text:
# COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT - THE WEIGHT OF THE VACUUM

## 1 Introduction

This review discusses several aspects of the cosmological constant both from the cosmological and field theoretical perspectives with the emphasis on conceptual and fundamental issues rather than on observational details. The plan of the review is as follows: This section introduces the key issues related to cosmological constant and provides a brief historical overview. (For previous reviews of this subject, from cosmological point of view, see .) Section 2 summarizes the kinematics and dynamics of the standard Friedmann model of the universe paying special attention to features involving the cosmological constant. Section 3 reviews the observational evidence for cosmological constant, especially the supernova results, constraints from the age of the universe and a few others. We next study models with evolving cosmological ‘constant’ from different perspectives. (In this review, we shall use the term cosmological constant in a generalized sense including the scenarios in which cosmological “constant” is actually varying in time.) A phenomenological parameterization is introduced in section 4.1 to compare theory with observation and is followed up with explicit models involving scalar fields in section 4.2. The emphasis is on quintessence and tachyonic scalar field models and the cosmic degeneracies introduced by them. Section 5 discusses cosmological constant and dark energy in the context of models for structure formation and section 6 describes the constraints arising from CMBR anisotropies.

The latter part of the review concentrates on more conceptual and fundamental aspects of the cosmological constant. ( For previous reviews of this subject, from a theoretical physics perspective, see .) Section 7 provides some alternative interpretations of the cosmological constant which might have a bearing on the possible solution to the problem. Several relaxation mechanisms have been suggested in the literature to reduce the cosmological constant to the currently observed value and some of these attempts are described in section 8. Section 9 gives a brief description of the geometrical structure of the de Sitter spacetime and the thermodynamics of the de Sitter universe is taken up in section 10. The relation between horizons, temperature and entropy are presented at one go in this section and the last section deals with the role of string theory in the cosmological constant problem.

### 1.1 The many faces of the cosmological constant

Einstein’s equations, which determine the dynamics of the spacetime, can be derived from the action (see, eg. ):

$$A=\frac{1}{16\pi G}R\sqrt{g}d^4x+L_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,\varphi )\sqrt{g}d^4x$$
(1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{matter}}`$ is the Lagrangian for matter depending on some dynamical variables generically denoted as $`\varphi `$. (We are using units with $`c=1`$.) The variation of this action with respect to $`\varphi `$ will lead to the equation of motion for matter $`(\delta L_{\mathrm{matter}}/\delta \varphi )=0`$, in a given background geometry, while the variation of the action with respect to the metric tensor $`g_{ik}`$ leads to the Einstein’s equation

$$R_{ik}\frac{1}{2}g_{ik}R=16\pi G\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{matter}}}{\delta g^{ik}}8\pi GT_{ik}$$
(2)
where the last equation defines the energy momentum tensor of matter to be $`T_{ik}2(\delta L_{\mathrm{matter}}/\delta g^{ik})`$.

Let us now consider a new matter action $`L_{\mathrm{matter}}^{}=L_{\mathrm{matter}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi G)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a real constant. Equation of motion for the matter $`(\delta L_{\mathrm{matter}}/\delta \varphi )=0`$, does not change under this transformation since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a constant; but the action now picks up an extra term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle R\sqrt{g}d^4x}+{\displaystyle \left(L_{\mathrm{matter}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}\right)\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle (R2\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{g}d^4x}+{\displaystyle L_{\mathrm{matter}}\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$
and equation (2) gets modified. This innocuous looking addition of a constant to the matter Lagrangian leads to one of the most fundamental and fascinating problems of theoretical physics. The nature of this problem and its theoretical backdrop acquires different shades of meaning depending which of the two forms of equations in (3) is used.

The first interpretation, based on the first line of equation (3), treats $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the shift in the matter Lagrangian which, in turn, will lead to a shift in the matter Hamiltonian. This could be thought of as a shift in the zero point energy of the matter system. Such a constant shift in the energy does not affect the dynamics of matter while gravity — which couples to the total energy of the system — picks up an extra contribution in the form of a new term $`Q_{ik}`$ in the energy-momentum tensor, leading to:

$$R_k^i\frac{1}{2}\delta _k^iR=8\pi G(T_k^i+Q_k^i);Q_k^i\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}\delta _k^i\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _k^i$$
(4)
The second line in equation (3) can be interpreted as gravitational field, described by the Lagrangian of the form $`L_{\mathrm{grav}}(1/G)(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, interacting with matter described by the Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{matter}}`$. In this interpretation, gravity is described by two constants, the Newton’s constant $`G`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is then natural to modify the left hand side of Einstein’s equations and write (4) as:

$$R_k^i\frac{1}{2}\delta _k^iR\delta _k^i\mathrm{\Lambda }=8\pi GT_k^i$$
(5)
In this interpretation, the spacetime is treated as curved even in the absence of matter ($`T_{ik}=0`$) since the equation $`R_{ik}(1/2)g_{ik}R\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ik}=0`$ does not admit flat spacetime as a solution. (This situation is rather unusual and is related to the fact that symmetries of the theory with and without a cosmological constant are drastically different; the original symmetry of general covariance cannot be naturally broken in such a way as to preserve the sub group of spacetime translations.)

In fact, it is possible to consider a situation in which both effects can occur. If the gravitational interaction is actually described by the Lagrangian of the form $`(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, then there is an intrinsic cosmological constant in nature just as there is a Newtonian gravitational constant in nature. If the matter Lagrangian contains energy densities which change due to dynamics, then $`L_{\mathrm{matter}}`$ can pick up constant shifts during dynamical evolution. For example, consider a scalar field with the Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{matter}}=(1/2)_i\varphi ^i\varphi V(\varphi )`$ which has the energy momentum tensor

$$T_b^a=^a\varphi _b\varphi \delta _b^a\left(\frac{1}{2}^i\varphi _i\varphi V(\varphi )\right)$$
(6)
For field configurations which are constant \[occurring, for example, at the minima of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$\], this contributes an energy momentum tensor $`T_b^a=\delta _b^aV(\varphi _{\mathrm{min}})`$ which has exactly the same form as a cosmological constant. As far as gravity is concerned, it is the combination of these two effects — of very different nature — which is relevant and the source will be $`T_{ab}^{\mathrm{eff}}=[V(\varphi _{\mathrm{min}})+(\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi G)]g_{ab}`$, corresponding to an effective gravitational constant

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }+8\pi GV(\varphi _{\mathrm{min}})$$
(7)
If $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and hence $`V(\varphi _{\mathrm{min}})`$ changes during dynamical evolution, the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can also change in course of time. More generally, any field configuration which is varying slowly in time will lead to a slowly varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

The extra term $`Q_{ik}`$ in Einstein’s equation behaves in a manner which is very peculiar compared to the energy momentum tensor of normal matter. The term $`Q_k^i=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _k^i`$ is in the form of the energy momentum tensor of an ideal fluid with energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and pressure $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; obviously, either the pressure or the energy density of this “fluid” must be negative, which is unlike conventional laboratory systems. (See, however, reference .)

Such an equation of state, $`\rho =P`$ also has another important implication in general relativity. The spatial part $`𝐠`$ of the geodesic acceleration (which measures the relative acceleration of two geodesics in the spacetime) satisfies the following exact equation in general relativity (see e.g., page 332 of ):

$$𝐠=4\pi G(\rho +3P)$$
(8)
showing that the source of geodesic acceleration is $`(\rho +3P)`$ and not $`\rho `$. As long as $`(\rho +3P)>0`$, gravity remains attractive while $`(\rho +3P)<0`$ can lead to repulsive gravitational effects. Since the cosmological constant has $`(\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }+3P_\mathrm{\Lambda })=2\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, a positive cosmological constant (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) can lead to repulsive gravity. For example, if the energy density of normal, non-relativistic matter with zero pressure is $`\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}`$, then equation (8) shows that the geodesics will accelerate away from each other due to the repulsion of cosmological constant when $`\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}<2\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A related feature, which makes the above conclusion practically relevant is the fact that, in an expanding universe, $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remains constant while $`\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}`$ decreases. (More formally, the equation of motion, $`d(\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }V)=P_\mathrm{\Lambda }dV`$ for the cosmological constant, treated as an ideal fluid, is identically satisfied with constant $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda },P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.) Therefore, $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will eventually dominate over $`\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}`$ if the universe expands sufficiently. Since $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}`$ has the dimensions of inverse length, it will set the scale for the universe when cosmological constant dominates.

It follows that the most stringent bounds on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will arise from cosmology when the expansion of the universe has diluted the matter energy density sufficiently. The rate of expansion of the universe today is usually expressed in terms of the Hubble constant: $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 where 1 Mpc $`3\times 10^{24}`$ cm and $`h`$ is a dimensionless parameter in the range $`0.62h0.82`$ (see section 3.2). From $`H_0`$ we can form the time scale $`t_{\mathrm{univ}}H_0^110^{10}h^1`$ yr and the length scale $`cH_0^13000h^1`$ Mpc; $`t_{\mathrm{univ}}`$ characterizes the evolutionary time scale of the universe and $`H_0^1`$ is of the order of the largest length scales currently accessible in cosmological observations. From the observation that the universe is at least of the size $`H_0^1`$, we can set a bound on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|<10^{56}`$ cm-2. This stringent bound leads to several issues which have been debated for decades without satisfactory solutions.

* In classical general relativity, based on the constants $`G,c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is not possible to construct any dimensionless combination from these constants. Nevertheless, it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is extremely tiny compared to any other physical scale in the universe, suggesting that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is probably zero. We, however, do not know of any symmetry mechanism or invariance principle which requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to vanish. Supersymmetry does require the vanishing of the ground state energy; however, supersymmetry is so badly broken in nature that this is not of any practical use .
* We mentioned above that observations actually constrain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in equation (7), rather than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V(\varphi _{\mathrm{min}})`$ to be fine tuned to an enormous accuracy for the bound, $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}|<10^{56}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, to be satisfied. This becomes more mysterious when we realize that $`V(\varphi _{\mathrm{min}})`$ itself could change by several orders of magnitude during the evolution of the universe.
* When quantum fields in a given curved spacetime are considered (even without invoking any quantum gravitational effects) one introduces the Planck constant, $`\mathrm{}`$, in the description of the physical system. It is then possible to form the dimensionless combination $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G\mathrm{}/c^3)\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^2`$. (This equation also defines the quantity $`L_P^2`$; throughout the review we use the symbol ‘$``$’ to define variables.) The bound on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ translates into the condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^210^{123}`$. As has been mentioned several times in literature, this will require enormous fine tuning.
* All the above questions could have been satisfactorily answered if we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to be zero and assume that the correct theory of quantum gravity will provide an explanation for the vanishing of cosmological constant. Such a view was held by several people (including the author) until very recently. Current cosmological observations however suggests that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is actually non zero and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}L_P^2`$ is indeed of order $`𝒪(10^{123})`$. In some sense, this is the cosmologist’s worst nightmare come true. If the observations are correct, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is non zero, very tiny and its value is extremely fine tuned for no good reason. This is a concrete statement of the first of the two ‘cosmological constant problems’.
* The bound on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^2`$ arises from the expansion rate of the universe or — equivalently — from the energy density which is present in the universe today. The observations require the energy density of normal, non relativistic matter to be of the same order of magnitude as the energy density contributed by the cosmological constant. But in the past, when the universe was smaller, the energy density of normal matter would have been higher while the energy density of cosmological constant does not change. Hence we need to adjust the energy densities of normal matter and cosmological constant in the early epoch very carefully so that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}`$ around the current epoch. If this had happened very early in the evolution of the universe, then the repulsive nature of a positive cosmological constant would have initiated a rapid expansion of the universe, preventing the formation of galaxies, stars etc. If the epoch of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}`$ occurs much later in the future, then the current observations would not have revealed the presence of non zero cosmological constant. This raises the second of the two cosmological constant problems: Why is it that $`(\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/\rho _{\mathrm{NR}})=𝒪(1)`$ at the current phase of the universe ?
* The sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ determines the nature of solutions to Einstein’s equations as well as the sign of $`(\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }+3P_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Hence the spacetime geometry with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^2=10^{123}`$ is very different from the one with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^2=10^{123}`$. Any theoretical principle which explains the near zero value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^2`$ must also explain why the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive.

At present we have no clue as to what the above questions mean and how they need to be addressed. This review summarizes different attempts to understand the above questions from various perspectives.

### 1.2 A brief history of cosmological constant

Originally, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the field equation for gravity (as in equation (5)) with the motivation that it allows for a finite, closed, static universe in which the energy density of matter determines the geometry. The spatial sections of such a universe are closed 3-spheres with radius $`l=(8\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{NR}})^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$ where $`\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}`$ is the energy density of pressureless matter (see section 2.4) Einstein had hoped that normal matter is needed to curve the geometry; a demand, which — to him — was closely related to the Mach’s principle. This hope, however, was soon shattered when de Sitter produced a solution to Einstein’s equations with cosmological constant containing no matter . However, in spite of two fundamental papers by Friedmann and one by Lemaitre , most workers did not catch on with the idea of an expanding universe. In fact, Einstein originally thought Friedmann’s work was in error but later published a retraction of his comment; similarly, in the Solvay meeting in 1927, Einstein was arguing against the solutions describing expanding universe. Nevertheless, the Einstein archives do contain a postcard from Einstein to Weyl in 1923 in which he says: “If there is no quasi-static world, then away with the cosmological term”. The early history following de Sitter’s discovery (see, for example, ) is clearly somewhat confused, to say the least.

It appears that the community accepted the concept of an expanding universe largely due to the work of Lemaitre. By 1931, Einstein himself had rejected the cosmological term as superflous and unjustified (see reference , which is a single authored paper; this paper has been mis-cited in literature often, eventually converting part of the journal name “preuss” to a co-author “Preuss, S. B”!; see ). There is no direct record that Einstein ever called cosmological constant his biggest blunder. It is possible that this often repeated “quote” arises from Gamow’s recollection : “When I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life.” By 1950’s the view was decidedly against $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the authors of several classic texts ( like Landau and Liftshitz, Pauli  and Einstein ) argued against the cosmological constant.

In later years, cosmological constant had a chequered history and was often accepted or rejected for wrong or insufficient reasons. For example, the original value of the Hubble constant was nearly an order of magnitude higher  than the currently accepted value thereby reducing the age of the universe by a similar factor. At this stage, as well as on several later occasions (eg., ), cosmologists have invoked cosmological constant to reconcile the age of the universe with observations (see section 3.2). Similar attempts have been made in the past when it was felt that counts of quasars peak at a given phase in the expansion of the universe . These reasons, for the introduction of something as fundamental as cosmological constant, seem inadequate at present.

However, these attempts clearly showed that sensible cosmology can only be obtained if the energy density contributed by cosmological constant is comparable to the energy density of matter at the present epoch. This remarkable property was probably noticed first by Bondi  and has been discussed by McCrea . It is mentioned in  that such coincidences were discussed in Dicke’s gravity research group in the sixties; it is almost certain that this must have been noticed by several other workers in the subject.

The first cosmological model to make central use of the cosmological constantwas the steady state model . It made use of the fact that a universe with a cosmological constant has a time translational invariance in a particular coordinate system. The model also used a scalar field with negative energy field to continuously create matter while maintaining energy conservation. While modern approaches to cosmology invokes negative energies or pressure without hesitation, steady state cosmology was discarded by most workers after the discovery of CMBR.

The discussion so far has been purely classical. The introduction of quantum theory adds a new dimension to this problem. Much of the early work  as well as the definitive work by Pauli  involved evaluating the sum of the zero point energies of a quantum field (with some cut-off) in order to estimate the vacuum contribution to the cosmological constant. Such an argument, however, is hopelessly naive (inspite of the fact that it is often repeated even today). In fact, Pauli himself was aware of the fact that one must exclude the zero point contribution from such a calculation. The first paper to stress this clearly and carry out a second order calculation was probably the one by Zeldovich  though the connection between vacuum energy density and cosmological constant had been noted earlier by Gliner  and even by Lemaitre . Zeldovich assumed that the lowest order zero point energy should be subtracted out in quantum field theory and went on to compute the gravitational force between particles in the vacuum fluctuations. If $`E`$ is an energy scale of a virtual process corresponding to a length scale $`l=\mathrm{}c/E`$, then $`l^3=(E/\mathrm{}c)^3`$ particles per unit volume of energy $`E`$ will lead to the gravitational self energy density of the order of

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{G(E/c^2)^2}{l}l^3=\frac{GE^6}{c^8\mathrm{}^4}$$
(9)
This will correspond to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^2(E/E_P)^6`$ where $`E_P=(\mathrm{}c^5/G)^{1/2}10^{19}`$GeV is the Planck energy. Zeldovich took $`E1`$ GeV (without any clear reason) and obtained a $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which contradicted the observational bound “only” by nine orders of magnitude.

The first serious symmetry principle which had implications for cosmological constant was supersymmetry and it was realized early on  that the contributions to vacuum energy from fermions and bosons will cancel in a supersymmetric theory. This, however, is not of much help since supersymmetry is badly broken in nature at sufficiently high energies (at $`E_{\mathrm{SS}}>10^2`$ Gev). In general, one would expect the vacuum energy density to be comparable to the that corresponding to the supersymmetry braking scale, $`E_{\mathrm{SS}}`$. This will, again, lead to an unacceptably large value for $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In fact the situation is more complex and one has to take into account the coupling of matter sector and gravitation — which invariably leads to a supergravity theory. The description of cosmological constant in such models is more complex, though none of the attempts have provided a clear direction of attack (see e.g,  for a review of early attempts).

The situation becomes more complicated when the quantum field theory admits more than one ground state or even more than one local minima for the potentials. For example, the spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electro-weak theory arises from a potential of the form

$$V=V_0\mu ^2\varphi ^2+g\varphi ^4(\mu ^2,g>0)$$
(10)
At the minimum, this leads to an energy density $`V_{\mathrm{min}}=V_0(\mu ^4/4g)`$. If we take $`V_0=0`$ then $`(V_{\mathrm{min}}/g)(300\mathrm{GeV})^4`$. For an estimate, we will assume that the gauge coupling constant $`g`$ is comparable to the electromagnetic coupling constant: $`g=𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$, where $`\alpha (e^2/\mathrm{}c)`$ is the fine structure constant. Then, we get $`|V_{\mathrm{min}}|10^6\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ which misses the bound on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by a factor of $`10^{53}`$. It is really of no help to set $`V_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$ by hand. At early epochs of the universe, the temperature dependent effective potential  will change minimum to $`\varphi =0`$ with $`V(\varphi )=V_0`$. In other words, the ground state energy changes by several orders of magnitude during the electro-weak and other phase transitions.

Another facet is added to the discussion by the currently popular models of quantum gravity based on string theory . The currently accepted paradigm of string theory encompasses several ground states of the same underlying theory (in a manner which is as yet unknown). This could lead to the possibility that the final theory of quantum gravity might allow different ground states for nature and we may need an extra prescription to choose the actual state in which we live in. The different ground states can also have different values for cosmological constant and we need to invoke a separate (again, as yet unknown) principle to choose the ground state in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^210^{123}`$ (see section 11).

## 2 Framework of standard cosmology

All the well developed models of standard cosmology start with two basic assumptions: (i) The distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at sufficiently large scales. (ii) The large scale structure of the universe is essentially determined by gravitational interactions and hence can be described by Einstein’s theory of gravity. The geometry of the universe can then be determined via Einstein’s equations with the stress tensor of matter $`T_k^i(t,𝐱)`$ acting as the source. (For a review of cosmology, see e.g. ). The first assumption determines the kinematics of the universe while the second one determines the dynamics. We shall discuss the consequences of these two assumptions in the next two subsections.

### 2.1 Kinematics of the Friedmann model

The assumption of isotropy and homogeneity implies that the large scale geometry can be described by a metric of the form

$$d\mathrm{s}^2=dt^2a^2(t)d𝐱^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]$$
(11)
in a suitable set of coordinates called comoving coordinates. Here $`a(t)`$ is an arbitrary function of time (called expansion factor) and $`k=0,\pm 1`$. Defining a new coordinate $`\chi `$ through $`\chi =(r,\mathrm{sin}^1r,\mathrm{sinh}^1r)`$ for $`k=(0,+1,1)`$ this line element becomes

$$ds^2dt^2a^2d𝐱^2dt^2a^2(t)\left[d\chi ^2+S_k^2(\chi )\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
(12)
where $`S_k(\chi )=(\chi ,\mathrm{sin}\chi ,\mathrm{sinh}\chi )`$ for $`k=(0,+1,1)`$. In any range of time during which $`a(t)`$ is a monotonic function of $`t`$, one can use $`a`$ itself as a time coordinate. It is also convenient to define a quantity $`z`$, called the redshift, through the relation $`a(t)=a_0[1+z(t)]^1`$ where $`a_0`$ is the current value of the expansion factor. The line element in terms of \[$`a,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi `$\] or \[$`z,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi `$\] is:

$$ds^2=H^2(a)\left(\frac{da}{a}\right)^2a^2d𝐱^2=\frac{1}{(1+z)^2}\left[H^2(z)dz^2dx^2\right]$$
(13)
where $`H(a)=(\dot{a}/a)`$, called the Hubble parameter, measures the rate of expansion of the universe.

This equation allows us to draw an important conclusion: The only non trivial metric function in a Friedmann universe is the function $`H(a)`$ (and the numerical value of $`k`$ which is encoded in the spatial part of the line element.) Hence, any kind of observation based on geometry of the spacetime, however complex it may be, will not allow us to determine anything other than this single function $`H(a)`$. As we shall see, this alone is inadequate to describe the material content of the universe and any attempt to do so will require additional inputs.

Since the geometrical observations often rely on photons received from distant sources, let us consider a photon traveling a distance $`r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)`$ from the time of emission (corresponding to the redshift $`z`$) till today. Using the fact that $`ds=0`$ for a light ray and the second equality in equation (13) we find that the distance traveled by light rays is related to the redshift by $`dx=H^1(z)dz`$. Integrating this relation, we get

$$r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)=S_k(\alpha );\alpha \frac{1}{a_0}_0^zH^1(z)𝑑z$$
(14)
All other geometrical distances can be expressed in terms of $`r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)`$ (see eg., ). For example, the flux of radiation $`F`$ received from a source of luminosity $`L`$ can be expressed in the form $`F=L/(4\pi d_L^2)`$ where

$$d_L(z)=a_0r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)(1+z)=a_0(1+z)S_k(\alpha )$$
(15)
is called the luminosity distance. Similarly, if $`D`$ is the physical size of an object which subtends an angle $`\delta `$ to the observer, then — for small $`\delta `$ — we can define an angular diameter distance $`d_A`$ through the relation $`\delta =D/d_A`$. The angular diameter distance is given by

$$d_A(z)=a_0r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)(1+z)^1$$
(16)
with $`d_L=(1+z)^2d_A`$.

If we can identify some objects (or physical phenomena) at a redshift of $`z`$ having a characteristic transverse size $`D`$, then measuring the angle $`\delta `$ subtended by this object we can determine $`d_A(z)`$. Similarly, if we have a series of luminous sources at different redshifts having known luminosity $`L`$, then by observing the flux from these sources $`L`$, one can determine the luminosity distance $`d_L(z)`$. Determining any of these functions will allow us to use the relations (15) \[or (16)\] and (14) to obtain $`H^1(z)`$. For example, $`H^1(z)`$ is related to $`d_L(z)`$ through

$$H^1(z)=\left[1\frac{kd_L^2(z)}{a_0^2(1+z)^2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{d}{dz}\left[\frac{d_L(z)}{1+z}\right]\frac{d}{dz}\left[\frac{d_L(z)}{1+z}\right]$$
(17)
where second equality holds if the spatial sections of the universe are flat, corresponding to $`k=0`$; then $`d_L(z)`$, $`d_A(z),r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)`$ and $`H^1(z)`$ all contain the (same) maximal amount of information about the geometry.

The function $`r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)`$ also determines the proper volume of the universe between the redshifts $`z`$ and $`z+dz`$ subtending a solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the sky. The comoving volume element can be expressed in the form

$$\frac{dV}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}r_{\mathrm{em}}^2\frac{dr}{dz}\frac{d_L^3}{(1+z)^4}\left[\frac{(1+z)d_L^{}}{d_L}1\right]$$
(18)
where the prime denotes derivative with respect to $`z`$. Based on this, there has been a suggestion  that future observations of the number of dark matter halos as a function of redshift and circular velocities can be used to determine the comoving volume element to within a few percent accuracy. If this becomes possible, then it will provide an additional handle on constraining the cosmological parameters.

The above discussion illustrates how cosmological observations can be used to determine the metric of the spacetime, encoded by the single function $`H^1(z)`$. This issue is trivial in principle, though enormously complicated in practice because of observational uncertainties in the determination of $`d_L(z),d_A(z)`$ etc. We shall occasion to discuss these features in detail later on.

### 2.2 Dynamics of the Friedmann model

Let us now turn to the second assumption which determines the dynamics of the universe. When several non interacting sources are present in the universe, the total energy momentum tensor which appear on the right hand side of the Einstein’s equation will be the sum of the energy momentum tensor for each of these sources. Spatial homogeneity and isotropy imply that each $`T_b^a`$ is diagonal and has the form $`T_b^a=\mathrm{dia}[\rho _i(t),P_i(t),P_i(t),P_i(t)]`$ where the index $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ denotes $`N`$ different kinds of sources (like radiation, matter, cosmological constant etc.). Since the sources do not interact with each other, each energy momentum tensor must satisfy the relation $`T_{b;a}^a=0`$ which translates to the condition $`d(\rho _ia^3)=P_ida^3`$. It follows that the evolution of the energy densities of each component is essentially dependent on the parameter $`w_i(P_i/\rho _i)`$ which, in general, could be a function of time. Integrating $`d(\rho _ia^3)=w_i\rho _ida^3`$, we get

$$\rho _i=\rho _i(a_0)\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3\mathrm{exp}\left[3_{a_0}^a\frac{d\overline{a}}{\overline{a}}w_i(\overline{a})\right]$$
(19)
which determines the evolution of the energy density of each of the species in terms of the functions $`w_i(a)`$.

This description determines $`\rho (a)`$ for different sources but not $`a(t)`$. To determine the latter we can use one of the Einstein’s equations:

$$H^2(a)=\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\underset{i}{}\rho _i(a)\frac{k}{a^2}$$
(20)
This equation shows that, once the evolution of the individual components of energy density $`\rho _i(a)`$ is known, the function $`H(a)`$ and thus the line element in equation (13) is known. (Evaluating this equation at the present epoch one can determine the value of $`k`$; hence it is not necessary to provide this information separately.) Given $`H_0`$, the current value of the Hubble parameter, one can construct a critical density, by the definition:

$`\rho _c={\displaystyle \frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.88h^2\times 10^{29}\mathrm{gm}\mathrm{cm}^3=2.8\times 10^{11}h^2M_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`1.1\times 10^4h^2\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{cm}^3=1.1\times 10^5h^2\mathrm{protons}\mathrm{cm}^3`$
and parameterize the energy density, $`\rho _i(a_0)`$, of different components at the present epoch in terms of the critical density by $`\rho _i(a_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_i\rho _c`$. \[Observations  give $`h=0.72\pm 0.03`$ (statistical) $`\pm 0.07`$ (systematic)\]. It is obvious from equation (20) that $`k=0`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i=1`$ while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}<1`$ correspond to $`k=\pm 1`$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}1`$, equation (20), evaluated at the current epoch, gives $`(k/a_0^2)=H_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}1)`$, thereby fixing the value of $`(k/a_0^2)`$; when, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$, it is conventional to take $`a_0=1`$ since its value can be rescaled.

### 2.3 Composition of the universe

It is important to stress that absolutely no progress in cosmology can be made until a relationship between $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ is provided, say, in the form of the functions $`w_i(a)`$s. This fact, in turn, brings to focus two issues which are not often adequately emphasized:

(i) If we assume that the source is made of normal laboratory matter, then the relationship between $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ depends on our knowledge of how the equation of state for matter behaves at different energy scales. This information needs to be provided by atomic physics, nuclear physics and particle physics. Cosmological models can at best be only as accurate as the input physics about $`T_k^i`$ is; any definitive assertion about the state of the universe is misplaced, if the knowledge about $`T_k^i`$ which it is based on is itself speculative or non existent at the relevant energy scales. At present we have laboratory results testing the behaviour of matter up to about 100 GeV and hence we can, in principle, determine the equation of state for matter up to 100 GeV. By and large, the equation of state for normal matter in this domain can be taken to be that of an ideal fluid with $`\rho `$ giving the energy density and $`P`$ giving the pressure; the relation between the two is of the form $`P=w\rho `$ with $`w=0`$ for non relativistic matter and $`w=(1/3)`$ for relativistic matter and radiation.

(ii) The situation becomes more complicated when we realize that it is entirely possible for the large scale universe to be dominated by matter whose presence is undetectable at laboratory scales. For example, large scale scalar fields dominated either by kinetic energy or nearly constant potential energy could exist in the universe and will not be easily detectable at laboratory scales. We see from (6) that such systems can have an equation of state of the form $`P=w\rho `$ with $`w=1`$ (for kinetic energy dominated scalar field) or $`w=1`$ (for potential energy dominated scalar field). While the conservative procedure for doing cosmology would be to use only known forms of $`T_k^i`$ on the right hand side of Einstein’s equations, this has the drawback of preventing progress in our understanding of nature, since cosmology could possibly be the only testing ground for the existence of forms of $`T_k^i`$ which are difficult to detect at laboratory scales.

One of the key issues in modern cosmology has to do with the conflict in principle between (i) and (ii) above. Suppose a model based on conventional equation of state, adequately tested in the laboratory, fails to account for a cosmological observation. Should one treat this as a failure of the cosmological model or as a signal from nature for the existence of a source $`T_k^i`$ not seen at laboratory scales? There is no easy answer to this question and we will focus on many facets of this issue in the coming sections.

Figure 1 provides an inventory of the density contributed by different forms of matter in the universe. The x-axis is actually a combination $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the Hubble parameter $`h`$ since different components are measured by different techniques. (Usually $`n=1`$ or 2; numerical values are for $`h=0.7`$.) The density parameter contributed today by visible, non relativistic, baryonic matter in the universe is about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B(0.010.2)`$ (marked by triangles in the figure; different estimates are from different sources; see for a sample of references ). The density parameter due to radiation is about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R2\times 10^5`$ (marked by squares in the figure). Unfortunately, models for the universe with just these two constituents for the energy density are in violent disagreement with observations. It appears to be necessary to postulate the existence of:

* Pressure-less $`(w=0)`$ non baryonic dark matter which does not couple with radiation and having a density of about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}0.3`$. Since it does not emit light, it is called dark matter (and marked by a cross in the figure). Several independent techniques like cluster mass-to-light ratios  baryon densities in clusters  weak lensing of clusters  and the existence of massive clusters at high redshift  have been used to obtain a handle on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}`$. These observations are all consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_B)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}(0.20.4)`$.
* An exotic form of matter (cosmological constant or something similar) with an equation of state $`p\rho `$ (that is, $`w1`$) having a density parameter of about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ (marked by a filled circle in the figure). The evidence for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be discussed in section 3.

So in addition to $`H_0`$, at least four more free parameters are required to describe the background universe at low energies (say, below 50 GeV). These are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B,\mathrm{\Omega }_R,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ describing the fraction of the critical density contributed by baryonic matter, radiation (including relativistic particles like e.g, massive neutrinos; marked by a cross in the figure), dark matter and cosmological constant respectively. The first two certainly exist; the existence of last two is probably suggested by observations and is definitely not contradicted by any observations. Of these, only $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ is well constrained and other quantities are plagued by both statistical and systematic errors in their measurements. The top two positions in the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are from cosmological constant and non baryonic dark matter. It is unfortunate that we do not have laboratory evidence for the existence of the first two dominant contributions to the energy density in the universe. (This feature alone could make most of the cosmological paradigm described in this review irrelevant at a future date!)

The simplest model for the universe is based on the assumption that each of the sources which populate the universe has a constant $`w_i`$; then equation (20) becomes

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=H_0^2\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{3(1+w_i)}\frac{k}{a^2}$$
(22)
where each of these species is identified by density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ and the equation of state characterized by $`w_i`$. The most familiar form of energy densities are those due to pressure-less matter with $`w_i=0`$ (that is, non relativistic matter with rest mass energy density $`\rho c^2`$ dominating over the kinetic energy density, $`\rho v^2/2)`$ and radiation with $`w_i=(1/3)`$. Whenever any one component of energy density dominates over others, $`Pw\rho `$ and it follows from the equation (22) (taking $`k=0`$, for simplicity) that

$$\rho a^{3(1+w)};at^{2/[3(1+w)]}$$
(23)
For example, $`\rho a^4,at^{1/2}`$ if the source is relativistic and $`\rho a^3,at^{2/3}`$ if the source is non-relativistic.

This result shows that the past evolution of the universe is characterized by two important epochs (see eg. ): (i) The first is the radiation dominated epoch which occurs at redshifts greater than $`z_{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{R})10^4`$. For $`zz_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ the energy density is dominated by hot relativistic matter and the universe is very well approximated as a $`k=0`$ model with $`a(t)t^{1/2}`$. (ii) The second phase occurs for $`zz_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ in which the universe is dominated by non relativistic matter and — in some cases — the cosmological constant. The form of $`a(t)`$ in this phase depends on the relative values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the simplest case, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ the expansion is a power law with $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$. (When cosmological constant dominates over matter, $`a(t)`$ grows exponentially.)

During all the epochs, the temperature of the radiation varies as $`Ta^1`$. When the temperature falls below $`T10^3`$ K, neutral atomic systems form in the universe and photons decouple from matter. In this scenario, a relic background of such photons with Planckian spectrum at some non-zero temperature will exist in the present day universe. The present theory is, however, unable to predict the value of $`T`$ at $`t=t_0`$; it is therefore a free parameter related $`\mathrm{\Omega }_RT_0^4`$.

### 2.4 Geometrical features of a universe with a cosmological constant

The evolution of the universe has different characteristic features if there exists sources in the universe for which $`(1+3w)<0`$. This is obvious from equation (8) which shows that if $`(\rho +3P)=(1+3w)\rho `$ becomes negative, then the gravitational force of such a source (with $`\rho >0`$) will be repulsive. The simplest example of this kind of a source is the cosmological constant with $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$.

To see the effect of a cosmological constant let us consider a universe with matter, radiation and a cosmological constant. Introducing a dimensionless time coordinate $`\tau =H_0t`$ and writing $`a=a_0q(\tau )`$ equation (20) can be cast in a more suggestive form describing the one dimensional motion of a particle in a potential

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dq}{d\tau }\right)^2+V(q)=E$$
(24)
where

$$V(q)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_R}{q^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}}{q}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }q^2\right];E=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$
(25)
This equation has the structure of the first integral for motion of a particle with energy $`E`$ in a potential $`V(q)`$. For models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_R+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, we can take $`E=0`$ so that $`(dq/d\tau )=\sqrt{V(q)}`$. Figure 2 is the phase portrait of the universe showing the velocity $`(dq/d\tau )`$ as a function of the position $`q=(1+z)^1`$ for such models. At high redshift (small $`q`$) the universe is radiation dominated and $`\dot{q}`$ is independent of the other cosmological parameters; hence all the curves asymptotically approach each other at the left end of the figure. At low redshifts, the presence of cosmological constant makes a difference and – in fact – the velocity $`\dot{q}`$ changes from being a decreasing function to an increasing function. In other words, the presence of a cosmological constant leads to an accelerating universe at low redshifts.

For a universe with non relativistic matter and cosmological constant, the potential in (25) has a simple form, varying as $`(a^1)`$ for small $`a`$ and $`(a^2)`$ for large $`a`$ with a maximum in between at $`q=q_{\mathrm{max}}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}/2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/3}`$. This system has been analyzed in detail in literature for both constant cosmological constant  and for a time dependent cosmological constant . A wide variety of explicit solutions for $`a(t)`$ can be provided for these equations. We briefly summarize a few of them.

* If the “particle” is situated at the top of the potential, one can obtain a static solution with $`\ddot{a}=\dot{a}=0`$ by adjusting the cosmological constant and the dust energy density and taking $`k=1`$. This solution,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{crit}=4\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}=\frac{1}{a_0^2},$$
(26)
was the one which originally prompted Einstein to introduce the cosmological constant (see section 1.2).
* The above solution is, obviously, unstable and any small deviation from the equilibrium position will cause $`a0`$ or $`a\mathrm{}`$. By fine tuning the values, it is possible to obtain a model for the universe which “loiters” around $`a=a_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for a large period of time .
* A subset of models corresponds to those without matter and driven entirely by cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. These models have $`k=(1,0,+1)`$ and the corresponding expansion factors being proportional to $`[\mathrm{sinh}(Ht),\mathrm{exp}(Ht),`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(Ht)]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=3H^2`$. These line elements represent three different characterizations of the de Sitter spacetime. The manifold is a four dimensional hyperboloid embedded in a flat, five dimensional space with signature $`(+)`$. We shall discuss this in greater detail in section 9.
* It is also possible to obtain solutions in which the particle starts from $`a=0`$ with an energy which is insufficient for it to overcome the potential barrier. These models lead to a universe which collapses back to a singularity. By arranging the parameters suitably, it is possible to make $`a(t)`$ move away or towards the peak of the potential (which corresponds to the static Einstein universe) asymptotically .
* In the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, the explicit solution for $`a(t)`$ is given by

$$a(t)\left(\mathrm{sinh}\frac{3}{2}Ht\right)^{2/3};k=0;3H^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(27)
This solution smoothly interpolates between a matter dominated universe $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$ at early stages and a cosmological constant dominated phase $`a(t)exp(Ht)`$ at late stages. The transition from deceleration to acceleration occurs at $`z_{\mathrm{acc}}=(2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})^{1/3}1`$, while the energy densities of the cosmological constant and the matter are equal at $`z_{\mathrm{\Lambda }m}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})^{1/3}1`$.

The presence of a cosmological constant also affects other geometrical parameters in the universe. Figure 3 gives the plot of $`d_A(z)`$ and $`d_L(z)`$; (note that angular diameter distance is not a monotonic function of z). Asymptotically, for large z, these have the limiting forms,

$$d_A(z)2(H_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})^1z^1;d_L(z)2(H_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})^1z$$
(28)
The geometry of the spacetime also determines the proper volume of the universe between the redshifts $`z`$ and $`z+dz`$ which subtends a solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the sky. If the number density of sources of a particular kind (say, galaxies, quasars, …) is given by $`n(z)`$, then the number count of sources per unit solid angle per redshift interval should vary as

$$\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dz}=n(z)\frac{dV}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dz}=\frac{n(z)a_0^2r_{\mathrm{em}}^2(z)H^1(z)}{(1+z)^3}.$$
(29)
Figure 4 shows $`(dN/d\mathrm{\Omega }dz)`$; it is assumed that $`n(z)=n_0(1+z)^3`$. The y-axis is in units of $`n_0H_0^3`$.

## 3  Evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant

There are several cosmological observations which suggests the existence of a non zero cosmological constant with different levels of reliability. Most of these determine either the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ or some combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. When combined with the strong evidence from the CMBR observations that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1`$ (see section 6) or some other independent estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$, one is led to a non zero value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The most reliable ones seem to be those based on high redshift supernova  and structure formation models . We shall now discuss some of these evidence.

### 3.1 Observational evidence for accelerating universe

Figure 2 shows that the evolution of a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ changes from a decelerating phase to an accelerating phase at late times. If $`H(a)`$ can be observationally determined, then one can check whether the real universe had undergone an accelerating phase in the past. This, in turn, can be done if $`d_L(z)`$, say, can be observationally determined for a class of sources. Such a study of several high redshift supernova has led to the data which is shown in figures 5, 9.

Bright supernova explosions are brief explosive stellar events which are broadly classified as two types. Type-Ia supernova occurs when a degenerate dwarf star containing CNO enters a stage of rapid nuclear burning cooking iron group elements (see eg., chapter 7 of ). These are the brightest and most homogeneous class of supernova with hydrogen poor spectra. An empirical correlation has been observed between the sharply rising light curve in the initial phase of the supernova and its peak luminosity so that they can serve as standard candles. These events typically last about a month and occurs approximately once in 300 years in our galaxy. (Type II supernova, which occur at the end of stellar evolution, are not useful as standard candles.)

For any supernova, one can directly observe the apparent magnitude $`m`$ \[which is essentially the logarithm of the flux $`F`$ observed\] and its redshift. The absolute magnitude $`M`$ of the supernova is again related to the actual luminosity $`L`$ of the supernova in a logarithmic fashion. Hence the relation $`F=(L/4\pi d_L^2)`$ can be written as

$$mM=5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{d_L}{\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)+25$$
(30)
The numerical factors arise from the astronomical conventions used in the definition of $`m`$ and $`M`$. Very often, one will use the dimensionless combination $`(H_0d_L(z)/c)`$ rather than $`d_L(z)`$ and the above equation will change to $`m(z)=+5\mathrm{log}_{10}(H_0d_L(z)/c)`$ with the quantity $``$ being related to $`M`$ by

$$=M+25+5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{cH_0^1}{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right)=M5\mathrm{log}_{10}h+42.38$$
(31)
If the absolute magnitude of a class of Type I supernova can be determined from the study of its light curve, then one can obtain the $`d_L`$ for these supernova at different redshifts. (In fact, we only need the low-$`z`$ apparent magnitude at a given $`z`$ which is equivalent to knowing $``$.) Knowing $`d_L`$, one can determine the geometry of the universe.

To understand this effect in a simple context, let us compare the luminosity distance for a matter dominated model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0)`$

$$d_L=2H_0^1\left[(1+z)(1+z)^{1/2}\right],$$
(32)
with that for a model driven purely by a cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1)`$:

$$d_L=H_0^1z(1+z).$$
(33)
It is clear that at a given $`z`$, the $`d_L`$ is larger for the cosmological constant model. Hence, a given object, located at a fixed redshift, will appear brighter in the matter dominated model compared to the cosmological constant dominated model. Though this sounds easy in principle, the statistical analysis turns out to be quite complicated.

The supernova cosmology project (SCP) has discovered  42 supernova in the range $`(0.180.83)`$. The high-$`z`$ supernova search team (HSST) discovered 14 supernova in the redshift range $`(0.160.62)`$ and another 34 nearby supernova  and used two separate methods for data fitting. (They also included two previously published results from SCP.) Assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, the analysis of this data gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.28\pm 0.085`$ (stat) $`\pm 0.05`$ (syst).

Figure 5 shows the $`d_L(z)`$ obtained from the supernova data and three theoretical curves all of which are for $`k=0`$ models containing non relativistic matter and cosmological constant. The data used here is based on the redshift magnitude relation of 54 supernova (excluding 6 outliers from a full sample of 60) and that of SN 1997ff at $`z=1.755`$; the magnitude used for SN 1997ff has been corrected for lensing effects . The best fit curve has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.32,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.68`$. In this analysis, one had treated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and the absolute magnitude $`M`$ as free parameters (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1)`$ and has done a simple best fit for both. The corresponding best fit value for $``$ is $`=23.92\pm 0.05`$. Frame (a) of figure 6 shows the confidence interval (for 68 %, 90 % and 99 %) in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ for the flat models. It is obvious that most of the probability is concentrated around the best fit value. We shall discuss frame (b) and frame (c) later on. (The discussion here is based on .)

The confidence intervals in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ plane are shown in figure 7 for the full data. The confidence regions in the top left frame are obtained after marginalizing over $``$. (The best fit value with $`1\sigma `$ error is indicated in each panel and the confidence contours correspond to 68 %, 90 % and 99 %.) The other three frames show the corresponding result with a constant value for $``$ rather than by marginalizing over this parameter. The three frames correspond to the mean value and two values in the wings of $`1\sigma `$ from the mean. The dashed line connecting the points (0,1) and (1,0) correspond to a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. From the figure we can conclude that: (i) The results do not change significantly whether we marginalize over $``$ or whether we use the best fit value. This is a direct consequence of the result in frame (a) of figure (6) which shows that the probability is sharply peaked. (ii) The results exclude the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ model at a high level of significance in spite of the uncertainty in $``$.

The slanted shape of the probability ellipses shows that a particular linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is selected out by these observations . This feature, of course, has nothing to do with supernova and arises purely because the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ depends strongly on a particular linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$, as illustrated in figure 8. In this figure, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are treated as free parameters \[without the $`k=0`$ constraint\] but a particular linear combination $`q(0.8\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.6\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is held fixed. The $`d_L`$ is not very sensitive to individual values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at low redshifts when $`(0.8\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.6\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is in the range of $`(0.3,0.1)`$. Though some of the models have unacceptable parameter values (for other reasons), supernova measurements alone cannot rule them out. Essentially the data at $`z<1`$ is degenerate on the linear combination of parameters used to construct the variable $`q`$. The supernova data shows that most likely region is bounded by $`0.3(0.8\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.6\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })0.1`$. In figure 7 we have also over plotted the line corresponding to $`H_0d_L(z=0.63)=`$ constant. The coincidence of this line (which roughly corresponds to $`d_L`$ at a redshift in the middle of the data) with the probability ellipses indicates that it is this quantity which essentially determines the nature of the result.

We saw earlier that the presence of cosmological constant leads to an accelerating phase in the universe which — however —is not obvious from the above figures. To see this explicitly one needs to display the data in the $`\dot{a}`$ vs $`a`$ plane, which is done in figure 9. Direct observations of supernova is converted into $`d_L(z)`$ keeping $`M`$ a free parameter. The $`d_L`$ is converted into $`d_H(z)`$ assuming $`k=0`$ and using (17). A best fit analysis, keeping $`(M,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})`$ as free parameters now lead to the results shown in figure 9, which confirms the accelerating phase in the evolution of the universe. The curves which are over-plotted correspond to a cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. The best fit curve has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.32,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.68`$.

In the presence of the cosmological constant, the universe accelerates at low redshifts while decelerating at high redshift. Hence, in principle, low redshift supernova data should indicate the evidence for acceleration. In practice, however, it is impossible to rule out any of the cosmological models using low redshift ($`z0.2`$) data as is evident from figure 9. On the other hand, high redshift supernova data alone cannot be used to establish the existence of a cosmological constant. The data for ($`z0.2`$) in figure 9 can be moved vertically up and made consistent with the decelerating $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ universe by choosing the absolute magnitude $`M`$ suitably. It is the interplay between both the high redshift and low redshift supernova which leads to the result quoted above.

This important result can be brought out more quantitatively along the following lines. The data displayed in figure 9 divides the supernova into two natural classes: low redshift ones in the range $`0<z0.25`$ (corresponding to the accelerating phase of the universe) and the high redshift ones in the range $`0.25z2`$ (in the decelerating phase of the universe). One can repeat all the statistical analysis for the full set as well as for the two individual low redshift and high redshift data sets. Frame (b) and (c) of figure 6 shows the confidence interval based on low redshift data and high redshift data separately. It is obvious that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ model cannot be ruled out with either of the two data sets! But, when the data sets are combined — because of the angular slant of the ellipses — they isolate a best fit region around $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.3`$. This is also seen in figure 10 which plots the confidence intervals using just the high-z and low-z data separately. The right most frame in the bottom row is based on the low-z data alone (with marginalization over $``$) and this data cannot be used to discriminate between cosmological models effectively. This is because the $`d_L`$ at low-z is only very weakly dependent on the cosmological parameters. So, even though the acceleration of the universe is a low-z phenomenon, we cannot reliably determine it using low-z data alone. The top left frame has the corresponding result with high-z data. As we stressed before, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ model cannot be excluded on the basis of the high-z data alone either. This is essentially because of the nature of probability contours seen earlier in frame (c) of figure 6. The remaining 3 frames (top right, bottom left and bottom middle) show the corresponding results in which fixed values of $``$ — rather than by marginalizing over $``$. Comparing these three figures with the corresponding three frames in 7 in which all data was used, one can draw the following conclusions: (i) The best fit value for $``$ is now $`=24.05\pm 0.38`$; the $`1\sigma `$ error has now gone up by nearly eight times compared to the result (0.05) obtained using all data. Because of this spread, the results are sensitive to the value of $``$ that one uses, unlike the situation in which all data was used. (ii) Our conclusions will now depend on $``$. For the mean value and lower end of $``$, the data can exclude the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ model \[see the two middle frames of figure 10\]. But, for the high-end of allowed $`1\sigma `$ range of $``$, we cannot exclude the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ model \[see the bottom left frame of figure 10\].

While these observations have enjoyed significant popularity, certain key points which underly these analysis need to be stressed. (For a sample of views which goes against the main stream, see ).

* The basic approach uses the supernova type I light curve as a standard candle. While this is generally accepted, it must be remembered that we do not have a sound theoretical understanding of the underlying emission process.
* The supernova data and fits are dominated by the region in the parameter space around ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })(0.8,1.5)`$ which is strongly disfavoured by several other observations. If this disparity is due to some other unknown systematic effect, then this will have an effect on the estimate given above.
* The statistical issues involved in the analysis of this data to obtain best fit parameters are non trivial. As an example of how the claims varied over time, let us note that the analysis of the first 7 high redshift SNe Ia gave a value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ which is consistent with unity: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=(0.94_{0.28}^{+0.34})`$. However, adding a single $`z=0.83`$ supernova for which good HST data was available, lowered the value to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=(0.6\pm 0.2)`$. More recently, the analysis of a larger data set of 42 high redshift SNe Ia gives the results quoted above.

### 3.2 Age of the universe and cosmological constant

From equation (24) we can also determine the current age of the universe by the integral

$$H_0t_0=_0^1\frac{dq}{\sqrt{2(EV)}}$$
(34)
Since most of the contribution to this integral comes from late times, we can ignore the radiation term and set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R0`$. When both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are present and are arbitrary, the age of the universe is determined by the integral

$`H_0t_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{(1+z)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(0.7\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+0.3\right)^{0.3}`$
The integral, which cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, is well approximated by the numerical fit given in the second line. Contours of constant $`H_0t_0`$ based on the (exact) integral are shown in figure 11. It is obvious that, for a given $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$, the age is higher for models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$.

Observationally, there is a consensus  that $`h0.72\pm 0.07`$ and $`t_013.5\pm 1.5`$ Gyr . This will give $`H_0t_0=0.94\pm 0.14`$. Comparing this result with the fit in (35), one can immediately draw several conclusions:

* If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}>0.1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is non zero if $`H_0t_0>0.9`$. A more reasonable assumption of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}>0.3`$ we will require non zero $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`H_0t_0>0.82`$.
* If we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and demand $`t_0>12`$ Gyr (which is a conservative lower bound from stellar ages) will require $`h<0.54`$. Thus a purely matter dominated $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ universe would require low Hubble constant which is contradicted by most of the observations.
* An open model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.2,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ will require $`H_0t_00.85`$. This still requires ages on the lower side but values like $`h0.6,t_013.5`$ Gyr are acceptable within error bars.
* A straightforward interpretation of observations suggests maximum likelihood for $`H_0t_0=0.94`$. This can be consistent with a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ model only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$.

If the universe is populated by dust-like matter (with $`w=0`$) and another component with an equation of state parameter $`w_X`$, then the age of the universe will again be given by an integral similar to the one in equation (35) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X(1+z)^{3(1+w_X)}`$. This will give

$`H_0t_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{(1+z)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_X(1+z)^{3(1+w_X)}}}}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑q\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_Xq^{3w_X}}}\right)^{1/2}`$
The integrand varies from 0 to $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_X)^{1/2}`$ in the range of integration for $`w<0`$ with the rapidity of variation decided by $`w`$. As a result, $`H_0t_0`$ increases rapidly as $`w`$ changes from 0 to $`3`$ or so and then saturates to a plateau. Even an absurdly negative value for $`w`$ like $`w=100`$ gives $`H_0t_0`$ of only about 1.48. This shows that even if some exotic dark energy is present in the universe with a constant, negative $`w`$, it cannot increase the age of the universe beyond about $`H_0t_01.48`$.

The comments made above pertain to the current age of the universe. It is also possible to obtain an expression similar to (34) for the age of the universe at any given redshift $`z`$

$$H_0t(z)=_z^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz^{}}{(1+z^{})h(z^{})};h(z)=\frac{H(z)}{H_0}$$
(37)
and use it to constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For example, the existence of high redshift galaxies with evolved stellar population, high redshift radio galaxies and age dating of high redshift QSOs can all be used in conjunction with this equation to put constrains on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . Most of these observations require either $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}<1`$ if they have to be consistent with $`h0.6`$. Unfortunately, the interpretation of these observations at present requires fairly complex modeling and hence the results are not water tight.

### 3.3 Gravitational lensing and the cosmological constant

Consider a distant source at redshift $`z`$ which is lensed by some intervening object. The lensing is most effective if the lens is located midway between the source and the observer (see, eg., page 196 of ). This distance will be $`(r_{\mathrm{em}}/2)`$ if the distance to the source is $`r_{\mathrm{em}}`$. (To be rigorous, one should be using angular diameter distances rather than $`r_{\mathrm{em}}`$ for this purpose but the essential conclusion does not change.) To see how this result depends on cosmology, let us consider a source at redshift $`z=2`$, and a lens, located optimally, in: (a) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ matter dominated universe, (b) a very low density matter dominated universe in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, (c) vacuum dominated universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. In case (a), $`d_HH^1(z)(1+z)^{3/2}`$, so that

$$r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)_0^zd_H(z)𝑑z\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z}}\right)$$
(38)
The lens redshift is determined by the equation

$$\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z_L}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+z}}\right)$$
(39)
For $`z=2`$, this gives $`z_L=0.608`$. For case (b), $`at`$ giving $`d_H(1+z)^1`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$. The equation to be solved is $`(1+z_L)=(1+z)^{1/2}`$ which gives $`z_L=0.732`$ for $`z=2`$. Finally, in the case of (c), $`d_H`$ is a constant giving $`r_{\mathrm{em}}(z)z`$ and $`z_L=(1/2)z`$. Clearly, the lens redshift is larger for vacuum dominated universe compared to the matter dominated universe of any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. When one considers a distribution of lenses, this will affect the probability for lensing in a manner which depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. From the observed statistics of lensing, one can put a bound on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

More formally, one can compute the probability for a source at redshift $`z_s`$ being lensed in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ universe (relative to the corresponding probability in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ model). This relative probability is nearly five times larger at $`z_s=1`$ and about thirteen times larger for $`z_s=2`$ in a purely cosmological constant dominated universe . This effect quantifies the fact that the physical volume associated with unit redshift interval is larger in models with cosmological constant and hence the probability that a light ray will encounter a galaxy is larger in these cases.

Current analysis of lensing data gives somewhat differing constraints based on the assumptions which are made ; but typically all these constraints are about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$. The result  from Cosmic Lens All Sky Survey (CLASS), for example, gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.31_{0.14}^{+0.27}`$ (68%) $`{}_{0.10}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.12}`$ (systematic) for a $`k=0`$ universe.

### 3.4 Other geometrical tests

The existence of a maximum for $`d_A(z)`$ is a generic feature of cosmological models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}>0`$. For a $`k=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ model, the maximum occurs at $`z_{\mathrm{max}}1.25`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ increases as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is increased. To use this as a cosmological test, we require a class of objects with known transverse dimension and redshift. The most reliable quantity used so far corresponds to the physical wavelength acoustic vibrations in the baryon-photon gas at $`z10^3`$. This length scale is imprinted in the temperature anisotropies of the CMBR and the angular size of these anisotropies will depend on $`d_A`$ and hence on the cosmological parameters; this is discussed in section 6. In principle, one could also use angular sizes of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, or radio galaxies . Unfortunately, understanding of different physical effects and the redshift evolution of these sources make this a difficult test in practice.

There is another geometrical feature of the universe in which angular diameter distance plays an interesting role. In a closed Friedmann model with $`k=+1`$, there is possibility that an observer at $`\chi =0`$ will be able to receive the light from the antipodal point $`\chi =\pi `$. In a purely matter dominated universe, it is easy to see that the light ray from the antipodal point $`\chi =\pi `$ reaches $`\chi =0`$ exactly at the time of maximum expansion; therefore, in a closed, matter dominated universe, in the expanding phase, no observer can receive light from the antipodal point. The situation, however, is different in the presence of cosmological constant. In this case, $`d_A(z)(1+z)^1\mathrm{sin}\mu `$ where

$$\mu =|\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}1|^{\frac{1}{2}}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{h(z^{})},h(z)=\frac{H(z)}{H_0}$$
(40)
It follows that $`d_A0`$ when $`\mu \pi `$. Therefore, the angular size of an object near the antipodal point can diverge making the object extremely bright in such a universe. Assuming that this phenomena does not occur up to, say $`z=6`$, will imply that the redshift of the antipodal point $`z_a(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})`$ is larger than 6. This result can be used to constrain the cosmological parameters  though the limits obtained are not as tight as some of the other tests.

Another test which can be used to obtain a handle on the geometry of the universe is usually called Alcock-Paczynski curvature test . The basic idea is to use the fact that when any spherically symmetric system at high redshift is observed, the cosmological parameters enter differently in the characterization of radial and transverse dimensions. Hence any system which can be approximated a priori to be intrinsically spherical will provide a way of determining cosmological parameters. The correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies seems to be promising in terms of both depth and density for applying this test (see for a detailed discussion, ). The main sources of error arises from non linear clustering and the bias of the red galaxies, either of which can be a source of systematic error. A variant of this method was proposed using observations of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest and compare the correlation function along the line of sight and transverse to the line of sight. In addition to the modeling uncertainties, successful application of this test will also require about 30 close quasar pairs .

## 4 Models with evolving cosmological “constant”

The observations which suggest the existence of non-zero cosmological constant — discussed in the last section — raises serious theoretical problems which we mentioned in section 1.1. These difficulties have led people to consider the possibility that the dark energy in the universe is not just a cosmological constant but is of more complicated nature, evolving with time. Its value today can then be more naturally set by the current expansion rate rather than predetermined earlier on — thereby providing a solution to the cosmological constant problems.

Though a host of models have been constructed based on this hope, none of them provides a satisfactory solution to the problems of fine-tuning. Moreover, all of them involve an evolving equation of state parameter $`w_X(a)`$ for the unknown (“X”) dark energy component, thereby taking away all predictive power from cosmology . Ultimately, however, this issue needs to settled observationally by checking whether $`w_X(a)`$ is a constant \[equal to $`1`$, for the cosmological constant\] at all epochs or whether it is indeed varying with $`a`$. We shall now discuss several observational and theoretical issues connected with this theme.

While the complete knowledge of the $`T_b^a`$ \[that is, the knowledge of the right hand side of (20)\] uniquely determines $`H(a)`$, the converse is not true. If we know only the function $`H(a)`$, it is not possible to determine the nature of the energy density which is present in the universe. We have already seen that geometrical measurements can only provide, at best, the functional form of $`H(a)`$. It follows that purely geometrical measurements of the Friedmann universe will never allow us to determine the material content of the universe.

\[The only exception to this rule is when we assume that each of the components in the universe has constant $`w_i`$. This is fairly strong assumption and, in fact, will allow us to determine the components of the universe from the knowledge of the function $`H(a)`$. To see this, we first note that the term $`(k/a^2)`$ in equation (22) can be thought of as contributed by a hypothetical species of matter with $`w=(1/3)`$. Hence equation (22) can be written in the form

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=H_0^2\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{3(1+w_i)}$$
(41)
with a term having $`w_i=(1/3)`$ added to the sum. Let $`\alpha 3(1+w)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )`$ denote the fraction of the critical density contributed by matter with $`w=(\alpha /3)1`$. (For discrete values of $`w_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )`$ will be a sum of Dirac delta functions.) In the continuum limit, equation (41) can be rewritten as

$$H^2=H_0^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )e^{\alpha q}$$
(42)
where $`(a/a_0)=\mathrm{exp}(q)`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )`$ is assumed to have finite support (or decrease fast enough) for the expression on the right hand side to converge. If the observations determine the function $`H(a)`$, then the left hand side can be expressed as a function of $`q`$. An inverse Laplace transform of this equation will then determine the form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )`$ thereby determining the composition of the universe, as long as all matter can be described by an equation of state of the form $`p_i=w_i\rho _i`$ with $`w_i=`$ constant for all $`i=1,\mathrm{}.,N`$.\]

More realistically one is interested in models which has a complicated form of $`w_X(a)`$ for which the above analysis is not applicable. Let us divide the source energy density into two components: $`\rho _k(a)`$, which is known from independent observations and a component $`\rho _X(a)`$ which is not known. From (20), it follows that

$$\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho _X(a)=H^2(a)(1Q(a));Q(a)\frac{8\pi G\rho _k(a)}{3H^2(a)}$$
(43)
Taking a derivative of $`\mathrm{ln}\rho _X(a)`$ and using (19), it is easy to obtain the relation

$$w_X(a)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}a}\mathrm{ln}[(1Q(a))H^2(a)a^3]$$
(44)
If geometrical observations of the universe give us $`H(a)`$ and other observations give us $`\rho _k(a)`$ then one can determine $`Q`$ and thus $`w_X(a)`$. While this is possible, in principle the uncertainties in measuring both $`H`$ and $`Q`$ makes this a nearly impossible route to follow in practice. In particular, one is interested in knowing whether $`w`$ evolves with time or a constant and this turns out to be a very difficult task observationally. We shall now briefly discuss some of the issues.

### 4.1 Parametrized equation of state and cosmological observations

One simple, phenomenological, procedure for comparing observations with theory is to parameterize the function $`w(a)`$ in some suitable form and determine a finite set of parameters in this function using the observations. Theoretical models can then be reduced to a finite set of parameters which can be determined by this procedure. To illustrate this approach, and the difficulties in determining the equation of state of dark energy from the observations, we shall assume that $`w(a)`$ is given by the simple form: $`w(a)=w_0+w_1(1a)`$; in the $`k=0`$ model (which we shall assume for simplicity), $`w_0`$ measures the current value of the parameter and $`w_1`$ gives its rate of change at the present epoch. In addition to simplicity, this parameterization has the advantage of giving finite $`w`$ in the entire range $`0<a<1`$.

Figure 12 shows confidence interval contours in the $`w_0w_1`$ plane arising from the full supernova data, obtained by assuming that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. The three frames are for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=(0.2,0.3,0.4)`$. The following features are obvious from the figure: (i) The cosmological constant corresponding to $`w_0=1,w_1=0`$ is a viable candidate and cannot be excluded. (In fact, different analysis of many observational results lead to this conclusion consistently; in other words, at present there is no observational motivation to assume $`w_10`$.) (ii) The result is sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ which is assumed. This is understandable from equation (44) which shows that $`w_X(a)`$ depends on both $`Q\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and $`H(a)`$. (We shall discuss this dependence of the results on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ in greater detail below). (iii) Note that the axes are not in equal units in figure 12. The observations can determine $`w_0`$ with far greater accuracy than $`w_1`$. (iv) The slanted line again corresponds to $`H_0d_L(z=0.63)=`$ constant and shows that the shape of the probability ellipses arises essentially from this feature.

In summary, the current data definitely supports a negative pressure component with $`w_0<(1/3)`$ but is completely consistent with $`w_1=0`$. If this is the case, then the cosmological constant is the simplest candidate for this negative pressure component and there is very little observational motivation to study other models with varying $`w(a)`$. On the other hand, the cosmological constant has well known theoretical problems which could possibly be alleviated in more sophisticated models with varying $`w(a)`$. With this motivation, there has been extensive amount of work in the last few years investigating whether improvement in the observational scenario will allow us to determine whether $`w_1`$ is non zero or not. (For a sample of references, see .) In the context of supernova based determination of $`d_L`$, it is possible to analyze the situation along the following lines .

Since the supernova observations essentially measure $`d_L(a)`$, accuracy in the determination of $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ from (both the present and planned future ) supernova observations will crucially depend on how sensitive $`d_L`$ is to the changes in $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$. A good measure of the sensitivity is provided by the two parameters

$`A(z,w_0,w_1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dw_0}}\mathrm{ln}(d_L(z,w_0,w_1)H_0);`$
$`B(z,w_0,w_1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dw_1}}\mathrm{ln}(d_L(z,w_0,w_1)H_0)`$ (45)
Since $`d_L(z,w_0,w_1)`$ can be obtained from theory, the parameters $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be computed form theory in a straight forward manner. At any given redshift $`z`$, we can plot contours of constant $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the $`w_0w_1`$ plane. Figure (13) shows the result of such an analysis . The two frames on the left are at $`z=1`$ and the two frames on the right are at $`z=3`$. The top frames give contours of constant $`A`$ and bottom frame give contours of constant $`B`$. From the definition in the equation (45) it is clear that $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be interpreted as the fractional change in $`d_L`$ for unit change in $`w_0,w_1`$. For example, along the line marked $`A=0.2`$ (in the top left frame) $`d_L`$ will change by 20 per cent for unit change in $`w_0`$. It is clear from the two top frames that for most of the interesting region in the $`w_0w_1`$ plane, changing $`w_0`$ by unity changes $`d_L`$ by about 10 per cent or more. Comparison of $`z=1`$ and $`z=3`$ (the two top frames) shows that the sensitivity is higher at high redshift, as to be expected. The shaded band across the picture corresponds to the region in which $`1w(a)0`$ which is of primary interest in constraining dark energy with negative pressure. One concludes that determining $`w_0`$ from $`d_L`$ fairly accurately will not be too daunting a task.

The situation, however, is quite different as regards $`w_1`$ as illustrated in the bottom two frames. For the same region of the $`w_0w_1`$ plane, $`d_L`$ changes only by a few percent when $`w_1`$ changes by unity. That is, $`d_L`$ is much less sensitive to $`w_1`$ than to $`w_0`$. It is going to be significantly more difficult to determine a value for $`w_1`$ from observations of $`d_L`$ in the near future. Comparison of $`z=1`$ and $`z=3`$ again shows that the sensitivity is somewhat better at high redshifts but only marginally.

The situation is made worse by the fact that $`d_L`$ also depends on the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$. If varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ mimics the variation of $`w_1`$ or $`w_0`$, then, one also needs to determine the sensitivity of $`d_L`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$. Figure 14 shows contours of constant $`H_0d_L`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}w_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}w_1`$ planes at two redshifts $`z=1`$ and $`z=3`$. The two top frames shows that if one varies the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ in the allowed range of, say, ($`0.2,0.4`$) one can move along the curve of constant $`d_L`$ and induce fairly large variation in $`w_1`$. In other words, large changes in $`w_1`$ can be easily compensated by small changes in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ while maintaining the same value for $`d_L`$ at a given redshift. This shows that the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ introduces further difficulties in determining $`w_1`$ accurately from measurements of $`d_L`$. The two lower frames show that the situation is better as regards $`w_0`$. The curves are much less steep and hence varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ does not induce large variations in $`w_0`$. We are once again led to the conclusion that unambiguous determination of $`w_1`$ from data will be quite difficult. This is somewhat disturbing since $`w_10`$ is a clear indication of a dark energy component which is evolving. It appears that observations may not be of great help in ruling out cosmological constant as the major dark energy component. (The results given above are based on ; also see  and references cited therein.)

### 4.2 Theoretical models with time dependent dark energy: cosmic degeneracy

The approach in the last section was purely phenomenological and one might like to construct some physical model which leads to varying $`w(a)`$. It turns out that this is fairly easy, and — in fact —- it is possible to construct models which will accommodate virtually any form of evolution. We shall now discuss some examples.

A simple form of the source with variable $`w`$ are scalar fields with Lagrangians of different forms, of which we will discuss two possibilities:

$$L_{\mathrm{quin}}=\frac{1}{2}_a\varphi ^a\varphi V(\varphi );L_{\mathrm{tach}}=V(\varphi )[1_a\varphi ^a\varphi ]^{1/2}$$
(46)
Both these Lagrangians involve one arbitrary function $`V(\varphi )`$. The first one, $`L_{\mathrm{quin}}`$, which is a natural generalisation of the Lagrangian for a non-relativistic particle, $`L=(1/2)\dot{q}^2V(q)`$, is usually called quintessence (for a sample of models, see ). When it acts as a source in Friedman universe, it is characterized by a time dependent $`w(t)`$ with

$$\rho _q(t)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V;P_q(t)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V;w_q=\frac{1(2V/\dot{\varphi }^2)}{1+(2V/\dot{\varphi }^2)}$$
(47)
The structure of the second scalar field can be understood by a simple analogy from special relativity. A relativistic particle with (one dimensional) position $`q(t)`$ and mass $`m`$ is described by the Lagrangian $`L=m\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$. It has the energy $`E=m/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ and momentum $`p=m\dot{q}/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ which are related by $`E^2=p^2+m^2`$. As is well known, this allows the possibility of having massless particles with finite energy for which $`E^2=p^2`$. This is achieved by taking the limit of $`m0`$ and $`\dot{q}1`$, while keeping the ratio in $`E=m/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ finite. The momentum acquires a life of its own, unconnected with the velocity $`\dot{q}`$, and the energy is expressed in terms of the momentum (rather than in terms of $`\dot{q}`$) in the Hamiltonian formulation. We can now construct a field theory by upgrading $`q(t)`$ to a field $`\varphi `$. Relativistic invariance now requires $`\varphi `$ to depend on both space and time \[$`\varphi =\varphi (t,𝐱)`$\] and $`\dot{q}^2`$ to be replaced by $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi `$. It is also possible now to treat the mass parameter $`m`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$, say, $`V(\varphi )`$ thereby obtaining a field theoretic Lagrangian $`L=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }`$. The Hamiltonian structure of this theory is algebraically very similar to the special relativistic example we started with. In particular, the theory allows solutions in which $`V0`$, $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi 1`$ simultaneously, keeping the energy (density) finite. Such solutions will have finite momentum density (analogous to a massless particle with finite momentum $`p`$) and energy density. Since the solutions can now depend on both space and time (unlike the special relativistic example in which $`q`$ depended only on time), the momentum density can be an arbitrary function of the spatial coordinate. This provides a rich gamut of possibilities in the context of cosmology. , This form of scalar field arises in string theories  and — for technical reasons — is called a tachyonic scalar field. (The structure of this Lagrangian is similar to those analyzed in a wide class of models called K-essence; see for example, . We will not discuss K-essence models in this review.)

The stress tensor for the tachyonic scalar field can be written in a perfect fluid form

$$T_k^i=(\rho +p)u^iu_kp\delta _k^i$$
(48)
with

$$u_k=\frac{_k\varphi }{\sqrt{^i\varphi _i\varphi }};\rho =\frac{V(\varphi )}{\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }};p=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }$$
(49)
The remarkable feature of this stress tensor is that it could be considered as the sum of a pressure less dust component and a cosmological constant  To show this explicitly, we break up the density $`\rho `$ and the pressure $`p`$ and write them in a more suggestive form as

$$\rho =\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\rho _{\mathrm{DM}};p=p_V+p_{\mathrm{DM}}$$
(50)
where

$$\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}=\frac{V(\varphi )^i\varphi _i\varphi }{\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }};p_{\mathrm{DM}}=0;\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi };p_V=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(51)
This means that the stress tensor can be thought of as made up of two components – one behaving like a pressure-less fluid, while the other having a negative pressure. In the cosmological context, the tachyonic field is described by:

$$\rho _t(t)=V[1\dot{\varphi }^2]^{1/2};P_t=V[1\dot{\varphi }^2]^{1/2};w_t=\dot{\varphi }^21$$
(52)
When $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is small (compared to $`V`$ in the case of quintessence or compared to unity in the case of tachyonic field), both these sources have $`w1`$ and mimic a cosmological constant. When $`\dot{\varphi }V`$, the quintessence has $`w1`$ leading to $`\rho _q(1+z)^6`$; the tachyonic field, on the other hand, has $`w0`$ for $`\dot{\varphi }1`$ and behaves like non-relativistic matter. In both the cases, $`1<w<1`$, though it is possible to construct more complicated scalar field Lagrangians with even $`w<1`$. (See for example, ; for some other alternatives to scalar field models, see for example, .)

Since the quintessence field (or the tachyonic field) has an undetermined free function $`V(\varphi )`$, it is possible to choose this function in order to produce a given $`H(a)`$. To see this explicitly, let us assume that the universe has two forms of energy density with $`\rho (a)=\rho _{\mathrm{known}}(a)+\rho _\varphi (a)`$ where $`\rho _{\mathrm{known}}(a)`$ arises from any known forms of source (matter, radiation, …) and $`\rho _\varphi (a)`$ is due to a scalar field. When $`w(a)`$ is given, one can determine the $`V(\varphi )`$ using either (47) or (52). For quintessence, (47) along with (43) gives

$`\dot{\varphi }^2(a)=\rho (1+w)={\displaystyle \frac{3H^2(a)}{8\pi G}}(1Q)(1+w);`$
$`2V(a)=\rho (1w)={\displaystyle \frac{3H^2(a)}{8\pi G}}(1Q)(1w)`$ (53)
For tachyonic scalar field, (52) along with (43) gives

$$\dot{\varphi }^2(a)=(1+w);V(a)=\rho (w)^{1/2}=\frac{3H^2(a)}{8\pi G}(1Q)(w)^{1/2}$$
(54)
Given $`Q(a)`$, $`w(a)`$ these equations implicitly determine $`V(\varphi )`$. We have already seen that, for any cosmological evolution specified by the functions $`H(a)`$ and $`\rho _k(a)`$, one can determine $`w(a)`$; see equation (44). Combining (44) with either (53) or (54), one can completely solve the problem.

Let us first consider quintessence. Here, using (44) to express $`w`$ in terms of $`H`$ and $`Q`$, the potential is given implicitly by the form

$$V(a)=\frac{1}{16\pi G}H(1Q)\left[6H+2aH^{}\frac{aHQ^{}}{1Q}\right]$$
(55)
$$\varphi (a)=\left[\frac{1}{8\pi G}\right]^{1/2}\frac{da}{a}\left[aQ^{}(1Q)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}H^2}{d\mathrm{ln}a}\right]^{1/2}$$
(56)
where $`Q(a)[8\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{known}}(a)/3H^2(a)]`$. We shall now discuss some examples of this result:

* Consider a universe in which observations suggest that $`H^2(a)=H_0^2a^3`$. Such a universe could be populated by non relativistic matter with density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. On the other hand, such a universe could be populated entirely by a scalar field with a potential $`V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}[(16\pi G/3)^{1/2}\varphi ]`$. One can also have a linear combination of non relativistic matter and scalar field with the potential having a generic form $`V(\varphi )=A\mathrm{exp}[B\varphi ]`$.
* Power law expansion of the universe can be generated by a quintessence model with $`V(\varphi )=\varphi ^\alpha `$. In this case, the energy density of the scalar field varies as $`\rho _\varphi t^{2\alpha /(2+\alpha )}`$; if the background density $`\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}`$ varies as $`\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}t^2`$, the ratio of the two energy densities changes as $`(\rho _\varphi /\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}=t^{4/(2+\alpha )}`$). Obviously, the scalar field density can dominate over the background at late times for $`\alpha >0`$.
* A different class of models arise if the potential is taken to be exponential with, say, $`V(\varphi )\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \varphi /M_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$. When $`k=0`$, both $`\rho _\varphi `$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}`$ scale in the same manner leading to

$$\frac{\rho _\varphi }{\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}+\rho _\varphi }=\frac{3(1+w_{\mathrm{bg}})}{\lambda ^2}$$
(57)
where $`w_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ refers to the background parameter value. In this case, the dark energy density is said to “track” the background energy density. While this could be a model for dark matter, there are strong constraints on the total energy density of the universe at the epoch of nucleosynthesis. This requires $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi 0.2`$ requiring dark energy to be sub dominant at all epochs.
* Many other forms of $`H(a)`$ can be reproduced by a combination of non-relativistic matter and a suitable form of scalar field with a potential $`V(\varphi )`$. As a final example , suppose $`H^2(a)=H_0^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}a^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})a^n]`$. This can arise, if the universe is populated with non-relativistic matter with density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and a scalar field with the potential, determined using equations (55), (56). We get

$$V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{sinh}^{2n/(n3)}[\alpha (\varphi \psi )]$$
(58)
where

$$V_0=\frac{(6n)H_0^2}{16\pi G}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^n}{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})^3}\right]^{\frac{1}{n3}};\alpha =(3n)(2\pi G/n)^{1/2}$$
(59)
and $`\psi `$ is a constant.

Similar results exists for the tachyonic scalar field as well . For example, given any $`H(t)`$, one can construct a tachyonic potential $`V(\varphi )`$ so that the scalar field is the source for the cosmology. The equations determining $`V(\varphi )`$ are now given by:

$$\varphi (a)=\frac{da}{aH}\left(\frac{aQ^{}}{3(1Q)}\frac{2}{3}\frac{aH^{}}{H}\right)^{1/2}$$
(60)
$$V=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}(1Q)\left(1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{aH^{}}{H}\frac{aQ^{}}{3(1Q)}\right)^{1/2}$$
(61)
Equations (60) and (61) completely solve the problem. Given any $`H(t)`$, these equations determine $`V(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$ and thus the potential $`V(\varphi )`$.

As an example, consider a universe with power law expansion $`a=t^n`$. If it is populated only by a tachyonic scalar field, then $`Q=0`$; further, $`(aH^{}/H)`$ in equation (60) is a constant making $`\dot{\varphi }`$ a constant. The complete solution is given by

$$\varphi (t)=\left(\frac{2}{3n}\right)^{1/2}t+\varphi _0;V(t)=\frac{3n^2}{8\pi G}\left(1\frac{2}{3n}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{t^2}$$
(62)
where $`n>(2/3)`$. Combining the two, we find the potential to be

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{n}{4\pi G}\left(1\frac{2}{3n}\right)^{1/2}(\varphi \varphi _0)^2$$
(63)
For such a potential, it is possible to have arbitrarily rapid expansion with large $`n`$. (For the cosmological model, based on this potential, see .)

A wide variety of phenomenological models with time dependent cosmological constant have been considered in the literature. They involve power law decay of cosmological constant like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }t^\alpha `$  or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }a^\alpha `$, , exponential decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}(\alpha a)`$  and more complicated models (for a summary, see ). Virtually all these models can be reverse engineered and mapped to a scalar field model with a suitable $`V(\varphi )`$. Unfortunately, all these models lack predictive power or clear particle physics motivation.

This discussion also illustrates that even when $`w(a)`$ is known, it is not possible to proceed further and determine the nature of the source. The explicit examples given above shows that there are at least two different forms of scalar field Lagrangians (corresponding to the quintessence or the tachyonic field) which could lead to the same $`w(a)`$. A theoretical physicist, who would like to know which of these two scalar fields exist in the universe, may have to be content with knowing $`w(a)`$. The accuracy of the determination of $`w(a)`$ depends on the prior assumptions made in determining $`Q`$, as well as on the observational accuracy with which the quantities $`H(a)`$ can be measured. Direct observations usually give the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ or angular diameter distance $`d_A`$. To obtain $`H(a)`$ from either of these, one needs to calculate a derivative \[see, for example, (17)\] which further limits the accuracy significantly. As we saw in the last section, this is not easy.

## 5 Structure formation in the universe

The conventional paradigm for the formation of structures in the universe is based on the growth of small perturbations due to gravitational instabilities. In this picture, some mechanism is invoked to generate small perturbations in the energy density in the very early phase of the universe. These perturbations grow due to gravitational instability and eventually form the different structures which we see today. Such a scenario can be constrained most severely by observations of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) at $`z10^3`$. Since the perturbations in CMBR are observed to be small ($`10^510^4`$ depending on angular scales), it follows that the energy density perturbations were small compared to unity at the redshift of $`z1000`$.

The central quantity one uses to describe the growth of structures during $`0<z<10^3`$ is the density contrast defined as $`\delta (t,𝐱)=[\rho (t,𝐱)\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}(t)]/\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}(t)`$ which characterizes the fractional change in the energy density compared to the background. (Here $`\rho _{\mathrm{bg}}(t)`$ is the mean background density of the smooth universe.) Since one is often interested in the statistical behaviour of structures in the universe, it is conventional to assume that $`\delta `$ and other related quantities are elements of an ensemble. Many popular models of structure formation suggest that the initial density perturbations in the early universe can be represented as a Gaussian random variable with zero mean (that is, $`<\delta >=0`$) and a given initial power spectrum. The latter quantity is defined through the relation $`P(t,k)=<|\delta _k(t)|^2>`$ where $`\delta _𝐤`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\delta (t,𝐱)`$ and $`<\mathrm{}>`$ indicates averaging over the ensemble. It is also conventional to define the two-point correlation function $`\xi (t,x)`$ as the Fourier transform of $`P(t,𝐤)`$ over $`𝐤`$. Though gravitational clustering will make the density contrast non Gaussian at late times, the power spectrum and the correlation function continue to be of primary importance in the study of structure formation.

When the density contrast is small, its evolution can be studied by linear perturbation theory and each of the spatial Fourier modes $`\delta _𝐤(t)`$ will grow independently. It follows that $`\delta (t,𝐱)`$ will have the form $`\delta (t,𝐱)=D(t)f(𝐱)`$ in the linear regime where $`D(t)`$ is the growth factor and $`f(𝐱)`$ depends on the initial configuration. When $`\delta 1`$, linear perturbation theory breaks down and one needs to either use some analytical approximation or numerical simulations to study the non linear growth. A simple but effective approximation is based on spherical symmetry in which one studies the dynamics of a spherical region in the universe which has a constant over-density compared to the background. As the universe expands, the over-dense region will expand more slowly compared to the background, will reach a maximum radius, contract and virialize to form a bound nonlinear system. If the proper coordinates of the particles in a background Friedmann universe is given by $`𝐫=a(t)𝐱`$ we can take the proper coordinates of the particles in the over-dense region to be $`𝐫=R(t)𝐱`$ where $`R(t)`$ is the expansion rate of the over-dense region. The relative acceleration of two geodesics in the over-dense region will be $`𝐠=\ddot{R}𝐱=(\ddot{R}/R)𝐫`$. Using (8) and $`𝐫=3`$, we get

$$\ddot{R}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho +3P)R=\frac{GM}{R^2}\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho +3P)_{\mathrm{nondust}}R$$
(64)
where the subscript ‘non-dust’ refers to all components of matter other than the one with equation of state $`P=0`$; the dust component is taken into account by the first term on the right hand side with $`M=(4\pi /3)\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}R^3`$. The density contrast is related to $`R`$ by $`(1+\delta )=(\rho /\rho _{\mathrm{bg}})=(a/R)^3`$. Given the equation (64) satisfied by $`R`$ and (20), it is easy to determine the equation satisfied by the density contrast. We get (see p. 404 of ):

$$\ddot{\delta }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta }=4\pi G\rho _b(1+\delta )\delta +\frac{4}{3}\frac{\dot{\delta }^2}{(1+\delta )}$$
(65)
This is a fully nonlinear equation satisfied by the density contrast in a spherically symmetric over-dense region in the universe.

### 5.1 Linear evolution of perturbations

When the perturbations are small, one can ignore the second term in the right hand side of (65) and replace $`(1+\delta )`$ by unity in the first term on the right hand side. The resulting equation is valid in the linear regime and hence will be satisfied by each of the Fourier modes $`\delta _𝐤(t)`$ obtained by Fourier transforming $`\delta (t,𝐱)`$ with respect to $`𝐱`$. Taking $`\delta (t,𝐱)=D(t)f(𝐱)`$, the $`D(t)`$ satisfies the equation

$$\ddot{D}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{D}=4\pi G\rho _bD$$
(66)
The power spectra $`P(k,t)=<|\delta _𝐤(t)|^2>`$ at two different redshifts in the linear regime are related by

$$P(k,z_f)=T^2(k,z_f,z_i,\mathrm{bg})P(k,z_i)$$
(67)
where $`T`$ (called transfer function) depends only on the parameters of the background universe (denoted by ‘bg’) but not on the initial power spectrum and can be computed by solving (66). It is now clear that the only new input which structure formation scenarios require is the specification of the initial perturbation at all relevant scales, which requires one arbitrary function of the wavenumber $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$.

Let us first consider the transfer function. The rate of growth of small perturbations is essentially decided by two factors: (i) The relative magnitudes of the proper wavelength of perturbation $`\lambda _{\mathrm{prop}}(t)a(t)`$ and the Hubble radius $`d_H(t)H^1(t)=(\dot{a}/a)^1`$ and (ii) whether the universe is radiation dominated or matter dominated. At sufficiently early epochs, the universe will be radiation dominated and $`d_H(t)t`$ will be smaller than the proper wavelength $`\lambda _{\mathrm{prop}}(t)t^{1/2}`$. The density contrast of such modes, which are bigger than the Hubble radius, will grow as $`a^2`$ until $`\lambda _{\mathrm{prop}}=d_H(t)`$. \[When this occurs, the perturbation at a given wavelength is said to enter the Hubble radius. One can use (66) with the right hand side replaced by $`4\pi (1+w)(1+3w)G\rho `$ in this case; this leads to $`Dta^2`$.\] When $`\lambda _{\mathrm{prop}}<d_H`$ and the universe is radiation dominated, the perturbation does not grow significantly and increases at best only logarithmically . Later on, when the universe becomes matter dominated for $`t>t_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, the perturbations again begin to grow. It follows from this result that modes with wavelengths greater than $`d_{\mathrm{eq}}d_H(t_{\mathrm{eq}})`$ — which enter the Hubble radius only in the matter dominated epoch — continue to grow at all times while modes with wavelengths smaller than $`d_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ suffer lack of growth (in comparison with longer wavelength modes) during the period $`t_{\mathrm{enter}}<t<t_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. This fact leads to a distortion of the shape of the primordial spectrum by suppressing the growth of small wavelength modes in comparison with longer ones. Very roughly, the shape of $`T^2(k)`$ can be characterized by the behaviour $`T^2(k)k^4`$ for $`k>k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ and $`T^21`$ for $`k<k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The wave number $`k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ corresponds to the length scale

$$d_{\mathrm{eq}}=d_H(z_{\mathrm{eq}})=(2\pi /k_{\mathrm{eq}})13(\mathrm{\Omega }h^2)^1\mathrm{Mpc}$$
(68)
(eg., , p.75). The spectrum at wavelengths $`\lambda d_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is undistorted by the evolution since $`T^2`$ is essentially unity at these scales. Further evolution can eventually lead to nonlinear structures seen today in the universe.

At late times, we can ignore the effect of radiation in solving (66). The linear perturbation equation (66) has an exact solution (in terms of hyper-geometric functions) for cosmological models with non-relativistic matter and dark energy with a constant $`w`$. It is given by

$$\frac{D(a)}{a}={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{3w},\frac{w1}{2w},1\frac{5}{6w},a^{3w}\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_{NR}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{NR}}]$$
(69)
\[This result can be obtained by direct algebra. If the independent variable in equation (66) is changed from $`t`$ to $`a^{3w}`$ and the dependent variable is changed from $`D`$ to $`(D/a)`$, the resulting equation has the standard form of hypergeometric equation for a universe with dark energy and non-relativistic matter as source.\] Figure 15 shows the growth factor for different values of $`w`$ including the one for cosmological constant (corresponding to $`w=1`$) and an open model (with $`w=1/3`$.)

For small values of $`a`$, $`Da`$ which is an exact result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ model. The growth rate slows down in the cosmological constant dominated phase (in models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ with $`w=1`$) or in the curvature dominated phase (open models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}<1`$ corresponding to $`w=1/3`$). Between the two cases, there is less growth in open models compared to models with cosmological constant.

It is possible to rewrite equation (65) in a different form to find an approximate solution for even variable $`w(a)`$. Converting the time derivatives into derivatives with respect to $`a`$ (denoted by a prime) and using the Friedmann equations, we can write (65) as

$$a^2\delta ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{3}{2}\left(1\frac{p}{\rho }\right)a\delta ^{}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}}{\rho }\delta (1+\delta )+\frac{4}{3}\frac{a^2\delta ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{1+\delta )}$$
(70)
In a universe populated by only non relativistic matter and dark energy characterized by an equation of state function $`w(a)`$, this equation can be recast in a different manner by introducing a time dependent $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ \[as in equation (43)\] by the relation $`Q(t)=(8\pi G/3)[\rho _{\mathrm{NR}}(t)/H^2(t)]`$ so that $`(dQ/d\mathrm{ln}a)=3wQ(1Q)`$. Then equation (65) becomes in terms of the variable $`f(d\mathrm{ln}\delta /d\mathrm{ln}a)`$

$`3wQ(1Q){\displaystyle \frac{df}{dQ}}`$ $`+`$ $`f^2+f\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}w(1Q)\right]`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Q(1+\delta )+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{1+\delta }}\right)f^2`$
Unfortunately this equation is not closed in terms of $`f`$ and $`Q`$ since it also involves $`\delta =\mathrm{exp}[(da/a)f]`$. But in the linear regime, we can ignore the second term on the right hand side and replace $`(1+\delta )`$ by unity in the first term thereby getting a closed equation:

$$3wQ(1Q)\frac{df}{dQ}+f^2+f\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}w(1Q)\right]=\frac{3}{2}Q$$
(72)
This equation has approximate power law solutions  of the form $`f=Q^n`$ when $`|dw/dQ|1/(1Q)`$. Substituting this ansatz, we get

$$n=\frac{3}{5w/(1w)}+\frac{3}{125}\frac{(1w)(13w/2)}{(16w/5)^3}(1Q)+𝒪[(1Q)^2]$$
(73)
\[Note that $`Q(t)1`$ at high redshifts, which is anyway the domain of validity of the linear perturbation theory\]. This result shows that $`n`$ is weakly dependent on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$; further, $`n(4/7)`$ for open Friedmann model with non relativistic matter and $`n(6/11)0.6`$ in a $`k=0`$ model with cosmological constant.

Let us next consider the initial power spectrum $`P(k,z_i)`$ in (67). The following points need to be emphasized regarding the initial fluctuation spectrum.

(1) It can be proved that known local physical phenomena, arising from laws tested in the laboratory in a medium with $`(P/\rho )>0`$, are incapable producing the initial fluctuations of required magnitude and spectrum (eg., , p 458). The initial fluctuations, therefore, must be treated as arising from physics untested at the moment.

(2) Contrary to claims sometimes made in the literature, inflationary models are not capable of uniquely predicting the initial fluctuations. It is possible to come up with viable inflationary potentials (, chapter 3) which are capable of producing any reasonable initial fluctuation.

A *prediction* of the initial fluctuation spectrum was indeed made by Harrison and Zeldovich , who were years ahead of their times. They predicted — based on very general arguments of scale invariance — that the initial fluctuations will have a power spectrum $`P=Ak^n`$ with $`n=1`$. Considering the simplicity and importance of this result, we shall briefly recall the arguments leading to the choice of $`n=1`$.

If the power spectrum is $`Pk^n`$ at some early epoch, then the power per logarithmic band of wave numbers is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2k^3P(k)k^{(n+3)}`$. Further, when the wavelength of the mode is larger than the Hubble radius, $`d_H(t)=(\dot{a}/a)^1`$, during the radiation dominated phase, the perturbation grows as $`a^2`$ making $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2a^4k^{(n+3)}`$. We need to determine how $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ scales with $`k`$ when the mode enters the Hubble radius $`d_H(t)`$. The epoch $`a_{enter}`$ at which this occurs is determined by the relation $`2\pi a_{enter}/k=d_H`$. Using $`d_Hta^2`$ in the radiation dominated phase, we get $`a_{enter}k^1`$ so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k,a_{enter})a_{enter}^4k^{(n+3)}k^{(n1)}$$
(74)
It follows that the amplitude of fluctuations is independent of scale $`k`$ at the time of entering the Hubble radius, only if $`n=1`$. This is the essence of Harrison-Zeldovich and which is independent of the inflationary paradigm. It follows that verification of $`n=1`$ by any observation is not a verification of inflation. At best it verifies a far deeper principle of scale invariance. We also note that the power spectrum of gravitational potential $`P_\varphi `$ scales as $`P_\varphi P/k^4k^{(n4)}`$. Hence the fluctuation in the gravitational potential (per decade in $`k`$) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi ^2k^3P_\varphi `$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi ^2k^{(n1)}`$. This fluctuation in the gravitational potential is also independent of $`k`$ for $`n=1`$ clearly showing the special nature of this choice.\[It is not possible to take $`n`$ strictly equal to unity without specifying a detailed model; the reason has to do with the fact that scale invariance is always broken at some level and this will lead to a small difference between $`n`$ and unity\]. Given the above description, the basic model of cosmology is based on seven parameters. Of these 5 parameters $`(H_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{R})`$ determine the background universe and the two parameters $`(A,n)`$ specify the initial fluctuation spectrum.

It is possible to provide simple analytic fitting functions for the transfer function, incorporating all the above effects. For models with a cosmological constant, the transfer function is well fitted by

$$T_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(p)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(1+2.34p)}{(2.34p)^2}[1+3.89p+(16.1p)^2+(5.46p)^3+(6.71p)^4]^{1/2}$$
(75)
where $`p=k/(\mathrm{\Gamma }h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}h\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_B(1+\sqrt{2h}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})]`$ is called the ‘shape factor’. The presence of dark energy, with a constant $`w`$, will also affect the transfer function and hence the final power spectrum. An approximate fitting formula can be given along the following lines . Let the power spectrum be written in the form

$$P(k,a)=A_Qk^nT_Q^2(k)\left(\frac{ag_Q}{g_{Q,0}}\right)^2$$
(76)
where $`A_Q`$ is a normalization, $`T_Q`$ is the modified transfer function and $`g_Q=(D/a)`$ is the ratio between linear growth factor in the presence of dark energy compared to that in $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ model. Writing $`T_Q`$ as the product $`T_{Q\mathrm{\Lambda }}T_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by (75), numerical work shows that

$$T_{Q\mathrm{\Lambda }}(k,a)\frac{T_Q}{T_\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{\alpha +\alpha q^2}{1+\alpha q^2},q=\frac{k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Qh},$$
(77)
where $`k`$ is in Mpc-1, and $`\alpha `$ is a scale-independent but time-dependent coefficient well approximated by $`\alpha =(w)^s`$ with

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0120.036w0.017/w)[1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(a)]`$ (78)
$`+`$ $`(0.098+0.029w0.085/w)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(a)`$
where the matter density parameter is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(a)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}/[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})a^{3w}]`$. Similarly, the relative growth factor can be expressed in the form $`g_{Q\mathrm{\Lambda }}(g_Q/g_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(w)^t`$ with

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`(0.255+0.305w+0.0027/w)[1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(a)]`$ (79)
$``$ $`(0.366+0.266w0.07/w)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(a)`$
Finally the amplitude $`A_Q`$ can be expressed in the form $`A_Q=\delta _H^2(c/H_0)^{n+3}/(4\pi )`$, where

$$\delta _H=2\times 10^5\alpha _0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}})^{c_1+c_2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}}\mathrm{exp}[c_3(n1)+c_4(n1)^2]$$
(80)
and $`\alpha _0=\alpha (a=1)`$ of equation (78), and

$`c_1=0.789|w|^{0.07540.211\mathrm{ln}|w|},c_2=0.1180.0727w,`$
$`c_3=1.037,c_4=0.138`$ (81)
This fit is valid for $`1w0.2`$.

### 5.2 Nonlinear growth of perturbations

In a purely matter dominated universe, equation (64) reduces to $`\ddot{R}=GM/R^2`$. Solving this equation one can obtain the non linear density contrast $`\delta `$ as a function of the redshift $`z`$:

$$(1+z)=\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\delta _i(1+z_i)}{(\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2/3}}=\left(\frac{5}{3}\right)\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\delta _0}{(\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2/3}};$$
(82)
$$\delta =\frac{9}{2}\frac{(\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}{(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^3}1.$$
(83)
Here, $`\delta _i>0`$ is the initial density contrast at the redshift $`z_i`$ and $`\delta _0`$ is the density contrast at present if the initial density contrast was evolved by linear approximation. In general, the linear density contrast $`\delta _L`$ is given by

$$\delta _L=\frac{\overline{\rho }_L}{\rho _b}1=\frac{3}{5}\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{2/3}(\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2/3}.$$
(84)
When $`\theta =(2\pi /3),\delta _L=0.568`$ and $`\delta =1.011.`$ If we interpret $`\delta =1`$ as the transition point to nonlinearity, then such a transition occurs at $`\theta =(2\pi /3)`$, $`\delta _L0.57`$. From (82), we see that this occurs at the redshift $`(1+z_{\mathrm{nl}})=(\delta _0/0.57).`$ The spherical region reaches the maximum radius of expansion at $`\theta =\pi `$. This corresponds to a density contrast of $`\delta _m4.6`$ which is definitely in the nonlinear regime. The linear evolution gives $`\delta _L=1.063`$ at $`\theta =\pi `$. After the spherical over dense region turns around it will continue to contract. Equation (83) suggests that at $`\theta =2\pi `$ all the mass will collapse to a point. A more detailed analysis of the spherical model , however, shows that the virialized systems formed at any given time have a mean density which is typically 200 times the background density of the universe at that time in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$. This occurs at a redshift of about $`(1+z_{\mathrm{coll}})=(\delta _0/1.686).`$ The density of the virialized structure will be approximately $`\rho _{\mathrm{coll}}170\rho _0(1+z_{\mathrm{coll}})^3`$ where $`\rho _0`$ is the present cosmological density. The evolution is described schematically in figure 16.

In the presence of dark energy, one cannot ignore the second term in equation (64). In the case of a cosmological constant, $`w=1`$ and $`\rho =`$ constant and this extra term is independent of time. This allows one to obtain the first integral to the equation (64) and reduce the problem to quadrature (see, for example ). For a more general case of constant $`w`$ with $`w1`$, the factor $`(\rho +3P)=\rho (1+3w)`$ will be time dependent because $`\rho `$ will be time dependent *even for a constant $`w`$* if $`w1`$. In this case, one cannot obtain an energy integral for the equation (64) and the dynamics has to be determined by actual numerical integration. Such an analysis leads to the following results , , :

(i) In the case of matter dominated universe, it was found that the linear theory critical threshold for collapse, $`\delta _c`$, was about 1.69. This changes very little in the presence of dark energy and an accurate fitting function is given by

$`\delta _c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(12\pi )^{2/3}}{20}}\left[1+\alpha \mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}\right],`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.353w^4+1.044w^3+1.128w^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.555}w+0.131.`$ (85)
(ii) The over density of a virialized structure as a function of the redshift of virialization, however, depends more sensitively on the dark energy component. For $`1w0.3`$, this can be fitted by the function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)=18\pi ^2\left[1+a\mathrm{\Theta }^b(z)\right],$$
(86)
where

$$a=0.3991.309(|w|^{0.426}1);b=0.9410.205(|w|^{0.938}1),$$
(87)
and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=1/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(z)1=(1/\mathrm{\Omega }_01)(1+z)^{3w}`$.

The importance of $`\delta _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ arises from the fact that these quantities can be used to study the abundance of non linear bound structures in the universe. The basic idea behind this calculation  is as follows: Let us consider a density field $`\delta _R(𝐱)`$ smoothed by a window function $`W_R`$ of scale radius $`R`$. As a first approximation, we may assume that the region with $`\delta (R,t)>\delta _c`$ (when smoothed on the scale $`R`$ at time $`t`$) will form a gravitationally bound object with mass $`M\overline{\rho }R^3`$ by the time $`t`$. The precise form of the $`MR`$ relation depends on the window function used; for a step function $`M=(4\pi /3)`$ $`\overline{\rho }R^3`$, while for a Gaussian $`M=(2\pi )^{3/2}\overline{\rho }R^3`$. Here $`\delta _c`$ is a critical value for the density contrast given by (85) Since $`\delta (t)=D(t)`$ for the growing mode, the probability for the region to form a bound structure at $`t`$ is the same as the probability $`\delta >\delta _c[D(t_i)/D(t)]`$ at some early epoch $`t_i`$. This probability can be easily estimated since at sufficiently early $`t_i`$, the system is described by a Gaussian random field. This fact can be used to calculate the number density of bound objects leading to the result

$$N(M)dM=\frac{\overline{\rho }}{M}\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\frac{\delta _c}{\sigma ^2}\left(\frac{\sigma }{M}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)dM,$$
(88)
The quantity $`\sigma `$ here refers to the linearly extrapolated density contrast. We shall now describe the constraints on dark energy arising from structure formation.

### 5.3 Structure formation and constraints on dark energy

Combining the initial power spectrum, $`P(k)=Ak^n`$, $`n1`$, with the transfer function in (75) we find that the final spectrum has the approximate form

$$P(k)\{\begin{array}{cc}Ak^3\mathrm{ln}^2k\hfill & \text{(}kk_{\mathrm{eq}}\text{)}\hfill \\ Ak\hfill & \text{(}kk_{\mathrm{eq}}\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(89)
with $`2\pi k_{\mathrm{eq}}^1d_H(z_{\mathrm{eq}})13(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}h^2)^1`$ Mpc = $`13(\mathrm{\Gamma }h)^1h^1`$ Mpc \[see equation (68)\] where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}h`$ is the shape parameter (see equation (75); we have assumed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B0`$ for simplicity.) From equation (89), it is clear that $`P(k)`$ changes from an increasing function to a decreasing function at $`k_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ , the numerical value of which is decided by the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will lead to more power at longer wavelengths.

One of the earliest investigations which used power spectrum to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was based on the APM galaxy survey . This work showed that the existence of large scale power requires a non zero cosmological constant. This result was confirmed when the COBE observations fixed the amplitude of the power spectrum unequivocally (see section 6). It was pointed out in  that the COBE normalization led to a wrong shape for the power spectrum if we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, with more power at small scales than observed. This problem could be solved by reducing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and changing the shape of the power spectrum. Current observations favour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.25`$. In fact, an analysis of a host of observational data, including those mentioned above suggested  that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ even before the SN data came up.

Another useful constraint on the models for structure formation can be obtained from the abundance of rich clusters of galaxies with masses $`M10^{15}M_{}`$. This mass scale corresponds to a length scale of about $`8h^1`$ Mpc and hence the abundance of rich clusters is sensitive to the root-mean-square fluctuation in the density contrast at $`8h^1`$ Mpc. It is conventional to denote this quantity $`<(\delta \rho /\rho )^2>^{1/2}`$, evaluated at $`8h^1`$ Mpc, by $`\sigma _8`$. To be consistent with the observed abundance of rich clusters, equation (88) requires $`\sigma _80.5\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{1/2}`$. This is consistent with COBE normalization for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$. \[Unfortunately, there is still some uncertainty about the $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ relation. There is a claim  that recent analysis of SDSS data gives $`\sigma _80.33\pm 0.03\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{0.6}`$.\]

The effect of dark energy component on the growth of linear perturbations changes the value of $`\sigma _8`$. The results of section 5.1 translate into the fitting function

$$\sigma _8=(0.500.1\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{\Omega }^{\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Theta })},$$
(90)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(n1)+(h0.65)`$ and $`\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Theta })=0.210.22w+0.33\mathrm{\Omega }+0.25\mathrm{\Theta }`$. For constant $`w`$ models with $`w=1,2/3`$ and $`1/3`$, this gives $`\sigma _8=0.96,0.80`$ and 0.46 respectively. Because of this effect, the abundance of clusters can be used to put stronger constraints on cosmology when the data for high redshift clusters improves. As mentioned before, linear perturbations grow more slowly in a universe with cosmological constant compared to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ universe. This means that clusters will be comparatively rare at high redshifts in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ universe compared to models with cosmological constant. Only less than 10 per cent of massive clusters form at $`z>0.5`$ in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1`$ universe whereas almost all massive clusters would have formed by $`z0.5`$ in a universe with cosmological constant. (A simple way of understanding this effect is by noting that if the clusters are not in place by $`z0.5`$, say, they could not have formed by today in models with cosmological constant since there is very little growth of fluctuation between these two epochs.) Hence the evolution of cluster population as a function of redshift can be used to discriminate between these models.

An indirect way of measuring this abundance is through the lensing effect of a cluster of galaxy on extended background sources. Typically, the foreground clusters shears the light distribution of the background object and leads to giant arcs. Numerical simulations suggest  that a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ will produce about 280 arcs which is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the number of arcs produced in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ model. (In fact, an open model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ will produce about 2400 arcs.) To use this effect, one needs a well defined data base of arcs and a controlled sample. At present it is not clear which model is preferred though this is one test which seems to prefer open model rather than a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM model.

Given the solution to (64) in the presence of dark energy, we can repeat the above analysis and obtain the abundance of different kinds of structures in the universe in the presence of dark energy. In particular this formalism can be used to study the abundance of weak gravitational lenses and virialized x-ray clusters which could act as gravitational lenses. The calculations again show  that the result is highly degenerate in $`w`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ is known, then the number count of weak lenses will be about a factor 2 smaller for $`w=2/3`$ compared to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with a cosmological constant. However, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ and $`w`$ are allowed to vary in such a way that the matter power spectrum matches with both COBE results and abundance of x-ray clusters, then the predicted abundance of lenses is less than 25 per cent for $`1w0.4`$. It may be possible to constrain the dark energy better by comparing relative abundance of virialized lensing clusters with the abundance of x-ray under luminous lensing halos. For example, a survey covering about 50 square degrees of sky may be able to differentiate a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model from $`w=0.6`$ model at a 3$`\sigma `$ level.

The value of $`\sigma _8`$ and cluster abundance can also be constrained via the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) effect which is becoming a powerful probe of cosmological parameters . The S-Z angular power spectrum scales as $`\sigma _8^7(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh)^2`$ and is almost independent of other cosmological parameters. Recently the power spectrum of CMBR determined by CBI and BIMA experiments (see section 6) showed an excess at small scales which could be interpreted as due to S-Z effect. If this interpretation is correct, then $`\sigma _8(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh/0.035)^{0.29}=1.04\pm 0.12`$ at 95 per cent confidence level. This $`\sigma _8`$ is on the higher side and only future observations can decide whether the interpretation is correct or not. The WMAP data, for example, leads to a more conventional value of $`\sigma _8=0.84\pm 0.04`$.

Constraints on cosmological models can also arise from the modeling of damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ systems  when the observational situation improves. At present these observations are consistent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ model but do not exclude other models at a high significance level.

Finally, we comment on a direct relation between $`\delta (a)`$ and $`H(a)`$. Expressing equation (65) in terms of $`H(a)`$ will lead to the form

$$a^2H^2\delta ^{\prime \prime }+(3H^2+aHH^{})a\delta ^{}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}}{a^3}\delta (1+\delta )+\frac{4}{3}\frac{a^2H^2}{(1+\delta )}\delta ^{}_{}{}^{}2.$$
(91)
This can be used to determine $`H^2(a)`$ from $`\delta (a)`$ since this equation is linear and first order in $`Q(a)H^2(a)`$ (though it is second order in $`\delta `$). Rewriting it in the form

$$A(a)Q^{}+B(a)Q=C(a)$$
(92)
where

$$A=\left(\frac{1}{2}a^2\delta ^{}\right);B=\left(3a\delta ^{}+a^2\delta ^{\prime \prime }\frac{4}{3}\frac{\delta ^{}a^2}{1+\delta }\right);C=\frac{3}{2}\frac{H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}}{a^3}\delta (1+\delta )$$
(93)
We can integrate it to give the solution

$$H^2(a)=3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}\frac{(1+\delta )^{8/3}}{a^6\delta ^{}_{}{}^{}2}𝑑a\frac{a\delta ^{}\delta }{(1+\delta )^{5/3}}$$
(94)
This shows that, given the non linear growth of perturbations $`\delta (a)`$ as a function of redshift and the approximate validity of spherical model, one can determine $`H(a)`$ and thus $`w(a)`$ even during the nonlinear phases of the evolution. \[A similar analysis with the linear equation (66) was done in , leading to the result which can be obtained by expanding (94) to linear order in $`\delta `$.\] Unfortunately, this is an impractical method from observational point of view at present.

## 6 CMBR anisotropies

In the standard Friedmann model of the universe, neutral atomic systems form at a redshift of about $`z10^3`$ and the photons decouple from the matter at this redshift. These photons, propagating freely in spacetime since then, constitute the CMBR observed around us today. In an ideal Friedmann universe, for a comoving observer, this radiation will appear to be isotropic. But if physical process has led to inhomogeneities in the $`z=10^3`$ spatial surface, then these inhomogeneities will appear as angular anisotropies in the CMBR in the sky today. A physical process operating at a proper length scale $`L`$ on the $`z=10^3`$ surface will lead to an effect at an angle $`\theta =L/d_A(z)`$. Numerically,

$$\theta (L)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\right)\left(\frac{Lz}{H_0^1}\right)=34.4^{^{\prime \prime }}(\mathrm{\Omega }h)\left(\frac{\lambda _0}{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right).$$
(95)
To relate the theoretical predictions to observations, it is usual to expand the temperature anisotropies in the sky in terms of the spherical harmonics. The temperature anisotropy in the sky will provide $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ as a function of two angles $`\theta `$ and $`\psi `$. If we expand the temperature anisotropy distribution on the sky in spherical harmonics:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ,\psi )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}(\theta ,\psi )=\underset{l,m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\psi ).$$
(96)
all the information is now contained in the angular coefficients $`a_{lm}`$.

If $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐦`$ are two directions in the sky with an angle $`\alpha `$ between them, the two-point correlation function of the temperature fluctuations in the sky can be defined as

$$𝒞(\alpha )=S(𝐧)S(𝐦)=a_{lm}a_{l^{}m^{}}^{}Y_{lm}(𝐧)Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}(𝐦).$$
(97)
Since the sources of temperature fluctuations are related linearly to the density inhomogeneities, the coefficients $`a_{lm}`$ will be random fields with some power spectrum. In that case $`<a_{lm}a_{l^{}m^{}}^{}>`$ will be nonzero only if $`l=l^{}`$ and $`m=m^{}`$. Writing

$$a_{lm}a_{l^{}m^{}}^{}=C_l\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}$$
(98)
and using the addition theorem of spherical harmonics, we find that

$$𝒞(\alpha )=\underset{l}{}\frac{(2l+1)}{4\pi }C_lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\alpha )$$
(99)
with $`C_l=<|a_{lm}|^2>`$. In this approach, the pattern of anisotropy is contained in the variation of $`C_l`$ with $`l`$. Roughly speaking, $`l\theta ^1`$ and we can think of the $`(\theta ,l)`$ pair as analogue of $`(𝐱,𝐤)`$ variables in 3-D. The $`C_l`$ is similar to the power spectrum $`P(𝐤)`$.

In the simplest scenario, the primary anisotropies of the CMBR arise from three different sources. (i) The first is the gravitational potential fluctuations at the last scattering surface (LSS) which will contribute an anisotropy $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)_\varphi ^2k^3P_\varphi (k)`$ where $`P_\varphi (k)P(k)/k^4`$ is the power spectrum of gravitational potential $`\varphi `$. This anisotropy arises because photons climbing out of deeper gravitational wells lose more energy on the average. (ii) The second source is the Doppler shift of the frequency of the photons when they are last scattered by moving electrons on the LSS. This is proportional to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)_D^2k^3P_v`$ where $`P_v(k)P/k^2`$ is the power spectrum of the velocity field. (iii) Finally, we also need to take into account the intrinsic fluctuations of the radiation field on the LSS. In the case of adiabatic fluctuations, these will be proportional to the density fluctuations of matter on the LSS and hence will vary as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)_{\mathrm{int}}^2k^3P(k)`$. Of these, the velocity field and the density field (leading to the Doppler anisotropy and intrinsic anisotropy described in (ii) and (iii) above) will oscillate at scales smaller than the Hubble radius at the time of decoupling since pressure support will be effective at these scales. At large scales, if $`P(k)k`$, then

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)_\varphi ^2\mathrm{constant};\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)_D^2k^2\theta ^2;\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{int}}^2k^4\theta ^4$$
(100)
where $`\theta \lambda k^1`$ is the angular scale over which the anisotropy is measured. Obviously, the fluctuations due to gravitational potential dominate at large scales while the sum of intrinsic and Doppler anisotropies will dominate at small scales. Since the latter two are oscillatory, we sill expect an oscillatory behaviour in the temperature anisotropies at small angular scales.

There is, however, one more feature which we need to take into account. The above analysis is valid if recombination was instantaneous; but in reality the thickness of the recombination epoch is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }z80`$ (;, chapter 3). This implies that the anisotropies will be damped at scales smaller than the length scale corresponding to a redshift interval of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=80`$. The typical value for the peaks of the oscillation are at about 0.3 to 0.5 degrees depending on the details of the model. At angular scales smaller than about 0.1 degree, the anisotropies are heavily damped by the thickness of the LSS.

The fact that several different processes contribute to the structure of angular anisotropies make CMBR a valuable tool for extracting cosmological information. To begin with, the anisotropy at very large scales directly probe modes which are bigger than the Hubble radius at the time of decoupling and allows us to directly determine the primordial spectrum. Thus, in general, if the angular dependence of the spectrum at very large scales is known, one can work backwards and determine the initial power spectrum. If the initial power spectrum is assumed to be $`P(k)=Ak`$, then the observations of large angle anisotropy allows us to fix the amplitude $`A`$ of the power spectrum . Based on the results of COBE satellite , one finds that the amount of initial power per logarithmic band in $`k`$ space is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)=\frac{k^3|\delta _k|^2}{2\pi ^2}=\frac{Ak^4}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{k}{0.07h\mathrm{Mpc}^1}\right)^4$$
(101)
(This corresponds to $`A(29h^1\mathrm{Mpc})^4`$. Since the actual $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)`$ is one realization of a Gaussian random process, the observed small-$`l`$ results are subject to unavoidable fluctuations called the ‘cosmic variance’.) This result is powerful enough to rule out matter dominated, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ models when combined with the data on the abundance of large clusters which determines the amplitude of the power spectrum at $`R8h^1`$ Mpc. For example the parameter values $`h=0.5,\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, are ruled out by this observation when combined with COBE observations .

As we move to smaller scales we are probing the behaviour of baryonic gas coupled to the photons. The pressure support of the gas leads to modulated acoustic oscillations with a characteristic wavelength at the $`z=10^3`$ surface. Regions of high and low baryonic density contrast will lead to anisotropies in the temperature with the same characteristic wavelength. The physics of these oscillations has been studied in several papers in detail . The angle subtended by the wavelength of these acoustic oscillations will lead to a series of peaks in the temperature anisotropy which has been detected . The structure of acoustic peaks at small scales provides a reliable procedure for estimating the cosmological parameters.

To illustrate this point let us consider the location of the first acoustic peak. Since all the Fourier components of the growing density perturbation start with zero amplitude at high redshift, the condition for a mode with a given wave vector $`k`$ to reach an extremum amplitude at $`t=t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ is given by

$$_0^{t_{\mathrm{dec}}}\frac{kc_s}{a}𝑑t\frac{n\pi }{2},$$
(102)
where $`c_s=(P/\rho )^{1/2}(1/\sqrt{3})`$ is the speed of sound in the baryon-photon fluid. At high redshifts, $`t(z)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{1/2}(1+z)^{3/2}`$ and the proper wavelength of the first acoustic peak scales as $`\lambda _{\mathrm{peak}}t_{\mathrm{dec}}h^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{1/2}`$. The angle subtended by this scale in the sky depends on $`d_A`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ then the angular diameter distance varies as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{0.4}`$ while if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, it varies as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^1`$. It follows that the angular size of the acoustic peak varies with the matter density as

$$\theta _{\mathrm{peak}}\frac{z_{\mathrm{dec}}\lambda _{\mathrm{peak}}}{a_0r}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{1/2}\hfill & \text{(if }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0\text{)},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{0.1}\hfill & \text{( if }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1\text{)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(103)
Therefore, the angle subtended by acoustic peak is quite sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ but not if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. More detailed computations show that the multipole index corresponding to the acoustic peak scales as $`l_p220\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}^{1/2}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`l_p220`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}1`$. This is illustrated in figure 17 which shows the variation in the structure of acoustic peaks when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is changed keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. The four curves are for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.25,0.45,1.0,1.15`$ with the first acoustic peak moving from right to left. The data points on the figures are from the first results of MAXIMA and BOOMERANG experiments and are included to give a feel for the error bars in current observations. It is obvious that the overall geometry of the universe can be easily fixed by the study of CMBR anisotropy.

The heights of acoustic peaks also contain important information. In particular, the height of the first acoustic peak relative to the second one depends sensitively on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. However, not all cosmological parameters can be measured independently using CMBR data alone. For example, different models with the same values for ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ will give anisotropies which are fairly indistinguishable. The structure of the peaks will be almost identical in these models. This shows that while CMBR anisotropies can, for example, determine the total energy density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), we will need some other independent cosmological observations to determine individual components.

At present there exists several observations of the small scale anisotropies in the CMBR from the balloon flights, BOOMERANG , MAXIMA , and from radio telescopes CBI , VSA , DASI  and — most recently — from WMAP . These CMBR data has been extensively analyzed  in isolation as well as in combination with other results. (The information about structure formation arises mainly from galaxy surveys like SSRS2, CfA2 , LCRS , Abell-ACO cluster survey , IRAS-PSC z , 2-D survey  and the Sloan survey .) While there is some amount of variations in the results, by and large, they support the following conclusions.

* The data strongly supports a $`k=0`$ model of the universe  with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1.00\pm _{0.02}^{0.03}`$ from the pre-MAP data and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1.02\pm 0.02`$ from the WMAP data.
* The CMBR data before WMAP, when combined with large scale structure data, suggest $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.29\pm 0.05\pm 0.04`$ . The WMAP result  is consistent with this giving $`0.27\pm 0.04`$. The initial power spectrum is consistent with being scale invariant and the pre-MAP value is $`n=1.02\pm 0.06\pm 0.05`$ . The WMAP gives the spectral index at $`k=0.05`$ Mpc-1 to be $`0.93\pm 0.03`$. In fact, combining 2dF survey results with CMBR suggest  $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ independent of the supernova results.
* A similar analysis based on BOOMERANG data leads to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1.02\pm 0.06`$(see for example, ). Combining this result with the HST constraint  on the Hubble constant $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$, galaxy clustering data as well SN observations one gets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.62_{0.18}^{0.10},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.55_{0.09}^{0.09}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.73_{0.07}^{0.10}`$ respectively . The WMAP data gives $`h=0.71_{0.03}^{+0.04}`$.
* The analysis also gives an independent handle on baryonic density in the universe which is consistent with the BBN value: The pre-MAP result was $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.022\pm 0.003`$ . (This is gratifying since the initial data had an error and gave too high a value .) The WMAP data gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.0224\pm 0.0009`$.

There has been some amount of work on the effect of dark energy on the CMBR anisotropy . The shape of the CMB spectrum is relatively insensitive to the dark energy and the main effect is to alter the angular diameter distance to the last scattering surface and thus the position of the first acoustic peak. Several studies have attempted to put a bound on $`w`$ using the CMB observations. Depending on the assumptions which were invoked, they all lead to a bound broadly in the range of $`w0.6`$. (The preliminary analysis of WMAP data in combination with other astronomical data sets suggest $`w<0.78`$ at 95 per cent confidence limit.) At present it is not clear whether CMBR anisotropies can be of significant help in discriminating between different dark energy models.

## 7 Reinterpreting the cosmological constant

It is possible to attack the cosmological constant problem from various other directions in which the mathematical structure of equation (3) is reinterpreted differently. Though none of these ideas have been developed into a successful formal theory, they might contain ingredients which may eventually provide a solution to this problem. Based on this hope, we shall provide a brief description of some of these ideas. (In addition to these ideas, there is extensive literature on several different paradigms for attacking the cosmological constant problem based on: (i) Quantum field theory in curved spacetime , (ii) quantum cosmological considerations , (iii) models of inflation , (iv) string theory inspired ideas , and (v) effect of phase transitions .)

### 7.1 Cosmological constant as a Lagrange multiplier

The action principle for gravity in the presence of a cosmological constant

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle (R2\mathrm{\Lambda })\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle R\sqrt{g}d^4x}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{g}d^4x}`$
can be thought of as a variational principle extremizing the integral over $`R`$, subject to the condition that the 4-volume of the universe remains constant. To implement the constraint that the 4-volume is a constant, one will add a Lagrange multiplier term which is identical in structure to the second term in the above equation. Hence, mathematically, one can think of the cosmological constant as a Lagrange multiplier ensuring the constancy of the 4-volume of the universe when the metric is varied.

If we take this interpretation seriously, then it is necessary to specify the 4-volume of the universe before the variation is performed and determine the cosmological constant so that the 4-volume has this specified volume. A Friedmann model with positive cosmological constant in Minkowski space will lead to a finite 3-volume proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}`$ on spatial integration. (To achieve this, we should use the coordinates in which the spatial sections are closed 3-spheres.) The time integration, however, has an arbitrary range and one needs to restrict the integration to part of this range by invoking some physical principle. If we take this to be typically the age of the universe, then we will obtain a time dependent cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)H(t)^2`$ remaining of order unity. While this appears to be a conceptually attractive idea, it is not easy to implement it in a theoretical model. In particular, it is difficult to obtain this as a part of a generally covariant theory incorporating gravity.

### 7.2 Cosmological constant as a constant of integration

Several people have suggested modifying the basic structure of general relativity so that the cosmological constant will appear as a constant of integration. This does not solve the problem in the sense that it still leaves its value undetermined. But this changes the perspective and allows one to think of the cosmological constant as a non dynamical entity .

One simple way of achieving this is to assume that the determinant $`g`$ of $`g_{ab}`$ is not dynamical and admit only those variations which obeys the condition $`g^{ab}\delta g_{ab}=0`$ in the action principle. This is equivalent to eliminating the trace part of Einstein’s equations. Instead of the standard result, we will now be led to the equation

$$R_k^i\frac{1}{4}\delta _k^iR=8\pi G\left(T_k^i\frac{1}{4}\delta _k^iT\right)$$
(105)
which is just the traceless part of Einstein’s equation. The general covariance of the action, however, implies that $`T_{;b}^{ab}=0`$ and the Bianchi identities $`(R_k^i\frac{1}{2}\delta _k^iR)_{;i}=0`$ continue to hold. These two conditions imply that $`_iR=8\pi G_iT`$ requiring $`R+8\pi GT`$ to be a constant. Calling this constant $`(4\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and combining with equation (105), we get

$$R_k^i\frac{1}{2}\delta _k^iR\delta _k^i\mathrm{\Lambda }=8\pi GT_k^i$$
(106)
which is precisely Einstein’s equation in the presence of cosmological constant. In this approach, the cosmological constant has nothing to do with any term in the action or vacuum fluctuations and is merely an integration constant. Like any other integration constant its value can be fixed by invoking suitable boundary conditions for the solutions.

There are two key difficulties in this approach. The first, of course, is that it still does not give us any handle on the value of the cosmological constant and all the difficulties mentioned earlier still exists. This problem would have been somewhat less serious if the cosmological constant was strictly zero; the presence of a small positive cosmological constant makes the choice of integration constant fairly arbitrary. The second problem is in interpreting the condition that $`g`$ must remain constant when the variation is performed. It is not easy to incorporate this into the logical structure of the theory. (For some attempts in this direction, see .)

### 7.3 Cosmological constant as a stochastic variable

Current cosmological observations can be interpreted as showing that the effective value value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (which will pick up contributions from all vacuum energy densities of matter fields) has been reduced from the natural value of $`L_P^2`$ to $`L_P^2(L_PH_0)^2`$ where $`H_0`$ is the current value of the Hubble constant. One possible way of thinking about this issue is the following : Let us assume that the quantum micro structure of spacetime at Planck scale is capable of readjusting itself, soaking up any vacuum energy density which is introduced — like a sponge soaking up water. If this process is fully deterministic and exact, all vacuum energy densities will cease to have macroscopic gravitational effects. However, since this process is inherently quantum gravitational, it is subject to quantum fluctuations at Planck scales. Hence, a tiny part of the vacuum energy will survive the process and will lead to observable effects. One may conjecture that the cosmological constant we measure corresponds to this small residual fluctuation which will depend on the volume of the spacetime region that is probed. It is small, in the sense that it has been reduced from $`L_P^2`$ to $`L_P^2(L_PH_0)^2`$, which indicates the fact that fluctuations — when measured over a large volume — is small compared to the bulk value. It is the wetness of the sponge we notice, not the water content inside.

This is particularly relevant in the context of standard discussions of the contribution of zero-point energies to cosmological constant. The correct theory is likely to regularise the divergences and make the zero point energy finite and about $`L_P^4`$. This contribution is most likely to modify the microscopic structure of spacetime (e.g if the spacetime is naively thought of as due to stacking of Planck scale volumes, this will modify the stacking or shapes of the volume elements) and will not affect the bulk gravitational field when measured at scales coarse grained over sizes much bigger than the Planck scales.

Given a large 4-volume $`𝒱`$ of the spacetime, we will divide it into $`M`$ cubes of size $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^4`$ and label the cubes by $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}..,M`$. The contribution to the path integral amplitude $`𝒜`$, describing long wavelength limit of conventional Einstein gravity, can be expressed in the form

$$𝒜=\underset{n}{}\left[\mathrm{exp}(c_1(RL_P^2)+\mathrm{})\right]^{\frac{i(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^4}{L_P^4}}\mathrm{exp}\frac{ic_1}{L_P^4}d^4x\sqrt{g}(RL_P^2)$$
(107)
where we have indicated the standard continuum limit. (In conventional units $`c_1=(16\pi )^1`$.) Let us now ask how one could modify this result to describe the ability of spacetime micro structure to readjust itself and absorb vacuum energy densities. This would require some additional dynamical degree of freedom that will appear in the path integral amplitude and survive in the classical limit. It can be shown that  the simplest implementation of this feature is by modifying the standard path integral amplitude $`[\mathrm{exp}(c_1(RL_P^2)+\mathrm{})]`$ by a factor $`[\varphi (x_n)/\varphi _0]`$ where $`\varphi (x)`$ is a scalar degree of freedom and $`\varphi _0`$ is a pure number introduced to keep this factor dimensionless. In other words, we modify the path integral amplitude to the form:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{modify}}=\underset{n}{}\left[\frac{\varphi (x_n)}{\varphi _0}e^{[c_1RL_P^2+\mathrm{}]}\right]^{\frac{i(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^4}{L_P^4}}$$
(108)
In the long wavelength limit, the extra factor in (108) will lead to a term of the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}\right)^{\frac{i(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^4}{L_P^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^4}{L_P^4}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}\right)\right]`$ (109)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{L_P^4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}\right)}`$
Thus, the net effect of our assumption is to introduce a ‘scalar field potential’ $`V(\varphi )=L_P^4\mathrm{ln}\left(\varphi /\varphi _0\right)`$ in the semi classical limit. It is obvious that the rescaling of such a scalar field by $`\varphi q\varphi `$ is equivalent to adding a cosmological constant with vacuum energy $`L_P^4\mathrm{ln}q`$. Alternatively, any vacuum energy can be re absorbed by such a rescaling. The fact that the scalar degree of freedom occurs as a potential in (109) without a corresponding kinetic energy term shows that its dynamics is unconventional and non classical.

The above description in terms of macroscopic scalar degree of freedom can, of course, be only approximate. Treated as a vestige of a quantum gravitational degrees of freedom, the cancellation cannot be precise because of fluctuations in the elementary spacetime volumes. These fluctuations will reappear as a “small” cosmological constant because of two key ingredients: (i) discrete spacetime structure at Planck length and (ii) quantum gravitational uncertainty principle.

To show this, we use the fact noted earlier in section 7.1 that the net cosmological constant can be thought of as a Lagrange multiplier for proper volume of spacetime in the action functional for gravity. In any quantum cosmological models which leads to large volumes for the universe, phase of the wave function will pick up a factor of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(iA_0)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}𝒱}{8\pi L_P^2}\right)\right]$$
(110)
from (104), where $`𝒱`$ is the four volume. Treating $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}/8\pi L_P^2,𝒱)`$ as conjugate variables $`(q,p)`$, we can invoke the standard uncertainty principle to predict $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }8\pi L_P^2/\mathrm{\Delta }𝒱`$. Now we use the earlier assumption regarding the microscopic structure of the spacetime: Assume that there is a zero point length of the order of $`L_P`$ so that the volume of the universe is made of a large number ($`N`$) of cells, each of volume $`(\alpha L_P)^4`$ where $`\alpha `$ is a numerical constant. Then $`𝒱=N(\alpha L_P)^4`$, implying a Poisson fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒱\sqrt{𝒱}(\alpha L_P)^2`$ and leading to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{8\pi L_P^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒱}=\left(\frac{8\pi }{\alpha ^2}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒱}}\frac{8\pi }{\alpha ^2}H_0^2$$
(111)
This will give $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(8\pi /3\alpha ^2)`$ which will — for example — lead to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(2/3)`$ if $`\alpha =2\sqrt{\pi }`$. Thus Planck length cutoff (UV limit) and volume of the universe (IR limit) combine to give the correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. (A similar result was obtained earlier in  based on a different model.) The key idea, in this approach, is that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a stochastic variable with a zero mean and fluctuations. It is the rms fluctuation which is being observed in the cosmological context.

This has three implications: First, FRW equations now need to be solved with a stochastic term on the right hand side and one should check whether the observations can still be explained. The second feature is that stochastic properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ need to be described by a quantum cosmological model. If the quantum state of the universe is expanded in terms of the eigenstates of some suitable operator (which does not commute the total four volume operator), then one should be able to characterize the fluctuations in each of these states. Third, and most important, the idea of a cosmological constant arising as a fluctuation makes sense only if the bulk value is rescaled away.

The non triviality of this result becomes clear when we compare it with few other alternative ways of estimating the fluctuations — none of which gives the correct result. The first alternative approach is based on the assumption that one can associate an entropy $`S=(A_H/4L_P^2)`$ with compact space time horizons of area $`A_H`$ (We will discuss this idea in detail in section 10). A popular interpretation of this result is that horizon areas are quantized in units of $`L_P^2`$ so that $`S`$ is proportional to the number of bits of information contained in the horizon area. In this approach, horizon areas can be expressed in the form $`A_H=A_PN`$ where $`A_PL_P^2`$ is a quantum of area and $`N`$ is an integer. Then the fluctuations in the area will be $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_H=A_P\sqrt{N}=\sqrt{A_PA_H}`$. Taking $`A_H\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ for the de Sitter horizon, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }H^2(HL_P)`$ which is a lot smaller than what one needs. Further, taking $`A_Hr_H^2`$, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_HL_P`$; that is, this result essentially arises from the idea that the radius of the horizon is uncertain within one Planck length. This is quite true, of course, but does not lead to large enough fluctuations.

A more sophisticated way of getting this (wrong) result is to relate the fluctuations in the cosmological constant to that of the volume of the universe is by using a canonical ensemble description for universes of proper Euclidean 4-volume . Writing $`V𝒱/8\pi L_P^2`$ and treating $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the relevant variables, one can write a partition function for the 4-volume as

$$Z(V)=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }V}𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(112)
Taking the analogy with standard statistical mechanics (with the correspondence $`V\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }E`$), we can evaluate the fluctuations in the cosmological constant in exactly the same way as energy fluctuations in canonical ensemble. (This is done in several standard text books; see, for example,  p. 194.) This will give

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^2=\frac{C}{V^2};C=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(1/V)}=V^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{V}$$
(113)
where $`C`$ is the analogue of the specific heat. Taking the 4-volume of the universe to be $`𝒱=bH^4=9b\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ where $`b`$ is a numerical factor and using $`V=(𝒱/8\pi L_P^2)`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L_P^1V^{1/2}`$. It follows from (113) that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda })^2=\frac{C}{V^2}=\frac{12\pi }{b}(L_PH^3)^2$$
(114)
In other words $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }H^2(HL_P)`$, which is the same result from area quantization and is a lot smaller than the cosmologically significant value.

Interestingly enough, one could do slightly better by assuming that the horizon radius is quantized in units of Planck length, so that $`r_H=H^1=NL_P`$. This will lead to the fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_H=\sqrt{r_HL_P}`$ and using $`r_H=H^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$, we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }H^2(HL_P)^{1/2}`$ — larger than (114) but still inadequate. In summary, the existence of two length scales $`H^1`$ and $`L_P`$ allows different results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depending on how exactly the fluctuations are characterized ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V\sqrt{N},\mathrm{\Delta }A\sqrt{N}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_H\sqrt{N}`$). Hence the result obtained above in (111) is non trivial.

These conclusions stress, among other things, the difference between fluctuations and the mean values. For, if one assumes that every patch of the universe with size $`L_P`$ contained an energy $`E_P`$, then a universe with characteristic size $`H^1`$ will contain the energy $`E=(E_P/L_P)H^1`$. The corresponding energy density will be $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=(E/H^3)=(H/L_P)^2`$ which leads to the correct result. But, of course, we do not know why every length scale $`L_P`$ should contain an energy $`E_P`$ and — more importantly — contribute coherently to give the total energy.

### 7.4 Anthropic interpretation of the cosmological constant

The anthropic principle  is an interpretational paradigm which argues that, while discussing the origin of physical phenomena and the values of constants of nature, we must recognize the fact that only certain combination and range of values will lead to the existence of intelligence observers in the universe who could ask questions related to these issues. This paradigm has no predictive power in the sense that none of the values of the cosmological parameters were ever predicted by this method.111Some advocates of the anthropic principle cite Fred Hoyle predicting the existence of excited state of carbon nucleus, thereby leading to efficient triple alpha reaction in stellar nucleosynthesis, as an example of a prediction from anthropic principle; it is very doubtful whether Hoyle applied anthropic considerations in arriving at this conclusion. In fact some cosmologists have advocated the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ strongly and later — when observations indicated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ — have advocated the anthropic interpretation of cosmological constant with equal fluency. This is defended by the argument that not all guiding principles in science (Darwinian evolution, Plate tectonics, ….) need to be predictive in order to be useful. In this view point, anthropic principle is a back drop for discussing admittedly complicated conceptual issues. Within this paradigm there have been many attempts to explain (after the fact) the values of several fundamental constants with varying degree of success.

In the context of cosmological constant, the anthropic interpretation works as follows. It is assumed that widely disparate values for the constants of nature can occur in an ensemble of universes (or possibly in different regions of the universe causally unconnected with each other). Some of these values for constants of nature — and in particular for the cosmological constant — will lead broadly to the kind of universe we seem to live in. This is usually characterized by formation of: (i) structures by gravitational instability, (ii) stars which act as gravitationally bound nuclear reactors that synthesize the elements and distribute them and (iii) reasonably complex molecular structures which could form the basis for some kind of life form. Showing that such a scenario can exist only for a particular range of values for the cosmological constant is considered an explanation for the value of cosmological constant by the advocates of anthropic principle. (More sophisticated versions of this principle exist; see, for example , and references cited therein.)

The simplest constraint on the cosmological constant is that it should not be so high as to cause rapid expansion of the universe early on preventing the formation of galaxies . If the energy density of the cosmological constant has to be less than that of energy density of matter at the redshift $`z_{\mathrm{gal}}(4)`$ at which galaxy formation takes place, then we must have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}}(1+z_{\mathrm{gal}})^3125$$
(115)
This gives a bound on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is “only” a couple of orders of magnitude larger than what is observed.

More formally, one could ask: What is the most probable value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if it is interpreted as the value that would have been observed by the largest number of observers ? Since a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$ will have more galaxies than one with a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }10^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$, one could argue that most observers will measure a value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}`$. The actual probability $`dP`$ for measuring a particular value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the range $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the product $`(dP/d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=Q(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })𝒫(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ where $`𝒫`$ is the a priori probability measure for a specific value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in a member of an ensemble of universes (or in a region of the universe) and $`Q(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the average number of galaxies which form in a universe with a given value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. There has been several attempts to estimate these quantities (see, for example, ) but all of them are necessarily speculative. The first — and the most serious — difficulty with this approach is the fact that we simply do not have any reliable way of estimating $`𝒫`$; in fact, if we really had a way of calculating it from a fundamental theory, such a theory probably would have provided a deeper insight into the cosmological constant problem itself. The second issue has to do with the dependence of the results on other parameters which describe the cosmological structure formation (like for example, the spectrum of initial perturbations). To estimate $`Q`$ one needs to work in a multi parameter space and marginalize over other parameters — which would involve more assumptions regarding the priors. And finally, anthropic paradigm itself is suspect in any scientific discussion, for reasons mentioned earlier.

### 7.5 Probabilistic interpretation of the cosmological constant

It is also possible to produce more complex scenarios which could justify the small or zero value of cosmological constant. One such idea, which enjoyed popularity for a few years , is based on the conjecture that quantum wormholes can change the effective value of the observed constants of nature. The wave function of the universe, obtained by a path integral over all possible spacetime metrics with wormholes, will receive dominant contributions from those configurations for which the effective values of the physical constants extremize the action. Under some assumptions related to Euclidean quantum gravity, one could argue that the configurations with zero cosmological constant will occur at late times. It is, however, unlikely that the assumptions of Euclidean quantum gravity has any real validity and hence this idea must be considered as lacking in concrete justification.

## 8 Relaxation mechanisms for the cosmological constant

One possible way of obtaining a small, non-zero, cosmological constant at the present epoch of the universe is to make the cosmological constant evolve in time due to some physical process. At a phenomenological level this can be done either by just postulating such a variation and explore its consequences or — in a slightly more respectable way — by postulating a scalar field potential as described in section 4. These models, however, cannot explain why a bare cosmological constant \[the first term on the right hand side of (7)\] is zero. To tackle this issue, one can invoke some field \[usually a scalar field\] which directly couples to the cosmological constant and decreases its “effective value”. We shall now examine two such models.

The key idea is to introduce a field which couples to the trace $`T=T_a^a`$ of the energy momentum tensor. If $`T`$ depends on $`\varphi `$ and vanishes at some value $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$, then $`\varphi `$ will evolve towards $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ at which $`T=0`$. This equilibrium solution will have zero cosmological constant. While this idea sounds attractive, there are general arguments as to why it does *not* work in the simplest context .

A related attempt was made by several authors, , who coupled the scalar field directly to $`R`$ which, of course, is proportional to $`T`$ because of Einstein’s equations. Generically, these models have the Lagrangian

$$L=\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{16\pi G}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })U(\varphi )R\right]$$
(116)
The field equations of this model has flat spacetime solutions at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ provided $`U(\varphi _0)=\mathrm{}`$. Unfortunately, the effective gravitational constant in this model evolves as

$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G}{1+16\pi GU(\varphi _0)}$$
(117)
and vanishes as $`U\mathrm{}`$. Hence these models are not viable.

The difficulty in these models arise because they do not explicitly couple the trace of the $`T_{ab}`$ of the scalar field itself. Handling this consistently  leads to a somewhat different model which we will briefly describe because of its conceptual interest.

Consider a system consisting of the gravitational fields $`g_{ab}`$, radiation fields, and a scalar field $`\varphi `$ which couples to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of all fields, including its own. The zeroth order action for this system is given by

$$A^{(0)}=A_{\mathrm{grav}}+A_\varphi ^{(0)}+A_{\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}+A_{\mathrm{radn}}$$
(118)
where

$$A_{\mathrm{grav}}=(16\pi G)^1R\sqrt{g}d^4x\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}d^4x,$$
(119)
$$A_\varphi ^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^i\varphi _i\sqrt{g}d^4x;A_{\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}=\eta Tf(\varphi /\varphi _0)\sqrt{g}d^4x$$
(120)
Here, we have explicitly included the cosmological constant term and $`\eta `$ is a dimensionless number which ‘switches on’ the interaction. In the zeroth order action, $`T`$ represents the trace of all fields other than $`\varphi `$. Since the radiation field is traceless, the only zeroth-order contribution to $`T`$ comes from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term, so that we have $`T=4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The coupling to the trace is through a function $`f`$ of the scalar field, and one can consider various possibilities for this function. The constant $`\varphi _0`$ converts $`\varphi `$ to a dimensionless variable, and is introduced for dimensional convenience.

To take into account the back-reaction of the scalar field on itself, we must add to $`T`$ the contribution $`T_\varphi =\varphi ^l\varphi _l`$ of the scalar field. If we now add $`T_\varphi `$ to $`T`$ in the interaction term $`A_{\mathrm{int}}^{(0)}`$ further modifies $`T_\varphi ^{ik}`$. This again changes $`T_\varphi `$. Thus to arrive at the correct action an infinite iteration will have to be performed and the complete action can be obtained by summing up all the terms. (For a demonstration of this iteration procedure, see .) The full action can be found more simply by a consistency argument.

Since the effect of the iteration is to modify the expression for $`A_\varphi `$ and $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we consider the following ansatz for the full action:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle R\sqrt{g}d^4x}{\displaystyle \alpha (\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$ (121)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \beta (\varphi )\varphi ^i\varphi _i\sqrt{g}d^4x}+A_{\mathrm{rad}}`$
Here $`\alpha (\varphi )`$ and $`\beta (\varphi )`$ are functions of $`\varphi `$ to be determined by the consistency requirement that they represent the effect of the iteration of the interaction term. (Since radiation makes no contribution to $`T`$, we expect $`A_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ to remain unchanged.) The energy-momentum tensor for $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is now given by

$$T^{ik}=\alpha (\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{ik}+\beta (\varphi )\left[\varphi ^i\varphi _k\frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\varphi ^\alpha \varphi _\alpha \right]$$
(122)
so that the total trace is $`T_{\mathrm{tot}}=4\alpha (\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta (\varphi )\varphi ^i\varphi _i`$. The functions $`\alpha (\varphi )`$ and $`\beta (\varphi )`$ can now be determined by the consistency requirement

$`{\displaystyle \alpha (\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}d^4x}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \beta (\varphi )\varphi ^i\varphi _i\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$
$`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}d^4x}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \varphi ^i\varphi _i\sqrt{g}d^4x}+\eta {\displaystyle T_{\mathrm{tot}}f(\varphi /\varphi _0)\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$ (123)
Using $`T_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and comparing terms in the above equation we find that

$$\alpha (\varphi )=[1+4\eta f]^1,\beta (\varphi )=[1+2\eta f]^1$$
(124)
Thus the complete action can be written as

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle R\sqrt{g}d^4x}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{1+4nf}\sqrt{g}d^4x}`$ (125)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^i\varphi _i}{1+2nf}\sqrt{g}d^4x}+A_{\mathrm{rad}}`$
(The same action would have been obtained if one uses the iteration procedure.) The action in (125) leads to the following field equations,

$`R_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ik}R`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G[\beta (\varphi )(\varphi ^i\varphi ^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ik}\varphi ^\alpha \varphi _\alpha )`$ (126)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}}\alpha (\varphi )g_{ik}+T_{ik}^{\mathrm{traceless}}]`$
$$\mathrm{}\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta ^{}(\varphi )}{\beta (\varphi )}\varphi ^i\varphi _i+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}\frac{\alpha ^{}(\varphi )}{\beta (\varphi )}=0$$
(127)
Here, $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for a covariant d’Lambertian, $`T_{ik}^{\mathrm{traceless}}`$ is the stress tensor of all fields with traceless stress tensor and a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`\varphi `$.

In the cosmological context, this reduces to

$$\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{3\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }=\eta \dot{\varphi }^2\frac{f^{}}{1+2\eta f}+\eta \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi G}\frac{f^{}(1+2\eta f)}{(1+4\eta f)^2}$$
(128)
$$\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{1+2\eta f}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}\frac{1}{(1+4\eta f)}+\frac{\rho _0}{a^4}\right]$$
(129)
It is obvious that the effective cosmological constant can decrease if $`f`$ increases in an expanding universe.The result can be easily generalized for a scalar field with a potential by replacing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`V(\varphi )`$. This model is conceptually attractive since it correctly accounts for the coupling of the scalar field with the trace of the stress tensor.

The trouble with this model is two fold: (a) If one uses natural initial conditions and do not fine tune the parameters, then one does not get a viable model. (b) Since the scalar field couples to the trace of all sources, it also couples to dust-like matter and “kills” it, making the universe radiation dominated at present. This reduces the age of the universe and could also create difficulties for structure formation. These problems can be circumvented by invoking a suitable potential $`V(\varphi )`$ within this model . However, such an approach takes away the naturalness of the model to certain extent.

## 9 Geometrical structure of the de Sitter spacetime

The most symmetric vacuum solution to Einstein’s equation, of course, is the flat spacetime. If we now add the cosmological constant as the only source of curvature in Einstein’s equation, the resulting spacetime is also highly symmetric and has an interesting geometrical structure. In the case of a positive cosmological constant, this is the de Sitter manifold and in the case of negative cosmological constant, it is known as anti-de Sitter manifold. We shall now discuss some features of the former, corresponding to the positive cosmological constant. (For a nice, detailed, review of the classical geometry of de Sitter spacetime, see .)

To understand the geometrical structure of the de Sitter spacetime, let us begin by noting that a spacetime with the source $`T_b^a=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _b^a`$ must have 3-dimensional section which are homogeneous and isotropic. This will lead us to the Einstein’s equations for a FRW universe with cosmological constant as source

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }H^2$$
(130)
This equation can be solved with any of the following three forms of $`(k,a(t))`$ pair. The first pair is the spatially flat universe with $`(k=0,a=e^{Ht})`$. The second corresponds to spatially open universe with $`(k=1,a=H^1\mathrm{sinh}Ht)`$ and the third will be $`(k=+1,a=H^1\mathrm{cosh}Ht)`$. Of these, the last pair gives a coordinate system which covers the full de Sitter manifold. In fact, this is the metric on a 4-dimensional hyperboloid, embedded in a 5 dimensional Minkowski space with the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2dx^2dy^2dz^2dv^2,$$
(131)
The equation of the hyperboloid in 5-D space is

$$t^2x^2y^2z^2v^2=H^2.$$
(132)
We can introduce a parametric representation of the hyperbola with the four variables $`(\tau ,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ where

$`x=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ;y=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ;`$
$`z=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta ;`$
$`v=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )\mathrm{cos}\chi ;`$
$`t=H^1\mathrm{sinh}(H\tau ).`$ (133)
This set, of course, satisfies (132). Using (131), we can compute the metric induced on the hyperboloid which — when expressed in terms of the four coordinates $`(\tau ,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ — is given by

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2H^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(H\tau )\left[d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right],$$
(134)
This is precisely the de Sitter manifold with closed spatial sections.

All the three forms of FRW universes with $`k=0,\pm 1`$ arise by taking different cuts in this 4-dimensional hyperboloid embedded in the 5-dimensional spacetime. Since two of these dimensions (corresponding to the polar angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$) merely go for a ride, it is more convenient (for visualization) to work with a 3-dimensional spacetime having the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2dx^2dv^2.$$
(135)
instead of the 5-dimensional metric (131). Every point in this 3-dimensional space corresponds to a 2-sphere whose coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are suppressed for simplicity. The $`(1+1)`$ de Sitter spacetime is the 2-dimensional hyperboloid \[instead of the four dimensional hyperboloid of (132)\] with the equation

$$t^2x^2v^2=H^2$$
(136)
embedded in the 3-dimensional space with metric (135). The three different coordinate systems which are natural on this hyperboloid are the following:

* Closed Spatial Sections: This is obtained by introducing the coordinates $`t=H^1\mathrm{sinh}(H\tau );x=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )\mathrm{sin}\chi ;v=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ on the hyperboloid, in terms of which the induced metric on the hyperboloid has the form

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2H^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(H\tau )d\chi ^2$$
(137)
This is the two dimensional de Sitter space which is analogous to the 4-dimensional case described by (134).
* Open Spatial Sections: These are obtained by using the coordinates $`t=H^1\mathrm{sinh}(H\tau )\mathrm{cosh}\xi ;x=H^1\mathrm{sinh}(H\tau )\mathrm{sinh}\xi ;v=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )`$ on the hyperboloid in terms of which the induced metric on the hyperboloid has the form

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2H^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(H\tau )d\xi ^2$$
(138)
* Flat Spatial Sections: This corresponds to the choice $`t=H^1\mathrm{sinh}(H\tau )+(H^1/2)\xi ^2\mathrm{exp}(H\tau )`$; $`x=H^1\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau )(H^1/2)\xi ^2\mathrm{exp}(H\tau )`$; $`v=\xi \mathrm{exp}(H\tau )`$ leading to the metric

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2\mathrm{exp}(2H\tau )d\xi ^2$$
(139)
This covers one half of the de Sitter hyperboloid bounded by the null rays $`t+x=0`$.

All these metrics have an apparent time dependence. But, in the absence of any source other than cosmological constant, there is no preferred notion of time and the spacetime manifold cannot have any intrinsic time dependence. This is indeed true, in spite of the expansion factor $`a(t)`$ ostensibly depending on time. The translation along the time direction merely slides the point on the surface of the hyperboloid. \[This is obvious in the coordinates ($`k=0,ae^{Ht}`$) in which the time translation $`tt+ϵ`$ merely rescales the coordinates by $`(\mathrm{exp}Hϵ)`$.\]

The time independence of the metric can be made explicit in another set of coordinates called ‘static coordinates’. To motivate these coordinates, let us note that a spacetime with only cosmological constant as the source is certainly static and possesses spherical symmetry. Hence we can also express the metric in the form

$$ds^2=e^\nu dt^2e^\lambda dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(140)
where $`\nu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are functions of $`r`$. The Einstein’s equations for this metric has the solution $`e^\nu =e^\lambda =(1H^2r^2)`$ leading to

$$ds^2=(1H^2r^2)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{(1H^2r^2)}r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(141)
This form of the metric makes the static nature apparent. This metric also describes a hyperboloid embedded in a higher dimensional flat space. For example, in the $`(1+1)`$ case (with $`\theta ,\varphi `$ suppressed) this metric can be obtained by the following parameterization of the hyperboloid in equation (136):

$$t=(H^2r^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}(H\tau );v=(H^2r^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}(H\tau );x=r$$
(142)
The key feature of the manifold, revealed by equation (141) is the existence of a horizon at $`r=H^1`$. It also shows that $`t`$ is a time-like coordinate only in the region $`r<H^1`$.

The structure of the metric is very similar to the Schwarzschild metric:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)}r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(143)
Both the metrics (143) and (141) are spherically symmetric with $`g_{00}=(1/g_{11})`$. Just as the Schwarzschild metric has a horizon at $`r=2M`$ (indicated by $`g_{00}0,g_{11}\mathrm{}`$), the de Sitter metric also has a horizon at $`r=H^1`$. From the slope of the light cones $`(dt/dr)=\pm (1H^2r^2)^1`$ \[corresponding to $`ds=0=d\theta =d\varphi `$ in (142)\] it is clear that signals sent from the region $`r<H^1`$ cannot go beyond the surface $`r=H^1`$.

This feature, of course, is independent of the coordinate system used. To see how the horizon in de Sitter universe arises in the FRW coordinates, let us recall the equation governing the propagation of light signals between the events ($`t_1,r_1`$) and ($`t,r`$):

$$_{r_1}^r\frac{dx}{\sqrt{1kx^2}}=_{t_1}^t\frac{dt^{}}{a(t^{})}.$$
(144)
Consider a photon emitted by an observer at the origin at the present epoch $`(r_1=0,t_1=t_0)`$. The maximum coordinate distance $`x_H`$ reached by this photon as $`t\mathrm{}`$ is determined by the equation

$$_0^{x_H}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{1kx^2}}=_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt^{}}{a(t^{})}.$$
(145)
If the integral on the right hand side diverges as $`t\mathrm{}`$, then, in the same limit, $`x_H\mathrm{}`$ and an observer can send signals to any event provided (s)he waits for a sufficiently long time. But if the integral on the right hand side converges to a finite value as $`t\mathrm{}`$, then there is a finite horizon radius beyond which the observer’s signals will not reach even if (s)he waits for infinite time. In the de Sitter universe with $`k=0`$ and $`a(t)=e^{Ht}`$, $`x_H=H^1e^{Ht_0}`$; the corresponding maximum proper distance up to which the signals can reach is $`r_H=a(t_0)x_H=H^1`$. Thus we get the same result in any other coordinate system.

Since the result depends essentially on the behaviour of $`a(t)`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$, it will persist even in the case of a universe containing both non relativistic matter and cosmological constant. For example, in our universe, we can ask what is the highest redshift source from which we can ever receive a light signal, if the signal was sent today. To compute this explicitly, consider a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Let us assume that light from an event at $`(r_H,z_H)`$ reaches $`r=0`$ at $`z=0`$ giving

$$r_H=_{t_H}^{t_0}\frac{dt}{a(t)}=_0^{z_H}\frac{dz}{H_0\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(1+z)^3\right]^{1/2}}.$$
(146)
If we take $`r_H`$ to be the size of the horizon, then it also follows that the light emitted today from this event will just reach us at $`t=\mathrm{}`$. This gives

$$r_H=_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{a(t)}=_1^0\frac{dz}{H_0\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}(1+z)^3\right]^{1/2}}.$$
(147)
Equating the two expressions, we get an implicit expression for $`z_H`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.3`$, the limiting redshift is quite small: $`z_H1.8`$. This implies that sources with $`z>z_H`$ can never be influenced by light signals from us in a model with cosmological constant .

## 10 Horizons, temperature and entropy

In the description of standard cosmology $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ appears as a parameter like, say, the Hubble constant $`H_0`$. There is, however, a significant difference between these two parameters as far as fundamental physics is concerned. The exact numerical value of $`h`$ is not of major concern to fundamental physics. But, the non-zero value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ signifies the existence of an exotic form of energy density with negative pressure which is a result of deep significance to the whole of physics. We shall now take up an important aspect of the cosmological constant which is somewhat different in spirit compared to the results covered so far.

It turns out that the universe with a non-zero value for cosmological constant behaves in many ways in a manner similar to a black hole. Just as the black hole has close links with thermodynamics (like having a finite temperature, entropy etc.) the de Sitter universe also possesses thermodynamic features which makes it peculiar and important in understanding the cosmological constant. This thermodynamic relationship of the cosmological constanthas not been adequetely explored or integrated into the standard cosmological description so far. But since it is likely to have a important implications for the eventual resolution of the cosmological constantproblem, we shall provide a fairly self contained description of the same.

One of the remarkable features of classical gravity is that it can wrap up regions of spacetime thereby producing surfaces which act as one way membranes. The classic example is that of Schwarzschild black hole of mass $`M`$ which has a compact spherical surface of radius $`r=2M`$ that act as a horizon. Since the horizon can hide information — and information is deeply connected with entropy — one would expect a fundamental relationship between gravity and thermodynamics. \[There is extensive literature in this subject and our citation will be representative rather than exhaustive; for a text book discussion and earlier references, see ; for a recent review, see .\] As we saw in the last section, the de Sitter universe also has a horizon which suggests that de Sitter spacetime will have non trivial thermodynamic features .

This result can be demonstrated mathematically in many different ways of which the simplest procedure is based on the relationship between temperature and the Euclidean extension of the spacetime. To see this connection, let us recall that the mean value of some dynamical variable $`f(q)`$ in quantum statistical mechanics can be expressed in the form

$$<f>=\frac{1}{Z}\underset{E}{}\varphi _E^{}(q)f(q)\varphi _E(q)e^{\beta E}𝑑q$$
(148)
where $`\varphi _E(q)`$ is the stationary state eigen function of the Hamiltonian with $`H\varphi _E=E\varphi _E,\beta =(1/T)`$ is the inverse temperature and $`Z(\beta )`$ is the partition function. This expression calculates the mean value $`<E|f|E>`$ in a given energy state and then averages over a Boltzmann distribution of energy states with the weightage $`Z^1\mathrm{exp}(\beta E)`$. On the other hand, the quantum mechanical kernel giving the probability amplitude for the system to go from the state $`q`$ at time $`t=0`$ to the state $`q^{}`$ at time $`t`$ is given by

$$K(q^{},t;q,0)=\underset{E}{}\varphi _E^{}(q^{})\varphi _E(q)e^{itE}$$
(149)
Comparing (148) and (149) we find that the thermal average in (148) can be obtained by

$$<f>=\frac{1}{Z}𝑑qK(q,i\beta ;q,0)f(q)$$
(150)
in which we have done the following: (i) The time coordinate has been analytically continued to imaginary values with $`it=\tau `$. (ii) The system is assumed to exhibit periodicity in the imaginary time $`\tau `$ with period $`\beta `$ in the sense that the state variable $`q`$ has the same values at $`\tau =0`$ and at $`\tau =\beta `$. These considerations continue to hold even for a field theory with $`q`$ denoting the field configuration at a given time. If the system, in particular the Greens functions describing the dynamics, are periodic with a period $`p`$ in imaginary time, then one can attribute a temperature $`T=(1/p)`$ to the system. It may be noted that the partition function $`Z(\beta )`$ can also be expressed in the form

$$Z(\beta )=\underset{E}{}e^{\beta E}=𝑑qK(q,i\beta ;q,0)=𝒟q\mathrm{exp}[A_E(q,\beta ;q,0)]$$
(151)
The first equality is the standard definition for $`Z(\beta )`$; the second equality follows from (149) and the normalization of $`\varphi _E(q)`$; the last equality arises from the standard path integral expression for the kernel in the Euclidean sector (with $`A_E`$ being the Euclidean action) and imposing the periodic boundary conditions. (It is assumed that the path integral measure $`𝒟q`$ includes an integration over $`q`$.) We shall have occasion to use this result later. Equations (150) and (151) represent the relation between the periodicity in Euclidean time and temperature.

Spacetimes with horizons possess a natural analytic continuation from Minkowski signature to the Euclidean signature with $`t\tau =it`$. If the metric is periodic in $`\tau `$, then one can associate a natural notion of a temperature to such spacetimes. For example, the de Sitter manifold with the metric (134) can be continued to imaginary time arriving at the metric

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+H^2\mathrm{cos}^2H\tau \left[d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]$$
(152)
which is clearly periodic in $`\tau `$ with the period $`(2\pi /H)`$. \[The original metric was a 4-hyperboloid in the 5-dimensional space while equation (152) represents a 4-sphere in the 5-dimensional space.\] It follows that de Sitter spacetime has a natural notion of temperature $`T=(H/2\pi )`$ associated with it.

It is instructive to see how this periodicity arises in the static form of the metric in (141). Consider a metric of the form

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}dL_{}^2$$
(153)
where $`dL_{}^2`$ denotes the transverse 2-dimensional metric and $`f(r)`$ has a simple zero at $`r=r_H`$. Near $`r=r_H`$, we can expand $`f(r)`$ in a Taylor series and obtain $`f(r)B(rr_H)`$ where $`Bf^{}(r_H)`$. The structure of the metric in (153) shows that there is a horizon at $`r=r_H`$. Further, since the general relativistic metric reduces to $`g_{00}(1+2\varphi _N)`$ in the Newtonian limit, where $`\varphi _N`$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential, the quantity

$$\kappa =|\varphi _N^{}(r_H)|=\frac{1}{2}|g_{00}^{}(r_H)|=\frac{1}{2}|f^{}(r_H)|=\frac{1}{2}|B|$$
(154)
can be interpreted as the gravitational attraction on the surface of the horizon — usually called the surface gravity. Using the form $`f(r)2\kappa (rr_H)`$ near the horizon and shifting to the coordinate $`\xi [2\kappa ^1(rr_H)]^{1/2}`$ the metric near the horizon becomes

$$ds^2\kappa ^2\xi ^2dt^2d\xi ^2dL_{}^2$$
(155)
The Euclidean continuation $`t\tau =it`$ now leads to the metric

$$ds^2\xi ^2d(\kappa \tau )^2+d\xi ^2+dL_{}^2$$
(156)
which is essentially the metric in the polar coordinates in the $`\tau \xi `$ plane. For this metric to be well defined near the origin, $`\kappa \tau `$ should behave like an angular coordinate $`\theta `$ with periodicity $`2\pi `$. Therefore, we require all well defined physical quantities defined in this spacetime to have a periodicity in $`\tau `$ with the period $`(2\pi /|\kappa |)`$. Thus, all metrics of the form in (153) with a simple zero for $`f(r)`$ leads to a horizon with temperature $`T=|\kappa |/2\pi =|f^{}(r_H)|/4\pi `$. In the case of de Sitter spacetime, this gives $`T=(H/2\pi )`$; for the Schwarzschild metric, the corresponding analysis gives the well known temperature $`T=(1/8\pi M)`$ where $`M`$ is the mass of the black-hole.

### 10.1 The connection between thermodynamics and spacetime geometry

The existence of one-way membranes, however, is not necessarily a feature of gravity or curved spacetime and can be induced even in flat Minkowski spacetime. It is possible to introduce coordinate charts in Minkowski spacetime such that regions are separated by horizons, a familiar example being the coordinate system used by a uniformly accelerated frame (Rindler frame) which has a non-compact horizon. The natural coordinate system $`(t,x,y,z)`$ used by an observer moving with a uniform acceleration $`g`$ along the x-axis is related to the inertial coordinates $`(T,X,Y,Z)`$ by

$$gT=\sqrt{1+2gx}\mathrm{sinh}(gt);(1+gX)=\sqrt{1+2gx}\mathrm{cosh}(gt);$$
(157)
and $`Y=y;Z=z.`$ The metric in the accelerated frame will be

$$ds^2=(1+2gx)dt^2\frac{dx^2}{(1+2gx)}dy^2dz^2$$
(158)
which has the same form as the metric in (153) with $`f(x)=(1+2gx)`$. This has a horizon at $`x=1/2g`$ with the surface gravity $`\kappa =g`$ and temperature $`T=(g/2\pi )`$. All the horizons are implicitly defined with respect to certain class of observers; for example, a suicidal observer plunging into the Schwarzschild black hole will describe the physics very differently from an observer at infinity. From this point of view, which we shall adopt, there is no need to distinguish between observer dependent and observer independent horizons. This allows a powerful way of describing the thermodynamical behaviour of all these spacetimes (Schwarzschild, de Sitter, Rindler ….) at one go.

The Schwarzschild, de Sitter and Rindler metrics are symmetric under time reversal and there exists a ‘natural’ definition of a time symmetric vacuum state in all these cases. Such a vacuum state will appear to be described a thermal density matrix in a subregion $``$ of spacetime with the horizon as a boundary. The QFT based on such a state will be manifestedly time symmetric and will describe an isolated system in thermal equilibrium in the subregion $``$. No time asymmetric phenomena like evaporation, outgoing radiation, irreversible changes etc can take place in this situation. We shall now describe how this arises.

Consider a (D+1) dimensional flat Lorentzian manifold $`𝒮`$ with the signature (+, $`,,\mathrm{})`$ and Cartesian coordinates $`Z^A`$ where $`A=(0,1,2,\mathrm{},D)`$. A four dimensional sub-manifold $`𝒟`$ in this (D+1) dimensional space can be defined through a mapping $`Z^A=Z^A(x^a)`$ where $`x^a`$ with $`a=(0,1,2,3)`$ are the four dimensional coordinates on the surface. The flat Lorentzian metric in the (D+1) dimensional space induces a metric $`g_{ab}(x^a)`$ on the four dimensional space which — for a wide variety of the mappings $`Z^A=Z^A(x^a)`$ — will have the signature $`(+,,,)`$ and will represent, in general, a curved four geometry. The quantum theory of a free scalar field in $`𝒮`$ is well defined in terms of the, say, plane wave modes which satisfy the wave equation in $`𝒮`$. A subset of these modes, which does not depend on the ‘transverse’ directions, will satisfy the corresponding wave equation in $`𝒟`$ and will depend only on $`x^a`$. These modes induce a natural QFT in $`𝒟`$. We are interested in the mappings $`Z^A=Z^A(x^a)`$ which leads to a horizon in $`𝒟`$ so that we can investigate the QFT in spacetimes with horizons using the free, flat spacetime, QFT in $`𝒮`$ ( ).

For this purpose, let us restrict attention to a class of surfaces defined by the mappings $`Z^A=Z^A(x^a)`$ which ensures the following properties for $`𝒟`$: (i) The induced metric $`g_{ab}`$ has the signature $`(+,,,)`$. (ii) The induced metric is static in the sense that $`g_{0\alpha }=0`$ and all $`g_{ab}`$s are independent of $`x^0`$. \[The Greek indices run over 1,2,3.\] (iii) Under the transformation $`x^0x^0\pm i(\pi /g)`$, where $`g`$ is a non zero, positive constant, the mapping of the coordinates changes as $`Z^0Z^0,Z^1Z^1`$ and $`Z^AZ^A`$ for $`A=2,\mathrm{},D`$. It will turn out that the four dimensional manifolds defined by such mappings possess a horizon and most of the interesting features of the thermodynamics related to the horizon can be obtained from the above characterization. Let us first determine the nature of the mapping $`Z^A=Z^A(x^a)=Z^A(t,𝐱)`$ such that the above conditions are satisfied.

The condition (iii) above singles out the spatial coordinate $`Z^1`$ from the others. To satisfy this condition we can take the mapping $`Z^A=Z^A(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ to be of the form $`Z^0=Z^0(t,r),Z^1=Z^1(t,r),Z^{}=Z^{}(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ where $`Z^{}`$ denotes the transverse coordinates $`Z^A`$ with $`A=(2,\mathrm{},D)`$. To impose the condition (ii) above, one can make use of the fact that $`𝒮`$ possesses invariance under translations, rotations and Lorentz boosts, which are characterized by the existence of a set of $`N=(1/2)(D+1)(D+2)`$ Killing vector fields $`\xi ^A(Z^A)`$. Consider any linear combination $`V^A`$ of these Killing vector fields which is time like in a region of $`𝒮`$. The integral curves to this vector field $`V^A`$ will define time like curves in $`𝒮`$. If one treats these curves as the trajectories of a hypothetical observer, then one can set up the proper Fermi-Walker transported coordinate system for this observer. Since the four velocity of the observer is along the Killing vector field, it is obvious that the metric in this coordinate system will be static . In particular, there exists a Killing vector which corresponds to Lorentz boosts along the $`Z^1`$ direction that can be interpreted as rotation in imaginary time coordinate allowing a natural realization of (iii) above. Using the property of Lorentz boosts, it is easy to see that the transformations of the form $`Z^0=lf(r)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}gt;Z^1=\pm lf(r)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}gt`$ will satisfy both conditions (ii) and (iii) where $`(l,g)`$ are constants introduced for dimensional reasons and $`f(r)`$ is a given function. This map covers only the two quadrants with $`|Z^1|>|Z^0|`$ with positive sign for the right quadrant and negative sign for the left. To cover the entire $`(Z^0,Z^1)`$ plane, we will use the full set

$`Z^0`$ $`=`$ $`lf(r)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}gt;Z^1=\pm lf(r)^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}gt(\mathrm{for}|Z^1|>|Z^0|)`$ (159)
$`Z^0`$ $`=`$ $`\pm l[f(r)]^{1/2}\mathrm{cosh}gt;Z^1=l[f(r)]^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}gt(\mathrm{for}|Z^1|<|Z^0|)`$
The inverse transformations corresponding to (159) are

$$l^2f(r)=(Z^1)^2(Z^0)^2;gt=\mathrm{tanh}^1(Z^0/Z^1)$$
(160)
Clearly, to cover the entire two dimensional plane of $`\mathrm{}<(Z^0,Z^1)<+\mathrm{}`$, it is necessary to have both $`f(r)>0`$ and $`f(r)<0`$. The pair of points $`(Z^0,Z^1)`$ and $`(Z^0,Z^1)`$ are mapped to the same $`(t,r)`$ making this a 2-to-1 mapping. The null surface $`Z^0=\pm Z^1`$ is mapped to the surface $`f(r)=0`$.

The transformations given above with any arbitrary mapping for the transverse coordinate $`Z^{}=Z^{}(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ will give rise to an induced metric on $`𝒟`$ of the form

$$ds^2=f(r)(lg)^2dt^2\frac{l^2}{4}\left(\frac{f^2}{f}\right)dr^2dL_{}^2$$
(161)
where $`dL_{}^2`$ depends on the form of the mapping $`Z^{}=Z^{}(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. This form of the metric is valid in all the quadrants even though we will continue to work in the right quadrant and will comment on the behaviour in other quadrants only when necessary. It is obvious that the $`𝒟`$, in general, is curved and has a horizon at $`f(r)=0`$.

As a specific example, let us consider the case of (D+1)=6 with the coordinates $`(Z^0,Z^1,Z^2,Z^3,Z^4,Z^5)=(Z^0,Z^1,Z^2,R,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and consider a mapping to 4-dimensional subspace in which: (i) The $`(Z^0,Z^1)`$ are mapped to $`(t,r)`$ as before; (ii) the spherical coordinates $`(R,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in $`𝒮`$ are mapped to standard spherical polar coordinates in $`𝒟`$: $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ and (iii) we take $`Z^2`$ to be an arbitrary function of $`r`$: $`Z^2=q(r)`$. This leads to the metric

$$ds^2=A(r)dt^2B(r)dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2\mathrm{sphere}}^2;$$
(162)
with

$$A(r)=(lg)^2f;B(r)=1+q^2+\frac{l^2}{4}\frac{f^2}{f}$$
(163)
Equation (162) is the form of a general, spherically symmetric, static metric in 4-dimension with two arbitrary functions $`f(r),q(r)`$. Given any specific metric with $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$, equations (163) can be solved to determine $`f(r),q(r)`$. As an example, let us consider the Schwarzschild solution for which we will take $`f=4\left[1(l/r)\right]`$; the condition $`g_{00}=(1/g_{11})`$ now determines $`q(r)`$ through the equation

$$(q^{})^2=\left(1+\frac{l^2}{r^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{l}{r}\right)1=\left(\frac{l}{r}\right)^3+\left(\frac{l}{r}\right)^2+\frac{l}{r}$$
(164)
That is

$$q(r)=^r\left[\left(\frac{l}{r}\right)^3+\left(\frac{l}{r}\right)^2+\frac{l}{r}\right]^{1/2}𝑑r$$
(165)
Though the integral cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, it is obvious that $`q(r)`$ is well behaved everywhere including at $`r=l`$. The transformations $`(Z^0,Z^1)(t,r);Z^2q(r);(Z^3,Z^4,Z^5)(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ thus provide the embedding of Schwarzschild metric in a 6-dimensional space. \[This result was originally obtained by Frondsal ; but the derivation in that paper is somewhat obscure and does not bring out the generality of the situation\]. As a corollary, we may note that this procedure leads to a spherically symmetric Schwarzschild-like metric in arbitrary dimension, with the 2-sphere in (162) replaced any $`N`$-sphere.

The choice $`lg=1,f(r)=[1(r/l)^2]`$ will provide an embedding of the de Sitter spacetime in 6-dimensional space with $`Z^2=r,(Z^3,Z^4,Z^5)(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. Of course, in this case, one of the coordinates is actually redundant and — as we have seen earlier — one can achieve the embedding in a 5-dimensional space. A still more trivial case is that of Rindler metric which can be obtained with D=3, $`lg=1,f(r)=1+2gr`$; in this case, the “embedding” is just a reparametrization within four dimensional spacetime and — in this case — $`r`$ runs in the range $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. The key point is that the metric in (161) is fairly generic and can describe a host of spacetimes with horizons located at $`f=0`$. We shall discuss several features related to the thermodynamics of the horizon in the next few sections.

### 10.2 Temperature of horizons

There exists a natural definition of QFT in the original (D + 1)-dimensional space; in particular, we can define a vacuum state for the quantum field on the $`Z^0=0`$ surface, which coincides with the $`t=0`$ surface. By restricting the field modes (or the field configurations in the Schrodinger picture) to depend only on the coordinates in $`𝒟`$, we will obtain a quantum field theory in $`𝒟`$ in the sense that these modes will satisfy the relevant field equation defined in $`𝒟`$. In general, this is a complicated problem and it is not easy to have a choice of modes in $`𝒮`$ which will lead to a natural set of modes in $`𝒟`$. We can, however, take advantage of the arguments given in the last section — that all the interesting physics arises from the $`(Z^0,Z^1)`$ plane and the other transverse dimensions are irrelevant near the horizon. In particular, solutions to the wave equation in $`𝒮`$ which depends only on the coordinates $`Z^0`$ and $`Z^1`$ will satisfy the wave equation in $`𝒟`$ and will depend only on $`(t,r)`$. Such modes will define a natural $`s`$wave QFT in $`𝒟`$. The positive frequency modes of the above kind (varying as $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }Z^0)`$ with $`\omega >0`$.) will be a specific superposition of negative (varying as $`e^{i\omega t}`$) and positive (varying as $`e^{i\omega t}`$) frequency modes in $`𝒟`$ leading to a temperature $`T=(g/2\pi )`$ in the 4-dimensional subspace on one side of the horizon. There are several ways of proving this result, all of which depend essentially on the property that under the transformation $`tt\pm (i\pi /g)`$ the two coordinates $`Z^0`$ and $`Z^1`$ reverses sign.

Consider a positive frequency mode of the form $`F_\mathrm{\Omega }(Z^0,Z^1)\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Omega }Z^0+iPZ^1]`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$. These set of modes can be used to expand the quantum field thereby defining the creation and annihilation operators $`A_\mathrm{\Omega },A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$:

$$\varphi (Z^0,Z^1)=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}[A_\mathrm{\Omega }F_\mathrm{\Omega }(Z^0,Z^1)+A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}F_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Z^0,Z^1)]$$
(166)
The vacuum state defined by $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{vac}>=0`$ corresponds to a globally time symmetric state which will be interpreted as a no particle state by observers using $`Z^0`$ as the time coordinate. Let us now consider the same mode which can be described in terms of the $`(t,r)`$ coordinates. Being a scalar, this mode can be expressed in the 4-dimensional sector in the form $`F_\mathrm{\Omega }(t,r)=F_\mathrm{\Omega }[Z^0(t,r),Z^1(t,r)]`$. The Fourier transform of $`F_\mathrm{\Omega }(t,r)`$ with respect to $`t`$ will be:,

$$K_\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega ,r)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{+i\omega t}F_\mathrm{\Omega }[Z^0(t,r),Z^1(t,r)];(\mathrm{}<\omega <\mathrm{})$$
(167)
Thus a positive frequency mode in the higher dimension can only be expressed as an integral over $`\omega `$ with $`\omega `$ ranging over both positive and negative values. However, using the fact that $`tt(i\pi /g)`$ leads to $`Z^0Z^0,Z^1Z^1`$, it is easy to show that

$$K_\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega ,r)=e^{(\pi \omega /g)}K_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\omega ,r)$$
(168)
This allows us to write the inverse relation to (167) as

$`F_\mathrm{\Omega }(t,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}K_\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega ,r)e^{i\omega t}`$ (169)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\left[K_\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega ,r)e^{i\omega t}+e^{\pi \omega /g}K_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\omega ,r)e^{i\omega t}\right]`$
The term with $`K_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ represents the contribution of negative frequency modes in the the 4-D spacetime to the pure positive frequency mode in the embedding spacetime. A field mode of the embedding spacetime containing creation and annihilation operators $`(A_\mathrm{\Omega },A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ can now be represented in terms of the creation and annihilation operators $`(a_\omega ,a_\omega ^{})`$ appropriate to the $`(t,r)`$ coordinates as

$`A_\mathrm{\Omega }F_\mathrm{\Omega }+A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}F_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}[(A_\mathrm{\Omega }+A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}e^{\pi \omega /g})K_\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\omega t}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (170)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\omega }}[a_\omega K_\mathrm{\Omega }e^{i\omega t}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
where $`N_\omega `$ is a normalization constant. Identifying $`a_\omega =N_\omega (A_\mathrm{\Omega }+e^{\pi \omega /g}A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ and using the conditions $`[a_\omega ,a_\omega ^{}]=1,[A_\mathrm{\Omega },A_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}]=1`$ etc., we get $`N_\omega =[1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \omega /g)]^{1/2}`$. It follows that the number of $`a`$particles in the vacuum defined by $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{vac}>=0`$ is given by

$$<\mathrm{vac}|a_\omega ^{}a_\omega |\mathrm{vac}>=N_\omega ^2e^{2\pi \omega /g}=(e^{2\pi \omega /g}1)^1$$
(171)
This is a Planckian spectrum with temperature $`T=g/2\pi `$. The key role in the derivation is played by equation (168) which, in turn, arises from the analytic properties of the spacetime under Euclidean continuation.

### 10.3 Entropy and energy of de Sitter spacetime

The best studied spacetimes with horizons are the black hole spacetimes. (For a sample of references, see ). In the simplest context of a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $`M`$, one can attribute an energy $`E=M`$, temperature $`T=(8\pi M)^1`$ and entropy $`S=(1/4)(A_H/L_P^2)`$ where $`A_H`$ is the area of the horizon and $`L_P=(G\mathrm{}/c^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck length. (Hereafter, we will use units with $`G=\mathrm{}=c=1`$.) These are clearly related by the thermodynamic identity $`TdS=dE`$, usually called the first law of black hole dynamics. This result has been obtained in much more general contexts and has been investigated from many different points of view in the literature. The simplicity of the result depends on the following features: (a) The Schwarzschild metric is a vacuum solution with no pressure so that there is no $`PdV`$ term in the first law of thermodynamics. (b) The metric has only one parameter $`M`$ so that changes in all physical parameters can be related to $`dM`$. (c) Most importantly, there exists a well defined notion of energy $`E`$ to the spacetime and the changes in the energy $`dE`$ can be interpreted in terms of the physical process of the black hole evaporation. The idea can be generalized to other black hole spacetimes in a rather simple manner only because of well defined notions of energy, angular momentum etc.

Can one generalize the thermodynamics of horizons to cases other than black holes in a straight forward way ? In spite of years of research in this field, this generalization remains non trivial and challenging when the conditions listed above are not satisfied. To see the importance of the above conditions, we only need to contrast the situation in Schwarzschild spacetime with that of de Sitter spacetime:

* As we saw in section 10.2, the notion of temperature is well defined in the case of de Sitter spacetime and we have $`T=H/2\pi `$ where $`H^1`$ is the radius of the de Sitter horizon. But the correspondence probably ends there. A study of literature shows that there exist very few concrete calculations of energy, entropy and laws of horizon dynamics in the case of de Sitter spacetimes, in sharp contrast to BH space times.
* There have been several attempts in the literature to define the concept of energy using local or quasi-local concepts (for a sample of references, see ). The problem is that not all definitions of energy agree with each other and not all of them can be applied to de Sitter type universes.
* Even when a notion of energy can be defined, it is not clear how to write and interpret an equation analogous to $`dS=(dE/T)`$ in this spacetime, especially since the physical basis for $`dE`$ would require a notion of evaporation of the de Sitter universe.
* Further, we know that de Sitter spacetime is a solution to Einstein’s equations with a source having non zero pressure. Hence one would very much doubt whether $`TdS`$ is indeed equal to $`dE`$. It would be necessary to add a $`PdV`$ term for consistency.

All these suggest that to make any progress, one might require a local approach by which one can define the notion of entropy and energy for spacetimes with horizons. This conclusion is strengthened further by the following argument: Consider a class of spherically symmetric spacetimes of the form

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2f(r)^1dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(172)
If $`f(r)`$ has a simple zero at $`r=a`$ with $`f^{}(a)B`$ remaining finite, then this spacetime has a horizon at $`r=a`$. Spacetimes like Schwarzschild or de Sitter have only one free parameter in the metric (like $`M`$ or $`H^1`$) and hence the scaling of all other thermodynamical parameters is uniquely fixed by purely dimensional considerations. But, for a general metric of the form in (172), with an arbitrary $`f(r)`$, the area of the horizon (and hence the entropy) is determined by the location of the zero of the function $`f(r)`$ while the temperature — obtained from the periodicity considerations — is determined by the value of $`f^{}(r)`$ at the zero. For a general function, of course, there will be no relation between the location of the zero and the slope of the function at that point. It will, therefore, be incredible if there exists any a priori relationship between the temperature (determined by $`f^{}`$ ) and the entropy (determined by the zero of $`f`$) even in the context of horizons in spherically symmetric spacetimes. If we take the entropy to be $`S=\pi a^2`$ (where $`f(a)=0`$ determines the radius of the horizon) and the temperature to be $`T=|f^{}(a)|/4\pi `$ (determined by the periodicity of Euclidean time), the quantity $`TdS=(1/2)|f^{}(a)|ada`$ will depend both on the slope $`f^{}(a)`$ as well as the radius of the horizon. This implies that any local interpretation of thermodynamics will be quite non trivial.

Finally, the need for local description of thermodynamics of horizons becomes crucial in the case of spacetimes with multiple horizons. The strongest and the most robust result we have, regarding spacetimes with a horizon, is the notion of temperature associated with them. This, in turn, depends on the study of the periodicity of the Euclidean time coordinate. This approach does not work very well if the spacetime has more than one horizon like, for example, in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric which has the form in (172) with

$$f(r)=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}H^2r^2\right)$$
(173)
This spacetime has two horizons at $`r_\pm `$ with

$$r_+=\sqrt{\frac{4}{3}}H^1\mathrm{cos}\frac{x+4\pi }{3};r_{}=\sqrt{\frac{4}{3}}H^1\mathrm{cos}\frac{x}{3}$$
(174)
where $`\mathrm{cos}x=3\sqrt{3}MH^1`$. (The parameter $`x`$ is in the range ($`\pi ,(3/2)\pi ]`$ and we assume that $`027M^2H^2<1`$.) Close to either horizon the spacetime can be approximated as Rindler. Since the surface gravities on the two horizons are different, we get two different temperatures $`T_\pm =|f^{}(r_\pm )|/4\pi `$. To maintain invariance under $`itit+\beta `$ (with some finite $`\beta `$) it is necessary that $`\beta `$ is an integer multiple of both $`4\pi /|f^{}(r_+)|`$ and $`4\pi /|f^{}(r_{})|`$ so that $`\beta =(4\pi n_\pm /|f^{}(r_\pm )|)`$ where $`n_\pm `$ are integers. Hence the ratio of surface gravities $`|f^{}(r_+)|/|f^{}(r_{})|=(n_+/n_{})`$ must be a rational number. Though irrationals can be approximated by rationals, such a condition definitely excludes a class of values for $`M`$ if $`H`$ is specified and vice versa. It is not clear why the existence of a cosmological constant should imply something for the masses of black holes (or vice versa). Since there is no physical basis for such a condition, it seems reasonable to conclude that these difficulties arise because of our demanding the existence of a finite periodicity $`\beta `$ in the Euclidean time coordinate. This demand is related to an expectation of thermal equilibrium which is violated in spacetimes with multiple horizons having different temperatures.

If even the simple notion of temperature falls apart in the presence of multiple horizons, it is not likely that the notion of energy or entropy can be defined by global considerations. On the other hand, it will be equally strange if we cannot attribute a temperature to a black hole formed in some region of the universe just because the universe at the largest scales is described by a de Sitter spacetime, say. One is again led to searching for a local description of the thermodynamics of all types of horizons. We shall now see how this can be done.

Given the notion of temperature, there are two very different ways of defining the entropy: (1) In statistical mechanics, the partition function $`Z(\beta )`$ of the canonical ensemble of systems with constant temperature $`\beta ^1`$ is related to the entropy $`S`$ and energy $`E`$ by $`Z(\beta )\mathrm{exp}(S\beta E)`$. (2) In classical thermodynamics, on the other hand, it is the change in the entropy, which can be operationally defined via $`dS=dE/T(E)`$. Integrating this equation will lead to the function $`S(E)`$ except for an additive constant which needs to be determined from additional considerations. Proving the equality of these two concepts was nontrivial and — historically — led to the unification of thermodynamics with mechanics.

In the case of time symmetric state, there will be no change of entropy $`dS`$ and the thermodynamic route is blocked. It is, however, possible to construct a canonical ensemble of a class of spacetimes and evaluate the partition function $`Z(\beta )`$. For spherically symmetric spacetimes with a horizon at $`r=l`$, the partition function has the generic form $`Z\mathrm{exp}[S\beta E]`$, where $`S=(1/4)4\pi l^2`$ and $`|E|=(l/2)`$. This analysis reproduces the conventional result for the black hole spacetimes and provides a simple and consistent interpretation of entropy and energy for de Sitter spacetime, with the latter being given by $`E=(1/2)H^1`$. In fact, it is possible to write Einstein’s equations for a spherically symmetric spacetime as a thermodynamic identity $`TdSdE=PdV`$ with $`T,S`$ and $`E`$ determined as above and the $`PdV`$ term arising from the source . We shall now discuss some of these issues.

Consider a class of spacetimes with the metric

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2f(r)^1dr^2dL_{}^2$$
(175)
where $`f(r)`$ vanishes at some surface $`r=l`$, say, with $`f^{}(l)B`$ remaining finite. When $`dL_{}^2=r^2dS_2^2`$ with $`[0r\mathrm{}]`$, equation (175) covers a variety of spherically symmetric spacetimes with a compact horizon at $`r=l`$. Since the metric is static, Euclidean continuation is trivially effected by $`t\tau =it`$ and an examination of the conical singularity near $`r=a`$ \[where $`f(r)B(ra)`$\] shows that $`\tau `$ should be interpreted as periodic with period $`\beta =4\pi /|B|`$ corresponding to the temperature $`T=|B|/4\pi `$. Let us consider a set $`𝒮`$ of such metrics in (175) with the restriction that $`[f(a)=0,f^{}(a)=B]`$ but $`f(r)`$ is otherwise arbitrary and has no zeros. The partition function for this set of metrics $`𝒮`$ is given by the path integral sum

$$Z(\beta )=\underset{gϵ𝒮}{}\mathrm{exp}(A_E(g))=\underset{gϵ𝒮}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{16\pi }_0^\beta 𝑑\tau d^3x\sqrt{g_E}R_E[f(r)]\right)$$
(176)
where Einstein action has been continued in the Euclidean sector and we have imposed the periodicity in $`\tau `$ with period $`\beta =4\pi /|B|`$. The sum is restricted to the set $`𝒮`$ of all metrics of the form in (175) with the behaviour $`[f(a)=0,f^{}(a)=B]`$ and the Euclidean Lagrangian is a functional of $`f(r)`$. The spatial integration will be restricted to a region bounded by the 2-spheres $`r=a`$ and $`r=b`$, where the choice of $`b`$ is arbitrary except for the requirement that within the region of integration the Lorentzian metric must have the proper signature with $`t`$ being a time coordinate. The remarkable feature is the form of the Euclidean action for this class of spacetimes. Using the result $`R=_r^2f(2/r^2)(d/dr)\left[r(1f)\right]`$ valid for metrics of the form in (175), a straight forward calculation shows that

$$A_E=\frac{\beta }{4}_a^b𝑑r\left[[r^2f^{}]^{}+2[r(1f)]^{}\right]=\frac{\beta }{4}[a^2B2a]+Q[f(b),f^{}(b)]$$
(177)
where $`Q`$ depends on the behaviour of the metric near $`r=b`$ and we have used the conditions $`[f(a)=0,f^{}(a)=B]`$. The sum in (176) now reduces to summing over the values of $`[f(b),f^{}(b)]`$ with a suitable (but unknown) measure. This sum, however, will only lead to a factor which we can ignore in deciding about the dependence of $`Z(\beta )`$ on the form of the metric near $`r=a`$. Using $`\beta =4\pi /B`$ (and taking $`B>0`$, for the moment) the final result can be written in a very suggestive form:

$$Z(\beta )=Z_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}(4\pi a^2)\beta (\frac{a}{2})\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[S(a)\beta E(a)\right]$$
(178)
with the identifications for the entropy and energy being given by:

$$S=\frac{1}{4}(4\pi a^2)=\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{horizon}};E=\frac{1}{2}a=\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{horizon}}}{16\pi }\right)^{1/2}$$
(179)
In the case of the Schwarzschild black hole with $`a=2M`$, the energy turns out to be $`E=(a/2)=M`$ which is as expected. (More generally, $`E=(A_{\mathrm{horizon}}/16\pi )^{1/2}`$ corresponds to the so called ‘irreducible mass’ in BH spacetimes .) Of course, the identifications $`S=(4\pi M^2)`$, $`E=M`$, $`T=(1/8\pi M)`$ are consistent with the result $`dE=TdS`$ in this particular case.

The above analysis also provides an interpretation of entropy and energy in the case of de Sitter universe. In this case, $`f(r)=(1H^2r^2)`$, $`a=H^1,B=2H`$. Since the region where $`t`$ is time like is “inside” the horizon, the integral for $`A_E`$ in (177) should be taken from some arbitrary value $`r=b`$ to $`r=a`$ with $`a>b`$. So the horizon contributes in the upper limit of the integral introducing a change of sign in (177). Further, since $`B<0`$, there is another negative sign in the area term from $`\beta BB/|B|`$. Taking all these into account we get, in this case,

$$Z(\beta )=Z_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}(4\pi a^2)+\beta (\frac{a}{2})\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[S(a)\beta E(a)\right]$$
(180)
giving $`S=(1/4)(4\pi a^2)=(1/4)A_{\mathrm{horizon}}`$ and $`E=(1/2)H^1`$. These definitions do satisfy the relation $`TdSPdV=dE`$ when it is noted that the de Sitter universe has a non zero pressure $`P=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=E/V`$ associated with the cosmological constant. In fact, if we use the “reasonable” assumptions $`S=(1/4)(4\pi H^2),VH^3`$ and $`E=PV`$ in the equation $`TdSPdV=dE`$ and treat $`E`$ as an unknown function of $`H`$, we get the equation $`H^2(dE/dH)=(3EH+1)`$ which integrates to give precisely $`E=(1/2)H^1.`$ (Note that we only needed the proportionality, $`VH^3`$ in this argument since $`PdV(dV/V)`$. The ambiguity between the coordinate and proper volume is irrelevant.)

A peculiar feature of the metrics in (175) is worth stressing. This metric will satisfy Einstein’s equations provided the the source stress tensor has the form $`T_t^t=T_r^r(ϵ(r)/8\pi );T_\theta ^\theta =T_\varphi ^\varphi (\mu (r)/8\pi )`$. The Einstein’s equations now reduce to:

$$\frac{1}{r^2}(1f)\frac{f^{}}{r}=ϵ;^2f=2\mu $$
(181)
The remarkable feature about the metric in (175) is that the Einstein’s equations become linear in $`f(r)`$ so that solutions for different $`ϵ(r)`$ can be superposed. Given any $`ϵ(r)`$ the solution becomes

$$f(r)=1\frac{a}{r}\frac{1}{r}_a^rϵ(r)r^2𝑑r$$
(182)
with $`a`$ being an integration constant and $`\mu (r)`$ is fixed by $`ϵ(r)`$ through: $`\mu (r)=ϵ+(1/2)rϵ^{}(r)`$. The integration constant $`a`$ in (182) is chosen such that $`f(r)=0`$ at $`r=a`$ so that this surface is a horizon. Let us now assume that the solution (182) is such that $`f(r)=0`$ at $`r=a`$ with $`f^{}(a)=B`$ finite leading to leading to a notion of temperature with $`\beta =(4\pi /|B|)`$. From the first of the equations (181) evaluated at $`r=a`$, we get

$$\frac{1}{2}Ba\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ(a)a^2$$
(183)
It is possible to provide an interesting interpretation of this equation which throws light on the notion of entropy and energy. Multiplying the above equation by $`da`$ and using $`ϵ=8\pi T_r^r`$, it is trivial to rewrite equation (183) in the form

$$\frac{B}{4\pi }d\left(\frac{1}{4}4\pi a^2\right)\frac{1}{2}da=T_r^r(a)d\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}a^3\right)=T_r^r(a)[4\pi a^2]da$$
(184)
Let us first consider the case in which a particular horizon has $`f^{}(a)=B>0`$ so that the temperature is $`T=B/4\pi `$. Since $`f(a)=0,f^{}(a)>0`$, it follows that $`f>0`$ for $`r>a`$ and $`f<0`$ for $`r<a`$; that is, the “normal region” in which $`t`$ is time like is outside the horizon as in the case of, for example, the Schwarzschild metric. The first term in the left hand side of (184) clearly has the form of $`TdS`$ since we have an independent identification of temperature from the periodicity argument in the local Rindler coordinates. Since the pressure is $`P=T_r^r`$, the right hand side has the structure of $`PdV`$ or — more relevantly — is the product of the radial pressure times the transverse area times the radial displacement. This is important because, for the metrics in the form (175), the proper transverse area is just that of a 2-sphere though the proper volumes and coordinate volumes differ. In the case of horizons with $`B=f^{}(a)>0`$ which we are considering (with $`da>0`$), the volume of the region where $`f<0`$ will increase and the volume of the region where $`f>0`$ will decrease. Since the entropy is due to the existence of an inaccessible region, $`dV`$ must refer to the change in the volume of the inaccessible region where $`f<0`$. We can now identify $`T`$ in $`TdS`$ and $`P`$ in $`PdV`$ without any difficulty and interpret the remaining term (second term in the left hand side) as $`dE=da/2`$. We thus get the expressions for the entropy $`S`$ and energy $`E`$ (when $`B>0`$) to be the same as in (179).

Using (184), we can again provide an interpretation of entropy and energy in the case of de Sitter universe. In this case, $`f(r)=(1H^2r^2)`$, $`a=H^1,B=2H<0`$ so that the temperature — which should be positive — is $`T=|f^{}(a)|/(4\pi )=(B)/4\pi `$. For horizons with $`B=f^{}(a)<0`$ (like the de Sitter horizon) which we are now considering, $`f(a)=0,f^{}(a)<0`$, and it follows that $`f>0`$ for $`r<a`$ and $`f<0`$ for $`r>a`$; that is, the “normal region” in which $`t`$ is time like is inside the horizon as in the case of, for example, the de Sitter metric. Multiplying equation (184) by $`(1)`$, we get

$$\frac{B}{4\pi }d\left(\frac{1}{4}4\pi a^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}da=T_r^r(a)d\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}a^3\right)=P(dV)$$
(185)
The first term on the left hand side is again of the form $`TdS`$ (with positive temperature and entropy). The term on the right hand side has the correct sign since the inaccessible region (where $`f<0`$) is now outside the horizon and the volume of this region changes by $`(dV)`$. Once again, we can use (185) to identify  the entropy and the energy: $`S=(1/4)(4\pi a^2)=(1/4)A_{\mathrm{horizon}};E=(1/2)H^1`$. These results agree with the previous analysis.

### 10.4 Conceptual issues in de Sitter thermodynamics

The analysis in the last few sections was based on a strictly static 4-dimensional spacetime. The black hole metric, for example, corresponds to an eternal black hole and the vacuum state which we constructed in section 10.2 corresponds to the Hartle-Hawking vacuum  of the Schwarzschild spacetime, describing a black hole in thermal equilibrium. There is no net radiation flowing to infinity and the entropy and temperature obtained in the previous sections were based on equilibrium considerations.

As we said before, there are two different ways of defining the entropy. In statistical mechanics, the entropy $`S(E)`$ is related to the degrees of freedom \[or phase volume\] $`g(E)`$ by $`S(E)=\mathrm{ln}g(E)`$. Maximization of the phase volume for systems which can exchange energy will then lead to equality of the quantity $`T(E)(S/E)^1`$ for the systems. It is usual to identify this variable as the thermodynamic temperature. The analysis of BH temperature based on Hartle-Hawking state is analogous to this approach.

In classical thermodynamics, on the other hand, it is the change in the entropy which can be operationally defined via $`dS=dE/T(E)`$. Integrating this equation will lead to the function $`S(E)`$ except for an additive constant which needs to be determined from additional considerations. This suggests an alternative point of view regarding thermodynamics of horizons. The Schwarzschild metric, for example, can be thought of as an asymptotic limit of a metric arising from the collapse of a body forming a black-hole. While developing the QFT in such a spacetime containing a collapsing black-hole, we need not maintain time reversal invariance for the vacuum state and — in fact — it is more natural to choose a state with purely in-going modes at early times like the Unruh vacuum state . The study of QFT in such a spacetime shows that, at late times, there will exist an outgoing thermal radiation of particles which is totally independent of the details of the collapse. The temperature in this case will be $`T(M)=1/8\pi M`$, which is the same as the one found in the case of the state of thermal equilibrium around an “eternal” black-hole. In the Schwarzschild spacetime, which is asymptotically flat, it is also possible to associate an energy $`E=M`$ with the black-hole. Though the calculation was done in a metric with a fixed value of energy $`E=M`$, it seems reasonable to assume that — as the energy flows to infinity at late times — the mass of the black hole will decrease. If we make this assumption — that the evaporation of black hole will lead to a decrease of $`M`$then one can integrate the equation $`dS=dM/T(M)`$ to obtain the entropy of the black-hole to be $`S=4\pi M^2=(1/4)(A/L_P^2)`$ where $`A=4\pi (2M)^2`$ is the area of the event horizon and $`L_P=(G\mathrm{}/c^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck length.222This integration can determine the entropy only up to an additive constant. To fix this constant, one can make the additional assumption that $`S`$ should vanish when $`M=0`$. One may think that this assumption is eminently reasonable since the Schwarzschild metric reduces to the Lorentzian metric when $`M0`$. But note that in the same limit of $`M0`$, the temperature of the black-hole diverges !. Treated as a limit of Schwarzschild spacetime, normal flat spacetime has infinite — rather than zero — temperature. The procedure outlined above is similar in spirit to the approach of classical thermodynamics rather than statistical mechanics.

Once it is realized that only the asymptotic form of the metric matters, we can simplify the above analysis by just choosing a time asymmetric vacuum and working with the asymptotic form of the metric with the understanding that the asymptotic form arose due to a time asymmetric process (like gravitational collapse). In the case of black hole spacetimes this is accomplished — for example — by choosing the Unruh vacuum . The question arises as to how our unified approach fares in handling such a situation which is not time symmetric and the horizon forms only asymptotically as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

There exist analogues for the collapsing black-hole in the case of de Sitter (and even Rindler)  . The analogue in the case of de Sitter spacetime will be an FRW universe which behaves like a de Sitter universe only at late times \[like in equation (27); this is indeed the metric describing our universe if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{NR}}=0.3`$\]. Mathematically, we only need to take $`a(t)`$ to be a function which has the asymptotic form $`\mathrm{exp}(Ht)`$ at late times. Such a spacetime is, in general, time asymmetric and one can choose a vacuum state at early times in such a way that a thermal spectrum of particles exists at late times. Emboldened by the analogy with black-hole spacetimes, one can also directly construct quantum states (similar to Unruh vacuum of black-hole spacetimes) which are time asymmetric, even in the exact de Sitter spacetime, with the understanding that the de Sitter universe came about at late times through a time asymmetric evolution.

The analogy also works for Rindler spacetime. The coordinate system for an observer with time dependent acceleration will generalize the standard Rindler spacetime in a time dependent manner. In particular, one can have an observer who was inertial (or at rest) at early times and is uniformly accelerating at late times. In this case an event horizon forms at late times exactly in analogy with a collapsing black-hole. It is now possible to choose quantum states which are analogous to the Unruh vacuum - which will correspond to an inertial vacuum state at early times and will appear as a thermal state at late times. The study of different ‘vacuum’ states shows  that radiative flux exists in the quantum states which are time asymmetric analogues of the Unruh vacuum state.

A formal analysis of this problem will involve setting up the in and out vacua of the theory, evolving the modes from $`t=\mathrm{}`$ to $`t=+\mathrm{}`$, and computing the Bogoliubov coefficients. It is, however, not necessary to perform the details of such an analysis because all the three spacetimes (Schwarzschild, de Sitter and Rindler) have virtually identical kinematical structure. In the case of Schwarzschild metric, it is well known that the thermal spectrum at late times arises because the modes which reach spatial infinity at late times propagate from near the event horizon at early times and undergo exponential redshift. The corresponding result occurs in all the three spacetimes (and a host of other spacetimes).

Consider the propagation of a wave packet centered around a radial null ray in a spherically symmetric (or Rindler) spacetime which has the form in equation (162) or (175). The trajectory of the null ray which goes from the initial position $`r_{in}`$ at $`t_{in}`$ to a final position $`r`$ at $`t`$ is determined by the equation

$$tt_{in}=\pm \left(\frac{1}{2g}\right)_{r_{in}}^r\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)\left(1+\mathrm{}\right)^{1/2}𝑑r$$
(186)
where the $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes terms arising from the transverse part containing $`dr^2`$ (if any). Consider now a ray which was close to the horizon initially so that $`(r_{in}l)l`$ and propagates to a region far away from the horizon at late times. (In a black hole metric $`rr_{in}`$ and the propagation will be outward directed; in the de Sitter metric we will have $`rr_{in}`$ with rays propagating towards the origin. ) Since we have $`f(r)0`$ as $`rl`$, the integral will be dominated by a logarithmic singularity near the horizon and the regular term denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$ will not contribute. \[This can be verified directly from (162) or (175).\] Then we get

$$tt_{in}=\pm \left(\frac{1}{2g}\right)_{r_{in}}^r\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)\left(1+\mathrm{}\right)^{1/2}𝑑r\pm \left(\frac{1}{2g}\right)\mathrm{ln}|f(r_{in})|+\mathrm{const}.$$
(187)
As the wave propagates away from the horizon its frequency will be red-shifted by the factor $`\omega (1/\sqrt{g_{00}})`$ so that

$$\frac{\omega (t)}{\omega (t_{in})}=\left(\frac{g_{00}(r_{in})}{g_{00}(r)}\right)^{1/2}=\left[\frac{f(r_{\mathrm{in}})}{f(r)}\right]^{1/2}Ke^{\pm gt}$$
(188)
where $`K`$ is an unimportant constant. It is obvious that the dominant behaviour of $`\omega (t)`$ will be exponential for any null geodesic starting near the horizon and proceeding away since all the transverse factors will be sub-dominant to the diverging logarithmic singularity arising from the integral of $`(1/f(r))`$ near the horizon. Since $`\omega (t)\mathrm{exp}[\pm gt]`$ and the phase $`\theta (t)`$ of the wave will be vary with time as $`\theta (t)=\omega (t)𝑑t\mathrm{exp}[\pm gt]`$, the time dependence of the wave at late times will be

$$\psi (t)\mathrm{exp}[i\theta (t)]\mathrm{exp}iw(t)𝑑t\mathrm{exp}iQe^{\pm gt}$$
(189)
where $`Q`$ is some constant. An observer at a fixed $`r`$ will see the wave to have the time dependence $`\mathrm{exp}[i\theta (t)]`$ which, of course, is not monochromatic. If this wave is decomposed into different Fourier components with respect to $`t`$, then the amplitude at frequency $`\nu `$ is given by the Fourier transform

$$f(\nu )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\psi (t)e^{i\nu t}e^{i\theta (t)i\nu t}𝑑t\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑te^{i(\nu tQ\mathrm{exp}[\pm gt])}$$
(190)
Changing the variables from $`t`$ to $`\tau `$ by $`Qe^{\pm gt}=\tau `$, evaluating the integral by analytic continuation to Im $`\tau `$ and taking the modulus one finds that the result is a thermal spectrum:

$$|f(\nu )|^2\frac{1}{e^{\beta \nu }1};\beta =\frac{2\pi }{g}$$
(191)
The standard expressions for the temperature are reproduced for Schwarzschild ($`g=(4M)^1`$), de Sitter ($`g=H`$) and Rindler spacetimes. This analysis stresses the fact that the origin of thermal spectrum lies in the Fourier transforming of an exponentially red-shifted spectrum.

But in de Sitter or Rindler spacetimes there is no natural notion of “energy source” analogous to the mass of the black-hole. The conventional view is to assume that: (1) In the case of black-holes, one considers the collapse scenario as “physical” and the natural quantum state is the Unruh vacuum. The notions of evaporation, entropy etc. then follow in a concrete manner. The eternal black-hole (and the Hartle-Hawking vacuum state) is taken to be just a mathematical construct not realized in nature. (2) In the case of Rindler, one may like to think of a time-symmetric vacuum state as natural and treat the situation as one of thermal equilibrium. This forbids using quantum states with outgoing radiation which could make the Minkowski spacetime radiate energy – which seems unlikely.

The real trouble arises for spacetimes which are asymptotically de Sitter. Does such a spacetime have temperature and entropy like a collapsing black-hole? Does it “evaporate” ? Everyone is comfortable with the idea of associating temperature with the de Sitter spacetime and most people seem to be willing to associate even an entropy. However, the idea of the cosmological constant changing due to evaporation of the de Sitter spacetime seems too radical. Unfortunately, there is no clear mathematical reason for a dichotomous approach as regards a collapsing black-hole and an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime, since: (i) The temperature and entropy for these spacetimes arise in identical manner due to identical mathematical formalism. It will be surprising if one has entropy while the other does not. (ii) Just as collapsing black hole leads to an asymptotic event horizon, a universe which is dominated by cosmological constant at late times will also lead to a horizon. Just as we can mimic the time dependent effects in a collapsing black hole by a time asymmetric quantum state (say, Unruh vacuum), we can mimic the late time behaviour of an asymptotically de Sitter universe by a corresponding time asymmetric quantum state. Both these states will lead to stress tensor expectation values in which there will be a flux of radiation. (iii) The energy source for expansion at early times (say, matter or radiation) is irrelevant just as the collapse details are irrelevant in the case of a black-hole.

If one treats the de Sitter horizon as a ‘photosphere’ with temperature $`T=(H/2\pi )`$ and area $`A_H=4\pi H^2`$, then the radiative luminosity will be $`(dE/dt)T^4A_HH^2`$. If we take $`E=(1/2)H^1`$, this will lead to a decay law  for the cosmological constant of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\left[1+k(L_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}(tt_i))\right]^{2/3}(L_P^2t)^{2/3}$$
(192)
where $`k`$ is a numerical constant and the second proportionality is for $`t\mathrm{}`$. It is interesting that this naive model leads to a late time cosmological constant which is independent of the initial value ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$). Unfortunately, its value is still far too large. These issues are not analyzed in adequate detail in the literature and might have important implications for the cosmological constant problem.

## 11 Cosmological constant and the string theory

A relativistic point particle is a zero dimensional object; the world line of such a particle, describing its time evolution, will be one dimensional and the standard quantum field theory (like QED) uses real and virtual world lines of particles in its description. In contrast, a string (at a given moment of time) will be described by an one dimensional entity and its time evolution will be a two dimensional world surface called the world sheet. The basic formalism of string theory — considered to be a possible candidate for a model for quantum gravity — uses a two dimensional world sheet rather than the one dimensional world line of a particle to describe fundamental physics. Since the point particle has been replaced by a more extended structure, string theory can be made into a finite theory and, in general, the excitations of the string can manifest as low energy particles. This provides a hope for describing both gauge theories and gravity in a unified manner. (For a text book description of string theory, see ; for a more popular description, see ).

It was realized fairly early on that string theory can be consistently formulated only in 10 dimension and it is necessary to arrange matters so that six of these dimensions are compact (and very small) while the other four — which represents the spacetime — are presumably large and non compact. There is no fundamental understanding of how this comes about; but the details of the four dimensional theory depends on the way in which six extra dimensions are compactified. The simplest example corresponds to a situation in which the six dimensional geometry is what is known as calabi-yau manifold  and the four dimensions exhibit $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. The current paradigm, however, considers different ten dimensional theories as weakly coupled limits of a single theory and not as inequivalent theories. Depending on the choice of parameters in the description, one can move from one theory to other. In particular, as the parameters are changed, one can make a transition from weakly coupled limit of one theory to the strongly coupled limit of another. These strong-weak coupling dualities play an important role in the current paradigm of string theories though explicit demonstration of dualities exists only for limited number of cases .

The role of cosmological constant in string theories came into the forefront when it was realized that there exists a peculiar equivalence between a class of theories containing gravity and pure gauge theories. One example of such a duality  arises as follows: A particular kind of string theory in ten dimension (called type II B string theory) can be compactified with five of the dimensions wrapped up as 5-sphere ($`S^5`$) and the other five dimensions taken to describe a 5-dimensional anti de Sitter spacetime with negative cosmological constant ($`AdS_5`$). The whole manifold will then be $`S^5\times AdS_5`$ with the metric on the $`AdS`$ sector given by

$$ds^2=dr^2+e^{2r}(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu )\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,4.$$
(193)
This string theory has an exact equivalence with the 4-dimensional $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. It was known for a long time that the latter theory is conformally invariant; the large symmetry group of the $`AdS_5`$ matches precisely with the invariance group of Yang-Mills theory. The limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ is considered to be the boundary of $`AdS`$ space on which the dual field theory is defined. This allows one to obtain a map from the string theory states to the field which lives on the boundary. It must be stressed that it is hard to prove directly the equivalence between type II B $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ string theory and the four dimensional Yang-Mills theory especially since we do not have a non perturbative description of the former. In this sense the Yang-Mills theory actually provides a definition of the non perturbative type II B $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ string theory. It is, however, possible to verify the correspondence by restricting to low energies on the string theory side.

If gravity behaves as a local field theory, then the entropy in a compact region of volume $`R^3`$ will scale as $`SR^3`$ while indications from the physics of the horizons is that it should scale as $`SR^2`$. One can provide a consistent picture if gravity in $`D`$dimensions is equivalent to a field theory in $`D1`$ dimension with the entropy of the field theory scaling as the volume of the $`D1`$ dimensional space which, of course, is the same as the area in the original $`D`$dimensional space. This is achieved in a limited sense in the above model.

The $`AdS`$ spacetime has a negative cosmological constant while the standard de Sitter spacetime has a positive cosmological constant. This change of sign is crucial and the asymptotic structure of these theories are quite different. We do not, however, know of any solution to string theory which contains de Sitter spacetime or even any solution to standard Einstein’s equation with a positive cosmological constant. There are, in fact, some no-go theorems which state that such solutions cannot exist . This, however, is not a serious concern since the no-go theorems assume certain positive energy conditions which are indeed violated in string theory.

If de Sitter solutions of the string theory exists, then it would be interesting to ask whether they would admit a dual field theory description as in the case of anti de Sitter space. Some preliminary results indicate that if such a duality exists, then it would be with respect to a rather peculiar type of conformal field theories . The situation at present is reasonably open.

There is another indirect implication of the string theory paradigm for the cosmological constant problem. The detailed vacuum structure in string theory is at present quite unknown and the preliminary indications are that it can be fairly complicated. Many believe that the ultimate theory may not lead to a unique vacuum state but instead could lead to a set of degenerate vacua. The properties of physical theories built out of these vacua could be different and it may be necessary to invoke some *additional* criterion to select one vacuum out of many as the ground state of the observed universe. Very little is known about this issue  but advocates of anthropic principle sometimes use the possibility multiple degenerate vacua as a justification for anthropic paradigm. While this is not the only possibility, it must be stressed that the existence of degenerate vacua introduces an additional feature as regards the cosmological constant . The problem arises from the fact that quantum theory allows tunneling between the degenerate vacua and makes the actual ground state a superposition of the degenerate vacua. There will be an energy difference between: (i) the degenerate vacua and (ii) the vacuum state obtained by including the effects of tunneling. While the fundamental theory may provide some handle on the cosmological constant corresponding to the degenerate vacua, the observed  vacuum energy could correspond to the real vacuum which incorporates the effect of tunneling. In that case it is the dynamics of tunneling which will determine the ground state energy and the cosmological constant.

## Acknowledgement

I thank J.S. Bagla, J.V. Narlikar, T. Roy Choudhury and K. Subramanian for comments on the earlier version of the draft.