text:
# SUSY dark matter with non-universal gaugino masses

## 1 Introduction

This talk summarizes recent work  investigating the effects of gaugino mass non-universality on dark matter prospects for low-energy models of broken supersymmetry. When we allow this non-universality in the bino and wino masses, significant new regions of parameter space now satisfy the dark matter constraint. We show that these regions are largely independent of the common scalar mass.

This freedom in gaugino masses is highly motivated, especially from string-derived models . When we look at a specific class of models allowing freedom in the bino and wino masses (specifically the ratio $`M_2/M_1`$), we see that the dark matter constraint yields interesting results. We find that the coupling of the dark matter constraint with a few basic phenomenological constraints allows us to determine the matter and gauge content of the hidden sector of the theory, assuming only that the matter comes in fundamental representations.

The cMSSM is by far the most studied supersymmetric model in the literature. In the cMSSM, one finds that the neutralino relic density in most of the $`(M_0,M_{1/2})`$ parameter space is determined in large part by annihilation to a light fermion anti-fermion pair. Since the preferred dark matter candidate, the lightest neutralino, is mostly bino in character, the interaction strength is rather weak. These two facts coupled together lead to a neutralino relic density that is too large over most of the $`(M_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane, as shown in Figure 1.

Here the region with the cosmologically preferred relic density is the one bounded by two solid lines, containing the points labelled $`A`$ and $`B`$. The regions containing points $`C`$ and $`D`$ have a relic density that is too high, conflicting with measurements of the age of the universe. The near-vertical dotted lines denote contours of constant Higgs mass. It is apparent that the current limit of $`m_h114.1`$ GeV  removes large sections of parameter space, leaving only the Higgs pole (the vertical region) and the neutralino-stau coannihilation channel (near-horizontal region). Both of these regions are aesthetically unappealing since they require a very tight mass relation between a fermion and an unrelated scalar.

In the cMSSM, the mass of the lightest neutralino is determined by the bino mass parameter, $`M_1`$, over most of parameter space. This is due to the constraint of $`M_22M_1`$ (at the weak scale) coming from the GUT relation on the gauge couplings. However, once $`M_2`$ is allowed to take a value unrelated to $`M_1`$, the mass of the lightest neutralino is generally determined by a mixture of $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$. This can be seen from the neutralino mass matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& sc_\beta M_Z& ss_\beta M_Z\\ 0& M_2& cc_\beta M_Z& cs_\beta M_Z\\ sc_\beta M_Z& cc_\beta M_Z& 0& \mu \\ ss_\beta M_Z& cs_\beta M_Z& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
Where $`s=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, $`c=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$, $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ and $`c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the ratio of the Higgs vevs. In Figure 2, we show the dependence of the relic density on $`M_2/M_1`$ evaluated at the GUT scale. The near-vertical lines are contours of constant relic density, having values (starting from the left) of: $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2=0.01,0.1,0.3,1.0,10.0`$. In this plot we have picked the value of $`M_{1/2}=min(M_2,M_1)`$ to be $`200`$ GeV, but the story remains much the same for values of $`M_{1/2}`$ in the range of hundreds of GeV. We can see that the requirement of proper relic density prefers a value of $`M_2/M_1`$ quite different from the cMSSM value of 1.

We can also see that the requirement of proper relic density is largely independent of the scalar mass $`M_0`$. This, again, is in stark contrast to the situation in the cMSSM. In the cosmologically preferred regions with non-universal gaugino masses, the relic density is not largely determined by annihilation into fermion anti-fermion pairs through squark exchange. Another feature of lowering $`M_2/M_1`$ is the increasing degeneracy of the masses of the lightest and next-to-lightest neutralinos. Additionally, the mass of the lightest chargino also approaches the mass of the lightest neutralino for values of $`M_2/M_1`$ below the cMSSM value. The reason this happens at a value of $`M_2/M_1<1`$ in Figure 2 is just due to RGE running of the gaugino masses from the GUT scale (as in Figure 2) down to the weak scale. The masses of the next-to-lightest neutralino and the chargino are usually determined by $`M_2`$, so one would naturally expect their masses to approach the lightest neutralino mass if the aforementioned mass ratio is lowered. Now coannihilation channels between two different neutralinos and also between neutralinos and charginos become important.

The BGW models are explicit examples of string-derived models that exhibit this freedom in $`M_2/M_1`$. The BGW models are models of modular invariant supergravity derived from the weakly coupled heterotic string. Supersymmetry is broken non-perturbatively, through gaugino condensation in a hidden sector. The superpartner spectrum is determined by the dynamics of the condensing gauge group with the largest beta function. The phenomenology of the low-energy spectrum has been studied in . The hidden sector matter content and beta function determine the parameters $`b_{+eff}^\alpha `$ and $`b_+`$. The string-scale unified gauge coupling is determined by the vacuum expectation value of the dilaton. The gaugino masses are given by:

$$M_a=\frac{g_a^2}{2}\left(\frac{3b_+\left(1+b_a^{}l\right)}{1+b_+l}3b_a\right)M_{3/2}$$
(2)
where $`g_a`$ is the gauge coupling evaluated at the condensation scale, $`b_a`$ is the corresponding beta function coefficient and $`b_a^{}`$ is an anomaly matching coefficient. As we can see, varying the hidden sector parameter $`b_+`$ can indeed vary the ratio $`M_2/M_1`$. In these models the scalar masses begin at a unified value, just as in the cMSSM. Thus, we can plot the cosmologically preferred region in the $`(M_0,b_+)`$ plane, as shown in Figure 3. The lines of constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2`$ are given by the solid lines that are nearly vertical at the top of the plot, with values $`0.01,0.1,0.3,1.0,10.0`$ (starting from the left). The shaded region is excluded by limits on the gluino and chargino masses ($`190`$ and $`90`$ GeV respectively). We can see, then, that the cosmologically preferred region is almost indepedent of scalar mass, as long as the scalar mass is sufficiently heavy to pass the gluino and chargino limits. This agrees with the earlier general analysis of models with $`M_2/M_1`$ freedom.

If we only look at the hidden sector parameters, $`b_{+eff}^\alpha `$ and $`b_+`$, we can see which hidden sector gauge groups are allowed. In Figure 4, the fine dots represent cosmologically allowed neutralino relic densities. The coarse dots represent values the are slightly too large, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2`$ being between $`0.3`$ and $`1.0`$. The swath bounded by lines (a) and (b) is the region in which the hidden sector Yukawa couplings and gravitino mass have reasonable values of $`10\left(c_\alpha \right)_{eff}0.1`$ and $`100`$ GeV $`M_{3/2}10`$ TeV. In the $`(b_+,b_{+eff}^\alpha )`$ plane, a given gauge group makes a slanted line.

We can see that the only gauge groups allowed by the dark matter constraint are $`SO\left(12\right)`$, $`SO\left(14\right)`$, $`SO\left(16\right)`$, $`E_6`$, and $`E_7`$. This is a non-trivial constraint on the largest condensing gauge group of the hidden sector. However, we should note that we can also allow other forms of dark matter to contribute to the total density. In Figure 4, this would allow any point in the shaded region to the left of the cosmologically preferred points to also be viable. If we again require $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }h^20.3`$ and also assume that hidden sector matter only exists in fundamental representations (vector fundamentals for $`SO\left(2n\right)`$), then we can also rule out $`E_7`$. This is because a gauge invariant matter condensate cannot be formed that allows the neutralino relic density to have roughly the preferred value. In fact, $`E_6`$ also predicts a relic density that is a little too high ($`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2=0.63`$), and $`SO\left(12\right)`$ and $`SO\left(14\right)`$ predict relic densities that are a little below the preferred region ($`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2=0.076,0.069`$ respectively). However, with $`SO\left(16\right)`$ we find a relic density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2=0.194`$. If the matter in the hidden sector exists only in these fundamental representations, then the only cosmologically preferred gauge group is $`SO\left(16\right)`$. Even though hidden sector matter is not required to only exist in fundamental representations, we still find that dark matter constrains the largest hidden sector gauge group to the list: $`SO\left(12\right)`$, $`SO\left(14\right)`$, $`SO\left(16\right)`$, $`E_6`$, and $`E_7`$.

In summary, the prospects for viable dark matter in the cMSSM at low $`tan\beta `$ are becoming more limited, due both from theory and experiment. Many highly motivated supersymmetric models contain freedom to allow non-universal gaugino masses, a freedom not present in the cMSSM. Exploiting this freedom allows significantly more room for viable dark matter. Dark matter with non-universal gaugino masses does not require a curious relationship between the lightest neutralino and an unrelated scalar to find an allowed relic density. Freedom in $`M_2/M_1`$ also allows much heavier scalar masses to be generically compatible with dark matter than in the cMSSM. The dark matter constraint can be used to significantly limit specific models that allow non-universal gaugino masses. As an example, we chose models of modular invariant supergravity and showed that the dark matter constraint can limit the allowed configurations of the hidden sector to a few gauge groups.

## Acknowledgements

This work was performed in collaboration with Brent D. Nelson.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational Lenses, the Distance Ladder and the Hubble Constant: A New Dark Matter Problem

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational lens time delay measurements can determine the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ given a model for the gravitational potential of the lens galaxy (Refsdal Refsdal64 (1964)). The number of accurate delay measurements has begun to grow rapidly (see Schechter Schechter00 (2000)), leading to a sample of nine lenses. Five of these systems have time delay measurements, relatively simple environments, and a dominant lens galaxy with regular isophotes (RXJ0911+0551, Burud 2002b ; PG1115+080, Schechter et al. Schechter97 (1997), Barkana Barkana97 (1997), Impey et al. Impey98 (1998); SBS1520+530, Burud 2002b , Faure et al. Faure02 (2002); B1600+434, Burud et al. Burud00 (2000), Koopmans et al. Koopmans00 (2000); and HE2149–2745, Burud et al. Burud02 (2002)). The remaining four systems either have poorly determined properties (the lens positions in B0218+357 and PKS1830–211, see Lehar et al. Lehar00 (2000), Winn et al. Winn02 (2002), Courbin et al. Courbin02 (2002)), or more complicated lenses (interacting galaxies in B1608+656, Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999), a brightest cluster galaxy in Q0957+561, see Keeton et al. Keeton00 (2000)). With a sample of five relatively clean systems, we have reached the point where gravitational lenses become a serious alternative to the local distance ladder for the determination of $`H_0`$.

The determination of $`H_0`$ from a gravitational lens time delay requires a model for the mass distribution of the lens galaxy. In both models of particular time delay lenses (e.g. Keeton & Kochanek Keeton97 (1997), Impey et al. Impey98 (1998), Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999), Lehar et al. Lehar00 (2000), Keeton et al. Keeton00 (2000), Winn et al. Winn02 (2002)) and from general analytic principles (Refsdal & Surdej Refsdal94 (1994), Witt, Mao & Schechter Witt95 (1995), Witt, Mao & Keeton Witt00 (2000), Rusin Rusin00 (2000), Zhao & Pronk Zhao01 (2001), Wucknitz Wucknitz02 (2002), Oguri et al. Oguri02 (2002)) we know there is usually a degeneracy between the radial mass distribution in the lens and the estimate of $`H_0`$, in the sense that more compact mass distributions lead to larger Hubble constants for a fixed time delay. This degeneracy can be broken by finding additional constraints (e.g. host galaxies, Kochanek, Keeton & McLeod Kochanek01 (2001)), or by requiring the mass distribution to be consistent with that of other lenses (e.g. Munoz, Kochanek & Keeton Munoz01 (2001)), weak lensing studies (e.g. Guzik & Seljak Guzik02 (2002)), local estimates from stellar dynamical observations (e.g. Rix et al. 1997, Romanowsky & Kochanek Romanowsky99 (1999), Gerhard et al. Gerhard01 (2001), Treu & Koopmans Treu02 (2002)), X-ray observations (e.g. Fabbiano Fabbiano89 (1989), Lowenstein & White Lowenstein99 (1999)) or theoretical models (e.g. Kochanek & White Kochanek01b (2001), Keeton Keeton01b (2001)). All these direct estimates support a dark matter dominated model in which the lenses have flat or slowly declining rotation curves near the Einstein ring.

We can also reverse the problem and simply determine the mass distribution the lenses must have in order to agree with local estimates of $`H_0`$ (e.g. Rusin Rusin00 (2000)). We will use the measurement by the HST Key Project (Freedman et al. Freedman01 (2001)) of $`H_0=72\pm 8`$ km/s Mpc as our fiducial, independent estimate for $`H_0`$. There are two caveats about using this constraint. First, the Key Project estimate is significantly higher than the estimate of $`H_0=59\pm 6`$ km/s Mpc by Saha et al. (Saha01 (2001)) based on their Cepheid calibration for a sample of galaxies with Type Ia supernovae. Second, the uncertainties in both estimates are dominated by non-Gaussian systematic errors such as photometric calibrations, the distance to the LMC, Cepheid metallicity corrections and blending rather than statistical uncertainties (see the discussion in Freedman et al. Freedman01 (2001)).

Even if the individual time delay lenses provide no direct constraints on their dark matter distributions, our general understanding of galaxies and the CDM paradigm set some broad limits. In our analysis we consider two limiting possibilities for the mass distributions of the gravitational lenses. The first model is a dark matter model with a flat rotation curve. These models set a lower bound on $`H_0`$ unless typical galaxies have rising rotation curves on the spatial scales of Einstein rings (typically 1.0–1.5$`R_e`$). The second model is a constant mass-to-light ratio (constant $`M/L`$) model based on the photometry obtained by the CfA/Arizona Space Telescope Lens Survey (CASTLES, Falco et al. Falco01 (2001)). No galaxy models in a cold dark matter (CDM) dominated universe should have mass distributions which are more centrally concentrated than the luminosity distribution (e.g. Mo, Mao & White Mo98 (1998)). Hence, the constant $`M/L`$ models set an upper bound on $`H_0`$ (Impey et al. Impey98 (1998)). In §2 we discuss the data and our analysis methods. In §3 we present the estimates of $`H_0`$ for the two limiting mass distributions and compare them to the local estimates. We are forced to conclude that there is a problem in either the lens estimates of $`H_0`$, the local estimates of $`H_0`$ or our understanding of dark matter distributions.

## 2 The Available Data

There are nine lenses with reasonably accurate time delay measurements (see Schechter Schechter00 (2000), Burud 2002b ) of which we consider only five: RXJ0911+0551, PG1115+080, SBS1520+530, B1600+434 and HE2149–2745. The four lenses we do not include in our analysis are B0218+357, Q0957+561, B1608+656 and PKS1830–211. We first discuss why we used only five of the nine lenses. Then we provide a brief synopsis of the data and previous models of the five lenses we include in our analysis.

In B0218+357 and PKS1830–211 the problem lies in making an unambiguous measurement of the lens galaxy position relative to the images because there is a strong degeneracy between the lens position and the value of $`H_0`$ even for a fixed mass distribution (see Lehar et al. Lehar00 (2000)). In B0218+357 the small image separation ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}35`$) made it impossible to reliably determine the lens position from existing HST images (Lehar et al. Lehar00 (2000)), with the best estimates favoring very low values of $`H_0`$. Using the centroid of the radio ring leads to a higher value of $`H_0`$ (Biggs et al. Biggs99 (1999)), but the center of an Einstein ring is more closely related to the position of the source than of the lens (see Kochanek et al. Kochanek01 (2001)). Wucknitz (Wucknitz01 (2001)) estimated the lens position by modeling the radio ring. At this position the delay implies very high values of $`H_0`$, but the models are inconsistent with the VLBI data for the radio cores. Given these problems, we do not include B0218+357 in our analysis. A new attempt to measure the position directly is planned using the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS, Cycle 11, PI N. Jackson).

While we are confident of our estimate of the lens position in PKS1830–211 (Winn et al. Winn02 (2002)), an independent analysis of the same data by Courbin et al. (Courbin02 (2002)) suggests an alternate interpretation involving multiple lens components. Winn et al. (Winn02 (2002)) find that the lens is a single spiral galaxy with a well-determined position leading to estimates of $`H_0`$ very similar to those for the five lenses we will analyze here ($`H_0=44\pm 9`$ km/s Mpc for an SIE model of PKS1830–211). The quality of the images makes it impossible to derive an accurate photometric model for the galaxy, so we cannot produce an estimate of $`H_0`$ under the assumption of a constant mass-to-light ratio. If, on the other hand, the multiple lens interpretation of Courbin et al. (Courbin02 (2002)) is correct, then the PKS1830–211 system is useless for estimates of $`H_0`$ given the available data. Deeper HST images of the system could resolve the problem, but none are currently scheduled.

We neglect Q0957+561 and B1608+656 because they are compound lenses with many more parameters than constraints. The Q0957+561 lens is dominated by a brightest cluster galaxy sitting near the center of its cluster (see Chartas et al. Chartas02 (2002)). Keeton et al. (Keeton00 (2000), also Bernstein et al. Bernstein97 (1997)) were able to use the properties of the lensed images of the quasar host galaxy to show that all earlier models of the system were inconsistent with the observed structure of the host galaxy, but were unable to use the host galaxy to obtain a robust estimate of $`H_0`$. The structure of the host requires a cluster near the lens galaxy, as confirmed by the Chartas et al. (Chartas02 (2002)) X-ray observations, and it also requires that the lens galaxy dominate the image splitting. Essentially all earlier estimates of $`H_0`$ using Q0957+561 violated these two requirements (see Keeton et al. Keeton00 (2000)). Very deep infrared images planned for HST Cycle 11 should provide the constraints needed to make reliable estimates of $`H_0`$ from this system.

In B1608+656 the lens consists of two interacting galaxies lying inside the Einstein ring defined by the images (see Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999)). The two galaxies have irregular isophotes, due to the interactions and the presence of dust, and the position estimates for the two galaxies depend on the wavelength of the observation (see Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999), Surpi & Blandford Surpi01 (2001)). Dark matter models by Koopmans & Fassnacht (Koopmans99 (1999)) find higher values of $`H_0`$ than for the lenses we analyze, with $`H_0=66\pm 7`$ km/s Mpc for their standard model, although they obtain a broader range of values under different assumptions for the position of the two lens galaxies and the degree to which the model should be constrained by the observed orientations and ellipticities. If the luminosity distributions are complex, it seems reasonable to expect complex mass distributions which may not be well described by standard mass models. This system may be better modeled using the non-parametric approach of Williams & Saha (Williams00 (2000)), which can include the effects of transient mass distributions produced by the merger. For the more regular lenses, the non-parametric solutions must be employed with care because the positive surface density constraint used to limit parameter space allows too much freedom in the models (permitting negative density distributions, negative distribution functions or dynamically unstable solutions). This is in contrast to standard parametric models, which are guaranteed to correspond to physical dynamical models at the price of restricting the freedom in the mass distribution. While we regard our reasons for neglecting B1608+656 as legitimate, it is the one system we drop whose properties may run counter to our general discussion.

We now discuss the five systems (RXJ0911+0551, PG1115+080, SBS1520+534, B1600+434 and HE2149–2745) we include in our analysis.

We fit RXJ0911+0551 based on the CASTLES photometric data, the Burud (2002b ) delay of $`150\pm 6`$ days (68% confidence) between the A-C cusp images and image D, and the Morgan et al. (Morgan01 (2001)) centroid for the nearby X-ray cluster $`12\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\pm 3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ East and $`39\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8\pm 3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ South of image B. The lens galaxies were modeled by two de Vaucouleurs components. The primary lens has a major axis effective radius of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}77\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}07`$, a major axis position angle of $`39^{}\pm 15^{}`$ and an axis ratio of $`0.79\pm 0.06`$. The satellite galaxy (only 8% of the H-band flux) has a major axis effective radius of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}36\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}14`$, and is indistinguishable from round in the available data. To simplify the fits we used a round satellite in both the constant $`M/L`$ and dark matter lens models. Test runs showed this assumption had no significant effects on the estimates of $`H_0`$. The isophotes of the two components are well separated and regular (unlike B1608+656).

The gravitational potential of the cluster near RXJ0911+0551 has significant effects on the estimates of $`H_0`$. We modeled the cluster as a singular isothermal sphere (SIS), finding reasonable fits for cluster velocity dispersions of $`1100`$ km/s for the dark matter models and $`1250`$ km/s for the constant $`M/L`$ models. The SIS models are in reasonable agreement with the $`840\pm 200`$ km/s velocity dispersion of the galaxies (Kneib, Cohen & Hjorth Kneib00 (2000), see Burud 2002b ). An SIS model has equal shear and convergence, $`\kappa _c=\gamma _c=b_c/2r0.25`$ where $`b_c`$ is the cluster critical radius and $`r`$ is the distance to the cluster center. We could obtain Hubble constants $`1/(1\kappa _c)0.38`$ higher than those for the SIS models by assuming a very compact cluster with $`\kappa _c=0`$ at the location of the lens because of the mass sheet degeneracy in the models (Falco, Gorenstein & Shapiro Falco85 (1985)). Thus, our RXJ0911+0551 models really supply the likelihood for $`H_0(1\kappa _c)/(1\kappa _{SIS})`$ where $`\kappa _{SIS}`$ is the convergence for the SIS model and $`\kappa _c`$ is the convergence for the true cluster density profile, both measured at the lens. Like the lens galaxies, the cluster rotation curve should also be flat or falling on these scales and must have positive density, so $`0\kappa _c\kappa _{SIS}`$. This means that we can use RXJ0911+0551 only to obtain lower bounds on $`H_0`$ or to estimate the true cluster surface density $`\kappa _c`$.

We fit PG1115+080 based on the photometric data from Impey et al. (Impey98 (1998)) and the time delay estimates by Barkana (Barkana97 (1997), based on Schechter et al. Schechter97 (1997)). The longest delay is $`25\pm 4`$ days (95% confidence). The model consists of a de Vaucouleurs primary lens galaxy and a perturbing isothermal group. Kochanek et al. (Kochanek01 (2001)) found that the structure of the Einstein ring image of the quasar host galaxy weakly (2$`\sigma `$) ruled out constant $`M/L`$ models in favor of models with a flat rotation curve and lower values of $`H_0`$. Historically, the low estimates of $`H_0`$ from PG1115+080 have been regarded as anomalous (e.g. see Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999)). Our models reproduce the earlier estimates by Impey et al. (Impey98 (1998)).

We fit SBS1520+530 based on the CASTLES photometric data (see also Faure et al. Faure02 (2002)) and the Burud (2002b ) delay of $`130\pm 3`$ days (68% confidence). The lens was constrained to be a de Vaucouleurs model with a major axis effective radius of $`R_e=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}60\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}02`$, a major axis position angle of $`26^{}\pm 2^{}`$ and an axis ratio of $`0.46\pm 0.04`$. The models included an external shear restricted by a Gaussian prior to the range $`\gamma =0.05\pm 0.05`$ (see the discussion of HE2149–2745).

We fit B1600+434 based on photometric fits to the CASTLES data and the optical time delay of $`51\pm 4`$ days (95% confidence) measured by Burud et al. (Burud00 (2000)). The optical delay agrees with the radio delay of $`57\pm 6`$ days (68% confidence) measured by Koopmans et al. (Koopmans00 (2000)) but it has smaller uncertainties. In the constant $`M/L`$ models we did not constrain the mass ratio of the disk and the bulge, which allowed the models more freedom than strictly necessary. The constant $`M/L`$ model consisted of a de Vaucouleurs bulge and an exponential disk forced to have a common centroid and major axis position angle ($`44^{}\pm 6^{}`$). The bulge (disk) has a major axis scale length of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}45\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}06`$ ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}84\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}06`$) and an axis ratio of $`0.69\pm 0.05`$ ($`0.16\pm 0.06`$). These values are broadly consistent with the estimates by Maller et al. (Maller00 (2000)), differing mainly in our requirement that the two components share a common orientation. The dust lane in the lens galaxy makes its position relatively uncertain, and we adopt the position of ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{RA}=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}13\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}05`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{Dec}=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}21\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}05`$) from image B used by Koopmans, de Bruyn & Jackson (Koopmans98 (1998)). The estimates for $`H_0`$ in Burud et al. (Burud00 (2000)) and Koopmans et al. (Koopmans00 (2000)) used hybrid (disk $`+`$ bulge $`+`$ halo) mass models developed by Koopmans et al. (Koopmans98 (1998)) and Maller et al. (Maller00 (2000)). These models give values of $`H_0`$ between our our dark matter and constant $`M/L`$ limiting models for the same lens position.

We fit HE2149–2745 based on the CASTLES photometric data and the time delay of $`103\pm 12`$ days (68% confidence) reported by Burud et al. (Burud02 (2002)). The model consists of a de Vaucouleurs primary lens galaxy in a perturbing external (tidal) shear. We must always allow for a local shear in realistic models (see Keeton, Kochanek & Seljak Keeton97 (1997), Kochanek Kochanek02 (2002)), although it has little effect on the estimate of $`H_0`$ ($`\delta H_0/H_0\gamma `$, see Witt et al. Witt00 (2000)). The external shear is constrained by a weak prior ($`\gamma =0.05\pm 0.05`$) to the typical range observed in four-image lenses (see Keeton et al. Keeton97b (1997), Kochanek Kochanek02 (2002)). In RXJ0911+0551, PG1115+080 and B1600+434, the shear perturbations were supplied by the nearby group or galaxy.

Burud et al. (Burud02 (2002)) modeled the system using pseudo-Jaffe models (Keeton & Kochanek Keeton97 (1997), Munoz et al. Munoz01 (2001)) to explore the dependence of $`H_0`$ on the radial mass distribution. They adopted a break radius for the density distribution such that the ellipticities of the mass and the light agreed leading to an estimate of $`H_0=66\pm 8`$ km/s Mpc. This criterion is arbitrary because we only have evidence for the alignment of the mass and the light in lens galaxies rather than for a similarity in shape (see Kochanek Kochanek02 (2002)). Based on theoretical arguments and other observations that halos tend to be rounder than the luminous galaxies (see Sackett Sackett99 (1999)), we can plausibly use the observed ellipticity only as an upper bound on the models. Models of HE2149–2745 with more dark matter (a larger break radius) are rounder, just as we might expect, and allow significantly lower values of $`H_0`$. The addition of the external shear further loosens any constraint associated with the ellipticity of the lens.

We modeled these five lenses using the lensmodel package (Keeton Keeton01 (2001)). Each lens was fit using either a dark matter model or a constant $`M/L`$ model. The dark matter model used a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) to represent the overall mass distribution of the system. The constant $`M/L`$ models used ellipsoidal de Vaucouleurs models and exponential disks constrained by the photometric model for the galaxies. We use the photometry only as a constraint on the mass distribution – the masses of the components are determined by the lens models with no constraints based on estimates of stellar mass-to-light ratios. Perturbing galaxies and clusters were modeled as singular isothermal spheres (SIS). All models included either an SIS perturber (RXJ0991+0551, PG1115+080, B1600+434) or a constrained tidal shear (SBS1520+530, HE2149–2745). We assumed 20% errors in the image fluxes, where the uncertainties are dominated by systematic problems such as substructure (see Dalal & Kochanek Dalal02 (2002)) rather than measurement uncertainties. We also adopt a minimum time delay error of 5% to encompass systematic errors such as convergence fluctuations from large scale structure (e.g. Seljak Seljak94 (1994), Barkana Barkana96 (1996)). The goodness of fit was determined by a $`\chi ^2`$ statistic measured on the lens plane for the images combined with the fit to the observed time delays. Both the dark matter and the constant $`M/L`$ models produce statistically acceptable fits to the image configurations all lenses except RXJ0911+0551. For this system the constant $`M/L`$ model is formally ruled out ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=20`$), but this is in part an artifact of using a round satellite galaxy to speed the calculations. We use maximum likelihood methods to analyze the results by examining the likelihood ratio $`2\mathrm{ln}(L/L_{max})=\chi ^2(H_0)\chi _{min}^2(H_0)`$ for each model sequence. We adopt an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ flat cosmological model for our analysis and discussion.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1All cited values of $`H_0`$ from the lenses are scaled to this cosmological model. While the $`H_0`$ estimates from lenses do depend on the cosmological model (Refsdal Refsdal66 (1966)), the magnitude of the variations is too small to be relevant to our discussion. A demonstration that the cosmological model estimated by lens time delay measurements agrees with other estimates will be important as part of any claim that the errors in the $`H_0`$ measurements are smaller than about 5%. As an experiment, we estimated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ for flat cosmological models based on the estimates of $`H_0`$ for the dark matter models, finding that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0`$ is ruled out compared to our standard model at $`0.1\sigma `$!

## 3 Results and Conclusions

As discussed in §1, we focused on the dark matter and constant $`M/L`$ models because they represent the limiting cases for physically possible mass distributions given our current understanding of dark matter. Unless galaxies have rising rotation curves near the Einstein ring of the lens (typically 1.0–1.5 effective radii from the lens galaxy), the SIE models provide lower bounds on $`H_0`$ for a fixed time delay. Constant $`M/L`$ models are the most compact mass distributions allowed for a gravitational lens, so they lead to firm upper bounds on the $`H_0`$ (see Impey et al. Impey98 (1998)). Dark matter cannot be more centrally concentrated than the stars unless their are fundamental flaws in our understanding of cold dark matter. These are two extreme limits, and all our theoretical expectations and estimates of mass distributions in other lenses or by other means suggest that reality must be closer to the dark matter model than to the constant $`M/L`$ model. Our results, in the form of model likelihoods as a function of the Hubble constant, are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Under either assumption about the mass distribution, the five lenses produce consistent estimates for $`H_0`$ (see Figure 1). If we exclude RXJ0911+0551, because of the added uncertainty created by the dark matter distribution of the nearby cluster (see below), we find that $`H_0=48_4^{+7}`$ km/s Mpc (95% confidence) for the dark matter model and $`H_0=71\pm 6`$ km/s Mpc (95% confidence) for the constant $`M/L`$ model. The jackknife and bootstrap error estimates are comparable to those from the combined likelihoods. Because the $`H_0`$ estimates for the lenses are very similar when we assume they have the same radial mass profiles, the radial mass distributions must be similar. For example, for potentials $`\varphi R^\beta `$, where $`\beta =1`$ is the isothermal profile we use for our dark matter model and the limit $`\beta 0`$ is a point mass, estimates of the Hubble constant roughly scale as $`H_0(2\beta )`$ (Witt et al. Witt00 (2000)). If we assume that three of the four lenses have the dark matter ($`\beta =1`$) profile, then we find that the slope for the remaining lens must be $`\beta =0.83_{0.16}^{+0.18}`$, $`1.09_{0.21}^{+0.09}`$, $`1.19_{0.15}^{+0.11}`$ and $`0.98_{0.28}^{+0.22}`$ (68% confidence) for PG1115+080, SBS1520+530, B1600+434 and HE2149–2745 respectively. The jackknife estimate for the variance in the slopes is $`\sigma _\beta 0.23`$, roughly half of which is due to the measurement uncertainties. The intrinsic scatter must be relatively small ($`\sigma _\beta 0.15`$). As a result, our estimates of $`H_0`$ vary little if we use any three of the four lenses (which is unfortunate, see the Appendix).

Despite the presence of the cluster, RXJ0911+0551 agrees with this general picture. If we assume that the lens galaxy in RXJ0911+0551 has a similar structure to the other lens galaxies, then we can estimate the dark matter surface density in the cluster from the requirement that all five systems must agree on the value of $`H_0`$. We find that the cluster convergence is $`\kappa _c=0.24\pm 0.08`$ for the dark matter models and $`\kappa _c=0.25\pm 0.06`$ for the constant $`M/L`$ models. These values are very similar to the SIS convergences of $`\kappa _{SIS}=0.25`$ and $`0.31`$, as we might expect when the lens lies $`200h^1`$ kpc from the cluster center where the cluster density profile is close to $`\rho r^2`$ for typical models (e.g. Bullock et al. Bullock01 (2001)).

Unfortunately, while the time delay lenses must have very similar mass profiles, we cannot determine which profile is appropriate given the available data. We can try to break the degeneracy by using an independent estimate of $`H_0`$ (e.g. Rusin Rusin00 (2000)), in particular the local estimate by the HST Key Project that $`H_0=72\pm 8`$ km/s Mpc (Freedman et al. Freedman01 (2001)). The agreement between the lenses and the Key Project is very good for the constant $`M/L`$ models and terrible for the dark matter models (see Figure 1). Even with the freedom to adjust the cluster it is difficult to reconcile the dark matter model of RXJ0911+0551 with the Key Project estimate because it requires a negative cluster surface density ($`\kappa _c=0.13\pm 0.20`$). The local estimate breaks the degeneracy, but it also means that the lens galaxies cannot have massive, extended dark halos. Such a conclusion disagrees with the CDM picture of galaxies and the abundant evidence for halos in galaxies and gravitational lenses similar to the time delay systems.

There are three possible solutions.

First, we may fundamentally misunderstand the distribution of dark matter in galaxies. Our problem is the opposite of the more familiar “dark matter crisis” where models of dwarf and low surface brightness galaxy rotation curves seem to require dark matter distributions which are less centrally concentrated than theoretical predictions (see the review by Moore Moore01 (2001)). The issue for fitting rotation curves is the structure of central density cusps, with gravitational lenses favoring steeper cusps than those expected from CDM models rather than the shallower cusps suggested by the rotation curves (see Rusin & Ma Rusin01 (2001), Keeton Keeton01b (2001), Munoz et al. Munoz01 (2001)). Whatever the structure of the cusps, all these models still have dark matter distributions which are less concentrated than the stars (baryons), while we need to make the dark matter at least as concentrated as the stars in order to solve the $`H_0`$ problem illustrated by Fig. 1. At present, the lensing constraints on the 5 systems cannot determine the radial mass distributions robustly. However, the lenses where we can make such estimates favor models close to the dark matter limit (see Munoz et al. Munoz01 (2001) and references therein), as do weak lensing studies (e.g. Guzik & Seljak Guzik02 (2002)), local stellar dynamical observations (e.g. Rix et al. Rix97 (1997), Romanowsky & Kochanek Romanowsky99 (1999), Gerhard et al. Gerhard01 (2001), Treu & Koopmans Treu02 (2002)), and X-ray observations (e.g. Fabbianno Fabbiano89 (1989), Lowenstein & White Lowenstein99 (1999)).

Second, the Key Project estimate that $`H_0=72\pm 8`$ km/s Mpc could be too high or have significantly underestimated uncertainties. For example, the lensing results are more compatible with the estimate of $`H_0=59\pm 6`$ km/s Mpc from Cepheid calibrations of the distances to Type Ia supernovae (Saha et al. Saha01 (2001)). Freedman et al. (Freedman01 (2001)) argue strongly against the Saha et al. (Saha01 (2001)) analysis for a range of legitimate technical issues, which is why we adopted the Key Project estimate as our standard for local estimates. There are also arguments for significantly larger corrections for metallicity (e.g. Sasselov et al. Sasselov97 (1997), Kochanek Kochanek97 (1997)) and blending (e.g. Mochejska et al. Mochejska00 (2000)) in the Cepheid distances. Finally, the standard error in the Key Project estimate of $`H_0`$ is dominated by a quadrature sum of systematic errors. This makes a very specific assumption about the probability distributions of the systematic errors, in the sense that conspiracies between the errors to systematically shift the estimate of $`H_0`$ in one direction are assumed to be very unlikely. A more conservative assumption about the behavior of systematic errors, such as a direct sum of the systematic errors rather than a quadrature sum, would lead to significantly larger uncertainties and less of a conflict with the estimates from the lenses. On the other hand, the check of the Cepheid distance scale against the maser distance to NGC4258 suggests that the Key Project distances may moderately underestimate $`H_0`$ (Newman et al. Newman01 (2001)).

The third possibility is that the estimates of $`H_0`$ from gravitational lenses are systematically low. Our result is a significant change from the previous analysis of the available lens sample by Koopmans & Fassnacht (Koopmans99 (1999)), who found $`H_0=68\pm 7`$ km/s Mpc for the dark matter models using B0218+357, Q0957+561, PG1115+080, B1608+656 and PKS1830–211. In our analysis we used only one of these 5 systems and added the four new systems RXJ0911+0551, SBS1520+534, B1600+434 and HE2149–2745. The high value found by Koopmans & Fassnacht (Koopmans99 (1999)) was due to including the lenses we rejected as being unusable because the lens galaxy position was unknown or the system is an under-constrained compound lens (see §2 for a full discussion). For example, Koopmans & Fassnacht (Koopmans99 (1999)) assign an estimate of $`H_085`$ km/s Mpc to PKS1830–211, while the best current estimate is $`H_0=44\pm 9`$ km/s Mpc due to an improved, but disputed, direct estimate of the lens position (Winn et al. Winn02 (2002), Courbin et al. Courbin02 (2002)). The system with interacting lens galaxies, B1608+656, is the one system which may disagree with our present analysis.

Given that the five lenses we use are relatively clean, well constrained, and produce consistent results, it is unlikely that errors in the time delay measurements or the model constraints are responsible for the results. Nonetheless, the systems should be monitored further to both confirm the delay estimates and reduce the measurement errors to the point (under 5%) where they make a negligible contribution to the overall uncertainties. Deep, high resolution imaging to measure the structure of the lensed host galaxies will provide additional constraints on the lens models and can be used to determine the radial density profile (Kochanek et al. Kochanek01 (2001)). Lensed images of the host galaxy are seen in four of the current lenses with time delays (Q0957+561, Keeton et al. Keeton01 (2001); PG1115+080, Impey et al. Impey98 (1998); B1600+434, Kochanek et al. Kochanek99 (1999); and B1608+656, Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999)). Additional HST observations are the key to including the rejected systems in later analyses. The extra constraints from deep images of the host galaxies in Q0957+561 and B1608+656 may allow us to include them despite being compound lenses, and improved HST imaging of B0218+357 and PKS1830–211 can resolve the problems associated with the lens galaxy positions. The most important check on the results from the lenses is to measure precise time delays in more systems, particularly since the statistics of time delays provides another probe of the mass distribution (see Oguri et al. Oguri02 (2002)). In order to avoid the current situation, in which 4 of 9 lenses with well-measured time delays are difficult to include in quantitative estimates of $`H_0`$, monitoring campaigns should focus on systems with one dominant lens galaxy having regular isophotes whose properties can be easily measured with HST observations.

We considered only the extreme limits for the radial mass distribution of the lenses, and we could obtain intermediate values of $`H_0`$ by slowly adding a dark matter halo to the constant $`M/L`$ models. It is easy to mimic such models, and the results are shown in Figure 2.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2For each lens, we set the likelihood ratio to be that of the dark matter (constant $`M/L`$) model for $`H_0`$ below (above) the Hubble constant corresponding to the model’s maximum likelihood. Since we are assuming no ability to distinguish the best fitting constant $`M/L`$ and dark matter models, the likelihood ratios for all intermediate values of $`H_0`$ are set to unity. Thus, the likelihood distribution for each lens is a top hat with edges set by the physically limiting mass models softened by the uncertainties in the model fits.  Despite including the full, physically plausible range of uncertainties in the dark matter distributions, the uncertainties in the $`H_0`$ estimates from the lenses are comparable to those of the local distance scale. The mean and variance of the $`H_0`$ estimate from the lenses is $`H_0=62\pm 7`$ km/s Mpc, compared to $`72\pm 8`$ for the Key Project. The shapes of the distributions differ in detail because the systematic errors for the lenses were modeled as a top hat while those of the Key Project were modeled as Gaussians. Combining the two likelihood distributions gives $`H_0=67\pm 5`$ km/s Mpc, which has reduced uncertainties but implies lens galaxies with little dark matter. Whatever the final resolution to the apparent conflicts, gravitational lenses are rapidly approaching the precision of the local distance scale methods of determining the Hubble constant despite the uncertainties and degeneracies in the present generation of models.

Acknowledgments. I thank I. Burud, L. Koopmans, D. Rusin, D. Sasselov, P. Schechter, K. Stanek, J. Winn and S. Wyithe for their comments. Most of the time delays come from I. Burud’s marvelous thesis, where she demonstrated that the mass production of time delays was a feasible project. CSK is supported by the Smithsonian Institution and NASA ATP grants NAG5-8831 and NAG5-9265.

## Appendix A Determining $`H_0`$ From Lens Samples With Inhomogeneous Mass Distributions

When we started this analysis, the motivation was to explore the consequences for the determination of $`H_0`$ from using time delay lenses having a range of radial mass distributions. This seemed a requirement since available summaries (e.g. Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999)) favored giving PG11115+080 a tidally truncated halo so as to bring it into agreement with the remainder of the sample. However, once we defined the requirements for our clean lens sample, the need for dissimilar mass distributions evaporated. Far from being useful, this convergence of the mass distributions makes the problem harder because a sample of lenses with time delays and very different dark matter distributions can be used to estimate $`H_0`$ even though every individual lens suffers from a model degeneracy between the estimate of $`H_0`$ and the dark matter distribution.

The basic argument is easily understood using the simple analytic scalings of Witt et al. (Witt00 (2000)) where there is a degeneracy between $`H_0`$ and the exponent of the density distribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t(2\beta )/H_0`$ for $`\varphi R^\beta `$ and $`0\beta 1`$ covers the range from point masses to flat rotation curves. Suppose we have a sample of lenses whose true density exponents are $`\beta _{true,i}`$. Given the true Hubble constant $`H_{true}`$, we measure time delays $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_i(2\beta _{true,i})/H_{true}`$. We then model the systems assuming a total degeneracy in the lens models, finding an estimates for the Hubble constant of $`H_i=H_{true}(2\beta )/(2\beta _{true,i})`$ for a model exponent of $`\beta `$. When all lenses have similar mass distributions, $`\beta _{true,i}\beta _{true,j}`$, then the Hubble constant estimates suffer from the global degeneracy we observe in the current lens data – the requirement that all the lenses agree on the same value for the Hubble constant provides little leverage for separating the effects of $`\beta `$ and $`H_0`$ on the time delay.

If, however, the true mass distributions are widely scattered, then the simple requirement that all lenses must agree on the same value of $`H_0`$ allows us to determine $`H_0`$ even though every individual lens suffers from a complete degeneracy between $`H_0`$ and $`\beta `$ restricted only by the minimal requirement that the distribution is bounded by the limits of a flat rotation curve ($`\beta =1`$) and a point mass ($`\beta 0`$). Each lens permits values of $`H_0`$ bounded by $`H_{true}/(2\beta _{true,i})H_02H_{true}/(2\beta _{true,i})`$ where the lower (upper) limit corresponds to a model with $`\beta =1`$ ($`\beta =0`$). If $`0\beta _{min}\beta _{true,i}<\beta _{max}1`$, then the ensemble of lenses restricts the Hubble constant to the range $`H_{true}/(2\beta _{max})H_02H_{true}/(2\beta _{min})`$. The fractional range of the estimates,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H}{H_{true}}=\frac{1}{2\beta _{min}}\left[1\frac{\beta _{max}\beta _{min}}{2\beta _{max}}\right],$$
(A1)
is always reduced by having a spread of mass distributions, becoming zero when the range of the true distributions matches that imposed on the models. Thus, it is better to have a mixture of lenses with and without dark matter than to have the homogeneous mass distributions the data seem to require.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The perturbative spectrum of open (super-)string around a (non-supersymmetric) D-brane contains a scalar which is tachyonic. The dynamics of this tachyon field has many unusual features. Sen conjectured that the potential of this field has a minimum and when the tachyon condenses to its minimum, all open string excitations become infinitely heavy and hence inaccessible to the low energy observer. Of course, for such a thing to happen, the Lagrangian describing the tachyon dynamics ought to be of an unconventional form. In particular, the effective open string coupling is inversely proportional to the value of the tachyon potential. Since the potential vanishes at the minimum, the open string theory there is infinitely strongly coupled.

More recently, Sen has pointed out that the time evolution of the tachyon field may have cosmological significance. Several authors have initiated an exploration of this idea. (For other works on the cosmological relevance of the tachyon, see .) Thanks to unconventional form of the tachyon action, cosmology with tachyon matter can lead to results different from those obtained with a normal scalar field. For example, inflation driven by the tachyon differs from that driven by a conventional inflaton. It is also possible that tachyon matter could be a candidate for cold dark matter as, at the minimum of its potential, it becomes a pressureless gas. Padmanabhan has recently emphasized that it is always possible to construct a potential that leads to a given inflationary scenario. Therefore, it is all the more important to study cosmological consequences of potentials arising out of a fundamental theory such as string theory. With this motivation, we study inflation driven by the rolling of the tachyonic scalar on a (non-supersymmetric) D3-brane.

At this stage we should point out the limitations of the scope of our study. We assume, following Ref., that the open string tachyon couples minimally to the graviton, but to no other closed string mode. This is rather a drastic assumption since there is no reason to ignore the coupling to, say, the dilaton. Moreover it is not known how to stabilize some of the other closed string moduli, such as the volume of compactification, the dynamics of which might affect that of the tachyon. We will, however, take the pragmatic point of view that some as yet unknown mechanism freezes these unwanted moduli and leaves us with an effective theory of the tachyon minimally coupled to Einstein-Hilbert gravity in four dimensions, as proposed by Gibbons.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we review the relevant aspects of tachyon dynamics following Refs.. In Sec. 3, based on a comparison between the Born-Infeld action and the tachyon effective action obtained in the so called background independent string field theory (B-SFT), we propose a correction to the BI action used in the recent works. The consequences of the extra term are worked out in Secs. 4 and 5 for bosonic and superstring respectively. We find that the tachyon does not give enough inflation. Sec. 6 is an analysis of the slow roll conditions in these models. Perhaps not unexpectedly, these conditions are not met. In the concluding section, we examine whether the rolling tachyon could be an alternative to cosmological constant or quintessence.

Note Added: Since an earlier version of our paper, a number of authors have studied various aspects related to tachyon driven inflation. Most notably Ref., (see also ), argued on general grounds that inflation driven by tachyon cannot produce enough expansion. When we re-examined our results, it was found that incompatible conventions ($`2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2=1`$ and $`\kappa =1`$) were inadvertently used. We correct this unfortunate error in the present version. The conclusions are modified in the light of the new result.

## 2 Dynamics of tachyon matter

The effective field theory on a (non-supersymmetric) D-brane is described by the Born-Infeld Lagrangian

$$_{BI}=V(T)\sqrt{det\left[g_{\mu \nu }+2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2\left(F_{\mu \nu }+_\mu Y^i_\nu Y^i+f(T)_\mu T_\nu T\right)\right]},$$
(1)
where, $`1/2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2`$ is the string tension, $`g`$ the induced metric, $`F`$ the gauge field strength and $`Y^i`$ are scalar fields describing the transverse motion of the brane. Moreover, $`T`$ is the tachyonic mode on the D$`m`$-brane, $`V(T)`$ the potential of $`T`$ and $`f(T)`$ is a function of the tachyon. The particular dependence on the potential is a characteristic of D-brane physics compatible with the conjectures of Sen. The tachyon potential thus plays the role of the (inverse) effective coupling of this theory. That the derivatives of the tachyon field appears under the square-root was pointed out in  based on the T-duality symmetry of string theory. The arguments in  allow for a function $`f(T)`$ accompanying these derivative terms. We shall see this term is non-trivial as the kinetic term of the effective action following from string field theory does not have a canonical form.

Let us couple this system to gravity and neglect all fields other than the tachyon. Since our objective is to study the cosmological significance of tachyon dynamics, we shall assume a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{m1}^2\right),$$
(2)
as well as a spatially homogeneous and isotropic tachyon field $`T`$ which depends only on time. Let us specialize to the case $`m=3`$ from now on. The dynamics of this system is given by the Lagrangian

$$\sqrt{detg}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}R(g)V(T)\sqrt{12\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)(\dot{T})^2}\right),$$
(3)
where, the relation

$$\frac{\sqrt{8\pi }}{m_{Pl}}=\kappa =\frac{(2\pi )^2g_s\mathrm{}_s}{\sqrt{2v}}$$
(4)
expresses the inverse reduced Planck mass $`\kappa `$ in terms of the string tension and string coupling $`g_s`$. In (4), $`v`$ is a dimensionless parameter corresponding to the volume of the 22- or 6-dimensional space transverse to the 3-brane. It depends on how the four dimensional spacetime is realized from the 26- or 10-dimensional one.

The Lagrangian (3), with $`f(T)=1`$, has recently been analyzed in Refs.. The inclusion of $`f(T)`$ leads to some modifications. The Hamiltonian or energy density of $`T`$ is222We set $`k=0`$ for simplicity.

$$=\frac{a^3(t)V(T)}{\sqrt{12\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2}}=a^3(t)\rho (T)$$
(5)
and its equation of motion is

$$\dot{\rho }=3H(p+\rho ),$$
(6)
where, $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`p=V(T)\sqrt{12\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2}`$ is the pressure of the tachyonic fluid. The explicit expressions of $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ may be substituted to obtain the second order evolution equation of $`T`$.

The gravitational equations, on the other hand, are

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{12\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2}}},`$ (7)
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}\left(\rho +p\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)f(T)}{\sqrt{12\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \mathrm{}_s^2\dot{T}^2.`$ (8)
Eqn.(7) may be rewritten as $`\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)}\dot{T}=\sqrt{\left(1\kappa ^4V^2(T)/9H^4\right)}`$.

## 3 Inflation from tachyon on a bosonic D-brane

The effective action of the tachyon field $`T(x)`$ determined in the framework of bosonic B-SFT is

$$S_B=\tau _3d^4x\left(\mathrm{}_s^2e^T_\mu T^\mu T+(T+1)e^T\right),$$
(9)
where the normalization factor

$$\tau _3=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2)^22\pi g_s}=\frac{\pi ^3g_s^3}{8v^2}m_{Pl}^4$$
(10)
is the tension of the D$`3`$-brane. In our convention, the tachyon field $`T(x)`$ is dimensionless. Hence $`V(T)=\tau _3(T+1)\mathrm{exp}(T)`$ has mass dimension four. It is parametrized by the dimensionless quantities $`v`$ and $`g_s`$.

Upto two derivative terms, the action (9) is exact, in the sense that it incorporates the effect of all open string modes. The potential has a maximum corresponding to the D-brane at $`T=0`$ and a minimum at $`T=\mathrm{}`$. (It is also unbounded for negative values of $`T`$, but that is a pathology of the bosonic theory.) Notice the $`e^T`$ factor due to which the kinetic term has a non-standard form. Hence the distance between the maximum and minimum (in field space) is finite.

It is of course possible to do a field redefinition to bring the kinetic term to the canonical form $`_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi `$. The transformation is $`\varphi =2e^{T/2}`$, in terms of which the Lagrangian in

$$_\varphi =\tau _3\left(\mathrm{}_s^2_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{4}\varphi ^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi ^2}{4}1\right)\right).$$
(11)
We will come back to the description of the dynamics in terms of the field $`\varphi `$ later on in this section.

There are an infinite number of corrections to the action (9). In particular, the Born-Infeld action (1) gives a good description of slowly varying fields, i.e., those for which the second and higher derivatives of the field can be ignored. Let us now treat the action (9) as an expansion of an action of the form (1)

$$S_{BI}=\tau _3d^4x(1+T)e^T\left(1+\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)_\mu T^\mu T\right).$$
(12)
From a comparison of eqns.(9) and (12), in a region where both are good descriptions, it follows that $`f(T)=1/(\pi (1+T))`$. Put in another way, this factor is the necessary field redefinition to relate the tachyon fields in the Born-Infeld and B-SFT descriptions.

Once again, it is possible to do a field redefinition to soak up the factor of $`f(T)`$, but this does not map the entire field space $`T(x)(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ to that of the redefined tachyon $`\stackrel{~}{T}(x)=\sqrt{1+T(x)}`$. Interestingly, it does, however, map the domain $`1T(x)\mathrm{}`$, which is precisely the region accessed by all the classical solutions, viz., the D-branes. Another amusing aspect of this field redefinition is that the potential in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{T}(x)`$ has a Gaussian factor, reminiscent of the superstring case. It should, however, be noted that the late time evolution of the tachyon field in either of these two cases does not seem to match the asymptotic behaviour analyzed by Sen. Of course, a field redefinition could reproduce the correct asymptotics, but it would, necessarily, have to involve derivatives of the tachyon field. Since we are mainly interested in the early time evolution where the time derivatives of the tachyon turn out to be small, the aforementioned derivative terms do not play a significant role. Furthermore, a field redefinition of the tachyon would not change the dynamics of the scale factor of the universe. Hence we may conclude that the results we obtain are not very sensitive to the large time behaviour.

One can now solve the equations of motion (7) and (8) numerically to determine the evolution of the tachyon and the Hubble parameter. Following , we choose the initial conditions such that the tachyon is infinitesimally displaced to the right of the maximum of the potential333For the numerical computation, we set the string tension $`1/2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2=1`$. (The tension of the 3-brane $`\tau _3`$ is therefore $`1/2\pi g_s`$.) The actual seed used for the initial value of the tachyon is $`T0.1`$, which is compatible with the requirement in. and has zero velocity. The results depend on the tension $`\tau _3`$ of the D3-brane, and are displayed in Fig.1. In the same figure, we also plot the number of e-foldings

$$N_e(t)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{a(t_f)}{a(t_i)}=_{t_i}^{t_f}𝑑tH(t)$$
(13)
as a function of time. It is clear from the plot that the effective kinetic term $`2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2`$ initially remains very close to zero, during which the expansion takes place. Subsequently, the tachyon rolls very fast and the kinteic energy saturates to the maximum value of $`2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2=1`$. The exit from the inflationary phase occurs very soon during the fast roll at the point $`2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^2=2/3`$.

Finally, we would like to mention that in terms of the field $`\varphi =2e^{T/2}`$, which has a canonical kinetic term (11), one obtains $`f(\varphi )=2/V(\varphi )`$. It is easy to check that one gets the same amount of e-folding from the evolution of $`\varphi `$. This is but a reaffirmation of the fact that field redefinitions cannot change the physical consequences of the dynamics.

## 4 Inflation from tachyon on a non-BPS D-brane

The analysis of the previous section can easily be extended to the case of the superstring. Recall, that the effective action of the tachyon field $`𝒯(x)`$ on a non-BPS D$`3`$-brane444One can also study the complex tachyon on a non-supersymmetric brane-antibrane pair. The qualitative features of this system, however, are expected to be the same as those of a non-BPS brane. computed in supersymmetric B-SFT is

$$S_F=\tau _3d^4x\left(\mathrm{}_s^2\mathrm{ln}2e^{𝒯^2/4}_\mu 𝒯^\mu 𝒯+e^{𝒯^2/4}\right),$$
(14)
where, $`\tau _3`$, the tension of the brane is the overall normalization factor. As in the bosonic case, this action is exact upto two derivatives. Using arguments identical to those in the previous section, we can write down the Born-Infeld form of the action

$$S_{BI}=\tau _3d^4xe^{𝒯^2/4}\sqrt{12\mathrm{}_s^2\mathrm{ln}2(\dot{𝒯})^2}.$$
(15)
In other words, $`f(𝒯)=(\mathrm{ln}2)/\pi `$.

As in the previous section, we now solve the equations of motion numerically to obtain the evolution of the tachyon and the Hubble parameter. Once again, the initial conditions are chosen such that the tachyon field starts with a small positive value and zero velocity. The results are displayed in Fig.2. The qualitative features are similar to those in the bosonic case, although for similar values of the brane tension $`\tau _3`$, the tachyon of the superstring has small velocity for a somewhat longer time, which results in a few more e-foldings.

## 5 Remarks on tachyon driven inflation

In order to generate enough inflation, it is necessary for the inflaton field to roll slowly enough. This is characterized by two dimensionless parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\eta `$. For the conventional inflaton with canonically normalized kinetic energy term, these are given by

$$\epsilon =\frac{m_{Pl}^2}{2}\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\right)^2,\eta =m_{Pl}^2\left(\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}\right).$$
(16)
The conditions for slow roll inflation are $`\epsilon 1`$ and $`|\eta |1`$. These formulas are not directly applicable to case of the tachyon, which has a non-standard action (12) or (15). Using the field redefinition discussed in Sec.3, it is easy to show that

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{4\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)V(T)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}(T)}{V(T)}}\right)^2,`$
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)V(T)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }(T)}{V(T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(T)V^{}(T)}{2f(T)V(T)}}\right),`$ (17)
are the appropriate parameters.

There is, nevertheless, a difference with conventional inflaton, especially if we are in the weak string coupling limit (small to moderate values of $`\kappa ^2\tau _3`$). For the potential dictated by either the bosonic string or the superstring theory, the consequent inflation is not of slow roll type. For example, while the slow roll parameter $`\epsilon `$ is small at the top of the potential, $`\eta `$ is not. In fact, as Fig. 3 demonstrates for the bosonic theory555It is easy to see that while $`\epsilon `$ for the superstring tachyon starts arbitrarily close to zero, $`\eta `$, once again, is always large if one is in the weak coupling limit., $`\eta `$ is significantly larger than unity for the entire length of the evolution governed by tachyon dynamics. Thus, while the inflation satisfies one slow roll criterion (at least, initially), it fails to satisfy the other. The universe fails to inflate enough as a consequence of this.

Now this may not be all bad news, for the situation here is similar to the fast roll inflation . It has been argued that such a fast roll inflation could have preceded the conventional slow roll inflation and could, in fact, have set the stage for the latter by suitably adjusting the initial conditions for slow roll. In this sense, it is satisfying to see that the inflation driven by the tachyon does not give rise to sufficient number of e-foldings, a job which will be relegated to the slow roll inflation that follows. After we exit the early epoch of tachyon driven fast roll inflation, the scale factor grows according to a power law (see Fig.4). However, if a new scalar field takes over at this epoch and leads to slow roll inflation then the scale factor will continue to grow exponentially. Such details, though interesting, are beyond the scope of this work. Suffice is to note that there are enough candidates for the scalar among the open string (transverse scalars on the brane) and closed string moduli. Let us note in passing that in slow roll inflation, the ratio of tensor to scalar amplitudes is proportional to $`ϵ`$ and observations demand it to be of the order of $`10^2`$ or smaller. Since in our case $`ϵ`$ is of the order of $`10^1`$, this ratio is larger than the observed value666L. Kofman, private communication.. However, if the tachyon driven fast roll inflation is followed by a slow roll inflation then it is conceivable that it may readjust this ratio to the desired value. One can also imagine modification of the present scenario of inflation on a single brane by considering a stack of multiple branes as considered in .

It is worth emphasizing another feature of inflation driven by the tachyon field. The tachyon potential is not flat. Indeed, the leading term in the effective tachyon potentials (9) and (14) from string theory is quadratic at the maximum (as befits a tachyon). The kinetic term of the tachyon field, on the other hand, is non-trivial. This leads to all the difference in their dynamics.

## 6 Quintessence vs rolling tachyon

Recent observations indicate that there is probably an infinitesimally small positive vacuum energy density in the universe. This could be due to a cosmological constant. An alternative to this idea is that of quintessence, a conventional scalar field $`\chi `$ with a potential $`V(\chi )`$, such that $`\chi `$ is still rolling towards its minimum (see  and references therein). Generically the minimum of the potential is taken to be at $`\chi =\mathrm{}`$. In this section, we examine whether the rolling tachyon could be an answer to this problem.

The equation of state for quintessence is $`p=\omega _\chi \rho `$ with

$$1<\omega _\chi <\frac{1}{3}.$$
(18)
The evolution of a scalar field in a homogeneous and isotropic universe described by the FRW metric (2) (with $`k=0`$ for simplicity) is given by (6). This, along with the equation of state, determine the energy density $`\rho `$ in terms of the scale factor $`a(t)`$. Eqn.(7) can now be solved to get

$$\rho =\rho _0\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{3(1+\omega )},a(t)=a_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega )}}.$$
(19)
It is clear from the power law behaviour of the scale factor that the Hubble parameter $`H`$ is inversely proportional to time, indicating a curvature singularity at $`t=0`$. This is because the curvature tensors are proportional to $`H`$ and $`\dot{H}`$. As time evolves, curvature goes to zero and spacetime becomes flat.

The equations of motion for the tachyon field, when expressed in terms of the energy density and pressure, are identical to that of an ordinary scalar field. Its equation of state, however, is fundamentally different. The parameter $`\omega `$ is not a constant but instead is a time dependent function. More specifically,

$$\omega (T)=2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^21,$$
(20)
as follows from the expressions of $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ in Sec.2. With the initial conditions we have chosen in Secs. 3 and 4, namely $`T(0)=0+`$ and $`\dot{T}(0)=0`$, $`\omega `$ starts with the value $`1`$. It is easy to see that the energy density at this stage is independent of the scale factor $`a(t)`$. Substituting this into the Einstein’s equation (7) we find that the scale factor grows exponentially,

$$\rho =\rho _0,a(t)=a_0e^{t/t_0},$$
(21)
with $`\rho _0=\tau _3`$ and arbitrary constants $`a_0`$ and $`t_0`$. This means that in the early epoch the scale factor grows exponentially giving a constant Hubble parameter $`H`$. Thus unlike the quintessence scalar field, tachyon dynamics does not lead to a curvature singularity as $`t0`$.

As the system evolves, $`\omega (T)`$ moves away from $`1`$. We see from the Figs. 1 and 2 that initially $`2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2f(T)\dot{T}^21`$ for some time. This in turn means that $`\omega 1`$ (but $`\omega 1`$), is virtually a constant during this epoch. The system evolves according to eqn.(19), i.e., the scale factor grows according to a power law with a large exponent. Close to the end of the inflationary era, $`f(T)\dot{T}^2`$ grows rapidly, leading to an increase in the value of $`\omega `$, which eventually settles down to $`\omega =0`$.

In summary, we see that the early time development of the tachyon is quite different from that of the conventional quintessence scalar field. In particular, there is no curvature singularity as $`t0`$; instead there is a constant scale factor and a flat metric. With the rolling of the tachyon, initial exponential growth of the scale factor switches over to a power law growth (see Fig.4). Eventually, as the rolling tachyon picks up speed, growth of $`a(t)`$ as a function of $`t`$ slows down and settles at $`t^{2/3}`$ indicating a transition to a tachyon (and other) matter dominated era. It will be interesting to investigate tachyon driven quintessence models in detail. We hope to come back to it in future.

Acknowledgement: It is a pleasure to thank Lev Kofman and Ashoke Sen for valuable comments and discussions. DC would like to thank the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India for financial assistance under Swarnajayanti Fellowship.


text:
# The Second Hull of a Knotted Curve

## I Definitions and Conventions

###### Definition.

Let $`K`$ be a closed curve in $`^d`$, by which we mean a continuous map from the circle, modulo reparametrization. The *$`n^{\text{th}}`$ hull* $`h_n(K)`$ of $`K`$ is the set of points $`p^d`$ such that $`K`$ cuts every hyperplane through $`p`$ at least $`2n`$ times, where nontransverse intersections are counted according to the conventions below.

Here, we basically count the intersections of $`K`$ with a plane $`P`$ by counting the number of components of the pullback of $`KP`$ to the domain circle. If the intersections are transverse, then (thinking of $`P`$ as horizontal, and orienting $`K`$) we find equal numbers of upward and downward intersections; the total number of intersections (if nonzero) equals the number of components of $`KP`$ (again counted in the domain).

To handle nontransverse intersections, we again orient $`K`$ and we adopt the following conventions. First, if $`KP`$, we say $`K`$ cuts $`P`$ twice (once in either direction). If $`KP`$ has infinitely many components, then we say $`K`$ cuts $`P`$ infinitely often. Otherwise, each connected component of the intersection is preceded and followed by open arcs in $`K`$, with each lying to one side of $`P`$. An *upward* intersection will mean a component of $`KP`$ preceded by an arc below $`P`$ *or* followed by an arc above $`P`$. (Similarly, a *downward* intersection will mean a component preceded by an arc above $`P`$ or followed by an arc below $`P`$.) A glancing intersection, preceded and followed by arcs on the same side of $`P`$, thus counts twice, as both an upward and a downward intersection.

With these conventions, it is easy to see that an arc whose endpoints are not in a plane $`P`$ intersects $`P`$ an even number of times if the endpoints are on the same side of $`P`$ and an odd number of times otherwise. For a closed curve, there are always equal numbers of intersections in each direction.

We will later apply the same definition to disconnected curves $`L`$, like links. In that context, of course, the number of intersections of $`L`$ with $`P`$ cannot simply be counted as the number of components of $`LP`$.

## II The Second Hull of a Knotted Curve

In order to prove that any knot has a second hull, we start with some basic lemmas about $`n^{\text{th}}`$ hulls.

###### Lemma 1.

For any curve $`K`$, each connected component of its $`n^{\text{th}}`$ hull $`h_n(K)`$ is convex. Furthermore, $`h_n(K)h_{n1}(K)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`C`$ be a connected component of $`h_n(K)`$. If $`q`$ is a point in its convex hull, then by connectedness, any plane $`P`$ through $`q`$ must meet $`C`$ at some point $`p`$. Thus $`P`$ is also a plane through $`pCh_n(K)`$, so $`P`$ meets $`K`$ at least $`2n`$ times. By definition, then, $`qh_n(K)`$. The second part of the statement then follows from the definition of $`h_n`$. ∎

A useful lemma allows us to simplify a given curve, with control on its higher hulls.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`K^{}`$ be the result of replacing some subarc $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`K`$ by the straight segment $`S`$ connecting its endpoints $`p`$, $`q`$. No plane cuts $`K^{}`$ more often than it cuts $`K`$, so $`h_n(K^{})h_n(K)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`P`$ be any plane. If $`K^{}P`$ has infinitely many components then so does $`KP`$. So we may assume $`K^{}P`$ has only a finite number of components. The generic case is when $`p,qP`$. If they are on the same side of $`P`$, then $`S`$ misses $`P`$ and there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, $`S`$ has a unique intersection with $`P`$, but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must also have cut $`P`$ at least once.

The other cases require us to invoke our conventions for counting intersections, and thus require a bit more care. First suppose $`p,qP`$. If $`K^{}P`$, this counts as two intersections, but by our conventions $`K`$ cuts $`P`$ a nonzero even number of times, hence at least twice. Otherwise, let $`A`$ be the component of $`K^{}P`$ containing $`S`$. It counts as one or two intersections with $`P`$, depending on whether points just before and after $`A`$ are on different sides of $`P`$ or the same side. But the corresponding arc of $`K`$ then cuts $`P`$ a nonzero odd or even number of times respectively, hence at least as often as $`A`$ does.

Next, suppose $`pP`$ and $`q`$ is above $`P`$. Let $`A`$ be the component of $`KP`$ containing $`p`$, and consider the arc of $`K`$ from a point $`r`$ just before $`A`$ to $`q`$. This arc cuts $`P`$ a nonzero odd or even number of times if $`r`$ is below or above $`P`$, but then the corresponding arc in $`K^{}`$ intersects $`P`$ once or twice, respectively.

In any case, $`K^{}`$ has at most as many intersections as $`K`$ did with the arbitrary plane $`P`$. The final statement of the lemma then follows from the definition of $`h_n`$. ∎

We will need to locate regions of space which can be said to contain the knottedness of $`K`$.

###### Definition.

We say that an (open) half-space $`H`$ *essentially contains* a knot $`K`$ if it contains $`K`$, except for possibly a single point or a single unknotted arc.

Note that if $`H`$ essentially contains $`K`$, then $`K`$ cuts $`H`$ at most twice. Thus, we can *clip $`K`$ to $`H`$*, replacing the single arc (if any) outside $`H`$ by the segment in $`H`$ connecting its endpoints. The resulting knot $`\text{cl}_H(K)`$ is isotopic to $`K`$, and is contained in $`\overline{H}`$.

Our key lemma now shows that essential half-spaces remain essential under clipping:

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`K^{}:=\text{cl}_H(K)`$ be the clipping of a knot $`K`$ to some half-space $`H`$ which essentially contains it. Then any half-space $`H^{}`$ which essentially contains $`K`$ will also essentially contain $`K^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We must show that either $`H^{}`$ contains $`K^{}`$, or the single arc of this new knot outside $`H^{}`$ is unknotted. If $`H^{}`$ contains $`K`$ then, since $`K^{}`$ lies within the convex hull of $`K`$, $`H^{}`$ must contain $`K^{}`$, and we are done.

Otherwise, consider the single arc of $`K`$ outside $`H^{}`$, and count how many of its endpoints are outside $`H`$. The different cases are illustrated in Figure 2. If both endpoints are outside $`H`$, again we find $`H^{}`$ contains $`K^{}`$. If neither is, the unknotted arc of $`K`$ outside $`H^{}`$ has an unknotted subarc outside $`H`$, which gets replaced with an isotopic segment in $`H`$. So the arc of $`K^{}`$ outside $`H^{}`$ is unknotted, as desired.

Finally, we must consider the case where one endpoint of the arc is within $`H`$ and one is outside $`H`$. This implies that the half-spaces are not nested, but divide space into four quadrants, with $`K`$ winding once around their intersection line. The knot $`K`$ is a connect sum of four arcs, in these quadrants. The sum of the two arcs outside $`H`$ is trivial, as is the sum of the two outside $`H^{}`$. So in fact all the knotting happens in the one quadrant $`HH^{}`$. But now, the arc of $`K^{}`$ outside $`H^{}`$ consists of the original unknotted arc in one quadrant, plus a straight segment within $`H`$; thus it is unknotted. ∎

For the proof of our theorem, we will need to decompose a knot into its prime pieces, but only when this can be done with a flat plane.

###### Definition.

We say that a knot $`K`$ in $`^3`$ is *geometrically composite* if there is a plane $`P`$ (cutting $`K`$ twice) which decomposes $`K`$ into two nontrivial connect summands. Otherwise, we say $`K`$ is *geometrically prime*. Note that a (topologically) prime knot is necessarily geometrically prime.

###### Main Theorem.

If $`K`$ is any space curve with a knotted inscribed polygon, then its second hull $`h_2(K)`$ is nonempty.

###### Proof.

We can replace $`K`$ by the knotted inscribed polygon, and by Lemma 2 its second hull can only shrink. If $`K`$ is now geometrically composite, we can replace it by one of its two summands, and by Lemma 2 again its second hull will only shrink. Because the polygonal $`K`$ is tame, we need only do this a finite number of times, and so we may assume that $`K`$ is geometrically prime.

Let $`A:=_H\overline{H}`$ be the intersection of the closures of all the half-spaces $`H`$ essentially containing $`K`$. We claim that any plane $`P`$ through a point $`p`$ in $`A`$ cuts $`K`$ at least four times. If not, $`P`$ would cut $`K`$ twice. Because $`K`$ is geometrically prime, $`P`$ cannot split $`K`$ into two nontrivial summands. So $`P`$ must be the boundary of an essential half-space $`H`$. We will construct a parallel half-space $`H^{}`$ strictly contained in $`H`$ which still essentially contains $`K`$. Since $`p\overline{H^{}}`$ and $`pA`$, this is a contradiction.

If $`K`$ is not contained in $`H`$, there are two edges of $`K`$ which start in $`H`$ but end outside $`H`$ (possibly on $`P`$). Let $`v`$ and $`w`$ be their endpoints in $`H`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the subarc of $`K`$ between $`v`$ and $`w`$ in $`H`$. If $`KH`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=K`$. In either case, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a compact subset of $`H`$, and so is contained in a smaller parallel half-space $`H^{}`$ which essentially contains $`K`$. This completes the proof of the claim.

Since planes through $`A`$ cut $`K`$ four times, $`Ah_2(K)h_1(K)`$, and we can write

$$A=\underset{H}{}\left(\overline{H}h_1(K)\right).$$

This exhibits $`A`$ as an infinite intersection of compact sets. To show it is nonempty, it suffices to prove that any finite intersection is nonempty (using the finite intersection property for compact sets). So suppose $`H_1`$, …, $`H_N`$ are half-spaces essentially containing $`K`$. Clipping the knot successively to these half-spaces, we define $`K_0=K`$ and $`K_i=\text{cl}_{H_i}(K_{i1})`$. Since $`K`$ is essentially contained in every $`H_j`$, this is also true inductively for each of the $`K_i`$, using Lemma 3. Thus $`K_N`$, a knot isotopic to $`K`$, is contained in

$$\underset{1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{H_i}h_1(K),$$

showing this to be nonempty, as desired. ∎

Note that our sets $`\overline{H}h_1(K)`$ are convex. Therefore, we could appeal to Helly’s theorem instead of the finite intersection property: as soon as any four of these compact convex sets have nonempty intersection, they all do. But the proof given above is no simpler for the special case $`N=4`$.

We expect that the set $`A`$ used in the proof is always a connected component of $`h_2(K)`$. This essential piece $`Ah_2(K)`$ is the intersection of all halfspaces essentially containing $`K`$, just as $`h_1(K)`$ is the intersection of all halfspaces containing $`K`$. We note also that the only place we used the assumption about polygons was to show that bounding planes of $`A`$ must cut the knot four times, and thus that all of $`A`$, and not merely its (possibly empty) interior, is in $`h_2(K)`$.

Using Milnor’s definition of total curvature for arbitrary curves, our theorem applies to any knot of finite total curvature:

###### Corollary.

A knotted space curve of finite total curvature has nonempty second hull.

###### Proof.

A lemma of Milnor Mil (50) shows that any curve of finite total curvature has an isotopic inscribed polygon, so our main theorem applies. ∎

## III Links

If we apply our definition of $`n^{\text{th}}`$ hull to links $`L`$, that is, to unions of closed curves in space, then it is no longer necessarily true that $`h_1(L)`$ is the entire convex hull of $`L`$. However, Lemma 1 shows that $`h_1(L)`$ contains the convex hull of each component. In Figure 3 we show an example where both inclusions are strict.

For links we can easily find points in higher hulls by intersecting the hulls of different components. The next lemma is immediate from the definitions:

###### Lemma 4.

If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are links, then

$$h_m(A)h_n(B)h_{m+n}(AB)$$

for all $`m,n>0`$. ∎

This allows us to extend our theorem to the case of links.

###### Corollary.

Any nontrivial link (of finite total curvature) has a nonempty second hull.

###### Proof.

If the link contains a knotted component, we use the theorem. Otherwise it must contain two components $`A`$ and $`B`$ whose convex hulls intersect, and we use the last lemma. ∎

For a Hopf link whose two components are plane curves, Lemma 4 is sharp: the second hull consists exactly of the segment along which the convex hulls of the components intersect. This shows that the second hull of a link can have zero volume. We conjecture that this never happens for knots.

## IV Cone Angles

We originally became interested in second hulls while attempting to improve lower bounds on the ropelength of knots CKS (02). We wanted to find points in space from which a knot has large cone angle, or visual angle.

###### Lemma 5.

If $`ph_n(K)`$ then the cone from $`p`$ to $`K`$ has cone angle at least $`2\pi n`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the radial projection $`K^{}`$ of $`K`$ to the unit sphere around $`p`$. By the definition of $`h_n`$, $`K^{}`$ intersects each great circle at least $`2n`$ times. But the length of a spherical curve, using integral geometry as in the proof of Fenchel’s theorem, equals $`\pi `$ times its average number of intersections with great circles (see Mil (50)). Thus the length of $`K^{}`$, which is the cone angle of $`K`$ at $`p`$, is at least $`2\pi n`$. ∎

###### Corollary.

If $`K`$ is a nontrivial knot or link (of finite total curvature), there is some point $`p`$ from which $`K`$ has cone angle at least $`4\pi `$. ∎

For our application to ropelength, however, we needed to know more. If $`K`$ has thickness $`\tau `$, that is, if a normal tube of radius $`\tau `$ around $`K`$ is embedded, then the cone point $`p`$ can be chosen outside this tube. We will see below, using quadrisecants, that for generic prime knots, the second hull does extend outside this thick tube, as desired.

However, a different argument gives $`4\pi `$ cone points for arbitrary links: Brian White has a version of the monotonicity theorem for minimal surfaces with boundary Whi (96). As he points out in work with Ekholm and Wienholtz (EWW, 02, Thm. 1.3), it shows directly that if we span $`K`$ with a minimal surface, and $`p`$ is a point where this surface intersects itself, then the cone angle from $`p`$ to $`K`$ is at least $`4\pi `$. In fact, this result was originally proved in 1983 by Gromov (Gro, 83, Thm. 8.2.A).

The set of points from which the cone angle to a curve $`K`$ is at least $`2\pi `$ has been called the *visual hull*, and is a superset of the convex hull. (See Gro (83); Gag (80).) We might call the set where cone angle is at least $`4\pi `$ the *second visual hull*; as we have mentioned, this set contains our second hull. Gromov’s result, reproved by our corollary above, is that any knot has a nonempty second visual hull.

We have shown CKS (02) that if $`K`$ is a thick knot, then the self-intersection curve of a minimal spanning disk must go outside the tube of radius $`\tau `$, as shown in Figure 4, giving us what we needed: a point far from the knot with large cone angle. We note that self-intersection points of a minimal surface need not be in the second hull of its boundary curve, as demonstrated by the second example in Figure 4, though they are necessarily in the second visual hull.

## V Bridge Number and Total Curvature

We can define the *hull number* of a link to be the largest $`n`$ for which the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ hull is nonempty (and the hull number of a link type to be the minimum over all representatives). Perhaps sufficiently complicated link types have hull number greater than two, but we know of no way to prove this. We can get an easy upper bound:

###### Proposition.

The hull number of any link is bounded above by its bridge number.

###### Proof.

To say $`L`$ is a link of bridge number $`n`$ means there is some height function with just $`n`$ minima and $`n`$ maxima. Thus $`L`$ will have empty $`(n+1)^{\text{st}}`$ hull, because it cuts no horizontal plane more than $`2n`$ times. ∎

Note that we don’t always have equality, at least for composite links. For instance, the connect sum of two 2-bridge links (like Hopf links or trefoil knots) has bridge number three. But obvious configurations, where each summand is in its 2-bridge presentation and they are well separated vertically, have empty third hull. Perhaps any prime 3-bridge knot has nonempty third hull as in Figure 5: certainly there are planes in every direction which are cut six times by the knot. To extend our proof to this case, we might need to consider the notion of thin position for knots, as introduced by Gabai Gab (87) and studied by Thompson Tho (97).

Milnor’s version Mil (50) of the Fáry/Milnor theorem says that the total curvature of a knot is greater than $`2\pi `$ times its bridge number; by our proposition, the same is true replacing bridge number by hull number. Since our main theorem says hull number is at least two for a nontrivial knot, this provides an alternate proof of Fáry/Milnor.

The following lemma, which also appears in EWW (02), when combined with Lemma 5, gives yet another proof of Fáry/Milnor.

###### Lemma 6.

The cone angle of a knot $`K`$, from any point, is at most the total curvature of $`K`$.

###### Proof.

Applying Gauss-Bonnet to the cone itself, we see that the cone angle equals the total geodesic curvature of $`K`$ in the cone, which is no greater than the total curvature of $`K`$ in space. ∎

Kuiper Kui (87) defined the *superbridge number* $`\text{sb}(K)`$ of a curve $`K`$ as half the maximum number of times $`K`$ cuts any plane. Like our notion of $`n^{\text{th}}`$ hull, this is invariant under affine transformations of the ambient space. Kuiper observed that the total curvature of $`K`$ is bounded above by $`2\pi \text{sb}(K)`$, and that there is a sequence of affine transformations of $`K`$ (stretched in the direction perpendicular to any plane cut $`2\text{sb}(K)`$ times) whose total curvature approaches that limit $`2\pi \text{sb}(K)`$. We note that, viewed from any point near the center of mass, these stretched curves also have cone angles approaching the same value $`2\pi \text{sb}(K)`$.

Fáry’s proof Fár (49) of the Fáry/Milnor theorem showed that the total curvature of a space curve is the average total curvature of its planar projections, and that any knot projection has total curvature at least $`4\pi `$. In fact, his proof of the latter statement actually showed that any knot projection has nonempty second hull.

When we first started to think about second hulls, we rederived this result, not knowing Fáry’s proof. We hoped that perhaps a curve whose projections all had nonempty second hulls would necessarily also have one, but never succeeded in this line of argument. The next lemma does give a sort of converse, relating hulls and projections.

###### Lemma 7.

If $`K`$ is a closed curve in $`^d`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is any orthogonal projection to $`^{d1}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }(h_n(K))h_n(\mathrm{\Pi }(K))`$.

###### Proof.

Call the projection direction “vertical”. If $`P`$ is a hyperplane in $`^{d1}`$ through $`p\mathrm{\Pi }(h_n(K))`$, then the vertical hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Pi }^1P`$ in $`^d`$ passes through a point in $`h_n(K)`$, so $`K`$ cuts it $`2n`$ times. Thus $`\mathrm{\Pi }(K)`$ cuts $`P`$ at least $`2n`$ times. ∎

This lemma explains why, for instance, the projected third hull in Figure 5 must lie entirely within the central bigon of the knot projection.

## VI Quadrisecants and Second Hulls

Any knot or link in space has a quadrisecant, that is, a straight line which intersects the link four times. This was first proved by Pannwitz Pan (33) for generic polygonal links; the full result is due to Kuperberg Kup (94). Quadrisecants can be used to prove a thickened version of our theorem. In particular, the middle segment of a quadrisecant for $`K`$ often lies in the second hull of $`K`$.

In the case of links, if there are two components $`A`$ and $`B`$ with nonzero linking number, Pannwitz Pan (33) (and later Morton and Mond MM (82)) showed that there is an $`ABAB`$ quadrisecant, meaning one where the components are seen in that order along the secant line. The entire mid-segment then lies in the intersection of the convex hulls of $`A`$ and $`B`$, and thus in $`h_2(AB)`$. For the thickened version, simply note that this mid-segment starts inside the tube around $`A`$ and ends inside the disjoint one around $`B`$, so it must leave the tubes altogether in the middle.

For knots, we can compare the linear ordering of the four intersection points (along the quadrisecant line) with their circular ordering (along the knot). Viewed from a point on the mid-segment of a quadrisecant, the four intersection points lie (two each) at the north and south poles of the visual sphere. If these intersection points alternate between the north and south poles, we call the quadrisecant *alternating*. The mid-segment of an alternating quadrisecant for $`K`$ will be contained in the second hull of $`K`$: if we project $`K`$ to the unit sphere around a point on the mid-segment, the projected curve cuts every great circle four times, since it visits the poles in alternating order. Thus the following conjecture would give an alternate proof of our main theorem.

###### Conjecture.

Any nontrivial knot has an alternating quadrisecant.

Elizabeth Denne has already made good progress towards proving this conjecture as part of her doctoral dissertation at the University of Illinois. She makes use of ideas from Pannwitz Pan (33), Kuperberg Kup (94) and Schmitz Sch (98).

For generic polynomial curves in prime knot classes, we can prove a thickened version of our theorem using Kuperberg’s notion of an essential (or “topologically nontrivial”) quadrisecant Kup (94).

###### Definition.

A secant $`S`$ of $`K`$ is *trivial* if its endpoints are on the same component of $`K`$, dividing it into arcs $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and if one of the two circles $`SX`$, $`SY`$ spans a disk whose interior avoids $`K`$. The disk may intersect $`S`$ and itself. A quadrisecant is *essential* if neither the mid-segment nor either end-segment is trivial.

We start by proving a lemma about secants of unknots.

###### Lemma 8.

Let $`K`$ be an unknot. Any secant of $`K`$ is trivial on either side.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`S`$ is a secant of $`K`$. Pick either one of the arcs of $`K`$ joining the endpoints of $`S`$. We will show that the closed curve $`C`$ formed by joining this arc to $`S`$ bounds a disk disjoint from $`K`$. We begin the disk by constructing an embedded ribbon bounded by $`C`$ and a parallel curve, $`C^{}`$, chosen so that the linking number of $`K`$ and $`C^{}`$ is zero. By the definition of linking number, this implies that $`C^{}`$ is homologous to zero in the complement of $`K`$. Since $`K`$ is the unknot, $`C^{}`$ is therefore *homotopic* to zero in the complement of $`K`$. Thus, $`C^{}`$ bounds a disk disjoint from $`K`$. Joining this disk to the ribbon completes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 9.

Let $`K`$ be a geometrically prime knot. The mid-segment of any essential quadrisecant for $`K`$ is contained in the second hull of $`K`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`Q`$ be a quadrisecant of $`K`$; if its mid-segment is not contained in the second hull, there is a plane $`P`$ that meets the mid-segment of $`Q`$ and meets $`K`$ only twice. Because $`K`$ is geometrically prime, it is trivial on one side of $`P`$. Let $`K^{}`$ be the unknotted arc on this side, completed with a straight line segment in $`P`$. By Lemma 8, the end-segment $`S`$ of $`Q`$ on this side is trivial with respect to $`K^{}`$. That is, $`S`$ together with one arc of $`K^{}`$ bounds a disk $`D`$ whose boundary is disjoint from $`P`$.

By design, $`D`$ does not intersect $`K^{}`$, but it may cross $`P`$ and intersect $`KK^{}`$. We claim that we can simplify $`D`$ so that it does not cross $`P`$. Thus the secant $`S`$ of $`Q`$ is inessential with respect to $`K`$.

To check the claim, consider $`D`$ as a map from the standard disk to $`^3`$. In general position, the inverse image of $`P`$ is a collection of circles, and we can cut off the disk at the outermost circles. We know $`D`$ is interior-disjoint from all of $`K^{}`$, including the line segment lying in $`P`$. But $`D`$ may intersect $`P`$ in a complicated loop $`L`$ that encircles the pair of points $`KP`$ many times. In this case, after cutting $`D`$ along this circle, we attach not a flat disk in $`P`$ but instead a bigger disk that avoids $`K`$. ∎

###### Lemma 10.

The mid-segment of an essential quadrisecant for $`K`$ leaves any embedded normal tube around $`K`$.

###### Proof.

If not, it would be isotopic within the tube to part of the core curve, that is, to one arc of $`K`$, contradicting the definition of essential. ∎

The result of Kup (94) that a generic polynomial link has an essential quadrisecant, combined with these lemmas, proves the thickened version of our theorem, for generic prime knots:

###### Theorem.

If $`K`$ is a generic polynomial representative of a prime knot class, and $`T`$ is an open embedded normal tube around $`K`$, then $`h_2(K)T`$ is nonempty. ∎

## VII Other Ambient Spaces

We have been assuming that our knots lie in Euclidean space $`^3`$. However, our notion of second hull is not a metric notion but rather a projective notion, depending only on incidence relations of planes.

It follows that our definition applies in hyperbolic space $`^3`$, and that any knotted curve in $`^3`$ has a nonempty second hull: Simply embed hyperbolic space, in Klein’s projective model, in a ball in $`^3`$. Then the hyperbolic second hull of any curve is the Euclidean second hull of its image in the model.

Recently, two proofs have been given showing that the Fáry/Milnor theorem holds for knots in any Hadamard manifold, that is, any simply connected manifold of nonpositive curvature. Alexander and Bishop AB (98) find a sequence of inscribed polygons limiting to a quadruply covered segment, while Schmitz Sch (98) comes close to constructing a quadrisecant. Arguments like either of these could be used to give alternate proofs of our theorem in Euclidean space.

We thus suspect that there should be some notion of second hull for curves in Hadamard manifolds. The problem is that there is no natural way to extend our definition, because there is no analog of a plane in this general context. If some reasonable definition for second hull can be found so that Lemma 2 remains true, then there should be no problem proving that knots have nonempty second hulls.

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge helpful conversations with many colleagues, including Colin Adams, Stephanie Alexander, Dick Bishop, Elizabeth Denne, Herbert Edelsbrunner, Mike Gage and Frank Morgan. This work has been partially supported by the NSF through grants DMS-99-02397 (to Cantarella), DMS-00-72342 (to Kuperberg), DMS-00-76085 (to Kusner) and DMS-00-71520 (to Sullivan).