text:
# The Future of Tilted Bianchi Universes

## 1 Introduction

In order to explain the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe and investigate the form of its small expansion anisotropies, it is important to understand the complete spectrum of anisotropic cosmological models. The subset of the most general anisotropic and inhomogeneous cosmological models that are most amenable to a full analysis are the spatially homogeneous Bianchi universes because the Einstein field equations for these cosmologies reduce to ordinary differential equations. They have been studied in considerable detail by many authors but attention has largely focussed on the behaviour of models with comoving perfect fluids. In this paper we will extend these analyses to the situation where the fluid is ’tilted’ with respect to the normals to the hypersurfaces of homogeneity and the fluid is not comoving.

In the study of Bianchi type universes there is special interest in the particular exact solutions of the Einstein equations which are attractors for more general classes of solution (see  for a review). The two recent papers, , have completed the investigation of all non-chaotic Bianchi models with a *non-tilted* $`\gamma `$-law perfect fluid and their asymptotic attractors are understood. This understanding takes the form of a phase-space description of the dynamics of the autonomous ordinary differential equations describing the cosmological evolution. However, when we turn to Bianchi models with *tilted* fluid motion , the situation is far from completely understood. Up to three additional degrees of freedom can be added to the phase spaces in these cases. Some analyses have been made of Bianchi universes with tilted fluids , in particular type $`II`$  and type $`V`$ , but a more general analysis has not been by date. The object of this paper is to provide a local stability analysis of a wide range of Bianchi universes containing tilted perfect fluids in order to elucidate their late-time behaviours. Specifically, we will consider Bianchi class B models, together with the type $`VI_0`$ model of class A, filled with a tilted $`\gamma `$-law perfect fluid. We will base our analysis on the results from the non-tilted analysis. The main reason for this is that, due to the complexity of the equations of motion, a complete analysis would need to find, or rule out the existence, of new tilted exact solutions which might act as attractors. However, a relatively simple analysis based on the results from the non-tilted models allows us to go a significant way towards understanding the behaviour of tilted universes.

Tilted universes display many features that are of considerable interest in the study of Einstein’s equations and their physical implication. They include rotating universes and are therefore of importance for any attempts to formulate and evaluate Mach’s Principle , the conditions needed for the appearance of closed timelike curves, and the properties of quantum cosmologies that tunnel from ’nothing’. The changes in the cosmological evolution of anisotropies that arise in brane-worlds are also of special interest but, so far, the influence of non-comoving velocities have not been studied. They are likely to be the most important factor in the evolution as can be seen from the effects of anisotropic pressures studied by Barrow and Maartens .

Before we embark on the formal analysis of the full Einstein equations governing the tilted Bianchi universes it is helpful to use some elementary physical arguments to determine when we might expect critical changes in the behaviour of velocities and vorticities to occur as the equation of state varies. Using a fairly simple argument we can give a rough estimate of the stability properties to be expected of non-comoving perfect fluids . A perfect fluid with equation of state, $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$, and constant $`\gamma `$, will evolve according to $`\rho a^{3\gamma }\theta ^2`$, where $`a(t)`$ is the mean scale factor and $`\theta =3\dot{a}/a`$ is the volume expansion rate. Consider an expanding universe that is close to isotropy: an eddy of fluid, with mass $`m`$, will conserve angular momentum, $`I\omega `$, if

$$Ma^2\omega =\mathrm{constant}.$$

For tilted fluids with velocity $`v=a\omega `$ and mass $`m\rho a^3,`$ this implies

$$\rho a^5\omega =\rho a^4v=\mathrm{constant}.$$

Thus for perfect fluids

$$va^{3\gamma 4},\omega a^{3\gamma 5}.$$

The ratio of the distorting *rotational energy density* $`\omega ^2`$ to the isotropic density evolves as

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{\theta ^2}\frac{\omega ^2}{\rho }a^{9\gamma 10}.$$

We see that we expect particular values of $`\gamma `$ to mark thresholds in the evolution of models containing non-comoving velocities and vorticity. In particular a threshold exists when $`\gamma =4/3`$: rotational velocities grow with $`a(t)`$ for $`\gamma >4/3`$ . The influence of vorticity on the expansion dynamics grows when $`\gamma >10/9.`$ The significance of the value $`\gamma =10/9`$ can be seen, for example, in the exceptional model, discussed section 3.5. In the analyses to follow we find that these critical values of $`\gamma `$ recur, along with the value $`\gamma =2/3`$, which marks a transition between universes that isotropise at late times (for $`\gamma <2/3`$) and those that do not (for $`\gamma >2/3`$). Of course, the detailed behaviour is more complicated than this discussion implies because the Bianchi types need not be close to isotropy and there are geometrical constraints on how the different components of the 3-velocity are able to evolve if energy and momentum are to be conserved 111This simple physical argument can be extended to the early stages of brane-world cosmologies. In brane-worlds we have $`\theta \rho `$ rather than $`\theta ^2\rho `$ at early times and so the distortion to the metric created by any vortical motions is much more significant than in general relativistic cosmologies as the universe expands. We have $`\omega /Ha^{6\gamma 5}`$ and rotational distortions grow in all brane-worlds with $`\gamma >5/6`$ and this includes the cases of matter and radiation domination..

In the next section we will determine the equations of motion for the tilted fluid in Bianchi universes. Then, in section 3, we will perform a stability analysis for the various asymptotic behaviours that are known from the study of non-tilted universes. In section 4 we will analyse the type $`VI_h`$ model. Finally, in section 5 we summarise and discuss our results.

## 2 The equations of motion

We choose a time variable so that the time is measured along time-like geodesics orthogonal to the surfaces of transitivity. The surfaces of transitivity are therefore spatial and we say that the spacetime is *spatially homogeneous*. For the Bianchi cosmologies – which admit a simply transitive symmetry group acting on the spatial hypersurfaces – we can always write the line-element as

$$ds^2=dt^2+g_{ab}(t)𝝎^a𝝎^b,$$

where $`g_{ab}`$ is a non-singular symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix only dependent upon time, $`𝝎^a`$ is a triad of one-forms obeying

$$𝐝𝝎^a=\frac{1}{2}C_{bc}^a𝝎^b𝝎^c,$$

and $`C_{bc}^a`$ are the structure constants of the Bianchi group type under consideration. The structure constants $`C_{bc}^a`$ can be split into a vector part $`a_b`$, and a trace-free part $`n^{ab}`$ by

$$C_{bc}^a=\epsilon _{bcd}n^{da}\delta _b^aa_c+\delta _c^aa_b.$$

The matrix $`n^{ab}`$ is symmetric, and, using the Jacobi identity, $`a_b=(1/2)C_{ba}^a`$ is in the kernel of $`n^{ab}`$

$$n^{ab}a_b=0.$$

The Bianchi types are divided into two classes:

* Class A: $`a_c=0`$.
* Class B: $`a_c0`$.

First, we will concentrate on the class B spacetimes. In this case we can choose the orientation of the triad so that $`a_c=a\delta _c^1`$. This implies that $`n^{ab}`$ is of rank 2 and can be written

$$\left(n^{ab}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& n^{22}& n^{23}\\ 0& n^{23}& n^{33}\end{array}\right].$$

Consider a perfect fluid with energy-momentum tensor

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu }.$$

The normalised 4-velocity of the fluid $`u^\mu `$ is in general tilted with respect to the normals to the hypersurfaces of homogeneity, $`n_a=t_{{}_{,}{}^{}a}`$; and the fluid three-velocity $`v^a`$, where $`u^\mu =(u^0,v^a)`$, will be assumed to be non-zero. The equations of motion for the fluid, $`T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$, can be written as a closed system of equations

$`(\rho +p)\dot{v}_av^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{p}v_av^a`$ (1)
$`(\rho +p)\left(u^0\dot{v}_c+v_av^bC_{bc}^a\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{p}u^0v_c`$ (2)
$`(\rho +p)\left(\dot{u}^0+v^ba_b+u^0\theta \right)+u^0\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3)
Here, $`\theta `$ is the volume expansion factor $`\theta =\dot{g}/2g`$. In our analysis, eqs. (1-3) are the essential equations because we will consider the stability of non-tilted solutions, that obey the Einstein equations with $`v_a0,`$ with respect to the perturbations introduced by the present of non-comoving velocities.

Recently, the two remaining Bianchi models with non-tilted $`\gamma `$-law perfect fluid have been analysed ; so all non-tilted Bianchi models have now been analysed and their asymptotic behaviours determined. Using these results, which give all the attractors in the set of non-tilted perfect fluid cosmologies, we can investigate the stability of the late-time non-tilted attractors against perturbations from tilted matter.

It is useful to introduce a orthonormal triad $`𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}(t)`$ by defining

$$\delta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}𝖾_b^{\widehat{b}}=g_{ab},\delta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=𝖾_{\widehat{a}}^a𝖾_{\widehat{b}}^bg_{ab}.$$

We can now write eqs. (1-3) in terms of the components $`v_{\widehat{a}}=𝖾_{\widehat{a}}^av_a`$ in the orthonormal frame:

$`(\rho +p)\left(\dot{v}_{\widehat{a}}v^{\widehat{a}}+\dot{𝖾}_a^{\widehat{a}}𝖾_{\widehat{b}}^av_{\widehat{a}}v^{\widehat{b}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{p}v_{\widehat{a}}v^{\widehat{a}}`$ (4)
$`(\rho +p)\left(u^0\dot{v}_{\widehat{c}}+u^0𝖾_{\widehat{c}}^a\dot{𝖾}_a^{\widehat{b}}v_{\widehat{b}}+v_{\widehat{a}}v^{\widehat{b}}𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}𝖾_{\widehat{b}}^bC_{bc}^a𝖾_{\widehat{c}}^c\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{p}u^0v_{\widehat{c}}`$ (5)
$`(\rho +p)\left(\dot{u}^0+v^{\widehat{b}}𝖾_{\widehat{b}}^ba_b+u^0\theta \right)+u^0\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6)
The stability of a particular solution can now be checked by linearising these equations around the exact non-tilted solution describing the asymptote in question. For non-tilted equilibrium points, the linearised version of eqs. (4-5) will be a closed set of equations, and hence, the stability analysis can to a large extent be done by considering these equations alone (provided the stability analysis has already been performed for the remaining equations).

More precisely, our stability analysis is based on the following observation. The total dynamical system (including the Einstein equations) can be written close to an equilibrium point, say at $`𝐱=0`$,

$$\dot{𝐱}=𝖠𝐱+𝐅(𝐱),$$

where $`𝐅(𝐱)`$ is at least quadratic in $`𝐱`$. In our case, when considering a non-tilted equilibrium point, the matrix $`𝖠`$ will be of the block form

$`𝖠=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝖠_\mathrm{𝟣}& \mathrm{𝟢}\\ 𝖡& 𝖠_2\end{array}\right].`$ (7)
This means that the eigenvalues of $`𝖠`$ are the union of the eigenvalues of $`𝖠_1`$ and $`𝖠_2`$. Thus if we choose equilibrium points that are stable in the set of non-tilted cosmologies, we only have to check the eigenvalues for $`𝖠_1`$; i.e. the linearised version of eq. (5). This simplifies the stability analysis considerably and turns out to be very fruitful. However, there are some limits to this procedure:

1. If the real parts of one or more eigenvalues of $`𝖠_1`$ are zero, then the stability analysis is inconclusive from analysing $`𝖠_1`$ alone.
2. For tilted equilibrium points, $`𝖠`$ will in general not have the form (7); i.e. the complete set of equations is needed to establish its stability.

Keeping these limitations in mind we shall perform a perturbation analysis for various spacetimes.

## 3 Stability analysis

We will study the various class B cases, plus the type $`VI_0`$ case which is closely related. We will henceforth assume that the tilted perfect fluid obeys the barotropic equation of state222Non-perfect fluid stresses, for example anisotropic pressures, can have significant effects on the evolution of anisotropies; see for example refs. .

$$p=(\gamma 1)\rho .$$

Note that ever-expanding cosmologies with inflationary types of fluids with $`0\gamma <2/3`$, will all asymptote to a FRW model with $`a(t)t^{2/3\gamma }`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ in accord with the cosmological “no-hair” theorem . These fluids will therefore not be considered explicitly in what follows. However, the $`\gamma =2/3`$ will appear as a stability boundary for the anisotropic attractors as expected.

The notion of tilt does not apply to an exact vacuum solution. Hence, for equilibrium points corresponding to vacuum spacetimes we can only define a tilt when they are perturbed away from any exact vacuum solutions. Thus, in what follows, when refer to stability with respect to the introduction of tilt we are determining whether the universe at late times is best described by a tilted or a non-tilted model. Also, when referring to the vacuum solutions we will always mean the non-tilted equilibrium points.

### 3.1 Bianchi type $`VII_h`$

The most general Bianchi universes containing the open Friedmann universe as a subcase are those of type $`VII_h`$. The general late-time asymptotes for non-tilted spacetimes of type $`VII_h`$ are the plane-wave vacuum solutions of Lukash .333These vacuum solutions can easily be generalised to plane-wave solutions with an electromagnetic field . For these solutions

$`𝝎^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$ (8)
$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{sx}\left[\mathrm{cos}\omega x\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}\mathrm{sin}\omega x\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\right]`$ (9)
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{sx}\left[\mathrm{sin}\omega x\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}+\mathrm{cos}\omega x\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}\right]`$ (10)
$`s(1s)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\mathrm{sinh}^22\beta ,`$ (11)
and

$$𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t& 0& 0\\ 0& t^se^\beta \mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}t)& t^se^\beta \mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}t)\\ 0& t^se^\beta \mathrm{sin}(\omega \mathrm{ln}t)& t^se^\beta \mathrm{cos}(\omega \mathrm{ln}t)\end{array}\right]$$

The group parameter, $`h`$, is given by

$$h=\frac{s^2}{\omega ^2}.$$

Furthermore, $`\theta =(2s+1)/t,`$ and they reduce to isotropy when $`s=1`$ and $`\omega =\beta =0`$. Eq. (6) is to lowest order in $`v_{\widehat{a}}`$

$`\dot{\rho }+\gamma \theta \rho =0.`$ (12)
This is the same as for non-tilted fluid. Defining expansion-normalised energy-density by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\theta ^2`$, we require $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}<0`$ for the solutions to be future stable. This yields the bound

$$\frac{2}{1+2s}<\gamma .$$

This is the usual bound required for the stability of these solutions in the space of non-tilted $`VII_h`$ universes with perfect fluid found earlier . Linearising eq. (5), using eq. (12), and dividing by $`\gamma \rho `$, we get the following system of equations for the 3-velocities:

$`v_{\widehat{1}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(2s+1)\gamma (2s+2)\right]v_{\widehat{1}}`$
$`v_{\widehat{2}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1)\right]v_{\widehat{2}}e^{2\beta }\omega v_{\widehat{3}}`$
$`v_{\widehat{3}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1)\right]v_{\widehat{3}}+e^{2\beta }\omega v_{\widehat{2}}.`$ (13)
Here, we have also introduced a new time-variable $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}t`$ and a prime denotes derivative with respect to $`\tau `$. The eigenvalues of this system of equations, which determine the stability of the plane-wave solutions, are

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`(2s+1)\gamma (2s+2),`$
$`\lambda _{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1)\pm i\omega .`$ (14)
Hence, the plane-wave solutions of type $`VII_h`$ are stable when

$$\frac{2}{2s+1}<\gamma <\frac{3s+1}{2s+1}.$$

Note that $`(3s+1)/(2s+1)4/3`$; so the solutions are unstable for fluids stiffer than radiation. This reflects the tendency for very stiff fluids to ’spin up’ as they expand in order to conserve angular momentum , as discussed above.

For radiation, $`\gamma =4/3`$, the solutions are unstable for $`s<1`$. The case $`s=1`$ yields a zero eigenvalue for radiation and has to be considered separately. However, $`s=1`$ implies that the solutions are LRS and are therefore the same as the LRS type $`V`$ solutions. Type $`V`$ evolution has been considered elsewhere, and, in particular, the stability of this solution has been analysed in detail . For *generic* perturbations444In , it is shown that this solution is, in fact, an attractor for a set of non-zero measure of solution trajectories in the state space of irrotational type V models. However, for some perturbations it is unstable and is therefore generically unstable. this solution is found to be *unstable*. Hence, all plane-wave solutions of type $`VII_h`$ are unstable for radiation ($`\gamma =4/3`$).

Since for a given $`s`$, any value of $`h`$ is possible, we can conclude that for any given $`h`$ there are plane-wave solutions of type $`VII_h`$ that are stable in the set of $`VII_h`$ models, whenever

$$\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\frac{4}{3}.$$

A summary of the results for type $`VII_h`$ is illustrated in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 Bianchi type $`V`$

The general late-time attractor for non-tilted type $`V`$ models is the isotropic Milne universe. This vacuum solution can be extracted from the Lukash plane waves above by choosing $`\omega =0`$, $`s=1`$. Hence, from the above we see that this solution is stable provided that

$$\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\frac{4}{3}.$$

This agrees with earlier results of other authors .

### 3.3 Bianchi type $`VI_h`$

Consider the type $`VI_h`$ plane-wave solutions given by

$`𝝎^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$ (15)
$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(s+b)x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}`$ (16)
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(sb)x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}`$ (17)
$`s(1s)`$ $`=`$ $`b^2+r^2,`$ (18)
and

$$𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t& 0& 0\\ 0& t^{s+b}& \frac{r}{b}t^{sb}\\ 0& 0& t^{sb}\end{array}\right].$$

The group parameter is given by

$$h=\frac{s^2}{b^2},$$

and $`\theta =(2s+1)/t`$. Following the same procedure as in the type $`VII_h`$ case, we obtain a lower bound from eq. (6):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+2s}}<\gamma .`$ (19)
Linearising eq. (5) we get

$`v_{\widehat{1}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(2s+1)\gamma (2s+2)\right]v_{\widehat{1}},`$
$`v_{\widehat{2}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1+b)\right]v_{\widehat{2}},`$
$`v_{\widehat{3}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1b)\right]v_{\widehat{3}},`$ (20)
and the eigenvalues are:

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`(2s+1)\gamma (2s+2),`$
$`\lambda _{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1\pm b).`$ (21)
Assuming that bound (19) holds, we have

$$\lambda _3>2(3s+1b)\frac{3}{2}(1\sqrt{h}).$$

Hence, all models with $`|h|<1`$ are unstable. The threshold model, of LRS type $`III=VI_1`$, has one solution with a zero eigenvalue.

Combining these results, we see that for $`|h|>1`$ there are stable plane wave solutions whenever

$$\frac{2(1h)}{13h}<\gamma <\frac{1\sqrt{h}4h}{13h}<\frac{4}{3}.$$

Consider next the Collins $`VI_h`$ perfect fluid solution

$`𝝎^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$ (22)
$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{r(2\gamma )+c}{2\gamma }x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}`$ (23)
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{r(2\gamma )c}{2\gamma }x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}`$ (24)
$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2),`$ (25)
and

$$𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t& 0& 0\\ 0& t^{\frac{2\gamma +rc}{2\gamma }}& 0\\ 0& 0& t^{\frac{2\gamma rc}{2\gamma }}\end{array}\right],$$

where $`0<r<1`$, and

$$h=\frac{(2\gamma )^2r^2}{c^2}.$$

This solution is stable to the future for non-tilted perfect-fluid cosmologies whenever

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}<\gamma <{\displaystyle \frac{2(1h)}{13h}}.`$ (26)
Linearising eq. (5), we get

$`v_{\widehat{1}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 2}{\gamma }}v_{\widehat{1}}`$
$`v_{\widehat{2}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}\left(5\gamma 6rc\right)v_{\widehat{2}}`$
$`v_{\widehat{3}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}\left(5\gamma 6+rc\right)v_{\widehat{3}}.`$ (27)
We note that

$$\lambda _1<0,\lambda _2<\lambda _3$$

for $`\gamma <2`$ and so stability is assured if

$$\lambda _3<0h<\frac{(5\gamma 6)^2}{(3\gamma 2)^2};$$

or in terms of $`\gamma `$,

$$\gamma <\frac{2(3+\sqrt{h})}{5+3\sqrt{h}}.$$

When $`h<1`$, this bound in tighter than the upper bound in eq. (26); when $`h>1`$ the bound (26) is the tightest. Hence, we can conclude that there are future stable Collins type $`VI_h`$ perfect fluid solutions in the presence of tilt so long as

$$\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\mathrm{min}(\frac{2(1h)}{13h},\frac{2(3+\sqrt{h})}{5+3\sqrt{h}})<\frac{6}{5}.$$

### 3.4 Bianchi type $`IV`$

The late-time attractors for non-tilted type $`IV`$ models are also plane waves. Their stability can be obtained from the type $`VI_h`$ analysis by taking the limit $`b0`$ to obtain the eigenvalues

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`(2s+1)\gamma (2s+2),`$
$`\lambda _{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`(2s+1)\gamma (3s+1).`$ (28)
Hence, there will be stable solutions whenever

$$\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\frac{4}{3}.$$

### 3.5 The exceptional model of Bianchi type $`VI_{1/9}^{}`$

The asymptotic dynamics of the exceptional model has been studied with a non-tilted perfect fluid by Hewitt , and more recently by Horwood et al . A stability analysis was done for both non-tilted fluid and with fluids with a single non-zero tilted component by Barrow and Sonoda .

Consider the Robinson-Trautman vacuum solution

$`𝝎^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$ (29)
$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\sqrt{6}}{5}x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}`$ (30)
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2\sqrt{6}}{5}x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}`$ (31)
and

$$𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t& 0& 0\\ \frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}t& t^{\frac{1}{5}}& 0\\ 0& 0& t^{\frac{3}{5}}\end{array}\right].$$

This solution has unusual volume expansion, with $`\theta =9/(5t)`$. This solution is an attractor for all non-tilted perfect fluids with $`10/9\gamma `$. This requirement for stability is easily seen to come from eq. (12). Linearising eq. (5), we obtain

$`v_{\widehat{1}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}(9\gamma 14)v_{\widehat{1}}`$
$`v_{\widehat{2}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}(9\gamma 10)v_{\widehat{2}}`$
$`v_{\widehat{3}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}(3\gamma 4)v_{\widehat{3}}.`$ (32)
However, due to the exact vanishing of the $`02`$-equation of Einstein’s field equations, we have to set $`v_{\widehat{2}}=0`$. Hence, the type $`VI_{1/9}^{}`$ implies that only $`v_{\widehat{1}}`$ and $`v_{\widehat{3}}`$ can be non-zero. Thus we have only two eigenvalues to consider

$$\lambda _1=\frac{1}{5}(9\gamma 14),\lambda _3=\frac{3}{5}(3\gamma 4).$$

The first of these eigenvalues was found by Barrow and Sonoda . However, $`\lambda _3`$ gives an even tighter bound for stability. Thus, the Robinson-Trautman solution is stable if

$$\frac{10}{9}\gamma <\frac{4}{3}.$$

For $`\gamma =10/9`$, the attractor for the non-tilted case is the Wainwright $`VI_{1/9}^{}`$ $`\gamma =10/9`$ perfect fluid solution  which interpolates between the Collins perfect-fluid solutions, studied earlier, and the Robinson-Trautman solution. The solution is

$`𝝎^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$ (33)
$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{r\sqrt{6}}{5}x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}`$ (34)
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{2r\sqrt{6}}{5}x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}`$ (35)
and

$$𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t& 0& 0\\ wt& t^{\frac{1}{5}}& 0\\ 0& 0& t^{\frac{3}{5}}\end{array}\right].$$

Here, we have $`\theta =9/(5t)`$, and $`w^2=9r^2/41`$.

Linearising eq. (5), we get the eigenvalues

$$\lambda _1=\frac{4}{5},\lambda _3=\frac{2}{5}.$$

Since both are negative, this solution set is asymptotically stable as well.

When $`\gamma <10/9`$, the non-tilted solutions asymptote to the Collins $`VI_{1/9}`$ perfect-fluid solution studied earlier. However, here we must again exclude one of the eigenvalues because of the vanishing of the $`(02)`$ Einstein equation. Nonetheless, all eigenvalues are negative when $`h=1/9`$ and $`\gamma <10/9`$, so this does not tighten the bounds already arising in the non-tilted analysis. Hence, there are stable solutions of the exceptional model when

$$\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\frac{10}{9}.$$

### 3.6 Bianchi type $`VI_0`$

This model can be obtained as the $`h0`$ limit of type $`VI_h`$ universes, both geometrically and dynamically. In the non-tilted case, the Collins $`VI_0`$ perfect-fluid solution is the future attractor for $`2/3<\gamma <2`$. Allowing for tilted fluids we see that the Collins $`VI_0`$ perfect-fluid solution is stable whenever

$$\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\frac{6}{5}.$$

## 4 Tilted Bianchi type $`VI_h`$ equilibrium points

An interesting point emerges from the analysis of the type $`VI_h`$ models. We can see that the instability of the Collins perfect-fluid solution in the exceptional model with $`\gamma =10/9`$ corresponds to an instability of the Collins solutions with respect to a tilted fluid for more general $`h`$ (see Fig. 2, where this is illustrated by the fact that the line $`B`$ intersects $`h=1/9`$ at $`\gamma =10/9`$). Hence, at $`h=1/9`$, the instability with respect to tilt is exchanged for an instability of the shear: when $`h=1/9`$ there does not need to be a matter source to drive the solution away from the Collins solutions. This may indicate that the exceptional model, in the presence of tilted fluid, is not as dynamically exceptional as one might think and that the rest of the type $`VI_h`$ models will behave in a similar way. Thus there should exist exact tilted solutions of type $`VI_h`$, analogous to the Robinson-Trautman vacuum solutions, which act as attractors. Such solutions are not known in general, but we expect them to exist.

Hence, one is tempted to search for solutions on the form

$`𝝎^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐱}`$ (36)
$`𝝎^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(sb)x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐲}`$ (37)
$`𝝎^3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(s+b)x}\mathrm{𝐝𝐳}`$ (38)
and

$$𝖾_a^{\widehat{a}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t& 0& 0\\ w_1t& t^\sigma & 0\\ w_2t& 0& t^\tau \end{array}\right],$$

where $`w_{1,2},\sigma ,\tau ,s`$ and $`b`$ are constants. Due to the power-law dependence of the triad, this metric is self-similar by construction and the Einstein equations reduce to purely algebraic equations. However, the equations are still quite complex and difficult to solve in full generality. Rosquist , and Rosquist and Jantzen  have found some solutions of Bianchi type $`VI_0`$ of this type. In general, such spacetimes will describe solutions with tilt and non-zero vorticity. Furthermore, due to the complexity of the solutions no analysis of their stability has been done. Preliminary results indicate that the solutions found by Rosquist and Jantzen may play an important role in the late-time behaviour for at least a class of tilted type $`VI_0`$ models . Notwithstanding the lack of a complete analysis, we believe that these kinds of solutions may be important for the late-time behaviour of models in the remaining region in Fig. 2; namely that bounded by the curves $`\gamma =4/3`$, $`A,`$ and $`B`$. One piece of supporting evidence for this conjecture is, as already mentioned, the fact that the exceptional case intersects this region. We believe that the Robinson-Trautman solution shares many common features with these “missing” solutions (apart from the fact that this is the only vacuum solution).

## 5 Discussion

A summary of our results are given in table 1.

We have studied the stability of all the exact non-tilted class B and type $`VI_0`$ Bianchi-type universes which act as attractors for the general non-tilted cosmological evolution at late times. This has led to a determination of their local stability in the presence of non-comoving motions fluid motions. None of the non-tilted attractors are stable with respect to perfect fluids stiffer that radiation ($`p>\rho /3`$). The type $`VI_h`$ models show a fairly complex dependence on the equation of state and the group parameter defining the 3-curvature anisotropy of the universe. However, there may be indications from this analysis that there are some “missing” stable models of this type which have not yet been found. The exceptional $`VI_{1/9}^{}`$ model is the only case with known exact solutions of this type. Further analysis of this “missing” set of solutions is required. For type $`VII_h`$, the situation is simpler: whenever $`2/3<\gamma <4/3`$ there are always some Lukash plane-wave metrics that are stable for any given $`h0`$.

This investigation has been a step towards acquiring a complete understanding of all tilted Bianchi models. Clearly, there are some missing pieces in the analysis: class A universes require a separate analysis and amongst those of class B the most prominent lacuna is the “missing” set of solutions of type $`VI_h`$. Also, we have only done a local stability analysis of non-tilted equilibrium point. The type $`V`$ analysis  shows that the evolution in the whole state space may be far more complex than local perturbative analyses can reveal. New equilibrium points with non-zero tilt could exist which act as additional attractors. Furthermore, due to the nature of our method, the stability of the solutions along the boundary between stable and unstable regions (i.e. those that have one or more eigenvalues with zero real parts) remains unsettled. These models require further analysis. The Bianchi type $`III`$ universes appear interesting in this context. The type $`III`$ dust model ($`\gamma =1`$) is the centre model in Fig. 2 where the curves $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ all intersect. Hence, the neighbouring models appear to have a very sensitive dependence on the defining parameters.

This study is has been a first attempt to extend our systematic understanding of the dynamics of Bianchi type universes to those with tilted fluid motions. It should be viewed as a first step towards gaining that understanding. We hope that the lacunae we have defined and the stability analyses we have presented will provide a basis for the development of a complete picture of the behaviour of tilted Bianchi type universes. Although non-comoving fluid motions have generally been neglected in studies of anisotropic models of the early universe, they are by no means negligible . Under a wide range of realistic equations of state they have been shown to be the most important source of anisotropy in expanding universes. In the case of brane-world cosmologies  the effects of these motions will be even more dominant and no reliable understanding of the early evolution of these cosmologies will be possible in general without a full analysis of tilted fluid motions and vorticity.

## Acknowledgments

SH was funded by the Research Council of Norway and an Isaac Newton Studentship.


format: text

text:
# New Model and Numerical Test of a High Temperature Pairing Mechanism in Stripes

## I Stripe model and numerical test

Experimentally, the spin gap in cuperate superconductors is nearly independent of doping $`\delta `$ in the range $`0.06<\delta <0.15`$ (with a magnitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(0\right)800KJ/2`$ PseudoGap-review-Timusk99 ). In the same doping range, the distance between stripes changes by a factor two. Therefore, any mechanism of pairing via stripes must be independent of the distance between stripes. The difficulty of achieving such a mechanism can be appreciated by thinking of stripes as a periodic arrangement of ladders:

The mechanism of pairing in stripes is supposed to operate on each stripe independently. Therefore, the same mechanism should manifest itself in a single ladder model where the number of legs of the ladder is determined by the stripe period. Since the stripe period change from 4 to 8 lattice spacings between doping $`\delta =0.12`$ and $`\delta =0.06`$, it implies that a mechanism of pairing in stripes should be such that the pairing of mobile fermions in the corresponding 4-leg and 8-leg ladder models be the same!! Indeed, the model and mechanism which we propose is aiming to achieve exactly that.

In order to have a sharp goal in mind, we pose the following theoretical question: Is it possible to have a spin gap in an even-leg doped ladder which is several times bigger than the spin gap of the same undoped ladder? Numerical investigation Poilblanc02-4leg-Gap  seem to indicate that the answer is negative on uniform ladders. In this paper, we investigate non-uniform ladder models.

One idea in this direction is to make the bond interactions inhomogeneous. Arrigoni & Kivelson ArigoniKivelson-4leg-Inhomogeneous  considered a 4-leg Hubbard ladder model where the bare hopping interaction was dimerized transverse to the ladder (while maintaining the same uniform hopping interactions along all the legs). They showed that indeed the maximum spin gap of the doped ladder may increase substantially.

We introduce an inhomogeniety not in the interactions but instead in the on-site chemical potential. e.g., for t-J type ladders The model is characterized by three parameters $`\{t,J,\mu \}`$. In Fig.2 we draw a 3-leg and 6-leg ladder versions of our models. To begin with, we shall discuss the ladder model from a purely technical perspective and defer the discussion of its association with the stripe state to the concluding section of this paper. The simplest anisotropic ladder model consists of a chemical potential shift $`\mu `$ in two neighboring legs of an N-leg ladder. Consequently, holes are preferentially concentrated in these two legs. Hence, upon doping by holes away from half filling, the chemical potential difference leads to an inhomogeneous distribution of the holes. We argue that a significant renormalization of interactions leads to an effective phase separation of the system into two incoherent subsystems at intermediate temperatures $`T_2^{}<T<T_1^{}`$ \- One is a doped 2-leg t-J ladder, and the second is an undoped $`\left(N2\right)`$ leg ladder. This decoupling effect is the main effect which leads to a high energy pairing scale. It is a direct consequence of the inhomogeniety of the hole distribution in the ladder due to the confining potential whose strength is characterized by $`\mu `$. At lower temperatures $`T<T_2^{}`$ coherence is established by the proximity effect. As we discuss in section-IV, this lower temperature coherence is related to the superconducting $`T_c`$.

First we focus on zero temperature properties which can be checked by numerical simulations and serve as a qualitative and quantitative test of our claimed principle mechanism. Consider the example of a 6-leg ladder (see Fig.2). Upon doping, the system separates into a doped 2-leg ladder and an undoped 4-leg ladder. i.e., the minimal spin gap in the system is increased to the order of a 4-leg ladder spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sJ/6`$ (i.e., a five fold increase compared with the undoped 6-leg ladder gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_sJ/20`$!). This can be check by numerical simulation methods such as DMRG and CORE Poilblanc02-4leg-Gap . An additional conjectured property of our model is the following: The pairing energy of the holes is that of a two leg ladder, and largely independent of the spin correlations in the remaining undoped legs of the ladder. This should also be amenable to numerical experiments.

## II 1D model with competing intra- band and inter- band interactions

The above proposed numerical experiments can quantitatively test our proposed model, yet, in the following section we would like to develop the reader’s analytical intuition about the competition and renormalization of interactions in the model. Instead of directly thinking of the dynamic decoupling of a ladder system into two incoherent sub-systems, let us think of the reverse route: Consider two 1D systems - one is a doped 2-leg Hubbard ladder and the second is an undoped or lightly doped N-leg Hubbard ladder. Turning on hopping interaction $`t_{}`$ between the two ladders, there is a competition between the intra-ladder interaction which maintains the spin gap (and pairing) on the 2-leg ladder and inter-ladder interactions which form coherence across the whole coupled system. Similar issues of confinement/deconfinment have risen in the context of coupling *equivalent ladder* systems where the *tuning parameter is inter-ladder interactions* (e.g., $`t_{}t`$ or $`J_{}J`$). In contrast, our model starts with *uniform* *bare interactions* ($`t_{}=t`$, $`J_{}=J`$)while inhomogeniety of doping induced by *tuning an inhomogeneous chemical potential*. We argue that similar confinement/deconfinment competition of intra- and inter- ladder interactions is at play. We would like to demonstrates this competition of interactions and the core effect where a spin gap and pairing is established on a sub-part of the system and it’s spin degrees of freedom decouple from the rest of the system which may remain gapless. Such an effect is unique to models of coupled *inequivalent* 1D systems. Below we examine the simplest model of such type.

Consider a model of two *inequivalent* 1D chains (or two inequivalent 1D bands): Band-A has a Fermi wave number $`k_A`$ and attractive interactions $`U_A`$. Band-B has a different Fermi wave number $`k_B`$ and repulsive interactions $`+U_B`$. The filling fractions are such that $`k_A<k_B\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Hence, in the absence of inter-band interactions, the groundstate of band-A is a Luther-Emery (LE) liquid characterized by a spin gap (due to the attractive $`U_A`$ interactions) while band-B has gapless spin excitations. If band-B is half filled, $`k_B=\frac{\pi }{2}`$, then it is equivalent to a Heisenberg spin chain, or otherwise if $`k_B<\frac{\pi }{2}`$ then band-B is a Luttinger liquid. Qualitatively, band-A and band-B correspond to the doped 2-legs and the remaining $`N2`$ legs of the inhomogeneous ladder model.( The fact that in a 2-leg ladder the spin gap is due to repulsive interactions while in this two-chain model the spin gap in band-A is due to attractive interactions is not of conceptual significance).

It is straight forward to determine that the only marginally relevant *inter-band* interactions (with respect to the non-interacting fixed point) are inter-band spin exchange $`M\stackrel{}{s}_A\left(x\right)\stackrel{}{s}_B\left(x\right)`$ and Josephson coupling (i.e., inter-band pair hopping) $`J[P_A^{}\left(x\right)P_B\left(x\right)+h.c.]`$ (where the j-band pairing operator $`P_j(x)=\psi _{j,}^{}\psi _{j,}^{}`$). Note, in the case that band-B is half filled then the inter-band Josephson coupling is perturbatively irrelevant. We shall discuss both $`k_B<\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`k_B=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ cases.

The Hamiltonian density which describe our one dimensional (1D) two-band model is

$`H\left(x\right)`$ $`=H_0^B\left(x\right)+U_B\rho ^B\left(x\right)\rho ^B\left(x\right)`$ (1)
$`+H_0^A\left(x\right)U_A\rho ^A\left(x\right)\rho ^A\left(x\right)`$
$`+M\stackrel{}{s}_A\left(x\right)\stackrel{}{s}_B\left(x\right)+J[P_A^{}\left(x\right)P_B\left(x\right)+h.c.]`$
$`\rho _{}^A\left(x\right)=\psi _{A,}^{}\left(x\right)\psi _{A,}\left(x\right)`$, $`\stackrel{}{s}_A\left(x\right)=\psi _{A\alpha }^{}\left(x\right)\frac{\sigma _{\alpha \beta }}{2}\psi _{A,\beta }\left(x\right)`$. Additional marginally irrelevant interactions (e.g., inter-band charge density interactions) which do not interest us here have been dropped.

The three interaction $`\{U_A,M,J\}`$ are all marginally relevant in the initial stages of renormalization. Yet, the first crucial observation that we make is that the intra-band attractive interaction $`U_A`$ and the inter-band exchange interaction $`M`$ are competing. i.e., $`U_A`$ and $`M`$ control distinct fixed points for which in the final stages of renormalization either $`M0`$ or $`U_A0`$ respectively. The fixed points and renormalization group flows are drawn in Fig-4. These results are derived using the bosonization method as summarized below.

The fixed points of our model cam be inferred by observation from the bosonized representation of the model 1D-ref ; Using the bosonized form of chiral (left and right moving) fermion fields $`\psi _{L/R,\sigma }^{}\left(x\right)=F_\sigma \sqrt{\frac{\mu }{2\pi }}:e^{+i\sqrt{\pi }\left[\theta _\sigma \left(x\right)\pm \varphi _\sigma \left(x\right)\right]}:`$, where $`\theta _\sigma (x)=_{\mathrm{}}^x𝑑x^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (x^{})`$, and $`[\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (x^{}),\varphi _\sigma (x)]=i\delta (x^{}x)`$, $`\sigma =,`$. The anticommuting Klein factors, $`\{F_\sigma ,F_\sigma ^{}\}=\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$, are needed for the proper anticommutation of fermions with different spin. (Normal ordering eliminates the short-distance regularization factor $`1/\sqrt{a}`$ that is common in the literature). In the following, all operators are implicitly assumed to be normal ordered. Also, we absorb the infra-red cut-off $`\mu `$ factors into the interaction coefficients). As commonly done, we re-express the operators in terms of bosonic spin fields $`\varphi _s(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\varphi _{}\varphi _{}]`$, and charge fields $`\varphi _c(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\varphi _{}+\varphi _{}]`$, and correspondingly defined momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_c`$. e.g., pair creation $`P^{}\frac{1}{\pi }e^{+i\sqrt{2\pi }\theta _c}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _s\right)`$ and spin flip operator $`s^+\frac{1}{\pi }e^{+i\sqrt{2\pi }\theta _s}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _s\right)`$. The resulting form of the model Hamiltonian density is

$`H\left(x\right)`$ $`=H_0^A\left(x\right){\displaystyle \frac{U_A}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{8\pi }\varphi _s^A\right)`$ (2)
$`+H_0^B\left(x\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{U_B}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{8\pi }\varphi _s^B\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\pi ^2}}e^{+i\sqrt{2\pi }\left[\theta _s^A\theta _s^B\right]}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _s^A\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _s^B\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{\pi ^2}}e^{+i\sqrt{2\pi }\left[\theta _c^A\theta _c^B\right]}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _s^A\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _s^B\right)`$
$`+h.c.+\left\{\text{marginally irrelevant interactions}\right\}`$
where

$`H_0^j\left(x\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[K_c^j\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_c^j\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_c^j}}\left(_x\varphi _c^j\right)^2\right]`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[K_s^j\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_s^j\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_s^j}}\left(_x\varphi _s^j\right)^2\right].`$
The difference between attractive and repulsive intra-band interaction is expressed by the Luttinger parameters $`K_c^A>1`$ and $`K_c^B>1`$ for the charge sector. It is useful to define $`\theta _c^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\theta _c^B\pm \theta _c^A\right)`$ and $`\theta _s^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\theta _s^B\pm \theta _s^A\right)`$. For the purpose of delineating the potential spin gap fixed points, one needs to keep track only of interaction terms which may develop a non-zero expectation value. Since by general theorems it always holds that $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _s^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _s^{}\right)=0`$, then we need to keep only the $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _s^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _s^+\right)`$ part of the exchange interaction. Also, since $`K_c^B>1`$ then the $`U_B`$ interaction is irrelevant and can also be dropped. Hence we arrive at

$`H`$ $`=H_0^B+H_0^A\left(x\right){\displaystyle \frac{U_A}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\left(\varphi _s^+\varphi _s^{}\right)\right)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _s^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _s^+\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2J}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _c^{}\right)\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _s^+\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _s^{}\right)\right]`$
$`+\left\{\text{irrelevant and marginally irrelevant interaction}\right\}`$
The competition between $`M`$ and $`U_A`$ is inferred from the fact that at a fixed point where the inter-band interaction $`M`$ is relevant then $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _s^{}\right)0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _s^{}\right)=0`$ and hence the intra-band $`U_A`$ interaction is irrelevant. The resulting phase diagram depicted in Fig.3 shows the fixed points and renormalization group (RG) flows. In an expanded following publication we shall elaborate on the complete RG equations and estimates of the spin gap magnitude renormalization.

As discussed by 1D-Classify , a fixed point is specified by the gapless order parameters. The enumeration of gapless modes is straight forward by observation. Only the $`\varphi _c^+`$ charge mode remains gapless, as expected from an over all incommensurately filled system. To distinguish between fixed points with the same number of gapless modes, it suffice here to focus on the pairing order parameters

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_e`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(R_BL_B+L_BR_B\right)+\left(R_AL_A+L_AR_A\right)\right]`$
$`e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^+}\left[e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^{}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _s^+\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _s^{}\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(R_BL_B+L_BR_B\right)\left(R_AL_A+L_AR_A\right)\right]`$
$`e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^+}\left[e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^{}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _s^+\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _s^{}\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{te}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(R_BL_A+L_BR_A\right)+\left(R_AL_B+L_AR_B\right)\right]`$
$`e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^+}\left[e^{+i\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _s^+\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\theta _s^{}\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{to}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(R_BL_A+L_BR_A\right)\left(R_AL_B+L_AR_B\right)\right]`$
$`e^{i\sqrt{\pi }\theta _c^+}\left[e^{+i\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _c}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\varphi _s^+\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\theta _s^{}\right)\right]`$
The subscripts $`e/o`$ indicate even/odd parity under exchange of band indices.

Table-1 delineate the gapless modes at each fixed point.

| $`k_B<\frac{\pi }{2}`$ | FP-I | FP-II | FP-III | FP-IV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Dominant interaction |  | $`M`$ | $`U_A`$ | $`U_A,J`$ |
| Gapless modes | $`C2S2`$ | $`C1S0`$ | $`C2S1`$ | $`C1S0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e`$ | $``$ | 0 | $``$ | $``$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }_o`$ | $``$ | 0 | $``$ | $``$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{te}`$ | $``$ | $``$ | 0 | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{to}`$ | $``$ | $``$ | 0 | 0 |

If band-B is half filled, $`k_B=\frac{\pi }{2}`$, then it is equivalent to a Heisenberg spin chain ZacharTsvelik-KondoHeisenberg  and the fixed points are modified since band-B does not support gapless charge modes and the Josephson coupling $`J`$ is perturbatively irrelevant. Hence, modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{te}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{to}`$ are eliminated. For an elaborate discussion of FP-II in this case see ZacharTsvelik-KondoHeisenberg .

## III Discussion

From a general theoretical perspective, our modified ladder model has the following special properties: (a) The spin gap of the doped ladder model is higher than of the half filled ladder. (b) The predominant flow towards fixed point III (of increased pairing interactions in part of the ladder system while diminishing spin exchange coupling with the rest of the ladder system) leads at intermediate temperatures to the establishment of a spin gap on a sub-part of the ladder (the two hole rich legs), where the temperature scale and the magnitude of the spin gap are characterized by those of a doped 2-leg ladder, and are independent of the number of legs of the full ladder. (c) Consequently, at intermediate temperatures the ladder separates into two subsystems of which the spin dynamics is respectively decoupled. (d) At low temperatures, global coherence is established by the proximity effect (Josephson coupling) as expressed by the flow towards fixed point IV in the phase diagram.

We here argue that the model captures the core physics of the stripe structure in doped antiferromagnets. While the mechanism for the creation of stripes is not generally agreed upon, the end result is manifestly a state of local charge inhomogeneity of elongated domains of alternating hole rich and hole poor strips. i.e., alternating strips with different effective local chemical potential. Therefore, a repeated arrangement of our inhomogeneous ladder model is a model representation of the stripe structure (where the width of the ladder corresponds to the charge period of the stripe). Such a coupled ladder model has the following properties: At intermediate temperatures a spin gap is established independently on each hole rich stripe, while the hole poor strips may remain gapless. Residual interaction may lead to coupling between the hole poor regions across the spin gapped hole rich stripe, but at intermediate temperatures such coupling may just as well be too weak and leave the hole poor regions decoupled and thus manifest only local AFM correlations. At low temperature, global coherence is established by coherent pair tunneling, leading to a superconducting state.

These characteristics of our model realize the goals of the general framework first presented in SpinGapProximity . Yet, in terms of the pairing mechanism itself, the core effect presented here is orthogonal to that in SpinGapProximity . The pairing mechanism proposed in SpinGapProximity  had the pairing arising out of the *coherent interaction* between hole rich and hole poor regions. In contrast, the core mechanism in our new model is a *decoupling* of the dynamics of the hole rich and hole poor regions. The proximity effect introduced by SpinGapProximity  comes into operation in our model only at low temperatures to establish global coherence (generating the flow towards fixed point IV). Elsewhere we shall expand on the significant advantages (compared with previous stripe based proposals) of the model and mechanism introduced here to address phenomenological properties of pairing and superconductivity in the cuperates.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Steve Kivelson and Jiang-ping Hu for valuable discussions, and the support of NSF grant #4-444025-KI-21420-2.


text:
# Swift Pointing and the Association Between Gamma-Ray Bursts and Gravitational-Wave Bursts

## 1 Introduction

The currently accepted model for gamma-ray burst phenomena involves the violent formation of an approximately solar-mass black hole surrounded by a similarly massive debris torus. The gamma-ray burst is powered by the release of binding energy as the debris torus is accreted onto the black hole. The formation of the black hole and debris torus may take place through the coalescence of a compact binary or the collapse of a quickly rotating massive stellar core; the gamma-ray burst emission may take place at the site of crossing internal shock waves within the expanding relativistic fireball powered by the accretion onto the black hole, or as the fireball is decelerated by the interstellar medium (Meszaros & Rees, 1993; Rees & Meszaros, 1994).

A gravitational-wave burst is likely to be associated with the formation of the rapidly rotating, central black-hole engine of a gamma-ray burst. The character of the gravitational-wave burst (e.g., energy, spectrum, polarization) will depend on the degree of non-axisymmetry associated with the collapse, and thus its progenitor (Kobayashi & Meszaros, 2002, 2003). Similarly, the relative time of arrival of the gravitational and gamma-ray bursts will depend on whether the gamma-ray burst is generated by internal shocks in the exploding fireball or external shocks when the fireball is decelerated by the interstellar medium.111 Though the fireball is highly relativistic, it travels subluminally; hence, the further the gamma rays are produced from the central engine the longer the time lag between the arrival of the gravitational waves and the gamma rays. This time lag can range from 1 second to 100 seconds. On the other hand, the time lag between the black-hole formation (which produces the gravitational-wave burst) and the launch of the relativistic jet (which produces the GRB) should be on the order of the dynamical timescale of milliseconds, and is a much smaller effect. Observation of gravitational-wave bursts associated with gamma-ray bursts thus may reveal details of the gamma-ray burst mechanism that cannot be revealed through observations of the gamma rays alone. In this paper we examine how gravitational-wave observations using the LIGO detectors (Sigg, 2001) can be made in conjunction with gamma-ray burst observations by the Swift satellite to determine whether there is an association between gamma-ray and gravitational-wave bursts, a first step in the ambitious program of developing gravitational-wave observations into a tool of astronomical discovery.

Finn et al. (1999) have described how the cross-correlated output of two gravitational-wave detectors, taken in coincidence with gamma-ray burst (GRB) events, can be used to detect or place upper limits on the emission of gravitational-wave bursts (GWBs) by GRBs. This procedure has already been used in the analysis of data from the EXPLORER and NAUTILUS gravitational-wave detectors at times associated with 47 GRBs detected by the BeppoSAX satellite to bound, at 95% confidence, the root-mean-square gravitational-wave strain $`h_{\text{RMS}}`$ associated with these GRBs to less than $`6.5\times 10^{19}`$ in the gravitational-wave-detector waveband (approximately 0.5 Hz about 900 Hz), assuming that the gamma rays originate in internal shocks (Astone et al., 2002). Finn et al. (1999) estimate that 1000 GRB observations combined with observations from the (broad-band) initial LIGO detectors could produce an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strain associated with GRBs of approximately $`h_{\text{RMS}}1.7\times 10^{22}`$ at 95% confidence.

An important consequence of the cosmological origin of GRBs is their isotropic distribution on the sky. In their original work Finn et al. (1999) assumed that GRBs would be detected isotropically as well – i.e., that the GRB detector had an isotropic antenna pattern. They did note, however, that the Swift satellite, a next-generation multi-wavelength satellite dedicated to the study of GRBs, does not have an isotropic antenna pattern and that this has potentially important consequences for the ability of the combined gamma-ray burst/gravitational-wave detector array to detect or limit the gravitational-wave flux on Earth owing to GRBs. Here we study this question specifically in the context of the Swift satellite and the LIGO gravitational-wave detectors; i.e., we determine, as a function of Swift’s pointing, the sensitivity of the Swift/LIGO detector array to gravitational waves from GRBs, and propose a figure-of-merit that can be used in Swift mission scheduling to optimize the sensitivity of the Swift/LIGO array to the gravitational-wave flux from GRBs. We find that the upper limit that can be placed on $`h_{\text{RMS}}`$ differs by a factor of 2 between best and worst orientations of the satellite.

We begin in Section 2 with a review of how Finn et al. (1999) proposed using Student’s $`t`$-test to detect a GRB–GWB association and place an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strength associated with GRBs. We extract the direction dependence of this upper limit in Section 3, and apply to the case of Swift in Section 4. We conclude with some brief remarks in Section 5.

## 2 Observing a GRB–GWB association

Finn et al. (1999) described how the signal from two independent gravitational-wave detectors can be analyzed to identify the gravitational-wave signal associated with gamma-ray bursts and either bound or measure the population average of the gravitational-wave flux on Earth from this potential source. In this section we review their analysis methodology in anticipation of using it to determine the sensitivity of joint LIGO/Swift observations to the detectors’ relative orientation.

### 2.1 Detecting a GRB–GWB association

Consider a set of $`N`$ GRB detections. Assume that, as a result of each detection, we know the direction to the source $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$ and the arrival time $`\tau _k`$ of the burst at Earth’s barycenter. For our purposes, each GRB observation is completely characterized by the pair $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k,\tau _k)`$.222 Afterglow observations will also give the distance to the GRB source (Metzger et al., 1997). Focus attention on a pair of gravitational-wave detectors located at positions $`𝒟_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) relative to Earth’s barycenter. The arrival time of GRB $`k`$ at detector $`i`$ is

$$t_k^{(i)}=\tau _k\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k𝒟_i$$
(1)
in units where the speed of light $`c`$ is unity.

Finn et al. (1999) note that the two LIGO detectors are very nearly co-planar and co-aligned. Consequently, a plane gravitational wave incident on the detector pair from the direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$ will lead to correlated detector responses with a time lag equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_k=t_k^{(2)}t_k^{(1)}.$$
(2)
To identify the presence of GWBs associated with GRBs, Finn et al. (1999) focus attention on the correlated energy in the detector outputs corresponding to plane GWBs incident on the detectors from the direction of the corresponding GRBs: i.e., the correlation of the detector outputs at times that differ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_k`$.

Let $`s_i(t)`$ be the output of gravitational wave detector $`𝒟_i`$, which we assume to consist of detector noise $`n_i(t)`$ and a possible gravitational wave signal $`h_i(t)`$ produced by the GRB source:333There may be a flux of gravitational waves from other sources incident coincidentally on the detector at the same time; however, since this radiation is not correlated with the gamma-ray burst it is, for our purpose, noise and we lump its contribution to $`s`$ in with $`n`$.

$$s_i(t)=n_i(t)+h_i(t).$$
(3)
Finn et al. (1999) define

$$S(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k,\tau _k)=_0^T𝑑t_0^T𝑑t^{}s_1(t_k^{(1)}t)Q(tt^{})s_2(t_k^{(2)}t^{}),$$
(4)
as the energy in the cross-correlation of the two detectors corresponding to the GRB characterized by $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k,\tau _k)`$. Here $`Q`$ is a freely specifiable, symmetric filter function (Finn et al., 1999), and $`T`$ is chosen large enough to encompass the range of possible times by which the gravitational waves from a GRB event may precede the gamma rays, which is typically thought to be of order 1 s for GRBs produced by internal shocks and 100 s for GRBs produced by external shocks (Sari & Piran, 1997; Kobayashi, Piran, & Sari, 1997).

Writing the detector output $`s_i`$ as the sum of the detector noise $`n_i`$ and the gravitational-wave signal $`h_i`$ associated with the GRB we can, in turn, write

$$S_kS(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k,\tau _k)=n_1,n_2+n_1,h_2+h_1,n_2+h_1,h_2,$$
(5)
where

$$f,g=_0^T𝑑t_0^T𝑑t^{}f(t_k^1t)Q(tt^{})g(t_k^2t^{}).$$
(6)
The terms $`n_i,h_j`$ in equation (5) vanish in the mean over an ensemble of noise since the noise in our gravitational wave detector is uncorrelated with any gravitational wave signal. The term $`n_1,n_2`$ is, in the noise ensemble mean, a constant, which will be zero if the noise in the two detectors is uncorrelated.

All four of the contributions to $`S`$ in equation (5) are generally unknown for any particular GRB. Correspondingly, Finn et al. (1999) consider the collection $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{on}}`$ of $`S_k`$,

$$\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{on}}=\{S_k:k=1\mathrm{}N\},$$
(7)
and a second collection $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{off}}`$

$$\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{off}}=\{S_m^{}:m=1\mathrm{}M\},$$
(8)
where each $`S_m^{}`$ is constructed as in equation (4) but with a $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\tau )`$ pair chosen randomly and not associated with a GRB. The collections $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{off}}`$ are samples drawn from populations $`𝒮_{\text{on}}`$ and $`𝒮_{\text{off}}`$. The sample means $`\widehat{\mu }_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }_{\text{off}}`$ and variances $`\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{on}}^2`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{off}}^2`$ are estimates of the population means $`\mu _{\text{on}}`$ and $`\mu _{\text{off}}`$ and variances $`\sigma _{\text{on}}^2`$ and $`\sigma _{\text{off}}^2`$. These are, in turn, related by

$`\mu _{\text{on}}\mu _{\text{off}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{h_1,h_2},`$ (9)
$`\sigma _{\text{on}}^2\sigma _{\text{off}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{n_1,h_2^2}+\overline{n_2,h_1^2}+𝒪(h^3),`$ (10)
where the overbar represents a mean over the population of GRBs. Comparing the two sample sets $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{off}}`$ thus provides a sensitive measure of the presence or absence of gravitational waves associated with GRBs.

When the detector noise is sufficiently well-behaved that terms like $`n_1,h_2`$, $`n_2,h_1`$, and $`n_1,n_2`$ are normally distributed the Student $`t`$-test (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) can be used to distinguish between the two sample sets; in other cases a non-parametric test such as the Mann-Whitney test (Siegal & Castellan, 1988) can be used.

In the Student $`t`$-test the difference between the two distributions represented by the sample sets $`\widehat{S}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{\text{off}}`$ is characterized by the $`t`$-statistic:

$`\widehat{t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mu }_{\text{on}}\widehat{\mu }_{\text{off}}}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\text{on}}N_{\text{off}}}{N_{\text{on}}+N_{\text{off}}}}},`$ (11)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{on}}^2(N_{\text{on}}1)+\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{off}}^2(N_{\text{off}}1)}{N_{\text{on}}+N_{\text{off}}2}},`$ (12)
If both $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\text{off}}`$ are drawn from same normal distribution then the distribution of $`\widehat{t}`$ is given by Student’s distribution with $`N_{\text{on}}+N_{\text{off}}2`$ degrees of freedom (Cramer, 1999). This distribution itself tends toward a normal distribution with unit variance when $`N_{\text{on}}+N_{\text{off}}`$ is large.

Now suppose that there is no GWB–GRB association. In this event $`\widehat{S}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{\text{off}}`$ are drawn from the same distribution and there is a number $`t_0(p)`$ such that $`\widehat{t}`$ will be less than $`t_0(p)`$ in a fraction $`p`$ of all observations of sample sets $`\widehat{S}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{\text{off}}`$.444 On physical grounds the expectation value of $`\widehat{t}`$ will be positive semi-definite for the LIGO detector pair if gravitational waves are associated with gamma-ray bursts. If, in our particular observation of $`\widehat{S}_{\text{on}}`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{\text{off}}`$ $`\widehat{t}`$ is less that $`t_0(p)`$ then we accept the hypothesis that there are no gravitational-waves associated with gamma-ray bursts. If, on the other hand, we find $`\widehat{t}`$ greater than $`t_0(p)`$ then we reject, with confidence $`p`$, this hypothesis; i.e., we assert that there is an association of gravitational-waves with gamma-ray bursts.

### 2.2 Setting an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strength associated with GRBs

As described in the previous section, Student’s $`t`$-test tells us only if there is a link between GWBs and GRBs. An alternative analysis, also described by Finn et al. (1999), uses the $`t`$ statistic to derive a confidence interval or upper limit on the population-averaged gravitational-wave flux associated with GRBs from a measured value $`\widehat{t}`$ of the $`t`$ statistic. In this analysis we derive the classical confidence interval or upper limit from the probability distribution $`P(t|h,I)`$ of the $`t`$ statistic assuming that GRBs radiate GWBs with intrinsic amplitude described by $`h`$ and other model parameters (gravitational-wave burst luminosity function, burst characteristic, etc.) described by $`I`$.

In the limit that the GWBs are weak relative to the sensitivity of the individual gravitational-wave detectors and the numbers of on- and off-source observations are separately large, Finn et al. (1999) showed that

$$P(t|h,I)=N\left(t|\mu ,\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}\right),$$
(13)
where

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ (14)
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑fP_1(f)P_2(f)|\stackrel{~}{Q}(f)|^2.`$ (15)
Here $`P_i(f)`$ is the one-sided power spectral density of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ detector, defined as

$$P_i(|f|)=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i2\pi ft}n_i(\tau )n_i(\tau +t),$$
(16)
$`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ is the average of $`h_1,h_2`$ over the GRB population and the associated GWB luminosity function described by $`I`$, $`N(t|\mu ,\nu )`$ is the normal distribution with mean $`\mu `$ and variance $`\nu `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(f)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`Q(\tau )`$. For larger-amplitude GRBs or different sample sizes (e.g., smaller number of GRB observations) the distribution can be determined via Monte Carlo simulations. An observation of $`t`$ thus allows us to find a confidence limit on $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ (Feldman & Cousins, 1998), which describes the flux of gravitational-waves on Earth owing to GRBs.

## 3 Direction-dependence of the upper limit

The analysis described by Finn et al. (1999) assumed that the arms of the two LIGO gravitational wave detectors all resided in the same plane, that pairs of arms were parallel to each other, and that the antenna pattern of the detectors was isotropic on the sky. In this section we relax all of these approximations: i.e., we properly account for the position and orientation of the two LIGO detectors on the Earth and the dependence of their sensitivity to the direction to the GRB source. Our result is an expression for the dependence of the upper limit on population-averaged gravitational-wave strength $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ as a function of the distribution of *detected* GRBs on the sky. In section 4 we combine this result with the directional sensitivity of the Swift detector to determine the dependence on Swift pointing of the upper limit on $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ that can be set by joint LIGO/Swift observations.

The gravitational-wave component $`h_i`$ of the LIGO detector output is, in the small antenna limit,555This is appropriate for gravitational wave frequencies in the LIGO detector band. a linear function of the physical gravitational-wave strain $`h_{ab}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$,

$$h_i(t)=h_{ab}(t,\stackrel{}{x}_i)d_i^{ab},$$
(17)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ is the gravitational-wave detector’s location. For interferometer $`i`$ with arms pointing in the directions $`\widehat{X}_i`$, $`\widehat{Y}_i`$,

$$d_i^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{X}_i^a\widehat{X}_i^b\widehat{Y}_i^a\widehat{Y}_i^b).$$
(18)
(With this normalization $`h_i(t)`$ is equal to the fractional change in differential arm length.) For gravitational wave bursts incident on the Earth from direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,

$$h_{ab}(t_k^{(1)}t,\stackrel{}{x}_1)=h_{ab}(t_k^{(2)}t,\stackrel{}{x}_2)=h_{ab}(\tau _kt,\stackrel{}{0})$$
(19)
where $`t_k^{(i)}`$ is defined in terms of the direction to the source $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ by equation (1). We can thus ignore the physical separation of the detectors when computing the cross-correlation statistic (cf. equation (4)). Finally, it is convenient to resolve $`h_{ab}`$ on the two polarization tensors $`ϵ^+`$ and $`ϵ^\times `$,

$$h_{ab}(t,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})=h_+(t)ϵ_{ab}^+(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})+h_\times (t)ϵ_{ab}^\times (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}),$$
(20)
where

$$ϵ^+:ϵ^+=ϵ^\times :ϵ^\times =2,$$
(21)
$$ϵ^+:ϵ^\times =0,$$
(22)
and

$$ϵ^+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=ϵ^\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0.$$
(23)
Lacking any detailed model for the gravitational waves that may be produced in a GRB event, we make the following assumptions about $`h_+`$ and $`h_\times `$:

* The waves have equal power in the two polarizations:

$$\overline{h_+(t)h_+(t^{})}=\overline{h_\times (t)h_\times (t^{})}.$$
(24)
* The two polarizations are uncorrelated:

$$\overline{h_+(t)h_\times (t^{})}=0.$$
(25)

Focus attention now on the mean gravitational-wave contribution $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ to the $`t`$ statistic. This contribution depends on both the gravitational wave detector sensitivity to GWBs arriving from different directions as well as the gamma-ray bursts detector sensitivity to GRBs from different directions (which determines the relative number of bursts that will be observed from that direction). For GWBs arriving from the direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,

$$h_1,h_2=\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|d_1,d_2)_0^T𝑑t_0^T𝑑t^{}Q(tt^{})h_+(t)h_+(t^{}),$$
(26)
where

$$\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|d_1,d_2)\underset{A=+,\times }{}(d_1:ϵ^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}))(d_2:ϵ^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}))$$
(27)
describes the direction-dependence of the sensitivity of the gravitational-wave detector pair to the GWB (cf. equations (4), (24), and (25)).

To complete the evaluation of $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ turn to the fraction of GRB detections that arise from different patches on the sky. Since the intrinsic GRB population is isotropic, the distribution of detection on the sky depends entirely on the directional sensitivity of the GRB detector. Let the fraction of GRB detections in a sky patch of area $`d^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ centered at $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be given by

$$\rho _{\text{GRB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n})d^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(28)
where the GRB detector orientation is given by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}`$, the direction in which the detector is pointed, and $`\widehat{n}`$, which describes the rotation of the satellite about its pointing direction.

In terms of $`\rho _{\text{GWB}}`$ and $`\rho _{\text{GRB}}`$ the mean gravitational wave contribution $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ to $`t`$ for a gamma-ray burst detector with fixed orientation $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n})`$ is thus

$$\overline{h_1,h_2}=\left[d^2\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|d_1,d_2)\rho _{\text{GRB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n^{}})\right]\left[_0^T𝑑t^{}_0^T𝑑tQ(tt^{})h_+(t)h_+(t^{})\right]$$
(29)
The first bracketed term contains all the direction and orientation dependence of the gravitational wave and gamma-ray burst detectors, while the second term is strictly a property of the gravitational waves without reference to the orientation of the detectors. Correspondingly, the sensitivity of the upper limit on gravitational wave strength averaged over the observed GRB population when the orientation of GWB and the GRB detectors are given by $`(d_1,d_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})`$ is proportional to

$$\zeta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n},d_1,d_2)=d^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}\rho _{\text{GRB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}|d_1,d_2).$$
(30)
Satellite GRB detectors orbit the Earth and so their orientation is constantly changing; similarly, the orientation of Earth-based gravitational wave detectors are constantly changing as the Earth rotates about its axis. The quantity $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ will, in the end, involve the time average of $`\zeta `$ over all these motions. Since our principal purpose here is to evaluate the sensitivity of the GRB/GWB detector array to GWBs from GRBs as a function of the relative orientations of the detectors we focus on $`\zeta `$.

Clearly $`\zeta `$ can be regarded as a figure of merit that describes how capable the gravitational-wave/gamma-ray burst detector combination is at identifying GWBs associated with GRBs as a function of the detector orientations. This figure of merit may be normalized to have a maximum of unity; however, regardless of the normalization

$$\zeta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n}^{},d_1,d_2)/\zeta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n},d_1,d_2)$$
(31)
is the ratio of the upper limits on the squared gravitational-wave amplitude that can be attained by orienting the GRB satellite as $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})`$ versus $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n}^{})`$. To the extent that, e.g., the GRB detector orientation $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})`$ can be manipulated on orbit, choosing orientations that maximize $`\zeta `$ will lead to larger signal contributions to $`t`$ and thus more sensitive measurements of the gravitational wave strength associated with GRBs.

## 4 LIGO and Swift

Let us now consider the special case of the Burst-Alert Telescope (BAT) on the Swift satellite666 http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/  and the LIGO gravitational wave detectors (Sigg, 2001). The BAT is a wide field-of-view coded-aperture gamma-ray imager that will detect and locate GRBs with arc-minute positional accuracy. Its sensitivity to GRBs depends on the the angle $`\lambda `$ between the line of sight to the GRB and the BAT axis, as well as the rotational orientation of the satellite about the BAT axis. Averaged over this azimuthal angle, the BAT sensitivity as a function of $`\lambda `$ is approximately777 See the BAT section of the Swift homepage, http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/instruments/bat.html

$$\rho _{\text{GRB}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{cos}\lambda 1+0.077\mathrm{sin}[13(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda )]\hfill & \lambda [0,\pi /3],\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
For the purposes of illustration we will use this azimuthal-angle averaged expression for the BAT sensitivity.

The second component of $`\zeta `$ is the function $`\rho _{\text{GWB}}`$, which depends on the projection of the gravitational-wave strain $`h_{ab}`$ on to the gravitational-wave detector (cf. equations (17) and (20)). To evaluate $`\rho _{\text{GWB}}`$, introduce an Earth-centered Cartesian coordinate system, described by unit basis vectors $`\widehat{x}`$, $`\widehat{y}`$, and $`\widehat{z}`$, with

* $`\widehat{z}`$ pointing parallel to the Earth’s polar axis and in the direction of the north celestial pole,
* $`\widehat{x}`$ parallel to the line that runs in the equatorial plane from Earth’s center to the intersection of the equator with the prime meridian at Greenwich, and
* $`\widehat{y}`$ chosen to form a right-handed coordinate system.

Similarly, we introduce the usual spherical-polar coordinate system,

$`r^2`$ $`=`$ $`x^2+y^2+z^2,`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`z/r,`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`y/x.`$ (35)
In these coordinates we write the gravitational wave polarization vectors as

$`ϵ_{ab}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{m}_a\widehat{m}_b\widehat{n}_a\widehat{n}_b,`$ (36)
$`ϵ_{ab}^\times `$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{m}_a\widehat{n}_b+\widehat{n}_a\widehat{m}_b,`$ (37)
where888Our conventions follow those of Allen & Romano (1999) except that we use $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ to denote the direction *to* the GRB/GWB source on the sky, rather than the propagation direction of the GWB. The net effect is $`\widehat{m}\widehat{m}`$ in (38).

$`\widehat{m}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{x}\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\widehat{y}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (38)
$`\widehat{n}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{x}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta +\widehat{y}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{z}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$ (39)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{x}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta +\widehat{y}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta +\widehat{z}\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (40)
Similarly, denoting the detector projection tensor (cf. equation (18)) for the LIGO Hanford (LIGO Livingston) Observatory detector by $`d_{\text{LHO}}^{ab}`$ ($`d_{\text{LLO}}^{ab}`$) we have (Althouse et al., 2000)

$`d_{\text{LHO}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0.3926& \hfill 0.0776& \hfill 0.2474\\ \hfill 0.0776& \hfill 0.3195& \hfill 0.2280\\ \hfill 0.2474& \hfill 0.2280& \hfill 0.0731\end{array}\right),`$ (44)
$`d_{\text{LLO}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0.4113& \hfill 0.1402& \hfill 0.2473\\ \hfill 0.1402& \hfill 0.1090& \hfill 0.1816\\ \hfill 0.2473& \hfill 0.1816& \hfill 0.3022\end{array}\right).`$ (48)
Figure 1 shows the antenna pattern $`\rho _{\text{GWB}}`$ (27). Since the two LIGO detectors share nearly the same plane and have arms nearly aligned with each other their combined antenna pattern is very similar to that for a single interferometer. In particular, the LHO/LLO detector combination is most sensitive to radiation arriving from a direction orthogonal to the (nearly common) plane of the detector arms (corresponding to the two peaks in Figure 1) and least sensitive to radiation arriving in the detector arm plane and parallel to the (nearly common) arm bisector (producing the four wells of low sensitivity in Figure 1). It is also precisely zero in certain directions.

Convolving $`\rho _{\text{GWB}}`$ with the Swift sensitivity function $`\rho _{\text{Swift}}`$ as in equation (30) gives the figure of merit $`\zeta `$ for the Swift pointing, which is shown in Figure 2. This plot is a smeared version of the LIGO antenna pattern of Figure 1. In particular, the four minima of the LIGO sensitivity are smeared into two minima which are wider but not as deep. The figure of merit is nowhere zero, varying by a factor of approximately 4 between best (near zenith of detectors) and worst (near planes of detectors at 45 degrees from arms) orientations of Swift. The all-sky average of the figure of merit is 0.56 times the maximum value.

## 5 Discussion

The currently accepted model for gamma-ray burst phenomena involves the violent formation of a rapidly rotating approximately solar mass black hole. Gravitational waves should be associated with the black-hole formation, and their detection would permit this model to be tested, the black-hole progenitor (e.g., coalescing binary or collapsing stellar core) to be identified, and the origin of the gamma rays (within the expanding relativistic fireball or at the point of impact on the interstellar medium) to be located. Even upper limits on the gravitational-wave strength associated with gamma-ray bursts could constrain the gamma-ray burst model.

We have evaluated how the quality of an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strength associated with gamma-ray burst observations depends on the relative orientation of the gamma-ray burst and gravitational-wave detectors, with particular application to the Swift Burst-Alert Telescope (BAT) and the LIGO gravitational wave detectors. Setting aside other physical and science constraints on the Swift mission, careful choice of BAT pointing leads to an upper limit on the observed GRB population-averaged mean-square gravitational-wave strength a factor of two lower than the upper limit resulting from pointing that does not take this science into account.

There are, of course, numerous science and technical constraints that determine the pointing profile of a satellite like Swift; correspondingly, even in the most optimistic case the ratio of the best possible upper limit to the best attainable upper limit will be reduced from this factor of two. Nevertheless, when it can be done without jeopardizing other mission objectives there is an advantage to optimizing the pointing of Swift to maximize the joint LIGO/Swift sensitivity to gamma-ray burst systems. The pointing dependent part (cf. equation (30)) of the anticipated upper limit that can be set with these joint observations, suitably normalized, is closely related to the science enabled by joint LIGO/Swift observations and constitutes an excellent “figure-of-merit” that can be used to incorporate this objective in Swift mission planning.

We are grateful to Margaret Chester, Shiho Kobayashi, and John Nousek for useful discussions. LSF and PJS acknowledge NSF grant PHY 00-99559, and LSF, PJS and BK acknowledge the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, which is supported by the NSF under cooperative agreement PHY 01-14375 and BK acknowledges the support of the Albert Einstein Institut.