text:
# The Effect of the Environment on 𝛼-Al2O3 (0001) Surface Structures

\[

## Abstract

We report that calculating the Gibbs free energy of the $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 (0001) surfaces in equilibrium with a realistic environment containing both oxygen and hydrogen species is essential for obtaining theoretical predictions consistent with experimental observations. Using density-functional theory we find that even under conditions of high oxygen partial pressure, the metal terminated surface is surprisingly stable. An oxygen terminated $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 (0001) surface becomes stable only if hydrogen is present on the surface. In addition, including hydrogen on the surface resolves discrepancies between previous theoretical work and experimental results with respect to the magnitude and direction of surface relaxations.

PACS numbers:68.35.Bs,68.35.Md,71.15.Ap

\]

The nature of the corundum surface ($`\alpha `$-Al2O3) is of considerable importance in a wide variety of technological applications. These range from catalytic supports and thin-film substrates to corrosion and wear protection in mechanical systems. Yet, despite considerable experimental and theoretical efforts over the years, the surface structure, and even the surface stoichiometry, is a matter of strong controversy. The principal reason for this is that it is difficult to prepare clean, uniform surfaces with specific, well-defined structures and stoichiometries. The typical heterogeneity of the surface makes the interpretation of low energy electron diffraction (LEED) and other surface spectroscopic data difficult. In addition, corundum is an insulator which makes the application of STM and other techniques based on electron spectroscopy problematic.

Knowing the structure and stoichiometry of the corundum surface, however, is essential for understanding the electronic, mechanical, and chemical properties which determine its reactivity and performance in various applications. Yet it has only been within the past two years that new experimental techniques have enabled the chemical identification of the surface terminations for these systems. Renaud has reported a $`(1\times 1)`$ structure, prepared by heating in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, which could reasonably be interpreted as being O-terminated . Toofan and Watson found in a tensor LEED experiment both Al- and O-terminated domains in a 2:1 ratio, respectively . Ahn and Rabelais annealed the surface under UHV conditions and determined the detailed structure of the Al-terminated surface using time-of-flight scattering and recoiling spectrometry (TOF-SARS). The sensitivity of TOF-SARS also enabled the detection of hydrogen randomly distributed on the surface which was stable even at an annealing temperature of 1100 C.

Despite recent advances in experimental techniques, however, many questions and inconsistencies remain that theoretical calculations performed to date have not been able to resolve. Corundum ($`\alpha `$-Al2O3) crystallizes in a structure which can be described by a primitive rhombohedral unit cell with two Al2O3 formula units (10 atoms) or by a conventional hexagonal unit cell with six Al2O3 formula units (30 atoms). For the hexagonal unit cell, the atoms are stacked along the (0001) direction according to the sequence $`R`$-AlAlO3-AlAlO3-$`R`$, where $`R`$ represents the continuing sequence in the bulk. The oxygen atoms form hcp layers, and the metal atoms fill two thirds of the octahedral sites between these layers.

In the $`R`$-Al-Al-O3-$`R`$ corundum structure (0001) stacking sequence, there are three unique stoichiometric slice planes. Yet theoretical methods ranging from the empirical to the ab initio have so far identified only one stable termination stoichiometry for the $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 (0001) surface: an Al-monolayer indicated by AlO3Al-$`R`$ in Fig. 1. No stable O-terminated surface has been found, so how can the experimentally observed O-terminations be explained? In addition to the surface stoichiometry, there is considerable disagreement with respect to the magnitude and direction of the surface relaxations. For the Al-terminated surface, experimentally observed relaxations range from -51% to -63%, whereas the density-functional theory (DFT) pseudopotential calculations predict a relaxation of about -87%, and Hartree-Fock gives -40%. Toofan and Watson reported an outward relaxation for their two domain system, which is the opposite of what other experimental and theoretical investigations had concluded. These discrepancies are significant and need to be resolved.

What has not been previously considered in the theoretical treatment of the $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 (0001) surface is the effect of the environment on the surface structures and stoichiometry. Under realistic conditions, a surface will exchange atoms with its surroundings. Hence in this work we present the first analysis of the Gibbs free energy of the system with respect to its dependence on the chemical potentials of the components present in the material and the environment at 0K and 1000K. For a metal oxide such as $`\alpha `$-Al2O3, the O2 partial pressure is obviously the most important factor in the analysis, as well as temperature. In addition, the presence of stable hydrogen on the surface also needs to be addressed, as it can be incorporated into the bulk structure during growth, remain from calcination of Al(OH)3 in the synthesis of $`\alpha `$-Al2O3, or may result from exposure of the surface to water vapor prior to placement in the UHV chamber. Yet to our knowledge the presence of hydrogen on the corundum surface has not yet been investigated in theoretical studies. In this paper we report that the surface stoichiometries, structures, and properties change significantly depending upon the chemical potential of O2, H2, and H2O gases in equilibrium with the surface at different temperatures. We use the full-potential linearized augmented planewave (FP-LAPW) method to solve the Kohn-Sham equations and calculate the total energies, forces, and chemical potentials for all reasonable $`(1\times 1)`$ corundum (0001) surface geometries. We find that the metal-terminated surface is surprisingly stable across the range of a physically realistic oxygen chemical potential. An oxygen terminated surface becomes stable only if hydrogen is present on the surface, even at partial O2 pressures which are too high for standard UHV equipment. In addition, including hydrogen on the surface of both the aluminum and oxygen terminated surfaces results in calculated relaxations which agree with the latest experimental results, in both magnitude and direction.

To systematically investigate the $`(1\times 1)`$ (0001) surface which is observed at annealing temperatures below 1250 C, we have generated what we believe are all the possible ($`1\times 1`$) (0001) Al- and/or O-surface terminations of Al2O3, plus several additional surfaces containing hydroxyl groups. Previous studies which investigated possible ($`1\times 1`$) (0001) surface terminations examined only the three types of structures obtained by simply cleaving the unit cell at unique positions: AlO3Al-$`R`$, O3AlAl-$`R`$, and AlAlO3-$`R`$. For the single Al-terminated layer there are three other possible locations for the Al atom in addition to the corresponding bulk site, as shown in Fig. 1. For the O-terminated surface, other investigations have not considered the possibility of oxygen vacancies which could occur and still maintain a perfect ($`1\times 1`$) surface periodicity. Two additional O-terminated structures can be created by introducing one or two oxygen vacancies per unit cell, indicated by O2AlAl-$`R`$ and O1AlAl-$`R`$, respectively. Hence, there are a total of at least eight possible ($`1\times 1`$) geometries of the (0001) surface which we investigate to determine their relative stability.

In our calculations, the $`(1\times 1)`$ $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 surface is modeled by a slab which consists of a finite number of layers and is infinite in the plane of the surface. The slabs are repeated periodically along the  direction and separated by 10Å of vacuum. The slab contains six oxygen O3 layers and from ten to fourteen aluminum layers, depending upon the specific surface studied. We carefully tested that the thickness of the vacuum as well as that of the slabs are sufficiently large to ensure that surface-surface interactions through both the vacuum and the slab are negligible. The two surfaces of the slab are identical and inversion symmetry is maintained.

For our total-energy calculations we use the generalized gradient approximation of Perdew et al. for the exchange-correlation potential and the FP-LAPW method as implemented within the WIEN97 program  to solve the Kohn-Sham equations. A uniform k-point mesh with ten points is used for the entire surface Brillouin zone. An identical mesh is used for the bulk calculations to ensure consistency. The calculated equilibrium lattice constants for the hexagonal unit cell and the non-symmetry fixed positions of the atoms agree with experimental values to within 0.7%. The calculations give the heat of formation at 0K of the bulk Al2O3, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_\mathrm{f}^\mathrm{o}`$=17.37 eV, which is in good agreement with the experimental value of 17.24 eV .

To compare the stability of surfaces with different stoichiometries in chemical and thermal equilibrium with the gas phase and with the bulk, we calculate the Gibbs free energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the surface relative to the chemical potential of oxygen. The Gibbs free surface energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a slab at temperature $`T`$ and partial pressure $`p`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E^{\mathrm{total}}+\mathrm{\Delta }G^{\mathrm{vib}}N_i\mu _i(T,p)`$, where $`E^{\mathrm{total}}`$ is the scf energy of the slab, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G^{\mathrm{vib}}`$ is the vibrational contribution to the Gibbs free energy, $`N_i`$ the number of $`i`$th type of atoms in the slab, and $`\mu _i(T,p)`$ is the chemical potential of the $`i`$th type of atom at a given temperature and pressure. The sum is over all the types of the atoms in the slab. To calculate the values of the chemical potential for all species we use $`\mu _i(T,p)`$ = $`\mu _i^0`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i(T,p)`$, where 0K is taken as the reference state, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i(T,p)`$ is the change in free energy from that reference state to the system at a given temperature and pressure. The 0K values for surfaces and for bulk Al and Al2O3 are taken from our total energy calculations. For the dissociation energies of the H2, O2, and H2O molecules, we use experimental values. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _i(T,p)`$ values for all crystalline and gas phase species are taken from the JANAF Thermochemical Tables .

As each surface is considered here to be in chemical and thermal equilibrium with the bulk and the environment, the chemical potentials are constrained, so for the clean surface: $`2\mu _{\mathrm{Al}}+3\mu _\mathrm{O}=E_{\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, $`\mu _{\mathrm{Al}}<E_{\mathrm{Al}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{O}<\frac{1}{2}E_{\mathrm{O}_2}^{\mathrm{molecule}}`$, where E$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{bulk}}{}_{\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3}{}^{}`$ is the total energy per bulk Al2O3 formula unit. The limits of the chemical potential for oxygen are determined by conditions of equilibrium with relevant oxygen-containing species in the system. The maximum oxygen chemical potential is that of a maximum concentration of O2 molecules at 0K, which corresponds to O2 condensing on the surface. This is the reference value of the oxygen chemical potential, which is the zero on the right hand side of the graph in Fig. 2. Since the system is in equilibrium with bulk Al2O3 the minimum $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$ occurs when $`\mu _{\mathrm{Al}}`$ is at a maximum and $`\mu _\mathrm{O}=\frac{1}{3}E_{\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3}^{\mathrm{bulk}}\frac{2}{3}E_{\mathrm{Al}}^{\mathrm{bulk}}`$. Below this range, aluminum metal would condense on the surface.

For the surfaces where hydrogen is adsorbed, the free energy of the surface is calculated relative to the chemical potential of hydrogen $`\mu _\mathrm{H}`$ in both H2 and H2O, as desorption of hydrogen as either molecular species is possible. The lines for the HO3AlAl-$`R`$ and H3O3AlAl-$`R`$ surface energies calculated with respect to $`\mu _\mathrm{H}`$ in equilibrium with H2 and H2O cross at $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$ equal to -2.7 eV at 0K. Below -2.7 eV, $`\mu _\mathrm{H}`$ is determined by the equilibrium with H2, and above with H2O. Below these lines either H2 or H2O would condense on the surface. It should be noted that the only independent variables in our system is $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$ in equilibrium with bulk Al2O3, and $`\mu _\mathrm{H}`$. From these the dependent Al, O2, H2 and H2O chemical potentials follow.

The results are shown in Fig. 2. The Gibbs free energies per surface area for various $`(1\times 1)`$ geometries of the (0001) surface are displayed as a function of $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$. The dashed black vertical lines bracket the allowed range of $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$. For the systems containing just aluminum and oxygen, there is clearly only one overwhelmingly low energy surface stoichiometry: the AlO3Al-$`R`$ structure. This is consistent with the previous theoretical results. Our results show, however, that this stability extends across the entire range of the oxygen chemical potential, even up to the limit where an O2 condensate would form on the surface. The empirical models explain this remarkable stability on the basis of simple ionic considerations, as it is the only structure without a significant surface dipole. The actual situation is a bit more complicated, of course, and the quantum mechanical calculations performed by us and others indicate that the surface aluminum atom relaxes inward until it is practically coplanar with the oxygen layer, and rehybridizes to an $`sp^2`$ orbital configuration which is dramatically stabilized by autocompensation and bonding considerations. That is, the structure relaxes and charge is transferred so that the $`sp^2`$ bonds between the aluminum atoms and the three oxygens are filled, the aluminum $`3p_z`$ orbital perpendicular to the surface is empty, and there are no partial occupancies of dangling bonds at the surface. In our calculations the lowest empty surface state, which is primarily the Al $`3p_z`$ with some Al $`3s`$ and O $`2p`$ character, is 4.5 eV above the Fermi level. This is very high and contributes to the relative chemical inertness of the relaxed Al-terminated surface. Moving the topmost aluminum atom of the Al-terminated surface from its position to one of the three non-bulk positions indicated in Fig. 1, increases the surface energy dramatically from 133 meV/Å2 to 355, 282, and 228 meV/Å2 for the three sites, respectively.

The O3-terminated surface has a very unfavorable energy, although this decreases sharply as $`\mu _\mathrm{O}`$ increases. This stoichiometry has the highest dipole at the surface, which is reflected in a very large work function of 9.66 eV, compared to 5.97 eV for the Al-terminated surface above. In addition, there are partially filled open valencies on the surface oxygens which are not relieved by relaxation. Our results indicate, however, that this high energy surface can become more stable through oxygen evaporation. The O2-terminated surface has a consistently lower free energy than the O3AlAl-$`R`$, and the O1AlAl-$`R`$ surface is more stable than O2AlAl-$`R`$, except at the highest range of the oxygen chemical potential. At 1000K the metal-terminated surfaces become the lowest energy surface under the most oxygen-deficient conditions. This is consistent with what happens at annealing temperatures above 1250 C, where oxygen evaporation leaves behind a metallic aluminum overlayer . The figure does not convey the kinetic barriers required to move from one surface stoichiometry to another, but the relative thermodynamic stability is clear and is consistent with experimental observations.

The large surface dipole and dangling bonds of the O3-terminated surface can also be compensated by the addition of hydrogen to the surface. Adding one hydrogen per unit cell to the surface  dramatically lowers the free energy and the work function from 9.66 to 7.06 eV. This surface is much more stable than the O3-terminated surface at all oxygen partial pressures. Saturating all surface oxygens with hydrogen, indicated by the H3O3AlAl-$`R`$ line in Fig. 2, results in the lowest free energy and greatest stability across the entire range of physically realistic conditions. The oxygen open valencies are filled, charge transfer occurs from the H to the topmost O layer, and the work function is reduced to 3.44 eV, the lowest of all surfaces examined. The region of negative surface energy of the H3O3-terminated surface indicates that the hydroxylated surface is lower in energy than bulk $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 plus free H2O. This negative surface energy reflects the strength of the H-OAl bond and is consistent with the negative heat of the $`\alpha `$-Al2O3 \+ 3H2O $``$ 2Al(OH)3 reaction. This reaction is exothermic by 0.19 eV per Al2O3 formula unit relative to liquid water at 298.15K and 1 atm pressure .

We find that in addition to explaining the relative stabilities of the (0001) $`(1\times 1)`$ surfaces observed experimentally, considering the presence of hydrogen on the surface is essential to resolve the controversy surrounding the surface relaxations. Our results are shown in Table I. In the absence of hydrogen, our full potential results find a large inward relaxation of 86% for the first layer, in very close agreement with previous pseudopotential calculations, although there is less agreement for subsequent layers. When a hydrogen atom occupies site 1, however, the contraction between the first Al and O layers is $``$ 69$`\%`$, in very close agreement with the experimental result of Ahn and Rabalais . Several other locations for the hydrogen atom were investigated, with similar results.

For the oxygen-only terminated surface, theoretical predictions have indicated an inward relaxation of the top layer of 0.05Å. Yet the experimental results of Toofan and Watson, in which one of the two domains observed was O-terminated, clearly showed an outward relaxation of 0.12Å. Placing a hydrogen at site 1, however, results in a predicted outward relaxation of 0.11Å, in excellent agreement with experiment. Saturating the surface with hydrogen, the H3O3-structure, increases the predicted relaxation to 0.19Å. Hence even though H was not detectable with the instrumentation used by Toofan and Watson, our free energy calculations and predicted relaxations provide strong evidence that H was most likely present on the surface.

Real surfaces are usually much more complicated and heterogeneous than the model $`(1\times 1)`$ system studied here, but encorporating the effects of chemical and thermal equilibrium with the environment into the model provides a sound framework for interpretation of experimental results on these real systems.


format: text

text:
# QUARK CONDENSATE IN THE DEUTERON

## I introduction

The QCD vacuum has a complex structure, with condensates of quarks and gluons, that can be disturbed by the presence of hadronic matter. In the case of nucleons, for instance, valence quarks give rise to an anti-screening interaction, which reduces the magnitude of the condensate. This gives rise to the nucleon sigma-term ($`\sigma _N`$), that can be extracted from pion-nucleon scattering.

In the case of nuclei, in first approximation the effects of idependent nucleons add up . But as nucleons are interacting, there also exist modifications of the condensate due to the nucleon-nucleon potential. It is reasonable to believe that the influence of this potential is more important in large nuclei, but the study of these systems is complicated and requires simplifying approximations. Therefore it is interesting to look for effects of the NN interaction over the condensate in light nuclei. The deuteron, in particular, has been extensively explored and allows calculations with little theoretical uncertainties.

In principle, one should use QCD to study the reaction of the quark condensate to the presence of hadronic matter. However, as this is beyond our present capabilities, we use effective interactions of colourless hadrons in place of the fundamental ones. Effective theories should be as close as possible to QCD and, in particular, share its symmetries. The interactions of quarks and gluons are approximately invariant under chiral transformations and broken, in the $`SU(2)`$ sector, by the very small quark masses. Therefore, at the hadron level, one requires the effective theory to possess approximate chiral symmetry, now broken by $`\mu `$, the pion mass.

In the case of NN interactions, most of the dynamics relevant at large and intermediate energies can be described, in the framework of effective theories, by exchanges of one and two pions . For the short distance region, on the other hand, neither meson nor quark models produce precise quantitative predictions and realistic potentials must rely on free parameters. In the case of the deuteron, these short distance uncertainties are minimized, for it is heavily dominated by the one pion exchange potential (OPEP) .

In this work we discuss the disturbances of the QCD vacuum produced by the deuteron. In sect. II, we concentrate on the dependence of its binding energy on the quark mass, to derive the quark condensate using the Feynman-Hellmann theorem. The changes induced in the quark condensate by the nuclear force can be related to exchange currents, as probed by means of both photons and pions. Thus, in sect. III we discuss the case of electromagnetic probes and in sect. IV we study $`\pi `$d scattering. Finally, in sect. V we present our results and discuss how they are related to measurable quantities.

## II Feynman-Hellmann

The deuteron mass is written as $`M=2mϵ`$, where m is the nucleon mass and $`ϵ`$ is the binding energy, which we take as positive. The part of $`M`$ due to chiral symmetry breaking corresponds to the deuteron sigma-term, given by

$$\sigma _d=d^3r\left(d\left|_{SB}\right|d0\left|_{SB}\right|0\right),$$
(1)
where $`_{SB}`$ is the symmetry breaking term of the QCD Lagrangian. In the symmetric isospin limit it is given by  $`_{SB}=\widehat{m}\overline{q}q`$, where $`q`$ is the SU(2) quark field and $`\widehat{m}`$ is the average quark mass: $`\widehat{m}=(m_u+m_d)/2`$. At leading order in the chiral expansion the effective and fundamental symmetry breaking parameters are related by a constant, denoted by $`B`$: $`\mu ^2=2B\widehat{m}`$. As $`\widehat{m}`$ and $`\mu ^2`$ are small, we have

$$\sigma _d=\widehat{m}\frac{dM}{d\widehat{m}}=\mu ^2\frac{dM}{d\mu ^2}$$
(2)
and write $`\sigma _d=2\sigma _N+\sigma _ϵ`$, where $`\sigma _N=\mu ^2dm/d\mu ^2`$ and $`\sigma _ϵ`$ describes the changes in the condensate as compared to an assembly of static non-interacting nucleons.

In the framework of the Schrödinger equation, the binding energy is

$$ϵ=d^3r\psi ^{}\left(\frac{^2}{m}+V\right)\psi ,$$
(3)
where $`\psi `$ is the deuteron wave function. Thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r\left[\psi ^{}\left(\frac{\sigma _N}{\mu ^2}\frac{^2}{m^2}+\frac{dV}{d\mu ^2}\right)\psi +\frac{d\psi ^{}}{d\mu ^2}\left(\frac{^2}{m}+V\right)\psi +\psi \left(\frac{^2}{m}+V\right)\frac{d\psi ^{}}{d\mu ^2}\right]}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒓\left[\psi ^{}\left(\frac{\sigma _N}{\mu ^2}\frac{^2}{m^2}+\frac{dV}{d\mu ^2}\right)\psi ϵ\frac{d}{d\mu ^2}\left(\psi ^{}\psi \right)\right]}.`$ (5)
The term proportional to $`ϵ`$ in this result does not contribute when the deuteron wave function is kept properly normalized and we write

$$\sigma _ϵ=d^3r\psi ^{}\left(\sigma _N\frac{^2}{m^2}+\mu ^2\frac{dV}{d\mu ^2}\right)\psi .$$
(6)
The first term on the r.h.s. of this equation is the effect of the scalar nucleon number and reduces the sigma commutator by a factor $`(1T/m)`$, where $`T`$ is the nucleon kinetic energy, as compared to the additive assumption. Using the equation of motion, we have

$$\sigma _ϵ=d^3r\psi ^{}\left[\frac{\sigma _N}{m}(V+ϵ)+\mu ^2\frac{dV}{d\mu ^2}\right]\psi .$$
(7)
The contribution proportional to $`ϵ`$ is tiny and will not be considered in the sequence. The deuteron is heavily dominated by the one pion exchange potential ($`V_\pi `$) and we write the full NN interaction as

$$V=\overline{V}_\pi +W,$$
(8)
where $`\overline{V}_\pi `$ is the OPEP regularized at small distances and $`W`$ represents other short and medium range effects, associated with either meson or quark dynamics. In the absence of a theory for the influence of chiral symmetry breaking over both $`W`$ and the regularizing potential, we assume that these functions do not depend explicitly on $`\mu `$.

For the deuteron channel one has $`𝝉^{(1)}𝝉^{(2)}=3`$ and the OPEP reads

$$V_\pi =\left(\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }\right)^2\frac{\mu ^3}{16\pi }\left[𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}\left(U_CG\right)+S_{12}U_T\right],$$
(9)
where

$`U_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}},`$ (10)
$`U_T`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu ^2r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}}`$ (11)
and G is proportional to a delta-function: $`G=4\pi /\mu ^3\delta ^3(r)`$. The effects of this last term are cancelled by the regularization procedure and we skip them in the sequence.

The derivative of $`V_\pi `$ with respect to $`\mu ^2`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{g_A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)V_\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{16\pi }}\left[𝝈^{(1)}𝝈^{(2)}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu r}}\right)+S_{12}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu r}}\right)\right]e^{\mu r}`$ (12)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{g_A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)V_\pi +\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}\right)_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}.`$ (13)
This allows eq.(7) to be written as

$$\sigma _ϵ=\mu ^2\frac{d\overline{V}_\pi }{d\mu ^2}_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}+c\overline{V}_\pi .$$
(14)
with

$`\overline{V}_\pi {\displaystyle d^3r\psi ^{}\overline{V}_\pi \psi },`$ (15)
$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{V}_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle d^3r\psi ^{}\mu ^2\left(\frac{d\overline{V}_\pi }{d\mu ^2}\right)_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\psi },`$ (16)
and

$$c=\frac{\sigma _N}{m}+2\mu ^2\left(\frac{1}{g_A}\frac{dg_A}{d\mu ^2}\frac{1}{f_\pi }\frac{df_\pi }{d\mu ^2}\right).$$
(17)
The quantity $`\sigma _ϵ`$ represents the part of the deuteron $`\sigma `$-term due to NN intraction and may be probed by scalar sources. In practice, these sources may be associated with either photons or pions, as we discuss in the next sections. In order to interpret eq.(14), one notes that the coefficient $`c`$, given by eq.(17), vanishes in the chiral limit: $`\mu ^2=0c=0`$. Hence, at tree level, only the first term contributes, which represents the interaction of the scalar source with the pion exchanged between the nucleons. The coefficient $`c`$, on the other hand, receives contributions from the kinetic energy term and from the derivative of the $`\pi `$NN coupling constant. The latter, as we show in the sequence, corresponds to the interaction of the scalar source with the pion cloud that dresses the $`\pi `$N vextex.

In order to estimate the derivative of $`f_\pi `$, we use the result produced by Gasser and Leutwyler  and write:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu ^2}}\left\{F\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{F^2}}\left(\mathrm{}_4^r(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\left[\mathrm{}_4^r(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)\right],`$ (19)
where $`F`$ is the value of $`f_\pi `$ for $`\mu =0`$, $`\mathrm{}_4^r(\lambda )`$ is a renormalization constant and $`\lambda `$ is the renormalization scale. As far as the derivative of $`g_A`$ is concerned, we use the expression derived by Mojžiš and by Fearing, Lewis, Mobed and Scherer  and have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_A}{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu ^2}}\left\{G_A\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2}{m^2}}a_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2G_A^2}{16\pi ^2F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2F^2}}\left(1+2G_A^2\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2F^2}}b_{17}^r(\lambda )\right\}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`G_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4a_3}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_A^2}{16\pi ^2F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2F^2}}\left(1+2G_A^2\right)\left(1+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2F^2}}b_{17}^r(\lambda ),`$ (21)
where $`G_A`$ is the value of $`g_A`$ in the limit $`\mu 0`$ and $`b_{17}^r(\lambda )`$ is a constant. Note that the expression adopted for $`g_A`$, within curly brackets, is slightly different from that obtained earlier by Bernard, Kaiser and Meissner  and consistent  with that produced by Gasser, Sainio and Švarc.

For future purposes, we write down the following results

$`V_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^3}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle }dr[u^2`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`2\sqrt{8}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu ^2r^2}})uw(1+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\mu r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\mu ^2r^2}})w^2]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}},`$ (23)
$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^3}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle }dr[(\mu r2)u^2`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`2\sqrt{8}(\mu r+1)uw(\mu r+4)w^2]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}},`$ (25)
where $`u`$ and $`w`$ are the standard S and D components of the deuteron wave function. These expressions contain negative powers of r, but this does not pose problems for the integration, even in the case of unregularized potentials, since $`u`$ and $`w`$ vanish at the origin. The numerical implications of the results presented here will be explored in sect. V. We now discuss some possible ways of probing the many-body effects of the condensate.

## III electromagnetic probes

A probe which couples locally to the pion field $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is sensitive to the quantity $`A|\mathit{\varphi }^2|A`$, i.e., to the nuclear condensate. In particular, when a nucleus A is probed by electromagnetic interactions, the many body effects of the condensate correspond to meson exchange contributions to the forward Compton amplitude $`F_{mec}^A(0)`$, for soft photons. This relationship was established by Chanfray and Ericson , using the static approximation, but it is more general and its derivation does not require this assumption. Indeed, in their work on the extension of the Bethe-Levinger sum rule, Ericson, Rosa-Clot and Kulagin  have shown that $`F_{mec}^A(0)`$ contains a pion exchange term, which is the seagull represented in fig. 1(a) and can be expressed as:

$$F_{mec}^A(0)=\frac{2}{3}e^2𝑑𝒓\left(A|\mathit{\varphi }^2|AAN|\mathit{\varphi }^2|N\right),.$$
(26)
The second term in the r.h.s. of eq.(26) represents the expectation value of $`\mathit{\varphi }^2`$ for an assembly of free nucleons, which has to be subtracted to obtain the exchange piece. On the other hand, the matrix element $`A|\mathit{\varphi }^2|A`$ is related to the quark condensate by $`_{SB}`$, the chiral symmetry breaking term in the Lagrangian for the $`SU(2)`$ sector, as discussed by Chanfray and Ericson . In the case of QCD one has $`_{SB}=\widehat{m}\overline{q}q`$, assuming $`m_u=m_d=\widehat{m}`$. This symmetry breaking term transforms according to the $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ representation of $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ and one requires the same to happen with the effective counterpart. In the case of non-linear realizations of the symmetry, this corresponds to the choice

$$_{SB}=\mu ^2f_\pi \sqrt{f_\pi ^2\mathit{\varphi }^2}.$$
(27)
Imposing the equivalence of the fundamental and effective descriptions, we obtain

$`A|_{SB}|A`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{m}A|\overline{q}q|A`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\mu ^2f_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2A|\mathit{\varphi }^2|A+\mathrm{}`$ (29)
In the case of the vacuum, it yields the Gell-Mann-Oakes and Renner relation: $`\widehat{m}0|\overline{q}q|0=\mu ^2f_\pi ^2`$. We apply this relation to both nuclei and free nucleons. Using these results in eq.(26), we obtain the following relation between the condensate and the meson exchange Compton amplitude

$$F_A^{exch}(0)=\frac{4}{3}e^2f_\pi ^2𝑑𝒓\left(\frac{A|\overline{q}q|AAN|\overline{q}q|N}{0|\overline{q}q|0}\right),$$
(30)
which is the same result of ref., but now obtained without the use of the static approximation. In the case of the deuteron, the exchange amplitude is related to the $`\sigma _ϵ`$ calculated in the previous section through

$$F_A^{exch}(0)=\frac{4e^2}{3\mu ^2}\sigma _ϵ.$$
(31)
Two comments on formula (30) are in order. The soft photon amplitude on deuteron is given by the Thomson limit: $`F_d(0)=e^2/M`$. The exchange part $`F_A^{exch}(0)`$ is hidden in this term together with other contributions and they all add up to the Thomson value. The second remark concerns the composition of $`\sigma _ϵ`$, built of three terms: the kinetic energy term, the derivative of the $`\pi `$NN coupling constant, and the derivative of the pion propagator. When transposed into the Compton amplitude, the third part gives rise to the usual meson exchange term of fig. 1(a), where two photons interact with an exchanged pion. The derivative of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling attaches the two photons to the $`\pi NN`$ vertex, fig.1(b). As far as the kinetic energy term is concerned, the fact that $`\mathit{\varphi }^2`$ is a scalar object means that its expectaton value involves a $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ combination of nucleon fields, which displays the same reduction factor $`(1T/m)`$ as the sigma commutator, with respect to the ordinary nucleon density. Similar remarks apply to pion rescattering. Numerical values will be discussed in Sect.V.

## IV pion probes

Pions exchanged between nucleons may also be probed by means of external pions. In this section we consider $`a_{mec}`$, the MEC contribution to the pion-deuteron scattering lenght. The quadri-momenta for pions at rest are $`k=k^{}=(\omega ,\mathrm{𝟎})`$, where $`\omega =\mu `$ or $`0`$ depending on whether the pions are physical or soft. The $`\pi d`$ scattering length is generically given by

$$a\left(\omega \right)=\frac{\mu }{2\pi \left(1+\mu /M\right)}𝑑𝒓\psi ^{}\left(𝒓\right)t(𝒓;\omega )\psi \left(𝒓\right),$$
(32)
where $`t`$ is the part of the amplitude for the process $`\pi NN\pi NN`$ which does not contain two positive energy nucleons propagating forward in time.

When PCAC holds, the sigma commutator is related to the soft pion scattering amplitude. Hence the value of $`\sigma _ϵ`$ is associated with many body effects in the soft pion PCAC amplitude, since $`a_{mec}^{PCAC}(0)\alpha \sigma _ϵ`$ . We confront this relation with the direct evaluation of $`a_{mec}(\mu )`$, the quantity accessible to experiment. The structure of this amplitude was already discussed in ref. and here we are interested in its relationship with $`\sigma _ϵ`$. This question is important because it concerns the possibility of obtaining empirical information about $`\sigma _ϵ`$ from measurements of the $`\pi `$d scattering length.

For soft pions, the operator $`t_{mec}`$ is completely dominated by processes involving only pions and nucleons, whereas for physical pions there are other contributions, mainly due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitations.

In the $`\pi `$N sector, the basic interactions are obtained from the following non-linear Lagrangian, approximately invariant under SU(2)$`\times `$SU(2)

$`_{\pi N}^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8f_\pi ^2}}\left[^\mu \mathit{\varphi }^2_\mu \mathit{\varphi }^2\mu ^2\mathit{\varphi }^4\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f_\pi }}\overline{N}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5𝝉N_\mu \mathit{\varphi }`$ (33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f_\pi ^2}}\overline{N}\gamma ^\mu 𝝉N\mathit{\varphi }\times _\mu \mathit{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{8f_\pi ^3}}\overline{N}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5𝝉N\mathit{\varphi }_\mu \mathit{\varphi }^2+\mathrm{},`$ (34)
designed to be used in the tree approximation.

The meson exchange currents are given by the diagrams shown in fig.2, which contain pion propagators coupled to nucleons. Hence it is useful to parametrize the non relativistic MEC contribution to $`t`$ in the nucleon sector as

$$t_{mec}^N(𝒒;\omega )=\frac{1}{2\mu }\left(\frac{g_A}{2f_\pi }\right)^2\left\{\left[\alpha _n(\omega )\right]\frac{𝝈^{(1)}𝒒𝝈^{(2)}𝒒}{(𝒒^2+\mu ^2)}+\alpha _1^{}(\omega )\mu ^2\frac{𝝈^{(1)}𝒒𝝈^{(2)}𝒒}{(𝒒^2+\mu ^2)^2}\right\},$$
(35)
where $`𝒒`$ is the momentum exchanged between the nucleons and the coefficients $`\alpha _n`$ are determined dynamically, from the graphs of fig.2.

The evaluation of the diagrams 1-10 of fig.2 in the non relativistic tree approximation yields

$`\alpha _1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi ^2}},`$ (36)
$`\alpha _1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi ^2}}\left(32{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}}\right),`$ (37)
$`\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi ^2}},`$ (38)
$`\alpha _3+\alpha _4+\alpha _5+\alpha _6={\displaystyle \frac{2}{f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{m^2}},`$ (39)
$`\alpha _7+\alpha _8=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{2f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{m^2}},`$ (40)
$`\alpha _9+\alpha _{10}=0.`$ (41)
As discussed in ref., there is a cancellation between $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, required by chiral symmetry. The results for $`\alpha _3+\alpha _4+\alpha _5+\alpha _6`$ and $`\alpha _7+\alpha _8`$ disagree with those of ref. by factors ($`1`$) and (-$`\frac{3}{2}`$) respectively, due to algebraic mistakes in that work, but this has little influence over numerical results.

The MEC amplitude in configuration space is

$$t_{mec}^N(𝒓;\omega )=\frac{1}{2\mu }\frac{1}{3}\left\{\left[\alpha _n(\omega )\right]V_\pi (r)\alpha _1^{}(\omega )\mu ^2\left(\frac{dV_\pi (r)}{d\mu ^2}\right)_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right\}.$$
(42)
We now consider the contributions of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _N`$ to $`t_{mec}`$. The former were studied in ref. and its efect can be incorporated into eq.(35) by means of the global coefficient $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2/\mu ^2`$, with $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }=0.429\mu ^2`$. The contribution of the $`\pi `$N sigma-term is given by diagrams 1-4 of fig.3 and can be calculated by noting that it enters only in the isospin symmetric $`\pi `$N amplitude $`A^+`$. The corresponding part of this amplitude is denoted by $`A_\sigma ^+`$ and can be parametrized as

$$A_\sigma ^+(t;k^2,k^2)=\frac{\sigma _N}{\mu ^2f_\pi ^2}\left[k^2+k^2\mu ^2+\beta \left(tk^2k^2\right)\right]$$
(43)
and the value of $`\beta `$ can be extracted from scattering data. The evaluation of the diagrams of fig.3 yields, for the coefficients $`\alpha `$,

$$\alpha _{\sigma 1}+\alpha _{\sigma 2}+\alpha _{\sigma 3}+\alpha _{\sigma 4}=\frac{4}{m}\frac{\sigma _N}{f_\pi ^2\mu ^2}\left[\omega ^2\left(𝒒^2+\mu ^2\right)\right].$$
(44)
The term proportional to $`\left(𝒒^2+\mu ^2\right)`$ cancels the pion propagator, giving rise to a contact interaction, which does not contribute when the OPEP is regularized. The overall MEC contribution to the scattering length then becomes

$`a_{mec}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi (1+\mu /M)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3f_\pi ^2}}\{[(2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{m^2}}+f_\pi ^2\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\sigma _N}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}}]V_\pi `$ (45)
$``$ $`(32{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}})\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\}`$ (46)
In order to establish the relationship between $`a_{mec}(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _ϵ`$, we use eq.(14) and write

$`a_{mec}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi (1+\mu /M)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3f_\pi ^2}}\{[(2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{m^2}}+f_\pi ^2\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\sigma _N}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}}`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`c(32{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}})]V_\pi (32{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\mu ^2}})\sigma _ϵ\}.`$ (48)
In the soft pion limit $`(\omega 0)`$ this result becomes

$$a_{mec}(0)=\frac{1}{4\pi (1+\mu /M)}\frac{\sigma _ϵcV_\pi }{f_\pi ^2}.$$
(49)
For physical pions, on the other hand, one has

$$a_{mec}(\mu )=\frac{1}{4\pi (1+\mu /M)}\frac{1}{3f_\pi ^2}\left\{\sigma _ϵ\left[\left(2+\frac{g_A^2}{4}\right)\frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}+f_\pi ^2\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{4\sigma _N}{m}+c\right]V_\pi \right\}.$$
(50)
The first observation from eq.(49) is that $`a_{mec}(0)`$ is not just proportional to $`\sigma _ϵ`$, as in the PCAC result, $`a_{mec}^{PCAC}(0)`$, but the term $`cV_\pi `$ which appears in the epression (14) of $`\sigma _ϵ`$ is cancelled in $`a_{mec}(0)`$. The reason for this difference is that the usual meson exchange amplitude, $`a_{mec}`$, does not incorporate terms where the two pions are attached to the $`\pi NN`$ vertex through loop diagrams. These terms are instead present in the PCAC expression. The fact that the term in $`cV_\pi `$ may give a large contribution to $`\sigma _ϵ`$ indicates a possible importance also as an exchange correction. Moreover, inspecting eqs.(49) and (50), one notes that the contribution proportional to $`dV_\pi /d\mu ^2`$ is three times larger for soft pions than for physical pions, due to the strong energy dependence of the intermediate $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude of diagram 1. This feature is consistent with the results found by Chanfray, Ericson and Wambach , who studied the self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,𝒌)`$ of a pion propagating in a gas of of pions. Using PCAC and the Hartree approximation, they found that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,𝒌)=\frac{\rho _s}{f_\pi ^2}\left[\mu ^2\frac{2}{3}\left(\omega ^2𝒌^2\right)\right],$$
(51)
where $`\rho _s`$ is the scalar density of the pions. Thus, for soft and physical pions one has, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0,0)=\rho _s\mu ^2/f_\pi ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,0)=\rho _s\mu ^2/3f_\pi ^2`$. As this self energy is related to the MEC amplitude, both must change in the same proportion when one goes from physical to soft pions.

In summary, the measurable meson exchange contribution written in eq.(50) has little relation to the quark condensate. Therefore, the pion-deuteron scattering length provides no exploitable information about this condensate. In the next section we discuss numerically the results produced here.

## V results and conclusions

We estimate the numerical implications of the results produced in the previous sections and adopt the following values for the various constants: M=1875.61 MeV, m=938.28 MeV , $`\mu `$=139.57 MeV , g<sub>A</sub>=1.26 , f<sub>π</sub>=93.3 MeV , $`\sigma _N`$=45 MeV , $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }`$=-0.43 $`\mu ^2`$ , $`\lambda =\mu `$, $`\mathrm{}_4^r(\mu )=4.3/16\pi ^2`$, and $`a_3=m\sigma _N/4\mu ^2`$. As very little is known about the constant $`b_{17}^r(\mu )`$, we neglect it in eq.(21). With these inputs, we find a negative value for $`c`$: -0.30, which is strongly dominated by the derivative of the $`\pi `$N coupling constant and has opposite sign to the kinetic energy term. Thus one has

$`\left[\left(2+g_A^2/4\right)\mu ^2/m^2+f_\pi ^2\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }+4\sigma _N/m+c\right]=\left[0.050.19+0.190.30\right]=0.25`$ .

Expressions (23) and (25) are based on the assumption that the short range components of the interaction are not important since the OPEP strongly dominates the deuteron. In order to test this hypothesis, we consider the case of a toy potential containing an OPEP tail and regularized by means of monopole form factors . It has the same form as eq.(9), with $`U_C`$, $`G`$ and $`U_T`$ given by

$`U_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C^2}{\mu ^2}}1\right)e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr},`$ (52)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C^2}{\mu ^2}}1\right)^2e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr},`$ (53)
$`U_T`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu ^2r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu r}}{\mu r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3}{\mu ^3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^2r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}`$ (54)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T}{\mu }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^2}{\mu ^2}}1\right)\left(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}},`$ (55)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ are cut-offs for the central and tensor components and the parameter $`\delta `$ regulates the strength of the short range function $`G`$. The pure OPEP results are recoverd in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C=\mathrm{\Lambda }_T\mathrm{}`$ and $`\delta =1`$. It yields a regularized version of eqs.(23) and (25), namely

$`V_\pi =\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^3}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑r\left[\left(U_CG\right)u^2+2\sqrt{8}U_Tuw+\left(U_CG2U_T\right)w^2\right]},`$ (56)
$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\pi }{d\mu ^2}}_{\frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}V_\pi `$ (57)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^3}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑r\mu ^2\left[\frac{d\left(U_CG\right)}{d\mu ^2}u^2+2\sqrt{8}\frac{dU_T}{d\mu ^2}uw+\frac{d\left(U_CG2U_T\right)}{d\mu ^2}w^2\right]},`$ (58)
with

$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dU_C}{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu r}}\right)e^{\mu r}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr}}{\mu r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C^2}{\mu ^2}}+1\right)e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr}\right],`$ (59)
$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dG}{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C}}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C^4}{\mu ^4}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_C^2}{\mu ^2}}1\right)e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Cr},`$ (60)
$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dU_T}{d\mu ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mu r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{\mu ^2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{\mu ^3r^3}})e^{\mu r}3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3}{\mu ^3}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^2r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}`$ (61)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T}{\mu }}(3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^2}{\mu ^2}}1)(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Tr}}],`$ (62)
In general, the deuteron binding energy is a function of the form $`ϵ(g_A,f_\pi ,\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_C,\delta ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T)`$. As $`g_A`$, $`f_\pi `$ and $`\mu `$ are kept fixed, the binding energy depends on the the short range parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_C`$, $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ . When constructing the deuteron, we fix two of them and look for the third one so as to have $`ϵ=2.2250`$ MeV.

In table 1 we display our results for $`V_\pi `$ and $`\mu ^2dV_\pi /d\mu ^2`$ as given by the the perturbative OPEP (pert) eqs. (56) and (58) and by the regularized OPEP (toy), eqs.(23) mand (25). The first feature to be noted is that the sensitivity to the regularization of the potential is much greater for $`V_\pi `$ than for $`\mu ^2dV_\pi /d\mu ^2`$, due to the fact that the latter is less influenced by the short distance components of the wave function. In the case of the calculation based on the regularized potential, the large variations of the inner parameters considerd change results only by a few percent. This suggests that the self consistency between the potential and the wave function is important. In table 2 we present our results for the case of the Argonne $`v_{14}`$  and super soft core C  potentials and the values quoted also follow the pattern found in the case of the toy potential.

Inspection of these tables shows that the expectation values of the potential are about ten times larger than those of its derivative. Taking this information into eq.(35), one finds that this corresponds to an average pion momentum $`q=3\mu `$, which is relatively high. The disturbance of the QCD vacuum due to the NN interaction, represented by $`\sigma _ϵ`$, has a central value of about 10 MeV, which is about five times the binding energy and corresponds to about 10% of the total deuteron $`\sigma `$ term. Our results have the same magnitude but an opposite sign to that produced by Gammal and Frederico  in the framework of the Skyrme model. The values of $`\sigma _ϵ`$ quoted in the tables are dominated by the component involving the constant $`c`$ in eq.(14). This in turn depends strongly on $`dg_A/d\mu ^2`$ which was calculated using chiral perturbation theory and contains an unknown constant. Hence our result has to be taken as an estimate of the magnitude of $`\sigma _ϵ`$.

The columns $`a_{mec}(0)`$, eq.(49) and $`a_{mec}(\mu )`$, eq.(50), correspond respectively to the quantities that have a relation to the condensate $`\sigma _ϵ`$. The difference between $`a_{mec}(0)`$ and $`a_{mec}(\mu )`$ stems in part from the factor 3, related to the off-shell behaviour of the intermediate pion-pion scattering amplitude, as discussed at the end of section IV. In the case of soft pions, it is worth noting that $`\frac{1}{3}a_{mec}(0)0.0007\mu ^1`$, in agreement with the value found by Robilotta and Wilkin for physical pions . The value for $`F_A^{exch}(0)`$, the many body electromagnetic term of the commutator amplitude, is also displayed.

In summary, we have studied the many body effects of the quark condensate in the deuteron through the Feynman-Hellmann theorem and found out that the part of the deuteron sigma commutator associated with the NN interaction is smaller than the pion-nucleon sigma-term, but five times larger than the binding energy. With the restricions mentioned previously ($`b_{17}^r`$ is not known), we find that $`\sigma _ϵ`$ could be dominated by the derivative of the $`\pi `$N coupling constant. We have also linked the changes in the condensate with meson exchange effects for probes that can couple to the pion field, namely Compton and pion scatterings. As far as the possibility of extracting $`\sigma _ϵ`$ from the pion-deuteron scattering length, our study has shown that meson exchange effects are comparable to the present experimental error . However the extrapolation to the soft limit produces important changes which tend to blur the contribution of $`\sigma _ϵ`$. The reason why the pion-deuteron scattering length is unexploitable is that the part of the exchange correction which is linked to the sigma commutator is reduced by a factor 3 when one goes from soft to physical pions, which makes it small. Moreover, in the last case, non static corrections appear, in such a way that the extraction of the interesting term becomes unfeasible. In the case of the Compton amplitude, instead, no such problem arises, since soft photons are directly accessible to experiment, opening the the possibility of empirical determination. The photons are by far a superior tool as a source of information on the quark condensate, not only in the deuteron, but also in nuclei.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank G. Chanfray, J. Delorme, C.A. Dominguez and H. Leutwyler for useful discussions, J. Gasser, J. Goity and M. Mojžiš for exchanges of messages, and U-G. Meissner for help in dealing with aspects chiral perturbation theory. It is also our pleasure to acknowledge the hospitality of the Institute of Nuclear Theory and the Nuclear Theory Group of the University of Washington, USA, where this work was initiated. M.R.R. would also like to thank the hospitality of the Division de Physique Theorique de l’Institut de Physique Nucleaire, Orsay, France and FAPESP, for financial support.

Figure Captions

Fig.1 Seagull meson exchange diagram contributing to the Compton amplitude.

Fig.2. Diagrams contributing to the pion-deuteron scattering length in the pure pion-nucleon sector; the crosses in the propagators of figs. 9 and 10 indicate that they refer to antinucleons.

Fig.3. Diagrams contributing to the pion-deuteron scattering length due to the isospin-symmetric amplitude represented by the black square.


text:
# Mode Solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation in warped spacetimes

## 1 Introduction

A warped spacetime , ,  is a product manifold $`V_1\times V_2`$ endowed with (omitting the canonical projections) a metric 111The minus sign is dictated by our signature $`+\mathrm{}`$. See next Section.

$$(g)=\alpha (S)\gamma $$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ respectively are metric tensors on $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$. Either $`\alpha `$ or $`\gamma `$ is Lorentzian, so that $`(g)`$ is normal hyperbolic. $`S`$ is a positive function on $`V_1`$, it is convenient to set $`S=\mathrm{e}^{2i\mathrm{\Theta }}`$.

The most simple example of warped spacetime is probably given by the Friedman-Robinson-Walker (FRW) universe. But the warped structure accomodates a large number of metrics of physical interest in General Relativity.

In FRW, the wave equation has been studied in details for many decades, in relation with the old prblem of defining its positive-frequency solutions. To this end, the general solution is usually developed over the so-called mode solutions, so the Klein-Gordon equation gets reduced to an ordinary differential equation involving the time variable only.

In fact the property of being spatially homogeneous, exhibited by FRW universes, plays no role in this reduction, which permits to follow the same line in generalized FRW spacetimes  where the spatial sections have not necessarily a constant curvature. The geometrical properties of these spacetimes have been systematically investigated by M. Sánchez .

Warped structures in general have been widely studied in the literature, the main issue being of course to establish relations between symmetry and curvature properties of the total spacetime and that of its factor manifolds.

In this article we are concerned with interesting features exhibited by the Klein Gordon equation in a warped spacetime of arbitrary dimension and type (with some preference however for the case where $`V_1`$ is Lorentzian). Assuming the minimal coupling we write

$$(^2+m^2)\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(2)
for a complex $`c`$-number-valued wave function.

In spite of well-known limitations, a particle interpretation of (2) remains of interest. In the operator approach to quantum field theory in curved spacetime, one-particle concepts play at least the role of useful tools. For instance, the kernel which projects any solution onto a positive-frequency subspace and determines a definition of the vacuum, is a solution of the KG equation (often referred to as the two-point Wightman function).

Our goal is to show that most results obtained up to now in the context of generalized FRW spacetimes can be systematically extended to any kind of warped spacetime.

We shall take advantage of the warped-product structure in order to carry out a systematic reduction of (2), and shall end up with an equation to be solved for a reduced wave function which depends only on the coordinates running in the first factor manifold $`V_1`$.

The principle of this procedure consists in developing the general solution of equation (2) over special ones that generalize the mode solutions arising in the customary FRW framework.

The possibility of reducing the KG equation with help of generalized modes can be tracked back to a remarkable feature of classical motion in warped spacetimes. That point is briefly exposed in Section 2, in parallel to a study of the differential operator which describes the quantum motion. Generalized mode solutions are introduced in Section 3, where the separation of variables is carried out.

Together with the KG equation, we analyse the sesquilinear form defined on its solutions. Our motivation is the fact that, for complex (resp. real) solutions sesquilinear (resp. bilinear) forms are fundamental with respect to quantum mechanics; they provide a framework for the construction of a ”complex structure positive operator” ensuring the splitting of any solution into positive and negative-frequency parts  , .

We shall demonstrate in Sections 4-5 that the sesquilinear form defined for solutions to equation (2) (by conservation of the Gordon current) undergoes some kind of reduction. Indeed, under very general assumptions, the space of complex solutions to the reduced equation can be in turn endowed with a sesquilinear form of its own. Actually, a conserved vector-density defined on the first factor manifold is associated with the reduced wave equation; we display the relationship of this object with the usual Gordon current.

The possibility of extending this study to nonminimal couplings is discussed in Section 6.

Although we have in mind possible applications to quantum mechanics, this article is written from the viewpoint of differential geometry; all functions and tensors are supposed to be smooth, that is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Moreover all manifolds considered here are implicitly assumed to be connected.

### 1.1 Notation

In the product $`(V)=V_1\times V_2`$, the factors $`V_1,V_2`$ respectively have dimensions $`p,q`$. We define Type I (resp. Type II) by this property that $`(V_1,\alpha )`$ (resp. $`(V_2,\gamma )`$ ) is Lorentzian.

Throughout this paper we use coordinate charts adapted to the warped structure. The metric takes on the orthogonal form

$$ds^2=\alpha _{AB}dx^Adx^BS(x^C)\gamma (x^k)_{ij}dx^idx^j$$
(3)
where $`A,B,CI_1,i,j,kI_2I_1I_2=`$ and $`I_1I_2`$ covers the whole set of integers $`0,1,2,\mathrm{}.,p+q1`$.

\[For instance in 4 dimensions:

$`I_10,I_21,2,3`$ for FRW spacetimes, and we can take $`I_10,3I_21,2`$ for spherically symmetric universes\]

The minus sign in equation (3) is dictated by our signature $`+\mathrm{}`$. Type I necessarily corresponds to $`\gamma `$ positive definite. In contrast, Type II implies having the quadratic form $`\alpha `$ elliptic but negative definite.

$`g_{AB}=\alpha _{AB}`$ and $`g_{ij}=S\gamma _{ij}`$.

\[Example: In FRW spacetimes, , $`p=1,q=3`$ and we have $`A,B,C=0`$ and $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$\].

It is clear that

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{AB}& 0\\ 0& S\gamma _{ij}\end{array}\right),g^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^{AB}& 0\\ 0& S^1\gamma ^{ij}\end{array}\right)$$

where $`g^{AB}g_{BC}=\delta _C^A,g^{ij}g_{jk}=\delta _k^i`$ Notice that

$$g^{AB}=\alpha ^{AB}$$

if we define $`\alpha ^{AB}`$ (resp. $`\gamma ^{ij}`$) as the contravariant tensor inverting $`\alpha _{AB}`$ (resp. $`\gamma _{ij}`$), that is $`\alpha ^{AB}\alpha _{BC}=\delta _C^A,\gamma ^{AB}\gamma _{BC}=\delta _C^A`$. We obviously can write $`g_{AB}=\alpha _{AB}`$.

Notice that

$$g^{ij}=(S)^1\gamma ^{ij}$$

Caution that the Types I, II defined above must not be confused with the Classes $`A,B`$ introduced by Carot and da Costa for four-dimensional warped spacetimes . For $`p+q=4`$, intersection of Classes $`A_1,A_2`$ and $`B`$ with both Types give rise to six possibilities.

In references   each class is combined with the Types by chosing a sign $`\pm `$ in the generic form of the metric. The contact with the notation of Ref.  can be made as follows:

$$\alpha =h_1,\gamma =h_2$$

where $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are the metrics assigned to the factor manifolds in Ref. . Our quadratic form $`ds^2=g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta `$ and their have opposite signs.

Geometric objects corresponding to $`(V_1,\alpha ),(V_2,\gamma )`$ are affected by the index $`1,2`$ respectively. This label will be put on the left for connexions, curvature tensors and their contractions.

Remark

It is a trivial observation that the Minkowski metric is (globally) decomposable in several ways. Similarly, it may happen that a given spacetime can be considered as warped in several ways, so that, for instance, it may be of Class $`A`$ for one structure whilst it is of Class $`B`$ for another one . But here, we consider only one structure at one time, so the six possibilities mentioned above are mutually exclusive.

$`\eta =\sqrt{|g|}\epsilon `$ where $`\epsilon `$ is the Levi-Civitta tensor. Useful determinants are as follows: Setting

$$g=detg_{\alpha \beta }\gamma =det\gamma _{ij}\alpha =det\alpha _{AB}detg_{AB}$$

we have

$$detg_{ij}=(S)^qdet\gamma _{ij}$$

and therefore $`g=\alpha (S)^q\gamma `$ $`g=detg_{AB}(S)^qdet\gamma _{ij}`$ thus $`g=\alpha (S)^q\gamma `$. We shall rather use

$$\sqrt{|g|}=\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}\sqrt{|\gamma |}$$
(4)
Volume elements: Setting

$$d_1^px=dx^A,d_2^qx=dx^j,AI_1,jI_2$$

we have $`d^{p+q}x=d_1^pxd_2^qx`$.

The volume elements of $`(V_1,\alpha )`$ and $`(V_2,\gamma )`$ respectively are $`\sqrt{|\alpha |}d_1^px`$ and $`\sqrt{|\gamma |}d_2^qx`$, whereas naturally the volume form of $`(V)`$ is $`\sqrt{|g|}d^{p+q}x`$.

For Type I, it is convenient to take $`x^A`$ running from $`0`$ to $`p1`$ and to factorize out the time coordinate by setting

$$\omega =dx^1\mathrm{}dx^{p1}$$
(5)
so that $`d_1^px=dx^0\omega `$.

With this convention, we have

$$\omega =\frac{1}{(p1)!}\epsilon _{0B_1\mathrm{}B_{p1}}dx^{B_1}\mathrm{}dx^{B_{p1}}$$
(6)
## 2 Classical and Quantum Motion in Warped Spacetime

### 2.1 Geodesic motion

An equation like (2) can be thought of as describing the quantum motion of a test particle, in the approximation where possible particle creation is neglected. It is in order to point out that, in any warped spacetime, the classical motion of a free particle (geodesic motion) already enjoys an interesting property which directly stems from the warping.

Indeed the equations of motion of a test particle in $`V`$ are canonically generated by a ”Hamiltonian function”

$$G(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta =\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^{AB}p_Ap_BS^1\gamma ^{ij}p_ip_j)$$

which is a scalar in the cotangent bundle $`T_{}(V)`$. According to the canonical symplectic form of this bundle, we have the usual Poisson brackets $`\{x^\alpha ,p_\beta \}=\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$ , etc. Constants of the motion are characterized by a vanishing Poisson bracket with $`G`$. It is easy to verify that

###### Proposition 1

In any warped spacetime, with the metric written like in (1), geodesic motion admits the first integral

$$2K=\gamma ^{ij}p_ip_j$$
(7)
where $`p_\alpha `$ are the momenta.

\[ Proof: We see that $`\{K,\alpha ^{AB}p_Ap_B\}`$ vanishes. This is obvious since $`K`$ only depends on $`x^C,p_D`$. Then we observe that $`\{p_j,x^A\}=0`$. It follows that $`\{K,S\}=0`$, so finally $`\{g^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta ,K\}=0`$ and $`K`$ is a constant of the motion.\] Indeed we derive with help of the standard Poisson brackets that $`\{G,K\}=0`$.

For Type I, the quantity $`K/m`$ somehow generalizes the kinetic energy, although its conservation is ensured even if $`(V_2,\gamma )`$ fails to admit a group of translations. For instance, when $`V`$ is simply $`𝐑\times 𝐑^3`$ warped with some time-depending scale factor, the conservation of $`K`$ can also be derived from the existence of a translation group in $`𝐑^3`$. And in this case, $`K/m`$ is just the kinetic energy in the usual sense. But the point is that this property survives when $`𝐑^3`$ is replaced by any other three-dimensional manifold.

### 2.2 Quantum motion

We assume minimal coupling, so we write the KG equation as (2) where $`^2\mathrm{\Psi }=g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta \mathrm{\Psi }`$. But we shall use the well-known formula

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|}g|}\mu (\sqrt{|g|}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi })$$
(8)
By formal analogy with (7) it is natural to consider that the quantum mechanical analog of $`K`$ is $`K_{\mathrm{quant}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator in $`(V_2,\gamma )`$. Indeed we have in obvious notations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\gamma ^{ij}(_2)_i(_2)_j`$ acting on scalars. But we rather use the formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\gamma |}}_i(\sqrt{|\gamma |}\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

Developing formula (8) we get

$$\sqrt{|g|}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=_A(\sqrt{|g|}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })+_i(\sqrt{|g|}g^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

but $`g^{AB}=\alpha ^{AB}`$ and $`g^{ij}=S^1\gamma ^{ij}`$ thus

$$\sqrt{|g|}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=_A(\sqrt{|g|}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })_i(\sqrt{|g|}S^1\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

where $`_kS=0`$. But in view of (4) we have

$$\sqrt{|g|}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=_A(\sqrt{|g|}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })S^1S^{q/2}_i(\sqrt{|\alpha |}\sqrt{|\gamma |}\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

Since $`\alpha `$ only depends on $`x^A`$ we obtain

$$\sqrt{|g|}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=_A(\sqrt{|g|}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })S^1S^{q/2}\sqrt{|\alpha |}_i(\sqrt{|\gamma |}\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

Again develop $`\sqrt{|g|}`$ and remember that $`_A\gamma =0`$. We get

$$\sqrt{|g|}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{|\gamma |}_A(\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })S^1S^{q/2}\sqrt{|\alpha |}_i(\sqrt{|\gamma |}\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi }$$

Again develop $`\sqrt{|g|}`$ hence

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}}_A(\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })\frac{S^1}{\sqrt{|\gamma |}}_i(\sqrt{|\gamma |}\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

It is convenient to define

$$D\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}}S^{q/2}_A(\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })$$

irrespective of whether $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a solution to (2) or not.

Indeed the second order differential operator $`D`$ only affects quantities depending on the $`x^A`$ variables. So we can write

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }=D\mathrm{\Psi }S^1\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\gamma |}}_i(\sqrt{|\gamma |}\gamma ^{ij}_j\mathrm{\Psi })$$

In other words we have the identity

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }=D\mathrm{\Psi }S^1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ is the $`q`$-dimensional Laplace-Beltrami operator, associated with the manifold $`(V_2,\gamma )`$. As an operator extended to functions on $`V`$, it does not affect the quantities depending on $`x^A`$ only.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ commutes with $`D`$, because these operators act on separate sets of variables. As $`S`$ does not depend on the $`x^j`$ coordinates, it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ (or equivalently $`K_{\mathrm{quant}}`$) commutes with $`^2`$. In the classical limit ($`\mathrm{}0`$) this property reduces to the conservation of $`K`$.

Let us re-arrange $`D`$ in order to simplify the expression of $`^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Let us provisionally use coordinates where $`|\alpha |=1`$. We obtain

$$D\mathrm{\Psi }=S^{q/2}_A(S^{q/2}g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })$$

$$D\mathrm{\Psi }=_A(g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi })+\frac{q}{2}(_A\mathrm{log}S)g^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Psi }$$

But $`g^{AB}=\alpha ^{AB}`$ and $`|\alpha |=1`$, thus

$$D\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{q}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)_B\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(10)
which is valid in all coordinates and for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This expression, where the coordinates $`x^j`$ are ignorable, is to be inserted into equation (9).

## 3 Mode Solutions, Product Solutions

Since $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_2,^2]`$ vanishes, it is clear that some solutions of the KG equation are also eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is such a solution we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Phi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(11)
for some constant number $`\lambda \mathrm{Spec}.(V_2)`$. We shall generalize the terminology which is commonly used when $`V`$ is FRW universe and shall call $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a Mode Solution to the KG equation. For a solution in mode $`\lambda `$, the KG equation reduces to

$$(D+\lambda S^1+m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(12)
where the differential operator $`D`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ affects the $`x^A`$’s only.

Finally, $`x^A`$ and $`x^j`$ are respectively ignorable in equations (12) and (11), which realizes separation of the variables.

Leaving aside the solving of (11), the original KG equation in $`(V)`$ has been reduced to a (linear) partial differential equation in $`p`$ dimensions.

From now on, we look for solutions to (2) in the form of a superposition of various mode solutions corresponding to all possible values taken by $`\lambda `$ in the spectrum of $`V_2`$.

In the special case where $`p=1`$, equation (12) is an ordinary 2nd order equation and its solutions form a two-dimensional vector space.

Otherwize, the space of solutions still has infinitely many dimensions.

Some special solutions of the wave equation (2) have the form of a product of functions compatible with the product structure of spacetime, namely

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=f(x^A)F(x^k)$$
(13)
We observe that

###### Proposition 2

Any product solution $`fF`$ to the KG equation is a mode solution, and $`F`$ is eigenfunction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ .

Proof.

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=(Df)FS^1f\mathrm{\Delta }_2F$$

$$(^2+m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=F(D+m^2)fS^1f\mathrm{\Delta }_2F$$

According to KG equation this quantity vanishes.

$$F(D+m^2)f=S^1f\mathrm{\Delta }_2F$$

Discarding a trivial case, neither $`f`$ nor $`F`$ can identically vanish. When $`f`$ and $`F`$ are not zero, we divide by $`fF`$ and multiply by $`S`$. We get

$$S\frac{(D+m^2)f}{f}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2F}{F}$$

The l.h.s. of this equation depends on $`x^A`$ only while the r.h.s. only depends on $`x^k`$. Both are thus necessarily constants, so there exists some $`\lambda `$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2F=\lambda F$$
(14)
Let $`[\lambda ]`$ be the space of smooth functions on $`V_2`$ satisfying (14) for a given value of $`\lambda `$. For $`V_2`$ compact, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ has a discrete spectrum which is the infinite sequence

$$\mathrm{Spec}(V_2,\gamma )=\{\lambda _0=0,<\lambda _1,\mathrm{}<\lambda _n\mathrm{}\}$$

In this case $`_n`$ denotes $`[\lambda _n]`$ and we know that its dimension $`d(n)`$ is finite \[berg\].

The converse of the previous Proposition is not true, but

###### Proposition 3

In a warped spacetime of Type I with compact $`(V_2)`$, any mode solution corresponding to a given $`\lambda `$ in $`\mathrm{Spec}(V_2,\gamma )`$ is a finite sum of product solutions.

Let $`f_u(x^A)`$ be the coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a development over a basis $`F_1(x^j),\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{u=1}{\overset{d(n)}{}}f_u(x^A)F_u(x^j)$$
(15)
$$(^2+m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=F_u(x^j)[D+S^1\lambda _n+m^2]f_u(x^A)$$
(16)
This expression must vanish. Since $`F_1\mathrm{}F_d`$ form a basis, it is clear that each $`f_u`$ must be a solution to the equation

$$(D+\lambda _nS^1+m^2)f=0$$
(17)
It follows that each $`f_uF_u`$ is a product solution.

Let $`𝒮[\lambda ]`$ be the space of smooth functions on $`V_1`$ satisfying to (17) for a given value of $`\lambda `$.

Except in the very special case where $`p=1`$, (17) is a partial differential equation and has infinitely many linearly independent solutions.

Developping $`D`$ with help of (10) we obtain after simplification

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1f+\frac{q}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)_Bf+(\lambda S^1+m^2)f=0$$
(18)
which is a $`p`$-dimensional problem only, formulated in terms of the metric $`\alpha `$. The $`x^j`$ do not arise in this equation.

To summarize, equation (2) has been reduced to a pair of equations involving separate sets of variables. These equations are (14) and (18). For Type I (resp. Type II) the Laplacian in the former is elliptic (resp. hyperbolic) whereas the partial differential operator in the latter is hyperbolic (resp. elliptic). Notice that (14) involves only the geometry of $`V_2`$ , whereas (18) involves not only the geometry of $`V_1`$ but also the shape of the warping function $`S`$.

For Type I with compact $`V_2`$, we write $`𝒮_n`$ for $`𝒮[\lambda _n]`$. The $`n`$th mode will be noted

$$_n=𝒮_n_n$$

Now, a comparison of (18) with (2) is in order: Equation (2) simply involves the $`p+q`$-dimensional Laplacian, which implies that the Gordon current in $`p+q`$ dimensions is conservative. In contrast, (18) not only involves the $`p`$-dimensional Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and an innocent multiplicative operator $`\lambda S^1+m^2`$, but also first order partial differentiation. As a result, the $`p`$-dimensional sesquilinear field constructed with a couple of solutions $`f,h`$ to (18), that is to say

$$I^A=i(f^{}_1^Ahh_1^Af^{})$$
(19)
fails to be divergence-free.

For the same reason, the second order linear differential operator involved in (18) is not  symmetric with respect to the scalar product

$$<f,h>_1=_{V_1}f^{}h\sqrt{|\alpha |}d_1^px$$

defined with help of the $`p`$-dimensional volume element $`\sqrt{|\alpha |}d_1^px`$ determined by the metric $`\alpha `$ in $`V_1`$.

This situation is more specially unpleasant in Type I spacetimes, where (18) includes the dynamical aspects of the original equation KG equation. In this case, a scalar product for any couple of solutions to (18) would be of interest for quantum mechanics. So, it is desirable to construct some conserved $`p`$-dimensional current, sesquilinear with respect to the couple $`f,h`$. But the presence of $`f`$ in (18) is an obstacle.

Before we focus our attention on Type I, let us first replace the vector field of formula (19) by a better candidate in order to make up a conservation law.

\[N.B. Statements about the divergence of a vector necessarily refer to a metric. In contradistinction, the divergence of a vector-density is intrinsic.\]

The difficulty associated with the presence of first derivatives in (18) can be circumvented by two manners.

* Use another metric (conformal to $`\alpha _{AB}`$) on the manifold $`V_1`$ and re-write (18) in terms of it. This procedure amounts to consider another differential operator that is symmetric in the sense of this new metric.
* Keep the metric of $`V_1`$ unaltered, but make a conformal change of function, say $`f=S^r\widehat{f}`$.

## 4 Conserved Currents

### 4.1 First Method

Let us consider in $`V_1`$ a new metric $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{AB}`$ such that

$$\alpha _{AB}=U(x^C)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{AB}$$

for some conformal factor $`U(x^C)`$ which must be suitably chosen. It is clear that $`\alpha ^{AB}=U^1\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{AB}`$, if we call $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{AB}`$ the contravariant tensor inverting $`\alpha _{AB}`$. We set $`\stackrel{~}{}_1^A=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{AB}_B`$.

The determinants are related by

$$det\alpha _{AB}=U^pdet(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{AB})$$
(20)
In view of this formula, we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1f=U^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1f+(_A\mathrm{log}U^{p/21})\alpha ^{AB}_Bf$$

This is to be inserted into $`Df`$ which is given by (10). We get

$$Df=U^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1f+(_A\mathrm{log}U^{p/21})\alpha ^{AB}_Bf+\frac{q}{2}(_A\mathrm{log}S)\alpha ^{AB}_Bf$$
(21)
The first derivatives of $`f`$ are eliminated from $`Df`$ provided that

$$U^{p/21}=\mathrm{const}.S^{q/2}$$

which is possible (for nontrivial $`S`$) under the condition that $`p2`$. In this case it is sufficient to take $`U^{p2}=S^q`$, which leads to

$$U=S^{\frac{q}{2p}}$$
(22)
Thus (20) entails

$$\sqrt{|\alpha |}=S^{\frac{pq}{42p}}\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|}$$
(23)
With the choice (22) we simply have

$$Df=U^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1f$$

to be inserted into equation (17) for mode $`\lambda `$.

We end up with an equation of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1f+Qf=0$$
(24)
where $`Q=U(\lambda S^1+m^2)`$ but equation (22) implies that

$$Q=S^{\frac{q}{2p}}(\lambda S^1+m^2)$$

Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+Q`$ in equation (24) is symmetric with respect to the scalar product $`<\stackrel{~}{f,h}>_1`$, defined with help of the $`p`$-dimensional volume $`\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|}d_1^px`$. Moreover, the $`p`$-dimensional current

$$\stackrel{~}{I}^A(f,h)=i(f^{}\stackrel{~}{}_1^Ahh\stackrel{~}{}_1^Af^{})$$
(25)
is divergence-free in $`(V_1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ for any couple of solutions $`f,h`$ to the same equation (24). We mean the same $`\lambda `$ in (24) for $`f`$ and $`h`$ and of course $`\stackrel{~}{}_1^A=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{AB}_B`$ . In other words we have

$$_A(\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|}\stackrel{~}{I}^A)=0$$

Remark: When $`p=1`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{I}^A`$ has a single component only, so the above conservation law reduces to the well-known constancy of the Wronskian.

So, provided $`p2`$, it is possible to eliminate $`\alpha ^{AB}_B\mathrm{log}S`$ from (21) by chosing $`U`$ as in (22).

It is noteworthy that in four-dimensional warped spacetime, we precisely have $`p=2`$ in the case of Class $`B`$. Cases with $`p=2`$ will be handled by the second method (next section).

### 4.2 Second Method

Let us try a conformal change of function involving a suitable power of $`S`$. So we introduce $`\widehat{f}`$ by setting $`f=S^r\widehat{f}`$, for some $`r`$ to be determined below. Our goal is to eliminate $`\widehat{f}`$.

Define in any dimension the Laplace-Beltrami operator on scalars $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=u`$. Well known that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(uv)=(\mathrm{\Delta }u)v+u\mathrm{\Delta }v+2uv$$

We apply this formula in manifold $`V_1`$, where the Laplacian operator is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, to the product $`S^r\widehat{f}`$. In the present case

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1f=(\mathrm{\Delta }_1S^r)\widehat{f}+S^r\mathrm{\Delta }_1\widehat{f}+2\alpha ^{AB}(_AS^r)_B\widehat{f}$$

But (10) tells that

$$Df=\mathrm{\Delta }_1f+\frac{q}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)_Bf$$

where $`_Bf=(_BS^r)\widehat{f}+S^r_B\widehat{f}`$. Thus

$$Df=\mathrm{\Delta }_1f+\frac{q}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)(_BS^r)\widehat{f}+\frac{q}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)S^r_B\widehat{f}$$

First order derivatives of $`\widehat{f}`$ get cancelled from (18) provided that $`2_AS^r+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}S^r_A\mathrm{log}S=0`$. Thus

$$r=\frac{q}{4}$$
(26)
We are left with

$$Df=(\mathrm{\Delta }_1S^r)\widehat{f}+S^r\mathrm{\Delta }_1\widehat{f}+\frac{q}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)(_BS^r)\widehat{f}$$

$$S^rDf=S^r(\mathrm{\Delta }_1S^r)\widehat{f}+\mathrm{\Delta }_1\widehat{f}+\frac{qr}{2}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)(_B\mathrm{log}S)\widehat{f}$$

In view of (26) we conclude that

$$S^{q/4}Df=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\widehat{f}+(S^{q/4}\mathrm{\Delta }_1S^{q/4})\widehat{f}\frac{q^2}{8}\alpha ^{AB}(_A\mathrm{log}S)(_B\mathrm{log}S)\widehat{f}$$
(27)
Equation (12) yields $`(D+\lambda S^1+m^2)f=0`$. Multiply by $`S^{q/4}`$, and use $`f=S^{q/4}\widehat{f}`$. We get

$$S^{q/4}Df+(\lambda S^1+m^2)\widehat{f}=0$$

where the first term is to be developed in terms of $`\widehat{f}`$ as in (27)

We end up with a reduced equation of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\widehat{f}+\mathrm{\Xi }\widehat{f}=0`$.

If $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{h}`$ are two solutions to this equation (for the same $`\lambda `$) they correspond to $`f`$ and $`h`$ through the formulas

$$f=S^r\widehat{f},h=S^r\widehat{h}$$
(28)
and the $`p`$-dimensional current

$$J^A(f,h)=I^A(\widehat{f},\widehat{h})=i(\widehat{f}^{}_1^A\widehat{h}\widehat{h}_1^A\widehat{f}^{})$$
(29)
is conserved

$$_A\sqrt{|}\alpha |J^A=0$$

In order to compute $`J^A`$ we use (28) and write

$$_1^A\widehat{f}^{}=\alpha ^{AB}S^r_Bf^{}+\alpha ^{AB}(_BS^r)f^{}$$
(30)
$$_1^A\widehat{h}=\alpha ^{AB}S^r_Bh+\alpha ^{AB}(_BS^r)h$$
(31)
Inserting into (29) yields

$$iJ^A=S^rf^{}[\alpha ^{AB}S^r_Bh+\alpha ^{AB}(_BS^r)h]S^rh[\alpha ^{AB}S^r_Bf^{}+\alpha ^{AB}(_BS^r)f^{}]$$

After simplification we are left with

$$iJ^A=\widehat{f}^{}S^r_1^Ah\widehat{h}S^r_1^Af^{}$$
(32)
After cancellation of two terms we obtain

$$iJ^A=S^{2r}(f^{}\alpha ^{AB}_Bhh\alpha ^{AB}_Bf^{})$$

Remember that $`2r=\frac{1}{2}q`$. So finally

$$iJ^A=S^{q/2}(f^{}\alpha ^{AB}_Bhh\alpha ^{AB}_Bf^{})$$
(33)
$$J^A=S^{q/2}I^A$$
(34)
Now, under the assumption that (22) and (26) hold true we can assert

###### Proposition 4

If $`p2`$ then the vector fields $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ on $`(V_1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ and $`J`$ on $`(V_1,\alpha )`$ correspond to the same (conserved) vector-density, in other words

$$\sqrt{|\alpha |}J^\alpha =\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|}\stackrel{~}{I}^\alpha $$

Proof

Start from (29), that is

$$iJ^A=\widehat{f}^{}_1^A\widehat{h}\widehat{h}_1^A\widehat{f}^{}$$

use

$$\widehat{f}^{}=S^rf^{},\widehat{h}=S^rh$$

Multiply equation (32) by $`\sqrt{|\alpha |}`$ which is given by (23). Remember (26), hence

$$\frac{pq}{42p}2r=\frac{q}{2p}$$

Thus we find

$$i\sqrt{|\alpha |}J^A=S^{\frac{q}{2p}}(f^{}_1^Ahh_1^Af^{})\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|}$$

At this stage it is convenient to notice that for all scalar function $`u(x^A)`$ we have

$$_1^Au=S^{\frac{q}{p2}}\stackrel{~}{}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}u$$
(35)
Taking this formula into account, we can write

$$i\sqrt{|\alpha |}J^A=(f^{}\stackrel{~}{}_1^Ahh\stackrel{~}{}_1^Af^{})\sqrt{|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|}$$

which proves our assertion, according to (25).

#### 4.2.1 Comparison of both methods

The first method is widely employed in the literature concerning FRW universes, and we also used it in the framework of generalized FRW spacetimes . As we have just checked, the first method and the second one are equivalent when both can be carried out. But the former cannot be carried out when $`p=2`$. So we are forced to consider the latter as more fundamental, since it is not affected by any dimensional exception. In particular it remains the only one available in the important case of a Class $`B`$ four-dimensional spacetime. For a unified approach that encompasses all cases, we are led to a systematic use of the second method.

## 5 Sesquilinear Forms for Type I

In this section we specialize to warped spacetimes of Type I, with $`V_2`$ compact.

The special case $`p=1,q=3`$ concerns generalized FRW spacetimes; it has been treated in  and yields results similar to those of the case $`p>1`$ considered below, where the quantity defined by formula (37) is replaced by $`iW(f^{},h)`$ in terms of the Wronskian. Extension to arbitrary $`q`$ is straightforward.

When $`p>1`$ we assume in addition that $`V_1𝐑\times \mathrm{compact}`$.

If $`L`$ is imbedded in $`(V_1,\alpha )`$ as a $`(p1)`$-dimensional spacelike surface, let $`dL_A`$ be the $`(p1)`$-dimensional surface element, that is

$$dL_A=\frac{1}{(p1)!}\sqrt{|\alpha |}\epsilon _{AB_1\mathrm{}B_{p1}}dx^{B_1}\mathrm{}dx^{B_{p1}}$$
(36)
Conservation of $`J^A`$ with respect to $`(V_1,\alpha )`$ implies that

$$(f;h)_1=_LJ^A(f,h)𝑑L_A$$
(37)
doesnot depend on the choice of $`L`$. This expression defines a sesquilinear form on $`𝒮_n`$.

### 5.1 The Gordon Current

Remember usual formulas for $`N`$-dimensional spacetime, with $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1\mathrm{}N1`$.

The space of arbitrary solutions to the KG equation is endowed with a sesquilinear form

$$(\mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{\Omega })=j^\nu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu $$
(38)
$$j^\nu (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega })=i(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{})$$

Integration is performed over an $`N1`$ dimensional spacelike surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Notation $`d^{N1}x=dx^1dx^2\mathrm{}dx^{N1}`$. Be cautious that $`d^{N1}x`$ should not be confused with $`dx^{N1}`$.

Provided $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is defined by $`x^0=\mathrm{const}.`$ we can write

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\frac{1}{(N1)!}\eta _{01\mathrm{}N1}dx^1\mathrm{}dx^{N1}=\sqrt{|g|}d^{N1}x$$

For the space components we first have

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{1}{(N1)!}\eta _{1\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{N1}}dx_1^\alpha \mathrm{}dx_{N1}^\alpha $$

Here the indices $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{N1}1`$, thus one of them all must be $`0`$ (otherwize they would not be all different, so $`\eta _{1\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{N1}}`$ would vanish). Thus $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ has $`dx^0`$ as a factor, say $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=(\mathrm{}..)dx^0`$. But $`dx^0`$ is zero on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Thus finally $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ vanishes on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. By a similar argument we check that $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, etc $`\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{N1}`$ also vanish on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

In order to integrate over $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ we evaluate the differential form $`jd\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on this surface; we can write

$$jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=j^0d\mathrm{\Sigma }_0$$

$$j^0=i(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}^0\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Phi }^{})$$

Naturally $`^0\mathrm{\Phi }=g^{0\alpha }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$.

So far the formulas of this subsection are general. When we specify to warped spacetimes of Type I, then $`N=p+q`$ and $`V_1`$ is Lorentzian; $`V_2`$ is Riemannian so the label $`k`$ cannot be $`0`$. In coordinates adapted to the warped product structure, we know that $`g^{Ak}`$ all vanish; in particular $`g^{0k}`$ vanishes. We are left with

$$^0\mathrm{\Phi }=g^{0A}_A\mathrm{\Phi }$$

Similarly

$$^0\mathrm{\Omega }=g^{0A}_A\mathrm{\Omega }$$

We thus have

$$jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=i\sqrt{|g|}d^{n1}x(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}g^{0A}_A\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }g^{0A}_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{})$$
(39)
Cf. (2.2) in ref. .

Let us now consider product solutions.

So we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are solutions to (2) in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=f(x^A)F(x^j)\mathrm{\Omega }=h(x^B)H(x^k)$$

but not necessarily on the same mode, say $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n,\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ including the possibility that $`nl`$. We have

$$g^{0A}_A\mathrm{\Omega }=Hg^{0A}_Ah$$

$$g^{0A}_A\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=F^{}g^{0A}_Af^{}$$

Inserting into (39) yields

$$jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=i(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}Hg^{0A}_Ah\mathrm{\Omega }F^{}g^{0A}_Af^{})\sqrt{|g|}d^{n1}x$$

Develop $`\sqrt{|g|}`$ according to (4) where $`S`$ and $`\gamma `$ are positive, so

$$\sqrt{|g|}=\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}\sqrt{\gamma }$$

According to (5) we can write $`d^{N1}x=\omega d_2^qx`$, therefore

$$jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=i(F^{}f^{}Hg^{0A}_AhhHF^{}g^{0A}_Af^{})\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}\sqrt{\gamma }\omega d_2^qx$$

$$jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=i(f^{}g^{0A}_Ahhg^{0A}_Af^{})F^{}H\sqrt{|\alpha |}S^{q/2}\sqrt{\gamma }\omega d_2^qx$$

We now turn to integration.

If $`p=1`$ we can take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{t_0\}\times V_2`$ where $`t_0`$ is a fixed value of the time coordinatr $`x^0`$. This case has been investigated in details in .

If $`p>1`$, let us take

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=L\times V_2$$

where $`LV_1`$ is the submanifold defined by $`x^0=\mathrm{const}`$. Indeed this choice is compatible with the assumption made above that the equation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`V_1\times V_2`$ is just $`x^0=\mathrm{const}`$.

Integrate the above formula; we obtain

$$(\mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{\Omega })=i\left(_{V_2}F^{}H\sqrt{\gamma }d_2^qx\right)_L(f^{}g^{0A}_Ahhg^{0A}_Af^{})S^{q/2}\sqrt{|\alpha |}\omega $$
(40)
$$(\mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{\Omega })=i<F,H>_2_L(f^{}g^{0A}_Ahhg^{0A}_Af^{})S^{q/2}\sqrt{|\alpha |}\omega $$
(41)
where we have factorized out the scalar product in $`(V_2,\gamma )`$

$$<F,H>_2=_{V_2}\sqrt{\gamma }F^{}Hd_2^qx$$
(42)
well-defined and positive for arbitrary couple of functions on $`V_2`$.

When $`F`$ and $`H`$ belong to $`_n`$ and $`_l`$ with $`nl`$ then $`<F,H>_2`$ vanishes. It follows that if two product solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belong to distinct modes, $`(\mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{\Omega })`$ vanishes. Now using (15) and a similar development

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{s=1}{\overset{d(l)}{}}h_sH_s$$

over a basis $`H_1,\mathrm{}`$ of $`_l`$, we easily check that this property holds for any couple of mode solutions, in other words

###### Proposition 5

For Type I under our assumptions, two different modes are orthogonal in the sense of the sesquilinear form defined by the Gordon current.

\[This result extends Proposition 1 of Ref. \]

When $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belong to the same mode we give to (41 a more compact formulation. A look at (33) (34) enables one to write

$$jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=j^0d\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=J^0\sqrt{|\alpha |}\omega (F^{}H\sqrt{\gamma }d_2^qx)$$
(43)
We obtain by integration

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=<F,H>_2_LJ^0\sqrt{|\alpha |}\omega $$

with At this stage it is convenient to remember that $`\omega `$ is given by (5) and to observe that

$$dL_0=\sqrt{|\alpha |}\omega $$

When $`A0`$, if $`B_1\mathrm{}B_{p1}`$ are all $`A`$, one of them must be $`0`$, thus $`dx^0`$ is a factor in $`dL_A`$.

On $`(L)`$, we can write $`dx^0=0`$, thus $`dL_A`$ vanishes for $`A0`$. Thus we have on this manifold $`J^AdL_A=J^0dL_0`$. Hence

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }jd\mathrm{\Sigma }=<F,H>_2_LJ^AdL_A$$

A glance at (37) enables us to state

###### Theorem 1

In Type I warped spacetime, for product solutions, the sesquilinear map defined through the usual Gordon current gets factorized according to the formula

$$(\mathrm{\Phi };\mathrm{\Omega })=(f;h)_1<F,H>_2$$

where $`(f;h)_1`$ is defined by (37).

## 6 Extension to further couplings.

Up to now we have focussed on the minimal coupling of a free particle to gravity. Extending our results to an equation of the form

$$(^2+m^2+a(x))\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(44)
is straightforward provided that the additional term $`a`$ does not depend on the $`x^j`$’s. Otherwize, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ would not commute any more with $`^2+a(x)`$, and the mode decomposition would be impossible.

Assuming that $`a=a(x^A)`$, the differential operator in (44) still commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Equation (12) is replaced by

$$(D+\lambda S^1+m^2+a(x^A))\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$

Any product solution remains a mode. In (17)(18) $`m^2`$ must be replaced by $`m^2+a(x^A)`$ but the variables $`x^j`$ remain ignorable. Since $`a`$ acts on $`f`$ as a multiplicative operator, the status of the first derivatives $`f`$ in equation (18) is not modified; therefore condition (26) still avoid the occurence of them. Moreover formula (27) which determines $`Df`$ in terms of $`\widehat{f}`$ is an identity valid for arbitrary $`f`$. Again we end up with an equation of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\widehat{f}+\mathrm{\Xi }\widehat{f}=0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ now involves the additional term $`a`$. As well-known, this still ensures conservation of $`J^A`$, given without modification by (29). Finally the results of Section 4 remain valid.

These remarks permit to treat the case where the KG equation includes an external potential of the special (and rather artificial) form $`a(x^A)`$. It is more interesting to notice that our study could remain valid for curvature coupling, characterized by the addition to equation (2) of a curvature term $`\xi R_\alpha ^\alpha `$ where $`\xi `$ is a constant 222For dimensional reasons, $`\xi `$ necessarily vanishes in the limit where $`\mathrm{}0`$, thus curvature coupling cannot affect the geodesic motion, and $`R_\alpha ^\alpha `$ is the scalar curvature of $`(V,g)`$. But the condition which legitimates this extension is that the scalar curvature of spacetime depends only on the $`x^A`$’s.

We are thus led to investigate what kind of warped spacetime supports a scalar curvature of the form $`R(x^A)`$.

The following lemma will be useful.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`u(x^A)`$ be a function on $`V`$ satisfying $`_ju=0`$. Then the following quantities

$$^A_Bu,^Au,^A_Au$$

are independent from the coordinates $`x^k`$.

Proof:

$`_A_Bu=_A_Bu\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A}^{\mu }{}_{B}{}^{}_\mu u`$. The first term is obviously independent from $`x^k`$’s. Since $`_ju`$ is zero, only the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A}^{C}{}_{B}{}^{}`$ give a contribution to the second term. But it is known that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A}^{C}{}_{B}{}^{}=^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A}^{C}{}_{B}{}^{}`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the connexion for $`(V_1,\alpha )`$ (see ; in 4 dimensions see formula (26) in . Thus the second term has the same property.

The statement about $`^Au`$ is obvious, if we remember that $`g^{AB}=\alpha ^{AB},g^{A0}=0`$.

Finally, we have $`^A_Au=\alpha ^{AB}_B_Au`$ which is independent of $`x^k`$ because of the first statement.

The Ricci tensor of a warped product can be expressed in terms of the warping function and of the geometry of the factor manifolds (See O’Neill , especially corollary 43, p. 211. When $`p+q=4`$, see Carot and da Costa , eqs (25), for a more transparent notation).

We are concerned with

$$R=\alpha ^{AB}R_{AB}S^1\gamma ^{ij}R_{ij}$$
(45)
In the first term, we know that $`R_{AB}`$ differs from $`{}_{}{}^{1}R_{AB}^{}`$ only by a function of $`e^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`_B_A(e^\mathrm{\Theta })`$, which cannot depend on $`x^C`$ according to the previous result. Therefore $`R_{AB}`$ doesnot depend on the $`x^k`$’s

$$_jR_{AB}=0$$

This result, in turn, entails that $`R`$ might depend on these variables only through the quantity $`\gamma ^{ij}R_{ij}`$.

According to the literature cited, $`R_{ij}`$ takes on the form

$$R_{ij}=^2R_{ij}+N\gamma _{ij}$$

where $`N`$ is a function of $`\mathrm{\Theta },^A\mathrm{\Theta },_A\mathrm{\Theta }`$and $`^A_A\mathrm{\Theta }`$. By the above lemma, we see that

$$_jN=0$$

By contraction we obtain

$$\gamma ^{ij}R_{ij}=\gamma ^{ij}{}_{}{}^{2}R_{ij}^{}+qN$$

It is now clear that $`\gamma ^{ij}R_{ij}`$, and therefore equally $`R`$, depends on the $`x^k`$’s except when $`{}_{}{}^{2}R`$ is a constant; thus

###### Theorem 2

(Only) if $`(V_2,\gamma )`$ has constant scalar curvature $`\gamma ^{ij}{}_{}{}^{2}R_{ij}^{}`$, the scalar curvature $`R`$ of the warped product can be regarded as a function on $`V_1`$.

An well-known instance of this situation is the case of conventional FRW spacetime, where the space sections are homogeneous.

## 7 Concluding remarks

We have separated the variables in the KG equation with help of a generalized mode decomposition which is possible essentially because the motion of a test particle in a warped product spacetime admits a remarkable first integral.

At least for Type I, these modes are actually ”normal” , that is orthogonal, in the sense of the usual sesquilinear form associated with the Gordon current. This form itself has been analysed in terms of the vector field $`J`$ defined on the Lorentzian factor manifold and, under very large assumptions, a sesquilinear form has been defined on the solutions to the reduced wave equation.

Type I is perhaps physically the most interesting; in 4 dimensions it encompasses not only generalized FRW spacetimes, but also all kind of spherically symmetric spacetime, including the nonstationary ones. However further investigations of Type II might be of interest.

It is noteworthy that the whole picture remains valid in the presence of a curvature coupling term $`\xi R_\alpha ^\alpha `$ only under the condition that $`(V_2,\gamma )`$ has a constant scalar curvature. For FRW, abandoning spatial homogenity would not permit to carry out our mode decomposition when a curvature coupling term is introduced into the KG equation. In contrast, the mode decomposition remains possible with such a term for all kind of spherically symmetric spacetime.