text:
# Recycling the universe using scalar fields

## I Introduction

The idea of a cyclical oscillating universe—one that is continuously reborn from the ashes of a previous existence—finds expression in the philosophical and cultural beliefs of many ancient civilizations .

Within the framework of modern relativistic cosmology, oscillating models (analytically continued through the big bang singularity) arise naturally as exact solutions of the Einstein field equations for a spatially closed universe consisting of a perfect fluid. Since all expansion-contraction cycles in such models are identical, one might feel that an oscillating universe containing an infinite number of cycles would be infinitely old, somewhat resembling, on the average, a steady-state model. Dissipative processes leading to entropy growth, however, change this picture radically. As originally demonstrated by Tolman , the growth of entropy increases the total volume of the universe at the maximum of each expansion cycle; this observation has several important consequences, some of which are summarised below.

(i) Tolman strongly felt that the possibility of thermodynamically recycling the universe would have a “liberalizing action on our general thermodynamic thinking” since it would dispel the notion that “the principles of thermodynamics necessarily require a universe which was created at a finite time in the past and which is fated for stagnation and death in the future” . Thus, the oscillating universe was seen to present a credible alternative to the idea of the thermodynamic heat death postulated by nineteenth century physicists and popular in this century as well. (The latter may still be possible in a flat/open universe.)

(ii) As demonstrated by Zeldovich and Novikov , the increase in entropy from cycle to cycle suggests that an oscillating universe could not have had an infinitely long total duration since, given the present (finite) value of its total entropy and postulating that the entropy increase from cycle to cycle is finite, one is led to conclude that the number of cycles preceeding the present one is also finite. An oscillating universe cannot therefore be infinitely old and must have been created, perhaps quantum mechanically, at some point in the past. Since the total mass (energy) of a closed universe is zero, its creation from the vacuum does not violate any known laws of conservation and is therefore possible, in principle .

(iii) An important consequence of an oscillating universe with an increasing expansion maximum at every cycle, is that the horizon and flatness problems are gradually ameliorated as the universe grows older, larger, and flatter during each successive expansion cycle. The oscillating universe may thus present a credible alternative to the inflationary scenario in this respect.

An oscillating universe can also have other important cosmological implications. For instance, relics of an earlier expansion epoch may be measurable today . Starobinsky, in his seminal paper on graviton production in an inflationary universe , showed that gravity waves would also be created in an oscillatory universe; further, he derived an expression for their amplitude and spectrum which allows us to infer details of previous expansion epochs from measurements made today.

Finally, the idea of an oscillating universe also appears in the quasi-steady-state cosmology of Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar , in which alternate cycles of expansion and contraction modulate an exponentially expanding background geometry, with the creation of matter being most intense at the minimum of each cycle.

A key issue, which remains at present unresolved, relates to physical mechanisms which can cause the universe to bounce at the end of each cycle. The singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking suggest that a singular state necessarily arises at the end of contraction in a closed Friedman–Robertson–Walker (FRW) universe described by general relativity, if matter satisfies certain ‘energy conditions’ . However, it is not clear whether, at very high curvatures $`l_\mathrm{P}^2`$, matter would behave as it does under ‘normal’ conditions when the space-time curvature is much smaller than the Planck value, $`l_\mathrm{P}^2`$. Furthermore, at $`l_\mathrm{P}^2`$, particle production and vacuum polarisation effects are likely to be significant; the resulting vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ik}`$ need not satisfy the above energy conditions, due to which the space-time metric could very well ‘bounce’ without ever reaching a singular state . Finally, we should mention that a ‘bouncing’ universe may also arise in quantum cosmology or as a consequence of the duality conditions which are generic features of superstring-inspired cosmological models. The limiting curvature hypothesis of Markov  (see also ) might also lead to a time symmetric bounce. Other physical mechanisms leading to singularity avoidance are discussed in .

The bouncing of the universe in the vicinity of the singularity, $`a=0`$, is perceived less dramatically by extending the range of the scale factor to negative values. Since only the absolute value of the scale factor, $`|a|`$, has direct physical meaning, such an extension is quite legitimate (see, for instance,  and Fig. 1). The notion of a ‘bounce’ is then replaced by the more natural notion of a continuous ‘passage’ of the scale factor through the value of $`a=0`$ to the region of negative values $`a<0`$. This also can be viewed as the change of the (unphysical?) spatial orientation of the universe after its passage through zero value of the scale factor . We will use this notion in our formulation of ‘natural’ conditions at the bounce. Of course, the dynamics of the universe in the close vicinity of the point $`a=0`$ is beyond classical description, even in this model.

This paper presents a radical departure from most previous work on oscillating models in which entropy production associated with dissipative processes led to the growth of the expansion maximum of each cycle. Our results show that an alternate mechanism which does not require entropy production exists, also leading to increasing oscillatory cycles. We demonstrate that the presence of a massive scalar field (in a closed FRW universe), under certain reasonable conditions at the bounce, gives rise to growing expansion cycles, the increase in expansion amplitude being related to the work done by/on the scalar field during the expansion/contraction of the universe. (The presence of other matter fields, in addition to the scalar field, does not affect our conclusions, as long as interactions between such fields and the scalar are sufficiently weak.) Our results have important consequences for the inflationary universe scenario, one of the standard paradigms of cosmology.

## II Scalar fields in a closed universe.

The recent detection of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background on degree scales appears to favour a closed FRW universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}=1.11\pm 0.07`$ . A spatially closed space-time is described by the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1r^2}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
(1)
where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmic expansion factor; units in which the speed of light $`c=1`$ are used throughout this paper. In a closed universe, the Einstein equations acquire the well-known form

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho \frac{1}{a^2},$$
(2)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho +3P),$$
(3)
where $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ are, respectively, the total energy density and pressure of the various components of the universe. For a radiation-dominated universe, we have $`P=\rho /3`$, and the field equations can be solved exactly in terms of the conformal time coordinate $`\eta =𝑑t/a(t)`$, to yield the solution

$$a(\eta )=A\mathrm{sin}\eta ,t=A(1\mathrm{cos}\eta ),$$
(4)
which describes a semicircle in the $`a`$$`t`$ plane. The solution for a matter dominated universe (with $`P=0`$) is

$$a(\eta )=A(1\mathrm{cos}\eta ),t=A(\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta ),$$
(5)
which describes a cycloid. After solution (4) is extended periodically in time, both (4) and (5) describe a periodic evolution with an infinite number of identical expansion–contraction cycles, as shown in Fig. 2.

The presence of a bulk viscosity $`\zeta `$ results in a modification of the cosmological fluid pressure $`P`$ to

$$P=P_03\zeta H.$$
(6)
Here, $`P_0`$ is the equilibrium pressure and $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter. (An example of bulk viscosity is provided by a fluid in which energy is easily exchanged between translational and rotational/internal degrees of freedom, an example being a gas of rough spheres .) From Eq. (6) one finds that, during expansion, $`H>0`$ and $`P<P_0`$, whereas during collapse, $`H<0`$ and $`P>P_0`$. This asymmetry during the expanding and contracting phases results in the growth of both energy and entropy, in the words of Tolman , “if the pressure tends to be greater during a compression than during a previous expansion, as would be expected with a lag behind equilibrium conditions, an element of fluid can return to its original volume with increased energy and hence also with increased entropy.” The increase in energy makes the amplitude of successive expansion cycles larger enabling the universe to spend “a greater and greater proportion of its period in a condition of lower density $`\mathrm{}`$ even though a return to higher densities would always occur.”

Although Tolman linked the asymmetry in pressure during expansion and collapse to the production of entropy, we will show that such an asymmetry also arises for non-dissipative Lagrangians such as those describing a massive scalar field in an FRW space-time. In this case, the asymmetry in pressure leads to a significant increase in the energy of the scalar field and results in an increase of the maximum volume of the oscillating universe.

The Lagrangian density for a scalar field has the form

$$=\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}_i\varphi _j\varphi V(\varphi ).$$
(7)
The 0-0 Einstein equation for a homogeneous scalar field in the closed FRW universe (1) becomes

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )\right]\frac{1}{a^2},$$
(8)
and the energy density and pressure of the scalar field are, respectively,

$$\rho _\varphi \frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ),P_\varphi \frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi ).$$
(9)
The scalar-field equation of motion is

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+\frac{dV}{d\varphi }=0.$$
(10)
The motion of $`\varphi `$ arises in response to the dual action of the accelerating force $`dV/d\varphi `$ and the damping term $`3H\dot{\varphi }`$. In the chaotic inflationary scenario with $`V\varphi ^n`$ ($`n=2,4`$), for sufficiently large values of $`\varphi `$, namely, for ϕ>

mPitalic-ϕ>

subscript𝑚P\phi\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ m_{\mathrm{P}}, where $`m_\mathrm{P}`$ is the Planck mass, the damping caused by the expansion of the universe ($`H>0`$) settles the scalar field into a ‘slow-roll’ regime during which $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V`$ and $`P\rho `$. Since the equation of state of the scalar field mimics that of the cosmological constant, the expansion of the universe is inflationary, $`a\mathrm{exp}H(t)𝑑t`$. Exactly the reverse situation arises when the universe contracts. In this case, we have $`H<0`$, and the term $`3H\dot{\varphi }`$ now accelerates the motion of $`\varphi `$ instead of damping it, as it did during expansion. As a result, the kinetic energy of the scalar field becomes much larger than its potential energy, $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V`$, and the resulting equation of state becomes $`P=\rho `$ (sometimes called the equation of state of ‘stiff’ matter). Consequently, the scalar field in a closed universe satisfies two generic regimes

$$P\rho \text{for}H>0\text{(expansion)},$$
(11)
$$P\rho \text{for}H<0\text{(contraction)}.$$
(12)
For polynomial potentials, $`V\varphi ^n`$, these two regimes are separated by an epoch during which the scalar field oscillates about its minimum value while its equation of state mimics that of dust: $`P=0`$ ($`n=2`$), or radiation: $`P=\rho /3`$ ($`n=4`$). (The time average is taken over many oscillations of the field.) It is interesting that the quantity $`P/\rho `$, when plotted as a function of the expansion factor, resembles a hysteresis curve. The area enclosed by the curve is related to the work done by/on the scalar field during the expansion of the universe $`\delta W=P𝑑V`$.

If one postulates that the universe ‘bounces’ during contraction, then one can expect the ‘work done’ $`\delta W`$ during a given expansion cycle to be converted into ‘expansion energy’, resulting in the growth in amplitude of each successive expansion cycle. An estimate of the increase in the expansion maximum can be obtained from the following elementary considerations: setting $`H=0`$ in (2) we obtain

$$\rho _{}=\frac{3}{8\pi Ga_{\mathrm{m}ax}^2},$$
(13)
where $`\rho _{}`$ is the density of the universe at the expansion maximum. Since the total mass of a closed universe is $`M=2\pi ^2a^3\rho `$, this gives

$$M=\frac{3\pi }{4G}a_{\mathrm{m}ax}.$$
(14)
Equating the increase in energy, $`\delta E=\delta M`$, to the work done during a single expansion-contraction cycle, $`\delta E=\delta W`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_{\mathrm{m}ax}=\frac{4G}{3\pi }P𝑑V,$$
(15)
which relates the increase in the expansion maximum between two successive cycles $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_{\mathrm{m}ax}`$ to the work done $`\delta W=P𝑑V`$. (The increase in energy $`\delta E`$ is brought about at the expense of the gravitational field energy, since the total energy of a closed universe is identically zero .)

We probe further implications of this analysis by studying equations (8)–(10) numerically for the class of chaotic potentials $`V(\varphi )=\lambda \varphi ^q`$, $`q>0`$, and $`V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}(\mu \varphi )`$. The potential $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^q`$ has been discussed both in the context of inflation  and as a candidate for cold dark matter . Exponential-based classes of potentials are known to have important cosmological consequences both within the inflationary framework  and as candidates for quintessence and cold dark matter . (An early use of the exponential potential in the context of a closed universe may be found in .) Before describing our results, it is necessary to first discuss the type of ‘bouncing’ conditions which are imposed at the start of each expansion-contraction cycle. As remarked earlier, it is likely that a unified theory of the weak, strong, and gravitational interactions will provide a key to understanding physical processes which operate during the strong-curvature regime of a contraction cycle. In the absence of such a theory, we will do the next best thing and set conditions which we feel are both simple and natural and may therefore arise in a future ‘physically complete’ theory of the early universe.

The conditions imposed at the bounce are, $`aa`$, $`\dot{a}\dot{a}`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$, and $`\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }`$, (the bounce is assumed to occur instantaneously). Thus, the effect of the bounce is to reverse the direction of motion of the universe (since $`\dot{a}\dot{a}`$), with all other quantities remaining unchanged. In the introduction, we mentioned the possibility of extending the range of the scale factor to negative values and then replacing the idea of a ‘bounce’ by the somewhat more appealing idea of ‘passage’ to negative values of the scale factor. This viewpoint leads to the following reasonable conditions at the bounce: $`aa`$, $`\dot{a}\dot{a}`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$, $`\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }`$, which is equivalent to the ‘conventional’ prescription $`aa`$, $`\dot{a}\dot{a}`$, $`\varphi \varphi `$, $`\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }`$ adopted in this paper. Further, we assume that the bounce arises at scales at which quantum gravitational effects become important, i.e., at Planck scales. Two possibilities then exist for the location of the bounce:

(i) The bounce occurs when the curvature of the universe becomes comparable to the Planck scale, in other words, the bounce takes place at a fixed value $`a_{\mathrm{m}in}l_\mathrm{P}`$ of the scale factor.

(ii) The bounce occurs when the energy density in the scalar field crosses the Planck energy, i.e., when $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )m_\mathrm{P}^4`$.

Both the above possibilities are considered in the current work, with results shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively, for the boundary conditions (i) and (ii), and for the potential $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$. In Fig. 3, we follow the expansion factor through one expansion-contraction cycle; it can be seen that the universe inflates at the beginning of the second cycle, resulting in a very large universe and a correspondingly large value of $`a_{\mathrm{m}ax}`$.

Next, in implementing condition (ii), we will work with what we feel is the ‘worst case scenario’ for inflation, namely, we set

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2|_{a=a_{\mathrm{m}in}}m_\mathrm{P}^4V(\varphi )|_{a=a_{\mathrm{m}in}},$$
(16)
$$\varphi |_{a=a_{\mathrm{m}in}}<\varphi _{}m_\mathrm{P}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }/6\pi }$$
(17)
at the start of the first expansion cycle. Note that $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=8\pi G\rho _\varphi /3H^2>1`$.

The initial conditions (16) and (17) guarantee that the condition for accelerated expansion $`\dot{\varphi }^2<V(\varphi )`$ is not met and thus ensure that the inflationary regime does not commence. Our results, shown in Fig. 4, are interesting; we find that, although the universe is prevented from inflating during the first cycle, its amplitude during subsequent cycles increases, resulting finally in inflation! The physical reasons for a growing oscillation amplitude are simple to understand: the large kinetic energy of the scalar field during the collapse phase of a cycle drives $`\varphi `$ to regions higher up on the potential at the commencement of the next expansion cycle, until the field finally reaches an amplitude $`\varphi >\varphi _{}`$, which is large enough to make the universe inflate.

The hysteresis curves corresponding to the first oscillation of the expansion factor in Figs. 3 and 4 are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Suprisingly, we find that the phenomenon of ‘hysteresis’ is present even when the conditions (11) and (12) are no longer met. The resulting increase in oscillation amplitude emphasises the fact that, although the universe may not inflate during its ‘first attempt’, it will eventually do so during subsequent cycles! This result considerably enhances the scope and appeal of inflationary models by showing that inflation could begin from a much broader set of initial data, provided the universe bounces when it reaches a high density. (It should be pointed out that, for scalar fields originating from larger initial values $`\varphi |_{a=a_{\mathrm{m}in}}>\varphi _{}`$, there will be greater hysteresis in the equation of state and a larger associated growth in the volume of the universe at maximum expansion.)

We thus find that a growth in the maximum expansion amplitude can be achieved without any recourse to an entropy generating mechanism. In fact, the field equations (8)–(10) are non-dissipative and time-reversible; moreover, the bouncing conditions imposed are also time-reversible, in the sense that the time-reversed evolution will respect the same bouncing conditions. One therefore arrives at the following important conclusion: time-asymmetry in the evolution of a closed universe can be achieved even with time-reversible field equations and bouncing conditions! This result may appear counter-intuitive, especially when compared with the behaviour of the periodic solutions (4) and (5), which are exactly time-symmetric with respect to the expansion maximum of each cycle. The reason behind the growing amplitude of successive expansion cycles has to do with the fact that convex potentials (which have so far been examined) have a well defined minimum about which the scalar field oscillates. Rapid oscillations of $`\varphi `$ with frequency $`md^2V/d\varphi ^2H`$ cause the field to ‘mix’ in its phase-space $`\{\varphi ,\dot{\varphi }\}`$ so that, at the time of recollapse, its location in $`\{\varphi ,\dot{\varphi }\}`$ is almost completely uncorrelated with its location in $`\{\varphi ,\dot{\varphi }\}`$ before the onset of oscillations. As a result, the chance that the scalar field will roll up its potential during recollapse along exactly the same trajectory down which it rolled during expansion is essentially zero. This accounts for the fact that the equation of state during contraction is $`P=\rho `$ and not $`P=\rho `$, which it would have been for exactly time-symmetric expansion–collapse. The time-asymmetric behaviour of $`\varphi `$ is clearly shown in Figs. 5 and 6, in which the solid line showing the equation of state $`P/\rho `$ during expansion is displaced with respect to the broken line showing $`P/\rho `$ during collapse. For exact time reversal, no such difference between expansion and collapse would have been present; the solid and broken lines would overlap, and the ‘hysteresis’ seen in the figures would not occur. The global time-asymmetry of the evolution of an oscillatory universe in our model is also a direct consequence of the time-asymmetric physical conditions at the bounce, in which the sign of $`\dot{a}`$ is reversed while the sign of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is not. It should be noted at this point that, had we adopted the bouncing condition $`\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }`$ for the scalar-field velocity, then every two subsequent cycles would obviously be time-symmetric with respect to the corresponding bouncing point, and the cosmological evolution as a whole would thus be periodic with period comprising two subsequent cycles.

The above argument is supported by our analysis of exponential potentials $`V=V_0\mathrm{exp}(\mu \varphi )`$ for which we find no hysteresis in the equation of state $`P/\rho `$ and no increase in the amplitude of the expansion factor through successive oscillations. The example of an exponential potential is easy to analyse because the evolution of the scalar field proceeds with time towards large positive values of $`\varphi `$ and, at such values of the scalar field, the potential approaches an identical zero—a trivial case for which the evolution is periodic and hysteresis is obviously absent. Interestingly enough, hysteresis reappears when we modify the potential to $`V=V_0[\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda \varphi )1]`$, which has been proposed as a candidate for cold dark matter in . This potential has the following limiting forms: $`V\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \varphi )`$ for $`|\lambda \varphi |1`$, $`\varphi <0`$; and $`V\lambda ^2\varphi ^2`$ for $`|\lambda \varphi |1`$. In this case, although the amplitude of successive cycles increases, the increase is much smaller than for a purely $`\lambda ^2\varphi ^2`$ potential. This observation supports our conclusion that hysteresis, and the accompanying increase in the amplitude of successive expansion maxima, depends crucially upon the ability of the scalar field to oscillate. The absence of a well-defined minimum in the exponential potential prevents the field from oscillating, its behaviour is therefore monotonic and, in the absence of ‘mixing’, the scalar field equation of state $`P/\rho `$ does not show any hysteresis. For potentials characteristic of chaotic inflation, $`V\varphi ^q`$, $`q>0`$, the extent of ‘hysteresis’ and the accompanying increase in successive expansion maxima depend sensitively upon the exponent $`q`$—reflecting the steepness of the ‘chaotic’ potential $`\varphi ^q`$. For larger $`q`$, the amount of hysteresis is smaller, as is the increase in the value of successive maxima of the expansion factor.

It is interesting to follow the value of the cosmological density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as the universe oscillates. From the definition

$$\mathrm{\Omega }1=(aH)^2,$$
(18)
we find that a larger value of the expansion factor $`a`$ (at identical $`H`$) will result in a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is closer to unity (during successive cycles). This is borne out by the results of our numerical analysis shown in Fig. 7, in which the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ measured at identical values of $`tt_{\mathrm{m}in}H^1`$ is shown for successive expansion-contraction cycles \[the boundary condition is (ii); the corresponding expansion factor is shown in Fig. 4\]. We find that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches unity more closely and for a longer duration during successive cycles thereby gradually ameliorating the flatness problem. (During the third expansion cycle, the universe inflates and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches unity to great accuracy.)

The time derivative of equation (18) yields

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=H\mathrm{\Omega }(1\mathrm{\Omega })[1+3\omega (t)],$$
(19)
where $`\omega (t)`$ is the general time-dependent equation of state $`\omega =P(t)/\rho (t)`$. Equation (19) shows that the behaviour $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{c}onst`$ arises if either (i) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ or (ii) $`\omega (t)1/3`$. The value $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ is the well-known critical point of the Friedmann equations. The fact that the equation of state $`\omega 1/3`$ also results in a universe evolving with an unchanging value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not so well known, even though this result is completely general and independent of any assumptions about the curvature of the universe. It is interesting that oscillations of the scalar field \[with $`\omega (t)`$ varying between $`\omega =+1`$ and $`\omega =1`$\] induce oscillations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$, since every time $`\omega (t)`$ passes through the critical value $`\omega _c=1/3`$, the value of $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ changes sign. Thus, close to the time of recollapse, a large increase in the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is modulated by small oscillations, as shown in Fig. 7. The growth in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is due to the increase in the importance of the curvature term relative to the scalar field density in (2), whereas small modulations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are due to changes in the equation of state of the oscillating scalar field.

From (18) we find the following simple expression for the total volume of a closed universe

$$V=\frac{2\pi ^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}1\right)^{3/2}}V_H,$$
(20)
where $`V_H=H^3`$ is the current Hubble volume. Observations of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background on degree scales appear to favour a closed universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}=1.11\pm 0.07`$ . By substituting this into (20), we get $`258<V/V_H<2467`$. The total volume of our universe could therefore be several thousand times larger than its causal horizon! We also obtain an estimate of the value of the expansion factor at recollapse ($`a_{\mathrm{m}ax}`$) and the corresponding recollapse ‘redshift’ ($`z_{\mathrm{r}ecoll}`$) by setting to zero the (future) value of the Hubble parameter

$$H(z)=H_0(1+z)\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}+\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (1+z)^{\gamma _\alpha }\right]^{1/2},$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ is the fraction corresponding to matter of type $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}=_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$, $`\gamma _\alpha =1+3w_\alpha `$, and $`1+z=a_0/a`$. Specialising to a CDM dominated universe and assuming for simpicity that all the matter in the universe is pressureless so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}otal}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, we get

$$H(z)=H_0(1+z)\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }_mz\right]^{1/2}=0,$$
(22)
which leads to $`z_{\mathrm{r}ecoll}=1/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ or

$$\frac{a_{\mathrm{m}ax}}{a_0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m1}.$$
(23)
Substituting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.11\pm 0.07`$, we obtain 6.5<

amax/a0<

 266.5<

subscript𝑎m𝑎𝑥subscript𝑎0<

266.5\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ a_{\mathrm{m}ax}/a_{0}\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ 26, i.e., the size of the universe at recollapse is $`10`$ times larger than its present size. The corresponding age of the universe at recollapse is

$$t_{\mathrm{r}ecoll}=_{1/\mathrm{\Omega }_m}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz}{H(z)(1+z)},$$
(24)
giving

$$t_{\mathrm{r}ecoll}=\frac{\pi }{2H_0}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}}{\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m1\right]}\sqrt{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right)}$$
(25)
i.e. $`t_{\mathrm{r}ecoll}4004000`$ billion years (for $`h=0.5`$).

The late-time behaviour of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{C}DM}`$ model suggested by recent supernova observations  is more complex since, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a constant, the universe need not recollapse at all but could continue expanding forever . Quintessence fields which generate a time-dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term result either in an ever-expanding universe (if $`w_Q`$ always remains <

1/3<

13\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ -1/3) or in recollapse (if the current acceleration of the universe is a transient phenomenon).

## III Discussion and Conclusions.

We have analysed the behaviour of a massive scalar field in a closed FRW universe and shown that oscillations of the field about the minimum of its potential can lead to an asymmetry in its equation of state $`\omega =P_\varphi /\rho _\varphi `$ during the expansion and collapse epochs. This asymmetry is reflected by the presence of a hysteresis-like feature in $`\omega `$ which is, in turn, related to the amount of ‘work done’ by/on the scalar field during a given expansion-contraction cycle. An important consequence of this effect is that the imposition of bouncing conditions at an appropriate early time causes the work done during a given expansion cycle to be converted into expansion energy, resulting in the growth in amplitude of each successive expansion maximum in an oscillating universe. The increase in the value of the expansion maximum results in a recycled universe which is considerably longer-lived and more flat during each successive expansion epoch. Thus, the flatness problem is gradually ameliorated in this model.

Our results also have a direct bearing on the issue of initial conditions in cosmology. We have shown that even in the worst-case scenario in which the curvature term dominates, causing the universe to collapse prematurely without inflating, subsequent cycles will ensure that the value of the scalar field (or ‘level of the potential’) increases at the commencement of each expansion cycle, until the value of $`\varphi `$ and $`V(\varphi )`$ become large enough for inflation to occur. Thus, even if the universe did not inflate the first time around, it will eventually do so, due to the growing amplitude of $`\varphi `$ and $`V(\varphi )`$ at the commencement of each new expansion cycle. Inflation in closed models therefore turns out to be remarkably robust, provided the universe bounces when it reaches a high density .

We note, finally, that observations of intermediate-angle anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background made by the BOOMERanG satellite appear to favour a closed universe, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }1.11\pm 0.07`$ indicated by a combined analysis of BOOMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 data . Furthermore, although we have not specified the exact nature or origin for our scalar field, one might be tempted to view it either as the inflaton or an inflationary relic. Indeed, the possibility that relic scalar fields might play the role of dark matter in the universe is very tempting and has been discussed in .


format: text

text:
# Determination of Ω_𝑏 From Big Bang Nucleosynthesis in the Presence of Regions of Antimatter

## I Introduction

Big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) in the presence of regions of antimatter in a baryo-asymmetric universe has been studied recently in several papers , first by Rehm and Jedamzik . Production of antimatter domains is predicted in many baryogenesis models. If the universe is baryo-asymmetric and the domain structure is of the right distance scale, antimatter would get annihilated during or soon after nucleosynthesis, affecting the abundances of the light elements.

Annihilation after or shortly before recombination is strongly constrained by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and cosmic diffuse gamma (CDG) radiation. If the antimatter regions are small enough to annihilate well before recombination, but after weak freeze-out, the strongest constraint on the amount of antimatter is obtained from big bang nucleosynthesis. The relevant scales are $`10^51`$ pc.

In two earlier papers  we derived constraints on the antimatter fraction allowed by BBN observations. We fixed the mean baryon density to $`\eta =6\times 10^{10}`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.022`$. In this paper we extend the study to a range of values of $`\eta `$. We search for values of $`\eta `$ that would be forbidden in the standard big bang nucleosynthesis (SBBN), but allowed in the presence of antimatter (antimatter big bang nucleosynthesis, ABBN).

## II Antimatter nucleosynthesis

### A Initial Conditions

We consider a situation where the early universe contains regions of antimatter, surrounded by a background of ordinary matter.

We model an antimatter region by a sphere with initially constant antibaryon density $`n_b`$. The antimatter sphere is surrounded by a spherical matter shell with equal baryon density. The initial structure is set by three parameters: (1) the antimatter fraction $`R=f_v/(1f_v)`$, where $`f_v`$ is the volume fraction of the antimatter region, (2) the net baryon density $`\overline{n}_b=n_b(1R)/(1+R)`$, and (3) the physical radius of the antimatter region, $`r_\mathrm{A}`$. The distances are given in comoving units in meters at $`T=`$ 1 keV. One meter at $`T=`$ 1 keV corresponds to $`4.26\times 10^6`$ m today. The net baryon density $`\overline{n}_b`$ is given as the baryon-to-photon ratio $`\eta `$ today, which is related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ by $`\eta =274\times 10^{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$.

### B Lithium

We have studied BBN with antimatter regions in two previous papers . We refer the reader to these papers for the details on physics and computations, and present in this paper only the new effects added since.

In our earlier papers we did not focus on lithium, whose observational limits are less secure than those of deuterium and helium. In this paper we consider also the production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$.

The SBBN yield of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is small, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}10^{14}`$. In the presence of antimatter additional $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is produced by photodisintegration and annihilation of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ and by non-thermal nuclear reactions.

About a half of the energy released in annihilation is carried away by photons and electrons, about a half by neutrinos, and a small fraction by nuclear debris. Energy release in the form of photons or electrons leads to $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ production via the nonthermal reactions $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+n`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+p`$, as first noted by Jedamzik . The implications of this process on particle physics have been discussed by Jedamzik  and by Kawasaki et al..

Photons and electrons initiate electromagnetic cascades, which first lose energy rapidly through photon-photon pair production and inverse Compton scattering. When the photon energies fall below $`E_c=m_\mathrm{e}^2/(80T)`$, the photon-photon interactions cease and the thermalization continues much more slowly through pair production on a nucleus and Compton scattering on electrons. During this phase the photons may also photodisintegrate nuclei.

Photodisintegration of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ leaves energetic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ ions, with energies up to $`E_3=(E_cE_{\mathrm{tr}})/4`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{tr}}=19.9(20.6)`$ MeV is the threshold of the photodisintegration reaction $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+\gamma {}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He})+p(n)`$. These ions may further produce $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ via reaction $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}){}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+n(p)`$. The threshold of this reaction in the laboratory frame is 8.39 MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ and 7.05 MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$. The photon energy must exceed 53.4(48.8) MeV in order to produce a $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}({}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He})`$ ion with energy above the threshold. The production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ begins when $`E_c`$ rises above 48.8 MeV, i.e., when the temperature falls below $`T=67`$ eV.

We get a smaller $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ production from $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ photodisintegration than Jedamzik , by a factor of 3. The difference is mainly due to Compton scattering, which was ignored in  in the thermalization of photons.

Also $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ ions from $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+\overline{p}(\overline{n})`$ annihilation produce $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ via the same non-thermal reaction, as discussed by Rehm and Jedamzik . The $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ ions produced by this process remain close to the annihilation zone, and are therefore more likely annihilated later, than the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ ions from $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ photodisintegration, which are distributed uniformly. Still, the annihilation-generated $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ dominate the production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$.

We are aware of only one direct measurement on the cross section of the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+n`$ reaction . Fortunately, there are data on the inverse reaction $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+n{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$. We use the principle of detailed balance to calculate the cross section of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+n`$ from its inverse reaction. The cross section is plotted in Fig. 1. For the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ reaction we use the same cross section, shifted in energy according to the threshold energy.

The photodisintegration of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ into the channel $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+p+n`$ begins at $`T=0.88`$ keV, and that of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be})`$ at $`T=`$1.3(2.1) keV.

We have implemented into our code all the the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ production processes described above. The slowing down of ions, the cascade spectrum, and the spectra of the annihilation debris are as in . The photodisintegration reactions included in our code, together with references to the cross-section data, are given in Table I. We use the total single photoneutron cross section $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}(\gamma ,n)X`$  for the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}(\gamma ,n){}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ reaction. In principle this leads to an overestimation of the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ production, since the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}(\gamma ,n)X`$ may include other reaction channels. This is, however, unimportant, since the production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is dominated by other processes.

Figure 2 shows the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield and major contributions to it, as a function of the antimatter radius, for $`R=0.01`$ and $`\eta =6\times 10^{10}`$. The $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ production is dominated by nonthermal reaction on $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ produced in $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+\overline{p}(\overline{n})`$ annihilation. The production via $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ photodisintegration becomes important at scales larger than $`10^9`$ m. At scales $`r_\mathrm{A}<10^8`$ m (annihilation at $`T>10`$ keV) $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is destroyed via the thermal neutron reaction $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}+n{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$.

The rise in the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ production at scales $`10^7`$$`10^8`$ m is due to the inefficient slowing down of ions at high temperatures, when the thermal velocities of the plasma electrons exceed the velocity of the ion (see ). The probability of a nuclear reaction is then higher. Direct production of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ through photodisintegration and annihilation of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ are negligible effects, both contribute $`0.1`$ % of the total $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$.

For comparison, the yields of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ (including $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$) and D are shown in Fig. 3. Production of D is dominated by $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}+\overline{p}(\overline{n})`$ annihilation. For $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ production, both annihilation and photodisintegration of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ are important. Spallation of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ by energetic neutrons contributes less than 10% of the D yield and less than 5% of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ yield, and has been omitted from the figure. Photodisintegration is responsible for 0.5% of the destruction of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and for 2% of the destruction of D.

### C Diffusion

The mixing of matter and antimatter proceeds through diffusion and collective hydrodynamic flow of the plasma. As different diffusion constants appear in the literature, we present here the constants used in our code.

We use the momentum transfer method  to calculate the diffusion constants. Consider the diffusion of a particle species $`k`$. The partial pressure of component $`k`$ is balanced by the force associated with the momentum transfer with other plasma components,

$$P_k+\underset{jk}{}𝐅_{kj}=0.$$
(1)
If both $`k`$ and $`j`$ are non-relativistic, the collisional force is given by

$$𝐅_{kj}=n_kn_jd^3𝐮_kd^3𝐮_jf_k(𝐮_k)f_j(𝐮_j)|𝐮_{jk}|\sigma _{kj}^\mathrm{t}\mu 𝐮_{jk},$$
(2)
where $`f_k(𝐮)`$, $`f_j(𝐮)`$ are the velocity distributions of the two particle species, $`𝐮_{jk}=𝐮_j𝐮_k`$ is the relative velocity, $`\mu `$ the reduced mass, and $`\sigma _{kj}^\mathrm{t}`$ the transport cross section in the center-of-mass frame. Assuming a small deviation from the Maxwellian distribution for $`k`$, such that $`𝐮_k=𝐯_k`$, we obtain

$$𝐅_{kj}=n_kn_j\frac{8}{3}\left(\frac{2T\mu }{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\sigma _{kj}^\mathrm{t}𝐯_k.$$
(3)
Putting together Eqs. (1) and (2), and the continuity equation, we end up with the diffusion equation, with a diffusion constant equal to

$$D_{kj}=\frac{3}{8}\left(\frac{\pi T}{2\mu }\right)^{1/2}\left(n_j\sigma _{kj}^\mathrm{t}\right)^1\text{(non-rel)}.$$
(4)
In the case of a heavy non-relativistic gas diffusing into a light relativistic gas the collisional force takes the form

$$𝐅_{kj}=\frac{1}{b}n_k𝐯_k,$$
(5)
leading to a diffusion constant

$$D_{kj}=bT\text{(rel.)},$$
(6)
where the mobility $`b`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{b}𝐯_k=d^3𝐩\rho _j(𝐩)\frac{|𝐩|}{E}\sigma _{kj}^\mathrm{t}𝐩.$$
(7)
Here $`\rho _j`$ is the phase space density of particle $`j`$ in a frame moving with velocity $`𝐯_k`$ with respect to the laboratory frame.

We give our diffusion coefficients in Table II. In calculating the proton-electron diffusion coefficient, we have integrated over the energy dependence of the Coulomb cross section $`\sigma _C(p)=4\pi \alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }E^2/p^4`$.

### D Transfer of energy and momentum

The annihilation of a nucleon-antinucleon pair produces a number of pions (on average 5) which decay into photons, muons and neutrinos. The muons decay further into electrons and neutrinos. Electrons and photons initiate electromagnetic cascades. If one of the annihilating pair is a nucleus, the annihilation leaves nuclear remnants with energies of the order of 10 MeV.

We discussed the spreading of the annihilation products and the electromagnetic cascades in . We ignored the effects on the kinetic behaviour of the plasma, as we estimated them to be small. Here we discuss these effects in more detail.

The annihilation products spreading out from the annihilation zone cause an effective force that tends to push (anti)matter away from the annihilation zone. The kinetic temperature of the plasma, however, is not affected by the energy deposit from the annihilation products, as we will argue below.

The universe is radiation dominated during the era we are interested in. The energy released in annihilation corresponds to a small fraction of the energy in the photon background. The photons form an essentially homogeneous heat bath, which will efficiently dilute the annihilation energy, if only the energy transfer between photons and plasma particles is rapid enough. To see if that is the case, we must compare the energy transfer rate with the annihilation time scale.

In Fig. 4 we plot the annihilation temperature versus the radius of the antimatter region. During the annihilation phase the temperature of the universe typically falls by one decade.

Electrons transfer energy to photons through inverse Compton scattering or, equivalently, through Thomson drag. The relaxation time for the electron temperature in the photon bath is given by

$$t_{\mathrm{eq}}=\frac{3}{8}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}ϵ_\gamma }1.1\times 10^7\mathrm{s}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{keV}}\right)^4.$$
(8)
This is small compared with the annihilation time scale, implying that electrons and photons maintain the same temperature.

In the annihilation on a nucleus, a small fraction of the energy is carried away by fragments of the nucleus. The ions are slowed down by Coulomb collisions, first with electrons and at lower energies with ions. Scattering on ions dominates the slowing down of an ion below energy $`E16T`$.

Energy transfer between electrons and ions is inefficient due to their mass difference. When energy is injected into the plasma, a thermal energy distribution is first established within electrons and ions separately, possibly at different kinetic temperatures . The thermalization between ions and electrons then occurs with a relaxation time

$$t_{\mathrm{eq}}=\frac{3}{8\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{A_im_\mathrm{p}m_\mathrm{e}}{n_\mathrm{e}Z_i^2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{e}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}0.2\mathrm{s}\frac{A_i}{\eta _{10}}\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$
(9)
This also is small compared with the annihilation time scale, which implies that ions keep the same temperature with electrons and photons. We may conclude that the effect of the annihilation on the plasma temperature can be neglected.

The annihilation energy may still distort the photon spectrum, leaving an observable remnant in the CMB. The absence of observed distortion constrains the annihilation occurring below 1 keV.

Although the nuclear fragments carry only a small fraction of the annihilation energy, they carry a large fraction of the momentum. The momentum is transferred into the plasma near the annihilation zone via collisions with plasma particles. This causes a force that resists the flow of matter into the annihilation zone. The effective pressure gradient along the radial direction is

$$P=f(E,\theta )F(E)\mathrm{cos}\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }dE.$$
(10)
Here $`f(E,\theta )`$ is the spectral density of ions flowing into direction $`\theta `$, $`F(E)=dE/dx`$ is the energy loss per unit distance due to collisions, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the ion’s velocity and the radial direction.

This effect was implemented into our computer code, but the effect turned out to be negligible. At the largest the effect was to reduce by 1% the temperature at which the annihilation is complete.

## III Results

### A Production of isotopes in ABBN

Figure 5 shows the isotope yields for $`\eta _{10}10^{10}\eta =4,6,9`$ and for antimatter fractions $`R=0.01`$ and $`R=0.001`$.

The $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ yield is generally reduced in antimatter nucleosynthesis as compared to SBBN. At small scales the reduction is due to annihilation of neutrons before nucleosynthesis, at large scales due to annihilation and photodestruction of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$. The relative reduction in $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is rather independent of $`\eta `$. Maximal reduction in $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is found at scale $`r_\mathrm{A}10^7`$ m.

Annihilation and photodisintegration of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ produce $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and D. The final $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and D yields are a sum of the SBBN yield and production due to annihilation. The latter depends only weakly on $`\eta `$.

The $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance is only weakly affected by annihilation. The small increase in the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield at large scales is due to the ordinary inhomogeneity effect: nucleosynthesis takes place at a local density $`n_b`$ higher than the net baryon density $`\overline{n}_b`$.

The $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield increases in ABBN, as discussed in Section II. Like in the case of D and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, the final $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield is a sum of the SBBN yield and additional production due to annihilation, the latter being only weakly dependent of $`\eta `$.

The yields of D, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ are reduced together with that of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ at scales around $`10^7`$ m. The decrease in isotopes other than $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is insignificant, except for large antimatter fractions, for which $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is severely underproduced. It is not possible in ABBN to significantly reduce D, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$, or $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, and simultaneously produce an acceptable $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ value.

### B Observational constraints

There are two competing estimates for the primordial helium abundance, both based on measurements on the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance in extragalactic low-metallicity HII regions. One group obtains $`Y_p=0.234\pm 0.003`$  (“low $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$”), the other group $`Y_p=0.244\pm 0.002`$  (“high $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$”). These values correspond, respectively, to $`1.2<\eta _{10}<2.7`$ and $`2.7<\eta _{10}<5.8`$ ($`2\sigma `$ limits) in SBBN. Peimbert et al. have recently measured $`Y=0.2405\pm 0.0018`$ in the Small Magellanic Cloud, and based on this, estimate $`Y_p=0.2345\pm 0.0026`$ .

Burles and Tytler  claim to have established the primordial deuterium abundance as $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=(3.3\pm 0.25)\times 10^5`$, based on a detected low deuterium abundance in three Lyman absorbtion systems. Their D/H value gives $`5.2<\eta _{10}<5.8`$ in SBBN. O’Meara et al. have recently added a fourth deuterium detection, and revised the combined estimate to $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=(3.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$ ($`5.4<\eta _{10}<6.4`$).

A recent review by Steigman  suggests observational constraints $`0.228<Y_p<0.248`$ and $`2.9\times 10^5<\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}<4.0\times 10^5`$. We adopt the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ constraints and the upper D limit of Steigman, but we extend the lower D limit to $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}>2.2\times 10^5`$ to take into account the result of O’Meara et al. These constraints lead to the SBBN estimates $`1.2<\eta _{10}<5.8`$ from $`Y_p`$ and $`4.8<\eta _{10}<7.1`$ from D/H. We discuss also the implications of the low $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ estimate.

The best estimate of the primordial lithium abundance is obtained from the “Spite plateau” . Bonifacio and Molaro  obtain a present abundance log$`{}_{10}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=9.80\pm 0.012\pm 0.05`$ for the Spite plateau. While a number of authors  argue against significant depletion from the primordial abundance, Pinsonneault et al. estimate a depletion factor of 0.2–0.4 dex. To be conservative, we adopt the relaxed constraint $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}<4\times 10^{10}`$ (SBBN $`1.1<\eta _{10}<5.9`$).

A number of measurements on the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ ratio in halo and disk stars  give results ranging from zero up to $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}<0.13`$. Based on this, Jedamzik adopts the tentative limit $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}<7\times 10^{12}`$  for the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$. As $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is very fragile and may have been affected by stellar processing, it cannot be ruled out that the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$ is significantly higher. We choose to use only the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, D, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ constraints in determining the allowed range in $`\eta `$.

### C Fitting $`\eta `$

As we have seen, in ABBN the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ yield is reduced and the D yield increased with respect to SBBN. This indicates that we may find consistency with observations at a high baryon density which is not allowed in SBBN.

Figures 6-8 show the observational constraints on the ($`r_\mathrm{A},R`$) plane, for different values of $`\eta `$. Shown are the constraints $`2.2\times 10^5<\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}<4.0\times 10^5`$ and $`0.228<Y_p<0.248`$, $`Y_p<0.240`$. For comparison we show also the constraint $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}/\mathrm{D}<1`$ used in  and the contours $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}=0.1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}=1`$. The yield of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ is nearly constant over the plane, and is therefore not shown as contours. The CMB constraint is obtained by demanding that the energy released in annihilation must not exceed a fraction of $`6\times 10^5`$ of the CMB energy.

Figure 6 shows our results for $`\eta =5\times 10^{10}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0182`$). The value $`\eta _{10}=5`$ is consistent with observations in SBBN, if we accept the high $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ limit, $`Y_p<0.248`$. The low $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ limit, $`Y_p<0.240`$, is inconsistent with the deuterium yield in SBBN, but in ABBN we find a consistency region at $`R>0.004`$, at scales $`r_\mathrm{A}<10^7`$ m. The constraints $`Y_p<0.248`$ and $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}>2.2\times 10^5`$ are satisfied everywhere in the parameter plane.

In Fig. 7 we show our results for $`\eta =6\times 10^{10}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0219`$). This value is excluded in SBBN by overproduction of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ (SBBN yield $`Y_p=0.2483`$). Lithium-7 ($`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}=4.1\times 10^{10}`$) is slightly above its upper limit. In ABBN there is a region in the parameter space, where both $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and D are well in their observed ranges. The required antimatter fraction depends on which $`Y_p`$ limit we adopt. We find $`R>2\times 10^4`$ for $`Y_p<0.248`$ and $`R>0.005`$ for $`Y_p<0.240`$. The $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield, however, remains close to its SBBN value, and is only marginally acceptable.

Figure 8 shows our results for $`\eta =8\times 10^{10}`$($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0292`$). The $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}=7.3\times 10^{10}`$ is clearly inconsistent with the present estimations of the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ abundance. Still, it is interesting to note that it is possible to bring both D and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ into their observed ranges. In the region allowed by the Dand $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ constraints the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}/{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ ratio varies in the range $`0.060.4`$.

Overproduction of deuterium sets a lower limit to the baryon density which can be accomodated in ABBN. Since ABBN cannot reduce the D/H yield from the SBBN yield, without simultaneously severely underproducing $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, a low baryon density that is excluded in SBBN by D/H overproduction is excluded in ABBN as well. With our adopted observational constraints ($`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}<4.0\times 10^5`$) this gives a lower limit $`\eta >4.8\times 10^{10}`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2>0.0177`$.

An upper limit to $`\eta `$ is obtained from overproduction of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, whose yield in ABBN is not significantly deviated from SBBN. With $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}<4\times 10^{10}`$ we get $`\eta <5.9\times 10^{10}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2<0.0216`$). Thus the range allowed for $`\eta `$ by our adopted observational constraints changes only slightly, from $`4.8<\eta _{10}<5.8`$ in SBBN to $`4.8<\eta _{10}<5.9`$ in ABBN.

Recent balloon experiments on CMB anisotropy, Boomerang and Maxima-1, suggest a large baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.030`$, $`\eta 8\times 10^{10}`$  in clear conflict with SBBN. Antimatter nucleosynthesis alone is not a solution for this discrepancy, because of the overproduction of lithium at large $`\eta `$. It can, however, help with D and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$.

In  we placed upper limits on the antimatter fraction at $`\eta =6\times 10^{10}`$. Our new results show that the limit is not sensitive to the value of $`\eta `$.

## IV Conclusions

Nucleosynthesis in the presence of antimatter can produce simultaneously a small $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ mass fraction and a high $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$ ratio, allowing for a higher baryon density than SBBN. Antimatter nucleosynthesis provides one possible solution to the discrepancy between the low primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ value suggested by some observations and the low D/H value.

The allowed baryon density is limited from above by $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ overproduction. The $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield is almost unaffected by the presence of antimatter. A baryon density larger than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0216`$ leads to a high lithium yield $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}>4\times 10^{10}`$, in conflict with the present estimates of the primordial value.

Since the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ yield is almost unaffected by ABBN, the upper limit to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is not much changed from SBBN. However, if one disregards the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ limit, ABBN allows larger values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ than SBBN, including the high value suggested by Boomerang and Maxima-1.

## Acknowledgements

I thank H. Kurki-Suonio for useful discussions and the Center for Scientific Computing (Finland) for computational resources.


text:
# A note on the moving hyperplane method

Let us consider the problem:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_pu=f(u)\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ u=0\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ uC^1(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}),\hfill & u>0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`1<p2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^N`$ is a bounded convex domain, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ is the p-Laplacian operator defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_pu=\text{div}(|u|^{p2}u)`$ and $`f:[0,+\mathrm{})`$ is continuous on $``$, locally Lipschitz continuous on $`(0,+\mathrm{})`$ and satisfies

$$C_0,C_1>0\text{ such that }C_0|u|^qf(u)C_1|u|^qu^+$$

where $`q>p1`$. In , Ph. Clément and the first author proved the existence of a nontrivial positive solution to (1) by using continuation methods and establishing a priori estimates for the solutions of some nonlinear eigenvalue problem associated with (1). The desired a priori estimates use a blow up argument as well as some monotonicity and symmetry results proved by Damascelli and Pacella in  and generalizing to the p-Laplacian operator with $`1<p<2`$ the well known results of Gidas–Ni–Nirenberg from  and Berestycki–Nirenberg in . In their proof, Damascelli and Pacella use a new technique consisting in moving hyperplanes orthogonal to directions close to a fixed one. To be efficient, this procedure needs some continuity of some parameters linked with the moving plane method (see the functions $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$ and $`a(\nu )`$ defined below). Therefore they assume in their result that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is smooth to insure this continuity (and only for that reason). However, such a smoothness hypothesis does not appear in the case $`p=2`$ in the classical moving plane procedure (see ).
Our purpose here is to give more precision on the regularity of the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that is needed to have the continuity of the function $`a(\nu )`$ and the lower semicontinuity of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$, and so to have the monotonicity and symmetry results of . This question is also important concerning the existence result from . Specifically, we ask that the domain be of class $`C^1`$, and we also discuss convexity conditions relating to the continuity of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$.

In this paper, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will denote an open bounded domain in $`^N`$ with $`C^1`$ boundary. We will say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly convex if for all $`x,y\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and for all $`t(0,1)`$, $`(1t)x+ty\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
For any direction $`\nu ^N`$, $`|\nu |=1`$, we define

$$a(\nu ):=\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{inf}x.\nu $$

and for all $`\lambda a(\nu )`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^\nu :=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }|x.\nu <\lambda \},T_\lambda ^\nu :=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }|x.\nu =\lambda \}(\mathrm{}\text{ for }a(\nu )<\lambda <a(\nu )).$$

Let us denote by $`R_\lambda ^\nu `$ the symmetry with respect to the hyperplane $`T_\lambda ^\nu `$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x_\lambda ^\nu & :=& R_\lambda ^\nu (x)x^N,\hfill \\ \hfill (\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^\nu )^{}& :=& R_\lambda ^\nu (\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^\nu ),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\nu )& :=& \{\mu >a(\nu )|\lambda (a(\nu ),\mu ),\text{ we have (}\text{2}\text{) and (}\text{3}\text{)}\},\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _1(\nu )& :=& sup\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\nu )\hfill \end{array}$$

where (2), (3) are the following conditions:

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^\nu )^{}\text{ is not internally tangent to }\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ at some point }pT_\lambda ^\nu `$ (2)
$`\text{for all }x\mathrm{\Omega }T_\lambda ^\nu ,\nu (x).\nu 0,`$ (3)
where $`\nu (x)`$ denotes the inward unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`x`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\nu )\mathrm{}\text{and}\lambda _1(\nu )<\mathrm{}`$ since for $`\lambda >a(\nu )`$ close to $`a(\nu )`$, (2) and (3) are satisfied and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is bounded.

Propositions 1 and 2 below give sufficient conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to guarantee the continuity of the functions $`a(\nu )`$ and $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$, as well as the lower semicontinuity of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded domain with $`C^1`$ boundary. Then the function $`a(\nu )`$ is continuous with respect to $`\nu S^{N1}`$.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^N`$ be a bounded domain with $`C^1`$ boundary. Then the function $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$ is lower semicontinuous with respect to $`\nu S^{N1}`$. If moreover $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly convex, then $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$ is continuous.

As a consequence of these results, we can give more precision on the conditions to impose to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the monotonicity result of . This result becomes:
Theorem (Damascelli-Pacella, Theorem 1.1 from ) *Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded domain in $`^N`$ with $`C^1`$ boundary, $`N2`$ and $`g:`$ be a locally Lipschitz continuous function. Let $`uC^1(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ be a weak solution of*

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_pu=g(u)& \text{in}\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ u>0& \text{in}\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ u=0& \text{on}\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \end{array}$$

*where $`1<p<2`$. Then, for any direction $`\nu ^N`$ and for $`\lambda `$ in the interval $`(a(\nu ),\lambda _1(\nu )]`$, we have $`u(x)u\left(x_\lambda ^\nu \right)`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^\nu `$. Moreover $`\frac{u}{\nu }(x)>0`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda _1(\nu )}^\nu \backslash Z`$ where $`Z=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }|u(x)=0\}`$.*
Below we prove Propositions 1 and 2 and we give a counterexample of a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ convex but not strictly convex domain for which $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$ is not continuous everywhere.
Proof of Proposition 1: Let us fix a direction $`\nu S^{N1}`$. We shall prove that for all sequence $`\nu _n\nu `$ with $`|\nu _n|=1`$, there exists a subsequence still denoted by $`\nu _n`$ such that $`a(\nu _n)a(\nu )`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is bounded, $`(a(\nu _n))`$ is also bounded, so passing to an adequate subsequence, there exists $`\overline{a}`$ such that $`a(\nu _n)\overline{a}`$. We will show that $`\overline{a}=a(\nu )`$. Suppose by contradiction that $`\overline{a}a(\nu )`$. Then either $`\overline{a}<a(\nu )`$ or $`\overline{a}>a(\nu )`$.
Case 1: $`\overline{a}<a(\nu )`$:   Since

$$a(\nu )=\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{inf}x.\nu =\underset{x\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\mathrm{min}}x.\nu =\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{min}}x.\nu ,$$

there exists $`x_n\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$x_n.\nu _n=a(\nu _n).$$
(4)
Passing again to a subsequence, there exists $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`x_nx`$ and taking the limit of (4), we get $`x.\nu =\overline{a}<a(\nu )`$, a contradiction with the definition of $`a(\nu )`$.
Case 2: $`\overline{a}>a(\nu )`$:   There exists $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`x.\nu =a(\nu )`$. For $`n`$ large, $`|x.\nu _nx.\nu |=|x.\nu _na(\nu )|`$ is small, and since $`a(\nu _n)\overline{a}>a(\nu )`$, for $`n`$ large enough we have $`x.\nu _n<a(\nu _n)`$, contradicting the definition of $`a(\nu _n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 2: We first prove the continuity of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly convex. Suppose by contradiction that there exists $`\nu S^{N1}`$ such that $`\lambda _1`$ is not continuous at $`\nu `$. Then we can fix $`\epsilon >0`$ and a sequence $`(\nu _n)S^{N1}`$ such that $`\nu _n\nu `$ and $`|\lambda _1(\nu )\lambda _1(\nu _n)|>\epsilon `$ for all $`n`$. Passing to a subsequence still denoted by $`(\nu _n)`$, we can suppose that

$$\text{either}\lambda _1(\nu )>\lambda _1(\nu _n)+\epsilon n\text{or}\lambda _1(\nu )<\lambda _1(\nu _n)\epsilon n.$$

Case 1: $`\lambda _1(\nu )>\lambda _1(\nu _n)+\epsilon `$ for all $`n`$. For any fixed $`n`$, we have the following alternative: either there exists $`x_nT_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\nu (x_n).\nu _n=0`$, or there exists $`x_n\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}}\right)T_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}`$ with $`\left(x_n\right)_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Passing once again to subsequences, we can suppose that we are in one of the two situations above for all $`n`$. We treat below each situation and try to reach a contradiction.
(1.a) For all $`n`$, there exists $`x_nT_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\nu (x_n).\nu _n=0`$.
Passing if necessary to a subsequence, there exist $`\overline{\lambda }\lambda _1(\nu )\epsilon `$ and $`xT_{\overline{\lambda }}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`x_nx`$ and $`\nu (x).\nu =0`$. This contradicts the definition of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$.
(1.b) For all $`n`$, there exists $`x_n\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}}\right)T_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}`$ with $`\left(x_n\right)_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
Passing if necessary to a subsequence, there exist $`\overline{\lambda }\lambda _1(\nu )\epsilon `$ and $`x\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{\lambda }}^\nu }`$ such that $`x_nx`$ and $`x_{\overline{\lambda }}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`xT_{\overline{\lambda }}^\nu `$, we reach a contradiction with the definition of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$. Suppose now that $`xT_{\overline{\lambda }}^\nu `$. Let us denote $`(x_n)_{\lambda _1(\nu _n)}^{\nu _n}`$ by $`u_n`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`C^1`$ domain, it holds that $`\nu (u_n).\nu _n0`$ for all $`n`$. By definition of $`\lambda _1(\nu _n)`$, $`\nu (x_n).\nu _n0`$. If $`xT_{\overline{\lambda }}^\nu `$, $`x=limx_n=limu_n`$ and so $`\nu (x).\nu =0`$, which contradicts the definition of $`\lambda _1(\nu )`$.
Observe that we do not use the convexity of the domain in Case 1.
Case 2: $`\lambda _1(\nu )<\lambda _1(\nu _n)\epsilon `$ for all $`n`$.: As in the first case, either there exists $`xT_{\lambda _1(\nu )}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\nu (x).\nu =0`$ or there exists $`x\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda _1(\nu )}^\nu }\right)T_{\lambda _1(\nu )}^\nu `$ such that $`x_{\lambda _1(\nu )}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$. We treat the first situation in (2.a) and the second one in (2.b).
(2.a) For $`\epsilon `$ small enough, $`T_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly convex, there exists $`x^{}T_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$\nu (x^{}).\nu <0.$$
(5)
For $`\epsilon >0`$ small enough, there exists $`n_0`$ such that for all $`nn_0`$, the sets $`T_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are non empty and since they are compact, we can choose a sequence $`(x_n)`$ satisfying

$$x_nT_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega },|x^{}x_n|=\mathrm{min}\left\{|x^{}y|:yT_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }\right\}.$$

Passing if necessary to a subsequence, $`x_ny`$ for some $`yT_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$|x^{}y|=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\text{dist}(x^{},T_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

but since this limit is equal to $`0`$, we infer that $`x^{}=y`$. Now, since $`\lambda _1(\nu )<\lambda _1(\nu _n)\epsilon `$ for all $`n`$, $`\nu (x_n).\nu _n>0`$ for all $`n`$ and thus $`\nu (x^{}).\nu 0`$, a contradiction with (5).
(2.b) The convexity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that $`x_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^\nu \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}.`$ Now, $`x_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}x_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^\nu ,`$ so that

$$x_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(6)
for $`n`$ large enough. But since $`x.\nu <\lambda _1(\nu )`$ by definition of $`x`$, we also have $`x.\nu _n<\lambda _1(\nu )<\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}`$ for $`n`$ sufficiently large, and so

$$x\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}\right)T_{\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}}^{\nu _n}$$

for these values of $`n`$. This fact together with (6) contradicts the definition of $`\lambda _1(\nu _n)`$.

The proof of the lower semicontinuity follows from Case 1, which uses only the $`C^1`$ regularity of the domain.  $`\mathrm{}`$

A counterexample in $`^2`$

This is an example of a convex but not strictly convex domain in $`^2`$. It contradicts case (2.a) in the proof and indeed, case (2.a) is the only one using the *strict* convexity. The example can be made smooth. In fact all is required is a convex domain in $`^2`$ whose boundary contains a piece of (straight) line, say of length $`L`$. Then for $`\nu `$ parallel to the line, there exists a sequence $`\nu _n\nu `$ such that $`\lambda _1(\nu _n)\lambda _1(\nu )+\frac{L}{2}`$.

A variation of this construction will produce similar examples in higher dimensions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The theory of particle beam optics, currently used in the design and operation of various beam devices, from electron microscopes to accelerators, is largely based on classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. Such a treatment has indeed been very successful in practice. Of course, whenever it is essential, quantum mechanics is used in accelerator physics to understand those quantum effects which are prominent perturbations to the leading classical beam dynamics . The well-known examples are quantum excitations induced by synchrotron radiation in storage rings, the Sokolov-Ternov effect of spin polarization induced by synchrotron radiation, etc. Recently, attention has been drawn by Hill  to the limits placed by quantum mechanics on achievable beam spot sizes in particle accelerators, and the need for the formulation of quantum beam optics relevant to such issues . In the context of electron microscopy scalar wave mechanics is the main tool to understand the image formation and its characteristics, and the spin aspects are not generally essential .

In the context of accelerator physics it should be certainly desirable to have a unified framework based entirely on quantum mechanics to treat the orbital, spin, radiation, and every aspect of beam dynamics, since the constituents of the beams concerned are quantum particles. First, this should help us understand better the classical theory of beam dynamics. Secondly, there is already an indication that this is necessary too: it has been found  that quantum corrections can substantially affect the classical results of tracking for trajectories close to the separatrix, leading to the suggestion that quantum maps can be useful in finding quickly the boundaries of nonlinear resonances. Thus, a systematic formalism for obtaining the relevant quantum maps is required. This problem is addressed here for the case of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beams, at the level of single particle dynamics as the first step towards a more comprehensive theory.

## 2 Quantization of the classical particle beam optics

If the spin is ignored, one may consider obtaining the relevant quantum maps for any beam optical system by quantizing the corresponding classical treatment directly. The best way to do this is to use the Lie approach to classical beam dynamics, thoroughly developed by Dragt et al. particularly in the context of accelerator physics. Ignoring the effect of spin on the orbital motion, the spin motion has also been treated classically, independent of the orbital motion, using Lie methods .

Let the single particle optical Hamiltonian corresponding to a classical beam optical system be $`(\underset{¯}{r}_{},\underset{¯}{p}_{};z)`$, where $`z`$ is the coordinate along the optic axis of the system, and $`\underset{¯}{r}_{}=(x,y)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{p}_{}=(p_x,p_y)`$ represent the coordinates and conjugate momenta, respectively, in the transverse $`(x,y)`$-plane. We shall assume the beam to be moving in the positive $`z`$-direction. Then for any observable of the system, $`𝒪(\underset{¯}{r}_{},\underset{¯}{p}_{})`$, not explicitly dependent on $`z`$, the $`z`$-evolution equation, or the beam optical equation of motion, is

$$\frac{d𝒪}{dz}=::𝒪,$$
(1)
where the Lie operator $`:f:`$ associated with any function of the transverse phase-space variables, $`f(\underset{¯}{r}_{},\underset{¯}{p}_{})`$, is defined through the Poisson bracket,

$$:f:g=\{f,g\}=(\frac{f}{x}\frac{g}{p_x}\frac{f}{p_x}\frac{g}{x})+(\frac{f}{y}\frac{g}{p_y}\frac{f}{p_y}\frac{g}{y}).$$
(2)
When the Hamiltonian $``$ is $`z`$-independent the solution of Eq. (1) can be written down as

$`𝒪\left(z_f\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}::)𝒪\left(z_i\right)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`𝒪\left(z_i\right)+\mathrm{}(::𝒪)\left(z_i\right)+(\mathrm{}^2/2!)(::^2𝒪)\left(z_i\right)`$
$`+(\mathrm{}^3/3!)(::^3𝒪)\left(z_i\right)+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒪\left(z_i\right)+\mathrm{}\left(\{,𝒪\}\right)\left(z_i\right)+\left(\mathrm{}^2/2!\right)\left(\{,\{,𝒪\}\}\right)\left(z_i\right)`$
$`+\left(\mathrm{}^3/3!\right)\left(\{,\{,\{,𝒪\}\}\}\right)\left(z_i\right)+\mathrm{},`$
relating $`𝒪\left(z_i\right)`$, the value of $`𝒪`$ at an initial $`z_i`$, with $`𝒪\left(z_f\right)`$, its value at a final $`z_f`$, where $`z_f>z_i`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\left(z_fz_i\right)`$. When the Hamiltonian depends on $`z`$ we would have

$$𝒪\left(z_f\right)=\left(\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{exp}(_{z_i}^{z_f}dz::)\right]𝒪\right)\left(z_i\right)=\left((z_f,z_i)𝒪\right)\left(z_i\right),$$
(4)
where the transfer map, $`(z_f,z_i)`$, a Lie transformation, is now an $`z`$-ordered exponential.

To obtain the quantum mechanical formalism for the above system we can follow the canonical quantization rule $`\{,\}\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[,]`$ where $`[,]`$ represents the commutator bracket between the corresponding quantum operators. This turns Eq. (1) into the Heisenberg equation of motion

$$\frac{d\widehat{𝒪}}{dz}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{},\widehat{𝒪}],$$
(5)
where the quantum Hamiltonian operator $`\widehat{}`$, and $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ for any observable, are obtained from their respective classical counterparts by the replacement

$$\underset{¯}{r}_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{r}}_{}=\underset{¯}{r}_{}=(x,y),\underset{¯}{p}_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{p}}_{}=i\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{}_{}=(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},i\mathrm{}\frac{}{y}),$$
(6)
followed by a symmetrization to ensure that the quantum operators are hermitian.

From the Heisenberg picture of Eq. (5) let us go to the Schrödinger picture in which a wavefunction $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ is associated with the transverse plane at $`z`$. The $`z`$-evolution of $`|\psi (z)`$ is governed by the beam optical Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}|\psi (z)=\widehat{}|\psi (z).$$
(7)
Since $`\left|\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\right|^2`$ will represent the probability density in the transverse plane at $`z`$ the average of any $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ at $`z`$ will be

$$\widehat{𝒪}(z)=𝑑x𝑑y\psi ^{}(z)\widehat{𝒪}\psi (z)=\psi (z)|\widehat{𝒪}|\psi (z),$$
(8)
with $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ normalized as $`\psi (z)|\psi (z)=1`$.

The formal solution of Eq. (7) is, with $`|\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi (z_i)`$ and $`|\psi _f`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi (z_f)`$,

$$|\psi _f=\widehat{U}(z_f,z_i)|\psi _i=\widehat{U}_{fi}|\psi _i,\widehat{U}_{fi}=\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{z_i}^{z_f}𝑑z\widehat{}\right)\right].$$
(9)
Thus, we get

$$\widehat{𝒪}_f=\widehat{𝒪}(z_f)=\psi _f|\widehat{𝒪}|\psi _f=\psi _i|\widehat{U}_{fi}^{}\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{U}_{fi}|\psi _i=\widehat{U}_{fi}^{}\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{U}_{fi}_i.$$
(10)
From the correspondence between Eq. (1) and Eq. (5) it follows immediately that

$$\widehat{U}_{fi}^{}\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{U}_{fi}=\left(\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{exp}(_{z_i}^{z_f}dz:\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{}:)\right]\right)\widehat{𝒪}=\widehat{}(z_f,z_i)\widehat{𝒪},$$
(11)
with the definition $`:\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{}:\widehat{𝒪}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{},\widehat{𝒪}]`$. Note that in the classical limit, when $`:\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{}:\widehat{𝒪}`$ $``$ $`::𝒪`$, the quantum Lie transformation $`\widehat{}(z_f,z_i)`$ becomes the classical Lie transformation $`(z_f,z_i)`$. This shows that if a system corresponds classically to a map

$$(\underset{¯}{r}_i,\underset{¯}{p}_i)(\underset{¯}{r}_f,\underset{¯}{p}_f)=(\underset{¯}{R}_{}(\underset{¯}{r}_i,\underset{¯}{p}_i),\underset{¯}{P}_{}(\underset{¯}{r}_i,\underset{¯}{p}_i)),$$
(12)
then it will correspond to a map of quantum averages as given by

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{r}}_{}_i\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{r}}_{}_f=\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{R}}_{}(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{r}}_{},\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{p}}_{})_i,\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{p}}_{}_i\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{p}}_{}_f=\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{P}}_{}(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{r}}_{},\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{p}}_{})_i.$$
(13)
To see what Eq. (13) implies let us consider, for example, a classical Lie transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(:\frac{a}{3}x^3:)`$ corresponding to a kick in the $`xz`$-plane by a thin sextupole. This leads to the classical phase-space map

$$x_f=x_i,p_f=p_i+ax_i^2,$$
(14)
as follows from Eq. (4). This would correspond to the quantum Lie transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(:\frac{a}{3}\widehat{x}^3:)`$ which leads, as seen from Eq. (13), to the following map for the quantum averages:

$$\widehat{x}_f=\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{p}_f=\widehat{p}_i+a\widehat{x}^2_i=\widehat{p}_i+a\widehat{x}_i^2+a(\widehat{x}\widehat{x})^2_i.$$
(15)
Now, we can consider the expectation values, such as $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$, as corresponding to their classical values à la Ehrenfest. Then, as the above simple example shows, generally, the leading quantum effects on the classical beam optics can be expected to be due to the uncertainties in the initial conditions like the term $`a(\widehat{x}\widehat{x})^2_i`$ in Eq. (15). As pointed out by Heifets and Yan,  such leading quantum corrections involve the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ not explicitly but only through the uncertainty principle which controls the minimum limits for the initial conditions. This has been realized earlier also , particularly in the context of electron microscopy . In a detailed study  of a simple example it has been found that trajectories close to the separatrix are strongly perturbed in spite of very small initial rms ($`10^{15}`$) and small ($`1500`$) number of turns.

As is clear from the above, a quantum formalism derived from the classical beam optics can be expected to give all the leading quantum corrections to the classical maps. The question that arises is how to go beyond and obtain the quantum maps more completely starting ab initio with the quantum mechanics of the concerned system since such a process should lead to other quantum corrections not derivable simply from the quantization of the classical optical Hamiltonian. Essentially, one should obtain the quantum beam optical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ of Eq. (7) directly from the original time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the system. Once $`\widehat{}`$ is obtained Lie methods  can be used to construct the quantum $`z`$-evolution operator $`\widehat{U}_{fi}`$ and study the consequent quantum maps. Derivations of $`\widehat{}`$ for the Klein-Gordon and Dirac particle beams will be discussed in the following sections.

A more complete theory, even at the level of optics, must take into account multiparticle effects. To this end, it might be profitable to be guided by the models developed by Fedele et al.  (thermal wave model - TWM) and Cufaro Petroni et al.  (stochastic collective dynamical model - SCDM) for treating the beam phenomenologically as a quasiclassical many-body system. Though the details of approach and interpretation are different, both these models suggest phenomenological Schrödinger-like wavefunction descriptions for the collective motion of the beam. In TWM the beam emittance plays the role of $`\mathrm{}`$. In SCDM it is argued that $`\mathrm{}`$ is to be replaced by an effective unit of beam emittance given in terms of the Compton wavelength of the beam particle and the number of particles in the beam. It may be noted that Lie algebraic tools can be used to handle any Schrödinger-like equation.

## 3 Using the Klein-Gordon equation ignoring the spin

One may consider getting a theory of quantum maps for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beam optical system based on the Klein-Gordon equation ignoring the spin. For this, one has to transform the equation

$$\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}q\widehat{\varphi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r}_{},z;t)=\left\{c^2\left[\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\pi }}_{}^2+\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}q\widehat{A}_z\right)^2\right]+m^2c^4\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r}_{},z;t),$$
(16)
into the beam optical form in Eq. (7); in Eq.(16) $`q`$ is the charge of the particle, $`\widehat{\pi }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{\pi }_x,\widehat{\pi }_y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{p}_xq\widehat{A}_x,\widehat{p}_yq\widehat{A}_y)`$, $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\pi }}_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\pi }_x^2+\widehat{\pi }_y^2`$, and $`\varphi `$ and $`\underset{¯}{A}=(A_x,A_y,A_z)`$ are, respectively, the scalar and vector potentials of the electric and magnetic fields of the optical system ($`\underset{¯}{E}=\underset{¯}{}\varphi `$, $`\underset{¯}{B}=\underset{¯}{}\times \underset{¯}{A}`$). In the standard relativistic quantum theory , Feshbach-Villars and Foldy-Wouthuysen techniques are used for reducing the Klein-Gordon equation to its nonrelativistic approximation plus the relativistic corrections. Applying analogous techniques in the special case of a quasiparaxial ($`|\underset{¯}{p}_{}|p_z`$) monoenergetic beam propagating through a system with time-independent fields one can reduce Eq. (16) to the beam optical form of Eq. (7) with $`\widehat{}`$ containing a leading paraxial part followed by nonparaxial parts . In this case the wavefunction in Eq. (16) can be assumed to be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r}_{},z;t)=\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(p_0zEt\right)\right],$$
(17)
where $`p_0`$ is the design momentum of the beam and $`E=+\sqrt{c^2p_0^2+m^2c^4}`$. Then the resulting time-independent equation for $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ can be regarded as describing the scattering of the beam particle by the system and transformed into an equation of the type in Eq. (7.

For example, for a normal magnetic quadrupole lens with $`\underset{¯}{A}=(0,0,\frac{1}{2}K(x^2y^2))`$, where $`K`$ is nonzero inside the lens region and zero outside,

$$\widehat{}\frac{1}{2p_0}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right)\frac{1}{2}qK\left(\widehat{x}^2\widehat{y}^2\right)+\frac{1}{8p_0^3}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right)^2+\frac{qK\mathrm{}^2}{4p_0^4}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2\widehat{p}_y^2\right).$$
(18)
It must be noted that while the first three terms of $`\widehat{}`$ in Eq. (18) are exactly the terms derivable by direct quantization of the classical beam optical Hamiltonian the last, $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent, term is a quantum correction not derivable from the classical theory. Though such $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent terms may seem to be too small, particularly for high energy beams, they may become effective when there are large fluctuations in the initial conditions since they essentially modify the coefficients in the classical maps.

## 4 The proper theory using the Dirac equation

For a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beam the proper theory should be based on the Dirac equation if one wants to treat all the aspects of beam optics including spin evolution and spin-orbit interaction. In such a case the Schrödinger equation to start with is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r}_{},z;t)=\widehat{H}\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r}_{},z;t),$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is now a $`4`$-component spinor and $`\widehat{H}`$ is the Dirac Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\beta mc^2+q\widehat{\varphi }+c\underset{¯}{\alpha }_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\pi }}_{}+c\alpha _z\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}q\widehat{A}_z\right)\mu _a\beta \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\underset{¯}{B},$$
(20)
including the Pauli term to take into account the anomalous magnetic moment $`\mu _a`$. In Eq. (20) all the symbols have the usual meanings as in the standard Dirac theory . Considering the special case of a quasiparaxial monoenergetic beam we can take $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r}_{},z;t)`$ to be of the form in Eq. (17). Then the $`4`$-component $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ satisfies the time-independent Dirac equation

$$\left[\beta mc^2+q\widehat{\varphi }+c\underset{¯}{\alpha }_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\pi }}_{}+c\alpha _z\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}q\widehat{A}_z\right)\mu _a\beta \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\underset{¯}{B}\right]\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=E\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z).$$
(21)
describing the scattering of the beam particle by the system.

Actually Eq. (21) has the ideal structure for our purpose since it is already linear in $`\frac{}{z}`$. So one can readily rearrange the terms in it to get the desired form of Eq. (7). However, it is difficult to work directly with such an equation since there are problems associated with the interpretation of the results using the traditional Schrödinger position operator . In the standard theory the Foldy-Wouthuysen (FW) transformation technique is used to reduce the Dirac Hamiltonian to a form suitable for direct interpretation in terms of the nonrelativistic part and a series of relativistic corrections. Derbenev and Kondratenko (DK)  used the FW technique to get their Hamiltonian for radiation calculations. Heinemann and Barber  have reviewed the derivation of the DK Hamiltonian and have used it to suggest a quantum formulation of Dirac particle beam physics, particularly for polarized beams, in terms of machine coordinates, observables, and the Wigner function.

In an independent and different approach an FW-like technique has been used to develop a systematic formalism of Dirac particle beam optics in which the aim has been to expand the Dirac Hamiltonian as a series of paraxial and nonparaxial approximations . This leads to the reduction of the original $`4`$-component Dirac spinor to an effective $`2`$-component $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ which satisfies the accelerator optical Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=\widehat{}\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z),\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\\ \psi _2(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\widehat{}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix operator incorporating the Stern-Gerlach (SG) spin-orbit effect and the Thomas-Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi (TBMT) spin evolution. As is usual in accelerator theory the spin operator $`\underset{¯}{S}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\sigma }`$ entering the accelerator optical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ refers to the rest frame of the moving particle. Further, $`(\widehat{x},\widehat{y})`$ and $`(\widehat{p}_x,\widehat{p}_y)`$ in $`\widehat{}`$ correspond to the observed particle position and momentum components in the transverse plane. It should be noted that the $`2`$-component $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ of Eq. (22) is an accelerator optical approximation of the original $`4`$-component Dirac spinor, valid for any value of the design momentum $`p_0`$ from nonrelativistic to extreme relativistic region.

For the normal magnetic quadrupole lens the accelerator optical Hamiltonian reads

$`\widehat{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_0}}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}qK\left(\widehat{x}^2\widehat{y}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8p_0^3}}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2K^2\mathrm{}^2}{8p_0^3}}\left(\widehat{x}^2+\widehat{y}^2\right)`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(q+\gamma ϵ)K}{p_0}}\left(\widehat{x}S_y+\widehat{y}S_x\right),`$
where $`\gamma =E/mc^2`$ and $`ϵ=2m\mu _a/\mathrm{}`$. The last spin-dependent term accounts for the SG kicks in the transverse phase-space and the TBMT spin evolution. As in the Klein-Gordon case of Eq. (18), $`\widehat{}`$ of Eq. (23) also contains all the terms derivable from the classical theory plus the quantum correction terms. But, it must be noted that the scalar quantum correction term in Eq. (23)) (4th term) is not the same as the 4th term in Eq. (18). Thus, besides in the $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent effects of spin on the orbital quantum map (e.g., the last term in Eq. (23)), even in the $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent scalar quantum corrections the Dirac particle has its own signature different from that of the Klein-Gordon particle.

## 5 Conclusion

The problem of obtaining the quantum maps for phase-space transfer across particle beam optical systems has been reviewed. The leading quantum corrections to the classical maps are mainly due to the initial uncertainties and involve the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ not explicitly but only through the minimum limits set by the uncertainty principle. These corrections can be obtained by direct quantization of the Lie algebraic formalism of classical particle beam optics. The Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories add further subtle, $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent, corrections which may become effective when there are large fluctuations in the initial uncertainties. Contrary to the common expectation the scalar approximation of the Dirac theory is not completely equivalent to the Klein-Gordon theory. All aspects of quantum maps for spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beams, including spin evolution and spin-orbit effects, can be studied, at the level of single particle dynamics, using the proper formalism based on the Dirac equation.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to M. Pusterla and R. Fedele who made it possible for me to participate in the QABP2K Workshop through financial support, by INFN-Napoli and INFN-Padova, for international travel, and accommodation expenses at Napoli and Capri. My special thanks are due to R. Fedele for the kind hospitality and stimulating discussions during my visit to the INFN-Napoli. I am thankful to S. De Siena, S. De Martino, and F. Illuminati for the warm hospitality and useful discussions during my visit to the Department of Physics, University of Salerno, during the week of the Mini Workshop on Quantum Methodologies in Beam Physics.