmological constant, respectively.
642: To evade the constraints of submillimeter gravity tests, this number must
643: be made somewhat smaller, or the radion mass must be made somewhat larger
644: than 1 meV. The model is therefore tightly constrained by present tests
645: of the gravitational force.
646:
647: In addition, the Kaluza-Klein gravitons have a mass gap similar in size to
648: the meV radion, and to the extent that they are nearly massless, their
649: effects will be like those of the KK gravitons in the noncompact
650: Randall-Sundrum scenario \cite{RS2}. We find that the correction to the
651: Newtonian gravitational potential from these modes is given approximately
652: by
653: \beq
654: \Delta V \cong -{ G_N L^2 m^2} { m_1\, m_2\over r}\, {e^{-5mr/4}\over 1 -
655: e^{-mr}}\, \left(\frac14 + {1\over 1-e^{-mr}}\right)
656: \eeq
657: where $m\equiv \pi e^{-r_1/L}/L$, and we have approximated the KK masses by
658: $m_n \cong (n+1/4) m$ using the large-$n$ behavior of the exact
659: eigenvalues \cite{DHR}.
660: Moreover, the existence of the TeV brane would imply the usual TeV radion,
661: whose phenomenology has been widely studied in connection with the compact
662: Randall-Sundrum scenario \cite{CGRT, GW3, radion}.
663: \bigskip
664:
665: {\bf 7.\ Conclusions.} We have presented a warped compactification model
666: which, at the expense of assuming there is some unknown solution to the
667: first cosmological constant problem---the question of why the ultimate
668: vacuum energy of the universe is zero---naturally resolves the second one:
669: it explains how the observed value can be 120 orders of magnitude below
670: the Planck energy density without requiring additional fine tuning. The
671: hypothesis is that there exists a brane at such a distance ($\sim
672: 70/M_p$) from the Planck brane that the mistuning of its tension from the
673: flat-brane value contributes to $\Lambda$ at the $10^{-120} M_p^4$ level,
674: due to the smallness of the warp factor.
675:
676: Our idea has several shortcomings. Unlike quintessence models, it does
677: not try to solve the coincidence problem of why $\Lambda$ happens be a
678: significant fraction of the critical density {\it now}. In the version
679: where we are assumed to live on the Planck brane, we sacrifice any new
680: understanding of the weak scale hierarchy problem, and furthermore there
681: seems to be no experimental signatures that would test the idea. These
682: difficulties are overcome if we live instead on a zero-tension TeV brane
683: between the two original branes, for then the light radion is in the right
684: range for current tests of gravity at submillimeter distances, but then a
685: new fine-tuning problem is introduced: why is the tension exactly (or so
686: nearly) zero? We nevertheless feel that the idea is worth pointing out,
687: in the hope that the problems might be surmounted. For example, ref.\
688: \cite{KT} has advocated a self-tuning solution \cite{self-tuning} to the
689: first cosmological constant problem which avoids the problems of
690: singularities by letting a kink in the scalar field play the role of the
691: Planck brane instead of inserting it by hand. Perhaps such an approach
692: can be used to eliminate some of the tunings that are still present in
693: ours. We find it intriguing that this explanation of the cosmological
694: constant, whose presence is revealed by gravity over cosmological distance
695: scales, might be corroborated by table-top gravity experiments, as well as
696: collider searches.
697: \bigskip
698:
699: We thank Richard MacKenzie and Michael Turner for discussions during the
700: early stages of this work, and Stephan Huber for useful comments.
701:
702: \newpage
703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
704: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
705:
706: \bibitem{SN}
707: A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team Collaboration],
708: %``Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and
709: % a Cosmological Constant,''
710: Astron.\ J.\ {\bf 116} (1998) 1009
711: [astro-ph/9805201];\\
712: S.~Perlmutter {\it et al.} [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration],
713: %``Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,''
714: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 517}, 565 (1999)
715: [astro-ph/9812133].
716:
717:
718: \bibitem{RS}
719: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
720: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
721: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)
722: [hep-ph/9905221]
723:
724: \bibitem{RS2}
725: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
726: %``An alternative to compactification,''
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999)
728: [hep-th/9906064];\\
729: J.~Lykken and L.~Randall,
730: %``The shape of gravity,''
731: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 014 (2000)
732: [hep-th/9908076].
733:
734:
735: \bibitem{self-tuning}
736: S.~Kachru, M.~Schulz and E.~Silverstein,
737: %``Self-tuning flat domain walls in 5d gravity and string theory,''
738: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 045021 (2000) [hep-th/0001206];\\
739: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, N.~Kaloper and R.~Sundrum,
740: %``A small cosmological constant from a large extra dimension,''
741: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B480}, 193 (2000)
742: [hep-th/0001197];\\
743: S.~Forste, Z.~Lalak, S.~Lavignac and H.~P.~Nilles,
744: %``A comment on self-tuning and vanishing cosmological constant in the brane world,''
745: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B481}, 360 (2000)
746: [hep-th/0002164];\\
747: C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich, C.~Grojean and T.~Hollowood,
748: %``General properties of the self-tuning domain wall approach to the cosmological constant problem,''
749: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B584}, 359 (2000)
750: [hep-th/0004133];\\
751: P.~Bin\'etruy, J.~M.~Cline and C.~Grojean,
752: %``Dynamical instability of brane solutions with a self-tuning cosmological constant,''
753: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B489}, 403 (2000)
754: [hep-th/0007029];\\
755: J.~E.~Kim, B.~Kyae and H.~M.~Lee,
756: %``A model for self-tuning the cosmological constant,''
757: hep-th/0011118;\\
758: S.~Forste, Z.~Lalak, S.~Lavignac and H.~P.~Nilles,
759: %``The cosmological constant problem from a brane-world perspective,''
760: JHEP {\bf 0009}, 034 (2000)
761: [hep-th/0006139].
762:
763: \bibitem{others}
764: N.~Kaloper,
765: %``Bent domain walls as braneworlds,''
766: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60}, 123506 (1999)
767: [hep-th/9905210];\\
768: C.~P.~Burgess, R.~C.~Myers and F.~Quevedo,
769: %``A naturally small cosmological constant on the brane?,''
770: hep-th/9911164;\\
771: E.~Verlinde and H.~Verlinde,
772: %``RG-flow, gravity and the cosmological constant,''
773: JHEP {\bf 0005}, 034 (2000)
774: [hep-th/9912018];\\
775: C.~Schmidhuber,
776: %``AdS(5) and the 4d cosmological constant,''
777: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B580}, 140 (2000)
778: [hep-th/9912156];
779: %``Micrometer gravitinos and the cosmological constant,''
780: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B585}, 385 (2000)
781: [hep-th/0005248];\\
782: S.~P.~de Alwis,
783: %``Brane world scenarios and the cosmological constant,''
784: hep-th/0002174;\\
785: J.~Chen, M.~A.~Luty and E.~Ponton,
786: %``A critical cosmological constant from millimeter extra dimensions,''
787: JHEP {\bf 0009}, 012 (2000)
788: [hep-th/0003067];\\
789: S.~P.~de Alwis, A.~T.~Flournoy and N.~Irges,
790: %``Brane worlds, the cosmological constant and string theory,''
791: hep-th/0004125;\\
792: J.~L.~Feng, J.~March-Russell, S.~Sethi and F.~Wilczek,
793: %``Saltatory relaxation of the cosmological constant,''
794: hep-th/0005276.\\
795: S.~H.~Tye and I.~Wasserman,
796: %``A brane world solution to the cosmological constant problem,''
797: hep-th/0006068.\\
798: Z.~Kakushadze,
799: %``Bulk supersymmetry and brane cosmological constant,''
800: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B489}, 207 (2000)
801: [hep-th/0006215];\\
802: A.~Krause,
803: %``A small cosmological constant, grand unification and warped geometry,''
804: hep-th/0006226;\\
805: K.~Uzawa and J.~Soda,
806: %``Self-tuning dark energy in brane world cosmology,''
807: hep-th/0008197;\\
808: H.~Collins and B.~Holdom,
809: %``The cosmological constant and warped extra dimensions,''
810: hep-th/0009127;\\
811: P.~Brax and A.~C.~Davis,
812: %``Cosmological solutions of supergravity in singular spaces,''
813: hep-th/0011045.
814:
815:
816:
817: \bibitem{GW2} W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
818: %``Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,''
819: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4922 (1999)
820: [hep-ph/9907447].
821:
822: \bibitem{DeWolfe}
823: O.~DeWolfe, D.~Z.~Freedman, S.~S.~Gubser and A.~Karch,
824: %``Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,''
825: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 046008 (2000)
826: [hep-th/9909134].
827:
828: \bibitem{CGK}
829: T.~Tanaka and X.~Montes,
830: %``Gravity in the brane-world for two-branes model with stabilized modulus,''
831: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B582}, 259 (2000)
832: [hep-th/0001092];\\
833: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001092;%%
834: C.~Csaki, M.~L.~Graesser and G.~D.~Kribs,
835: %``Radion Dynamics and Electroweak Physics,''
836: hep-th/0008151.
837:
838: \bibitem{GKL}
839: G.~Gibbons, R.~Kallosh and A.~Linde,
840: %``Brane world sum rules,''
841: hep-th/0011225.
842:
843: \bibitem{CF1}
844: J.~M.~Cline and H.~Firouzjahi,
845: %``Brane-world cosmology of modulus stabilization with a bulk scalar field,''
846: hep-ph/0005235, to be published in Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D}.
847:
848: \bibitem{Coleman}
849: S.~Coleman,
850: %``The Fate Of The False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,''
851: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D15}, 2929 (1977).
852: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,2929;%%
853:
854: \bibitem{CGR}
855: C.~Charmousis, R.~Gregory and V.~A.~Rubakov,
856: %``Wave function of the radion in a brane world,''
857: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 067505 (2000)
858: [hep-th/9912160].
859:
860: \bibitem{CGRT} C.~Csaki, M.~Graesser, L.~Randall and J.~Terning,
861: %``Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization,''
862: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 045015 (2000)
863: [hep-ph/9911406].
864:
865: \bibitem{GW3} W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
866: %``Phenomenology of a stabilized modulus,''
867: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B475}, 275 (2000)
868: [hep-ph/9911457].
869:
870: \bibitem{CF2}
871: J.~M.~Cline and H.~Firouzjahi,
872: %``5-dimensional warped cosmological solutions with radius stabilization
873: %by a bulk scalar,''
874: hep-th/0008185, to appear in Phys.\ Lett.\ B.
875:
876: \bibitem{Eotwash}
877: C.~D.~Hoyle, U.~Schmidt, B.~R.~Heckel, E.~G.~Adelberger, J.~H.~Gundlach,
878: D.~J.~Kapner and H.~E.~Swanson,
879: %``Sub-millimeter test
880: hep-ph/0011014.
881:
882: \bibitem{DHR}
883: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,
884: %``Phenomenology of the Randall-Sundrum gauge hierarchy model,''
885: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 2080 (2000)
886: [hep-ph/9909255].
887:
888: \bibitem{radion}
889: G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,
890: %``Graviscalars from higher-dimensional metrics and curvature-Higgs
891: % mixing,''
892: hep-ph/0002178;\\
893: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002178;%%
894: U.~Mahanta and A.~Datta,
895: %``Production of light stabilized radion at high energy hadron
896: % colliders,''
897: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B483}, 196 (2000)
898: [hep-ph/0002183];\\
899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002183;%%
900: S.~B.~Bae, P.~Ko, H.~S.~Lee and J.~Lee,
901: %``Phenomenology of the radion in the Randall-Sundrum scenario at
902: %colliders,''
903: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B487}, 299 (2000)
904: [hep-ph/0002224];\\
905: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002224;%%
906: U.~Mahanta,
907: %``Unitarity bound on the radion mass in the Randall-Sundrum model,''
908: hep-ph/0004128;\\
909: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004128;%%
910: U.~Mahanta and S.~Mohanty,
911: %``Effects of non-factorizable metric on neutrino oscillation inside
912: %supernova,''
913: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 083003 (2000)
914: [hep-ph/0006006];\\
915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006006;%%
916: J.~E.~Kim, B.~Kyae and J.~D.~Park,
917: %``The radion contribution to the weak mixing angle,''
918: hep-ph/0007008;\\
919: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007008;%%
920: \bibitem{Cheung:2000rw}
921: K.~Cheung,
922: %``Phenomenology of radion in Randall-Sundrum scenario,''
923: hep-ph/0009232;\\
924: S.~Bae and H.~S.~Lee,
925: %``Constraints on the radion from vacuum stability in the Randall-Sundrum
926: %theory,''
927: hep-ph/0011275.
928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011275;%%
929:
930: \bibitem{KT}
931: A.~Kehagias and K.~Tamvakis,
932: %``A self-tuning solution of the cosmological constant problem,''
933: hep-th/0011006.
934:
935:
936: \end{thebibliography}
937: \end{document}
938:
939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
940: