text:
# The Time-Asymmetry and the Entropy Gap.

## I Introduction.

The time-asymmetry problem can be stated in the following way:

How can we explain the obvious time-asymmetry of the universe and most of its subsystems if the fundamental laws of physic are time-symmetric?

Physicists usually answer this question first observing that, if the initial state of the universe (or one any of its subsystems) would be an equilibrium state, the universe (or the subsystem) will remain for ever in such state, making impossible to find any time-asymmetry. Thus we must solve two problems:

i.- To explain why the universe (or the subsystem)began in a non-equilibrium (unstable, low-entropy) state, at a time that we shall call $`t=0`$.

ii.- To define, for the period $`t>0`$, a Lyapunov variable, namely a variable that never decreases (e.g. entropy), an arrow of time, and also irreversible evolution equations, despite the fact that the main laws of physics are time-symmetric.

Let us comments these two problems:

i.- The set of irreversible processes that began in an unstable non-equilibrium state constitute a branch system , . That is to say, every one of these processes began in a non-equilibrium state, which state was produced by a previous process of the set. E. g.: Gibbs ink drop (initial unstable state) spreading in a glass of water ( irreversible process) it is only possible if there was first an ink factory which extracted the necessary energy from an engine, where coal (initial unstable state) was burned (branched irreversible process); in turn, coal was created with energy coming from the sun, where $`H`$ (initial unstable state) is burned (branched irreversible process); finally, $`H`$ was created using energy obtained from the unstable initial state of the universe (the absolute initial state of the branch system). Therefore using this hierarchical chain, all the irreversible processes are related to the cosmological initial condition, the single one that must be explained.

ii.- Once we have understood the origin of the initial unstable state of each irreversible process within the universe (even if we have not yet explained the origin of the initial state of the whole universe) it is not difficult to obtain a growing entropy (and irreversible evolution equations), in any subsystem within the universe. With this purpose we can consider, e. g. that forces of stochastic nature penetrate from the exterior of each subsystem adding stochastic terms . Alternatively, taking into account the enormous amount of information contained in the subsystem we can neglect some part of it ,. Thirdly, or we can use more refined mathematical tools  , . With any one of this tools we can solve this problem.

It remains only one problem: Why the universe began in an unstable low-entropy state?

If we exclude a miraculous act of creation we have only three scientific answers:

i.- The unstable initial state of the universe is a law of nature.

ii.- This state was produced by a fluctuation.

iii.- The expansion of the universe (coupled to the nuclear reactions in it) produces a decreasing of the (matter-radiation) entropy gap.

The first solution is only a way to bypass the problem, while the fluctuation solution is extremely improbable. In fact, the probability of a fluctuation diminish with the number of particles of the considered system and the universe is the system with the largest number of particles.

The third solution was sketched by Paul Davies in reference  ,only as a qualitative explanation. The expansion of the universe is like an external agency (namely: external to the matter-radiation system of the universe) that produces a decreasing of its entropy gap, with respect to de maximal possible entropy, $`S_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (and therefore an unstable state), not only at $`t=0`$ but in a long period of the universe evolution. We shall call this difference the entropy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }S,`$ so the actual entropy will be $`S_{act}=S_{\mathrm{max}}+\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ (fig 1.). In this essay we will try to give a quantitative structure to Davies solution using an oversimplified cosmological model,which, anyhow, yields a first rough numerical coincidence with observational data.

## II  The entropy gap.

It is well known that the universe isotropic and homogeneous expansion is a reversible process with constant entropy . In this case the matter and the radiation of the universe are in a thermic equilibrium state $`\rho _{}(t)`$ at any time $`t`$. As the radiation is the only important component, from the thermodynamical point of view, we can chose $`\rho _{}(t)`$ as a black-body radiation state , i. e. $`\rho _{}(t)`$ will be a diagonal matrix with main diagonal:

$$\rho _{}(\omega )=ZT^3\frac{1}{e^{\frac{\omega }{T}}1}$$
(1)
where $`T`$ is the temperature, $`\omega `$ the energy, and $`Z`$ a normalization constant (, eqs. (60.4) and (60.10)). The total entropy is:

$$S=\frac{16}{3}\sigma VT^3$$
(2)
(, eq. (60.13)) where $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $`V`$ a commoving volume.

Let us consider an isotropic and homogeneous model of universe with radius (or scale) $`a.`$ As $`Va^3,`$ and, from the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor and radiation state equation, we know that $`Ta^1,`$ we can verify that $`S=const.`$ Thus the irreversible nature of the universe evolution is not produced by the universe expansion, even if $`\rho _{}(t)`$ has a slow time variation.

Therefore, the main process that has an irreversible nature after decoupling time is the burning of unstable $`H`$ in the stars (that produces $`He`$ and, after a chain of nuclear reactions, $`Fe`$). This nuclear reaction process has certain mean life-time $`t_{NR}=\gamma ^1`$ and phenomenologically we can say the estate of the universe, at time $`t`$, is:

$$\rho (t)=\rho _{}(t)+\rho _1e^{\gamma t}+0[(\gamma t)^1]$$
(3)
where $`\rho _1`$ is certain phenomenological coefficient constant in time, since all the time variation of nuclear reactions is embodied in the exponential law $`e^{\gamma t}`$. We can foresee, also on phenomenological grounds, that $`\rho _1`$ must peak strongly around $`\omega _1`$, the characteristic energy of the nuclear process.

All these reasonable phenomenological facts can also be explained theoretically: Eq. 3 can be computed with the theory of paper  or with rigged Hilbert space theory . In reference  it is explicitly proved that $`\rho _1`$ peaks strongly at the energy $`\omega _1`$.

The normalization conditions at any time $`t`$ yields:

$$tr\rho (t)=tr\rho _{}(t)=1,\mathrm{}.tr\rho _1=0$$
(4)
The last equations show that $`\rho _1`$ is not a state but only the coefficients of a correction around the equilibrium state $`\rho _{}(t).`$ It is explicitly proved in paper , that $`\rho _1`$ has a vanishing trace.

We are now able to compute the entropy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ with respect to the equilibrium state $`\rho _{}(t)`$ at any time $`t.`$ It will be the conditional entropy of the state $`\rho (t)`$ with respect to the equilibrium state $`\rho _{}(t)`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=tr[\rho \mathrm{log}(\rho _{}^1\rho )]$$
(5)
Using now eq. 3, and considering only times $`tt_{NR}=\gamma ^1`$ we can expand the logarithm to obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Se^{\gamma t}tr\left(\rho _{}^1\rho _1^2\right)$$
(6)
where we have used eq. 4. We can now introduce the equilibrium state 1 for $`\omega T`$ . Then:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }SZ^1T^3e^{\gamma t}tr(e^{\frac{\omega }{T}}\rho _1^2)$$
(7)
where $`e^{\frac{\omega }{T}}`$ is a diagonal matrix with this function as diagonal. But as $`\rho _1`$ is peaked around $`\omega _1`$ we arrive to a final formula for the entropy gap:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }SCT^3e^{\gamma t}e^{\frac{\omega _1}{T}}$$
(8)
where $`C`$ is a positive constant.

## III Evolution of the entropy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$.

We have computed of $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ for times larger than decoupling time and therefore, as $`at^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ and $`Ta^1,`$ we have:

$$T=T_0\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}$$
(9)
where $`t_0`$ is the age of the universe and $`T_0`$ the present temperature. Then:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }SC_1e^{\gamma t}t^2e^{\frac{\omega _1}{T_0}\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}}$$
(10)
where $`C_1`$ is a positive constant. Fig. 2 is the graphic representation of curve $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(t).`$ It has a maximum at $`t=t_{cr_1}`$ and a minimum at $`t=t_{cr_2}.`$ Let us compute these critical times. The time derivative of the entropy reads:

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }S}[\gamma 2t^1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\omega _1}{t_0T_0}\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}]\mathrm{\Delta }S$$
(11)
This equation shows two antagonic. effects. The universe expansion effect is embodied in the second and third terms in the square brackets an external agency to the matter-radiation system such that, if we neglect the second term, it tries to increase the entropy gap and, therefore, to take the system away from equilibrium (as we will see the second term is practically negligible). On the other hand, the nuclear reactions embodied in the $`\gamma `$-term, try to convey the matter-radiation system towards equilibrium. These effects becomes equal at the critical times $`t_{cr}`$ such that:

$$\gamma t_0+2\frac{t_0}{t_{cr}}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\omega _1}{T_0}\left(\frac{t_0}{t_{cr}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(12)
For almost any reasonable numerical values this equation has two positive roots: $`t_{cr_1}t_0t_{cr_2}`$. Precisely:

i.- For the first root we can neglect the $`\gamma t_0`$-term and we obtain:

$$t_{cr_1}t_0\left(3\frac{To}{\omega _1}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
(13)
(this quantity, with minus sign, gives the third unphysical root).

ii.- For the second root we can neglect the $`2(t_0/t_{cr})`$term, and we find:

$$t_{cr_2}t_0\left(\frac{2}{3}\frac{\omega _1}{T_0}\frac{t_{NR}}{t_0}\right)^3$$
(14)
## IV Numerical estimates.

We must chose numerical values to four parameters: $`\omega _1=T_{NR},`$ $`t_{NR}=\gamma ^1,`$ $`t_0,`$ and $`T_0.`$

$`T_{NR}`$ and $`t_{NR}`$ can be chosen between the following values :

$$T_{NR}=10^6..to\mathrm{..10}^8{}_{}{}^{0}K$$
(15)
$`t_{NR}=10^6..to\mathrm{..10}^9.years`$

while for $`t_0`$ and $`T_0`$ we can take:

$$t_0=1.5\times 10^{10}.years$$
(16)
$`T_0=3^0K`$

In order to obtain a reasonable result we choose the lower bounds for $`T_{NR}`$ and $`t_{NR\text{ }}`$ and we obtain for $`t_{cr_1}:`$

$$t_{cr_1}1.5\times 10^3.years$$
(17)
So $`t_{cr_1}`$ is smaller than the decoupling time and, it must not be considered since the physical processes before this time are different than those we have used in our model. Also, we must consider only times $`t>t_{NR}=\gamma ^1,`$ in order to use eq. 6. So, only the r.h.s. from the dashed line of fig. 2 can be taken into account.

For $`t_{cr_2}`$ we obtain:

$$t_{cr_2}10^4t_0$$
(18)
From eqs. 17 and 18 we can see that $`t_{cr_1}t_0t_{cr_2}.`$ Thus:

-From $`t_{NR}`$ to $`t_{cr_2}`$ the expansion of the universe produces a decreasing of entropy gap, according to Paul Davies prediction. It probably produces also a growing order, and therefore the creation of structures like clusters, galaxies and stars .

-After $`t_{cr_2}`$ we have a growing of entropy, a decreasing order and a spreading of the structures: stars energy is spread in the universe,which ends in a thermic equilibrium . In fact, when $`t\mathrm{}`$ the entropy gap vanishes (se eq. 10) and the universe reaches a thermic equilibrium final state.

$`t_{cr_2}10^4t_0`$ is the frontier between the two periods. Is the order of magnitude of $`t_{cr_2}`$ a realistic one? In fact it is, since $`10^4t_01.5\times 10^{14}years`$ after the big-bang all the stars will exhaust their fuel  , so the border between the two periods most likely have this order of magnitude and must also be smaller than this number. This is precisely the result of our calculations.

## V Conclusion.

Clearly we have not a physical argument to choose the lower bounds in eq.15, we have just chosen this values for convenience. Therefore, our model is extremely naive and simplified: an homogeneous isotropic universe. In real universe nuclear reactions take place within the stars, that only can be properly considered in a inhomogeneous geometry. Also there are condensation phenomena that increase $`S_{\mathrm{max}}`$, in such a way that, even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ first decreases and then increases, $`S_{act}`$ always increases, according to the second low of Thermodynamics (fig .1). Notice that we have only take into account the global expansion effect of the universe and not the local effect of the gravitational field. Perhaps this effect can yield better results. Nevertheless, our model is at the edge of a correct physical prediction.

Summarizing, we have proved that Davies qualitative idea can be implemented quantitatively, preparing the scenario for more detailed calculations.

## VI Acknowledgment.

This work was partially supported by grants : …………………….of the European Community, PID-0150 of CONICET (National Research Council of Argentina), EX-198 of the Buenos Aires University, and 12217/1 of Fundación Antorchas.

## VII Bibliography.

## VIII Figure caption.

Fig. 1. The evolution of the maximum entropy and the actual entropy.

Fig 2. The evolution of the entropy gap. This figure is only qualitative, the scales are not the real ones.


format: text

text:
# Can luminosity distance measurements probe the equation of state of dark energy

## 1 Introduction

There is now strong evidence that the Universe is flat and that matter only amounts to about 1/3 of the critical energy, the remaining 2/3 exhibiting a large and negative pressure. There are several candidates for this dark energy component, which can be characterised by their “equation of state”, namely the ratio $`w=p/\rho `$. For example the genuine Cosmological Constant has $`p=\rho `$, while topological defects give $`p=\rho /3`$ for strings or $`p=2\rho /3`$ for domain walls. But dark energy could also be due to a possibly evolving scalar field, in which case the equation of state may vary with time (and redshift).

Because they are performed at varying redshifts, luminosity distance measurements of Type Ia supernovae can, in principle, provide estimates of this possible varying equation of state. The luminosity distance, however, exhibits strong degeneracies, that may forbid any precise determination of this equation of state, especially if one allows it to vary with redshift.

We first review the expressions involved in the calculation of the luminosity distance, and examine the main degeneracy that shows up when analysing a simulated (yet realistic) high statistics SNe Ia experiment. We then show how independent knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ will limit the effects of the degeneracy and compute the expected statistical and systematic uncertainties that can be achieved with such an experiment.

## 2 Basic Equations

We assume a flat universe made of 2 components : non-relativistic matter, which contributes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ to the critical density, and a single extra component $`X`$ described by its equation of state as a function of redshift:

$$w_\mathrm{X}(z)=p_\mathrm{X}(z)/\rho _\mathrm{X}(z)$$
(1)
The luminosity distance reads:

$$d_L(z)=(1+z)r(z)=(1+z)_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})}$$
(2)
where r(z) is the Robertson-Walker comoving coordinate to an object seen (via massless photons) at a redshift z. Friedman’s equation for a two component flat universe reads:

$$H^2(z)=H_0^2(\rho _\mathrm{M}(z)+\rho _\mathrm{X}(z))/\rho _0$$
(3)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{M}`$ is the matter density, $`\rho _\mathrm{X}`$ is the dark energy density, and $`\rho _0`$ is the total density today. The equation of state defines the way the component x behaves with expansion:

$$\dot{\rho }_\mathrm{X}=3H(1+w_\mathrm{X})\rho _\mathrm{X}$$
(4)
Using $`dz=(1+z)Hdt`$, this equation can be integrated:

$$\rho _\mathrm{X}(z)=\rho _\mathrm{X}(0)\mathrm{exp}3_0^z𝑑z^{}\frac{1+w_\mathrm{X}(z^{})}{1+z^{}}.$$
(5)
One may notice that $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$ corresponds to a constant $`\rho _\mathrm{X}`$. For the matter component, $`\rho _\mathrm{M}`$, $`w=0`$ which leads to $`\rho _\mathrm{M}(z)=\rho _\mathrm{M}(0)(1+z)^3`$. Since observations favour a negative $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ (), $`\rho _\mathrm{M}/\rho _\mathrm{X}`$ very likely increases with redshift.

The luminosity distance can be written:

$$d_L(z)=\frac{1+z}{H_0}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(1+z^{})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M})\rho _\mathrm{X}(z)/\rho _\mathrm{X}(0)}}$$
(6)
$`w_\mathrm{X}(z)`$ is the (unknown) function to be determined from measurements of $`d_L`$ at various redshifts. For dark energy with negative pressure ($`w_\mathrm{X}<0`$i), the higher the redshift, the higher the relative matter contribution in the above equation.

To see how the unknown $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ depends on the data $`d_L`$, one may invert Equation 6, first by deriving it with respect to z:

$$\mathrm{log}\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(1+z)^3}{H_0^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M})}=3_0^z\frac{1+w_\mathrm{X}(z^{})}{1+z^{}},$$
(7)
where $`r(z)=d_L(z)/(1+z)`$, and $`r^{}=dr/dz`$. Deriving once again yields:

$$1+w_\mathrm{X}(z)=\frac{1+z}{3}\frac{3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(1+z)^2+2r^{\prime \prime }/r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(1+z)^3r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$
(8)
So, $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ is related to the first and second derivatives of the distance in a highly non-linear way. Furthermore, the terms in the sums composing the numerator and denominator of Equation 8 are of comparable size and opposite sign: they typically differ by 30 % at a redshift of 1. As a consequence, small variations of the derivatives of r will result in large variations of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. This is shown the other way around in , through striking plots.

Several papers recently addressed the problem of reconstructing $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ (or equivalently the potential of a scalar field) from luminosity distance measurements. Some conclude that it is hopeless given expected uncertainties of large statistics SNe Ia measurements , others provide reasonably accurate estimations of $`w_\mathrm{X}(z)`$, either based on Monte-Carlo experiments , or even on available SNe Ia data . Before attempting to clarify what causes these fundamental differences, we will warn the reader about a potential misconception that may arise from Equation 8: both its numerator and denominator are insensitive to $`H_0`$ because r scales as $`H_0^1`$. Hence w depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and not on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}H_0^2`$, nor on $`H_0`$.

## 3 Measurements and uncertainties

Type Ia supernovae, have been used to constraint cosmological parameters . Using the light curve width-peak brightness empirical relation, the intrinsic dispersion of peak brightness of SNe Ia was found to be about 0.15 magnitude. A measurement with an total error of 0.2 magnitude is already possible (it is the best resolution obtained in ), and we will assume conservatively this value as a standard error. It translates into relative uncertainties of measured luminosity distances of 10 %, which makes the current redshift measurement uncertainty totally negligible. For the proposed SNAP space mission , the accessible redshift range is limited to 1.7, due mainly to the overwhelming integration times required to reach the expected signal to noise. There is also a limitation on the low redshift side due to the large area that has to be covered to discover a sufficient number of low redshift supernovae. Minimising systematic errors dictates that the whole sample is observed using the same apparatus. We will therefore consider as a conservative baseline that 2000 SNe Ia with redshifts in the range $`[0.2,1.4]`$ can be efficiently observed and see how well we can reconstruct $`w_\mathrm{X}(z)`$.

If we have a dataset of SNe Ia with redshifts $`z_i,i=1..N`$, we may compute least squares estimates of the cosmological parameters by minimising:

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(d_id_L(z_i,\theta ))^2}{(pd_i)^2}$$
(9)
where $`d_i`$ is the measured luminosity distance, $`\theta `$ is the set of cosmological parameters to estimate, $`d_L(z_i,\theta )`$ is the expected value of the luminosity distance for the redshift $`z_i`$ and the cosmological parameters $`\theta `$, p is the relative error (assumed to be 0.1) on the measurement.

If one assumes that $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ is constant($`w_\mathrm{X}=w_0`$), $`\theta `$ is a 2 component vector $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},w_0)`$. To estimate a varying $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ without any prejudice, one may parametrise $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ as a polynomial:

$$w_\mathrm{X}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{d}{}}w_iz^i$$
(10)
Choosing a polynomial of z or 1+z does not make any difference from the estimation point of view since there is a one-to-one mapping of the coefficients. Using this expression for $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, Equation 6 can be rewritten (for clarity we limit the polynomial to d=2):

$$d_L(z)=\frac{1+z}{H_0}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(1+z^{})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M})W(z^{})}}$$
(11)
where $`W(z)=(1+z)^{w_0w_1+w_2}\mathrm{exp}((w_1w_2)z+w_2z^2/2)`$.

For models with varying $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, we will concentrate on estimating the 3 parameters: $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},w_0,w_1)`$, which is enough to illustrate where the difficulties show up, for 3 different universes $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},w_0,w_1)`$ = (0.3,-1.0,0.0), (0.3,-0.8,0.3) and (0.4,-1.0,1.0), labelled A B and C in the figures. Model A is the standard Cosmological Constant, model B is close to a quintessence model with an inverse power law potential modified by supergravity , and model C is a toy model with a rapidly varying w.

The (logarithmic) derivatives shown in Figure 1 determine the information that every supernova adds as a function of redshift. It is clear that higher redshifts provide more information, but this becomes less clear if one considers that several lower redshift objects can be measured in the time required for the measurement of one high redshift object. One important point to notice is that for a given model, all derivatives are very similar in shape which means that the parameter combination that a redshift probes does not vary strongly with redshift.

To study what influences the variance (and covariance) of parameter estimates, we will restrict ourselves to the quadratic approximation of the $`\chi ^2`$ which consists in linearising $`d_L`$ as a function of parameters around the chosen model. This is clearly not to be done for an actual estimation, where an accurate mapping of the actual $`\chi ^2`$ values (or of the likelihood) is necessary to obtain reliable confidence contours. Within this linear approximation, the Hessian of the $`\chi ^2`$ w.r.t the parameters reads:

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2\chi ^2}{\theta ^2}=F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}h(z_i,\theta )h^T(z_i,\theta ),\mathrm{with}h(z_i,\theta )=\frac{1}{pd_L}\frac{dd_L(z_i,\theta )}{d\theta }$$
(12)
All derivatives are usually evaluated at the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ (i.e. the parameter estimate). As we are studying the estimation variance as a function of parameters and dataset, we will evaluate the derivatives at the parameter value, which should be the average estimate value. Since $`\theta `$ is vector, h is also a vector, and F is then a matrix, called the Fisher (or information or sometimes weight) matrix. Every $`hh^T`$ term of the sum is a matrix of rank 1 that is the information on the parameters that a given supernova adds. Within this linear approximation, The covariance matrix of the estimates is just $`C=F^1`$.

Table 1 gives C and its eigenvalues and eigenvectors within the linear approximation for our 3 universes, and for 2000 uniformly spread supernovae over the redshift range, the distance to each of them measured with a 10 % accuracy (0.2 mag): for model B (the worst case), the ratio of major to minor axis of the error ellipsoid is more than 500, which means that the parameter combination corresponding to the last eigenvector is almost unmeasured.

The dataset as proposed does not allow to estimate jointly $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ with a decent precision. However, one should notice that the problem is very different if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ is frozen, in which case the errors on $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ go down by more than one order of magnitude. In , $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ is fixed, unlike in  where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ is estimated and marginalized over. This explains partly why these papers reach different conclusions.

The reason for this large degeneracy can be found by expanding in powers of z the expression for $`H^2`$ under the square root in Equation 11 (which is probed observationally through $`(dr/dz)^{1/2}`$):

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=1+3(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0)z+3/2(2+5\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_1+3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0^2)z^2+o(z^3)$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$.

Consider for a while $`w_1=0`$: at first order in z, only $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0`$ is determined (as shown by the shape of the confidence contours in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},w_0)`$ plane shown in ), the second order fixes $`w_0`$ through $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0^2`$, which is rather weak. $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0^2)`$ are much closer to observable that $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},w_0)`$, but $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0^2`$ really lacks physical sense. The scheme is the same for $`w_1`$: it enters through $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_1`$ at second and third order and through $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0w_1`$ at third order. As a consequence the parametrisation $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}w_1)`$ is not much less degenerate than the one considered here.

Obviously, the main degeneracy goes away when fixing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$. Before studying how the uncertainties on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ affect w, we will evaluate the effect of optimising the redshift distribution of the dataset.

## 4 Optimising the redshift distribution of the dataset

To optimise the redshift distribution of the dataset, we first study the effect on the largest eigenvalue of C, of adding to the total sample a small number of supernovae (e.g. 40) in a given redshits bin. Figure 2 shows how this quantity evolves as a function of the redshift in which the 40 supernovae were added. Although no dramatic change is seen (errors scale as the plotted values), Figure 2 shows that a small subsample collected at much higher redshift would reduce the errors more efficiently than collecting more events in the original redshift interval.

One may want to be more radical, i.e. really optimise the redshift distribution within the redshift range in order to minimise this largest eigenvalue, keeping constant the total number of supernovae. This does not yield the same result as minimising the determinant of C as done in  where the optimal determinant is obtained at the cost of an even higher largest eigenvalue. However, as for the minimum determinant, the optimum is reached for a redshift distribution consisting in 3 delta functions, that are given in Table 2. The improvement with respect to a flat distribution is not large enough to consider seriously such an extreme option, which has very severe drawbacks. Nevertheless, a moderate optimisation of the redshift distribution would be worth doing since it would lead to a gain in resolution.

## 5 Expected accuracy on $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ imposing an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ prior

We computed in the Bayesian approach the $`w_0`$,$`w_1`$ joint confidence contours, by marginalizing the estimate probability distribution over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ with a Gaussian prior, without recourse to the linear approximation, We used a Gaussian prior with $`\sigma =0.05`$, which is 2 to 3 times better than nowadays precision from large scale structures, and other methods. The results are shown in Figure 2. Despite our conservative inputs, model A and model B can be separated at more than 95 % CL, whatever is the true one. Model B can be separated from domain walls ($`(w_0,w_1)=(2/3,0)`$) with the same accuracy.

It is interesting to come back again to the linear approximation to study how estimated errors scale with the (external) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ uncertainty, and the (internal) precision of the luminosity distance measurements. Adding a prior is adding a $`((\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M}}^{}{}_{}{}^{})/\sigma )^2`$ to the $`\chi ^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is the prior value, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ remains the parameter to be estimated. The Fisher and covariance matrix become:

$$F^{}=F+\frac{pp^T}{\sigma ^2},C^{}=C\frac{(Cp)(Cp)^T}{\sigma ^2+p^TCp}$$
(14)
where $`C=F^1`$ and $`p=(1,0,0)`$ is the (unit) vector describing the prior (here it only concerns $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$) and $`\sigma `$ is its standard error. The a posteriori variance of e.g. $`w_1`$ (after application of the prior) reads:

$`V(w_1)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{33}^{}=C_{33}{\displaystyle \frac{(C_{31})^2}{\sigma ^2+C_{11}}}=C_{33}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{13}^2}{\sigma ^2/C_{11}+1}})`$ (15)
$``$ $`C_{33}(1\rho _{13}^2+\rho _{13}^2\sigma ^2/C_{11})`$
where the last approximation holds for $`\sigma ^2<<C_{11}`$ (which is already the case with nowadays precision on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$). $`V(w_1)`$ scales with $`\sigma ^2`$ for large $`\sigma `$, and with $`C_{33}`$ for smaller ones. When $`\sigma =C_{11}(1\rho _{13}^2)/\rho _{13}^2`$, $`V(w_1)`$ is twice its minimum value ($`\sigma =0`$). This happens for $`\sigma =0.03,0.08,0.44`$ for models A,B and C respectively. Doing the same exercise for $`w_0`$ yields $`\sigma =0.05,0.03,0.02`$. With $`\sigma =0.05`$ and our assumptions for the experimental precision, the result quality would benefit both from a smaller $`\sigma `$ and from a better luminosity distance measurement.

For an infinitely well defined $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, we face a second “degeneracy” demonstrated by the elongated shape of the error contours. The orientation of the major axis defines a z ($`z_{min}`$) for which $`Var(w_0+w_1z)`$ is minimal, $`z_{min}`$ 0.2 to 0.3. Models with similar $`w_\mathrm{X}(z_{min})`$ but different $`w_1`$ (within $``$ 0.3 in our assumptions), will be indistinguishable. This is shown by Figure 1 of  where luminosity distances for different $`w_X`$ having similar $`w_X(z=0.3)`$ are shown to have the same luminosity distance behaviour.

## 6 Influence of systematic errors

The overall scale of luminosity distances (deduced from fluxes) depends on $`LH_0^2`$, where L is the absolute luminosity of the candle. So distortions that bias the cosmological parameters are the ones that distort the shape of $`d_L`$. At lowest order in z, we may model:

$$d_L^{measured}=d_L^{true}(1+\alpha z),$$
(16)
where $`\alpha `$ (hopefully small) accounts for example for the drift of photometric calibration of supernovae across the redshift range, an unknown evolution of supernovae, or light absorption in the intergalactic medium uniformly over the spectral range. The SNAP mission has been designed to reduce these effects as much as possible, and targets a precision of 0.02 mag over the redshift range $`z<1.7`$ which corresponds to $`|\alpha |<0.006`$.

We computed the parameter biases for our 3 models, with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}}=0.05`$ and $`\alpha =0.01`$, and found negligible shifts for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ (as expected), and biases for $`(w_0,w_1)`$ of (0,-0.19), (-0.01, 0.10) and (-0.02,-0.12) for models A,B and C. These systematic biases are all below the statistical uncertainty, and do not change significantly for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}}`$ = 0.1 or 0.025.

## 7 Conclusions

With conservative hypotheses for the expected performances of a future high statistics SNe Ia experiment such as the proposed SNAP mission, we find that the equation of state parameter of the dark energy can be measured provided an accurate value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ is used as a prior. Detailed study of Type Ia supernovae such as with the planned nearby supernova factory project  could result in further reducing the peak-brightness intrinsic dispersion which directly affects the precision on the equation of state parameter. In addition, independent gain of precision can be achieved by (moderately) optimising the redshift distribution of the dataset. Finally, it is interesting to note that the required precision on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ could come from the SNAP mission itself, using large scale weak lensing which is sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ almost independently of dark energy. In , a ground based moderately deep weak lensing survey of 5x5 degrees is estimated to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ to 10% (for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ around 0.3), reaching 5% for a 10x10 degrees survey.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the stimulating discussions among the FROGS (FRench Observing Group of Supernovae), especially with R. Pain and J.M. Levy who also reviewed critically this manuscript.


text:
# 1 Problem

## 1 Problem

Consider a variant on the physical situation of “slow light”  in which two closely spaced spectral lines are now both optically pumped to show that the group velocity can be negative at the central frequency, which leads to apparent superluminal behavior.

### 1.1 Negative Group Velocity

In more detail, consider a classical model of matter in which spectral lines are associated with oscillators. In particular, consider a gas with two closely spaced spectral lines of angular frequencies $`\omega _{1,2}=\omega _0\pm \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0`$. Each line has the same damping constant (and spectral width) $`\gamma `$.

Ordinarily, the gas would exhibit strong absorption of light in the vicinity of the spectral lines. But suppose that lasers of frequencies $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ pump the both oscillators into inverted populations. This can be described classically by assigning negative oscillator strengths to these oscillators .

Deduce an expression for the group velocity $`v_g(\omega _0)`$ of a pulse of light centered on frequency $`\omega _0`$ in terms of the (univalent) plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ of the medium, given by

$$\omega _p^2=\frac{4\pi Ne^2}{m},$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is the number density of atoms, and $`e`$ and $`m`$ are the charge and mass of an electron. Give a condition on the line separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ compared to the line width $`\gamma `$ such that the group velocity $`v_g(\omega _0)`$ is negative.

In a recent experiment by Wang et al. , a group velocity of $`v_g=c/310`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum, was demonstrated in cesium vapor using a pair of spectral lines with separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi 2`$ MHz and linewidth $`\gamma /2\pi 0.8`$ MHz.

### 1.2 Propagation of a Monochromatic Plane Wave

Consider a wave with electric field $`E_0e^{i\omega (z/ct)}`$ that is incident from $`z<0`$ on a medium that extends from $`z=0`$ to $`a`$. Ignore reflection at the boundaries, as is reasonable if the index of refraction $`n(\omega )`$ is near unity. Particularly simple results can be obtained when you make the (unphysical) assumption that the $`\omega n(\omega )`$ varies linearly with frequency about a central frequency $`\omega _0`$. Deduce a transformation that has a frequency-dependent part and a frequency-independent part between the phase of the wave for $`z<0`$ to that of the wave inside the medium, and to that of the wave in the region $`a<z`$.

### 1.3 Fourier Analysis

Apply the transformations between an incident monochromatic wave and the wave in and beyond the medium to the Fourier analysis of an incident pulse of form $`f(z/ct)`$.

### 1.4 Propagation of a Sharp Wave Front

In the approximation that $`\omega n`$ varies linearly with $`\omega `$, deduce the waveforms in the regions $`0<z<a`$ and $`a<z`$ for an incident pulse $`\delta (z/ct)`$, where $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta function. Show that the pulse emerges out of the gain region at $`z=a`$ at time $`t=a/v_g`$, which appears to be earlier than when it enters this region if the group velocity is negative. Show also that inside the negative group velocity medium a pulse propagates backwards from $`z=a`$ at time $`t=a/v_g<0`$ to $`z=0`$ at $`t=0`$, at which time it appears to annihilate the incident pulse.

### 1.5 Propagation of a Gaussian Pulse

As a more physical example, deduce the waveforms in the regions $`0<z<a`$ and $`a<z`$ for a Gaussian incident pulse $`E_0e^{(z/ct)^2/2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0(z/ct)}`$. Carry the frequency expansion of $`\omega n(\omega )`$ to second order to obtain conditions of validity of the analysis such as maximum pulsewidth $`\tau `$, maximum length $`a`$ of the gain region, and maximum time of advance of the emerging pulse. Consider the time required to generate a pulse of risetime $`\tau `$ when assessing whether the time advance in a negative group velocity medium can lead to superluminal signal propagation.

## 2 Solution

The concept of group velocity appears to have been first enunciated by Hamilton in 1839 in lectures of which only abstracts were published . The first recorded observation of the group velocity of a (water) wave is due to Russell in 1844 . However, widespread awareness of the group velocity dates from 1876 when Stokes used its as the topic of a Smith’s Prize examination paper . The early history of group velocity has been reviewed by Havelock .

H. Lamb  credits A. Schuster with noting in 1904 that a negative group velocity, i.e., a group velocity of opposite sign to that of the phase velocity, is possible due to anomalous dispersion. Von Laue  made a similar comment in 1905. Lamb gave two examples of strings subject to external potentials that exhibit negative group velocities. These early considerations assumed that in case of a wave with positive group and phase velocities incident on the anomalous medium, energy would be transported into the medium with a positive group velocity, and so there would be waves with negative phase velocity inside the medium. Such negative phase velocity waves are formally consistent with Snell’s law  (since $`\theta _t=\mathrm{sin}^1[(n_i/n_t)\mathrm{sin}\theta _i]`$ can be in either the first or second quadrant), but they seemed physically implausible and the topic was largely dropped.

Present interest in negative group velocity a based on anomalous dispersion in a gain medium, where the sign of the phase velocity is the same for incident and transmitted waves, and energy flows inside the gain medium in the opposite direction to the incident energy flow in vacuum.

The propagation of electromagnetic waves at frequencies near those of spectral lines of a medium was first extensively discussed by Sommerfeld and Brillouin , with emphasis on the distinction between signal velocity and group velocity when the latter exceeds $`c`$. The solution presented here is based on the work of Garrett and McCumber , as extended by Chiao et al. . A discussion of negative group velocity in electronic circuits has been given by Mitchell and Chiao .

### 2.1 Negative Group Velocity

In a medium of index of refraction $`n(\omega )`$, the dispersion relation can be written

$$k=\frac{\omega n}{c},$$
(2)
where $`k`$ is the wave number. The group velocity is then given by

$$v_g=Re\left[\frac{d\omega }{dk}\right]=\frac{1}{Re[dk/d\omega ]}=\frac{c}{Re[d(\omega n)/d\omega ]}=\frac{c}{n+\omega Re[dn/d\omega ]}.$$
(3)
We see from eq. (3) that if the index of refraction decreases rapidly enough with frequency, the group velocity can be negative. It is well known that the index of refraction decreases rapidly with frequency near an absorption line, where “anomalous” wave propagation effects can occur . However, the absorption makes it difficult to study these effects. The insight of Garrett and McCumber  and of Chiao et al.  is that demonstrations of negative group velocity are possible in media with inverted populations, so that gain rather than absorption occurs at the frequencies of interest. This was dramatically realized in the experiment of Wang et al.  by use of a closely spaced pair of gain lines, as perhaps first suggested by Steinberg and Chiao .

We use a classical oscillator model for the index of refraction. The index $`n`$ is the square root of the dielectric constant $`ϵ`$, which is in turn related to the atomic polarizability $`\alpha `$ according to

$$D=ϵE=E+4\pi P=E(1+4\pi N\alpha ),$$
(4)
(in Gaussian units) where $`D`$ is the electric displacement, $`E`$ is the electric field and $`P`$ is the polarization density. Then, the index of refraction of a dilute gas is

$$n=\sqrt{ϵ}1+2\pi N\alpha .$$
(5)
The polarizability $`\alpha `$ is obtained from the electric dipole moment $`p=ex=\alpha E`$ induced by electric field $`E`$. In the case of a single spectral line of frequency $`\omega _j`$, we say that an electron is bound to the (fixed) nucleus by a spring of constant $`K=m\omega _j^2`$, and that the motion is subject to the damping force $`m\gamma _j\dot{x}`$, where the dot indicates differentiation with respect to time. The equation of motion in the presence of an electromagnetic wave of frequency $`\omega `$ is

$$\ddot{x}+\gamma _j\dot{x}+\omega _j^2x=\frac{eE}{m}=\frac{eE_0}{m}e^{i\omega t}.$$
(6)
Hence,

$$x=\frac{eE}{m}\frac{1}{\omega _j^2\omega ^2i\gamma _j\omega }=\frac{eE}{m}\frac{\omega _j^2\omega ^2+i\gamma _j\omega }{(\omega _j^2\omega ^2)^2+\gamma _j^2\omega ^2},$$
(7)
and the polarizability is

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{m}\frac{\omega _j^2\omega ^2+i\gamma _j\omega }{(\omega _j^2\omega ^2)^2+\gamma _j^2\omega ^2}.$$
(8)
In the present problem, we have two spectral lines, $`\omega _{1,2}=\omega _0\pm \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, both of oscillator strength $`1`$ to indicate that the populations of both lines are inverted, with damping constants $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma `$. In this case, the polarizability is given by

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega }{((\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2\omega ^2)^2+\gamma ^2\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega }{((\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2\omega ^2)^2+\gamma ^2\omega ^2}}`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega }{(\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2)^2+\gamma ^2\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega }{(\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2)^2+\gamma ^2\omega ^2}},`$
where the approximation is obtained by the neglect of terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ compared to those in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0`$.

For a probe beam at frequency $`\omega `$, the index of refraction (5) has the form

$$n(\omega )1\frac{\omega _p^2}{2}\left[\frac{\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega }{(\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2)^2+\gamma ^2\omega ^2}+\frac{\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega }{(\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0\omega ^2)^2+\gamma ^2\omega ^2}\right],$$
(10)
where $`\omega _p`$ is the plasma frequency given by eq. (1). This illustrated in Figure 1.

The index at the central frequency $`\omega _0`$ is

$$n(\omega _0)1i\frac{\omega _p^2\gamma }{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2)\omega _0}1i\frac{\omega _p^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{\gamma }{\omega _0},$$
(11)
where the second approximation holds when $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. The electric field of a continuous probe wave then propagates according to

$$E(z,t)=e^{i(kz\omega _0t)}=e^{i\omega _0(n(\omega _0)z/ct)}e^{z/[\mathrm{\Delta }^2c/\gamma \omega _p^2]}e^{i\omega _0(z/ct)}.$$
(12)
From this we see that at frequency $`\omega _0`$ the phase velocity is $`c`$, and the medium has an amplitude gain length $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2c/\gamma \omega _p^2`$.

To obtain the group velocity (3) at frequency $`\omega _0`$, we need the derivative

$$\frac{d(\omega n)}{d\omega }|_{\omega _0}1\frac{2\omega _p^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\gamma ^2)}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2)^2},$$
(13)
where we have neglected terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\gamma `$ compared to $`\omega _0`$. From eq. (3), we see that the group velocity can be negative if

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega _p^2}\frac{\gamma ^2}{\omega _p^2}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega _p^2}+\frac{\gamma ^2}{\omega _p^2}\right)^2.$$
(14)
The boundary of the allowed region (14) in $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^2,\gamma ^2)`$ space is a parabola whose axis is along the line $`\gamma ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, as shown in Fig. 2. For the physical region $`\gamma ^20`$, the boundary is given by

$$\frac{\gamma ^2}{\omega _p^2}=\sqrt{1+4\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega _p^2}}1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega _p^2}.$$
(15)
Thus, to have a negative group velocity, we must have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{2}\omega _p,$$
(16)
which limit is achieved when $`\gamma =0`$; the maximum value of $`\gamma `$ is $`0.5\omega _p`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.866\omega _p`$.

Near the boundary of the negative group velocity region, $`\left|v_g\right|`$ exceeds $`c`$, which alerts us to concerns of superluminal behavior. However, as will be seen in the following sections, the effect of a negative group velocity is more dramatic when $`\left|v_g\right|`$ is small rather than large.

The region of recent experimental interest is $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega _p`$, for which eqs. (3) and (13) predict that

$$v_g\frac{c}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega _p^2}.$$
(17)
A value of $`v_gc/310`$ as in the experiment of Wang corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _p1/12`$. In this case, the gain length $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2c/\gamma \omega _p^2`$ was approximately 40 cm.

For later use we record the second derivative,

$$\frac{d^2(\omega n)}{d\omega ^2}|_{\omega _0}8i\frac{\omega _p^2\gamma (3\mathrm{\Delta }^2\gamma ^2)}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2)^3}24i\frac{\omega _p^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(18)
where the second approximation holds if $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

### 2.2 Propagation of a Monochromatic Plane Wave

To illustrate the optical properties of a medium with negative group velocity, we consider the propagation of an electromagnetic wave through it. The medium extends from $`z=0`$ to $`a`$, and is surrounded by vacuum. Because the index of refraction (10) is near unity in the frequency range of interest, we ignore reflections at the boundaries of the medium.

A monochromatic plane wave of frequency $`\omega `$ and incident from $`z<0`$ propagates with phase velocity $`c`$ in vacuum. Its electric field can be written

$$E_\omega (z,t)=E_0e^{i\omega z/c}e^{i\omega t}(z<0).$$
(19)
Inside the medium this wave propagates with phase velocity $`c/n(\omega )`$ according to

$$E_\omega (z,t)=E_0e^{i\omega nz/c}e^{i\omega t}(0<z<a),$$
(20)
where the amplitude is unchanged since we neglect the small reflection at the boundary $`z=0`$. When the wave emerges into vacuum at $`z=a`$, the phase velocity is again $`c`$, but it has accumulated a phase lag of $`(\omega /c)(n1)a`$, and so appears as

$$E_\omega (z,t)=E_0e^{i\omega a(n1)/c}e^{i\omega z/c}e^{i\omega t}=E_0e^{i\omega an/c}e^{i\omega (t(za)/c)}(a<z).$$
(21)
It is noteworthy that a monochromatic wave for $`z>a`$ has the same form as that inside the medium if we make the frequency-independent substitutions

$$za,\text{and}tt\frac{za}{c}.$$
(22)
Since an arbitrary waveform can be expressed in terms of monochromatic plane waves via Fourier analysis, we can use these substitutions to convert any wave in the region $`0<z<a`$ to its continuation in the region $`a<z`$.

A general relation can be deduced in the case where the second and higher derivatives of $`\omega n(\omega )`$ are very small. We can then write

$$\omega n(\omega )\omega _0n(\omega _0)+\frac{c}{v_g}(\omega \omega _0),$$
(23)
where $`v_g`$ is the group velocity for a pulse with central frequency $`\omega _0`$. Using this in eq. (20), we have

$$E_\omega (z,t)E_0e^{i\omega _0z(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}e^{i\omega z/v_g}e^{i\omega t}(0<z<a).$$
(24)
In this approximation, the Fourier component $`E_\omega (z)`$ at frequency $`\omega `$ of a wave inside the gain medium is related to that of the incident wave by replacing the frequency dependence $`e^{i\omega z/c}`$ by $`e^{i\omega z/v_g}`$, i.e., by replacing $`z/c`$ by $`z/v_g`$, and multiplying by the frequency-independent phase factor $`e^{i\omega _0z(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}`$. Then, using transformation (22), the wave that emerges into vacuum beyond the medium is

$$E_\omega (z,t)E_0e^{i\omega _0a(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}e^{i\omega (z/ca(1/c1/v_g))}e^{i\omega t}(a<z).$$
(25)
The wave beyond the medium is related to the incident wave by multiplying by a frequency-independent phase, and by replacing $`z/c`$ by $`z/ca(1/c1/v_g)`$ in the frequency-dependent part of the phase.

The effect of the medium on the wave as described by eqs. (24)-(25) has been called “rephasing” .

### 2.3 Fourier Analysis and “Rephasing”

The transformations between the monochromatic incident wave (19) and its continuation in and beyond the medium, (24) and (25), imply that an incident wave

$$E(z,t)=f(z/ct)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega E_\omega (z)e^{i\omega t}(z<0),$$
(26)
whose Fourier components are given by

$$E_\omega (z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E(z,t)e^{i\omega t}𝑑t,$$
(27)
propagates as

$`E(z,t)\{\begin{array}{cc}f(z/ct)\hfill & (z<0),\hfill \\ e^{i\omega _0z(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}f(z/v_gt)\hfill & (0<z<a),\hfill \\ e^{i\omega _0a(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}f(z/cta(1/c1/v_g))\hfill & (a<z).\hfill \end{array}`$ (31)
An interpretation of eq. (31) in terms of “rephasing” is as follows. Fourier analysis tells us that the maximum amplitude of a pulse made of waves of many frequencies, each of the form $`E_\omega (z,t)=E_0(\omega )e^{i\varphi (\omega )}=E_0(\omega )e^{i(k(\omega )z\omega t+\varphi _0(\omega ))}`$ with $`E_00`$, is determined by adding the amplitudes $`E_0(\omega )`$. This maximum is achieved only if there exists points $`(z,t)`$ such that all phases $`\varphi (\omega )`$ have the same value.

For example, we consider a pulse in the region $`z<0`$ whose maximum occurs when the phases of all component frequencies vanish, as shown at the left of Fig. 3. Referring to eq. (19), we see that the peak occurs when $`z=ct`$. As usual, we say that the group velocity of this wave is $`c`$ in vacuum.

Inside the medium, eq. (24) describes the phases of the components, which all have a common frequency-independent phase $`\omega _0z(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)`$ at a given $`z`$, as well as a frequency-dependent part $`\omega (z/v_gt)`$. The peak of the pulse occurs when all the frequency-dependent phases vanish; the overall frequency-independent phase does not affect the pulse size. Thus, the peak of the pulse propagates within the medium according to $`z=v_gt`$. The velocity of the peak is $`v_g`$, the group velocity of the medium, which can be negative.

The “rephasing” (24) within the medium changes the wavelengths of the component waves. Typically the wavelength increases, and by greater amounts at longer wavelengths. A longer time is required before the phases of the waves all becomes the same at some point $`z`$ inside the medium, so in a normal medium the velocity of the peak appears to be slowed down. But in a negative group velocity medium, wavelengths short compared to $`\lambda _0`$ are lengthened, long waves are shortened, and the velocity of the peak appears to be reversed.

By a similar argument, eq. (25) tells us that in the vacuum region beyond the medium the peak of the pulse propagates according to $`z=ct+a(1/c1/v_g)`$. The group velocity is again $`c`$, but the “rephasing” within the medium results in a shift of the position of the peak by amount $`a(1/c1/v_g)`$. In a normal medium where $`0<v_gc`$ the shift is negative; the pulse appears to have been delayed during its passage through the medium. But after a negative group velocity medium, the pulse appears to have advanced!

This advance is possible because in the Fourier view, each component wave extends over all space, even if the pulse appears to be restricted. The unusual “rephasing” in a negative group velocity medium shifts the phases of the frequency components of the wave train in the region ahead of the nominal peak such that the phases all coincide, and a peak is observed, at times earlier than expected at points beyond the medium.

As shown in Fig. 3 and further illustrated in the examples below, the “rephasing” can result in the simultaneous appearance of peaks in all three regions.

### 2.4 Propagation of a Sharp Wave Front

To assess the effect of a medium with negative group velocity on the propagation of a signal, we first consider a waveform with a sharp front, as recommended by Sommerfeld and Brillouin .

As an extreme but convenient example, we take the incident pulse to be a Dirac delta function, $`E(z,t)=E_0\delta (z/ct)`$. Inserting this in eq. (31), which is based on the linear approximation (23), we find

$`E(z,t)\{\begin{array}{cc}E_0\delta (z/ct)\hfill & (z<0),\hfill \\ E_0e^{i\omega _0z(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}\delta (z/v_gt)\hfill & (0<z<a),\hfill \\ E_0e^{i\omega _0a(n(\omega _0)/c1/v_g)}\delta (z/cta(1/c1/v_g))\hfill & (a<z),\hfill \end{array}`$ (35)
According to eq. (35), the delta-function pulse emerges from the medium at $`z=a`$ at time $`t=a/v_g`$. If the group velocity is negative, the pulse emerges from the medium before it enters at $`t=0`$!

A sample history of (Gaussian) pulse propagation is illustrated in Fig. 4. Inside the negative group velocity medium, an (anti)pulse propagates backwards in space from $`z=a`$ at time $`t=a/v_g<0`$ to $`z=0`$ at time $`t=0`$, at which point it appears to annihilate the incident pulse.

This behavior is analogous to barrier penetration by a relativistic electron  in which an electron can emerge from the far side of the barrier earlier than it hits the near side, if the electron emission at the far side is accompanied by positron emission, and the positron propagates within the barrier so as to annihilate the incident electron at the near side. In the Wheeler-Feynman view, this process involves only a single electron which propagates backwards in time when inside the barrier. In this spirit, we might say that pulses propagate backwards in time (but forward in space) inside a negative group velocity medium.

The Fourier components of the delta function are independent of frequency, so the advanced appearance of the sharp wavefront as described by eq. (35) can occur only for a gain medium such that the index of refraction varies linearly at all frequencies. If such a medium existed with negative slope $`dn/d\omega `$, then eq. (35) would constitute superluminal signal propagation.

However, from Fig. 1 we see that a linear approximation to the index of refraction is reasonable in the negative group velocity medium only for |ωω0|

<

Δ/2

<

𝜔subscript𝜔0Δ2\left|\omega-\omega_{0}\right|\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}\Delta/2. The sharpest wavefront that can be supported within this bandwidth has characteristic risetime $`\tau 1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For the experiment of Wang et al. where $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi 10^6`$ Hz, an analysis based on eq. (23) would be valid only for pulses with τ

>

0.1μ

>

𝜏0.1𝜇\tau\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$>$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}0.1\ \mus. Wang et al. used a pulse with $`\tau 1\mu `$s, close to the minimum value for which eq. (23) is a reasonable approximation.

Since a negative group velocity can only be experienced over a limited bandwidth, very sharp wavefronts must be excluded from discussion of signal propagation. However, it is well known  that great care must be taken when discussing the signal velocity if the waveform is not sharp.

### 2.5 Propagation of a Gaussian Pulse

We now consider a Gaussian pulse of temporal length $`\tau `$ centered on frequency $`\omega _0`$ (the carrier frequency), for which the incident waveform is

$$E(z,t)=E_0e^{(z/ct)^2/2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0z/c}e^{i\omega _0t}(z<0),$$
(36)
Inserting this in eq. (31) we find

$`E(z,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_0e^{(z/ct)^2/2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0(z/ct)}\hfill & (z<0),\hfill \\ E_0e^{(z/v_gt)^2/2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0(n(\omega _0)z/ct)}\hfill & (0<z<a),\hfill \\ E_0e^{i\omega _0a(n(\omega _0)1)/c}e^{(z/ca(1/c1/v_g)t)^2/2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0(z/ct)}\hfill & (a<z).\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
The factor $`e^{i\omega _0a(n(\omega _0)1)/c}`$ in eq. (40) for $`a<z`$ becomes $`e^{\omega _p^2\gamma a/\mathrm{\Delta }^2c}`$ using eq. (11), and represents a small gain due to traversing the negative group velocity medium. In the experiment of Wang et al. this factor was only 1.16.

We have already noted in the previous section that the linear approximation to $`\omega n(\omega )`$ is only good over a frequency interval about $`\omega _0`$ of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and so eq. (40) for the pulse after the gain medium applies only for pulsewidths

τ

>

1Δ.

>

𝜏1Δ\tau\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$>$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}{1\over\Delta}. (41)
Further constraints on the validity of eq. (40) can obtained using the expansion of $`\omega n(\omega )`$ to second order. For this, we repeat the derivation of eq. (40) in slightly more detail. The incident Gaussian pulse (36) has the Fourier decomposition (27)

$$E_\omega (z)=\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{2\pi }}E_0e^{\tau ^2(\omega \omega _0)^2/2}e^{i\omega z/c}(z<0).$$
(42)
We again extrapolate the Fourier component at frequency $`\omega `$ into the region $`z>0`$ using eq. (20), which yields

$$E_\omega (z)=\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{2\pi }}E_0e^{\tau ^2(\omega \omega _0)^2/2}e^{i\omega nz/c}(0<z<a).$$
(43)
We now approximate the factor $`\omega n(\omega )`$ by its Taylor expansion through second order:

$$\omega n(\omega )\omega _0n(\omega _0)+\frac{c}{v_g}(\omega \omega _0)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2(\omega n)}{d\omega ^2}|_{\omega _0}(\omega \omega _0)^2.$$
(44)
With this, we find from eqs. (26) and (43) that

$$E(z,t)=\frac{E_0}{A}e^{(z/v_gt)^2/2A^2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0n(\omega _0)z/c}e^{i\omega _0t}(0<z<a),$$
(45)
where

$$A^2(z)=1i\frac{z}{c\tau ^2}\frac{d^2(\omega n)}{d\omega ^2}|_{\omega _0}.$$
(46)
The waveform for $`z>a`$ is obtained from that for $`0<z<a`$ by the substitutions (22) with the result

$$E(z,t)=\frac{E_0}{A}e^{i\omega _0a(n(\omega _0)1)/c}e^{(z/ca(1/c1/v_g)t)^2/2A^2\tau ^2}e^{i\omega _0z/c}e^{i\omega _0t}(a<z),$$
(47)
where $`A`$ is evaluated at $`z=a`$ here. As expected, the forms (45) and (47) revert to those of eq. (40) when $`d^2(\omega n(\omega _0))/d\omega ^2=0`$.

So long as the factor $`A(a)`$ is not greatly different from unity, the pulse emerges from the medium essentially undistorted, which requires

$$\frac{a}{c\tau }\frac{1}{24}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\omega _p^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ,$$
(48)
using eqs. (18) and (46). In the experiment of Wang et al., this condition is that $`a/c\tau 1/120`$, which was well satisfied with $`a=6`$ cm and $`c\tau =300`$ m.

As in the case of the delta function, the centroid of a Gaussian pulse emerges from a negative group velocity medium at time

$$t=\frac{a}{v_g}<0,$$
(49)
which is earlier than the time $`t=0`$ when the centroid enters the medium. In the experiment of Wang et al., the time advance of the pulse was $`a/\left|v_g\right|300a/c6\times 10^8`$ s $`0.06\tau `$.

If one attempts to observe the negative group velocity pulse inside the medium, the incident wave would be perturbed and the backwards-moving pulse would not be detected. Rather, one must deduce the effect of the negative group velocity medium by observation of the pulse that emerges into the region $`z>a`$ beyond that medium, where the significance of the time advance (49) is the main issue.

The time advance caused by a negative group velocity medium is larger when $`\left|v_g\right|`$ is smaller. It is possible that $`\left|v_g\right|>c`$, but this gives a smaller time advance than when the negative group velocity is such that $`\left|v_g\right|<c`$. Hence, there is no special concern as to the meaning of negative group velocity when $`\left|v_g\right|>c`$.

The maximum possible time advance $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ by this technique can be estimated from eqs. (17), (48) and (49) as

$$\frac{t_{\mathrm{max}}}{\tau }\frac{1}{12}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 1.$$
(50)
The pulse can advance by at most a few risetimes due to passage through the negative group velocity medium.

While this aspect of the pulse propagation appears to be superluminal, it does not imply superluminal signal propagation.

In accounting for signal propagation time, the time needed to generate the signal must be included as well. A pulse with a finite frequency bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ takes at least time $`\tau 1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be generated, and so is delayed by a time of order its risetime $`\tau `$ compared to the case of an idealized sharp wavefront. Thus, the advance of a pulse front in a negative group velocity medium by

<

τ

<

absent𝜏\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}\tau can at most compensate for the original delay in generating that pulse. The signal velocity, as defined by the path length between the source and detector divided by the overall time from onset of signal generation to signal detection, remains bounded by $`c`$.

As has been emphasized by Garrett and McCumber  and by Chiao , the time advance of a pulse emerging from a gain medium is possible because the forward tail of a smooth pulse gives advance warning of the later arrival of the peak. The leading edge of the pulse can be amplified by the gain medium, which gives the appearance of superluminal pulse velocities. However, the medium is merely using information stored in the early part of the pulse during its (lengthy) time of generation to bring the apparent velocity of the pulse closer to $`c`$.

The effect of the negative group velocity medium can be dramatized in a calculation based on eq. (40) in which the pulse width is narrower than the gain region (in violation of condition (48)), as shown in Fig. 4. Here, the gain region is $`0<z<50`$, the group velocity is taken to be $`c/2`$, and $`c`$ is defined to be unity. The behavior illustrated in Fig. 4 is perhaps less surprising when the pulse amplitude is plotted on a logarithmic scale, as in Fig. 5. Although the overall gain of the system is near unity, the leading edge of the pulse is amplified by about 70 orders of magnitude in this example (the implausibility of which underscores that condition (48) cannot be evaded), while the trailing edge of the pulse is attenuated by the same amount. The gain medium has temporarily loaned some of its energy to the pulse permitting the leading edge of the pulse to appear to advance faster than the speed of light.

Our discussion of the pulse has been based on a classical analysis of interference, but, as remarked by Dirac , classical optical interference describes the behavior of the wave functions of individual photons, not of interference between photons. Therefore, we expect that the behavior discussed above will soon be demonstrated for a “pulse” consisting of a single photon with a Gaussian wave packet.

The author thanks Lijun Wang for discussions of his experiment, and Alex Granik for references to the early history of negative group velocity and for the analysis contained in eqs. (14)-(16).