format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In addition to the stable and charged BPS D-branes , type II superstrings contain unstable and uncharged non-supersymmetric D-branes . The instability of these non-BPS branes is signalled by the presence of a tachyon on their worldvolume. The decay of non-BPS branes is described by the dynamics of this tachyon. Sen has also proposed the remarkable fact that the BPS branes can also be viewed as tachyon kinks on the non-BPS branes with one dimension higher . Different approaches  converged to the following Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) effective action describing the dynamics of the tachyon field $`T`$:

$$S=d^px𝑑tV(T)\sqrt{\left(1+_\mu T_\nu T\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right)}.$$
(1.1)
Here $`V(T)`$ is the tachyon potential which is even and vanishes at infinity where it reaches its minimum. Near the global maximum at $`T=0`$, $`V(T)=𝒯_p(1\beta ^2T^2/2)+\mathrm{}`$ where $`𝒯_p`$ is the tension of the non-BPS $`p`$-brane and the potenial encodes the mass of the tachyon near the perturbative vacuum $`T=0`$. Finally $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(1,+1,\mathrm{},+1)`$ is the $`p+1`$ Minkowski metric.

Finite energy solitons obtained from the DBI action and depending on one spatial coordinate (kinks) are singular111see also section 2. . The goal of the present paper is to construct these kinks as limits of regular solitons by compactifying the spatial coordinate and looking for conditions on the potential which guarantee the existence of the decompactified limit. We shall show that the existence of this limit implies two new conditions on the potential $`V(T)`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$: i) that $`|V^{}|/V`$ must tend to zero, and ii) that $`|V^{}|/V^2`$ must tend to infinity.

The action (1.1) is supposed to be valid for large $`T`$ and small higher order derivatives of $`T`$, and this is compatible with the limit we are considering. Our results, together with the ones coming from time dependent solutions , boundary string field theory  and perturbative amplitude calculations , give constraints on the potential of the tachyon in different regimes and hopefully may help to determine an effective action capturing a large domain of validity. On the other hand, if the potential is determined by other means and found not to satisfy the conditions i) and ii) above (as is the case for a number of potentials studied in the literature), then we would conclude that the DBI has no stable kink solution.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we revisit Derrick’s theorem which gives necessary conditions for the existence of finite energy solitons for actions of the form (1.1). Within this framework we show how the infinitly thin kink may appear. In Section 3, we compactify one spatial coordinate on a circle of radius $`R`$ in order to get regular kinks. In fact, we obtain regular solitons describing $`n`$ pairs of kinks and anti-kinks. This is to be expected since the net RR charge is zero in a compact space. The kink and anti-kink are separated by a distance $`2\zeta =2\pi R/2n`$ and the energy of the configuration has the form $`2n(\zeta )`$. The decompactified limit corresponds to $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ with $``$ finite in the limit. In Section 3.1 we determine the conditions on the potential, stated above, for which this limit exists. We also give some examples; in particular, for exponentially decaying potentials of the form $`e^{T^a}`$ we show that the conditions are satisfied if and only if $`a<1`$. For power-law decay, $`V=T^b`$, they are satisfied if and only if $`b>1`$. In Section 4 we examine the stability of the solitons and show that the unstable fluctuations disappear in the decompactified limit whenever this limit is well defined. Finally conclusions are presented in Section 5.

## 2 Solitons and Derrick’s theorem

We aim to search for solitonic or kink-like solutions of (1.1). These kink solutions should represent the stable BPS $`p1`$ branes into which the non-BPS $`p`$-brane decays. Before doing this explicitly, it is worthwhile recalling Derrick’s theorem : in the case of the usual Klein-Gordon action for scalar fields, it tells us that finite energy static solitonic solutions on an infinite space are only possible in (1+1)-dimensions. In this section we will draw similar conclusions starting from (1.1).

In fact, to make contact with the literature, we will initially consider a slightly more general action:

$$S=d^px𝑑tV(T)\left(1+_\mu T_\nu T\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right)^q,$$
(2.1)
where the real scalar field $`T`$ is dimensionless (we set $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ throughout). For $`q=1/2`$ this is just (1.1). The case $`q=1`$ has also been proposed as an effective tachyon action (see, for instance, ), whose kinks were studied in . We will recover some properties of these kinks using Derrick’s theorem.222Note that when $`q=1`$, a change of variables $`T=T(\varphi )`$ enables action (2.1) to be written as a Klein-Gordon action for $`\varphi `$ with potential $`W(\varphi )=V(T(\varphi ))`$. (However, $`\varphi `$ is typically compact: $`|\varphi |<K=_0^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{V(T)}𝑑T`$ which is finite for e.g. exponentially decaying potentials. Note also that $`W(K)=0`$). When $`q=1/2`$ a similar field redefinition alone can no longer put action (2.1) into the canonical KG form. However, if the square root is first linearised by introducing an auxially field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ (c.f. the Nambu-Goto versus Polyakov actions), then (2.1) can be written as the action for a scalar field $`\varphi `$ evolving in a gravitational field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ with a position-dependent potential $`W(\varphi )=V(T(\varphi ))[h^{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }(p1)]`$. In this form any intuition regarding solitonic solutions breaks down.

To recall Derrick’s theorem, consider first a canonical scalar field $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ with action

$$S_{\mathrm{KG}}=d^px𝑑t\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi W(\varphi )\right)$$
(2.2)
where the $`p`$ spatial directions are infinite, and the potential $`W(\varphi )`$ is non-negative vanishing only at its absolute minima. Let $`\varphi _1(x)`$ be a static solution of the equations of motion, and hence an extremum, $`\delta E=0`$, of the finite static energy functional

$$E[\varphi ]=d^px\left(\frac{1}{2}_i\varphi ^i\varphi +W(\varphi )\right)(i=1,\mathrm{},p).$$
(2.3)
Now consider a one parameter family of solutions $`\varphi _\lambda (x)=\varphi _1(\lambda x)`$. Since $`\varphi _1(x)`$ is an extremum of $`E`$, then $`\frac{d}{d\lambda }E[\varphi _\lambda ]|_{\lambda =1}=0`$ leading to

$$0=d^px\left(pW(\varphi )+(p2)\frac{1}{2}_i\varphi ^i\varphi \right).$$
(2.4)
Thus when $`p2`$, only the vacuum solution ($`W(\varphi )=0`$, $`\varphi =`$const) is allowed. Only if $`p=1`$ may non-trivial $`\stackrel{}{x}`$-dependent solutions exist.

We now carry out a similar analysis for the tachyon action (2.1). The static energy functional is

$$E[T]=d^pxV(T)\left(1+_iT^iT\right)^q,$$
(2.5)
and proceeding as above leads to the constraint

$$0=d^pxV(T)\left(1+_iT^iT\right)^{q1}\left[p+(p2q)_iT^iT\right].$$
(2.6)
Notice that, as opposed to (2.4), the potential $`V(T)`$ appears as an overall multiplicative factor.

When $`q=1`$ the term in square brackets in (2.6) only vanishes and gives non-trivial solutions if $`p=1`$, i.e. in (1+1) dimensions. In this case, (2.6) imposes that

$$T^2=1T=\pm x.$$
(2.7)
(From now on, the kink will be taken to be centered about $`x=0`$: $`T(0)=0`$.) This kink/anti-kink solution has been discussed elsewhere  and it is easy to verify that $`T=\pm x`$ is indeed a solution of the equations of motion. Such solutions are topological, interpolating from one vacuum to another, and from (2.5) their energy (or tension $`𝒯_{p1}`$) is given by

$$E=𝒯_{p1}=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V(x)𝑑x$$

which, if $`V`$ decays sufficiently fast at infinity, is finite. Notice that from the properties of $`V(T)`$, the energy density of the field is localised around $`x=0`$ and the width of the resulting kink (or BPS brane) is determined by the parameters in $`V(T)`$. These parameters must be tuned such that $`𝒯_{p1}`$ takes the correct value. Furthermore, by considering small perturbations about the solution $`T(x,t)=\pm x+f(x,t)`$ and linearising the equations of motion, it is possible to show that if $`E`$ is finite, solutions (2.7) are stable against small perturbations.

When $`q=1/2`$, the case we focus on here, the square bracket in (2.6) is $`p+(p1)_iT^iT`$ which can never vanish for $`p1`$. Thus no finite energy static solutions seem to be permitted. However, there is formally a way around this: when $`p=1`$ (2.6) becomes

$$0=d^px\frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1+T^2}}$$
(2.8)
which can vanish if

$$T^{}\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{or}T\mathrm{}$$

with $`E[T]`$ remaining finite. Let us suppose that the equations of motion admit a solution with $`T^{}\pm \mathrm{}`$ describing a single kink (below we will find the conditions on $`V(T)`$ such that this is the case),

$$T(x)=\underset{C0}{lim}\frac{x}{C}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}& x>0\hfill \\ 0& x=0.\hfill \\ \mathrm{}& x<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
This is a typical case of the solutions discussed by Sen : it describes an infinitely thin topological kink interpolating between the two vacuua. Notice that $`V=0`$ everywhere apart from when $`T=0=x`$. Substitution of (2.9) into the energy functional (2.5) (taking carefully the $`C0`$ limit) gives the the energy of this singular solution to be

$$E_{\mathrm{Sen}}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V(x)𝑑x.$$
(2.10)
Sen has argued that such singular kinks are stable, as the BPS brane should be, and furthermore that their effective action is exactly the required DBI action . Hence such solutions are of great interest, and would suggest that BPS branes are infinitely thin. Once again the parameters of $`V(T)`$ should be tuned such that $`E_{\mathrm{Sen}}=𝒯_{p1}`$.

The question we ask in this paper is the following: do the equations of motion for $`T`$ always admit a single infinitely thin singular kink solution with energy given by (2.10)? As we will show, the answer depends sensitively on the shape of the tachyon potential $`V(T)`$ for large $`T`$. For instance, for $`V(T)\mathrm{exp}(T^a)`$ with $`a1`$, this solution does not exist.333For these potentials, one finds instead an array of singular kink anti-kinks whose energy is divergent — see section 3. Our approach will be to try to find a regularised kink solutions from which Sen’s singular limit can then be approached. This can be done through compactification.

## 3 Regularised kinks and examples

We are looking for static kink-like solutions in which $`T`$ has a non-trivial dependence only on one spatial coordinate; $`T=T(x)`$. Let as assume that the kink is centered at the origin,

$$T(0)=0.$$
(3.1)
The equations of motion coming from (2.1) with $`q=1/2`$ have a first integral,

$$\frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1+(T^{})^2}}=V_0,$$
(3.2)
where $`V_00`$ is a constant. The energy of this solution is given by

$$E=𝑑xV(T)\sqrt{1+(T^{})^2}=\frac{1}{V_0}𝑑xV^2(T).$$
(3.3)
Since $`T^2`$ is positive, solutions of equation (3.2) exist in the region

$$V(T)V_0(\mathrm{soliton}\mathrm{solution}).$$
(3.4)
Furthermore, the solutions $`T(x)`$ are periodic (see figure 1) with a $`V_0`$-dependent amplitude which, from (3.2), diverges as $`V_00`$. Note that within one period there must be both a kink and an anti-kink (corresponding to the two points for which $`T(x)=0`$), as can clearly be seen in figure 1. Also, the energy density of the kinks becomes more and more localised as $`V_00`$. Below we will study in detail the dependence of both the period and $`E`$ on $`V_0`$.

In order for $`E`$ to be finite, one must have $`|T|\mathrm{}`$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. This immediately implies from (3.2) that $`V_0=0`$ — a topological kink.444Notice that this condition is identical to (2.8). Sen’s solution  (2.9) is such a singular solution in which $`T`$ vanishes for only one value of $`x`$: in other words Sen’s solution is periodic with a divergent wavelength. Furthermore in that case $`E=2E_{\mathrm{Sen}}`$.

We would like to approach the singular ($`V_00`$) kink(s) as the limit of regular solutions with $`V_00`$. In order to get regular and finite energy solutions we shall suppose that $`x`$ is a compact direction of length $`2\pi R`$, so that $`V_0`$ can now be non-zero. Our aim is to see whether the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ with $`E`$ being finite exists. Note that if this limit exists we expect to get twice (2.10) as the energy of the resulting solution. We can see this from several points of view: BPS branes have a RR charge and on a circle the sum of the charges must vanish so all we can get are pairs of branes and anti-branes. Sen’s solution corresponds to the brane infinitely distant from the anti-brane. Alternatively note that on a circle the solution is periodic, so if a kink is present at the origin, where $`T^{}`$ is positive, then necessarily an anti-kink will also be present since as $`_0^{2\pi R}T^{}𝑑x=0`$, $`T^{}`$ must be negative somewhere between $`0`$ and $`2\pi R`$. So if we can regularise Sen’s solution by compactifying the $`x`$ coordinate, the limiting energy is expected to be twice the value (2.10). Half of this corresponds to the anti-kink which is sent to infinity, so that we recover $`E_{\mathrm{Sen}}`$ for the remaining kink.

Since the wavelength of the kink solutions is $`V_0`$ dependent, not all values of $`V_0`$ will be permitted for a given radius $`R`$. The dependence of $`V_0`$ on $`R`$ can be determined as follows: the period of the solutions of equation (3.2) is $`4\zeta `$ where

$$\zeta (V_0)=_0^{T_0}\frac{dT}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^21}},$$
(3.5)
and $`T_0`$ is defined by $`V(T_0)=V_0`$. The radius is thus given by

$$2\pi R=4n\zeta ,$$
(3.6)
where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The separation between the brane and the anti-brane is $`2\zeta `$. The $`V_0`$-dependent energy of this solution can be written as

$`E(V_0)`$ $`=`$ $`4n{\displaystyle _0^\zeta }𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{V^2(T)}{V_0}}=4n{\displaystyle _0^{T_0}}𝑑T{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{1\left(\frac{V_0}{V}\right)^2}}}`$ (3.7)
$``$ $`4n(V_0).`$ (3.8)
To summarise, $`V_0`$ is implicitly determined by equation (3.6) in terms of an integer $`n`$ and the radius $`R`$. The energy of the solution depends on $`R`$ and on $`n`$. Note that this dependence is complicated by the presence of $`V_0`$ in (3.7).

The limit when $`V_00`$ or equivalently $`T_0\mathrm{}`$ is not transparent for $`\zeta `$ and $``$. There is, however, a combination of both for which the limit is known: consider

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(V_0)\zeta V_0=_0^{T_0}𝑑T\sqrt{(V^2V_0^2)}.$$
(3.9)
Then as $`V_0`$ goes to zero555This result is due to the monotone convergence theorem.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(V_0)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑TV(T),$$
(3.10)
which is exactly $`E_{\mathrm{Sen}}/2`$.

Let us examine the limit where the radius goes to infinity. There are three possibilities depending on the behaviour of $`\zeta (V_0)`$ as $`V_00`$:

1. $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ as $`V_00`$. The kink anti-kink separation tends to infinity, and as $`R\mathrm{}`$, equation (3.6) can be satisfied with $`n=1`$ — a single kink. From equation (3.10) we see that the energy goes to $`2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V(T)𝑑T`$ if and only if $`\zeta V_00`$.
2. $`\zeta `$ const $`0`$ as $`V_00`$. Now the kink anti-kink distance tends to a constant (independently of $`R`$) and one can never get an isolated kink. As $`R\mathrm{}`$, equation (3.6) can only be satisfied if $`n\mathrm{}`$. In this case (3.7) shows that that are no finite energy solutions in the decompactified limit. For a given finite $`R`$, $`E`$ is however finite.
3. $`\zeta 0`$ as $`V_00`$. For a fixed $`R`$, the limit $`V_00`$ now leads to an array of infinitely many singular kinks and anti-kinks (since their separation is $`2\zeta (0)`$). From (3.8) the energy (even for finite $`R`$) is infinite. This is a rather problematic (and not very meaningful) limit, but we will see that this behaviour occurs for many potentials considered in the literature; for example $`V(T)=ve^{T^2}`$.

As we shall show in the next subsection, the behaviour of $`\zeta (V_0)`$ as $`V_00`$ depends critically on the form $`V(T)`$ for large $`T`$. Before doing that, we present a very simple example of case (2) above, and hence a potential for which Sen’s solution can not be recovered. Let

$$V(T)=\frac{v}{\mathrm{cosh}\beta T}.$$
(3.11)
(This potential has also been analysed elsewhere  and motivated from string theory calculations in .) On substitution into (3.2) it is straightforward to solve for $`T(x)`$: one finds

$$T(x)=\mathrm{arc}\mathrm{sinh}\left[\frac{1}{\beta }\left(\frac{v^2}{V_0^2}1\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}(\beta x)\right],$$
(3.12)
which is indeed periodic with a divergent amplitude in the singular $`V_00`$. Notice, however, that the period is independent of $`V_0`$:

$$\zeta (V_0)=\frac{\pi }{2\beta },V_0.$$
(3.13)
Thus as $`V_00`$, $`\zeta `$ remains constant leading to an array of localised kink-anti-kink pairs. Let us now compactify on the circle of radius $`R=4n\zeta /2\pi =n\pi /\beta `$, where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ counts the number of kinks. (This limiting potential has the unusual feature that for a given $`R`$, $`V_0`$ need not take discrete values: all values between $`0`$ and $`v`$ are allowed.) Using (3.12) the energy (3.7) of the solution is easily obtained, after a contour integration, to be

$$E=\frac{4n}{V_0}_0^{\frac{\pi }{2\beta }}\frac{v^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\beta T(x))}𝑑x=\frac{2\pi v}{\beta }n=2\pi Rv$$
(3.14)
i.e. independent of $`V_0`$. Thus each solution is equally energetic. In the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ the energy diverges and is clearly not given by (2.10).

In the next subsection we determine the conditions which $`V`$ must satisfy so that in the decompactified limit with a finite energy, $`\zeta `$ diverges.

### 3.1 Solitonic solutions on the circle

From the discussion in the previous section, the dependence of $`\zeta `$ on $`V_0`$ when $`V_0`$ is small is crucial. In order to analyse this dependence let us parametrise the general potential $`V(T)`$ by

$$V(T)=\frac{v}{\mathrm{cosh}f(T)}$$
(3.15)
where $`f(0)=0`$. Then, on letting

$$u=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}f(T)}{\mathrm{sinh}f(T_0)},$$
(3.16)
the period $`\zeta (V_0)`$ in (3.5) becomes

$$\zeta (V_0)=_0^1𝑑u\frac{1}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\frac{1}{\left|\frac{df(T(u,V_0))}{dT}\right|}.$$
(3.17)
Notice immediately that if $`f(T)=T`$ (i.e. the potential discussed in the previous section), we recover the constant $`\zeta `$. Clearly the dependence of $`\zeta (V_0)`$ is determined by $`f^{}`$. The $`V_0`$-dependence of $`f^{}(T(u,V_0))`$ is through the combination $`u\sqrt{(v/V_0)^21}`$. Thus from (3.17), the behaviour of $`\zeta (V_00)`$ depends on $`f^{}(T\mathrm{})`$. Since $`|f^{}||V^{}|/V`$ it follows that

$$\zeta (V_0)\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{V}{|V^{}|}|_{T_0}(V_00,T_0\mathrm{}).$$
(3.18)
Since the potential is assumed positive let us write it in the form $`V=e^{\sigma (T)}`$ then the condition for $`\zeta `$ to diverge in the limit $`T_0\mathrm{}`$ reads

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\sigma ^{}(T)=0.$$
(3.19)
This is one of our main results. This condition is clearly not satisfied for the $`e^{aT^2}`$ potential. In fact this potential gives rise to $`\zeta `$ which vanishes in the $`V_00`$ limit: an example of case 3 discussed in the previous section. Thus for exponential potentials, in the limit $`V_00`$,

$$V(T\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}(T^a)\{\begin{array}{cc}a<1,\hfill & \zeta \mathrm{}\hfill \\ a>1,\hfill & \zeta 0\hfill \\ a=1,\hfill & \zeta K0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.20)
For power-law potentials, again in the limit $`V_00`$:

$$V(T\mathrm{})\frac{1}{T^{1/\alpha }}\{\alpha >0,\zeta \mathrm{}$$
(3.21)
where the condition on $`\alpha `$ simply enforces that $`V(T)`$ vanishes at infinity.

Before turning to the energy, it is useful to derive two further results for the period $`\zeta (V_0)`$. The first is the value of $`\zeta (V_0=v)`$. Let us suppose that $`V_0=vϵ`$, ($`ϵv`$), so that the tachyon oscillates around $`T=0`$ with a very small amplitude. Thus $`V(T)=v(1\beta ^2T^2/2)+𝒪(T^4)`$ where $`\beta `$ is dimensionless, and the solution of (3.2) is

$$T(x)=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\left(1\frac{V_0^2}{v^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}(x\beta ).$$
(3.22)
Hence

$$\zeta (v)=\frac{\pi }{2\beta }\mathrm{and}\frac{d\zeta }{dV_0}|_{V_0=v}=0.$$
(3.23)
Secondly, it will be useful to express $`T(V)`$ as an integral over $`\zeta (V_0)`$. To do so, note that since

$$_a^b\frac{dx}{\left[(xa)(bx)\right]^{1/2}}=\pi $$

for arbitrary $`a`$ and $`b>a`$, equation (3.5) can be inverted to give

$$T(V)=\frac{1}{\pi }_V^v𝑑x\frac{\zeta (x)}{(x^2V^2)^{1/2}}=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{arc}\mathrm{cosh}(v/V)}𝑑\theta \zeta (V\mathrm{cosh}\theta )$$
(3.24)
where $`x=V\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$. Thus if we specify a particular behaviour of $`\zeta (x)`$ we can use (3.24) to determine $`T(V)`$ which can then be inverted to find $`V(T)`$. This will be done in subsection 3.2 where it will be useful to note from (3.24) that the vanishing of the potential as $`|T|\mathrm{}`$ imposes the condition

$$_0^v𝑑V_0\left(\frac{\zeta (V_0)}{V_0}\right)\mathrm{}.$$
(3.25)
We now ask what conditions $`V(T)`$ must satisfy such that as $`V_00`$ and $`R\mathrm{}`$ the energy $`E`$ in (3.7) with $`n=1`$ reduces to $`2E_{\mathrm{Sen}}`$ in (2.10). First notice from equations (3.9), (3.10) and (3.18) that $`(V_0)`$ will be finite if and only if, as $`T\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{|V^{}|}{V^2}\mathrm{}.$$
(3.26)
This condition should be contrasted with the condition (3.18) on $`\zeta `$. In this case, $`_0^{\mathrm{}}V(T)𝑑T`$. Thus from (3.26) we conclude that for exponential potentials

$$V(T\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}(T^a)\mathrm{finite}a>0$$
(3.27)
whereas for power-law potentials

$$V(T\mathrm{})\frac{1}{T^{1/\alpha }}\mathrm{finite}\alpha <1.$$
(3.28)
Now, recalling that $`E=4n`$, we can ask whether $`E`$ is finite in the decompactified limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ as $`V_00`$. Combining the conditions (3.20) and (3.27) for exponential potentials gives, in these limits

$$V(T)\mathrm{exp}(T^a)\mathrm{as}R\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}V_00:$$

| $`\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}V(T)𝑑T\\ a>0\end{array}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{ccccc}a<1:\hfill & \zeta \mathrm{},\hfill & n=1,\hfill & E2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V(T)𝑑T\hfill & \\ a=1:\hfill & \zeta K,\hfill & n\mathrm{},\hfill & E\mathrm{}\hfill & \\ a>1:\hfill & \zeta 0,\hfill & n\mathrm{},\hfill & E\mathrm{}\hfill & \end{array}`$ |
| --- | --- |

(3.29)
For power-law potentials, one finds instead

$$V(T)\frac{1}{T^{1/\alpha }}\mathrm{as}R\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}V_00:$$

| $`\begin{array}{c}\zeta \mathrm{}\mathrm{and}n=1\\ \alpha >0\end{array}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha 1,\hfill & E\mathrm{}\hfill & \\ \alpha <1,\hfill & E2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V(T)𝑑T\hfill & \end{array}`$ |
| --- | --- |

(3.30)
### 3.2 Some examples and solutions for $`\zeta (V_0)`$

In this subsection we give the exact $`\zeta `$ behaviour (focusing mainly on the $`V_00`$ limit) for both power-law and exponential potentials.

First suppose that

$$\zeta (V_0)V_0^\alpha .$$
(3.31)
Then (3.25) imposes that

$$\alpha >0$$
(3.32)
so that $`\zeta `$ always diverges in the $`V_00`$ limit. Note, however, that (3.31) cannot be valid $`V_0`$: though it can be normalised correctly at $`V_0=v`$, its gradient will not vanish there, as required by (3.23). Hence let us first consider the large $`T`$ or small $`V_0`$ behaviour. What is the potential $`V(T)`$ corresponding to (3.31)? This can be obtained by a simple substitution into (3.24): for large $`T`$

$$T(V)V^\alpha V(T)\frac{1}{T^{1/\alpha }}.$$
(3.33)
Hence we have recovered part of the results of table (3.30): for $`V(T)\frac{1}{T^{1/\alpha }}`$, one must have $`\alpha >0`$ and furthermore in that case $`\zeta `$ diverges as $`V_0^\alpha `$. Alternatively, starting from (3.33) we could have deduced (3.31) from (3.18).

Furthermore it is useful to notice from (3.17) that if

$$V(T)=\frac{v}{T^\alpha }(\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cosh}f(T)=T^\alpha )$$
(3.34)
then

$$\frac{d\zeta }{dV_0}0V_0.$$
(3.35)
Thus, as an example, one could take

$$\zeta (V_0)=\frac{\pi }{2\beta }v^{2\alpha }\frac{1}{[V_0(2vV_0)]^\alpha }$$
(3.36)
which satisfies all the necessary criteria for $`\zeta `$ (see (3.23,3.25,3.35)) and can be integrated exactly for various values of $`\alpha `$ (such as $`\alpha =1/2,1,2`$). The answer is not particularly illuminating, though a simple plot shows that it yields a potential $`V(T)`$ with vanishing first derivative at $`T=0`$ and which goes as $`T^{1/\alpha }`$ for large $`T`$.

Secondly suppose that,

$$\zeta (V_0)\frac{1}{(\mathrm{ln}(V_0))^{\frac{a1}{a}}},$$
(3.37)
so that as $`V_00`$,

$$a>1\zeta 0,a<1\zeta \mathrm{},a=1K0.$$
(3.38)
Again, note that (3.37) cannot be valid for all $`V_0`$. Substitution of (3.37) into (3.24) shows that for large $`T`$,

$$T(V)(\mathrm{ln}V)^{1/a}V(T)\mathrm{exp}(T^a):$$
(3.39)
(3.37) generates exponentially decaying potentials. Thus (3.38) confirms our previous results of (3.29). Finally, as above, one can deduce from (3.17) that if $`f(T)=T^a`$ then for all $`V_0`$,

$$\frac{d\zeta }{dV_0}0,a<1,\frac{d\zeta }{dV_0}0,a>1.(V_0)$$
(3.40)
### 3.3 Energy for a fixed finite $`R`$

Finally, in this subsection we suppose that $`R`$ is finite and fixed, and ask which value of $`V_0`$ is most favoured energetically. In other words, we calculate $`E_R(V_0)`$ and ask for what value of $`V_0`$ it is minimal.

Clearly when $`V_0=v`$, $`E_R(v)=2\pi Rv`$ since the field $`T`$ is constant and vanishing. Furthermore we have seen in (3.14) that for the limiting potential $`V=v/\mathrm{cosh}(\beta T)`$ the energy is $`V_0`$ dependent and also given by $`E_R(V_0)=2\pi Rv`$. In general, though, how does $`E_R(V_0)`$ behave depending on whether $`\zeta `$ diverges or tends to zero as $`V_0`$ tends to zero? To see that, it will be useful to note from (3.8) and (3.9) that

$$E_R(V_0)=4n=2\pi R\left[\frac{1}{\zeta (V_0)}_0^{T_0}(V^2V_0^2)^{1/2}𝑑T+V_0\right]$$
(3.41)
and hence

$$\frac{dE_R(V_0)}{dV_0}=2\pi R\frac{1}{\zeta ^2}\frac{d\zeta }{dV_0}_0^{T_0}(V^2V_0^2)^{1/2}𝑑T.$$
(3.42)
Above we deduced that if $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ as $`V_00`$ (either with an expotential potential (3.40) or a power-law one (3.35)) then $`d\zeta /dV_00`$ so that $`dE_R(V_0)/dV_00`$. Hence $`E_R(V_0)`$ is minimal when $`V_0`$ is takes its smallest allowed value for that $`R`$: in that case there is only 1 kink and anti-kink on the circle ($`n=1`$), and they have very well defined profiles. In the infinite $`R`$ limit, the distance between the kink and anti-kink tends to infinity and $`E_R`$ reduces to $`2E_{\mathrm{Sen}}`$. The behaviour of $`\zeta `$ and $`E_R`$ is shown schematically in figure 2.

Now consider the case in which $`\zeta 0`$ as $`V_00`$. As discussed above, this occurs for potentials of the form

$$V=v/\mathrm{cosh}(T^a)a>1,$$
(3.43)
for which $`d\zeta /dV_00`$ for all $`V_0`$. Thus from (3.42), $`dE_R(V_0)/dV_00`$. Furthermore, as $`V_00`$, the distance between kinks and antikinks tends to zero so that $`n\mathrm{}`$ and hence $`E_R(V_00)\mathrm{}`$. This behaviour of $`E_R`$ is shown schematically in figure 2. Thus we conclude that the minimal energy solution is the one in which $`V_0=v`$ so that $`T`$ is constant and there are no kinks!

As we will now see, however, all these solutions for finite $`R`$ are in fact unstable since their spectrum of perturbations has tachyonic modes.

## 4 Perturbation analysis of periodic solitons on the circle

We now analyse the linear stability of the periodic solitons on the circle of radius $`R`$, also taking the $`V_00`$ and $`R\mathrm{}`$ limits at the end. On the circle, the solution contains an array of $`n`$ brane-antibranes, and hence we expect that the spectrum contains $`2n`$ tachyonic excitations in one to one correspondence with the annihilation channels of each brane-antibrane pair. To see this, we expand the Lagrangian to second order around a periodic soliton, $`𝒯`$, and write

$$T=𝒯(x)+\delta T(x,t)$$

where, for simplicity, we neglect the dependence of $`\delta T`$ on the $`p1`$ remaining directions. Then to second order

$`𝒮^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}dx{\displaystyle }dt[{\displaystyle \frac{V_0^2}{V^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\delta T)}{dx}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\delta T)}{dt}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{VV^{}}{V_0^2}}(\delta T)^2`$ (4.1)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{V^2}{V_0^2}}1}\delta T{\displaystyle \frac{d(\delta T)}{dx}}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi R}}𝑑x{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[a(𝒯)\left(\frac{d(\delta T)}{dx}\right)^2+b(𝒯)(\delta T)^2\right]}.`$ (4.2)
Here, in going from (4.1) to (4.2) we have integrated by parts; $`V=V(𝒯(x))`$; and

$$a=\frac{V_0^2}{V^2},b=\omega ^2+\frac{VV^{}}{V_0^2}\frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{V_0^2}1}\right)$$
(4.3)
where we have supposed that

$$\delta T(x,t)=\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+ϵ)\delta T(x).$$

The equation of motion is thus

$$\frac{d}{dx}\left[a\frac{d\delta T}{dx}\right]b\delta T=0,$$

from which one can verify that

$$\delta T=\frac{d𝒯}{dx}$$
(4.4)
is indeed the zero mode corresponding to translation invariance. In order to obtain a Schrödinger equation with the standard $`L^2`$ scalar product, the coefficients of the spatial and time derivatives must be equal (up to a sign) and $`x`$-independent. The changes of function and variable

$$dx=\frac{V_0}{V}dz\mathrm{and}\delta T=\sqrt{\frac{V}{V_0}}\varphi $$
(4.5)
yield the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dz^2}+\left(\frac{1}{\varphi _0}\frac{d^2\varphi _0}{dz^2}\right)\varphi =\omega ^2\varphi $$
(4.6)
where, from (4.4), $`\varphi _0\frac{d𝒯}{dx}\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{V}}`$. Imposing that $`\varphi _0^2𝑑z=1`$ yields the normalised zero mode to be

$$\varphi _0=\frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{\sqrt{E2\pi RV_0}}\left(\frac{d𝒯}{dx}\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{V}}\right).$$
(4.7)
Notice that $`\varphi _0`$ vanishes $`2n`$ times at the midpoints between the kinks and anti-kinks, whilst the potential term in (4.6) is a smooth function for all $`z`$. Hence we can apply Sturm-Liouville theory for periodic boundary conditions with a non-singular potential — this guarantees that the spectrum $`\omega ^2`$ is discrete, and labeled by the number of zeros of the eigenfunctions. Since the zero mode possesses $`2n`$ zeros, we can deduce that there exists $`2n`$ eigenfunctions with negative $`\omega ^2`$. These $`2n`$ eigenfunctions will be localized around the $`2n`$ zeros of $`\varphi _0`$. For any $`R`$ and non-zero $`V_0`$ the kink anti-kink array is unstable.

Let us examine the $`R\mathrm{}`$ solutions whose only finite energy possibility is when $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$. One must check how the distance between the zeros of $`\varphi _0`$ depends on $`z`$ which (rather than $`x`$) is the relevant variable for the Schrödinger equation. Furthermore, how does this distance depend on the behaviour of $`\zeta `$ as $`V_00`$? Using (4.5), the distance between zeros is $`2z_0`$ where

$$z_0(V_0)=_0^{\zeta (V_0)}\frac{V}{V_0}𝑑x=_0^{T_0}\frac{V}{\sqrt{V^2V_0^2}}𝑑T$$
(4.8)
so that from the definition of $`\zeta `$,

$$z_0\zeta =_0^{T_0}\sqrt{\frac{VV_0}{V+V_0}}𝑑T\mathrm{}\mathrm{as}V_00$$
(4.9)
(again we have used the monotone convergence theorem). Thus, independently of the behaviour of $`\zeta `$, $`z_0`$ always diverges as $`V_00`$ and $`\varphi _0\sqrt{V(z)/2E_{\mathrm{Sen}}}`$: the tachyonic modes drop out of the spectrum in that limit.

## 5 Conclusion

We have shown that a compact dimension of radius $`R`$ allows the existence of time-independent and finite energy solutions of the tachyon equations derived from the DBI effective action. These solutions represent an array of kinks and anti-kinks and are unstable due to tachyonic fluctuations. Stable solutions exist in the limit of infinite separation between the kink and anti-kink. For this to be occur, three conditions must be satisfied: i) $`\frac{V^{}}{V}_{|T|\mathrm{}}0,`$ ii) $`\frac{V^{}}{V^2}_{|T|\mathrm{}}\mathrm{},`$ iii)$`_0^{\mathrm{}}V(T)𝑑T<\mathrm{}`$. The first guarantees that in the non-compact limit, the kink and anti-kink are infinitely separated. The remaining ones guarantee the finiteness of the energy.

## Acknowledgements

D.A.S. would like to thank B.Carter and T.Vachaspati for many useful discussions, and the Flora Stone Mather Foundation and Physics department of Case Western Reserve University for support and hospitality whilst this work was in progress.


text:
# Constructing and Counting Number Fields

## 1. Introduction

Let $`K`$ be a number field considered as a fixed base field, $`\overline{K}`$ an algebraic closure of $`K`$, and $`G`$ a transitive permutation group on $`n`$ letters. We consider the set $`_{K,n}(G)`$ of all extensions $`L/K`$ of degree $`n`$ with $`L\overline{K}`$ such that the Galois group of the Galois closure $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ of $`L/K`$ viewed as a permutation group on the set of embeddings of $`L`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is permutation isomorphic to $`G`$ (i.e, $`n/m(G)`$ times the number of extensions up to $`K`$-isomorphism, where $`m(G)`$ is the number of $`K`$-automorphisms of $`L`$). We write

$$N_{K,n}(G,X)=|\{L_n(G),|𝒩(𝔡(L/K))|X\}|,$$

where $`𝔡(L/K)`$ denotes the relative ideal discriminant and $`𝒩`$ the absolute norm. The aim of this paper is to give a survey of new methods, results, and conjectures on asymptotic and exact values of this quantity. It is usually easy to generalize the results to the case where the behavior of a *finite* number of places of $`K`$ in the extension $`L/K`$ is specified, for example if $`K=`$ when the signature $`(R_1,R_2)`$ of $`L`$ is specified, with $`R_1+2R_2=n`$.

Remarks.

1. It is often possible to give additional main terms and rather good error terms instead of asymptotic formulas. However, even in very simple cases such as $`G=S_3`$, this is not at all easy.
2. The methods which lead to exact values of $`N_{K,n}(G,X)`$ always lead to algorithms for computing the corresponding *tables*, evidently only when $`N_{K,n}(G,X)`$ is not too large in comparison to computer memory, see for example  and .

General conjectures on the subject have been made by several authors, for example in . The most precise are due to G. Malle (see , ). We need the following definition.

Definition 1.1. For any element $`gS_n`$ different from the identity, define the index $`\mathrm{ind}(g)`$ of $`g`$ by the formula $`\mathrm{ind}(g)=n|\text{orbits of }g|`$. We define the index $`i(G)`$ of a transitive subgroup $`G`$ of $`S_n`$ by the formula

$$i(G)=\underset{gG,g1}{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{ind}(g).$$

Examples.

1. The index of a transposition is equal to $`1`$, and this is the lowest possible index for a nonidentity element. Thus $`i(S_n)=1`$.
2. If $`G`$ is an Abelian group, and if $`\mathrm{}`$ is the smallest prime divisor of $`|G|`$, then $`i(G)=|G|(11/\mathrm{})`$.

Conjecture 1.2. For each number field $`K`$ and transitive group $`G`$ on $`n`$ letters as above, there exist a strictly positive integer $`b_K(G)`$ and a strictly positive constant $`c_K(G)`$ such that

$$N_{K,n}(G,X)c_K(G)X^{1/i(G)}(\mathrm{log}X)^{b_K(G)1}.$$

In , Malle gives a precise conjectural value for the constant $`b_K(G)`$ which is too complicated to be given here.

Remarks.

1. This conjecture is completely out of reach since it implies the truth of the inverse Galois problem for number fields.
2. If true, this conjecture implies that for any *composite* $`n`$, the proportion of $`S_n`$-extensions of $`K`$ of degree $`n`$ among all degree $`n`$ extensions is strictly less than $`1`$ (but strictly positive), contrary to the case of *polynomials*.

The following results give support to the conjecture (see , , , , , , , , , ).

Theorem 1.3. We will say that the above conjecture is true in the weak sense if there exists $`c_K(G)>0`$ such that for all $`\epsilon >0`$ we have

$$c_K(G)X^{1/i(G)}<N_{K,n}(G,X)<X^{1/i(G)+\epsilon }.$$

1. (Mäki, Wright). The conjecture is true for all Abelian groups $`G`$.
2. (Davenport-Heilbronn, Datskovsky-Wright). The conjecture is true for $`n=3`$ and $`G=S_3`$.
3. (Cohen-Diaz-Olivier). The conjecture is true for $`n=4`$ and $`G=D_4`$.
4. (Bhargava, Yukie). The conjecture is true for $`n=4`$ and $`G=S_4`$, in the weak sense if $`K`$.
5. (Klüners-Malle). The conjecture is true in the weak sense for all nilpotent groups.
6. (Kable-Yukie). The conjecture is true in the weak sense for $`n=5`$ and $`G=S_5`$.

The methods used to prove these results are quite diverse. In the case of Abelian groups $`G`$, one could think that class field theory gives all the answers so nothing much would need to be done. This is not at all the case, and in fact Kummer theory is usually more useful. In addition, Kummer theory allows us more generally to study solvable groups. We will look at this method in detail.

Apart from Kummer theory and class field theory, the other methods have a different origin and come from the classification of *orders* of degree $`n`$, interpreted through suitable classes of *forms*. This can be done at a very clever but still elementary level when the base field is $``$, and includes the remarkable achievement of M. Bhargava in 2001 for quartic orders. Over arbitrary $`K`$, one needs to use and develop the theory of prehomogeneous vector spaces, initiated at the end of the 1960’s by Sato and Shintani (see for example  and ), and used since with great success by Datskovsky-Wright, and more recently by Wright-Yukie (see ), Yukie and Kable-Yukie.

## 2. Kummer theory

This method applies only to Abelian, or more generally solvable extensions.

### 2.1. Why not class field theory?

It is first important to explain why class field theory, which is supposed to be a complete theory of Abelian extensions, does not give an answer to counting questions. Let us take the very simplest example of quadratic extensions, thus with $`G=C_2`$. A trivial class-field theoretic argument gives the exact formula

$$N_{K,2}(C_2,X)=1+\underset{𝒩(𝔞)X}{}2^{\mathrm{rk}(Cl_𝔞^+(K))}M_K\left(\frac{X}{𝒩(𝔞)}\right),$$

where $`𝔞`$ runs over all integral ideals of $`K`$ of norm less than or equal to $`X`$, $`Cl_𝔞^+(K)`$ denotes the narrow ray class group modulo $`𝔞`$, $`\mathrm{rk}(G)`$ denotes the $`2`$-rank of an Abelian group $`G`$, and $`M_K(n)`$ is the generalization to number fields of the summatory function $`M(n)`$ of the Möbius function.

This formula is completely explicit, the quantities $`Cl_𝔞^+(K)`$ and the function $`M_K(n)`$ are algorithmically computable with reasonable efficiency, so we can compute $`N_{K,2}(C_2,X)`$ for reasonably small values of $`X`$ in this way. Unfortunately, this formula has two important drawbacks.

The first and essential one is that, if we want to deduce from it asymptotic information on $`N_{K,2}(C_2,X)`$, we need to control $`\mathrm{rk}(Cl_𝔞^+(K)`$, which can be done, although rather painfully, but we also need to control $`M_K(n)`$, which *cannot* be done (recall for instance that the Riemann Hypothesis can be formulated in terms of this function).

The second drawback is that, even for exact computation it is rather inefficient, compared to the formula that we obtain from Kummer theory. Thus, even though Kummer theory is used in a crucial way for the constructions needed in the proofs of class field theory, it must not be discarded once this is done since the formula that it gives are much more useful, at least in our context.

### 2.2. Quadratic extensions

As an example, let us see how to treat quadratic extensions using Kummer theory instead of class field theory. Of course in this case Kummer theory is trivial since it tells us that quadratic extensions of $`K`$ are parameterized by $`K^{}/K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ minus the unit class. This is not explicit enough. By writing for any $`\alpha K^{}`$, $`\alpha _K=𝔞𝔮^2`$ with $`𝔞`$ an integral squarefree ideal, it is clear that $`K^{}/K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with pairs $`(𝔞,\overline{u})`$, where $`𝔞`$ are integral squarefree ideals whose ideal class is a square, and $`\overline{u}`$ is an element of the so-called Selmer group of $`K`$, i.e., the group of elements $`uK^{}`$ such that $`u_K=𝔮^2`$ for some ideal $`𝔮`$, divided by $`K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. We can then introduce the Dirichlet series $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{K,2}(C_2,s)=_L𝒩(𝔡(L/K))^s`$, where the sum is over quadratic extensions $`L/K`$ in $`\overline{K}`$. A number of not completely trivial combinatorial and number-theoretic computations (see ) lead to the explicit formula

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{K,2}(C_2,s)=1+\frac{2^{r_2}}{\zeta _K(2s)}\underset{𝔠2}{}\frac{𝒩(2/𝔠)}{𝒩(2/𝔠)^s}\underset{\chi }{}L_K(\chi ,s),$$

where $`\chi `$ runs over all quadratic characters of the ray class group $`Cl_{𝔠^2}(K)`$ and $`L_K(\chi ,s)`$ is the ordinary Dirichlet-Hecke $`L`$-function attached to $`\chi `$.

There are two crucial things to note in this formula. First of all, the sum on $`𝔠`$ is only on integral ideals dividing $`2`$, so is finite and very small. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{K,2}(C_2,s)`$ is a finite linear combination of Euler products, and can directly be used much more efficiently than the formula coming from class field theory to compute $`N_{K,2}(C_2,X)`$ exactly. For example (but this of course does not need the above machinery) we obtain $`N_{,2}(C_2,10^{25})=6079271018540266286517795`$.

Second, since $`L_K(\chi ,s)`$ extends to a meromorphic function in the whole complex plane with no pole if $`\chi `$ is not a trivial character, the polar part of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{K,2}(C_2,s)`$, which is the only thing that we need for an asymptotic formula, comes only from the contributions of the trivial characters, in which case $`L_K(\chi ,s)`$ is equal to $`\zeta _K(s)`$ times a finite number of Euler factors. We thus obtain

$$N_{K,2}(C_2,X)\frac{1}{2^{r_2}}\frac{\zeta _K(1)}{\zeta _K(2)}X,$$

where $`\zeta _K(1)`$ is a convenient abuse of notation for the residue of $`\zeta _K(s)`$ at $`s=1`$. Apparently this simple result was first obtained by Datskovsky-Wright in , although their proof is different.

### 2.3. General finite Abelian extensions

The same method can in principle be applied to any finite Abelian group $`G`$. I say “in principle”, because in practice several problems arise. For the base field $`K=`$, a complete and explicit solution was given by Mäki in . For a general base field, a solution has been given by Wright in , but the problem with his solution is that the constant $`c_K(G)`$, although given as a product of local contributions, cannot be computed explicitly without a considerable amount of additional work. It is always a finite linear combination of Euler products.

In joint work with F. Diaz y Diaz and M. Olivier, using Kummer theory in a manner analogous but much more sophisticated than the case of quadratic extensions, we have computed completely explicitly the constants $`c_K(G)`$ for $`G=C_{\mathrm{}}`$ the cyclic group of prime order $`\mathrm{}`$, for $`G=C_4`$ and for $`G=V_4=C_2\times C_2`$. Although our papers are perhaps slightly too discursive, to give an idea the total number of pages for these three results exceeds 100. We refer to , , , ,  for the detailed proofs, and to  and  for surveys and tables of results. We mention here the simplest one, for $`G=V_4`$. We have

$$N_{K,4}(V_4,X)c_K(V_4)X^{1/2}\mathrm{log}^2X\text{ with}$$

$`c_K(V_4)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{484^{r_2}}}\zeta _K(1)^3{\displaystyle \underset{𝔭}{}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{𝒩𝔭}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩𝔭}}\right)^3`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝔭2_K}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{𝒩𝔭}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{𝒩𝔭^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩𝔭^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(11/𝒩𝔭^2)e(𝔭)+(1+1/𝒩𝔭)^2}{𝒩𝔭^{e(𝔭)+1}}}}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{𝒩𝔭}}}}.`$
Of course, the main difficulty is to compute correctly the local factor at $`2`$.

As usual, we can use our methods to compute very efficiently the $`N`$ function. For example, we obtain (see ):

$`N_{,3}(C_3,10^{37})`$ $`=501310370031289126,`$
$`N_{,4}(C_4,10^{32})`$ $`=1220521363354404,`$
$`N_{,4}(V_4,10^{36})`$ $`=22956815681347605884.`$
### 2.4. Dihedral $`𝑫_\mathrm{𝟒}`$-extensions

We can also apply our method to solvable extensions. The case of quartic $`D_4`$-extensions, where $`D_4`$ is the dihedral group of order $`8`$, is especially simple and pretty. Such an extension is imprimitive, i.e., is a quadratic extension of a quadratic extension. Conversely, imprimitive quartic extensions are either $`D_4`$-extensions, or Abelian with Galois group $`C_4`$ or $`V_4`$. These can easily be counted as explained above, and in any case will not contribute to the main term of the asymptotic formula, so they can be neglected (or subtracted for exact computations). Since we have treated completely the case of quadratic extensions, it is just a matter of showing that we are allowed to sum over quadratic extensions of the base field to obtain the desired asymptotic formula (for the exact formula nothing needs to be proved), and this is not difficult. In this way, we obtain that $`N_{K,4}(D_4,X)c_K(D_4)X`$ for an explicit constant $`c_K(D_4)`$ (in fact we obtain an error term $`O(X^{3/4}+\epsilon )`$). This result is new even for $`K=`$, although its proof not very difficult. In the case $`K=`$, we have for instance

$$c_{}(D_4)=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}\underset{D}{}\frac{2^{r_2(D)}}{D^2}\frac{L(\left(\frac{D}{.}\right),1)}{L(\left(\frac{D}{.}\right),2)}=0.1046520224\mathrm{},$$

where the sum is over fundamental discriminants $`D`$, $`r_2(D)=r_2((\sqrt{D}))`$, and $`L(\left(\frac{D}{.}\right),s)`$ is the usual Dirichlet series for the character $`\left(\frac{D}{.}\right)`$.

Remark. In the Abelian case, it is possible to compute the Euler products which occur to hundreds of decimal places if desired using almost standard zeta-product expansions, see for example . Unfortunately, we do not know if it is possible to express $`c_{}(D_4)`$ as a finite linear combination of Euler products (or at least as a rapidly convergent infinite series of such), hence we have only been able to compute 9 or 10 decimal places of this constant. We do not see any practical way of computing 20 decimals, say.

Our method also allows us to compute $`N_{,4}(D_4,X)`$ exactly. However, here a miracle occurs: when $`k`$ is a quadratic field, in the formula that we have given above for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{k,2}(C_2,s)`$ all the quadratic characters $`\chi `$ which we need are *genus characters* in the sense of Gauss, in other words there is a decomposition

$$L_k(\chi ,s)=L(\left(\frac{d_1}{.}\right),s)L(\left(\frac{d_2}{.}\right),s)$$

into a product of two suitable ordinary Dirichlet $`L`$-series. This gives a very fast method for computing $`N_{,4}(D_4,X)`$, and in particular we have been able to compute $`N_{,4}(D_4,10^{17})=10465196820067560`$.

We can also count the number of extensions with a given signature. The method is completely similar, but here not all characters are genus characters. In fact, it is only necessary to add a single nongenus character to obtain all the necessary ones, but everything is completely explicit, and closely related to the *rational quartic reciprocity law*. I refer to  for details.

### 2.5. Other solvable extensions

We can also prove some partial results in the case where $`G=A_4`$ or $`G=S_4`$ (of course the results for $`S_4`$ are superseded by Bhargava’s for $`K=`$, and by Yukie’s for general $`K`$; still, the method is also useful for exact computations), see .

In the case of quartic $`A_4`$ and $`S_4`$-extensions (or, for that matter, of cubic $`S_3`$-extensions), we use the diagram involving the cubic resolvent (the quadratic one for $`S_3`$-extensions), also called the Hasse diagram. We then have a situation which bears some analogies with the $`D_4`$ case. The differences are as follows. Instead of having to sum over quadratic extensions of the base field $`K`$, we must sum over cubic extensions, cyclic for $`A_4`$ and noncyclic for $`S_4`$. As in the $`D_4`$-case, we then have to consider quadratic extensions of these cubic fields, but generated by an element of square norm. It is possible to go through the exact combinatorial and arithmetic computation of the corresponding Dirichlet series, the cubic field being fixed. This in particular uses some amusing local class field theory. As in the $`D_4`$ case, we then obtain the Dirichlet generating series for discriminants of $`A_4`$ (resp., $`S_4`$) extensions by summing the series over the corresponding cubic fields.

Unfortunately, we cannot obtain from this any asymptotic formula. The reason is different in the $`A_4`$ and the $`S_4`$ case. In the $`A_4`$ case, the rightmost singularity of the Dirichlet series is at $`s=1/2`$. Unfortunately, this is simultaneously the main singularity of each individual Dirichlet series, and also that of the generating series for cyclic cubic fields. Thus, although the latter is well understood, it seems difficult (but not totally out of reach) to paste things together. On the other hand, we can do two things rigorously in this case. First, we can prove an asymptotic formula for $`A_4`$-extensions having a *fixed* cubic resolvent. Tables show that the formula is very accurate. Second, we can use our formula to compute $`N_{K,4}(S_4,X)`$ exactly. For instance, we have computed $`N_{,4}(A_4,10^{16})=218369252`$. This computation is much slower than in the $`D_4`$-case, because we do not have the miracle of genus characters, and we must compute the class and unit group of all the cyclic cubic fields.

In the $`S_4`$ case, the situation is different. The main singularity of each individual Dirichlet series is still at $`s=1/2`$ (because of the square norm condition), and the rightmost singularity of the generating series for noncyclic cubic fields is at $`s=1`$, so the situation looks better (and analogous to the $`D_4`$ situation with $`s`$ replaced by $`s/2`$). Unfortunately, as already mentioned we know almost nothing about the generating series for noncyclic cubic fields, a fortiori with coefficients. So we cannot go further in the asymptotic analysis. As in the $`A_4`$ case, however, we can compute exactly either the number of $`S_4`$-extensions corresponding to a fixed cubic resolvent, or even $`N_{K,4}(S_4,X)`$ itself. The problem is that here we must compute class and unit groups of all noncyclic cubic fields of discriminant up to $`X`$, while cyclic cubic fields of discriminant up to $`X`$ are much rarer, of the order of $`X^{1/2}`$ instead. We have thus not been able to go very far and obtained for example $`N_{,4}(S_4,10^7)=6541232`$.

## 3. Prehomogeneous vector spaces

The other methods for studying $`N_{K,n}(G,X)`$ are two closely related methods: one is the use of generalizations of the Delone-Fadeev map, which applies when $`K=`$. The other, which can be considered as a generalization of the first, is the use of the theory of prehomogeneous vector spaces, initiated by Sato and Shintani in the 1960’s.

### 3.1. Orders of small degree

We briefly give a sketch of the first method. We would first like to classify *quadratic* orders. It is well known that, through their discriminant, such orders are in one-to-one correspondence with the subset of nonsquare elements of $``$ congruent to $`0`$ or $`1`$ modulo $`4`$, on which $`\mathrm{SL}_1()`$ (the trivial group) acts. Thus, for fixed discriminant, the orbits are finite (in fact of cardinality $`0`$ or $`1`$). For *maximal* orders, we need to add local arithmetic conditions at each prime $`p`$, which are easy for $`p>2`$, and slightly more complicated for $`p=2`$.

We do the same for small higher degrees. For *cubic* orders, the classification is due to Davenport-Heilbronn (see , ). These orders are in one-to-one correspondence with a certain subset of $`\mathrm{Sym}^3(^2)`$, i.e., binary cubic forms, on which $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ acts. Since once again the difference in “dimensions” is $`43=1`$, for fixed discriminant the orbits are finite, at least generically. For maximal orders, we again need to add local arithmetic conditions at each prime $`p`$. These are easy to obtain for $`p>3`$, but are a little more complicated for $`p=2`$ and $`p=3`$. An alternate way of explaining this is to say that a cubic order can be given by a *nonmonic* cubic equation, which is almost canonical if representatives are suitably chosen.

For *quartic* orders, the classification is due to M. Bhargava in 2001, who showed in complete detail how to generalize the above. These orders are now in one-to-one correspondence with a certain subset of $`^2\mathrm{Sym}^2(^3)`$, i.e., pairs of ternary quadratic forms, on which $`\mathrm{SL}_2()\times \mathrm{SL}_3()`$ acts. Once again the difference in “dimensions” is $`2\times 6(3+8)=1`$, so for fixed discriminant the orbits are finite, at least generically. For maximal orders, we again need to add local arithmetic conditions at each prime $`p`$, which Bhargava finds after some computation. An alternate way of explaining this is to say that a quartic order can be given by the intersection of two conics in the projective plane, the pencil of conics being almost canonical if representatives are suitably chosen.

For *quintic* orders, only part of the work has been done, by Bhargava and Kable-Yukie in 2002. These are in one-to-one correspondence with a certain subset of $`^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^5)`$, i.e., quadruples of alternating forms in $`5`$ variables, on which $`\mathrm{SL}_4()\times \mathrm{SL}_5()`$ acts. Once again the difference in “dimensions” is $`4\times 10(15+24)=1`$, so for fixed discriminant the orbits are finite, at least generically. The computation of the local arithmetic conditions, as well as the justification for the process of point counting near the cusps of the fundamental domain has however not yet been completed.

Since prehomogeneous vector spaces have been completely classified, this theory does not seem to be able to apply to higher degree orders, at least directly.

### 3.2. Results

Using the above methods, and generalizations to arbitrary base fields, the following results have been obtained on the function $`N_{K,n}(G,X)`$ (many other deep and important results have also been obtained, but we fix our attention to this function). It is important to note that they seem out of reach using more classical methods such as Kummer theory or class field theory mentioned earlier.

Theorem 3.1. Let $`K`$ be a number field of signature $`(r_1,r_2)`$, and as above write $`\zeta _K(1)`$ for the residue of the Dedekind zeta function of $`K`$ at $`s=1`$.

1. (Davenport-Heilbronn , ). We have $`N_{,3}(S_3,X)c_{}(S_3)X`$ with

$$c_{}(S_3)=\frac{1}{\zeta (3)}.$$
2. (Datskovsky-Wright ). We have $`N_{K,3}(S_3,X)c_K(S_3)X`$ with

$$c_K(S_3)=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{r_11}\left(\frac{1}{6}\right)^{r_2}\frac{\zeta _K(1)}{\zeta _K(3)}.$$
3. (Bhargava , ). We have $`N_{,4}(S_4,X)c_{}(S_4)X`$ with

$$c_{}(S_4)=\frac{5}{6}\underset{p}{}\left(1+\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{1}{p^3}\frac{1}{p^4}\right).$$
4. (Yukie ). There exist two strictly positive constants $`c_1(K)`$ and $`c_2(K)`$ such that

$$c_1X<N_{K,4}(S_4,X)<c_2X\mathrm{log}^2(X).$$

Under some very plausible convergence assumptions we should have in fact $`N_{K,4}(S_4,X)c_K(S_4)X`$ with

$$c_K(S_4)=2\left(\frac{5}{12}\right)^{r_1}\left(\frac{1}{24}\right)^{r_2}\underset{𝔭}{}\left(1+\frac{1}{𝒩𝔭^2}\frac{1}{𝒩𝔭^3}\frac{1}{𝒩𝔭^4}\right).$$
5. (Kable-Yukie ). There exists a strictly positive constant $`c_1`$ such that for all $`\epsilon >0`$ we have

$$c_1X<N_{,5}(S_5,X)<X^{1+\epsilon }.$$

Remark. It should also be emphasized that, although the above methods give important and deep results on $`N_{K,n}(G,X)`$ for certain groups $`G`$, they shed almost no light on the possible analytic continuation of the corresponding Dirichlet series of which $`N_{K,n}(G,X)`$ is the counting function. For example, in the simplest case where $`K=`$, $`n=3`$, and $`G=S_3`$, for which the result dates back to Davenport-Heilbronn, no one knows how to give an analytic continuation of the Dirichlet series $`_L|d(L)|^s`$ even to $`\mathrm{}(s)=1`$ (the sum being over cubic fields in $`\overline{}`$ and $`d(L)`$ being the absolute discriminant of $`L`$).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the traditional approaches of the universe model and the local gravitation problem, the two subjects are alone treated respectively. In various universe models people only consider the average structure on large scale; the distribution of matter is imagined as homogenized or smoothed. A galaxy is nothing but a perfect fluid element. On the other hand, when people investigate local gravitation problem such as the spherically symmetrical gravitational field, they often regard the region as asymptotically flat spacetime, as if there is no remain matter in the universe. True, such a treatment has its reasons: (i) the model is simple, and it does not impair the knowledge of the large-scale structure of the universe to ignore its minor details. (ii) For a local gravitation problem, the Birkhoff’s theorem  seems to be the basis for leaving the remaining matter of the universe out of consideration. However, no matter how reasonable it is apparently, the asymptotically flat behavior of the solution of local gravitational field does not be in tune with a closed universe model, while the real universe most likely is closed.

The cosmological redshift shows that the distances between galaxies are increasing, that is, the universe is expanding on the scale of the space between galaxies at present. On the other hand, the existing main form of the cosmic matter is the celestial body, some of which are very compact. This shows that in some very small areas of the expanding universe the space has begun to contract long ago. To our knowledge, there is yet no model to treat the two problems concurrently at present. In the present article we try to give, by means of the investigation a spherically symmetric gravitational field in an expanding closed universe, a united approach to the universe model and a local gravitational problem.

In order to make it practical, we shall adopt a compromise proposal, which can be called “homogeneous by areas model” of matter distribution, that is, the universe can be divided into a few spherically symmetric parts with the same symmetric center, and in each part the matter density is a constant.

## 2 The Gravitational Field Equations and Their General Solutions

Imagine in a closed Friedmann universe a local dense-matter area appears owing to a certain kind of mechanism. For simplicity,we assume that its density is a constant. Of course, around the dense-matter area a spherically symmetric rare-matter or vacuum area may appear. Such a matter distribution model is our start point. In this case, the 3-dimension spacelike hypersurface, $`t=`$ constant, is a rotational hypersurface embedded in a 4-dimension flat spacetime. In comoving coordinates the line element can be written

$$ds^2=dt^2U(\psi ,t)d\psi ^2V(\psi ,t)\mathrm{sin}^2\psi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(1)
where $`0\psi \pi `$, $`0\theta \pi `$, $`0\varphi 2\pi `$. The relation between 4-dimension spherical coordinates $`R`$, $`\psi `$, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ and the Decare coordinates $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ and $`w`$ are

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`R\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ (2)
One often introduces

$$r=\mathrm{sin}\psi $$
(3)
and rewrites (1) as the form

$$ds^2=dt^2A(r,t)dr^2B(r,t)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(4)
which is a well-known form .

However, it is necessary to emphasize that $`r`$ is not a good coordinate owing to non-monodromy of the transformation (3). The same value of $`r`$ corresponds to two values of $`\psi `$, i.e., two positions in the universe. This means that $`A(r,t)`$ and $`B(r,t)`$ should have two set physical solutions in principle, which corresponds to the two areas $`0\psi \pi /2`$ and $`\pi /2\psi \pi `$, respectively.

Consider the zero pressure perfect-fluid model

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\rho U^\mu U^\nu $$
(5)
where $`U^r=U^\theta =U^\varphi =0`$, $`U^t=1`$. The Einstein’s equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{2AB}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{2A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}^2}{4A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}\dot{B}}{2AB}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{4AB}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}\ddot{B}}{4AB}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{2A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}^2}{4A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}^2}{2B^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}^{}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}B^{}}{2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}B^{}}{2AB}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (6)
From the last equation of (2), it is easy to find that

$$A=\frac{B^2}{4(1Kr^2)B}$$
(7)
here $`K=K(r)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`r`$. Using the firt three equations of (2) in (7) gives that

$$4\frac{\ddot{B}\dot{B}^2}{B^3}+\frac{4Kr^2}{B}=0$$
(8)
Set

$$B=S^2(r,t)r^2$$
(9)
equation (8) becomes

$$2\frac{\ddot{S}}{S}+\frac{\dot{S}^2}{S^2}+\frac{K}{S^2}=0$$

from which we find

$$\dot{S}^2=\frac{2KF}{S}K$$
(10)
here $`F=F(r)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`r`$. The solution of equation (10) is cycloid-like

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`F(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$
$`C+t`$ $`=`$ $`F(\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha )/\sqrt{K}`$ (11)
where $`C=C(r)`$ is an arbitrary function. Substituting equations (7), (9) and (2) into (2) gives the expression of density

$$\rho =\frac{3}{4\pi G}\frac{(FKr^3)^{}}{S^3r^3}$$
(12)
## 3 Homogeneous by Areas Model of the Distribution of Matter

Where we investigate the problem of spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a celestial body in a closed universe, the ”homogeneous by areas model” above is a suitable model. This model finds expression in the form of the density, that is

$$\rho (r,t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\rho _s(t)\hfill & 0\psi \psi _1\hfill & \hfill (\text{area}I)\\ 0\hfill & \psi _1\psi \psi _2<\pi /2\hfill & \hfill (\text{area}II)\\ \rho _u(t)\hfill & \psi _2<\psi \pi \hfill & \hfill (\text{area}III)\end{array}$$
(13)
where $`\psi _1=\mathrm{arcsin}r_1`$, $`\psi _2=\mathrm{arcsin}r_2`$. The joint conditions on the boundaries $`\psi =\psi _1`$ and $`\psi =\psi _2`$ is taken as that the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ are continuous on these boundaries. Substituting the expression (13) into equation (12) and integrating gives

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}K_I=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\rho _sF_I^2(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I)^3\hfill & \hfill (\text{area}I)\\ K_{II}=\lambda /(F_{II}r^3)\hfill & \hfill (\text{area}II)\\ K_{III}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\rho _uF_{III}^2(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{III})^3\hfill & \hfill (\text{area}III)\end{array}$$
(14)
where $`\lambda `$ is the integral constant for the area $`II`$; for the area $`I`$ and the area $`III`$, the integral constants have been taken as zero so that both $`K_I`$ and $`K_{III}`$ are finite at $`r=0`$ (i.e., $`\psi =0`$ and $`\psi =\pi `$). The joint conditions are

$`A_I(r_1,t)=A_{II}(r_1,t),A_{II}(r_2,t)=A_{III}(r_2,t)`$
$`B_I(r_1,t)=B_{II}(r_1,t),B_{II}(r_2,t)=B_{III}(r_2,t)`$ (15)
The value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ in equation (2) decides that the scale factor $`S(r,t)`$ is expansive or contractive. As an additional condition, we demand that

$$\alpha _I(r_1,t)=\alpha _{II}(r_1,t),\alpha _{II}(r_2,t)=\alpha _{III}(r_2,t)$$
(16)
The expressions (3) and (16) are determining solution conditions to $`F(r)`$, $`K(r)`$ and $`C(r)`$. From (3) we can infer that $`S(r_1,t)`$ is continuous on the boundaries and then from the first of (2) and (16) we can know

$$F_I(r_1)=F_{II}(r_1),F_{II}(r_2)=F_{III}(r_2)$$
(17)
The second of (2) can be written as

$$tt_0=F_i\left[(\alpha _i\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i)(\alpha _{i0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{i0})\right]/\sqrt{K_i}$$
(18)
here $`i=I,II,III`$ and $`\alpha _{i0}=\alpha _i(r,t_0)`$. Equations (16), (17) and (18) imply

$$K_I(r_1)=K_{II}(r_1),K_{II}(r_2)=K_{III}(r_2)$$
(19)
Substituting (16), (17) and (19) into (14) gives

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{3}}\rho _sF_I^3(r_1)r_1^3\left(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I(r_1,t)\right)^3`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{3}}\rho _uF_{III}^3(r_2)r_2^3\left(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{III}(r_2,t_1)\right)^3`$
From the first and the last of (14) it is also easy to see that

$`\rho _s(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I)^3`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{s0}(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{I0})^3`$
$`\rho _u(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II})^3`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{u0}(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II0})^3`$ (20)
In general, these conditions can yet not determine $`F_i`$ and $`K_i`$ (or $`\alpha _{i0}`$) completely because there still exists a certain freedom of coordinate transformation in comoving coordinates. In this sense, to select the function form of $`F_i`$ and $`\alpha _{i0}`$ is just to select coordinates system.

Now we construct a set of concrete solutions from the following considerations: (i) In the case $`\psi _2=\psi _1`$ ($`\rho _s=\rho _u`$, see (3)), the universe should be homogeneous and isotropic. (ii) In the case $`\psi \psi _1`$, $`\alpha _{II0}`$ and $`\alpha _{III0}`$ should be approximate constants and so are $`F_{II}`$ and $`F_{III}`$. (iii) In the case $`\psi \psi _2`$ both $`\alpha _{I0}`$ and $`\alpha _{II0}`$ should be larger than $`\pi `$, so that the scale factor in this area has been contracted, which reflects gravitational collapse of a celestial body. The first condition implies $`\alpha _{I0}=\alpha _{II0}=\alpha _{III0}=`$ constant, and $`F_I=F_{II}=F_{III}=`$ constant. We try to choose the following forms of $`\alpha _{i0}`$ and $`F_i`$

$$\alpha _{i0}=\beta +\frac{r_2r_1}{r_2+r_1}\delta e^{\psi /\sqrt{\psi _1\psi _2}}$$
(21)
$$F_i=a\frac{r_2r_1}{r_2+r_1}be^{\psi /\sqrt{\psi _1\psi _2}}$$
(22)
where $`\beta `$, $`\delta `$, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants. Obviously, the last of (3) is satisfied because of the conditions (16), (17) and (19). In order to make the first of (3) held, we differentiate (18) with respect to $`r`$ and substitute into (14). So doing, we obtain

$`(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _I)\alpha _I^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{I0})+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{I0}}{2(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{I0})}}[(\alpha _I`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _I)(\alpha _{I0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{I0})]\}\alpha _{I0}^{}`$
$`(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II})\alpha _{II}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II0})\alpha _{II0}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3(F_{II}r)^{}}{2F_{II}r}}[(\alpha _{II}`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{II})(\alpha _{II0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{II0})]`$
$`(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{III})\alpha _{III}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{III0})+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{III0}}{2(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{III0})}}[(\alpha _{III}`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{III})(\alpha _{III0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{III0})]\}\alpha _{III0}^{}`$
The continuity of $`\alpha `$ on the boundaries gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{II}r)^{}}{F_{II}r}}|_{r_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{I0}}{1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{I0}}}\alpha _{I0}^{}|_{r_1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(F_{II}r)^{}}{F_{II}r}}|_{r_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{III0}}{1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{III0}}}\alpha _{III0}^{}|_{r_2}`$ (24)
or equivalent forms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b\omega _1}{(ab\omega _1)\sqrt{\psi _1\psi _2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1r_1^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \omega _1\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\delta \omega _1)}{\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\beta +\delta \omega _1)\right]\sqrt{\psi _1\psi _2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1r_1^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b\omega _2}{(ab\omega _2)\sqrt{\psi _1\psi _2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1r_2^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \omega _2\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\delta \omega _2)}{\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\beta +\delta \omega _2)\right]\sqrt{\psi _1\psi _2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1r_2^2}}}`$ (25)
where

$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_2r_1}{r_2+r_1}}e^{\sqrt{\psi _1}/\sqrt{\psi _2}}`$
$`\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_2r_1}{r_2+r_1}}e^{\sqrt{\psi _2}/\sqrt{\psi _1}}`$
If we assign any two of the four constants, say $`\beta `$ and $`a`$ (initial conditions), the other two can be determined by (3), and a set of uniquely definite solutions is thus found.

## 4 Disussion

From (21) and (22) it is easy to see that if $`r_2=r_1`$ then $`\alpha _{i0}=\beta `$ and $`F_i=a`$, which exactly is the homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann universe model. In general, where $`\psi \psi _1`$ and $`\psi \psi _2`$, we have $`\alpha _{III0}\beta `$ and $`F_{III}a`$, which shows that the spacetime far away from the star tends to become homogeneous and isotropic. In the place where $`\psi \psi _2`$ We have

$`\alpha _{I0}\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{r_2r_1}{r_2+r_1}}\delta `$ (26)
$`F_Ia{\displaystyle \frac{r_2r_1}{r_2+r_1}}b`$ (27)
The existing observational data show that $`\beta \pi /2`$. If $`(r_2r_1)/(r_2+r_1)\delta >\pi /2`$, then the celestial body is collapsing.

In the traditional treatment of the problem of the spherically symmetric gravitational collapse, the exterior region of the star is considered infinite and empty . The surface of the star is only boundary. A puzzle arose out of this treatment, which we arrate as follows. Suppose the surface of a star with constant density is described by the equation

$$\frac{x^2+y^2}{a^2}+\frac{z^2}{b^2}=1$$
(28)
in a certain coordinate system. Under the transformations

$$x^{}=x,y^{}=y,z^{}=az/b$$
(29)
The surface equation becomes

$$x^2+y^2+z^2=a^2$$
(30)
in the new coordinate system. Then which symmetry has the gravitational field, axisymmetric or spherically symmetric? In our new treatment there is no such a puzzle owing to the existence of the second boundary.

Birkhoff’s theorem states that the solutions of spherically symmetric and vacuum gravitational field equations must be Schwartzschild. Hence the metric of the area $`II`$ should be able to become Schwartzschild form by means of a certain transformation. Such a transformation has been found, which is

$`\overline{r}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{II}r(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II})`$
$`\overline{t}`$ $`=`$ $`2GM\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{F_{II}rGM}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{II}+\sqrt{GM}(1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II})}{\sqrt{F_{II}rGM}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{II}\sqrt{GM}(1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{II})}}`$ (31)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{F_{II}rGM}{GM}}}(F_{II}r+2GM)\alpha _{II}F_{II}r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{F_{II}rGM}{GM}}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{II}`$
$`{\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{GM}{F_{II}rGM}}\left[\sqrt{\frac{F_{II}^3r^3}{GM}}(\alpha _{II0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{II0})\right]^{}𝑑r}`$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The ultimate goal of today’s high energy physics is to unify all the interactions including gravity. Although string theory is the most promising candidate for such “theory of everything,” a constructive definition of string theory is still under development. For this purpose, it is relevant to grasp the fundamental dynamical variables (even if they are strings) that describe gravity systems in a consistent manner and also in such a way that all observations which have been made on gravity are naturally accounted for.

The holographic principle  appears in the developments of the study of thermodynamics of black holes and various entropy bounds, and states that a spacelike or lightlike region of a system including gravity can be equivalently described by the system on the boundary of the region (nice review articles are ). In order to check this principle quantum mechanically, we need to have a full quantum theory of gravity, but the current status of string theory is not at the level to check in a satisfactory manner whether the assertion holds or not. On the other hand, gravity can be treated fully quantum mechanically in two dimensions, so that it is worthwhile to study the holographic nature in two-dimensional gravity.

Here we first make a historical review of the holographic principle. In the early 70th, Bekenstein proposed that the entropy of a black hole, $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, is proportional to the area of the horizon , and subsequently, Bardeen, Cartar and Hawking  and Hawking  determined the coefficient to be $`1/4G_\mathrm{N}`$, i.e., $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=A/4G_\mathrm{N}`$, where $`A`$ and $`G_\mathrm{N}`$ are the area of the horizon and the Newton constant, respectively.111We will set $`G_\mathrm{N}=1`$ in the following discussions. On the basis of their proposal and by requiring the generalized second law of thermodynamics  (matters’ entropy plus black holes’ entropy should increase in time), Bekenstein  showed that there must be a bound on the entropy of matters in the following form:

$$S2\pi ER,$$
(1.1)
where $`S`$, $`E`$ and $`R`$ are the entropy, the energy and the linear size of the system, respectively. This entropy bound is expected to hold for systems with weak gravity. On the other hand, ’t Hooft  and Susskind  pointed out that, for strongly gravitating systems, we must use another entropy bound

$$S\frac{1}{4}A,$$
(1.2)
where $`A`$ is the area of the boundary of a given region. The bound saturates when the region is filled with a black hole whose horizon coincides with the boundary. This bound (1.2) is much more radical than the Bekenstein bound, because it asserts that the entropy of gravity system is not extensive and should be bounded by area. It thus suggests that the fundamental dynamical variables including gravity are not ordinary local variables but correspond to some quantities living on the boundary. This is called the holographic principle.

Originally, the bound (1.2) is assumed to hold for the entropy of a spacelike region, but there are many counter examples to such spacelike entropy bound. One such counter example is the flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe. Fischler and Susskind  pointed out that if the entropy is estimated for a lightlike region (null hypersurface) then the same form of entropy bound does hold even for the flat FRW universe. Subsequently Bousso made their proposal into a precise form , introducing the idea of “lightsheet,” which is a null hypersurface characterized by the condition that the expansion $`\theta `$ is nonpositive along the generator of the null hypersurface.

His entropy bound requires the entropy $`S_L`$ on the lightsheet $`L`$ to be bounded by the difference of the areas $`A(0)`$ and $`A(1)`$ of the boundaries of the lightsheet (see fig.1):222Bousso originally proposed the bound as $`S_L(1/4)A(0)`$. The entropy bound in the form of eq. (1.3) was first presented by Flanagan, Marolf and Wald .

$$S_L\frac{1}{4}\left(A(0)A(1)\right).$$
(1.3)
This bound has not had serious counter examples so far and is believed to hold for any classical gravity.

A derivation of the Bousso bound (1.3) was given by Flanagan, Marolf and Wald (FMW) , who assumed a condition that is essentially equivalent to the Bekenstein bound on a null hypersurface:

$`ss^\mu k_\mu 2\pi (1\lambda )T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu .`$ (1.4)
Here $`s^\mu `$ and $`s`$ are the entropy current and the entropy density over a lightsheet $`L`$, respectively, and the null vector $`kd/d\lambda `$ is the generator of the lightsheet with affine parameter $`\lambda `$ (for detailed definitions, see the next section).

The FMW condition (1.4) is not given in a completely local form, as can be seen, for example, from the presence of $`\lambda `$ in the expression. Recently, Bousso, Flanagan and Marolf (BFM)  gave another condition which is completely local:

$`s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{d\lambda }}2\pi T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu .`$ (1.5)
This is essentially a differential form of the FMW condition. As discussed in the next section, this condition leads to the Bousso bound in $`(n+2)`$ dimensions ($`n1`$). The essential step in the derivation there is to use the identity

$`T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{n}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{\prime \prime }(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu },`$ (1.6)
which can be proven by the Raychaudhuri equation (see the next section). Here $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the shear tensor, and

$`G(\lambda )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle _0^\lambda }𝑑\overline{\lambda }\theta (\overline{\lambda })\right].`$ (1.7)
In the present article, we discuss two-dimensional gravity $`(n=0`$) which is coupled to conformal matters of central charge $`c`$, treating gravity as a background for quantum matters. If we set $`n=0`$, the right-hand side of eq. (1.6) vanishes since the shear tensor does not exist in two dimensions, so that eqs. (1.5) and (1.6) do not seem to give a physically meaningful bound on the entropy. The main purpose of this letter is to show that due to the Weyl anomaly, an equality similar to eq. (1.6) holds for two dimensions:

$`T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu (\lambda )=4\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{G}^{\prime \prime }(\lambda )}{\overline{G}(\lambda )}},`$ (1.8)
where the coefficient is related to the central charge of matters as $`\beta =(c26)/48\pi `$, and $`\overline{G}(\lambda )`$ is related to an effective “area” of point at $`\lambda `$. This equality allows us to prove a nontrivial bound on the entropy. In order to discuss fully quantum aspects of the Bousso bound, we further need to quantize gravity. This is now under investigation and will be reported elsewhere.

This letter is organized as follows. In section 2, we first review the BFM conditions in $`(n+2)`$-dimensional space-time, which leads to a classical bound on the entropy over a lightsheet. The derivation does not work in two dimensions when gravity systems are treated classically. However, in section 3, we show that the same manner of derivation is also possible in two dimensions when the Weyl anomaly is taken into account correctly. In section 4, we compare our result with the energy-momentum tensor of two-dimensional dilatonic gravity, which can be obtained by compactifying an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional space-time on $`n`$-dimensional sphere, $`S^n`$. This section was inspired by work of Strominger and Thompson . Section 5 is devoted to conclusion and outlook.

## 2 BFM conditions

Let $`(M,g)`$ be an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional space-time with metric $`g=(g_{\mu \nu })`$. Let $`L`$ be a null hypersurface which is generated by a null vector $`k`$ with affine parameter $`\lambda `$,333 $`\lambda `$ is called an affine parameter if $`k=d/d\lambda =k^\mu _\mu `$ satisfies the geodesic equation of the form $`k^\nu _\nu k^\mu =0`$.

$`k={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\lambda }}.`$ (2.1)
We assume that $`L`$ is parametrized from $`\lambda =0`$ to $`\lambda =1`$ with two boundaries. Denoting the cross-sectional area at $`\lambda `$ by $`A(\lambda )`$, and its ratio to $`A(0)`$ by $`a(\lambda )`$;

$`a(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{A(\lambda )}{A(0)}},`$ (2.2)
we introduce the expansion $`\theta (\lambda )`$ as

$`\theta (\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{A(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{dA(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{da(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}.`$ (2.3)
Then $`L`$ is called (part of) a lightsheet if the expansion $`\theta `$ is always non-positive along $`\lambda `$, $`\theta (\lambda )0`$.

By denoting the entropy current by $`s^\mu `$ and the entropy density by $`ss_\mu k^\mu `$ on the lightsheet $`L`$, Bousso, Flanagan and Marolf  showed that the Bousso bound (1.3) can be derived if the following two conditions are satisfied:

$`(\mathrm{i})`$ $`s^{}(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{ds(\lambda )}{d\lambda }}2\pi T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu `$ (2.4)
$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ $`s(0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a^{}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}(0)}{A(0)}}.`$ (2.5)
The first condition is a differential form of the FMW condition, which is an analogue of the Bekenstein bound and thus is supposed to hold for any normal matters. The second one is an initial condition, whose physical meaning is described in .

We here demonstrate that the above two conditions actually lead to the Bousso bound (1.3) in arbitrary $`(n+2)`$ dimensions ($`n1`$). We first introduce the function $`G(\lambda )`$ as

$`G(\lambda )\left[a(\lambda )\right]^{1/n}.`$ (2.6)
Then the Raychaudhuri equation444 Here, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ are the shear and the twist tensors, respectively . The latter vanishes when the vector $`k^\mu `$ generates a family of null hypersurfaces, to which $`k^\mu `$ is normal (and tangent).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{d\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\theta ^2\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+\omega _{\mu \nu }\omega ^{\mu \nu }8\pi T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu `$ (2.7)
gives an inequality on $`T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu `$ as

$`T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{n}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{\prime \prime }(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{n}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{\prime \prime }(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}\right)^{}.`$ (2.8)
We thus have the following inequality on the entropy density:

$`s(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^\lambda }𝑑\overline{\lambda }s^{}(\overline{\lambda })+s(0)`$
$`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^\lambda }𝑑\overline{\lambda }T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu (\overline{\lambda })+s(0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(0)}{G(0)}}+s(0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}(0)}{G(0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a^{}(0)s(0)\right),`$ (2.9)
which gives a bound on the entropy over the lightsheet $`L`$ ($`0\lambda 1`$) as

$`S_L`$ $`=A(0){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda s(\lambda )\left[G(\lambda )\right]^n`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}A(0){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda G^{}(\lambda )\left[G(\lambda )\right]^{n1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A(0)\left[a(\lambda )\right]_0^1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(A(0)A(1)\right).`$ (2.10)
## 3 2D gravity in the lightcone gauge

In the preceding section, we have shown that the classical identity

$`T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{n}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{\prime \prime }(\lambda )}{G(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu },`$ (3.1)
plays an essential role in deriving the Bousso bound in $`(n+2)`$-dimensional space-time. One might think that the equality makes no sense in two dimensions, since the shear tensor does not exist in two dimensions and thus the right-hand side vanishes when we set $`n=0`$. The main purpose of this section is to show that if we take into account the Weyl anomaly correctly, the right-hand side is rewritten into the desired form with a nonvanishing coefficient, and that the coefficient is essentially the central charge of the conformal matter to which gravity is coupled.

We consider the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[g(x)]`$ defined as

$`e^{i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[g(x)]}={\displaystyle [d\varphi (x)]e^{iS[\varphi (x),g(x)]}},`$ (3.2)
where $`\varphi (x)`$ stands for a set of conformal matters. Assuming that the path integral is regularized in such a way that two-dimensional diffeomorphism ($`\mathrm{Diff}_2`$) is respected, the effective action can be calculated by integrating the Weyl anomaly equation:

$`T(x)_g{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }(x)}}={\displaystyle \frac{c26}{24\pi }}R.`$ (3.3)
The result is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[g]={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{g}R\frac{1}{^2}R}`$ (3.4)
with555 Here $`26`$ comes from the Jacobian when we reduce the measure over $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ to the measure over $`h`$ :    $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[dg_{\mu \nu }\right]}{\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{Diff}_2)}}=\left[dh\right]\times \left(\mathrm{Jacobian}\right),`$  although we do not make an integration over $`h`$ in this article.

$`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{c26}{48\pi }}.`$ (3.5)
There are two popular parametrizations (or gauges) of metric; one is the conformal gauge and the other is the lightcone gauge. Although the former has an advantage in its manifest covariance, the lightcone gauge would be more convenient in order to analyze holographic behavior over lightsheets. We thus write the metric as

$`ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu =dx^+\left(dx^{}+h(x^+,x^{})dx^+\right).`$ (3.6)
For this, $`x^+=\mathrm{const}`$ gives a null hyper “surface,” which is generated by $`k_{}=/x^{}`$ with affine parameter $`x^{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[g]=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[h]`$ is expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[h]=\beta {\displaystyle d^2x\left[\frac{_{}^2f_{}_+f}{\left(_{}f\right)^2}\frac{\left(_{}^2f\right)^2_+f}{\left(_{}f\right)^3}\right]}.`$ (3.7)
Here we have introduced the function $`f(x^+,x^{})`$ through the relation

$`h(x)={\displaystyle \frac{_+f(x)}{_{}f(x)}}.`$ (3.8)
From eq. (3.7) the energy-momentum tensor is calculated as

$`T_{}`$ $`T_{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}}k_\mu k_\nu `$
$`=4\beta \sqrt{_{}f}_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{_{}f}}}.`$ (3.9)
This has the same form with the equation (3.1) under the identification

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & & x^{}\\ G& & 1/\sqrt{_{}f}\\ n& & (2/3)(c26).\end{array}`$ (3.13)
Note that for arbitrary function $`f`$ of $`x`$, the expression $`\sqrt{f^{}(x)}\left(1/\sqrt{f^{}(x)}\right)^{\prime \prime }`$ is essentially the Schwarzian differential:

$`\{f,x\}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(x)f^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)(3/2)\left(f^{\prime \prime }(x)\right)^2}{\left(f^{}(x)\right)^2}}=2\sqrt{f^{}(x)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{f^{}(x)}}}\right)^{\prime \prime }.`$ (3.14)
From this, we can easily understand why $`T_{}`$ has the form (3.9). In fact, consider the diffeomorphism $`F`$ defined by

$`F:(x^+,x^{})(\stackrel{~}{x}^+,\stackrel{~}{x}^{})=(x^+,f(x^+,x^{})).`$ (3.15)
This is actually a conformal isometry from $`ds^2=dx^+\left(dx^{}+hdx^+\right)`$ to $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2d\stackrel{~}{x}^+d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ since

$`F^{}\left(d\stackrel{~}{s}^2\right)`$ $`=d\stackrel{~}{x}^+(x)d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}(x)=dx^+\left(\left(_+f\right)dx^++\left(_{}f\right)dx^{}\right)`$
$`=\left(_{}f\right)dx^+\left(dx^{}+hdx^+\right)=\left(_{}f\right)ds^2.`$ (3.16)
The energy-momentum tensor vanishes in the $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ coordinates ($`\stackrel{~}{T}_{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=0`$), and thus, by using the transformation law of the energy-momentum tensor, $`T_{}(x)`$ can be calculated as follows:

$`T_{}(x)`$ $`=\left(_{}f\right)^2\stackrel{~}{T}_{}(\stackrel{~}{x})+{\displaystyle \frac{c26}{24\pi }}\{f,x^{}\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{c26}{12\pi }}\sqrt{_{}f}_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{_{}f}}}`$
$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\beta \sqrt{_{}f}_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{_{}f}}}.`$ (3.17)
Table (3.13) gives us an interpretation that in two dimensions, the coefficient of $`G^1_{}^2G`$ is shifted from the classical value $`n=0`$ to $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}(2/3)(c26)`$. This in turn implies that the radiative corrections from matter fields keep the form of the conditions.

In the lightcone quantization, the coordinate $`x^+`$ is regarded as time. Thus, defining the effective area of a point $`(x^+=0,x^{})`$ on the time-slice $`x^+=0`$ as

$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(x^{})A_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)\left[G(x^+=0,x^{})\right]^{n_{\mathrm{eff}}}=A_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{}f(x^+=0,0)}{_{}f(x^+=0,x^{})}}\right)^{(c26)/3}`$ (3.18)
with unknown constant $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)`$, and following the derivation of the Bousso bound given in the preceding section with an appropriate initial condition, we expect that the entropy on the lightsheet $`L`$ ($`0x^{}1`$) at time $`x^+=0`$ would be bounded as

$`S_L`$ $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(0){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x^{}s(x^+=0,x^{})\left[G(x^+=0,x^{})\right]^{n_{\mathrm{eff}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)\left[\left[G(x^+=0,x^{})\right]^{n_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right]_0^1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(A_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)A_{\mathrm{eff}}(1)\right).`$ (3.19)
## 4 2D dilatonic gravity

In this section, we discuss two-dimensional dilatonic gravity, which can be obtained by compactifying an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional space-time on $`n`$-dimensional sphere, $`S^n`$. We demonstrate that $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}=(2/3)(c26)`$ can be naturally identified with the dimensionality of the compactified space, $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}n`$. Our discussion was inspired by work of Strominger and Thompson .

We consider an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional space-time $`M_{n+2}`$ with topology $`M_{n+2}=M_2\times S^n`$ and with coordinates $`X^M=(x^\mu ,y^i)`$ ($`\mu =0,1`$ (or $`+,`$) and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$). The metric is then written as

$`ds_{n+2}^2`$ $`=G_{MN}dX^MdX^N`$
$`=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +e^{2\varphi (x)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(y)dy^idy^j,`$ (4.1)
where $`d\stackrel{~}{s}_n^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(y)dy^idy^j`$ is a metric of unit sphere, which can be taken, for example, to be $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(y)=\delta _{ij}+y_iy_j/(1y^2)`$ with $`|y|^21`$. If we take only the zero mode of harmonic functions on $`S^n`$, the Einstein-Hilbert action reduces to the action of dilatonic gravity:

$`S_{n+2}\left[G_{MN}(x,y)\right]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_{n+2}}}{\displaystyle d^2xd^ny\sqrt{G}R_G}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_2}}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{g}e^{n\varphi }\left[R+n(n1)\left(\left(\varphi \right)^2+e^{2\varphi }\right)\right]}`$
$`S^{\mathrm{DG}}[g_{\mu \nu }(x),\varphi (x)].`$ (4.2)
Here $`G_2G_{n+2}/\omega _n`$ is the two-dimensional Newton constant ($`\omega _n=d^ny\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is the volume of unit sphere) and will be set to unity in the following discussion.

We choose the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ as in the preceding section,

$`ds_2^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu =dx^+\left(dx^{}+h(x^+,x^{})dx^+\right).`$ (4.3)
Then the vectors, $`k_{}`$, $`l_+h_{}`$ and $`\eta _{(i)}_{y^i}`$, satisfy the following equations:

$`k^2=l^2=0,kl=1/2,k\eta _{(i)}=l\eta _{(i)}=0`$
$`kk^M=0,kl^M=0,k\eta _{(i)}^M=\widehat{B}_N^M\eta _{(i)}^N`$ (4.4)
with

$`\widehat{B}_N^M=\left(_{}\varphi \right)\left(\delta _N^M+2k^Ml_N+2l^Mk_N\right).`$ (4.5)
From this, we find that $`x^{}`$ is an affine parameter of a null hypersurface $`x^+=\mathrm{const}`$, and that the expansion $`\theta \widehat{B}_M^M`$ is given by

$`\theta =n_{}\varphi .`$ (4.6)
This can also be concluded by noting that the cross-sectional area at $`x^{}`$ is given by $`A=\omega _ne^{n\varphi }`$ so that the expansion is given as $`\theta =_{}A/A=n_{}\varphi `$.

The null component of the energy-momentum tensor is calculated as

$`T_{}^{\mathrm{DG}}`$ $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{DG}}k^\mu k^\nu `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S^{\mathrm{DG}}}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}}k_\mu k_\nu `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n}{8\pi }}e^{n\varphi }e^\varphi _{}^2e^\varphi .`$ (4.7)
This expression suggests that the null component of the energy-momentum tensor of dilatonic gravity is related to that of the preceding section, $`T_{}`$, as

$`T_{}^{\mathrm{DG}}=e^{n\varphi }T_{},`$ (4.8)
if we identify the quantities there as

$`e^\varphi G={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{_{}f}}}`$ (4.9)
and

$`n_{\mathrm{eff}}n.`$ (4.10)
This identification can be inferred from the observation made in ref. , that quantities which are scalar on an $`n`$-dimensional submanifold of the lightsheet with fixed affine parameter $`x^{}`$ (like entropy density, $`s^{(n+2)}`$, and the null component of the energy-momentum tensor, $`T_{}^{(n+2)}`$) should be multiplied by the area of the submanifold at $`x^{}`$ in order to interpret them as quantities in two-dimensional dilatonic gravity (see fig. 2):

$`s^{\mathrm{DG}}e^{n\varphi }s^{(n+2)},T_{}^{\mathrm{DG}}e^{n\varphi }T_{}^{(n+2)}.`$ (4.11)
This implies that the two-dimensional objects like the entropy current and the energy-momentum tensor in the preceding section are directly related to $`(n+2)`$-dimensional objects through the relation $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}n`$. The relation $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}=(2/3)(c26)n`$ is actually plausible, since, if we start with larger $`n`$, then two-dimensional gravity should feel conformal matters of larger central charge.

We can give another reasoning to the relation (4.8) that is purely based on two-dimensional consideration. We first note that in dilatonic gravity, the propagator of the field $`h`$ is given by $`h(p)h(p)e^{n\varphi }`$. We further note that $`S^{\mathrm{DG}}[h,\varphi ]`$ can be interpreted as the classical part of the generating functional of amputated 1PI diagrams with vacuum expectation values $`h(x)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}[h]`$ is interpreted as the generating functional with $`h(x)`$ as the source of the energy-momentum tensor. This consideration leads to the desired relation

$`T_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta h}}hh{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S^{\mathrm{DG}}}{\delta h}}e^{n\varphi }T_{}^{\mathrm{DG}}.`$ (4.12)
## 5 Conclusion and outlook

In this letter, we considered two-dimensional gravity, treating metric as a background for quantum conformal matters, and argued that a nontrivial holographic bound on entropy holds even for two-dimensional case due to the Weyl anomaly. We also discussed dilatonic gravity to demonstrate the naturalness of our relation $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}(2/3)(c26)`$.

We further need to quantize the metric $`h`$ in order to see how Bousso’s entropy bound is realized in full quantum gravity in two dimensions. The quantization would be carried out with the use of representation theory of $`SL(2,𝑹)`$ Kac-Moody algebra, which is the residual gauge symmetry after the lightcone gauge is taken . Work towards this direction is now in progress.

## Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank W. Hikida, H. Kawai, M. Ninomiya and T. Tada for discussions.


text: # The Crystal Duality Principle: from Hopf Algebras to Geometrical Symmetries