text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Numerical integration algorithms are essential to study the long term single particle stability of nonlinear, nonintegrable Hamiltonian systems. However, standard numerical integration algorithms can not be used since they are not symplectic ?. This violation of the symplectic condition can lead to spurious chaotic or dissipative behavior. Numerical integration algorithms which satisfy the symplectic condition are called symplectic integration algorithms ?. Several symplectic integration algorithms have been proposed in the literature ?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?. Some of these directly use the Hamiltonian whereas others use the symplectic map ?,? representing the nonlinear Hamiltonian system. For complicated systems like the Large Hadron Collider which has thousands of elements, using individual Hamiltonians for each element can drastically slow down the integration process. One the other hand, the map based approach is very fast in such cases ?,?.

One class of the map-based methods uses jolt factorization ?,?,?,?. But there are still unanswered questions on how to best choose the underlying group and elements in the group ?. Further, some of these methods ?,?,? can be quite difficult to generalize to higher dimensions. Another class of methods uses solvable maps ?,? or monomial maps ?. Even though they are fairly straightforward to generalize to higher dimensions, they tend to introduce spurious poles and branch points not present in the original map ?.

We investigate a new symplectic integration method where the symplectic map is refactorized using “polynomial maps” (maps whose action on phase space variables gives rise to polynomials). This does not introduce spurious poles and branch points. Moreover, it is easy to generalize to higher dimensions. Further, since it is map-based, it is also very fast. In this paper, we describe in detail the theoretical underpinnings of the polynomial map factorization of symplectic maps. We also apply it to Hamiltonian systems.

## 2 Preliminaries

We restrict ourselves to three degrees of freedom nonlinear Hamiltonian system. The effect of a Hamiltonian system on a particle can be formally expressed as the action of a symplectic map $``$ that takes the particle from its initial state $`z^{in}`$ to its final state $`z^{fin}`$ ?,?

$$z^{fin}=z^{in}.$$
(1)
Here $`z`$ represents the collection of six phase space variables:

$$z=(q_1,q_2,q_3,p_1,p_2,p_3).$$
(2)
Using the Dragt-Finn factorization theorem?,?, the symplectic map $``$ can be factorized as shown below:

$$=\widehat{M}e^{:f_3:}e^{:f_4:}\mathrm{}e^{:f_n:}\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
Here $`f_n(z)`$ denotes a homogeneous polynomial (in $`z`$) of degree $`n`$ uniquely determined by the factorization theorem. The Lie transformation $`e^{:f(z):}`$ is given by

$$e^{:f(z):}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{:f(z):^n}{n!},$$
(4)
where

$$:f(z):g(z)=[f(z),g(z)].$$
(5)
Here $`[f(z),g(z)]`$ denotes the usual Poisson bracket of the functions $`f(z)`$ and $`g(z)`$. Further $`\widehat{M}`$ gives the linear part of the map and hence has an equivalent representation in terms of the Jacobian matrix $`M`$ of the map $``$ ?:

$$\widehat{M}z_i=M_{ij}z_j=(Mz)_i.$$
(6)
The infinite product of Lie transformations $`\mathrm{exp}(:f_n:)`$ $`(n=3,4,\mathrm{}`$) in Eq. (3) represents the nonlinear part of $``$.

As an application, let us consider a charged particle particle storage ring which typically comprises thousands of elements (drifts, quadrupoles, sextupoles etc.) Using the above procedure, one can represent each element in the storage ring by a symplectic map. By concatenating ? these maps together using group-theoretical methods ?, we obtain the so-called ‘one-turn’ map representing the entire storage ring. The one-turn map gives the final state $`z^{(1)}`$ of a particle after one turn around the ring as a function of its initial state $`z^{(0)}`$:

$$z^{(1)}=z^{(0)}.$$
(7)
To obtain the state of a particle after $`n`$ turns, one has to merely iterate the above mapping $`N`$ times i.e.

$$z^{(n)}=^nz^{(0)}.$$
(8)
Since $``$ is explicitly symplectic, this gives a symplectic integration algorithm. Further, since the entire ring can be represented by a single (or at most a few) symplectic map(s), numerical integration of particle trajectories using symplectic maps is very fast.

To obtain a practical symplectic integration algorithm, we follow the perturbative approach and truncate $``$ after a finite number of Lie transformations:

$$\widehat{M}e^{:f_3:}e^{:f_4:}\mathrm{}e^{:f_P:}.$$
(9)
The symplectic map is said to be truncated at order $`P`$. This map is still symplectic. However, each exponential $`e^{:f_n:}`$ in $``$ still contains an infinite number of terms in its Taylor series expansion. We get around the above problem by refactorizing $``$ in terms of simpler symplectic maps which can be evaluated exactly without truncation. We use ‘polynomial maps’ which give rise to polynomials when acting on the phase space variables. This avoids the problem of spurious poles and branch points present in generating function methods ?, solvable map ?,? and monomial map ? refactorizations.

## 3 Symplectic Polynomial Maps

In this section we study symplectic polynomial maps in some detail. We start by describing the difference between monomial maps and polynomial maps with respect to presence of poles and branch points. This difference can be illustrated using the following examples. Consider the monomial symplectic map $`\mathrm{exp}(:q_1^2p_1:)`$. Its action on $`q_1`$, $`p_1`$ in a two dimensional phase space is given as follows:

$$q_1^{}=\mathrm{exp}(:q_1^2p_1:)q_1=\frac{q_1}{1+q_1};p_1^{}=\mathrm{exp}(:q_1^2p_1:)p_1=p_1(1+q_1)^2.$$
(10)
This map has a pole at $`q_1=1`$.

On the other hand, consider the symplectic map $`\mathrm{exp}(:a_1q_1^3+a_2p_1:)`$ where $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ are real constants. We determine its action on phase space variables as follows. Note that the symplectic map is of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)`$ where $`h(z)`$ is a function which depends only on the phase space variables $`z`$ and is independent of time $`t`$. If we take $`h(z)`$ to be the Hamiltonian function, then solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion for this Hamiltonian from time $`t=t^i`$ to time $`t=t^f`$ is equivalent to the following symplectic map action ?:

$$z(t=t^f)=\mathrm{exp}[(t^ft^i):h(z):]z(t=t^i).$$
(11)
Equivalently, obtaining the action of the symplectic map $`\mathrm{exp}[(t^ft^i):h(z):]`$ on the phase space variables is the same as solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion with $`h(z)`$ as the Hamiltonian from time $`t^i`$ to $`t^f`$. Setting $`t^i=0`$ and $`t^f=1`$ we have the following equivalence: Obtaining the action of the symplectic map $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z:)`$ on phase space variables is equivalent to solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion using $`h(z)`$ as the Hamiltonian from time $`t=0`$ to time $`t=1`$. In this case, $`z(0)`$ will correspond to the initial values of the phase space variables and $`z(1)`$ to the final values obtained after the action of the map $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z:)`$.

Returning to our symplectic map, we obtain its action by first solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion from time $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ using the argument of the Lie transformation, $`h=a_1q_1^3+a_2p_1`$, as the Hamiltonian. The Hamilton’s equations of motion are given by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{p_1}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{q_1}}.`$ (12)
Solving these simple equations, we obtain:

$`q_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`q_1(0)+a_2t;`$
$`p_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1(0)a_1a_2^2t^33a_1a_2q_1(0)t^23a_1q_1(0)^2t.`$ (13)
where $`q_1(0)`$ and $`p_1(0)`$ denote the values of $`q_1`$ and $`p_1`$ at time $`t=0`$. To obtain the action of the map $`\mathrm{exp}(:a_1q_1^3+a_2p_1:)`$ on the phase space variables, we set $`t=1`$ in the above equations and denote $`q_1(1)`$, $`p_1(1)`$ by $`q_1^{fin}`$, $`p_1^{fin}`$ and $`q_1(0)`$, $`p_1(0)`$ by $`q_1^{in}`$, $`p_1^{in}`$ respectively. Thus we get

$$q_1^{fin}=q_1^{in}a_2,p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+a_1a_2^23a_1a_2q_1^{in}+3a_1(q_1^{in})^2.$$
(14)
Using Eq. (4), we can easily verify that the above result is indeed correct. We note that the final values of the phase space variables are polynomial functions of the initial variables and therefore involve no poles or branch points. This is an example of a polynomial map.

We now determine the classes of symplectic maps which are also polynomial maps. We obtain the following simple principles which are equally applicable in higher dimensions.

1. All polynomials of the form $`h(z)`$ where both a phase space variable and its canonically conjugate variable ? do not occur simultaneously give rise to symplectic polynomial maps via $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)`$. We will call such $`h(z)`$’s as polynomials of the first type.
2. If a canonically conjugate pair $`q_i,p_i`$ is present in the polynomial $`h(z)`$ and it appears either in the form $`[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ or $`[a(\overline{z})p_i+g(q_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ (where $`m=1,2\mathrm{}`$, $`\overline{z}=\{q_j,p_k\}`$ with $`jki`$ and $`a`$, $`g`$ are polynomials in the indicated variables), then this polynomial $`h(z)`$ again gives rise to a symplectic polynomial map via $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)`$. If a product/sum of such factors appears in $`h(z)`$, each term in the product/sum is a function of different canonically conjugate pairs. We will call $`h(z)`$’s of the form described above as polynomials of the second type.

We can prove the above results as follows. Let $`\widehat{z}`$ denote a collection of phase space variables $`\{q_j,p_k\}`$ with $`jk`$. Thus polynomials of the first type are of the form $`h(\widehat{z})`$. The polynomial map is then given by $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(\widehat{z}):)`$. As described earlier, its action on the phase space variables is given by solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion from time $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ using $`h(\widehat{z})`$ as the Hamiltonian. From classical mechanics ? each of the variables in the collection $`\widehat{z}`$ is a cyclic variable and is therefore conserved by the Hamiltonian. Thus $`\widehat{z}(t)=\widehat{z}(0)`$. Consequently

$$\widehat{z}^{fin}=\mathrm{exp}(:h(\widehat{z}):)\widehat{z}^{in}=\widehat{z}^{in}.$$
(15)
Next we consider the action of this map on the variable $`\stackrel{~}{z_j}`$ which is canonically conjugate to $`\widehat{z}_j`$. Solving Hamilton’s equations of motion with $`h(\widehat{z})`$ as the Hamiltonian from time $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ we get

$$\stackrel{~}{z_j}(1)=\stackrel{~}{z_j}(0)(1)^r\frac{dh}{d\widehat{z}_j}(\widehat{z}_j(0)),$$
(16)
where $`r`$ is zero if $`\stackrel{~}{z_i}`$ is a coordinate variable and 1 otherwise. As before, the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(\widehat{z}):)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{z_j}`$ is obtained by setting $`\stackrel{~}{z_j}(0)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{z_j}^{in}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z_j}(1)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{z_i}^{fin}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{z_j}^{fin}=\stackrel{~}{z_j}^{in}(1)^r\frac{dh}{d\widehat{z}_j}(\widehat{z}_j^{in}).$$
(17)
Since $`h(\widehat{z})`$ is a polynomial in $`\widehat{z}`$, the right hand side of the above equation is a polynomial in $`\widehat{z}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$. From Eqs. (15) and (17) we conclude that $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(\widehat{z}):)`$ is a polynomial map. Further, since all Lie transformations are symplectic maps ?, $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(\widehat{z}):)`$ is a symplectic polynomial map.

Next we consider polynomials $`h(z)`$ of the second type described in item 2) above. Let $`h(z)=[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ where $`q_i,p_i`$ is a canonically conjugate pair. Further $`m`$ is a positive integer, $`\overline{z}=\{q_j,p_k\}`$ with $`jki`$ and $`a`$, $`g`$ are polynomials in the indicated variables. We will show that $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)`$ is a polynomial map. The proof for the case $`h^{}(z)=[a(\overline{z})p_i+g(q_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ is similar. A concrete example of the type of $`h(z)`$ that we are considering is given by $`h(z)=(\alpha _1p_2+\alpha _2p_3+\alpha _3p_2^2+\alpha _4p_2p_3+\alpha _5p_3^2+\alpha _6q_3p_2)^m`$ where $`\alpha _i`$’s are real constants.

As before we first solve the Hamilton’s equations of motion with $`h(z)`$ as the Hamiltonian. Since each of the variables in the collection denoted by $`\overline{z}`$ is cyclic, we have $`\overline{z}(t)=\overline{z}(0)`$ and

$$\overline{z}^{fin}=\mathrm{exp}(:h(\overline{z}):)\overline{z}^{in}=\overline{z}^{in}.$$
(18)
Solving the Hamilton’s equation of motion for $`p_i`$ we get

$$\frac{dp_i}{dt}=\frac{h(z)}{q_i}=m[a(\overline{z}(0))q_i(0)+g(p_i(0),\overline{z}(0))]^{m1}a(\overline{z}(0)),$$
(19)
where we have used the fact that $`[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]`$ is a conserved quantity under this Hamiltonian flow i.e. $`[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]=[a(\overline{z}(0))q_i(0)+g(p_i(0),\overline{z}(0))]`$. Solving this simple equation we obtain

$$p_i(t)=p_i(0)m[a(\overline{z}(0))q_i(0)+g(p_i(0),\overline{z}(0))]^{m1}a(\overline{z}(0))t.$$
(20)
Note that $`p_i(t)`$ is a polynomial in both $`z`$ and $`t`$. Setting $`t=1`$ and denoting $`z(0),z(1)`$ by $`z^{in},z^{fin}`$ respectively, we see that $`p_i^{fin}=\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)p_i^{in}`$ is a polynomial in $`z^{in}`$:

$$p_i^{fin}=p_i^{in}+m[a(\overline{z}^{in})q_i^{in})+g(p_i^{in},\overline{z}^{in})]^{m1}a(\overline{z}^{in}).$$
(21)
The equation of motion for $`q_i`$ gives us

$$\frac{dq_i}{dt}=\frac{h(z)}{p_i}=m[a(\overline{z}(0))q_i(0)+g(p_i(0),\overline{z}(0))]^{m1}\frac{dg(p_i,\overline{z})}{dp_i}.$$
(22)
Since $`p_i(t)`$ is a polynomial in $`z`$ and $`t`$, the right hand side of the above equation is also a polynomial in $`z`$ and $`t`$. Therefore, the above differential equation can be easily integrated to give $`q_i(t)`$ which is guaranteed to be a polynomial in $`z`$ and $`t`$. Setting $`t=1`$ and denoting $`z(0),z(1)`$ by $`z^{in},z^{fin}`$ respectively, we obtain the result that $`q_i^{fin}=\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)q_i^{in}`$ is a polynomial in $`z^{in}`$. Finally, the equation of motion for $`\stackrel{˘}{z}_j`$, the variable canonically conjugate to $`\overline{z}_j`$, is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{˘}{z}_j}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^r{\displaystyle \frac{h(z)}{\overline{z}_j}}=(1)^rm[a(\overline{z}(0))q_i(0)+g(p_i(0),\overline{z}(0))]^{m1}`$ (23)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]}{d\overline{z}_j}}(\overline{z}=\overline{z}(0)),`$
where $`r`$ is zero if $`\stackrel{˘}{z}_j`$ is a coordinate variable and 1 otherwise. The right hand side is a polynomial function of $`q_i,p_i`$ both of which in turn are polynomials in $`t`$. Hence the equation can be integrated giving $`\stackrel{˘}{z}_j(t)`$ as a polynomial in $`z`$ and $`t`$. Setting $`t=1`$ and denoting $`z(0),z(1)`$ by $`z^{in},z^{fin}`$ respectively, we find that $`\stackrel{˘}{z_j}^{fin}=\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)\stackrel{˘}{z}_j^{in}`$ is a polynomial in $`z^{in}`$. Thus we have proved that $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)`$ is a (symplectic) polynomial map.

To conclude, we consider the case where a sum/product of factors of the form $`[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ or $`[a(\overline{z})p_i+g(q_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ appear in $`h(z)`$. If a phase space variable appears in one factor of the sum/product, by assumption, neither this variable nor its canonically conjugate variable appears in the remaining factors of the sum/product. Therefore each term in the sum/product is independently conserved by the Hamiltonian flow generated by $`h(z)`$ and acts only on the phase space variables appearing in that term. Consequently each term can be considered separately and since each term is of the form $`[a(\overline{z})q_i+g(p_i,\overline{z})]^m`$ or $`[a(\overline{z})p_i+g(q_i,\overline{z})]^m`$, the argument given above can be immediately applied proving that $`\mathrm{exp}(:h(z):)`$ is a symplectic polynomial map even in this case. This completes the proof of the claims made in items 1) and 2). We conjecture that all symplectic polynomial maps have one of the two forms enumerated above.

## 4 Symplectic Integration using Polynomial Maps

In this section, we return to the problem of symplectic integration. We restrict ourselves to symplectic maps in a six dimensional phase space truncated at order 4. The results obtained below can be generalized to both higher orders and higher dimensions using symbolic manipulation programs. The Dragt-Finn factorization of the symplectic map is given by:

$$=\widehat{M}e^{:f_3:}e^{:f_4:},$$
(24)
where

$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`a_{28}q_1^3+a_{29}q_1^2p_1+\mathrm{}+a_{83}p_3^3,`$
$`f_4`$ $`=`$ $`a_{84}q_1^4+a_{85}q_1^3p_1+\mathrm{}+a_{209}p_3^4.`$ (25)
Here the coefficients $`a_{28},\mathrm{},a_{209}`$ can be explicitly computed given a Hamiltonian system? and are therefore known to us. The numbering of these monomial coefficients follows the standard Giorgilli scheme ?. The above map captures the leading order nonlinearities of the system. Since the action of the linear part $`\widehat{M}`$ on phase space variables is well known \[cf. Eq. (6)\] and is already a polynomial action, we only refactorize the nonlinear part of the map using $`N`$ polynomial maps ?. This is done as follows:

$$𝒫=\widehat{M}e^{:h_1:}e^{:h_2:}\mathrm{}e^{:h_N:},$$
(26)
where $`e^{:h_i:}`$’s are symplectic polynomial maps and the numeral appearing in the subscript indexes the polynomial maps. The polynomial maps are determined by requiring that $`𝒫`$ agree with $``$ up to order 4. That is, when the $`N`$ polynomial maps are combined, the resulting symplectic map should have all the monomials present in $`f_3`$ and $`f_4`$ with the correct coefficients up to order 4.

The basic idea in obtaining the required refactorization is to group the monomial terms present in $`f_3`$ and $`f_4`$ \[cf. Eq. (4)\] such that the Lie transformation corresponding to each grouping gives a polynomial map. It is obviously easy to handle monomials where both members of the canonically conjugate pair are not present simultaneously. They can be grouped into different polynomials (for example, monomials involving only the coordinate variables $`q_i`$’s in one group and those involving only the momentum variables $`p_i`$’s in another group etc.) so that each one of these is a polynomial of the first type. Since a product of two Lie transformations ($`e^{:f_3:}`$ and $`e^{:f_4:}`$) is being refactorized as a product of many simpler polynomial symplectic maps, the coefficients multiplying the monomials in each individual polynomial map will be in general different from the coefficient multiplying the corresponding monomial in Eq. (4). The relation between these coefficients is easily obtained using the CBH theorem ?. Monomials $`s(z)`$ where both members of the canonically conjugate pair are present simultaneously (like for example, $`s(z)=q_1^3p_1`$) are more difficult to handle since the corresponding Lie transformations $`e^{:s(z):}`$ typically give rise to poles and branch points which we wish to avoid. But by using a product of two polynomial maps of type 2 with carefully chosen coefficients, these can also be generated.

Using the above procedure, it turns out that we require 23 polynomial maps for refactorization:

$$𝒫=\widehat{M}e^{:h_1:}e^{:h_2:}\mathrm{}e^{:h_{23}:},$$
(27)
The $`h_i`$’s are given as follows:

$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^3b_{28}+q_1^2q_2b_{30}+q_1^2q_3b_{32}+q_1q_2^2b_{39}+q_1q_2q_3b_{41}+q_1q_3^2b_{46}+`$
$`q_2^3b_{64}+q_2^2q_3b_{66}+q_2q_3^2b_{71}+q_3^3b_{80}+q_1^4b_{84}+q_1^3q_2b_{86}+q_1^3q_3b_{88}+`$
$`q_1^2q_2^2b_{95}+q_1^2q_2q_3b_{97}+q_1^2q_3^2b_{102}+q_1q_2^3b_{120}+q_1q_2^2q_3b_{122}+`$
$`q_1q_2q_3^2b_{127}+q_1q_3^3b_{136}+q_2^4b_{175}+q_2^3q_3b_{177}+q_2^2q_3^2b_{182}+`$
$`q_2q_3^3b_{191}+q_3^4b_{205},`$
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{29}+b_{34})+q_2(b_{91}+b_{106})+p_2(b_{92}+b_{107})+q_3(b_{93}+b_{108})+`$
$`p_3(b_{94}+b_{109})\left]\right(p_1+q_1)^3,`$
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{29}+b_{34})+q_2(b_{91}+b_{106})+p_2(b_{92}+b_{107})+`$
$`q_3(b_{93}+b_{108})+p_3(b_{94}+b_{109})\left]\right(p_1+q_1)^3,`$
$`h_4`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{65}+b_{68})+q_1(b_{121}+b_{124})+p_1(b_{156}+b_{159})+`$
$`q_3(b_{180}+b_{186})+p_3(b_{181}+b_{187})\left]\right(p_2+q_2)^3,`$
$`h_5`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{65}+b_{68})+q_1(b_{121}+b_{124})+p_1(b_{156}+b_{159})+`$
$`q_3(b_{180}+b_{186})+p_3(b_{181}+b_{187})\left]\right(p_2+q_2)^3,`$
$`h_6`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{81}+b_{82})+q_1(b_{137}+b_{138})+p_1(b_{172}+b_{173})+q_2(b_{192}+b_{193})+`$
$`p_2(b_{202}+b_{203})\left]\right(p_3+q_3)^3,`$
$`h_7`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{81}+b_{82})+q_1(b_{137}+b_{138})+p_1(b_{172}+b_{173})+`$
$`q_2(b_{192}+b_{193})+p_2(b_{202}+b_{203})\left]\right(p_3+q_3)^3,`$
$`h_8`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1+q_1\right)^2\left(q_2b_{35}+q_3b_{37}+q_2^2b_{110}+q_2q_3b_{112}+p_3q_2b_{113}+q_3^2b_{117}\right),`$
$`h_9`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1+q_1\right)^2\left(p_2b_{36}+p_3b_{38}+p_2^2b_{114}+p_2q_3b_{115}+p_2p_3b_{116}+p_3^2b_{119}\right),`$
$`h_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_2+q_2\right)^2\left(q_1b_{40}+q_3b_{69}+q_1^2b_{96}+q_1q_3b_{125}+p_3q_1b_{126}+q_3^2b_{188}\right),`$
$`h_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_2+q_2\right)^2\left(p_1b_{55}+p_3b_{70}+p_1^2b_{146}+p_1q_3b_{160}+p_1p_3b_{161}+p_3^2b_{190}\right),`$
$`h_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_3+q_3\right)^2\left(q_1b_{47}+q_2b_{72}+q_1^2b_{103}+q_1q_2b_{128}+p_2q_1b_{134}+q_2^2b_{183}\right),`$
$`h_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_3+q_3\right)^2\left(p_1b_{62}+p_2b_{78}+p_1^2b_{153}+p_1q_2b_{163}+p_1p_2b_{169}+p_2^2b_{199}\right),`$
$`h_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`p_2q_1^2b_{31}+p_3q_1^2b_{33}+p_2^2q_1b_{43}+p_2p_3q_1b_{45}+p_3^2q_1b_{48}+p_2q_1^3b_{87}+`$
$`p_3q_1^3b_{89}+p_2^2q_1^2b_{99}+p_2p_3q_1^2b_{101}+p_3^2q_1^2b_{104}+p_2^3q_1b_{130}+`$
$`p_2^2p_3q_1b_{132}+p_2p_3^2q_1b_{135}+p_3^3q_1b_{139},`$
$`h_{15}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1^2q_2b_{50}+p_1^2q_3b_{52}+p_1q_2^2b_{54}+p_1q_2q_3b_{56}+p_1q_3^2b_{61}+p_1^3q_2b_{141}+`$
$`p_1^3q_3b_{143}+p_1^2q_2^2b_{145}+p_1^2q_2q_3b_{147}+p_1^2q_3^2b_{152}+p_1q_2^3b_{155}+`$
$`p_1q_2^2q_3b_{157}+p_1q_2q_3^2b_{162}+p_1q_3^3b_{171},`$
$`h_{16}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1p_3q_2b_{57}+p_3q_2^2b_{67}+p_3^2q_2b_{73}+p_1^2p_3q_2b_{148}+p_1p_3q_2^2b_{158}+`$
$`p_1p_3^2q_2b_{164}+p_3q_2^3b_{178}+p_3^2q_2^2b_{184}+p_3^3q_2b_{194},`$
$`h_{17}`$ $`=`$ $`p_2q_1q_3b_{44}+p_2^2q_3b_{75}+p_2q_3^2b_{77}+p_2q_1^2q_3b_{100}+p_2^2q_1q_3b_{131}+`$
$`p_2q_1q_3^2b_{133}+p_2^3q_3b_{196}+p_2^2q_3^2b_{198}+p_2q_3^3b_{201},`$
$`h_{18}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1p_2q_3b_{59}+p_1^2p_2q_3b_{150}+p_1p_2^2q_3b_{166}+p_1p_2q_3^2b_{168},`$
$`h_{19}`$ $`=`$ $`p_3q_1q_2b_{42}+p_3q_1^2q_2b_{98}+p_3q_1q_2^2b_{123}+p_3^2q_1q_2b_{129},`$
$`h_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1^3b_{49}+p_1^2p_2b_{51}+p_1^2p_3b_{53}+p_1p_2^2b_{58}+p_1p_2p_3b_{60}+p_1p_3^2b_{63}+`$
$`p_2^3b_{74}+p_2^2p_3b_{76}+p_2p_3^2b_{79}+p_3^3b_{83}+p_1^4b_{140}+p_1^3p_2b_{142}+`$
$`p_1^3p_3b_{144}+p_1^2p_2^2b_{149}+p_1^2p_2p_3b_{151}+p_1^2p_3^2b_{154}+p_1p_2^3b_{165}+`$
$`p_1p_2^2p_3b_{167}+p_1p_2p_3^2b_{170}+p_1p_3^3b_{174}+p_2^4b_{195}+p_2^3p_3b_{197}+`$
$`p_2^2p_3^2b_{200}+p_2p_3^3b_{204}+p_3^4b_{209},`$
$`h_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1+q_1+p_1^2b_{105}\right)^3+\left(p_2+q_2+p_2^2b_{185}\right)^3+\left(p_3+q_3+p_3^2b_{208}\right)^3,`$
$`h_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1q_1+q_1^2b_{85}\right)^3+\left(p_2q_2+q_2^2b_{176}\right)^3+`$
$`\left(p_3q_3+q_3^2b_{206}\right)^3,`$
$`h_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1+q_1\right)^4b_{90}+\left(p_1+q_1\right)^2\left(p_2+q_2\right)^2b_{111}+\left(p_1+q_1\right)^2\left(p_3+q_3\right)^2b_{118}`$
$`+\left(p_2+q_2\right)^4b_{179}+\left(p_2+q_2\right)^2\left(p_3+q_3\right)^2b_{189}+\left(p_3+q_3\right)^4b_{207}.`$
Here $`b_i`$’s are at present unknown coefficients. As mentioned above, by forcing the refactorized form $`𝒫`$ to equal the original map $``$ up to order 4 and using the CBH theorem?, we can easily compute these unknown coefficients in terms of the known $`a_i`$’s. These expressions are available from the author as part of a FORTRAN program implementing the above algorithm.

The explicit actions of the polynomial maps on phase space variables can be obtained and they are given below. This completely determines the refactorized map $`𝒫`$. Each $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_i:)`$ is a polynomial map which can be evaluated exactly and is explicitly symplectic. Thus by using $`𝒫`$ instead of $``$ in Eq. (8), we obtain an explicitly symplectic integration algorithm. Further, it is fast to evaluate and does not introduce spurious poles and branch points. The above factorization is not unique. However, the principles outlined earlier impose restrictions on the possible forms and this eases considerably the task of refactorization. Moreover, we require the coefficients $`b_i`$ to be polynomials in the known coefficients $`a_i`$. Otherwise this can lead to divergences when $`a_i`$’s take on certain special values. Finally, we minimize the number of polynomial maps in the refactorized form. Our studies show that different polynomial map refactorizations obeying the above restrictions do not lead to any significant differences in their behavior.

We now derive the explicit actions of the polynomial maps on phase space variables. First consider $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_1:)`$. We obtain its action on the phase space variables by following the procedure outlined in the paragraph before Eq. (3). We notice that $`h_1=h_1(q_1,q_2,q_3)`$ depends only on the coordinate variables which are therefore cyclic variables. Hence we immediately obtain: $`q_i(t)=q_i(0)`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$). Solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion for $`p_i`$ with $`h_1`$ as the Hamiltonian from $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ we get:

$$p_i(1)=p_i(0)+\frac{h_1}{q_i}(q_1(0),q_2(0),q_3(0)),i=1,2,3.$$
(28)
Denoting $`z_i(0)`$ and $`z_i(1)`$ by $`z_i^{in}`$ and $`z_i^{fin}`$ respectively, we finally obtain the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_1:)`$:

$$q_i^{fin}=q_i^{in};p_i^{fin}=p_i^{in}+\frac{h_1}{q_i}(q_1^{in},q_2^{in},q_3^{in}),i=1,2,3.$$
(29)
Next consider the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_2:)`$. The 2 factors in the product are independently conserved under the Hamiltonian flow. Consequently, we have

$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{29}+b_{34})+q_2(b_{91}+b_{106})+p_2(b_{92}+b_{107})+`$ (30)
$`q_3(b_{93}+b_{108})+p_3(b_{94}+b_{109})]`$
$`=`$ $`[(b_{29}+b_{34})+q_2(0)(b_{91}+b_{106})+p_2(0)(b_{92}+b_{107})+`$
$`q_3(0)(b_{93}+b_{108})+p_3(0)(b_{94}+b_{109})],`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1+p_1)=(q_1(0)+p_1(0)).`$
Solving Hamilton’s equation of motion with $`h_2`$ as the Hamiltonian from $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ we get

$`q_1(1)`$ $`=`$ $`q_1(0)3A_2B_2^2;p_1(1)=p_1(0)+3A_2B_2^2;`$
$`q_2(1)`$ $`=`$ $`q_2(0)B_2^3\left(b_{92}+b_{107}\right);p_2(1)=p_2(0)+B_2^3\left(b_{91}+b_{106}\right);`$ (31)
$`q_3(1)`$ $`=`$ $`q_3(0)B_2^3\left(b_{94}+b_{109}\right);p_3(1)=p_3(0)+B_2^3\left(b_{93}+b_{108}\right).`$
Denoting $`z_i(0)`$ and $`z_i(1)`$ by $`z_i^{in}`$ and $`z_i^{fin}`$ respectively, we obtain the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_2:)`$:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}3A_2B_2^2;p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+3A_2B_2^2;`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}B_2^3\left(b_{92}+b_{107}\right);p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+B_2^3\left(b_{91}+b_{106}\right);`$ (32)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_2^3\left(b_{94}+b_{109}\right);p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+B_2^3\left(b_{93}+b_{108}\right),`$
where $`A_2,B_2`$ are now functions of $`z^{in}`$. The actions of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_i:)`$, $`i=3,4,\mathrm{},7`$ on the phase space variables are obtained in a similar fashion and these actions are listed in the Appendix.

We now consider the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_8:)`$. From the Hamilton’s equations of motion, we have the following conserved quantities:

$`A_8`$ $`=`$ $`\left(q_2b_{35}+q_3b_{37}+q_2^2b_{110}+q_2q_3b_{112}+p_3q_2b_{113}+q_3^2b_{117}\right)`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`(q_2(0)b_{35}+q_3(0)b_{37}+q_2^2(0)b_{110}+q_2(0)q_3(0)b_{112}+`$
$`p_3(0)q_2(0)b_{113}+q_3^2(0)b_{117}),`$
$`B_8`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1+p_1)=(q_1(0)+p_1(0)).`$
Solving the equations of motion for $`q_i`$’s with $`h_8`$ as the Hamiltonian from $`t=0`$ to $`t`$ we get:

$`q_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`q_1(0)+2A_8B_8t;q_2(t)=q_2(0);`$
$`q_3(t)`$ $`=`$ $`q_3(0)+B_8^2b_{113}q_2(0)t.`$ (34)
For the momentum variables we get the following differential equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2A_8B_8,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_8^2[b_{35}+2b_{110}q_2(t)+b_{112}q_3(t)+b_{113}p_3(t)],`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_3(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_8^2[b_{37}+b_{112}q_2(t)+2b_{117}q_3(t)].`$
The first equation can be trivially solved to obtain $`p_1(t)`$. After substituting for $`q_2(t)`$ and $`q_3(t)`$ which are known, we can next solve the last equation for $`p_3(t)`$. Substituting this in the second equation, we finally get $`p_2(t)`$. Setting $`t=1`$ and denoting $`z_i(0)`$, $`z_i(1)`$ by $`z_i^{in}`$, $`z_i^{fin}`$ respectively, we obtain the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_8:)`$:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}2A_8B_8;p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+2A_8B_8;`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in};p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+B_8^2[b_{35}+2b_{110}q_2^{in}+b_{112}q_3^{in}+b_{113}p_3^{in}+`$ (36)
$`B_8^2b_{113}(b_{37}/2+b_{113}q_3^{in}B_8^2b_{113}b_{117}q_2^{in}/3)];`$
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_8^2b_{113}q_2^{in};`$
$`p_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_3^{in}+B_8^2\left[b_{37}+b_{112}q_2^{in}+2b_{117}q_3^{in}B_8^2b_{113}b_{117}q_2^{in}\right],`$
where $`A_8,B_8`$ are now functions of $`z^{in}`$. The actions of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_i:)`$, $`i=9,10,\mathrm{}`$, $`13`$ on the phase space variables are obtained in a similar fashion and these actions are listed in the Appendix.

Next consider the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{14}:)`$. We notice that $`h_{14}=h_{14}(q_1,p_2,p_3)`$ is independent of $`p_1`$, $`q_2`$ and $`q_3`$. Hence $`q_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$ are cyclic variables and are conserved under the action of the Hamiltonian. Solving the Hamilton’s equations of motion for $`p_1`$, $`q_2`$ and $`q_3`$ with $`h_{14}`$ as the Hamiltonian from $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ we get:

$`p_1(1)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}}{q_1}}(q_1(0),p_2(0),p_3(0)),`$
$`q_2(1)`$ $`=`$ $`q_2(0){\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}}{p_2}}(q_1(0),p_2(0),p_3(0)),`$ (37)
$`q_3(1)`$ $`=`$ $`q_3(0){\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}}{p_3}}(q_1(0),p_2(0),p_3(0)).`$
Denoting $`z_i(0)`$ and $`z_i(1)`$ by $`z_i^{in}`$ and $`z_i^{fin}`$ respectively, we finally obtain the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{14}:)`$:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in};p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}}{q_1}}(q_1^{in},p_2^{in},p_3^{in}),`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}}{p_2}}(q_1^{in},p_2^{in},p_3^{in}),p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in},`$ (38)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{14}}{p_3}}(q_1^{in},p_2^{in},p_3^{in}),p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}.`$
The actions of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_i:)`$, $`i=15,16,\mathrm{},20`$ on the phase space variables are obtained in a similar fashion and these actions are listed in the Appendix.

We now consider the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{21}:)`$. From the Hamilton’s equations of motion, we have the following conserved quantities:

$`A_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1+q_1+p_1^2b_{105}\right)=\left(p_1(0)+q_1(0)+p_1^2(0)b_{105}\right),`$
$`B_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_2+q_2+p_2^2b_{185}\right)=\left(p_2(0)+q_2(0)+p_2^2(0)b_{185}\right)`$ (39)
$`C_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_3+q_3+p_3^2b_{208}\right)=\left(p_3(0)+q_3(0)+p_3^2(0)b_{208}\right).`$
Solving the equations of motion for $`p_i`$’s with $`h_{21}`$ as the Hamiltonian from $`t=0`$ to $`t`$ we get:

$`p_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1(0)3A_{21}^2t;p_2(t)=p_2(0)3B_{21}^2t;`$
$`p_3(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_3(0)3C_{21}^2t.`$ (40)
The equations of motion for $`q_i`$’s are given as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_1(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`3A_{21}^2(1+2b_{105}p_1(t)),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_2(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`3B_{21}^2(1+2b_{185}p_2(t)),`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_3(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`3B_{21}^2(1+2b_{208}p_3(t)).`$
Substituting the expressions for $`p_1(t)`$, $`p_2(t)`$, $`p_3(t)`$ obtained earlier, the above equations can be easily solved. Setting $`t=1`$ and denoting $`z_i(0)`$, $`z_i(1)`$ by $`z_i^{in}`$, $`z_i^{fin}`$ respectively, we obtain the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{21}:)`$:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}3A_{21}^2(1+2b_{105}p_1^{in}+3A_{21}^2b_{105});p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+3A_{21}^2;`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}3B_{21}^2(1+2b_{185}p_2^{in}+3B_{21}^2b_{185});p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+3B_{21}^2;`$
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}3C_{21}^2(1+2b_{208}p_3^{in}+3C_{21}^2b_{208});p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+3C_{21}^2,`$
where $`A_{21},B_{21},C_{21}`$ are now functions of $`z^{in}`$. The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{22}:)`$ on the phase space variables is obtained in a similar fashion and is listed in the Appendix.

Finally, we consider the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{23}:)`$. From the Hamilton’s equations of motion, we have the following conserved quantities:

$`A_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_1+q_1\right)=\left(p_1(0)+q_1(0)\right),`$
$`B_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_2+q_2\right)=\left(p_2(0)+q_2(0)\right),`$ (42)
$`C_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_3+q_3\right)=\left(p_3(0)+q_3(0)\right).`$
From the equations of motion with $`h_{23}`$ as the Hamiltonian we get:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_1(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_1(t)}{dt}}=4b_{90}A_{23}^3+2b_{111}A_{23}B_{23}^2+2b_{118}A_{23}C_{23}^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_2(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2(t)}{dt}}=4b_{179}B_{23}^3+2b_{111}A_{23}^2B_{23}+2b_{189}B_{23}C_{23}^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dq_3(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_3(t)}{dt}}=4b_{207}C_{23}^3+2b_{118}A_{23}^2C_{23}+2b_{189}B_{23}^2C_{23}.`$ (43)
Solving these equations from $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ and denoting $`z_i(0)`$, $`z_i(1)`$ by $`z_i^{in}`$, $`z_i^{fin}`$ respectively, we obtain the action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{23}:)`$:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}[4b_{90}A_{23}^3+2b_{111}A_{23}B_{23}^2+2b_{118}A_{23}C_{23}^2];`$
$`p_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1^{in}+[4b_{90}A_{23}^3+2b_{111}A_{23}B_{23}^2+2b_{118}A_{23}C_{23}^2];`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}[4b_{179}B_{23}^3+2b_{111}A_{23}^2B_{23}+2b_{189}B_{23}C_{23}^2];`$
$`p_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_2^{in}+[4b_{179}B_{23}^3+2b_{111}A_{23}^2B_{23}+2b_{189}B_{23}C_{23}^2];`$ (44)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}[4b_{207}C_{23}^3+2b_{118}A_{23}^2C_{23}+2b_{189}B_{23}^2C_{23}];`$
$`p_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_3^{in}+[4b_{207}C_{23}^3+2b_{118}A_{23}^2C_{23}+2b_{189}B_{23}^2C_{23}],`$
where $`A_{23},B_{23},C_{23}`$ are now functions of $`z^{in}`$.

Substituting in Eq. (27) the explicit formulas for the actions of the polynomial maps listed above and in the Appendix, we can evaluate the action of $`𝒫`$ without violating the symplectic condition. Using this explicitly symplectic map in Eq. (8), we have the desired symplectic integration algorithm.

## 5 Applications

We have applied the method to a large particle storage ring for storing charged particles. This storage ring consists of 5109 individual elements (where these elements could be drifts, bending magnets, quadrupoles or sextupoles). If one tries to numerically integrate the trajectory of a charged particle through this ring using a conventional integration algorithm, one has to go through the ring element by element where each element is described by its own Hamiltonian. This is cumbersome and slow and further, does not respect the Hamiltonian nature of the system. On the other hand, a map based approach where one represents the entire storage ring in terms of a single map is much faster ?,?. When this is combined with our polynomial map refactorization, one obtains a symplectic integration algorithm which is both fast and accurate and is ideally suited for such complex real life systems. The $`q_1p_1`$ phase plot for one million turns around the ring using our polynomial map method is given in Figure 1. In this case, $`q_1`$ and $`p_1`$ represent the deviations from the closed orbit coordinate and momentum respectively. From theoretical considerations, we expect the so-called betatron oscillations in these variables. This manifests itself as ellipses in the phase space plot of $`q_1`$ and $`p_1`$ variables. In Figure 1, we observe the expected betatron oscillations. We also see the thickening of the ellipses caused by nonlinearities present in the sextupoles.

## 6 Conclusions

To conclude, we described in detail a new symplectic integration algorithm based on polynomial map refactorization. We enumerated the types of symplectic maps which give rise to polynomial actions on phase space variables. For a six dimensional phase space, we obtained the refactorization of a given symplectic map in terms of 23 polynomial maps. The explicit actions of these polynomial maps were derived. This polynomial map method can be used to study long term stability of complicated nonlinear Hamiltonian systems.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Homi Bhabha Fellowship. The author is also associated with the Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scientific Research as a honorary faculty member.

Appendix A

The actions of polynomial maps $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_i:)`$ which were not listed in the main text are given in this Appendix.

The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_3:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}+3A_3B_3^2;p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+3A_3B_3^2;`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}B_3^3\left(b_{92}+b_{107}\right);p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+B_3^3\left(b_{91}+b_{106}\right);`$ (1)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_3^3\left(b_{94}+b_{109}\right);p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+B_3^3\left(b_{93}+b_{108}\right),`$
where

$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{29}+b_{34})+q_2^{in}(b_{91}+b_{106})+p_2^{in}(b_{92}+b_{107})+`$ (2)
$`q_3^{in}(b_{93}+b_{108})+p_3^{in}(b_{94}+b_{109})],`$
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1^{in}p_1^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_4:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}B_4^3\left(b_{156}+b_{159}\right);p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+B_4^3\left(b_{121}+b_{124}\right);`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}3A_4B_4^2;p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+3A_4B_4^2;`$ (3)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_4^3\left(b_{181}+b_{187}\right);p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+B_4^3\left(b_{180}+b_{186}\right),`$
where

$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{65}+b_{68})+q_1^{in}(b_{121}+b_{124})+p_1^{in}(b_{156}+b_{159})+`$ (4)
$`q_3^{in}(b_{180}+b_{186})+p_3^{in}(b_{181}+b_{187})],`$
$`B_4`$ $`=`$ $`(q_2^{in}+p_2^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_5:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}B_5^3\left(b_{156}+b_{159}\right);p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+B_5^3\left(b_{121}+b_{124}\right);`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}+3A_5B_5^2;p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+3A_5B_5^2;`$ (5)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_5^3\left(b_{181}+b_{187}\right);p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+B_5^3\left(b_{180}+b_{186}\right),`$
where

$`A_5`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{65}+b_{68})+q_1^{in}(b_{121}+b_{124})+p_1^{in}(b_{156}+b_{159})+`$ (6)
$`q_3^{in}(b_{180}+b_{186})+p_3^{in}(b_{181}+b_{187})],`$
$`B_5`$ $`=`$ $`(q_2^{in}p_2^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_6:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}B_6^3\left(b_{172}+b_{173}\right);p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+B_6^3\left(b_{137}+b_{138}\right);`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}B_6^3\left(b_{202}+b_{203}\right);p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+B_6^3\left(b_{192}+b_{193}\right);`$ (7)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}3A_6B_6^2;p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+3A_6B_6^2,`$
where

$`A_6`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{81}+b_{82})+q_1^{in}(b_{137}+b_{138})+p_1^{in}(b_{172}+b_{173})+`$ (8)
$`q_2^{in}(b_{192}+b_{193})+p_2^{in}(b_{202}+b_{203})],`$
$`B_6`$ $`=`$ $`(q_3^{in}+p_3^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_7:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}B_7^3\left(b_{172}+b_{173}\right);p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+B_7^3\left(b_{137}+b_{138}\right);`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}B_7^3\left(b_{202}+b_{203}\right);p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+B_7^3\left(b_{192}+b_{193}\right);`$ (9)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}+3A_7B_7^2;p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+3A_7B_7^2,`$
where

$`A_7`$ $`=`$ $`[(b_{81}+b_{82})+q_1^{in}(b_{137}+b_{138})+p_1^{in}(b_{172}+b_{173})+`$ (10)
$`q_2^{in}(b_{192}+b_{193})+p_2^{in}(b_{202}+b_{203})],`$
$`B_7`$ $`=`$ $`(q_3^{in}+p_3^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_9:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}2A_9B_9;p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+2A_9B_9;`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}+B_9^2[b_{36}2b_{114}p_2^{in}b_{115}q_3^{in}b_{116}p_3^{in}+`$ (11)
$`B_9^2b_{115}(b_{38}/2+b_{119}p_3^{in}+B_9^2b_{115}b_{119}p_2^{in}/3)];p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}`$
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_9^2\left[b_{38}+b_{116}p_2^{in}+2b_{119}p_3^{in}+B_9^2b_{115}b_{119}p_2^{in}\right];`$
$`p_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_3^{in}+B_9^2b_{115}p_2^{in},`$
where

$`A_9`$ $`=`$ $`(p_2^{in}b_{36}+p_3^{in}b_{38}+(p_2^{in})^2b_{114}+p_2^{in}q_3^{in}b_{115}+p_2^{in}p_3^{in}b_{116}+`$ (12)
$`(p_3^{in})^2b_{119}),`$
$`B_9`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1^{in}+p_1^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{10}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in};p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+B_{10}^2[b_{40}+2b_{96}q_1^{in}+b_{125}q_3^{in}+b_{126}p_3^{in}+`$
$`B_{10}^2b_{126}(b_{69}/2+b_{188}q_3^{in}B_{10}^2b_{126}b_{188}q_1^{in}/3)];`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}2A_{10}B_{10};p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+2A_{10}B_{10};`$ (13)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_{10}^2b_{126}q_1^{in};`$
$`p_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_3^{in}+B_{10}^2\left[b_{69}+b_{125}q_1^{in}+2b_{188}q_3^{in}B_{10}^2b_{126}b_{188}q_1^{in}\right],`$
where

$`A_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1^{in}b_{40}+q_3^{in}b_{69}+(q_1^{in})^2b_{96}+q_1^{in}q_3^{in}b_{125}+p_3^{in}q_1^{in}b_{126}`$ (14)
$`+(q_3^{in})^2b_{188})`$
$`B_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_2^{in}+p_2^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{11}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}+B_{11}^2[b_{55}2b_{146}p_1^{in}b_{160}q_3^{in}b_{161}p_3^{in}+`$
$`B_{11}^2b_{160}(b_{70}/2+b_{190}p_3^{in}+B_{11}^2b_{160}b_{190}p_1^{in}/3)];p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in};`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}2A_{11}B_{11};p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+2A_{11}B_{11}`$ (15)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}B_{11}^2\left[b_{70}+b_{161}p_1^{in}+2b_{190}p_3^{in}+B_{11}^2b_{160}b_{190}p_1^{in}\right];`$
$`p_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_3^{in}+B_{11}^2b_{160}p_1^{in},`$
where

$`A_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(p_1^{in}b_{55}+p_3^{in}b_{70}+(p_1^{in})^2b_{146}+p_1^{in}q_3^{in}b_{160}+p_1^{in}p_3^{in}b_{161}+`$ (16)
$`(p_3^{in})^2b_{190}),`$
$`B_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_2^{in}+p_2^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{12}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in};p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+B_{12}^2[b_{47}+2b_{103}q_1^{in}+b_{128}q_2^{in}+b_{134}p_2^{in}+`$
$`B_{12}^2b_{134}(b_{72}/2+b_{183}q_2^{in}B_{12}^2b_{134}b_{183}q_1^{in}/3)];`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}B_{12}^2b_{134}q_1^{in};`$
$`p_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_2^{in}+B_{12}^2\left[b_{72}+b_{128}q_1^{in}+2b_{183}q_2^{in}B_{12}^2b_{134}b_{183}q_1^{in}\right];`$ (17)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}2A_{12}B_{12};p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+2A_{12}B_{12},`$
where

$`A_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1^{in}b_{47}+q_2^{in}b_{72}+(q_1^{in})^2b_{103}+q_1^{in}q_2^{in}b_{128}+p_2^{in}q_1^{in}b_{134}+`$ (18)
$`(q_2^{in})^2b_{183})`$
$`B_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_3^{in}+p_3^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{13}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}+B_{13}^2[b_{62}2b_{153}p_1^{in}b_{163}q_2^{in}b_{169}p_2^{in}+`$
$`B_{13}^2b_{163}(b_{78}/2+b_{199}p_2^{in}+B_{13}^2b_{163}b_{199}p_1^{in}/3)];p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in};`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}B_{13}^2\left[b_{78}+b_{169}p_1^{in}+2b_{199}p_2^{in}+B_{13}^2b_{163}b_{199}p_1^{in}\right];`$
$`p_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_2^{in}+B_{13}^2b_{163}p_1^{in}`$ (19)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}2A_{13}B_{13};p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+2A_{13}B_{13},`$
where

$`A_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(p_1^{in}b_{62}+p_2^{in}b_{78}+(p_1^{in})^2b_{153}+p_1^{in}q_2^{in}b_{163}+p_1^{in}p_2^{in}b_{169}+`$ (20)
$`(p_2^{in})^2b_{199}),`$
$`B_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_3^{in}+p_3^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{15}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{15}}{p_1}}(p_1^{in},q_2^{in},q_3^{in});p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in},`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in};p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{15}}{q_2}}(p_1^{in},q_2^{in},q_3^{in}),`$ (21)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in};p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{15}}{q_3}}(p_1^{in},q_2^{in},q_3^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{16}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{16}}{p_1}}(p_1^{in},q_2^{in},p_3^{in});p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in},`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in};p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{16}}{q_2}}(p_1^{in},q_2^{in},p_3^{in}),`$ (22)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{16}}{p_3}}(p_1^{in},q_2^{in},p_3^{in});p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}.`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{17}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in};p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{17}}{q_1}}(q_1^{in},p_2^{in},q_3^{in}),`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{17}}{p_2}}(q_1^{in},p_2^{in},q_3^{in}),p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in},`$ (23)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in},p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{17}}{q_3}}(q_1^{in},p_2^{in},q_3^{in}),.`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{18}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{18}}{p_1}}(p_1^{in},p_2^{in},q_3^{in});p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in},`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{18}}{p_2}}(p_1^{in},p_2^{in},q_3^{in}),p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in},`$ (24)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in},p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{18}}{q_3}}(p_1^{in},p_2^{in},q_3^{in}).`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{19}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in};p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{19}}{q_1}}(q_1^{in},q_2^{in},p_3^{in}),`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in};p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{19}}{q_2}}(q_1^{in},q_2^{in},p_3^{in}),`$ (25)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{19}}{p_3}}(q_1^{in},q_2^{in},p_3^{in});p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}.`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{20}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{20}}{p_1}}(p_1^{in},p_2^{in},p_3^{in});p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in},`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{20}}{p_2}}(p_1^{in},p_2^{in},p_3^{in}),p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in},`$ (26)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{20}}{p_3}}(p_1^{in},p_2^{in},p_3^{in}),p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}.`$
The action of $`\mathrm{exp}(:h_{22}:)`$ is given as follows:

$`q_1^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_1^{in}+3A_{22}^2;p_1^{fin}=p_1^{in}3A_{22}^2(12b_{85}q_1^{in}3A_{22}^2b_{85});`$
$`q_2^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_2^{in}+3B_{22}^2;p_2^{fin}=p_2^{in}3B_{22}^2(12b_{176}q_2^{in}3B_{22}^2b_{176});`$ (27)
$`q_3^{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`q_3^{in}+3C_{22}^2;p_3^{fin}=p_3^{in}3C_{22}^2(12b_{206}q_3^{in}3C_{22}^2b_{206}),`$
where

$`A_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`=\left(p_1^{in}q_1^{in}+(q_1^{in})^2b_{85}\right),`$
$`B_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_2^{in}q_2^{in}+(q_2^{in})^2b_{176}\right)`$ (28)
$`C_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p_3^{in}q_3^{in}+(q_3^{in})^2b_{206}\right).`$
References


format: text

text:
# 1 S-branes

## 1 S-branes

Gutperle and Strominger  have argued that there should be spacelike branes in string theory. Let us start by reviewing what one means by a “spacelike brane” (S-brane).

### 1.1 Spacelike kinks

It is well-known that scalar field theories in $`1+1`$ dimensions,

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\left(_t\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(_x\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+V\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right),$$

have static solitonic kink solutions that interpolate between the minima of the appropriately chosen $`V`$. For example, in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory, there is a soliton that corresponds to the classical trajectory of a particle moving in the inverted potential $`V`$ from one extremum to the other.

In string theory, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the tachyon on an unstable D$`\left(p+1\right)`$-brane, Sen has shown  that such a tachyonic kink corresponds to a stable D$`p`$-brane. This is essentially due to a term

$$𝑑TC^{\left(p+1\right)}$$
(1)
in the effective action of the unstable brane , where $`C^{\left(p+1\right)}`$ is the $`p+1`$-form RR field coupling to D$`p`$-brane charge.

Gutperle and Strominger argue in  that one can also make spacelike kinks, in the following way. Consider spatially homogeneous initial conditions for the scalar field at the top of its potential and push it infinitesimally towards one minimum. If the scalar field is weakly coupled to some form of classical radiation, it will loose energy and for $`t\mathrm{}`$ eventually settle down in the minimum of the potential. The time reversed process looks like (finely tuned) radiation coming in from infinity and exciting the tachyon to the top of its potential. The total process111which might seem highly unlikely due to the necessary fine tuning. One can understand this as a resonance., in which the field goes from one minimum to the other looks like a scalar field kink in time.

In string theory, a spacelike tachyonic kink is a source for RR fields, again because of (1). In the limit that the lifetime of the resonance is very short, the object corresponding to it can be thought of as a spacelike analog of the usual timelike branes. (One can also think of this as a tachyonic brane, since it moves outside of the lightcone). For the purposes of this talk, one may use the following as a working definition.222There are also codimension two S-branes obtained from tachyonic vortices, but we shall not discuss those here.

An S$`p`$-brane is the time-dependent process involving the creation and subsequent decay of an unstable D$`\left(p+1\right)`$-brane in string theory.

The fact that spacelike branes as spacelike tachyonic kinks require the coupling of the scalar to radiation is a crucial difference to the timelike case that is important to keep in mind.

The main motivation for introducing S-branes comes from the desire to generalize holography to the time-dependent and, in particular, cosmological situation. In string theory, holography is realized as a correspondence between open string or brane physics on the one side and closed string or bulk physics on the other side. In light of this, a spacelike brane on which open strings can end with Dirichlet boundary conditions in the time direction, is the natural “holographic plate” for cosmological, and, in particular, de Sitter spacetimes. This desirable connection of S-branes to dS/CFT  gives a justification for the R-symmetry requirements imposed on the gravity solutions that we discuss below.

### 1.2 The S-brane charge

It is worthwhile mentioning here that there is nothing funny about charges of spacelike objects. Given a spacelike source for a $`\left(p+1\right)`$-form field (in flat space),

$$dF^{\left(p+2\right)}=0dF^{\left(p+2\right)}=Q\delta \left(x_{}\right)dx_{\left|\right|},$$
(2)
one can measure the charge $`Q`$ by integrating over a sphere surrounding the position of the source,

$$Q=_{S^{Dp2}}F^{\left(p+1\right)}.$$
(3)
The statement that the charge is conserved refers to the fact that $`Q`$ is independent of the sphere used to compute it. This is independent of whether the source is space- or timelike. There is one important difference, however. In solving (2) one needs the propagator of a massless scalar in the transverse directions. From the definition of an S-brane, one should like to use a causal Green’s function (advanced plus retarded, say). Now the causal propagator for a massless scalar has support on the lightcone for an even number of transverse dimensions and support inside the lightcone for an odd number of transverse directions. This is likely to complicate the construction of an S-brane with an even number of transverse directions, like the expected S-branes in type IIB string theory, substantially. Mentioned in , this difference does not seem to have been properly taken into account in the literature so far.

### 1.3 Gravitational solutions

Gravitational solutions corresponding to S-branes have been proposed in  and , further generalized, for instance, in . Some of their features make their interpretation as S-branes, in fact, rather difficult. We shall exemplify these difficulties for the S$`0`$-brane in 4-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell gravity ,

$$S=\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{1}{4}F^4\right).$$
(4)
The natural ansatz has SO$`(2,1)\times `$ symmetry and is of the form

$$ds^2=c_1^2dt^2+c_2^2dz^2+c_3^2ds_{H_2}^2,$$
(5)
in which the warp factors $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, and $`c_3`$ are functions of $`t`$ only, and the two-dimensional hyperbolic space $`H_2`$ gives the leaves of the transverse foliation. From flat space considerations, one is led to make the ansatz

$$F=Q\mathrm{𝑣𝑜𝑙}_{H_2}$$
(6)
for the flux, where $`\mathrm{𝑣𝑜𝑙}_{H_2}`$ is the volume form on $`H_2`$. The resulting equations of motions become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_1^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2c_3^{\prime \prime }}{c_3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^{\prime \prime }}{c_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^{}}{c_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2c_3^{}}{c_3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^{}}{c_2}}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{c_3^4}}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_1^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^{\prime \prime }}{c_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^{}}{c_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^{}}{c_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c_2^{}}{c_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_3^{}}{c_3}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{c_3^4}}`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_1^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_3^{\prime \prime }}{c_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_3^{}}{c_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^{}}{c_1}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_3^{}}{c_3}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3^{}}{c_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^{}}{c_2}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{c_3^4}},`$ (9)
and can be solved explicitly in the gauge $`c_1=1/c_2`$, to yield $`c_3=t`$, and, imposing $`tt`$ symmetry,

$$c_2^2=1\frac{Q^2}{t^2}.$$
(10)
The global structure of this spacetime is illustrated by the Penrose diagram in Fig. 1. It has flat asymptotics at $`t\mathrm{}`$, a “horizon”-like coordinate singularity at $`t=Q`$, and timelike curvature singularities at $`t=0`$. In fact, this diagram is nothing but the $`\pi /2`$-rotation of the Reissner-Nordström black hole, and (10) can be obtained simply by analytical continuation from the static solution. This is discussed in more detail, and for many other solutions, in .

There are a number of problems with the S-brane interpretation of this solution. The most obvious is presumably that the singularities are timelike, and not spacelike, which would have been the natural expectation. Moreover, there are no regions that are causally disconnected from the singularities, another natural expectation from the definition of S-branes. And where is the brane, anyway? According to (3), one would detect this by integrating $`F`$ over large spheres. However, it is easy to see that the spacetime in Fig. 1 does not have any such spheres!

For a different interpretation of the diagram in Fig. 1 involving negative tension branes, see .

## 2 Tachyon Matter

In perturbative string theory, S-branes are expected to be described by imposing Dirichlet boundary conditions in time on the open string worldsheet. Sen  has clarified that this is indeed related to the “rolling tachyon” picture of S-branes. At the linearized level, i.e., for early times, the rolling tachyon with mass squared $`1`$ looks like $`T\left(x^0\right)=\lambda \mathrm{cosh}x^0`$, where $`x^0`$ is time, and $`\lambda `$ is the initial displacement of the tachyon away from the top of its potential. From the string worldsheet, this looks like a boundary interaction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\lambda 𝑑\tau \mathrm{cosh}X^0\left(\tau \right).$$

Using Wick rotation and results from boundary CFT , Sen shows that, firstly, this boundary interaction is exactly marginal for all values of $`\lambda `$, and secondly, that such a boundary theory produces a source for closed strings whose energy-momentum tensor is characterized by constant energy density and exponentially (in time) vanishing pressure. Moreover, the tachyon energy-momentum tensor is localized on the plane of the decaying D-brane. This is essentially due to the fact that the tachyon is an open string.

This behaviour of the tachyon can be reproduced in an effective field theory description with a DBI type action ,

$$S=d^{p+2}xV\left(T\right)\sqrt{det\left(g_{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T\right)}.$$
(11)
Even though the potential to be used in (11) is not known exactly, it is characterized by the universal asymptotics $`V\left(T\right)e^{\left|T\right|/\sqrt{2}}`$ for $`\left|T\right|\mathrm{}`$. For purely time-dependent configurations, energy density and pressure corresponding to this action are given by

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V\left(T\right)}{\sqrt{1+\left(T^{}\right)^2/g_{00}}}}`$ (12)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`V\left(T\right)\sqrt{1+\left(T^{}\right)^2/g_{00}}.`$ (13)
If $`\rho =\mathrm{const}.`$ with $`T`$ approaching the minimum of $`V`$ at $`t\mathrm{}`$, then, since $`g_{00}=1`$, $`T^{}`$ must approach $`1`$ up to exponentially small terms. This implies that $`p`$ vanishes exponentially. These properties derived from the action (11) are called “tachyon matter”.

## 3 Can the tachyon matter?

Let us summarize what we have discussed so far.
S-branes as solitonic kinks can only exist if the scalar field (the tachyon) is coupled to some form of closed string radiation.
The gravity solutions found so far do not seem to have the correct global and singularity structure.
From the open string perspective, the roll of the tachyon (at zero string coupling) is characterized by exponentially vanishing pressure and constant energy density, localized in the plane of the decaying brane.
These properties can be reproduced using an effective DBI-type action.
It is quite natural, then, to ask for the gravitational backreaction of tachyon matter on the proposed S-brane backgrounds. This is achieved by coupling gravity, for instance the Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian (4), to the tachyon matter (11). This was the essential idea of the paper , and we turn to its consequences for the above S$`0`$-brane now.

The coupled system of Einstein-Maxwell gravity and $`1`$-brane has action

$$S=\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{1}{4}F^4\right)d^4x\rho \left(x_{}\right)\left[V\left(T\right)\sqrt{det\left(g_{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T\right)}+f\left(T\right)dTA\right],$$
(14)
where the last term is the coupling between gauge field and tachyon, as in (1). The functions $`V`$ and $`f`$ are assumed to have the universal exponentially vanishing asymptotics discussed above. Moreover, $`\rho \left(x_{}\right)`$ is the density of $`1`$-branes which are smeared over the transverse space. This smearing, with $`\rho \left(x_{}\right)\sqrt{g_{}}`$, is necessary to make the equations tractable. The essential change in the equations of motion is the addition of terms like $`\left(\rho \pm p\right)/c_3^2`$ to the right hand side of (7-9). The Maxwell and tachyon equation read

$`\left(c_3^2A\right)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`f\left(T\right)T^{}`$ (15)
$`\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\rho +p\right){\displaystyle \frac{c_2^{}}{c_2}}f\left(T\right)T^{}A,`$ (16)
where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are given by (12) and (13).

What are the changes to the solution? First of all, it is easy to convince oneself that the early/late time asymptotics are unchanged, up to logarithmic corrections. But something interesting happens close to the coordinate singularity, $`t=Q`$ in (10).

To see this, let us assume that the warp factors vanish at $`t=t_{}`$ according to $`c_2^2=c_1^2=\left(tt_{}\right)\left(\text{finite at }t=t_{}\right)`$, with $`c_3^2`$ finite at $`t=t_{}`$. Locally, this looks like the “Milne universe”, recently popular due to its importance in ekpyrotic cosmology. More precisely, introducing $`\tau =\sqrt{tt_{}}`$, the metric looks like $`d\tau ^2+\tau ^2dz^2`$, which is isomorphic to a piece of two-dimensional Minkowski space.

From the expressions for $`\rho `$ and $`p`$, (12) and (13), it follows that $`\rho =p`$ near $`t=t_{}`$, if $`T^{}`$ is finite there. The resulting equations (in which the tachyon is essentially replaced by a cosmological constant), can be solved explicitly. This finiteness of $`T^{}`$, however, is non-generic. To see this, we consider the tachyon equation of motion

$$\rho ^{}=\left(\rho +p\right)\frac{c_2^{}}{c_2},$$
(17)
and set $`\rho +p=\rho \left(T^{}/c_1\right)^2`$, which is justified if $`T`$ itself is finite near $`t_{}`$. As a consequence,

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{1}{2\left(tt_{}\right)}\left(\rho \frac{1}{\rho }\right),$$
(18)
which implies $`\rho ^2C/\left(tt_{}\right)+1`$. This diverges as $`tt_{}`$, unless $`C`$ is fine tuned to vanish. Thus the stress tensor of the tachyon diverges, and one expects a curvature singularity. Indeed, one can solve for the warp factors, and finds

$$c_1c_21+\mathrm{const}.\sqrt{tt_{}}c_31+\mathrm{const}.\sqrt{tt_{}},$$
(19)
leading to a spacelike curvature singularity.

Lastly, one can show that the remaining singularity structure is not modified by inclusion of tachyon matter . In particular, the timelike curvature singularity is not resolved in our model. Now, however, there is a curvature singularity associated with the tachyon before one reaches the singularity associated with the gauge field, so that the order of the latter has shifted.

## 4 Conclusions and further developments

Summarizing, we have seen that the tachyon matter produces non-negligible backreaction on the S-brane background. While the resulting spacetimes may still not look exactly like what one would expect, the changes in singularity structure induced by the tachyon go in the right direction. There are a few obvious generalizations that one might want to explore, including D$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$-brane systems, to see the effect of a complex tachyon, or higher dimensional systems, to see the effect of including a dilaton.333We have been informed by F. Leblond that the behaviour in higher dimensions can be significantly different upon inclusion of the dilaton .

We conclude the talk with a brief overview of some further developments concerning S-branes and tachyon matter.

Tachyon matter has been explored from the point of view of boundary string field theory . It has also been analyzed in toy models of open string field theory in , focusing on the problems associated with infinitely many time derivatives. In , see also , it was proposed to use the tachyon for an emergent definition of time in the context of canonical quantization of gravity. In particular, it was shown that all solutions of tachyon matter are at late times equivalent to configurations of non-interacting non-rotating dust. In anticipation of dS/CFT, S-brane worldvolume actions have been proposed in .

A more puzzling aspect of the decay process of D-branes and the roll of the tachyon has been revealed in recent studies of radiation production rates. While we have here studied the simplest possible coupling of the tachyon to closed strings, including only the massless supergravity modes, it is a valid question to ask whether this is a good approximation at all. In  it was argued that massive closed string modes may in fact play a crucial role in the decay of the D-brane, as it was shown that the coupling of the tachyon matter to these modes grows exponentially in time and with closed string mode level. In , adopting the open string perspective, the quantum open string production in the exact CFT backgrounds of  was computed and shown to diverge due to the exponentially growing density of open string states. Quantum effects being closed strings, this again points to the importance of closed strings, see also . These results are disturbing as they indicate that there are fundamental difficulties in finding a valid approximation scheme.

Lastly, we should also mention the considerable cosmological interest that tachyon matter has attracted, which, however, we have no space to review here. See  for early literature on tachyon matter cosmology.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank Peter Langfelder for collaboration on the results of . J.W. would like to thank the organizers of the 35th Symposium Ahrenshoop for a very stimulating atmosphere at the meeting, and the Perimeter $`\widehat{\text{ }\mathrm{PI}}`$ Institute for hospitality while these notes were being written up. This work was supported in part by the NSF under Grant Nos. PHY00-98395 (A.B.) and PHY99-07949 (A.B. and J.W.).