text:
# INFLUENCE OF COOLED INTERSTELLAR GAS ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PLANE FOR ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The mass of hot interstellar gas that cools over a Hubble time in a massive elliptical galaxy is typically 5 - 7 percent of the total baryonic mass of these galaxies. Several observations indicate that this gas cools in a significant volume of the inner galaxy: (1) the total cooled mass significantly exceeds the mass of central massive black holes (Magorrian et al. 1998), (2) although much of the interstellar gas within $`r_e`$ is ejected from old galactic stars which typically have a systematic galactic rotation, the inner X-ray images of rotating elliptical galaxies are nearly circular, implying that the gas cools before it flows very far toward the rotation axis (Hanlan & Bregman 2000; Brighenti & Mathews 2000b), (3) direct evidence of diffuse cooled gas at $`T10^4`$ K is invariably observed in large elliptical galaxies in r
<0.3re
<𝑟0.3subscript𝑟𝑒r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}0.3r_{e} (e.g. Macchetto et al. 1996), and (4) evolutionary models for the hot interstellar gas are in better agreement with X-ray observations when cooling mass loss is included; most of this gas cools within an effective radius (Brighenti & Mathews 2000a).

In view of the very small masses of cold HI or H2 gas that have been observed in elliptical galaxies, far less than the mass of hot gas that has cooled, it is usually assumed that the cooled interstellar gas is continuously forming into a population of very low mass (brown dwarf) stars (Fabian, Nulsen & Canizares 1982). Such stars add mass but no light. We show here that if the cooled gas is optically dark, the fundamental plane for elliptical galaxies is likely to be perturbed beyond observed limits. Alternatively, if the mass to light ratio of the forming stars is not infinite but is comparable to that of the old stars, then some of the cosmic scatter or tilt of the fundamental plane from the virial plane could be due to the presence of this young stellar population. Support for a continuously forming, optically luminous stellar population in elliptical galaxies is provided by the nearly solar mass of neutral cores in interstellar clouds at which gravitational collapse first occurs, $`2`$ $`M_{}`$ (Mathews & Brighenti 1999a), and by the apparent young stellar ages of many elliptical galaxies based on the H$`\beta `$ photometric index (Worthey 1994; Worthey, Trager & Faber 1996; Trager 1997; Mathews & Brighenti 1999b).

In the following discussion, however, we adopt the usual hypothesis that newly forming stars in elliptical galaxies are optically dark. In this case radial variations in the total stellar mass to light ratio must occur. Furthermore, the total mass of cooled gas varies with galactic luminosity, resulting in rather profound excursions from the fundamental plane, evidently in violation of the remarkable thinness and regularity of this plane.

## 2 THE FUNDAMENTAL PLANE

If elliptical galaxies were perfectly homologous stellar systems with identical stellar populations, then the virial theorem $`\sigma _o^2=\kappa _v(M/r_e)=\kappa _v(L_V/r_e)(M/L_V)`$ would imply simple correlations among observable parameters. Here $`\sigma _o`$ is the “central” velocity dispersion, $`M`$ is the stellar (or galactic) mass, $`r_e`$ is the effective (half-light) radius and $`\kappa _v`$ is a constant of proportionality. The three observables – $`\sigma _o^2`$, $`L_V`$, and $`r_e`$ – define a homologous plane (HP) in this (logarithmic) three-dimensional parameter space. Instead, elliptical galaxies satisfy a different, slightly steeper fundamental plane (FP) relation $`\sigma _o^2(L_V/r_e)[r_e^{0.22}\sigma _o^{0.49}]`$, implying that $`\kappa _v(M/L_V)r_e^{0.22}\sigma _o^{0.49}M^{0.24}r_e^{0.02}L_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.32}r_e^{0.03}`$ (Dressler et al. 1987; Djorgovski & Davis 1987). In view of the importance of elliptical galaxies for $`D_n\sigma _o`$ distance determinations, considerable effort has gone into understanding the physical origins of the “tilt” of the FP relative to the HP.

Interpretations of this tilt are constrained by the regularity of the FP-HP deviation across the entire region observed and the remarkably small observational scatter ($`12`$%) about the FP relation (Renzini & Ciotti 1993). Generally, the FP-HP tilt has been interpreted as some combination of two limiting effects: either (1) stellar populations or dark matter contributions vary systematically across the FP so that $`M/L_VL_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.32}`$ or (2) homology fails so that $`\kappa _vL_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.32}`$. This relation depends mildly on photometric band (e.g. Scodeggio et al. 1998; Pahre & Djorgovski 1997).

Several types of stellar population variation (age, metallicity or IMF) have been considered along the FP (Renzini & Ciotti 1993; Pahre, Djorgovski & Carvalho 1995; Pahre & Djorgovski 1997). These attempts to interpret the FP-HP tilt have not been entirely successful since the FP is nearly invariant to observed wavelength over the $`BH`$ photometric bands. The small systematic wavelength trend of the FP slope is consistent with the color-magnitude relation for giant elliptical galaxies (Scodeggio et al 1998; Pahre, de Carvalho & Djorgovski 1998). Moreover, if the stellar population changes across the FP, differential stellar evolution can in some cases introduce a change in the FP slope at large redshifts, but no such effect has yet been observed. It is generally asserted that the full FP tilt cannot be understood solely by metallicity variations or changing stellar populations along the FP since this would require a high degree of fine tuning in the IMF. If $`M/L`$ is assumed to be constant with galactic radius, the mass to light ratios for elliptical galaxies found from dynamic models vary in a manner similar to the FP deviation, $`M/LL^{0.35\pm 0.05}`$ (van der Marel 1991).

A wide variety of non-homologous structural and/or kinematic models have been proposed to explain all or part of the FP-HP tilt (e.g., Capelato et al. 1995; Djorgovski 1995; Hjorth & Madsen 1995; Ciotti, Lanzoni & Renzini 1996). In these types of models the stellar $`M/L_V`$ does not vary so the FP tilt should be strictly independent of wavelength apart from mutually non-homologous stellar and dark matter distributions. Graham & Colless (1997) fit the stellar mass and light distribution with Sersic $`r^{1/n}`$ laws and note that $`n`$ increases with galactic mass (by $`24`$) in a non-homologous fashion across the FP. If these galaxies are mapped onto the FP with an $`r^{1/4}`$ law in the usual way, the resulting FP, $`r_e\sigma _o^{1.33\pm 0.10}\mathrm{\Sigma }_e^{0.79\pm 0.11}`$, tilts even further from the HP, $`r_e\sigma _o^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_e^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_eL/r_e^2`$ is the surface brightness. However, a dynamical non-homology must accompany a structural non-homology. Solving the Jeans equation for elliptical galaxies modeled with $`r^{1/n}`$ profiles (Ciotti 1991; Ciotti & Lanzoni 1997), Graham & Colless (1997) and Graham (1998) determine infinite-aperture $`\sigma _{tot,n}`$ which when fit to $`r^{1/n}`$ galaxies result in $`r_{e,n}\sigma _{tot,n}^{1.72\pm 0.24}\mathrm{\Sigma }_e^{0.74\pm 0.09}`$, which is somewhat closer to the HP. Busarello et al. (1997) consider a different dynamic non-homology based on partial rotational support within $`r_e`$. Using a modified $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ which incorporates both rotation and random velocities, they find that more than half of the FP-HP tilt is accounted for, $`r_e\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1.53\pm 0.2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_e^{0.92\pm 0.1}`$. Busarello et al. claim that the remaining discrepancy can be understood with spatial non-homology and stellar population differences (e.g. Prugniel & Simien 1997).

Another approach is the possibility that dark (halo) matter makes a variable contribution along the FP (Ciotti, Lanzoni, & Renzini 1996), resulting in the FP-HP tilt. However, these authors stress again the tightness of observational scatter about the FP so that any systematic trend in the dark matter content must be rather finely tuned. This high degree of coordination may seem unlikely if elliptical galaxies are produced by a variety of random mergers among stochastically different galaxies of lesser mass. The amount and radial distribution of dark halo matter in the centers of elliptical galaxies is complicated by the baryonic winds in first generation galaxies and the dissipational baryonic concentration expected as giant elliptical galaxies form by mergers; these counteracting effects respectively contract and expand the dark matter distribution relative to the baryonic stellar population.

There is at present no clear winner among the various explanations for the FP-HP tilt. Instead, a patchwork of small contributions – stellar population variations, rotational support and non-homology – are required to bring FP into agreement with HP (Ciotti, Lanzoni, & Renzini 1996: Prugniel & Simien 1997; Pahre, de Carvalho & Djorgovski 1998). However, there is no compelling reason why these quite different and presumably independent contributions should combine in a coordinated fashion to produce the full FP-HP tilt observed across the entire FP. Moreover, a multiplicity of coordinated explanations for the tilt, none entirely dominant, makes the tightness of the FP even more remarkable.

## 3 COOLING DROPOUT MASS AND LOW MASS STARS

In this paper we introduce a new complication to the FP-HP controversy: a variation in the dynamical $`M/L_B`$ with galactic mass due to the deposition of cooled interstellar gas in r
<re
<𝑟subscript𝑟𝑒r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}r_{e}. The importance of cooled gas in the galactic mass budget follows from the universality of hot interstellar gas in giant elliptical galaxies and the direct relationship of the cooled mass to the loss of energy implied by the observed X-ray emission $`L_x`$. For example, interstellar gas in the large Virgo elliptical galaxy NGC 4472 with temperature $`T1.3\times 10^7`$ K emits $`L_x(0.54.5\mathrm{keV})=4.5\times 10^{41}`$ ergs s-1 in the Einstein band. The bolometric X-ray luminosity, $`L_{x,bol}1.6L_x(0.54.5\mathrm{keV})`$, is the product of the mass cooling rate $`\dot{M}`$ and the specific enthalpy of the gas, therefore

$$\dot{M}=\left(\frac{2\mu m_p}{5kT}\right)L_{x,bol}2.5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(1)
Since $`L_x`$ was somewhat larger in the past, over a Hubble time $`34\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ of hot gas will have cooled. Although this amounts to only about $`510`$ percent of the total stellar mass in NGC 4472, $`M_t=4.73\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$, most of the cooled gas is likely to be deposited near the galactic center r
<re
<𝑟subscript𝑟𝑒r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}r_{e} where the hot gas density and X-ray emissivity are greatest and where its contribution to the dynamical $`M/L_B`$ determined from stellar velocity dispersions is most apparent. (In evaluating $`M_t`$ we assume $`M/L_B=6`$, as explained below.)

Although there is little doubt that interstellar cooling has occurred, two main questions must be addressed: (1) What is the final physical state of the cold gas? and (2) What is the radial distribution of the cooled mass in the galaxy? For many years it has been assumed that low mass stars are the most likely final state for cooled gas (e.g. Fabian, Nulsen & Canizares 1982). In a recent paper (Mathews & Brighenti 1999a) we describe how the hot interstellar gas cools (initially) to $`T10^4`$ K where it can be heated and ionized by stellar UV photons and made visible in optical emission lines. This first stage of cooling occurs at many ($`10^6`$) cooling sites distributed over the inner galaxy. However, when the radius of partially cooled gas at $`10^4`$ K exceeds the local Stromgren radius at a cooling site, a cold neutral atomic or molecular core forms with $`T_c15`$ K and $`n_c10^5`$ cm-3 in pressure equilibrium with the ambient hot interstellar gas. As the mass of the neutral core $`M_c`$ increases further, it becomes Jeans unstable when $`M_c12`$ $`M_{}`$ so only stars of this or lower mass can form from the available gas (Ferland, Fabian & Johnstone 1994; Mathews & Brighenti 1999a). Cooling gas is processed within HII cooling site clouds with star-forming cold cores in time scales ($`10^5`$ years) that are short compared to their hydrodynamic disruption times in the cooling flow atmosphere (Mathews & Brighenti 1999a). The high efficiency of low mass star formation nicely accounts for the absence of observable cold HI or molecular gas in large elliptical galaxies, e.g. for NGC 4472 $`M_{HI}+M_{H2}<10^7`$ $`M_{}`$. We conclude that two stellar populations coexist in giant elliptical galaxies: an old luminous stellar component with an IMF similar to Salpeter, and a second population of low mass stars continuously forming from the interstellar medium and having a bottom heavy IMF. Although the detailed character of this second IMF is unknown, for the purposes of the following discussion we adopt the usual assumption that it is restricted to very low masses, i.e. its mass to light ratio is essentially infinite.

The second question – concerning the radial distribution of cooled gas mass – can be answered in an approximate way by comparing hydrodynamic models with the radial properties of interstellar gas observed in X-rays. The production of low mass stars at many distributed sites can only occur if the interstellar gas is inhomogeneous. Radiative cooling is locally enhanced in regions of low entropy (low $`T`$, high density $`n`$). As gas in the galactic cooling flow slowly proceeds inward, regions of progressively higher entropy cool at smaller galactic radii; regions having low entropy cool further from the galactic centers. Distributed H$`\alpha `$ \+ \[NII\] line emission observed in the central regions of giant elliptical galaxies illuminate the cooling sites where this process is occurring. Interstellar entropy variations can be created by a variety of complex events: stellar disturbances (e.g. stellar winds or Type Ia supernovae), interactions with merging dwarf galaxies or differential Type II supernova heating in the early universe during the earliest phases of star formation. Because of our poor understanding of these interstellar entropy fluctuations, it is not possible to determine from first principles where most of the hot gas cools and deposits its mass into low mass stars, although the observed optical line emission is a visible tracer of this process. The best currently available means of setting limits on the radial distribution of cooling gas in elliptical galaxies is to compare the observed radial distribution of interstellar X-ray emission with the computed X-ray emission from gas-dynamic models for the cooling flow gas in which cooling dropout is assumed to occur according to various radial prescriptions. We have recently computed a series of models for the large elliptical galaxy NGC 4472 with a variety of assumed mass dropout functions (Brighenti & Mathews 2000a). In the following section we describe the cooling dropout properties of models that best fit the X-ray observations, then we discuss the implications of this dropout mass for the fundamental plane.

## 4 DESCRIPTION OF HYDRODYNAMICAL MODELS

In view of the uncertainty concerning the cooling dropout, in our gas dynamical models of galactic cooling flows we parameterize the radial mass dropout of cooling gas by introducing an adjustable sink term in the equation of continuity,

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{}{r}\left(r^2\rho u\right)=\alpha \rho _{}q(r)\frac{\rho }{t_{do}}.$$
(2)
Here $`\rho (r,t)`$ and $`u(r,t)`$ are the gas density and velocity in the cooling flow. The sink term for cooling flow dropout is characterized by a dimensionless parameter $`q(r)`$ and $`t_{do}=5m_pkT/2\mu \rho \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the time for gas at temperature $`T(r,t)`$ to cool locally by radiative losses at constant pressure (see, e.g. Sarazin & Ashe 1989). The source term $`\alpha (t)\rho _{}(r)`$ represents the rate that interstellar gas is supplied by stellar mass loss from the old stellar population having density $`\rho _{}(r)`$. Since $`\alpha (t)(M/L_B)^1`$ for a wide range of power law IMFs, the total stellar mass ejected $`\alpha (t)M_{}𝑑t`$ is nearly identical for elliptical galaxies with the same $`L_B`$ but different IMFs (Brighenti & Mathews 2000a). Following the approach in Brighenti & Mathews (2000a), we consider galactic cooling flow models for NGC 4472 using a parameterized dropout coefficient

$$q(r)=q_o\mathrm{exp}(r/r_{do})^m$$
(3)
where $`q_o`$, $`r_{do}`$ and $`m`$ are adjustable parameters. For all sets of dropout parameters considered we found that the total dropout mass in r
<re/3
<𝑟subscript𝑟𝑒3r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}r_{e}/3 is a substantial fraction (0.10 - 0.35) of the mass of luminous stars in this region. The radial distribution of the dropout mass, assumed to remain at the cooling site, does not follow the space density corresponding to the de Vaucouleurs light profile.

If low mass stars formed from cooling dropout contribute mass but no appreciable light, the hypothesis that we want to test, it follows that the intrinsic “stellar” mass to light ratio of the luminous stellar population in NGC 4472 must be somewhat lower than values determined from the observed motion of luminous stars: $`M/L_B9.2`$ (van der Marel 1991) or $`M/L_B10.3`$ (Faber et al. 1997). The most satisfactory mass dropout coefficients $`q(r)`$ generate hydrodynamic solutions for the interstellar gas at the current time ($`t_n=13`$ Gyrs) that reproduce best the observed X-ray image of NGC 4472. Using this approach, we find that the dynamical mass to light ratio in successful hydrodynamic models requires a somewhat lower intrinsic mass to light ratio for the luminous stars $`M/L_B6`$. For the low mass dropout stellar population we assume $`(M/L_B)_{do}=\mathrm{}`$.

Ideally, it would be desirable to determine if the same (or appropriately scaled) mass dropout coefficient $`q(r)`$ used in gas dynamical models for elliptical galaxies of varying $`L_B`$, spread across the fundamental plane, can fit the observed X-ray surface brightness distributions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x(R)`$ in these same galaxies. Unfortunately, at the present pre-Chandra time sufficiently accurate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x(R)`$ are known only for several bright elliptical galaxies in Virgo (e.g., Trinchieri, Fabbiano & Canizares 1986), all having similar $`L_B`$. Approximate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x(R)`$ distributions are available only for about a dozen elliptical galaxies altogether (Mathews & Brighenti 1998a). In addition, emission from low mass binary stars begins to dominate the X-ray luminosity in elliptical galaxies several times less luminous than NGC 4472, masking the X-ray emission from the cooling flows. Finally, even though $`L_xL_B^2`$ approximately holds among brighter elliptical galaxies, there is an enormous spread in values of $`L_x`$ for given $`L_B`$. We believe that most of this spread is due to environmental interactions: (i) tidal exchange of halo hot gas (and dark matter) in the group environments in which these elliptical galaxies formed (Mathews & Brighenti 1998b) or (ii) ram pressure stripping.

With these difficulties in mind, we chose instead to explore the relative influence of optically dark interstellar dropout not directly on the FP but on a homologous galactic plane (HP) that is scaled from NGC 4472 for which good X-ray observations are available. We consider a sequence of three massive elliptical galaxies, NGC 4472 and two similar model galaxies, 4472/4 and 4472/16, having optical luminosities $`L_B`$ that are respectively 4 and 16 times less than NGC 4472. To explore only the structural non-homology caused by cooling dropout, we also assume that the old stellar population is invariant along our HP, i.e. its $`M/L_B`$ is constant. For perfect homology we also require that the mass and scale radius of the dark halo distribution scale with the baryonic mass. Finally, we solve for the evolution of hot gas in each galaxy along the HP using identical (or scaled) parameters ($`q_o`$, $`r_{do}`$ and $`m`$) that give good agreement with the X-ray observations for NGC 4472, $`T(r,t_n)`$ and $`n(r,t_n)`$; this procedure is described in more detail in Brighenti & Mathews (2000a). By this means we can determine the differential, non-homologous distribution of optically dark dropout mass and assess the deviation of these three idealized galaxies from the HP relation. We expect that these deviations from the HP are similar to deviations of galaxies of similar $`L_B`$ from the local FP. If our procedure were perfectly correct – i.e., elliptical galaxies are exactly homologous and contain identical old stellar populations – we would find that the non-homology introduced by cooling dropout would explain the “tilt” of the observed FP from the HP. Unfortunately, this goal has not yet been achieved.

For perfect homology and simplicity we assume that 4472 and its two clones of lower mass are spherical with de Vaucouleurs stellar profiles and scaled NFW dark halos (Navarro, Frenk, & White 1996). The effective radius of NGC 4472 is $`r_e=8.57`$ kpc (for distance $`d=17`$ Mpc) and its total (old) stellar mass is $`M_{,t}=4.73\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$, based on $`M/L_B=6`$. The NFW halo in NGC 4472 has a virial mass of $`M_{h,vir}=4\times 10^{13}`$ $`M_{}`$. These parameters give a good fit to the X-ray mass profile of NGC 4472 assuming hydrostatic equilibrium although the NFW profile is found to be somewhat too centrally peaked (Brighenti & Mathews 2000a). For the smaller comparison galaxies (4472/4 and 4472/16) we choose identical stellar parameters but scale the size of the stellar distribution downward by $`4^{0.793}=0.333`$ or $`16^{0.793}=0.111`$ where the exponent is found from the observed $`M_V`$-$`r_e`$ relation for massive elliptical galaxies, $`r_eL_V^{0.793}L_B^{0.793}`$, (Faber et al. 1997). The virial mass of the NFW halos for the smaller galaxies are reduced by 4 or 16 and the scale radius for these halos varies as $`r_sM_{h,vir}^{0.457}`$, as required by our chosen cosmology for which the NFW concentration varies as $`cM_{h,vir}^{0.123}`$ (Navarro, Frenk, & White 1996).

As explained in more detail elsewhere (Brighenti & Mathews 1999a), our gas dynamical models begin with an overdensity in a simple Einstein-de Sitter cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, and $`H_o=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1) toward which baryonic and dark matter are gravitationally attracted. Galactic stars are assumed to form at time $`t_s=1`$ Gyr and, soon afterwards, Type II supernova energy based on a Salpeter IMF (slope: $`x=1.35`$, mass limits: $`m_{\mathrm{}}=0.08`$ and $`m_u=100`$ $`M_{}`$) heats the ambient gas within the accretion shock with 80 percent efficiency (see Brighenti & Mathews 1999a for details). At $`t_{}=2`$ Gyrs the de Vaucouleurs stellar profile and potential is constructed, simulating the results of mergers. For this approximate exploration we ignore the possibility that elliptical galaxies of lower luminosity may have formed slightly earlier. In some models we allow the secondary inflow of cosmic gas to continue throughout the calculation. For comparison, in other models we ignore the secondary infall entirely, crudely simulating a tidal truncation and removal of halo material in a relatively dense group of newly formed galaxies, a process more likely in elliptical galaxies of moderate or low mass.

## 5 RESULTS

In Table 1 we list the main results of a variety of hydrodynamic cooling flow models for 4472, 4472/4 and 4472/16 with various assumed dropout parameters and assumed amounts of accumulated cosmic gas. Of particular interest are the mass to light ratios evaluated at $`r_e/3`$ and at a fixed distance of 480 pc from the galactic centers. Recall that $`M/L_B=6`$ is assumed for the luminous stars in all three galaxies and that the observed value for NGC 4472 is $`9.2`$ (van der Marel 1991) or $`10.3`$ (Faber et al. 1997). Models in which the (stellar plus dropout) mass to light ratio for NGC 4472 falls in the range $`M/L_B8.511`$ can be regarded as reasonably successful. However, the $`M/L_B(r_e/3)`$ entries in Table 1 are enhanced by about 15 percent due to a small amount of NFW dark halo material in this region. Since our fits to the X-ray surface brightness of NGC 4472 are improved if the dark halo is less centrally peaked than NFW (also see Kravtsov et al. 1998; Burkert & Silk 1997; Navarro & Steinmetz 2000), we believe that its contribution to $`M/L_B`$ in this region should be removed. Therefore, for comparison with $`M/L_B(r_e/3)`$ values in Table 1 which contain this NFW excess, the range of acceptable models for NGC 4472 should be revised upward to $`M/L_B(r_e/3)9.812.6`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{log}[M/L_B(r_e/3)]=0.991.10`$). Values of $`M/L_B`$ at 480 pc may be more relevant for comparison with $`M/L_B`$ determinations that are often based on stellar velocity dispersions measured within a fixed aperture of a few arcseconds about the galactic centers.

In cooling flows without distributed dropout ($`q_o=0`$) the flow proceeds entirely to the origin before cooling and the mass to light ratios at 480 pc greatly exceed observed values for 4472 – such models can certainly be rejected. Evolutionary gas dynamic models with uniform $`q_o=1`$ at all radii and with dropout parameters ($`q_o,r_{do},m`$) = (4, 2 kpc, 1) both fit the observed distribution of interstellar gas temperature and density in NGC 4472 reasonably well at the present time ($`t_n=13`$ Gyrs) as illustrated in Figure 1. While the agreement in Figure 1 is acceptable, it is by no means perfect. The apparent gas density (enhanced by dropout emission) exceeds observed densities in the central regions (r
<3
<𝑟3r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}3 kpc) of NGC 4472, suggesting that some additional non-thermal support is present; NGC 4472 has a weak extended radio source in this region with an appreciable equipartition pressure (Ekers & Kolanyi 1978). At large galactic radii (r
>10
>𝑟10r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}10 kpc) our models in Figure 1 are slightly lower than the azimuthally-averaged values observed in NGC 4472; this density mismatch can be corrected with small changes in the galaxy formation time $`t_{}`$ or the efficiency of SNII energy release (Brighenti & Mathews 1999a). However, our interest here is not to achieve absolute perfection in fitting the observations of NGC 4472, but to make a differential comparison of 4472 with its less massive, homologous clones; 4472/4 and 4472/16. The additional model with stronger but uniform dropout $`q=q_o=4`$, also included in Table 1, results in apparent gas temperatures at $`t_n=13`$ Gys that are considerably lower than those observed (Brighenti & Mathews 2000a); this is due to enhanced X-ray emission from cooling regions throughout the cooling flow.

Several interesting details are apparent in Table 1. Since the dropout mass is deposited non-homologously, the dynamic mass to light ratio varies with galactic radius, i.e. $`M(r_e/3)/L_BM(480\mathrm{pc})/L_B`$. Even when the dropout parameters are scaled homologously from 4472 \[($`q_o,r_{do},m`$) = (4, 2 kpc, 1)\] to 4472/4 \[($`q_o,r_{do},m`$) = (4, 0.667 kpc, 1)\], the resulting $`M/L_B`$ are not equal, i.e. dropout does not scale homologously. Some models in Table 1 were performed with no additional secondary infall gas following the time $`t_{}`$ of galaxy formation (NO in column 5). This procedure is justified by the strong correlation of normalized X-ray sizes $`r_{ex}/r_e`$ with $`L_x/L_B`$ noted by Mathews & Brighenti (1998). We explained this correlation with models of tidally truncated galactic dark halos and (mostly secondary infallen) halo gas in smaller galaxies and the transfer of this material to halos of more massive, centrally located elliptical galaxies, a process which is dynamically expected in galaxy groups where elliptical galaxies are formed. The removal of secondary infallen halo gas is therefore more relevant to 4472/4 and 4472/16 than for 4472 (which may have acquired additional halo gas from neighboring galaxies); note that this late arriving cosmic gas also has a larger influence on $`M/L_B`$ for the smaller galaxies.

The non-homologous dropout behavior listed in Table 1 is illustrated in Figure 2 in which the 4472 $``$ 4472/4 $``$ 4472/16 variation of $`M/L_B(r_e/3)`$ and $`M/L_B(480\mathrm{pc})`$ are plotted for each model. The local fundamental plane, $`M/L_BL_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }`$, shown with dashed lines, has a slope $`\beta =0.24`$ that is intermediate between values for the B-band FP taken from Jorgensen, Franx, & Kjaergaard (1996) and Scodeggio et al. (1998). The dashed lines are normalized to $`M/L_B=9.2`$ (from van der Marel 1991; long dashed line) and $`M/L_B=10.3`$ (from Faber et al. 1997; short dashed line) respectively. The asterisks show the constant stellar $`M/L_B=6`$ assumed for luminous stars in all three galaxy models. Clearly, none of the model pairs exhibit a variation of $`M/L_B(r_e/3)`$ as steep as the FP relation, but the dropout contribution to the FP slope is nevertheless consequential at this radius. However, the variation of $`M/L_B`$ at $`r=480`$ pc for the $`q_o=1`$ models follows the fundamental plane quite accurately over the range of $`L_B`$ between 4472 and 4472/4. Note that the pair of variable dropout models with homologously scaled parameters \[$`(q_o,r_{do},m)=(4,2\mathrm{kpc},1)`$ for 4472 and $`(q_o,r_{do},m)=(4,0.667\mathrm{kpc},1)`$ for 4472/4\] produce $`M/L_B(480)`$ that vary in a sense opposite to the FP trend, but only when all cosmic gas from secondary infall is included. Our mass to light values for 4472 may be lower limits since we have not considered models in which unusually massive galaxies receive more than their cosmological allotment of halo material by tidal acquisitions from less massive, unmerged group galaxies.

The constant $`q=q_o=1`$ models can explain much of the FP tilt in 4472 $``$ 4472/4 with or without secondary infall. However, when extended to 4472/16, values of $`M/L_B(480)`$ clearly exceed the fundamental plane for all models. While the dropout contribution to $`M/L_B(480)`$ in the $`q=1`$ model (without cosmic inflow) decreases with $`L_B`$ over the range of 16 shown in Figure 2 (i.e. vertical distance between open squares and asterisks), the dropout mass does not disappear entirely for the 4472/16 model. In fact the assumed $`M/L_B=6`$ for the luminous stars alone (asterisks in Fig. 2) also lies above the FP for 4472/16. Within the framework of our optically dark dropout assumption, this indicates that an independent variation of $`M/L_B`$ for the old stars would be required in addition to that provided by the dropout. Results shown in the upper panel of Figure 2 suggest that the FP could be fit over the full 4472 $``$ 4472/16 range if we had chosen a somewhat lower value of $`M/L_B`$ for the luminous stars, but the X-ray data for NGC 4472 become difficult to fit if M/LB
<4
<𝑀subscript𝐿𝐵4M/L_{B}\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}4.

However, dynamically significant galactic rotation is expected for elliptical galaxies having B-band luminosities less than that of 4472/4, $`2\times 10^{10}`$ $`L_{B,}`$, which lies near the transition between massive, boxy elliptical galaxies with cores and low mass, rotationally supported, disky elliptical galaxies with power law profiles (Faber et al. 1997). Rotation can reduce the mass dropout in smaller galaxies since the cooled gas will be deposited in a relatively larger galactic volume, reducing $`M/L`$ values for 4472/16 in Figure 2. Although the excess interstellar density in our models within 1 - 3 kpc (Figure 1) can be understood in terms of $`100\mu `$G magnetic fields, it could also indicate that we have somewhat overestimated the gas density in this region and also the mass of cooled gas.

Perhaps the best resolution of the large $`M/L`$ in our models of 4472/16 would be to allow some of the cooled gas to form a luminous stellar population. Using this assumption, we have shown that the anomalously low ages for bright elliptical galaxies found from observations of the H$`\beta `$ photometric index (e.g., Trager 1997) can be quite naturally produced by a young population with a Salpeter IMF extending up to $`2`$ $`M_{}`$ but no further (Mathews & Brighenti 1999a). In models having luminous dropout stars, about 10 percent of the optical light is produced by the young stars. The stellar disk component characteristic of rotating, low luminosity elliptical galaxies (Rix, Carollo, & Freeman 1999), can be formed from younger cooling dropout stars (Brighenti & Mathews 1997b), and there is some evidence that these galaxies also have enhanced H$`\beta `$ indices (de Jong & Davies 1997).

In our models we determine the detailed radial variation of the mass to light ratio within $`r_e`$; this variation depends most sensitively on our choice of $`q(r)`$. In general, optical observations of stellar velocity dispersion profiles cannot determine the detailed variation of $`M/L`$ with radius within $`r_e`$. Only with considerable effort have observers been able to detect the presence of dark matter at r
>re
>𝑟subscript𝑟𝑒r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}r_{e} (e.g., Carollo et al. 1995; Rix et al. 1997), although this dark matter is immediately apparent from X-ray observations (e.g. Brighenti & Mathews 1997a). The insensitivity of optical observations to the detailed radial variation of $`M/L`$ is probably due to the generic stellar orbital bias toward radial anisotropy in r
<re
<𝑟subscript𝑟𝑒r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}r_{e}; this results in $`M/L`$ determinations that more nearly represent orbital averages rather than local values.

For completeness, in the final column of Table 1 we list the ROSAT X-ray luminosity of each of our models. In general our results are slightly flatter than the observed trend for luminous elliptical galaxies, $`L_xL_B^p`$ with $`p2`$, in which the X-ray emission is interstellar (e.g. Eskridge, Fabbiano & Kim 1995). However, we have shown elsewhere (Mathews & Brighenti 1998) that $`L_x/L_B`$ correlates with the size of the X-ray image and that this correlation can be explained by the tidal transfer of halo material in galaxy groups from subordinate elliptical galaxies to the dominant central elliptical in the group. Galactic rotation can also influence $`L_x/L_B`$. Because of these environmental influences, the values of $`L_x`$ in Table 1 should not be regarded as a strong test of a particular model.

## 6 FINAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS

The full extent of the fundamental plane for elliptical galaxies spans a range of $`L_B`$ about $`3`$ times greater than the factor of 16 shown in Figure 2 (Burstein et al. 1997). Maintaining the FP-HP tilt over this larger range would be difficult if cooling dropout is an important contributor of dark mass. Nevertheless, the presence of appreciable dropout mass seems unavoidable.

The total mass of cooled interstellar gas present in elliptical galaxies could be reduced by supernova-driven galactic winds or by the formation of stars that have since evolved. For our models we assume a Type Ia rate SNu$`(t)=`$ SNu$`(t_n)`$$`(t_n/t)^p`$ supernovae per 100 years per $`10^{10}`$ $`L_B`$ with $`p=1`$ and SNu$`(t_n)=0.03`$ (Brighenti & Mathews 2000a). Winds produced by more numerous Type Ia supernovae at early times (i.e. p
>1.3
>𝑝1.3p\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 3.0pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}1.3) cannot be invoked to expel some of the dropout material from galaxies like 4472/4 or 4472/16 since these same higher Type Ia rates in more massive galaxies would greatly overproduce iron in the current interstellar gas, in violation of X-ray observations. Our value SNu$`(t_n)=0.03`$ was chosen to be consistent with the low interstellar iron abundances for elliptical galaxies reported in most of the recent literature, zFe,ism
<0.4
<subscript𝑧𝐹𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚0.4z_{Fe,ism}\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}0.4 solar (e.g., Tanaka et al. 1994). If the abundances are more nearly solar (Buote 1999), as is likely, then a proportionally larger SNu$`(t_n)`$ is indicated; this can result in galactic winds in the 4472/16 model at late times $`tt_n`$. Therefore, the total mass of interstellar gas that cools can be reduced by SNII-driven galactic outflow at early times (when most of the dropout occurs) and (less efficiently) by SNIa-driven outflow at late times. However, the large $`L_x`$ observed in virtually all bright elliptical galaxies clearly rules out ongoing galactic winds in these galaxies. The current amount of dropout mass could also be reduced if the IMF of the forming stars was more luminous in the past (i.e. more massive stars). While none of these means of reducing the dropout mass is securely understood, some significant mass of cooled gas must be present. The large mass of cooled interstellar gas expected within $`r_e`$ together with the alarming number of possible ways of enhancing or moderating the amount of cooled gas makes the coherency and tightness of the FP quite baffling.

Our main objective in presenting these results is to emphasize the importance of cooling dropout mass to the FP-HP controversy. The results that we have shown here are based on the commonly held assumption that only optically dark stars of very low mass can form in cooling flows. However, optically dark dropout by itself appears to be an unpromising explanation for the full FP tilt, although with some well chosen parameters that might be possible. What we see in Figure 2 is an unwelcome and quite unaesthetic disturbance of the $`M/L`$ relation, one that involves the uncertain physics of star formation and the origin of entropy fluctuations in the hot gas.

Nevertheless, the mass contribution from cooled interstellar gas cannot be dismissed by those concerned with the deviation of the fundamental plane from a truly homologous plane. Like other effects proposed to explain the FP-HP discrepancy, if the cooling dropout mass is a dominant contributor, the mass dropout must vary in a smooth, regular fashion across the FP, proportional to some power of $`L_B`$. Such regularity could conceivably result from the similar profiles of interstellar gas density and temperature observed in the central regions of elliptical galaxies (r
<re
<𝑟subscript𝑟𝑒r\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\displaystyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\textstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\halign{$\mathsurround 0pt\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#\hfil$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}r_{e}), provided the entropy fluctuations are also similar. Our apparent success in explaining the the anomalously young ages of elliptical galaxies indicated by the H$`\beta `$ index from an optically luminous dropout stellar population (Mathews & Brighenti 1999b) strongly suggests that a better match to the FP-HP tilt could be achieved if the optically dark assumption used here is relaxed. In this case the IMF of the continuously forming stars is likely to extend to higher maximum masses in elliptical galaxies of lower $`L_B`$ because of the lower interstellar pressure in low luminosity elliptical galaxies.

Studies of the evolution of hot gas in elliptical galaxies at UC Santa Cruz is supported by grants from NASA and the NSF for which we are very grateful. In addition FB is supported in part by Grant MURST-Cofin 98.


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

Comment on “Solution of Classical Stochastic One-Dimensional Many-Body Systems”

In a recent Letter, Bares and Mobilia proposed the method to find solutions of the stochastic evolution operator $`H=H_0+\frac{\gamma }{L}H_1`$ with a non-trivial quartic term $`H_1`$. They claim, “Because of the conservation of probability, an analog of the Wick theorem applies and all multipoint correlation functions can be computed.” Using the Wick theorem, they expressed the density correlation functions as solutions of a closed set of integro-differential equations.

In this Comment, however, we show that applicability of Wick theorem is restricted to the case $`\gamma =0`$ only. To discuss this point, let us consider the generating function of correlation functions $`Z[\xi ;t]\stackrel{~}{\chi }|\mathrm{exp}[_q\xi _qa_q]e^{Ht}|\rho `$ introduced by Santos et al. Here $`a_q(a_q^{})`$ is a $`q`$-mode annihilation (creation) operator and $`\xi _q`$ is a Grassmann number with anticommutation relations $`\{\xi _q,a_p^{}\}=\{\xi _q,a_p\}=\{\xi _q,\xi _p\}=0`$ for all momentum indices $`p,q`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|`$ and $`|\rho `$ are the left vacuum and the initial state, respectively, belonging to the even sector of Hilbert space. For the initial state considered in Ref., the generating function $`Z`$ is

$$Z[\xi ;0]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{q>0}{}\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{cot}(\frac{q}{2})}{1+\mu ^2\mathrm{cot}^2(\frac{q}{2})}\xi _q\xi _q\right]$$
(1)
with $`\mu \rho /(1\rho )`$ . As mentioned in Ref. , the Wick theorem at $`t=0`$ follows from the Gaussian form of the generating function. The applicability of Wick theorem for later time can be tested by checking that the generating function is a Gaussian for later time or not.

Now let us suppose that $`Z`$ be a Gaussian with the form $`Z[\xi ;t_0]=\mathrm{exp}[_{q>0}f(q,t_0)\xi _q\xi _q]`$ at time $`t=t_0`$. For simplicity we assume that $`f`$ is an odd function of $`q`$ as in Eq.(1). After an infinitesimal time increment $`dt`$, the generating function becomes $`Z[\xi ;t_0+dt]=Z[\xi ;t_0]+dt\stackrel{~}{\chi }|[H,e^{_q\xi _qa_q}]e^{Ht_0}|\rho ,`$ where $`[,]`$ denotes the usual commutation relation and we use the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|H=0`$. Using the property of the left vacuum ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }|a_q^{}=\mathrm{cot}(\frac{q}{2})\stackrel{~}{\chi }|a_q`$, see Ref.) and the commutation relations $`[a_q^{},\zeta ]=\xi _q\zeta ,[a_q,\zeta ]=0,`$ ($`\zeta \mathrm{exp}[_q\xi _qa_q]`$), we obtain the time evolution of the generating function. In the absence of the quartic term (i.e. $`\gamma =0`$), the generating function evolves as

$`Z[\xi ;t_0+dt]=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \underset{q>0}{}}\xi _q\xi _q\times `$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`[f(q,t_0)dt(\nu (q)+\overline{\nu }(q))f(q,t_0)+2ϵdt\mathrm{sin}q]\},`$ (3)
where $`\nu (q)=\omega (q)+2ϵ\mathrm{sin}q\mathrm{cot}(\frac{q}{2})`$. This implies that $`Z`$ remains a Gaussian at later time, if $`Z[\xi ;0]`$ is a Gaussian (see Eq.(1)). As a byproduct, we obtain a differential equation (DE) for $`f`$. Since the DE for $`f`$ preserves the parity in $`q`$, $`f`$ is an odd function for all $`t`$. In the presence of the quartic term (i.e. $`\gamma 0`$), however, the situation should be modified significantly. After performing the commutation relation between quartic term and $`\zeta `$, we find

$`Z[\xi ;t_0]^1\stackrel{~}{\chi }|[H_1,\zeta ]e^{Ht_0}|\rho =2{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}(\mathrm{cos}q\mathrm{cos}p1)\mathrm{cot}({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}})\xi _q\xi _qf(p,t_0)f(q,t_0)+2{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}\mathrm{sin}q\mathrm{sin}p\mathrm{cot}({\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}})\xi _q\xi _qf(q,t_0)f(p,t_0)`$ (4)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\mathrm{sin}pf(p,t_0)\right]\left[{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{sin}q\xi _q\xi _q\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4}{}}\mathrm{cos}(q_1+q_3)\delta (q_1+q_2+q_3+q_4)f(q_3,t_0)f(q_4,t_0)\xi _{q_1}\xi _{q_2}\xi _{q_3}\xi _{q_4}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4}{}}[\mathrm{cos}(q_2+q_3)\mathrm{cos}(q_1+q_3)]\delta (q_1+q_2+q_3+q_4)\mathrm{cot}({\displaystyle \frac{q_1}{2}})f(q_1,t_0)f(q_3,t_0)f(q_4,t_0)\xi _{q_1}\xi _{q_2}\xi _{q_3}\xi _{q_4}.`$ (6)
Although $`Z[\xi ;t_0]`$ is a Gaussian initially, the quartic terms in Eq.(6) prevent it from remaining a Gaussian at later time, thus break the Wick theorem.

If we ignore the quartic term in the generating function, we indeed find the integro-differential equation of $`g(q,t)`$($`f(q,t)\mathrm{cot}(\frac{q}{2})`$) as given by Eq.(7) in Ref.. Therefore, it may be considered as a Hartree-Fock type approximation. Since the quartic term is irrelevant in the model considered, Eq. (7) in Ref. predicts the correct (leading) long time behavior of the density and the correlation function. However, for the systems with the relevant non-quadratic terms in the evolution operator, the validity of the method proposed in Ref. is doubtful.

This work was supported by the KOSEF through Grant No. 981-0202-008-2 and by CTP at SNU.

Su-Chan Park1, Jeong-Man Park2 and Doochul Kim1

1 Department of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

2 Department of Physics, The Catholic University of Korea, Puchon, Korea


text:
# Moduli fields and brane tensions: generalizing the junction conditions

## 1 Introduction

The gravitational interaction is by many orders of magnitude the weakest of all known interactions. The Planck length $`l_P`$, related to Newton’s constant through $`l_P=\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^3}`$, is $`10^{12}`$ smaller than the smallest length scale explored with standard-model physics, and is more than $`10^{32}`$ smaller than the length scales probed by direct gravitational experiments. It is commonly believed that the classical geometrical picture with which we interpret large-scale physics must at some stage be abandoned as we approach smaller and smaller scales, but when and how this exactly happens is a matter of much debate. In the usual scenario we might think of the Planck length as a fundamental cutoff scale and carry the 4-dimensional geometric picture down to (say) some hundreds of Planck lengths, at which stage we would presumably enter the domain of pure quantum gravity.

A radically different possibility which has recently attracted much attention is that there might already be observable deviations from this usual scenario at sub-millimetre distances. In the “large extra dimensions” scenario the geometry of spacetime is the product of our usual 4-dimensional spacetime times some relatively large but mathematically compact extra dimensions , giving rise to a rich phenomenology at low energies. (At even smaller scales this geometrical multi-dimensional continuum would melt into a more fundamental quantum gravity theory, such as for instance string theory.) In this scenario the Planck length would be an effective scale derived from the more fundamental electroweak scale, and the hierarchy problem (between these energy scales) would be translated into a hierarchy between the fundamental and the compactification scales. In this approach, the standard-model fields in our 4-dimensional hypersurface would not be part of a standard Kaluza–Klein reduction . (See also  for a survey of other older non-standard Kaluza–Klein proposals.)

Another possibility with similar phenomenological richness which, moreover, avoids the new hierarchy problem left over by the previous approach, is the “brane world” scenario. Randall and Sundrum recently proposed that the extra dimensions could be non-compact provided that they were sufficiently “warped” . (For similar suggestions, see also  and . Considerably older precursors to the idea of non-compact extra dimensions can be found in  and .) Inspired by string theory, Randall and Sundrum proposed than we live on a 3-brane \[(3+1)-dimensional hypersurface\] evolving in a (4+1)-dimensional anti-de Sitter bulk. Everything is confined to live on the brane, except for gravity itself. To “weakly trap” gravity the specific form of the spacetime geometry provides a normalizable Kaluza–Klein zero mode, corresponding to a 4-dimensional graviton (trapped near but not on the brane), plus a continuum of massive Kaluza–Klein graviton modes modifying the gravitational interaction at small distance scales (scales comparable with the warp length).

Within this brane world scenario much work has been done analyzing the effective gravity induced on the brane . From a cosmological perspective, it has been demonstrated that we can recover a Friedmann-like evolution for the late brane world if there is a large negative cosmological constant in the bulk and a large positive intrinsic tension on the brane. These are carefully arranged to counteract each other, and so leave a small (possibly zero) effective cosmological constant . In the early brane world, when the energy density of matter fields reaches values of the order of the brane tension, the cosmological evolution will be modified giving place to a polynomial inflation . From a more general point of view, the circumstances under which it is possible to recover standard general relativity on the brane have been studied, and possible modifications to the standard picture have been analyzed .

It is important to realize that apart from gravity itself there could be other fields not constrained to live on the brane. By considering the low-energy field theory limit of string theory one can deduce the existence of a plethora of bulk fields: primarily the dilaton field and the torsion field, but generically there will also be many moduli fields (corresponding to “soggy” deformations of the six-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold that is also part of these string-induced scenarios). Also, adopting a modification of more conventional Kaluza–Klein ideas, it is possible that our 4-dimensional (light) standard-model fields might be the reduction to 4 dimensions of some 5-dimensional fields with Planck scale masses, with the effective 4-dimensional mass being greatly suppressed compared to the more fundamental 5-dimensional mass parameter . Thus it is important to understand the role that additional bulk fields might play in the brane world scenario.

For instance, the existence of scalar fields in the bulk could provide an answer to the cosmological constant problem  (for early ideas on this subject, see ). For arbitrary values of the brane tension (an intrinsic vacuum energy density) there exist solutions of gravity plus a dilaton scalar field which lead to zero bulk cosmological constant, and are compatible with a 4-dimensional Poincare invariant brane world . (This implies a vanishing effective cosmological constant for the brane evolution.) In these solutions the warp factor becomes zero at a finite proper distance from the brane in the extra dimension and so it is “effectively compactified” leaving standard 4-dimensional gravity for large scales.

In the models considered to date the bulk scalar fields have no direct coupling to the bulk scalar curvature. In the case of the dilaton field this is accomplished by working in the Einstein frame and not in the (perhaps more natural) string frame. There are many interesting scalar fields theories that cannot easily be dealt with in the current approach, such as the Brans–Dicke theory (and more generically, scalar-tensor theories), non-minimally coupled scalars, or the dilaton field in the string frame. In this paper we will work out a formalism to deal with a large class of scalar field theories in arbitrary frames, by allowing arbitrary couplings to the bulk curvature scalar.

In section 2, we will review the Israel–Lanczos–Sen thin-shell formalism , obtaining the junction conditions in an easy to generalize manner by beginning directly from the gravitational action. This method will be then be applied the case in which several very general scalar fields interact with gravity. We will obtain generalized junction conditions for these systems. In sections 3 and 4 we will discuss these new junction conditions. We will see that these junction conditions are now much more complicated than the usual ones, and that many intuitive arguments involving brane tensions no longer work. The point is that the insertion of a “kink” in the geometry, achieved by inserting a thin shell of stress-energy, now gives a contribution to the formation of a “kink” in the scalar field configuration. *Vice-versa*, the presence of a “kink” in the scalar field now makes a contribution to the formation of a “kink” in the geometry. Finally, in section 5 we summarize our results and try to put things in perspective.

## 2 Action principle and junction conditions

We are interested in geometries in $`n`$ spacetime dimensions that have an internal hypersurface of co-dimension one on which there is no well defined notion of tangent plane. The derivatives of the metric, with respect to a proper normal coordinate across the hypersurface, undergo a jump on passing through it. We can interpret the presence of this jump in the normal derivative of the metric as produced by an infinitely thin shell of stress-energy located on the hypersurface (one can speak equivalently of a thin shell of stress-energy, an idealized domain wall, or an evolving $`n2`$ brane). The junction conditions give a relation between the intrinsic energy-momentum tensor of the brane and the form and strength of the jump in derivatives of the metric (encoded in the jump in the extrinsic curvature of the hypersurface as seen from its two faces).

### 2.1 Israel–Lanczos–Sen junction conditions: Einstein Frame

Let us first review (and extend) the derivation of the standard Israel–Lanczos–Sen junction conditions. We will use a method easily generalizable to more complicated systems involving non-minimal couplings between gravity and additional fields. (The paper by Chamblin and Reall  contains a similar derivation of the Einstein frame junction conditions.) We start with the Einstein–Hilbert action, supplemented by the Gibbons–Hawking boundary term , and add both bulk fields and an intrinsic action for the brane:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{int}()}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nx\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right){\displaystyle _{}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}xK`$ (2.1)
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{int}()}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nx_{\mathrm{bulk}}+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}}.`$
Here $`q_{AB}`$ represents the induced metric, either on the $`(n1)`$-dimensional hypersurface forming the boundary, or on that defined by the brane. (We adopt the conventions of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler .) This expression makes perfectly good sense because the scalar of curvature is well defined (in the distributional sense) even at points on the brane itself.

For definiteness we shall split the bulk matter Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ into contributions from the scalar moduli fields $`\varphi ^i`$, which for generality will be described by a non-linear sigma model, and other generic bulk fields denoted $`\psi `$. That is

$$_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\varphi ,\psi )=\frac{1}{2}H_{ij}(\varphi )\left[g^{AB}_A\varphi ^i_B\varphi ^j\right]V(\varphi ,\psi )+_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi ).$$
(2.2)
As usual, we assume that $`_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )`$ contains no second derivatives of $`\psi `$, and for convenience assume it contains not even first derivatives of the metric. (This last condition is not essential, but relaxing it would involve additional unnecessary algebraic complexity.)

In the spirit of the brane world models, let us now deal with spacetimes that are decomposable as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times IR`$, where $`IR`$ represents a spatial dimension parametrized by $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`n1`$ dimensional spacetime (locally, this is always possible). We consider a formal evolution in the $`\eta `$ parameter between two fixed hypersurfaces located at $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _f`$ (they are assumed to comprise the boundary $``$), leaving the brane located at $`\eta =0`$. (In most of the literature, the fifth dimension $`\eta `$ is taken to be spacelike, and we also take this option; it is for this reason that we speak of $`\eta `$ as “formal” evolution parameter, for timelike fifth dimension a few minus signs will change.) The total action (2.1) can be re-written as

$`𝒮=\underset{0^{},0^+0}{lim}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0^{}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^22\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$ (2.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^22\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{}^{0^+}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}xR{\displaystyle }\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}xK|_0^{}^{0^+}\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{int}()}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nx_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}}.`$
In obtaining this expression we have used the fact that one can unambiguously separate $`R`$ into a term that contains no second derivatives of the metric, and a second term (a total divergence) isolating all the second derivatives of the metric:

$$R={}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^2+2_A(n^AK),$$
(2.4)
with $`n_A`$ denoting the normal to the foliation. To verify this, see for example, MTW (21.84), (21.86), and (21.88), supplemented with exercise (21.10), and equation (21.82), being careful to keep to a timelike hypersurface (spacelike normal) throughout . Also note that in MTW conventions

$$K_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{q_{AB}}{\eta }$$
(2.5)
for both spacelike and timelike hypersurfaces.

For the class of geometries we are considering the scalar of curvature is everywhere finite except for a possible delta-function contribution at $`\eta =0`$. If $`K`$ undergoes a finite jump at $`\eta =0`$, then the term with second derivatives of the metric (first derivatives of $`K`$) in equation (2.4) will give rise to this delta-function contribution. Then, it is easy to see that

$$\underset{0^{},0^+0}{lim}\left[\frac{1}{2}_0^{}^{0^+}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}xR\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}xK|_0^{}^{0^+}\right]=0,$$
(2.6)
independently of the existence or not of any delta-function contribution.

As a consequence, the total action (though not the bulk Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian) is finally formed by two standard bulk pieces \[the first two terms in (2.3)\] plus the contribution of the brane \[last term in (2.3)\]. We explicitly see that the action (2.1) contains no second derivatives of the metric:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^2\right]`$ (2.7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{int}()}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nx_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}}.`$
This action can now be re-expressed in a Hamiltonian form

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[\pi ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q_{AB}}{\mathrm{d}\eta }}(q_{AB},\pi ^{AB})\right]`$ (2.8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[\pi ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q_{AB}}{\mathrm{d}\eta }}(q_{AB},\pi ^{AB})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}},`$
where we have temporarily suppressed the bulk fields $`\varphi ^i`$ and $`\psi `$. Here $``$ is the appropriate Hamiltonian density (its exact form is not needed for the following argument), and we use the following definition for the canonical momentum

$$\pi ^{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\left(K^{AB}q^{AB}K\right).$$
(2.9)
The canonical Hamiltonian will also depend on the lapse and shift function of the standard $`[(n1)+1]`$ ADM decomposition, but we have omitted it for simplicity (as it does not contribute in the following argument). We have partially fixed the gauge by placing the brane at $`\eta =0`$. Therefore, we are going to consider only diffeomorphisms that do not affect the boundaries or the location of the brane.

By varying this action with respect $`q_{AB}`$ and $`\pi ^{AB}`$ we obtain

$`\delta 𝒮=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dq_{AB}}{d\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\pi ^{AB}}}\right]\delta \pi ^{AB}`$ (2.10)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\pi ^{AB}}{d\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{q_{AB}}}\right]\delta q_{AB}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x\pi ^{AB}\delta q_{AB}}|_{\eta _i}^{\eta _f}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x(\pi ^{AB}\pi ^{+AB})\delta q_{AB}}|_{\eta =0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}xS^{AB}\delta q_{AB}},`$
where $`S^{AB}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the brane.

This action has an extremum among all the geometries that connect the two fixed hypersurfaces at $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _f`$ when: (i ) it satisfies the classical equation of motion in the two bulk regions (the full diffeomorphism invariance in each bulk region will result in the additional classical constraint equations not of direct interest), and, (ii ) when the junction condition

$$\pi _{AB}^+\pi _{AB}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{q}S_{AB}$$
(2.11)
holds.

Now define

$$𝒦_{AB}K_{AB}^+K_{AB}^{},$$
(2.12)
and substitute the explicit form of the momentum (2.9) into (2.11). We obtain the usual Israel–Lanczos–Sen junction conditions

$$𝒦_{AB}𝒦q_{AB}=S_{AB}.$$
(2.13)
For future generalization, we find it convenient to split this result into trace-free part and a trace, so that

$$𝒦_{AB}\frac{1}{n1}𝒦q_{AB}=S_{AB}\frac{1}{n1}Sq_{AB},$$
(2.14)
and

$$𝒦=\frac{S}{n2}.$$
(2.15)
This can be reassembled to yield the equivalent form

$$𝒦_{AB}=S_{AB}\frac{1}{n2}Sq_{AB}.$$
(2.16)
These junction conditions have a tremendous number of applications, well beyond the confines of the brane world scenario, and are a basic tool of general applicability .

Now reinstate the non-gravitational bulk fields $`\varphi ^i`$ and $`\psi `$, and repeat the argument: there will be several additional conjugate momenta

$$\pi _{\varphi ^i}=\sqrt{g}H_{ij}(\varphi )\left(\frac{\varphi ^j}{\eta }\right),$$
(2.17)
and

$$\pi _\psi =\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )}{(\psi /\eta )}\right).$$
(2.18)
There will also be additional junction conditions on the bulk fields $`\varphi ^i`$ and $`\psi `$:

$$(\pi _{\varphi ^i})^+(\pi _{\varphi ^i})^{}=\sqrt{q}\frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}}{\varphi ^i},$$
(2.19)
and

$$(\pi _\psi )^+(\pi _\psi )^{}=\sqrt{q}\frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}}{\psi }.$$
(2.20)
Because we have decided on an explicit form for the $`\varphi ^i`$ Lagrangian, we can simplify that junction condition considerably. First introduce the notation

$$J^in^A(_A\varphi ^i)^+n^A(_A\varphi ^i)^{}\left(\frac{\varphi ^i}{\eta }\right)^+\left(\frac{\varphi ^i}{\eta }\right)^{},$$
(2.21)
Furthermore, let $`H^{ij}(\varphi )`$ denote the inverse matrix to $`H_{ij}(\varphi )`$. Then

$$J^i=H^{ij}(\varphi )\frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}}{\varphi ^j}.$$
(2.22)
On the other hand, because we have made no specific commitment as to the form of $`_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )`$ the best we can say for those fields is that

$$\left[\frac{_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )}{(\psi /\eta )}\right]^+\left[\frac{_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )}{(\psi /\eta )}\right]^{}=\frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}(g_{AB},\psi )}{\psi }.$$
(2.23)
Though abstract, this bulk-field junction condition is perhaps the clearest general statement one can make regarding the coupling of non-gravitational bulk fields to the brane. In the next subsection we will see how this method of obtaining the junction conditions is easily generalizable to even more complicated systems, and in particular how to deal with generic frame dependence and non-minimal curvature coupling.

### 2.2 Moduli fields — Generic frames

We are now going to analyze a system in which there is not only gravity in the bulk, but also additional bulk scalar fields with a *non-minimal coupling* to the curvature scalar. Explicitly, we take an action of the form

$`𝒮=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{int}()}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nxF(\varphi )\left[R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]{\displaystyle _{}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}xF(\varphi )K`$ (2.24)
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{int}()}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nx\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{ij}(\varphi )\left[g^{AB}_A\varphi ^i_B\varphi ^j\right]V(\varphi ,\psi )+_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}}(q_{AB},\varphi ,\psi ).`$
The Gibbons–Hawking boundary term now takes the form

$$_{}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}xF(\varphi )K.$$
(2.25)
This is specifically chosen to cancel the second derivatives of the metric in the Einstein–Hilbert action. The two (in principle) arbitrary functions, $`F(\varphi )`$ and $`H_{ij}(\varphi )`$, allow us to take into account a large class of possible moduli fields.

In this notation the dilaton field in the string frame corresponds to

$$F(\varphi )=e^{2\varphi };H(\varphi )=4e^{2\varphi }.$$
(2.26)
In the Einstein frame the dilaton corresponds to

$$F(\varphi )=1;H(\varphi )=\frac{4}{n2}.$$
(2.27)
Standard non-minimally coupled scalars correspond to

$$F(\varphi )=1\xi _{ij}\varphi ^i\varphi ^j;H_{ij}(\varphi )=\delta _{ij}.$$
(2.28)
This is typically (though perhaps misleadingly) referred to as the Jordan frame, in this context meaning the frame in which these particular scalars have canonical kinetic energy. Note that non-minimally coupled scalars (e.g., conformally coupled) are from a quantum field theory point of view generic ; however from a gravitational point of view they are potentially problematic, leading to classical violations of the energy conditions and worse . Note that you can always make non-minimal coupling go away by performing a conformal transformation and shifting frame to the Einstein frame — there is however a conservation of difficulty and the price paid is to modify the scalar kinetic energies. It is often convenient to keep the scalar kinetic energies simple and instead confront non-minimal coupling head-on. Finally, we can describe a Brans–Dicke theory by means of

$$F(\varphi )=\varphi ;H(\varphi )=\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi }.$$
(2.29)
Confusingly enough, this is also typically referred to as the Jordan frame, in this context meaning the frame in which the kinetic energies of all other non-Brans–Dicke bulk fields are canonical.

We will shortly see that the presence of a function $`F(\varphi )1`$ can yield to very interesting effects. To also take into account possible interactions between the brane and the bulk fields, in our analysis we will allow the brane Lagrangian to depend arbitrarily on the metric and on the bulk scalar fields, (this is in addition to its dependence on the fields trapped on the brane). We will allow also a bulk potential term for the scalar fields, and a cosmological constant in the bulk.

Now, let us follow the same steps as in the previous subsection. The whole action (2.24) can be separated into two bulk contributions without any second derivative of the metric plus the brane action. From the term

$$\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^nxF(\varphi )R$$
(2.30)
we can see that the bulk actions include a term of the form

$$\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}xF(\varphi )\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^22\frac{\mathrm{ln}F(\varphi )}{\varphi ^i}\left(\frac{\varphi ^i}{\eta }\right)K\right],$$
(2.31)
with the prime denoting ordinary derivative with respect to $`\varphi `$. Indeed the total action is

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x`$ (2.32)
$`F(\varphi )\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^22{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}F(\varphi )}{\varphi ^i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^i}{\eta }}\right)K2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x`$
$`F(\varphi )\left[{}_{}{}^{(n1)}RK^{AB}K_{AB}+K^22{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}F(\varphi )}{\varphi ^i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^i}{\eta }}\right)K2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{ij}(\varphi )\left[g^{AB}_A\varphi ^i_B\varphi ^j\right]V(\varphi ,\psi )+_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{ij}(\varphi )\left[g^{AB}_A\varphi ^i_B\varphi ^j\right]V(\varphi ,\psi )+_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\psi )\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}}.`$
When re-expressed in a Hamiltonian form we get

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^0}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[\pi ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q_{AB}}{\mathrm{d}\eta }}+\pi _{\varphi ^i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi ^i}{\mathrm{d}\eta }}+\pi _\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\psi }{\mathrm{d}\eta }}(q_{AB},\varphi ,\psi ,\pi ^{AB},\pi _\varphi ,\pi _\psi )\right]`$ (2.33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\eta _f}}\sqrt{g}d\eta \mathrm{d}^{n1}x\left[\pi ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q_{AB}}{\mathrm{d}\eta }}+\pi _{\varphi ^i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi ^i}{\mathrm{d}\eta }}+\pi _\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\psi }{\mathrm{d}\eta }}(q_{AB},\varphi ,\psi ,\pi ^{AB},\pi _\varphi ,\pi _\psi )\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{d}^{n1}x_{\mathrm{brane}},`$
where again we do not need to know the detailed form of the Hamiltonian. Following the same reasoning as before, we conclude that the modified junction conditions read

$`\pi _{AB}^+\pi _{AB}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{q}S_{AB},`$ (2.34)
$`\pi _{\varphi ^i}^+\pi _{\varphi ^i}^{}=\sqrt{q}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}}{\varphi ^i}},`$ (2.35)
$`\pi _\psi ^+\pi _\psi ^{}=\sqrt{q}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}}{\psi }},`$ (2.36)
but now with a different definition for the gravitational momentum

$$\pi _{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{q}F(\varphi )\left(K_{AB}q_{AB}K\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{q}F_i^{}(\varphi )\left(\frac{\varphi ^i}{\eta }\right)q_{AB}.$$
(2.37)
Here for convenience we have defined

$$F_i^{}(\varphi )_iF(\varphi )\frac{F(\varphi )}{\varphi ^i}.$$
(2.38)
The momentum canonically conjugate to $`\varphi `$ is also altered and now reads

$$\pi _{\varphi ^i}=\sqrt{q}H_{ij}(\varphi )\left(\frac{\varphi ^j}{\eta }\right)\sqrt{q}F_i^{}(\varphi )K.$$
(2.39)
Obviously, the generic expression (2.18) for the momentum canonically conjugated to $`\psi `$ remains unchanged and so its associated junction condition (2.23). For simplicity, from here on we will not consider explicitly these additional fields. Rearranging the previous expressions \[(2.34) to (2.39)\] and using the previous definition of $`J^i`$ we arrive at

$$F(\varphi )\left(𝒦_{AB}q_{AB}𝒦\right)+F_i^{}(\varphi )J^iq_{AB}=S_{AB}.$$
(2.40)
and

$$H_{ij}(\varphi )J^jF_i^{}(\varphi )𝒦=\frac{_{\mathrm{brane}}}{\varphi ^i}.$$
(2.41)
This shows how discontinuities in the extrinsic curvature mix with discontinuities in the normal derivatives of the scalar field. (The junction condition for $`\psi `$ is unaltered because of our technical assumption that $`_{\mathrm{bulk}}(g_{AB},\varphi )`$ contains no metric derivatives.) In the Einstein frame \[$`F(\varphi )=1`$\] this mixing switches off and we recover the ordinary Israel–Lanczos–Sen junction condition, supplemented by the bulk-field junction conditions of the preceding subsection. If we move away from the Einstein frame (and it is often convenient to do so) the price paid is that the junction conditions become inextricably intertwined.

For these generalized junction conditions it is extremely useful to separate the equation (2.40) into a trace-free portion and a trace. That is

$$𝒦_{AB}\frac{1}{n1}𝒦q_{AB}=\frac{1}{F(\varphi )}\left(S_{AB}\frac{1}{n1}Sq_{AB}\right),$$
(2.42)
and

$$(n2)F(\varphi )𝒦(n1)F_i^{}(\varphi )J^i=S.$$
(2.43)
Inverting the general equations (2.41) and (2.43) yields our final form of the generalized junction conditions. For the trace of extrinsic curvature

$$𝒦=\frac{S+(n1)H^{ij}(\varphi )F_i^{}(\varphi )(_{\mathrm{brane}})_j^{}}{(n2)F(\varphi )+(n1)H^{kl}(\varphi )F_k^{}(\varphi )F_l^{}(\varphi )}.$$
(2.44)
For the normal discontinuity in the scalar derivative

$$J^i=H^{ij}(\varphi )\left[F_j^{}\frac{S+(n1)H^{pq}(\varphi )F_p^{}(\varphi )(_{\mathrm{brane}})_q^{}}{(n2)F(\varphi )+(n1)H^{kl}(\varphi )F_k^{}(\varphi )F_l^{}(\varphi )}(_{\mathrm{brane}})_j^{}\right].$$
(2.45)
By looking at the expressions (2.42), (2.44), and (2.45) the first thing that we can notice is that for $`F(\varphi )=1`$ neither does $`𝒦_{AB}`$ depend on $`_b^{}`$ nor does $`J`$ depend on $`S_{AB}`$. As we have already seen in the previous subsection, in the Einstein frame the coupling of the brane degrees of freedom to the scalar field and to the metric separately induce uncorrelated kinks in the geometry and in the scalar field. When $`F(\varphi )1`$, however, both effects become interconnected: a kink in the scalar field configuration can be produced even though there is no direct coupling between the bulk scalar field and the fields on the brane, and vice-versa.

These complete sets of generalized junction conditions \[either (2.40) and (2.41), or (2.42), (2.44), and (2.45)\] are very powerful. They cover most of the scalar fields one can encounter in the literature, and have wide applicability beyond the confines of the brane world scenario. The most important differences between these junction conditions and the standard ones show up when $`F(\varphi )1`$. In the next section we will discuss the peculiarities of these conditions when $`F(\varphi )1`$, that is, when there is a scalar field that is not minimally coupled to the geometry.

Finally for completeness we mention that it is still possible (but perhaps algebraically not so useful) to reassemble the trace and trace-free parts of the extrinsic curvature to yield

$$𝒦_{AB}=\frac{S_{AB}}{F(\varphi )}\left\{\frac{[F(\varphi )+H^{ij}(\varphi )F_i^{}(\varphi )^{}F_j^{}(\varphi )]S+F(\varphi )H^{ij}(\varphi )F_i^{}(\varphi )(_{\mathrm{brane}})_j^{}}{(n2)F(\varphi )+(n1)H^{ij}(\varphi )F_i^{}(\varphi )F_j^{}(\varphi )}\right\}\frac{q_{AB}}{F(\varphi )}.$$
(2.46)
## 3 The exceptional case

An exceptional case occurs when the denominator in the generalized junction conditions vanishes, that is, when

$$F(\varphi )=\frac{(n1)}{(n2)}H^{ij}(\varphi )F_i^{}(\varphi )F_j^{}(\varphi ).$$
(3.47)
This can only occur for $`F(\varphi )H_{ij}(\varphi )`$ not positive definite as we are assuming $`n4`$ to avoid too simple a gravity law. Also note that a dilaton field never satisfies this exceptionality condition, either in the Einstein or the string frames.

In this case the expressions (2.44), (2.45), and (2.46) are not well defined. However, what this condition really means is that the matrix inversion used to go from (2.41) and (2.43) to (2.44) and (2.45) is singular, though the trace-free relationship (2.42) remains perfectly valid. The attempt to invert the singular matrix now instead results in a compatibility condition between $`S`$ and $`_{\mathrm{brane}}^{}`$

$$(_{\mathrm{bulk}})_i^{}=\frac{1}{n2}\frac{F_i^{}(\varphi )}{F(\varphi )}S,$$
(3.48)
and a reduced set of linear constraints between $`𝒦`$ and $`J^i`$ \[say equations (2.41)\], so that we could view $`𝒦`$ (for instance) as freely specifiable.

As a particular example, for these exceptional systems one can have “phantom branes” or “Cheshire cat” configurations with both a kink in the geometry and in the scalar field without the need to add any external thin shell of energy. From (2.40) and (2.41), taking $`_{\mathrm{brane}}(g_{AB},\varphi ,\psi )0`$ so that both $`S_{AB}=0`$ and $`(_{\mathrm{brane}})_i^{}=0`$, and imposing the exceptionality condition (3.47) one arrives at

$$𝒦_{AB}=\frac{1}{n2}\frac{F_i^{}(\varphi )J^i}{F(\varphi )}q_{AB},\text{and}J^i=H^{ij}(\varphi )F_j^{}(\varphi )𝒦,$$
(3.49)
that is, a simple relation between the jumps in the extrinsic curvature and in the normal derivative of the scalar field. (And note in particular that there is a unique direction in field space for which there is a discontinuity; effectively, in these “Cheshire cat” configurations only one of the scalar fields is allowed to have a discontinuity.)

To better understand what this system means we can perform a conformal transformation to the Einstein frame. The above condition between $`F(\varphi )`$ and $`H(\varphi )`$, equation (3.47), is nothing more than the condition to (at the point in question) eliminate the kinetic term for one of the scalar fields in the Einstein frame. (And so locally turn that scalar field equation, in the Einstein frame, into an algebraic constraint rather than a differential relation.) To see this, note that transforming from the generic $`F(\varphi )1`$ frame to the Einstein frame implies the conformal redefinition

$$g_{AB}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )[g_E]_{AB},$$
(3.50)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\varphi )^{n2}=F(\varphi )^1,$$
(3.51)
and the concomitant redefinition

$$H_{ij}(\varphi )[H_E]_{ij}(\varphi )=H_{ij}(\varphi )+\frac{(n1)}{(n2)}\frac{F_i^{}(\varphi )F_j^{}(\varphi )}{F(\varphi )}.$$
(3.52)
Then

$$det[H_E]=det(H)\left\{1+\frac{(n1)}{(n2)}\frac{H^{ij}(\varphi )F_i^{}(\varphi )F_j^{}(\varphi )}{F(\varphi )}\right\}.$$
(3.53)
So $`det[H_E]=0`$ is equivalent to the exceptionality condition (3.47).

If we insist that the exceptionality condition hold as an identity throughout field space rather than “accidentally” at some specific value of the field, then we can think of this kind of scalar field as nothing more than the conformal part of the metric in a pure-gravity theory (with its corresponding “negative” kinetic energy). That is, if we start with the ordinary Einstein–Hilbert action and spilt the metric into a conformal factor times some fiducial metric, then the conformal factor (when viewed as a scalar field propagating in the geometry of the fiducial metric), identically satisfies the exceptionality condition above.

Indeed if $`g_{AB}`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the only fields present in the bulk then these “Cheshire cat” branes can always be smoothed away in this manner, leaving absolutely no trace of their existence, and so they should then be viewed as completely unphysical mathematical artifacts. If there are several scalar fields, then this argument still goes through (modulo potential problems from globally diagonalizing the Einstein frame sigma model metric $`[H_E]_{ij}`$).

On the other hand, consider the very intriguing possibility that the exceptionality condition holds not as an identity in field space, but rather as an “accident” at a point in field space corresponding to the value of the scalar fields on the brane. Then “Cheshire cat” branes of this type cannot be globally transformed away in the above manner. You can eliminate the kink in the geometry, and the kink in the scalar fields, but there will now be at least one scalar field with a very peculiar kinetic energy term: a kinetic energy that vanishes at some (but not all) points in field space. There is a conservation of difficulty and one has a tradeoff between kinks in the geometry and scalar fields versus exceedingly peculiar kinetic energies.

## 4 Moduli fields and brane tensions

Let us now restrict the discussion to “bare” brane Lagrangians of the form

$$_{\mathrm{brane}}=Tf(\varphi ),$$
(4.54)
that is, the brane only provides a vacuum energy modulated by the value of the scalar field:

$$S_{AB}=Tf(\varphi )q_{AB}.$$
(4.55)
An immediate consequence is that the trace-free part of $`𝒦_{AB}`$ is zero,

$$𝒦_{AB}=\frac{1}{n1}Kq_{AB},$$
(4.56)
and that all of the interesting physics is hiding in the trace $`𝒦`$ and in $`J`$.

### 4.1 Dilaton field in the Einstein frame

Consider $`F(\varphi )=1`$ and $`H(\varphi )=4/(n2)`$. This is the common case analyzed in the literature — a dilaton field in the Einstein frame . Then a positive brane tension, $`Tf(\varphi )>0`$ yields a warp factor that decreases when going away from the brane. (Strictly speaking this is true only when one imposes a $`Z_2`$ symmetry on the solutions, or adopts the “one-sided” view discussed in . More generally we have to say that is the sum of the variation of the warp factor when departing from the brane in the two possible directions that decreases away from the brane.)

The behaviour can be easily read from (2.15) and (2.22) \[and also from the more general (2.44) and (2.45) when particularized to this case\]:

$$𝒦=\frac{1}{n2}S=\frac{n1}{n2}Tf(\varphi ).$$
(4.57)
The behaviour of the scalar field away from the brane depends upon the derivative of $`f(\varphi )`$,

$$J=\frac{n2}{4}Tf^{}(\varphi ).$$
(4.58)
For positive tension branes ($`Tf(\varphi )>0`$), the condition $`[\mathrm{ln}f(\varphi )]^{}>0`$ yields a scalar field that decreases away from the brane; with $`[\mathrm{ln}f(\varphi )]^{}<0`$ the scalar field increases. Generically it is found that positive tension branes give rise to bulk configurations in which at some finite distance from the brane the spacetime “terminates” in the form of a naked singularity .

When $`F(\varphi )1`$ this is no longer true. The existence of a coupling between the scalar field and the curvature makes the junction conditions more involved. The thin shell of energy contributes not only to the kink in the geometry but also to that in the scalar field. To see this with more detail, let us consider the case of a dilaton field in the string frame in $`5`$ dimensions.

### 4.2 Dilaton field in the string frame

Consider $`F(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}(2\varphi )`$ and $`H(\varphi )=4\mathrm{exp}(2\varphi )`$. Write the junction conditions (2.44) and (2.45) as

$$𝒦=(n1)Te^{2\varphi }\left[f(\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}f^{}(\varphi )\right],$$
(4.59)
$$J=Te^{2\varphi }\left[\frac{n1}{2}f(\varphi )+\frac{n2}{4}f^{}(\varphi )\right].$$
(4.60)
Imagine that we take an ansatz for the scalar field-brane coupling function $`f(\varphi )=e^{\alpha \varphi }`$. Then, for $`2(n1)/(n2)<\alpha <+\mathrm{}`$ the warp factor and the dilaton field decrease away from the brane. For $`\alpha =2(n1)/(n2)`$ the warp factor still decreases away from the brane but the dilaton configuration has no kink. For $`2<\alpha <2(n1)/(n2)`$, the warp factor decreases away from the brane but the dilaton field increases. For $`\alpha =2`$, which is the case usually chosen as the appropriate coupling, there is no kink in the geometry and the dilaton increases away from the brane. For $`\alpha <2`$ (the case $`f(\varphi )=1`$ would correspond to $`\alpha =0`$) the warp factor and the dilaton increase away from the brane.

In view of the previous discussion some observations are in order. Let us take a coupling function $`f(\varphi )=e^{2\varphi }`$, and restrict to the case $`n=5`$. This is used commonly as representing the coupling of the dilaton field to the brane ; (in the Einstein frame used in those works the corresponding coupling function is $`f_E(\varphi )=e^{2\varphi /3}`$). For this case we see that we can have 3-branes with arbitrarily large tensions but, nonetheless, with a smooth string-frame geometry (that is, without any hypersurface on which there is a jump in the extrinsic curvature). We would notice the existence of such a 3-brane only through its effect on the scalar field configuration. However, in transforming this metric-scalar configuration to the Einstein frame we will recover a kink in the Einstein frame geometry at the location of the 3-brane. This is due to the fact that the Einstein frame metric is a function of both the string frame metric and the scalar field. From the point of view of the Einstein frame is the existence of a kink in the geometry that is trapping 4-dimensional gravitons near the brane world. From the string frame point of view, this trapping will be due to a non-differentiable variation of the effective Newton constant when moving across the brane. From the Einstein frame point of view a finite 4-dimensional Newton constant would show up in the brane if the extra dimension has a finite volume per unit area. (By this we mean that $`a(\eta )\mathrm{d}\eta =<\mathrm{}`$ where $`a(\eta )`$ is the scale factor of the geometry.) Taking the string frame point of view, the relevant quantity is the volume of the extra dimension weighted by the scale factor derived from the effective Newton constant.

## 5 Summary and discussion

We have generalized the Israel–Lanczos–Sen thin-shell junction conditions to the case in which the bulk spacetime is filled, apart form gravity itself, by a set of general scalar fields with non-trivial curvature coupling. First, we have derived the standard Israel–Lanczos–Sen junction conditions beginning directly from the gravitational action. The method we have followed turns out to be straightforwardly generalizable in the presence of other fields in the bulk. We have found these new junction conditions for gravity plus a very general set of moduli fields with arbitrary couplings to the scalar curvature. Our formalism is capable of dealing with the dilaton field, in the string and/or Einstein frames, metric-scalar theories à la Brans–Dicke, and non-minimally coupled scalars.

The existence of couplings between the moduli fields and the curvature scalar makes the generalized junction conditions interconnected. One can have a “kink” in the scalar field configuration even though there is no direct coupling between the scalar fields and the thin shell of stress-energy. Conversely, these couplings between the thin-shell and the scalar fields make contributions to the form and strength of the “kink” in the geometry.

An exceptional case appears for some moduli field configurations. These exceptional field configurations are characterized by the vanishing of the kinetic term of some of the scalar fields when transforming to the Einstein frame. In this exceptional case we showed that one can find “kink” metric-scalar configurations in the original frame even in the absence of any thin-shell of stress-energy. The “kink” in the geometry and that in the scalar fields feed back into each other. The possibility that the exceptional condition could be satisfied for some particular values of the moduli fields could give place to very interesting “Cheshire cat” configurations.

Particularizing to the dilaton field, we showed that the geometric picture that emerges when working in the string or Einstein frames are very different. It is even possible that a geometry with a “kink” in the Einstein frame has a counterpart which in the string frame is perfectly smooth. The Einstein frame geometric “kink” is absorbed into the conformal factor in such a way that in the string frame only the dilaton field undergoes a discontinuity in its normal derivative as one crosses the brane. These apparently different configurations are however equivalent. Up to this point in the discussion the choice of frame is a matter of convenience.

However this might not always be the case. First, the complete equivalence between frames is only guaranteed if the conformal transformation relating them is not singular. When this is not true one can find configurations in one frame that have no complete analogue in the other frame. As an specific example, for a non-minimally coupled scalar field the present authors have found some traversable wormhole solutions  for which the term $`\kappa \xi \varphi ^2`$ becomes zero in some specific points of the geometry (on the other hand, the “Jordan” frame geometry is perfectly regular). The relation between de Einstein and “Jordan” frames can be written as $`[g_E]_{AB}=(\kappa \xi \varphi ^2)[g_J]_{AB}`$. Therefore, the whole wormhole configuration in the “Jordan” frame has no non-singular counterpart in the Einstein frame.

Second, complete equivalence between choice of conformal frames is guaranteed only if you simultaneously change both frame and the equation of motion for test particles. If physical test particles are observed to follow geodesics in one conformal frame then they will not follow geodesics in any other conformal frame. If free fall is truly universal (as the Eötvös experiments indicate), then one conformal frame is more equal than the others. (Brans–Dicke type theories are set up in such a manner that this special frame is the Jordan frame, and for this reason the Jordan frame is often called the “physical” frame.) Thus, by performing experiments on bulk matter one should be able to distinguish between different frames , and the discussion about which frame is the “most physical” will come into play . We emphasise the well-known, albeit commonly overlooked fact that string theory does not satisfy the weak equivalence principle, (except approximately), let alone the Einstein equivalence principle . If one uses experiment to decide which is the “most physical” frame, then to work in another frame would be nothing more than a mathematical trick (although sometimes potentially useful).

However, taking the Randall-Sundrum models as background scenario it is far from clear if the differences in bulk physics will affect experiments performed in the brane itself. Since bulk matter is now trapped on the brane, direct free-fall experiments could at best suggest the choice of a particular frame on the brane, but would leave the off-brane conformal frame a free variable whose choice would be driven by esthetics and mathematical convenience rather than by physics.

At a more basic level, when proposing the fundamental Lagrangian, for each new field that one adds it is necessary to decide in which of the previous possible frames it will couple minimally. For example, if we want to begin with a non-zero cosmological constant for the bulk, defined as a proper tendency of the bulk spacetime to be curved, in which frame should the expression $`G_{AB}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{AB}`$ hold? Side-stepping the answer to this question for now, it is imperative to analyze (as in this paper) systems with very general scalar potentials, to obtain results that can be applied in any frame.

## Acknowledgments

The research of CB was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC). MV was supported by the US Department of Energy.