text:
# References

In this paper we recalculate the two-loop beta-function coefficients in the two-dimensional Sine-Gordon (SG) model in a two-parameter perturbative expansion around the asymptotically free (AF) point. The study of the SG model in the vicinity of this point is especially important since this region is used in the description of the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) phase transition in the two-dimensional $`O(2)`$ nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model, better known as the XY model111 For a review of the Sine-Gordon description of the Kosterlitz-Thouless theory, see . This was the motivation of the authors of , who have undertaken a systematic study of perturbation theory in a two-parameter expansion around the AF point. They calculated the renormalization group beta-functions up to the two-loop coefficients. The beta-function coefficients were also calculated in  by a completely different technique based on string theory. The results found in  differ from those of  at the two-loop level. The question of two-loop beta-function coefficients were considered also in  for a class of generalized Sine-Gordon models. The results, when specialised to the case of the ordinary SG model, agree with those of , but disagree with those of . In  the short distance expansion of some Sine-Gordon correlation functions were calculated using conformal perturbation theory. This allowed the extraction of the one- and two-loop beta-function coefficients around the AF point. The resulting two-loop beta-functions differ from all the previous results.

In view of the role the Sine-Gordon model is playing in the description of the KT phase transition it is very important to know the correct two-loop beta-function coefficients. The purpose of the present paper is to show that, in fact, the two-loop results of Amit et al. are the correct ones. We show this first by comparing the SG beta-function to known results in the chiral Gross-Neveu model , which is known to be equivalent to the SG model at its AF point. We also check the beta-function coefficients by considering the renormalization of $`2n`$-point functions of exponentials of the SG field.

Following  we consider the Euklidean Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi +\frac{m_0^2}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\alpha _0}{\beta _0^2a^2}\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\beta _0\varphi )\right],$$
(1)
where $`m_0`$ is an IR regulator mass and $`a`$ is the UV cutoff (of dimension length). UV regularized correlation functions are calculated by using

$$G_0(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }K_0\left(m_0\sqrt{x^2+a^2}\right)$$
(2)
where $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function, as the $`\varphi `$ propagator. Our strategy is slightly different from , who really considered the renormalization of the massive SG model (1) of mass $`m_0`$. We treat $`m_0`$ as an IR regulator mass and consider IR stable physical quantities for which we can take the limit $`m_00`$ already at the UV regularized level (before UV renormalization).

The model (1) is renormalizable in a two-parameter perturbative expansion around the point corresponding to the couplings $`\alpha _0=0`$, $`\beta _0^2=8\pi `$. Writing

$$\beta _0^2=8\pi (1+\delta _0)$$
(3)
the two bare expansion parameters are $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ and physical quantities can be made UV finite by the renormalizations

$`\alpha _0`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\alpha \alpha ;Z_\alpha =1+g_1\delta \mathrm{}+\alpha ^2(\overline{g}_2\mathrm{}^2+g_2\mathrm{})+\delta ^2(\overline{g}_3\mathrm{}^2+g_3\mathrm{})+\mathrm{},`$ (4)
$`1+\delta _0`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\varphi ^1(1+\delta );Z_\varphi =1+f_1\alpha ^2\mathrm{}+\alpha ^2\delta (\overline{f}_2\mathrm{}^2+f_2\mathrm{})+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ are the renormalized couplings and $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}\mu a`$ with $`\mu `$ an arbitrary renormalization point. The dots stand for terms higher order in perturbation theory and the numerical coefficients $`g_1,f_1`$ etc. can be calculated by renormalizing correlation functions. The results of Amit et al. are

$$f_1=\frac{1}{32},g_1=2,f_2=\frac{3}{32},g_2=\frac{5}{64},g_3=0,$$
(6)
those of  and  are

$$f_1=\frac{1}{32},g_1=2,f_2=\frac{1}{32},g_2=\frac{1}{32},g_3=0$$
(7)
and finally  found

$$f_1=\frac{1}{32},g_1=2,f_2=\frac{1}{32},g_2=\frac{1}{16},g_3=0.$$
(8)
We see that the one-loop coefficients are the same but not all two-loop coefficients agree. The subject of this paper is to recalculate these numbers.

The renormalization group (RG) beta-functions can be calculated by solving the equations

$$𝒟\alpha =𝒟\delta =0,$$
(9)
where, as usual, the RG operator is defined by

$$𝒟=a\frac{}{a}+\beta _\alpha (\alpha _0,\delta _0)\frac{}{\alpha _0}+\beta _\delta (\alpha _0,\delta _0)\frac{}{\delta _0}.$$
(10)
One finds

$`\beta _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`g_1\alpha _0\delta _0g_2\alpha _0^3g_3\alpha _0\delta _0^2+\mathrm{},`$ (11)
$`\beta _\delta `$ $`=`$ $`f_1\alpha _0^2+(f_1+f_2)\alpha _0^2\delta _0+\mathrm{}`$ (12)
It is well-known that, in the case of several couplings, the higher beta-function coefficients are not all scheme independent. Indeed, considering the perturbative redefinitions

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0=\alpha _0+c_1\alpha _0\delta _0+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_0=\delta _0+c_2\alpha _0^2+\mathrm{}$$
(13)
one finds that in addition to the one loop coefficients $`f_1`$ and $`g_1`$ only the following two two-loop coefficient combinations are invariant.

$$g_3,J=2g_2f_2.$$
(14)
The RG analysis with two couplings can be made similar to the case of a single coupling by changing the variables from $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ to the pair $`Q`$ and $`\delta _0`$, where $`Q`$ is a RG invariant (solution of the $`𝒟Q=0`$ equation), given in perturbation theory by

$$Q=f_1\alpha _0^2+g_1\delta _0^2+2g_2\alpha _0^2\delta _0+F_2\delta _0^3+\mathrm{},$$
(15)
where $`F_2=\frac{2}{3}g_3\frac{2}{3}g_1+\frac{2g_1}{3f_1}J`$. Now $`Q`$, being a RG invariant, can almost be treated as if it were a numerical constant and $`\delta _0`$ as the ‘true’ coupling. The beta-function in these variables is

$$\beta (\delta _0,Q)=Q+2\delta _0^2+AQ\delta _0+B\delta _0^3+\mathrm{},$$
(16)
where $`A=1J/f_1`$ and $`B=2(Ag_3)/3`$.

It is well-known that the SG model can also be formulated in terms of two fermion fields, interacting with a chirally symmetric current-current interaction . A special case of the two-fermion model corresponds to the $`SU(2)`$-symmetric chiral Gross-Neveu model. This correspondence is evident in the bootstrap aproach, since the SG S-matrix in the limit $`\beta _0\sqrt{8\pi }`$ becomes the $`SU(2)`$ chiral Gross-Neveu S-matrix. This asymptotically free model has to correspond to one of the possible RG trajectories in the two-parameter SG language. It is easy to see that it has to be the $`Q=0`$ trajectory, since this is the only trajectory going through the origin ($`\delta _0=\alpha _0=0`$) of the parameter space. More precisely, the chiral Gross-Neveu model must correspond to the negative half of the $`Q=0`$ trajectory, which is an UV asymptotically free trajectory. Making the identification

$$\delta _0=\frac{1}{\pi }g^2,$$
(17)
where $`g`$ is the coupling of the $`SU(2)`$ Gross-Neveu model, the Gross-Neveu beta-function becomes

$$\beta (g)=\frac{1}{\pi }g^3+\frac{B}{2\pi ^2}g^5+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
Using the results of Amit et al., (6), $`B=2`$, using the results of  and , (7), $`B=4/3`$ and finally $`B=8/3`$ if we trust , (8). Comparing (18) to the results of the beta-function calculations performed directly in the fermion language  we see that the correct Gross-Neveu beta-function is reproduced if $`B=2`$. Thus the two-loop results of Amit et al. are correct after all! This was the observation222We thank P. Forgács who made this observation first and called our attention to it. that served as our motivation for the present study. The correctness of the two-loop Gross-Neveu beta-function coefficient has been checked by studying the system in the presence of an external field . Using this method the value of this coefficient can be read off from the bootstrap S-matrix and the results are in agreement with .

We now turn to the explicit calculation of the renormalization parameters (4,5). The first quantity we consider is the two-point function of the $`U(1)`$ current$`J_\mu =i\frac{\beta _0}{2\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi `$,

$$J_\mu (x)J_\nu (y)=\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\delta _{\mu \nu }\right)e^{ip(xy)}I(p).$$
(19)
The advantage of considering this physical quantity is that it is IR stable. Putting $`m_0=0`$ we find

$$I(p)=\frac{2}{\pi }\left\{1+\delta _0+\frac{\alpha _0^2}{32}\left(\mathrm{ln}pa+K+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{\alpha _0^2\delta _0}{16}(\mathrm{ln}pa+K)^2+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(20)
where $`K=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(1)1\mathrm{ln}2`$. Since the current is conserved there is no operator renormalization required here and (20) must become finite after the substitutions (4,5). From this requirement we get

$$f_1=\frac{1}{32},g_1=2,f_2=\frac{3}{32}.$$
(21)
To determine the remaining two-loop coefficients $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ we have to calculate $`Z_\alpha `$, the renormalization constant corresponding to $`\alpha _0`$. For this purpose we need a quantity with a perturbative series starting at $`𝒪(\alpha _0)`$. We have chosen the $`2n`$-point correlation function

$$X=𝒜(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒜(x_{2n}),$$
(22)
where

$$𝒜(x)=\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)^{\frac{1}{2n^2}}e^{\frac{i\beta _0}{2n}\varphi (x)}.$$
(23)
Although, in contrast to the Noether current, the operator (23) needs to be renormalized, for large enough $`n`$ the dimension of (23) is so small that there is no operator mixing and the operator renormalization constant can simply be determined from the correlation function

$$Y=𝒜(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒜(x_n)𝒜^{}(y_1)\mathrm{}𝒜^{}(y_n).$$
(24)
A second order calculation gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Y=& M^{\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right)}\{1+\frac{\delta _0}{n^2}L+\frac{\delta _0^2}{2n^4}L^2+\frac{\alpha _0^2}{64n^3}L^2\hfill \\ & +L(\frac{\alpha _0^2}{64n^2}\frac{\alpha _0^2}{128}[W\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+W(\frac{1}{n})])+\mathrm{}\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where

$$M=\frac{_{i<j}|x_ix_j|_{k<l}|y_ky_l|}{_{i,k}|x_iy_k|},$$
(26)
$`L=\mathrm{ln}Ma^n`$ and the dots stand for finite $`𝒪(\alpha _0^2)`$ terms as well as higher order terms. $`W(\mu )`$ is defined by

$$W(\mu )=1+_0^1𝑑zz^\mu F(\mu ,\mu ;1;z)+_0^1\frac{dz}{z^2}\left[F(\mu ,\mu ;1;z)1\mu ^2z\right],$$
(27)
where $`F(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;z)`$ is the standard hypergeometric function. (25) can be made finite by the renormalization $`Y_R=Z_{2n}Y`$, where

$$Z_{2n}=1\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{}\delta +\frac{1}{2n^2}\mathrm{}^2\delta ^2+\frac{1}{64n}\mathrm{}^2\alpha ^2+k_1\mathrm{}\alpha ^2+\mathrm{},$$
(28)
with

$$k_1=\frac{1}{64n}+\frac{n}{128}\left[W\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+W\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right].$$
(29)
For the $`2n`$-point function $`X`$ a second order calculation gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X=& \frac{\alpha _0}{16\pi }N^{\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right)}F\{1+\delta _0\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{2}\delta _0^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{n\alpha _0^2}{128n+64}\mathrm{\Psi }[\mathrm{\Psi }+4+\frac{1}{n}nW\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)]+\mathrm{}\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
where

$$N=\underset{i<j}{}|x_ix_j|,F=d^2z\frac{1}{_i|zx_i|^{\frac{2}{n}}}$$
(31)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=1+\frac{1}{n^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(Na^{n(2n1)}\right)\frac{2}{nF}\underset{j}{}d^2z\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{zx_j}{a}\right|}{_i|zx_i|^{\frac{2}{n}}}.$$
(32)
In (30) the dots represent finite terms of $`𝒪(\alpha _0^2)`$ and $`𝒪(\delta _0^2)`$ as well as higher terms. Renormalizing $`X`$ by requiring $`X_R=Z_{2n}X`$ to be finite after coupling constant renormalization gives

$$g_3=0\mathrm{and}g_2=\frac{1}{16}+\frac{n}{128}\left[W\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)W\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right].$$
(33)
At first sight $`g_2`$ seems to be $`n`$-dependent which would mean that the $`2n`$-point function (22) cannot really be made finite with wave function plus coupling constant renormalization. Luckily, however, one can see that using the identity

$$W(\mu )W(\mu )=2\mu (|\mu |<1)$$
(34)
satisfied by the hypergeometric function, $`g_2`$ is equal to the $`n`$-independent constant $`5/64`$. Moreover, (33) together with (21) reproduce (6), the results of . The nontrivial cancellation of the $`n`$-dependence makes us more confident that these are the correct two-loop coefficients.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. Forgács for calling our attention to the fact that the results of  reproduce the correct two-loop coefficients for the chiral Gross-Neveu model. We thank R. Konik for a correspondence.


format: text

text:
# Complementarity of the Maldacena and Randall-Sundrum Pictures*footnote **footnote *Research supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-9722090.

## Abstract

We revive an old result, that one-loop corrections to the graviton propagator induce $`1/r^3`$ corrections to the Newtonian gravitational potential, and compute the coefficient due to closed loops of the U(N) $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory that arises in Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence. We find exact agreement with the coefficient appearing in the Randall-Sundrum brane-world proposal. This provides more evidence for the complementarity of the two pictures.

preprint:   UM-TH-00-12 hep-th/0003237
It is an old, and seemingly forgotten, result that one-loop corrections to the graviton propagator induce $`1/r^3`$ corrections to the gravitational potential :

$$V(r)=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}\left(1+\frac{\alpha G}{r^2}\right),$$
(1)
where $`G`$ is the four-dimensional Newton’s constant, $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ and $`\alpha `$ is a purely numerical coefficient given, in the case of spins $`s1`$, by $`45\pi \alpha =12N_1+3N_{1/2}+N_0`$, where $`N_s`$ are the numbers of particle species of spin $`s`$ going around the loop . However, the importance of this result has recently become apparent in attempts  to relate two topical but, at first sight, different developments in quantum gravity. These are Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence  and the Randall-Sundrum brane-world mechanism .

The AdS/CFT correspondence in general relates the gravitational dynamics of a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime, AdSd+1, to a $`d`$-dimensional conformal field theory, CFTd. In the case of $`d=4`$, Maldacena’s conjecture, based on the decoupling limit of D3-branes in Type $`IIB`$ string theory compactified on $`S^5`$, then relates the dynamics of AdS5 to an $`𝒩=4`$ superconformal $`U(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory on its four-dimensional boundary . Other compactifications are also possible, leading to different SCFT’s on the boundary. We note that, by choosing Poincaré coordinates on AdS5, the metric may be written as

$$ds^2=e^{2y/L}(dx^\mu )^2+dy^2,$$
(2)
in which case the superconformal Yang-Mills theory is taken to reside at the boundary $`y\mathrm{}`$.

The Randall-Sundrum mechanism, on the other hand, was originally motivated, not via the decoupling of gravity from D3-branes, but rather as a possible mechanism for evading Kaluza-Klein compactification by localizing gravity in the presence of an uncompactified extra dimension. This was accomplished by inserting a positive tension 3-brane (representing our spacetime) into AdS5. In terms of the Poincaré patch of AdS5 given above, this corresponds to removing the region $`y<0`$, and either joining on a second partial copy of AdS5, or leaving the brane at the end of a single patch of AdS5. In either case the resulting Randall-Sundrum metric is given by

$$ds^2=e^{2|y|/L}(dx^\mu )^2+dy^2,$$
(3)
where $`y(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ or $`y[0,\mathrm{})`$ for a ‘two-sided’ or ‘one-sided’ Randall-Sundrum brane respectively.

The similarity of these two scenarios led to the notion that they are in fact closely tied together. To make this connection clear, consider the one-sided Randall-Sundrum brane. By introducing a boundary in AdS5 at $`y=0`$, this model is conjectured to be dual to a cutoff CFT coupled to gravity, with $`y=0`$, the location of the Randall-Sundrum brane, providing the UV cutoff. This extended version of the Maldacena conjecture  then reduces to the standard AdS/CFT duality as the boundary is pushed off to $`y\mathrm{}`$, whereupon the cutoff is removed and gravity becomes completely decoupled. Note in particular that this connection involves a single CFT at the boundary of a single patch of AdS5. For the case of a brane sitting between two patches of AdS5, one would instead require two copies of the CFT, one for each of the patches.

It has been suggested  that a crucial test of this Randall-Sundrum version of the Maldacena conjecture would be to compare the $`1/r^3`$ corrections to Newton’s law in both pictures. From the above, we see that the contribution of a single CFT, with $`(N_1,N_{1/2},N_0)=(N^2,4N^2,6N^2)`$, is

$$V(r)=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}\left(1+\frac{2N^2G}{3\pi r^2}\right).$$
(4)
Using the AdS/CFT relation $`N^2=\pi L^3/2G_5`$  and the one-sided brane-world relation $`G=2G_5/L`$ , where $`G_5`$ is the five-dimensional Newton’s constant and $`L`$ is the radius of AdS5, this becomes

$$V(r)=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}\left(1+\frac{2L^2}{3r^2}\right).$$
(5)
The coefficient of the $`1/r^3`$ term is $`2/3`$ of the Randall-Sundrum result quoted in , but in fact agrees with the more thorough analysis of . We shall confirm below that a more careful analysis of the Randall-Sundrum picture using the results of  yields exactly the same answer as the above AdS/CFT calculation, thus providing strong evidence for the conjectured duality of the two pictures.

First we derive (4) in more detail by computing the lowest order quantum corrections to solutions of Einstein’s equations. Working with linearized gravity, we begin by writing the metric as

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu },$$
(6)
so that

$$\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{},$$
(7)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }h^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}.$$
(8)
In harmonic gauge, $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=0`$ (i.e. $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }=0`$), the classical linearized Einstein equation reads

$$\text{    }\text{ }\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^c(x)=16\pi GT_{\mu \nu }^{}(x),$$
(9)
where the superscript $`c`$ denotes the classical contribution. Fourier transforming to momentum space results in

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^c(p)=16\pi G\mathrm{\Delta }_4(p)T_{\mu \nu }^{}(p),$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(p)=1/p^2`$ is the four-dimensional massless scalar propagator.

Incorporating one-loop corrections, the quantum corrected metric becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^{}=\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^c+\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^q,$$
(11)
where the quantum correction $`\stackrel{~}{h}_q^{\mu \nu }`$ is given in momentum space by

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_q^{\mu \nu }(p)=D^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(p)\stackrel{~}{h}_c^{\gamma \delta }(p).$$
(12)
$`D^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is the graviton propagator,

$$D^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }(p)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_4(p)(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }+\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{}),$$
(13)
and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is the one-loop graviton self-energy, which by symmetry and Lorentz invariance must be of the general form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`p^4[\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p^2)\eta _{\alpha \beta }\eta _{\gamma \delta }+\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p^2)(\eta _{\alpha \gamma }\eta _{\beta \delta }+\eta _{\alpha \delta }\eta _{\beta \gamma })+\mathrm{\Pi }_3(p^2)(\eta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{p}_\gamma \widehat{p}_\delta +\eta _{\gamma \delta }\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{p}_\beta )`$ (15)
$`+\mathrm{\Pi }_4(p^2)(\eta _{\alpha \gamma }\widehat{p}_\beta \widehat{p}_\delta +\eta _{\alpha \delta }\widehat{p}_\beta \widehat{p}_\gamma +\eta _{\beta \gamma }\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{p}_\delta +\eta _{\beta \delta }\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{p}_\gamma )+\mathrm{\Pi }_5(p^2)\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{p}_\beta \widehat{p}_\gamma \widehat{p}_\delta ].`$
The ellipses in (13) refer to gauge dependent terms in the propagator which make no contribution if coupled to conserved sources. Combining (12), (13) and (15), one thus obtains the quantum corrected metric in the form

$$h_{\mu \nu }^q(p)=p^2\left[2\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p)\delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta _\nu ^\beta +\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p)\eta _{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{}^{\alpha \beta }+(\mathrm{\Pi }_3(p)+\mathrm{})\widehat{p}_\mu ^{}\widehat{p}_\nu ^{}\eta _{}^{\alpha \beta }\right]\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^c,$$
(16)
where non-physical gauge-dependent terms have again been dropped. Finally, combining both classical and one-loop quantum results at the linearized level yields

$`h_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi G\mathrm{\Delta }_4(p)[T_{\mu \nu }(p)\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }T^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p)]`$ (18)
$`16\pi G[2\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p)T_{\mu \nu }(p)+\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p)\eta _{\mu \nu }T^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p)].`$
Note that we have ignored the gauge-dependent term in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ proportional to $`\widehat{p}_\mu \widehat{p}_\nu `$. It makes no contribution when $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is attached to a conserved source $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfying $`p^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=p^\nu T_{\mu \nu }=0`$.

The actual form of the one-loop $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$’s depend on the theory at hand. However for any massless theory in four-dimensions, after cancelling the infinities with the appropriate counterterms, the finite remainder must necessarily have the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i(p)=32\pi G\left(a_i\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}+b_i\right),$$
(19)
where $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$, $`(i=1,2,3,4,5)`$, are numerical coefficients and $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary subtraction constant having the dimensions of mass. In order to make connection with the Newtonian potential, we Fourier transform (18) back to coordinate space. For the static potential we obtain the expected $`1/r`$ behavior at the classical level, while the quantum term generates the claimed $`1/r^3`$ correction. In addition, the constant parts in (19) give rise to a regulator-dependent $`\delta ^3(𝐫)`$ contact interaction. However we have no real expectation that this one-loop perturbative result remains valid when continued down to zero size. Moreover, possible $`r^3\mathrm{ln}\mu r`$ terms come only from the $`\widehat{p}_\mu \widehat{p}_\nu `$ terms in (16) and hence drop out. For a point source, $`T_{00}(x)=m\delta ^3(𝐫)`$, we obtain to this order

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2Gm}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha G^2m}{r^3}}\right),`$ (20)
$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2Gm}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta G^2m}{r^3}}\right)\delta _{ij},`$ (21)
where, in agreement with , $`\alpha =432\pi (a_1+2a_2)`$ and $`\beta =432\pi a_1`$. This yields the potential given in (1). Explicit calculations of the self-energy (19) for spin 1 , spin 1/2 (two-component fermions)  and (real conformally coupled) spin 0  yield§§§Note that a symmetry factor of $`1/2`$ was omitted in Ref. ; this was subsequently corrected in Ref.

$`a_i(s=1)=4a_i(s=1/2)`$ $`=12a_i(s=0)`$ (23)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{120(4\pi )^2}}(2,3,2,3,4).`$
Note that all spins contribute with the same sign as they must by general positivity arguments on the self-energy . Thus

$$\alpha =2\beta =\frac{1}{45\pi }(12N_1+3N_{1/2}+N_0)=\frac{2N^2}{3\pi },$$
(24)
as quoted in the introductory paragraph above.

This $`\alpha `$ coefficient also determines that part of the Weyl anomaly  involving the square of the Weyl tensor :

$$g_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }=b\left(F+\frac{2}{3}\text{    }\text{ }R\right)+b^{}G,$$
(25)
where

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }2R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+R^2,`$ (26)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }4R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R^2,`$ (27)
and where $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ are constants

$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{120(4\pi )^2}}[12N_1+3N_{1/2}+N_0],`$ (28)
$`b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{720(4\pi )^2}}[124N_1+11N_{1/2}+2N_0].`$ (29)
Note that for the $`𝒩=4`$ SCFT, the coefficient of the (Riemann)2 term, $`b+b^{}`$, vanishes . The same result is obtained if one calculates the holographic Weyl anomaly using the AdS/CFT correspondence . Thus $`b=3\alpha /128\pi =c/(4\pi )^2`$, where the $`c`$ is the central charge given in the normalization of . For the central charge, one obtains $`c=\pi L^3/8G_5`$ , so that

$$G\alpha =\frac{GL^3}{3G_5}=\frac{2L^2}{3},$$
(30)
where the second equality makes use of the brane-world relation $`G=2G_5/L`$. Although we have focused on the $`𝒩=4`$ SCFT to relate the coefficient appearing in Newton’s law to the central charge, the result (30) is universal, being independent of which particular CFT appears in the AdS/CFT correspondence, which is just as well since the Randall-Sundrum coefficient does not depend on the details of the fields propagating on the brane.

We now turn to this brane-world, where the five-dimensional action has the form

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{g_{(5)}}[M^3R_{(5)}\mathrm{\Lambda }]+d^4x\sqrt{g_{(4)}}_{\mathrm{brane}}.$$
(31)
Here $`M`$ is the five-dimensional Planck mass, $`M^3=1/(16\pi G_5)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant in the bulk. Small fluctuations of the metric on the brane may be represented by

$$ds^2=e^{2|y|/L}[\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)]dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,$$
(32)
where $`L`$ is the ‘radius’ of AdS,

$$R_{MNPQ}^{(5)}=\frac{1}{L^2}(g_{MP}^{(5)}g_{NQ}^{(5)}g_{MQ}^{(5)}g_{NP}^{(5)}),$$
(33)
and is related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=12M^3/L^2`$. The brane-world geometry has been chosen such that $`x^\mu `$ are coordinates along the 3-brane, while $`y`$ is the coordinate perpendicular to the brane (which sits at $`y=0`$).

Both brane and bulk quantities are contained in the linearized metric $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$. However, for comparison with the CFT on the brane, we are only concerned with the former. Hence we consider a matter source on the brane, and examine $`h_{\mu \nu }(x)h_{\mu \nu }(x,y=0)`$. For this case, the results of  indicate

$`h_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{LM^3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_4(p)[T_{\mu \nu }(p)\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }T^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p)]`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{KK}(p)[T_{\mu \nu }(p)\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }T^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(p)].`$
This expression has a clear physical meaning; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(p)`$, the four-dimensional massless propagator, corresponds to the zero-mode graviton localized on the brane, while

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{KK}(p)=\frac{1}{p}\frac{K_0(pL)}{K_1(pL)}$$
(36)
is the propagator for the continuum Kaluza-Klein graviton modes. Comparing the first term of (35) to (18), we obtain the relation between four- and five-dimensional Newton’s constants, $`G=2G_5/L=1/(8\pi LM^3)`$ given above. Note that in the above we have taken the brane to be at the end of a single patch of AdS5, as was done in . This corresponds to the case at hand, since the AdS/CFT relations we have employed above pertain to a single copy of AdS5.

The continuum graviton modes give rise to corrections to the Newtonian potential. At large distances, corresponding to $`pL1`$, a small argument expansion for Bessel functions yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{KK}(p)=\frac{L}{2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2L^2}{4}+2\gamma \right)+𝒪(p^2),$$
(37)
and, just as in (19), is the source of the $`1/r^3`$ correction to the Newtonian potential. For a static gravitational source of mass $`m`$ on the brane, $`T_{00}(p)=2\pi \delta (p_0)m`$, evaluating the Fourier transform for $`rL`$ yields the linearized metric

$`h_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Gm}{r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2L^2}{3r^2}}+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (38)
$`h_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Gm}{r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{3r^2}}+\mathrm{}\right)\delta _{ij},`$ (39)
from which one may read off the Newtonian potential (5).

Moreover, all the metric components in (39) agree with those of (21) and not merely the $`g_{00}`$ component. In momentum space, this may be traced to the behavior of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ in the two pictures, namely (18) and (35). In (35) the factor of $`1/3`$ in the non-leading term, as compared with factor $`1/2`$ in the leading term, is attributable to the fact that the Kaluza-Klein gravitons are massive. Whereas in (18), it is because the CFT requires loop corrections with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p)=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(p)`$, which is in fact satisfied, as far as the $`\mathrm{ln}p^2`$ term is concerned, since $`a_2=\frac{3}{2}a_1`$.

We have thus demonstrated that the $`1/r^3`$ corrections to Newton’s law are identical between the Maldacena and Randall-Sundrum pictures. This was examined in the context of a single CFT corresponding to a one-sided brane-world scenario. Had we chosen instead to take the brane-world to be sitting between two patches AdS5 (one on either side), as was the case considered in , we would have obtained a factor of two in the relation between Newton’s constants, with a corresponding factor in the propagator, (35). While this would ensure the correct four-dimensional behavior of gravity, given in (39), the two-sided brane-world relation $`G=G_5/L`$ will modify the comparison with the one-loop CFT result, (30). To compensate for this mismatch, one may assume that the two-sided brane-world is dual to two copies of the CFT coupled to gravity, as is implicit in . This leads to the natural picture that a one-sided brane corresponds to a single CFT while a two-sided brane corresponds to two CFTs.

An intriguing feature of this comparison of the gravitational potential in both pictures is a highlighting of the classical/quantum nature of this duality, as seen in the relation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_2(p)+𝒪(G^2)=\frac{L}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_{KK}(p).$$
(40)
The propagator for the continuum graviton modes in the Randall-Sundrum picture thus incorporates all quantum effects of matter on the brane. It may be worthwhile to examine this relation at the two-loop or higher level. Nevertheless, this agreement at one-loop lends strong support to the conjectured duality between the two pictures.

We would like to acknowledge the referees for providing valuable comments. JTL wishes to thank I. Giannakis and H.C. Ren for fruitful discussions on linearized gravity in the brane-world.