text:
# Superinflation and quintessence in the presence of an extra field

## 1 Introduction

Recently, the authors investigated  the dynamics of a spatially flat universe dominated by a self-interacting conformally coupled scalar field according to the action

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{R}{\kappa }+g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \psi _\nu \psi 2V(\psi )+\xi R\psi ^2\right),$$
(1)
where $`R`$ denotes the scalar curvature, $`\psi `$ is the scalar fields, $`\kappa 8\pi G`$ ($`G`$ being Newton’s constant). A cosmological constant, if present, is incorporated in the scalar field potential

$$V(\psi )=\frac{3\alpha }{\kappa }\psi ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4}\psi ^4\frac{9\omega }{\kappa ^2}.$$
(2)
Many new and interesting dynamical phenomena were discovered and its cosmological interpretation were discussed. Special attention was given to the conformal coupling case with $`\xi =1/6`$. This choice for the coupling constant is motivated by physical arguments from particle theories  and from scale invariance at the classical level . The non-minimal coupling is also required by first loop corrections . One interesting effect discussed in  is superinflation characterized by $`\dot{H}>0`$, and that can only be achieved by a non-minimal coupling.

Here we consider the robustness of these dynamical phenomena with respect to the introduction into the model of a second massless scalar field. We also discuss some new type of asymptotic solutions arising from the introduction of the extra field. The structure of the paper is the following: in section 2 we present the model and some definitions. The fixed points and their stability are given in section 3. Additional asymptotic solutions are discussed in section 4 and the paper is closed with some concluding remarks in section 5.

## 2 The model

We consider the conformally coupled theory described by the action:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}({\displaystyle \frac{R}{\kappa }}+g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \psi _1_\nu \psi _12V_1(\psi _1)`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R\psi _1^2+g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \psi _2_\nu \psi _22V_2(\psi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R\psi _2^2+\beta \psi _1^2\psi _2^2).`$
We use the full conserved scalar field stress-energy tensor

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \psi _1_\nu \psi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(_\mu _\nu g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\right)(\psi _1^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}G_{\mu \nu }\psi _1^2`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\left(_\alpha \psi _1^\alpha \psi _12V_1(\psi _1)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`_\mu \psi _2_\nu \psi _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(_\mu _\nu g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\right)(\psi _2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}G_{\mu \nu }\psi _2^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\left(_\alpha \psi _2^\alpha \psi _22V_2(\psi _2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\psi _1^1\psi _2^2`$
(where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor), thereby avoiding the use of any effective coupling constant in the Einstein equations. Moreover, this consideration of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ together with an adequate self-consistent treatment of Einstein’s and Klein-Gordon equations eliminates the artificial pathologies associated, in Einstein’s equations, with the “critical factor” $`1(\psi _1^2+\psi _2^2)\kappa /6`$. The consensual attitude encountered in the literatures is indeed that the dynamics is ill-defined when this factor is negative or vanishes. As we will see, that this is not the case.

Let us consider the following form for the potential $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$:

$$V_i(\psi _i)=\frac{3\alpha _i}{\kappa }\psi _i^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{4}\psi _i^4\frac{9\omega _i}{\kappa ^2}.$$
(5)
The parameter $`\alpha _i`$ is related to the mass of the particle by $`m_i=\sqrt{6\alpha _i/\kappa }`$. As in the first papers, we are interested in the dynamics of a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe with line element $`ds^2=d\tau ^2a^2(\tau )\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right)`$. Also we will restrict the potential in (5) to the case $`\alpha _1\alpha `$, $`\alpha _2=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$, $`\omega _1\omega `$ and $`\omega _2=0`$. This corresponds to a massive field coupled to a massless field. The energy density and pressure associated to the scalar fields are:

$$\sigma =\sigma _1+\sigma _2\frac{\beta }{2}\psi _1^2\psi _2^2,$$
(6)
$$p=p_1+p_2+\frac{\beta }{2}\psi _1^2\psi _2^2,$$
(7)
where

$$\sigma _i=\frac{\dot{\psi }_i^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}H^2\psi _i^2+\frac{1}{2}H_\tau (\psi _i^2)+V_i(\psi _i),$$
(8)
$$p_i=\frac{\dot{\psi }_i^2}{2}\frac{1}{6}\left[2H_\tau (\psi _i^2)+_{\tau \tau }^2(\psi _i^2)\right]\frac{1}{6}\left(2\dot{H}+2H^2\right)\psi _i^2V_i(\psi _i).$$
(9)
The action (3) then implies the trace equation:

$$R=6\left(\dot{H}+2H^2\right)=\kappa \left(\sigma 3p\right),$$
(10)
the energy constraint:

$$3H^2\kappa \sigma =0,$$
(11)
and the Klein-Gordon equations for the two scalar fields:

$$\ddot{\psi }_1+3H\dot{\psi }_1\frac{1}{6}R\psi _1+\frac{dV_1}{d\psi _1}+\beta \psi _1\psi _2^2=0,$$
(12)
$$\ddot{\psi }_2+3H\dot{\psi }_2\frac{1}{6}R\psi _2+\frac{dV_2}{d\psi _2}+\beta \psi _1^2\psi _2=0.$$
(13)
Using the Klein-Gordon equations (12) and (13) and the expressions for $`\sigma `$ and $`p`$ we obtain

$$\sigma 3p=4\left(V_1+V_2\right)\psi _1\frac{dV_1}{d\psi _1}\psi _2\frac{dV_2}{d\psi _2}.$$
(14)
This simple form holds for any interaction of the form $`\beta \psi _1^\gamma \psi _2^\delta `$ provided $`\gamma +\delta =4`$. Finally, the energy constraint is:

$`3H^2\kappa \sigma =3H^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \dot{\psi }_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa H^2\psi _1^2\kappa H\psi _1\dot{\psi }_1\kappa V_1`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \dot{\psi }_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa H^2\psi _2^2\kappa H\psi _2\dot{\psi }_2\kappa V_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \beta \psi _1^2\psi _2^2=0.`$
Now solving eqs. (14) and (15) for the derivatives $`\dot{H}`$ and $`\dot{\psi }_1`$ we obtain:

$$\dot{H}=2H^2+\frac{2}{3}\kappa V_1+\frac{2}{3}\kappa V_2\frac{1}{6}\kappa \psi _1\frac{dV_1}{d\psi _1}\frac{1}{6}\kappa \psi _2\frac{dV_2}{d\psi _2},$$
(16)
$$\dot{\psi }_1=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(\kappa H\psi _1\pm \sqrt{G}\right),$$
(17)
where

$$G6\kappa H^2\kappa ^2\dot{\psi }_2^22\kappa ^2H\psi _2\dot{\psi }_22\kappa ^2(V_1+V_2)\kappa ^2\beta \psi _1^2\psi _2^2\kappa ^2H^2\psi _2^2.$$
(18)
The region $`G<0`$ in phase space is physically forbidden.

Using eq. (17) allows to rewrite system (610) in the following equivalent form:

$$\dot{H}=2H^2+\frac{\kappa (\sigma 3p)}{6},$$
(19)
$$\dot{\psi }_1=H\psi _1\pm \frac{\sqrt{G}}{\kappa },$$
(20)
$$\ddot{\psi }_2=3H\dot{\psi }_2+\frac{1}{6}R\psi _2\frac{dV_2}{d\psi _2}\beta \psi _1^2\psi _2.$$
(21)
The system of ODE (10,12,13) is a five-dimensional system, but due to energy constraint (11) the real phase space is constrained into a four-dimensional manifold. The situation is similar to the one field case, where the original system is three dimensional, but the energy constraint enforces the motion to take place on a two dimensional manifold. In the one field case, the plane $`(H,\psi )`$ is divided in sectors by some straight lines, corresponding to regions of distinct state equations for the fluid $`\psi `$. In the present case, the projection of the real phase-space onto the $`(H,\psi _1)`$ plane conserves some of that sectors. For example, from

$$\sigma 3p=6\alpha \psi _1^2,$$
(22)
valid for any quartic interaction potential between $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$, one can see that the region $`\psi _1=0`$ still corresponds to a state equation of pure radiation.

## 3 Fixed points

In our case De Sitter solutions correspond to fixed points except for the fixed point at the origin. The fixed points are obtained from the conditions $`\dot{\psi }_1=\dot{\psi }_2=0`$. The stability of the fixed points is determined from the linearized equations in a neighborhood of each point, except for special cases discussed below. For all the fixed points we have, in the formula below, $`s_1,s_2,s_3=\pm 1`$. The existence conditions for the fixed points is such that the arguments of the square roots are positive:

* Type A

$$H=s_1\sqrt{\frac{3}{\kappa }}\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }},$$
(23)
$$\psi _1=s_2\sqrt{\frac{6}{\kappa }}\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\alpha +\beta }},$$
(24)
$$\psi _2=s_3\sqrt{\frac{6}{\kappa }}\sqrt{\frac{\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }+\beta )\alpha (\alpha +\beta )}{\beta (\alpha +\beta )}}.$$
(25)
* Type B

$$H=s_1\sqrt{\frac{3\omega }{\kappa }},$$
(26)
$$\psi _1=\psi _2=0.$$
(27)
* Type C

$$H=s_1\sqrt{\frac{3}{\kappa }}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^2\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha }},$$
(28)
$$\psi _1=s_2\sqrt{\frac{6}{\kappa }}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha \omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha }},$$
(29)
$$\psi _2=0.$$
(30)
Fixed points of type B are on the $`G=0`$ surface.

In order to discuss the stability of these fixed points let us consider the generic case given by a system of the form

$$\dot{x}_i=F_i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)F(x),i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(31)
A fixed point $`\overline{x}`$ satisfies $`F_i(\overline{x})=0`$. It stability is usually established by linearizing (31) in a neighborhood of $`\overline{x}`$. In this way we write $`x=\overline{x}+\delta x`$ and obtain (31):

$$\frac{d\delta x}{dt}=𝐉\delta x+𝒪(\delta x^2),$$
(32)
where $`𝐉`$ is defined by

$$𝐉_{ij}\frac{F_i}{x_j}|_{x=\overline{x}},$$
(33)
and $`\delta x(\delta x_1,\mathrm{},\delta x_n)`$. If $`Det(𝐉)0`$ and if the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of $`𝐉`$ are such that $`\mathrm{Re}(\lambda _i)0`$ then the Hartman-Grobmann theorem ensures that the linearized system obtained by retaining only linear terms in (32) is topologically equivalent to the original system (31) in a neighborhood of the fixed point. The real parts of the eigenvalues then determine the local stability of the fixed points. The stability of the fixed points on the $`G=0`$ surface cannot be studied using this method as $`Det(𝐉)=0`$. To overcome this problem we will consider the system formed by eqs. (12), (13) and (16). The only points to be considered separately are of type B and their stability is studied by other methods.

Equations (12) and (13) can be rewritten as a first order equations by introducing the new variables $`\varphi _1\dot{\psi }_1`$ and $`\varphi _2\dot{\psi }_2`$. In this way we identify the variables $`x_i`$ in (31) with $`(H,\psi _1,\varphi _1,\psi _2,\varphi _2)`$ and obtain from (33) the following form for the $`𝐉`$ matrix computed at the fixed point of coordinates $`(\overline{H},\overline{\psi }_1,\overline{\varphi }_1,\overline{\psi }_2,\overline{\varphi }_2)`$:

$$𝐉=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}4\overline{H}& 2\alpha \overline{\psi _1}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& C_1& 3\overline{H}& 2\beta \overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 2(\alpha +\beta )\overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_2& 0& C_2& 3\overline{H}\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
with

$$C_1=\beta \overline{\psi }_2^2+3(\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha )\overline{\psi }_1^2+\frac{6}{\kappa }(\omega \alpha ),$$
(35)
and

$$C_2=(\alpha +\beta )\overline{\psi }_1^2+6\frac{\omega }{\kappa }.$$
(36)
The eigenvalues of $`𝐉`$ are:

$$\lambda =\frac{3}{2}\overline{H}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{9\overline{H}+9A\pm \frac{2}{\kappa }\sqrt{B}},$$
(37)
$$\lambda =4\overline{H},$$
(38)
where the $`\pm `$ signs are to be considered independently of each other,

$$A=\frac{2}{9}(3\mathrm{\Omega }\beta 4\alpha )\overline{\psi }_1^2\frac{2}{9}(\beta +4\alpha )\overline{\psi }_2^2+\frac{4}{3\kappa }(2\omega \alpha ),$$
(39)
and

$`B=\kappa ^2(\beta ^2\overline{\psi }_2^2+(20\alpha \beta +14\beta ^26\beta \mathrm{\Omega })\overline{\psi }_1^2\overline{\psi }_2^2`$ (40)
$`+(4\alpha ^2+\beta ^24\alpha \beta 12\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha +6\beta \mathrm{\Omega }+9\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\overline{\psi }_1^4).`$
A fixed point is stable, unstable or a saddle point if the real parts of the five eigenvalues are all negative, all positive or have different signs, respectively. Points of Type A and C are saddle points. The stability of fixed points of type B is discussed in the next section

## 4 Asymptotic dynamics

Two kinds of asymptotic dynamics are more relevant for our model: attractive fixed points and diverging solutions. For the one field model the fixed point at $`H=\psi =0`$ acts as a an attractor and plays an important role in our approach . The fixed point at

$$\psi _1=\dot{\psi }_1=\psi _2=\dot{\psi }_2=0\mathrm{and}H=\sqrt{3\omega /\kappa },$$
(41)
has a similar role. For this purpose we will consider here the special case of a non-negative cosmological constant $`\omega 0`$. This implies that $`\dot{H}0`$ for $`H=0`$ as $`\sigma 3p`$ is positive for $`\omega `$ negative and therefore the region $`H>0`$ is invariant under the dynamics. Let us now consider the function

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\psi }_1^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta }{\beta \alpha }\dot{\psi }_2^2+\frac{3\alpha }{\kappa }\psi _1^2+\frac{1}{4}(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega })\psi _1^4\frac{1}{2}\beta \psi _1^2\psi _2^2.$$
(42)
Its total time derivative modulo eqs. (12), (13) and (16) is given by

$$\dot{L}=3H\left(\dot{\psi }_1^2+\frac{\beta }{\beta \alpha }\dot{\psi }_2^2\right)+\frac{6\omega }{\kappa }\psi _1\dot{\psi }_1+\frac{6\beta \omega }{(\beta \alpha )\kappa }\psi _2\dot{\psi }_2.$$
(43)
For parameter values such that $`\omega =0`$, $`\beta <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha `$ the function $`L`$ is a Lyapunov function for the fixed point (41) and satisfy the properties

$$L0,$$
(44)
$$\dot{L}0.$$
(45)
The equality in (44) and (45) is valid only on the fixed point. Hence the fixed point is a global attractor for the whole region $`H0`$ (see fig. 1). Numerical simulations indicate that the same is also true for $`\omega <0`$ as shown in fig. 2.

For other parameter values numerical solutions point for an asymptotic diverging solution (see fig. 3). For simplicity, let us consider the case $`\omega =0`$ and the ansatz:

$$H=\delta \psi _1,$$
(46)
with $`\delta `$ a constant. Hence

$$\dot{H}=\delta \dot{\psi }_1.$$
(47)
From eqs. (16), (17) and (47) we obtain

$$\delta \dot{\psi }_1=\frac{1}{6}\psi _1^2(12\delta ^2+m_1^2\kappa ),$$
(48)
which is a closed equation for $`\psi _1`$, with solution

$$\psi _1(t)=\frac{6\delta \psi _1(0)}{6\delta +(12\delta ^2\kappa m_1^2)\psi _1(0)t},$$
(49)
where $`\psi _1(0)`$ is the initial condition for $`\psi _1`$ at $`t=0`$. Using eq. (12) and solution (49) yields easily $`\psi _2(t)`$:

$$\psi _2(t)=\pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{\beta }}\frac{\sqrt{36\delta ^412\delta ^2m_1^2\kappa 18\mathrm{\Omega }\delta ^2+m_1^4\kappa ^2}\psi _1(0)}{(12\delta ^2\kappa m_1^2)\psi _1(0)t+6\delta }.$$
(50)
With the expressions for $`\psi _1(t)`$ and $`\psi _2(t)`$ it is straightforward (but a little bit cumbersome) to obtain the proportionality constant $`\delta `$ from the remaining equation (17):

$$\delta =\pm \frac{1}{6}\sqrt{6\kappa m_1^29\beta +3\sqrt{12\beta \kappa m_1^2+9\beta ^2}}.$$
(51)
This value for $`\delta `$ agrees with the results of numerical integrations. It is important to note at this point that not necessarily every solution has the asymptotic behavior of eq. (46). From numerical investigations it seems to exist a threshold in the initial values of $`\psi _2`$ and $`\dot{\psi }_2`$ such that above it the solutions converge asymptotically to the behavior obtained above. Below this threshold solutions near the origin in the $`(H,\psi _1)`$ plane are attracted towards it, exhibiting a similar behavior to the case of a single massive scalar field.

## 5 Concluding remarks

The introduction of an extra massless field conserve some essential features of the dynamics of the one-field model of ref. , for some parameter values, particularly the spiraling solution near the fixed point at the origin. Nevertheless some new type of solutions exist that have no analog in the one-field case. For two self-interacting coupled fields the behavior is even more richer and a more exhaustive study is under preparation. Nevertheless, for some parameter ranges, new dynamical effects are obtained which modify the model in a substantial way. A discussion of which parameter values are of physical relevance is important for the future development of the present approach.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Centre de Calcul Symbolique sur Ordinateur (Brussels) for the use of computer facilities, and financial support from the EEC (grant HPHA-CT-2000-00015), from OLAM, Fondation pour la Recherche Fondamentale (Brussels), from CNPq and FAPESP (Brazil), and from the ESPRIT Working Group CATHODE.


format: text

text:
# Holography in a Radiation-dominated Universe with a Positive Cosmological Constant

## I Introduction

The holographic principle is perhaps one of fundamental principles of nature, which relates a theory with gravity in $`D`$ dimensions to a theory without gravity in lower dimensions . Although we do not yet completely understand how the hologram of gravity is realized, some beautiful examples have been found through the AdS/CFT correspondence .

In a seminal paper , E. Verlinde found a quite interesting holographic relation between the Friedmann equation describing a radiation-dominated, closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe and Cardy formula  describing the entropy of matter filling the universe. The radiation can be represented by a conformal field theory (CFT) with a large central charge, while the entropy for the latter can be expressed in terms of the so-called Cardy-Verlinde formula , a generalized form of the Cardy formula to any dimension. The Cardy-Verlinde formula was checked to hold for CFTs with AdS gravity dual, for instance, for CFTs dual to Schwarzschild-AdS black holes , Kerr-AdS black holes , hyperbolic AdS black holes and charged AdS black holes , Taub-Bolt AdS instanton solutions , and Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes . Verlinde found that the Friedmann equation can be rewritten in the form of the Cardy-Verlinde formula with the help of three cosmological entropy bounds, and that when the Hubble entropy bound is saturated, the Friedmann equation coincides with the Cardy-Verlinde formula. This observation is very interesting in the sense that the Friedmann equation is a dynamic one describing geometric evolution of the universe while the Cardy-Verlinde formula is just a formula describing the number of degrees of freedom of matter in the universe. Therefore, the Verlinde’s observation is indeed an interesting manifestation of the holographic principle in the cosmological setting.

By considering a moving brane universe in the background of Schwarzschild-AdS black holes in arbitrary dimensions, the holographic connection between the geometry and matter can be realized. A radiation-dominated closed FRW universe appears as an induced metric on the brane embedded in the bulk background. Savonije and Verlinde  interpreted the radiation as the thermal CFT dual to the bulk Schwarzschild-AdS black hole. Further they observed that when the brane crosses the bulk black hole horizon, (i) the entropy and temperature of the universe can be simply expressed in terms of the Hubble parameter and its time derivative; (ii) the entropy formula (Cardy-Verlinde formula) of CFTs in any dimension coincides with the Friedmann equation; and (iii) the Hubble entropy bound is just saturated by the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of bulk black holes.

Since then a lot of studies have been done focusing on the generalization of  to various bulk geometries. In this paper, we are interested in the case where a positive cosmological constant is present in the universe. Namely we will discuss the holography for a radiation-dominated closed FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant. This is motivated partially by the de Sitter (dS)/CFT correspondence , and partially by recent astronomical observations on supernova indicating that our universe is accelerating , which can be interpreted as that there might be a positive cosmological constant in our universe. We will start with a brief review on the case without the cosmological constant  in the next section, and then discuss the holography in the case with a positive cosmological constant by introducing a cosmological D-bound on the entropy of matter in the universe. As an example, in Sec. III we investigate the holographic connection between the Friedmann equation and the Cardy-Verlinde formula in the brane cosmology in the background of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes. We end this paper in Sec. IV with some conclusions and discussions.

## II Holography in a radiation-dominated closed universe with a positive cosmological constant

Let us consider an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional closed FRW universe

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the scale factor of the universe and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ denotes the line element of an $`n`$-dimensional unit sphere. The evolution of the universe is determined by the FRW equations

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{n+1}^2}},`$ (2)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{V}}+p\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}},`$ (3)
where $`H`$ represents the Hubble parameter with the definition $`H=\dot{R}/R`$ and the overdot stands for derivative with respect to the cosmic time $`\tau `$, $`E`$ is the energy of matter filling the universe, $`p`$ is the pressure, $`V`$ is the volume of the universe, $`V=R^n\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ being the volume of an $`n`$-dimensional unit sphere, and $`G_{n+1}`$ is the Newton constant in ($`n+1`$) dimensions. In addition, $`l_{n+1}^2`$ is related to the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+1}=n(n1)/2l_{n+1}^2`$ in ($`n+1`$) dimensions.

### A The case without cosmological constant

In  Verlinde introduced three entropy boundsIn  the first bound is called the Bekenstein bound. In fact this bound is slightly different from the original Bekenstein bound  by a numerical factor $`1/n`$. So we call this the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound. This bound could be viewed as the counterpart of the Bekenstein bound in the cosmological setting . :

$`\mathrm{Bekenstein}\mathrm{Verlinde}\mathrm{entropy}:`$ $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n}}ER`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{Bekenstein}\mathrm{Hawking}\mathrm{entropy}:`$ $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=(n1){\displaystyle \frac{V}{4G_{n+1}R}}`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{Hubble}\mathrm{entropy}:`$ $`S_\mathrm{H}=(n1){\displaystyle \frac{HV}{4G_{n+1}}}.`$ (6)
The Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy bound is supposed to hold for a weakly self-gravitating universe ($`HR1`$), while the Hubble entropy bound works when the universe is in the strongly self-gravitating phase ($`HR1`$). In the case without the cosmological constant, the Friedmann equation \[the first equation in (2)\] can be rewritten as

$$S_\mathrm{H}=\sqrt{S_{\mathrm{BH}}(2S_{\mathrm{BV}}S_{\mathrm{BH}})},$$
(7)
in terms of those three entropy bounds. Expression (7) is similar to the Cardy formula , an entropy formula of CFTs in two dimensions. It is interesting to note that when $`HR=1`$, one has $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}=S_{\mathrm{BH}}=S_\mathrm{H}`$.

Let us define a quantity $`E_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ which corresponds to energy needed to form a black hole with size of the whole universe through the relation: $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=(n1)V/4G_{n+1}R2\pi E_{\mathrm{BH}}R/n`$. With this quantity, the Friedmann equation (7) can be further cast to

$$S_\mathrm{H}=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{BH}}(2EE_{\mathrm{BH}})},$$
(8)
which takes the same form as the Cardy-Verlinde formula

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(2EE_c)}.$$
(9)
This formula is supposed to describe the entropy $`S`$ of a CFT living on an $`n`$-sphere of radius $`R`$. Here $`E`$ is the total energy of the CFT and $`E_c`$ stands for the Casimir energy of the system, the non-extensive part of the total energy. Now we suppose that the entropy of the radiation matter in the FRW universe can be described by the Cardy-Verlinde formula. Comparing (8) with (9), one can easily see that if $`E_{\mathrm{BH}}=E_c`$, $`S_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`S`$ must be equal. In other words, the Hubble entropy bound is saturated by the entropy of radiation matter in the universe if the Casimir energy $`E_c`$ is just enough to form a black hole with the size of the universe. At that moment, equations (8) and (9) coincide with each other. This implies that the Friedmann equation somehow knows the entropy formula of radiation-matter filling the universe . Considering a brane universe in the background of Schwarzschild-AdS black holes, Savonije and Verlinde  found that when the brane crosses the black hole horizon, the Hubble entropy bound is saturated by the entropy of black holes in the bulk.

In Eq. (9) the Casimir energy $`E_c`$ is defined as

$$E_c=n(E+pVTS),$$
(10)
where $`T`$ stands for the temperature of the thermal CFT, $`p`$ is the pressure and $`V`$ is the volume of the system. Further Verlinde found that except for the similarity between the Friedmann equation (8) and the Cardy-Verlinde formula (9), there is also a similarity between the second equation in (2) concerning the time derivative of Hubble parameter and the equation (10) about the Casimir energy of CFTs. Let us define a (limiting) temperature

$$T_\mathrm{H}=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}.$$
(11)
Here the minus sign is necessary to get a positive result. In addition, it is assumed that we are in the strongly self-gravitating phase with $`HR1`$ so that $`H0`$ and $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ is well-defined. With this temperature, the second equation in (2) can be rewritten as

$$E_{\mathrm{BH}}=n(E+pVT_\mathrm{H}S_\mathrm{H}).$$
(12)
Thus we see that when the Hubble bound $`S_\mathrm{H}`$ is saturated by the matter entropy $`S`$, the (limiting) temperature $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ equals the thermodynamic temperature $`T`$ of matter filling the universe. Note that like the Hubble entropy bound, the (limiting) temperature $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ is a geometric quantity determined by the Hubble parameter and its time derivative. Clearly the temperature $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ is the minimal one in the strongly self-gravitating phase .

### B The case with a positive cosmological constant

Now we turn to the case with a non-vanishing cosmological constant, and generalize those interesting observations to a radiation-dominated closed FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant. We will argue that three cosmological entropy bounds in (4) remain the same forms even when a cosmological constant is present.

To write down a formula like (7), let us first discuss three entropy bounds in (4). The Bekenstein-Verlinde bound $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}`$ is the counterpart of the Bekenstein entropy bound  in the cosmological setting . It is supposed to hold for a system with limited self-gravity, which means that the gravitational self-energy of the system is small compared to the total energy $`E`$. Namely, the gravitational effect on the bound can be neglected. Therefore this bound is independent of gravity theories. It is also independent of whether or not the gravity theory under consideration includes a cosmological constant. In other words, the form of the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound should remain unchanged in any gravitational theory§§§ In  we show that the Bekenstein entropy bound always has the form $`S_\mathrm{B}=2\pi ER`$ independent of gravity theories by applying a Geroch process to an arbitrary black hole.. Hence even when a positive cosmological constant is present, the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound still takes the form in (4). As a result, for a radiation-dominated FRW universe with a cosmological constant, the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound is a constant because of $`ER^1`$. Thus once this bound is satisfied at one time, it will be always satisfied at all times if the entropy $`S`$ of matter does not change.

As for the Bekenstein-Hawking bound in (4), it can be viewed as the holographic Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole with the size of the universe . Indeed, it varies like an area instead of the volume. And for a closed universe it is the closest one that can lead to the usual area formula of black hole entropy $`A/4G`$. We know from the thermodynamics of black holes that in Einstein gravity the entropy of a black hole is always proportional to its horizon area in spite of whether or not the gravitational theory includes a cosmological constant . Further, as argued by Verlinde , the role of $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is not to serve as a bound on the total entropy, but rather on a sub-extensive component of the entropy that is associated with the Casimir energy of CFTs. The above leads to the conclusion that the Bekenstein-Hawking bound should remain unchanged in its form and implication as in the case without the cosmological constant.

Finally we consider the Hubble entropy bound, which is an entropy bound for matter in a strongly self-gravitating universe $`(HR1`$). In such a strongly self-gravitating universe, black holes might occur. As argued in , the maximal entropy inside the universe is produced by black holes with size of the Hubble horizon. The usual holographic argument shows that the total entropy should be less than or equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a Hubble-horizon-sized black hole times the number of Hubble regions in the universe. In , by using a local holographic bound due to Fischler and Susskind  and Bousso , see also , Verlinde “derived” the Hubble entropy bound in (4). It is worth noting that in the “derivation” of the Hubble bound, Verlinde used mainly the idea that the entropy flow $`S`$ through a contracting light sheet is less than or equal to $`A/4G`$, where $`A`$ is the area of the surface from which the light sheet originates. Hence we insist that the cosmological constant will not affect the form of the Hubble bound (see also ). This conclusion is based on the fact that even if a cosmological constant is present, it will not occur explicitly in the “derivation” of the Hubble entropy bound.

We conclude that in a closed FRW universe with a cosmological constant, three bounds introduced in (4) are still applicable. That is, their forms and implications remain unchanged even if the cosmological constant is present. However, we see that the cosmological constant indeed affects the evolution of the universe. Is there a similar relation between the Friedmann equation in (2) and the Cardy-Verlinde formula (9) as in the case without the cosmological constant? Our key observation is that the positive cosmological constant provides an additional entropy measure. When the cosmological constant occurs, not the Hubble bound, but a new cosmological D-bound plays the role as the Hubble bound does in the case without the cosmological constant.

Let us go to the details. We know that in a pure de Sitter universe, there is a cosmological horizon for an inertial observer. Like a black hole horizon, the cosmological horizon has a Hawking temperature and an associated entropy . The entropy is proportional to the area of the cosmological horizon. It is a geometric quantity although it has a statistical origin in quantum gravity. In an asymptotically de Sitter space, the cosmological horizon shrinks. Applying the generalized second law of thermodynamics  to the cosmological horizon, one can immediately find that the entropy of matter in the asymptotically de Sitter space has to be bounded above by the difference (D) between the entropy of the pure de Sitter space and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the asymptotically de Sitter space:

$$S_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{4G}\left(A_0A\right),$$
(13)
where $`A_0`$ and $`A`$ are areas of cosmological horizons for the pure de Sitter and asymptotically de Sitter spaces, respectively. This is the so-called D-bound proposed by Bousso in . The D-bound is closely related to the Bekenstein bound which applies in flat backgrounds .

In our present context, the occurrence of the cosmological constant does not guarantee that the universe approaches to a de Sitter phase. When the matter is dominated, the universe behaves as the case without the cosmological constant: the universe starts from a big bang, reaches a maximal radius and then re-collapses with a big crunch. From (2), however, we see that for an empty flat universeIn that case, $`E=p=0`$, and the term $`1/R^2`$ will be also absent., the Hubble radius is just the cosmological horizon size $`l_{n+1}`$ of de Sitter space. It implies that the cosmological constant provides a new entropy measure in the universe. By analogy with the Hubble entropy bound , we define a quantity

$$S_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(n1)\frac{V}{4G_{n+1}l_{n+1}}.$$
(14)
which is the entropy of a de Sitter horizon times the number of the regions with the size of the de Sitter horizon in the universe. Like the Hubble entropy bound, it is also a geometric quantity. Together with the three entropy bounds in (4), the Friedmann equation in (2) can be rewritten as

$$S_\mathrm{H}^2S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=S_{\mathrm{BH}}(2S_{\mathrm{BV}}S_{\mathrm{BH}}).$$
(15)
Further we note that the cosmological horizon in the asymptotically de Sitter spaces is always less that of corresponding de Sitter spaces, but one can see from (2) that the Hubble radius $`H^1`$ is not always less than the cosmological horizon $`l_{n+1}`$ of de Sitter spaces. As a result, the left-hand side of equation (15) is not always positive. In addition, we stress that in the case without the cosmological constant, the Hubble bound in (8) is a geometric quantity, which gives an entropy bound of matter in the universe when the universe is in the strongly self-gravitating phase. Considering the D-bound (13) of matter in de Sitter spaces and the similarity between (7) and (15), we can define a cosmological entropy bound in the universe with a positive cosmological constantSince a black hole larger than the cosmological horizon cannot form, one therefore should have $`S_\mathrm{H}S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As a result, if $`S_\mathrm{H}<S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, a cosmological singularity might occur during the evolution of the universe.

$$S_\mathrm{D}=\sqrt{|S_\mathrm{H}^2S_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|}.$$
(16)
We call it the cosmological D-bound, which can be viewed as the counterpart of the D-bound in the cosmology setting. Note that the cosmological D-bound is a square root of the difference between two geometric quantity squares, while the D-bound in de Sitter spaces is the difference between two geometric quantities. Furthermore, we would like to mention here that the implications of these two entropy bounds are quite different. The D-bound (13) is an entropy bound where the entropy is measurable to an inertial observer in the de Sitter space(recall the inertial observer can see only a part of the de Sitter space ), while the cosmological D-bound (16) is supposed to be an entropy bound of matter filling the whole universe with a positive cosmological constant when the universe is in the strongly self-gravitating phase. Therefore, more precisely, the cosmological D-bound should be regarded as the counterpart of the Hubble entropy bound $`S_\mathrm{H}`$ in the case with a positive cosmological constant. This can be seen clearly after comparing (7) and (15). With the choice (16), the Friedmann equation can be cast to the Cardy-Verlinde form even when the cosmological constant is present.

On the analogy of the (limiting) temperature $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ in (11), we further define a new geometric temperature in our case

$$T_\mathrm{D}=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi \sqrt{|1/l_{n+1}^2H^2|}}.$$
(17)
Note that this is also a geometric quantity like $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ for the case without the cosmological constant. With this, the second equation in (2) can be expressed as

$$E_{\mathrm{BH}}=n(E+pVT_\mathrm{D}S_\mathrm{D}).$$
(18)
Here the definition of $`E_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the same as the one in (8). Like the limiting temperature $`T_\mathrm{H}`$, the geometric temperature $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ will equal the thermodynamic temperature of matter filling the universe when the cosmological D-bound gets saturated. That is, $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ is the lower bound of thermodynamic temperature during the universe is in the strongly self-gravitating phase.

Now we turn to the Cardy-Verlinde formula (9). In the form (9) it is implicitly assumed that one has $`2EE_c0`$ for any CFT. In fact, in some circumstances, this condition does not get satisfied. For example, in the CFT description dual to the thermodynamics of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole horizon, this quantity is negative . In that case, the Cardy-Verlinde formula should be changed to

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(E_c2E)},$$
(19)
where the definition of $`E_c`$ is still the same as the one (10).

In summary, for a radiation-dominated closed FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant the dynamic equations can be rewritten as

$`S_\mathrm{D}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R}{n}}\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{BH}}(2EE_{\mathrm{BH}})},`$ (20)
$`E_{\mathrm{BH}}=n(E+pVT_\mathrm{D}S_\mathrm{D}),`$ (21)
when $`S_\mathrm{H}S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, while the entropy of the radiation can be expressed as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R}{n}}\sqrt{E_c(2EE_c)},`$ (22)
$`E_c=n(E+pVTS).`$ (23)
On the other hand, when $`S_\mathrm{H}S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the dynamic equations can be rewritten as

$`S_\mathrm{D}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R}{n}}\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{BH}}(E_{\mathrm{BH}}2E)},`$ (24)
$`E_{\mathrm{BH}}=n(E+pVT_\mathrm{D}S_\mathrm{D}),`$ (25)
and the entropy expressions are

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R}{n}}\sqrt{E_c(E_c2E)},`$ (26)
$`E_c=n(E+pVTS).`$ (27)
When the cosmological D-bound is saturated by the entropy $`S`$ of radiation matter, both sets of equations (20) \[or (24)\] and (22) \[or (26)\] coincide with each other, just like the case without the cosmological constant. The cosmological D-bound in (16) provides an entropy bound for matter filling the universe when the universe is in the strongly self-gravitating phase\**\**\**When the universe is in the weakly self-gravitating phase, as argued in the above, the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound still works well.. Namely, the cosmological D-bound plays the same role as the Hubble bound does in the case without cosmological constant.

## III Brane cosmology in the background of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes

### A Thermodynamics of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes

Consider an ($`n+2`$)-dimensional Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole, whose line element is

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2.$$
(28)
Here

$$f(r)=1\frac{\omega _nM}{r^{n1}}\frac{r^2}{l_{n+2}^2},\omega _n=\frac{16\pi G_{n+2}}{n\mathrm{\Omega }_n},$$

$`M`$ stands for the mass of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole in the definition of Abbott and Deser , $`G_{n+2}`$ denotes the $`(n+2)`$-dimensional Newton constant, and $`l_{n+2}`$ represents the cosmological radius of the ($`n+2`$)-dimensional de Sitter universe. When $`M=0`$, the solution (28) reduces to a de Sitter space with a cosmological horizon at $`r_c=l_{n+2}`$. When $`M`$ increases from $`M=0`$, a black hole horizon appears and grows, while the cosmological horizon shrinks. Finally the black hole horizon $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ touches the cosmological horizon $`r_{\mathrm{CH}}`$ when

$$M=M_N\frac{2}{\omega _n(n+1)}\left(\frac{n1}{n+1}l_{n+2}^2\right)^{(n1)/2}.$$

This is the Nariai black hole, the maximal black hole in de Sitter space. When $`M>M_N`$, both the two horizons disappear and the solution describes a naked singularity. When $`M<M_N`$, the equation $`f(r)=0`$ has two real roots, the larger one is the cosmological horizon, while the smaller one is the black hole horizon.

The Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{HK}}`$ and entropy $`S`$ associated with the black hole horizon are

$$T_{\mathrm{HK}}=\frac{1}{4\pi r_{\mathrm{BH}}}\left((n1)(n+1)\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{l_{n+2}^2}\right),S=\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{4G_{n+2}}.$$
(29)
With the identification $`E=M`$ and the definition $`E_c=(n+1)EnT_{\mathrm{HK}}S`$††††††Here it is assumed that the thermodynamics of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole can be described in terms of a CFT. Furthermore, $`E_c`$ here is obtained from the definition (10) with the equation of state $`p=E/nV`$ of CFT’s., one can easily obtain

$$E_c=\frac{2nr_{\mathrm{BH}}^{n1}\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{16\pi G_{n+2}},2EE_c=\frac{2nr_{\mathrm{BH}}^{n+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{16\pi G_{n+2}l_{n+2}^2}.$$
(30)
Clearly the entropy (29) can be expressed by the Cardy-Verlinde formula

$$S=\frac{2\pi l_{n+2}}{n}\sqrt{E_c(E_c2E)}.$$
(31)
If one rescales the energies by a factor $`R/l_{n+2}`$, the above equation is changed to

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_c(E_c2E)}.$$
(32)
Note that this expression is exactly the same as the entropy formula in (26).

### B Brane dynamics in the background of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes

Let us introduce an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional brane with tension $`\sigma `$ moving in the background of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes (28). Its dynamics is determined by the following action

$$S_{\mathrm{brane}}=\frac{1}{8\pi G_{n+2}}_Md^{n+1}x\sqrt{h}K+\frac{1}{8\pi G_{n+2}}_Md^{n+1}x\sqrt{h}\sigma .$$
(33)
Here the brane is viewed as boundary of the bulk spacetime (28), $`K`$ is the extrinsic curvature for the boundary with the induced metric $`h_{ab}`$. Using the Israel junction equation , one has the equation of motion of the brane

$$K_{ab}=\frac{\sigma }{n}h_{ab}.$$
(34)
The brane cosmology in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes has been first considered in . The holography in brane cosmology in various asymptotically de Sitter spaces has also been discussed in ‡‡‡‡‡‡However, our philosophy in understanding the holography in the case with a cosmological constant is different from those in . We will discuss this point at the end of this paper.. Now let us specify the location of the brane as $`r=r(t)`$. We introduce a cosmic time $`\tau `$ so that $`t=t(\tau )`$ and $`r=r(\tau )`$ and require

$$f(r)\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau }\right)^2\frac{1}{f(r)}\left(\frac{dr}{d\tau }\right)^2=1,$$
(35)
which implies that the brane moves along a radial time-like geodesic in the background (28)\**\**\**The dynamics of brane along a radial space-like geodesic in various asymptotically de Sitter backgrounds has also been discussed in .. In that case, the induced metric $`h_{ab}`$ on the brane becomes

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+R^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(36)
which is just an ($`n+1)`$-dimensional closed FRW universe metric (1) with scale factor $`R(\tau )=r(\tau )`$.

Calculating the extrinsic curvature for the brane and then from the equation (34), we have

$$\frac{dt}{d\tau }=\frac{\sigma R}{nf(R)}.$$
(37)
Substituting into (35) yields

$$H^2=\frac{\omega _nM}{R^{n+1}}\frac{1}{R^2}+\frac{1}{l_{n+2}^2}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{n^2},$$
(38)
The time derivative of the Hubble parameter is

$$\dot{H}=\frac{(n+1)\omega _nM}{2R^{n+1}}+\frac{1}{R^2}.$$
(39)
These equations describe a radiation-dominated closed FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+1}=n(n1)/2l_{n+1}^2`$ with

$$\frac{1}{l_{n+1}^2}=\frac{1}{l_{n+2}^2}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{n^2},$$
(40)
from which we see $`l_{n+1}^2<l_{n+2}^2`$. Now we consider the solution of (38). As an example, let us discuss the special case of $`n=3`$. The generalization to other dimensions is straightforward. In that case, the solution has been found for three different cases depending on the parameter $`\omega _4M/l_{n+1}^2`$ in , where the authors discussed the dynamics of a non-critical brane in the Schwarzschild-AdS black hole. Defining $`x=R^2`$, we can rewrite (38) as

$$\dot{x}^2=\frac{4}{l_4^2}(xx_+)(xx_{}),$$
(41)
where

$$x_\pm =\frac{l_4^2}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\right).$$
(42)
Note that when $`x=x_\pm `$, one has $`H=0`$. Actually, $`x_\pm `$ are turning points of the brane.

(1) When $`4\omega _4M=l_4^2`$, one has $`x_+=x_{}`$. In this case, the brane has only one turning point. However, the solution has two branches:

* $`x(0,x_+]`$. In this case the solution is

$$R^2(\tau )=\frac{l_4^2}{2}\left(1e^{2\tau /l_4}\right),\tau [0,\mathrm{}).$$
(43)
Accordingly the Hubble parameter reads

$$H=\frac{1}{l_4}\frac{e^{2\tau /l_4}}{1e^{2\tau /l_4}}.$$
(44)
In this branch, $`0H<\mathrm{}`$. Since the black hole horizon $`x_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ falls in the range of $`0<x_{\mathrm{BH}}<x_+`$, we find $`H<1/l_4`$ in the range of $`x_{\mathrm{BH}}<x<x_+`$. The brane trajectory is plotted in Fig. 1 as the curve (I). The brane universe starts from a big bang, reaches a maximal radius and then re-collapses to a big crunch.
* $`x[x_+,\mathrm{})`$. In this case, the solution is given by

$$R^2=x(\tau )=\frac{l_4^2}{2}\left(1+e^{2\tau /l_4}\right),\tau (\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$
(45)
And the Hubble parameter takes the expression

$$H=\frac{1}{l_4}\frac{e^{2\tau /l_4}}{1+e^{2\tau /l_4}}.$$
(46)
Clearly in this case one has $`0<H<1/l_4`$. The brane trajectory is plotted in Fig. 1 as the curve (II). The universe contracts with a big radius, reaches a minimal radius (the minimal radius is equal to the maximal radius in the previous branch), and then bounces to infinity. This is a singularity-free cosmology.

(2) When $`4\omega _4M>l_4^2`$, the brane has no turning point. Namely, there is no point which has $`H=0`$ along the geodesic of the brane. In this case one has the solution

$$R^2(\tau )=\frac{l_4^2}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{4\omega _4M/l_4^21}\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau /l_4)\right),$$
(47)
where $`\tau _0\tau <\mathrm{}`$ with

$$\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau _0/l_4)=\left(4\omega _4M/l_4^21\right)^{1/2}.$$

The evolution of the Hubble parameter is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{l_4}\frac{\sqrt{4\omega _4M/l_4^21}\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau /l_4)}{1+\sqrt{4\omega _4M/l_41}\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau /l_4)}.$$
(48)
We find that outside the black hole horizon, $`H<1/l_4`$. Actually, there exists another solution for the equation (41). But this solution describes the same movement of the brane as the solution (47) does. So we do not present it here. The trajectory of the brane universe is plotted in Fig. 2. In this case, the universe starts with a big bang and then expands forever.

(3) When $`4\omega _4M<l_4^2`$, the brane has two turning points $`x_\pm `$. The range $`x[x_{},x_+]`$ is not allowed since in which $`H^20`$. As a result, solution of equation (41) has two branches:

* $`x(0,x_{}]`$. The solution is

$$R^2(\tau )=\frac{l_4^2}{2}\left(1\sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau /l_4)\right),$$
(49)
where $`\tau `$ takes value in the range $`\tau _c\tau \tau _c`$ with

$$\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau _c/l_4)=(14\omega _4M/l_4)^{1/2}.$$
(50)
When $`\tau =\pm \tau _c`$, one has $`R=0`$ and $`H=\mathrm{}`$. The Hubble parameter

$$H=\frac{1}{l_4}\frac{\sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau /l_4)}{1\sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau /l_4)},$$
(51)
from which we see that $`H=0`$ when $`\tau =0`$. Note that because of the relation (40), it is easy to see that the black hole horizon $`x_{\mathrm{BH}}(0,x_{})`$, while the cosmological horizon $`x_{\mathrm{CH}}(x_+,\mathrm{})`$. Thus we find that in this branch one has $`H<1/l_4`$ as the brane stays outside the black hole horizon of the bulk background. The brane trajectory is plotted in Fig. 3 as the curve (I).
* $`x[x_+,\mathrm{})`$. In this branch the solution is

$$R^2(\tau )=\frac{l_4^2}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau /l_4)\right),\tau (\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$
(52)
And the Hubble parameter is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{l_4}\frac{\sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau /l_4)}{1+\sqrt{14\omega _4M/l_4^2}\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau /l_4)}.$$
(53)
At $`\tau =0`$, one has $`H=0`$. The trajectory of the brane is plotted as the curve (II) in Fig. 3.

We conclude that the evolution of the brane depends on value of the parameter $`4\omega _4M/l_4^2`$ and its initial position. Since we are interested in a radiation-dominated universe beginning with a big bang, so the solutions in the branch $`x(0,x_+]`$ of case (1) and in the branch $`x(0,x_{}]`$ of case (3) are suitable, respectively, for our purpose. Inspecting them, we find that $`H<1/l_4`$ always holds when the brane stays outside the bulk black hole horizon. Further we mention that in the above discussions, the condition $`4\omega _4M<l_5^2`$ is assumed to hold, which implies that the black hole horizon is always present.

### C Holography in the brane cosmology

In the brane world scenario with an AdS bulk, the tension of the brane can be adjusted to result in a so-called critical brane on which the effective cosmological constant vanishes . In the present case, one can see from (40) that it is impossible to obtain a vanishing cosmological constant on the brane. Now we set \*†\*†\*†For the case $`\sigma n/l_{n+2}`$, we have a discussion in the following section. Also in that case, the relations (55) and (56) have to be changed.

$$\sigma =n/l_{n+2}.$$
(54)
In that case the Newton constant on the brane has the relation

$$G_{n+1}=\frac{n1}{l_{n+2}}G_{n+2},$$
(55)
to the Newton constant in the bulk. This relation is the same as that for a critical brane in AdS bulk . Furthermore the parameter $`M`$ in the solution (28) is the black hole mass measured in the bulk coordinates . According to the relation (37), the holographic energy $`E`$ measured on the brane is\*‡\*‡\*‡Due to existence of the cosmological horizon in the bulk, this relation is not justified well as the case for the AdS bulk . Even for the latter case, there exists a different viewpoint, for example, see , which argued that this relation holds only near the boundary of AdS space. However, we note that the rescaling (56) indeed gives a scale relation for a radiation matter in universe. Further, the relation (56) holds at least for small black holes as in the AdS case. In the case of AdS bulk, the boundary of the AdS space is a Lorentz spacetime, it is natural then to expect a holographic description for a dynamic brane near the boundary . The boundary of dS space is a Euclidean space, however, the brane as the boundary of the bulk spacetime we have discussed so far is Lorentz, so in the spirit of dS/CFT correspondence it is very strange that there exists a holographic description for the dynamic brane in the asymptotically dS space. We thank the referee for pointing this out to us. We guess that this might be related to that the horizon thermodynamics has a universal $`2`$-dimensional CFT description . For example, for asymptotically non-AdS spaces, there is also a holographic description for a dynamic brane and the resulting equation of motion can also be cast to the Cardy-Verlinde form . Therefore the holographic connection between the dynamics of the brane and the bulk horizon thermodynamics might be beyond the AdS/CFT and dS/CFT correspondences.

$$E=\frac{l_{n+2}}{R}M.$$
(56)
Substituting (54), (55) and (56) into (38) and (39), we have

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_{n+1}}{n(n1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{n+1}^2}},`$ (57)
$`\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_{n+1}}{n1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{V}}+p\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}},`$ (58)
with $`l_{n+1}^2=l_{n+2}^2/2`$ and $`p=E/nV`$. These two equations are the same as the ones in (2). The equation of state $`p=E/nV`$ is just the one for radiation matter (or more general CFTs). As a result, the discussions on holography in Sec. 2 are applicable here.

Suppose the brane moves between the bulk black hole horizon and cosmological horizonNote that the brane will not cross the cosmological horizon in the case where the radiation is dominated, see the previous subsection.. Since the brane is viewed as the boundary of the bulk spacetime, the entropy of holographic matter (radiation) on the brane is just the entropy of black hole horizon, which is a constant during the evolution of the brane universe. However, the entropy density varies with time as

$$s\frac{S}{V}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^n}{4G_{n+2}R^n}=\frac{(n1)r_{\mathrm{BH}}^n}{4G_{n+1}l_{n+2}R^n},$$
(59)
and the energy density of radiation-matter

$$\rho \frac{E}{V}=\frac{nr_{\mathrm{BH}}^{n1}l_{n+2}}{16\pi G_{n+2}R^{n+1}}\left(1\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{l_{n+2}^2}\right),$$
(60)
in terms of the black hole horizon radius $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. Further from the scaling relation (56), the temperature $`T`$ on the brane is given by

$$T=\frac{l_{n+2}}{R}T_{\mathrm{HK}}=\frac{l_{n+2}}{4\pi r_{\mathrm{BH}}R}\left((n1)(n+1)\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{l_{n+2}^2}\right).$$
(61)
Applying the first law of thermodynamics to the radiation matter in the brane universe, one has

$$Tds=d\rho +n(\rho +pTs)\frac{dR}{R}.$$
(62)
Following  and defining

$$\gamma =\frac{n}{2}(\rho +pTs)R^2,$$
(63)
we have

$$\gamma =\frac{nr_{\mathrm{BH}}^{n1}l_{n+2}}{16\pi G_{n+2}R^{n1}}=\frac{n(n1)r_{\mathrm{BH}}^{n1}}{16\pi G_{n+1}R^{n1}}.$$
(64)
Obviously, the non-vanishing $`\gamma `$ is the effect of spatial curvature $`1/R^2`$. That is, because of the spatial curvature, the energy of thermodynamics system has a non-extensive part. Otherwise, the quantity $`\gamma `$ must vanish due to the Euler relation. From (60), one can see that $`\gamma `$ is just the first term of the energy density (60) divided by $`1/R^2`$. Further one can find that the entropy density (59) can be expressed as

$$s=\frac{4\pi }{n}\sqrt{\gamma \left(\frac{\gamma }{R^2}\rho \right)}.$$
(65)
Now we consider a special moment that the brane crosses the bulk black hole horizon. On that time, one has $`R=r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. From (38) we see

$$H^2=\frac{1}{l_{n+2}^2}.$$
(66)
Note that we have taken $`\sigma ^2/n^2=1/l_{n+2}^2`$. At that moment the cosmological D-bound in (16) turns out to be

$$S_\mathrm{D}=\frac{(n1)r_{\mathrm{BH}}^n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{4G_{n+1}l_{n+2}}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{4G_{n+2}},$$
(67)
which is just the black hole horizon entropy (29). That is, when the brane crosses the bulk black hole horizon, the cosmological D-bound is saturated by the entropy of the bulk black hole. At that time, the geometric temperature in (17) is given by

$$T_\mathrm{D}=\frac{l_{n+2}}{4\pi r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}\left((n1)(n+1)\frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{l_{n+2}^2}\right),$$
(68)
which equals the temperature (61) of radiation filling the universe. Thus, we find that when the brane crosses the black hole horizon, the FRW equations (24) coincide with the equations (65) and (64) which describe the entropy of radiation matter in the brane universe with a positive cosmological constant. Thus we reach the same conclusion as in the case without the cosmological constant .

## IV Conclusion and discussion

We have discussed the holography in a radiation-dominated, closed FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant. By introducing the cosmological D-bound (16) on the entropy of matter in the universe, the Friedmann equation describing the evolution of the universe can be rewritten in the form of Cardy-Verlinde formula which describes the degrees of freedom of radiation matter filling the universe. When the cosmological D-bound is saturated by the entropy of matter, these two equations coincide with each other. Thus we have successfully generalized interesting observations by Verlinde  on the holographic connection between the Friedmann equation and Cardy-Verlinde formula to the case with a positive cosmological constant. By considering a brane universe in the background of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes, we have found that the cosmological D-bound is saturated when the brane crosses the black hole horizon in the bulk background. At that moment, the Friedmann equation and Cardy-Verlinde formula coincide with each other, and the introduced geometric temperature $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ in (17) equals the thermodynamic temperature $`T`$ of the radiation matter.

We stress that when discussing the holographic connection in the brane universe in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes, we have taken a special tension (54), which is the same as in the case for critical brane in the AdS bulk. Only in that case, the Friedmann equation and Cardy-Verlinde formula coincide with each other very well. We point out here that if the brane tension is arbitrary, the Friedmann equation still has a form as the Cardy-Verlinde formula, but a factor $`\sigma l_{n+2}/n`$ will appear in (65). Furthermore, for the radiation matter dual to the black holes in de Sitter spaces, we see from (65) that $`\rho \gamma /R^2<0`$. If considering a non-critical brane cosmology in the Schwarzschild-AdS black holes, one will see that in that case $`\rho \gamma /R^2>0`$. This case corresponds to the holographic connection described by equations (20) and (22). In addition, if the cosmological constant becomes negative, the minus sign in front of $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has to be changed to plus. The quantity (14) then will lose its interpretation, but all formulas will still work well.

We have noticed that the holography was discussed in many literatures in the case with a cosmological constant, for example, see . However, our understanding is different from those in existing literature: in some papers the cosmological constant term is incorporated to the Bekenstein-Verlinde entropy bound; in some papers this term is kept as an independent term. In those literature the Friedmann equation and the Cardy-Verlinde formula have not a same form, and when the Hubble bound is saturated, these two formulas do not get matched. Finally we point out that at the end of paper , Verlinde mentioned that when the cosmological constant does not vanish, the Hubble entropy bound needs to be modified by replacing $`H`$ with the square root of $`H^21/l_{n+1}^2`$. But, as argued in this paper, three entropy bounds: Bekenstein-Verlinde bound, Bekenstein-Hawking bound and Hubble bound in (4) still have the same forms as the case without the cosmological constant, even when the cosmological constant is present. The cosmological D-bound introduced in this work provides a new entropy bound of matter in the strongly self-gravitating universe ($`HR>1`$) with a positive cosmological constant and makes all formulas work so nicely as the case without the cosmological constant.

## Acknowledgment

We thank X.J. Wang for help in drawing the figures. R.G.C. is grateful to Relativity Research Center and School of Computer Aided Science, Inje University for warm hospitality during his visit. The work of R.G.C. was supported in part by a grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences and a grant from Ministry of Education, PRC, and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under grant No. TG1999075401. Y.S.M. acknowledges partial support from the KOSEF grant, Project Number: R02-2002-000-00028-0.


text:
# The radial velocities and physical parameters of HD 553Based on observations made with the Coudé-spectrograph at the 2m-RCC-telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory Rozhen, Bulgaria.

## 1 Introduction

Additional to the astrometric parameters of positions, proper motions and trigonometric parallaxes, the highly successful Hipparcos mission also provided photometric information for the target stars. Thus, a large number of new variables has been discovered by Hipparcos. Among these is HD 553 (=HIP 834; $`\alpha _{2000}=00^\mathrm{h}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\stackrel{s}{.}4647,\delta _{2000}=+64^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}38}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}48}\stackrel{}{.}174`$; V$`8\stackrel{m}{.}2`$). Kazarovets et al. (IBVS99 (1999)) subsequently classified the system as an eclipsing binary of the $`\beta `$ Lyr type (i.e. two minima are present and there is no constant part due to the ellipticity effect) and gave it the name V 741~Cas. Strassmeier et al. (Strassmeier00 (2000)) identified HD 553 as a single-lined spectroscopic binary and included it into their list of potential targets for Doppler-imaging from their survey of stellar activity indicators.

The Hipparcos catalogue (ESA ESA97 (1997)) provides the following information about this system:

* V=$`8\stackrel{m}{.}11`$, B–V=$`1\stackrel{m}{.}032\pm 0\stackrel{m}{.}016`$, V–I=$`1\stackrel{m}{.}00\pm 0\stackrel{m}{.}01`$
* $`\pi =4.74\pm 0.83`$ mas
* period $`P=9.0576\pm 0.0008`$ days, T0=2448504.0610 as time of zero phase (from fits to the Tycho-lightcurve).

HD 553 is an ideal target for Doppler imaging. At observatories north of latitude $`26^{}`$, like the NAO Rozhen, Bulgaria ($`\phi 42^{}`$), it is circumpolar, allowing for in principle continuous observations. This would allow to follow the spot evolution on any timescale (longer than the rotation period) without the often 1 yr timegap between subsequent maps for other Doppler imaging targets. Assuming that the orbital and rotational axes of the eclipsing binary are aligned, the inclination of the rotational axis is high allowing to observe most of the stellar surface. It is bright enough to allow for good signal-to-noise spectra within a reasonably short time. Because the eclipse, when the primary is in the back, is far from total we can also resolve most of the stellar surface during the eclipse. Its projected rotational velocity $`v\mathrm{sin}i=42.5`$ km s-1 (see Sect. 3) is high enough to allow for reliable Doppler imaging even with a moderate resolution of about 30 000, as obtainable with the Coudé spectrograph at Rozhen. Finally, the period of 9 days is long enough that one good spectrum per observing night is enough to provide a good phase coverage, and thus the object can easily be included in any spectroscopic night’s object list. On the other hand, the period is short enough to allow the data for a complete map to be collected within the typical 1–2 week spectroscopic observing runs.

Therefore, we became interested in this object and started an observing campaign. The first step for reliable Doppler imaging is to find a good radial velocity curve. The problem of Doppler imaging is ill-posed and has a lot of free parameters. Thus, any additional constraints that can be put prior to Doppler imaging is of great value. Since Doppler imaging relies on distortions in the line profiles caused by the surface structures, it is important to remove any other distortion of the line profiles, in particular any shift of the lines with respect to the same lines at other phases. In principle, the radial velocity shifts from the orbital motions could be removed prior to Doppler imaging by simply cross-correlating the spectra. However, the spots on the stellar surface introduce systematic errors in the shifts obtained in this way. It is therefore useful to determine the radial velocity based on a large time scale; each individual radial velocity will still be influenced by the line profile distortions, but the limited lifetime of the spots ensures that spectra at the same phases taken a long time apart average out these distortions. Also, any reliable determination of the orbital parameters is based on a good value for the orbital period (all other parameters more or less correlate with the orbital period), which becomes more and more accurate the longer the time base of the radial velocity curve.

Here, we report on the first radial velocity curve of the HD 553 system based on 20 high-accuracy radial velocities obtained over the time base of 2 years, and the conclusions about the system and stellar parameters that can be drawn from it.

## 2 Observations and reductions

The observing material consists of 20 spectra obtained with the Coudé spectrograph at the 2m-RCC-telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory Rozhen, Bulgaria. The data were collected in 4 observing runs in October/November 1999, April and October 2000, and September/October 2001.

The grating 632/$`22\stackrel{}{.}3`$ and an entrance slit width of 300 $`\mu `$m were used, resulting in a resolution of about 30 000. The spectra were recorded with the Photometrics AT200 camera on a 1024$`\times `$1024 CCD with pixel size 24$`\times `$24 $`\mu `$m2, yielding a spectral range of about 10 nm for each spectrum. In different seasons, different spectral regions have been observed: in 1999, the region around the Ca i line at 643.9 nm, in 2000 and 2001, the region around the Fe i line at 617.3 nm have been observed; additionally, in 2001, another region, that around a group of telluric lines at 630 nm, was observed immediately before or after the Fe i-region, which allows an independent check of the wavelength scale via the atmospheric lines and of the radial velocities (RVs) via the comparison of the RVs from the different regions at virtually the same time. The average signal-to-noise ratio of the spectra is 136.

Additional to the spectra of HD 553, several spectra of the RV standard $β$~Gem have been obtained in each observing run, except for Oct 2000, when we observed the RV standard $α$~Cas. Both stars are classified as K0 III, and are therefore suitable templates for HD 553.

The information for each spectrum is given in Table 1111 Table 1 is also available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html.

Each observed stellar spectrum is accompanied by a pair of comparison spectra (one taken before, the other after the stellar exposure) and a number of flatfield images. In several nights, a large number of bias-images was obtained, which were found to be unchanging within an observing run; they were averaged, then subtracted from each image of the same run.

The reduction of the material has been done using the spectrum reduction package 4A (Ilyin Ilyin00 (2000)), and consists of the steps bias image subtraction, flatfielding, scattered light subtraction, optimal spectrum extraction, wavelength calibration.

The wavelength calibration is based on the comparison spectrum images consisting of Th-Ar emission lines. Each Th-Ar-image consists of a pair of comparison spectra: one is above, the other below the area covered by the stellar spectrum, but overlapping with it. This allows to take into account a slope of the lines of constant wavelength across the stellar spectrum. The observation of a comparison image before and another one after the stellar exposure allows to take into account a possible systematic drift of the pixel coordinate system along the wavelength axis. Thus, the final dispersion curve of each stellar image is based on a total of 4 Th-Ar-comparison spectra, and is interpolated to the central position of the stellar spectrum and the time of mid-exposure of the stellar spectrum. The dispersion curve is approximated by a polynomial of degree 3 (except for Sept/Oct 2001, where a degree of 5 was necessary) and has typically an accuracy of 0.02–0.04 km s-1.

After the wavelength calibration, the spectra are transformed into heliocentric wavelengths and normalized to the apparent continuum which is a polynomial of degree 4 approximating the high points of the stellar spectrum.

It is worth mentioning that 4A estimates the errors of each pixel in the original image (after bias subtraction) assuming Poissonian noise and propagates these errors through each step of the reduction procedure. In this way, reliable errors are available for each pixel in the final spectrum in both flux and wavelength resulting also in individual errors for each RV.

## 3 Radial velocity measurements

Radial velocities were determined for each spectrum by cross-correlation with the average of all spectra of the radial velocity standard observed during the same observing run. For this, the spectra of the standards were artificially spun up to different values of the projected rotational velocity $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$, and the spectrum which maximizes the cross-correlation peak height gives the best value of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$. This was done for both standards $`\beta `$ Gem and $`\alpha `$ Cas and for all spectra of HD 553. The result is $`v\mathrm{sin}i=42.5\pm 0.5`$ km s-1, independent of which standard is used, independent of the spectral region and of the phase in the binary orbit. The latter allows the conclusion that the ellipticity of the primary in the binary (the giant) is not very pronounced.

Before cross-correlating the artificially broadened spectra of the templates with the spectra of HD 553 they were corrected for the radial velocity of the corresponding standard star. For $`\beta `$ Gem, RV=$`+(3.3\pm 0.1)`$ km s-1 according to the Astronomical Almanach for 2002 (AstAlm01 (2001)) and Stefanik et al. (Stefanik99 (1999)). For $`\alpha `$ Cas, in recent publications several different RVs are given, casting some doubt on its suitability as a radial velocity standard: RV=$`(3.9\pm 0.1)`$ km s-1 according to the Astronomical Almanach for 2002 (AstAlm01 (2001)), RV=$`(4.3\pm 0.2)`$ km s-1 according to Udry et al. (Udry99 (1999)), and RV=$`(4.79\pm 0.04)`$ km s-1 according to de Medeiros & Mayor (Medeiros99 (1999)). Our investigation (see Sect. 4) shows that the value by de Medeiros & Mayor (Medeiros99 (1999)) is best. Note, that by observing the standard stars in the same run as the spectra of HD 553 (usually immediately before or after HD 553) and reducing them in exactly the same way, then moving them to RV=0 using the values from the literature, the RVs of HD 553 are on the system of the literature velocities of the standards, without any contribution from some systematic velocity zero-points (which could be different in different runs) (see also Sect. 4).

We also searched for signs of the secondary in the spectra. Indeed, a faint spectrum displaying narrow lines moving in antiphase to the strong, broad lines of the giant were found, after the spectrum of $`\beta `$ Gem had been subtracted from that of HD 553. The RVs from these lines were measured by cross-correlation with the original (not spun-up) spectrum of the RV standard of that run. RVs of the secondary are not measureable when the secondary is eclipsed. Figure 1 shows the spectrum of HD 553 in the 617.3 nm region and identifies some lines of the secondary. It can be seen that the continuum of the broadened $`\beta `$ Gem spectrum tends to be below that of HD 553. The reason is the imperfect continuum normalization for HD 553, which is due to the very low signal-to-noise and to the fact that its (pseudo-)continuum is only defined by a very few regions without broad, blended features. However, the difference spectrum is mostly flat so that RV measurements should not be influenced and no attempt has been made to correct for this. Note that some “emission” features appear in the difference spectrum which result from an imperfect match of some of the features in the artificially broadened $`\beta `$ Gem spectrum and in the HD 553 spectrum. Yet, the lines of the secondary are clearly visible and measureable.

All the strong lines in the $`\beta `$ Gem spectrum are represented in the spectrum of the secondary; several weaker features are also identifiable. The lines are narrow, which can be seen e.g. with the clearly resolved double feature near 613.5 nm. This indicates a much lower $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the secondary; together with the low luminosity and the presence of the same strong lines as in the spectrum of the late giant $`\beta `$ Gem, this makes the secondary a late-type dwarf. Therefore, we decided to use the unbroadened spectum of $`\beta `$ Gem as a template for the RV measurements of the secondary. Earlier experience has shown that a good RV of $`\beta `$ Gem can be measured with the Sun as a template. So, a mismatch of the spectral types of $`\beta `$ Gem and of the secondary should have only a small effect on the final RV of the secondary.

Unfortunately, the lack of proper standards, the comparitively low signal-to-noise ratio in the spectrum of the secondary, and the also visible systematics resulting from the not perfect match of the broadened $`\beta `$ Gem spectrum and the HD 553 spectrum make it impossible to analyse the spectrum of the secondary in more detail.

All RVs are given in Table 1 together with their errors as determined by 4A. These take into account the errors of the pixels in the spectra in the overlapped region of both the programme and the standard spectrum as well as the height and curvature of the cross-correlation maximum (for details, see Ilyin Ilyin00 (2000)).

## 4 Orbital solution

The radial velocities in Table 1 were used in a double-lined orbit fit. A few details about the fit routine can be found in Duemmler et al. (Duemmler97 (1997)). The weights of the individual RVs were obtained as the inverse variances, based on the RV errors. However, it turned out, that the primary and secondary had very different values of $`\chi ^2`$; therefore, the weights of the secondary were reduced by a common factor $`\chi _1^2/\chi _2^2=0.108`$.

While the large ratio of the $`\chi ^2`$ values of the primary and secondary have shown that the errors for the secondary given in Table 1 are clearly underestimated, the overall reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit of 2.1 is quite good. Although the formal probability of exceeding a value of 2.0 is just 1% for 15 degrees of freedom, experience with many fits has shown that, even for larger numbers of RVs with smaller errors, values of 2–3 for $`\chi ^2`$ are not uncommon. However, larger deviation than expected from the errors may also result from stellar activity: starspots distort the line profiles, and cause the RV to deviate systematically. Therefore, we have investigated the O–C values as a function of phase and observing run, but we do not find any systematic (see Fig. 2). One should, however, keep in mind that 20 measurements is still a rather small statistics.

The errors of the fit-parameters were determined by 10 000 bootstrap runs (see Duemmler et al. Duemmler97 (1997) and, e.g., Efron & Tibshirani ET93 (1993)). To each RV computed from the orbital solution we add a randomly chosen value taken from the O–C values. Since on average low weighted RVs tend to have larger O–C, each O–C is accompanied by its original weight; the choice of O–C values is done with replacement, i.e. the same O–C can be chosen several times while others are not used. With this artificial data set a new orbital fit is performed, leading to a slightly different set of parameters than the fit to the original data. The error of a parameter is given by the standard deviation of this parameter from all the bootstrap samples. The resulting orbital and derived parameters are presented in Table 2. The orbit is plotted in Fig. 2.

Strassmeier et al. (Strassmeier00 (2000)) have also measured two RVs for HD 553. While these two RVs increase the time span of the RV curve by another year, the large errors compared to our RVs lead to very small weights in the fit. The result is identical to the fit presented in Table 2, except that the errors of the parameters even increased slightly. We therefore decided to ignore the Strassmeier et al. measurements.

We also attempted to fit an eccentric orbit. The result $`e=0.0016\pm 0.0023`$ with $`\omega =350\stackrel{}{.}7\pm 0\stackrel{}{.}1`$ clearly shows that the orbit is circular. The Lucy-Sweeney $`F`$-test (Lucy & Sweeney Lucy71 (1971), Lucy Lucy89 (1989)) gives a 96.2 % probability for a circular orbit.

Another fit allowed for different $`\gamma `$ velocities for the 4 observing runs, while forcing all other parameters to be the same for the 4 data sets. That means that we are looking for systematic RV errors between the different runs, or for systematic changes of the $`\gamma `$ velocity from run to run, which could be caused by a third body. Within the errors, the orbital parameters do not change compared to those given in Table 2; the results for $`\gamma `$ are:

$`\mathrm{Oct}/\mathrm{Nov}1999\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`39.27\pm 0.19`$
$`\mathrm{Apr}2000\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`38.62\pm 0.34`$
$`\mathrm{Oct}2000\gamma _3`$ $`=`$ $`38.73\pm 0.25`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{Sep}/\mathrm{Oct}2001\gamma _4`$ $`=`$ $`38.75\pm 0.26.`$
The largest difference, $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$, is only 1.7 $`\sigma `$, i.e. there is no indication for any significant change of $`\gamma `$ over the two-year interval or for a significant error in the velocity zero points of the different runs. It is noteworthy that $`\gamma _3`$ is based on RVs measured with $`\alpha `$ Cas as standard, for whose RV we adopted the value given by de Medeiros & Mayor (Medeiros99 (1999)). Would we have adopted the other values given in the literature, $`\gamma _3`$ would deviate by 0.9 km s-1(Astronomical Almanach for 2002 (AstAlm01 (2001))) and 0.5 km s-1(Udry et al. Udry99 (1999)), respectively; it is clear, that the value by de Medeiros & Mayor (Medeiros99 (1999)) is best, at least at the time of our measurements, Oct 2000.

It is remarkable that the orbital parameters in Table 2 show a system with almost identical masses for the two stars, although one of the stars is clearly evolved.

It should be mentioned that our period $`P_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is longer than both the period given in the Hipparcos catalogue (ESA ESA97 (1997); $`P=9\stackrel{d}{.}0576\pm 0\stackrel{d}{.}0008`$) and the period given by Strassmeier et al. (Strassmeier00 (2000); $`P=9\stackrel{d}{.}0580`$). While Strassmeier et al.’s period is consistent with the one given by Hipparcos, our period is longer by $`3\sigma `$. However, since the Hipparcos period is based on a curve fit, whose shape is not specified, we feel that our period is more reliable.

## 5 Conclusions and discussion

We have found the Hipparcos-detected eclipsing binary HD 553 to be a double-lined spectroscopic binary with a giant as primary and a faint companion of almost equal mass. From 20 high-quality RVs collected over the course of 2 years, the radial velocity curve was derived, leading to an improvement of the binary period and the derivation of other orbital and physical parameters.

If we assume that the primary is in synchronised rotation (i.e. the system is old and the primary has been a giant for a long time), the rotation and orbital axes should also be aligned, i.e. $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}=P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, for which the period $`P_{\mathrm{rest}}`$ in the rest of frame of the system should be used and $`i_{\mathrm{rot}}=i_{\mathrm{orb}}=i`$. Then, the projected radius is given by $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ via

$$R_1\mathrm{sin}i=\frac{Pv\mathrm{sin}i}{2\pi }=(7.608\pm 0.090)R_{\mathrm{}},$$
(2)
with $`v\mathrm{sin}i=(42.5\pm 0.5)`$ km s-1 as determined in Sect. 3.

The assumption of aligned axes and synchronisation of rotation and orbit could, however, be wrong. While it is true that the system is old for the primary to become a giant by now, so possibly the axes are aligned, the periods may be different. During the expansion of the primary towards the giant branch the rotation period should increase due to angular momentum conservation. A longer rotation period would increase the radius given above. It would also imply that the primary’s expansion happened quite recently, so that the tidal forces were not able to speed up again the primary’s rotation. This is highly likely, because the secondary is still a dwarf, despite it having nearly the same mass as the primary.

Therefore, it is good to compare this lower limit for the radius with the radius that can be obtained from the photometric properties. According to Strassmeier et al. (Strassmeier00 (2000)), V=$`8\stackrel{m}{.}11`$, B–V=$`1\stackrel{m}{.}03`$, T$`{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}=4790`$ K; and according to the Hipparcos catalogue (ESA ESA97 (1997)), $`\pi =4.74`$ mas, corresponding to a distance of 211 pc. The V-magnitude could be too faint, if the star has been covered by spots at the time of the measurements and B–V could be too red; additionally, the interstellar extinction ($`A_\mathrm{V},E_{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}}`$) is unknown. This means, that the resulting absolute magnitude $`M_\mathrm{V}=1\stackrel{m}{.}49`$ is an upper limit. With BC=$`0\stackrel{m}{.}43`$ (read off from Fig. 10.16, p. 197, in Gray Gray92 (1992)), the upper limit for the bolometric absolute magnitude becomes $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}=1\stackrel{m}{.}03`$, and the lower limit for the luminosity 29 $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$, leading to a lower limit of 7.85 $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the radius of the primary. This value is consistent with the lower limit from Eq. (2). Based on the good subtraction of the $`\beta `$ Gem spectrum from that of HD 553, we could repeat the calculation using the temparature of $`\beta `$ Gem: T$`{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}=4865`$ K (Drake & Smith Drake91 (1991)); this leads to (7.61 $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$), identical to the lower limit in Eq. (2).

While both results are lower limits, it would be quite a coincidence, if the difference of the rotation and orbital periods and the projection factor $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ on the one hand and the spot coverage and interstellar absorption on the other lead to the same change in the radius. It is more likely, that $`\mathrm{sin}i_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i_{\mathrm{orb}}1`$, $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$, V$``$Vunspotted, and $`A_\mathrm{V}0`$ (despite a galactic latitude of just 2).

The effective radius of the Roche-lobe of the primary, $`R_{\mathrm{RL}}`$, i.e. the radius of the sphere having the same volume as the Roche-lobe, is another quantity with which to compare the lower limit for the primary’s radius. According to Eggleton (Eggleton83 (1983))

$`R_{\mathrm{RL}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{sin}i{\displaystyle \frac{0.49Q^{2/3}}{0.6Q^{2/3}+\mathrm{ln}(1+Q^{1/3})}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`(8.859\pm 0.034)R_{\mathrm{}}`$
with the inverse mass ratio $`Q=m_1/m_2=1.0429\pm 0.0072`$.

The fact that the Roche-lobe radius is only about 1 $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ larger than the radius of the primary shows that the assumption of synchronisation cannot be grossly wrong: If the rotation period were longer than $`10\stackrel{d}{.}6`$ (in the restframe of the primary), the star would overfill its Roche-lobe and most likely form a shell around the whole system, which seems not to be the case. Thus, the deviation from synchronicity cannot be larger than 16 %.

If we consider synchronous rotation as valid, the star fills a considerable fraction (63.3 % of the volume) of its Roche-lobe. Still, since the star is nearly 40 % smaller than the Roche lobe, we would not expect at present a large deviation from sphericity (see also Sect. 3, where it was found that $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ does not depend on phase). According to Gray (Gray92 (1992), App. B), a K0 III star has on average a radius of $`R(\mathrm{K0}\mathrm{III})=11R_{\mathrm{}}`$. Either the primary in HD 553 is still expanding, in which case it will soon (in evolutionary terms) fill its Roche-lobe and start losing mass towards the secondary, or its inclination makes $`R\mathrm{sin}i=7.6R_{\mathrm{}}`$ so much smaller than the typical radius, in which case the inclination would be about 44. Since the system is eclipsing, the latter possibility seems highly unlikely; given the similar masses of the two components, but the very different luminosities, the former possibility seems to be very plausible. Thus, we expect HD 553 to become soon a semidetached system.

Finally, the small errors in the radial velocity curve presented here, based on the long time span of 2 years, should allow a good transformation of future spectra into the restframe of the primary for surface imaging. However, many RS CVn stars show persistent active longitudes with activity cycles lasting several years (Berdyugina & Tuominen Berdyug98 (1998)). Thus, the relatively small amount of statistics, based on only 20 measurements over the comparatively short time span of 2 years may not be enough to ensure that all systematic effects from spots on the radial velocity curve are removed yet. Future spectra will therefore also be used to further improve the orbital parameters.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referee, Dr. Holger Lehmann, for his careful reading of the original version of the paper and for his useful questions and suggestions, which helped to improve the paper. A large part of this work was financially supported by the Academy of Finland and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences through travel grants for RD and LI, for which we are grateful. We made use of the SIMBAD database, maintained at the Centre de Données Stellaire (CDS) in Strasbourgh, France.