\section{Introduction}

Proton capture reactions at a very low temperature play an important
role in nucleosynthesis process. Most importantly, in explosive
nucleosynthesis ({\it e.g.} an X-ray burst), the rapid proton capture ($rp$) process
is responsible for the production of proton-rich isotopes upto mass 100 region.
In nature, the proton capture reactions, important for nucleosynthesis, usually
involve certain nuclei as targets which are not available on earth
or cannot be produced  in terrestrial laboratories with our present day
technology. Therefore, theory remains  the sole guide to extract the
physics.

In our present work, we have studied the endpoint of the $rp$ process in a
microscopic approach using a new phenomenological mass formula \cite{mass}.
In a similar work, Schatz {\em et al.} \cite{schatz} calculated the
endpoint of $rp$ process  using mass values from a Finite Range droplet Model
(FRDM)\cite{Mol}
calculation and  proton capture rates from Hauser-Feshbach code
NON-SMOKER\cite{ns,ns1}. We will show that the results of our calculation are
different from their observations. In the present work, we will
concentrate only on X-ray burst scenarios, which have typical timescale of
100 seconds and a peak proton flux density  of the order of $10^{6} gram/cm^3$.
This type of burst provides  a highly proton-rich environment  around the peak
temperatures 1-2 GK. We try to look at different models of the X-ray
burster and find out the endpoint of the $rp$ process nucleosynthesis.

\section{Methodology}

When an X-ray burst takes place, a proton-rich high temperature
environment, which triggers the $rp$ process, is created. The
process passes through nuclei near the proton drip line,
not available on earth. In regions far from the stability
valley, rates derived from phenomenological calculations may not
represent the reality very well, leading to considerable uncertainty
in the process. Very often, the reaction rates are varied by a large factor to
study their effects. On the other hand, in a microscopic calculation,
uncertainty in reaction rates can be reduced and therefore, this approach
is expected to give a more accurate result for unknown mass regions. In a previous work\cite{prc},
we have shown that the rates may vary at most by a factor less than two when the cross-section
values range over four orders of magnitude.

A microscopic calculation has been performed to evaluate proton
capture rates for the nuclei involve in the $rp$ process in the present work.
We use the spherical optical model to calculate the rates of the relevant
reactions. As most of the nuclei involved in the process lie around the drip
line, experimental density information are not available. Hence, theoretical
density profiles have been calculated using relativistic mean
field (RMF) theory. In the present work, we use  the FSU Gold Lagrangian
density\cite{gold} and
solve the RMF equations in the spherical approximation for the nuclei
involved in the $rp$ process. This
Lagrangian density, containing additional nonlinear terms for the vector
isoscalar meson self interaction and an interaction between the isoscalar vector
and the isovector vector mesons, has been found to be very useful in describing
nuclear properties throughout the mass table [See {\em e.g.} Bhattacharya
{\em et al}\cite{1,2} and references therein].

The microscopic optical model potential for capture
reactions are obtained using effective interactions derived from the nuclear
matter calculation in local density approximation, {\em i.e.} by
substituting the nuclear matter density with the density distribution
of the finite nucleus.  In the present work, we have constructed the
potential by folding the density dependent M3Y (DDM3Y)\cite{ddm3y1,ddm3y2,ddm3y3}
interaction with densities from RMF approach. This interaction was extracted
from a finite-range energy-independent $G$-matrix element of the Reid potential by
adding a zero-range energy-dependent pseudo-potential and
a density-dependent factor.
The interaction at the point $\vec{r}$ is, thus, given by
\begin{equation}
 v(r,\rho,E)=t^{M3Y}(r,E)g(\rho)
\end{equation}
where $E$ is the incident energy and $\rho$, the nuclear density.
The $t^{M3Y}$ interaction is given by
\begin{equation}
t^{M3Y}=7999\frac{e^{-4r}}{4r}-2134\frac{e^{-2.5r}}{2.5r}+J_{00}(E)\delta(r)
\end{equation}
for $r$ in $fm$, and  $J_{00}(E)$ is the zero range pseudo potential,
\begin{equation}
J_{00}(E)=-276\left( 1-0.005\frac{E}{A}\right) {\rm MeV} fm^{3}\end{equation}

The density dependent factor $g(\rho)$ has been chosen of the form
$C(1-\beta\rho^{2/3})$ from the work by Chaudhuri\cite{ddm3y2,ddm3y3}
where the constants were obtained
from a nuclear matter calculation as $C$ = 2.07 and
$\beta$ = 1.624 $fm^2$. We have used this form in our calculation
without changing any of the above parameters.

We have also fixed the various parameters and prescriptions in the
Hauser-Feshbach calculation for the relevant mass region by comparing our
results to the experimental low energy proton capture cross sections for
these nuclei. Our method of calculation for mean field and proton
capture rates has been described in our earlier works\cite{prc,epja} in detail.
The computer code TALYS\cite{talys} has been used for rate calculation.

Binding energy of nuclear ground state is one of the most important inputs
in the study of astrophysical reactions. Experimental measurements are very
difficult to perform in nuclei far from the stability line.
Therefore, one has to take recourse to theoretical predictions.
Though we have used a mean field calculation to extract the nuclear density
profiles, no RMF calculation has been able to achieve a prediction of mass
values with accuracy sufficient for studying the proton drip line. In fact,
even Skyrme Hartree-Fock calculations can predict the mass values with
an root mean square (rms) error slightly less than 0.6 MeV only. Thus, in
the present work,
we have obtained the mass values from a newly developed mass
formula\cite{mass}. It uses a purely phenomenological form with empirically
fitted parameters and predicts the known mass values of 2140 nuclei with an
rms error of 0.376 MeV. In view of the success of the formula to predict the proton
dripline and $rp$ process upto mass 80 region\cite{ijmpe} and to predict the
peaks in $r$  process\cite{nrich} quite well, it will be interesting
to see the effect of this mass formula on $rp$ process beyond mass 80 region and
to the endpoint of the $rp$ process.

In an X-ray burst environment, a nucleus ($Z,A$) may capture a proton to form the
nucleus ($Z+1,A+1$) . However, this process has to compete with its inverse,
{\em i.e.} photodisintegration by emitting a proton at high temperature
[$(\gamma, p)$ reaction]. A negative or a small positive value of the proton
separation
energy implies that the inverse reaction dominates and the $rp$ process stalls
at that point, the so-called waiting point. Therefore, only a two proton
capture process can bridge the waiting point nuclei. The bridging mechanism has been
discussed in standard text books (for example the book by
Illiadis\cite{iliadis}). For the $X(p,\gamma)Y$ reaction, the rate $\lambda$
of the inverse process $(\gamma,p)$ is
related to the the proton capture rate by the reciprocity theorem
and is of the form \cite{iliadis}
 \begin{eqnarray}
\lambda=
9.86851\times10^9 T^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(\frac{M_{p}M_{X}}{M_{Y}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}
\frac{\left( 2J_{p}+1 \right)\left( 2J_{X}+1 \right)}
{\left( 2J_{Y}+1 \right)}\frac{G_pG_X}{G_Y}
\nonumber\\
{N\langle\sigma v\rangle_{pX\rightarrow Y\gamma}}
\exp\left(\frac{-11.605Q}{T}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
in the unit of $sec^{-1}$ for  $X(p,\gamma)Y$ process. The forward reaction rate, denoted by
$N\langle\sigma v\rangle_{pX\rightarrow Y\gamma}$, is expressed in
$cm^3mol^{-1}sec^{-1}$. The
temperature $T$ is in GK ($10^9$K) and $Q$ is the ground state Q-value of the
$(p,\gamma)$ reaction  expressed in MeV. The normalized partition functions,
$G_X$ and $G_Y$, have been obtained from Rauscher {\em et al}.\cite{ptable} For
protons, we use the standard values,  $G_p=1$ and $J_p=1/2$.
As evident from the above expression, the Q-value, appearing in the exponent, plays a vital role in the
whole process.

 Apart from the above processes, a nucleus can decay by emitting beta particles while, for higher
mass isotopes, $\alpha$-decay is another probable channel. In this work, the measured half life
values for $\beta$-decay have been taken from the compilation by Audi {\em et al.}\cite{audi14}
except in the case of $^{65}$As, which is taken from the experimental measurements by L\'{o}pez {
\em et al.}\cite{lopez}  In absence of experimental data, half life values
have been taken from the calculation by M\"{o}ller {\em et al.}\cite{Mol} both for $\beta$- and
$\alpha$- decay. Taking into account all the above processes, we have constructed a network
extended upto A=110 region to study the nucleosynthesis path and relative abundances
of the elements at any instant.

\section{Results}

 \begin{figure}[b]
\center
\resizebox{10cm}{!}{

\begin{tikzpicture}

  \node (1) at (.4,0)  [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{28}$Ni,label=below :28] {$ $  };
    \node (2) at (.4,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
    \node (3) at (.4,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{30}$Zn] {$ $};
    \node (4) at (.4,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
    \node (5) at (.8,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]{$ $};
    \node (6) at (.8,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]{$ $};
 \node (7) at (.8,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $ };
 \node (8) at (1.2,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (9) at (1.2,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (10) at (1.2,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (11) at (1.2,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{32}$Ge]    {$ $};
 \node (12) at (1.6,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (13) at (1.6,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (14) at (1.6,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (15) at (1.6,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]  {$ $};
 \node (16) at (2.0,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (17) at (2.0,1.6) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (18) at (2.0,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (19) at (2.0,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (20) at (2.4,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (21) at (.8,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]  {$ $};
 \node (22) at (1.2,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below :30]   {$ $};
 \node (23) at (1.6,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (24) at (2.0,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below :32]   {$ $};
 \node (25) at (2.0,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
 \node (26) at (2.0,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (27) at (1.2,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (28) at (1.2,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{34}$Se] {$ $};
\node (29) at (1.6,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (30) at (1.6,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (31) at (2.4,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (32) at (2.4,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (33) at (2.4,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (34) at (2.4,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (35) at (2.8,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below :34] {$ $};
 \node (36) at (2.8,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (37) at (2.8,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (38) at (2.8,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (39) at (2.8,2.4) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (40) at (2.8,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (41) at (2.8,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{36}$Kr] {$ $};
\node (42) at (3.2,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (43) at (3.2,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (44) at (3.2,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (45) at (3.2,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (46) at (3.6,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:36] {$ $ };
\node (47) at (3.6,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (48) at (3.6,3.2) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (49) at (3.6,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (50) at (3.6,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{38}$Sr] {$ $ };
\node (51) at (4.0,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (52) at (4.0,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $  };
\node (53) at (4.0,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (54) at (4.0,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$   $ };
\node (55) at (4.0,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$  $ };
\node (56) at (4.4,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:38] {$ $ };
\node (57) at (4.4,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$  $ };
\node (58) at (4.4,4.) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (59) at (4.4,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (60) at (4.4,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{40}$Zr] {$ $ };
\node (61) at (4.8,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (62) at (4.8,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (63) at (4.8,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (64) at (4.8,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (65) at (4.8,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (66) at (5.2,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:40] {$ $ };
\node (67) at (5.2,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (68) at (5.2,4.8) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (69) at (5.2,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (70) at (5.2,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{42}$Mo] {$ $ };
\node (71) at (5.6,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (72) at (5.6,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (73) at (5.6,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (74) at (5.6,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (75) at (5.6,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (76) at (6.0,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:42] {$ $ };
\node (77) at (6.0,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (78) at (6.0,5.6) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (79) at (6.0,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (80) at (6.0,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{44}$Ru] {$ $ };
\node (81) at (6.4,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (82) at (6.4,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (83) at (6.4,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (84) at (6.4,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (85) at (6.4,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (86) at (6.8,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:44] {$ $ };
\node (87) at (6.8,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (88) at (6.8,6.4) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (89) at (6.8,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (90) at (6.8,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{46}$Pd] {$ $ };
\node (91) at (7.2,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (92) at (7.2,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (93) at (7.2,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (94) at (7.2,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (95) at (7.2,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (96) at (7.6,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:46] {$ $ };
\node (97) at (7.6,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (98) at (7.6,7.2) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (99) at (7.6,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (100) at (7.6,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{48}$Cd] {$ $ };
\node (101) at (8.0,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (102) at (8.0,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (103) at (8.0,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (104) at (8.0,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (105) at (8.0,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (106) at (8.4,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:48] {$ $ };
\node (107) at (8.4,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (108) at (8.4,8.0) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (109) at (8.4,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (110) at (8.4,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{50}$Sn] {$ $ };
\node (111) at (8.8,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (112) at (8.8,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (113) at (8.8,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (114) at (8.8,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (115) at (8.8,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (116) at (9.2,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:50] {$ $ };
\node (117) at (9.2,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (118) at (9.2,8.8) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (119) at (9.2,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (120) at (9.2,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{52}$Te] {$ $ };
\node (121) at (9.6,8.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (122) at (9.6,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (123) at (9.6,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (124) at (9.6,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (125) at (9.6,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (126) at (9.6,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (127) at (10.0,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:52] {$ $ };
\node (128) at (10.0,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (129) at (10.0,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (130) at (10.0,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (131) at (10.0,9.6) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (132) at (10.0,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (133) at (10.4,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (134) at (10.4,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (135) at (10.4,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (136) at (10.4,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (137) at (10.4,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (138) at (10.8,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (139) at (10.8,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (140) at (10.8,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (141) at (10.8,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (142) at (10.8,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (143) at (11.2,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (144) at (11.2,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (145) at (11.2,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (146) at (11.2,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (147) at (11.6,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (148) at (11.6,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (149) at (11.6,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (150) at (12.0,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (151) at (2.4,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (152) at (12.,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (153) at (12.,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (154) at (11.6,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (155) at (12.,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (156) at (12.,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (157) at (11.6,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (158) at (11.2,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };

\draw [ thick]  (.4,0) to (.4,.4);
\draw [very thick]  (.4,.4) to (.4,.8);
\draw [very thick]  (.4,.8) to (0.8,.4);
\draw [very thick]  (.8,.4) to (.8,.8);
\draw [very thick]  (.8,.8) to (1.2,.4);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,.4) to (1.2,.8);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,.8) to (1.2,1.2);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,1.2) to (1.2,1.6);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,1.6) to (1.6,1.2)
\draw [very thick]  (1.6,1.2) to (1.6,1.6)
\draw [very thick]  (1.6,1.6) to (2.,1.2);
\draw [very thick]  (2.,1.2) to (2.,1.6)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,1.6) to (2.,2.)
\draw [gray,thick]  (2.,1.6) to (2.4,1.2)
\draw [gray,thick]  (2.4,1.2) to (2.4,2.0)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,2.) to (2.,2.4)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,2.4) to (2.4,2.)
\draw [very thick]  (2.4,2.) to (2.4,2.4)
\draw [very thick]  (2.4,2.4) to (2.8,2.0)
\draw [very thick]  (2.8,2.) to (2.8,2.4)
\draw [very thick]  (3.2,2.8) to (3.2,3.2)
\draw [very thick]  (3.2,3.2) to (3.6,2.8)
\draw [very thick]  (3.6,2.8) to (3.6,3.2)
\draw [very thick]  (3.6,3.2) to (3.6,3.6)
\draw [very thick]  (3.6,3.6) to (3.6,4.)
\draw [very thick]  (3.6,4) to (4,3.6)
\draw [very thick]  (4,3.6) to (4,4)
\draw [very thick]  (4,4.) to (4.4,3.6)
\draw [very thick] (4.4,3.6) to (4.4,4)
\draw [thick,gray] (4.4,4) to (4.4,4.4)
\draw [thick,gray] (4.4,4.4) to (4.4,4.8)
\draw [thick,gray] (4.4,4.8) to (4.8,4.4)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4.4) to (4.8,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4.8) to (5.2,4.4)
\draw [very thick] (5.2,4.4) to (5.2,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (3.6,3.2) to (4.0,2.8)
\draw [very thick] (4,2.8) to (4,3.2)
\draw [very thick] (4,3.2) to (4,3.6)
\draw [very thick] (4,3.6) to (4,4.)
\draw [very thick] (4.4,4) to (4.8,3.6)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,3.6) to (4.8,4)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4) to (4.8,4.4)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4.4) to (4.8,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (2.8,2.4) to (3.2,2.)
\draw [very thick] (3.2,2.) to (3.2,2.4)
\draw [very thick] (3.2,2.4) to (3.2,2.8)
\draw [very thick] (5.2,4.8) to (5.6,4.4)

\draw [very thick] (5.6,4.4) to (5.6,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,4.8) to (5.6,5.2)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,5.2) to (5.6,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,5.2) to (6.,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,5.6) to (6,5.2)
\draw [gray, thick] (6.,4.8) to (6.,5.2)
\draw [very thick] (6.,5.2) to (6.,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (6.,5.6) to (6.4,5.2)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,5.2) to (6.4,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,5.6) to (6.4,6)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,6) to (6.4,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,6) to (6.8,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,6.4) to (6.8,6.)
\draw [gray, thick] (6.8,5.6) to (6.8,6)
\draw [very thick] (6.8,6) to (6.8,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (6.8,6.4) to (7.2,6)
\draw [very thick] (7.2,6) to (7.2,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (7.2,6.4) to(7.2,6.8)
\draw [very thick](7.2,6.8) to (7.2,7.2)
\draw [very thick](7.2,6.8) to (7.6,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (7.2,7.2) to (7.6,6.8)
\draw [very thick] (7.6,6.8) to (7.6,7.2)
\draw [very thick] (7.6,7.2) to (8,6.8)
\draw [very thick] (8,6.8) to (8,7.2)
\draw [very thick] (8,7.2) to (8,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8,7.6) to (8,8.)
\draw [very thick] (8,7.6) to (8.4,7.2)
\draw [very thick] (8.0,8.0) to (8.4,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8.4,7.2) to (8.4,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8.4,7.6) to (8.4,8.0)
\draw [very thick](8.4,8.0) to (8.8,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8.8,7.6) to (8.8,8.0)
\draw [very thick] (8.8,8.0) to (8.8,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (8.8,8.4) to (9.2,8.0)
\draw [very thick] (9.2,8.0) to (9.2,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (9.2,8.4) to (9.6,8.0)
\draw [very thick] (9.6,8.0) to (9.6,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (9.6,8.4) to (9.6,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (9.6,8.8) to (10.,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (10,8.4) to (10,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (10,8.8) to (10.4,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (10.4,8.4) to (10.4,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (10.4,8.8) to (10.8,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (10.8,8.4) to (10.8,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (10.8,8.8) to (11.2,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (11.2,8.4) to (11.2,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (11.2,8.8) to (11.6,8.4);
\draw [very thick]  (11.6,8.4) to  (11.6,8.8)
\draw [very thick]   (11.6,8.8) to  (12,8.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}

\caption{\label{fig:a} $rp$ process path for 1.2 GK}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\center
\resizebox{10cm}{!}{

\begin{tikzpicture}

  \node (1) at (.4,0)  [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{28}$Ni,label=below :28] {$ $  };
    \node (2) at (.4,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
    \node (3) at (.4,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{30}$Zn] {$ $};
    \node (4) at (.4,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
    \node (5) at (.8,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]{$ $};
    \node (6) at (.8,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]{$ $};
 \node (7) at (.8,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $ };
 \node (8) at (1.2,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (9) at (1.2,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (10) at (1.2,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (11) at (1.2,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{32}$Ge]    {$ $};
 \node (12) at (1.6,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (13) at (1.6,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (14) at (1.6,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (15) at (1.6,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]  {$ $};
 \node (16) at (2.0,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (17) at (2.0,1.6) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (18) at (2.0,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (19) at (2.0,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]    {$ $};
 \node (20) at (2.4,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (21) at (.8,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]  {$ $};
 \node (22) at (1.2,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below :30]   {$ $};
 \node (23) at (1.6,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (24) at (2.0,0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below :32]   {$ $};
 \node (25) at (2.0,.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
 \node (26) at (2.0,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt]   {$ $};
\node (27) at (1.2,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (28) at (1.2,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{34}$Se] {$ $};
\node (29) at (1.6,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (30) at (1.6,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (31) at (2.4,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (32) at (2.4,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (33) at (2.4,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (34) at (2.4,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (35) at (2.8,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below :34] {$ $};
 \node (36) at (2.8,1.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
 \node (37) at (2.8,1.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (38) at (2.8,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (39) at (2.8,2.4) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (40) at (2.8,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (41) at (2.8,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{36}$Kr] {$ $};
\node (42) at (3.2,2.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (43) at (3.2,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (44) at (3.2,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (45) at (3.2,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (46) at (3.6,2.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:36] {$ $ };
\node (47) at (3.6,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (48) at (3.6,3.2) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $};
\node (49) at (3.6,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (50) at (3.6,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{38}$Sr] {$ $ };
\node (51) at (4.0,2.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (52) at (4.0,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $  };
\node (53) at (4.0,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (54) at (4.0,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$   $ };
\node (55) at (4.0,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$  $ };
\node (56) at (4.4,3.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:38] {$ $ };
\node (57) at (4.4,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$  $ };
\node (58) at (4.4,4.) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (59) at (4.4,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (60) at (4.4,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{40}$Zr] {$ $ };
\node (61) at (4.8,3.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (62) at (4.8,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (63) at (4.8,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (64) at (4.8,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (65) at (4.8,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (66) at (5.2,4.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:40] {$ $ };
\node (67) at (5.2,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (68) at (5.2,4.8) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (69) at (5.2,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (70) at (5.2,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{42}$Mo] {$ $ };
\node (71) at (5.6,4.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (72) at (5.6,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (73) at (5.6,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (74) at (5.6,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (75) at (5.6,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (76) at (6.0,4.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:42] {$ $ };
\node (77) at (6.0,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (78) at (6.0,5.6) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (79) at (6.0,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (80) at (6.0,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{44}$Ru] {$ $ };
\node (81) at (6.4,5.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (82) at (6.4,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (83) at (6.4,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (84) at (6.4,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (85) at (6.4,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (86) at (6.8,5.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:44] {$ $ };
\node (87) at (6.8,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (88) at (6.8,6.4) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (89) at (6.8,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (90) at (6.8,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{46}$Pd] {$ $ };
\node (91) at (7.2,6.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (92) at (7.2,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (93) at (7.2,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (94) at (7.2,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (95) at (7.2,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (96) at (7.6,6.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:46] {$ $ };
\node (97) at (7.6,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (98) at (7.6,7.2) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (99) at (7.6,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (100) at (7.6,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{48}$Cd] {$ $ };
\node (101) at (8.0,6.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (102) at (8.0,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (103) at (8.0,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (104) at (8.0,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (105) at (8.0,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (106) at (8.4,7.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:48] {$ $ };
\node (107) at (8.4,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (108) at (8.4,8.0) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (109) at (8.4,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (110) at (8.4,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{50}$Sn] {$ $ };
\node (111) at (8.8,7.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (112) at (8.8,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (113) at (8.8,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (114) at (8.8,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (115) at (8.8,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (116) at (9.2,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:50] {$ $ };
\node (117) at (9.2,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (118) at (9.2,8.8) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (119) at (9.2,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (120) at (9.2,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=left:$_{52}$Te] {$ $ };
\node (121) at (9.6,8.) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (122) at (9.6,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (123) at (9.6,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (124) at (9.6,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (125) at (9.6,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (126) at (9.6,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (127) at (10.0,8.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt,label=below:52] {$ $ };
\node (128) at (10.0,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (129) at (10.0,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (130) at (10.0,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (131) at (10.0,9.6) [fill,draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (132) at (10.0,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (133) at (10.4,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (134) at (10.4,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (135) at (10.4,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (136) at (10.4,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (137) at (10.4,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (138) at (10.8,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (139) at (10.8,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (140) at (10.8,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (141) at (10.8,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (142) at (10.8,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (143) at (11.2,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (144) at (11.2,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (145) at (11.2,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (146) at (11.2,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (147) at (11.6,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (148) at (11.6,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (149) at (11.6,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (150) at (12.0,8.4) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (151) at (2.4,.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (152) at (12.,8.8) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (153) at (12.,9.2) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (154) at (11.6,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (155) at (12.,9.6) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (156) at (12.,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (157) at (11.6,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };
\node (158) at (11.2,10.0) [draw,inner sep=5.8pt] {$ $ };

\draw [very thick]  (.4,0) to (.4,.4);
\draw [very thick]  (.4,.4) to (.4,.8);
\draw [very thick]  (.4,.8) to (0.8,.4);
\draw [very thick]  (.8,.4) to (.8,.8);
\draw [very thick]  (.8,.8) to (1.2,.4);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,.4) to (1.2,.8);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,.8) to (1.2,1.2);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,1.2) to (1.2,1.6);
\draw [very thick]  (1.2,1.6) to (1.6,1.2)
\draw [very thick]  (1.6,1.2) to (1.6,1.6)
\draw [very thick]  (1.6,1.6) to (2.,1.2);
\draw [very thick]  (2.,1.2) to (2.,1.6)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,1.6) to (2.,2.)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,1.6) to (2.4,1.2)
\draw [very thick]  (2.4,1.2) to (2.4,2.0)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,2.) to (2.,2.4)
\draw [very thick]  (2.,2.4) to (2.4,2.)
\draw [very thick]  (2.4,2.) to (2.4,2.4)
\draw [very thick]  (2.4,2.4) to (2.8,2.0)
\draw [very thick]  (2.8,2.) to (2.8,2.4)
\draw [very thick]  (3.2,2.8) to (3.2,3.2)
\draw [very thick]  (3.2,3.2) to (3.6,2.8)
\draw [very thick]  (3.6,2.8) to (3.6,3.2)
\draw [thick,gray]  (3.6,3.2) to (3.6,3.6)
\draw [thick,gray]  (3.6,3.6) to (3.6,4.)
\draw [thick,gray]  (3.6,4) to (4,3.6)
\draw [very thick]  (4,3.6) to (4,4)
\draw [very thick]  (4,4.) to (4.4,3.6)
\draw [very thick] (4.4,3.6) to (4.4,4)
\draw [thick,gray] (4.4,4) to (4.4,4.4)
\draw [thick,gray] (4.4,4.4) to (4.4,4.8)
\draw [thick,gray] (4.4,4.8) to (4.8,4.4)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4.4) to (4.8,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4.8) to (5.2,4.4)
\draw [very thick] (5.2,4.4) to (5.2,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (3.6,3.2) to (4.0,2.8)
\draw [very thick] (4,2.8) to (4,3.2)
\draw [very thick] (4,3.2) to (4,3.6)
\draw [very thick] (4,3.6) to (4,4.)
\draw [very thick] (4.4,4) to (4.8,3.6)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,3.6) to (4.8,4)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4) to (4.8,4.4)
\draw [very thick] (4.8,4.4) to (4.8,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (2.8,2.4) to (3.2,2.)
\draw [very thick] (3.2,2.) to (3.2,2.4)
\draw [very thick] (3.2,2.4) to (3.2,2.8)
\draw [very thick] (5.2,4.8) to (5.6,4.4)

\draw [very thick] (5.6,4.4) to (5.6,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,4.8) to (5.6,5.2)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,5.2) to (5.6,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,5.2) to (6.,4.8)
\draw [very thick] (5.6,5.6) to (6,5.2)
\draw [gray, thick] (6.,4.8) to (6.,5.2)
\draw [very thick] (6.,5.2) to (6.,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (6.,5.6) to (6.4,5.2)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,5.2) to (6.4,5.6)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,5.6) to (6.4,6)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,6) to (6.4,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (6.4,6) to (6.8,5.6)
\draw [thick,gray] (6.4,6.4) to (6.8,6.)
\draw [gray, thick] (6.8,5.6) to (6.8,6)
\draw [very thick] (6.8,6) to (6.8,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (6.8,6.4) to (7.2,6)
\draw [very thick] (7.2,6) to (7.2,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (7.2,6.4) to(7.2,6.8)
\draw [very thick](7.2,6.8) to (7.2,7.2)
\draw [very thick](7.2,6.8) to (7.6,6.4)
\draw [very thick] (7.2,7.2) to (7.6,6.8)
\draw [very thick] (7.6,6.8) to (7.6,7.2)
\draw [very thick] (7.6,7.2) to (8,6.8)
\draw [very thick] (8,6.8) to (8,7.2)
\draw [very thick] (8,7.2) to (8,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8,7.6) to (8,8.)
\draw [very thick] (8,7.6) to (8.4,7.2)
\draw [very thick] (8.0,8.0) to (8.4,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8.4,7.2) to (8.4,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8.4,7.6) to (8.4,8.0)
\draw [very thick](8.4,8.0) to (8.8,7.6)
\draw [very thick] (8.8,7.6) to (8.8,8.0)
\draw [very thick] (8.8,8.0) to (8.8,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (8.8,8.4) to (9.2,8.0)
\draw [very thick] (9.2,8.0) to (9.2,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (9.2,8.4) to (9.6,8.0)
\draw [very thick] (9.6,8.0) to (9.6,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (9.6,8.4) to (9.6,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (9.6,8.8) to (10.,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (10,8.4) to (10,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (10,8.8) to (10.4,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (10.4,8.4) to (10.4,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (10.4,8.8) to (10.8,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (10.8,8.4) to (10.8,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (10.8,8.8) to (11.2,8.4)
\draw [very thick] (11.2,8.4) to (11.2,8.8)
\draw [very thick] (11.2,8.8) to (11.6,8.4);
\draw [very thick]  (11.6,8.4) to  (11.6,8.8)
\draw [very thick]   (11.6,8.8) to  (12,8.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}

\caption{\label{fig:b} $rp$ process path for 1.5 GK}
\end{figure}

The $rp$ process paths are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2
for temperatures 1.2 and 1.5 GK, respectively, using a constant proton flux density
of $10^{6} gram/cm^{3}$,  a proton fraction of 0.7 and 100 seconds burst
duration. Here,
black lines indicate the path along which the major portion of
 the total flux flow whereas gray lines indicate the minor paths. The filled
 boxes in figures indicate the waiting points. As evident from these figures,
$rp$ process paths depend on the temperature of the environment to some extent. For example,
 at T= 1.2 GK, major portions of the $rp$ process flux at the waiting point nucleus $^{64}$Ge
  convert to  $^{66}$Se by
two-proton capture process. Less than 1\% of the total flux flows through the
 $\beta$-decay channel and follow
  the paths showed by  gray lines in Fig. 1. In contrast,
at temperature T= 1.5 GK (in Fig. 2), the probability of two-proton capture of $^{64}$Ge gets reduced and
the $rp$ process path bifurcates from the waiting point nucleus  almost in an equal proportion. This suggests that,
at 1.2 GK, proton capture by  $^{64}$Ge dominates over its inverse process,
i.e. photodisintegration. As the temperature increases, contributions of
photodisintegration process
increases and therefore a large fraction of the  total abundance chooses another path
through more stable nuclei such as $^{65}$Ge, $^{66}$As, etc. Similarly, near other waiting points ($\it{viz.}$
 $^{72}$Kr, $^{76}$Sr etc.) the abundance flow pattern changes with changing temperature. It is also evident from above
the figures
that, beyond mass 80, temperature change can hardly affect the scenario.

  As shown in
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, above A=100 region, the $rp$ process
continues through proton capture by In isotopes and $\beta$-decay of Sn
isotopes. Here, $^{100}$In
captures a proton to form $^{101}$Sn which
completely decays to $^{101}$In as $^{102}$Sb is proton unbound. In turn, $^{101}$In undergoes proton
capture and further exhibits $\beta$-decay. The process
 of proton capture followed by consecutive
$\beta$-decay continues and relative abundances of
nuclei decrease as one proceeds towards higher
mass region. Ultimately, less than 0.001\% of
the total flux can reach $^{106}$In, according to our
present calculation.

 According to the calculations of Schatz {\em et al.}\cite{schatz},
a significant portion of the $^{105}$Sn captures a proton to form $^{106}$Sb, as $^{106}$Sb has
a sufficient positive proton separation energy (0.59 MeV from FRDM\cite{Mol} calculation).
Another proton capture leads to $^{107}$Te, which instantly undergoes
$\alpha$-decay to $^{103}$Sn. Thus, the $rp$ process ends in
the SnSbTe cycle.

In contrast, our calculation does not go through the SnSbTe cycle.
It is clear that the SnSbTe cycle may not occur under two scenarios.
Firstly, if $^{106}$Sb isotope be very loosely bound (proton
separation energy 0.119 MeV according to the mass formula\cite{mass}),
any $^{106}$Sb that is
formed by a proton capture instantly reverts back to $^{105}$Sn. Second
scenario occurs when
the proton capture rates are too small for $^{105}$Sn to initiate a proton capture process.

In a previous work\cite{epja}, we have shown that a small
fluctuation in the mass values of waiting point nuclei in mass 60-80
region may affect the effective half life and thus, proper knowledge of
ground state binding energy is necessary to understand the
bridging phenomena of a waiting point nucleus below mass 80
region. However, as we move towards the higher mass region, we find
that small variations in binding energy do not affect the $rp$ process
path significantly.
Taking the rms error into account for the
 proton separation energy of $^{106}$Sb $(0.119 \pm 0.376)$MeV, we have
checked whether the proton capture on $^{105}$Sn can dominate over
its inverse process.  We find that the fraction of the initial
flux entering into the SnSbTe-cycle is negligibly small. We have
repeated our calculation with the proton separation
energy  of $^{106}$Sb isotope from a recent experiment by Elomma
{\em et al.}\cite{elomma}, {\em viz.} 0.428(0.008)MeV.
We find that our results remain almost invariant. Repeating
the entire calculation with ground state binding energies from FRDM\cite{Mol}
 calculation or the
Duflo-Zuker\cite{DZ} mass formula do not alter this conclusion.
Hence, we see that for a reasonable variation of mass values
the $rp$ process fails to enter into the SnSbTe-cycle
for an  X-ray burst of 100 seconds duration. If we consider an X-ray
burst having duration greater than 150 seconds, a very small fraction of
total flux,  less than 0.001\% of the original, enters the cycle.

 \begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\resizebox{6.5cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{sn105.eps}}\hskip -0.4cm
\resizebox{6.5cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{sb106.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:c} Proton capture rates ($cm^{3}mol^{-1}sec^{-1}$) vs temperature(GK). See text for details.}
\end{figure}

Schatz {\em et al.}\cite{schatz} have used capture rates different from ours.
In Fig. 3, we have plotted proton capture rates with temperature for the isotopes $^{105}$Sn
 and $^{106}$Sb respectively. The different values
have been indicated as follows: Pres - Present work and
NON-SMOKER - NON-SMOKER\cite{ns,ns1} results used by Schatz {\em et al.}\cite{schatz}
 %

In case of $^{105}$Sn nuclei, it is evident from Fig. 3 that proton capture rates from our calculation
are approximately $10^2$ times smaller than the rates from NON-SMOKER calculation. It seems, the difference
is mainly due to the fact that they have used the form of the interaction
 from Jeukenne {\em et al.}\cite{jlm}
 which is different from our case. For better understanding, we have
repeated the entire calculation using reaction rates from Hauser-Feshbach code NON-SMOKER\cite{ns,ns1}. In this case,
considerable fraction of the initial flux ($\sim$ 0.1\%) enters into the SnSbTe cycle.
 Thus, we may conclude that
the  proton capture rates, and not the mass values, determine
the endpoint of $rp$ process. In our opinion, our approach in fixing the
parameters in the reaction calculation by fitting known reaction
rates, and extrapolating the calculation to unknown reactions,
may be relied upon to predict the endpoint correctly.

There are many X-ray burster models in literature with various
density-temperature profiles. Our present goal is to study how different
temperature-density profiles can affect the relative abundances of the nuclei produced by
 $rp$ process and the endpoint. In Fig. 4, we have plotted
the relative abundances of elements versus mass number at 100th second of the
burst in various models, as described below.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\resizebox{6.5cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{1_5_original.eps}}\hskip -0.4cm
\resizebox{6.5cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{pr.eps}}
\resizebox{6.5cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{iliadis.eps}}\hskip -0.35cm
\resizebox{6.5cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics{i.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:d} Relative abundances vs mass number for different density-temperature
profiles of various X-ray burster after 100 seconds. (Insets) Model-II: Curve for temperature in GK
vs time in seconds of the X-ray burst from Schatz {\em et al.}\cite{schatz}; Model-III and IV: Temperature in GK (left)
and density $\rho$ in $gram/cm^3$ (right)  with
time in seconds from Illiadis\cite{iliadis}. See text for details.}

\end{figure}

In the first case (Model-I), we assume a constant density-temperature
framework with temperature $T = 1.5$ GK,
density $\rho=10^{6} gram/cm^{3}$ and proton fraction value 0.7.
Model-II\cite{schatz} describes a situation where ignition takes place at a
constant density of $\rho= 1.1 \times 10^{6} gram/cm^{3}$ and the
burst reaches a peak temperature $T_{peak}$ = 1.9 GK
after 4 seconds while the cooling phase lasts for approximately 200 seconds.
In another example, taken from the book by Illiadis\cite{iliadis} (Model-III),
nuclear burning starts with temperature and density values of $T = 0.4$ GK
and $\rho=10^{6} gram/cm^{3}$, respectively. After 4 seconds, a maximum temperature
of $T_{peak}$ = 1.36 GK and a minimum density of
$\rho_{peak} = 5 \times 10^{5} gram/cm^{3}$ are achieved. After
100 seconds, the temperature drops to $T = 0.7$ GK and the density
increases to $\rho = 1.4 \times 10^{6} gram/cm^{3}$. For all the above
models,
it is assumed that the X-ray burst environment is sufficiently proton-rich
to maintain the number 0.7 as the constant proton fraction. As a significant
amount of proton flux is consumed during the thermonuclear reaction,
another situation may arise, where the proton fraction decreases gradually
with time. Such a situation is given in Model-IV   where the proton fraction
decreases to 0.16 after 100 seconds with temperature-density profile same as
that of the Model-III. It is evident from Fig. 4 that abundance peaks
in all cases are obtained at mass values of 72, 76 and 80,  as a result of
the existence of waiting point nuclei $^{72}$Kr, $^{76}$Sr and $^{80}$Zr,
respectively. Other peaks (for example, peaks at mass 85, 93 and 95  for
isotopes $^{85}$Mo, $^{93}$Pd, $^{95}$Cd, respectively) suggest that
the $rp$ process flux gets accumulated at these points due to very small
positive or negative proton separation energies of those isotopes.
We have considered the mass number in each case for which the
flux amount drops below 1\% of the initial flux. It is evident from Fig. 4
that for Model-I, A $\approx$ 93 is the region above which
the $rp$ process flux fall below the range of our interest, whereas
for Model-II, the region is around A $\approx$ 95.
Other abundance peaks are observed at masses $A=$97 and 101 for the isotopes
$^{97}$Cd and $^{101}$Sn respectively, though,
the fractions of the total flux accumulated at those isotopes are less than 0.1\% of the initial value.
In case of Models III and IV, the locations to be studied
 are around  A $\approx$  93 and 91 respectively.
From above observations,
it can be concluded that, for various density-temperature profiles,
the $rp$ process flux falls below a significant amount
near mass 90-95.
The observations from Fig. 4  suggest that the end points of the $rp$ process has a rather
weak dependence on different X-ray burster models.

\section{Summary}
The location above which the $rp$ process flux falls below an
insignificant amount is calculated using the microscopic optical model
utilizing the densities from the RMF approach and with a new
phenomenological mass formula. Present result is compared with
result obtained from another existing work\cite{schatz} and the reason for these
indifferences between the results are discussed.
Our results do not significantly depend on the mass models.
For different X-ray burster models, endpoints are calculated.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work has been carried out with financial assistance of the UGC sponsored
DRS Programme of the Department of Physics of the University of Calcutta.
Chirashree Lahiri acknowledges the grant of a fellowship awarded by the UGC.


\section{Introduction}

 One of the main models treating aspects of physics of extra dimensions is the Randall-Sundrum model \cite{Randall:1999vf, Randall:1999ee}. This model gives a possible solution to the hierarchy problem and tell us how gravity is trapped in our four dimensional world. However, the lack of a more physical application have posed some challenges to this model through the past years. One of its problems is the appearance of spacetime singularities due to the presence of infinitely thin membranes. In such case, more realistic models based on smooth solutions representing the  four-dimensional membrane embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime is needed. In special cases, where the membranes are generated by scalar fields, its is very simple to obtain solutions through the superpotential method. In particular, several membrane types were considered: those generated by models with more than one scalar fields,  deformed membranes and so on\cite{Bazeia:2008zx, Afonso:2007gc, Bazeia:2005hu, Bazeia:2004dh, Fonseca:
2011ep,
Fonseca:2010va, Yang:2012hu }. Beyond that, the analysis of how  the localization is made for various fields (tensors and spinors) have been understood \cite{Almeida:2009jc, Sousa:2012nx, Liu:2011zy, Christiansen:2010aj, Castro:2010au, Zhao:2010mk, Liu:2010pj, Chumbes:2011zt}. Other aspects include discussions about the tensions of membranes \cite{HoffdaSilva:2011bd,Abdalla:2010sz }.

Another interesting problem is related to understand details of the interactions between the membrane and several particles that are not the usual zero modes. In other words, the approach to this problem considers the computational aspects of resonances for various models. In all of the models the massive spectrum is determined by a Schr\"odinger like equation with a potential that falls  to zero at infinity. The spectrum is not discrete and we have a ill defined effective action. Despite of this, just like in the case of semiconductors heterostructures, there is the possibility of appearance of resonances. This analysis have been done extensively in the literature \cite{Bazeia:2005hu,Liu:2009ve,Zhao:2009ja,Liang:2009zzf,Zhao:2010mk,Zhao:2011hg,Li:2010dy,Guo:2011wr,Liu:2011wi,Liu:2009mga,
Castro:2010au,Correa:2010zg,Castro:2010uj,Chumbes:2010xg,Castro:2011pp}.
In order to analyze resonances, we must compute the transmission coefficient ($T$), that gives a clear physical interpretation of what happens to a free wave interacting with the membrane.
The idea of the existence of a resonant mode is that, for a given mass, the transmitted and reflected oscillatory modes are in phase inside the membrane. The transmission coefficient has a peak at
that mass value, meaning that the amplitude of the wave-function has a maximum value at $z=0$ and the probability to find this KK mode inside the membrane is higher. This method has been used previously to analyze resonant modes of gravity, fermion and form fields \cite{Landim:2011ki,Landim:2011ts}.

The background considered here consists of a symmetric $Z_2$ thick domain wall interpolated between two BPS vacua. The scalar field is important because, in some cases, its behaviour is very similar to the gravitational field`s behaviour \cite{Kehagias:2000au}. The gauge vector field is an important ingredient of the standard model and, even being a not localizable field in theories with conformal symmetries, we may understand how its resonances appear due to the specific brane chosen. In this case, we consider the corrections due to a dilaton field coupled to the gauge field and others antisymmetrical tensors fields. These antisymmetric tensor fields arise quite naturally in string theory \cite{Polchinski:1998rq,Polchinski:1998rr} and supergravity \cite{VanNieuwenhuizen:1981ae} and play an important role in the dualization processes \cite{Smailagic:1999qw,Smailagic:2000hr}. In particular they appear in the $R-R$ sector of each of the type II string theories. These tensor fields couple naturally to higher-
dimensional extended objects, the $D-$branes, and are important for their stability. From a more mathematical point of view, they are related to the linking number of higher dimensional knots \cite{Oda:1989tq}. The rank of these antisymmetric tensors is defined by the dimension of the manifold\cite{Nakahara:2003nw}. Beyond this, these kind of fields play an important role in the solution of the moduli stabilization problem of string theory\cite{Kachru:2002he,Antoniadis:2004pp,Balasubramanian:2005zx}.

For the physics of extra dimensions is important to study higher rank tensor fields in membrane backgrounds. In this context, the antisymmetric tensor fields have already been considered in models of extra dimension. Generally speaking, the $q-$forms of highest rank do not have physical relevance because when the rank increases the number of gauge freedom increases as well. Such fact can be used to cancel the dynamics of the field in the brane\cite{Alencar:2010vk}. The spectrum mass of the two and three-form have been studied in Refs. \cite{Mukhopadhyaya:2004cc} and \cite{Mukhopadhyaya:2007jn} in the context of five dimensions with codimension one. The coupling between two and three-forms with the dilaton was also studied but in a different context \cite{DeRisi:2007dn,Mukhopadhyaya:2009gp,Alencar:2010mi}. An analysis
of localization and computations of resonances due to $q$-forms have been previously made by the authors in \cite{Landim:2012zz}.

Here, in this piece of work we show results of particular importance to situations where the gravity backgrounds are smooth generalizations of the Randall-Sundrum model and procedures that are applied even when the Schr\"odinger potential is not known analytically \cite{Csaki:2000fc,Bazeia:2007nd}. More precisely, we continue the analysis made in \cite{Cvetic:2008gu} in order to understand the behaviour of scalar, gauge vector fields and more general $q$-forms in a model that can be solved analytically. Another goal is to make a comparison between the calculation obtained through the solution of the analytical method and the solutions obtained by the method of transmission coefficients. The importance of such a model with analytical solution resides in the fact that in the models with thick membranes their thickness is a constant parameter. When the thickness is parametrized, there is a way  to obtain the thin limit and the thick membrane limit. In this sense, the physics related now can be understood by
means of a more general situation that can mimics several types of membranes. Through this comparison process we can establish the Transfer Matrix method, once an for all, as a tool to understand some physical aspects of extra dimensions.

The paper is organized as follows. In the first section we review the method of computation of transmission coefficients in order to make comparisons between different formalisms. In the second section we present the general procedure to solve the Schr\"odinger equation coming from models of extra dimensions and solve it for the scenario proposed. In the third section we quickly remember the gravitational results and make a generalization regarding solutions as plane waves far from the membrane.  The remaining sections are devoted to studies about the several bosonic fields, i.e., the antisymmetric gauge fields that usually appear in literature. They are the scalar field, gauge vector and tensor (Kalb-Ramond) fields, besides more general $q$-forms. Finally we present our conclusions and perspectives of work.

\section{A Simple Example}

In this section we give a review of the Transfer Matrix method and present a model with known analytical solution. After that we compare results of both the analytical and numerical transmission coefficient computations. The analytical model discussed here is already known and can be found in \cite{LL}.
It is important to say that all potentials considered in this manuscript are volcano like, see Fig. \ref{fig:multistep2}.

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=multistep-4-mps.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{General potential with parity symmetry with $\lim_{z \rightarrow \pm\infty}U(z)=0$. }\label{fig:multistep2}
}

The potential given in Fig.\ref{fig:multistep2} can be approximated by a series of potential barriers. In each region showed in the Fig.\ref{fig:multistep4}
\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=multistep-3-mps.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{The multistep regions.}\label{fig:multistep4}
}
the Schr\"odinger equation can be solved for the interval $z_{i-1}<z<z_i$, where the potential can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
U(z)=U(\overline{z}_{i-1})=U_{i-1},\quad\overline{z}_{i-1}=(z_i+z_{i-1})/2.
\end{equation}

As the potential is null in the infinity the solution must be a plane wave. Then, as in Fig.\ref{fig:multistep5},
\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=multistep-5.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{The scattering of incident wave into reflected and transmitted waves.}\label{fig:multistep5}
}
we consider a plane wave colliding with the membrane. This solution choice is very important for the analytical solution considered in the next section. As the final goal here is to compare the analytical and the numerical results, we will consider plane waves as boundary
conditions to our analytical solution. Therefore, the solution in each interval is
\begin{equation}
\psi_{i-1}(z)=A_{i-1}e^{ik_{i-1}z}+B_{i-1}e^{-ik_{i-1}z},\quad k_{i-i}=\sqrt{\lambda-U_{i-1}},
\end{equation}
and the continuity of the $\psi_{i-1}(z)$ and $\psi'_{i-1}(z)$ at $z=z_i$ gives us
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 A_i\\
B_i
\end{array} \right)
=
M_i\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 A_{i-1}\\
B_{i-1}
\end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
In the above equation we have that
\begin{equation}
M_i=
\frac{1}{2k_i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
 (k_i+k_{i-1})e^{-i(k_i-k_{i-1})z_i}& (k_i-k_{i-1})e^{-i(k_i+k_{i-1})z_i} \\
(k_i-k_{i-1})e^{i(k_i+k_{i-1})z_i} & (k_i+k_{i-1})e^{i(k_i-k_{i-1})z_i}
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
and performing this procedure iteratively we reach to
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 A_N\\
B_N
\end{array} \right)
=
M\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 A_{0}\\
B_{0}
\end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation}
M=M_NM_{N-1}\cdots M_{2}M_1.
\end{equation}
The transmission coefficient is therefore given by
\begin{equation}
T=1/|M_{22}|^2.
\end{equation}
In order to numerically obtain resonances we choose $z_{max}$ to
satisfy $U(z_{max})\sim 10^{-4}$ and let $m^2$ runs from $U_{min}=U(z_{max})$ to $U_{max}$ (the maximum potential value). We divide $2z_{max}$ by $10^4$ or $10^5$ such that we have $10^4+1$ or $10^5+1$ transfer matrices.

Now we turn our attention to a model with analytical solution. Consider a Schr\"odinger equation with a potential given by \cite{LL}
\begin{equation}\label{landaupot}
 U(z)=\frac{U_0}{\cosh^2{\alpha z}},
\end{equation}
with profile as in Fig. \ref{fig:profile-landau}.
\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=profile-landau.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{The profile of the potential in Ref. \cite{LL} with $U_0=1/16$ and $\alpha=1$.}\label{fig:profile-landau}
}

The analytical solution to the wave function for the potential given by Eq. (\ref{landaupot}) is
\begin{equation}
 \psi=(1-\xi^{2})^{-ik/2\alpha}F(-i\frac{k}{\alpha}-s,-i\frac{k}{\alpha}+s+1,-i\frac{k}{\alpha}+1,\frac{1}{2}(1-\xi)),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
 \xi&=&\tanh \alpha z,\qquad k=\sqrt{2mE}/\hbar, \nonumber
\\s&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(-1+\sqrt{1-\frac{8mU_0}{\alpha^{2}\hbar^{2}}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}

As stressed in \cite{LL} this solution has the desired asymptotic plane wave form. After some calculations we can find the transmission coefficient:

\begin{eqnarray}
 T&=&\frac{\sinh^2(\pi k/\alpha)}{\sinh^2(\pi k/\alpha)+\cos^2[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-8mU_0/\hbar^2\alpha^2}]},\quad 8mU_0/\hbar^2\alpha^2<1, \nonumber
\\
T&=&\frac{\sinh^2(\pi k/\alpha)}{\sinh^2(\pi k/\alpha)+\cosh^2[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{8mU_0/\hbar^2\alpha^2-1}]},\quad 8mU_0/\hbar^2\alpha^2>1.
\end{eqnarray}

Now we can compare the results obtained by the analytical  and numerical  calculations. We use $\alpha=\hbar=m=1$ and $U_0=1/16$. Fig. \ref{fig:landau} shows: (a) The graphic for the analytical transmission coefficient $T_A$, (b) The graphic for the numerical transmission coefficient $T_N $ and (c) The graphic with the  ratio $T_N/T_A$. There is no distinction between both methods, the agreement is almost complete.
\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=landau.pdf,angle=0,height=9cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficients plots in the Landau book example: (a) The analytical transmission coefficient $T_A$, (b) The numerical transmission coefficient $T_N$ and (c) The ratio $T_N/T_A$.}\label{fig:landau}
}

\section{The General Analytical Solution}

In this section we show the procedure used through all this work. In models describing interactions between fields and membranes, the equations of motion coming from the extra-dimension dependence
plays an important role, and have a Schr\"odinger like final form. To arrive at that this result we provide a short review here (details can be found in \cite{Kehagias:2000au}). First of all we consider
the line element of the background space as
\be{line}
ds^2=e^{2A(y)}\eta_{\mu\nu}+e^{2B(y)}dy^2,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}=\mbox{diag}(-1,1,1,1)$. This metric comes from the inclusion of the interaction produced by a dilaton field that, in a specific model, gives rise to localization of gauge fields.

The Einstein`s equations give the relation $B=A/4$ between the functions $A(y)$ and $B(y)$ \cite{Kehagias:2000au}. These equations are obtained from the usual superpotential method in models
containing kink like defects. It is important to cite that the dilaton field have been already been
treated in the Randall-Sundrum scenario \cite{Alencar:2010mi}. As we are going to consider models with and without the dilaton ($B=0$), we introduced a constant $b$ to take account of this and we get $B(y)=(1-b)A(y)$.
The value of $b$ with the dilaton is $3/4$ and $1$ without the dilaton.
Using this metric background, in general, the equations we need to work have the following form
\be{beq}
\left(-\frac{d^{2}}{dy^{2}}+P'(y)\frac{d}{dy}+V(y)\right)\psi(y)=m^{2}
Q(y)\psi(y),
\end{equation}
where $P(y)=\gamma A(y)$, $Q(y)=e^{-2bA(y)}$ and $V(y)=0$ for all fields except gravity, in which $V(y)=2A''(y)-2(1+b)A'(y)^2$. Here, $\gamma$ is a constant that depends on the field.
We can transform \equ{beq} in a Schr\"odinger like equation through the transformations

\begin{equation}
\frac{dz}{dy}=f(y),\quad\psi(y)=\Omega(y)\overline{\psi}(z),\label{transformation}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
f(y)=\sqrt{Q(y)},\quad\Omega(y)=\exp(P(y)/2)Q(y)^{-1/4},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar{U}(z)=V(y)/f^{2}+\left(P'(y)\Omega'(y)-\Omega''(y)\right)/\Omega f^{2},
\end{equation}
where the prime means the derivative in $y$. We emphasize here, that the
above expression is useful when $dz/dy=f(y)$
do not have an analytical solution. When this solution is known it
is better to express the potential in terms of derivatives in the $z$
coordinate:

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}(z)=\bar{V}(z)/\bar{f}^{2}(z)+\frac{\bar{P}'(z)\bar{\Omega}'(z)-\bar{
\Omega}''(z)}{\bar{\Omega}(z)}
-\frac{\bar{\Omega}'(z)}{\bar{\Omega}(z)}\frac{\bar{f}'(z)}{\bar{f}(z)},
\end{equation}
where $f(y)=\bar{f}(z)$. When the above steps are performed we get a Schr\"odinger like equation
\begin{equation}
 \{-\frac{d^2}{dz^{2}}+\bar{U}\}\bar{\psi}(z)=m^{2}\bar{\psi}(z),
\end{equation}
with potential  $\bar{U}(z)$ given by

\begin{equation}
 \bar{U}(z)=c\bar{A}^{''}(z)+c^{2}(\bar{A}'(z))^{2},
\end{equation}
where $c=-(\gamma+b)/2$ for all fields and $c=3/2$ for gravity.

An analytical solution has been obtained previously for the gravity case in \cite{Cvetic:2008gu} but without the dilaton coupling. We use the same method to solve the case with the dilaton coupling and for other fields. The relation between the $z$ and $y$ coordinates in all cases is given by $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{|y|}=e^{-b\bar{A}(z)}$, for
$|z|>d/2$,where  $d$ is a constant. With this, we obtain

\be{aa}
A(y)=\bar{A}(z)=-\frac{1}{b}\ln (|z|+\beta).
\end{equation}
The above expression determines the Schr\"odinger equation potential in the region $|z|>\frac{d}{2}$ as

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}(z) =  \frac{a}{(|z|+\beta)^{2}},
\end{equation}
with $a= \frac{c}{b}+\frac{c^{2}}{b^{2}}$. Since we can have  resonance only for positive potential, we restrict $a$ to be positive, i. e, $c/b>0$ or $c/b<-1$. For the region $|z|\leq d/2$, we choose

\begin{equation}
A(z)=\frac{1}{c}\ln\cos(\sqrt{V_{0}}|z|),
\end{equation}
such that

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}(z)=-V_{0}, ~|z|\leq d/2.
\end{equation}

Continuity of the metrics and its derivative at $z=\pm d/2$
give us the relations

\begin{eqnarray*}
(\frac{d}{2}+\beta) & =\cos(\sqrt{V_{0}}\frac{d}{2})^{-b/c},\\
(\frac{d}{2}+\beta) & ^{-1}=\frac{b}{c}\sqrt{V_{0}}\tan(\sqrt{V_{0}}\frac{d}{2}).
\end{eqnarray*}
In order to obtain $V_0$, $\beta$ and $d$  we will introduce the parameter $x=d\sqrt{V_{0}}/2$ as in \cite{Cvetic:2008gu}.

For the region $|z|>d/2$, the Schr\"odinger equation can be solved if we consider
$\bar{\psi}(z)=\sqrt{|z|+\beta}\bar{\phi}(z)$. With this transformation we obtain

\begin{equation}
\sqrt{|z|+\beta}\bar{\phi}''+\frac{1}{\sqrt{|z|+\beta}}\bar{\phi}'+\sqrt{
|z|+\beta}\left[m^{2}-\frac{1}{4(|z|+\beta)^{2}}-\frac{a}{(|z|+\beta)^{2}}\right]\bar{\phi}=0.
\end{equation}

Multiplying now by $(|z|+\beta)^{3/2}$ and defining $u=m(|z|+\beta)$
we arrive at

\begin{equation}
u^{2}\bar{\phi}''+u\bar{\phi}'+\left[u^{2}-\nu^{2}\right]\bar{\phi}=0,
\end{equation}
where the prime means a $u$ derivative and $\nu^{2}=(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{c}{b})^2$. This is a Bessel equation of order $\nu$. Here we are interested in solutions behaving like plane waves when $z\to\pm\infty$. Solutions with this properties are given by

\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
H_{\nu}^{(1)}(u) & =J_{\nu}(u)+iY_{\nu}(u),\\
H_{\nu}^{(2)}(u) & =J_{\nu}(u)-iY_{\nu}(u),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with asymptotic behavior

\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\lim_{z\to\infty}H_{\nu}^{(1)}(u) & =\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi
u}}e^{i(z-\frac{\pi}{4}-\frac{\nu\pi}{2})}\\
\lim_{z\to\infty}H_{\nu}^{(2)}(u) & =\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi
u}}e^{-i(z-\frac{\pi}{4}-\frac{\nu\pi}{2})}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

The choice of asymptotic plane waves is related to the fact that we
want to compare this solution with the transfer matrix method, where
a plane wave colliding with the brane is used. It is important to stress here that this is different from
the solution found in \cite{Cvetic:2008gu}, where an exact solution was used
but no plane wave was considered. Using this consideration, the solution is given by

\begin{equation}
\psi(z)=\sqrt{\frac{u}{m}}\left(AH_{\nu}^{(1)}(u)+BH_{\nu}^{(2)}(u)\right),
\end{equation}
with the desired behavior.

\begin{equation}
\lim_{z\to\infty}\psi(z)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{{m\pi}}}\left(Ae^{imz}+Be^{-imz}\right).
\end{equation}
In the region $|z|\leq d/2$, we have the solution

\begin{equation}
\psi_{I}(z)=ae^{iKz}+be^{-iKz},
\end{equation}
with $K=\sqrt{m^{2}+V_{0}}$. The subscript $I$ means that the
solution is in the central region and all the above constants must
be fixed by the boundary conditions. As we are interested in calculate
resonances we must consider a plane wave coming from $-\infty$. This
plane wave will collide with the membrane and will generate a reflected
and a transmitted wave. Therefore for $z<-d/2$ we must have a linear
combination of waves moving to the left and to the right. For $z>d/2$ we must
have only one wave moving to the right. We define the solution in both
regions by $\psi_{L}(z)$ and $\psi_{R}(z)$ respectively. In order to analyze resonances
we fix the coefficient of the incoming wave equal to one. Therefore we choose

\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_{L}(z) & = & \sqrt{\frac{u}{m}}\left(H_{\nu}^{(2)}(u)+B_{1}H_{\nu}^{(1)}(u)\right),~z<0,\\
\psi_{R}(z) & = & \sqrt{\frac{u}{m}}A_{2}H_{\nu}^{(1)}(u),~z>0.
\end{eqnarray*}

Defining $E(z)=\sqrt{\frac{u}{m}}H_{\nu}^{(2)}(u),F(z)=\sqrt{\frac{u}{m}}H_{\nu}^{(1)}(u)$ for $z<0$ and taking the continuity of the wave function and its derivative at $z=\pm d/2$, we obtain

\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}E(-d/2) & F(-d/2)\\
E'(-d/2) & F'(-d/2)
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1\\
B_{1}
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}e^{-iK\frac{d}{2}} & e^{iK\frac{d}{2}}\\
iKe^{-iK\frac{d}{2}} & -iKe^{iK\frac{d}{2}}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}a\\
b
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}F(-d/2) & 0\\
-F'(-d/2) & 0
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}A_{2}\\
0
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}e^{iK\frac{d}{2}} & e^{-iK\frac{d}{2}}\\
iKe^{iK\frac{d}{2}} & -iKe^{-iK\frac{d}{2}}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}a\\
b
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
After some algebra we finally obtain
\be{amplitude}
A_2=\frac{-4iK}{\pi(2KFF'\cos Kd+(F'^2-F^2K^2)\sin Kd)},
\end{equation}
with the transmission coefficient  given by

\be{analictt}
T=|A_2|^2=\frac{16K^2}{\pi^2|2KFF'\cos Kd+(F'^2-F^2K^2)\sin Kd|^2}.
\end{equation}

That is the final expression we use as starting point to make comparison between analytical and numerical methods. It is important to mention the number of iterations made using the method applied here. For calculations involving the dilaton contribution we have
used $10^5$ matrices,
$2\times10^5$ matrices for the gravity case with $x=1.5$, and $10^5$ matrices with $x=1.0$ for the scalar and gauge field cases. We have made another
calculation of $2\times10^5$ matrices for the parameter $x=0.15$  again for the vector gauge field resonances ($x$ is the parameter describing the thickness
of the membrane). For the tensor fields we computed  $10^5$ matrices for $x=1.5$ and $x=1.0$. For the case without the dilaton contribution, we
have computed $3\time10 ^5$ matrices for $x=1.5$ and $10^5$ for $x=1.0$ for the scalar field resonances. In the case of vector fields we made $10^5$ iterations
with $x=1.0$ plus another computation of $10^5$ matrices for $x=0.15$. It is important to mention that we have found, for the case without dilaton, the same
results for resonances in the gravity and scalar field cases. The results of these calculations will be discussed below.

\section{The Gravity Case}

As mentioned before the gravity case without dilaton has been considered previously in \cite{Cvetic:2008gu}. We will reconsider it here for completeness. The potential for this case
is given by

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}_1(z)=\frac{3}{4}e^{2A_1(y)}\left(2A{''}(y)+5(A_1{'}(y))^{2}\right).
\end{equation}
The transformation to the $z$ coordinate is obtained using $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-\bar{A}_1(z)}$ to get

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}_1(z)=\frac{3}{2}\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+\frac{9}{4}(\bar{A}_1^{'}(z))^{2}\label{
potential},
\end{equation}
what is equivalent to choose $b=1$ and $c=3/2$ in the previous section. From this we can
obtain the solution taking $\nu=2$.

The case with the dilaton coupling has the potential

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}_2(z)=\frac{3}{2}e^{3A_2(y)/2}\left(A_2{''}(y)+\frac{9}{4}(A_2'(y))^{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Where using the transformation $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-\frac{3}{4}\bar{A}_2(z)}$ we
obtain

\begin{equation}
\bar{U}_{2}(z)=\frac{3}{2}\bar{A}_{2}{''}(z)+\frac{9}{4}(\bar{A}_{2}'(z))^{2},
\end{equation}
what is equivalent to choose $b=3/4$ and $c=3/2$. The solution
is given by taking $\nu=5/2$. Using now the expression for the transmission
coefficient we obtain the results with dilaton  in Fig. \ref{fig:gravity-x10-comdilaton}. In the figure
we can see the appearance of one peak of resonance for the parameters $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. These peaks of resonance are very dependent on the parameter $x$, when we take  $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$ the transmission coefficient for gravity with dilaton presents seven peaks of resonances shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gravity-x15-comdilaton}.

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x10-gravity-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{The transmission coefficient for gravity with dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. The solid line is the analytical calculation and the dashed line is the numerical one.}\label{fig:gravity-x10-comdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x15-gravity-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{The transmission coefficient for gravity with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. The solid line is the analytical calculation and the dashed line is the numerical one.}\label{fig:gravity-x15-comdilaton}
}

\section{The Scalar Field Case}

Now we analyze the scalar field resonances by the analytical model proposed. As in the previous
section we must obtain the potential in the $z$ coordinate for the
cases with and without the dilaton. These are given by

\begin{eqnarray}
 &&\bar{U}_{1}(z)=e^{3A_1(y)/2}\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})A_1(y){''}+(\frac{
\alpha}{4}-\frac{9}{64})(A_1'(y))^{2}\right),\\
&&\bar{U}_{2}(z)=e^{2A_2(y)}\left(\frac{3}{2}A_2{''}(y)+\frac{15}{4}(A_2'(y))^{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha=-15/4-\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}$.  Performing now the
transformations $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-3\bar{A}_1(z)/4}$ and $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-\bar{A}_2(z)}$
respectively, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{U}_{1}(z)&=&\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(\frac{\alpha}{2
}+\frac{3}{8})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right) \nonumber\\
&=&\left((\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
 \bar{U}_{2}(z)&=&\left(\frac{3}{2}\bar{A}_2{''}(z)+\frac{9}{4}(A_2'(z))^{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}

Therefore the solutions to both cases can be found by using
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_{1} & = & \frac{3}{4},\quad c_{1}=(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2}),\\
b_{2} & = & 1,\quad c_{2}=\frac{3}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
and we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_{1}^{2} & = &
(\frac{5}{2}+\frac{2\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{3})^2
\\
\nu_{2} & = & 2.
\end{eqnarray*}

We now compare these results with those obtained from the numerical method of transmission coefficients. We show in Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x10-semdilaton} the transmission coefficient for analytical (lined) and
numerical (dashed)  without dilaton with $x=1.0$, showing one peak of resonance. In Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x10-comdilaton} with dilaton field we still have one peak of resonance for the parameters $x=1.0$
and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. In Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x15-semdilaton} we have the Transmission coefficient for scalar without dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$ and, in Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x15-comdilaton}
showing eight peaks of resonances (the first one near $m=0$, can be made more visible if we just give a zoom in that region), the Transmission coefficient for scalar with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$
showing three peaks.

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x10-scalar-semdil.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for scalar without dilaton for $x=1.0$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric. }\label{fig:scalar-x10-semdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x10-scalar-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for scalar with dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:scalar-x10-comdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x15-scalar-semdil.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for scalar without dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:scalar-x15-semdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x15-scalar-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for scalar with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:scalar-x15-comdilaton}
}

\section{The Gauge Field Case}

Now we turn our attention to analyze the gauge field resonances through the analytical context. Again we need to obtain the potential
in the $z$ coordinate for the cases with and without the dilaton. These potentials are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bar{U}_{1}(z)=e^{3A_1(y)/2}\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})A_1{''}(y)+(\frac{
\alpha}{4}-\frac{9}{64})(A_1'(y))^{2}\right),\\
&&\bar{U}_{2}(y)=e^{2A(y)}\left(\frac{1}{2}A{''}(y)+\frac{3}{4}(A'(y))^{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha=-7/4-\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}$. Performing now the transformations
$\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-3\bar{A}_1(z)/4}$ and $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-\bar{A}_2(z)}$ respectively,
we obtain

\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{U}_{1}(z)&=&\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(\frac{\alpha}{2
}+\frac{3}{8})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right)\nonumber
\\
&=&\left((\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
 \bar{U}_{2}(z)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\bar{A}_2{
''}(z)+\frac{1}{4}(\bar{A}_2'(z))^{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}

Therefore the solutions to both cases can be found by using
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_{1} & = & \frac{3}{4},\quad c_{1}=(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2}),\\
b_{2} & = & 1,\quad c_{2}=\frac{1}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
what gives for the solutions with and without the dilaton

\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_{1}^{2} & = &(\frac{7}{6}+\frac{2\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{3})^2,
\\
\nu_{2} & = & 1.
\end{eqnarray*}

We show in Fig. \ref{fig:vector-x10-comdilaton} and in Fig. \ref{fig:vector-x10-semdilaton}  the transmission coefficient for analytical (lined) and numerical (dashed) with and  without dilaton with $x=1.0$ showing
one peak of resonance, and in Fig. \ref{fig:vector-x15-comdilaton} we show the three peaks of the transmission coefficient for vector field with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$.

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x10-vector-semdil.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for vector field without dilaton for $x=1.0$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:vector-x10-semdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x10-vector-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for vector field with dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:vector-x10-comdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x15-vector-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for vector field with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:vector-x15-comdilaton}
}
\section{The Kalb-Ramond Case}

The last bosonic field to be analyzed in five dimensions is the Kalb-Ramond field. Now we analyze this field resonances in the same way as in the last sections. The potential in the $z$ coordinate for the cases
with and without the dilaton are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bar{U}_{1}(y)=e^{3A_1(y)/2}\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})A_1{''}(y)+(\frac{
\alpha}{4}-\frac{9}{64})(A_1'(y))^{2}\right),\\
&&\bar{U}_{2}(y)=e^{2A_2(y)}\left(\frac{1}{2}A_2{''}(y)+\frac{3}{4}(A_2'(y))^{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha=1/4-\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}$.  Performing now the transformations
$\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-3\bar{A}_1(z)/4}$ and $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-\bar{A}_2(z)}$ respectively,
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{U}_{1}(z)&=&\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(\frac{\alpha}{2
}+\frac{3}{8})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right)\nonumber
\\
&=&\left((-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
 \bar{U}_{2}(z)=\left(-\frac{1}{2}\bar{A}_2{
''}(z)+\frac{1}{4}(\bar{A}_2'(z))^{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}

Therefore the solutions to both cases can be found by using
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_{1} & = & \frac{3}{4},\quad c_{1}=(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{2}),\\
b_{2} & = & 1,\quad c_{2}=-\frac{1}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives for the solutions with and without the dilaton

\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_{1}^{2} & = &(-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{2\lambda\sqrt{3M^{3}}}{3})^2
\\
\nu_{2} & = & 0
\end{eqnarray*}

The case without the dilaton has $a=-1/4$ and therefore will not be considered because it gives a negative potential.

We show in Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x10-comdilaton} the transmission coefficient for analytical (lined) and numerical (dashed)  with dilaton with $x=1.0$ and in Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x15-comdilaton} with $x=1.5$. In both cases we have $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. In Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x10-comdilaton} we see just one peak of resonance around $m=11.5$ and, in Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x15-comdilaton} we have got five peaks.

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x10-tensor-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for tensor field with dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:tensor-x10-comdilaton}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x15-tensor-comdil20.pdf,angle=0,height=6cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for tensor field with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. Lined is analytic and dashed is numeric.}\label{fig:tensor-x15-comdilaton}
}
\section{The $q-$form Case}

The results of the last three cases can be summarized and generalized to a $q$-form in a $p$-brane, where $p=D-2$. In a recent article the present authors have studied the resonances of theses fields
numerically in a different background\cite{Landim:2012zz}. There the potential in the $z$ coordinate for the case with the dilaton is given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{U}_{1}(z)=e^{3A_1(y)/2}\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})A_1''(y)+(\frac{
\alpha}{4}-\frac{9}{64})(A_1'(y))^{2}\right).
\end{equation}
In this equation $\alpha=(8q-4p-3)/4-\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}$. Performing the transformations
$\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-3\bar{A}_1(z)/4}$ we obtain

\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{U}_{1}(z)&=&\left(-(\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{8})\bar{A}_1{''}(z)+(\frac{\alpha}{2
}+\frac{3}{8})^{2}(\bar{A}_1'(z))^{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
For the case without the dilaton, we have obtained the potential
\begin{equation}
\bar{U}_2(z)=e^{2A_2(y)}\left((q-\frac{p}{2})(q-\frac{p}{2})(A_2'(y))^2-(q-\frac{p}{2})A''_2(y)\right),
\end{equation}
and using the transformation $\frac{dz}{dy}=e^{-\bar{A}_2(z)}$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
 \bar{U}_{2}(z)=\left((\frac{p}{2}-q)\bar{A}_2
''(z)+(\frac{p}{2}-q)^{2}(A_2'(z))^{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}

Therefore the solutions for both cases can be found using
\begin{eqnarray*}
b_{1} & = & \frac{3}{4},\quad c_{1}=(\frac{p}{2}-q+\frac{\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}}{2}),\\
b_{2} & = & 1,\quad c_{2}=(\frac{p}{2}-q),
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives the solutions for the cases with and without the dilaton

\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_{1}^{2} & = &(\frac{2\alpha}{3})^2
\\
\nu_{2}^{2} & = & (\frac{1+p}{2}-q)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}

The above formulas can be verified for the cases $p=3$ with $q=0,1,2$ and agree with the last sections. For the case with the dilaton we show results for the parameter $\alpha$ only. The condition for positivity of the  potential is $\alpha<-3/4$ or $\alpha>3/4$. For the case without the dilaton we only have the parameter $(p/2-q+1/2)$. For this case the condition for the positivity of the potential is given by $q<p/2$ or $q>p/2+1$ and therefore we understand why, for the two form the potential is negative in $p=3$. It is important to note that for $p>3$ higher forms can be analyzed. We show in Fig. \ref{fig:fx-semdil-c5-profile} the potential profile for a $q$-form field without dilaton with $p/2-q=5$.

For the $q$-form case the transmission coefficient is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-1} for $x=1.0$ and  $\alpha=-1$ and in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-2} for the same $x$  and $\alpha=-2$ considering the dilaton. For the case without the dilaton the transmission coefficient is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-semdil-c5} for $p/2-q=5$ and in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-semdil-c7}  for $p/2-q=7$ , $x=1.0$ in both cases. One can see one peak of resonances in all figures except for Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-1} that has two peaks. For completeness, we show the transmission coefficient  in Fig. \ref{fig:tx15-semdil-c5} and Fig. \ref{fig:tx15-semdil-c7} without dilaton for $p/2-q=5$ and $p/2-q=7$. They show six and eight peaks of resonances respectively.

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=x-semdil-c5-profile.pdf,angle=0,height=8cm}}
\caption{The potential profile for $q-$form field without dilaton with $p/2-q=5$. (a) $x=1.0$ and (b) $x=1.5$.}\label{fig:fx-semdil-c5-profile}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=tx10-comdil-alpha-1.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for $q-$form field with dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $\alpha=-1$. The solid line is the analytical solution, the dashed line is the numerical solution.}\label{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-1}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=tx10-comdil-alpha-2.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for $q-$form field with dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $\alpha=-2$. The solid line is the analytical solution, the dashed line is the numerical solution  .}\label{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-2}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure= tx10-semdil-c5.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for $q-$form field without dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $p/2-q=5$. The solid line is the analytical solution, the dashed line is the numerical solution .}\label{fig:tx10-semdil-c5}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=tx10-semdil-c7.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for $q-$form field without dilaton for $x=1.0$ and $p/2-q=7$. The solid line is the analytical solution, the dashed line is the numerical solution .}\label{fig:tx10-semdil-c7}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure= tx15-semdil-c5.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for $q-$form field without dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $p/2-q=5$. The solid line is the analytical solution, the dashed line is the numerical solution .}\label{fig:tx15-semdil-c5}
}

\FIGURE{
\centerline{\psfig{figure=tx15-semdil-c7.pdf,angle=0,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission coefficient for $q-$form field without dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $p/2-q=7$. The solid line is the analytical solution, the dashed line is the numerical solution .}\label{fig:tx15-semdil-c7}
}

\section{Conclusions and Perspectives}

In this work we have analyzed the transfer matrix method in the light of models with analytical solution.
The background considered consist of a symmetric $Z_2$ thick domain wall interpolating between two BPS vacua. It has been shown previously that this background allows for an analytical
solution of the gravity field modes \cite{Cvetic:2008gu}. By following the same lines of reasoning, as a first result we have found exact solutions to all the bosonic fields, namely, the scalar, the
vector and the KR field. More than this, our solution to the Gravity case is slightly different of ref. \cite{Cvetic:2008gu}. The reason is that in that work they considered the wave function as real.
Here we need a complex wave function since we consider plane waves arriving from the infinity and colliding with the membrane.

The first case used to test the numerical method was that of Ref. \cite{LL}. For this well known case the difference in the transmission coefficient values is of the order of $10^{-17}$. For the other
fields namely: the scalar field, the vector field , the Kb and $q-$form fields the agreement was impressively good.  The results showed that the number of resonance peaks are very sensitive to the parameter $x$ and the
thickness of the membrane.

For the gravitational field we show Fig. \ref{fig:gravity-x10-comdilaton}. In that picture
we can see the appearance of one peak of resonance for the parameters $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. However,
in Fig. \ref{fig:gravity-x15-comdilaton} we have the Transmission coefficient for gravity with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$ presenting seven peaks of resonances. This shows the rule of the $x$ parameter
in the setup chosen. We show for the scalar field, in Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x10-semdilaton}, the transmission coefficient for analytical (lined) and numerical (dashed)  without dilaton with $x=1.0$, showing one peak of
resonance. In Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x10-comdilaton} with dilaton field we still have one peak of resonance for the parameters $x=1.0$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. In Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x15-semdilaton} we have the
Transmission coefficient for scalar without dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$ and, in Fig. \ref{fig:scalar-x15-comdilaton} showing eight peaks of resonances (the first one near $m=0$, can be made more visible
if we just give a zoom in that region), the Transmission coefficient for scalar with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$ showing three
peaks. For the case of the vector field, we show in Fig. \ref{fig:vector-x10-comdilaton} and in Fig. \ref{fig:vector-x10-semdilaton}  the transmission coefficient for analytical (lined) and numerical (dashed) with and
without dilaton with $x=1.0$ showing one peak of resonance, and in Fig. \ref{fig:vector-x15-comdilaton} we show the three peaks of the transmission coefficient for vector field with dilaton for $x=1.5$ and $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$

In the case of the Kalb-Ramond field we show in Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x10-comdilaton} the transmission coefficient for analytical (lined) and numerical (dashed)  with dilaton with $x=1.0$ and
in Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x15-comdilaton} with $x=1.5$. In both cases we have $\lambda\sqrt{3M^3}=20$. In Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x10-comdilaton} we see just one peak of resonance around $m=11.5$ and,
in Fig. \ref{fig:tensor-x15-comdilaton} we have got five peaks. For the $q$-form case we give the graphics for the transmission coefficient in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-1} and in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-comdil-alpha-2}
with $x=1.0$ to $\alpha=-1,-2$ with dilaton and in Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-semdil-c5} and Fig. \ref{fig:tx10-semdil-c7} with $p/2-q=5,7$ without dilaton. In the first one we can see two peaks of resonances, while in the
remaining plots we have found just one peak. For completeness, we also give the graphics for the transmission coefficient  in Fig. \ref{fig:tx15-semdil-c5} and Fig. \ref{fig:tx15-semdil-c7} with $p/2-
q=5,7$ without dilaton. They show, respectively, six and eight peaks of resonances.

The transfer matrix method has been extensively used by the present authors to analyze resonances. But it was important to compare the numerical studies with
the analytical ones to show that the numerical method is
reliable and have a perfect agreement with solvable cases. In here we give this comparison for a lot of cases which encloses the presentation of the method.
There are still more cases to be studied like, for example,
splitting membranes, a case which would just change the Schr\"odinger potential. The study of fermionic resonances within this formalism is also a perspective of
the present work. Another important aspect is related to corrections obtained, for example, to the Newton's law. Although this is not the main goal of the present work, it
is important to mention that these corrections can be obtained through the transmission coefficient. The issue of metastable states has been better studied
in Refs. \cite{Csaki:2000fc,Dvali:2000rv}. Generally an expression is given in the literature which involves $\psi_{m}(0)$, however, as
stressed in \cite{Dvali:2000rv}, this is obtained after the spectral density expnasion in a complete set of modes. However, for our purpose it is better
to keep the correction in terms of the spectral density, that is given by
\begin{equation}
 V(r)\sim \int \frac{e^{-my}}{r}\rho(m)dm.
\end{equation}

For a sharply peaked resonance we have $\rho=\delta(m-m_0)$ and we recover the well known formula for discrete masses \cite{Dvali:2000rv}. When there is a
peak in $T$, by current conservation there is also a peak in the spectral density and the above integration can be approximated by a sum. From the knowledge
of the spectral density other important quantities as the width of the resonance can also be obtained.

\section*{Acknowledgment}

We would like to acknowledge the
financial support provided by Funda\c c\~ao Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Cient\'\i fico e Tecnol\'ogico (FUNCAP), the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'\i fico e Tecnol\'ogico (CNPq) and FUNCAP/CNPq/PRONEX.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of my wife  Isabel Mara (R. R. Landim).