1: %===========================================================================

2: %                            IR Divergences in dS Vers: 1.0                 |

3: %===========================================================================

4: 

5: 

6: %===========================================================================

7: %                                PREAMBLE                                   |

8: %===========================================================================

9: 

10: 

11: \documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{JHEP3}

12: 

13: 

14: %------------------------------ PACKAGES -----------------------------------

15: 

16: 

17: 

18: \usepackage{amssymb}

19: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}

20: \usepackage{graphicx}

21: %\usepackage{axodraw}

22: %\usepackage{epsfig}

23: 

24: 

25: \def\KeyWord#1{$\backslash$\IfColor{$\!\!$\textRed{#1}\textBlack}{#1}$\!\!$}

26: 

27: 

28: 

29: %------------------------------ DEFINITIONS --------------------------------

30: 

31: \providecommand{\slashD}{D\mspace{-12mu}\slash\mspace{3mu}}

32: \providecommand{\slashdel}{\partial\mspace{-9mu}\slash}

33: \providecommand{\sgn}{\mathrm{sgn}\,}

34: \def\Dsl{D \!\!\!\! /}

35: 

36: 

37: 

38: 

39: \def\fnote#1#2{\begingroup\def\thefootnote{#1}\footnote{#2}\addtocounter

40: {footnote}{-1}\endgroup}

41: 

42: 

43: 

44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

46: %  Input macros

47: %\input psfig

48: %  Equation lines without numbers

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

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

51: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray*}}

52: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray*}}

53: 

54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

55: 

56: %  References to main physics journals

57: \def\NPB#1#2#3{Nucl. Phys. {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}

58: \def\PLB#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}

59: \def\PLBold#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. {\bf #1B}, #3 (#2)}

60: \def\PRP#1#2#3{Phys. Rep. {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}

61: \def\PRD#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. {\bf D#1}, #3 (#2)}

62: \def\PRold#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

63: \def\PRL#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}

64: \def\PREP#1#2#3{Phys. Rep. {\bf #1} #3, (#2)}

65: \def\ZPC#1#2#3{Z. Phys. C {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}

66: 

67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

68: 

69: %  \gsim and \lsim provide >= and <= signs.

70: \def\centeron#1#2{{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox1=\hbox{#2}\ifdim

71: \wd1>\wd0\kern.5\wd1\kern-.5\wd0\fi

72: \copy0\kern-.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\copy1\ifdim\wd0>\wd1

73: \kern.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\fi}}

74: \def\ltap{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$<$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\;}

75: \def\gtap{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$>$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\;}

76: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\gtap}}

77: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\ltap}}

78: 

79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

80: 

81: \def\doublespaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply

82:     \baselineskip by 200\divide\baselineskip by 100}

83: \def\singleandhalfspaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply

84:     \baselineskip by 150\divide\baselineskip by 100}

85: \def\singleandabitspaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply

86:     \baselineskip by 120\divide\baselineskip by 100}

87: \def\singleandthirdspaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply

88:     \baselineskip by 130\divide\baselineskip by 100}

89: \def\singlespaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip}

90: 

91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

92: 

93: %  Various particle physics / supersymmetry commands.

94: \newcommand{\newc}{\newcommand}

95: \newc{\qbar}{{\overline q}}

96: \newc{\Kahler}{K\"ahler }

97: \newc{\deltaGS}{\delta_{\rm GS}}

98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

99: 

100: %------------------------------ TITLE & ABSTRACT ---------------------------

101: 

102: \title{Infrared Divergences in dS/CFT}

103: 

104: \author{T. Banks \\

105: Department of Physics and Astronomy - NHETC\\

106: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08540\\

107: and\\

108: Department of Physics, SCIPP\\

109: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064\\

110: E-mail: \email{banks@scipp.ucsc.edu}}

111: 

112: \author{L. Mannelli \\

113: Department of Physics, SCIPP\\

114: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064\\

115: and\\

116: Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics\\

117: University of California\\

118: Santa Barbara, CA 93106\\

119: E-mail: \email{lorenzo@scipp.ucsc.edu}}

120: 

121: \author{W. Fischler, \\

122: Department of Physics\\

123: University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712\\

124: E-mail: \email{fischler@utexas.edu}}

125: 

126: 

127: 

128: \abstract{ dS/CFT gives a perturbatively gauge invariant definition of

129: particle masses in de Sitter (dS) space.  We show, in a toy model in which

130: the graviton is replaced with a minimally coupled massless scalar field,

131: that loop corrections to these masses are infrared (IR) divergent.   We

132: argue that this implies anomalous dependence of masses on the cosmological

133: constant, in a true theory of quantum gravity.  This is in accord with the

134: hypothesis of Cosmological SUSY Breaking (CSB).}

135: 

136: \keywords{infrared divergences, de Sitter space}

137: 

138: \preprint{\hepth{} \\SCIPP 05/31\\ UTTG-02-05}

139: 

140: 

141: \begin{document}

142: 

143: 

144: %===========================================================================

145: %                                 BULK PAPER                                |

146: %===========================================================================

147: 

148: %              Table of contents automatic !!!

149: 

150: \section{\textbf{Introduction}}

151: 

152: The hypothesis of Cosmological Supersymmetry Breaking (CSB) is based on the

153: idea \cite{Banks:2000fe} \cite{Banks:2001zj} \cite{Fischler:2000} that

154: quantum theories of stable, asymptotically de Sitter (AsdS) space-times

155: exist and have a finite number of physical states. The (positive)

156: cosmological constant, $\Lambda$,is an input parameter, which controls the

157: number of states. The limit of vanishing $\Lambda$ is a super-Poincare

158: invariant theory, but SUSY is broken for finite $\Lambda$: the operator

159: which converges to the Poincare Hamiltonian $P_0$, does not commute with the

160: SUSY charges.

161: 

162: Classical SUGRA supports such a picture, but suggests a relation between the

163: gravitino mass and the c.c.: $m_{3/2} \sim \Lambda^{1/2} / M_P$. CSB is the

164: proposal that the exponent $1/2$ in this relation is replaced by $1/4$ in

165: the quantum theory. Given the interpretation of $\Lambda$ as a parameter

166: controlling the number of states, this is a critical exponent, and it is

167: plausible that it has fluctuation corrections. Indeed, low energy effective

168: field theory cannot calculate the real relation between the gravitino mass

169: and the c.c., since the c.c. is a relevant parameter and one must introduce

170: a counterterm for it. The exponent above is just the ``natural" relation of

171: classical SUGRA, without fine tuning of the constant in the superpotential.

172: If we accept such fine tuning, we can get any relation we want between $%

173: m_{3/2}$ and $\Lambda$ in effective field theory.

174: 

175: However, the necessity of canceling an infinite c.c. appears to be a short

176: distance problem in effective field theory, and as such, does not seem to

177: depend on the value of the c.c. . As a consequence, there has been

178: considerable skepticism about CSB.

179: 

180: In \cite{Banks:2002wj}, one of the authors presented an argument for the

181: exponent $1/4$, based on crude approximations to the dynamics of the

182: cosmological horizon in the static observer gauge for dS space. It was clear

183: that from the static observer's point of view, the enhanced exponent is an

184: IR effect. However, since the argument relied on conjectures about the

185: horizon dynamics, it has not convinced anyone. Skeptical observers want to

186: understand where effective field theory reasoning breaks down. The work of

187: \cite{Banks:2002wr} provided an important clue. In the static gauge most of

188: the states in a quantum theory of dS space live on the horizon of the static

189: observer. Local field theory can describe only a negligible fraction of the

190: entropy. On the contrary, it was argued in \cite{Banks:2002wr} that in

191: global coordinates, the entire Hilbert space may be well described by field

192: theory. The contradiction between a finite number of states and the field

193: theoretic description can be viewed as an IR cutoff, which restricts the

194: global time coordinate to an interval of order $|t| \leq {\frac{R}{6}}

195: \mathrm{ln} \left(R M_P\right)$ around the time symmetric point. The field

196: theory also has a UV cutoff at a scale $M_c \sim \left({\frac{M_P }{R}}%

197: \right)^{1/2}$. This description is inappropriate for states containing

198: black holes whose size scales like $R$, but there is a basis of field

199: theoretic states in global coordinates, which may span the Hilbert space.

200: 

201: A simple way to restate this conclusion is to invoke the fact that the

202: global description of dS space in field theory does not seem to break down

203: until we contemplate introducing black holes on early time initial data

204: slices, whose entropy exceeds that of the space-time. The combined UV and IR

205: cutoffs prevent us from introducing such objects, and describes a cutoff

206: field theory with a finite number of states. The field theory description of

207: many of these states breaks down near the time-symmetric point, but near the

208: upper and lower limits of $t$, it is a good approximation to their

209: properties.

210: 

211: We have thus set up a framework in which IR divergences in a field theoretic

212: treatment of dS space can be thought of as introducing non-classical

213: dependence on the c.c. . It has often been argued that perturbative quantum

214: gravity expanded around dS space is fraught with IR divergences. These

215: claims have been less than convincing, because no-one had identified gauge

216: invariant observables with which to check the physical meaning of the

217: logarithmically growing graviton propagator. This problem is solved by

218: dS/CFT \cite{Witten:2001kn}\cite{Strominger:2001pn}\cite{Maldacena:2002vr}.

219: In particular, the mass of a field in dS space is given a gauge invariant

220: meaning: it is related to the dimension of a conformal field on the boundary.

221: 

222: The plan of this paper is as follows: in the next section we review dS/CFT,

223: in the Wheeler-DeWitt formalism proposed by Maldacena. This allows

224: perturbative calculations to be performed in a straightforward manner,

225: apparently troubled only by conventional UV divergences. In section 3 we

226: perform one loop calculations of boundary dimensions in a variety of

227: non-gravitational field theories. We find that when the theory contains a

228: massless, minimally coupled scalar field with soft couplings, the dimensions

229: are infected with IR logarithms. In the conclusions, we discuss the

230: difficulties attendant on an extension of these calculations to perturbative

231: quantum gravity.

232: 

233: \section{Review of dS/CFT}

234: 

235: In his talk at Strings 2001 in Mumbai \cite{Witten:2001kn}, Witten proposed

236: a sort of scattering theory for de Sitter space. The fundamental object was

237: the path integral with fixed boundary conditions on $\mathcal{I}_{\pm}$. It

238: was implicitly assumed that, as in asymptotically flat and Anti-deSitter

239: spaces, a field theoretic approximation became exact near the boundaries of

240: space-time. This assumption is open to criticism. It is likely that generic

241: boundary conditions on fields on $\mathcal{I}_-$ will lead to Big Crunch

242: space-times, rather than space-times which are future asymptotically dS.

243: However, this criticism does not apply to perturbation theory, where the

244: boundary conditions are infinitesimal perturbations of those corresponding

245: to the dS vacuum. Witten's prescription provides a perturbative definition

246: of amplitudes in dS quantum gravity, which are invariant under

247: diffeomorphisms that approach the identity near $\mathcal{I}_{\pm}$.

248: 

249: Somewhat later, Strominger proposed \cite{Strominger:2001pn} that suitably

250: defined boundary amplitudes should be the correlation functions of a

251: Euclidean conformal field theory (CFT). An apparent difference with Witten's

252: proposal is the role of conformally covariant, rather than invariant

253: amplitudes in dS/CFT. However, Maldacena \cite{maldapriv} has emphasized

254: that the operator dimensions, OPE coefficients and the like, of dS/CFT, are

255: gauge invariant observables in the sense of Witten.

256: 

257: The boundary correlation functions defined by Strominger should certainly be

258: conformally invariant, but it is not clear that they should obey the axioms

259: of field theory. Analogous arguments would lead us to believe that the

260: holographic dual of linear dilaton backgrounds \cite{Aharony:1999ti} was a

261: Lorentz invariant field theory. The calculations of Peet and Polchinski \cite%

262: {Peet:1998wn} show that it is not. In the dS/CFT case, the form of the two

263: point function follows from conformal invariance alone, and does not give us

264: enough of a clue to the nature of the holographic dual. As believers in the

265: proposition that quantum dS space has only a finite number of states, the

266: present authors are inclined to disbelieve that a CFT will be the exact

267: description of the quantum theory.

268: 

269: For our present purposes, all of these issues of principle are somewhat

270: beside the point. We want a definition of correlation functions on $\mathcal{%

271: I}_{\pm}$ which is perturbatively well defined and gauge invariant.

272: Furthermore, we will be interested only in two point functions, and will not

273: have to address the question of whether higher order correlators obey the

274: axioms of CFT. We have found that the dS/CFT prescription advocated by

275: Maldacena \cite{Maldacena:2002vr} is the most appropriate for our purposes.

276: Maldacena observes that the Euclidean path integral on a space with the

277: topology of a hemisphere defines a ``wave function of the universe" which is

278: a functional of fields on the boundary of the hemisphere. In leading

279: semiclassical approximation, the geometry is the section of the round sphere

280: metric

281: \begin{equation*}

282: {ds^2 = d\theta^2 + sin^2 (\theta ) d\Omega^2 }

283: \end{equation*}

284: with $0 \leq \theta \leq \theta_0$. Maldacena defines boundary correlators

285: as the expansion coefficients of the logarithm of the wave function of the

286: universe for fixed $\theta_0$. The analytic extrapolation $\theta_0

287: \rightarrow {\frac{\pi}{2}} + i t$, $ t\rightarrow\infty$ defines

288: correlation functions on $\mathcal{I}_+$. If the limiting correlation

289: functions exist, they should be covariant under the conformal group of the

290: sphere. In particular, if we work in planar coordinates on the upper

291: triangle of the dS Penrose diagram

292: \begin{equation*}

293: ds^{2}=\frac{1}{\eta ^{2}}\left( -d\eta ^{2}+d\mathbf{x}^{2}\right)

294: \end{equation*}

295: ($\mathcal{I}_+$is at $\eta = 0$) then the boundary two point function

296: should have the form $|\mathbf{x}|^{-\Delta} $. For a free scalar field of

297: mass $m^2$ this is indeed true, and the relation between mass and dimension

298: is given by

299: \begin{equation*}

300: \Delta _{\pm }=a=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\pm \sqrt{(d-1)^{2}-4m^{2}R^{2}}\right)

301: \end{equation*}

302: This is an analytic continuation (in the c.c.) of analogous formulas in

303: AdS/CFT. Indeed, Maldacena's proposal for the correlation functions is the

304: direct analog of the calculation of Euclidean correlation functions in

305: AdS/CFT.

306: 

307: The purpose of the present paper is to compute one loop corrections to $%

308: \Delta_{\pm}$ in simple field theory models. We will see that when the

309: theory has a massless, minimally coupled scalar with soft couplings, these

310: corrections are IR divergent.

311: 

312: \section{Review of QFT in dS space}

313: 

314: In this section we will introduce the principal formulae of QFT in\textit{d-}%

315: dimensional de Sitter (dS$^{d}$) space, and fix our notation .

316: 

317: For a more complete discussion we refer to the excellent review paper \cite%

318: {Spradlin:2001pw}.

319: 

320: \subsection{Coordinate Systems}

321: 

322: \textit{d-}dimensional de Sitter dS$^{d}$ can be realized as the manifold,

323: embedded in $d+1$ dimensional Minkowski $\mathcal{M}^{d,1}$ space, defined

324: by the equation%

325: \begin{equation}

326: -X_{0}^{2}+X_{1}^{2}+\cdots X_{d}^{2}=R^{2}  \label{Eq for

327: Hyperboloid}

328: \end{equation}%

329: where $R$ is the de Sitter radius.

330: 

331: The de Sitter metric is the standard metric induced by immersion in $%

332: \mathcal{M}^{d,1}$ with the usual flat metric. The isometry group of dS$^{d}$

333: is $O(d,1)$ in fact this leave invariant both the hyperboloid defined by the

334: equation (\ref{Eq for Hyperboloid}) and the flat metric of $\mathcal{M}%

335: ^{d,1} $.

336: 

337: For the most part, we will use planar coordinates%

338: \begin{eqnarray}

339: X^{0} &=&\sinh t-\frac{1}{2}x_{i}x_{i}e^{-t}  \notag \\

340: X^{i} &=&x^{i}e^{-t}  \label{coordinates: planar} \\

341: X^{d} &=&\cosh t-\frac{1}{2}x_{i}x_{i}e^{-t}  \notag

342: \end{eqnarray}%

343: with $i=1,\ldots ,d$ the metric take the form%

344: \begin{equation*}

345: ds^{2}=-dt^{2}+e^{-2t}dx_{i}dx_{i}  \label{metric: planar}

346: \end{equation*}%

347: In these coordinates the spatial sections have flat \textit{Euclidean}

348: metric.

349: 

350: It is useful to introduce conformal coordinates too, defined by the

351: transformation%

352: \begin{equation*}

353: \eta =e^{t}

354: \end{equation*}%

355: The metric is conformally flat and takes the form%

356: \begin{equation*}

357: ds^{2}=\frac{1}{\eta ^{2}}\left( -d\eta ^{2}+dx_{i}dx_{i}\right)

358: \label{metric: Lorentz. conf. flat}

359: \end{equation*}%

360: with $i=1,\ldots ,d$. In the following, unless otherwise stated, we will

361: consider the \textit{Euclidean} section of dS$^{d}$ defined by the

362: analytical continuation%

363: \begin{equation}

364: \eta \rightarrow ix_{0}  \label{analitical cont.}

365: \end{equation}%

366: after the transformation (\ref{analitical cont.}) the metric become%

367: \begin{equation}

368: ds^{2}=-\frac{1}{x_{0}^{2}}\left( dx_{0}^{2}+dx_{i}dx_{i}\right)

369: \label{metric: Euclid. conf. flat}

370: \end{equation}%

371: in these coordinates the boundary of dS$^{d}$ $\Sigma $ is given by the

372: submanifold $x_{0}=\epsilon $ where $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.

373: 

374: \subsection{Geodesic Distance\label{Sect.:Geodesic Distance}}

375: 

376: The geodesic distance between two points $x$ and $x^{\prime }$ is

377: \begin{equation*}

378: \mu (x,x^{\prime })=\int_{0}^{1}\left[ g_{ab}\dot{x}^{a}(\lambda )\dot{x}%

379: ^{b}(\lambda )\right] ^{\frac{1}{2}}d\lambda

380: ,~~x^{a}(0)=x,~~x^{a}(1)=x^{\prime }

381: \end{equation*}

382: In the following we will often use the new variable%

383: \begin{equation*}

384: z=\cos ^{2}\left( \frac{\mu }{2R}\right)  \label{geodes. dist.:z}

385: \end{equation*}%

386: It is possible to show that%

387: \begin{equation*}

388: \cos \left( \frac{\mu (x,x^{\prime })}{R}\right) =\frac{\eta

389: _{ab}X^{a}(x)X^{b}(x^{\prime })}{R^{2}}

390: \end{equation*}%

391: with $X^{a}(x),~X^{b}(x^{\prime })\in \mathcal{M}^{d,1}$ embedding

392: coordinates and $\eta _{ab}=$diag$(-1,1,\ldots ,1)$.

393: 

394: Consequently we have%

395: \begin{eqnarray*}

396: z &=&\cos ^{2}\left( \frac{\mu }{2R}\right) \\

397: &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( 1+\cos (\frac{\mu }{R})\right) \\

398: &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( 1+\frac{\eta _{ab}X^{a}(x)X^{b}(x^{\prime })}{R^{2}}%

399: \right)

400: \end{eqnarray*}%

401: In the \textit{Euclidean} conformally flat coordinates (\ref{metric: Euclid.

402: conf. flat}) we have%

403: \begin{equation*}

404: z=-\frac{(x_{0}-y_{0})^{2}+\left( \bar{x}-\bar{y}\right) ^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}%

405: =-2+\frac{x_{0}^{2}+y_{0}{}^{2}+(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}

406: \label{z: euclid. conf. flat coord.}

407: \end{equation*}

408: 

409: \subsection{The Cut-off Prescription}

410: 

411: Maldacena's prescription defines the boundary correlators by analytic

412: continuation in global time. We have proposed that these formulae should be

413: cut off at a fixed global time $T$. IR divergences will appear as divergent

414: behavior at large $T$. It is most convenient to do calculations in conformal

415: coordinates. Thus we have to understand the effect of a global time cut-off

416: in conformal coordinates.

417: 

418: The relation between the two coordinate systems is most simply understood by

419: writing the embedding coordinates in terms of conformal coordinates. The

420: slices of fixed embedding time and global time coincide:

421: 

422: %%***************************************************************

423: %Fig 1-2

424: \begin{figure}[tbp]

425: \begin{minipage}[t]{7cm}

426: \begin{center}

427: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm,clip]{PenroseGlobal}

428: \caption[Short caption for figure 2]{ \textbf{Global coordinates.} {\em

429: Foliation of dS with compact spatial sections (spheres).}}

430: \label{PenroseGlobal}

431: \end{center}

432: \end{minipage}

433: \hfill

434: \begin{minipage}[t]{7cm}

435: \begin{center}

436: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm,clip]{PenroseFlat}

437: \caption[Short caption for figure 1]{\textbf{Flat coordinates.} {\em

438: Foliation of dS with flat spatial sections.}} \label{PenroseFlat}

439: \end{center}

440: \end{minipage}

441: \end{figure}

442: %%***************************************************************

443: 

444: \begin{equation*}

445: X^{0}=\frac{R}{2}\left( \frac{x^{0}}{R}-\frac{R}{x^{0}}\right) -\frac{%

446: \mathbf{x}^{2}}{2x^{0}}  \label{embedconformal}

447: \end{equation*}%

448: At $X^0 = T$, see Fig. \ref{PenroseGlobal} and Fig. \ref{PenroseFlat}. This

449: relation implies a maximal value of $|\mathbf{x}|$ for fixed $x^0$, as well

450: as a maximal value of $x^0$ (which runs between $-\infty$ and $0$ in the

451: conformal coordinate patch). The relation is

452: \begin{equation*}

453: x_{\max }^{2}=-2x^{0}\left( T-x^{0}+\frac{R^{2}}{x^{0}}\right)

454: \end{equation*}%

455: The maximal value of $x^0$ is the point at which $x_{max} = 0$.

456: 

457: \begin{equation*}

458: x_{max}^0 \approx - {\frac{R^2 }{T}} \ \ \ T \gg R

459: \end{equation*}

460: The maximal geodesic distance between two points on a give $x^0$ slice is ${%

461: \frac{x_{max} }{x_{max}^0}}$. The slice on which this distance is maximal is

462: given by $x^0_* = - {\frac{2 R^2 }{T}}$. The geodesic distance on this slice

463: is $o(T)$, while the maximum coordinate distance is $o(R)$. IR divergences

464: will come predominantly from slices near this maximal slice.

465: 

466: Dirichlet boundary conditions on the $X^0 = T$ surface become \textit{spatial%

467: } Dirichlet boundary conditions on the spatial slices of conformal

468: coordinates. On most of the slice of maximal geodesic size, the Dirichlet

469: propagator will coincide with the usual Euclidean propagator defined by

470: analytic continuation from the entire sphere. Thus, the boundary conditions

471: will not affect the IR divergences.

472: 

473: \subsection{Wave Function of the Universe\label{Sect.: Wave Function of the

474: Universe}}

475: 

476: We are looking for a gauge invariant definition of the IR\ renormalization

477: of the particle mass. The Wave Function of the Universe (WFU) will provide

478: us with such a definition.

479: 

480: The WFU $\Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]$ was first introduced by Hartle and

481: Hawking in \cite{Hartle:1983ai}. If $I[g,\phi ]$ is the Euclidean action for

482: gravity and a set of fields indicated by $\phi $, the \textit{Euclidean} WFU

483: is defined as the path integral%

484: \begin{equation}

485: \Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]=\int_{C}[dg][d\phi ]e^{-I[g,\phi ]}~

486: \label{Wave Function Universe: Eucl.}

487: \end{equation}%

488: over a class $C$ of space-times with a compact space-like boundary $\Sigma $

489: on which the induced metric is $h_{ij}$ and over the field configurations $%

490: \phi $ with boundary value $\phi _{0}$. The boundary $\Sigma $ has only one

491: connected component.

492: 

493: In the case $\Lambda >0$ we imagine a semiclassical expansion of the

494: integral over Riemannian spaces with the topology of a hemisphere, expanded

495: around the metric on the portion of the round sphere below polar angle $%

496: \theta_0$. We then analytically continue to the future half of Lorentzian dS

497: space. This prescription corresponds to the choice of Euclidean vacuum in de

498: Sitter space.

499: 

500: Given the WFU we can define the "boundary two-point function" in the limit

501: where the boundary is taken to $\mathcal{I^+}$%

502: \begin{equation*}

503: \frac{\delta \Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]}{\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x})\delta

504: \phi _{0}(\bar{y})}

505: \end{equation*}%

506: Once we expand around dS$^{d}$ we find

507: \begin{equation}

508: \frac{\delta \Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]}{\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x})\delta

509: \phi _{0}(\bar{y})}=C_+\frac{1}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2\Delta_+ }} + C_- \frac{1%

510: }{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2\Delta_- }}  \label{Bdry 2-point fnct:

511: dS}

512: \end{equation}%

513: , where $C_{\pm}$ are constants This form is dictated by conformal

514: invariance. If $\lambda $ and $m$ are the coupling and the mass of the field

515: $\phi $, in the classical Lagrangian, then $\Delta $ will be a function of $%

516: \lambda $ and $m$ and will provide a gauge invariant definition of the

517: renormalized mass.

518: 

519: The Eq. (\ref{Bdry 2-point fnct: dS}) is the analogue of the boundary

520: correlators defined in the AdS/CFT correspondence%

521: \begin{equation*}

522: Z[\phi _{0}]=\left\langle e^{\int d^{4}x\phi _{0}(x)O(x)}\right\rangle

523: _{CFT}~\ ,~\phi (x_{0}=\epsilon )\sim \phi _{0}

524: \end{equation*}%

525: \begin{equation*}

526: \langle 0|O(\bar{x})O(\bar{y})|0\rangle =\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \phi _{0}(%

527: \bar{x})\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{y})}=\tilde{C}\frac{1}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2%

528: \tilde{\Delta}}}

529: \end{equation*}

530: 

531: There are however, important differences between the two cases. They stem

532: from the fact that the Euclidean section of dS space is a spherical cap and

533: has a conventional Dirichlet problem, different from the singular Dirichlet

534: boundary conditions on the boundary of Euclidean AdS space. There are no

535: large volume divergences in the Euclidean calculation. They appear only

536: after extrapolation to infinite Lorentzian time. As a consequence, the

537: divergent behavior comes as a combination of both powers $\Delta_{\pm}$. For

538: fields corresponding to the principal series of dS representation theory,

539: the real parts of $\Delta_{\pm}$ are equal.

540: 

541: The prescription to extract boundary two-point function in dS$^{d}$ given by

542: (\ref{Bdry 2-point fnct: dS}) was first pointed out by Maldacena in \cite%

543: {Maldacena:2002vr} and it is, as explained in this paper, different from the

544: prescription used by Strominger and collaborators in \cite{Strominger:2001pn}%

545: , \cite{Bousso:2001mw}.

546: 

547: \subsection{Representations of the dS$^{d}$ Group\label{Representions of dS

548: Group}}

549: 

550: The scalar representation of the de Sitter group $SO(1,d)$ are classified

551: according to the mass $m$ in the following series, see \cite{Tolley:2001gg},

552: \cite{Gazeau:1999mi}: the principal series%

553: \begin{equation*}

554: m^{2}\geqslant \left( \frac{d-1}{2R_{dS}}\right)  \label{principal

555: series}

556: \end{equation*}%

557: the complementary series

558: \begin{equation*}

559: 0<m^{2}<\left( \frac{d-1}{2R_{dS}}\right)  \label{complementary

560: series}

561: \end{equation*}%

562: and the discrete series, whose only case of physical interest is $m^{2}=0$.

563: 

564: Under a Wigner-In\"{o}n\"{u} contraction to the Poincare group, only the

565: representations of the principal series contract to representation of the

566: Poincare\ Group.

567: 

568: Lowe and G\"{u}ijosa \cite{Guijosa:2003ze} and Lowe \cite{Lowe:2004nw} use

569: the principal series to construct the dS/CFT correspondence. They stress the

570: fact that when one replaces the dS isometry group with a \textit{q}-deformed

571: version, the unitary principal representation deform to a finite dimensional

572: unitary representation of the quantum group\footnote{%

573: The idea that a q-deformed version of the dS group might have finite

574: dimensional unitary representations, resolving the contradiction between dS

575: invariance and a finite number of states, was pointed out to one of the

576: authors (TB) by A. Rajaraman in the fall of 1999. There seemed to be a

577: problem with this idea, because the dS group has no highest weight unitary

578: representations, but Lowe and G\"{u}ijosa made the crucial observation that

579: the cyclic representations of the quantum group (which are not highest

580: weight) converged to the principal unitary series.}.

581: 

582: The massive scalar particles in our formulae will always correspond to the

583: principle series representations, so that the boundary dimensions all have

584: the same real part. We will also use a massless, minimally coupled scalar,

585: which is our toy model of the graviton.

586: 

587: \section{Scalar Green Functions}

588: 

589: In the next few subsections we will derive the scalar Green Functions

590: relevant for our computations and their asymptotic behavior. As explained

591: in the section on the cut-off procedure, we will not impose Dirichlet

592: boundary conditions on the bulk propagators. The IR divergences, which are

593: our principal concern, are not affected by the boundary conditions on the

594: bulk propagator. For a more detailed discussion of dS Green functions, see

595: for example \cite{Allen:1985wd}, \cite{Kirsten:1993ug}.

596: 

597: \subsection{Maximally Symmetric Bitensors}

598: 

599: The relevant geometric objects in maximally symmetric spaces, like dS, are

600: the geodesic distance $\mu (x,x^{\prime })$ between two points $x$ and $%

601: x^{\prime }$, the unit tangent vectors $n_{\sigma }(x,x^{\prime })$ and $%

602: n_{\sigma ^{\prime }}(x,x^{\prime })$ to the geodesic at $x$ and at $%

603: x^{\prime }$, the vector parallel propagator $g^{\mu }{}_{\nu ^{\prime

604: }}(x,x^{\prime })$ and the spinor parallel propagator $\Lambda ^{\alpha

605: }{}_{\beta ^{\prime }}(x,x^{\prime })$.

606: 

607: The geodesic distance is by definition the distance along the geodesic $%

608: x^{a}(\lambda )$ connecting $x$ and $x^{\prime }$%

609: \begin{equation*}

610: \mu (x,x^{\prime })=\int_{0}^{1}\left[ g_{ab}\dot{x}^{a}(\lambda )\dot{x}%

611: ^{b}(\lambda )\right] ^{\frac{1}{2}}d\lambda

612: ,~~x^{a}(0)=x,~~x^{a}(1)=x^{\prime }

613: \end{equation*}%

614: The vectors $n_{\sigma },n_{\sigma ^{\prime }}$ are defined by

615: \begin{equation*}

616: n_{\sigma }=\nabla _{\sigma }\mu (x,x^{\prime })\qquad \mathrm{and}\qquad

617: n_{\sigma ^{\prime }}=\nabla _{\sigma ^{\prime }}\mu (x,x^{\prime })\

618: \end{equation*}%

619: where $\nabla _{\sigma }$ is the covariant derivative. We note that

620: \begin{equation*}

621: n_{\sigma }=-g_{\sigma }{}^{\rho ^{\prime }}n_{\rho ^{\prime }}\

622: \end{equation*}%

623: The vector and spinor parallel propagators are defined by

624: \begin{eqnarray}

625: V^{\mu }(x) &=&g^{\mu }{}_{\nu ^{\prime }}(x,x^{\prime })V^{\nu ^{\prime

626: }}(x^{\prime })\   \label{parallel propag.: vector} \\

627: \psi ^{\alpha }(x) &=&\Lambda ^{\alpha }{}_{\beta ^{\prime }}(x,x^{\prime

628: })\psi ^{\beta ^{\prime }}(x^{\prime })  \label{parallel propag.: spinor}

629: \end{eqnarray}%

630: for every parallel-transported vector $V^{\mu }(x)$ and spinor $\psi

631: ^{\alpha }(x)$, respectively.

632: 

633: Tensors that depend on two points $x$ and $x^{\prime }$ on the manifold are

634: called \textit{bitensor. }We will say that a bitensor is \textit{maximally

635: symmetric} if is invariant under any isometry of the manifold. It can be

636: proved that any maximally symmetric bitensor can be expressed as a sum of

637: products of $g^{\mu }{}_{\nu ^{\prime }},~g_{\mu \nu },~g_{\mu ^{\prime }\nu

638: ^{\prime }}{},~\mu ,~n_{\sigma }$ and $n_{\sigma ^{\prime }}$. Furthermore

639: the coefficients of these terms are functions only of the geodesic distance $%

640: \mu (x,x^{\prime })$.

641: 

642: The covariant derivatives of the above bitensors are given by

643: \begin{eqnarray}

644: \nabla _{\mu }n_{\nu } &=&A\,(g_{\mu \nu }-n_{\mu }n_{\nu })\   \notag \\

645: \nabla _{\mu ^{\prime }}n_{\nu } &=&C\,(g_{\mu ^{\prime }\nu }+n_{\mu

646: ^{\prime }}n_{\nu })\   \notag \\

647: \nabla _{\mu }g_{\nu \rho ^{\prime }} &=&-(A+C)\,(g_{\mu \nu }n_{\rho

648: ^{\prime }}+g_{\mu \rho ^{\prime }}n_{\nu })\

649: \label{foundam. bitensors: derivatives} \\

650: \nabla _{\mu }\Lambda ^{\alpha }{}_{\beta ^{\prime }} &=&\frac{1}{2}%

651: (A+C)\,[\,(\Gamma _{\mu }\Gamma ^{\nu }n_{\nu }-n_{\mu })\,\Lambda

652: ]^{\,\alpha }{}_{\beta ^{\prime }}\   \notag \\

653: \nabla _{\mu ^{\prime }}\Lambda ^{\alpha }{}_{\beta ^{\prime }} &=&-\frac{1}{%

654: 2}(A+C)\,[\,(\Gamma _{\mu ^{\prime }}\Gamma ^{\nu ^{\prime }}n_{\nu ^{\prime

655: }}-n_{\mu ^{\prime }})\,\Lambda ]^{\,\alpha }{}_{\beta ^{\prime }}\   \notag

656: \end{eqnarray}%

657: where $A$ and $C$ are the following functions of the geodesic distance:

658: \begin{eqnarray}

659: &&\mathrm{for\,\,\,\,\mathbf{R}^{d}:}\qquad A(\mu )=\frac{1}{\mu }\,\qquad

660: C(\mu )=-\frac{1}{\mu }\,  \notag \\

661: &&\mathrm{for\,\,\,\,dS~and~AdS:}\qquad A(\mu )=\frac{1}{R}\cot \frac{\mu }{R%

662: }\,\qquad C(\mu )=-\frac{1}{R\sin \left( \frac{\mu }{R}\right) }\

663: \label{table: A, C for R, dS and AdS}

664: \end{eqnarray}%

665: The radius $R$ is real for dS$^{d}$ and it is $R=i\tilde{R}$ with $\tilde{R}$

666: real for AdS$^{d}$. The covariant gamma matrices satisfy the usual relation $%

667: \{\Gamma ^{\mu },\Gamma ^{\nu }\}=2g^{\mu \nu }$.

668: 

669: \subsection{Bulk Two-Point Function\label{Scalar Two-Point Function}}

670: 

671: In this subsection we will evaluate the scalar two-point function%

672: \begin{equation*}

673: G(x,x^{\prime })=\langle \psi |\phi (x)\phi (x^{\prime })|\psi \rangle

674: \end{equation*}

675: 

676: We will assume that the state $|\psi \rangle $ is maximally symmetric, this

677: implies that for spacelike separated points $G(x,x^{\prime })$ depends only

678: on the geodesic distance $\mu (x,x^{\prime })$. For timelike separation the

679: symmetric and Feynman functions also depend only on $\mu $ but the

680: commutator function depend on the time ordering too. Doing an analytical

681: continuation from spacelike separation $\mu ^{2}>0$ to timelike separation $%

682: \mu ^{2}<0$, it is possible to obtain all these two-point functions.

683: 

684: We now derive a differential equation for $G(x,x^{\prime })$ . Applying the

685: Laplacian operator to $G(x,x^{\prime })$ we have%

686: \begin{eqnarray*}

687: \square G(\mu ) &=&\nabla ^{\nu }\nabla _{\nu }G(\mu )=\nabla ^{\nu

688: }(G^{\prime }(\mu )n_{\nu }) \\

689: &=&G^{\prime \prime }(\mu )n^{\nu }n_{\nu }+G^{\prime }(\mu )\nabla ^{\nu

690: }n_{\nu } \\

691: &=&G^{\prime \prime }(\mu )+(d-1)A(\mu )G^{\prime }(\mu )

692: \end{eqnarray*}%

693: where we have used the formulae (\ref{table: A, C for R, dS and AdS}) and

694: the notation $G^{\prime }=\frac{dG}{d\mu }$.

695: 

696: Using the equation of motion $(\square -m^{2})\phi =0$ we find

697: \begin{equation}

698: G^{\prime \prime }(\mu )+(d-1)A(\mu )G^{\prime }(\mu )-m^{2}G=0

699: \label{Eq for scalar 2-point fnct. in mu}

700: \end{equation}%

701: as long as $x\neq x^{\prime }$.

702: 

703: Defining the change of variable%

704: \begin{equation*}

705: z=\cos ^{2}\left( \frac{\mu }{2R}\right)

706: \end{equation*}%

707: the Eq. (\ref{Eq for scalar 2-point fnct. in mu}) for $G$ becomes%

708: \begin{equation}

709: z(1-z)\frac{d^{2}G}{dz^{2}}+[c-(a+b+1)z]\frac{dG}{dz}-abG=0

710: \label{Eq for scalar 2-point fnct. in z}

711: \end{equation}%

712: where we defined%

713: \begin{eqnarray}

714: a &=&\Delta _{+}=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1+\sqrt{(d-1)^{2}-4m^{2}R^{2}}\right)

715: \label{Delta +} \\

716: b &=&\Delta _{-}=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1-\sqrt{(d-1)^{2}-4m^{2}R^{2}}\right)

717: \label{Delta -} \\

718: c &=&\frac{1}{2}d  \label{c}

719: \end{eqnarray}

720: 

721: \subsubsection{De Sitter Space: Massive Scalar\label{SEC: dS GF}}

722: 

723: De Sitter space corresponds to choosing $R$ real in the Eq. (\ref{table: A,

724: C for R, dS and AdS}). There are two linearly independent solution $G(z)$ to

725: Eq. (\ref{Eq for scalar 2-point fnct. in z}). Any of the solutions of Eq. (%

726: \ref{Eq for scalar 2-point fnct. in z}) is associated with a particular

727: vacuum $|\psi \rangle $.

728: 

729: The Two-point function%

730: \begin{equation*}

731: G_{E}(x,x^{\prime })=\langle E|\phi (x)\phi (x^{\prime })|E\rangle

732: \end{equation*}%

733: associated with the Euclidean vacuum $|E\rangle $ Introduced in Section \ref%

734: {Sect.: Wave Function of the Universe} and defined as analytical

735: continuation from the sphere is given by%

736: \begin{equation}

737: G_{E}(x,x^{\prime })=qF(a,b;c;z)  \label{2-point fnct.: scalar, in E

738: vacuum}

739: \end{equation}%

740: where $F(a,b;c;z)$ is the hypergeometric function.

741: 

742: The two-point function in the Euclidean vacuum turns out to have the

743: following properties:

744: 

745: \begin{enumerate}

746: \item has only one singular point at $\mu (x,x^{\prime })=0$ and therefore

747: regular at $\mu (x,x^{\prime })=\pi R$

748: 

749: \item Has the same strength $\mu \rightarrow 0$ singularity as in flat space.

750: \end{enumerate}

751: 

752: The constant $q$ in Eq. (\ref{2-point fnct.: scalar, in E vacuum}) is

753: determined by the condition that as $\mu \rightarrow 0$ $G_{E}(x,x^{\prime

754: }) $ has to approach the flat two point function%

755: \begin{equation*}

756: G_{flat}(\mu )\sim \frac{\Gamma \left( \frac{d}{2}\right) }{2(d-2)\pi ^{%

757: \frac{d}{2}}}\mu ^{-d+2},~~\mu \rightarrow 0

758: \end{equation*}%

759: we find%

760: \begin{equation*}

761: q=\frac{\Gamma (a)\Gamma (b)}{\Gamma \left( \frac{d}{2}\right) 2^{d}\pi ^{%

762: \frac{d}{2}}}R^{-d+2}

763: \end{equation*}

764: 

765: For the computation it will be useful to derive the asymptotic expansion of $%

766: G(z)$ for $z\rightarrow -\infty $ that correspond to $x_{0}\rightarrow 0$ or

767: $y_{0}\rightarrow 0$.

768: 

769: The geodesic distance in conformally flat coordinate was given in Section %

770: \ref{Sect.:Geodesic Distance} and it is

771: \begin{equation*}

772: z=-\frac{(x_{0}-y_{0})^{2}+(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}

773: \end{equation*}%

774: we have%

775: \begin{equation*}

776: \lim_{\substack{ x_{0}\rightarrow 0  \\ y_{0}\rightarrow 0}}~z\sim -\frac{(%

777: \bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}

778: \end{equation*}%

779: so that the asymptotic expansion of $G(z)$ for $z\rightarrow -\infty $ is

780: \begin{equation}

781: \lim_{z\rightarrow \infty }G(z)\sim C_{+}\frac{1}{z^{\Delta _{+}}}+C_{-}%

782: \frac{1}{z^{\Delta _{-}}}=C_{+}\left( \frac{-x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y}%

783: )^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{+}}+C_{-}\left( \frac{-x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y}%

784: )^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}  \label{2-point fnct.: scalar, asympt.

785: exp.}

786: \end{equation}%

787: with%

788: \begin{equation*}

789: C_{+}=q~\frac{\Gamma (\frac{d}{2})\Gamma (\Delta _{-}-\Delta _{+})}{\Gamma

790: (\Delta _{-})\Gamma (\frac{d}{2}-\Delta _{+})},~~~C_{-}=q~\frac{\Gamma (%

791: \frac{d}{2})\Gamma (\Delta _{+}-\Delta _{-})}{\Gamma (\Delta _{+})\Gamma (%

792: \frac{d}{2}-\Delta _{-})}

793: \end{equation*}

794: 

795: \subsubsection{De Sitter Space: Massless Scalar}

796: 

797: The two-point function for a massless minimally coupled scalar field in de

798: Sitter space was studied in \cite{Allen:1987tz}, \cite{Kirsten:1993ug}. They

799: find the following expression for the two-point function%

800: \begin{eqnarray}

801: G_{0}(z) &=&\frac{R^{2}}{192\pi ^{2}m^{2}}+\frac{R}{48\pi ^{2}}\left( \ln

802: (1-z)+\frac{1}{1-z}\right)  \label{2-point fnct.:

803: m=0, scalar, in E vacuum}

804: \\

805: &=&C_{0}\left( \ln (1-z)+\frac{1}{1-z}\right) +\tilde{C}  \notag

806: \end{eqnarray}

807: 

808: We will not need the actual values of the constants $C_{0}$ and $\tilde{C}$

809: in our computation.

810: 

811: The asymptotic expansion for $z\rightarrow -\infty $ of the massless

812: two-point function (\ref{2-point fnct.: m=0, scalar, in E vacuum}) is%

813: \begin{equation}

814: G_{0}(z)\sim C_{0}\left( \ln \frac{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}+\frac{%

815: x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}\right)

816: \label{2-point fnct.: m=0,

817: scalar, asympt. exp.}

818: \end{equation}

819: 

820: \subsection{Bulk to Boundary Propagators: dS/AdS\label{Sect.: B-B prop.

821: scalar}}

822: 

823: The Bulk to Boundary propagator for AdS$^{d}$ were derived by Witten in \cite%

824: {Witten:1998qj}. They obey the equations

825: 

826: \begin{equation*}

827: (\square _{x}-m^{2})\tilde{K}(x,\bar{y})=0

828: \end{equation*}%

829: \begin{equation*}

830: \tilde{K}(\bar{x},x_{0};\bar{y})\rightarrow (x_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta )}\delta

831: ^{d}(\bar{x}-\bar{y}),~\text{for }x_{0}\rightarrow 0

832: \end{equation*}%

833: and their explicit form in the Poincare coordinates in AdS$^{d}$ is%

834: \begin{equation*}

835: \tilde{K}(\bar{x},x_{0};\bar{y})=\frac{\Gamma (\Delta )}{\pi ^{\frac{d-1}{2}%

836: }\Gamma \left( \Delta -\frac{d-1}{2}\right) }\left( \frac{x_{0}}{x_{0}^{2}+(%

837: \bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta }

838: \end{equation*}%

839: with

840: \begin{equation*}

841: \Delta =\Delta _{+}=a=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1+\sqrt{(d-1)^{2}+4m^{2}\tilde{R}%

842: ^{2}}\right)

843: \end{equation*}%

844: If we consider the conformally flat coordinates (\ref{metric: Euclid. conf.

845: flat}) in dS$^{d}$ the equations defining the Bulk to Boundary propagator

846: become

847: 

848: \begin{equation*}

849: \left( \square _{x}+m^{2}\right) K(x,\bar{y})=0

850: \end{equation*}%

851: We impose Dirichlet boundary conditions, $K \rightarrow \delta (x - \bar{y})$

852: as $x$ approaches the boundary of a spherical cap. The cap is then continued

853: to a hemisphere, and analytically continued to $\theta = {\frac{\pi}{2}} + i

854: t$. In our conformal coordinates for the Lorentzian section, $%

855: t\rightarrow\infty$, corresponds to $x^0 \rightarrow 0$. In this limit

856: \begin{equation*}

857: K(\bar{x},x_{0};\bar{y})\rightarrow C_+ (x_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta_+ )}\delta

858: ^{d}(\bar{x}-\bar{y}) + C_- (x_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta_- )}\delta ^{d}(\bar{x}-%

859: \bar{y}),~\text{for }x_{0}\rightarrow 0

860: \end{equation*}

861: 

862: with%

863: \begin{equation*}

864: \Delta _{\pm}=a=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\pm \sqrt{(d-1)^{2}-4m^{2}R^{2}}\right)

865: \end{equation*}

866: 

867: \subsection{Boundary Two-point Function: dS/AdS}

868: 

869: The boundary two point function for AdS$^{d}$ in the Poincare patch as given

870: for example in \cite{Aharony:1999ti} is

871: 

872: \begin{equation*}

873: \langle 0|O(\bar{x})O(\bar{y})|0\rangle =\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \phi (\bar{x}%

874: )\delta \phi (\bar{y})}=C\frac{1}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2\Delta }}

875: \end{equation*}%

876: with%

877: \begin{equation*}

878: \Delta =\Delta _{+}=a=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1+\sqrt{(d-1)^{2}+4m^{2}\tilde{R}%

879: ^{2}}\right)

880: \end{equation*}

881: 

882: For dS$^{d}$ in the conformally flat coordinates (\ref{metric: Euclid. conf.

883: flat}) we have%

884: \begin{equation*}

885: \frac{\delta \Psi _{0}[h_{ij},\phi _{0}]}{\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x})\delta

886: \phi _{0}(\bar{y})}=C_+ \frac{1}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2\Delta _{+}}} + C_-

887: \frac{1}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2\Delta _{-}}}

888: \end{equation*}%

889: with%

890: \begin{equation*}

891: \Delta _{\pm}=a=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1 \pm \sqrt{(d-1)^{2}-4m^{2}R^{2}}\right)

892: \end{equation*}

893: 

894: \section{General Structure of the Computation\label{Sect.:General Structure

895: of the Computation}}

896: 

897: In this section we want to give a general description of the calculation we

898: will perform for three specific models.

899: 

900: As we have already discussed in Section \ref{Sect.: Wave Function of the

901: Universe} we are interesting in computing at \textit{1-loop} the Wave

902: Function of the Universe (WFU)%

903: \begin{equation*}

904: \Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]=\int_{C}[dg][d\phi ]e^{-I[g,\phi ]}~

905: \end{equation*}%

906: for the models described in Section \ref{Sect.: Models}. The \textit{%

907: tree-level} and \textit{1-loop} diagrams are represented respectively in

908: Fig. \ref{treediag} and Fig. \ref{1loopdiag}.

909: 

910: Given the WFU we want to find the ``boundary two-point function"%

911: \begin{equation}

912: \frac{\delta \Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]}{\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x})\delta

913: \phi _{0}(\bar{y})}  \label{Second derivative

914: WFU}

915: \end{equation}%

916: this will provide us with a gauge invariant definition of the renormalized

917: mass.

918: 

919: %%***************************************************************

920: %Fig 3-4

921: \begin{figure}[tbp]

922: \begin{minipage}[t]{7cm}

923: \begin{center}

924: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm,clip]{treediag}

925: \caption[Short caption for figure 1]{\textbf{Tree diagram.} {\em This

926: diagram represent the tree-level contribution to the Wave Function of the

927: Universe (WFU). The points $x_1$ and $x_2$ are on the boundary.}}

928: \label{treediag}

929: \end{center}

930: \end{minipage}

931: \hfill

932: \begin{minipage}[t]{7cm}

933: \begin{center}

934: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm,clip]{1loopdiag}

935: \caption[Short caption for figure 2]{\textbf{1-loop diagram.} {\em 1-Loop

936: contribution to the WFU. The points $x_1$ and $x_2$ are on the boundary

937: while $x$ and $y$ are bulk points.}} \label{1loopdiag}

938: \end{center}

939: \end{minipage}

940: \end{figure}

941: %%***************************************************************

942: 

943: We consider a general action of the form%

944: \begin{equation*}

945: S=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\left( \phi _{A}\triangle \phi _{A}+\phi _{B}\triangle

946: \phi _{B}+\phi _{C}\triangle \phi _{C}\right) +\lambda \sqrt{g}\phi _{A}\phi

947: _{B}\phi _{C}

948: \end{equation*}%

949: where%

950: \begin{equation*}

951: S_{0}=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\phi _{\alpha }\triangle \phi _{\alpha },~~\alpha

952: =A,B,C

953: \end{equation*}%

954: is the quadratic part of the action i.e.%

955: \begin{equation*}

956: S_{0}=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial \phi

957: _{A})^{2}+m_{A}^{2}\phi _{A}^{2}\right]

958: \end{equation*}%

959: for a scalar field and%

960: \begin{equation*}

961: S_{0}=S_{M}+S_{\partial M}=\int_{M}d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\bar{\psi}\left(

962: D\!\!\!\!/-m\right) \psi +\int_{\partial M}d^{d}x~\sqrt{h}\bar{\psi}\psi

963: \end{equation*}%

964: for a spinor field.

965: 

966: In the WFU we are integrating over fields with the following boundary

967: conditions%

968: \begin{equation*}

969: \phi _{\alpha }|_{\Sigma }=\phi _{\alpha 0},~~\alpha =A,B,C

970: \end{equation*}%

971: where by the symbol $\phi _{\alpha }|_{\Sigma }$ we mean the field evaluated

972: on the boundary of the Euclidean spherical cap. To impose the boundary

973: condition we decompose the field in the following way%

974: \begin{equation*}

975: \phi _{\alpha }=\phi _{\alpha 1}+\phi _{\alpha 2}

976: \end{equation*}%

977: with%

978: \begin{equation*}

979: \phi _{\alpha 1}|_{\Sigma }=\phi _{\alpha 0},~~\phi _{\alpha 2}|_{\Sigma }=0

980: \end{equation*}%

981: The field $\phi _{\alpha 1}$ is the solution of the free wave equation with

982: Dirichlet boundary conditions, and can be written in terms of the

983: appropriate Bulk to Boundary propagator

984: \begin{equation*}

985: \phi _{\alpha 1}=K_{\alpha }\circ \phi _{\alpha 0}=\int_{\Sigma }d\bar{y}%

986: ~K_{\alpha }(\bar{x},x_{0};\bar{y})\phi _{\alpha 0}(\bar{y}),~~\bar{y}\in

987: \Sigma ,~~\alpha =A,B,C

988: \end{equation*}%

989: described in the Sections \ref{Sect.: B-B prop. scalar} and \ref{Sect.: B-B

990: prop. spinor}.

991: 

992: To compute the \textit{1-loop }correction to the "boundary two-point

993: function" (\ref{Second derivative WFU}) we have to evaluate the terms in $%

994: \Psi \lbrack h_{ij},\phi _{0}]$ that are quadratic both in $\phi _{0}$ and

995: in the coupling constant $\lambda $. Expanding the path integral we have%

996: \begin{eqnarray*}

997: \Psi &=&\int [d\phi _{A}][d\phi _{B}]~[d\phi _{C}]e^{-S_{0}[\phi _{A},\phi

998: _{B},\phi _{C}]-\int d^{d}x~\sqrt{g(x)}\lambda \phi _{A}\phi _{B}\phi _{C}}

999: \\

1000: &=&\int [d\phi _{A}][d\phi _{B}]~[d\phi _{C}]e^{-S_{0}[\phi _{A},\phi

1001: _{B},\phi _{C}]}\left[ 1-\lambda \int d^{d}x~\sqrt{g(x)}\phi _{A}(x)\phi

1002: _{B}(x)\phi _{C}(x)\right. \\

1003: &&\left. +\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}%

1004: \phi _{A}(x)\phi _{B}(x)\phi _{C}(x)\phi _{A}(y)\phi _{B}(y)\phi

1005: _{C}(y)+O(\lambda ^{3})\right]

1006: \end{eqnarray*}%

1007: where we indicated with $S_{0}[\phi _{A},\phi _{B},\phi _{C}]$ the quadratic

1008: part of the action.

1009: 

1010: The terms quadratic in $\phi _{\alpha 0}~\alpha =A,B,C$ come from the

1011: expansion of the term%

1012: \begin{equation*}

1013: \phi _{A}(x)\phi _{B}(x)\phi _{C}(x)\phi _{A}(y)\phi _{B}(y)\phi _{C}(y)

1014: \end{equation*}%

1015: we have%

1016: \begin{eqnarray*}

1017: &&\phi _{A}(x)\phi _{B}(x)\phi _{C}(x)\phi _{A}(y)\phi _{B}(y)\phi _{C}(y) \\

1018: &=&\phi _{A1}(x)\phi _{A1}(y)\left[ \phi _{B2}(x)\phi _{B2}(y)\phi

1019: _{C2}(x)\phi _{C2}(y)\right] \\

1020: &&+\cdots

1021: \end{eqnarray*}

1022: 

1023: We will compute only the correction to the two-point function of the field $%

1024: \phi _{A}$. The part of the path integral relevant to this calculation is

1025: \begin{eqnarray*}

1026: \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{A}}}[\phi _{A0}] &=&\int

1027: [d\phi _{B}]~[d\phi _{C}]e^{-\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\phi _{B}\triangle \phi

1028: _{B}-\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\phi _{C}\triangle \phi _{C}} \\

1029: &&\times \frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}%

1030: \phi _{A1}(x)\phi _{A1}(y)\left[ \phi _{B2}(x)\phi _{B2}(y)\phi _{C2}(x)\phi

1031: _{C2}(y)\right]

1032: \end{eqnarray*}%

1033: The only parts of the fields that fluctuate in the path integral are $\phi

1034: _{\alpha 2}$, in fact $\phi _{\alpha 1}$ is fixed by the boundary

1035: conditions. For this reason the measure of integration is given by%

1036: \begin{equation*}

1037: \lbrack d\phi _{B}]~[d\phi _{C}]=[d\phi _{B2}]~[d\phi _{C2}]

1038: \end{equation*}

1039: 

1040: Standard manipulation give us the following expression for the path integral%

1041: \begin{eqnarray*}

1042: \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{A}}}[\phi _{A0}] &=&\int

1043: [d\phi _{B2}]~[d\phi _{C2}]e^{-\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\phi _{B}\triangle \phi

1044: _{B}-\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\phi _{C}\triangle \phi _{C}} \\

1045: &&\times \frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}%

1046: \phi _{A1}(x)\phi _{A1}(y)[\phi _{B2}(x)\phi _{B2}(y)\phi _{C2}(x)\phi

1047: _{C2}(y)] \\

1048: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\phi

1049: _{A1}(x)\phi _{A1}(y)\langle E|\phi _{B2}(x)\phi _{B2}(y)\phi _{C2}(x)\phi

1050: _{C2}(y)|E\rangle \\

1051: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\phi

1052: _{A1}(x)\phi _{A1}(y)\langle E|\phi _{B}(x)\phi _{B}(y)\phi _{C}(x)\phi

1053: _{C}(y)|E\rangle \\

1054: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\phi

1055: _{A1}(x)\phi _{A1}(y)G_{B}(x,y)G_{C}(x,y) \\

1056: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}%

1057: \int_{\Sigma }d\bar{x}_{1}~K_{A}(x;\bar{x}_{1})\phi _{A0}(\bar{x}_{1}) \\

1058: &&\times \int_{\Sigma }d\bar{x}_{2}~K_{A}(y;\bar{x}_{2})\phi _{A0}(\bar{x}%

1059: _{2})G_{B}(x,y)G_{C}(x,y)

1060: \end{eqnarray*}

1061: 

1062: The boundary two-point function at \textit{1-loop} is given by%

1063: \begin{eqnarray*}

1064: \frac{\delta \Psi ^{\text{\textit{A}}}}{\delta \phi _{A0}(\bar{x}_{1})\delta

1065: \phi _{A0}(\bar{x}_{2})} &=&C\frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2\Delta }}

1066: \\

1067: &&+\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}%

1068: ~K_{A}(x;\bar{x}_{1})G_{B}(x,y)G_{C}(x,y)K_{A}(y;\bar{x}_{2})

1069: \end{eqnarray*}

1070: 

1071: We have similar expressions for the boundary two-point functions of the

1072: others fields $\phi _{B},~\phi _{C}$.

1073: 

1074: \section{Models\label{Sect.: Models}}

1075: 

1076: We have computed the \textit{1-loop} boundary two point function for the

1077: following models:

1078: 

1079: \textbf{Scalar Fields with Cubic Interaction}%

1080: \begin{equation*}

1081: S=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial \phi )^{2}+m^{2}\phi

1082: ^{2}+(\partial \phi _{1})^{2}+m^{2}\phi _{1}^{2}+(\partial \phi _{0})^{2}%

1083: \right] +\sqrt{g}\lambda \phi \phi _{0}\phi _{1}

1084: \end{equation*}%

1085: where the field $\phi _{0}$ is massless.

1086: 

1087: \textbf{Scalar Fields with Derivative Couplings}

1088: 

1089: \begin{equation*}

1090: S=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial \phi _{A})^{2}+m^{2}\phi

1091: _{A}^{2}+(\partial \phi _{B})^{2}+m^{2}\phi _{B}^{2}+(\partial \phi )^{2}%

1092: \right] +\sqrt{g}\lambda \phi g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\mu }\phi _{A}\partial

1093: _{\nu }\phi _{B}

1094: \end{equation*}%

1095: where the field $\phi $ is massless.

1096: 

1097: \textbf{Spinor Field with Derivative Coupling}

1098: 

1099: \begin{equation*}

1100: S_{0}+S_{I}=\int d^{d}x\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}(\partial \phi )^{2}+\int_{M}d^{d}x%

1101: \sqrt{g}\bar{\psi}(D\!\!\!\!/-m)\psi +\int_{\partial M}d^{d}x~\sqrt{h}\bar{%

1102: \psi}\psi +\int_{M}d^{d}x~\sqrt{g}\lambda \partial _{a}\phi \bar{\psi}\Gamma

1103: ^{a}\psi

1104: \end{equation*}%

1105: where the field $\phi $ is massless. The surface term for the fermions is

1106: explained in \cite{Arutyunov:1998ve},\cite{Rashkov:1999ji},\cite%

1107: {Henningson:1998cd}.

1108: 

1109: We have chosen these models in order to see whether the fact that the

1110: massless boson is derivatively coupled effects the IR divergence, and to

1111: study the effect of fermion chirality. In the conclusions we will discuss

1112: the issues that these results raise for the analogous calculations in

1113: quantum supergravity.

1114: 

1115: \section{1-loop Computation: Scalar Fields with Cubic Interaction}

1116: 

1117: In this section we will compute the \textit{1-loop} boundary two point

1118: function for the massive field $\phi $ interacting with a massive scalar

1119: field $\phi _{1}$ and a massless scalar field $\phi _{0}$. The lagrangian is%

1120: \begin{equation*}

1121: \mathcal{L}=\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial \phi )^{2}+m^{2}\phi

1122: ^{2}+(\partial \phi _{1})^{2}+m^{2}\phi _{1}^{2}+(\partial \phi _{0})^{2} %

1123: \right] +\sqrt{g}\lambda \phi \phi _{0}\phi _{1}

1124: \end{equation*}

1125: 

1126: The asymptotic expansions of both the bulk and bulk to boundary propagators,

1127: at large Lorentzian time and space-like separation, contain terms with both

1128: powers $(x_0)^{\Delta_{\pm}}$. For the principal series, these powers differ

1129: in the sign of their imaginary part. We have found that the most divergent

1130: terms as $x_0 \rightarrow 0$ come from products of terms from individual

1131: propagators that all have the same power of $x_0$. We call these the \textit{%

1132: pure} terms. Mixed terms have rapidly oscillating phases, which lead to more

1133: convergent integrals. We will find that in this model the pure terms look

1134: like the tree level results, but with a divergent correction to the mass.

1135: The mixed terms are sub-leading, and do not have the same form as the tree

1136: level result. We will explicitly show only our results for the pure terms.

1137: 

1138: As explained in Section \ref{Sect.:General Structure of the Computation} the

1139: \textit{1-loop} correction to the boundary two-point function%

1140: \begin{equation*}

1141: \frac{\delta \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}}{\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x}%

1142: _{1})\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x}_{2})}=G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},%

1143: \bar{x}_{2})

1144: \end{equation*}

1145: 

1146: is given by%

1147: \begin{eqnarray*}

1148: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2}) &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}%

1149: \int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}~K(x;\bar{x}%

1150: _{1})G_{1}(x,y)G_{0}(x,y)K(y;\bar{x}_{2}) \\

1151: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d-1}\bar{x}\int d^{d-1}\bar{y}\int

1152: dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{y_{0}^{d}}~K(x;\bar{x}%

1153: _{1})G_{1}(x,y)G_{0}(x,y)K(y;\bar{x}_{2})

1154: \end{eqnarray*}%

1155: In principle, the bulk propagators in these equations should satisfy

1156: (vanishing) Dirichlet boundary conditions at a fixed global time, $T$. We

1157: have seen that in conformal coordinates this corresponds to an $x^{0}$

1158: dependent Dirichlet boundary condition on a sphere in $\mathbf{x}$ space, as

1159: well as an upper cut-off $x_{max}^{0}\sim -R^{2}/T$. The IR divergences will

1160: come from the regions of maximal spatial geodesic size, and, because of the

1161: Dirichlet boundary conditions, from regions where the two integrated bulk

1162: points are far from the spatial boundary sphere. Thus considering only the

1163: leading IR divergent part of the answer, we can use the usual Euclidean

1164: vacuum Green's function (without Dirichlet boundary conditions) and

1165: approximate it by its asymptotic form at large geodesic distance:%

1166: \begin{eqnarray*}

1167: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})

1168: &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d-1}\bar{x}\int d^{d-1}\bar{y}\int

1169: dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{y_{0}^{d}}%

1170: ~(x_{0}y_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{\pm })} \\

1171: &&\times \delta ^{d-1}(\bar{x}-\bar{x}_{1})G_{1}(x,y)G_{0}(x,y)\delta ^{d-1}(%

1172: \bar{y}-\bar{x}_{2}) \\

1173: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{%

1174: y_{0}^{d}}~(x_{0}y_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{\pm })}G_{0}(\bar{x}_{1},x_{0};\bar{%

1175: x}_{2},y_{0})G_{1}(\bar{x}_{1},x_{0};\bar{x}_{2},y_{0}) \\

1176: &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int_{\alpha }^{\epsilon }dx_{0}\int_{\beta

1177: }^{\epsilon }dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}}\frac{1}{y_{0}}~C_{0}C_{-}\ln \left(

1178: \frac{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}\right) \left( \frac{1}{(\bar{x}-%

1179: \bar{y})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{\pm }}

1180: \end{eqnarray*}%

1181: Here we used the fact that bulk to boundary propagators satisfy

1182: 

1183: \begin{equation*}

1184: K(\bar{x},x_{0};\bar{y})\rightarrow C_{+}(x_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{+})}\delta

1185: ^{d}(\bar{x}-\bar{y})+C_{-}(x_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{-})}\delta ^{d}(\bar{x}-%

1186: \bar{y}),~\text{for }x_{0}\rightarrow 0

1187: \end{equation*}%

1188: explained in Section \ref{Sect.: B-B prop. scalar} and the asymptotic

1189: expansion (\ref{2-point fnct.: scalar, asympt. exp.}), (\ref{2-point fnct.:

1190: m=0, scalar, asympt. exp.}) for the bulk two-point functions\footnote{%

1191: In tree level calculations involving two bulk to boundary propagators, only

1192: one of them can be replaced by a $\delta $ function, since the other ends up

1193: evaluated at separated points. The powers of $x^{0}$ that would set it equal

1194: to zero are part of the renormalization factor that defines the limiting

1195: boundary two point function. In our calculation, both bulk to boundary

1196: propagators are legitimately replaced by $\delta $ functions.} .

1197: 

1198: Integrating in $x_{0}$ and $y_{0}$ and keeping the leading part in $\epsilon

1199: \rightarrow 0$ we find%

1200: \begin{eqnarray}

1201: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})

1202: &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2\Delta

1203: _{\pm }}}\times \left( \ln \left( \frac{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}{%

1204: \epsilon }\right) \right) ^{3}  \notag \\

1205: &&+\text{Subleading terms in }\epsilon   \notag

1206: \end{eqnarray}

1207: 

1208: \section{1-loop Computation: Scalar Fields with Derivative Coupling}

1209: 

1210: In this section we will compute the \textit{1-loop} boundary two points

1211: function for the massive scalar field $\phi $ derivatively coupled to a

1212: massless scalar field $\phi _{A}$ and a massive scalar field $\phi _{B}$.

1213: The action is

1214: 

1215: \begin{equation*}

1216: S=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial \phi )^{2}+m^{2}\phi

1217: ^{2}+(\partial \phi _{B})^{2}+m^{2}\phi _{B}^{2}+(\partial \phi _{A})^{2}%

1218: \right] +\sqrt{g}\lambda \phi g^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\mu }\phi _{A}\partial

1219: _{\nu }\phi _{B}

1220: \end{equation*}

1221: 

1222: Following the general lines of the computation done in Section \ref%

1223: {Sect.:General Structure of the Computation} we find for the \textit{1-loop}

1224: WFU

1225: 

1226: \begin{eqnarray*}

1227: \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}} &=&\int [d\phi _{B2}]~[d\phi _{C2}]e^{-\int

1228: d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial \phi )^{2}+m^{2}\phi

1229: ^{2}+(\partial \phi _{B})^{2}+m^{2}\phi _{B}^{2}+(\partial \phi _{A})^{2}%

1230: \right] } \\

1231: &&\times \frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}

1232: \\

1233: &&\times (\phi (x)g^{\mu \nu }(x)\partial _{\mu }\phi _{A}(x)\partial _{\nu

1234: }\phi _{B}(x))(\phi (y)g^{\rho \lambda }(y)\partial _{\rho }\phi

1235: _{A}(y)\partial _{\lambda }\phi _{B}(y)) \\

1236: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\phi

1237: _{1}(x)\phi _{1}(y) \\

1238: &&\times g^{\mu \nu }(x)g^{\rho \lambda }(y)\partial _{\mu }^{x}\partial

1239: _{\rho }^{y}G_{A}(x,y)\partial _{\nu }^{x}\partial _{\lambda }^{y}G_{B}(x,y)

1240: \\

1241: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}%

1242: \int_{\Sigma }d\bar{x}_{1}~K_{A}(x;\bar{x}_{1})\phi _{0}(\bar{x}%

1243: _{1})\int_{\Sigma }d\bar{x}_{2}~K_{A}(y;\bar{x}_{2})\phi _{0}(\bar{x}_{2}) \\

1244: &&\times g^{\mu \nu }(x)g^{\rho \lambda }(y)\partial _{\mu }^{x}\partial

1245: _{\rho }^{y}G_{A}(x,y)\partial _{\nu }^{x}\partial _{\lambda }^{y}G_{B}(x,y)

1246: \end{eqnarray*}

1247: 

1248: The \textit{1-loop} two point function is%

1249: \begin{equation*}

1250: \frac{\delta \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}}{\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x}%

1251: _{1})\delta \phi _{0}(\bar{x}_{2})}=G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},%

1252: \bar{x}_{2})

1253: \end{equation*}

1254: 

1255: Considering only the leading IR divergent part we have%

1256: \begin{eqnarray*}

1257: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})

1258: &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{%

1259: 1}{y_{0}^{d}}~(x_{0}y_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{\pm })} \\

1260: &&\times g^{\mu \nu }(x)g^{\rho \lambda }(y)\partial _{\mu }^{x}\partial

1261: _{\rho }^{y}C_{0}C_{-}\ln \left( \frac{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}{%

1262: x_{0}y_{0}}\right) \partial _{\nu }^{x}\partial _{\lambda }^{y}\left( \frac{%

1263: x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{\pm }} \\

1264: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{%

1265: y_{0}^{d}}~x_{0}^{2}y_{0}^{2}(x_{0}y_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{\pm })}\partial

1266: _{\mu }^{x}\partial _{\rho }^{y}C_{0}C_{-} \\

1267: &&\times \ln \left( \frac{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}\right)

1268: \partial _{\mu }^{x}\partial _{\rho }^{y}\left( \frac{x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}%

1269: _{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{\pm }} \\

1270: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{%

1271: y_{0}^{d}}~x_{0}^{2}y_{0}^{2}(x_{0}y_{0})^{((d-1)-\Delta _{\pm })}\partial

1272: _{i}^{x}\partial _{j}^{y}C_{0}C_{-} \\

1273: &&\times \ln \left( (\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}\right) \partial

1274: _{i}^{x}\partial _{j}^{y}\left( \frac{x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}%

1275: _{2})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{\pm }} \\

1276: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~x_{0}^{1}y_{0}^{1}(-4\Delta

1277: (3+2\Delta ))C_{0}C_{-}\left( \frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}\right)

1278: ^{2+\Delta _{\pm }}

1279: \end{eqnarray*}%

1280: where we used the bulk to boundary propagators property explained in Section %

1281: \ref{Sect.: B-B prop. scalar} and the asymptotic expansion (\ref{2-point

1282: fnct.: scalar, asympt. exp.}), (\ref{2-point fnct.: m=0, scalar, asympt.

1283: exp.}) for the bulk two-point functions. Furthermore we used the fact that%

1284: \begin{equation*}

1285: \partial _{0}^{x}\partial _{0}^{y}\left( \ln \frac{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{%

1286: x_{0}y_{0}}\right) =0,~~\partial _{0}^{x}\partial _{j}^{y}\left( \ln \frac{(%

1287: \bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}\right) =0

1288: \end{equation*}%

1289: with $i,j=1,\ldots ,d$ .

1290: 

1291: Doing the integrals and keeping the leading parts in $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$

1292: we find%

1293: \begin{eqnarray}

1294: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})

1295: &\sim &(\epsilon )^{4}\left( \frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}\right)

1296: ^{2+\Delta _{-}}

1297: \label{Bdry 2-point fnct 1-loop: dS, 3 scalar deriv. coupl.} \\

1298: &&+\text{Subleading terms in }\epsilon   \notag

1299: \end{eqnarray}

1300: 

1301: \section{1-loop Computation: Spinor Field with Derivative Coupling}

1302: 

1303: In this last section we will evaluate the \textit{1-loop} boundary two-point

1304: function for a spinor field $\psi $ derivatively coupled to a massless

1305: scalar field $\phi $. The action in the tangent frame is

1306: 

1307: \begin{equation*}

1308: S_{0}+S_{I}=\int_{M}d^{d}x\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}(\partial \phi

1309: )^{2}+\int_{M}d^{d}x\sqrt{g}\bar{\psi}(D\!\!\!\!/-m)\psi +\int_{\partial

1310: M}d^{d}x~\sqrt{h}\bar{\psi}\psi +\int_{M}d^{d}x~\lambda \sqrt{g}\partial

1311: _{a}\phi \bar{\psi}\Gamma ^{a}\psi

1312: \end{equation*}%

1313: The surface term for the fermions is explained in \cite{Arutyunov:1998ve},%

1314: \cite{Rashkov:1999ji},\cite{Henningson:1998cd}.

1315: 

1316: More specifically we are using the metric%

1317: \begin{equation*}

1318: ds^{2}=-\frac{1}{x_{0}^{2}}(dx^{0}dx^{0}+d\bar{x}\cdot d\bar{x})=-\frac{1}{%

1319: x_{0}^{2}}(dx^{0}dx^{0}+dx_{i}dx_{i})

1320: \end{equation*}

1321: 

1322: and the vielbein $e_{\mu }^{a},~a=0,\ldots ,d-1$ such that $g_{\mu \nu }=$ $%

1323: e_{\mu }^{a}e_{\nu }^{b}\eta _{ab}$. The explicit form of the vielbein and

1324: is inverse is%

1325: \begin{eqnarray*}

1326: e_{\mu }^{a} &=&\frac{1}{x_{0}}\delta _{\mu }^{a} \\

1327: e_{a}^{\mu } &=&x_{0}\delta _{a}^{\mu }

1328: \end{eqnarray*}%

1329: the spin connection has the form%

1330: \begin{equation*}

1331: \omega _{i}^{0j}=\omega _{i}^{j0}=\frac{1}{x_{0}}\delta _{i}^{j}

1332: \end{equation*}%

1333: and all other component vanishing. The Dirac operator is given by%

1334: \begin{equation*}

1335: D\!\!\!\!/=e_{a}^{\mu }(\partial _{\mu }+\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu

1336: }^{bc}\Sigma _{bc})=x_{0}\Gamma ^{0}\partial _{0}+x_{0}\bar{\Gamma}\cdot

1337: \nabla -\frac{d-1}{2}\Gamma ^{0}

1338: \end{equation*}%

1339: where $\Gamma ^{a}=(\Gamma ^{0},\Gamma ^{i})=(\Gamma ^{0},\bar{\Gamma})$

1340: satisfy $\{\Gamma ^{a},\Gamma ^{b}\}=2\eta ^{ab}$ and $\partial _{\mu

1341: }=(\partial _{0},\partial _{i})=(\partial _{0},\nabla )$.

1342: 

1343: The explicit form of the interacting term is

1344: \begin{equation*}

1345: \mathcal{L}_{I}=\lambda \sqrt{g}\partial _{a}\phi \bar{\psi}\Gamma ^{a}\psi

1346: =\lambda \sqrt{g}e_{a}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\phi \bar{\psi}\Gamma ^{a}\psi

1347: =\lambda \sqrt{g}x_{0}\delta _{a}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\phi \bar{\psi}%

1348: \Gamma ^{a}\psi

1349: \end{equation*}

1350: 

1351: Again following the same reasoning of Section \ref{Sect.:General Structure

1352: of the Computation} we find for the \textit{1-loop} WFU%

1353: \begin{eqnarray*}

1354: \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}} &=&\int [d\psi ]~[d\bar{\psi}]e^{-\left(

1355: \int_{M}d^{d}x\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}(\partial \phi )^{2}+\int_{M}d^{d}x\sqrt{g}%

1356: \bar{\psi}(D\!\!\!\!/-m)\psi +\int_{\partial M}d^{d}x~\sqrt{h}\bar{\psi}\psi

1357: +\int_{M}d^{d}x~\lambda \sqrt{g}\partial _{a}\phi \bar{\psi}\Gamma ^{a}\psi

1358: \right) } \\

1359: &=&\int [d\psi ]~[d\bar{\psi}]e^{-S_{0}}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}%

1360: \sqrt{g(y)} \\

1361: &&\times \frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\left( \partial _{a}\phi (x)\bar{\psi}%

1362: (x)\Gamma ^{a}\psi (x)\right) \left( \partial _{b}\phi (y)\bar{\psi}%

1363: (y)\Gamma ^{b}\psi (y)\right)  \\

1364: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\bar{%

1365: \psi}_{1}(x)\langle E|\partial _{a}\phi (x)\Gamma ^{a}\psi (x)\partial

1366: _{b}\phi (y)\bar{\psi}(y)\Gamma ^{b}|E\rangle \psi _{1}(y) \\

1367: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\bar{%

1368: \psi}_{1}(x)\Gamma ^{a}S(x,y)\Gamma ^{b}\partial _{a}^{x}\partial

1369: _{b}^{y}G_{0}(x,y)\psi _{1}(y) \\

1370: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\sqrt{g(x)}\sqrt{g(y)}\int

1371: d^{d-1}\bar{x}~\bar{\psi}_{0}(\bar{x})K(y,\bar{x})\Gamma ^{a}S(x,y)\Gamma

1372: ^{b}\partial _{a}^{x}\partial _{b}^{y}G_{0}(x,y) \\

1373: &&\times \int d^{d-1}\bar{x}~K(x,\bar{x})\psi _{0}(\bar{x})

1374: \end{eqnarray*}

1375: 

1376: taking the limit $x_{0}\rightarrow 0,~y_{0}\rightarrow 0$ we find the

1377: leading IR part of $\Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}$

1378: \begin{eqnarray*}

1379: \Psi _{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}} &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}%

1380: }{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{y_{0}^{d}}\bar{\psi}%

1381: _{0+}(\bar{x}_{1})\Gamma ^{a}S(x,y)\Gamma ^{b}\partial _{a}^{x}\partial

1382: _{b}^{y}G_{0}(x,y)\psi _{0-}(\bar{x}_{2}) \\

1383: &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{%

1384: 1}{y_{0}^{d}} \\

1385: &&\times \bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x}_{1})\Gamma ^{a}C_{-}C_{0}\left( \frac{%

1386: x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}\frac{\bar{\Gamma}%

1387: \cdot (\bar{x}-\bar{y})}{\left\vert \bar{x}-\bar{y}\right\vert }\Gamma

1388: ^{b}\partial _{a}^{x}\partial _{b}^{y}\ln \left( \frac{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}%

1389: }{x_{0}y_{0}}\right) \psi _{0-}(\bar{x}_{2}) \\

1390: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{%

1391: y_{0}^{d}}(x_{0}y_{0})^{\Delta _{1}+1} \\

1392: &&\times \bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x}_{1})\Gamma ^{a}C_{-}C_{0}\left( \frac{%

1393: x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}\frac{\bar{\Gamma}%

1394: \cdot (\bar{x}-\bar{y})}{\left\vert \bar{x}-\bar{y}\right\vert }\Gamma

1395: ^{b}\delta _{a}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }^{x}\delta _{b}^{\nu }\partial _{\nu

1396: }^{y}\ln \left( \frac{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}\right) \psi _{0-}(%

1397: \bar{x}_{2}) \\

1398: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{%

1399: y_{0}^{d}}(x_{0}y_{0})^{\Delta _{-}+1} \\

1400: &&\times \bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x}_{1})\Gamma ^{a}C_{-}C_{0}\left( \frac{%

1401: x_{0}y_{0}}{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}\frac{\bar{\Gamma}%

1402: \cdot (\bar{x}-\bar{y})}{\left\vert \bar{x}-\bar{y}\right\vert }\Gamma

1403: ^{b}\delta _{a}^{i}\partial _{i}^{x}\delta _{b}^{j}\partial _{j}^{y}\ln

1404: \left( (\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}\right) \psi _{0-}(\bar{x}_{2}) \\

1405: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}C_{-}C_{0}\int d^{d}x\int d^{d}y~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}%

1406: \frac{1}{y_{0}^{d}}(x_{0}y_{0})^{\Delta _{-}+1} \\

1407: &&\times \bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x}_{1})\Gamma ^{i}\left( \frac{1}{(\bar{x}-%

1408: \bar{y})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}\frac{\Gamma ^{k}(\bar{x}-\bar{y})_{k}}{%

1409: \left\vert \bar{x}-\bar{y}\right\vert }\Gamma ^{j}\partial _{i}^{x}\partial

1410: _{j}^{y}\ln \left( (\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}\right) \psi _{0-}(\bar{x}_{2})

1411: \end{eqnarray*}%

1412: where we used the bulk to boundary propagators property%

1413: \begin{equation*}

1414: \lim_{x_{0}\rightarrow 0}(x_{0})^{-\frac{d}{2}+m}\psi (x)=-c\psi _{0-}(\bar{x%

1415: })

1416: \end{equation*}%

1417: \begin{equation*}

1418: \lim_{x_{0}\rightarrow 0}(x_{0})^{-\frac{d}{2}+m}\bar{\psi}(x)=c\bar{\psi}%

1419: _{0+}(\bar{x})

1420: \end{equation*}%

1421: explained in Appendix \ref{Sect.: B-B prop. spinor} and the asymptotic

1422: expansion (\ref{2-point fnct.: spinor, asympt. exp.}), (\ref{2-point fnct.:

1423: m=0, scalar, asympt. exp.}) for the bulk two-point functions. As in the

1424: previous section we noticed that%

1425: \begin{equation*}

1426: \partial _{0}^{x}\partial _{0}^{y}\ln \left( \frac{(\bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{%

1427: x_{0}y_{0}}\right) =0,~~\partial _{0}^{x}\partial _{j}^{y}\ln \left( \frac{(%

1428: \bar{x}-\bar{y})^{2}}{x_{0}y_{0}}\right) =0,~~i,j=1,\ldots ,d

1429: \end{equation*}

1430: 

1431: The boundary two-point function at 1-loop is%

1432: \begin{eqnarray*}

1433: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2}) &=&\frac{\delta \Psi _{%

1434: \text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}}{\delta \bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x}%

1435: _{1})\delta \psi _{0-}(\bar{x}_{2})} \\

1436: &=&\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}C_{0}C_{-}\int_{\alpha }^{\epsilon

1437: }d^{0}x\int_{\beta }^{\epsilon }d^{0}y~(x_{0}y_{0})^{(\Delta _{-}+1-d)}~ \\

1438: &&\times \Gamma ^{i}\left( \frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}}\right)

1439: ^{\Delta _{-}}\frac{\Gamma ^{k}(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})_{k}}{\left\vert

1440: \bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2}\right\vert }\Gamma ^{j}\partial _{i}^{x}\partial

1441: _{j}^{y}\ln \left( (\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}\right)

1442: \end{eqnarray*}%

1443: doing the integrals and keeping the leading terms in $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$

1444: we find%

1445: \begin{eqnarray}

1446: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2}) &\sim &\lambda

1447: ^{2}\epsilon ^{2(\Delta _{-}-d+2)}

1448: \label{Bdry 2-point fnct 1-loop: dS, 1 scalar + 1 fermion} \\

1449: &&\times \Gamma ^{i}\Gamma ^{k}\Gamma ^{j}\left( \frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x%

1450: }_{2})^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}\frac{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})_{k}}{%

1451: \left\vert \bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2}\right\vert }\partial _{i}^{x}\partial

1452: _{j}^{y}\ln \left( (\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2}\right)   \notag \\

1453: &&+\text{Subleading terms in }\epsilon   \notag

1454: \end{eqnarray}

1455: 

1456: \section{Analysis Divergences}

1457: 

1458: \subsection{Three Massive Scalar Fields with Cubic Interaction in dS$^{d}$}

1459: 

1460: \subsubsection{Leading Terms}

1461: 

1462: We didn't perform explicitly the computation in this case but it is easy to

1463: see that the leading IR divergent term (which is not in fact divergent in

1464: this case) in the boundary two-point function has the following form up to a

1465: constant

1466: 

1467: \begin{eqnarray*}

1468: G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})

1469: &\sim &\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}\epsilon ^{2\Delta _{2}}\frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-%

1470: \bar{x}_{2})^{2\Delta _{2}}}\frac{1}{(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})^{2\Delta _{1}}%

1471: } \\

1472: &&+\text{Subleading terms in }\epsilon

1473: \end{eqnarray*}%

1474: where $\Delta _{2},~\Delta _{1}$ correspond respectively to the fields $\phi

1475: _{1}$ and $\phi _{2}$. In this expression we have kept only pure terms.

1476: Other terms are no more divergent than these.

1477: 

1478: The leading IR term in $G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{%

1479: x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})$ is proportional to%

1480: \begin{equation*}

1481: \epsilon ^{2\Delta _{2}}

1482: \end{equation*}

1483: 

1484: We have%

1485: \begin{equation*}

1486: \Delta _{\pm }^{i}=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\pm \sqrt{%

1487: (d-1)^{2}-4m_{i}^{2}R_{dS}^{2}}\right) =\frac{1}{2}(d-1)\left( 1\pm \sqrt{%

1488: (1-\alpha _{i})}\right)

1489: \end{equation*}%

1490: with%

1491: \begin{equation*}

1492: \alpha _{i}=\left( \frac{2m_{i}R_{dS}}{d-1}\right) ^{2}

1493: \end{equation*}%

1494: So we immediately see that $G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(%

1495: \bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})$ is IR convergent for every $\alpha _{i}$ i.e. both

1496: for the complementary and principal series, see Section \ref{Representions

1497: of dS Group}.

1498: 

1499: This computation shows that in the case of massive fields there is no IR

1500: divergence in the boundary two point function. This is in accord with naive

1501: expectations.

1502: 

1503: \subsection{Two Massive and One Massless field in dS$^{d}$}

1504: 

1505: The leading IR term in $G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})$

1506: is proportional to%

1507: \begin{equation*}

1508: (\log \epsilon )^{3}

1509: \end{equation*}

1510: 

1511: So in this case $G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})$ is IR

1512: divergent.

1513: 

1514: The analysis of divergences in the remaining case (\ref{Bdry 2-point fnct

1515: 1-loop: dS, 3 scalar deriv. coupl.}), (\ref{Bdry 2-point fnct 1-loop: dS, 1

1516: scalar + 1 fermion}) is very similar and we will not repeat it. We want only

1517: to remark that these cases are not IR\ divergent, due to the presence of

1518: derivative couplings, as can be seen inspecting the power dependence of the $%

1519: \epsilon $ cutoff.

1520: 

1521: \section{The Meaning of the Divergences}

1522: 

1523: To understand the meaning of the divergences we have found, we compare our

1524: expressions to those obtained by perturbing the free massive theory by a

1525: term ${\frac{1}{2}} \delta m^2 \phi^2$. That computation gives

1526: 

1527: \begin{equation*}

1528: \delta m^{2}\int dx_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\int d^{d-1}\bar{x}~K(x_{0},\bar{x%

1529: };\bar{x}_{b})K(x_{0},\bar{x};\bar{y}_{b})

1530: \end{equation*}%

1531: where $K$ is the massive bulk to boundary propagator. The IR divergent

1532: contribution to this integral comes from $x_{0}\sim 0$, where we can

1533: substitute one of the propagators by $K(x_{0},\bar{x};\bar{x}_{b})\sim

1534: (x_{0})^{d-1-\Delta }\delta (\bar{x}-\bar{x}_{b})$. The result is%

1535: \begin{equation*}

1536: \delta m^{2}\int dx_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}}\left\vert \bar{x}_{b}-\bar{y}%

1537: _{b}\right\vert ^{-2\Delta }

1538: \end{equation*}%

1539: It is important to note that this expression for the perturbed two point

1540: function could be derived explicitly from the expression of the two point

1541: function as an integral over the boundary. One simply uses Green's theorem

1542: and a perturbative analysis of the Klein-Gordon equation. The same statement

1543: would \textit{not} be true in AdS/CFT. In that context, the Euclidean

1544: boundary conditions depend on $\delta m^{2}$, and so the straightforward

1545: perturbative analysis of the path integral misses a term coming from the

1546: perturbation of the boundary conditions. It turns out that the missing term

1547: is sub-leading if the boundary operator is irrelevant, but is the dominant

1548: term if it is marginal or relevant.

1549: 

1550: By contrast, in the one loop computation with massless fields and

1551: non-derivative coupling, we obtained the IR divergent part%

1552: \begin{equation*}

1553: \int dx_{0}\int dy_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}^{d}}\frac{1}{y_{0}^{d}}%

1554: (x_{0}y_{0})^{d-1-\Delta }\left( \frac{x_{0}y_{0}}{\left\vert \bar{x}_{b}-%

1555: \bar{y}_{b}\right\vert ^{2}}\right) ^{\Delta }\left( \ln x_{0}+\ln

1556: y_{0}\right)

1557: \end{equation*}%

1558: The first term after the integration measure comes from the two bulk to

1559: boundary propagators, which we have approximated by their small $x_{0}$

1560: limits. This enabled us to do the two spatial integrals using the $\delta $

1561: functions. The first term in square brackets is the asymptotic form of the

1562: massive bulk propagator, while the second is that of the massless

1563: propagator. We note that if we had instead exchanged a massive field from

1564: the principle series in the loop, or if the massless scalar had derivative

1565: couplings, this last factor would have been a positive power of $x_{0}$ and

1566: all the integrals in the loop diagram would have been convergent. This means

1567: that for a purely massive theory the IR region of coordinate space does not

1568: contribute to the mass renormalization at all\footnote{%

1569: We would get contributions from the region where the two bulk points in the

1570: diagram were close together, corresponding to the usual UV mass

1571: renormalization.}. The value of the mass renormalization following from

1572: exchange of a minimal massless scalar, with soft couplings is thus%

1573: \begin{equation*}

1574: \delta m^{2}\propto \int dx_{0}~\frac{1}{x_{0}}\ln x_{0}\sim \ln ^{2}T\sim

1575: \ln ^{2}\Lambda

1576: \end{equation*}%

1577: The last equality reflects our prejudice that the IR cutoff should be

1578: determined in terms of the c.c., by the requirement of finite entropy.

1579: 

1580: We note that minimally coupled scalars would generally arise as

1581: Nambu-Goldstone bosons and would be derivatively coupled. Our calculation

1582: shows that one would not expect IR mass divergences in models with NG

1583: bosons. However, we believe that there are indications that gravity has IR

1584: divergence problems comparable to those of minimally coupled massless bosons

1585: with soft couplings. Thus, the divergence we have uncovered reflects our

1586: best guess at the behavior of perturbative quantum gravity in dS space.

1587: 

1588: \section{Generalization to a Model with Gravity}

1589: 

1590: The simplest generalization of the calculations we have done is to a model

1591: of gravity interacting with a massive scalar in a dS background. The

1592: Lagrangian is

1593: \begin{equation*}

1594: \mathcal{L}=\sqrt{\left\vert g\right\vert }\left[ M_{P}^{2}R-\left( g^{\mu

1595: \nu }\partial _{\mu }\phi \partial _{\nu }\phi +m^{2}\phi ^{2}\right) \right]

1596: \end{equation*}%

1597: As always in perturbative quantum gravity calculations must be done in a

1598: fixed gauge. We first studied this problem in the gauge for fluctuations

1599: around the dS metric defined by

1600: \begin{equation*}

1601: h_{\mu \nu }={\frac{1}{d}}g_{\mu \nu }h+H_{\mu \nu }

1602: \end{equation*}%

1603: \begin{equation*}

1604: g^{\mu \nu }H_{\mu \nu }=0=D^{\mu }H_{\mu \nu }

1605: \end{equation*}%

1606: $g_{\mu \nu }$ is the background dS metric, and $D^{\mu }$ its Christoffel

1607: connection. In this gauge, the Lagrangian for $h$ is that of a scalar field

1608: with tachyonic mass, while the components of $H_{\mu \nu }$ satisfy a

1609: massive Klein-Gordon equation. One might think that the IR divergences at

1610: one loop arise only from the exchange of $h$\footnote{%

1611: In this gauge, ghosts couple only to gravitons and so there are no ghost

1612: contributions to the one loop boundary two point function of the massive

1613: scalar.}. If this were the case, the calculation would be a simple

1614: generalization of our non-derivative trilinear scalar interaction, with the

1615: massless field replaced by a tachyon.

1616: 

1617: The result of this computation is disastrous and confusing. The IR

1618: divergence is power law rather than logarithmic (relative to the tree level

1619: calculation). Furthermore the power of $\left\vert \bar{x}_{b}-\bar{y}%

1620: _{b}\right\vert $ differs from the tree level power, so we cannot interpret

1621: the effect as a mass renormalization. If this result were valid one would be

1622: led to the conclusion that the dS/CFT correlation functions simply did not

1623: exist, even in perturbation theory, and the divergence could not be

1624: explained as a divergent mass renormalization.

1625: 

1626: We gained insight by viewing the transverse gauge as the $\alpha \rightarrow

1627: 0$ limit of the one parameter family of gauge fixing Lagrangians

1628: \begin{equation*}

1629: \delta \mathcal{L=}\frac{1}{2\alpha }\left( D^{\mu }H_{\mu \nu }+2b\alpha

1630: \partial _{\nu }h\right) ^{2}

1631: \end{equation*}%

1632: The coefficient $b$ is chosen to cancel the mixing between $H_{\mu \nu }$

1633: and $h$ in the classical Lichnerowicz Lagrangian for fluctuations around dS

1634: space. In this class of gauges, it is easy to see that the tachyonic mass,

1635: as well as the overall normalization of the $h$ propagator, is $\alpha $

1636: dependent. The same is therefore true of the power of $T$ and of $\left\vert

1637: \bar{x}_{b}-\bar{y}_{b}\right\vert $ in the the IR divergent part of the $h$

1638: exchange graph.

1639: 

1640: Thus, either this contribution is canceled by $H_{\mu\nu}$ exchange, or the

1641: answer is not gauge invariant. Formal arguments using graphical Ward

1642: identities seem to suggest that the boundary two point function is indeed $%

1643: \alpha$ independent. Thus, we expect the power law IR divergences to cancel

1644: at this order. This suggests the possibility that logarithmic divergences,

1645: which come from the behavior of the transverse, traceless part of the

1646: graviton propagator, may not cancel. Gravitational theories would then

1647: exhibit the same sort of IR divergences as our toy model. Of course, we

1648: really need to do a careful computation in order to verify gauge invariance

1649: of the results. We plan to return to this in a future publication. See \cite%

1650: {Henningson:1998cd} and references therein.

1651: 

1652: \appendix

1653: 

1654: \section{Comparison with AdS}

1655: 

1656: In this appendix we record comparisons of our computation of three massive

1657: scalars, with an analogous computation of AdS space. The purpose of this is

1658: to verify that there is no analogue of the divergences we have found, even

1659: when one of the scalars is massless. The essential reason for this

1660: difference is that the bulk AdS propagator is constructed only from

1661: normalizable modes. By contrast, in dS space the Euclidean propagator

1662: contains both solutions of the homogeneous wave equation at large proper

1663: distance.

1664: 

1665: \subsection{Three Scalar Fields AdS}

1666: 

1667: For comparison we will describe the case of three massive scalar fields with

1668: cubic interaction in AdS.

1669: 

1670: As before it is easy to see that in AdS\ the part of $G_{\text{\textit{1-loop%

1671: }}}^{\text{\textit{IR}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})$ that is dependent on $%

1672: \epsilon $ is proportional to%

1673: \begin{equation*}

1674: \epsilon ^{2\Delta _{+}}

1675: \end{equation*}%

1676: In AdS we consider only one type of modes%

1677: \begin{equation*}

1678: \Delta =\Delta _{+}=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1+\sqrt{%

1679: (d-1)^{2}+4m_{i}^{2}R_{AdS}^{2}}\right) =\frac{1}{2}(d-1)\left( 1+\sqrt{%

1680: (1+\alpha _{i})}\right)

1681: \end{equation*}%

1682: with%

1683: \begin{equation*}

1684: \alpha _{i}=\left( \frac{2m_{i}R_{AdS}}{d-1}\right) ^{2}

1685: \end{equation*}%

1686: so%

1687: \begin{equation*}

1688: \Delta _{+}>0,~\forall ~\alpha _{i}

1689: \end{equation*}%

1690: and $G_{\text{\textit{1-loop}}}(\bar{x}_{1},\bar{x}_{2})$ is IR convergent

1691: for every $\alpha _{i}$ even when $m_{i}$ is zero.

1692: 

1693: \subsubsection{Anti de Sitter:\ Scalar Propagator}

1694: 

1695: The two-point function for a scalar field of mass $m$ in AdS$^{d}$ has been

1696: derived for example in \cite{Allen:1985wd}. They find%

1697: \begin{eqnarray}

1698: G(z) &=&rz^{-a}F(a,a-c+1;a-b+1;z^{-1})  \label{2-point fnct.: AdS scalar} \\

1699: r &=&\frac{\Gamma (a)\Gamma (a-c+1)}{\Gamma (a-b+1)\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}2^{d}}%

1700: R^{2-d}  \notag

1701: \end{eqnarray}%

1702: with $a,~b,~c$ given respectively by (\ref{Delta +}), (\ref{Delta -}), (\ref%

1703: {c}) and where for AdS$^{d}$ we have $R=i\tilde{R},~\tilde{R}\in

1704: %TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%

1705: %BeginExpansion

1706: \mathbb{R}

1707: %EndExpansion

1708: $.

1709: 

1710: The asymptotic expansion $z\rightarrow \infty $ of (\ref{2-point fnct.: AdS

1711: scalar}) is

1712: 

1713: \begin{equation*}

1714: F(a,a-c+1;a-b+1;z^{-1})\rightarrow 1

1715: \end{equation*}

1716: 

1717: \begin{equation*}

1718: \lim_{z\rightarrow \infty }G(z)\sim rz^{-\Delta }

1719: \end{equation*}%

1720: with

1721: 

1722: \begin{equation*}

1723: \Delta =\Delta _{+}=a=\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1+\sqrt{(d-1)^{2}+4m^{2}\tilde{R}%

1724: ^{2}}\right)

1725: \end{equation*}

1726: 

1727: \section{Spinor Green Functions\label{Spinor Two-point Function}}

1728: 

1729: Here we record the spinor Green Functions needed for the computations and

1730: their asymptotic behavior. For a more exhaustive discussion see for example

1731: \cite{Allen:1985wd}, \cite{Anguelova:2003kf}, \cite{Muck:1999mh}.

1732: 

1733: \subsection{Spinor Parallel Propagator}

1734: 

1735: In this section we will derive a differential equation for the spinor

1736: parallel propagator $\Lambda (x^{\prime },x)_{\;\beta }^{\alpha ^{\prime }}$

1737: (\ref{parallel propag.: spinor}) whose action on a spinor is

1738: 

1739: \begin{equation*}

1740: \psi {^{\prime }}(x^{\prime })^{\alpha ^{\prime }}=\Lambda (x^{\prime

1741: },x)_{\;\beta }^{\alpha ^{\prime }}\psi (x)^{\beta }  \label{def big lambda}

1742: \end{equation*}%

1743: this equation for $\Lambda (x^{\prime },x)_{\;\beta }^{\alpha ^{\prime }}$

1744: will be a fundamental ingredient in the derivation of the spinor Green

1745: function $S(x,x^{\prime })$ .

1746: 

1747: $\Lambda (x^{\prime },x)$ satisfy the following properties

1748: \begin{subequations}

1749: \begin{align}

1750: n^{\mu }\nabla _{\mu }\Lambda (x,x^{\prime })& =0  \label{property

1751: lambda 1}

1752: \\

1753: \Lambda (x^{\prime },x)& =[\Lambda (x,x^{\prime })]^{-1}

1754: \label{property lambda 2} \\

1755: \Gamma ^{\nu ^{\prime }}(x^{\prime })& =\Lambda (x^{\prime },x)\Gamma ^{\mu

1756: }(x)\Lambda (x,x^{\prime })g_{\mu }^{\nu ^{\prime }}(x^{\prime },x)

1757: \label{property lambda 3}

1758: \end{align}%

1759: (\ref{property lambda 1}) follows from the definition of parallel transport

1760: of a spinor along a curve,\ (\ref{property lambda 2}) derive from the fact

1761: that the $\Lambda (x^{\prime },x)$ form a group and (\ref{property lambda 3}%

1762: )\ indicate how to parallel transport the gamma matrices.

1763: 

1764: Manipulating the previous equations we obtain

1765: \end{subequations}

1766: \begin{equation}

1767: \nabla _{\mu }\Lambda (x,x^{\prime })=\frac{1}{2}(A+C)\left( \Gamma _{\mu

1768: }\Gamma ^{\nu }n_{\nu }-n_{\mu }\right) \Lambda (x,x^{\prime })

1769: \label{d lambda}

1770: \end{equation}%

1771: and%

1772: \begin{equation*}

1773: \nabla _{\mu ^{\prime }}\Lambda (x,x^{\prime })=-\frac{1}{2}(A+C)\Lambda

1774: (x,x^{\prime })\left( \Gamma _{\mu ^{\prime }}\Gamma ^{\nu ^{\prime }}n_{\nu

1775: ^{\prime }}-n_{\mu ^{\prime }}\right)  \label{d lamda prime}

1776: \end{equation*}

1777: 

1778: \subsection{Bulk Two-Point Function}

1779: 

1780: The spinor Green $S(x,x^{\prime })$ function is defined by the equation

1781: 

1782: \begin{equation}

1783: \left[ (\slashD-m)S(x,x^{\prime })\right] _{\;\beta ^{\prime }}^{\alpha }=%

1784: \frac{\delta (x-x^{\prime })}{\sqrt{g(x)}}\delta _{\beta ^{\prime }}^{\alpha

1785: }  \label{definition spinor GF}

1786: \end{equation}%

1787: The most general form for $S(x,x^{\prime })$ is%

1788: \begin{equation}

1789: S(x,x^{\prime })=\left[ \alpha (\mu )+\beta (\mu )n_{\nu }\Gamma ^{\nu }%

1790: \right] \Lambda (x,x^{\prime })  \label{Spinor GF general form}

1791: \end{equation}%

1792: with $\alpha (\mu ),~\beta (\mu )$ functions only of the geodesic distance.

1793: 

1794: Substituting (\ref{Spinor GF general form}) into (\ref{definition spinor GF}%

1795: ) and using (\ref{d lambda})\ we obtain two differential equations for $%

1796: \alpha (\mu )$ and $\ \beta (\mu )$

1797: \begin{align}

1798: \beta ^{\prime }+\frac{1}{2}(d-1)(A-C)\beta -m\alpha & =\frac{\delta

1799: (x-x^{\prime })}{\sqrt{g(x)}}  \label{Eqs for alpha beta 1} \\

1800: \alpha ^{\prime }+\frac{1}{2}(d-1)(A+C)\alpha -m\beta & =0,

1801: \label{Eqs for alpha beta 2}

1802: \end{align}%

1803: Combining (\ref{Eqs for alpha beta 1}) and (\ref{Eqs for alpha beta 2}) we

1804: find the following differential equation for $\alpha (\mu )$%

1805: \begin{equation}

1806: \alpha ^{\prime \prime }+(d-1)A\alpha ^{\prime }-\frac{1}{2}%

1807: (d-1)C(A+C)\alpha -\left[ \frac{(d-1)^{2}}{4R^{2}}+m^{2}\right] \alpha =m%

1808: \frac{\delta (x-x^{\prime })}{\sqrt{g(x)}}  \label{Eq for alpha}

1809: \end{equation}

1810: 

1811: \subsubsection{De Sitter Space: Massive Spinor}

1812: 

1813: To derive $S(x,x^{\prime })$ in dS$^{d}$ space we perform the change of

1814: variables%

1815: \begin{eqnarray*}

1816: z &=&\cos ^{2}\frac{\mu }{2R}  \label{change variables alpha z} \\

1817: \alpha (z) &=&\sqrt{z}\gamma (z)  \notag

1818: \end{eqnarray*}%

1819: the Eq. (\ref{Eq for alpha}) become

1820: \begin{subequations}

1821: \label{gammaeq}

1822: \begin{gather}

1823: H(a,b;c;z)\gamma (z)=0  \label{Hypergeom. eq for gamma} \\

1824: H(a,b;c;z)=z(1-z)\frac{d^{2}}{dz^{2}}+[c-(a+b+1)z]\frac{d}{dz}-ab  \notag

1825: \end{gather}%

1826: with

1827: \end{subequations}

1828: \begin{equation*}

1829: a=\frac{d}{2}-i|m|R,\quad b=\frac{d}{2}+i|m|R,\quad c=\frac{d}{2}+1

1830: \label{a, b, c for spinor}

1831: \end{equation*}

1832: 

1833: As explained in Section \ref{SEC: dS GF},\ the solution corresponding to the

1834: \textit{Euclidean vacuum} is the one that is singular only at $z=1$ i.e.

1835: \begin{equation*}

1836: \gamma (z)=\lambda \,\mathrm{F}(a,b;c;z)=\lambda \,\mathrm{F}%

1837: (d/2-i|m|R,d/2+i|m|R;d/2+1;z)  \label{gamma for S}

1838: \end{equation*}%

1839: \begin{equation*}

1840: \alpha (z)=\lambda \sqrt{z}\,\mathrm{F}(d/2-i|m|R,d/2+i|m|R;d/2+1;z)

1841: \label{alpha for

1842: S}

1843: \end{equation*}%

1844: The constant $\lambda $ is derived by the requirement that (\ref{Spinor GF

1845: general form}) has the same behavior of the flat spinor Green function for $%

1846: R\rightarrow \infty $. We have

1847: \begin{equation*}

1848: \lambda =-m\frac{\Gamma (d/2-i|m|R)\Gamma (d/2+i|m|R)}{\Gamma (d/2+1)\pi

1849: ^{d/2}2^{d}}R^{2-d}  \label{constant lambda for S}

1850: \end{equation*}%

1851: Finally $\beta (z)$ is determined by the Eq. (\ref{Eqs for alpha beta 2})

1852: \begin{align}

1853: \beta (z)& =-\frac{1}{m}\left[ \frac{1}{R}\sqrt{z(1-z)}\frac{d}{dz}+\frac{d-1%

1854: }{2R}\sqrt{\frac{1-z}{z}}\right] \alpha (z)  \label{beta for S} \\

1855: & =-\frac{\lambda }{mR}\sqrt{1-z}\left[ z\,\mathrm{F}%

1856: (d/2+1-i|m|R,d/2+1+i|m|R;d/2+2;z)\phantom{\frac{n}2}\right.  \notag \\

1857: & \quad +\left. \frac{d}{2}\,\mathrm{F}(d/2-i|m|R,d/2+i|m|R;d/2+1;z)\right]

1858: \notag

1859: \end{align}

1860: The asymptotic $z\rightarrow -\infty $ expansion for the spinor two-point

1861: function is found to be

1862: \begin{equation}

1863: \lim_{\substack{ x_{0}\rightarrow 0  \\ ~y_{0}\rightarrow 0}}S(x,y)=\left(

1864: \left( C_{+}\frac{-x_{0}y_{0}}{(\overline{x}-\overline{y})^{2}}\right)

1865: ^{\Delta _{+}}+C_{-}\left( \frac{-x_{0}y_{0}}{(\overline{x}-\overline{y})^{2}%

1866: }\right) ^{\Delta _{-}}\right) \frac{\bar{\Gamma}\cdot \left( \overline{x}-%

1867: \overline{y}\right) }{\left\vert \overline{x}-\overline{y}\right\vert }

1868: \label{2-point fnct.:

1869: spinor, asympt. exp.}

1870: \end{equation}%

1871: with%

1872: \begin{eqnarray*}

1873: \Delta _{+} &=&\frac{d-1}{2}+im \\

1874: \Delta _{-} &=&\frac{d-1}{2}-im

1875: \end{eqnarray*}

1876: 

1877: \subsection{Bulk to Boundary Propagators: dS/AdS\label{Sect.: B-B prop.

1878: spinor}}

1879: 

1880: The complete expression for the spinor Bulk to Boundary propagators:

1881: 

1882: \begin{equation}

1883: \psi _{1}(x)=\int d^{d-1}\bar{x}~K(x,\bar{x})\psi _{0}(\bar{x})

1884: \label{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi}

1885: \end{equation}%

1886: \begin{equation}

1887: \bar{\psi}_{1}(x)=\int d^{d-1}\bar{x}~\bar{\psi}_{0}(\bar{x})K(x,\bar{x}%

1888: )\psi _{0}(\bar{x})  \label{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi bar}

1889: \end{equation}%

1890: has been given for example in \cite{Henningson:1998cd}.

1891: 

1892: For our purposes we will need only the asymptotic expansion $%

1893: x_{0}\rightarrow 0,~y_{0}\rightarrow 0$ for the propagators (\ref{Bulk to

1894: Bndry: spinor psi}), (\ref{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi bar}), we have

1895: \begin{equation}

1896: \lim_{x_{0}\rightarrow 0}(x_{0})^{-\frac{d}{2}+m}\left( -\frac{1}{c}\right)

1897: \psi (x)=\psi _{0-}(\bar{x})-\frac{1}{c}\int d^{d-1}\bar{y}~\left\vert \bar{x%

1898: }-\bar{y}\right\vert ^{-d-1+2m}(\bar{x}-\bar{y})\cdot \bar{\Gamma}\psi _{0+}(%

1899: \bar{y})  \label{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi, asympt. exp.}

1900: \end{equation}%

1901: \begin{equation}

1902: \lim_{x_{0}\rightarrow 0}(x_{0})^{-\frac{d}{2}+m}\left( \frac{1}{c}\right)

1903: \bar{\psi}(x)=\bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x})+\frac{1}{c}\int d^{d-1}\bar{y}~\bar{%

1904: \psi}_{0-}(\bar{y})(\bar{x}-\bar{y})\cdot \bar{\Gamma}\left\vert \bar{x}-%

1905: \bar{y}\right\vert ^{-d-1+2m}

1906: \label{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi

1907: bar, asympt. exp.}

1908: \end{equation}

1909: 

1910: where the constant is $c=\pi ^{d/2}\Gamma (m+\frac{1}{2})/\Gamma (m+\frac{d+1%

1911: }{2})$. And we have used the following decomposition for the fields

1912: 

1913: \begin{eqnarray*}

1914: \psi _{0}(\bar{x}) &=&\psi _{0+}(\bar{x})+\psi _{0-}(\bar{x}) \\

1915: \bar{\psi}_{0}(\bar{x}) &=&\bar{\psi}_{0+}(\bar{x})+\bar{\psi}_{0-}(\bar{x})

1916: \end{eqnarray*}%

1917: with%

1918: \begin{eqnarray*}

1919: \Gamma ^{0}\psi _{\pm }(\bar{x}) &=&\pm \psi _{\pm }(\bar{x}) \\

1920: \bar{\psi}_{\pm }(\bar{x})\Gamma ^{0} &=&\pm \bar{\psi}_{\pm }(\bar{x})

1921: \end{eqnarray*}%

1922: For the right-hand side of (\ref{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi, asympt. exp.}), (%

1923: \ref{Bulk to Bndry: spinor psi bar, asympt. exp.}) to be integrable, with

1924: respect to the measure $d^{d-1}\bar{y}$ on the boundary $\Sigma $ we have to

1925: impose the conditions%

1926: \begin{eqnarray*}

1927: \psi _{+}(\bar{y}) &=&0 \\

1928: \bar{\psi}_{-}(\bar{y}) &=&0

1929: \end{eqnarray*}

1930: 

1931: %------------------------------ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ----------------------------

1932: 

1933: \acknowledgments

1934: 

1935: TB and LM would like to acknowledge conversations with J. Maldacena about

1936: his approach to the dS/CFT correspondence. Their work was supported in part

1937: by the DOE under grant DE-FG03-92ER40689. The work of WF was supported in

1938: part by the NSF under grant 0071512.

1939: 

1940: \bibliographystyle{utcaps}

1941: \bibliography{acompat,gravitino_mass_bibtex}

1942: 

1943: \end{document}

1944: