format: text

text:
# Interfaces with a single growth inhomogeneity and anchored boundaries

## I Introduction

After two decades of investigations the dynamics of growing interfaces continues to be a subject of enormous interest, providing a framework to compare experiments, simulations and theory, let alone the wide range of applications encountered . Despite the vast diversity of morphologies in which growing surfaces can evolve, most numerical analysis and theoretical studies pointed out the onset of scaling regimes emerging at both large time and length scales. This enabled a classification of apparently dissimilar processes in terms of universality classes characterized by a set of scaling exponents which dominate the late evolution stages .

A common feature associated with these processes is the possible emergence of rather slow temporal crossovers in which the early dynamics exhibits quite different roughening characteristics from those observed in the asymptotic limit . The presence of growth rate inhomogeneities or growth defects localized within small spatial regions of the substrate plane (columnar defects), is one of the simplest mechanisms whereby such crossovers can be observed . Another possibility is realized by anchoring conditions through which nonequilibrium fluctuations are completely suppressed at the interface boundaries . The main interest in those situations is in the morphological phase transitions that may occur at large times. In this work we investigate the change of scaling regimes accompanying these transitions by means of a prototype restricted solid on solid (RSOS) growth model  combining both of these mechanisms in one dimension. As we shall see, anchored boundaries are essential for the appearance of equilibrium regimes which in turn allow for a simple calculation of roughening exponents at late stages.

At the phenomenological level of the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation , thoroughly studied in the continuum theory of kinetic roughening, large scale morphology changes can be accounted for by assuming a growth velocity which is a symmetric function of the local inclination of the interface. The analysis of this equation under a growth rate inhomogeneity then leads to a nonequilibrium steady state (SS) which emerges in the form of a macroscopic hill . Here, we show that a similar scenario may also arise under equilibrium and near equilibrium conditions dominated by unusual scaling regimes.

In studying the latter it is useful to consider the mean square fluctuations of the average interface height $`\overline{h}(t)`$ which yields a measure of the interface width

$$W^2(L,t)=\frac{1}{L}\underset{n}{}\left[h_n(t)\overline{h}(t)\right]^2,$$
(1)
where the brackets denote an ensemble average over all possible evolutions of heights $`\{h_n\}`$ forming the interface at time t, which grows on a substrate of size $`L`$. On general grounds it can be argued that $`W`$ scales as

$$W(L,t)=L^\zeta f(t/L^z),$$
(2)
where the scaling function $`f(c)`$ satisfies

$$f(c)\{\begin{array}{cc}c^{\zeta /z}\mathrm{for}c1,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{const}\mathrm{for}c1.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3)
Hence, it follows that finite systems saturate as $`WL^\zeta `$, whereas in the thermodynamic limit the asymptotic growth is ruled by the exponent $`\beta =\zeta /z`$, that is $`Wt^\beta `$. The exponent $`\zeta `$ describes the roughness dependence of the interface width on the typical substrate size. In turn the exponent $`z`$, often known as the dynamic exponent, gives the fundamental scaling between length and time.

In practice, Eqs. (2) and (3) yield a standard procedure which is often followed to extract and corroborate scaling exponents predicted by other approaches and certainly we will make use of this hypothesis as well. However, due to the presence of the crossovers referred to above, a complementary procedure would be needed if the former becomes exceptionally slow. To this aim, we will also exploit the known equivalence between the RSOS growth models already mentioned and a one dimensional gas of hard core particles undergoing an asymmetric exclusion process  (see Fig. 1). The idea is to cast the evolution operator of the associated master equation of this latter process  into a suitable quantum spin representation  lending itself more readily for a finite size scaling analysis. Since the dynamic exponent $`z`$ of (2) is ultimately embodied in the gap behavior of the evolution operator (or spin “Hamiltonian”), the study of its lower spectrum can then provide information of the late evolution stages in a more direct manner. Evidently, this methodology along with the evaluation of the roughening exponent $`\zeta `$ – simplified greatly by the anchoring boundary conditions – circumvents the problem of arbitrarily long transient regimes though on the other hand is limited severely by the affordable system sizes. A posteriori, it will turn out that already modest lengths can yield clear finite size trends. This strategy will be explained in Section II and its results compared with those of standard techniques given in Section III. We end the paper with Section IV which contains our conclusions, along with some remarks on extensions of this work.

## II Spin Representation

Let us consider the dynamics of lattice aggregation models with no overhangs, including both adsorption and desorption of monomers at random locations of a one dimensional interface , such as that described in Fig. 1. As usual, on a coarse grained level of description the state of a surface at a given time is represented by a set of single valued functions $`h_n(t)`$ measuring the surface heights at positions $`1nL+1`$ of the growth substrate. As it was mentioned above, we are interested in boundary conditions that suppress completely height fluctuations at $`n=1`$ and $`L+1`$ for all times, i.e. the interface is anchored at the boundaries. For simplicity, we study the case where $`L`$ is even and $`h_1=h_{L+1}`$, whereas deposition and evaporation rates $`ϵ,ϵ^{}`$ are taken uniformly throughout the system except on site $`\frac{L}{2}+1`$ where these probability values are respectively $`ϵ_0,ϵ_0^{}`$. To prevent the divergence of interface fluctuations in the bulk, we impose a RSOS constraint namely, $`|h_{n+1}h_n|1`$, $`n,t`$. Specifically, growth (evaporation) events $`h_nh_n+2,`$ \[$`h_nh_n2`$\], with $`n=2,\mathrm{},L,`$ occur only at local minima (maxima) of the evolving interface. These basic processes and their transition rates are schematized in Fig. 1. In turn, the typical configurations resulting from these rules at large times are displayed by the snapshots of Fig. 2.

It is often convenient to consider the interface slope rather than the height, so hereafter we will exploit the known mapping between RSOS interface dynamics and quantum spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ systems. This correspondence can be easily visualized in the scheme of Fig. 1. Associating the height difference $`s_nh_{n+1}h_n`$ to an eigenvalue of the $`z`$component, say, of the Pauli operator $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_n`$ for site $`n`$, all relevant quantities of the interface, such as its width and height-height correlations, can be casted in terms of $`\frac{1}{2}`$\- spinors. By construction, it is clear that the interface heights (relative to $`h_1`$) are obtained as $`h_n=_{j=1}^{n1}s_j`$ for $`n=2,\mathrm{},L+1`$. Therefore, the anchoring condition $`h_1=h_{L+1}`$ imposes the vanishing of the total magnetization throughout the underlying spin kinetics.

As is well known, the probability distribution of such Markov processes is controlled by a master equation

$$_tP(s,t)=\underset{s^{}}{}\left[R(s^{}s)P(s^{},t)R(ss^{})P(s,t)\right],$$
(4)
whose transition probability rates $`R(ss^{})\{ϵ,ϵ^{},ϵ_0,ϵ_0^{}\}`$, now denote the (biased) spin exchanges at which a generic configuration $`|s|s_1,\mathrm{},s_L`$ evolves to $`|s^{}`$ through a single exchange of two consecutive spins. Starting from a given probability distribution $`|P(0)=_sP(s,0)|s`$, Eq. (4) can be conveniently thought of as a Schrödinger like representation in which the ensemble averaged state vector $`|P(t)`$ (playing the role of wave function), can be evaluated at subsequent times from the action of an evolution operator (or “Hamiltonian”) on the initial state, namely $`|P(t)=e^{Ht}|P(0)`$ . The specific form of $`H`$ can be readily obtained by introducing spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ raising and lowering operators $`\sigma ^+,\sigma ^{}`$, along with spin occupation fields $`\widehat{𝐧}=\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}`$. It is then straightforward to show that the stochastic dynamics of Eq. (4) is accounted by the operator

$`H=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}\left(ϵ_n\sigma _n^+\sigma _{n+1}^{}+ϵ_n^{}\sigma _{n+1}^+\sigma _n^{}\right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}\left[ϵ_n\widehat{𝐧}_{n+1}(1\widehat{𝐧}_n)+ϵ_n^{}\widehat{𝐧}_n(1\widehat{𝐧}_{n+1})\right],`$ (6)
where $`ϵ_n,ϵ_n^{}`$ are shorthands denoting respectively

$$ϵ_n,ϵ_n^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_0,ϵ_0^{}\mathrm{for}n=\frac{L}{2},\hfill & \\ & \\ ϵ,ϵ^{}\mathrm{otherwise},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(7)
while the anchoring condition $`h_1=h_{L+1}`$ confines the dynamics within the subspace $`_n\widehat{𝐧}_nL/2`$. The biased hopping terms of (6) clearly describe the original growth–desorption events (see Fig. 1), while conservation of probability requires in turn the appearance of the remaining (diagonal) particle-vacancy correlators. We address the reader to Ref.  for a more detailed derivation in related systems.

### A Detailed Balance

Before continuing with an alternative spin representation more suitable to study dynamical aspects at large times, we pause and consider the SS of Eq. (6) along with its implications on the interface character.

Given two spin configurations $`|s=|\mathrm{},s_n,s_n,\mathrm{}`$, $`|s^{}=|\mathrm{},s_n,s_n,\mathrm{}`$, differing at most in the state of two neighboring $`n,n+1`$ locations, evidently detailed balance probabilities in (4) will hold provided that

$`P(s)ϵ_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`P(s^{})ϵ_n,\mathrm{if}s^{}|H|s=ϵ_n^{},`$ (8)
$`P(s)ϵ_n`$ $`=`$ $`P(s^{})ϵ_n^{},\mathrm{if}s^{}|H|s=ϵ_n.`$ (9)
This can be readily satisfied defining a hard-core particle (up spin) potential

$$V(n)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ϵ_j}{ϵ_j^{}}\right)=n\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ϵ}{ϵ^{}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ϵ_0ϵ^{}}{ϵ_0^{}ϵ}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(nL/2\right),$$
(10)
through which the equilibrium distribution is simply obtained as

$$P(s_1,\mathrm{},s_L)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}V(n)(1+s_n)\right].$$
(11)
When $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$, these probabilities further enable us to construct the partition function (normalization constant), height profiles (spin densities), as well as the spin correlation functions needed to derive the equilibrium interface width. For $`ϵϵ^{}`$ a rather involved recursive relation in the particle number can be obtained for all these quantities, but its analytic solution is not reachable by standard means . However, this case does not yield a rough interface as statistical fluctuations become exponentially suppressed in time (see Section III B).

If $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$, the step function potential (10) permits to divide the system into two independent regions $`[1,\frac{L}{2}],[\frac{L}{2}+1,L]`$ with $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}}{m}\right)`$ configurations having $`\frac{L}{2}m`$ and $`m`$-particles respectively ($`0m\frac{L}{2}`$). Hence, the partition function normalizing the above SS distribution is given by

$$Z=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\frac{L}{2}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}}{m}\right)^2r^m,$$
(12)
where $`r=ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0`$. Using analogous arguments, we can also obtain the reduced partition function $`Z_i`$ which arises from the occupation of a given site $`i`$, and evaluate the spin density $`\sigma _i^z=2Z_i/Z1`$. This results in

$$Z_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\frac{L}{2}1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}1}{m}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}}{m}\right)r^m,\mathrm{for}i\frac{L}{2},\hfill & \\ & \\ \underset{m=0}{\overset{\frac{L}{2}1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}}{m+1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}1}{m}\right)r^{m+1},\mathrm{otherwise},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(13)
which implies an equilibrium shock profile stemming entirely from the inhomogeneous potential (10) at finite particle densities. In particular, for $`L\mathrm{}`$ the analysis of Eqs. (12) and (13) yields the following discontinuity

$$\sigma _n^z=\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2\mathrm{\Theta }(nL/2)\right]s,s=\frac{\sqrt{ϵ_0}\sqrt{ϵ_0^{}}}{\sqrt{ϵ_0}+\sqrt{ϵ_0^{}}}.$$
(14)
Thus, in the hight representation, so long as $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0<1`$ ($`>1`$) Eq. (14) entails the sideways growth of a hill (valley) whose sides at large times are tilted by an amount of $`\pm s`$ relative to the substrate.

To determine whether this morphology is actually rough, we focus attention on the equilibrium height fluctuations $`\delta _nh_n^2h_n^2`$. Consequently, first we evaluate the spin-spin correlations involved in $`h_n^2=(n1)+2\underset{i<jn1}{}\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z`$. Thus, once more we recur to the combinatorial reasoning and calculate the reduced partition functions $`Z_{i,j}`$ resulting from the occupation of two specific sites $`i,j`$. After some elementary steps we obtain

$$Z_{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\frac{L}{2}2}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}2}{m}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}}{m}\right)r^m,\mathrm{for}i<j\frac{L}{2},\hfill & \\ & \\ \underset{m=0}{\overset{\frac{L}{2}2}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}1}{m+1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}1}{m}\right)r^{m+1},\mathrm{for}i\frac{L}{2}<j,\hfill & \\ & \\ \underset{m=0}{\overset{\frac{L}{2}2}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}}{m+2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{L}{2}2}{m}\right)r^{m+2},\mathrm{othrewise},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(15)
from which the required spin correlations are computed as $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z=4Z_{i,j}/Z(\sigma _i^z+\sigma _j^z+1)`$. In the large size limit the analysis of Eqs. (12), (13) and (15) ultimately yields a rough interface (see leftmost snapshot of Fig. 2), whose height fluctuations (canceled at the boundaries), result distributed as $`\delta _n(n1)(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{n1}{L})`$. This simple form contrast with that observed in nonequilibrium SS of anchored self organized interfaces in which fluctuations in the upper part of the hill are substantially reduced .

The above correlations can also characterize the saturation width referred to in Section I. Specifically, in the spin representation it can be easily checked that $`W^2`$ may be rewritten as

$$W^2(L)=\frac{L^21}{6L}+\frac{2}{L^2}\underset{i<j}{}i(Lj)\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z.$$
(16)
In Fig. 3 we display the size dependence of $`W`$ for several values of $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0`$. It turns out that the roughness exponent $`\zeta `$ bears the discontinuous character of Eqs. (13) and (15). More precisely,

$$\zeta =\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\mathrm{if}ϵ_0^{}ϵ_0,\hfill & \\ 1/2,\mathrm{if}ϵ_0^{}=ϵ_0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(17)
Often, a value of $`\zeta =1`$ is special because it signals that the assumption of a well defined average orientation of the interface (parallel to the substrate plane), becomes inconsistent. Certainly, this is in line with the tilt obtained in Eq. (14). For $`ϵ_0^{}=ϵ_0`$ the conventional (diffusive) roughening is recovered; here the tilt vanishes and the orientational fluctuations at large scales estimated, for example, as $`W(L,t\mathrm{})/L`$, decrease with $`L`$. We shall revisit this point later on in Section III A.

### B Self Adjoint Representation

As is known , detailed balance guarantees the existence of a representation in which the evolution operator (6) is self-adjoint. Although an exact solution of the (real) $`H`$-spectrum in the thermodynamic limit seems unlikely irrespective of its representation, at least a self-adjoint description can facilitate the numerical analysis of a finite size scaling approach. Specifically, one can readily find a similarity transformation to map (6) into an hermitian matrix, and thereafter obtain the lower eigenmodes dominating the asymptotic kinetics via recursion-type algorithms, e.g. the Lanczos technique , appropriate to study fair system sizes.

To this aim and with the aid of the particle potential introduced in (10), we rotate the above operator around the $`z`$ spin direction using a pure imaginary site dependent argument $`\phi (n)`$

$$\phi (n)=\frac{i}{2}V(n).$$
(18)
This rotation is produced by the non-unitary similarity transformation $`U=e^{iS}`$ with $`S=\frac{1}{2}_n\phi (n)\sigma _n^z`$, which in turn results in the direct product

$$U=\underset{n}{}U_n,U_n=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{1}{4}V(n)}& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{4}V(n)}\end{array}\right].$$
(19)
While the diagonal terms of (6) remain unaltered by $`U`$, it is straightforward to show that

$$U_n\sigma _n^\pm U_n^1=e^{i\phi (n)}\sigma _n^\pm .$$
(20)
From this latter transformation, one can immediately verify that the rotated (self-adjoint) operator $`=UHU^1`$ becomes an open $`XXZ`$ ferromagnet with a defect coupling under local magnetic fields, namely

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}`$ $`J_n`$ $`\left[\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x+\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^y+\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\right]`$ (21)
$``$ $`h(\sigma _1^z\sigma _L^z)(h_0h)(\sigma _{\frac{L}{2}}^z\sigma _{\frac{L}{2}+1}^z).`$ (22)
where

$`J_n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{ϵ_nϵ_n^{}},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ_n+ϵ_n^{})/\sqrt{4ϵ_nϵ_n^{}},`$ (24)
$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ_0ϵ_0^{})/4,`$ (25)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵϵ^{})/4,`$ (26)
with $`ϵ_n,ϵ_n^{}`$ taken as in Eq. (7). Thus, we are left with a diagonalization problem which, to some extent, is now controllable by standard recursive techniques (Section III).

For the sake of completeness it is worth pointing out that the similarity transformation (19) also enables us to obtain the SS distribution (11). In fact, exploiting that $`H`$ is a stochastic operator, we can express its left SS $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }|`$ as an equally weighted sum of all accessible configurations , i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }|0|_{n_1\mathrm{}n_{\frac{L}{2}}}\sigma _{n_1}^{}\mathrm{}\sigma _{n_{\frac{L}{2}}}^{}`$, where $`0|`$ denotes the ferromagnetic down spin state. Hence, by construction $`|\psi _0=U^1|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is a (unnormalized) ground state of $``$, and therefore the SS distribution in the initial $`H`$-representation is constructed as

$$U^2|\stackrel{~}{\psi }\underset{n_1\mathrm{}n_{\frac{L}{2}}}{}e^{V(n_1)}\mathrm{}e^{V(n_{_{L/2}})}\sigma _{n_1}^+\mathrm{}\sigma _{n_{\frac{L}{2}}}^+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(27)
thus recovering the equilibrium distribution (11).

Returning to the dynamics, the average value of a diagonal quantity $`\widehat{𝒲}`$ – such as the “width operator” involved in Eq. (16) – varies according to $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }|\widehat{𝒲}e^{Ht}|P(0)`$ . Since $`\widehat{𝒲}`$ is invariant under $`U`$, it is a simple matter to check that in the self-adjoint representation $`\widehat{𝒲}`$ reads

$$\widehat{𝒲}(L,t)=\psi _0|\widehat{𝒲}|\psi _0+\underset{\lambda >0}{}e^{\lambda t}\psi _0|\widehat{𝒲}|\psi _\lambda \psi _\lambda |U|P(0),$$
(28)
where $`\{|\psi _\lambda \}`$ is a complete orthonormal set of eigenstates of $``$ (all with $`\lambda 0`$). As expected, the role of initial conditions becomes irrelevant near the equilibrium regime. If the spectrum gap vanishes in the thermodynamic limit, the width approach to equilibrium will involve arbitrarily large times for sufficiently large systems. In those situations, finite size scaling analyses of the first excited levels $`\lambda _L`$ would then provide the dynamic $`z`$-exponent ruling over the late roughening stages referred to in Section I.

A distinctive feature arises when all components of the total angular momentum $`𝐒=\frac{1}{2}_n\stackrel{}{\sigma }_n`$ are preserved by $``$, namely for $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$ and $`ϵ_0=ϵ_0^{}`$. Since $`\widehat{𝒲}`$ just involves operators of the form $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z`$ \[ see Eq. (16) \], then rather restrictive selection rules hold for its matrix elements in (28). Specifically, given that $`\{|\psi _\lambda \}`$ can be classified according to the total spin $`S`$ \[ $`𝐒^2S(S+1)`$\], the non-vanishing contributions to Eq. (28) come only from states $`|\psi _\lambda `$ having $`S=\frac{L}{2}1`$ and $`\frac{L}{2}2`$ . What should be emphasized here is that as soon as $`[,𝐒]0`$ the effective density of states, partly responsible for the temporal asymptotic behavior of (28) when $`L\mathrm{}`$, is drastically modified as these selection rules no longer apply. We will come back to this issue within the numerical context of Section III A.

## III Numerical Results

To explore the dynamical consequences of these arguments we have carried out Monte Carlo simulations as well as finite size scaling analyses of the RSOS model referred to above, for a variety of situations. First we focus attention on the subcase $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$ where the roles of $`ϵ_0`$ and $`ϵ_0^{}`$ are clearly interchangeable, so we restrict the analysis to, say, $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_01`$. In this situation the interface actually roughens and exhibits two different scaling regimes accompanying a large scale morphological transition. The discussion of different bulk probability rates is addressed at the second part of the Section. It will turn out there that fluctuations decay very rapidly and prevent the roughening of anchored interfaces at large times. Instead, a faceting dynamics will emerge regardless of the inhomogeneity growth rates

### A $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$

Starting from an initially flat configuration we studied the evolution of the interface width and monitored the height profiles at different growth stages. Fig. 4 displays the width behavior obtained for $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0=0.5`$ and 0.8. The rather slow crossover (particularly for 0.8, where it is only incipient), deterred us of using larger substrates, though preliminary simulations averaged over few evolution samples indicated similar trends. The early growing stages support a power law growth $`Wt^\beta `$ extended over more than four decades with an exponent $`\beta 1/4`$. This typical diffusive behavior is accompanied initially by a height profile which is almost parallel to the substrate, except in the neighborhood of the growth inhomogeneity. As is shown in the inset of Fig. 4, on approaching the asymptopia however, the slopes of the hillsides steepen until they reach the equilibrium tilt alluded to in Eq. (14). This progressive orientation departure signals a large scale morphological transition which in turn is also reflected in the increase of the growth exponent. In the late dynamic stages, this can be well fitted by a value of $`\beta 1/2`$ for nearly two decades.

An alternative determination of this rather peculiar value , can be implemented by resorting to the phenomenological scaling assumption referred to in Eq. (2) along with the findings and arguments of Section II. Notice that this provides two independent numerical procedures to estimate the dynamic $`z`$-exponent needed for the knowledge of $`\beta `$. On one hand, the former can be calculated by studying the finite size behavior of the first excited levels of $``$ (in principle, just the lowest will do), so we diagonalized it exactly via a recursion type Lanczos algorithm  applied on the zero magnetization subspace. The huge dimensionality of this sector, growing as $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{L/2}\right)`$, as well as the lack of translational symmetry of the evolution operator, limited our computations to chain lengths of up to 24 spins. Nevertheless, they proved to be sufficient for a fair estimation of the spectrum gap. We direct the reader to Fig. 5 which suggests a decrease $`L^z`$ for the gap and other excited levels consistent with a common value of $`z=2`$. On the other hand, an independent evaluation of this exponent can be attained by studying the scaling behavior of the interface width \[Eq. (2) \]. Fig. 6 exhibits the results of our simulations for growth substrates of 2500 and 5000 heights on approaching their saturation regimes. Here, the data collapse was obtained upon setting $`(z,\zeta )(2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$, which confirms not only the Lanczos estimation but also corroborates the roughness exponent quoted in Eq. (17). Thus, from Eq. (2) it follows that the fast roughening behavior already observed in Fig. 4, is now recovered by the ratio $`\zeta /z`$.

Since the Lanczos analysis continues to yield values of $`z=2`$ holding up to the homogeneous situation (as it should), a natural question one can pose is therefore: through which feature does the dynamics render a completely different roughening behavior at large times as soon as $`ϵ_0ϵ_0^{}`$ ? In an attempt to provide a plausible explanation for the appearance of this abrupt change \[see also Eq. (17) \], we resort to the observations given by the end of Section II B. The inset of Fig. 5 displays the lower part of the $``$-spectrum for both inhomogeneous and homogeneous situations. As stated above, the latter involves at most $`L(L1)/2`$ contributing levels with $`S=L/21,L/22`$, while in the former case the sum of Eq. (28) becomes much denser as $`[,𝐒]0`$ and an exponential number of new states arises. Of course, the new matrix elements might eventually change from zero in a continuous manner, but the density of states (a measure of which is given by the inverse of the levels spacing), varies abruptly. Moreover, some of the low lying excitations controlling the asymptotic regime ($`t\mathrm{}`$ holding $`t/L^z1`$ ), suggest a rather narrowly peaked structure which is entirely absent for $`ϵ_0=ϵ_0^{}`$.

Also, it is interesting to examine whether the large scale morphology transition embodied in the slow temporal crossover of $`W`$ affects the usual scaling hypothesis of Eqs. (2) and (3). Thus, we turn to the early dynamic scaling of $`W`$ shown by the inset of Fig. 6. In contrast to the super-diffusive growth observed at late stages, here the data collapse arises by setting standard diffusive exponents $`(z,\zeta )(2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2)`$ which in turn yield a scaling function $`(t/L^2)^{1/4}`$, in agreement with the early $`\beta `$ exponent measured in Fig. 4. Hence, combining the late and early scaling regimes it follows that

$$W(L,t,\tau )=L^\zeta f_\tau (t/L^2),$$
(29)
where $`\tau `$ is a crossover time which depends solely on $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0`$ (eventually diverging in the limit $`ϵ_0^{}ϵ_0`$), and $`f_\tau (c)`$ is a universal function defined over three different scales as

$$f_\tau (c)\{\begin{array}{cc}c^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/4}\mathrm{for}c\tau /L^2,(\zeta =1/2),\hfill & \\ c^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2}\mathrm{for}\tau /L^2c1,(\zeta =1),\hfill & \\ \mathrm{const}\mathrm{for}c1.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(30)
In what follows we address finally to the $`ϵϵ^{}`$ situation.

### B $`ϵϵ^{}`$

A quick glance at the evolution of the interface width displayed in Fig. 7 might render the (wrong) impression that the general case $`ϵϵ^{}`$, $`ϵ_0ϵ_0^{}`$ bears similar characteristics. However this time the growth exponent exhibits an asymptotic value of $`\beta 3/2,`$ which is not understandable in terms of conventional kinetic roughening theories . In fact, as we shall see below, the interface does not roughen.

Let us first provide a simple explanation for this large value of $`\beta `$ by means of the following heuristic considerations. For clarity of argument, assume vanishing desorption rates and $`ϵ=ϵ_0`$. Starting from a flat configuration, say with $`h_{2k}=1,h_{2k1}=0`$, a deterministic dynamics arises as $`(L2)/2`$ deposition attempts occur on the initial $`(L2)/2`$ interface minima. Next, we are left with $`h_{2k}=1,h_{2k1}=2,h_1=h_{L+1}0`$ and $`(L4)/2`$ contiguous minima over which new $`(L4)/2`$ depositions will be once again deterministic. By iterating this argumentation $`t`$-times, this dynamics leads to a configuration resembling a truncated pyramid (see central snapshot of Fig. 2, though for for a non-deterministic situation, i.e. $`ϵ^{}0`$). Specifically, there will be $`(L2t)/2`$ contiguous minima in between $`h_{t+2}=t+1`$ and $`h_{Lt1}=h_{t+2}`$. Using the common definition of Eq. (1), it is then easy to verify that the “width” of such configuration is simply

$$W(L,t)=\sqrt{\frac{2t^3}{3L}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+𝒪\left(t/L\right)\right],\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.\beta =3/2.$$
(31)
The above argument describes rather a faceting process (terminating at $`tL/2`$), which strictly applies for $`ϵ^{}=0`$. Certainly, as soon as $`ϵ^{}>0`$ the dynamics is no longer deterministic, no matter how small $`ϵ^{}`$ is. However, for $`ϵ^{}1`$ the early desorption attempts become gradually unsuccessful as the active region of the interface, i.e. the number of available minima, decreases inasmuch the sideways region is increasingly jammed (Fig. 2). Thus, at large times a process similar to a faceting dynamics might be expected, at least for small bulk desorption rates. In fact, for $`ϵ>ϵ^{}`$ and $`ϵ_0ϵ_0^{}`$ our numerical simulations confirm these considerations. No differences were observed between sampling histories at large times, so fluctuations become asymptotically negligible. For $`ϵ_0<ϵ_0^{}`$ the situation is similar though another faceting process shows up around the inhomogeneity, as displayed by the height profiles in the inset of Fig. 7 (see also rightmost snapshot of Fig. 2). Of course, for $`ϵ<ϵ^{}`$ the roles of $`ϵ_0`$ and $`ϵ_0^{}`$ are interchanged. Ultimately, the whole process approaches a non-fluctuating pile of slope $`\pm 1`$, so long as $`ϵ^{}ϵ`$.

To provide an alternative understanding of this fast fluctuation decay for generic rate values, we recur once more to the analysis of the spectrum of the evolution operator (22). The gap and levels obtained for the sizes within our reach are shown in Fig 8, but in contrast to the $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$ situation, here the finite size trend of these quantities needs further analysis. To this end, we studied the $``$-spectrum within the subspace $`S^z=L/21`$ (single spin excitation), which corresponds to the much simpler anchoring case $`h_{L+1}h_1=L2`$. For this sector, it is straightforward to check that Eq. (22) reduces to the tridiagonal matrix

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}ϵ^{}& \gamma & 0& \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \gamma & ϵ+ϵ^{}& \gamma & \mathrm{}& & & & \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \gamma & ϵ+ϵ_0^{}& \gamma __0& 0& & \\ & & 0& \gamma __0& ϵ^{}+ϵ_0& \gamma & & \mathrm{}\\ & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & & & \mathrm{}& \gamma & ϵ+ϵ^{}& \gamma \\ 0& \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& 0& \gamma & ϵ\end{array}\right],$$
(32)
where

$$\gamma =\sqrt{ϵϵ^{}},\gamma __0=\sqrt{ϵ_0ϵ_0^{}}.$$
(33)
Evidently, this just constitutes the simplest approximation to the many body problem of $`S^z=0`$. Nevertheless, the comparisons of Fig. 8 indicate that the eigenvalues of (32) yet provide an excellent estimation of the actual gap and other excited levels obtained through the Lanczos scheme. (It is worth pointing out in passing that an excellent fit of these quantities was also found for $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$). Using the spectrum gap of the single spin approximation, the inset of Fig. 8 strongly suggests that the same gap will persist for $`\lambda _1`$ in the thermodynamic limit of (22). Similar gapful results were obtained for other values of $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0`$. Thus, fluctuations would be suppressed at large times, which is in line with the almost invariant values of $`W`$ observed over many sample histories.

Also, at the gap level the density of states diverges as $`L`$ in the simplified version of the problem. For $`S^z=0`$ however, one might conjecture a much stronger divergence, probably growing like $`e^L`$, as the number of levels between two single excitations tends to increase exponentially with the system size (at least for the small lengths at hand). This would leave us with a saturation time $`L`$ in Eq. (28), which on the other hand would be in agreement with the termination time of the faceting process idealized above. In fact, the numerical simulations displayed in Fig. 9 lend further support to these speculations. Clearly, these results exhibit both a saturation time $`L`$, as well as an asymptotic scaling regime consistent with Eq. (31), i.e. $`W/L(t/L)^{3/2}`$, during which both height and width fluctuations are absent.

In contrast, at early stages the interface displays typical roughening features. Specifically, the inset of Fig. 9 exhibits a diffusive scaling regime $`W/\sqrt{L}=f(t/L^2)`$, in turn corroborated by the growth exponent $`\beta 1/4`$ obtained in larger systems (Fig. 7). This strong departure from the faceting description occurs on temporal scales smaller than a crossover time which turns out to decrease when $`ϵ^{}/ϵ0`$ (irrespective of $`ϵ_0^{}/ϵ_0`$), but eventually diverging in the limit $`ϵ^{}ϵ`$, $`ϵ_0^{}ϵ_0`$.

## IV Conclusions

We have analyzed the characteristics of both early and asymptotic dynamics of one dimensional anchored interfaces under a growth inhomogeneity. There are two sets of results related respectively to equal or different growth-evaporation rates in the bulk.

For $`ϵ=ϵ^{}`$, even the slightest departure from the homogeneous $`ϵ_0=ϵ_0^{}`$ situation is able to produce finite interface tilts as well as huge temporal crossovers. The problems posed by the latter have been bypassed studying separately the roughness $`\zeta `$ and dynamic $`z`$ exponents, the evaluation of which was significantly simplified by the appearance of equilibrium SS. In analyzing finite size scaling trends of the spectrum gap via the Lanczos method, we found no changes with respect to the homogeneous situation, i.e. $`z2`$. Consequently, it was argued that the breaking of the full rotational invariance of the evolution operator is ultimately responsible for the emergence of a much heavier density of states accounting both for the discontinuity of the roughness exponent $`\zeta `$ (or alternatively, for a different asymptotic growth exponent $`\beta `$), as well as for the rise of a new scaling regime at large times. These expectations were confronted independently with standard numerical simulations monitoring the evolution of the interface profile and width. At early stages, the latter exhibits a diffusive scaling regime having basically a non-tilted profile (except in the inhomogeneity neighborhood), but progressively approaching a final regime consistent with our scaling exponents $`\zeta =1,z=2`$. However for $`ϵ_0ϵ_0^{}`$, in practice this new regime might occur at a time so large as to render it numerically unobservable.

For $`ϵϵ^{}`$ the situation is entirely different. Here, the spectrum gap does not vanish in the thermodynamic limit regardless of the inhomogeneity rates, and fluctuations between evolution histories at large times become negligible. This confirms an heuristic description (in turn, tested independently by simulations), suggesting that the asymptotic dynamics becomes almost deterministic. We may also think of a synchronous discrete time process in which a randomly chosen finite fraction, or possibly all of the growth sites, are simultaneously updated in a single time step. One characteristic feature of such synchronous models is the occurrence of faceting transitions at large times , which also turned out to be the case here. In contrast, at early stages the interface actually roughens following a typical diffusive pattern accompanied by a standard scaling regime.

The analysis of nonequilibrium asymptotic situations, even for $`d=1`$, might become rather involved. In this sense, it will be interesting to elucidate whether a direct evaluation of $`\zeta `$ could be achieved using the matrix approach to the asymmetric exclusion process  with both injection and ejection of particles at the boundaries, including one or more hoping defects (that is, unanchored boundaries and growth inhomogeneities in the height representation).

Higher dimensional extensions of this study would be clearly desirable and more realistic. However, the analysis of the corresponding quantum spin analogy should involve a projector operator to discard all those spin configurations having magnetic loops, i.e. $`_𝐫\sigma _𝐫^z0`$, with $`𝐫`$ on a given closed path. Otherwise, the mapping would no longer represent an interface. The issue as to whether or not such ideas are actually practical in $`d>1`$ remains quite open.

The author acknowledges support of CONICET, Argentina.


text:
# TEN MAJOR CHALLENGES IN COSMOLOGY

## I INTRODUCTION

Cosmology has progressed considerably since 1916, when Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity. Then, the observable universe was about a third of the size of our galaxy and we knew little or nothing about the history of the universe, compared to what we know today. Present cosmological theories of the evolution of the universe from the time of the Big Bang are supported by the following pillars.

1. Einstein’s theory of general relativity
Almost all cosmological theories are based on the Friedman-Robertson-Walker form of Einstein’s 1916 Theory of General Relativity, in which homogeneity and isotropy of the universe are assumed.
2. Hubble’s law of expansion
In the late 1920’s, Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, implying a Big Bang origin about 10-20 billion years ago. The Hubble constant, $`H_0(\dot{a}/a,`$ where $`a`$ is the scale factor of the universe) is $`70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1.`$
3. The cosmic microwave background
Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the remnant radiation of the Big Bang with a temperature $`T2.7\mathrm{K},`$ in the early 1960’s.
4. Primordial nucleosynthesis
It was shown in the early 1960’s that the 4He abundance in the universe was primarily primordial. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the abundances of D and 3He were also shown to be primarily primordial. This was extended to 7Li in the 1980’s (see, e.g., Schramm and Turner  for a review). The primordial nucleosynthesis of D, 3He, 4He, and 7Li indicates that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$, the ratio of the baryon density of the universe to the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}},`$ where $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$ and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, is $`4\%.`$
5. The present acceleration of the universe
The present dimensionless acceleration of the universe is defined as $`\ddot{a}/aH_0^2.`$ It is found to be positive, as indicated by supernovae type Ia (SNIa) data .
6. The density of pressureless dark matter
As indicated primarily by data from galaxy clusters (GC), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},`$ the ratio of the density of pressureless dark matter to $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}},`$ is $`30\%.`$
7. The total density of the universe
From the CMB, SNIa, and GC data, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T},`$ the ratio of the total density of the universe to $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}},`$ is $`1.`$
8. The primordial density fluctuation spectrum
Data from the CMB and the large scale structure of the universe (LSS) show that the primordial density fluctuation spectrum, $`\delta \rho /\overline{\rho }`$ vs size $`\lambda ,`$ is approximately scale-invariant, where $`\delta \rho \rho \overline{\rho }`$ and $`\rho (\overline{\rho })`$ is the density (average density) of the universe over a dimension $`\lambda `$. Scale invariance signifies that $`\delta \rho /\overline{\rho }`$ has a constant value $`(10^5)`$ when $`\lambda =c\tau _U,`$ where $`\tau _U`$ is the age of the universe when the fluctuations entered the horizon and $`c`$ is the velocity of light.

Although the above pillars have provided us with a great deal of knowledge on which to base our cosmological theories, we are still far from having a clear picture of just how the observed universe came about. The most popular cosmological theory is the Inflation Theory of Guth , according to which, the universe passed through an exponential superluminal expansion epoch of $`60`$ $`e`$-foldings. This inflation scenario can explain the large number of CMB photons (large entropy) in the observable universe (third pillar), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}1`$ (seventh pillar), and the approximately scale-invariant density fluctuation spectrum (eigth pillar). With this scenario, the assumption of the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe (included in the first pillar) can also be justified. However, it leaves various important questions still unanswered. In order to explain the fourth pillar (baryon density), we require a theory of baryogenesis, which doesn’t yet exist. A complete theory of cosmology, which might incorporate the Inflation Theory as well as a theory of baryogenesis, must also explain the present acceleration of the universe (fifth pillar), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3`$ (sixth pillar), as well as the formation and distribution of galaxies. The present Hubble expansion of the universe (second pillar) is generally assumed to be a consequence of the Big Bang, which is taken as a basic premise.

This lecture is an invitation to reflect upon what is, in your judgement, the ten major challenges in cosmology today. Inevitably, many of the decisions that we, in the scientific community, are called upon to make, are based on this judgement. The topics presented here are those that I consider to be the ten most important.

Ten Most Important Topics

1. What are the geometry and the topology of the universe?
2. What are the bright standard candles that can be used in cosmology?
3. What is the origin of primordial magnetic fields?
4. What are the physical processes and phenomena associated with magnetic fields in the early universe?
5. Besides the CMB, the LSS, SNIa, and GC, what other methods exist for measuring the cosmological parameters?
6. What are dark matter and dark energy and what are their distributions in space and time?
7. Do primordial gravitational waves exist?
8. Do ultrahigh energy cosmic rays (UHECR) have a cosmological origin?
9. When, where and how did the first objects form?
10. Do we live in a universe of more than four dimensions?

In the following sections, we discuss each of the above topics. Throughout the text, we use $`\mathrm{}=c=k_\mathrm{B}=1.`$

## II WHAT ARE THE GEOMETRY AND THE TOPOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSE?

According to Einstein’s equations, the universe can be hyperbolic $`(k=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}<1.0),`$ flat $`(k=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}=1.000`$…), or spherical $`(k=+1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}>1.0).`$ If the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}`$ is shown to be not exactly equal to unity, the universe would then be hyperbolic or spherical. The observations of the CMB by the BOOMERANG balloon experiment indicate that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}=1.02\pm 0.06`$ when its data are taken in conjunction with that from SNIa and the LSS. The recent WMAP satellite data indicate that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}=1.02\pm 0.02.`$ It is possible that the universe started out with a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}`$ appreciably different from unity. Due to an inflationary stage, it could have changed in value and become close to unity.

However, it is important to look for other methods to determine whether $`k=1,0,`$ or +1, instead of relying solely on the exact value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{T}.`$ Muller, Fagundes, and Opher  showed that a universe created in a hyperbolic compact state could have a vacuum energy which is dependent on spatial position (Casimir Effect). This could, in principle, be observable. For example, the vacuum energy near us could be different from that near distant quasars.

Although we generally assume that the universe is infinite, it could actually be finite(compact) and repeated many times. The finite size of the universe could be determined by the maximum spatial dimension of the density fluctuations created in the primordial universe, which could be measured by the CMB or the LSS. The recent WMAP CMB data have a smaller than expected quadropole and octopole, which may be an indication of a finite universe. One popular theory for the creation of the universe is based on quantum fluctuations. With such a mechanism, a small finite universe may have been easier to create.

## III WHAT ARE THE BRIGHT STANDARD CANDLES THAT CAN BE USED IN COSMOLOGY?

We need bright standard candles to study the universe at high redshifts. The brightest objects are SNIa, quasars and Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB). Today, only SNIa are used in these studies. The problem with all of these bright objects is that none of them is really a standard candle, i.e., none of them has a given luminosity. In the case of SNIa, a correlation has been found between the peak luminosity and the width of the luminosity vs time curve for low redshifts. However, there is some doubt about whether they constitute good standard candles at high redshifts.

Quasars and GRB are brighter than SNIa and could, in principle, be used as standard candles at high redshifts. To date, no correlation has been found between their luminosities and some intrinsic property, so as to enable them to be used as standard candles.

### A SNIa

SNIa can attain $`L_{\mathrm{GAL}},`$ the luminosity of an entire galaxy. Although we base our present knowledge of the acceleration of the universe on the light curves of SNIa, we really don’t know the source of the luminosity, i.e., whether it is due to the burning (deflagration) of a white dwarf with a Chandrasekhar mass, the burning of a white dwarf with less than this mass, or to the fusion of two white dwarfs.

### B Quasars

Quasars can have luminosities $`10^3L_{\mathrm{GAL}}`$ and are observed at high redshifts. However, we do not understand the physical origin of their luminosities.

### C GRB

GRB have peak luminosities which are $`10^9L_{\mathrm{GAL}}`$ (on the order of the luminosity of the entire universe) when they explode, making them observable at high redshifts. If we understood the physical processes involved in this phenomenon, we might be able to use them as standard candles at very high redshifts.

## IV WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF PRIMORDIAL MAGNETIC FIELDS?

We know that the microgauss magnetic fields in our galaxy are fundamental in the formation of stars. Since microgauss magnetic fields are observed in all galaxies at all redshifts, they may also be fundamental in the formation of the first objects. Evidence indicates that their origin cannot be due simply to the dynamo effect since this requires a great many rotations and, at high redshifts, the galaxies could not have rotated a sufficient number of times. Furthermore, galaxies, such as the large and small Magellanic clouds, have been observed to be both slowly rotating and to have microgauss fields, further indicating that the magnetic fields are primordial and do not owe their origin to the dynamo effect. Some possible origins of primordial magnetic fields are described below.

### A Primordial Thermal Fluctuations

Small-scale primordial magnetic fields were created by thermal fluctuations, which can be described by the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (FDT). Black body radiation theory predicts zero amplitude, zero frequency fields. However, using FDT, which takes collective effects in the plasma into account, Opher and Opher  predicted very large amplitude, zero frequency magnetic fields when the universe had a temperature $`\mathrm{MeV}.`$ These fluctuations might not have been damped out completely during the evolution of the universe, but could have joined together (polimerized) to form large scale fields and continued to exist at lower temperatures until they formed the magnetic fields, observed in galaxies.

### B Nonminimal Gravitational-Electromagnetic Coupling

Opher and Wichoski  suggested a theory of nonminimal gravitational-electromagnetic coupling, in which the magnetic dipole of an astrophysical object is proportional to its angular momentum (i.e., angular momentum produces magnetic fields). They found that the proportionality constant for the sun, moon, planets and pulsars is approximately the same to within an order of magnitude. Using the standard theory for the origin of angular momentum in galaxies, together with their theory of nonminimal gravitational-electromagnetic coupling, they found that the microgauss magnetic fields observed in galaxies are indeed produced.

### C Primordial Jets

Extragalactic jets are highly collimated and it has been suggested that this is due to an axial current, producing a strong pinched magnetic field. They are also synchrotron radiation sources, which require magnetic fields, providing additional evidence for the existence of magnetic fields in jets. Since these jets have been seen at the highest observed redshifts, they probably also existed in the primordial universe. It is possible that jets in the early universe could have advected their magnetic fields into the primordial intergalactic medium, thereby giving rise to primordial fields, as has been suggested by Jafelice and Opher . These fields could be the origin of the microgauss magnetic fields, observed in all galaxies today.

### D Primordial Shocks

Some of the first objects to have collapsed are expected to have formed supernovae, which produce strong shocks. The possibility of creating magnetic fields in primordial supernovae shocks was investigated by Miranda, Opher and Opher . They assumed that the density gradients in the shocks were not exactly parallel to the thermal gradients. It can be shown that when the density gradient in a plasma is not parallel to that of the temperature, a magnetic field is created. According to their theory, many successive supernovae shocks were created from a single supernova in the primordial universe, greatly amplifying the magnetic field, so that these fields could have been the origin of the microgauss magnetic fields, observed in galaxies today. Accretion shocks are also expected to have been created in the formation of the first objects and it is possible that, in that case as well, the density gradients were not parallel to those of the temperature.

## V WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES AND PHENOMENA ASSOCIATED WITH MAGNETIC FIELDS IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE?

There are many important phenomena involving magnetic fields that took place in the early universe, about which, we still have little understanding, such as the formation of jets, accretion disks, and the production of relativistic electrons.

### A Formation of Jets

Jets have been discussed in the previous section in connection with their possible role in producing primordial intergalactic magnetic fields. The central role that jets play in the evolution of the universe can be seen from the following:

1. We observe jets emerging from active galactic nuclei and quasars at all redshifts as well as from protostars.
2. Jets are able to reach distances of over a Mpc (i.e., $`100`$ times greater than the size of a galaxy) and can transport energy, magnetic fields, and heavy elements as well as create turbulence.

It is generally accepted that magnetic fields are needed in order to create jets (see Sec. IV). We also know that the magnetic fields in the jets must be regenerated. However, we do not yet understand either of these processes.

### B Accretion Disks

The center of a galaxy (e.g., a central massive black hole) and a protostar are both examples of objects which become increasingly more massive due to the presence of an accretion disk. Accretion disks require a source of anamolous viscosity to accrete at the expected rates. This anamolous viscosity is generally attributed to magnetic fields, involving a process which is, as yet, not understood.

### C Production of Relativistic Electrons

The presence of jets and magnetic fields in the primordial universe indicates the presence of synchrotron radiation. Synchrotron radiation, observed in various astrophysical environments, including jets, is produced by relativistic electrons in magnetic fields. However, it is still not known exactly how the relativistic electrons are produced.

## VI BESIDES THE CMB, the LSS, SNIa, AND GC,
WHAT OTHER METHODS EXIST FOR
MEASURING THE BASIC COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS?

The basic cosmological parameters, such as the pressure of dark energy and the densities of dark matter and energy, are presently determined, primarily, by the CMB, the LSS, SNIa, and GC. Finding additional methods which could provide new information would be very important in order to cross-check results and put better limits on the uncertainties.

### A Angular Distance vs Redshift

The length of a standard candle at a given redshift defines an angle (called the angular distance) as a function of the cosmological parameters. Although this method has been known for some time, an object that has a size that does not vary with redshift and, thus, can be used as a standard distance, has been difficult to find. One possibility is the length of compact jets from quasars $`(20\mathrm{pc})`$ since they are very small, compared to the size of the galaxy $`(10\mathrm{kpc})`$ . Because of their small size, the physical processes which create the jets are probably intrinsic to the quasar and not to any possible interactions between the quasar and the intergalactic medium. Consequently, changes in the length of the jet could be correlated with other characteristics of the quasar, such as spectra, X-ray luminosity, etc. This is left for future research.

### B Distortion of a Sphere of Radius $`R`$ vs Redshift (Alcock-Paczynski Test)

The line-of-sight radius $`R_{}`$ of a sphere as a function of redshift and the cosmological parameters is seen differently than is the transverse radius $`R_{}`$. This effect, measured by the Alcock-Paczynski Test, has been used to obtain the cosmological parameters by means of quasars, whose correlation function is known and which are bright enough to be observable at high redshifts . For an observed quasar at a given redshift, the correlation function is the probability of observing a second quasar at a distance $`R`$ from the first. The correlation function for quasars has a spherical form, $`(R/R_0)^\gamma ,`$ where $`R_0`$ and $`\gamma `$ are known constants. Since the observed correlation function for $`R_{}`$ is slightly different from that for $`R_{}`$ for a given $`\gamma `$ and $`R_0,`$ the Alcock-Paczynski Test predicts the observed cosmological parameters for a given $`z`$ as a function of the distortion of the correlation functions of $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}.`$

### C The Age of a Galaxy $`\tau _{\mathrm{GAL}}`$ vs Redshift

The age of an elliptic galaxy provides a lower limit for the age of the universe at the redshift of the galaxy and can, therefore, be used to determine the cosmological parameters . In a popular scenario for the formation of elliptic galaxies, most of the stars are assumed to have been formed at the same time. For a star with a given mass, stellar evolution theory (SET) predicts the luminosity vs temperature as a function of time. Assuming a given initial mass function (IMF), (e.g., Saltpeter or Scalo), SET can predict the luminosity vs temperature of an entire galaxy with a given number of stars, as a function of time. Thus, from the observation of the luminosity vs temperature of a galaxy, we are able to determine its age, $`\tau _{\mathrm{GAL}}.`$

A more accurate, but more laborious, method of obtaining $`\tau _{\mathrm{GAL}}`$ involves using the luminosity of a galaxy as a function of frequency (using a spectrometer), instead of temperature (using an optical filter), which is an average over a range of frequencies.

## VII WHAT ARE DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY
AND WHAT ARE THEIR DISTRIBUTIONS IN SPACE AND TIME?

The density of the universe is composed of $`30\%`$ dark matter and $`70\%`$ dark energy. However, very little is known about the nature of either of these components.

Known matter (baryonic matter) comprises only $`4\%`$ of the universe. The major part of dark matter, generally referred to as cold dark matter, interacts only gravitationally and has zero pressure. There is no known particle that behaves like cold dark matter. It has been suggested that cold dark matter is composed of neutralinos, the lightest supersymmetric particles. But until this particle with the correct properties has been observed, it remains only a suggestion.

Dark energy behaves like vacuum energy, i.e., its pressure is approximately equal to minus its energy density. If dark energy were indeed the vacuum energy, theory predicts that it should be $`120`$ orders of magnitude bigger than what is observed. A scalar field, known as quintessence, which has not been previously predicted by particle physics theory, has been suggested as the source of the dark energy.

It is to be noted how little we know about 96% of the matter of the universe. We describe dark energy in terms of the vacuum energy, about which we know nothing, or by a scalar field, which has not been previously predicted by particle physics theory. The popular description of cold dark matter is in terms of a particle, which has not been observed.

In quintessence, the potential of the scalar field needs to be fine-tuned, such that the quintessence energy density overtakes the matter density at the present epoch. In general, quintessence models have shallow potentials at the present epoch, requiring nearly massless fields. If coupling were to occur between the nearly massless field and ordinary matter, it could give rise to detectable long-range forces .

Kamenshchik, Moschella and Pasquier  assumed the existence of an exotic fluid, known as Chaplygin gas, to describe the transition from a universe which behaves as if it were composed of dust (when dark matter dominates) to an exponentially expanding universe (when dark energy dominates). The equation of state of the Chaplygin gas is $`P=A/\rho ,`$ where $`P`$ is the pressure, $`\rho `$ the energy density and $`A`$ is a positive constant. Chaplygin  introduced his equation of state in 1904 as a convenient solvable model for studying the aerodynamic lifting force on a plane wing.

Chaplygin gas may be an adequate description for plane lifting. However, the importance of its role in cosmology has yet to be proven .

## VIII DO PRIMORDIAL GRAVITATIONAL WAVES EXIST?

For a given potential that could have been capable of creating the inflation era, $`V(\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is a scalar field called an inflaton, the creation of gravitational waves (tensor fluctuations) as well as density fluctuations (scalar fluctuations) are predicted by the Inflation Theory (see e.g., Lidsey et al.  for a review). Since the Inflation Theory was so successful in predicting the approximate scale-invariant distribution of density fluctuations, which is, indeed, observed in the CMB and the LSS, it is to be hoped that it will have equal success in predicting the gravitational wave spectrum, which requires data of a higher precision, not yet available. Precision spectra of the CMB are expected to be obtained in the near future, so that a better comparison with predictions can be made. These precision spectra of the CMB may also provide information about the possible creation of gravitational waves in phase transitions (e.g., quark-hadron, electroweak, etc.) in the primordial universe.

In the formation of the first objects (discussed in Section X), a certain fraction of the mass of the first objects formed black holes, emitting gravitational waves in the process. These waves could be detected by a sufficiently sensitive pair of gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGOs (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatories), which are under construction, or LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna), which is in the planning stage.

## IX DO UHECR HAVE A COSMOLOGICAL ORIGIN?

At the present time, the origin of UHECR $`>10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$ remains a mystery. Whereas their isotropic distribution indicates a cosmological origin, the GZK cutoff points to a local origin $`(<50\mathrm{Mpc}\mathrm{h}^1,`$ where $`h=H_0/100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{pc}}^1`$). It is generally assumed that UHECR are protons. The GZK cutoff is due to the strong damping of protons $`>10^{20}\mathrm{eV},`$ which have damping lengths of $`50\mathrm{Mpc}\mathrm{h}^1,`$ as a result of their interaction with CMB photons. However, the distribution of strong radio galaxies, which could be the astrophysical sources of UHECR, is not isotropic within $`50\mathrm{Mpc}\mathrm{h}^1.`$ In fact, within this distance, there is only one powerful radio source (in the Virgo cluster) that could be the origin of UHECR. One way to avoid the GZK cutoff and, at the same time, explain the approximately isotropic distribution, is to assume that UHECR are due to the decay of extremely massive particles $`(m>10^{20}\mathrm{eV})`$ in our halo, which were produced in the primordial universe. These particles could, in principle, have been created in the period of the post-inflation era, when reheating took place, along with all the other known matter. However, in that period, the temperature is thought to have been $`10^{20}\mathrm{eV},`$ making it impossible for these extremely massive particles to have been created then. Therefore, their creation must have occured in the post-inflation era, but before the beginning of the reheating era, for which various mechanisms have been suggested (see for example Chung, Kolb, and Riotto ).

## X WHEN, WHERE, AND HOW DID THE FIRST OBJECTS FORM?

The recent WMAP CMB data indicate that the first objects formed at a redshift $`20.`$ To understand the formation of the first objects, we must understand the physics of collapse, production of relativistic particles, effects of turbulence, and the formation of low-mass objects, among other important processes at a redshift $`20`$, when the universe had negligible metalicity (i.e., no dust for cooling) and the average baryon density of the universe was $`9,300`$ times greater than it is today.

### A Collapse

In the past, studies of the collapse of a cloud, out of which, the first objects were formed, were primarily based on gravitational effects. There are, however, important plasma effects which must be taken into account when treating collapse after the recombination era. The introduction of plasma effects in the treatment of collapse after the recombination era was first begun by de Araujo and Opher in 1988  and continued later by Haiman, Rees, and Loeb in 1996  and Tegmark et al. in 1997 .

Plasma effects could have made themselves felt by aiding or interfering with the collapse process of a cloud in a variety of ways.

1. Photon-drag, the scattering of electrons by CMB photons in the collapsing cloud, would have slowed down the collapse process.
2. Photon cooling, the scattering of the electrons by the cooler CMB photons in the cloud, would have acted to prevent the heating of the cloud, thus aiding the collapse process.
3. The formation (destruction) of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ molecules, the prime primordial coolant at $`T<10^4\mathrm{K}`$ and essential for the collapse of objects, would have aided (interfered with) the collapse process.
4. Primordial magnetic field effects (see Section IV) would have been felt in two ways: (1) magnetic pressure acting to prevent collapse; (2) emission of torsional Alfvén waves or rotating jets, reducing the angular momentum of the first objects and, thereby, aiding the collapse process.
5. A thermal instability creating a two-phase region in pressure equilibrium, with one region at a high temperature and a low density and the other region at a low temperature and a high density, could have aided the collapse process. If the low temperature-high density region were to have had a mass greater than the Jeans mass, it would have gravitationally collapsed.

### B Production of Relativistic Particles

Particles were accelerated in the early universe by shocks due to: (1) primordial explosions (e.g., primordial supernovae); (2) accretion in the formation of the first objects; or (3) the collision of primordial galaxies. Galactic supernovae shocks are the accepted source of cosmic rays of energies $`10^{15}\mathrm{eV}.`$ In the linear treatment of shocks, in which the pressure of the accelerated particles is neglected, a power-law energy distribution of cosmic rays is predicted, as is, in fact, observed. However, the linear treatment predicts the growth of the particle pressure until it becomes greater than that of the gas for strong shocks, which is clearly impossible. Thus, a non-linear theory, which includes the pressure of the accelerated particles as well as that of the Alfven waves, which scatter the particles, is required. In a non-linear treatment of strong shocks, Medina-Tanco and Opher  showed that more than 50% of the kinetic energy of the gas can be transfered to the accelerated particles. The radiation from the accelerated particles produced by the primordial shocks could, in principle, be observed in the microwave, infrared, X-ray, and gamma-ray background radiation.

### C Turbulence

The effect of turbulence in the primordial universe is particularly important since it can transfer energy from small to large scales in, what is known as, an inverse energy cascade, which may have been important in the formation of the first objects. Studying the turbulence in a nearby large HII extragalactic cloud (radius $`80\mathrm{pc}`$), within which, there are a few very massive hot stars heating up small volumes, Medina-Tanco et al.  showed, for the first time in an object outside of the solar system, evidence for an inverse energy cascade. In this case, energy deposited in a region $`10\mathrm{pc}`$ by the massive hot stars is being transferred to the edge of the cloud, a region at a distance $`80\mathrm{pc}`$ away. In the process of the collapse of large clouds to form the first objects, large amounts of energy also heated up small regions. If inverse energy cascades were to have formed, energy would have been transferred outwards, so that turbulence would have played an important role in energy transfer during the formation of the first objects.

### D Formation of Low-Mass Objects

Part of the first objects formed could have had low masses ($`<M_{}`$). Such objects, whose formation is yet to be understood, include MACHOS (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) and planetary objects.

Using micro-gravitational lensing, MACHOS, which do not emit light, appear to have masses $`0.5M_{}`$ . An object $`0.5M_{}`$ that does not emit light could, in principle, be a dead white dwarf. However, the number of MACHOs is $`100`$ times that of expected dead white dwarfs. Furthermore, such a large number of dead white dwarfs would have produced many more heavy elements during their lifetimes than are, in fact, observed. The only known $`0.5M_{}`$ object that passed through stellar evolution and no longer emits light is a dead white dwarf. Thus, MACHOs appear to have been formed without passing through the stage of stellar nuclear burning. One possibility is that MACHOS’s are black holes, formed in the primordial universe. Another possibility is that they are very massive planets, formed by a thermal instability in the primordial universe.

The formation of isolated massive planets is just as mysterious as is the formation of MACHOs. Zapatero et al.  discovered isolated planetary objects $`5`$ Jupiter masses, which are not connected to any stars.

## XI DO WE LIVE IN A UNIVERSE WITH MORE THAN FOUR DIMENSIONS?

Various theories of unification involve more than four dimensions. Accordingly, cosmology theories with more than four dimensions have also appeared .

The Planck energy, $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$, at which gravitational quantum effects become important and the gravitational interaction becomes comparable to the electroweak interaction , is very much greater than $`\mathrm{TeV}`$, the unification energy of the electroweak interaction. Introducing extra dimensions allows for the possibility of reducing the value of the Planck energy. Therefore, a theory of a universe with more than 4 dimensions was created, in which the new Planck energy is $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}\mathrm{TeV},`$ thus achieving the first step in the unification of gravitation with the electroweak interaction.

In this theory, our 4-D world, called a brane (from the word “membrane”), would be a part of such a universe. The existence of the rest of the universe would not be perceived as long as we are observing non-gravitational interactions, which take place in four dimensions. However, gravitation is the one interaction that can penetrate into the extra dimensional part of the universe and interact with it. This interaction enables us to be made aware of the rest of the universe outside of our brane.

The value of the new Planck energy is directly related to the number and size of the extra dimensions. If $`R_n`$ is the size of the $`n`$ extra dimensions, the relation between $`M_{\mathrm{PL}},`$ $`R_n,`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ in this theory is $`(M_{\mathrm{PL}}/M_{\mathrm{PL}})^2(R_nM_{\mathrm{PL}})^\mathrm{n}.`$ For distances $`R_n,`$ we use Newton’s law of gravitation, but modify it for distances $`R_n.`$ Thus, in order to achieve unification at the TeV energy with one extra dimension, we set $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and, using $`n=1,`$ obtain $`R_1=10^{13}\mathrm{cm}`$ from the above relation. However, this value of $`R_n`$ with $`n=1`$ violates observations in the solar system, which are correctly described by Newton’s law. Since $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ cannot be reduced to 1 TeV by means of only one extra dimension, an attempt at using two extra dimensions is currently being investigated in the laboratory. With $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`n=2,`$ we obtain $`R_21\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}.`$ Thus, we find that this extra dimension theory with $`n=2`$ predicts a modification of the gravitational interaction for very small distances.

Such a modification can affect nuclear reactions in cosmology and astrophysics as well as in the laboratory, when nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung with graviton (instead of photon) emission is involved. Gravitons are produced by nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, which has a temperature dependent cross-section $`(T/M_{\mathrm{PL}})^{n+2},`$ where $`T`$ is the temperature of the medium. Upper limits on graviton production from observations put restraints on the theory.

Applying this theory to Big Bang cosmology, in which the early universe was extremely hot, we must require that above a certain temperature $`T_{},`$ the extra dimensions be empty of energy density in order to avoid the production of too many gravitons. For $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`n=2`$ (worst case), we require that $`T_{}10\mathrm{MeV},`$ so that the expansion rate due to the extra gravitons does not violate observations of the primordial nucleosynthesis of the light elements D, 3He, 4He, and 7Li, which occurred at $`T10.01\mathrm{MeV}.`$

The decay of gravitons into photons can affect the background photon radiation. This puts a limit on the production of primordial gravitational radiation, predicted in this theory of extra dimensions. Gravitons have an effective mass $`T_{}`$ and a lifetime $`T_{}^3`$ to decay into photons. For example, in order not to violate the 1 MeV ($`T_{}`$) photon background, we require that for $`n=2`$, $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}10\mathrm{TeV}.`$

Production of gravitons in extra dimensions could violate what we know about the sun. Nuclear reactions at the center of the sun produce a luminosity which is in approximate agreement with stellar evolution theory. Therefore, a large fraction of the energy produced by nuclear reactions cannot go into graviton production since this does not contribute to the optical luminosity. The sun releases energy at a rate $`\epsilon _s1\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{gm}^1\mathrm{s}^1.`$ In the nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung cross-section, $`(T/M_{\mathrm{PL}})^{n+2},`$ where $`T`$ is the central temperature of the sun, we require that $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}>30\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`n=2,`$ so that the cooling rate due to graviton emission is $`\epsilon _s.`$

Graviton production could also affect what we know about supernovae, where the central temperature is higher, making the limits imposed on this theory even stronger. For a supernova, such as SN1987a, the central temperature reaches $`T30\mathrm{MeV}.`$ In order for graviton production not to affect the optical luminosity, we require that for n=2, $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}>30\mathrm{TeV}.`$

Present laboratory accelerators produce center-of-mass energies $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}>1\mathrm{TeV},`$ putting strong limits on $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ . Effects of $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}>M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ could appear in two ways in accelerator experiments:

1. Due to graviton production, an apparent non-conservation of energy could occur.
2. Due to the effect of virtual gravitons in the interactions, an anomalous production of fermion-fermion pairs and/or diboson pairs could occur.

Abbott et al.  found that $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}>1.01.4\mathrm{TeV}`$ for $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}1.8\mathrm{TeV}.`$ Therefore we will have to wait for accelerators with higher $`E_{\mathrm{CM}},`$ in order to try to determine the value of $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}.`$ For $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}M_{\mathrm{PL}},`$ black holes and branes should be created in the laboratory and in the interaction of UHECR with the atmosphere . An example of brane production was given by Jain et al. . They suggested that neutrinos of energy $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ have very large cross sections due to the production of branes and that they could explain the observed UHECR (see Section IX).

Whereas the previous extra dimension theory dealt with modifications of short-range interactions (nuclear reactions at small distances (high energies)), we can try to create a different extra dimension theory (e.g., a 5-D theory with $`n=1`$), in which long-range interactions (gravitational) are modified, so as to treat the dark energy problem. In this new theory, the extra dimensions are felt in the region where $`R>R_1H_0^1`$. Here, the extra dimensions extend to infinity and are felt for distances $`>R_1`$. At such distances, the gravitational potential does not have a $`1/R`$ dependence (as in newtonian theory), but decreases as $`1/R^2.`$

Distances were $`R_1H_0^1`$ in the distant past, when the universe was much smaller. At that time, the normal newtonian gravitational interaction was valid, according to this theory. Now that the universe has a size $`R_1,`$ the gravitational potential energy is becoming weaker due to the penetration of gravitation into the extra dimension and, as a result, the matter in the universe is gaining kinetic energy and accelerating. In Section VII, we discussed the introduction of dark energy into cosmology to explain the observed acceleration of the universe. Here, the acceleration is explained by the existance of extra dimensions.

In this new extra dimension theory, the cosmological constant (vacuum energy) is taken to be zero. The new Einstein equation for the Hubble parameter as a function of $`z`$ has the form $`H^2/H_0^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{1/2}+[\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3]^{1/2}\}^2,`$ instead of $`H^2/H_0^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3`$ in the standard theory form, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_14R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=k/H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k=+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},1)`$. For large redshifts (in the distant past), the two equations are identical.

This 5-D theory can be tested by studying light distances to standard candles (e.g., SNIa). Comparing light distances in this theory with those in the popular quintessence models, in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3,`$ and $`w_xP_x/\rho _x>1`$ (see Section VII), it is found that for $`z24,`$ the light distance is $`9\%`$ greater in the 5-D theory than in the quintessence model for $`w_x=0.6`$ and $`3\%`$ greater than in the quintessence model for $`w_x=0.8.`$

A comparison between the 5-D theory and the SNIa data, was also made by Deffayet et al. . They found that $`R_1=1.2H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and that the beginning of the acceleration of the universe took place at $`z_A=0.8.`$ In agreement with Alcaniz , they found that acceleration started later (smaller $`z`$) in the 5-D model than in quintessence or vacuum energy models (Section VII).

Deffayet et al.  found that the 5-D theory can be made to resemble a quintessence model (i.e., a 4D model) by the introduction of an effective $`w_x(z).`$ This $`w_x(z)`$ varies with redshift as $`w_x(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_M)^13/4`$ for small $`z`$ and as $`w_x1/2`$ for large $`z`$.

Based on a theory of extra dimensions, a cyclical cosmological model of the universe, with the universe oscillating forever between big crunches-big bangs and maximum expansions, was suggested by Steinhardt and Turok . This extra dimension model can be described in 4 dimensions, with an effective scalar field $`\varphi `$ representing the penetration of gravitation into other dimensions . The $`\varphi `$ field has a potential, $`V(\varphi )(1\mathrm{e}^{C\varphi }),`$ where $`C`$ is a constant and the form $`\mathrm{e}^{C\varphi }`$ comes from extra dimension theories. This model also includes a function $`\beta (\varphi )`$ that describes the interaction of $`\varphi `$ with matter and radiation.

Thus, it appears that many different greater than 4-D theories can be created with the justification that they are implied by extra-dimension theories of unification. However, it should be emphasized that, at the present time, no extra-dimension unification theory actually exists. It also should be noted that, although extra dimensions may be necessary in a complete theory of unification, they may not be needed in cosmology (e.g., it is not necessary to use general relativity to describe the trajectory of a rocket; newtonian theory is sufficient).

## XII SUMMARY

This lecture focused on some of what I consider to be the most important problems in cosmology today. We are still very far from the precision era of cosmology. No less than 96% of the universe is completely unknown to us. Existing cosmological theories are not able to fully explain the existing observational data and must be viewed as interesting and imaginative scenarios. The observations, themselves, are insufficient to provide a clear picture of just how the universe evolved after the Big Bang. We will have to wait for better observations in the future to help us develop a better theory, against which, we can test predictions.

## XIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the Brazilian agencies FAPESP (Proc. No. 00/06770-2), FINEP (Pronex No. 41.96.0908.00), and CNPq for partial support.