format: text

text:
# The Search for Terrestrial Planets: What Do we Need to Know?

## 1. Introduction

The public and the scientific response to NASA’s search for habitable planets and life has been very enthusiastic. Most recently, the National Academy of Science’s Decadal review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (2000) endorsed the Origins goals, noting:

> “Key problems that are particularly ripe for advances in the coming decade…\[include\] studying the formation of stars and their planetary systems, and the birth and evolution of giant and terrestrial planets.”

> “Search for Life outside of earth and, if it is found, determine its nature and its distribution in the galaxy…\[This\] is so challenging and of such importance that it could occupy astronomers for the foreseeable future.”

But the NAS panel added a caveat to its recommendation that NASA proceed with the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission (TPF):

> “The committee’s recommendation of this mission is predicated on the assumptions that TPF will revolutionize major areas of both planetary and non-planetary science, and that, prior to the start of TPF, ground- and space-based searches will confirm the expectation that terrestrial planets are common around solar type stars.”

This talk addresses what we must learn about the prevalence (or absence) of Earth-like planets before starting TPF and discusses what missions might play a role in a balanced program to advance our scientific knowledge and technological prowess to the level needed for TPF.

## 2. Finding Planets Before TPF

As described by the TPF Science Working Group, the primary challenges of the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) are to “detect radiation from Earth-like planets in the habitable zones surrounding a statistically valid sample of $``$ 150 solar type (spectral types F, G, and K) stars, to characterize the orbital and physical properties of all detected planets to assess their habitability, and to characterize the atmospheres and search for potential biomarkers among the brightest candidates.” The specified number of stars is a compromise between providing a high probability of success in finding habitable planets, setting a meaningful limit on the prevalence of planets in the event of a negative result, and the demands on the observing system.

The average distance to the stars with terrestrial planets is perhaps the most critical parameter that sets the scale of TPF. The baseline TPF concept calls for operation toward stars as far away as $``$15 pc, beyond which distance either the angular resolution or sensitivity become insufficient. If, however, Earths were known to be ubiquitous, then one could concentrate on the closest stars (\<5 pc) using smaller telescopes and lower angular resolution. Conversely, if Earths were known to be rare, it would be necessary to use larger telescopes to look beyond 15 pc to find even a few examples. Thus a major goal for a precursor TPF science program is to assess the fraction of stars with terrestrial planets in the habitable zones, denoted $`\eta _{}`$. A lesser but still valuable goal would be to assess the fraction of systems with giant planets located only beyond the habitable zone so that Earths would have a chance to form and survive on stable orbits.

### 2.1. (Almost) Everything I Know About Planets I Learned from Radial Velocities

As described at this conference, the radial velocity (RV) technique (Mayor and Queloz 1995; Marcy and Butler 2000) has proven to be the most successful technique to date in finding planets and even planetary systems. With almost 50 planets now known (see the invaluable Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia at http://www.obspm.fr/planets; Schneider 1996), we have learned that approximately 5% of stars have gas giant planets located within a few AU of their parent star and ranging in size from 0.17/sin i MJ (Marcy & Butler, this conference; and Udry, Mayor & Queloz 2000) to beyond the 13 MJ deuterium burning limit. As many have noted, these gas giants all exist at orbital radii well within water-ice condensation line thought to be the interior limit for the accretion of such planets. Whether this discrepancy is due to dynamical effects or to an insufficient understanding of the mechanisms of planet formation is a matter of great debate.

While only two planetary systems are known, ($`\upsilon `$ And and HD83443), Marcy (this conference) claims that the residuals in the RV data for half of his sample exceed the experimental uncertainties and are highly suggestive of the presence of planets with periods longer than the present observational datasets. While multiple systems may eventually prove be common, as yet we know of no counterpart to our own “grand design” solar system with gas giants on circular orbits located beyond the water-ice condensation line and rocky planets nestled within the habitable zone. Furthermore, the broad range of eccentricities and small orbital radii of the known giant planets may be inconsistent with the existence of habitable, terrestrial planets. Some have argued that these unexpected results mean that solar systems like our own are rare. However, many would argue that we are simply reaping the fruits of using a technique (radial velocity) that is biased toward finding gas giant planets on short period orbits. What are the properties of the solar systems (if any) orbiting the 95% of solar type stars for which the RV technique has to date set only upper limits? To make further progress we need RV data over longer periods to probe larger orbital distances, but we also need qualitatively new types of data.

### 2.2. Transit Experiments

A second technique that has recently borne fruit is the measurement of the transit of a planet in an edge-on orbit across the face of its parent star. The detection of the transits of HD 209458 (Charbonneau et al. 2000; Henry et al. 2000) is a spectacular demonstration of the power of this technique and a validation of the planetary interpretation of the RV data. In addition to giving the planet’s true mass (by determining the inclination angle), radius and density, spectroscopic observations might even reveal information the composition (Sasselov and Seager 2000). On the other hand, the failure to find any transits toward to 3.4$`\times 10^4`$ stars in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae (Gilliland et al. 2000) is an indication that not all environments are hospitable to the formation or survival of planets.

While Jupiter-sized planets present a readily observable transit signal of 1.5%, Earths produce a signal that is only $`10^4`$ in depth. However, if the $`5\times 10^5`$ accuracy of the recent HST observations of HD 209458 (Brown et al. 2000, this conference) can be replicated or improved on in an imaging system, then the detection of Earths around other stars is plausible. A wide area survey of $`10^5`$ stars is required because transits are rare due to the requirement for precise alignment — 1 (10)% for planets at 1 (0.1) AU — and infrequent due to orbital periods ranging from a few months up to once per year for a planet at 1 AU.

A number of groups are either already making such observations on the ground (Borucki et al. 2000; Howell et al. 2000) or proposing them for space missions, including Kepler in the US (Koch et al. 1998) and Eddington/COROT in Europe (Leger et al. 2000). These projects would target solar type stars typically a few 100 to 1,000 pc away in fields of 10-100 sq. deg. Since these weak signals must be measured at least three times to identify and then confirm their presence, a mission dureation of at least 3-4 years is required to find planets in the habitable zone.

### 2.3. Microlensing Searches

Searches for planets by gravitational microlensing take advantage of the fact that the presence of a second mass in a lens system produces multiple images of a background star. The lensing star produces a magnification of the background star’s brightness that lasts a month or longer and which can be as great as a factor of 3 to 10. The second mass, located within a few AU of the central star, produces an additional magnification of a few percent up to a factor of two, lasting anywhere from a few days for a Jupiter to a few hours for an Earth (Peale 1997). A number of groups have reported detections of binary stars and, with less certainty, of objects of Jovian mass (Alcock et al. 2000). The frequency of these events is, unfortunately, quite low so that $`10^8`$ stars must be monitored continuously if the hours-long enhancements due to an Earth are to be detected.

Advantages of the microlensing technique include the large photometric signal, the early identification of the lensing system which can then be constantly monitored, the well defined signature of a microlensing event, and the ability to find free floating planets. The disadvantages include the great distances to the lensing star and the background stars (4 and 8 kpc, respectively), and the fact that the derived mass of the planet depends on the poorly known stellar mass. Further, most of the lensing stars will typically be M dwarfs or smaller and thus not direct solar analogs. Proponents of both ground-based programs and space-based missions such as GEST (Bennett et al. 2000) have suggested that microlensing can reliably find tens of Earths per year.

### 2.4. The Promise of Astrometry

The complementary technique to radial velocities for searching for planets around nearby stars is astrometry. Astrometry is relatively unaffected by the photospheric motions that limit the RV technique to detections of $``$ Saturn-mass planets. Furthermore, astrometric signals grow rather than shrink with increasing orbital distance, reversing the selection bias that affects RV measurements. The scale of the astrometric measurement challenge is set by two cases: the signal of a Jupiter orbiting 5 AU away from a G2V star 10 pc away is $``$500 $`\mu `$as while the astrometric signal of an Earth orbiting 1 AU away the same star is $``$0.3 $`\mu `$as. Detecting a planet of unknown period and amplitude requires a dataset extending at least as long as half the planet’s orbital period. For reliable planet detection, the single measurement accuracy must be approximately half of the astrometric amplitude of the planetary signal (Brown et al. 1999).

As summarized in Table 1, the two NASA projects for astrometric planet detection are the Keck Interferometer and the Space Interferometer Mission (SIM; Unwin et al. 1998). Keck-I will be capable of detecting Jupiters out to almost 100 pc and Uranus-mass planets at 5 AU out to $``$5 pc. And since it will operate for up to 25 years, Keck-I (and eventually VLT-I in the southern hemisphere) will be able to find planets on long period orbits and determine their masses. During its 5 year mission SIM will be able to detect planets of just a few Earth masses in 1-5 AU orbits around stars as far away as 10 pc. SIM will lower the mass limits into the range predicted for the “rocky” as opposed to “gas giant” planets.

There are two other astrometric missions worth mentioning in this context. NASA is planning to launch the full Sky Astrometric Explorer (FAME) around 2005. ESA has recently selected the GAIA mission as a Cornerstone for a launch around 2012. It is important to recognize that these survey missions accomplish their final mission accuracies after averaging $``$1000 individual measurements. The single measurement accuracy which is critical for planet detection is $`\sqrt{1}00030`$ times worse than the mission accuracy, or 1,500 $`\mu `$as for FAME and 120 $`\mu `$as for GAIA. While averaging of the data can improve the effective single measurement accuracy (say by a factor of 3), FAME and GAIA will find only giant planets.

## 3. The Challenge of Direct Detection

Finding habitable environments or even extant life ultimately requires the direct detection of photons from planets. The challenges include faint signals, an enormous contrast ratio between the star and the planet, the close proximity of the planet to the star (1 AU corresponds to 0.1′′ at 10 pc), and the presence of zodiacal emission in our own and in the target solar systems. But as described in the ExNPs Roadmap, the Terrestrial Planet Finder monograph (Beichman, Woolf and Lindensmith 1999), and the recent Darwin report, a mission capable of achieving this goal is within our grasp.

A broad suite of TPF architectures is being investigated by four NASA-sponsored studies involving 16 industrial concerns, 30 universities, 75 scientists, including a number of European researchers. The major concepts under investigation include nulling IR interferometers, visible light telescopes with coronagraphs or apodized pupils, and sparse aperture telescopes. The TPF project will choose 4-8 of the most promising concepts for more detailed study over the next 18 months.

### 3.1. Reflected Light Systems

Observing systems to detect the reflected light from an Earth 10 pc away must utilize a large visible light telescope ($``$50-100 m2 of collecting area) with an advanced coronagraph and/or pupil apodization along with precise wave front control ($`<\lambda /1000`$). The advantages of these systems include operation in a traditional imaging mode on a single spacecraft. The chief disadvantages arise from the extreme star:planet contrast ratio (\>109) which implies the need for exquisite suppression of diffracted and scattered light on a large (monolithic) telescope. Spectral features of H2O and O2 might be used to characterize planetary atmospheres and look for life. What makes visible coronagraphs interesting again after a decade of neglect is the new technology of small deformable mirrors with thousands of actuators capable of \< 1 nm stability. The combination of a large telescope of diameter, D, a coronagraph, and a deformable mirror can, in principle at least, reject scattered and diffracted starlight in a field of a few arcseconds around a bright star (Malbet, Yu and Shao 1995). The number of actuators required is given by $`[Field/(\lambda /D)]^2`$ or roughly $`[3^{\prime \prime }/(0.25^{\prime \prime }/(0.5\mu m/8m)]^2`$ 37,000 for a 3′′ field on an 8 m telescope. While the issues of telescope quality, stability, control of all sources of scattered light, etc., make the coronagraph approach very challenging, the technique is under active study.

### 3.2. Thermal Infrared Systems

Observing systems to detect thermal radiation incorporate a nulling infrared interferometer (Angel and Woolf 1997; TPF and Darwin reports) consisting of 4-6 telescopes, each 2 m (Darwin) - 3.5 m (TPF) in diameter, operating on separate spacecraft over baselines of 75-200 m to achieve the required angular resolution. The chief advantages of these systems include a relatively favorable star:planet contrast ratio (106) and the presence of broad, deep absorption bands that can characterize planetary atmospheres, e.g. CO2, H2O, or serve as signposts of life, e.g. O3 and CH4. The disadvantages of the interferometers include noise due to emission from zodiacal dust, the need for multiple spacecraft, and cryogenic operation.

## 4. TPF Precursors

Detecting gas giant planets is obviously easier than detecting Earths. For example, a 2 m telescope equipped with a coronagraph could detect and characterize Jupiters at visible wavelengths (the ECLIPSE mission; Trauger et al. 2000). Similarly, a smaller version of the infrared nulling interferometer could investigate the spectra of gas giant planets and even detect Earths around the closest stars. For example, the observing time, $`\tau `$, for a nulling interferometer to detect an Earth 10 pc away at 12 $`\mu `$m scales roughly as follows (Beichman and Velusamy 1999):

$$\tau (2hr)\times (\frac{R_{Planet}}{R_{}})^4\times (\frac{Tel.Diam.}{3.5m})^4\times (\frac{Dist.}{10pc})^4\times (\frac{Resln}{3})\times (\frac{SNR}{5})^2$$

Planet diameter, telescope diameter, and distance to the planet can all be traded against one another linearly. Thus, a scaled down version of the nulling IR interferometer, e.g. TPF-Lite using four 1.5 m telescopes on a fixed 20 m boom, could carry out spectroscopy of Jupiters and even detect an Earth around the stars within 5 pc (Woolf et al. 1998; Velusamy and Beichman 2000). This system would require relatively little new technology beyond the nulling capabilities being developed for the Keck Interferometer.

These modest-class missions, operating at either visible or infrared wavelengths, would give us valuable information on the physical properties of some of the gas giant planets already detected (Sudarsky et al. 2000), would identify new gas giants on distant orbits that would take many years to detect via astrometric or radial velocity measurements, and would give us real world experience with complex new observing techniques.

## 5. What Can (Must) We Know Before Starting TPF?

How will our scientific knowledge increase over the next decade to satisfy the requirements laid down by the NAS? Tables 2 and 3 summarize the information different facilities will (or could) provide toward answering the NAS concerns. Relevant portions of the on-going NASA progam include the following:

$``$ The Keck Interferometer and the European VLT-I will use astrometry to extend the present (radial velocity) census of giant planets over wide range of orbital parameters. With these data in hand, we can use dynamical and evolutionary theories to infer a great deal about the prevalence of terrestrial planets, and the suitability of particular stars as potential TPF targets.

$``$ Early in the next decade SIM will push the census of planets around nearby stars down to masses of terrestrial planets, highlighting good targets for TPF. Note that of all the proposed new capabilities, only SIM measures the masses, information that is essential to understanding the habitability of solar systems and of planets themselves.

$``$ SIRTF, Keck Interferometer, and the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) will characterize zodiacal dust clouds around nearby stars to a level of \<10 times that of the solar system. We will be able to extrapolate the “disk luminosity function” to near Solar System levels to assess the importance of this noise source on the problem of planet detection.

But these projects do not provide all the information we might require. Projects that are not presently in the program that would be of considerable utility include the following:

$``$ A mission to determine $`\eta _{}`$ from either transits or microlensing would set the distance scale for TPF and determine the required aperture size and angular resolution needed for a high probability of success in finding Earths. While the COROT mission is a good first step, a mission on the scale of Eddington or Kepler is required for robust statistics. An intensive ground-based microlensing campaign would a valuable near-term adjunct to this effort.

$``$ An advanced coronagraphic telescope might detect and characterize giant planets around nearby stars and demonstrate the technologies needed for more capable future missions.

$``$ A scaled down version of a nulling IR interferometer would detect and characterize giant planets around nearby stars, detect Earths (if any) around the nearest stars, and demonstrate the technologies needed for more capable missions in the future.

From the programmatic standpoint, the problem with these intermediate missions is that they will be expensive and are likely to delay the start of TPF, particularly if we have to wait for their results. The transit, microlensing, and coronagraphic missions have all been proposed for NASA’s Discovery program which has a $``$$300M cost cap; realistic missions might cost even more. A scaled down nulling IR interferometer could easily cost as much as SIM. Thus if we require these missions as precursors, we must accept delays in TPF and higher program costs.

Consider how we might combine the following four elements into a program:

Element 1. Initiate a Mission to Determine $`\eta _{Earth}`$ (Launch in 2006). If an adequate number of stars can be observed with the requisite precision in a Discovery-class mission, then either a transit or a microlensing experiment would bolster our confidence in the goals of TPF and set the distance scale for planet searches.

Element 2. Initiate a TPF-Lite Mission (Launch in 2008). An IR nulling system could make spectroscopic studies of already known giant planets, survey for new giant planets on distant orbits, and even survey the nearest stars for Earths. A visible light coronagraph like ECLIPSE could target Jupiters around nearby stars.

Element 3. Initiate Nominal TPF in 2007 (Launch in 2012). The present NASA plan for TPF involves an IR nulling interferometer based on technology from the SIM, NGST, and ST-3 missions. With a suitable redirection of technology funds, this plan would support a coronagraph alternative if the results of the ongoing studies are favorable. However, this schedule would not allow us to incorporate into the design of TPF the knowledge gleaned from a transit or microlensing experiment, or from the SIM mission. The scale of TPF would have to be set by the compromise described above of wanting to observe $``$150 stars out to $``$15 pc. TPF would however have a well characterized list of targets from radial velocity observations and astrometry using Keck-I, VLT-I, and SIM.

Element 4. Launch TPF based on knowledge of prevalence of Earths (Launch after 2015). If it is necessary to design TPF based on the known incidence of Earths and the actual configuration of (giant) planets around nearby stars, then we must wait until data are obtained from the statistical experiments (transits or microlensing) and/or results from SIM. Under this scenario, TPF could not be launched before 2015. Achieving a high degree of certainty requires that we wait a very long time!

The most aggressive approach, i.e. the present Origins plan, would be to proceed at full speed with the nominal TPF (Element 3). While one never has absolute certainty of what one will find in exploration, a TPF capable of looking for Earths around a few hundred stars out to 15 pc has a high probability of success except for the most pessimistic estimates of $`\eta _{Earth}.`$ A more deliberate approach would require an early measurement of $`\eta _{Earth}`$ (Element 1), would fly a modest-scale precursor (IR interferometer or coronagraph, Element 2), and would finish with a very capable spectroscopic mission in the middle of the next decade (Element 4).

The decision between the two approaches should be made on the basis of technological readiness. If the development of the necessary TPF technologies proceeds smoothly, then we should move as swiftly as budgets will allow to the nominal TPF. If not, then a more deliberate approach makes sense, allowing near-term discoveries and demonstrations of complex observing systems in space. Over the next year, NASA must assess these options and in conjunction with ESA and other international partners come up with a viable program that addresses the age-old questions that have motivated this most exciting conference.

Acknowledgements. This work was carried out for NASA by JPL under a contract with the California Institute of Technology.

## References

Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium: The Report of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee, 2000, National Academy Press, in press.

A Roadmap for the Exploration of Neighboring Planetary Systems (ExNPS), 1996, edited by C. A. Beichman, JPL Report 96-22

Alcock, C. et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 270

Angel, J.R. P. and Woolf, N. J. 1997, ApJ, 475, 373

Beichman, C. A. and Velusamy, T. 1999, in Working on the Fringe: Optical and IR Interferometry from Ground and Space. Proceedings from ASP Conference Vol. 194. Edited by Stephen Unwin and Robert Stachnik, p.408

Bennett, D. et al., 2000, AAS/DPS meeting, 32, 32.06

Borucki, W. J., et al. 2000, PASP, in press

Brown, R., Sozzetti, A., Casertano, S., 1999, “Simulations of Planet Searches with SIM,” STScI Internal Report

Brown, T. M. et al. 2000, this conference

Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Mayor, M., 2000, ApJ, 529, L45

Gilliland, R. L. et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, L47

Henry, G. W., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., 2000, ApJ, 529, L41

Howell, S. B., Everett, M., Davis, D. R., Weidenschilling, S. J., McGruder, C. H., III, Gelderman, R. 2000, AAS/DPS Meeting, 32, 32.03

Koch, D., Borucki,W, Webster,L. et al. 1998, SPIE, 3356, Space Telescopes and Instruments V, p. 599

Léger, A., et al., 2000, this conference

Malbet, F., Yu, J. W., Shao, M., 1995, PASP, 107, 386

Marcy, G. and Butler, P. 2000, this conference

Marcy, G. and Butler, P. 2000, PASP,112, 137

Mayor. M. and Queloz, D. 1995, Nature,378, 355

Peale, S. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 269

Schneider, J. 1996, Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, http://www.obspm.fr/planets

Seager, S. and Sasselov, D. D., 2000, ApJ, 537, 916

Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., Pinto, P. 2000, ApJ, 538, 885

The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF): A NASA Origins Program to Search for Terrestrial Planets, 1999, edited by Beichman, C. A., Woolf, N. J., Lindensmith. C. A., JPL Report 99-3

Trauger, J. et al. 2000, AAS/DPS meeting, 32, 26.08

Udry S., Mayor M. and Queloz D., 2000, preprint

Unwin, S. C., Turyshev, S. G., Shao, M., 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3350, Astronomical Interferometry, Robert D. Reasenberg; Ed. , 551

Velusamy, T. and Beichman, C. A. 2000, IEEE conference, in press

Woolf, N. J., Angel, J. R. P., Beichman, C. A., Burge, J. H., Shao, M., Tenerelli, D. J. 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3350, Astronomical Interferometry, Robert D. Reasenberg, Ed., p. 683


text:
# Delay-induced synchronization phenomena in an array of globally coupled logistic maps

## I Introduction

Coupled oscillator models are widely used to model complex dynamics in non-equilibrium extended systems, and their synchronization has attracted a lot of attention in recent years book . In studies of coupled ensembles of nonlinear oscillators, different situations have been considered (identical or non-identical units, periodic or chaotic single-unit behavior, local or global coupling), and a rich variety of synchronization phenomena has been found (for a recent review, see review ).

In the field of coupled map lattices, the paradigmatic model, originally introduced by Kaneko Kaneko\_1989 ; Kaneko\_1990 , is the ensemble of $`N`$ logistic maps with mean field global coupling:

$$x_i(t+1)=(1ϵ)f[x_i(t)]+\frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}f[x_j(t)],$$
(1)
$`i[1,N]`$, $`f(x)=ax(1x)`$, and $`ϵ`$ is the coupling strength. For relatively large coupling global (full) synchronization occurs: the array synchronizes on the manifold $`x_1=\mathrm{}=x_N`$, where the dynamics of an element is generated by the uncoupled map. For weaker coupling cluster (or partial) synchronization occurs: the array splits into $`K`$ clusters of $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_K`$ elements mutually synchronized Pikovsky\_PRL ; Pikovsky\_PhysicaD .

A characteristic of many biological and physical systems is time-delayed coupling in the interaction among many units. In the case of globally coupled units, the introduction of time delays makes the spatial coordinates of an element relevant in spite of the infinite range of the mean-field interaction. This situation was considered in Ref.Zanette\_2000  for one-dimensional arrays of coupled phase oscillators. It was shown that in the limit of short delays the ensemble approaches a state of frequency synchronization, and that this state might develop a spatial nontrivial distribution of phases. In two-dimensional arrays, distance-dependent time delays induce a variety of patters including traveling rolls, steady patterns, spirals, and targets PRL\_2002 .

Here we study retardation effects in a linear array of logistic maps:

$$x_i(t+1)=(1ϵ)f[x_i(t)]+\frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}f[x_j(t\tau _{ij})],$$
(2)
where $`\tau _{ij}=k|ij|`$ is proportional to the distance between the $`i`$th and $`j`$th maps and $`k`$ is the inverse of the velocity of the signal that travels through the array. In a previous work Physica\_A  we considered the case in which the uncoupled maps evolve in a periodic orbit of period 2 (when $`3a1+\sqrt{6}`$). We found that for weak coupling the array divides into clusters, and the behavior of the individual elements within each cluster depend on the delay times. For strong enough coupling global synchronization occurs, where the dynamics of an element is periodic of period 2, generated by the uncoupled logistic map. The spatial correlation of the elements along the array is such that if $`k`$ is even, at time $`t`$ all elements are in the same state, while if $`k`$ is odd, at time $`t`$ neighboring elements are in different states. In both cases an individual map sees all other maps in his present, current, state.

In this paper we extend the previous study and consider that the uncoupled maps can be either periodic or chaotic (i.e., $`3a4`$). We find that for adequate coupling strength and time delay, global synchronization occurs. In the globally synchronized state all elements evolve along a periodic orbit of the uncoupled logistic map. Remarkably, this orbit might be unstable for the uncoupled maps. In particular, when the uncoupled maps are chaotic, time-delayed coupling might suppress chaos, stabilizing an unstable periodic orbit. For small arrays we study the stability of the globally synchronized solution and calculate the minimum coupling strength above which the unstable orbit of the uncoupled maps becomes stable for the time-delayed coupled maps. The numerical simulations are in excellent agreement with the stability analysis.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we analyze the existence and the stability of the globally synchronized state. In Sec. III we present results of the numerical simulations and the stability analysis. Finally, in Sec. IV we present a summary and the conclusions.

## II Globally synchronized solutions

A special class of solutions of Eq. (2) is characterized by the fact that, for all pairs $`i`$, $`j`$, the signal received by map $`i`$ at each time corresponds to a delayed state of map $`j`$ that coincides with the present state of map $`i`$:

$$x_j(t\tau _{ij})=x_i(t).$$
(3)
Thus, each element “perceives” the array as being fully synchronized, in spite of the fact that the simultaneous states of different elements might not coincide. In these globally synchronized solutions each element evolves along a limit cycle of period $`P`$ of the uncoupled logistic map with a given phase, such that we can write

$$x_i(t)=x_0(t+\varphi _i)$$
(4)
with $`x_0(t)`$ a particular realization of the limit cycle, used as a reference orbit. The condition for this solution to satisfy the evolution equation is

$$\varphi _i\varphi _j+m_{ij}P=\tau _{ij}=k|ij|$$
(5)
for all $`i`$ and $`j`$, where $`m_{ij}`$ are arbitrary integer numbers. The symmetry of the delays, $`\tau _{ij}=\tau _{ji}`$, implies that

$$\varphi _i\varphi _j+m_{ij}P=\varphi _j\varphi _i+m_{ji}P.$$
(6)
Thus, the phase differences $`\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ cannot be arbitrary but have to be either $`\varphi _i\varphi _j=n_{ij}P`$, or $`\varphi _i\varphi _j=P/2+n_{ij}P`$, with $`n_{ij}`$ an integer number.

We shall refer to solutions with $`mod(\varphi _i\varphi _j,P)=0`$ $``$ $`i`$ and $`j`$ as in-phase solutions, and solutions with $`mod(\varphi _{i+1}\varphi _i,P)=P/2`$ $``$ $`i`$ as anti-phase solutions. Since $`mod(\varphi _{i+1}\varphi _i,P)`$ is an integer number, the period $`P`$ of the orbit for the anti-phase solution has to be even. The in-phase and anti-phase solutions verify Eq. (5) only for certain delay times. For the in-phase solution,

$$mod(\varphi _i\varphi _j,P)=mod(k|ij|,P)=0$$
(7)
$``$ $`i`$ and $`j`$ only if $`k=nP`$ with $`n`$ an integer number; for the anti-phase solution,

$$mod(\varphi _{i+1}\varphi _i,P)=mod(k,P)=P/2$$
(8)
only if $`k=P/2+nP`$ with $`n`$ an integer number.

The existence of these globally synchronized states is independent of the coupling strength; the only requirement is that the periodic orbit is a solution (stable or unstable) of the logistic map.

To analyze the stability of the globally synchronized solutions we turn the delayed Eq. (2) into a non-delayed equation by the introduction of auxiliary variables:

$$y_{im}(t)=x_i(tm)$$
(9)
where $`1iN`$ and $`0mM`$ with $`M=\mathrm{max}(\tau _{ij})`$. In terms of these new variables Eq. (2) becomes

$$y_{im}(t+1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}y_{i,m1}(t)\hfill & \text{si }m0,\hfill \\ (1ϵ)f[y_{i0}(t)]+\frac{ϵ}{N}_{j=1}^Nf[y_{j,k|ji|}]\hfill & \text{si }m=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Next we define the vector

$$Z=(y_{10},y_{20},\mathrm{},y_{N0};y_{11},y_{21},\mathrm{},y_{N1};\mathrm{};y_{1M},y_{2M}\mathrm{},y_{NM})$$
(11)
which has $`N(M+1)`$ components. The anti-phase solutions of period 2 can be written as

$$Z_A^1=(x_a,x_b,\mathrm{};x_b,x_a,\mathrm{}),\text{ }Z_A^2=(x_b,x_a,\mathrm{};x_a,x_b,\mathrm{})$$
(12)
and the in-phase solutions of period 2 as

$$Z_I^1=(x_a,x_a,\mathrm{};x_b,x_b,\mathrm{}),\text{ }Z_I^2=(x_b,x_b,\mathrm{};x_a,x_a,\mathrm{})$$
(13)
where $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$ are the points of the period 2 orbit of the logistic map. We re-write Eq. (7) as

$$z_i(t+1)=F_i[z_1(t),\mathrm{},z_{N(M+1)}(t)]$$
(14)
The in-phase and anti-phase solutions are fixed points of $`F^2`$:

$$F(F(Z_{I,A}^{1,2}))=F(Z_{I,A}^{2,1})=Z_{I,A}^{1,2}.$$
(15)
To analyze the stability of these solutions we need to calculate the eigenvalues of the matrix

$$A_{ij}=\frac{F_i}{z_k}|_{Z=Z_{I,A}^2}\frac{F_k}{z_j}|_{Z=Z_{I,A}^1}$$
(16)
This matrix has $`N^2(M+1)^2`$ elements which are either 1, 0, $`[1(N1)ϵ/N]f^{}(x_{a,b})`$ or $`ϵ/Nf^{}(x_{a,b})`$. Even for a small array size there is a large number of variables involved and the eigenvalues have to be calculated numerically. We observe that each matrix in the r.h.s of the last equation has $`(M+1)\times (M+1)`$ blcks with dimensions $`N\times N`$. Denoting these blocks as $`_{ij}`$, with $`i,j=0,\mathrm{}M`$, it is easy to see using Eq. 10 that the all blocks $`_{ij}`$ with $`i>0`$ have all entries $`0`$, except the blocks $`_{i+1,i}`$ which are the $`N\times N`$ identity, $`I_N`$. We also note that $`_{00}=[1(N1)ϵ/N]f^{}(x_{a,b})I_N`$ while the $`_{0j}`$ are nondiagonal, for example $`_{01}`$ is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& ϵ/Nf^{}(x_{a,b})& \mathrm{}& 0\\ ϵ/Nf^{}(x_{b,a})& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& ϵ/Nf^{}(x_{a,b})\\ 0& \mathrm{}& ϵ/Nf^{}(x_{b,a})& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
## III Results

In this section we present numerical simulations and results of the stability analysis, that demonstrate global synchronization in the in-phase and anti-phase solutions discussed in the previous section. The stability analysis can only be done for small arrays and small delay times, since the size of the matrix $`A`$ \[Eq. (13)\] increases as $`kN^2`$. For large arrays and/or large delays, we simulate the equation (2). To solve the delay equation (2) we need to specify the evolution of $`x_i(t)`$ at times $`1t\mathrm{max}(\tau _{ij})`$. We evaluated this by taking $`x_i(1)`$ a random number ranging from 0 to 1 and by letting the array evolve initially without coupling.

First, we show results for the anti-phase solution, which exists for $`k`$ even. For $`k=1`$, we find that for all values of $`a`$ there is a value of $`ϵ`$ above which the anti-phase solution of period 2 is stable. Figure 1 shows the absolute value of the maximum eigenvalue, $`|\lambda _{max}|`$, as a function of $`ϵ`$, for an array of $`N=12`$ maps and three different values of the parameter $`a`$. For $`a=`$3.5 (dot-dashed line) the maps without coupling evolve in a limit cycle of period 4, for $`a=`$3.83 (dashed line) the maps without coupling evolve in a limit cycle of period 3, and for $`a=4`$ (solid line) the maps without coupling are chaotic. For clarity the dotted line indicates the stability boundary $`|\lambda _{max}|=1`$. In the three cases, for large enough coupling the anti-phase solution of period 2 is stable ($`|\lambda _{max}|<1`$). Notice that the coupling strength above which the solution is stable increases with $`a`$.

We verified numerically that for larger arrays the anti-phase solution is stable. Figure 2(a) displays, as an example, a bifurcation diagram for $`N=50`$ ($`a=4`$ and $`k=1`$). The bifurcation diagram is done in the following way: we chose the same initial condition for all values of $`ϵ`$, and we plot the 100 time-consecutive values $`x_i(t)`$ (with $`t`$ large enough) for a given element $`i`$ of the array. Figure 2(b) displays the same but for a neighboring element. Above a certain coupling strength the array synchronizes in the period 2 orbit of the uncoupled map and the bifurcation diagram for the two elements coincide. The synchronization in the period 2 orbit is surprising since for $`a=4`$ the period 2 orbit is unstable for the uncoupled maps. While the anti-phase solution is stable for $`ϵ0.6`$ (see Fig. 1), Fig. 2 shows that the array synchronizes in this solution for a slightly larger coupling strength ($`ϵ0.7`$). The critical coupling strength, $`ϵ_{crit}`$, above which global synchronization occurs depends slightly on the initial condition, and increases with $`a`$ and $`N`$. Figure 3 displays the critical value of $`ϵ`$ (calculated averaging over $`100`$ different initial conditions) vs. $`a`$. $`ϵ_{crit}`$ increases linearly in the parameter region where the uncoupled maps are periodic, and abruptly in the parameter region where the uncoupled maps are chaotic. Figure 4 (solid line) shows that $`ϵ_{crit}`$ also increases with the system size $`N`$.

Notice that below the critical coupling strength, $`ϵ_{crit}`$, the bifurcation diagrams shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) differ. This is due to the fact that for $`ϵ<ϵ_{crit}`$ the array splits into a complex clustered structure. The clustering behavior in the simpler case when the uncoupled maps evolve in a period 2 orbit was studied in Physica\_A .

For larger time delays and $`k`$ odd, the interval of coupling strength in which the anti-phase solution of period 2 is stable becomes more narrow. As an example, Fig. 5 displays $`|\lambda _{max}|`$ vs $`ϵ`$ for $`a=3.5`$ and $`k=1,3,5,`$ and $`7`$. Note that in a wide range of coupling strength $`|\lambda _{max}|`$ is slightly larger than 1. In this parameter region, starting from random initial conditions there is a transient time in which the array approaches the anti-phase solution; after this transient the array exhibits a complex spatio-temporal behavior. The transient time increases with $`N`$; as an example, Fig. 6 displays the mean value, $`<x>=_{i=1}^Nx_i`$, vs. time, for four different system sizes. The study of this unexpected effect of the system size is the object of future work.

Next, we show results for the in-phase solution, which exists for $`k=nP`$. Figure 7 displays the bifurcation diagram for two elements of the array, and $`a=3.5`$, $`k=4`$, and $`N=50`$ (for $`a=3.5`$ the uncoupled maps evolve in a orbit of period 4). We observe that above a critical coupling strength ($`ϵ_{crit}0.23`$) the array synchronizes in the period 4 orbit of the uncoupled map. As in the case of the anti-phase solution, for coupling strengths below $`ϵ_{crit}`$ the bifurcation diagrams shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), differ. This is due to the fact that the two elements belong to different clusters. The dashed line in Fig. 4 shows that $`ϵ_{crit}`$ increases with the system size $`N`$.

For arbitrary values of $`k`$, $`a`$, and $`ϵ`$ we found a rich variety of complex spatiotemporal behaviors. The characterization of the different dynamic regimes is the object of future work.

## IV Summary and conclusions

We studied the synchronization of a linear array of identical logistic maps. We consider time-delayed mutual coupling with delay times $`\tau _{ij}`$ that are proportional to the distance between the maps ($`\tau _{ij}=k|ij|`$). Depending on the time delays and on the coupling strength, different synchronization regimes might occur. If the coupling is weak the array usually splits into a complex clustered structure. If the coupling is large enough, global synchronization occurs. In the globally synchronized state each element of the array sees all other elements in its present state \[$`x_i(t)=x_j(t\tau _{ij})i,j`$\], and all the elements of the array evolve along a periodic orbit of the uncoupled maps. The spatial correlation along the array is either periodic or homogeneous depending on $`k`$. If $`k`$ is odd the array synchronizes in anti-phase, such that the state at time $`t`$ of two consecutive elements is $`x_i(t)=x_0(t)`$, $`x_{i+1}(t)=x_0(t+P/2)`$ (where $`x_0(t)`$ is a particular realization of the orbit of period $`P`$, used as a reference). If $`k=nP`$ the array synchronizes in in-phase, such that the state at time $`t`$ is $`x_i(t)=x_0(t)`$ $`i`$. For parameter values such that the uncoupled maps are chaotic, mutual delayed coupling suppresses chaos rendering the evolution of the elements of the array periodic in time. Thus, an important consequence of our analysis is that delayed coupling might allow controlling a chaotic array by rending an unstable periodic orbit of the uncoupled maps, stable.


text:
# Classification of static and homogeneous solutions in exactly solvable models of two-dimensional dilaton gravity

## I introduction

Semiclassical physics of black holes, combining issues of space-time, thermodynamics and quantum theory is the one of the most fascinating areas in physics. In our real four-dimensional world high mathematical complexities obscure the analysis of interplay between these aspects. This explains why the two-dimensional (2D) black hole physics (and, in more general settings, 2D dilaton gravity theories) became so popular during last decade. The powerful incentive was given due to Callan, Giddins, Harvey and Strominger (CGHS) work  on evaporation of two-dimensional black holes. Meanwhile, the exact solutions for the metric and dilaton discussed in  were pure classical. The situation becomes much more complex if backreaction is taken into account. Then even within the set of two-dimensional theories it is not a simple task to solve and analyze semiclassical field equations. As a consequence, self-consistent generalization of the CGHS theory turned out to be a non-trivial problem. To this end, a series of particular exactly solvable models were suggested and analyzed  \- . In  there has been suggested an unified approach based on symmetries of the non-linear sigma model to which the gravitation-dilaton action is related. This enabled to embrace previously known exactly solvable models within an unified scheme, the condition of exact solvability representing some relation between coefficients which enter the form of the action. This condition was independently refound in  in a more direct way, starting from the gravitation-dilaton action itself. It turned out that rather wide classes of solutions in such theories shares common properties (thermodynamics, space-time structure, etc.) which were discussed in , . Meanwhile, these classes of solutions do not exhaust all the possibilities and, in some respect, are not applicable in some physically interesting situations. For instance, black holes considered in , are always non-extreme. The solutions for the extreme case can be obtained explicitly on the pure classical level (see, e.g., the recent paper ), but this problem becomes much more complex, when quantum backreaction is taken into account. For exactly solvable models of 2D dilaton gravity extremality can be achieved by special ”tuning” asymptotic behavior of some action coefficients near the horizon ,  for rather special families of solutions in which quantum stresses diverge on the horizon, the geometry remaining regular there. Being interesting on its own, such kinds of solutions do not represent, however, zero temperature black holes in the Hartle-Hawking state. Meanwhile, it was shown recently  that the latter type of solutions does appear in the exactly solvable models but only in some degenerate cases.

Thus, different classes of the same exactly solvable models may exhibit quite different properties and this motivates constructing the general scheme which would include all kinds of solutions. This is just the main purpose of our work. Such classification is a necessary step for better understanding the structure of exactly solvable models in dilaton gravity. It may also serve as a basis for diverse set of physical applications, that are contained in 2D dilaton gravity (see, e.g., recent reviews , ).

## II basic equations

Hereafter we restrict ourselves to semiclassical dilaton gravity with backreaction of conformal fields only***We do not consider additional scalar, Yang-Mills or fermion fields  \- , theories nonlinear with respect to curvature , etc, where, however, exact integrability is achieved for the classical case only.. Consider the action

$$I=I_0+I_{PL}\text{,}$$
(1)
where

$$I_0=\frac{1}{2\pi }_Md^2x\sqrt{g}[F(\varphi )R+V(\varphi )(\varphi )^2+U(\varphi )]$$
(2)
and the Polyakov-Liouville action

$$I_{PL}=\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }_Md^2x\sqrt{g}[\frac{(\psi )^2}{2}+\psi R]$$
(3)
is responsible for backreaction. Here the function $`\psi `$ obeys the equation

$$\mathrm{}\psi =R\text{,}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}=_\mu ^\mu `$, $`\kappa =N/24`$ is the quantum coupling parameter, $`N`$ is number of scalar massless fields, $`R`$ is a Riemann curvature. We omit the boundary terms in the action as we are interested only in field equations and their solutions.

From eqs. (1) - (4) one can infer field equations (see below) which are valid for any gravitation-dilaton system of the kind under discussion. Meanwhile, our main goal is to analyze possible exactly solvable cases. The typical representative of the corresponding family reads

$$F=\mathrm{exp}(2\varphi )+2\kappa (d1)\varphi \text{}V=4\mathrm{exp}(2\varphi )+2(12d)\kappa +4C(e^{2\varphi }\kappa d)^2\text{}U=4\lambda ^2\mathrm{exp}(2\varphi )\text{,}$$
(5)
$`\lambda `$ and $`d`$ are constants. If $`C=0`$, this model turns to that suggested in . In turn, it includes different particular known models. For example, in the case $`d=0`$ one obtains the model suggested in , if $`d=1/2`$ it coincides with the RST model . Meanwhile, the family of exactly solvable models under discussion in our paper is wider than (5), including it only as a particular class.

Let us return to the issue of field equations in the generic case. Varying the action with respect to a metric gives us $`(T_{\mu \nu }=2\frac{\delta I}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }})`$:

$$T_{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}T_{\mu \nu }^{(PL)}=0\text{,}$$
(6)
where

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\{2(g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}F_\mu _\nu F)Ug_{\mu \nu }+2V_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }V(\varphi )^2\}\text{,}$$
(7)
$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(PL)}=\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }\{_\mu \psi _\nu \psi 2_\mu _\nu \psi +g_{\mu \nu }[2R\frac{1}{2}(\psi )^2]\}$$
(8)
Variation of the action with respect to $`\varphi `$ gives rise to the equation

$$R\frac{dF}{d\varphi }+\frac{dU}{d\varphi }=2V\mathrm{}\varphi +\frac{dV}{d\varphi }(\varphi )^2\text{.}$$
(9)
In general, field equations cannot be solved exactly and the function $`\psi `$, the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and metric depend on both time-like ($`t`$) and space-like ($`\sigma `$) coordinates: $`\psi =\psi (t`$,$`\sigma )`$, $`\varphi =\varphi (t`$, $`\sigma )`$. In what follows we restrict ourselves to such kind of solutions that $`\psi `$ can be expressed in terms of $`\varphi `$ only: $`\psi =\psi (\varphi )`$. We will see that this leads to the existence of the Killing vector. On the other hand, as all static or homogeneous solutions depend on one variable, one may exclude it and express $`\psi `$ in terms of $`\varphi `$. Thus, the assumption $`\psi =\psi (\varphi )`$ turns out to be equivalent to the static or homogeneous character of solutions.

Let us take the trace of eqs. (6)-(8) and eq. (9). Denoting

$$\stackrel{~}{F}F\kappa \psi ,U\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\varphi \omega }}\text{,}$$
(10)
we get

$$U=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}$$
(11)
$`A_1\mathrm{}\varphi +A_2(\varphi )^2=0\text{,}`$ (12)
$`A_1=(u\kappa \omega )\psi ^{}+\omega u2V\text{,}`$ (13)
$`A_2=(u\kappa \omega )\psi ^{\prime \prime }+\omega u^{}V^{}\text{,}`$ (14)
where $`uF^{}`$ and prime throughout the paper denotes differentiation with respect to $`\varphi .`$ For arbitrary coefficients $`A_1(\varphi )`$, $`A_2(\varphi )`$ eq.(13) cannot be solved exactly. This can be done, however, under some restrictions on the form of the coefficients $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$. Let us demand that

$$A_1=(u\kappa \omega )\chi ^{^{}}\text{}A_2=(u\kappa \omega )\chi ^{^{\prime \prime }}$$
(15)
where $`\chi =\chi (\varphi )`$ and $`\mathrm{}\chi =0`$. Then it follows that $`\psi =\psi _0+\chi `$, where

$$\psi _0^{}=\frac{2V\omega u}{u\kappa \omega }\text{,}$$
(16)
which enables us to find at once $`\psi _0`$ in terms of known functions $`u`$, $`V`$, $`\omega `$ by direct integration. Demanding that both equations in (15) be consistent with each other, we obtain the restriction on the action coefficients

$$u^{}(2V\omega u)+u(u\omega ^{}V^{})+\kappa (\omega V^{}2V\omega ^{})=0$$
(17)
This equation can be solved:

$$V=\omega (u\frac{\kappa \omega }{2})+C(u\kappa \omega )^2\text{,}$$
(18)
where $`C`$ is a constant.

The fact that the function $`\psi `$ is defined up to the function whose Laplacian vanishes is explained by eq. (4) which is, in fact, is the definition of $`\psi `$. The presence of $`\chi `$ reveals itself in the nature of quantum state (see below). Eq. (18) is just the condition obtained in , so account for $`\chi `$ does not generate new types of exactly solvable models but extends the set of solutions within these models.

With eq. (11) taken into account, the field equations (6) - (8) can be rewritten in the form

$$[\xi _1\mathrm{}\varphi +\xi _2(\varphi )^2]g_{\mu \nu }=2(\xi _1_\mu _\nu \varphi +\xi _2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi )$$
(19)
where $`\xi _1=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{d\varphi }`$, $`\xi _2=\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{F}}{d\varphi ^2}\stackrel{~}{V}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}=V\frac{\kappa }{2}(\frac{d\psi }{d\varphi })^2`$. Let us multiply this equation by the factor $`\zeta `$ chosen in such a way that $`\xi _2\zeta =\frac{d(\xi _1\zeta )}{d\varphi }`$. Then eq. (19) turns into

$$g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\mu =2_\mu _\nu \mu \text{,}$$
(20)
where by definition $`\mu ^{}=\xi _1\zeta .`$ This equation takes the same form as eq.(2.24) from  and entails the same general conclusion about the existence of the Killing vector $`l_\alpha =\epsilon _\alpha ^\beta \mu _{,\beta }`$. In the present paper we consider the case when the Killing vector is time-like everywhere that gives rise to static solutions and mainly concentrate on black hole ones.

It is convenient to work in the conformal gauge

$$ds^2=g(dt^2+d\sigma ^2)\text{,}$$
(21)
where, in accordance with the choice of the Killing vector, $`g=g(\sigma )`$ and does not depend on a time-like coordinate $`\sigma `$. In the gauge (21) the curvature

$$R=g^1\frac{^2\mathrm{ln}g}{\sigma ^2}.$$
(22)
Eq. (11) takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }e^\eta =\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{F}}{\sigma ^2}g^1\text{}\eta =𝑑\varphi \omega \text{.}$$
(23)
Now for any function $`f(\sigma )`$ we have $`\mathrm{}f=g^1\frac{^2f}{^2\sigma }`$ whence it is clear that $`\chi =\gamma \sigma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is a constant. Thus, we have

$$\psi =\psi _0+\gamma \sigma \text{,}$$
(24)
where $`\psi _0`$ is defined according to (16). It follows from (4) that

$$g=e^{\psi a\sigma }=e^{\psi _0\delta \sigma }\text{,}$$
(25)
where $`a`$ is a constant, $`\delta =\gamma +a`$. After simple rearrangement the (00) and (11) field equations (6), (19) with the metric in the conformal gauge (21) are reduced to one equation

$$\xi _1\frac{d^2\varphi }{d\sigma ^2}+\xi _2\left(\frac{d\varphi }{d\sigma }\right)^2\xi _1g^1\frac{dg}{d\varphi }\frac{d\varphi }{d\sigma }=0\text{.}$$
(26)
It is convenient to split coefficients in eq. (26) into two parts singling out the term which is built up with the help of $`\psi _0`$: $`\xi _1=\xi _1^{(0)}\kappa \gamma \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }`$, $`\xi _2=\xi _2^{(0)}\kappa \gamma \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\varphi ^2}+\kappa [\frac{d\eta }{d\varphi }\gamma \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi })^2]`$,

$$\xi _1^{(0)}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}^{(0)}}{d\varphi },\xi _2^{(0)}=\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{(0)}}{d\varphi ^2}\stackrel{~}{V}^{(0)},\stackrel{~}{F}^{(0)}=F\kappa \psi _0,\stackrel{~}{V}^{(0)}=V\frac{\kappa }{2}(\frac{d\psi _0}{d\varphi })^2.$$
(27)
Then eq. (26) takes the form

$$\xi _1^{(0)}\frac{d^2\varphi }{d\sigma ^2}+\xi _2^{(0)}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{d\sigma }\right)^2+\xi _1^{(0)}\frac{d\varphi }{d\sigma }(\frac{d\psi _0}{d\sigma }+\delta )=\kappa \gamma (\delta \frac{\gamma }{2})\text{.}$$
(28)
Let us multiply this equation by the factor $`s`$ such that $`\xi _2^{(0)}s=\frac{d(\xi _1^{(0)}s)}{d\varphi }`$, $`s=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{(\xi _2^{(0)}\xi _1^{(0)^{}})}{\xi _1^{(0)}}]=\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{V}^{(0)}/\xi _1^{(0)}]`$.

Then eq. (28) can be cast into the form

$$\frac{dz}{d\sigma }+z(\frac{d\psi _0}{d\sigma }+\delta )=\kappa \gamma (\delta \frac{\gamma }{2})s\text{,}$$
(29)
where $`z=s\xi _1^{(0)}\frac{d\varphi }{d\sigma }=s\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}^{(0)}}{d\sigma }`$. It follows from (16) and (18) that

$$\psi _0=\eta +2CH\text{,}$$
(30)
$$g=e^{\eta 2CH\delta \sigma }$$
(31)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{(0)}=H(12\kappa C)\text{,}$$
(32)
where $`H=F\kappa \eta `$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, the metric function (up to the constant factor) is equal to

$$g=\frac{e^{\delta \sigma }}{U}\text{,}$$
(33)
$$H=F\kappa \mathrm{ln}U+const\text{.}$$
(34)
We obtain from (18), (27), (30), (32)

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{(0)}=(12\kappa C)H^{}(\omega +CH^{})\text{}\xi _1^{(0)}=(12\kappa C)H^{}\text{,}$$
(35)
whence

$$s=e^{\eta CH}\text{.}$$
(36)
Then after simple rearrangement eq. (29) gives rise to

$$\frac{d^2H}{d\sigma ^2}+C\left(\frac{dH}{d\sigma }\right)^2+\delta \frac{dH}{d\sigma }=\alpha \text{,}$$
(37)
where

$$\alpha =\kappa \gamma (\delta \frac{\gamma }{2})/(12\kappa C).$$
(38)
It is convenient to introduce a new variable $`\rho `$, where $`\left|\rho \right|=e^{CH}`$. Then we have the linear equation

$$\frac{d^2\rho }{d\sigma ^2}+\delta \frac{d\rho }{d\sigma }=\alpha C\rho $$
(39)
One can seek a solution in the form $`\rho e^{\beta \sigma }`$, whence we obtain

$$\beta ^2+\delta \beta \alpha C=0$$
(40)
This equation is quadratic and has two roots $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$. Depending on their properties, one can classify all possible types of solutions and describe their properties.. In a natural way, the solutions fall into three different classes: I (both $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$ are real, $`\beta _1`$ $`\beta _2`$); II ($`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$ are real, $`\beta _1=\beta _2`$), III (roots are complex, $`\beta _1=`$ $`\beta _2^{}`$). We describe the results below.

## III general case, types of solutions

It is convenient to cast the solutions of eq. (37) into uniform formulas:

$$CH=CH_0\frac{\delta \sigma }{2}+\mathrm{ln}\left|f\right|\text{,}$$
(41)
where the function obeys the equation

$$\frac{d^2f}{d\sigma ^2}=f\epsilon ^2\text{}\epsilon ^2=\frac{\delta ^2}{4}+\alpha C\text{.}$$
(42)
We get the following different cases.

Ia. $`\epsilon ^2>0`$, $`f=\frac{sh\epsilon \sigma }{\epsilon }`$; Ib: $`f=\frac{ch\epsilon \sigma }{\epsilon }`$;

IIa: $`\epsilon =0`$, $`f=\sigma `$; IIb: $`f=1;`$

III: $`\epsilon ^2\varkappa ^2<0`$, $`f=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varkappa \sigma }{\varkappa }`$.

It follows from (23) that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}{12\kappa C}=e^{2CH_0}z\text{,}$$
(43)
where $`z=1`$ for the Ib case, $`z=0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for IIb and $`z=1`$ in cases Ia, IIa, III.

The Riemann curvature reads the following.

Ia, IIa, III:

$$R=\frac{UC}{12\kappa C}[2+\frac{\omega }{CH^{}}\frac{1}{C^2H^{}}\left(\frac{\omega }{H^{}}\right)^{}q^2]\text{.}$$
(44)
I$`{}_{b}{}^{}:`$

$$R=\frac{UC}{12\kappa C}[2+\frac{\omega }{CH^{}}+\frac{1}{C^2H^{}}\left(\frac{\omega }{H^{}}\right)^{}q^2]$$
(45)
IIb:

$$R=\frac{e^{\eta +2CH_0}}{12\kappa C}\frac{1}{C^2H^{}}\left(\frac{\omega }{H^{}}\right)^{}\frac{\delta ^2}{4}\text{.}$$
(46)
Here $`q=(\frac{df}{d\sigma }\frac{\delta }{2}f)`$.

In a similar way, we get the general structure of the expression for quantum stresses. Two nonzero components of quantum stresses are connected for conformal fields by the well known relationship $`T_0^{0(PL)}+T_1^{1(PL)}=\frac{\kappa R}{\pi }`$ (see eq. (8)). Here we list the component $`T_1^{1(PL)}`$only. One obtains from (8), (30), (31), (38):

$`T_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi g}}[\kappa ({\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{\sigma }}+2\delta ){\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{\sigma }}+2\alpha (12\kappa C)]\text{,}`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{\sigma }}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{CH_\varphi ^{^{}}}}+2){\displaystyle \frac{q}{f}}\text{,}`$ (48)
whence

$$T_1^{1(PL)}=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\frac{\left|UC\right|}{12\kappa C}Z\text{,}$$
(49)
$$Z=(\frac{q\omega }{CH^{^{}}}+2f^{^{}})^2(\delta \gamma )^2f^2\text{,}$$
(50)
except the case IIb, when

$$T_1^{1(PL)}=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }e^{2CH_0+\eta }Z\text{,}$$
(51)
$`Z=\frac{\delta ^2}{4}\left(\frac{\omega }{CH^{^{}}}\right)^2(\delta \gamma )^2`$.

## IV Particular cases and limiting transitions

The solutions obtained depend on several parameters. In what follows it is assumed that the dilaton is not identically constant. The quantities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`C`$ enter the definition of the action coefficients: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ”amplitude” of the potential $`U`$ of a generic model according to eq. (10), while the parameter $`C`$ defines the coefficient $`V`$ of an exactly solvable one (18). Meanwhile, the quantities $`\delta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are the parameters of the solutions of field equations, they do not enter the action but characterize the different solutions for the same model. Let us denote the symbolically \[$`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]( $`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$) the solutions with given parameters for a given action, where it is supposed that the values of parameters differ from zero, unless stated explicitly. Different limiting cases can be described on the basis of eqs. (37)-(40) and eq. (23). Consider first the case

### A $`C=0`$

Now

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{(0)}=H,\psi _0=\eta \text{}g=e^{\eta \delta \sigma }\text{.}$$
(52)
#### 1 Case \[$`0`$, $`0`$\]

Then it follows from (23) that $`\frac{d^2H}{d\sigma ^2}=0`$.

In the cases \[$`0`$, $`0`$\]($`0`$, $`\alpha `$) and \[$`0`$, $`0`$\]($`\delta `$, $`0`$) equations (37) and (23) are mutually inconsistent, so these cases cannot be realized.

\[$`0`$, $`0]`$($`0`$, $`0`$)

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`A\sigma \text{}g=e^\eta \text{}R={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{H^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}e^\eta \text{,}`$ (53)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4\pi }}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2e^\eta }{H^{}_{}{}^{}2}}<0\text{.}`$ (54)
Here $`A`$ is an arbitrary constant.

\[$`0`$, $`0`$\]($`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$)

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\delta }}\sigma \text{}R={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\delta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}\mathrm{exp}(\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\alpha }}H)\text{,}`$ (55)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\eta +\frac{\delta ^2H}{\alpha })}{4\pi }}\alpha [\kappa ({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \omega }{\delta H^{^{}}}}+2\delta ){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\delta H^{^{}}}}+2]\text{.}`$ (56)
If $`\alpha =A\delta `$ and $`\delta 0`$, while $`A`$ is kept fixed, (55) turns into (53).

#### 2 Case \[$`0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]

\[$`0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\] ($`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$)

$`H=H_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\delta }}\sigma +De^{\delta \sigma }\text{}R={\displaystyle \frac{e^\eta }{H^{^{}}}}[\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H_\varphi ^{}}}\right)_\varphi ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\delta ^2}}e^{\delta \sigma }2\alpha D+D^2\delta ^2e^{\delta \sigma })]\text{,}`$ (57)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}e^{\eta +\delta \sigma }\{2\alpha +\kappa ({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\delta }}D\delta e^{\delta \sigma })\omega H^{}_{}{}^{}1[2\delta +({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\delta }}D\delta e^{\delta \sigma })\omega H^{}_{}{}^{}1]\}\text{,}`$ (58)
$$D\delta ^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(59)
\[$`0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]($`\delta `$, $`0`$)

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+De^{\delta \sigma }\text{}g=e^\eta (HH_0)D^1\text{}R={\displaystyle \frac{U}{H^{^{}}}}[\omega +(HH_0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}]\text{,}`$ (60)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \omega U}{4\pi H^{^{}}}}[2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (HH_0)}{H^{^{}}}}]\text{.}`$ (61)
It is seen from (37) and (23) that the solution $`[0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ $`(0`$, $`0`$) is impossible.

\[$`0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]($`0`$, $`\alpha `$)

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sigma ^2}{2}}+H_0\text{}g=e^\eta \text{}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \gamma ^2}{2}}<0\text{,}`$ (62)
$`R=U[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(HH_0)}{H^{}}}]\text{,}`$ (63)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}={\displaystyle \frac{U}{2\pi }}[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^2\kappa (HH_0)]\text{.}`$ (64)
The above formulae exhaust all the possibilities for $`C=0`$.

### B $`C0`$

Let now $`C0`$.

#### 1  Case \[$`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]

\[$`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]($`0`$, $`0`$). Then it follows directly from eq. (37) and eq. (11) that

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`C^1\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\sigma _0}}\right|\text{}g=e^\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _0}{\sigma }})^2\text{,}`$ (65)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{12\kappa C}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}+2C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^{}C}}]\text{,}`$ (66)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }C`$ $`=`$ $`(12\kappa C)\sigma _0^2<0\text{,}`$ (67)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa UC}{4\pi (12\kappa C)}}(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{CH^{^{}}}})^2<0\text{,}`$ (68)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is a constant.

\[$`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]($`\delta `$, $`0`$): this case can be obtained by putting $`\alpha =0`$ directly in the formulas for the case I. However, we list equations explicitly since this value is singled out from the physical viewpoint, giving a typical black hole in the Hartle-Hawking state . Here $`D`$ is a constant, the factor $`C`$ is singled out for convenience.

$`e^{CH}=e^{CH_0}\left|1+DCe^{\delta \sigma }\right|\text{}g=e^\eta {\displaystyle \frac{[e^{C(HH_0)}\nu 1]}{DC}}e^{2CH}\text{,}`$ (69)
$`R={\displaystyle \frac{U}{(12\kappa C)}}\{2C+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{CH^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}[\nu e^{C(HH_0)}1]\}\text{,}`$ (70)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=e^{2CH_0}(12\kappa C)D\delta ^2\text{,}`$ (71)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}={\displaystyle \frac{UC}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{12\kappa C}}({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{CH^{}}}+2)\{2+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{CH^{}}}[1\nu e^{C(HH_0)}]\}\text{,}`$ (72)
$`\nu `$=sign$`(1+DCe^{\delta \sigma })`$. If $`\nu >0`$, our solution, written in the conformal gauge, corresponds to eq. (25) of Ref. , where the Schwarzschild gauge was used.

\[$`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]($`0`$, $`\alpha `$). It can be obtained directly from types I or III by putting $`\delta =0`$.

#### 2 Case \[C, 0\]

\[$`C`$, $`0`$\]($`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$):

$`CH=CH_0+\beta _\pm \sigma \text{}g=\mathrm{exp}(\eta 2CH_02\epsilon CH\beta _\pm ^1)\text{}R={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\pm ^2}{C^2H^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{H^{}}}\right)^{}e^{\eta +2CH_0\pm 2\epsilon CH\beta _\pm ^1}\text{,}`$ (73)
$`T_1^{1(PL)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(\eta +2CH_0\pm 2\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{CH}{\beta _\pm }})\{\kappa \beta _\pm (2+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{CH^{^{}}}})[2(\beta _\pm +\delta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\pm \omega }{CH^{^{}}}})]+2\alpha (12\kappa C)\}\text{,}`$ (74)
$`\beta _\pm `$ are the roots of eq. (40). The solution \[$`C`$, $`0`$\]($`0`$, $`\alpha `$) does not bring any qualitative new features and can be obtained directly form (73) by putting $`\delta =0`$.

\[$`C,0`$\]($`\delta _0`$,$`\alpha `$):

$$H=H_0\frac{\delta \sigma }{2C}\text{}g=e^{\eta 2CH_0}\text{,}$$
(75)
$$R=\frac{\alpha }{CH^{}}\left(\frac{\omega }{H^{}}\right)^{}e^{\eta +2CH_0}\text{,}$$
(76)
$$T_1^{1(PL)}=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }(\frac{\kappa \omega ^2}{CH^2}2)e^{\eta +2CH_0}\text{.}$$
(77)
The solution \[$`C`$, $`0`$\]($`\delta `$, $`0`$) can be obtained from (73) by putting $`\alpha =0`$.

The solution \[$`C`$, $`0`$\]($`0`$, $`0`$) does not exist.

The solutions with $`C=0`$ and $`C0`$ are described by qualitatively different formulas, so one may ask in what way the first class can be obtained from the second one by limiting transition $`C0`$. In such a transition one should carefully take into account not only terms with $`C=0`$ but also terms linear in $`C`$ and, if necessary, make a shift in the coordinate. For example, compare the cases I and $`[0,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,\alpha )`$. In the formulas for roots of eq. (41) we have in the limit under consideration (let for definiteness $`\delta >0`$): $`\epsilon =\frac{\delta }{2}+\frac{\alpha C}{\delta }`$. Introducing a new variable according to $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}+\sigma _0`$ and choosing $`\sigma _0`$ to make the right hand side of eq. (41) of the first order in $`C`$, we put $`\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon \sigma _0)=CD`$, where $`D`$ does not contain $`C`$. Then after simple rearrangement we obtain $`H=\frac{\alpha }{\delta }\sigma +De^{\delta \sigma }`$ that agrees with (57). On the other hand, there also exist solutions with $`C0`$ ( for instance, $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,0)`$) which have no analogues among those with $`C=0`$.

Thus, we obtained the following qualitatively different cases.

Generic types: Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, III.

Particular ones:

$`[0,0](0,0);[0,0](\delta ,\alpha );`$

$`[0,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,\alpha );[0,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,0);[0,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,\alpha );`$

$`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,0);[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,0);[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,\alpha );[C,0](\delta ,\alpha )`$.

The case IIa is equivalent to $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta _0,\alpha )`$ and IIb is equivalent to $`[C,0](\delta _0`$,$`\alpha )`$.

All other particular cases either are impossible or can be obtained directly by letting the parameters their particular values.

## V Examples

In this section we restrict ourselves to examples that possess properties, missed or overlooked in previously known exactly solvable models. Consider, for example, the case $`[0,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,0)`$. It is convenient to introduce a Schwarzschild coordinate $`x`$ according to $`dx=d\sigma g`$. Then it follows from (60) that

$$g=a\frac{HH_0}{U}\text{,}$$
(78)
$$\frac{dx}{d\varphi }=B^1\frac{H^{}}{U}\text{,}$$
(79)
where the constant $`B`$ obeys the relationships $`a=\mathrm{\Lambda }/D`$, $`B=\delta /a`$, $`aB^2=1`$.

If $`H(\varphi )=H_0`$ at some $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$, we have a horizon. Meanwhile, an additional horizon may appear at $`H\mathrm{}`$. As a result, we may obtain black hole and cosmological horizons. Indeed, consider the model for which at $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$

$$Ue^{\varphi m}(1+U_1e^\varphi )\text{}He^{\varphi n}(1+H_1e^\varphi )\text{}n,m>0\text{.}$$
(80)
Then direct implication of eq. (60) shows that $`g\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (nm)]xx_h`$ ($`x_h`$ is the horizon value of $`x`$),

$$R\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (mn1)]\text{,}$$
(81)
$$T_1^{1(PL)}(2nm)\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (mn)]+const\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (mn1)]+\mathrm{}\text{,}$$
(82)
the Hawking temperature $`T_H^{(1)}=\frac{\left|\delta \right|}{4\pi }`$ at the black hole horizon at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ and

$$T_H^{(2)}=\frac{\left|\delta \right|}{4\pi }\frac{(mn)}{n}$$
(83)
at the cosmological horizon $`\varphi =\mathrm{}`$.

The value $`\varphi =\mathrm{}`$ is indeed the horizon provided $`n<m`$, the condition of regularity of the cosmological horizon reads $`mn+1`$, the finiteness of quantum stresses on this horizon occurs if $`2nm=0`$. Al three criteria are met for $`m=2n`$, $`n1`$, in which case $`T_H^{(1)}=T_H^{(2)}`$ and we obtain two horizons at thermal equilibrium, quantum stresses being finite on them.

On the other hand, if $`n<mn+1`$, $`m2n`$, the cosmological horizon is regular but quantum stresses diverge on it.

One can observe that the solutions $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,0)`$ and $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,0)`$ in the case $`U=const`$ ($`\omega =0`$) give the constant curvature solutions $`R=2\sigma _0^2<0`$ ( 2d adS metric) in the first case and $`R=e^{2H_0}DC\delta ^2`$ in the second one (2D dS metirc, if $`DC>0`$). It was shown earlier that dS and adS metric appear in 2D dilaton theories for constant dilaton solutions, $`\left(\varphi \right)^2=0`$ , . However, we see that the reverse is not necessarily true: we obtained the constant curvature solutions with essentially inhomogeneous dilaton field. This is due to $`C0`$, so these solutions could not appear in previous studies of exactly solvable models , .

In the case \[$`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]($`0`$, $`0`$) with $`U=U_0=const`$, the curvature $`R=\frac{2U_0C}{12\kappa C}=const<0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`C`$ have different signs according to (65)) that is nothing else than the usual two-dimensional adS space-time with an acceleration horizon. If the potential is not constant identically but $`UU_0=const`$ asymptotically, we get a black hole extremal horizon.

If, say, at $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ $`HH_1\varphi `$ and $`U=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^\varphi `$, we have for the same type of solutions $`g\sigma ^{m2}`$, $`m=(CH_1)^1`$. If $`0<m<1`$, $`g(xx_h)^n`$ with $`n=\frac{2m}{1m}>2`$. In this sense a horizon is ultraextremal.

$`[0,0](0,0)`$

Let at $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ $`\eta 2\varphi `$, $`He^\varphi `$. Then $`g\sigma ^2`$ and we again obtain an extremal horizon. In fact, as in this example the potential $`U=0`$, we can choose the function $`\eta `$ at our will. For instance, let $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}ch\varphi `$, $`H=sh\varphi `$. Then the solution is symmetric with respect to reflection $`\varphi \varphi `$, $`g=\left(ch\varphi \right)^1`$ and at both infinities we have extremal horizons in equilibrium. In so doing, they are ”ultracold”: $`x\varphi `$ and $`g\left(chx\right)^1`$, so not only the metric function but also their derivatives vanish at infinity.

Consider the case $`H=e^{2\varphi }\kappa \varphi `$, $`\omega =2`$. It corresponds to the solutions found in  in the cosmological context. It is convenient to introduce the coordinate $`\rho `$ according to $`d\rho =\sqrt{g}d\sigma `$, the proper length $`l=\left|\rho \right|`$. Then after some algebraic manipulations it follows from (53) that $`g=a^2`$,

$$a=\frac{\sqrt{b^2\rho ^2+2\kappa }+b\rho }{\kappa }\text{,}$$
(84)
$`b`$is a constant. If $`\kappa 0`$, $`b\rho <0`$, we obtain $`a\left|b\right|l^1`$. The region $`b\rho >0`$ does not have a classical counterpart. The curvature

$$R=\frac{4\kappa b^2}{\left(b^2\rho ^2+2\kappa \right)^{3/2}\left(b\rho +\sqrt{b^2\rho ^2+2\kappa }\right)}$$
(85)
is everywhere finite, including infinity. In the limit $`\rho b+\mathrm{}`$ the metric function $`gl^2`$, the curvature $`Rl^40`$. If $`b\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`gl^2`$, $`Rl^20`$. Thus, we have a nonextreme horizon at one infinity and the Rindler metric at the other one.

The solution of $`[0,0](\delta ,\alpha )`$ type corresponds to the static analogue of what is called ”the second branch” in the cosmological context.

It is worth noting correspondence between some types of exact solutions that follows directly from the explicit formulas. For the solutions $`[0,0](\delta ,\alpha )`$ and $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,0)`$ the dependence of the metric function on dilaton $`g(\varphi )`$ coincide provided $`C=\delta ^2/2\alpha `$; for the solutions $`[0,0](0,0)`$ and $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,0)`$ the spatial dependence of the dilaton on the proper length coincide, provided the constant $`\left|A\right|=\left|C\sigma _0\right|`$.

One can observe that the solutions $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](0,0)`$ and $`[C,\mathrm{\Lambda }](\delta ,0)`$ in the case $`U=const`$ ($`\omega =0`$) give the constant curvature solutions. It was shown earlier that dS and adS metric appear in 2d dilaton theories for constant dilaton solutions, $`\left(\varphi \right)^2=0`$ , . However, we see that the reverse is not necessarily true: we obtained the constant curvature solutions with essentially inhomogeneous dilaton field. This is due to $`C0`$, so these solutions could not appear in previous studies of exactly solvable models , .

## VI Summary

Thus, we considered a rather wide family of exactly solvable models of 2D dilaton gravity with backreaction of conformal fields, which includes previously known particular models of this kind, and enumerated all possible types of static solutions which appear in this family. In so doing, the explicit results were listed for static solutions. However, if a time and space variable are interchanged, we obtain (with signs properly reversed) exact solutions for string-inspired cosmology that gives potential set for the choice of everywhere regular space-times, detailed description of inflation, etc. The list of solutions given above may also describe an initial and final configurations in the problems of black hole formation and evaporation. Further applications for black hole physics and cosmology depend strongly on the concrete choice of the models.


text:
# Cosmological consequences of a built-in cosmological constant model

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational lensing is currently known as one of the robust tests of cosmological models with variable cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) (Fukugita et al. 1992, Caroll et al 1992). It is found by Ratra and Quillen (Ratra and Quillen 1998) that the optical depth is significantly smaller than that in a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model with the same density parameter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). They also found that the red-shift of the maximum of the lens distribution falls between that in the constant-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model and the Einstein-de Sitter model (ES).
It is recently shown that our present universe is accelerating. This apparent acceleration is attributed to a dark energy residing in space itself, which also balances the kinetic energy of expansion so as to give the universe zero spatial curvature, as deduced from the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). This dark energy was important in the past as it is now. It might have played a part in limiting the formation of largest gravitationally bound structures. One can model the dark energy by a cosmological constant (or a vacuum decaying energy). However, not all vacuum decaying cosmological models predict this acceleration. We have recently proposed a cosmological model with a cosmological constant of the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\beta \left(\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}\right)`$, where $`R`$ is the scale factor of the universe and $`\beta `$ some constant. We have found for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ cosmic acceleration is inevitable. This cosmological constant mimics a cosmic fluid (scalar field) with an equation of state of the form $`p_\varphi =\omega _\varphi \rho _\varphi `$ ($`1<\omega _\varphi <1/3`$). Such a field is some times known as quintessence. Quintessence models exhibit an event horizon which poses a serious problem for string theory (Fichler 2001). Quintessence models describe the present expansion without resort to the cosmological constant. The question whether this acceleration will last forever or changes is not yet known! If the present vacuum contribution ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{2}{3}`$ then this cosmological constant mimics a string-like matter. Present observations indicate that the matter contribution ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) to the present universe is such that $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.4`$. One possibility is that this $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be an effective constant, and indeed could be varying slowly with time. Such a behavior can be modelled by the potential energy of a scalar field, in exactly the same way as inflation is.
In this work, we show the similarity between a phenomenological models of a type of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }H^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}`$ and the one with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }8\pi G\rho `$. These forms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are also equivalent to the Rastall (Rastall 1972) and Al-Rawaf and Taha (Al-Rawaf and Taha 1996) models of modified general relativity (MGR). Al Rawaf and Taha obtained a built-in cosmological constant that is related to the curvature scalar ($``$). In MGR a flat universe has an age ($`t_0`$) of $`t_0<H_0^1`$, where $`H_0`$ is the present value of the Hubble constant. However, our model gives a resolution to both the age problem and the low energy density problem of the universe with present observational data. We also discuss the cosmological tests pertaining to diameter-distance, luminosity-distance and gravitational lensing effect. It is now known that the gravitational lensing probability is quite sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, flat models. It has also been noted that for a source at a given red-shift, the red-shift of the peak of the expected normalized probability distribution for the lens red-shift depends on the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have found that our present model gives rather higher values for the luminosity and angular diameter distances with the presently preferred value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m(=0.3)`$. The constraints implied by these tests would place a limit on the value of $`\beta `$.

## 2 The Field Equations

The Einstein field equations with a cosmological constant, and energy conservation law yield

$$\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2+\frac{k}{R^2}=\frac{8\pi }{3}G\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}$$
(1)
$$\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho +3p)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}$$
(2)
and

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(p+\rho )=\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{8\pi G}.$$
(3)
Using the equation of the state

$$p=(\gamma 1)\rho ,1\gamma 2,$$
(4)
eq.(2) can be written as

$$\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left(1\frac{3}{2}\gamma \right)\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}.$$
(5)
Following (Arbab 2002), we consider

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\beta \left(\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\beta `$ is constant. From eqs.(1)-(5), one finds (Arbab 2002) for a flat universe ($`k=0`$)

$$R(t)=Ct^{\frac{\beta 2}{\beta 3}},C=\mathrm{const}.,\beta 3$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\frac{\beta (\beta 2)}{(\beta 3)^2}\frac{1}{t^2},\beta 3,$$
(8)
$$\rho (t)=\frac{(\beta 2)}{(\beta 3)}\frac{1}{4\pi Gt^2},\beta 3$$
(9)
the deceleration parameter is given by

$$q=\frac{\ddot{R}R}{\dot{R}^2}=\left(\frac{1}{2\beta }\right),\beta 2$$
(10)
The matter contribution to density parameter of the universe is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{2}{3}\frac{(\beta 3)}{(\beta 2)},\beta 2$$
(11)
while the vacuum contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\beta }{3(\beta 2)},\beta 2,$$
(12)
so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, as preferred by inflation. From eqs.(11) and (12) one finds

$$\beta =\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{3}}=\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m}.$$
(13)
It is thus clear that the free parameter ($`\beta `$) can be determined from the present observational data from the knowledge of the vacuum or baryonic mass contribution to the total energy density of the universe. For $`\beta >0`$ eq.(13) gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>\frac{1}{3}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<\frac{2}{3}`$). We see that $`\beta =6`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}`$. For $`\beta >6`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for $`\beta <6`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that all other cosmological parameters depend on this constant. The case $`\beta =2`$ defines a static universe, which is physically unacceptable for describing the present universe . We see that the universe will be ultimately driven into a de-Sitter phase of exponential expansion as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ ( or $`\beta 3`$) (Johri 2000, Arbab 2002).
As suggested by many people, that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{2}{3}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{1}{3}`$), one would obtain the following constraints:

$$\beta =4,H_0t_0=2,q_0=0.5.$$
(14)
These findings have to be confronted with current observation. Thus, if the universe is dominated by vacuum, today, then it should accelerate. Note that RT model does not exhibit an acceleration. This because a cosmic acceleration would mean a negative matter density parameter. This why RT predicts a shorter age ($`H_0t_0=0.85`$) of the universe, unless Hubble constant assumes a smaller value.

We would like to remark that our cosmological constant is always positive ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) irrespective of the sign of $`\beta `$. One only has a decelerating universe ($`q>0`$) when $`\beta <2`$.

## 3 A cosmological constant and matter content

In general, the most important difference of a dark energy component to a cosmological constant is that its equation of state can be different form $`p=\rho `$, generally implying a time-variation. Using eqs.(4) and (5) one can write eq.(6) as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\frac{\beta }{3\beta }\right)\left(1\frac{3}{2}\gamma \right)8\pi G\rho ,\beta 3.$$
(15)
It is evident that when $`\gamma =\frac{2}{3}`$ the cosmological constant vanishes ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$). Thus if the universe is dominated by strings today, the cosmological constant must vanish! Such a model is obtained by Sima and Sukenik (Sima and Sukenik 2001) for a non-decelerative universe.
For the matter-dominated universe ($`\gamma =1`$) eq.(15) gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{AR}}=\left(\frac{\beta }{\beta 3}\right)4\pi G\rho ^m.$$
(16)
It is evident from the above equation that an empty universe ($`\rho =0`$) would imply a vanishing cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$).
For the radiation-dominated epoch ($`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$) eq.(15) gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\frac{\beta }{\beta 3}\right)8\pi G\rho ^r.$$
(17)
If $`\beta `$ changes then eqs. (16) and (17) can be written as defining $`\beta `$ (with $`\rho _v=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$) as

$$\beta ^m=\frac{6\rho _v^m}{2\rho _v^m\rho ^m},\beta ^r=\frac{3\rho _v^r}{\rho _v^r\rho ^r},$$
(18)
where the subscripts “r” and “m” denote the value of the quantity during radiation and matter epochs, respectively. We see that for $`\beta >0`$, the vacuum contribution always surpasses the ordinary matter/radiation contribution to the total energy density of the universe in both radiation era ($`\rho _v^r>\rho ^r`$) and matter era ($`\rho _v^m>\frac{1}{2}\rho ^m`$). Therefore, the vacuum energy (cosmological constant) has played a very essential role in inflating the universe in the past, and accelerating it in the present epoch. Thus without the cosmological constant the observable universe would not have been produced. One then should not worry about the fine tuning problem infected other cosmologies inasmuch as the ratio between the vacuum energy to ordinary matter/radiation energy does not change with time.

## 4 A built-in cosmological constant

The curvature scalar $``$ is given by

$$=6\left[\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2+\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}\right].$$
(19)
Using eqs.(1), (5) and (15) the above equation reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{AR}}=\frac{\beta }{6(\beta 1)}.$$
(20)
Recently, Al-Rawaf and Taha (RT), in an attempt to solve the entropy problem, proposed a theory in which the energy conservation law is relaxed. They have shown that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{RT}}=\frac{(1\eta )}{3(2\eta )},$$
(21)
where $`0\eta 1`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{\mathrm{RT}}=\eta ,\eta =2q.$$
(22)
Similarly Majernik (Majernik 2001, 2002) proposed a cosmological model with the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{MJ}}=8\pi \kappa GT$$
(23)
where $`T`$ is the stress-energy scalar ($`T_\mu ^\mu `$) and $`\kappa `$ is some constant. And since we know that $`T`$ is related to $``$, one can write for Majernik (MJ)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{MJ}}=\frac{\kappa }{1+4\kappa }.$$
(24)
Thus eqs.(20), (21) and (24) are different types of a built-in cosmological constant. Though the three models are similar in the matter-dominated era (MD) they differ in both eras.
(i) In the radiation- dominated era (RD) eqs.(21) and (24) yield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ whereas eq.(20) does not.
(ii) In the matter-dominated era eqs.(20) and (24) lead to cosmic acceleration of the universe whereas eq.(21) does not.
We see that our model interplays between the two. Comparison of eq.(20) with eq.(21) using eqs.(10) and (11) yields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{2}{3}+\frac{\eta }{3},\eta =2q=\frac{2}{2\beta }.$$
(25)
We note that, unlike RT, our model can solve both the age and the low mass problems of the universe simultaneously. Our model gives

$$t_0=\frac{2}{3}\frac{H_0^1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}$$
(26)
while RT yields

$$t_0=\frac{2H_0^1}{2+\mathrm{\Omega }_m}.$$
(27)
In RT the age of the universe is limited by the condition $`H_0t_0<1`$, while in our model $`H_0t_01`$, in a good agreement with the present observational data. This is an advantage over RT model, where the age problem and the low-mass problem can not be solved simultaneously. We remark that while our model can account for the presently accelerating universe, RT can not accommodate this possibility, as this is evident from eq.(25).

Substituting eq.(14) in eq.(2) one yields

$$\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\frac{3}{(\beta 3)}\rho .$$
(28)
For a positive energy density ($`\rho >0`$), as seen from eq.(9), $`\beta >3`$. This implies that $`\ddot{R}>0`$ ( not with $`p<\frac{1}{3}\rho `$, as usual). Consequently, one obtains a new cosmic acceleration that has not been explored before. Hence, the observed acceleration, as indicated by supernovae of type Ia, may not require an exotic equation of state, as suggested by many scientists. A physically acceptable solution requires $`\beta >3`$ and this represents the robust constraint for our model. However, this automatically give rise to cosmic acceleration. Hence cosmic acceleration could have started at any time whenever $`\frac{1}{3}<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<1`$.

A similar setting, as in eq.(28), is recently suggested by Gu and Hang (Gu and Hang 2001). However, we have found that this would imply $`p=\rho `$. Therefore, ordinary matter in the presence of a positive cosmological constant can render cosmic acceleration. However, in Al-Rawaf and Taha the factor $`\frac{3}{(3\beta )}`$ in eq.(16) is absorbed in the definition of the gravitational constant $`G`$ making their field equations different from that of Einstein. This is done by replacing $`G`$ by \[ $`G/\alpha `$ \] (or equivalently $`GG/(\frac{3}{3\beta }`$)). However, Al-Rawaf and Taha can describe an accelerating universe (with the normal equation of state) if the gravitational constant is negative!
In what follows we discuss the following cosmological tests:

## 5 Neoclassical tests

A photon emitted by a source with co-ordinate $`r=r_1`$ at time $`t=t_1`$ and received at time $`t_0`$ by an observer located at $`r=0`$ will follow a null geodesic. The proper distance between the source and the observer is given by

$$d(z)=R_0_R^{R_0}\frac{dR}{R\dot{R}}$$
(29)
From eq.(7)one obtains \[Arbab 1998\]

$$H_0d=\frac{1}{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}\left[1(1+z)^{(1\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m)}\right],$$
(30)
where $`1+z=\frac{R_0}{R}`$ defines the red-shift $`z`$.

### 5.1 Luminosity distance

This is given by

$$d_L=\left(\frac{L}{4\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{1/2}=r_1R_0(1+z)=d(z)(1+z),$$
(31)
where $`L`$ is the total power emitted by the source and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the apparent luminosity of the object at a distance $`r_1`$. Using eq.(30) one gets

$$H_0d_L=\frac{1+z}{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}\left[1(1+z)^{(1\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m)}\right]$$
(32)
We see that $`H_0d_L`$ is a decreasing function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. $`H_0d_L`$ versus $`z`$ is plotted in fig.(1) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ for AM, ES and our model (AR). We observe that our model gives a higher value for $`H_0d_L`$ than AM and ES.

### 5.2 Angular diameter distance

The angular diameter ($`d_A`$) of a light source of proper distance $`d`$ is given by

$$d_A=\frac{d(z)}{(1+z)},$$
(33)
or

$$d_AH_0=\frac{1}{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}\left[\frac{1(1+z)^{(1\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m)}}{1+z}\right].$$
(34)
This has a maximum at a red-shift ($`z_m`$) given by

$$1+z_m=\left(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m\right)^{1/(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}$$
(35)
Again $`H_0d_A`$ is a decreasing function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. $`H_0d_A`$ versus $`z`$ is plotted in fig.(2) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ for AM, ES and our model (AR). The maximum red-shift in our model (AR) occurs at $`z_m=0.76`$.

### 5.3 Gravitational Lensing

Following Abdel Rahman solution, one finds that the lensing probability equation for the present model is given by (Fukugita, et al. 1992; Caroll et al. 1992; Cohn 1992)

$$P_{lens}=\frac{1}{8}\left[\frac{(1x_s^{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)})}{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)(1x_s^{1/2})}\right]^3,$$
(36)
the normalized optical depth for lensing is given by (Ratra and Quillen 1992)

$$\tau (z_s)=\frac{1}{30}\left[\frac{(1x_s^{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)})}{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}\right]^3$$
(37)
and the normalized lens red-shift distribution is given by

$$\tau ^1\frac{d\tau }{dz}=F\left(30x^{\mathrm{\Omega }_m/(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}\right),$$
(38)
$$F=\left(\frac{(1x^{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)})^2(x^{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)}x_s^{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)})^2}{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)(1x_s^{(\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m1)})^5}\right),$$
(39)
where $`x=(1+z)^1`$ and $`z_s`$ is the source red-shift. In Abdel Rahman model $`\eta `$ replaces $`\frac{2}{2\beta }`$ and both models coincide with the Einstein-de Sitter model (ES) when $`\eta =1`$ (or $`\beta =0`$), but differ otherwise. We plot the lensing probability (fig.(3)), the normalized optical depth (fig.(4)) and the normalized lens red-shift distribution (fig.(5)) against the source red-shift ($`z_s`$) and matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) for Abdel Rahman (AM) model and our present model (AR). We have found that in our model the normalized lens red-shift distribution peaks at relatively smaller values of the lens red-shift than that of AM and ES, and occurs at relatively high values of the lens red-shift. The lensing probability in our model is very high for a very low matter universe.

## 6 Discussion

All in all, since higher values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ predict higher numbers of gravitational lenses, this technique offers a viable way of putting upper bounds on the value of the cosmological constant. The normalized lens red-shift distribution for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ peaks at smaller values in our model in comparison with AM, and occurs at a higher lens red-shift. For a low density universe the optical depth rises very quickly with the source red-shift than in AM model. The lens distribution peaks at considerably lower values of the lens red- shift than in AM. The diameter and luminosity distances are decreasing functions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Our model predicts rather higher values for these cosmological distances.We predict far more lens system for a low-density universe than might have been observed. We have shown that a cosmological model of the type $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\ddot{R}}{R},\mathrm{\Lambda }H^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }8\pi G\rho `$ are equivalent to a built-in cosmological constant model of Al-Rawaf and Taha type. Different cosmological tests are worked out and some results are shown in fig.(1) to fig(5). The ensuing future results can limit the presently different cosmological scenarios to a few ones.

### Acknowledgements

I would like to express my thanks and appreciations to the abdus Salam ICTP (Trieste) for hospitality and the Swedish Foundation for Science and Technology (SIDA) for financial support.

### References

Abdel Rahman, A.-M., Astrophys. Space Sci.278, 383(2001)
Al-Rawaf, A.S., and Taha, M.O., Gen. Rel. Gravit.28, 935(1996)
Arbab, A.I., Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 93 (2003)
Fukugita, et al., Astrophys J. 393, 99 (1992) Gu, J. and Hwang, W., arXiv.gov/abs/astro-ph/0106387
Fichler, W., et al., arXiv.gov/abs/hep-th/0104181
Johri, V.B., arXiv.gov/abs/astro-ph/0007079
Majern$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{k}`$, V., Phys. Lett. A282, 362(2001), gr-qc/0201019
Rastall, P, Phys. Rev.D6, 3357(1972)
Ratra, B., and Quillen, A., MNRAS 259, 738(1992)
Riess, A.G., et al., Ap. J.116, 1009(1998)
Sima, J., and Sukenik, M. arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0105090
Hellerman, S., et


text:
# A SIMPLE PROOF OF A THEOREM ON (2𝑛)-WEAK AMENABILITY 11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 46H25, 46L57. Key words and phrases. Triangular Banach algebra, n-weak amenability.

Abstract. A simple proof of $`(2n)`$-weak amenability of the triangular Banach algebra $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 𝒜\\ 0& 𝒜\end{array}\right]`$ is given where $`𝒜`$ is a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra.

1. Introduction

The topological cohomology groups provide us some significant information about Banach algebras such as their amenability, contractibility, stability, and singular extensions.

Suppose that $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are unital Banach algebras. $``$ is a unital Banach $`𝒜`$module whenever it is simultaneously a Banach space, a left $`𝒜`$-module and a right $``$-module satisfying $`a(mb)=(am)b,1_𝒜m=m1_{}`$ and $`axbaxb`$. Then $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 0& \end{array}\right]=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& m\\ 0& b\end{array}\right];a𝒜,m,b\}`$ with the usual $`2\times 2`$ matrix addition and formal multiplication equipped with the norm $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& m\\ 0& b\end{array}\right]=a+m+b`$ is said to be a triangular Banach algebra.

Note that the dual $`^{}`$ of $``$ together with the actions $`(\varphi a)(x)=\varphi (ax)`$ and $`(b\varphi )(x)=\varphi (xb)`$ is a Banach $`𝒜`$module. Similarly the $`(2n)`$-th dual $`^{(2n)}`$ of $``$ is a Banach $`𝒜`$module and the $`(2n1)`$-th dual $`^{(2n1)}`$ of $``$ is a Banach $`𝒜`$module. In particular, $`𝒜^{(n)}`$ is a Banach A-bimodule.

The notion of $`n`$-weak amenability was introduced by Dales, Ghahramani and Gronb$`\ae `$ck . If the first topological cohomology group $`H^1(𝒜,𝒜^{(n)})`$, i.e the quotient $`\{\delta :𝒜𝒜^{(n)};\delta \mathrm{is}\mathrm{linear}\mathrm{and}\delta (ab)=a\delta (b)\delta (a)b\}`$ modulo $`\{\delta _x:𝒜𝒜^{(n)};\delta _x(a)=axxa,a𝒜,x𝒜^{(n)}\}`$ is zero, then $`𝒜`$ is called $`n`$-weakly amenable. If for all $`n,𝒜`$ is $`n`$-weakly amenable, $`𝒜`$ is said to be permanently weakly amenable. For example, every $`C^{}`$-algebra is permanently weakly amenable \[1, Theorem 3.1\].

Forrest and Marcoux investigated a relation between $`n`$-weak amenability of triangular Banach algebra $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 0& \end{array}\right]`$ and those of algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$. In particular, they proved permanently weak amenability of the triangular Banach algebra $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 𝒜\\ 0& 𝒜\end{array}\right]`$ where $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra.

In this paper we give a simple proof of the $`(2n)`$-weak amenability of the Banach algebra $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 𝒜\\ 0& 𝒜\end{array}\right]`$ in which $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra .\[2, Proposition 4.5\]

2.Main Result

We start by reviewing some results on $`(2n1)`$-weak amenability of triangular Banach algebras:

Theorem 2.1.  Let $`𝒜`$ and $``$ be unital Banach algebras and $``$ be a unital Banach $`𝒜`$module. Let $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 0& \end{array}\right]`$ be the corresponding triangular Banach algebra. Let $`n`$ be a positive integer. Then

$$H^1(𝒯,𝒯^{(2n1)})H^1(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n1)})H^1(,^{(2n1)}).$$

It follows that $`𝒯`$ is $`(2n1)`$-weakly amenable if and only if both $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are.\[2, Theorem 3.7\]

Corollary 2.2.  $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 𝒜\\ 0& 𝒜\end{array}\right]`$ is $`(2n1)`$-weakly amenable if $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra.

Proof. Apply above theorem and permanently weak amenability of $`𝒜`$ \[1, Theorem 3.1\].

Definition 2.4. Let $``$ be a Banach $`𝒜`$module and $`\rho _{x,y}:^{(2n)}`$ be defined by $`\rho _{x,y}(m)=xmmy`$, where $`x𝒜^{(2n)},m`$ and $`y^{(2n)}`$. Recall that if $`𝒜`$ is a Banach algebra, so is $`𝒜^{(2n)}`$ equipped with the (first) Arens product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=w^{}lim_ilim_ja_ia_j`$ where $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`\{a_j\}`$ are nets in $`𝒜^{(2n2)}`$ converging in weak-topology to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2𝒜^{(2n2)}`$, respectively. We could therefore define the centeralizer of $`𝒜`$ in $`𝒜^{(2n)}`$ as $`Z_𝒜(𝒜^{(2n)})=\{x𝒜^{(2n)};xa=ax\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}a𝒜\}`$ and the central Rosenblum operator on $``$ with coefficients in $`^{(2n)}`$ as $`ZR_{𝒜,}(,^{(2n)})=\{\rho _{x,y};xZ_𝒜(𝒜^{(2n)}),yZ_{}(𝒜^{(2n)})\}`$. The later space is clearly a subspace of $`Hom_{𝒜,}(,^{(2n)})=\{\varphi :^{(2n)};\varphi (amb)=a\varphi (m)b,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}a𝒜,m,b\}`$.
The following theorem play a key role in the subject:

Theorem 2.5. Let $`𝒜`$ and $``$ be unital Banach algebras and $``$ be a unital Banach $`𝒜`$module. Let $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& \\ 0& \end{array}\right]`$ be the corresponding triangular Banach algebra. If $`n`$ is a positive integer and both $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are $`(2n)`$-weakly amenable, then

$$H^1(𝒯,𝒯^{(2n)})=H^1(,^{(2n)})/ZR_{𝒜,}(,^{(2n)}).$$

We are ready to give our proof of Proposition 4.5 of :

Theorem 2.6.  $`𝒯=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 𝒜\\ 0& 𝒜\end{array}\right]`$ is $`(2n)`$-weakly amenable if $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra.

Proof. For each $`n`$, the von Neumann algebra $`𝒜^{(2n)}`$ is unital with the unit denoted by $`1_{𝒜^{(2n)}}`$. Clearly $`ZR_{𝒜,𝒜}(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})Hom_{𝒜,𝒜}(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})`$. For the converse, assume that $`\varphi Hom(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})`$. Since $`\varphi (a)=\varphi (a\mathrm{.1.1})=a\varphi (a)`$ and $`\varphi (a)=\varphi (1.1.a)=\varphi (1)a`$, we have $`\varphi (1)Z_𝒜(𝒜^{(2n)})`$ and $`1_{𝒜^{(2n)}}\varphi (1)Z_𝒜(𝒜^{(2n)})`$. Hence $`\varphi (a)=1_{𝒜^{(2n)}}.a1_{𝒜^{(2n)}}.a+\varphi (a)=\rho _{1_{𝒜^{(2n)}},1_{𝒜^{(2n)}}\varphi (a)}(a)`$. It follows that $`\varphi =\rho _{1_{𝒜^{(2n)}},1_{𝒜^{(2n)}}\varphi (a)}ZR_{𝒜,𝒜}(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})`$. Therefore $`ZR_{𝒜,𝒜}(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})=Hom_{𝒜,𝒜}(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})`$. Applying Theorem 2.5, we conclude that

$$H^1(𝒯,𝒯^{(2n)})=H^1(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})/ZR_{𝒜,𝒜}(𝒜,𝒜^{(2n)})=0.$$