text:
# Mirror dark matter and large scale structure.

## I Introduction

The dark matter problem provides one of the strongest reasons to suspect the existence of physics beyond the standard model. We will explore the possibility that dark matter is mirror matter in this paper. Our objective is to understand the growth of density perturbations in the linear regime in such a universe, taking adiabatic scale-invariant perturbations as the input. In doing so, we both confirm and extend the results of Ref. z . By comparing mirror dark matter (MDM) with conventional cold, warm and hot dark matter (CDM, WDM and HDM, respectively), we hope to explain the physics of mirror dark matter in as clear a way as possible, and to pinpoint the data that are most sensitive to its characteristic features.

Before launching into the analysis, we should set the stage by briefly reviewing the evidence for non-baryonic dark matter, and explaining why we think mirror matter is an interesting candidate.

It is very well established that the dynamics of objects ranging in size from galaxies up to clusters of galaxies cannot be understood using standard gravity unless one postulates that invisible matter dominates over the visible by a factor of $`1030`$. (It is also logically possible that our understanding of gravity at large scales is incomplete milgrom , though we will not pursue that possibility here.) It has been known for some time that the conservative option of the dark material being simply ordinary matter in the form of non-luminous objects such as “Jupiters”, neutron stars, and so on, is ruled out if one accepts that the light elements H, D, 3,4He and 7Li were created through big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). The baryon-to-photon ratio is the one free parameter in standard BBN, and the value required to produce fair agreement with the primordial abundance data is a factor of five or so too small to account for all the dark matter required to successfully model the gravitational dynamics of clusters.111We prefer to add the electron-neutrino chemical potential to the baryon-to-photon ratio in the parameter count of BBN, with “standard BBN” then defined as the zero chemical potential line in a two-dimensional parameter space. Some quite persistent discrepancies in the data actually hint that a nonzero chemical potential may be necessary bbn . Ordinary baryonic dark matter is also inconsistent with successful large scale structure formation, principally because perturbation growth begins too late.222Large scale structure may be observationally probed via galaxy surveys surveys  and gravitational weak lensing weaklens . In addition, acoustic peak data from cosmic microwave background anisotropy measurements, including those very recently reported by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) collaboration, have independently pointed to a matter-to-baryon density ratio of about six wmap1 ; wmap2 . So, if one accepts standard hot big bang cosmology, then one must perforce accept the existence of non-baryonic dark matter.

Acknowledging the reality of non-baryonic dark matter, one can maintain conservatism by supposing that massive ordinary neutrinos provide the additional matter density. While this is a natural and obvious possibility, it runs foul of large scale structure data. A successful account of large scale structure, the concern of this paper and one of the most important problems in physics p , must be part of a successful cosmology. Neutrino dark matter is the archetype of HDM, inducing “top-down” structure formation whereby very large structures form first, with smaller ones arising from subsequent fragmentation. Hot dark matter driven “top-down” scenarios are now ruled out by the data: more structure is observed at small scales than possible with HDM (see, for instance, Refs. wmap2  and elgaroy ).

To sum up: the confluence of galactic/cluster dynamics, big bang nucleosynthesis, acoustic peak, gravitational lensing and large scale structure data strongly point to a universe whose material or positive-pressure component is roughly $`3\%`$ luminous baryonic, $`15\%`$ dark baryonic, and $`82\%`$ exotic. This is a remarkable conclusion.333Acoustic peak and other data also require the total matter density to be about $`30\%`$ of the critical value giving a spatially flat universe wmap1 ; wmap2 . With the strong evidence for flatness from the acoustic peak features, one is also obliged to add a $`70\%`$ non-material, negative-pressure component called “dark energy”, as also suggested by SN1a observations sn1a . Note also that much of the dark baryonic matter, for high red shifts, has now been detected through Lyman-$`\alpha `$ studies.

It is very interesting that the exotic dark component must consist of stable forms of matter, or at least extremely long-lived. While exotic unstable particles abound in extensions of the standard model, completely new stable degrees of freedom pose a more profound model-building challenge. The stability challenge is fully met by mirror matter.

The mirror matter model arose from the aesthetic desire to retain the improper Lorentz transformations as exact invariances of nature despite the $`VA`$ character of weak interactions ly ; flv ; blin .444Alternative motivations include E$`{}_{8}{}^{}`$E8 string theory, and brane-world constructions such as the “manyfold” universe ah . It does so by postulating that, first, the gauge group of the world is a product of two isomorphic factors, $`GG`$, and, second, that an exact discrete $`Z_2`$ parity symmetry, unbroken by the vacuum, interchanges the two sectors.555For the alternative of spontaneously broken mirror symmetry see Refs. spon . The minimal mirror matter model takes $`G`$ to be simply the standard model gauge group SU(3)$``$SU(2)$``$U(1). All ordinary particles except the graviton receive a mirror partner. A mirror particle has the same mass as the corresponding ordinary particle, and mirror particles interact amongst themselves in the same way that ordinary particles do, except that mirror weak interactions are right-handed rather than left-handed.

The two sectors must interact with each other gravitationally, with certain other interaction channels also generally open, though controlled by free parameters that can be arbitrarily small. The possible non-gravitational interactions include photon–mirror-photon kinetic mixing flv ; pos , neutrino–mirror-neutrino mass mixing flv2 , and Higgs-boson–mirror-Higgs-boson mixing flv ; higgs . We will assume, for simplicity, that all of these parameters are small enough to be neglected. (One should bear in mind, however, that photon–mirror-photon kinetic mixing can cause remarkable phenomena even with a controlling parameter as small as $`10^610^9`$ pos ; tung .)

Mirror protons and mirror electrons are stable for exactly the same reason that ordinary matter is stable. One would expect that mirror matter would have existed in the cosmological plasma of the early universe. If so, mirror matter relics in the form of gas clouds, planets, stars, galaxies and so on might well be common in the universe today, manifesting observationally as dark matter. Most prior work on MDM, with the notable exception of Ref. z , has focussed on the astrophysical phenomenology of compact mirror matter objects, hybrid ordinary-mirror systems, and diffuse mirror matter gas/dust in our own solar system tung ; mirrorastro . The discovery of mirror matter through such means would, obviously, be a major breakthrough. In this paper, however, we turn to the other generic purpose of dark matter: to assist the growth of density perturbations in the early universe, thus initiating large scale structure formation. We want, ultimately, to know if mirror dark matter is consistent with large scale structure data, and, if it is, to develop observables that can discriminate between MDM and the current paradigm of collisionless CDM (and whatever other candidates might be dreamed up).

From the macroscopic perspective, mirror matter is a much more complicated dark matter candidate than standard CDM particles such as axions and WIMPs.666We emphasise that the microscopic theory is by contrast very simple. Rather than just one species of particle, mirror dark matter is chemically complicated, consisting of all the mirror analogues of ordinary matter: protons, neutrons and electrons. Further, MDM is self-interacting, and a background of mirror photons and mirror neutrinos interacts with the mirror-baryonic matter. However, since (i) the self-interactions of the mirror particles are by construction identical to those of ordinary particles except for the chirality flip, and (ii) the interaction between ordinary and mirror matter is by assumption dominated by standard gravity, the MDM universe can be analysed through well-defined physics despite the complex nature of the dark sector.777Initial conditions must also be supplied (see the next section). It is not necessarily a virtue for DM to consist of a single exotic species such as a WIMP or axion. Indeed, in their recent review Peebles and Ratra peebles  emphasised that standard CDM can be viewed as the calculationally simplest DM scenario that, in broad terms, is phenomenologically acceptable, but which may be subject to revision or replacement when more detailed large scale structure data are collected. They then point out that certain data already challenge standard CDM on points of detail, though they caution that these discrepancies might in the end be due to calculational problems only. We take the view that all well-motivated standard model extensions supplying stable exotic species should be investigated for their DM potential.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In Sec. II, we review the elements of cosmology in a universe with mirror matter, and explain why there need not be a $`50/50`$ mixture of ordinary and mirror matter. Sections III and IV then discuss two key scales in the perturbation evolution problem: the Jeans length and Silk scale for mirror baryons. The former determines the scale at which sub-horizon sized modes can begin to grow in the dark matter (mirror) sector, while the latter determines the scale below which growth is damped. Section V discusses the outcomes of the linear growth regime through final processed spectra for mirror dark matter perturbations. It also discusses Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest data, CMBR anisotropy and early reionisation. We conclude in Sec. VI.

## II Cosmology with mirror dark matter

We begin by dispelling a common misconception regarding mirror matter. One might naïvely expect that the exact discrete symmetry between the ordinary and mirror sectors in the Lagrangian would require the universe to contain, and to have always contained, a precisely $`50/50`$ mixture of ordinary and mirror particles. Such a universe would be inconsistent with the standard cosmological framework. First, the doubling of the universal expansion rate due to mirror photons, neutrinos and antineutrinos would completely spoil big bang nucleosynthesis. Even if some way could be found to counteract the additional relativistic species888A coincident epoch with a temporarily negative cosmological constant of the right magnitude perhaps sorkin ?, there would be a second objection. As we reviewed above, observations favour a DM to baryon density ratio of about five, comfortably larger than two.

So, does an exact discrete mirror symmetry at the microscopic level of fundamental interactions imply that the ordinary and mirror matter densities in the universe must always be equal kst ? In one sense, it is trivial to see that the answer is “No”. One may simply adopt asymmetric initial conditions at the big bang. In that case, the temperature $`T^{}`$ of the mirror plasma in the early universe, and the background mirror photons today $`T_0^{}`$, is different from that of the ordinary plasma, $`T`$, and the ordinary cosmic microwave background photons today, $`T_0`$. One of the fundamental parameters in our cosmology will therefore be

$$x\frac{T_0^{}}{T_0}.$$
(1)
Since the energy density of relativistic species goes as the fourth power of temperature, the contribution of the light mirror degrees of freedom to the cosmological density is strongly suppressed by $`x^4`$. Even a small difference between the temperatures, such as a factor of $`1/2`$, is enough to comply with the BBN upper bound on extra relativistic energy density. This removes the first objection to mirror matter cosmology.

One might be uncomfortable with ascribing the macroscopic asymmetry of the universe to asymmetric initial conditions. However, standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology already has a raft of problems associated with initial conditions: homogeneity, spatial flatness, etc. One approach to those problems is, of course, inflationary cosmology. Interestingly, prior work has shown that inflation can also effectively initialise a mirror matter universe to have $`T^{}T`$ kst ; hodges . One way is to introduce a mirror inflaton to partner the ordinary inflaton within the chaotic inflation paradigm. Since the stochastic processes germinating inflation will not comply with the discrete symmetry on an event-by-event basis, the main result follows.

What about the second objection to mirror matter cosmology? Given that $`T^{}<T`$, one might conclude that the mirror baryons would have a correspondingly lower density than their ordinary counterparts, thus exacerbating the problem of not enough MDM. This conclusion would be true if the magnitudes of the baryon asymmetries in the two sectors were equal.

However, we have to take into account that the inequality of temperatures of ordinary and mirror matter will in general change the outcome of baryogenesis in the two sectors, even though the microphysics is the same hodges . One expects in fact that

$$\eta ^{}\frac{n_B^{}}{n_\gamma ^{}}\frac{n_B}{n_\gamma }\eta ,$$
(2)
where $`n_X`$ is the number density of ordinary species $`X`$ and $`n_X^{}`$ is the number density of mirror species $`X^{}`$. (We denote the mirror partner to a given particle by a prime.) The ratio of mirror baryon and ordinary baryon number densities can be written as

$$\frac{n_B^{}}{n_B}=\frac{\eta ^{}}{\eta }x^3.$$
(3)
Because the baryons and mirror baryons have equal rest masses and are highly non-relativistic for the epochs we consider, this quantity is also approximately the energy density ratio,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_B}\frac{\eta ^{}}{\eta }x^3,$$
(4)
where, as usual, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ denotes the energy density of $`X`$ in units of the critical density. In Refs. hodges ; z , it was shown that the mirror baryon asymmetry can be greater than the ordinary baryon asymmetry, and can in fact overwhelm the $`x^3`$ factor in Eq. (4):

$$\frac{\eta ^{}}{\eta }>\frac{1}{x^3}.$$
(5)
Two quite different baryogenesis scenarios were analysed in Ref. z : the out-of-equilibrium baryon-number violating decays of massive bosons and electroweak baryogenesis. Interestingly, in both cases $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}>\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ with an acceptable $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ could be obtained provided that

$$x\stackrel{>}{}0.01.$$
(6)
We will use this value as an indicative lower limit to cosmologically interesting values of $`x`$. It obviously should not be taken as definitive, because we do not yet know what baryogenesis mechanism actually operates in nature. (A new mechanism involving mirror matter has been very recently proposed in Ref. fv03 .)

Motivated by the above results, we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}/\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ as the second free parameter in our cosmology, fixed only by observational data.

Before moving on, we should deal with a third possible objection to mirror dark matter, this one based on the results of recent works constraining self-interacting CDM. Recall that an extension of standard CDM through self-interactions was proposed to circumvent the problem of overdense cores for some types of galaxies idm . The required properties were that the elastic scattering cross-section of DM particle on DM particle should lie in the interval $`\sigma /M10^{23}10^{24}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}/`$GeV, and the DM should remain dissipationless. These constraints are violated by MDM because it is dissipative and, if we take an atomic hydrogen cross-section as a guide, then the self-interaction strength is too high. However, the two cases are not directly comparable. The evolution of MDM is much more complicated than that of the self-interacting CDM considered in Ref. idm . For instance, MDM would form more intrinsic structure (mirror stars and other compact objects) than self-interacting CDM, so it is not just a question of scattering cross-sections. Exactly what sorts of compact mirror matter objects would form, and how they would be distributed, is a very complicated question beyond the scope of this work. This development will not parallel that of the ordinary sector. For instance, one of the key parameters affecting the galaxy formation process – the rate of star creation – will be different because primordial nucleosynthesis in the mirror sector will produce much more mirror helium relative to mirror hydrogen than is the case for their ordinary analogues z .

Let us see how the main cosmological equations are changed by the presence of mirror matter z . The Friedmann equation for a flat universe becomes

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho _{tot},$$
(7)
where $`\rho _{tot}`$ is the total energy density, ordinary plus mirror (plus vacuum)

$$\rho _{tot}=\rho +\rho ^{}+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(8)
and the Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ where $`a`$ is the scale factor. In terms of the present-day energy densities, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,m,\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for radiation, matter and vacuum, respectively, and the present-day Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ (the so-called Hubble constant), the Friedmann equation can be rewritten as

$$H(z)^2=H_0^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_r(1+z)^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]$$
(9)
where $`z`$ is red-shift. (We include the vacuum energy contribution for completeness and self-consistency only. Its effects are negligible for the early universe epoch we will consider.)

The present energy density of relativistic particles, $`\rho _r`$, is the sum of contributions from ordinary photons, mirror photons, and presently relativistic neutrinos and mirror neutrinos. It is given by

$$\rho _r=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}[g_{}(T_0)T_0^4+g_{}^{}(T_0^{})T_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}]=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{}(T_0)T_0^4(1+x^4),$$
(10)
where $`g_{}(T_0)`$ and $`g_{}^{}(T_0)`$ are the effective numbers of relativistic degrees of freedom in the ordinary and mirror sectors respectively:

$$g_{}(T_0)=g_{}^{}(T_0^{})2(1+0.23N_0^{rel\nu }).$$
(11)
The number of presently non-relativistic neutrino flavours, $`N_0^{rel\nu }`$, is either zero or one, depending on whether the neutrino masses are degenerate or hierarchical, respectively. From Eq. (10) we see that the contribution of mirror particles to the relativistic energy density can be neglected at all times because $`x^41`$ due to the BBN constraint $`x\stackrel{<}{}0.5`$.

Observations require us to take the mirror baryons to dominate the total present-day matter density, viz.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_B+\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}.$$
(12)
After WMAP, the favoured range at $`68\%`$ C.L. is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^20.14\pm 0.02,$$
(13)
where $`h0.72`$ is the Hubble constant key  in units of $`\overline{H}100`$ km/s.Mpc. For future convenience, we will use

$$y\frac{0.14}{\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2}$$
(14)
instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}/\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ as the second a priori free parameter in our mirror matter cosmology. The $`3\sigma `$ preferred range for $`y`$ is $`0.71.75`$ wmap2 .

There are a number of the critical moments in the process of perturbation growth. One of them occurs when the universe is equally dominated by radiation and matter. The corresponding redshift, $`z_{eq}`$, is found from

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma +\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma ^{})(1+z_{eq})^4+\frac{\rho _{rel\nu }(z_{eq})}{\rho _c}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z_{eq})^3,$$
(15)
where $`\rho _{rel\nu }(z)`$ is the energy density in relativistic neutrinos at matter-radiation equality. Using Eq. (10), the observed present-day background photon temperature and $`x1`$, this evaluates to

$$1+z_{eq}\frac{5500}{y\xi },$$
(16)
where

$$\xi 1+\frac{7}{8}\left(\frac{4}{11}\right)^{4/3}N^{rel\nu }1+0.23N^{rel\nu },$$
(17)
with $`N^{rel\nu }`$ denoting the number of relativistic neutrino flavours at the designated moment. For the epoch prior to ordinary photon decoupling, it is most likely that all three neutrino mass eigenstates are always relativistic, so we will set $`\xi 1.69`$ in all of our numerical estimates. Adopting this, Eq. (16) becomes

$$1+z_{eq}\frac{3300}{y}$$
(18)
yielding $`z_{eq}`$ in the range $`19004600`$ from the $`3\sigma `$ allowed interval for $`y`$.

Two other critical moments are matter-radiation decoupling in the ordinary and mirror sectors. The exponential factor in the Saha equation describing decoupling implies that these events occur at about the same temperature z , $`T_{dec}T_{dec}^{}`$, so that

$$1+z_{dec}^{}\frac{1+z_{dec}}{x}\frac{1100}{x}.$$
(19)
Matter-radiation decoupling in the mirror sector precedes that in the ordinary sector because of the temperature hierarchy $`x<1`$. In the following, it turns out that we will have to consider two cases defined by $`x>x_{eq}`$ and $`x<x_{eq}`$, where

$$x_{eq}0.34y.$$
(20)
The distinction follows from Eqs. (16) and (19): for $`x>x_{eq}`$, mirror radiation-matter decoupling occurs during the matter-dominated epoch, while for $`x<x_{eq}`$ it occurs during the radiation dominated epoch. Numerically, $`x_{eq}`$ takes values in the approximate interval $`0.240.6`$ (the upper end of this range is disfavoured by BBN).

## III The Jeans length

The Jeans length for mirror matter determines the minimum scale at which sub-horizon sized perturbations in the mirror matter will start to grow through the gravitational instability in the matter-dominated epoch. The mirror baryon perturbations begin growing first, with the perturbations in the ordinary matter catching up subsequently. This process is similar to the standard CDM scenario, with the points of difference to be discussed later.

Physically, the Jeans length sets the scale at which the gravitational force starts to dominate the pressure force. It is defined as the scale at which the sound travel time across a lump is equal to the gravitational free-fall time inside the lump. The Jeans length for mirror matter is given by

$$\lambda _J^{}(z)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }v_s^{}(z)(1+z)}{\sqrt{G\rho _{tot}(z)}},$$
(21)
where $`v_s^{}(z)`$ is the sound speed in the mirror matter, and the $`(1+z)`$ factor translates the physical scale at the time of redshift $`(1+z)`$ to the present time.

Let us examine the mirror matter Jeans length for the period between mirror-neutrino decoupling and mirror-photon decoupling. The sound speed is calculated from

$$(v_s^{})^2=\frac{dp^{}}{d\rho ^{}}$$
(22)
where the pressure is dominated by the contribution from mirror photons, $`p^{}\rho _\gamma ^{}/3`$, and the relevant density is given by

$$\rho ^{}=\rho _\gamma ^{}+\rho _B^{}.$$
(23)
Using $`\rho _\gamma ^{}T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$ and $`\rho _B^{}T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$, we see that

$$(v_s^{})^2=\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{1+\frac{3}{4}\frac{\rho _B^{}}{\rho _\gamma ^{}}}.$$
(24)
To transform the sound speed expression into a more useful form, we first note that

$$\frac{\rho _B^{}(z)}{\rho _\gamma ^{}(z)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma ^{}}\frac{1}{1+z}.$$
(25)
Then, from the definition of $`z_{eq}`$ as given by Eq. (15), we obtain that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma }(1+z_{eq})(1+x^4)\xi .$$
(26)
Using $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, we therefore deduce that

$$\frac{\rho _B^{}(z)}{\rho _\gamma ^{}(z)}=\xi \frac{1+z_{eq}}{1+z}\left(\frac{1}{x^4}+1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma }\frac{1}{(1+z)x^4}.$$

For our purposes it will be good enough to make the approximations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`1/x^41`$, so that $`\rho _B^{}(z)/\rho _\gamma ^{}(z)\xi (1+z_{eq})/[x^4(1+z)]`$. It is easy to check that $`3\rho _B^{}/4\rho _\gamma ^{}1`$ for the epoch of interest. Using these approximations, Eq. (24) yields

$$v_s^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{2x^2\xi }{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{1+z}{1+z_{eq}}}.$$
(27)
Observe that the sound speed in the mirror photon-baryon plasma is approximately proportional to $`x^2`$: the low mirror sector temperature suppresses the sound speed by diluting the relativistic component of the mirror plasma z .

Substituting Eq. (27) in Eq. (21) and evaluating the resulting expression we obtain

$$\lambda _J^{}(z)\frac{2.1\times 10^4}{\sqrt{2+z+z_{eq}}}x^2y^{1/2}\mathrm{Mpc},$$
(28)
which implies that

$$\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})260x^2y\mathrm{Mpc},$$
(29)
and

$$\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{})\sqrt{\frac{2x}{x+x_{eq}}}\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(30)
Beware that if mirror photon decoupling occurs before matter-radiation equality ($`z_{dec}^{}>z_{eq}`$, $`x<x_{eq}`$), then Eq. (29) is inapplicable. The mirror baryon Jeans length plummets to very low values after mirror photon decoupling, because the pressure supplied by the relativistic component of the mirror plasma disappears, and the sound speed greatly decreases.

## IV The Silk scale

For the case of mirror dark matter, perturbations on scales smaller than a characteristic length $`\lambda _S^{}`$ will be washed out by the collisional or Silk damping that arises while mirror photons decouple from the mirror baryons silk . The microphysics of this process is identical to that of Silk damping in a universe containing only ordinary baryons. We use the latter (imaginary) universe as a familiar reference.

Elementary considerations involving photon diffusion may be used to estimate that in our baryonic reference universe, the Silk scale is given by

$$(\lambda _S^0)^2=\frac{3}{5}\frac{t_{dec}^0\lambda _\gamma (t_{dec}^0)}{(a_{dec}^0)^2},$$
(31)
where $`t_{dec}^0`$ is the photon decoupling time, $`\lambda _\gamma `$ the photon mean free path, and $`a_{dec}^0`$ the scale factor at decoupling. The mean free path is given by

$$\lambda _\gamma =\frac{1}{X_en_e\sigma _T},$$
(32)
where $`X_e`$ is the electron ionisation fraction at decoupling (so that $`X_en_e`$ is the total number density of free electrons) and $`\sigma _T=8\pi \alpha ^2/(3m_e^2)`$ is the Thomson scattering cross-section. Using $`n_en_B`$, this expression yields

$$\lambda _\gamma \frac{Gm_Bm_e^2}{\overline{H}^2\alpha ^2}\frac{1}{X_e}\frac{1}{(1+z_{dec})^3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2}.$$
(33)
Using $`X_e0.1`$, $`a_{dec}^0z_{dec}1100`$, and incorporating some refinements, one obtains the estimate

$$\lambda _S^02.5(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2)^{3/4}\mathrm{Mpc}$$
(34)
for our reference baryonic universe kt .

The mirror matter Silk length at mirror photon decoupling can be obtained by deducing how the various quantities in Eq. (31) scale with $`x`$. The results depend on whether mirror photon decoupling occurs before or after matter-radiation equality, i.e. whether $`x<x_{eq}`$ or $`x>x_{eq}`$, respectively \[see Eq. (20)\].

### IV.1 Case I: $`x>x_{eq}`$

The sequence of events in this case is:

1. Matter-radiation equality occurs at redshift $`z_{eq}`$.
2. At a smaller redshift $`z_{dec}^{}`$ mirror photons decouple from mirror baryons.
3. Later still, at $`z=z_{dec}`$, ordinary photon decoupling occurs.

After $`z=z_{eq}`$, perturbation growth is no longer damped by the expansion rate, but it is still retarded by mirror-photon induced pressure. The latter disappears at $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$, and perturbations above the scale $`\lambda _S^{}`$ (determined below) begin to grow in the mirror sector. After $`z=z_{dec}`$, ordinary photon pressure stops preventing the ordinary baryons from falling into the potential wells created by the now growing perturbations in the mirror baryons.

To evaluate the Silk scale, we note that

$$\frac{t_{dec}^{}}{t_{dec}^0}=\frac{t_{dec}^{}}{t_{dec}}=\left(\frac{a_{dec}^{}}{a_{dec}}\right)^{3/2}=\left(\frac{1+z_{dec}}{1+z_{dec}^{}}\right)^{3/2}=x^{3/2},$$
(35)
where $`t_{dec}`$ is the actual photon decoupling time. The expression for $`\lambda _\gamma `$ tells us that

$$\frac{\lambda _\gamma ^{}}{\lambda _\gamma }=\left(\frac{1+z_{dec}}{1+z_{dec}^{}}\right)^3=x^3.$$
(36)
Hence,

$$\lambda _S^{}=x^{5/4}\lambda _S^0,$$
(37)
where it is understood that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in the expression for $`\lambda _S^0`$. Observe that the mirror Silk scale is suppressed relative to the reference universe analogue by the temperature ratio to the stated power.

Numerically, we find that

$$\lambda _S^{}(x>x_{eq})11x^{5/4}y^{3/4}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(38)
### IV.2 Case II: $`x<x_{eq}`$

In this case, the mirror photon decoupling has occurred prior to matter-radiation equality, so perturbation growth in the mirror sector begins at $`z=z_{eq}`$. Scaling arguments that we will suppress establish that the mirror Silk length is given by

$$\lambda _S^{}=\lambda _S^0x_{eq}^{1/4}x^{3/2}$$
(39)
for this situation. Once again, the temperature ratio decreases the scale from that of the reference model. Numerically,

$$\lambda _S^{}(x<x_{eq})14x^{3/2}y^{1/2}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(40)
## V Processed power spectra for mirror dark matter

Having obtained the values of the characteristic scales for our problem, we are now in a position to qualitatively discuss the shapes of the MDM processed power spectra in the linear regime, treating cases I and II defined above separately.

### V.1 Processed power spectrum for case I: $`x>x_{eq}`$

Figures 1 and 2 schematically depict the processed power spectrum in MDM when $`x>x_{eq}`$ at the two important moments of matter radiation equality ($`z=z_{eq}`$) and mirror photon decoupling ($`z=z_{dec}^{}`$), respectively. The vertical axes are $`\mathrm{log}(\delta \rho _B^{}/\rho _B^{})_\lambda `$, the logarithm of the mirror baryon density perturbation at scale $`\lambda `$, at these two moments, plotted as functions of $`\mathrm{log}(\lambda /\mathrm{arbitrary}\mathrm{scale})`$. We will now explain how these “cartoons” arise.

A number of scales are highlighted along the horizontal axis. The largest of these is $`\lambda _{eq}`$, the horizon scale at $`z=z_{eq}`$, which is easily found to be given by

$$\lambda _{eq}130y\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(41)
Scales smaller than $`\lambda _{eq}`$ have already entered the horizon and have thus been processed by gravitationally-driven growth and microphysical effects such as Silk damping. Perturbations on super-horizon sized scales obey $`(\delta \rho /\rho )_\lambda \lambda ^2`$ for the usual reason, the prior period having been radiation dominated.

The next scale is the mirror baryon Jeans mass, as given by Eq. (29). Notice that the BBN bound $`x\stackrel{<}{}0.5`$ guarantees that the mirror baryon Jeans scale is always within the horizon at matter-radiation equality. The (sub-horizon sized) perturbations between $`\lambda _{eq}`$ and $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$ have grown only logarithmically because of radiation dominance.

The spectrum peaks at $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$. Below that scale, the perturbations are oscillatory and suppressed, being washed out completely below the Silk scale $`\lambda _S^{}(z_{eq})`$. To understand the detailed behaviour in this interval, we need to look more closely at the evolution of the perturbations.

Before doing so, however, we should pause to note the similarities and differences between Case I MDM and CDM. For scales $`\lambda >\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$, the processed spectrum is identical to that of CDM. Below $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$, however, the story is different. Recall that the CDM spectrum maintains its slow logarithmic rise as $`\lambda `$ decreases below $`\lambda _{eq}`$ until extremely small scales. This is because both the Jeans and free-streaming lengths for WIMP CDM are extremely small, the former because there is no pressure support to fight, and the latter because the WIMPs are very massive and thus slow-moving. For all practical purposes, CDM just has two regimes ($`\lambda `$ larger or smaller than $`\lambda _{eq}`$), while the physically richer MDM has four.

We now turn to the relatively complicated behaviour in the interval $`\lambda _S^{}(z_{eq})<\lambda <\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$. Consider the time evolution of a perturbation at scale $`\lambda `$ within this interval. A relevant consideration is whether or not $`\lambda `$ was smaller or larger than the Jeans length at the $`\lambda `$ horizon-crossing time. One can compute that

$$z_{ent}(\lambda )\frac{4.6\times 10^5}{\lambda /\mathrm{Mpc}},$$
(42)
with Eq. (28) then yielding

$$\lambda _J^{}(z_{ent}(\lambda ))\frac{360x^2y}{\sqrt{1+\frac{130y}{\lambda /\mathrm{Mpc}}}}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(43)
The special scale $`\lambda _C`$ which is equal to the Jeans length at $`z_{ent}(\lambda _C)`$ is then

$$\lambda _C140y\left(1+\sqrt{1+6x^4}\right)\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(44)
For $`\lambda >\lambda _C`$, the scale is larger than $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{ent}(\lambda ))`$, otherwise it is smaller. Perturbations on scales $`\lambda _S^{}<\lambda <\lambda _C`$ therefore start to oscillate about their horizon-entry values upon entering inside the horizon; the averaged power spectrum is flat within this interval.

Perturbations on scales $`\lambda _C<\lambda <\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$ exhibit more complicated behaviour. Upon entering the horizon, the perturbation begins to grow (logarithmically) slowly. But the Jeans length increases as $`z`$ decreases, and at some moment $`z=z_{end}`$ it overtakes $`\lambda `$. One may estimate that

$$\frac{z_{ent}(\lambda )}{z_{end}(\lambda )}\frac{(\lambda /\mathrm{Mpc})y}{920x^4y^20.008(\lambda /\mathrm{Mpc})^2}.$$
(45)
The larger this ratio, the larger the perturbation growth. It is easy to see that the ratio in fact increases monotonically from $`\lambda =\lambda _c`$ until $`\lambda =\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$, which means that the growth factor for the perturbation also grows in this interval. This completes the explanation of the qualitative features of Fig. 1.

Figure 2 depicts the processed spectrum at the other critical moment: mirror photon decoupling at $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$. After this moment, the mirror Jeans and Silk lengths fall to very small values, and of course the universe is now matter dominated. Perturbations at all scales therefore begin to grow in proportion to the cosmological scale factor $`a`$, the processed spectrum retaining its $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$ shape (until linearity breaks down).

Many of the qualitative features of Fig. 2 have the same explanation as their counterparts in Fig. 1. There are some differences, though. Perturbations on scales larger than $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{})`$ \[see Eq. (30)\] grow linearly with $`a`$ because the universe is matter-dominated. A scale between $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{eq})`$ and $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{})`$ is larger than the Jeans length at its horizon entry time, so the associated perturbation grows until that scale is overtaken by $`\lambda _J^{}`$ before $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$.

The spectrum therefore has a maximum at the scale

$$\lambda _{max}=\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{}).$$
(46)
Using Eq. (30), this evaluates to

$$\lambda _{max}370\frac{x^2y}{\sqrt{1+\frac{x_{eq}}{x}}}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(47)
### V.2 Processed power spectrum for case II: $`x<x_{eq}`$

For this case, mirror photon decoupling precedes matter-radiation equality ($`z_{dec}^{}>z_{eq}`$). Figures 3 and 4 depict the processed power spectra at these two moments. Their qualitative features can be explained in a very similar way to the preceding case. There are some points of difference, however.

Examine Fig. 3 first. It is similar to Fig. 1, but $`\lambda _{dec}^{}`$ (the horizon scale at $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$) plays the role previously held by $`\lambda _{eq}`$. Between $`\lambda _{dec}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{})`$, the spectrum grows logarithmically slowly. Between $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{})`$ and $`\lambda _S^{}(z_{dec}^{})`$, the spectral curve looks similar to the analogous region in Fig. 1, except that there is no flat part because the scale $`\lambda _C`$ is always smaller than the Silk length: the curve is growing, on average in this region, with the perturbations also oscillating about the mean for a given $`\lambda `$. The spectrum has a maximum at the same scale as computed for case I \[see Eq. (47)\]. Once again, the relatively quick fall off as the scale decreases from $`\lambda _{max}`$ to the Silk scale represents qualitatively different behaviour compared to standard CDM.

Turning to Fig. 4, the case II processed power spectrum at matter-radiation equality, we see perturbations falling off as $`\lambda ^2`$ for $`\lambda >\lambda _{eq}`$ and growing logarithmically as $`\lambda `$ falls from $`\lambda _{eq}`$ to $`\lambda _J^{}(z_{dec}^{})`$. For smaller scales, the form of the power spectrum remains unchanged from its character at $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$, displaying slow logarithmic growth in the direction of increasing $`\lambda `$. Recall that after mirror photon decoupling, the mirror baryon Jeans length plummets to a very small value, so all physically interesting scales are now greater than the Jeans length and thus can grow. The growth imprinted on the processed spectrum at $`z=z_{eq}`$ is, however, only logarithmic simply because the preceding period was radiation dominated. The oscillations in this regime created prior to $`z=z_{dec}^{}`$ remain as a feature of the spectrum because there is no process that can damp them out. The position of $`\lambda _{max}`$ thus remains unchanged.

For $`z<z_{eq}`$, the universe is matter-dominated and perturbations on all scales grow in proportion to the cosmological scale factor $`a`$. The spectrum thus retains its shape at $`z=z_{eq}`$.

### V.3 Discussion

#### V.3.1 Linear regime

We have seen that for both cases I and II, the processed power spectrum at the relevant moment, $`z_{dec}^{}`$ and $`z_{eq}`$ respectively, displays a peak at $`\lambda _{max}`$ as given by Eq. (47). For scales above $`\lambda _{max}`$ the MDM perturbation spectrum is identical to that of standard CDM. At scales below the peak, the perturbations oscillate about either a constant mean or one that is slowly rising towards the peak. Such oscillations are not a feature of standard CDM.

The extent of the difference between MDM and CDM therefore hinges on the value of $`\lambda _{max}`$ (and $`\lambda _S^{}`$), and hence on the temperature ratio $`x`$. Furthermore, the first structures to form will do so at the scale $`\lambda _{max}`$. It is therefore interesting to compare $`\lambda _{max}`$ with the typical galactic scale,999As usual in this context, what we mean by this is the size the material forming a galaxy would have today had non-linearity not set in.

$$\lambda _{gal}3.7y^{1/3}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(48)
Putting $`y=1`$ we see that $`\lambda _{max}`$ is equal to the galactic scale at

$$x0.2.$$
(49)
For $`x>0.2`$, the first structures to form would be larger than galaxies, while for $`x<0.2`$ the scale falls rapidly into the sub-galactic regime.

If one classifies dark matter as CDM-like, WDM-like and HDM-like according to whether the first structures are sub-galactic, galactic or super-galactic, respectively, then we conclude that MDM is

1. CDM-like for $`x\stackrel{<}{}0.2`$,
2. WDM-like for $`x0.2`$, and
3. HDM-like for $`x\stackrel{>}{}0.2`$.

Given that top-down structure formation appears to be disfavoured, we conclude that

$$x\stackrel{<}{}0.2$$
(50)
is the favoured temperature range for large scale structure formation.

The smaller $`x`$ is, the more closely the MDM processed power spectrum in the linear regime resembles its analogue for standard CDM. It is interesting that MDM becomes CDM-like for $`x`$’s that are not too small relative to our indicative lower limit of about $`0.01`$ \[recall the discussion leading to Eq. (6)\].

A stringent test of the perturbation spectrum at small scales in the linear regime arises from Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest data weinberg . A detailed study of the implications of these data for MDM is certainly well motivated. In this paper we will have to settle for the rough guidance provided by existing analyses constraining warm dark matter. MDM and WDM are similar in that each exhibits small scale wash-out, though the mechanisms are different (Silk damping and free-streaming, respectively). In Ref. narayanan , Narayanan et al use Lyman-$`\alpha `$ data to constrain the mass $`m_{WDM}`$ of the WDM particle through its free-streaming scale $`R`$, given by

$$R0.2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{WDM}h^2)^{1/3}\left(\frac{m_{WMD}}{\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{4/3}\mathrm{Mpc}$$
(51)
in terms of the cosmological WDM density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{WDM}`$. They obtain

$$m_{WDM}>0.75\mathrm{keV}$$
(52)
for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{WDM}h^2=0.2`$ universe. Adopting the resulting upper bound on $`R`$ as a rough bound on $`\lambda _S^{}`$, we get from Eqs. (40), (51) and (52) that

$$x\stackrel{<}{}0.06,$$
(53)
where $`y=0.14/0.2`$ was used for consistency. This bound appears to be more stringent than the $`x<0.2`$ range obtained by requiring that $`\lambda _{max}`$ be sub-galactic.

#### V.3.2 CMBR acoustic peaks

Over the past decade the measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy provided us with a powerful tool for finding the cosmological parameters and studying the structure formation in the Universe. In particular, recent WMAP data wmap1 ; wmap2  have established that the adiabatic perturbation scenario is favoured over isocurvature perturbations. A natural question is then: could the CMB data help us in discriminating between MDM and other types of dark matter?

From our previous discussion it follows that the new features of the MDM power spectrum might leave an imprint on the CMB anisotropy at small angular scales, dictated by Eq.(47). With decreasing $`x`$ these angular scales become smaller which corresponds to the larger values of $`\mathrm{}\theta ^1`$. Thus we could expect a non-negligible effect only at larger $`x`$ which is comparatively less interesting in view of the arguments presented above. However, it could be worthwhile to give further precision to this qualitative argument before a final conclusion can be made. In any case, this follow-up study should be done in combination with the analysis of the large-scale structure surveys such as 2dF and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

#### V.3.3 Non-linear regime

No matter what the value of $`x`$, there is no doubt that the non-linear evolution of MDM must be very different from that of standard CDM. We certainly expect MDM to eventually form mirror stars, mirror galaxies, and so on, by analogy with ordinary matter. However, the details of this evolution cannot be an exact parallel to that of ordinary matter. One very important reason for this is that the mirror-helium to mirror-hydrogen ratio from mirror primordial nucleosynthesis will be significantly higher than its ordinary counterpart, thus affecting star formation and evolution, which in turn will influence mirror galaxy formation. No one has yet attempted a detailed study of this interesting topic, apart from pointing out relatively obvious consequences such as the faster evolution of mirror stars, and we have no progress to report ourselves. Suffice it to say that purely observational searches for compact mirror objects within and in the halo of our galaxy should be pursued irrespective of the status of theoretical investigations.

The detection of early reionisation by WMAP is potentially highly relevant for MDM. Early reionisation implies early (ordinary) star formation, which in turn requires sufficient power on small scales to encourage gravitationally collapsed objects to form. Indeed, since WMAP claims to have ruled out WDM through this means, one might be concerned that MDM is similarly ruled out. This is not obviously so, however. The earliest stars must arise from some rare large amplitude fluctuations going non-linear. But since WDM is non-dissipative, whereas MDM is chemically complex and dissipative, the analogy between the two breaks down in the non-linear regime. It is a priori possible that the collisional damping of small scale perturbations is compensated by the greater capacity of MDM to clump compared to regular WDM. This is a very interesting topic for future studies of MDM.

## VI Conclusion

Mirror matter is a natural dark matter candidate because it is stable. Furthermore, the mirror matter model has aesthetic appeal through its invariance under the full Poincaré group, including improper Lorentz transformations. Because the microphysics of mirror matter is basically identical to that of ordinary matter, the study of its cosmological implications is well-defined, depending on a small number of a priori free parameters (the ratio of the relic mirror photon temperature to that of ordinary relic photons $`x`$ and the mirror baryon mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}`$).

In this paper, we have looked at the linear regime of density perturbations for mirror dark matter in more detail than the previous major study of Ref. z . We deduced the semi-quantitative features of the processed power spectrum for MDM, compared it to standard CDM and HDM and explained the origin of the differences. A MDM power spectrum is characterised by a peak at the scale $`\lambda _{max}`$ which is itself a function of $`x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}`$. The first structures to form will have size $`\lambda _{max}`$. Requiring this scale to be sub-galactic implies that $`x`$ should be less than about $`0.2`$. Because bottom-up structure formation is favoured over top-down, we conclude that this is in fact the favoured range for the temperature ratio.

It is encouraging that MDM can behave very similarly to standard CDM for reasonable values of $`x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^{}`$. However, observational differences hopefully also exist and should be used to discriminate between the two candidates. Future Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest data probing structure at small scales will further challenge the standard CDM paradigm, with the prospect of uncovering a subtle discrepancy, or of constraining models featuring small scale damping even further. For MDM, a constraint on small scale damping translates into an upper bound on $`x`$. By using an analogy with warm DM, we estimated an upper bound of about $`0.06`$. At some point, the need for a smaller $`x`$ could clash with plausible mechanisms for baryogenesis, though our ignorance of the correct baryogenesis mechanism will prevent a rigorous ruling out of MDM by this means. More optimistically, the hypothetical discovery of small scale damping would specify the value of $`x`$.

The non-linear regime obviously will differ strongly, with the generic expectation of compact mirror objects (stars, planets, meteorites) and structures (galaxies and so on). The discovery of early reionisation by WMAP potentially provides important input into the comparison of the MDM scenario with the real universe. Exploitation of this opportunity is not straightforward, however, because the dissipative and chemically complex nature of MDM acts as a barrier to confident theoretical analysis of the formation of the earliest stars in the MDM universe.

Finally, if mirror matter supplies all of the non-baryonic dark matter, then existing dark matter searches for WIMPs and axions should fail. (It is of course possible that the universe contains both MDM and standard CDM, even though we did not focus on that hypothesis here.)

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Robert Foot for comments on the manuscript. RRV would like to thank Gary Steigman for general discussions on early universe cosmology. He is grateful to Ray Sawyer and the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara for their great hospitality during his attendance at the Neutrinos: Data, Cosmos, and Planck Scale workshop. This work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.


format: text

text:
# Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on the Superconductivity in NaxCoO ₂⋅yH2O

## Abstract

The effect of hydrostatic pressure on the superconducting transition temperature of Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O was investigated by ac susceptibility measurements up to 1.6 GPa. The pressure coefficient of Tc is negative and the dependence Tc(p) is nonlinear over the pressure range investigated. The magnitude of the average dlnTc/dp $``$ -0.07 GPa-1 is comparable to the pressure coefficient of electron-doped high-Tc copper oxide superconductors with a similar value of Tc. Our results provide support to the assumption of two-dimensional superconductivity in Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O, which is similar to the cuprate systems, and suggest that intercalation of larger molecules may lead to an enhancement of Tc.

The recent discovery of superconductivity in two-dimensional CoO2 layers in the compound Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O has attracted attention because of its possible similarity to the high-Tc superconductivity in CuO2-planes of the cuprate systems but with a different spin state associated with Co.1  The compound appears to be the first superconducting layered metal oxide involving 3d-transition metals other than copper. The de-intercalation of Na+ ions accompanied by an intercalation of water molecules results in a combined doping and c-axis expansion effect effectively reducing the interlayer coupling between the CoO2 planes and enhancing the two-dimensional character of the structure. Magnetic susceptibility measurements have shown a diamagnetic drop below 5 K ascribed to the onset of superconductivity although the estimated volume fraction is only of the order of 10 % of the value for perfect diamagnetism. The high-field dependence of the susceptibility resembles that of the high-Tc copper oxides, with little change of the onset but an appreciable broadening of the superconducting transition under increasing magnetic field. Because of these similarities and the fact that the removal of water suppresses the superconductivity it was suggested that the large separation of the CoO2 layers and the reduced interaction between them is essential for stabilizing the superconducting state.1

The major difference to the square CuO2 planes of the cuprates is the triangular symmetry of the Co-lattice that may lead to possible frustration effects in the magnetic structure of the antiferromagnetically interacting cobalt spins. Theoretical treatments therefore employ the t-J model on a planar triangular lattice.2 ; 3 ; 4  Different magnetic and superconducting orders, e.g. d-wave superconductivity,2  a time-reversal-symmetry-breaking $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ ground state,3  and spin triplet superconductivity4  have been proposed. To distinguish between different theoretical proposals and to facilitate our basic understanding of superconductivity in Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O far more experimental work needs to be conducted. In particular, the dependence of the superconducting state on the interlayer coupling is of interest. The CoO2 interlayer coupling should be tuned reversibly by changing the distance between the planes (c-axis lattice parameter) without affecting the chemical composition, i.e. the content of sodium and water. This can be achieved by applying hydrostatic pressure. Because of the strong lattice anisotropy and the weak bonding between the layers (the water molecules are electrically neutral although polarized) it is expected that the compression of the c-axis increases the interlayer coupling and has a major effect on the superconductivity.

We have measured the superconducting Tc of Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O powder by ac magnetic susceptibility experiments in a hydrostatic pressure environment up to 1.6 GPa. The observed decrease in Tc of up to 10 % at 1.6 GPa indicates the importance of a reduced interlayer coupling for stabilizing the superconducting ground state in this compound.

The NaxCoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O powder was synthesized as described in Ref. 1 and 5. The x-ray spectrum shows the reflections of the hexagonal space group P6$`{}_{3}{}^{}/`$mmc with lattice parameters a=2.820 Å and c=19.593 Å. The structural parameters are in good agreement with the recently reported data.1  Magnetic susceptibility measurements indicate the onset of superconductivity at 4.7 K, the magnitude of the diamagnetic signal at 2 K in field and zero field cooling runs are comparable with data of Ref. 1. Before starting the high pressure experiment the sample was carefully checked with respect to chemical compatibility with the liquid pressure transmitting medium (a 1:1 mixture of 3M Fluorinert FC70/FC77). The pressure medium was mixed with the sample powder and the dc susceptibility of the mixture was measured using the SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design). No change or degradation in the superconducting properties of the mixture as compared to the original powder was detected. For high-pressure ac susceptibility measurements a dual coil was mounted onto a plastic frame with a 1.3 mm diameter, 5 mm long concentric inner space accommodating the sample powder and a small piece of high purity (99.9999 %) lead for in situ pressure measurements. The superconducting transition of the lead induced a small diamagnetic signal in the pickup coil and the pressure was determined from the shift of the lead transition temperature.9  The coil was inserted into a Teflon container filled with the Fluorinert pressure medium and pressure was generated by a beryllium-copper piston cylinder clamp.6  The pressure cell was inserted into a 4He dewar that allowed the control of temperature between room temperature and 1.2 K. The temperature below 45 K was measured by a germanium resistor built into the pressure clamp close to the sample position. The inductance was measured with an LR 700 mutual inductance bridge (Linear Research) at a frequency of 19 Hz.

The inductance, I(T), measured at different pressures is shown in Fig. 1 (for clarity not all sets of acquired data are shown). The superconducting transition is well resolved and the onset of diamagnetism causes the decrease of the inductance signal below Tc. The vertical drop of I(T) close to 7 K in Fig. 1 indicates the diamagnetic signal from the superconducting transition of the lead manometer and it was used for pressure determination. With increasing pressure the superconducting transition of the Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O powder shifts to lower temperature and the transition becomes slightly sharper. It is remarkable that the shape and the overall drop of the susceptibility curves do not change appreciably with pressure which indicates that the sample is stable at the applied hydrostatic pressure. There is no sign of a possible chemical decomposition or loss of water during the experiments. After acquiring the highest pressure data the pressure was almost completely released (a residual pressure of 0.04 GPa was measured) and the susceptibility curve was found in good agreement with the ambient pressure data taken at the start of the experiments. These data are marked by filled squares in Fig. 1. This again shows that the sample is stable and the superconducting properties are reversible under hydrostatic pressure. The Tc(p) as estimated from the onset of the diamagnetic signal (see inset of Fig. 1) is displayed in Fig. 2. For low pressure the change of Tc is relatively small. With increasing pressure the Tc decreases faster resulting in a non linear dependence Tc(p) as shown in Fig. 2. The solid line is a fit of the data to a parabolic pressure dependence, $`T_c(p)=4.680.0047p0.183p^2`$ (Tc in K and p in GPa). At the highest pressure of this experiment (1.53 GPa) the superconducting transition dropped to 4.2 K. Extrapolating the parabolic dependence to Tc=0 yields a critical pressure of $`p_c5`$ GPa. The recovery of the Tc after pressure release is indicated by the filled square in Fig. 2 (in contrast to the open circles denoting data estimated within the increasing pressure cycle). It should be noted that in the present experiments the pressure medium was frozen at the superconducting transition temperature. This may result in deviations from pure hydrostatic conditions and small pressure gradients throughout the sample space could be expected. Any pressure medium, even He gas at elevated pressure, will solidify at these low temperatures. In order to check on possible pressure gradients we have evaluated the width of the diamagnetic drop of the ac susceptibility in passing the superconducting transition of the lead manometer. The cooling speed was electronically controlled as low as 0.01 K/min. The width of the lead transition (as measured between the 90 % and 10 % drop of the susceptibility) was even at the highest pressure still below 0.01 K and only slightly larger than the zero pressure value of 0.008 K. If the small difference is attributed to a pressure gradient across the volume of the lead sample the inhomogeneity is less than 0.005 GPa at the maximum pressure of 1.6 GPa. With the Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O samples linear dimension being about 10 times the size of the lead the possible pressure gradients are still small and should not affect the results significantly.

A negative pressure coefficient of Tc is frequently observed in low- as well as high-Tc compounds. In low-Tc (i.e. BCS-like, phonon-mediated) superconductivity the negative pressure shift of Tc can be explained by a decrease of the electron-phonon coupling constant, $`\lambda `$. $`\lambda `$ is proportional to the electronic density of states (DOS) and to the inverse of the average square of the phonon frequency. The application of pressure usually results in an increase of the phonon frequency (phonon ”hardening” effect) and, in many instances, in a decrease of the DOS. Both effects lead to a decrease of Tc, as was recently discussed, for example, in MgB2.10  The high-Tc cuprate superconductors exhibit both, positive as well as negative pressure coefficients, depending on the compound and the doping state. For some hole-doped copper oxides a negative dTc/dp was reported in the overdoped regime and partially attributed to a pressure-induced charge transfer but it was also shown that this charge transfer is not the only factor affecting the pressure shift of Tc (for an extensive discussion see Ref. 9). Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O is, however, an electron-doped system. This has to be taken into account if the present data are compared with the high-Tc cuprates. For electron-doped cuprates, e.g Sm1.88Ce0.12CuO4-y, the pressure coefficient of Tc was found to be negative for a large number of systems with different chemical composition and (electron) doping.7 ; 8  Thereby, a universal relation between the relative pressure coefficient, dlnTc/dp, and Tc was proposed.8  According to this relation the pressure coefficient for a sample with Tc=4.7 K should be of the order of -0.1 to -0.15 GPa-1. The Tc-p relation shown in Fig. 2 is nonlinear, however, estimating the average pressure change of Tc yields a value of dlnTc/dp=-0.07 GPa-1and calculating the slope of Tc(p) at the high pressure end of the graph we get dlnTc/dp=-0.1 GPa-1. These values are in fair agreement with the typical pressure coefficient of an electron-doped high-Tc superconductor with a similar ambient pressure Tc.

In the discussion of the pressure effects the lattice anisotropy has to be considered since even hydrostatic pressure may result in different compression ratios along the main crystallographic directions. In optimally doped YBCO, for example, the dTc/dp varies in sign and magnitude for compression along a-, b-, and c-axis resulting in a very small overall pressure shift of Tc under hydrostatic pressure conditions.7  The lattice anisotropy in Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O is significant due to the huge expansion of the c-axis after intercalation of water and the compression is expected to be anisotropic as well. High pressure x-ray investigations can distinguish the compression of a- and c-axis and are therefore highly desirable. For the current discussion we assume that the two-dimensionality and the expansion of the c-axis by intercalation of water in Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O is the key to understand the superconductivity (this is at least assumed in all previous publications).1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4  Then it is naturally to expect that a pressure induced decrease of the c-axis length results in a suppression of the superconducting state. However, the effects of in-plane compression are not clear and need to be investigated separately. Uniaxial pressure experiments using single crystals of Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O (not currently available) can help to separate the different contributions. A pressure induced charge transfer to the CoO2-layers (as discussed for the cuprate superconductors) is unlikely as long as the intercalated water molecules remain neutral and the valence of the Na-ions is +1. The non-linear decrease of Tc observed in our investigation is equally unusual and interesting. It may suggest the possible existence of large dispersion in the energy spectrum of the compound near its Fermi surface.

In conclusion, we have investigated the dependence of the superconducting Tc of Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$yH2O upon hydrostatic pressure up to 1.6 GPa. The pressure coefficient is negative and Tc(p) shows a strong nonlinearity. The sign and magnitude of the relative pressure coefficient are compatible with similar data of electron-doped cuprates. Our results indicate that the superconductivity in this compound may originate from the apparent two-dimensionality of the CoO2 planes similar to the CuO2 layers of the electron-doped copper oxides.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by NSF Grant No. DMR-9804325, the T.L.L. Temple Foundation, the John J. and Rebecca Moores Endowment, and the State of Texas through the TCSAM at the University of Houston and at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.


text:
# Optimal Transport Maps inMonge-Kantorovich Problem

## 1 . The optimal transport problem and its weak formulation

In 1781, G.Monge raised in  the problem of transporting a given distribution of matter (a pile of sand for instance) into another (an excavation for instance) in such a way that the work done is minimal. Denoting by $`h_0,h_1:𝐑^2[0,+\mathrm{})`$ the Borel functions describing the initial and final distribution of matter, there is obviously a compatibility condition, that the total mass is the same:

$$_{𝐑^2}h_0(x)𝑑x=_{𝐑^2}h_1(y)𝑑y.$$
(1.1)
Assuming with no loss of generality that the total mass is $`1`$, we say that a Borel map $`\psi :𝐑^2𝐑^2`$ is a transport if a local version of the balance of mass condition holds, namely

$$_{\psi ^1(E)}h_0(x)𝑑x=_Eh_1(y)𝑑y\text{for any }E𝐑^2\text{ Borel.}$$
(1.2)
Then, the Monge problem consists in minimizing the work of transportation in the class of transports, i.e.

$$inf\left\{_{𝐑^2}\right|\psi (x)x|h_0(x)dx:\psi \text{ transport}\}.$$
(1.3)
The Monge transport problem can be easily generalized in many directions, and all these generalizations have proved to be quite useful:

$``$ General measurable spaces $`X`$, $`Y`$, with measurable maps $`\psi :XY`$;

$``$ General probability measures $`\mu `$ in $`X`$ and $`\nu `$ in $`Y`$. In this case the local balance of mass condition (1.2) reads as follows:

$$\nu (E)=\mu (\psi ^1(E))\text{for any }EY\text{ measurable.}$$
(1.4)
This means that the push-forward operator $`\psi _\mathrm{\#}`$ induced by $`\psi `$, mapping probability measures in $`X`$ into probability measures in $`Y`$, maps $`\mu `$ into $`\nu `$.

$``$ General cost functions: a measurable map $`c:X\times Y[0,+\mathrm{}]`$. In this case the cost to be minimized is

$$W(\psi ):=_Xc(x,\psi (x))𝑑\mu (x).$$

Even in Euclidean spaces, the problem of existence of optimal transport maps is far from being trivial, mainly due to the non-linearity with respect to $`\psi `$ of the condition $`\psi _\mathrm{\#}\mu =\nu `$. In particular the class of transports is not closed with respect to any reasonable weak topology. Furthermore, it is easy to build examples where the Monge problem is ill-posed simply because there is no transport map: this happens for instance when $`\mu `$ is a Dirac mass and $`\nu `$ is not a Dirac mass.

In order to overcome these difficulties, in 1942 L.V.Kantorovich proposed in  a notion of weak solution of the transport problem. He suggested to look for plans instead of transports, i.e. probability measures $`\gamma `$ in $`X\times Y`$ whose marginals are $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. Formally this means that $`\pi _{X\mathrm{\#}}\gamma =\mu `$ and $`\pi _{Y\mathrm{\#}}\gamma =\nu `$, where $`\pi _X:X\times YX`$ and $`\pi _Y:X\times YY`$ are the canonical projections. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$ the class of plans, he wrote the following minimization problem

$$\mathrm{min}\left\{_{X\times Y}c(x,y)𝑑\gamma :\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )\right\}.$$
(1.5)
Notice that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$ is not empty, as the product $`\mu \nu `$ has $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ as marginals. Due to the convexity of the new constraint $`\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$ it turns out that weak topologies can be effectively used to provide existence of solutions to (1.5): this happens for instance whenever $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are Polish spaces and $`c`$ is lower semicontinuous (see for instance ). Notice also that, by convexity of the energy, the infimum is attained on a *extremal* element of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$.

The connection between the Kantorovich formulation of the transport problem and Monge’s original one can be seen noticing that any transport map $`\psi `$ induces a planning $`\gamma `$, defined by $`(Id\times \psi )_\mathrm{\#}\mu `$. This planning is concentrated on the graph of $`\psi `$ in $`X\times Y`$ and it is easy to show that the converse holds, i.e. whenever $`\gamma `$ is concentrated on a graph, then $`\gamma `$ is induced by a transport map. Since any transport induces a planning with the same cost, it turns out that

$$inf\text{(}\text{1.3}\text{)}\mathrm{min}\text{(}\text{1.5}\text{)}.$$

Moreover, by approximating any plan by plans induced by transports, it can be shown that equality holds under fairly general assumptions (see for instance ). Therefore we can really consider the Kantorovich formulation of the transport problem as a weak formulation of the original problem.

If all extremal points of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$ were induced by transports one would get existence of transport maps directly from the Kantorovich formulation. It is not difficult to show that plannings $`\gamma `$ induced by transports are extremal in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$. The converse holds in some very particular cases, but unfortunately it is not true in general. It turns out that the existence of optimal transport maps depends not only on the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$, but also (in a quite sensible way) on the choice of the cost function $`c`$.

## 2 . Existence of optimal transport maps

In this section we focus on the problem of the existence of optimal transport maps in the sense of Monge. Before discussing in detail in the next sections the two model cases in which the cost function is the square of a distance or a distance (we refer to  for the case of *concave* functions of the distance, not discussed here), it is better to give an informal description of the tools by now available for proving the existence of optimal transport maps.

Strategy A (Dual formulation). This strategy is based on the duality formula

$$\mathrm{min}(\text{MK})=sup\left\{_Xh𝑑\mu +_Yk𝑑\nu \right\},$$
(2.6)
where the supremum runs among all pairs $`(h,k)L^1(\mu )\times L^1(\nu )`$ such that $`h(x)+k(y)c(x,y)`$. The duality approach to the (MK) problem was developed by Kantorovich, and then extended to more general cost functions (see ). The transport map is obtained from an optimal pair $`(h,k)`$ in the dual formulation by making a first variation. This strategy for proving the existence of an optimal transport map goes back to the papers  and .

Strategy B (Cyclical monotonicity). In some situations the necessary (and sufficient) minimality conditions for the primal problem, based upon the so-called $`c`$-cyclical monotonicity (, , ) yield that *any* optimal Kantorovich solution $`\gamma `$ is concentrated on a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (i.e. for $`\mu `$-a.e. $`x`$ there exists a *unique* $`y`$ such that $`(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and therefore is induced by a transport $`\psi `$.

This happens for instance when $`c(x,y)=H(xy)`$, with $`H`$ *strictly* convex in $`𝐑^n`$. This approach is pursued in the papers , .

Strategy C (Singular perturbation with strictly convex costs). One can try to get an optimal transport map by making the cost strictly convex through a perturbation and then passing to the limit (see  and Theorem 4.1, Theorem 4.2 below). The main difficulty is to show (strong) convergence at the level of the transport maps and not only at the level of transport plans.

Strategy D (Reduction to a lower dimensional problem). This strategy has been initiated by V.N.Sudakov in . It consists in writing (typically through a disintegration) $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ as the superposition of measures concentrated on lower dimensional sets and in solving the lower dimensional transport problems, trying in the end to “glue” all the partial transport maps into a single transport map. This strategy is discussed in detail in  and used, together with a “variational” decomposition, in . The simplest case is when the lower dimensional problems are $`1`$-dimensional, since the solution of the $`1`$-dimensional transport problem is simply given by an increasing rearrangement, at least for convex functions of the distance (see for instance , , ).

Strategies A and B are basically equivalent and yield existence and uniqueness at the same time: the first one could be preferable for someone, as a very small measure-theoretic apparatus is involved. On the other hand, it strongly depends on the existence of maximizing pairs in the dual formulation, and this existence issue can be more subtle than the existence issue for the primal problem (see  and the discussion in ). For this reason it seems that the second strategy can work for more general classes of cost functions.

Strategies C and D have been devised to deal with situations where the cost function is convex but not strictly convex. Also these two strategies are closely related, as the strictly convex perturbation often leads to an effective dimension reduction of the problem (see for instance ).

## 3 . cost=distance2

In this section we consider the case when $`X=Y`$ and the cost function $`c`$ is proportional to the square of a distance $`d`$. For convenience we normalize $`c`$ so that $`c=d^2/2`$. The first result in the Euclidean space $`𝐑^n`$ has been discovered independently by many authors Y.Brenier , , S.T.Rachev and L.R.üschendorf , , and C.Smith and M.Knott .

###### Theorem 3.1

Assume that $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $`^n`$ and that $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ have finite second order moments. Then there exists a unique optimal transport map $`\psi `$. Moreover $`\psi `$ is the gradient of a convex function.

In this case the proof comes from the fact that both strategies A and B yield that the displacement $`x\psi (x)`$ is the gradient of a $`c`$-concave function, i.e. a function representable as

$$h(x)=\underset{(y,t)I}{inf}c(x,y)+tx𝐑^n$$

for a suitable non-empty set $`IY\times 𝐑`$. The concept of $`c`$-concavity  has been extensively used to develop a very general duality theory for the (MK) problem, based on (2.6). In this special Euclidean situation it is immediate to realize that $`c`$-concavity of $`h`$ is equivalent to concavity (in the classical sense) of $`h\frac{1}{2}|x|^2`$, hence

$$\psi (x)=xh(x)=\left[\frac{1}{2}|x|^2h(x)\right]$$

is the gradient of a convex function. Finally, notice that the assumption on $`\mu `$ can be sharpened (see ), assuming for instance that $`\mu (B)=0`$ whenever $`B`$ has finite $`^{n1}`$-measure. This is due to the fact that the non-differentiability set of a concave function is $`\sigma `$-finite with respect to $`^{n1}`$ (see for instance ). Also the assumption about second order moments can be relaxed, assuming only that the infimum of the (MK) problem with data $`\mu ,\nu `$ is finite.

The following result, due to R.Mc Cann , is much more recent.

###### Theorem 3.2

Assume that $`M`$ is a $`C^3`$, complete Riemannian manifold with no boundary and $`d`$ is the Riemannian distance. If $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ have finite second order moments and $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $`\mathrm{vol}_M`$ there exists a unique optimal transport map $`\psi `$.

Moreover there exists a $`c`$-concave potential $`h:M𝐑`$ such that

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{exp}_x\left(h(x)\right)\mathrm{vol}_M\text{-a.e..}$$

This Riemannian extension of Theorem 3.1 is non trivial, due to the fact that $`d^2`$ is not smooth in the large. The proof uses some semiconcavity estimates for $`d^2`$ and the fact that $`d^2`$ is $`C^2`$ for $`x`$ close to $`y`$ (this is where the $`C^3`$ assumption on $`M`$ is needed). It is interesting to notice that the results of  (where the eikonal equation is read in local coordinates), based on the theory of viscosity solutions — see in particular Theorem 5.3 of  — allow to push Mc Cann’s technique up to $`C^2`$ manifolds.

Can we go beyond Riemannian manifolds in the existence theory? A model case is given by stratified Carnot groups endowed with the Carnot-Carathéodory metric $`d_{CC}`$, as these spaces arise in a very natural way as limits of Riemannian manifolds with respect to the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence (see ). At this moment a general strategy is still missing, but some preliminary investigations in the Heisenberg group $`H_n`$ show that positive results analogous to the Riemannian ones can be expected. The following result is proved in :

###### Theorem 3.3

If $`n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and $`\mu `$ is a probability measure in $`H_n`$ absolutely continuous with respect to $`^{2n+1}`$, then:
(a) there exists a unique optimal transport map $`\psi `$, deriving from a $`c`$-concave potential $`h`$;
(b) If $`d_pd_{CC}`$ are Riemannian left invariant metrics then Mc Cann’s optimal transport maps $`\psi _p`$ relative to $`c_p=d_p^2/2`$ converge in measure to $`\psi `$ as $`p\mathrm{}`$.

The restriction to $`H_n`$, $`n2`$, arises from the fact that so far we have been able to carry on some explicit computations only for $`n2`$. We expect that this restriction could be removed. The proof of (b) is not direct, as Mc Cann’s exponential representation $`\psi _p=\mathrm{exp}_x^p(^ph_p)`$ “degenerates” as $`p\mathrm{}`$, because the injectivity radius of the approximating manifolds tends to $`0`$. This is due to the fact that in CC metric spaces geodesics exist but are not unique, not even in the small.

Finally, if we replace $`c`$ by the square of the Korányi norm (related to the fundamental solution of the Kohn sub-Laplacian), namely

$$\stackrel{~}{c}(x,y):=\frac{1}{2}y^1x^2\text{with}(z,t):={}_{}{}^{4}\sqrt{|z|^4+t^2}$$

(here we identify $`H_n`$ with $`𝐂^n\times 𝐑`$) then we are still able to prove existence in any Heisenberg group $`H_n`$. The proof uses some fine properties of $`BV`$ functions on sub-Riemannian groups . However, we can’t hope for a Riemannian approximation result, as the Korányi norm induces a metric $`d_K`$ which is not geodesic. It turns out that the geodesic metric associated to $`d_K`$ is a constant multiple of $`d_{CC}`$.

## 4 . cost=distance

In this section we consider the case when $`X=Y`$ and the cost function $`c`$ is a distance. In this case both strategies A and B give only a partial information about the location of $`y`$, for given $`x`$. In particular it is not true that any optimal Kantorovich plan $`\gamma `$ is induced by a transport map. Indeed, if the first order moments of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are finite, the dual formulation provides us with a maximizing pair $`(h,k)=(u,u)`$, with $`u:X𝐑`$ $`1`$-Lipschitz. If $`X=𝐑^n`$ and the distance is induced by a norm $``$, this provides the implication

$$(x,y)\mathrm{spt}\gamma y\{xs\xi :\xi \left(du(x)\right)^{},s0\}$$
(4.7)
at any differentiability point of $`u`$. Here we consider the natural duality map between covectors and vectors given by

$$L^{}:=\{\xi 𝐑^n:L(\xi )=L_{}\text{and}\xi =1\}.$$

The most favourable case is when the norm is strictly convex (e.g. the Euclidean norm): in this situation the $``$ operator is single-valued and we recover from (4.7) an information on the direction of transportation, i.e. $`\left(du(x)\right)^{}`$, but not on the length of transportation. If the norm is not strictly convex (e.g. the $`l_1`$ or $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ norm) then even the information on the direction of transportation, encoded in $`\left(du(x)\right)^{}`$, is partial.

The first attempt to bypass these difficulties came with the work of V.N.Sudakov , who claimed to have a solution for any distance cost function induced by a norm. Sudakov’s approach is based on a clever decomposition of the space $`𝐑^n`$ in affine regions with variable dimension where the Kantorovich dual potential $`u`$ associated to the transport problem is an affine function. His strategy is to solve the transport problem in any of these regions, eventually getting an optimal transport map just by gluing all these transport maps. An essential ingredient in his proof is Proposition 78, where he states that, if $`\mu <<^n`$, then the conditional measures induced by the decomposition are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure (of the correct dimension). However, it turns out that this property is not true in general even for the simplest decomposition, i.e. the decomposition in segments: G.Alberti, B.Kirchheim and D.Preiss found an example of a compact faily of pairwise disjoint open segments in $`𝐑^3`$ such that the family $`M`$ of their midpoints has strictly positive Lebesgue measure (the construction is a variant of previous examples due to A.S.Besicovitch and D.G.Larman, see also  and ). In this case, choosing $`\mu =^3\text{ }\text{ }M`$, the conditional measures induced by the decomposition are Dirac masses. Therefore it is clear that this kind of counterexamples should be ruled out by some kind of additional “regularity” property of the decomposition. In this way the Sudakov strategy would be fully rigorous. As noticed in , this regularity comes for free only in the case $`n=2`$, using the fact that transport rays do not cross in their interior.

Several years later, L.C.Evans and W.Gangbo made a remarkable progress in , showing by differential methods the existence of a transport map, under the assumption that $`\mathrm{spt}\mu \mathrm{spt}\nu =\mathrm{}`$, that the two measures are absolutely continuous with respect to $`^n`$ and that their densities are Lipschitz functions with compact support. The missing piece of information about the length of transportation is recovered by a $`p`$-laplacian approximation

$$\mathrm{div}\left(|u|^{p2}u\right)=\mu \nu ,uH_0^1(B_R),R1$$

obtaining in the limit as $`p+\mathrm{}`$ a nonnegative function $`aL^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^n)`$ and a $`1`$-Lipschitz function $`u`$ solving

$$\mathrm{div}(au)=\mu \nu ,|u|=1\text{ }^n\text{-a.e. on }\{a>0\}\text{.}$$

The diffusion coefficient $`a`$ in the PDE above plays a special role in the theory. Indeed, one can show (see ) that the measure $`\sigma :=a^n`$, the so-called transport density, can be represented in several different way, and in particular as

$$\sigma (B)=^1\left(B[x,y]\right)𝑑\gamma (x,y)B𝐑^n\text{ Borel}$$
(4.8)
for some optimal planning $`\gamma `$. Notice that the total mass of $`\sigma `$ is $`|xy|𝑑\gamma `$, the total work done and the meaning of $`\sigma (B)`$ is the work done *within* $`B`$ during the transport process. This representation of the transport density has been introduced by G.Bouchitté and G.Buttazzo in , who showed that the a constant multiple of the transport density is a solution of their so-called mass optimization problem. Later, in , it was shown that there is actually a 1-1 correspondence between solutions of the mass optimization problem and transport densities, defined as in (4.8).

One can also show (, , , ) that $`\sigma `$ is unique (unlike $`\gamma `$) if either $`\mu `$ or $`\nu `$ are absolutely continuous. Moreover, the nonlinear operator mapping $`(\mu ,\nu )L^1\times L^1`$ into $`aL^1`$ maps $`L^p\times L^p`$ into $`L^p`$ for $`1p\mathrm{}`$.

Coming back to the problem of the existence of optimal transport maps with Euclidean distance $`|xy|`$ (or, more generally, with a distance induced by a $`C^2`$ and uniformly convex norm), the first existence results for general absolutely continuous measures $`\mu ,\nu `$ with compact support have been independently obtained by L.Caffarelli, M.Feldman and R.Mc Cann in  and by N.Trudinger and L.Wang in . Afterwards, the author estabilished in  the existence of an optimal transport map assuming only that the initial measure $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous, and the results of  and  have been extended to a Riemannian setting in . All these proofs involve basically a Sudakov decomposition in transport rays, but the technical implementation of the idea is different from paper to paper: for instance in  a local change of variable is made, so that transport rays become parallel and Fubini theorem, in place of abstract disintegration theorems for measures, can be used. The proof in , instead, uses the co-area formula to show that absolute continuity with respect to Lebesgue measure is stable under disintegration.

The following result  is a slight improvement of , where existence of an optimal transport map was estabilished but not the stability property. The result holds under regularity and uniform convexity assumptions for the norm $``$.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`\mu ,\nu `$ be with compact support, with $`\mu <<^n`$, and let $`\psi _ϵ`$ be the unique optimal transport maps relative to the costs $`c_ϵ(x,y):=xy^{1+ϵ}`$. Then $`\psi _ϵ`$ converge as $`ϵ0`$ to an optimal transport map $`\psi `$ for $`c(x,y)=xy`$.

The proof is based only the fact that any plan $`\gamma _0`$, limit of some sequence of plans $`(Id\times \psi _{ϵ_i})`$, is not only optimal for the (MK) problem, but also for the *secondary* one

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_1(\mu ,\nu )}{\mathrm{min}}_{𝐑^n\times 𝐑^n}xy\mathrm{ln}(xy)𝑑\gamma ,$$
(4.9)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\mu ,\nu )`$ denotes the class of all optimal plannings for the Kantorovich problem (the entropy function in (4.9) comes from the Taylor expansion of $`c_ϵ`$ around $`ϵ=0`$). It turns out that this additional minimality property selects a unique plan induced by a transport $`\psi `$ and, a posteriori, $`\psi `$ is the same map built in . A class of counterexamples built in  shows that the absolute continuity assumption on $`\mu `$ cannot be weakened, unlike the strictly convex case.

This “variational” procedure seems to select extremal elements of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mu ,\nu )`$ in a very effective way. This phenomenon is apparent in view of the following result , which holds for all “crystalline” norms $``$ (i.e. norms whose unit sphere is contained in finitely many hyperplanes).

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`\mu ,\nu `$ be as in Theorem 4.1 and let $`\psi _ϵ`$ be the unique optimal transport maps relative to the costs

$$c_ϵ(x,y):=xy+ϵ|xy|+ϵ^2|xy|\mathrm{ln}|xy|.$$

Then $`\psi _ϵ`$ converge as $`ϵ0`$ to an optimal transport map $`\psi `$ for $`c(x,y)=xy`$.

In this case a secondary and a ternary variational problem are involved, and we show that the latter has a unique solution which is also induced by a transport.

Some borderline cases between “crystalline” norms and “Euclidean” norms apparently can’t be attacked by any of the existing techniques. In particular the existence of optimal transport maps for the cost induced by a general norm in $`𝐑^n`$, $`n3`$, is still open.