1: \documentclass[aps,prd,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: \textheight=25cm 

3: \input epsf.sty

4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

5: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}

6: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}

7: 

8: 

9: %\textwidth=17cm 

10: \begin{document} 

11: 

12: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

13: \newcommand{\fr}{\frac}

14: \newcommand{\reals}{\mbox{${\rm I\!R }$}}

15: \newcommand{\nats}{\mbox{${\rm I\!N }$}}

16: \newcommand{\intgs}{\mbox{${\rm Z\!\!Z }$}}

17: \newcommand{\cam}{{\cal M}}

18: \newcommand{\caz}{{\cal Z}}

19: \newcommand{\cao}{{\cal O}}

20: \newcommand{\cac}{{\cal C}}

21: \newcommand{\aaa}{\int\limits_{mR}^{\infty}dk\,\,}

22: \newcommand{\bbb}{\left[\left(\frac k R\right)^2-m^2\right]^{-s}}

23: \newcommand{\ccc}{\frac{\partial}{\partial k}}

24: \newcommand{\fff}{\frac{\partial}{\partial z}}

25: \newcommand{\iikma}{\aaa \bbb \ccc}

26: \newcommand{\ddd}{\int\limits_{mR/\nu}^{\infty}dz\,\,}

27: \newcommand{\eee}{\left[\left(\frac{z\nu} R\right)^2-m^2\right]^{-s}}

28: \newcommand{\lll}{\frac{(-1)^j}{j!}}

29: \newcommand{\iinma}{\ddd\eee\fff}

30: \newcommand{\cah}{{\cal H}}

31: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

32: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}}

33: \newcommand{\komplex}{\mbox{${\rm I\!\!\!C }$}}

34: \newcommand{\sip}{\frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi}}

35: \newcommand{\numr}{\left(\frac{\nu}{mR}\right)^2}

36: \newcommand{\mzs}{m^{-2s}}

37: \newcommand{\rzs}{R^{2s}}

38: \newcommand{\abl}{\partial}

39: \newcommand{\g}{\Gamma\left(}

40: \newcommand{\ikma}{\int\limits_{\gamma}\frac{dk}{2\pi i}\,\,(k^2+m^2)^{-s}\frac{\partial}{\partial k}}

41: \newcommand{\ead}{e_{\alpha}(D)}

42: \newcommand{\sual}{\sum_{\alpha =1}^{D-2}}

43: \newcommand{\sulnu}{\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}}

44: \newcommand{\sujnu}{\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}}

45: \newcommand{\suani}{\sum_{a=0}^i}

46: \newcommand{\suanzi}{\sum_{a=0}^{2i}}

47: \newcommand{\zend}{\zeta_D^{\nu}}

48: \newcommand{\amed}{A_{-1}^{\nu ,D}(s)}

49: \renewcommand{\and}{A_{0}^{\nu ,D}(s)}

50: \newcommand{\aid}{A_{i}^{\nu ,D}(s)}

51: \newcommand{\res}{{\rm res}\,\,\,}

52: \newcommand{\sn}{\frac{\sin \pi s}{\pi}}

53: \newcommand{\ha}{\frac{3}{2}}

54: \newcommand{\smj}{\sum_{j=\ha}^\infty d(j)}

55: \newcommand{\smN}{\sum_{k=1}^N}

56: \newcommand{\smk}{\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^k}{k!}}

57: \newcommand{\sma}{\sum_{a=0}^{2i} x_{i,a}}

58: \newcommand{\itz}{\int_{\frac{mR}j}^\infty dz}

59: \newcommand{\paran}{\left[\left(\frac{zj}R \right)^2-m^2\right]}

60: \newcommand{\dz}{\frac{\partial }{\partial z}}

61: \newcommand{\bee}{\begin{equation}}

62: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

63: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

64: \newcommand{\app}[1]{\section{#1}\renewcommand{\theequation}

65:         {\mbox{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

66: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}

67: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}

68: 

69: %NOTAZIONI KIRSTEN REVIEW

70: 

71: \newcommand{\De}{\Delta}

72: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}

73: \newcommand{\Si}{\Sigma}

74: \newcommand{\G}{\Gamma}

75: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}

76: \newcommand{\Gb}{\Gamma^b}

77: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

78: \newcommand{\Th}{\Theta}

79: 

80: 

81: \hspace{-10mm} 

82: %\leftline{\epsfbox{mark.eps}} 

83: \vspace*{-10.0mm} % for revtex 

84: \thispagestyle{empty} 

85: {\baselineskip-4pt 

86: \font\yitp=cmmib10 scaled\magstep2 

87: \font\elevenmib=cmmib10 scaled\magstep1  \skewchar\elevenmib='177 

88: 

89: \vskip20mm 

90: \begin{center}{\large \bf 

91: Neutrino Dark Energy and Moduli Stabilization in a BPS Braneworld Scenario}

92: \end{center} 

93: \vspace*{4mm} 

94: \centerline{Andrea Zanzi} 

95: \vspace*{2mm}

96: 

97: 

98: \centerline{{\it Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Padova,  via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy}}

99: %\centerline{{\it and}}

100: \centerline{{\it INFN, Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy}}

101: 

102: \centerline{\rm e--mail: zanzi@pd.infn.it}

103: 

104: \vspace*{4mm} 

105: 

106: 

107: \begin{abstract}

108: 

109: A braneworld model for neutrino Dark Energy (DE) is presented. We consider a five dimensional two-branes set up

110: with a bulk scalar field motivated by supergravity. Its low-energy effective theory is derived with a moduli space approximation

111: (MSA). The position of the two branes are parameterized by two scalar degrees of freedom (moduli). After detuning

112: the brane tensions a classical potential for the moduli is generated. This potential is unstable for $dS_4$ branes

113: and we suggest to consider as a stabilizing contribution the Casimir energy of bulk fields. In particular we 

114: add a massive spinor (neutrino) field in the bulk and then evaluate the Casimir contribution

115: of the bulk neutrino with the help of zeta function regularization techniques. 

116: We construct an explicit form of the 4D neutrino mass as function of the two moduli. To recover the correct 

117: DE scale for the moduli potential the usual cosmological constant fine-tuning

118: is necessary, but, once accepted, 

119: this model suggests a stronger connection 

120: between DE and neutrino physics.

121: 

122: 

123: \vspace*{8mm} 

124: \hspace{111mm} DFPD/06/TH/04

125: 

126: \end{abstract}

127: \pacs{04.50.+h, 13.15.+g, 11.25.-w} 

128: \maketitle

129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

130: \section{Introduction}

131: 

132: There is an increasing observational evidence that our Universe is in a state of accelerated expansion \cite{1}.

133: The mixing of data coming from CMB, supernovae Ia and abundance measurements illustrate a surprising 

134: picture of the cosmic energy budget: the dominant energy component (dark energy, DE, for reviews see \cite{quint-review}) has negative enough pressure and its 

135: contribution is comparable, at present, with that of the pressureless dark matter component (DM), although 

136: their dynamical evolution 

137: during the cosmological history can be totally different ("coincidence problem"). To remove, at least 

138: partially, this problem, a direct interaction between DM and DE has been discussed

139: \cite{4,5,5a,5b,amen} and the "old" idea of varying-mass particles \cite{vamps} has been taken into account again. 

140: These models are also well-motivated from theoretical point of view by the identification

141: of the DE with the string-theory dilaton (\cite{6,PT,7}, but also \cite{gaspstab} for DE as a stabilized dilaton). These 

142: so-called "coupled DE models"  can show 

143: a late-time attractor solution, i.e. the late-time cosmology is insensitive to the initial conditions for DE.

144: For a phenomenologically acceptable scenario, in these models the present coupling of the 

145: scalar field with baryons must be sufficiently weak 

146: while the couplings with DM must be sufficiently strong (baryo-phobic quintessence). This is a very general 

147: problem: allowing a direct interaction between matter and a quintessence (ultra-light $m_{\phi} \sim 10^{-33}$eV)

148: field could be phenomenologically dangerous (violations of the equivalence principle, time dependence of 

149: couplings - for reviews see \cite{uzan}). 

150: 

151: A possible way-out of these problems is guaranteed by 

152: scalar-tensor (ST) theories of gravitation \cite{bd}, where by construction matter has a

153: purely metric coupling with gravity (for reviews see \cite{maeda},\cite{damour},\cite{will}). The existence of an attraction

154: mechanism of ST towards Einstein's General Relativity (GR) has been discussed in \cite{dam3a, dam3b, max}. Simultaneously 

155: the presence of a second attractor is possible (\cite{max}) and the correct evolution of $\rho_{DE}$ along a so-called `tracking'

156: \cite{tracker} solution is rescued. However deviations from standard cosmology and General Relativity

157: may be present at nucleosynthesis, CMB and solar system tests of gravity \cite{catena,caffe2}. Another possible way-out is to 

158: consider "chameleon fields" (\cite{justin}): the mass of the scalar fields is determined by the density of the environment. On cosmological distances,

159: where the densities are very tiny, the mass can be of the order of the Hubble constant and the fields can roll on cosmological time scales.

160: On the Earth instead, the density is much higher and the field acquires a large enough mass to evade experimental bounds mantaining relevant coupling with matter. 

161: 

162: Recently Fardon, Nelson and Weiner (FNW) exploited the notion of "tracking" in a completely new way (\cite{fnw}): they 

163: suggested that DE tracks neutrinos. They established a (not so!) firm connection between the 

164: dark energy scale and the neutrino mass scale: 

165: the similarity between the two scales becomes a true relation.

166: The authors imagined furthermore that DE and neutrinos are directly coupled: a new dark sector arises, taking contributions

167: from a scalar field $\phi$ (a sort of quintessence) and neutrinos. In this scenario the dark energy density depends 

168: on the neutrino masses, which are not 

169: fixed but varying as functions of the neutrino density. The coupling between DE and neutrinos is encoded in the variable neutrino

170:  mass $m_{\nu}(\phi)$. During the cosmological expansion the temperature $T$ decreases. 

171: When $T< m_{\nu}$ neutrinos become non-relativistic and their contribution to the energy density becomes mass-dependent.

172: In this way the coupling $\phi-\nu$ brings to an effective potential of the form:

173: \begin{equation}\label{prima}

174:  V_{eff}=V_{0}(\phi)+n_{\nu} m_{\nu}(\phi),

175: \end{equation}

176: where $V_0$ is the scalar field potential and $n_{\nu}$ is the neutrino number density. If we assume that $V_0$ is minimized for large $m_{\nu}$,

177: a competition between the terms in (\ref{prima}) is created, a minimum in $V_{eff}$ arises and the neutrino mass is determined 

178: {\it dynamically} during

179: the cosmological expansion. For works on mass varying neutrinos see also \cite{peccei}, \cite{neut}.

180: 

181: Several points are unsatisfactory about this approach (see also \cite{peccei}): 

182: \begin{itemize}

183:  \item The FNW model is characterized by $V_{0}(\phi)$ (the potential for the scalar field) and $m(\phi)$ (the neutrino mass).

184:  The explicit form of these functions is inserted by-hand. It would be interesting to obtain a firmer 

185: theoretical derivation of these functions in a "top-down" scenario.

186:  \item The connection between dark energy and neutrino mass is not well established unless the scalar field gets an appropriate

187: value. 

188: \end{itemize}

189: As we will show, an extradimensional scenario addresses 

190: both drawbacks of the FNW model: \\

191: 1) a 4D neutrino mass as a function of two scalar 

192: degrees of freedom (moduli) and the potential for these scalar fields are not inserted by hand but rather explicitly

193: calculated.\\

194: 2) A firmer relationship is established between neutrino mass scale and Dark Energy scale.

195: 

196: It must be stressed that solving these problems led us to a model that is significantly different:

197: the only dynamic that we contemplate for the scalar fields is a chameleontic behaviour for one of the two moduli (the radion). 

198: Then, we have to distinguish between different distance scales: on cosmological distances, the densities are tiny and the 

199: radion can roll on cosmological time scales (the neutrino mass is {\it variable} with time and possible deviations

200: from a pure cosmological constant contribution can be observed in the DE sector); on smaller scales instead, 

201: the chameleon acquires a large mass (radion stabilization)

202: and {\it both} moduli are simply sitting on the minimum of the potential (for a discussion of possible manifestations 

203: of DE at short scales

204: see \cite{caffe}).

205: As a final result, the connection between DE and neutrino mass will be established in the form

206: \beq

207: (\frac{V^{1/4}}{m_{\nu}})_{min}\sim 1,

208: \eeq

209: where $V$ is the total moduli potential. 

210: 

211: Before getting into the detailed presentation of the model, 

212: here is a summary of our approach. We consider 

213: a supersymmetric extension of Randall-Sundrum two branes model (\cite{RS1,RS2}, while 

214: for reviews on extra-dimensions see \cite{extra}).

215: This kind of approach finds its theoretical firmer justification in 

216: string theory (see \cite{HW,witten}).  

217: Our general set-up will follow \cite{brax,brax1}: a five-dimensional braneworld model 

218: with two boundary branes and a scalar field in the bulk motivated

219: by supergravity.

220: As  we will see in the forecoming sections, the most

221: distinguishing feature of this (BPS) class of models is that the brane and bulk dynamics are related to each 

222: other and under control. Once we have solved bulk equations (Einstein equations and Klein-Gordon equation) the 

223: boundary conditions do not

224: give any additional information, so we can put the branes without any obstacle into the background. The positions of the 

225: two branes are specified by two independent constants (no-force condition; for a discussion on BPS condition and connections between 

226: brane physics and black-hole physics see  \cite{gionni}). 

227: We will discuss than the moduli space approximation to derive 

228: the low energy action and a bi-scalar-tensor theory is recovered, 

229: with the two scalar fields $\lambda$ and $\phi$ (moduli) parametrizing the positions of the branes: 

230: the two constants are promoted to scalar degrees

231: of freedom. To render this model more realistic, 

232: we can leave the BPS configuration in two different ways: i) putting matter on the branes; ii) perturbing 

233: the brane tensions (i.e. parametrizing the supersymmetry breaking in a phenomenological way). It has been 

234: shown (\cite{gonz}) that it is 

235: possible to stabilize both moduli putting matter on branes without perturbing the brane tensions. However, since we want 

236: to describe a Universe with a positive cosmological constant, the detuning of the brane tensions is unavoidable and a 

237: classical potential for the moduli is generated (\cite{baggerredi, marsiglia}).

238: Unfortunately the potential is unstable and, to stabilize the system, we suggest to consider as a stabilization

239: mechanism the quantum (Casimir) contribution 

240: from bulk fields. We will then add a massive spinor (neutrino) in the bulk and we will evaluate the Casimir 

241: energy using zeta function regularization techniques (for reviews on Casimir energy see \cite{casimir}, \cite{kirsten};

242: for zeta function techniques see \cite{TEN}, \cite{kirsten}, \cite{MOSS2}). Remarkably the potential

243: $V=V(\lambda,\phi)$ is not inserted by-hand in our model and the geometrical configuration of the system is stabilized 

244: (a long-standing problem in extra-dimensional 

245: and string-inspired scenarios, see for example \cite{buchbinder} and

246: references therein for a general treatment, but also \cite{gonz, webster} for moduli stabilization in BPS braneworlds).

247: 

248: As far as the 4d neutrino mass is concerned, following \cite{grossman}, we will obtain a small 4d neutrino mass

249: without recurring to a see-saw mechanism.

250: 

251:  

252: 

253: About the organization of this article, in section 2 we present the action and the moduli space approximation; in section 3 we study

254: the chameleon mechanism for the radion; in section 4 the explicit form of the neutrino mass is derived as function of the moduli;

255: in section 5 the moduli potential is analyzed. In section 6 we will discuss the parameters of the model and the moduli stabilization. In section 7 we will draw some concluding remarks. The appendix contains some technical details.

256: 

257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

258: \section{The model}

259: 

260: The bulk action is the sum of two main contributions: the 

261: first one (SUGRA) is motivated by supergravity and follows \cite{brax, brax1}, the

262: second one (SPINOR) is the bulk-neutrino part. We have

263: 

264: \begin{equation}

265: S_{\rm bulk} = S_{\rm SUGRA} + S_{\rm SPINOR}

266: \end{equation}

267: 

268: where the SUGRA action consists of two terms which describe 

269: gravity and the bulk scalar field ($C$) dynamics:

270: \begin{equation}

271: S_{\rm SUGRA} = \frac{1}{2\kappa_5^2} \int d^5 x \sqrt{-g_5}

272: \left( {\cal R} - \frac{3}{4}\left( (\partial C)^2 + U \right)\right);

273: \end{equation}

274: 

275: while the SPINOR action, which takes into account a Dirac bulk fermion with mass $m$ 

276: of order the fundamental scale $M$, is written in the form: 

277: 

278: \begin{equation}

279: \label{action}

280:    S = \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\!\int\!\mbox{d}z\,\sqrt{-g_5}

281:    \left\{ E_a^A \left[ \frac{i}{2}\,\bar\Psi\gamma^a

282:    (\partial_A-\overleftarrow{\partial_A})\Psi

283:    + \frac{\omega_{bcA}}{8}\,\bar\Psi \{\gamma^a,\sigma^{bc}\} \Psi

284:    \right] - m\,\mbox{sgn}(\alpha)\,\bar\Psi\Psi \right\} \,.

285: \end{equation}

286: We use capital

287: indices $A,B,\dots$ for objects defined in curved space, and 

288: lower-case indices $a,b,\dots$ for objects defined in the tangent 

289: frame. The matrices $\gamma^a=(\gamma^\mu,i\gamma_5)$ provide a 

290: four-dimensional representation of the Dirac matrices in 

291: five-dimensional flat space. The quantity

292: $E_a^A$ is the

293: inverse vielbein and $\omega_{bcA}$ is the spin connection. Because 

294: in our case the metric is diagonal the connection gives no contribution to

295: the action (2.5).

296: 

297: The sign change of the mass term under $\alpha\to-\alpha$ is necessary in 

298: order to conserve $\alpha$-parity, as required by the $Z_2$ orbifold 

299: symmetry we impose.

300: 

301: 

302: Further, our setup contains two branes. One of these branes has a

303: positive tension, the other brane has a negative tension.  They are

304: described by the action

305: \begin{eqnarray}

306: S_{\rm brane 1} &=& -\frac{3}{2\kappa_5^2}\int d^5x \sqrt{-g_5} U_B

307: \delta(z_1), \label{b1} \\

308: S_{\rm brane 2} &=& +\frac{3}{2\kappa_5^2}\int d^5x \sqrt{-g_5} U_B \delta(z_2) \label{b2}.

309: \end{eqnarray}

310: In these expressions, $z_1$ and $z_2$ are the (arbitrary) positions of

311: the two branes, $U_B$ is the superpotential; $U$, the bulk potential

312: energy of the scalar field, is given by (BPS relation)

313: \begin{equation}

314: U = \left(\frac{\partial U_B}{\partial C}\right)^2 - U_B^2.

315: \end{equation}

316: This specific configuration, when no fields other than the bulk scalar field are present and when the

317: bulk and brane potentials are unperturbed (no susy breaking effects), is the BPS configuration (\cite{gonz}). When $U_B$ 

318: is the constant potential, the Randall-Sundrum model is recovered with a bulk cosmological constant

319: $ \Lambda_5=(3/8) U=-(3/8) U_B^2$.

320: 

321: We will also include the Gibbons--Hawking boundary term for each

322: brane, which have the form

323: \begin{equation}

324: S_{\rm GH} = \frac{1}{\kappa_5^2}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_4} K,

325: \end{equation}

326: where $K$ is the extrinsic curvature of the individual branes.

327: 

328: 

329: The solution of the system above can be derived from 

330: BPS--like equations of the form

331: \begin{equation}

332: \frac{a'}{a}=-\frac{U_B}{4},\ C'=\frac{\partial U_B}{\partial C},

333: \end{equation}

334: where $'=d/dz$ for a metric of the form

335: \begin{equation}\label{background}

336: ds^2 = dz^2 + a^2(z)\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu.

337: \end{equation}

338: We will particularly focus on the case where the superpotential is an 

339: exponential function:

340: \begin{equation}\label{potential}

341: U_B=4k e^{\alpha C}.

342: \end{equation}

343: The solution for the scale factor reads

344: \begin{equation}\label{scale}

345: a(z)=(1-4k\alpha^2z)^{\frac{1}{4\alpha^2}},

346: \end{equation}

347: while the scalar field solution is

348: \begin{equation}\label{psi}

349: C = -\frac{1}{\alpha}\ln\left(1-4k\alpha^2z\right).

350: \end{equation}

351: In the $\alpha\to 0$ we retrieve the AdS profile

352: \begin{equation}

353: a(z)=e^{-kz}.

354: \end{equation}

355: In that case the scalar field decouples and the singular point (for which the scale factor vanishes) 

356: at $z_* = 1/(4k\alpha^2)$ 

357: is removed (singularities in braneworld scenarios are analyzed in \cite{naked}). 

358: 

359: 

360: In the following we will discuss the moduli space approximation. Two of the moduli of the

361: system are the brane positions.  That is, in the solution above the

362: brane positions are arbitrary.  In the moduli space approximation,

363: these moduli are assumed to be space-time dependent since in connection to matter distribution on branes.  We denote the

364: position of ("visible") brane 1 with $z_1 = \phi(x^\nu)$ and the position of ("hidden")

365: brane 2 with $z_2 = \lambda(x^\mu)$. We consider the case where the

366: evolution of the brane is slow. This means that in constructing the

367: effective four--dimensional theory we neglect terms like $(\partial

368: \phi)^3$.

369: 

370: 

371: In addition to the brane positions, we need to include the graviton 

372: zero mode, which can be done by replacing $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ with a 

373: space--time dependent tensor $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\mu)$. Note that the moduli 

374: space approximation is only a good approximation

375: if the time--variation of the moduli fields is small. This should be

376: the case for late--time cosmology well after nucleosynthesis, which we 

377: are interested in.

378: 

379: \subsection{Moduli Space Approximation: the gravitational sector}

380: Let us first consider the SUGRA action. Replacing $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ 

381: with $g_{\mu\nu}(x^{\mu})$ in (\ref{background}) we have for the 

382: Ricci scalar ${\cal R} = {\cal R}^{(4)}/a^2 + \tilde {\cal R}$, where $\tilde {\cal R}$ is the 

383: Ricci--scalar of the background (\ref{background}). We explicitly use

384: the background solution (\ref{scale}) and (\ref{psi}), so that 

385: $\tilde R$ will not contribute to the low--energy effective action. 

386: Also, in this coordinate system, where the branes move, there is no 

387: contribution from the part of the bulk scalar field. Collecting 

388: everything we therefore have

389: \begin{equation}

390: S_{\rm bulk} = \frac{1}{2\kappa_5^2} \int dz d^4 x a^4

391: \sqrt{-g_4}\frac{1}{a^2}{\cal R}^{(4)} = \int d^4 x 

392: \sqrt{-g_4} f(\phi,\lambda) {\cal R}^{(4)},

393: \end{equation}

394: with 

395: \begin{equation}

396: f(\phi,\lambda) = \frac{1}{2 \kappa_5^2} \int^{\lambda}_{\phi} dz a^2 (z).

397: \end{equation}

398: We remind the reader that $a(z)$ is given by (\ref{scale}). 

399: 

400: We now turn to the boundary terms. The integrals 

401: (\ref{b1}) and (\ref{b2}) do not contribute to the effective action 

402: for the same reason that $\tilde R$ does not contribute. Let us 

403: therefore turn our attention to the Gibbons--Hawking boundary terms.

404: 

405: First, it is not difficult to construct the normal vectors to the

406: brane:

407: \begin{equation}

408: n^\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial \phi)^2/a^2}}\left( \partial^\mu

409: \phi/a^2,1\right).

410: \end{equation}

411: 

412: Then the induced metric on each brane is given by

413: \begin{eqnarray}

414: g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm ind,1} &=& a^2(\phi) g_{\mu\nu}^4 - \partial_{\mu}\phi

415: \partial_{\nu} \phi, \\

416: g_{\mu\nu}^{\rm ind,2} &=& a^2(\lambda) g_{\mu\nu}^4 - \partial_{\mu}\lambda

417: \partial_{\nu} \lambda.

418: \end{eqnarray}

419: Thus, 

420: \begin{eqnarray}

421: \sqrt{-g^{\rm ind,1}} &=& a^4(\phi) \sqrt{-g_4}\left[ 1 -

422: \frac{1}{2a^2(\phi)}(\partial \phi)^2\right], \\

423: \sqrt{-g^{\rm ind,2}} &=& a^4(\lambda) \sqrt{-g_4}\left[ 1 -

424: \frac{1}{2a^2(\lambda)}(\partial \lambda)^2\right].

425: \end{eqnarray}

426: So the Gibbons--Hawking boundary terms take the form 

427: \begin{eqnarray}

428: \frac{1}{\kappa_5^2} \int d^4 x a^4 \sqrt{-g_4}\left[ 1 -

429: \frac{1}{2a^2(\phi)} (\partial \phi)^2 \right] K, \\

430: \frac{1}{\kappa_5^2} \int d^4 x a^4 \sqrt{-g_4}\left[ 1 -

431: \frac{1}{2a^2(\lambda)} (\partial \lambda)^2 \right] K.

432: \end{eqnarray}

433: The trace of the extrinsic curvature tensor can be calculated from 

434: \begin{equation}

435: K = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g_5}}\partial_\mu \left[ \sqrt{-g_5}n^\mu \right].

436: \end{equation}

437: Neglecting higher order terms this gives

438: \begin{eqnarray}

439: K = 4\frac{a'}{a}\left[1 - \frac{(\partial \phi)^2}{4a^2}\right].

440: \end{eqnarray}

441: The terms for the second brane can be obtained analogously.

442: Using the BPS conditions and keeping only the kinetic terms, we get

443: for the Gibbons--Hawking boundary terms

444: \begin{eqnarray}

445: &+&\frac{3}{4\kappa_5^2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g_4} a^2(\phi) U_B(\phi)

446: (\partial \phi)^2, \\

447: &-&\frac{3}{4\kappa_5^2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g_4} a^2(\lambda) U_B(\lambda)

448: (\partial \sigma)^2.

449: \end{eqnarray}

450: Collecting all terms we find

451: \begin{eqnarray}

452: S_{\rm MSA} = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_4}\left[ f(\phi,\lambda) {\cal R}^{(4)} 

453: + \frac{3}{4}a^2(\phi)\frac{U_B(\phi)}{\kappa_5^2}(\partial \phi)^2 

454: - \frac{3}{4} a^2(\lambda)\frac{U_B}{\kappa_5^2}(\lambda)(\partial \lambda)^2 \right].

455: \end{eqnarray}

456: Note that the kinetic term of the field $\phi$ has the wrong

457: sign. This is an artifact of the frame we use here. It is possible to go to the Einstein frame with a simple

458: conformal transformation, in which the sign in front of the kinetic

459: term is correct for both fields. We observe that for a BPS system the moduli potential is totally absent: the fields describe flat directions.

460: 

461: Coming back to the action above, we redefine the fields in the following way:

462: \begin{eqnarray}

463: \tilde \phi^2 &=& \left(1 - 4k\alpha^2 \phi\right)^{2\beta}, \label{posia1}\\

464: \tilde \lambda^2 &=& \left(1-4k\alpha^2 \lambda\right)^{2\beta} \label{posia2},

465: \end{eqnarray}

466: with 

467: \begin{equation}

468: \beta = \frac{2\alpha^2 + 1}{4\alpha^2};

469: \end{equation}

470: then, the gravitational sector can be written as

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: S_{\rm MSA} &=&\frac{1}{2k\kappa_5^2(2\alpha^2 + 1)}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_4}\left[ \left(\tilde\phi^2 -

473: \tilde\lambda^2 \right) {\cal R}^{(4)} +

474: \frac{6}{2\alpha^2 + 1}\left( (\partial \tilde\phi)^2

475: -(\partial \tilde\lambda)^2\right)\right].

476: \end{eqnarray}

477: 

478: This is an action of the form of a multi--scalar tensor theory, in

479: which one scalar field has the wrong sign in front of the kinetic

480: term. Furthermore, in this frame there is a peculiar point where the

481: factor in front of ${\cal R}$ can vanish, namely when

482: $\tilde\phi=\tilde\lambda$, which corresponds to colliding branes. 

483: 

484: In order to avoid mixed

485: terms like $(\partial_\mu \tilde\phi)(\partial^\mu \tilde\lambda)$, we

486: shall define two new fields\footnote{Do not confuse the Ricci scalar

487: ${\cal R}$ with the new field $R$.}:

488: \begin{eqnarray}

489: \tilde \phi &=& Q \cosh R, \label{posib1} \\

490: \tilde \lambda &=& Q \sinh R \label{posib2}.

491: \end{eqnarray}

492: To go to the Einstein frame we perform a conformal transformation:

493: \begin{equation}

494: \tilde g_{\mu\nu} = Q^2 g_{\mu\nu}.

495: \end{equation}

496: Then 

497: \begin{equation}

498: \sqrt{-g} Q^2 {\cal R} = \sqrt{-\tilde g} \left( \tilde {\cal R} -

499: \frac{6}{Q^2}(\tilde\partial Q)^2 \right) .

500: \end{equation}

501: Collecting everything we get the action in the Einstein frame

502: (where we now drop the tilde):

503: \begin{eqnarray}

504: S_{\rm EF} &=& \frac{1}{2k\kappa^2_5(2\alpha^2 + 1)} 

505: \int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\left[ {\cal R} -  \frac{12\alpha^2}{1+2\alpha^2}

506: \frac{(\partial Q)^2}{Q^2} - \frac{6}{2\alpha^2 + 1}(\partial R)^2\right].

507: \end{eqnarray}

508: Clearly, in this frame both fields have the correct sign in front of

509: the kinetic terms. Note that for $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ 

510: (i.e.\ the Randall--Sundrum case) the $Q$--field decouples. 

511: In this case, the field $R$ plays the role of the radion, i.e. it 

512: measures the distance between the branes. Furthermore, we can identify 

513: the gravitational constant:

514: \begin{equation}

515: 16\pi G = 2k\kappa_5^2 (1+2\alpha^2).

516: \end{equation}

517: 

518: \subsection{Moduli space approximation: the matter sector}

519: In this section we are going to leave the BPS configuration. Let's suppose we put some matter on the branes:

520: Standard Model fields on one brane ("visible") and Dark Matter particles on the other brane ("hidden").

521: When the cosmological evolution of the branes is analyzed in the absence 

522: of supersymmetry breaking potentials, it has been shown (\cite{gonz}) that the branes are driven by their matter

523: content: one brane is driven towards the minimum of $U_B$, while the other brane towards the maximum. 

524: In this way it is possible to achieve a full stabilization of the system, granted that we choose the superpotential

525: of the theory in a proper way. If we don't localize matter on branes and don't break supersymmetry, than the BPS

526: configuration is respected, the no-force condition between the branes is present and the system is static.

527: 

528: However it is our intention to describe a Universe with a positive cosmological constant and detuning is necessary in order to

529: achieve de Sitter geometry. We therefore introduce matter as well as supersymmetry breaking 

530: potentials $V(Q,R)$ and $W(Q,R)$ on each branes. We begin with the potentials:

531: to first order in the moduli space approximation we get

532: \begin{equation}

533: \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_4} \left[ a^4(\phi)V(\phi) \right]

534: \end{equation}

535: with $a^4(\phi) = \tilde \phi^{4/(1+2\alpha^2)}$. The expression for 

536: a  potential $W$ on the second brane is similar with 

537: $a(\phi)$ is replaced by $a(\lambda)$. In the Einstein frame we have

538: (dropping the tilde from the metric):

539: \begin{equation}

540: \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} Q^{-8\alpha^2/(1+2\alpha^2)}(\cosh

541: R)^{4/(1+2\alpha^2)} V(Q,R) \equiv \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} V_{\rm eff}(Q,R),

542: \end{equation}

543: where we have defined 

544: \begin{equation}

545: V_{\rm eff}(Q,R) = Q^{-8\alpha^2/(1+2\alpha^2)}(\cosh

546: R)^{4/(1+2\alpha^2)} V(Q,R).

547: \end{equation}

548: The expression for $W(Q,R)$ in the Einstein frame is

549: \begin{equation}

550: \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} Q^{-8\alpha^2/(1+2\alpha^2)}(\sinh

551: R)^{4/(1+2\alpha^2)} W(Q,R) \equiv \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} W_{\rm eff}(Q,R),

552: \end{equation}

553: where

554: \begin{equation}

555: W_{\rm eff}(Q,R) = Q^{-8\alpha^2/(1+2\alpha^2)}(\sinh

556: R)^{4/(1+2\alpha^2)} W(Q,R).

557: \end{equation}

558: For matter, the action has the form

559: \begin{equation}

560: S_m^{(1)} = S_m^{(1)}(\Psi_1,g^{ind,1}_{\mu\nu}) \hspace{0.5cm} {\rm and}

561: \hspace{0.5cm} S_m^{(2)} = S_m^{(2)}(\Psi_2,g^{ind,2}_{\mu\nu}),

562: \end{equation}

563: where $g^{ind}$ denotes the {\it induced} metric on each branes and

564: $\Psi_i$ the matter fields on each branes. Note that we do not 

565: couple the matter fields $\Psi_i$ to the bulk scalar field, and thus 

566: not to the fields $Q$ and $R$. In going to the Einstein frame we get 

567: \begin{equation}

568: S_m^{(1)} = S_m^{(1)}(\Psi_1,A^2(Q,R)g_{\mu\nu}) \hspace{0.5cm} {\rm and}

569: \hspace{0.5cm} S_m^{(2)} = S_m^{(2)}(\Psi_2,B^2(Q,R)g_{\mu\nu}),

570: \end{equation}

571: In this expression we have used the fact that, in going to the

572: Einstein frame, the induced metrics on each branes transform with a

573: different conformal factor, which we denote with $A$ and $B$. We have neglected the derivative terms in the moduli fields when considering the coupling to matter on the brane. They lead to higher order operators which can be easily incorporated.  

574: The energy--momentum tensor in the Einstein frame is defined as

575: \begin{equation}

576: T_{\mu\nu}^{(1)} = 2 \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta

577: S_m^{(1)}(\Psi,A^2(Q,R)g)}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}

578: \end{equation}

579: with an analogous definition for the energy--momentum tensor for

580: matter on the second brane.

581: 

582: In the Einstein frame, the total action is therefore, 

583: \begin{eqnarray}

584: S_{\rm EF} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi G} 

585: \int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\left[ {\cal R} -  \frac{12\alpha^2}{1+2\alpha^2}

586: \frac{(\partial Q)^2}{Q^2} - \frac{6}{2\alpha^2 + 1}(\partial

587: R)^2\right] \nonumber \\

588: &-& \int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} (V_{\rm eff}(Q,R)+W_{\rm eff}(Q,R)) 

589: + S_m^{(1)}(\Psi_1,A^2(Q,R)g_{\mu\nu}) + S_m^{(2)}(\Psi_2,B^2(Q,R)g_{\mu\nu}).

590: \end{eqnarray}

591: 

592: We point out that in this braneworld scenario we naturally obtain a multimetric theory. 

593: Particles localized in different branes "feel" the respective induced metric ($g_{\mu\nu}^{ind}$).

594: In the next section we will discuss an interesting phenomenological application of this fact: the chameleon 

595: mechanism.

596: The moduli potential will be presented in a forecoming section. For more details on the moduli 

597: space approximation see \cite{gonz}.

598: 

599: 

600: 

601: 

602: 

603: 

604: 

605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

606: \section{Chameleon fields}

607: 

608: As we already mentioned in the introduction, the coupling of the moduli with matter is severely 

609: constrained by phenomenological tests. Introducing massless or ultra-light scalar fields with generic 

610: coupling with matter is prohibited by tests on the equivalence principle and on variations of the 

611: fundamental constants. Different ways to avoid this conflict have been considered

612: in literature. Basically the fields introduced in the model have either a small coupling today or

613: they have a large enough mass (stabilization). Recently a new stabilization scenario has been introduced in \cite{justin}. 

614: According to these authors, the mass of the scalar fields is determined by the density of the environment. On cosmological distances,

615: where the densities are very tiny, the mass can be of the order of the Hubble constant and the fields can roll on cosmological time scales.

616: On the Earth instead, the density is much higher and the field acquires a large enough mass to evade all current experimental bounds

617: on deviations from GR. In other words, the scalar field shows a "chameleontic behaviour".

618: In this section we will discuss this kind of scalar fields. 

619: We will start by reviewing the mechanism with a basic example; then

620: we will discuss the role of the radion as possible chameleon field. 

621: 

622: 

623: \subsection{The chameleon mechanism}

624: 

625: Let's consider a multi-metric model with the following scalar-tensor action:

626: 

627: \begin{equation}

628: S =\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} \left\{\frac{M_{Pl}^2R}{2} - \frac{(\partial \phi)^2}{2} - 

629:  V(\phi) + {\cal L}_m(\psi_m^{i},g^{(i)}_{\mu\nu})\right\}

630: \end{equation}

631: where $\phi$ is a generic scalar field with potential $V(\phi)$, $\psi_m^{(i)}$ denotes

632: matter fields which follow geodesics of a metric $g^{(i)}_{\mu\nu}=A^2_i(\phi)g_{\mu\nu}$. The scalar field interacts with matter through the conformal factor $A^2(\phi)$, so

633: the dynamics of the chameleon $\phi$ is described by an effective potential that for pressureless (non-relativistic)

634: matter takes the form (with general multi-metric theory a sum over $i$ is present)

635: 

636: \begin{equation}

637: V_{\rm eff}(\phi)=V(\phi) +\rho_m A(\phi)\,.

638: \end{equation}

639: In other words, the conformal coupling modifies the Klein-Gordon equation for the chameleon

640: in the following way:

641: \begin{equation}

642: \nabla^2 \phi = V_{,\phi} + \alpha_\phi\rho_m A(\phi)\,,

643: \label{KG2}

644: \end{equation}

645: %

646: where $\rho_m$ is conserved with respect to the Einstein frame metric ($g_{\mu\nu}$).

647: Supposing a run-away behaviour for the "bare" potential $V(\phi)$, the effective 

648: potential will show a minimum if a "competition" between $V(\phi)$ and the density-dependent term is

649: realized (i.e. $A(\phi)$ is an increasing function).  In this way the chameleontic properties of the field are recovered:

650: the location of the minimum and the mass of the fluctuactions $m^2=V_{eff}''$ both depend on $\rho_m$. 

651: 

652: Another effect which suppresses the chameleon-mediated force is the following: for large enough objects, the $\phi$-force 

653: on a test particle is almost totally due to a thin shell just below the surface of the object, while the contribution of core-matter

654: is negligible. Only a small fraction of the total mass affects the motion of a test particle outside.

655: This mechanism has been named "thin-shell mechanism". To give a more detailed derivation, we consider a chameleon solution

656: for a spherically symmetric object of radius R and homogeneous density $\rho$.

657: We take $V(\phi) = M^{4+n}/\phi^n$, where $M$ has units of mass, and an exponential coupling of the form $A(\phi)= e^{\beta\phi}$ with

658: $\beta={\cal O}(1)$. Next we choose boundary conditions requiring that the solution be non-singular at the origin and that the 

659: chameleon tends to its environment value $\phi_0$ far from the object.

660: 

661: For sufficiently large objects the field assumes inside the object a value $\phi_c$ which minimizes the effective

662: potential, i.e. $V_{,\phi}(\phi_c) + \beta\rho_c e^{\beta\phi_c/M_{Pl}}/M_{Pl} = 0$. This holds everywhere inside the object except

663: within a thin shell of thickness $\Delta R$ below the surface where the field grows. Outside the object, the profile for

664: $\phi$ is essentially that of a massive scalar, $\phi \sim \exp(-m_0r)/r$, where $m_0$ is the mass of the chameleon in the ambient medium.

665: 

666: The thickness of the shell is related to $\phi_0$, $\phi_c$,

667: and the Newtonian potential of the object, $\Phi_N=M/8\pi M_{Pl}^2R$, by

668: %

669: \begin{equation}

670: \frac{\Delta R}{R} \approx \frac{\phi_\infty-\phi_c}{6\beta

671: M_{Pl}\Phi_N}\,.

672: \label{DR}

673: \end{equation}

674: %

675: The exterior solution can then be written explicitly as~\cite{justin}

676: %

677: \begin{eqnarray}

678: \phi(r) &\approx& -\left(\frac{\beta}{4\pi M_{Pl}}\right)\left(\frac{3\Delta

679: R}{R}\right)\frac{M e^{-m_0 (r-R)}}{r} + \phi_0\,. \label{thinsoln}

680: \end{eqnarray}

681: 

682: This equation gives the correction to Newton's law at short distances in the form

683: $F= (1+\theta) F_N$ where $\theta = 2\beta^2 \left(\frac{3\Delta R}{R}\right)$. Hence a thin-shell $\Delta R/R<<1$

684: guarantees a small deviation from Newton's law. 

685: 

686: 

687: \subsection{The radion as a chameleon}

688: In the general set-up we described in the first section, the possible interpretation of the radion $R$ (interbrane distance) 

689: as a dark energy chameleon field has been investigated in \cite{radion}.

690: These authors introduced by-hand a run-away bare potential for the radion, to avoid the falling

691: of the hidden brane into the naked singularity, in the form

692: \begin{equation}

693: V(R) = \Lambda^4 R^{-\gamma}.

694: \end{equation}

695: Their investigation studied the efficiency of the thin-shell mechanism for the radion. The coupling to matter

696: was written by the expansion

697: 

698: \begin{equation}\label{approx}

699: A(R) \approx 1 + \frac{1}{6}\frac{R^2}{2} +...,

700: \end{equation}

701: where the neglection of higher-order terms was allowed by the cosmological evolution, that drove

702: the radion to small field value. Furthermore, the authors calculated a radion-mediated force, with

703: a correction to Newton's law given by

704: \begin{equation}\label{radioncoupling}

705: \theta=\frac{1}{18} R_\infty^2.

706: \end{equation}

707: The strength of the radion-mediated force is specified by the cosmological value of the radion.

708: Since $\theta$ must be small the parameters of the theory must be adjusted to guarantee a small field value.

709: In particular, imposing the gravitational constraints implied $\Lambda \sim 10^{-3} $ eV

710: and $\gamma\le 10^{-5}$. In other words the model must be extremely fine-tuned if we want simultaneously

711: (1) to interpret the radion as a dark energy candidate and (2) to satisfy local gravitational constraints.

712: The fine-tuning of $\gamma$ can be avoided by considering the potential $ V(R)= \Lambda ^4 e^{(\frac{\Lambda}{R})^n}$, but

713: the fine-tuning on $\Lambda$ remains as a cosmological constant fine-tuning.

714: 

715: We are going to exploit the chameleon mechanism to stabilize the radion (R-modulus) following the approach

716: of \cite{radion}. A detailed description of the moduli stabilization will be given in section 6.  

717: 

718: To proceed further, our first step will be the creation of a "naturally small"

719: neutrino mass in this braneworld set-up (see next section). The second step will be the construction of the potential

720: for the scalar field(s) using a physical mechanism and not simply including potentials by-hand (see section 5).

721: 

722: 

723: 

724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

725: \section{The neutrino mass}

726: 

727: In this section we describe how the sterile bulk fermion can provide a mechanism (different from the see-saw)

728: to obtain a small Dirac neutrino mass in four dimensions. In our scenario all standard model matter and gauge fields are localized on the visible brane.

729: We begin with a brief review of the scenario with mass-varying neutrinos recently proposed in \cite{fnw}. 

730: We proceed with the description of the Kaluza-Klein reduction, then we show that it is possible to 

731: localize the sterile fermion near the hidden brane following \cite{grossman}.

732: In the end of the section we will discuss the role of the conformal transformation to the Einstein frame. 

733: 

734: 

735: \subsection{Mass varying neutrinos and dark energy: the need for moduli stabilization}

736:  

737: We are now going to describe in more detail the idea proposed recently by Fardon, Nelson and Weiner \cite{fnw}

738: that connects the dark energy sector with neutrino's one. 

739: 

740: The main assumption in the FNW scenario is that the dark energy $sector$ has two components: 

741: the dark energy contribution of some (for example) quintessence field $\phi$ plus the neutrino energy density

742: \begin{equation}

743: \rho_{{\rm dark}}=\rho_{\nu} +\rho_{\rm{dark~ energy}}.

744: \end{equation}

745: 

746: An interaction is present between the two components, due to the dependence of the neutrino mass on

747: the quintessence field. The form of this dependence is obtained via a see-saw mechanism with a variable mass $M=M(\phi)$

748: for the right-handed neutrino. Remarkably the functional dependence $M(\phi)$ has been put in by-hand. 

749: It could be $M(\phi)=h\phi$ or $M(\phi)=M_0e^{\phi^2/f^2}$ with $h$ and $f$ some constants or something else. 

750: In the model considered in this article, however, we will be able to derive explicitly a form of the neutrino mass as function of the two

751: moduli. In our model variable neutrino mass is not put in by-hand.

752: During the expansion of the Universe, the temperature falls down till $T<m_{\nu}$.

753: At that time the neutrinos become non-relativistic particles and an effective potential is generated in the form

754: \begin{equation}

755: \rho_{{\rm dark}}=m_{\nu}n_{\nu} +\rho_{\rm{dark ~energy}}(m_{\nu}).

756: \end{equation}

757: 

758: 

759: 

760: FNW assumed that $\rho_{dark}$ is stationary with respect to variations in the neutrino mass. In other words 

761: the neutrino mass is fixed by a competition between $\rho_{dark energy}$ and $\rho_{\nu}$. The hypothesis of stationarity

762: implies that

763: 

764: 

765: \begin{equation}

766: \frac{\partial \rho_{\rm{dark}}}{\partial m_{\nu}}=n_{\nu} +\frac{\partial\rho_{\rm{dark ~energy}}(m_{\nu})}{\partial m_{\nu}} =0.

767: \end{equation}

768: This last equation determines the temperature dependence of the neutrino mass in a specific dark energy model.

769: Adding to this scheme the conservation of energy equation

770: \begin{equation}

771: \dot{\rho}=- 3H(\rho + p),

772: \end{equation}

773: it is possible to show that

774: \begin{equation}

775: \omega +1= \frac {m_{\nu}n_{\nu}}{\rho_{\rm{dark}}}= \frac{m_{\nu}n_{\nu}}{

776: m_{\nu}n_{\nu}+\rho_{\rm{dark ~energy}}}.

777: \end{equation}

778: where

779: \begin{equation}

780: \omega = \frac{p_{dark }}{\rho_{dark}}.

781: \end{equation}

782: Equation (61) inform us that the neutrino contribution to $\rho_{dark}$ is a small fraction

783: of $\rho_{dark}$.

784: Another important result can be obtained observing that the continuity equation guarantees $\rho_{dark} \sim R^{-3(1+w)}$.

785: Since $n_{\nu} \sim R^{-3}$, the neutrino mass is nearly inversely proportional to the neutrino density:

786: 

787: \begin{equation}

788: m_{\nu} \sim n_{\nu}^{\omega}\simeq 1/n_{\nu}.

789: \end{equation}

790: 

791: For further details we refer the reader to references \cite{peccei},\cite{neut}.

792: 

793: As pointed-out by Peccei \cite{peccei}, in the FNW scenario the intrinsic scale of dark energy is not obtained 

794: naturally since the value of the potential in the present epoch is fixed by hand:

795: \begin{equation}

796: V(m_{\nu}^0) \sim T^3_0 m_{\nu}^0 \sim \rho_{DE} \sim (2 \times 10^{-3} eV)^4.

797: \end{equation}

798: Thus, the connection of the dark energy scale with the neutrino mass scale is translated into a stabilization 

799: problem for the field $\phi$. When neutrinos become non-relativistic and $m_{\nu}n_{\nu}$ switches on, is it possible to 

800: guarantee the correct minimum?

801: 

802: Remarkably, in our approach we will obtain a neutrino mass dependent on the moduli $\lambda$ and $\phi$. 

803: In other words the neutrino mass depends on the geometrical configuration of the braneworld. As we already mentioned in 

804: the introduction, the only dynamic that we contemplate for the scalar fields is a 

805: chameleontic behaviour for the radion. 

806: On cosmological distances, 

807: the densities are tiny and the 

808: radion can roll on cosmological time scales (the neutrino mass is {\it variable} 

809: with time and possible deviations

810: from a pure cosmological constant contribution can be observed in the DE sector); 

811: on smaller scales instead, densities are higher and 

812: {\it both} moduli are simply sitting on the minimum of the potential.

813: As a final result, the connection between DE and neutrino mass will be established in the form

814: \beq

815: (\frac{V^{1/4}}{m_{\nu}})_{min}\sim 1,

816: \eeq

817: where $V$ is the total moduli potential. 

818: 

819: 

820: \subsection{Kaluza-Klein reduction}

821: 

822: Let's consider again the SPINOR action

823: 

824: 

825: \begin{equation}\label{SPIN}

826:    S_{SPINOR} = \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\!\int\!\mbox{d}z\,\sqrt{-g_5}

827:    \left\{ E_a^A \left[ \frac{i}{2}\,\bar\Psi\gamma^a

828:    (\partial_A-\overleftarrow{\partial_A})\Psi

829:    + \frac{\omega_{bcA}}{8}\,\bar\Psi \{\gamma^a,\sigma^{bc}\} \Psi

830:    \right] - m\,\mbox{sgn}(\alpha)\,\bar\Psi\Psi \right\} \,.

831: \end{equation}

832: We use capital

833: indices $A,B,\dots$ for objects defined in curved space, and 

834: lower-case indices $a,b,\dots$ for objects defined in the tangent 

835: frame. The matrices $\gamma^a=(\gamma^\mu,i\gamma_5)$ provide a 

836: four-dimensional representation of the Dirac matrices in 

837: five-dimensional flat space. The quantity

838: $E_a^A$ is the

839: inverse vielbein and $\omega_{bcA}$ is the spin connection. Because 

840: in our case the metric is diagonal the connection gives no contribution to

841: the action (\ref{SPIN}).

842: 

843: The sign change of the mass term under $\alpha\to-\alpha$ is necessary in 

844: order to conserve $\alpha$-parity, as required by the $Z_2$ orbifold 

845: symmetry we impose.

846: 

847: 

848: Using an integration by parts and defining left- and right-handed

849: spinors $\Psi_{L,R}\equiv\frac12(1\mp\gamma_5)\Psi$, the action can 

850: be written as

851: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Sdel}

852:    S_{SPINOR} &=& \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g_4}\int\!\mbox{d}z\,\bigg\{

853:     e^{-3\sigma} \left( \bar\Psi_L\,i\rlap/\partial\,\Psi_L

854:     + \bar\Psi_R\,i\rlap/\partial\,\Psi_R \right) 

855:     - e^{-4\sigma}\,m\,\mbox{sgn}(\alpha) \left( 

856:     \bar\Psi_L \Psi_R + \bar\Psi_R \Psi_L \right) \nonumber\\

857:    &&\mbox{}- \frac{1}{2} \left[ \bar\Psi_L \left(

858:     e^{-4\sigma} \partial_z + \partial_z\,e^{-4\sigma}

859:     \right) \Psi_R - \bar\Psi_R \left(

860:     e^{-4\sigma} \partial_z + \partial_z\,e^{-4\sigma}

861:     \right) \Psi_L \right] \bigg\} \,,

862: \end{eqnarray}

863: where we considered the redefinition $a(z)=e^{-\sigma}$ and we observe that $\sqrt{-g_5}=e^{-4\sigma}\sqrt{-g_4}$.

864: The action is even under the 

865: $Z_2$ orbifold symmetry if $\Psi_L(x,z)$ is an odd function of 

866: z and $\Psi_R(x,z)$ is even, or vice versa. To perform the 

867: Kaluza--Klein decomposition we write

868: \begin{equation}\label{KK}

869:    \Psi_{L,R}(x,z) = \sum_n \psi_n^{L,R}(x)\,

870:    e^{2\sigma}\,\hat f_n^{L,R}(z) \,.

871: \end{equation}

872: Because of the $Z_2$ symmetry of the action it is sufficient to 

873: restrict the integration over $z$ from $\phi$ to $\lambda$. Inserting the ansatz (\ref{KK}) 

874: into the action and requiring that the result takes the form of the 

875: usual Dirac action for massive fermions in four dimensions,

876: \begin{equation}\label{Sferm}

877:    S = \sum_n \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g_4}\Big\{

878:    \bar\psi_n(x)\,i\rlap/\partial\,\psi_n(x)

879:    - m_n\,\bar\psi_n(x)\,\psi_n(x) \Big\} \,,

880: \end{equation}

881: where $\psi\equiv\psi_L+\psi_R$ (except for possible chiral modes) 

882: and $m_n\ge 0$ , we find that the functions $\hat f_n^{L,R}(\phi)$ 

883: must obey the conditions

884: \begin{eqnarray}\label{cond}

885:    \int\limits_\phi^\lambda\!\mbox{d}z\,e^\sigma

886:    \hat f_m^{L*}(z)\,\hat f_n^L(z)

887:    &=& \int\limits_\phi^\lambda\!\mbox{d}z\,e^\sigma

888:     \hat f_m^{R*}(z)\,\hat f_n^R(z) = \delta_{mn} \,,

889:     \nonumber\\

890:    \left( \pm\,\partial_z - m \right)

891:    \hat f_n^{L,R}(z) 

892:    &=& - m_n\,e^\sigma \hat f_n^{R,L}(z) \,.

893: \end{eqnarray}

894: The boundary conditions $\hat f_m^{L*}(\phi)\,\hat f_n^R(\phi)

895: =\hat f_m^{L*}(\lambda)\,\hat f_n^R(\lambda)=0$, which follow since either 

896: all left-handed or all right-handed functions are $Z_2$-odd, ensure

897: that the differential operators $(\pm \partial_z -m)$ 

898: are hermitian and their eigenvalues $m_n$ real. Since the equations 

899: are real, the functions $\hat f_n^{L,R}(\phi)$ could be chosen real 

900: without loss of generality.

901: 

902: 

903: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

904: \subsection{The right-handed zero mode: wave function localization}

905: 

906: We now choose boundary conditions such that all left-handed modes are odd under orbifold parity. 

907: We specialize our investigation to the right-handed massless zero-mode. (\ref{cond}) now takes the form

908: \begin{eqnarray}\label{cond2}

909:    \int\limits_\phi^\lambda\!\mbox{d}z\,e^\sigma

910:    \hat f_0^{R*}(z)\,\hat f_0^R(z)

911:    & = 1 \,,

912:     \nonumber\\

913:    \left( \partial_z + m \right)

914:    \hat f_0^{R}(z) 

915:    &=& 0 \,.

916: \end{eqnarray}

917: 

918: Let's consider, for example, the limit $\alpha\Rightarrow 0$, then $a(z)=e^{-kz}$ and we can write

919: \begin{eqnarray}

920:    \hat f^2(z)=\frac{k'e^{-2mz}}{e^{k'\lambda}-e^{k'\phi}},

921: \end{eqnarray}

922: where we defined $k'=k-2m$ and $\hat f=\hat f_0^R$.

923: 

924: The zero-mode wave function on the visible brane is thus given by

925: \begin{eqnarray}\label{massa}

926:    \hat f^2(\phi)=\frac{k'e^{-2m\phi}}{e^{k'\lambda}-e^{k'\phi}}.

927: \end{eqnarray}

928: 

929: Remarkably it is possible to localize the wave function on the hidden brane; in particular for well-separated brane we distinguish the cases:

930: 

931: \begin{itemize}

932:   \item $k'>0$ ................. $\hat f^2(\phi)<<1\Longleftrightarrow k'\lambda>>-2m\phi$

933:   \item $k'<0$ ................. $\hat f^2(\phi)<<1\Longleftrightarrow e^{-k\phi}<<1$.

934:   \end{itemize}

935:   

936:   

937:   

938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

939: \subsection{The Higgs sector and the neutrino mass}

940: We now describe the realization of a small Dirac neutrino mass in four dimensions, using the localization of the wave 

941: function mentioned above. 

942: Omitting gauge interactions, the action for a Higgs doublet 

943: $H=(\phi_1,\phi_2)$, a left-handed lepton doublet $L=(\nu_L,e_L)$ 

944: and a right-handed lepton $e_R$ localized on the visible brane is 

945: \begin{eqnarray}

946:    S &=& \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g^{\rm ind,1}} \left\{

947:     g_{\rm ind,1}^{\mu\nu}\,\partial_\mu H_B^\dagger\,\partial_\nu H_B

948:     - \lambda \left( |H_B|^2 - v_B^2 \right)^2 \right\} \nonumber\\

949:    &+& \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g^{\rm ind,1}} \left\{

950:     \bar L_B\hat\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu L_B

951:     + \bar e_{RB}\hat\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu e_{RB}

952:     - \left( y_e \bar L_B H_B e_{RB} + \mbox{h.c.} \right)

953:     \right\} \,,

954: \end{eqnarray}

955: where $g_{\rm ind,1}^{\mu\nu}$ is the 

956: induced metric on the visible brane, and the superscript over the gamma 

957: matrices is used to make the vielbein implicit.

958: 

959: We now introduce a Yukawa coupling of the bulk fermion with the Higgs 

960: and lepton fields. With our choice of boundary conditions all 

961: left-handed Kaluza--Klein modes vanish at the visible brane, so only 

962: the right-handed modes can couple to the Standard Model fields on the 

963: brane. We consider a coupling of the form:

964: \begin{equation}

965:    S_Y = - \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\,\sqrt{-g_{\rm ind,1}} \left\{

966:    \hat Y_5 \bar L_B(x) \widetilde H_B(x) \Psi_R(x,\phi)

967:    + \mbox{h.c.} \right\} \,,

968: \end{equation}

969: where $\widetilde H=i\sigma_2 H^*$, and the Yukawa coupling $\hat Y_5$ 

970: is naturally of order $M^{-1/2}$, with $M$ the fundamental Planck 

971: scale of the theory. Rescaling the Standard Model fields and inserting for the bulk fermion the Kaluza--Klein 

972: ansatz (\ref{KK}), we find

973: \begin{equation}

974:    S_Y = - \sum_{n\ge 0} \int\!\mbox{d}^4x \sqrt{-g_{\rm ind,1}}\left\{ \frac{Y_5}{a^2(\phi)} 

975:    \bar L_B(x) \widetilde H_B(x) \psi_n^R(x) f_n^R(\phi) + \mbox{h.c.} \right\}

976: \end{equation}

977: where $Y_5$ is naturally of order unity.

978: 

979: Specializing this formula to the right-handed zero mode we have

980: \begin{equation}

981:    S_Y = - \int\!\mbox{d}^4x \sqrt{-g_{\rm ind,1}}\left\{ \frac{Y_5}{a^2(\phi)} 

982:    \bar L_B(x) \widetilde H_B(x) \psi_0^R(x) f_0^R(\phi) + \mbox{h.c.} \right\}

983: \end{equation}

984: with a mass for the 4d neutrino that can be expressed as a function of the moduli in the form

985: \begin{equation}

986:    m_{\nu} = m_{\nu}(\phi,\lambda)=\frac{Y_5f_0^R(\phi)v_b}{a^2(\phi)},

987: \end{equation}

988: where $f_0^R(\phi)$ is given by (\ref{massa}) after the rescaling.

989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

990: \subsection{Conformal transformation}

991: Now we want to study the effect of a conformal transformation to the Einstein frame ($\tilde g$) on the neutrino mass. In order 

992: to do that, it is necessary to determine the rescaling laws of the various fields in the Yukawa term.

993: We have to take into account two different conformal transformations.

994: \begin{itemize}

995:  \item $g^{ind}\Longrightarrow  g^4$  

996:  \end{itemize}

997: The transformations is completely defined by equations (19) and (20).

998: 

999: \begin{itemize}

1000:  \item $g^4\Longrightarrow \tilde g$ ..............  $ \tilde g_{\mu\nu} = Q^2 g_{\mu\nu}^4$

1001:  \end{itemize}

1002: 

1003: Collecting the two transformations together and remembering $\beta = \frac{2\alpha^2 + 1}{4\alpha^2}$ we have:

1004: \begin{eqnarray}

1005: g_{\mu\nu}^{ind,1}=a^2(\phi)g_{\mu\nu}^4=a^2(\phi) Q^{-2} \tilde g_{\mu\nu} \equiv A^2 \tilde g_{\mu\nu}; \\

1006: g_{\mu\nu}^{ind,2}=a^2(\lambda)g_{\mu\nu}^4=a^2(\lambda) Q^{-2} \tilde g_{\mu\nu} \equiv B^2 \tilde g_{\mu\nu};

1007: \end{eqnarray}

1008: where 

1009: 

1010: \begin{equation}\label{fattori}

1011: A=Q^{-\frac{1}{2 \beta}}(\cosh R)^{\frac{1}{1+2 \alpha^2}},\ B=Q^{-\frac{1}{2 \beta}}(\sinh R)^{\frac{1}{1+2 \alpha^2}}.

1012: \end{equation}

1013: 

1014: From these formulas, requiring a canonical normalization of the kinetic terms of the fields, we find the following conformal rescalings for the fields:

1015: \begin{itemize}

1016:  \item CHIRAL ZERO MODE: $\Psi_0^R\Longrightarrow \tilde \Psi_0^R=Q^{-3/2} \Psi_0^R$  

1017:  \item HIGGS FIELD: $H_B\Longrightarrow H_E=\frac{a(\phi)}{Q}  H_B$

1018:  \item STANDARD MODEL'S SPINOR FIELD: $\Psi\Longrightarrow \tilde \Psi=(\frac{a(\phi)}{Q})^{3/2} \Psi$.

1019:  \end{itemize}

1020: 

1021: Using these last formulas in the Yukawa term, we obtain the "correction" to 

1022: the neutrino mass induced by the conformal transformation to the Einstein frame:

1023: \begin{equation}

1024: \tilde m_{\nu}(\phi,\lambda)=\frac{a(\phi)^{5/2}}{Q} m_{\nu}(\phi,\lambda).

1025: \end{equation}

1026: 

1027: 

1028: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1029: \section{The moduli potential}

1030: 

1031: In the original two-branes model proposed by Randall and Sundrum (\cite{RS1},\cite{RS2}) the brane tensions were 

1032: tuned in order to have Minkowski branes.

1033: The separation between the branes becomes a field (radion) in the process of 

1034: compactification to four dimensions. With flat branes the classical potential 

1035: for the radion is absent: the interbrane distance is parameterized by a massless scalar field. Since 

1036: this field has not been observed experimentally, the authors were faced with the so-called "radion stabilization problem". One 

1037: possible solution is 

1038: provided by quantum vacuum energy of bulk fields: Casimir contribution of bulk fields generates a potential for the radion. 

1039: The possibility of radion stabilization by this mechanism has been considered by several authors using scalar 

1040: fields (\cite{scalarf},\cite{GPT}, \cite{FT}), spinor fields (\cite{FMT,FMT2}). 

1041: The result is that it is generally not possible to give an acceptable mass to the radion and solve the hierarchy problem simultaneously. 

1042: 

1043: When the branes are $dS_4$ or $AdS_4$ a classical potential for the radion is present. 

1044: It is stabilizing for the $AdS_4$ case and unstable for $dS_4$ branes \cite{baggerredi,detuned}. 

1045: The Casimir effect is then a quantum correction to the classical potential (\cite{baggerredi}). In the $dS_4$ 

1046: brane case the Casimir contribution has been calculated for conformally 

1047: coupled scalar fields \cite{WN}, for massless spinor fields (\cite{fermionc}) and for massive scalar fields (\cite{ENOO}). 

1048: The $AdS_4$ case has been studied in \cite{norman}.

1049: 

1050: In this section we will present the classical potential for the moduli (Q, R) in the $dS_4$ case.

1051: Then we proceed with the evaluation of the quantum correction induced by a massive spinor field in the bulk. 

1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1053: \subsection{The classical potential}

1054: 

1055: In order to write the classical potential it is necessary to review the main characteristics of the

1056: supersymmetric Randall-Sundrum model (\cite{susyrs}) with detuned brane tensions. The detuning process will render our model more

1057: realistic: since we want to describe an Universe with a positive cosmological constant, a de Sitter geometry for branes is 

1058: the correct one and detuning is necessary. 

1059: 

1060: Denoting $T_{1,2}$ and $T_f$ respectively

1061: the tension of the first (second) brane and the fine-tuned tension, supersymmetry imposes the bound $|T_{1,2}| \le T_f$.

1062: The detuning process converts Minkowski branes in curved branes. The $AdS_4$ solution arises when $|T_{1,2}| < T_f$; the $dS_4$

1063: solution corresponds to $|T_{1,2}|> T_f$.

1064: 

1065: When one detunes the brane tension $U_B\to T U_B$, the moduli

1066: pick up a potential \cite{brax, marsiglia}:

1067: 

1068: \begin{equation}

1069: V = \frac {6(T-1)k}{\kappa_5^2} e^{\alpha \psi}.

1070: \end{equation}

1071: Taking into account both branes, the classical potential expressed as a function of $S=lnQ$ and $R$ in the Einstein frame is

1072: 

1073: \begin{equation}\label{poti}

1074: V_{class}(S,R) = V_{eff} + W_{eff},

1075: \end{equation}

1076: where

1077: \begin{equation}\label{poti}

1078: V_{eff}(S,R) = \frac{6(T-1)k}{\kappa_5^2} e^{-12\alpha^2 S/(1+2\alpha^2)}

1079: \left(\cosh R \right)^{(4-4\alpha^2)/(1+2\alpha^2)}

1080: \end{equation}

1081: and

1082: \begin{equation}\label{poti2}

1083: W_{eff}(S,R) = \frac{6(T-1)k}{\kappa_5^2} e^{-12\alpha^2 S/(1+2\alpha^2)}

1084: \left(\sinh R \right)^{(4-4\alpha^2)/(1+2\alpha^2)}.

1085: \end{equation}

1086: Note that $T=1$ corresponds to the BPS case.

1087: 

1088: 

1089: 

1090: As mentioned in \cite{baggerredi} the potential is unstable for $dS_4$ and we proceed with the analysis of the 

1091: Casimir energy as a stabilizing contribution for the system.

1092: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1093: \subsection{Casimir contribution: the 5-dimensional bag}

1094: We will calculate the Casimir contribution of the bulk spinor on a Euclideanised form of the metric. On the 

1095: Euclidean section the de 

1096: Sitter branes become concentric four spheres \cite{GS},

1097: \begin{equation}

1098: ds^2 =dz^2+a^2(z)d\Omega^2_4,

1099: \end{equation}

1100: where $d\Omega^2_4$ is the 4-sphere metric.

1101: The metric is conformal to a cylinder $I\times S^4$ \cite{GS,GEN}. Thus,

1102: \begin{equation}

1103: ds^2 =a^2(z)(dy^2+d\Omega^2_4)

1104: \quad\qquad a(z)=(1-4k\alpha^2 z)^{\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}\,,

1105: \label{metric}

1106: \end{equation}

1107: where the coordinates are dimensionful and we defined $dy=\frac{dz}{a(z)}$.

1108: The dimensional length $L$ is given by

1109: \begin{equation}

1110: L(\phi,\lambda)=\int_{\phi}^{\lambda}\frac{dz}

1111: {a(z)}=-\frac{1}{k} \frac{1}{4 \alpha^2 -1} [(1-4k \alpha^2 \lambda)^{1-\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}-(1-4k \alpha^2 \phi)^{1-\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}].

1112: \end{equation}

1113: 

1114: Let's consider a second transformation given by

1115: 

1116: \begin{equation}\label{trconf}

1117: y=-R lnr,

1118: \end{equation}

1119: with $0<r<1$ and $R$ is a constant introduced for dimensional reasons. In this way (\ref{metric}) becomes

1120: 

1121: \begin{equation}

1122: ds^2 =\frac{a^2(z)}{r^2}(dr'^2 + r'^2 d\Sigma^2) \equiv \beta^2 [dr'^2 + r'^2 d \Sigma^2],

1123: \label{metric2}

1124: \end{equation}

1125: where $d \Sigma^2 \equiv R^{-2} d \Omega_4^2$ is the metric for the 4-sphere of radius one, $\beta^2 \equiv a^2/r^2$ is the total conformal

1126: factor and $r' \equiv Rr$ is the dimensionful radial coordinate ($0<r'<R$). The metric (\ref{metric}) is thus conformally related

1127: to a 5-dimensional generalized cone endowed with 4-sphere as a base: a 5-ball of radius R. 

1128: 

1129: In order to keep track of the geometrical "reconfiguration" of the system under the total conformal 

1130: transormation, let's consider the following formulas:

1131: 

1132: \begin{itemize}

1133: \item $z<z^* \equiv \frac{1}{4k \alpha^2}$ where $z^*$ corresponds to the position of the bulk singularity,

1134: \item $y \equiv -\frac{1}{k} \frac{1}{4 \alpha^2 -1} (1-4k \alpha^2 z)^{1-\frac{1}{4 \alpha^2}}$,

1135: \item $y=-Rlnr$.

1136: \end{itemize}

1137: The first one corresponds to the assumption that the branes can't fall into the bulk singularity.

1138: Since we are interested in the description of a low-redshift Universe, we will consider well-separated branes:

1139: we assume that the hidden brane is close to the bulk singularity ($z_{hidden} \sim z^*$, remarkably this is a general behaviour 

1140: in the low-energy regime of 

1141: BPS-braneworlds \cite{palma}) while the visible one 

1142: is located far away in the bulk ($z_{vis}<<z_{hidden}$). 

1143: The remaining formulas modify the branes coordinate 

1144: in the following way:

1145: \begin{eqnarray} 

1146: z \rightarrow -\infty  \Longleftrightarrow y=0 \Longleftrightarrow r=1,  VISIBLE \\

1147: z \rightarrow z^* \Longleftrightarrow y\rightarrow +\infty \Longleftrightarrow r=0, SINGULARITY.

1148: \end{eqnarray}

1149: 

1150: Remarkably the total conformal transformation translated the cosmological two-branes

1151: set up into a 5-ball. The ball radius is connected to the moduli $\lambda$ and $\phi$ by 

1152: 

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \frac{L(\lambda,\phi)}{R}=-ln \epsilon,

1155: \end{equation}

1156: where $\epsilon$ is a dimensionless parameter that is small for well-separated branes. In this geometrical configuration 

1157: the evaluation of the effective action will be easier, as we now deduce.

1158: 

1159: 

1160: We will start recalling the SPINOR action and studying the effect of the conformal transformation on 

1161: the spinor field $\Psi$. The action is

1162: 

1163: 

1164: \begin{equation}\label{action}

1165:    S = \int\!\mbox{d}^4x\!\int\!\mbox{d}z\,\sqrt{-g_5}

1166:    \left\{ E_a^A \left[ \frac{i}{2}\,\bar\Psi\gamma^a

1167:    (\partial_A-\overleftarrow{\partial_A})\Psi

1168:    + \frac{\omega_{bcA}}{8}\,\bar\Psi \{\gamma^a,\sigma^{bc}\} \Psi

1169:    \right] - m\,\mbox{sgn}(\alpha)\,\bar\Psi\Psi \right\} \,.

1170: \end{equation}

1171: 

1172: In the transformation $g_{AB}=\beta^2 g'_{AB}$ the action is rewritten as

1173: 

1174: \begin{equation}\label{apice}

1175:    S = \int\!\mbox{d}^5x\,\sqrt{-g'_5}

1176:    \left\{ E_a^{A'} \left[ \frac{i}{2}\,\bar\Psi'\gamma^a

1177:    (\partial_A-\overleftarrow{\partial_A})\Psi'

1178:    + \frac{\omega_{bcA}}{8}\,\bar\Psi' \{\gamma^a,\sigma^{bc}\} \Psi'

1179:    \right] - m'\,\mbox{sgn}(\alpha)\,\bar\Psi'\Psi' \right\} \,.

1180: \end{equation}

1181: where the primed quantities are referred to the ball metric and they are given by

1182: $\Psi'=\beta^{2} \Psi$, $m'=\beta m$ and $E_a^{A'}=\beta E_a^{A}$.

1183: We will now use a more compact notation and, omitting the prime, we write (\ref{apice}) as

1184: \begin{equation}

1185:    S = i \int\!\mbox{d}^5x\ \Psi^* D \Psi

1186: \end{equation}

1187: where $D \equiv \slash{\!\nabla}+ im$.

1188: 

1189: To proceed further we need to specify boundary conditions for the bulk fermion. 

1190: Since we are interested in a chiral theory on the branes, we choose the "option-L" of \cite{grossman}, namely: all the left handed modes are 

1191: odd under orbifold parity. In this way the correct boundary condition is 

1192: 

1193: \begin{eqnarray} 

1194: z=\phi :\quad P_-\psi=0,

1195: z=\lambda :\quad P_-\psi=0,

1196: \end{eqnarray}

1197: where $P_{\pm}=\frac12(1 \pm \gamma_5)$. To complete the specification of the 

1198: boundary conditions we remember the existence condition for the operator $D^*$: if $P_-\psi=0$, 

1199: this requires that the normal derivative $(\partial_y - m)P_+ \Psi=0$

1200: should vanish. In summary, we have defined two subspaces in direct sum generated by 

1201: the operators $P_{\pm}$; while on the first space (-) we have Dirichlet condition, on the second one (+) 

1202: we impose Robin boundary condition. In other words the bulk fermion satisfies mixed boundary conditions (for 

1203: further details see \cite{FMT,Mth,MOSS}).

1204: 

1205: In this way our cosmological set up is the 5-dimensional "extension" of the MIT bag model \cite{mit}. In these 

1206: systems quarks and gluons

1207: are free inside the bag, but they are unable to cross the boundary. This last condition 

1208: corresponds precisely to the mixed boundary

1209: conditions discussed above: a chiral theory on the branes corresponds to the condition 

1210: that no quark current is lost through the boundary. The zeta function for massive fermionic fields inside

1211: the bag has been considered in \cite{bag}. Analogous calculations have been developed for massive scalar field (\cite{bk,bek,bekl96}).

1212: Functional determinants were discussed in \cite{begk,bdk,abdk,eli1,eli2,stuart,Mth}. 

1213: For moduli stabilization with zeta function regularization see also \cite{GPT2,FGPT}. 

1214: 

1215: In the next section we will discuss the zeta function of the system following the approach of \cite{bag}.

1216: 

1217: 

1218:  

1219: \subsection{Casimir contribution: the $\zeta$ function}

1220: 

1221: We start recalling the general set-up for the MIT bag model in three dimensions. The setting we 

1222: consider first is the Dirac spinor inside a spherically symmetric bag

1223: confined to it by the appropriate boundary conditions. 

1224:  Thus, we must solve the equation:

1225: \beq

1226: H\phi_n (\vec r) = E_n \phi_n (\vec r) , \label{2.1}

1227: \eeq

1228: $H$ being the Hamiltonian, with the boundary conditions

1229: \beq

1230: \left[1+i \left(\frac{\vec r } r \vec \gamma \right) \right] \phi_n 

1231: \left|_{r=R} \right. =0 .\label{2.3}

1232: \eeq

1233: 

1234: 

1235: The  separation to be carried out

1236:  in the eigenvalue equation (\ref{2.1}) is rather

1237: standard and will not be given here in detail. Let $\vec J$ be the 

1238: total angular momentum operator and $K$ the spin projection operator. 

1239: Then there exists a simultaneous set of eigenvectors of $H,\vec J^2,J_3,K$

1240: and the parity $P$. The eigenfunctions for positive eigenvalues $\kappa

1241: =j+1/2$ of $K$ read

1242: \beq

1243: \phi_{jm} = \frac A {\sqrt{r} } \left(

1244:    \begin{array}{l} i J_{j+1} (\omega r ) \Omega_{jlm} \left( \frac {\vec r} r 

1245: \right)  \\

1246:     - \sqrt{\frac{E-m}{E+m} } J_j (\omega r ) \Omega_{jl'm } 

1247:          \left( \frac {\vec r} r \right)

1248:    \end{array} 

1249: \right), \label{2.4}

1250: \eeq

1251: whereas, for $\kappa = -(j+1/2) $, one finds

1252: \beq

1253: \phi_{jm} = \frac A {\sqrt{r} } \left(

1254:    \begin{array}{l} i J_{j} (\omega r ) \Omega_{jlm} \left( \frac {\vec r} r

1255: \right)  \\

1256:      \sqrt{\frac{E-m}{E+m} } J_{j+1} (\omega r ) \Omega_{jl'm }

1257:          \left( \frac {\vec r} r \right)

1258:    \end{array}

1259: \right). \label{2.5}

1260: \eeq

1261: Here 

1262: $\omega=\sqrt{E^2-m^2}$, $A$ is a normalization constant and 

1263: $\Omega_{jlm} (\vec r /r)$ are the well known spinor harmonics. 

1264: In order to obtain eigenfunctions of the parity operator we must set

1265:  $l'=l-1$ in

1266: (\ref{2.4}) and $l'=l+1$ in (\ref{2.5}). In both cases, $j=1/2,3/2,...,

1267: \infty$, and the eigenvalues are degenerate in $m=-j,...,+j$.

1268: 

1269: Imposing the boundary conditions (\ref{2.3}) on the solutions 

1270: (\ref{2.4}) and (\ref{2.5}), respectively, one easily finds the 

1271: corresponding implicit eigenvalue

1272: equation. For $\kappa > 0$, it reads

1273: \beq

1274: \sqrt{\frac{E+m}{E-m}} J_{j+1} (\omega R) +J_j (\omega R) =0 , \label{2.6}

1275: \eeq

1276: and for $\kappa < 0$, on its turn, 

1277: \beq

1278: J_j (\omega R)- \sqrt{\frac{E-m}{E+m}} J_{j+1} (\omega R) =0 .\label{2.7}

1279: \eeq

1280: 

1281: We define the zeta function of the system as

1282: \beq

1283: \zeta (s) = \sum_k (E_k^2) ^{-s} \label{relzeta}

1284: . 

1285: \eeq

1286: The power of the method lies in the well defined prescriptions 

1287: and procedures that we have at our hand to analytically continue the series

1288: to the rest of the complex $s$-plane, even when the spectrum $E_k$ is

1289: not known explicitly. In particular we are interested in the calculation of the Casimir energy for

1290: massive spinors in the bag and we will employ zeta function to regularize this ground state energy. Briefly we consider

1291: \beq\label{introcas}

1292: E_0 (s) &=& - \frac{1}{2} \sum_k 

1293: \left( E_k^2 \right)^{1/2 -s} \mu^{2s}, \qquad

1294: \mbox{Re}\ s >s_0= 2\nonumber\\

1295: &=& -\frac 1 2 \zeta (s-1/2) \mu^{2s} \label{grounden},

1296: \eeq

1297: and later analytically continue to the value $s=0$ in the complex plane.

1298: Here $s_0$ is the abscissa of convergence of the series, $\mu$ the usual 

1299: mass parameter.

1300: 

1301: 

1302: 

1303: 

1304: Let's apply this QCD analysis to the cosmological branes system. When we pass from three to five dimensions

1305: we have to take into account new degeneracy factors for the eigenvalues, while the implicit eigenvalue equation 

1306: remains formally untouched. In particular the degeneracy $d(j)$ for a spinor field on the ball is

1307: \begin{equation}

1308: d(j)=d_s {n+D-2\choose D-2},

1309: \end{equation}

1310: where $d_s$ is the spinor dimension, $D$ is the manifold dimension (i.e. the dimension of the generalized cone), $j=n+ \frac{D}{2} -1$ and $n=0,1,2,...$.

1311: Since a closed analytical form for the eigenvalues is not available for this system, we will 

1312: exploit the residue theorem (for a pedagogical description of these techniques see \cite{kirsten}):

1313: \beq

1314: \zeta (s) &=&  \sum_{j=3/2,\ldots}^\infty d(j) \int_\gamma \frac{dk}{2\pi i} 

1315: (k^2 +m^2)^{-s}  \nn \\ && \hspace{-10mm} 

1316: \times \, \frac{\partial}{\partial k}

1317:  \ln \left[ J_j^2 (kR) - J_{j+1}^2 (kR) 

1318: + \frac{2m}{k} J_j (kR) J_{j+1} (kR) \right].

1319: \eeq

1320: 

1321: Using the method ---ordinarily employed in this situation--- of deforming the 

1322: contour which originally encloses the singular points on the real axis,

1323: until it covers the imaginary axis, 

1324: after some manipulations we obtain the following equivalent expression for 

1325: $\zeta$:

1326: \beq

1327: \zeta   (s) &=& \frac{ \sin \pi s}{\pi} 

1328: \sum_{j=3/2,\ldots}^\infty d(j) 

1329: \int_{mR/j}^\infty dz \, \left[ \left( \frac{zj}{R}\right)^2 -m^2

1330: \right]^{-s} \nn  \\

1331: && \times \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \ln\left\{z^{-2j} \left[ I_j^2 (zj)

1332:  \left( 1 + \frac{1}{z^2}- \frac{2mR}{z^2j} \right) + {I_j'}^2 (zj)

1333: \right. \right. \nn \\ && \left. \left.

1334:  + \frac{2R}{zj} \left( m - \frac{j}{R} \right) I_j (zj) {I_j}' (zj)

1335: \right]\right\},

1336: \eeq

1337: where we defined $z=k/j$.

1338: As is usual, we will now split the zeta function into two parts:

1339: \beq

1340: \zeta (s)=Z_N(s)+\sum_{i=-1}^N A_i(s),

1341: \eeq 

1342: namely a regular one, $Z_N$, and a remainder that contains the 

1343: contributions of the $N$ first terms

1344: of the Bessel functions $I_\nu (k)$ as $\nu, k \rightarrow \infty$ with 

1345: $\nu /k$ fixed.

1346: The regular part of the zeta function is:

1347: \beq

1348: Z_N(s)&=& \sn \smj \itz \paran^{-s}  \nn\\

1349: && \hspace{-17mm}\times \frac{\partial}{\partial z}

1350:  \left\{ \ln \left[I_j^2(zj)(1+\frac{1}{z^2}-\frac{2mR}{z^2j})+

1351: I'_j\!{}^2(zj)+\frac{2R}{zj} (m-\frac{j}{R}) I_j(zj)I'_j(zj)\right] \right. 

1352:  \nn\\

1353: &&-\left.\ln\left[\frac{e^{2j\eta}(1+z^2)^\frac{1}{2}(1-t)}{\pi j z^2}\right]

1354:    -\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{D_k(mR,t)}{j^k}\right\},

1355: \eeq

1356: 

1357: where $\eta = \sqrt{1+z^2} +\ln [z/(1+\sqrt{1+z^2})]$ and $t=1/\sqrt{1+z^2}$.

1358: After renaming $mR=x$, the relevant polynomials (see appendix A) are given by

1359: \beq

1360: D_1(t)&=&{\frac {{t}^{3}}{12}}+\left (x-1/4\right )t \nn\\

1361: D_2(t)&=&-{\frac {{t}^{6}}{8}}-{\frac {{t}^{5}}{8}}+\left (-{\frac {x}{2}}+1/8

1362: \right ){t}^{4}+\left (-{\frac {x}{2}}+1/8\right ){t}^{3}-{\frac {{t}^

1363: {2}{x}^{2}}{2}} \nn\\

1364: D_3(t)&=&{\frac {179\,{t}^{9}}{576}}+{\frac {3\,{t}^{8}}{8}}+\left (-{\frac {23

1365: }{64}}+{\frac {7\,x}{8}}\right ){t}^{7}+\left (x-1/2\right ){t}^{6}+

1366: \left ({\frac {9}{320}}-{\frac {x}{4}}+{\frac {{x}^{2}}{2}}\right ){t}

1367: ^{5}    \nn\\

1368: &&+\left ({\frac {{x}^{2}}{2}}+1/8-{\frac {x}{2}}\right ){t}^{4}+

1369: \left (-{\frac {x}{8}}+{\frac {5}{192}}+{\frac {{x}^{3}}{3}}\right ){t

1370: }^{3} \nn\\

1371: D_4(t)&=& -\frac{71}{64} t^{12} - \frac{179}{128} t^{11} + (\frac{57}{32} - \frac{21}{8} x)t^{10} + (\frac{327}{128} - \frac{49}{16} x) t^{9} 

1372: + (-\frac{37}{64} + 2x - x^2) t^{8}    \nn\\

1373: &&+ (-\frac{165}{128} + 3x - \frac{5 x^2}{4})t^7 + (-\frac{1}{8} + \frac{x}{4} +\frac{x^2}{8} -\frac{x^3}{2})t^6 + (\frac{17}{128} - \frac{7x}{16} 

1374: + \frac{x^2}{2}- \frac{x^3}{2})t^5    \nn\\

1375: &&+ (\frac{1}{32} - \frac{x}{8} + \frac{x^2}{8} - \frac{x^4}{4})t^4  \nn\\

1376: D_5(t)&=& \frac{40573}{7680} t^{15} + \frac{213}{32} t^{14} + ( -\frac{5853}{512} + \frac{1463x}{128})t^{13} + (\frac{105x}{8}-\frac{507}{32})t^{12}  \nn\\

1377: && + (\frac{1835}{256}- \frac{487x}{32} + \frac{49 x^2}{16}) t^{11} + (\frac{397}{32}-\frac{159x}{8}+ 4 x^2 )t^{10} + (-\frac{1441}{2304}+\frac{217x}{64}-

1378: \frac{13x^2}{8} + \frac{9 x^3}{8}) t^{9} \nn\\

1379: && + (-\frac{109}{32} + \frac{31x}{4} - \frac{27x^2}{8} + \frac{3x^3}{2}) t^{8} + 

1380: (-\frac{1567}{3584} + \frac{33x}{32} - \frac{9x^2}{16} + \frac{x^4}{2}) t^{7}  \nn\\

1381: && + (-\frac{x}{2} + \frac{3x^2}{8} - \frac{x^3}{2} + \frac{3}{16} +  \frac{x^4}{2}) t^{6} + (\frac{107}{2560} - \frac{17x}{128} + \frac{x^2}{8} - \frac{x^3}{8} + \frac{x^5}{5})t^5.

1382: \label{asympol}

1383: \eeq

1384: The number N of terms to be subtracted must be high enough in order to absorb all possible divergent

1385: contributions into the groundstate energy. In our case N=5.

1386: The asymptotic contributions $A_i (s)$, $i=-1,...,5$ are defined as

1387: \beq

1388: A_{-1} (s) &=& 

1389: \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} 

1390: 2jd(j) \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1391: \right)^{-s}

1392: \frac{\sqrt{1+z^2} -1} z \nonumber\\

1393: A_0 (s) &=& 

1394: \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty}

1395: d(j) \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1396: \right)^{-s}

1397: \frac{\partial} {\partial z} \ln \frac{\sqrt{1+z^2} (1-t) } {z^2} 

1398: \nn\\

1399: A_i (s) &=& 

1400: \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty}

1401: d(j) \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1402: \right)^{-s}

1403: \frac{\partial} {\partial z}

1404: \frac{D_i (t)} {j^i}.  \label{aisanf}

1405: \eeq

1406: This completes the description of the zeta function. In the next section we will consider the divergent contributions

1407: in the vacuum energy. After that we will move to the renormalization process.

1408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1409: \subsection{Casimir contribution: Residue [$\zeta(-1/2)$]}

1410: 

1411: As a first step towards renormalization, let's start considering the divergent terms in the groundstate energy.

1412: By construction they are contained in the functions $A_i(s)$. We will discuss them separately following the approach 

1413: of \cite{bag},\cite{bekl96}.

1414: 

1415: 

1416: \subsubsection{Residue $A_{-1}(-1/2)$}

1417: 

1418: 

1419: The first asymptotic contribution reads

1420: \beq

1421: A_{-1} (s) &=& 

1422: \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} 

1423: 2jd(j) \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1424: \right)^{-s}

1425: \frac{\sqrt{1+z^2} -1} z

1426: \eeq

1427: 

1428: of which we need the analytical continuation to $s=-1/2$.

1429: With the substitution $t=(zj /R)^2 -m^2$, this expression results into

1430: the following one

1431: \begin{eqnarray}

1432: A_{-1} (s)

1433: &=& \frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi} \sum_{j =3/2}^{\infty} d(j) \int\limits _0 ^{\infty}

1434: dt\,\,\frac{t^{-s}}{t+m^2}\left\{

1435: \sqrt{j^2 +R^2 (t+m^2)} -j\right\}\nonumber\\

1436: &=&-\frac 1 {2\sqrt{\pi}}

1437:  \frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j) \int\limits _0 ^{\infty}

1438: dt\,\,t^{-s} \int\limits _0^\infty

1439: d\alpha \,\, e^{-\alpha (t+m^2)}\label{anhdaa2}\\

1440: & &\times\int\limits_0^{\infty}d\beta \,\,\beta ^{-3/2} \left\{

1441: e^{-\beta (j^2 +R^2 [t+m^2] ) } -e^{-\beta j^2}\right\},\nonumber

1442: \end{eqnarray}

1443: where the Mellin integral representation for the single factors has been

1444: used. As we see,

1445: the $\beta$-integral is well defined. In order to deal separately 

1446: with the two contributions in the $\beta$-integral, we introduce a regularization parameter

1447: $\delta$. In this way $A_{-1}(s)$ can be written as

1448: \begin{eqnarray}

1449: A_{-1} (s) =\lim_{\delta \to 0} \left[ A_{-1}^1 (s,\delta )

1450: +A_{-1} ^2 (s,\delta ) \right], \label{anhdaa3}

1451: \end{eqnarray}

1452: with

1453: \begin{eqnarray}

1454: A_{-1}^1 (s,\delta )

1455:  &=&-\frac 1 {2\sqrt{\pi}}

1456:  \frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j)

1457: \int\limits_0^\infty  d\alpha \,\,

1458:  e^{-\alpha m^2}

1459: \int\limits_0^{\infty}d\beta \,\,\beta ^{-3/2+\delta}e^{-\beta (j^2 +R^2

1460: m^2 ) }

1461: \int\limits _0 ^{\infty}

1462: dt\,\,t^{-s}e^{-t(\alpha +\beta R^2)}\nonumber

1463: \end{eqnarray}

1464: and

1465: \begin{eqnarray}

1466: A_{-1} ^2 (s,\delta ) =    \frac 1 {2\sqrt{\pi}} \Gamma (1-s)

1467: \frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi}    \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j)

1468: \int\limits_0^\infty  d\alpha \,\,

1469: e^{-\alpha m^2 }   \alpha^{s-1}\int\limits_0^{\infty}d\beta \,\,

1470: \beta ^{-3/2+\delta}e^{-\beta j^2}.

1471: \nonumber

1472: \end{eqnarray}

1473: 

1474: In $A_{-1}^1 (s,\delta

1475: )$ two of the integrals can be done, yielding

1476: \begin{eqnarray}

1477: A_{-1}^1 (s,\delta )

1478: &=& -\frac{R^{1-2\delta}}{2\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma (s)} \Gamma (s+\delta -1/2) \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j) \int\limits  _1 ^{\infty}

1479: dy\,\, y^{s -1} \left[ m^2 y + \left(\frac{j} R\right)^2

1480: \right]^{1/2-s-\delta}. \label{anhdaa4}

1481: \end{eqnarray}

1482: 

1483: Exploiting the identity

1484: 

1485: \beq

1486: \int\limits_0^\infty  dx \,\,

1487: \frac{x^{\alpha -1}}{(y+zx)^{s+ \epsilon}} = \frac{ \Gamma(\alpha) 

1488: \Gamma( s + \epsilon - \alpha)}{\Gamma(s+ \epsilon)} z^{- \alpha} y^{- \epsilon -s + \alpha},

1489: \eeq

1490: it is possible to rewrite $A_{-1} ^2 (s,\delta )$ in the form

1491: \begin{eqnarray}

1492: A_{-1} ^2 (s,\delta )&=& \frac{R^{1-2\delta}}{2\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma (s)}

1493: \Gamma (s+\delta -1/2)

1494: \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j) \int\limits  _0 ^{\infty}

1495: dx\,\, x^{s-1        }

1496: \left[ m^2 x +

1497: \left(\frac{j} R\right)^2 \right]^{1/2-s-\delta}.

1498: \label{anhdaa5}

1499: \end{eqnarray}

1500: 

1501: Adding up (\ref{anhdaa4}) and (\ref{anhdaa5}) yields

1502: \begin{eqnarray}

1503: A_{-1} (s) &=& \frac R {2\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma (s)}

1504: \Gamma (s -1/2) \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j) \int\limits  _0 ^{1}

1505: dx\,\, x^{s-1        }

1506: \left[ m^2 x +

1507: \left(\frac{j} R\right)^2 \right]^{1/2-s} \nn\\

1508: &=& \frac{R^{2s}}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\G (s-1/2)}{\G (s+1)}

1509:       \sum_{j=3/2}^\infty d(j) \left\{ \frac 1

1510:      {\left[j^2 +(mR)^2\right] ^{s-1/2}} \right.\nn\\

1511: & &\left.\hspace{1cm}\quad+\left( s-\frac 1 2 \right) (mR)^2

1512:            \int_0^1 dx \,\, \frac{x^s}{(j^2 +(mR)^2 x)^{s+1/2}} \right\},

1513: \label{anhdaa6}

1514: \eeq

1515: where in the last step a partial integration has been performed such that

1516: the $x$-integral is well behaved at $s=-1/2$.

1517: 

1518: This is a form suited for the treatment of the sum,

1519: which is performed using

1520: 

1521: \beq

1522: \sum_{\nu =1/2,3/2,...}^{\infty} \nu^{2n+1} \left(1+\left(\frac{\nu} x

1523: \right) ^2 \right) ^{-s} &=& \frac 1 2 \frac {n! \Gamma (s-n-1)}{\Gamma (s)}

1524: x^{2n+2} \label{dispari}\\

1525: & &\hspace{-25mm} +(-1)^n 2 \int\limits_0^x d\nu \,\, \frac{\nu^{2n+1} }

1526: {1+e^{2\pi\nu}  } \left( 1-\left( \frac{\nu} x \right)^2 \right) ^{-s} \nn\\

1527: & & \hspace{-25mm} +(-1)^n 2\cos (\pi s)

1528:  \int\limits_x^{\infty} d\nu \,\, \frac{\nu^{2n+1} }

1529: {1+e^{2\pi\nu}  } \left( \left( \frac{\nu} x \right)^2 -1

1530: \right) ^{-s}\nn

1531: \eeq

1532: for odd powers of $\nu$ and

1533: 

1534: \beq \sum_{\nu =1/2,3/2,...}^{\infty}

1535: \nu^{2n} \left(1+\left(\frac{\nu} x \right) ^2 \right) ^{-s} &=&

1536: \frac 1 2 \frac { \Gamma (n+1/2) \Gamma (s-n-1/2)}{\Gamma (s)}

1537: x^{2n+1} \label{pari}\\ & &\hspace{-25mm} -(-1)^n 2\sin (\pi s)

1538:  \int\limits_x^{\infty} d\nu \,\, \frac{\nu^{2n} }

1539: {1+e^{2\pi\nu}  } \left( \left( \frac{\nu} x \right)^2 -1

1540: \right) ^{-s} \nn

1541: \eeq

1542: for even powers of $\nu$.

1543: This formula as well as (\ref{dispari}) can only be applied for $Re(s)<1$, otherwise the integral diverges at the integration

1544: limit $\nu=x$.

1545: 

1546: Since the prefactor in (\ref{anhdaa6}) contains a pole at s=-1/2 an expansion of the integrand is necessary and 

1547: remembering that $d(j)=(2/3) (j^3 + \frac{3}{2} j^2 - \frac{j}{4} - \frac{3}{8})$, our final expression for the residue is found to be

1548: \beq

1549: \res A_{-1} (-1/2) &=& - \frac{457}{241920 \pi R} - \frac{17 m^2 R}{2880 \pi} + \frac{m^4 R^3}{144 \pi} + \frac{m^6 R^5}{180 \pi}.   

1550: \eeq

1551: 

1552: 

1553: 

1554: \subsubsection{Residue $A_{i}(-1/2)$, $i\geq 1$}

1555: 

1556: Let's start remembering the form of the asymptotic contributions for $i\geq 1$:

1557: \beq

1558: A_i (s) &=& 

1559: \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty}

1560: d(j) \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1561: \right)^{-s}

1562: \frac{\partial} {\partial z}

1563: \frac{D_i (t)} {j^i}.  

1564: \eeq

1565: We need to introduce some notation as follows:

1566:  \beq 

1567: D_i (t) =\sum_{a=0}^{2i}

1568: x_{i,a} t^{i+a}

1569: \label{eq2.26} 

1570: \eeq

1571: (where the relevant coefficients $x_{i,a}$ are explicitly listed in (\ref{asympol}) and 

1572: \beq 

1573: f(s;c;b) =\sum_{\nu =

1574: 1/2,3/2,\ldots} ^{\infty} j ^c \left( 1+ \left( \frac{j} {mR}

1575: \right ) ^2 \right) ^{-s-b}.\nn 

1576: \eeq

1577: With this notation we write

1578: \beq

1579: A_i(s)&=& \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty}

1580: \frac{d(j)}{j^i} \sum_{a=0}^{2i} x_{i,a} \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1581: \right)^{-s}

1582: \frac{\partial} {\partial z}

1583: t^{a+i}=  \nn \\

1584: &=& -\frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{a=0}^{2i} \left\{\frac{x_{i,a}m^{-2s}}{(mR)^{a+i}} \frac{\Gamma (s+ \frac{a+i}{2}) \Gamma (1-s)}{\Gamma (\frac{a+i}{2})} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j) j^a [1+(\frac{j}{mR})^2]^{-s-\frac{a+i}{2}}\right\}= \nn \\

1585: &=& -\frac{\sin (\pi s) \Gamma (1-s)} {m^{2s} \pi} \frac{2}{3} \sum_{a=0}^{2i} \left\{

1586:  \frac{x_{i,a}}{(mR)^{a+i}} \frac{\Gamma (s+ \frac{a+i}{2})}{\Gamma (\frac{a+i}{2})} 

1587: \left[f(s;3+a;\frac{i+a}{2}) + \frac{3}{2} f(s;2+a;\frac{i+a}{2}) \right. \right. \nn \\

1588: & & \left. \left. -\frac{1}{4} f(s;1+a;\frac{i+a}{2})-\frac{3}{8} f(s;a;\frac{i+a}{2}) \right]\right\},

1589: \eeq

1590: where we performed the z-integration using the identity (\cite{kirsten})

1591: \beq 

1592: \iinma t^n &=& -\mzs

1593: \frac{n}{2(mR)^n}\frac{\g s+\frac n 2 \right) \Gamma (1-s)}{\g

1594: 1+\frac n 2\right)}  \nu ^n \left[1+\numr

1595: \right]^{-s-\frac n 2}

1596: \label{eq2.27} 

1597: \eeq

1598: and we exploited the vanishing of the degeneracy factor for $j=1/2$.

1599: In order to evaluate the $f(s;a;b)$ for the relevant values in $s=-1/2$ we can use the following formulas:

1600: \begin{itemize}

1601:  \item the recurrence formula

1602:  \beq

1603: f(s;a;b) = (mR)^2 \left[ f(s;a-2;b-1)- f(s;a-2;b)\right];

1604: \label{recur}

1605: \eeq

1606:  \item formulas \ref{dispari} and \ref{pari}, valid for $\Re{s}<1$;

1607:  \item an extension of formulas \ref{dispari} and \ref{pari} to $\Re{s}<k+1\leq n+2$ obtained using partial integrations:

1608:  \beq

1609:  \sum_{\nu = 1/2}^{\infty} \nu^{2n+1} \left( 1+(\frac{\nu}{x})^2 \right) ^{-s} = 

1610: \frac{n! \Gamma (s-n-1) x^{2n+2}}{2 \Gamma (s)} - \delta_{k,n+1} 

1611: \frac{n! \Gamma (s-n-1)}{2 \Gamma (s)} x^{2n+2} \nn \\

1612: + 2(-1)^{k+n} \frac{\Gamma (s-k)}{\Gamma (s)} \int\limits_0^{x} d\nu \,\, \left[ \left( \frac{d}{d\nu} \frac{x^2}{2 \nu} \right)^k  \frac{\nu^{2n+1} }

1613: {1+e^{2\pi\nu}  } \right] \left( 1- \left(  \frac{\nu} x \right)^2 

1614: \right) ^{-s +k} \nn \\

1615: +2(-1)^n cos(\pi s) \frac{\Gamma(s-k)}{\Gamma (s)} \int\limits_x^{\infty} d\nu \,\, \left[ \left( \frac{d}{d\nu} \frac{x^2}{2 \nu} \right)^k  \frac{\nu^{2n+1} }

1616: {1+e^{2\pi\nu}  } \right] \left( \left( \frac{\nu} x \right)^2 -1 

1617: \right) ^{-s +k}

1618:  \eeq

1619:  for odd powers of $\nu$ and

1620:  \beq

1621:   \sum_{\nu = 1/2}^{\infty} \nu^{2n} \left( 1+(\frac{\nu}{x})^2 \right) ^{-s} = 

1622: \frac{\Gamma (n+1/2) \Gamma (s-n-1/2)}{2 \Gamma (s)} x^{2n +1} \nn \\

1623: -2(-1)^n sin(\pi s) \frac{\Gamma(s-k)}{\Gamma (s)} \int\limits_x^{\infty} d\nu \,\, \left[ \left( \frac{d}{d\nu} \frac{x^2}{2 \nu} \right)^k  \frac{\nu^{2n} }

1624: {1+e^{2\pi\nu}  } \right] \left( \left( \frac{\nu} x \right)^2 -1 

1625: \right) ^{-s +k}

1626:  \eeq

1627:  for even powers of $\nu$.

1628: \end{itemize}

1629: 

1630: 

1631: In this way it is possible to construct an explicit form for the asymptotic contributions and, in particular,

1632: our result for the residues is given by

1633: 

1634: \beq

1635: \res A_{1} (-1/2) &=&  - \frac{17m}{2880 \pi} + \frac{17}{11520 \pi R} - \frac{m^2 R}{288 \pi} + \frac{m^3 R^2}{24 \pi} + \frac{m^4 R^3}{144 \pi} + \frac{m^5 R^4}{12 \pi}\nn\\

1636: \res A_2 (-1/2) &=&  m (\frac{1}{64} + \frac{1}{16 \pi}) - \frac{1}{R} (\frac{1}{1024} + \frac{1}{192 \pi}) \nn\\

1637: & &+ m^2 R (\frac{19}{512} + \frac{1}{48 \pi}) + 

1638: (\frac{3}{32} + \frac{1}{4 \pi})m^3 R^2 + \frac{m^4 R^3}{16} \nn\\ 

1639: \res A_{3} (-1/2) &=& -m (\frac{1}{192} + \frac{7}{480 \pi}) + \frac{1}{R} (\frac{1}{3072} + 

1640: \frac{97}{241920 \pi}) -m^2 R (\frac{25}{1536} + \frac{565}{12096 \pi}) \nn \\

1641: & & -m^3 R^2 (\frac{3}{32} + \frac{41}{120 \pi}) - m^4 R^3 (\frac{1}{16}+ \frac{2}{9 \pi}) - \frac{m^5 R^4}{9 \pi} \nn\\ 

1642: \res A_{4} (-1/2) &=& -m (\frac{63}{4096} + \frac{11}{240 \pi}) + \frac{1}{R} (\frac{35}{65536} + 

1643: \frac{13}{40320 \pi}) -m^2 R (\frac{13}{256} + \frac{1}{6 \pi}) \nn \\

1644: & & -m^3 R^2 (\frac{3}{64} + \frac{1}{6 \pi}) - \frac{1}{32} m^4 R^3 \nn \\

1645: \res A_{5} (-1/2) &=& m (\frac{61}{12288} + \frac{37}{2240 \pi})  + \frac{1}{R} (\frac{23}{196608}- \frac{31}{2661120 \pi}) + m^2 R (\frac{23}{768}+ \frac{359}{3780 \pi})\nn \\

1646: & & + m^3 R^2 (\frac{3}{64} + \frac{181}{1260 \pi})  + m^4 R^3 (\frac{1}{32} + \frac{4}{45 \pi}) + \frac{2}{45 \pi} m^5 R^4.

1647: \eeq

1648: 

1649: 

1650: \subsubsection{Residue $A_{0}(-1/2)$}

1651: 

1652: This calculation will exploit the basic formulas we showed above and the Mellin integral representation.

1653: With the substitution $t=(x \nu/a)^2 - m^2$ we write

1654: \beq

1655: A_0 (s) &=& 

1656: \frac{\sin (\pi s)} {\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty}

1657: d(j) \int_{mR/j} ^{\infty} dz \left( \left( \frac{zj} R \right)^2 -m^2 

1658: \right)^{-s}

1659: \frac{\partial} {\partial z} \ln \frac{\sqrt{1+z^2} -1 } {z^2} = \nn \\

1660: &=& - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi} \sum_{j =3/2}^{\infty} d(j) \int\limits _0 ^{\infty}

1661: dt\,\,\frac{t^{-s}}{t+m^2}\left\{\frac{

1662: \sqrt{j^2 +R^2 (t+m^2)} -j}{\sqrt{j^2 +R^2 (t+m^2)}}\right\} \nn \\

1663: &=& \frac 1 {2\sqrt{\pi}}

1664:  \frac{\sin (\pi s)}{\pi} \sum_{j=3/2}^{\infty} d(j)j \int\limits _0 ^{\infty}

1665: dt\,\,t^{-s} \int\limits _0^\infty

1666: d\alpha \,\, e^{-\alpha (t+m^2)}\label{anhdaa2}\\

1667: & &\times\int\limits_0^{\infty}d\beta \,\,\beta ^{-1/2} \left\{

1668: e^{-\beta (j^2 +R^2 [t+m^2] ) } -e^{-\beta j^2}\right\},\nonumber

1669: \eeq

1670: where in the last step the Mellin representation for the single factors has been used

1671: and, in particular, we exploited 

1672: \beq

1673: \frac{

1674: \sqrt{j^2 +R^2 (t+m^2)} -j}{\sqrt{j^2 +R^2 (t+m^2)}}  = -\frac{j}{\sqrt{\pi}} \int\limits_0^{\infty}d\beta \,\,\beta ^{-1/2} \left\{

1675: e^{-\beta (j^2 +R^2 [t+m^2] ) } -e^{-\beta j^2}\right\}.

1676: \eeq

1677: 

1678: In this way we can closely follow the calculation discussed previously for $\mbox{Res}\ A_{-1} (-1/2)$.

1679: The asymptotic contribution is rewritten as

1680: \beq

1681: A_{0} (s) &=&- \frac{R^{2s}}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\G (s+1/2)}{\G (s+1)}

1682:       \sum_{j=3/2}^\infty d(j)j \left\{ \frac 1

1683:      {\left[j^2 +(mR)^2\right] ^{s+1/2}} \right.\nn\\

1684: & &\left.\hspace{1cm}\quad+\left( s+\frac 1 2 \right) (mR)^2

1685:            \int_0^1 dx \,\, \frac{x^s}{(j^2 +(mR)^2 x)^{s+3/2}} \right\}

1686: \label{azero}

1687: \eeq

1688: and the relevant residue is given by

1689: \beq

1690: \mbox{Res}\ A_0 (-1/2) = \frac{17}{1920 \pi R} + \frac{m^2 R}{16 \pi} + \frac{ m^4 R^3}{24 \pi}.

1691: \label{poles}

1692: \eeq

1693: 

1694: 

1695: \subsection{Casimir contribution: renormalization}

1696: For the discussion of the renormalization let us look for the divergent

1697: terms in the groundstate energy. Adding up the contributions calculated previously, the residue 

1698: for the zeta function is

1699: \beq

1700: \mbox{Res}\ \zeta (-1/2) = \frac{4m}{315 \pi} + \frac{41}{10395 \pi R}  - \frac{2 m^2 R}{45 \pi} 

1701: -\frac{23 m^3 R^2}{315 \pi} - \frac{7 m^4 R^3}{90 \pi} + \frac{m^5 R^4}{60 \pi} + \frac{m^6 R^5}{180 \pi}

1702: \label{poles}

1703: \eeq

1704: These terms form the minimal set of counterterms necessary in order to

1705: renormalize our theory.

1706:  

1707: We are led into a physical system consisting of two parts:

1708: \begin{enumerate}

1709: \item A classical system consisting of a spherical surface ('bag') with radius

1710:  $R$. Its energy reads:

1711: \beq

1712: E_{class} = a R^5 + b R^4 + c R^3 + d R^2 + e R + f + \frac{g}{R}.

1713: \label{n1}

1714: \eeq

1715: This energy is determined by the parameters: $a, b, c, d, e, f, g$.

1716: \item A spinor quantum field $\Psi (x)$ obeying the Dirac 

1717: equation 

1718: and the MIT boundary conditions 

1719: (\ref{2.3}) on the surface.  

1720: The quantum field has a ground state energy given by $E_0$, Eq.

1721: (\ref{grounden}).    

1722: \end{enumerate}

1723: Thus, the complete energy of the physical system is

1724: \beq

1725: E= E_{class} +E_0 \label{eges}

1726: \eeq

1727: and in this context the renormalization can be achieved by shifting the 

1728: parameters in $E_{class}$ by an amount which

1729: cancels the divergent contributions. 

1730: 

1731: First we perform a kind of minimal subtraction, where only the 

1732: divergent contribution is eliminated,

1733: \beq

1734: a &\to &a + \frac{m^6} {360 \pi}

1735: \frac 1 {s}

1736: \quad

1737: b  \,\to  \, b +\frac{m^5}{120 \pi} \frac 1 s\nn\\

1738: c  &\to &  c - \frac{7 m^4}{180 \pi} 

1739:  \frac 1 {s}

1740: \quad

1741: d\, \to \, d-\frac{23 m^3}{630 \pi} \frac 1 s

1742: \label{n8}\\

1743: e &\to &e - \frac{m^2} {45 \pi}

1744: \frac 1 {s}

1745: \quad

1746: f  \,\to  \, f +\frac{2m}{315 \pi} \frac 1 s\nn\\

1747: g  &\to &  g + \frac{41}{20790 \pi} 

1748:  \frac 1 {s} \nn

1749: \eeq

1750: The quantities $\alpha = \{a, b, c, d, e, f, g \}$ are a set of free parameters of

1751: the theory to be determined experimentally. In principle we are free

1752: to perform finite renormalizations at our choice of all the parameters. 

1753: 

1754: We find natural to perform two further renormalizations.

1755: First it is possible to determine the asymptotic behavior of the $A_i$ for $m\to\infty$. The finite pieces not vanishing in the

1756: limit $m\to \infty$ are all of the same type appearing in the classical 

1757: energy. Our first finite renormalization is such that those pieces are 

1758: cancelled. As a result, only the "quantum contributions" are finally included, 

1759: because, physically, a quantum field of infinite mass is not expected 

1760: to fluctuate. The resulting $A_i$ will be  called $A_i ^{(ren)}$. 

1761: 

1762: Concerning $Z$ we have constructed a numerical fit of $Z$ by a polynomial 

1763: of the form

1764: \beq

1765: P(m) = \sum_{i=0}^6 c_i m^i, \nn

1766: \eeq

1767: and then subtracted this polynomial from $Z$. As explained above, 

1768: this is nothing

1769: else than an ulterior finite renormalization. The result will be 

1770: denoted by $Z^{(ren)}$.

1771: 

1772: Summing up, we can write the complete energy as

1773: \beq

1774: E=E_{class} +E_0^{(ren)}, \label{egesend}

1775: \eeq

1776: where $E_{class}$ is defined as in  

1777: (\ref{n1}) with the renormalized parameters $\alpha$ 

1778: and $E_0^{(ren)}= Z^{(ren)} + \sum_{i=-1}^5 A_i^{(ren)}$. 

1779: 

1780: Figure \ref{grafico} shows the quantum contribution $E_0^{(ren)}$ as a function of the bag radius. Remarkably the Casimir contribution 

1781: of the massive spinor is stabilizing: the energy exhibits a minimum corresponding to a stable geometrical configuration. 

1782: 

1783: In the next section we will discuss the parameters of the model and the stabilization mechanism in greater detail.

1784: 

1785: \begin{figure}[t]

1786: \begin{center}

1787: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{dcs.eps}

1788: \caption{$E_0^{(ren)}$ as a function of the bag radius R for a proper choice of parameters (in particular m=1 has been assumed). Only the contribution j=3/2 has been included as the leading one.}

1789: \label{grafico}

1790: \end{center}

1791: \end{figure}

1792: 

1793: \section{Moduli stabilization and parameters space}

1794: 

1795: Is it possible to achieve a realistic model with a "natural" choice of the parameters? 

1796: To answer this question it is necessary to remember that

1797: our purpose is to stabilize the entire geometrical configuration of the system which amounts to stabilizing {\it both} moduli.

1798: As we already said, it is not possible 

1799: to introduce in a model ultralight scalar fields with a generic coupling with matter, since phenomenological

1800: constraints must be faced. In this model the two moduli interact with matter in a known way. In fact, we could parametrize the strength of this coupling,

1801: since we know explicitly the conformal factors (4.78), but our approach will be different: dangerous couplings 

1802: are kept under control because we are giving a (large enough) mass

1803: to the moduli. It seems now worthwhile to focus on the stabilization mechanism.

1804: 

1805: \subsection{R-modulus stabilization: the chameleon mechanism}

1806: 

1807: As we already mentioned in section 3, the possible interpretation of the R-modulus as a chameleon field

1808: has been investigated in \cite{radion}. Following their approach we will add a run-away bare potential for the radion

1809: in the form:

1810: 

1811: \begin{equation}\label{champot}

1812: V_{add}(R)= M^4 e^{\left(\frac{M}{m_{pl} R}\right)^n}

1813: \end{equation}

1814: where $M=10^{-3}$ eV in order to trigger acceleration now. It is not a

1815: quintessence potential since it does not converge to zero at

1816: infinity. It should be considered as a very flat potential which may 

1817: appear from some non-perturbative physics for the radion.

1818: 

1819: For the potential above, the minimum of the effective potential

1820: \begin{equation}

1821: V_{eff}(R) = V_{add}(R) + \rho_m (1 + \frac{\xi}{2} R^2)

1822: \end{equation}

1823: is given by

1824: \begin{equation}

1825: R_{min}^{n+2}=n\left(\frac{M}{m_{pl}}\right)^{n} \frac{V_{add}(R_{min})}{\xi \rho_m},

1826: \end{equation}

1827: (see formulas \ref{approx},\ref{fattori}).

1828: 

1829: For $V_{add}=O( M^4)$ this leads to a cosmological value for the radion field given by

1830: \begin{equation}

1831: R_{\infty}^{n+2}=O\left(\frac{M}{m_{pl}}\right)^{n}.

1832: \end{equation}

1833: Notice that $R_{\infty}=O(10^{-10})$ for $n=1$ implying that solar tests are

1834: automatically satisfied.

1835: 

1836: The mass of the radion at the minimum reads

1837: \begin{equation}\label{massarad}

1838: \frac{m^2}{H^2}= 3\xi \Omega_m \left[ n(n+2)  + n^2 (\frac{M}{m_{pl}})^n

1839:   \frac{1}{R^n} \right].

1840: \end{equation}

1841: The interesting regime is obtained for small distances, then the matter density is high and $m \gg H$, the field "sits" on 

1842: the minimum of the effective potential (i.e. the minimum acts as an attractor): the radion is stabilized. 

1843: 

1844: Although the chameleon mechanism does work also without runaway potentials \cite{gubserk}, 

1845: the presence of the potential \ref{champot} is crucial in our model. Had we considered only

1846: the classical potential \ref{poti} for the radion, we would have been forced to face the following problems:

1847: \begin{itemize}

1848: \item It is not possible to achieve the competition between the 

1849: potential ($V_{class} \sim Cosh(R)^{\frac{4-4 \alpha^2}{1+2 \alpha^2}}$) and the matter coupling (see formula \ref{fattori}). 

1850: \item The value $R=0$ for the radion is not forbidden by the classical potential. 

1851: The falling of the hidden brane into the naked singularity ($R=0$) must be avoided if our intention is to maintain 

1852: a supergravity approximation \cite{brax1}. 

1853: \end{itemize}

1854: 

1855: It seems noteworthy that the Q-modulus is not a chameleon 

1856: since it is not possible to achieve the desired competition between the potential ($V_{class}(Q) \sim Q^{-\frac{3}{\beta}}$) 

1857: and the coupling to matter ($A(Q) \sim Q^{-\frac{1}{2 \beta}}$). To stabilize the Q-modulus we suggest to exploit the 

1858: Casimir energy of the bulk spinor evaluated in the previous section. 

1859: 

1860: 

1861: \subsection{Q-modulus stabilization: the Casimir energy}

1862: The stabilization of the system is based on the presence of (A) {\it two} 

1863: scalar degrees of freedom (the positions of the two branes are parametrized

1864: independently) and of (B) a cosmological attractor 

1865: that pushes the hidden brane towards the singularity.

1866: 

1867: 

1868: As mentioned above, the Casimir energy of the massive spinor 

1869: guarantees a stable geometrical configuration for the 

1870: 5D bag. The connection 

1871: between the bag and the braneworld scenario is the conformal transformation (\ref{trconf}). 

1872: Had we had only one scalar field in the low energy description of the model, than 

1873: only the distance between the two branes would have been physically 

1874: relevant (consider the radion in Randall-Sundrum two branes model) or, equivalently, 

1875: it would have been possible to shift the zero of the fifth dimension: moving the two branes away in the bulk while keeping fixed the

1876: distance between them. In this case the conformal transformation (\ref{trconf})

1877: would not have mapped the two branes set up into a ball, since only the bulk singularity corresponds to the centre of the ball.

1878: 

1879: The second crucial ingredient is the presence of a cosmological 

1880: attractor that pushes the hidden brane towards the bulk singularity \cite{palma}. The visible brane evolution

1881: becomes independent of the hidden brane and the braneworld system is described by a {\it single}-scalar-tensor theory. 

1882: For this reason 

1883: we will assume a very small value for the R-modulus (the hidden brane is 

1884: close to the singularity/bag centre) in a late-time cosmology

1885: we are interested in. In this way we can "forget" about the R modulus (it is fixed at small values and stabilized by the chameleon

1886: mechanism) if the 

1887: efficiency of the attractor is high enough. The Q-modulus corresponds to the remaining scalar degree of freedom (position of the 

1888: visible brane/bag surface) and the last step in the stabilization process will be to add the Casimir energy

1889: as a stabilizing contribution for the bag surface. 

1890: 

1891: To proceed further, it would be necessary to study in full detail the role of the conformal transformation to the Einstein

1892: frame (i.e. the cocycle function, for a pedagogical treatment see \cite{kirsten}) and write the full moduli potential. 

1893: However, we will consider

1894: a reasonable value for the Q-modulus ($Q \sim 1$) for the discussion of the neutrino mass.

1895: 

1896: 

1897: \subsection{Parameters Space: Neutrino Dark Energy}

1898: 

1899: Here is a possible choice of parameters.

1900: We will proceed stepwise: \\

1901: 1)set the fundamental scale of gravity as 

1902: \beq

1903: k_5^2 = M_{fund}^{-3}, \\

1904: M_{fund} \sim M_{Planck} \sim 10^{18} GeV.

1905: \eeq

1906: \\

1907: 2)Choose $ \alpha^2 \lesssim 10^{-6}$

1908: in order to face with phenomenological constraints (\cite{palma, gonz}).

1909: \\

1910: 3)Set the tension scale and the 5D neutrino mass near the fundamental scale of gravity:\\

1911: \beq

1912: k \sim m \sim 10^{18} GeV.

1913: \eeq

1914: 4) The Newton's constant as measured by 

1915: Cavendish experiments in the visible brane is given by (see also \cite{palma}): 

1916:  \\

1917: \beq

1918: \frac{Q^2}{k k_5^2 (1+2 \alpha^2) a^2(\phi)}=\frac{1}{8 \pi G}= (10^{18} GeV)^2.

1919: \eeq

1920: \\

1921: 

1922: For the screening potential of the form (\ref{champot})  

1923: the mass scale has to be chosen such that $M \approx 10^{-3}$~eV if  

1924: the radion must be a dark energy candidate. This tuning is no more

1925: than that required by a cosmological constant.

1926: 

1927: 

1928: The classical potential (\ref{poti}) shows a scale given by

1929: \beq

1930: V_{class} \simeq \frac{6 (T-1) k}{k_5^2} e^{\frac{-12 \alpha^2 S}{1 + 2 \alpha^2}} \simeq 6 (T-1) M_{Planck}^4.

1931: \eeq

1932: \\

1933: The correct dark energy scale is recovered imposing the usual (cosmological constant) fine-tuning $T-1 \sim 10^{-120}$.\\

1934: 

1935: On cosmological distances, if we consider $n=15$ in the potential we obtain $R_{\infty} \sim 10^{-27}$. In this way the 

1936: neutrino mass is strongly suppressed by the large separation of the branes. In fact, choosing 

1937: \beq

1938: m=\frac{k}{20}

1939: \eeq

1940: and evaluating the neutrino mass in the Einstein frame for $\bar Q \sim 1$ and $\bar R \sim 10^{-27}$ (corresponding

1941: to the minimum of the moduli potential after the discussed stabilization), we can write

1942: \beq

1943: \tilde m_{\nu}= Y_5 f_0^R(\phi) v_b \frac{\sqrt{a(\phi)}}{Q} \sim 10^{-3} eV.

1944: \eeq

1945: 

1946: Remarkably, it is possible to obtain a meV-mass for neutrinos with a reasonable branes configuration in five dimensions.

1947: Happily, in the minimum $(\bar Q, \bar R)$ of the total potential we can write

1948: \beq

1949: \frac{V_{tot}^{1/4}(\bar Q,\bar R)}{\tilde m_{\nu}(\bar Q,\bar R)} = f(T, k_5, k, m, \alpha, M, n ) \sim 1,

1950: \eeq

1951: without fine-tuning the parameters (with the only exception of the usual cosmological constant fine-tuning, a 

1952: proper choice of $n=15$ in the potential and a small value of $\alpha$).

1953: With this last configuration the radion mass on cosmological distances is $m \sim 10 H$, the 

1954: field can roll and the neutrino mass is {\it variable} with time. Also, notice that the neutrino mass is {\it space}-dependent: 

1955: this can be a source of phenomenological consequences.

1956: 

1957: %\begin{figure}[t]

1958: %\centering

1959: %\includegraphics[width=10cm]{proviamotesto}

1960: %\caption{Total potential (classical + Casimir) for the Q modulus. 

1961: %The energy scale is fixed imposing $k=10^{30}$ (meV scale). We have chosen $\epsilon \simeq 6 \times 10^{-3} $ in (5.94).}

1962: %\end{figure}

1963: 

1964: \section{Conclusions}

1965: In this paper a braneworld model for neutrino Dark Energy has been presented. The model is a supersymmetric extension

1966: of the Randall-Sundrum two branes model. After supersymmetry breaking the system 

1967: becomes dynamical and a (classical) moduli potential is generated. 

1968: 

1969: In this article we have achieved the following results: \\

1970: 1) In our model a 4D neutrino mass as a function of two scalar 

1971: degrees of freedom (moduli) has been explicitly calculated rather than inserted by-hand.

1972: 

1973: 2) The moduli stabilization issue is addressed with a de Sitter geometry for the branes. The chameleon 

1974: mechanism is exploited to stabilize the radion following the approach of \cite{radion}. As far as the stabilization of the remaining

1975: modulus is concerned, we suggest to exploit the

1976: Casimir energy of massive neutrinos as a stabilizing contribution.

1977: 

1978: 3) A direct relationship has been established between neutrino mass scale and Dark Energy scale.

1979: We stress again that the only dynamical behaviour associated to moduli is encoded into the chameleon field R.

1980: Namely, on cosmological distances, the densities are tiny and the 

1981: radion can roll on cosmological time scales, while on smaller scales, 

1982: the chameleon acquires a large mass (radion stabilization).

1983: The neutrino mass is {\it variable} with time on cosmological distances and possible deviations

1984: from a pure cosmological constant behaviour can be observed in the DE sector 

1985: (we will further discuss these issues in a future work). The neutrino mass is also space dependent and this can imply

1986: phenomenological consequences.

1987: 

1988: 

1989: 

1990: It seems to us that this model suggests a stronger connection 

1991: between DE and neutrino physics. To the best of our knowledge it is the first attempt 

1992: of connecting neutrino mass to Dark Energy

1993: from the standpoint of brane models. 

1994: 

1995: \acknowledgements{Special thanks are due to Antonio Masiero and Massimo Pietroni. 

1996: They patiently guided me and they were a constant source of inspiration during the development of this article. }

1997: 

1998: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1999: \appendix

2000: 

2001: \section{D-polynomials}

2002: 

2003: In this appendix we collect the basic formulas necessary to obtain the explicit form of

2004: the polynomials \ref{asympol}.

2005: We start remembering the uniform asymptotic expansion of the Bessel functions $I_\nu (k)$ as $\nu, k \rightarrow \infty$ with 

2006: $\nu /k$ fixed. One has 

2007: 

2008: \beq I_{\nu} (\nu z) \sim \frac

2009: 1 {\sqrt{2\pi \nu}}\frac{e^{\nu \eta}}{(1+z^2)^{\frac 1

2010: 4}}\left[1+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{u_k (t)} {\nu

2011: ^k}\right], \nn

2012: \label{eq2.9} 

2013: \eeq 

2014: with $t=1/\sqrt{1+z^2}$ and $\eta=\sqrt{1+z^2}+\ln [z/(1+\sqrt{1+z^2})]$.

2015: The coefficients are determined by the recurrence formula \cite{abramo}

2016: \beq

2017: u_{k+1} (t) =\frac 1 2 t^2 (1-t^2) u'_k (t) +\frac 1 8

2018: \int\limits_0^t d\tau\,\, (1-5\tau^2 ) u_k (\tau ), \nn

2019: \label{eq2.10}

2020: \eeq 

2021: starting with $u_0 (t) =1$. As is clear, all the $u_k (t)$

2022: are polynomials in $t$.

2023: 

2024: Since boundary conditions involved Bessel functions and their derivatives, we need 

2025: also the expansion \cite{abramo}

2026: \beq

2027: I_{\nu} ' (\nu z )\sim

2028: \frac 1 {\sqrt{2\pi \nu}} \frac{e^{\nu \eta} (1+z^2)^{1/4}} z

2029: \left[1+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{v_k(t)}{\nu^k}\right], \nn \label{eq2.48}

2030: \eeq

2031: with the $v_k (t)$ determined by

2032: \beq

2033: v_k (t) = u_k (t) +t (t^2 -1) \left[

2034: \frac 1 2 u_{k-1} (t) +t u_{k-1} ' (t) \right]. \nn \label{eq2.49}

2035: \eeq

2036: 

2037: Exploiting the previous formulas the relevant asymptotics can be found. With the notation

2038: \beq

2039: \Sigma_1 = \left[1+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{u_k (t)} {\nu

2040: ^k}\right], \Sigma_2 = \left[1+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{v_k (t)} {\nu

2041: ^k}\right], mR=x \nn

2042: \eeq

2043: it reads

2044: 

2045: \beq

2046: && \ln[I^2_{j}(zj)(1 + \frac{1}{z^2}-\frac{2x}{z^2 j}) + I'^2_j(zj) + \frac{2}{zj}(x-j)I_j(zj)I'_j(zj)]\simeq \nn \\

2047: && \simeq \ln\left\{\frac{e^{2j \eta}(1+z^2)^{1/2}}{2 \pi j z^2} [(1+\frac{1}{z^2} - \frac{2x}{z^2 j}) \frac{z^2}{1+z^2} \Sigma_1^2 + \Sigma_2^2 +

2048:  \frac{2}{j} (x-j) \frac{1}{(1+z^2)^{1/2}} \Sigma_1 \Sigma_2]  \right\} = \nn \\

2049: &&= \ln\left\{(\frac{e^{2j \eta}(1+z^2)^{1/2}}{2 \pi j z^2} 2(1-t))\frac{(1-\frac{2xt^2}{j}) \Sigma_1^2 + \Sigma_2^2 +

2050: 2t \frac{x-j}{j} \Sigma_1 \Sigma_2 }{2(1-t)}  \right\}. \nn

2051: \eeq

2052: 

2053: In this way we are led to the definition of D-polynomials as follows

2054: \beq

2055: \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{D_k(x,t)}{j^k}=\ln\left\{\frac{1}{2(1-t)}[(1-\frac{2xt^2}{j}) \Sigma_1^2 + \Sigma_2^2 +

2056: 2t \frac{x-j}{j} \Sigma_1 \Sigma_2] \right\}. \nn

2057: \eeq

2058: 

2059: 

2060: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2061: \begin{thebibliography}{4}

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{1}S. Perlmutter et al., Nature \textbf{391}, 51 (1998); A. G. Riess

2064: et al., Astron. J. \textbf{116}, 1009 (1998); P. de Bernardis et al.,

2065: Nature \textbf{404}, 955 (2000); S. Hanay et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.

2066: \textbf{545}, L5 (2000); N. W. Alverson et al., Astrophys. J. \textbf{568},

2067: 38 (2002); D. N. Spergel et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. \textbf{148},

2068: 175 (2003).

2069: 

2070: \bibitem{quint-review}

2071: For recent reviews, see for example: 

2072: S.~M.~Carroll, Living Rev.\ Rel.\  {\bf 4} (2001) 1;

2073: P.~J.~E.~Peebles and B.~Ratra,

2074: %``The cosmological constant and dark energy,''

2075: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 75} (2003) 559;

2076: T.~Padmanabhan, Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 380} (2003) 235.

2077: 

2078: \bibitem{4}L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{62}, 043511 (2000); L. Amendola

2079: and D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys.Rev. D \textbf{64}, 043509 (2001);

2080: L. Amendola and D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys.Rev. D \textbf{66}, 043528

2081: (2002) . 

2082: 

2083: \bibitem{5}L. Amendola, M. Gasperini, D. Tocchini-Valentini and C. Ungarelli, Phys.Rev. D \textbf{67}, 043512 (2003); L. Amendola, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{342}, 221 (2003); M. Gasperini, hep-th/0310293,  in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on {\em Thinking, Observing and Mining the Universe}, Sorrento 2003, eds. G. Longo and G. Miele (World Scientific, Singapore), in press. 

2084: 

2085: \bibitem{5a}D. Comelli, M. Pietroni and

2086: A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{571}, 115 (2003);

2087: M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 103523 (2003); U. Franca and R.

2088: Rosenfeld, Phys.Rev.D {\bf 69} (2004) 063517;  G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J {\bf 604}, 1 (2004); A. V. Maccio et al. Phys. Rev. D \textbf{69}, 123516 (2004); M. Pietroni Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72} 043535 (2005).

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{5b}G. Huey and B. D. Wandelt, astro-ph/0407196.

2091: 

2092: \bibitem{amen} L. Amendola, M. Gasperini and F.Piazza, astro-ph/0407573.

2093: \bibitem{vamps} J.~A.~Casas, J.~Garcia-Bellido and M.~Quiros Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 9}, 1371 (1992);

2094: Greg W. Anderson, Sean M. Carroll, astro-ph/9711288.

2095: \bibitem{6}M. Gasperini, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{65},

2096: 023508 (2002).

2097: \bibitem{PT}F. Piazza and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP {\bf 0407},  004 (2004). 

2098: \bibitem{7}G. Veneziano, JHEP \textbf{0206}, 051 (2002). 

2099: \bibitem{gaspstab}M. Gasperini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 043510 (2001).

2100: \bibitem{uzan} J.P. Uzan, Rev.Mod.Phys.75:403,2003; E. Fischbach and C.L. Talmadge "The search for non-newtonian gravity" / Springer-Verlag, New York 1999;

2101: E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel and A.E. Nelson, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. {\bf 53} (2003) 77-121.

2102: \bibitem{bd}  P.~Jordan, {\em Schwerkaft und Weltall} (Vieweg, Braunschweig,

2103: 1955); M. Fierz, Helv. Phys. Acta {\bf 29}, 128 (1956); C.~Brans and

2104: R.H.~Dicke, Phys. Rev. {\bf 124}, 925 (1961).

2105: \bibitem{maeda}

2106: K.I. Maeda, Y. Fujii

2107: {\it The Scalar-Tensor theory of gravitation} - Cambridge University Press, 2003.

2108: 

2109: \bibitem{damour}

2110: T. Damour, gr-qc/9606079.

2111: 

2112: \bibitem{will}

2113: C.M. Will

2114: Living Rev.Rel.4:4,2001.

2115: 

2116: \bibitem{dam3a} T.~Damour and K.~Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 3436.

2117: (1993).

2118: 

2119: \bibitem{dam3b} T.~Damour and A.M.~Polyakov, Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B423},

2120: 532 (1994).

2121: 

2122: \bibitem{max} 

2123: N.~Bartolo and M.~Pietroni, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 023518.

2124: 

2125: \bibitem{tracker}

2126: A.~R.~Liddle and R.~J.~Scherrer,

2127:  %``A classification of scalar field potentials with cosmological scaling

2128: %solutions,''

2129: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 023509;

2130: I.~Zlatev, L.~M.~Wang and P.~J.~Steinhardt,

2131: %``Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant,''

2132: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82} (1999) 896;

2133: P.~J.~Steinhardt, L.~M.~Wang and I.~Zlatev,

2134: %``Cosmological Tracking Solutions,''

2135: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 123504;

2136: B.~Ratra and P.~J.~E.~Peebles,

2137: %``Cosmological Consequences Of A Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field,''

2138: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37} (1988) 3406;

2139: P.~J.~E.~Peebles and B.~Ratra,

2140: %``Cosmology With A Time Variable Cosmological 'Constant',''

2141: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 325} (1988) L17.

2142: 

2143: \bibitem{catena}

2144: R. Catena, N. Fornengo, A. Masiero, M. Pietroni, F. Rosati

2145: Phys.Rev.D {\bf 70} (2004) 063519.

2146: 

2147: 

2148: \bibitem{caffe2}

2149: A. Coc, K. A. Olive, J.P. Uzan, E. Vangioni, astro-ph/0601299.

2150: 

2151: \bibitem{justin} J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 93}, 171104 (2004); J. Khoury and A. Weltman, 

2152: Phys.Rev.D{\bf 69}, 044026 (2004).

2153: 

2154: \bibitem{fnw}

2155: R. Fardon, A.E. Nelson and N. Weiner, JCAP 0410:005,2004  [astro-ph/0309800].

2156: 

2157: \bibitem{peccei}

2158: R. Peccei Phys.Rev. D {\bf 71} 023527 (2005) [hep-ph/0411137].

2159: 

2160: \bibitem{neut}

2161: P. Gu, X. Wang, X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 087301 (2003);

2162: P. Q. Hung, H. Pas Mod.Phys.Lett.A20:1209-1216,2005 [astro-ph/0311131];

2163: X. Bi, P. Gu, X. Wang, X. Zhang Phys.Rev. D {\bf 69} 113007 (2004) [hep-ph/0311022];

2164: P. Gu and X.J. Bi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 063511 (2004);

2165: D.B. Kaplan, A.E. Nelson and N. Weiner Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 93} 091801 (2004) [hep-ph/0401099];

2166: H. Li, Z. Dai, X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 113003 (2005);

2167: X. Zhang, hep-ph/0410292;

2168: E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, hep-th/0411188;

2169: X. Bi, B. Feng, H. Li, X. Zhang hep-ph/0412002;

2170: R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall, S.J. Oliver, A. Strumia Phys.Lett.B {\bf 625} 189-195 (2005) [hep-ph/0505124];

2171: M. Cirelli, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay, Nucl.Phys.B {\bf 719} 219-233 (2005) [hep-ph/0503028];

2172: R. Takahashi, M. Tanimoto hep-ph/0507142;

2173: R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson, N. Weiner hep-ph/0507235;

2174: N. Afshordi, M. Zaldarriaga, K. Kohri Phys.Rev.D {\bf 72} 065024 (2005) [astro-ph/0506663];

2175: A.W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D.F. Mota, D. Tocchini-Valentini, astro-ph/0503349;

2176: M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson, W. Winter, hep-ph/0508175;

2177: H. Li, B. Feng, J. Q. Xia, X. Zhang, astro-ph/0509272;

2178: V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant, hep-ph/0509163;

2179: V. Barger, P. Huber, D. Marfatia, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 95} 211802 (2005) [hep-ph/0502196];

2180: R. Horvat, astro-ph/0505507;

2181: N. Weiner, K. Zurek, hep-ph/0509201;

2182: M. Honda, R. Takahashi, M. Tanimoto, hep-ph/0510018;

2183: P. Gu, X.J. Bi, X. Zhang, hep-ph/0511027;

2184: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, P.C. de Holanda, R. Zukanovich Funchal, hep-ph/0511093;

2185: T. Schwetz, W. Winter, hep-ph/0511177;

2186: P. Gu, X.J. Bi, B. Feng, B.L. Young, X. Zhang, hep-ph/0512076;

2187: A. W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D.F. Mota, D. Tocchini-Valentini, astro-ph/0512367;

2188: R. Takahashi, M. Tanimoto, astro-ph/0601119.

2189: 

2190: \bibitem{caffe}

2191: Y. V. Dumin, astro-ph/0507381; L. Iorio, gr-qc/0511137.

2192: 

2193: \bibitem{RS1} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

2194:  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 3370.

2195: \bibitem{RS2} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

2196:  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 4690.

2197:  

2198: \bibitem{extra}

2199: V.A. Rubakov Phys.Usp. 44 (2001) 871-893/ Usp.Fiz.Nauk 171 (2001) 913-938; G.Gabadadze hep-ph/0308112;

2200: C. Csaki hep-ph/0404096; R. Maartens, Living Rev.Rel. {\bf 7}, 7 (2004); 

2201: Ph. Brax, C. van de Bruck and A.-C. Davis, Rept.Prog.Phys. {\bf 67}, 2183 (2004).

2202: 

2203: \bibitem{HW}

2204: P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 460} (1996) 506; Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 475} (1996) 94.

2205: \bibitem{witten}

2206: E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 471} (1996) 135. 

2207: 

2208: \bibitem{brax} P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.C. Davis, C.S. Rhodes, Phys.Rev.D {\bf 67}, 023512 (2003). 

2209: \bibitem{brax1} Ph. Brax and A.-C. Davis, Phys.Lett.B{\bf 497}, 289 (2001).

2210: 

2211: \bibitem{gionni}

2212: C. Johnson, {\it D-branes}, Cambridge University Press (2003).

2213: \bibitem{gonz} G.A. Palma and A.-C. Davis, Phys.Rev.D {\bf 70}, 064021 (2004);

2214: G.A. Palma and A.-C. Davis, Phys.Rev.D {\bf 70}, 106003 (2004).

2215: \bibitem{baggerredi} J. Bagger and M. Redi, JHEP {\bf 0404} (2004) 031. 

2216: \bibitem{marsiglia}

2217: Ph. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.C. Davis and C.S. Rhodes, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0309180;

2218: Ph. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.C. Davis and C.S. Rhodes, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0309181.

2219: 

2220: \bibitem{casimir}

2221: K.A. Milton {\it The Casimir effect - Physical manifestation of the zero-point energy}, World Scientific 2001;

2222: K.A. Milton hep-th/0406024;

2223: D.V. Vassilevich, Phys. Rep. {\bf 388} (2003) 279;

2224: M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, V.M. Mostepanenko, Phys. Rep. {\bf 353} (2001) 1.

2225: 

2226: \bibitem{TEN} E.~Elizalde, {\it Ten physical applications of spectral zeta 

2227: functions}, Lect.\ Notes Phys.\ {\bf M35} (1995).

2228: \bibitem{kirsten}

2229: K. Kirsten, {\it Spectral functions in mathematics and physics},Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2002.

2230: E. Elizalde, S.D. Odintsov, A. Romeo, A.A. Bytsenko, S. Zerbini, {\it Zeta regularization techniques with applications}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.

2231: \bibitem{MOSS2} I. G. Moss in {\it The Future of Theoretical Physics}, essays in 

2232: honour of S. W. Hawking's 60th birthday (Cambridge CUP).

2233: \bibitem{buchbinder}

2234: E.I. Buchbinder and B.A. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 086010 (2004).

2235: 

2236: \bibitem{webster}

2237: S.L. Webster and A-C. Davis, hep-th/0410042.

2238: 

2239: \bibitem{grossman} Y. Grossman and M. Neubert, Phys.Lett. B {\bf 474} (2000),361-371.

2240: \bibitem{naked} Ph. Brax and A.C. Davis, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 513}: 156-162 (2001).

2241: \bibitem{radion} Ph. Brax, C. van de Bruck and A.C. Davis, JCAP {\bf 0411} 004 (2004).

2242: \bibitem{scalarf}

2243: W.D. Goldberger, I.Z. Rothstein, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 491} 339 (2000);

2244: R. Hofmann, P. Kanti, M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 124020 (2001);

2245: A.A. Saharian, M.R. Setare, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 552}, 119 (2004);

2246: A. Knapman, D.J. Toms, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 044023 (2004).

2247: \bibitem{GPT} J.~Garriga, O.~Pujol\`{a}s and T.~Tanaka,

2248:  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 605} (2001) 192.

2249:  \bibitem{FT} A.~Flachi and D.~J.~Toms Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 610} (2001) 144.

2250: \bibitem{FMT} A.~Flachi, I.~G.~Moss and D.~J.~Toms, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} 

2251: (2001) 153.

2252: \bibitem{FMT2} A.~Flachi, I.~G.~Moss and D.~J.~Toms, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} 

2253: (2001) 105029.

2254: \bibitem{detuned}

2255: Ph. Brax, N. Chatillon, JHEP {\bf 0312} (2003) 026.

2256: \bibitem{WN} W.~Naylor and M.~Sasaki, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 542} (2002) 289.

2257: \bibitem{fermionc}

2258: I.G. Moss, W. Naylor, W. Santiago-German, M.Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 125010 (2003).

2259: \bibitem{norman}

2260: J.P. Norman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 125015 (2004).

2261: \bibitem{susyrs}

2262: R.~Altendorfer, J.~Bagger and D.~Nemeschansky, Phys.\ Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 125025

2263: [arXiv:hep-th/0003117]; A.~Falkowski, Z.~Lalak and S.~Pokorski, Phys.\ Lett.\

2264: B {\bf 491} (2000) 172 [arXiv:hep-th/0004093]; E.~Bergshoeff, R.~Kallosh and A.~Van Proeyen, JHEP {\bf 0010} (2000) 033

2265: [arXiv:hep-th/0007044]; M. Zucker, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 024024 [arXiv:hep-th/0009083]; A. Falkowski, Z. Lalak and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 509} (2001) 337

2266: [arXiv:hep-th/0009167]; A.~Falkowski, Z.~Lalak and S.~Pokorski, Nucl. Phys. B

2267: {\bf 613} (2001) 189-217 [arXiv:hep-th/0102145]; J. Bagger, D. Nemeschansky and R.-J. Zhang, JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001)

2268: 057 [arXiv:hep-th/0012163]; J. Bagger and D. Belyaev, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 025004

2269: [arXiv:hep-th/0206024]; P.~Brax and Z.~Lalak, Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 33} (2002)

2270: 2399 [arXiv:hep-th/0207102]; Z.~Lalak and R.~Matyszkiewicz, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 649} (2003) 389

2271: [arXiv:hep-th/0210053]; Z. Lalak and R. Matyszkiewicz, Phys.Lett. B {\bf 562} (2003) 347-357

2272: [arXiv:hep-th/0303227]; J. Bagger and D. Belyaev, JHEP

2273: {\bf 0306} (2003) 013 [arXiv:hep-th/0306063].

2274: \bibitem{GS} J.~Garriga and M.~Sasaki, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 043523.

2275: \bibitem{GEN} U.~Gen and M.~Sasaki, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 105} (2001) 59.

2276: \bibitem{MOSS} I. G. ~Moss, ``Quantum theory, black holes and inflation", {\it 

2277: Wiley, (1996)}.

2278: \bibitem{mit}

2279: A. Chodos, R.L. Jaffe. K. Johnson, C.B. Thorn and V. Weisskopf,

2280: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 9} (1974) 3471; A. Chodos, R.L. Jaffe. K. Johnson and C.B. Thorn,

2281: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10} (1974) 2599.

2282: \bibitem{bag}

2283: E. Elizalde, M. Bordag and K. Kirsten,  J.Phys.A31:1743-1759,1998

2284: e-Print Archive: hep-th/9707083.

2285: \bibitem{bk}

2286: M. Bordag and K. Kirsten, hep-th/9501064.

2287: \bibitem{bek} 

2288: M. Bordag, E. Elizalde and K. Kirsten, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 37} (1996) 895. 

2289: \bibitem{bekl96}

2290: M. Bordag, E. Elizalde, K. Kirsten and S. Leseduarte, Phys.Rev.D {\bf 56} 4896-4904,1997 

2291: e-Print Archive: hep-th/9608071.

2292: \bibitem{begk}

2293: M. Bordag, E. Elizalde, B. Geyer and K. Kirsten, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 179}

2294: (1996) 215.

2295: 

2296: \bibitem{bdk}

2297: M. Bordag, S. Dowker and K. Kirsten,  Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 182} (1996) 371.

2298: 

2299: \bibitem{abdk}

2300: J. Apps, M. Bordag, S. Dowker and K. Kirsten, Class.Quant.Grav. {\bf 13} (1996) 2911-2920.

2301: 

2302: \bibitem{eli1}  

2303: E. Elizalde, M. Lygren and D.V. Vassilevich,

2304: %{\it Antisymmetric tensor fields on spheres: functional determinants

2305: %and non-local counterterms},

2306:  J. Math. Phys. {\bf 37} (1996) 3105.

2307: \bibitem{Mth}

2308: I. Moss, J.P. Norman, JHEP {\bf 0409} (2004) 020.

2309: 

2310: \bibitem{eli2}

2311: E. Elizalde, M. Lygren and D.V. Vassilevich,

2312: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 183} (1997) 645.

2313: 

2314: \bibitem{stuart}

2315: J. Dowker and K. Kirsten, Commun.Anal.Geom. 7 (1999) 641-679 [hep-th/9608189].

2316: \bibitem{GPT2} J.~Garriga, O.~Pujol\`{a}s and T.~Tanaka, Nucl.Phys.B {\bf 655} (2003) 127-169.

2317: \bibitem{FGPT}

2318: A.~Flachi, J.~Garriga, O.~Pujolas and T.~Tanaka, JHEP {\bf 0308} (2003) 053.

2319: \bibitem{palma} G.A. Palma, hep-th/0511170.

2320: \bibitem{gubserk} S.S. Gubser and J. Khoury,  Phys.Rev.D {\bf 70} (2004) 104001.

2321: \bibitem{abramo}

2322: M.~Abramowitz and I.A.~Stegun.

2323: {\em Handbook of Mathematical Functions}.

2324: Dover, New York,  (1970).

2325: 

2326: 

2327: 

2328: 

2329: 

2330: 

2331: 

2332: \bibitem{ENOO} E.~Elizalde, S.~Nojiri, S.~D.~Odintsov and S.~Ogushi, Phys.Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 063515.

2333: \bibitem{damournord} T. Damour and K. Nordtvedt, Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 70}, 2217 (1993).

2334: \bibitem{cosmocham} Ph. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.C. Davis, J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys.Rev.D {\bf 70}, 123518 (2004).

2335: \bibitem{dpv} T.~Damour, F.~Piazza and G.~Veneziano, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 046007;

2336: T.~Damour, F.~Piazza and G.~Veneziano, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 081601.

2337: 

2338: 

2339: 

2340: 

2341: \end{thebibliography}

2342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2343: \end{document}\Documents\Documents

2344: