text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The occurrence of magnetic fields on galactic scale is well-established fact today, and their importance for a variety of astrophysical phenomena is generally acknowledged as pointed out Zeldovich et al.? Also Harrison ? has suggested that magnetic field could have a cosmological origin. As a natural consequences we should include magnetic fields in the energy-momentum tensor of the early universe. The choice of anisotropic cosmological models in Einstein system of field equations leads to the cosmological models more general than Robertson-Walker model.? The presence of primordial magnetic fields in the early stages of the evolution of the universe has been discussed by several authors. ? -? Strong magnetic fields can be created due to adiabatic compression in clusters of galaxies. Large-scale magnetic fields give rise to anisotropies in the universe. The anisotropic pressure created by the magnetic fields dominates the evolution of the shear anisotropy and it decays slower than if the pressure was isotropic.?,? Such fields can be generated at the end of an inflationary epoch.?- ? Anisotropic magnetic field models have significant contribution in the evolution of galaxies and stellar objects. Bali and Ali? obtained a magnetized cylindrically symmetric universe with an electrically neutral perfect fluid as the source of matter. Several authors ?-? have investigated Bianchi type I cosmological models with a magnetic field in different context.

Most cosmological models assume that the matter in the universe can be described by ‘dust’(a pressure-less distribution) or at best a perfect fluid. Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that - at least at the early stages of the universe \- viscous effects do play a role.?-? For example, the existence of the bulk viscosity is equivalent to slow process of restoring equilibrium states.? The observed physical phenomena such as the large entropy per baryon and remarkable degree of isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation suggest analysis of dissipative effects in cosmology. Bulk viscosity is associated with the GUT phase transition and string creation. Thus, we should consider the presence of a material distribution other than a perfect fluid to have realistic cosmological models (see Grøn? for a review on cosmological models with bulk viscosity). The effect of bulk viscosity on the cosmological evolution has been investigated by a number of authors in the framework of general theory of relativity.?-?

Models with a relic cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have received considerable attention recently among researchers for various reasons (see Refs.?-? and references therein). Some of the recent discussions on the cosmological constant “problem” and on cosmology with a time-varying cosmological constant by Ratra and Peebles,? Dolgov?-? and Sahni and Starobinsky? point out that in the absence of any interaction with matter or radiation, the cosmological constant remains a “constant”, however, in the presence of interactions with matter or radiation, a solution of Einstein equations and the assumed equation of covariant conservation of stress-energy with a time-varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be found. For these solutions, conservation of energy requires decrease in the energy density of the vacuum component to be compensated by a corresponding increase in the energy density of matter or radiation. Earlier researchers on this topic, are contained in Zeldovich,? Bertolami, ?,? Weinberg,? and Carroll, Press and Turner. ? Recent observations by Perlmutter et al. ? and Riess et al. ? strongly favour a significant and positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Their finding arise from the study of more than $`50`$ type Ia supernovae with redshifts in the range $`0.10z0.83`$ and suggest Friedmann models with negative pressure matter such as a cosmological constant, domain walls or cosmic strings (Vilenkin, ? Garnavich et al.?). Recently, Carmeli and Kuzmenko? have shown that the cosmological relativity theory (Behar and Carmeli?) predicts the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.934\times 10^{35}s^2`$ for the cosmological constant. This value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in excellent agreement with the measurements recently obtained by the High-Z Supernova Team and Supernova Cosmological Project (Garnavich et al.;? Perlmutter et al.;? Riess et al.;? Schmidt et al.?). The main conclusion of these works is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Several ans$`\ddot{a}`$tz have been proposed in which the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term decays with time (see Refs. Gasperini,?,? Berman,? Freese et al.,? $`\ddot{O}`$zer and Taha,? Peebles and Ratra,? Chen and Hu,? Abdussattar and Viswakarma,? Gariel and Le Denmat,? Pradhan et al.?,?). Of the special interest is the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^2`$ (where $`S`$ is the scale factor of the Robertson-Walker metric) by Chen and Wu,? which has been considered/modified by several authors ( Abdel-Rahaman,? Carvalho et al.,? Waga,? Silveira and Waga,? Pradhan and Pandey,? Vishwakarma?).

Recently Bali and Gokhroo? obtained a Bianchi type I anisotropic magnetized cosmological model for perfect fluid distribution. Motivated by the situations discussed above, in this paper, we shall focus upon the problem of establishing a formalism for studying the general relativistic evolution of magnetic homogeneities in presence of bulk viscous in an expanding universe. We do this by extending the work of Bali and Gokhroo ? by including an electrically neutral bulk viscous fluid as the source of matter in the energy-momentum tensor. This paper is organised as follows. The metric and the field equations are presented in Sec.$`2`$. The Sec.$`3`$ includes the solution of the field equations and physical and geometrical features of the models. In Sec.$`4`$, we obtain the bulk viscous cosmological solutions in the absence of the magnetic field. In Sec. $`5`$, we discuss our main results and summarize the conclusions.

## 2 Field Equations

We consider the Bianchi type I metric in the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+A^2dx^2+B^2dy^2+C^2dz^2,$$
(1)
where $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are functions of $`t`$ only. The energy momentum tensor in the presence of bulk stress has the form

$$T_i^j=(\rho +\overline{p})v_iv^j+\overline{p}g_i^j+E_i^j,$$
(2)
where $`E_i^j`$ is the electro-magnetic field given by Lichnerowicz? as

$$E_i^j=\overline{\mu }\left[|h|^2\left(v_iv^j+\frac{1}{2}g_i^j\right)h_ih^j\right]$$
(3)
and

$$\overline{p}=p\xi v_{;i}^i$$
(4)
Here $`\rho `$, $`p`$, $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\xi `$ are the energy density, isotropic pressure , effective pressure, bulk viscous coefficient respectively and $`v^i`$ is the flow vector satisfying the relation

$$g_{ij}v^iv^j=1$$
(5)
$`\overline{\mu }`$ is the magnetic permeability and $`h_i`$ the magnetic flux vector defined by

$$h_i=\frac{1}{\overline{\mu }}{}_{}{}^{}F_{ji}^{}v^j$$
(6)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{ij}^{}`$ is the dual electro-magnetic field tensor defined by Synge ? to be

$$^{}F_{ij}=\frac{\sqrt{}g}{2}ϵ_{ijkl}F^{kl}$$
(7)
$`F_{ij}`$ is the electro-magnetic field tensor and $`ϵ_{ijkl}`$ is the Levi-Civita tensor density. Here, the comoving coordinates are taken to be $`v^1`$ = $`0`$ = $`v^2`$ = $`v^3`$ and $`v^4`$ = $`1`$. We take the incident magnetic field to be in the direction of $`x`$-axis so that $`h_10`$, $`h_2`$ = $`0`$ = $`h_3`$ = $`h_4`$. Due to assumption of infinite conductivity of the fluid, we get $`F_{14}=0=F_{24}=F_{34}`$. The only non- vanishing component of $`F_{ij}`$ is $`F_{23}`$. The first set of Maxwell’s equation

$$F_{ij;k}+F_{jk;i}+F_{ki;j}=0$$
(8)
leads to

$$F_{23}=I\text{(const.)}$$
(9)
where the semicolon represents a covariant differentiation. Hence

$$h_1=\frac{AI}{\overline{\mu }BC}$$
(10)
The Einstein’s field equations

$$R_i^j\frac{1}{2}Rg_i^j+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_i^j=8\pi T_i^j,\text{(c = 1, G = 1 in gravitational unit)}$$
(11)
for the line element (1) has been set up as

$$8\pi \left(\overline{p}\frac{I^2}{2\overline{\mu }B^2C^2}\right)=\frac{B_{44}}{B}\frac{C_{44}}{C}\frac{B_4C_4}{BC}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(12)
$$8\pi \left(\overline{p}+\frac{I^2}{2\overline{\mu }B^2C^2}\right)=\frac{A_{44}}{A}\frac{C_{44}}{C}\frac{A_4C_4}{AC}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(13)
$$8\pi \left(\overline{p}+\frac{I^2}{2\overline{\mu }B^2C^2}\right)=\frac{A_{44}}{A}\frac{B_{44}}{B}\frac{A_4B_4}{AB}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(14)
$$8\pi \left(\rho +\frac{I^2}{2\overline{\mu }B^2C^2}\right)=\frac{A_4B_4}{AB}+\frac{A_4C_4}{AC}+\frac{B_4C_4}{BC}+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(15)
The suffix $`4`$ by the symbols $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ denote differentiation with respect to $`t`$.

## 3 Solution of the field equations

Equations (12) - (15) represent a system of four equations in six unknowns $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`p`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To get a determinate solution, we need two extra conditions. First we assume

$$A=BC$$
(16)
From Eqs. (13) and (14), we get

$$\frac{B_{44}}{B}\frac{C_{44}}{C}=\frac{A_4}{A}\left(\frac{C_4}{C}\frac{B_4}{B}\right)$$
(17)
which leads to

$$\frac{\nu _4}{\nu }=\frac{\alpha }{ϵ^2}$$
(18)
where $`BC=ϵ`$, $`\frac{B}{C}=\nu `$, and $`\alpha `$ is a constant of integration. From Eqs. (12) and (13), we get

$$\frac{K}{B^2C^2}=\frac{A_{44}}{A}\frac{B_{44}}{B}+\frac{A_4C_4}{AC}\frac{B_4C_4}{BC}$$
(19)
where

$$K=\frac{8\pi I^2}{\overline{\mu }}$$
(20)
By using the condition (16) in (19), we have

$$\frac{C_{44}}{C}+\frac{2B_4C_4}{BC}+\frac{C_4^2}{C^2}=\frac{K}{B^2C^2}$$
(21)
which leads to

$$\frac{ϵ_{44}}{2ϵ}+\frac{ϵ_4^2}{2ϵ^2}=\frac{K}{ϵ^2}$$
(22)
Setting $`ϵ_4`$ = $`f(ϵ)`$ in Eq. (22), we have

$$2ϵff^1+2f^2=4K$$
(23)
which reduces to

$$\frac{d}{dϵ}(f^2)+\frac{2f^2}{ϵ}=\frac{4K}{ϵ}$$
(24)
Integrating Eq. (24) leads to

$$f^2=\frac{(2Kϵ^2+N)}{ϵ^2},$$
(25)
where $`N`$ is the constant of integration. Eq. (25) on integration leads to

$$\sqrt{(2Kϵ^2+N)}=2Kt+L,$$
(26)
where $`L`$ is the integrating constant. Eq. (26) can be rewritten as

$$ϵ=\sqrt{(at^2+bt+d)},$$
(27)
where

$$a=2K;b=2Landd=\frac{(L^2N)}{2K}.$$
(28)
From Eq. (18), we get

$$\frac{\nu _4}{\nu }=\frac{\alpha }{(at^2+bt+d)}$$
(29)
Integrating Eq. (29) leads to

$$\nu =\frac{1}{M}e^{\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}tan^1\frac{(2at+b)}{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}},if4adb^2>0$$
(30)
where $`M`$ is a constant of integration.

$$\nu =L\left[\frac{(t+\frac{b}{2a})\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}}{(t+\frac{b}{2a})\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}}\right]^{\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{l}}},if4adb^2<0$$
(31)
where $`l>0`$.

$$\nu =e^{\frac{\alpha }{a(t+\frac{b}{2a})}},if4adb^2=0$$
(32)
### 3.1 Case (i) : when $`4adb^2>0`$.

In this case, we have

$$A^2=at^2+bt+d$$
(33)
$$B^2=\frac{\sqrt{(at^2+bt+d)}}{M}e^{\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}tan^1\frac{(2at+b)}{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}}$$
(34)
$$C^2=\frac{M\sqrt{(at^2+bt+d)}}{\left[e^{\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}tan^1\frac{(2at+b)}{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}}\right]}$$
(35)
Hence, the geometry of the spacetime (1) reduces to the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+(at^2+bt+d)dx^2$$

$$+\frac{\sqrt{(at^2+bt+d)}}{M}e^{\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}tan^1\frac{(2at+b)}{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}}dy^2$$

$$+\frac{M\sqrt{(at^2+bt+d)}}{\left[e^{\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}tan^1\frac{(2at+b)}{\sqrt{(4adb^2)}}}\right]}dz^2$$
(36)
The effective pressure $`\overline{p}`$ and density $`\rho `$ for the model (36) are given by

$$8\pi (p\xi \theta )=\frac{4(b^24ad)+(2at+b)^24\alpha ^2}{16(at^2+bt+d)^2}\frac{K}{2(at^2+bt+d)}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(37)
$$8\pi \rho =\frac{5(2at+b)^24\alpha ^2}{16(at^2+bt+d)^2}+\frac{K}{2(at^2+bt+d)}+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(38)
where $`\theta `$ is the scalar of expansion calculated for the flow vector $`v^i`$ and is given by

$$\theta =\frac{(2at+b)}{(at^2+bt+d)}$$
(39)
For the specification of $`\xi `$, now we assume that the fluid obeys an equation of state of the form

$$p=\gamma \rho ,$$
(40)
where $`\gamma (0\gamma 1)`$ is a constant.
Thus, given $`\xi (t)`$ we can solve the cosmological parameters. In most of the investigations involving bulk viscosity is assumed to be a simple power function of the energy density.?-?

$$\xi (t)=\xi _0\rho ^n,$$
(41)
where $`\xi _0`$ and $`n`$ are constants. If $`n=1`$, Eq. (41) may correspond to a radiative fluid.? However, more realistic models? are based on lying in the regime $`0n\frac{1}{2}`$. On using Eq. (41) in Eq. (37), we obtain

$$8\pi (p\xi _0\rho ^n\theta )=\frac{4(b^24ad)+(2at+b)^24\alpha ^2}{16T^2}\frac{K}{2T}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(42)
where $`T=at^2+bt+d`$.

#### 3.1.1 Model (i) : $`(\xi =\xi _0)`$.

When $`n`$ = $`0`$, Eq. (41) reduces to $`\xi `$ = $`\xi _0`$. With the use of Eqs. (38), (39) and (40), Eq. (42) reduces to

$$8\pi \gamma \rho =\frac{8\pi (2at+b)\xi _0}{T}+\frac{4(b^24ad)+(2at+b)^2}{16T^2}$$

$$\frac{K}{2T}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(43)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (38) and (43), we get

$$(1+\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{16T^2}\left[(2at+b)^2(15\gamma )+4(b^24ad)+4\gamma \alpha ^2\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2T}\left[K(1\gamma )+16\pi \xi _0(2at+b)\right]$$
(44)
#### 3.1.2 Model (ii) : $`(\xi =\xi _0\rho )`$.

When $`n=1`$, Eq. (41) reduces to $`\xi =\xi _0\rho `$. Eq. (42), with the use of Eqs. (38), (39) and (40), reduces to

$$8\pi \rho \left[\gamma \frac{(2at+b)\xi _0}{T^2}\right]=\frac{4(b^24ad)+(2at+b)^24\alpha ^2}{16T^2}$$

$$\frac{K}{2T}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(45)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (38) and (45), we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\left[\left(1+\gamma \right)T^2\left(2at+b\right)\xi _0\right]}}\times [4(b^24ad)+(2at+b)^2`$ (46)
$`4\alpha ^28KT\left(\gamma T^2\left(2at+b\right)\xi _0\right)`$
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{5\left(2at+b\right)^24\alpha ^2+8KT}{T^2}}\right\}]`$
From Eqs. (44) and (46), we observe that the cosmological constant is a decreasing function of time and it approaches a small value as time progresses (i. e., the present epoch), which explains the small value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at present. In the model (i), we also find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive for all values of $`\gamma `$ lying in the interval $`(0,\frac{1}{5})`$ and $`\alpha ^2>5(4adb^2)`$. In the model (ii), we see that the second term of the Eq. (46) decreases rapidly with expansion of the universe and the first term will dominate over the second term. Thus, from Eq. (46) it is also observed that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive when $`K<\frac{a}{2}`$ and $`b^2>8Kd+4\alpha ^2`$. These small positive values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in both models (i) and (ii) are supported by results from recent supernovae observations (Perlmutter et al.,  Riess et al.,  Garnavich et al.,  Schmidt et al. ).
Physical and Geometrical Features of the Models
The component of the shear tensor $`\sigma _i^j`$ are given by

$$\sigma _1^1=\frac{(2at+b)}{6T}$$

$$\sigma _2^2=\frac{(2at+b)}{12T}+\frac{\alpha }{2T}$$

$$\sigma _3^3=\frac{(2at+b)}{12T}\frac{\alpha }{2T}$$

$$\sigma _4^4=0$$
(47)
Thus

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{(2at+b)^212\alpha ^2}{48T}$$
(48)
The rate of expansion $`H_i`$ in the direction of $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ -axes are given by

$$H_1=\frac{(2at+b)}{2T}$$

$$H_2=\frac{(2at+b)}{4T}+\frac{\alpha }{2T}$$

$$H_3=\frac{(2at+b)}{4T}\frac{\alpha }{2T}$$
(49)
The model (36) starts expanding at $`t>\frac{b}{2a}`$ and the expansion in the model decreases as time increases and stops at $`t=\mathrm{}`$. The model, in general, represents shearing and non-rotating universe. Since $`lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{\sigma }{\theta }0`$, therefore, the model does not approach isotropy for large values of $`t`$. There is a singularity in the model at $`t`$ = $`0`$ which is real physical singularity.

### 3.2 Case (ii) : when $`4adb^2<0i.e.4adb^2=l,l>0`$.

In this case the geometry of the spacetime (1) takes the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+a\left[(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}\right]dx^2$$

$$+a\left[(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{(t+\frac{b}{2a})\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}}{(t+\frac{b}{2a})+\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}}\right]^{\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{l}}}dy^2$$

$$+a\left[(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{(t+\frac{b}{2a})\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}}{(t+\frac{b}{2a})+\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}}\right]dz^2$$
(50)
The effective pressure and density for the model (50) are given by

$$8\pi (p\xi \theta )=\frac{4a^2t^2+5b^24abt16ad}{16a^2T_1^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{16T_1}\frac{K}{2\overline{\mu }aT_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(51)
$$8\pi \rho =\frac{5(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2}{4T_1^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{16T_1}\frac{K}{2\overline{\mu }aT_1}+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(52)
where the scalar expansion $`\theta `$ is given by

$$\theta =\frac{2(t+\frac{b}{2a})}{T_1}$$
(53)
and

$$T_1=\left[(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}\right]$$

#### 3.2.1 Model (i): $`(\xi =\xi _0)`$.

When $`n=0`$, Eq. (41) reduces to $`\xi =\xi _0`$ and hence Eq. (51), with the use of Eqs. (40), (52) and (53), leades to

$$16\pi \gamma \rho =16\pi \xi _0(t+\frac{b}{2a})+\frac{1}{16a^2T_1^2}\left[4a^2t^2(1+5\gamma )+5b^2(1+\gamma )4at(15b\gamma )16ad\right]$$

$$\frac{\alpha ^2(1\gamma )}{16T_1}\frac{K(1+\gamma )}{2\overline{\mu }aT_1}(1\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(54)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (52) and (54), we get

$$(1+\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{16a^2T_1^2}\left[4a^2t^2(15\gamma )+5b^2(1\gamma )4abt(1+5\gamma )16ad\right]$$

$$+\frac{\alpha ^2(1\gamma )}{16T_1}+\frac{K(1\gamma )}{2\overline{\mu }aT_1}\frac{16\pi \xi _0(t+\frac{b}{2a})}{T_1}$$
(55)
#### 3.2.2 Model (ii) : $`(\xi =\xi _0\rho )`$.

When $`n=1`$, Eq. (41) reduces to $`\xi =\xi _0\rho `$. The Eq. (51), with the use of the Eqs. (40), (52) and (53), reduces to

$$8\pi \rho [a(1+\gamma )T_1(2at+b)\xi _0]=\frac{4a^2t^2+5b^24abt16ad}{16aT_1}+$$

$$\frac{5(2at+b)^2}{16aT_1}\frac{a\alpha ^2}{8}\frac{K}{\overline{\mu }}$$
(56)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (52) and (54), we get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }[a(1+\gamma )T_1(2at+b)\xi _0]=\frac{4a^2t^2+5b^24abt16ad}{16aT_1}\frac{a\alpha ^2}{16}\frac{K}{2\overline{\mu }}$$

$$a\gamma T_1(2at+b)\xi _0\left[\frac{5(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2}{4T_1^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{16T_1^2}\frac{K}{2\overline{\mu }aT_1}\right]$$
(57)
In both models (i) and (ii), we have observed from Eqs. (55) and (57) that the cosmological constant is a decreasing function of time and it approaches a small value as time progresses (i.e., the present epoch), which explains the small value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at present.
The Physical and Geometrical Features of the Models
The non-vanishing components of shear tensor $`(\sigma _i^j)`$ are given by

$$\sigma _1^1=\frac{2(t+\frac{b}{2a})}{(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}}$$
(58)
$$\sigma _2^2=\frac{1}{12}\left[\frac{3\alpha }{(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}}\frac{2(t+\frac{b}{2a})}{(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}}\right]$$
(59)
$$\sigma _3^3=\frac{1}{12}\left[\frac{3\alpha }{(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}}+\frac{2(t+\frac{b}{2a})}{(t+\frac{b}{2a})^2\frac{l}{4a^2}}\right]$$
(60)
The models start expanding with a big bang at $`t=\frac{b}{2a}+\frac{\sqrt{l}}{2a}`$ and the expansion in the models decreases with time. The expansion in the models stops at $`t=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{\sigma }{\theta }0`$. Therefore, the models do not approach isotropy for large values of $`t`$.

### 3.3 Case (iii) : when $`4adb^2=0`$.

In this case the metric (1) reduces to

$$ds^2=dT_2^2+T_2^2dX^2+T_2e^{\frac{\alpha }{aT_2}}dY^2+T_2e^{\frac{\alpha }{aT_2}}dZ^2,$$
(61)
where

$$T_2=t+\frac{b}{2a}$$

The effective pressure $`\overline{p}`$ and density $`\rho `$ for the model (61) are given by

$$8\pi \overline{p}=8\pi (p\xi \theta )=\frac{1}{4T_2^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{4a^2T_2^4}\frac{K}{2aT_2^2}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(62)
$$8\pi \rho =\frac{5}{4T_2^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{4a^2T_2^4}+\frac{K}{2aT_2^2}+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(63)
where the scalar expansion $`\theta `$ is given by

$$\theta =\frac{2}{T_2}$$
(64)
#### 3.3.1 Model (i): $`(\xi =\xi _0)`$.

When $`n=0`$, Eq. (41) gives $`\xi `$ = $`\xi _0`$ and hence Eq. (62), with the use of Eqs. (40), (63) and (64), reduces to

$$\rho =\frac{1}{8\pi (1+\gamma )T_2}\left[16\pi \xi _0+\frac{3}{2T_2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{2a^2T_2^3}\right]$$
(65)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (63) and (65), we get

$$(1+\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{16\pi \xi _0}{T_2}+\frac{1}{4aT_2^2}\left[a(15\gamma )2(1+\gamma )K\right]\frac{(1\gamma )\alpha ^2}{4a^2T_2^4}$$
(66)
#### 3.3.2 Model (ii) : $`(\xi =\xi _0\rho )`$.

When $`n=1`$, Eq. (41) gives $`\xi `$ = $`\xi _0\rho `$ and hence Eq. (62), with the use of Eqs. (40), (63) and (64), reduces to

$$\rho =\frac{1}{8\pi [(1+\gamma )T_22\xi _0]}\left[\frac{3}{2T_2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{2a^2T_2^3}\right]$$
(67)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (63) and (67), we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left\{\left(1+\gamma \right)T_22\xi _0\right\}T_2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(15\gamma \right)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\gamma \right)K}{2a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\gamma \right)\alpha ^2}{4a^2T_2^2}}+`$ (68)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi _0}{T_2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4a^2T_2^2}}\}]`$
From Eqs. (66) and (68), we observe that the cosmological constant is a decreasing function of time and it approaches a small value as time progresses (i. e., the present epoch), which explains the small value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at present. In the model (i), from Eq. (66), it can be seen that first and second terms dominate over the third term. Further we also find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive for all values of $`\gamma `$ lying in the interval $`(0,\frac{1}{5})`$ and $`K<\frac{a(15\gamma )}{2(1+\gamma )}`$. In the model (ii), from Eq. (68), one can easily see that that for all value of $`\gamma `$ lying in the interval $`(0,\frac{1}{5})`$ and $`\xi _0<\frac{(1+\gamma )b}{4a}`$, $`K<\frac{a(15\gamma )}{2(1+\gamma )}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive. These small positive values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are consistent by the results from recent supernovae observations.
The Physical and Geometrical Features of the Models
The non-vanishing components of shear tensor $`(\sigma _i^j)`$ are given by

$$\sigma _1^1=\frac{1}{3T_2}$$
(69)
$$\sigma _2^2=\frac{1}{6}\left[\frac{3\alpha }{aT_2^2}\frac{1}{T_2}\right]$$
(70)
$$\sigma _2^2=\frac{1}{6}\left[\frac{3\alpha }{aT_2^2}+\frac{1}{T_2}\right]$$
(71)
The models start expanding with a big bang $`t`$ = $`\frac{b}{2a}`$ and the expansion in the models decreases with time increase. The expansion in the models stop at $`t`$ = $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{\sigma }{\theta }0`$. Therefore, the models do not approach isotropy for large values of $`t`$.

## 4 Solution of the field equations in absence of magnetic field

In the absence of magnetic field, the metric (36) reduces to

$$ds^2=dt^2+(bt+\beta )dx^2+\frac{l\sqrt{(bt+\beta )}}{M}dy^2+\frac{M\sqrt{(bt+\beta )}}{l}dz^2,$$
(72)
where

$$l=e^{\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{hb^2}}tan^1\frac{b}{\sqrt{hb^2}}};a=2K$$

$$d=\frac{L^2N}{2K}=\beta \frac{\mathrm{sin}2K}{2K};4ad=4(L^2N)=h$$
(73)
Thus when $`K0`$ then $`d\beta `$. In absence of the magnetic field i.e. when $`K0`$ then effective pressure $`\overline{p}`$ and density $`\rho `$ for the model (72) are given by

$$8\pi \overline{p}=8\pi (p\xi \theta )=\frac{b^2d}{4(bt+\beta )^2}+\frac{b^2}{16(bt+\beta )^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{4(bt+\beta )^2}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(74)
$$8\pi \rho =\frac{5b^2}{16(bt+\beta )^2}\frac{\alpha ^2}{4(bt+\beta )^2}+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(75)
where scalar expansion $`\theta `$ is given by

$$\theta =\frac{b}{bt+\beta }$$
(76)
### 4.1 Model (i): $`(\xi =\xi _0)`$.

When $`n=0`$, Eq. (41) gives $`\xi `$ = $`\xi _0`$ and hence Eq. (74), with the use of Eqs. (40), (75) and (76), reduces to

$$8\pi (1+\gamma )\rho =\frac{8\pi b\xi _0}{(bt+\beta )}+\frac{5b^24\alpha ^22d}{8(bt+\beta )^2}$$
(77)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (75) and (77), we get

$$(1+\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{8\pi b\xi _0}{(bt+\beta )}\frac{d}{4(bt+\beta )^2}$$
(78)
### 4.2 Model (ii) : $`(\xi =\xi _0\rho )`$.

When $`n=1`$, Eq. (41) reduces to $`\xi =\xi _0\rho `$. Eq. (74), with the use of Eqs. (40), (75), and (76), reduces to

$$8\pi \rho =\frac{(5b^24\alpha ^22d)}{8(bt+\beta )[(1+\gamma )(bt+\beta )b\xi _0]}$$
(79)
Eliminating $`\rho (t)`$ between Eqs. (75) and (79), we get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\left[(1\gamma )(5b^24\alpha ^2)4ad+\frac{(5b^24\alpha ^2)b\xi _0}{(bt+\beta )}\right]}{16(bt+\beta )\left[(1+\gamma )(bt+\beta )b\xi _0\right]}$$
(80)
In both the models (i) and (ii), from Eqs. (78) and (80), we observe that the cosmological constant is a decreasing function of time and it approaches a small value as time progresses (i. e., the present epoch), which explains the small value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at present. In the model (i), from Eq. (78), it can be seen that for all time $`t>\frac{d}{32\pi b^2\xi _0}\frac{\beta }{B}`$, the cosmological “constant” is positive definite. In model (ii), Eq. (80) suggest that the positivity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ demands the relation among constant as $`b^2>\frac{4}{5}(\alpha ^2+ad)`$ and $`\xi _0<\frac{(1+\gamma )\beta }{b}`$. These small positive values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in both models are supported by the results from recent supernovae observations.
The Physical and Geometrical Features of the Models.
In the absence of magnetic field, the shear $`(\sigma _i^j)`$ are given by

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{b^2+12\alpha ^2}{48(bt+\beta )^2}$$
(81)
Here, $`lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{\sigma }{\theta }0`$. The model does not approach isotropy for large values of $`t`$ in absence of magnetic field also.

## 5 Conclusions

We have obtained a new class of Bianchi type I anisotropic magnetized cosmological models with a bulk viscous fluid as the source of matter. Generally, the models are expanding, shearing and non-rotating. In all these models, we observe that they do not approach isotropy for large values of time $`t`$ either in the presence or in the absence of magnetic field.
The cosmological constant in all models given in Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 are decreasing function of time and they all approach a small value as time increases (i.e., the present epoch). The values of cosmological “constant” for these models are found to be small and positive which are supported by the results from recent supernovae observations recently obtained by the High - Z Supernova Team and Supernova Cosmological Project ( Garnavich et al.;? Perlmutter et al.;? Riess et al.;? Schmidt et al. ?). Thus, with our approach, we obtain a physically relevant decay law for the cosmological constant unlike other investigators where adhoc laws were used to arrive at a mathematical expressions for the decaying vacuum energy. Thus our models are more general than those studied earlier. Acknowledgements

One of the authors (A. Pradhan) thanks to the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, India for providing facility under Associateship Programme where this work was carried out. We would like to thank G. P. Singh for helpful discussions and also to Christos G. Tsagas for pointing a fruitful comment.
References


format: text

text:
# Relativistic Quark Model Calculation of the 𝑙₁, 𝑙₂ Coefficients of the Chiral Lagrangian

## Abstract

We briefly report on a relativistic quark model scheme to calculate the $`O(P^4)`$ pion-pion vertex in the planar approximation and in the chiral limit. The calculation is reduced to the solution of simple integral equations (Bethe-Salpeter like) by an effective use of chiral Ward Identities. Specific model computations are provided.

The interest of meson scattering in the quark model has recently revived due to the exotic $`1^+`$ mesons seen in BNL at the energies of $`1.4`$ and $`1.6GeV`$. The hybrid LlanesCotanch  or meson molecule nature of these states is being debated. The standard tools for meson scattering are the chiral lagrangian GaLe1984  and its unitarized extensions Pelaez , which cannot access that intermediate energy region, let alone interpret the Fock space nature of the resonances. Still they provide the benchmark for model approaches to the underlying dynamics which encompass chiral symmetry. In recent works weall ; Bicudo  the use of a novel chiral Ward Identity (3 below) allowed the reduction of the planar quark model approximation to pion scattering,

$$\text{}+\text{}\text{}$$
(1)
to reproduce the $`O(P^2)`$, $`O(m_\pi ^2)`$ chiral amplitude. Here we continue this effort by establishing contact with the $`O(p^4)`$, $`O(m_\pi ^0)`$ chiral lagrangian. This work is related to microscopic studies of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering with the Nambu and Jona-Lasinio model Brigitte , with the bosonization technique Craig , with the equal time quark model weall ; Goncalo , and with a direct numerical evaluation with a Schwinger-Dyson model weall ; Steve . While the $`O(P^2)`$ amplitude is model independent, the $`O(p^4)`$ provides a model test. Here we exactly and explicitly determine the Feynman diagrams that govern the $`O(p^4)`$ amplitude, then employ two simple models for a test evaluation.

In the standard notation, the pion scattering amplitude arising from its $`O(P^4)`$ contact terms alone reads

$$A(s,t,u)^{(P^4)}=\frac{1}{F^4}[(2l_1+\frac{l_2}{2})s^2+\frac{l_2}{2}(tu)^2].$$
(2)
The Bethe-Salpeter pion vertex $`\chi _\pi `$ in (1) above, function of two momenta (incoming meson $`P`$ and quark $`k+P/2`$) can be conveniently expanded in an external momentum power series. But first it is useful to extract from it a dressed vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ satisfying interesting Ward Identities connecting it to the fermion dressed propagator and the planar ladder,

$`\chi (P,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(P,k)+\mathrm{\Delta }(P,k)}{\sqrt{2}f_\pi }}`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(P,k+P/2)`$ $`=`$ $`S^1(kP/2)\gamma _5+\gamma _5S^1(k+P/2)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}.`$
The use of these identities, as well as the fact that no zero-momentum pole appears in any vector or scalar ladder given the symmetry breaking pattern of the theory, allows us to reduce the momentum four term of eq. (1) to three different classes of diagrams, parameterized as,

$`\text{}+\text{}\text{}`$ (4)
$`=3d_1(P_1P_2P_3P_4+P_1P_4P_2P_3)+3d_2P_1P_3P_2P_4,`$
All external momentum and color dependence is explicit. To calculate the ladders which remain in eq. (4), we write integral equations for them, analogous to the Bethe-Salpeter equation for a meson and with up to ten independent functions of $`q^2`$. Matching this Feynman amplitude with the physical external momenta and multiplying each permutation by the adequate isospin factors, we obtain for the $`l`$’s defined in eq. (2),

$`l_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}(2d_1+d_26d_3+2d_4+5d_5+d_6)`$
$`l_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(d_22d_3+2d_4+d_5d_6).`$ (5)
The necessary Dirac gamma traces are computed with FORM Vermasseren . We perform model evaluations in Euclidean space with an interaction rung given by $`V=g^2\gamma _\mu iK(kq)\gamma ^\mu `$ which is similar to the One Gluon Exchange interaction in the Feynman Gauge. We have used two different infrared strong kernels, both UV finite to avoid renormalization complications.

The first is a simple Gaussian kernel (whose Euclidean angular integrals are simply Bessel functions) $`K(q)=exp(q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ with parameters $`g=3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.15GeV`$ (model 1) which leads to a constituent quark mass of $`116MeV`$, a condensate $`(170MeV)^3`$, a pion decay constant $`f_\pi =87MeV`$ and gives $`l_1=0.11`$, $`l_2=0.14`$; while the parameters (model 2) $`g=1.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2`$ lead to a mass of $`93MeV`$, condensate $`(229MeV)^3`$, and $`f_\pi =86MeV`$, $`l_1=0.06`$, $`l_2=0.12`$. The second is a rational kernel (whose Euclidean angular integrals contain only polynomials and square roots) $`K(q)=[1/(q^2\lambda ^2)1/(q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)]`$ with $`g=10.3`$, $`\lambda =0.8GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.85GeV`$ (model 3), we obtain a constituent quark mass of $`216MeV`$, condensate $`(156MeV)^3`$, pion decay constant $`92MeV`$, and $`l_1=0.065`$, $`l_2=0.12`$.

The computed $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ have the correct signs and ratio when compared with the phenomenological analysis, however they are large. Investigations are underway to test a wider class of quark-antiquark interactions.


text:
# Gauge/string duality and scalar glueball mass ratios

## Abstract:

It has been shown by Polchinski and Strassler that the scaling of high energy QCD scattering amplitudes can be obtained from string theory. They considered an AdS slice as an approximation for the dual space of a confining gauge theory. Here we use this approximation to estimate in a very simple way the ratios of scalar glueball masses imposing Dirichlet boundary conditions on the string dilaton field. These ratios are in good agreement with the results in the literature. We also find that they do not depend on the size of the slice.

fth, ads  preprint: hep-th/0212207

Glueballs are bound states of gluons as predicted by QCD, presently the main candidate theory to describe the strong interactions. These bound states have not yet been observed but hopefully will appear in near future accelerators. The investigation of such states using QCD in the low energy (strong coupling) regime, in particular looking for their masses, requires a non perturbative approach. In this case lattice calculations produce interesting results (see for instance and references therein).

An alternative approach to strong interactions is based on the idea that they have a description in terms of strings. A remarkable step in this direction was given by Maldacena proposing the equivalence between conformal fields and string theory in anti-de Sitter spacetime (AdS/CFT correspondence) . In particular glueball operators of the conformal gauge theory defined on the AdS boundary are in correspondence with the string dilaton field.

The description of strong interactions based on this correspondence requires the breaking of conformal invariance, which can be done in different ways. Witten  proposed a formulation of the correspondence in such a way that the AdS space accommodates a Schwarzschild black hole. This procedure introduces a scale breaking conformal invariance. Then it is possible to obtain the ratio of glueball masses from supergravity approximation to string theory. The corresponding supergravity equations do not allow analytic solutions but the eigenvalues related to the glueball masses can be found using a WKB method .

Another possibility to break conformal invariance is to consider a slice (actually two slices sticked together) of the AdS space as in the Randall-Sundrum model which proposes a unification of the weak and Planck scales. Such an AdS slice was used recently by Polchinski and Strassler  as an approximation for the string dual space corresponding to strong interactions (see also). They used this model to reproduce the scaling of high energy glueball scattering amplitudes as predicted by QCD. Following the Polchinski and Strassler proposal we consider an AdS slice assuming that there is still a bulk/boundary correspondence, in particular between scalar glueballs and the dilaton. Imposing boundary conditions the string dilaton field acquires discrete modes. Then it is natural to relate the spectrum of the dilaton field to the masses of the scalar glueballs. Our results are in good agreement with lattice and supergravity calculations (see tables 1 and 2).

According to the AdS/CFT correspondence string theory defined on AdS5 times a transverse space $`X`$ is dual to the large $`N`$ limit of $`SU(N)`$ conformal gauge theories with extended supersymmetry defined on the four dimensional boundary. The metric for this space can be written as

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(dz^2+(d\stackrel{}{x})^2dt^2\right)+R^2ds_X^2,$$
(1)
where $`z,\stackrel{}{x},t`$ are the Poincare coordinates that describe the AdS space with radius $`R`$ and $`ds_X^2`$ corresponds to the metric of a convenient transverse space, as for example $`S^5`$.

We consider an AdS slice corresponding to the region $`0zz_{max}`$. According to the AdS/CFT duality, there is a holographic relation between bulk and boundary theories such that low energies correspond to large $`z`$-values. Then $`z_{max}`$ is an infrared cut off for the nonconformal boundary theory. Further we take the dilaton momenta associated with the directions of the space $`X`$ to be negligible. Then choosing Dirichlet boundary condition the free dilaton field at $`z=z_{max}`$ can be cast in terms of the Bessel function $`J_2`$ into the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{z^2J_2(u_pz)}{z_{max}w_p(\stackrel{}{k})J_3(u_pz_{max})}}`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`\{𝐚_p(\stackrel{}{k})e^{iw_p(\stackrel{}{k})t+i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}+h.c.\}.`$
Here $`w_p(\stackrel{}{k})=\sqrt{u_p^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$, $`h.c.`$ means hermitian conjugate and $`u_p`$ are the discrete momenta associated with coordinate $`z`$, defined by

$$u_p=\frac{\chi _{_{2,p}}}{z_{max}},$$
(3)
where $`J_2(\chi _{_{2,p}})=0`$, and the operators $`𝐚_p,𝐚_p^{}`$ satisfy canonical commutation relations.

On the boundary ($`z=0)`$ of the AdS slice we consider composite operators representing glueballs with masses $`\mu _p`$. As in ref.  we associate the size $`z_{max}`$ of the AdS slice with the mass of the lightest glueball $`\mu _1`$

$$z_{max}=\frac{C}{\mu _1},$$
(4)
where $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant related to the choice of $`z_{max}`$. From equations (3) and (4) we have

$$u_p=\frac{\chi _{2,p}}{C}\mu _1.$$
(5)
Then the gauge/string correspondence suggests that the glueball masses are proportional to the discrete dilaton modes:

$$\frac{u_p}{\mu _p}=C^{},$$
(6)
where $`C^{}=\chi _{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}/C`$ according to eq. (5).

So the glueball masses are related to the zeros of the Bessel functions by

$$\frac{\mu _p}{\mu _1}=\frac{\chi _{2,p}}{\chi _{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}.$$
(7)
This is our main result. It is remarkable that it is independent of the size $`z_{max}`$, although the individual masses depend on this cut off.

Using the values of the zeros of the Bessel function, we find the mass ratios for the scalar glueball state $`J^{PC}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{++}`$ and its excitations. Our results are presented in table 1 together with lattice  and AdS-Schwarzschild black hole supergravity  calculations. From this table one can see that our simple approximation is in good agreement with these previous calculations.

A similar approach can be used to estimate the glueball masses in QCD3. In this case we consider AdS4 and the dilaton fields are expanded in terms of the Bessel function $`J_{3/2}`$ and the mass ratios for the $`3`$ dimensional ”glueballs” are given by

$$\frac{\mu _p}{\mu _1}=\frac{\chi _{3/2,p}}{\chi _{3/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}.$$
(8)
Using this relation we obtain the ratio of masses presented in table 2 together with lattice and $`AdS`$-Schwarzschild black hole supergravity calculations. The agreement here is also good.

The relations (7,8) for the ratio of glueball masses were found by us before in  using a mapping between bulk and boundary quantum states. Here we have seen that these results do not depend on any particular mapping between quantum states.

In conclusion we have seen that string theory defined in an AdS slice can be applied to estimate the scalar glueball mass ratios in a very simple way. We hope that such an approach can be used to estimate the mass ratios of other strongly interacting states.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank J. R. T. Mello Neto for important discussions. The authors are partially supported by CNPq, FINEP , CAPES (PROCAD) and FAPERJ - Brazilian research agencies.


text:
# 1 Multiplicities, wrapping numbers and Chan-Paton phases for the D5-brane models, (𝑝≠𝑞≠𝑟≠𝑝).

## Acknowledgements

This research is supported in part by PPARC and the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research (GIF).


text:
# References

Recently Dijkgraaf and Vafa derived crucial relations between matrix models and SYM theories . Subsequently, in  Dijkgraaf, Gukov, Kazakov and Vafa provided the explicit relationship between the $`N=2`$ SYM theory  and matrix models. The original proposal was based on geometrical engineering analysis in string theory, while in  it has been argued that there exists a QFT proof of the Dijkgraaf–Vafa formulation. In these derivations a crucial role is played by holomorphy. This is a crucial issue as, for example, holomorphy and symmetries are at the basis of $`N=2`$ SYM duality. Therefore, a basic question in considering the matrix model formulation, is to identify the duality structure which is the essence of Seiberg–Witten theory . There are several reasons which suggest introducing the powerful tool of duality directly in the matrix model formulation. For example, an interesting question would be to understand the analogous of the nonperturbative relation between the $`u`$–modulus and the prepotential . This should be useful for a proof of the relationship between matrix model and $`N=2`$ SYM along the lines of . We also note that this relation, which has been useful in investigating related issues , should help in deriving possible exact results in matrix models. Furthermore, this duality may help in understanding what is the QFT formulation of $`N=2`$ SYM in the strong coupling region. In this context, one should expect that the expansion of the $`N=2`$ SYM prepotential in the strong coupling region should be obtained by means of a perturbative calculation in a dual matrix model formulation.

The aim of this paper is to introduce such a duality in matrix models. We will start by showing that, on general grounds, in order to preserve the Seiberg–Witten duality, only a class of redefinitions of the moduli $`(a_D,a)`$ is allowed. This is based on a mathematical general observation which involves the Picard–Fuchs equation.111A suitable generalization of the method introduced here, suggests a possible application in investigating the Picard–Fuchs equations in the framework of the Mirror conjecture. In particular, it is shown that if

$$\tau (a)=\frac{𝒮_D}{𝒮}=\frac{a_D}{a},$$

with $`\tau `$ the $`N=2`$ effective coupling constant, then $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ have the same monodromy of $`(a_D,a)`$ on the $`u`$–plane if

$$𝒮_D=fa_D+4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f^{}a_D^{},𝒮=fa+4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f^{}a^{},$$
(1)
with $`f`$ an arbitrary singlevalued function of $`u`$ (note that a possible additional $`Z_2`$ monodromy leaves $`\tau `$ invariant).

Next, we identify the explicit relationship between the matrix model variables $`(S_D,S)`$ and $`(a_D,a)`$. It turns out that $`(S_D,S)`$ cannot have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$–monodromy. Nevertheless, remarkably, the simple rescaling

$$𝒮=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}}{2^{3/2}u^{1/2}}\right)^3S,$$

restores duality, that is

$$𝒮=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3}{32^6}\left[u^{1/2}a2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)u^{3/2}a^{}\right],$$

satisfies (1) with $`f=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3}{\sqrt{2}48}u^{1/2}`$. On the other hand, this fixes $`S^D`$ to be

$$𝒮_D=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3}{32^6}\left[u^{1/2}a_D2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)u^{3/2}a_D^{}\right],$$

which, in turn, defines $`_0`$ by

$$𝒮_D=\frac{_0}{𝒮}.$$

It then follows that the new pair has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_D\\ \stackrel{~}{𝒮}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}A\\ C\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}B& \\ D& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒮_D\\ 𝒮\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
We then show that thanks to a remarkable scaling property of the genus zero free energy $`_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, passing to the new variables is equivalent to a simple rescaling, that is the change of variables ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}`$)

$$S_k𝒮_k=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_k,\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$

induces the scaling transformation

$$_0_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }})=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^6_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

which has no effect in deriving the critical values since the factor $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^6`$ cancels the one from the Jacobian in $`\tau _{ij}`$, that is $`^2\mu ^6_0/𝒮_i𝒮_j=^2_0/S_iS_j`$. As a result, even if the partition function remains invariant, we have the same rescaling for both the potential and the matrix coupling constant

$$g_Sg_𝒮=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3g_S,$$

$$W𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3W(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$

As a consequence the scaling generalizes to

$$_g_g(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }})=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^{3(22g)}_g(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

We then show that the new prepotential, which is obtained by integrating with respect to $`𝒮`$, the function $`\tau `$ at the extremum, satisfies the nonperturbative relation

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^4=\frac{48\pi i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\left(_0\frac{𝒮}{2}\frac{_0}{𝒮}\right).$$

Introducing duality then leads to consider a dual formulation of the matrix model that we propose should correspond to introduce the Legendre transform of the free energy

$$_{Dg}=_g\underset{i=1,2}{}𝒮_i\frac{_g}{𝒮_i},$$

where now $`_g_g(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$.

Let us start by recalling that in matrix model the effective coupling constant of $`N=2`$ SYM has the form

$$\tau (a)=\frac{^2_0(S)}{S^2},$$
(3)
which should be compared with

$$\tau (a)=\frac{^2(a)}{a^2}.$$
(4)
The problem is to find the relationship between $`_0(S)`$ and $`(a)`$. Let us introduce the dual

$$S_D=\frac{_0(S)}{S},$$
(5)
so that

$$\tau (a)=\frac{_uS_D}{_uS}=\frac{_ua_D}{_ua}.$$
(6)
It is clear that the dual pairs $`(S_D,S)`$ and $`(a_D,a)`$ should have the same monodromy on the $`u`$–plane. As observed in  in considering a similar problem, we may use the differential equation

$$\left(_u^2+\frac{1}{4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_D\\ a\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(7)
to investigate the structure of the possible solutions of (6). Generalizing the analysis in  we set222We are using the notation $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ rather than $`(S_D,S)`$ since, as we will see, the pair $`(S_D,S)`$ defined in matrix model has not $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$–monodromy. ($`{}_{}{}^{}_u`$)

$$𝒮_D=f_Da_D+g_Da_D^{},𝒮=fa+ga^{},$$
(8)
where the two dual pairs $`(f_D,f)`$ and $`(g_D,g)`$ are functions of $`u`$. Note that if these functions are singlevalued with respect to $`u`$, then $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ would have the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy of $`(a_D,a)`$. However, since a possible additional $`Z_2`$ monodromy of $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ with respect to $`(a_D,a)`$ does not change the polymorphicity of $`𝒮_D^{}/𝒮^{}`$, the functions $`(f_D,f)`$ and $`(g_D,g)`$ should be singlevalued on the $`u`$–space except for a possible minus sign they may get winding around some point.

We now show that if the functions $`(f_D,f)`$ and $`(g_D,g)`$ solve a differential equation, then Eq.(6) is satisfied. By (7) and (8) we have

$$𝒮_D^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}_Da_D+\stackrel{~}{g}_Da_D^{},𝒮^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}a+\stackrel{~}{g}a^{},$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_D=f_D^{}\frac{1}{4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)}g_D,\stackrel{~}{g}_D=f_D+g_D^{},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=f^{}\frac{1}{4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)}g,\stackrel{~}{g}=f+g^{}.$$

Imposing $`\stackrel{~}{f}_D=0=\stackrel{~}{f}`$

$$g_D=4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f_D^{},g=4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f^{},$$
(9)
and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_D=\stackrel{~}{g}`$, that is

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_D=f_D+8uf_D^{}+4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f_D^{\prime \prime }=f+8uf^{}+4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{g},$$
(10)
we obtain

$$𝒮_D^{}=ha_D^{},𝒮^{}=ha^{},$$

where $`h\stackrel{~}{g}_D=\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Since $`f_D`$ and $`f`$ satisfy the same differential equation (10), it follows that once either $`f_D`$ or $`f`$ is given, say $`f`$, besides the choice $`f_D=f`$ (which would imply $`g_D=g`$), one can also choose $`f_D`$ to be any other solution of (10). Summarizing, from (8) and (9) we have

$$𝒮_D=f_Da_D+4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f_D^{}a_D^{},𝒮=fa+4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)f^{}a^{},$$
(11)
and $`𝒮_D^{}/𝒮^{}=a_D^{}/a^{}=\tau `$.

Let us start considering the relationship between the $`N=2`$ SYM and matrix model variables. We first set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=2^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW},\mathrm{\Delta }^2=4u,$$

in the loop expansion of $`S`$

$$\frac{S}{2^3u^{3/2}}=\frac{1}{2^6}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^2+\frac{3}{2^{11}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^4+\frac{35}{2^{16}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^6+\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
We now show that rather than $`S`$ itself, it is the right hand side of (12) that matches with the expansion of $`𝒮`$ in (11) with

$$f=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}48}u^{1/2}.$$
(13)
Therefore, while $`\frac{S}{2^3u^{3/2}}`$ is of the form that preserves duality, this is not the case for $`S`$ itself. As we will see, this will lead to a natural rescaling of the matrix model coupling constant which will make Seiberg–Witten duality manifest. In particular, we will see that one has to rescale $`S`$ to

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}}{2^{3/2}u^{1/2}}\right)^3S=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3u^{3/2}}{32^6}\left[ua2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)a^{}\right].$$
(14)
In order to compare (12) and (14) we expand $`a`$ for $`u\mathrm{}`$

$$a(u)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}𝑑x\frac{\sqrt{xu}}{\sqrt{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4}}$$

$$=\sqrt{2u}\left(1\frac{1}{2^4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^2\frac{15}{2^{10}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^4\frac{105}{2^{14}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^6+\mathrm{}\right),$$

that substituted in (14) exactly reproduces (12). Substituting (14) in (6) and using

$$S^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}4}(a2ua^{}),$$
(15)
we see that the relation between $`(S_D^{},S^{})`$ and $`(a_D^{},a^{})`$ is rather involved

$$S_D^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}4}(a2ua^{})\frac{a_D^{}}{a^{}}.$$

This is not only a formal question since $`S_D^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ cannot have simultaneously $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy. Even if this is implicit in the above construction, it is instructive to illustrate it explicitly. In particular, if $`S`$ has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy, this cannot be the case for $`S_D`$. Since the monodromy commutes with the derivative, we show this for $`S_D^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$. Under the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ we have

$$S^{}\gamma (S^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}4}C(a_D2ua_D^{})+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}4}D(a2ua^{}),$$

so $`S^{}`$ has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy iff we consider as its dual

$$\widehat{S}_D^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}4}(a_D2ua_D^{})S_D^{},$$

so that

$$\gamma (S^{})=C\widehat{S}_D^{}+DS^{}.$$

Of course, as follows by the previous analysis, even if $`\widehat{S}_D^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy, their ratio cannot correspond to $`\tau `$.

A similar reasoning holds for $`S_D^{}`$. Actually, since under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$

$$\frac{A\tau +B}{C\tau +D}=\frac{AS_D^{}+BS^{}}{CS_D^{}+DS^{}}=\frac{\gamma (S_D^{})}{\gamma (S^{})},$$

we see that

$$\gamma (S_D^{})=\frac{(AS_D^{}+BS^{})(C\widehat{S}_D^{}+DS^{})}{CS_D^{}+DS^{}},$$

which cannot correspond to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy, that is

$$\gamma (S_D^{})AS_D^{}+BS^{}.$$

Note that

$$S_D=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}2^2}_{u_0}^u𝑑\stackrel{~}{u}(\tau a2\stackrel{~}{u}_{\stackrel{~}{u}}a_D)+S_D(u_0),S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}6}(ua2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)a^{}),$$
(16)
and by (14) and (15)

$$a=\frac{\sqrt{2}2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4}[3uS2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)S^{}].$$

The fact that the Seiberg–Witten duality is not manifest with the pair $`(S_D,S)`$ can be also seen by noticing that $`S`$ solves the differential equation

$$\left(_u^2\frac{3}{4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)}\right)S=0,$$
(17)
which is not satisfied by $`S_D`$, indicating once again that they cannot have the same monodromy on the $`u`$–plane. Inverting Eq.(17) we obtain

$$4\left(𝒢^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4\right)\frac{^2𝒢}{S^2}+3𝒮\left(\frac{𝒢}{S}\right)^3=0,$$
(18)
where

$$u=𝒢(S).$$

To select a dual pair with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)`$ monodromy and whose ratio corresponds to $`\tau `$ is essential to recognize the underlying geometry of $`N=2`$ SYM. In particular, winding around the $`u`$–moduli space, the pair $`(S_D,S)`$ will not preserve the analogous relations satisfied by $`(a_D,a)`$. In order to restore manifest duality we rescale $`S`$ and define

$$𝒮=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}}{2^{3/2}u^{1/2}}\right)^3S,$$
(19)
that is

$$𝒮=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3}{32^6}\left[u^{1/2}a2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)u^{3/2}a^{}\right],$$
(20)
where the term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3`$ has been introduced to make $`S`$ and $`𝒮`$ of the same dimension. We now choose $`f_D=f`$, so that by (11)

$$𝒮_D=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3}{32^6}\left[u^{1/2}a_D2(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)u^{3/2}a_D^{}\right],$$
(21)
which, in turn, defines $`_0`$ by

$$𝒮_D=\frac{_0}{𝒮}.$$

By construction the pair $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ has the same monodromy of $`(a_D,a)`$ on the $`u`$–plane except for a minus sign they get winding around $`u=0`$, as observed this does not change the polymorphicity properties of $`\tau `$.

We can now use the method introduced in  to derive the exact relation between the prepotential and the modular invariant. In this case, by means of $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ we may construct the modular invariant

$$v=\frac{2^{13}3\pi i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^6}\left(_0\frac{𝒮}{2}\frac{_0}{𝒮}\right),$$
(22)
which implies that the pair $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ satisfies the differential equation

$$\left(_v^2+\frac{1}{2}\{\sigma ,v\}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒮_D\\ 𝒮\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(23)
where $`\{g(x),x\}`$ denotes the Schwarzian derivative $`g^{\prime \prime \prime }/g^{}\frac{3}{2}(g^{\prime \prime }/g^{})^2`$ and $`\sigma `$ is an arbitrary Möbius transformation of the ratio $`𝒮_D/𝒮`$. Later we will see that a simple redefinition of the matrix model coupling constant precisely leads to the above duality structure. Furthermore, we will see that $`v=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4/u^2`$ and will find the explicit expression of $`𝒮(v)`$ and $`𝒮_D(v)`$.

We now show that thanks to a scaling property of $`_0`$, it is possible to identify the right variables to make Seiberg–Witten duality in Dijkgraaf–Vafa theory manifest. First, we note that, by an overall rescaling, the loop expansion of the genus zero free energy in matrix model  reduces by one the number of variables ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^6_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })=$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1,2}{}\left(\frac{S_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)^2\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{S_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)\frac{3}{2}\right]\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}+\frac{S_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)+\underset{n3}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_{n,i}\left(\frac{S_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)^{ni}\left(\frac{S_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\right)^i,$$
(24)
where

$$c_{n,i}=(1)^nc_{n,ni},c_{n,i}=(1)^i|c_{n,i}|,$$
(25)
so that, except for the first term, $`_0`$ is symmetric in $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. By Euler theorem we have

$$\underset{i=1,2}{}S_i\frac{_0}{S_i}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{3}\frac{_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\frac{_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=2_0.$$
(26)
Eq.(24) would suggest that the natural variables are $`S_k/\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ rather than $`S_k`$. However, note that this would change the dimensional properties, so we should select $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3S_k/\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$. Furthermore, we should also choose the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as independent variable. So we should express $`_0`$ as a function of

$$𝒮_k=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_k,\mu =\mathrm{?},\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

It remains to find $`\mu `$ which, of course, should depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and possibly on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A closer look to (24) fixes it. Actually, Eq.(24) suggests considering a natural rescaling of all dimensional quantities of the arguments of $`_0`$, by the dimensionless factor $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In particular, if $`[x]=[\mathrm{\Lambda }]^n`$, then $`x\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^nx`$, that is

$$S_k\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_k,\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$

and the map we define is

$$_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })_0(\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}),$$

showing that $`S_k`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ combine in such a way that the natural variables for $`_0`$ are

$$𝒮_1=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_1,𝒮_2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^3S_2,\mu =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }},\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

This also follows by the scaling law which is crucial for us

$$_0(\mu ^3S_k,\mu \mathrm{\Delta },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=\mu ^6_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(27)
that we rewrite as

$$_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=\mu ^6_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(28)
Note that

$$_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^6\left\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1,2}{}\left(\frac{𝒮_i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^2\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{𝒮_i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)\frac{3}{2}\right]\left(\frac{𝒮_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}+\frac{𝒮_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^2\mathrm{log}\mu +\underset{n3}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_{n,i}\left(\frac{𝒮_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^{ni}\left(\frac{𝒮_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^i\right\},$$
(29)
that differs from $`_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Delta })`$, which, we stress, is the original function with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ interchanged and $`S_k`$ replaced by $`𝒮_k`$, by the sign of the term $`(𝒮_1+𝒮_2)^2\mathrm{log}\mu `$.

Since $`_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a function of $`𝒮_k`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it follows by (28) that this is the case also for $`_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Therefore, we consider the map $`(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })(𝒮_k,\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, as change of variables for $`_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The relationships between the derivatives in the old and new variables are

$$\frac{_0}{S_1}=\mu ^3\frac{_0}{𝒮_1},\frac{_0}{S_2}=\mu ^3\frac{_0}{𝒮_2},$$
(30)
$$\frac{_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=3\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒮_1\frac{_0}{𝒮_1}3\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒮_2\frac{_0}{𝒮_2}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{_0}{\mu },$$
(31)
$$\frac{_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+3\frac{𝒮_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{_0}{𝒮_1}+3\frac{𝒮_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{_0}{𝒮_2}+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{_0}{\mu },$$
(32)
where in the left hand side the derivatives have been taken considering $`_0`$ as function of the old variables, while on the right hand side it is seen as function of $`(𝒮_k,\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. In the following we make an abuse of notation and drop a factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that is

$$_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })=\mu ^6_0(S_k,\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(33)
Minimizing

$$W_{eff}=\underset{i=1,2}{}\frac{_0}{S_i},$$

we obtain, by (30) and (33)

$$\underset{i=1,2}{}\frac{^2_0}{S_iS_j}=\underset{i=1,2}{}\mu ^6\frac{^2_0}{𝒮_i𝒮_j}=\underset{i=1,2}{}\frac{^2_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )}{𝒮_i𝒮_j}=0,$$

which gives $`𝒮=𝒮_1=𝒮_2`$, where

$$𝒮=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(\mu ^4+6\mu ^8+140\mu ^{12}+4620\mu ^{16}+\mathrm{}).$$

The effective coupling constant of $`N=2`$ SYM with gauge group $`SU(2)`$ is given by

$$\tau =\frac{^2_0}{S_1S_2}|_{S_1=S_2=S},$$

and by (30) and (33)

$$\tau =\frac{^2_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )}{𝒮_1𝒮_2}|_{𝒮_1=𝒮_2=𝒮},$$

where here $`_0`$ is rescaled by $`1/\pi i`$ with respect to the one in (24). So, we have seen that, thanks to the scaling property (33), one obtains the same effective coupling constant $`\tau (a)`$, if in the matrix model one considers as variables the old ones rescaled by $`\mu ^n=(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta })^n`$, with $`n`$ defined by $`[x]=[\mathrm{\Lambda }]^n`$. As a consequence the duality structure of $`N=2`$ SYM with gauge group $`SU(2)`$ is manifest. Before showing this explicitly we explain how the above rescaling of $`_0`$ simply amounts to a different choice of the matrix model coupling constant. Let us set

$$g_𝒮=\mu ^3g_S,𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mu ^3W(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(34)
and note that

$$Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{G})}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_S}\mathrm{tr}W(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{G})}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_𝒮}\mathrm{tr}𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })\right),$$
(35)
so that

$$Z=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{g0}{}g_S^{2g2}_g\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{g0}{}g_𝒮^{2g2}\stackrel{~}{}_g\right),$$
(36)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{}_g=\mu ^{3(22g)}_g.$$
(37)
In particular, by (33) we see that $`\stackrel{~}{}_0=\mu ^6_0=_0(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )`$. This indicates that also the higher genus contributions should be considered as functions of the new variables, that is

$$\stackrel{~}{}_g=\mu ^{3(22g)}_g=_g(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu ),$$
(38)
so we rewrite

$$Z=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{g0}{}g_𝒮^{2g2}_g\right),$$
(39)
where now $`_g_g(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )`$.

Let us now derive the explicit expression for $`𝒮_D`$ and $`𝒮`$ and show how the rescaling leads to make the $`N=2`$ SYM duality manifest. The trick is to first consider the derivative of $`v`$ with respect to $`u`$. In particular, by (20) and (21) we have

$$𝒮_D^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^7}{64}u^{5/2}a_D^{},𝒮^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^7}{64}u^{5/2}a^{},$$
(40)
and by (22)

$$v^{}=\frac{2^{10}3\pi i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^6}(𝒮_D𝒮^{}𝒮𝒮_D^{})=\pi i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4(a_D^{}aa_Da^{})u^3.$$
(41)
On the other hand, since $`aa_D^{}a_Da^{}=2i/\pi `$, we have

$$v^{}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4u^3,$$
(42)
that is

$$v=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{u}\right)^2,$$
(43)
where the additive constant, that corresponds to fix the additive constant of $`_0`$, has been set to zero. By construction we know that $`𝒮`$ satisfies a second order differential equation with respect to $`v`$ in which the first derivative term is absent. Actually, taking the second derivative of $`𝒮`$ with respect to $`v`$, we have

$$_v^2𝒮=(_uv)^3_u^2v_u𝒮+(_uv)^2_u^2𝒮=\frac{3u^4}{16\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^4)}𝒮,$$
(44)
that is $`(𝒮_D,𝒮)`$ satisfy the second order differential equation

$$\left(_v^2+\frac{3}{16v(v1)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒮_D\\ 𝒮\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(45)
whose solutions can be obtained directly by (20) and (21) using $`a_D(u(v))`$ and $`a(u(v))`$

$$𝒮_D=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3\sqrt{v}}{\sqrt{2}96\pi }_1^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}}}𝑑x\frac{x\sqrt{v}}{\sqrt{x^21}\sqrt{\sqrt{v}x1}},𝒮=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3\sqrt{v}}{\sqrt{2}96\pi }_1^1𝑑x\frac{x\sqrt{v}}{\sqrt{x^21}\sqrt{\sqrt{v}x1}}.$$
(46)
Inverting Eq.(45) we obtain the differential equation for $`v=(𝒮)`$

$$16(1)\frac{^2}{𝒮^2}+3𝒮\left(\frac{}{𝒮}\right)^3=0.$$
(47)
Since

$$\mu =\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2}{2^3u}\right)^{1/2}v=2^6\mu ^4,$$

we have

$$𝒮_D=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3\mu ^2}{\sqrt{2}12\pi }_1^{\frac{1}{8\mu ^2}}𝑑x\frac{x8\mu ^2}{\sqrt{x^21}\sqrt{8\mu ^2x1}},𝒮=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^3\mu ^2}{\sqrt{2}12\pi }_1^1𝑑x\frac{x8\mu ^2}{\sqrt{x^21}\sqrt{8\mu ^2x1}}.$$
(48)
In terms of $`\mu `$ the nonperturbative relation (22) reads

$$\mu ^4=\frac{32^7\pi i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^6}\left(_0\frac{𝒮}{2}\frac{_0}{𝒮}\right),$$
(49)
which is the matrix model analog of the relation between the $`u`$–modulus and the Seiberg–Witten prepotential .

Introducing manifest duality has several interesting consequences. For example, one may investigate to what corresponds in matrix model the strong coupling region of $`N=2`$ SYM. In particular, the QFT meaning of the strong coupling expansion of the prepotential at the points $`u=\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_{SW}^2`$ is a crucial open question. While in the weak coupling region the expansion of the SW prepotential corresponds to a one–loop term and to infinitely many instanton contributions, no QFT meaning is known for its expansion at strong coupling. In $`N=2`$ SYM, this region is investigated by performing a $`S`$–duality transformation on the fields. This corresponds to a Legendre transform of the prepotential. On the matrix model side one should consider a dual formulation corresponding to this region. It would be interesting whether perturbation theory would reproduce also in this region the $`N=2`$ SYM theory. One should consider the Legendre transform

$$_{Dg}=_g\underset{i=1,2}{}𝒮_i\frac{_g}{𝒮_i},$$
(50)
where $`_g_g(𝒮_k,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )`$, and

$$Z_D=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{g0}{}g_{𝒮_D}^{2g2}_{Dg}\right),$$
(51)
which should induce the definition of $`𝒲_D`$

$$Z_D=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{G})}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_D\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_{𝒮_D}}\mathrm{tr}𝒲_D(\mathrm{\Phi }_D)\right).$$
(52)
Before concluding, let us note that this approach should be related with the derivation of the structure of the instanton moduli space of $`N=2`$ SYM obtained from the recursion relations for the instanton contributions to the prepotential . In particular, it was shown how the analogs of the recursive structure of the Deligne–Knudsen–Mumford compactification of moduli space of Riemann surfaces and of the Wolpert restriction phenomenon, essentially determine the structure of the instanton moduli spaces. These techniques are strictly related to the geometry of matrix models considered in the framework of Liouville quantum gravity . So, it would be interesting to investigate whether there is a possible link between the matrix model approach to the $`N=2`$ SYM and the geometrical approach considered in .

Finally, we note that making duality manifest, which generalizes to higher rank groups , may have possible relations with recent work on matrix models .

Acknowledgements. It is a pleasure to thank A. Klemm, S. Gukov and M. Mari$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{n}}`$o for comments on their work and G. Bertoldi, G. Bonelli, L. Mazzucato, F. Paccanoni, P. Pasti, M. Tonin and G. Travaglini for discussions. Work partially supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime.


text:
# A Cosmologic Model Based on the Equivalence of Expansion and Light Retardation Part 2: Small-Scale Aspects and Quanta

## 1 Introduction

The Retarded Light Model (RLM) as presented in (Huber 1992, Huber 1993 and Huber 2002) proceeds from the fact that a cosmological decrease of the velocity of light is possible within the Friedmann model. It has been found a deceleration rate of

$$\dot{c}=Hc$$
(1)
in order to explain the observed cosmological red shift by light retardation. Since the Hubble parameter $`H`$ is associated with the relative expansion $`\dot{R}/R`$, eq. (1) can be written

$$\frac{\dot{R}}{R}=H=\frac{\dot{c}}{c}$$
(2)
With a little rearrangement we find

$$\dot{R}c+R\dot{c}=0$$
(3)
Integration yields the so-called Indiscernibility Principle (IP)

$$Rc=const.$$
(4)
which states that the universe expands only in terms of a decreasing velocity of light. This occurs according to the conveyor belt model: In the frame of the light source the emitting frequency $`\nu `$ remains constant in

$$c=\lambda \nu $$
(5)
while $`\lambda `$ decreases with $`c`$. However, a light wave, once emitted, remains constant while travelling through the universe and does not participate in the cosmic expansion rate. A remote receiver finds the frequency $`\nu `$ decreasing with $`c`$. Since light is subject to gravitation it is suggested that light retardation follows from the eigen gravitation of the universe. While in General Relativity, which deals with local gravitational fields, the deceleration of light is transformed into a temporal delay, this transformation does not make sense when the universe as a whole is considered, since it has been shown that the emission frequencies of electromagnetic waves are constant in the frame of the model. Thus a defined emission frequency serves as a standard clock of the Robertson-Walker-time (the time which appears in the RWM). With this preconditions the RLM yields a startling consequence: If the expansion of the universe is caused by light retardation and light retardation is caused by gravitation, then the expansion is caused by gravitation. This equivalence of expansion and gravitation is referred to as Generalized Equivalence Principle (GEP). With the GEP it is obvious, why the observed expansion rate and the assumed proper gravitation of the universe seem to be in perfect equilibrium. Furthermore, the RLM is able to explain all the classical problems of the standard model of cosmology easily.

While part 1 of the series deals with purely cosmological questions, this part is devoted to small-scale and quantum aspects as implications of the presented model. Hereby “quantum aspects” is meant in a wide sense; it mainly denotes the appearence of the Planck constant $`h`$ which was spared out in the first part.

## 2 The Interaction Between the Photon and the Universe

In Special Relativity the photon has a rest mass of zero. This is concluded from the fact, that any finite value of mass will approach infinity while accelerating towards $`c`$. The situation in General Relativity should be different, since light is subject to gravitation. Thus the photon has a mass proportional to its frequency. But where is the frame in Special Relativity at which a photon is “at rest”? In the RLM there is no rest mass of the photon but rather a “minimal mass” $`m_{ph}`$, which follows from

$$m_{ph}=\frac{h\nu }{c^2}$$
(6)
and the consideration that the lowest possible circular frequency $`\omega `$ is one photon per universal age $`1/H`$. We then obtain with $`\nu =\omega /2\pi =H/2\pi `$ for the photon mass a value of

$$m_{ph}=\frac{\mathrm{}H}{c^2}$$
(7)
Conceding a non-zero rest mass $`m_{ph}`$ to the photon it can be shown that the gravitational impact $`F`$ of the universe on the photon reproduces the correct amount of light retardation:

$$F=\frac{m_{ph}MG}{R^2}=m_{ph}(Hc)=m_{ph}\dot{c}$$
(8)
This equation, where $`M=c^3/GH`$ is the universal mass (see part 1), $`G`$ the gravitational “constant”, and $`R=c/H`$ the radius of the universe, reveals again the identity of the gravitational interaction between the universe and the photon on the one side and the deceleration of the photon on the other side.

The Planck constant $`h`$ is independent of the cosmological “constants” $`c`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$, which vary with time. In the frame of the RLM it is set constant. The cosmological term $`H/c^2`$, as it appears in eq. (7), is also constant, because $`c`$ varies with $`\sqrt{t}`$ while $`H`$ varies with $`t`$ (see part 1). That means, $`m_{ph}`$ does not increase its mass with cosmic expansion. With this suggested mass definition a contradiction to Special Relativity can be avoided, since the constant $`m_{ph}`$ does not participate in mass increase due to acceleration like the regular mass, the university is composed of. (It is just that fact of mass increase during acceleration which forbids a non-zero photon mass in SR.)

There is another strong argument in ascribing a rest mass of $`hH/c^2`$ to the photon. Because SR has $`m_{ph}=0`$, the Yukawa radius of light (i.e. its range) is infinite. In the RLM we obtain a Yukawa radius $`r_Y`$ of

$$r_Y(m_{ph})=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_{ph}c}=\frac{c}{H}=R$$
(9)
This result, that light cannot reach further than the “boundaries” of the universe, makes certainly more sense than infinity: What happens, for example, when the extension of the universe is slower than the speed of light? In fact, all the horizon problems of the standard model result from this question. As pointed out in part 1, the extension of the universal radius $`R`$ occurs in the RLM always with $`c`$.

## 3 Metrics, Natural Scales, and the ”Origin” of the Universe

Since the Retarded Light model is based on Friedmann’s equations, its metrics should be closely related to Robertson-Walker-metrics (RWM). The original form of the RWM is

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2R(t)^2f(r)$$
(10)
with $`f(r)=dr^2/(1kr^2)+r^2(d\vartheta ^2+sin^2\vartheta d\phi ^2)`$. The only change we have to make is to replace $`c^2`$ by $`c(t)^2`$ in (48). Then we get with $`c=c_0/\sqrt{1+2H_0t}`$ and $`R=R_0\sqrt{1+2H_0t}`$ (see part 1):

$$ds^2=\frac{c_0^2dt^2}{1+2Ht}R_0^2(1+2Ht)f(r)$$
(11)
The two metrics deviate from each other for a large $`t`$. The endeavours towards establishing metrics with the line element $`ds`$ in the vicinity of our galaxy (cluster) will lead to systematic distortions at larger distances, as seen from $`ds^{}`$-metrics.

Beside $`R`$ there exist two more natural length scales in the universe. For the sake of distinction $`R=c/H`$ will be referred to as $`R_H`$ from now on, where die Index $`H`$ can be associated with the name of Hubble. Besides, there is the Planck length $`R_P`$ which is given by

$$R_P=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}G}{c^3}}$$
(12)
Finally we can define a length from the “momentum” of the universe $`Mc=c^4/GH`$ and the Planck constant

$$R_B=\frac{\mathrm{}}{Mc}=\frac{\mathrm{}GH}{c^4}$$
(13)
which can be according to the de Broglie relation interpreted as the wave length of the universe. (The index $`B`$ stands for the name of the French physicist.) These three natural units are related to each other:

$$R_HR_B=R_P^2$$
(14)
The Planck length $`R_P`$ can be interpreted as the geometric average of the Hubble radius $`R_H`$ and the de Broglie wave-length of the universe $`R_B`$. With a constant $`\mathrm{}`$ and the variation laws for $`c`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ we obtain for the temporal variation of $`R_B`$

$$\dot{R}_B=HR_B$$
(15)
and

$$R_B(t)=\frac{R_B(t_0)}{\sqrt{1+2H_0t}}$$
(16)
Differentiation of the Planck length $`R_P`$ gives

$$R_P(t)=const.$$
(17)
We find $`R_H`$ and $`R_B`$ varying inversely to keep $`R_P`$ constant. The divergence of the introduced natural scales indicates that atomic and cosmological processes evolve with different “speed”. This was already presumed by Dirac (1937, 1938, 1979).

Equation (14) can be generalized as follows:

$$X_HX_B=X_P^2,(X\{R,T,M\})$$
(18)
where $`R`$ stands for radii, $`T`$ for time and $`M`$ for masses. This covers all possible natural units. Their definitions are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{Hubble units: }\hfill & R_H=c/H\hfill \\ & T_H=1/H\hfill \\ & M_H=c^3/GH\hfill \\ \text{Planck units: }\hfill & R_P=(\mathrm{}G/c^3)^{1/2}\hfill \\ & T_P=(\mathrm{}G/c^5)^{1/2}\hfill \\ & M_P=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}\hfill \\ \text{de Broglie units: }\hfill & R_B=\mathrm{}GH/c^4\hfill \\ & T_B=\mathrm{}GH/c^5\hfill \\ & M_B=\mathrm{}H/c^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where the Planck units are the geometric averages of the others. The indices can be associated with numbers like

$$H:=1P:=0B:=1,(H,P,B)i$$
(20)
Then we obtain the relation

$$\mathrm{}=|\dot{c}|R_iT_iM_i\text{for}i=1$$
(21)
This means that the Planck constant $`h`$ can be defined by the absolute value of light retardation and a certain combination of elementary units, for instance ($`R_H,T_H,M_B`$) or ($`R_P,T_P,M_H`$). It looks like $`h`$ is rather a magnitude appearing with the general problem of measuring and not primarily a constant of the physics of elementary particles.

Because of the variation of $`R_H`$ and $`R_B`$ there must exist a time $`\tau _\alpha `$ where $`R_H=R_B=R_P`$. Applying $`R_H=R_0\sqrt{1+2H_0t}`$ and (16) we find

$$\tau _\alpha =\frac{hGH}{2c^5}\frac{1}{2H}=\frac{1}{2}(T_BT_H)$$
(22)
On the other hand, at time $`\tau _\alpha `$ there is also $`T_B=T_H`$, so that, according to (22), $`\tau _\alpha =0`$ in the natural units. Thus we can regard the time $`\tau _\alpha `$, at which the natural units equalled each other, as the origin of the universe.

## 4 Uncertainties

In part 1, section 3 we have deduced a relation for the propagation of light in the RWM, which differs from the standard model. Equation (8) of part 1: $`R(t_0)\nu _0c(t_1)=R(t_1)\nu _1c(t_0)`$ can be written

$$R(t)\nu (t)=c(t)$$
(23)
Replacing the photon frequency $`\nu `$ by the momentum $`p_{ph}=\mathrm{}\nu /c`$ we obtain

$$R_Hp_{ph}=\mathrm{}$$
(24)
This relation solved to $`m_{ph}=\mathrm{}/R_Hc`$ yields the photon mass $`m_{ph}=M_B=\mathrm{}H/c^2`$ as defined above. We see that $`m_{ph}`$ follows directly from RWM in the interpretation of the RLM. There is no choice of assuming other values. It can be shown that this relation also holds for the relativistic momentum $`p(t)=mv/\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}`$ of free falling massive particles. We replace the wave-length $`\lambda _B`$ by the frequency $`\nu _B`$ and obtain the altered de Broglie relation

$$\nu _B=mvc/\mathrm{}$$
(25)
and insert the expression for $`\nu _B`$ in eq. (23). We then obtain again with $`mv=p`$

$$R(t)p(t)=\mathrm{}$$
(26)
where the momentum $`p`$ is now generalized for photons and massive particles. The relation (26) can be referred to as the Cosmological Uncertainty Principle (CUP). What does it say? Let there be a non-expanding rod at defined coordinates in an expanding universe at time $`t_0`$. Where is the rod at time $`t_1`$, when the coordinates do not co-expand with the universe? Obviously, the universe has gained some more units of length. How to distribute them? It is by no means a general solution to define the rod in the old and new system as sticking to the point (0,0,0), because any other object in relation to the rod must change its coordinates. Howsoever the new coordinate system will be defined in homogeneous space, there is a uncertainty in location of any cosmic object. And even more: because of the uncertain location it is not at all clear, whether a change in coordinates results by an arbitrary change of the coordinate system or by a real physical movement. Therefore the velocity is also uncertain. So is, after SR, the mass of the object, since it depends on its velocity. So the CUP does not only say that the momentum $`p(t)`$ decreases continuously with expanding $`R(t)`$, it also says that the location and the momentum of an object in the universe can not be measured more accurately than $`\mathrm{}`$.

There is yet another aspect to be mentioned. The Indiscernibility Principle (IP) as introduced in section 3 of part 1 states that space expansion and light retardation cannot be distinguished from each other. Its quantitative expression is $`Rc=const.`$ Multiplied with the photon mass $`m_{ph}=M_B`$ we have

$$Rcm_{ph}=Rp_{ph}=\mathrm{}$$
(27)
This implies that IP and CUP are mathematically identical, which means in words that space expansion is identical with an uncertainty in location while light retardation implies an uncertainty in velocity and mass respectively in momentum.

In the standard model there is no CUP, and even if it would exist, there would not be a connection to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (UP). The reason is once again that electromagnetic waves expand in the empty cosmic space, however, not in matter conglomerations like galaxy clusters, which are tied together by gravitation. So the CUP would not have any effect on observations and measurements made on earth. In the RLM, on the other hand, there are no “raisins in the pie”. The cosmological light retardation takes place anywhere. (It has to be kept in mind, however, that, like in the standard model, the light delay of local gravitational fields is transformed into a temporal delay.) So the cosmic expansion takes place on earth just as well as anywhere in empty space. The CUP must therefore be also effective on earth. This implies a connection to the UP. Because of this cosmological uncertainty in location and velocity, measurements on earth or elsewhere cannot surpass the limits stated by the CUP. Thus we will have in general Heisenberg’s UP

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩_x\mathrm{}$$
(28)
In eq. (21) we have found a relation for $`\mathrm{}`$, which is composed of the amount of light retardation and a certain combination of natural units with the restriction that the sum of indices must be 1. Theoretically, there are possible combinations of natural units from $`i=3`$ to $`i=3`$. What can be said about the cases $`i1`$? Introducing the quantity of the universal impact $`h_u`$, which shall have the definition

$$h_u:=E_HT_H=\frac{c^5}{GH^2}$$
(29)
and which implies, analogously to the uncertainty relations, for any processes in the universe

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th_u$$
(30)
then eq. (21) yields for any indices $`3i3`$ the generalized relation

$$|Hc|R_iT_iM_i=\sqrt{h_u^{\mathrm{\Sigma }i1}\mathrm{}^{3\mathrm{\Sigma }i}}$$
(31)
These considerations imply that there may be universes possible with other measurement restrictions than the UP.

## 5 Dirac Numbers and Other “Coincidences”

The quantities $`G`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c`$ and $`H`$ can be combined to a mass, which has the magnitude of a typical elementary particle, such as the pion:

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2H}{Gc}\right)^{1/3}m_\pi $$
(32)
(In the following we will use $`m_\pi `$ with the mean value of eq.(32) as a symbol for the average meson in particular and the average elementary particle in general.) This relation indicates that microphysical quantities may be influenced by the temporal state of the universe, which is represented by the Hubble parameter $`H`$. This consideration led to certain cosmological models like Dirac’s ansatz from 1937 and 1938, in which he proposed that relations like (32) are fundamental though as yet unexplained truths. To keep the expression constant Dirac assumed a varying $`G`$ with $`\dot{G}=3GH`$ (cf. also Weinberg 1972, p. 622). This is exactly the value the RLM obtaines from keeping the total energy of the universe constant (see part 1, section 7). However, the numerical equality of $`\dot{G}`$ in Dirac’s approach and in the suggested model follows from independent considerations, since Dirac, for instance, assumed a constant $`c`$. Nevertheless, the RLM is able to explain the existence of large numbers as will be shown in the following.

In 1972 Weinberg confirmed, that eq. (32) ”relates a single cosmological parameter, $`H_0`$, to the fundamental constants $`\mathrm{}`$, $`G`$, $`c`$ and $`m_\pi `$, and is so far unexplained” (p. 620). Using the natural masses defined in (19) we can write (32) as

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2H}{Gc}\right)^{1/3}=(M_BM_P^2)^{1/3}=(M_B^2M_H)^{1/3}$$
(33)
It follows that it is possible to construct an infinite number of masses derived from the natural masses, such as $`(M_B^2M_P)^{1/3}`$, $`(M_BM_P^3M_H^2)^{1/6}`$, and so on. In general:

$$m(i,j,k)=(M_B^iM_P^jM_H^k)^{(i+j+k)^1},i,j,k_0$$
(34)
With respect to (18) we can reduce (34) to

$$m(i,j,k)=(M_B^{(i+j/2)}M_H^{(k+j/2)})^{(i+j+k)^1},i,j,k_0$$
(35)
With (34) we are able to approximate any particle mass if we use powers high enough. Eq. (33) is characterized by low powers. That low powers should be of high significance is obvious when we consider $`M_B`$, $`M_H`$, $`M_P=(M_BM_H)^{1/2}`$, and $`m_\pi `$. Let us, for instance, construct another combination characterized by low powers, such as $`(M_PM_H^2)^{1/3}`$, which will be referred to as $`M_{bl}`$. With relation (32) this mass can be transformed into

$$M_{bl}=(M_PM_H^2)^{1/3}=m_\pi \left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_\pi ^2}\right)^{3/2}$$
(36)
There is an astonishing resemblance to the Chandrasekhar mass

$$M_c=m_n\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_n^2}\right)^{3/2}$$
(37)
where $`m_n`$ represents the neutron mass. In fact, $`M_{bl}`$ equals about 223 Chandrasekhar masses or 401 regular sun masses. Black holes have more than 30 sun masses. Should $`M_{bl}`$ represent the average mass of a black hole or even the average mass of “stars” in general, such as $`m_\pi `$ represents the average meson and particle mass? If so, then a great deal of the dark matter would be concentrated in super massive black holes. This would explain the lack of visible matter in the Retarded Light universe with its density $`2\varrho _c`$, which ist twice the critical density of the standard model (see part 1, section 9).

It has been often remarked, that the relation $`\mathrm{}c/Gm_n^2`$ of the Chandrasekhar mass is in the order of $`10^{40}`$ and represents the relation of strong force and gravitation. In fact, its numerical value is $`1.7\times 10^{38}`$. We get an even better value with the values appearing in $`M_{bl}`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_\pi ^2}=3.8\times 10^{40}$$
(38)
with an assumed value for the Hubble parameter $`H=2.5\times 10^{18}s^1`$.

On the other hand we can describe particles as multiples of natural masses, such as the invariant quantity of $`M_B`$. Because of the constancy of $`M_B`$ and the temporal mass variation according to tle law $`M_H(t)=M_H(t_0)(1+2H_0t)`$ the quantities of masses expressed in units of $`M_B`$ will vary with the age of the universe. In this sense we can assign another member to the $`10^{40}`$-family:

$$m_\pi =10^{40}M_B$$
(39)
which says that the quotient of the mean particle mass and the photon mass is the Dirac number $`\gamma =10^{40}`$.

With (32) we can write

$$\gamma =m_\pi /M_B=(M_P^2/M_B^2)^{1/3}=(M_H/M_B)^{1/3}$$
(40)
Because of

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{hH}{c^2}\right)=\dot{M}_B=0$$
(41)
the value of $`\gamma `$ depends on the temporal variation of $`M_H`$. It may be useful to ask at what time there was $`\gamma =1`$, which implies the equality of electromagnetic and gravitational force, Hubble horizon and classical electron radius as well as the equality of $`m_\pi `$ and $`M_B`$ on the one hand, $`M_B`$ and $`M_H`$ on the other, and much more. Setting $`M_B=M_H=M_0(1+2H_0t)`$ we find with $`M_0=c_0^3/G_0H_0`$ exactly the value of the turning point $`\tau _\alpha `$ as described in (22). It turnes out that the value of $`\gamma `$ is a consequence of the universal state of evolution, just as Dirac assumed, and in this sense even an absolute, though variable, quantity. So it is not a coincidence that the average particle mass represented by $`m_\pi `$ can be expressed by $`M_B`$ and the Dirac number $`\gamma `$.

According to the definitions of natural units (19) and $`h_u`$ (29) we have following relations:

$$\frac{R_H}{R_B}=\frac{M_H}{M_B}=\frac{T_H}{T_B}=\frac{h_u}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}GH^2}5.5\times 10^{121}$$
(42)
and

$$\frac{R_H}{R_P}=\frac{R_P}{R_B}=\frac{M_H}{M_P}=\frac{M_P}{M_B}=\frac{T_H}{T_P}=\frac{T_P}{T_B}=\sqrt{\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}GH^2}}7.4\times 10^{60}$$
(43)
($`H=2.5\times 10^{18}s^1`$). These relations imply following definition of $`\gamma `$:

$$\gamma :=\left(\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}GH^2}\right)^{1/3}=3.8\times 10^{40}$$
(44)
With $`M_H/M_B10^{121}`$ and (39) we obtain the slightly altered Dirac relation

$$\frac{\text{universal mass}}{\text{average particle mass}}=2\times 10^{81}$$
(45)
(Originally, Dirac used the proton mass and obtained the dimensionless relation $`10^{78}`$.) Within the RLM we can give an exact deduction:

$$\frac{M_H}{m_\pi }=\frac{c^3}{GH}\left(\frac{Gc}{\mathrm{}^2H}\right)^{1/3}=\left(\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}GH^2}\right)^{2/3}=\gamma ^2$$
(46)
Accordingly we can deduce Dirac’s distance relation $`R_H/r_e\gamma `$, where $`r_e`$ is the radius of the electron. To do this we use the relations

$$m_e\alpha m_\pi $$
(47)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, and

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon \mathrm{}c}$$
(48)
We then obtain

$$\frac{R_H}{r_e}\frac{c}{H}\frac{4\pi \epsilon c^2m_\pi \alpha }{e^2}=\left(\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}GH^2}\right)^{1/3}=\gamma $$
(49)
There is no explanation hitherto why Dirac’s mass relation is $`\gamma ^2`$ while the distance relation is only $`\gamma `$. The RLM provides a good reason: Combining the Dirac relation with the laws of mass and dirstance variation we obtain

$$M_H=M_0(1+2H_0t)2\times 10^{81}m_\pi $$
(50)
and

$$R_H=R_0\sqrt{1+2H_0t}5.9\times 10^{40}r_e$$
(51)
We immediately see that the laws of temporal variation of $`M`$ and $`R`$ must yield $`\gamma ^2`$ and $`\gamma `$ because of the temporal variation according to $`t`$ and $`\sqrt{t}`$.

Another quantity which is related to $`\gamma `$ is the fine structure constant of gravitation $`\alpha _G`$, as it appears in the Chandrasekhar mass as a $`10^{40}`$-“coincidence”. It plays the same role in the composition of stars as Sommerfeld’s $`\alpha `$ in the composition of atoms. It is usually defined inversely as $`10^{40}`$. Instead of $`\alpha _G=m_n^2G/c\mathrm{}`$ we suggest the definition

$$\alpha _G:=\frac{m_\pi ^2G}{\mathrm{}c}=\gamma ^1$$
(52)
It may be useful to ask if or how $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _G`$ vary with time. With the values for $`c`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ as deduced in section 4 of part 1 the temporal variation of $`\gamma `$ respectively $`\alpha _G^1`$ is

$$\dot{\gamma }=\dot{\alpha }_G^1=\frac{2}{3}H\gamma $$
(53)
and after integration

$$\gamma (t)=\gamma _0(1+2H_0t)^{1/3}$$
(54)
Inserting $`\tau _\alpha =1/2(T_BT_H)`$ we obtain exactly $`\gamma =1`$, which yields the important result that gravitational force and strong force were equal in strength at the origin of the universe. Thus $`\gamma `$ is indeed a function of the universal age as Dirac assumed.

On the other hand we find for $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi \epsilon \mathrm{}c`$ with $`e=const.`$, $`\mathrm{}=const.`$ and $`\epsilon `$ varying inversely to $`c`$ (see section 9 of part 1, Huber 2002, and Møller 1972, p.416) the result

$$\alpha =const.$$
(55)
Although a constant $`\alpha `$ is expected by most theoretical physicists, this result is a little surprising because of the variation of $`\alpha _G`$ one could have expected a variation of $`\alpha `$ as well. Now we have to deal with the fact, that at a certain time in the early universe the gravitational force must have been stronger than the electromagnetical force. It is not the place here to speculate how the universe must have looked like then.

If the pion is multiplicated with $`\alpha `$ as in (47) one roughly obtains the electron mass. If the pion is multiplicated with $`\alpha _G`$ one should accordingly obtain the graviton. Inserting the values we find

$$\alpha _Gm_\pi =M_B$$
(56)
or the other way round

$$\gamma M_B=m_\pi $$
(57)
According to this the graviton and the de Broglie mass are equal and both identical with the photon rest mass. This had to be expected, though, because both the electromagnetic and the gravitational force spread through the whole universe. Inserting $`R_H`$ for the Yukawa radius as in (9) gives $`M_B`$ for the graviton mass as well as for the photon rest mass. This result casts a new light on the unsuccessful approach of Einstein and others to regard elementary particles as spacetime singularities in which energy is trapped inside the gravitational radius of the particle. It turned out that the gravitational radius of the electron mass is smaller than the actual radius by about $`10^{40}`$. This enormous discrepancy was never made plausible. For that reason Weyl (1923) even considered Einstein’s theory of gravitation as incomplete. As we have seen, towards the past or towards smaller regions of spacetime such as elementary particle size $`\gamma `$ converges against $`1`$. This can be shown in general with the theoretical pion mass. Its gravitational radius $`r_G`$ is

$$r_G(m_\pi )=\frac{Gm_\pi }{c^2}=\frac{1}{\gamma }\left(\frac{\mathrm{}G}{c^2H}\right)^{1/3}=\alpha _G(R_P^2R_H)^{1/3}=2r_Y\alpha _G$$
(58)
In case of $`\gamma =\alpha _G=1`$ the gravitational radius is identical with the particle radius. As we have seen, the creation of elementary particles was only possible at a time when the gravitation force was of the same order as the strong force. Since that time only transformations between elementary particles are possible. This provides a good explanation why the baryon number is constant.

Especially the last two decades possible differences between atomic time and gravitational time have been intensively discussed (Dirac 1978, Canuto and Goldman) again, and scale-covariant theories of gravitation have been formulated (Canuto, Adams, et al.). We can express the difference of gravitational time – or as Dirac (1978) calls it – ”ephemeris time” $`T_H=1/H`$ and atomic time

$$t_e=\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon m_ec^3}=\frac{\alpha \mathrm{}}{m_ec^2}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_\pi c^2}=(T_P^2T_H)^{1/3}$$
(59)
with the relation

$$\frac{T_H}{t_e}=\frac{m_ec^2}{\alpha \mathrm{}H}=\frac{m_e}{\alpha M_B}\gamma $$
(60)
Again we have used the numerical coincidence of relation (47).

## 6 Summary

The main result of this paper is the conclusion, that Friedmann expansion identified with light retardation yields Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relations. On this base a unification of gravitational and quantum theory could be possible. It was further shown that the direction-independent eigen gravitation of the universe causes a temporal delay of photons. It was argued that the possible interpretations of this delay (space expansion, light or time retardation) are indiscernible and therefore equivalent. With the introduction of natural units the numerical “coincidences” resulting from relations of micro- and macro-physical quantities could be explained.