text:
# Remote state preparation and measurement of single photon

## I Introduction

Quantum information theory is a vast area of interdisciplinary research which includes quantum computing, quantum complexity, quantum communication protocols, quantum cryptography, quantum entanglement, and so on . In quantum communication protocols how to process the inaccessible quantum information contained in an unknown state using quantum entanglement and classical channels is an ongoing important area of research. The most cited example is quantum teleportation of an unknown state  from one place to another without ever physically sending the particle. Any quantum state can be teleported from Alice to Bob provided they share a maximally entangled pair and allow to communicate classically. Alice carries out a Bell-state measurement on the input state and one half of the entangled pair and sends the measurement outcomes via a classical channel to Bob. Then he performs a unitary operation on his particle to get the original state. In the process the original state is destroyed and a replica appears in accordance with no-cloning principle . In a similar manner, one may interpret that since the original is being destroyed at sender’s location it must appear somewhere else (i.e. at receiver’s location) in accordance with no-deletion principle . Thus quantum information is ‘robust’ in some sense (and ‘fragile’ too)! If Alice and Bob do not share maximally entangled state rather non-maximally entangled state, then via non-maximally entangled measurement and classical communication Alice can teleport a single photon in a probabilistic manner .

However, if Alice has the complete classical information about a state she need not do teleportation. Instead, she can help Bob to prepare a quantum state at a remote location using prior entanglement and classical communication. It was shown that indeed Alice can prepare special class of qubits (either from polar or equatorial great circle) using one maximally entangled pair and one classical bit of communication . In section I, I discuss mainly the exact remote state preparation of single photon. In section III, I discuss remote state measurement (RSM) of arbitrary photon via projection and generalised POVM measurements. In section IV, I present why Alice cannot ask Bob to simulate two particle measurement on an unknown photon with one unit of entanglement and one classical bit. In section V, I will mention recent developments in the context of remote state preparation and its generalisation to higher dimensional quantum system.

## II Remote state preparation of a special photon

In this section I discuss the remote state preparation protocol of a single photon chosen from a particular ensemble. The particular ensemble is known both to Alice and Bob, but the parameters describing the state in the ensemble is know only to Alice but unknown to Bob. This protocol requires only one classical bit to be communicated from Alice to Bob provided they share an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pair. Here, we do not require a Bell-state measurement; only a local unitary operation and single particle von Neumann measurement is necessary. Moreover we do not need the physical presence of a qubit at Alice’s location. The possibility that a photon chosen from equatorial or polar great circles on a Poincare sphere can be remotely prepared arises from the isotropic nature of EPR state and impossibility of complementing an unknown state.

Consider a photon in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. An arbitrary photon can be represented as a linear superposition of two distinct polarisation states such as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |H+\beta |V,$$
(1)
where we can choose $`\alpha `$ to be real and $`\beta `$ to be a complex number, in general (up to $`U(1)`$ equivalence classes of states). $`|H`$ and $`|V`$ represents horizontal and vertical polarisation states of a photon. They are also called computational basis states, because they can represent classical information such as ‘$`0`$’ and ‘$`1`$’. The single photon state in (1) is a quantum bit (qubit) and can be represented by a point on the Poincare sphere $`S^2`$. Such a qubit is realized only in quantum world but not in the classical world. The qubit $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is known to Alice and unknown to Bob.

Imagine that Alice and Bob are far away from each other. Alice wants a photon in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at Bob’s place. One way would be to prepare a photon in her lab and send through an optical fiber over to Bob’s lab. Alternately, she can send the classical description of the photon over an ordinary communication channel (telephone line) and Bob prepares himself accordingly. In the first case, some one else on the way can take the photon that Alice has sent and in the second case, to transmit two real numbers one needs to send infinite number of bits, in principle. From communication point of view this would be very expensive. However, both the problems can be over come if Alice and Bob have shared previously one half of the photons from an EPR source, which is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H_A|V_B|V_A|H_B).$$
(2)
This type of entangled state of photons can be created by parametric down-conversion process where an input photon of given frequency (called pump photon) can decay inside a non-linear crystal into two photons with maximal quantum correlation.

Now the protocol goes like this. Alice is having first particle and Bob is having the second. Since Alice knows the state she can chose to measure her photon in any basis she wants. Furthermore, she knows how to relate the computational basis sates $`\{|H,|V\}`$ and the arbitrary “qubit basis”$`\{|\mathrm{\Psi },|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\}`$ in a unitary manner. The unitary operator is the standard $`SU(2)`$ operator. This is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=U(\alpha ,\beta )|H=\alpha |H+\beta |V`$ (3)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=U(\alpha ,\beta )|V=\alpha |V\beta ^{}|H.`$ (4)
An important property of the EPR state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}`$ is that it is invariant under local unitary operator $`U_AU_B`$ operation where the same $`U`$ acts on both the subsystems, i.e.,

$`U_A(\alpha ,\beta )U_B(\alpha ,\beta )|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_B|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_B]=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}.`$ (5)
Now another remarkable property follows from the above invariance nature of EPR singlet is that if a subsystem undergoes an evolution, then the other subsystem undergoes a de-evolution or vice versa. It is something which is really counter intuitive and has no classical analog! It is expressed by the following equation:

$`U_A(\alpha ,\beta )I_B|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}=I_AU_B(\alpha ,\beta )^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}.`$ (6)
This says that when both the photons are in an EPR state, then if one subsystem goes forward in time and the other one is silent (done nothing), it is equivalent to first subsystem being silent and the second goes back reverse in time. However, this evolution cannot be seen at individual level, because the state of either photon is completely unpolarized (i.e. a random density matrix $`I/2`$). The evolution leading to state preparation is possible only after local measurement and sending the classical information. To me this lies at the heart of remote state preparation of special class of photons.

Now Alice applies $`U_A(\alpha ,\beta )^{}`$ to her particle and as a result the state becomes

$`U_A(\alpha ,\beta )^{}I_B|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|H_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_B|V_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_B].`$ (7)
She performs a von Neumann projection onto horizontal and vertical basis and sends one classical bit to Bob. If her outcome is $`|H`$ Bob’s photon would be in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ and if she gets $`|V`$ then Bob’s photon would be in the desired state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. For example, if Alice chooses to prepare a photon from polar great circle, i.e., $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |H+\beta |V`$ (with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ both are real), Bob will apply $`i\sigma _y`$ to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\beta |H\alpha |V`$ or do nothing after receiving the classical information from Alice. Alternatively, if Alice chose to prepare a photon from equatorial circle on Poincare sphere such as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H+e^{i\varphi }|V)`$ then in this case Bob can get $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|He^{i\varphi }|V)`$ by applying $`\sigma _z`$ or do nothing after receiving one classical bit. Thus Alice can prepare any photon either from polar or equatorial circle using this protocol at a remote location.

But why cannot Alice prepare any arbitrary photon state even though she has complete knowledge. Here comes Bob’s knowledge in manipulating photon states! Similar to no-cloning and no-deleting principles, we know that an arbitrary unknown state cannot be complemented . Here complementing operation means creating a state that is orthogonal to the given state. Though we can design a device (called NOT gate) which can take $`|H|V`$ and $`|V|H`$ there is no universal NOT gate which can take an unknown qubit $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ as it involves an anti-unitary operation. Anti-unitary operations correspond to improper rotations and cannot be implemented by physical operations (called Completely Positive Maps). Thus, Bob cannot convert a photon in an orthogonal state (which he gets half of the time) since it is unknown to him. Thus, a doubly infinity of bits of information (corresponding to two real numbers ) cannot be passed all the time with the use of entanglement by sending just one classical bit.

## III Remote State Measurement of photon

In an interesting protocol called “classical teleportation” of a qubit it is aimed to simulate any possible measurement on a qubit known to Alice but unknown to Bob using hidden variables and classical communications . Remote state measurement (RSM) protocol is an outcome of quantum version of the above protocol. At a first glance, it appears that in our RSP scheme one can remotely prepare an arbitrary known photon state one half of the time, so Bob might not be able to simulate the measurement statistics all the time as Bob cannot get a unknown photon from the orthogonal photon state. However, a little thought shows that there is no problem with Bob for simulating the measurement statistics on the complement photon. This is because the quantum mechanical probabilities and transition probabilities are invariant under unitary and anti-unitary operations which is the famous Wigner’s theorem. This says that for any two non-orthogonal states if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|^2`$ then $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{},|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are related to $`|\mathrm{\Psi },|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ either by unitary or anti-unitary transformations. For example, if Bob wants to measure an observable $`(𝐛.\sigma )`$, with the projection operator $`P_\pm (𝐛)=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm 𝐛.\sigma )`$, then the probability of measurement outcome in the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|=\frac{1}{2}(I+𝐧.\sigma )`$ is given by

$`P_\pm (\rho _\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{tr}(P_\pm (𝐛)\rho _\mathrm{\Psi })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm 𝐛.𝐧).`$ (8)
But suppose Bob gets $`\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}|=\frac{1}{2}(I𝐧.\sigma )`$. In this case the measurement gives a result

$`P_\pm (\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{})=\mathrm{tr}(P_\pm (𝐛)\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1𝐛.𝐧).`$ (9)
The probabilistic outcomes in (7) and (8) are different. However, Bob can always chose his apparatus (by reversing the direction of $`𝐛`$) such that he can make $`P_\pm (\rho _\mathrm{\Psi })=P_\pm (\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{})`$. Note that Bob cannot reverse the direction of $`𝐧`$ but can in principle reverse the direction of $`𝐛`$. So even if Bob cannot get a qubit from a complement qubit (half of the time) still he can get the same measurement outcomes from it. Therefore, Bob can always simulate efficiently the statistics of his measurements on a qubit known to Alice but unknown to him, provided they share an EPR pair and communicate one classical bit. In the classical case, if Alice and Bob do not share entanglement they need to send $`2.19`$ bits on the average .

Bob can also simulate probabilistic outcomes via generalized measurements such as POVMs $`F_\mu `$ with $`_\mu F_\mu =1`$. They can be described by the elements $`F_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(|𝐟_\mu |I+𝐟_\mu .\sigma )`$, where $`𝐟_\mu `$’s are vectors on Poincare sphere . The probability of measurement outcome in the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ are given by $`P_\mu (\rho _\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{tr}(F_\mu \rho _\mathrm{\Psi })=\frac{1}{2}(|𝐟_\mu |+𝐟_\mu .𝐧)`$ and $`P_\mu (\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{})=\mathrm{tr}(F_\mu \rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{})=\frac{1}{2}(|𝐟_\mu |𝐟_\mu .𝐧)`$, respectively. These outcome are different, but Bob can flip the vectors $`𝐟_\mu `$ to make these simulations identical as if he has a qubit at his disposal. This is possible again with one unit of entanglement and one classical bit, whereas classically, if Alice and Bob share hidden variables to simulate POVM outcomes Alice and Bob have to communicate on the average $`6.38`$ bits (counting forward and backward communications) . Thus use of quantum entanglement saves $`5.38`$ bits and backward communication in remote simulation of POVMs.

## IV Remote Joint state measurement

Next we ask the question: Can Alice ask Bob to simulate any joint measurement on two unknown photon states with the use of one ebit and one classical bit? The general answer is ‘no’. Suppose Bob at his disposal has another photon in an unknown quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=a|H+b|V`$, with $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}(I+𝐦.\sigma )`$, in addition to a photon that Alice would be preparing. Now Bob wants to do a joint measurement on the state of the first photon (being in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$) and the second photon in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Suppose the joint measurement operation is an entangled operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(II+(𝐫.\sigma )I+I(𝐬.\sigma )+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j)`$ (10)
where $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐬`$ are real vectors and $`t_{ij}`$ are real coefficients. In terms of density matrices, Bob’s two photons can be in a state (when Alice gets $`|1`$)

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[II+(𝐧.\sigma )I+I(𝐦.\sigma )+(𝐧.\sigma )(𝐦.\sigma )]`$ (11)
or in a state (when Alice gets $`|0`$)

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[II(𝐧.\sigma )I+I(𝐦.\sigma )(𝐧.\sigma )(𝐦.\sigma )]`$ (12)
The question is can Bob make the following two probabilities equal, i.e., if $`\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }]=\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }]`$? Explicitly, they are given by

$`\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[1+𝐫.𝐧+𝐬.𝐦+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t_{ij}𝐧_i𝐦_j]`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[1𝐫.𝐧+𝐬.𝐦{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}t_{ij}𝐧_i𝐦_j]`$ (14)
In general these two probabilities are not equal and there is no way for Bob to make them equal either. This is because Bob can only manipulate with his measuring device described by parameters $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐬`$. By flipping the sign of $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐬`$ he cannot make these probabilities identical. However, examination of the above equation reveals that if the additional quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is known to Bob, then he can flip $`𝐦`$ and $`𝐫`$ to make these probabilities equal. Thus remote joint state measurement is possible on an arbitrary photon that Alice wanted, together with a known photon state.

## V Further generalisation and open questions

Remote state preparation and measurement protocols have brought out various features of quantum and classical resources used in quantum communication. Unlike in teleportation where resources are fixed for the task, here it is possible to have trade-offs. In last three years, important progresses have been made in understanding these trade-offs. Soon after the exact RSP protocol, Lo has  conjectured that if Alice wants to prepare remotely an arbitrary qubit it may still require two classical bits as in the case of quantum teleportation. Bennett et al have generalised RSP for arbitrary qubits, higher dimensional Hilbert spaces and also RSP of entangled systems. If one does not restrict the number of entangled pairs used, then asymptotically one can prepare an arbitrary qubit with one classical bit . Subsequently, Devetak and Berger have proposed a low entanglement RSP protocol  for arbitrary quantum states. The exact and minimal resource consuming RSP protocol is generalised to higher dimension by Zeng and Zhang . It was found that it is not possible to have RSP in arbitrary higher dimension with minimal resources. There are restrictions on the dimension of the Hilbert space for which RSP can be realized. Leung and Shor have given a stronger proof of Lo’s conjecture for RSP of arbitrary quantum state . Remote preparation of ensemble of mixed states has been studied by Berry and Sanders . In addition, as a first step the exact RSP and RSM protocol for qubit  have been implemented using NMR devices  over atomic distances. However, long distance implementation of RSP of special and arbitrary qubits and RSM of arbitrary qubits would be very welcome in future. Even though RSP could be generalised to higher dimensional Hilbert space, similar generalisation of RSM to higher dimensional quantum systems is still elusive. It may be even impossible! So in that sense only qubits (photons) enjoy the RSM protocol.

Invited talk in 6th International Conference PHOTONICS-2002, held from 16th-18th Dec. 2002, in TIFR, Mumbai, India.


format: text

text:
# VARIABLE MASS THEORIES OF GRAVITY

## I Introduction

Many attempts have been proposed to generalize Einstein’s theory of gravity through the introduction of a variable rest mass. The motivation for doing so comes mainly from theoretical arguments, like scale invariance of the gravitational theory, additional scalar fields that emerge from string theories or additional degrees of freedom that arise in the framework of brane-world theories ponce2  and could eventually be related to such a mass variation. In these theories, the rest mass $`m`$ is supposed to vary slowly with time. Usually, the variation is considered to occur at a rate related to the age of the universe. In particular, this means that the effects of this departure from classical general relativity only occur at cosmological scales and do not affect planetary motion or any other experiment carried out in the planetary system. These effects have been studied in the framework of several theories (see wesson  and references therein). In this article, we focus on the theoretical effects of the assumption of variable rest masses. Thus, instead of cosmological models, we consider the planetary system or even the gravitational field of point particles and examine the impact of the introduction of the concept of a variable rest mass. Even if there are no experimental changes, a small departure from general relativity may represent a severe change in the theoretical concepts. Especially, attention should be paid to the self-consistency and the covariance of the theory as well as to the very definition of the mass as a quantity that characterises the particles.

None of the considered models is essentially new and all of them has been considered with respect to several aspects in the literature. In this sense, the set of references is not complete and contains only those sources which were explicitly consulted. The aim of this article is merely to drive attention to some of the problems that one should have in mind when dealing with variable mass theories.

## II Time dependent particle masses

### II.1 Newtonian theory of gravity

In a first attempt, we generalize Newton’s theory of gravity by admitting a time dependence of the particle masses. The field equations and the equations of motion read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}(m(t)\stackrel{}{v})`$ $`=`$ $`m(t)\stackrel{}{}\phi `$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho (\stackrel{}{x},t),`$
where $`G`$ is treated as a constant. The point particle case is now described by a time dependent mass density

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{x},t)=M(t)\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(t)).$$

A test particle of mass $`m`$ in the field of a central body at rest at the origin with mass $`M`$ evolves as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(m(t)\stackrel{}{v})=\frac{Gm(t)M(t)}{r^3}\stackrel{}{r}.$$

Although the orbital angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{L}=m(\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{v})`$ is still conserved, the observable kinematical quantity $`\stackrel{}{l}=\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{v}`$ is not. We have instead

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\stackrel{}{l}=\frac{\dot{m}}{m}\stackrel{}{l}.$$

The time dependence of the particle masses also destroys energy conservation. For the case of a constant central particle mass, $`M=M_0`$, we find

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{v}^2\frac{GM_0}{r})=\frac{\dot{m}}{m}\stackrel{}{v}^2.$$

The Newtonian equations do neither tell us about the time evolution of $`m`$ nore of $`M`$. In later sections, we try to remove this deficiency by treating the mass as a scalar field or as an additional dimension of spacetime, and thus as subject to the field equations.

An interesting idea, which is the realization of Mach’s principle in a very strong form, is to consider the rest mass of the particles as entirely due to its gravitational energy (or rather its opposite) from all the other surrounding masses. Thus, if we suppose the energy to be of the Newtonian form, the mass could be expressed as (cf. booth )

$$mc^2={}_{M}{}^{}\frac{GmM}{r_M},$$

where the sum is carried out over all the bodies of the universe. Note that this is a recursive definition, since the other masses, $`M`$, also depend in the same way of $`m`$. Without going into details and discussing this equation, we will directly apply it to the case of planetary motion.

Let $`m`$ be the mass of a planet, and $`M`$ the mass of the sun. Since the motion is confined at a small space region, we can suppose that the gravitational energy due to the interaction of $`m`$ or $`M`$ with all the other masses is constant, and that the variation of the masses is entirely due to the variation of the potential energy between $`M`$ and $`m`$.

Thus, we can write

$$mc^2=m_0c^2+\frac{mMG}{r}=m_0c^2+\frac{m_0M_0G}{c^2r}+\frac{m_0^2M^2G^2}{c^2r^2}+\mathrm{}$$

The (Newtonian) Lagrangian is given by

$$L=\frac{m\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}m\phi ,$$

with $`\phi =GM/r`$. We now introduce our mass relation into this Lagrangian. The second term can be expanded as

$$\frac{mMG}{r}=(m_0+\frac{m_0M_0G}{c^2r})(M_0+\frac{m_0M_0G}{c^2r})\frac{G}{r},$$

where terms of the order $`\frac{1}{r^3}`$ are neglected. This can be written as

$$\frac{mMG}{r}=m_0\phi +\frac{m_0^3}{c^2M_0}\phi ^2+\frac{m_0^2}{c^2}\phi ^2,$$

where $`\phi `$ is now defined as $`\phi =\frac{M_0G}{r}`$. As to the first term, it yields

$$\frac{m\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}=\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}+\frac{\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}\frac{m_0M_0G}{c^2r}=\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}\frac{m_0\phi }{c^22}\stackrel{}{v}^2,$$

where terms of the order $`\phi \stackrel{}{v}^2/c^2`$ are neglected (since the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is nonrelativistic).

The result is

$$L=\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}m_0\phi \frac{m_0^2}{c^22}\phi \stackrel{}{v}^2+\frac{m_0^2}{c^2}\phi ^2+\frac{m_0^3}{c^2M_0}\phi ^2.$$

This is the Lagrangian that describes the motion of a planet $`m_0`$ for the considered mass variation, with an accuracy of 1 post-newtonian (1 PN) order. For planetary motion, the last term can of course be ignored, since $`M_0>>m_0`$.

To the same order, the general relativistic result (from the post-newtonian expansion of the two body system) has the form (see landau , §106)

$$L_{GR}=\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}m_0\phi \frac{3m_0^2}{c^22}\phi \stackrel{}{v}^2\frac{m_0^2}{c^2}\phi ^2\frac{m_0^3}{c^2M_0}\phi ^2,$$

where, in the expression from landau , we have set the velocity of the central planet $`M_0`$ to zero. (Actually, the going over from the 2 body problem to the one body problem, i.e. setting one velocity to zero, should be accompanied by the relation $`M>>m`$, i.e. the last term should also be dropped. We will do so in the following.)

As we have seen earlier in this section, the Newtonian energy is not a constant of motion any more. It is easy to see that the relation

$$\frac{m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}+m_0\phi =E_N$$

will suffer from first order corrections, i.e. we have $`m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2/2+m_0\phi =E_N+O(1)`$ This, however, leads to the following relation:

$$\frac{m_0^2\stackrel{}{v}^2}{c^22}\phi +\frac{m_0^2}{c^2}\phi ^2=\frac{m_0}{c^2}E_N\phi +O(2)$$

Using this relation, we can bring our 1 PN order Lagrangian into the form

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_0\stackrel{}{v}^2}{2}}m_0\phi {\displaystyle \frac{3m_0^2}{c^22}}\phi \stackrel{}{v}^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{c^2}}\phi ^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{c^2}}E_N\phi `$
$`=`$ $`L_{GR}+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{c^2}}E_N\phi .`$
In this form, the departure from general relativity is best seen. The last term is especially important for orbits near to the sun. This, of course, is a general feature of post-newtonian corrections. As the Lagrangian $`L_{GR}`$ describes already all the observable effects in the planetary system (except for the light deflection, which cannot be subject to a post-newtonian extension, which is confined to the description of particles with $`\stackrel{}{v}<<c`$), it is surprising, that by our straightforward concept, we got the right form of the corrections (even if the factors don’t match), using a non-relativistic scalar field theory.

As a last remark to the Newtonian theory, we should have in mind that, even if the above result would have been identical with the general relativistic expansion, the embedding of this theory into a special relativistic context would again destroy this matching. Indeed, we would have to bring the Newtonian equations into a covariant form, and the relation of the mass to the gravitatial field would have to be changed. Problems arise, however, even before that!

### II.2 Special relativistic theory

In a next step, we introduce the concept of a variable mass into a Lorentz covariant theory. To begin with, we consider the motion of a test particle in flat spacetime under the influence of a electromagnetic field. The equations of motions in special relativity follow from the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}m\eta _{ik}u^iu^k+eA_iu^i.$$

In order to conserve the Lorentz covariance, $`m`$ cannot be, a priori, a function of the time coordinate $`t`$ but should be regarded as dependent on the curve parameter $`\tau `$ which is still to be interpreted. The Euler-Lagrange equations yield

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }(m(\tau )u^i)=eF_k^iu^k.$$

Contracting both sides with $`mu_i`$, we find a constant of motion $`m^2u_iu^i`$. Thus, we can write down a relation

$$E^2c^2\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=m_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}c^4.$$
(1)
Energy and momentum are defined with $`m(\tau )`$ whereas the constant $`m_0`$ is defined through the above relation. If we relate $`\tau `$ to proper time, i.e. the time measured by a comoving observer, we find in the comoving frame ($`u^\alpha =0,u^0=c`$):

$$m(\tau )=m_0.$$

Thus, the nonmoving particle has a constant mass. This seems to be a reasonable relation, even though this interpretation of $`\tau `$ is not forced by the equations of motion. In general, we only have $`mu^0=m_0c`$ for the particle at rest.

In terms of the observable kinematical quantity $`u^i`$, the equations of motion read

$$\dot{u}^i=\frac{e}{m}F_k^iu^k\frac{\dot{m}}{m}u^i.$$

The energy-momentum relation (1) allows us to eliminate $`m`$ and $`\dot{m}`$. The result is

$$\dot{u}^i=\frac{e}{m_0}\frac{u_ku^k}{c^2}F_k^iu^i+\frac{(u_lu^l)^\dot{}}{u_ku^k}u^i.$$

However, it is now obvious that another constant of motion is $`u_iu^i`$, and hence $`m(\tau )=m_0=const`$. The mass cannot be variable with the above Lagrangian!

One may think of deriving the equations of motions from the following Lagrangian:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}u_iu^i+\frac{e}{m(\tau )}A_iu^i.$$

However, the corresponding equations of motion

$$\dot{u}^k=\frac{e}{m}F_i^ku^i\frac{e}{m}\frac{\dot{m}}{m}A^k$$

break the gauge invariance of the electromagnetic theory for variable $`m`$, which is not the scope of our theory.

Finally, one may write down a parameter invariant Lagrangian of the form

$$L_1=m(\tau )\sqrt{\eta _{ik}u^iu^k}+eA_iu_i.$$

This has the advantage of removing the ambiguity of whether we place the mass $`m`$ on the first term or its inverse on the second term. Indeed, through the substitution $`\mathrm{d}\lambda =\mathrm{d}\tau /m`$, the Lagrangian takes the form

$$L_2=\sqrt{\eta _{ik}u^iu^k}+\frac{e}{m(\lambda )}A_iu^i,$$

where $`u^i`$ is now defined as $`\frac{\mathrm{d}x^i}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }`$. Again, the second Lagrangian apparently breaks gauge invariance for variable $`m`$. As it is equivalent to the first one, we can immediatly conclude that $`m`$ is a constant of motion. Indeed, $`L_1`$ yields the equations

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }(\frac{mu^i}{\sqrt{u_lu^l}})=eF_k^iu^k,$$

which, contracted with $`\frac{mu_i}{\sqrt{u_ku^k}}`$ leads to $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }m=0`$.

The result of this section, namely that the mass of a test particle remains constant throughout its motion, holds true, of course, in the non-relativistic limit. The possibility of a variable mass obtained in the previous section is thus entirely due to the presence of a gravitational field, especially to the fact that the mass of the test particle occurs at both sides of the equations of motion. Having this in mind, one should conclude that the variation of the mass should be subject not to the kinematical evolution of the particles, but to the underlying theory of gravitation. Moreover, in the limit of vanishing gravitational fields, the particle masses should be found to be constant.

### II.3 General relativity

The generalization to an arbitrary spacetime metric of the above considerations is straightforward. For a given metric, we find the equations of test particle motion by simply replacing the partial derivates through the covariant ones. The equation $`\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}\tau }=0`$ however will not be affected!

Next, consider the field equations of general relativity

$$G_{ik}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{ik}.$$
(2)
It is known that the only spherical symmetric vacuum solution is the Schwarzschild solution, which can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=(1\frac{R}{r})c^2\mathrm{d}t^2(1\frac{R}{r})^1\mathrm{d}r^2r^2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$

where $`R`$ is related to the mass of the central planet through $`R=\frac{2GM}{c^2}`$. In solving the Einstein equations, $`R`$ arises as a constant of integration. The identification with the mass $`M`$ is usually made by considering the Newtonian limit. However, stricktly spoken, the Schwarzschild solution is not really a vacuum solution, but a solution corresponding to a stress-energy tensor of a point-like particle, i.e.

$$T^{ik}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{M}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^i}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\frac{\mathrm{d}x^k}{\mathrm{d}t}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau )),$$

where $`x^i(\tau )`$ describes the worldline of the particle. In the comoving frame, the only equation involving the matter fields reads, for the particle at the spatial origin,

$$G_0^0=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\frac{Mc^2}{\sqrt{g}}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}).$$

From this, we see that the constant of integration is already fixed by the field equations. Now, we suppose that the central mass varies throughout its evolution, i.e. $`M=M(\tau )`$. In the comoving frame, the parameter $`\tau `$ of the particle coincides with coordinate time $`ct`$. Thus we have to solve Einstein’s equations with a time dependent energy-stress tensor.

In a first approximation, if we suppose that the time variation of $`M`$ is of negligible order (so that time derivates appearing in $`G_{ik}`$ can be neglected), we can write the solution as

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=(1\frac{2GM(t)}{c^2r})c^2\mathrm{d}t^2(1\frac{2GM(t)}{c^2r})^1\mathrm{d}r^2r^2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$

It turns out, however, that the time dependent energy-stress tensor is not consistent with the underlying theory. Infact, as a consequence of the field equations (2), the matter also has to obey the relation

$$T_{;k}^{ik}=0.$$

For the point particle energy-stress tensor, this equation is equivalent to the equation of motion obtained from the Lagrangian

$$L=M(\tau )g_{ik}u^iu^i,$$

and as we have seen, this leads to $`M(\tau )=const`$. (Note that the we have already partly used the above equations when we choose the rest frame of the particle, i.e. when we set $`u^\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$.)

As a conclusion to this and the preceeding section, we can say that it is not possible, in a straightforward manner, to suppose that particle masses vary throughout the evolution on their worldlines. The reason for this can be seen in the relation $`E^2c^2\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=const`$ and its general relativistic generalization. In the Newtonian case, their is no such relation, and the mass evolution is left, a priori, undetermined.

## III Scalar-tensor theories of gravity

A quite different approach to a varying mass theory is obtained by considering the mass not as a function of the parameter of the worldline but as a spacetime dependent quantity, i.e. a scalar field $`m=m(x^i)`$. In order to make contact to classical theories, it is convenient to write $`m(x^i)=m_0e^{\phi (x^i)}`$, where $`m_0`$ is a constant which can be identified as the mass of a particle for vanishing gravitational fields or the mass at some (cosmological) time $`t_0`$, depending on the model.

The free particle motion in flat spacetime is described by

$$L=m_0e^{\phi (x^i)}u_iu^i.$$
(3)
It is tempting to interprete $`\phi (x^i)`$ as the gravitational field and to look for appropriate field equations. It is indeed possible to describe planetary motion up to Newtonian order through the identification $`\frac{\phi }{2}=\phi _{_{newton}}`$, but higher order corrections are not in agreement with experiment. Especially, no deflection of light rays can be deduced from (3), in agreement with the fact that the vacuum Maxwell theory is conformally invariant.

One should thus consider the scalar field as an additional field. The simplest extension of general relativity containing a scalar field is Brans-Dicke theory, which is based on the following action:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`(16\pi )^1{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}(\phi R\omega \phi ^1\phi _{,i}\phi ^{,i})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}_m}.`$
The resulting field equations read

$`G_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \phi ^1T_{ik}+\omega \phi ^2(\phi _{,i}\phi _{,k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ik}\phi _{,l}\phi ^{,l})`$ (4)
$`+\phi ^1(\phi _{;i;k}g_{ik}\phi _{;l}^{;l}),`$
$$\phi _{;i}^{;i}=\frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega }\left[T2\phi \frac{T}{\phi }\right].$$
(5)
These equations contain the following identity, which can be interpreted as the equation of motion for the matter:

$$T_{;k}^{ik}\frac{T}{\phi }\phi ^{,i}=0.$$

The presence of the scalar field now allows one to write down an energy stress tensor for a particle with variable mass:

$$T^{ik}=\frac{m(\phi )}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^i}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\frac{\mathrm{d}x^k}{\mathrm{d}t}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau )).$$
(6)
The field equations with this energy-stress tensor can be solved using a post-Newtonian extension estabrook . Planetary system observations are in agreement with the theory for $`\omega >3000`$, without taking into account the variation of the mass. The results of general relativity are found for $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ (identifying $`G=\phi ^1(4+2\omega )/(3+2\omega )`$).

The variation of the masses leads to further effects, none of which have been observed up to now however. Generally, the scalar field, entering the equations of motions and the field equations in a different manner, may violate the weak equivalence principle. The equations of motion depend on $`m(\phi )`$ and thus on the particle’s structure. Of special interest is the emission of dipole gravitational radiation from binary systems which is not present in general relativity and could be subject to future experiments.

It should however be emphasized that the variable mass entering the above energy-stress tensor is not a direct consequence of the theory. It should not be applied to elementary particles but only to extended bodies. It was actually introduced in the framework of hydrodynamics for Brans-Dicke theory (Nordtvedt effect, cf. will ). The quantity $`m`$ varies because of the presence of the field $`\phi `$, which contributes to the internal energy of the body. The tensor (6) is just a convenient way to parametrize the matter by just one field $`m(\phi )`$ and treat it as a point particle. A more physical interpretation is to use the identification $`G=\phi ^1(4+2\omega )/(3+2\omega )`$ (see eardley  and references therein). The variation of $`G`$ then leads to the variation of the total energy which we described by $`m`$.

Another remark is that the field equations do not determine the function $`m(\phi )`$. This is of course not surprising, since we have treated the body as a point particle. To find this function, one has to look for inner solutions of the body under investigation. It then turns out that the bodies can conveniently be parametrized by their sensitivitie $`s`$, which is defined as

$$s=\frac{(\mathrm{ln}m)}{(\mathrm{ln}G)},$$

with $`G=\phi ^1(4+2\omega )/(3+2\omega )`$ and the models give values between $`s=0.1`$ and $`0,3`$ for neutron stars of masses around $`1,4M_{}`$ and $`s=0,5`$ for black holes zaglauer .

The general remarks of this section hold true for every scalar-tensor theory based on general relativity. The scalar field can always be interpreted as a variation in the mass or as a variation in the gravitational constant, at least in a certain limit, i.e. if the departures from general relativity are supposed to be small (which has to be the case for the theory to be in agreement with experiment). The interpretation as variation of the gravitational constant is however more straightforward. Differences occur when we couple the theory to other fields and/or when we consider elementary particles, for instance the Dirac equation. In the latter case, a variable mass of the elementary particle would lead to many difficulties we would have to investigate and for which we do not have an experimental justification (see section IV.F).

## IV Variable mass through a fifth dimension

### IV.1 Introduction

Finally, we take a look at theories who try to impose the concept of variable masses in general relativity through the use of a fifth dimension. The five dimensional space is called space-time-mass and the metric is taken as (wesson , gladush )

$`dS^2=g_{AB}\mathrm{d}x^A\mathrm{d}x^B`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ik}(x^m,x^4)\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^k`$ (7)
$`+\epsilon \phi ^2(x^m,x^4)(\mathrm{d}x^4)^2,`$
where $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$, depending on which signature we choose<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This choice should rely on experimental data. Since no experiment is known that contradicts GR, the wisest choice would consist in setting $`\epsilon =0`$. We take the convention that capital indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ run from 0 to 4 whereas the indices $`i,k,l\mathrm{}`$ run from 0 to 3. The mixed components $`g_{4i}`$ have been transformed to zero through an appropriate coordinate transformation.

The action is taken to be

$$S=R\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^5x$$

and the resulting (vacuum) field equations read

$$G_{AB}=0.$$
(8)
$`R`$ and $`G_{AB}`$ are constructed from the five dimensional metric $`g_{AB}`$ in the usual way.

### IV.2 Spherically symmetric solution

Before we interpret these equations and eventually generalize them to include matter fields, we begin our discussion by considering the following exact spherically symmetric solution of (8)

$$\mathrm{d}S^2=(1\frac{a}{r})c^2\mathrm{d}t^2\frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{1a/r}r^2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\epsilon (\mathrm{d}x^4)^2.$$
(9)
Here, $`a`$ arises as a constant of integration.

The idea of space-time-mass theory is to identify the fifth coordinate with the mass through the definition $`x^4=Gm/c^2`$ (see wesson ). To be in agreement with experiment, the variation of the mass, $`\mathrm{d}x^4`$ has to be very small (at least for systems of dimensions of the solar system), and the above solution thus differs only slightly from the Schwarzschild metric if we identify $`a`$ with $`2GM_0/c^2`$, where $`M_0`$ is the mass of the central planet. One should however avoid to write $`x_0^4=GM_0/c^2`$. A coordinate cannot be a constant of integration of the solution of the field equations. The solution has to be valid in all 5 dimensional spacetime (except for singularities), and thus for all $`(x^m,x^4)`$. In other words, the coordinate $`x^4`$ is related to the mass of a test particle in the above metric, and not to the (constant) mass of the source planet. The coordinate $`x^4`$ is not constant, all that can be said is that the metric $`g_{AB}`$ does not depend on it. The quite different manners in which enter the masses of the test particle and of the source may eventually be removed if one considers the fully 2-body equations, which requires however that we solve the field equations with matter.

### IV.3 Geodesic motion and matter fields

Since we deal with a five dimensional theory, it is natural to require that test particles will follow five dimensional geodesics, which follow from the Lagrangian

$$L=g_{AB}u^Au^B,$$
(10)
where $`u^A=\mathrm{d}x^A/\mathrm{d}S`$. These equations can easily be reparametrized with the four dimensional parameter $`\mathrm{d}s=c\mathrm{d}\tau `$. The question which parameter is the more physical one and what is their relation to proper time has been extensively discussed in the framework of Kaluza-Klein theory (see ponce  for a detailed discussion). More fundamental however is the fact, that we cannot write instead of (10)

$$L_2=mg_{AB}u^Au^B,$$

because $`m`$ being a coordinate, $`L_2`$ is not a scalar function. The question thus arises how we shall describe a particle under the influence of both a gravitational and an electromagnetic field for instance. Since we know from general relativity that the equations of motion follow directly from the field equations, we have to discuss the coupling of matter to the gravitational field in order to answer this question.

### IV.4 Induced matter theory

There are two ways of introducing matter fields to the five dimensional theory. One is to complete the action with an adequate matter Lagrangian density, i.e. to write

$$S=(\frac{c^4}{16\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}R+_m)\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^5x$$

which leads to

$$G_{AB}=\frac{8\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}{c^4}T_{AB}$$
(11)
where $`T_{AB}`$ is the five dimensional generalization of the energy-stress tensor and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the coupling constant. From the theoretical point of view, this yields a theory that is covariant under the complete O(4,1) or O(3,2) (depending on which signature we choose) as well as under the five dimensional translational group. The five coordinates are treated equally and the relation to physical 4d spacetime has to be found from physical arguments.

The second way is the induced matter approach. In this theory, the 5 dimensional vacuum equations are splitted in a 4+1 form and interpreted as 4 dimensional equations for gravitational fields plus matter fields (see the review article overduin  for instance). Indeed, using the metric (7), the equation $`G_{AB}=0`$ can be written

$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{ik}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{;i;k}}{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2\phi ^2}}`$ (12)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\phi }\dot{g}_{ik}}{\phi }}\ddot{g}_{ik}+g^{lm}\dot{g}_{im}\dot{g}_{lk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{lm}\dot{g}_{lm}\dot{g}_{ik}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{ik}(\dot{g}^{lm}\dot{g}_{lm}+(g^{lm}\dot{g}_{lm})^2)]`$
and the additional equation

$$\epsilon \phi \phi ^{;i};i=\frac{1}{4}\dot{g}^{lm}\dot{g}_{lm}\frac{1}{2}g^{lm}\ddot{g}_{lm}+\frac{\dot{\phi }}{2\phi }g^{lm}\dot{g}_{lm}.$$
(13)
The tensor $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{ik}^{}`$ as well as the covariant derivates are formed with the 4 dimensional part of the metric, $`g_{ik}`$. The dot means derivation with respect to $`x^4`$. The right hand side of (12) is now identified as $`\frac{8\pi G}{c^2}T_{ik}`$. In this way, four dimensional matter arises from five dimensional vacuum. It is claimed that these equations recover all the equations of state commonly used in astrophysics and in cosmology. Apart from the fact that it would require at least some imagination to identify the right hand side of equation (12) with the energy-stress tensor of a point-particle for instance, another remark is worthlike to be pointed out. $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{ik}^{}`$ beeing constructed exactly as in general relativity, the 4 dimensional Bianchi identity $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{;i}^{ik}=0`$ also holds true. Thus we are left with the equation $`T_{;k}^{ik}=0`$ (for this strange $`T^{ik}`$, the right hand side of (12)), which is the equation of motion for the (4 dimensional) matter fields. This, however, corresponds, in the point-particle case, to the 4 dimensional geodesic equation.

More generally, $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{ik}^{}`$ being a four dimensional tensor, i.e. transforming covariantly under the Poincaré group, the same has to be true for the right hand side of (12). Thus, we are actually led back to a effective four dimensional theory, which is not an extension of general relativity, but rather a constraint version, since the energy-stress tensor has to be of the particular form (r.h.s. of (12)) and in addition, the constraint equation (13) has to be fulfilled.

Especially, the identification of $`x^4`$ with $`m`$ does not seem to make much sense in this case. It should however be noticed in favour of this interpretation that if $`g_{ik}`$ does not depend on $`x^4`$, the effective 4d energy-stress tensor has to be traceless, and thus describes a radiation-like equation of state, i.e. massless particles.

As a conclusion, we remark that in the induced matter approach, we are led back to 4 dimensional equations of motion. The physical meaning of the five dimensional metric remains unclear and the relation of the fifth coordinate to the particle masses is doubtful.

### IV.5 Five dimensional general relativity

There is still another argument against the induced matter approach. The solution (9), which is a vacuum solution of the 5d Einstein equations, suffers from a singularity at the spatial origin. This is quite unusual for real vacuum solutions (which are wavelike) and should be related to some boundary conditions due to the matter distribution. This can be done if we include matter fields in the way of equation (11).

For our specific solution (9), it is easy to see that $`G_{ik}=^{(4)}G_{ik}`$ and that $`g_{ik}`$ is just the Schwarzschild solution, which satisfies

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{}^{ik}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{g^{(4)}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^i}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\frac{\mathrm{d}x^k}{\mathrm{d}t}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau )).$$

Thus, in order to write down the equations $`G^{AB}=(8\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }/c^4)T^{AB}`$, we have to find a five dimensional tensor $`T^{AB}`$ whose spacetime components are of the form

$$T^{ik}=\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^i}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\frac{\mathrm{d}x^k}{\mathrm{d}t}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau )).$$

Note that, except from the fact that $`g=^{(4)}g`$, the right hand side of this equation contains the 4 dimensional parameter $`\tau `$ as well as a 3 dimensional mass density $`M_0\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau ))`$.

If this extension can be done in an appropriate way, the equation $`T_{;A}^{AB}=0`$ reduces to the five dimensional geodesic equation (for the particle of constant mass $`M_0`$), i.e. to the extremization of the five dimensional line element $`\mathrm{d}S`$. In this case, the five dimensional space has a real physical meaning and the deviations from general relativity (due to non-vanishing $`\mathrm{d}x^4/\mathrm{d}S`$) can be discussed, even though the identification of $`x^4`$ and $`m`$ remains still doubtful.

It is however not straightforward to find the 5 dimensional energy-stress tensor that describes a point particle (or some other mass distribution). If we require the equations of motion to be 5d geodesics, the action has to be of the form

$$S_m=qg_{AB}u^Au^BdS,$$

where $`u^A=\frac{\mathrm{d}x^A}{\mathrm{d}S}`$ or equivalently, in differential form

$$S_m=\mu g_{AB}u^A\frac{\mathrm{d}x^B}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathrm{d}^5x$$

where $`q`$ is some constant and $`\mu =\frac{\mathrm{d}q}{\mathrm{d}V\mathrm{d}x^4}`$. Hence, the Lagrangian density is of the form

$$_m=\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{g}}g_{AB}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^A}{\mathrm{d}S}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^B}{\mathrm{d}t}$$

and the corresponding energy-stress tensor is given by

$$T^{AB}=\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^A}{\mathrm{d}S}\frac{\mathrm{d}x^B}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$

The impact of the introduction of a fifth dimension is best seen in the Newtonian limit of the field equations. If we suppose that the matter distribution $`\mu `$ is described in the comoving frame, i.e. if we set $`u^\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$ and $`u^4=0`$, and consider the first order approximation $`g_{00}=1+2\phi /c^2`$, $`g_{AB}=\eta _{AB}`$ else, the equations, up to terms of higher order in $`\phi `$, reduce to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \pm \frac{^2\phi }{(x^4)^2}=4\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\mu .$$
(14)
The sign on the left hand side again depends on the signature of the metric. Note that there are no time derivates, since they are of higher order (due to the $`c`$ that occurs in $`x^0=ct`$). Appart from the derivates with respect to $`x^4`$, the main difference from the Newtonian field equations lies in the definition of the matter distribution $`\mu `$. As a generalization of the equation $`\rho =\mathrm{d}m/\mathrm{d}V`$, the quantity $`\mu `$ was defined as a four dimensional density $`\mu =\mathrm{d}q/\mathrm{d}V\mathrm{d}x^4`$. This cannot be avoided if we ask for the energy-stress tensor to transform covariantly.

The quantity $`q`$ thus plays the role of the conserved source charge (which in general relativity is $`M`$) and in the point particle case, it is the quantity that characterizes the particle (apart from its spin and its electric charge). Since we do not know any other quantities that describe a point particle, $`q`$ should, at least in some classical limit, reduce to the mass. This, in turn, makes it very difficult to interpret the fifth coordinate as the mass. Indeed, if we try to describe a point particle with a definite mass, the density should take the form

$$\mu =q\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau ))\delta (mm(\tau )),$$

where we write $`x^4=m`$, omitting the conversion factor for simplicity. (Note that $`\stackrel{}{x}(\tau )`$ and $`m(\tau )`$ are actually constant in the frame we have chosen.) But certainly, with this matter distribution, the solution will not be of the form $`\phi =m/r`$, because of the singularity not only at $`r=r(\tau )=0`$ but also at $`m=m(\tau )=m_0`$ in the mass distribution. Having in mind however that the Newtonian solution is linear in $`m`$, the equations (14) take the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =4\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\mu ,$$

and if we compare this with the Newtonian equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =4\pi G\rho `$ we can identify

$$\mu =\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\rho ,$$
(15)
or in the particle case

$$\mu =\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}m_0\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(\tau )).$$

This leads to the correct result, its interpretation is however doubtful. If we integrate over 3d space, we find

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}q}{\mathrm{d}m}=\mu \mathrm{d}^3x=\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}m_0.$$

The meaning of this equation is that the charge $`q`$ depends homogenously on the mass coordinate $`m`$, or in other words, no definite mass can be associated with the particle.

We conclude that we cannot interpret $`x^4`$ as being related to the mass. In general, we retain the fact that we can find the Newtonian solution in the case where $`\phi `$ does not depend on $`x^4`$ and if we set $`\mu `$ as in equation (15). This can easily be generalized to the full equations (11) and the result is again the metric (9), with the difference that we can now justify the existence of the singularity at $`r=0`$. In this special case, nothing new is gained, except from the additional equation of motion for test particles in this metric, $`u^4=const`$. In particular, this means that we have $`u_iu^i=const`$ as well as $`u_Au^A=const`$, which could be of specific interest in the case of massless particles (light deflection). However, for the moment, we don’t have neither a theoretical interpretation nor an experimental result that allows us to fix the additional initial condition $`u^4(S=0)`$.

We close this section with some general remarks. One may wonder if the conclusions we have got at in both the case of the induced matter approach and in the five dimensional theory with additional matter Lagrangian are not actually confined to the special solution (9) on which we based our discussion. Indeed, even in the spherical symmetric case, there exist other solutions (see gladush  for instance, where a generalization of Birkhoff’s theorem in the context of space-time-mass theory is discussed). The main conclusions remain however valid for every solution: In the induced matter approach, the (4d) Bianchi identity leads to 4 dimensional equations of motion, and in the theory with additional matter fields, the 3d mass density $`\rho =\mathrm{d}m/\mathrm{d}V`$ has to be replaced by a 4d density $`\mu =\mathrm{d}q/\mathrm{d}V\mathrm{d}x^4`$ (or more generally, a 5 dimensional description of matter fields is needed).

The first is of course no problem. It leads us back to an effective 4d theory. The physical meaning of the 5d space has however to be carefully investigated, especially with respect to transformation that mix the spacetime coordinates with the fifth coordinate. If we take the interpretation from Kaluza-Klein theory to identify the mixed components with the electromagnetic potential, we have to analyse carefully the field equations and the equations of motion in the case of a non-compactified fifth dimension.

As to the second theory, it seems difficult to find a decent five dimensional description for the matter field. In classical, i.e. compactified Kaluza-Klein theory, the five dimensional quantities can always be related to a four dimensional quantity through the integration over the compactified dimension. So, for instance, one could refind the mass density $`\rho `$ as $`\mu dx^4`$. In our, non-compactified theory, this is however not possible, since it leads in general to infinite results (this can already be seen from equation (15), whose right hand side cannot be integrated in this way). On a more fundamental level, the use of equations (11) require a general 5d description of the matter fields, i.e. a 5d description of particle physics and quantum fields.

### IV.6 Mass as a fifth momentum component

Consider the special relativistic energy-momentum relation

$$E^2c^2\stackrel{}{p}^{2}=m^2c^4$$
(16)
If one intends to introduce variable rest masses through a fifth dimension, this equation suggests to interpret $`m`$ not as the fifth coordinate, but ruther as a fifth component of the momentum, i.e. to write

$$E^2\stackrel{}{p}^2m^2=p_Ap^A=0,$$
(17)
where for simplicity, we have set $`c=1`$. Note that the above substitution has been made possible by the fact, that the mass occurs explicitly only once in equation (16)<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Especially, just as in the case of the Dirac equation, (16) is not independent of the mass, as are classical equations of motion for free particles. If one repeats the steps that lead from (16) to the Dirac equation, the equation (17) yields

$$i\gamma ^A_A\psi =0,$$

with the corresponding Lagrangian density

$$=\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^A_A)\psi .$$
(18)
In order for the momentum $`p_A=i_A`$ to satisfy equation (17), the matrices $`\gamma ^A`$ have to fulfill the following anticommutation relation:

$$\{\gamma ^A,\gamma ^B\}=2\eta ^{AB},$$

where the signature of the five dimensional Minkowski metric is now clear from (17). It is easily seen that the Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^i`$ together with the matrix $`\gamma ^5=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$ will do this<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Note that $`\gamma ^5`$ differs by a factor $`i`$ from the usual definition, in order to satisfy $`(\gamma ^5)^2=1`$. (In the remaining of this section, the indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ take the values $`0,1,2,3,5`$.).

Thus, by interpreting $`m`$ as a fifth momentum component, the four dimensional Dirac equation is replaced by a five dimensional massless Dirac equation. In the Lagrangian, the mass term $`\overline{\psi }m\psi `$ has been replaced by the term $`\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^5_5)\psi `$, or in an explicit representation (see kaku  for instance),

$$m\left(\begin{array}{cc}_5& 0\\ 0& _5\end{array}\right).$$

Noether’s theorem now yields a conserved current

$$J^A=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^A\psi ,_AJ^A=0.$$

Integration over 3-dimensional space does, however, not lead to a conserved charge. We find instead:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}J^0\mathrm{d}^3x\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x^5}J^5\mathrm{d}^3x=0,$$

where we have assumed that $`J^0`$ does not depend on $`x^5`$ and vice-versa. If we take the usual interpretation for the first term as the time derivate of the (unit) charge, the second term represents a violation of charge conservation.

As a final remark to the Dirac equation, we note that global U(1) gauge invariance leads in the same manner as in the 4 dimensional case to a 5 dimensional gauge theory through the extension<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4To obtain a locally gauge invariant theory, $`e`$ has to be a constant. It can thus not be identified with $`\mathrm{d}^3xJ^0`$. $`_A_A+ieA_A`$. We will try to identify $`A_5`$ with the gravitational potential.

We know that in the 4 dimensional case, to the Lagrangian (18) corresponds a classical Lagrangian $`L=u_iu^i`$. In the 5 dimensional case, this leads to a problem, because we cannot simply divide equation (16) by $`m^2`$ without breaking the covariance of the theory. (This is the reason why we began this section with the Dirac equation and not with the classical theory.) To solve this problem, we have to reintroduce a constant mass $`m_0`$ which we interpret as the restmass far from gravitational fields and we write

$$m=m_0u^5.$$

Thus, $`u^5`$ can be interpreted as the variation of the unit mass. Further, we define $`u^i=p^i/m_0`$. We can now write down the following Lagrangian for free particle motion:

$$L=\eta _{AB}u^Au^B=u_iu^i(u^5)^2.$$
(19)
Note that due to (17), this Lagrangian is actually zero (in analogy to (18), a 5d Dirac equation for massless particles). This Lagrangian now satisfies the properties we have requested at the end of section II.B, namely that in the absence of the gravitational field, the mass has to be found to be constant. Indeed, the solution of the equations of motion are just $`u^A=const`$, and $`u^5`$ is set to one because of $`m=m_0u^5`$.

Now, we proceed introducing a gravitational potential. If we suppose that the fifth component of the gauge potential $`A_A`$ is responsible for the gravitational interaction, we can write

$$L=\frac{1}{2}u_Au^A\phi u^5,$$
(20)
where $`A_5\phi `$ (the coupling constants have been absorbed into $`\phi `$). Since $`L`$ is of the form $`u_Au^A/2A_Au^A`$, in analogy to the EM case, $`u^Au_A`$ is still constant (and hence equal to zero). If we suppose that $`\phi `$ is a function of $`r`$ only, we have, in addition, the following constants of motion (in spherical coordinates $`r,\psi ,\vartheta `$):

$`l`$ $`=`$ $`r^2\dot{\psi }`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{t}`$
$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`u^5+\phi ,`$
where we have used the Euler-Lagrange equation of the coordinate $`\vartheta `$ to set $`\vartheta =\pi /2`$ (planar motion). The dot denotes differentiation with respect to the (5 dimensional) curve parameter. With these constants, the relation $`u_Au^A=0`$ can be written in the form

$$\dot{r}^2=\mathrm{d}^2\epsilon ^2+2\epsilon \phi \frac{l^2}{r^2}\phi ^2.$$
(21)
In a parameter independent form, introducing $`\rho =1/r`$, this can be written as

$$(\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho }{\mathrm{d}\psi })^2=\frac{d^2\epsilon ^2}{l^2}+\frac{2\phi \epsilon }{l^2}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\phi ^2}{l^2}.$$
(22)
It is tempting to set $`\epsilon =1`$, because in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`u^5`$ should tend to 1. This, however, cannot be done, because we consider planetary motion, i.e. confined motion, and the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ has no physical meaning in this case. (In analogy, the constant $`a=\dot{t}(12R/r)`$ that arises in general relativity (Schwarzschild metric) cannot be set to one. This would lead only to geodesics with zero (newtonian) energy.) On the other hand, our constant $`d=\dot{t}`$ can of course be set to one, it is just a rescalation of the curve parameter.

Neglecting the higher order term $`\phi ^2`$, the above equation can be identified with the Newtonian equation of motion if we set $`\phi =\phi _N`$, with $`\phi _N=GM/r`$ the Newtonian potential. To compare the higher order corrections, we remind that the spherically symmetric post-newtonian extension of general relativity, to an order that describes all the observational effects, leads to the equation

$$(\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho }{\mathrm{d}\psi })^2=\frac{a^21}{l^2}\frac{(4a^22)\phi _N}{l^2}\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{6a^2\phi _N^2}{l^2}.$$
(23)
The main difference lies in the sign of the correction term $`\phi _N`$, which is opposite to the one in (22). It is possible to force equation (22) into the form (23) if we extend our potential $`\phi `$ as $`\phi =\alpha +\beta \phi _N+\gamma \phi _N^2+\mathrm{}`$. The Newtonian limit leads, as we have seen, to $`\beta =1`$. The positive factor infront of the $`\phi _N^2`$ term requires that $`\gamma >0`$. This, however, means that $`\phi `$, and hence also $`u^5`$, which is related to $`\phi `$ through $`\epsilon =u^5+\phi `$, will annulate at some values $`r`$ and can be represented (at least up to the considered order) with periodic functions ($`u^5\mathrm{sin}(a\phi _N)\mathrm{sin}(b/r)`$…) which does not fit the interpretation of $`u^5`$ as the variation of the unit mass. Note that if the last sign in (22) were opposite, we could bring the equation into the form (23) with a relation of the form $`\phi \epsilon u^5\mathrm{exp}(\phi _N)`$ which would be similar to the mass definition in section (II.B), i.e. the interpretation of the mass as the opposite of the gravitational energy. This would however require a different signature of the 5d metric.

The conclusion of these considerations is that the fifth component of the potential $`A_A`$ cannot be, in this way, interpreted as gravitational potential. The question remains what it represents instead. This can only be answered after we have propperly defined a conserved charge (if this is possible at all). The problem is actually the same as the one discussed in section (IV.E). It is not possible, in a straightforward way, to describe matter using four dimensional charges in the context of a five dimensional theory.

On the other hand, even in the induced matter approach, we were dealing with a Lagrangian of the form $`L=u_Au^A`$, and to this, some five dimensional Dirac equation should correspond, with or without mass term. So, even if this approach did not lead to fundamental problems on the level of general relativity, it may do so on the quantum theory level.

Actually, the considerations of the last section are very close to the induced matter approach, since we have interpreted the matter term $`\overline{\psi }m\psi `$ as fifth component of the Dirac equation, and achieved a five dimensional massless equation. Note, however, that Noether’s theorem applied on the Lagrangian (18) yields the following energy-stress tensor

$$T^{AB}=i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^A^B\psi ,$$

which is traceless (because of the Dirac equation), but not zero.

To the second approach of section (IV.E), where five dimensional matter is explicitly introduced, would correspond a Dirac Lagrangian of the form

$$=\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^A_Am)\psi ,$$

where $`m`$ is now a constant and the meaning of the fifth component remains open. It yields the same energy-stress tensor (which is not traceless in this case, because of the mass term in the Dirac equation).

## V Conclusions

The considerations of the last section, but also those of the Newtonian case, lead us to conclude that we cannot use the variation of the mass (or more generally, an additional dimension) to describe the gravitational interaction, i.e. to replace curved spacetime by a higher dimensional flat space. So, as we have pointed out earlier, the variation of the mass has to be considered as an additional degree of freedom. Further, we came to the conclusion, that in the absence of gravitational fields, the masses are found to be constant. In other words, the additional degree of freedom is directly related to the gravitational fields. These properties are all included in a five dimensional general relativity theory (see metric (7)), if we interpret the mass as the fifth momentum component. The classical limit is found in the case were $`g_{ik}`$ in (7) is independent of $`x^4`$ (we can then remove the field $`\phi `$ through the transformation $`\mathrm{d}x^4\phi \mathrm{d}x^4`$).

The unsolved problem is the question of the matter description. In the induced matter approach, the fact that $`g_{ik}`$ does not depend on $`x^4`$ means that we are dealing with 4d vacuum solutions (see (12)), which is unsatisfactory for the description of the field of a planet or of a point particle. More realistic descriptions should thus include an $`x^4`$ dependency or a five dimensional energy-stress tensor, which leads however to other difficulties.

A general problem of five dimensional theories is the fact, that the conseved current density does not lead to a conserved charge (or mass). A relation of the form $`_AJ^A=0`$ leads (if $`_0J^5=_5J^0=0`$) to

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}J^0\mathrm{d}^3x\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x^5}J^5\mathrm{d}^3x=0.$$

In order to get a charge that is conserved throughout time, we have to integrate not over 3 dimensional space, but over a four dimensional space, i.e. we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}J^0\mathrm{d}^3xdx^5=0.$$

This does, however, not correspond to the notion of the total charge contained in three dimensional space. Especially, such a relation makes it rather difficult to suppose a direct relation between $`m`$ and $`x^5`$ (or $`p^5`$).

These problems suggest that before we introduce an additional dimension into a gravitational theory, we have to establish a well defined five dimensional elementary particle description.

Finally, we remark that all these problems are absent in scalar-tensor theories of the kind of Brans-Dicke theory. This is due to the fact that the only field that couples to matter in this approach is the metric, whereas the scalar field only contributes to the energy density. Thus, the scalar field reacts on matter only indirectly through its contribution to spacetime curvature, i.e. its influence on the metric. Hence, a consistent Dirac equation in the framework of this theory just consists in the usual generally covariant form of this equation (with the help of the spin-connection). This observation is an additional hint to the fact that we should regard, in this theory, the coupling constant as variable, not the rest mass.


text:
# Magnetic Wall From Chiral Phase Transition and CMBR Correlations

## I Introduction

In the present paper the possibility is explored that large-scale magnetic structures created during the QCD (Quantum Chromodynamic) chiral phase transition might lead to observable CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) correlations . This work is motivated by improved CMBR observations in progress, which promise polarization and temperature correlation measurements with multipoles $`l`$ in the thousands. These magnetic structures could also be primoidal seeds of galactic and extra-galactic magnetic fields. A long-standing problem of astrophysics is the origin of the large-scale galactic and extra-galactic magnetic fields which have been observed. Of particular importance for cosmology is the possible seeding of these magnetic structures by primoidal, early-universe, magnetic structures. For a recent review see Ref. We do not, however, investigate galactic or extra-galactic magnetic structure seeded by the QCD phase transition in the present work, but center on CMBR polarization and gravitational wave correlations,

In most of the theoretical treatments, including inflationary models, the magnetic fields arise from electrically charged particle motion. Considerations of nucleosynthesis and CMBR and the galactic magnetic fields have been used to constrain the magnitudes of the primoidal tangled (random) magnetic fields to values of about 10-9 Gauss, although in a recent model fields of two orders of magnitude larger are consistent with CMBR observations. Constraints on homogeneous primoidal magnetic fields from CMBR have also been determined.

Early universe phase transitions are of great interest. The electroweak and QCD chiral phase transitions are of particular interest as common ground for particle physics and astrophysics. For the electroweak phase transition, using an Abelian Higgs model with the QED lagrangian included, magnetic field generation has been calculated in bubble collisions. For the QCD phase transition primoidal magnetic fields generated from charged currents at the bubble surfaces during the nucleation have been estimated to be as large as 108 Gauss, and still be consistent with observed values of galactic and extra-galactic fields. There has also been a recent calculation of the CMBR power spectrum from density perturbations caused by promoidal magnetic fields that is similar to the calculation of Ref, but for scalar perturbations.

The present paper is motivated by our QCD instanton model of bubble walls formed during the QCD chiral phase transition and by the recent work of Forbes and Zhitnitsky, who have used a QCD domain wall as a mechanism for generating magnetic fields which could evolve to large-scale galactic fields. Considering classical theory of bubble collisions, in which walls with the same surface tension as the colliding bubbles are formed within the merged bubbles, it was conjectured that hubble-scale instanton walls might be formed, with lifetimes sufficient to form magnetic walls. In section II the description of the QCD phase transition in our instanton model and the possible resulting magnetic wall are discussed. It is shown that with an interior instanton wall, which is similar to QCD domain walls, the magnetic wall formed in the hadronic phase is similar to that modelled in Ref. In section III the evolution of the magnetic structure to the time of recombination, and the CMBR polarization correlations are derived. In section IV the correlations from metric perturbations are derived, and in section V we give our conclusions.

## II QCD Chiral Phase Transition and Magnetic Wall

In our model of the bubbles of the hadronic-phase universe nucleating within the quark-gluon phase universe during the QCD chiral phase transition, which we assume is first order, we use the purely gluonic QCD Lagrangian density, $`^{glue}=G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{\mu \nu a}/4`$. $`G^{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ is the color field tensor, defined in terms of the gluonic color field $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^n\lambda ^n/2`$, where $`\lambda ^n`$ are the eight SU(3) Gell-Mann matrices, with the notation that $`(\mu ,\nu )`$= (1…4) and (a,b,…) = (1,2,3) are Dirac indices and color indices, respectively. Recognizing that it has been shown that QCD instantons can represent the midrange nonperturbative aspects of QCD, we use the instanton model for the color field

$`A_\mu ^{n,inst}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta _{\mu \nu }^nx^\nu }{(x^2+\rho ^2)}}`$ (1)
$`G_{\mu \nu }^{n,inst}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }^n4\rho ^2}{(x^2+\rho ^2)^2}},`$ (2)
for the instanton and a similar expression with -n for the anti-instanton, where $`\rho `$ is the instanton size and the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^n`$ are defined as

$`\eta _{ij}^a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{aij}`$ (3)
$`\eta _{\mu 4}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{a\mu }`$ (4)
$`\eta _{4\nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{a\nu },`$ (5)
with (i,j) = (1,2,3) and $`a,\mu ,\nu `$ as defined above. The QCD instanton model, reviewed in Ref, has been a very useful representation of nonperturbative QCD for hadronic properties. For example, one can successfully predict the known scalar glueball candidates using this formalism.

Noting that the wall of the bubble separating the quark-gluon phase from the hadronic phase is gluonic in nature, and that the instanton model is successful in representating midrange nonperturative QCD, we have recently formulated an instanton model of the bubble wall. The starting point is the energy-momentum tensor of pure gluonic QCD:

$`T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`G_a^{\mu \alpha }G_{\alpha a}^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }G_a^{\alpha \beta }G_{\alpha \beta a},`$ (6)
which gives in the instanton model at finite temperature in Minkowski space the spatial energy momentum tensor

$`T^{ij,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\rho }^2\overline{N}}{(x^2+\overline{\rho }^2)^2}}\right)^2\delta _{ij},`$ (7)
and the energy density,

$`T^{00,inst}`$ $`=`$ $`96\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }^2\overline{N}}{(x^2+\overline{\rho }^2)^2}}\right)^2,`$ (8)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the instanton size and $`\overline{N}`$ is the instanton density at the bubble surface at temperature T=Tc, the temperature of the chiral phase transition, approximately 150 MeV. $`\overline{N}`$ is determined from the tunneling amplitude, and $`\overline{\rho }`$ has been found in finite temperature calculations to be $`\overline{\rho }0.25fm`$. In Ref the energy density, $`T^{00}`$ was shown to be consistent with numerical calculations of the surface tension. $`T^{ij}`$ can be used to calculate bubble collisions.

Recently, effective field models have been used to calculate QCD domain walls which could form within bubbles during the QCD chiral phase transition. These domain walls have a space-time structure very similar to a wall composed of instantons, with the form given in Eq.(1). Such a wall could interact with nucleons in the hadronic phase to produce electromagnetic structures via effective magnetic and electric dipole moments of the nucleon field. This model was used to investigate possible primoidal magnetic fields at the time of the chiral phase transition that could lead to large-scale galactic magnetic fields.

As pointed out in Ref., the collision of nucleating bubbles during the phase transition could lead to an interior gluonic wall. If the theory of classical bubble collisions can applied, the interior wall would be similar to the bubble walls, with the same surface tension. In other words, there would be an instanton wall with an energy-momentum tensor given by Eq.(7,8). In a 1+1 model of colliding bubble walls based on QCD we recently found that, with instanton-like boundary conditions, an instanton-like internal wall does seem to form in the collision region. Although this model is too simple for studying the nucleation problem, there have been a number of investigations of the QCD chiral phase transition using classical nucleation theories with effective Lagrangians. These studies find that in contrast to the electroweak phase transition where many bubles nucleate, collide and merge, the QCD chiral phase transition seems to proceed via inhomogeneous nucleation, with larger distance between bubbles and rather few nucleating bubbles involved in the transition to the hadronic phase. Therefore, it is likely that very few large-scale instanton walls were formed, and that the calculation of CMBR correlations from one magnetic wall, which is the picture used in the present study, is a good starting point.

Recognizing that the mathematical form of the instanton and domain walls are very similar, the arguments of Ref., including estimates of the lifetime of the interior QCD instanton wall, can be applied to estimate the primary electromagnetic wall that might have been formed at t$`10^4`$ sec. The magnetic wall is formed by the interaction of the nucleons with the gluonic wall, with the electromagnetic interaction Lagrangian

$`^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`e\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu A_\mu ^{em}\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the nucleon field operator. This leads to the electromagnetic interaction with the nucleons magnetic dipole moment given in terms of the electromagnetic field tensor, $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ by

$`𝒱^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2M_n}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }F^{\mu \nu },`$ (10)
and a similar interaction (without the $`\gamma _5`$) for the electric dipole moment, due to cp violation. From Eq.(10) one can estimate the magnetic field in the wall. In analogy to the classical theory in which the magnetic field within a magnetized object is given by the magnetic dipole moment density within a factor depending on the shape of the object, the B-field is given by the matrix element of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$. For the gluonic instanton wall oriented in the x-y direction one obtains for $`B_zB_W=F^{21}`$ within the wall of thickness $`\rho `$

$`B_z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2M_n}}<\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{21}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }>.`$ (11)
A suppression factor of $`(\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})^1`$ has been used in Eq.(11) since alligned dipoles tend to cancel, as discussed at length in Ref. The matrix element in Eq.(11) is estimated using the Fermi momentum in the plane of the wall during the QCD phase transition as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, giving $`<\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _{21}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }>=\frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, with a factor of four from the spin and isospin degeneracy. Using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ = 150 Mev, the resulting magnitude of the magnetic field at the wall is

$`B_W`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e}{14\pi }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD},`$ (12)
which is essentially the same as the estimate of Ref, within the errors of the scale factors. The calculation of the electric field is similar, giving $`E_zB_zB_W10^{17}`$ Gauss (within the wall).

Therefore our picture is that at the end of the QCD chiral phase transition there is a magnetic wall in the hadronic phase, which we model as

$`𝐁_W(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`B_We^{b^2(x^2+y^2)}e^{M_n^2z^2},`$ (13)
or in momentum space

$`𝐁_W(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_W}{2\sqrt{2}b^2M_n}}e^{(k_x^2+k_y^2)/4b^2}e^{k_z^2/4M_n^2},`$ (14)
where $`b^1`$ is of the scale of the horizon size, $`d_H`$, at the end of the chiral phase transition (t $`10^4`$ s), $`b^1=d_H`$ few km, while $`M_n^10.2fm`$. Therefore, although $`B_W`$ is very large, since the wall occupies a very small volume of the universe, such a structure is compatible with nucleosynthesis, galaxy structure and the present CMBR observations.

In the present work we conjecture that the QCD bubble collisions lead to a magnetic wall given by Eq.(13) at $`10^4`$s and study the effects on CMBR polarization correlations and metric fluctuations.

## III CMBR Polarization Correlations

In this section we investigate the polarization correlations arising from the electric and magnetic fields given in Eq.(13). The primoidal magnetic wall of the present work is quite different from the tangled fields considered previously, however, the evolution to the last scattering surface has many features in common with these studies. In addition to the polarization anisitropy which results from the magnetic wall itself, which gives rise to B-type polarization anisitropies discussed in the next subsection, in the subsequent subsection we also show that E-type anisotropies arise from scattering of the background radiation from the nucleon moments at the time of the phase transition, and show that the resulting power spectrum, $`C_l^{EE}`$, is too small to be detected.

### A Polarization Correlations From Magnetic Wall

In treating the temperature and polarization matrix for the Stokes parameters we use the angular representation of Ref. to derive the power spectrum of B-type polarization anisitropies, $`C_l^{BB}`$, which arise to a good approximation from the polarization source $`P^{(1)}=E_2^{(1)}/\sqrt{6}`$, given by

$`E_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6\pi }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }E(\widehat{n},x,\eta )(Y_2^1\sqrt{5}Y_1^1)},`$ (15)
where the electromagnetic wave is propagating with $`𝐤=k\widehat{n}`$, $`\eta `$ is conformal time, and the $`Y_l^m`$ are the standard spherical harmonics. From our model the source at the wall is $`E_2^{(1)}=5B_W/12\sqrt{2}b^2M_n_W`$ at the wall. The solutions of the Bolzman equation give the quantities $`B_l^m`$ at the time of recombination needed for the $`C_l^{BB}`$. To get the power spectrum we must evaluate $`<B_z(𝐤,\eta )B_z(𝐤^{},\eta )>`$. Using the fact that $`exp(k^2d_H^2)1.0`$ at the time of the chiral phase transition,

$`<B_z(𝐤,\eta )B_z(𝐤^{},\eta )>`$ $``$ $`_W^2\delta (k_xk_x^{})\delta (k_yk_y^{})<e^{k_z^2/4M_n^2}e^{k_z^{}_{}{}^{}2/4M_n^2}>`$ (16)
$``$ $`_W^2d_He^{k_z^2/4M_n^2}\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}).`$ (17)
This gives for the polarization power spectrum

$`C_l^{BB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(l+1)(l+2)}{\pi }}_W^2d_H{\displaystyle 𝑑kk^2\frac{j_l^2[k(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )]}{k^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2}},`$ (18)
where the conformal time integral over the visibility function has been carried out and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ is the conformal time width at the last scattering. The integral over the spherical Bessel function is carried out by using the fact that $`j_l(x)`$ peaks at $`l`$ and that the integral $`𝑑zj_l^2(z)=\pi /(4l)`$ for large $`l`$. Therefore in the range $`100<l<2000`$ we have the approximate result

$`C_l^{BB}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{25d_H^5B_W^2}{1152M_n^2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^3}}l^2.`$ (19)
Using the parameters $`M_n\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =1.5\times 10^{39}`$ (from Refs.), $`d_H=0.37\times 10^{24}GeV^1`$, and $`B_W=1.0\times 10^{17}`$ Gauss,

$`C_l^{BB}`$ $``$ $`4.25\times 10^8l^2`$ (20)
The result for the B-type power spectrum is shown in Fig. 1 by the solid line. There have been a number of investigations of the polarization predicted by inflationary models which show that the B-type polarization in inflationary models is smaller than the E-type, and that $`l(l+1)C_l^{BB}`$ peaks at $`l`$-values about 100. Ref reviews, with extensive references, predictions of inflationary models and effects resulting from cosmological phase transitions. In Fig. 1 results from Ref are shown. The curve shown by small circles is a string model normalized at $`l`$ = 100 to our magnetic wall value, and with the same normalization the dashed curve gives a typical inflationary model result. Even the string model of Ref. is two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the T-spectrum at the peak, One can see that for $`l1000`$ the values of $`C_l^{BB}`$ predicted by our magnetic wall picture exceed those of inflationary and topological models, and the $`l`$ dependence is quite different.

### B Polarization Correlations From Magnetic Dipole Scattering

In this subsection we discuss another possible source of polarization correlation arising from the horizon-size instanton wall created during the chiral phase transition and leading to an orientation of nucleon magnetic dipole moments. As the nucleon moments are alligned along the wall the background radiation will scatter from these moments producing scattered waves and magnetic structure which would give polarization at the last scattering surface. Taking the thickness of the instanton wall as the scale for the volume associated with the magnetic dipole moments, The density of moments, n, is obtained from the strength of the magnetic field:

$`B_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2n\mu _n}{r_W^3}},`$ (21)
where $`\mu _n`$ is the neutron magnetic dipole moment and $`r_W`$ is the wall thickness. Making use of the torque of the magnetic moment in a magnetic field $`𝐁`$, $`d𝐦/dt=\mu _n^2𝐬\times 𝐁`$, with $`𝐬`$ the spin of the neutron, one obtains the magnitude of the scattered B-field at time t=$`10^4`$ s: $`B_{scat}=n^2\mu ^2/2cos(\theta _s)kE_0exp(ikr)/r`$, with $`\theta _s`$ the angle between the neutron spin and the direction of the incident radiation and $`E_0`$ the E-field of the incident radiation. From this one obtains the Stokes parameter U, and in the notation of Ref the polarization source

$`B_2^0(𝐤,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2E_0^2}{2\sqrt{6}}}(n\mu _n^2)^2.`$ (22)
Note that $`E_2^0(𝐤,\eta )=B_2^0(𝐤,\eta )`$, and results in E-type polarization anisotropies, $`C_l^{EE}`$.

Without a detailed calculation one sees that the resulting polarization correlations will be very small, since the extra $`k^2`$ dependence from the scattering from the moments introduces a factor of $`(l^2/\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2`$. Therefore the $`C_l^{EE}`$ polarization anisotropies resulting from the scattering from the nucleon moments at the time of the phase transition are too small to be measured.

## IV Metric Perturbations From Magnetic Wall and CMBR Power Spectrum

In this section we derive the power spectrum from the gravitational waves arising from the magnetic wall of Sec.2. The calculation is very similar to that of Ref., in which the power spectra was derived for tangled magnetic fields such as those considered in Refs., with various scenarios for the scale dependence. Although our model of the narrow hubble-size magnetic structure is quite different, we can make use of much of the formalism of Ref..

The stress-energy tensor for our model magnetic wall, which has only the 33 spacial component, is

$`T_{33}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle d^3qB_3(𝐪)B_3(𝐤𝐪)}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^3\sqrt{\pi }}{M_n}}B_W^2e^{\frac{3k_3^2}{8M_n^2}}`$ (24)
at the time of the chiral phase transition. Note that we are assuming that the wall is of hubble size in the x-y directions and have omitted the parts of the expression for the $`k_x,k_y`$ dependence shown in Eq.(14). From Eq.(23) we obtain the B-wall power spectrum

$`<T_{33}(𝐤,\eta )T_{33}(𝐤^{},\eta )>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3qd^3q^{}<B_3(𝐪)B_3(𝐤𝐪)B_3(𝐪^{})B_3(𝐪)B_3(𝐤^{}𝐪^{})>}.`$ (25)
In evaluating Eq.(25) we use

$`<e^{\frac{k^2}{8M_n^2}}e^{\frac{k^{}_{}{}^{}2}{8M_n^2}}\delta (k_x)\delta (k_x^{})\delta (k_y)\delta (k_y^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{k^{}_{}{}^{}2}{4M_n^2}}d_H\delta (𝐤𝐤^{})).`$ (26)
Using the notation of Ref with a tensor projection,

$`<T_{33}(𝐤,\eta )T_{33}(𝐤^{},\eta )>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{a^8}}f^2(k^2)\delta (𝐤𝐤^{})),`$ (27)
with

$`f^2(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^3\pi ^9}{M_n^2}}d_HB_W^4.`$ (28)
With $`h_{ij}`$ the tensorial perturbations of the Friedman universe, $`ds^2=a^2[d\eta ^2+(\delta _{ij}+2h_{ij})dx^idx^j]`$. The Einstein equations, using the representation $`h_{ij}=2HQ_{ij}^{(2)}`$ of Ref, with $`^2Q_{ij}^{(2)}=k^2Q_{ij}^{(2)}`$ are

$`\ddot{H}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{H}+k^2H`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G{\displaystyle \frac{4}{a^8}}f^2(k^2).`$ (29)
The power spectrum for the tensor metric fluctuations are given by

$`<\dot{h}_{ij}(𝐤^{},\eta )\dot{h}_{ij}(𝐤,\eta )>`$ $`=`$ $`4|\dot{H}(𝐤))|^2\delta (𝐤𝐤^{})).`$ (30)
Since Eq(29) was investigated in Ref, except with a different magnetic stress tensor, we use the solutions that they obtained. Assuming that the magnetic wall is formed at t=$`10^4`$ s in the radiation dominated epoch, at redshift $`z_{in}`$, and neglecting perturbations created after the time of matter-radiation equilibration $`\eta _{eq}`$, for $`\eta >\eta _{eq}`$ the approximate solution for $`\dot{H}`$ is

$`\dot{H}(k,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\eta _o^2z_{eq}ln({\displaystyle \frac{z_{in}}{z_{eq}}}){\displaystyle \frac{j_2(k\eta )}{\eta }}f(k).`$ (31)
Carrying out integrals over Bessel functions, the solution for the metric fluctuation power spectrum is for $`l>>1`$

$`C_l`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{14}{25}}Gz_{eq}ln{\displaystyle \frac{z_{in}}{z_{eq}}}\right]^2l^5\eta _o^2{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{1}{z^4}f^2(z/\eta _o)J_{l+3}(z)}.`$ (32)
Using the form of f(z) given in Eq(28), the integral in Eq(32) is approximately

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{1}{z^4}f^2(z/\eta _o)J_{l+3}(z)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^9d_H}{M_n^2}}B_W^4{\displaystyle \frac{0.106}{l^4}}`$ (33)
for $`M_n\eta _o>>l>>1`$. Taking $`t_{in}`$ at $`10^4`$ s or $`z_{in}=1.17\times 10^8z_{eq}`$ and $`d_H=0.371\times 10^{24}GeV^1`$, the power spectrum is ($`l>>1`$)

$`l(l+1)C_l`$ $``$ $`6.9\times 10^7l^3`$ (34)
for $`B_W=10^{17}`$ Gauss. Therefore, the metric perturbations from the QCD-induced wall result in CMBR effects large compared to other tensor perturbations that have been estimated for for $`l`$ values of the order of 1000.

## V Conclusions

We conlcude that if the QCD chiral phase transition produces a gluonic wall of domain size and nucleon thickness at the time of the final collision of nucleating bubbles, and produces a magnetic wall as that found in the domain wall model of Refs, it would result in polarization correlations which have a $`l`$-dependence for $`l1000`$ different than other cosmological predictions and which should be measurable with the next generation of CMBR measurements. Also, there would be distinguishable temperature correlations arising from metric fluctuations. In order to investigate the collisions during nucleation to determine the details of the interior wall it is necessary to include quark and hadronic degrees of freedom to obtain the difference in the free energy in the two phases, a subject for future research.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with Ariel Zhitnitsky on his domain wall model, and helpful discussions with Ho-Meoyng Choi, Ernest Henley, Pauchy Hwang and Mikkel Johnson. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-00070888 and by the Taiwan CosPA Project, Taiwan Ministry of Education 89-N-FA01-1-3, and in part by the DOE’s Institute of Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington while the author was in residence.