text:
# Diffraction of wave packets in space and time

## 1 Wave packet diffraction in space and time

The diffraction process is a cornerstone of wave scattering. Quantum mechanical scattering shows diffractive phenomena in space, like nuclear diffractive scattering, and separately in time. The combined effect of time dependent opening of slits for plane monochromatic waves produces diffraction patterns in space and time. Both, diffraction in time, and diffraction in space and time are of the utmost importance in testing the validity of time dependent predictions of quantum mechanics. Recent measurements of atomic wave diffraction, have indeed demonstrated that the diffraction in time, process is supported by experiments.

The present work will show that there exists a broad class of phenomena occurring in nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum wave packet potential scattering that behave as time dependent persistent diffraction patterns. The patterns are produced by a time independent potential. In the present case, the pattern will be shown not to decay exponentially, like for the diffraction in time phenomenon, and may provide a tool to deepen our understanding of time dependent quantum processes, pertaining to the description of atomic (or other) beams by means of wave packets.

The peak structure exists for all packets, but, it survives only for packets that are initially narrower than a value related to the potential width. For wider packets, the peak structure merges into a single peak.

The effect is named wave packet diffraction in space and time. It will be shown that the structure exists for repulsive and attractive potentials. It also appears when the relativistically invariant Dirac equation is used instead of the Schrödinger equation.

The present work emerges from numerical investigations of one and two-dimensional wave packet scattering off an attractive potential that showed curious multiple peak structures resembling a diffraction pattern.  It was seen there that, wave packets that are narrower than the well width initially, backscatter as a wave train that is coherent and multiple peaked, a diffraction pattern that travels backwards in one dimension and at large angles in two-dimensions.

The effect is absent for packets whose initial width was much larger than the potential extension. For this case, a smooth wave hump proceeds both forwards and backwards. In section 2 we will treat the one dimensional case analytically. The Dirac scattering in one dimension will be dealt with in section 3. Section 4 generalizes the results of section 2 to three dimensions. In section 5 an experiment aimed at verifying the theoretical predictions will be suggested and simulated. Section 6 summarizes the paper.

## 2 Wave packet diffraction in space and time in one dimension

In order to develop an analytical formula for the difrraction pattern, we resort to the simplest possible case that can be dealt with almost completely analytically. This is the example of a wave packet scattering off a square well.

Consider a gaussian wave packet impinging from the left, on a well located around the origin,

$`V(x)=V_0\mathrm{\Theta }(w|x|)`$ (1)
where, 2w is the width, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function, and $`V_0`$, the depth. The use of a square well facilitates the calculation, but, the results do not depend on the sharpness of the well as evidenced by the numerical results of . (Theoretical arguments that support this statement may be found below after eq.(2).) Using the results of , we can write immediately both the reflected and transmitted packets. From this point on we take $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

$`\psi (x,t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi (k,x,t)a(k,q_0)e^{i\frac{k^2}{2m}t}𝑑k`$ (2)
where $`\varphi (k,x,t)`$ is the stationary solution to the square well scattering problem for each $`k`$ and $`a(k,q_\mathit{0})`$ is the Fourier transform amplitude for the initial wave function with average momentum $`q_\mathit{0}`$.

Explicitly, in the backward direction that interests us here, for $`x<w`$

$`\varphi (k,x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`D(k,k^{})e^{ik(xx_0)}+F(k,k^{})e^{ik(x+x_0+2w)}`$
$`D(k,k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`F(k,k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E(k,k^{})}{A(k,k^{})}}`$
$`E(k,k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2i(k^2k^2)sin(2k^{}w)`$
$`A(k,k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(k+k^{})^2e^{2ik^{}w}(kk^{})^2e^{2ik^{}w}`$ (3)
where

$`a(k,q_0)=e^{\sigma ^2(kq_0)^2}`$ (4)
with $`k^{}=\sqrt{k^2+2m|V_0|}`$, and $`\sigma `$, the width parameter of the packet.

The integral of the D term can be performed explicitly. We will call this contribution to the wave $`\psi _{in}`$. For $`t\mathrm{}`$ we have

$`\psi _{in}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sigma ^2+it/(2m)}}}e^u`$
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2t}}(xx_0)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\sigma ^2}{t^2}}(xx_0q_0t/m)^2`$ (5)
For long times, the oscillations in the exponent of the term accompanying $`F`$ in the wave function are extremely fast. The most important contributions come from phases that are an extremum with respect to k. We will call the contribution to the wave due to $`F`$, $`\psi _{refl}`$. Using the saddle point method we find that, the extremal phase for $`\psi _{refl}`$ demands the real part of the momenta to be positive for negative x, namely $`k_{extremal}\frac{2\sigma ^2q_0ix}{2\sigma ^2+it/(2m)}`$

We concentrate on the case $`k^{}>>k`$, the low energy regime, for which the polychotomous effect was most visible.

At $`k0`$ we have $`F1`$. To order $`\frac{1}{t}`$, for long times and distances $`x>>x_0>>w`$ using the properties of Gaussian integrals it is found that

$`\psi _{refl}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sigma ^2+it/(2m)}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{u}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2t}}(x+x_0)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\sigma ^2}{t^2}}(x+x_0+q_0t/m)^2`$ (6)
The full wave in the backward direction is obtained from the sum of the interfering waves of eqs.(2,2). The amplitude of the wave for very long times becomes

$`|\psi |`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m\pi }{t}}}e^z|sin\left({\displaystyle \frac{mx}{t}}(x_0+2i\sigma ^2q_0)\right)|`$
$`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m\pi }{t}}}e^z\sqrt{sin^2({\displaystyle \frac{mxx_0}{t}})+sinh^2({\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma ^2q_0mx}{t}})}`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2(x^2+x_0^2)}{t^2}}+q_0^2\right)`$ (7)
This expression represents a diffraction pattern that travels in time and persists. This result hinges upon the value of F as $`k0`$. However, this value is essentially the reflection amplitude for zero momenta, that is equal to -1 regardless of the potential. Therefore, the expression for $`\psi `$ above does not depend on the choice of a square well.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of the expression above (without any change in scale) to the numerical calculation of the reflected wave for $`t=1.210^7`$, a huge time compared to the transit time of the packet through the well. The initial momentum is $`q_0=0.4`$, the well width $`w=1`$, the initial position $`x_0=60`$, and the mass parameter $`m=40`$. We chose a large mass in order to be on the nonrelativistic domain $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_0}{m}}=v=0.01`$, for which the Schrödinger equation is valid.

The figure shows the theoretical expression and the numerical calculation agree, despite the approximate treatment of the $`F`$ term. For the longest distances, the approximation is not valid. At these distances the approximation of $`k0`$ breaks down. Due to the same time dependence of both the sin and sinh pieces, it is quite clear that the pattern persists to infinite time. The larger $`x_0`$, the cleaner the pattern, and more peaks appear in the wave train. Clearly for $`x_0\mathrm{}`$, the pattern disappears. The smaller $`q_0`$, the more visible -less background-, the diffraction pattern is.

In order to understand the absence of diffractive structures for a broad packet we consider the imaginary term inside the $`sin`$ function in eq.(2). We have to estimate the extension of the diffraction pattern that changes with time. The momenta involved are $`k_{max}={\displaystyle \frac{m|x_{max}|}{t}}`$ The constructive interference occurs whenever F of eq.(2) does not differ substantially from the value at $`k=0`$. At higher momenta F is complex, the real part diminishes and the imaginary part starts increasing. This changes reduce the constructive part of the pattern, incoherent pieces arise that blurr the multiple peak behavior. The faster the drop of the real part of $`F`$, the smaller the range of momenta for which the formula above holds.

In figures 2 and 3 we have shown the real and imaginary parts of F for different well depths. Figure 2 corresponds to the case close to a transmission resonance at $`k=0`$, $`\frac{k_0^{}w}{2pi}=1.00658424209`$ and twice this value, with$`k_0^{}=\sqrt{2m|V_0|}`$. Figure 3 corresponds to in between two transmission resonances at threshold $`\frac{k_0^{}w}{2.25\pi }=0.9998902939413`$ and one and a half times this value. Note however that the terminology of transmission resonance refers to a nonzero value of k. There is no transmission at zero momentum. In the actual packet scattering process, even if $`k_0^{}w`$ is equal to the value of a transmission resonance or in between resonances, $`k^{}`$ differs even by a small amount from the threshold value. Therefore our pictures display the expected behavior of F. Even if for a specific value of k the condition of a transmission resonance is met, this set is of measure zero as compared to the continuum of values of k’ entering the calculation of the reflected wave.

We can see from the figures that in either case, close to a transmission resonance or in between resonances, the drop in $`F`$ scales as $`\frac{1}{w}`$. The same is true for any other choice of the product $`k_0^{}w`$. Therefore we can estimate $`k_{max}(2w)^1`$. With a proportionality factor that depends on the depth of the potential only. As it is our aim to understand the absence of a polychotomous wave train for a wide packet and not the exact cut-off, we proceed with the above estimate as a working hypothesis. For the imaginary part of the argument in the $`sin`$ function in eq.(2) to stay small and not blurr up completely the pattern we need $`2k_{max}\sigma ^2q_0<<1`$, or, using our scaling argument

$`\sigma <<\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{w}{q_0}}}`$ (8)
For a fixed incoming momentum, the initial packet width has to be smaller than a certain proportion of the well width. This was indeed observed in numerical simulations. The interference between incoming and reflected waves D and F terms in eq.(2) is responsible for the diffractive pattern. The transmitted wave has no such two components. There is no possible interference and no diffraction peaks may be observed in the transmitted packet.

All the above arguments pertain only to the specific example presently considered. However, the example carries the essential ingredients for any type of packet. One only needs to replace the form factor $`e^z`$ in eq.(2), by the corresponding expression for any other chosen packet. It does not depend on the type of potential. Other functional dependencies may give more complicated expressions than the simple sin function above, but essentially they will show the same structure.

The all important contribution to the diffraction in space and time comes from the interference between the incoming packet and the reflected wave originating from momenta $`k0`$. The latter amounts to the excitation of a virtual state at almost zero energy quasi-bound state inside the well, as was indeed observed numerically in . The extreme importance of zero energy metastable states inside the well, is recognized in the literature for quite some time. In the limit of $`k=0`$, the virtual state becomes a half bound state. This state is termed usually a half-bound state due to a factor of one half in the phase shift at threshold in the derivation of Levinson’s theorem in the nonrelativistic case, and the relativistic case of the Dirac equation.. Its existence affects the phase shift at threshold. The present work shows that the existence of metastable almost zero energy virtual states makes itself evident through wave packet diffraction in space and time. The effect should be independent of the sign of the potential. Transforming to a barrier is like transforming a slit to an obstacle (Babinet’s principle). Both show diffraction in space. Therefore, we should see diffraction in space and time for barriers too, provided the width of the barrier is smaller than the initial width of the packet. This is indeed the case as shown in figures 4 and 5.

A minimal uncertainty gaussian wave packet traveling from the left with an average speed $`v`$, initial location $`x_0`$, mass m, wave number $`q=mv`$ and width $`\sigma `$,

$`\psi =Cexp\left(iq(xx_0){\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)^2}{4\sigma ^2}}\right)`$ (9)
is scattered from a Gaussian barrier

$`V(x)=V_0exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{w^2}}\right)`$ (10)
Let us now compare to the phenomenon of diffraction in time, and diffraction in space and time with plane waves. The former arises when a shutter is suddenly opened at t=0. Behind the shutter there is a stream of monoenergetic particles. After the opening of the shutter, there arise oscillations in the current on the other side of it. These oscillations die out at large times. The latter is produced by the combined effect of shutters that open in time and interfere between them in space, or other variations. Instead of having a vanishingly small time correlation length, the process of wave packet diffraction in space and time, persists for infinite time. However, for the polychotomous pattern to survive we need an initial spread of the packet smaller than the extent of the potential. Translating to a framework of time scales, this would imply that the time scale of the opening of the shutter should be longer than the time scale generated from the width of the packet, namely $`\Delta t_{\mathrm{𝑠ℎ𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟}}>{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma m}{q_\mathit{0}}}`$, where, as above, $`\sigma `$ is the initial width of the packet. It appears interesting to find out whether a finite opening time, may prevent the exponential decay of the diffraction in time process also.

## 3 Diffraction in space and time for the Dirac equation

The diffraction in time phenomenon, does not exist in the relativistic case. This can be seen from eqs. (18) and (34) in ref. for the ordinary wave equation and the Klein-Gordon equation respectively. Only when the speed of light is taken to infinity, the nonrelativistic results are recovered, as can be seen from eq.(36) in the same work. This seems quite surprising because, the Klein-Gordon (KG) equation at low momenta compared to the mass, yields very similar phenomena as the corresponding Schrödinger (Sch) equation, as evidenced by a substitution $`\psi _{KG}=e^{imt}\psi _{Sch}`$. It is not possible to open a shutter in zero time, as it implies an infinite opening speed. A shutter that opens slow enough may provide a framework in which not only the pattern persists to long times, but allows its existence for the relativistic case in a causal manner too.

In order to see that wave packet diffraction in space and time does exist in the relativistic case, we performed numerical calculations using the one-dimensional Dirac equation with a scalar potential 111 The use of a potential in the non-stationary case for relativistic equations is questionable. However, it is still of relevance. S(x) as given in eq.(10)

$`\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu +\left(m+S(x)\right)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ (11)
For the initial packet we took a minimal uncertainty relativistically invariant wave packet

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}U\\ V\end{array}\right)`$

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ke^{ik(xx_0)2\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)}}`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k\frac{ik}{E+m}e^{ik(xx_0)2\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)}}`$ (12)
with $`E=\sqrt{k^2+m^2},E_0=\sqrt{q_0^2+m^2}`$, and we have taken $`\gamma _\mathrm{𝟎}=\sigma _𝐳,\gamma _\mathrm{𝟏}=\sigma _𝐳\sigma _𝐱`$ for the Dirac matrices, where $`\sigma `$ denotes the corresponding Pauli matrix.

We extended the numerical method used for the nonrelativistic case, to the unitary evolution of the Dirac particle and found it extremely accurate. This method is a straightforward extension of the method of .222A numerical algorithm and routines are available from the author. The vector density $`\rho ={\displaystyle 𝑑x(|U|^2+|V|^2)}`$ is conserved to an accuracy of more than 0.1% after millions of iterations. The equation is solved with high accuracy as determined not only by substitution, but, also by comparing to the free evolution of the wave packet above at large times. The price one has to pay for the Dirac case is a much smaller time increment because of the oscillations introduced by the mass parameter. Figures 6 and 7 show the results obtained.

It is clear from the figures that the phenomenon exists in the Dirac case also.

We now proceed to study the analytical behavior of the diffraction process for the Dirac equation. Consider the one-dimensional Dirac equation with a scalar potential only S(x) as given by eq.(11) For the initial packet we use a minimal uncertainty relativistically invariant wave packet of eq.(3) The stationary wave function inside and outside the well for fixed momentum is given by $`\varphi (k,x,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1e^{iEt}\\ \varphi _2e^{iEt}\end{array}\right)`$

$`\varphi _1(x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(e^{ikx}+Be^{ikx})`$
$`\varphi _2(x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{E+m}}(e^{ikx}Be^{ikx})`$
$`\varphi _1(w<x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(Ce^{ik^{}x}+De^{ik^{}x})`$
$`\varphi _2(w<x<w,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik^{}}{E+m^{}}}(Ce^{ik^{}x}De^{ik^{}x})`$
$`\varphi _1(w<x,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`Fe^{ikx}`$
$`\varphi _2(w<x,k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{E+m}}Fe^{ikx}`$ (13)
with

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1g^2)(e_3^2e_4^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e_1e_4(1+g)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e_1e_3(1g)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (14)
where $`e_1=e^{ikw},e_2=e^{ikw},e_3=e^{ik^{}w},e_4=e^{ik^{}w}`$, $`g={\displaystyle \frac{k^{}(E+m)}{k(E+m^{})}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=e_3^2(1g)^2e_4^2(1+g)^2`$, $`k^{}=\sqrt{E^2(m^{})^2},m^{}=mV_0`$.333For a vector potential the  is in the energy instead of the mass

The solution to the scattering of the packet becomes $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}U(x,t)\\ V(x,t)\end{array}\right)`$

$`U(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k\varphi _1(k,x,t)e^{ikx_02\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)iEt}}`$
$`V(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k\varphi _2(k,x,t)e^{ikx_02\sigma ^2(EE_0kq_0m^2)iEt}}`$ (15)
As in section 2 we consider the long time behavior of the wave. Here too, the reflected wave will receive contributions mainly from low values of k. Inspection of the reflection parameter B in eq.(3), we find that for $`k0`$, $`B1`$. The same happened in the nonrelativistic treatment of section 2. For low initial momenta, $`q_0<<m,orv<<1`$, the exponential of eq.(3) becomes $`e^{ikx_0imti\frac{k^2}{2m}t\sigma ^2(q_0k)^2}`$. So except for the factor $`e^{imt}`$, that is independent of k, we are back at the nonrelativistic case for the upper component, and at the same time the lower component vanishes. Hence, the Dirac case in one dimension is exactly analogous to the nonrelativistic case for low average momenta of the initial wave packet.

In the ultrarelativistic limit $`m0`$, the upper and lower components are identical up to a factor of i. The incoming and reflected waves do not spread. Hence, there is no interference between both. If we first find the wave in the backward direction as in section 2, and then take the limit of a small mass, we find that the pattern disappears, as the arguments of the sin function tend to zero. For $`t\mathrm{}`$, the backwards scattered wave becomes a receding wave packet located around $`x=x_0tw`$, without any diffraction. The incoming packet is no longer present in the region behind the well.

In summary, the diffraction in space and time with wave packets exists in the relativistic regime, but gradually diminishes as the mass decreases, until is eventually washed out completely for the massless case, as was found for the diffraction in time process with the Klein-Gordon equation.

## 4 Wave packet diffraction in three dimensions

In section 2 it was shown analytically that there exist a broad class of phenomena occurring in nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum wave packet potential scattering that behave as time dependent persistent diffraction patterns. The patterns are produced by a time independent well or barrier. Differing from the diffraction in time and diffraction in space and time phenomena, that apply to the time dependent opening of slits with plane monochromatic waves, the pattern does not decay exponentially with time.

We now consider the generalization of the analytical formula of eq.(2) to three dimensions. We take a gaussian wave packet in three dimensions,

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{y_0}`$
$`y_0`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0(\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0){\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0)^2}{4\sigma ^2}}`$ (16)
with $`\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0`$, the initial average momentum of the packet, $`\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0`$, the initial location and $`\sigma `$ the packet width, impinging on a spherically symmetric square well

$`V(x)=V_0\mathrm{\Theta }(wr)`$ (17)
where, w is the well width, and $`V_0`$, the depth, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the step function. The results are not dependent on the choice of wave packet however, the Gaussian profile facilitates the integrations. The total wave function with outgoing boundary condition at large distances, reads

$`\psi ^+(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{in}(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)+\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3kf(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0)(\psi _{in}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)+\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t))}`$
where

$`\psi _{in}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\stackrel{}{𝐤}\stackrel{}{𝐫}}`$
$`\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr}}{kr}}{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}(2L+1)e^{i\delta _L}sin(\delta _L)P_L(\text{}\text{})`$
$`f(\stackrel{}{𝐤},\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(\stackrel{}{𝐤}\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0)^2\sigma ^2i\stackrel{}{𝐤}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0i\frac{k^2}{2m}t}`$ (19)
The incoming wave may be found explicitly to be

$`\psi _{in}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{y_1}erfc(i{\displaystyle \frac{D}{\sqrt{\sigma ^2+it/(2m)}}})`$
$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{4(it/(2m)+\sigma ^2)}}q_0^2\sigma ^2`$ (20)
Where $`D=|\stackrel{}{𝐫}\stackrel{}{𝐫}_02i\sigma ^2\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0|`$, erfc represents the complementary error function of complex argument and the absolute value in the definition of D pertains to the vectorial character, and not to the complex number. Error functions and similar Fresnel integrals are found in many diffraction formulae, such as those appearing in the works of Moshinsky.

Performing the angular integral over , the scattered wave becomes

$`\psi _{scatt}(\stackrel{}{𝐫},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle k^2𝑑k\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{𝐫},k,t)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{𝐫},k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{4\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr}}{kr}}e^{\sigma ^2(k^2+q_0^2)it\frac{k^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{L,M}{}}(2L+1)e^{i\delta _L}sin(\delta _L)I_{L,M}(k,\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0,\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0,\stackrel{}{𝐫})`$ (21)
Where

$`I_{L,M}(k,\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0,\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0,\stackrel{}{𝐫})`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \underset{l,l^{},m,m^{}}{}}i^{l^{}l}C_{l,L}j_l(kx_0)j_l^{}(2i\sigma ^2q_0k)Y_L^M(\text{})Y_{l}^{m}{}_{}{}^{}(\text{}_0)Y_{l^{}}^{m^{}}{}_{}{}^{}(\text{}_0)`$
$`C_{l,L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(2l+1)(2l^{}+1)}}{\sqrt{(2L+1)}}}<ll^{}L|000><ll^{}L|mm^{}M>`$ (22)
Here $`Y_l^m`$ represents as usual the spherical harmonics, $`j_l`$ denotes the spherical Bessel function for complex argument, and $`<ll^{}L|\mathrm{}>`$ represents the Clebsh-Gordan coefficient.

The expression for $`I_L`$ is quite involved. However, for $`L=0`$ it simplifies considerably. Fortunately, this is the only contribution we need at long times, except for very specific cases for which the phase shift of higher partial waves dominates. Fot $`t\mathrm{}`$ the integral in eq.(4) oscillates wildly, except for values of k that give an extremal phase. It is easy to show that in this case, only extremely small values of k enter the integral. However, for very small values of k, reads

$`tan(\delta _l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(kw)^{2l+1}}{(2l1)!!(2l+1)!!}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_ll}{z_l+l+1}}`$
$`z_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xj_l^{}(x)}{j_l(x)}}`$ (23)
where $`x=k^{}w=\sqrt{k^2+2m|V_0|}w`$, and $`j_l`$, denotes the spherical Bessel function of order l. Except for very specific cases for which there is a resonance at a higher partial wave, only the lowest partial wave matters. Higher partial waves are suppressed by factors of the form $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{\sqrt{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}}\right)^l`$. For very long times we can then approximate the scattered wave by taking only the $`L=0`$ term in eq.(4). For this case $`I_L`$ becomes

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi j_0(kd)`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{𝐫}_0+2i\sigma ^2\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0|`$ (24)
where again the absolute value pertains to the vectorial character of the variable inside the vertical bars, and not to the complex number. Therefore, $`j_0`$ is really a complicated mixture of Bessel and Hankel functions.

Inserting eqs.(4,4) in eq.(4) and recalling the rules for the integration of the error function for complex variables, we find the transparent result

$`\psi _{scatt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{q_0^2\sigma ^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+d}{2r}}e^{\lambda _1^2}erfc(\lambda _1){\displaystyle \frac{rd}{2r}}e^{\lambda _2^2}erfc(\lambda _2)\right)`$
$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(r+d)}{2\sqrt{(it/(2m)+\sigma ^2)}}}`$
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(rd)}{2\sqrt{(it/(2m)+\sigma ^2)}}}`$ (25)
With $`u_0=w(1\frac{tan(\kappa w)}{\kappa w})`$, $`\kappa =\sqrt{2m|V_0|}`$, and d is defined in eq.(4).

The incoming and scattered wave interfere in the total wave. Noting that the scattered wave depends on the absolute value of $`\stackrel{}{𝐫}`$, while the incoming wave depends on $`\stackrel{}{𝐫}`$ itself, it is clear that there will be a different behavior at forward and backward angles.

For long times and long distances we can safely approximate the complementary error functions with the value erfc$`2`$. In order relate to the results of the one dimensional case, we will bring here the expression for the full wave, in the case of a packet impinging from a distance $`r_0`$ at zero impact parameter, intial momentum $`q_0`$, on a well located at the origin. Using equations (4,4) we find

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`2i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{it/(2m)+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^\alpha sin({\displaystyle \frac{mr}{t}}(r_0+2iq_0\sigma ^2)+i\alpha )e^x`$
$`e^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{u_0(2d+u_0)}{d^2}}}`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`q_0^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{r^2m^2}{t^2}}\sigma ^2+i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2t}}r^2`$ (26)
This is a diffraction pattern that travels in time as found for the one dimensional case. Again the pattern gets blurred and forms a single peak when the imaginary part of the argument of the sin function is large. As explained in section 2, this amounts to the condition $`\sigma >>\sqrt{\frac{w}{q_0}}`$. There is here the additional blurring effect of the phase $`\alpha `$. For narrow enough packets the pattern persists to infinity.

The results are independent of the impact parameter provided the initial packet is located at a much longer distance along the direction of $`\stackrel{}{𝐪}_0`$ as compared to the transverse direction, as found numerically in ref.. Also the pattern does not depend strongly on the initial energy, as long as it stays small compared to the well depth or barrier height. The formula of eq.(4) may be used to find the angular distribution, the scattering and total cross sections, etc. Such expressions do not seem to exist in the literature for packets, even for the simplest square well case dealt with here.

The present treatment took advantage of the properties of Gaussian packets and the simplicity of the square well. However, they are general. One has only to replace the Gaussian form factor by the appropriate one in case and the phase shift for the square well by the one corresponding to the specific choice of potential. The case of long range potentials deserves however some care.

In order to visualize somehow the three dimensional results we present in figure 8 a hypothetical scattering event of a cold neutron packet of 1 Fermi width, with initial velocity of v=0.02 c impinging along the x-axis on a well located around the origin of width 10 Fermi and depth 40 MeV. The initial position of the neutrons is taken to be $`x_0`$ = -20 Fermi, $`y_0`$ (the impact parameter)= 2 Fermi and the time is taken to be $`t=510^{14}`$ in units of Fermi also. The numbers are taken just for the sake of exemplification and are unrealistic experimentally regarding the initial width of the packet. For a more viable experimental setup see section 5. We chose the potential range and width to give a large scattered wave contribution. Figure 8 depicts the wave amplitude obtained by adding equations (4,4) as a function of distance in meters and we have multiplied the wave function by a factor of $`(it/(2m)+\sigma ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$, in order to have ordinates with values around $`|\psi |`$=1. We have chosen to show graphs for the plane z=0. The pictures are similar for other planes. The darkened elements in the figure are due to fast oscillations of the wave.

For this very advantadgeous choice of parameters the diffraction in space and time in three dimensions exists at all angles and not only in the backward direction. Perhaps this is expected for a very low speed packet that essentially spreads around a position close to the origin, while a secondary scattered wave interferes with it. Directionality is here weak, in contradistinction to the one dimensional case. The effect depends strongly on the input parametes. In figure 9 we modified the parameters of figure 8 only slightly by increasing the well depth by 5%. The effects are dramatic. Wild oscillations in small regions of space arise. This topic will be studied in a later work.

## 5 Numerical simulation of a suggested experiment

Present advances in bose traps permit the handling of atoms at very low temperature and velocities. At such energies the atoms move as if they were a wave packet provided the random agitation due to thermal effects is not as crucial. However, still the large amount of interactions between the particles and of them with the environment causes a decoherence of the wave in quite a short time. Instead of resorting to a cold bose gas, we will then focus on a drop of liquid Helium. Although the experimental details are beyond the expertise of the author, a hypothetical setup will be described in the hope that it is not too far away from reality.

We will imagine a setup that may be dealt with approximately as a one-dimensional system, namely a drop of liquid Helium put on a surface a short distance apart from an impervious wall and far from any other boundary, inside a adiabatic container. Gravity is supposed to hold the drop in place vertically. The wall serves as a potential barrier and we are only interested in the horizontal spread of the drop due to the interaction with the wall.

Consider a drop of liquid helium, of around $`1cm^3`$ in volume lying near a corner of Cesium coated plates perpendicular to each other may be appropriate for this purpose. Cesium is needed in order to prevent wetting. The helium, plate and environment should be at a temperature below the $`\lambda `$ point, although it would be interesting to see the effect of normal to superfluid component of the Helium on the wave packet behavior, as a tool to study decoherence. Put a large area detector far behind the drop and the plate. The number of particles measured as a function of time at a fixed position would then be determined by the absolute value of the wave function at that point. The particles are repelled by the wall and the packet spreads at the same time.

Figure 10 depicts such a case. We solved the one dimensional Schrödinger equation for a packet as described in section 2 , with a barrier of very large strength. We assumed a total number of particles of $`N=510^{21}`$, obtained from the tabulated density of liquid helium and a volume of 1 $`cm^3`$. We used a plate (potential) of width w=1 cm and strength $`V_0=4eV10^{15}`$, in units of $`\mathrm{}=1`$. We took a detector size of $`dx=1mm`$, and recorded the amplitude of the wave multiplied by dx in order to calculate the relative number of particles in the same distance and at varying time. The number of particles as a function of time -relative number multiplied by the total initial number in the drop for a properly normalized wave initially- is shown in the figure.

It appears that, due to the large number of particles to be detected a simple weighing technique might be feasible, in this way we also avoid interaction of the packet with the detector.

It is perhaps too optimistic to expect the proposed experiment will work so cleanly as in the simulation, due to all kinds of effects inside the drop that lead to decoherence, such as production of internal excitations like rotons, vortices, etc. However, some remainder of the effect might still show up in the counter. If it does, it will be a triumph for the quantum mechanical description of matter waves by means of wave packets of macroscopic size.

## 6 Summary

In summary, we have found in the present work that, the phenomenon of diffraction of wave packets in space and time, is determined by the spreading of the incoming waves and the subsequent interference between incoming and scattered waves as well as by the physical size of scatterers. It appears then, that the theoretical and experimental study of wave packet scattering as it evolves in time, gives us a new tool for the investigation of structure and dynamics of atoms and nuclei and a new possible testground for the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Acknowledgments

The anonymous referee very constructive remarks, are greatly appreciated.


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

COSMOLOGICAL RELATIVITY: A GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC THEORY FOR THE ACCELERATING EXPANDING UNIVERSE

Moshe Carmeli and Silvia Behar

Department of Physics, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel

(E-mail: carmelim@bgumail.bgu.ac.il silviab@bgumail.bgu.ac.il)

ABSTRACT

Recent observations of distant supernovae imply, in defiance of expectations, that the universe growth is accelerating, contrary to what has always been assumed that the expansion is slowing down due to gravity. In this paper a general-relativistic cosmological theory that gives a direct relationship between distances and redshifts in an expanding universe is presented. The theory is actually a generalization of Hubble’s law taking gravity into account by means of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The theory predicts that the universe can have three phases of expansion, decelerating, constant and accelerating, but it is shown that at present the first two cases are excluded, although in the past it had experienced them. Our theory shows that the universe now is definitely in a stage of accelerating expansion, confirming the recent experimental results.
Paper dedicated to Professor Sir Hermann Bondi on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

The general-relativistic theory of cosmology started in 1922 with the remarkable work of A. Friedmann , who solved the Einstein gravitational field equations and found that they admit non-static cosmological solutions presenting an expandeing universe. Einstein, believing that the universe should be static and unchanged forever, suggested a modification to his gravitational field equations by adding to them the so-called cosmological term which can stop the expansion.

Soon after that E. Hubble  found experimentally that the far-away galaxies are receding from us, and that the farther the galaxy the bigger its velocity. In simple words, the universe is indeed expanding according to a simple physical law that gives the relationship between the receding velocity and the distance,

$$\text{v}=H_0\text{R}.$$
$`(1)`$
Equation (1) is usually referred to as the Hubble law, and $`H_0`$ is called the Hubble constant. It is tacitly assumed that the velocity is proportional to the actual measurement of the redshift $`z`$ of the receding objects by using the non-relativistic relation $`z=\text{v}/c`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum.

The Hubble law does not resemble standard dynamical physical laws that are familiar in physics. Rather, it is a cosmological equation of state of the kind one has in thermodynamics that relates the pressure, volume and temperature, $`pV=RT`$ . It is this Hubble’s equation of state that will be extended so as to include gravity by use of the full Einstein theory of general relativity. The obtained results will be very simple, expressing distances in terms of redshifts; depending on the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$ we will have accelerating, constant and decelerating expansions, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$, respectively. But the last two cases will be shown to be excluded on physical evidence, although the universe had decelerating and constant expansions before it reached its present accelerating expansion stage. As is well known, the standard theory does not deal with this problem.

Before presenting our theory, and in order to fix the notation, we very briefly review the existing theory . In the four-dimensional curved space-time describing the universe, our spatial three-dimensional space is assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. Co-moving coordinates, in which $`g_{00}=1`$ and $`g_{0k}=0`$, are employed . Here, and throughout our paper, low-case Latin indices take the values 1, 2, 3 whereas Greek indices will take the values 0, 1, 2, 3, and the signature will be $`(+)`$. The four-dimensional space-time is split into $`13`$ parts, and the line-element is subsequently written as $`ds^2=dt^2dl^2`$, where $`dl^2={}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{kl}^{}dx^kdx^l=g_{kl}dx^kdx^l`$, and the $`3\times 3`$ tensor $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{kl}^{}g_{kl}`$ describes the geometry of the three-dimensional space at a given instant of time. In the above equations the speed of light $`c`$ was taken as unity.

Because of the isotropy and homogeneity of the three-geometry, it follows that the curvature tensor must have the form

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{mnsk}^{}=K\left[{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{ms}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{nk}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{mk}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{ns}^{}\right],$$
$`(2)`$
where $`K`$ is a constant, the curvature of the three-dimensional space, which is related to the Ricci scalar by $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R=6K`$ . By simple geometrical arguments one then finds that

$$dl^2=\left(1r^2/R^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
$`(3)`$
where $`r<R`$. Furthermore, the curvature tensor corresponding to the metric (3) satisfies Eq. (2) with $`K=1/R^2`$. In the “spherical” coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ we thus have

$$g_{11}=\left(1r^2/R^2\right)^1.$$
$`(4)`$
$`R`$ is called the radius of curvature of the universe (or the expansion parameter) and its value is determined by the Einstein field equations.

One then has three cases: (1) a universe with positive curvature for which $`K=1/R^2`$; (2) a universe with negative curvature, $`K=1/R^2`$; and (3) a universe with zero curvature, $`K=0`$. The $`g_{11}`$ component for the negative-curvature universe is given by

$$g_{11}=\left(1+r^2/R^2\right)^1.$$
$`(5)`$
For the zero-curvature universe one lets $`R\mathrm{}`$.

Although general relativity theory asserts that all coordinate systems are equally valid, in this theory one has to change variables in order to get the “right” solutions of the Einstein field equations according to the type of the universe. Accordingly, one makes the substitution $`r=R\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ for the positive-curvature universe, and $`r=R\mathrm{sinh}\chi `$ for the negative-curvature universe. Not only that, but the time-like coordinate is also changed into another one $`\eta `$ by the transformation $`dt=Rd\eta `$. The corresponding line elements then become:

$$ds^2=R^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
$`(6a)`$
for the positive-curvature universe,

$$ds^2=R^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2d\chi ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
$`(6b)`$
for the negative-curvature universe, and

$$ds^2=R^2\left(\eta \right)\left[d\eta ^2dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
$`(6c)`$
for the flat three-dimensional universe. In the sequel, we will see that the time-like coordinate in our theory will take one more different form.

The Einstein field equations are then employed in order to determine the expansion parameter $`R(\eta )`$. In fact only one field equation is needed,

$$R_0^0\frac{1}{2}\delta _0^0R+\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _0^0=8\pi GT_0^0,$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, and $`c`$ was taken as unity. In the Friedmann models one takes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and in the comoving coordinates used one easily finds that $`T_0^0=\rho `$, the mass density. While this choice of the energy-momentum tensor is acceptable in standard general relativity and in Newtonian gravity, we will argue in the sequel that it is not so for cosmology. At any rate, using $`\rho \left(t\right)=M/2\pi ^2R^3`$, where $`M`$ is the “mass” and $`2\pi ^2R^3`$ is the “volume” of the universe, one obtains

$$3\left[\left(dR/dt\right)^2+1\right]/R^2=4GM/\pi R^3+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(8a)`$
or, in terms of $`\eta `$ along with taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$,

$$3\left[\left(dR/d\eta \right)^2+R^2\right]/R=4GM/\pi ,$$
$`(9a)`$
The solution of this equation is

$$R={}_{}{}^{}R\left(1\mathrm{cos}\eta \right),$$
$`(10a)`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{}R`$ is a constant, $`{}_{}{}^{}R=2GM/3\pi `$, and from $`dt=R\text{ }d\eta `$ we obtain

$$t={}_{}{}^{}R\left(\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta \right).$$
$`(11a)`$
Equations (10a) and (11a) are those of a cycloid, and give a full representation for the radius of curvature of the universe.

Similarly, one obtains for the negative-curvature universe the analog to Eqs. (8a) and (9a),

$$3\left[\left(dR/dt\right)^21\right]/R^2=4GM/\pi R^3+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(8b)`$
$$3\left[\left(dR/d\eta \right)^2R^2\right]/R=4GM/\pi ,$$
$`(9b)`$
the solution of which is given by

$$R={}_{}{}^{}R\left(\mathrm{cosh}\eta \eta \right),$$
$`(10b)`$
$$t={}_{}{}^{}R\left(\mathrm{sinh}\eta \eta \right).$$
$`(11b)`$
Finally, for the universe with a flat three-dimensional space the Einstein field equations yield the analog to Eqs. (8a) and (9a),

$$3\left(dR/dt\right)^2/R^2=4GM/\pi R^3+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
$`(8c)`$
$$3\left(dR/d\eta \right)^2/R=4GM/\pi .$$
$`(9c)`$
As a function of $`t`$, the solution is

$$R=\left(3GM/\pi \right)^{1/3}t^{2/3}.$$
$`(10c)`$
An extension of the Friedmann models was carried out by Lemaître, who considered universes with zero energy-momentum but with a non-zero cosmological constant. One then again obtains positive-curvature, negative-curvature and zero-curvature (also called de Sitter) universes. While these models are of interest mathematically they have little, if any, relation to the physical universe.

In the final analysis, it follows that the expansion of the universe is determined by the so-called cosmological parameters. These are the mass density $`\rho `$, the Hubble constant $`H`$ and the deceleration parameter $`q`$. We will not go through this, however, since we will concentrate on the theory with dynamical variables that are actually measured by astronomers: distances, redshifts and the mass density.

One of the Friedmann theory assumptions is that the type of the universe is determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$, which requires that the sign of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }1)`$ must not change throughout the evolution of the universe so as to change the kind of the universe from one to another. That means in this theory, the universe has only one kind of curvature throughout its evolution and does not permit going from one curvature into another. In other words the universe has been and will be in only one form of expansion. It is not obvious, however, that this is indeed a valid assumption whether theoretically or experimentally. As will be shown in the sequel, the universe has actually three phases of expansion and it does go from one to the second and then to the third phase.

A new outlook at the universe expansion can be achieved and is presented here. The new theory has the following features: (1) the dynamical variables are Hubble’s, i.e. distances and redshifts, the actually-measured quantities by astronomers; (2) it is fully general relativistic; (3) it includes two universal constants, the speed of light in vacuum $`c`$, and the Hubble time in the absence of gravity $`\tau `$ (might also be called the Hubble time in vacuum); (4) the redshift parameter $`z`$ is taken as the time-like coordinate; (5) the energy-momentum tensor is represented differently; and (6) it predicts that the universe has three phases of expansion: decelerating, constant and accelerating, but it is now in the stage of accelerating expansion phase after passing the other two phases.

Our starting point is Hubble’s cosmological equation of state, Eq. (1). One can keep the velocity $`v`$ in equation (1) or replace it with the redshift parameter $`z`$ by means of $`z=v/c`$. Since R$`=(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$, the square of Eq. (1) then yields

$$c^2H_0^2z^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2\right)=0.$$
$`(12)`$
Our aim is to write our equations in an invariant way so as to enable us to extend them to curved space. Equation (12) is not invariant since $`H_0^1`$ is the Hubble time at present. At the limit of zero gravity, Eq. (12) will have the form

$$c^2\tau ^2z^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2\right)=0,$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\tau `$ is Hubble’s time in vacuum, which is a universal constant the numerical value of which will be determined in the sequel by relating it to $`H_0^1`$ at different situations. Equation (13) provides the basis of a cosmological special relativity and has been investigated extensively \[11-16\].

In order to make Eq. (13) adaptable to curved space we write it in a differential form:

$$c^2\tau ^2dz^2\left(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2\right)=0,$$
$`(14)`$
or, in covariant form in flat space,

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =0,$$
$`(15a)`$
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the ordinary Minkowskian metric, and our coordinates are $`(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)=(c\tau z,x_1,x_2,x_3)`$. Equation (15a) expresses the null condition, familiar from light propagation in space, but here it expresses the universe expansion in space. The generalization of Eq. (15a) to a covariant form in curved space can immediately be made by replacing the Minkowskian metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ by the curved Riemannian geometrical metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =0,$$
$`(15b)`$
obtained from solving the Einstein field equations.

Because of the spherical symmetry nature of the universe, the metric we seek is of the form

$$ds^2=c^2\tau ^2dz^2e^\lambda dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
$`(16)`$
where co-moving coordinates, as in the Friedmann theory, are used and $`\lambda `$ is a function of the radial distance $`r`$. The metric (16) is static and solves the Einstein field equation (7). When looking for static solutions, Eq. (7) can also be written as

$$e^\lambda \left(\lambda ^{}/r1/r^2\right)+1/r^2=8\pi GT_0^0$$
$`(17)`$
when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is taken zero, and where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$.

In general relativity theory one takes for $`T_0^0=\rho `$. So is the situation in Newtonian gravity where one has the Poisson equation $`^2\varphi =4\pi G\rho `$. At points where $`\rho =0`$ one solves the vacuum Einstein field equations and the Laplace equation $`^2\varphi =0`$ in Newtonian gravity. In both theories a null (zero) solution is allowed as a trivial case. In cosmology, however, there exists no situation at which $`\rho `$ can be zero because the universe is filled with matter. In order to be able to have zero on the right-hand side of Eq. (17) we take $`T_0^0`$ not as equal to $`\rho `$ but to $`\rho \rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c`$ is chosen by us now as a constant given by $`\rho _c=3/8\pi G\tau ^2`$. This approach has been presented and used in earlier work .

The solution of Eq. (17), with $`T_0^0=\rho \rho _c`$, is given by

$$e^\lambda =1\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)r^2/c^2\tau ^2,$$
$`(18)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$. Accordingly, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ we have $`g_{rr}=\left(1r^2/R^2\right)^1`$, where

$$R^2=c^2\tau ^2/\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right),$$
$`(19a)`$
exactly equals to $`g_{11}`$ given by Eq. (4) for the positive-curvature Friedmann universe that is obtained in the standard theory by purely geometrical manipulations. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, we can write $`g_{rr}=\left(1+r^2/R^2\right)^1`$ with

$$R^2=c^2\tau ^2/\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right),$$
$`(19b)`$
which is equal to $`g_{11}`$ given by Eq. (5) for the negative-curvature Friedmann universe. In the above equations $`r<R`$.

Moreover, we know that the Einstein field equations for these cases are given by Eqs. (8) which, in our new notation, have the form

$$\left[\left(dR/dz\right)^2+c^2\tau ^2\right]/R^2=\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right),$$
$`(20a)`$
$$\left[\left(dR/dz\right)^2c^2\tau ^2\right]/R^2=\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right).$$
$`(20b)`$
As is seen from these equations, if one neglects the first term in the square brackets with respect to the second ones, $`R^2`$ will be exactly reduced to their values given by Eqs. (19).

The expansion of the universe can now be determined from the null condition $`ds=0`$, Eq. (15b), using the metric (16). Since the expansion is radial, one has $`d\theta =d\varphi =0`$, and the equation obtained is

$$dr/dz=c\tau \left[1+\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)r^2/c^2\tau ^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
$`(21)`$
The second term in the square brackets of Eq. (21) represents the deviation from constant expansion due to gravity. For without this term, Eq. (21) reduces to $`dr/dz=c\tau `$ or $`dr/dv=\tau `$, thus $`r=\tau v+`$constant. The constant can be taken zero if one assumes, as usual, that at $`r=0`$ the velocity should also vanish. Accordingly we have $`r=\tau v`$ or $`v=\tau ^1r`$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, namely when $`\rho =\rho _c`$, we have a constant expansion.

The equation of motion (21) can be integrated exactly by the substitutions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\chi =\alpha r/c\tau ;& \mathrm{\Omega }>1,\end{array}$$
$`(22a)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sinh}\chi =\beta r/c\tau ;& \mathrm{\Omega }<1,\end{array}$$
$`(22b)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha =\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)^{1/2},& \beta =\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
$`(23)`$
For the $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ case a straightforward calculation, using Eq. (22a), gives

$$dr=\left(c\tau /\alpha \right)\mathrm{cos}\chi d\chi ,$$
$`(24)`$
and the equation of the universe expansion (21) yields

$$d\chi =\alpha dz.$$
$`(25a)`$
The integration of this equation gives

$$\chi =\alpha z+\text{constant}.$$
$`(26a)`$
The constant can be determined, using Eq. (22a). For at $`\chi =0`$, we have $`r=0`$ and $`z=0`$, thus

$$\chi =\alpha z,$$
$`(27a)`$
or, in terms of the distance, using (22a) again,

$$\begin{array}{cc}r\left(z\right)=\left(c\tau /\alpha \right)\mathrm{sin}\alpha z;& \alpha =\left(\mathrm{\Omega }1\right)^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
$`(28a)`$
This is obviously a decelerating expansion.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, using Eq. (22b), then a similar calculation yields for the universe expansion (21)

$$d\chi =\beta dz,$$
$`(25b)`$
thus

$$\chi =\beta z+\text{constant}.$$
$`(26b)`$
Using the same initial conditions used above then give

$$\chi =\beta z,$$
$`(27b)`$
and in terms of distances,

$$\begin{array}{cc}r\left(z\right)=\left(c\tau /\beta \right)\mathrm{sinh}\beta z;& \beta =\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
$`(28b)`$
This is now an accelerating expansion.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ we have, from Eq. (21),

$$d^2r/dz^2=0.$$
$`(25c)`$
The solution is, of course,

$$r\left(z\right)=c\tau z.$$
$`(28c)`$
This is a constant expansion.

It will be noted that the last solution can also be obtained directly from the previous two ones for $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$ by going to the limit $`z0`$, using L’Hospital lemma, showing that our solutions are consistent. It will be shown later on that the constant expansion is just a transition stage between the decelerating and the accelerating expansions as the universe evolves toward its present situation.

Figure 1 describes the Hubble diagram of the above solutions for the three types of expansion for values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from 100 to 0.24. The figure describes the three-phase evolution of the universe. Curves (1) to (5) represent the stages of decelerating expansion according to Eq. (28a). As the density of matter $`\rho `$ decreases, so does $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ also, the universe goes over from the lower curves to the upper ones, and it does not have enough time to close up to a big crunch. The universe, subsequently, goes to curve (6) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, at which time it has a constant expansion for a fraction of a second. This then followed by going to the upper curves (7) and (8) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$ where the universe expands with acceleration according to Eq. (28b). A curve of this kind fits the present situation of the universe.

In order to decide which of the three cases is the appropriate one at the present time, we have to write the solutions (28) in the ordinary Hubble law form $`v=H_0r`$. To this end we change variables from the redshift parameter $`z`$ to the velocity $`v`$ by means of $`z=v/c`$ for $`v`$ much smaller than $`c`$. For higher velocities this relation is not accurate and one has to use a Lorentz transformation in order to relate $`z`$ to $`v`$. A simple calculation then shows that, for receding objects, one has the relations

$$z=\left[\left(1+v/c\right)/\left(1v/c\right)\right]^{1/2}1,$$
$`(29a)`$
$$v/c=z\left(z+2\right)/\left(z^2+2z+2\right).$$
$`(29b)`$
We will assume that $`vc`$ and consequently Eqs. (28) have the forms

$$r\left(v\right)=\left(c\tau /\alpha \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha v/c\right),$$
$`(30a)`$
$$r\left(v\right)=\left(c\tau /\beta \right)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\beta v/c\right),$$
$`(30b)`$
$$r\left(v\right)=\tau v.$$
$`(30c)`$
Expanding now Eqs. (30a) and (30b) and keeping the appropriate terms, then yields

$$r=\tau v\left(1\alpha ^2v^2/6c^2\right),$$
$`(31a)`$
for the $`\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ case, and

$$r=\tau v\left(1+\beta ^2v^2/6c^2\right),$$
$`(31b)`$
for $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$. Using now the expressions for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, given by Eq. (23), in Eqs. (31) then both of the latter can be reduced into a single equation

$$r=\tau v\left[1+\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)v^2/6c^2\right].$$
$`(32)`$
Inverting now this equation by writing it in the form $`v=H_0r`$, we obtain in the lowest approximation for $`H_0`$ the following:

$$H_0=h\left[1\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)v^2/6c^2\right],$$
$`(33)`$
where $`h=\tau ^1`$. Using $`vr/\tau `$, or $`z=v/c`$, we also obtain

$$H_0=h\left[1\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)r^2/6c^2\tau ^2\right]=h\left[1\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)z^2/6\right].$$
$`(34)`$
Consequently, $`H_0`$ depends on the distance, or equivalently, on the redshift. As is seen, $`H_0`$ has meaning only for $`r0`$ or $`z0`$, namely when measured locally, in which case it becomes $`h`$.

In recent years observers have argued for values of $`H_0`$ as low as 50 and as high as 90 km/sec-Mpc, some of the recent ones show $`80\pm 17`$ km/sec-Mpc \[18-26\]. There are the so-called “short” and “long” distance scales, with the higher and the lower values for $`H_0`$ respectively . Indications are that the longer the distance of measurement the smaller the value of $`H_0`$. By Eqs. (33) and (34) this is possible only for the case in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$, namely when the universe is at an accelerating expansion.

Figures 2 and 3 show the Hubble diagrams of the predicted by theory distance-redshift relationship for the accelerating expanding universe at present time, whereas figures 4 and 5 show the experimental results \[28-29\].

Our estimate for $`h`$, based on published data, is $`h8590`$ km/sec-Mpc. Assuming $`\tau ^185`$ km/sec-Mpc, Eq. (34) then gives

$$H_0=h\left[11.3\times 10^4\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)r^2\right],$$
$`(35)`$
where $`r`$ is in Mpc. A computer best-fit can then fix both $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In summary, we have presented a general-relativistic theory of cosmology, the dynamical variables of which are those of Hubble’s, i.e. distances and redshifts. The theory describes the universe as having a three-phase evolution with a decelerating expansion, followed by a constant and an accelerating expansion, and it predicts that the universe is now in the latter phase. As the density of matter decreases, while the universe is at the decelerating phase, it does not have enough time to close up to a big crunch. Rather, it goes to the constant expansion phase, and then to the accelerating stage. The equations obtained for the universe expansion are very simple.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that if one assumes that the matter density at the present time is such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.24`$, then it can be shown that the time at which the universe had gone over from a decelerating to an accelerating expansion, i.e. the constant expansion phase, occured at cosmic time $`0.03\tau `$.

The idea to express cosmological theory in terms of directly-measurable quantities, such as distances and redshifts, was partially inspired by Albert Einstein’s favourite remarks on the theory of thermodynamics in his Autobiographical Notes .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a great pleasure to thank Professor Sir Hermann Bondi for his continuous interest, comments and stimulating suggestions dealing with the contents of this paper. We also wish to thank Professor Michael Gedalin for his help with the diagrams.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1 Hubble’s diagram describing the three-phase evolution of the universe according to Einstein’s general relativity theory. Curves (1) to (5) represent the stages of decelerating expansion according to $`r(z)=(c\tau /\alpha )\mathrm{sin}\alpha z`$, where $`\alpha =(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{1/2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c`$, with $`\rho _c`$ a constant, $`\rho _c=3/8\pi G\tau ^2`$, and $`c`$ and $`\tau `$ are the speed of light and the Hubble time in vacuum (both universal constants). As the density of matter $`\rho `$ decreases, the universe goes over from the lower curves to the upper ones, but it does not have enough time to close up to a big crunch. The universe subsequently goes to curve (6) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, at which time it has a constant expansion for a fraction of a second. This then followed by going to the upper curves (7)–(8) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$ where the universe expands with acceleration according to $`r(z)=(c\tau /\beta )\mathrm{sinh}\beta z`$, where $`\beta =(1\mathrm{\Omega })^{1/2}`$. One of these last curves fits the present situation of the universe.
Fig. 2 Hubble’s diagram of the universe at the present phase of evolution with accelerating expansion.
Fig. 3 Hubble’s diagram describing decelerating, constant and accelerating expansions in a logarithmic scale.
Fig. 4 Distance vs. redshift diagram showing the deviation from a constant toward an accelerating expansion. \[Sourse: A. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)\].
Fig. 5 Relative intensity of light and relative distance vs. redshift. \[Sourse: A. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)\].


text:
# Chern-Simons Supersymmetric Branes

## Abstract

The purpose of this Letter is to continue the study of the class of models proposed in the previous paper  hep-th/0002077. The model corresponds to a system of branes of diverse dimensionalities with Chern-Simons actions for a supergroup, embedded in a background described also by a Chern-Simons action. The model treats the background and the branes on an equal footing, providing a ’brane-target space democracy’. Here we suggest some possible extensions of the original model, and disscuss its equations of motion, as well as the issue of currents and charges carried by the branes. We also disscuss the relationship with M-theory and Superstring theory.

1. Introduction

Chern-Simons Supergravity (CSS) theories in diverse dimensions have been studied in many papers during the last years . Those theories are very interesting on their own right, having a wealth of nice properties, ranging from being topological (in the sense of being independent of any background metric), being true gauge theories for extensions of the standard space-time symmetry groups (like the Poincaré or anti de Sitter group), having coupling constants that are not renormalized (so that the classical action is also the quantum effective action) and being exactly solvable in 2+1 dimensions. Some time ago Chamseddine  suggested that this kind of models might be regarded as the basis for an approach to the unification of the fundamental interactions alternative to the Superstring Theory  program. More recently Horava  proposed that a CSS may correspond to the M-theory , the fundamental theory underlying the five known consistent superstring theories, which would then be an ordinary field theory (against the belief of most experts on the field).

On other line of development it was attempted to recast the 1+1 dimensional superstring actions as 2+1 CS theories  (see also ) by a sort of ’thickening of the world sheet’, as a way to benefit from the good properties of the later.

Recently we suggested  a way to introduce fundamental supersymmetric extended objects on CSS, inspired on the model of ref. for the coupling of branes to Yang-Mills fields, which brought together these approachs. There is a model of that class which has at least two of the superstring theories (IIA and IIB) as sectors of its phase space and it describe branes with actions of the same form that the one describing the background, which is a CSS with the branes acting as sources for the (super)gauge fields, and interacting with that background. Also it is plausible that standard supergravity approximately describes some regime of the theory . It was then argued in  that a model of the kind considered there might correspond to the quantum effective action of the M-theory.

In this paper I continue the study of that kind of models by reviewing its invariances and transformation properties, discussing its equations of motion and the issue of currents and charges carried by the branes. Finally I disscuss several of the questions and open problems where I believe further developments are to be expected. The model of this paper differs from the one on ref. in the fact that we point out that it may not be necessary to introduce a kinetic term ’by hand’ in order to make contact with superstring theory.

2. The Action

The mathematical tools used through this paper are discussed in (and were to a great extent developed in) references.. We will follow the notation and conventions of ref.111An excellent recent work covering the mathematical background of these articles is the book on anomalies by R. Bertlmann . The reader may find amusing to know that Dr. Bertlmann socks have inspired in J.S. Bell some deep reflections on the foundations of quantum mechanics . Bertlmann reminiscences of J.S. Bell on the topic of anomalies (where he was one of the pioneers) can be found in the Preface to .. We consider a (super)group $`G`$ with generators $`T^I`$, the gauge potential 1-form $`A=A_m^IT^Idx^m`$ and the curvature 2-form $`F=dA+A^2`$, defined on a manifold $`M^{2N+2}`$ of even dimension $`2N`$. The covariant derivative is $`D=d+[A,]`$ and it follows that $`F`$ satisfy the Bianchi identity $`DF=0`$. An invariant polynomial $`P(F)`$ is defined as the formal sum

$$P(F)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _n\text{STr}\left(F^{n+1}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\text{STr}\left(T^{I_1}\mathrm{}T^{I_{n+1}}\right)=g^{I_1\mathrm{}I_{n+1}}`$ stands for an invariant symmetric supertrace on the algebra of $`G`$. An important property is

$$d\text{STr}()=\text{STr}(D)$$
(2)
We define the action for our system by

$$S=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _n_{S^{2n+1}}k_{01}\text{STr}\left(F^{n+1}\right)$$
(3)
where $`S^{2N+1}`$ is the boundary of $`M^{2N+2}`$, $`S^{2N+1}M^{2N+2}`$, and the manifolds $`S^{2n+1}`$ are embedded into $`S^{2N+1}`$. In case $`S^{2N+1}`$ itself has a boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2N}`$, then $`S^{2N+1}`$ is included into the boundary of $`M^{2N+2}`$. The manifolds $`S^{2n+1}`$ may have boundaries in manifolds $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$.

The Cartan homotopy operator acting on polynomials $`𝒫(F_t,A_t)`$, with $`A_t`$ interpolating between two gauge potentials $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ as

$$A_t=tA_1+(1t)A_0,F_t=dA_t+A_t^2.$$
(4)
is defined to be

$$k_{01}𝒫(F_t,A_t)=_0^1𝑑tl_t𝒫(F_t,A_t),$$
(5)
with the operator $`l_t`$ defined to act on arbitrary polynomials by

$$l_tA_t=0,l_tF_t=A_1A_0J,$$
(6)
and the convention that $`l_t`$ is defined to act as an antiderivation.

The dynamical variables are the gauge potentials $`A_m^I`$, the embedding coordinates of the submanifolds $`S^{2n+1}`$, $`X_{(2n+1)}^m(\chi _{(2n+1)}^i)`$, $`m=0,\mathrm{},2N+1`$ where the $`\chi _{(2n+1)}^i`$ with $`i=0,\mathrm{},2n+1`$ , are local coordinates in $`S^{2n+1}`$ and the embedding coordinates of the submanifolds $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$, $`X_{(2n)}^m(\xi _{(2n+1)}^i)`$, $`m=0,\mathrm{},2N+1`$ where the $`\xi _{(2n)}^i`$ with $`i=0,\mathrm{},2n`$ , are local coordinates in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$ (of course in the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$ of $`S^{2n+1}`$ the $`X^m`$’s of the same point must coincide as functions of the $`\chi `$’s or the corresponding $`\xi `$’s). Notice that all these manifolds are supposed to be non compact at least in what would be the ‘time direction’. It was noticed in Refs. that the dimensionless coefficients $`\alpha _n`$ can consistently take only a discrete set of values if we require that the quantum theory must be independent of the way in which the manifolds $`S^{2n+1}`$ could be extended into manifolds $`M^{2n+2}`$ included into $`M^{2N+2}`$ such that $`S^{2n+1}M^{2n+2}`$. For instance $`P(F)=\text{STr}[e^{iF/(2\pi )}]`$ would work.
A useful relationship is the Cartan homotopy formula

$$\left(k_{01}d+dk_{01}\right)𝒫(F_t,A_t)=𝒫(F_1,A_1)𝒫(F_0,A_0).$$
(7)
which follows by integrating

$$\left(l_td+dl_t\right)𝒫(F_t,A_t)=\frac{}{t}𝒫(F_t,A_t)$$
(8)
over $`t`$ from $`0`$ to $`1`$.
Then we get

$$_{2n+1}k_{01}\text{STr}\left(F_t^{n+1}\right)=(n+1)_0^1𝑑t\text{STr}\left(JF^n\right)$$
(9)
and

$$S=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _n_{S^{2n+1}}_{2n+1}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _nS_{2n+1}$$
(10)
or

$$S=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}(n+1)\alpha _n_{S^{2n+1}}_0^1𝑑t\text{STr}\left(JF^n\right)$$
(11)
In ref. a kinetic term was added by hand in the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$ of the manifolds $`S^{2n+1}`$ given by

$$S_K^{(2n)}=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}}d^{2n}\xi _{_{(2n)}}\sqrt{\gamma _{_{(2n)}}}\left[\gamma _{_{(2n)}}^{ij}\text{STr}\left(J_iJ_j\right)(2n2)\right]$$
(12)
or alternatively of the Born-Infeld-like form

$$_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}}d^{2n}\xi _{_{(2n)}}\text{STr}\left[\sqrt{\text{sdet}\left\{J_iJ_j+(F_0)_{ij}+(F_1)_{ij}\right\}}\right]$$
(13)
or

$$_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}}d^{2n}\xi _{_{(2n)}}\text{STr}\left[\sqrt{\text{sdet}\left\{\text{STr}(J_iJ_j)+(F_0)_{ij}+(F_1)_{ij}\right\}}\right]$$
(14)
where the superdeterminant is taken in the curved indices $`i,j`$ of the pull-backs on $`S^d`$ while the supertraces are taken on the group indices. We will ignore those kinetic terms here, even though it may be that they appear as quantum corrections to the action of eq.(3) in the quantum effective action.

From the Cartan homotopy formula for $`𝒫(F_t,A_t)=I_{2n+1}^0(F_t,A_t)`$, where the Chern-Simons (CS) form $`I_{2n+1}^0(F,A)`$ is defined as

$$I_{2n+1}^0(F,A)=(n+1)_0^1𝑑s\text{STr}\left(AF_s^n\right),$$
(15)
where

$$A_s=sA,F_s=dA_s+A_s^2=sF+s(s1)A^2.$$
(16)
we get

$$k_{01}\text{STr}(F_t^{n+1})=I_{2n+1}^0(F_1,A_1)I_{2n+1}^0(F_0,A_0)d\left[k_{01}I_{2n+1}^0(F_t,A_t)\right]$$
(17)
Where we used that $`dI_{2n+1}^0(F,A)=\text{STr}(F^{n+1})`$. The last term is a boundary term which is given explicitly by

$$C_{2n}(F_1,A_1;A_0,F_0)n(n+1)_0^1𝑑s_0^1𝑑ts\text{STr}\left(A_tJF_{st}^{n1}\right)$$
(18)
with $`F_{st}=sF_t+s(s1)A_t^2`$ and $`A_t=tA_1+(1t)A_0`$.

3. Invariances of the Action

By construction the action of eq.(3) and the kinetic terms given above are generally covariant.

The content of this section regarding the transformation properties of CS forms and descent equations was developed in the context of anomalies in quantum field theories in refs.. I find it worthwhile to review it here because I apply it in a different context and conceptual framework.

Under (super)gauge transformations we have

$$A_r^g=g^1(A_r+d)g,r=0,1$$
(19)
where $`g`$ is an element of the group. It follows that $`J=A_1A_0`$ transforms covariantly if both $`A_1`$ and $`A_0`$ are transformed with the same $`g`$

$$J^g=g^1Jg$$
(20)
Also

$$F^g=g^1Fg$$
(21)
Under infinitesimal gauge transformations

$$\delta _vA_r=dv+[A_r,v],r=0,1$$
(22)
Then

$$\delta _vJ=[J,v].$$
(23)
and

$$\delta _vF=[F,v].$$
(24)
From the facts that $`F`$ and $`J`$ are gauge covariant, the ciclicity of $`\text{STr}()`$ and eq.(11) it follows that the action and also the kinetic terms of eqs.(12-14) are gauge invariant.
In order to compute the change of the action under gauge transformations involving only one of the gauge fields $`A_1`$ or $`A_0`$ it is useful to consider elements of the gauge group $`g(x,\theta )`$ function of the point $`x`$ on the base manifold and a set of parameters $`\theta ^\alpha `$ on some ’parameter space’, such that $`g(x,\theta =0)=1`$ (the identity). In addition to the standard exterior derivative $`d=dx^\mu \frac{}{x^\mu }`$ we define the exterior derivative in parameter space $`\zeta =d\theta ^\alpha \frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }`$. If

$$\overline{A}=g^1(A+d)g=A^g$$
(25)
and

$$𝒜=g^1(A+d+\zeta )g=g^1(A+\mathrm{\Delta })g=\overline{A}+v$$
(26)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=d+\zeta `$ and $`v=g^1\zeta g`$. We have $`d^2=\zeta ^2=d\zeta +\zeta d=\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0`$. It is easy to verify that $`\zeta \overline{A}=D_{\overline{A}}v`$ so that $`\zeta `$ generates gauge transformations with parameter $`v_\alpha =g^1\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }g`$. The derivative $`\zeta `$ corresponds to the BRS operator and $`v`$ to the Fadeev-Popov ghost. Defining $`\overline{F}=d\overline{A}+\overline{A}^2`$ and $`=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜+𝒜^2`$ it is possible to check the ’Russian formula’

$$(𝒜)=\overline{F}(\overline{A})=g^1F(A)g$$
(27)
Considering

$$𝒜_t=t𝒜_1+(1t)A_0$$

$$\overline{A}_t=t\overline{A}_1+(1t)A_0$$

and $`\zeta A_0=0`$, then from the ’Russian formula’ and the Cartan homotopy formula with $`𝒫_t=\text{STr}(F_t^{n+1})`$ for $`𝒜_t`$ and $`\overline{A}_t`$ we get

$$(d+\zeta )I_{2n+1}^0(\overline{A}_1+v,A_0)=dI_{2n+1}^0(\overline{A}_1,A_0)$$
(28)
where $`I_{2n+1}^0(A_1,A_0)=k_{01}\text{STr}(F_t^{n+1})=_{2n+1}`$ correspond to the pieces of diverse dimension of our lagrangian. If we expand by the order in $`v`$

$$I_{2n+1}^0(\overline{A}_1+v,A_0)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{2n+1}{}}I_{2n+1k}^k(v,\overline{A}_1,A_0)$$
(29)
then we obtain the ’descent equations’

$$\zeta I_{2n+1k}^k(v,\overline{A}_1,A_0)+dI_{2nk}^{k+1}(v,\overline{A}_1,A_0)=0,k=0,\mathrm{},2n+1$$
(30)
In particular

$$\zeta I_{2n+1k}^0(\overline{A}_1,A_0)+dI_{2nk}^1(v,\overline{A}_1,A_0)=0$$
(31)
gives the variation of our action under a gauge transformation involving only $`A_1`$ (notice that $`\overline{A}_1_{\theta =0}=A_1`$) as a boundary term. A similar identity holds for gauge transformations involving only $`A_0`$.

4. Equations of Motion

In the case of CS gauge theory or supergravity without branes or boundaries the action is

$$S=_{S^{2n+1}}I_{2n+1}^0(F,A)=_{M^{2n+2}}\text{STr}(F^{n+1})$$
(32)
then under variations of the gauge potential

$$\delta S=(n+1)_{M^{2n+2}}\text{STr}(D(\delta A)F^n)=(n+1)_{M^{2n+2}}d\left[\text{STr}(\delta AF^n)\right]$$
(33)
where we used $`\delta F=D(\delta A)`$ and eq.(2). From Stokes theorem

$$\delta S=(n+1)_{S^{2n+1}}\text{STr}(\delta AF^n)$$
(34)
Then the equations of motion $`\frac{S}{A}=0`$ are

$$\text{STr}(T^IF^n)=0$$
(35)
Whether or not these equations are related to General Relativity and/or standard Supergravity in diverse dimensions has been disscussed in Ref..

In the case there are boundaries and branes we need to use that

$$\delta _1J=\delta A_1,\delta _0J=\delta A_0$$

$$\delta _rF_t=D_t(\delta _rA_t)=d(\delta _rA_t)+[A_t,(\delta _rA_t)],r=0,1$$

$$\delta _1A_t=t\delta A_1,\delta _0A_t=(1t)\delta A_0$$

Therefore we have for variations of $`A_1`$

$$\delta _1_{2n+1}=(n+1)_0^1𝑑t\text{STr}(\delta A_1F_t^n)+n(n+1)_0^1𝑑tt\text{STr}(JD_t(\delta A_1)F_t^{n1})$$
(36)
but

$$d\left[\text{STr}(\delta A_1F_t^n)\right]=\text{STr}(D_tJ\delta A_1F_t^{n1})\text{STr}(JD_t(\delta A_1)F_t^{n1})$$
(37)
where we used $`d\text{STr}()=\text{STr}(D_t)`$ and the Bianchi identity $`D_tF_t=0`$, then

$`\delta _1_{2n+1}=(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\text{STr}(\delta A_1F_t^n)+n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt\text{STr}(\delta A_1D_t(J)F_t^{n1})`$
$`+d\left[n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt\text{STr}(\delta A_1JF_t^{n1})\right]`$ (38)
The last term of the second member is a boundary term. Under variations of $`A_0`$ we have

$`\delta _0_{2n+1}=(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\text{STr}(\delta A_0F_t^n)+n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(1t)\text{STr}(\delta A_0D_t(J)F_t^{n1})`$
$`+d\left[n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(1t)\text{STr}(\delta A_0JF_t^{n1})\right]`$ (39)
If we write

$$\delta _r_{2n+1}=\text{STr}(\delta A_rQ_{2n}^{(r)})+d\left[\text{STr}(\delta A_rR_{2n1}^{(r)})\right]$$
(40)
where

$`Q_{2n}^{(1)}=(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tF_t^n+n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ttD_t(J)F_t^{n1}`$
$`Q_{2n}^{(0)}=(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tF_t^n+n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(1t)D_t(J)F_t^{n1}`$
$`R_{2n1}^{(1)}=n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ttJF_t^{n1}`$
$`R_{2n1}^{(0)}=n(n+1){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(1t)JF_t^{n1}`$ (41)
Then we can write

$$\delta _rS=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _n\left[_{S^{2n+1}}\text{STr}(\delta A_rQ_{2n}^{(r)})+_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}}\text{STr}(\delta A_rR_{2n1}^{(r)})\right]$$
(42)
or

$$\delta _rS=_{S^{2N+1}}d^{2N+1}x\delta _rA_m^IJ^{(r)mI}$$
(43)
where

$$J^{(r)mI}(x^m)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _n\left[_{S^{2n+1}}d^{2n+1}\chi _{2n+1}𝒥_{(2n+1)}^{(r)mI}+_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}}d^{2n}\xi _{2n}𝒥_{(2n)}^{(r)mI}\right]$$
(44)
with

$`𝒥_{(2n+1)}^{(r)mI}=\delta ^{2N+1}(X_{(2n+1)}(\chi _{2n+1})x^m)\text{STr}\left(T^I(Q_{2n}^{(r)})_{m_2\mathrm{}m_{2n+1}}\right)\times `$
$`\times _{i_1}X_{(2n+1)}^{[m}_{i_2}X_{(2n+1)}^{m_2}\mathrm{}_{i_{2n+1}}X_{(2n+1)}^{m_{2n+1}]}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2n+1}}`$ (45)
and

$`𝒥_{(2n)}^{(r)mI}=\delta ^{2N+1}(X_{(2n+1)}^m(\xi _{2n})x^m)\text{STr}\left(T^I(R_{2n1}^{(r)})_{m_2\mathrm{}m_{2n}}\right)\times `$
$`\times _{i_1}X_{(2n)}^{[m}_{i_2}X_{(2n)}^{m_2}\mathrm{}_{i_{2n}}X_{(2n)}^{m_{2n}]}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2n}}`$ (46)
The equations of motion $`\frac{S}{A_r}=0`$ are then

$$J^{(r)mI}=0$$
(47)
These equations can be interpreted as the equations found before in the case there are no boundaries or branes but now with source terms given by currents carried by the branes.

Concerning the equations of motion corresponding to extremize the action under variations of the embedding functions $`X`$ it is convenient to write

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _n[{\displaystyle _{S^{2n+1}}}d^{2n+1}\chi _{2n+1}(\omega _{2n+1})_{m_1\mathrm{}m_{2n+1}}_{i_1}X_{(2n+1)}^{[m_1}\mathrm{}_{i_{2n+1}}X_{(2n+1)}^{m_{2n+1}]}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2n+1}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}}}d^{2n}\xi _{2n}(\omega _{2n})_{m_1\mathrm{}m_{2n}}_{i_1}X_{(2n)}^{[m_1}\mathrm{}_{i_{2n}}X_{(2n)}^{m_{2n}]}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2n}}]`$ (48)
where we separated the bulk and boundary contributions to $`_{2n+1}`$. In the previous expresion the dependence of $`S`$ on the functions $`X`$ is through the $`\omega `$’s while the dependence of $`S`$ on $`X`$ is through the pull-back factors. The Euler-Lagrange equations for $`X_{(p)}^s`$then give

$$\left[p\frac{}{X_{(p)}^r}(\omega _{(p)})_{sm_2\mathrm{}m_p}\frac{}{X_{(p)}^s}(\omega _{(p)})_{rm_2\mathrm{}m_p}\right]_{i_1}X_{(p)}^{[r}_{i_2}X_{(p)}^{m_2}\mathrm{}_{i_p}X_{(p)}^{m_p]}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}=0$$
(49)
In applying the Euler-Lagrange for the ’bulk’ $`S^{2n+1}`$ we left out a boundary term

$$_{i_1}\left[(\omega _{(p)})_{sm_2\mathrm{}m_p}_{i_2}X_{(p)}^{[m_2}\mathrm{}_{i_p}X_{(p)}^{m_p}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}\delta X_{(p)}^{s]}\right]$$
(50)
We can require the boundary term term to vanish, in analogy with open strings,

$$(\omega _{(p)})_{sm_2\mathrm{}m_p}_{i_2}X_{(p)}^{[m_2}\mathrm{}_{i_p}X_{(p)}^{m_p}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}\delta X_{(p)}^{s]}=0$$
(51)
which is not to be taken as a condition on what points can be swept by the boundaries of the branes, its velocities or the allowed variations $`\delta X`$ but only on the spatial derivatives of the functions $`X`$ at the boundary. Alternatively we can add that term as an extra contribution to the Euler-Lagrange equations at the boundary.

If we add the kinetic terms of eq.(12-14) there would be an extra term to the current located on the boundaries $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$ of the branes, and extra terms in the Euler-

Lagrange equations. The equations of motion of the auxiliary metrics $`\gamma `$ in the kinetic terms of eq.(12) are algebraic.

5. Discussion

Connection with Superstring/M-theory

In ref. we considered a the model of eq.(3) plus the kinetic term of eq.(12) added ’by hand’ for the M-theory group $`OSp(32|1)`$  and related it to IIA and IIB superstrings. That group has generators $`P_a`$ (translations), $`Q_\alpha `$ (generators of supersymmetries), $`M_{ab}`$ (Lorentz) and $`Z_{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}`$, $`a=0,\mathrm{}10`$. We took the symmetric trace to be the standard symmetricized supertrace in the adjoint representation of $`G`$222For the following discussion the relevant traces of products of generators in the adjoint representation of $`OSp(32|1)`$ are  $`\text{STr}(PP)`$, $`\text{STr}(PQ)`$ and $`\text{STr}(QQ)`$, while for the WZNW-term the relevant traces are $`\text{STr}(PPP)`$, $`\text{STr}(PPQ)`$, $`\text{STr}(QQP)`$ and $`\text{STr}(QQQ)`$. Among these, the non-vanishing ones (after the limiting process of )are normalized as
$$\text{STr}(P_aP_b)=\eta _{ab},\text{STr}(P_aQ_\alpha Q_\beta )=\left(\gamma _aC^1\right)_{\alpha \beta }$$
.

The point we would like to make here is that that connection can be made for the action of eq.(3) alone. We consider as our candidate to the M-theory action

$$S=\underset{n=1}{\overset{5}{}}_{S^{2n+1}}k_{01}\text{STr}\left(exp\left(i\frac{F}{2\pi }\right)\right)$$
(52)
for $`OSp(32|1)`$. The integrals in the previous expression are supposed to pick up the differential forms of the right order. We will use the same notation as  and take the Inonu-Wigner limit as it was done in that paper. We need to consider a pure gauge $`A_1=g^1dg`$ with $`g`$ restricted to the form $`g=e^{i\widehat{X}^aP_a+\theta ^\alpha Q_\alpha }`$. Then esentially $`A_0=[dX^a+i\overline{\theta }\gamma ^ad\theta ]+d\theta ^\alpha Q_\alpha `$. We will also make $`A_0=A_1`$. Then proceeding as in  we consider a 11D slab with two 10D noncompact boundaries (each with the topology of $`R^{10}`$) for which we identify the gauge parameters $`\widehat{X}^a`$ with the 10D coordinates. We will also take the pull-back of the gauge superfield $`A_1`$ to be self-dual or anti-self dual $`A_1=\pm A_1`$ with respect to some arbitrary auxiliary metric in the 2D boundaries of the 2-brane, which are contained in the 10D boundary of the 11D slab. To fix ideas we may think that metric is a 2D Minkowski metric $`\eta =(1,1)`$, then the (anti)self-duality condition means that we are keeping only the (left)right movers with respect to that metric. The bulk parts Chern-Simons of eq.(52) for the 2-brane give boundary WZW terms because the potentials are pure gauge, and both terms actually add because we chose $`A_1=A_0`$. On the other hand from eq.(18) $`C_2=\text{STr}(A_1A_0)`$, but the wedge product of a differential form with its dual with respect to a metric is the square with that metric. It follows that the $`C_2`$ in each side of the slab would look like half the kinetic term computed with that metric (in the sense we would only have right or left movers). The 11D Majorana spinor has 32 components. We can split those 32 components in 10D either as $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐})=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_L,\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_R)`$ or as $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐})=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_R,\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_R)`$ (equivalently $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐})=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_L,\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_L)`$ ), where $`_L`$ and $`_R`$ denote the chiralities in 10D. Chosing properly the anti-self duality or self duality conditions so that we have for instance left movers in one face and right movers in the other we can assemble left or right movers for $`X`$ and for the spinors from both faces. Then each choice of the splitting of 11D spinors into two 10D spinors yield IIA or IIB superstrings. Of course the previous considerations only means that IIA and IIB strings corresponds to ’sectors of the phase space’ ofthe theory, contibuting to the quantum path integral. It would take more work to check if those configurations are actually solutions of the equations of motion.

Duality

We can distinguish between the base manifold coordinates $`X`$ and the gauge parameters $`\widehat{X}`$ , and only identify them as a coordinate choice after choosing a topology for the base manifold, as done in a particular case in . That means that we can get the various dualities of  at the level of the $`OSp(1,32)`$ algebra, corresponding to different choices of the set of operators associated to translations in 10D, by picking different $`g`$’s on the Maurer-Cartan form as above with the proper $`P_a`$, and doing the identification $`X\widehat{X}`$ for the corresponding $`\widehat{X}`$ on the appropiate 10D submanifold.

Concerning T-duality, the fact that the dimensional reduction of Chern characters are Chern characters in the lower dimension would single them out of all the possible invariant polynomials. Namely we should consider just a linear combination of terms of the form $`\text{STr}(F^{n+1})`$ instead of some arbitrary combination of products of traces or some supersymmetric extension of the Euler characteristic.

D-branes and K-theory

Several recent works deal with the issue of D-branes and K-theory . The situation is often stated as ’K-theory is to be preferred to cohomology’ or equivalently ’gauge fields are to be preferred to $`p`$-form RR-fields’. In our model, as pointed out in , we can mimic the RR-fields (which would then be regarded as composite) with the CS forms of one of the gauge potentials (say $`A_1`$) which would couple (with an ’anomalous coupling’) to the other one (say $`A_0`$). The ’anomalous gauge transformation rule’ of the RR field is then built in. Also K-theoretic constructions involve a doubling of the gauge fields, as our model does. It seems therefore reasonable to investigate the relationship between both approachs.

Quantum theory and quantum effective action

The quantum theory is formaly defined by the path integral

$$Z=\underset{topologies}{}\underset{p}{}𝒟A𝒟X_{(p)}e^{iS/\mathrm{}}$$

where it is undertood that we must sum over all the gauge field configurations and brane and base space geometries and topologies. Suitable gauge fixind procedures should be used to eliminate redundancies in summing configurations corresponding to the same physical state. The topological character of the action and the quantization of the coupling constants may be taken to imply that the action of eq.(3) is already the quantum effective action. However a careful analysis of this question is clearly required.

Anomalies and full gauge invariance

It is worthwhile to notice that the variation of our action under a gauge transformation involving only one of the gauge fields has the right form to be canceled by an anomaly on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n}`$ , as it satisfies the Wess-Zumino consistency condition and comes from a chain of ’descent equations’. It is therefore tempting to look for such a mechanism to ensure the full gauge invariance of the quantum theory under arbitrary gauge tranformations of $`A_0`$ or $`A_1`$333That seems also desirable as making the same variation on both sides of a ’t-parameter space slab’ is reminiscent of ’distant parallelism’, even though actually both $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ are evaluated at the same space-time point. Incidentally I wonder if this additional one dimensional t-parameter space has anything to do with F-theory .. However a priori it does not seem that we need to have anomalies at all on the even dimensional brane boundaries, as we could in principle arrange the fermion fields (the fermionic gauge fields of the supergroup) in couples of opposite chirality so that the world volume theory is non-chiral. Yet if we chose to make it chiral, computing the precise form of the anomaly would be highly non-trivial, as we have fermionic gauge fields transforming as such under gauge transformations and reparametrizations (general coordinate transformations). It follows that the usual formulas for ’standard’ (wether gauge or gravitational) or ’sigma model’ anomalies would not apply. A discussion of anomalies for extended objects (which unfortunately I could not translate in any straightforward way to the problem at hand), and when and how to apply which formulas can be found in ref. and 444See also  and references therein. There are more recent references on brane anomalies but do not apply to the peculiarities of our model.. This approach seems to be the best hope to single out the gauge supergroup and the dimension of the space-time manifold555It would be ironic if a model of the kind studied in  and the present paper is relevant to M-theory as I believe it is, as the action of the model itself is essentially an ’anomaly’.. If our model in eleven dimensions and with gauge group $`OSp(32|1)`$ has as limiting cases the the five consistents superstring theories, then consistency and anomaly cancelation considerations from the later should translate into the fact that the former is the only one of our class of models that works. We can make a ’hand waving’ argument in the sense that a fully consistent theory of Nature should be ’perturbatively smooth’ when expanded around any ’point’ of its phase space, in the vague sense that each order must be finite, even if the ’point’ is not the true vacuum and the whole series does not converge.

Vacuum and Phenomenology

If the action is alredy the effective quantum action, as claimed, the problem of finding the vacuum reduces to finding a solution of the classical equations of motion. Doing phenomenology would require a realistic solution in the sense of having four large nearly flat 3+1 space-time dimensions (at least at some stage of cosmic evolution) and the masses and coupling constants of particle physics could be read from the coefficients of the lower order terms in a background field expansion quantization.

Group manifold/Superspace formulation

An interesting possibility would be to treat the base manifold and the fiber on the same footing by a group manifold approach. That may furthermore allow to treat the BRS operator $`\zeta `$ and the exterior derivative $`d`$ on a symmetric fashion, giving rise to a sort of ’double group manifold approach’. It may also be possible and useful to extend the definition of $`l_t`$ and the one-dimensional t-parameter to a manifold as in  and treat also $`l_t`$ in a more symmetrical fashion (a ’triple group manifold approach’?).

Pregeometric theory

I find very attractive the purely algebraic way in which the differential structure is treated in Refs.. It is also remarkable the contrast between the simplicity and terseness of the formalism set forth on those papers and the power and scope of those methods. I believe that is a broad hint of the kind of conceptual and mathematical framework required to describe a fundamental theory of Nature for which the differential structure is a dynamical entity. It seems that the more fundamental formulation of such a theory must be a discrete one (’Covariant Matrix Theory’) . One can think that it is not possible to give physical content to the de Rham complex without giving up the smooth manifold picture of the space-time. As pointed in  the pregeometric approach and the geometric approach mentioned in the previous item might not be compatible, and we believe the pregeometric one is more likely to give a conceptually tight picture of physical reality. Possibly asking for a pregeometric and a geometric group manifold/superspace formulation at once may be like asking for Newton’s Laws and circular planetary orbits.

I am grateful to S.J. Gates Jr. and H. Nishino for stimulating discussions as well as support and encouragement.