text:
# Brane-world models emerging from collisions of plane waves in 5𝐷

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been an increased interest in models where our four-dimensional universe is embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk spacetime having large extra dimensions. In the brane-world scenario, standard-model fields are confined to a singular $`3`$-brane, which is identified with our observed four-dimensional spacetime, while gravity can propagate in the extra dimension as well.

As a consequence of the confinement of matter fields to a $`3`$-brane, solutions in brane-world theory can be obtained by solving the five-dimensional Einstein equations in the bulk and then applying Israel’s boundary conditions across the brane, which is assumed to have $`𝐙_2`$ symmetry.

In cosmological solutions, one approach is to solve the equations in a Gaussian normal coordinate system based on our brane-universe, which is taken to be fixed at some constant value of the extra coordinate, say $`y=const`$ -. In an alternative approach the brane is described as a domain wall moving in a five-dimensional bulk, which is the $`5D`$ analog of the static Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter spacetime - .

These both approaches lead to similar results. In particular, they produce the same evolution equation, a generalized FRW equation, for the scale factor. They represent the same spacetime but in different coordinates . Indeed, there exists a coordinate transformation that brings the $`5D`$ line element of the static $`SchAdS`$ bulk used in - into the bulk in Gaussian normal coordinates, with static fifth dimension, used in -.

The condition of static fifth dimension is useful because it allows the complete integration of the brane-world equations in $`5D`$, with no more assumptions than an equation of state. However, it is an unrealistic external restriction, not a requirement of the field equations. There is no physical reason why the “size” of the extra dimension should not change during the evolution of the universe. It is therefore interesting to analyze brane-world models without this condition. Possible implications of a non-static extra dimension include the variation of fundamental physical “constants” .

Here we present an exact model where the singular nature of the brane, assumed fixed at $`y=const`$, comes out in a natural way. Namely, we assume that the metric functions in $`5D`$ are plane waves moving along the extra dimension. We refer here to the case where the metric functions have a simple functional dependence of time and the extra coordinate similar to that in traveling waves or pulses propagating in the fifth dimension. In a $`𝐙_2`$-symmetric universe, these waves propagate, with equal but opposite speed along $`y`$, and collide at $`y=0`$. The “plane” of collision is a jump discontinuity that we identify with our brane, and the material emerging from the (collision) discontinuity is described as an “effective” matter in $`4D`$.

The assumption of plane waves or “wave-like” solutions in five-dimensions, similar to the one considered here, has previously been used in the literature, although in another context, by Wesson, Liu and Seahra -, Horowitz, Low and Zee  as well as the present author .

We will see that our model reproduces the generalized Friedmann equation for the evolution on the brane, regardless of the specific details of the cosmology in $`5D`$. We will show that models with timelike extra dimension present a big bounce, in contrast with a big bang in models with spacelike extra dimension, where the geometry is regular and the matter quantities are finite. This bounce is not a consequence of a repulsive cosmological term, but is an authentic effect of a timelike extra dimension.

In the case of static extra dimension, the geometry on the brane corresponds to Milne’s universe. We use it here to illustrate two important points. Firstly, from a technical viewpoint it illustrates the fact that a solution which looks complicated in $`5D`$, depending on many parameters, might correspond to a very simple solution on the brane, regardless of the specific choice of parameters in $`5D`$. Secondly, from a physical viewpoint it provides another example where the brane-world paradigm leads to variable cosmological term and gravitational coupling to brane matter.

In addition, our plane-wave model allows us to make specific predictions regarding the extra dimension. We will show that (i) although the extra dimension is small today, it is increasing if the universe is expanding with acceleration, (ii) the expansion rate of the fifth dimension can be expressed in a simple way through the four-dimensional “deceleration” and Hubble parameters as $`qH`$. These predictions hold for the three $`(k=0,+1,1)`$ models and arbitrary cosmological constant. They could have important observational implications, notably for the time variation of rest mass, electric charge and the gravitational “constant”.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next Section we present the general $`5D`$-equations in the bulk as well as their solutions for the plane-wave model. In Section 3 we will see that the (generalized) Friedmann equation is recovered on the brane and analyze the evolution of models with timelike and spacelike extra dimension. In Section 4, we examine the behavior of the extra dimension. In Section 5, we critically review some objections commonly raised against the timelike signature of the extra coordinate. Finally, in Section 6 we give a summary.

## 2 Equations in the bulk

For cosmological applications, we take metric in $`5D`$ as

$$d𝒮^2=n^2(t,y)dt^2a^2(t,y)\left[\frac{dr^2}{(1kr^2)}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]+ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(t,y)dy^2,$$
(1)
where $`k=0,+1,1`$ and $`t,r,\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the usual coordinates for a spacetime with spherically symmetric spatial sections. We adopt signature $`(+)`$ for spacetime and the factor $`ϵ`$ can be $`1`$ or $`+1`$ depending on whether the extra dimension is spacelike or timelike, respectively. The corresponding field equations in $`5D`$ are

$$G_{AB}=k_{(5)}^2{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{AB}^{},$$
(2)
where $`k_{(5)}^2`$ is a constant introduced for dimensional considerations, $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{AB}^{}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor in $`5D`$ and the non-vanishing components of the Einstein tensor $`G_{AB}`$ are

$$G_0^0=\frac{3}{n^2}\left(\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{a\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)+\frac{3ϵ}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\left(\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+\frac{a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{a^2}\frac{a^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{a\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)+\frac{3k}{a^2},$$
(3)
$`G_1^1=G_2^2=G_3^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{n}}{n}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{n}}{n}}\right)\right]+`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^{\prime \prime }}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2n^{}}{n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2a^{}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{n}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}},`$
$$G_4^0=\frac{3}{n^2}\left(\frac{\dot{a}^{}}{a}\frac{\dot{a}n^{}}{an}\frac{a^{}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{a\mathrm{\Phi }}\right),$$
(5)
and

$$G_4^4=\frac{3}{n^2}\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}\frac{\dot{a}\dot{n}}{an}\right)+\frac{3ϵ}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\left(\frac{a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{a^2}+\frac{a^{}n^{}}{an}\right)+\frac{3k}{a^2}.$$
(6)
Here a dot and a prime denote partial derivatives with respect to $`t`$ and $`y`$, respectively.

Introducing the function

$$F(t,y)=ka^2+\frac{(\dot{a}a)^2}{n^2}+ϵ\frac{(a^{}a)^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2},$$
(7)
which is a first integral of the field equations, we get

$$F^{}=\frac{2a^{}a^3}{3}k_{(5)}^2{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{0}^{0},$$
(8)
and

$$\dot{F}=\frac{2\dot{a}a^3}{3}k_{(5)}^2{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{4}^{4}.$$
(9)
In what follows we will assume that the five-dimensional energy-momentum tensor has the form

$${}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{AB}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}g_{AB},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}`$ is the cosmological constant in the bulk. It can be (i) positive as in the usual de Sitter $`(dS_5)`$ solution, (ii) negative as in the brane-world scenarios where our spacetime is identified with a singular hypersurface (or $`3`$-brane) embedded in an $`AdS_5`$ bulk, or (iii) zero as in STM where the matter in $`4D`$ is interpreted as an effect of the geometry in $`5D`$.

### 2.1 Plane waves along the fifth dimension

We now assume that the metric coefficients in (1) are “wave-like” functions of the argument $`(t\lambda y)`$:

$$n=n(t\lambda y),a=a(t\lambda y),\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(t\lambda y),$$
(11)
where $`\lambda `$ can be interpreted as the “wave number”. Now, from $`G_4^0=0`$ we get

$$\dot{a}=\alpha n\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(12)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant of integration. Substituting this into (7) we obtain

$$F=a^2\left(k+\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+ϵ\lambda ^2\alpha ^2n^2\right)a^2f^2.$$
(13)
The auxiliary function $`f`$ satisfies the equation

$$af\frac{df}{da}+f^2=\frac{a^2}{3}k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)},$$
(14)
which follows from (9), (10) and (13). Integrating we get

$$f^2=\frac{\beta \alpha ^2}{a^2}+\frac{1}{6}a^2k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}.$$
(15)
Consequently,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^2=ϵ\lambda ^2n^2\frac{k}{\alpha ^2}+\frac{\beta }{a^2}+\frac{a^2}{6\alpha ^2}k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)},$$
(16)
and from (12)

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{n}\right)^2+k=ϵ\lambda ^2\alpha ^2n^2+\frac{\beta \alpha ^2}{a^2}+\frac{a^2}{6}k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}.$$
(17)
After some manipulations one can verify that the remaining field equation $`G_1^1=G_2^2=G_3^3=k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}`$ is identically satisfied.

Thus, the complete specification of the solution requires the consideration of some physics, or a simplifying mathematical assumption, to determine $`\dot{a}`$ (or $`n`$). Then, from (17) we find $`n`$ (or $`a`$). Finally, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by (16). The whole solution, thus specified, depends on three parameters, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$.

### 2.2 Generality of the wave-like solutions

Simple power-law solutions to the above equations have been discussed by Wesson, Liu and Seahra in another context , . They considered a spacelike extra dimension and made some simplifying assumptions, among others that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}=k=\beta =0`$.

The natural question to ask is whether the plane-wave model in not too restrictive as to prevent the existence of more general wave-like solutions, under less restrictive assumptions.

Before going on with our study, we should elucidate this question. We demonstrate here that the answer to this question is negative. Namely, we show a simple class of wave-like solutions, which impose no restrictions on the parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}`$, $`k`$, $`\beta `$ or the signature of the extra dimension.

In order to complete the set of equations (16), (17) we consider $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$. Then, without loss of generality we can set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=1.$$
(18)
The solution to the above equations for a spacelike extra dimension $`(ϵ=1)`$ is

$$a^2(t,y)=A\mathrm{cosh}[\frac{\omega }{\lambda }(t\lambda y)]+B\mathrm{sinh}[\frac{\omega }{\lambda }(t\lambda y)]\frac{2[k+\alpha ^2]}{\omega ^2}.$$
(19)
While for a timelike extra dimension $`(ϵ=1)`$,

$$a^2(t,y)=A\mathrm{cos}[\frac{\omega }{\lambda }(t\lambda y)]+B\mathrm{sin}[\frac{\omega }{\lambda }(t\lambda y)]\frac{2[k+\alpha ^2]}{\omega ^2}.$$
(20)
where

$$\omega =\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{3}k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}\right)},$$
(21)
and the constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ are related by

$$ϵB^2=A^2+\frac{4\alpha ^2}{\omega ^2}\left[\beta +\frac{(k+\alpha ^2)^2}{\alpha ^2\omega ^2}\right].$$
(22)
We note that for a de Sitter bulk $`(dS_5)`$ the situation is reversed. Namely, for a spacelike extra dimension the time-evolution of the brane in a $`dS_5`$ bulk is given by (20), while for a timelike by (19).

The above solution proves that the plane-wave model is not “too” restrictive, but it is compatible with a wide range of parameters. Other general solutions of this kind exist, but we will not discuss them here. What we will discuss is the plane-wave model in the context of the brane-world paradigm.

## 3 The brane in a $`𝐙_2`$-symmetric bulk

The scenario in brane-world models is that matter fields are confined to a singular $`3`$-brane. We now proceed to construct such a brane. For convenience the coordinate $`y`$ is chosen such that the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:y=0`$ coincides with the brane, which is assumed to be $`𝐙_2`$ symmetric in the bulk background -. The brane is obtained by a simple “copy and paste” procedure. Namely, we cut the generating $`5D`$ spacetime, in two pieces along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then copy the region $`y0`$ and paste it in the region $`y0`$. The result is a singular hypersurface in a $`𝐙_2`$ symmetric universe with metric

$$d𝒮^2=n^2(t+\lambda y)dt^2a^2(t+\lambda y)\left[\frac{dr^2}{(1kr^2)}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]+ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(t+\lambda y)dy^2,$$
(23)
$$d𝒮^2=n^2(t\lambda y)dt^2a^2(t\lambda y)\left[\frac{dr^2}{(1kr^2)}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]+ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(t\lambda y)dy^2,$$
(24)
for $`y>0`$ and $`y<0`$, respectively. They can be interpreted as plane-waves propagating in “opposite” directions along the fifth dimension, and colliding at $`y=0`$.

If we introduce the normal unit ($`n_An^A=ϵ`$) vector, orthogonal to hypersurfaces $`y=constant`$

$$n^A=\frac{\delta _4^A}{\mathrm{\Phi }},n_A=(0,0,0,0,ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(25)
then the extrinsic curvature $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ is

$$K_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}_ng_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{y},K_{A4}=0.$$
(26)
The metric is continuous at $`y=0`$, but $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ is not. The jump of $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ is related to $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$, the energy-momentum tensor of the matter on the brane, through Israel’s boundary conditions, viz.,

$$K_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}K_{\mu \nu }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=ϵk_{(5)}^2\left(\tau _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }\tau \right).$$
(27)
Thus,

$$K_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=K_{\mu \nu }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\frac{ϵ}{2}k_{(5)}^2\left(\tau _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }\tau \right).$$
(28)
Consequently,

$$\tau _{\mu \nu }=\frac{2ϵ}{k_{(5)}^2}\left(K_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }K\right).$$
(29)
From the field equation $`G_{04}=k_{(5)}^2{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{04}^{}`$ and (10) it follows that

$$\tau _{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =0.$$
(30)
Thus $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ represents the total conserved energy-momentum tensor on the brane. It is usually separated in two parts,

$$\tau _{\mu \nu }=\sigma g_{\mu \nu }+T_{\mu \nu },$$
(31)
where $`\sigma `$ is the tension of the brane in $`5D`$, and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ represents the energy-momentum tensor of ordinary matter in $`4D`$. Finally, from (28), (29) and (31) we get

$$K_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=\frac{ϵk_{(5)}^2}{2}\left(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}g\mu \nu (T+\sigma )\right).$$
(32)
### 3.1 Equation of state

Here, in order to complete the system of equations (16), (17) we make some assumptions on the character of the matter on the brane. In cosmological applications, the ordinary matter is usually assumed to be a perfect fluid

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu pg_{\mu \nu },$$
(33)
where the energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ satisfy the isothermal equation of state, viz.,

$$p=\gamma \rho ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\; 0}\gamma 1.$$
(34)
From (26) and (23) we find

$`K_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \dot{n}}{n\mathrm{\Phi }}},`$
$`K_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`K_\theta ^\theta =K_\varphi ^\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \dot{a}}{a\mathrm{\Phi }}}.`$ (35)
Using (24) we obtain the same expressions as in (3.1) but with opposite sign, as one expected. Thus, using (32) and (34) we obtain

$$\rho (t)=\frac{2ϵ\lambda }{k_{(5)}^2(\gamma +1)\mathrm{\Phi }|_{brane}}\left[\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{n}}{n}\right]_{brane},$$
(36)
and

$$\sigma =\frac{2ϵ\lambda }{k_{(5)}^2(\gamma +1)\mathrm{\Phi }|_{brane}}\left[(3\gamma +2)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{n}}{n}\right]_{brane}.$$
(37)
Using (12) the last equation can be written as

$$\frac{dn}{da}+(3\gamma +2)\frac{n}{a}=\frac{ϵ\sigma k_{(5)}^2(\gamma +1)}{2\lambda \alpha },$$
(38)
which can be easily integrated if the tension $`\sigma `$ is assumed to be constant, viz.,

$$n=\frac{C}{a^{3\gamma +2}}+\frac{ϵ\sigma k_{(5)}^2}{6\lambda \alpha }a,$$
(39)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. The solution in the bulk is now fully specified; substituting this expression into (16) we get $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a function of $`a`$. Then from (17) and (39), we obtain the differential equation for the scale factor $`a`$. This completes the solution.

### 3.2 The solution on the brane

The specific form of the solution in the bulk is rather cumbersome. Indeed, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(a)`$ and the differential equation for $`a=a(t\lambda y)`$ are difficult to manage due to the number of terms and parameters in the equations.

However, if we are interested in $`4D`$ we do not have to worry about the many details of the solutions in $`5D`$. For all we need are the equations expressed in terms of the cosmological (or proper) time $`\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on the brane and not in terms of the coordinate time in $`5D`$. Thus, using

$$d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }=n(t,0)dt,$$
(40)
the metric on the brane fixed at $`y=0`$ becomes

$$ds^2=(d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma })^2a^2(\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma })\left[\frac{dr^2}{(1kr^2)}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right],$$
(41)
where the scale factor is given by111The most general brane-Universe solutions for a three-brane in a five dimensional spacetime have been found in .

$$\left(\frac{da}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^2=k+\frac{a^2k_{(5)}^2}{6}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}ϵ\frac{k_{(5)}^2\sigma ^2}{6}\right)+\frac{\beta \alpha ^2}{a^2}\frac{C\lambda \alpha \sigma k_{(5)}^2}{3a^{3\gamma +1}}\frac{ϵC^2\lambda ^2\alpha ^2}{a^{6\gamma +4}}.$$
(42)
For the energy density we find

$$\rho =\frac{6ϵC\alpha \lambda }{k_{(5)}^2a^{3(\gamma +1)}}.$$
(43)
Clearly we should require $`(ϵC\alpha \lambda )>0`$. If we make the identification

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=\frac{1}{2}k_{(5)}^2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}ϵ\frac{k_{(5)}^2\sigma ^2}{6}\right),$$
(44)
$$8\pi G=ϵ\frac{k_{(5)}^4\sigma }{6},$$
(45)
then (42) becomes

$$\frac{3}{a^2}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^2+\frac{3k}{a^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}+8\pi G\rho ϵ\frac{\rho ^2}{12}+\frac{3\beta \alpha ^2}{a^4}.$$
(46)
We note that the parameter $`\beta `$ is related to the so-called Weyl or black radiation. Namely, the projection of the bulk Weyl tensor $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}C_{ABCD}^{}`$ orthogonal to $`\widehat{n}^A`$, i.e., “parallel” to spacetime, is given by

$`E_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}C_{\alpha A\beta B}^{}n^An^B`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_{\alpha \beta }}{y}}+K_{\alpha \rho }K_\beta ^\rho ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ;\beta }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{k_{(5)}^2}{3}}\left[{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{\alpha \beta }^{}+({}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{4}^{4}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{(5)}T)g_{\alpha \beta }\right].`$
Substituting the above solution into this expression we obtain

$$8\pi G\rho _{Weyl}=ϵE_0^0=\frac{3\beta \alpha ^2}{a^4},p_{Weyl}=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{Weyl},$$
(48)
where $`8\pi Gp_{Weyl}=ϵE_1^1=ϵE_2^2=ϵE_3^3`$. Thus setting $`\beta =0`$ is equivalent to eliminating the contribution coming from the free gravitational field.

With (44) and (45) as the definitions of the fundamental quantities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$ and $`G`$, the evolution equation (46) is the “generalized” Friedmann equation. It reduces to the usual one of general relativity for $`\sigma >>\rho `$ and contains higher-dimensional modifications to general relativity. Namely, local quadratic energy-momentum corrections via $`\rho ^2`$, and the nonlocal effects from the free gravitational field in the bulk, transmitted by $`E_{\mu \nu }`$.

#### 3.2.1 Spatially flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=0`$

This is an important case because astrophysical data, including the age of the universe, are compatible with cosmological models with flat $`(k=0)`$, space sections. On the other hand the bulk cosmological constant is commonly chosen so that the brane cosmological constant vanishes.

For simplicity, let us first consider $`\beta =0`$. We recall that the term associated with $`\beta `$ is related to the bulk Weyl tensor, which is constrained to be small enough at the time of nucleosynthesis and it should be negligible today.

For this case the evolution equation (42) can be exactly integrated for any value of $`\gamma `$ in the equation of state (34), viz.,

$$a^{3(\gamma +1)}=\frac{3(ϵC\lambda \alpha )}{4(ϵ\sigma )k_{(5)}^2}\left[\sigma ^2k_{(5)}^4(\gamma +1)^2(\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma })^2+4ϵ\right],$$
(49)
where $`\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a constant of integration. Now the energy density $`\rho `$ becomes

$$\rho =\frac{8(ϵ\sigma )}{\left[\sigma ^2k_{(5)}^4(\gamma +1)^2(\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma })^2+4ϵ\right]}.$$
(50)
In this model, the only restrictions on the constants $`\alpha `$, $`C`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`ϵ`$ come from the positiveness of $`G`$ and $`\rho `$. Namely $`ϵ\sigma >0`$ and $`ϵC\alpha \lambda >0`$, which is equivalent to $`\sigma C\alpha <0`$ (we assume $`\lambda >0`$). These conditions assure that $`a`$ is positive at all times.

It is interesting to note the role of the signature of the extra dimension.

##### Big bang:

For a spacelike extra dimension $`(ϵ=1)`$ we choose the constant $`\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that $`a=0`$ at $`\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, for which $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. Then $`G>0`$, requires positive brane tension $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=0`$ requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}<0`$, that is a $`AdS`$-bulk.

##### Big bounce:

The situation is different for a timelike extra dimension $`(ϵ=+1)`$. Here the scale factor never reaches zero. Instead there is a finite minimum for $`a`$ at $`\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, before which the universe contracts and after which it expands. This minimum is

$$\left(a_{min}\right)^{3(\gamma +1)}=\frac{3(\sigma C\alpha \lambda )}{\sigma ^2k_{(5)}^2}>0.$$
(51)
Consequently, the energy density does not diverge at $`\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Its maximum value is

$$\rho _{max}=(2\sigma )>0.$$
(52)
Here, positiveness of $`G`$ requires negative tension. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=0`$, requires the bulk to be a $`dS`$-bulk, viz., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}>0`$.

A similar exact integration can be performed for $`\beta 0`$ in the radiation dominated era, $`p=\rho /3`$. The solution is obtained from the above by setting $`\gamma =1/3`$ and substituting

$$\sigma k_{(5)}^2\sigma k_{(5)}^2\frac{3\beta \alpha }{C\lambda }.$$
(53)
We can see now the effects of $`\beta `$, on the minimum (51) for $`ϵ=+1`$. Namely

$$\left(\frac{a_{min}(\beta =0)}{a_{min}(\beta )}\right)^4=\left[1+\frac{3\beta \alpha ^2}{(\alpha C\lambda \sigma )}\right].$$
(54)
Since $`(\alpha C\lambda \alpha )>0`$, the introduction of a positive $`\beta `$ pushes the minimum towards the “origin”, to the region $`0<a_{min}(\beta )<a_{min}(\beta =0)`$. While a negative $`\beta `$ moves it away from the origin, to the region $`a_{min}(\beta =0)<a_{min}(\beta )<\mathrm{}`$. At the intuitive level, this means that for a positive (negative) $`\beta `$ the Weyl tensor tends to increase (decrease) the effective gravitational mass. This result is consistent with previous studies .

We note that a similar “bouncing” behavior can happen in general relativity in presence of a large, positive cosmological constant. The interesting fact is that here the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$ is zero; in our model the bounce is produced by the timelike extra dimension

#### 3.2.2 Milne vacuum universe

We have already mentioned that the solution in the bulk can be very intricate, but very simple on the brane. A nice example of this is provided by the wave-like model with $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$. The exact solution for the scale factor in the bulk is given by (19), or (20), and the expression for $`n`$ is obtained from (12). However, the solution on the brane is straightforward. Indeed, from (12) and (40) we get

$$a=\alpha (\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma }),$$
(55)
This scale factor corresponds to the Milne vacuum universe, for which the total or effective energy density $`\rho _{eff}`$ and pressure $`p_{eff}`$ satisfy the equation of state $`(\rho _{eff}+3p_{eff})=0`$. This is also interpreted as the equation of state for non-gravitating matter222The equation of state $`\rho =3p`$ appears in different contexts: in discussions of premature recollapse problem , in coasting cosmologies , in cosmic strings , , in derivations of four-dimensional matter from the geometry in $`5D`$ ,  and in limiting configurations .

##### Variable $`\sigma `$:

An interesting feature here is that the tension of the brane is not a constant, but a function of time. Indeed, now $`n`$ satisfies (16), with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$, instead of (39) which we integrated for $`\sigma =const`$. Therefore, if now substitute (19), or (20), and $`n=\dot{a}/\alpha `$ into (37) we obtain a function $`\sigma =\sigma (a)`$ and not $`\sigma =const`$.

##### Variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$:

Consequently, the fundamental quantities $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$, for the case under consideration are variable. This does not contradict other integrations  with static $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ where the time dependence is determined from the boundary conditions for constant $`\sigma `$. What happens here is that the assumptions of plane-wave plus $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$ simply leave no room for a constant $`\sigma `$. Different scenarios for the variation of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$, in the context of the brane-world paradigm, are discussed in Ref. .

We would like to finish this section with the following comments:

(i) For $`\lambda =0`$, the metric of the five-dimensional bulk is independent of the extra coordinate. Consequently, the brane becomes devoid of ordinary matter and there is only Weyl radiation and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$.

(ii) For $`C=0`$ the brane is empty again, although the metric does depend on the extra dimension. Thus, a non-trivial dependence of the bulk metric on the extra coordinate is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the brane not to be empty.

(iii) In many papers the function $`n(t,y)`$ is subjected to the boundary condition $`n(t,0)=1`$. We notice that in our case it is not possible to impose this condition. What we do on the brane is to define the proper time as in (40).

## 4 Evolution of the extra dimension

We have seen that the solution on the brane makes no reference to the extra dimension, except for its signature. The explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ enters nowhere in the discussion. However the model predicts a specific behavior for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Indeed, from (12), (40) and (46) we have

$$\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2=k+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}a^2}{3}+\frac{8\pi G\rho a^2}{3}ϵ\frac{\rho ^2a^2}{36}+\frac{\beta \alpha ^2}{a^2}=\left(\frac{da}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^2.$$
(56)
Thus at the “turning” points $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. These appear in closed $`k=+1`$ and bouncing models. Since

$$\alpha \left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)=\frac{d^2a}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }^2},$$
(57)
it follows that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ monotonically decreases (increases) if the universe is speeding down (up) during its expansion333The coefficient $`\alpha `$ can be absorbed into $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by a simple change of scale in $`y`$.. For the model discussed in Section 3.2.1.

$$\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2=\frac{k_{(5)}^2(\sigma C\alpha \lambda )}{3a^{3\gamma +1}}ϵ\frac{C^2\lambda ^2\alpha ^2}{k_{(5)}^4a^{6\gamma +4}},$$
(58)
the extra dimension is small at the present dust dominated era, namely

$$\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{2}{3\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(59)
where we have used (49 ) and (50) with $`\gamma =0`$. This is independent of the signature of the extra dimension.

However, at early stages the behavior is different. Namely, for a spacelike extra coordinate, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ decreases monotonically from a value that is formally infinite at the big bang $`(a=0)`$. Instead, for a timelike extra dimension $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ grows from zero at the time of bounce $`\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ until it reaches a maximum value, after which it decreases asymptotically to zero as shown in (59).

Finally we note that the relative variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a universal character, namely,

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)=qH,$$
(60)
where $`H`$ and $`q`$ are the Hubble and deceleration $`4D`$ parameters, respectively

$$H=\frac{1}{a}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right),q=a\left(\frac{d^2a}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}\right)\left(\frac{da}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^2.$$
(61)
According to modern observations, the universe is expanding with an acceleration, so that the parameter $`q`$ is, roughly, $`0.5\pm 0.2`$. Assuming $`H=h\times 10^{10}yr^1`$ we come to the estimate

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)(3.5\pm 1.4)\times 10^{10}yr^1,$$
(62)
where we have taken $`h=0.7`$ . This estimate holds for the three cases, $`k=1,0,+1`$ and arbitrary cosmological constant, and set of parameters $`(\beta ,\sigma ,\lambda ,\alpha ,C)`$. It could have important observational implications because it appears in different contexts, notably in expressions concerning the variation of rest mass , electric charge  and variation of the gravitational “constant” $`G`$ ,.

In general, the effective rest mass measured in $`4D`$ changes as the test particle travels on $`5D`$ geodesics444The general, invariant equations for the change of mass are given in .. The total change consists of two parts, one of them is induced by the non-trivial dependence of the metric on the extra coordinate $`(g_{\mu \nu }/y0)`$ and the other part is due to $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Even in the simplest situation, where the metric does not depend on the extra coordinate, but only on time, $`m_0`$ the effective rest mass in $`4D`$ of a massless particle in $`5D`$ would change as

$$\frac{1}{m_0}\frac{dm_0}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(63)
where we have used equation (25) in Ref. . Similarly, the variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a change in the electric charge, and consequently in the fine structure constant .

Regarding the time-variation of $`G`$, it is remarkable that in different models with extra dimensions the ratio $`(\dot{G}/G)`$ is found to be proportional to $`(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/\mathrm{\Phi })`$ ,. At this point we have to mention that the specific value of $`(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/\mathrm{\Phi })`$ depends on the cosmological model. For example, for the cosmologies with separable metric coefficients  $`(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/\mathrm{\Phi })=(1+q)H`$, instead of (60). Consequently, the measurement of quantities like $`(\dot{m_0}/m_0)`$ and $`(\dot{G}/G)`$ will give the opportunity to test different models for compatibility with observational data.

## 5 Signature of the extra dimension

In both, compactified and non-compactified theories, the extra dimensions are usually assumed to be spacelike. However, there is no a priori reason why extra dimensions cannot be timelike. As a matter of fact, the consideration of extra timelike dimensions in physics has a long and distinguished history , , ,  and currently it is a subject of considerable interest.

In this section we critically review some objections commonly raised against the timelike signature of the extra coordinate. We argue that these objections, which are usually discussed in the context of compactified extra dimensions, are less clear than is sometimes claimed. We present arguments showing that, based on our current knowledge and understanding, models having a large timelike extra dimension cannot be dismissed as mathematical curiosities in non-physical solutions.

### 5.1 Closed timelike curves

A common objection against extra timelike dimensions is that they would lead to closed timelike curves (CTC), raising the question of time-travel and its associated paradoxes. The standard wisdom is that CTC appear in non-physical solutions. In this subsection we discuss some recent studies which advise a serious reexamination of this argument and require a more receptive attitude toward CTC.

#### 5.1.1 Understanding CTC in $`4D`$ general relativity

In four-dimensional general relativity, many solutions of Einstein’s field equations contain CTC. The question of whether CTC violate the causality principle has been investigated . Although the answer to this question does not seem to be a conclusive one yet, CTC are usually dismissed on the grounds that the spacetimes in which they arise are non-physical.

In a remarkable recent paper, Bonnor shows that there are a number of simple physical systems, which might occur in the laboratory, or in astrophysics, where CTC cannot be avoided . One of these systems consists of a magnet and a static charge placed on magnet’s axis. The solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations for this system demonstrates that CTC must occur near the axis. The present understanding of CTC in general relativity does not give a satisfactory account of this. Bonnor confronts the usual time-travel interpretation of CTC by remarking that such a simple system is not a time machine. What this exposes is the urgent necessity of finding a convincing physical interpretation of CTC appearing in realistic systems. Bonnor’s examples constitute vigorous arguments promoting that physics can be compatible with CTC.

Thus, CTC can and do appear in physical solutions. The open question is their significance. The lesson we learn from this is that CTC can no longer be dismissed as mathematical curiosities occurring in non-physical solutions.

#### 5.1.2 CTC in manifolds with extra dimensions

The occurrence of CTC in GR suggests that they also appear in solutions in $`5D`$, even in the case of a spacelike extra dimension. The significance of CTC in manifolds with extra dimensions seems to be still more elusive than in $`4D`$.

Indeed, in the Randall-Sundrum brane-world scenario and other non-compact Kaluza-Klein theories, the motion of test particles is higher-dimensional in nature. In other words, all test particles travel on five-dimensional geodesics but observers, who are bounded to spacetime, have access only to the $`4D`$ part of the trajectory. Therefore, even if the $`5D`$ manifold contains CTC, does this imply that the corresponding $`4D`$ timelike curve in “physical” spacetime is also a CTC?. In default of a reasonable interpretation of CTC in $`4D`$, what can they mean in five-dimensional solutions? The answers to these questions appear to be convoluted. Specially if we take into account that a test particle moving geodesically in the five-dimensional manifold is perceived in $`4D`$ to be moving under the influence of an extra force, not along a geodesic in $`4D`$.

With regard to manifolds with extra timelike dimensions, there are at least two more questions. Firstly, it is uncertain whether such manifolds inevitably give rise to CTC. Secondly, does the presence of two timelike dimensions necessarily cause problems with causality?

Regarding causality, one should be careful to discriminate between temporal dimensions, which actually have physical units of time; and timelike ones, which merely have timelike signature . This argument is supported by a recent study of the consequences of $`5D`$ relativity with two timelike dimensions . Also, the examination of exact solutions to the field equations in $`5D`$ sheds some light on the above-mentioned questions.

Consider for example the class of spherically symmetric (in ordinary three-dimensional space) static solutions found by Billiard and Wesson . These involve $`5D`$ manifolds with a large extra timelike dimension. However, the solutions exhibit good physical properties. Namely (i) they represent centrally condensed clouds with density profiles similar to those of cluster of galaxies, and (ii) the analysis of the geodesic motion in  shows no evidence of CTC.

This example shows that an extra timelike coordinate (at least a large one) does not rule out the possibility of an acceptable physical interpretation in $`4D`$. Neither it automatically leads to problems with causality. The absence of CTC is explained as a consequence of that one of the timelike coordinates is a temporal dimension, while the “second” timelike coordinate is related to the inertial mass of the test particle, in both induced matter and brane theory .

The above results are quite constructive and encourage more future work in the areas of CTC and “two-time” metrics. Faced with this situation, it is probably wise to keep an open mind toward a timelike signature of the extra dimension. This is the current attitude in theories with more than one timelike dimension, notably in relation to even higher-dimensional extensions of general relativity , , , , , . In string theories, it is remarkable that dualities can change the number of time dimensions, giving rise to exotic spacetime signatures , .

### 5.2 Timelike extra dimensions

In this subsection we discuss some classical and quantum aspects of the dynamics of particles moving in $`5D`$ manifolds. We will concentrate our attention on manifolds with a timelike extra dimension, which is the case under scrutiny. We will see that there is no evidence that a timelike large extra dimension automatically leads to non-physical features.

#### 5.2.1 Compactified timelike extra dimension

If, in analogy with extra spacelike coordinates, the extra timelike dimension is assumed to be compactified, then the Kaluza-Klein excitations are perceived, by a four-dimensional observer, as states with imaginary masses, i.e., tachyonic states with masses quantized in units of $`i|n|/\rho `$, where $`n=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho `$ is the scale parameter or “radius” of the fifth dimension. As a result of the tachyonic nature of the graviton KK modes, an imaginary part is induced in the effective low-energy (Newton’s) gravitational potential between two test point masses . A similar situation occurs with the gravitational self-energy of massive bodies, in general. Also, the effective potential between two test charges turns out to be complex . Such complex contributions to the energy can be associated with matter instability . The disappearance of particles into “nothing” would lead to problems with the conservation of charge and energy and contradictions with current observations . The gravitational instability in quantum theory is another common objection against extra timelike dimensions.

Because of these fundamental problems extra timelike dimensions cannot be hidden away by compactifying them in little circles, like extra spacelike dimensions in compactified KK theory. A possible solution to these problems is provided by the two-time theory promoted by I. Bars . The theory possesses a new gauge symmetry that removes all the ghosts and overcomes the problems of causality and unitarity , .

Thus, there seems to be no general agreement regarding the stability problem in theories with compact timelike extra dimensions; it is less clear than is sometimes claimed , .

#### 5.2.2 Large timelike extra dimension

Since the existence of tachyons and the consequent instability follow from the compactification of the extra timelike dimension, the applicability of the above arguments to non-compactified timelike extra dimension seems to be dubious.

The question of whether tachyonic states still persist in quantum theory with large timelike extra dimensions is an open one. However, there are some preliminary results suggesting that the answer to this question is negative.

Let us first notice that from the analysis of the geodesic motion in $`5D`$, it follows that the rest mass555The rest mass in $`4D`$ is defined using the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. The definition is independent of the coordinates and any parameterization used along the motion. For simplicity, the warp factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of  is taken as $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. $`m_0`$ of test particles, as observed in $`4D`$, is given by

$$m_0=M_{(5)}\left[1+ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(\frac{dy}{ds}\right)^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(64)
where $`M_{(5)}`$ is the constant five-dimensional mass of the particle. This equation shows how the motion along $`y`$ affects the rest mass measured in $`4D`$. It is the five-dimensional counterpart to $`m=m_0[1v^2]^{1/2}`$, for the variation of particle’s mass due to its motion in spacetime. The behavior of $`m_0`$ depends on the signature of the extra dimension.

For a timelike extra dimension $`(ϵ=+1)`$, the observed $`4D`$ rest mass decreases as a consequence of motion along $`y`$. Therefore, it cannot take arbitrary large values, i.e.,

$$0<m_0M_{(5)}.$$
(65)
For spacelike extra dimension $`(ϵ=1)`$, it is the opposite and

$$M_{(5)}m_0<\mathrm{}.$$
(66)
If the trajectory in $`5D`$ is confined to hypersurfaces $`y=constant`$, then $`m_0=M_{(5)}=const.`$ along the motion. In particular, a massless particle in $`5D`$ is observed as a massless particle in $`4D`$. Also, a timelike extra dimension puts no restriction on $`(dy/ds)`$, while for a spacelike $`|dy/ds|<1/|\mathrm{\Phi }|`$.

Next it is possible to show  that $`m_0`$ satisfies the equation666These are equations (42)-(43) in . A different approach allows to obtain (67) without resorting to the charge.

$$\frac{d^2m_0}{dw^2}+ϵm_0=0,$$
(67)
where $`w=(1/2)[(g_{\mu \nu }/y)u^\mu u^\nu ]𝑑s`$. This equation for $`ϵ=+1`$ is the harmonic oscillator for $`m_0`$. In this case, by virtue of (65) we can write

$$m_0=M_5|cos(w\overline{w})|,$$
(68)
where $`\overline{w}`$ is a constant of integration which can be expressed in terms of the initial values777In the case of $`ϵ=1`$, the solution will be $`m_0=M_5cosh(w\overline{w})`$, which agrees with (66).

A corollary of this, regarding the question of interest here, is that in manifolds with a large timelike extra dimension the observed $`4D`$ rest mass of test particles “oscillates” remaining always finite and positive888The variation of $`m_0`$ is an effect of the large extra dimension, $`(g_{\mu \nu }/y)0`$. It takes place on cosmic timescales, so it would not be observed directly in the laboratory.

The above description is classical. How can we extend it to the quantum domain? What is the quantum counterpart of (67)? In quantum theory the mass of a particle is not defined a priori. In a recent paper Wesson discusses, among other things, the question of whether the wave nature of particles can be understood as a manifestation of an $`N(>4)`$-dimensional space . He conjectures that the classical and quantum dynamics in $`4D`$ are different descriptions of $`5D`$ dynamics in what he terms the Einstein and Plank gauges. This conjecture means that the $`4D`$ Klein-Gordon equation for a relativistic particle with zero spin and finite mass should be derivable from the $`5D`$ equation for a null geodesic. Without going into technical details, he argues that this can be done in $`5D`$ manifolds with two timelike coordinates. He obtains an equation which is similar to our (67) and concludes that the effective $`4D`$ mass of the particle associated with the wave oscillates, but the square of the mass is always finite and positive.

Wrapping up this part of the discussion, we have

1. At the classical level there is no contradiction between two-times and positivity of $`4D`$-effective rest mass.
2. In the quantum description built on Wesson’s conjecture there are no tachyonic states in the case of one large extra timelike dimension. So there is no conflict with stability.
3. The above classical and quantum descriptions in $`4D`$ are totally compatible.

Thus, the classical and quantum arguments summarized above raise no objections against models in $`5D`$ manifolds with a large timelike extra dimension.

What this indicates is that notions and concepts which are valid in compatified theory are not necessarily valid and/or applicable in non-compactified theory. We would like to illustrate this point with another example that comes from the so-called fifth force.999This is the non-gravitational force perceived by an observer in $`4D`$ who describes the motion of a test particle moving geodesically in $`5D`$. Namely, if we apply in non-compactified theory the definition of force successfully used in compactified theory, then we get a quantity (say $`f_\mu `$) which has bad mathematical and physical properties. From a mathematical viewpoint $`f_\mu g_{\mu \nu }f^\nu `$ and $`f_\mu u^\mu f^\mu u_\mu `$. That is, this quantity is not a four-vector. From a physical viewpoint, it is not gauge-invariant and the mass and/or its variation are not appropriately implemented.

### 5.3 Four-dimensional interpretation

In this subsection we concentrate our attention on the features that an “acceptable” matter distribution should satisfy,101010It should be reiterated that the concepts “reasonable” and “acceptable” regarding the properties of a physical system have considerably evolved over the years. We already mentioned the problem with CTC. We should now add the question of the energy conditions, as discussed by Visser and Barcelo  and discuss the question of how the signature of an extra dimension can influence the effective gravity in $`4D`$. Our aim is to show that the physical conditions, imposed on the $`4D`$ effective matter, do not preclude the existence of a large timelike extra dimension.

#### 5.3.1 $`4D`$ effective gravity

The $`4D`$ effective theory of gravity with a compactified extra dimension is usually obtained from the variation of the five-dimensional Einstein action. The fifth dimension is integrated out by virtue of the “Kaluza-Klein ansatz”, which in practice allows us to drop all derivatives with respect to the extra coordinate $`y`$, as well as to pull $`𝑑y`$ out of the action integral. With this simplification, the original action separates into three pieces; these are just the actions for gravity111111The actions for gravity and electromagnetism are scaled by factors of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$., electromagnetic field and massless scalar field.

This simple procedure does not work in non-compactified theories. The fifth dimension cannot be integrated out because of the explicit dependence of the five-dimensional metric on the extra coordinate. In this case the $`4D`$ effective theory of gravity is obtained directly from the dimensional reduction of the Einstein equations in $`5D`$.

Without going into details the effective equations for gravity in $`4D`$ are ,

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{\alpha \beta }^{}=\frac{1}{2}k_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}g_{\alpha \beta }+8\pi GT_{\alpha \beta }^{(eff)},$$
(69)
where

$$8\pi GT_{\alpha \beta }^{(eff)}ϵ\left(K_{\alpha \lambda }K_\beta ^\lambda K_\lambda ^\lambda K_{\alpha \beta }\right)+\frac{ϵ}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }\left(K_{\lambda \rho }K^{\lambda \rho }(K_\lambda ^\lambda )^2\right)ϵE_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(70)
This equation clearly shows that the nature of $`4D`$ effective matter depends on the signature of the extra dimension. In order to get another perspective we substitute the extrinsic curvature from (26) into (70). We obtain

$$8\pi GT_{\alpha \beta }^{(eff)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ;\beta }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{ϵ}{2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}[\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\underset{\alpha \beta }{\overset{}{g}}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\underset{\alpha \beta }{\overset{}{g}}+g^{\lambda \mu }\underset{\alpha \lambda }{\overset{}{g}}\underset{\beta \mu }{\overset{}{g}}\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}\underset{\alpha \beta }{\overset{}{g}}+\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{\mu \nu }{\stackrel{}{g}}\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}+(g^{\mu \nu }\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}})^2)],$$
(71)
where $`\stackrel{}{f}=f/y`$. It shows that the signature of a compact extra dimension (for which $`\stackrel{}{f}=0`$) does not affect the nature of the $`4D`$ effective matter; it is radiation-like (because $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ is traceless) for any model in $`5D`$. However, if the extra dimension is large ($`\stackrel{}{f}0`$), then the signature crucially affects the interpretation of $`4D`$ matter .

#### 5.3.2 Conditions on the effective matter

In STM the effective stress-energy tensor $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(eff)}`$ is commonly assumed to be a perfect fluid. Then physical “restrictions”, as the energy conditions and an equation of state, are imposed on the effective density and pressure.

In brane theory, with the introduction of $`𝐙_2`$ symmetry about our brane-universe, $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(eff)}`$ is interpreted as the sum of the energy-momentum tensor on the brane $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ plus local and non-local (Weyl) corrections. Using (28) and (31), the $`4D`$ effective field equations (69) become

$$^{(4)}G_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}g_{\mu \nu }+8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }ϵk_{(5)}^4\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }ϵE_{\mu \nu },$$
(72)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$, $`G`$ and $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ are given by (44), (45) and (47), respectively. The symmetric tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ represents the quadratic local corrections, viz.,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}T_{\mu \alpha }T_\nu ^\alpha \frac{1}{12}TT_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{8}g_{\mu \nu }T_{\alpha \beta }T^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{24}g_{\mu \nu }T^2.$$
(73)
All these four-dimensional quantities have to be evaluated on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$.

In addition to the energy conditions  on the energy-momentum tensor on the brane $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, the physical interpretation in $`4D`$ requires the positiveness of $`G=(ϵ\sigma )k_{(5)}^4/48\pi `$.

Thus, in the brane-world scenario a spacelike extra dimension requires the vacuum energy $`\sigma `$ to be positive, while a timelike extra dimension requires $`\sigma `$ to be negative. Notice that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}=ϵk_{(5)}^2\sigma ^2/6`$. Thus, a vanishing cosmological constant in $`4D`$ establishes a link between the signature of the extra dimension and the sign of the cosmological constant in the bulk. For a spacelike (timelike) extra dimension, the bulk must be $`AdS_5(dS_5)`$.

#### 5.3.3 Examples of $`5D`$ solutions and their interpretation in $`4D`$

In principle, any solution of Einstein’s field equations in $`5D`$ can be interpreted either in the context of STM or brane theory . We assume that a phenomenologically acceptable $`4D`$ effective theory should satisfy the physical conditions mentioned above.121212Probably not every solution of the five-dimensional equations generates an effective matter in $`4D`$ spacetime with physically reasonable density and pressure, as well as $`G>0`$. Just as in $`4D`$ general relativity where not every solution of the field equations is a physical solution representing a situation which might occur in astrophysics, or in cosmology. Here we dismiss those solutions as non-physical. This assumption does not compromise the nature of the extra dimension. Indeed, there are several models which show reasonable matter distributions in $`4D`$, and involve $`5D`$ manifolds with $`ϵ=1`$, $`ϵ=+1`$, or both. They fall into one of the following categories.

(1) Models which exist only for one signature. As an example we mention the five-dimensional cosmological model with metric coefficients that are separable functions of $`t`$ and $`y`$. The field equations in $`5D`$ lead to a class of solutions that only exists for $`ϵ=1`$. These solutions embed the flat FRW cosmologies and exhibit good physical properties . Another example of this kind is provided by the “wave-like” model discussed in . That model is distinct from the one discussed here. The corresponding $`5D`$ field equations have solution only for $`ϵ=+1`$, and the metric coefficients for the ordinary $`3D`$ space are complex. This is quite out of the ordinary in relativity. However, the $`4D`$ effective physical quantities are real (We do not want to discuss the meaning of complex metrics here, for this see . We mention it as a concrete example of solutions that exist only for $`ϵ=+1`$).

(2) Models which exist for both signatures, but work properly only with one of them. A nice example of this is given by the static spherical (in $`3D`$ space) model with metric coefficients that are separable functions of $`r`$ and $`y`$ . The field equations in $`5D`$ yield the static solution that we have discussed in Sec. $`\mathrm{5.1.2}`$. In principle both signatures $`(ϵ=\pm 1)`$ are possible. However, the matter in $`4D`$ spacetime has physically reasonable density and pressure only for $`ϵ=+1`$. Another example of this kind is provided by the model where $`g_{00}=1`$. It is discussed in . Once again the field equations have solutions for both signatures. However, only the solutions with $`ϵ=1`$ present good physical properties. Any attempt of extending the validity of these solutions to an extra dimension with the opposite signature, leads to contradictions like negative mass in the first example and negative $`G`$ in the second one.

(3) Models which exist, and work properly, for both signatures. The wave-like model discussed here exemplifies this case. The solution in section $`\mathrm{3.2.1}`$ has $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ so the extra dimension can be spacelike or timelike. Besides, the $`4D`$ effective matter has physically reasonable density and pressure, along with positive $`G`$, for both signatures. However, this is not just a mathematical extension of the validity of the solution from one signature to another. The physical properties of solutions with a timelike extra dimension are very different from the ones with spacelike extra dimension. The signature affects not only the matter distribution, but also the motion of test particles. In fact, the cosmological constant in the bulk, the vacuum energy, the dynamical evolution of the universe, the masses, and the motion of test particles, in manifolds with $`ϵ=+1`$ are radically distinct from those in manifolds with $`ϵ=1`$. Another example with similar properties is the model having $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$, discussed in . It includes the Randall-Sundrum scenario with an extra timelike coordinate, instead of a spacelike one .

The analysis of this section leads us to conclude that the physical conditions, imposed on the $`4D`$ effective matter, do not preclude the existence of a large timelike extra dimension.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

We have studied brane-world cosmologies embedded in a bulk where the five-dimensional metric functions are plane-waves propagating along the extra dimension. The motivation for this has been to model the singular character of the brane as a result of the collision of waves moving in opposite directions along $`y`$. At the plane of collision the metric is continuous and the derivatives with respect to $`y`$, calculated at each side of the plane, are equal in magnitude but have opposite sign. Thus, the $`𝐙_2`$ symmetry used in brane-world theory is inherent to the model.

As a consequence of the wave-like nature of the metric, the Einstein equations in $`5D`$ reduce to a set of two ordinary differential equations, (16) and (17), for determining the metric functions $`n`$, $`a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore we have to complete the system of equations by making some suitable assumption. In Section 2.2 we showed a quite general solution that indicates that the $`5D`$ equations admit interesting wave-like solutions without imposing severe restrictions on the model.

In Section 3 we used the brane-world paradigm to formulate the appropriate physical assumptions to complete the model. We assumed the isothermal equation of state for ordinary matter on the brane, and obtained an equation that links $`n`$ and $`a`$ with the tension $`\sigma `$ of the brane (38). So we still need another assumption. The simplest one is to consider that the tension is constant, although there are physical models where this is not a viable assumption . This completes the specification of the model.

We have shown that the model gives back the generalized Friedmann equation (46) for the cosmological evolution on the brane, although it is not possible to solve the five-dimensional equations exactly for an arbitrary set of the parameters appearing in the theory. Except for the explicit dependence on $`ϵ`$, this is the same equation obtained previously from models with static $`(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0)`$, spacelike fifth dimension. It is important that we recover the familiar evolution equations in $`4D`$ for a wide variety of cosmologies and settings in $`5D`$.

The signature of the extra dimension comes out in the quadratic correction, in front of $`\rho ^2`$. Consequently, its effects are important at early stages of the evolution, when this correction becomes dominating. Setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=0`$, we find that models with a timelike extra dimension show a bounce at some finite $`a_{min}`$, where the geometry is regular and the energy density is nonsingular. This is opposed to the big bang solutions, for a spacelike extra dimension, where the geometry suffers a breakdown and the energy density diverges. In both cases, we recover the physics of the late universe for $`(\sigma >>\rho )`$.

Models with bounce can happen in general relativistic FLRW models that have a large, positive, cosmological constant. In contrast here we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}=0`$, and the bounce is a genuine product of the timelike extra dimension.

The Weyl tensor in the bulk affects the value of $`a_{min}`$ through $`\beta `$. We have shown that for arbitrary large and positive values of $`\beta `$, the bouncing “radius” $`a_{min}`$ can be as near as one wants to $`a=0`$. In any case, the Weyl tensor does not affect the overall character of the solutions.

We also discussed, in Section $`\mathrm{3.2.2}`$, the five-dimensional wave-like solution with static fifth dimension, $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$. In $`4D`$ it corresponds to Milne’s universe. The brane is not empty and the tension turns out to be a function of $`a`$. Consequently, the resulting $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)}`$ are not constants but vary with the evolution of the universe. As we mentioned earlier, we have studied other models with similar behavior elsewhere .

Our model also predicts the development of the extra dimension. In Section 4, we have seen that the dynamics of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is influenced by the matter on the brane through its influence on the expansion rate. The main features of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at early stages of the evolution are significantly affected by the signature of the extra dimension, although the late behavior is the same in both cases. On the basis of our model we can reach some general conclusions.

(i) Although $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is small today, it is growing in size if the universe is speeding up its expansion. The opposite also holds, the size of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is decreasing is the universe is speeding down its expansion.

(ii) The relative change of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is determined by the Hubble and deceleration parameters as shown in (60).

(iii) At any time during the evolution131313The parameter $`\alpha `$ can be taken as $`\alpha =1`$, without loss of generality. $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Phi })=Ha`$.

We reiterate that these conclusions are general in the sense that they are the same regardless of the details of the model in $`4D`$, i.e., the value of $`k,C,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(4)},\gamma ,\sigma `$ and $`\beta `$. We note that the evolution of the extra dimension is independent of whether we choose the brane world paradigm or STM to recover the $`4D`$ effective gravity. However, the dynamics of our four-dimensional universe does depend on this choice .

In order to avoid misunderstanding we would like to emphasize that the above discussion refers to the case where the bulk is filled with only a cosmological constant, i.e., $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{AB}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(5)}g_{AB}`$. In this case, the relation $`(d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma })/\mathrm{\Phi }=qH`$ is a direct consequence of $`\dot{a}=\alpha n\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which follows from $`G_4^0=0`$.

In general, from the field equation $`G_{4\mu }=k_{(5)}^2{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{4\mu }^{}`$ and (29) it follows that

$$\tau _{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =\frac{2ϵ}{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{4\nu }^{},$$
(74)
and

$$G_{4\nu }=\frac{ϵk_{(5)}^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}\tau _{\nu ;\mu }^\mu .$$
(75)
Consequently, in the case where the bulk contains scalar and/or other fields, so that $`{}_{}{}^{(5)}T_{4\nu }^{}0`$, the brane energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ is not conserved. As a result of this $`G_{4\nu }0`$ and therefore $`(d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma })/\mathrm{\Phi }=qH`$ does not hold. In other words, the conclusions (i)-(iii) above are valid only if the brane energy-momentum tensor is conserved.

We would like to finish this paper with two more comments:

The first one is related to the question of whether the solutions discussed here, with $`ϵ=1`$, are isometric to the 5-dimensional Schwarzschild-$`AdS_5`$ topological black hole. In $`4D`$ general relativity, it is well known that the Schwarzschild metric is the unique spherically symmetric solution of vacuum Einstein’s equations. Unfortunately, in $`5D`$ this result is not valid in general. Birkhoff’s theorem holds only for the case of static $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0)`$ in metric (1). Indeed, in this case there exist a coordinate transformation  which links the $`5D`$ line element of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter bulk ($`\mathrm{\Phi }1`$, but $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$) with the “geodesic” bulk $`(\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0)`$. In the case of non-static $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}0)`$, there are a number of non-stationary solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations in $`5D`$ -, which are not equivalent to the 5-dimensional Schwarzshild-AdS spacetime. Such solutions generally provide new insight into some important problems. In particular, the five-dimensional model discussed here can be used as an embedding for cosmologies with variable physical “constants” .

The second comment is related to equation (56), which implies that there is some sort of singularity in the metric whenever $`da/d\tau _\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ disappears there. The good news is that this singularity is not directly measurable by an observer in $`4D`$, for whom all physical quantities are finite at all times $`(ϵ=+1)`$. The bad news is that we can do nothing about it, irrespective of whether this is a coordinate or curvature singularity. Certainly, if this is a coordinate singularity it can be suppressed by a transformation of coordinates in $`5D`$. From a mathematical point of view the “old” metric and the transformed one represent the same five-dimensional manifold. However, from a four-dimensional viewpoint they are not equivalent: they give rise to different scenarios in $`4D`$. The structure and the material content of the observed spacetime is changed by any transformation that involves the extra coordinate. This is similar to four-dimensional physics, where a coordinate transformation involving time also implies a change in the system of reference, and consequently also modifies the observed physical picture. This is an important point and we should come back to it in a future publication.