text:
# Solution to Rubel’s question about differentially algebraic dependence on initial values

## 1. introduction

This work answers a question posed by L.A. Rubel in , a paper which presents many research problems on differentially algebraic functions (see also ). We recall that an analytic function $`f(z)`$ (defined on some open subset of either $``$ or $``$) is called Differentially Algebraic (DA) if it satisfies some differential equation of the form

(1)
$$Q(z,f(z),f^{}(z),\mathrm{},f^{(n)}(z))=0,$$

for all $`z`$ in its domain, where Q is a nonzero polynomial of $`n+2`$ variables. A function of several variables is DA if it is DA in each variable separately when fixing the other variables. It is known that a function is DA precisely precisely when it is computable by a general-purpose analog computer .

Problem 31 of  asks:

> *Given a ‘nice’ initial value problem for a system of algebraic equations in the dependent variables $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n`$, must $`y_1(x_0)`$ be differentially algebraic as a function of the initial conditions, for each $`x_0`$?*

Rubel adds: “we won’t say more about what ‘nice’ means except that the problem should have a unique solution for each initial condition in a suitable open set”.

In other words, let

$$(P)y_k^{}=p_k(y_1,\mathrm{},y_m),k=1\mathrm{}m$$

be a system of differential equations, with $`p_k`$ polynomials. Denote by $`y_k(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m;x)`$ the solutions of $`(P)`$ with initial conditions

(2)
$$y_k(0)=r_k,k=1\mathrm{}m.$$

The question is whether it is true that the dependence of $`y_i`$ on $`r_j`$ (fixing $`x`$ and the other initial conditions $`r_k`$, $`kj`$) is DA.

Here we first answer the question in the negative by constructing an initial value problem:

(3) $`y_1^{}=y_2y_1,y_1(0)=r_1`$
(4) $`y_2^{}=y_2(y_2y_1),y_2(0)=r_2`$
and proving that, for most $`x`$, both $`y_1(0,r_2;x)`$ and $`y_2(0,r_2;x)`$ are not DA with respect to $`r_2`$.

Moreover, we prove that this phenomenon is in fact generic in the class of nonlinear polynomial differential systems $`(P)`$ (and thus the answer to Rubel’s question is very negative). To state this precisely, let $`𝐒(m,d)`$ denote the set of all polynomial systems $`(P)`$ of size $`m`$, where the polynomials $`p_i`$ are of degree at most $`d`$. By identifying the coefficients of the various monomials occuring in the $`p_i`$’s with coordinates, $`𝐒(m,d)`$ is a finite dimensional vector-space, so it inherits the standard topology and measure.

In all our statements the term generic will have the following meaning: when $`U^N`$ is an open set and $`VU`$, we will say that $`V`$ is generic in $`U`$ if its complement in $`U`$ is both of measure $`0`$ and of first Baire category.

For each system $`P𝐒(m,d)`$ and initial conditions $`r=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)^m`$, let $`I(P,r)`$ denote the largest interval containing $`0`$ for which the solutions of the initial-value problem (P),(2) are defined. Let

(5)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(P)=\{(x,r)|r^m,xI(P,r)\}$$

($`\mathrm{\Lambda }(P)`$ is the domain of definition of the functions $`y_i(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m;x)`$ \- we note that standard existence theory of ODE’s implies that it is an open set; it is also easy to see that it is connected). For each $`1jm`$ let

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_j(P)=\{(x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m)|r_jsuchthat(x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)\mathrm{\Lambda }(P)\}.$$

###### Theorem 1.

Assume $`m2`$ and $`d2`$. For generic $`P𝐒(m,d)`$, we have:
For any $`1i,jm`$, and for generic choice of ($`x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m)\mathrm{\Lambda }_j(P)`$, the function

(6)
$$f_{ij}(z)=y_i(r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},z,r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m;x)$$

is not DA.

We note that the construction of a specific example (3)-(4) is essential for our proof of the ‘generic’ result of theorem 1.

The significance of the problem posed by Rubel is brought out when we note that the class of DA functions is a very “robust” one:

(i) The class is closed under many of the constructions of analysis: algebraic operations, composition of functions, inversion, differentiation and integration.

(ii) The components of an analytic solution of a system of algebraic differential equations are themselves DA .

(iii) A solution of a differential equation $`R(z,f(z),f^{}(z),\mathrm{},f^{(n)}(z))=0`$, where $`R`$ is a DA function, is itself DA . We note a special case $`n=0`$ of this result, which can be called ‘the DA implicit-function theorem’, which we shall have occasion to use later:

###### Lemma 2.

Assume $`R(w,z)`$ is a DA function, and $`f(z)`$ is a real-analytic function satisfying

$$R(f(z),z)=0$$

for all $`z`$ in some interval. Then $`f`$ is DA on this interval.

For the above reasons, most of the transcendental functions which are encountered in “daily life” are DA (notable exceptions are the Gamma function and Riemann Zeta function, see ). It is then natural to wonder whether functions obtained by the construction of looking at the dependence of the “final value” on the “initial value” (in other terms, the components of the “Poincaré map”) of an algebraic differential equation are also DA. Our results show that this is almost always not so.

The following remarks show that the result of theorem 1 is in some sense close to optimal:

(i) The condition $`d2`$ cannot be removed. Indeed if $`d=0`$ the solutions of the system are linear functions in $`x`$, and if $`d=1`$ the solutions are linear combinations of exponentials in $`x`$, so the dependence on initial conditions is certainly DA.

(ii) The condition $`m2`$ cannot be removed. Indeed if $`m=1`$ then we are dealing with an equation of the form

$$y^{}=p(y),$$

which is solved in terms of elementary functions, which implies that the dependence on the initial condition is DA.

(iii) The restriction to generic systems cannot be removed, since, for example, when, for each $`k`$, $`p_k`$ depends only on $`y_k`$, we are back to a decoupled system of equations of the same form as in (ii) above, so that again we have DA dependence on initial conditions. However, it might still be possible to obtain a stronger statement as to the size of the set of ‘exceptional’ systems. For example, we do not know whether the set of systems $`P𝐒(m,d)`$ for which all the functions $`f_{ij}`$ are DA is nowhere dense in $`𝐒(m,d)`$.

In section 2 we prove a general result which underlies the proof of our ‘genericity’ results. In section 3 we construct some explicit examples of functions which we prove are not DA. In section 4 we show that the functions constructed in section 3 arise in the solution of the system (3)-(4), and this is used to prove that the solutions of this system are not DA in the initial conditions. Finally, in section 5 we use the specific example constructed in section 4, together with the general result of section 2, to prove theorem 1.

## 2. The Alternative Lemma

In this section we present a result which we term the “alternative lemma”, which is used several times in the arguments of the following sections. This result says that if we have a parametrized family of analytic functions (with the dependence on the parameters also analytic), then either: (I) all the functions in the family are DA, or (II) generic functions in the family are not DA. Thus, to show that a generic function in a certain family is not DA, it is sufficient to prove that one of the functions in the family is not DA.

The proof of the lemma is based on two facts:

(i) The fact that an analytic function on a connected open set cannot vanish on a ‘large’ subset without vanishing identically.

(ii) The Gourin-Ritt theorem  which says that any DA function $`f(z)`$ in fact satisfies a differential equation of the form (1) where Q is a polynomial with integer coefficients.

We state the next lemma in both ‘real’ and ‘complex’ forms, since we shall have occasions to use both.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`𝕂=`$ or $``$. And let $`F:\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p\times 𝕂`$ is open and connected, be an analytic function. For each $`u^p`$, define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(u)=\{v𝕂|(u,v)\mathrm{\Omega }\}$$

And let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\{u^p|\mathrm{\Omega }(u)\mathrm{}\}.$$

Then the following alternative holds: either

(I) For every $`u\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`F(u,.)`$ is DA on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)`$. In fact, all the functions $`F(u,.)`$, $`u\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, satisfy the same differential equation.

or:

(II) For generic $`u\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`F(u,.)`$ is not DA on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)`$.

proof: Let Q be the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients. Q is a countable set. For each $`Q𝐐`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)`$ be the set of $`u\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, for which $`f=F(u,.)`$ satisfies (1) on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)`$. We claim that either $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)`$ is of measure 0 or $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)`$ has positive measure in $`^p`$. We choose open balls $`B_1\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`B_2𝕂`$ such that (i) $`B_1\times B_2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and (ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)B_1`$ has positive measure. Then the real-analytic function

$$g(u,v)=Q(v,F(u,v),D_vF(u,v),\mathrm{},D_v^{(n)}F(u,v))$$

vanishes on the set $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)B_1)\times B_2`$, which is of positive measure. By analyticity and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is connected, this implies that $`g`$ vanishes throughout $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which means that alternative (I) holds. So if alternative (I) does not hold, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)`$ must be of measure 0. Since it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q)`$ is a relatively closed set in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, the fact that it has measure $`0`$ implies that it is nowhere dense. Since this is true for any $`Q𝐐`$, the countable union

$$K=_{Q𝐐}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(Q),$$

is a set of measure 0 and first category. By the Gourin-Ritt theorem, for all $`u`$ outside $`K`$, $`F(u,.)`$ is not DA. Thus (II) holds.

## 3. Some functions which are not differentially algebraic

In this section we define some new functions and prove that they are not DA. These results will be used in our construction of an explicit differential equation with non-DA dependence on initial conditions in section 4.

We define the function $`H(c)`$ (of $`c`$) by:

(7)
$$H(c)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{du}{ce^uu}$$

For $`c`$ to belong to the domain of definition $`D_H`$ of $`H`$ we need to ensure that the denominator $`ce^uu`$ does not vanish for any $`u0`$. It is then easy to check that

(8)
$$D_H=[0,\frac{1}{e}].$$

###### Lemma 4.

The function $`H(c)`$ is not DA.

proof: We define $`h(z)=H(\frac{1}{z})`$. We shall show that $`h`$ is not DA, which implies that $`H`$ is not DA. We expand $`h`$ in a power series (which converges for $`|z|<e`$):

$`h(z)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ze^udu}{1zue^u}}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ze^u{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}z^ku^ke^{ku}du`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}z^{k+1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}u^ke^{(k+1)u}𝑑u={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k1)!}{k^k}}z^k.`$
We now use the theorem of Sibuya and Sperber , which gives the following necessary condition on a power series $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_kz^k`$ with rational coefficients in order for it to satisfy an algebraic differential equation:

(9)
$$|a_k|_pe^{Ck}forallk>0,$$

where $`|a|_p`$ ($`p`$ prime) is the $`p`$-adic valuation defined by writing $`a=p^i\frac{m}{n}`$ ($`m,n`$ not divisible by $`p`$) and setting $`|a|_p=p^i`$. Here we use this necessary condition with $`p=2`$. We have $`a_k=\frac{(k1)!}{k^k}`$. We now choose $`k=2^j`$. The heighest power of $`2`$ dividing $`(k1)!`$ is less than

$$\frac{k1}{2}+\frac{k1}{4}+\frac{k1}{8}+\mathrm{}k1=2^j1.$$

On the other hand the denominator of $`a_k`$ is $`2^{j2^j}`$. These two facts imply that

$$|a_{2^j}|_22^{(j1)2^j+1},$$

which together with (9) implies:

$$2^{(j1)2^j+1}|a_{2^j}|_2e^{C2^j},$$

or, taking logs

$$((j1)2^j+1)log(2)C2^j,$$

which is obviously false for $`j`$ sufficiently large. Hence the necessary condition of Sibuya and Sperber is not satisfied for our series, completing the proof.

We note a few properties of the restriction of $`H`$ to the real line (which is defined outside the interval $`[0,\frac{1}{e}]`$), obtained by elementary arguments. See figure 1 for the graph of $`H`$, plotted using MAPLE.

(i) $`H`$ is decreasing on $`(\frac{1}{e},\mathrm{})`$, with $`lim_{c\frac{1}{e}+}H(c)=+\mathrm{}`$, $`lim_c\mathrm{}H(c)=0`$.

(ii) $`H`$ is decreasing on $`(\mathrm{},0)`$, with $`lim_c\mathrm{}H(c)=0`$, $`lim_{c0}H(c)=\mathrm{}`$.

We now define the function $`F(s,c)`$, where $`s`$ is considered a parameter and $`c`$ by:

(10)
$$F(s,c)=_0^s\frac{du}{ce^uu}$$

Since for $`F(s,c)`$ to be defined we need to ensure that the denominator does not vanish for $`u[0,s]`$, it can be checked that the domain of definition of $`F`$ is

$$D_F=\{(s,c)|s,cJ(s)\},$$

where

$`J(s)=[se^s,0]fors<0`$
$`J(s)=[0,se^s]for\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}s<1`$
$`J(s)=[0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}]fors1.`$
Using the fact that $`H`$ is not DA (lemma 4), we now prove that the function $`F(s,.)`$ is not DA for generic $`s`$. The argument is similar to the one in  showing that the function $`z_a^bu^ze^u𝑑u`$ is not DA for generic $`a,b`$ by using the fact that the Gamma function is not DA.

###### Lemma 5.

For generic $`s`$, the function $`F(s,.)`$ is not DA.

proof: We apply lemma 3 with $`p=1`$, $`𝕂=`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=D_F\times `$ (which is indeed open and connected). We have $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=`$. We want to show that alternative (II) of lemma 3 holds. Let us assume by way of contradiction that (I) holds, so that $`F(s,.)`$ is DA for all $`s`$, and in fact there is a common polynomial differential equation satisfied by all $`F(s,.)`$:

(11)
$$Q(c,F(s,c),D_cF(s,c),\mathrm{},D_c^{(n)}F(s,c))=0,forall(s,c)D_F.$$

We now note that

$$\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}F(s,c)=H(c)$$

uniformly on compact subsets of $`D_H`$. This implies that derivatives of $`D_c^{(k)}F(s,c)`$ also converge to corresponding derivatives of $`H`$, and thus from (11) it follows that

$$Q(c,H(c),H^{}(c),\mathrm{},H^{(n)}(c))=0$$

for all $`cD_H`$, hence $`H`$ is DA, in contradiction with lemma 4. This contradiction proves that alternative (II) holds, as we wanted to show.

We remark that we would guess that the ‘exceptional’ set in lemma 5 is $`\{0\}`$, so that in fact $`F(s,.)`$ is not DA for all $`s0`$, but we do not know how to prove this.

We now restrict $`c`$ to be real nonzero number, and we define a new function $`G(t,c)`$ by the relation:

(12)
$$G(F(s,c),c)=sforall(s,c)D_F.$$

In other words we now look at $`c`$ as a parameter and define $`G(.,c)`$ as the inverse function of $`F(.,c)`$. To see that $`G`$ is well-defined and determine its domain of definition, we note the following properties of $`F`$, which are elementary to verify.

###### Lemma 6.

For each $`c\frac{1}{e}`$ let $`s^{}(c)`$ denote the solution (in the case $`0<c<\frac{1}{e}`$, the smaller solution) of the equation $`se^s=c`$. We have:

(i) When $`c<0`$ the function $`F(.,c)`$ is decreasing on $`(s^{}(c),\mathrm{})`$,
$`lim_{ss^{}(c)+}F(s,c)=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim_s\mathrm{}F(s,c)=H(c)<0`$.
Hence $`G(.,c)`$ is defined on $`(H(c),+\mathrm{})`$.

(ii) When $`0<c\frac{1}{e}`$ the function $`F(.,c)`$ is increasing on $`(\mathrm{},s^{}(c))`$,
$`lim_s\mathrm{}F(s,c)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim_{ss^{}(c)}F(s,c)=+\mathrm{}`$.
Hence $`G(.,c)`$ is defined on $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$.

(iii) When $`c>\frac{1}{e}`$ the function $`F(.,c)`$ is increasing on $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$,
$`lim_s\mathrm{}F(s,c)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim_s\mathrm{}F(s,c)=H(c)>0`$.
Hence $`G(.,c)`$ is defined on $`(\mathrm{},H(c))`$.

Putting these facts together, we obtain that the domain of definition $`D_G`$ of $`G`$ is:

$$D_G=D_G^{}D_G^+,$$

where

$$D_G^{}=\{(t,c)|c<0,H(c)<t<\mathrm{}\},$$

$$D_G^+=\{(t,c)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<c\frac{1}{e}\}\{(t,c)|c>\frac{1}{e},\mathrm{}<t<H(c)\}.$$

(in figure 1, $`D_G^{}`$ is the domain bounded by the left part of the graph of $`H`$ and the $`t`$-axis, and $`D_G^+`$ is the domain bounded by the right part of the graph and the $`t`$-axis).

We also note a fact that seems hard to prove directly, but which follows indirectly from the results of the next section, as will be pointed out.

###### Lemma 7.

The function $`G`$ can be continued as a real-analytic function to the open connected domain

(13)
$$D=D_G^{}D_G^+\{(t,0)|t\}$$

by setting

(14)
$$G(t,0)=0forallt$$

(in figure 1, $`D`$ is the domain bounded between the two parts of the curve representing the graph of $`H`$).

###### Lemma 8.

For generic $`t`$, the function $`G(t,.)`$ is not DA.

proof: Assume by way of contradiction that the conclusion of the lemma is not true, so that $`G(t,.)`$ is DA for a set of values of $`t`$ which is either of positive measure or not of first category. Then, applying lemma 3, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=D`$ (recall (13)), we conclude that $`G(t,.)`$ is DA for all $`t`$. We note also that $`G(.,c)`$ is DA for all value of $`c`$, since for $`c0`$ it is the inverse of $`F(.,c)`$ which is DA, and the inverse of a DA function is DA, while for $`c=0`$ it is identically $`0`$ by (14). Thus $`G`$ is DA with respect to both variables on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Now fixing any $`\overline{s}`$, and using the defining relation (12) we have

$$G(F(\overline{s},c),c)\overline{s}=0$$

for all $`c`$. We now use lemma 2, with $`R(w,z)=G(w,z)\overline{s}`$, to conclude that $`F(\overline{s},.)`$ is DA. Since $`\overline{s}`$ was aribtrary, we have that $`F(s,.)`$ is DA for all $`s`$, but this contradicts the result of lemma 5. This contradiction concludes the proof.

## 4. Construction of a differential equation with non-DA dependence on initial conditions

###### Theorem 9.

Consider the initial value problem:

(15) $`y_1^{}=y_2y_1,y_1(0)=r_1`$
(16) $`y_2^{}=y_2(y_2y_1),y_2(0)=r_2`$
Let the solutions be denoted by $`y_1(r_1,r_2;x)`$, $`y_2(r_1,r_2;x)`$, defined on the maximal interval $`I(r_1,r_2)`$. Then for generic $`x`$, the functions $`y_1(0,r_2;x)`$, $`y_2(0,r_2;x)`$ are not DA with respect to $`r_2`$.

To prove theorem 9, we assume for the moment that $`r_20`$, which implies that $`y_2(x)0`$ for all $`x`$ (since by (16) and by the standard uniqueness theorem for ODE’s, if $`y_2`$ vanishes at one point, it vanishes identically), and note that from (15) and (16) we have

$$\frac{y_2^{}}{y_2}=y_1^{}$$

which implies

$$y_2(x)=y_2(0)e^{(y_1(x)y_1(0))},$$

and in the case $`y_1(0)=r_1=0,y_2(0)=r_2`$:

(17)
$$y_2(x)=r_2e^{y_1(x)}.$$

Substituting (17) back into (15), we have

$$y_1^{}(x)=r_2e^{y_1(x)}y_1(x),$$

or,

$$\frac{y_1^{}(x)}{r_2e^{y_1(x)}y_1(x)}=1.$$

Thus, integrating, and recalling the function $`F(s,c)`$ defined by (10), we have:

$$F(y_1(0,r_2;x),r_2)=x$$

for all $`xI(0,r_2)`$. In other words, recalling the definition (12) of $`G(t,s)`$, we have:

(18)
$$y_1(0,r_2;x)=G(x,r_2)forallr_20,xI(0,r_2)$$

We note in passing that, since $`y_1(0,r_2;x)`$ is real-analytic in its domain of definition, and is defined also for $`r_2=0`$, with $`y_1(0,0;x)=0`$, (18) implies that $`G`$ can be extended to $`D`$ as lemma 7 claimed.

In lemma 8 we showed that $`G(t,c)`$ is not DA with respect to $`c`$ for generic $`t`$. From (18) we then get, for generic $`x`$, that $`y_1(0,r_2;x)`$ is not DA with resepct to $`r_2`$. Using this fact and (17), together with the fact that compositions and products of DA function are DA, we get the same conclusion for $`y_2`$, concluding the proof of theorem 9.

## 5. proof of the main theorem

We first set some notation. Define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐒(m,d)\times \times ^m`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{(P,x,r)|P𝐒(m,d),r^m,xI(P,r)\}.$$

For each $`1jm`$ let

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}=\{(P,x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m)|r_jsuchthat(P,x,r)\mathrm{\Sigma }\}.$$

The proof of theorem 1, will be based on the following

###### Lemma 10.

Assume $`m2`$, $`d2`$. Fix $`1jm`$.
Then for generic $`(P,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{}r_m,x)\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}`$, the functions $`f_{ij}`$ ($`1im`$) defined by (6) are not DA.

proof: We note first that we may, without loss of generality and for notational convenience, assume that $`j=m`$. Define $`F_k:\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ($`1km`$) by

$$F_k(P,x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)=y_k(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m;x).$$

These are real analytic-function on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and we may apply lemma 3, with $`𝕂=`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`u`$ identified with $`(P,x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{m1})`$, $`v`$ identified with $`r_m`$, and $`F`$ being any of the $`F_k`$ ($`1km`$). We would like to rule out alternative (I). We now fix some $`1im1`$, and note that among the systems $`P𝐒(m,d)`$ is the system

$$y_i^{}=y_my_i$$

$$y_m^{}=y_m(y_my_i)$$

$$y_k^{}=0forki,m.$$

By theorem 9, for this system, for $`r_i=0`$ and for arbitrary values of $`r_k`$ ($`ki,m`$), the dependence of $`y_i(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m;x)`$ and of $`y_m(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m;x)`$ on $`r_m`$ is not DA. This rules out alternative (I) of lemma 3 both for $`F_i`$ and for $`F_m`$, which implies that alternative (II) holds for both. Since $`1im1`$ is arbitrary, this means that for each $`1km`$ there is a generic subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^g`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^{}`$ for which the function $`F_k`$ is not DA with respect to $`r_m`$. Thus, setting

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^g=_{1km}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^g$$

we get a generic set, and for each $`(P,x,r_1,\mathrm{}r_{m1})\mathrm{\Sigma }^g`$ we have the conclusion of lemma 10.

Finally, to derive theorem 1 from lemma 10, we recall two classical results (see ). Let $`C^N\times ^M`$, and define for each $`u^N`$,

$$C(u)=\{v^M|(u,v)C\}.$$

We have:

(i) If the set $`C`$ is of measure $`0`$ then $`C(u)`$ is of measure $`0`$ in $`^M`$ for all $`u^N`$ except a set of measure $`0`$. This is (a special case of) Fubini’s theorem.

(ii) If the set $`C`$ is of first category then $`C(u)`$ is of first category in $`^M`$ for all $`u^N`$ except a set of first category. This is the Banach-Kuratowski theorem.

proof of theorem 1: We will prove the conclusion of theorem 1 for all $`P𝐒(m,d)`$ outside a set of measure $`0`$, making use of Fubini’s theorem. To prove the same conclusion for $`P`$ outside a set of first category, one only needs to replace Fubini’s theorem with the Banach-Kuratowski theorem.

For $`1i,jm`$ define $`C_{ij}`$ to be the set of $`(P,x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m)\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}`$ for which the function $`f_{ij}`$ defined by (6) is DA. By lemma 10, each of the sets $`C_{ij}`$ is of measure $`0`$ and of first category. Hence by Fubini’s theorem, for all $`P𝐒(m,d)`$ except a set of measure $`0`$, the set

$$C_{ij}(P)=\{(x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m)|(P,x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{j1},r_{j+1},\mathrm{},r_m)C_{ij}\}$$

has measure $`0`$. Below we show that the sets $`C_{ij}(P)`$ are also of first category for any $`P`$ for which they are of measure $`0`$. Since this conclusion is valid for any $`1i,jm`$, we have that for all $`P𝐒(m,d)`$ except a set of measure $`0`$, all the sets $`C_{ij}(P)`$ have measure $`0`$ and are of first category. This is precisely the content of theorem 1.

It is left to show that whenever $`C_{ij}(P)`$ is of measure $`0`$, it is also of first category. Without loss of generality, and for notational convenience, we assume $`j=m`$. We apply lemma 3 with $`𝕂=`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(P)`$ (recall (5)), $`u`$ identified with $`(x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{m1})`$, $`v`$ identified with $`r_m`$, and $`F=f_{im}`$. Since we assume that $`C_{im}(P)`$ is of measure $`0`$, so that $`F`$ is not DA with respect to $`r_m`$ for almost all $`(x,r_1,\mathrm{},r_{m1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_m(P)`$, alternative (I) of lemma 3 certainly does not hold, so (II) holds which means that $`C_{im}(P)`$ is indeed also of first category, concluding the proof.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful for valuable discussions with H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar.


text:
# 1 Strategies for implementing QC on a 1D chain. Blocks represent individual spins and qubits are denoted by letters 𝑇,𝑈..𝑍. Fixed Zeeman energies are denoted by 𝐴 & 𝐵, tunable Zeeman energies by ϵ_𝑖. Here we assume an independent mechanism exists for single qubit gates. If these are much faster than 1/𝐽, then one simply adopts the trivial scheme shown in (a). Qubits are placed on adjacent cells and will suffer continuous phase gates with their neighbors, but techniques developed for NMR QC() can be employed to actively negate this via fast rotations. However universal single qubit gates in solid state systems are usually slow() compared to 1/𝐽. In this case we would choose to place qubits only on alternate spins (b), with intervening spins in definite classical states. The Ising interaction is then entirely negated, and two-qubit operations are achieved by ‘tuning’ a spin’s Zeeman energy, as described in the text. Part (c) displays data from a numerical analysis of the process: a gate on 𝑋 and 𝑌 is achieved by tuning ϵ₂ in the nine spin section shown. Plots show worst case defects over the 16 possible basis states. Phase noise (not shown) was always smaller.

Quantum Computing with an

‘Always On’ Heisenberg Interaction

Simon C. Benjamin1,2 and Sougato Bose3,4

1Ctr. for Quantum Computation, Univ. of Oxford, OX1 3PU, UK.

2Dept. of Materials, Parks Road, Univ. of Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK.

3Inst. for Quantum Information, California Inst. of Technology,

Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.

4Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University College London,

Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, UK.

Many promising schemes for quantum computing (QC) involve switching ‘on’ and ‘off’ a physical coupling between qubits. This may prove extremely difficult to achieve experimentally. Here we show that systems with a constant Heisenberg coupling can be employed for QC if we actively ‘tune’ the transition energies of individual qubits. Moreover we can collectively tune the qubits to obtain an exceptionally simple scheme: computations are controlled via a single ‘switch’ of only six settings. Our schemes are applicable to a wide range of physical implementations, from excitons and spins in quantum dots through to bulk magnets.

Quantum computing could in principle be performed by a one-dimensional array of simple systems, such as single electron spins, coupled via the Heisenberg (‘exchange’) interaction DiVincenzo1 ; kane ; spinResTrans . Elegant schemes exist whereby this interaction alone generates all the gates, or elementary operations on qubits, required for computation 3qubitExchangeOnly ; myABqubitPaper . It is also known that it can suffice to control the qubits collectively ababPRL . However, all these schemes require the experimentalist to control the magnitude of the Heisenberg interaction - effectively to be able to switch it ‘on’ and ‘off’jos . A typical idea for achieving this is to somehow dynamically manipulate the wavefunction overlap between neighboring qubits. This appears feasible, but highly challenging. Recently Zhou et al.zhou  have explored a possible means of avoiding this switching. They observe that the Heisenberg interaction can be effectively negated by inserting EPR spin pairs between the qubits in a (necessarily) two-dimensional architecture. The approach is conceptually rather beautiful, but from a practical point of view it is complex in terms of the physical arrangement of qubits, the initialization, and the steps involved in generating gates. Here we take an entirely different approach and demonstrate that an ‘always-on’ interaction can suffice even in a generic one-dimensional array. Our gate procedure is very simple and can support additional features in suitable systems: the entire device can be controlled without local manipulation of any kind, and the Zeno effect can be harnessed to reduce errors.

For convenience of exposition, we will use the terms ‘spin’ and ‘Zeeman energy’ to refer to our generic two-state systems and their level splitting. Consider a linear chain of $`N`$ spins, with a Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{Zeeman}}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ where:

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{Zeeman}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_i(t)\widehat{\sigma }_i^Z,\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}_i.\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}_{i+1}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and subscript $`i`$ denotes an operator acting in the subspace of the $`i^{th}`$ qubit. {$`\widehat{\sigma }^X`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }^Y`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }^Z`$} are the Pauli matrices, and $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}\underset{¯}{i}\widehat{\sigma }^X+\underset{¯}{j}\widehat{\sigma }^Y+\underset{¯}{k}\widehat{\sigma }^Z`$. Zeeman energies $`E_i`$ may vary with time, but the interaction couples all nearest-neighbors with a common magnitude and is constant. We exploit the well-known observation that when the Zeeman energies vary to the extent that $`|E_iE_{i+1}|J`$, then the interaction tends to an effective Ising form CiS : $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}J\widehat{\sigma }_i^Z\widehat{\sigma }_{i+1}^Z`$.

The choice of scheme for performing QC on such systems depends on the available experimental abilities:

(1) Ability for universal single qubit gates. Suppose that a mechanism exists whereby general rotations of individual spins can be performed (essentially the same physical starting point assumed by Zhou et alzhou ). If such rotations are extremely fast, then there is an immediate solution (Fig. 1a). Alternatively, Fig. 1b shows the approach when fast tuning of Zeeman energies is possiblefastTune , but the additional manipulation(s) used to compose universal single qubit gates are not rapid. We separate the qubits to negate their continuous residual Ising interaction; a two-qubit gate must then involve temporarily altering the pattern of Zeeman energies. Consider a section of the array with the initial Zeeman pattern $`BABAB`$ and containing two qubits represented by the states of the $`A`$ spins (as the five leftmost spins in Fig 1b). Referring to these spins by the numbers $`1`$..$`5`$, assume that the outer spins $`1`$ and $`5`$ are in state $`|`$, and that the central spin $`3`$ is $`|`$. We will show that a gate can be achieved by tuning only the Zeeman energy of spin $`3`$, which we will denote $`ϵ(t)`$. Since the Zeeman energies of spins $`1`$ and $`2`$ will remain far out of resonance, the interaction between them will remain of the form $`J\widehat{\sigma }_1^Z\widehat{\sigma }_2^Z`$. Then spin $`1`$ remains in state $`|`$ throughout, effectively producing a shift of $`+J`$ to the Zeeman energy of spin $`2`$. The same holds for spins $`4`$ and $`5`$, so we can describe the non-trivial dynamics of the five spins via a three spin Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}=(A+J)(\widehat{\sigma }_2^z+\widehat{\sigma }_4^z)+ϵ(t)\widehat{\sigma }_3+J(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}_2.\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}_3+\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}_3.\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\sigma }}_4)$$

Suppose that at $`t=0`$ we move abruptly from the passive state $`ϵ=B`$ to the perfectly resonant case $`ϵ=(A+J)`$. Then the two qubits $`X`$ and $`Y`$ will ‘spread’ over all three cells. However at a time $`t_r=\mathrm{}/(6J)`$, spin $`3`$ returns to its $`|`$ state and an unitary transformation $`\widehat{G}`$ is achieved between $`X`$ & $`Y`$. In their computational basis {$`|00_{24},|01_{24},|10_{24},|11_{24}`$} we find labFrame

$`\widehat{G}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& W& i\sqrt{3}W& 0\\ 0& i\sqrt{3}W& W& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ where $`W=\frac{1}{2}e^{i\pi /3}`$.

This is an entangling gate and it is simple to use established formalismsgatePaper ; nielsen  to generate a CNOT using 4 applications of $`\widehat{G}`$. Therefore tuning the Zeeman energy of ‘barrier’ spins is adequate, in combination with single-qubit gates, to efficiently implement quantum algorithms. In a large array of spins, we can apply this process independently to barrier spins at various points - therefore we have complete parallelism in this architecture. This is a requirement for full quantum error correction steane . In this scheme and the following ones, barrier spin initialization can be achieved by relaxing to the spin-polarised ground state followed by selective spin rotations, either via local gates or frequency selective global pulses.

(2) No single qubit ability. Suppose that we cannot perform general rotations on individual spins (we can only tune their Zeeman energies). Then we adopt the architecture shown in Fig 2a. The passive state of the device now has a sequence of Zeeman energies $`ABCABC..`$ with $`CBJ`$ and $`BAJ`$. (Other patterns such as $`ABABAB..`$ may still suffice longPaper , but $`ABC`$ is convenient for the purpose of exposition.) Qubit representation is as specified in Fig 2a, and the mechanism for single-qubit gates is illustrated in Fig 2b. Fortuitously this encoding constitutes a subspace that protects against long wavelength phase noise. This is the prevalent noise in many systems, as with low temperature phonons in the solid state for example. The one- and two- qubit gates defined in Fig. 2 respect the constraint that there is exactly one $`|`$ spin among the three associated with each qubit.

To perform a two-qubit gate, we allow a qubit to ‘spread’ onto the ‘barrier’ spin as shown in Fig 2c. Our complete process must of course return the ‘barrier’ back to the definite state $`|`$. By modelling a four-spin section $`AϵCA`$, we find that this can be achieved by choosing $`ϵ=C+J`$: a suitable ‘revival’ of the barrier spin then occurs at time $`t_r=(\pi /\sqrt{5})(\mathrm{}/J)`$. It is easy to show that the resulting unitary transformation $`\widehat{K}`$, along with two suitable single-qubit gates longPaper , generates the transformation

$$\widehat{M}=\left(\widehat{Q}1\widehat{Q}2\right).\widehat{K}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{\frac{i\pi }{\sqrt{5}}}\end{array}\right)$$

in the basis of qubits $`X`$ and $`Y`$. We can then use established formalismsgatePaper  to generate a CNOT gate using two applications of $`\widehat{M}`$. We later note that this gate has some advantages over the one employed in our $`1^{st}`$ architecture.

(3) No ability for local gates. Until now we have assumed that the experimentalist can tune the spins independently from one-another. Even this requirement can be dispensed with, using a variant of the method defined in Ref.ababPRL  (a descendant of Lloyd’s global control scheme sethSci ). Consider the architecture of the previous section in which one in every three spins is ‘tunable’. Now notionally divide those spins into two groups, the ‘odd’ and ‘even’ groups, in an alternating pattern (Fig 2d). Introduce the dramatic simplification that all spins within the odd group have the same energy $`ϵ_{odd}`$, and similarly for the even group. Now suppose that we permit ourselves to tune $`ϵ_{even}`$, $`ϵ_{odd}`$ through a sequence of values always respecting the constraint $`|ϵ_{odd}C|J`$. By the results of the previous section, we know that this will allow us to perform any single qubit gates on the corresponding odd and even qubits, and to produce our phase gate $`\widehat{M}`$ between each even qubit and the odd qubit to its right. This process, together with the complementary process (under constraint $`|ϵ_{even}C|J`$), meets the fundamental conditions in Ref.ababPRL . In this way we can immediately translate the protocol defined there to the present scheme. Universal QC (including error correctionsteane ) on our entire multi-qubit device is thus governed via global experimental parameters: $`ϵ_{odd}`$ and $`ϵ_{even}`$. Moreover these parameters need only assume certain fixed values, given that the duration is a continuous variable: for one-qubit gates, $`A`$ & $`A+J`$ (say), and for a two-qubit gate, $`C+J`$. It follows that only six specific pairs of values for $`ϵ_{even}`$,$`ϵ_{odd}`$ suffice (Fig.3 left).

We have used the term ‘global’ even though the process does require differentiation on the local scale between the regular sets of ‘even’ and ‘odd’ spins (e.g. via a single electrode running the length of the device, patterned at the local scale ababPRL ). But even this requirement can be dispensed with in suitable systems, to yield pure global control. The necessary physical property is illustrated on the right side of Fig. 3: the Zeeman energies of certain classes of spin must intersect as some external parameter (typically a field strength) is swept. Since multiple Zeeman energies then change simultaneously, unwanted phase shifts would occur during two-qubit operations - but these can be compensated for in subsequent steps. A possible physical realization is noted below.

To meet the ultimate goal of full scale QC, one must suppress all operational error rates sufficiently for them to be handled by general error correction protocolssteane . We now review the potential error sources that are intrinsic to our schemes. Imperfectly localized tuning of Zeeman energies: In reality nearby spins may be effected to some degree. Fortunately all our schemes are very robust against this effect. The two-qubit gates rely on being able to bring two spins into resonance, which is possible even if the second spin is experiencing a small tuning effect. At worst one would simply generate an easily-corrected phase shift. Imperfect gate operations:  All QC proposals inevitably demand exquisite control of their physical gate processes (to within error correction thresholds). For our schemes this means precise timing of the spin resonance periods. An advantage of our approach is that there is a simple tactic to make this goal more achievable: we can ‘put to work’ our redundant barrier spins via the Quantum Zeno EffectzenoEffect . If we repeatedly collapse the state of the barrier spins to their $`|`$, $`|`$ basis, on a time scale short compared to the rate at which they would accumulate errors, then we can actually suppress that accumulation. Note that we use the term ‘collapse’ rather than ‘measurement’ to emphasize that the phenomenon does not require one to detect the outcome. For maximum efficiency the process should be performed simultaneosuly for all barrier spins. The process fails if a spin ever collapses to the ‘wrong’ state - but the total probability of such an event vanishes with increasing frequency of collapse. Therefore the ideal would be to collapse the barrier spin wavefunctions after each gate operation (although never during an operation of course). Later we outline some systems that could support this idea. We emphasize that this exploitation of the Zeno effect is not a requirement of our schemes - we are merely observing that if the phenomenon is supported by a physical system then we can make good use of it! In cases where it is not possible then it may be desirable to opt for the type of two-qubit gate employed in schemes $`2`$ & $`3`$: an imperfect operation there would not generate three-qubit correlations. Irregularity in physical separations, interaction strengths or susceptibility to Zeeman tuning: these could only be tackled by ‘calibrating’ the system and tailoring the set of Zeeman shifts to each spin uniquely. Again the form of two-qubit gate in architecture $`2`$ is robust, since this does not rely on a symmetry of two interactions. However the non-local addressing in scheme $`3`$ cannot accommodate inhomogeneities in this way, therefore it is only suited to very regular structures (e.g. periodic molecular systems, or atomically accurate quantum dot arrays). Finite value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: the importance of this energy ratio is shown in Fig.1c. For large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the gate is near perfect, but the fidelity falls with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and below $`10`$ it rapidly becomes unusable, except perhaps for initial ‘proof in principle’ experiments. Therefore ideal physical implementations will be those in which strong tuning of the Zeeman energy is possible.

We will now highlight a few realizations. Our schemes are relevant to all proposals for quantum computing that involve a Heisenberg interaction and can support tuning of transition energies. It is natural to first consider ‘true’ spin systems, e.g. single electron arrays. These are often discussed as potential quantum computers; typical proposals involve a mechanism for switching the interaction and a second independent mechanism for performing single qubit gates. Our schemes allow one to dispense with the former and retain only the latter. To exploit the Zeno effect, one could employ the Pauli blockade phenomenon: a suitable optical pulse can conditionally create an exciton (a bound electron-hole pair) in the region of a preexisting electron (the qubit) depending on its state. A previous QC proposal makes sophisticated use of this idea Pazy  but here we exploit it very crudely: merely by allowing the exciton to dissipatively decay (or to relax), one would indirectly collapse the state of the electron spin.

Our schemes are also relevant to a different class of system that operates (and decoheres) on a far more rapid time scale: pure exciton computing. Exciton lifetimes are very short, however the gates can be ultrafast (picoseconds) so that a large number of operations could be performed within that lifetime. In typical exciton QC schemes the up/down pseudo-spin states are the presence/absence of an exciton on a quantum dot (QD), thus our ‘Zeeman’ energy would correspond to the exciton creation energy. This could be tuned either by shifting the exciton localization between regions of different band gap (somewhat analogously to Ref.spinResTrans ) or via the quantum confined Stark effect. The latter is expectedShengPRL  to be very strong in double-dot structures: of order 100 meV for achievable fields. The coupling strength $`J`$ between two separated pairs may be a fraction of 1 meV, leading to a suitably large ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Both the D.C. and A.C. Stark effects are relevant - the latter could permit ‘all-optical’ control. Moreover the Stark effect is seen in many other quantum systems (including molecular structures) and could allow them to be similarly exploited. Furthermore, since the creation energy is non-zero at zero field, the Stark effect could in principle support the ‘pure’ global switching illustrated in the right side of Fig. 3. Exciton systems can also provide sufficiently rapid wavefunction collapse for our Zeno exploitation, e.g. via a laser tuned to generate an excited exciton state with rapid (picosecond) intra-band relaxation. The required frequency may be distinct for barrier spins versus qubit-bearing spins (given that the barrier spins must have a distinct exciton creation energy) - if so then one could simultaneously collapse all barrier spin states with a global pulse.

Thus it appears that several of the phenomena associated with excitonic systems may be well suited to our purposes. Looking beyond such systems, we speculate that the minimal demands of our $`3^{rd}`$ architecture may introduce the possibility of QC to new classes of system. For example, in 1D Heisenberg magnets such as KCuF3schultz , the effect of coupling between two chains can be replaced by an effective inhomogeneous magnetic field on one of the chains schultz . Zeeman tuning might then be accomplished by controlling the distance and alignment of one 1D spin chain with respect to another.

SCB wishes to acknowledge support from a Royal Society URF, and from the Foresight LINK project “Nanoelectronics at the Quantum Edge”. SB acknowledges the NSF under Grant Number EIA-00860368.


text:
# Bianchi Type I Universes with dilaton and magnetic fields

## I Introduction

In a series of recent papers , , Bianchi type I cosmological models based on the field equations derived from the action

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R2\gamma \left(\varphi \right)^2+e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =const.>0`$, $`\gamma =const.>0`$ have been considered. In Eq. (1) $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton field and $`F`$ is the Maxwell two-form field, with components $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. The action (1) can be obtained from the string frame low energy effective action

$$\widehat{S}=d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}e^{2\alpha \varphi }\left[\widehat{R}2\gamma \left(\widehat{}\varphi \right)^2+F^2\right],$$
(2)
by means of the conformal transformation $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\alpha \varphi }g_{\mu \nu }`$. As a particular case these models include Einstein-Maxwell ($`\alpha =\gamma =0`$) and low energy string theory ($`\alpha =2`$, $`\gamma =2`$ ). In order to study the corresponding anisotropic cosmological model Salim, Sautu and Martins  wrote the field equations as an autonomous system of differential equations, with the time coordinate redefined in term of the comoving volume element. Several particular solutions of Kasner and exponential type have been considered and the exact general solution for the model has been obtained. The main conclusions of the authors of  are that the typical oscillatory dynamics of the model based on the Einstein-Maxwell theory in a Bianchi type I geometry is not present when approaching the initial singularity, due to the presence of the dilaton field and that the process of isotropization is completely absent. But as mentionned by Bannerjee and Ghosh , these solutions apparently do not satisfy all the field equations, the substitution of the solutions into the equation of motion of the dilaton field leading to some inconsistencies. In their investigation of the Bianchi type I cosmology Bannerjee and Ghosh  obtained a simple bi-axial (two equal scale factors) solution, with scale factors starting from an initial pointlike singularity of zero volume. Hence a general solution of the Bianchi type I Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton model based on the action (1) seems to be still missing.

The investigation of cosmological models with magnetic fields is definitely of major physical interest. The possibility of the existence of a homogeneous intergalactic field (possible of primordial origin) is not ruled out by observations. In an investigation of a magnetic Bianchi type I Universe Madsen  obtained a bound of the cosmological magnetic field given by $`B3\times 10^4h\sqrt{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }}\left(1+z_d\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}G`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3H^2}`$ is the cosmological density parameter, $`h`$ is the Hubble parameter measured in units of $`100kms^{1\text{ }}`$, $`z_d`$ is the redshift at which the anisotropy begins to grow and $`\delta =10^4`$. Although no magnetism has been seen yet on a cosmic scale or on a void’s scale, magnetism has been detected in some superclusters of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, halos of elliptical galaxies, in the disk of spiral galaxies etc. .

From a theoretical point of view Einstein-Maxwell type magnetic models for the class of hypersurface-orthogonal Bianchi I cosmologies with a $`\gamma `$ \- law perfect fluid and a pure, homogeneous source-free magnetic field have been recently analyzed by using methods from the qualitative theory if dynamical systems in . The main physical results of this investigation are that if $`0<\gamma \frac{4}{3}`$, magnetic fields do not prevent isotropization in the absence of spatial curvature. Even in the absence of anisotropic spatial curvature mixmaster-like oscillations also occur.

On the other hand in an attempt to address the potential inherited from string theory to eliminate the initial cosmological singularity, Gasperini and Veneziano  initiated a program known as the pre-big bang scenario. The field equations of the pre-big bang cosmology are based on the low energy effective action resulting from string theory. Pre-big bang cosmological models, in which there is no need to introduce inflation or to fine-tune potentials, have many attractive features. Inflation is natural, thanks to the duality symmetries of string cosmology and the initial condition problem is decoupled from the singularity problem. Finally, quantum instabilities (pair creation) is able to heat up an initially cold universe and generate a standard hot big bang with the additional features of homogeneity, flatness and isotropy (for a recent and extensive review of string cosmology see ). Exact anisotropic Bianchi type I cosmological solutions of the low energy string effective action in the presence of homogeneous magnetic fields have been obtained by Giovannini , . The obtained cosmologies are fully anisotropic and only quadratic curvature corrections are able to isotropize the geometry of the Universe. The presence of magnetic seeds can induce further anisotropies, which can, in principle, be present also at late times.

It is the purpose of the present paper to consider the general solution of the Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell field equations derived from the action (1). The mathematical description of this system can be reduced to a single second-order differential equation and the general solution of the system can be represented in an exact parametric form. The behaviour of the basic cosmological parameters of observational interest like the anisotropy and deceleration parameters is also considered in detail. As a general result of our study we show that the dilaton-magnetic Bianchi type I geometry does not isotropize and hence it is very unlikely that the present day cosmological magnetic fields could be remnants from a pre-big bang era.

Throughout this paper we use the Landau-Lifshitz conventions . The present paper is organized as follows. The field equations are written down in Section II. The general solution of the field equations is obtained in Section III. In Section IV we discuss and conclude our results.

## II Field equations, geometry and consequences

The field equations obtained from the variation of the action (1) are given by:

$$\left(e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^{\mu \nu }\right)_{;\mu }=0,$$
(3)
$$\varphi _{;\mu }^{;\mu }+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^2=0,$$
(4)
$$R_{\mu \nu }=2\gamma \varphi _{;\mu }\varphi _{;\nu }+2e^{2\alpha \varphi }\left(F_{\mu \lambda }F_\nu ^\lambda \frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F^2\right),$$
(5)
$$ϵ^{\alpha \lambda \mu \nu }_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(6)
The last equation is the Bianchi identity for the Maxwell field. Throughout this paper we consider natural units with $`c=8\pi G=1`$. A semi-colon ; denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the metric.

The line element of the Bianchi type I geometry, generalizing to the anisotropic case the flat Robertson-Walker space-time is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2a_1^2(t)dx^2a_2^2(t)dy^2a_3^2(t)dz^2.$$
(7)
For this metric we introduce the following variables : the volume scale factor $`V=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^3a_i`$, the directional Hubble factors $`H_i=\frac{\dot{a}_i}{a_i},i=1,2,3`$, the mean Hubble factor $`H=\frac{1}{3}_{i=1}^3H_i`$ and we denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_i=HH_i,i=1,2,3`$. From these definitions we immediately obtain $`H=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\dot{V}}{V}`$.

Without any loss of generality we assume that the magnetic field is aligned along the $`x`$ \- direction. Its unique component is $`F_{23}=F_0=const.`$ and it satisfies both Maxwell equations (3) and (6). Then $`F^2=F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }=2\frac{F_0^2}{V^2}a_1^2`$.

We also introduce the symbol $`\epsilon _i,i=1,2,3`$ defined by $`\epsilon _1=1,\epsilon _2=\epsilon _3=+1`$. $`\epsilon _i`$ has the obvious property $`_{i=1}^3\epsilon _i=+1`$.

With the use of the variables introduced above the non-trivial field equations (3)-(6) are given by

$$3\dot{H}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}H_i^2=2\gamma \dot{\varphi }^2F_0^2\frac{a_1^2}{V^2}e^{2\alpha \varphi },$$
(8)
$$\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(VH_i\right)=\epsilon _iF_0^2\frac{a_1^2}{V^2}e^{2\alpha \varphi },i=1,2,3,$$
(9)
$$\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(V\dot{\varphi }\right)=\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }F_0^2\frac{a_1^2}{V^2}e^{2\alpha \varphi }.$$
(10)
Adding Eqs.(9) one obtain

$$\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(3VH\right)=F_0^2\frac{a_1^2}{V^2}e^{2\alpha \varphi }.$$
(11)
Substituting the term $`\frac{F^2}{2}e^{2\alpha \varphi }`$ expressed from Eq.(11) into Eq.(10) we find

$$\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(V\dot{\varphi }\right)=\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(3VH\right),$$
(12)
or, equivalently,

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }\frac{\dot{V}}{V}+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }\frac{m}{V},$$
(13)
with $`m`$ an arbitrary constant of integration. Integrating Eq.(13) we obtain for the dilaton field

$$\varphi =\varphi _0+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }\mathrm{ln}V+\frac{\alpha m}{2\gamma }\frac{dt}{V},$$
(14)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is a constant of integration.

We combine now the dilaton field Eq.(10) and the gravitational field equations (9) to find

$$\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(VH_i\right)=\epsilon _i\frac{2\gamma }{\alpha }\frac{1}{V}\frac{d}{dt}\left(V\dot{\varphi }\right),i=1,2,3,$$
(15)
which gives

$$H_i=\epsilon _i\frac{2\gamma }{\alpha }\dot{\varphi }+\frac{K_i}{V},i=1,2,3.$$
(16)
$`K_i,i=1,2,3`$ are arbitrary constants of integration. With the use of Eq. (13) we can express Eq.(16) in the equivalent form

$$H_i=\epsilon _i\frac{\dot{V}}{V}+\frac{K_i+m\epsilon _i}{V},i=1,2,3.$$
(17)
From Eqs.(17) it follows that the integration constants $`K_i`$ must satisfy the consistency condition

$$m+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}K_i=0.$$
(18)
The scale factors are obtained by integrating Eq. (17) and are given by

$$a_i=a_{i0}V^{\epsilon _i}e^{\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right){\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{dt}{V}}}},i=1,2,3,$$
(19)
with $`a_{i0},i=1,2,3`$ non-negative constants of integration.

We substitute now the dilaton field Eq.(13), $`H_i,i=1,2,3`$ given by Eqs.(17) and the magnetic field from Eq. (11) into the field equation Eq.(8) to obtain the basic equation describing the evolution of the dilaton and magnetic field filled Bianchi type I space-time:

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}+C\frac{\dot{V}^2}{V^2}+B\frac{\dot{V}}{V^2}+\frac{K}{V^2}=0,$$
(20)
where $`C=1+\frac{\alpha ^2}{4\gamma }`$, $`B=_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)+\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\gamma }m`$ and $`K=\frac{_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{2}+\frac{\alpha ^2}{4\gamma }m^2`$.

Denoting $`\dot{V}=u`$, Eq.(20) is transformed into

$$\frac{dV}{V}=\frac{udu}{Cu^2+Bu+K}.$$
(21)
The general solution of Eq.(21) can be formally represented in the form

$$V=V_0e^{{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{udu}{Cu^2+Bu+K}}}},$$
(22)
with $`V_0>0`$ a constant of integration.

The physical quantities of observational interest in cosmology are the expansion scalar $`\theta =3H`$, the mean anisotropy parameter $`A`$, the shear scalar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ and the deceleration parameter $`q`$ defined according to

$$A=\frac{1}{3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H_i}{H}\right)^2,$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}H_i^23H^2\right)=\frac{3}{2}AH^2,$$
(24)
$$q=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{H}1.$$
(25)
With the use of Eqs.(17) we can express the mean anisotropy and the deceleration parameter in the alternative form

$$A=8+\frac{2_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{VH}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{V^2H^2},$$
(26)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=H^2\left(12+\frac{3_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{VH}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{V^2H^2}\right).$$
(27)
The sign of the deceleration parameter indicates whether the cosmological model inflates. The positive sign corresponds to standard decelerating models while a negative sign indicates inflation. The deceleration parameter can be expressed as a function of the variable $`u`$ in the general form

$$q=2+\frac{3\left(Cu^2+Bu+K\right)}{u^2}.$$
(28)
In the isotropic limit the mean anisotropy parameter is zero.

## III General solution of the field equations

In the previous Section we have obtained the basic equations describing the dynamics of an anisotropic Bianchi type I universe filled with dilaton and magnetic fields. The field equations of the model can be reduced to a single equation (20) describing the evolution of the anisotropic universe. According to the sign of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=B^24CK`$ the second order differential equation Eq.(20) has three distinct classes of solutions.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=B^24CK>0`$ the general solution of Eq. (20) is

$$V=V_0\left(uu_+\right)^{m_+}\left(uu_{}\right)^m_{},$$
(29)
where we denoted $`u_\pm =\frac{B\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2C}`$ and $`m_\pm =\frac{u_\pm }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$. Therefore the general solution of the field equations can be expressed in the following parametric form, with $`u`$ taken as parameter:

$$tt_0=\frac{V_0}{C}\left(uu_+\right)^{m_+1}\left(uu_{}\right)^{m_{}1}𝑑u,$$
(30)
$$H(u)=\frac{1}{3V_0}\frac{u}{\left(uu_+\right)^{m_+}\left(uu_{}\right)^m_{}},$$
(31)
$$a_i(u)=a_{i0}\left(uu_+\right)^{p_i^+}\left(uu_{}\right)^{p_i^{}},i=1,2,3,$$
(32)
$$A(u)=8+\frac{6_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{u}+\frac{3_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{u^2},$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(u)=\frac{1}{9V_0^2}\frac{u^2}{\left(uu_+\right)^{2m_+}\left(uu_{}\right)^{2m_{}}}\left(12+\frac{9_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{u}+\frac{9}{2}\frac{_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{u^2}\right),$$
(34)
$$q(u)=2+\frac{3C\left(uu_+\right)\left(uu_{}\right)}{u^2},$$
(35)
$$\varphi (u)=\varphi _0+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(uu_+\right)^{n_+}\left(uu_{}\right)^n_{}\right],$$
(36)
where we denoted $`p_i^\pm =\epsilon _im_\pm \frac{K_i+m\epsilon _i}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`n_\pm =m_\pm \frac{m}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$. For $`u_\pm >0`$ the condition of the reality of the physical parameters implies that this solution is defined only for values of the parameter $`u`$ so that $`u>u_+,u_{}`$. For $`u_\pm <0`$ there are no restrictions on the allowed range of the parameter $`u`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=B^24CK`$ $`=0`$ the general solution of the field equations is given by

$$tt_0=\frac{V_0}{C}\frac{e^{\frac{m_0}{uu_0}}}{\left(uu_0\right)^{\frac{1}{C}+2}}𝑑u,$$
(37)
$$V(u)=V_0\left(uu_0\right)^{\frac{1}{C}}e^{\frac{m_0}{uu_0}},$$
(38)
$$H(u)=\frac{1}{3V_0}u\left(uu_0\right)^{\frac{1}{C}}e^{\frac{m_0}{uu_0}},$$
(39)
$$a_i(u)=a_{i0}\left(uu_0\right)^{\frac{\epsilon _i}{C}}e^{\frac{1}{C}\frac{\left(m+Cm_0\right)\epsilon _i+K_i}{uu_0}},i=1,2,3,$$
(40)
$$A(u)=8+\frac{6_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{u}+\frac{3_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{u^2},$$
(41)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(u)=\frac{1}{9V_0^2}u^2\left(uu_0\right)^{\frac{2}{C}}e^{\frac{2m_0}{uu_0}}\left(12+\frac{9_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{u}+\frac{9}{2}\frac{_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{u^2}\right),$$
(42)
$$q(u)=2+\frac{3C\left(uu_0\right)^2}{u^2},$$
(43)
$$\varphi (u)=\varphi _0+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma C}\left[\frac{u_0+m}{uu_0}\mathrm{ln}\left(uu_0\right)\right],$$
(44)
where we denoted $`u_0=\frac{B}{2C}`$ and $`m_0=\frac{u_0}{C}`$. In order to have well-defined (real) physical quantities it is necessary that the parameter $`u`$ satisfies the condition $`u>u_0`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=B^24CK`$ $`<0`$ the general solution of the field equations is

$$tt_0=\frac{V_0}{C}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{B}{2C^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{u+\frac{B}{2C}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\right]}{\left[\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\right]^{1+\frac{1}{2C}}}𝑑u,$$
(45)
$$V(u)=V_0\left[\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2C}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{B}{2C^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{u+\frac{B}{2C}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\right],$$
(46)
$$H(u)=\frac{1}{3V_0}u\left[\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2C}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{B}{2C^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{u+\frac{B}{2C}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\right],$$
(47)
$$a_i(u)=a_{i0}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{C\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\left[\epsilon _i\left(\frac{B}{2C}m\right)K_i\right]\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{u+\frac{B}{2C}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\right\}}{\left[\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\right]^{\frac{\epsilon _i}{2C}}},i=1,2,3,$$
(48)
$$A(u)=8+\frac{6_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{u}+\frac{3_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{u^2},$$
(49)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(u)=\frac{1}{9V_0^2}\frac{u^2\left[\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\right]^{\frac{1}{C}}\left(12+\frac{9_{i=1}^3\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)}{u}+\frac{9}{2}\frac{_{i=1}^3\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2}{u^2}\right)}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{B}{C^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{u+\frac{B}{2C}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)\right]},$$
(50)
$$q(u)=2+3C\frac{\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{u^2},$$
(51)
$$\varphi (u)=\varphi _0\frac{\alpha }{4C\gamma }\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(u+\frac{B}{2C}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\right]+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma C\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\left(\frac{B}{2C}m\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{u+\frac{B}{2C}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right),$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2C}`$.

## IV Discussions and final remarks

In order to consider the general effects of the magnetic field on the dynamics and evolution of the Bianchi type I space-time we also present the solutions corresponding to the pure anisotropic dilatonic universe, without magnetic field, $`F_0=0`$ . These solutions are not new, they have already been discussed in  and . In the absence of the magnetic field the dilatonic universe is described by

$$V=V_0t,H=\frac{1}{3t},a=a_{i0}t^{p_i},$$
(53)
$$A=\frac{3K^2}{V_0^2}=const.,q=2=const.,\varphi =\varphi _0\mathrm{ln}t,$$
(54)
where $`\varphi _0=\varphi _0^{}\sqrt{\frac{1}{4\gamma }\left(\frac{2}{3}\frac{K^2}{V_0^2}\right)}`$, with $`\varphi _0^{}`$ an arbitrary constant of integration. $`K_i,i=1,2,3`$ are constants of integration satisfying the condition $`_{i=1}^3K_i=0`$. We also denoted $`K^2=_{i=1}^3K_i^2`$. The coefficients $`p_i=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{K_i}{V_0},i=1,2,3`$ satisfy the relations $`_{i=1}^3p_i=1`$ and $`_{i=1}^3p_i^2=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{K^2}{V_0^2}`$. The geometry of the dilaton-field filled universe is of Kasner type. A universe of this type will never experience a transition to an isotropic phase and its evolution is non-inflationary for all times.

The variation of the volume scale factor $`V`$ of the magnetic and dilaton fields filled Bianchi type I space-time is represented, for all three models, in Fig. 1.

The evolution of the universe is generally expansionary. The singularity behaviour depends on the sign of the constants $`u_\pm `$ and $`u_0`$, the real rooots of the equation $`Cu^2+Bu+K=0`$. If all these roots are positive, then a singular behaviour of the scale factors and of the volume scale factor cannot be avoided, with the singularity corresponding to values $`u=u_\pm `$ and $`u=u_0`$ of the parameter. In this case the range of the parameter $`u`$ is restricted to $`uu_\pm `$ and $`uu_0`$. In the case of complex $`u_\pm `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ ), there is no singular point in the time evolution of the scale factors $`a_i,i=1,2,3`$. The asymptotic behaviour of the solution in the limit of large $`\dot{V}=u`$ (that is, for a very rapid expansion of the volume of the universe) can be obtained from equation (21), by taking the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$. Therefore we obtain $`Vu^{\frac{1}{C}}`$ and $`Vt^{\frac{1}{1+C}}`$ , respectively. The scale factors are given by $`a_i=a_{i0}t^{\epsilon _i\frac{1}{1+C}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1+C}{C}\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)t^{\frac{C}{1+C}}\right],i=1,2,3`$. Since generally $`C>0`$ , there is no isotropic limit for $`a_i`$. In the case of small $`u`$ (very slow expansion of the universe) from Eq. (21) we obtain $`Ve^{\frac{u}{B}}\left(K+Bu\right)^{\frac{K}{B^2}}`$ , but in this limiting case the solution of the field equations cannot be expressed in an analytical form.

The evolution of the mean Hubble factor of the universe is represented in Fig. 2.

For all three models $`H(t)`$ is generally a decreasing function of time, with $`H\mathrm{}`$ for $`t0`$. In the limit of large $`u`$ we obtain $`H\frac{1}{t}`$ .

The dynamics of the mean anisotropy factor, presented in Fig. 3, shows a rapid time increase of the anisotropy of the dilaton-magnetic field filled universe.

In the limit of large $`u`$ we have $`u=v_0t^{\frac{1}{1+C}},v_0=const.`$ and the mean anisotropy parameter behaves as

$$A=8+2v_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\epsilon _iK_i+m\right)t^{\frac{C}{1+C}}+3v_0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i\right)^2t^{\frac{2C}{1+C}}.$$
(55)
Therefore the inclusion of a magnetic field will increase the anisotropy of the Bianchi type I space-time.

The dilaton field, presented in Fig. 4, is an increasing function of time. In the large $`u`$ limit it behaves like $`\varphi \varphi _0+\frac{\alpha }{2\gamma }\frac{1}{1+C}\mathrm{ln}t+\frac{\alpha m\left(1+C\right)}{2\gamma C}t^{\frac{C}{1+C}}`$ . The dynamics of the universe is non-inflationary, with the deceleration parameter $`q=2+3C`$ for $`u\mathrm{}`$.

Finally we shortly discuss the behaviour of the physically important parameters of the solution in the string frame.

By assuming an anisotropic Bianchi type I geometry with line element $`d\widehat{s}^2=d\widehat{t}^2_{i=1}^3\widehat{a}_i^2\left(\widehat{t}\right)\left(dx^i\right)^2`$, with the string -frame time coordinate defined according to $`\widehat{t}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \varphi \right)𝑑t`$, the string frame volume scale factor $`\widehat{V}`$, the directional Hubble factors $`\widehat{H}_i,i=1,2,3`$ and the mean Hubble factor $`\widehat{H}`$ are related by means of the general transformations

$$\widehat{V}=Ve^{3\alpha \varphi },\widehat{H}_i=\left(H_i+\alpha \dot{\varphi }\right)e^{\alpha \varphi },i=1,2,3,\widehat{H}=\left(H+\alpha \dot{\varphi }\right)e^{\alpha \varphi }.$$
(56)
In the string frame the mean anisotropy parameter is given by

$$\widehat{A}=\frac{1}{3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{\widehat{H}_i\widehat{H}}{\widehat{H}}\right)^2=\frac{A}{\left(1+\alpha \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}\right)^2}.$$
(57)
With the use of Eq.(13) we obtain $`\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}=\frac{3\alpha }{2\gamma }+\frac{\alpha m}{2\gamma }\frac{1}{HV}=\frac{3\alpha }{2\gamma }+\frac{3\alpha m}{2\gamma }\frac{1}{u}`$. In the limit of small $`u`$ we obtain $`\widehat{A}0`$, while for large $`u`$ we have $`\widehat{A}A`$. The conformal transformation factor $`e^{\alpha \varphi }`$ is given, with the use of Eq. (14), by $`e^{\alpha \varphi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0V^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\gamma }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha ^2m}{2\gamma }\frac{dt}{V}\right]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{\alpha \varphi _0}=const.`$. Therefore for the string frame scale factors we obtain

$$\widehat{a}_i=\widehat{a}_{i0}V^{\epsilon _i+\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\gamma }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(K_i+m\epsilon _i+\frac{\alpha ^2m}{2\gamma }\right)\frac{dt}{V}\right],i=1,2,3.$$
(58)
The mathematical form of the string frame scale factors is very similar to the form of scale factors in the Einstein frame. Therefore the dynamics of the dilaton-magnetic Bianchi type I universe has the same general features in both frames.

In the present paper we have considered the evolution of a dilaton and magnetic field filled Bianchi type I space-time. The general solution of the field equations can be expressed in an exact parametric form and, depending on the numerical values of some constants, three classes of solutions can be obtained. These solutions describe expanding universes, with non-inflationary Einstein frame evolutions. In the Einstein frame the Bianchi type I geometry does not isotropize and there is no Friedmann-Robertson-Walker limit of these cosmologies. In these models the dilaton field cannot provide a physical mechanism able to wash out the initial anisotropies. But such mechanism can be obtained by considering a matter component in the energy momentum tensor, a cosmological constant or some quadratic terms in the Lagrangian , , , . Therefore it is very unlikely that simple pre-big bang models including only dilaton and magnetic fields can provide a realistic explanation of the presence of cosmological magnetic fields as remnants of a dilaton-magnetic era.