 the AF vacuum. It remains to clarify whether it is possible or not to avoid these singularities by choosing a vacuum for the KK modes other than the dS invariant vacuum.

When the bound state is very light (but not exactly massless) because $M$, ${\mu}$ and/or $\xi$ are fine tuned according to Eq. (\[muc\]), then the stress tensor in dS invariant vacuum takes the form of (\[IRdivtmn\]). The stress tensor in this case is smooth, but it becomes very large. Hence, even when the bound state mass is not exactly zero, the dS invariant vacuum looks problematic because of large back reaction. Note that the situation here is different from the usual dS case in two respects. In dS space the large v.e.v. in the stress tensor for the dS invariant vacuum is a constant proportional to the metric. Hence, it might be absorbed by IR renormalization of the cosmological constant. In our case, the stress tensor given by Eq. (\[IRdivtmn\]) is a nonlocal expression and cannot be ‘renormalized away’. On the other hand, if one does not want to make any IR renormalization, in the dS case one can take the AF vacuum, and ${{\langle}T_{\mu\nu}{\rangle}}$ stays regular. In the brane world, we do not know the prescription how to remove this large v.e.v. by changing the vacuum state. Choosing non dS invariant vacuum will lead to not only the mentioned divergence in the bulk, but also a new singularity on the light cone, when the bound state mass $m_d$ is not exactly zero. In this case, the radial function for the bound state behaves like $\propto r^{-m_d^2/n}$ near the light cone at $r=0$. Hence if you single out the contribution to the Green’s function from the bound state, it is singular and its derivatives diverges at $r=0$. Hence, as far as we restrict the change of quantum state to the bound state, we will not be able to remove the large v.e.v. of stress tensor without spoiling its regularity.

A light bound state is compatible with a well behaved and not large stress tensor only in a situation ‘close’ to the massless minimally coupled case. More precisely, here we consider the cases that all of the bulk mass $M$, the brane mass ${\mu}$ and the nonminimal coupling $\xi$ are
the AF vacuum. It remains to clarify whether it is possible or not to avoid these singularity by choose a vacuum for the KK modes other than the dS invariant void. 

 When the bound state is very light (but not precisely massless) because $ M$, $ { \mu}$ and/or $ \xi$ are fine tuned harmonize to Eq.   (\[muc\ ]), then the stress tensor in dS invariant void takes the form of (\[IRdivtmn\ ]). The stress tensor in this case is legato, but it becomes very large. Hence, even when the bound state batch is not exactly zero, the dS invariant vacuum search problematic because of large back reaction. Note that the site here is different from the usual dS case in two respects. In dS quad the large v.e.v. in the stress tensor for the dS invariant vacuum is a constant proportional to the metric. Hence, it might be absorbed by IR renormalization of the cosmological constant. In our case, the stress tensor given by Eq.   (\[IRdivtmn\ ]) is a nonlocal expression and cannot be ‘ renormalized away ’. On the other hand, if one does not desire to reach any IR renormalization, in the dS casing one can subscribe the AF vacuum, and $ { { \langle}T_{\mu\nu}{\rangle}}$ stays regular. In the brane populace, we do not know the prescription how to remove this large v.e.v. by exchange the vacuum state. Choosing non dS invariant vacuum will lead to not entirely the mentioned divergence in the bulk, but also a newfangled singularity on the light cone, when the constipate state mass $ m_d$ is not exactly zero. In this case, the radial function for the bound department of state behaves like $ \propto r^{-m_d^2 / n}$ near the light cone at $ r=0$. Hence if you single out the contribution to the Green ’s function from the tie state, it is singular and its derivatives diverges at $ r=0$. therefore, as far as we restrict the change of quantum state to the bound state of matter, we will not be able to remove the bombastic v.e.v. of stress tensor without thwart its regularity. 

 A light tie down state is compatible with a well behaved and not large stress tensor only in a situation ‘ near ’ to the massless minimally coupled lawsuit. More precisely, here we consider the cases that all of the bulk mass $ M$, the brane mass $ { \mu}$ and the nonminimal coupling $ \xi$ are
 thf AF vacuum. It remains tu clarify whethgr it is possigle or nut to avoid these singularitmes vy chiosing a vacuum for thd KK moded other rhan rhe dS invediant vacuum.

Wgcn thz uound state is yery light (tut not exactlf oadsless) because $M$, ${\mu}$ and/or $\xi$ are fige tunec wccording to Ez. (\[muc\]), ehen nht stress tensor in dS invariant vzcuum tekes the form og (\[IRdivtmn\]). The stress tenslr ij this case is smolth, but it vecoiws very largd. Hence, evtn when the gound state mass is not exactly zero, the dS incaeiajj vacuum loojs prjblematic begsuse ox large back reaction. Nove tyat the situation herx is different from jhe usual gS case in two respwcrs. In dS vpacd thd lzrje b.e.v. in thx stress tehsor for thw dS invariant vacuim px a constant propowtyonal to the metric. Hence, it might be atsodbed by IR renormalizatuon of the cosmologicwl constagt. In our case, the stress tensor given by Eq. (\[IRdivdmn\]) ia a uinlocxo fxpression and cannot be ‘renormalized away’. On fht onher hand, if one boes not want to mwkr any IR renoroalizacjoh, in the dS case oje can jake tye AF vactum, snd ${{\langle}T_{\mu\nu}{\rangle}}$ stays regular. In nhe vrane world, we do uot know the prexcripyion how to remove this larfe v.e.v. by cjanging tgd vacuum state. Cfooxitg non dS invariant vacuum will leav to uot only the mentijned diverhence in the bulk, but aldo a uew shngularity on the light cone, when the bouiv state mass $k_d$ is not exaetly zcro. In this casq, the radial fonction fjr thd bound stzte beheves like $\prjpto r^{-m_d^2/n}$ neas the light cmne at $r=0$. Henxe id you skvgle out the cpntribution to the Treen’s function frpm jhs bound state, ic us singular and itr dqrpvavives giverges at $s=0$. Hevce, ss faf as we resbrizt tne change of quantum stafe to the bound ststc, we will not be wble to removr the large v.e.v. of strevs vensor wijhout spoiling its regularity.

A might boujd ftate is com[atinle rith a welk behaved and not large stress tensor oily in a situation ‘closw’ to the massless mnnlmally couplxd casq. More pracisely, here we consuder the cases thst all of the bulk maas $M$, tve brwne mass ${\mu}$ and the nonminimal coupling $\xi$ are
the AF vacuum. It remains to clarify is or not avoid these singularities the modes other than dS invariant vacuum. the bound state is very light not exactly massless) because $M$, ${\mu}$ and/or $\xi$ are fine tuned according to (\[muc\]), then the stress tensor in dS invariant vacuum takes the form of The tensor this is smooth, but it becomes very large. Hence, even when the bound state mass is not zero, the dS invariant vacuum looks problematic because large back reaction. Note the situation here is different the dS case two In space the large in the stress tensor for the dS invariant vacuum is a constant proportional to the metric. Hence, might be IR renormalization the constant. our case, the given by Eq. (\[IRdivtmn\]) is a cannot be ‘renormalized away’. On the other hand, one does want to make any IR renormalization, the dS case one can take the AF and ${{\langle}T_{\mu\nu}{\rangle}}$ stays regular. In the brane world, we do not know the prescription how this large v.e.v. by the vacuum state. non invariant will to not the mentioned divergence in the bulk, but also a new singularity the light cone, when the bound state mass $m_d$ is zero. this case, the function for the bound behaves $\propto r^{-m_d^2/n}$ near the at Hence out contribution the Green’s function from bound state, it is singular its derivatives diverges at we restrict the change of quantum state to bound state, we will not be able remove the large v.e.v. of stress tensor without spoiling its regularity. A bound state with a well behaved and not large stress only in a situation to the massless minimally coupled case. More precisely, here consider cases that of the bulk $M$, the brane ${\mu}$ and the $\xi$ are
 the AF vacuum. It remains to claRify whetheR it is PosSibLe Or noT to aVoid these singuLAritIes by choosing a vacuum foR the Kk mODes oTHeR than The dS inVArIANt vAcUuM.

WhEn THe Bound StaTe is verY light (but nOt eXaCtly massless) BEcAuse $M$, ${\mu}$ and/Or $\xI$ are fine tuneD acCordinG tO Eq. (\[MUc\]), theN thE streSs tensOR in dS iNvariant vAcUUm takeS The form OF (\[iRDivtMn\]). The stress tensor IN tHIs case is smooth, But it bEcOMeS VEry LarGe. Hence, eveN wHen thE Bound stATe MASS is NOt exactly zero, The dS invariANt vAcuum lOoKs pROblemaTic beCaUSe oF large back rEactIon. Note thAt the sITuation HEre is diFferenT frOm tHe usUAl DS CasE iN Two REsPecTS. In DS space tHe LaRge v.e.V. in tHE STRess TenSor fOr the DS invariant vaCuuM is a COnsTant pRoporTionAl To the Metric. hence, It Might be absorbed By IR RenormaliZatIoN of ThE cosmOLogicaL coNstAnt. In ouR case, thE StrEsS TENsOr given by Eq. (\[IRdivtmN\]) iS A NoNlocal exPressiON aNd CAnnot be ‘rEnOrmAlizED Away’. ON the OThEr hand, if One doeS NoT wAnt to maKe Any IR rEnOrmAliZatioN, In thE dS casE one can tAke thE aF vacuum, and ${{\lanGLe}T_{\mu\nu}{\rangle}}$ STaYS ReGUlar. in tHe brane worlD, we dO Not kNow tHE pResCRiptiOn how To REmOVe this large v.e.v. by chaNgIng the VacuuM state. ChoosinG non dS invaRIANt vacuum Will LEaD To not only the meNtionEd divergenCE in the buLk, but Also a new SingulariTY On the ligHt cOne, WheN thE BOuNd state mass $m_d$ IS Not eXaCtly zerO. In This casE, thE raDiaL fuNcTion for thE bound stAtE bEhAvEs lIke $\prOPto r^{-m_d^2/n}$ nEaR thE lIghT cone AT $r=0$. HencE if yoU sinGlE oUT thE contriBUtION to tHe grEen’s FunCtIon frOm thE BouNd state, It is singuLar ANd itS dErIvativeS diverges at $r=0$. HEnCe, as far as wE rEstRict thE CHange of qUantum state to the bound stATe, we wilL noT be abLe to Remove the LarGe v.e.v. oF stREss tenSor witHout sPoIliNG Its reGULaRitY.

A Light bound STAte Is comPaTiblE with a wEll behaved and not laRGe sTress tensor onLy iN a siTUAtIon ‘CLoSE’ to ThE MasSLEss minimally couPled case. MoRe PReCisely, here WE coNsIder the Cases thAt all OF the bulK mass $M$, the Brane mass ${\Mu}$ And tHE NonMinimal couPling $\xi$ aRe
 the AF vacuum. It remains  to clarif y whe the r i tis p ossi ble or not toa void  these singularities b y cho os i ng a va cuumfor the KK m ode sot her  t h an  thedSinvaria nt vacuum. 

W he n the bounds ta te is very  li ght (but not  ex actlyma ssl e ss) b eca use $ M$, ${ \ mu}$ a nd/or $\x i$ are fi n e tuned a cc ordi ng to Eq. (\[muc\ ] ), then the stres s tens or in d S i nva riant vacu um  take s  the fo r mo f (\[ I Rdivtmn\]). T he stress t e nso r in t hi s c a se issmoot h, but  it becomes  ver y large.Hence, even wh e n the b ound s tat e m assi sno t e xa c tly ze ro, the  dS inva ri an t vac uuml o o k s pr obl emat ic be cause of larg e b ackr eac tion.  Note  tha tthe s ituati on he re  is different f romthe usual  dS  c ase  i n two respec ts.  In  dS spa ce thel arg ev . e .v . in the stress te ns o r  f or the d S inva r ia nt vacuum i sa c onst a n t pro port i on al to th e metr i c.  H ence, i tmightbe  ab sor bed b y  IRrenorm alizatio n oft he cosmologica l  constant. In ou r ca s e, t hestress tens or g i venby E q .(\[ I Rdivt mn\])  i s  a nonlocal expression  a nd can not b e ‘renormaliz ed away’.O n the othe r ha n d, if one does no t wan t to makea ny IR re norma lization , in thed S  case on e c antak e t h e  A F vacuum, and $ {{\l an gle}T_{ \mu \nu}{\r ang le} }$sta ys  regular.  In thebr an ewo rld , wed o not kn ow  th epre scrip t ion ho w toremo ve  t h islarge v . e. v .  bych an ging  th evacuu m st a te.  Choosi ng non dS  in v aria nt  v acuum w ill lead to n ot  only theme nti oned d i v ergencein the bulk, but also a new sin gul arity  onthe light  co ne, wh ent he bou nd sta te ma ss  $m _ d $ isn o texa ct ly zero. I n thi s cas e,  the  radial  function for theb oun d state behav eslike $ \p rop t or ^{- m_ d ^2/ n } $ near the ligh t cone at$r = 0$ . Hence if you  s ingle o ut thecontr i butionto the Gr een’s fun ct ionf r omthe boundstate, i t is sing u lar a n dits d eri vative sdiv erges  at $r = 0$.  Henc e, asfa r as w e res tr ict thechange of quantum state  to th e bou ndstate, we  wi l l n ot be abl e to  remove th e l arg e v.e .v. of st ress te nso r  with outs poiling i t sreg u l ar ity.

A lig h t bou nd st ate is com pati ble with a well b e haved and notlarg e str ess tens or  only in a sit uat io n ‘close’to  the massle ss minim al l y cou pled c ase. M ore pre c i se l y, her e we  co nsider th e c as e s thatal lo f thebulk  m ass $M $, the bran e mass ${\mu}$ and  then o nmini m alcoupl in g $\xi$ are
 the_AF vacuum._It remains to clarify_whether it_is_possible or_not_to avoid these_singularities by choosing_a vacuum for the_KK modes other_than_the dS invariant vacuum.

When the bound state is very light (but not exactly massless)_because_$M$, ${\mu}$_and/or_$\xi$_are fine tuned according to_Eq. (\[muc\]), then the stress tensor_in dS_invariant vacuum takes the form of (\[IRdivtmn\]). The_stress_tensor in this_case is smooth, but it becomes very large. Hence,_even when the bound state mass_is not exactly_zero,_the_dS invariant vacuum looks_problematic because of large back reaction._Note that the situation here is_different from the usual dS case in_two respects. In dS space the_large v.e.v. in the stress_tensor for_the dS invariant vacuum is_a constant proportional_to the_metric. Hence, it_might be absorbed by IR renormalization_of the cosmological_constant. In our case, the stress_tensor_given by Eq. (\[IRdivtmn\])_is_a_nonlocal expression_and cannot be_‘renormalized_away’. On_the_other hand, if one does not_want_to make any IR renormalization, in the_dS case one can_take_the AF vacuum, and_${{\langle}T_{\mu\nu}{\rangle}}$ stays regular. In the_brane world, we do not know_the prescription_how to_remove this large v.e.v. by changing the vacuum state. Choosing non_dS invariant vacuum will lead to_not only the mentioned_divergence in_the_bulk, but also_a_new singularity_on the light cone, when the bound_state mass_$m_d$ is not exactly zero. In_this case, the radial_function_for the bound state behaves like_$\propto r^{-m_d^2/n}$ near the light cone_at $r=0$. Hence if you_single_out_the contribution to the Green’s_function from the bound state, it_is singular and_its derivatives diverges at $r=0$. Hence, as_far_as we restrict the change of_quantum_state to the bound state, we_will_not_be able to remove the_large v.e.v. of stress tensor without_spoiling its regularity.

A light bound state is compatible with_a well behaved_and not large stress tensor_only_in_a situation ‘close’ to the massless minimally coupled case. More_precisely, here_we consider the_cases that all of the bulk mass $M$, the brane_mass ${\mu}$ and the nonminimal coupling $\xi$_are