\section{Introduction}
The ability to manipulate matter on the atomic scale has
improved greatly over the past decade. The STM has
facilitated much of this progress with its ability to
positionally control atoms on
surfaces.\cite{Stipe98,Weiss98,Gimz98,Andres96,Bumm96}
Experiments are now able now to move beyond the manipulation
stage and measure the electronic properties of these atomic
scale systems. One system of particular interest is an atomic
chain.  When an atomic chain is used to bridge two contacts an
atomic wire is formed.  Recent STM experiments have managed to
measure the tunneling current through atomic wires, which have
been made by positioning several atoms to form a chain between
the STM tip and the substrate.\cite{Kawa98,Yaz96} More
recently, mechanically controlled break junctions have
been used to form a gold chain between two gold contacts. The
conductance of these gold atomic wires was measured for
different chain lengths.\cite{Yan98} It may also be possible
to form carbon atomic wires by stretching a single walled
nanotube.\cite{Pier98} Current work is focusing on connecting
carbon wires between two metalized AFM tips.\cite{Yu98} Early
theoretical work on atomic wires studied the electron
transmission through molecular chains with a single orbital
per site with nearest neighbour hopping.\cite{Mujic94} Recent
theoretical studies of these atomic wire systems based on a
density functional approach have also revealed interesting
phenomena, one of them being the oscillation of conductance
versus the length of a carbon wire.\cite{Lang98}

The atomic wire is interesting from a transport point of view
because it confines electrons to propagate only in one
dimension.  It is also on a length scale that is of the order
of the wavelength of the electrons which are incident from the
contacts. This means that the quantum mechanical wave nature of
the electrons will be important. When waves are confined to
propagate in a 1D constriction standing waves are formed.
These arise because of back reflections at the boundaries
between the
contacts and the constriction. Electrons propagating in
semiconductor waveguides have been predicted to form standing
waves along the conduction channel.\cite{semiref,Ulloa92}
Experimentally observing standing wave formation in these
systems has been difficult because these structures are formed
electro-statically, which results in 1D channels that are
smoothly tapered at their ends minimizing reflections
there.\cite{adiabatic,Ulloa92} We
show that electron standing waves should form in atomic
wires and investigate the role of the chemistry of the
wire-contact interface (which has no analog in the semiconductor
devices) on their behavior.
Although these standing waves have not been studied
experimentally at the present time, atomic wire systems may
prove to be better candidates for their observation since the
interfaces between a 1D wire and the contacts cannot be smooth
on the atomic scale so that reflections at these interfaces
should be significant.

We study electron transport through an atomic wire by
calculating the wavefunction for an electron propagating along
the wire.  This is done using a tight binding formalism that
treats both the chain and metallic leads
atomistically.\cite{Ember98a} The present work is complementary
to other theoretical treatments that have been based on tight
binding models of the atomic
wire\cite{Mujic94,Samant96,Joach96} or have considered
jellium contacts with the wire modelled using
pseudo-potentials.\cite{Lang98} We apply our technique to two
different atomic wire systems. The first system is a
homogeneous atomic wire which is made using a gold chain that
bridges two gold contacts. We find that our results are
consistent with the interpretation that standing waves are
formed along the gold wire.  The standing wave patterns
that are formed are confined within the 1D channel that has the
length of the gold chain.  The number of standing wave
resonances that occurs increases with the length of the
chain. However, the conductance of gold chains consisting of
different numbers of atoms is found to vary only slightly as
the number of atoms changes and remains near unity as has been
reported experimentally.\cite{Yan98}

The second system we consider is a heterogeneous atomic wire.
It is a carbon atom chain attached to two gold contacts.  Again
our results are consistent with a description involving the
formation of standing waves along the carbon chain.  However,
in this case the standing wave patterns
formed extend significantly
beyond the ends of the chain into the gold contacts. Thus in
this heterogeneous system the chain is effectively lengthened
due to the chemistry between the chain and the contacts. This
gives rise to a greater number of standing wave resonances.
The conductance is also found to oscillate with the length of
the chain which is in agreement with what was found in other
work.\cite{Lang98} The standing wave model that we describe
provides an
intuitive physical explanation of this predicted oscillation.

In Sec. I we present the theoretical approach used to calculate the
conductance together with a description of standing
wave formation in an atomic wire.  We then present our
calculations for gold atomic wires, a homogeneous
system, in Sec. II.  In Sec. III we present calculations
for carbon atomic wires.

\section{Electron Transport in Atomic Wires: Normal Modes}

An atomic wire is composed of a chain of atoms that forms a 1D
constriction between two metallic contacts which act as the
source and the drain.  Electrons incident as Bloch waves from
the source contact scatter through the 1D constriction and
enter the drain. Landauer theory relates the conductance $G$ of
the atomic wire to the multi-channel
transmission probability $T$ for an
electron at the Fermi level of the source to scatter from
source to drain via $G = \frac{2 e^2}{h} T$.\cite{Lan57}

We calculate the multi-channel
transmission probability $T$ by solving for
the ${\bf t}$ matrix of the atomic wire system.  For a given
energy $E$, an electron can propagate in one of many electronic
modes in both the source and the drain.  The ${\bf t}$ matrix
connects the modes (or channels) in the source to the channels
in the drain for a given energy. We use a tight-binding
treatment of Schr\"{o}dinger's equation to set up a system of
linear equations to solve for ${\bf t}$. The source and drain
are treated as 1D leads with multi-atom unit cells.  The wire
is attached to atomic tips which are then attached to the
leads.  An schematic diagram of an atomic wire system is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig1}.

The first step in the transport calculation is to impose
boundary conditions on the wavefunction $|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle$
which describes an electron incident in the $\alpha^{th}$
channel with energy $E$.  In the source (or left lead (L))
$|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle$
consists of the incident rightward propagating (+)
$\alpha^{th}$ Bloch mode $|\Phi^{\alpha}_{+}\rangle_L$ along
with a sum over reflected leftward propagating (-) and evanescent
modes $|\Phi^{\alpha'}_{-}\rangle_L$. On the atomic wire (A),
the wavefunction is a sum over the atomic orbitals
$|j\rangle$ that exist on the wire. In the drain (or right lead
(R)) the wavefunction is a sum over the transmitted
rightward propagating and evanescent modes
$|\Phi^{\alpha'}_{+}\rangle_R$.  Thus the wavefunction is given
by,
\begin{equation}
|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle = |\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle_L
+ |\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle_A + |\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle_R
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle_L &=& |\Phi^{\alpha}_{+}\rangle_L +
 \sum_{\alpha'} r_{\alpha',\alpha}
|\Phi^{\alpha'}_{-}\rangle_L \\
|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle_A &=& \sum_j d^{\alpha}_j |j\rangle \\
|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle_R &=& \sum_{\alpha'} t_{\alpha',\alpha}
|\Phi^{\alpha'}_{+}\rangle_R.
\end{eqnarray}
Using Schr\"{o}dinger's equation $H|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle =
E|\Psi^{\alpha}\rangle$, where $H$ is the extended H\"{u}ckel
tight
binding Hamiltonian\cite{Hoff63} of the system,
yields a system of equations which we
solve to find the $r$'s, $d$'s and $t$'s.  With the ${\bf
t}$ matrix thus determined,
the transmission probability $T$ is then
found using
\begin{equation}
T(E) = \sum_{\beta} \sum_{\alpha} \left |
\frac{v_{\beta}}{v_{\alpha}} \right | |t_{\beta,\alpha}|^2
\label{eq:multiT}
\end{equation}
where the sum over $\alpha$ is over the rightward propagating
modes in the left lead and the sum over $\beta$ is over
rightward propagating modes in the right lead.  The velocity
ratio appears since the velocities of modes in the left and
right leads may be different. The conductance is then found by
using the Landauer formula given above for the transmission
probability evaluated at the Fermi energy $E_f$ of the source.
This method and the procedure used for handling the
non-orthogonality between the different tight-binding orbitals
is described in more detail elsewhere.\cite{Ember98a,Ember98b}

The above tight-binding model is completely general and is
applicable to many types of systems, not just atomic wires.  We
now proceed to examine the physical behaviour
the above model should exhibit when applied to a 1D constriction
such as an atomic wire.  The physical interpretation that we
will use to describe the results of our transport calculations
that follow is in terms of electronic
standing waves formed within the constriction.

When waves (be they light, sound or electron) are confined to
propagate within a finite one dimensional channel, standing
waves are formed. They are formed due to the interference of
waves back reflected from the ends of the pipe where there is
a large impedance mismatch. These standing waves (also known
as normal modes) have an associated wave vector given by $k =
n \pi / L$ where $n=1,2,3,\ldots$ labels the normal mode and
$L$ is the effective length of the channel. Within the tight
binding framework, for a 1D channel
composed of a finite chain of discrete atoms equally spaced by
a distance $a$, the number of normal modes becomes finite.
The reduced wavevector of the wave is $y = k a = n \pi a / L$
and has the range $ 0 < y < \pi$. Thus $n a$ must be less than
or equal to $L$ which restricts the values that $n$ can take.
Thus a finite chain supports only a finite number of standing
waves.

In regards to electron transport, when an electron is incident
from the source with an energy that corresponds to the energy
of one of the normal modes, it will form a standing wave
along the chain.  This will correspond to maximal transmission
through the atomic wire. Because the chain supports a finite
number of normal modes the transmission probability will
have a discrete number of resonances, each one corresponding to
one of the normal modes.

The effective
length $L$ of the atomic wire determines the number of
resonances in the transmission probability.  Intuitively this
length should approximate the contact-to-contact distance.
However, an effective length which may be shorter or longer
than the contact-to-contact spacing will occur in
practice. This depends on the chemical and geometrical nature
of the interface between the atomic chain and the metallic
contacts. The chemistry may serve to effectively sharpen or
broaden the constriction which will affect the effective
length. For a homogeneous atomic wire system where the
contacts and the chain are made of the same atoms, the length
$L$ of the wire should be approximately equal to the
contact-to-contact distance. In this situation the confining
potential is that created by the geometry of the constriction
and hence the backscattering should occur at the interface
between the contacts and the chain where the impedance
mismatch is high.  For heterogeneous systems, the length $L$
may be different from the contact-to-contact length.  This is
because the chemistry between the chain and the contact is
significantly different than that within the bulk of the
contact.  Thus the confining potential due to the geometry is
now altered. An interface region is created which modifies the
confining potential and this changes the effective length $L$
of the chain.  So in heterogeneous wires one may expect there
to be more or fewer resonances than in the homogeneous case.

\section{Homogeneous Wire: Gold Wire with Gold Contacts}

The first system we consider is a homogeneous atomic wire of
gold. An atomistic diagram of one of the wires is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig1}. The atomic chain is made up of gold atoms with a
spacing of 2.4 \AA.  The chain is bonded over two gold tips,
each consisting of 13 gold atoms and both oriented in the (100)
direction.  The perpendicular bonding distance between the
chain and a tip is taken to be 2.0 \AA.  Each tip is then
bonded to a layer of 16 gold atoms which forms the unit cell
for the contact.  The gold atoms along the chain and the four
gold atoms in each tip to which the chain is attached are
modeled using the 6\,s6\,p5\,d orbitals of gold.  The remaining
gold atoms in the tips and those in the leads are modeled using
a 6\,s orbital. We consider chains ranging in length
from 3 to 7 gold
atoms.

The transmission probabilities for the five different chain
lengths are shown in Fig. \ref{fig2}.  As expected there is a
different number of resonances for each chain length. For the
energies shown, only a 6\,s mode is supported by the chain and
hence the maximum value that the transmission probability can
take is 1 (ignoring spin). If there were more modes
which could propagate
along the chain the multi-channel Landauer
transmission probability could be greater
than 1. Since the gold atomic wires are a homogeneous system
the length corresponds approximately to the contact-to-contact
spacing which is roughly $(N+1)a$ where $N$ is the number of
atoms forming the chain and $a=2.4$\AA. So an $N$ atom chain
should display $N$ resonances and this is seen. (One might
argue that there should be $N+1$ resonances, but the
wavefunction that corresponds to this $n$ value has a node on
each atomic site and hence is unphysical). The $N^{th}$ or
last resonance of each chain (which is not shown) has an
energy that lies between -6.5 eV and -5.5 eV and this overlaps
some 6\,p modes which also contribute to the transmission and
obscure this resonance.

At each resonance the electron wavefunction is a standing wave
along the 6\,s orbital backbone of the chain.  The squared
modulus should behave
 as $\sin^2(n\Pi (x-x_L)/L)$ where $x$ is the
position coordinate along the wire ($x=0$ marks the first chain
atom), $x_L$ is the leftmost position where the wavefunction is
zero (this may extend beyond the chain into the tips) and $n$
labels the mode.  The wavefunction (calculated using our
tight-binding model) for the 5 atom chain is
plotted for the $n=1$ and $n=4$ resonance together with the corresponding
ideal sinusoidal standing waveform in
Fig. \ref{fig3}a.  The graphs clearly indicate the formation of
standing waves along the chain.  The length $L$ which best fits
the data is around 13\AA which is just slightly shorter than
the 13.6\AA contact-to-contact spacing for this chain.  In
Fig. \ref{fig4}a the behaviour of the wavefunction in the gold
tips for the $n=3$ mode is depicted for the 5 atom chain.
The atoms in the tips fall outside the length of the "pipe" and
thus are not part of the standing wave formation within the
pipe. The wavefunction is consistently larger within the left
tip than on the right as is to be expected for a wave incident
on the wire from the left contact.  (Note that the squared
wavefunction that is depicted is a qualitative result and
should not be compared to the transmission results. What is
shown is the result of adding together the squared amplitude of
the wavefunction for each incident channel.  Thus it is the
``average'' wavefunction along the atomic chain.)

The conductance of these chains is given by the Landauer
formula, $G = G_0 T$.  The transmission probability that
enters the Landauer expression is evaluated at the source
Fermi energy.  For our gold leads the Fermi energy is
approximately -10 eV.
Fig. \ref{fig6}a shows the conductance as a
function of the number of atoms in the wire at this Fermi
energy. In qualitative agreement with
experiment\cite{Yan98} the conductance is nearly unity and
varies between 0.81 $G_o$ and 0.99 $G_o$. The fluctuations are
relatively small because the peak to valley ratio of the
transmission probability near the Fermi energy is near
unity for the different gold chains.

\section{Heterogeneous Wire: Carbon Wire Results}
The second structure that we consider is a heterogeneous system
consisting of a carbon atomic wire and gold contacts.  The
atomic system is similar to that depicted in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
The carbon chain spacing is taken to be 1.32\AA.  Again it is
bonded over 13-atom gold tips oriented in the (100) direction.
The perpendicular bond distance between the chain and a tip was
chosen to be 1\AA. The four gold atoms that bond to the carbon
wire on each tip were simulated using their 6\,s6\,p5\,d
orbitals while the other gold atoms were simulated using just
their 6\,s orbital. (We remark that the results obtained
modelling all of the gold atoms in this system with only
6s orbitals were qualitatively similar.)
The carbon atoms were simulated using
their 2\,s and 2\,p orbitals. Chains consisting of 4 to 10
carbon atoms were simulated.

The transmission probabilities for chains numbering 4 through 8
are shown in Fig. \ref{fig5}.
The magnitude is greater than that found in the gold chains with a maximum
value of near 2.0.  This is because for these energies the electrons are
propagating along the $\pi$ backbone of the carbon wire.  If the wire is
oriented along the $z$ direction there are two independent modes ($p_x$
and $p_y$) along which the electrons can propagate.  Thus the
transmission can be a maximum of 2.0 (ignoring spin).  In those regions
where it exceeds 2.0, an extra $\sigma$ mode is present.  The number of
resonances for a
given numbered carbon chain is also greater than that of the
corresponding gold chain.
For heterogeneous
systems the chemistry at the interface between the atomic wire and the
metallic contacts effectively alters the length of the 1D
conducting channel. For example the 4 atom carbon chain
displays 6 resonances which shows that the interaction is such
that it is effectively lengthened and behaves like a 6 atom
chain.

To determine what the effective length for one of these carbon
chains is we examine the electron's wavefunction.  The
wavefunctions for two different resonances of the 5 atom carbon
chain are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig3}b.  The corresponding normal
modes are also plotted where $L$ was chosen so as to give a
best fit to all the curves. The value of $L$ was determined to
be around 10.0\AA which is significantly longer than the
contact-to-contact distance of 7.28\AA.  From this we can
estimate that the interface region extends about 1.36\AA into
the gold tip.  So in this system the standing waves are forming
from within the gold tips rather than at their surfaces as was
the case for the gold atom wires. The behaviour of the
wavefunction in the tips is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig4}b.  It is
seen that the standing wave continues onto the first layer of
each tip.  However, the wavefunction on the second atomic layer
of each tip lies outside the length $L$ and resembles the
behavior of the wavefunction within the tips of the gold atomic
wire. It is seen that the wavefunction on the left tip is
greater than that on the right. Again, we emphasize
that we are using the ``average'' wavefunction to perform this
analysis.

The conductance of these carbon chains was found using the
same source Fermi energy of -10 eV.  Conductance oscillations
are found for this choice as the number of carbon atoms
in the chain is varied, with odd numbered chains possessing
a higher conductance than even ones (shown in
Fig. \ref{fig6}b).  This is consistent with other theoretical
work which has also found conductance oscillations as a
function of carbon wire length although the carbon wire and
contacts were modelled in a different way in that
work.\cite{Lang98} The oscillation has quite a strong signature
with the conductance varying between 0.9 $G_o$ and 1.8 $G_o$.
For the odd numbered chains the conductance is large because
the Fermi energy corresponds to a standing wave resonance,
whereas the even numbered chains are off resonance.  The
standing wave interpretation seems to be a reasonable physical
interpretation for the oscillating conductance found here and
in a previous report.\cite{Lang98}

\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that electron transport through an atomic wire is
consistent with the interpretation that electron standing waves
are formed in the atomic wire which bridges metallic
contacts. They arise because of the interference of reflected
electron waves at the interface between the atomic chain and
the metallic tips. For the gold tips the effective length of
the constriction was roughly the contact-to-contact distance.
The conductance of the gold wires was also found to be near
unity for atomic wires ranging from 3 to 7 gold atoms, consistent
with experiment. The
behavior in the carbon wires was different.  The effective
length of the constriction was significantly larger signalling
that the formation of standing waves is sensitive to the
chemistry of the atomic wire-contact interface.  The
conductance was also found to oscillate as a function of chain
length and this can be understood in terms of the different
standing wave modes that are created in chains of differing
length. The observation of electron standing waves may be
facilitated by using atomic wires (as opposed to
semiconductor systems) since the constriction can not be
smooth, which will enhance the reflections.

This work was supported by NSERC.


\section{Introduction}

Since the proposal of Maldacena's conjecture, which gives a
correspondence
between a field theory on anti-de Sitter space (AdS) and a conformal
field theory (CFT) on its boundary \cite{malda}, an intensive work has
been devoted to get a deeper understanding of its implications.
In particular, a precise form to the conjecture has been given in
\cite{polyakov}\cite{witten}. It reads
\begin{equation}
Z _{AdS}[\phi _{0}] = \int _{\phi _{0}}{\cal D}\phi\
\exp\left(-I[\phi]\right)\equiv Z _{CFT}[\phi _{0}] = \left<\exp\left(\int
_{\partial\Omega}d^{d}x{\cal O}\phi _{0}\right)\right>\; ,
\label{1}
\end{equation}
where $\phi _{0}$ is the boundary value of the bulk field $\phi$ which
couples to the boundary CFT operator ${\cal O}$. This allows us to obtain
the correlation functions of the boundary CFT theory in d dimensions by
calculating the partition function on the $AdS _{d+1}$ side.
The AdS/CFT correspondence has been studied for the scalar field
\cite{witten}\cite{viswa2}\cite{freedman}\cite{kraus},
the vector field \cite{witten}\cite{freedman}\cite{viswa}\cite{our},
the spinor field \cite{viswa}\cite{sfetsos}\cite{kaviani},
the Rarita-Schwinger field \cite{volovich}\cite{koshelev}\cite{viswa4},
the graviton
field \cite{liu}\cite{viswa5}, the massive symmetric tensor field
\cite{polishchuk}
and the antisymmetric $p$-form field \cite{frolov}\cite{l'yi}. In all
cases
Dirichlet boundary conditions were used. Several subtle points have been
clarified in these papers and all results lend support to the conjecture.

In a broader sense Maldacena's conjecture is a concrete realization of
the holographic principle \cite{susskind}\cite{hooft}. We expect that any
field theory relationship in AdS space must be reflected in the border
CFT. An example of this is the well known equivalence between
Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory and the self-dual model in three
dimensional Minkowski space \cite{equivalence}. This equivalence
holds also in $AdS_3$ and using the AdS/CFT correspondence we have shown
that the corresponding boundary operators have the same conformal
dimensions \cite{our}. Another situation involves massive scalar fields in
AdS spaces. If the scalar field  has mass-squared in the
range $-d^2/4<m^2<-d^2/4+1$ then there are two possible quantum field
theories in the bulk \cite{freedman2}. The AdS/CFT correspondence with
Dirichlet boundary condition can easily
account for one of the theories. The other one appears in a very
subtle way by identifying a conjugate field through a Legendre
transform as the source of the boundary conformal operator \cite{witten2}.
The existence of two conjugated boundary operators has been first pointed
out in \cite{dobrev}.

Since a field theory is determined not only by its
Lagrangian but also by its boundary terms in the action we expect
that the AdS/CFT correspondence must be sensitive to these
boundary terms. This is easily seen to be true by computing the
left-hand side of Eq.(\ref{1}) for a classical field
configuration. All that is left is a boundary term. If we start with
different boundary terms in the action then we obtain different
correlation functions on the right-hand side.

The origin of boundary terms in the action is due to the variational
principle. In order to have a stationary action boundary terms,
which will depend on the choice of the boundary conditions, must be
introduced. The importance of these
boundary terms for the AdS/CFT correspondence was recognized in the
case of spinor fields where the
action is of first order in derivatives and the classical action
vanishes on-shell \cite{henneaux}. They also played an important role
in the case of Chern-Simons theory \cite{our}. Therefore it is crucial
to understand the implications of different types of
boundary conditions for the same theory since they in general imply
different boundary terms.

In this work we will study the role of
different types of boundary condition for the scalar field theory.
We will consider Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, and a
combination of both of them which we will call mixed boundary condition.
Each type of boundary condition requires a different boundary term. We
will show that the mixed boundary conditions are parametrized by a real
number so that there is a one-parameter family of boundary terms
consistent with the variational principle.

We will also show that different types of boundary condition give
rise to different conformal field theories at the border. For the scalar
field this was somehow expected. The two solutions found in
\cite{freedman2} correspond to two different choices of
energy-momentum tensor. Both of them are conserved and their
difference gives a surface contribution to the isometry
generators. Although these two solutions were found in the Hamiltonian
context by requiring finiteness of the energy they will reappear here
by considering different types of boundary condition which amounts to
different boundary terms in the action. We can also
look for the asymptotic behavior of the scalar field near the
boundary according to the chosen type of boundary condition.
For the Dirichlet boundary condition it is well known that
the scalar field behaves as $x_0^{d/2 - \sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}}$
near the border at $x_0=0$. There is no upper restriction on the mass in
this case. It corresponds to one of the solutions found in
\cite{freedman2} and gives rise to a boundary conformal operator
with conformal dimension  $d/2 + \sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}$. We will show that for
a particular
choice of mixed boundary condition and when the mass squared is in the
range $-d^2/4 < m^2 < -d^2/4+1 $ the scalar field behaves as
$x_0^{d/2 + \sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}}$ near the border. It corresponds
precisely to the second solution of
\cite{freedman2} and gives rise to a boundary conformal operator
with conformal dimension  $d/2 - \sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}$. Note that the upper
limit for the mass squared $-d^2/4+1$ is consistent with the unitarity
bound $(d-2)/2$.

Another important point that we will show is the existence of boundary
conditions which give rise to boundary conformal operators for which
the unitarity bound $(d-2)/2$ is
reached. They correspond to a massless scalar field with Neumann
boundary condition or to a massive scalar field with $m^2 > -d^2/4 +1$
with a
particular choice of the mixed boundary condition (the same choice
which gives the boundary operator with conformal dimension
$d/2-\sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}$). In this way, using different boundary
conditions, we obtain all scalar conformal
field theories allowed by the unitarity bound.

We will also analyze carefully two cases where the mass of the scalar
field takes special values. In some cases the usual expansion of the
modified Bessel functions in powers of $x_0$ breaks down and we must
use expansions involving logarithms. When $ m^2=-d^2/4$ it gives rise
to the asymptotic behavior $x_0^{d/2} \ln x_0$  and the two-point
function is obtained without troubles. This is to be contrasted with
the usual limiting
procedure where the mass goes to $ m^2=-d^2/4$ but the two-point
function has a double zero in the limit \cite{witten2}. The other case
corresponds to $\sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}$ integer but non-zero. In this case we
just reproduce the known results.

We should stress the fact that the use of different types of boundary
condition (for given values of $m^2$ and $d$) allows us in general to get
boundary two-point functions with different normalizations. This will
affect the
three-point and higher-point functions. Maybe this is related
to
the fact that AdS and field theory calculations agree up to some
dimension dependent normalization factors \cite{lee} but we will not
discuss this further.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we find the
boundary
terms corresponding to each type of boundary condition. In section
3 we consider the Dirichlet case while in Section 4 we treat Neumann
boundary conditions. In section 5 we consider mixed boundary conditions.
Finally section 6 presents our conclusions.
In appendix A we list all boundary two-point
functions that
we computed and appendix B contains some useful formulae.

\section{The Variational Principle}

We take the usual Euclidean representation of the $AdS _{d+1}$
in Poincar\'e coordinates described by the
half space $x _{0}>0$, $x _{i} \in {\bf R}$ with metric
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\frac{1}{x _{0}^{2}} \sum_{\mu=0}^{d} dx^{\mu}dx^{\mu}.
\label{2}
\end{equation}
The action for the massive scalar field theory is given by
\begin{equation}
I_{0} =  \frac{1}{2}\int d^{d+1}x \, \sqrt{g} \left(
g^{\mu\nu} \partial_{\mu}
\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi\;+\;m^{2}\phi^{2}\right),
\label{3}
\end{equation}
and the corresponding equation of motion is
\begin{equation}
\left( \nabla^2 - m^2\right)\phi=0.
\label{4}
\end{equation}
The solution which is regular at $x_0 \rightarrow \infty$ reads
\cite{freedman}
\begin{equation}
\phi(x) = \int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(2\pi\right)^{d}}\;
e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\;
x_{0}^{\frac{d}{2}}\;a(\vec{k})\;K_{\nu}(kx_{0}),
\label{4'}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{x}=(x^{1},...,x^{d})$, $k = \mid\vec{k}\mid$,
$K_{\nu}$ is the modified Bessel function, and
\begin{equation}
\nu = \sqrt{\frac{d^{2}}{4}+m^{2}}\; .
\label{5}
\end{equation}
From Eq.(\ref{4'}) we also get
\begin{equation}
\partial_{0}\phi(x) = \int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(2\pi\right)^{d}}\;
e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\;
x_{0}^{\frac{d}{2}-1}\;a(\vec{k})\;\left[\left(\frac{d}{2} + \nu
\right)K_{\nu}(kx_{0}) - kx_{0}K_{\nu + 1}(kx_{0})\right].
\label{5'}
\end{equation}

In order to have a stationary action we must supplement the action
$I_0$ with a boundary term $I_S$ which cancels its variation. The
appropriate action is then
\begin{equation}
I=I_{0} + I_{S}.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
In order to capture the effect of the Minkowski boundary of the
$AdS_{d+1}$, situated at $x_0=0$, we first consider a boundary
value problem on the boundary surface $x_0=\epsilon > 0$ and
then take the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ at the very end. Then the
variational principle applied to the action $I$ gives
\begin{equation}
\delta I = -\int d^{d}x \;\epsilon^{-d+1}
\;\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}\;\delta\phi_{\epsilon} + \delta
I_{S} = 0,
\label{8}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_\epsilon$ and $\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}$ are the value
of the field and its derivate at $x_0=\epsilon$ respectively.
This equation will be used below to find out the appropriate
boundary term $I_S$ for each type of boundary condition.

For Dirichlet boundary condition the variation of the field at the
border vanishes so that the first term in Eq.(\ref{8}) also vanishes
and the usual action $I_{0}$ is already stationary.
Making use of the field equation the action $I$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
I_{D}= \frac{1}{2}\int
d^{d+1}x \; \partial_{\mu}\left(
\sqrt{g}\;\phi\;\partial^{\mu}\phi\right)=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d}x
\;\epsilon^{-d+1}
\;\phi_{\epsilon}\;\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}\;.
\label{11}
\end{equation}
It is to be understood that
$\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}$ in Eq.(\ref{11}) is evaluated in terms
of the Dirichlet data $\phi_{\epsilon}$.

To consider Neumann boundary conditions we first take a unitary
vector which is inward normal to the boundary $
n^{\mu}(x_{0})=(x_{0},{\bf 0})$. The Neumann boundary condition then
fixes the value of $n^{\mu}(\epsilon) \partial_{\mu}\phi_\epsilon
\equiv \partial_n \phi_\epsilon$. The boundary term to be added to the
action reads
\begin{equation}
I_S= - \int
d^{d+1}x \; \partial_{\mu}\left(
\sqrt{g}\; g^{\mu\nu} \; \phi\;\partial_{\nu}\phi\right)=\int d^{d}x
\;\epsilon^{-d+1}
\;\phi_{\epsilon}\;\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}\;,
\label{9'}
\end{equation}
so that we find the following
expression for the action at the boundary
\begin{equation}
I_{N}=
\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d}x
\;\epsilon^{-d}
\;\phi_{\epsilon}\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}\;.
\label{12}
\end{equation}
Here $\phi_{\epsilon}$ is to be expressed in terms of the Neumann
value $\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}$.
Notice that the
on-shell value of the action with Neumann boundary condition
Eq.(\ref{12}) differs by a sign from the corresponding action with
Dirichlet boundary condition Eq.(\ref{11}).

We now consider a boundary condition which fixes the value of a
linear combination of the field and its normal derivative at the border
\begin{equation}
\phi(x) + \alpha n^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\phi(x) \equiv \psi^{\alpha}(x)
\; .
\label{100}
\end{equation}
We will call it as mixed boundary condition. Here $\alpha$ is an arbitrary
real but non-zero
coefficient. In this case the surface term to be added to the action
is
\begin{equation}
I_{S}^{\alpha} = \frac{\alpha}{2}\int
d^{d+1}x \; \partial_{\mu}\left(
\sqrt{g}\; g^{\mu\nu} \partial_{\nu}\phi\; n^\rho \partial_{\rho}\phi
\right)=
-\frac{\alpha}{2}\int d^{d}x\;\epsilon^{-d+2}
\;\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}\;\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}\;,
\label{102}
\end{equation}
and we find the following expression for the action at the boundary
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\alpha} = -\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d}x
\;\epsilon^{-d+1}
\;\psi^{\alpha}_{\epsilon}\;\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}\;.
\label{104}
\end{equation}
Clearly $\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}$ in the above expression must be
written in terms of the boundary data $\psi^{\alpha}_{\epsilon}$.
We then have a one-parameter family of surface terms since the
variational
principle does not impose any condition on $\alpha$. In this way the
value of the on-shell action Eq.(\ref{104}) also depends on $\alpha$.

In the following sections we will consider each boundary condition
separately.

\section{Dirichlet Boundary Condition}

We begin by recalling the main results for the Dirichlet case
\cite{viswa2}\cite{freedman}. Let $\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{k})$ be the
Fourier transform
of the Dirichlet boundary value of the field $\phi(x)$. From
Eq.(\ref{4'}) we get
\begin{equation}
a(\vec{k})=\frac{\epsilon^{-\frac{d}{2}}\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{k})}
{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}\; ,
\label{13}
\end{equation}
and inserting this into Eq.(\ref{5'}) we find
\begin{equation}
\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})=\int
d^{d}y\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\left(
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\right)}\;\epsilon^{-1}\;\left[\frac{d}{2} + \nu -
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}\right].
\label{14}
\end{equation}
Then the action Eq.(\ref{11}) reads
\begin{equation}
I_{D}=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d}x \; d^{d}y\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{-d}\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\left(
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\right)}\;\left[\frac{d}{2} + \nu -
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}\right].
\label{15}
\end{equation}

The next step is to keep the relevant terms in the series expansions of
the Bessel functions and to integrate in $\vec{k}$. We consider first
the case $\nu\not=0$ that is $m^2 \not= -\frac{d^2}{4}$. For completeness
we
list the relevant modified Bessel functions in Appendix B. For
$\nu$ not integer we make use of Eqs.(\ref{16},\ref{16'}), whereas
for $\nu$ integer but non-zero we use
Eqs.(\ref{16'''},\ref{16'''''}). In  both cases we get the same result
\begin{equation}
I_{D}^{\nu\not=0}=-\frac{\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}
+ \nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}
\; \int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{\epsilon^{2(\nu-\frac{d}{2})}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}}\;+\;\cdots,
\label{17}
\end{equation}
where the dots stand for either contact terms or higher order terms in
$\epsilon$.

Taking the limit \cite{freedman}
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\epsilon^{\nu-\frac{d}{2}}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \phi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{18}
\end{equation}
to go to the border and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence in the form
\begin{equation}
\exp\left( -I _{AdS}\right) \equiv \left<\exp\left(\int d^{d}x \;
{\cal O}(\vec{x}) \; \phi_{0}(\vec{x})\right)\right>,
\label{19}
\end{equation}
we find the following two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{2\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}}\; .
\label{20}
\end{equation}
Then the conformal operator ${\cal O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}$ on the boundary
CFT has conformal dimension $\frac{d}{2}+\nu$. From Eq.(\ref{18}) we
find that near the border $\phi$ behaves as $x_0^{d/2-\nu}
\phi_0(\vec{x})$ as expected. In this way we have
extended the results of \cite{viswa2}\cite{freedman} to the case
$\nu$ integer but non-zero.

For future reference we note that in the particular case $m=0$, that
is $\nu=\frac{d}{2}$, Eq.(\ref{20}) reads
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{d}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(d)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2d}}\;,
\label{21}
\end{equation}
so that the operator ${\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}$ has conformal
dimension $d$.

Now we consider the case $\nu=0$, that is
$m^{2}=-\frac{d^{2}}{4}$. Since the two-point function
Eq.(\ref{20}) has a double zero for $\nu=0$ it was
argued \cite{witten2} that the correct result can be found by introducing a
normalization on the boundary operator. Instead we will make use of the
expansion for the Bessel function $K_{0}$.
Using Eqs.(\ref{16'''},\ref{827}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{0}(k\epsilon)}&=&
-\frac{1}{ln\;\epsilon}\left[ 1\;
+\;\frac{(k\epsilon)^{2}}{2}\;ln\;\epsilon\; +\;
O\left(\epsilon^{2}\right)\right]\left[1-\frac{ln\;
k\;-\;ln\; 2\;+\;\gamma}{ln\;\epsilon}\; +\;
O\left(\epsilon^{2}\right) \right]\nonumber\\&=&\frac{ln\;
k}{ln^{2}\epsilon}\; +\; \cdots,
\label{3000}
\end{eqnarray}
where the dots denote all other terms representing either contact
terms in the two-point function or terms of higher order in $\epsilon$.
Notice that it is essential to separate the contributions of $k$ and
$\epsilon$ in the terms $ln\; k\epsilon$ in order to identify the relevant
contributions. Substituting in Eq.(\ref{15}) we find
\begin{equation}
I_{D}^{\nu=0}=
\frac{1}{2}\int
d^{d}x\; d^{d}y\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{\epsilon^{-d}}{ln^{2}\epsilon}\;
\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot
(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\;ln\; k\;+\;\cdots.
\label{3001}
\end{equation}
The integration in $\vec{k}$ is carried out by making use of
Eq.(\ref{16'''''}) yielding
\begin{equation}
I_{D}^{\nu=0}=-\frac{\Gamma\left(
\frac{d}{2}
\right)}{4\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\; \int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{\epsilon^{-d}}{ln^{2}\epsilon}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\;+\;\cdots .
\label{466}
\end{equation}
To go to the border we have to rescale $\phi_\epsilon$ using a factor
of $\ln \epsilon$. This makes the rescaling somewhat arbitrary since
any power of $\epsilon$ in $\ln \epsilon$ would do the job. So
choosing the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\; (\epsilon^{\frac{d}{2}} \; ln\;\epsilon)^{-1} \;
\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x}) = \phi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{467}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence Eq.(\ref{19}) we find the
following two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\; .
\label{128}
\end{equation}
Then the conformal operator ${\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=0}$ on the boundary
CFT has conformal dimension $\frac{d}{2}$ as expected. As anticipated
in \cite{freedman} the scalar field approaches the boundary as
$x_0^{d/2}\ln x_0\;\phi_{0}(\vec{x})$ due to the logarithm appearing in
the expansion of
the Bessel function.

\section{Neumann Boundary Condition}

Using the Neumann boundary condition we get from Eq.(\ref{5'})
\begin{equation}
a(\vec{k})=\frac{\epsilon^{-\frac{d}{2}}\;\partial_{n}
\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{k})}
{(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)-k\epsilon K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}\; ,
\label{22}
\end{equation}
and substituting this in Eq.(\ref{4'}) we find
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})=\int
d^{d}y\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\left(
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\right)}\;\frac{1}{\frac{d}{2}+\nu-
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}\; .
\label{23}
\end{equation}
Then the action Eq.(\ref{12}) reads
\begin{equation}
I_{N}=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{-d}\int
\frac{d^{d}k}{\left( 2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\left(
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\right)}\;\frac{1}{\frac{d}{2}+\nu-
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}\;.
\label{24}
\end{equation}
In order to keep the relevant terms in the series expansions of the Bessel
functions we must consider the massive and massless cases separately.

In the massless case we have $\nu=\frac{d}{2}$. For $d$ odd we make
use of Eq.(\ref{16}), whereas for $d$ even we use
Eq.(\ref{16'''}). In both cases we get for $d>2$
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\frac{d}{2} + \nu -
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}=
-(d-2)(k\epsilon)^{-2}\; +\;\cdots,
\label{3002}
\end{equation}
up to contact terms and higher order terms in $\epsilon$.
Substituting this in Eq.(\ref{24}) we find
\begin{equation}
I_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}=
-\frac{d-2}{2}\int
d^{d}x\; d^{d}y\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;
{\epsilon^{-d-2}}\;
\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot
(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\;k^{-2}\;+\;\cdots,
\label{3003}
\end{equation}
and performing the integral in $\vec{k}$ we get
\begin{equation}
I_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}=-\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}{4\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\; \partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x}) \;
\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;
\frac{\epsilon^{-d-2}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2\frac{d-2}{2}}}\;+\;\cdots,
\label{29}
\end{equation}
where the dots stand for either contact terms or higher order terms in
$\epsilon$.

Taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\epsilon^{-\frac{d}{2}-1}\; \partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \partial_{n}\phi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{30}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence of the form
\begin{equation}
\exp\left( -I _{AdS}\right) \equiv \left<\exp\left(\int d^{d}x \;
{\cal O}(\vec{x}) \; \partial_{n}\phi_{0}(\vec{x})\right)\right>,
\label{27}
\end{equation}
we find the following boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2\frac{d-2}{2}}}\; .
\label{31}
\end{equation}
Then for $d>2$, even or odd, the conformal dimension of the operator
${\cal O}_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}$ is precisely the unitarity bound
$\frac{d-2}{2}$. From Eq.(\ref{30}) we find that near the border the
scalar field goes as $x_0^{d/2+1}\partial_{n}\phi_0(\vec{x})$.
Comparing Eqs.(\ref{21},\ref{31}) we see that
the conformal dimensions of the boundary operators for
the massless Dirichlet and Neumann cases are different and for the
later case the unitarity bound is reached.

For the massive scalar field, that is $\nu\not=\frac{d}{2}$, we first
consider the case $\nu\not=0$ i.e. $m^2 \not= -\frac {d^{2}}{4}$. We have
again
to consider separately the
cases with $\nu$ not integer and $\nu$ integer but non-zero. In both
cases we find
\begin{equation}
I_{N}^{\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}=-\frac{\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{\left( \frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}}\;\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}
+ \nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;\int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;
\frac{\epsilon^{2(\nu-\frac{d}{2})}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu )}}\; +\cdots.
\label{25}
\end{equation}
Taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\epsilon^{\nu-\frac{d}{2}}\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \partial_{n}\phi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{26}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence Eq.(\ref{27}) we find the
following boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{N}^{\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{N}^{\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{2\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{\left( \frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu )}}\; .
\label{28}
\end{equation}
Then the operator ${\cal O}_{N}^{\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}$ has
conformal
dimension $\frac{d}{2}+\nu$ and the field $\phi$ goes
to the border as
$x_{0}^{d/2-\nu}\partial_{n}\phi_0(\vec{x})$. Comparing
Eqs.(\ref{20},\ref{28}) we
notice that the normalizations of the boundary two-point
functions corresponding to the massive $\nu\not=0$ Dirichlet and Neumann
cases are in general different.

Now we consider the case $\nu=0\;$ that is $m^{2}=-\frac{d^{2}}{4}$.
Following the now usual steps we get
\begin{equation}
I_{N}^{\nu=0}=-\frac{\Gamma\left(
\frac{d}{2}
\right)}{d^{2}\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\partial_{n}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{\epsilon^{-d}}{ln^{2}
\epsilon}\;
\frac{1}{|\;\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\;+\;\cdots.
\label{580}
\end{equation}
Taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\;( \epsilon^{\frac{d}{2}}\;ln\;\epsilon)^{-1} \;\partial_{n}
\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \partial_{n}\phi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{750}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence Eq.(\ref{27}) we find the
following boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{N}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{N}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{2\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{d^{2}\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\; .
\label{751}
\end{equation}
Then the conformal operator ${\cal O}_{N}^{\nu=0}$ on the boundary
CFT has conformal dimension $\frac{d}{2}$. Near the border the
scalar field has a logarithmic behavior $x_0^{d/2}\ln x_0 \;
\partial_{n}\phi_0(\vec{x})$. Again we find
that the normalizations of the boundary
two-point functions corresponding to the $\nu=0$ Dirichlet and Neumann
cases are in general different.

\section{Mixed Boundary Condition}

Using the mixed boundary condition Eq.(\ref{100}) and again
Eqs.(\ref{4'},\ref{5'}) we get
\begin{equation}
a(\vec{k})=\frac{\epsilon^{-\frac{d}{2}}\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{k})}
{[\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)+2\alpha\nu]K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)-\alpha
k\epsilon
K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}\; ,
\label{1000}
\end{equation}
where $\beta(\alpha,\nu)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)=1+\alpha\left( \frac{d}{2}-\nu\right).
\label{beta}
\end{equation}
Substituting Eq.(\ref{1000}) into Eq.(\ref{5'}) we find
\begin{equation}
\partial_{0}\phi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})=\int
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\left(
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\right)}\;\epsilon^{-1}\;
\frac{\frac{d}{2}+\nu-
k\epsilon\;
\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}
{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}{\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)+2\alpha\nu-
\alpha k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}\; .
\label{1001}
\end{equation}
Using this we can write the action Eq.(\ref{104}) as
\begin{equation}
I_{M}=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{d}x\;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{-d}\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\left(
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\right)}\;
\frac{\frac{d}{2}+\nu-
k\epsilon\;
\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}
{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}{\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)+2\alpha\nu-
\alpha k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}\; .
\label{1002}
\end{equation}
As we shall see it is important to consider the cases $\beta=0$ and
$\beta\not=0$ separately in order to find out the relevant terms in
the series expansions of the Bessel functions.

Let us start with the case $\beta=0$. For $\beta=0$ we have
$\alpha=-1/(\frac{d}{2}-\nu)$ and $m\not=0$. We first consider the
massive case with
$\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}$. Again we have to study separately the cases
with $\nu$ not integer and $\nu$ integer but non-zero.
Let us first consider the case $\nu$ not integer. Making use of
Eq.(\ref{16}) with $\beta=0$ we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{2} + \nu -
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}=\frac{d}{2} -
\nu\; +\;\cdots,
\label{2000}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)+2\alpha\nu-
\alpha
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}=
-\frac{\frac{d}{2}-\nu}{\frac{1}{2(1-\nu)}(k\epsilon)^{2}
-2^{1-2\nu}\frac{\Gamma(1-\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}(k\epsilon)^{2\nu}\;
+\;\cdots}\; .
\label{2001}
\end{equation}
Notice that for $0<\nu<1$ the dominating term in the denominator of
the r.h.s of Eq.(\ref{2001}) is
$(k\epsilon)^{2\nu}$. Substituting in Eq.(\ref{1002}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}&=&
-2^{2\nu -2}\;\left(
\frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}
\;\frac{\Gamma(\nu)}{\Gamma(1-\nu)}\nonumber\\ &\times& \int
d^{d}x\; d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{-2\nu-d}\;
\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot
(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\;k^{-2\nu}\;+\;\cdots.\nonumber\\
\label{2002}
\end{eqnarray}
Integration over $\vec{k}$ thus yields
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}=
-\frac{1}{4\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;\left( \frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}
\;\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2} - \nu)}{\Gamma(1-\nu)}
\; \int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{\epsilon^{-2(\nu+\frac{d}{2})}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}-\nu)}}\; +\;\cdots.
\label{action1}
\end{equation}
For $\nu>1$ the dominating term in the denominator of the r.h.s of
Eq.(\ref{2001}) is $(k\epsilon)^{2}$ and Eq.(\ref{1002}) reads
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu>1}&=&
-(\nu-1)\;\left(
\frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}\nonumber\\ &\times&
\int
d^{d}x\; d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{-d-2}\;
\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot
(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\;k^{-2}\;+\;\cdots.
\label{2003}
\end{eqnarray}
Integration over $\vec{k}$ is carried out for $d>2$ thus giving
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu>1}=-(\nu-1)\left(
\frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d-2}{2})}{4\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;
\frac{\epsilon^{-d-2}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2\frac{d-2}{2}}}\; +\;\cdots.
\label{1003}
\end{equation}
For the case $\nu$ integer and non-zero  we make use of
Eq.(\ref{16'''}). The logarithmic terms vanish in the limit
$\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ and we find that the same result
Eq.(\ref{1003}) holds for $\nu$ integer and $\nu$ not integer.

Now in the action Eq.(\ref{action1}) we take the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\epsilon^{-\nu-\frac{d}{2}}\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \psi_{0}(\vec{x})\; ,
\label{1004}
\end{equation}
whereas in the action Eq.(\ref{1003}) the limit to be taken is
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\epsilon^{-\frac{d}{2}-1}\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \psi_{0}(\vec{x}).
\label{1005}
\end{equation}
Using the AdS/CFT equivalence
\begin{equation}
\exp\left( -I _{AdS}\right) \equiv \left<\exp\left(\int d^{d}x \;
{\cal O}(\vec{x}) \; \psi_{0}(\vec{x})\right)\right>\; ,
\label{1006}
\end{equation}
we get the following boundary two-point functions
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{1}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\left( \frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}
\;\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}-\nu)}{\Gamma(1-\nu)}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}-\nu)}}\; ,
\label{1007}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu >1}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu
>1}(\vec{y})\right>=
(\nu-1)\;\left( \frac{d}{2}-\nu\right)^{2}\;
\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{d-2}{2}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2\frac{d-2}{2}}}\; .
\label{1008}
\end{equation}
Then the operators ${\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}$ and ${\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu >1}$ have conformal dimensions
$\frac{d}{2}-\nu$ and $\frac{d-2}{2}$
respectively. For $0<\nu<1$ the field $\phi$ approaches the
boundary as $x_{0}^{d/2+\nu}\psi_0(\vec{x})$.  The
derivation of the conformal dimension $\frac{d}{2}-\nu$ for its
associated boundary operator ${\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}$ is
a rather striking feature. It is
worth noting that the upper constraint $\nu<1$ in Eq.(\ref{1007}) is
consistent with the unitarity bound.

For $\nu>1$ we found a boundary operator whose conformal dimension is
the unitarity bound $\frac{d-2}{2}$. Whereas we have already
found such a conformal dimension in the massless
Neumann case Eq.(\ref{31}) we have here a different normalization for the
boundary two-point function. We note that the
behavior of the scalar field for small $x_0$ is as it should be.

Now we consider the case $\nu=0$, that is $m^{2}=-\frac{d^{2}}{4}$,
keeping still $\alpha=-\frac{2}{d}$. We then find
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu=0}=-\frac{d^{2}\Gamma\left(
\frac{d}{2}
\right)}{16\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\; \int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;
\frac{\epsilon^{-d}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\;+\;\cdots.
\label{1009}
\end{equation}
Taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\;\epsilon^{-\frac{d}{2}}\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \psi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{1010}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence Eq.(\ref{1006}) we get the
following boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{d^{2}\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{8\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\; .
\label{1011}
\end{equation}
Then the conformal operator ${\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu=0}$ on
the
boundary
CFT has conformal dimension $\frac{d}{2}$. Now the field $\phi$ goes
to the border as $x_0^{d/2} \psi_0(\vec{x})$ and no logarithm is
present. We find again that the normalization of the two-point function is
different from the corresponding ones of the Dirichlet and Neumann cases.

Let us now consider the case when $\beta \not=0$. We study first
the case $\nu\not=0$. Again the cases $\nu$ not integer and $\nu$
integer but non-zero must be considered separately.
We first study the case $\nu$ not integer. Up to contact terms or higher
order terms in $\epsilon$ we find
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{2} + \nu -
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}=
\left(\frac{d}{2} - \nu\right)\left[1-\frac{2^{1-2\nu}}{\frac{d}{2} -
\nu}\; \frac{\Gamma(1-\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;(k\epsilon)^{2\nu} \;
+\;\cdots\right],
\label{2005}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)+2\alpha\nu-
\alpha
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}=
\frac{1}{\beta(\alpha,\nu)}\left[1+\frac{2^{1-2\nu}\alpha}
{\beta(\alpha,\nu)}\;
\frac{\Gamma(1-\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;(k\epsilon)^{2\nu} \;
+\;\cdots\right].
\label{2006}
\end{equation}
Substituting in Eq.(\ref{1002}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}&=&
\frac{1}{2^{2\nu}}\;\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,\nu)}
\;\frac{\Gamma(1-\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\nonumber\\ &\times& \int
d^{d}x\; d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{2\nu-d}\;
\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot
(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\;k^{2\nu}\;+\;\cdots.
\label{2007}
\end{eqnarray}
Integration over $\vec{k}$ yields
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}=-\frac{\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,\nu)}\;\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}
+ \nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;\int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;
\frac{\epsilon^{2(\nu-\frac{d}{2})}}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu )}}\; +\cdots.
\label{action2}
\end{equation}
Consider now the case $\nu$ integer and non-zero. We find
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{2} + \nu -
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}=
\left(\frac{d}{2} -
\nu\right)\left[1-(-1)^{\nu}\;\frac{2^{2-2\nu}}{\frac{d}{2} -
\nu}\; \frac{1}{\Gamma^{2}(\nu)}\;(k\epsilon)^{2\nu}\;ln\; k \;
+\;\cdots\right],
\label{2008}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\beta\left(\alpha,\nu\right)+2\alpha\nu-
\alpha
k\epsilon\;\frac{K_{\nu+1}(k\epsilon)}{K_{\nu}(k\epsilon)}}=
\frac{1}{\beta(\alpha,\nu)}\left[1+(-1)^{\nu}\;\frac{2^{2-2\nu}\alpha}
{\beta(\alpha,\nu)}\;
\frac{1}{\Gamma^{2}(\nu)}\;(k\epsilon)^{2\nu}\;ln\; k \;
+\;\cdots\right].
\label{2009}
\end{equation}
Substituting in Eq.(\ref{1002}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}
&=&(-1)^{\nu}\; 2^{1-2\nu}\;\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,\nu)}
\;\frac{1}{\Gamma^{2}(\nu)}\nonumber\\ &\times& \int
d^{d}x\; d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\epsilon^{2\nu-d}\;
\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\;e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot
(\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\;k^{2\nu}\;ln\; k \;
+\;\cdots.\nonumber\\
\label{2010}
\end{eqnarray}
Making use of Eq.(\ref{16'''''}) we get Eq.(\ref{action2}) again. So
both cases $\nu$ integer and $\nu$ not integer yield the same result.

Now taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\epsilon^{\nu-\frac{d}{2}}\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \psi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{1013}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT correspondence Eq.(\ref{1006}) we find the
following
boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{2\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,\nu)}\;
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}}\; ,
\label{1014}
\end{equation}
so that the operator ${\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}$ has conformal
dimension $\frac{d}{2}+\nu$.  From Eq.(\ref{1013}) we find that the
behavior of $\phi$ for
small $x_0$ is as expected. Comparing Eqs.(\ref{20},\ref{28},\ref{1014})
we conclude that the normalizations of the boundary
two-point
functions corresponding to the massive $\nu\not=0$ Dirichlet, Neumann
and $\beta\not=0$ mixed cases are different.

We now consider the case $\nu=0$ that is $m^{2}=-\frac{d^{2}}{4}$.
We find
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu=0}=-\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,0)}
\frac{\Gamma\left(
\frac{d}{2}
\right)}{4\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\; \int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{\epsilon^{-d}}{ln^{2}\epsilon}\;
\frac{1}{|\;\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\;+\;\cdots.
\label{1015}
\end{equation}
Taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\;( \epsilon^{\frac{d}{2}}\;ln\;\epsilon)^{-1} \;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \psi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{1016}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT correspondence Eq.(\ref{1006}) we find the
following boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,0)}
\;\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}\; ,
\label{1017}
\end{equation}
so that the conformal operator ${\cal O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu=0}$ on the
boundary
CFT has conformal dimension $\frac{d}{2}$. For small $x_0$ we find a
logarithmic behavior $x_0^{d/2} \ln x_0 \;\psi_0(\vec{x})$. Again
the normalization of the two-point function is different when compared to
the corresponding ones of the Dirichlet, Neumann and $\beta=0$ mixed
cases.

In the massless case we have $\nu=\frac{d}{2}$. For $d$ odd we make
use of
Eqs.(\ref{16},\ref{16'}), whereas for $d$ even we use
Eqs.(\ref{16'''},\ref{16'''''}). In both cases we get
\begin{equation}
I_{M}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}
=-\frac{d}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;\frac{\Gamma(d)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}
\; \int d^{d}x \;
d^{d}y\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{y})\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2d}}\;+\;\cdots.
\label{1018}
\end{equation}
Taking the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim _{\epsilon\rightarrow
0}\;\psi_{\epsilon}(\vec{x})
= \psi_{0}(\vec{x}),
\label{1019}
\end{equation}
and making use of the AdS/CFT equivalence Eq.(\ref{1006}) we get
the
following boundary two-point function
\begin{equation}
\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{d}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(d)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2d}}\;.
\label{1020}
\end{equation}
Then the operator ${\cal O}_{M}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}$ has conformal
dimension $d$. The scalar field goes to the border as $\psi_0(\vec{x})$
as expected. Comparing Eqs.(\ref{21},\ref{1020}) we conclude that the
boundary
CFT's corresponding to the massless Dirichlet and mixed cases are equal.

\section{Conclusions}
We have shown how different boundary conditions in the AdS/CFT
correspondence allow us to derive boundary two-point functions which are
consistent with the unitarity bound. We have also done a careful
analysis of the particular cases when $\nu$ is an integer and we have
shown that when $\nu=0$ there are no double zeroes in the two-point
functions.

In general the use of different
types of boundary conditions lead to boundary two-point functions
with different normalizations. It is not clear at this point whether
they are important or not. It is necessary to compute the
three-point functions in order to clarify if the different normalizations
are leading to different boundary CFT's.

In the Neumann case the unitarity bound is
obtained for $m=0$ while with mixed boundary conditions it is reached
when $\beta=0$ and $m^{2}>-d^{2}/4 + 1$. The corresponding two-point
functions have different normalizations. The conformal dimension $d/2 -
\nu$ is obtained in the case of mixed boundary condition with $\beta=0$
and $-d^{2}/4<m^{2}<-d^{2}/4 + 1$, and the normalization of
the corresponding boundary two-point function differs from the one found
in \cite{witten2}.

We have also tried to relate our
formalism to the Legendre transform approach \cite{witten2}. We could
think that both formalisms are related through some field redefinition but
this is not the case. It is not possible to redefine the scalar field in
order to turn a Dirichlet boundary condition into a Neumann or mixed one.
If there is any relation between the two approaches it must be a very
subtle one.

Another important point is the interpretation of the new boundary
conditions in the string theory context. Dirichlet boundary conditions are
natural when thinking of the asymptotic behavior of the supergravity
fields reaching the border of the AdS space. Possibly Neumann and mixed
boundary conditions are related to more complex solutions involving
strings and membranes reaching the border in more subtle ways. This of
course needs a more detailed study.

\section{Acknowledgements}

P.M. acknowledges financial support by CAPES. V.O.R.
is partially supported by CNPq and acknowledges a grant by FAPESP.

\section{Appendix A. Boundary Two-Point Functions}
The coefficients $\nu$, $\alpha$ and $\beta(\alpha,\nu)$ are defined
in
Eqs.(\ref{5},\ref{100},\ref{beta}) respectively. Let us also define
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\nu)=\frac{d}{2}-\nu\; .
\label{221}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Dirichlet Boundary Condition}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{2\nu}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}{\Gamma(\nu)}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}+\nu)}}
\label{260}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{d}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(d)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2d}}
\label{261}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{d}}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{262}

\subsection{Neumann Boundary Condition}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left<{\cal O}_{N}^{\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{N}^{\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}(\nu)}\;
\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{y})\right>
\label{263}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{N}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2\frac{d-2}{2}}}
\label{264}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{N}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{N}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}(0)}\;\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>
\label{265}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Mixed Boundary Condition}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,0<\nu<1}(\vec{y})\right>=\sigma^{2}(\nu)
\frac{1}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\;\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}-\nu)}{\Gamma(1-\nu)}\;\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2(\frac{d}{2}-\nu)}}
\label{360}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu >1}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu >1}(\vec{y})\right>=\sigma^{2}(\nu)\;(\nu-1)\;
\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{d-2}{2}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{1}{|\;
\vec{x}-\vec{y}\;|^{2\frac{d-2}{2}}}
\label{361}\\
&&\left<{\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu\not=0,\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=
\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,\nu)}\;\left<{\cal O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu\not=0}(\vec{y})\right>
\label{719}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>=\left<{\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=\frac{d}{2}}(\vec{y})\right>
\label{820}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta\not=0,\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=\frac{1}{\beta^{2}(\alpha,0)}
\;\left<{\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>
\label{721}\\
&&\left<{\cal O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{M}^{\beta=0,\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>=\sigma^{2}(0)
\;\left<{\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{x}){\cal
O}_{D}^{\nu=0}(\vec{y})\right>
\label{722}
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Appendix B. Some Useful Formulae}
\subsection{Series Expansions for the Modified Bessel Functions $K_{\nu}$}

For  $\nu$ not integer
\begin{equation}
K_{\nu}(z)=\frac{1}{2}\;\Gamma(\nu)\;\Gamma(1-\nu)\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{-\nu}\left[ \sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{2n}}{n!\;\Gamma(n+1-\nu)}-\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{2\nu}\sum_{n\geq
0}\frac{\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{2n}}{n!\;\Gamma(n+1+\nu)}\right].
\label{16}
\end{equation}

For $\nu$ integer and non-zero

\begin{eqnarray}
K_{\nu}(z)&=&\frac{1}{2}\;\left( \frac{z}{2}\right)^{-\nu}\;
\sum_{n=0}^{\nu-1}(-1)^{n}\;\frac{\Gamma( \nu - n )}{n!}
\left( \frac{z}{2}\right)^{2n}\nonumber\\
&-&(-1)^{\nu}\;\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{\nu}\;\sum_{n\geq
0}\left[ln\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)-\frac{\lambda(n+1)+\lambda(\nu +
n + 1)}{2}\right]
\frac{\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{2n}}{n!\;\Gamma(n+1+\nu)}\; ,\nonumber\\
\label{16'''}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\lambda(1)=-\gamma \qquad\qquad \lambda(n)=-\gamma +
\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{m}
\qquad (n \geq 2),
\label{16''''}
\end{equation}
and $\gamma$ is the Euler constant.

For $\nu=0$
\begin{equation}
K_{0}(z)=
-\sum_{n\geq
0}\left[ln\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)-\lambda(n+1)\right]
\frac{\left(
\frac{z}{2}\right)^{2n}}{n!\;\Gamma(n+1)}\;.
\label{827}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Integration over the Momenta}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\;
k^{\rho}=C_{\rho}
\;\frac{1}{|\vec{x}|^{d+\rho}}\qquad\qquad\rho\not=-d,-d-2,...
\label{16'}\\
&&\int\frac{d^{d}k}{\left(
2\pi\right)^{d}}\; e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\;
k^{\rho}\;ln\; k=\frac{dC_{\rho}}{d\rho}\;\frac{1}{|\vec{x}|^{d+\rho}} +
C_{\rho}\;\frac{ln|\vec{x}|}{|\vec{x}|^{d+\rho}}
\quad\rho\not=-d,-d-2,...,
\label{16'''''}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
C_{\rho}=\frac{2^{\rho}}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}\;
\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d+\rho}{2})}{\Gamma(-\frac{\rho}{2})}\;.
\label{16''}
\end{equation}


\section{Introduction}

In recent years multibaryons have received a considerable amount of attention. A reason for
this is that their hypothetical
existence could provide valuable information about the nature of the strong interactions
at low energies. Perhaps the most celebrated example is that of the H-dibaryon predicted by
Jaffe more than twenty years ago\cite{Jaf77}. Since then the possible existence of some
other exotic states has been investigated in various models. Of particular
interest are those containing flavor (i.e. ${\cal S}$ , ${\cal C}$ , ${\cal B}$ ) quantum numbers. In fact, it has
been speculated that strange matter could be stable\cite{Wit84}. This has lead to numerous
investigations of the properties of strange matter in bulk and in finite lumps (for a
recent review see Ref.\cite{GSB98}). Moreover,
with the advent of heavy ion colliders there is now the possibility of producing
strange\cite{E864} and even charmed\cite{SV98} multibaryonic states with rather low baryon
number in the laboratory. These new developments provide further motivation for the study of
the properties of multibaryons with heavy flavor quantum numbers.
Most of the known predictions come from MIT bag model (see for example Refs.\cite{AMS78})
or non-relativistic quark
model based calculations. Here, we will adopt a different point of view. We will asume
that the heavy flavor multibaryons are formed by an $SU(2)$ multiskyrmion with some
heavy mesons bound to it. This is basically an extension of the bound state approach
to strange hyperons originally introduced by Callan and Klebanov\cite{CK85} and later shown
to describe heavier flavor baryons as well\cite{RRS90}. A study of strange multibaryons
within this approach has been recently presented in Ref.\cite{SS98}. There, a chiral lagrangian
written in terms of pseudoscalar meson fields with some chiral symmetry breaking terms has
been used as the effective lagrangian. As well known by now, although adequate for the light
(up and down) and strange sectors, such type of effective lagrangian has to be modified
when heavier flavors (e.g. charm) are incorporated. In that case,
heavy quark symmetry\cite{IW88} has to be imposed. This symmetry requires that both
the heavy pseudoscalar and the heavy vector fields appear explicitly in the effective
lagrangian. Lagrangians which have both chiral symmetry and heavy quark symmetry have
been described in the literature\cite{BD92,Yan92}. In our calculation we will adopt such type of lagrangian.
As already
mentioned, in our description the baryon number of the system comes from a non-trivial
soliton configuration in the light sector. Until very recently only few multiskyrmion
configurations (i.e. those with $B \leq 4$) were known. In 1997, however,
after some demanding numerical work Battye and Sutcliff \cite{BS97} were able to identify those
which are believed to be the lowest energy configurations with baryon number up to $B=9$.
Interestingly, all these configurations have the symmetries corresponding to the
regular polyhedra. Even more important
for our purposes, Houghton, Manton and Sutcliffe \cite{HMS98}
have exploited the similarities between the BPS monopoles and skyrmions
to propose some ans\"atze based on rational maps.
They have shown that
such configurations approximate very well the numerically found lowest
energy solutions with $B \leq 9$. In our investigations we will make
use of these approximate ans\"atze. An interesting feature of these configurations
is that for $B > 1$ the derivative of the radial soliton profile vanishes
at the origin. Since to leading order in the inverse of the heavy quark mass $m_Q$ the heavy
meson-soliton interaction is proportional to this quantity\cite{JMW93} we do not expect
any bound state in that approximation. However, next-to-leading order corrections in $1/m_Q$
are required even to describe the spectrum of $B=1$ heavy baryons\cite{OPM94}. In the present
work these corrections will be properly taken into account.

This article is organized as follows. In Sec.II we introduce the effective lagrangian
together with the ansatz for the multiskyrmion configurations. In Sec.III we
present our numerical results. Finally, in Sec.IV our main conclusions are given.

\section{The Lagrangian}

To describe the dynamics of the light and massive mesons interacting with
each other we will consider an effective lagrangian
of the following form \cite{Yan92}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{hlag}
{\cal L}  &=& {\cal L}_{l} + (D_\mu \phi)^\dagger D^\mu \phi - m^2_\phi \phi^\dagger \phi
- \frac{1}{2}
\psi^{\dagger}_{\mu\nu} \psi^{\mu\nu} + m^2_\psi \psi^{\dagger}_\mu
\psi^{\mu} \ \nonumber \\
& & + i f \left( \phi^\dagger a^\mu \psi _\mu + \psi_\mu^{\dagger} a^\mu
\phi \right)
+ \frac{i}{2} \ g \ \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \left(\psi^{\dagger}_{\mu\nu} a_\rho
\psi _\sigma
+ \psi_\sigma^{\dagger} a_\rho \psi _{\mu\nu} \right) \ ,
\label{fulllag}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal L}_l$ is the effective light meson lagrangian. In the present
work we will consider pions as the only explicit light degree of freedom
and choose ${\cal L}_l$ to be  simply the  Skyrme lagrangian.
Consequently,   the effective lagrangian  ${\cal L}_l$ ,  written in terms of the chiral field
$U = \exp( i \vec \tau \cdot \vec \pi /f_\pi )$,
reads
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_l &=& {f^2_\pi \over 4} {\,\mbox{Tr}}\left[\partial_\mu U^\dagger \partial^{\mu} U \right] +
{1\over{32 \epsilon^2}} {\,\mbox{Tr}} \Big[ [U^\dagger\partial_\mu U, U^\dagger\partial_\nu U]^2 \Big]
+ {f^2_\pi m_\pi^2\over4} {\,\mbox{Tr}}\left[ U + U^\dagger - 2 \right] \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant and $\epsilon$ is the so-called Skyrme
parameter. In Eq.(\ref{fulllag}), $\phi$ represents the heavy pseudoscalar doublet
and
$\psi_\mu$ the corresponding vector doublet. For example, for charmed mesons
\begin{equation}
\phi = \left(\begin{array}{l} \bar D^0 \\ D^- \end{array}\right)
\qquad \quad ; \qquad \quad
\psi = \left(\begin{array}{l} \bar D^{*0} \\ D^{*-} \end{array}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
Moreover, $f$ and $g$ are the $\phi\psi_\mu\pi$ and
$\psi_\mu\psi_\mu\pi$ coupling constants, respectively, and
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\mu &=& \partial_\mu + v_\mu  \ , \\
\psi_{\mu\nu} &=& D_\mu \psi_\nu - D_\nu \psi_\mu \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, in terms of the chiral field the currents $v_\mu$ and $a_\mu$ read
\begin{eqnarray}
v_\mu &=& \frac{1}{2} \left( \sqrt{U^\dagger} \partial_\mu \sqrt{U} + \sqrt{U} \partial_\mu \sqrt{U^\dagger}
                      \right) \ , \\
a_\mu &=& \frac{1}{2} \left( \sqrt{U^\dagger} \partial_\mu \sqrt{U} - \sqrt{U} \partial_\mu \sqrt{U^\dagger}
                      \right) \ .
\end{eqnarray}

As usual in the bound state model we should first determine the static skyrmion background.
For this purpose we introduce the rational map ansatz for the pion field. It reads\cite{HMS98}
\begin{equation}
\vec \pi = f_\pi F(r) \ \hat n \ .
\label{PS}
\end{equation}
Here, $F(r)$ is the (multi)skyrmion profile which depends on the radial coordinate
only and $\hat n$ is a unit vector given by
\begin{equation}
\hat n = {1\over{1+|R|^2}} \left( 2 \ \Re(R) \ \hat \imath +
				      2 \ \Im(R) \ \hat \jmath +
				     ( 1 - |R|^2 ) \ \hat k \right) \ ,
\label{pians}
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the rational map corresponding to a certain winding number $B$ which is identified with the baryon number.
Such map is usually written as a function of the complex variable $z$
which is related to the usual spherical coordinates $\theta, \varphi$ via
stereographic projection, namely $z = \tan(\theta/2) \exp(i \varphi)$.
For example, the map corresponding to the $B=1$ hedgehog ansatz
is the identity map $R = z$. The explicit form of the maps corresponding
to the other baryon numbers $B \leq 9$ can be found in Ref.\cite{HMS98}.
Using Eq.(\ref{PS}) it is possible to obtain the expressions of the
$a_\mu$ and $v_\mu$ currents to leading order in $N_c$. The time components vanish
at this order while the space components result
\begin{eqnarray}
a^i &=& -{i\over2} \left[ F' \ \vec \tau \cdot \hat n \ \hat r^i +
s \ \vec \tau \cdot \nabla^i \hat n   \right] \ ,
\\
v^i &=& - i s\!\!\!/ ^2 \ \left( \hat n \times \nabla^i \hat n
\right)
\cdot \vec \tau  \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the short hand notation $s = \sin F$, $s\!\!\!/  = \sin (F/2)$.
The radial profile function $F(r)$ is determined by minimizing the soliton
energy. Details of this procedure as well as plots of these
functions for different baryon numbers are given in Ref.\cite{HMS98}.

To order $N_c^0$, we have a system of heavy mesons moving in the static soliton
background. To derive the explicit form of the relevant heavy meson-soliton
lagrangian we need some consistent ans\"atze for the heavy meson fields. For the
pseudoscalar field we use\cite{SS98}
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(\vec r, t) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi}} \ \phi(r,t) \
\vec \tau \cdot \hat n \ \chi  \ ,
\label{HPS}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi$ is a two-component spinor. To obtain the corresponding ansatz for the heavy vector meson
field it is convenient to
analize the coupling terms in the effective lagrangian. They are the last two terms
in Eq.(\ref{fulllag}). From their structure and the form of the $a_\mu$ and $v_\mu$ currents
in the static limit it is possible to see that the ansatz should have
the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{HVM1}
\psi^0(\vec r, t) &=& \frac{i}{\sqrt{4 \pi} }\psi_0(r,t) \ \chi \ ,  \\
\psi^i  (\vec r, t) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi}} \left[ \psi_1(r,t) \ \hat r^i  +
i \ r \ \psi_2(r,t) \
\left( \hat n \times \nabla^i \hat n \right) \cdot \vec \tau \right]
 \chi \ .
\label{HVM2}
\end{eqnarray}

Replacing  Eqs.(\ref{PS}), (\ref{HPS}), (\ref{HVM1}) and (\ref{HVM2}) in the effective
lagrangian, Eq.(\ref{fulllag}), we obtain that the heavy meson-soliton lagrangian $L_{HM-sol}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{HM-sol} &=&
\frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \ dr \ r^2 \left\{ \dot \phi^\dagger \dot \phi -
\phi'^\dagger \phi' - \left( m_\phi^2
+ 2 B \frac{c\!\!/ ^4}{r^2} \right) \phi^\dagger \phi
+ \psi_0'^\dagger \psi_0' + 2 i \dot \psi_0'^\dagger \psi_1 +
\dot \psi_1^\dagger \dot \psi_1
\right.
\nonumber \\
& &  \left.
+ 2 B \left[ \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^4}{r^2} \psi_0^\dagger \psi_0 +  \dot \psi_2^\dagger \dot \psi_2
- \left(\frac{\psi_2}{r} +  \psi_2' - \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \psi_1\right)^\dagger \left( \frac{\psi_2}{r} +
\psi_2' - \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \psi_1\right)
+ 2 i \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \dot \psi_0^\dagger \psi_2  \right]
\right.
\nonumber \\
& & \left.
- 4 {\cal I} \frac{c\!\!/ ^4}{r^2}  \psi_2^\dagger \psi_2 +
m_\psi^2
\left( \psi_0^\dagger \psi_0 - \psi_1^\dagger \psi_1 - 2 B \psi_2^\dagger \psi_2 \right)
-
f \phi^\dagger \left( F' \psi_1 - 2 B \frac{s}{r} \psi_2 \right)
\right.
\nonumber \\
& &
\left.
- 2 g B \left[ \frac{s}{r} ( \psi_0'^\dagger \psi_2 - \psi_0^\dagger \psi'_2 -
\frac{\psi_0^\dagger \psi_2}{r})  + 2 s \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r^2} \psi_0^\dagger \psi_1 -
\frac{F'}{r} \psi_2^\dagger \psi_0 + i \dot \psi_2^\dagger
\left( 2 \frac{s}{r} \psi_1 - F' \psi_2 \right) \right] \right\} \nonumber \\
& & + h.c.
\end{eqnarray}
where $s$ and $s\!\!\!/ $ have been already defined, $c\!\!/  = \cos (F/2)$ and ${\cal I}$ is the angular integral
\begin{equation}
{\cal I}  = \frac{r^4}{16 \pi} \int {d\Omega} \ \left( \nabla^i \hat n_a \nabla^i \hat n_a \right)^2.
\end{equation}

The diagonalization of the hamiltonian obtained from $L_{HM-sol}$ leads to a set of eigenvalue equations
for the heavy meson field. They are
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eom1}
&\phi''& + \frac{2}{r} \phi' - \left(   m_\phi^2 - \omega^2 + 2 B \frac{c\!\!/ ^4}{r^2} \right) \phi - \frac{1}{2} f F' \psi_1 +
f B \frac{s}{r} \psi_2 = 0 \ , \nonumber \\
& & \\
&\psi_0''& + \frac{2}{r} \psi_0' - \left(m_\psi^2 + 2 B  \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^4}{r^2} \right) \psi_0
+ \left( \frac{2 \omega}{r} + 2 g B   \frac{s s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r^2} \right) \psi_1 + \omega \psi_1'
\nonumber \\
& & \qquad  \qquad \qquad  \qquad \qquad  \qquad
- \frac{2 B }{r} \left(g F' c\!\!/ ^2 + \omega s\!\!\!/ ^2 + g \frac{s}{r} \right) \psi_2  - 2 g B  \frac{s}{r} \psi_2' = 0 \ , \nonumber \\
& & \\
&2 g B& \frac{s s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r^2} \psi_0 - \omega \psi_0' + \left(m^2_\psi - \omega^2 + 2 B \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^4}{r^2} \right)\psi_1
+ \frac{1}{2} f F' \phi +  \frac{2 B}{r} \left( g \omega s - \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \right) \psi_2 - 2 B \frac{ s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \psi_2' = 0 \ , \nonumber \\
& &  \\
&\psi_2''& + \frac{2}{r} \psi_2' + f \frac{s}{2 r} \phi + \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \left( g F'
+ \omega \right) \psi_0 - g \frac{s}{r} \psi_0' - \frac{s}{2 r} \left(F' + 2 g \omega \right)
\psi_1 - \frac{s\!\!\!/ ^2}{r} \psi_1' \nonumber \\
& & \qquad  \qquad \qquad  \qquad \qquad  \qquad \qquad  \qquad
- \left( m_\psi^2 - \omega^2 - g \omega F' + \frac{2 {\cal I}}{B} \frac{c\!\!/ ^4}{r^2} \right) \psi_2 =0 \ . \label{eom4}
\end{eqnarray}

The numerical solution of this set of coupled equations supplemented with the appropiate boundary conditions
provides the heavy meson energy $\omega$ for the different baryon numbers $B$. The corresponding results
are discussed in the following section.

\section{Numerical results}

In our numerical calculations we use two sets of parameters in the $SU(2)$ sector.
Set A corresponds to the case
of massless pions and Set B to the case where the pion mass takes its
empirical value $m_\pi = 138 \ \rm{MeV}$. In both cases, $f_\pi$ and $\epsilon$
are adjusted so as to reproduce the empirical nucleon and $\Delta$ masses.
The fitted values are $f_\pi = 64.5 \ \rm{MeV}$ ,  $\epsilon = 5.45 $ for Set A and
$f_\pi = 54 \ \rm{MeV}$ ,  $\epsilon = 4.84 $ for Set B.
 With these parameters fixed  and using for
each baryon number $B$ the rational map given in Ref.\cite{HMS98},  we obtain the profile $F(r)$  that minimizes the mass of the soliton.

We proceed to solve the bound state eigenvalue equations (\ref{eom1})-(\ref{eom4}),
using the  values shown in Table I  for the  parameters that appear
in the heavy meson  lagrangian, Eq.(\ref{hlag}).
For the pseudoscalar and vector meson masses we use the empirical values.
On the other hand, since little is known about the heavy meson coupling constants,
we use the heavy quark symmetry relation \cite{Yan92}
\begin{eqnarray}
f &=& 2 \ m_\psi \ g
\end{eqnarray}
as a guideline in order to estimate $f$. We take $g$ to be the value given by the non-relativistic quark model:  $g=-0.75$.
As discussed in  a  recent analysis \cite{Che97}, this value is compatible with the upper bound $g^2 \lesssim .5$ established by the experimental upper limit for
the decay width $\Gamma(D^{*+}) < 131 \ {\rm keV} $ set by the ACCMOR Collaboration  \cite{Ba92}.

Our results for the heavy meson binding energies $\varepsilon_B$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_B = m_\phi - \omega_B
\end{equation}
are shown in Table II. Also listed in Table II are the soliton masses per baryon number
$M_{sol}$  taken from Ref.\cite{SS98}.

The general structure shown by the binding energies is in qualitative
agreement with what was  found in Ref.\cite{SS98} for the strangeness
case. For the heavy flavors we also find  that the binding energy decreases
with increasing baryon number, except for the crossings
that take place at $B=4$ and $B=7$. This general behaviour is the
opposite to what was found in Ref.\cite{KoZa99}. It should
be pointed out that, due to the absence of explicit vector mesons in the
corresponding effective action, the approach used in \cite{KoZa99} is expected to
be less accurate than the one followed in the present work.

From Table II we also notice that, for heavy flavors, the
binding is stronger for Set A than for Set B. This can be understood as
follows. In the $m_Q \rightarrow \infty $ limit the heavy flavored meson
would be concentrated at the origin \cite{JMW93}, wrapped by the
soliton. Thus, it would only probe the potential at this point. For $B=1$
such potential is basically proportional to $ | g F'(0) | $ and attractive.
As well known (see, e.g., Fig.1 of  Ref.\cite{AdNa84}), $|F'(0)|$ is larger
in the massless case. That leads to the observed behaviour. Similar analysis
can be done for higher values of $B$. For the strangeness case the behaviour
of the profile function at medium distances becomes important and the situation
is reversed \cite{SS98}.

In order to study the stability of the heavy multiskyrmions we
will only consider the mass of the background multiskyrmion and
the binding energy of the bound mesons. This should be a good
approximation since the non-adiabatic corrections are expected to be small
as a consequence of the rather large values of the moments of inertia
involved\cite{Irw98}. In the following we will focus on those states which
have flavor number equal to their baryon number. These states are of particular
interest since in the strange sector the analog states, namely those with $Y=0$,
have been found to be stable for some values of $B$\cite{IKS88,SS98}.

Using
\begin{eqnarray}
I_B = M_1 + M_{B-1} - M_B
\end{eqnarray}
with $M_B = B (M_{sol} + m_\phi - \varepsilon_B)$ and the values given in Table II,
we get the ionization energies $I_B$ shown in Table III. We observe that the  only heavy flavored states that
may be stable are those with $B=4$ and $B=7$. In Table IV we summarize the energies
for the other possible strong decays of these states. We observe that, although these states are stable against
strong decays into two fragments, some decays into a larger number of fragments are allowed. However,
since the usual phase space factors tend to suppress the decay rates as the number of fragments $ {\it n} $
in the final state increases we expect them to be quite narrow.
For instance, in the case of the charmed heptalambda the decay width will be very
small since the only allowed decay mode is the one that has seven $\Lambda_c$ in the final state (Set A).

Therefore the present model predicts, both for charm and bottom, narrow heavy multibaryon states
with baryon number four and seven. The main reason for the unstability of
these particles can be traced back to the rather large difference that
exists between the $B=1$ and $B>1$ binding energies. This can be easily understood
noting that, to leading order in $1/m_Q$, the only non-vanishing binding energy would be
that corresponding to $B=1$ since for $B>1$ the radial derivative of the
soliton profile function vanishes at the origin. On the other hand,  in the case
of strangeness the meson wavefunction is wider and, therefore, much less sensitive
to the value of the potential at the origin. Consequently, the gap between the
binding energies of $B=1$ and $B > 1$ is much smaller and the corresponding
multibaryon states with baryon number four and seven turn out to be absolutely stable against strong decays\cite{SS98}.

\section{Conclusions}

In this work we have studied the masses of heavy multibaryon configurations
using the bound state approach to the  Skyrme model. This is a natural extension
of previous work done in the strange sector. In order to consider
the heavier  flavors of charm and bottom in a consistent way, however, it is important
to take into account the heavy quark symmetry.
This is accomplished by the lagrangian given in Ref. \cite{Yan92}.
An important feature of this effective  heavy meson lagrangian is that it
contains the degrees of freedom of the heavy  scalar meson and the heavy vector
meson explicitly, which leads to a system of four coupled equations for the
bound state problem instead of just one equation as in Ref. \cite{SS98}.
The baryon number is carried by the soliton configuration of the light background
fields, for which we have used the expressions in terms of
the rational maps given in Ref.\cite{HMS98}.

We obtained solutions for the bound state equations for $B \leq 9$.
As in the strangeness case we find that the binding energy
decreases with the baryon number and that the  $B=4$ and $B=7$ states are
the most stable against strong decays. However, for the charm and bottom
flavors these states are not absolutely stable. Still, they are expected to be
quite narrow since only decays into final states with three or more fragments are
energetically allowed.  We do not expect that the collective
quantization of the soliton-meson bound system will change this picture.
It would be important, however, to estimate the zero point energy\cite{MK91} of these
multiskyrmion configurations. As discussed in Ref.\cite{TSW94} this
contribution may be the cause for the H particle, which appears almost at
threshold, to be unbound. In any case, since the predicted tetralambda and heptalambda
are more strongly bound against two particle decays than the H, this contribution is
not expected to be so important so as to open those leading decay channels.

\acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the warm hospitality of the organizers and staff
members of the INT-98-3 program of the Institute of Nuclear Theory at the
University of Washington where this work was initiated. NNS is supported
in part by a grant from Fundaci\'on Antorchas, Argentina,
the grant PICT 03-00000-00133 from ANPCYT, Argentina, and CONICET, Argentina.
C.L.S. thanks the CNPq-Brasil for financial support
through a CLAF fellowship.