text:
# Spin Flavor Conversion of Neutrinos in Loop Quantum Gravity

## I Introduction

Many attempts aimed to construct a theory of quantum gravity have shown that spacetime might have a non trivial topology at the Plank scale. The first to suggest that spacetime could have a foam-like structure was Wheeler in his seminal paper . In the last years, the idea of quantum fluctuations of spacetime background has received a growing interest and today a large attention is addressed to study their effects on physical phenomena (see, for example, Refs. ).

The difficulties to build up a complete theory of quantum gravity has motivated the development of semiclassical approaches in which a Lorentz invariance breakdown occurs at the effective theory level. Deformations of the Lorentz invariance manifest by means of a slight deviation from the standard dispersion relations of particles propagating in the vacuum. Such modifications have been suggested in the paper , as well as in the framework of String Theory***In the framework of string theory, an alternative approach has been proposed by Kostelecky and collaborators. In their approach, even if the underlying theory has Lorentz and CPT invariance symmetries, the vacuum solution of the theory can spontaneously violate these symmetries . ($`D`$-branes)  and Loop Quantum Gravity . These approaches foresee a dispersion relation in vacuo of particles of the form (we shall use natural units $`c=1=\mathrm{}`$)

$$E^2p^2+m^2+f(M,pl_{Pl}),$$
(I.1)
where $`f(x)`$ is a model dependent function, $`M`$ fixes a characteristic scale not necessarily determined by Planck length $`l_{Pl}10^{19}`$GeV-1, and $`pl_{Pl}1`$. As a consequence of Eq. (I.1), the quantum gravitational medium responds differently to the propagation of particles of different energies.

Recently, Alfaro, Morales-Técotl, and Urrutia (AMU) have written a series of very important papers  in which it is developed a formalism based on loop quantum gravity . In this theory a new length scale $``$ appears, $`l_{Pl}`$, which separates the distances $`d`$ that manifest the quantum loop structure of space ($`d`$) from the continuous flat space ($`d`$). The new characteristic scale can be either an universal constant, or it can be fixed by the energy of the particle, $`E^1`$. The latter case is called mobile scale.

In the AMU formalism, the dispersion relation of freely propagating fermions is given by

$$E_\pm ^2=A_p^2p^2+\eta p^4\pm 2\lambda p+m^2,$$
(I.2)
where

$$A_p=1+\kappa _1\left(\frac{l_{Pl}}{}\right),\eta =\kappa _3l_{Pl}^2,\lambda =\kappa _5\frac{l_{Pl}}{2^2}.$$
(I.3)
The $`\pm `$ signs stand for the helicity of the propagating fermions, and $`\kappa _i`$ are unknown coefficients of the order $`𝒪(1)`$. For photons, the dispersion relation derived in AMU theory is

$$\omega _\pm ^2=k^2[A_\gamma ^2\pm 2\theta _\gamma l_{Pl}k],$$
(I.4)
where

$$A_\gamma =1+\kappa _\gamma \left(\frac{l_{Pl}}{}\right)^{2+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}.$$
(I.5)
Again $`\pm `$ signs stand for the helicity dependence of photons in the dispersion relation, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1/2,0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}`$, and $`k_\gamma 𝒪(1)`$. It is worth note that a similar result has been obtained by Gambini and Pullin  with $`A_\gamma =1`$ and Ellis et al.  with the difference that the helicity dependence is absent.

On the experimental side, the present status eludes any possibility to probe directly quantum gravity effects. It has been suggested by Amelino-Camelia et al.  that $`\gamma `$-ray bursts might be a possible candidate to test the theories of quantum gravity due to their peculiar physical properties, i.e. the origin at cosmological distance and the high energy, which might make them sensitive to the additional terms occurring in (I.1). Alfaro and Palma  applies the AMU theory to the observed Greizen-Zatsepin-Kuz’min (GZK) limit anomaly and to the so called TeV-$`\gamma `$ paradox, i.e. the detection of high-energy photons with a spectrum ranging up to 24 TeV from Mk 501. Assuming that no anomalies there exist, as recent works seem to indicate , they find that the favorite range for $``$ is

$$4.6\times 10^{17}\text{eV}^18.3\times 10^{18}\text{eV}^1.$$
(I.6)
Consequences of the dispersion relation (I.2) in other contexts have been studied in Refs. .

The aim of this paper is to investigate some consequences of fermion helicity terms appearing in the dispersion relation (I.2). Such a kind of analysis has been performed for photons (using Eq. (I.4)) by Gambini and Pullin , and Gleiser and Kazameh , which have shown the emergence of a birefringence effect. Here we study the effects of the helicity terms in spin flip conversion of neutrino flavors. In Refs. , the coefficients $`k_i`$ appearing in (I.2) are taken flavor depending (hence responsible for the flavor mixing). To emphasize the role of the helicity terms, we assume that $`k_i`$ are the same for all species of neutrinos ($`k_i^{(\nu _e)}=k_i^{(\nu _\mu )}=k_i^{(\nu _\tau )}=k_i`$).

## II Spin flavor oscillations in AMU Theory

Before to study the spin flavor oscillation of neutrinos, some preliminary comments are in order. For the sake of convenience, we shall write Eq. (I.2) in the relativistic regime keeping out the relevant terms for our considerations. In this approximation the helicity operator is equal, up to the factor $`(m/E)^21`$, to the chiral operator . We then get

$$E_{L,R}p+\frac{m^2}{2p}\lambda +F(p,,l_{Pl},k_i),$$
(II.1)
where the function $`F(x)`$ contains all remaining contributions in (I.2), and it is diagonal in the chiral basis. The terms $`\pm \lambda `$ change the effective energy of neutrinos depending if they are left-handed or right handed. This is a very peculiar aspect of the AMU theory since it gives rise, as we will see, to the occurrence of a resonance condition in the analysis of spin flavor oscillations.

As shown by Mikheyev, Smirnov, and Wolfeinstein , when neutrinos propagate in a medium, their energy is shifted owing to the weak interaction with the background matter. The elastic scattering through charged current interaction gives the energy contribution $`2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e`$, whereas the neutral current interaction gives $`\sqrt{2}G_Fn_n`$, where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, and $`n_e`$ ($`n_n`$) is the electron (neutron) density. The net contribution to the energy is therefore $`\sqrt{2}G_F(2n_en_n)\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e`$ ($`n_nn_e`$). Notice that for the Sun, a reasonable profile for $`n_e`$ is $`n_e(r)=n_0e^{10.5r/R_{}}`$, where $`n_0=85N_A`$cm-3, $`N_A`$ is the Avogadro number . At $`r=0`$, one gets $`\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e(0)10^{12}`$eV . For the Earth, $`\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e(0)10^{14}`$eV . Besides, in order to have non vanishing off-diagonal elements in the effective Hamiltonian, we shall take into account of the interaction between neutrinos and an external magnetic field

$$_{int}=\overline{\psi }\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\psi ,$$
(II.2)
where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic momentum of the neutrino, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the electro-magnetic field tensor, and $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$.

Collecting all that, the equation of evolution describing the conversion between two neutrino flavors is therefore

$$i\frac{d}{dr}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ \nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{eR}\\ \nu _{\mu R}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ \nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{eR}\\ \nu _{\mu R}\end{array}\right),$$
(II.3)
where, in the chiral base, the matrix $``$ is the effective Hamiltonian defined as

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \lambda +\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \mu _{ee}B& \mu B\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \lambda +\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e& \mu B& \mu _{\mu \mu }B\\ \mu _{ee}B& \mu B& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{cos}2\theta +\lambda & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \\ \mu B& \mu _{\mu \mu }B& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4p}\mathrm{cos}2\theta +\lambda \end{array}\right],$$
(II.4)
up to terms proportional to identity matrix. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_2^2m_1^2`$, $`B`$ is the magnetic field (the electric field is zero), and $`\mu =\mu _{e\mu }`$. In the more general case the effective Hamiltonian $``$ does contain also a gravitational field term which is proportional to

$`A_G^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e_a^\mu \epsilon ^{abcd}(e_{b\nu ;\sigma }e_{b\sigma ;\nu })e_c^\nu e_d^\sigma `$

where $`e_a^\mu `$ are the vierbein fields and ”;” means the covariant derivative. Such a term vanishes for Schwarzschild-like geometry due to the spherical symmetry, so that no gravitational contributions arise in our analysis. We restrict to flavors $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$, but obviously this analysis works also for different neutrino flavors ($`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$, $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$).

The terms giving the resonant condition of flavor spin-flip are the diagonal elements of the effective Hamiltonian (II.4). Hence

$`\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}`$ $`2\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2p}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \sqrt{2}G_Fn_e(r_{res})=0,`$ (II.5)
$`\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{eR}`$ $`2\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2p}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \sqrt{2}G_Fn_e(r_{res})=0.`$ (II.6)
In both cases, we only have transitions from left-handed to right-handed neutrinos, the latter being sterile neutrinos do not have electroweak interaction with matter. Clearly, the resonant transitions do not occur simultaneously. From now on we assume that the neutrino mass hierarchy is $`m_1>m_2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|`$). Notice that expressions similar to Eqs. (II.5) and (II.6) hold also for Majorana neutrinos, with the difference that $`\nu _{eL},\nu _{\mu L}\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _{eR},\nu _{\mu R}\overline{\nu }_e,\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ in Eq. (II.3) .

Let us analyze the $`\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}`$ transition. From Eq. (II.5), one gets ($`Ep`$)

$$|\mathrm{cos}2\theta |\frac{2E[2\lambda \sqrt{2}G_Fn_e(r_{res})]}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}1.$$
(II.7)
The transition between the two flavors $`\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}`$ is determined by defining the effective mixing angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ which diagonalizes the corresponding submatrix in (II.4)

$$\mathrm{tan}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }(r)=\frac{4\mu B(r)E}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|\mathrm{cos}2\theta 4E\lambda +2\sqrt{2}G_FEn_e(r)}.$$
(II.8)
The resonance condition, for which neutrino oscillations are appreciably enhanced, occurs when the denominator of (II.8) vanishes. When $`\lambda =0`$ there is no resonance unless the neutrino mass hierarchy is inverted ($`m_2>m_1`$ and the usual resonance condition is restored). Flavor eigenstates and mass eigenstates are now related by the effective mixing angle

$`|\nu _e=\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _1+\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _2,|\nu _\mu =\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _1+\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|\nu _2`$

For adiabatic variation of the magnetic fieldUnfortunately, the profile of magnetic fields in the core, radiation zone or convection zone of Sun is little known, except that they may be quite large. Similarly for Earth. In the case in which the magnetic field is homogeneous (constant), the conversion probability is (see, for example, the paper by Lim and Marciano in Ref. )
$$P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}=\frac{(2\mu B)^2}{(2\mu B)^2+(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}{2E}\mathrm{cos}2\theta 2\lambda +\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e)^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ,$$
(II.9)  where
$`\alpha =\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}{2E}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta 2\lambda +\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e\right)^2+\left(2\mu B\right)^2}\mathrm{\Delta }r`$
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is the distance travelled by neutrinos. At the resonance it becomes
$$P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}=\mathrm{sin}^2\mu B\mathrm{\Delta }r.$$
(II.10)  The neutrino magnetic momentum is $`\mu 10^{11}\mu _B6\times 10^{16}`$eVT-1 . Taking the magnetic field of Earth $`B_{}5\times 10^5`$T, constant over the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }r2R_{}1.2\times 10^7`$m, it follows that the transition probability is $`P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}3\times 10^4`$, a value very small for giving an appreciable spin flavor rotation effect. For the Sun, the superficial magnetic field $`B_{}10^1`$T , and $`\mathrm{\Delta }rR_{}7\times 10^8`$m give $`P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}0.04`$. On the other hand, in the convective zone $`B_{}10`$T , thus $`P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}0.65`$. and electron density, the conversion probability is

$$P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta ),$$
(II.11)
and at the resonance ($`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\pi /4`$) it assumes the maximum value

$$P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(II.12)
Let us now use Eq. (II.7) to determine the bounds on the scale parameter $``$ and the coefficient $`k_5`$. We shall consider the cases in which $`i)`$ $``$ is an universal constant, $`ii)`$ $`10^{18}`$eV-1 as recent results seem to suggest , and $`iii)`$ $`p^1`$ (mobile scale).

### A Solar Neutrinos

Due to the fact that the matter densities $`n_e`$ varies with the distance $`r`$, as well as the magnetic field $`B(r)`$, the mass eigenstates evolve adiabatically only if the adiabaticity condition is satisfied at the resonance , that is

$$\gamma \left|\frac{a_1a_2}{d\stackrel{~}{\theta }/dr}\right|_{res}1,$$
(II.13)
where the effective mixing angle is define by (II.8) and $`a_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, are the eigenvalues of the submatrix of evolution Eq. (II.4) corresponding to $`\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}`$ transition

$$a_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}{2E}2\lambda +\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e\right)^2+4\mu ^2|B_{}|^2}\right\}.$$
(II.14)
The transition probability (II.11) is generalized by the formula

$$P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}P_c\right)\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cos}2\theta ,$$
(II.15)
where $`P_c=\mathrm{exp}[2\pi \gamma \mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }/\mathrm{sin}^22\stackrel{~}{\theta }]`$ . If $`\gamma 1`$ realizes, then the formula (II.11) is recovered.

Eq. (II.8) allows to calculate $`(d\stackrel{~}{\theta }/dr)_{res}`$, and by using (II.14), the adiabaticity condition (II.13) assumes the form

$$\gamma ^1=\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{8\mu ^2|B_{}|^2}\left|\frac{dn_e}{dr}\right|\right)_{res}1.$$
(II.16)
The term containing $`dB/dr`$ is absent since at the resonance its coefficient vanishes. Being $`B_{}10`$T in the solar convective zone , Eq. (II.16) reduces to

$$e^{10.5r_{res}/R_{}}0.1,$$
(II.17)
which is fulfilled by $`r_{res}0.4R_{}`$. Eq. (II.17) then assures that the mass eigenstates of neutrinos produced in the Sun evolve always adiabatically.

From (II.7) it follows the upper bound on $`\lambda `$

$$\lambda \frac{1}{2}\left[10^{12}e^{10.5r_{res}/R_{}}\text{eV}+\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}{2E}\right].$$
(II.18)
The best fit for neutrino oscillations induced by MSW effect is given by the following (experimental) values of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ parameters

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|(3÷10)\times 10^6\text{eV}^2& \mathrm{sin}^22\theta (0.6÷1.3)\times 10^2& \text{SMA}\\ |\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|(1÷20)\times 10^5\text{eV}^2& \mathrm{sin}^22\theta 0.5÷0.9& \text{LMA}\end{array}`$

where SMA and LMA stand for Small ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1`$) and Large ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1`$) Mixing Angle solution, respectively.

In what follows, estimations are carried out for solar neutrinos with the maximum energy $`E15`$MeV, produced by $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ and $`hep`$ reactions . It is worth to point out that even though the flux of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos produced in the Sun is much smaller than the fluxes of $`pp`$, $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$, and $`pep`$ neutrinos, $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos give the major contribution to the event rates of experiments with a high energy detection threshold . In fact, the results of Kamiokande and SuperKamiokande experiments are usually presented in terms of the measured flux of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos .

The resonance occurring at $`r_{res}0.4R_{}`$ implies that the background matter density reduces and the dominant term in (II.18) is the massive one. For $`k_5𝒪(1)`$, the lower bound on $``$ is $`10^6`$eV-1, which is nearly in the range of nuclear physics so that it can be discarded since no evidence of loop structure occurred at this scale. If $`10^{18}`$eV-1, then the upper bound on $`k_5`$ is $`k_5<10^{25}`$, which is a weak bound since the coefficient $`k_5`$ is expected to be of the order $`𝒪(1)`$. Finally, in the case of mobile scale, one gets $`k_5𝒪(1)÷𝒪(10)`$ for the SMA solution, and $`k_5<𝒪(10)÷𝒪(10^2)`$ for the LMA solution, that are the expected order of magnitude for $`k_5`$. Such ranges increase for neutrinos with energies $`10`$MeV (as, for instance, for $`pp`$, $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$, $`pep`$ neutrinos).

Let us finally discuss the case of degenerate or massless neutrinos (or $`\theta =\pi /4`$). The effective mixing angle then reduces to

$`|\mathrm{tan}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu B_{}}{\lambda }},`$

where we have neglected the weak interaction of neutrinos with the background matter ($`n_e0`$). We consider neutrinos propagating in regions far from the Sun core, where the superficial magnetic field of the Sun is $`B_{}10^1`$T . Being the neutrino magnetic momentum $`\mu 10^{11}\mu _B6\times 10^{16}`$eVT-1 , it follows that the magnetic energy of neutrinos is $`\mu B_{}6\times 10^{17}`$eV. Since $`k_5𝒪(1)`$ and taking $`p^1`$, with $`p`$MeV, one gets $`|\mathrm{tan}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }|1`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{sin}^22\stackrel{~}{\theta }0.5`$. The transition probability (II.9) gives $`P_{\nu _{eL}\nu _{\mu R}}=0.16`$.

### B Atmospheric Neutrinos

Strong evidence in favor of atmospheric neutrino oscillations come from SK experiment , and the relevant values of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ parameters are ($`\nu _\mu `$-$`\nu _\tau `$)

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|5\times 10^3\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1,$$
(II.19)
which implies $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta <1`$. From Eq. (II.7) it follows ($`E`$GeV) $`>10^9`$eV-1 as $`k_5𝒪(1)`$, which has to be discarded, as discussed before. If the scale length is fixed by $`10^{18}`$eV-1, then the parameter $`k_5`$ is bounded by $`k_510^{16}`$. Finally, in the case of mobile scale, one gets

$$k_5<\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}{4E^3l_{Pl}}10^2.$$
(II.20)
For neutrinos with sub-GeV energies, $`E100`$MeV, the coefficient $`k_5`$ in (II.20) is bounded from above by $`k_510`$, which agrees with expected order of $`k_5𝒪(1)`$.

The channel of oscillation $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ in the accelerator LSND experiment, fits experimental data for the following region of parameters

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (0.2÷3)\times 10^3,$$
(II.21)
thus $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta 1`$. The maximum neutrino energy is taken of the order $`E10`$MeV. As $`k_51`$, we find $`10^9`$eV-1. For $`10^{18}`$eV-1, it follows $`k_510^{17}`$. Finally, for $`E^1`$, the parameter $`k_5`$ is given by $`k_510^4`$. We have to point out that LSND experiments still remains unconfirmed, contrarily to the solar and atmospheric experiments which have been confirmed by other experiments.

The above results show that the helicity terms appearing in the dispersion relation (I.2) are the responsible for the occurrence of the resonance condition in the spin-flip conversion of neutrino flavors, whereas the background matter effects are negligible (or are absent). The estimations provide a narrow region of solar and atmospheric neutrino energies in which experiments might seek effects induced by helicity terms occurring in loop quantum gravity, as suggested by AMU’s theory.

## III Conclusion

Despite the concrete difficulties to probe quantum gravity effects occurring at the Planck scale, it is an intriguing suggestion that quantum gravity should predict a slight departure from Lorentz’s invariance, which manifests in a deformation of the dispersion relations of photons and fermions. Such results have been indeed suggested in loop quantum gravity  (and string theory ). This approach is endowed with a scale length characterizing the scale on which new effects are non trivial. The estimation of the order of magnitude of the new scale length and of parameters entering in the dispersion relations is certainly of current interest, as well as different scenarios where these effects become testable .

In this paper we have determined bounds on $``$ and $`k_5`$ (occurring in Eq. (I.2)) in the context of neutrinos oscillations. In the case of solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations, the analysis performed suggests that the mobile scale $`p^1`$ is the favorite one, with $`k_5𝒪(1)÷𝒪(10)`$, as expected. Thus, neutrino oscillations, seem to be very promising candidates (see also Refs. ) for bringing quantum gravity effects predicted by AMU theory to the realm of experimental evidence.


format: text

text:
# Spin waves and the origin of commensurate magnetism in Ba2CoGe2O7.

## I Introduction

Several years ago the square-lattice helimagnet Ba2CuGe2O7 was recognized as an extremely interesting material for studying Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) off-diagonal exchange interactions. A great deal of attention was given to the incommensurate nature of the magnetic ground state,Zheludev et al. (1996) a unique field-induced incommensurate-to-commensurate (IC) transition,Zheludev et al. (1997a, 1998a) and the field dependence of the spiral spin structure.Zheludev et al. (1997b) Studies of the spin wave spectrum in the incommensurateZheludev et al. (1998b); Zheludev et al. (1999) and commensurateZheludev et al. (1999) phases led to the first direct observation of a new type of magnetic interactions in insulators, the so-called KSEA term.Moriya60 ; Kaplan (1983); Shekhtman et al. (1992, 1993); Entin-Wohlman et al. (1994) Additional theoretical studies shed light on the nature of the so-called “intermediate phase”.Chovan et al. (064433)

A recent study indicated that an IC transition in Ba2CuGe2O7 can be induced not only by applying an external magnetic field, but also by a partial chemical substitution of the spin-carrying Cu2+ ions by Co2+.Sat  For all Co-concentrations $`x`$ the solid solution Ba$`{}_{2}{}^{}(`$CoxCu$`{}_{1x}{}^{})`$Ge2O7 orders magnetically at temperatures between $`T_N=3.2`$ K ($`x=0`$) and $`T_N=6.7`$ K ($`x=1`$). Magnetization data suggest that the helimagnetic state realized at $`x=0`$ gives way to a canted weak-ferromagnetic structure at some critical concentration $`x_c`$, estimated to be between $`0.05`$ and $`0.1`$. The mechanism of this transition or crossover is poorly understood. One possible explanation was proposed in Ref. Sat, . The structure of Ba$`{}_{2}{}^{}(`$CoxCu$`{}_{1x}{}^{})`$Ge2O7 is tetragonal, the $`S=1/2`$ Cu2+ or $`S=3/2`$ Co2+ ions forming a square lattice within the $`(a,b)`$ crystallographic plane. The dominant interaction is the antiferromagnetic (AF) coupling $`J`$ between nearest-neighbor (NN) sites along the $`(1,1,0)`$ direction. In the $`x=0`$ compound the helimagnetic distortion is caused by the in-plane component $`𝐃_{xy}`$ of the Dzyaloshinskii vector $`𝐃`$ associated with the same Cu-Cu bonds.Zheludev et al. (1997a, 1998a) This component retains its direction from one bond to the next, and thus favors a spin spiral state.Dzy  In contrast, the out-of-plane component $`𝐃_z`$ is sign-alternating and stabilizes a weak-ferromagnetic structure. The $`z`$-axis component of $`𝐃`$ was never detected in Ba2CuGe2O7, where it was assumed to be weak. In Ref. Sat,  it was tentatively suggested that the out-of-plane component is dominant in the Co-based $`x=1`$ material, and stabilizes a commensurate magnetic structure. To verify this hypothesis and better understand the underlying physics, a detailed knowledge of magnetic interactions not only in Ba2CuGe2O7 ($`x=0`$), but also in Ba2CoGe2O7 ($`x=1`$) is required. In the present paper we report the results of neutron diffraction and inelastic neutron scattering measurements on the $`x=1`$ material Ba2CoGe2O7.

## II Experimental

To date, the exact crystal structure of Ba2CoGe2O7 has not been determined. However, powder datalattice  indicate that the material is very similar to its Cu-based counterpart and is characterized by the $`P\overline{4}2_1m`$ crystallographic space group. The lattice parameters for Ba2CoGe2O7 are $`a=b=8.410`$ Å and $`c=5.537`$ Å, as measured at $`T=10`$ K. In each crystallographic unit cell the magnetic Co2+ ions are located at $`(0,0,0)`$ and $`(0.5,0.5,0)`$ positions. The NN Co-Co distance is thus along the $`(1,1,0)`$ direction and equal to $`a/\sqrt{2}5.9`$ Å. For the present study we utilized two single crystal samples prepared using the floating zone technique. Both crystals were cylindrical, roughly 5 mm diameter $`\times `$ 50 mm long, with a mosaic spread of about $`0.4^{}`$.

The first series of experiments was carried out at the HB1 3-axis spectrometer installed at the High Flux Isotope reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Setup I). Its main purpose was to determine the spin arrangement in the magnetically ordered state. The sample was mounted with the $`b`$ axis vertical making $`(h,0,l)`$ reflections accessible for measurements. Neutrons with a fixed incident energy of 13.5 meV were used in combination with a pyrolytic graphite (PG) monochromator and analyzer, $`30^{}40^{}20^{}120^{}`$ collimation, and a PG higher-order filter. Sample environment was a closed-cycle refrigerator that allowed measurements at temperatures down to 3.5 K. To isolate the magnetic contribution, integrated intensities were measured in a series of rocking curves at $`T=3.5`$ K$`<T_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`T=10`$ K$`>T_\mathrm{N}`$.

While using Setup I, it became apparent that the study of magnetic excitations could be much better carried out using of a cold neutron instrument, the relevant energy scale for Ba2CoGe2O7 being about 2 meV. These measurements were therefore performed at the TASP 3-axis spectrometer installed at the SINQ spallation source at Paul Scherrer Institut (Setup II). Neutrons with a fixed final energy of 5.5 meV were used with PG monochromator and analyzer, and a PG filter after the sample. The beam collimation was $`(\mathrm{guide})80^{}80^{}(\mathrm{open})`$. The sample was mounted with the $`c`$ axis vertical, making momentum transfers in the $`(h,k,0)`$ reciprocal-space plane accessible for measurement. Spin wave dispersion curves were measured along the $`(h,0,0)`$ and $`(h,h,0)`$ directions using constant-$`Q`$ scans in the energy range 0–4 meV. The sample environment was a standard “ILL Orange” He-4 flow cryostat, and most of the data were taken at $`T=2`$ K.

## III Results

### III.1 A model for the spin structure

In the Ba2CuGe2O7 system magnetic ordering gives rise to incommensurate peaks surrounding the integer $`h`$, $`k`$ and $`l`$ reciprocal-space points.Zheludev et al. (1996) In contrast, in Ba2CoGe2O7 magnetic Bragg scattering was detected below $`T_\mathrm{N}=6.7`$ K at strictly commensurate positions $`h`$, $`k`$ and $`l`$-integer. Due to their location, the magnetic reflections, except those on the $`(h,0,0)`$ and $`(0,k,0)`$ reciprocal-space rods, coincide with nuclear ones. Figure 1 shows the measured temperature dependence of the $`(1,0,0)`$ peak intensity (Setup II). The insert shows rocking curves measured above and below the ordering temperature. The appreciable residual intensity seen at $`T>T_N`$ at the $`(1,0,0)`$ forbidden nuclear peak position is due to multiple scattering. 19 non-equivalent magnetic Bragg intensities measured using Setup I were normalized by the resolution volume, which in a 3-axis experiment plays the role of the Lorentz factor. In our case it was calculated using the Cooper-Nathans approximation. The resolution-corrected magnetic intensities $`I_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ are listed in Table 1. The observed intensity pattern indicates a planar spin arrangement, with all spins confined to the $`(a,b)`$ plane, and nearest-neighbor spins aligned antiparallel with each other.

The alignment of nearest-neighbor spins along the $`c`$ direction is “ferromagnetic”. Such a spin structure is identical to the one in the commensurate spin-flop phase of Ba2CuGe2O7 stabilized by an external magnetic field applied along the $`c`$ axis.Zheludev et al. (1997a, 1998a) As can be seen from Table 1, where $`I_{\mathrm{calc}}`$ are the calculated magnetic intensities, this simple collinear model reproduces our limited diffraction data for Ba2CoGe2O7 rather well. Due to the possibility of antiferromagnetic domains, the spin orientation within the $`(a,b)`$ plane could not be determined unambiguously. Neither did we measure the actual magnitude of the ordered moment, since the crystallographic data needed to bring the measured magnetic intensities to an absolute scale is not currently available for Ba2CoGe2O7. It is reasonable to assume that at low temperatures the sublattice magnetization is close to its classical saturation value. Indeed, this is the case in the $`S=1/2`$ Cu2+-system, where quantum fluctuations may be expected to be even stronger than in the $`S=3/2`$ Co2+ compound.

### III.2 Spin waves

The dispersion of spin wave excitations in Ba2CoGe2O7 was found to be quite different from that in Ba2CuGe2O7. Zheludev et al. (1998b); Zheludev et al. (1999) Figure 2 shows typical constant-$`q`$ scans measured in the Co-compound using Setup II at $`T=2`$ K. Two distinct sharp excitations are observed. One branch is acoustic in origin, with excitation energy linearly going to zero at the AF zone-center $`(1,1,0)`$. The second “optical” branch is barely dispersive and is always seen around 2 meV energy transfer. The two spin wave branches converge at the AF zone-boundary $`(0.5,0.5,0)`$. In all cases the observed energy width of spin wave peaks is resolution limited. The apparent variation of peak width seen in Fig. 2 is due to instrumental “focusing” effects. The data were analyzed using Gaussian fits (solid line in Fig. 2). The background (shaded areas) was assumed to be constant with an additional Gaussian component at zero energy transfer to model incoherent elastic scattering. The dispersion relations along the $`(1,1,0)`$ and $`(1,0,0)`$ reciprocal-space directions deduced from these fits are plotted in symbols Fig. 3.

### III.3 Data analysis

The observed dispersion of spin wave excitations can be understood in the framework of linear spin wave theory. To construct a model spin Hamiltonian, we assumed that the dominant magnetic interactions in Ba2CoGe2O7 are those between nearest-neighbor spins in the $`(a,b)`$ plane, as is the case in Ba2CuGe2O7. Given that the $`S=3/2`$ Co2+ ions are frequently associated with a large magnetic anisotropy, in our model we allowed this coupling to be anisotropic, and also included a single-ion anisotropy term. The resulting model Hamiltonian is written as:

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{~}{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}}\left[J_zS_m^{(z)}S_n^{(z)}+J_{}S_m^{(x)}S_n^{(x)}+J_{}S_m^{(y)}S_n^{(y)}\right]+`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\left[S_m^{(z)}\right]^2+A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[S_n^{(z)}\right]^2.`$
Here $`m`$ and $`n`$ label the spins on the two antiferromagnetic square sublattices with origins at $`(0,0,0)`$ and $`(0.5,0.5,0)`$, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ stands for summation over nearest neighbors. Note that the interactions along the $`c`$ axis are not included in the above expression. They were not measured directly in this work, and are likely to be ferromagnetic, due to the value of the magnetic ordering vector. The corresponding coupling constant was previously found to be extremely weak in Ba2CuGe2O7,Zheludev et al. (1996) and was assumed to also be small in the Co-system. The $`c`$-axis coupling should thus have no considerable effect on spin wave dispersion in the $`(h,k,0)`$ reciprocal-space plane.

The spin wave Hamiltonian is obtained from Eq. 1 through a Holstein-Primakoff transformation. After linearization it can be easily diagonalized by a Fourier-Bogolyubov transformation. This straightforward yet tedious calculation for our particular case yields two spin wave branches with the following dispersion relations:

$$[\mathrm{}\omega _𝐪^{(\pm )}]^2=S^2(8J_{}4J_{}C_𝐪)(8J_{}\pm 4J_zC_𝐪+2A),$$
(2)
where

$$C_𝐪\mathrm{cos}(\pi h+\pi k)+\mathrm{cos}(\pi h\pi k).$$
(3)
From Eq. 2 it follows that exchange anisotropy and single-ion anisotropy can not be distinguished based on dispersion measurements alone. Indeed, it can be rewritten using only two independent parameters:

$$[\mathrm{}\omega _𝐪^{(\pm )}]^2=(4JS)^2(2C_𝐪)(2𝒜\pm C_𝐪),$$
(4)
where $`J\sqrt{J_{}J_z}`$ and $`𝒜\frac{J_{}}{J_z}+\frac{A}{4J_z}`$. The quantity $`𝒜`$ is unity in the isotropic case and is a generalized measure of easy-plane anisotropy in our model. Excellent fits to the data are obtained assuming $`S=3/2`$ and using $`J=0.103(1)`$ meV and $`𝒜=2.58(3)`$. Dispersion curves calculated using these parameters are shown in dashed and solid lines in Fig. 3. Unlike its Cu-based counterpart, Ba2CoGe2O7 is characterized by very strong magnetic easy-plane anisotropy.

## IV Discussion

The strong anisotropy effects in Ba2CoGe2O7 push all spins in the system into the $`(a,b)`$ crystallographic plane. This effect is similar to that of a magnetic field applied along the $`c`$ axis that favors an $`(a,b)`$-planar state in Ba2CuGe2O7.Zheludev et al. (1998b); Zheludev et al. (1999) Since the helimagnet-forming uniform component $`𝐃_{xy}`$ of the Dzyaloshinskii vector is itself in the $`(a,b)`$ plane, forcing the spins into the $`(a,b)`$ plane makes the corresponding triple-product in the Hamiltonian $`𝐃_{xy}(𝐒_m\times 𝐒_n)`$ vanish. Only the non-helimagnet-forming sign-alternating $`z`$-axis component of $`𝐃`$ remains relevant. As a result, the spin structure may be slightly canted, but is, nevertheless, commensurate.

It is important to stress that effective easy-plane anisotropy was previously detected in Ba2CuGe2O7 as well. However, in this $`S=1/2`$ Cu-based system any single-ion term is reduced to a constant and is therefore irrelevant. The only source of anisotropy is a two-ion term, which was shown to be caused by the so-called KSEA interactions.Zheludev et al. (1998b); Zheludev et al. (1999) The latter are a very weak effect with an energy scale of $`D^2/J310^2J`$. On a square lattice KSEA interactions happen to be just strong enough to distort the helical structure, but not to fully destroy incommensurability.Zheludev et al. (1998b) In contrast, as follows from the present study, easy-plane anisotropy in Ba2CoGe2O7 is much stronger, of the order of $`J`$ itself. The anisotropy is probably due to single-ion effects that are only allowed for $`S>1/2`$, and its magnitude is well beyond the critical value needed to destroy the helimagnetic state.

The results discussed above allows us to speculate about the IC transition in Ba$`{}_{2}{}^{}(`$CoxCu$`{}_{1x}{}^{})`$Ge2O7 that occurs with increasing Co-concentration $`x`$. Each Co-impurity strongly “pins” the original spiral at the impurity site, firmly confining the corresponding spin to the $`(a,b)`$ plane. Helimagnetic correlations are totally destroyed when the characteristic distance between such strong-pinning locations becomes comparable with the period of the unperturbed spiral, which in Ba2CuGe2O7 is roughly 40 nearest-neighbor bonds.Zheludev et al. (1996) This suggests a critical concentration of about $`x2`$%, in reasonable agreement with bulk magnetization data of Ref. Sat, .

## V Conclusion

To summarize, the commensurate nature of the ground state in Ba2CoGe2O7 is primarily due not to a dominant staggered component of the Dzyaloshinskii vector, but to easy-plane anisotropy effects that are orders of magnitude stronger than typical Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya or KSEA interactions. As a result, the destruction of helimagntism in Ba$`{}_{2}{}^{}(`$CoxCu$`{}_{1x}{}^{})`$Ge2O7 occurs very rapidly with increasing Co-concentration, as soon as the mean distance between impurities becomes comparable to the period of the spin spiral.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for COE Research “SCP coupled system” of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. Work at ORNL and BNL was carried out under DOE Contracts No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 and DE-AC02-98CH10886, respectively.


text:
# FFIA-UV/03-01 NUCLEATION OF ⁽⁴⁾𝑅 BRANE UNIVERSES

## 1 Introduction

Nowadays, with the standard cosmology the famous fundamental question, “where did it all come from?” still it does not have a convincing answer, reason why a new description is necessary. Cosmologists during long time have believed that quantum cosmology can shed light on this question  but some issues are in controversy, e.g. the lack of an intrinsic time variable in the theory , the validity of the minisuperspace approximation, the problem of cosmological boundary conditions , to mention something. Among the proposals trying to outline a possible answer to the fundamental question, the so-called Brane World Scenaries (BWS)  became a promising way to understand the birth and then the evolution of our Universe. Grounded on the proposal that our universe can be thought as a 4-dimensional spacetime object embedded in an N-dimensional spacetime, the main physical idea behind of BWS is that the matter fields are confined to a 3-dimensional space (brane) while the gravitational fields can extend into a higher-dimensional space (bulk), where the graviton can travel into the extra dimensions. Originally proposed to resolve the hierarchy problem, BWS has been applied to a great diversity of situations such as dark matter/energy, quientessence, cosmology, inflation and particle physics. On other hand, at the formal mathematical level, related applications of embedding theory such as generation of internal symmetries, quantum gravity and alternative Kaluza-Klein theories have been exploited . In the cosmology context there are predictions of these ideas, that could be tested by astronomical observations what constitutes one of the several reasons for which it is so attractive, so that it has predictive power .

In these brane world programs, gravity on the brane can be recovered by compactifying the extra dimensions  or by introducing an AdS background spacetime . However, Dvali, Gabadadze and Porrati  (DGP) showed that, even in an asymptotically Minkowski bulk, 4-dimensional gravity can be recovered if one includes a brane curvature term in the action. Furthermore, DGP considered the $`Z_2`$ reflection symmetry with respect to the brane getting that gravity, is 4-dimensional on smaller scales than a certain scale, or it is 5-dimensional on larger distances . It is noteworthy that reflection symmetry is not the only possibility in these models. With regard to the last, several works have been devoted to antisymmetric cases , for instance, when the brane is coupled to a 4-form field . In a pionner work, Brown and Teitelboim worked out the process of membrane creation by an antisymmetric field motivated by Schwinger process of pair creation induced for the presence of a electric field . Garriga  has also studied the creation of membranes for this field in a dS background. Others authors have been interested in brane world creation in AdS spacetime or in other particular situations  but, upon our knowledge, nobody has been devoted to the nucleation of Brane World Universes (BWU) induced by a 4-form field besides a brane curvature term included in the action. Generally, BWS are studied mostly for AdS/dS as well as empty (Minkowski) backgrounds.

In this paper we are going to discuss the nucleation of BWU with a curvature term induced by a 4-form field in a dS background spacetime. We get the Friedman like equation when 5-dimensional gravity is fixed and perform geometric Hamiltonian analysis in order to obtain, by means of canonical quantization, the corresponding Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The setup for the induced brane production is as follows. There is an external homogeneous field that produces a brane; then, the natural question there, is: what is the probability of such process? In the present paper we calculate the creation probability for a brane universe embedded in a de Sitter space, produced by a 4-form potential gauge field in the same way that the standard electromagnetic potential bears to a charged particle. In its quantum analisys we shall use a WKB approximation attaining the same results by an instanton method. We could try to answer the question of which one of the universes arose is the more probable universe produced in this model and if our Universe is one of them, or could be a very special universe. Parameters of this model must be constrained by cosmological requirements like nucleosynthesis .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present the equations of motion of a brane with matter and curvature term that lives in a AdS/dS or Minkowski bulk when there is no $`Z_2`$ symmetry and, by means of a limit equivalent to the presence of a 4-form field in a fixed background the corresponding equations. A geometric Hamiltonian approach is done in Sec. III, where the fundamental canonical structure is obtained and the canonical constraints are listed. The next step is specialize the general canonical analysis to the case of a spherical 3-brane floating in an $`\text{dS}_5`$ background spacetime which is the issue of Sec. IV. The last provides the preamble to obtain the WdW equation in the canonical quantization context, which is done in Sec. V. The creation probability is calculated in Sec. VI by two methods, the first is an instanton approach and the other one by means of a WKB approach for barrier tunneling of the WdW equation. Finally in Sec. VII, we present our conclusions as well as some perspectives of our work.

## 2 The model

The effective action that we are interested in the brane world model corresponds to a 3-brane with a intrinsic curvature term considered from its worldsheet and no $`Z_2`$ symmetry in the presence of a fixed background spacetime. We consider the following action

$$S=d^5y\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2k}{}_{}{}^{(5)}+_m\right)+d^4x\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2k^{}}L_m\right)$$
(2.1)
where $`_m`$ and $`L_m=\rho _v`$ stand for matter Lagrangians for the bulk and the brane, respectively. In our case, we will consider those as cosmological constants. The constants $`k=M_{(N)}^{2N}`$ and $`k^{}=M_{(4)}^2`$, where $`M_{(4)}`$ and $`M_{(N)}`$ are the brane Plank and bulk masses. $`N`$ denotes the dimension of the bulk. The respective equations of motion for the brane are ,

$`[K]\gamma _{ab}[K_{ab}]`$ $`=`$ $`k𝒯_{ab},`$ (2.2)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}^{ab}<K_{ab}>`$ $`=`$ $`[𝒯_{nn}],`$ (2.3)
$`_a(T^a{}_{b}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{T}_{bn}].`$ (2.4)
where $`K_{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature of the brane, $`\gamma _{ab}`$ denotes the worldsheet metric. $`𝒯_{ab}=(𝒯_{bulk})_{\mu \nu }e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}e_{}^{\nu }_b`$, $`𝒯_{an}=(𝒯_{bulk})_{\mu \nu }e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}n_{}^{\nu }`$ and $`𝒯_{nn}=(𝒯_{bulk})_{\mu \nu }n^\mu n^\nu `$ are the projections onto the worldsheet of the bulk energy-momentum tensor. The square and angular brackets represent the difference and the average of the corresponding embraced quantity, on the two sides of the brane, respectively, i.e., $`[K_{ab}]=K_{ab}^+K_{ab}^{}`$ and $`<K_{ab}>=\frac{1}{2}(K_{ab}^++K_{ab}^{})`$, where ‘+’ and ‘-’ denote the exterior and interior of the brane.

Taking into account that the bulk energy momentum tensor has the form

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu }^\pm =k^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm g_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.5)
and by means of the generalized Birkhof theorem, the 5-dimensional FRW metric can be written as

$$dS_5^2=A_\pm d\tau ^2+A_\pm ^1da^2+a^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,$$
(2.6)
where

$$A_\pm =\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm }{6}a^2\frac{2^\pm }{M_{(5)}^3a^2},$$
(2.7)
and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ denotes the metric of a 3-sphere, $`a`$ is the cosmic scale factor and $`^\pm `$ is the mass. Furthermore, in the cosmic time gauge the 4-dimensional metric on the brane reduces to

$$dS_4^2=dt^2+a^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2.$$
(2.8)
Using the junction conditions, and due to we have isotropy and homogeneity in (2.6), matter can be parametrized completely via a perfect fluid brane energy-momentum tensor

$$T^a{}_{b}{}^{}=\text{diag}(\rho ,P,P,P),$$
(2.9)
so the relevant equations of motion for the model are the following

$`\left(\dot{a}^2+A_{}\right)^{1/2}\left(\dot{a}^2+A_+\right)^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ka}{3}}\left(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{3(\dot{a}^2+1)}{k^{}a^2}}\right),`$ (2.10)
$`\dot{\rho }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}(\rho +P)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.11)
Last equation represents the energy-momentum conservation on the brane. The former system was discussed in  where several interesting cases were treated. Suppose now $`^{}=0`$, $`\rho =\text{const}`$, and consider at the same time, the limits of fixed bulk gravity, $`M_{(5)}\mathrm{}`$ and, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ but satisfying the following relation

$$\text{Lim}_{(M_{\left(5\right)},\mathrm{\Lambda }^+)(\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})M_{(5)}^3=\alpha ,$$
(2.12)
so, expanding the second term of the LHS of Eq. (2.11), this equation transform to

$$\left(\frac{\rho }{3}M_{(4)}^2\frac{\dot{a}+1}{a^2}\right)\left(\frac{\dot{a}+1}{a^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{\alpha }{12}+\frac{}{a^4}.$$
(2.13)
In order to get the Friedman like equation we define a $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ quantity through its definition

$$\frac{\dot{a}+1}{a^2}\frac{\rho }{3M_{(4)}^2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}H^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}.$$
(2.14)
Note that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is only a function of $`a`$ and it is a solution of the following relation

$$M_{(4)}^4(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}})^2\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}\right)=H^6\left(\frac{\alpha }{12}+\frac{}{a^4}\right)^2.$$
(2.15)
As we will see below, this approach is equivalent to a brane interacting with a 4-form field and propagating in a fixed background spacetime.

## 3 Hamiltonian Approach

The Hamiltonian framework has been a fundamental prop in the study of the dynamics of field theories besides of appoint oneself a preliminary step towards canonical quantization in physical theories. Knowingly of previous fact, canonical quantization is the oldest and most conservative approach to quantization which we would like to develop in order to attain the quantum cosmology emerged from our BWU model. To carry out the previous thing, we must begin by casting the theory in a canonical fashion, then we shall proceed to its quantization.

To begin with, we are going to mimic the well known ADM procedure for canonical gravity to get a hamiltonian description of the brane. We shall assume that the worldsheet $`m`$ admits a foliation, i.e., we will begin with a time like 4-manifold $`m`$ topologically $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$, equipped with a metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$, such that $`m`$ is an outcome of the evolution of a space like 3-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, representing “instants of time”, each of which is diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then we shall proced to identify the several geometric quantities inherent to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. The ADM decomposition of the action, computation of the momenta as well as the recognition of the constraints are the succesive stages.

### 3.1 Model ADM decomposed

Leaning in results achieved in , we are going to display the standard procedure. We start considering the action

$$S=\frac{k_1}{2}_m\sqrt{\gamma }(+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)+\frac{k_2}{4!}_m\sqrt{\gamma }A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },$$
(3.1)
where $``$ is the Ricci scalar curvature of the worldsheet $`m`$, $`k_1=M_{(4)}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=2\rho _v/M_{(4)}^2`$ being the cosmological constant on the brane. $`A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is a gauge 4-form Ramond-Ramond field onto the bulk, $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is an antisymmetric bulk tensor which can be expressed in terms of the worldsheet Levi-Civita tensor as $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=ϵ^{abcd}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}e_{}^{\nu }{}_{b}{}^{}e_{}^{\rho }{}_{c}{}^{}e_{}^{\sigma }_d`$, where $`e^\mu _a`$ denotes the tangent vectors to the worldsheet, $`a,b=0,1,2,3`$. $`k_2`$ is the coupling constant between the brane and the antisymmetric tensor.

Before going on, we would like to glimpse onto the ADM decomposition of some important geometric quantities defined onto the branes in our geometrical approach. In the Appendix we have included notation and some important facts for embedding theories to have reference of the material useful through the paper.

Taking into account the Gauss-Codazzi relations for the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ in $`m`$, Eqs. (A.4) and (A.5), up to a divergence term we have an equation involving the curvatures either extrinsic and intrinsic

$$=R+(k_{AB}k^{AB}k^2),$$
(3.2)
where $`R`$ denotes the intrinsic curvatureWe will adhere to Wald’s convention concerning the definitions of Riemannian curvature, namely, $`2_{[a}_{b]}t^c=_{abd}{}_{}{}^{c}t_{}^{d}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ which does not have any dependence of the velocity and $`k_{AB}`$ its extrinsic curvature associated with the unit timelike normal $`\eta ^\mu `$, given by

$`k_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\eta ^\mu (𝒟_Aϵ^\nu {}_{B}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu ϵ^\alpha {}_{A}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\beta }{}_{B}{}^{})`$ (3.3)
$`:=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\eta ^\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_Aϵ^\nu {}_{B}{}^{}.`$
Besides of (3.3), in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ we have another curvature tensor associated with the $`i`$th unit normal $`n^{\mu i}`$

$$K_{AB}^i=g_{\mu \nu }n^{\mu i}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_Aϵ^\nu {}_{B}{}^{},$$
(3.4)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the background spacetime metric and $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},Nd;A,B=1,2,3`$. Note that the configuration space consists of the embedding functions $`X^\mu `$ for the brane, instead of 3-metrics as is customary in the ADM approach for general relativity.

In order to simplify the computations below, the next relations will be more useful since the velocities appear explicitly

$`\kappa _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`Nk_{AB}`$
$`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_Aϵ^\nu {}_{B}{}^{}.`$
For canonical purposes will be useful the next time derivative

$$\frac{N}{\dot{X}^\mu }=\eta _\mu =g_{\mu \nu }\eta ^\nu .$$
(3.6)
As before, we will need the derivatives of the extrinsic curvature

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{AB}}{\dot{X}^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_Aϵ^\nu _B`$
$`=`$ $`k_{AB}\eta _\mu +K_{AB}^in_{\mu i},`$
where in the second line on the RHS we have used the Gauss-Weingarten equations (A.1).

The ADM decomposed action (3.1) now looks like

$$S=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}_R\frac{k_1}{2}N\sqrt{h}\left[\overline{R}+k_{AB}k^{AB}k^2\right]+_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}_R\frac{k_2}{3!}A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\dot{X}^\mu ϵ^\nu {}_{A}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\rho }{}_{B}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\sigma }{}_{C}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{ABC}$$
(3.8)
where we have defined $`\overline{R}:=R+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`h`$ is the determinant of the hypersurface metric $`h_{AB}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{ABC}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ Levi-Civita antisymmetric symbol.

### 3.2 Primordial tensor

We define for convenience the following symmetric tensor which is independent of the velocities

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu _\nu `$ $`:=`$ $`(h^{AB}h^{CD}h^{AC}h^{BD})\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_Aϵ^\mu {}_{B}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{C}^{}ϵ_{\nu D}`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`(k^2k_{AB}k^{AB})\eta ^\mu \eta _\nu (kL^iK_{AB}^ik^{AB})n^\mu {}_{i}{}^{}\eta _{\nu }^{}`$
$``$ $`(kL^iK_{AB}^ik^{AB})\eta ^\mu n_{\nu i}+(L^iL^jK_{AB}^iK^{ABj})n^\mu {}_{i}{}^{}n_{\nu j}^{},`$
where $`L^i`$ denotes the trace of the curvature $`K_{AB}^i`$, i.e., $`L^i=h^{AB}K_{AB}^i`$. This tensor will keep track of the dynamics of the theory as we will below. The tensor (3.9) was previously defined in  where a Hamiltonian analysis for geodetic brane gravity was performed. We will have in mind some ideas of the classical approach developed there.

Some of the important properties we are interested from the tensor (3.9) are the following

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\alpha }_A`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}\dot{X}_{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`N(k^2k_{AB}k^{AB})\eta ^\mu +N(kL^iK_{AB}^ik^{AB})n^\mu {}_{i}{}^{},`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^\nu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}\dot{X}_{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`N^2(k^2k_{AB}k^{AB}).`$
We shall adopt the notation $`\dot{X}\mathrm{\Theta }\dot{X}:=g_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^\nu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}\dot{X}_{}^{\alpha }`$ throughout the paper. Taking advantage of the previous results we are able to rewrite the Lagrangian density as follows

$$=\frac{k_1}{2}N\sqrt{h}\left[\overline{R}\frac{1}{N^2}\dot{X}\mathrm{\Theta }\dot{X}\right]+\frac{k_2}{3!}A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\dot{X}^\mu ϵ^\nu {}_{A}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\rho }{}_{B}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\sigma }{}_{C}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{ABC}.$$
(3.10)
Using the tensor (3.9), the momenta associated to the embedding functions are the following

$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{X}^\mu }}`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{2}}\sqrt{h}\left\{\left[\overline{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\dot{X}\mathrm{\Theta }\dot{X}\right]\eta _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\nu \right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{3!}}A_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{\epsilon }^{\alpha \beta \gamma },`$
where we have defined the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$-antisymmetric tangent tensor $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\mu \nu \rho }=\epsilon ^{ABC}ϵ^\mu {}_{A}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\nu }{}_{B}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\rho }_C`$ with normalization $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{\epsilon }_{\mu \nu \rho }=3!`$ .

### 3.3 Canonical Constraints

Due to we have in hands an invariant reparametrization theory, a natural question to ask is what its inherited primary constraints are. This is part of the chore for constrained field theories. According to the standard Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, we will get the constraints from the momenta (3.11). It is convenient for the computation, define the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}:=\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}\lambda g^\mu _\nu `$ where $`\lambda (x)`$ is a not dynamical field which is gauge dependent , to be found. If we assume that the form of momenta have the following pattern,

$$P_\mu =\sqrt{h}k_1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\lambda g\right)_{\mu \nu }\eta ^\nu +\frac{k_2}{3!}A_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{\epsilon }^{\alpha \beta \gamma },$$
(3.12)
we are free to compare both expressions (3.11) and (3.12) to get a condition to be satisfied

$$\overline{R}+\eta \mathrm{\Theta }\eta +2\lambda =0.$$
(3.13)
This expression will metamorphose in a primary constraint after we express it in terms of phase space variables.

Profitable is the introduction of the field $`\lambda (x)`$ since we can solve Eq.(3.12) for the timelike unit normal vector

$$\eta ^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}k_1}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^1\right)^\mu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}g_{}^{\alpha \beta }𝒫_\beta ,$$
(3.14)
where we have defined $`𝒫_\mu =P_\mu \frac{k_2}{3!}A_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{\epsilon }^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, but we have to pay a price which is enlarge the number of constraints as we will see below. Inserting this form of the unit time-like vector in the relation (3.13), we get the main scalar primary constraint. In a similar way, inserting $`\eta ^\mu `$ in its square relation, $`g(\eta ,\eta )=1`$, we have another scalar constraint.

The complete set of primary constraints we have in hand are the following

$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Psi }^1)𝒫+h\lambda _0k_1^2=0,`$ (3.15)
$`𝒞_0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Psi }^2)𝒫+hk_1^2=0,`$ (3.16)
$`C_A`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_\mu ϵ^\mu {}_{A}{}^{}=0,`$ (3.17)
$`𝒞_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`P_\lambda =0,`$ (3.18)
where we have defined $`\lambda _0=\lambda +\overline{R}`$. The third constraint is the always inherited constraint to the parametrized theories while the last one came from the fact that $`\lambda `$ is not a dynamical field, i.e., its time derivative does not appear in the Lagrangian. It is worthy mention that the constraint $`𝒞_0`$ is a byproduct of $`C_0`$ taking advantage of the identity $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^1)^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}/\lambda =(\mathrm{\Psi }^2)^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}.`$

## 4 Brane Universe Floating in a de Sitter Space

The main idea in this section is adapt the previous dynamical description to the case of a spherical brane immersed in a specific background spacetime in order to apply the quantum approach to our BWS model.

Consider a 3-dimensional spherical brane evolving in a de Sitter 5-dimensional background spacetime, $`dS_5^2=A_\pm d\tau ^2+A_\pm ^1da^2+a^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$, where $`A_\pm `$ is given by (2.7). The worldsheet generated by the motion of the brane can be described by the following embedding

$$x^\mu =X^\mu (\tau ,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{c}t(\tau )\\ a(\tau )\\ \chi \\ \theta \\ \varphi \end{array}\right).$$
(4.1)
The line element induced on the worldsheet is given by

$$ds^2=(A_\pm \dot{t}^2+A_\pm ^1\dot{a^2})d\tau ^2+a^2d\chi ^2+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\theta ^2+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2,$$
(4.2)
where the dot stands for derivative with respect to cosmic time $`\tau `$. For convenience in notation we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }=A_\pm \dot{t}^2+A_\pm ^1\dot{a}^2`$. The frecuently appealed cosmic gauge will be set up by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$.

In order to evaluate the extrinsic curvature tensors involved in our approach, (3.3) and (3.4), we need the orthonormal $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ basis

$$\eta ^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\dot{t},\dot{a},0,0,0),n^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(A_\pm ^1\dot{a},A_\pm \dot{t},0,0,0).$$

The only nonvanishing components for the extrinsic curvatures are

$`k_{\chi \chi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\dot{a}}{(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}}}K_{\chi \chi }={\displaystyle \frac{a\dot{t}}{(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}}}A_\pm `$
$`k_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\dot{a}}{(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\chi K_{\theta \theta }={\displaystyle \frac{a\dot{t}}{(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}}}A_\pm \mathrm{sin}^2\chi `$
$`k_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\dot{a}}{(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta K_{\varphi \varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{a\dot{t}}{(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}}}A_\pm \mathrm{sin}^2\chi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$
It is a straightforward task compute the tensor (3.9) for the present case, which give us

$$\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\right)^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{6}{a^2}A_\pm & 0\\ 0& 0& 0_{3\times 3}\end{array}\right)_{5\times 5}.$$
(4.3)
The next task is compute the matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ so, in order to know $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is necessary evaluate $`\lambda `$. It is easily calculated from the relation (3.13), given by

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2a^2}\left(6+\mathrm{\Lambda }_ba^2+\frac{6\dot{a}^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta })}\right).$$
(4.4)
This seems contradict the functional dependence for the field previously assumed, but we are free to implement an artistry to convert the velocity dependence to the right form by means of the generalized evolution equation, $`(\dot{a}^2+1)/a^2=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}H^2`$, avoiding any misunderstanding.

We turn now to compute a first integral for our specific model. This is performed from (3.11) by setting up $`P_0`$ proportional to the brane energy, $`P_0:=3E\mathrm{\Phi }=3E(\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta )`$. Furthermore, since we have a homogeneous isotropic space in (4.2), we can invoke the typical value $`A_{0\chi \theta \varphi }=\frac{F}{4}a^4\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the gauge field, which is supported by some kind of cosmological solutions , where F is a constant and the corresponding gauge independent field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \delta \gamma }=5_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho \delta \gamma ]}`$ is expressed in terms of it $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \delta \gamma }=Fϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \delta \gamma }`$. Explicitly, we have

$$P_0=\frac{3k_1a\dot{t}\mathrm{\Phi }A_\pm }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}a^2+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta })}\right)+\frac{k_2F}{4}a^4\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(4.5)
Now, taking into account the generalized evolution equation and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ being the cosmological constant on the brane, we find the desired result

$$E=M_{(4)}^2a^4H^3\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1\right)+\frac{k_2F}{12}a^4,$$
(4.6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant living in the bulk appearing in Eq. (2.7) and we have used the cosmic gauge in the last step. Note that (4.6) is in keep with Eq. (2.15), confirming equivalence with the limit process developed in Sect. 2.

## 5 Wheeler-DeWitt equation

We turn now in this section to develop the quantum description for our specific problem. The canonical quantization procedure is well known so, just remain apply the recipe in the matter of our case.

We shall set $`P_\mu i\frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu }`$ in such a way that scalar constraints (3.15) and (3.16) transform into quantum equations

$`\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu }}p_{A\mu }\right)(\mathrm{\Psi }^1)^{\mu \nu }\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu }}p_{A\mu }\right)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`h\lambda _0k_1^2\psi ,`$ (5.1)
$`\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu }}p_{A\mu }\right)(\mathrm{\Psi }^2)^{\mu \nu }\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\nu }}p_{A\nu }\right)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`hk_1^2\psi ,`$ (5.2)
where we have defined $`p_{A\mu }:=k_2A_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\overline{\epsilon }^{\alpha \beta \gamma }/3!`$ .

Specializing to the embedding (4.1) and having in mind the matrix (B.2) in the cosmic gauge, we are able to get the inverse matrix

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }^1)^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A& 0& 0\\ 0& B& 0\\ 0& 0& N_{3\times 3}^1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{3H^2\left(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{a^2}{3\left[H^2a^2\left(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)+2A_\pm \right]}& 0\\ 0& 0& N_{3\times 3}^1\end{array}\right),$$
(5.3)
in such a way that (5.1) and (5.2) transform in the pair of relations

$`A_\pm ^1A\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2\psi +A_\pm B\stackrel{~}{P}_1^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`h\lambda _0k_1^2\psi ,`$ (5.4)
$`A_\pm ^1A^2\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2\psi +A_\pm B^2\stackrel{~}{P}_1^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`hk_1^2\psi ,`$ (5.5)
where we introduce the notation $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu =i\frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu }p_{A\mu }`$. Taking into account the value $`\lambda _0=3\left[H^2(1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}})+\frac{2}{a^2}\right]`$ expressed in the cosmic gauge, the couple of quantum relations can be rewritten as,

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_0^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`k_1^2(3\mathrm{\Phi })^2a^8H^6(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}})^2\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}}\right)\psi ,`$ (5.6)
$`\stackrel{~}{P}_1^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`k_1^2(3\mathrm{\Phi })^2a^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1H^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}a^2)[H^2a^2(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}})2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}{3}]^2}{(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}{6})^2}}\psi .`$ (5.7)
At this time, we are more interested in identify the potential governing the dynamics of our model instead of solve exactly the WdW equation so, to get insight we propose the wave function of separable form, $`\psi (t,a)=\psi _1(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(a)`$. The WdW equation adquires the form

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{a^2}=\frac{a^2M_{(4)}^4\left[2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}{3}+\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1\right)H^2a^2\right]^2\left(1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}H^2a^2\right)}{\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}{6}\right)^2}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(5.8)
accompanied by the energy equation

$$\left(E\frac{k_2F}{12}a^4\right)^2=H^6a^8M_{(4)}^4(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}})^2\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}\right),$$
(5.9)
where, as before, we have assumed $`\stackrel{~}{P}_0=(3\mathrm{\Phi })E`$.

## 6 Nucleation Rate

At this stage, we are ready to compute the creation probability which the universe could be created. Some simplifications are necessary due to the general problem itself is hard to solve.

From WdW equation (5.8), is easily read off the potential which is subjected the model (3.1)

$$V(a)=\frac{a^2M_{(4)}^4[2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}{3}+(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1)H^2a^2]^2(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}H^2a^2)}{(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}{6})^2}.$$
(6.1)
Note that this is a very hard expression to work out if one is interested in the general integration, specially if, in the cosmological context, creation probability is desire computed. Recall that the last is written in terms of the potential extracted from the WdW equation, namely,

$$𝒫e^{2_{a_l}^{a_r}\sqrt{V}𝑑a}.$$
(6.2)
In order to get some interesting results from the quantum approach, we shall consider some special cases.

### 6.1 Case A

If $`E=0`$ from Eq. (5.9) then $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is just a constant given by

$$\frac{(k_2F/12M_{(2)}^2)^2}{H^6}=(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}})^2(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}).$$
(6.3)
The probability rate in this case is

$$𝒫e^{\frac{4((\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1)\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2)}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{\Lambda }}+2(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1)H^2(\frac{6}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2[1\frac{1}{X}\mathrm{tan}^1X]},$$
(6.4)
where $`X^2=(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2})^2\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}\right)^1`$. Now, if $`k_2F,\mathrm{\Lambda }<<H^2`$ and, at first order the probality rate is

$$𝒫e^{\frac{4}{3H^2}+\frac{16k_2F}{15H^5}}.$$
(6.5)
This means that it is more probable to create a universe when $`k_2F>0`$ than $`k_2F<0`$. We will comment about it below.

Now, we would like calculate the probability nucleation using the instanton method.

The corresponding Euclidean action in de Sitter bulk can be found by complexifying the temporal coordinate and keeping the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \delta \gamma }`$ fixed

$$S_{(E)}=_md^4x\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{M_{(2)}^2}{2}+\rho _v\right)+\frac{k_2}{4!}_md^4x\sqrt{\gamma }A_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }.$$
(6.6)
In Euclidean space we have now closed worldsheets that split the deSitter background spacetime of radius $`H_{dS}^1=(\mathrm{\Lambda }/6)^{1/2}`$ in two regions. This is the basic geometry of the instanton calculation.

Following , by using Stoke’s theorem we can transform (6.6) to an instanton action that involves a volume of the spacetime enclosed by the brane

$$S_{(E)}=_md^4x\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{M_{(2)}^2}{2}+\rho _v\right)k_2F_vd^5x\sqrt{g}.$$
(6.7)
For spherical worlsheets the former action is expressed through the radius $`R_0`$ of the brane

$$S_{(E)}=\left(\rho _v\frac{12M_{(4)}^2}{R^2}\right)S_4(R_0)k_2FV_4(R_0),$$
(6.8)
where

$$S_{(4)}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}R_0^4,$$
(6.9)
is the surface of a worldsheet of radius $`R_0`$, and

$$V_4=\pi ^2H_{dS}^5\varphi _0\frac{\pi ^2H_{dS}^4}{R_0}(1R_0H_{dS})^{1/2}(1+\frac{2}{3}R_0),$$
(6.10)
is the volume enclosed by the brane of radius $`R_0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _0)=R_0H_{dS}`$. Extremizing (6.8) we find that the radius of the Euclidean brane is a solution of

$$M_{(4)}^2H^3\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6H^2}\right)^{1/2}(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}})=\frac{k_2F}{12},$$
(6.11)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}H_{dS}^2(R_0H)^2`$. The resulting Euclidean action is

$$S_{(E)}=6\pi ^2M_{(4)}^2\left\{\frac{4\left[(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}\right]}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{\Lambda }}+2(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}1)\left(\frac{6H}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\left[1\frac{1}{X}\mathrm{tan}^1X\right]\right\},$$
(6.12)
and the nucleation probability $`𝒫e^{S_{(E)}}`$ is in agreement with (6.4) modulo a normalizing factor. We now go back to the meaning of equation (6.5). The behavior of strength field $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \delta \gamma }`$ is the key, when $`k_2>0`$ the field decrease in the inside region with respect to its original value and corresponds to screening membrane discuss in . When $`k_2<0`$ correspond to antiscreening membrane and the field increase its value, and as it is expected, is less probable to produce such a Universe. This situation is resembled in phenomena of vacuum decay, where ordinary transition from false to true vacuum corresponds to $`k_2>0`$, and the decay of true vacuum, by means of false vaccum bubbles, corresponds to $`k_2<0`$ and $`k_2F`$ represents the difference in energy density between the false and true vacuum.

### 6.2 Case B

We proceed to calculate an approximate expression for the nucleation rate at first order, when both $`E`$ and $`F`$ are small. The potential is

$$V(a)=4a^2(1H^2a^2EHk_2FHa^4)$$
(6.13)
and the nucleation probability is

$$𝒫e^{\frac{4}{3H^2}+EH^1+\frac{16k_2F}{15H^5}}$$
(6.14)
in complete agreement with (6.5) when $`E`$ vanishies.

The potential for case A, is plotted in figure (2) and the corresponding one for the case B is in figure (2). Using this kind of plots for the potential, we can deduce that creation probability is enhance when the nucleation process take place in de Sitter background spacetime with small radius $`H_{dS}^1`$.

## 7 Conclusions

We have calculated the nucleation probability of brane world universes induced by a totally antisymmetric tensor living in a dS fixed background spacetime. This was done by means of canonical quantum approach where the Wheeler-DeWitt equation was found. Besides, we found for one specific case, the nucleation rate computing the corresponding instanton. When the energy of the brane $`=0`$ in the bulk space and the coupling constant of the brane $`k_2`$ with the antisymmetric field is positive, the creation probability is enhanced with respect to no interaction of the brane with the 4-form. For $`k_2<0`$ the nucleation rate decresed as is expected. This situation is resembled in phenomena of vacuum decay, where ordinary transition from false to true vacuum corresponds to $`k_2>0`$, and the decay of true vacuum by means of false vaccum bubbles corresponds to $`k_2<0`$. Furthermore, $`k_2F`$ represents the difference in energy density between the false and true vacuum.

For large expansion rate of the de Sitter bulk we observed an increase nucleation rate. At this point we ask ourselves about possible brane collisions, and what the most important factor in this issue is. The branes will be driven apart by the exponential expansion of the bulk reducing brane collision but at the same time, there is an increase in nucleation rate. We expect now that the problem of old inflationary model of the universe is an advantage: bubbles may not be produced fast enough, to complete cover the bulk.

Once the brane universe was created it still could be hitting by stealth branes , that by means of constraining some parameters of the model reduce the rate of brane collisions to an acceptable level. We think that cosmological constraints can impose bounds on the values of $`k_2F`$ and with this value one could try to answer the question: Is our universe very special?

Acknowledgements

We benefited from Germán Mandujano for assistance. ER would like to thank César de la Cruz, Raúl Hernández, Carlos Vargas and Alfredo Villegas for useful discussions and encourage the paper. We also thank to SNI-México for partial support.

Appendix A
Embedding theory

Consider a brane, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, of dimension $`d`$ whose worldsheet, $`m`$ is an oriented timelike manifold living in a $`N`$-dimensional arbitrary fixed background spacetime $`M`$ with metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. For hamiltonian purposes, we shall foliate the worldsheet $`m`$ in spacelike leaves $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$.

Taking advantage of the differential geometry for surfaces, as well as novelty variational techniques developed in  we can write the Gauss-Weingarten equations associated with the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ in $`M`$ ($`x^\mu =X^\mu (u^A)`$), i.e., the gradients of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ basis $`\{ϵ^\mu {}_{A}{}^{},\eta ^\mu ,n^\mu {}_{i}{}^{}\}`$. These spacetime vectors can be decomposed with respect to the adapted basis to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, as

$`𝒟_Aϵ^\mu _A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu ϵ^\alpha {}_{A}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\beta }{}_{B}{}^{}+k_{AB}\eta ^\mu K_{AB}^in^\mu _i`$ (A.1)
$`𝒟_A\eta ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`k_{AB}ϵ^{\mu B}K_A{}_{}{}^{i}n_{}^{\mu }_i`$ (A.2)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_An^{\mu i}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{AB}^iϵ^{\mu B}K_A{}_{}{}^{i}\eta _{}^{\mu }`$ (A.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha `$ are the Christoffel coefficients of the background manifold and, $`K_A^i`$ is a piece of the generalized extrinsic twist potential and both $`k_{AB}`$ and $`K_{AB}^i`$ are the extrinsic curvatures of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ associated with the normals $`\eta ^\mu `$ and $`n^\mu _i`$, respectively. $`𝒟_A`$ denotes the covariant derivative adapted to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_a`$ is the covariant derivative that preserves invariance under rotations of the normals $`n^\mu _i`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_A^i=𝒟_A^i\omega _A^{ij}n_j`$. In a similar way, we can write the Gauss-Weingarten equations associated with the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ in the worldsheet $`m`$, ($`x^a=X^a(u^A)`$), i.e., the gradients of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ basis $`\{ϵ^a{}_{A}{}^{},\eta ^a\}`$. These worldsheet vectors can be decomposed with respect to the adapted basis to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, as

$`_Aϵ^a_B`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{AB}^Cϵ^a{}_{C}{}^{}+k_{AB}\eta ^a`$ (A.4)
$`_A\eta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`k_{AB}ϵ^{aB},`$ (A.5)
where $`_A`$ is the gradient along the tangent basis, i.e., $`_A=ϵ^a{}_{A}{}^{}_{a}^{}`$, where $`_a`$ is the covariant derivative compatible with $`\gamma _{ab}`$.

The time vector field, written in terms of the adapted basis of a leaf $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, is given by

$$t^\mu =\dot{X}^\mu =N\eta ^\mu +N^Aϵ^\mu {}_{A}{}^{},$$
(A.6)
which represents the flow of time throughout spacetime. Note that we are able to rewrite the previous time deformation vector as follows

$`X^\mu `$ $`:=`$ $`t^a_aX^\mu N^A𝒟_AX^\mu `$ (A.7)
$`=`$ $`N\eta ^\mu ,`$
where, taking into account the well known notation, $`_a`$ denotes the covariant derivative compatible with $`\gamma _{ab}`$ ($`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$; $`a,b=0,1,\mathrm{},d`$ and $`A,B=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$). Furthermore, from (A.6) note that the following relations hold:

$$N=g_{\mu \nu }\eta ^\mu \dot{X}^\mu \text{and}N^A=g_{\mu \nu }h^{AB}ϵ^\mu {}_{A}{}^{}\dot{X}_{}^{\nu }.$$

Appendix B
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ Matrix

In this appendix we write the full matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for our embedding (4.1). Taking into account the Eq. (4.3) as well as Eq. (4.4) we have

$$(\mathrm{\Psi })^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2a^2A_\pm }\left[6+\mathrm{\Lambda }_ba^2+\frac{6\dot{a}^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}\right]& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{A_\pm }{2a^2}\left[6+\mathrm{\Lambda }_ba^2+\frac{6\dot{a}^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}+12A_\pm \right]& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2a^4}\left[6+\mathrm{\Lambda }_ba^2+\frac{6\dot{a}^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}\right]& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& M_{2\times 2}\end{array}\right).$$
(B.1)
The previous matrix, in the cosmic gauge, reduces to a more manageable form

$$(\mathrm{\Psi })^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}3H^2A_\pm ^1\left(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 3A_\pm a^2\left[H^2a^2\left(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)+2A_\pm \right]& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 3a^2H^2\left(1\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& N_{2\times 2}\end{array}\right),$$
(B.2)
where $`M_{2\times 2}`$ and $`N_{2\times 2}`$ denote $`2\times 2`$ diagonal matrices.