text:
# The high energy gamma-ray emission expected from Tycho’s supernova remnant

## 1 Introduction

The observations of Tycho’s supernova remnant (SNR) with the HEGRA stereoscopic system of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (IACTs) on La Palma have recently been analyzed. The object has long been considered as a prototype candidate hadronic CR source in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g. Drury et al. dav94 (1994)), although it was always clear that the sensitivity of the present generation of IACTs is marginal for a detection. In fact, after $`65`$ hours of observation time, HEGRA did not detect Tycho’s SNR, but it could establish a very low $`3\sigma `$ upper flux limit of $`5.78\times 10^{13}`$ photons cm-2 s-1, or 33 milli-Crab, at energies $`>1`$ TeV (Aharonian et al. aha01 (2001)). This value is about a factor 4 lower than the one previously published by the Whipple collaboration (Buckley et al. buc98 (1998)), assuming a spectral index of $`1.1`$ for the comparison. In the above HEGRA paper on Tycho the existing radio and X-ray synchrotron observations were used to infer a lower limit to the mean magnetic field strength in the remnant due to the nondetection of Inverse Compton (IC) emission off the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). At the same time, published estimates of the hadronic $`\pi ^0`$-decay gamma-ray emission (Berezhko & Völk bv97 (1997)) were employed and scaled to the parameters of Tycho’s SNR, to compare with the new upper flux limit. The predictions from the time-dependent kinetic model (Berezhko et al. byk96 (1996)) were also renormalized to take the expected deviations from spherical symmetry of the nucleon injection rate for a Type Ia SNR into account, and were found to be consistent with the present HEGRA nondetection in $`\gamma `$-rays, although the predicted flux values for the hadronic emission were only slightly smaller than the observational upper limit.

This tantalizing situation has prompted us to model the acceleration of both electrons and protons in detail with the nonlinear kinetic theory, using the observed synchrotron emission as a constraint on the electron acceleration characteristics, and thereby to model the hadronic and IC $`\gamma `$-ray emission simultaneously.

We demonstrate that, together with the renormalization, the existing data are consistent with very efficient acceleration of CR nuclei at the SN shock wave which converts a significant fraction of the initial SNR energy content into CR energy. This energy is distributed between energetic protons and electrons in a proportion similar to that of the Galactic CRs. Therefore Tycho’s SNR might indeed be a typical Galactic CR source. Direct evidence for the inferred strong production of nucleonic CRs in Tycho would not only require a $`\gamma `$-ray detection as such, but in particular a spectrum measurement, ideally beginning at photon energies of about 100 MeV up to the highest energies. Of particular importance would be measurements in excess of 10 TeV particle energy which are beyond the reach of the accelerated electron component that suffers a cutoff at energy of about 50 TeV due to synchrotron losses in our model. This specific spectral behavior implies a high magnetic field strength of about 40 $`\mu `$G upstream of the outer SNR shock. Such a field strength is indeed required to fit the nonthermal radio and X-ray synchrotron emission. We shall give an upper bound on the effective magnetic field in the discussion section. It well encompasses the deduced field strength.

## 2 Model

A supernova (SN) explosion ejects a shell of matter with total energy $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$ and mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$. During an initial period the shell material has a broad distribution in velocity $`v`$. The fastest part of these ejecta is described by a power law $`dM_{\mathrm{ej}}/dvv^{2\mathrm{k}}`$ (e.g. Jones et al. Jones81 (1981), Chevalier chev82 (1982)). The interaction of the ejecta with the interstellar medium (ISM) there creates a strong shock which accelerates particles.

Our nonlinear model (Berezhko et al. byk96 (1996); Berezhko & Völk bv97 (1997)) is based on a fully time-dependent solution of the CR transport equations together with the gas dynamic equations in spherical symmetry. Regarding the coefficients in the transport equations and the boundary conditions as well as the approximation of spherical symmetry, we shall introduce a number of approximations as follows (see also the discussion in Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)):

The CR diffusion coefficient is taken as the Bohm limit

$$\kappa (p)=\kappa (mc)(p/mc),$$
(1)
where $`\kappa (mc)=mc^2/(3eB)`$, $`e`$ and $`m`$ are the particle charge and mass, $`p`$ denotes the particle momentum, $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. This limiting value is consistent with the high, probably turbulently amplified magnetic field strength (Lucek & Bell lucb00 (2000)) due to the strong pressure gradient of the energetic particles in the very strong shock of the young remnant. In fact, Eq. (1) uses the relativistic form of Bohm diffusion, equal for both electrons and nuclei. In fact, the actual form of $`\kappa (p)`$ at low momenta $`pp_{\mathrm{max}}`$ does not influence the particle spectrum if $`\kappa (p)`$ is a strongly increasing function of $`p`$. In addition at nonrelativistic proton energies $`p<m_\mathrm{p}c`$, even if the electron and proton diffusion coefficients are different at the same $`p`$, their spectra $`f(p)`$ are essentially the same because these low energy particles do not produce any shock modification and therefore their spectrum is $`f(p)p^{q_\mathrm{s}}`$, where $`q_\mathrm{s}`$ is the spectral index appropriate for the subshock compression ratio $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}`$, calculated below.

The number of suprathermal protons injected into the acceleration process is described by a dimensionless injection parameter $`\eta `$ which is a fixed fraction of the ISM particles entering the shock front. For simplicity it is assumed that the injected particles have a velocity four times higher than the postshock sound speed. It is expected that ion injection is quite efficient at the quasi-parallel portion of the shock surface, where it is characterized by the value $`\eta 10^4`$ (see Völk et al. voelk (2002) for details). In momentum space the accelerated (nonthermal) proton distribution function grows smoothly out of the downstream thermal distribution (e.g. Malkov & Völk malkv95 (1995)).

Assuming nucleon injection to occur through the leakage of suprathermal particles into the upstream region from behind the shock, the relevant injection velocity parallel to the magnetic field is $`V_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{cos}^1\varphi `$, where $`V_\mathrm{s}`$ denotes the (radial) shock velocity and $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the shock normal and the downstream magnetic field direction; it is refracted away from the shock normal. Therefore the injection is expected to be strongly suppressed at the quasi-perpendicular surface fraction of the shock and this surface fraction is larger than that of the quasi-parallel fraction due to the field refraction. This lack of symmetry in the actual SNR can be approximately taken into account by a renormalization factor $`f_{\mathrm{re}}<1/2`$ which diminishes the nucleonic CR production efficiency as calculated in the spherical model, and all effects associated with it. A more detailed estimate, taking also the diffusive broadening of the quasi-parallel area into account, yields roughly $`f_{\mathrm{re}}=0.15`$ to 0.25 (Völk et al. voelk (2002)).

This is not necessarily in conflict with the radio polarization result of Reynoso et al. (rmg97 (1997)) and Dickel et al. (di91 (1991)) who obtain from their VLA measurements a roughly radial ordered magnetic field component over most of the shock surface. The fractional polarization of 10% to 15% is rather small (Dickel et al. di91 (1991)), indicating a rather small excess of ordered radial magnetic field (see also the discussion in Reynolds & Gilmore rg93 (1993)). Obviously Tycho’s SNR is not a magnetic monopole. To resolve this puzzle we argue that there exist at least two physical processes which tend to produce radial field directions in a remnant that is still in the sweep-up phase and as a whole embeded in a uniform ISM and magnetic field. First of all, such young SNRs as Tycho’s are Rayleigh-Taylor unstable during the sweep-up phase (Gull gul73 (1973); Velázquez et al. vgd98 (1998)). Secondly, the ejecta themselves may be so nonuniform that they can wrinkle the blast wave surface (Aschenbach et al. ash95 (1995)). In addition, the ambient ISM around Tycho appears to be unexpectedly nonuniform as well, cf. Reynoso et al. (rmg97 (1997)). Even though these irregularities are of a macroscopic, hydromagnetic nature, their size spectrum probably extends to quite small scales. The acceleration scales can even be much smaller. In fact, the acceleration scales of protons with multi-GeV energies, on whose strong self-excited magnetic irregularities (Bell bell78 (1978)) the electrons may parasitically accelerate as well, is of order $`10^4`$ times the shock radius or even smaller, and the proton scales are connected with quasi-parallel, i.e. quasi-radial field line portions. On other portions no acceleration occurs, and they will not be illuminated by synchrotron emitting electrons. Thus it is possible that the magnetic field appears essentially radial over the remnant surface even to the VLA. We leave it open here to which extent small-scale magnetic irregularities that lead to measurable polarization effects can also be nonlinearly produced by the accelerated particle population itself.

Due to their small mass $`m_\mathrm{e}`$, suprathermal electrons cannot resonantly interact with the hydromagnetic wave turbulence created by the energetically dominant accelerating ions. Therefore electrons can only participate in the diffusive shock acceleration process at high energies $`m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$ , albeit still nonrelativistic as far as nuclei are concerned. Presumably they are injected by electrostatic fluctuations (e.g. Malkov & Drury malkd (2001)). For simplicity we can consider their acceleration to start from the same momentum as protons start, if we restrict our further consideration to relativistic electrons, at energies possibly far above their actual injection energy. What counts alone for the considerations in this paper is that at energies corresponding to those of relativistic protons - only those energies play a role for the observed synchrotron emission - electrons have exactly the same dynamics as the protons. Therefore, below the momenta where synchrotron losses become important, the electron distribution function has at any given time the form

$$f_\mathrm{e}(p)=K_{\mathrm{ep}}f(p)$$
(2)
with a factor $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}`$ that is of the order of $`10^2`$ for the average CRs in the Galaxy.

Clearly, from the point of view of injection/acceleration theory, we must treat $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}`$ together with $`B`$ as free parameters, and $`\eta `$ as well as $`f_{\mathrm{re}}`$ as theoretically not yet accurately calculable parameters, to be quantitatively determined by comparison with observations.

The electron distribution function $`f_\mathrm{e}(p)`$ deviates only at sufficiently large momenta from Eq. (2) due to synchrotron losses, which are taken into account by supplementing the ordinary diffusive transport equation by a radiative loss term. The solution of the dynamic equations at each instant of time yields the CR spectrum and the spatial distributions of CRs and thermal gas. This allows the calculation of the expected flux $`F_\gamma ^\pi (ϵ_\gamma )`$ of $`\gamma `$-rays from $`\pi ^0`$-decay due to $`pp`$ collisions of CRs with the gas nuclei. The choice of $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}`$ allows one then to determine the electron distribution function in the energy region where losses can be neglected, and to calculate the associated emission. Details about this calculation are given in Berezhko et al. (bkv02 (2002)).

## 3 Results and Discussion

Tycho was a type Ia SN. Therefore we use typical SN Ia parameters in our calculations: ejected mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}=1.4M_{}`$, $`k=7`$, and a uniform ambient ISM with hydrogen number density $`N_\mathrm{H}=0.5`$ cm-3 and temperature $`T_0=10^4`$ K. Following Chevalier et al. (chevkr (1980)) (see also Heavens hea84 (1984); Reynolds & Ellison re92 (1992); Aharonian et al. aha01 (2001)) we in addition adopt a distance $`d=2.3`$ kpc, and a present radius of $`4^{}`$. These parameters are similar to those inferred by Dickel & Jones (dickel (1985)) and Smith et al. (sm88 (1988)). Note that SNR and CR dynamics are not sensitive to the precise value used for $`T_0`$, because the shock structure is mainly determined by the Alfvénic Mach number.

We use an upstream magnetic field value $`B_0=40`$ $`\mu `$G, which is required to provide the required shape of the synchrotron spectrum in the radio and X-ray bands (see below).

The gas dynamic problem is characterized by the following length, time, and velocity scales:

$$R_0=(3M_{\mathrm{ej}}/4\pi \rho _0)^{1/3},t_0=R_0/V_0,V_0=\sqrt{2E_{\mathrm{sn}}/M_{\mathrm{ej}}},$$

which are the sweep-up radius, sweep-up time and mean ejecta speed respectively. Here $`\rho _0=1.4m_\mathrm{p}N_\mathrm{H}`$ is the ISM mass density, $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the proton mass.

According to Chevalier (chev82 (1982)), an analytical approximation to the shock expansion law during the free expansion phase ($`t<t_0`$) is then

$$R_\mathrm{s}E_{\mathrm{sn}}^{(k3)/2k}\rho _0^{1/k}t^{(k3)/(k2)},$$
(3)
which for $`k=7`$ gives

$$R_\mathrm{s}(E_{\mathrm{sn}}^2/\rho _0)^{1/7}t^{4/5}.$$
(4)
In the adiabatic phase $`(t>t_0)`$ we have

$$R_\mathrm{s}(E_{\mathrm{sn}}/\rho _0)^{1/5}t^{2/5}.$$
(5)
The observed mean expansion law of Tycho’s SNR (Tan & Gull tg85 (1985)) is $`R_\mathrm{s}t^\mu `$ with $`\mu =0.46\pm 0.02`$. This is consistent with the average over the outer rim of the remnant, as obtained by Reynoso et al. (rmg97 (1997)), even though the latter authors found significant azimuthal variations of the expansion rate, indicating a substantial nonuniformity of the SNR environment, as mentioned above. On the whole therefore Tycho’s SNR should be near the adiabatic phase (Strom et al. strom (1982); Tan & Gull tg85 (1985); Reynoso et al. rmg97 (1997)).

The calculations together with the azimuthally averaged experimental data are shown in Fig.1. An explosion energy $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=0.27\times 10^{51}`$ erg is taken (in addition to the above ISM density, and the ejecta mass) to fit the observed SNR size $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ and its expansion rate $`V_\mathrm{s}`$. This value is again in basic agreement with the earlier determinations referred to above.

According to Fig.1a Tycho is indeed nearing the adiabatic phase. To fit the observed radio spectral index (see below) we assume a proton injection rate $`\eta =3\times 10^4`$. This leads to a significant nonlinear modification of the shock which at the current age of $`t=428`$ yrs has a total compression ratio $`\sigma =5.7`$ and a subshock compression ratio $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}=3.5`$ (Fig.1b).

We should at this point ask the question, how sensitive these results are to the specific choice of the overall parameters. These parameters are partly the result of analyses of the thermal X-ray emission. The corresponding X-ray models need to take into account of non-equilibrium electron temperatures and non-equilibrium ionisation states behind the outer shock as well as nonsolar chemical composition in the ejecta which are in part heated by the reverse shock. As a consequence, different workers do not obtain identical results. The differences to our set of parameters is most pronounced in the results of Hamilton et al. (hss (1986)) who derived the different values $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=0.7\times 10^{51}`$ erg, $`N_\mathrm{H}=0.28`$ cm-3, and $`d=3.1`$ kpc. One way of comparing the consequences of such different inputs into our theory is to check on their internal consistency. Taking into account that the linear size $`R_\mathrm{s}d`$, then it follows from Eq. (4) that $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}N_\mathrm{H}^{1/2}d^{7/2}`$ for a given source. Changing our parameters $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`d`$ to $`N_\mathrm{H}=0.28`$ cm-3 and $`d=3.1`$ kpc, respectively, we obtain $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=0.57\times 10^{51}`$ erg for the Hamilton et al. case, not too different from their actual value for $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$. We can also discuss the change expected for the resulting $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray integral flux $`F_\gamma ^\pi `$. Since in the strongly nonlinear case, which is characterized by efficient CR acceleration, the number density of accelerated CRs at relativistic energies is proportional to $`\rho _0V_\mathrm{s}^2`$ (e.g. Berezhko et al. byk96 (1996); Berezhko & Völk bv97 (1997)), the occupied volume goes like $`R_\mathrm{s}^3`$, and the $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray production is proportional to the gas density $`\rho _0`$, we have $`F_\gamma ^\pi N_\mathrm{H}^2R_\mathrm{s}^3V_\mathrm{s}^2d^2`$. Inserting Hamilton et al.’s values for $`d`$ and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, the $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray flux would be decreased to 0.77 times our value given in Fig.6 below. Given our value of the magnetic field, we can do the same for the electron-proton ratio $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}`$, given the measured radio energy flux $`\nu S_\nu `$ (see Fig.3). The value of $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}`$ would be lowered by a factor of 1.3 times our value. The IC $`\gamma `$-ray flux would not change at all for given radio flux. The magnetic field value which we deduce has a different character. We therefore defer its discussion to a later point of this section.

We now continue with the nonthermal aspects of Tycho’s SNR.

Given the proton injection rate the acceleration process is characterized by a high efficiency in spherical symmetry: at the current time $`t/t_0=0.7`$ about 20% of the explosion energy have been already transferred to CRs, and the CR energy content $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ continues to increase to a maximum of about 43% in the later Sedov phase (Fig.1c), when particles start to leave the source. As usually predicted by the spherically symmetric model, such a CR acceleration efficiency is significantly higher than required for the average replenishment of the Galactic CRs by SNRs, corresponding to $`E_\mathrm{c}0.1E_{\mathrm{sn}}`$. As discussed above (Völk et al. voelk (2002), Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)), this requires a physical renormalization of the number of hadronic CRs. We choose $`f_{\mathrm{re}}=1/5`$ here, in agreement with the theoretical estimate above, and consistent with the average Galactic CR replenishment.

With this renormalization the CRs inside Tycho’s SNR contain at the current epoch the total energy

$$E_\mathrm{c}0.2f_{\mathrm{re}}E_{\mathrm{sn}}10^{49}\text{erg}.$$
(6)
The volume-integrated (or overall) CR spectrum

$$N(p,t)=16\pi ^2p^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2f(r,p,t)$$
(7)
is given in Fig.2 (Note that only the nonthermal part of the spectrum is pictured. That is why both the proton and electron spectrum have a maximum above suprathermal proton energies. As discussed above, the spectrum $`N(p)`$ is of course smoothly connected with the thermal distribution, not given here.) Far above suprathermal energies it has, for the case of protons, almost a pure power-law form $`Np^\gamma `$ over a wide momentum range from $`10^2m_\mathrm{p}c`$ up to the cutoff momentum $`p_{\mathrm{max}}=ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}/c`$, where $`ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}2\times 10^{14}`$ eV is the maximum CR energy (Fig.2). This value $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is limited mainly by geometrical factors, which are the finite size and speed of the shock, its deceleration and the adiabatic cooling effect in the downstream region (Berezhko ber96 (1996)). Due to the shock modification the power-law index slowly varies from $`\gamma =2.2`$ at $`p<m_\mathrm{p}c`$ to $`\gamma =1.8`$ at $`p>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^3m_\mathrm{p}c`$.

The shape of the overall electron spectrum $`N_\mathrm{e}(p)`$ deviates from that of the proton spectrum $`N(p)`$ at high momenta $`p>p_\mathrm{l}10^3m_\mathrm{p}c`$, due to the synchrotron losses in the downstream region with magnetic field $`B_\mathrm{d}240\mu `$G. This field is assumed to be roughly uniform and equal to the potshock field $`B_2`$: $`B_\mathrm{d}\mathrm{B}_2=\sigma _\mathrm{B}B_0`$, where $`\sigma _\mathrm{B}^2=1/3+(2/3)\sigma ^2`$ for a strongly turbulent field. We shall approximately take $`\sigma _\mathrm{B}=\sigma `$ in the sequel.

The synchrotron losses become important for electron momenta greater than

$$\frac{p_\mathrm{l}}{m_\mathrm{p}c}1.3\left(\frac{10^8\text{yr}}{t}\right)\left(\frac{10\mu \text{G}}{B_\mathrm{d}}\right)^2.$$
(8)
Substituting the SN age $`t=428`$ yr into this expression, we have $`p_\mathrm{l}800m_\mathrm{p}c`$, in good agreement with the numerical results (Fig.2).

The shock constantly produces the electron spectrum $`f_\mathrm{e}p^q`$, with $`q4`$, up to the maximum momentum $`p_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{e}`$ which is much larger than $`p_\mathrm{l}`$. Therefore, within the momentum range $`p_\mathrm{l}`$ to $`p_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{e}`$, the electron spectrum is $`f_\mathrm{e}p^5`$ due to synchrotron losses, and the corresponding overall electron spectrum is $`N_\mathrm{e}p^3`$.

The maximum electron momentum can be estimated by equating the synchrotron loss time and the acceleration time, that gives

$$\frac{p_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{p}c}=6.7\times 10^4\left(\frac{V_\mathrm{s}}{10^3\text{km/s}}\right)$$

$$\times \sqrt{\frac{(\sigma 1)}{\sigma (1+\sigma _\mathrm{B}\sigma )}\left(\frac{10\mu \text{G}}{B_0}\right)}.$$
(9)
At the current epoch $`V_\mathrm{s}3100`$ km/s which leads to a maximum electron momentum $`p_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{e}6\times 10^4m_\mathrm{p}c`$ in agreement with the numerical results (Fig.2).

Overall, the parameters $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}=4\times 10^3`$ and $`B_{}=0.5B_\mathrm{d}=120`$ $`\mu `$G provide good agreement between the calculated and the measured synchrotron emission in the radio to X-ray ranges (Fig.3). This concerns first the deviation of the radio-spectrum from the test particle form $`S_\nu \nu ^{0.5}`$. At the same time, the steepening of electron spectrum at very high energies due to synchrotron losses naturally yields a fit to the X-ray data with their soft spectrum. Such a smooth spectral behavior is achieved in a $`40`$ $`\mu `$G upstream field (see also Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)). This is in clear contrast to the type of phenomenological fit by e.g. Reynolds (re98 (1998)) for SN 1006.

Since the total number of accelerated protons has to be renormalized by the factor $`f_{\mathrm{re}}=0.2`$, the above number of accelerated electrons then corresponds to the renormalized parameter $`K_{\mathrm{ep}}=2\times 10^2`$. This turns out to correspond reasonably well to the canonical value of $`10^2`$ of the electron to proton ratio in the Galactic CRs. The total energy of accelerated electrons in Tycho’s SNR is approximately $`E_\mathrm{c}^\mathrm{e}=2\times 10^{47}`$ erg, as estimated from the fit to the observed synchrotron emission (Fig.3) and our estimated value of $`B_{}`$.

In detail the radio data can be fitted with a power law spectrum $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$, whose index $`\alpha =0.607\pm 0.007`$ (Reynolds & Ellison re92 (1992)) is considerably larger than 0.5, as it would correspond to an electron spectrum $`N_\mathrm{e}p^2`$ produced in the test particle limit by an unmodified shock with compression ratio $`\sigma =4`$. For our choice of the proton injection rate, $`\eta =3\times 10^4`$, the shock is significantly modified by the backreaction of the accelerated protons (see Fig.1b) with a total present compression ratio $`\sigma =5.7`$ at the present epoch. At the same time low energy electrons, with momenta $`p<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}m_\mathrm{p}c`$ ($`ϵ_\mathrm{e}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ GeV) which produce synchrotron emission at $`\nu <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ GHz, are primarily accelerated at the subshock which only has a compression ratio $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}=3.5`$. Therefore these electrons have a steeper spectrum $`N_\mathrm{e}p^{2.2}`$ that leads to a radio spectrum $`S_\nu \nu ^{0.6}`$ that fits the experimental data quite well (see Fig.4, where the synchrotron flux at radio frequencies is presented). The fact that the observed value of the radio power law index $`\alpha `$ exceeds the value 0.5 is considered as an indication that the shock is significantly modified. Note that $`\alpha =0.6`$ is the average value of the power-law index within the frequency range shown in Fig.4. In fact due to the concave shape of the electron spectrum the index slightly decreases with increasing frequency, with $`\alpha =0.61`$ and $`\alpha =0.56`$ at the lowest and largest frequency respectively. We emphasize that in our view not only a strongly modified shock, which produces a steep electron spectrum at energies $`ϵ_e<1`$ GeV, but also a relatively high upstream magnetic field strength $`B_0=40`$ $`\mu `$G, compared with typical ISM values $`B_0=5`$ $`\mu `$G, and a corresponding downstream value $`B_{}=120`$ $`\mu `$G are unavoidably required to have the energies of the radio emitting electrons in the steep part of their spectrum $`ϵ_\mathrm{e}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ GeV. According to the model calculations of Lucek & Bell (lucb00 (2000)), the existing ISM field can be significantly amplified near the shock by CR streaming to result in such values. An upper bound for the field strength is discussed below.

We note that the necessity of strong nonlinear shock modification and large values of the magnetic field strength in young SNRs to reproduce their steep radio spectra was argued for the first time by Reynolds & Ellison (re92 (1992)). The modified shock parameters and required magnetic field $`B_\mathrm{d}=10^410^3`$ G which they derived for Tycho’s SNR are consistent with our results.

The large perpendicular downstream magnetic field $`B_{}=120`$ $`\mu `$G, which leads to a substantial steepening of the electron spectrum at high energies, also naturally provides a smooth cutoff in the synchrotron spectrum $`S_\nu (\nu )`$ at frequencies $`\nu >10^{18}`$ Hz, that correspond to X-ray photon energies $`ϵ_\nu >5`$ keV. As it can be seen from Fig.5 the spectral shape of the calculated integral flux $`ϵ_\nu F_\nu (ϵ_\nu )`$ is closely similar to what is observed (Allen et al. agp99 (1999)); the X-ray data are just approaching the cutoff region. The small difference in the amplitude is not relevant, because it could be easily reduced by a fine tuning of parameter values which we do not attempt to achieve here.

The calculated IC emission off the CMB nonthermal bremsstrahlung (NB) and the derived $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray fluxes are presented in Fig.6, together with existing experimental data. Note that the number of accelerated protons, which produce the $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-rays, is renormalized by the factor $`f_{\mathrm{re}}=0.2`$ relative to the calculation in spherical symmetry.

With this renormalization, the hadronic gamma-ray flux is just below the HEGRA upper limit in Fig. 6. The electron synchrotron – and thus also IC and NB – fluxes have to remain the same, fixed by the radio and X-ray observations.

According to the calculation, the hadronic $`\gamma `$-ray production exceeds the electron contribution by a factor of about 2 at energies $`ϵ_\gamma <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ TeV, and dominates at $`ϵ_\gamma >10`$ TeV (Fig.6). The NB is always small above the GeV range. We cannot say much about lower energy NB because the electron distribution is not well known at those lower energies, as discussed earlier. In the region of the $`\pi ^0`$-decay bump around 67.5 MeV, the hadronic gamma-ray spectrum may be distiguishable from the electron IC spectrum. However, the corresponding low particle energies are so far away from the ”knee” in the Galactic CR spectrum around $`10^{15}`$ eV that such a bump would not be a proof for Tycho’s SNR being a typical source of the nuclear CRs. In addition, the steep background of the diffuse Galactic $`\gamma `$-ray flux would be hard to remove for an extended source, as most nearby SNRs would be.

The $`\gamma `$-ray spectra produced by the electronic and hadronic CR components have rather similar shapes at higher energies 10 GeV $`<ϵ_\gamma <`$1 TeV due to the synchrotron losses of the electrons. Therefore, the only clear observational possibility to discriminate between the leptonic and hadronic contributions is to measure the $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum at energies significantly higher than 1 TeV, where these two spectra are predicted to be essentially different. The detection of a substantial flux at energies $`ϵ_\gamma >10`$ TeV would provide direct evidence for its hadronic origin.

### 3.1 $`B`$-field amplification possibilities; upper bound

Strong shocks like those of young SNRs have their diffusive properties dominated by self-excited waves from the CR streaming instability (Bell bell78 (1978)). In quasilinear approximation the mean square field fluctuation reaches a level $`<\delta B^2>/4\pi (V_\mathrm{a}/V_\mathrm{s})1/2\rho V_\mathrm{s}^2`$, where $`1/2\rho V_\mathrm{s}^2`$ is the upstream flow energy density in the shock frame, and $`V_\mathrm{s}/V_\mathrm{a}1`$ is the Alfvénic Mach number of the shock, with $`V_\mathrm{a}=B/(4\pi \rho )^{1/2}`$ (McKenzie & Völk mcv82 (1982), see also Drury drury83 (1983)). Nevertheless $`<\delta B^2>/B^2V_\mathrm{s}/V_\mathrm{a}`$ which implies that the rms wave field dominates the regular field.

Linear Alfvén waves constitute the long-wavelength elastic response of a magnetized plasma to a transverse perturbation. In reality it is not clear why the wave field could not grow even more strongly in the nonlinear regime due to a nonlinear evolution of the CR streaming instability. Such a ”plastic” response (Völk & McKenzie voelk81 (1981)) makes the distinction between a mean field and its fluctuations rather meaningless, effectively increasing the magnetic field in which particles undergo spatial diffusion (Völk voelk84 (1984)). Bell & Lucek (bell2001 (2001)) have constructed an interesting phenomenological model for such a nonlinear development, arguing for a strong reduction of the effective diffusion coefficient. For strong fluctuations the diffusion coefficient should come close to the Bohm limit $`\kappa 1/3r_gc`$, with $`r_g=cp/eB`$, where $`B`$ is the effective magnetic field strength. The maximum momentum to be reached in diffusive shock acceleration is then proportional to $`B`$ for any given time the process is assumed to operate.

How large the energy density of the effective field $`B`$ can actually become is a complex question. However, an upper bound is given by imposing no other constraint than the requirement that the Alfvén Mach number always remains large compared to unity, so that the shock continues to be strong and to produce the nonlinear field amplification in the first place. Requiring then $`V_\mathrm{s}/V_\mathrm{a}5`$ we obtain $`B_{\mathrm{ub}}^2/8\pi =(1/25)1/2\rho V_\mathrm{s}^2`$. Applying this to the shock of a type Ia SN, we take for the interstellar field $`B^{\mathrm{ISM}}=5\mu `$ G, $`V_\mathrm{s}=5\times 10^3`$ km/s during the sweep-up phase, and $`B^{\mathrm{ISM}}/(4\pi \rho )^{1/2}14`$ km/s, using our value of the ISM density ambient to Tycho’s SNR. Thus $`B_{\mathrm{ub}}/B^{\mathrm{ISM}}71`$ as upper bound for $`B`$.

Our estimate for the strength of $`B`$ in this paper consists in comparing the observed synchrotron spectrum with a theoretical spectrum for the shock accelerated electrons. We conclude that the $`B`$-value inferred is still well within this upper bound, especially considering that it is actually the mean square field value that counts.

An interesting corollary concerns the upper bound $`p_{\mathrm{ub}}`$ for the proton cutoff momentum which is achieved at the end of the sweep-up phase. Given that typical estimates yield $`p_{\mathrm{ub}}10^{14}`$ eV in SNRs for $`B=B^{\mathrm{ISM}}`$, we obtain for Tycho’s SNR $`p_{\mathrm{ub}}7.1\times 10^{15}`$ eV which corresponds to the so-called knee in the Galactic CR spectrum.

Even if we were to assume a much higher value $`B^{\mathrm{ISM}}/(4\pi \rho )^{1/2}=50`$ km/s for the ISM Alfvén velocity, these conclusions would not change qualitatively. This shows that at least in type Ia SNe the knee energy is the upper bound for diffusive shock acceleration.

## 4 Summary

The kinetic nonlinear model for CR acceleration in SNRs has been applied in detail to Tycho’s SNR, in order to compare theoretical results with the recently found very low observational upper limit for the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray flux. We have used stellar ejecta parameters $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}=1.4M_{}`$, $`k=7`$, distance $`d=2.3`$ kpc, and ISM number density $`N_\mathrm{H}=0.5`$ cm-3. A total hydrodynamic explosion energy $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}=0.27\times 10^{51}`$ erg was derived to fit the observed size $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ and expansion speed $`V_s`$ which are determined by the ratio $`E_{\mathrm{sn}}^2/N_\mathrm{H}`$. Even though the distance to the object is not very well known, the set of parameters has been shown to be internally consistent, and the predictions for the radio the and $`\gamma `$-ray fluxes are quite robust with respect to different parameter values in the literature.

A rather high downstream magnetic field strength $`B_\mathrm{d}240`$ $`\mu `$G and a proton injection rate $`\eta =3\times 10^4`$ are needed to reproduce the observed steep and concave radio spectrum and to ensure a smooth cutoff of the synchrotron emission in the X-ray region. We cannot exclude that the required magnetic field strength, that is significantly higher than the rms ISM value $`5\mu `$G, might have to be attributed in part to its nonlinear amplification near the SN shock by CR acceleration itself. The evidence for efficient nucleonic CR production that comes from the radio and X-ray data and leads to a strong shock modification, is even more definite for Tycho’s SNR than in the case of SN 1006 (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)).

We find that, after adjustment of the predictions of the nonlinear spherically-symmetric model by a physically necessary renormalization of the number of accelerated CR nuclei to take account of the quasi-perpendicular shock directions in a SNR, quite a reasonable consistency with most of the observational data can be achieved. The resulting nonthermal electron to proton ratio turns out to be consistent with the observed ratio in interstellar space. The total $`\gamma `$-ray flux at 1 TeV (with the $`\pi ^0`$-decay component exceeding the IC component) comes out to be slightly larger than the most restrictive observational upper limit from the HEGRA experiment. Given the remaining uncertainties in the basic astronomical parameters of Tycho, in particular those coming from analysis of the thermal X-ray data, we do not consider this as a problem for the theory. It rather leads us to the prediction that detectors with several times higher sensitivity, like MAGIC or VERITAS in the Northern Hemisphere, should indeed detect this source above 100 GeV in $`\gamma `$-rays.

The expected $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$-ray flux $`F_\gamma ^\pi ϵ_\gamma ^1`$ extends up to $`>30`$ TeV, whereas the IC $`\gamma `$-ray flux has a cutoff above a few TeV. Therefore the detection of $`\gamma `$-ray emission at $`10`$ TeV would in addition imply clear evidence for a hadronic origin.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 00-02-17728, 99-02-16325). EGB and LTK acknowledge the hospitality of the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, where part of this work was carried out. GPR acknowledges the receipt of a von Humboldt fellowship.


format: text

text:
# References

A remark about unitary representations of Lorentz group and an equation for zero mass particles.

N.B. Skachkov

Joint Institute for Nuclear Reseach,Laboratory of Nuclear Problems,
JINR, Dubna, 141980, RUSSIA
$``$ E-mail: skachkov@cv.jinr.ru

Abstract

In the present note the expansion of the wave function of a massles particle (with the definite value of its helicity) over the untary irreducible representaions of the Lorentz group (defined on the light cone) is used as for the analog of the Fourier transformation for deriving of an equation in the relativistic configuration representation.

Key-words: relativistic equations, Lorentz group, spin, massles particles.

The functions that realize unitary irreducible ( infinite dimentional) representations of the Lorentz group  have found their aplication in paricle physics for formulataion of relativistic equations in the so called ”relativistic configurational” representation introduced in . The functions used in  compose a complete and orthonormal set on a three dimentional mass shell hyperboloid surface ($`p^2=p_0^2𝐩^2=m^2`$) in Minkovsky 4-momenta space. They were found out in  and have a form:

$`\xi (𝐩,𝐫)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_0\mathrm{𝐩𝐧}}{m}}\right)^{1irm}`$ (1)
Here the $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector and m is the mass of a particle (in what follows we shall put m=c=h=1). The parameter r enters the expressions for the eigenvalues of two Casimir oprerator of Lorentz group that are (in a general case of nonzero spin partcles, i.e. for nonzero values of $`\nu `$) given by formulae:

$`\widehat{F}=1/2M_{\mu \nu }M^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{}{M}^2\stackrel{}{N}^2===>(r^2+\nu ^2)`$ (2)
$`\widehat{G}=1/4ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }M^{\mu \nu }M^{\alpha \beta }=\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{N}===>(r\nu )`$ (3)
In  it was shown that spin zero functions $`\xi (𝐩,𝐫)`$ (they correspond to a case of $`\nu =0`$) do satisfy an equation

$`\widehat{H}_0\xi (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r})=2E_p\xi (\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{r})`$ (4)
where the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ has a form of finite difference operator

$`\widehat{H}_0=2cosh(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{r}}sinh(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{L}^2}{(r)^2}}e^{i\frac{}{r}}.`$ (5)
The functions that realize the unitary irredusible representations of the Lorentz group in a caze of non zero spin were found for a case of mass shell hyprboloid in papers . The formulae relavant to the case of helicity basis were derived in . The first attempt to write an equation analogouse to (4) and (5) for the spin states  on a mass shell hyperboloid $`p^2=m^2`$ was not successfull as it was based on the functions found in , where some phase factors were ommitted. The form of a free Hamiltonian in a case of a wave function for spin $`1/2`$ state was derived latter in  and then extended to a case of spin 1 states . The inclusion of interaction in this equation was done in  .
Here a case of mass zero states (i.e. with the 4-momentum $`p`$ belonging to the lihgt cone $`p^2=p_0^2𝐩^2=0`$) would be disscussed. The expansion of the wave function over the comlete set of the functions that realize the unitary irreducible representations on the cone manifold has the following form :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐩,\sigma )={\displaystyle \stackrel{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑r{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(n)p^{1+ir}\delta _{\sigma \nu }\delta (𝐧𝐧_𝐩)\varphi _{𝐫,\nu ,𝐧}},`$ (6)
$`\varphi _{\rho ,\nu ,𝐧}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{|p|}p^{1ir}\delta _{\nu \sigma }\delta (𝐧𝐧_𝐩)𝚿(𝐩,\nu )}.`$ (7)
The function

$`\zeta _\nu ^\sigma (𝐩,𝐫)=p^{1+ir}\delta _{\nu \sigma }\delta (𝐧𝐧_𝐩)`$ (8)
can be treated as the analog of the “massive” plane waves (1). Due to the presence of the $`\delta `$ -functions $`\delta (𝐧𝐧_𝐩)`$ under the integrals the transformation from the momentum to $`r`$-space has in fact a one-dimentional form. The “radilal” part of this plane wave

$`R(p,r)=p^{1+ir}`$ (9)
obeys the following equation

$`\widehat{H}_0R(p,r)=pR(p,r)`$ (10)
where the Hamiltonian has a form:

$`\widehat{H}_0=e^{i\frac{}{r}}.`$ (11)
The connection of the transformation (6), (7) with that one based on the function (1) and (which was used in ) can be easialy seen, for example, from the formulae of the expansion for $`(r,\nu )`$ representation given in

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐩,\nu )={\displaystyle \stackrel{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑r{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐧)𝐩^{\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝐢𝐫}}\overline{𝐀}_{𝐫\nu }[\mathrm{𝟏}(\mathrm{𝐧𝐧}_𝐩)]^{\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝐢𝐫}}\overline{𝐐}_\nu (𝐧,𝐧_𝐩)\varphi _{𝐫,\nu ,𝐧}}.`$ (12)
$`\varphi _{r,\nu ,𝐧}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{|p|}p^{1ir}A_{r\nu }[1(\mathrm{𝐧𝐧}_𝐩)]^{1ir}Q_\nu (𝐧,𝐧_𝐩)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐩,\nu )}.`$ (13)
Here the coefficients $`A_{r\nu }`$ and $`Q_\nu (𝐧,𝐧_𝐩)`$ are given as

$`|A_{r\nu }|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}(r^2+\nu ^2)`$ (15)
$`Q_\nu (𝐧,𝐧_𝐩)=e^{i\nu 0(n,n_p)}(1)^{s+\nu }`$ (16)
and the following relation from

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle [1(\mathrm{𝐥𝐧})]^{1+ir}[1(\mathrm{𝐥𝐤})]^{1ir}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐥)}=\delta (𝐧𝐤).`$ (17)
are usefull.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Though the situation seems not to be matured yet, string cosmology must be an intriguing subject to be tackled at every step of progress in both string theory and observational cosmology . Recently, inspired by string theory D-branes and heterotic M theory, brane cosmology attracted much attention. Brane cosmology assumes that our universe starts out with branes embedded in the higher dimensional spacetime, either stable or unstable. Instability of D3-brane systems is represented by rolling of tachyon  whose action is of Born-Infeld type  and has exponentially decaying potential . Since cosmological evolution of accelerating universe was obtained at the early epoch of the rolling tachyon , the cosmology involving the rolling tachyon attracts attention in relation with various topics, e.g., inflation, dark matter, and reheating , despite stringent difficulty in the simplest versions of this theory . A nice aspect is the absence of open string excitations, which results in the absence of the plane-wave solutions in effective field theory  so that classical analysis of late-time based on homogeneity and isotropy may lead to a solid prediction.

When we deal with string cosmology, two indispensable fields are gravitons and dilaton among various degrees of freedom. For unstable branes, tachyonic degree of freedom should also be involved. Thus, from the theory side of string cosmology with unstable branes, the system of tachyon, dilaton, and gravitons provides a minimal setting. In this paper, we consider the cosmology of unstable brane dominated by tachyon and dilaton, based on the effective 4D action. We assume that our brane is either a 3-brane whose transverse dimensions are compactified or a space filling brane with compactified extra dimensions. To be a realistic scenario leading to the final radiation, matter, and dark energy dominated universes, other processes should also be clarified, including the birth of (stable or unstable) branes, the compactification of extra dimensions and the dilaton stabilization. Though we need to understand physics behind them and their characteristic time scales to complete the brane world scenario, most of them rely on physics unknown at the moment. Hence our purpose in this paper is restricted to the study of intermediate stage dynamics when both the dilaton and the tachyon play dominant roles in the evolution of the universe. We do not introduce the stabilization potential for the dilaton, and find the evolution of the scale factor and tachyon energy density while both the dilaton and the tachyon are rolling. Specifically, in the string frame, we obtain flat space solutions at both the early epochs and late-times in closed form. When transformed to the Einstein frame, analysis shows that every expanding universe of the graviton-tachyon-dilaton system should be decelerating irrespective of the specific shape of the tachyon potential.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we consider the effective action of a D3-brane system involving graviton, dilaton, and tachyon in the string frame. For the late stage of tachyon-rolling, all possible cosmological solutions are obtained in closed form. In section 3, we reanalyze the system in the Einstein frame and show that every expanding universe is decelerating. Section 4 is devoted to concluding remarks.

## 2 Cosmological solutions in the string frame

Let us begin with a cosmological model induced from string theory, which is confined on a D3-brane of tension $`T_3`$ and includes graviton $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and tachyon $`T`$. In the string frame, the effective action of the bosonic sector of the D3-brane system is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(R+4_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)}`$ (2.1)
$`T_3{\displaystyle d^4xe^\mathrm{\Phi }V(T)\sqrt{det(g_{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T)}},`$
where we turned off an Abelian gauge field on the D3-brane and antisymmetric tensor fields of second rank both on the brane and in the bulk, and set the vanishing cosmological constant. Though there seems no consensus and no exact computation of tachyon potential $`V(T)`$ for all $`T`$’s, which measures change of the tension, except for its maximum (max($`V(T))=1`$) and minimum (min($`V(T))=0`$), its specific form can be chosen, for example, as an exponentially-decreasing potential

$$V(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{T^2}{8\mathrm{ln}2}\right)\hfill & \text{for small }T\text{ but }T0\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{T}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\hfill & \text{for large }T\hfill \end{array},$$
(2.2)
which connects two asymptotic expressions smoothly and is consistent with the results of superstring theory .

For cosmological solutions in the string frame, we try a spatially-homogeneous but time-dependent solution

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(t),T=T(t),$$
(2.3)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2`$ corresponds, at least locally, to the metric of $`S^3`$, $`E^3`$, or $`H^3`$ according to the value of $`k=1,0,1`$, respectively. From the action (2.1), we obtain the following equations

$$3\left(\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)2\left(3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\right)=\kappa ^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _T,$$
(2.4)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}2\left(\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\right)=\kappa ^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }p_T,$$
(2.5)
$$4\left(\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\right)6\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)=\kappa ^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }p_T,$$
(2.6)
$$\frac{\ddot{T}}{1\dot{T}^2}+\left(3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\dot{T}+\frac{1}{V}\frac{dV}{dT}=0,$$
(2.7)
where tachyon energy density $`\rho _T`$ and pressure $`p_T`$ defined by $`T_\nu ^{T\mu }\mathrm{diag}(\rho _T,p_T,p_T,p_T)`$ are

$$\rho _T=T_3\frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1\dot{T}^2}}\mathrm{and}p_T=T_3V(T)\sqrt{1\dot{T}^2}.$$
(2.8)
The tachyon equation (2.7) is equivalent to the following conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }_T+(3H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})\dot{T}^2\rho _T=0.$$
(2.9)
where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter. In the absence of detailed knowledge of $`V(T)`$, we will examine characters of the solutions based on the simplicity of tachyon equation of state

$$p_T=w_T\rho _T,w_T=\dot{T}^21.$$
(2.10)
By defining the shifted dilaton $`\varphi =2\mathrm{\Phi }3\mathrm{ln}a`$, we rewrite the equations (2.4)–(2.7) as

$`\dot{\varphi }^23H^2+6{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa ^2e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}a^{\frac{3}{2}}\rho _T,`$ (2.11)
$`2(\dot{H}H\dot{\varphi })+4{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}a^{\frac{3}{2}}p_T,`$ (2.12)
$`\dot{\varphi }^22\ddot{\varphi }+3H^2+6{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}a^{\frac{3}{2}}p_T,`$ (2.13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{T}}{1\dot{T}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3H\dot{\varphi })\dot{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dT}}.`$ (2.14)
Note that $`\sqrt{g}`$, or $`a^3`$ is not a scalar quantity even in flat spatial geometry, the shifted dilaton $`\varphi `$ is not a scalar field in 3+1 dimensions. The conservation equation (2.9) becomes

$$\dot{\rho }_T+\frac{1}{2}(3H\dot{\varphi })\dot{T}^2\rho _T=0.$$
(2.15)
Now Eqs. (2.11)–(2.13) and Eq. (2.10) are summarized by the following two equations

$`2\ddot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2+2H\dot{\varphi }3H^22\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`10{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}},`$ (2.16)
$`w_T\dot{\varphi }^2+4H\dot{\varphi }3w_TH^24\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`(8+6w_T){\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}.`$ (2.17)
Let us consider only the flat metric $`(k=0)`$ in the rest part of the paper. If we express the dilaton $`\varphi `$ as a function of the scale factor $`a(t)`$, $`\varphi (t)=\varphi (a(t))`$, we can introduce a new variable $`\psi `$ such as

$$\psi a\varphi ^{}=\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H},$$
(2.18)
where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to $`a`$, and the second equality shows that $`\psi `$ is the ratio between $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and $`H`$. Then Eqs. (2.16) and (2.17) are combined into a single first-order differential equation for $`\psi `$ :

$$4a\psi ^{}+(\psi ^23)(w_T\psi +2w_T)=0.$$
(2.19)
From now on we look for the solutions of Eq. (2.19). Above all one may easily find a constant solution $`\psi =\sqrt{3}`$ which is consistent with Eqs. (2.11)–(2.13) only when $`\rho _T=0`$ :

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0(1\sqrt{3}H_0t)^{1/\sqrt{3}},H(t)={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{1\sqrt{3}H_0t}},`$ (2.20)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \sqrt{3}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(1\sqrt{3}H_0t),`$ (2.21)
where $`H_0=H(t=0)`$, $`a_0=a(t=0)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }(t=0)`$ throughout this section. However, exactly-vanishing tachyon density $`\rho _T=0`$ from Eq. (2.11) restricts strictly the validity range of this particular solution to that of vanishing tachyon potential, $`V(T)=0`$, which leads to $`T=\mathrm{}`$. The tachyon equation (2.14) forces $`\ddot{T}=0`$ and $`\dot{T}=1`$ so that the tachyon decouples $`(w_T=p_T=0)`$. Therefore, the obtained solution (2.20)–(2.21) corresponds to that of string cosmology of the graviton and the dilaton before stabilization but without the tachyon.

Since it is difficult to solve Eq. (2.19) with dynamical $`w_T`$, let us assume that $`w_T`$ is time-independent (or equivalently $`a(t)`$-independent). We can think of the cases where the constant $`w_T`$ can be a good approximation. From the tachyon potential (2.2), the first case is onset of tachyon rolling around the maximum point and the second case is late-time rolling at large $`T`$ region. In fact we can demonstrate that those two cases are the only possibility as far as no singularity evolves.

When $`w_T`$ is a nonzero constant, Eq. (2.19) allows a particular solution

$$\psi =\frac{w_T2}{w_T}\beta .$$
(2.22)
This provides a consistent solution of Eqs. (2.11)–(2.13)

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{w_T^2+2}{2w_T}}H_0t\right)^{\frac{2w_T}{w_T^2+2}},H(t)=H_0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{w_T^2+2}{2w_T}}H_0t\right)^1,`$ (2.23)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{2(2w_T1)}{w_T^2+2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{w_T^2+2}{2w_T}}H_0t\right).`$ (2.24)
From Eq. (2.11) and Eq. (2.15), the tachyon energy density $`\rho _T`$ is given by

$`\rho _T(t)={\displaystyle \frac{22w_Tw_T^2}{w_T^2\kappa ^2e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}}H_0^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{w_T^2+2}{2w_T}}H_0t\right)^{\frac{2(1+w_T)^2}{w_T^2+2}}.`$ (2.25)
Since the obtained solution is a constant solution of $`\psi `$, it has only three initially-undetermined constants. Specifically, the solution should satisfy $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=[(2w_T1)/w_T]H`$ so that the initial conditions also satisfy a relation $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=[(2w_T1)/w_T]H_0`$. Once we assume general solutions of $`a(t)`$-dependent $`\psi `$ with keeping constant nonzero $`w_T`$, they should be classified by four independent parameters $`(a_0,H_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0)`$ instead of three in Eq. (2.24).

According to the aforementioned condition for valid $`w_T`$ values, the obtained solution in Eq. (2.24) may be physically relevant as the onset solution of $`w_T=1`$ $`(\psi =3)`$. In this case, $`\rho _T(t)`$ is reduced to a constant $`\rho _T(t)=3e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}H_0^2/\kappa ^2`$. Comparing this with the definition of $`\rho _T`$ in Eq. (2.8), the initial Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ is related to the dilaton as $`H_0=\pm \kappa e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2}\sqrt{T_3/3}`$. Then, with $`T(t)=0`$, the tachyon equation of motion is automatically satisfied and hence Eq. (2.24) becomes an exact solution of the whole set of equations of motion (2.4)–(2.7). Since the tachyon field remains as constant at the maximum of the potential, this solution describes the expanding or shrinking solution depending on the initial Hubble parameter, with a constant vacuum energy corresponding to brane tension due to tachyon sitting at the unstable equilibrium point.444The interpretation as expanding or shrinking solution needs to be more careful, since we are working in the string frame. Actually the behaviors are reversed in the Einstein frame as we will see in section 3.

In order to study the behavior of the tachyon rolling down from the top of the potential, now we slightly perturb this solution, i.e., look for a solution with nonzero but small $`T`$ dependence. So we treat $`T`$ as a small expansion parameter and work up to the first-order in $`T`$. Since the unperturbed solution satisfies $`3H=\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, the tachyon equation of motion (2.7) becomes, to the first-order in $`T`$,

$$\ddot{T}=\frac{1}{V}\frac{dV}{dT}.$$
(2.26)
This can easily be integrated to

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{T}^2=\mathrm{ln}V+\text{const}=\frac{T^2}{8\mathrm{ln}2}+\text{const},$$
(2.27)
where we used the form of the potential near the origin (2.2). Given the initial condition that $`T=T_0`$ and $`\dot{T}=0`$ at $`t=0`$, we can solve this equation (2.27) and obtain

$$T(t)=T_0\mathrm{cosh}\alpha t,$$
(2.28)
where $`\alpha =1/2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}2}`$. Therefore tachyon starts to roll down the potential as a hyperbolic cosine function. Taking derivative, we find $`\dot{T}=\alpha T_0\mathrm{sinh}\alpha t`$. The range for which $`\dot{T}`$ remains small is then $`tt_r2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}2}\mathrm{sinh}^1(2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}2}/T_0)`$, during which the approximation $`w_T1`$ is good. Unless the initial value $`T_0`$ is fine-tuned, the tachyon follows the onset solution (2.24)–(2.25) for $`tt_r`$ and enters into rolling mode.

For more general solutions, the first-order differential equation (2.19) can be integrated to

$$a=C\left[\frac{\psi ^23}{(\psi \beta )^2}\left(\frac{\psi \sqrt{3}}{\psi +\sqrt{3}}\right)^{\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{3}}}\right]^{\frac{\beta 1}{\beta ^23}},$$
(2.29)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. Note that this algebraic equation does not provide a closed form of $`\psi `$ in terms of the scale factor $`a(t)`$ except for a few cases, e.g., $`w_T=0,1/(\sqrt{3}1/2),2/(3\sqrt{3}1)`$.

Fortunately, for the late-time case of vanishing $`w_T`$, we can obtain the solution in closed form

$`\psi =\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{C_+\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^{\sqrt{3}/2}+C_{}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^{\sqrt{3}/2}}{C_+\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^{\sqrt{3}/2}C_{}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^{\sqrt{3}/2}}}.`$ (2.30)
Then the scale factor $`a`$ and the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are explicitly expressed as functions of time $`t`$ by solving the equations (2.12)–(2.13):

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_{}t+2}{C_+t+2}}\right)^{1/\sqrt{3}},H(t)={\displaystyle \frac{4H_0}{(C_{}t+2)(C_+t+2)}},`$ (2.31)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{ln}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{(C_{}t+2)^{(\sqrt{3}1)/2}}{(C_+t+2)^{(\sqrt{3}+1)/2}}}\right],`$ (2.32)
where $`C_\pm =(3\sqrt{3})H_02\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0`$. We also read the tachyon density $`\rho _T`$ from Eq. (2.11)

$$\rho _T=C_+C_{}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\frac{(C_+t+2)^{(\sqrt{3}1)/2}}{(C_{}t+2)^{(\sqrt{3}+1)/2}}.$$
(2.33)
Note that $`C_\pm `$ should have the same sign from the positivity of the tachyon density (2.33). Let us first consider that both $`C_+`$ and $`C_{}`$ are positive. When $`C_{}>C_+`$ or equivalently $`H_0>0`$, the scale factor $`a`$ is growing but saturates to a finite value such as $`a(\mathrm{})=a_0(C_{}/C_+)^{1/\sqrt{3}}`$ in the string frame. When $`C_{}<C_+`$, it decreases. When $`C_{}=C_+`$, $`H_0=0`$ so that the scale factor is a constant, $`a(t)=a_0`$. For all of the cases, the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ approaches negative infinity. Note that $`w_T=0`$ means late-time, the tachyon density decreases like $`\rho _T1/t`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Consistency check by using Eq. (2.15) or equivalently by Eq. (2.14) provides us the expected result, $`\dot{T}1`$. If both $`C_+`$ and $`C_{}`$ are negative, there appears a singularity at finite time irrespective of relative magnitude of $`C_+`$ and $`C_{}`$.

## 3 Analysis in the Einstein frame

In the previous section, it was possible to obtain the cosmological solutions analytically in a few simple but physically meaningful limiting cases. To study the physical implications of what we found, however, we need to work in the Einstein frame. In this section, we will convert the cosmological solutions obtained in the string frame to those in the Einstein frame and discuss the physical behaviors. In the Einstein frame, the metric has the form 555In this section all the quantities are in the Einstein frame except the variables with subscript $`s`$ which denote the quantities in the string frame.

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}(dt^2+a^2(t)d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2),$$
(3.34)
and hence the time $`t`$ and the scale factor $`a`$ are related to those in the string frame as

$$a_s=ae^\mathrm{\Phi },dt_s=e^\mathrm{\Phi }dt.$$
(3.35)
Then the equations of motion for the flat case $`(k=0)`$ in the string frame (2.4)–(2.7) are converted to

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\kappa ^2e^{3\mathrm{\Phi }}\rho _T,`$ (3.36)
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa ^2e^\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _T\dot{T}^2,`$ (3.37)
$`\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+3H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa ^2e^{3\mathrm{\Phi }}(\rho _T2p_T),`$ (3.38)
$$\frac{\ddot{T}}{1e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{T}^2}+3H\dot{T}+\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{T}\frac{12e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{T}^2}{1e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{T}^2}+e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{1}{V}\frac{dV}{dT}=0.$$
(3.39)
Tachyon energy density $`\rho _T`$ and pressure $`p_T`$ in the Einstein frame are obtained by the replacement $`\dot{T}_s=e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}`$ in Eq. (2.8) according to Eq. (3.35), and thereby $`w_T`$ is given as $`w_Tp_T/\rho _T=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{T}^21`$. Demanding constant $`w_T`$ is nothing but asking a strong proportionality condition between the dilaton and tachyon, $`\dot{T}e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Note that the pressure $`p_T`$ as shown in Eq. (2.8) is always negative irrespective of both specific form of the tachyon potential $`(V(T)0)`$ and the value of the kinetic term $`(e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\dot{T}^21)`$, and the value of $`w_T`$ interpolates smoothly between $`1`$ and 0.

First we observe that the right-hand side of Eq. (3.36) is always positive, which means that the Hubble parameter $`H(t)`$ is either positive definite or negative definite for all $`t`$ and it cannot change the sign in the Einstein frame. Obviously it is a natural consequence of the weak energy condition. Let us first consider the case of positive Hubble parameter, $`H(t)>0`$. Eq. (3.37) shows $`\dot{H}`$ consists of two terms both of which are negative definite for all $`t`$. Since $`H>0`$ by assumption, the only consistent behavior of $`H`$ in this case is that $`\dot{H}`$ vanishes as $`t\mathrm{}`$, which, in turn implies that $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _T\dot{T}^2`$ go to zero, separately. It also means that $`H`$ should be a regular function for all $`t`$. In order to find the large $`t`$ behavior of $`H(t)`$, one has to study $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}`$ in large $`t`$ limit which appears in the definition of $`w_T`$ in the Einstein frame. Knowing that the functions are regular, it is not difficult to show that the only possible behavior is $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ after some straightforward analysis of Eqs. (3.36)–(3.38). Combining it with the fact that $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _T\dot{T}^2`$ vanish, we can immediately conclude from Eq. (3.36) that $`H(t)`$ should go to zero in large $`t`$ limit.

The asymptotic behavior of fields in case of the positive Hubble parameter can be found from the solution (2.32) since $`w_T`$ is essentially zero for large $`t`$ as we just have seen above. The only thing to do is to transform the expressions in the string frame to those in the Einstein frame, using the relation (3.35). Therefore, for large $`t`$, we find

$`a(t_s)`$ $`=`$ $`a_s(t_s)e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(t_s)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{s0}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}(C_+t_s+2)^{\frac{\sqrt{3}+1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(C_{}t_s+2)^{\frac{\sqrt{3}1}{2\sqrt{3}}},`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t_se^\mathrm{\Phi }}2e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\displaystyle 𝑑t_s\frac{(C_+t_s+2)^{(\sqrt{3}+1)/2}}{(C_{}t_s+2)^{(\sqrt{3}1)/2}}}.`$ (3.40)
One can also identify the initial Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ in terms of $`C_\pm `$ as

$$H_0=\frac{1}{4}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\left[\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)C_{}+\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)C_+\right].$$
(3.41)
Note that $`C_\pm `$ have the same sign as the Hubble parameter $`H`$. Now, with $`C_\pm >0`$, one can easily confirm from the above equation (3) that all the functions indeed behave regularly. In $`t_s\mathrm{}`$ limit, $`at_s`$ and $`tt_s^2`$ so that the asymptotic behavior of the scale factor becomes $`at^{1/2}`$. This power law expansion in flat space is contrasted with the result of Einstein gravity without the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where ultimately the scale factor ceases to increase, $`lim_t\mathrm{}a(t)`$ constant. The behavior of tachyon density $`\rho _T`$ can be read from Eq. (2.33) with $`t`$ replaced by $`t_s`$, which shows that $`\rho _Tt^{1/2}`$. Since $`w_T`$ also goes to zero, the fluid of condensed tachyon becomes pressureless. Differently from ordinary scalar matter where matter domination of pressureless gas is achieved for the minimum kinetic energy $`(\dot{T}0)`$, it is attained for the maximum value of time dependence $`(e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}1`$ as $`T\mathrm{})`$ for the tachyon potential given in Eq. (2.2).

When the Hubble parameter $`H`$ is negative, the situation is a bit more complicated. Since $`\dot{H}<0`$ always, $`H`$ becomes more and more negative and there is a possibility that eventually $`H`$ diverges to negative infinity at some finite time. Indeed, it turns out that all solutions in this case develop a singularity at some finite time at which $`H\mathrm{}`$ and $`a0`$. These big crunch solutions may not describe viable universes in the sense of observed cosmological data. Depending on initial conditions, the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ diverges to either $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\dot{T}`$ goes to either $`\mathrm{}`$ or zero with the factor $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}`$ remaining finite. It is rather tedious and not much illuminating to show this explicitly, so here we will just content ourselves to present a simple argument to understand the behavior. Since the tachyon field $`T`$ rolls down from the maximum of the potential to the minimum at infinite $`T`$, it is physically clear that $`\dot{T}_s=e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}`$ would eventually go to one unless there is a singularity at some finite time. Suppose that there appeared no singularity until some long time had passed so that $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}`$ approached to one sufficiently closely. Then Eq. (3) should be a good approximate solution in this case. However, we know that both $`C_\pm `$ are negative when $`H<0`$ and Eq. (3) is clearly singular in this case. We have also verified the singular behavior for various initial conditions using numerical analysis.

As mentioned in the previous section, the tachyon $`T`$ is decoupled when $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{T}=1`$ and $`T=\mathrm{}`$. In this decoupling limit, characters of the Einstein equations (3.36)–(3.37) that $`H^2>0`$ and $`\dot{H}<0`$ do not change so that all the previous arguments can be applied. Well-known cosmological solution of the dilaton gravity before stabilization of the dilaton is

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0(1+3H_0t)^{1/3},H(t)={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{1+3H_0t}},`$ (3.42)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{ln}(1+3H_0t),`$ (3.43)
where the $`(\pm )`$ sign in Eq. (3.43) is due to the reflection symmetry $`(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in the equations (3.36)–(3.38). This solution can also be obtained throughout a transformation (3.35) from Eqs. (2.20)–(2.21). For $`H_0<0`$, it is a big crunch solution $`(a0)`$ which encounters singularity $`(H\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{})`$ as $`t1/3|H_0|`$. For $`H_0>0`$, it is an expanding but decelerating solution. Since $`at^{1/3}`$, the power of expansion rate is increased from $`1/3`$ to $`1/2`$ by the tachyonic effect as expected.

So far we discussed generic properties and asymptotic behaviors of solutions in the Einstein frame. Now we consider the behavior at the onset. The solution (2.24) obtained by assuming constant $`w_T`$ is transformed to the Einstein frame as

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(w_T2)^2}{2(1w_T)}}H_0t\right]^{\frac{2(1w_T)}{(w_T2)^2}},`$
$`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(w_T2)^2}{2(1w_T)}}H_0t\right]^{\frac{2(2w_T1)}{(w_T2)^2}},`$ (3.44)
where the initial Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ is related to that in the string frame by $`H_0=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}H_{0s}(1w_T)/w_T`$. Note that $`H_0`$ and $`H_{0s}`$ have opposite signs since $`w_T<0`$. Therefore the expanding (shrinking) solution in the string frame corresponds to the shrinking (expanding) solution in the Einstein frame. For the onset solution with $`w_T=1`$, the tachyon energy density $`\rho _T`$ is a constant as before, $`\rho _T(t)=3e^{3\mathrm{\Phi }_0}H_0^2/4\kappa ^2`$. Then the initial Hubble parameter is given by $`H_0=\pm 2\kappa e^{3\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2}\sqrt{T_3/3}`$, which describes the exact solution that tachyon remains at the origin as explained in section 2. Under a small perturbation tachyon starts rolling down according to Eq. (2.28) with $`t`$ replaced by $`t_s`$. The rest of the discussion on the rolling behavior is the same as in the string frame and the details will not be repeated here.

In conclusion the cosmological solution can be classified into two categories depending on the value of the Hubble parameter $`H(t)`$ in the Einstein frame. When the initial Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ is positive, the solution is regular and the universe is expanding but decelerating as $`a(t)\sqrt{t}`$ while $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}`$ vanishes. When $`H_0`$ is negative, there appears a singularity at some finite time $`t`$ at which the universe shrinks to zero.

## 4 Concluding remarks

In this paper we have discussed cosmological solutions of the effective theory of rolling tachyon coupled to gravitons and dilaton. In the study of homogeneous and isotropic universes, we found initial-stage and late-time solutions in closed form in addition to the known solution of the gravitons and dilaton in the decoupling limit of the tachyon. Those obtained solutions included expanding universes, big crunch solutions, and even the static universe in the string frame. The dilatonic part of those also indicated that the dilaton could not be stabilized in the system of our interest without the dilaton potential.

We have also provided a description of cosmological solutions in the Einstein frame. Einstein equations were summarized by the positivity of square of the Hubble parameter and the negativity of derivative of the Hubble parameter irrespective of specific shape of the rolling tachyon potential. This implies that once the universe starts expanding, then it continues expanding eternally but decelerating.

We conclude with the list of intriguing questions for further study. One would like to generalize this to that with the Abelian gauge field on the brane  and ask whether or not radiation dominated era is possible. As was the original string cosmology, stabilization mechanism of dilaton should be understood and its positive effect to our unsatisfactory decelerating universe solutions is carefully investigated . Various topics for the rolling tachyons asked in the Einstein gravity should be addressed again in the context of dilaton gravity such as existence of inflationary era, possibility as a source of quintessence, reheating without oscillating tachyon modes, cosmological perturbation and structure formation, and so on.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Nakwoo Kim and Jung Tay Yee for discussions on D-brane systems. H. B. Kim and Y. Kim would like to acknowledge the hospitality of Korea Institute for Advanced Study where a part of this work has been done. This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant KRF-2002-070-C00025(C.K.) and the Swiss Science Foundation, grant 21-58947.99(H.B.K.), and is the result of research activities (Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) and the Basic Research Program, R01-2000-000-00021-0) supported by Korea Science $`\&`$ Engineering Foundation(Y.K.).