format: text

text:
# Universal corrections to the Fermi-liquid theory

## Abstract

We show that the singularities in the dynamical bosonic response functions of a generic 2D Fermi liquid give rise to universal, non-analytic corrections to the Fermi-liquid theory. These corrections yield a $`T^2`$ term in the specific heat, $`T`$ terms in the effective mass and the uniform spin susceptibility $`\chi _s(Q=0,T)`$, and $`|Q|`$ term in $`\chi _s(Q,T=0)`$. The existence of these terms has been the subject of recent controversy, which is resolved in this paper. We present exact expressions for all non-analytic terms to second order in a generic interaction $`U(q)`$ and show that only $`U(0)`$ and $`U(2p_F)`$ matter.

The universal features of a Fermi liquid and their physical consequences continue to attract the attention of the condensed-matter community. In a generic Fermi liquid, the imaginary part of the retarded fermionic self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(k,\omega )`$ on the mass shell is determined solely by fermions in a narrow $`(\omega `$) energy range around the Fermi surface and behaves as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }\omega ^2+(\pi T)^2`$ agd . This regular behavior of the self-energy has a profound effect on such observables as the specific heat and uniform spin- and charge susceptibilities, which have the same functional dependences as for free fermions, *i.e.*, the specific heat is linear in $`T`$ and the susceptibilities approach finite values at $`T=0`$. A regular behavior of the fermionic self-energy is also in line with a general reasoning that turning on the interaction in $`D>1`$ should not affect drastically the low-energy properties of a system extra , unless special circumstances, e.g., a proximity to a quantum phase transition sachdev , interfere.

The subject of this paper is the analysis of non-analytic corrections to the Fermi- liquid behavior in a generic, clean Fermi liquid. These corrections are universal in a sense that they are determined by fermions near the Fermi surface. It has been known for some time that corrections to the Fermi-liquid form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ do not form a regular, analytic series in $`\omega ^2`$ but rather scale as $`\omega ^D`$ for $`2D3`$, with an extra logarithm in $`D=2`$ agd ; baym ; bloom . \[For $`1<D<2`$ this form persists, but it is not a “correction” anymore.\] These non-analytic $`\omega ^D`$ terms (as well as non-analytic vertex corrections) are of fundamental interest as they may give rise to anomalous temperature and momentum dependences of observable quantities. A well-known example is the $`T^3\mathrm{ln}T`$ term in the specific heat of a 3D Fermi liquid, caused by the anomalous term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )\omega ^3`$ (and hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )\omega ^3\mathrm{log}\omega `$) baym . A related example is the linear-in-$`T`$ correction to the conductivity of a weakly disordered 2D system stern ; dassarma ; zna . Non-analytic corrections are also important for the theory of quantum critical phenomena in itinerant ferromagnets qc , as a non-analyticity of the static spin susceptibility changes the nature of the phase transition belitz\_1 .

Belitz, Kirkpatrick and Vojta (BKV) belitz  and, later, Misawa misawa  argued that the non-analyticity in the fermionic self-energy should gives rise to a non-analytic momentum expansion of the particle-hole susceptibility $`\chi (Q,T)`$. For non-interacting fermions, $`\chi (Q,0)`$ is given by the Lindhard function and is analytic in $`Q`$ for small $`Q`$ in all $`D`$. Diagrammatically, corrections to the Lindhard function are obtained by self-energy and vertex-corrections insertions into the particle-hole bubble (cf. Fig.2). Diagrams with self-energy insertions are readily estimated by power counting, and the result is that the non-analytic, $`\omega ^D`$ term in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives rise to $`\delta \chi (Q)Q^{D1}`$ ,with extra logs for $`D=3`$ and $`D=1`$. Power counting also suggests belitz ; marenko  that the non-analyticity in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should affect the temperature dependence of the uniform susceptibility $`\chi (0,T)`$ and gives rise to $`\delta \chi (0,T)T^{D1},`$ with extra logarithms in $`D=3`$ and $`D=1`$. By the same arguments, non-analyticity in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should lead to the $`T^{D1}`$-dependence of the effective mass $`m^{}(T)`$ and to the $`T^D`$-dependence of the subleading term in the specific heat, $`\delta C(T)`$, with extra logarithms in 3D and 1D doniach ; bedell .

Our motivation to pursue a further study of non-analytic corrections to the Fermi liquid behavior is two-fold. First, we want to verify that power counting arguments by carrying out an explicit analytic calculations of several observable quantities: specific heat, effective mass, and spin- and charge susceptibilities. That power counting may be misleading is seen, e.g., from the example of the free-fermion susceptibility: according to power counting, it should also have a non-analytic momentum dependence, whereas the exact result is analytic in $`Q`$ for small $`Q`$. The existing literature on this issue is controversial. BKV verified their power counting arguments for the spin susceptibility in 3D by explicitly computing $`\delta \chi _s(Q,T)`$ to second order in the interaction. They demonstrated that $`\delta \chi _s(Q,0)Q^2\mathrm{ln}|Q|`$, in agreement with power counting. At the same time, Carneiro and Pethick pethick  and later BKV found that uniform $`\chi _s(0,T)`$ scales as $`T^2`$ but not as $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$, as predicted by power counting. On the contrary, Misawa did find a $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$ term in his calculation misawa\_2 . In 2D, BKV conjectured that $`\chi _s(Q,0)`$ scales as $`|Q|`$ but no explicit calculation has not been performed. Hirashima and Takahashi hirashima  computed $`\chi (0,T)`$ in 2D numerically, but coud not draw any definite conclusions about the $`T`$-dependence because of numerical difficulties. Chitov and Millis (CM) millis , found analytically that the leading term in $`\chi _s(0,T)`$ in 2D scales as $`T`$, in agreement with power counting marenko . At the same time, CM found that different contributions to the non-analytic $`T`$ term in $`m^{}(T)`$ and to the $`T^2`$ term in $`\delta C(T)`$ (both predicted by power counting), cancel each other, and only analytic corrections survive. Meanwhile, Bedell and Coffey bedell  reported a $`T^2`$ term in $`\delta C(T)`$. Very recently, Das Sarma et al. found a linear-in-T term in the effective mass for the Coulomb interaction in $`D=2`$ dassarma\_mass .

In this paper, we present analytic results for the specific heat, effective mass, and spin and charge susceptibilities of an interacting 2D Fermi system, up to second order in the short-range interaction $`U(q)`$. We found that power counting arguments are generally valid, i.e., $`\chi _s(Q)|Q|`$, $`\chi _s(T)T`$, $`m(T)T`$, and $`\delta C(T)T^2`$. These results agree with Refs. marenko ; doniach ; bedell ; the form of $`\chi _s(T)`$ agrees with that found by CM but the forms of $`m(T)`$ and $`\delta C(T)`$ disagree with those by CM. Still, our prefactors for non-analytic terms differ from that found in bedell ; millis . We also verified that in 3D, $`\chi _s(Q,0)Q^2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ while $`\chi _s(0,T)T^2`$, in agreement with BKV. Finally, in agreement with CM, we found no non-analytic terms in the charge susceptibility, $`\chi _c`$.

Another motivation for this study is to clarify the origin of the non-analytic corrections in the Fermi-liquid theory. We found that these corrections originate from the singularities in the *dynamic* particle-hole response function, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, near $`q=0`$ and $`q=2k_F`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is non-analytic. For $`D=2`$, near $`q=0`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}^{q0}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=\frac{m}{2\pi }\left(1\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_m|}{\sqrt{(v_Fq)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2}}\right).$$
(1)
whereas near $`q=2k_F`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}^{q2k_F}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi }}\times `$
$`\left(1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{2k_F}}+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2v_Fk_F}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{2k_F}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{q}q2k_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}2k_F`$. Physically, these two singularities give rise to a zero-sound mode and Friedel oscillations, respectively. The singularity near $`q=0`$ is entirely dynamic, while the one near $`2k_F`$ is also present in the static limit for $`q>2k_F`$. We found that the singularities in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are necessary ingredients which make power counting arguments valid. Furthermore, we found that the singular pieces in the effective mass, specific heat and $`\chi _s(Q,T)`$ originate exclusively from the scattering amplitude with zero momentum transfer and zero total momentum: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ,\delta }(k,k;k,k)=U(0)\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }U(2k_F)\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }`$. This implies that (i) non-analytic terms depend only on $`U(0)`$ and $`U(2k_F)`$ but not on the interaction averaged over the Fermi surface, and (ii) up to overall sign, the non-analyticities at $`q0`$ and $`q2k_F`$ contribute equally to individual diagrams for the fermionic self-energy and $`\chi _s`$, i.e., singular corrections to a Fermi liquid can be viewed equivalently as coming either from the singularity in the dynamical particle-hole bubble at $`q=0`$ or at $`q=2k_F`$. As the $`q=0`$ singularity is entirely dynamical, the non-analytic corrections to a Fermi liquid are dynamical in nature as well.

Effective mass and specific heat. To find the effective mass, $`m^{}(T)`$, and the correction to the specific heat, $`\delta C(T)`$, one needs to know the real part of the fermionic self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(k,\omega )`$, on the mass shell, i.e., at $`ϵ_k\left(k^2k_F^2\right)/2m=\omega `$. The two nontrivial second-order diagrams for the Fermi energy are presented in Fig. 1. We evaluated $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(k,\omega )`$ first, using the spectral representation, and then obtained $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$ on the mass shell via Kramers-Krönig transformation. The imaginary part of the self-energy reduces to well-known forms bloom  $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(k,\omega )\omega ^2\mathrm{ln}\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(k,\omega )T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$ for $`k`$ near the Fermi surface and in the limits of $`T0`$ and $`\omega 0`$, respectively. We obtained $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(k,\omega )`$ at arbitrary $`\omega /T`$ and $`\omega /ϵ_k`$. The full expressions are, however, rather involved and will be presented elsewhere ch\_mas . Using full $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(k,\omega )`$, we find for the real part of the self-energy on the mass shell, neglecting a regular, Fermi-liquid type $`\omega `$ term

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )=\frac{m\overline{U}^2}{16\pi ^2v_F^2}\omega |\omega |g\left(\frac{\omega }{T}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\overline{U}^2=U^2(0)+U^2(2p_F)U(0)U(2p_F)`$ and

$$g(x)=1+\frac{4}{x^2}\left[\frac{\pi ^2}{12}+\text{Li}_2\left(e^{|x|}\right)\right]$$
(4)
where $`\text{Li}_2(x)`$ is a polylogarithmic function.

In the two limits, $`g(\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`g(x1)4\mathrm{ln}2/x`$. The first limit corresponds to $`T=0`$ in which case Eq. (3) gives $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )\omega |\omega |`$. This non-analytic form agrees with power counting. For small $`\omega /T`$, i.e., for $`x1`$, the $`1/x`$ form of $`g(x)`$ leads to the $`\omega T`$ term in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$ for $`\omega T`$. This in turn implies that the quasiparticle mass $`m^{}(T)`$ acquires a linear-in-$`T`$ correction

$$m^{}(T)=m\left(1m^2\overline{U}^2\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{T}{E_F}\right).$$
(5)
Using Eqs.(3,4), we find a correction to the specific heat

$`\delta C(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{T}}\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \omega {\displaystyle \frac{n}{\omega }}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega ,ϵ_k=\omega )\right]`$ (6)
$`=0.174C_{FL}m^2\overline{U}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{E_F}}\right),`$
where $`C_{FL}=\pi Tm/3`$ is the Fermi-gas result. We see that a non-analyticity in the fermionic self-energy gives rise to the $`T^2`$ term in the specific heat. This term comes only from fermions in a near vicinity of the Fermi surface and from this perspective is model-independent.

We also verified that the non-analytic part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$ stems exclusively from the scattering process in which two internal momenta in the self-energy diagram are near $`𝐤`$, whereas the third one is near $`𝐤`$, i.e. , when both the total and transferred momentum are near zero. As an independent check, we obtained the non-analytic part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega )`$ by re-expressing the self-energy in terms of the particle-particle bubble–Eq. (3) then results from the (logarithmic) singularity of the particle-particle bubble at small total momentum and frequency. This should indeed be the case if only the scattering amplitude with zero total momentum is important.

Spin susceptibility. The relevant diagrams for the spin susceptibility are presented in Fig.2. Evaluation of the diagrams is rather tedious but straightforward. We calculated all diagrams in two ways: i) explicitly, by exploring the non-analyticities in the particle-hole bubble near $`q=0`$ and $`2k_F`$, and ii) by retaining only vertices in which both total and transferred are small. In the second approach, we expanded in total and transferred momenta and extracted universal contributions, which are independent of the upper cutoff for the expansion. We obtained identical results in both methods, which proves that only a single scattering amplitude is relevant.

The non-analytic contributions to the spin susceptibility from individual diagrams are as follows

$`\chi _1(Q,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0K(Q,T)\left[U^2(0)+U^2(2k_F)\right];`$
$`\chi _2(Q,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0K(Q,T)U(0)U(2k_F);`$
$`\chi _3(Q,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0K(Q,T)\left[U^2(2k_F)U^2(0)\right];`$
$`\chi _4(Q,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0K(Q,T)U(0)U(2k_F);`$
$`\chi _5`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _6=\chi _7=0,`$ (7)
where $`\chi _0=m/\pi `$, and $`K(Q,0)`$ and $`K(0,T)`$ are given by

$$K(Q,0)=\frac{2}{3\pi }\left(\frac{mU}{4\pi }\right)^2\frac{|Q|}{k_F};K(0,T)=\left(\frac{mU}{4\pi }\right)^2\frac{T}{E_F}.$$
(8)
Collecting all contributions, we find

$$\chi _s(Q,T)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}\chi _i(Q,T)=\chi _0\left[1+2K(Q,T)U^2(2k_F)\right].$$
(9)
We see that all non-analytic contributions with $`U(0)`$ cancel out, and the final result depends only on $`U(2k_F)`$.

We also performed a similar calculation in 3D and reproduced the BKV’s result–the analog of Eq.(9) but with $`K_{3D}(Q,0)=(1/18)(mk_FU/4\pi ^2)^2(Q/k_F)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(k_F/Q\right)`$. In agreement with BKV, we also found that $`K(0,T)T^2`$ with no logarithmic corrections.

We now look more deeply into how the non-analytic contributions to susceptibility emerge. The power-counting argument does not rely on the singularity in the particle-hole bubble. Indeed, near $`q=0`$, the singular $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m/\sqrt{(v_Fq)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2}`$ piece in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ has the scaling dimension of one and hence can be treated as a constant in power counting. However, we found that for each diagram, a replacement of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ by a constant does not give rise to a linear-in-$`|Q|`$ term in $`\chi _s(Q,0)`$ because the prefactor for the $`|Q|`$ term contains the integral over $`q`$, in which all poles are located in the same half-plane. The $`q`$ integral then obviously vanishes. This vanishing could not be detected in power counting. The substitution of the full $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ into the susceptibility makes power counting arguments valid as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ contains a branch-cut singularity which is present in both half-planes of $`q`$. With this term present, the location of the poles in a complex $`q`$ plane becomes unessential, and the $`q`$ integral does not vanish.

The linear-in-$`T`$ dependence of $`\chi (0,T)`$ is also associated with the singularity in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ph}(q,\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ but the way it emerges is different from $`T=0`$ and is similar to an anomaly. Consider for example the $`q=0`$ contribution to $`\chi _1(0,T)`$. Leaving the integration over $`q`$ and summation over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ as the last operations, we obtain

$$\chi _1^{q=0}(0,T)=2\chi _0\left(\frac{mU(0)}{4\pi }\right)^2\frac{T}{E_F}J,$$
(10)
where

$$J=\underset{m}{}𝑑qv_F^2q\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2(2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2(v_Fq)^2)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2+(v_Fq)^2)^3}.$$
(11)
Contrary to the $`T=0`$ case, the result for $`J`$ at finite $`T`$ depends on the order of the integration and summation. Indeed, integrating first over $`q`$ in infinite limits one obtains $`1/4`$ for all values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, and a subsequent frequency summation does not yield a universal piece confined to low energies. On the other hand, performing the summation over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ first, keeping $`q`$ finite, and then integrating over $`q`$, one obtains a universal $`1/4`$ piece in $`J`$ which gives rise to a linear-in-$`T`$ piece in $`\chi _s(0,T)`$. The correct way to compute $`J`$ is the second one, because the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$-independent result of the integration over $`q`$ is inconsistent with the fact that the integrand in (11) obviously vanishes at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0`$ for all finite $`q`$. In reality, $`q`$ is always bounded from below by the inverse system size.

We see that despite a formal analogy between the $`Q`$\- and $`T`$\- dependences of $`\chi _s`$, the mechanism behind $`\chi _s(0,T)T`$ is very different from the one that leads to $`\chi _s(Q,0)|Q|`$ as in the latter case the order of integration is unessential. The factor $`J`$ in (10) can be readily found for arbitrary $`D.`$ For $`D2`$, we have

$$J=\frac{(D2)(4D)}{8}\left(\frac{T}{E_F}\right)^{D2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dzz^{D2}}{e^z1}.$$
(12)
For $`D2`$, we reproduce $`J1/4`$. For arbitrary $`2<D<3`$, $`JT^{D2}`$, i.e., $`\chi _s\left(T\right)T^{D1}.`$ For $`D=3`$, however, the integral is regular, and $`JT`$, i.e., $`\chi _s(T)T^2`$ without logarithmic corrections.

Charge susceptibility. For the charge susceptibility, we have two additional contributuions given by diagrams 6 and 7 in Fig. 2. We find

$`\chi _6(Q,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0K(Q,T)\left[U^2(0)U^2(2k_F)\right];`$
$`\chi _7(Q,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0K(Q,T)\left[U^2(0)+U^2(2k_F)\right],`$ (13)
where $`K(Q,T)`$ is given by (8). Combining this last result with Eq. (7), we find that all non-analytic terms from individual diagrams cancel out, i.e., the charge susceptibility is regular, in agreement with Ref.millis .

To conclude, in this paper we demonstrated that the universal singularities in the bosonic response functions of a Fermi liquid give rise to universal non-analytic corrections to the Fermi-liquid forms of the self-energy and thermodynamic variables. We obtained explicit results in 2D for $`\delta C(T)T^2`$, $`\chi _s(Q,T=0)|Q|`$, $`\chi _s(Q=0,T)T`$. We demonstrated that these non-analytic terms come from the processes with both transferred and total momentum close to zero. We also demonstrated that thermal ($`T)`$) and quantum ($`|Q|`$) corrections to the spin susceptibility are of different origin. This explains why in 3D, $`\chi _s(Q,0)Q^2\mathrm{ln}Q`$, while $`\chi _s(0,T)T`$.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with A. Abanov, I. Aleiner, B. Altshuler, D. Belitz, G. Chitov, A. Finkelstein, M. Mar’enko, A. Millis, M. Norman, C. Pepin, A. Rosch, J. Rech, M. Reizer, and Q. Si. The research has been supported by NSF DMR 9979749 (A. Ch.) and NSF DMR-0077825 (DLM).


text:
# Variability, Brightness Temperature, Superluminal Motion, Doppler Boosting, and Related Issues

## 1. Variability Issues

Starting in the mid 1960s, it was becoming increasingly clear that many flat spectrum radio sources exhibited very rapid flux density variations (e.g., Sholomitskii 1965; Dent 1965; Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann 1968). This presented serious problems for conventional synchrotron models as it appeared to require a huge energy content and an excessive amount of inverse Compton cooling.

### 1.1. The Saga of 3C 120

One of most variable sources observed in the early years was PKS 0430+05 (Day et al. 1966) also known as NRAO 182 (Pauliny-Toth et al. 1966), which is now widely, but incorrectly, known as 3C 120. The misunderstanding about the nomenclature of this source goes back to the program of flux density and variability observations made with the newly completed 140-ft radio telescope at 10, 6, and 2 cm. The observing list for these programs was created by combining the source lists which Ivan Pauliny-Toth and I had separately made from our previous work at the 300 ft (mostly norther sources) and Parkes telescopes (mostly southern sources) respectively. One source was common to our two lists, but was called NRAO 182 by Pauliny-Toth and PKS 0430+05 by myself. Thinking that such a strong centimeter source should have been included in the better known low frequency catalogs, we searched in vain for a source at the same or nearby position in the 3CR catalog (Bennett et al. 1962)

Our inspection of the original confusion limited 3C Catalog was, at best, confusing. The position (B1950) given in the NRAO VLA Calibrator Manual is $`RA=04^\mathrm{h}30^\mathrm{m}31.^\mathrm{s}6`$ and $`Dec=+05{}_{}{}^{}14{}_{}{}^{}59.^{\prime \prime }6`$. The position of 3C 120 in the original 3C Catalog is $`RA=04^\mathrm{h}29^\mathrm{m}32^\mathrm{s}\pm 4^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`Dec=+01{}_{}{}^{}55{}_{}{}^{}\pm 8^{}`$ which is more than 3 degrees away in declination. However, due to noise and confusion, the positions of some sources in the 3C Catalog can be in error by one or more full lobe shifts of the interference pattern. At +5 degrees declination, $`\mathrm{\Delta }RA=57^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Dec=2{}_{}{}^{}13{}_{}{}^{}59^{\prime \prime }`$. Applying a correction of one lobe shift in each coordinate and allowing for an additional 2 sigma error in declination $`(16{}_{}{}^{})`$ gives $`RA=04^\mathrm{h}30^\mathrm{m}29^\mathrm{s}\pm 4^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`Dec=+05{}_{}{}^{}12{}_{}{}^{}\pm 8^{}`$. Although this is in reasonable agreement with the modern VLA position, after allowing for a lobe shift in both coordinates as well as a 2 sigma shift in declination, a 3C source can be found at almost any position in the sky. So, there is probably no connection between the original 3C 120 and the variable superluminal source which has received so much attention over the past three decades. Nevertheless, just for our own bookkeeping, somewhat frivolously we called our source“3C 120” in order not to favor either one of us with the NRAO or Parkes designation.

Subsequently, we discovered remarkably rapid flux density outbursts in “3C 120” with observed increases of as much as 1 Jy per week at 2 cm (Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann 1968). We were able to fit the change in peak flux density with frequency and time with a simple expanding source model (Shklovskii 1965; van der Laan 1966; Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann 1966) with multiple outbursts each separated by about a year. We were excited by these observations, and rushed into publication, having forgotten that we had essentially invented the name 3C 120 for this source. Since then, numerous authors have used this nomenclature in hundreds of subsequent publications (see NED). Apparently no one ever went back to look for 3C 120 in the original 3C or 3CR catalogs. This is a good opportunity to set the record straight. There is no 3C 120!

Curiously, no radio source since, has shown the same simple behavior. Rather most sources have multiple outbursts that overlap in frequency and time so that there is no unique decomposition into individual outbursts. In spite of the early success in interpreting 3C 120 and 1934$``$63 (Shklovskii 1965), and other sources, it isn’t clear how to accommodate the expanding source model within currently popular shock in jet models (e.g., Marscher & Gear 1985). Unfortunately, there were no VLBI observations at that time to study how the structure changed with time. Were there really multiple expanding components? If so, were they coincident in space, or did they propagate along a jet-like path? What was the size and expansion velocity of these transient outbursts? These questions partially motivated the development of the first NRAO-Cornell VLBI system. But, by the time the MkI VLBI system became operational in 1967, the isolated outbursts in 3C 120 had ceased. In subsequent years the outbursts have been weaker, and like other quasars and AGN individual outbursts overlapped in both frequency and time.

## 2. The Inverse Compton Catastrophe and Superluminal Motion

As 3C 120 is relatively nearby, it did not present any particular energetic problems. Other sources, such as 3C 279 appeared to require enormous energy, with up to $`10^{60}`$erg in the form of relativistic particles generated in less than one year (Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann 1966). Moreover, causality arguments placed limits on the size and corresponding radiation density of these transient sources. The amplitude and variability time scales of the observed outbursts appeared to be inconsistent with the calculated energy losses due to inverse Compton scattering (Hoyle, Burbidge, & Sargent 1966). It was particularly difficult to understand the variations that we and others observed at the longer wavelengths (Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann 1966; Fanti 1979; Hunstead 1972). These issues were exacerbated with the discovery of even more rapid intraday variability (IDV) (see Jauncey et al., these proceedings, page 199). Although now both the low frequency variablity and IDV are thought to arise from scattering in the ISM, the required dimensions still strain conventional theory.

The discovery of superluminal motion (Cohen et al. 1971, Whitney et al. 1971) offered a simple solution in terms of relativistic beaming (Cohen et al. 1977) following ideas suggested earlier by Rees (1966; 1967) and Woltjer (1966). However, recently, more extensive observations show little or no direct relation between variability time scales and observed velocity for individual sources; but, there remain ambiguities in the definition of the variability time scales. It is encouraging, however, that the distribution of observed velocities and variability time scales is consistent with a realistic distributions of Lorentz factors (Cohen et al., these proceedings, page 177).

## 3. $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(max) and Inverse Compton Cooling

Kellermann & Pauliny-Toth (1969) expressed the inverse Compton cooling arguments in terms that could be directly related to observations. We showed that for any realistic magnetic field strength that the ratio of inverse Compton radiation to synchrotron radiation is simply a function of the peak brightness temperature, $`T_\mathrm{b}`$. We pointed out that if $`T_\mathrm{b}>10^{12}`$ K, the relativistic electron population would be quickly quenched by inverse Compton cooling. Early VLBI observations appeared to indicate that for the compact flat spectrum radio sources, $`T_\mathrm{b}10^{1112}`$ K. However, with the benefit of 30 years of hindsight, both the derivation and the apparent agreement with VLBI observations were due to a series of fortuitous accidents.

Ivan and I did not intend to discuss the brightness temperature of synchrotron sources. Rather, we wanted to show from our multi-frequency flux density observations, that the flat spectra observed for many sources actually consisted of multiple peaks and valleys; and that this was due to the superposition of multiple components each of which becomes optically thick at different wavelengths.

This was in the very early days of VLBI, but multi-baseline multi frequency observations were already showing that, as expected from synchrotron theory, that components with the highest self absorption cutoff frequency, had the smallest angular diameter (Kellermann et al. 1969). Partly as a test of synchrotron radiation models, and partly to see if we could determine the magnetic field strength in the individual components, we plotted the spectral cutoff frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{m}`$ vs. $`S/\theta ^2`$. As shown in Figure 1, we also plotted lines of constant brightness temperature. Using the relation between angular size, surface brightness, and magnetic field, we showed lines of constant magnetic field strength, and we noted that the observed angular size and self absorption cutoff frequencies were consistent with $`B10^5`$ to $`10^4`$ Gauss. We were surprised to see that the observed values of $`T_\mathrm{b}`$ were essentially all in the narrow range $`10^{11}`$ to $`10^{12}`$ K.

We spent several weeks trying to understand what was special about $`T_\mathrm{b}3\times 10^{11}`$ K. Finally, we realized that with a simple substitution of variables the ratio of inverse Compton scattering to synchrotron radiation, $`L_\mathrm{c}/L_\mathrm{s}`$ can be expressed simply in terms of the observed brightness temperature. Hoyle, Burbidge, & Sargent (1966) had noted that if $`L_\mathrm{c}/L_\mathrm{s}>1`$, then the effect of inverse Compton cooling diverges, so we realized that values of $`T_\mathrm{b}>10^{12}`$ K cannot be sustained.

With the benefit of hindsight, the agreement between our derivation of $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(max)=$`10^{12}`$ K and the apparent maximum observed brightness temperature was fortuitous and was the result of the following over-simplifications and coincidences.

1) The limiting brightness temperature depends on the electron energy distribution, the upper energy limit, and the detailed geometry. We made our calculations for a uniform slab geometry as that was the only geometry for which we could handle the math, and reported that $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(max) is in the range $`10^{1112}`$ K, not $`10^{12}`$ K as is often stated in the literature. Based on more detailed calculations, Readhead (1994) estimates $`3\times 10^{11}`$ K as the limiting brightness temperature due to inverse Compton cooling.

2) There is no reason to assume that the VLBI observations were made at the peak of the spectrum. Below the peak, the flux density falls off rapidly as $`\nu ^{2.5}`$. Above, the cutoff frequency, the brightness temperature also falls off rapidly as $`\nu ^{2.7}`$. Thus the observed brightness temperature is likely to be less than the actual peak value.

3) The early VLBI observations used in our study had only a limited number of visibility measurements which we interpreted in terms of simple circular Gaussian components. We now know, of course, that the true structure is more complex, usually with multiple separated components. Thus, the apparent sizes that we used to calculate $`T_\mathrm{b}`$ reflected the component separation rather than the size of any individual component, and so it should not be used to calculate $`T_\mathrm{b}`$.

4) The inverse Compton limit to the maximum observed brightness temperature refers only to a source at rest. Doppler boosting increases the observed brightness temperature by the Doppler factor, $`\delta `$. Most of the sources which we included in our 1969 analysis are now known to show superluminal motion, (see Zensus et al., these proceedings, page 27). These sources have significant Doppler factors, so their brightness temperature can significantly exceed the inverse Compton limit.

5) There is growing evidence that that in some sources, at least, the maximum brightness temperature is limited by free-free absorption from an intervening ionized medium rather than by synchrotron self absorption, (e.g., Vermeulen et al. 2003; Shaffer, Kellermann, & Cornwell 1999; Lister, these proceedings, page 71). However, these sources also have measured angular sizes which are consistent with self absorption, so that there appears to be a mixture of SSA and FFA taking place. It is curious however, that in these sources, the FFA and SSA opacities appear to be comparable.

6) Coherent processes, which can increase the observed brightness temperature above $`10^{12}`$ K may be important (e.g., Melrose 2002).

7) Synchrotron radiation from ultra relativistic protons can reach a peak brightness temperature which is about a factor of $`(m_\mathrm{p}/m_\mathrm{e})^{9/7}10^4`$ higher than from electrons (Kardashev 2000). However, in this case, the required magnetic field is much larger by a factor of $`(m_\mathrm{p}/m_\mathrm{e})^2`$ which is probably unrealistic.

8) Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann (1966) noted that for a source at rest, causality arguments indicated that the energy in relativistic electrons greatly exceeds that in the magnetic field and would be unrealistically large. The effect of Doppler boosting is to increase the apparent angular size and magnetic field strength, and so lower the relativistic particle energy requirements by $`\delta ^{7/2}`$. Doppler factors $`\delta 10`$ will typically bring the particle and magnetic energies into equilibrium. In this case the the peak brightness temperature is reduced by about a order of magnitude over the inverse Compton limit (Readhead 1994).

9) As we pointed out in our 1969 paper (see also Slysh (1992), the inverse Compton limit only applies after the source has reached equilibrium. For a limited period following the injection of a new supply of relativistic electrons, or if there is continuous reacceleration, brightness temperatures may be observed which are in excess of the inverse Compton limit. In this case, copious X-ray emission should be observed. For example first order Compton scattering will allow $`T_\mathrm{b}`$ to exceed $`10^{12}`$ K for about one year following the injection of relativistic electrons. Higher order scattering will reduce the lifetime further, but the scattering is ultimately limited by quantum effects.

10) Finally, we point out that the measured values of brightness temperature which prompted our discussion of $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(max) and inverse Compton cooling was merely the natural consequence of the size of the Earth and the limited range of flux density observed, and had nothing to do with radio source physics. This is because the resolution of any interferometer is given by $`\theta =\lambda /D`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of observation, and $`D`$ is the baseline length. For a radio source of flux density $`S`$ and angular size, $`\theta `$, the brightness temperature $`T_\mathrm{b}=2k\lambda ^2S/\theta ^2`$. Thus $`T_\mathrm{b}SD^2`$, and is independent of angular size and observing wavelength. For $`1<S_{\mathrm{Jy}}<10`$, and $`D5000`$ km, $`T_\mathrm{b}10^{1112}`$ K.

## 4. Current Issues

More than three decades have passed since Ivan and I considered the question of a limiting brightness temperature. In many ways we are still asking the same questions about the same issues. However, due to tremendous advances in both the observational data and theoretical models, our questions are at a much higher level than before. Although the observations sometimes strain conventional synchrotron models and relativistic boosting, there does not appear to be any show stoppers. However, the number of free parameters needed to accommodate the observations has become uncomfortably large, and it has proven difficult to confirm by observation the predicted effects of relativistic motion. The early models make simple predictions. But, today, consideration of jet instead of ballistic flows, possible differences between the bulk velocity and the pattern velocity, combined with a distribution of intrinsic Lorentz factors has removed the predictability, and thus the simplicity, if not the attractiveness of these models.

It is perhaps sobering to recall that the concept of relativistic beaming was first introduced in the mid 1960’s to explain the rapid variability that was observed in quasars, and which appeared to be dramatically confirmed by the discovery of superluminal motion in 1971. But, predictions of the distribution of observed velocity distribution can only be reconciled with observations by introducing modifications to the simple theory which involves new free parameters. Meanwhile simple non-Doppler boosting models such as suggested by Ekers and Liang (1989) are surprisingly consistent with the observed velocity distribution. The main evidence for Doppler boosting remains, as in the 1960’s, the rapid flux density variations, not superluminal motion.

As discussed by Cohen et al. (these proceedings, page 177) application of the standard causality argument combined with the measured velocities can be used to estimate the intrinsic brightness temperature and Doppler factor. Although there is no simple direct relationship between the brightness temperatures calculated from variability time scales and measured velocities, the observed values are consistent with a reasonable distribution of Lorentz factors. However ambiguities in defining the variability time scales, in relating the variable component to the moving component, and the apparent differences between the bulk velocity and pattern velocity may preclude any meaningful quantitative conclusions.

Modern VLBA (Kellermann et al; 1998, Zensus et al. 2002; Kovalev, these proceedings, page 65) and VSOP space VLBI (Tingay et al. 2001) observations suggest maximum observed brightness temperatures in the range $`10^{1113}`$, much as we measured in the first years of VLBI. Although VSOP uses longer baselines, fringe visibilities are more accurately determined on the VLBA so the corresponding size limits for unresolved components are comparable for the two instruments. The Russian RadioAstron space VLBI mission which is scheduled for launch in 2006 will give more than an order of magnitude increase in baseline length. This will directly measure brightness temperatures up to $`10^{15}`$ K and perhaps allow better comparison with calculated Doppler factors.

The maximum relativistic boosting occurs when the the motion is oriented directly along the line of sight. In this case, $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(obs) $`2\gamma T_\mathrm{b}`$(int) where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor. The observed range of $`T_\mathrm{b}`$ is consistent with the observed range of apparent velocity and intrinsic values of $`T_\mathrm{b}10^{1011}`$ K, or close to both the inverse Compton limit and the equilibrium value. However, perhaps surprisingly, there is no simple one-to-one relation between the observed brightness temperature and measured superluminal motions.

Using the same kind of causality arguments used in the 1960s to “predict” superluminal motion, IDV observations suggest brightness temperatures as much as $`10^{21}`$ K they are intrinsic and $`T_\mathrm{b}10^{15}`$ K if the variations are due to interstellar scintillations as seems likely, (Jauncey et al., these proceedings, page 199). It may be hard to reconcile these numbers with reasonable Doppler factors.

In principle, the intrinsic brightness temperature and Doppler factor can be determined from the ratio of observed inverse Compton X-ray flux density to the radio flux density from synchrotron radiation, (e.g., Unwin et al. 1997). However, there are three problems in implementing this technique. 1) It is difficult to get contemporaneous radio and X-ray light curves. 2) We don’t know whether the X-rays are coming from the core or from somewhere along the jet. 3) There may be an unknown additional (non-Compton), amount of X-ray emission for example from the hot ionized torus surrounding the central black hole.

The concept of equipartition in extragalactic radio sources was first introduced by Burbidge (1959) to minimize the total energy content of extended lobe radio sources which typically have ages of $`10^{89}`$ years. We do not know if it is appropriate to assume that equipartition conditions apply in the short lived compact cores and jets. Indeed, the presence of bulk relativistic motion in the parsec scale jets suggests that the plasma may not be contained by the magnetic field so that there may be an excess of particle energy over magnetic energy. Comparison of Doppler factors deduced from variability time scales and measured proper motions suggests that the intrinsic brightness temperatures may be closer to the equipartition value than to the inverse Compton limit (Cohen et al., these proceedings, page 177), but the difference between the two is small and perhaps not meaningful.

####

I am grateful to the many colleagues with whom I have had the privilege of working; especially to Ivan Pauliny-Toth who could not be here with us, but who collaborated with me for many years in the work described in this paper; as well as Marshall Cohen, who has been a valued colleague and good friend for nearly all of the 40 years that I have been working in radio astronomy, and who organized this meeting. Special thanks go to Dan Homan and Matt Lister who have tried to educate me in the subtleties of the L$`A`$ language. The NRAO is is a facility of the NSF which is operated under cooperative agreement by AUI.

### References

Bennett, A. S. 1962, MNRAS, 68, 1

Burbidge, G. R. 1959, ApJ, 129, 849

Cohen, M. H. et al. 1971, ApJ, 170, 207

Cohen, M. H. et al. 1977, Nature, 268, 405

Day, G. A., et al. 1966, Austr. Jour. Phys. 19, 35

Dent, W. A. 1965, AJ, 70, 672

Fanti, R., Ficarra, A., Mantovani, F., Padrielli, L., & Weiler, K. 1979, A&AS, 36, 359

Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G. & Sargent, W. 1966, Nature, 209, 751

Hunstead, R. W. 1972, ApJ, 12, L193

Kardashev, N. S. 2000, Astron. Rep., 44, 719

Kellermann, K. I., et al. 1968, ApJ, 153, L209

Kellermann, K. I. & Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1969, ApJ, 155, L71

Marscher, A. P. & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114

Melrose, D. B. 2002, PASA, 19, 34

Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., Wade, C. M., & Heeschen, D. S. 1966, ApJS, 13, 65

Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. & Kellermann, K. I. 1966, ApJ, 146, 634

Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. & Kellermann, K. I. 1968, ApJ, 152, L169

Rees, M. J. 1967, MNRAS, 135, 345

Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51

Shaffer, D. B., Kellermann, K. I., & Cornwell, T. J. 1999, ApJ, 515, 558

Shklovskii, I. S. 1965, AZh, 42, 30

Sholomitskii, G. B. 1965, Soviet Ast., 9, 516

Slysh, V. I. 1992, ApJ, 391, 453

Tingay, S. J. et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L55

Unwin, S. C., et al. ApJ, 480, 596

van der Laan, H. 1966, Nature, 211, 1131

Vermeulen, R. C. & Cohen, M. H. 1994, ApJ, 430, 467

Vermeulen, R. C., et al. 2003, A&A, 401, 113

Woltjer, L. 1966, ApJ, 146, 597

Whitney, A. et al. 1971, Science, 173, 225

Zensus, J. A., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 662

## Index

* 1934$``$63 §1.1.
* 3C 120 §1.1., §1.1., §1.1., §1.1., §1.1., §2.
* 3C 279 §2.
* NRAO 182 §1.1.
* PKS 0430+05 §1.1.


text:
# Internal symmetry in Bianchi type-I cosmologies

## I Introduction

Einstein’s classical theory of gravitation has been successfully applied to the solution of problems concerning astronomical scales of length and time, such as the formulation of cosmological models. In the development of cosmology much effort is being focused on models in which the universe was expanding at very early stages of its evolution. There is observational evidence that at present the Universe seems homogeneous and has been highly isotropic since the recombination era. In fact, observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxies, and other astronomical objects reveal that our universe, on a very large scale, is remarkably uniform  and is currently under accelerated expansion -. It follows that on large scales the accelerated expansion is the mechanism to solve the problem of the apparent large-scale isotropy of the universe and its behaviour is approximately described by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) model.

The claimed isotropy of the universe is deduced from reliable measurements, which are the most accurate ones in cosmology. However, these results have been established for times after the era at which the universe became transparent to radiation. Their extrapolation to earlier times and, in particular, near the Planck or string scale is totally unfounded. There are theoretical arguments that sustain the existence of an anisotropic phase that approaches an isotropic one . In addition, the desire to avoid the assumption of special initial conditions implied by the FRW models suggests the study of more general cosmological models such as anisotropic and spatially homogeneous ones.

It is generally accepted that the early universe was characterized by a highly irregular expansion mechanism. Therefore, it is interesting to study more appropriate cosmological models in which anisotropies, existing at early stage of the expansion, are damped out in the course of the evolution. This investigation has increased since in Ref.  it was shown that the creation of scalar particles can dissipate the anisotropy as the Universe expands. A physically acceptable cosmology should provide a mechanism to achieve an accelerating expansion at the present time.

A Bianchi type-I universe is of particular interest because it is one of the simplest models that contains special isotropic cases and allows arbitrarily small anisotropic levels . Since the actual Universe is surprisingly isotropic, it makes a suitable candidate for studying the possible effects of an anisotropy in the early Universe on present-day observations.

The solutions of the low-energy string cosmological effective action are by their nature anisotropic  and there is evidence that the dynamics of the early universe may have been profoundly influenced by the presence of spatial anisotropies just below the Planck or string scale . In  a new family of exact spherically symmetric solutions was found in the model with a one-component anisotropic fluid for a general equation of state. In this context, it is important to analyze the role of different sources of anisotropy in the Einstein equations.

Internal symmetry has proven to be a useful tool for field theory in flat spacetime to understand charge conservation, isospin, etc., and gauge theories have played an important role in understanding high-energy phenomena. Any theory that attempts to unify the different physical interactions must discuss the two following points: the structure of the dynamical interactions among the fundamental fields, and the nature of the internal symmetry group (ISG) that governs these interactions. We are interested in the second point, not with a phenomenological motivation, but for a more fundamental reason, e.g., the properties of the Einstein gravitational action itself. As far as we know, few efforts have been made to investigate this kind of symmetry in the context of general relativity.

In  we exploited and investigated an unusual kind of internal symmetry of the Einstein field equations in homogeneous spacetime, e.g., the form invariance symmetry, which relates the expansion rate (geometrical variable) with the energy density and pressure of the perfect fluid (source variables). It has proved to be a useful concept to give a satisfactory explanation of the assisted inflation mechanism, appealing to the cooperative effect of adding the energy density into the Friedmann equation.

Below, we investigate the internal symmetries of the Einstein equations for the particular case of an expanding universe described by anisotropic Bianchi type-I metrics throughout its whole evolution.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we find the linear transformation of the expansion rates which preserves the Einstein gravitational action for the Bianchi type-I spacetime and present the three-dimensional internal space. In Sec. III we show that a vector representation of the ISG exists where two scale factors of the Bianchi type-I cosmology with perfect fluid become equal. We find the general solution for a perfect fluid with a constant baryotropic index and investigate its asymptotic behavior. In Sec. IV exact solutions are found for three types of anisotropic fluids. Finally, the conclusions are stated in Sec. V.

## II Internal symmetry group

The spatially homogeneous anisotropic Bianchi type-I spacetime is described by the line element

$$ds^2=dt^2+a_1(t)^2dx^2+a_2(t)^2dy^2+a_3(t)^2dz^2.$$
(1)
We write the classical Einstein gravitational action $`S_E`$ for the metric (1),

$$S_E[g]=\sqrt{g}[\dot{H}_1+\dot{H}_2+\dot{H}_3+H_1^2+H_2^2+H_3^2+$$

$$H_1H_2+H_1H_3+H_2H_3]d^4x,$$
(2)
where $`g`$ denotes the metric determinant, $`H_i=\dot{a}_i/a_i`$ are the expansion rates along the three spatial directions, and $`i=1,2,3`$. Throughout this paper, we use units such that $`c=8\pi G=1`$. This gravitational action is invariant under a linear transformation of the expansion rates that preserves the following quantities:

$$Q_1=H_1+H_2+H_3,$$
(3)
$$Q_2=H_1^2+H_2^2+H_3^2.$$
(4)
These invariants can be expressed in terms of the expansion scalar $`\theta `$ and the shear scalar $`\sigma `$ as $`Q_1=\theta `$ and $`Q_2=\sigma ^2+\theta ^2/3`$. Introducing an internal three-dimensional cartesian space, we can see that the points of the circumference defined by the intersection of the plane (3) with the surface of the sphere (4) are equivalent. Hence, the linear transformations $`H_i^{}=H_i^{}(H_i)`$, which transform points of this circumference into points of the same circumference, are internal symmetries of the Bianchi type-I geometrical action. A matrix representation of the ISG, isomorphic to the rotation group on a plane, is given by

$`𝐌={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+2\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi & 1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ 1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi & 1+2\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ 1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi & 1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi & 1+2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right),`$ (8)
where $`\varphi `$ is the rotation angle. The elements of the rotation matrix $`𝐌`$ have the additional properties $`_{i=1}^3𝐌_{ik}=1`$ and $`_{k=1}^3𝐌_{ik}=1`$ to preserve the quantity $`Q_1`$ defined in Eq. (3).

The variational problem in the gravitational action (2), for a stress tensor representing a fluid with energy density $`\rho `$ and pressures $`p_i`$, leads to the Einstein equations

$$3H^2=\rho +\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^2,$$
(9)
$$2\dot{H}=p+\rho +\sigma ^2,$$
(10)
$$\dot{\rho }+3H(\rho +p)+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0,$$
(11)
$$\stackrel{}{\sigma }\dot{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}+3H\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$
(12)
where the average expansion rate $`H`$ and the shear vector $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the trace and the traceless part of the extrinsic curvature $`K_{ij}`$ of the homogeneous time slice. The former can be expressed in terms of the average scale factor $`a=(g)^{1/6}`$, as $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, and the latter has components $`\sigma _i=H_iH`$. The isotropic pressure is $`p=(p_1+p_2+p_3)/3`$ and the components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are the transverse pressures $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=p_ip`$. In addition, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ transform as a vector in the internal space. Note that decomposing the three-dimensional internal space as a direct sum of one-dimensional space containing the rotation axis and a two-dimensional orthogonal space, we can see that $`H`$ and $`p`$ are invariants under the action of the ISG, while $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are vectors contained in the two-dimensional orthogonal space.

From the dynamical equation of the shear (12) we get

$$\sigma _i=\frac{\sigma _{i0}}{a^3}+\frac{1}{a^3}a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i𝑑t,$$
(13)
where the three integration constants $`\sigma _{i0}`$ transform as the components of a vector in the internal space and satisfy the transverse condition $`\sigma _{10}+\sigma _{20}+\sigma _{30}=0`$ with $`\sigma _{10}^2+\sigma _{20}^2+\sigma _{30}^2=\sigma _0^2`$. Defining the dimensionless constants $`q_i=\sigma _{i0}q/\sigma _0`$ such that

$$q_1+q_2+q_3=0,q_1^2+q_2^2+q_3^2=q^2,$$
(14)
along with the functions $`m`$ and $`\mu _i`$,

$$\frac{\dot{m}}{m}=\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3,\frac{\dot{\mu }_i}{\mu _i}=\frac{1}{a^3}a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i𝑑t,$$
(15)
where $`a_0=(\sigma _0/q)^{1/3}`$, then the scale factors along the three spatial directions are obtained by integrating the shear vector (13)

$$a_i=a_{i0}a\mu _im^{q_i},$$
(16)
where the integration constants $`a_{i0}`$ and the functions $`\mu _i`$ satisfy the constraint $`a_{10}a_{20}a_{30}\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3=1`$.

Due to the vector nature of the expansion rates $`H_i`$ the three scale factors $`a_i`$ give rise to the following vector representation of the ISG

$$\mathrm{ln}a_i^{}=𝐌_{ik}\mathrm{ln}a_k,$$
(17)
and the internal symmetry transformations map solutions of the Einstein equations (9)-(12) into solutions of the same equations. In the next section we will use Eq. (17) to reduce the internal degrees of freedom of the Bianchi type-I metric. On the other hand, the transformation rule (17) extends the results of the previous paper , where the form invariance symmetry of the Einstein equations for a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime was shown .

## III Bianchi type-I cosmology with a perfect fluid

A wide class of cosmological models have the initial stage similar to that of the vacuum Bianchi type-I model first considered by Kasner. Investigations of such spacetime filled with a perfect fluid were carried out in -. Later on in , it was shown that the evolution of the model with a stiff fluid is significantly different from that of models with dust or radiation, and the initial vacuum assumption can be violated.

In this section we use the internal space to reexamine the Bianchi type-I cosmology with a perfect fluid characterized by an isotropic pressure $`p`$. For this fluid the transverse pressure $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ vanishes, so Eq. (15) gives $`\mu _i=`$const and the shear (13) turns into

$$\sigma _i=\frac{\sigma _{i0}}{a^3}.$$
(18)
Then $`\sigma ^2=\sigma _0^2/a^6`$ is the contribution of the shear to Eq. (9) and the Einstein equations (9)-(12) look as if they were the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations for two separately conserved perfect fluids, one of which behaves as if it were a stiff fluid. In the $`q_i`$-parameter representation the scale factors (16) read

$$a_i=a_{i0}am^{q_i},$$
(19)
where the three integration constants $`a_{i0}`$ satisfy the condition $`a_{10}a_{20}a_{30}=1`$.

As Eqs. (9)-(12) contain an explicit dependence on the constant $`q^2`$ and each scale factor (19) is generated by the constants $`q_i`$, two different solutions with labels $`q_i`$ and $`q_i^{}`$ satisfying Eq. (14) can be related by an internal symmetry transformation. The linear transformation $`q_i^{}=𝐌_{ik}q_k`$ induces the transformation (17) between two different solutions of the Einstein equations with the same source and shear scalar.

The ISG can be used to reduce the internal degrees of freedom of the Bianchi type-I metric. In fact, the scale factors $`a_i`$ generate a vector representation of this group; hence, for a given set of constants $`q_i`$ a system of coordinates exists in the internal space where two components of the transformed constants $`q_i^{}`$ become equal. This job is done by the matrix

$`𝐌_{(q_1^{}=q_2^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\sqrt{6}q_3/q& 1\sqrt{6}q_1/q& 1\sqrt{6}q_2/q\\ 1\sqrt{6}q_2/q& 1\sqrt{6}q_3/q& 1\sqrt{6}q_1/q\\ 1\sqrt{6}q_1/q& 1\sqrt{6}q_2/q& 1\sqrt{6}q_3/q\end{array}\right).`$ (23)
Using this matrix in the transformation rule (17), we obtain the scale factors in the new representation

$$a_1^{}=a_{10}am^{q/\sqrt{6}},a_2^{}=a_{20}am^{q/\sqrt{6}},a_3^{}=a_{30}am^{\sqrt{2/3}q}.$$
(24)
This shows that any Bianchi type-I cosmology with a perfect fluid can be mapped by means of an internal symmetry transformation to a locally rotationally symmetric model with the same source and shear scalar. To see this result explicitly we fix the constant $`q^2=2/3`$ in the first Eq. (15); then the scale factors (19) become

$$a_1=a_{10}a_0\frac{m^{s_1}}{\dot{m}^{1/3}},a_2=a_{20}a_0\frac{m^{s_2}}{\dot{m}^{1/3}},a_3=a_{30}a_0\frac{m^{s_3}}{\dot{m}^{1/3}},$$
(25)
where the parameters $`s_i=q_i+1/3`$ satisfy the Kasner constraints

$$s_1+s_2+s_3=1,s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2=1.$$
(26)
A one-parameter representation of the Kasner exponents $`s_i`$ is given by

$$s_1=\frac{1}{3}\left[1+\frac{2b}{\sqrt{3+b^2}}\right],s_2=\frac{1}{3}\left[1+\frac{3b}{\sqrt{3+b^2}}\right],s_3=\frac{1}{3}\left[1\frac{3+b}{\sqrt{3+b^2}}\right].$$
(27)
where $`b`$ is the parameter. Hence, for the Bianchi type-I spacetime filled with a perfect fluid, we conclude that the set of solutions (25) generated by the Kasner exponents $`s_i`$ are related to each other by internal symmetry transformations. In particular, for $`b=1`$ we reobtain the locally rotationally symmetric solution (24).

### III.1 General solution

Now, we investigate a cosmological model with perfect fluid. The energy-momentum tensor of the fluid is $`T_{ik}=\rho u_iu_k+ph_{ik}`$, where $`\rho `$ is the energy density, $`p`$ the equilibrium pressure, $`u^i`$ the four-velocity of the fluid, and $`h_{ik}`$ the projection tensor $`h_{ik}=g_{ik}+u_iu_k`$. The components of the fluid four-velocity are $`u^i=(1,0,0,0)`$. An equation of state of the form $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$ with a constant baryotropic index $`\gamma `$ is also assumed. Integrating the conservation Eq. (11) we get the energy density $`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }/a^{3\gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an integration constant. In this case, introducing the variable $`v=a^3=\sqrt{g}`$ in Eqs. (9) and (15), they become

$$v^2=1+3\lambda v^{2\gamma },\frac{m^{}}{m}=\frac{1}{v},$$
(28)
where the prime indicates differentiation with respect to the dimensionless time $`T=\sqrt{3/2}\sigma _0t`$ and $`\lambda =2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\sigma _0^2`$. The general solutions of both equations in (28) are given as follows.

Case $`\lambda >0`$ (positive energy density)

$$a^3=\left[\frac{1}{3\lambda }\mathrm{sinh}^2(\tau \tau _0)\right]^{1/(2\gamma )},m=\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{(\tau \tau _0)}{2}\right]^{2/(2\gamma )},$$
(29)
$$T=\frac{2}{2\gamma }(3\lambda )^{1/(\gamma 2)}\left[\mathrm{sinh}\tau \right]^{\gamma /(2\gamma )}𝑑\tau ,$$
(30)
where $`\tau _0`$ is an integration constant. From Eqs. (25), (29) and (30) the scale factors are

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left(\frac{4}{3\lambda }\right)^{1/3(2\gamma )}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\frac{(\tau \tau _0)}{2}\right]^{4/3(2\gamma )}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{(\tau \tau _0)}{2}\right]^{2s_i/(2\gamma )}.$$
(31)
If the baryotropic index is restricted to the range $`0<\gamma <2`$, then from Eq. (30) we see that $`T`$ and $`\tau `$ have the same asymptotic limits. This allows us to investigate the evolution of the scale factors in two asymptotic regimes using the exact solutions (29)-(31). In the first regime, $`a^3<(3\lambda )^{1/(\gamma 2)}`$, the perfect fluid is dynamically unimportant, the approximate average scale factor (29) becomes $`a^3T`$, and $`mT`$. Hence, qualitatively the behavior of the scale factors (31) is similar to that of the vacuum Kasner solution. Then, in first approximation, the fluid can be considered as a test matter on a highly anisotropic background. In the second regime, which starts from some characteristic time where $`a^3>(3\lambda )^{1/(\gamma 2)}`$, the fluid becomes dominant. In this case, the approximate average scale factor (29) and the scale factors (31) are $`aa_iT^{2/3\gamma }`$. This result shows that, owing to the spatial isotropy of the stress-energy tensor, the anisotropic Bianchi type-I model evolves into a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology and the initial anisotropy of this simple cosmological model is dissipated as the Universe expands.

Case $`\lambda <0`$ (negative energy density)

$$a^3=\left[\frac{1}{3\lambda }\mathrm{sin}^2(\tau \tau _0)\right]^{1/(2\gamma )},m=\left[\mathrm{tan}\frac{(\tau \tau _0)}{2}\right]^{2/(2\gamma )},$$
(32)
$$T=\frac{2}{2\gamma }(3\lambda )^{1/(\gamma 2)}\left[\mathrm{sin}\tau \right]^{\gamma /(2\gamma )}𝑑\tau .$$
(33)
From Eqs. (25), (32) and (33) the scale factors are

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left(\frac{4}{3\lambda }\right)^{1/3(2\gamma )}\left[\mathrm{cos}\frac{(\tau \tau _0)}{2}\right]^{4/3(2\gamma )}\left[\mathrm{tan}\frac{(\tau \tau _0)}{2}\right]^{2s_i/(2\gamma )},$$
(34)
they represent a universe having a finite time span.

For the particular cases $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\gamma =2,1,0`$, the explicit general solutions are given below.

1. $`\lambda =0`$ (vacuum),

$$a^3=T,m=T,a_i=a_{i0}T^{s_i}.$$
(35)
2. $`\gamma =2`$ (stiff fluid),

$$a^3=\sqrt{1+3\lambda }T,m=T^{1/\sqrt{1+3\lambda }},$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}(1+3\lambda )^{1/6}T^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{(s_i1/3)}{\sqrt{1+3\lambda }}}.$$
(36)
3. $`\gamma =1`$ (dust),

$$a^3=T\left(1+\frac{3\lambda }{4}T\right),m=\frac{T}{T+\frac{4}{3\lambda }},$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left(\frac{3\lambda }{4}\right)^{1/3}\left[\frac{T}{T+\frac{4}{3\lambda }}\right]^{s_i}\left(T+\frac{4}{3\lambda }\right)^{2/3}.$$
(37)
4. $`\gamma =0`$ (positive cosmological constant),

$$a^3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3\lambda }}\mathrm{sinh}\sqrt{3\lambda }T,m=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2}T,$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{3\lambda }}\right)^{1/3}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2}T\right]^{s_i}\mathrm{cosh}^{2/3}\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2}T.$$
(38)
5. $`\gamma =0`$ (negative cosmological constant),

$$a^3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3\lambda }}\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{3\lambda }T,m=\mathrm{tan}\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2}T,$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{3\lambda }}\right)^{1/3}\left[\mathrm{tan}\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2}T\right]^{s_i}\mathrm{cos}^{2/3}\frac{\sqrt{3\lambda }}{2}T.$$
(39)
Explicit solutions can also be found for other $`\gamma `$ values, but for physical reasons we do not pay attention to them.

## IV Anisotropic fluid

The kinetic and potential energy of the gravitational field that may be attributed to the presence of anisotropy could reach the same order of magnitude or even exceed the energy attributed to any other source present in the effective action at some time in the early evolution. Hence, the dynamics of the universe at that time could be profoundly distorted if one takes into account that contribution. To investigate these effects it is convenient to decompose the vector pressure in the internal space as a sum of a vector along the rotation axis vector $`\stackrel{}{n}=(1,1,1)`$ and a vector contained in a plane perpendicular to this axis, then $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}=p\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

Now we can find exact solutions of the Einstein equations (9)-(12) for three different sources, an anisotropic fluid with constant stress-energy tensor, an anisotropic fluid characterized by a vector pressure whose components are proportional to the energy density, and an anisotropic stiff fluid.

### IV.1 Constant stress-energy tensor

This fluid has a constant energy density $`\rho `$ and a constant vector pressure $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}=(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$. From Eqs. (9), (10) and (13), we have

$$(a^3)^{}\beta a^3=0,\beta =\frac{3}{2}(\rho p),$$
(40)
and

$$\sigma _i=\frac{\sigma _{i0}}{a^3}+3\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}{\beta }H,$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=p_ip`$ are the components of the transverse pressure. On the other hand, the conservation Eq. (11) gives

$$\rho +p+\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{3Ha^3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{\beta }=0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$
(42)
Choosing the integration constants so that the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are perpendicular, the third term in Eq. (42) vanishes. This choice, which is invariant under the action of the ISG, selects solutions for which the equation of state is

$$p^2=\rho ^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2,$$
(43)
or in terms of the pressures $`p_i`$

$$2\left(p_1p_2+p_1p_2+p_2p_3\right)=p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2+3\rho ^2.$$
(44)
When the energy density $`\rho `$ is greater than the transverse pressure $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we expand the equation of state (43) in powers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\rho `$ and $`p\pm (\rho +\mathrm{\Sigma }^2/3\rho +\mathrm{})`$. The negative branch could describe a modified Chaplygin gas (see ); by a Chaplygin gas we mean a perfect fluid with the equation of state $`p=A/\rho `$ where $`A`$ is a constant and $`p<0`$. This equation of state has raised a certain interest recently due to its many interesting features . It has a connection with string theory and can be obtained from the Nambu-Goto action for $`d`$-branes moving in a $`(d+2)`$-dimensional spacetime in the light-cone parametrization . In addition, the Chaplygin gas is the only fluid which, up to now, admits a supersymmetric generalization . In the above approximation the constant $`A=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2/3`$ would represent the first contribution of the anisotropy pressure to the isotropic average pressure.

From Eqs. (15) and (41) we obtain the scale factors

$$a_i=a_{i0}m^{q_i}a^{1+\frac{3\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}{\beta }},$$
(45)
where the variable $`v=a^3`$ satisfies the equation

$$\dot{v}^2=\frac{3}{4}\sigma _0^2\frac{\rho p}{\rho }\left[1+\frac{2\rho }{\sigma _0^2}v^2\right],$$
(46)
which has been obtained by inserting Eq. (41) in Eq. (9). For $`\rho =p=\lambda `$ Eq. (46) reduces to Eq. (28) for $`\gamma =0`$, Eq. (43) leads to a vanishing transverse pressure, and the fluid becomes a perfect fluid. In other cases, introducing the parameter $`3\lambda =2\rho /\sigma _0^2`$ and the dimensionless time $`T=\sigma _0\sqrt{3(\rho p)/\rho }t/2`$ in Eqs. (15) and (46), they turn into Eq. (28) for $`\gamma =0`$ after fixing $`q=\sqrt{2\rho /\beta }`$. Inserting its solutions in the scale factors (45) we get three different types of solutions

1. $`\rho >0`$ and $`p<\rho `$

$$a^3=\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2\rho }}\mathrm{sinh}\sqrt{\beta }t,m=\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\sqrt{\beta }}{2}t\right],$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\sqrt{\beta }}{2}t\right]^{q_i}\left(\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2\rho }}\mathrm{sinh}\sqrt{\beta }t\right)^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}{\beta }}.$$
(47)
2. $`\rho <0`$ and $`p>\rho `$

$$a^3=\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2\rho }}\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\beta }t,m=\left[\mathrm{tan}\frac{\sqrt{\beta }}{2}t\right],$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}\left[\mathrm{tan}\frac{\sqrt{\beta }}{2}t\right]^{q_i}\left(\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2\rho }}\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\beta }t\right)^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}{\beta }}.$$
(48)
3. $`\rho <0`$ and $`p<\rho `$

$$a^3=\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2\rho }}\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{\beta }t,m=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\mathrm{tan}^1\text{e}^{\sqrt{\beta }t}\right],$$

$$a_i=a_{i0}\mathrm{exp}\left[2q_i\mathrm{tan}^1\text{e}^{\sqrt{\beta }t}\right]\left(\frac{\sigma _0}{\sqrt{2\rho }}\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{\beta }t\right)^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}{\beta }}.$$
(49)
Solutions (47) and (48) could be considered as a generalization of the solutions (38) and (39) with constant cosmological term. In fact, when the transverse pressure vanishes both sets of solutions are the same.

### IV.2 $`p_i\rho `$

Here we will find exact solutions for a cosmological Bianchi type-I model with an anisotropic fluid characterized by a vector pressure whose components are proportional to the energy density and investigate their asymptotic behavior. The equation of state is

$$\stackrel{}{𝒫}=(\stackrel{}{𝒢}\stackrel{}{n})\rho ,$$
(50)
with $`\stackrel{}{𝒢}=(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ a constant vector index that can be written as

$$\stackrel{}{𝒢}=\stackrel{}{𝒢}^n+\stackrel{}{𝒢}^\pi =\gamma \stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(51)
where $`0\gamma <2`$ is the average index and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the transverse index. The particular case of $`\gamma =2`$, anisotropic stiff fluid, will be investigated in the next subsection. Comparing Eqs. (50) and (51) with $`\stackrel{}{𝒫}=p\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, the average pressure and the transverse pressure are

$$p=(\gamma 1)\rho ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\rho .$$
(52)
For vanishing transverse index the average pressure $`p`$ reduces to the isotropic pressure and the equation of state becomes that of a perfect fluid.

Combining Eqs. (9)-(10) with the first one in Eq. (52), we obtain

$$a^3\rho =\frac{2}{3(2\gamma )}(a^3)^{}.$$
(53)
Using Eqs. (13), (15), (52) and (53), we calculate the shear vector

$$\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_0}{a^3}+\frac{2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{2\gamma }H,$$
(54)
and the corresponding scale factors after integrating Eq. (54)

$$a_i=a_{i0}m^{q_i}a^{1+\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{2\gamma }}.$$
(55)
With the aid of Eq. (15), the transverse pressure (52), and the shear vector (54) we can integrate the conservation Eq. (11) to obtain the energy density of the anisotropic fluid

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }m^{q\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\sigma _0}}}{a^{3\gamma +\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{2\gamma }}},$$
(56)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an integration constant and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\gamma _1^2+\gamma _2^2+\gamma _3^23\gamma ^2`$. Defining the effective index $`\gamma _e=\gamma +\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{3(2\gamma )}`$ and choosing the vector $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_0`$ perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, the energy density of the fluid takes the form $`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }/a^{3\gamma _e}`$ and the Einstein equation (9) for the variable $`v=a^3`$ becomes

$$\dot{v}^2=\frac{3}{2}\sigma _0^2\frac{2\gamma }{2\gamma _e}\left[1+\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sigma _0^2}v^{2\gamma _e}\right].$$
(57)
Finally, the scale factors are obtained after inserting the solutions of Eqs. (15) and (57) in Eq. (55). For fluids with average index $`0\gamma <2`$, the contribution of the transverse pressure increases the effective index. Consequently, the anisotropic pressure decelerates the average expansion of the universe.

The use of the dimensionless time $`T=\sigma _0\sqrt{3(2\gamma )/2(2\gamma _e)}t`$ transforms Eqs. (15) and (57) into Eq. (28) for $`3\lambda =2\mathrm{\Lambda }/\sigma _0^2`$ and $`\gamma =\gamma _e`$ after fixing $`q=\sqrt{2(2\gamma _e)/3(2\gamma )}`$. Its implicit solutions are obtained making these changes of variables in the solutions (29),(30) and (32),(33) of the Sec. III A.. Explicit solutions also can be found for $`\gamma _e=0,1,2`$ following the same steps as were done in that subsection. For a vanishing transverse pressure $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ we reobtain Eq. (28) for the isotropic perfect fluid.

To look into anisotropic fluid effects on the cosmological model, the behavior of the scale factors (55) will be investigated in two asymptotic regimes assuming that $`0<\gamma <2`$ and $`\gamma _e<2`$. In the first regime, when $`a^3<|\sigma _0^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/(2\gamma _e)}`$ the contribution of the anisotropic fluid can be neglected and Eqs. (57), (15) give $`vT`$ and $`mT`$. Hence, the scale factors (55) behave as

$$a_ia_{i0}T^{\frac{1}{3}+q_i+\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{3(2\gamma )}}.$$
(58)
In the second regime, which starts when $`a^3>|\sigma _0^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/(2\gamma _e)}`$ the fluid dominates and Eqs. (15), (57) have the approximate solutions $`a^3\nu T^{2/\gamma _e}`$ and $`m`$exp$`[(\gamma _e/\nu (\gamma _e2))T^{(\gamma _e2)/\gamma _e}]`$, where $`\nu =(\gamma _e\sqrt{3\lambda }/2)^{2/\gamma _e}`$ is a constant. Inserting them in Eq. (55), we get the large time behavior of the scale factors

$$a_ia_{i0}\left[\nu ^{1/3}T^{2/3\gamma _e}\right]^{1+\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{2\gamma }}.$$
(59)
Therefore, this cosmological model never reaches an isotropic stage. For $`\gamma _e>2`$ the existence of the solutions is linked to a negative energy density and the average scale factor has a finite time span.

### IV.3 Anisotropic stiff fluid

In this last subsection we will investigate the particular case of an anisotropic stiff fluid with equation of state $`p=\rho `$, where $`p`$ is the average pressure, and find the general exact solution for a selected set of transverse pressures. The average index (52) of this fluid is $`\gamma =2`$ and the general solution of Eq. (40) is $`a^3=a_0^3t`$, where $`a_0`$ is a constant. So the average expansion rate is $`H=1/3t`$. This suggests analyzing a transverse pressure which depends on the average scale factor as

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{a^{3n}},$$
(60)
where the transverse vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and the parameter $`n`$ are constants. The shear vector (13) becomes

$$\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3\stackrel{}{q}+\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{(2n)a_0^3a^{3(n1)}},n2,$$
(61)
$$\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3\stackrel{}{q}+\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{(a_0a)^3}\mathrm{ln}a^3,n=2,$$
(62)
and Eq. (9) gives the relation $`\rho =a_0^6/3a^6\sigma ^2/2`$ between the energy density of the anisotropic stiff fluid and the shear scalar.

Integrating the shear vectors (61) and (62), we get the general solution

$$a_i=a_{i0}a_0t^{\frac{1}{3}+q_i}\text{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_it^{(2n)}}{(2n)^2a_0^{3n}}\right],n2,$$
(63)
$$a_i=a_{i0}a_0t^{\frac{1}{3}+q_i+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{2a_0^6}\mathrm{ln}a_0^3t},n=2,$$
(64)
For $`n<2`$ the scale factors begin to evolve as it were an isotropic stiff fluid, $`a_it^{\frac{1}{3}+q_i}`$, (see Eq. (36)). But at late time the anisotropic stiff fluid dominates and, in this regime, the behavior of the scale factors is quite different from the isotropic case (see Eq. (36)). For $`n>2`$, the model has a high degree of anisotropy at early time, where the anisotropic stiff fluid dominates. After that, the scale factors evolve into those given by Eq. (36). This model could be used to describe a universe that is anisotropic at the very beginning. For $`n=2`$, the solution behaves as solution (36) near the characteristic time $`t_c=1/a_0`$.

## V Conclusions

We have found in the above results that the ISG of the Bianchi type-I cosmology is given internally by the Einstein gravitational action rather than being an additional external hypothesis imposed upon the model. Such a possibility appears to be reasonable for any unified gauge theory so that (a) the interactions are completely determined by the gauge invariance, and (b) a priori, the theory possesses an internal gauge group.

The relation between this ISG and the geometrical properties of the model is made through parameters such as the expansion scalar and the shear scalar, this means that the invariants of the group are expressed in terms of these quantities. The decomposition of the three-dimensional internal space as a direct sum of one-dimensional space containing the rotation axis and a two-dimensional orthogonal space allows one to write the Einstein equations in a simple manner. The three scale factors generate a vector representation of the ISG, and the associated transformations include a set that has been used to reduce the Bianchi type-I cosmology with a perfect fluid to a locally rotationally symmetric one with the same source and shear scalar. The existence of this particular representation is guaranteed by the existence of the internal space itself.

We have given an integral representation of the general solution to the Bianchi type-I cosmological model with a perfect fluid and constant baryotropic index, and shown that the scale factors approach the average scale factor asymptotically for large times when $`0\gamma <2`$. These solutions begin as Kasner solutions, but after some characteristic time they have a final Friedmann-Robertson-Walker stage. Hence, the perfect fluid source dissipates the initial anisotropy of the model.

In the last section we considered a Bianchi type-I cosmological model with three different types of anisotropic fluid; except for the anisotropic stiff fluid, the solutions found satisfy the constraint $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0`$. For an anisotropic fluid with constant stress-energy tensor we found a set of exact solutions which generalize those with a cosmological constant. When the magnitude of the transverse pressure is significantly smaller than the energy density of the fluid, the equation of state has a certain resemblance to that of an exotic fluid , called a modified Chaplygin gas equation of state. In the case where each pressure $`p_i`$ of the anisotropic fluid is proportional to the energy density $`\rho `$, we showed that the transverse pressure increases the effective index and decelerates the average expansion of the universe. Finally, we found a general solution for an anisotropic stiff fluid with transverse pressure $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}/a^{3n}`$. For $`n>2`$, the solutions are highly anisotropic at early time, but at late times they evolve into the isotropic stiff fluid solutions.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the University of Buenos Aires under Project X223. LPC thanks Alejandro S. Jakubi for useful discussions of this work.