text:
# DSF-9/2003hep-th/0304058 Minimal coupling of the Kalb-Ramond field to a scalar field

## I Introduction

Space-time non-commutativity is one of the key new ideas which follows from recent developments in string and matrix theory . Non-commutativity implies general covariance and, therefore, it seems likely that a non-commutative Yang-Mills theory is a good candidate for a unified and potentially renormalizable theory of the fundamental interactions including gravity.
Whereas the structure of the space-time becomes non-commutative, we can describe it, in analogy to quantum phase space, in terms of the algebra generated by non-commuting coordinates:

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(1)
with $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ an antisymmetric tensor .
Antisymmetric tensor fields are widely used in string models ,, as well as in some supersymmetric theories. For example, they appear naturally in $`N=2`$ extended supersymmetry as auxiliary fields (being the highest-dimension fields in a supermultiplet) and in the 11-dimensional formulation of $`N=8`$ extended supergravity in which they are dynamical fields. Furthermore, in quantum gravity, antisymmetric tensor fields appear as Lorentz ghost fields . It is, therefore, quite important to study the dynamics of such fields and, especially, their coupling to matter (scalar or fermion particles).
The best studied example of an antisymmetric tensor field is the electromagnetic field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, whose dynamics is very well known (see, for example, ). The coupling of the electromagnetic field to matter fields proceeds, usually, through the gauge principle with the aid of the vector potential $`A_\mu `$ (a massless rank-1 field): interaction is introduced in the theory by requiring local gauge invariance for the matter fields. In the electromagnetic case, the gauge transformations for the vector potential are $`A_\mu (x)A_\mu (x)+_\mu \alpha (x)`$, where $`\alpha (x)`$ is an arbitrary $`x`$dependent function, and the interaction with a charged scalar field $`\phi `$ (with charge $`e`$) is obtained by replacing the usual derivative $`_\mu `$ with the covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ in the free field Lagrangian:

$$_\mu D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu .$$
(2)
In fact, with this substitution, the total Lagrangian (free fields \+ interaction) becomes invariant under the local transformation:

$$\phi (x)e^{ie\alpha (x)}\phi (x).$$
(3)
As a consequence of gauge invariance, by virtue of the Noether theorem, electric charge conservation is obtained. Note, however, that such a minimal coupling prescription is not the only possible one; for example, magnetic moment interaction is described by a Lagrangian term involving directly the physical field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ rather than the gauge-dependent vector potential.
Several papers have appeared  in which the generalization of the gauge principle to (abelian) rank-2 antisymmetric fields (Kalb-Ramond fields) is studied. However the interaction of a scalar or fermion particle with a Kalb-Ramond field usually proceeds through the coupling with the Maxwell field . Indeed, the matter particles interact with the electromagnetic field coupled to a Kalb-Ramond field, so that only an indirect interaction is allowed.

While the coupling between such fields and matter fields can always be introduced by adding an ad hoc term in the complete Lagrangian without invoking a gauge principle, the main problem with an interaction generated by an (abelian) gauge group transformation comes from the difficulty to construct a covariant derivative from rank-2 gauge fields in analogy with the electromagnetic case. The present work is aimed to further study such a problem by considering, for simplicity, massless fields.
In view of some applications considered below in the paper, in the next section we briefly review the dynamics of an antisymmetric tensor field and point out its substantial equivalence (in the massless case) with that of a (real) scalar field. Instead in Section III we give a procedure to couple a scalar particle with a Kalb-Ramond field through a gauge principle with a linear coupling; some comments on quadratic coupling are also reported. Finally, in Section IV, we study the dynamics of the interacting fields, pointing out some peculiar features, while in the last section we give our conclusions and outlook.

## II Dynamics of a free Kalb-Ramond field

Let us consider a Maxwell-like gauge theory where the role of the vector potential $`A_\mu `$ is played by an antisymmetric tensor field $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$. Its dynamics is described by the following Lagrangian:

$$_\theta =\frac{1}{12}H_{\lambda \mu \nu }H^{\lambda \mu \nu },$$
(4)
where the field strength $`H_{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ is defined by:

$$H_{\lambda \mu \nu }_\lambda \theta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu \theta _{\nu \lambda }+_\nu \theta _{\lambda \mu }.$$
(5)
The equations of motion for the free $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ field are, then, similar to the Maxwell equations and read as follows:

$$_\mu H^{\mu \nu \sigma }=0.$$
(6)
The Lagrangian in Eq. (4) is invariant under the gauge transformations:

$$\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta _{\mu \nu }^{}=\theta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ,$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$ is an arbitrary vector field. This gauge freedom can be used to simplify the writing of the field equations. Indeed, for example, by using the “generalized” Lorentz condition $`^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }=0`$ we find that $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the ordinary wave equation:

$$\mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(8)
It is easy to prove that the degrees of freedom of the antisymmetric tensor field $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ are just the same of a scalar field $`\theta `$. Let us consider the dual vector field (in the sense of Poincaré) $`\theta _\mu `$ defined by:

$$\theta _\mu \frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }H^{\nu \rho \sigma }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\nu \theta ^{\rho \sigma },$$
(9)
which satisfies the Bianchi-type identity:

$$^\mu \theta _\mu =0.$$
(10)
The equations of motion in (6) now become:

$$_\mu \theta _\nu _\nu \theta _\mu =0,$$
(11)
pointing out that $`\theta _\mu `$ has to be the gradient of a scalar field $`\theta `$:

$$\theta _\mu =_\mu \theta .$$
(12)
With these changes of variable, the Lagrangian describing the system can be cast in a form similar to that for a scalar field:

$$_\theta =\frac{1}{2}_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta ,$$
(13)
this showing that the dynamics of a massless antisymmetric tensor field $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is completely equivalent (on the classical level***For the quantum equivalence see, for example, Ref. ) to that of a massless real scalar field $`\theta `$. Note, however, that Eq. (12) is a direct consequence of the free field equations of motion (11), so that the mentioned equivalence holds true only in the case of non-interacting fields.

## III Gauge principle with a linear coupling

Let us consider a charged scalar field $`\varphi `$ described by the usual Lagrangian:

$$_\varphi =\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^{}\left(^\mu \varphi \right)+V(\varphi ),$$
(14)
where $`V(\varphi )`$ is a given scalar potential including, eventually, a mass term. In this section we study direct interaction of this field with a Kalb-Ramond field $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ generated by possible gauge group transformations leading to linear coupling with the $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ field.
In analogy with the electromagnetic case, we introduce a covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ as follows:

$$iD_\mu =i_\mu +kX_\mu ,$$
(15)
where $`X_\mu `$ is a rank-1 tensor to be defined in terms of the $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ field and $`k`$ is a suitable coupling constant.
The Lagrangian describing the scalar field $`\varphi `$ interacting with $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is, therefore:

$$_{int}=(D^\mu \varphi )^{}(D_\mu \varphi )+V(\varphi ).$$
(16)
Obviously the Lagrangian in Eq. (16) must be invariant under the gauge transformation in Eq. (7), so that the transformation properties of $`X_\mu `$ (and the corresponding ones for the field $`\varphi `$) are crucial in the identification of $`X_\mu `$ itself.
Note, however, that the field $`X_\mu `$ cannot be written as a gradient of a given function $`\alpha (x)`$, in order to have a ”genuine” interaction Lagrangian in Eq. (16). Indeed, let us assume that:

$$X_\mu =_\mu \alpha ,$$
(17)
and consider a local phase transformation for the scalar field $`\varphi `$:

$$\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi e^{ik\alpha }.$$
(18)
Substitution into Eq. (16) immediately leads to:

$$_{int}=(D^\mu \varphi )^{}(D_\mu \varphi )+V(\varphi )=(^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })+V(\varphi ),$$
(19)
and since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\varphi `$ represent the same physical object, we conclude that the interaction introduced by means of the $`X_\mu `$ field in Eq. (17) is fictitious, because it can be re-absorbed by a phase redefinition of the scalar field.
Starting from the rank-2 tensor $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, the simplest linear choice for $`X_\mu `$ is the following:

$$X_\mu =^\nu \theta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(20)
Such a definition for $`X_\mu `$ is, however, useful only when the ”generalized” Lorentz condition is not fulfilled, since in this case $`X_\mu `$ is identically zero and no physical interaction appears. Disregarding this gauge choice, the gauge group for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is easily obtained. Indeed, by applying the gauge transformation in Eq. (7) to the Lagrangian in (16), we find that it remains unchanged if the scalar field $`\varphi `$ transforms as follows:

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=\varphi e^{ik\eta },$$
(21)
with $`\eta =^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$. Note that the gauge freedom for the $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ field is not altered if in Eq. (7) we choose a divergence-less gauge function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu `$. In this case $`\eta `$ is zero and Eq. (21) reduces to the unit transformation, so that the gauge group underlying the choice in Eq. (20), when it is applicable, acts as the identity on the scalar field $`\varphi `$. As a consequence, by means of the Noether theorem, no conserved charge comes out.
The only alternative for $`X_\mu `$, which is linear in the $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ field, is the following

$$X_\mu =\theta _\mu =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\nu \theta _{\rho \sigma }.$$
(22)
Now we have no limitation on the gauge condition to be used and is a simple task to show that the gauge group associated to the scalar field is, again, the identity. Indeed, it is easy to convince ourselves that $`X_\mu `$ in Eq. (22) is invariant under the gauge transformation in Eq. (7), and thus the Lagrangian in Eq. (16) is automatically invariant when $`\varphi `$ is unchangedMore in general, we can allow a phase transformation $`\varphi \varphi ^{}=\varphi e^{i\beta }`$, with a constant $`\beta `$.:

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=\varphi .$$
(23)
We remark that the choice (22) for $`X_\mu `$ is not a trivial one, since $`X_\mu `$ does not satisfy the constraint (17). In fact, as pointed out in the previous section, the dual field $`\theta _\mu `$ can be written as the gradient of $`\theta `$ (see Eq. (16)) only for a massless non-interacting Kalb-Ramond field, which is not the present case. It is remarkable that in the limit of no interaction the $`X_\mu `$ field becomes unphysical.
A final remark on the physical dimensions of the coupling constant is in order. We immediately see that, for the cases considered above, $`k`$ has the dimensions of the inverse of a mass, so that the corresponding theory is non-renormalizable. We point out that such a property is a peculiar feature of Quantum Gravity, which is a natural framework, however, for the theory developed here.

### A Non-linear coupling

For completeness,we briefly discuss some particular direct interactions between a scalar field and a Kalb-Ramond field involving non-linear terms (which are quadratic in the Kalb-Ramond field).
First of all we note that $`n`$-linear ($`n>1`$) terms in $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ appearing in the covariant derivative have to be gauge-invariant in order to assure the invariance of the Lagrangian (neglecting terms which are total divergences). Indeed, when considering the $`X_\mu `$ field where, for example, non gauge-invariant bilinear terms in $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ appears, we recognize that, under a gauge transformation (7), two derivatives of two gauge ($`4`$-vectors) functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ come out. In general, the corresponding gauge terms in $`(D^\mu \varphi )^{}(D_\mu \varphi )`$ cannot be absorbed by a phase transformation (containing only one scalar function) of the scalar field $`\varphi `$.
Therefore, simple choices for $`X_\mu `$ involve only the gauge-invariant field $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ and its dual $`\theta _\mu `$ and, as a consequence, the gauge group is the identity.
Some example of quadratic interactions are as follows:

$`X_\mu =\theta _\nu ^\nu \theta _\mu ,`$ (24)
$`X_\mu =ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^\eta H_{\mu \alpha \beta }H_{\gamma \delta \eta },`$ (25)
$`X_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^\nu H^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\theta _\gamma .`$ (26)
Note that in the case considered the Eq. (25) (and for similar terms), $`X_\mu `$ vanishes only when $`H_{\gamma \delta \eta }`$ satisfies its equation of motion in absence of interaction Eq. (6). Finally, we point out that allowing quadratic terms for $`X_\mu `$ as those in Eqs. (24)-(26) (and similar ones), the coupling constant $`k`$ in the covariant derivative must have the dimensions of the inverse of the $`4`$th power of a mass, so that the non-renormalizability of the theory is greatly worsened with respect to the linear coupling case.

## IV Interacting field dynamics.

The dynamics of a charged scalar field interacting directly with a Kalb-Ramond field is described by the following Lagrangian:

$$=\left(D_\mu \varphi \right)^{}\left(D^\mu \varphi \right)m^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \rho }H^{\mu \nu \rho },$$
(27)
where the covariant derivative is written as in Eq. (15) and, for simplicity, we have neglected a scalar potential term. By expliciting the $`X_\mu `$ term, we can rewrite Eq. (27) as:

$$=\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^{}\left(^\mu \varphi \right)(m^2k^2X^2)\varphi ^{}\varphi ikX_\mu [\varphi ^\mu \varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi ]\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \rho }H^{\mu \nu \rho },$$
(28)
where the second term in the sum accounts for the effective mass acquired by the scalar particle interacting with the Kalb-Ramond field, while the following term describes this interaction.
The Euler-Lagrange equation for $`\varphi `$ immediately follows:

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +(m^2k^2X^2)\varphi =2ikX_\mu ^\mu \varphi +ik\varphi ^\mu X_\mu .$$
(29)
Note that, in the linear coupling case, the last term vanishes, since $`^\mu X_\mu =0`$.
Instead, the equations of motion for the interacting Kalb-Ramond field are:

$$^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu \nu }=J_{\mu \nu },$$
(30)
with

$`J_{\mu \nu }=`$ $`2`$ $`\left[[ik(\varphi ^\mu \varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi )+2k^2|\varphi |^2X_\sigma ]{\displaystyle \frac{X^\sigma }{(_\rho \theta _{\mu \nu })}}\right]`$ (31)
$``$ $`[ik(\varphi _\sigma \mu \varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}_\sigma \varphi )+2k^2|\varphi |^2X_\sigma ]{\displaystyle \frac{X^\sigma }{X^\sigma \theta _{\mu \nu }}}.`$ (32)
Given the symmetry properties of the $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ field, it follows that the current $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is antisymmetric while exchanging the indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$:

$$J_{\mu \nu }=J_{\nu \mu }.$$
(33)
Moreover, from the field equations (30) we deduce that, despite of the explicit form of $`X_\mu `$, $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is a conserved current:

$$^\mu J_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(34)
Note that such a property follows, again, from the antisymmetry of $`H_{\sigma \mu \nu }`$.
Let us now consider the explicit interesting case in which $`X_\mu `$ is given by Eq. (22). After some algebra we obtain the following expression for the current:

$$J_{\mu \nu }=^\sigma T_{\sigma \mu \nu }.$$
(35)
with

$$T_{\sigma \mu \nu }=2(ikϵ_{\sigma \rho \mu \nu }\varphi ^{}^\rho \varphi +k^2|\varphi |^2H_{\sigma \mu \nu }).$$
(36)
It is remarkable that, in the case considered, the current $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gradient of an antisymmetric rank-3 tensor $`T_{\sigma \mu \nu }`$. Indeed, as a consequence of this, we have that Eq. (34) holds independently of the equations of motion (by taking the divergence of Eq. (35) we obtain a vanishing R.H.S due to the symmetry properties of $`T_{\sigma \mu \nu }`$), so that $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is a conserved topological current. Moreover on substituting Eq. (35) into Eq. (30) we find that

$$^\mu \stackrel{~}{H}_{\mu \rho \sigma }=0.$$
(37)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mu \rho \sigma }=H_{\mu \rho \sigma }T_{\mu \rho \sigma }.$$
(38)
i.e. the novel field $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mu \rho \sigma }`$ can be interpreted as a ”dressed” Kalb-Ramond field satisfying the free field equation (37).

### A The symmetry group of the topological current

Let us now turn back to the topological current $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ in Eqs (35) and (36) and write it as sum of a term $`J_{\mu \nu }^0`$, which does not depend explicitly on the Kalb-Ramond field, and a term $`J_{\mu \nu }^1`$ which vanishes for vanishing $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$:

$`J_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2k(J_{\mu \nu }^0+kJ_{\mu \nu }^1)`$ (39)
$`J_{\mu \nu }^0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }(^\alpha \phi ^{})(^\alpha \phi ),`$ (40)
$`J_{\mu \nu }^1`$ $`=`$ $`^\alpha (|\phi |^2H_{\alpha \mu \nu }.`$ (41)
The ”free” current $`J_{\mu \nu }^0`$ remains invariant if we perform a rotation with an imaginary angle $`i\alpha `$ of the fields $`\phi ,\phi ^{}`$More in general, the current $`J_{\mu \nu }^0`$ is left unchanged if the fields $`\phi ,\phi ^{}`$ undergo the following linear transformation:
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \hfill \\ \phi ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi ^{}\hfill \\ \phi ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\hfill & b\hfill \\ b^{}\hfill & a^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \hfill \\ \phi ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}c\hfill \\ c^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(42)  with $`a,b,c`$ three arbitrary complex numbers satisfying the constraint $`|a|^2|b|^2=1`$. Note that, since the determinant of the transformation matrix is equal to $`1`$, the group of transformations defined in (42) is that of equiaffinities in the complex plane, which is a subgroup of $`SL(2,C).`$ :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \hfill \\ \phi ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi ^{}\hfill \\ \phi ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}i\alpha & \hfill \mathrm{sin}i\alpha \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}i\alpha & \hfill \mathrm{cos}i\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \hfill \\ \phi ^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(43)
However the term $`J_{\mu \nu }^1`$, and hence the whole current $`J_{\mu \nu }`$, is not invariant under the group defined above, so that the corresponding topological symmetry can be only viewed as an approximate invariance of the conserved current in the limit of a small coupling constant (the $`J_{\mu \nu }^1`$-term is quadratic in $`k`$). The general transformation for the scalar field $`\phi `$ leaving invariant the whole current $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is the following:

$$\phi \phi ^{}=\phi e^{i(\alpha |\phi |^2+\beta )},$$
(44)
with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ two real parameters, and, in the limit $`\alpha =0`$, we recover the simple global phase transformation. However, since Eq. (44) is highly non-linear for $`\alpha 0`$, it is not evident the physical meaning corresponding to the transformation in Eq. (44).

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have introduced a direct interaction between a scalar particle and a Kalb-Ramond field by defining a covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$, where an appropriate auxiliary vector field $`X_\mu `$ (depending on the Kalb-Ramond field) appears. Several possible choices for $`X_\mu `$ have been studied, leading to linear or quadratic coupling with the scalar field. In the simple, viable models considered here, the gauge group underlying the theory is the identity, so that no conserved Noether charge exists. However, due to the antisymmetry properties of the Kalb-Ramond field, a conserved (antisymmetric) topological current arises in the simplest model, which appears in the equations of motion for $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$. Since this current is a divergence of a rank-3 antisymmetric tensor, it is possible to define a ”dressed” Kalb-Ramond field strength, obeying the free field equations, which describes the dynamics of the interacting field.
Some possible applications of our results are concerned with the theory of gravity, where a zero mass Kalb-Ramond field is the source of torsion in Einstein-Cartan theory . Moreover, in recent years, it has been pointed out that the presence of Kalb-Ramond fields in the background space-time leads to several interesting astrophysical and cosmological phenomena like cosmic optical activity and neutrino helicity flip . This motivates the study of some important problems related to the standard Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmological model in light of Kalb-Ramond cosmology ,  in an inflationary framework, where the coupling to a scalar field is crucial.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted with Dr. G. Fiore for his kind cooperation and many interesting suggestions. Useful discussions with Dr.s R. Marotta, O. Pisanti and Prof. G. Miele have been appreciated as well.


format: text

text:
# THE HUBBLE FLOW: WHY DOES THE COSMOLOGICAL EXPANSION PRESERVE ITS KINEMATICAL IDENTITY FROM A FEW MPC DISTANCE TO THE OBSERVATION HORIZON?

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper, Sandage (1999) has emphasized evidence that the rate of the cosmological expansion in the Local Volume ($`D<10`$ Mpc) is ‘similar, if not precisely identical’, to the global rate (see also Sandage 1986, Teerikorpi 1997, Ekholm et al. 1999, Giovanelli et al. 1999). This is a severe challenge to the current cosmological theories, especially in view the fact that the linear expansion flow starts from the distances of a few Mpc from the Local Group (Sandage et al. 1972, Karachentsev et al. 2001, 2002, Ekholm et al. 2001). Indeed, why is the galaxy velocity field fairly regular in the area where the galaxy spatial distribution is very irregular? And how can it be compatible with the bulk motion of the volume with a high velocity of about 600 km$`s^1`$?

In this paper, we first describe new observational data on the kinematics and distribution of galaxies in the Local Volume and then suggest a theoretical framework which appears to offer a possible solution to the above mentioned problems. This approach is suggested by the recent discovery of the cosmic vacuum, or dark energy, and on the data on its energy density (Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999).

We note that the Local Volume is in many ways optimal for study of questions concerning the various components of the universe and their dynamics. Here we have relatively accurate distances and a good knowledge of the distribution of galaxies which turns out to be typical for the galaxy universe in general. In this volume the Hubble law starts and one may see both its linear form and to measure its dispersion. One may also detect minor deviations due to the differential velocity field caused by the Virgo cluster. The Local Volume is also deep inside the (unknown) volume which has the zero velocity relative to the cosmic background radiation. With its very clumpy galaxy distribution it is also deep inside the volume in which the distribution may be regarded as uniform.

## 2 Global expansion rate and cosmic vacuum

The global rate of the expansion is the rate on the spatial scales of a hundred Mpc and larger where the spatial matter distribution is considered smooth and uniform, on average (see, for instance, Wu, Lahav & Rees 1999). This is the realm of the standard isotropic cosmology which views the linear expansion flow as a direct consequence of the uniformity of matter distribution.

The precise value of the global expansion rate, or the Hubble constant, is still under discussion. However a value $`H_0=70\pm 6`$ km s$`1`$/Mpc appears to cover most of the recent determinations on large ($`>200`$ Mpc) and ”intermediate” (30-200 Mpc) scales (Theureau et al. 1997; Sandage 1999; Giovanelli et al. 1999; Freedman et al. 2001).

As to the theory, according to the Friedmann model $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, where $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor of the model. For cold (non-relativistic) matter with the density $`\rho _M`$ and cosmological constant, or vacuum with the density $`\rho _V`$, the scale factor is given by the Friedmann equation:

$$\dot{a}^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}G(\rho _M+\rho _V)a^2k.$$
(1)
For the spatially flat model ($`k=0`$), the solution has a form:

$$a(t)=a_0q^{1/3}\mathrm{sinh}^{2/3}(\frac{3}{2}\alpha t),$$
(2)
where $`a_0=a(t_0)`$ is the present-day value of $`a(t)`$, $`q=\rho _V/\rho _M`$, and $`\alpha =(\frac{8\pi }{3}G\rho _V)^{1/2}`$. Then

$$H(t)=\alpha (\frac{3}{2}\alpha t).$$
(3)
On the other hand, the Hubble constant is expressed from Eq.(1) directly in terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`q`$:

$$H=\alpha (\frac{1+q}{q})^{1/2}.$$
(4)
For the present-day universe, the ‘concordant’ observational figures for the densities are:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\rho _V/\rho _c=0.7\pm 0.1;\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\rho _M/\rho _c=0.3\pm 0.1,$$
(5)
, where $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density. As a result, one has a rather narrow interval for the present-day global rate in the flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_V=1`$) model:

$$H_0(1.2\pm 0.4)\alpha .$$
(6)
Actually, an approximate ‘concordant’ estimate is possible for all the three figures involved in the equations above (see for a review Chernin 2001):

$$H_0t_0^1\alpha .$$
(7)
More precise numbers follow from the concordant observational evidence:

$$H_0=(2\pm 0.2)\times 10^{18}s^1;t_0=15\pm 1Gyr=(4.5\pm 0.3)\times 10^{17}s;\alpha =(1.4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{18}s^1.$$
(8)
In real observations, the global expansion rate appears as a mean value of many individual measurements. There are naturally some definite deviations from the mean value; but they are not too significant on the global scales. Indeed, galaxies, their groups, clusters and superclusters are able to produce peculiar velocities within the expansion flow in their vicinity; the absolute value of these velocities are practically within the interval 100-1000 km/s. Because of this, any real deviations are all below the 10% level for the distances of 200 Mpc and larger.

Thus we see that the concordant model enables one to put the observational data on the global expansion rate (see above) in general agreement with the cosmic age and the vacuum density. The model indicates that in the present state of the universe, the global rate is determined in terms of $`\alpha `$ by the vacuum alone with a practically perfect accuracy. This new conclusion follows directly from the discovery of the cosmic vacuum with its energy density which is larger than the total energy density of all the other forms of cosmic matter.

## 3 Matter distribution in the Local Volume

Galaxies are distributed on the sky very inhomogeneously. This basic property of galaxies had been known long before their extragalactic nature was established. Clustering of galaxies towards each other is seen in a wide range of scales: from a typical galaxy diameter, $``$10 kpc, up to a scale of $``$30 Mpc exceeding a supercluster dimension. New optical and infrared sky surveys led to the conclusion that galaxy distribution is not homogeneous even on a scale of $``$500 Mpc (Busswell et al. 2003), which reaches about 1/10 of the horizon of the universe. Over the last decades, old nomenclature has described small and large galaxy systems: pairs, groups, clusters and superclusters, was updated with an idea of the large scale structure consisting of cosmic “filaments” and ”walls” framing giant empty volumes.

Generally, in the Local Volume one may see examples of all the components visible on larger scale 3-D maps: groups, elongated structures, filaments and voids. In addition, the local ($`<10`$ Mpc) spatial distribution appears to be fractal, with $`D1.8`$ (Tikhonov 2002), in agreement with the distribution on larger scales, up to about 100 Mpc (Sylos-Labini et al. 1998; Teerikorpi et al. 1998; Wu, Lahav & Rees 1999; Baryshev & Teerikorpi 2002).

All mentioned properties of the large scale structure are seen in Fig. 1, which presents the sky distribution of 5272 nearest galaxies in the equatorial coordinates. They are selected from the last version of the Lyon Extragalactic Database (=LEDA) (Paturel et al. 1996) by the condition that their corrected radial velocities is $`V_{LG}<`$ 2300 km/s. The galaxies are shown as filled circles with sizes inversly proportional to their distances (radial velocities). The gray belt corresponds to the Zone of Avoidance in the Milky Way (galactic latitude of $`\pm 10^{}`$), where the lack of galaxies is caused by strong Galactic extinction. As seen in the figure, the nearby galaxies are concentrated towards the Local Supercluster plane, and the Virgo cluster is the most dense part of it. The Virgo cluster is located near the center of Fig. 1 (marked with the character “V”) and has a distance of 17 Mpc from us. The distribution of these galaxies in the supergalactic coordinates is presented in Fig. 2. About half of the galaxies within the radius of 32 Mpc is situated in the Local Supercluster disk.

In the southern supergalactic hemisphere (SGL $`250^{}`$, SGB $`40^{}`$) another less rich cluster of galaxies, Fornax, alined along the supergalactic longitude is seen. The Fornax cluster has a distance of 20 Mpc. In the northern hemisphere there is a significant deficit of galaxies with radial velocities $`V_{LG}<`$ 1500 km/s. This almost empty volume in Hercules- Aquila with a linear diameter of 20 Mpc was called “Local Void” by Tully (1988). In the opposite direction (the Orion constellation) there is another smaller empty region called “Local Minivoid” (Karachentsev et al. 2002).

Projection of nearby and distant galaxies onto the sky makes difficult viewing the 3D structure of the Local volume. Passing to the Cartesian supergalactic coordinates allows us to see the local relief in a new aspect. Fig. 3 presents the distribution of galaxies with radial velocities $`V_{LG}<`$ 1500 km/s in projection onto the supergalactic plane. The radial velocity of each galaxy, $`V_{LG}=H_0\times D`$, is used as the galaxy distance, D, where the Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ = 72 km s-1Mpc-1 is assumed from modern data. The central part of Fig. 3 shows the distribution of nearby galaxies situated within the Local supercluster plane. The thickness of this slice is taken to be $`\pm `$300 km/s along the SGZ axis. The upper (a) and the bottom (c) pannels of Fig.3 present the distribution of remaining galaxies situated above (SGZ $`>`$300 km/s) and below (SGZ $`<`$300 km/s) the Supercluster disk, respectively. The main feature of the local landscape, the Virgo cluster, is elongated approximately along the +SGY axis. To a considerable extent, its alongation is fictituous, being caused by internal virial motions with a dispersion $`\sigma _v`$ = 650 km/s. Apart from the Virgo cluster, in the Supergalactic plane there are other more scattered structures: the Ursa Majoris cloud, the Canes Venaticy cloud, the Triangulum spur, etc., which have been revealed by Tully owing to their contrast above the average number density. The map of the southern supergalactic hemisphere shows the disposition of nearby galaxy clouds in Fornax, Leo, and Antlia. The presence of the Local Void is well seen in the galaxy distribution North of the Supergalactic disk.

It appears that our Galaxy is located not in the richest, nor in the poorest region of the Local supercluster. Kraan-Korteweg & Tammann (1979) proposed to call the space region around the Local Group with radial velocities of galaxies $`V_{LG}<`$ 500 km/s “Local Volume”. After ommiting the Virgo cluster members having $`V_{LG}<`$ 500 km/s because of their virial motions, the Local Volume population contains 179 galaxies, being rather representative in number. During the last years, special effort has been undertaken to increase the Local Volume population. “Blind” surveys of the sky in the 21 cm line (Ryan-Weber et al. 2002), infrared and radio surveys of the Zone of Avoidance (Kraan-Korteweg & Lahav, 2000) and searches for new dwarf galaxies of very low surface brightness based on the POSS-II and ESO/SERC plates (Karachentseva & Karachentsev, 1998, 2000) led to the increasing of the total number of the Local Volume galaxies more than two times.

Radial velocities of galaxies, especially situated within groups and clusters, give only an approximate estimate of distances to these galaxies. That was a reason to initiate a vast program of distance measuring to nearby galaxies, independently from their radial velocities. Over the last 10–15 years many nearby galaxies have been resolved into stars for the first time. The luminosity of their brightest blue and red stars have been used to determine galaxy distances with a typical accuracy of (20 – 25)% (Karachentsev & Tikhonov, 1994; Karachentsev et al., 1997). Later, the distance measurement error was decreased to $``$10% by using the luminosity of the tip of the red giant stars. This labour- consuming program requiring a lot of observing time with the largest ground-based telescopes, as well as the Hubble Space Telescope, is yet not complete. So far, the distances have been measured for about 150 galaxies situated within 6 Mpc (Karachentsev et al. 2003). The distribution of these galaxies is presented in Fig.4. The Local Volume galaxies are projected onto the Supergalactic plane, SGX, SGY, and shown as filled circles. In this region there are eight known groups whose principal galaxies: the Milky Way, M 31, IC 342, M 81, Cen A, M83, NGC 253, and M 94 are indicated with asterisks. Comparing the true 3D map of the Local Volume in Fig.4 with its approximate analogy in the redshift space (Fig.3), we recognize a higher density contrast of groups in Fig.4 and also the absence of the “virial tail” directed towards the Virgo cluster.

Note that the total number of 5272 galaxies, being averaged over the D = 32 Mpc volume, yield the expected number of galaxies within D = 6 Mpc to be 35. This number is 7 times as low as their observed number in the Local Volume. However, the excess is caused completly by the faintest galaxies unseen in more distant regions of the Local Supercluster.

## 4 Galaxy kinematics in the Local Volume.

Extensive measurements of distances to galaxies independent of their radial velocities provide us with a possibility to study the peculiar velocity field on different scales. Analysing the peculiar velocity map, we can establish reasons (inhomogeneities of gravitational potential) which generate the observed deviations in galaxy motions with respect to the regular Hubble flow. Surprisingly, such a kind of data on very nearby galaxies have turned out to be known over the last 2–3 years only!

A sample of observational data on radial velocities and distances for $``$150 nearby galaxies given by Karachentsev et al. (2003) is presented in Fig. 5. The galaxies with accurate ($``$10%) distances measured from the luminosity of cepheids or red giants are shown by filled circles. The galaxies with less reliable distances (via the brightest stars or Tully-Fisher relation) are indicated by crosses. The radial velocities of galaxies are reduced to the Local Group centroid. The solid line in Fig. 5 corresponds to the Hubble relation, $`V_{LG}=H_0\times D`$ with $`H_0=72`$ km s-1Mpc-1, when a decelerating gravitational action of the Local Group mass, $`1.310^{12}M_{}`$, is taken into account. Apart from the presented galaxies, the Local Volume of radius $`D<`$ 6 Mpc contains about 100 galaxies, whose distances are still unknown.

The largest deviations from the Hubble relation take place for the galaxies situated within two nearby groups around M 81 and Cen A. The members of these groups are shown in Fig.5 by open circles and open squares, respectively. As it was noted by Karachentsev & Makarov (1996, 2001), significant deviations from the regular Hubble flow are caused by anisotropic expansion of the Local Volume. The local value of the Hubble parameter can be described by a tensor $`H_{ij}`$ with the main axial ratios (81$`\pm `$3) : (62$`\pm `$3) : (48$`\pm `$5) km s-1Mpc-1. Here the minor axis of the Hubble ellipsoid is directed towards the Local Supercluster poles, and the major axis is pointed (29$`\pm `$5) deg away from the direction to the Virgo cluster. The nature of this phenomena remains unclear yet. In any case, it does not agree with the idea of spherically- symmetric Virgo-centric flow, which has been discussed by many authors.

The most enigmatic property of the local Hubble flow turns out to be its “coldness”. According to Sandage et al. (1972), the typical random velocity of galaxies is 70 km/s. Just the same value has been derived by Karachentsev & Makarov (1996) for galaxies within 7 Mpc from us. Later, Karachentsev & Makarov (2001) showed that for the nearest galaxies with $`D<3`$ Mpc their radial velocity dispersion does not exceed 30 km/s. Also, using Cepheid distances only, Ekholm et al. (2001) derived a local dispersion of 40 km/s. These results are as was predicted by Sandage: the smaller the distance measurement error the lower the observed peculiar velocity dispersion.

In the Local Group and in the other nearby groups the characteristic virial velocity is also about 70 km/s. However, the group centroids themselves have much lower chaotic motions. Fig. 6 presents the Hubble diagram for centroids of the eight nearby groups shown in Fig. 4. Their velocities and distances are taken with respect to the Local Group centroid situated between M 31 (Andromeda) and our Galaxy. It appears that the group centroids have a scatter of only 29 km/s in regard to the Hubble relation with $`H_0`$ = 72 km s-1Mpc-1. The distance measurement errors are shown by horizontal bars. As seen, for the galaxy groups with radial velocities $`V_{LG}`$250 km/s their $``$10% distance errors lead to the Hubble velocity errors $``$25 km/s comparable with the observed value of $`\sigma _v`$.

Finally, the most complete and accurate data on radial velocities and distances of nearby galaxies demonstrate that the local Hubble flow has almost the same value of the Hubble parameter as the global flow: $`H_0=(71\pm 4)`$ km s-1Mpc-1 (Spergel et al. 2003). However, some uncertainty in the classically measured Hubble constant remains until the suspected extragalactic Cepheid distance bias is fully investigated (Teerikorpi & Paturel 2002).

## 5  Where are we moving towards?

Together with our Sun and our Galaxy we take part in different cosmic motions whose value and direction have been discussed by many authors. The initial data on these motions were controversal because of the low quality of determination of galaxy distances. However, at the present time, one can recognize a rather concordant picture of cosmic motions described below.

Taking part in the rotation of the Galaxy, our Sun moves at a velocity of (220$`\pm 20)`$ km/s towards $`l=90^{}`$, $`b=0^{}`$ in the galactic coordinates (Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). Apart from the regular circular rotation the Sun has its individual velocity of 16 km/s towards $`l=53^{}`$, $`b=25^{}`$ with respect to surrounding stars ( Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). Considering velocities and distances of nearby galaxies, Karachentsev & Makarov (1996, 2001) established that the Sun moves with respect to the Local Group centroid with the velocity (316$`\pm `$11) km/s in the direction $`l=(93\pm 2)^{}`$, $`b=(4\pm 1)^{}`$. When these vectors are substracted, we derive that the motion of the Galaxy center with respect to the Local Group centroid is 91 km/s towards $`l=163^{}`$, $`b=19^{}`$. As it is known, the centers of the Galaxy and Andromeda (M 31) are approaching each other at a velocity of $``$120 km/s. If the Galaxy mass is twice as low as the M 31 mass, our Galaxy should move towards M 31 at a velocity of 80 km/s. After excluding this expected velocity component, a residual (random) velocity of the Galaxy is only 23 km/s towards $`l=56^{}`$, $`b=0^{}`$. Its value and direction can be easely explained by a not strickly radial motion of the Galaxy towards M 31 or by an underestimated circular velocity of the Galaxy in the Sun’s neighbourhood.

Measurements of the dipole anizotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) showed that our Sun moves with respect to the CMB at a velocity of (370$`\pm `$3) km/s towards $`l=(264.4\pm 0.3)^{}`$, $`b=(48.4\pm 0.5)^{}`$ (Kogut et al. 1993). Therefore, in the absolute frame (CMB) the Sun’s motion is known with an accuracy of better than 1%. Because of the Sun’s motion with respect to the Local Group and its motion with respect to the CMB have nearly opposite directions, the velocity of the Local Group centroid itself with respect to the CMB has a huge value, (634$`\pm `$12) km/s, towards $`l=(269\pm 3)^{}`$, $`b=(48.4\pm 0.5)^{}`$. The origion of such a fast motion of the Local Group was a puzzle for many observers trying to determine the Local Group velocity with respect to nearby and distant galaxies. The most defined results were obtained by Tonry et al. (2000) who measured accurate ($`\pm `$10%) distances to 300 early-type galaxies with radial velocities $`<`$ 3000 km/s. An analysis made from these observational data reveals that the Local Group takes part in different kinds of motion:

a) towards the Virgo cluster center ( $`l=274^{}`$, $`b=75^{}`$) at a velocity of 139 km/s,

b) towards so-called “the Great Attractor” in Hydra-Centaurus ( $`l=291^{}`$, $`b=17^{}`$, $`D`$ = 44 Mpc) at a velocity of 289 km/s, and

c) in the direction away from the Local Void (i.e. towards $`l=228^{}`$, $`b=10^{}`$) at a velocity of $``$200 km/s.

When all the three motions have been taken into account, the residual velocity of the Local Group towards $`l=281^{}`$, $`b=43^{}`$ is only 166 km/s. According to Tonry et al. (2000), the error in the residual velocity is about 120 km/s that is why they considered the Local Group to be practically at rest relative to remote galaxies.

The bulk galaxy motion within a radius of $`(100200)`$ Mpc with respect to the CMB was studied by different observational teams. Most of the approaches relied on the Tully-Fisher relation in estimating distances to spiral galaxies from the amplitude of their internal motions. As a result, Giovanelli et al. (1998) and Dekel et al. (1999) derived the bulk motion parameters: $`V`$= 200 km/s, $`l=295^{}`$, $`b=25^{}`$, and $`V`$ = 370 km/s, $`l=305^{}`$, $`b=14^{}`$, respectively. To study coherent large-scale motions, Karachentsev et al. (1993) created a special catalog of flat disk-like galaxies seen edge-on. This catalog (FGC) covers homogeneously the whole northern and southern sky. Based on the FGC sample, Karachentsev et al. (2000) derived the dipole solution: $`V=(300\pm 75`$) km/s, $`l=(328\pm 15)^{}`$, and $`b=(7\pm 15)^{}`$. Applying for the FGC sample of new photometric data from the 2MASS sky survey yields the following parameters of the galaxy bulk motion: $`V=(199\pm 61`$) km/s, $`l=(301\pm 18)^{}`$, and $`b=(2\pm 15)^{}`$ (Kudrya et al. 2003).

A survey of galaxy motions on different scales is presented in Table 1 and Fig. 7. Apart from M 31, Virgo (VA) and the Great Attractor (GA), the position of the centroid of IRAS sources (Rowan-Robinson et al. 2000), 2MASS sources (Maller et al. 2003), and the Shapley concentration of rich clusters (ShC) with its typical distance of $``$13000 km/s are shown in the galactic coordinates. As seen from the map, all the large-scale attractors (gray circles), as well as the apexes of bulk galaxy motions (crosses) are concentrated in an approximately the same sky region, cosmic “Bermudas trianglum”. Such an association of apexes and attractors can be easely understood if the distribution of Dark Matter on large scales follows the galaxy distribution. It should be emphasized that the residual velocity of the Local Group, $`V`$= 166 km/s, $`l=281^{}`$, $`b=43^{}`$, (indicated in Fig. 7 as a diagonal cross) is directed almost towards the clustering dipole of the 2MASS sources, $`l=278^{}`$,$`b=38^{}`$. It means that the residual motion of the Local Group with respect to the CMB can be generated by the large-scale structure seen in the 2MASS survey.

## 6 Dynamic background in the Local Volume

Turning to the theory, we argue now that the local expansion rate could be due to the dynamical effect of the vacuum.

¿From the data on the matter distribution in the Local Volume (Sec.3), one can see that the bulk of mass (this is mostly dark matter) is concentrated in several groups like the Local Group, if one consider the distances $`1R7`$. Matter dominates dynamically near the Local Group, while outside this region vacuum must dominate. A rough, but obvious and robust estimate shows this.

Indeed, the mass of the Local Group $`M_{LG}`$ is less than the effective gravitating mass of the vacuum in a surronding volume of the size (radius) $`R`$, if $`R`$ is large enough:

$$M_{LG}<\frac{4\pi }{3}2\rho _VR,$$
(9)
(here we take into account that the effective gravitating density of the vacuum is $`2\rho _V`$) and the vacuum dominates at distances

$$R>R_V=(\frac{3M_{LG}}{8\pi \rho _V})^{1/3}.$$
(10)
With $`M_{LG}=(1.52.0)\times 10^{12}M_{}`$, and the vacuum density of Sec.2, one has (Chernin 2001 Baryshev et al. 2001):

$$R_V=1.52.0Mpc,$$
(11)
and the dynamical effect of vacuum dominates at distances of a few Mpc and larger.

A detailed computer model that takes into account the motion of the two major galaxies of the Local Group shows (Dolgachev et al. 2003) that the surface of ”zero gravity” where the gravity of the Local Group is exactly balanced by the anti-gravity of the cosmic vacuum is very near to sphere with the radius of 1.8 Mpc. This sphere change very slowly during the life time of the Group. It means that outside this surface the gravitational potential is spherically symmetrical and static (practically) for the last 12-13 Myr.

It is significant that vacuum domination in the Local Volume is at least as strong as on the average, all over the Universe (i.e. on the global spatial scales). One may see this in terms of the effective mass that produces gravity at a given distance $`R`$ from the barycenter of the Local Group. Two kinds of estimates can be made for this. The first and simplest assumes that all the mass in the volume (up to a certain distance) is collected in the Local Group within a region of $`1`$ Mpc in size. If so, the ratio of the matter mass, $`M_M=M_{LG}`$, to the vacuum mass in the volume of the size (radius) $`R`$ around the Local Group scales with $`R`$ as

$$M_V/M_M(R/R_V)^3,$$
(12)
in accordance with Eq.(8). It means that at an intermediate distance of, say, $`R=3`$ Mpc the mass ratio is $`M_V/M_M5`$.

A more accurate estimate may take into account the contribution to the matter mass $`M_M`$ by the galaxies (and intergalactic matter) distributed around the Local Group. According to the data of Sec.3, the mass distribution is fractal, and $`M_MR^D`$, where $`0<D3`$. In this case,

$$M_V/M_M(R/R_V)^{D3}.$$
(13)
At a distance $`R=3`$ Mpc (as above), the ratio is now $`M_V/M_M1.8`$, if $`D=2`$, and $`M_V/M_M3.1`$, if $`D=1`$. For the most popular fractal dimension $`D=1.8`$ (Peebles 1993, Tikhonov et al. 2000) extended to, say, 20 Mpc, the mass ratio $`M_V/M_M`$ is larger than the global effective ratio 14/3 in almost all ($`>`$ 95% !) the volume of space with this (20 Mpc) radius. This means that dynamical dominance of the vacuum in the Local Volume is actually even stronger than on the global scales.

## 7 Expansion rate in the Local Volume

The considerations above suggest that the present-day dynamics in the Local Volume outside the zero-gravity sphere can be considered as controlled by the vacuum alone, – with the same (at least) accuracy as on the global scales. This enables one to study trajectories in the Local Volume neglecting the dynamical effect of matter, in the first (and main) approximation. In addition, the one may consider spherically symmetrical trajectories as a good approximation to the real motion of small galaxies in this volume.

In this approximation, the radial component of the equation of motion in the reference frame of the Local Group barycenter has a simple form:

$$\ddot{R}=\alpha ^2R.$$
(14)
The solution to the equation may be written as

$$R(t)=R_0(\chi )F(t,\chi ),$$
(15)
where

$$F=\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (t+T(\chi )],\mathrm{cosh}[\alpha (t+T(\chi )],\mathrm{sinh}[\alpha (t+T(\chi )],$$
(16)
for parabolical, hyperbolical and elliptical trajectories, correspondingly.

The solution describes the radial trajectory of a body (a dwarf galaxy) with the Euler radial coordinate $`R`$ and Lagrangian coordinate $`\chi `$. The solution is exact and nonlinear. The solution is also general in the sense that it contains two arbitrary functions of the Lagrangian coordinate, $`R_0(\chi )`$ and $`T(\chi )`$, and so it can fit all (reasonable) initial conditions for positions and velocities at the start of the motion.

The solution describes regular ‘unperturbed’ Friedmann-Hubble trajectories, if $`R_0(\chi )=\chi ,T(\chi )=0`$. In its general form, the solution describes a ‘perturbed’ trajectory with arbitrary $`R_0(\chi )`$ and $`T(\chi )`$. The solution is valid (practically) since the time of the formation of the Local Group, i.e. since the moment $`t_113`$ Gyr when the most of the material in the voulume was assembled into the two major galaxies of the Local Group.

The solution gives the rate of expansion $`\dot{R}/R`$ measured for a given trajectory at a moment $`t`$ as a function of both $`t`$ and $`\chi `$. For a regular (unperturbed) trajectory the rate is simply $`H_0=\alpha `$, as it is in the global solution (Sec.2). For a perturbed trajectory one may use, for instance, a hyperbolical solution:

$$H(t,\chi )=\dot{R}/R=\alpha [\alpha (t+T(\chi ))].$$
(17)
The dependence on $`\chi `$ is due to perturbations described by the arbitrary function $`T(\chi )`$; the other arbitrary function $`R_0(\chi )`$ does not enter this relation. The expansion rate does not depend on $`\chi `$ and coincides with the regular one, $`H_0=\alpha `$, in the limit of large times; in this limit, the perturbations vanish.

On the contrary, at the moment of the Local Group formation, $`t=t_1`$, and soon after that, most of the trajectories might be highly disturbed, so that for a typical trajectory the rate of expansion was significantly different from $`\alpha `$. And nevertheless big initial perturbaations are compatible with the present rather regular linear flow. For example, if $`T(\chi )=0.2/\alpha `$, then $`H(t_1)3\alpha `$ initially ($`t_10.11/\alpha `$), while the present expansion rate $`\alpha `$ for the same $`T`$.

Another simple solution can easily be obtained for radial trajectories in the case when gravity of matter is taken into account and the motion is parabolical. The solution has a form of Eq.(2), where one has now $`t+T(\chi )`$ instead of $`t`$. Similarly, the expansion rate is given by Eq.(3) with the same change of the argument. It is interesting that this new expression for the expansion rate is the same as for the hyperbolical trajectories considered above. Therefore the conclusions we made above extend directly to this new case.

Our analysis of the trajectories and conclusions about the expansion rate for the Local Volume are completely confirmed by computer models that trace back the observed kinematics of real galaxies of the local expansion flow (Karachentsev et al. 2003).

Summing up, we may say that an answer to the question in the title of the paper may be like this: the rate of the cosmological expansion in the Local Volume is similar to the global rate because the cosmic vacuum with its perfectly uniform density dominates the present-day dynamics of the Hubble flow both locally and globaly . The bulk motion does not affect this result basically because vacuum is co-moving with any motion (see, for instance, Chernin 2001, Chernin et al. 2003).

This work was partially supported by RFBR grant 01–02–16001.


text:
# QCD inequalities for the nucleon mass and the free energy of baryonic matter

## Abstract

The positivity of the integrand of certain Euclidean space functional integrals for two flavor QCD with degenerate quark masses implies that the free energy per unit volume for QCD with a baryon chemical potential $`\mu _B`$ (and zero isospin chemical potential) is greater than the free energy with isospin chemical potential $`\mu _I=\frac{2\mu _B}{N_c}`$ (and zero baryon chemical potential). The same result applies to QCD with any number of heavy flavors in addition to the two light flavors so long as the chemical potential is understood as applying to the light quark contributions to the baryon number. This relation implies a bound on the nucleon mass: there exists a particle $`X`$ in QCD (presumably the pion) such that $`M_N\frac{N_cm_X}{2I_X}`$ where $`m_X`$ is the mass and of the particle and $`I_X`$ is its isospin.

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory underlying strong interactions. The theory is not analytically tractable via perturbative and other weak coupling methods except for a limited set of observables in a limited kinematic regime. While certain aspects of the nonperturbative regime of QCD have been explored via lattice QCDlat , it is important to establish as many properties of QCD as possible via rigorous analytic means. QCD inequalities represent an ideal method to do this. An early variant of the approach was based on a demonstration by NussinovNus83  that bounds could be placed on hadronic quantities in a wide class of models inspired by QCD. The approach was greatly strengthened by the realization of Weingarten Wei83  and Witten Wit83  that similar bounds could be obtained directly from QCD itself through inequalities based on Eulcidean space functional integral representations of physical quantities. Thus, the approach is a method to deduce certain qualitative features of QCD from first principles. While the resulting inequalities have not been proved as theorems at the level of rigor demanded by mathematicians, they make use of only the most standard assumptions made by physicists. For example one assumes that the theory exists, that physical quantities may be represented via functional integrals, that a Wick rotation from Minkowski space to Euclidean space is innocuous and so on. The field of QCD inequalities is now two decades old; the state of the art is presented in a recent comprehensive review by Nussinov and Lampert LamNus00 . Although the results of QCD inequalities are qualitative, they can serve to supplement understanding gleaned from lattice QCD studies; they provide an analytic means of understanding some of the results of QCD which are both seen in nature and which emerge from numerical studies on the lattice. QCD inequalities may also provide insight into certain properties of QCD which are not tractable on the lattice using Monte Carlo algorithms.

The underlying idea of QCD inequalities is quite simple. One relates a physical quantity of interest to a Euclidean space functional integral over gauge field configurations. If a second quantity can be represented via a functional integral for which the integrand is greater than or equal to the integrand of the initial quantity for all gauge configurations, then one can conclude that the second functional integral is bigger than the first and this in turn allows one to bound one physical quantity by another.

This letter focuses on the use of QCD inequalities in two apparently unrelated problems in strong interaction physics. The first is bounding the mass of the nucleon from below in terms of other physical observables. This is an old problem. Nussinov derived a bound that the nucleon mass must be greater than or equal to $`\frac{3m_\pi }{2}`$ in the context of QCD-inspired models. Weingarten, in his original paper, attempted to bound the mass of the nucleon as some multiple of the pion mass directly from QCD Wei83 . Unfortunately, the only rigorous method found required the study of QCD with six or more degenerate light flavors. An alternative approach was also suggested by Weingarten; however, it used plausible but not provable assumptions about bounds on the quark propagator in the presence of an arbitrary gauge potential. Subsequently, Nussinov and Sathiapalan NusSat85  showed that in the large $`N_c`$ limit of QCD with two degenerate flavors, the nucleon mass is bounded by $`M_N>\frac{N_cm_\pi }{2}`$. However, previously no rigorous lower bound has been obtained for the nucleon mass directly from QCD at finite $`N_c`$ for two degenerate flavors. Such a bound is derived here.

The second issue discussed in this letter is the problem of finding a lower bound on the free energy of QCD at nonzero baryon chemical potential, or more precisely a baryon chemical potential associated with the two light degenerate flavors. This second problem is significant because for the zero temperature case it is in the class of problems for which Monte Carlo algorithms cannot be used in lattice simulations. Moreover no viable alternative presently exists for doing such simulations. Thus any reliable results from the theory are extremely welcome. The problem is also interesting in light of the intense recent interest in QCD at finite baryon density rho .

The bound on the QCD free energy at fixed baryon chemical potential will play an essential role in bounding the nucleon mass and accordingly this problem will be treated first. This problem is rather unusual for a QCD inequality treatment. The approach is more commonly associated with bounding masses of particles via the study of correlation functions rather than with thermodynamically intensive quantities such as free energy densities. However, QCD inequalities have been used for intensive quantities in the past. Vafa and Witten VafWit84  demonstrated that the vacuum energy for QCD including a $`\theta `$ term has an absolute minimum at $`\theta =0`$. While the validity of a related argument by Vafa and WittenVafWit84  that parity cannot be spontaneously broken has recently been questioned questions , the demonstration that the the minimum vacuum energy is at $`\theta =0`$ is clearly correct.

The Vafa-Witten proof is very simple. The integrand of the functional integral is given by $`_{i=\mathrm{flavors}}\mathrm{det}(D/+m_i)e^{S_{YM}+i\theta \nu }`$ where $`\mathrm{det}(D/+m_i)`$, the functional determinant for a given flavor is real and non-negative Wei83 , $`S_{YM}`$ is the Yang-Mills action, and $`\nu `$ is the winding number. Thus, the only effect of setting $`\theta `$ to be nonzero is to multiply the rest of the integrand (which is real and positive) by a pure phase factor $`e^{i\theta \nu }`$. Since the real part of this phase factor is always less than or equal to unity (and the imaginary part will integrate to zero) one immediate deduces that the functional integral for nonzero $`\theta `$ is bounded from above by the integral with $`\theta =0`$. Finally, identifying the functional integral as the generating function $`Z(\theta )=e^{V(\theta )}`$ where $`V`$ is the four dimensional volume and $`(\theta )`$ is the vacuum energy as a function of $`\theta `$, one sees that the inequality for the generating function implies that $`(\theta )>(0)`$.

Here an argument analogous to that of Vafa and Witten will be given for the problem of two flavor QCD with degenerate quark masses at a nonzero chemical potential. The free energy density for QCD at fixed temperature and baryon chemical potential, $`𝒢_B(T,\mu _B)`$ is given in terms of the grand partition function $`Z_B(T,\mu _B)`$ as $`𝒢_B(T,\mu _B)=(\beta V_3)^1\mathrm{log}\left(Z_B(T,\mu _B)\right)`$ where $`V_3`$ is the three dimensional volume of the system and $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature. In QCD with two degenerate flavors, $`Z_B(T,\mu _B)`$ can be represented as a functional integral,

$`Z_B(T,\mu _B)=`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle }d[A]\left(\mathrm{det}(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _B}{N_c}}\gamma _0)\right)^2e^{S_{YM}}`$
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors (3 for the physical world), the functional determinant is over a single quark flavor and the temperature is implemented by imposing periodic boundary conditions in time for the gluon fields $`A(t+\beta )=A(t)`$ with $`\beta =1/T`$; similarly antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions are imposed in the functional determinant. The factor of $`\frac{1}{N_c}`$ simply reflects the fact that the chemical potential is for baryon number and the baryon number of a single quark is $`\frac{1}{N_c}`$. The difficulty in simulating this functional integral on the lattice stems from the fact that the functional determinant is not generally real and positive. From the perspective of QCD inequalities, however, this is not a bug, but a feature; it allows one to bound the partition function from above:

$`Z_B(T,\mu _B)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle }d[A]|\mathrm{det}(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _B}{N_c}}\gamma _0)|^2e^{S_{YM}}.`$
In order for inequality (2) to be useful, its right-hand side needs to be expressed in terms of a physical quantity. Fortunately it can be related to the free energy density of QCD with an isospin chemical potential AlfKapWil99 . An isospin chemical potential term is of the form $`\mu _I\overline{q}\gamma _0\frac{\tau _3}{2}q`$, which implies that the functional integral for the grand partition function $`Z_I(T,\mu _I)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta V_3𝒢_I(T,\mu _I)\right)`$ is given by

$`Z_I(T,\mu _I)={\displaystyle d[A]e^{S_{YM}}}`$ (3)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{det}(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)\mathrm{det}(D/+m+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)`$
where the two functional determinants are for the two flavors of quark and the opposite signs of the $`\mu _I`$ terms reflect the opposite values of $`I_3`$ for the two flavors. To proceed we use the fact that

$`\gamma _5(D/+m+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)\gamma _5`$ $`=`$ $`(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)^{}`$
where the last equality exploits the fact that in Euclidean space $`D/`$ is anti-Hermitian while the other two operators are Hermitian. Exploiting the cyclic property of the determinant allows one to write the second functional determinant in eq. (3) as $`\mathrm{det}(D/+m+\frac{\mu _I}{2}\gamma _0)=\mathrm{det}\left(\gamma _5(D/+m+\frac{\mu _I}{2}\gamma _0)\gamma _5\right)`$ and using equation eq. (4) then gives

$`\mathrm{det}(D/+m+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)=`$ (5)
$`\left(\mathrm{det}(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)\right)^{}`$
Combining eq. ( 5) with eq. (3) yields

$`Z_I(T,\mu _I)=`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle }d[A]|\mathrm{det}(D/+m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I}{2}}\gamma _0)|^2e^{S_{YM}}.`$
Finally, inequality (2) together with eq. (6) implies that $`Z_I(T,\frac{2\mu _B}{N_c})Z_B(T,\mu _B)`$. This relation together with the definition of the free energy requires that

$$𝒢_B(T,\mu _B)𝒢_I(T,\frac{2\mu _B}{N_c})$$
(7)
which is the first principal result of this letter.

Although this result was derived for two flavor QCD, the argument goes through for QCD with two degenerate light flavors and additional heavy flavors, provided the chemical potential term is understood as being the chemical potential for the up and down quark contributions to the baryon number rather than the full baryon chemical potential. The only change in the argument needed for this more general case is to include the functional determinant for the heavy flavors in all of the functional integrals. As the chemical potential does not apply to these heavy flavors, the functional determinants are the same as at $`\mu =0`$ and hence are real and non-negative. Thus, they do not alter the preceding inequalities. This more general case is significant as in nature QCD has two light quarks which are nearly degenerate and additional heavy flavors. The result also applies in the general case to the full baryon chemical potential if one is in a regime in which the $`\overline{s}\gamma _0s=\overline{c}\gamma _0c=\overline{b}\gamma _0b=\overline{t}\gamma _0t=0`$, since in this regime the total baryon number comes from up and down quarks. Such a regime occurs at zero temperature provided the chemical potential is below the critical chemical potential for strangeness condensation to occur.

A bound on the nucleon mass may be derived from inequality (7) using thermodynamic arguments. The bound applies to QCD with two degenerate light flavors and any number of heavy flavors. To begin, note that inequality (7) holds at all temperatures, including $`T=0`$. At zero temperature there are no thermal fluctuations and the system is in a single quantum state which minimizes the free energy $`G=H\mu N`$, where $`\mu `$ is the relevant chemical potential (either isospin or baryon) and $`N=V_3\rho `$ is the related particle number. The role of the chemical potential at zero temperature is simply to alter the relative free energies of the various quantum states. Thus increasing the chemical potential from zero at $`T=0`$ will have no effect until it is large enough so that the free energy of some other quantum state drops enough to equal that of the true vacuum. Accordingly, there is a critical value for the absolute value of the chemical potential at $`T=0`$ below which the density is zero and the free energy is that of the vacuum state (which is conventionally taken to be zero). The critical chemical potentials are thus defined as follows:

$`𝒢_B(T=0,\mu _B)`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}|\mu _B|<\mu _B^c,`$
$`𝒢_B(T=0,\mu _B)`$ $`<`$ $`0\mathrm{for}|\mu _B|>\mu _B^c,`$
$`𝒢_I(T=0,\mu _I)`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}|\mu _I|<\mu _I^c,`$
$`𝒢_I(T=0,\mu _I)`$ $`<`$ $`0\mathrm{for}|\mu _I|>\mu _I^c.`$ (8)
Inequalities (7) and (8), together imply the relation

$$\mu _B^c\frac{N_c\mu _I^c}{2}$$
(9)
It is straightforward to bound the $`\mu _B^c`$ from above by the nucleon mass using a simple variational argument. Consider the quantum state of a single nucleon at rest. This state has energy $`M_N`$ and baryon number unity; its free energy is $`G_B=M_N\mu _B`$. Clearly this is less than or equal to zero for $`\mu _BM_N`$. Thus, there is at least one state lower than the vacuum whenever $`\mu _BM_N`$. This implies that $`\mu _B^cM_N`$. This last inequality would become an equality if the system for $`\mu _B`$ just above its critical value formed an arbitrarily low density gas of nucleons (implying a second order transition). However, this is not what actually happens. Based on the extrapolation of finite nuclei densities and masses to infinite nuclear matter nucmat  one has a solid empirical basis to conclude that the transition is first order: for $`\mu _B`$ just above $`\mu _B^c`$ the system has nonzero energy and nonzero density. Thus $`\mu _B^c=M_NB`$ where $`B`$ is the binding energy per nucleon of infinite nuclear matter and the inequality, $`\mu _BM_N`$, is not saturated. In any event, the inequality $`\mu _B^cM_N`$ together with inequality (9) yields a bound on the nucleon mass.

$$M_N\frac{N_c\mu _I^c}{2}.$$
(10)
For inequality (10) to be useful we need to know $`\mu _I^c`$. For sufficiently small values of the quark mass we know that chiral perturbation theory accurately describes low energy excitations of the QCD vacuum. In chiral perturbation theory, the phase transition associated with increasing $`\mu _I`$ is second order and amounts to pion condensation, which implies $`\mu _I^c=m_\pi `$ SonSte . More generally, $`\mu _I^c`$ corresponds to the state in QCD with the lowest energy per unit isospin. Let us denote such a state as $`X`$. There are two possibilities for $`X`$. If the transition is second order (as it is in chiral perturbation theory), then $`X`$ is a single particle state; such a state is clearly at zero momentum so the energy can be identified as the mass of the particle. In this case, we can denote the mass of the state $`X`$, as $`m_X`$, and its isospin as , $`I_X`$. The inequality (10) becomes

$$M_N\frac{N_cm_X}{2I_X}.$$
(11)
Although it is strongly believed that in nature the transition is second order, we do not require this in obtaining an inequality. Assume for the moment that the transition were first order. In this case the state of minimum energy per isospin would in fact be infinite isospin matter (in analogy to infinite nuclear matter), i.e. a state of uniform isospin density and uniform energy density filling all space. However, if this were the case, one could construct single particle states by taking large chunks of isospin matter (in analogy to large nuclei in a world where the electro-magnetic interaction was shut off). The energy of such a state will have a bulk contribution scaling with the volume of the chunk and equaling $`\mu _I^cI_3`$ where $`I_3`$ is the isospin of the state. Corrections to this bulk value scale as the surface area and hence go like $`I_3^{2/3}`$. Thus, by making $`I_3`$ arbitrarily large but finite one can can create single particle states whose energy/isospin is arbitrary close $`\mu _I^c`$. Identifying such a state as $`X`$ one finds that there exists an $`X`$ for which $`\frac{m_X}{I_X}`$ can be made arbitrarily close to $`\mu _I^c`$. Accordingly, regardless of whether the transition is first or second order one can conclude that inequality (10) implies there exists in QCD some single particle state $`X`$ such that inequality (11) holds.

Note, the state $`X`$ cannot be the nucleon itself as this is inconsistent with the inequality above; hence, inequality (11) makes a nontrivial prediction.

A few comments on the significance of these results is in order. Consider the implications of inequality (7). As noted previously, QCD at finite baryon chemical potential cannot be simulated on the lattice using Monte Carlo methods. It is generally believed that asymptotically high densities can be treated analytically from QCD using weak coupling, but nonperturbative, techniques along the line of BCS theory Son ; rho . However, it is also generally believed that these densities are extraordinarily high and the regime where these methods work is unlikely to be relevant in laboratory experiments or in stellar physics. Thus, studies of phenomenological significance have been based on various models model ; rho . Ideally, such models should be as constrained as possible from QCD. Inequality (7) provides one possible basis for such a constraint. While the left-hand side of the inequality will be given by the model, the right-hand side is tractable in lattice QCD. The key point which allows such lattice simulations was recognized several years ago AlfKapWil99  and is simply that the integrand in the functional integral for $`Z_I`$ in eq. (3) is positive definite and hence is amenable to lattice studies. Lattice studies have been done both in the quenched approximation Kog1  and including dynamical quarks Kog2 . It is probably sensible to consider the dynamical lattice studies as being rather preliminary as they have been done on small lattices. However, as the lattice calculations improve, they may provide a strong constraint on models of QCD at finite baryon chemical potential.

Next consider inequality (11). It is very similar to the bounds derived by Nussinov for a wide class of QCD-inspired potential models Nus83  and to the bound derived by Nussinov and Sathiapalan in large $`N_c`$ QCD NusSat85 . The present result suffers in comparison to these results in that instead of bounding the nucleon mass by $`N_cm_\pi /2`$ the bound is with respect to $`M_N\frac{N_cm_X}{2I_X}`$ where $`X`$ is the state in QCD with lowest mass per unit isospin. In practice this disadvantage is fairly small—it so happens that in QCD the state with the lowest mass per unit isospin is the pion. The present bound has a clear advantage over the the results in refs. Nus83 ; NusSat85  in that it holds for QCD itself and is not restricted to the large $`N_c`$ limit. Similarly, the present bound is much stronger than Weingarten’s original bound Wei83  in that it holds for QCD with two degenerate light flavors and does not require the ad hoc assumptions about the quark propagator in the presence of a background field. In any event the inequality (11) is true phenomenologically. There does exist a state in QCD for which $`M_N>(3M_X)/(2I_X)`$ namely the case where $`X`$ is the pion. Overall, one should view any bound on the nucleon mass in terms of other physical observables directly from a first principles treatment of QCD as being highly non trivial.

The author thanks S. Nussinov for introducing him to the subject of QCD inequalities, for numerous illuminating discussions on the topic over the years and as a guide to the relevant literature. D. Dakin is gratefully acknowledged for suggesting a number of improvements to the manuscript. This work was supported by the United States Department of Energy through grant DE-FGO2-93ER-40762.