text:
# Speed-up through entanglement – many-body effects in neutrino processes

## 1 Introduction

We consider a system consisting of stable or quite long-lived particles (i.e. stable for the time range that in which we shall be interested), confined in a box for simplicity, and interacting occasionally with one another. Taking an initial state which is, at least with respect to some of its attributes, not in statistical equilibrium, we can discuss time scales for evolution of the gross features of the system. In general these scales are determined by cross-sections. But an exception to this assertion about scales and cross-sections can be found, among other places, in the transformation of one state of a particle into another through evolution that can occur in isolation from other particles, such as in neutrino oscillations or the precession of spins in external magnetic fields. In this case it may not be to the point to discuss the instantaneous“rates” at which the system changes, since we are watching coherent development of an attribute of the system with time behavior generically like $`\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$.

In the present note we demonstrate some circumstances under which we do not have such slow single-particle “precessions” but in which there is a long term coherent process arising from the short range interactions of particles, which can be randomly distributed in momentum space. This behavior can arise when the particles have another attribute that can be traded in the course of an interaction. Both to have a concrete framework and with a view to a possible application, we shall consider a system of neutrinos. In order to eliminate extraneous effects, we consider an example in which there are two flavors of massless neutrinos, designated $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, and there is no neutrino flavor mixing in the Hamiltonian. There is an initial distribution of the neutrinos specified, one in which there is some systematic flavor asymmetry, such as neutrinos of one flavor being predominantly of higher energy than those of the other flavor, or with different angular distributions for the two species. The question we pose is: “At what later time would the distributions would become more or less equal through neutral current interactions?” The conventional answer, as mentioned above, is that this time is determined by a scattering rate proportional to the weak cross-section times the density of scatterers. Equations in the literature do indeed predict shorter time scales for effects arising from neutrino-neutrino interactions in the case in which there is flavor oscillation built into the Hamiltonian . The effects studied in these papers are analogous to the “forward scattering”, or “index of refraction” terms familiar in the study of the passage of neutrinos through matter that contains electrons, in that they have an inverse time scale that is proportional to $`G_F\rho `$ where $`\rho `$ is the neutrino number-density of the medium and $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant. This is in contrast to cross-section effects, which are of order $`G_F^2\rho \omega ^2`$, where $`\omega `$ is the energy of the scattering particles. These studies, however, predict that such effects are strictly absent, for pure neutrino systems, in the absence of flavor mixing in the Hamiltonian, if one one begins, as we do, with a state that is diagonal in the flavor space . The essential difference between our approach and that of previous work is that we retain much of the full complexity of the multi-body physics involved, rather than assuming we may describe our ensemble of particles with a single body density matrix.111Some of the subtleties involved in neutrino-neutrino forward scattering have recently been re-examined by A. Friedland and C. Lunardini . In particular, they raise the point that there may be circumstances in which a single body description is inadequate, as is certainly the case for the effects we study here. However, we do not see how to obtain the results of the present paper using the perturbative approach of these authors.

## 2 Model

The basic process that we consider is simply

$$\nu _e(𝐩)+\nu _\tau (𝐪)\nu _e(𝐪)+\nu _\tau (𝐩),$$
(1)
where the momenta $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ are drawn from the initial distributions. These processes will tend to reduce the correlations of flavor and momentum that we assume are present in the initial state. The question is: “At what rate?” The part of the Hamiltonian that will provide our effects operates only in the subspace of the initial momentum states. We define annihilation operators $`a_i`$ for a $`\nu _e`$ of momentum $`p_i`$ and $`b_i`$ for a $`\nu _\tau `$ of momentum $`p_i`$, where $`i`$ runs from unity to the number of single particle momenta.222Not necessarily equal to the number of particles, since in the initial state a $`\nu _e`$ and a $`\nu _\tau `$ could both have the same momentum. Given an initial state of $`N_1`$ momenta occupied by $`\nu _e`$ and $`N_2`$ momenta occupied by $`\nu _\tau `$, we take the effective Hamiltonian that implements the full set of reactions in Eq. (1) to be,

$$H_I^{(eff)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{V}\underset{ij}{\overset{N_1+N_2}{}}f_{ij}[a_j^{}a_ib_i^{}b_j+a_i^{}a_jb_j^{}b_i]$$
(2)
where V is the volume of the system and the weight function $`f_{ij}`$ is of order unity. The sum extends over all of the $`(N_1+N_2)`$ momentum states of the system that are initially occupied by either flavor of neutrino. We have omitted the terms in the Hamiltonian corresponding to the processes, $`\nu _e(p_i)+\nu _\tau (p_j)\nu _e(p_i)+\nu _\tau (p_j)`$, which do not contribute to our effects. Including such terms, that is to say, a diagonal contribution to the Hamiltonian, alters the wavefunction of the system only by an irrelevant overall phase. Since the energies of the basic set of unperturbed states are exactly the same, the time evolution of the system will be entirely determined by this interaction Hamiltonian.

In a realistic problem the form of $`f_{ij}`$ will depend on the circumstances of the application. For example, if we had started with the complete form of the neutral current, neutrino-neutrino interactions, then the matrix elements of the Dirac matrices in the V,A structure dictate a factor of $`[1\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{p_i,p_j})]`$, where the angle is that between the two momentum vectors labeling the states. For simplicity, we have taken $`f_{ij}=1`$ $`i,j`$ for some of our analytic estimates. In the numerical calculations we have taken a distribution of values in the range $`0.51`$, given by

$$f_{ij}=0.5+\frac{0.5}{N_1+N_2}\left|ij\right|.$$
(3)
## 3 N+N

In our first example we shall take a set of $`2N`$ momentum states to be occupied half by $`\nu _e`$’s and half by $`\nu _\tau `$’s. For the initial state we take the first (bottom) $`N`$ states to be filled by $`\nu _\tau `$’s and the last (top) $`N`$ states to be filled by $`\nu _e`$’s. We refer to this state as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. Explicitly,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|\nu _e(p_1)\mathrm{}\nu _e(p_i)\mathrm{}\nu _e(p_N)\nu _\tau (p_{N+1})\mathrm{}\nu _\tau (p_j)\mathrm{}\nu _\tau (p_{2N}).`$ (4)
The interactions given in Eq.(1) exchange energy and momentum between particles of the two different species. An example of such a process is the interchange of our initial state with

$`|\nu _e(p_1)\mathrm{}\nu _\tau (p_i)\mathrm{}\nu _e(p_N)\nu _\tau (p_{N+1})\mathrm{}\nu _e(p_j)\mathrm{}\nu _\tau (p_{2N}).`$ (5)
The total set of states of the complete system that we have to deal with, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$, are the $`n_s=(2N)!/(N!)^2`$ distinct states in which the flavor indices in the initial state are permuted within the defined subset indexed by $`p_i`$. We shall adopt an ordering of these states such that in each of the first $`n_s/2`$ states in the list, the top state in the single particle list is occupied by $`\nu _e`$. Having taken all of the N of the $`\nu _e`$’s on the top, in the initial state, we wish to estimate the time for “equilibration”, in the sense of the $`\nu _e`$ ’s being more or less distributed with 50% in the bottom set of states.

In the $`n_s`$ dimensional space spanned by our basis states, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$, the effective Hamiltonian matrix as determined from Eq.(2) has $`N^2`$ off-diagonal elements in each row (or column); we denote this matrix by $`𝐌`$ . Each of the $`n_sN^2`$ off-diagonal elements of $`𝐌`$ is one of the 2N(2N-1)/2 values of the function $`f_{ij}`$ of Eq. (2).

Taking $`f_{ij}=1`$, we have,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |𝐌^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =\frac{2N^2G_F^2}{V^2}$$
(6)
for each one of the basis states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$. The square root of the average squared energy of the $`n_s`$ eigenstates is thus given by

$$E_{av}=[n_s^1Tr[𝐌^2]]^{1/2}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2}G_F\rho $$
(7)
where the trace operates in our space of $`n_s`$ states, and we have substituted the total $`(\nu _e+\nu _\tau )`$ number-density, $`\rho `$, for $`2N/V`$. We denote the corresponding set of eigenstates of $`M`$ by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_E`$, where the $`E`$’s stand for the $`n_s`$ eigenvalues. The state of the system at time $`T`$, which we denote by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(T)`$ is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(T)=\underset{E}{\overset{n_s}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_E\mathrm{\Psi }_E|\mathrm{\Psi }_0e^{iET},$$
(8)
From this we can compute, for example, the probability $`P`$ (persistence) that a particular one of the top $`n_s/2`$ states, which was occupied at time T=0 by a $`\nu _e`$, is occupied at time T by a $`\nu _\tau `$. For example, with the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and the ordering of the $`n_s`$ states as described above, we ask for the probability of continuing to have a $`\nu _e`$ in the very top state, obtaining

$$P=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n_s/2}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }(T)|^2,$$
(9)
where the sum is over all the $`n_s/2`$ states that have a $`\nu _e`$ on top.

Of course at the moment we have said nothing about the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_E`$ that enter in Eq. (9) and Eq. (8). We anticipate that an eigenvector of a matrix such as $`M`$ typically projects significantly onto many of the basis states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$. Our numerical tests appear to sustain this conclusion, which we will not quantify further in this note. Then we conjecture that the time in which $`P`$ becomes significantly less than unity on the average, i.e. the mixing time, is determined by the magnitude of a typical eigenvalue. From Eq. (7) we already found that the root mean square of an eigenvalue is of order $`\rho G_F`$. If a macroscopic fraction of the eigenvalues, that is, a number $`\lambda n_s`$ of them, are of this order,333Of course, if essentially all of the strength were concentrated in a number of eigenvalues which did not grow as $`n_s`$, then we would not obtain macroscopic effects. then the effective mixing time should be of order $`(\rho G_F)^1`$, in view of the relations Eq.(8) and Eq.(9). This is the same as the typical time scale for what the “index of refraction” or “forward-scattering” effects would be in the case of in which we replaced the neutrino density by an electron density of the same magnitude, a time scale much shorter than any effect of nonforward scatterings (which scale as $`G_F^2`$.)

The distribution of the eigenvalues can be determined analytically in the case in which $`f_{ij}=1`$. Consider a system in which the number of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is given by $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ respectively. We shall assume, without loss of generality, that $`N_1N_2`$. The distribution of eigenvalues have a pattern, from which we can observe that there are $`N_1+1`$ distinct eigenvalues

$$E_i=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{V}[(N_1i)(N_2i)i],i=0,1\mathrm{}N_1,$$
(10)
with degeneracies given by

$$D_i=\frac{(N_1+N_2)!}{i!(N_1+N_2i)!}\frac{(N_1+N_2)!}{(i1)!(N_1+N_2(i1))!}.$$
(11)
In Fig. 1 we plot the distribution of these eigenvalues for the present case of $`N`$ each of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, in the limit of large N. On the same figure we show the distributions obtained numerically, in the case that $`f_{ij}`$ is given by Eq. (3), for the cases $`2N=12`$ and $`2N=14`$. Since the matrix $`M`$ is traceless, the eigenvalues sum to zero. One can see from Fig. (1) that the bulk of the eigenvalues (say, $`>95\%`$) lie in the range

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{E_i}{2N}\frac{V}{\sqrt{2}G_F}+1,$$
(12)
and thus the typical energy difference between a pair of eigenstates will be of order $`(\sqrt{2}G_F/V)(2N)\sqrt{2}G_F\rho `$. The qualitative features of the eigenvalue distribution, are not affected by taking a distribution of $`f_{ij}`$’s.

We also make a limited computational check on our heuristic estimates of the effects on rates, by directly solving the Schrodinger equation, beginning with the above initial state, Eq. (4), and determining the probability that a particular one of the $`\nu _e`$’s in one of the upper states has been replaced at a later time by a $`\nu _\tau `$. In the case $`2N=14`$ we have to solve $`n_s=14!/(7!)^2=3432`$ coupled linear differential equations, which is our computational limit. The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. 2 for a case in which the coupling function $`f_{ij}`$ is given by Eq. (3). We see that the curves show very similar behavior, and except for the smallest case with 6 particles, the times elapsed to the first minimum are very close to each other. The results appear to sustain the analysis, given above, for a mixing rate that is independent of particle number for fixed density. Note, however, that the locations for, say the first peaks in the respective curves move to greater time as N is increased, albeit at a slower and slower rate. One cannot absolutely conclude from these data that there is a limiting point for large N and fixed density. Provisionally, taking the mixing time to be that in which the curves cross in Fig. 2, we find $`T_{\mathrm{mix}}(\sqrt{2}G_F\rho )^1`$ in the limit of an infinite system. Unfortunately, a perturbation theoretic approach is valid only for small times (smaller and smaller times as the particle number is increased) and cannot shed any light on the outcome.

## 4 1+(2N-1)

Next we look at a problem that is so closely related to the above one that one might (erroneously) guess that the behavior is similar. We start with the same Hamiltonian Eq. (2), and set of $`2N`$ participating states but now take an initial condition with only the top state filled with a $`\nu _e`$ and all the remaining $`(2N1)`$ single-particle states filled with $`\nu _\tau `$’s. The effective subspace of system states that are connected together is now $`n_s=2N`$ dimensional, and is described by the location of the single $`\nu _e`$. But now, in the analogue of Eq. (6), for the case of $`f_{ij}=1`$ we find that the average squared eigenvalue is $`(2N)^1\mathrm{Tr}𝐌^2=(2N1)(\sqrt{2}G_F/V)^2`$, in contrast to the value, $`N^2`$, obtained in the $`(N,N)`$ case. Furthermore, there is a single state, with eigenvalue $`(2N1)`$, while the remaining $`(2N1)`$ states all have eigenvalue $`1`$. Denoting the state with large eigenvalue by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$, we note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2=N^1`$ so that the effects on $`P`$ of mixing with this state are of order $`N^1`$; and since there are no energy differences among the remaining $`N1`$ eigenstates, the total effect (at the order $`G_F`$ level) will vanish in the limit of large N. We have confirmed numerically that the introduction of a scatter into the coupling constants, using Eq. (3), does not change these conclusions qualitatively. The results for persistence versus time in this case are shown in Fig. 3, for the case of several values of $`N`$. They clearly show the $`N^1`$ behavior in the short and intermediate time regions.

## 5 Discussion

Thus far in our discussion, we have used “$`\nu _e`$” and “$`\nu _\tau `$” merely to label our states, and we have given no hint as to how the above behaviors could make a difference to observable results in the neutrino world. In fact there are two situations that have been discussed in the literature in which neutrino-neutrino scattering is thought to play a role, and in which the size of the parameters is exactly such as to make effects with our time scale $`(\sqrt{2}G_F\rho )^1`$ of possible importance, and indeed as important as the effects noted in the literature. The first is in early universe scenarios in which one has assumed some degree of neutrino degeneracy . The second is in the region just above the neutrino-sphere in the supernova process, where differences in the energy spectra for different neutrino flavors play a key role in whether or not there is an efficient R process for nucleosynthesis . Another example where neutrino-neutrino forward scattering is relevant, is the flavor conversion of high energy neutrinos from astrophysical sources as they propagate through the relic neutrino background . We emphasize again that up to this point we have not included the neutrino oscillation physics that drives the results in these works. We intend to address the combination of the two themes in a subsequent publication. But we can comment on what we believe to be the insufficiency of the previous works on the subject. What we have computed above, the probability that a specific state, say $`p_i`$, that was originally occupied by a $`\nu _e`$ (in the initial state for the complete system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$) is still occupied by a $`\nu _e`$ at time $`t`$, has a simple expression in terms of the Heisenberg picture operator, $`a_i(t)`$,

$$P=\mathrm{\Psi }_0|a_i^{}(t)a_i(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(13)
where the Heisenberg operators are chosen to coincide with the Schrodinger operators that were introduced in Eq. (2) at $`t=0`$. Now the operator in Eq. (13) is a neutrino density operator for the particular state $`p_i`$. If we write an equation of motion for this operator, by taking the commutator with the Hamiltonian Eq. (2), the right hand side is a quartic in the operators $`a^{},a,b^{},b`$, and there is a sum over one index $`j`$. When we encounter, say, a term like

$$\underset{j}{}a_j^{}(t)b_j(t)b_i^{}(t)a_i(t)$$
(14)
we would like to be able to replace $`_j(a_j^{}b_j)`$ by a density matrix element, off-diagonal in the flavor space, which represents the entire average state of the medium. Then the multiplying operator $`b_i^{}a_i`$ would be a corresponding operator but for the single mode $`i`$. Indeed, this is exactly the assumption that yields the non-linear terms in the equations for the density matrices derived in Ref.  and used in Ref. .

As noted above, with our assumed flavor-diagonal initial conditions, and in the absence of neutrino-mixing in the Hamiltonian, such terms do not create any effect. Our effects are exactly due to the fact that the replacement of the four-operator product by a product of two expectation values, as sketched above, is not justified. Even if we were to assume that a kind of factorized ansatz would pick up the leading terms, which we believe is highly unlikely, we would want add the results of pairing, say, $`a_j^{}a_i`$ in Eq. (14). That is to say, we would be driven to consider density matrices that are off-diagonal in momentum space, as well as in flavor space.

To summarize, we have evidence for a new, macroscopic quantum effect that could change the outcome of calculations in which $`\nu `$-$`\nu `$ scattering matters. The caveats that must be added are:

(i) Accepting the earlier conclusions for the model defined by the Hamiltonian Eq. (2), we must go back and ask whether we have defined the correct problem. All those modes that we left out, when we truncated our Hamiltonian to momentum states that were initially occupied by one species or the other, can they make a difference? These additional modes would be populated via non-forward scattering interactions, which enter the problem at the level of cross-section ($`\times `$ density), that is, on time scales of order $`(G_F^2\rho \omega ^2)^1`$. Our expectation is that they will not affect our results on the much shorter time scales we consider (of order $`(G_F\rho )^1`$.

(ii) Our calculations pertain directly to plane waves in a volume $`V`$. Ordinary neutrino oscillation theory has come under fire repeatedly from authors that suspect that preparation-of-state considerations bring the idealized, plane-wave picture into question. These criticisms have been successfully answered more than once  for the case of single-particle oscillation, but they could surface again in our present context.

At the present time, we are cautious about claiming that our results will be important to the neutrino physics either in the early universe or in the supernova. These are, however, the two most obvious applications in which the neutrino number density is high enough for neutrino-neutrino scattering to be important. We further note that the flavor-energy correlation is critical to understanding the physics just outside the supernova neutrinosphere. Of course, we would need to include neutrino mass and mixing in the model in order to address a realistic situation. Superficially, we can note that the energies attributable to mass effects are small compared to the inverse time associated with our processes under the conditions that prevail just outside the neutrinosphere of a supernova. But more analysis is required before reaching a conclusion in that context. A negative feature of our work is that in contrast to being able to use the quite simple equations for the density matrix posited by Ref. , we appear to be doomed to treating the full complexity of the many-body physics that arises in these systems.

## 6 An example with a finite number of discrete states

We demystify the physics of much of the above, to some degree, by thinking of a fairly large but finite set of discrete quantum subsystems with interactions of comparable strength between each pair. In addition to being an interesting exercise this also is relevant to applications in other arenas than the world of neutrinos. We consider a set of N spins associated with one set of fixed site labels, say red, and another set of N spins associated with a second set of labels, say blue. The interaction exchanges all pairs of spins with comparable strength, or order $`g`$, for each pair. Let us now start with all reds up and all blues down, and consider the short time evolution of this state. The probability that the spin on a particular red site becomes down in a very short time $`t`$ is of order $`h=g^2Nt^2`$. We might think that this perturbation calculation stays more or less valid until such a time that $`h`$ is, say, $`0.1`$. But if we go back through the same mechanics that we used for our continuum problem, we see that is not be the case; the system will mix in a time $`T`$ such that $`gNT=1`$444Note that in this case we do not redefine the coupling constant with increasing N; there is no volume or density involved in the models. Thus the eigenvalues grow as N., at which time the above perturbative estimate of the amount of mixing is only $`h=1/N`$.

Next consider the case in which the first red spin is up, and every other red and blue spin is down. In complete correspondence with the (1, 2N-1) neutrino case, we find that the above perturbative estimate of the mixing time, for the first red spin to become appreciably blue, is correct. The mixing time for this single state is longer than that of the first example by a factor of $`N`$, for large $`N`$.

What makes these cases so different from each other? In both cases the spin at the first red site interacts with each of the N blue spins. But in the second example, the blue spins themselves interact only with that one red site, at the turn-on time, while in the first example every blue spin is being affected by every red spin from the beginning. The difference lies not in the number of interactions that the red spin sees, but in the entanglements of the states that it interacts with. Since in the first case we get faster evolution than we would have expected from the perturbation estimate we classify the effect as a “speed-up”. And the reason is clearly the multiparticle entanglement within the system. For completeness, we should note that even in the second example, the blue sites, with which the spin on the distinguished red site interacts, do develop mutual entanglement, but with a much slower initial rate than in the first example. In effect, they see each other only through their mutual coupling to the distinguished red site.

## 7 Conclusion

We have examined a “speed-up” of evolution through entanglement, both in a discrete system of spins and in a neutrino model with a continuum of states. Though the practical meaning of “speed-up” is slightly different in the two cases, the formal source of the effect is the same.

The reader might ask the question: “Are the authors using the word ‘entanglement’ in some precise mathematical sense, or are they just using it to say the system gets complicated?” We contend that it is the former, in the sense that the state of the system cannot, in general, be factorized into a product of single particle states. Note, however, that the quantification of multiparticle entanglement is not a concept that that has been precisely defined in the literature. Definitions of two-state entanglement, however, have received much attention. The reader can consult Ref.  for a demonstration of how in the simplest relevant ordinary Schrodinger example, with two particles in a double well, entanglement in a precise mathematical sense is spontaneously generated if the two particles interact with each other.

Returning to the neutrino example, the first order effects that mixed the states had an inverse time-scale $`\sqrt{2}G_F\rho `$; this is the “speeded-up” rate. The usual inverse time-scale for (non-forward) scattering effects is of order $`G_F^2\rho \omega ^2`$ where $`\omega `$ is of the order of the particle energies and much, much slower, than the “speeded-up” rate when $`\omega `$ is of order an MeV. Comparing again with the calculation with only one $`\nu _e`$ in a sea of $`\nu _\tau `$’s, where there is no speed-up, the difference is attributable to the degree of entanglement.

The inclusion of entanglement requires abandoning the single-particle description of the system, to include the full complexity of the many-body physics involved. Single-body descriptions do predict significant neutrino-neutrino forward scattering effects , which, however, are absent for the flavor diagonal initial states we consider here. The results of our many-body calculation may thus have interesting consequences in situations where $`\nu `$-$`\nu `$ scattering is important.

### Acknowledgements

We thank John Beacom, Boris Kayser, Cecilia Lunardini and Doug Scalapino for helpful conversations. The work reported here began in interchanges at the neutrino workshop at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at UCSB, supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949. It was motivated, in part, by a talk given at KITP by Alex Friedland, which is available on the web at http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neutrinos03/friedland/. NFB was supported by Fermilab (operated by URA under DOE contract DE-AC02-76CH03000) and by NASA grant NAG5-10842. The computations were done using Mathematica.

NOTE ADDED

After our paper appeared, Friedland and Lunardini  analyzed the totally symmetric case, where all the coefficients $`f_{ij}=1`$, and have shown that the mixing times (for couplings scaled to 1/\[particle number\]) grow as $`\sqrt{N}`$, for large N, in contradiction to our conjecture. However, this analytic solution cannot be readily extended to the case of unequal $`f_{ij}`$, so the results of  are perhaps inconclusive in this case. As explained in the text, the simulations presented in Fig. 2 are for the case of scattered coupling strengths. These simulations are not adequate for distinguishing $`\sqrt{N}`$ limiting behavior from constant limiting behavior, due to the restrictions on N imposed by computational resources.

We have since applied the techniques of  to some cases of differing coupling schemes and initial conditions, but still with sufficient symmetry to do simulations for much larger values of N than previously, and we find evidence for fast evolution in some of these more generalised systems.


format: text

text:
# Anisotropic brane cosmologies with exponential potentials

## I Introduction

According to the most promising candidates for a quantum gravity theory, we are living in more than four dimensions Pol98 , and gravity is effectively four dimensional only at low enough energies. This has inspired scenarios in cosmology different from the standard one. The “brane world” picture is the most recent of them all RanSun99 , and assumes that ordinary matter is confined to a hypersurface with three spatial dimensions embedded in a multidimensional space-time, allowing gravity act in the fifth dimension.

The “brane-world” proposal has motivated a revision of the predictions to be tested by future observations. Even if in a first approach isotropy is assumed, one will immediately find BinDefLan00  that the evolution of the Universe in this new scenario is rather peculiar, at least at early times, because of the modifications arising in the Hubble equation. Given this, one may wonder for instance what aspects of cosmological inflation should be changed to fit in this alternative description. Clearly, one of the most important problems to address within this framework is that of the initial conditions. Recently, it has been suggested MaaSahSai01  that anisotropic spacetimes typically expand faster than isotropic ones. This study was grounded on a qualitative analysis of the evolution equations for the scalar field (Klein-Gordon equation) and the average expansion rate (generalized Raychaudhuri equation) for Bianchi I type cosmologies.

In this spirit, we have investigated the same equation set, together with its solutions, just assuming at the beginning that the potential depends on the scale factor in such a way that it is compatible with inflation. In particular, we have found that, under some assumptions, the matter source can be cast in the form of a scalar field self-interacting through a combination of exponential potentials. Such models were first considered in the context of inflation nearly two decades ago LucMat85 , and have been paid much attention along the years because of several reasons. First of all, there is solid motivation that makes them physically appealing, for they appear in four-dimensional effective Kaluza-Klein theories arising from compactification of higher dimensional supergravity or superstring theories (see Tow01  for a review). In addition, it was shown long ago that FRW power law models, which are driven by exponential potentials, behave as attractors in the sense that models with broad disparity in their initial conditions become power law solutions at late times Hal87 ; PebRat88 . Last but not least, exponential potentials have proved very useful in general relativity for providing new exact solutions because they add a rather small degree of non-linearity to the field equations AguFeiIba93 . Unfortunately, the equations one has to solve in brane cosmology are intrinsically so non-linear that, even if one considers just exponential potentials, the task of finding exact solutions is a hard one, except in very specific cases.

With the aim of getting round this difficulty, and as mentioned before, we will not assume from the start that we have an exponential potential or a combination of such terms, but rather end up having it after making a certain ansatz regarding time evolution.

As expected, if the expansion is fast enough then anisotropy exerts less influence on the expansion than the quadratic energy-momentum corrections due to the extrinsic curvature. It follows then that anisotropy does not prevent inflation, as one also gets in the framework of general relativity MosSah86 ; TurWid86 ; JenSte86 . In the late time regime, the effect of anisotropy and extra dimensions are negligible, and the solutions behave as if they were isotropic and purely relativistic.

The qualitative behavior of Bianchi I type brane cosmologies has been studied using dynamical systems techniques by several authors. Barotropic perfect fluids were considered by Campos and Sopuerta in the absence CamSop01a  and presence CamSop01b  of bulk effects; whereas Goheer and Dunsby GohDun03  considered models with a single scalar field (see also GohDun02  for an earlier study along the same lines focusing on isotropic cosmologies). According to those studies, late time isotropization is an inherent feature to the models. This idea of inflation acting as an isotropizing agent, that was put forward years ago by Wald Wal82 , has been recently revisited in the brane scenario SanVerFer01  (see also IbaHooCol95 ; ColHooIba97  for a discussion on the isotropization of anisotropic relativistic cosmologies with an exponential potential). Nevertheless, we have recently shown AguChiLaz03  that the brane might interact with the bulk in a way not compatible with late time isotropization. Here, however, we will discard the bulk effects and Wald’s argument will still apply.

In another recent study CheHarMak01 , Bianchi I type exact solutions in parametric form were found for barotropic perfect fluids and several scalar matter models. It was shown that for exponential potentials the simple relation $`\varphi \mathrm{log}t`$ will not hold at all times. This does not exclude, though, the possibility of having this behavior at some epoch, and that is indeed the case for the late time regime of our solutions. We also show here that the effects of the extra dimensions make the models isotropize faster, this being linked to an increase in the Hubble rate.

Another interesting aspect of the problem is that, typically, exponential potentials only render inflation if their slope is small enough. Since our solutions mimic their relativistic counterparts late in their history, it is not surprising that the same restrictions on the values of the slope will hold for our models too. This is discussed in Section 3. However, one could still have inflation with sloppy potentials if there are enough non-interacting fields. This is the so called assisted inflation proposal. We also analyze this possibility in the last section, and find that inflation is likelier in such multifield models because the Hubble factor grows as the number of fields increases.

The plan of the paper is as follows: in Sec. 2 we study the equations of motion for the scalar field and the gravitational field equations discarding bulk effects and under the assumption of a Bianchi type I geometry. In Sec. 3 we consider solutions such that their potential energy decreases as the models expand, and find approximate solutions with power law inflation at very late times. Sec. 4 is devoted to discussing in detail the inflationary behavior, paying special attention to the role of anisotropy and the corrections from extra dimensions. In this section, we show that the value of the expansion factor at the beginning of inflation depends on the equation of state in an peculiar way, if we compare the results with what one gets in the relativistic. This suggests that the evolution of brane cosmologies is in some aspects very different from what is regarded as standard, and that the subject deserves further investigation. In Sec. 5 we turn to consider multi-field generalizations and examine their features. We show that it is possible to model assisted inflation in the brane setup too. Finally, in Sec. 6 we draw our main conclusions, and review future prospects.

## II Geometry on the brane and field equations

We assume that the 5-dimensional line element giving the geometry of the bulk is of the form ShiMaeSas00

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}dx^Adx^B,$$
(1)
where $`A,B=0,1,2,3,4`$. Tildes will be used to denote the bulk counterparts of standard general relativistic quantities. If we now denote by $`n^A`$ the unit vector normal to the brane, then the metric induced on that hypersurface is $`g_{AB}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}n_An_B`$. It is convenient to define a new coordinate $`\chi `$ such that the brane is located at $`\chi =0`$ and $`n_Adx^A=d\chi `$. This renders the line element in the alternative form

$$ds^2=d\chi ^2+g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(2)
with $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$. The five-dimensional bulk field equations are

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}+\delta (\chi )(\lambda g_{AB}T_{AB})].$$
(3)
Effectively, the Einstein equations on the brane take the form

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^2T_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4S_{\mu \nu }E_{\mu \nu },$$
(4)
where

$$S_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{12}TT_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}T_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }T_{\nu \alpha }+\frac{1}{24}g_{\mu \nu }\left(3T^{\alpha \beta }T_{\alpha \beta }T^2\right),$$
(5)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\lambda ^2/6)/2`$, $`\kappa ^2=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\lambda /6`$, $`T=T_\alpha ^\alpha `$, and $`E_{AB}=C_{AIBJ}n^In^J`$. Here $`C_{AIBJ}`$ is the five dimensional Weyl tensor in the bulk, whereas $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\lambda `$ stand for the values on the brane of the energy-momentum tensor and the vacuum energy respectively. The equations were obtained under the assumption of $`Z_2`$ symmetry, and confinement of the matter fields to the brane, in agreement with the brane scenario devised by Horava and Witten HorWit96 .

It has been shown that $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ can be decomposed like

$$E_{\mu \nu }=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}{\kappa }\right)^4\left[𝒰\left(u_\mu u_\nu +\frac{1}{3}h_{\mu \nu }\right)+𝒫_{\mu \nu }+2𝒬_{(\mu }u_{\nu )}\right],$$
(6)
where $`u^\mu `$ is the four velocity of an observer on the brane, $`𝒰`$ is the effective non local energy density on the brane, $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ is the effective nonlocal anisotropic stress, and $`Q_\mu `$ is an effective non local energy flux on the brane, which vanishes identically for a Bianchi type I brane. In addition $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ are subject to the constraints

$`D^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (7)
$`^\mu E_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4^\mu S_{\mu \nu }.`$ (8)
Let us consider now four-dimensional Bianchi I type spacetimes. The line element is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2+a_1^2(t)dx^2+a_2^2(t)dy^2+a_3^2(t)dz^2.$$
(9)
As usual, we define the expansion rates along the three spatial directions as $`H_i=\dot{a}_i/a_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. The shear tensor will be denoted as $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ and

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(H_iH)^2,$$
(10)
where $`3H=H_1+H_2+H_3`$. For this metric, Eq. (7) is identically satisfied. Moreover, since there is no evolution equation for $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane, one usually assumes that it is either null or satisfies the less restrictive condition that $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$ (It has been proved ColHooYe02  that the integrability conditions for $`𝒬_\mu =0`$, $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$ imply spatial homogeneity, so this is consistent with having a Bianchi I metric on the brane.). Both assumptions on $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ transform Eq. (8) into a very simple evolution equation for $`𝒰`$, namely

$$\dot{𝒰}+4H𝒰=0.$$
(11)
The solution of the latter corresponds to non local energy evolving like radiation, i.e. $`𝒰=𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}/a^4`$, with $`𝒰_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ a constant that can be null. As we see, the joint choice of $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`𝒰=0`$ is consistent on the brane. Whether this is also fully consistent for the bulk remains an open question, but we follow other authors in making these arguably strong assumptions MaaSahSai01 ; SolDunEll01 . This allows gaining considerable insight in the changes on the evolution of cosmological models associated with the modification of the Friedmann equation, which might be otherwise concealed by bulk effects.

Under the assumptions made, the gravitational field equations and the Klein-Gordon equation read

$$H_1H_2+H_1H_3+H_2H_3=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa ^2\rho +\frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{12}\rho ^2,$$
(12)
$$H_2^2+H_2H_3+H_3^2+\dot{H}_2+\dot{H}_3=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^2p\frac{\rho }{12}\left(2p+\rho \right)\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4,$$
(13)
$$H_1^2+H_1H_3+H_3^2+\dot{H}_1+\dot{H}_3=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^2p\frac{\rho }{12}\left(2p+\rho \right)\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4,$$
(14)
$$H_1^2+H_1H_2+H_2^2+\dot{H}_1+\dot{H}_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^2p\frac{\rho }{12}\left(2p+\rho \right)\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4,$$
(15)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+\frac{V}{\varphi }=0,$$
(16)
where we have set

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ),`$ (17)
$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi ),`$ (18)
according to the customary interpretation of irrotational scalar fields in terms of a perfect fluid.

Due to the isotropy of the matter source, one can obtain constraint equations which provide a relationship expressing the expansion rate along one direction in terms of the other two and their derivatives.

Even though the solutions to the system (12)–(15) include locally rotationally symmetric models (LRS), i.e., models with the same expansion rate along two directions, we will not consider them any further. Thus, in what follows we will assume $`H_1H_2`$, $`H_2H_3`$, $`H_3H_1`$, so that the models admit only three isometries. The constraints arising from having identical pressure along the three spatial directions are

$$H_1+H_2+H_3=\frac{\dot{H}_2\dot{H}_1}{H_2H_1}=\frac{\dot{H}_3\dot{H}_2}{H_3H_2}=\frac{\dot{H}_1\dot{H}_3}{H_1H_3}.$$
(19)
This allows to distinguish two different cases. The first one corresponds to $`\dot{H}_2\dot{H}_3`$. Hence $`\dot{H}_1\dot{H}_2`$ and $`\dot{H}_3\dot{H}_1`$. Integration of Eq. (19) yields the following relationships:

$$H_1H_3=\vartheta (H_1H_2)=\frac{\vartheta }{\vartheta 1}(H_2H_3),$$
(20)
where $`\vartheta 1`$ is an arbitrary integration constant. The second case arises when the Hubble factors along any two directions differ only by a constant, then necessarily $`H_1+H_2+H_3=0`$ and we get a model which does not evolve on average. For simplicity we will discard these cases too.

It is convenient to write the field equations using the following definitions:

$`PH_1H_2,`$ (21)
$`QH_1H_3.`$ (22)
We will also use the following constant:

$$\varpi \frac{1\vartheta +\vartheta ^2}{3}\frac{1}{4}.$$
(23)
Note that, since we are not considering LRS models, we will have $`\varpi 1/3`$. Equations (12)–(16) become

$`Q=\vartheta P,`$ (24)
$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{P}}{3P}},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa ^2\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{12}}\rho ^2=3H^2\varpi P^2,`$ (26)
$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi }}=0.`$ (27)
## III Cosmologies with exponential potentials

In this section we look for solutions by means of an unconventional technique that consists in taking the average scale factor $`a=(a_1a_2a_3)^{1/3}`$ as the independent variable, instead of the time variable $`t`$. This procedure has been successfully used in related problems.

Taking advantage of the insight gained in Ref. ChiJak96 , we write

$$V(\varphi (a))=\frac{F(a)}{a^6}$$
(28)
and make the change of variables $`dt=a^3d\eta `$ in Eq. (27), so that

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{d\eta ^2}+a^6\frac{dV}{d\varphi }=0,$$
(29)
which in turn gives us the first integral

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )\frac{6}{a^6}\frac{F}{a}𝑑a=\frac{c}{a^6},$$
(30)
where $`c`$ is an arbitrary integration constant. This is equivalent to saying that

$$\rho (a)=\frac{6}{a^6}\frac{F}{a}𝑑a+\frac{c}{a^6}.$$
(31)
Combining $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ with Eq. (25) we get $`P=c^{}a^3`$, where $`c^{}`$ is another arbitrary integration constant that we will set to one for simplicity. Now, using Eqs. (25) and (26) we can formally reduce the problem to quadratures, namely

$$t=t_0\pm \frac{\sqrt{3}da}{a\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa ^2\rho (a)+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{12}}\rho (a)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varpi }{a^6}}}}$$
(32)
and

$$\varphi =\varphi _0\pm \frac{\sqrt{6}}{a}\frac{\sqrt{\rho (a){\displaystyle \frac{F}{a^6}}}da}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa ^2\rho (a)+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{12}}\rho (a)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varpi }{a^6}}}},$$
(33)
where $`t_0`$, $`\varphi _0`$ are integration constants. We will choose the plus sign in Eq. (32) so that we have expansion as time grows, and will also make the same sign choice in Eq. (33) for reasons that will become clear in the lines below.

Our main objective at this stage is to find expressions for $`F(a)`$ so that they are suitable for depicting a given kind of inflationary behavior, and in particular that associated with exponential potentials. We assume then that the expansion is driven by a scalar field striving to make its potential energy as small as possible. If the potentials have positive slopes, the only possibility is that the scalar field grows with time, and in particular with the scale factor. Therefore, we conclude that given our purposes we have to choose the plus sign in Eq. (33).

One simple way of satisfying the requirements we just made on the potential is to set

$$F(a)=fa^n$$
(34)
with $`n<6`$ and $`f>0`$. This gives

$$V(a)=fa^{n6}.$$
(35)
Note that, as pointed out in Ref. ShiMaeSas00 , the consequence of the usual assumption $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}<0`$ allows for an arbitrary value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and in particular it can be chosen so that it vanishes or takes some other wanted value . Let us set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ for the time being, together with $`c=0`$. We then get

$$\frac{d\varphi }{da}=\pm \frac{\sqrt{6n}}{\sqrt{a^2\kappa ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{n\varpi }{6fa^{n2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{2na^{4n}}}}}.$$
(36)
The relation $`V=V_oe^{k\varphi }`$ will only hold if $`\varphi \mathrm{log}a`$, so the question arises of whether that condition is compatible with Eq. (33). In order to find the answer we power expand $`d\varphi (a)/da`$. around $`a=\mathrm{}`$ and keep only the first term in the series. It can be noticed immediately that the required condition $`\varphi \mathrm{log}a`$ will only be satisfied asymptotically for large $`a`$ if $`0<n<6`$. Therefore, the study will be restricted to just those cases. This would then give

$$Vfe^{\sqrt{6n}\kappa \varphi },$$
(37)
with

$$\varphi \frac{\sqrt{6n}}{\kappa }\mathrm{log}a.$$
(38)
There are three exactly integrable cases, namely $`n=2,3,4`$, and the corresponding potentials turn out to be functions of $`e^{\kappa \sqrt{6n}\varphi }`$. For other values of $`n`$ one can only give approximated expressions for late time limits. The leading terms in the solution $`\varphi (a)`$ will be the $`\varpi `$-dependent or the $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$-dependent ones depending on whether $`0<n<3`$ or $`3<n<6`$.

With the aim of giving the expressions in a form as simple as possible we define the coefficients

$$s_n=\frac{n\varpi }{24f\kappa ^2}$$
(39)
and

$$b_n=\frac{f\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{8n\kappa ^2}=\frac{3f}{4n\lambda },$$
(40)
where the letters $`s`$ and $`b`$ indicate that they are related to the shear and the brane tension respectively. We outline the expressions for the scalar field and potential in Table 2.

We have chosen the integration constant $`\varphi _0`$ in such a way that in the large $`a`$ and large $`\varphi `$ limits we consistently recover the same expressions as in Eqs. (37) and (38). Solutions similar to these were obtained by Barrow and Saich BarSai93  in a study of Friedmann universes containing a perfect fluid and a massive scalar field under the requirement that the kinetic and potential energies of the scalar field be proportional.

Before we go further, a remark regarding the choice of the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in order. We have found three exact solutions for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case (see Table 1), but we can, by the same token, find another three for any non null value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This requires a little generalization that lies in including in the potential a term acting like a cosmological constant. To this end we set $`F(a)=fa^n+ha^6`$ which will obviously yield $`V(a)=fa^{n6}+h.`$ Now, for the choice

$$h=2\frac{3\kappa ^2\pm \sqrt{9\kappa ^43\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}$$
(41)
one gets

$$\frac{d\varphi }{da}=\pm \frac{\sqrt{6n}}{\sqrt{a^2\left(\kappa ^2+h\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n\varpi }{6fa^{n2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4}{2na^{4n}}}}}.$$
(42)
This can be obtained from Eq. (33) upon the replacement $`\kappa ^2\kappa ^2+h\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4`$ and the same applies for the expression giving $`dt/da`$. Therefore, the results for the previous set of solutions can be easily extended to any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ value.

## IV Kinematics and inflationary behavior

The subject in hands now is the kinematics of our cosmological models. Let us first see if the energetic features of our cosmologies are suitable for inflation. A necessary condition for the occurrence of accelerated expansion is that the potential part of the energy density dominates, and for this to be possible the potential will have to be flat enough. Let us denote

$$\rho _{kin}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2$$
(43)
and

$$\rho _{pot}=V,$$
(44)
so that $`\rho =\rho _{kin}+\rho _{pot}`$. Specifically, we have

$$\rho _{kin}=\frac{c}{a^6}+\frac{6n}{n}\rho _{pot}.$$
(45)
This means that the kinetic and potential energy decrease at the same pace at late times (large $`a`$) if $`c0`$, and at any time if $`c=0`$. Moreover, if the latter holds we will have a barotropic equation of state $`p=(1n/3)\rho `$. This means we have found the exact potentials for radiation ($`n=2`$ , $`p=\rho /3`$), dust ($`n=3`$, $`p=0`$), and cosmic strings ($`n=4`$, $`p=\rho /3`$) models. Note that, in the $`c0`$ case the energy density could be dominated by its kinetic part at early times.

It has to be pointed out that there is one more integrable case of Eq. (33), the stiff fluid model ($`f=0`$), which was found in Ref. CheHarMak01 .

Typically, the inflationary behavior depends on the slope of the potential, but comparisons between potentials with different slopes must be done for identical values of the scalar field. In our models we have $`^2V/(\varpi \varphi )0`$ and $`^2V/(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\varphi )0`$. This can be checked using $`V/\varphi =(dV/da)(da/d\varphi )`$ and Eqs. (35) and (33). This would seem to indicate that the anisotropy and the quadratic corrections would make inflation less likely.

Nevertheless, the definitive answer is provided by the deceleration factor $`q`$, which is defined through

$$q=\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2},$$
(46)
and can be evaluated on calculating $`t=t(a)`$ from Eq. (32). In Table 2 we summarize the behavior of $`q`$ at late and early times.

For large enough $`a`$ we get $`q=(4n)/2`$, so inflation will only occur at late times if and only if $`n>4`$. This result is completely equivalent to that obtained in AguFeiIba93  in the framework of general relativity. There is a persistent non inflationary behavior in the asymptotic regime of the models if the potential is too steep. For $`a0`$, however, inflation will by no means occur.

Let us push a bit further the fact that the sign changes in $`q`$ mark the transition between an inflationary and a non inflationary epoch. As follows from Eq. (46) accelerated expansion will occur if $`\ddot{a}>0`$, which in our models holds if

$$3\left(n4\right)na^{6+n}f\kappa ^2+3\left(n5\right)a^{2n}f^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^42n^2\varpi a^6>0.$$
(47)
We see that $`n>4`$ is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for accelerated expansion, and also a sufficient condition for $`a\mathrm{}`$, as proved above. Nevertheless, Eq. (47) has in store some interesting information that will highlight how peculiar inflation is in brane cosmology.

Let us make $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ stand for the value of the expansion rate above which the model expands. We will now study, by numerical techniques, how $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ depends on the parameters of the model. First, we will focus on the dependence on the equation of state. After that, we will turn to consider the effect of the magnitude of the anisotropy and the brane tension.

Numerical calculations indicate that, in the relativistic limit, as is well known, the larger $`n`$, the smaller $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ (i.e. the earlier inflation begins), whatever the value of $`\varpi `$. Inspection suggests, however, that this monotonic behaviour may not hold for the brane case, because the term in Eq. (47) associated with the extra dimensional corrections changes sign at $`n=5`$. Moreover, the values of $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ in the vicinity of $`n=5`$ must be very much alike the values corresponding to the relativistic limit (because the extra dimensional corrections will be negligible). Numeric evaluations show that for $`n`$ close to $`4`$ the behaviour of $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ is almost identical in the brane and the relativistic case. However, as $`n=5`$ is approached, the monotonic decrease ceases and $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ begins to grow with $`n`$, till it reaches a maximum value before $`n=5`$. Note that the value of the maximum of $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ does not depend on $`\varpi `$. From that point on, there is again monotonic decrease, but is more pronounced that in the relativistic case. Summarizing, the conditions for inflation are rather different in the brane and relativistic setups. Nevertheless, several restrictions on the parameters of the models have to be considered. On the one hand the potential must remain much smaller than the fourth power of the four-dimensional Planck’s mass $`M_P`$ so that classical physics is valid. On the other hand, the five-dimensional Planck’s mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_P`$ is typically much smaller than its four-dimensional counterpart. In Fig. 1 we have represented $`\mathrm{log}a_{\text{inf}}`$ as a function of $`n`$, for several values of $`\varpi `$, within the ranges $`4<n<5`$ and $`1/2\varpi 8`$ respectively, choosing $`\stackrel{~}{M}_P`$ considerably smaller than $`M_P`$.

We have seen, also by numeric means, that $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ increases with the shear and decreases with the brane tension<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The shear increases with $`\varpi `$, but the brane tension decreases as $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ increases.. However, those very changes in the parameters which act to delay inflation, make the Hubble factor grow in turn Maa00 , and inflation can be sustained by potentials that would not be able to do so in a relativistic setup CopLidLid01 . Thus, both the anisotropies and the extra dimensional corrections seem to act locally in a way conducive to inflation. In order to determine whether this is also the case in a global way, it would be necessary to evaluate the number of e-foldings between the beginning and the end of inflation. So, we would have to find physical arguments allowing to know when inflation ends, and then calculate the amount of inflation achieved while accelerated expansion persists.

Unlike what happens with the time at which inflation ends, we can determine for our models the time at which inflation begins. We have seen that the larger $`\varpi `$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, the larger $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ . But because of the way the Hubble factor behaves, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ associated with a given value of $`a`$ grows too. Due to the lack of exact expressions for the $`t(a)`$ curves for the inflationary cases ($`n>4`$) one can only find the corresponding value of time by using approximate solutions or numerical integration; we will choose the second method. In Fig. 2 we have plotted the $`t(a)`$ curves for of $`n=4.5`$ and for the same values of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_P`$ and $`\varpi `$ as in Fig. 1; we have also indicated in the picture the value of $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ as a function of time.

For the sake of completeness and comparison, let us investigate whether our models isotropize or not. We have seen above that the influence of the anisotropies in the inflationary behavior becomes less and less important as time goes by. The anisotropic shear parameter, which is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{shear}}=\frac{\sigma ^2}{6H^2}=\frac{_{i=1}^3(H_iH)^2}{6H^2},$$
(48)
reflects that too. Using Eqs. (21)-(23), and after a little algebra, we get

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{shear}}=\frac{\varpi P^2}{3H^2},$$
(49)
and according to Eq. (33) one finally has

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{shear}}=\frac{\varpi a^6n^2}{6\left(2a^{6+n}nf\kappa ^2+3a^{2n}f^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4+a^6n^2\varpi \right)}.$$
(50)
In the inflationary cases, since $`n>4`$, we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{shear}`$ decreases monotonically with time, tending to a null value. Moreover, the larger $`n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ the more rapidly it decreases. Thus, although we have genuinely anisotropic models at early times, anisotropy gets completely dissipated in the course of the evolution. So, our models do isotropize at late times, and both faster inflation and extra dimensional effects make the isotropization process more efficient.

## V Generalization to multi-field models

Let us now take advantage of the results in the previous sections to discuss how the situation would change if we had multiple fields. Assisted inflation LidMazSch98 , in its simplest form, is realized with configurations of identical multiple fields with no interaction among themselves, but which self-interact through the same potential (see also ColHoo00 ; HooFil00 ). Aspects of this proposal in connection with the brane scenario have been discussed in MenLid00 ; Maj01 ; Pia02 .

If we now make $`\varphi `$ denote each scalar field and $`V(\varphi )`$ each individual potential, we can obtain the multifield version of our models just by making the replacement

$`\kappa \sqrt{N}\kappa ,`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\sqrt{N}\stackrel{~}{\kappa },`$ (52)
where $`N`$ denotes the number of fields. It can be immediately seen than the larger $`N`$, the larger the Hubble factor, so that the assisted inflation proposal is valid in the brane scenario too.

The asymptotic individual potentials will become

$$Ve^{\kappa \sqrt{N(6n)}\varphi }.$$
(53)
Thus, an increase in the number of fields makes the potentials turn flatter, which means that late time inflation becomes likelier.

The condition for having $`q<0`$ reads now

$$3\left(n4\right)na^{6+n}f\kappa ^2N+3\left(n5\right)a^{2n}f^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4N^22n^2\varpi a^6>0,$$
(54)
so, the larger $`N`$, the less anisotropy influences the occurrence of inflation. This is also reflected by the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{shear}}`$ decreases with growing $`N`$. Nevertheless $`n>4`$ is still necessary for inflation, no matter how large $`N`$ is.

The behaviour of $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ as a function of $`n`$ will change when $`N`$ grows. We have seen in the previous section that, unlike in the relativistic case, $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ is not a monotonically decreasing function of $`n`$, and that it has a maximum near $`n=5`$. It is not difficult to see that a larger $`N`$ increases the value of $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ at the maximum and makes wider the range of $`n`$ in which $`a_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ grows with growing $`n`$. Summarizing, the addition of fields accentuates the differences between relativistic and brane cosmologies.

## VI Conclusions and future prospects

We have studied Bianchi I type brane cosmologies with barotropic perfect fluids, and we have shown that they can be interpreted in the language of scalar fields as exponential potential models. From the expressions here obtained, it follows that the models behave, at late times, as if the potential had only one exponential term. Consistently, the differences between the brane and relativistic models get washed off as the models evolve in time. The effects of the anisotropy disappear in a similar fashion as well.

Our main focus point has been the average evolution of the models, in comparison to their relativistic counterparts. In particular, we have studied the features of the inflationary behaviour that can be traced back to extra dimensional effects but not to the bulk.

It is a well-known fact that, in the relativistic context, the condition $`3p<\rho `$ (which corresponds to $`n>4`$) is necessary and sufficient for inflation to occur. Expressed in terms of the potential, it translates into the requirement that the slope of the asymptotically dominating potential be smaller than $`\sqrt{2}\kappa `$. In brane cosmology, that condition remains necessary for inflation, although we show that it is not sufficient.

Using numeric means we have found some other new interesting results in connection with the kinematics of the models. In the relativistic case, the value of the average expansion factor at the beginning of inflation decreases monotonically as the ratio $`p/\rho `$ becomes more negative. In the brane models, the behaviour is basically the same, except for the vicinity of $`3p<2\rho `$, where the monotonic decrease turns into monotonic increase, until a local maximum in the function is reached. Moreover, the value of the expansion rate at that extreme point does not depend on the amount of anisotropy.

Taking into account the tight restrictions to the parameters of the models set by physical arguments, our calculations show that the effect of the anisotropy in the evolution will only be noticeable if inflation begins very late, which is not a desirable situation.

We have discussed a possible realization of the assisted inflation proposal, which is underepresented in the literature on brane cosmology. In particular, we have considered generalizations to multi-field configurations of non-interacting scalar fields. The conclusion reached is that the aforementioned requirement on the slope of the potential still applies. On the other hand, an increase in the number of fields $`N`$ will make the Hubble factor grow, so that inflation will be likelier This means that the brane version of the assisted inflation proposal is also feasible. Moreover, as $`N`$ grows the models become more isotropic.

A possible extension to this work would be exploring the possibility of generalizing these solutions to include bulk effects. It would also be interesting to carry out similar studies for anisotropic spacetimes with non-trivial space-curvature. Bianchi V type models would be the obvious candidate for a first attempt because they are the simplest generalization of the open FRW models.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to L.P. Chimento, S. Jhingan and M.A. Vázquez-Mozo for discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology jointly with FEDER funds through research grant BFM2001-0988, and the University of the Basque Country through research grant UPV00172.310-14456/2002. Ruth Lazkoz’s work is also supported by the Basque Government through fellowship BFI01.412.


text:
# Allowed and observable phases in two-Higgs-doublet Standard Models

## 1 Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM) of Electro-Weak (EW) interactions , although the gauge boson and fermion structure has been accurately tested, experimental information about the Higgs sector (HS) is still very weak. Serious motivations are well known for the extension of the scalar sector; among them, we just recall supersymmetry (SUSY) and baryogenesis at the EW scale (see, for instance,  and references therein). So far, various extensions of the SM have been devised: the Minimal SUSY SM, the SM plus an extra Higgs doublet, the MSSM plus a Higgs singlet, the left–right symmetric model, the SM plus a complex singlet Higgs (see the introduction to  and references therein); recently, even a partly supersymmetric SM has been conceived .

Our paper is devoted to the discussion of one of the most widely accepted paradigms of quantum field theory, namely the renormalizability constraint imposed on the Higgs potential. We shall show how symmetry may be used as a guideline to the construction of the scalar sector of the theory.

In QFT models with broken gauge invariance, the symmetry group $`G`$ and the transformation properties of the scalar fields under $`G`$ (hereafter simply, and improperly, referred to as symmetry of the model) determine the isotropy subgroup chain, that is all the phases that are permitted by the symmetry (hereafter called allowed phases). Not all the allowed phases need be observable in the evolution of the Universe. In fact, only the allowed phases which correspond to a scalar field configuration determining a local minimum of the Higgs potential are “dynamically attainable”; moreover, perturbatively unstable phases have zero probability to be seen. So, we shall call observable only the phases that are determined by stable (against small perturbations of the coefficients) local minima of the Higgs potential. If the Higgs potential is an invariant polynomial of sufficiently high degree, with arbitrary coefficients (phenomenological parameters), all the allowed phases turn out to be dynamically attainable . However, to ensure the renormalizability of the theory, the degree of the Higgs potential has to be $`4`$ and, in some models (hereafter called incomplete), this bound prevents some allowed phases to be observable.

Our point of view is that renormalizability, which actually has to be considered a “technical” assumption required to assure a consistent and significant perturbative solution of the theory, should not limit the implications of the basic symmetry of the formalism used to describe the system at the classical level . All the allowed phases have to be observable. This attitude may have important consequences in the study of EW phase transitions, in the sense that the allowed phases have to be thought, in principle, as possible phases in the evolution of the Universe .

Below, we shall illustrate our claims in some examples obtained from simple extensions of the Higgs sector of the SM. In particular we shall show that, while in the SM all the allowed phases are observable, in models with two Higgs doublets, if the usual additional discrete symmetries are added to avoid flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) effects, this is true only if the Higgs potential is a polynomial of sufficiently high degree, greater than 4. We shall also show that all the allowed phases of a renormalizable two Higgs model can be made observable, if $`\mathrm{SU}_2`$ singlet “composite” scalar fields, with suitable transformation properties under the discrete symmetries are included.

## 2 The geometrical invariant theory approach to spontaneous symmetry breaking

A general approach to the determination of all the allowed phases has been proposed in . Let us briefly recall the basic elements, which will be essential for the derivation of our results.

The set of real scalar fields of the model will be denoted by $`\varphi `$, to be thought of as a vector in $`^n`$ (vector order parameter), transforming according to a real orthogonal representation of the gauge group. We shall denote by $`G`$ the representative real linear group. The Higgs potential $`V_a(\varphi )`$ is a $`G`$-invariant real polynomial function of $`\varphi `$ with coefficients $`a_i`$. The points of stable local minimum of $`V_a(\varphi )`$ determine the stable phases of the system. Owing to $`G`$-invariance, the Higgs potential is a constant along each $`G`$-orbit, so, each local minimum is degenerate along a whole $`G`$-orbit, whose points define equivalent vacua. Since the isotropy subgroups of $`G`$ at points of the same $`G`$-orbit are conjugate in $`G`$, only the conjugacy class in $`G`$ of isotropy subgroups of $`G`$ at the points of the orbit of equivalent minima, i.e. the orbit-type of the orbit, is physically relevant, and defines the symmetry of the associated phase.

The set of all $`G`$-orbits, endowed with the quotient topology and differentiable structure, forms the orbit space, $`^n/G`$, of $`G`$ and the subset of all the $`G`$-orbits with the same orbit-type forms a (symmetry) stratum of $`^n/G`$. At the classical level, phase transitions take place when, by varying the values of the $`a`$’s, the minimum of $`V_a(\varphi )`$ is shifted to an orbit lying on a different stratum .

If $`V_a(\varphi )`$ is a polynomial in $`\varphi `$, of sufficiently high degree, by varying the $`a`$’s, its absolute minimum can be shifted to any stratum of $`^n/G`$. So, the strata are in a one-to-one correspondence with the allowed phases. On the contrary, extra restrictions on the form of the Higgs potential, not coming from G-symmetry requirements (e.g., the assumption that it is a fourth-degree polynomial), can prevent its local minima from sitting in particular strata as perturbatively stable minima and make, consequently, the corresponding allowed phases dynamically unattainable.

Being constant along each $`G`$-orbit, the Higgs potential can be conveniently thought of as a function defined in the orbit space $`^n/G`$ of $`G`$. This fact can be formalized using some basic results of invariant theory. In fact, every $`G`$-invariant polynomial function $`F(\varphi )`$ can be built as a real polynomial function $`\widehat{F}(p)`$ of a finite set, $`\{p_1(\varphi ),\mathrm{},p_q(\varphi )\}`$, of basic homogeneous polynomial invariants (minimal integrity basis (MIB) of the ring of $`G`$-invariant polynomials):

$$F(\varphi )=\widehat{F}(p(\varphi )),\varphi ^n$$
(1)
and the range $`p(^n)`$ of the orbit map, $`\varphi p(\varphi )=(p_1(\varphi ),\mathrm{},p_q(\varphi ))^q`$ yields a diffeomorphic realization of the orbit space of $`G`$, as a connected semi-algebraic set, i.e., as a subset of $`^q`$ determined by algebraic equations and inequalities. Thus, the elements of an integrity basis can be conveniently used to parametrize the points of $`p(^n)`$ that, hereafter, will be identified with the orbit space $`^n/G`$.

The elements of a minimal integrity basis $`\{p\}`$ need not, for general compact groups, be algebraically independent (possible algebraic relations among the elements of a MIB are called syzygies). The number $`q_0`$ of algebraically independent elements in $`\{p\}`$ is $`n`$ minus the dimension as a manifold of a generic (principal) orbit of $`G`$. The semialgebraic set $`p(^n)`$ has been shown to be formed by the points $`p^q`$, satisfying the following conditions i) and ii) :

* $`p`$ lies on the surface, $`Z`$, defined by the syzygies;
* the following $`q\times q`$ matrix $`\widehat{P}(p)`$ is positive semi-definite and has rank $`q_0`$ at $`p`$:

$$\widehat{P}_{ab}(p(\varphi ))=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_jp_a(\varphi )_jp_b(\varphi ),\varphi ^n.$$
(2)

Like all semi-algebraic sets, the orbit space of $`G`$ presents a natural stratification. It can, in fact, be considered as the disjoint union of a finite number of connected semi-algebraic subsets of decreasing dimensions (primary strata), each primary stratum being a manifold lying in the border of higher dimensional ones, but for the highest dimensional stratum, which is unique (principal stratum). The primary strata are the connected components of the symmetry strata. The symmetries of two bordering strata are related by a group–subgroup relation and the orbit-type of the lower dimensional stratum is larger. If the only $`G`$-invariant point is the origin of $`^n`$, in $`^n/G`$ there is only one 0-dimensional stratum corresponding to the origin of $`^q`$. All the other strata have at least dimension 1, since the isotropy subgroups of $`G`$ at the points $`x^n`$ and $`\lambda x`$, $`\lambda `$, are equal and, therefore, the points $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_q)`$ and $`(\lambda ^{d_1}p_1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{d_q}p_q)`$ ($`d_i`$ the degree of the basic invariant $`p_i(x)`$) sit on the same stratum. This fact, added to the homogeneity of the basic invariants and of the relations defining the strata, shows also that a complete information on the structure of the orbit space and its stratification can be obtained from its intersection with a hyperplane, which is the image in $`^n/G`$ of the unit sphere  of $`^n`$.

By defining, according to (1),

$$\widehat{V}_a(p(\varphi ))=V_a(\varphi ),\varphi ^n,$$
(3)
the range of $`V_a(\varphi )`$ coincides with the range of the restriction of $`\widehat{V}_a(p)`$ to the the orbit space $`p(^n)`$ and the local minima of $`V_a(\varphi )`$ can be computed as the minima of the function $`\widehat{V}_a(p)`$ with domain $`p(^n)`$.

In detail, denoting by $`f_\alpha (p)=0`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{}k`$ a complete set of independent equations of the stratum $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, the conditions for a stationary point of the potential at $`p\widehat{\sigma }`$, can be conveniently written in the following form:

$$\frac{}{p_i}\left(\widehat{V}_a(p)\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _\alpha f_\alpha (p)\right)=0,i=1,\mathrm{},q$$
(4)
where the $`\lambda _\alpha `$’s are Lagrange multipliers. The stationary point will be a stable local minimum on the stratum if the Hessian matrix $`H(\varphi )`$ of $`V_a(\varphi )`$, for any $`\varphi `$ in the orbit of equation $`p=p(\varphi )`$, is $`0`$ and has rank equal to $`n`$ minus the dimension $`\nu `$ of the orbit ($`\nu `$ equals the number of Goldstone bosons and the stability condition implies the absence of pseudo-Goldstone bosons ). These conditions can be conveniently expressed in terms of the sums $`M_i`$ of the (determinants of) the principal minors $`H(\varphi )`$ in the form $`M_i>0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n\nu `$. Being $`H(\varphi )`$ a $`G`$-tensor of rank 2, the $`M_i`$’s are $`G`$-invariant polynomials in the $`\varphi _i`$’s and can, therefore, be expressed as polynomials in the elements of the MIB.

In the following, we shall characterize all the allowed and observable phases and all possible phase transitions between contiguous phases, for variants of a two Higgs doublets version of the SM. In particular, for each model we shall determine a minimal set of basic polynomial invariants of $`G`$, the geometrical features of the orbit space, i.e., its stratification and the orbit-types of its strata.

## 3 Model 1

The symmetry group of the Lagrangian is SU$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times `$U1 and there are two complex Higgs doublets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ of hypercharge $`Y=1`$. In this model, natural flavor conservation is violated by neutral current effects in the phase (hereafter called $`\sigma ^{(3)}`$) that should correspond to the present phase of our Universe. So the model is not realistic, but it provides us a simple example in which renormalizability does not exclude completeness.

Let us stress that the transformation induced by the element $`\widehat{j}=(11_2,\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi Y})`$ SU$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times `$U1 leaves invariant the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. So, for our purposes, it will be equivalent, but simpler, to consider as invariance group $`G=(\mathrm{SU}_2\times \mathrm{U}_1)/_2`$, where $`_2`$ is the group generated by $`\widehat{j}`$.

A convenient choice for a MIB of real polynomial independent $`G`$-invariants is the following:

$$p_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2,p_2=\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2,p_3+\mathrm{i}p_4=2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1.$$
(5)
The relations defining $`p(^4)`$ and its strata, which are listed in Table 1, can be obtained from rank and positivity conditions of the $`\widehat{P}(p)`$-matrix  associated to the MIB defined in Eq. (5). The non vanishing elements of $`\widehat{P}(p)`$ are $`\widehat{P}_{ii}(p)=4p_1,`$ $`\widehat{P}_{1j}(p)=\widehat{P}_{j1}(p)=4p_j,`$ for $`i=1\mathrm{}4`$ and $`j=2,\mathrm{},4`$.

The orbit space is the half-cone bounded by the surface of equation $`p_1=\sqrt{_{i=2}^4p_i^2}`$. The tip of the cone corresponds to the stratum $`\sigma ^{(0)}`$, and the rest of the surface to the stratum $`\sigma ^{(3)}`$, while the interior points form $`\sigma ^{(4)}`$.

The most general fourth-degree polynomial invariant Higgs potential can be written in the following form:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{V}(p)& =& _{i,j=1}^4A_{ij}p_ip_j+_{i=1}^4a_ip_i\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& _{i,j=1}^4A_{ij}(p_i\eta _i)(p_j\eta _j)_{i,j=1}^4A_{ij}\eta _i\eta _j,\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where, to make sure that $`\widehat{V}(p)`$ is bounded below, we assume that the symmetric real matrix $`A`$ is positive definite and $`\eta _i=\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^4(A^1)_{ij}a_j`$.

In this simple case (convex orbit space), the minima of $`\widehat{V}(p)`$ can be easily determined from elementary geometrical considerations. To this end, let us first assume $`A11`$ and let us denote by $`C=C^+C^{}`$ the closed double cone bounded by the surfaces of equation $`\eta _1=\pm \sqrt{_{i=2}^4\eta _i^2}`$. Then, since the potential is a constant plus the squared distance of $`p`$ from $`\eta `$, for given values of the $`\eta _i`$’s, there is only one local minimum of the potential (the absolute minimum) at the point $`p`$ of the orbit space which is at shortest distance from $`\eta `$. One is left, therefore, with the following possibilities:

* the minimum is stable in $`\sigma ^{(4)}`$, at $`p=\eta `$, for $`\eta `$ in the interior of $`C^+`$;
* the minimum is stable in $`\sigma ^{(0)}`$, at $`p=0`$, for $`\eta `$ in the interior of $`C^{}`$;
* the minimum is stable in $`\sigma ^{(3)}`$, at the point at shortest distance from $`\eta `$, for $`\eta `$ outside $`C`$;
* the minimum is unstable in $`\sigma ^{(3)}\sigma ^{(0)}`$, at $`p=\eta `$, for $`\eta `$ on the surface of the double cone.

For a general $`A>0`$, the results do not essentially change, since one can revert to the case $`A=11`$ by means of a convenient linear transformation of the $`p_i`$’s, which defines a new (equivalent) MIB: as a result, $`C^+`$ and $`C^{}`$ are simply rotated and deformed by independent re-scalings along the coordinate axes. So, in the space of the parameters $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_4)`$, that are independent linear combinations of the $`\eta _i`$’s, there are three disjoint open regions of stability of the three allowed phases associated to the strata of the orbit space. These regions are separated by inter-phase boundaries, formed by critical points where second order phase transitions may start; moreover, first order phase transitions cannot take place .

The evolution of the Universe described by the model can be represented by a continuous line in the space of the parameters $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_4)`$. A random path in this space has zero probability of crossing the origin, so the only observable second order phase transitions correspond to transitions between the phases associated to the strata $`\sigma ^{(4)}`$ and $`\sigma ^{(3)}`$ or $`\sigma ^{(3)}`$ and $`\sigma ^{(0)}`$.

We can conclude that the model just discussed is both renormalizable and complete.

## 4 Model 2

The model contains the same set of fields as Model 1, but the symmetry group of the Lagrangian is assumed to be SU$`{}_{2}{}^{}\times `$U$`{}_{1}{}^{}\times \{\widehat{\iota },K\}`$, where $`\widehat{\iota }`$ is the generator of a reflection group and $`K`$ is the generator of $`CP`$-like transformations: $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{})`$, respectively. In fact, it is well known that the set of the phases in the models with two Higgs doublets depends strongly on the discrete symmetries, which are not entirely fixed by experimental constraints. To protect the theory from FCNC processes, it is nowadays commonly accepted the introduction of the $`\widehat{\iota }`$ symmetry . Nevertheless, since the most general $`CP`$ transformation on a field $`X_r`$ contains a field–dependent phase , i.e. $`X_r\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _r}X_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, the $`CP`$ conservation is normally checked a posteriori. Our $`CP`$-like transformations allow an easy verification of $`CP`$ conservation. For example, with reference to Tables 2 and 3 below, it is evident that $`CP`$ is broken in the stratum $`\stackrel{~}{S}_3^{(3)}`$, while in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_2^{(2)}`$ $`CP`$ is conserved: the transformations induced by $`\widehat{\iota }`$ determine the right $`CP`$-phase $`\theta `$ for each field of the theory.

As in model 1, for our purposes it will be equivalent, but simpler, to consider as a symmetry group of the model $`G=(\mathrm{SU}_2\times \mathrm{U}_1)/_2\times \{\widehat{\iota },K\}`$. Under these assumptions, a MIB is the following:

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\stackrel{~}{p}_2=\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\stackrel{~}{p}_3=\left(\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{p}_4=\left(\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]\right)^2.$$
(7)
The strata of $`\stackrel{~}{p}(^8)`$ will be denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{S}_j^{(i)}`$, where $`i`$ is the dimension of the stratum and $`j`$ is an order index. The defining relations are obtained from positivity and rank conditions of the symmetric matrix $`\widehat{P}(\stackrel{~}{p})`$, associated to the MIB of Eq. (7), whose non zero (upper triangular) elements are the following: $`\widehat{P}_{11}(\stackrel{~}{p})=4\stackrel{~}{p}_1`$, $`\widehat{P}_{22}(\stackrel{~}{p})=4\stackrel{~}{p}_2`$, $`\widehat{P}_{13}(\stackrel{~}{p})=\widehat{P}_{23}(\stackrel{~}{p})=4\stackrel{~}{p}_3`$, $`\widehat{P}_{14}(\stackrel{~}{p})=\widehat{P}_{24}(\stackrel{~}{p})=4\stackrel{~}{p}_4`$, $`\widehat{P}_{33}(\stackrel{~}{p})=4\stackrel{~}{p}_3(\stackrel{~}{p}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}_2)`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{44}(\stackrel{~}{p})=4\stackrel{~}{p}_4(\stackrel{~}{p}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}_2)`$. The results can be easily recovered from Tables 2 and 3, by identifying $`(p_1,p_2,p_7,p_8)=(\stackrel{~}{p}_1,\stackrel{~}{p}_2,\stackrel{~}{p}_3,\stackrel{~}{p}_4)`$ and setting to zero all the other $`p_i`$’s.

The section $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{p}(^8)^4`$ with the hyperplane of equation $`\stackrel{~}{p}_1+\stackrel{~}{p}_2=1`$ is the three dimensional closed solid (semialgebraic set) drawn in Figure 1. The full orbit space is the four dimensional connected semi-algebraic set formed by the points $`\stackrel{~}{p}=(\stackrel{~}{p}_1,\stackrel{~}{p}_2,\stackrel{~}{p}_3,\stackrel{~}{p}_4)=\mathrm{\Pi }^1(r)`$, $`r\mathrm{\Xi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^1`$ is the inverse projection defined as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Pi }^1:\hfill & ^3\mathrm{\Xi }& & ^4\hfill \\ & (r_2,r_3,r_4)& & (\lambda (1r_2),\lambda r_2,\lambda ^2r_3,\lambda ^2r_4),\lambda 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
We shall consider two different dynamical versions of Model 2, a complete non-renormalizable and an incomplete renormalizable one.

### 4.1 Model $`2_1`$: A complete non-renormalizable version of Model 2

For the reasons explained in the Introduction, let us now ignore the renormalizability condition. Then, the simple potential defined in (6), with the $`\stackrel{~}{p}_i`$’s specified in (7) replacing the $`p_i`$’s, is already sufficient (despite its being not the most general $`G`$-invariant eighth-degree polynomial), to make observable all the allowed phases. It admits, in fact, a stable minimum in each of the strata $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ listed in Tables 2 and 3, for suitable values of the $`a_i`$’s, as can be easily realized, with the help of Figure 1, conveniently modifying the geometrical arguments exploited to determine the observable phases of Model 1. The transformation in Eq. (8) leads to a four dimensional semialgebraic set which, contrary to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, is not convex, but, fortunately, like $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, has no intruding cusps. In particular, for $`A11`$ let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the image, $`\eta =p(^8)`$, of the orbit space in the space of the $`\eta _i`$’s. Then, if $`\eta `$ is within or near enough to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there is only one local minimum of the potential (the absolute minimum) at the point $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ of the orbit space which is at the shortest distance from $`\eta `$.

The above statements have been checked analytically; in particular, we have determined the superposition regions in the $`\eta `$ parameter space, where two local minima of potential (6) can co-exist in two different symmetry strata . Such a situation is quite important from a phenomenological point of view, since it can lead, even at the classical level, to first order phase transitions .

### 4.2 Model $`2_2`$: An incomplete renormalizable version of Model 2

Let us now, in the frame of symmetries of Model 2, chose the Higgs potential as the most general, bounded below invariant polynomial of degree four:

$$\widehat{V}(\stackrel{~}{p})=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}A_{ij}\stackrel{~}{p}_i\stackrel{~}{p}_j+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}a_i\stackrel{~}{p}_i,$$
(9)
where all the parameters are real and $`A_{12}=A_{21}`$.

As stated in , since there are no relations among the basic invariants and the potential is linear in those of degree four, its local minima can only sit on the boundary of the orbit space, for general values of the $`a_i`$’s. A detailed calculation shows that there can be stationary points of the potential in the strata of dimension $`3`$ only if the $`a_i`$’s satisfy particular conditions: $`a_3=a_4=0`$, $`a_4=0`$, $`a_3=0`$ and $`a_3=a_4`$, respectively, for the strata $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{(4)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_1^{(3)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_2^{(3)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_3^{(3)}`$. These conditions reduce to zero the measures of the regions of stability of the corresponding phases, in the space of the parameters $`a_i`$. So, there will not be stable phases associated to the strata of dimension $`3`$. As a consequence, it is impossible to generate spontaneous $`CP`$ violation in the model. The general problem of spontaneous $`CP`$ breaking in two-Higgs doublet models will be faced in a forthcoming paper .

We can conclude that Model $`2_2`$ is renormalizable, but it is incomplete. In tree-level approximation, the phases associated to the strata of dimension $`3`$ have zero probability to be observed in nature.

## 5 Model 3

The comparison of models $`2_1`$ and $`2_2`$ suggests a way to make observable all the phases allowed by the symmetry of Model 2, without changing the symmetry group $`G=(\mathrm{SU}_2\times \mathrm{U}_1)/_2\times \{\widehat{\iota },K\}`$. If some of the basic SU2 invariant polynomials which have been used to build up the basic invariants of Model 2 are considered as independent singlet scalar fields, the potential of Model $`2_1`$, written in terms of the new fields, can take on a renormalizable form. Here, the new SU2 singlet scalar fields are added only as a technical trick, but they could be thought of as describing bound states of the original scalar doublets. The introduction of additional scalar fields in a model modifies the symmetry and might enlarge the number of allowed phases. However, one can get rid of possible new phases, by making them dynamically unattainable.

Let us just analyze one of these possibilities, that we shall call Model 3, which is obtained from Model 2 by adding a complex, hypercharge 2 singlet $`F`$ and a real, hypercharge 0 singlet $`H`$ with transformation rules $`(F,H)(F,H)`$ and, respectively, $`(F,H)(F^{},H)`$ under transformations induced by $`\widehat{\iota }`$ and $`K`$.

The following set of invariants yields a MIB in the present case:

$$\begin{array}{c}p_1=\stackrel{~}{p}_1,p_2=\stackrel{~}{p}_2,p_3=|F|^2,p_4=H^2,p_5=\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^\mathrm{T}\sigma _2\mathrm{\Phi }_1F^{}],\hfill \\ p_6=\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]H,p_7=\stackrel{~}{p}_3,p_8=\stackrel{~}{p}_4,p_9=H\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^\mathrm{T}\sigma _2\mathrm{\Phi }_1F^{}],\hfill \\ p_{10}=\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Phi }_2^\mathrm{T}\sigma _2\mathrm{\Phi }_1F^{}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},4`$ are defined in (7).

The elements of the MIB have degrees $`\{2,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,6,7\}`$ and are related by the syzygies $`s_i=0`$, $`1i6`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill s_1& =& p_6^2p_4p_8,s_2=p_9^2p_4p_7\left(p_3qp_5^2\right),s_3=p_{10}^2p_7p_8\left(p_3qp_5^2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill s_4& =& p_6p_9p_4p_{10},s_5=p_6p_{10}p_8p_9,s_6=p_9p_{10}p_6p_7\left(p_3qp_5^2\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where $`q=p_1p_2p_7p_8`$. Only three of the syzygies are independent. Therefore, the orbit space is a semialgebraic subset of the seven dimensional algebraic variety defined by the set of equations $`s_i=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$. As usual, the orbit space and its stratification can be determined from rank and positivity conditions of the $`\widehat{P}(p)`$-matrix associated to the MIB defined in (10). The results are reported in Tables 2 and 3. As expected, four new phases (i.e.: $`S_3^{(4)}`$, $`S_2^{(2)}`$, $`S_3^{(1)}`$, $`S_4^{(1)}`$), that were not allowed by the symmetry of Model 2, are now allowed.

The most general invariant polynomial of degree four in the scalar fields of the model can be written in terms of the following polynomial $`\widehat{V}(p)`$ in the $`p_i`$’s with degree $`4`$:

$$\widehat{V}(p)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}a_ip_i+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}A_{ij}p_ip_j.$$
(12)
The conditions for a stationary point of $`\widehat{V}(p)`$ in a given stratum are obtained from equation (4) and the explicit form of the $`f_\alpha (p)`$ can be read from Table 2.

The high dimensionality of the orbit space prevents, in this case, a simple geometric determination of the conditions assuring the existence of a stable local minimum on a given stratum and a complete analytic solution of these conditions is impossible, since high degree polynomial equations are involved. Despite this, using convenient majorisations, we have been able to prove  that all the phases allowed by the symmetry of Model 2 (which are, obviously, also allowed by the symmetry of Model 3) are observable in Model 3. The result holds in the following strong sense: For each phase of symmetry $`(H)`$ allowed by the symmetry of Model 2, we have analytically determined an 8-dimensional open semialgebraic set $`R_H`$ in the space of the coefficients $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_8)`$ and an open neighborhood $`I_H`$ of the four dimensional unit matrix, such that, for all $`aR_H`$ and $`AI_H`$, the potential $`\widehat{V}(p(\varphi ))`$, defined through (12), has a stable absolute minimum in the stratum of Model 3 with symmetry $`(H)`$. Moreover, for $`aR_H`$ and $`AI_H`$, the potential has no local minimum in the strata of Model 3 corresponding to phases not allowed in Model 2. In particular:

1. All the allowed phases of Model 3 turn out to be observable with the potential defined in (12), but for the phase corresponding to the stratum $`S_3^{(4)}`$ (a local minimum lies in this stratum only if $`a_5=0`$, which means that the minimum is unstable), so that Model 3, which is renormalizable, is not far from being also complete;
2. For $`A=11`$, a stable local minimum can be found only in the strata of Model 3 corresponding to allowed phases of Model 2, provided that $`a_1+a_2<0`$ and $`a_3a_4>0`$.

A complete specification of the sets $`R_H`$ and $`I_H`$ would be too long to be given in this Letter and will be reported elsewhere .

Let us conclude by stressing that Model 3 could be relevant in the study of electro-weak baryogenesis: $`CP`$ violation is achieved in phase $`S_2^{(4)}`$, so it is interesting to examine the possibility of first order phase transitions to more symmetrical phases .