text:
# Dynamical system approach to cosmological models with a varying speed of light

## I Introduction

Although the standard cosmological model is usually believed to be a correct picture of our universe Kolb and Turner (1990) it has still some difficulties among which the flatness and horizon problems are most widely known. The existence of the large-scale structure in the universe extending to the limit of the deepest surveys is another mystery. Its very presence implies the appearance of some seeds for this structure in the early universe. In the standard big-bang scenario they should be built in, which is rather an undesired feature of the theory. Therefore, so great attention has been paid to inflationary universe models which, albeit invoking an exotic (if not hypothetical) physics, were able to provide at least some hope for a consistent explanation of both flatness and horizon problems as well as the origin of seeds for the large-scale structure. The results of the early universe physics lead us to expect the occurrence of phase transitions when the universe was young, hot, and dense.

The varying speed of light (VSL) cosmology, seen as an alternative to the inflation theory, was proposed by Moffat Moffat (1993a, b) who conjectured that a spontaneous breaking of the local Lorentz invariance and diffeomorphism invariance associated with a first order phase-transition can lead to the variation of the speed of light in the early universe. This idea was revived by Albrecht and Magueijo Albrecht and Magueijo (1999) and was given further consideration by Barrow Barrow (1999, 2000). Barrow showed that the conception of VSL can lead to the solution of flatness, horizon, and monopole problems if the speed of light falls at an appropriate rate. The dynamics of VSL was widely studied in theoretical as well as empirical contexts Albrecht (1999); Alexander (2000); Avelino and Martins (1999); Avelino et al. (2000); Barrow and Magueijo (1998, 1999); Bassett et al. (2000); Clayton and Moffat (1999); Drummond (1999); Moffat (1998).

The main motivation for the study of VSL models is to seek explanations for some unusual properties of the universe and to overcome some of the shortcomings of inflation scenario Barrow (2002). In particular, there is an empirical evidence of varying with time the fine structure constant in the context of the consistency of quasar absorption spectra Webb et al. (1999). Moreover, unlike the inflation the VSL theory provides a solution of the cosmological constant problem. However, it cannot solve the isotropy problem. It is also interesting to evaluate the power of this model to explain the acceleration problem Perlmutter et al. (1998); Schmidt et al. (1998).

Of course, the VSL model as well as other models discussed in the literature have an ad hoc element (variable $`c`$) not yet firmly founded within any existing physical theories. This feature does not seems to be so exotic to discard these models from discussion in the scientific community. Some brilliant arguments justifying this approach are given by Albrecht and Magueijo Albrecht and Magueijo (1999).

The varying speed of light models which provide decent fits to the real universe are characterized by the speed of light or gravitational coupling which varies with time in the very early universe but is nearly constant today. Because there are stringent bounds on how fast these constants can vary with time after the first few seconds, the models which dynamics we study in the paper are only relevant in the very early universe. This should be made very clear by using the phase space approach and its tools for classifying the qualitative types of solutions Bogoyavlensky (1985); Szydłowski and Biesiada (1990).

The present paper is a continuation of previous papers Biesiada and Szydłowski (2000); Biesiada (2003) on the dynamics of VSL cosmology. We introduce a simple framework which allows to study the dynamics of VSL models in a general way, independent of any specific assumption about the equation of state, or the behaviour of the scale factor $`a(t)`$ near the spatial singularity. We formulate a VSL Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology as a two-dimensional dynamical system and we discuss its properties on phase portraits where trajectories represent all solutions for all physically admissible initial conditions. The methods of dynamical systems allow to indicate how the existence of certain desired physical effects depends on the choice of initial conditions and to analyse how these initial conditions determining the corresponding solutions are distributed in the phase space.

Our main goal was to perform a global analysis of the dynamics of VSL cosmological models. We avoid the assumption of power type evolution in the VSL models, which are represented by critical points (singular solutions) in the phase space. We analyse the dynamics of the models on the phase plane and discuss how different trajectories representing non-singular solutions can solve cosmological puzzles. We conclude that models with the negative curvature and positive cosmological constant are preferred (in the sense that they have the largest set of initial conditions leading to the solution of flatness and horizon problems).

On the other hand we present two arguments which distinguish the FRW models with constant velocity of light. The theoretical one is that the VSL FRW models are structurally unstable if $`c(a)a^n`$ and $`n<0`$ contrary to classical FRW models. The quantum mechanical one is that if a closed universe was born from a quantum fluctuation via the quantum tunnelling process then the most probable universe is that with $`c=\text{const}`$. In this interval the potential function preserves its classical character and the universe tunnels from a zero size.

The dynamics of considered cosmological models is reduced to the dynamics of a unit mass particle in one-dimensional potential. Then different physical properties like flatness, horizon and cosmological contant problems can be formulated in terms of the diagram of potential function of the system.

## II The method of the dynamical system stability

First of all, equations describing a cosmological model should be reduced to the form of a dynamical system

$$\dot{x}_i=\frac{dx_i}{dt}=f_i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),i=1,\mathrm{},n$$

in such a way that the solution with a static microspace (or other solutions of interest) is a critical point of the system $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_n^{})`$, i.e. for every $`i`$, $`f_i(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_n^{})=0`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$.

If a critical point is non-degenerate, i.e., at this point all real parts of the eigenvalues $`Re\lambda _i`$ of the linearization matrix

$$A_j^i=\frac{f_i}{x_j}|_{x=x^{}}$$

do not vanish, then there is a one-to-one continuous mapping of a neighbourhood of this point which transforms trajectories of the original system into trajectories of the linearized system

$$\frac{dx_i}{dt}=\frac{f_i}{x_j}(x^{})(x_jx_j^{}).$$

In this sense, the qualitative behaviour of the original system is equivalent to the behaviour of its linearized part. If $`(\xi _i^1,\mathrm{},\xi _i^n)`$ are eigenvectors of the linearization matrix $`A_j^i`$, the solution of the linearized system has, in general, the following form

$$x_i(t)x_i^{}=Re\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_k\xi _i^ke^{\lambda _kt}$$

where $`C_k`$ are constants. A non-degenerate critical point is called an attracting point if, for all eigenvalues, $`Re\lambda _i<0`$. In this case, all trajectories from a neighbourhood of this point go to it when $`t\mathrm{}`$. A non-degenerate critical point is called an repulsing point if, for all eigenvalues, $`Re\lambda _i>0`$. In this case, all trajectories from a neighbourhood of this point go to it when $`t\mathrm{}`$. A non-degenerate critical point is said to be an unstable saddle point and if a dynamical system has, at $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_n^{})`$, $`d`$ eigenvalues with positive real parts and $`nd`$ eigenvalues with negative real parts $`(d=1,\mathrm{},n1)`$.

When investigating the stability of solutions with a static microspace the following theorem proves to be of special interest. If $`x^{}`$ is a non-degenerate critical point and if the dynamical system has, at $`x^{}`$, $`d`$ eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d`$ with negative real parts, then there exists (locally) an invariant $`d`$-dimensional stable manifold $`W_{\text{st}}^d`$, on which all trajectories of the system go to $`x^{}`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. (A manifold $`M`$ is said to be an invariant manifold of a system if every trajectory passing through a non-degenerate point of $`M`$ lies entirely in $`M`$ (for $`\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}`$). For every such solution, there exists the asymptotic

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^1\mathrm{ln}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}[x_j(t)x_j^{}]^2\right\}^{1/2}=\alpha _i$$
(1)
for a certain $`i`$. Similarly, if at the critical point $`x^{}`$ the system has $`k`$ eigenvalues with positive real parts then there exists an invariant $`k`$-dimensional unstable manifold $`W_{\text{unst}}^k`$ on which all trajectories go away from the critical point Bogoyavlensky (1985).

From the above theorem follows that, for a saddle point, there are two invariant manifolds $`W_{\text{st}}^d`$ and $`W_{\text{unst}}^{nd}`$ containing this point and filled with trajectories (separatrices) going to and going away from the critical point. All other trajectories (not contained in $`W_{\text{st}}^d`$ or in $`W_{\text{unst}}^{nd}`$) do not meet the critical point in question.

For the complete construction of phase portraits in a plane it is necessary to know how trajectories of dynamical system behave at infinity. Let us take as an example the two-dimensional system

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=P(x,y)`$ (2)
$`\dot{y}`$ $`=Q(x,y).`$ (3)
In the case of polynomial right-hand sides one usually introduces projective coordinates, eg. $`z=1/x`$, $`u=y/x`$ or $`v=1/y`$, $`w=x/y`$. Two maps $`(z,u)`$ and $`(v,w)`$ are equivalent if and only if $`u0`$ and $`v0`$. Infinitely distant points of $`(x,y)`$-plane correspond to a circle $`S^1`$ which can be covered by two lines $`z=0`$, $`\mathrm{}<u<\mathrm{}`$ and $`w=0`$, $`\mathrm{}<v<\mathrm{}`$. The original system in the projective coordinates $`(z,u)`$ and after the time reparametrization $`\tau \tau _1:d\tau _1=xd\tau `$ assumes the form

$`\dot{z}`$ $`=zP^{}(z,u)`$ (4)
$`\dot{u}`$ $`=Q^{}(z,u)uP^{}(z,u)`$ (5)
where

$`P^{}(z,u)`$ $`=z^2P(1/z,u/z)`$
$`Q^{}(z,u)`$ $`=z^2Q(1/z,u/z)`$
and dot denotes differentiation with respect to new time $`\tau _1`$.

On a similar way, in the projective coordinates $`(v,w)`$ and in the new time $`\tau _2:d\tau _2=yd\tau `$ we obtain

$`\dot{v}`$ $`=vQ^{}(v,w)`$ (6)
$`\dot{w}`$ $`=P^{}(v,w)wQ^{}(v,w)`$ (7)
where

$`P^{}(v,w)`$ $`=v^2P(1/v,w/v)`$
$`Q^{}(v,w)`$ $`=v^2Q(1/v,w/v)`$
and dot denotes differentiation with respect to time $`\tau _2`$.

The idea of structural stability was introduced by Andronov and Pontryagin Andronov and Pontryagin (1937). A dynamical system $`S`$ is said to be structurally stable if there exist dynamical systems in the space of all dynamical systems which are close, in the metric sense, to $`S`$ or are topologically equivalent to $`S`$. Instead of finding and analyzing an individual solution of a model, a space of all possible solutions is investigated. A given physical property is believed to be ‘realistic’ if it can be attributed to large subsets of models within a space of all possible solutions or if it possesses a certain stability, i.e., if it is also shared by a slightly perturbed model. There is a well established opinion among specialists that realistic models should be structurally stable. What does the structural stability mean in physics? The problem is in principle open in higher than 2-dimensional case where according to Smale there are large subsets of structurally unstable systems in the space of all dynamical systems Smale (1980). For 2-dimensional dynamical systems, as in the considered case, the Peixoto’s theorem says that structurally stable dynamical systems on compact manifolds form open and dense subsets in the space of all dynamical systems on the plane. Therefore, it is reasonable to require the model of a real 2-dimensional problem to be structurally stable.

In our further considerations we will investigate the dynamics of dynamical systems in a finite domain of phase space as well as at infinity. At this point we would like to recommend the presentation of the actual state of the art in the field of application of the dynamical systems to general relativity Wainwright and Ellis (1997).

## III Basic equations of the theory

Albrecht and Magueijo Albrecht and Magueijo (1999) and Barrow Barrow (1999) set up a useful framework to discuss the VSL models assuming that the time variable $`c`$ should not introduce changes in the curvature terms of the gravitational field equations and that the Einstein equations must hold. Because varying $`c`$ breaks the Lorentz invariance the VSL cosmology requires a specific reference frame (including a specific choice of a time coordinate) in which changes in the field equations are minimal and one postulates it to coincide with the cosmological comoving frame.

In the case of the VSL version of the FRW models (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) the scale factor obeys the following dynamical equations

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G(t)\rho }{3}\frac{Kc^2(t)}{a^2(t)}$$
(8)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}(t)}{a}=\frac{4\pi G(t)}{3}\left(\rho +\frac{3p}{c^2(t)}\right).$$
(9)
Equation (9) is called the Raychaudhuri equation and from the above system one can build a generalized conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2(t)}\right)=\rho \frac{\dot{G}}{G}+\frac{3Kc^2}{8\pi Ga^2}\frac{\dot{c}}{c}$$
(10)
in which time dependence of fundamental constants was taken into account explicitly. Alternatively one can think of the Raychaudhuri equation together with the generalized conservation equation as of a fundamental system to which equation (8) is a first integral.

The fundamental difficulty concerning system (8)–(10) is that it is a non-autonomous system with unknown functions $`G(t)`$ and $`c(t)`$. In order to be specific in the further analysis we adopt Barrow’s power-law Ansatz

$$G(t)=G_0a(t)^q,c(t)=c_0a(t)^n.$$
(11)
Moreover, we assume the hydrodynamical energy-momentum tensor with the equation of state for the non-interacting multifluid

$$p=\frac{_{i=1}^l\gamma _i\rho _ic^2}{_{i=1}^l\rho _ic^2}ϵ=\gamma (a)\rho c^2$$
(12)
where $`\rho _i=\rho _{i0}a^{3(\gamma _i+1)}`$, and energy density $`ϵ=\rho c^2`$.

In the special case of the matter and radiation mixture, the factor $`\gamma (a)`$ depending on the scale factor $`a`$ takes the form

$$\gamma (a)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{\alpha a+1},p=0+\frac{1}{3}ϵ_\text{r},ϵ=ϵ_\text{m}+ϵ_\text{r}$$
(13)
where $`\alpha =\rho _{\text{m}0}/\rho _{\text{r}0}`$.

If we substitute $`l=1`$ into (12) then we obtain models filled with single matter and with the equation of state $`p=\gamma \rho c^2`$. Generally, the equations of state for non-interacting fluids with pressure $`p=_i\gamma _i\rho _ic^2`$, the equation of state assumes the form $`p=\gamma (a)\rho c^2`$ where the factor $`\gamma `$ can be parametrized by the scale factor. This fact is crucial for the reduction procedure.

Power-law Ansatz (11) turns the field equations back into an autonomous system. Now we can think about extensions of the baseline equations. One can in a straightforward way include the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by introducing pressure $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2(t)`$ (14)
$`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2(t)}{8\pi G(t)}}.`$ (15)
System (8)–(10) with the cosmological constant can be cast into form

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G(t)\rho }{3}\frac{Kc^2(t)}{a^2(t)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2(t)}{3}$$
(16)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G(t)}{3}\left(\rho +\frac{3p}{c^2(t)}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2(t)}{3}$$
(17)
$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2}c^2(t)\right)=\rho \frac{\dot{G}}{G}+\frac{3Kc^2}{8\pi Ga^2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}.$$
(18)
Equation (18) is easy to solve only for the case of $`c=\text{const}`$. Therefore, in our consideration of the general formulation of dynamics we cannot use an explicit form of a solution of equation (18). To avoid this difficulty we consider a special procedure of reduction.

## IV Reduction to a planar Hamiltonian system

### IV.1 The general solution of a dynamical problem

To construct a dynamical system we assume the form of the equation of state $`p=\gamma (a)\rho c^2`$ and calculate the density $`\rho `$ using both equation (15) and (16). For simplicity we focus our attention on the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ corresponding to the VSL model with matter in the multifluid form. Then we obtain from equation (16)

$$\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3}=\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{Kc^2(t)}{a^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}$$
(19)
and from equation (17)

$$\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3}=\frac{1}{1+3\gamma (a)}\left(\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}\right).$$
(20)
By adding the sides of above equations we obtain a second order nonlinear equation with respect to variable $`a`$

$$\ddot{a}+\psi (a)\dot{a}^2+\kappa (a)=0$$
(21)
where

$`\psi (a)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1+3\gamma (a)}{2a}}`$
$`\kappa (a)`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2a}}(1+3\gamma (a)){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}a(1+\gamma (a))\right]c^2(a)`$
and only the term $`\kappa (a)`$ depends on the cosmological constant.

Equation (21) can be rewritten as an autonomous dynamical system

$`\dot{a}`$ $`=p`$ (22)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=\psi (a)p^2\kappa (a).`$ (23)
To apply the dynamical system theory, it is useful to reduce system (22)–(23) to the form with polynomial right-hand sides

$`a^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{da}{d\eta }}=pa`$ (24)
$`p^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dp}{d\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3\gamma (a)+1)p^2\varphi (a)`$ (25)
where $`\varphi (a)=a\kappa (a)`$ and $`t\eta :\frac{dt}{a}=d\eta `$. The solution of equations (24)–(25) represents a phase curve in the phase space $`(a,p)=(a,\dot{a})`$.

The solution of equation (21) may be given after substitution $`\dot{a}=p(a)`$ or equivalently by taking the quotient of equations (22) and (23). Then we obtain

$$p\frac{dp}{da}+\psi (a)p^2+\kappa (a)=0.$$
(26)
Equation (26) takes the form of the Bernoulli equation and after standard substitution $`u(a)=p^2`$, $`u^{}=du/da`$ we obtain the non-autonomous system

$$u^{}+2\psi (a)u+2\kappa (a)=0.$$
(27)
Finally, the solution of equation (21), passing through the point $`(a_0,p_0(a_0))`$, can be given in the following form

$$u(a)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_0}^a\psi (a)𝑑a\right)\left[p_0^2(a_0)_{a_0}^a2\kappa (a)\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_0}^a\psi (a)𝑑a\right)𝑑a\right]$$

i.e.

$$p^2(a)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{a_0}^a\frac{3\gamma (a)+1}{a}𝑑a\right)\left\{p_0^2(a_0)2_{a_0}^a\left[\frac{K(1+3\gamma (a))}{2a}\mathrm{\Lambda }a(\gamma (a)+1)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(_{a_0}^a\frac{3\gamma (a)+1}{a}𝑑a\right)𝑑a\right\}.$$

To consider the case of a mixture of matter and radiation, we substitute the special form of $`\gamma (a)`$ from formula (13) and then we obtain

$$p^2(a)=\frac{a_0^2(\alpha a+1)}{a^2(\alpha a_0+1)}\left\{p_0^2(a_0)2_{a_0}^a\frac{a^2}{\alpha a+1}𝑑a\left[\frac{K(1+3\gamma (a))}{2a}\mathrm{\Lambda }a\left(1+\frac{1}{3(\alpha a+1)}\right)\right]c^2(a)\right\}$$
(28)
and the general solution of equation (27) has the form

$$u(a)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_0}^a\psi (a)𝑑a\right)\left[C2_{a_0}^a\kappa (a)\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_0}^a\psi (a)𝑑a\right)𝑑a\right].$$
(29)
It means that the following expression can be treated as a first integral of system (24)–(25). It is characteristic for dynamical systems of general relativity and cosmology that a first integral can be used in constructing a Hamiltonian function. A first integral can be represented as algebraic curves in the phase space. These algebraic curves are given by

$$p^2(a)\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_0}^a\psi (a)𝑑a\right)+2_{a_0}^a\kappa (a)\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_0}^a\psi (a)𝑑a\right)𝑑a=C.$$
(30)
And then in the considered case we obtain

$$\dot{a}^2\frac{a^2}{\alpha a+1}+2_{a_0}^a\kappa (a)\frac{a^2}{\alpha a+1}𝑑a=C$$
(31)
Now if we introduce a new variable, $`x`$, such that

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}dx=\frac{ada}{\sqrt{\alpha a+1}}$$

the above relation can be written as

$$\frac{\dot{x}^2}{2}+V(x)=V(a_0)=\text{const}$$

where

$$V(x)=2^x\frac{\kappa (a(x))a(x)}{\alpha a(x)+1}𝑑x$$
(32)
plays the role of the potential with $`a(x):\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}x=\frac{2}{3\alpha ^2}\sqrt{\alpha a+1}(\alpha a2)`$.

This procedure successfully works for any function $`\psi (a)`$. It is sufficient to replace the expression $`\frac{a^2}{\alpha a+1}`$ in the considered case by $`\mathrm{exp}(2^a\psi (a)𝑑a)\varphi ^2`$.

In the special case of $`\alpha =0`$ we obtain that $`p=\frac{1}{3}ϵ`$ and we can use the standard formalism considered in Szydłowski et al. (1984).

Now we can see from formula (28) that an algebraic curves on which lie trajectories of the system take the complicated form. Therefore it is useful to visualize them in the phase space. Using the form of the above first integral we can also classify all possible solutions by considering a limiting curve $`\dot{x}=0`$ and derive the relation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a)`$ as was presented in the classical case Szydłowski et al. (1984).

There are two kinds of the different methods of reducing equation (21) to the form of Newtonian equation of motion in a one-dimensional configuration space. First, after introducing the new rescaled variable $`ax`$, we obtain dynamics in the form $`\ddot{x}=\frac{V}{x}`$. Second, after introducing the new time variable, say $`\tau (t)`$ defined in such a way that the term $`\psi (a)\dot{a}^2`$ can be dropped in this parametrization and we obtain dynamics in the form $`x^{\prime \prime }=\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}=\frac{V}{a}`$.

Let us note that the function $`V(a(x))`$ plays the role of the potential for a particle which the position is given by $`x`$ and motion described by

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{dV(a(x))}{dx}.$$

Szydłowski et al.  Szydłowski et al. (1984) showed that the choice of new variables $`x=x(a)`$ allows to reduce the dynamics of classical FRW models with matter or radiation to a one-dimensional Newtonian equation of motion. It is also interesting that there is a similar possibility of reducing system (21) to the Hamiltonian form for any equation of state $`\gamma =\gamma (a)`$, for example for any mixture of non-interacting fluids. To perform this let us consider the general nonlinear reparametrization of variable $`a`$ such that

$$x=a^{D(\gamma (a))}=a^{D(a)}$$
(33)
It can be shown that equation (21) can be reduced to the form of a Newtonian equation of motion, $`\ddot{x}=dV(x)/dx`$, if the multiplicative coefficient appearing in $`\dot{a}^2`$ vanishes. This condition gives us the following

$$D_{aa}(\mathrm{ln}a)+\frac{2D_a}{a}\frac{D}{a^2}\left(D_a\mathrm{ln}a+\frac{D}{a}\right)^2=\psi (a)\left(D_a\mathrm{ln}a+\frac{D}{a}\right)$$
(34)
where $`D_a=D/a`$. In the special case of $`\gamma (a)=\text{const}`$ ($`D_a=0`$), classical results can be recovered Szydłowski et al. (1984); we have $`D=2`$ for pure radiation and $`D=3/2`$ for dust and $`D=\frac{3}{2}(1+\gamma )`$ for perfect fluid with $`p=\gamma \rho `$. If $`\gamma =\gamma (a)`$ is any function of $`a`$ then $`D(a)`$ is a solution of the above equation. After simple substitution

$$D_a(\mathrm{ln}a)+\frac{D(a)}{a}=z(a)$$
(35)
we obtain that $`z(a)`$ is a solution of the equation

$$z+\frac{1}{z}\frac{dz}{da}=\psi (a).$$
(36)
In this new variable

$$\ddot{x}=\kappa (a(x))z(a(x))x=\frac{V}{x}$$

and the dynamics is reduced to the case of a nonlinear oscillator with ‘spring-like tension’ $`k(x)=\kappa (a)z(a)`$.

The information about the equation of state is hidden in the function $`\psi (a)`$ and after finding the solution $`z(a)`$ for a specific form of the equation of state it should be easy to find $`D(a)`$ from equation (35). It can be easily shown that the corresponding equation determining $`z(a)`$ is the Bernoulli equation for which the solution is

$$z(a)=\frac{\varphi (a)}{^a\varphi (a)𝑑a}=\frac{d}{da}\mathrm{ln}\left(^a\varphi (a)𝑑a\right)$$

where $`\varphi (a)\mathrm{exp}(\psi (a)𝑑a)`$. If we put $`z(a)`$ into (35) we can find that

$$D(a)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}^a\varphi (a)𝑑a}{\mathrm{ln}a}=\mathrm{log}_a^a\varphi (a)𝑑a.$$

For the case of mixture of radiation and dust it has the simple form

$$z(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3\alpha ^2}{2}\left|\frac{a}{(\alpha a+1)(\alpha a2)}\right|\hfill & \text{for }\alpha 0\hfill \\ \frac{3}{2a}\hfill & \text{for }\alpha =\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \frac{2}{a}\hfill & \text{for }\alpha =0\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\varphi (a)=\frac{a}{\sqrt{\alpha a+1}}`$ and $`^a\varphi (a)𝑑a=\frac{2}{3\alpha ^2}|\sqrt{\alpha a+1}(\alpha a2)|`$.

Therefore we obtain for the case of non-interacting matter and radiation

$$D(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{log}_a\left(\frac{2\sqrt{\alpha a+1}|\alpha a2|}{3\alpha ^2}\right)\hfill & \text{for }\alpha 0\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \text{for }\alpha =0\hfill \\ \frac{3}{2}\hfill & \text{for }\alpha =\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

It can be proved that in a general situation we have the following relation

$$^a\varphi (a)𝑑a=x(a)=^a\sqrt{a}e^{\left(\frac{3}{2}^a\frac{\gamma (a^{})}{a^{}}𝑑a^{}\right)}𝑑a$$
(37)
and

$$x(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}a^{\mathrm{log}_a(\frac{2\sqrt{\alpha a+1}|\alpha a2|}{3\alpha ^2})}\hfill & \text{for }\alpha 0\hfill \\ a^2\hfill & \text{for }\alpha =0\hfill \\ a^{3/2}\hfill & \text{for }\alpha =\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

i.e., for any fluid (or its mixture) which satisfies the equation of state for so-called ‘quintessence’ matter $`p=\gamma (a)\rho c^2(a)`$ we can always find the corresponding $`D(a)`$.

Due to (37) the equation of motion can be rewritten to the simplest form

$$\ddot{x}=\kappa (a(x))\varphi (a(x)),V(x)=^x\kappa (a(x))\varphi (a(x))𝑑x.$$
(38)
Let us note that there is also a possibility to generalize such a result to the case of non-vanishing shear in B(I) or B(V) models when $`\sigma x^{3/2}`$.

In the second approach it is useful to reparametrize the time variable $`t`$ in such a way that

$$t\tau :dt=\varphi (a(\tau ))d\tau $$
(39)
where $`\psi (a)`$ is a yet-to-be-determined function which should be chosen in such a way that term $`\psi (a)\dot{a}^2`$ is absent in (21). We can do that provided that $`\varphi `$ satisfies condition

$$\varphi \mathrm{exp}^a\psi (a)𝑑a.$$
(40)
Then equation (21) assumes the form similar to the equation for the motion of a non-relativistic particle in the external field with the potential $`V(a)`$, namely

$$\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}a^{\prime \prime }=\frac{V}{a}$$
(41)
and

$$V(a)=^a\kappa (a)\varphi ^2(a)𝑑a$$
(42)
where

$`\psi (a)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1+3\gamma (a)}{2a}}`$
$`\kappa (a)`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2a}}(1+3\gamma (a)){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}a(1+\gamma (a))\right]c^2(a).`$
Therefore for such a system the Hamiltonian takes the form

$$(a,p)=\frac{p^2}{2}+V(a)=E=\text{const}$$
(43)
where the correspondence to the vacuum case is reached after putting $`E=0`$ and $`\gamma (a)=0`$.

The advantage of this procedure of reduction is its simplicity. The new time variable $`\tau `$ is a monotonic function of Newtonian time $`t`$ and motion is represented in the form of one-dimensional Hamiltonian system with the potential

$$V(a)=^a\kappa (a)\varphi ^2(a)𝑑a=c_0^2^a\left[\frac{K}{2a}(1+3\gamma (a))\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}a(1+\gamma (a))\right]a^{2n}\varphi ^2(a)𝑑a.$$
(44)
By comparison potential (32) and potential (44) we can observe that both procedures give rise to the same form of the potential function as a function of $`a`$. Whereas the second approach seems to be simpler, the first one has an advantage that it allows to discuss dynamics in the origin time. In both cases we do not explicit integrate continuity equation (18) which gives us the relation $`\rho (a)`$. The effect of matter content is included in $`\rho (a)`$ and energy constant $`E`$.

For the special case of matter content in the form of non-interacting matter and radiation we obtain

$$V(a)=\frac{Kc_0^2}{2}^a\frac{(\alpha a+2)a^{2n+1}}{(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c_0^2}{2}^a\frac{(3\alpha a+4)a^{2n+3}}{(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a.$$
(45)
where integrals in the above form of the potential can be given explicitly.

In the special case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n=0`$ we have

$$V(a)=\frac{Ka^4}{2(\alpha a+1)}.$$
(46)
Therefore the dynamics is given by the Hamiltonian equations

$`a^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}`$ (47)
$`p^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}`$ (48)
which constitute the two-dimensional dynamical system. Entire evolution is represented by an evolutional path on the plane $`(a,p)`$. The domain of acceleration $`\ddot{a}(t)>0`$ is determined by the condition

$$a^{\prime \prime }(a^{})^2\psi (a)>0.$$
(49)
The above condition can be rewritten as

$$\frac{V}{a}(a^{})^2\psi (a)>0.$$
(50)
Let us note that equation (50) can be formulated equivalently as a following condition in some domain of the configuration space $`\{a:a0\}`$

$$\frac{V}{a}2(EV(a))\psi (a)>0$$
(51)
or

$$\frac{1}{\psi (a)}\frac{V}{a}2V(a)<2E$$
(52)
where $`\frac{V}{a}=\kappa (a)\varphi ^2(a)`$ and $`\psi (a)=\frac{1+3\gamma (a)}{2a}`$.

## V Evolution of the VSL dynamical system on phase diagrams

### V.1 Background

In the further qualitative analysis of dynamical system (22)–(23) we consider the matter as the mixture of radiation and dust. Then system (22)–(23) takes the form of the autonomous system with rational right-hand sides

$`\dot{a}`$ $`=p`$ (53)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha a+2}{2a(\alpha a+1)}}p^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(\alpha a+2)}{2a(\alpha a+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha a+4}{6(\alpha a+1)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }a\right)c^2(a)`$ (54)
where $`c^2(a)=c_0^2a^{2n}`$, $`n0`$, $`\alpha =ϵ_{\text{m}0}/ϵ_{\text{r}0}`$ (for regularization of the system in $`a=0`$ it is useful as in (24)–(25) to introduce time $`\eta :\frac{dt}{a}=d\eta `$). Of course the above system possesses the first integral in form (28).

In the finite domain, system (53)–(54) has at most one critical point which corresponds to an extremum of the function $`V(a):\frac{dV}{da}|_{a=a_0}=0`$, $`p_0(a_0)=0`$. The stability of this point is determined from the convectivity of a diagram of potential function $`V(a)`$. There are two limit cases corresponding to the equation of state: of dust ($`\alpha \mathrm{}`$) and of pure radiation ($`\alpha =0`$). From system (53)–(54) in the latter case we obtain the VSL system with pure radiation

$`\dot{a}`$ $`=p`$ (55)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}p^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }a\right)c^2(a).`$ (56)
In the above system instead of $`a`$ in the spirit of the first approach we introduce a new variable $`xa^2`$ and we obtain the system in a simpler form

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=y`$ (57)
$`\dot{y}`$ $`=2\left(K{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }x\right)c^2(a(x))`$ (58)
where $`c^2(a(x))=c_0^2a^{2n}=c_0^2x^n`$. The phase portraits of system (57)-(58) for $`n=2`$ are presented on Fig. 1

In the projective coordinates $`(z,u)`$ the above system takes the form

$`\dot{z}`$ $`=zu`$ (59)
$`\dot{u}`$ $`=2\left(Kz{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)c_0^2z^nu^2`$ (60)
This form of the system is useful in analysis of behaviour of trajectories at infinity, because $`z=0`$ corresponds a circle at infinity $`x=\mathrm{}`$ which bounds the phase plane. The phase portraits of system (59)-(60) for $`n=2`$ are presented on Fig. 1

In this case first integral (28) takes the form

$$\frac{\dot{x}^2}{2}+2\left(K\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }x\right)c^2(x)𝑑x=\overline{C}=\text{const}.$$
(61)
Let us note that in the special cases of $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ the potential takes the particular form $`V(x)=2(K\mathrm{ln}x\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }x)`$, $`V(x)=2(\frac{K}{x}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}x)`$.

It is clear that first integral (61) is in fact the integral of energy because system (57)–(58) is a Hamiltonian dynamical system with the Hamiltonian

$$(p,x)=\frac{p^2}{2}+2\left(\frac{Kx^{n+1}}{n+1}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{x^{n+2}}{n+2}\right)\overline{C}=\text{const}>0.$$

Now the integral of energy can be used in the classification of all possible evolution modulo their quantitative (i.e., in accuracy to differential type) properties.

In the qualitative classification, for any case of $`\gamma (a)`$, first integral (28) may be useful as in the method of the classification previously used in Szydłowski et al. (1984). It assumes the form

$$\frac{p^2}{2}+V(a(x))=V(a_0)$$
(62)
where

$$V(a)=^{a(x)}\frac{a^2}{\alpha a+1}\left[\frac{K(1+3\gamma (a))}{2a}\mathrm{\Lambda }a\left(1+\frac{1}{3(\alpha a+1)}\right)\right]c^2(a)𝑑a,$$

$`V(a_0)=\text{const}>0`$ and $`x=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\alpha ^2}t^2(t1)`$, $`t=\sqrt{\alpha a+1}`$ and $`x=a^2`$ for $`\alpha =0`$.

From equation (62), after imposing the condition $`p=0`$, we can calculate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the expression on function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a)`$ which constitutes a boundary of a domain of configuration space admissible for motion

$$p^20V(a)V(a_0)<0$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(a)\frac{^a\frac{a(\alpha a+2)}{2(\alpha a+1)^2}Kc^2(a)𝑑aV(a_0)}{^a\frac{(3\alpha a+4)a^2}{3(\alpha a+1)^2}c^2(a)𝑑a}.$$
(63)
By consideration the boundary $`D:\{(a,\mathrm{\Lambda }):\mathrm{\Lambda }(a)=0\}`$ and construction of the levels $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\text{const}`$ we obtain the qualitative classification of all possible trajectories in the space $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ or $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },x)`$.

### V.2 How to interpret the acceleration of scale factors and the absence of particle horizon

A great advantage of the phase-space dynamical description is the ability to discuss the distribution of models with given properties. In the other words one can imagine an ansamble of models starting from different initial conditions and ask how a given property is distributed in the ansamble. Now we formulate sufficient conditions for solving the flatness and horizon problems in terms of phase-space relations. Let us recall that the flatness problem is solved whenever the scale factor’s acceleration is positive

$$\ddot{a}(t)>0.$$

This condition is fulfilled in the subspace $`𝒟_{\text{flat}}`$ of the phase space

$$𝒟_{\text{accel}}=\{(a,\dot{a}):\frac{\alpha a+2}{2a(\alpha a+1)}p^2\left(\frac{K(\alpha a+2)}{2a(\alpha a+1)}\frac{3\alpha a+4}{6(\alpha a+1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }a\right)c^2(a)>0\}.$$
(64)
It means that trajectories representing the histories of VSL universes undergo an accelerated expansion while staying in region $`𝒟_{\text{flat}}`$. One can restate relation (64) using the Hamiltonian constraint $`p^2=2(V(a_0)V(a))`$. It is easy to see that the respective condition expressed purely in terms of configuration space, reads

$$𝒟_{\text{accel}}=\{a:\frac{\alpha a+2}{a(\alpha a+1)}(V(a_0)V(a))\left(\frac{K(\alpha a+2)}{2a(\alpha a+1)}\frac{3\alpha a+4}{6(\alpha a+1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }a\right)c^2(a)>0\}.$$
(65)
Analogous criteria of acceleration if dynamics is covered by equations (47)–(48) are given by (50) in phase space and (52) in the configuration space.

Another interesting question concerns the horizon problems. It is easy to prove the following criterion of avoiding the horizon problem.

###### Theorem 1

The FRW cosmological model does not have an event horizon near the singularity if $`\dot{a}(t)c^1(t)`$ tends to a constant while $`a(t)`$ tends to zero.

Proof. When all events whose coordinates at past time are located beyond some distance $`d_H`$ they can never communicate with the observer at coordinate $`r=0`$ in the Robertson-Walker metric we can define the distance $`d_H`$ as past event horizon distance. It is given by

$$d_H(t)=a(t)_0^{t_0}\frac{dt^{}c(t^{})}{a(t^{})}=a(t)I.$$

Whenever $`I`$ diverges as $`t0`$ there is no past event horizon in the space time geometry. On the other hand, when $`I`$ converges the space time exhibits a past horizon

$$_t^{t_0}\frac{dtc(t)}{a(t)}=_t^{t_0}\frac{a^nda}{a\frac{da}{dt}}=_t^{t_0}\frac{1}{c^1\dot{a}}\frac{da}{a}.$$

Let $`c^1(t)\dot{a}<A`$ then

$$I\frac{1}{A}_0^{a_0}\frac{da}{a}=\frac{1}{A}(\mathrm{ln}a_0+\mathrm{}).$$

On the other hand when $`\dot{a}<\overline{A}`$ is bounded then

$$I=_t^{t_0}\frac{dtc(t)}{a(t)}=_t^{t_0}\frac{a^nda}{a\frac{da}{dt}}=_t^{t_0}a^{n1}\frac{da}{\dot{a}}$$

and $`I\frac{1}{\overline{A}}_0^{a_0}a^{n1}𝑑a`$ or

$$\overline{A}_t^{t_0}\frac{dtc(t)}{\dot{a}(t)}\frac{a^n}{n}.$$

Therefore $`I`$ diverges as $`a0`$ if $`n<0`$ and $`\dot{a}<\overline{A}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$.

The above criterion can be reformulated in the language of the phase space in the form

$$a0\text{ and }c^1(t)\dot{a}(t)\text{const},\text{i.e. }a^{2n}\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2(\text{const})^2.$$

For example for the radiation case $`a=\sqrt{x}`$ and then the past horizon is eliminated if only $`\dot{x}^2x^{2n1}\text{const}`$ as $`x0`$. After substituting first integral (61) we obtain that there is such $`n`$ that the horizon disappears if only if $`n<1`$. Let us note that the above proof is based on the Hamiltonian constraint and is independent of any specific assumption about an equation of state or $`a(t)`$ near the singuarity. If we assume the power-law behaviour of $`a(t)`$ then Barrow’s result can be simply achieved Barrow (2002), namely $`a(t)t^{2/3(\gamma 1)}`$ and if $`22n+3(\gamma +1)`$.

### V.3 The potential function for mixture of dust and radiation

The boundary of the domain in the configuration space ($`x`$-space or $`a`$-space) admissible for motion is determined by expression for

$$V(a(x))=Kc_0^2^{a(x)}\frac{a^{1+2n}(\alpha a+2)}{(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a\mathrm{\Lambda }c_0^2^{a(x)}\frac{(3\alpha a+4)a^{3+2n}}{3(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a=V(a_0)>0.$$

The equation $`V(a(x))V(a_0(x_0))=0`$ can be represented in the space $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)`$ or more correctly in the space $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },x)`$ as a boundary curve for the classification. Instead of the inverse function $`a(x)`$ (it is difficult to give it in a simple form), we take the function $`x(a)`$ as

$$V(a_0)Kc_0^2^a\frac{a^{1+2a}}{2(\alpha a+1)}𝑑aKc_0^2^a\frac{a^{1+2n}}{2(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a+\mathrm{\Lambda }c_0^2\left[^a\frac{a^{3+2n}}{3(\alpha a+1)}𝑑a+\frac{1}{3}^a\frac{a^{3+2n}}{(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a\right]=0$$

where the physical domain is $`V(a_0)V(a)>0`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{V(a_0)+\frac{1}{2}Kc_0^2^a\frac{a^{1+2n}}{\alpha a+1}𝑑a+\frac{1}{2}Kc_0^2^a\frac{a^{1+2n}}{(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a}{c_0^2\left[^a\frac{a^{3+2n}}{3(\alpha a+1)}𝑑a+\frac{1}{3}^a\frac{a^{3+2n}}{(\alpha a+1)^2}𝑑a\right]}.$$

where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da}{a^m(\alpha a+1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k\alpha ^{k1}}{(mk)!a^{mk}}}+(1)^m\alpha ^{m1}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha a+1}{a}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{da}{a^l(\alpha a+1)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^l(\alpha a+1)}}+l\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k\alpha ^{k1}}{(l+1k)!a^{l+1k}}}+(1)^{l+1}\alpha ^l\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha a+1}{a}}\right)\right].`$
On the figures 35, for the simplicity of presentation without loss of generality, it is assumed $`c_0=1`$, $`V(a_0)=1`$ and $`K`$, $`\alpha `$ are parameters and $`n`$ is chosen $`1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$.

## VI Tunnelling in $`n`$ decaying cosmologies

In the classical VSL cosmology a particle trajectory is determined through a knowledge of both a position $`x`$ and a canonically conjugate momentum $`p_x`$. In the quantum VSL cosmology the notion of trajectories loses its classical meaning due to the uncertainty relation ($`x`$ and $`p_x`$ are replaced by non-commuting operators). The Wheeler-De Witt equation

$$\left[\frac{^2}{x^2}V(x)\right]\psi (a)=0$$
(66)
is identical to the one-dimensional time-independent Schrödinger equation for a one half unit particle of energy $`E`$ subject to the potential $`V(x)`$ ($`\psi (a)`$ is known as the wave function of the universe).

The ‘particle-universe’ can quantum-mechanically tunnel through the potential barrier. Let us consider the case when the region beneath the barrier $`0<a<a_0`$, is classically forbidden whereas the region $`aa_0`$ is classically allowed.

We can adopt a simple method of calculating an amplitude for the quantum creation of the VSL FRW universe from a zero size to $`a=a_0=\sqrt{\frac{3(n+2)}{2(n+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$

$$|\text{VSLFRW}(a_0)|\text{nothing}|^2=P\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}_0^{x_0}\sqrt{2(EV)}𝑑x\right].$$
(67)
The above formula (called Gamov’s formula) gives us tunnelling probability because the quantized VSL FRW universe is mathematically equivalent to a one-dimensional particle of unit mass.

As an example, let us get back to the previously considered case of the compact vacuum VSL model. The Hamiltonian for this case can be obtained if we put $`E=0`$ into $`(p,x)`$.

The region of barrier $`0<x<x_0`$ is classically forbidden for the zero energy particle. Therefore one can find the probability that particle at $`x=0`$ can tunnel to $`x=x_0:V(x_0)=0`$; $`x_0=\frac{3(n+2)}{2(n+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

After rescaling the variable $`xx/x_0=\kappa `$ we obtain for (67)

$$P\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{3(n+2)K}{2(n+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{(n+3)/2}\right]_0^1\kappa ^{n/2}\sqrt{\kappa (1\kappa )}𝑑\kappa $$
(68)
where we assume $`K=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ and $`1<n<0`$; the potential $`V(x)=x^{n+1}(1+x)`$ has two extrema and two zeroes. Relation (68) can be rewritten to the form

$$P\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}F(n)\right]$$
(69)
where

$$F(n)=\left[\frac{3(n+2)}{2(n+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right]^{\frac{n+3}{2}}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3+\frac{n}{2}\right)}.$$
(70)
It is the most probable that the closed and vacuum VSL FRW model with $`1<n<0`$ is born when we have maximum permissible energy density or least size $`a_0`$. It occurs that the creation of the universe with constant $`c`$ ($`n=0`$) is the most probable when classical spacetime emerges via the quantum tunnelling process whereas $`c(a)`$ is a decreasing function during the evolution of the universe.

## VII Conclusions

Let us assume that one takes the idea of the varying speed of light seriously as a physical effect that might have happened in the very early universe and today is confined to a very narrow range admissible by inaccuracy of existing bounds on variability of $`c`$. One of the problems arising then is to see how this modification of physics would change the evolution of standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological models. So far only specific qualitative results are known concerning the solution of flatness and horizon problems in VSL models. In the present work we attempted to extend this qualitative discussion in the sense that by constructing phase space portraits of VSL cosmological models we were able to obtain a global view of their dynamics. In order to achieve this we have used a power law Ansatz for function $`c(t)`$ and investigated classical Einstein equations with $`c`$ allowed to be a function of time.

The two procedure of reduction of dynamics are proposed. In the first case we reduced the dynamics of VSL models to a two-dimensional Hamiltonian dynamical system with a quadratic kinetic energy form and a potential function depending on a generalized scale factor. In the second one we reparametrized the time variable but the scale factor remains a state variable. In both cases the shape of the potential and the existence of the energy integral was used to classify possible evolutions of VSL models. These possibilities comprise models evolving from the singularity to infinity, oscillatory behaviour between initial and final singularity, Einstein-de Sitter type models evolving from the singularity to the static world, Lemaître-Eddington type models evolving from the static Einstein solution to infinity, models expanding to infinity from the finite size and finally models starting and ending with finite scale factors.

We have dealed with the full global dynamics of VSL models. From the theoretical point of view it is important how large the class of models without horizon or with solved cosmological puzzles is. We call this class of models generic if its inset in the open phase is open or non-zero measure. Such a point of view is justified by the fact that if the solution of a cosmological puzzle is an attribute of a trajectory with a given initial conditions, it should also be an attribute of another trajectory which starts with neighbouring initial conditions.

We have shown that the assumed time dependence of the speed of light leads to a uniform evolution pattern of VSL models on the phase space. The criteria for solving the flatness and horizon problems were formulated in terms of the phase space. It is an advantage of the phase space approach that one can trace the patterns of evolution for all possible initial conditions. We have depicted, on respective phase portraits, the regions where the flatness problem is solved. The models where the region of initial conditions leading to flatness and horizon problem avoidance is large play a distinguished role. From this perspective open ($`K=1`$) models with positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ are preferred in the class of VSL FRW models filled with radiation.

The formalism presented in this paper can be easily extended to the case where the matter content of the model is a mixture of different types of matter and to the case of models with shear (e.g. Bianchi I or V).

This formalism can be also treated as a starting point of an application of quantum cosmology to the description of early stages of evolution of the Universe Vilenkin (1982, 1983). The tunnelling rate, with an exact prefactor can be calculated to the first order on $`\mathrm{}`$ for the closed VSL FRW model with a decaying variable velocity of light term $`c(a)`$ The tunnelling probability $`P`$ can be calculated in the WKB approximation given in the $`VE`$ limit by (67). We consider the closed vacuum VSL FRW models for which potential is qualitatively classical. This implies that $`1<n`$. In the interval $`1<n0`$ the probability of tunnelling increases as $`F(n)`$ monotonically decreases with increasing $`n`$. It is shown that the highest tunnelling rate occurs for $`n=0`$; it corresponds to the standard FRW model.

In our work we showed the effectiveness of dynamical system methods in the investigation of VSL FRW models, namely

In the distinguished class of open models with the cosmological constant the acceleration has ‘transitional’ character, i.e., there is a finite time when trajectories are in the acceleration region, and the measure of this region normalized to the area of phase plane is finite, even in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

We can argue that the considered VSL models are structurally unstable (Fig. 2) because of the presence of degenerate critical points at infinity for $`n<0`$. From the theoretical point of view such a situation seems to be unsatisfactory because in the space of all dynamics systems on the plane they form set of zero measure (the Peixoto theorem).

The advantage of representing dynamics in terms of Hamiltonian is to discuss how trajectories with interesting properties are distributed on phase plane.

###### Acknowledgements.

M. Szydłowski acknowledges the support of 2002/2003 Jagiellonian University Rector’s Scholarship.


format: text

text:
# Remarks on 2-Groups

## 1 Introduction

Group theory has proven to be a powerful tool not only in mathematics, but also in physics, chemistry and other sciences. In recent times it has become evident that in many contexts where we are tempted to use groups, it is actually more natural to use a richer sort of structure, namely a kind of ‘higher-dimensional’ group. One might also call this a ‘categorified’ group, since the underlying set $`G`$ of a traditional group has been replaced by a category and the multiplication function $`m:G\times GG`$ has been replaced by a functor. To hint at a sequence of further generalizations where we use $`n`$-categories and $`n`$-functors, we call this sort of thing a ‘2-group’.

There are various different ways to make the concept of 2-group more precise. Some can already be found in the mathematical literature, but unfortunately they often remain implicit in work that focuses on more general concepts. Indeed, while the basic facts about 2-groups are familiar to most experts in category theory, it is impossible for beginners to find a unified presentation of this material with all the details provided. The present paper tries to start filling this gap.

Whenever one categorifies a mathematical concept, there are some choices involved. For example, one might define a 2-group simply to be a category $`G`$ equipped with functors describing multiplication, inverses and the identity, satisfying the usual group axioms ‘on the nose’ — that is, as equations between functors. We call this a ‘strict’ 2-group. Strict 2-groups have been applied in a variety of contexts, including homotopy theory , topological quantum field theory , and gauge theory . Part of the charm of strict 2-groups is that they can be defined in a large number of equivalent ways, including:

* a strict monoidal category in which all objects and morphisms are invertible,
* a strict 2-category with one object in which all 1-morphisms and 2-morphisms are invertible,
* a group object in $`\mathrm{Cat}`$ (also called a ‘categorical group’)
* a category object in $`\mathrm{Grp}`$,
* a crossed module.

There is an excellent review article by Forrester-Barker that explains most of these notions and why they are equivalent .

However, as the notion of a group takes on this higher dimensional form, the exact definition most suited for a given task becomes less obvious. For instance, rather than imposing the group axioms as equational laws, we could instead require that they hold up to specified isomorphisms satisfying laws of their own. This leads to the concept of a ‘coherent 2-group’.

For example, given objects $`x,y,z`$ in a strict 2-group we have

$$(xy)z=x(yz)$$

where we write multiplication as $``$. In a coherent 2-group, we instead specify an isomorphism called the ‘associator’:

$$a_{x,y,z}:\text{}.$$

Similarly, we replace the left and right unit laws

$$1x=x,x1=x$$

by isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{}_x:\text{},r_x:\text{}$$

and replace the equations

$$xx^1=1,x^1x=1$$

by isomorphisms called the ‘unit’ and ‘counit’.

Next, in order to manipulate these isomorphisms with some of the same facility as with equations, we require that they satisfy conditions known as ‘coherence laws’. The coherence laws for the associator and the left and right unit laws were developed by Mac Lane  in his groundbreaking work on monoidal categories, while those for the unit and counit are familiar from the definition of an adjunction in a monoidal category . Putting these ideas together, one obtains Ulbrich and Laplaza’s definition of a ‘category with group structure’ . Finally, a ‘coherent 2-group’ is a category $`G`$ with group structure in which all morphisms are invertible. This last condition ensures that there is a covariant functor

$$\mathrm{inv}:GG$$

sending each object $`xG`$ to its weak inverse $`\overline{x}`$; otherwise there will only be a contravariant functor of this sort.

In this paper we compare this sort of 2-group to a simpler sort, which we call a ‘weak 2-group’. This is a weak monoidal category in which every morphism has an inverse and every object $`x`$ has a ‘weak inverse’: an object $`y`$ such that $`yx1`$ and $`xy1`$. Note that in this definition, we do not specify the weak inverse $`y`$ or the isomorphisms from $`yx`$ and $`xy`$ to $`1`$, nor do we impose any coherence laws upon them. Instead, we merely demand that they exist. Nonetheless, it turns out that any weak 2-group can be improved to become a coherent one! While this follows immediately from a theorem of Laplaza , it seems worthwhile to give an expository account here, and to formalize this process as a 2-functor

$$\mathrm{Imp}:\mathrm{W2G}\mathrm{C2G}$$

where $`\mathrm{W2G}`$ and $`\mathrm{C2G}`$ are suitable 2-categories of weak and coherent 2-groups, respectively.

To do this, we start in Section 2 by defining weak 2-groups and the 2-category $`\mathrm{W2G}`$. In Section 3 we define coherent 2-groups and the 2-category $`\mathrm{C2G}`$. In Section 4 we show that the concept of ‘coherent 2-group object’ can be defined in any 2-category with finite products. This allows us to define notions such as ‘coherent topological 2-group’, ‘coherent Lie 2-group’ and the like. While this may seem a bit of a digression, it serves as an excellent excuse to introduce the technique of string diagrams , which turn out to be crucial for constructing the 2-functor $`\mathrm{Imp}:\mathrm{W2G}\mathrm{C2G}`$. We construct this 2-functor in Section 5. Together with the forgetful 2-functor $`\mathrm{F}:\mathrm{C2G}\mathrm{W2G}`$, this sets up a ‘biequivalence’ between $`\mathrm{W2G}`$ and $`\mathrm{C2G}`$.

In other words, the 2-category of weak 2-groups and the 2-category of coherent 2-groups are ‘the same’ in a suitably weakened sense. Thus there is not really too much difference between weak and coherent 2-groups: we can freely translate theorems about one into theorems about the other using the 2-functors $`\mathrm{Imp}:\mathrm{W2G}\mathrm{C2G}`$ and $`\mathrm{F}:\mathrm{C2G}\mathrm{W2G}`$.

Note: in all that follows, we write the composite of morphisms $`f:xy`$ and $`g:yz`$ as $`fg:xz`$.

## 2 Weak 2-groups

Before we define a weak 2-group, recall that a weak monoidal category consists of:

a category $`M`$,

a functor $`m:M\times MM`$, where we write $`m(x,y)=xy`$ and $`m(f,g)=fg`$ for objects $`x,y,M`$ and morphisms $`f,g`$ in $`M`$,

an ‘identity object’ $`1M`$,

natural isomorphisms

$$a_{x,y,z}:(xy)zx(yz),$$

$$\mathrm{}_x:1xx,$$

$$r_x:x1x,$$

such that the following diagrams commute for all objects $`x,y,z,wM`$:

A strict monoidal category is the special case where $`a_{x,y,z},\mathrm{}_x,r_x`$ are all identity morphisms. In this case we have

$$(xy)z=x(yz),$$

$$1x=x,x1=x.$$

As mentioned in the Introduction, a strict 2-group is a strict monoidal category where every morphism is invertible and every object $`x`$ has an inverse $`x^1`$, meaning that

$$xx^1=1,x^1x=1.$$

Following the principle that it is wrong to impose equations between objects in a category, we can instead start with a weak monoidal category and require that every object has a ‘weak’ inverse. With these changes we obtain the definition of ‘weak 2-group’:

###### Definition 1

. If $`x`$ is an object in a weak monoidal category, a weak inverse for $`x`$ is an object $`y`$ such that $`xy1`$ and $`yx1`$. If $`x`$ has a weak inverse, we call it weakly invertible.

###### Definition 2

. A weak 2-group is a weak monoidal category where all objects are weakly invertible and all morphisms are invertible.

Weak 2-groups are the objects of a 2-category $`\mathrm{W2G}`$; now let us describe the morphisms and 2-morphisms in this 2-category. Notice that the only structure in a weak 2-group is that of its underlying weak monoidal category; the invertibility conditions on objects and morphisms are only properties. With this in mind, it is natural to define a morphism between weak 2-groups to be a weak monoidal functor. Recall that a weak monoidal functor $`F:CC^{}`$ between monoidal categories $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ consists of:

a functor $`F:CC^{}`$,

a natural isomorphism $`F_2:F(x)F(y)F(xy)`$, where for brevity we suppress the subscripts indicating the dependence of this isomorphism on $`x`$ and $`y`$,

an isomorphism $`F_0:1^{}F(1)`$, where $`1`$ is the unit object of $`C`$ and $`1^{}`$ is the unit object of $`C^{}`$,

such that the following diagrams commute for all objects $`x,y,zC`$:

A weak monoidal functor preserves all the structure of a weak monoidal category up to specified isomorphisms. Moreover, if $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are weak 2-groups, a weak monoidal functor $`F:CC^{}`$ also preserves weak inverses:

###### Proposition 3

. If $`F:CC^{}`$ is a monoidal functor between weak 2-groups $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ and $`yC`$ is a weak inverse of $`xC`$, then $`F(y)`$ is a weak inverse of $`F(x)`$ in $`C^{}`$.

Proof.  Since $`y`$ is a weak inverse of $`x`$, there must exist isomorphisms $`\gamma :xy1`$ and $`\xi :yx1`$. The proposition is then established by composing the following isomorphisms:

$``$ $``$

We thus make the following definition:

###### Definition 4

. A homomorphism $`F:CC^{}`$ between weak 2-groups is a weak monoidal functor.

The composite of weak monoidal functors is again a monoidal functor , and composition satisfies associativity and the unit laws. Thus, 2-groups and the homomorphisms between them form a category.

Although no direct counterpart can be found in traditional group theory, it is natural in this categorified context to also consider ‘2-homomorphisms’ between homomorphisms. Since a homomorphism between weak 2-groups is just a weak monoidal functor, it makes sense to define 2-homomorphisms to be weak monoidal natural transformations. Recall that if $`F,G:CC^{}`$ are are weak monoidal functors, then a weak monoidal natural transformation $`\theta :FG`$ is a natural transformation such that these diagrams commute for all $`x,yC`$:

commute. Thus we make the following definitions:

###### Definition 5

. A 2-homomorphism $`\theta :FG`$ between homomorphisms $`F,G:CC^{}`$ of weak 2-groups is a weak monoidal natural transformation.

###### Definition 6

. Let W2G be the 2-category consisting of weak 2-groups, homomorphisms between these, and 2-homomorphisms between those.

There is a 2-category $`\mathrm{MonCat}`$ with monoidal categories as objects, weak monoidal functors as 1-morphisms and weak monoidal natural transformations as 2-morphisms . Thus $`\mathrm{W2G}`$ a 2-category, since it is a full and 2-full sub-2-category of $`\mathrm{MonCat}`$.

## 3 Coherent 2-groups

In this section we explore another notion of 2-group. Rather than requiring that objects be weakly invertible, we will require that every object be equipped with a specified adjunction. Recall that an adjunction is a quadruple $`(x,\overline{x},i_x,e_x)`$ where $`i_x:`$ (called the unit) and $`e_x:`$ (called the counit) are morphisms such that the following diagrams

commute. For reasons that will become apparent in the sections to come we refer to these diagrams as the first and second zig-zag identities, respectively.

An adjunction $`(x,\overline{x},i_x,e_x)`$ for which the unit and counit are invertible is called an adjoint equivalence. In this case $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ are weak inverses. Thus, specifying an adjoint equivalence for $`x`$ ensures that $`\overline{x}`$ is weakly invertible — but it does so by providing $`x`$ with extra structure, rather than merely asserting a property of $`x`$. We now make the following definition:

###### Definition 7

. A coherent 2-group  is a weak monoidal category $`C`$ in which every morphism is invertible and every object $`xC`$ is equipped with an adjoint equivalence $`(x,\overline{x},i_x,e_x)`$.

As noted in the Introduction, a coherent 2-group is the same as a category with group structure  in which all morphisms are invertible. It is also the same as an ‘autonomous monoidal category’  with all morphisms invertible, or a ‘bigroupoid’  with one object.

As we did with weak 2-groups, we can define homomorphisms between coherent 2-groups. As in the weak 2-group case we can begin with a weak monoidal functor, but now we must consider what additional structure this must have to preserve each adjoint equivalence $`(x,\overline{x},i_x,e_x)`$, at least up to a specified isomorphism. At first it may seem that an additional structural map is required. That is, if $`F:CC^{}`$ is a weak monoidal functor it may seem that we must include a natural isomorphism

$$F_1:\overline{F(x)}F(\overline{x})$$

relating the inverse of the image of $`x`$ to the image of the inverse $`\overline{x}`$. We shall show this is not the case: $`F_1`$ can be constructed from the data already present! Thus we make the following definitions:

###### Definition 8

. A homomorphism $`F:CC^{}`$ between coherent 2-groups is a weak monoidal functor.

###### Definition 9

. A 2-homomorphism $`\theta :FG`$ between homomorphisms $`F,G:CC^{}`$ of coherent 2-groups is a weak monoidal natural transformation.

###### Definition 10

. Let C2G be the 2-category consisting of coherent 2-groups, homomorphisms between these, and 2-homomorphisms between those.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{C2G}`$ forms a 2-category since it is actually a full and 2-full sub-2-category of $`\mathrm{MonCat}`$.

Now let us describe how to define $`F_1`$ in terms of the other data in a coherent 2-group homomorphism $`F:CC^{}`$. By analogy with $`F_2`$ and $`F_0`$, we would expect $`F_1`$ to make these diagrams commute:

for all $`xC`$. These diagrams say that $`F_1`$ gets along with units and counits.

Suppose we wish to construct an isomorphism that simultaneously satisfies both of these coherence laws. To do this we can take one of these coherence laws, solve it for $`F_1`$, and prove that the result automatically satisfies the other coherence law! To do this, we start with the axiom H1 expressed in a more suggestive manner:

If we assume this diagram commutes, it gives a formula for

$$1F_1:\text{}$$

Next we shall solve for $`F_1`$ by cancelling the tensor product $`F(x)`$. In the arguments that follow we will no longer include subscripts on any of the structural maps $`a,\mathrm{},r,e`$ or $`i`$ unless confusion is likely to arise. Tensoring the above morphism by $`\overline{F(x)}`$ we obtain

$$1(1F_1):\text{}$$

However, the left-hand side is isomorphic to $`\overline{F(x)}`$ via the following composite

Further, the right hand side is isomorphic to $`F(\overline{x})`$ via the following composite:

Stringing together these isomorphisms we obtain an isomorphism from $`\overline{F(x)}`$ to $`F(\overline{x})`$ which is none other than $`F_1`$. In other words, we have a commutative diagram which serves to define $`F_1`$:

We have derived this diagram F1 from the assumption H1; conversely one can show that F1 implies H1.

As a side remark, note that in the above diagram could have mapped $`\overline{F(x)}`$ directly to $`\overline{F(x)}1^{}`$ using $`r^1`$. This provides an alternative definition of $`F_1`$:

The assertion that these definitions agree is equivalent to the fact that this diagram commutes:

Careful inspection reveals that this diagram is none other than the second zig-zag identity satisfied by the adjoint equivalence $`(x,\overline{x},i_x,e_x)`$! So, there is no problem of conflicting choices here. In fact, this is guaranteed by Ulbrich and Laplaza’s coherence theorem for categories with group structure .

Alternatively, we could have defined $`F_1`$ so that H2 is satisfied. Then this diagram commutes:

Tensoring on the right by $`\overline{F(x)}`$ and applying a similar argument as before we obtain two additional possibilities for $`F_1`$, which again are actually equal thanks to the second zig-zag identity. We denote this way of defining $`F_1`$ simply as F2:

In fact, just as F1 is equivalent to H1, F2 is equivalent to H2. Next, we would like to show that F1 and F2 give the same definition of $`F_1`$, so that using either to define this isomorphism guarantees that both H1 and H2 are satisfied. To accomplish this we shall assume H1 and use this to establish F2. Consider the following diagram:

Squares $`I`$, $`IV`$, $`VIII`$, $`X`$, $`XI`$, $`XI`$, and $`XII`$ commute from the naturality of the isomorphisms $`\mathrm{}`$, $`F_2`$, $`a`$, $`e_x`$. Application of $`F`$ to the second zig-zag law gives $`II`$. Diagrams $`III`$, $`VI`$ and $`VII`$ commute by the definition of weak monoidal functor, while $`IX`$ commutes by a well-known property of monoidal categories. Diagram $`V`$ is merely H1 tensored on the left by $`F(\overline{x})`$. Thus, our choice of $`F_1`$ satisfies both H1 and H2. It follows that $`F_1`$ and its coherence laws are superfluous to the definition of a coherent 2-group homomorphism; we get them ‘for free’.

## 4 Internalization

‘Internalization’ is valuable tool for generalizing concepts from the category of sets to other categories. To internalize a concept, we need to express it in a purely diagrammatic form. As an example, consider the ordinary notion of group. We can define this notion using commutative diagrams by specifying:

a set $`G`$,

a multiplication function $`m:G\times GG`$,

a unit for the multiplication given by the function $`e:1G`$ where $`1`$ is the terminal object in $`\mathrm{Set}`$,

a function $`\mathrm{inv}:GG`$,

making the following diagrams commute:

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G`$ is the diagonal map. To internalize this concept one replaces the set $`G`$ by an object in an arbitrary category $`C`$ with finite products, and the functions $`m,e,`$ and $`inv`$ by morphisms in $`C`$. Making these substitutions in the definition above we arrive at the definition of a group object in $`C`$. An ordinary group is the special case where $`C=\mathrm{Set}`$. We can also define a strict 2-group to be a group object in $`\mathrm{Cat}`$. Similarly, a topological group is a group object in $`\mathrm{Top}`$, and a Lie group is a group object in $`\mathrm{Diff}`$.

We would like to define a ‘coherent 2-group object’ in a similar manner. To motivate this definition it is helpful to use ‘string diagrams’ . These are Poincaré dual to the globular diagrams previously used in the theory of bicategories. In other words, to obtain a string diagram one draws objects as 2-dimensional regions in the plane, 1-morphisms as 1-dimensional ‘strings’ separating regions, and 2-morphisms as 0-dimensional points (or small balls, if we wish to label them). We will only need these diagrams in the special case of a weak monoidal category, which we will think of as a bicategory with a single object, say $``$. A morphism $`f:xy`$ in a weak monoidal category corresponds to a 2-morphism in a bicategory with one object, and we convert the globular picture of this into a string diagram as follows:

$$\text{}\text{}$$

where diagrams are read from top to bottom. Composition of morphisms is achieved by placing one of the strings on top of the other. For instance, given $`f:xy`$ and $`g:yz`$, their composite is depicted as the following:

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

This diagram is Poincaré dual to the globular way of drawing composition of 2-morphisms in a bicategory:

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

Tensoring objects in the monoidal category will be written by setting arrows side by side; the unit object will not be drawn in the diagrams, but merely implied. As an example of this, consider how we obtain the string diagram corresponding to $`i_x:1x\overline{x}`$:

$$\text{}\text{}$$

Note that weak inverse objects are written as arrows ‘going backwards in time’. We will find it beneficial to draw the above diagram in a simpler form:

where it is understood that the downward pointing arrow corresponds to $`x`$ and the upward pointing arrow to $`\overline{x}`$. Similarly, we draw the morphism $`e_x`$ as

In this notation, the zig-zag identities become

$$\text{}=\text{},\text{}=\text{}$$

which explains their name.

We would like to define a coherent 2-group using only commutative diagrams, so that the groundwork will have been laid for the definition of the more general notion of a ‘coherent group object’ in a 2-category with products. To begin, notice that for any coherent 2-group $`C`$ there is a functor $`{}_{}{}^{1}:C^{\mathrm{op}}C`$, expressed diagrammatically as

$${}_{}{}^{1}:\text{}\text{}$$

and coming from the invertibility of morphisms in a coherent 2-group. There is also a functor $`{}_{}{}^{}:C^{\mathrm{op}}C`$ sending each object $`xC`$ to its specified weak inverse $`\overline{x}`$, and acting on morphisms as follows:

$$:\text{}\text{}$$

Composing these two contravariant functors <sup>-1</sup> and $``$ we construct a covariant functor $`\mathrm{inv}:CC`$ given by

$$\mathrm{inv}:\text{}\text{}.$$

In order to prove the functoriality of $`\mathrm{inv}`$, consider two composable morphisms $`f:xy`$ and $`g:yz`$. The equation $`\mathrm{inv}(fg)=\mathrm{inv}(f)\mathrm{inv}(g)`$ becomes the following in string diagram notation:

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

Thus, in order for equality to hold we must have

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

This diagram is merely the second zig-zag identity!

Now, when all the unit and counit are isomorphisms either of the zig-zag identities implies the other . In this case, assuming that $`\mathrm{inv}`$ is a functor implies both zig-zag identities. This observation allows us to give an equivalent definition of ‘coherent 2-group’:

###### Definition 11

. A coherent 2-group consists of:

a category $`C`$,

a functor $`m:C\times CC`$, where we write $`m(x,y)=xy`$ and $`m(f,g)=fg`$ for objects $`x,y,C`$ and morphisms $`f,g`$ in $`C`$,

a functor $`\mathrm{id}:IC`$ where $`I`$ is the terminal category, and we write the object in the range of this functor as $`1C`$,

a functor $`\mathrm{inv}:CC`$,

natural isomorphisms $`a,\mathrm{},r,e,i`$ as follows:

making the following diagrams commute:

We are now almost ready to define a ‘coherent 2-group object’ in an arbitrary 2-category with finite products. Before we can do this, we must be careful to phrase the definition in a way that does not use any properties of a particular 2-category and its objects (in this case $`\mathrm{Cat}`$). Rather, we must formulate the definition in a purely 2-categorical way. We have not done this yet in Definition 11, since we made explicit use of the fact that $`C`$ was a category: the commutative diagrams for the natural isomorphisms have objects of $`C`$ labelling their vertices. We must correct this oversight. The problem, well-known to experts, is that making explicit mention of the objects of $`C`$ has suppressed one dimension in the coherence diagrams. This can be seen in axiom A5:

The 2-dimensional appearance of this diagram results from mentioning the objects $`x,y,z,wC`$. We can avoid this by working with (for example) the functor $`(1\times 1\times m)(1\times m)m`$ instead of its value on the object $`(x,y,z,w)C^4`$, namely $`x(y(zw))`$. If we do this, we see that the diagram is actually 3-dimensional! It is a pentagonal prism, a bit difficult to draw:

where the downwards-pointing single arrows are functors from $`C^4`$ to $`C`$, and the horizontal double arrows are natural transformations between these functors, forming a commutative pentagon. Luckily we can also draw this pentagon in a 2-dimensional way again, as follows:

This style of writing coherence laws allows us to make the following definition:

###### Definition 12

. A coherent 2-group object in a 2-category $`K`$ with finite products consists of

an object $`CK`$,

a morphism $`m:C\times CC`$,

a morphism $`\mathrm{id}:IC`$ where $`I`$ is the terminal object of $`K`$,

a morphism $`\mathrm{inv}:CC`$,

2-isomorphisms $`a,\mathrm{},r,e,i`$ as follows:

making the following diagrams commute:

###### Proposition 13

. A coherent 2-group object in $`\mathrm{Cat}`$ is a coherent 2-group.

Proof.  We prove this merely by noting that that the morphisms in $`\mathrm{Cat}`$ are functors and the 2-morphisms are natural transformations. With these substitutions Definition 12 becomes Definition 11. $``$ $``$

We can define a topological 2-group to be a coherent 2-group object in $`\mathrm{TopCat}`$, the 2-category of topological categories. Similarly, we can define a Lie 2-group to be a coherent 2-group object in $`\mathrm{DiffCat}`$, the 2-category of smooth categories. Here ‘topological categories’ are categories internal to $`\mathrm{Top}`$, while ‘smooth categories’ are categories internal to $`\mathrm{Diff}`$; concepts of this sort were first studied by Ehresmann  Baez has used strict Lie 2-groups in his work on categorified gauge theory , and it should be interesting to extend these ideas to general Lie 2-groups.

It seems difficult to internalize the notion of a weak 2-group as we have just done for coherent 2-groups. Naively, the definition of a ‘weak 2-group object’ would require that $`\mathrm{inv}`$ be a morphism in the ambient 2-category $`K`$. In the case $`K=\mathrm{Cat}`$ this means that $`\mathrm{inv}`$ is a functor. However, requiring that $`\mathrm{inv}`$ be a functor implies the zig-zag identities, leading us back to the notion of coherent 2-group.

## 5 Improvement

In this section we show that any weak 2-group can be improved to a coherent one, using the technique of string diagrams . In a strict monoidal category, one can interpret any string diagram as a morphism in a unique way. With the help of Mac Lane’s coherence theorem  we can also do this in a weak monoidal category. To do this, we interpret any string of objects and $`1`$’s as a tensor product of objects where all parentheses start in front and all 1’s are removed. Using the associator and left/right unit laws to do any necessary reparenthesization and introduction or elimination of 1’s, any string diagram then describes a morphism between tensor products of this sort. The fact that this morphism is unambiguously defined follows from Mac Lane’s coherence theorem.

Let $`C`$ be a weak 2-group. We will only need string diagrams where all the strings are labelled by $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$, where $`x`$ is some fixed object of $`C`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ is a chosen weak inverse for $`x`$. Thus we can omit these labels and just use downwards or upwards arrows on our strings to distinguish between $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$. We fix isomorphisms $`i_x:`$ and $`e_x:`$ . We draw these just as we did in Section 4; however, they need not satisfy the zig-zag identities. Nonetheless, if we write $`i_x`$ as

$`i_x^1`$ as

$`e_x`$ as

and $`e_x^1`$ as

we obtain some rules for manipulating string diagrams just from the fact that these morphisms are inverses of each other. For instance, the equations $`i_xi_x^1=1_1`$ and $`e_x^1e_x=1_1`$ give the rules

$$\text{}=\mathrm{and}\text{}=.$$

These rules mean that in a string diagram, a loop of either form may be removed or inserted without changing the morphism described by the diagram. Similarly, the equations $`e_xe_x^1=1_{\overline{x}x}`$ and $`i_x^1i_x=1_{x\overline{x}}`$ give the rules

$$\text{}=\text{}\text{}\mathrm{and}\text{}=\text{}\text{}.$$

Again, these rules means that in a string diagram we can modify any portion as above without changing the morphism in question. We shall also need another rule, the ‘horizontal slide’:

$$\text{}\text{}=\text{}$$

This follows from general results on string diagrams , but it is easy to prove directly. First, write down the corresponding globular diagram:

Then, use the bicategory axioms  and Mac Lane’s coherence theorem to manipulate this diagram in the following manner:

$`=`$
$`=`$
$`=`$
$`=`$
$`=`$
Rewriting the end result as a string diagram, the result follows. A similar argument proves another version of the horizontal slide:

$$\text{}\text{}=\text{}.$$

With the help of these rules we now prove:

###### Theorem 14

. Given any weak 2-group $`C`$, it can be improved to a coherent 2-group $`\mathrm{Imp}(C)`$ by equipping each object with an adjoint equivalence.

Proof.  First, for each object $`x`$ we choose a weak inverse $`\overline{x}`$ and isomorphisms $`i_x:1x\overline{x}`$, $`e_x:\overline{x}x1`$. From this data we construct an adjoint equivalence $`(x,\overline{x},i_x^{},e_x)`$ where $`i_x^{}`$ is defined as the following composite morphism:

where we omit tensor product symbols for brevity.

The above rather cryptic formula for $`i_x^{}`$ becomes much clearer if we use pictures. If we think of a weak 2-group as a one-object bicategory and write this formula in globular notation it becomes:

If we write it as a string diagram it looks even simpler:

Now let us show that $`(x,\overline{x},i_x^{},e_x)`$ satisfies the zig-zag identities. Recall that these identities say that the following diagrams commute:

$$\text{}\text{}.$$

Utilizing the observation made regarding Mac Lane’s coherence theorem we can express the zig-zag identities in globular notation as follows:

$$\text{}=\text{},$$

$$\text{}=\text{}.$$

If we express $`i_x^{}`$ in terms of $`i_x`$ and $`e_x`$, these equations become

$$\text{}=\text{}\text{}\text{}$$

and

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

To verify these two equations we use string diagrams. In the calculations that follow, we denote an application of the ‘horizontal slide’ rule by a dashed line connecting the appropriate zig and zag. Dotted lines connecting two parallel strings will indicate an application of the rules $`e_xe_x^1=1_{\overline{x}x}`$ or $`i_x^1i_x=1_{x\overline{x}}`$. Furthermore, the rules $`i_xi_x^1=1_1`$ and $`e_x^1e_x=1_1`$ allow us to remove a closed loop any time one appears. The first equation can be proved as follows:

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}\text{}$$

The proof of the second equation is accomplished in a similar manner:

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$$\text{}=\text{}$$

$``$ $``$

We can now make this ‘improvement’ process into a 2-functor $`\mathrm{Imp}:\mathrm{W2G}\mathrm{C2G}`$:

###### Theorem 15

. There exist a 2-functor $`\mathrm{Imp}:\mathrm{W2G}\mathrm{C2G}`$ which sends any object $`C\mathrm{W2G}`$ to $`\mathrm{Imp}(C)\mathrm{C2G}`$ and acts as the identity on morphisms and 2-morphisms.

Proof.  The proof of this theorem is a trivial consequence of Theorem 14. Obviously all domains, codomains, identities and composites are preserved, since the 1-morphisms and 2-morphisms are unchanged as a result of Definitions 8 and 9. $``$ $``$

On the other hand, there is also a forgetful 2-functor $`\mathrm{F}:\mathrm{C2G}\mathrm{W2G}`$, which forgets the extra structure on objects and acts as the identity on morphisms and 2-morphisms. It is easy to see that improvement followed by this forgetful 2-functor acts as the identity of $`\mathrm{W2G}`$. On the other hand, applying $`F`$ and then $`\mathrm{Imp}`$ to a coherent 2-group $`C`$ amounts to forgetting the choice of adjoint equivalence for each object $`xC`$ and then making a new such choice. We obtain a new coherent 2-group $`C^{}`$, but it has the same underlying weak monoidal category, so the identity functor $`1_C:CC^{}`$ is a coherent 2-group homomorphism from $`C`$ to $`C^{}`$. It should thus not be surprising that:

###### Theorem 16

. The 2-functors $`\mathrm{Imp}:\mathrm{W2G}\mathrm{C2G}`$, $`\mathrm{F}:\mathrm{C2G}\mathrm{W2G}`$ extend to define a biequivalence between the 2-categories $`\mathrm{W2G}`$ and $`\mathrm{C2G}`$.

We omit the proof, but refer the reader to Bénabou  and Street  for a discussion of the concept of biequivalence. The upshot is that we can use either weak or coherent 2-groups, whichever happens to be more convenient at the time, and freely translate results between the two formalisms.

To conclude, let us summarize why weak and coherent 2-groups are not really so different. At first, the choice of a specified adjoint equivalence for each object seems like a substantial extra structure to put on a weak 2-group. However, Theorem 14 shows that we can always succeed in putting this extra structure on any weak 2-group. Furthermore, while there are many ways to equip a weak 2-group with this extra structure, there is ‘essentially’ just one way, since the remarks at the end of Section 7 show that this structure is automatically preserved up to coherent isomorphism by any homomorphism of weak 2-groups.

### Acknowledgements

I thank John Baez and James Dolan for very helpful discussions and correspondence, and also Miguel Carrión Álvarez for his assistance in making string diagrams.