text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Variable-Speed-of-Light (VSL) cosmological models were proposed  as an alternative to inflation  for solving the initial value problems in the standard Big Bang model. It is assumed in the VSL models that the speed of light initially took a larger value and then decreased to the present day value during an early period of cosmic evolution. VSL models have attracted some attention, because not only various cosmological problems that are solved by the inflationary models but also the cosmological constant problem can be solved  by VSL models. Furthermore, the recent study of quasar absorption line spectra in comparison with laboratory spectra shows that the fine structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$ varies over cosmological time scales , indicating that the speed of light may indeed vary with time. Also, it has been shown  that brane world models, which have been in vogue recently, manifest the Lorentz violation, which is a necessary requirement for the VSL models. (Cf. The recent work  studies the experimental limits which are permitted for the graviton’s speed in the brane world scenarios.)

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the compatibility of the VSL models with the second law of thermodynamics. (Cf. The previous related work can be found in Ref. .) Recently, there has been active interest in holographic principle in cosmology, after the initial work by Fischler and Susskind (FS) . The cosmological holographic bound originally formulated by FS had a problem of being violated by the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe. Later works attempted to circumvent such a problem through various modifications. In particular, it was proposed in Refs.  that the FS holographic bound has to be replaced by the generalized second law of thermodynamics. The generalized second law states that the total entropy $`S`$ of the universe should not decrease with time during the cosmological evolution: $`dS0`$. In order to be compatible with the holographic principle, the VSL cosmological models therefore have to obey the generalized second law of thermodynamics. In section 2, we consider the original VSL model, where the speed of light $`c`$ in the action is just assumed to vary with time. In section 3, we consider the bimetric cosmology of Clayton and Moffat.

## 2 VSL Cosmology with Varying Fundamental Constant

First, we consider the original VSL cosmology , in which a fundamental constant $`c`$ of the nature is just assumed to vary with time during the early period of the cosmic evolution and thereby the Lorentz symmetry is explicitly broken. In such VSL theories, it is postulated that there exists a preferred Lorentz frame in which laws of physics simplify with the action taking a standard form with a constant $`c`$ replaced by a field $`c(x^\mu )`$, the principle of minimal coupling. Namely, the action in the preferred frame takes the form

$$S=d^4x\left[\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\right\}+_c\right],$$
(1)
where $`_c`$ controls the dynamics of $`c`$ and $``$ is the action for the fields in the universe. It is required that $`_c`$ should be explicitly independent of the other fields, including metric, so that the principle of minimal coupling continues to hold for the equations of motion.

The general metric ansatz for a 4-dimensional homogeneous and isotropic universe is given by the following Robertson-Walker metric:

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c^2dt^2+a^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(2)
with the time-varying $`c`$. Here, $`a(t)`$ is the cosmic scale factor and $`\gamma _{ij}(x^k)`$ is given by

$$\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j=\left(1+\frac{k}{4}\delta _{mn}x^mx^n\right)^2\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j=\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(3)
where $`k=1,0,1`$ respectively for the open, flat and closed universes.

With an assumption of the principle of minimal coupling, the Einstein equations with the metric ansatz (2) lead to the Friedmann equations:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho +\frac{c^2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{kc^2}{a^2},$$
(4)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho +3\frac{p}{c^2}\right)+\frac{c^2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(5)
where the overdot denotes derivative w.r.t. $`t`$. From the Friedmann equations, we obtain the following generalized conservation equation:

$$\dot{\rho }+3\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2}\right)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{3kc\dot{c}}{4\pi Ga^2}\frac{c\dot{c}}{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(6)
We now study thermodynamics of the VSL cosmology. We assume that the universe satisfies the first law of thermodynamics. When applied to the comoving volume element of unit coordinate volume and physical volume $`v=a^3`$, the first law of thermodynamics takes the form:

$$Tds=d(\rho c^2v)+pdv,$$
(7)
where $`s=s(v,T)`$ is the entropy density of the universe at temperature $`T`$ within the volume $`v`$, and $`\rho =\rho (T)`$ and $`p=p(T)`$ are the mass density and the pressure of matter in the universe. In this paper, we assume that $`c`$ is a function of $`a`$, just as in Ref. . Since $`v=a^3`$, we have $`c^{}(a)=3a^2dc/dv=3v^{2/3}dc/dv`$, where prime denotes derivative w.r.t. $`a`$. Then, Eq. (7) can be rewritten as

$`Tds`$ $`=`$ $`c^2vd\rho +\left(\rho c^2+p+2\rho cv{\displaystyle \frac{dc}{dv}}\right)dv`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`c^2vd\rho +\left(\rho c^2+p+\frac{2}{3}\rho cc^{}v^{1/3}\right)dv.`$ (9)
So, partial derivatives of $`s(v,T)`$ are given by

$$\frac{s(v,T)}{v}=\frac{1}{T}\left(\rho c^2+p+\frac{2}{3}\rho cc^{}v^{1/3}\right),$$
(10)
$$\frac{s(v,T)}{T}=\frac{c^2v}{T}\frac{d\rho }{dT}.$$
(11)
From the integrability condition $`^2s/(vT)=^2s/(Tv)`$, we obtain

$$\frac{dp}{dT}=\frac{1}{T}\left(\rho c^2+p+\frac{2}{3}\rho cc^{}v^{1/3}\right)=\frac{1}{T}\frac{d}{dv}\left[(\rho c^2+p)v\right].$$
(12)
Making use of this equation, we can put Eq. (7) into the following form:

$$ds=d\left[\frac{v}{T}(\rho c^2+p)\right]\frac{2v^2}{T^2}\rho c\frac{dc}{dv}dT,$$
(13)
from which we see that the usual Euler’s relation $`s=\frac{v}{T}(\rho c^2+p)`$ does not hold for the VSL theories with varying fundamental constant.

To obtain the time derivative of $`s`$, we express the conservation equation (6) into the following form, making use of Eq. (12):

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{v}{T}(\rho c^2+p)\right]=\left(2\rho \frac{\dot{c}}{c}\frac{c\dot{c}}{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{3kc\dot{c}}{4\pi Ga^2}\right)\frac{c^2v}{T}+2\rho c\frac{dc}{dv}v^2\frac{\dot{T}}{T^2}.$$
(14)
Eq. (13) along with Eq. (14) yields 222The previous related work  does not take into account the effects on $`\dot{s}`$ of the modification of the usual Euler’s relation due to the time varying $`c`$ and the nonzero cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

$$\dot{s}=\left(2\rho \frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{3kc^2}{4\pi Ga^2}\right)\frac{c\dot{c}a^3}{T}.$$
(15)
This equation would also have been obtained directly from Eqs. (6) and (7).

Since $`\dot{c}<0`$ for the VSL cosmology with varying fundamental constant, the terms in the parenthesis of Eq. (15) have to be non-positive in order to be compatible with the second law of thermodynamics $`dS0`$:

$$2\rho \frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{3kc^2}{4\pi Ga^2}0.$$
(16)
When the cosmological constant is non-positive ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$), this condition can never be satisfied by the flat ($`k=0`$) and the closed ($`k=1`$) universes. Although it can be satisfied by the open universe ($`k=1`$), the condition is very restrictive about the possible type of matter in the universe and the time variation of $`c`$. On the other hand, when the cosmological constant is positive ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) and is large enough, the restriction becomes less severe. We now examine the explicit condition under which the constraint (16) can be satisfied. Assuming that $`c`$ varies gradually like $`c(t)=c_0a^n`$ and the equation of state of the form $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho c^2`$, by solving Eq. (6) one obtains

$$\rho =\frac{B}{a^{3\gamma }}+\frac{3kc_0^2na^{2(n1)}}{4kG(3\gamma +2n2)}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }nc_0^2a^{2n}}{4\pi G(3\gamma +2n)},$$
(17)
where $`B`$ is a positive constant. So, the constraint (16) reduces to

$$\frac{2B}{a^{3\gamma +2n}}+\frac{3(3\gamma +4n2)kc_0^2}{4\pi G(3\gamma +2n2)a^2}\frac{(3\gamma +4n)c_0^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4\pi G(3\gamma +2n)}.$$
(18)
First of all, we see from this that for the flat universe ($`k=0`$) the constraint is always violated for some values of $`a`$. \[When $`3\gamma +2n=0`$, the last term on the RHS of Eq. (17) behaves with $`a`$ as $`a^{3\gamma }\mathrm{ln}a`$ and therefore the RHS of Eq. (18) behaves with $`a`$ as $`\mathrm{ln}a`$.\] In order for Eq. (18) to be satisfied for any values of $`a`$, the LHS has to have the maximum value and its value has to be not greater than the RHS. From such condition, we obtain the following constraint on the constants $`n`$ and $`\gamma `$:

$$k(3\gamma +4n2)>0,(3\gamma +2n)(3\gamma +2n2)<0,$$
(19)
along with the following lower limit on the cosmological constant:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{3(3\gamma +4n2)k}{3\gamma +4n}\left[\frac{3(3\gamma +4n2)kc_0^2}{4\pi (3\gamma +2n)(3\gamma +2n2)GB}\right]^{\frac{2}{3\gamma +2n2}}.$$
(20)
One can always choose the integration constant $`B`$ in such a way that the bound (20) is compatible with the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, the constraint (19) severely restricts the allowed value of $`\gamma `$. For the closed universe ($`k=1`$), Eq. (19) implies $`\gamma <2/3`$ and therefore the radiation-dominated universe ($`\gamma =4/3`$) and the matter-dominated universe ($`\gamma =1`$) are not allowed. As for the open universe ($`k=1`$), Eq. (19) leads to the less severe constraint $`\gamma >2/3`$, which allows the $`\gamma =4/3,1`$ cases.

## 3 Scalar-Tensor Bimetric Cosmology

In this section, we consider the bimetric VSL model, proposed by Clayton and Moffat . The bimetric models achieve time-variable speed of light in a diffeomorphism invariant manner and without explicitly breaking the Lorentz symmetry by introducing bimetric structure into spacetime. (Cf. It is recently found out in Ref.  that the fine-structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$ in the bimetric models is constant in spacetime although the speed of light varies with time, due to the compensating time-variation of the electric charge.) It is usually assumed in the bimetric models that graviton and the biscalar (or the bivector) propagate on the geometry described by the “gravity metric”, whereas all the matter fields (including photons) propagate on the geometry described by the “matter metric”. In the case of the scalar-tensor bimetric model, the gravity metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the matter metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ are related by the biscalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }B_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi },$$
(21)
where a dimensionless constant $`B`$ is assumed to be positive. Since these two metrics are nonconformally related, a photon and a graviton propagate at different speeds. The action for the scalar-tensor bimetric model has the form

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+_\mathrm{\Phi }\right]+d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_{\mathrm{mat}},$$
(22)
where $`_{\mathrm{mat}}`$ is the Lagrangian density for matter fields and the Lagrangian density $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the biscalar is given by

$$_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }V(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(23)
The gravity metric for the universe has the form

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c^2dt^2+a^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(24)
with constant speed of graviton $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}=c`$ and $`\gamma _{ij}`$ given by Eq. (3). Due to the requirement of homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the biscalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is independent of the spatial coordinates $`x^i`$. According to Eq. (21), the matter metric is therefore given by

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =(c^2+B\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2)dt^2+a^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(25)
where the overdot stands for derivative w.r.t. $`t`$. So, the speed of photon $`c_{\mathrm{ph}}=c\sqrt{1+B\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2/c^2}c\sqrt{I}`$ varies with $`t`$, taking larger value than $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}=c`$ while $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}0`$.

In obtaining the energy-momentum tensor for the purpose of deriving the Einstein’s equations, one has to keep in mind that matter fields and biscalar are coupled to different metrics. Since $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the physical metric for the matter fields, the energy-momentum tensor for the matter fields are defined in terms of $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$:

$$\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}\frac{\delta (\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_{\mathrm{mat}})}{\delta \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }}=\left(\widehat{\rho }c_{\mathrm{ph}}^2+\widehat{p}\right)\widehat{U}^\mu \widehat{U}^\nu +\widehat{p}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu },$$
(26)
where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are the mass density and the pressure of the matter fields and $`\widehat{U}^\mu `$ is the four-velocity of matter perfect fluid normalized as $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{U}^\mu \widehat{U}^\nu =1`$. Since the nonzero component of the four-velocity vector in the comoving coordinates is $`\widehat{U}^t=1/c_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, the nonzero components of the energy-momentum tensor for the matter fields are

$$\widehat{T}^{tt}=\widehat{\rho },\widehat{T}^{ij}=\frac{\widehat{p}}{a^2}\gamma ^{ij}.$$
(27)
On the other hand, since the biscalar field is coupled to the gravity metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, its energy-momentum tensor is defined in terms of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$:

$`T_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\sqrt{g}_\mathrm{\Phi })}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}}=g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }V(\mathrm{\Phi })g^{\mu \nu }`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\left(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }c^2+p_\mathrm{\Phi }\right)U^\mu U^\nu +p_\mathrm{\Phi }g^{\mu \nu },`$ (29)
where the four-velocity $`U^\mu `$ for the biscalar is normalized as $`g_{\mu \nu }U^\mu U^\nu =1`$, so its nonzero component is $`U^t=1/c`$. The mass density and the pressure of the biscalar field are therefore

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}{c^2}+V\right)\frac{1}{c^2},p_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}{c^2}V.$$
(30)
Taking the variation of the action $`S`$ w.r.t. the metric, we obtain the Einstein’s equations

$$𝒢^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}𝒯^{\mu \nu },$$
(31)
where $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor for $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the energy-momentum tensor $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ has the form

$$𝒯^{\mu \nu }=T_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }+\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}{\sqrt{g}}.$$
(32)
The nonzero components of $`𝒯^{\mu \nu }`$ are

$$𝒯^{tt}=\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{\rho }\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c},𝒯^{ij}=\left(p_\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{p}\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c}\right)\frac{1}{a^2}\gamma ^{ij}.$$
(33)
The Einstein’s equations lead to the Friedmann equations

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho +\frac{c^2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{kc^2}{a^2},$$
(34)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho +3\frac{p}{c^2}\right)+\frac{c^2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(35)
where

$$\rho \rho _\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{\rho }\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c},pp_\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{p}\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c}.$$
(36)
From these Friedmann equations, we obtain the following conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }+3\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2}\right)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=0.$$
(37)
The factors of $`c_{\mathrm{ph}}/c_{\mathrm{grav}}=c_{\mathrm{ph}}/c`$ in Eq. (36) can be understood from the fact that definition of the energy-momentum tensor depends on the choice of metric. Generally, the following two energy-momentum tensors, associated with the same Lagrangian density $`L`$ but defined w.r.t. the two different metrics $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$T_{\mathrm{grav}}^{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta L}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }},T_{\mathrm{ph}}^{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}\frac{\delta L}{\delta \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }},$$
(38)
are related to each other as

$$T_{\mathrm{grav}}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}{\sqrt{g}}T_{\mathrm{ph}}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}T_{\mathrm{ph}}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(39)
Here, the subscripts ‘grav’ and ‘ph’ signify that the quantity under consideration is defined w.r.t. the gravity and the matter metrics, respectively. The mass densities and the pressures in the two different definitions are defined by

$`T_{\mathrm{grav}}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\rho _{\mathrm{grav}}c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2+p_{\mathrm{grav}}\right)U^\mu U^\nu +p_{\mathrm{grav}}g^{\mu \nu },`$ (40)
$`T_{\mathrm{ph}}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\rho _{\mathrm{ph}}c_{\mathrm{ph}}^2+p_{\mathrm{ph}}\right)\widehat{U}^\mu \widehat{U}^\nu +p_{\mathrm{ph}}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu },`$ (41)
where the four-velocities are normalized as $`g_{\mu \nu }U^\mu U^\nu =1`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{U}^\mu \widehat{U}^\nu =1`$. From Eqs. (39) and (41), we see that the mass densities and the pressures in the two different definitions are related as

$$\rho _{\mathrm{grav}}=\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}\rho _{\mathrm{ph}},p_{\mathrm{grav}}=\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}p_{\mathrm{ph}}.$$
(42)
The factor of $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}/c_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, multiplying the matter fields mass density and pressure in Eq. (36), arose due to the fact that the matter fields mass density and pressure, which are defined w.r.t. the matter metric, has to be transformed to the ‘gravity metric’ quantities, since the Friedmann equations are defined w.r.t. the gravity metric. (Cf. In the Einstein’s equations (31), the total energy-momentum tensor $`𝒯^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined w.r.t. the gravity metric, i.e., $`𝒯^{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta L}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}`$ where Lagrangian density $`L`$ is the sum of the matter fields Lagrangian density $`L_{\mathrm{mat}}=\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_{\mathrm{mat}}`$ and the biscalar field Lagrangian density $`L_\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{g}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$.)

We now study thermodynamics of the bimetric VSL cosmology. Since we are considering the frame associated with the gravity metric of the form (24), the physical quantities in the thermodynamic laws should be ‘gravity metric’ quantities. The first law of thermodynamics, applied to the comoving volume element of unit coordinate volume and physical volume $`v=a^3`$, therefore takes the form

$$Tds=d(\rho c^2v)+pdv,$$
(43)
where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are given by Eq. (36). Note, the square of the speed of graviton $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}=c`$ multiplies $`\rho `$ to yield the energy density, because we are considering the frame associated with the gravity metric. From Eqs. (37) and (43), we obtain $`ds/dt=0`$, namely the total entropy $`S=s𝑑x^3\sqrt{\gamma }`$ of the universe remains constant during the cosmic evolution. Therefore, unlike the VSL cosmology with varying fundamental constant, considered in the previous section, the second law of thermodynamics $`dS0`$ is always obeyed regardless of values of $`k`$.

We comment on thermodynamics associated with the matter fields, only. Since it is assumed that the matter field action is constructed out of $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, the equations of motion of the matter fields imply the conservation law for the matter fields energy-momentum tensor :

$$\widehat{}_\mu \widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(44)
where $`\widehat{}_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative defined w.r.t. $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. The $`t`$-component $`\widehat{}_\mu \widehat{T}_t^\mu =0`$ of the conservation equation, where $`\widehat{T}_\nu ^\mu \widehat{T}^{\mu \rho }\widehat{g}_{\rho \nu }`$, takes the following form:

$$\dot{\widehat{\rho }}+3\left(\widehat{\rho }+\frac{\widehat{p}}{c_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}\right)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=2\widehat{\rho }\frac{\dot{c}_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}.$$
(45)
From this equation we see that matter fields are created while the speed of photon decreases with time to the present day value $`c`$. In the frame associated with the matter metric, the first law of thermodynamics takes the form:

$$Tds_{\mathrm{mat}}=d(\widehat{\rho }c_{\mathrm{ph}}^2v)+\widehat{p}dv,$$
(46)
where $`s_{\mathrm{mat}}`$ is the entropy density associated with the matter fields. From Eqs. (45) and (46), we see that $`\dot{s}_{\mathrm{mat}}=0`$, namely that the entropy for the matter fields remain constant despite that the matter fields are created while $`\dot{c}_{\mathrm{ph}}<0`$. This apparent paradox can be understood from the fact that in the matter metric frame the past light cone contracts and thereby less information is collected by the observer. Next, we consider the frame associated with the gravity metric. In this frame, the mass density and the pressure of the matter fields are transformed to $`\widehat{\rho }c_{\mathrm{ph}}/c`$ and $`\widehat{p}c_{\mathrm{ph}}/c`$, and the square of the speed of graviton $`c`$ should be multiplied to the mass density for obtaining the energy density. So, the first law of thermodynamics takes the form:

$$Tds_{\mathrm{mat}}=d(\widehat{\rho }cc_{\mathrm{ph}}v)+\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c}pdv.$$
(47)
From Eqs. (45) and (47), we have

$$\dot{s}_{\mathrm{mat}}=\left(3\frac{c_{\mathrm{ph}}^2c^2}{c^2c_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}\widehat{p}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\widehat{\rho }\frac{\dot{c}_{\mathrm{ph}}}{c_{\mathrm{ph}}}\right)\frac{cc_{\mathrm{ph}}a^3}{T}.$$
(48)
So, in the gravity frame, the entropy for the matter fields varies with time while $`\dot{c}_{\mathrm{mat}}0`$. This time variation of the entropy of the matter fields is due to the exchange of entropy with the biscalar sector, since we have seen that the total entropy density $`s`$ remains constant in the gravity metric frame.

In the above, we considered the equations in the comoving frame for the gravity metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. Since all the matter fields in the universe are coupled to the matter metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, it would be more natural to consider the comoving frame for the matter metric in studying the expansion of the universe. By defining the cosmic time $`\tau `$ for the matter metric in the following way

$$d\tau ^2(1+B\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2/c^2)dt^2,$$
(49)
we can bring the matter metric into the following standard comoving frame form for the Robertson-Walker metric:

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c^2d\tau ^2+a^2(\tau )\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(50)
In this new frame, the gravity metric (24) takes the form

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =(c^2B\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2)d\tau ^2+a^2(\tau )\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(51)
where the overdot from now on stands for derivative w.r.t. $`\tau `$. So, in this new frame, a photon travels with a constant speed $`c_{\mathrm{ph}}=c`$ and a graviton travels with a time-variable speed $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}=\sqrt{c^2B\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}=c/\sqrt{I}`$, taking smaller value than $`c`$ while $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}0`$. Note, $`I=1/(1B\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2/c^2)`$ when the overdot stands for derivative w.r.t. $`\tau `$.

In obtaining the Friedmann equations in the new frame, we do not just apply the change of time coordinate (49) in the Friedmann equations (34) and (35) in the old frame, unlike the previous works on bimetric VSL cosmology. The reason is that the definitions for the mass density and the pressure depend on the choice of time coordinate. We consider the Einstein’s equations (31) with $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ now being the Einstein tensor for the gravity metric given by Eq. (51). The energy-momentum tensor $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }`$ is still given by Eq. (32) but now with

$$\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }=\left(\widehat{\rho }c^2+\widehat{p}\right)\widehat{U}^\mu \widehat{U}^\nu +\widehat{p}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu },$$
(52)
$$T_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }=\left(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2+p_\mathrm{\Phi }\right)U^\mu U^\nu +p_\mathrm{\Phi }g^{\mu \nu },$$
(53)
where the nonzero components of the four-velocities are $`\widehat{U}^t=1/c`$ and $`U^t=1/c_{\mathrm{grav}}`$. Note, the mass densities and the pressures in Eqs. (52) and (53) are different from those in Eqs. (26) and (29), although they are denoted with the same notations. In the comoving frame for the matter metric, the Friedmann equations therefore take the forms

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho +\frac{c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{kc_{\mathrm{grav}}^2}{a^2},$$
(54)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{c}_{\mathrm{grav}}}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho +3\frac{p}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2}\right)+\frac{c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(55)
where

$$\rho \rho _\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{\rho }\frac{c}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}},pp_\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{p}\frac{c}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}.$$
(56)
Note, although we are now considering the comoving frame for the matter metric, the total energy momentum tensor $`𝒯^{\mu \nu }`$ is still defined w.r.t. the gravity metric. It is just that the time coordinate $`\tau `$ in the gravity metric is the comoving frame time coordinate for the matter metric. So, mass density and pressure of matter fields still have the factor of $`c/c_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ in Eq. (56). From these Friedmann equations, we obtain the following conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }+3\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2}\right)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{3}{4\pi G}\frac{\dot{c}_{\mathrm{grav}}}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2\frac{c_{\mathrm{grav}}\dot{c}_{\mathrm{grav}}}{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{3}{4\pi G}\frac{kc_{\mathrm{grav}}\dot{c}_{\mathrm{grav}}}{a^2}.$$
(57)
We now study the compatibility of the bimetric VSL cosmology with the second law of thermodynamics. Although we are now considering the comoving frame for the matter metric, we first study thermodynamics in the frame of the gravity metric, since the conservation equation (57) is expressed in the gravity metric frame. The first law of thermodynamics, applied to the comoving volume element of unit coordinate volume and physical volume $`v=a^3`$, takes the form

$$Tds=d(\rho c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2v)+pdv.$$
(58)
From Eqs. (57) and (58), we obtain

$$T\dot{s}=4\rho a^3c_{\mathrm{grav}}\dot{c}_{\mathrm{grav}},$$
(59)
where we made use of Eq. (54) to simplify the RHS. So, the total entropy $`S=s𝑑x^3\sqrt{\gamma }`$ increases with time while $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}=c/\sqrt{I}`$ increases to the present day value. The second law of thermodynamics is therefore always satisfied for any values of $`k`$. Next, we consider the second law of thermodynamics in the frame of the matter metric. The mass density and the pressure in the matter metric frame are given by $`\rho c_{\mathrm{grav}}/c`$ and $`pc_{\mathrm{grav}}/c`$, and the energy density is obtained by multiplying the mass density by $`c^2`$. So, the first law of thermodynamics takes the form:

$$Tds=d(\rho cc_{\mathrm{grav}}v)+\frac{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}{c}pdv.$$
(60)
This along with Eq. (57) leads to

$$\dot{s}=3\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2c^2}{c^2c_{\mathrm{grav}}^2}p\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\rho \frac{\dot{c}_{\mathrm{grav}}}{c_{\mathrm{grav}}}\right)\frac{cc_{\mathrm{grav}}a^3}{T}.$$
(61)
So, the terms in the parenthesis of this equation has to be non-negative in order for the the condition for the second law of thermodynamics to be satisfied. Making use of the explicit expressions for $`c_{\mathrm{grav}}`$, $`\rho `$ and $`p`$, one can put the condition in the form:

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{I}{c^2}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2V+\widehat{p}\sqrt{I}\right]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{I}{c^2}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+V+\widehat{\rho }c^2\sqrt{I}\right]0.$$
(62)
Making use of the equation of motion for the biscalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, it can be shown that regardless of value of $`k`$ this condition can be satisfied by the perfect fluid obeying the equation of state $`\widehat{p}=(\gamma 1)\widehat{\rho }c^2`$ with $`\gamma 2`$, provided the biscalar potential satisfies $`_\tau V(\mathrm{\Phi })>0`$.

We discuss thermodynamics associated with matter fields, only. As before, the equations of motion for the matter fields imply the conservation law (44) for the matter fields energy-momentum tensor. Since the speed of a photon takes a constant value $`c_{\mathrm{ph}}=c`$ in the comoving frame for the matter metric, the $`t`$-component of the matter fields conservation equation takes the form:

$$\dot{\widehat{\rho }}+3\left(\widehat{\rho }+\frac{\widehat{p}}{c^2}\right)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=0.$$
(63)
Unlike the case of the comoving frame for the gravity metric, the matter fields are observed to be conserved. Eq. (63) along with the first law of thermodynamics for the matter fields

$$Tds_{\mathrm{mat}}=d(\widehat{\rho }c^2v)+\widehat{p}dv,$$
(64)
yields $`\dot{s}_{\mathrm{mat}}=0`$. So, time variation of entropy density $`s`$ in the matter metric frame, as expressed in Eq. (61), is all due to time variation of entropy density of the biscalar field, and there is no entropy exchange between matter and the biscalar field sectors.

## 4 Conclusions

We studied the compatibility of the VSL cosmological models with the second law of thermodynamics. We find that generally the VSL model with varying fundamental constant is severely constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. For the model with the speed of light gradually varying as a power law of cosmic scale factor, only open universe with positive cosmological constant is allowed to contain cosmic perfect fluid satisfying reasonable equation of state such as dust and radiation. On the other hand, the bimetric cosmological models are less constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. In the comoving frame associated with the gravity metric, there is no constraint on the model by the second law of thermodynamics. In the comoving frame associated with the matter metric, provided the biscalar potential satisfies a certain condition, regardless of the value of $`k`$, the second law of thermodynamics can be satisfied by perfect fluid satisfying the equation of state $`\widehat{p}=(\gamma 1)\widehat{\rho }c^2`$ with $`\gamma 2`$, which includes dust and radiation.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Braid groups need no introduction; we just refer to the monograph  for the background. Some notation has to be reminded though. We denote the braid group on $`n`$ strands by $`B_n`$; this group has a standard presentation $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}|\sigma _i\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _i\mathrm{if}|ij|>1;\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i=\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\mathrm{for}1in2`$. We shall call elements of $`B_n`$ braids, as opposed to braid words that are elements of the ambient free group on $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}`$. We say that two braid words are equivalent if they represent the same braid.

There is a well-known representation (due to Artin) of the group $`B_n`$ in the group $`Aut(F_n)`$ of automorphisms of the free group $`F_n`$ (see e.g. \[1, p.25\]). Let $`F_n`$ be generated by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. Then the automorphism $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ corresponding to the braid generator $`\sigma _i`$, takes $`x_i`$ to $`x_ix_{i+1}x_i^1`$, $`x_{i+1}`$ to $`x_i`$, and fixes all other free generators.

More recently, Wada  has discovered several other representations of the group $`B_n`$ by automorphisms of $`F_n`$. Some of them are obviously non-faithful; two of the remaining 4 are conjugate, which leaves us with the following 3 interesting representations:

(1) This is actually an infinite series of representations generalizing the standard Artin’s representation. For an arbitrary non-zero integer $`k`$, the automorphism $`\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)}`$ corresponding to the braid generator $`\sigma _i`$, takes $`x_i`$ to $`x_i^kx_{i+1}x_i^k`$, $`x_{i+1}`$ to $`x_i`$, and fixes all other free generators.

(2) Here the automorphism $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ corresponding to the braid generator $`\sigma _i`$, takes $`x_i`$ to $`x_ix_{i+1}^1x_i`$, $`x_{i+1}`$ to $`x_i`$, and fixes all other free generators.

(3) Here $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ takes $`x_i`$ to $`x_i^2x_{i+1}`$, $`x_{i+1}`$ to $`x_{i+1}^1x_i^1x_{i+1}`$, and fixes all other free generators.

In this paper, we prove the following

Theorem A. Each of the representations (1), (2), (3) above is faithful.

Our (very easy) proof is based on part (a) of the following theorem of Dehornoy , . At the same time, our proof establishes part (b) of Dehornoy’s theorem. In fact, each of the faithfulness results of Theorem A gives a simple proof of part (b) of Theorem B. In particular, the argument involving Wada’s representation (3) seems to give the easiest proof of (b) known so far.

We call a braid word $`u`$ $`\sigma _1`$-nonnegative if there are no occurences of $`\sigma _1^1`$ in $`u`$, and $`\sigma _1`$-negative if there are no occurences of $`\sigma _1`$ with a positive exponent in $`u`$. Then:

Theorem B. (Dehornoy , )

(a) Every braid word is equivalent to either a $`\sigma _1`$-nonnegative or a $`\sigma _1`$-negative braid word.

(b) If $`u`$ is a $`\sigma _1`$-nonnegative braid word with at least one occurence of $`\sigma _1`$, then $`u`$ is not equivalent to the empty word.

It is hoped that Dehornoy’s normal form for braid group elements can be useful in proving other representations of braid groups to be faithful. We note at this point that part of our Theorem A follows from \[2, Theorem 7\], because it is proved there that, if $`N_m`$ is the normal closure of the $`n`$ elements $`x_1^m,\mathrm{},x_n^m`$ in $`F_n`$, where $`m2`$, then the induced action of the standard Artin’s representation on $`F_n/N_m`$ is faithful. Therefore, if a representation $`\varphi :B_nAut(F_n)`$ induces the same action on $`F_n/N_m`$ for some $`m`$ as Artin’s representation does (which requires, in particular, $`N_m`$ being invariant under $`\varphi (B_n)`$), then this $`\varphi `$ must be faithful, too. Using this result, one can establish faithfulness of, say, representations (1) above for $`k2`$. However, the combination of the two conditions ($`N_m`$ being invariant under $`\varphi (B_n)`$ and $`\varphi `$ inducing the same action as Artin’s representation on $`F_n/N_m`$) appears to be rather restrictive, and is unlikely to be satisfied by most representations. For example, the representation (3) above satisfies the former condition for $`m=2`$, but does not satisfy the latter. Our method based on Dehornoy’s normal form therefore appears to be more flexible. The referee has pointed out that Larue  has used a method similar to ours to show that the standard Artin’s representation is faithful.

In the concluding Section 3, we show that different Wada’s representations have different images in $`Aut(F_n)`$, with one possible exception. A probably difficult question is whether or not different Wada’s representations are conjugate. For example, take two representations $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ of type (1), where $`\phi :\sigma _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)};\psi :\sigma _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)}`$ for some non-zero integer $`k`$. Then the images $`\phi (B_n)`$ and $`\psi (B_n)`$ are conjugate by the automorphism that takes every free generator $`x_i`$ to its inverse. This might be the only instance of different representations of the types (1)–(3) being conjugate, but I was not able to prove that.

## 2 Proof of Theorem A

Theorem A will be proved if we establish the following

Lemma. Let $`\sigma \widehat{\sigma }`$ be any of Wada’s representations. Suppose $`\sigma `$ is a $`\sigma _1`$-positive braid word of the form $`\sigma _1\sigma ^{}`$. Then $`\widehat{\sigma }(x_1)`$ has at least 2 occurences of $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$.

Proof. (1) We start with Wada’s representation of type (1). Since we assume that $`\sigma `$ is of the form $`\sigma _1\sigma ^{}`$, we have the automorphism $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ applied first, hence $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(x_1)=x_1^kx_2x_1^k`$ already has at least 2 occurences of $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$.

Then, any $`\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)}`$ with $`i2`$ does not change existing occurences of $`x_1`$ and does not introduce any new ones. Thus, we have to only concern ourselves with how $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ acts on an element of the free group of the form $`w=x_1^kux_1^k`$, where $`u`$ neither starts nor ends with $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$. We are going to show that $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(w)`$ has the same form (with different $`u`$, perhaps), i.e., that $`x_1^k`$ on the left and $`x_1^k`$ on the right cannot cancel after $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ is applied. Because of the symmetry, we are going to consider $`x_1^k`$ on the left only. Consider 2 cases:

(a) $`u=x_m^su^{}`$, where $`m3,s0`$, and $`u^{}`$ does not start with $`x_m^{\pm 1}`$. Then $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(w)=x_1^kx_2^kx_1^kx_m^s\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})x_1^kx_2^kx_1^k`$, and $`x_1^k`$ on the left does not cancel. Indeed, for a cancellation process to start, there must be a cancellation between $`x_m^s`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$, i.e., $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$ should start with $`x_m^{\pm 1}`$. Since $`u^{}`$ itself does not start with $`x_m^{\pm 1}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ does not affect occurences of $`x_m`$, that could only mean that some initial fragment of $`u^{}`$ became the empty word after $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ was applied. But this is impossible because $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ is an automorphism.

(b) $`u=x_2^su^{}`$, where $`s0`$, and $`u^{}`$ does not start with $`x_2^{\pm 1}`$. Then $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(w)=x_1^kx_2^kx_1^kx_1^s\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$, where there is no cancellation between $`x_1^s`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$ because $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$ cannot start with $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$. To have the cancellation process get to $`x_2^k`$, we must have $`k=s`$. Then, to cancel all of $`x_2^k`$, we must have $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$ start with $`x_2^k`$, which is impossible. Indeed, if $`u^{}`$ starts with $`x_m^{\pm 1}`$, $`m3`$, then, in order to have $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$ start with $`x_2^{\pm 1}`$, we must have some non-empty fragment of $`u^{}`$ between $`x_m^{\pm 1}`$ and $`x_m^1`$ become the empty word after $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ is applied, which is impossible because $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}`$ is an automorphism. If $`u^{}`$ starts with $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$, then the obvious inductive argument implies that $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(u^{})`$ should start with $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$ as well. (Note that the length of $`u^{}`$ is smaller than that of $`w`$).

Thus, in either case, $`x_2^k`$ cannot cancel, and therefore, $`\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(k)}(w)`$ has the same form as $`w`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

(2) For Wada’s representation of type (2), the proof goes along exactly the same lines.

(3) Finally, consider Wada’s representation of type (3). Again, we have the automorphism $`\widehat{\sigma }_1`$ applied first, hence $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(x_1)=x_1^2x_2`$ already has 2 occurences of $`x_1`$.

Also, any $`\widehat{\sigma }_i`$ with $`i2`$ does not change existing occurences of $`x_1`$ and does not introduce any new ones, so we have to only concern ourselves with how $`\widehat{\sigma }_1`$ acts on an element of the free group of the form $`w=x_1^2u`$, where $`u`$ does not start with $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$. We are going to show that $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(w)`$ has the same form. Again, there are 2 cases:

(a) $`u=x_m^{\pm 1}u^{}`$, where $`m3`$. Then $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(w)=x_1^2x_2x_m^{\pm 1}\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$, hence $`x_1^2`$ on the left does not cancel. (If $`u^{}`$ does not start with $`x_m^1`$, then neither does $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$. Therefore, for cancellation between $`u^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$ to occur, some fragment of $`u^{}`$ must be mapped to the empty word, which is impossible since $`\widehat{\sigma }_1`$ is an automorphism).

(b) $`u=x_2^su^{}`$, where $`s0`$, and $`u^{}`$ does not start with $`x_2^{\pm 1}`$. Then $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(w)=x_1^2x_2x_1^2x_2x_2^1x_1^sx_2\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$, and there is no cancellation between $`x_2`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$ since $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$ cannot start with $`x_2^1`$ unless $`u^{}`$ starts with $`x_2^{\pm 1}`$.

Therefore, $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(w)=x_1^2x_2x_1^{2s}x_2\widehat{\sigma }_1(u^{})`$, and no matter what $`s`$ is, $`\widehat{\sigma }_1(w)`$ has the form $`x_1^2u`$, where $`u`$ does not start with $`x_1^{\pm 1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Images of Wada’s representations

Here we prove the following

Proposition. Let $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ be two different Wada’s representations. Then the groups $`\phi (B_n)`$ and $`\psi (B_n)`$ are different subgroups of $`Aut(F_n)`$ unless, perhaps, $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are both of type (1) and $`\phi :\sigma _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)};\psi :\sigma _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)}`$ for some non-zero integer $`k`$.

Proof. We have to consider several cases.

(1) Both $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are of type (1), so that $`\phi :\sigma _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)};\psi :\sigma _i\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(s)}`$ for some non-zero integers $`k,s`$. We assume that $`k\pm s`$, so let $`|k|>|s|`$.

Consider the Magnus representation of the groups $`\phi (B_n)`$ and $`\psi (B_n)`$ (for $`k=1`$, it is also known as the Burau representation – see \[1, p.102\]). Under this representation, the automorphism $`\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(k)}`$ is mapped onto the $`n\times n`$ matrix which differs from the identity matrix only by a $`2\times 2`$ block with the top left corner in the $`(i,i)`$th place. This block is $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1t^k& t^k\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. Thus, the determinant of this matrix is $`t^k`$, and therefore, the determinant of the matrix corresponding to an arbitrary braid under the composition of $`\phi `$ and the Magnus representation, is equal to $`\pm t^{km}`$ for some integer $`m`$.

Now if we take, say, $`\psi (\sigma _1)`$ and then apply the Magnus representation, we shall get a matrix with the determinant $`t^s`$. A matrix like that cannot be a product of matrices with determinants of the form $`\pm t^{km}`$ since $`|k|>|s|`$. This completes the proof in case (1).

(2) $`\phi `$ is of type (1), and $`\psi `$ is of type (2). Again, we apply the Magnus representation to both groups $`\phi (B_n)`$ and $`\psi (B_n)`$. Note that this is possible since the mapping group of $`\psi (B_n)`$ is the same as that of $`\phi (B_n)`$. (The mapping group of a single automorphism $`\alpha :x_iy_i,1in,`$ is the group with the presentation $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|x_i=y_i,1in`$. The mapping group of a group $`G`$ of automorphisms has the set of relations which is the union of sets of relations for the mapping group of each individual automorphism in $`G`$).

If we apply the Magnus representation to $`\psi (\sigma _i)`$, we shall get a matrix which differs from the identity matrix only by the following $`2\times 2`$ block with the top left corner in the $`(i,i)`$th place: $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. The determinant of this matrix is 1. Therefore, any matrix in the image of the Magnus representation of $`\psi (B_n)`$ has determinant 1. This completes the proof in case (2).

(3) $`\phi `$ is of type (1) or (2), and $`\psi `$ is of type (3). In that case, $`\phi (B_n)`$ and $`\psi (B_n)`$ are different subgroups of $`Aut(F_n)`$ because they have different presentations of their mapping groups. More accurately, the mapping group of $`\phi (B_n)`$ has the presentation $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|x_1=x_2=\mathrm{}=x_n`$, whereas $`\psi (B_n)`$ has the presentation $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|x_1=x_2^1=\mathrm{}=x_n^{(1)^{n+1}}`$. The groups themselves are isomorphic, yet the presentations are different. Now we argue as follows.

Consider, say, $`\phi (\sigma _1)`$. The mapping group of this automorphism has the presentation $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|x_1=x_2`$. Suppose $`\phi (\sigma _1)\psi (B_n)`$. That means, in particular, that by adding some elements to $`\{x_1x_2^1\}`$, we can get a set of elements of a free group whose normal closure is the same as that of $`\{x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_n\}`$. But this is impossible since the normal closure of the union of these two sets contains, say, the element $`x_1^2`$, which none of the two normal closures alone does. $`\mathrm{}`$

Department of Mathematics
The City College of New York
New York, NY 10031

e-mail address: shpil@groups.sci.ccny.cuny.edu

http://zebra.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/web/shpil


text:
# Bar-Halo Interaction and Bar Growth

## 1 Introduction

Galactic discs are generally unstable and form bars within a few dynamical timescales (e.g. Athanassoula 1984, or Sellwood & Wilkinson 1993, for reviews). The first remedy proposed against this instability is to immerse the disc in a massive halo component. Ostriker & Peebles (1973), from an insightful analysis of $`N`$-body simulations with a very small number of particles, were the first to outline the stabilising influence of haloes. They further suggested that halo-to-disc mass ratios of 1 to 2.5 (interior to the disc) are required for stability. Athanassoula & Sellwood (1986) measured the growth rates of the most unstable bar-forming modes in 2D $`N`$-body simulations and showed that the growth rate is smaller in cases with large halo-to-disc mass ratios. Unfortunately, no such analysis has been made for fully self-consistent 3D $`N`$-body simulations. On the other hand, Athanassoula & Misiriotis (2002, hereafter AM) and Athanassoula (2002a,b) argue that stronger bars can grow in simulations with initially very high halo-to-disc mass ratios than in simulations with lower halo-to-disc mass ratios. In order to understand whether the above pieces of evidence are contradictory, and, if so, to attain a coherent picture, I will examine in this letter the role of the halo in the formation of the bar. Several papers have focused on the influence of the halo on the slowing down of the bar (e.g. Tremaine & Weinberg 1984, Weinberg 1985, Combes et al. 1990, Little & Carlberg 1991, Hernquist & Weinberg 1992, Athanassoula 1996, Debattista & Sellwood 1998 and 2000). This paper is complementary, since it concentrates on the role of the halo in determining the bar growth. The discussion will focus on three simulations. The results, however, are based on a much larger set of simulations, leading to the same conclusions.

## 2 Results on bar formation

I will describe the results of three fully self-consistent 3D $`N`$-body simulations of isolated galaxies consisting of a disc and a halo component. The initial conditions and the numerical methods are described in AM, whose notation I follow here. The three initial conditions have identical exponential discs of unit mass and scale length, scale height $`z_0`$ = 0.2 and $`Q`$ = 1. Their halos are five times as massive as their discs and have different degrees of central concentration. They are initially isotropic, spherical and non-rotating, with a radial density profile

$$\rho _h(r)=\frac{M_h}{2\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{\alpha }{r_c}\frac{exp(r^2/r_c^2)}{r^2+\gamma ^2}.$$
(1)
with $`M_h`$ = 5, $`r_c`$ = 10. The parameter $`\alpha `$ is a normalisation constant defined by

$$\alpha =[1\sqrt{\pi }exp(q^2)(1erf(q))]^1,$$
(2)
where $`q=\gamma /r_c`$ and $`erf`$ is the error function (Hernquist 1993). The initial circular velocity curves of the three models are shown in the upper panels of Fig. 1. The first simulation, hereafter MD, has $`\gamma `$ = 5, and its disc dominates in the inner parts, roughly up to $`r`$ = 5. In the other two (hereafter MH and RH, respectively), $`\gamma `$ = 0.5, and the halo contribution is slightly larger than that of the disc up to the maximum of the disc rotation curve, and considerably so at larger radii. Model RH is identical to model MH, except that its halo is rigid – i.e. given by a potential imposed on the disc particles – and does not evolve during the simulation. The number of particles in the simulations is 1131206, 1163030 and 200000, respectively. The simulations were run on a GRAPE-5 system with a softening of 0.0625 and a time-step of 0.015625. I assessed the numerical robustness of my results by trying double the number of particles, different values of the softening and time step, as well as direct summation and a non-GRAPE tree code. For a reasonable calibration (AM), $`t`$ = 500 corresponds to 7 $`\times 10^9`$ years. Different values, however, can be obtained for different scalings of the disc mass and scale length.

The second row of panels of Fig. 1 gives the three circular velocity curves at time $`t`$ = 800. Note that the disc material has moved considerably inwards in the two first cases, but very little in the third one. In model MD the difference between times 0 and 800 is quantitative, since the disc dominates the inner parts both initially and after the evolution, albeit to a larger degree after the bar has grown. On the other hand for model MH the difference is qualitative, since at $`t`$ = 800 the inner regions are dominated by the disc, contrary to what was the case initially. The third row of panels gives the face-on view of the disc component. The differences between the properties of the three models are striking. A comparison of models MD and MH shows that the bar that grew in the initially more halo-dominated environment is stronger than the bar that grew in the disc-dominated environment. It is longer and its isophotes are more rectangular-like. The strength of the bar can be measured with the help of the relative amplitude of the Fourier components of the density or mass (AM), and the last row of panels in Fig. 1 shows that indeed the MH bar is considerably stronger than the MD one. The $`m`$ = 4, 6 and 8 Fourier components of the face-on density of model MH are also considerably stronger than those of model MD (AM).

Very strong differences are also found when comparing models MH and RH. Model MH has a very strong bar, while model RH has a very mild oval in the innermost parts. Their edge-on views are also very different (not shown here, cf. Athanassoula 2002b for another example). Model MH seen side-on has a strong peanut or ‘X’-shape, and a big bulge-like protuberance if seen end-on. Model RH shows no such features. Finally the difference between their integrated Fourier components is striking.

The three models differ also in the way their bars evolve. In model MD the bar grows very rapidly during the first part of the evolution, but little, if at all, after that. On the contrary the growth of the bar in model MH during the first part of the evolution is slower than in MD, but stays considerable, although less important than in the first part, till the end of the simulation. The pattern speed of model MH starts off higher than that of model MD, but ends smaller. The pattern speed of MD also decreases with time, but less so (cf. Debattista & Sellwood 1998, 2000). The pattern speed of the non-axisymmetric component in RH can not be measured reliably before $`t`$ = 300, and after that does not show any signs of decrease. For models MD and MH there is exchange of energy and angular momentum between the disc and halo components, so that the halo, which was initially non-rotating, displays rotation after the bar has grown. This is small for model MD and considerable for model MH, for which at $`t`$ = 900 the halo has somewhat less than a half of the angular momentum of the disc, i.e. not far from a third of the total.

## 3 The role of the halo

In order to understand the role of the halo in the formation and evolution of the bar, I froze the potential at four selected times during each simulation and chose randomly 100 000 disc and 100 000 halo particles. I followed their orbits during 40 bar rotation periods and calculated their basic frequencies, namely the angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the epicyclic frequency $`\kappa `$ and the vertical frequency $`\kappa _z`$. For the two latter ones I used a spectral analysis technique (Binney & Spergel 1982, Laskar 1990). In most cases there were several secondary peaks, and the frequency was determined by the main one. The angular frequency proved more difficult to calculate reliably, so I supplemented the spectral analysis with other, more straightforward methods, based on following the angle as a function of time. Agreement between the values for the angular frequency obtained by the various methods was found to be satisfactory for 85% or more of the particles.

An orbit is resonant if there are three integers $`l`$, $`m`$ and $`n`$ such that $`l\kappa +m\mathrm{\Omega }+n\kappa _z=m\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is the pattern speed of the bar. I will here restrict myself to radial (planar) resonances, for which $`n`$ = 0. The most important such resonances are the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR), where $`l`$ = -1 and $`m`$ = 2, corotation resonance (CR), where $`l`$ = 0, and the outer Lindblad resonance (OLR), where $`l`$ = 1 and $`m`$ = 2. At CR the particles have the same angular frequency as the bar, while at the other resonances they make $`m`$ radial oscillations in the time they make $`l`$ revolutions around the center of the galaxy. Fig. 2 shows the number of particles (orbits), $`N_R`$, that have a frequency ratio $`R=(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_p)/\kappa `$ within a bin of a given width centered on a value of this ratio, plotted as a function of $`R`$.

Let me first describe the results for the disc components of MD and MH. The distribution in both cases is far from homogeneous, with strong peaks at the location of the main resonances. The highest peak, both for the MH and the MD disc, is for $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_p)/\kappa `$ = 0.5, i.e. at the ILR. Indeed, orbits making two radial oscillations in the time they make one revolution around the center of the galaxy are the backbone of the bar. In principle $`x_2`$ type orbits (cf. Contopoulos & Grosbøl 1989 for a review) could also be found in this peak. We have, however, verified that the vast majority of the orbits here are $`x_1`$ type. The ILR peak in the MH case is roughly 1.5 times higher than in MD, consistent with the fact that the bar in the MH case is stronger. Model MD has a sizeable CR peak and a much lower one at the OLR, while model MH has only a small CR peak and no OLR one. The ratio of the height of the CR peak to that of the ILR peak is roughly 0.6 for the MD case, while for model MH it is only 0.09. These differences are, to a large extent, due to the differences in the corotation radii of the two models. Thus at time 800 the CR radius is 7.1 for model MH and 4.6 for model MD. Similar differences are found for the OLR radii of the two models. Therefore these two resonances are in the outer parts of the MH disc and can trap only few particles. This is not the case for model MD, and the differences in the trappings are reflected in the differences in the heights of the respective resonant peaks. Model MH has also a clear peak at the inner 1:3 resonance and perhaps one at the 1:4. Model MH has a clear inner 1:4 peak.

The big surprise, however, comes from the halo component. So far considered as non-, or little, responsive, it shows, on the contrary, unmistakable signs of strong resonances with the bar. For both models the strongest resonance is CR, which proves to be much stronger in the halo than in the disc component. In fact the CR peak in the halo of model MH is higher than any of the disc peaks in MD. There are also sizeable peaks at the OLR.

There are important differences between the orbital structures of the MH and MD haloes, as was the case for the corresponding discs. The ILR peak of model MH is relatively high – the second highest peak for this model and time – and, in general, there is considerably more material between ILR and CR than in model MD, while the CR peak is 40% higher than in model MD. All these are in agreement with the fact that the MH halo is much more concentrated than the MD one, while the MH corotation is at a larger radius. For smaller values of $`R`$ the situation shifts and the peaks are stronger for the MD case. The OLR peak of model MD is more than 1.8 times as high as the MH one, and the -1:1 peak is also clear in MD, while for model MH this resonance and its surroundings have been depleted.

The relative and absolute heights of the resonance peaks vary with time. However, a large fraction of the orbits which are within a resonance peak at a given time continue to be so at a later time. Thus, comparing times 500 and 560, I find that 60 to 80 per cent of all orbits in one of the main resonant peaks at time 500 are found in the same peak at time 560. Similar numbers can be found by comparing times 800 and 860, except for the CR peak of the halo in the MH simulation, where the fraction falls to 55 per cent. Seen the uncertainties in delimiting the extent of a frequency peak, and the uncertainties in the calculation of the frequencies, these numbers are compatible with a large trapping of particles in the resonances. A more detailed description of these changes, together with a discussion on their effect on the structure and the dynamical evolution of the galaxy will be given elsewhere.

## 4 Discussion

In the above I compared three simulations starting off with identical discs, but different halo components. Any differences in their dynamical evolution should thus be attributed to the haloes. The strongest bar forms in the most halo-dominated case, provided this is live, while the simulation with an identical but rigid halo forms only a mild oval distortion, in the inner parts only. This very big difference can be attributed only to the responsiveness of the halo. The disc-dominated case, i.e. the case with the less important halo component, formed an intermediate bar. I thus reach the interesting conclusion that haloes can, at least in some cases, stimulate the bar instability and lead to stronger bars.

Lynden-Bell & Kalnajs (1972) have shown that disc stars at resonances can absorb or emit angular momentum, thus driving the dynamical evolution. Halo stars in resonance can also exchange energy and angular momentum (Tremaine & Weinberg 1984). In general, the halo resonances will absorb angular momentum. Prompted by such considerations I searched for resonant stars in the halo, and found large numbers (at least after the bar has grown). Since these can exchange energy and angular momentum with disc resonant stars, they can stimulate the bar instability, contrary to previous beliefs, and thus explain why stronger bars can grow in more halo-dominated surroundings. The situation is particularly clear in the case of model MH, where, as Fig. 2 shows, there are hardly any absorbers in the disc to take the angular momentum emitted by the stars at the ILR. This task is thus necessarily performed by the halo resonant stars.

Since the bar is inside corotation, it has negative energy and angular momentum (e.g. Lynden-Bell & Kalnajs 1972), and if it emits angular momentum it will be destabilised, i.e. it will in general grow stronger. This is in good agreement with the results on angular momentum transfer discussed at the end of §2. These show that the halo takes positive angular momentum from the disc/bar component and, since the disc, the bar and the final halo component all rotate in the same direction, this will destabilise the bar.

In the initial phases of the evolution the bar grows faster in the disc dominated surroundings, in good agreement with previous results (e.g. Athanassoula & Sellwood 1986). However, in fine, the bar in the MH model reaches a higher amplitude, due to the stronger exchange of energy and angular momentum with the resonant halo stars. Thus a massive halo may help the bar grow and become very strong, so that very strong bars may be found in initially halo-dominated galaxies. In other words there is no disagreement between the results of e.g. Athanassoula & Sellwood (1986) and those presented here or in AM or in Athanassoula (2002a, b).

Hernquist & Weinberg (1992) checked the angular momentum given to a live halo by a rigid bar turned first on and then off adiabatically. In spite of considerable noise, they found indications that the angular momentum was deposited primarily at the resonances and that it is mainly absorbed. This tentative result is clearly established here, where both the disc and the halo are live, the evolution is not artificially forced and the resonances are clearly outlined.

In the linear theory the exchange of energy and angular momentum is linked with the growth of the wave. In the nonlinear theory on the other hand it has been linked to the slowdown of the bar (Tremaine & Weinberg 1984, Weinberg 1985, Hernquist & Weinberg 1992). Both effects are clearly visible in the simulations presented here and should be physically linked.

The orbital structures revealed in Fig. 2 are not specific to the models discussed above. I have repeated a similar analysis for other times and other simulations and found similar behaviours. They should thus be representative of a wide class of models.

I am thus proposing a new instability mechanism, by which the halo will stimulate, rather than restrain, bar growth. This of course will only work if the halo is non-rigid and is capable of absorbing positive angular momentum. Similarly the bar should also be non-rigid. Further analysis of this mechanism will be given elsewhere.

I would like to thank A. Bosma, M. Tagger and F. Masset for stimulating discussions, and A. Misiriotis and J. C. Lambert for their help with the software calculating the orbital frequencies. I would also like to thank the Region PACA, the INSU/CNRS, the University of Aix-Marseille I and the IGRAP for funds to develop the GRAPE computing facilities used for the simulations discussed in this paper.


text:
# Do Scalar Tensor Cosmologies naturally explain all the current cosmological observations ?

## Abstract

It is shown that the general scalar tensor cosmologies may explain all the current cosmological observations without the need of invoking any ad hoc missing energy density. The explanation is based entirely on the internal dynamics of the theories. Two important predictions of the present analysis are: the universe is tending towards a matter dominated state with the dimunition of the dark energy component and the acceleration of the universe, if any, is slowing down with time.

PACS numbers: 04.50.+h, 04.80.+z, 98.80.Cq, 98.80.Hw
Observations of small scale cosmic microwave background anisotropy on sub-degree angular scales \[1-3\] together with the cluster measurements  and the luminosity-redshift relation of the type Ia supernova up to about $`z1`$  strongly indicate that a significant component of the energy density of the universe has negative pressure . Cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is a straightforward and natural candidate for such a component . However, models with fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ run into some serious difficulties such as the so-called “cosmic coincidence problem” (why $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ right today) . Moreover, the observational upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is more than 120 orders smaller than what is expected naturally from a vacuum energy originating at the Planck time (the well known “cosmological constant problem”) . One is then led to models of dynamical vacuum energy or quintessence , involving a minimally coupled scalar field $`\varphi `$ with a specific potential $`U(\varphi )`$. Still the “fine tuning problem” remains; parameters in the scalar effective potential require some degree of fine tunings to avoid the coincidence problem . Also, possible general couplings of $`\varphi `$ with ordinary matter leads to spurious long range forces, violation of equivalence principle and the time dependence of gauge and gravitational constants . To overcome the fine tuning problem, “$`k`$-essence” model is introduced  in which attractor dynamics at the onset of matter domination drives the scalar field into negative pressure state. Such a feature, however, comes at the cost of introducing a series of non-linear kinetic energy terms in the Lagrangian. There are also attempts to understand the scenario within the framework of non-Einsteinian theories of gravity. For instance, the observed acceleration of the universe could be modeled within the framework of general scalar tensor theories  admitting a potential term $`U(\varphi )`$. The authors  underlined how the structure of the theory can be computationally determined from the observed luminosity distance and the linear density perturbations of a dust like universe.
The purpose of this letter is to show that the general scalar tensor cosmologies can naturally account for the matter density budget of the universe without the need of invoking any ad hoc missing energy density (in the form of a scalar potential or cosmological constant) and also explain the present accelerating expansion of the universe. To arrive at this conclusion, we use two natural inputs: the first one is that during cosmological evolution, the Einstein frame coupling function $`\alpha (\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ ($`\alpha ^2(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\frac{1}{2\omega (\varphi )+3}`$) tends toward its minimum (zero) or equivalently $`\omega (\varphi )`$ approaches $`\mathrm{}`$ , where $`\omega (\varphi )`$ represents the strength of the coupling between the scalar field $`(\varphi )`$ and the curvature in the Jordan frame. This limit will be employed in the Jordan frame where $`\omega (\varphi )`$ appears explicitly in the action. It should be of interest to note that the question whether the Jordan frame vacuum Brans-Dicke theory  ($`\omega =`$constant) reduces to general relativity in the limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ is being revisited in the current literature . The other input is that the present value of $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}`$ could be small but non-zero, where $`\omega ^{}(\varphi )\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }`$. Both these inputs are consistent with the constraints imposed on the scalar-tensor theories from local interactions. At present, observational limits from the solar system measurements are $`|\omega (\varphi )|>3000`$ and simultaneously $`|\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^3(\varphi )}|<0.0006`$ . One must also consider the cosmological constraints. The Big Bang nucleosynthesis in presence of a scalar field has been studied in several works . It imposes a stringent limit  on the post-Newtonian parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ to avoid over- or underproduction of 4He which translates into a stronger bound on $`\omega (\varphi )`$. Such a restriction is also automatically satisfied with the two inputs though, since we are studying only late time behavior of scalar tensor theories, the constraint due to nucleosynthesis is not directly applicable here.
Since we perform our analysis within the framework of general scalar tensor theories, the weak equivalence principle, conservation laws and the constancy of the non-gravitational constants are automatically preserved. These theories are also found compatible with local situations such as the solar system experiments or binary pulsar tests . Moreover, in the extended inflationary scenario of cosmology, these theories admit natural termination of the inflationary era through the nucleation of bubbles without the need of finely tuned cosmological parameters . We consider the most general scalar tensor theories of gravity with a single scalar field. In the Jordan conformal frame (since experimentally observed quantities are those that are written in the Jordan frame , we shall work in this frame throughout the paper) the general form of the action containing a massless scalar field $`\varphi `$ is

$$𝒜=\frac{1}{16\pi }\sqrt{g}d^4x\left[\varphi R\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi }g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +16\pi _m\right]$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar constructed from the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`_m`$ is the Lagrangian density of ordinary matter which could include electromagnetic field, nuclear field etc. The principle of equivalence is respected by requiring that the matter field Lagrangian can depend only on the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ but not on $`\varphi `$.
For a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe with $`ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]`$ and under dust approximation ($`p=0`$, $`\rho =\rho _o\frac{a_o^3}{a^3}`$), in the $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ limit, the wave equation gives

$$\dot{\varphi }\frac{A_b}{a^3\sqrt{(3+2\omega (\varphi ))}}$$
(2)
where $`A_b`$ is a constant and expected to be negative. The Ricci scalar, in the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, is given by

$$R=\frac{8\pi T}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\varphi }\left[\frac{3\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{2\omega (\varphi )^2}\frac{1}{\varphi }\right]\frac{A_b^2}{a^6}.$$
(3)
For compatibility with the weak field observations, a natural (and usual) choice is $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}0`$ . However, present local observational constraints also admit a small non-zero value of $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}`$ which may arise from several situations such as: i) the evolution of the scalar field could drive $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}`$ toward a small non-zero positive value for a reasonable class of scalar tensor models. ii) $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}`$ might be evolving towards zero but at present it has some small non-zero value. iii) the functional form of $`\omega (\varphi )`$ could be chosen in such a way that $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}`$ is a non-zero constant (independent of $`\varphi `$). This occurs, for instance, in the Einstein conformally coupled scalar field theory which can be rewritten in the form a scalar tensor theory with a specific form of $`\omega (\varphi )`$ . Hence, preserving the generality, we define $`\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}\frac{\xi (\varphi )}{\varphi }`$, where $`\xi (\varphi )`$ is an arbitrary function of $`\varphi `$. As $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, the scalar field $`\varphi `$ approaches a constant value ($`\frac{1}{G}`$) and so does $`\xi (\varphi )`$. Currently we have only a rather weak observational limit $`|\xi _o|<1.8G^1`$ (subscript o denotes present value throughout the paper). Though the evolution of the scalar field does not necessarily guarantee that this limit on $`\xi _o(\varphi )`$ will hold simultaneously with $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, such a condition is essential if the solar system tests are to accord with observations. Using the expression of $`\dot{\varphi }`$, the dynamical FRW equations under the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ become

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3}+\frac{A_b^2G^2}{12a^6},$$
(4)
and

$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}=\frac{A_b^2G^2}{4a^6}(1\xi (\varphi )).$$
(5)
These are the master equations describing the dynamics of scalar tensor theories at late times. It is evident from these equations that, in the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, though scalar field approaches a constant value, there is a contribution from the scalar field (which is remarkably non-zero). This can be easily identified by comparing equations (4) and (5) with the corresponding equations of general relativity. However, in the Jordan frame it should not be regarded as the energy density of the scalar field rather it is a consequence of dynamical description of the gravitational field . This gives rise to kind of “matter field” having a dynamical energy density $`\frac{A_b^2G}{32\pi a^6}`$ and a pressure $`\frac{A_b^2G}{32\pi a^6}(1\xi (\varphi ))`$. This effective “field” has two components; one arises from the evolution of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ with an equation-of-state similar to stiff matter ($`p=\rho `$) while the second component results from evolving $`\dot{\omega }(\varphi )`$ and contributes only to the pressure component. The equation-of-state of the effective “field” is $`wp/\rho _{eff}=1\xi (\varphi )`$ which may vary with time. For quintessence models also, $`w_q`$ varies with time but finally it tends to the equation-of-state for fixed cosmological constant $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$.
The energy density of the effective field scales with respect to that of the background according to the law

$$\frac{\rho _{eff}}{\rho }\frac{1}{a^3}$$
(6)
which indicates that the universe has been tending towards a state of matter dominance ($`\rho >>\rho _{eff}`$). Note that in the vacuum energy (both static and dynamic) models, the reverse is true. Also it should be noted that Eq.(6) is valid only in the late times ($`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$). At earlier periods, the ratio $`\frac{\rho _{eff}}{\rho }`$ could evolve quite differently and should depend on $`\omega (\varphi )`$ as in the case of Brans-Dicke theory. It follows from Eq. (4), that the present energy density is given by

$$\rho _o=\frac{3H_o^2}{8\pi G}\left(1\frac{A_b^2G^2}{12H_o^2a_o^6}\right)+\frac{3k}{8\pi Ga_o^2}.$$
(7)
and the critical density thereby becomes

$$\rho _c^{ST}=\frac{3H_o^2}{8\pi G}\left(1\frac{A_b^2G^2}{12H_o^2a_o^6}\right)$$
(8)
which is smaller than the $`\rho _c^{GR}`$. The above equation also puts a constraint on the numerical value of $`A_b`$; $`A_b`$ must be less than $`\frac{2\sqrt{3}H_oa_o^3}{G}`$ (in flat universe) to keep $`\rho _o`$ positive. If we consider our universe to be flat, as suggested from cosmological observations and also predicted by the inflationary paradigm of cosmology, Eq. (7) can be used to fix $`A_b`$ from $`\rho _o.3\frac{3H_o^2}{8\pi G}`$, the observed value . Then $`|A_b/a_o^3|`$ takes the value $`10^7`$ $`Kgm^3s^1`$. It is worth mentioning that in the radiation epoch, the expression for $`\dot{\varphi }`$ as given in Eq. (2) continues to remain valid  but the value of the constant $`A_b`$ is unlikely to be the same both at the radiation and matter dominated era. One has also to take into consideration the constraints due to phase transition.
Expression for the deceleration parameter $`q_o`$ is obtained from Eqs. (4) and (5):

$$2q_o=\frac{\rho _o}{\rho _c^{GR}}+\frac{A_b^2G^2}{12H_o^2a_o^6}(43\xi _o(\varphi ))$$
(9)
Thus there is no unique relationship between $`q_o`$ and $`\rho _o`$. An accelerating expansion of the universe ($`q_0<0`$) will occur if $`\xi _o>\frac{4}{3}+\frac{32\pi H_oa_o^6\rho _o}{3A_b^2G}`$. For $`q_o1`$ , $`\xi _o`$ have to be $`2.4`$. The equation-of-state of the dark energy component of the universe should be determined from the proposed SNAP satellite mission . Then, the present value of $`\xi (\varphi )`$ will be precisely known. But it has to be also consistent with the findings of the future local gravitational experiments, such as Gravity Probe B, POINTS and Mercury Relativity Satellite mission.
If we assume that the time dependence of $`H(t)`$ and $`a(t)`$ are close to those predicted by general relativity i.e., if $`Ha^3`$ is increasing with time, an important prediction emerging from Eq. (9) is that the acceleration of the universe is decreasing with time. This is again in contrast with the prediction of a fixed cosmological constant or quintessence models in which acceleration will ever continue.
For flat universe (k=0) and when $`\xi (\varphi )0`$, Eqs.(7) and (8) have three non-trivial exact solutions for $`a(t)`$. The only solution for which a(t) is positive throughout the history of the universe turns out to be

$$a(t)=(rt^2+st)^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(10)
where $`r=6\pi G\rho _oa_o^3`$ and $`s=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}A_bG`$. The Hubble parameter (H) is given by

$$H=\frac{2rt+s}{3(rt^2+st)}$$
(11)
When $`t\mathrm{}`$, both the scale factor and the Hubble parameter tend to corresponding GR values. When $`|A_b/a_o^3|`$ is $`10^7`$ $`Kgm^3s^1`$, the ratio $`r/s`$ in Eq. (10) is $`10^{18}`$ and $`a(t_o)1`$. In that case, the age of the universe will be less (by a factor of 2) than that predicted by the Einstein-FRW model. One important point is that since $`q_o`$ is defined at the present epoch and the supernovae sample used in  cover a wide range of redshift, the estimation of acceleration is always within the context of a model of its origin. It will be of interest to examine whether an exact model like that given in Eq. (10) could give acceleration from the supernovae luminosity-redshift data.
It has been shown in the foregoing that the scalar tensor cosmologies are compatible with the all the current cosmological observations. Several evolving mechanisms simultaneously take place in scalar tensor cosmologies which may be responsible for different observed features of the universe. The “attractor” behavior  of scalar tensor theories toward general relativity for local interactions results from the evolution of $`\omega (\varphi )`$, the evolving $`\dot{\varphi }`$ may give rise to the socalled “dark energy” of the universe whereas the evolution of $`\dot{\omega }(\varphi )`$ is found responsible for the present acceleration of the universe. Before closing, let us summarize the main results of the present analysis:
1) In the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, the scalar tensor theory equations resemble general relativity equations with a “matter” field having an equation-of-state $`p=(1\xi (\varphi ))\rho _{eff}`$.
2) The critical density in scalar tensor cosmology is less than that in general relativity which explains the current observations .
3) The universe has been tending towards a state of matter dominance, the density of dark energy component diminishing faster than that of ordinary matter.
4) The present observed  acceleration of the universe can be explained. However, the acceleration itself is decreasing with time.
The last two results are in fact two important predictions of scalar tensor cosmologies. Future cosmological observations, like the proposed SNAP satellite mission and the MAC and the PLANCK cosmic microwave experiments, might have the potential to test these predictions.

Acknowledgment : AB wishes to thank IUCAA Reference Centre (NBU) for providing its facility and to G. Majumder (TIFR) for stimulating comments and various help.


text:
# Compton Scattering on the Proton.

## I Introduction

In a K-matrix approach an infinite series of rescattering loops is taken into account with the approximation of incorporating only the pole contributions of the loop diagrams. In this approximation lies both the strong and the weak sides of this approach. By including only the pole contributions, which correspond to rescattering via physical states, unitarity in obeyed and the infinite series can be expressed as a geometric series and summed as given in Eq. (1). Such an approach can be formulated in a co-variant approach, where electromagnetic-gauge invariance is obeyed through the addition of appropriate contact terms. It can also be shown that crossing symmetry is obeyed. In the structure of the kernel a large number of resonances can be accounted for. The weak point of including only the pole contributions of the loop corrections (i.e. only the imaginary part of the loop integrals) is that the resulting amplitude violates analyticity constraints and thus causality.

In Section IV an extension of the K-matrix model is discussed where, without violating the other symmetries, an additional constraint, that of analyticity (or causality), is incorporated approximately. In this approach, called the “Dressed K-Matrix Model”, dressed self-energies and form factors are included in the K-matrix. These functions are calculated self-consistently in an iteration procedure where dispersion relations are used at each recursion step to relate real and imaginary parts.

## II The K-Matrix approach

In K-matrix models the T-matrix is written in the form,

$$𝒯=(1Ki\delta )^1K,$$
(1)
where $`\delta `$ indicates that the intermediate particles have to be taken on the mass shell and all physics is put in the kernel, the K-matrix. This amounts to re-sum an infinite series of pole contributions ofloop corrections. It is straightforward to check that $`S=1+2i𝒯`$ is unitary provided that the kernel $`K`$ is Hermitian. Since Eq. (1) involves integrals only over on-shell intermediate particles, it reduces to a set of algebraic equations when one is working in a partial wave basis. When both the $`\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N`$ channels are open, the coupled-channel K-matrix becomes a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the channel space, i.e.

$$K=\left[\begin{array}{cc}K_{\gamma \gamma }& K_{\gamma \pi }\\ K_{\pi \gamma }& K_{\pi \pi }\end{array}\right].$$
(2)
It should be noted that due to the coupled channels nature of this approach the widths of resonances are generated dynamically.

In traditional K-matrix models the kernel, the K-matrix, is built from tree-level diagramsGou94 ; Sch96 ; Feu98 ; Kor98 . In the present investigation the type of diagrams included in $`K_{\gamma \gamma }`$ are similar to that of ref. Kor98  except that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is treated now as a genuine spin-3/2 resonance Pas01  in order to be compatible with the later treatment of the in-medium $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. This K-matrix is indicated in Fig. (1). Most of the (non-strange) resonances below 1.7 GeV have been included. The different coupling constants were fitted to reproduce pion scattering, pion photoproduction and Compton scattering on the nucleon. A comparable fit to the data as in ref. Kor98  could be obtained. In Fig. (2) the results for Compton scattering are compared to data.

## III Basic symmetries

A realistic scattering amplitude for a particular process should obey certain symmetry relations, such as Unitarity, Covariance, Gauge invariance, Crossing and Causality. In the following each of these symmetries will be shortly addressed, stating its physical significance. It is also indicated which of these is obeyed by the K-matrix approach discussed in the previous section. The comparative success of the K-matrix formalism can be regarded as due to the large number of symmetries which are being obeyed. A violation of anyone of these symmetries will directly imply some problems in applications. Improvements are thus important.

### III.1 Unitarity

The unitarity condition for the scattering matrix $`S`$ reads $`S^{}S=1`$. Usually one works with the $`T`$-matrix operator which can be defined as $`S=1+2iT`$, and the unitarity condition is rewritten as $`2i(TT^{})_{fi}=T_{fi}T_{if}^{}`$. If the $`T`$-matrix is symmetric (which is related to time-reversal symmetry), the last formula becomes $`ImT_{fi}=_nT_{fn}T_{in}^{}`$, where the sum runs over physical intermediate states. The latter relation is the generalization of the well-known optical theorem for the scattering amplitude. Unitarity can only be obeyed in a coupled channel formulation; the imaginary part of the amplitude “knows” about the flux that is lost in other channels.

In the K-matrix formalism the $`T`$-matrix is expressed as $`T=\frac{K}{1iK}`$ which implies that $`S=\frac{1+iK}{1iK}`$ is clearly unitary provided the the kernel $`K`$ is Hermitian. This kernel is a matrix, where the different rows and columns correspond to different physical outgoing (incoming) channels. The coupled channels nature is thus inherent in such an approach. As explained earlier the kernel is usually written as the sum of all possible tree-level diagrams. In a partial-wave basis $`K`$ is a matrix of relatively low dimensionality and the inverse, implied in the calculation of the $`T`$ matrix, can readily be calculated.

### III.2 Covariance

The scattering amplitude is said to be covariant if it transforms properly under Lorentz transformations. As a consequence the description of the reaction observables is independent of the particular reference frame chosen for the calculations. It naturally implies that relativistic kinematics is used.

Since the appropriate four-vector notation and $`\gamma `$-matrix algebra are used throughout our calculation, the condition of Lorentz covariance is fulfilled.

### III.3 Gauge invariance

Gauge invariance means that there is certain freedom in the choice of the electromagnetic field, not affecting the observables. Its implication is current conservation, $`\stackrel{}{J}=\frac{\rho }{t}`$, or in four-vector notation, $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$. Using the well known correspondence between momenta and derivatives, current conservation can be re expressed as $`k_\mu J^\mu =0`$. If the electromagnetic current obeys this relation it can easily be shown that observables, such as a photo-production cross section, are independent of the particular gauge used for constructing the photon polarization vectors.

One of the sources for violation of gauge invariance is the form factors used in the vertices. A form factor implies that at a certain (short range) scale a particle appears ’fuzzy’. At distances smaller than this scale deviations from a point-like structure are important; however in the formulation the dynamics at this short scale is not sufficiently accurate. For one thing, the flow of charge at this scale is not properly accounted for, implying violation of charge conservation. To correct for this, so-called contact terms are usually included in the $`K`$-matrix kernel. In the present model these contact terms are constructed using the minimal substitution rules. The corresponding T-matrix, as well as the observables, are independent of the photon gauge.

### III.4 Crossing Symmetry

Physical consequences of the crossing symmetry are more difficult to explain. It basically means that in a proper field-theoretical framework the scattering amplitudes of processes in the so-called crossed channels can be obtained from each other by appropriate replacements of kinematics. This assumes that the amplitude can be analytically continued from the physical region of one channel to the physical regions of other channels. An example of the crossed channels is $`\gamma N\pi N`$, $`\pi N\gamma N`$ and $`N\overline{N}\gamma \pi `$.

Crossing symmetry puts a direct constraint on the amplitude for the case that direct and crossed channels are identical, as for example for the processes $`\pi N\pi N`$ or $`\gamma N\gamma N`$. In these reactions crossing symmetry leads to important symmetry properties of the amplitudes under interchange of $`s`$ and $`u`$ variables. Due to the fact that in the $`K`$-matrix formalism the rescattering diagrams which are taken into account have only on-shell intermediate particles, it can be shown that the s-u crossing symmetry is obeyed provided that the kernel itself is crossing symmetric. Since the latter is the case, crossing symmetry is obeyed.

### III.5 Analyticity

Analyticity of the scattering matrix is not really a symmetry. Rather, it requires that the amplitude be an analytic function of the energy variable and in particular that it obeys dispersion relations. The physics of analyticity is closely related to causality of the amplitude as is illustrated in the following example.

Assume that a signal is emitted by an antenna at time $`t=0`$. At all subsequent times the signal is given by a function $`F(t)`$ while causality requires that at earlier times there was no signal, $`F(t<0)=0`$. This signal can be Fourier-transformed, $`f(\omega )=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑te^{i\omega t}F(t)`$ to explicitly show its energy or frequency dependence. Note that the integration region from $`t=\mathrm{}`$ to $`t=0`$ gives zero contribution due to the causality requirement. This transformation can also be considered for complex values of $`\omega `$. Since the integration interval runs only over positive values for $`t`$ the Fourier integral exists and is a well behaving function for all complex values of energy $`\omega `$ for which $`Im(\omega )>0`$ i.e. it is an analytic function. For such a function contour integrals in the complex $`\omega `$ plane can be performed and the function obeys the Cauchy theorem which is in this context is usually formulated as a dispersion relation,

$$\text{Re}f(\omega )=\frac{𝒫}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\text{Im}f(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{}\omega }$$

showing that for an analytic function the real and imaginary parts are closely related. For example, if the imaginary part of an analytic function is given by the curve on the left-hand side of Fig. (3) the real part of this function is given by the right-hand side.

In the traditionally used K-matrix approaches the analyticity constraint is badly violated. The origin of this is explained in the following.

In a field-theoretical calculation of a scattering amplitude one includes rescattering contributions of intermediate particles which are expressed as loop integrals. In Fig. (4) a typical loop contribution to the self energy is shown. Ignoring terms in the numerator which are irrelevant for the analyticity properties, the corresponding integral can be expressed as

$$J(p^2)=d^4k\frac{1}{[k^2\mu ^2+iϵ][(pk)^2m^2+iϵ]}=\text{Re}J(p^2)+i\text{Im}J(p^2)$$
(3)
where the right hand side in this equation and in Fig. (4) expresses the fact this integral has a real and an imaginary part, each of which corresponds to some particular physics. The imaginary part of the integral arises from the integration region where the denominators vanish, corresponding to four-momenta $`k`$ where the intermediate particles in the loop are on the mass shell -or equivalently- are physical particles with $`k^2=\mu ^2`$ and $`(pk)^2=m^2`$. Conventionally this is indicated by placing a slash through the loop (see Fig. (4)) to indicate that the loop can be cut at this place since it corresponds to a physical state. The other parts of the integration region contribute to the real part of the integral. In the latter case the particles in the loop are off the mass shell.

It can be shown that the K-matrix formulation for the T-matrix corresponds to including only the imaginary (or cut-loop) contributions of a certain class of loop diagrams. This guarantees (as was shown before) that unitarity is obeyed. Analyticity of the scattering amplitude is however violated due to ignoring the real contributions of these loop integrals. As a consequence causality will be violated!

To (partially) recover analyticity of the scattering amplitude the so-called “Dressed K-matrix approach”Kon01b  has been developed. It is described in the following section.

## IV The Dressed K-matrix Model

As discussed in the previous section, the coupled channels K-matrix approach is quite successful in reproducing Compton scattering. However it fails in predicting nucleon polarizabilities. The reason is that, in spite of the many symmetry properties that are satisfied, analyticity or causality of the amplitude is badly violated. In the “Dressed K-matrix” approach the constraint of analyticity is incorporated in an approximate manner without spoiling the other symmetries. In fact analyticity is used as a kind of expansion parameter where presently only the leading contributions are included. The ingredients of the Dressed K-Matrix Model were described in Refs. Kon99 ; Kon00 ; Kon01a  and the main results were presented in Ref. Kon01b . The essence of this approach lies in the use of dressed vertices and propagators in the kernel $`K`$.

The objective of dressing the vertices and propagators is solely to improve on the analytic properties of the amplitude. The imaginary parts of the amplitude are generated through the K-matrix formalism (as imposed by unitarity) and correspond to cut loop corrections where the intermediate particles are taken on their mass shell. The real parts have to follow from applying dispersion relations to the imaginary parts. We incorporate these real parts as real vertex and self-energy functions. Investigating this in detail (for a more extensive discussion we refer to Kon99 ) shows that the dressing can be formulated in terms of coupled equations, schematically shown in Fig. (5), which generate multiple overlapping loop corrections. The coupled nature of the equations is necessary to obey simultaneously unitarity and analyticity at the level of vertices and propagators.

The equations presented in Fig. (5) are solved by iteration where every iteration step proceeds as follows. The imaginary – or pole – contributions of the loop integrals for both the propagators and the vertices are obtained by applying cutting rules. Since the outgoing nucleon and the pion are on-shell, the only kinematically allowed cuts are those shown in Fig. (5). The principal-value part of the vertex (i.e. the real parts of the form factors) and self-energy functions are calculated at every iteration step by applying dispersion relations to the imaginary parts just calculated, where only the physical one-pion–one-nucleon cut on the real axis in the complex $`p^2`$-plane is considered. These real functions are used to calculate the pole contribution for the next iteration step. This procedure is repeated to obtain a converged solution. We consider irreducible vertices, which means that the external propagators are not included in the dressing of the vertices.

Bare $`\pi NN`$ form factors have been introduced in the dressing procedure to regularize the dispersion integrals. The bare form factor reflects physics at energy scales beyond those of the included mesons and which has been left out of the dressing procedure. One thus expects a large width for this factor, as is indeed the case.

The dressed nucleon propagator is renormalized (through a wave function renormalization factor $`Z`$ and a bare mass $`m_0`$) to have a pole with a unit residue at the physical mass. The nucleon self-energy is expressed in terms of self-energy functions $`A(p^2)`$ and $`B(p^2)`$ as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(p)=A_N(p^2)/p+B_N(p^2)m`$.

The procedure of obtaining the $`\gamma NN`$ vertex Kon00  is in principle the same as for the $`\pi NN`$ vertex. Contact $`\gamma \pi NN`$ and $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ vertices, necessary for gauge invariance of the model, are constructed by minimal substitution in the dressed $`\pi NN`$ vertex and nucleon propagator, as was explained in Kon00 .

The present procedure restores analyticity at the level of one-particle reducible diagrams in the T-matrix. In general, violation due to two- and more-particle reducible diagrams can be regarded as higher order corrections. An important exception to this general rule is formed by, for example, diagrams where both photons couple to the same intermediate pion in a loop (so-called “handbag” diagrams). This term is exceptional since at the pion threshold the S-wave contribution is large, due to the non-zero value of the $`E_{0+}^{1/2}`$ multipole in pion-photoproduction, leading to a sharp near-threshold energy dependence of the related $`f_{EE}^1`$ Compton amplitudeBer93 . In the K-matrix formalism, the imaginary (pole) contribution of this type of diagrams is taken into account. Not including the real part of such a large contribution would entail a significant violation of analyticity. To correct for this, the $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ vertex also contains the (purely transverse) “cusp” contact term whose construction is described in Section 4 of Ref. Kon00 . Since, due to chiral symmetry, the S-wave pion scattering amplitude vanishes at threshold, the mechanism that gives rise to the important “cusp” term in compton scattering does not contribute to $`\pi \pi NN`$ or $`\pi \gamma NN`$ contact terms. The analogons to the “cusp” $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ term will thus be negligible and have therefore not been considered.

### IV.1 Results

Results for pion-nucleon scattering and pion-photoproduction obtained in the dressed K-matrix model and in the traditional K-matrix approach are of comparable quality. One should, however, expect the two approaches to have significant differences for Compton scattering since for this case constraints imposed by analyticity will be most important Pfe74 ; Ber93 .

The effect of the dressing on the $`f_{EE}^1`$ amplitude can be seen in Fig. (6), where also the results of dispersion analyses are quoted for comparison. Note that the imaginary parts of $`f_{EE}^1`$ from calculations B (Bare, corresponding to the usual K-matrix approach) and D (Dressed, the full Dressed K-matrix results) are rather similar in the vicinity of threshold.

The polarizabilities characterize response of the nucleon to an externally applied electromagnetic field Hem98 ; Hol00 . They can be defined as coefficients in a low-energy expansion of the cross section or partial amplitudes of Compton scattering. Since gauge invariance, unitarity, crossing and CPT symmetries are fulfilled in both models the Thompson limit at vanishing photon energy is reproduced. Our results for the electric, magnetic and spin polarizabilities of the proton are given in Table 1, where they are compared with the results given in refs. Hem98 ; Gel00  and with the values extracted from recent experiments. The contribution from the the t-channel $`\pi ^0`$-exchange diagram has been subtracted. The effect of the dressing on the polarizabilities can be seen by comparing the values given in columns D (dressed) and B (bare). In particular, the dressing tends to decrease $`\alpha `$ while increasing $`\beta `$. Among the spin polarizabilities, $`\gamma _{E1}`$ is affected much more than the other $`\gamma `$’s. The effect of the additional “cusp” $`\gamma \gamma NN`$ contact termKon00 , strongly influences the electric polarizabilities rather than the magnetic ones. This is because the “cusp” contact term affects primarily the electric partial amplitude $`f_{EE}^1`$ (corresponding to the the total angular momentum and parity of the intermediate state $`J^\pi =1/2^{}`$) rather than the magnetic amplitude $`f_{MM}^1`$ ($`J^\pi =1/2^+`$).

Of special interest is to check whether polarizabilities as extracted form the low energy behavior of the amplitude are in agreement with the values as extracted from energy weighted sumrules. The derivation of sumrules is based on the fact that the amplitudes obey certain symmetries where analyticity is of particular importance. This comparison is still in progess and results will be published in a forthcoming paper Kon01c . Preliminary results indicate that the different sum rules are obeyed, with the exception of the sum rule for the spin polarizability $`\gamma _0`$. This may be due to an incomplete dressing of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance in the present calculational scheme.

## V Summary and Conclusions

Results are presented for Compton scattering on a free proton as well as on a nucleus. For processes on the proton the usual K-matrix model as well as the recently developed dressed K-matrix model are discussed. In the latter approach the real self energies and vertex functions are obtained from the imaginary parts using dispersion relations imposing self-consistency conditions. It is indicated that such an approach is essential to understand features seen in the data, in particular at energies around and below the pion production threshold.

## Acknowledgments

O. S. thanks the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) for their financial support. S. K. thanks the National Sciences and Engeneering Research Council of Canada for their financial support.