format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

First excited state calculation using different phonon bases for the two-site Holstein model

Jayita Chatterjee***Electronic Address: moon@cmp.saha.ernet.in and A. N. DasElectronic Address: atin@cmp.saha.ernet.in

Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics
1/AF Bidhannagar, Calcutta 700064, India

PACS No.71.38. +i, 63.20.kr

Abstract

The single-electron energy and static charge-lattice deformation correlations have been calculated for the first excited state of a two-site Holstein model within perturbative expansions using different standard phonon bases obtained through Lang-Firsov (LF) transformation, LF with squeezed phonon states, modified LF, modified LF transformation with squeezed phonon states, and also within weak-coupling perturbation approach. Comparisons of the convergence of the perturbative expansions for different phonon bases reveal that modified LF approach works much better than other approaches for major range of the coupling strength.

I. INTRODUCTION

The simplest model to study the nature and properties of polarons as a function of electron-phonon ($`e`$-ph) interaction is the Holstein model  which consists of tight binding electrons coupled through a site diagonal interaction term to dispersionless phonons. The ground state properties of this model has been extensively studied during recent years. In the antiadiabatic limit the confinement of the lattice deformation around the charge carrier for large $`e`$-ph interaction gives rise to small polarons whose nature and dynamics is generally studied using the Lang-Firsov (LF) method based on the canonical LF transformation . For weak and intermediate $`e`$-ph coupling the LF method is not appropriate. For that region the importance and superiority of the modified LF (MLF) and the MLF with squeezed transformation (MLFS) over the LF method have been pointed out in previous works . The results of exact diagonalization studies  of a two-site Holstein model indicate the failure of the standard (zero phonon averaging) classical LF approach even in the strong coupling antiadiabatic limit and the authors of Ref.  asserted that perturbation approach within the LF scheme is not meaningful. Marsiglio  studied the Holstein model in one dimension with one-electron up to 16 site lattices using numerical diagonalization technique and concluded that neither the Migdal approximation  nor the usual small-polaron approximation is in quantitative agreement with the exact results for intermediate coupling strength. So at present the Holstein model cannot be described by any single conventional analytical method for the entire range of the coupling strength either in the adiabatic or in antiadiabatic limit. In a recent work  we addressed this problem and considering a two-site system we developed a perturbation expansion using MLF phonon basis and the results obtained thereby are in good agreement with the exact numerical results for the entire range of the coupling strength for an intermediate value of hopping ($`t\omega _0`$). Subsequently, we presented a detailed comparison for the convergence of perturbation corrections to the ground state energy and wave function for the same system  using different phonon bases obtained through the LF, modified LF (MLF) and modified LF with squeezing transformations (MLFS). The results showed that for weak and intermediate coupling the pertubation corrections within the MLF and MLFS methods are much smaller and the convergence of the perturbation expansion is much better compared to the LF method. For strong coupling all the methods become equivalent and a good convergence in the perturbation expansion for the ground state is achieved. In this paper we have studied the convergence of the perturbation expansion for the energy and the correlation function for the first excited state of a two-site single electron system using different phonon bases obtained through the LF, MLF, MLFS, LF with squeezing (LFS) transformations, and also within weak-coupling expansion.

In Sec. II we define the model Hamiltonian, describe different variational phonon bases states that we have considered and present the expressions for the energy, wave function and static correlation functions calculated within the perturbation method for the first excited state. In Sec. III we present the results obtained by different methods and discuss about the convergence of the perturbation series, hence the applicability of the methods in different regions of the $`e`$-ph coupling strength for different hopping parameters and conclusions.

II. FORMALISM

The two-site single-polaron Holstein Hamiltonian is

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}ϵn_{i\sigma }{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}t(c_{1\sigma }^{}c_{2\sigma }+c_{2\sigma }^{}c_{1\sigma })+g\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma }(b_i+b_i^{})+\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i^{}b_i,`$ (1)
where $`i`$ =1 or 2, denotes the site. $`c_{i\sigma }`$ ($`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$) is the annihilation (creation) operator for the electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$, and $`n_{i\sigma }`$ (=$`c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$) is the corresponding number operator. $`g`$ denotes the on-site $`e`$-ph coupling strength, $`t`$ is the usual hopping integral. $`b_i`$ and $`b_i^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators, respectively, for phonons corresponding to interatomic vibrations at site $`i`$, and $`\omega _0`$ is the phonon frequency. For the one-electron case spin index is redundant here, hence omitted in the following.

The Hamiltonian (1) can be divided into two independent parts: one part describing symmetric in-phase vibrations coupled to the total number of electrons and the other asymmetric out of phase vibrations coupled to the electronic degrees of freedom. The first part describes just a shifted harmonic oscillator while the solution of the second part is a nontrivial problem . The Hamiltonian for the second part is given by

$`H_d={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ϵn_it(c_1^{}c_2+c_2^{}c_1)+\omega _0g_+(n_1n_2)(d+d^{})+\omega _0d^{}d,`$ (2)
where $`g_+=g/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`d=(b_1b_2)/\sqrt{2}`$.

For a perturbation method it is desirable to use a basis where the major part of the Hamiltonian becomes diagonal. The phonon bases chosen in the MLF or MLFS approach consist of variational displacement oscillators and can produce retardation effect even in the zeroth order of perturbation  unlike the LF approach, hence these bases are better choices for perturbative calculation when the coupling strength is not very strong. We now use the MLF transformation where the lattice deformations produced by the electron are treated as variational parameters . For the present system,

$$\stackrel{~}{H_d}=e^RH_de^R,$$
(3)
where $`R=\lambda (n_1n_2)(d^{}d)`$, and $`\lambda `$ is a variational parameter related to the displacement of the $`d`$ oscillator. The transformed Hamiltonian is then obtained as

$`\stackrel{~}{H_d}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0d^{}d+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ϵ_pn_it[c_1^{}c_2\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda (d^{}d))`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`c_2^{}c_1\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda (d^{}d))]+\omega _0(g_+\lambda )(n_1n_2)(d+d^{}),`$ (5)
where $`ϵ_p=ϵ\omega _0(2g_+\lambda )\lambda `$.

Now we will make a squeezing transformation  to Hamiltonian (4)

$`\stackrel{~}{H_{sd}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^S\stackrel{~}{H_d}e^S`$ (6)
where $`S=\alpha (d_id_id_i^{}d_i^{})`$. This new phonon basis is squeezed with respect to the previous basis. The transformed Hamiltonian (5) takes the form

$`\stackrel{~}{H_{sd}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0d^{}d[\mathrm{cosh}^2(2\alpha )+\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\alpha )]+\omega _0\mathrm{cosh}(2\alpha )\mathrm{sinh}(2\alpha )(dd+d^{}d^{})`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ϵ_pn_it[c_1^{}c_2\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda _e(d^{}d))+c_2^{}c_1\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda _e(d^{}d))]`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\omega _0(g_+\lambda )(n_1n_2)(d+d^{})\mathrm{exp}(2\alpha )+\omega _0\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\alpha )`$ (9)
where $`\lambda _e=\lambda e^{2\alpha }`$. For the single polaron problem we choose the basis set

$$|\pm ,N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_1^{}\pm c_2^{})|0_e|N$$
(10)
where $`|+`$ and $`|`$ are the bonding and antibonding electronic states and $`|N`$ denotes the $`N`$th excited oscillator state in the MLFS, MLF, LFS or LF bases depending on the method considered. It may be noted that the MLFS basis turns into the MLF basis when $`\alpha =0`$, and into the LFS basis if $`\lambda =g_+`$. The MLF basis turns into the LF basis when $`\lambda =g_+`$, and it turns into the weak coupling expansion for $`\lambda =0`$. We consider the diagonal part of Hamiltonian (6) as the unperturbed Hamiltonian ($`H_0`$) and the remaining part of the Hamiltonian, $`H_1=\stackrel{~}{H_{sd}}H_0`$, as a perturbation . The unperturbed energy of the state $`|\pm ,N`$ is given by

$`E_{\pm ,N}^{(0)}=N,\pm |H_0|\pm ,N=\omega _0[\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\alpha )+N(\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\alpha )+\mathrm{cosh}^2(2\alpha ))]`$ (11)
$`+ϵ_pt_e[{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{(2\lambda _e)^{2i}}{i!}}(1)^iN_{C_i}]`$ (12)
where $`t_e=t\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda _e^2)`$. The general off-diagonal matrix elements of $`H_1`$ are given in Refs. . As noted in our previous work  the unperturbed first excited state wave function should be built up as a linear combination of $`|+,1`$ and $`|,0`$. The unperturbed energies of the states $`|+,1`$ and $`|,0`$ are ($`ϵ_p+\omega _0t_e(14\lambda ^2)`$ $`+3\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\alpha ))`$ and ($`ϵ_p+t_e+\omega _0\mathrm{sinh}^2(2\alpha )`$), respectively within the MLFS approach, and the off-diagonal matrix element between these two states is ($`2\lambda _et_e+\omega _0(g_+\lambda )e^{2\alpha }`$). The unperturbed energies of these two states cross at an intermediate value of $`g_+`$ for $`2t>\omega _0`$. So, following degenarate perturbation theory linear combinations of the states $`|+,1`$ and $`|,0`$ are formed to obtain two new elements of basis states so that $`\stackrel{~}{H_{sd}}`$ becomes diagonal in the sub-space spanned by these two states. The unperturbed first excited state is given by

$`|\psi _1^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(a^2+b^2)}}}\left[a|,0+b|+,1\right]`$ (13)
The ratio ($`c`$) of the coefficients $`b`$ to $`a`$ and the unperturbed energy ($`\alpha `$) of the first excited state may be found out from the relation

$`c={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha H_{11}}{H_{12}}}={\displaystyle \frac{H_{12}}{\alpha H_{22}}}`$ (14)
where $`H_{11}`$, $`H_{22}`$, $`H_{12}`$ are the matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{H_d}`$ in the subspace of $`|,0`$ and $`|+,1`$. Eq.(10) gives two roots of $`\alpha `$, the lower value of $`\alpha `$ (say, $`\alpha _1`$) corresponds to the first excited state.

Our chosen phonon basis within the MLFS method have two variational parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$, proper choices of them will make the perturbative expansion convergent. In our previous works  we find that the minimization of the unperturbed ground state energy of the system yields phonon bases (within the MLF and MLFS) for which the perturbative expansion for the ground state shows satisfactory convergence. The corresponding values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$ are given by $`\lambda =\frac{\omega _0g_+}{\omega _0+2t_ee^{4\alpha }}`$ and $`\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sinh}^1[2\lambda (g_+\lambda )]`$. For the study of the first excited state we will use the same basis as we have used for the ground state. The first-order correction to the first excited state wave function is obtained as,

$`|\psi _1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+c^2}}}[{\displaystyle \underset{N=2,4,..}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_e}{(\alpha _1E_{,N}^{(0)})}}|,N`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=3,5..}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_o}{(\alpha _1E_{+,N}^{(0)})}}|+,N]`$ (16)
where $`W_e=W+\sqrt{N}\omega _0c(g_+\lambda )e^{2\alpha }\delta _{N,2}`$ \+ $`\sqrt{N(N1)}\frac{\omega _0}{2}\mathrm{sinh}(4\alpha )\delta _{N,2}`$,
$`W_o=W+\sqrt{N}\omega _0(g_+\lambda )e^{2\alpha }\delta _{N,1}`$ \+ $`\sqrt{N(N1)}\frac{\omega _0}{2}c\mathrm{sinh}(4\alpha )\delta _{N,3}`$,
and $`W=t_e\frac{(2\lambda _e)^N}{\sqrt{N!}}(1+2\lambda _ec\frac{cN}{2\lambda _e})`$.

Second-order correction to the first excited state energy is given by,

$`E_1^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+c^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{N=2,4,..}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|W_e|^2}{(\alpha _1E_{,N}^{(0)})}}+{\displaystyle \underset{N=3,5..}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|W_o|^2}{(\alpha _1E_{+,N}^{(0)})}}\right]`$ (17)
Using our previous prescription  successive higher order corrections to the wave function ($`|\psi _1^{(N)}`$) as well as to the energy ($`E_1^{(N)}`$) are calculated.

The static correlation functions $`n_1u_1_0`$ and $`n_1u_2_0`$, where $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are the lattice deformations at sites 1 and 2, respectively, produced by an electron at site 1, are the standard measure of polaronic character, and indicate the strength of polaron induced lattice deformations and their spread. The operators involving the correlation functions may be written as

$$n_1u_{1,2}=\frac{n_1}{2}[(a+a^{})\pm (d+d^{})e^{2\alpha }2(ng_+\pm \lambda (n_1n_2))]$$
(18)
The final form of the correlation functions are obtained as

$`n_1u_1_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(g_++\lambda )+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1e^{2\alpha }}{N_{G1}}}\right],`$ (19)
$`n_1u_2_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(g_+\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{A_1e^{2\alpha }}{N_{G1}}}\right],`$ (20)
where $`N_{G1}=\psi _1|\psi _1`$, $`A_1=\psi _1|n_1(d+d^{})|\psi _1`$ and $`|\psi _1`$ is the perturbed wave function of the first excited state.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The perturbation corrections to the energy and wave function of the first excited state are estimated up to the sixth and fifth-orders, respectively, within the LF, LFS, MLF, MLFS methods, and weak- coupling perturbative method considering 25 phonon states (which is sufficient for $`g_+2.2`$) in the transformed phonon basis.

In Fig. 1 the perturbation corrections to the energy of the first excited state are plotted as a function of $`g_+`$ for $`t/\omega _0=1.1`$. The perturbation corrections in energy are smaller within the MLF and MLFS than the LFS and LF methods. For the LF, LFS, and MLFS methods the convergence of the corrections is weaker in a range of $`g_+`$ where third and fourth or fifth and sixth-order corrections are comparable. Within MLF approach energy perturbation corrections show satisfactory convergence in the entire region of $`g_+`$ and the energy of the first excited state, when computed considering up to the fifth or sixth-order corrections, becomes identical with the exact result of Ref. .

The shape of the correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ is much more sensitive to the corrections to the wave function than $`n_1u_1_0`$ which indicates that convergence of $`n_1u_2_0`$ is a clear signature for convergence of the wave function. In Fig. 2 we plot the correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ obtained by considering up to the different orders of perturbation corrections to the wave function against $`g_+`$. The LF method shows a bad convergence for low values of $`g_+`$, while a good convergence beyond $`g_+=1.0`$. The convergence within the LFS method is not satisfactory over a wide region of $`g_+`$. The MLF method shows very good convergence for low values of $`g_+`$ ($`1.0`$) as well as for high values of $`g_+`$ ($`1.3`$). Convergence within the MLFS is excellent for low values of $`g_+`$ , but then for a wide region of intermediate values of $`g_+`$ the convergence is not satisfactory. When compared with exact results of $`n_1u_2_0`$ (taken from the Ref.), it is found that the MLF results up to the fifth order perturbation are identical with the exact results except in the region $`0.9<g_+<1.3`$ where a slight departure in values from the exact results is seen.

In Fig. 3 we plot the perturbation corrections of different orders to the first excited state energy and the the correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ evaluated by considering up to different orders of perturbation corrections to the wave function against $`g_+`$ within the weak-coupling perturbative expansion for $`t/\omega _0=1.1`$. The odd order corrections to the energy within the weak-coupling expansion are zero. The energy corrections of any (even) order increases monotonically with $`g_+`$, since the entire $`e`$-ph interaction is treated as a perturbation within the weak-coupling scheme. The correlation function within the weak-coupling perturbation procedure shows good convergence for low values of $`g_+`$, as expected. However even in this region, convergence within the MLF and MLFS methods is found to be slightly better than that obtained within the weak-coupling scheme.

In Fig. 4 we show the energy corrections and correlation function, calculated by considering different order of corrections, within the MLF method for $`t/\omega _0=0.6`$. The figure shows that the perturbation corrections of successive orders are really very small and shows perfect convergence for the entire region of $`g_+`$. The correlation function calculated considering up to second order correction to the wave function would reproduce almost the exact result in this limit. For lower values of $`t`$ obviously the convergence within the MLF scheme would be much better. We have also studied the perturbation corrections to the energy and the correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ for the first excited state in the adiabatic region of hopping ($`t/\omega _0=2.1`$) within MLF approach and found that energy convergence is quite good for the entire range of $`g_+`$ whereas convergence of corrections to the wave function is fairly well except for intermediate range of coupling.

In conclusion, our study on the first excited state of a two-site single electron Holstein model shows that the perturbation method based on the MLF variational phonon basis is better than the other methods (LF, LFS, MLFS) if the entire range of $`g_+`$ is considered. The MLF method could yield exact results for the entire range of $`g_+`$ in the antiadiabatic cases ($`t/\omega _00.6`$) and for a major region of $`g_+`$ (covering both low and high values of $`g_+`$) for intermediate hopping ($`t/\omega _0=1.1`$). For small values of $`g_+`$ both the MLFS and MLF methods show excellent convergence, convergence is found to be even better than that within the weak-coupling perturbation method. Our previous study on the ground state and the present study on the first excited state thus establish that the perturbation method based on the MLF phonon basis could satisfactorily describe the ground state as well as the first excited state of the two-site system for major region of the $`e`$-ph coupling strength.

Figure captions :

FIG. 1. Variation of the perturbation corrections $`E_1^{(n)}`$ to the first excited state energy as a function of the coupling strength ($`g_+`$) for $`t/\omega _0=1.1`$ in (a) LF, (b) LFS, (c) MLF, and (d) MLFS methods. $`E_1^{(n)}`$ is the $`n`$th order perturbation correction to the first excited state energy.

FIG. 2. Plot of the correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ calculated up to different order of perturbations in the wave function vs $`g_+`$ for $`t/\omega _0=1.1`$ within different methods (a) LF, (b) LFS, (c) MLF, and (d) MLFS. The labels (2), (3), …. denote the curves obtained by considering up to the second-order, third-order, …. corrections to the wave function, respectively.

FIG. 3 Convergence within weak-coupling expansion for $`t/\omega _0=1.1`$ : (a) the perturbation corrections to the first excited state energy and (b) correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ calculated up to different order of perturbations in the wave function, as a function of $`g_+`$.

FIG. 4 Convergence within MLF approach for $`t/\omega _0=0.6`$ : (a) the perturbation corrections to the first excited state energy and (b) correlation function $`n_1u_2_0`$ calculated up to different order of perturbations in the wave function, as a function of $`g_+`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Theories with extra dimensions where our four-dimensional world is a hypersurface (three-brane) embedded in a higher-dimensional spacetime and at which gravity is localised have been the subject of intense scrutiny since the work of Randall and Sundrum . The main motivation for such models comes from string theory where they are reminiscent of the Hořava-Witten solution  for the field theory limit of the strongly-coupled $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string. The Randall–Sundrum (RS) scenario may be modelled  and  by coupling gravity to a scalar field and mapping to an equivalent supersymmetric quantum mechanics problem. A static metric is obtained with a warp factor determined by the superpotential. A generalisation to non-static metrics was considered by Binétruy, Deffayet and Langlois who modelled brane matter as a perfect fluid delta-function source in the five-dimensional Einstein equations . However, this resulted in non-standard cosmology in that the square of the Hubble constant on the brane was not proportional to the density of the fluid. Other cosmological aspects of “brane-worlds” have been considered in .
In this letter we investigate cosmological solutions of five-dimensional gravity coupled to a scalar field sigma-model. In much of the current literature it is assumed that such scalars depend only on the fifth dimension and that the target space metric is of Euclidean signature. By contrast, we consider a non-compact sigma-model and allow the scalars to depend on time as well as the fifth dimension, which we take to be infinite in extent. We also include a perfect fluid with energy-momentum tensor $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu =\text{diag }(\rho ,p,p,p,P)`$ and equations of state $`P=\omega \rho ,p=\stackrel{~}{\omega }\rho `$. A family of warp factors that includes both the original RS solution and the self-tuning solution of Kachru, Schulz and Silverstein  is found. The fifth radius is time-dependent. We find that the fluid exists provided $`\omega =\stackrel{~}{\omega }=1`$. Conventional cosmology is also obtained.
It may appear somewhat unnatural to have an indefinite target space metric since some of the scalars then have “wrongly-signed” kinetic terms. However, such scalars have been considered before in the literature. Within the context of $`d+1`$ gravity they are descended from vector fields after dimensional reduction along a timelike direction of a higher dimensional “two-time” theory  and , whilst in $`d+0`$ dimensions they are interpreted as axions after dualisation of a ($`d`$1)-form field strength ,  and . Thus, our paper should be interpreted in the light of these works.

## 2 The Model

We shall present our calculations in $`(4+1)`$-dimensional spacetime and only quote analogous results for the $`5+0`$ case. The action for gravity coupled to two scalars is:

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r(_{MATTER}^{\left(5\right)}+_{GRAVITY}^{\left(5\right)})},`$ (1)
where:

$`_{MATTER}^{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{g^{\left(5\right)}}^\mu \varphi _i^\nu \varphi _jG^{ij}(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(5\right)}\sqrt{g^{\left(5\right)}}U(\varphi )\sqrt{g^{\left(4\right)}}V(\varphi )\delta (r),`$
$`_{GRAVITY}^{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\sqrt{g^{\left(5\right)}}R.`$ (2)
Here, $`g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(4\right)}`$ is the pull-back of the five-dimensional metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(5\right)}`$ to the (thin) domain wall taken to be at $`r=0`$. The wall is represented by a delta function source with coefficient $`V(\varphi )`$ parametrising its tension. We take $`G_{ij}=\text{diag }(1,1)`$. The “correctly-signed” scalar, $`\varphi ^1`$, may be interpreted as the dilaton and the “wrongly-signed” scalar, $`\varphi ^2`$, as an axion. (It is possible to consider a non-trivial coupling between the two — for example, $`G_{ij}=\text{diag }(1,e^{\sigma \varphi ^1})`$ is discussed in .)
We assume a separable metric with flat spatial three-sections on the wall:

$`ds^2=e^{A(r)}dt^2+e^{A(r)}g(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)+f(t)dr^2.`$ (3)
This is a natural generalisation of the 4$`d`$ flat Robertson-Walker metric to a RS context.
Given the above ansatz, it is not unreasonable to assume scalars of the form

$`\varphi ^i(t,r)=a^i\psi (t)+b^i\chi (r).`$ (4)
Since $`\varphi ^i`$ can be considered as coordinates on the target spacetime we must require them to be linearly independent. This imposes the condition

$`\text{det }\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^1& b^1\\ a^2& b^2\end{array}\right)0.`$ (5)
The Schwarz inequality $`\frac{(aa)(bb)}{(ab)^2}<1`$ follows as a corollary.
We also make the ansatz that both the potentials $`U`$ and $`V`$ are of Liouville type (see, for instance, ):

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V_0e^{\alpha _i\varphi ^i},`$
$`U(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`U_0e^{\beta _i\varphi ^i}.`$ (6)
The energy–momentum tensor for the scalar fields is:

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(0\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^i_\nu \varphi ^jG_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha \varphi ^i_\beta \varphi ^jG_{ij}g^{\alpha \beta }+U(\varphi )\right)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g^{\left(4\right)}}}{\sqrt{g^{\left(5\right)}}}}V(\varphi )\delta (r)g_{ab}^{\left(4\right)}\delta _\mu ^a\delta _\nu ^b.`$
We introduce a perfect fluid via its energy–momentum tensor:

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu =\text{diag }(\rho ,p,p,p,P)`$ (8)
with $`\rho `$ the density and $`p`$ and $`P`$ the pressures in the $`x,y,z`$ and fifth dimensions respectively. The preferred coordinate system (3) is taken as the rest frame of the fluid.
Einstein’s equations $`G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2(T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(0\right)}+\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu })`$ reduce to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{g}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}aa\dot{\psi }^2\kappa ^2e^A(\rho +p)=0,`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4}}aa\dot{\psi }^2\kappa ^2e^A\rho =0,`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(A^2A^{\prime \prime })+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4}}bb\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}fU+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}f^{1/2}V\delta (r)=0,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{g}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4}}aa\dot{\psi }^2+\kappa ^2e^AP=0,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4}}bb\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}fU=0,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}+\kappa ^2ab\dot{\psi }\chi ^{}=0.`$ (14)
In the above equations we have assumed separability. This requires that the density and pressures are each of the form $`e^{A(r)}`$ times a function of $`t`$. We are interested in solutions with $`\dot{f}0`$. This requires $`ab0`$, as can be deduced from (14).
The equations of motion for the scalar fields

$`^2\varphi ^jG_{jk}{\displaystyle \frac{U(\varphi )}{\varphi ^k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g^{\left(4\right)}}}{\sqrt{g^{\left(5\right)}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi ^k}}\delta (r)=0`$ (15)
result in the following bulk equations

$`_t^{}(f^{1/2}g^{3/2}\dot{\psi })`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
$`b_i(2A^{}\chi ^{}\chi ^{\prime \prime })+f\beta _iU_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
and the jump condition:

$`\underset{ϵ0^+}{lim}\left[b_i\left(\chi ^{}(ϵ)\chi ^{}(ϵ)\right)\right]=\alpha _if^{1/2}V(\varphi (t,0)).`$ (18)
## 3 The Solutions

Equation (14) implies that we can make the following choice:

$`\kappa \chi ^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}A^{}(r),`$ (19)
$`\kappa \dot{\psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ab}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}(t)}{f(t)}}.`$ (20)
The Warp Factor Inserting (19) into (13) gives $`U(\varphi )`$ as:

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}A^2(1bb).`$ (21)
We can express the domain wall potential $`V(\varphi )\delta (r)`$ as $`V(\varphi )\delta (r)=V_0f(t)^{1/2}\delta (r)`$. Equation (11) can then be rewritten in the form

$`A^{\prime \prime }2bbA^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}V_0\delta (r)=0,`$ (22)
yielding the following options for $`A(r)`$ and $`V_0`$: 1. If $`bb=0`$, we find $`A(r)=2\sigma k|r|`$, where $`\sigma =\pm 1`$. Then $`V_0=12\sigma k\kappa ^2`$. $`\sigma =1`$ is the RS1 solution and $`\sigma =+1`$ is the RS2 solution, as described in . 2. If $`bb0`$, we find $`A(r)=\xi \mathrm{ln}(k|r|+1)`$ where $`\xi =\frac{1}{2bb}`$ and $`V_0=\frac{3k\kappa ^2}{bb}.`$ If $`bb`$ and $`k`$ are both positive, then this represents the self-tuning solution of Kachru, Schulz and Silverstein . As observed in  and , if $`k<0`$ there are naked singularities at $`|r|=1/k`$ whose interpretation is currently of some debate . The above forms for $`U`$ and $`V`$ are consistent with (2) if $`\alpha _i=\frac{\beta _i}{2}=\frac{2\kappa b_i}{\sqrt{6}}`$ and $`U_0=\frac{3}{\kappa ^2}A^2(0)(1bb)`$. It can now be verified that (17) is equivalent to (22) in the bulk, whilst (18) yields no further information.

The Cosmology The equation of motion (16) implies that

$`\dot{\psi }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}f(t)^{1/2}g(t)^{3/2}.`$ (23)
This assumes $`f`$ is not constant, otherwise (16) is trivially satisfied due to (20). We find that $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ are related via the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}(t)}{f(t)^{1/2}}}=\mu g(t)^{3/2},`$ (24)
where $`\mu =\frac{4ab}{\sqrt{6}}.`$
Adding equations (10) and (12) gives:

$`\dot{g}^2+2g\ddot{g}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}\dot{g}g+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\kappa ^2g^2e^A(P\rho )=0.`$ (25)
On the otherhand, using (10) and (16) in (9) we obtain:

$`\dot{g}^2+2g\ddot{g}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}\dot{g}g+2\kappa ^2g^2e^A(p\rho )=0.`$ (26)
Consequently, the relation

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P,`$ (27)
may be deduced.
We now assume the equation of state $`P=\omega \rho `$ or, equivalently, $`p=\frac{1}{3}(1+2\omega )\rho \stackrel{~}{\omega }\rho `$. From (10) and (20), the density $`\rho `$ is given by

$`\rho (t,r)={\displaystyle \frac{3e^A}{4\kappa ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{aa}{8(ab)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}),`$ (28)
so that (25) may be alternatively expressed as:

$`\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{g}}{g}}+\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}+(1\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{aa}{8(ab)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}=0.`$ (29)
Taken together with (24), equation (29) defines the cosmology.
We seek either power law, $`ft^q`$, or exponential (inflationary), $`fe^{\gamma t}`$, solutions of (29). The corresponding solutions for $`g(t)`$ are $`gt^{(2q)/3}`$ and $`ge^{\gamma t/3}`$ respectively. The exponents $`q`$ and $`\gamma `$ are non-zero but otherwise arbitrary.
There are two cases to consider: $`\omega =1\text{ and }\omega 1`$. (A) $`\omega =1`$
From (28), it follows that in the exponential case the density is positive provided $`\frac{aa}{(ab)^2}<\frac{16}{9}`$ (independently of $`\gamma `$). On the otherhand, the density is positive in the power law case provided $`\frac{aa}{(ab)^2}<h(q)\frac{16}{9}\frac{(2q)(1+q)}{q^2}`$. As shown in the figure below,

the minimum of $`h(q)`$ is $`2`$ so we can achieve positive density for all $`\gamma `$ and $`q`$ if we choose $`\frac{aa}{(ab)^2}<2`$111This choice is consistent with the Schwarz inequality provided $`bb>\frac{1}{2}`$. If $`bb\frac{1}{2}`$, positive density is achieved only for a limited range of $`q`$.. Defining the scale factor and Hubble constant as per usual by $`a^2(t)=g(t)`$ and $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, it is easy to see that we obtain conventional cosmology, $`H^2\rho `$, for both the power law and exponential cases. (B) $`\omega 1`$
Solution of (29) leads to the above inequalities for $`\frac{aa}{(ab)^2}`$ becoming strict equalities which, in turn, leads to the vanishing of the density. Hence, the fluid only exists if $`\omega =1`$.

The Euclidean Case The only essential difference between the 5+0 case and the 4+1 case considered above is that $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu `$ flips sign. This changes the sign of $`\rho `$ in (28) so that the density is positive if $`\frac{aa}{(ab)^2}>2`$. Similar considerations (see previous footnote) apply as to the range of $`q`$.

## 4 Discussion

We note in passing that the scalar field equations of motion, (15), imply that $`^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(0\right)}=0`$ (and conversely off the brane only). This, in turn, implies that the fluid equation of motion $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu =0`$ is automatically satisfied. In this sense, the same results in the bulk can be obtained from Einstein’s equations and $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu =0`$.
It may seem a bit unusual to consider a non-static fifth radius (some authors  give arguments against rolling dilatons). We would like to present an intuitive argument in favour of our choice. Consider a five-dimensional spacetime with Robertson–Walker metric:

$`ds^2=dt^2+g(t)\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2+dR^2\right).`$ (30)
The $`(x,y,z,R)`$-space is isotropic. Change coordinates via

$`dr=e^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)}dR`$ (31)
and perform a conformal transformation of the metric:

$`ds^2e^{A(r)}ds^2.`$ (32)
Then the metric becomes:

$`ds^2=e^{A(r)}dt^2+e^{A(r)}g(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)+g(t)dr^2`$ (33)
The warp factor of the conformal transformation violates the symmetry between the four spatial coordinates. Zel’dovich  gives arguments that any universe will become isotropic with time and non-isotropic expansion causes particle creation. To avoid particle creation in the bulk one could restore isotropy by “untwisting” the fifth dimension with another warp factor, i.e., replacing $`g(t)`$ by another function of time, $`f(t)`$, such that the four spatial dimensions are still isotropic.
Within our model we can still have scalar fields depending on brane coordinates if we require a static fifth radius. In this case we need to introduce viscosity into the fluid by making $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\nu ^\mu `$ non-diagonal222We are grateful to Brian Dolan for discussions on this point.. The sum of the energy-momentum tensors of the scalar fields and the fluid should then amount to a purely diagonal tensor.
From our initial separability assumptions and from equation (28) it is clear that if the warp factor decreases with $`r`$ then the density grows without limit as we go off the brane and the fluid is smoothly distributed over the entire extra dimension.
Considering a thick brane (in Lorentzian or Riemannian signature) within our model is straightforward. Thickening the brane requires only smearing the delta function in the domain wall potential by expressing it as a limit of some delta-sequence, for example, $`\delta _\nu (r)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\nu }{1+\nu ^2r^2}`$ , where $`\frac{1}{\nu }`$ parametrises the brane thickness.
From (9) – (14) it is evident that under the transformation $`ff`$ the potentials $`U`$ and $`V`$ change sign but otherwise the analysis is unmodified. Thus one can make the fifth dimension timelike rather than spacelike. Such a possibility was alluded to in  and .
Finally, it would be interesting to see if our model(s) can be embedded in five-dimensional Lorentzian or Euclidean supergravity, as has recently been done for the minimal Randall–Sundrum model in 4+1 dimensions , .

## Acknowledgements

We are sincerely grateful to Siddhartha Sen for a suggestion that initiated these investigations and for useful comments. We have benefited from fruitful discussions with Brian Dolan, Petros Florides, David Simms, Charles Nash and Andy Wilkins. C. K. acknowledges the support of Trinity College, Dublin and Enterprise Ireland.


text:
# Negative length orbits in normal-superconductor billiard systems

## Abstract

The Path-Length Spectra of mesoscopic systems including diffractive scatterers and connected to superconductor is studied theoretically. We show that the spectra differs fundamentally from that of normal systems due to the presence of Andreev reflection. It is shown that negative path-lengths should arise in the spectra as opposed to normal system. To highlight this effect we carried out both quantum mechanical and semiclassical calculations for the simplest possible diffractive scatterer. The most pronounced peaks in the Path-Length Spectra of the reflection amplitude are identified by the routes that the electron and/or hole travels.

In recent years, semiclassical methods have become a popular tool for describing devices operating in the mesoscopic regime. Advances in manufacturing and material design have made possible the creation of clean mesoscopic devices, whose properties depend on the microscopic details of individual samples. For example, in recent experiments involving semiconductor microjunctions, both the quantum coherence length and the mean free path of elastic collisions are large compared to the size of the junction. In such devices electrons can be described as a two-dimensional ideal Fermi gas of noninteracting particles. The conductance of such junctions has been measured and found to oscillate strongly as the Fermi energy is varied.

Semiclassical methods have proved to be very effective for understanding conductance fluctuations in normal microjunctions. On the one hand, methods based on random matrix theory  successfully predict statistical properties of transport properties. On the other, short-wavelength semiclassical descriptions able to explore geometry-induced interference effects in weakly disordered or clean mesoscopic devices. In particular, it has been shown that the Path-Length Spectra (PLS), defined as the power spectrum of the reflection (transmission) amplitudes with respect to the Fermi wavelength

$$\widehat{r}_{mn}(L)=\left|_{k_{min}}^{k_{max}}e^{ik_FL}r_{mn}(k_F)𝑑k_F\right|^2,$$
(1)
possesses peaks at lengths corresponding to classical trajectories of electrons starting and ending at the external contacts . Here $`r_{mn}(k_F)`$ ($`t_{mn}(k_F)`$) is the reflection (transmission) amplitude at the Fermi wavenumber $`k_F`$ for scattering from mode $`n`$ of the entrance lead to mode $`m`$ of the entrance (exit) lead in a two probe conductance measurement.

Mesoscopic devices connected to a superconductor present a new challenge for semiclassics. In such normal-superconductor (NS) systems Andreev reflection plays an important role, whereby electrons at the Fermi energy in the normal metal are retro-reflected as holes at the NS interface. Such a process might be expected to dramatically affect the PLS, but to-date, no investigations of the PLS in NS systems have been carried out.

In this Letter we present the first such investigation, by examining a mesoscopic device connected to a superconductor and show that the PLS of NS systems differ from those of normal systems in a fundamental way. In particular for NS systems containing diffractive scatters, negative path-lengths can arise in the PLS which are absent from the corresponding normal systems.

Before turning to the NS system we shortly discuss the role of diffraction in the PLS of normal systems, following Ref.. In the semiclassical approximation, particles hitting a diffractive scatterer may scatter in any direction since the classical dynamics is not uniquely defined . In Ref. a two-dimensional wave guide with a small point-like diffractive scatterer has been analyzed  (see Fig 1a.). It has been shown that the PLS of the reflection amplitude $`r_{nm}`$ has peaks at path-lengths corresponding to classical trajectories starting and returning to the entrance of the lead, either diffracted once or several times by the scatterer. At large Fermi wavelengths a typical trajectory with multiple bounces is shown in Fig. 1a. Such trajectories consist of two parts: segments (along the z axis) connecting the lead and the scatterer with total length $`2\times z_0`$, and multiple diffraction trajectories starting and ending on the scatterer. A multiple diffraction trajectory can be decomposed into loops that start and end on the scatterer, making bounces on the walls of the waveguide. The possible lengths of the loops are

$$l_r=\{\begin{array}{c}2Wr\\ 2x_0+2Wr\\ 2(Wx_0)+2Wr\end{array},$$
(2)
where $`r=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the repetition number and $`W`$ is the width of the waveguide .

In Figure 2 the PLS calculated quantum mechanically and semiclassically using the method developed in Ref. are shown. One can see that the agreement between the quantum and the semiclassical calculation is excellent and the peaks are located at lengths which are linear combinations of (2) plus $`2z_0`$. It is obvious that the PLS has peaks only for positive lengths $`L`$. The amplitude of the peaks is decreased by multiple diffraction and therefore the most pronounced peaks correspond to paths diffracted only once on the scatterer.

Now consider the effect of replacing one of the exit leads by a superconductor. In this case a new contribution to the reflection amplitude $`r_{mn}`$ has to be taken into account, namely the one coming from Andreev reflection at the NS interface. By solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation for a NS interface it is possible to show that, at the Fermi energy, electron-like excitations impinging onto the superconducting interface are coherently retro-reflected as hole-like excitations. In a semiclassical description, the classical action associated with the path connecting points $`q^{}`$ and $`q^{\prime \prime }`$ is given by

$$S(q^{},q^{\prime \prime })=_q^{}^{q^{\prime \prime }}p(q)𝑑q,$$
(3)
where $`p(q)`$ is the momentum of the electron or the hole along the path (note that if the path touches the superconductor at least once, it will contain both electron and hole parts). In particular the action associated with an Andreev reflection process in which an electron starting at point $`q^{}`$ returns to the same point as a hole can be written as

$$S(q^{},q^{})=k_FL(q^{},q^{})k_FL(q^{},q^{})=0,$$
(4)
where $`L(q^{},q^{})`$ denotes the length of the path of the electron until it hits the superconductor at $`q^{}`$ and $`L(q^{},q^{})`$ is the path length of the hole from $`q^{}`$ to $`q^{}`$. The minus sign in the second term is due to the fact that the directions of the momentum and the velocity of the hole are opposite. The total action of an electron-hole (e-h) trajectory returning to its starting point is always zero, since the hole retraces the path of the electron. As a consequence of this result, the PLS of the reflection amplitude for electron-electron (e-e) has peaks at positive lengths $`L`$ while for e-h it has a pronounced peak at $`L=0`$.

We now consider the case where diffractive scattering is possible in the system (Fig. 1b). The new feature is that the trajectory of electrons or holes hitting a diffractive point is not uniquely defined. Therefore, a hole retracing an electron, which scattered on a diffractive center, will not necessarily retrace the trajectory of the electron beyond the diffractive center. The hole may leave the diffraction center at a different angle than that of the incident electron. This effect has already been pointed out by Beenakker in connection with normal-metal-superconductor junction containing a point contact. Consequently, in the presence of diffraction, complicated trajectories consisting of several electron and hole segments may arise. The classical action for this case can be written as a sum of actions of the segments

$$S=k_F(\pm L_i),$$
(5)
where $`L_i`$ is the length of the segment $`i`$ and the $`+`$ or $``$ correspond to cases when electron or hole traverses the segment $`i`$, respectively. Unlike in the diffractionless case, the sum of positive and negative terms in Eq. (5) is not necessarily zero. Moreover, the total length of the hole segments may exceed those of the electrons. Thus, in the PLS of the e-e reflection amplitude, peaks at negative lengths may appear, which are completely absent from the PLS of the corresponding normal systems.

To observe negative lengths in the PLS we note that when the exit lead is replaced by a superconductor  the e-e reflection amplitude can be expressed in terms of the transmission and reflection amplitudes of the corresponding normal system (see Eq. 266a in Ref.). For the system of Fig. 1b, the latter amplitudes have been derived in Ref. and, after lengthy but straightforward algebra, we find the following expression for the $`n,m`$ matrix element of the e-e reflection amplitude at the Fermi energy:

$$s_{nm}^{ee}(k_F)=\frac{2r_{nm}(k_F)}{1+|𝒟|^2\left[ImG_0(x_0,z_0|x_0,z_0)\right]^2},$$
(6)
where $`r_{nm}(k_F)`$ is the matrix of reflection amplitudes of the normal system for the entrance lead, $`G_0(x,z|x^{},z^{})`$ is the Green’s function of the empty waveguide. $`𝒟=i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }/\left[1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }G_0(x_0,z_0|x_0,z_0)\right]`$ can be regarded as the diffraction constant of the scatterer, where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is the renormalized strength of the scatterer.

On the upper part of Fig. 3 the PLS of the reflection amplitude of (6) (the exact quantum mechanical result) is plotted as a function of the path length. Peaks at negative path lengths are clearly visible here as opposed to normal system shown in Fig. 2.

The semiclassical approximation of Eq. (6) can be obtained from the semiclassical form of the Green’s function which is given by

$$G_0(x_0,z_0|x_0,z_0)=\frac{(1)^{n_r}}{\sqrt{8\pi k_Fl_r}}e^{ik_Fl_ri3\pi /4},$$
(7)
where the summation is over all possible loops with lengths $`l_r`$ given in (2) and $`n_r`$ is the number of bounces on the walls of the waveguide. One can see that $`ImG_0(x_0,z_0|x_0,z_0)`$ will contain the complex conjugate of Eq. (7) and is therefore a sum with terms proportional to $`e^{\pm ik_Fl_r}`$. Here, terms with $`e^{ik_Fl_r}`$ correspond to loops traversed by holes. The e-e reflection amplitude given in (6) can be rewritten as a multiple diffraction series:

$`s_{nm}^{ee}(k_F)`$ $`=`$ $`2r_{nm}(k_F)\{1|𝒟|^2\left[ImG_0(x_0,z_0|x_0,z_0)\right]^2`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`|𝒟|^4\left[ImG_0(x_0,z_0|x_0,z_0)\right]^4\mathrm{}\}.`$ (9)
Expressing powers of $`ImG_0`$ with Eq. (7) and its complex conjugate $`s_{nm}^{ee}(k_F)`$ can be written as an oscillating sum

$$s_{nm}^{ee}(k_F)=\underset{j}{}A_je^{iS_j},$$
(10)
where $`S_j`$ is of form Eq. (5). The amplitudes $`A_j`$ can be determined exactly by using the above formulas. In the lower part of Fig. 3 the PLS of the reflection amplitude $`s_{nm}^{ee}(k_F)`$ is plotted using Eq. (10). Again one can see a very good agreement between the quantum and semiclassical calculations. The most pronounced peaks with negative lengths (see Fig. 4) come from the family $`L=2z_0l_r`$, where $`l_r`$ is given in Eq. (2), namely $`L=0.4,1.0,1.6,2.4,3.0,3.6,4.4,5,\mathrm{}`$ . These lengths can be associated with the following routes: First the electron hits the superconductor then the retro-reflected hole diffracts on the scatterer and makes a loop with repetition number $`r`$ as described before Eq. (2). Next, the hole diffracts off the scatterer then hits the superconductor on which it converts back to an electron. Finally, the electron goes back to the entrance lead.

The above results represent the first theoretical study of the path-length spectra of a normal superconductor mesoscopic system with diffractive scattering. We have demonstrated that the PLS of such systems differs fundamentally from that of normal systems, due to the appearance of peaks at negative lengths. To highlight this effect, we have analyzed the simplest possible diffractive scatterer. Since the appearance of negative lengths in PLS is the direct consequence of the presence of diffractive scatterers it is desirable to study other types of diffractive centers such as corners. There is a growing interest in studying the role of diffractive scatterers in normal mesoscopic systems, therefore the extension to normal superconductor systems may become a new playground both in the semiclassical theory of scattering processes and level statistics of these systems. For the future it will also be of interest to examine the amplitudes of the negative-length peaks in more complex geometries, such as those of , to examine the effect of a tunnel junction at the NS interface and the role of order parameter symmetry.

This work was supported by the EU. TMR within the programme “Dynamics of Nanostructures” jointly with OMFB, the Hungarian Science Foundation OTKA T025866, the Hungarian Ministry of Education (FKFP 0159/1997).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

According to the brane world scenario , the extra spatial dimensions can be as large as a millimeter without contradicting the current experimental observations, if the fields of Standard Model are confined within a brane. More recently proposed scenario by Randall and Sundrum (RS)  even allows infinite extra space because of the special property of warped spacetime that leads to localization of gravity around domain wall. So, the brane world scenarios open up the possibility of probing the extra dimensions in the near future. Furthermore, the brane world scenarios provide with a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem of particle physics.

In order for the RS brane world scenario to describe our world, it has to be derivable from well-established theories. The previous studies attempt to embed the RS domain wall (with the exponentially decreasing warp factor) into supergravity theories  or domain walls which localize gravity into string theories . Also, a main motivation for the embedding into supergravity theories is that the fine-tuned value of domain wall tension in terms of the bulk cosmological constant is required by supersymmetry through the BPS condition, if such embedding is possible.

In this paper, we study the Kaluza-Klein (KK) zero mode of graviton in the bulk of a general dilatonic $`p`$-brane in arbitrary dimensions for the purpose of seeing any relevance to the RS type scenario. Since the brane world scenarios assume that fields of Standard Model are identified as the worldvolume fields of $`p`$-branes in string theories, it is natural to embed domain walls of the RS type models into $`p`$-branes in higher dimensions. So, it appears that the embedding into $`p`$-branes in string theories is a natural way of realizing the RS type scenario within string theories.

We find in general that when a $`p`$-brane is fully localized along its transverse directions, the KK zero mode of bulk graviton cannot be normalized, thereby the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional gravity in the worldvolume of the $`p`$-brane cannot be realized through the KK zero mode. However, if the $`p`$-brane is delocalized along its transverse directions except one, the KK zero mode of bulk graviton is normalizable. This implies that if our four-dimensional world is embedded in the worldvolume of some (intersecting) $`p`$-brane of string theories through the RS type scenario, then some of the transverse directions of the brane has to be compact or the range of the radial coordinate of the transverse space has to be within a finite interval. Unlike the case of domain walls (with codimension one), the KK zero mode of bulk graviton is normalizable if the warp factor increases, in which case there are singularities at finite distance from the brane. Due to the increasing warp factor, free massive particles are attracted towards the brane, never hitting the singularities, in contrast to the case of domain walls with decreasing warp factor, which repels free massive particles . So, a delocalized $`p`$-brane with increasing warp factor does not suffer from the problem of a domain wall with decreasing warp factor that massive matter escapes into the extra spatial dimensions due to the gravitational repulsion by the wall.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we summarize the dilatonic domain wall solution in relation to the RS scenario. We study the KK zero mode of graviton in the bulk of fully localized dilatonic $`p`$-brane in section 3 and in the bulk of delocalized dilatonic $`p`$-brane in section 4.

## 2 Dilatonic Domain Wall Solution

In this section, we summarize a general dilatonic domain wall solution in arbitrary dimensions for the purpose of reference in the later sections, where we will make comparison of the properties of such domain wall solutions to those of $`p`$-brane solutions. The Einstein frame action for the domain wall solution has the following form:

$$S_{\mathrm{DW}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _D^2}d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left[_g\frac{4}{D2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +e^{2a\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\right].$$
(1)
The extreme dilatonic domain wall solution is given by:

$`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`H^{\frac{4}{(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{D2}^2\right]+H^{\frac{4(D1)}{(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}dx_{D1}^2,`$ (2)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`H^{\frac{(D2)a}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{(D2)a^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(D1)}{D2}},`$ (3)
where the harmonic function $`H`$ for the domain wall located at $`x_{D1}=0`$ is

$$H=1+Q|x_{D1}|=1\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}|x_{D1}|,$$
(4)
where the invariance under the $`𝐙_2`$ transformation $`x_{D1}x_{D1}`$ is imposed. By redefining the transverse coordinate $`x_{D1}`$, one can put the domain wall metric into the following standard form of the RS brane world scenario:

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =e^{2A(y)}\left[dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{D2}^2\right]+dy^2,$$
(5)
where the warp factor $`e^{2A}`$ and the dilaton $`\varphi `$ are given by

$$e^{2A}=(K|y|+1)^{\frac{8}{(D2)^2a^2}},\varphi =\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{ln}(K|y|+1),$$
(6)
where

$$K=\pm \frac{(D2)a^2}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}.$$
(7)
It is observed  that when the sign $`\pm `$ in the above expression for $`K`$ is chosen so that the warp factor $`e^{2A}`$ has a root at a finite non-zero value of $`y`$ on both sides of the domain wall, there exists the normalizable KK zero mode graviton bound state, which can be identified as a massless graviton in one lower dimensions. In such case, the warp factor decreases on both sides of the wall, so the RS type scenario can be realized. However, a problem with such domain wall is that the roots of the warp factor correspond to naked singularities, which are undesirable unless significant physical meanings are associated with them. The resolution or the physical interpretation of such naked singularities is still an open question. With different choice of sign $`\pm `$ in Eq. (7), there is no singularity at finite nonzero $`y`$, but the normalizable graviton KK zero mode does not exist.

## 3 Fully Localized $`p`$-Branes

We begin by summarizing a general dilatonic $`p`$-brane solution in $`D`$ spacetime dimensions, where $`p3`$ and $`D>5`$. The reason for considering such solution is that it covers all the possible single charged $`p`$-branes in string theories. In this paper, we regard the $`p`$-brane as a solitonic brane magnetically charged under the field strength $`F_n`$ of the rank $`nDp2`$, for the reason which will become clear in the following. The action has the following form:

$$S_p=\frac{1}{2\kappa _D^2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[_G\frac{4}{D2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2n!}e^{2a_p\varphi }F_n^2\right],$$
(8)
where once again $`D=p+n+2`$. The solution to the equations of motion of this action for the extreme dilatonic $`p`$-brane with the longitudinal coordinates $`𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)`$ and the transverse coordinates $`𝐲=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_{n+1})`$, located at $`𝐲=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, has the following form:

$`G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N`$ $`=`$ $`H_p^{\frac{4(n1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\left[dt^2+d𝐱d𝐱\right]+H_p^{\frac{4(p+1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}d𝐲d𝐲,`$ (9)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`H_p^{\frac{(p+n)a_p}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}},F_n=(dH_pdtdx_1\mathrm{}dx_p),`$ (10)
where

$$H_p=1+\frac{Q_p}{|𝐲|^{n1}},\mathrm{\Delta }_p=\frac{(p+n)a_p^2}{2}+\frac{2(p+1)(n1)}{p+n}.$$
(11)
We will consider $`p`$-branes with asymptotically flat spacetime, only, i.e. the $`n>1`$ case. So, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ defined in the above is always positive.

To study the KK modes of graviton in the $`p`$-brane background, we consider the leading order Einstein’s equations satisfied by the small fluctuations $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,𝐲)`$ around the $`p`$-brane metric. In general, the linearized Einstein’s equations $`\delta 𝒢_{MN}=\kappa _D^2\delta T_{MN}`$ for the following form of the metric fluctuations

$$G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=e^{B(y^k)}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,y^k)\right]dx^\mu dx^\nu +g_{ij}(y^k)dy^idy^j,$$
(12)
is given, in the transverse traceless gauge $`h_\mu ^\mu =0=^\mu h_{\mu \nu }`$, by (Cf. Ref. )

$$e^B\eta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho _\sigma h_{\mu \nu }+e^{\frac{p+1}{2}B}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_i\left[e^{\frac{p+1}{2}B}\sqrt{g}g^{ij}_jh_{\mu \nu }\right]=0,$$
(13)
if the stress tensor $`T_{MN}`$ satisfies the following condition:

$$\delta T_{MN}=T_M^Ph_{PN}.$$
(14)
Here, $`\delta 𝒢_{MN}`$ and $`\delta T_{MN}`$ denote the variation of the Einstein tensor $`𝒢_{MN}`$ and the stress tensor $`T_{MN}`$ with respect to the metric perturbation $`\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$. Of course, in Eq. (14) it is assumed that $`h_{y^iy^j}=0`$.

It can be easily shown that the stress tensor condition (14) is satisfied for the $`p`$-brane solution in Eq. (10) by using the fact that the dilaton field $`\varphi `$ depends only on the transverse coordinates $`𝐲`$ and only the transverse components of the form field strength $`F_n`$ are nonzero. So, the linearized Einstein’s equations in the transverse traceless gauge satisfied by the metric perturbation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ around the $`p`$-brane metric (10) of the following form:

$$G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=H_p^{\frac{4(n1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }\right]dx^\mu dx^\nu +H_p^{\frac{4(p+1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}d𝐲d𝐲$$
(15)
is given by

$$\eta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho _\sigma h_{\mu \nu }+H_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\delta ^{ij}_i_jh_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(16)
To consider the graviton KK mode of mass $`m_\alpha `$, we decompose the metric perturbation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ as $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,y^k)=\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}(x^\rho )f_\alpha (y^k)`$ and require $`\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$ to satisfy $`\mathrm{}_x\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}=m_\alpha ^2\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$, where $`\mathrm{}_x\eta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho _\sigma `$. Then, the linearized Einstein’s equations (16) take the following form:

$$_y^2f_\alpha +m_\alpha ^2H_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}f_\alpha =0,$$
(17)
where $`_y^2\delta ^{ij}_i_j`$. We decompose the KK mode $`f_\alpha (𝐲)`$ into the radial and the angular parts as $`f_\alpha (𝐲)=g_\alpha (y)Y_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_n)`$, where $`y|𝐲|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ collectively denotes the angular coordinates of the unit $`n`$-sphere $`S^n`$. The $`n`$-dimensional spherical harmonics $`Y_{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies $`_y^2Y_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+n1)}{y^2}Y_{\mathrm{}}`$. So, Eq. (17) reduces to the following form:

$$_y\left[y^n_yg_\alpha \right]+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+n1)y^{n2}g_\alpha +m_\alpha ^2y^nH_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}g_\alpha =0,$$
(18)
from which we see that the KK modes $`g_\alpha `$ with different masses $`m_\alpha `$ are orthogonalized with respect to the weighting function $`w(y)=y^nH_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}`$. From Eq. (17), one can see that $`f_0(𝐲)=\mathrm{constant}`$ is the KK zero mode ($`m_0=0`$). The normalization integral for the KK zero mode $`g_0(y)=\mathrm{constant}`$ is as follows:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yy^nH_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}g_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2Q_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}}{(n1)\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}(n+1)}}y^{n+1(n1)\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}`$ (20)
$`\times _2F_1[{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}},{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}};{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}};{\displaystyle \frac{y^{n1}}{Q_p}}]|_{y=0}^{y=\mathrm{}},`$
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function defined in terms of series as

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b;c;z]=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a)_l(b)_l}{(c)_l}\frac{z^l}{l!}=1+\frac{ab}{c}\frac{z}{1!}+\frac{a(a+1)b(b+1)}{c(c+1)}\frac{z^2}{2!}+\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
Note, this graviton KK zero mode normalization integral is equivalent to the normalization condition $`d^{n+1}𝐲G^{tt}\sqrt{G}=V_n𝑑yy^nH_p^{\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}<\mathrm{}`$, where $`V_n`$ is the volume of $`S^n`$, obtained in Ref. . The above expression (20) for the normalization integral is valid and well-defined, only for the case when $`\frac{n+1}{n1}\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}`$ and $`\frac{2n}{n1}\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}`$ is neither zero nor a negative integer. These conditions are satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ defined in Eq. (11) with $`n2`$ and $`p3`$. The normalization integral (20) does not have a diverging contribution from $`y=0`$, where the $`p`$-brane is located, if $`\frac{n+1}{n1}>\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}`$. This condition is also satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ defined in Eq. (11) with $`n2`$ and $`p3`$. Note, this condition is essential in normalization of the KK zero mode, since we are not allowed to truncate the transverse space to exclude the $`y=0`$ region, where the $`p`$-brane is located. However, the normalization integral (20) always has a diverging contribution from $`y=\mathrm{}`$ for any values of $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$. So, one has to truncate the transverse space (namely, take the integration interval in the normalization integral to be $`0yy_0`$ with $`y_0<\mathrm{}`$), if one wishes to normalize the KK zero mode. A possible scenario with such truncated integration interval is the one proposed in Ref. , where the jump brane (identifiable as the Planck brane) at a finite distance from the $`p`$-brane is introduced through the T-dualization of the transverse space.

Since the dilatonic $`p`$-brane solution (10) is asymptotically flat, it may be possible to reproduce the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional gravity in the intermediate distance region on the worldvolume of the $`p`$-brane through the massive KK modes by applying the mechanism proposed in Ref. . However, we shall not pursue this direction, since its validity for describing our world is rather controversial . Also, study of massive graviton KK modes in the bulk of a $`p`$-brane is a lot more complicated than the domain wall case. The coordinate transformation that brings the $`(p+2)`$-dimensional part of the $`p`$-brane metric (with the coordinates $`(x^\mu ,|𝐲|)`$) into the conformally flat form, in which the equation satisfied by the metric fluctuation takes the Schrödinger equation form, involves a special function of the coordinate $`|𝐲|`$, which cannot be inverted to re-express the metric in new coordinates.

## 4 Delocalized $`p`$-Branes

In the previous section, we saw that the KK zero mode of graviton in the bulk of a fully localized dilatonic $`p`$-brane (with asymptotically flat spacetime) is not normalizable, if the transverse space of the $`p`$-brane is of infinite size. In this section, we attempt to normalize the graviton KK zero mode by delocalizing the $`p`$-brane along its transverse directions except one. Delocalization is achieved by constructing dense periodically arrayed multi-center $`p`$-branes along the transverse directions to be delocalized. The delocalization process can also be regarded as first placing $`p`$-branes at equivalent points of the compactification lattices and then taking the limit of very small compactification manifold. Therefore, the spacetime of such delocalized $`p`$-brane can also be thought of as the product of a $`(p+1)`$-dimensional domain wall spacetime and an $`n`$-dimensional compact space.

The delocalized $`p`$-brane solution has the following form:

$$G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=H_p^{\frac{4(n1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\left[dt^2+d𝐱d𝐱\right]+H_p^{\frac{4(p+1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\left[d\stackrel{~}{y}^2+d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2\right],$$
(22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ is one of the transverse coordinates $`𝐲`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2`$ is the metric on an $`n`$-dimensional compact manifold $`𝒦_n`$ upon which the $`p`$-brane is delocalized and the harmonic function is given by $`H_p=1+\stackrel{~}{Q}_p|\stackrel{~}{y}|`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_P<0`$, the location $`|\stackrel{~}{y}|=\stackrel{~}{Q}_p^1`$, where the harmonic function $`H_p`$ vanishes, corresponds to the curvature singularity. When $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_p>0`$, there is no singularity except at $`y=0`$, where the delocalized $`p`$-brane is located.

For the purpose of studying the delocalized $`p`$-brane solution in relation to the RS type scenario, it is convenient to transform the transverse coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ so that the $`(p+2)`$-dimensional part of the metric (with the coordinates $`(x^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{y})`$) takes the standard form of the RS model with the warp factor $`𝒲`$ or the conformally flat form with the conformal factor $`𝒞`$. The solutions in the new coordinates are given by

$$G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=𝒲\left[dt^2+d𝐱d𝐱\right]+dy^2+𝒲^{\frac{p+1}{n1}}d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2,$$
(23)
where the warp factor is given by

$`𝒲(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2(p+1)+(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_p|y|\right]^{\frac{4(n1)}{2(p+1)+(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left[1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{(p+n)^2a_p^2+4(p+1)n}{(p+n)^2a_p^2+4(p+1)(n1)}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_p|y|\right]^{\frac{8(n1)}{(p+n)^2a_p^2+4(p+1)n}},`$ (25)
and

$$G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=𝒞\left[dt^2+d𝐱d𝐱+dz^2\right]+𝒞^{\frac{p+1}{n1}}d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2,$$
(26)
where the conformal factor is given by

$$𝒞(z)=\left[1\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p+2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}\stackrel{~}{Q}_p|z|\right]^{\frac{4(n1)}{(p+n)(\mathrm{\Delta }_p+2)}}.$$
(27)
The expressions for dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the $`n`$-form field strength $`F_n`$ in terms of the warp factor or the conformal factor can be obtained by using the relation $`𝒲(y)=H_p^{\frac{4(n1)}{(p+n)\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}(\stackrel{~}{y})=𝒞(z)`$.

We notice the following important difference of the warp factor (25) for the delocalized $`p`$-brane from that (6) of the dilatonic domain wall (of codimension one). In the case of the dilatonic domain walls, the exponent in the warp factor (6) is always positive. So, one has to choose the sign $`\pm `$ in Eq. (7) such that the warp factor has zeros at finite nonzero $`y`$ on both sides of the wall, if one wants to have the decreasing warp factor. The side-effect of such choice of sign is the naked singularities at the positions where the warp factor vanishes. On the other hand, in the case of the delocalized $`p`$-branes, the exponent in the warp factor (25) is always negative. So, in order to have a decreasing warp factor on both sides $`y>0`$ and $`y<0`$, one has to choose the sign $`\pm `$ in Eq. (25) such that the term in the square bracket does not have a root at finite nonzero $`y`$. With such choice of the sign, the delocalized $`p`$-brane solution does not have problematic naked singularities. With a choice of the sign $`\pm `$ such that the term in the square bracket has a root at a finite nonzero $`y`$ on both sides of the brane, the warp factor $`𝒲`$ increases, asymptotically approaching infinity as the roots are reached. Such roots correspond to the curvature singularities. However, as we will see in the following, unlike the case of dilatonic domain walls of codimension one, the graviton KK zero mode in the bulk of delocalized $`p`$-brane is normalizable when the warp factor $`𝒲`$ increases on both sides of the $`p`$-brane.

To study the KK modes of the bulk graviton, we consider the following small fluctuation around the delocalized $`p`$-brane metric:

$$G_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=𝒞\left[\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }\right)dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2\right]+𝒞^{\frac{p+1}{n1}}d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2,$$
(28)
where the metric perturbation $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,z)`$, which is taken to be independent of the coordinates of the $`n`$-dimensional compact space $`𝒦_n`$ with the metric $`d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2`$, is assumed to satisfy the transverse traceless gauge condition $`h_\mu ^\mu =0=^\mu h_{\mu \nu }`$. Then, the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$-component of the Einstein’s equations is approximated, to the first order in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, to

$$\left[\mathrm{}_x+_z^2\frac{p+n}{2(n1)}\frac{_z𝒞}{𝒞}_z\right]h_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{}_x\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$. To consider the KK mode with mass $`m_\alpha `$, only, we decompose $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ as $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,z)=\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}(x^\rho )f_\alpha (z)`$ and require $`\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$ to satisfy $`\mathrm{}_x\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}=m_\alpha ^2\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$. Then, the linearized Einstein’s equations (29) reduce to the following form:

$$\left[_z^2\frac{p+n}{2(n1)}\frac{_z𝒞}{𝒞}_z+m_\alpha ^2\right]f_\alpha (z)=0.$$
(30)
This equation can be brought to the following form of the Sturm-Liouville equation:

$$_z\left[𝒞^{\frac{p+n}{2(n1)}}_zf_\alpha \right]+m_\alpha ^2𝒞^{\frac{p+n}{2(n1)}}f_\alpha =0,$$
(31)
from which we see that the KK modes $`f_\alpha (z)`$ with different masses $`m_\alpha `$ are orthogonalized with respect to the weighting function $`w(z)=𝒞^{\frac{p+n}{2(n1)}}`$. Had we used the transverse coordinate $`y`$, instead of $`z`$, the equation satisfied by the KK mode $`f_\alpha `$ would have taken the following form:

$$_y\left[𝒲^{\frac{p+1}{2(n1)}}_yf_\alpha \right]+m_\alpha ^2𝒲^{\frac{p+2n1}{2(n1)}}f_\alpha =0,$$
(32)
from which we know that the KK modes $`f_\alpha (y)`$ are orthogonalized with respect to the weighting function $`w(y)=𝒲^{\frac{p+2n1}{2(n1)}}`$.

In terms of a new $`z`$-dependent function defined as $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha 𝒞^{\frac{p+n}{4(n1)}}f_\alpha `$, Eq. (31) takes the following form of the Schrödinger equation:

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha }{dz^2}+V(z)\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha =m_\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha ,$$
(33)
with the potential

$`V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p+n}{16(n1)^2}}\left[(p+5n4)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒞^{}}{𝒞}}\right)^24(n1){\displaystyle \frac{𝒞^{\prime \prime }}{𝒞}}\right]`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_p+1)\stackrel{~}{Q}_p^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p+2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}\stackrel{~}{Q}_p|z|)^2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{Q}_p}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}}\delta (z),`$ (35)
where the order in the sign $`\pm `$ is the same as that in Eq. (27). The zero mode solution $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0`$ (corresponding to the zero KK mass $`m_0=0`$) to the Schrödinger equation satisfying the boundary condition $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0^{}(0^+)\stackrel{~}{f}_0^{}(0^{})=\pm \frac{2\stackrel{~}{Q}_p}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}\stackrel{~}{f}_0(0)`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0(1\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_p+2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}\stackrel{~}{Q}_p|z|)^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_p+2}}`$. So, the KK zero mode is independent of $`z`$: $`f_0(z)=𝒞^{\frac{p+n}{4(n1)}}\stackrel{~}{f}_0=\mathrm{constant}`$. By calculating the normalization integration $`𝑑yf_0^2w(y)=𝑑yf_0^2𝒲^{\frac{p+2n1}{2(n1)}}`$, one can see that the KK zero mode $`f_0`$ is normalizable when the sign $`\pm `$ in the warp factor (25) is chosen so that the warp factor increases on both sides of the $`p`$-brane, in which case there are curvature singularities at finite non-zero $`y`$. With another choice of the sign, even if the warp factor decreases, the graviton KK zero mode is not normalizable.

Recently, it is observed  that free massive particles in the bulk of (non-dilatonic) domain wall with exponentially decreasing warp factor of RS are repelled by the domain wall into the extra spatial direction, whereas those in the domain wall with exponentially increasing warp factor are attracted towards the domain wall. This undesirable feature of the RS domain wall calls for need to find mechanism of trapping massive matter within the domain wall so that matter in our world is not lost into the extra dimension.

Generally, one can show that free massive particles in the bulk of domain wall with decreasing \[increasing\] warp factor are repelled from \[attracted towards\] the domain wall, as follows. We consider the following general form of metric with the warp factor $`𝒲(y)`$:

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =𝒲(y)\left[dt^2+d𝐱d𝐱\right]+dy^2.$$
(36)
By contracting the Killing vectors $`/t`$ and $`/x^i`$ of the metric (36) with the velocity $`U^\mu =dx^\mu /d\lambda `$ of a free test particle along its geodesic path $`x^\mu (\lambda )`$ parameterized by an affine parameter $`\lambda `$, one obtains the following constants of motion for the test particle:

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)^\mu U^\nu =g_{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\lambda }}=𝒲(y){\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\lambda }},`$ (37)
$`p^i`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\right)^\mu U^\nu =g_{x^ix^i}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{d\lambda }}=𝒲(y){\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{d\lambda }},`$ (38)
which can be thought of as the energy and linear momentum for massless particles and the energy and linear momentum per unit mass for massive particles. In addition, metric compatibility for the geodesic motion implies

$$ϵ=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^\mu }{d\lambda }\frac{dx^\nu }{d\lambda }=𝒲\left[\left(\frac{dt}{d\lambda }\right)^2\frac{d𝐱}{d\lambda }\frac{d𝐱}{d\lambda }\right]\left(\frac{dy}{d\lambda }\right)^2,$$
(39)
where $`ϵ=1,0`$ respectively for a massive and a massless test particle. By making use of Eq. (38), one can bring Eq. (39) into the following form:

$$ϵ=(E^2𝐩𝐩)𝒲^1\left(\frac{dy}{d\lambda }\right)^2,$$
(40)
where $`𝐩=(p^i)`$. Note, the test particles do not feel any force along the $`𝐱`$-direction, because the metric (36) does not depend on $`𝐱`$. So, it is possible to consider the geodesic motion with $`d𝐱/d\lambda =0`$, or one can just move to a frame in which a massive test particle moves along the $`y`$-direction by using the boost invariance of the metric along the $`𝐱`$-direction. In this case, the velocity of a massive test particle along the $`y`$-direction is given by

$$\frac{dy}{d\lambda }=\pm \sqrt{\frac{E^2}{𝒲}1}.$$
(41)
Note, this equation is valid also for the motion of a massive test particle along the $`y`$-direction in the spacetime with the metric (23), since the massive test particle does not feel any force along the isometry directions of the $`n`$-dimensional compact manifold $`𝒦_n`$ if we, for example, take $`𝒦_n=T^n`$. For a decreasing warp factor $`𝒲`$, the velocity $`dy/d\lambda `$ of a free massive particle ($`ϵ=1`$) along the $`y`$-direction increases as it moves away from the domain wall, implying that the domain wall repels a massive particle. In the case of a massless test particle ($`ϵ=0`$), as can be seen from Eq. (40), its motion can be confined within the worldvolume directions (since $`E^2𝐩𝐩=0`$ for such motion), but it will also be repelled by the domain wall once it has non-zero velocity along the $`y`$-direction. For a increasing warp factor, the velocity of a free massive particle ($`ϵ=1`$) along the $`y`$-direction decreases as it moves away from the domain wall and then the particle reflects back to the domain wall at the turning point $`y=y_0`$, given by $`𝒲(y_0)=E^2`$, implying that the domain wall attracts the massive particle. However, the massless particle ($`ϵ=0`$) can move along the worldvolume directions, but it will continue to move alway from the domain wall with its velocity asymptotically approaching zero, if $`𝒲(y)\mathrm{}`$ as one moves away from the domain wall, once its velocity has nonzero component along the $`y`$-direction. Note, for massless particles it is $`dy/d\lambda `$ that is changing, whereas the speed of light remains constant.

It is therefore quite problematic for the dilatonic domain wall (5) with decreasing warp factor, because massive test particles will be repelled away from the domain wall and hit the singularity at $`|y|=K^1`$. On the other hand, in the bulk background of the delocalized $`p`$-brane (23) with increasing warp factor (25), a massive test particle with a finite energy $`E`$ will always be reflected back to the domain wall before it reaches the singularities, since the warp factor $`𝒲`$ is monotonically increasing, approaching infinity as the singularities are reached. So, even if the delocalized $`p`$-brane with increasing warp factor suffers from singularities at finite non-zero $`y`$, massive matter is trapped within the $`p`$-brane by gravitational force and can never reach the singularities. One can think of a dilatonic domain wall as being compactified from a (intersecting) $`p`$-brane in higher dimensions. Namely, starting from a dilatonic $`p`$-brane solution (10), constructing a dense periodic array of parallel $`p`$-branes along $`n`$ transverse directions to obtain the delocalized $`p`$-brane (22), and then dimensionally reducing along the $`n`$ delocalized transverse directions, one obtains the dilatonic domain wall (3) in $`D=p+2`$ dimensions with the following dilaton coupling parameter:

$$a^2=\frac{(p+n)a_p^2}{p}+\frac{4(p+1)^2n}{p^2(p+n)}.$$
(42)
So, if we take the spacetime to be the product of the domain wall spacetime and a compact manifold $`𝒦_n`$, instead of taking it as just the spacetime of the domain wall, we do not face the problem of test particles repelled to the extra spatial direction and hitting naked singularities of the dilatonic domain wall with decreasing warp factor.

From this picture of dilatonic domain walls, we see that the naked singularities of dilatonic domain walls with the decreasing warp factor can be regarded as a consequence of dimensionally reducing a non-BPS $`p`$-brane. Namely, for the BPS case, the parameter $`Q_p`$ of the $`p`$-brane solution (10) is positive and its corresponding delocalized $`p`$-brane solution (22), therefore, has positive $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_p`$. So, the corresponding dimensionally reduced dilatonic domain wall solution (4) will have positive $`Q`$, thereby having no naked singularities at finite nonzero $`x_{D1}`$. And the same has to be true for the domain wall solution (5) in different coordinates <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2This requirement of the similar singularity structure in different coordinates can be used to fix the sign ambiguity in the coordinate transformation from $`x_{D1}`$ to $`y`$, which brings the metric (3) to the form (5). This sign ambiguity in the coordinate transformation (resulting from $`H^{\frac{2(D1)}{(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}dx_{D1}=\pm dy`$) appears as the ambiguity of the choice of sign $`\pm `$ in Eq. (7).. In the case of a non-BPS $`p`$-brane, $`Q_p<0`$ and therefore $`Q<0`$ in the corresponding dilatonic domain wall solution, so there are naked singularities away from the wall.


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Weak radiative decays of hyperons were first analyzed theoretically forty years ago -. In 1964, in the framework of the unitary symmetry model, a theorem was proved by Hara that decay asymmetry in charged hyperon weak radiative decays $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ should vanish in the limit of exact $`SU(3)_f`$ . Experimental discovery of a large negative asymmetry in the radiative decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ , confirmed later , stimulated efforts to explain a drastic contradiction between experimental results and the Hara zero asymmetry prediction ( see, e.g.,  and references therein). The problem is actual up to now as shown by appearance of new approaches to cite among the most recent ones .

Another problem is related to inconsistency between $`SU(3)_f`$ symmetry  and quark model predictions  for the asymmetry value in hyperon weak radiative decays. Quark models, while more or less succeeding in describing experimental data on branching ratios and asymmetry parameters (see, e.g., a review  and references therein), did not reproduce the Hara claim in the $`SU(3)_f`$ symmetry limit.

The origin of this discrepancy is under discussion up to now although many authors investigated this problem thoroughly - (see also  for a very complete list of publications). Recently, it was a subject of discussion in  and . Both sides with fine arguments proved once more that the inconsistency persists though the authors have different points of view as to the origin of it. In  and , it was argued that while the covariant amplitude in  was taken gauge-invariant, the nonrelativistic reduction performed there proved to be gauge-variant. Instead, in , it was stated that gauge invariance was preserved in , and the origin of discrepancy should be hidden in other rather implicit assumptions as that of a sufficiently localized current.

On the other hand we showed that the problem may be solved in part by envoking the toroid dipole moment , although hardly it is possible to attain experimentally observed value.

We would like to show that the origin of both the problems can be in the specific formulation of basic assumptions on weak interaction taken in  in the framework of the $`SU(3)_f`$ symmetry model, and a remedy to the problems can be found already by taking a four-flavor model.

## I The basic Hara result

To describe strangeness-changing weak radiative hyperon decays of the baryon octet $`BB^{}+\gamma ,`$ in , usual basic assumptions as to the character of weak interactions were used :

(1) The effective weak interaction Hamiltonian is a sum of products of charged weak currents and their Hermitian conjugates.

(2) The weak interaction is CP-invariant. (Known violation of the CP-invariance was ignored .)

These assumptions were read in  as invariance of the effective strangeness-changing weak interaction Hamiltonian under exchange of the unitary indices $`23`$ (see also ):

$$H_{SU(3)_f}^{eff}(|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1)=\frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}sin\theta _Ccos\theta _C\{[J_1^2,J_3^1]_++(23)\},$$

where $`J_1^2`$ and $`J_1^3`$ are weak hadron currents with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$, respectively, in the usual $`SU(3)_f`$ tensor notation. Let us rewrite it in terms of the weak quark currents. The effective CP-invariant quark weak Hamiltonian with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ in the three-quark model is

$$H_W^{eff}(|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}sin\theta _Ccos\theta _C\left\{(\overline{u}O_\mu d)(\overline{s}O_\mu u)+(\overline{u}O_\mu s)(\overline{d}O_\mu u)\right\},$$
(1)
where $`O_\mu =\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5).`$ The $`H_W^{eff}(|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1)`$ is invariant under exchange of s- and d-quarks, $`sd`$ (or equivalently, under exchange of indices $`23`$ because of the relation $`B_\beta ^\alpha =ϵ_{\beta \gamma \delta }\{q^\beta ,q^\gamma \}q^\delta ,`$ where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta =1,2,3`$ and $`u=q^1,d=q^2,s=q^3`$, between the baryon wave functions and quark ones.)

The parity-violating (PV) parts of the amplitudes of weak radiative hyperon decays were written in  as follows:

$`M_{SU(3)_f}^{PV}=J_\mu ^{(d)}ϵ_\mu +H.C.=`$ (2)
$`\{a^d(\overline{B}_2^3O_\mu ^dB_1^1\overline{B}_1^1O_\mu ^dB_3^2)+b^d(\overline{B}_1^3O_\mu ^dB_2^1\overline{B}_1^2O_\mu ^dB_3^1)+`$ (3)
$`c^d(\overline{B}_2^1O_\mu ^dB_1^3\overline{B}_3^1O_\mu ^dB_1^2)+d^d(\overline{B}_1^1O_\mu ^dB_2^3\overline{B}_3^2O_\mu ^dB_1^1)\}ϵ_\mu ,`$ (4)
with the gauge-invariant Lorentz structure $`O_\mu ^d=i\sigma _{\mu \nu }k_\nu \gamma _5`$  , $`ϵ_\mu `$ being the photon polarization 4-vector. The upper script $`d`$ stays for dipole transition moment. To preserve invariance under exchange $`23`$, Hara put $`a^d=d^d`$, opening a possibility of the nonzero asymmetries for $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda })n+\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda })+\gamma `$ decays. At the quark level, a requirement of the CP-invariance in the form $`ds`$ just prescribes that amplitudes of the decays $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda })(usd)n(ddu)+\gamma `$ (+its HC) transform into the HC amplitudes of quite different decays $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0(ssu)(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda })(uds)+\gamma .`$

Instead of this, PV transition amplitudes of the decays $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ disappear in Eq.(3). The relevant terms $`\overline{B}_1^3O_\mu ^dB_2^1`$ and $`\overline{B}_2^1O_\mu ^dB_1^3,`$ which should be invariant under exchange of indices $`23`$, change signs under Hermitian conjugation; therefore, the condition $`b^d=c^d=0`$ should be imposed. The origin of this result is readily seen at the quark level. Under the exchange $`ds`$, the PV amplitudes of decays $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(uus)p(uud)+\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(ssd)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(dds)+\gamma `$ are transformed into the respective HC amplitudes of the same decays but with a wrong sign.

This is in fact a source of all the troubles with the hyperon weak radiative decays in the framework of the $`SU(3)_f`$ model, as it just gives zero asymmetry for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ decays.

## II GIM model and PV amplitudes of the weak radiative hyperon decays

The simple picture of the weak interaction used in  was in fact based on a single weak isodublet $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& \\ d_C& \end{array}\right)_L`$, and led, as it is well known, to the existence of the strangeness- changing neutral weak current. This difficulty unknown in 1964 was overcome in the famous GIM model  where another weak isodublet $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}c& \\ s_C& \end{array}\right)_L`$, was introduced in order to make the neutral weak current diagonal in quark flavors. Following this we try to rewrite the Hara theorem in the context of the four-flavor scheme ( for a moment not taking a six-flavor one) in order to get rid of the undesirable strangeness-changing neutral current implicitly hidden in .

In the framework of the GIM model, the relevant part of the CP-invariant effective Hamiltonian containing $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ piece reads now in terms of quarks as

$`H_{GIM}^{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}sin\theta _Ccos\theta _C\{(\overline{u}O_\mu d+\overline{c}O_\mu s)(\overline{s}O_\mu u\overline{d}O_\mu c)+`$ (5)
$`(\overline{u}O_\mu s\overline{c}O_\mu d)(\overline{d}O_\mu u+\overline{s}O_\mu c)\}.`$ (6)
But the Hamiltonian $`H_{GIM}^{eff}`$ is no longer invariant under either change $`sd`$ or $`cu`$. Instead of this under a simultaneous change $`sd`$ and $`cu`$, it just changes an overall sign. We try now to insert this Ansatz into the effective flavor-changing electromagnetic current.

And this turns to be a solution of the Hara puzzle.

Really, now for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ PV decay amplitude , the Hermitian conjugation and invariance of $`H_{GIM}^{eff}`$ given by Eq.(6) under the flavor exchange are uncorrelated.

To see this in terms of $`SU(4)_f`$ baryon wave functions, along the lines of the Hara proof  and a discussion in , we construct an appropriate baryon $`SU(4)_f`$ weak radiative transition current that

(i) conserves built-in weak interaction properties (1) and (2);

(ii) mantains gauge invariance .

The corresponding matrix element should be invariant under an overall change of sign with simultaneous changes of indices $`14`$ and $`23.`$ This statement is essentially similar to that made by Hara,  and independent of the conjecture of the U- or P-spin used in . In this way, (i) would be satisfied at the level of the four-flavor model, and instead of Eq.(3), we obtain:

$`M_{GIM}^{PV}(|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1)=J_\mu ^{PV}ϵ_\mu +H.C.=`$ (7)
$`\{a^{pv}(\overline{B}_2^{34}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^1\overline{B}_1^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{34}^2\overline{B}_3^{21}O_\mu ^dB_{41}^4+\overline{B}_4^{41}O_\mu ^dB_{21}^3)+`$ (8)
$`b^{pv}(\overline{B}_1^{34}O_\mu ^dB_{24}^1\overline{B}_1^{24}O_\mu ^dB_{34}^1\overline{B}_4^{21}O_\mu ^dB_{31}^4+\overline{B}_4^{31}O_\mu ^dB_{21}^4)+`$ (9)
$`c^{pv}(\overline{B}_2^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^3\overline{B}_3^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^2)+`$ (10)
$`d^{pv}(\overline{B}_1^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{24}^3\overline{B}_3^{24}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^1\overline{B}_4^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{13}^2+\overline{B}_2^{13}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^4)+`$ (11)
$`f^{pv}(\overline{B}_1^{13}O_\mu ^dB_{12}^1\overline{B}_1^{12}O_\mu ^dB_{13}^1+\overline{B}_4^{34}O_\mu ^dB_{24}^4\overline{B}_4^{24}O_\mu ^dB_{34}^4)\}ϵ_\mu ,`$ (12)
where $`SU(4)`$ 20-plet baryon wave functions can be written in terms of quark wave functions as usual

$$B_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =ϵ_{\beta \gamma \eta \rho }\{q^\alpha ,q^\eta \}q^\rho ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\eta ,\rho =1,2,3,4$$

and $`u=q^1,d=q^2,s=q^3,c=q^4.`$ We remind that $`SU(3)`$ octet baryons are

$$B_{34}^1=p,B_{24}^1=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,B_{14}^3=\mathrm{\Xi }^{},B_{24}^3=\mathrm{\Xi }^0,$$

$$B_{14}^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},B_{14}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^0,B_{34}^2=n,$$

while those relevant charmed ones are

$$B_{13}^4=\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}^+(ccd),B_{12}^4=\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}^+(ccs),$$

$$B_{13}^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0(cdd),B_{14}^4=\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{cs}^0(csd),B_{12}^3=\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0(css)$$

$$B_{34}^4=\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+(cud),B_{13}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+(cud)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+(cud),$$

$$B_{24}^4=\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{cs}^+(csu),B_{12}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{cs}^+(csu)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Xi }_{cs}^+(csu).$$

The main point is that now no coefficient in Eq.(12) should be put equal to zero, so neither $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ nor $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ decay PV amplitudes vanish.

We repeat once more that, in the Hara formulation, the term $`\overline{B}_1^3O_\mu ^dB_2^1`$ in Eq.(3) (which describes PV part of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ decay ) has, as its Hermitian conjugation term (HC), $`\overline{B}_1^2O_\mu ^dB_3^1`$, while if the assumption (i) reads as invariance under change $`23`$, there must be $`+\overline{B}_1^2O_\mu ^dB_3^1`$. This results in a zero contribution to the PV amplitude of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ decay . The same reasoning is valid also for the term describing $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ decay.

But now with the requirement (i) formulated in the form consistent with the GIM model, the term $`(\overline{B}_1^{34}O_\mu ^dB_{24}^1\overline{B}_1^{24}O_\mu ^dB_{34}^1)`$ corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(uus)p(uud)+\gamma `$ decay (+ its HC ) just transforms into the term $`(\overline{B}_4^{31}O_\mu ^dB_{21}^4\overline{B}_4^{21}O_\mu ^dB_{31}^4)`$ that describes the PV part of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}^+(ccs)\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}^+(ccd)+\gamma `$ decay amplitude (+ its HC).

Instead of this the term $`(\overline{B}_2^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^3\overline{B}_3^{14}O_\mu ^dB_{14}^2)`$ describing the PV part of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(ssd)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(dds)+\gamma `$ decay (+ its HC) transforms into itself with the same sign. It is easy to see that the corresponding PC part of this amplitude vanishes, so a zero asymmetry prediction persists for this decay. But this result does not contradict quark model calculations where only the $`sd+\gamma `$ decay diagram contributes, and its PV part vanishes in the limit $`m_s=m_d`$ .

So, none of the PV amplitudes of the hyperon octet radiative decays should be zero, if general requirements like properties under Hermitian conjugation, CP-invariance, etc, are applied in the framework of the GIM model ( not talking of the six-flavor scheme for a moment). Disregarding new baryons containing c-quark in Eq.(12) and omitting index 4 altogether, we formally arrive at Eq.(3). Also, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ neutral weak current appears and with it inadmissible values for $`BB^{}+e^+e^{}`$ rates. The unique mode to go to the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry model limit, without falling in troubles with weak neutral currents, would be to put the Cabibbo angle equal to zero, forbidding thus all the processes with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ in the sector of quarks u,d,s.

## III Conclusion

So, the Hara prediction proves to be valid only in the old-fashioned $`SU(3)_f`$ model where by default there are also strangeness-changing neutral currents, about which almost nobody worried in 1964. Already in the framework of the GIM model, even not taking into account more quark flavors, the Hara prediction of the zero asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ decay is no longer valid. It is interesting that due to vanishing of the parity-conserving amplitude, the zero asymmetry prediction persists for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ decay.

Thus, there is no contradiction of the unitary model approach with the quark model one either for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ decay or for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\gamma `$ one.

We conclude our letter with a remark that maybe experimental observation of the nonzero asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p+\gamma `$ decay  could serve as indication of some serious difficulties in the description of electroweak interactions in the framework of the 3-quark model already in early seventies and could be just one more argument in favor of the 4th quark and diagonal flavor structure of weak neutral currents.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to V. Dmitras̆inović for the reprint of his paper. One of the authors (V.Z.) thanks G.Costa, F.Hussain, N.Paver, S.Petcov , and M.Tonin for interest in the early stage of this work and discussion. One of the authors (V.Z.) is grateful to the International Centre for Theoretical physics, Trieste, where part of this work was done, for hospitality and financial support.