1: \chapter{Flat Multi-brane Constructions}
2: \label{RS}
3:
4:
5: \section{Introduction}
6:
7:
8:
9: The importance of the RS construction consists of two main features:
10: The first is that in the context of this model gravity is localized and
11: second is the fact that it provides a geometrical mechanism to
12: generate the hierarchy between the Plank and electroweak energy
13: scales .
14: This model has also attracted a lot of
15: interest since it belong to the class of brane-world models which
16: provide an alternative framework within which other problems of particle
17: physics and cosmology can be addressed.
18: In this chapter we will review the prototype model and examine the new
19: physics associated with extensions of this model.
20:
21:
22:
23: \section{Localization of Gravity}
24:
25:
26: The key feature of the RS model that makes gravity localized, is the
27: non-trivial background geometry. Thus, let us start building the model based
28: on this hint.
29: For simplicity let us adopt the brane-world picture where all the SM
30: fields are confined on a three dimensional sub-manifold (brane). Also
31: for the moment we assume that there are no other, neutral under the SM
32: , states in the bulk. Given the previous assumptions, all new physics
33: will come from the gravitational sector of the theory.
34: Our intention is to study the dynamics of gravity in a non-trivial background geometry.
35: Non-trivial geometry requires some energy density
36: distribution in order to be created.
37: The simplest case is to assume a homogeneous distribution of energy
38: density in the bulk, that is, the five dimensional bulk is filled with
39: energy density \textit{i.e.} cosmological constant
40: $\Lambda$.
41: Since gravity
42: has the characteristic that it creates the background in which the
43: graviton propagates, we have first to solve the classical Einstein's
44: equations in order to find the vacuum solution and then perturbe it in
45: order to study the dynamics.
46: The action set-up describing five dimensional gravity with a bulk
47: cosmological constant is:
48: \be
49: S=\int d^4 x \int_{-L_1}^{L_1} dy \sqrt{-G}
50: \{2 M^3 R - \Lambda \}
51: \ee
52: where $L_{1}$, $-L_{1}$ are the boundaries of our one dimensional manifold (however
53: in principle we can have $L_{1}=\infty$), and $M$ the fundamental scale of the five
54: dimensional theory. The extra variable $y$ which
55: parameterizes the extra dimension is thus taking values in the region $[-L_{1},L_{1}]$
56: The variation of action, in respect to the metric leads to the Einstein equations:
57: \be
58: R_{MN}-\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R=-\frac{\Lambda}{4M^3}
59: G_{MN}
60: \ee
61: In the case that $\Lambda=0$, the five dimensional
62: spacetime is flat and gravity is not localized, according to the
63: arguments presented in Chapter \ref{intro}.
64: An example of this case is the large extra dimensions - type
65: models where the zero mode and the KK states that emerge from the
66: dimensional reduction procedure are not localized but they spread in
67: the extra dimension (in this case $L_{1}$ is bounded from above).
68: However for $\Lambda \ne 0$, we have to solve the Einstein's
69: equations in order to find the non-trivial vacuum solution.
70: We are trying to find a solution by making the simple ansatz which has
71: the property that the hypersurfaces $y=ct.$ are flat:
72: \be
73: ds^2=e^{-2\sigma(y)}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2
74: \label{ansatzrs+-+}
75: \ee
76: Here the ``warp'' function $\sigma(y)$ is essentially a conformal
77: factor that rescales the 4D component of the metric. A straightforward
78: calculation gives us:
79: \ba
80: R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2}G_{\mu \nu} R&=&-3\sigma''e^{-2 \sigma}
81: \eta_{\mu \nu} + 6 (\sigma ')^{2} e^{-2 \sigma}
82: \eta_{\mu \nu} \\
83: R_{55}-\frac{1}{2}G_{55} R&=& 6 (\sigma ')^{2}
84: \ea
85: Equating the latter to the energy momentum tensor and assuming that
86: $\Lambda<0$\footnote{This choice results to $AdS_{5}$ vacuum solution.
87: This choice is made so that warp factor $e^{\sigma(y)}$ is a fast
88: varying function of the $y$ coordinate - giving the possibility of
89: solving the hierarchy problem, as we will see.} we get the solution:
90: \be
91: \sigma(y)= \pm ky
92: \ee
93: where $
94: k=\sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda}{24M^3}}$ is a measure of the curvature of the bulk.
95: This describes the five dimensional $AdS$ spacetime that the negative
96: cosmological constant creates. Note that the previous solution is
97: valid . The characteristic of the above solution
98: is that, the length scales change exponentially along the extra
99: dimension.
100:
101: Now let us examine the graviton dynamics in the previous background.
102: This is
103: determined by considering the (linear) fluctuations of the metric of the
104: form:
105: \be
106: ds^2=\left[e^{-2\sigma(y)}\eta_{\mu\nu} +\frac{2}{M^{3/2}}h_{\mu\nu}
107: (x,y)\right]dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2
108: \label{perturbrs+-+}
109: \ee
110: We expand the field $h_{\mu\nu}(x,y)$ in graviton and KK states plane waves:
111: \be
112: h_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}(x)\Psi^{(n)}(y)
113: \ee
114: where
115: $\left(\partial_\kappa\partial^\kappa-m_n^2\right)h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}=0$
116: and fix the gauge as
117: $\partial^{\alpha}h_{\alpha\beta}^{(n)}=h_{\phantom{-}\alpha}^{(n)\alpha}=0$.
118: In order the above to be valid the zero mode and KK wavefunctions should obey the
119: following second order differential equation:
120: \be
121: -\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2 \Psi^{(n)}(y) }{dy^2}+2
122: (\sigma')^{2} \Psi^{(n)}(y)-\frac{1}{2}e^{2 \sigma} m_{n}^{2} \Psi^{(n)}(y)=0
123: \ee
124: This for $m_{0}=0$ (massless graviton) gives
125: \be
126: \Psi^{(0)}(y)=e^{\pm ky}
127: \ee
128: From the previous equation we see that the profile of the wavefunction
129: is non-trivial. This is an important result: the non-zero energy
130: distribution ($k \ne 0$) induces non-trivial profile
131: to wavefunction of the zero mode (and KK states).
132: However the zero mode is not localized since the
133: wavefunction is not normalizable (the zero mode is interpreted as the
134: 4-d graviton and thus its presence in this minimal model is essential
135: for recovering the 4-d Newton's law).
136:
137: \subsection{The Single Brane Model (RS2)}
138:
139: Let us try to modify the previous solution in a way that the graviton
140: is normalizable. The one solution we considered so far is of the form:
141: $\Psi^{(0)}(y)=e^{- ky}$. This solution has a good behaviour for $y
142: \rightarrow \infty$ however in diverges badly for $y
143: \rightarrow - \infty$. The other solution, $\Psi^{(0)}(y)=e^{+ ky}$,
144: has the opposite behaviour. Thus one possibility is to match these two
145: different solutions at $y=0$ \textit{i.e.}:
146: \be
147: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
148: \sigma(y) = \left\{\begin{array}{cl} -ky &y\in[0,\infty)\\
149: ky &y\in(- \infty,0]\\ \end{array}
150: \right.
151: \
152: \ee
153: However in this case the function $\sigma'(y)$ is not continuous at
154: $y=0$. This implies that
155: \be
156: \sigma''(y)=2k \delta (y)
157: \ee
158: Note that the latter choice of solution is equivalent to imposing
159: $Z_{2}$ symmetry (identification $y \rightarrow -y$)
160: in the extra dimension around the point $y=0$ (the extra dimension has
161: thus the geometry of an orbifold with one fixed point at $y=0$), and choosing that the
162: graviton has even parity under the reflections $y \rightarrow -y$.
163: Given that the term $\sigma''(y)$ appears in the Einstein equations,
164: in order this solution to be consistent we
165: have to include a brane term in the action. The action in this case
166: should be:
167: \be
168: S=\int d^4 x \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} dy \sqrt{-G}
169: \{-\Lambda + 2 M^3 R\}-\int_{y=0}d^4xV_{0}\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(0)}}
170: \ee
171: where $\hat{G}^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}$ is the induced metric on the brane
172: and $V_{0}$ its tension.
173: The Einstein equations that arise from this
174: action are:
175: \be
176: R_{MN}-\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R=-\frac{1}{4M^3}
177: \left(\Lambda G_{MN}+
178: V_{0}\frac{\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(0)}}}{\sqrt{-G}}
179: \hat{G}^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}\delta_M^{\mu}\delta_N^{\nu}\delta(y)\right)
180: \ee
181: in this case in order to find a solution,
182: the tension of the brane has to be tuned to $V_0=-\Lambda/k>0$.
183:
184:
185:
186: The four-dimensional effective theory now follows by considering the
187: massless fluctuations of the vacuum metric (i.e. $g_{\mu \nu}=e^{-2k|y|}(\eta_{\mu \nu}+h_{\mu \nu}(x))$).
188: In order to get the scale of gravitational interactions, we focus on
189: the curvature term from which we can derive that :
190: \begin{equation}
191: S_{eff} \supset \int d^4 x \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} d y ~
192: 2 M^3 e^{-2 k |y|} \sqrt{-g} ~R
193: \end{equation}
194: where $R$ denotes the four-dimensional Ricci scalar
195: made out of
196: $g_{\mu \nu}(x)$.
197: We can
198: explicitly perform the $y$ integral to obtain a purely four-dimensional
199: action. From this we derive
200: \begin{equation}
201: \label{effplanck1}
202: M_{Pl}^2 = M^3 \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} dy e^{-2 k |y|} =
203: \frac{M^3}{k}
204: \end{equation}
205: The above formula tells us that the
206: three mass scales $M_{\rm Pl}$, $M$, $k$ can be taken to be of the same
207: order. Thus we take $k\sim {\mathcal {O}}(M)$ in order
208: not to introduce a new hierarchy, with the additional restriction
209: $k<M$ so that the bulk curvature is small compared to the 5D Planck
210: scale so that we can trust our solution.
211:
212:
213: The corresponding differential equation in this case takes the form
214: Schr\"{o}dinger equation:
215: \be
216: \left\{-
217: \frac{1}{2}\partial_z^2+V(z)\right\}\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)=\frac{m_n^2}{2}\hat{\Psi
218: }^{(n)}(z)
219: \ee
220: with the corresponding potential
221: \be
222: \hspace*{0.5cm} V(z)=\frac{15k^2}{8[g(z)]^2}-
223: \frac{3k}{2g(z)} \delta(z)
224: \ee
225: when new variables and wavefunction in the above equation are defined as:
226: \be
227: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
228: z\equiv\left\{\begin{array}{cl}\frac{e^{ky}-1}{k}&y\in[0,\infty)\\-\frac{e^{-ky}-1}{k}&y\in[-
229: \infty,0]\end{array}\right.
230: \
231: \ee
232: \be
233: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\equiv \Psi^{(n)}(y)e^{\sigma/2}
234: \ee
235: where we have defined the function $g(z)$ as
236: $g(z)\equiv k|z|+1$.
237: In this case the zero mode ($m_{0}=0$) has the form:
238: \be
239: \hat{\Psi}^{(0)}=\frac{A}{[g(z)]^{3/2}}= A e^{-3 \sigma(y) /2}
240: \ee
241: Given the form of $\sigma(y)$, it is obvious that the above state is normalizable.
242: The
243: normalization condition is
244: \be
245: \displaystyle{\int_{- \infty}^{ \infty }
246: dz\left[\hat{\Psi}^{(0)}(z)\right]^2=1}
247: \ee
248: The rest of the spectrum consists of a gapless (starting from
249: $m=0$) continuum of KK states with wavefunctions:
250: \be
251: \hat{\Psi}(z,m)=\sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k}}\left[A_{1}
252: J_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)+A_
253: {2} Y_{2}\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)\right]
254: \ee
255: with normalization condition:
256: \be
257: \displaystyle{\int_{- \infty}^{ \infty }
258: dz \hat{\Psi}(z,m) \hat{\Psi}(z,m') =\delta(m,m')}
259: \ee
260:
261: The massless zero mode reproduces the $V(r) \propto \frac{1}{r}$ Newton's Law
262: potential while the continuum of KK states give small corrections.
263: A detailed calculation gives:
264: \begin{equation}
265: V(r) \sim G_N { m_1 m_2 \over r} +\int_0^{\infty} dm { G_N \over k}
266: { m_1 m_2 e^{- m r} \over r} {m \over k}.
267: \end{equation}
268: Note there is a Yukawa exponential suppression in the massive Green's functions
269: for $m > 1/r$, and the extra power of $m/k$ arises from the suppression of
270: continuum wavefunctions at $z = 0$.
271: The coupling $G_N/k$ in the second term is nothing but the fundamental
272: coupling of gravity, $1/M^3$.
273: Therefore, the potential behaves as
274: \begin{equation}
275: V(r) = G_N { m_1 m_2 \over r}\left(1+{1 \over r^2 k^2} \right)
276: \end{equation}
277: The latter shows that the theory produces an effective four-dimensional
278: theory of gravity. The leading term due
279: to the bound state mode is the usual Newtonian potential;
280: the KK modes generate an extremely
281: suppressed correction term, for $k$ taking the
282: expected value of order the
283: fundamental Planck scale and $r$ of the size
284: tested with gravity.
285:
286: Summarizing we have found that the set-up consisting of a single
287: positive tension flat brane embedded in an $AdS_{5}$ bulk
288: with $Z_{2}$ symmetry imposed can localize gravity in the sense that
289: the zero mode is peaked on the brane whereas it falls exponentially
290: away from it. This zero mode reproduces the Newton's potential.
291: The continuum KK states on the other hand are suppressed
292: near the brane and their presence results to small corrections in the Newton's potential.
293:
294:
295:
296: \subsection{The Two Brane Model(RS1)}
297:
298: We can make the previous one brane model compact by cutting the extra dimension
299: in symmetric in respect to $y=0$ points (say $y=\pm L_{1}$) and then
300: identify these endpoints. However, since
301: \be
302: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
303: \sigma'(y) = \left\{\begin{array}{cl} -k &y\in[0,\infty)\\
304: k &y\in(- \infty,0]\\ \end{array}
305: \right.
306: \
307: \ee
308: the function $\sigma'(y)$ develops a discontinuity at $y=\pm L_{1}$
309: and thus $\sigma''(y)$ will give a second $\delta$-function at that
310: point. Thus we have (for $y \ge 0$)
311: \be
312: \sigma''(y)=2k [\delta(y)-\delta(y-L_{1})]
313: \ee
314: Given the latter, in order our solution to be consistent in the
315: compact case we must add a second brane term in the action:
316: \be
317: S=\int d^4 x \int_{-L_1}^{L_1} dy \sqrt{-G}
318: \{-\Lambda + 2 M^3 R\}-\int_{y=0}d^4xV_{0}\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(1)}}-\int_{y=L_{1}}d^4xV_{1}\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(1)}}
319: \ee
320: in this case in order to find a solution,
321: the tension of the branes has to be tuned to $V_{0}=-V_{1}=-\Lambda/k>0$.
322: Thus in this construction the branes are placed on the orbifold fixed
323: points \footnote{ \textit{i.e.} at $y=0$ {\bf{hidden brane}} and $y=L_{1}$ {\bf{visible brane}}} and they have opposite tension.
324:
325: Again, the function $\Psi^{(n)}(y)$ will obey a second order differential
326: equation which after a change of variables reduces to an ordinary
327: Schr\"{o}dinger equation:
328: \be
329: \left\{-
330: \frac{1}{2}\partial_z^2+V(z)\right\}\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)=\frac{m_n^2}{2}\hat{\Psi
331: }^{(n)}(z)
332: \ee
333: with the corresponding potential
334: \be
335: \hspace*{0.5cm} V(z)=\frac{15k^2}{8[g(z)]^2}-
336: \frac{3k}{2g(z)}\left[\delta(z)-\delta(z-z_1)-\delta(z+z_1)\right]
337: \ee
338: The new variables and wavefunction in the above equation are defined as:
339: \be
340: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
341: z\equiv\left\{\begin{array}{cl}\frac{e^{ky}-1}{k}&y\in[0,L_1]\\-\frac{e^{-ky}-1}{k}&y\in[-
342: L_1,0]\end{array}\right.
343: \
344: \ee
345: \be
346: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\equiv \Psi^{(n)}(y)e^{\sigma/2}
347: \ee
348: and the function $g(z)$ as
349: $g(z)\equiv k|z|+1$, where $z_1=z(L_1)$.
350:
351: This is a quantum mechanical problem with $\delta$-function potentials of
352: different weight and an extra $1/g^2$ smoothing term (due to the AdS geometry)
353: that gives the
354: potential a double ``volcano'' form. The change of variables has been
355: chosen so that there are no first derivative terms in the
356: differential equation.
357:
358: This potential is that it always
359: gives rise to a (massless) zero mode, with wavefunction given by:
360: \be
361: \hat{\Psi}^{(0)}=\frac{A}{[g(z)]^{3/2}}
362: \ee
363: The
364: normalization factor $A$ is determined by the requirement
365: $\displaystyle{\int_{- z_{1}}^{ z_{1} }
366: dz\left[\hat{\Psi}^{(0)}(z)\right]^2=1}$, chosen so that we get the standard
367: form
368: of the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian.
369:
370: For the KK modes the solution is given in terms of Bessel
371: functions. For $y$ lying in the regions ${\bf A}\equiv\left[0,L_1\right]$, we have:
372: \be
373: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)=\sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k}}\left[A_{1}
374: J_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)+A_
375: {2} Y_{2}\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)\right]
376: \ee
377: The wavefunctions are
378: normalized as $\displaystyle{\int_{- z_{1}}^{z_{1}}
379: dz\left[\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\right]^2=1}$.
380: The boundary conditions result in a
381: $2\times2$ homogeneous linear system which, in order to have a
382: non-trivial solution, leads to the vanishing determinant:
383: \be
384: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
385: \left|\begin{array}{cccc}J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)&Y_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)
386: \\\phantom{-
387: }J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&\phantom{-
388: }Y_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)\end{array}\right|=0
389: \ee
390: (where we have suppressed the subscript $n$ on the masses $m_n$)
391: This is essentially the mass quantization condition which gives the
392: spectrum of the KK states.
393: From the previous condition we can easily workout the mass spectrum for the KK states:
394: \be
395: m_{n}=\xi_{n}~k~e^{-k L_{1}}
396: \ee
397: (for $n\ge{1}$), where $\xi_{n}$ in the n-th root
398: of $ J_{1}(x)$.
399:
400:
401:
402: Following the steps of the previous Section,
403: we can get get the scale of gravitational interactions:
404: \begin{equation}
405: \label{effplanck2}
406: M_{Pl}^2 = M^3 \int_{-L_{1}}^{L_{1}} dy e^{-2 k |y|} =
407: \frac{M^3}{k}
408: [1 - e^{- 2 k L_{1}}].
409: \end{equation}
410: The above formula tells us that for large enough $kL_1$ the
411: three mass scales $M_{\rm Pl}$, $M$, $k$ can be taken to be of the same
412: order. Thus we take $k\sim {\mathcal {O}}(M)$ in order
413: not to introduce a new hierarchy, with the additional restriction
414: $k<M$ so that the bulk curvature is small compared to the 5D Planck
415: scale so that we can trust our solution.
416:
417:
418: \subsection{Solving the hierarchy problem in the two brane model}
419:
420: Let us now how the background vacuum solution of the two brane
421: configuration can be used in order to solve the gauge hierarchy
422: problem.
423: In order to determine the matter field Lagrangian we need to know the
424: coupling of the 3-brane fields to the low-energy
425: gravitational fields, in particular the metric, $g_{\mu \nu}(x)$.
426: From Eq. (\ref{ansatzrs+-+}) we see that $g_{hid} =
427: {g}_{\mu \nu}$.
428: This is not the case for the visible sector
429: fields; by Eq. (\ref{ansatzrs+-+}), we have
430: $g^{vis}_{\mu \nu} = e^{- 2 k L_{1}} {g}_{\mu \nu}$. By properly
431: normalizing the fields we can determine the physical masses. Consider for
432: example a fundamental Higgs field,
433: \begin{equation}
434: S_{vis} \supset \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_{vis}} \{ g_{vis}^{\mu \nu} D_{\mu}
435: H^{\dagger} D_{\nu} H - \lambda (|H|^2 - v_0^2)^2 \},
436: \end{equation}
437: which contains one mass parameter $v_0$. Substituting $g^{vis}_{\mu \nu}$ into this action yields
438: \begin{equation}
439: S_{vis} \supset \int d^4 x \sqrt{- {g}} e^{- 4 k L_{1}}
440: \{ {g}^{\mu \nu} e^{2 k L_{1}} D_{\mu}
441: H^{\dagger} D_{\nu} H - \lambda (|H|^2 - v_0^2)^2 \},
442: \end{equation}
443: After wave-function rescaling, $H \rightarrow e^{k L_{1}} H$, we
444: obtain
445: \begin{equation}
446: S_{eff} \supset \int d^4 x \sqrt{- g}
447: \{ {g}^{\mu \nu} D_{\mu}
448: H^{\dagger} D_{\nu} H - \lambda (|H|^2 - e^{-2 k L_{1}} v_0^2)^2 \}.
449: \end{equation}
450: We see that after this rescaling, the physical mass scales are set
451: by the exponentially suppressed scale:
452: \begin{equation}
453: \label{weak}
454: v \equiv e^{- k L_{1}} v_0.
455: \end{equation}
456: This result is completely general: any mass parameter
457: $m_0$ on the visible 3-brane
458: in the fundamental higher-dimensional theory will correspond to a
459: physical mass
460: \begin{equation}
461: \label{punch}
462: m \equiv e^{- k L_{1}} m_0
463: \end{equation}
464: when measured with the metric $g_{\mu \nu}$, which is the metric
465: that appears in the effective Einstein action, since all operators
466: get rescaled according to their four-dimensional conformal weight.
467: If
468: $e^{k L_{1}}$ is of order $10^{15}$, this mechanism produces
469: TeV physical mass scales from fundamental mass parameters not far from the
470: Planck scale, $10^{18}$ GeV. Because this geometric factor is an
471: exponential, we clearly do not require very large hierarchies among the
472: fundamental parameters.
473:
474: Of course the latter arguments apply not only in the minimal two brane
475: mode but in all models with non-factorizable
476: geometry. Thus, solution to the hierarchy problem can be given in
477: configurations where $\sigma(L_{Br})<<\sigma(0)$ (where $L_{Br}$ is
478: the position of the brane in the extra dimension) since all mass scales
479: $m$ on the brane will be related to
480: the
481: mass parameters $m_0$ of the fundamental 5D theory by the conformal (warp)
482: factor
483: \be
484: m=e^{-\sigma\left(L_{Br}\right)}m_0
485: \ee
486:
487:
488:
489:
490: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+-+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
491:
492:
493:
494:
495: \sect{The $''+-+''$ Model}
496:
497: Up to now we have considered the two minimal models with one or two
498: branes placed on the orbifold fixed points. It is interesting to
499: examine the new physics associated with models with more than two
500: branes. The next-to-minimal models that we will consider are the
501: $''+-+''$, $''++-''$, Gregory-Rubakov-Sibiryakov(GRS) and $''+--+''$ models.
502:
503:
504:
505:
506: \begin{figure}
507: \begin{center}
508: \begin{picture}(300,100)(0,50)
509: \SetWidth{1.5}
510:
511: \BCirc(150,100){60}
512: \DashLine(90,100)(210,100){3}
513:
514: \CCirc(90,100){7}{Black}{Red}
515: \CCirc(210,100){7}{Black}{Red}
516:
517: \CCirc(183,148){7}{Black}{Green}
518: \CCirc(183,52){7}{Black}{Green}
519:
520: \Text(70,100)[]{${\LARGE{\bf +}}$}
521: \Text(230,100)[]{${\LARGE{\bf +}}$}
522: \Text(190,162)[]{$-$}
523: \Text(190,38)[]{$-$}
524: \Text(170,140)[]{$L_1$}
525: \Text(193,112)[]{$L_2$}
526: \Text(158,60)[]{$-L_1$}
527:
528: \Text(130,120)[]{$Z_2$}
529:
530:
531: \LongArrowArc(150,100)(68,4,52)
532: \LongArrowArcn(150,100)(68,52,4)
533: \Text(220,135)[l]{$x=k(L_2-L_1)$}
534:
535:
536: \SetWidth{2}
537: \LongArrow(150,100)(150,115)
538: \LongArrow(150,100)(150,85)
539:
540: \end{picture}
541: \end{center}
542: \caption{The $''+-+''$ model with two positive tension branes, $''+''$, on the
543: orbifold fixed points and a negative, $''-''$, freely moving in-between. }
544: \label{+-+fig}
545: \end{figure}
546:
547:
548: Let us start our discussion with
549: the $''+-+''$ model which consists of three parallel 3-branes in an $AdS_5$ space with
550: cosmological constant $\Lambda<0$. The 5-th dimension has the geometry
551: of an orbifold and the branes are located at
552: $L_0=0$, $L_1$ and $L_2$ where $L_0$ and $L_2$
553: are the orbifold fixed
554: points (see Fig.(\ref{+-+fig})). Firstly we consider the branes having no matter on them in
555: order to find a suitable vacuum solution. The action of this setup is:
556: \be
557: S=\int d^4 x \int_{-L_2}^{L_2} dy \sqrt{-G}
558: \{-\Lambda + 2 M^3 R\}-\sum_{i}\int_{y=L_i}d^4xV_i\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(i)}}
559: \ee
560: where $\hat{G}^{(i)}_{\mu\nu}$ is the induced metric on the branes
561: and $V_i$ their tensions.
562: The Einstein equations that arise from this
563: action are:
564: \be
565: R_{MN}-\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R=-\frac{1}{4M^3}
566: \left(\Lambda G_{MN}+
567: \sum_{i}V_i\frac{\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(i)}}}{\sqrt{-G}}
568: \hat{G}^{(i)}_{\mu\nu}\delta_M^{\mu}\delta_N^{\nu}\delta(y-L_i)\right)
569: \ee
570: A straightforward
571: calculation, using the ansatz of eq.(\ref{ansatzrs+-+}) gives us the following differential equations for $\sigma(y)$:
572: \ba
573: \left(\sigma '\right)^2&=&k^2\\
574: \sigma ''&=&\sum_{i}\frac{V_i}{12M^3}\delta(y-L_i)
575: \ea
576: where $
577: k=\sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda}{24M^3}}$.
578:
579: The solution of these equations consistent with the orbifold geometry is
580: precisely:
581: \be
582: \sigma(y)=k\left\{L_1-\left||y|-L_1\right|\right\}
583: \ee
584: with the requirement that the brane tensions are tuned to $V_0=-\Lambda/k>0$,
585: $V_1=\Lambda/k<0$, \mbox{$V_2=-\Lambda/k>0$}.
586: If we consider massless fluctuations of this vacuum metric as in
587: the previous Section and then integrate over the 5-th dimension, we find
588: the 4D Planck mass is given by
589: \be
590: M_{\rm Pl}^2=\frac{M^3}{k}\left[1-2e^{-2kL_1}+e^{-2k(2L_1-L2)}\right]
591: \label{Planck3}
592: \ee
593: The above formula tells us that for large enough $kL_1$ and $k\left(2L_1-
594: L_2\right)$ the
595: three mass scales $M_{\rm Pl}$, $M$, $k$ can be taken to be of the same
596: order. Thus we take $k\sim {\mathcal {O}}(M)$ in order
597: not to introduce a new hierarchy, with the additional restriction
598: $k<M$ so that the bulk curvature is small compared to the 5D Planck
599: scale so that we can trust our solution. Furthermore, if we put matter on the
600: third brane all the physical masses $m$ on the third brane will be related to
601: the
602: mass parameters $m_0$ of the fundamental 5D theory by the conformal (warp)
603: factor
604: \be
605: m=e^{-\sigma\left(L_2\right)}m_0=e^{-k\left(2L_1-L_2\right)}m_0
606: \ee
607: Thus we can assume that the third brane is our universe and get a solution of
608: the Planck hierarchy problem arranging
609: $e^{-k\left(2L_1-L_2\right)}$ to be of
610: $\mathcal{O}$$\left(10^{-15}\right)$, \textit{i.e} $2L_1-L_2\approx35k^{-1}$. In this case
611: all the parameters of the
612: model $L_1^{-1}$, $L_2^{-1}$ and k are of the order of Plank scale.
613:
614: The KK mass spectrum and wavefunctions are determined
615: by considering the (linear) fluctuations of the metric like in eq.(\ref{perturbrs+-+})
616:
617: Here we have ignored the scalar fluctuations of the metric: the
618: dilaton and the radion. For an extensive account of the modes see Appendix.
619: We will return to the discussion of these scalar modes at the end of
620: this Chapter.
621:
622: Following the same steps as in the previous Section we can find that
623: the function $\Psi^{(n)}(y)$ will obey a second order differential
624: equation which after a change of variables reduces to an ordinary
625: Schr\"{o}dinger equation:
626: \be
627: \left\{-
628: \frac{1}{2}\partial_z^2+V(z)\right\}\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)=\frac{m_n^2}{2}\hat{\Psi
629: }^{(n)}(z)
630: \ee
631:
632: \be
633: {\rm with}\hspace*{0.5cm} V(z)=\frac{15k^2}{8[g(z)]^2}-
634: \frac{3k}{2g(z)}\left[\delta(z)+\delta(z-z_2)-\delta(z-z_1)-\delta(z+z_1)\right]
635: \ee
636:
637: %%%%%%%%%%%%potential%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
638:
639: \begin{figure}
640: \begin{center}
641: \SetScale{0.9}
642: \begin{picture}(200,200)(0,50)
643: \LongArrow(140,0)(140,280)
644: \LongArrow(-80,120)(370,120)
645:
646: \SetWidth{2}
647: \SetColor{Red}
648: \Line(140,20)(148,250)
649: \Line(140,20)(132,250)
650: \SetColor{Black}
651: \Vertex(140,120){4}
652:
653: \SetColor{Green}
654: \Line(220,270)(225,130)
655: \Line(220,270)(215,130)
656: \Line(60,270)(65,130)
657: \Line(60,270)(55,130)
658: \Text(220,100)[c]{${\Green {z(L)}}$}
659: \Text(60,100)[c]{${\Green {-z(L)}}$}
660: \SetColor{Black}
661: \Vertex(220,120){4}
662: \Vertex(60,120){4}
663:
664: \SetColor{Red}
665: \Line(-12,250)(-20,0)
666: \Line(-28,250)(-20,0)
667: \Line(308,250)(300,0)
668: \Line(292,250)(300,0)
669: \Text(290,100)[l]{${\Red {z(2L)}}$}
670: \Text(-30,100)[r]{${\Red {-z(2L)}}$}
671: \SetColor{Black}
672: \Vertex(-20,120){4}
673: \Vertex(300,120){4}
674:
675:
676: \Text(145,260)[l]{$V(z)$}
677: \Text(330,120)[rb]{$z$}
678:
679: \Text(-50,155)[c]{${\Red {''+''}}$}
680: \Text(290,155)[c]{${\Red {''+''}}$}
681: \Text(150,155)[c]{${\Red {''+''}}$}
682: \Text(220,155)[c]{${\Green {''-''}}$}
683: \Text(39,155)[c]{${\Green {''-''}}$}
684:
685: \SetColor{Blue}
686: \Curve{(148,250)(153,249)(170,190)(200,138)(215,130)}
687: \Curve{(225,130)(240,138)(270,190)(287,249)(292,250)}
688:
689:
690: \Curve{(-12,250)(-7,249)(10,190)(40,138)(55,130)}
691: \Curve{(65,130)(80,138)(110,190)(127,249)(132,250)}
692:
693:
694: \end{picture}
695: \end{center}
696: \vskip 13mm
697: \caption{The form of the potential $V(z)$ in the case of $''+-+''$ model.}
698: \end{figure}
699:
700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
701:
702: The new variables and wavefunction in the above equation are defined as:
703: \be
704: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
705: z\equiv\left\{\begin{array}{cl}\frac{2e^{kL_1}-e^{2kL_1-ky}-
706: 1}{k}&y\in[L_1,L_2]\\\frac{e^{ky}-1}{k}&y\in[0,L_1]\\-\frac{e^{-ky}-1}{k}&y\in[-
707: L_1,0]\\-\frac{2e^{kL_1}-e^{2kL_1+ky}-1}{k}&y\in[-L_2,-L_1]\end{array}\right.
708: \
709: \ee
710: \be
711: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\equiv \Psi^{(n)}(y)e^{\sigma/2}
712: \ee
713: and the function $g(z)$ as $
714: g(z)\equiv k\left\{z_1-\left||z|-z_1\right|\right\}+1$, where $z_1=z(L_1)$.
715:
716: This is a quantum mechanical problem with $\delta$-function potentials of
717: different weight and an extra $1/g^2$ smoothing term (due to the AdS geometry)
718: that gives the
719: potential a double ``volcano'' form. The change of variables has been
720: chosen so that there are no first derivative terms in the
721: differential equation.
722:
723: This potential always
724: gives rise to a (massless) zero mode, with wavefunction:
725: \be
726: \hat{\Psi}^{(0)}=\frac{A}{[g(z)]^{3/2}}
727: \ee
728: The
729: normalization factor $A$ is determined by the requirement
730: $\displaystyle{\int_{- z_{2}}^{ z_{2} }
731: dz\left[\hat{\Psi}^{(0)}(z)\right]^2=1}$, chosen so that we get the standard
732: form
733: of the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian.
734:
735: In the specific case where $L_1=L_2/2$
736: (and with zero hierarchy) the potential and thus the zero mode's
737: wavefunction is
738: symmetric with respect to the second brane. When the second brane
739: moves towards the third one the wavefunction has a minimum on the
740: second brane but different heights on the other two branes, the difference
741: generating the hierarchy between the first and the third brane.
742: From now on we will focus on the symmetric case since it simplifies
743: the calculations without losing the
744: interesting characteristics of the model.
745:
746: For the KK modes the solution is given in terms of Bessel
747: functions. For $y$ lying in the regions ${\bf A}\equiv\left[0,L_1\right]$ and
748: ${\bf B}\equiv\left[L_1,L_2\right]$, we have:
749: \be
750: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}{\bf A}\\{\bf
751: B}\end{array}\right\}=\sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k}}\left[\left\{\begin{array}{cc}A_1\\B_
752: 1\end{array}\right\}J_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)+\left\{\begin{array}{cc}A_
753: 2\\B_2\end{array}\right\}Y_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)\right]
754: \ee
755:
756: The boundary conditions (one for the
757: continuity of the wavefunction at $z_1$ and three for the
758: discontinuity of its first derivative at $0$, $z_1$, $z_2$) result in a
759: $4\times4$ homogeneous linear system which, in order to have a
760: non-trivial solution, leads to the vanishing determinant:
761: \be
762: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
763: \left|\begin{array}{cccc}J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)&Y_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)
764: &\phantom{-}0&\phantom{-}0\\0&0&\phantom{-
765: }J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_2)\right)&\phantom{-
766: }Y_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_2)\right)\\J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&Y_1\left(
767: \frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&\phantom{-}J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&\phantom{-
768: }Y_1\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)\\J_2\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&Y_2\left(
769: \frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&-J_2\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)&-
770: Y_2\left(\frac{m}{k}g(z_1)\right)\end{array}\right|=0
771: \ee
772: (where we have suppressed the subscript $n$ on the masses $m_n$)
773: This is essentially the mass quantization condition which gives the
774: spectrum of the KK states. For each mass we can then determine the wave function
775: with normalization $\displaystyle{\int_{- z_{2}}^{ z_{2} }
776: dz\left[\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\right]^2=1}$.
777: From the form of the potential we can
778: immediately deduce that there is a second ``bound'' state, the
779: first KK state. In the symmetric case, $L_1=L_2/2$, this is simply given by
780: reversing the sign of the graviton wave function for $y>L_1$ (it has one zero
781: at $L_1$). When the second brane moves towards the third this symmetry
782: is lost and the first KK wave function has a very small value on the
783: first brane, a large value on the third and a zero very close to the
784: first brane.
785:
786: The interaction of the KK states to the SM particles is found as in
787: Ref. \cite{Han:1999sg} by expanding the minimal
788: gravitational coupling of the SM Lagrangian $\displaystyle{\int
789: d^4x\sqrt{-\hat{G}}{\mathcal{L}}\left(\hat{G},SM fields\right)}$ with respect to
790: the metric. After the rescaling due to the ``warp'' factor we get:
791: \ba
792: {\mathcal{L}}_{int}&=&-\frac{g\left(z_2\right)^{3/2}}{M^{3/2}}\sum_{n\geq
793: 0}
794: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}\left(z_2\right)h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}(x)T_{\mu\nu}\left(x\right)=
795: \nonumber
796: \\&=&-\frac{A}{M^{3/2}}h_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}(x)T_{\mu\nu}\left(x\right)-
797: \sum_{n>0}\frac{\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}\left(z_2\right)g\left(z_2\right)^{3/2}}{M^{3/2}
798: }h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}(x)T_{\mu\nu}\left(x\right)
799: \ea
800: with $T_{\mu\nu}$ the energy momentum tensor of the SM
801: Lagrangian. Thus the coupling suppression of the zero and KK modes to matter is
802: respectively:
803: \ba
804: \frac{1}{c_0}&=&\frac{A}{M^{3/2}}\\
805: \frac{1}{c_n}&=&\frac{\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}\left(z_2\right)g\left(z_2\right)^{3/2}}{M
806: ^{3/2}}
807: \ea
808: For
809: the zero mode the normalization constant $A$ is
810: $\frac{M^{3/2}}{M_{\rm Pl}}$ which gives the Newtonian gravitational
811: coupling suppression $c_0=M_{\rm
812: Pl}$.
813:
814:
815: \subsection{The first and subsequent KK modes: Masses and coupling constants}
816:
817: \begin{figure}
818: \begin{center}
819: \begin{picture}(300,200)(0,50)
820:
821:
822: \Text(-10,250)[c]{$\Red{''+''}$}
823: \Text(310,250)[c]{$\Red{''+''}$}
824: \Text(170,250)[c]{$\Green{''-''}$}
825:
826: \SetWidth{2}
827:
828: %%% 1st %%%
829: \SetColor{Red}
830: \DashCurve{(10,240)(50,192)(65,181)(80,173)(95,167)(110,161)(130,155)(150,150)}{2}
831: \DashCurve{(150,150)(170,145)(190,139)(205,133)(220,127)(235,119)(250,108)(290,60)}{2}
832:
833:
834: %%% graviton %%%
835: \SetColor{Blue}
836: \Curve{(10,240)(50,192)(65,181)(80,173)(95,167)(110,162)(130,157)(150,155)}
837: \Curve{(150,155)(170,157)(190,162)(205,167)(220,173)(235,181)(250,192)(290,240)}
838:
839: %%% 2nd %%%
840: \SetColor{Green}
841: \DashCurve{(10,145)(15,149)(20,150)(40,153)(65,158)(140,209)(150,210)}{8}
842: \DashCurve{(150,210)(160,209)(235,158)(260,153)(280,150)(285,149)(290,145)}{8}
843:
844: %%%%%%%%%
845:
846: \SetWidth{.5}
847: \SetColor{Black}
848: \Line(10,150)(290,150)
849: \Line(10,50)(10,250)
850: \Line(290,50)(290,250)
851: \Line(150,50)(150,250)
852:
853:
854: \Text(370,220)[c]{$m$}
855: \LongArrow(350,50)(350,220)
856: \SetColor{Green}
857: \Vertex(350,163){3}
858: \Vertex(350,177){3}
859: \Vertex(350,188){3}
860: \SetColor{Red}
861: \Vertex(350,80){3}
862: \SetColor{Blue}
863: \Vertex(350,50){3}
864:
865: \end{picture}
866: \end{center}
867: \caption{The wavefunctions of the zero mode (solid), first (dotted)
868: and second KK state (dashed).}
869:
870: \end{figure}
871:
872:
873: Let us examine in more details the mass spectrum of the $''+-+''$
874: model. In the case of the symmetric configuration of branes we have that
875: for the first KK state:
876: \be
877: m_1=2 \sqrt{2} ~k~ e^{-2 x}
878: \label{mm1}
879: \ee
880: and for the rest of the tower:
881: \be
882: m_{n+1}= \xi_n ~ k~ e^{-x} ~~~~~~n=1,2,3, \ldots
883: \label{mm2}
884: \ee
885: where $\xi_{2i+1}$ is the $(i+1)$-th root of $J_{1}(x)$ ($i=0,1,2,
886: \ldots$) and $\xi_{2i}$ is the $i$-th root of $J_{1}(x)$ ($i=1,2,3, \ldots$).
887: The above approximations become better away from $x=0$
888: , $x=0$ and for higher KK levels $n$.
889: The mass of the first KK state is singled out from the rest of the KK tower
890: as it has an extra exponential suppression that depends on the mass of
891: the bulk fermion.
892: In the case that we have
893: a hierarchy $w$ (where $w\equiv
894: \frac{1}{g(z_{2})}=e^{-\sigma(L_{2})}$) the previous mass scales are
895: multiplied with $w$.
896:
897:
898:
899: Let us now turn to the coupling behaviour of the states.
900: In the symmetric configuration, the first KK mode has constant
901: coupling equal to that of the 4D graviton:
902: \begin{equation}
903: a_{1}=\frac{1}{M_{\ast }}~(=a_{0})~~~~~~~\mathrm{where}~~~M_{\ast }^{2}=%
904: \frac{2M^{3}}{k}
905: \label{firstcoupling}
906: \end{equation}
907: while the couplings of the rest of the KK tower are exponentially
908: suppressed:
909: \begin{equation}
910: a_{n+1}=\frac{1}{M_{\ast }}~\frac{e^{-x}}{\sqrt{J_{1}^{2}\left( \frac{%
911: m_{n}e^{x}}{k}\right) +J_{2}^{2}\left( \frac{m_{n}e^{x}}{k}\right) }}%
912: ~~~~~~n=1,2,3,\ldots
913: \label{KKcoupling}
914: \end{equation}
915: the latter reveals once more the special character of the first KK
916: state compared to the rest of the tower: The coupling of the
917: ultralight KK state is indepented of the separation of the two branes
918: something that shows that this state is strongly localized on the
919: positive tension branes.
920:
921:
922:
923:
924: \subsection{ Bi-Gravity }
925:
926: Equations (\ref{mm1}) and (\ref{mm2}) show that, for large $x$, the lightest KK mode
927: splits off from the remaining tower. This leads to an exotic possibility in
928: which the lightest KK mode is the dominant source of Newtonian gravity!
929:
930: Cavendish experiments and astronomical observations studying the motions of
931: distant galaxies have put Newtonian
932: gravity to test from sub-millimeter distances up to distances that
933: correspond to $1\%$ of the size of observable
934: Universe, searching for violations of the weak equivalence principle
935: and inverse square law. In the context of the graviton KK modes discussed above
936: this constrains $m<10^{-31}{\rm eV}$ or $m>10^{-4}{\rm eV}$. Our exotic scheme corresponds
937: to the choice $m_1\approx 10^{-31}{\rm eV}$ and $m_2>10^{-4}{\rm eV}$. In this case, for
938: length scales less than $10^{26}{\rm cm}$ gravity is generated by the exchange of {\it
939: both} the massless graviton and the first KK mode.
940:
941:
942:
943: \begin{figure}
944: \begin{center}
945: \begin{picture}(320,80)(0,0)
946: \LongArrow(0,55)(300,55)
947: \G2Text(175,55){0.6}{Excluded by Observational Data}{and by the
948: Cavendish Experiments}
949: \Text(300,65)[l]{$r$}
950: \Text(-2,65)[l]{$0$}
951: \Vertex(0,55){2}
952: \Vertex(45,55){2}
953: \Vertex(100,55){2}
954: \Text(25,67)[l]{$10 {\rm \mu m}$}
955: \Text(40,37)[l]{$m_2^{-1}$}
956: \Text(73,67)[l]{$1 {\rm mm}$}
957: \Vertex(250,55){2}
958: \Text(252,67)[l]{$10^{26} {\rm cm}$}
959: \Text(252,37)[l]{$m_1^{-1}$}
960: \LongArrow(45,-10)(45,20)
961: \LongArrow(252,-10)(252,20)
962: \Curve{(45,-10)(252,-10)}
963: \label{Bi-Gravityresults2}
964: \end{picture}
965: \end{center}
966: \caption{Exclusion regions for the Bi-Gravity case and correlation of
967: the first two KK states}
968: \label{Bi-Gravity2}
969: \end{figure}
970:
971:
972:
973:
974: The gravitational potential is computed by the tree level exchange diagrams
975: of the 4D graviton and KK states which in the Newtonian limit is:
976: \begin{equation}
977: V(r)=-\sum_{n=0}^{N_{\Lambda}}a_n^2\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r} \label{gravipot2}
978: \end{equation}
979: where $a_n$ is the coupling (\ref{firstcoupling}),(\ref{KKcoupling}) and $n=0$ accounts for the
980: massless graviton. The summation stops at some very high level $N_{\Lambda}$
981: with mass of the order of the cutoff scale $\sim M$.
982:
983: In the ``bigravity'' scenario, at distances $r\ll m_{1}^{-1},$ the first KK
984: state and the 4D graviton contribute equally to the gravitational force, $%
985: i.e.$
986: \begin{equation}
987: V_{ld}(r)\approx -\frac{1}{M_{\ast }^{2}}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\frac{e^{-m_{1}r}%
988: }{r}\right) \approx -\frac{G_{N}}{r}
989: \end{equation}
990: where $G_{N}\equiv \frac{2}{M_{\ast }^{2}}$. For distances $r\gtrsim
991: m_{1}^{-1}$ the Yukawa suppression effectively reduces gravity to half its
992: strength. Astronomical constraints and the requirement of the observability
993: of this effect demand that for $k\sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ we should have $x$ in
994: the region 65-70. Moreover, at distances $r\lesssim m_{2}^{-1}$ the Yukawa
995: interactions of the remaining KK states are significant and will give rise
996: to a short distance correction. This can be evaluated by using the
997: asymptotic expression of the Bessel functions in (\ref{KKcoupling}) since we
998: are dealing with large $x$ and summing over a very dense spectrum, giving:
999: \begin{equation}
1000: V_{sd}(r)=-\frac{G_{N}}{k}\sum_{n=2}^{N_{\Lambda }}\frac{k\pi }{2e^{x}}~%
1001: \frac{m_{n}}{2k}~\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r} \label{shortpot2}
1002: \end{equation}
1003: At this point we exploit the fact that the spectrum is nearly continuum
1004: above $m_{2}$ and turn the sum to an integral with the first factor in (\ref
1005: {shortpot2}) being the integration measure, {\textit{i.e.}} $\sum \frac{k\pi
1006: }{2e^{x}}=\sum \Delta m\rightarrow \int dm$ (this follows from eq(\ref
1007: {mm1}) for the asymptotic values of the Bessel roots). Moreover, we can
1008: extend the integration to infinity because, due to the exponential
1009: suppression of the integrand, the integral saturates very quickly and thus
1010: the integration over the region of very large masses is irrelevant. The
1011: resulting potential is now:
1012: \begin{equation}
1013: V_{sd}(r)=-\frac{G_{N}}{k}\int_{m_{2}}^{\infty }dm~\frac{m}{2k}~\frac{%
1014: e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}
1015: \end{equation}
1016: The integration is easily performed and gives:
1017: \begin{equation}
1018: V_{sd}(r)\simeq -\frac{G_{N}}{2r}~\frac{1+m_{2}r}{(kr)^{2}}~e^{-m_{2}r}
1019: \end{equation}
1020: We see these short distance corrections are significant only at Planck scale
1021: lengths $\sim k^{-1}$.
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032: \subsection{$''+-+''$ Model Phenomenology}
1033:
1034:
1035: In this Section we will present a discussion of the phenomenology of the
1036: KK modes to be expected in high energy colliders, concentrating on the simple and
1037: sensitive to new physics processes
1038: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ (this analysis is readily generalized to include
1039: $q\bar{q}$, $gg$ initial and final states) and $e^+e^-\rightarrow\gamma+
1040: \mbox{\textit{missing energy}}$. Since the characteristics of the
1041: phenomenology depend on the parameters of the model ($w$,$k$,$x$) we
1042: explore the
1043: regions of the parameter space that are of special interest (\textit{i.e.} give
1044: hierarchy factor $\mathcal{O}$$\left(10^{15}\right)$ and do not
1045: introduce a new hierarchy between $k$ and $M$ as seen from equation (\ref{Planck3})).
1046:
1047: \subsubsection{ $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ process}
1048:
1049: \begin{figure}[b]
1050: \begin{center}
1051: \begin{picture}(300,100)(0,50)
1052: \ArrowLine(50,50)(100,100)
1053: \ArrowLine(50,150)(100,100)
1054: \ArrowLine(200,100)(250,150)
1055: \ArrowLine(200,100)(250,50)
1056: \Vertex(100,100){2}
1057: \Vertex(200,100){2}
1058: \LongArrow(140,110)(160,110)
1059: \Photon(100,100)(200,100){4}{6}
1060: \Photon(100,100)(200,100){-4}{6}
1061: \Text(90,125)[]{$e^+$}
1062: \Text(90,75)[]{$e^-$}
1063: \Text(210,125)[]{$\mu^+$}
1064: \Text(210,75)[]{$\mu^-$}
1065: \Text(150,120)[]{$\sqrt{s}$}
1066: \end{picture}
1067: \caption{$e^+e^-\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$}\label{feyn:diag2}
1068: \end{center}
1069: \end{figure}
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073: Using the Feynman rules of Ref. \cite{Han:1999sg} the contribution of the KK modes to
1074: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ is given by
1075: \be
1076: \sigma\left(e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-\right)=\frac{s^3}{1280\pi}|D(s)|^2
1077: \ee
1078: where $D(s)$ is the sum over the propagators multiplied by the
1079: appropriate coupling suppressions:
1080: \be
1081: D(s)=\sum_{n>0}\frac{1/c_n^2}{s-m_n^2+i\Gamma_n m_n}
1082: \ee
1083: and $s$ is the center of mass energy of $e^+e^-$.
1084:
1085: Note that the bad high energy behaviour (a violation of perturbative unitarity) of this cross section is expected since
1086: we are working with an effective - low
1087: energy non-renormalizable theory of gravity. We assume our effective theory is valid up to
1088: an energy scale
1089: $M_{s}$ (which is ${\mathcal{O}}({\rm TeV})$), which acts as an ultraviolet
1090: cutoff. The theory that applies above this scale
1091: is supposed to give a consistent description of quantum gravity. Since this is
1092: unknown we are only able to determine the contributions of the KK states with
1093: masses less than this
1094: scale. This means that the summation in the previous formula should
1095: stop at the KK mode with mass near the cutoff.
1096:
1097: For the details of the calculation it will be important to know the
1098: decay rates of the KK states. These are given by:
1099: \be
1100: \Gamma_n=\beta\frac{m_n^3}{c_n^2}
1101: \label{gam2}
1102: \ee
1103: where $\beta$ is a dimensionless constant that is between
1104: $\frac{39}{320\pi}\approx0.039$ (in the case that the KK is light
1105: enough, \textit{i.e.} smaller than $0.5 {\rm MeV}$, so that it decays only to
1106: massless
1107: gauge bosons and neutrinos) and $\frac{71}{240\pi}\approx0.094$ (in the case where
1108: the KK is heavy enough that can decay to all SM particles).
1109:
1110:
1111: If we consider $w$ and $k$ fixed, then when
1112: $x$ is smaller than a certain value $x_0=x_0(w,k)$ we have a widely spaced discrete spectrum (from
1113: the point of view of TeV physics) close to the one of the
1114: RS case with cross section at a KK resonances of the form
1115: $\sigma_{res} \sim s^3/m_ n^8$ (see \cite{Davoudiasl:2000jd}).
1116: For the discrete
1117: spectrum there is always a range of values of the $x$ parameter so that the
1118: KK resonances are in the range of energies of
1119: collider experiments.
1120: In these cases we calculate the excess over the SM contribution which would have been seen either by direct
1121: scanning if the resonance is near the energy at which the experiments
1122: actually run or by means of the process
1123: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\gamma\mu^+\mu^-$ which scans a continuum of energies
1124: below the center of mass energy of the experiment
1125: (of course if $k$
1126: is raised the KK modes become heavier and there will be a value for which the
1127: lightest KK mode is above the experimental limits).
1128:
1129: For values of $x$ greater than $x_0(k,w)$ the spacing in the spectrum is
1130: so small that we can safely consider it to be continuous. At this
1131: point we have to note that we consider that the ``continuum'' starts at the point
1132: where the convoluted KK resonances start to overlap. In this case
1133: we substitute in $D(s)$ the sum for $n\geq2$ by an integral over the
1134: mass of the KK excitations, \textit{i.e.}
1135: \be
1136: D(s)_{KK}\approx\frac{1/c_1^2}{s-m_1^2+i\Gamma_1 m_1}+
1137: \frac{1}{\Delta m\; c^2} \int_{m_2}^{M_s}dm\; \frac{1}{s-m^2+i\epsilon}
1138: \ee
1139: where the value of the integral is $\sim i \pi/2\sqrt{s}$ with the principal
1140: value negligible in the region of interest ($\sqrt{s} \ll M_s$)
1141: and we have considered constant coupling suppression $c$
1142: for the modes with $n\geq 2$ (approximation that turns out to be
1143: reasonable as the coupling saturates quickly as we consider
1144: higher and higher levels).
1145: The first state is singled out because of
1146: its different coupling.
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150: \subsubsection{$e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma +
1151: \mbox{\textit{missing energy}}$ process}
1152:
1153: The missing energy processes in the SM (\textit{i.e.}
1154: $e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma\nu\bar{\nu}$) are well explored and are a
1155: standard way to count the number of neutrino species. In the presence
1156: of the KK modes there is also a possibility that any KK mode produced, if it has large enough
1157: lifetime, escapes from the detector before decaying, thus giving
1158: us an additional missing energy signal. The new diagrams that
1159: contribute to this effect are the ones in the Fig. \ref{miss2}.
1160:
1161:
1162: \begin{figure}[t]
1163: \begin{center}
1164: \begin{picture}(300,100)(0,50)
1165:
1166: \ArrowLine(-55,50)(-25,80)
1167: \ArrowLine(-55,150)(-25,120)
1168: \ArrowLine(-25,80)(-25,120)
1169: \Vertex(-25,80){2}
1170: \Vertex(-25,120){2}
1171: \Photon(-25,120)(5,150){4}{6}
1172: \Photon(-25,80)(5,50){4}{6}
1173: \Photon(-25,80)(5,50){-4}{6}
1174: \Text(-50,130)[]{$e^+$}
1175: \Text(-50,70)[]{$e^-$}
1176: \Text(5,130)[]{$\gamma$}
1177: \Text(5,70)[]{KK}
1178:
1179: \ArrowLine(45,50)(75,80)
1180: \ArrowLine(45,150)(75,120)
1181: \ArrowLine(75,80)(75,120)
1182: \Vertex(75,80){2}
1183: \Vertex(75,120){2}
1184: \Photon(75,80)(105,50){4}{6}
1185: \Photon(75,120)(105,150){4}{6}
1186: \Photon(75,120)(105,150){-4}{6}
1187: \Text(50,130)[]{$e^+$}
1188: \Text(50,70)[]{$e^-$}
1189: \Text(105,130)[]{KK}
1190: \Text(105,70)[]{$\gamma$}
1191:
1192: \ArrowLine(145,70)(175,100)
1193: \ArrowLine(145,130)(175,100)
1194: \Vertex(175,100){2}
1195: \Photon(175,100)(215,100){4}{6}
1196: \Vertex(215,100){2}
1197: \Photon(215,100)(245,70){4}{6}
1198: \Photon(215,100)(245,130){4}{6}
1199: \Photon(215,100)(245,130){-4}{6}
1200: \Text(150,115)[]{$e^+$}
1201: \Text(150,85)[]{$e^-$}
1202: \Text(250,115)[]{KK}
1203: \Text(250,85)[]{$\gamma$}
1204:
1205: \ArrowLine(285,70)(315,100)
1206: \ArrowLine(285,130)(315,100)
1207: \Vertex(315,100){2}
1208: \Photon(315,100)(345,70){4}{6}
1209: \Photon(315,100)(345,130){4}{6}
1210: \Photon(315,100)(345,130){-4}{6}
1211: \Text(290,115)[]{$e^+$}
1212: \Text(290,85)[]{$e^-$}
1213: \Text(350,115)[]{KK}
1214: \Text(350,85)[]{$\gamma$}
1215:
1216:
1217: \end{picture}
1218: \caption{$e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma$ KK}\label{miss2}
1219: \end{center}
1220: \end{figure}
1221:
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227: The differential cross section of the production of a KK mode plus a photon is
1228: given by Ref. \cite{Giudice:1999ck} and is equal to:
1229: \be
1230: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}(e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma + {\rm{KK}})=\frac{\alpha}{16}\sum_{n>0}\frac{1}{c_n^2s}F\left(\frac{t}{s},\frac{m_n^2}{s}\right)
1231: \ee
1232: where $s$, $t$ are the usual Mandelstam variables and the function $F$ is given by:
1233: \ba
1234: F(x,y)=\frac{1}{x(y-1-x)}[&-4x(1-x)(1+2x+2x^2)+y(1+6x+18x^2+16x^3)\nonumber\\
1235: &-6y^2x(1+2x)+y^3(1+4x)\phantom{0}]
1236: \ea
1237:
1238: A reasonable size of a detector is of the order of $d=1$m, so we assume that the events of KK production are counted as missing
1239: energy ones if the KK modes survive at least for distance d from the
1240: interaction point (this excludes decays in neutrino pairs which always
1241: give missing energy signal). We can then find a limit on the KK masses that contribute
1242: to the experimental measurement. By a straightforward relativistic
1243: calculation we find that this is the case if:
1244: \be
1245: \Gamma_n< \frac{E_\gamma}{m_nd}=\frac{s-m_n^2}{2\sqrt{s}m_nd}
1246: \ee
1247: From equation \ref{gam2} we see that this can be done if:
1248: \be
1249: m_n<\sqrt{\frac{-c_n^2+c_n\sqrt{c_n^2+8\beta ds^{3/2}}}{4\beta d \sqrt{s}}}
1250: \ee
1251: It turns out that usually only the first KK state mass satisfies this
1252: condition and decays outside the detector. All the other states have
1253: such short lifetimes that decay inside the detector and so are not
1254: counted as missing energy events (again this excludes decays in neutrino pairs). In the regions of the parameter
1255: space where this was not the case, we found that only a very small part of
1256: the KK tower contributed and didn't give any important excess in
1257: comparison with the one from the first state alone.
1258: Thus, taking only the contribution of the first KK state and imposing
1259: the kinematic cuts given by the
1260: experiments on the angular integration, we found the measurable cross section. This cross section
1261: has to be compared to the error of the experimentally measured cross
1262: section because so far the SM predictions coincide with the measured
1263: value.
1264:
1265: The most stringent measurement available is the one by OPAL
1266: Collaboration \cite{Abbiendi:1999yu} at $\sqrt{s}=183$GeV. The measured cross section
1267: is $\sigma_{meas}=4.71\pm 0.34$pb so the values of the parameters of
1268: the model that give cross section greater than $0.34$pb are
1269: excluded. Since the main contribution comes from the first KK state and
1270: because its coupling depends only on the warp factor $w$, we will either
1271: exclude or allow the whole k-x plane for a given $w$. The critical
1272: value of $w$ that the KK production cross section equals to the
1273: experimental error is $w=1.8e^{-35}$.
1274:
1275: It is worth noting that the above cross section is almost constant for
1276: different center of mass energies $\sqrt{s}$, so ongoing experiments with
1277: smaller errors (provided that they are in accordance with the SM
1278: prediction) will push the bound on $w$ further ahead.
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283:
1284:
1285: \subsubsection{Cavendish experiments}
1286:
1287:
1288:
1289: A further bound on the parameters of our model can be put from the
1290: Cavendish experiments. The fact that gravity is Newtonian at
1291: least down to millimeter distances implies that the corrections to
1292: gravitational law due to the presence of the KK states must be
1293: negligible for such distances. The gravitational potential is the
1294: Newton law plus a Yukawa potential due to the exchange of the KK
1295: massive particles (in the Newtonian limit):
1296: \be
1297: V(r)=-\frac{1}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\frac{M_1
1298: M_2}{r}\left(1+\sum_{n>0}\left(\frac{M_{\rm Pl}}{c_n}\right)^2e^{-m_nr}\right)
1299: \ee
1300:
1301: The contribution to the above sum of the second and
1302: higher modes is negligible compared with the one
1303: of the first KK
1304: state, because they have larger masses and coupling
1305: suppressions. Thus, the
1306: condition for the corrections of the Newton law to be small for
1307: millimeter scale distances is:
1308: \be
1309: x<\tilde{x}=15-\frac{1}{2}{\rm ln}\left(\frac{-{\rm ln}w}{kw}{\rm
1310: GeV}\right)
1311: \label{Cbound2}
1312: \ee
1313:
1314:
1315:
1316:
1317:
1318: \subsubsection{$k-x$ plots}
1319:
1320: As mentioned above the range of the parameter space that we
1321: explore is chosen so that it corresponds to the region of physical
1322: interest giving rise to the observed hierarchy between the electroweak
1323: and the Planck scale
1324: i.e. $w\sim 10^{-15}$, $k\sim M_{\rm Pl}$. The allowed regions
1325: (unshaded areas)
1326: for $w=4.5e^{-35}$ and $w=10e^{-35}$ are shown in the Figures
1327: ~\ref{plot1} and ~\ref{plot2}. The bounds from the previously mentioned
1328: experiments and the form of the diagram will be now explained in detail.
1329:
1330: \begin{itemize}
1331: \item {\bf$e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ bounds}
1332: \end{itemize}
1333:
1334:
1335: As we noted in section 3.1, for relatively small values of $x$ the
1336: spectrum is discrete and as $x$ increases it tends to a continuum (the dashed line shows approximately where
1337: we the spectrum turns from discrete to continuum).
1338: In case of the continuum, for the parameter region that we explore, it
1339: turns out that it does not give any bound since the excess over the SM cross
1340: section becomes important only for energies much larger than $200$GeV.
1341: However there are significant bounds coming from the discrete spectrum
1342: region, since generally we
1343: have KK resonances in the experimentally accessible region and the
1344: convolution of some of them will give significant excess to the SM
1345: background.
1346: The exclusion region coming from $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$, is the
1347: region between the curves (1) and (2).
1348: The details of the bound depend on the behaviour of the couplings
1349: and the masses. In this case the bounds start when the KK states
1350: have sufficiently large width and height ({\it i.e.} large mass and coupling).
1351: This is the reason why curve (2) bends to the left as k increases.
1352: The shape
1353: of the upper part of the curve (2) comes from the fact that by increasing
1354: $k$ we push the masses of the KK states to larger values so that there
1355: is the possibility that the
1356: first KK state has mass smaller that $20$GeV and at the same time the
1357: rest of tower is above $200$GeV (the dotted line is where the second KK states is at $200$GeV). The last
1358: region is not experimentally explored at present.
1359: An increase of $w$ decreases all the couplings and thus this will push
1360: the bound even more to the left.
1361: Decreasing $w$ ({\it e.g.} $w=e^{-35}$), on the contrary will increase the values of the
1362: couplings and there are strict bounds coming both from the discrete and
1363: the continuum.
1364: The $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ experiments don't give any bound when the first KK
1365: state has mass bigger than $\sim200$GeV, since in this case the KK
1366: resonances cannot be produced from current experiments and the low
1367: energy effects are negligible for the range of parameters that we
1368: examine (this region is represented by the triangle at the upper left
1369: corner of the plot). As colliders
1370: probe higher center of mass energies the curve (1) will be pushed to
1371: the left and curve (2) to the right.
1372:
1373:
1374:
1375:
1376:
1377:
1378:
1379:
1380: \begin{figure}[!h]
1381:
1382: \begin{center}
1383: \epsfig{file=s.eps,width=12cm}
1384:
1385: \begin{picture}(-200,-200)(0,0)
1386: \SetScale{1}
1387:
1388: \LongArrow(-110,5)(-70,5)
1389: \rText(-135,5)[l][]{$x$}
1390: \LongArrow(-280,160)(-280,200)
1391: \rText(-315,145)[l][]{$k$ (GeV)}
1392:
1393: \rText(-250,230)[l][]{$(1)$}
1394: \rText(-175,190)[l][]{$(2)$}
1395: \rText(-35,145)[l][]{$(3)$}
1396:
1397: \end{picture}
1398:
1399: \caption{Excluded regions (shaded areas) for $w=4.5e^{-35}$.\label{plot1}}
1400: \end{center}
1401: %\end{figure}
1402:
1403: %\begin{figure}[!h]
1404:
1405: \begin{center}
1406: \epsfig{file=s2.eps,width=12cm}
1407:
1408: \begin{picture}(-200,-200)(0,0)
1409: \SetScale{1}
1410:
1411: \LongArrow(-110,5)(-70,5)
1412: \rText(-135,5)[l][]{$x$}
1413: \LongArrow(-280,160)(-280,200)
1414: \rText(-315,145)[l][]{$k$ (GeV)}
1415:
1416: \rText(-245,220)[l][]{$(1)$}
1417: \rText(-197,150)[l][]{$(2)$}
1418: \rText(-28,145)[l][]{$(3)$}
1419:
1420:
1421: \end{picture}
1422:
1423: \caption{Excluded regions (shaded areas) for $w=10e^{-35}$.\label{plot2}}
1424: \end{center}
1425:
1426: \end{figure}
1427:
1428:
1429: \begin{itemize}
1430: \item {\bf Missing energy bounds}
1431: \end{itemize}
1432:
1433: As we noted in section 3.2, the KK states have generally very
1434: short lifetime. For certain value of $w$, the main contribution to
1435: the cross section comes from the first KK state, since the restriction
1436: on the mass (so that the KK states escape
1437: the detector) means that only a few states contribute, even near
1438: the boundary of Cavendish bounds where the spacing of the tower is
1439: very small.
1440: Decreasing the value of $w$, we increase the coupling of
1441: the first KK state so for the values of $w<1.8e^{-35}$ the contribution
1442: from the first KK state becomes so big that excludes all the region
1443: between $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ and the Cavendish bound (the region
1444: with the KK tower over $200$GeV always survives).
1445: Variation of the $k$, $x$ parameters in this case does not change
1446: significantly the cross section, because the main contribution comes from
1447: the first KK mode whose coupling is constant {\it i.e.} independent of $k$,
1448: $x$ and since although its mass, $m_1$ depends on $k$ the cross section is
1449: insensitive to the mass changes because it is evaluated at energy
1450: $\sqrt{s}=183$GeV where the cross section has saturated.
1451: To summarize, the missing energy bounds either exclude the whole
1452: region between the $e^+e^-\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$ and the Cavendish limits or
1453: nothing at all (due to the smallness of the coupling).
1454: Additionally, the missing energy experiments don't give any bound when the first KK
1455: state has mass bigger than $\sim143$GeV, since in this case the emitted
1456: photon has energy smaller than the experimental cuts. Currently
1457: running and forthcoming colliders will push the bound of $w$ to larger
1458: values.
1459:
1460:
1461:
1462:
1463:
1464:
1465:
1466:
1467: \begin{itemize}
1468: \item {\bf Cavendish bounds}
1469: \end{itemize}
1470:
1471: From the discussion in section 3.3 we see that the bound on the parameter
1472: space from Cavendish experiments comes from Eq. (\ref{Cbound2}). The exclusion
1473: region is the one that extends to the right of the line (3) of the
1474: plots.
1475: For fixed $k$, $w$ the Cavendish bounds exclude the region $x>\tilde{x}(k,w)$ due to the fact
1476: that the first KK becomes very light (and its coupling remains
1477: constant). Now if we increase $k$, since the masses of the KK are
1478: proportional to it, we will have an exclusion region of
1479: $x>\tilde{x}(k',w)$, with $\tilde{x}(k',w)>\tilde{x}(k,w)$. This explains the form of the
1480: Cavendish bounds. When we increase the $w$ parameter the whole bound
1481: will move to the right since the couplings of the KK states
1482: decrease. Future Cavendish experiments testing the Newton's law at
1483: smaller distances will push the curve (3) to the left.
1484:
1485:
1486:
1487:
1488:
1489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%++- model%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1490:
1491:
1492:
1493:
1494: \section{The three-brane $''++-''$ Model}
1495:
1496:
1497: One other extension of the RS model is the $''++-''$ model. In this
1498: case although there are two positive tension branes - no light state
1499: appears since they act as a single positive tension brane resulting to
1500: a phenomenology similar to the RS one. In this Section
1501: we examine in detail this configuration.
1502:
1503: The $''++-''$ model (see Fig.\ref{++-})
1504: consists of three parallel 3-branes in $AdS_{5}$ spacetime with orbifold
1505: topology, two of which are located at the orbifold fixed points $L_{0}=0$
1506: and $L_{2}$ while the third one is moving at distance $L_{1}$ in between. In
1507: order to get 4D flat space with this configuration, it turns out that the $%
1508: AdS_{5}$ space must have different cosmological constants $\Lambda _{1}$ and
1509: $\Lambda _{2}$ between the first - second and the second - third brane
1510: respectively with $|\Lambda _{2}|>|\Lambda _{1}|$ (see \cite{Hatanaka:1999ac} for
1511: constructions of different bulk cosmological constants). The action of the
1512: above setup (if we neglect the matter contribution on the branes in order to
1513: find a suitable vacuum solution) is given by:
1514: \begin{eqnarray}
1515: S &=&\int d^{4}x\int_{-L_{2}}^{L_{2}}dy\sqrt{-G}[-\Lambda (y)+2M^{3}R%
1516: ]-\sum_{i}\int_{y=y_{i}}d^{4}xV_{i}\sqrt{-\hat{G}^{(i)}}
1517: \label{action++-} \\
1518: \mathrm{with}~~~\Lambda (y) &=&\left\{
1519: \begin{array}{cl}
1520: {\Lambda _{1}} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \\
1521: \Lambda _{2} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}]
1522: \end{array}
1523: ~~~~~~\right. \ \nonumber
1524: \end{eqnarray}
1525: where $\hat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}$ is the induced metric on the branes, $V_{i}$
1526: are their tensions and $M$ the 5D fundamental scale.Again, we consider
1527: the vacuum metric ansatz that respects 4D Poincar\'{e} invariance:
1528: \begin{equation}
1529: ds^{2}=e^{-2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^{\mu }dx^{\nu }+dy^{2}
1530: \end{equation}
1531:
1532: \begin{figure}[h]
1533: \begin{center}
1534: \begin{picture}(300,125)(0,50)
1535:
1536: \SetWidth{1.5}
1537:
1538: \SetOffset(0,10)
1539:
1540: \BCirc(150,100){60}
1541: \DashLine(90,100)(210,100){3}
1542:
1543: \GCirc(90,100){7}{0.9}
1544: \GCirc(183,148){7}{0.9}
1545: \GCirc(183,52){7}{0.9}
1546:
1547: \GCirc(210,100){7}{0.2}
1548:
1549:
1550: \Text(70,100)[]{$+$}
1551: \Text(230,100)[]{$-$}
1552: \Text(190,162)[]{$+$}
1553: \Text(190,38)[]{$+$}
1554: \Text(170,140)[]{$L_1$}
1555: \Text(193,112)[]{$L_2$}
1556: \Text(158,60)[]{$-L_1$}
1557:
1558: \Text(130,120)[]{$Z_2$}
1559:
1560:
1561: \LongArrowArc(150,100)(68,4,52)
1562: \LongArrowArcn(150,100)(68,52,4)
1563: \Text(220,135)[l]{$x=k_2(L_2-L_1)$}
1564:
1565:
1566: \SetWidth{2}
1567: \LongArrow(150,100)(150,115)
1568: \LongArrow(150,100)(150,85)
1569:
1570: \end{picture}
1571: \end{center}
1572: \caption{The brane locations in the three-brane $''++-''$ model. The bulk curvature between the $''+''$ branes is $k_{1}$ and between the $''+''$ and $''-''$ brane
1573: is $k_{2}$.}
1574: \label{++-}
1575: \end{figure}
1576:
1577: The above ansatz substituted in the Einstein equations requires that $\sigma
1578: (y)$ satisfies the differential equations:
1579: \begin{equation}
1580: \sigma ^{\prime \prime }=\sum_{i}\frac{V_{i}}{12M^{3}}\delta (y-L_{i})~~~%
1581: \mathrm{and}~~~\left( \sigma ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}=\left\{
1582: \begin{array}{cl}
1583: {k_{1}^{2}} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \\
1584: k_{2}^{2} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}]
1585: \end{array}
1586: \right. \
1587: \end{equation}
1588: where $k_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda _{1}}{24M^{3}}}$ and $k_{2}=\sqrt{\frac{%
1589: -\Lambda _{2}}{24M^{3}}}$ are effectively the bulk curvatures in the two
1590: regions between the branes. The solution of these equations for $y>0$ it is
1591: given by:
1592: \begin{equation}
1593: \sigma (y)=\left\{
1594: \begin{array}{cl}
1595: {k_{1}y} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \\
1596: {k_{2}(y-L_{1})+k_{1}L_{1}} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}]
1597: \end{array}
1598: \right. \
1599: \end{equation}
1600: Einstein's equations impose the following conditions on the brane tensions :
1601: \begin{equation}
1602: V_{0}=24M^{3}k_{1},~~~V_{1}=24M^{3}\frac{k_{2}-k_{1}}{2}%
1603: ,~~~V_{2}=-24M^{3}k_{2}
1604: \end{equation}
1605: If we consider massless fluctuations of this vacuum metric and then
1606: integrate over the 5-th dimension, we find the 4D Planck mass is given by:
1607: \begin{equation}
1608: M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2={M^3}\left[\frac{1}{k_1}\left(1-e^{-2k_1L_1}\right)+\frac{1%
1609: }{k_2}e^{2(k_2-k_1)L_1}\left(e^{-2k_{2}L_1}-e^{-2k_{2}L_{2}}\right)\right]
1610: \end{equation}
1611:
1612: The above formula tells us that for large enough $kL_{1}$ and $kL_{2}$ the
1613: four mass scales $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, $M$, $k_{1}$ and $k_{2}$ can be taken to
1614: be of the same order. Thus we take $k_{1},k_{2}\sim {\mathcal{O}}(M)$ in
1615: order not to introduce a new hierarchy, with the additional restriction $%
1616: k_{1}<k_{2}<M$ so that the bulk curvature is small compared to the 5D Planck
1617: scale and we can trust the solution. Furthermore, if we put matter on the
1618: second brane all the physical masses $m$ on it will be related to the mass
1619: parameters $m_{0}$ of the fundamental 5D theory by the conformal ``warp''
1620: factor
1621: \begin{equation}
1622: m=e^{-\sigma \left( L_{1}\right) }m_{0}=e^{-k_{1}L_{1}}m_{0}
1623: \end{equation}
1624:
1625: This allows us to put the SM states on the intermediate $^{\prime \prime
1626: }+^{\prime \prime }$ brane, solving the Planck hierarchy problem by choosing
1627: $e^{-kL_{1}}$ to be of $\mathcal{O}$$\left( 10^{-15}\right) $, \textit{i.e} $%
1628: L_{1}\approx 35k^{-1}$.
1629:
1630: The KK spectrum can be as usual found by considering the linear ``massive''
1631: fluctuations of the metric \footnote{%
1632: Again we will ignored the radion/dilaton modes that could be used to stabilize the
1633: brane positions $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$. For discussion and possible
1634: stabilization mechanisms see \cite{Goldberger:1999uk}}.
1635:
1636: The wavefunction $\Psi
1637: ^{(n)}(y)$ obeys a second order differential equation and carries all the
1638: information about the effect of the non-factorizable geometry on the
1639: graviton and the KK states. After a change of coordinates and a redefinition
1640: of the wavefunction the problem reduces to the solution of an ordinary
1641: Schr\"{o}dinger equation:
1642: \begin{equation}
1643: \left\{ -\frac{1}{2}\partial _{z}^{2}+V(z)\right\} \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)=\frac{%
1644: m_{n}^{2}}{2}\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)
1645: \label{sch++-}
1646: \end{equation}
1647: where the potential $V(z)$ for $z>0$ has the form:
1648: \begin{eqnarray}
1649: \hspace*{0.5cm}V(z) &=&\frac{15}{8[g(z)]^{2}}\left[ k_{1}^{2}(\theta
1650: (z)-\theta (z-z_{1}))+k_{2}^{2}(\theta (z-z_{1})-\theta (z-z_{2}))\right]
1651: \nonumber \\
1652: &&-\frac{3}{2g(z)}\left[ k_{1}\delta (z)+\frac{(k_{2}-k_{1})}{2}\delta
1653: (z-z_{1})-k_{2}\delta (z-z_{2})\right]
1654: \label{potential++-}
1655: \end{eqnarray}
1656:
1657: The new coordinates and wavefunction in the above equations are defined by:
1658: \begin{equation}
1659: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}z\equiv \left\{
1660: \begin{array}{cl}
1661: \frac{e^{k_{1}y}-1}{k_{1}} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \\
1662: \frac{e^{k_{2}(y-L_{1})+k_{1}L_{1}}}{k_{2}}+\frac{e^{k_{1}L_{1}}-1}{k_{1}}-%
1663: \frac{e^{k_{1}L_{1}}}{k_{2}} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}]
1664: \end{array}
1665: \right. \
1666: \end{equation}
1667: \begin{equation}
1668: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\equiv \Psi ^{(n)}(y)e^{\sigma /2}
1669: \end{equation}
1670: with the symmetric $z$ for $y<0$ and the function $g(z)$ as:
1671: \begin{equation}
1672: g(z)=\left\{
1673: \begin{array}{cl}
1674: {k_{1}z+1} & ,z\in \lbrack 0,z_{1}] \\
1675: {k_{2}(z-z_{1})+k_{1}z_{1}+1} & ,z\in \lbrack z_{1},z_{2}]
1676: \end{array}
1677: \right. \
1678: \end{equation}
1679: where $z_{1}=z(L_{1})$ and $z_{2}=z(L_{2})$. The change of coordinates has
1680: been chosen so that there are no first derivative terms in the differential
1681: equation. Furthermore, in this coordinate system it can be easily seen that
1682: the vacuum metric takes the conformaly flat form:
1683: \begin{equation}
1684: ds^{2}=\frac{1}{g(z)^{2}}\left( \eta _{\mu \nu }dx^{\mu }dx^{\nu
1685: }+dz^{2}\right)
1686: \end{equation}
1687:
1688: The potential (\ref{potential++-}) always gives rise to a massless graviton zero mode
1689: which reflects the fact that Lorentz invariance is preserved in 4D
1690: spacetime. Its wavefunction is given by:
1691: \begin{equation}
1692: \hat{\Psi}^{(0)}=\frac{A}{[g(z)]^{3/2}}
1693: \label{zerowave++-}
1694: \end{equation}
1695: with normalization factor $A$ determined by the requirement $\displaystyle{%
1696: \int_{-z_2}^{\phantom{-}z_2} dz\left[\hat{\Psi}^{(0)}(z)\right]^2=1}$,
1697: chosen so that we get the standard form of the Fierz-Pauli Lagrangian (the
1698: same holds for the normalization of all the other states).
1699:
1700: For the massive KK modes the solution is given in terms of Bessel functions.
1701: For $y$ lying in the regions $\mathbf{A}\equiv\left[0,L_1\right]$ and $%
1702: \mathbf{B}\equiv\left[L_1,L_2\right]$, we have:
1703: \begin{equation}
1704: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}\left\{
1705: \begin{array}{cc}
1706: \mathbf{A} & \\
1707: \mathbf{B} &
1708: \end{array}
1709: \right\}=N_n \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2} \left\{
1710: \begin{array}{cc}
1711: \sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k_{1}}}\left[\phantom{A_1}Y_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k_{1}}%
1712: g(z)\right)+A_{\phantom{2}}J_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k_{1}}g(z)\right)\right] &
1713: \\
1714: \sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k_{2}}}\left[B_1Y_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k_{2}}%
1715: g(z)\right)+B_2J_2\left(\frac{m_n}{k_{2}}g(z)\right)\right] &
1716: \end{array}
1717: \right\}
1718: \label{wave++-}
1719: \end{equation}
1720:
1721: The boundary conditions (one for the continuity of the wavefunction at $%
1722: z_{1} $ and three for the discontinuity of its first derivative at $0$, $%
1723: z_{1}$, $z_{2}$) result in a $4\times 4$ homogeneous linear system which, in
1724: order to have a non-trivial solution, should have a vanishing determinant:
1725: \begin{equation}
1726: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}\left|
1727: \begin{array}{cccc}
1728: Y_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{1}}\right) & J_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{1}}\right) & %
1729: \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 \\
1730: 0 & 0 & \phantom{---}Y_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{2}}g(z_{2})\right) & %
1731: \phantom{---}J_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{2}}g(z_{2})\right) \\
1732: Y_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{1}}g(z_{1})\right) & J_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{1}}%
1733: g(z_{1})\right) & -\sqrt{\frac{k_{1}}{k_{2}}}Y_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{2}}%
1734: g(z_{1})\right) & -\sqrt{\frac{k_{1}}{k_{2}}}J_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k_{2}}%
1735: g(z_{1})\right) \\
1736: Y_{2}\left( \frac{m}{k_{1}}g(z_{1})\right) & J_{2}\left( \frac{m}{k_{1}}%
1737: g(z_{1})\right) & -\sqrt{\frac{k_{1}}{k_{2}}}Y_{2}\left( \frac{m}{k_{2}}%
1738: g(z_{1})\right) & -\sqrt{\frac{k_{1}}{k_{2}}}J_{2}\left( \frac{m}{k_{2}}%
1739: g(z_{1})\right)
1740: \end{array}
1741: \right| =0
1742: \label{det++-}
1743: \end{equation}
1744: (The subscript $n$ on the masses $m_{n}$ has been suppressed.)
1745:
1746: \subsection{Masses and Couplings}
1747:
1748: The above quantization condition determines the mass spectrum of the model.
1749: The parameters we have are $k_{1}$, $k_{2}$, $L_{1}$, $L_{2}$ with the
1750: restriction $k_{1}<k_{2}<M$ and ${k_{1}}\sim {k_{2}}$ so that we don't
1751: introduce a new hierarchy. It is more convenient to introduce the parameters
1752: $x=k_{2}(L_{2}-L_{1})$, $w=e^{-k_{1}L_{1}}$ and work instead with the set $%
1753: k_{1}$, $k_{2}$, $x$, $w$. From now on we will assume that $w\ll 1$ ($w\sim {%
1754: \mathcal{O}}\left( 10^{-15}\right) $ as is required if the model is to
1755: provide an explanation of the hierarchy problem).
1756:
1757: For the region $x\gtrsim 1$ it is straightforward to show analytically that
1758: all the masses of the KK tower scale in the same way as $x$ is varied:
1759: \begin{equation}
1760: m_{n}=\xi _{n}k_{2}we^{-x}
1761: \label{big++-}
1762: \end{equation}
1763: where $\xi _{n}$ is the $n$-th root of $J_{1}(x)$. This should be compared
1764: with the $"+-+"$ $^{\prime \prime }+-+^{\prime \prime }$model in which $%
1765: m_{1}\propto kwe^{-2x}$ and $m_{n+1}\propto kwe^{-x}$, where $x$ is the
1766: separation between the $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$ and the second $%
1767: ^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime \prime }$ brane. This significant difference can
1768: be explained by the fact that in the $^{\prime \prime }++-^{\prime \prime }$%
1769: case the negative tension brane creates a potential barrier between the two
1770: attractive potentials created by the positive tension branes. As a result
1771: the wave function in the region of the $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime
1772: \prime }$ brane is small due to the tunneling effect. The two attractive potentials
1773: support two bound states, one the graviton and the other the first KK mode.
1774: The mass difference between the two is determined by the wave function in
1775: the neighbourhood of the $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$ brane and is
1776: thus very small. On the other hand the wave function between the two $%
1777: ^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime \prime }$ branes in the $^{\prime \prime
1778: }++-^{\prime \prime }$ configuration is not suppressed by the need to tunnel
1779: and hence the mass difference between the zero mode and the first KK mode is
1780: also not suppressed. This has as result the two $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime
1781: \prime }$ branes behave approximately as one. This becomes even more clear
1782: when $x\gg 1$ where the model resembles the $^{\prime \prime }+-^{\prime
1783: \prime }$ RS construction. Indeed, in this limit the mass spectrum becomes $%
1784: m_{n}=\xi _{n}k_{2}e^{-k_{2}L_{2}}$ which is exactly that of the $^{\prime
1785: \prime }+-^{\prime \prime }$ RS model with orbifold size $L_{2}$ and bulk
1786: curvature $k_{2}$.
1787:
1788: In the region $x\lesssim 1$ the relation of eq(\ref{big++-}) breaks down. As
1789: reduce $x$ the second $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime \prime }$ comes closer and
1790: closer to the $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$ brane and in the limit $%
1791: x\rightarrow 0$ \mbox{({\textit {i.e.}}
1792: $L_{2}=L_{1}$)} the combined brane system behaves as a single $^{\prime
1793: \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$ brane, reducing to the $^{\prime \prime
1794: }+-^{\prime \prime }$ RS model. In this limit the spectrum is given by:
1795: \begin{equation}
1796: m_{n}=\xi _{n}k_{1}w
1797: \label{small++-}
1798: \end{equation}
1799: which is just the one of the $^{\prime \prime }+-^{\prime \prime }$ RS
1800: model. In the region $0\leqslant x\lesssim 1$ the mass spectrum interpolates
1801: between the relations (\ref{big++-}) and (\ref{small++-}).
1802:
1803: The fact that there is nothing special about the first KK mode is true also
1804: for its coupling on the second $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime \prime }$ brane.
1805: The interaction of the KK states on the second $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime
1806: \prime }$ brane is given by:
1807: \begin{equation}
1808: {\mathcal{L}}_{int}=\sum_{n\geq 0}a_{n}h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)T_{\mu \nu
1809: }(x)~~,~~\mathrm{with}~~a_{n}=\left[ \frac{g(z_{1})}{M}\right] ^{3/2}\hat{%
1810: \Psi}^{(n)}(z_{1})
1811: \label{coupl++-}
1812: \end{equation}
1813:
1814: In the RS limit ($x=0$) all the states of the KK tower have equal coupling
1815: given by:
1816: \begin{equation}
1817: a_{n}=\frac{1}{wM_{\mathrm{Pl}}}
1818: \end{equation}
1819:
1820: As we increase $x$, the lower a state is in the tower, the more strongly it
1821: couples, {\textit{i.e.}} $a_{1}>a_{2}>a_{3}>\cdots $ (with $a_{1}<(wM_{%
1822: \mathrm{Pl}})^{-1}$) and tends to a constant value for high enough levels.
1823: At some point this behaviour changes, the levels cross and for $x\gtrsim 1$
1824: the situation is reversed and the lower a state is in the tower, the more
1825: weakly it couples, {\textit{i.e.}} $a_{1}<a_{2}<a_{3}<\cdots $. In this
1826: region it is possible to obtain a simple analytical expression for the
1827: couplings:
1828: \begin{equation}
1829: a_{n}=\frac{8\xi _{n}^{2}}{J_{2}\left( \xi _{n}\right) }\left( \frac{k_{2}}{%
1830: k_{1}}\right) ^{3/2}\frac{1}{wM_{Pl}}e^{-3x}
1831: \end{equation}
1832: Here, we also see that the first KK state scales in exactly the same way as
1833: the remaining states in the tower with respect to $x$, a behaviour quite
1834: different to that in the $"+-+"$ model in which the coupling is $x$%
1835: -independent. Furthermore, the coupling falls as ${e^{-3x}}$, {\textit{i.e.}}
1836: much faster than $e^{-x}$ as one would naively expect. This can be explained
1837: by looking at the origin of the $x$-dependence of the wavefunction. For
1838: increasing $x$ the normalization volume coming from the region between $%
1839: L_{1} $ and $L_{2}$ dominates and the normalization constant in (\ref{wave++-})
1840: scales as $N_{n}\propto e^{-3x}$. This rapid decrease is not compensated by
1841: the increase of the value of the remaining wavefunction (which from (\ref
1842: {wave++-}) is approximately constant). Thus, although the two $^{\prime \prime
1843: }+^{\prime \prime }$ branes in the large $x$ limit behave as one as far as
1844: the mass spectrum is concerned, their separation actually makes the coupling
1845: of the KK modes very different.
1846:
1847:
1848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% GRS model %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1849:
1850:
1851: \section{The GRS model}
1852:
1853: When the compactification volume becomes infinite,
1854: the zero mode fails to be normalizable and thus the theory has no
1855: massless graviton. However gravitational interactions at intermediate
1856: distances can be reproduced if the KK states have specific
1857: behaviour. Such an example is given in this Section through the GRS model.
1858:
1859:
1860:
1861: The GRS model consists of
1862: one brane
1863: with tension $V_{0} > 0$ and two branes with equal
1864: tensions $V_{1}=-V_{0} /2$
1865: placed at equal distances
1866: to the right and to the left of the positive tension
1867: brane in the fifth direction.
1868: The two negative tension branes are introduced for simplicity,
1869: to have $Z_2$ symmetry, $y \to -y$, in analogy to
1870: RS model (hereafter $y$ denotes the fifth coordinate).
1871: It is assumed that conventional matter resides on the
1872: positive tension brane, and in what follows we will be
1873: interested in gravitational interactions of this matter.
1874:
1875: The physical set-up (for $y>0$) is as follows:
1876: The bulk cosmological constant between the branes, $\Lambda$, is
1877: negative as in the RS model, however, in contrast to that model, is
1878: {\it zero} to the right of the negative tension brane. With
1879: appropriately tuned $\Lambda$, there exists a
1880: solution to the five-dimensional
1881: Einstein equations for which both positive and
1882: negative tension branes are at rest at $y=0$ and $y=y_c$ respectively,
1883: $y_c$ being an arbitrary constant
1884: The metric of this solution for this set-up is
1885: \be
1886: ds^2=a^2(y)\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+dy^2
1887: \label{1}
1888: \ee
1889: where
1890: \be
1891: a(y) = \cases{ e^{-ky} & $0<y<y_c$ \cr
1892: e^{-ky_c}\equiv a_- & $y>y_c$\cr}
1893: \label{2}
1894: \ee
1895: Where $k=\sqrt{\frac{- \Lambda}{24 M^{3}}}$
1896: and $V_{0}=- \frac{\Lambda}{k}$. The four-dimensional hypersurfaces
1897: $y=const.$ are flat, the five-dimensional space-time is flat to the
1898: right of the negative-tension brane and anti-de Sitter between the
1899: branes. The spacetime to the left of the positive tension brane is
1900: of course a mirror image of this set-up.
1901:
1902:
1903:
1904:
1905: \begin{figure}
1906: \begin{center}
1907: \begin{picture}(300,100)(0,50)
1908: \SetWidth{1.5}
1909:
1910: \Line(-40,100)(340,100)
1911: \DashLine(150,50)(150,150){3}
1912: \CCirc(150,100){7}{Black}{Red}
1913:
1914:
1915: \CCirc(50,100){7}{Black}{Green}
1916: \CCirc(250,100){7}{Black}{Green}
1917: \LongArrow(160,110)(240,110)
1918: \LongArrow(240,110)(160,110)
1919: \Curve{(200,110)(220,145)(230,150)}
1920: \Text(235,150)[l]{$x=kL$}
1921:
1922: \Text(65,80)[]{$-1/2$}
1923: \Text(230,80)[]{$-1/2$}
1924: \Text(140,80)[]{$+$}
1925:
1926: \Text(250,120)[c]{$L$}
1927: \Text(50,120)[c]{$-L$}
1928:
1929: \Text(170,145)[]{$Z_2$}
1930: \Text(-40,100)[lt]{${\Blue {\underbrace{\phantom{Lonword}}_{{\LARGE{\bf Flat}}}}}$}
1931: \Text(260,100)[lt]{${\Blue {\underbrace{\phantom{Lonword}}_{{\LARGE{\bf Flat}}}}}$}
1932:
1933:
1934: \SetWidth{2}
1935: \LongArrow(130,130)(170,130)
1936: \LongArrow(170,130)(130,130)
1937:
1938: \end{picture}
1939: \end{center}
1940: \caption{The GRS constuction.}
1941: \label{GRS}
1942: \end{figure}
1943:
1944:
1945:
1946: This background has two length scales, $k^{-1}$ and
1947: $\zeta_c \equiv k^{-1} e^{ky_c}$. We will consider the case of
1948: large enough $z_c$, in which the two scales are
1949: well separated, $\zeta_c \gg k^{-1}$. We will see that
1950: gravity in this model is effectively four-dimensional
1951: at distances $r$ belonging to the interval
1952: $k^{-1} \ll r \ll \zeta_c (k\zeta_c)^2$, and is five-dimensional
1953: {\it both} at short distances, $r \ll k^{-1}$ (this situation is
1954: exactly the same as in RS model), and at long distances,
1955: $r\gg \zeta_c (k\zeta_c)^2$. In the latter regime of very long
1956: distances the five-dimensional gravitational constant gets effectively
1957: renormalized and no longer coincides with $G_5$.
1958:
1959: To find the gravity law experienced by matter residing on
1960: the positive tension brane, let us study
1961: gravitational perturbations about the background
1962: metric (\ref{1}). We will work in the Gaussian Normal (GN) gauge,
1963: $g_{zz}=-1$, $g_{z\mu}=0$.
1964: The linearized theory is described by the metric
1965: \be
1966: ds^2=a^2(y)\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+
1967: h_{\mu\nu}(x,y)dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+dy^2
1968: \label{3}
1969: \ee
1970: In the
1971: transverse-traceless gauge, $h^{\mu}_{\mu}=0$,
1972: $h^{\nu}_{\mu,\nu}=0$, and the linearized Einstein equations take
1973: the form for all components of $h_{\mu\nu}$,
1974: \be
1975: \cases{ h'' - 4k^2 h - {1\over a^2} \Box^{(4)}h=0 & $0<y<y_c$\cr
1976: h'' - {1\over a_-^2}\Box^{(4)}h=0 & $y>y_c$\cr}
1977: \label{6*}
1978: \ee
1979: The Israel junction conditions on the branes are
1980: \be
1981: \cases{h'+2kh = 0 & at $y=0$ \cr \left[ h'\right] - 2kh = 0 & at $y=y_c$\cr}
1982: \label{7*}
1983: \ee
1984: where $\left[h'\right]$ is the discontinuity of the
1985: $y$-derivative of the metric perturbation at $z_c$,
1986: and four-dimensional indices
1987: are omitted. A general perturbation is a
1988: superposition of modes, $h=\psi(y)e^{ip_{\mu}x^{\mu}}$
1989: with $p^2=m^2$, where $\psi$ obeys the following set of equations
1990: in the bulk,
1991: \be
1992: \cases{ \psi'' -4 k^2\psi+\frac{m^2}{a^2}\psi = 0 & $0<y<y_c$ \cr
1993: \psi''+\frac{m^2}{a_-^2}\psi=0 & $y > y_c$ \cr}
1994: \label{9}
1995: \ee
1996: with the junction conditions (\ref{7*}) (replacing $h$ by $\psi$).
1997: It is straightforward to check that there are no negative modes,
1998: i.e., normalizable solutions to these equations with $m^2 < 0$.
1999: There are no normalizable solutions with $m^2 \geq 0$ either,
2000: so the spectrum is continuous, beginning at $m^2 =0$. To write the
2001: modes explicitly, it is convenient to introduce a new coordinate
2002: between the branes, $\zeta=\frac{1}{k}e^{ky}$, in terms of which the
2003: background metric is conformally flat. Then the modes
2004: have the following form,
2005: \be
2006: \psi_m = \cases{ C_m\left[N_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)J_2(m\zeta)-
2007: J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)N_2(m\zeta)\right] & $0<y<y_c$\cr
2008: A_m \cos\left(\frac{m}{a_-}(y-y_c)\right)+
2009: B_m \sin\left(\frac{m}{a_-}(y-y_c)\right) & $y>y_c$ \cr}
2010: \label{18}
2011: \ee
2012: where $N$ and $J$ are the Bessel functions.
2013: The constants $A_m, B_m$ and $C_m$ obey two relations due to the
2014: junction conditions at the negative tension brane. Explicitly,
2015: \ba
2016: A_m&=&C_m\left[N_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)J_2(m\zeta_c)
2017: - J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)N_2(m\zeta_c)\right]
2018: \label{AA} \\
2019: B_m&=&C_m \left[N_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)J_1(m\zeta_c) -
2020: J_1\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)N_1(m\zeta_c) \right]
2021: \label{BB}
2022: \ea
2023: The remaining overall constant $C_m$ is obtained from
2024: the normalization condition. The latter is determined by the
2025: explicit form of Eq.\ (\ref{9}) and reads
2026: \be
2027: \int~\psi_m^{*}(y) \psi_{m'} (y) \frac{dy}{a^2(y)} = \delta (m-m')
2028: \ee
2029: One makes use of the asymptotic behaviour of $\psi_m$ at
2030: $y \to \infty$ and finds
2031: \be
2032: \frac{\pi}{a_-}(|A_m|^2+|B_m|^2)=1
2033: \ee
2034: which fixes $C_m$ from (\ref{AA}) and (\ref{BB}).
2035:
2036: It is instructive to consider two limiting cases.
2037: At $m\zeta_c\gg 1$ we obtain by making use of the
2038: asymptotics of the Bessel functions,
2039: \be
2040: C_m^2=\frac{m}{2k}\left[J_1^2\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)+
2041: N_1^2\left(\frac{m}{k}\right)\right]^{-1}
2042: \ee
2043: which coincides, as one might expect, with the
2044: normalization factor for the massive modes in RS model. In the opposite case
2045: $m\zeta_c\ll 1$ (notice that this automatically implies
2046: $m/k \ll 1$), the expansion
2047: of the Bessel functions in Eqs.\ (\ref{AA}) and (\ref{BB}) yields
2048: \be
2049: C_{m}^{2}=\frac{\pi}{(k\zeta_c)^3}\left(1+
2050: \frac{4}{(m\zeta_c)^2(k\zeta_c)^4}\right)^{-1}
2051: \label{21}
2052: \ee
2053:
2054: It is now straightforward to calculate the static
2055: gravitational potential between two unit masses
2056: placed on the positive-tension brane at a
2057: distance $r$ from each other. This potential is
2058: generated by the exchange of the massive modes.
2059: \be
2060: V(r)=G_5\int_0^\infty~dm~\frac{e^{-mr}}{r} ~\psi_m^2 (y=0)
2061: \label{22}
2062: \ee
2063: It is convenient to divide this integral into two parts,
2064: \be
2065: V(r)=G_5\int_0^{\zeta_c^{-1}}~dm ~\frac{e^{-mr}}{r} ~\psi_m^2(0) +
2066: G_5\int_{\zeta_c^{-1}}^\infty ~dm~\frac{e^{-mr}}{r} ~\psi_m^2(0)
2067: \label{23}
2068: \ee
2069: At $r \gg k^{-1}$, the second term in Eq.\ (\ref{23})
2070: is small and it is similar to the contribution of
2071: the continuum modes to the gravitational
2072: potential in RS model. It gives short distance corrections to Newton's law,
2073: \be
2074: \Delta V_{short}(r) \sim
2075: \frac{G_5}{kr^3} = \frac{G_N}{r}\cdot \frac{1}{k^2r^2}
2076: \label{24}
2077: \ee
2078: where $G_N=G_5k$ is the four-dimensional Newton constant.
2079:
2080: Of greater interest is the first term in
2081: Eq.\ (\ref{23}) which dominates at $r \gg k^{-1}$.
2082: Substituting the normalization factor (\ref{21}) into this term, we find
2083: \be
2084: V(r)=\frac{G_5}{r}\int_0^{\zeta_c^{-1}}~dm\frac{\pi}{(k\zeta_c)^3}
2085: \left(1+\frac{4}{(m\zeta_c)^2(k\zeta_c)^4}\right)^{-1}
2086: \frac{4k^2}{\pi^2m^2}e^{-mr}
2087: \ee
2088: This integral is always saturated at
2089: $m \lesssim r_c^{-1} \ll \zeta_c^{-1}$, where
2090: \be
2091: r_c = \zeta_c (k\zeta_c)^2 \equiv k^{-1} e^{3ky_c}
2092: \label{rrc}
2093: \ee
2094: Therefore, we can extend the integration to infinity and obtain
2095: \ba
2096: V(r) &=& \frac{G_N}{r}\cdot\frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dx
2097: \frac{e^{-\frac{2r}{r_c}x}}{x^2+1} \label{25} \\
2098: &=& {2G_N\over\pi r} \left [
2099: \mbox{ci} (2r/r_c) \sin (2r/r_c) - \mbox{si} (2r/r_c) \cos (2r/r_c)\right ]
2100: \nonumber
2101: \ea
2102: where $x=mr_c/2$, and $\mbox{ci/si}(t) = -\int_t^\infty {\cos/\sin (u)
2103: \over u}du$ are the sine and cosine integrals. We see that
2104: $V(r)$ behaves in a peculiar way. At $r\ll r_c$,
2105: the exponential factor in Eq.\ (\ref{25}) can be set
2106: equal to one and the four-dimensional Newton law is restored,
2107: $V(r)=G_N/r$.
2108: Hence, at intermediate distances,
2109: $ k^{-1} \ll r \ll r_c$, the collection of continuous modes with
2110: $m \sim r_c^{-1}$ has the same effect as the graviton
2111: bound state in RS model. However,
2112: in the opposite case, $r\gg r_c$, we find
2113: \be
2114: V(r)=\frac{G_Nr_c}{\pi r^2}
2115: \label{5dg}
2116: \ee
2117: which has the form of ``Newton's law'' of
2118: five-dimensional gravity with a renormalized gravitational constant.
2119:
2120: It is clear from Eq.\ (\ref{25}) that at intermediate distances,
2121: $k^{-1} \ll r \ll r_c$, the four-dimensional Newtonian potential
2122: obtains not only short distance corrections, Eq.\ (\ref{24}),
2123: but also long distance ones, $V(r) = G_N/r + \Delta V_{short}(r)
2124: + \Delta V_{long}(r)$. The long distance corrections are suppressed by
2125: $r/r_c$, the leading term being
2126: \be
2127: \Delta V_{long}(r)=\frac{G_N}{r}\cdot\frac{r}{r_c}\cdot\frac{4}{\pi}
2128: \left(\ln \frac{2r}{r_c}+{\bf C}-1\right)
2129: \label{26}
2130: \ee
2131: where ${\bf C}$ is the Euler constant. The two types of corrections,
2132: Eqs.\ (\ref{24}) and (\ref{26}), are comparable at roughly $r\sim
2133: \zeta_c$.
2134: At larger $r$, deviations from the four-dimensional Newton law are
2135: predominantly due to the long-distance effects.
2136:
2137: In this scenario, the approximate four-dimensional gravity law is valid over a
2138: finite range of distances. Without strong fine-tuning however,
2139: this range is large, as
2140: required by phenomenology. Indeed, the exponential factor in
2141: Eq.\ (\ref{rrc}) leads to a very large $r_c$ even for microscopic
2142: separations, $z_c$, between the branes. As an example, for $k\sim M_{Pl}$
2143: we only require $z_c \sim 50 l_{Pl}$ to have $r_c \sim 10^{28}$ cm,
2144: the present horizon size of the Universe, i.e., with mild assumptions
2145: about $z_c$, the four-dimensional description of gravity is valid from
2146: the Planck to cosmological scales (in this example, long distance
2147: corrections to Newton's gravity law dominate over short distance ones
2148: at $r \lesssim \zeta_c \sim 10^{-13}$ cm).
2149:
2150:
2151:
2152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+--+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2153:
2154:
2155: \section{The four-brane $''+--+''$ Model}
2156:
2157: In this section we discuss the four-brane model in order to clarify the
2158: relation between the ``bigravity'' $''+-+''$ model with the GRS
2159: model. In particular we wish to explore and compare the
2160: modification of gravity at large scales predicted by each model.
2161:
2162: In the case of the $''+-+''$ model, in
2163: the limit of very large $x$, gravity results from the net effect of both the
2164: massless graviton and the ultralight first KK state. The modifications of
2165: gravity at very large distances come from the fact that the Yukawa type
2166: suppression of the gravitational potential coming from the KK state turns on
2167: at the Compton wavelength of the state. On the other hand, the GRS model has
2168: a continuous spectrum with no normalizable zero mode. However, the values of
2169: the KK states wavefunctions on the $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime \prime }$
2170: brane have a ``resonance''-like behaviour \cite{Csaki:2000ei} which give rise to 4D
2171: gravity at distances smaller than the Compton wavelength of its width.
2172: Beyond this scale gravity becomes five-dimensional.
2173:
2174: The four-brane GRS configuration can be obtained from the $"+-+"$ model by
2175: ``cutting'' the $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$ brane in half, {%
2176: \textit{i.e.}} instead of having one $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$
2177: brane one can take two $^{\prime \prime }-^{\prime \prime }$ branes of half
2178: the tension of the original one ($^{\prime \prime }-1/2^{\prime \prime }$
2179: branes), having flat spacetime between them (see Fig.(\ref{multi}). Finally
2180: if the second $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime \prime }$ brane is taken to
2181: infinity together with one of the $^{\prime \prime }-1/2^{\prime \prime }$
2182: branes we shall get precisely the GRS picture.
2183:
2184: Let us discuss the four-brane $^{\prime \prime }+--+^{\prime \prime }$ model
2185: in more detail. It consists of 5D spacetime with orbifold topology with four
2186: parallel 3-branes located at $L_{0}=0$, $L_{1}$, $L_{2}$ and $L_{3}$, where $%
2187: L_{0}$ and $L_{3}$ are the orbifold fixed points (see Fig.(\ref{multi})). The
2188: bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda $ is negative ({\textit{i.e.}} $AdS_{5}$
2189: spacetime) between the branes with opposite tension and zero ({\textit{i.e.}}
2190: flat spacetime) between the two $^{\prime \prime }-1/2^{\prime \prime }$
2191: branes. The model has four parameters namely $L_{1}$, $L_{2}$ and $L_{3}$
2192: and $\Lambda $. For our present purposes we consider the symmetric
2193: configuration, leaving 3 parameters, $l$, $l_{-}$ and $\Lambda $ where
2194: $l\equiv L_1=L_3-L_2$ and $l_{-}\equiv L_{2}-L_{1}$. In the absence of matter the model is described by
2195: eq(\ref{action++-}) with
2196: \begin{equation}
2197: \Lambda (y)=\left\{
2198: \begin{array}{cl}
2199: {0} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}] \\
2200: {\Lambda} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}]\bigcup [L_{2},L_{3}]
2201: \end{array}
2202: \right.
2203: \end{equation}
2204: By considering the ansatz eq(\ref{ansatzrs+-+}) the ``warp'' function $\sigma (y)$
2205: must satisfy:
2206: \begin{equation}
2207: \sigma ^{\prime \prime }=\sum_{i}\frac{V_{i}}{12M^{3}}\delta (y-L_{i})~~~%
2208: \mathrm{and}~~~\left( \sigma ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}=\left\{
2209: \begin{array}{cl}
2210: {0} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}] \\
2211: k^{2} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \bigcup [L_{2},L_{3}]
2212: \end{array}
2213: \right. \
2214: \end{equation}
2215: where $k=\sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda }{24M^{3}}}$ is a measure of the bulk
2216: curvature and we take $V_{0}=V_{3}=-2V_{1}=-2V_{2} \equiv
2217: V$. The solution for $y>0$ is:
2218: \begin{equation}
2219: \sigma (y)=\left\{
2220: \begin{array}{cl}
2221: {ky} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \\
2222: {kL_{1}} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}] \\
2223: {kL_{1}+k(L_{2}-y)} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{2},L_{3}]
2224: \end{array}
2225: \right. \
2226: \end{equation}
2227: Furthermore, 4D Poincare invariance requires the fine tuned relation:
2228: \begin{equation}
2229: V=-\frac{\Lambda }{k}
2230: \end{equation}
2231:
2232: \begin{figure}[t]
2233: \begin{center}
2234: \begin{picture}(300,160)(0,50)
2235:
2236:
2237: \SetScale{0.9}
2238: \SetOffset(20,40)
2239: \SetWidth{1.5}
2240:
2241: \BCirc(150,100){80}
2242: \DashLine(70,100)(230,100){3}
2243:
2244: \GCirc(70,100){7.7}{0.9}
2245: \GCirc(230,100){7.7}{0.9}
2246:
2247: \GCirc(183,172){4}{0.2}
2248: \GCirc(183,28){4}{0.2}
2249: \GCirc(117,172){4}{0.2}
2250: \GCirc(117,28){4}{0.2}
2251:
2252:
2253:
2254: \LongArrowArc(150,100)(90,298,358)
2255: \LongArrowArcn(150,100)(90,358,298)
2256: \LongArrowArc(150,100)(90,182,242)
2257: \LongArrowArcn(150,100)(90,242,182)
2258:
2259:
2260: \LongArrowArc(150,100)(90,70,110)
2261: \LongArrowArcn(150,100)(90,110,70)
2262:
2263:
2264: \Text(45,100)[]{$+$}
2265: \Text(225,100)[]{$+$}
2266: \Text(178,168)[l]{$-1/2$}
2267: \Text(92,168)[r]{$-1/2$}
2268: \Text(165,0)[c]{$-1/2$}
2269: \Text(105,0)[c]{$-1/2$}
2270:
2271: \Text(120,110)[]{$Z_2$}
2272:
2273: \Text(215,45)[l]{$x=kl$}
2274: \Text(55,45)[r]{$x=kl$}
2275: \Text(135,185)[c]{$x_-=kl_-$}
2276:
2277: \Text(100,140)[c]{$L_1$}
2278: \Text(100,40)[c]{$-L_1$}
2279: \Text(170,140)[c]{$L_2$}
2280: \Text(170,40)[c]{$-L_2$}
2281: \Text(195,105)[c]{$L_3$}
2282:
2283:
2284: \Text(136,149)[c]{$\underbrace{\phantom{abcdefghi}}_{{\Large{\bf FLAT}}}$}
2285: \Text(136,31)[c]{$\overbrace{\phantom{abcdefghi}}^{{\LARGE{\bf FLAT}}}$}
2286:
2287: \SetWidth{2}
2288: \LongArrow(150,100)(150,115)
2289: \LongArrow(150,100)(150,85)
2290:
2291: \end{picture}
2292: \end{center}
2293: \caption{$^{\prime\prime}+--+^{\prime\prime}$ configuration with scale
2294: equivalent $^{\prime\prime}+^{\prime\prime}$ branes. The distance between
2295: the $^{\prime\prime}+^{\prime\prime}$ and $^{\prime\prime}-1/2^{\prime%
2296: \prime} $ branes is $l=L_1=L_3-L_2$ while the distance between the $%
2297: ^{\prime\prime}-1/2^{\prime\prime}$ branes is $l_-=L_2-L_1$. The curvature
2298: of the bulk between the $^{\prime\prime}+^{\prime\prime}$ and $%
2299: ^{\prime\prime}-1/2^{\prime\prime}$ branes is $k$.}
2300: \label{multi}
2301: \end{figure}
2302:
2303: In order to determine the mass spectrum and the couplings of the KK modes we
2304: consider linear ``massive'' metric fluctuations as in eq(\ref{perturbrs+-+}).
2305: Following the same procedure we find that the function $\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)$
2306: obeys a Schr\"{o}dinger-like equation with potential $V(z)$ of the form:
2307: \begin{eqnarray}
2308: \hspace*{0.5cm}V(z) &=&\frac{15k^{2}}{8[g(z)]^{2}}\left[ \theta (z)-\theta
2309: (z-z_{1})+\theta (z-z_{2})-\theta (z-z_{3})\right] \nonumber \\
2310: &&-\frac{3k}{2g(z)}\left[ \delta (z)-\frac{1}{2}\delta (z-z_{1})-\frac{1}{2}%
2311: \delta (z-z_{2})+\delta (z-z_{3})\right]
2312: \label{poten2}
2313: \end{eqnarray}
2314: The conformal coordinates now are given by:
2315: \begin{equation}
2316: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}z\equiv \left\{
2317: \begin{array}{cl}
2318: \frac{e^{ky}-1}{k} & ,y\in \lbrack 0,L_{1}] \\
2319: \ (y-l)e^{kl}+\frac{e^{kl}-1}{k} & ,y\in \lbrack L_{1},L_{2}] \\
2320: \ -\frac{1}{k}e^{2kl+kl_{-}}e^{-ky}+l_{-}e^{kl}+\frac{2}{k}e^{kl}-\frac{1}{k}
2321: & ,y\in \lbrack L_{2},L_{3}]
2322: \end{array}
2323: \right. \
2324: \end{equation}
2325: \begin{equation}
2326: g(z)=\left\{
2327: \begin{array}{cl}
2328: {kz+1} & ,z\in \lbrack 0,z_{1}] \\
2329: {kz_{1}+1} & ,z\in \lbrack z_{1},z_{2}] \\
2330: {k(z_{2}-z)+kz_{1}+1} & ,z\in \lbrack z_{2},z_{3}]
2331: \end{array}
2332: \right. \
2333: \end{equation}
2334: where $z_{1}=z(L_{1})$, $z_{2}=z(L_{2})$ and $z_{3}=z(L_{3})$.
2335:
2336: The potential (\ref{poten2}) again gives rise to a massless graviton zero mode
2337: whose wavefunction is given by (\ref{zerowave++-}) with the same normalization
2338: convention. Note, however, that in the limit $l_- \rightarrow \infty$ this
2339: mode becomes non-normalizable (GRS case). The solution of the
2340: Schr\"{o}dinger equation for the massive KK modes is:
2341: \begin{equation}
2342: \hat{\Psi}^{(n)}\left\{
2343: \begin{array}{c}
2344: \mathbf{A} \\
2345: \mathbf{B} \\
2346: \mathbf{C}
2347: \end{array}
2348: \right\}=N_n \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.7} \left\{
2349: \begin{array}{c}
2350: \sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k}}\left[\phantom{A_1}Y_{2}\left(\frac{m_n}{k}%
2351: g(z)\right)+A_{\phantom{2}}J_{2}\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)\right] \\
2352: ~~~~~~~~B_1\cos(m_{n}z)+B_{2}\sin(m_{n}z) \\
2353: \sqrt{\frac{g(z)}{k}}\left[C_{1}Y_{2}\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)%
2354: \right)+C_{2}J_{2}\left(\frac{m_n}{k}g(z)\right)\right]
2355: \end{array}
2356: \right\} \ \label{wavemulti}
2357: \end{equation}
2358: where $\mathbf{A}=[0,z_{1}]$, $\mathbf{B}=[z_{1},z_{2}]$, and $\mathbf{C}%
2359: =[z_{2},z_{3}]$. We observe that the solution in the first and third
2360: interval has the same form as in the $^{\prime\prime}+ - +^{\prime\prime}$
2361: model. The new feature is the second region (flat spacetime). The
2362: coefficients that appear in the solution are determined by imposing the
2363: boundary conditions and normalizing the wavefunction.
2364:
2365: The boundary conditions (two for the continuity of the wavefunction at $%
2366: z_{1} $, $z_{2}$ and four for the discontinuity of its first derivative at $%
2367: 0 $, $z_{1}$, $z_{2}$ and $z_{3}$) result in a $6\times 6$ homogeneous
2368: linear system which, in order to have a non-trivial solution, should have
2369: vanishing determinant. It is readily reduced to a $4\times 4$ set of
2370: equations leading to the quantization condition:
2371: \begin{equation}
2372: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}{ \footnotesize {\left|
2373: \begin{array}{cccc}
2374: Y_{2}\left( g_{1}\frac{m}{k}\right) -\frac{Y_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k}\right) }{%
2375: J_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k}\right) }J_{2}\left( g_{1}\frac{m}{k}\right) & -\cos
2376: (mz_{1}) & -\sin (mz_{1}) & 0 \\
2377: Y_{1}\left( g_{1}\frac{m}{k}\right) -\frac{Y_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k}\right) }{%
2378: J_{1}\left( \frac{m}{k}\right) }J_{1}\left( g_{1}\frac{m}{k}\right) & %
2379: \phantom{-}\sin (mz_{1}) & -\cos (mz_{1}) & 0 \\
2380: 0 & -\sin (mz_{2}) & \phantom{-}\cos (mz_{2}) & \phantom{-}Y_{1}\left( g_{2}%
2381: \frac{m}{k}\right) -\frac{Y_{1}\left( g_{3}\frac{m}{k}\right) }{J_{1}\left(
2382: g_{3}\frac{m}{k}\right) }J_{1}\left( g_{2}\frac{m}{k}\right) \\
2383: 0 & \phantom{-}\cos (mz_{2}) & \phantom{-}\sin (mz_{2}) & -Y_{2}\left( g_{2}%
2384: \frac{m}{k}\right) +\frac{Y_{1}\left( g_{3}\frac{m}{k}\right) }{J_{1}\left(
2385: g_{3}\frac{m}{k}\right) }J_{2}\left( g_{2}\frac{m}{k}\right)
2386: \end{array}
2387: \right| =0}} \label{det1}
2388: \end{equation}
2389: with $g_{1}=g(z_{1})$, $g_{2}=g(z_{2})$ and $g_{3}=g(z_{3})$. Here we have
2390: suppressed the subscript $n$ on the masses $m_{n}$.
2391:
2392: \subsection{The Mass Spectrum}
2393:
2394: The above quantization condition provides the mass spectrum of the model. It
2395: is convenient to introduce two dimensionless parameters, $x=kl$ and $%
2396: x_{-}=kl_{-}$ (c.f. Fig.(\ref{multi})) and we work from now on with the set
2397: of parameters $x$, $x_{-}$ and $k$. The mass spectrum depends crucially on the
2398: distance $x_{-}$. We must recover the $''+-+''$ spectrum in the limit $%
2399: x_{-}\rightarrow 0$, and the GRS spectrum in the limit $x_{-}\rightarrow
2400: \infty .$ From the quantization condition, eq(\ref{det1}) it is easy to
2401: verify these features and show how the $^{\prime \prime }+--+^{\prime \prime
2402: }$ spectrum smoothly interpolates between the $''+-+''$ model and the GRS one.
2403: It turns out that the structure of the spectrum has simple $x_{-}$ and $x$
2404: dependence in three separate regions of the parameter space:
2405:
2406: \subsubsection{The three-brane \textbf{{$^{\prime \prime }+-+^{\prime \prime
2407: }$ Region}}}
2408:
2409: For $x_{-}\lower3pt\hbox{$\, \buildrel < \over \sim \, $}1$ we find that the
2410: mass spectrum is effectively $x_{-}$-independent given by the approximate
2411: form:
2412: \begin{eqnarray}
2413: m_{1} &=&2\sqrt{2}ke^{-2x} \\
2414: m_{n+1} &=&\xi _{n}ke^{-x}~~~~~~n=1,2,3,\ldots \label{bimass}
2415: \end{eqnarray}
2416: where $\xi _{2i+1}$ is the $(i+1)$-th root of $J_{1}(x)$ ($i=0,1,2,\ldots $)
2417: and $\xi _{2i}$ is the $i$-th root of $J_{2}(x)$ ($i=1,2,3,\ldots $). As
2418: expected the mass spectrum is identical to the one of the $''+-+''$ model for
2419: the trivial warp factor $w=1$. The first mass is manifestly singled out from
2420: the rest of the KK tower and for large $x$ leads to the possibility of
2421: bigravity.
2422:
2423: \subsubsection{The \textbf{Saturation Region}}
2424:
2425: For $1\ll x_{-}\ll e^{2x}$ we find a simple dependence on $x_{-}$ given by
2426: the approximate analytic form:
2427: \begin{eqnarray}
2428: m_{1} &=&2k\frac{e^{-2x}}{\sqrt{x_{-}}} \\
2429: m_{n+1} &=&n\pi k\frac{e^{-x}}{x_{-}}~~~~~~n=1,2,3,\ldots
2430: \end{eqnarray}
2431: As $x_{-}$ increases the first mass decreases less rapidly than the other
2432: levels.
2433:
2434: \subsubsection{The \textbf{GRS Region}}
2435:
2436: For $x_{-}\gg e^{2x}$ the first mass is no longer special and scales with
2437: respect to {\textit{both}} $x$ and $x_{-}$ in the same way as the remaining
2438: tower:
2439: \begin{equation}
2440: m_{n}=n\pi k\frac{e^{-x}}{x_{-}}~~~~~~n=1,2,3,\ldots \label{longmass}
2441: \end{equation}
2442: The mass splittings $\Delta m$ tend to zero as $x_{-}\rightarrow \infty $
2443: and we obtain the GRS continuum of states
2444:
2445: The behaviour of the spectrum is illustrated in Figure 3.
2446:
2447: \begin{figure}[h]
2448: \begin{center}
2449: \begin{picture}(300,200)(0,50)
2450:
2451: \LongArrow(0,220)(320,220)
2452: \LongArrow(0,150)(320,150)
2453: \LongArrow(0,80)(320,80)
2454:
2455: \Vertex(0,220){4}
2456: \Vertex(0,150){4}
2457: \Vertex(0,80){4}
2458:
2459:
2460: \Vertex(130,220){4}
2461: \Vertex(230,220){4}
2462: \Vertex(250,220){4}
2463: \Vertex(275,220){4}
2464: \Vertex(303,220){4}
2465:
2466: \Vertex(78,150){4}
2467: \Vertex(130,150){4}
2468: \Vertex(145,150){4}
2469: \Vertex(160,150){4}
2470: \Vertex(175,150){4}
2471:
2472: \Vertex(25,80){4}
2473: \Vertex(35,80){4}
2474: \Vertex(45,80){4}
2475: \Vertex(55,80){4}
2476: \Vertex(65,80){4}
2477:
2478:
2479: \Text(335,220)[]{$m$}
2480: \Text(335,150)[]{$m$}
2481: \Text(335,80)[]{$m$}
2482:
2483: \Text(0,210)[]{$0$}
2484: \Text(0,140)[]{$0$}
2485: \Text(0,70)[]{$0$}
2486:
2487: \Text(50,85)[c]{$\overbrace{\phantom{abcdef}}$}
2488: \Text(152,145)[c]{$\underbrace{\phantom{abcdefgh}}$}
2489: \Text(152,155)[c]{$\overbrace{\phantom{abcdefgh}}$}
2490: \Text(268,215)[c]{$\underbrace{\phantom{abcdefghijklm}}$}
2491:
2492: \LongArrow(250,200)(170,170)
2493: \LongArrow(130,130)(70,100)
2494:
2495: \LongArrow(115,200)(92,170)
2496: \LongArrow(63,130)(40,100)
2497:
2498: \Text(-50,220)[c]{$''+-+''$}
2499: \Text(-50,150)[c]{Saturation}
2500: \Text(-50,80)[c]{GRS}
2501:
2502: \end{picture}
2503: \end{center}
2504: \caption{The behaviour of the mass of the first five KK states in the three
2505: regions of simple $x$, $x_{-}$ dependence. The first dot at zero stands for
2506: the graviton.}
2507: \label{masses}
2508: \end{figure}
2509:
2510: \subsection{Multigravity}
2511:
2512: Armed with the details how the spectrum smoothly changes between the $''+-+''$
2513: model ($x_{-}=0)$ and the GRS model ($x_{-}\rightarrow \infty )$, we can now
2514: discuss the possibilities for modifying gravity at large distances. The
2515: couplings of the KK states with matter on the left $^{\prime \prime
2516: }+^{\prime \prime }$ brane are readily calculated by the interaction
2517: Lagrangian (\ref{coupl++-}) with:
2518: \begin{equation}
2519: a_{n}=\left[ \frac{g(0)}{M}\right] ^{3/2}\hat{\Psi}^{(n)}(0)
2520: \label{couplmulti}
2521: \end{equation}
2522:
2523: \subsubsection{\textbf{Bigravity Region}}
2524:
2525: In the KPMRS limit, $x_{-}\rightarrow 0,$ the first KK mode has constant
2526: coupling equal to that of the 4D graviton:
2527: \begin{equation}
2528: a_{1}=\frac{1}{M_{\ast }}~(=a_{0})~~~~~~~\mathrm{where}~~~M_{\ast }^{2}=%
2529: \frac{2M^{3}}{k}
2530: \end{equation}
2531: while the couplings of the rest of the KK tower are exponentially
2532: suppressed:
2533: \begin{equation}
2534: a_{n+1}=\frac{1}{M_{\ast }}~\frac{e^{-x}}{\sqrt{J_{1}^{2}\left( \frac{%
2535: m_{n}e^{x}}{k}\right) +J_{2}^{2}\left( \frac{m_{n}e^{x}}{k}\right) }}%
2536: ~~~~~~n=1,2,3,\ldots \label{bigcoupl}
2537: \end{equation}
2538:
2539: The gravitational potential is computed by the tree level exchange diagrams
2540: of the 4D graviton and KK states which in the Newtonian limit is:
2541: \begin{equation}
2542: V(r)=-\sum_{n=0}^{N_{\Lambda}}a_n^2\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r} \label{gravipot}
2543: \end{equation}
2544: where $a_n$ is the coupling (\ref{couplmulti}) and $n=0$ accounts for the
2545: massless graviton. The summation stops at some very high level $N_{\Lambda}$
2546: with mass of the order of the cutoff scale $\sim M$.
2547:
2548: In the ``bigravity'' scenario, at distances $r\ll m_{1}^{-1},$ the first KK
2549: state and the 4D graviton contribute equally to the gravitational force, $%
2550: i.e.$
2551: \begin{equation}
2552: V_{ld}(r)\approx -\frac{1}{M_{\ast }^{2}}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\frac{e^{-m_{1}r}%
2553: }{r}\right) \approx -\frac{G_{N}}{r}
2554: \end{equation}
2555: where $G_{N}\equiv \frac{2}{M_{\ast }^{2}}$. For distances $r\gtrsim
2556: m_{1}^{-1}$ the Yukawa suppression effectively reduces gravity to half its
2557: strength. Astronomical constraints and the requirement of the observability
2558: of this effect demand that for $k\sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ we should have $x$ in
2559: the region 65-70. Moreover, at distances $r\lesssim m_{2}^{-1}$ the Yukawa
2560: interactions of the remaining KK states are significant and will give rise
2561: to a short distance correction. This can be evaluated by using the
2562: asymptotic expression of the Bessel functions in (\ref{bigcoupl}) since we
2563: are dealing with large $x$ and summing over a very dense spectrum, giving:
2564: \begin{equation}
2565: V_{sd}(r)=-\frac{G_{N}}{k}\sum_{n=2}^{N_{\Lambda }}\frac{k\pi }{2e^{x}}~%
2566: \frac{m_{n}}{2k}~\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}
2567: \label{shortdispot}
2568: \end{equation}
2569: At this point we exploit the fact that the spectrum is nearly continuum
2570: above $m_{2}$ and turn the sum to an integral with the first factor in (\ref
2571: {shortpot}) being the integration measure, {\textit{i.e.}} $\sum \frac{k\pi
2572: }{2e^{x}}=\sum \Delta m\rightarrow \int dm$ (this follows from eq(\ref
2573: {bimass}) for the asymptotic values of the Bessel roots). Moreover, we can
2574: extend the integration to infinity because, due to the exponential
2575: suppression of the integrand, the integral saturates very quickly and thus
2576: the integration over the region of very large masses is irrelevant. The
2577: resulting potential is now:
2578: \begin{equation}
2579: V_{sd}(r)=-\frac{G_{N}}{k}\int_{m_{2}}^{\infty }dm~\frac{m}{2k}~\frac{%
2580: e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}
2581: \end{equation}
2582: The integration is easily performed and gives:
2583: \begin{equation}
2584: V_{sd}(r)\simeq -\frac{G_{N}}{2r}~\frac{1+m_{2}r}{(kr)^{2}}~e^{-m_{2}r}
2585: \end{equation}
2586: We see these short distance corrections are significant only at Planck scale
2587: lengths $\sim k^{-1}$.
2588:
2589: \subsubsection{The \textbf{GRS Region}}
2590:
2591: In the GRS limit, $x_{-}\gg e^{2x},$ we should reproduce the
2592: ``resonance''-like behaviour of the coupling in the GRS model. In the
2593: following we shall see that indeed this is the case and we will calculate
2594: the first order correction to the GRS potential for the case $x_{-}$ is
2595: large but finite.
2596:
2597: For the rest of the section we split the wavefunction (\ref{wavemulti}) in
2598: two parts, namely the normalization $N_{n}$ and the unnormalized
2599: wavefunction $\tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)$, {\textit{i.e.}} $\hat{\Psi}%
2600: ^{(n)}(z)=N_{n}\tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)$. The former is as usual chosen so that
2601: we get a canonically normalized Pauli-Fierz Lagrangian for the 4D KK modes $%
2602: h_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}$ and is given by:
2603: \begin{equation}
2604: N_{n}^{2}=\frac{1/2}{2\displaystyle{\int_{\phantom{.}0}^{z_{1}}dz\left[
2605: \tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\right] ^{2}}+\displaystyle{\int_{\phantom{.}%
2606: z_{1}}^{z_{2}}dz\left[ \tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)\right] ^{2}}}
2607: \end{equation}
2608: The value of $\tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}(z)$ on the left $^{\prime \prime }+^{\prime
2609: \prime }$ brane is, for $m_{n}\ll k$:
2610: \begin{equation}
2611: \tilde{\Psi}_{(n)}^{2}(0)\simeq \frac{16k^{3}}{\pi ^{2}m_{n}^{4}} \label{un}
2612: \end{equation}
2613:
2614: It is convenient to split the gravitational potential given by the relation (%
2615: \ref{gravipot}) into two parts:
2616: \begin{equation}
2617: V(r)=-\frac{1}{M^{3}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_{x_{-}}-1}\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}N_{n}^{2}%
2618: \tilde{\Psi}_{(n)}^{2}(0)-\frac{1}{M^{3}}\sum_{n=N_{x_{-}}}^{N_{\Lambda }}%
2619: \frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}N_{n}^{2}\tilde{\Psi}_{(n)}^{2}(0) \label{gravpot}
2620: \end{equation}
2621: As we shall see this separation is useful because the first $N_{x_{-}}$
2622: states give rise to the long distance gravitational potential $V_{ld}$ while
2623: the remaining ones will only contribute to the short distance corrections $%
2624: V_{sd}$.
2625:
2626: \begin{itemize}
2627: \item \textbf{\ Short Distance Corrections}
2628: \end{itemize}
2629:
2630: We first consider the second term. The normalization constant in this region
2631: is computed by considering the asymptotic expansions of the Bessel functions
2632: with argument $\frac{g(z_{1})m_{n}}{k}$. It is easily calculated to be:
2633: \begin{equation}
2634: N_{n}^{2}=\frac{\pi ^{3}m_{n}^{5}}{32k^{3}g(z_{1})x_{-}}~\left[ \frac{1}{1+%
2635: \frac{2}{x_{-}}}\right]
2636: \end{equation}
2637:
2638: If we combine the above normalization with unnormalized wavefunction (\ref
2639: {un}), we find
2640: \begin{equation}
2641: V_{sd}(r)\simeq -\frac{1}{M^{3}}\sum_{n=N_{x_{-}}}^{N_{\Lambda }}\frac{k\pi
2642: }{x_{-}e^{x}}~\frac{m_{n}}{2k}~\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}~\left[ \frac{1}{1+\frac{%
2643: 2}{x_{-}}}\right]
2644: \label{shortpot}
2645: \end{equation}
2646: Since we are taking $x_{-}\gg e^{2x}$, the spectrum tends to continuum, {%
2647: \textit{i.e.}} $N_{n}\rightarrow N(m)$, $\tilde{\Psi}_{(n)}(0)\rightarrow
2648: \tilde{\Psi}(m)$, and the sum turns to an integral where the first factor in
2649: (\ref{shortpot}) is the integration measure, {\textit{i.e.}} $\sum \frac{%
2650: k\pi }{x_{-}e^{x}}=\sum \Delta m\rightarrow \int dm$ ($c.f.$ eq(\ref
2651: {longmass})). Moreover, as before we can again extend the integration to
2652: infinity. Finally, we expand the fraction involving $x_{-}$ keeping the
2653: first term in the power series to obtain the potential:
2654: \begin{equation}
2655: V_{sd}(r)\simeq -\frac{1}{M^{3}}\int_{m_{0}}^{\infty }dm~\frac{e^{-mr}}{r}~%
2656: \frac{m}{2k}\left( 1-\frac{2}{x_{-}}\right)
2657: \end{equation}
2658: where $m_{0}=ke^{-x}$. The integral is easily calculated and the potential
2659: reads:
2660: \begin{equation}
2661: V_{sd}(r)\simeq -\frac{G_{N}}{2r}~\frac{1+m_{0}r}{(kr)^{2}}~(1-\frac{2}{x_{-}%
2662: })~e^{-m_{0}r}
2663: \end{equation}
2664: where we identified $G_{N}\equiv \frac{k}{M^{3}}$ for reasons to be seen
2665: later. The second part of the above potential is the first correction coming
2666: from the fact that $x_{-}$ is finite. Obviously this correction vanishes
2667: when $x_{-}\rightarrow \infty $. Note that the above potential gives
2668: corrections to the Newton's law only at distances comparable to the Planck
2669: length scale.
2670:
2671: \begin{itemize}
2672: \item \textbf{\ Multigravity: 4D and 5D gravity}
2673: \end{itemize}
2674:
2675: We turn now to the more interesting first summation in eq(\ref{gravpot}) in
2676: order to show that the coupling indeed has the ``resonance''-like behaviour
2677: for $\Delta m\rightarrow 0$ responsible for 4D Newtonian gravity at
2678: intermediate distances and the 5D gravitational law for cosmological
2679: distances. This summation includes the KK states from the graviton zero mode
2680: up to the $N_{x_{-}}$-th level. The normalization constant in this region is
2681: computed by considering the series expansion of all the Bessel functions
2682: involved. It is easily calculated to be:
2683: \begin{equation}
2684: N_{n}^{2}\simeq \frac{\pi ^{2}m_{n}^{4}}{4g(z_{1})^{4}x_{-}}~\left[ \frac{1}{%
2685: m_{n}^{2}+\frac{\Gamma ^{2}}{4}+\frac{8k^{2}}{g(z_{1})^{4}x_{-}}}\right]
2686: \end{equation}
2687: where $\Gamma =4ke^{-3x}$. If we combine the above normalization with the
2688: unnormalized wavefunction (\ref{un}), we find that the long distance
2689: gravitational potential is:
2690: \begin{equation}
2691: V_{ld}(r)=-\frac{1}{M^{3}}\sum_{n=0}^{N_{x_{-}}}\frac{\pi k}{x_{-}e^{x}}~%
2692: \frac{4k^{2}}{\pi g(z_{1})^{3}}~\frac{e^{-m_{n}r}}{r}~\left[ \frac{1}{%
2693: m_{n}^{2}+\frac{\Gamma ^{2}}{4}+\frac{8k^{2}}{g(z_{1})^{4}x_{-}}}\right]
2694: \end{equation}
2695: Again, since we are taking $x_{-}\gg e^{2x},$ the above sum will turn to an
2696: integral with $\sum \Delta m\rightarrow \int dm$. Moreover, we can safely
2697: extend the integration to infinity since the integral saturates very fast
2698: for $m\lesssim \Gamma /4\equiv r_{c}^{-1}\ll ke^{x}$. If we also expand the
2699: fraction in brackets keeping the first term in the power series, we find the
2700: potential:
2701: \begin{eqnarray}
2702: V_{ld}(r)\simeq &-&\frac{1}{M^{3}}\int_{0}^{\infty }dm~\frac{4k^{2}}{\pi
2703: g(z_{1})^{3}}~\frac{e^{-mr}}{r}~\frac{1}{m^{2}+\frac{\Gamma ^{2}}{4}}
2704: \nonumber \\
2705: &+&\frac{1}{M^{3}}\int_{0}^{\infty }dm~\frac{32k^{4}}{x_{-}\pi g(z_{1})^{7}}~%
2706: \frac{e^{-mr}}{r}~\frac{1}{(m^{2}+\frac{\Gamma ^{2}}{4})^{2}}
2707: \end{eqnarray}
2708:
2709: The first part is the same as in the GRS model potential, whereas the second
2710: one is the first correction that comes from the fact that $x_{-}$ is still
2711: finite though very large. Note that the width of the ``resonance'' scales
2712: like $e^{-3x}$, something that is compatible with the scaling law of the
2713: masses ($m_{n}=n\pi k\frac{e^{-x}}{x_{-}}$), since we are working at the
2714: region where $x_{-}\gg e^{2x}$, {\textit{i.e.}} $m_{n}\ll n\pi ke^{-3x}$.
2715: The above integrals can be easily calculated in two interesting limits.
2716:
2717: For $k^{-1}\ll r\ll r_{c}$ the potential is given approximately by :
2718: \begin{equation}
2719: V_{ld}(r\ll r_{c})\simeq -\frac{G_{N}}{r}~(1-\frac{e^{2x}}{x_{-}})
2720: \end{equation}
2721: where we have identified $G_{N}\equiv \frac{k}{M^{3}}$ to obtain the normal
2722: 4D Newtonian potential. Note that since $x_{-}\gg e^{2x}$, the $1/x_{-}$
2723: term is indeed a small correction.
2724:
2725: In the other limit, $r\gg r_{c}$, the integrand is only significant for
2726: values of $\ m$ for which the $m^{2}$ term in the denominator of the
2727: ``Breit-Wigner'' can be dropped and the potential becomes:
2728: \begin{equation}
2729: V_{ld}(r\gg r_{c})\simeq -\frac{G_{N}r_{c}}{\pi r^{2}}~(1-\frac{2e^{2x}}{%
2730: x_{-}})
2731: \end{equation}
2732: The fact that Newtonian gravity has been tested close to the present horizon
2733: size require that for $k\sim M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ we should have $x\gtrsim $
2734: 45-50.
2735:
2736: Finally we note that if we take the $x_{-}\rightarrow \infty $ we recover
2737: the GRS result
2738: \begin{equation}
2739: \lim_{x_{-}\rightarrow \infty }V_{+--+}(r,x_{-})=V_{GRS}(r)
2740: \end{equation}
2741:
2742: \begin{figure}[tbp]
2743: \begin{center}
2744: \begin{picture}(400,200)(-50,50)
2745: \SetOffset(50,0)
2746: \SetWidth{1.5}
2747:
2748: \LongArrow(-50,80)(250,80)
2749: \LongArrow(-50,80)(-50,250)
2750: \Curve{(-50,230)(-40,229)(-32,224)(-15,150)(40,90)(50,90)(75,90)(100,90)(125,90)(150,90)(175,90)(190,90)(200,90)(225,120)(240,140)}
2751: \DashLine(-45,80)(-45,231){2.5}
2752: \DashLine(-10,80)(-10,130){2.5}
2753: \DashLine(200,80)(200,90){2.5}
2754:
2755: \Text(-90,240)[l]{$a(m)^2$}
2756: \Text(-40,70)[c]{$m_{1}$}
2757: \Text(-30,110)[c]{$\Gamma/2$}
2758: \Text(230,70)[l]{$m$}
2759: \Text(200,70)[c]{$m_{0}$}
2760: \Text(-10,70)[c]{$m_{c}$}
2761: \Text(-57,78)[c]{$O$}
2762:
2763:
2764: \SetWidth{2}
2765: \LongArrow(-50,130)(-10,130)
2766: \LongArrow(-10,130)(-50,130)
2767:
2768:
2769: \end{picture}
2770: \end{center}
2771: \caption{The behaviour of the coupling, $a(m),$ in the limit of $x_{-}\gg
2772: e^{2x}$. Three regions of interest are indicated. The region $m>m_{0}$ gives
2773: rise to short distance corrections. The $m_{1}\ll m\ll m_{c}$ region gives
2774: rise to 4D gravity at intermediate distances and 5D gravity at ultra large
2775: distances. For distances $r\gg m_{1}^{-1}$, the zero mode gives the dominant
2776: contribution and thus we return to 4D gravity.}
2777: \label{coupling}
2778: \end{figure}
2779:
2780: \begin{itemize}
2781: \item \textbf{\ Back to 4D gravity}
2782: \end{itemize}
2783:
2784: As we have just seen, probing larger distances than $r_{c},$ the 4D
2785: gravitational potential changes to a 5D one. This is the most significant
2786: characteristic of the GRS model. In the case that $x_{-}$ is large compared
2787: to $e^{2x}$ but still finite, there is another distinct region of interest,
2788: namely $r\gg m_{1}^{-1}$. This follows from the fact that, in this limit,
2789: the spectrum is still discrete. For distances larger than of the order of
2790: the corresponding wavelength of the first KK mode, the contribution to
2791: gravity from the KK tower is suppressed and thus the zero mode gives the
2792: dominant contribution, leading to the 4D Newtonian potential again. In this
2793: case the strength of the gravitational interaction is a small fraction of
2794: the strength of the intermediate 4D gravity. More precisely, the
2795: contribution of the massless graviton is $\frac{1}{x_{-}}$ suppressed and
2796: thus vanishes when $x_{-}\rightarrow \infty $, something that is expected
2797: since in this limit there is no nomalizable zero mode. The gravitational
2798: potential in this case is:
2799: \begin{equation}
2800: V_{4D}(r)=-\frac{1}{M^{3}}~\frac{1}{r}~N_{0}^{2}\tilde{\Psi}_{(0)}^{2}(0)=-%
2801: \frac{G_{N}}{r}~\frac{e^{2x}}{x_{-}}
2802: \end{equation}
2803: Obviously this 4D region disappears at the limit $x_{-}\rightarrow \infty $
2804: since the spectrum becomes continuum and thus the 5D gravity ``window''
2805: extents to infinity. We should note finally that for the values of $x$ that
2806: we consider here this final modification of gravity occurs at distances well
2807: above the present horizon.
2808:
2809:
2810:
2811:
2812:
2813: \section{vDVZ discontinuity, negative tension branes and ghosts}
2814:
2815:
2816: All the constructions that we have considered up to now have two important defects. The first
2817: one \cite{Dvali:2001xg}
2818: is that the extra polarizations of the massive KK states do not
2819: decouple in the limit of vanishing mass, the famous van Dam
2820: - Veltman - Zakharov \cite{vanDam:1970vg}
2821: discontinuity, which makes the model disagree with the experimental
2822: measurements of the bending of
2823: the light by the sun. The second
2824: one \cite{Dvali:2000km,Pilo:2000et,Kogan:2001qx} is that the moduli (radions) associated with the perturbations of the
2825: $''-''$ branes are necessarily physical ghost fields, therefore
2826: unacceptable. The latter problem is connected to the violation of the
2827: weaker energy condition \cite{Freedman:1999gp,Witten:2000zk} on $''-''$ branes sandwiched between $''+''$
2828: branes. In this Section we discuss these issues.
2829:
2830:
2831:
2832:
2833:
2834: \subsection{Graviton propagator in flat spacetime - The vDVZ discontinuity }
2835:
2836:
2837:
2838: The celebrated van
2839: Dam - Veltman - Zakharov discontinuity is evident from the different form
2840: of the propagators that correspond to the massive and massless graviton.
2841: In more detail, the form of the massless graviton propagator in flat
2842: spacetime (in momentum space) has the form:
2843: \be
2844: G^{\mu\nu;\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{2}~ \frac{\left(\eta^{\mu\alpha}\eta^{\nu\beta} +
2845: \eta^{\eta\alpha}\eta^{\mu\beta}\right) - \eta^{\mu\nu}\eta^{\alpha\beta}
2846: }{p^2 }+ \cdots
2847: \ee
2848: where we have omitted terms that do not contribute when contracted
2849: with a conserved $T_{\mu \nu}$.
2850:
2851: On the other hand, the
2852: four-dimensional massive graviton propagator (in momentum space) has the form:\be
2853: G^{\mu\nu;\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{2} ~ \frac{\left(\eta^{\mu\alpha}\eta^{\nu\beta} +
2854: \eta^{\nu\alpha}\eta^{\mu\beta}\right) - \frac{2}{3}~ \eta^{\mu\nu}\eta^{\alpha\beta}
2855: }{p^2 -m^2}+\cdots
2856: \ee
2857: In order to be able to answer the question if the graviton can be
2858: massive we have to examine if the theory of massive graviton can
2859: reproduce, at least, the testable predictions of General Relativity.
2860:
2861:
2862: \paragraph{Newton's Law}
2863:
2864: One of the essential requirements of the theory of massive graviton
2865: is to be able to reproduce the
2866: Newton's Law at least at the intermediate distances (where it has been tested).
2867:
2868: %\begin{center}
2869: \begin{figure}
2870: \begin{picture}(300,100)(-45,50)
2871: \SetScale{1.2}
2872: \SetOffset(-40,-30)
2873: \ArrowLine(50,50)(100,100)
2874: \ArrowLine(100,100)(50,150)
2875: \ArrowLine(200,100)(250,150)
2876: \ArrowLine(250,50)(200,100)
2877: \Vertex(100,100){2}
2878: \Vertex(200,100){2}
2879: %\LongArrow(140,110)(160,110)
2880: \Photon(100,100)(200,100){4}{6}
2881: %\Photon(100,100)(200,100){-4}{6}
2882: \Text(110,160)[]{$m_{1}$}
2883:
2884: \Text(250,160)[]{$m_{2}$}
2885:
2886: \Text(180,95)[]{$h_{\mu\nu}$}
2887: \end{picture}
2888: \vspace*{8mm}
2889: \caption{One graviton exchange diagram.}
2890: \label{mssgrfig1}
2891: \end{figure}
2892: %\end{center}
2893:
2894: In order to calculate the interaction between two non-relativistic
2895: masses, we consider the non-relativistic limit of one graviton exchange.
2896: The energy momentum tensor of the two masses are:
2897: \ba
2898: T^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}(x)&=& m_{1}u_{\mu}u_{\nu}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{r_{1}})\nonumber \\
2899: T^{(2)}_{\mu \nu}(x')&=& m_{2}u_{\mu}u_{\nu}\delta(\vec{x'}-\vec{r_{2}})
2900: \nonumber
2901: \ea
2902: where $u_{\mu}$ is the four momentum of the particles.
2903: The one graviton exchange with massless graviton gives amplitude:
2904: \be
2905: G_{N}^{0}\int d^4x\int d^4x' T^{1}_{\mu \nu}(x)
2906: G_{0}^{\mu\nu;\alpha\beta}T^{2}_{\alpha \beta}(x') \rightarrow \frac{2}{3}G_{N}^{0}T^{1}_{00}T^{2}_{00}\frac{e^{-i\vec{p}(\vec{x}-\vec{x'})}}{{\vec{p}}^2-i\epsilon }
2907: \ee
2908: On the other hand the one graviton exchange with massive graviton gives:
2909: \be
2910: G_{N}^{m}\int d^4x \int d^4x' T^{1}_{\mu \nu}(x) G_{m}^{\mu\nu;\alpha\beta}T^{2}_{\alpha \beta}(x')\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}G_{N}^{m}T^{1}_{00}T^{2}_{00}\frac{e^{-i\vec{p}(\vec{x}-\vec{x'})}}{{\vec{p}}^2-m^2-i\epsilon }
2911: \ee
2912: The massless graviton gives the usual $\sim 1/r$ potential while the
2913: massive gives $e^{-mr}/r$ which at the $m \rightarrow 0$ limit results
2914: to the usual $1/r$ behaviour.
2915: However, in order to have identical limit when $m \rightarrow 0$ the
2916: relationship:
2917: \be
2918: G_{N}^{m}=\frac{3}{4} G_{N}^{0}
2919: \ee
2920: must hold.
2921:
2922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%BENDING OF LIGHT%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2923:
2924:
2925: \paragraph{Bending of Light}
2926:
2927: The theory of massive graviton must reproduce, apart from the
2928: non-relativistic results of General Relativity, also its relativistic
2929: results: \textit{e.g.} the deflection angle of the light by the Sun.
2930:
2931:
2932: \vspace*{10mm}
2933:
2934: \begin{center}
2935: \begin{figure}
2936: \begin{picture}(350,100)(-50,80)
2937: \SetWidth{1.5}
2938:
2939: \DashLine(-50,80)(350,190){5}
2940: \DashLine(350,80)(-50,190){5}
2941: \DashLine(-50,100)(350,100){2}
2942:
2943: \SetColor{Red}
2944: \Curve{(-50,80)(110,116)(120,118)(130,119)(140,120)(150,121)(160,120)(170,119)(180,118)(190,116)(350,80)}
2945:
2946: %\BCirc(150,100){15}
2947: \CCirc(150,100){13}{Black}{Yellow}
2948:
2949: \Text(150,100)[]{\small{SUN}}
2950: \Text(-50,80)[]{\Yellow{$\bigstar$}}
2951: \Text(-50,70)[]{\Yellow{\normalsize{Star}}}
2952: \Text(-50,190)[]{\Yellow{$\bigstar$}}
2953: \Text(-50,175)[]{\Yellow{\normalsize{Apparent position}}}
2954: \Text(-50,165)[]{\Yellow{\normalsize{of the Star}}}
2955: \Text(350,70)[]{\Orange{\normalsize{Observer}}}
2956: \Text(185,135)[]{\Brown{$\theta$}}
2957: \Text(-25,95)[]{\Brown{$\epsilon_{2}$}}
2958: \Text(330,95)[]{\Brown{$\epsilon_{1}$}}
2959:
2960: \SetColor{Blue}
2961: \SetWidth{1.}
2962: \LongArrowArc(30,100)(70,180,195)
2963: \LongArrowArc(270,100)(70,-15,0)
2964: \LongArrowArcn(30,100)(70,195,180)
2965: \LongArrowArcn(270,100)(70,0,-15)
2966: \LongArrowArc(150,135)(50,-15,15)
2967: \LongArrowArcn(150,135)(50,15,-15)
2968: \end{picture}
2969: \vspace*{8mm}
2970: \caption{Deflection of light in the gravitational field of the Sun.}
2971: \label{mssgrfig2}
2972: \end{figure}
2973: \end{center}
2974: Let us calculate the deflection angle of the light induced by the
2975: gravitational field of a massive body \textit{e.g.} the Sun. In order
2976: to do this we have to calculate the one graviton exchange amplitude
2977: between the source and the light (photon).
2978: The important difference with the case of non-relativistic sources is that the electromagnetic field's energy momentum tensor is traceless {\textit{i.e.}}:
2979: \be
2980: {T_{EM}}^{\mu}_{\mu}=0
2981: \ee
2982: This characteristic of the electromagnetic field will reveal the
2983: different tensor structures of the propagators. In this case the one
2984: graviton exchange is:
2985: \be
2986: \Black{G^{0,m}_{N}}T_{\mu\nu}(k,q,\epsilon_{\kappa},\epsilon'_{\lambda})
2987: G^{\mu\nu;\alpha\beta}_{0,m}T_{\alpha\beta} \rightarrow \Black{G^{0,m}_{N}}M_{SUN}
2988: T_{00}(k,q,\epsilon_{\kappa},\epsilon'_{\lambda})
2989: G^{00;00}_{0,m}
2990: \ee
2991: Given that
2992: \be
2993: \theta^{0,m}\propto\Black{G^{0,m}_{N}}
2994: \ee
2995: and since in order to have the usual Newton's Law we should have
2996: \be
2997: G_{N}^{m}=\frac{3}{4} G_{N}^{0}
2998: \ee
2999: we get the following relationship between the deflection angles of the
3000: massive and massless graviton:
3001: \be
3002: \theta(m\neq0)\approx\frac{3}{4}\theta(m=0)
3003: \ee
3004: Thus the discontinuity in the massless limit of the propagator of
3005: massive graviton in flat spacetime has observable phenomenological implications in
3006: standard tests of Einsteinian gravity and particularly in
3007: the bending of light by the Sun. The latter expression tells us
3008: that if gravity is due to the exchange of a massive spin 2 particle,
3009: then the deflection angle of light would be $25\%$ smaller than if it
3010: corresponds to the exchange of the massless graviton.
3011: The fact that the bending of the light by the sun agrees with
3012: the prediction of Einstein's theory to $1\%$ accuracy, rules out
3013: the possibility that gravity is due to massive graviton exchange
3014: irrespective of
3015: how small the mass is\footnote{Of course there remains the possibility
3016: that a small
3017: fraction of the gravitational interactions are associated with a
3018: massive graviton component in the presence of a dominant massless
3019: graviton component.
3020: This can be realized by having an ultralight spin-2 particle with a
3021: very small coupling compared to graviton's one \cite{Kogan:2000wc}.}.
3022:
3023: However, we will see in Chapter \ref{mssgr} in the presence of curvature the discontinuity disappears
3024: allowing for non-zero graviton mass without conflict with the
3025: phenomenology. Moreover even in the case of ``flat spacetime'' the
3026: presence of a source curves the spacetime making the discontinuity to
3027: disappear in distances smaller that a characteristic scale associated
3028: with the scale of the mass of the source.
3029:
3030:
3031: \subsection{Negative tension branes}
3032:
3033:
3034: The characteristic of the $''+-+''$ model that gives rise to the Bigravity
3035: scenario is the bounce form of the warp factor. In the case of flat
3036: branes that we have considered up to now it is, it is inevitably
3037: associated with the presence of moving (not on a fixed point) negative
3038: tension branes. This can be easily understood from the fact that when
3039: we try to match the solution of two positive tension branes, at the
3040: point of the matching the jump of the derivative of the $\sigma(y)$
3041: function has the opposite sign from the one that correspond to the
3042: jump on positive tension branes, giving rise to a negative tension brane.
3043:
3044: Similarly, the Multigravity models nessecarily develop moving negative
3045: tension branes at the points where the five dimensional spacetime
3046: becomes flat.
3047:
3048: However, the presence of these objects with negative energy density violate the
3049: weaker energy condition. This means that models with this bounce
3050: structure cannot be generated dynamically (\textit{e.g.} from a scalar
3051: field) - let us see why:
3052: In five dimensions with the metric:
3053: \begin{equation}
3054: ds^2=e^{-A(\rho)}\eta_{\mu \nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+d\rho^2
3055: \end{equation}
3056: one can readily show that the weaker energy condition requires that:
3057: \begin{equation}
3058: A''\geq 0
3059: \end{equation}
3060: which means that the bounce is linked to moving negative tension
3061: branes and at their position the weaker energy condition is violated.
3062: This violation of the weaker energy condition is associated with
3063: the presence of scalar field(s) with negative kinetic term (ghost fields).
3064:
3065:
3066:
3067: \subsection{Moduli fields}
3068:
3069:
3070: In the treatment of gravitational perturbations, in the context of
3071: the previous models, that is presented in this Chapter, we have ignored the presence
3072: of the scalar perturbations.
3073: These excitations describe
3074: the effect of the fluctuation of the size of the extra dimension and/or
3075: of the relative positions of the branes. We will distinguish
3076: these two kinds of modes by calling the former dilaton
3077: \cite{Charmousis:2000rg} and the
3078: latter radions \cite{Charmousis:2000rg,Pilo:2000et}.
3079:
3080:
3081: In the models considered up to now, we have imposed an orbifold symmetry $Z_2$ acting on the extra dimensional coordinate
3082: as $y \to -y$. When the topology of the extra dimension
3083: is $S^1$, the compact case, the $Z_2$ action has two fixed points $y=0, \, L_{1}$
3084: and two of the branes are sitting on fixed points. As a result of the
3085: $Z_2$ symmetry the branes in $y=0, \, L_{1}$ are frozen. Thus in the case
3086: of the RS1 model there is onle one scalar pertubation associated with
3087: the size of the orbifold.
3088:
3089: However in multi-brane constructions (\textit{e.g.} $''+-+''$ model), there are necessarily freely
3090: moving branes, giving rise to additional scalar perturbations,
3091: the radion fields, corresponding to the fluctuation of the position of these
3092: moving branes.
3093:
3094:
3095: From the detailed calculation that is presented in the Appendix, for
3096: the case of a general three brane configuration, we
3097: have that while the kinetic term of the dilaton field is always
3098: positive, the kinetic term of the radion is negative when the
3099: moving brane is negative. The latter means that the presence of
3100: negative tension moving branes is associated with the presence of
3101: ghost fields in the theory making it theoretically unacceptable.
3102: Note that the models (with flat 3-branes) that exhibit the bi-gravity
3103: or multi-gravity phenomena have moving negative tension branes.
3104:
3105:
3106: Radion excitations play an important role in the context of
3107: multigravity models. As we found in the begining of this Section, a
3108: generic problematic feature of multigravity models with
3109: flat branes is that massive gravitons have extra polarization states which do
3110: not decouple in the massless limit (
3111: van Dam - Veltman - Zakharov discontinuity \cite{vanDam:1970vg,Zakharov}).
3112: However, according to the previous discussion, an equally generic characteristic of these
3113: models is that they contain moving branes of negative
3114: tension. In certain models the radion can help to recover 4D gravity on the
3115: brane at intermediate distances. Indeed, the role of the radion associated
3116: with the negative tension brane is
3117: precisely to cancel the unwanted massive graviton polarizations and recover
3118: the correct tensorial structure of the four dimensional graviton propagator
3119: \cite{Dvali:2000km,Pilo:2000et}, something also seen from the bent
3120: brane calculations of \cite{Csaki:2000ei,Gregory:2000iu}.
3121: This happens because the radion in this case is a physical ghost because
3122: it is has a wrong sign kinetic term. This fact of course makes the construction
3123: problematic because the system is probably quantum mechanically unstable.
3124:
3125:
3126: Resolutions of the problems mentioned above will be given in Chapters
3127: \ref{mssgr}, \ref{5dads}