text:
# Influence Of Current Leads On Critical Current For Spin Precession In Magnetic Multilayers

(Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213)

In magnetic multilayers, a dc current induces a spin precession above a certain critical current. Drive torques responsible for this can be calculated from the spin accumulation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ . Existing calculations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ assume a uniform cross section of conductors. But most multilayer samples are pillars with current leads flaring out immediately to a much wider cross-section area than that of the pillar itself. We write spin-diffusion equations of a form valid for variable cross section, and solve the case of flat electrodes with radial current distribution perpendicular to the axis of the pillar. Because of the increased volume available for conduction-electron spin relaxation in such leads, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ is reduced in the pillar by at least a factor of 2 below its value for uniform cross section, for given current density in the pillar. Also, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ and the critical current density for spin precession become nearly independent of the thickness of the pinned magnetic layer, and more dependent on the thickness of the spacer, in better agreement with measurements by Albert et al. (2002).

PACS: 75.30.Ds, 75.70.-i; Keywords: spin transfer, spin waves, multilayer, spin electronics, spin accumulation.

L. Berger, Physics Dept., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; Tel.: 412 268 2919; Fax: 412 681 0648; E-mail: lberger@andrew.cmu.edu

INTRODUCTION

Through the s-d interaction, a dc electrical current can cause 1,2 an instability of localized magnetic spins $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in the free magnetic layer $`F_2`$ of a multilayer (Fig. 1a) containing of two magnetic layers $`F_1,F_2`$. The purpose of the pinned magnetic layer $`F_1`$ is to prepare the conduction-electron spins in a fixed direction parallel or antiparallel to its magnetic spins $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, before they enter $`F_2`$ through the nonmagnetic spacer $`N_2`$ to generate drive torques on $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

The Slonczewski theory 1 based on spin current and the Berger theory 2 based on spin accumulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ can be shown to be more or less equivalent. In their original form, they were both associated with a translation of the Fermi surface in momentum space, caused by the current (Fig. 1b). Near an interface, there is also 3 a current-induced isotropic expansion of the Fermi surface of one spin, and contraction of the other (Fig. 1c). This is connected with the spin accumulation of Silsbee and Johnson 4 which we denote by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$, and which is linked to the current density only in a nonlocal manner. A 2002 paper by Slonczewski 1 uses different spin accumulations on the two halves of the Fermi surface, a scheme equivalent to our $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$.

We will use scalar spin accumulations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ by opposition to vectorial ones, since we consider current densities not exceeding the critical density where all spins are still nearly parallel to each other.

In most earlier detailed calculations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ in multilayers 3,5-7, the cross section of current leads was assumed constant and the same as in the multilayer itself (Fig 1a). In that one-dimensional problem, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ was found 3,7 to be about 10 times larger than the spin accumulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ arising from translation, and therefore dominant.

The purpose of the present paper is to treat the more realistic case where current leads flare out to much larger cross-section area. This results in a much improved agreement between theory and experimental results.

SPIN DIFFUSION WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION AREA

We introduce a coordinate r along the length of a conductor. The current densities $`𝐣_{},𝐣_{}`$ for spin up and spin down are assumed to have constant magnitudes over a conductor cross-section surface corresponding to r = const., of area A(r), and to be normal to that surface. Electron-spin relaxation gives $`dI_{}/dr=dI_{}/dr=egA(r)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/2\tau _{sr}`$ where $`I_{},I_{}`$ are the spin-up and spin-down currents, and g the electron density of states per unit volume at the Fermi level. Also, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }=\overline{\mu }_{}\overline{\mu }_{}`$ is the spin accumulation coming from expansion/contraction, and $`\overline{\mu }_{},\overline{\mu }_{}`$ the spin-up and spin-down electrochemical potentials. Finally, $`\tau _{sr}`$ is the conduction-electron spin-relaxation time. The combination of Ohm’s and Fick’s laws reads $`I_{}=(\sigma _{}A(x)/e)d\overline{\mu }_{}/dr;I_{}=(\sigma _{}A(x)/e)d\overline{\mu }_{}/dr`$, where $`\sigma _{}=\rho _{}^1,\sigma _{}=\rho _{}^1`$ are the spin-up and spin-down conductivities. By introducing $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=I_{}I_{}`$, the equations above can be rewritten in a more convenient form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K)}{dX}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I\mathrm{\Delta }I_0}{A(r)}};{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }I}{dX}}=A(r){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }}{K}};X=r/l_{sr};`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }I_0=I{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}\rho _{}}{\rho _{}+\rho _{}}};K=el_{sr}(\rho _{}+\rho _{})/2;l_{sr}=({\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _{sr}}{e^2g(\rho _{}+\rho _{})}})^{1/2},`$ (2)
where $`l_{sr}`$ is the local spin-diffusion length and $`I=I_{}+I_{}`$ the total current. In the special case A(r)= const., Eqs. (1-2) reduce to Eqs. (1-2) of Ref. 7, where a constant cross section of conductors was assumed.

Many of published experimental results 8 about current-induced spin precession have been obtained with multilayer samples consisting of a pillar of uniform radius R, with current leads in the shape of flat electrodes where the current runs in radial directions normal to the pillar axis (Fig. 2a). In such electrodes, we use as the coordinate r the radial distance of a point P from the pillar axis.

To simplify calculations, we assume that the direction of the current in the electrodes remains radial even near the pillar, at r values as low as r=R. Then, the cross-section surfaces are cylinders (Fig. 2a) centered on the pillar axis, of area $`A(r)=2\pi rL_e=2\pi l_{sr}L_eX`$, where $`L_e`$ is the thickness of the flat electrode. We combine Eqs. (1) and (2) after defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }i(X)=\mathrm{\Delta }I/2\pi RL_e`$, and obtain the differential equation $`d^2(\mathrm{\Delta }i)/dX^2X^1d(\mathrm{\Delta }i)/dX\mathrm{\Delta }i=0`$, which we solve by Mathematica for $`\mathrm{\Delta }i(X)`$, with the boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }i(\mathrm{})=0`$ and the normalization condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }i(X=R/l_{sr})=1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_0=0`$ in non-magnetic leads, the Eqs. (1-2) are homogeneous , and the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }i(X)`$ is arbitrary. Then we obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }(X)/K_N`$ by the second Eq. (1). Here, $`K_N`$ is the value of K in the Cu electrodes. We plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }i(X)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }(X)/K_N`$ in Fig. 2b for $`XR/l_{sr}`$.

The location r=R in the electrode near the pillar (Fig. 2a) corresponds to $`X=R/l_{sr}=0.433`$, assuming a reasonable value R=65 nm. We use $`l_{sr}=150nm`$ for Cu, close to a value 140 nm measured 9 at 77 K. Also 10, $`\rho =3\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }m`$, leading to $`K_N=1.44\times 10^{33}m^2J/A`$. For our purpose, the most important quantity is the ratio $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }(X=0.433)/K_N)/\mathrm{\Delta }i(X=0.433)`$ at that location, equal (Fig. 2b) to -0.527. Assuming a reasonable 8 electrode thickness $`L_e=100nm`$, and introducing $`\mathrm{\Delta }j=j_{}j_{}`$, where $`j_{},j_{}`$ are the spin-dependent current densities in the pillar, assumed parallel to the pillar axis, current conservation gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }j=3.08\mathrm{\Delta }i(X=0.433)=3.08`$. Thus $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }(X=0.433)/K_N)/\mathrm{\Delta }j=0.171`$. This compares to the value $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N)/\mathrm{\Delta }j=1`$ of the ratio which holds 7 in leads that have the same constant cross section as the multilayer itself. On the other hand, the electrodes still do not act like a complete “spin short circuit” with a ratio equal to zero.

The depressed value of this ratio can be attributed to the large volumes of copper available nearby in the wide and thick electrodes, for relaxation of the spin of conduction electrons. As we will see later, this will also lead to a depressed value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ itself in the multilayer.

SPIN DIFFUSION IN LAYERS $`N_1`$ AND $`N_3`$

For simplicity, the current direction in nonmagnetic layers $`N_1`$ and $`N_3`$ (Fig. 2a) is assumed to be everywhere parallel to the pillar axis. Also, these layers are assumed to be made of copper, with thicknesses $`L_{N1}=L_{N3}=5nm`$. Using Eqs. (1-2), the variations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Delta }j`$ across the thickness of $`N_1`$ are found to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }jL_{N1}/l_{sr}0.102`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N)L_{N1}/l_{sr}0.017`$, respectively. Starting from the values of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }j`$ near the electrode at r=R given in the last section and applying these corrections, we obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N=0.629`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }j=3.10`$ in $`N_1`$ at the $`N_1/F_1`$ interface (Fig. 2a). This results in a ratio $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N)/\mathrm{\Delta }j=0.20`$ at that location. We conclude that the presence of layer $`N_1`$ causes only a minor increase of the value of the ratio.

The presence of the transition region ABCD connecting the electrode to the pillar probably has also a minor effect on the ratio, which we ignore as it is more difficult to calculate.

The problem of the right-hand side electrode and of $`N_3`$ (Fig.2a) can be treated similarly, leading to a ratio $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N)/\mathrm{\Delta }j=0.20`$ at the $`F_2/N_3`$ interface in $`N_3`$. This compares 7 to a value -1 for a lead of constant cross section.

SPIN DIFFUSION IN MULTILAYER

Using Mathematica, we solve Eqs. (1-2) in layers $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ made of Co, with constant cross-section area A. Here, K has 7 the value $`K_F=3.4\times 10^{33}m^2J/A`$. Also, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_0/I=0.36`$. As in Ref. 7, these are derived from values $`\rho _{}=23\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }m,\rho _{}=49\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }m`$ and spin-diffusion length $`l_{sr}^F=59nm`$ measured for Co nanowires by Piraux et al. 10 at 77 K. Although the critical-current data we will try to explain are for room temperature, we use these low-temperature parameter values in order to partly compensate for the larger electron-scattering rate observed in nanowires as compared to thin films. This also applies to parameter values quoted for Cu in earlier sections. Another reason to use these values is to be able to compare our results to those of Ref. 7. Instead of r, the coordinate in the pillar is called x, the origin being at the $`N_2/F_2`$ interface. We are not free anymore to arbitrarily normalize $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }j`$ as was done in previous sections. We calculate $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ in the same way as in Ref. 7, except that the variation across spacer $`N_2`$ cannot be neglected now. Discontinuous variations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ at $`N_1/F_1,F_1/N_2,N_2/F_2`$ and $`F_2/N_3`$ interfaces are given 7 by

$`D(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F)={\displaystyle \frac{K_s}{K_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I\mathrm{\Delta }I_s}{A}};D(\mathrm{\Delta }I/A)={\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{\rho ^{}l_{sr}^F}}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F;`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }I_s=I{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}r_{}}{r_{}+r_{}}};K_s=e(r_{}+r_{})/2,`$
where 7,10 $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_s/I=0.85,K_s=9.6\times 10^{35}m^2J/A,l_{sr}^F=59nm,r^{}=3\times 10^{16}\mathrm{\Omega }m^2,\rho ^{}=18\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }m`$ at low temperature. Here, $`r^{},r_{},r_{}`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ characterize the electrical resistance of a Co/Cu interface and of a Co layer, respectively.

The variations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }j=\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ across spacer $`N_2`$ are calculated in the same way as explained for $`N_1`$ and $`N_3`$ in the last section. Also, as in Eqs. (7-8) of Ref. 7, the current leads, including layers $`N_1`$ and $`N_3`$, influence the boundary conditions at the $`N_1/F_1`$ interface through the ratio discussed in the last section:

$$\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N}{\mathrm{\Delta }I/A}=0.20,$$
(4)
where the quantities are evaluated in $`N_1`$. Similarly in $`N_3`$ at the $`F_2/N_3`$ interface, the boundary condition reads:

$$\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_N}{\mathrm{\Delta }I/A}=0.20.$$
(5)
The results of the calculation for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ are shown versus $`x/l_{sr}^F`$ in Fig. 3, assuming reasonable thicknesses $`L_{N1}=5nm,L_{F1}=10nm,L_{N2}=6nm,L_{F2}=2.5nm,L_{N3}=5nm`$, and a value of $`1A/m^2`$ for the current density $`j=I/A`$ in the pillar. We consider the parallel state (P) where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are magnetized in the same direction. The present case of flat electrodes with radial current distribution is labelled “variable cross section”. For comparison, the case 7 of current leads of cross section equal to that of the multilayer is labelled “constant cross section”.

In the free layer $`F_2`$ near the $`N_2/F_2`$ interface active in spin transfer, i.e., at $`x/l_{sr}^F=0`$, we find (Fig. 3) $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F=0.01312A/m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A=0.338A/m^2`$ in the case of variable cross section. This compares 7 to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F=0.0333A/m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A=0.1505A/m^2`$ with constant cross section. We see that the effect of the flat electrodes is to decrease $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F|`$ and increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$. Also, Fig. 3 shows that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ varies faster with $`x/l_{sr}^F`$ than before in nonmagnetic layers, and much slower in magnetic layers. This results from the first Eq. (1) and from $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I`$ now being nearly equal to the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_0/I=0.36`$ which holds in magnetic layers. Only in the electrodes does $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I`$ drop much below that value.

We have also calculated $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ in $`F_2`$ at $`x/l_{sr}^F=0`$ as a function of thickness $`L_{F1}`$ (Fig. 4, curve labelled “P+variable cross section”), for the same values of $`L_{N1},L_{N2},L_{F2},L_{N3}`$ as above, and $`I/A=1A/m^2`$. The fact that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ is nearly independent of $`L_{F1}`$ is directly related to it being nearly independent of $`x/l_{sr}^F`$ in $`F_1`$ (Fig. 3). In the case of leads with constant cross section (Fig. 4, curve labelled “P+constant cross section), $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ increased with increasing $`L_{F1}`$.

Using the same methods, we have calculated $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ at $`x/l_{sr}^F=0`$ in $`F_2`$ for the antiparallel (AP) state where the magnetization of $`F_2`$ has been reversed (Fig. 4, curve labelled “AP+variable cross section”). Now, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_0/I=0.36`$ in $`F_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_s/I=0.85`$ at the $`N_2/F_2`$ and $`F_2/N_3`$ interfaces. The effect of leads of variable cross section is much less pronounced in the AP than in the P state. For example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ is now only 0.0833 in the multilayer when $`L_{F1}=10nm`$, not much more than its value 7 of 0.0384 with leads of constant cross section. Correspondingly, $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F|`$ is now almost as large (Fig 4) as it was with leads of constant cross section, and also increases with increasing $`L_{F1}`$.

CRITICAL CURRENT

As mentioned in the Introduction, the spin accumulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ in the pillar arising from Fermi-surface translation is almost negligible 7 as compared to the accumulation from expansion/contraction, in the case of leads of constant cross section. However, as shown in the last section, $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$ is smaller and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ larger in the case of leads of variable cross section. Since 2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (\mathrm{}k_N/en_e^N)\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$, where $`k_N`$ and $`n_e^N`$ are the electron wavenumber and electron density in the spacer $`N_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ may become comparable to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ in that case. We calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ from the formula above, with $`k_N=1.36\times 10^{10}m^1,n_e^N=8.5\times 10^{28}m^3`$ as in Cu, and find indeed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =1.26`$ for the P state in $`F_2`$ at x=0, assuming $`L_{F1}=10nm`$. Note, however, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is much less important for the AP state, with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =19.1`$.

The critical current density for incipient spin precession is 11

$$j_c=\frac{\pm \mathrm{}\omega _{eff}}{(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )/(I/A)}(1+\frac{\alpha _b}{\alpha _s}).$$
(6)
where $`\omega _{eff}=\gamma (M_s/2+H_z)`$ in SI units, $`\alpha _b`$ is the bulk Gilbert damping parameter, and $`\alpha _s`$ the surface Gilbert parameter at the $`N_2/F_2`$ interface. It is through $`\alpha _s`$ that the spin-transfer properties of the interface are taken into account. The - and + signs apply to the P and AP states, respectively. The field $`H_z`$ is in the plane of layers, but is assumed zero for the time being.

From Eq. (6), we obtain the ratio of critical current densities for the P and AP states:

$$\frac{|j_c^P|}{|j_c^{AP}|}=\frac{(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )_{AP}}{(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )_P}.$$
(7)
Using Eq. (7), we calculate $`|j_c^P|/|j_c^{AP}|`$ from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ values above and from the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ values obtained for $`L_{F2}=2.5nm`$ in the last section, and plot it versus $`L_{F1}`$. The results are shown as the curves labelled “spin diffusion” in Fig. 5a, for leads of variable cross section. The circles indicate experimental $`|j_c^P|/|j_c^{AP}|`$ values from various authors 8, for pillar samples similar to that of Fig. 2a.

Even when the applied field is zero, fixed magnetic layer $`F_1`$ produces (Fig. 5b) a dipolar field $`H_z^D<0`$ in $`F_2`$ at the important $`N_2/F_2`$ interface. Assuming a magnetically saturated $`F_1`$, it is in SI units $`H_z^D=R^2L_{F1}M_s/4d^3`$, where $`d(R^2+(L_{F1}/2+L_{N2})^2)^{1/2}`$ is the average distance between magnetic poles and a point of the interface. Then, using Eq.(6) and values R = 65 nm and $`\mu _0M_s=1.8T`$ for Co, the ratio $`|j_c^P|/|j_c^{AP}|`$ obtained from Eq. (7) must be corrected by a factor $`(M_s/2+H_K+H_z^D)/(M_s/2+H_KH_z^D)<1`$. The results are shown as the curves labelled “spin diffusion+dipolar” in Fig. 5a, assuming a reasonable value $`\mu _0H_K=0.1T`$ of the in-plane anisotropy field. The effect of the dipolar field is in all cases to reduce the value of $`|j_c^P|/|j_c^{AP}|`$ by an amount increasing with increasing $`L_{F1}`$, giving a better fit to the experimental values. Note that the actual samples 8 do not all have the radius R = 65 nm or the exact shape assumed here. Also, the above formula for d tends to overestimate the average d value at points of the $`N_2/F_2`$ interface not on the pillar axis.

From Eq. 6 and from the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ obtained above for the P and AP states, we derive normalized values of the critical current densities $`j_c^P`$ and $`j_c^{AP}`$ for leads of variable cross section, which are plotted versus $`L_{F1}`$ in Fig. 6. In addition, we plot the normalized value of $`j_c^Pj_c^{AP}`$.

Albert et al. 12 have measured $`j_c^Pj_c^{AP}`$ for leads of variable cross section similar to those considered here. The best fit of their data (for $`L_{F2}=2.5nm`$) to the corresponding theoretical curve in Fig. 6 is obtained for $`\alpha _b/\alpha _s=5.04`$, and is shown as the dashed line. To minimize the effect of non-zero temperature, we use data for fast current rise. In agreement with the experimental values, the theoretical values of $`j_c^Pj_c^{AP}`$ for leads of variable cross section in Fig. 6 are nearly independent of $`L_{F1}`$. If we had assumed constant cross section, the theoretical value of that quantity would have considerably decreased with increasing $`L_{F1}`$, giving much less agreement.

In turn, using the rough value $`\alpha _s0.0073`$ predicted for Co by Eq. (20) of the first Ref. 2, the above $`\alpha _b/\alpha _s`$ leads to $`\alpha _b0.0368`$, considerably more than the value 0.007 obtained 13 from ferromagnetic resonance in very thin Co films. The origin of this discrepancy is not clear. Maybe the value of $`\alpha _s`$ ,and of the corresponding current-induced drive torques, is lower than predicted.

We have also calculated $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ versus thickness $`L_{N2}`$ of spacer $`N_2`$, assuming variable lead cross section. We use fixed thicknesses $`L_{N1}=L_{N3}=5nm,L_{F1}=10nm,L_{F2}=2.5nm`$. From these $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ as before. Then, using Eq. (6), normalized values of the critical current density $`j_c^P`$ for the P state are given by

$$\frac{j_c^P(L_{N2})}{j_c^P(L_{N2}=6nm)}=\frac{(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )_{L_{N2}=6nm}}{(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )_{L_{N2}}},$$
(8)
and similarly for the AP state. The results are plotted versus $`L_{N2}`$, and appear as two dashed curves in Fig. 7. We see that both $`j_c^P`$ and $`j_c^{AP}`$ increase with increasing $`L_{N2}`$, the increase of $`j_c^P`$ being larger by a factor $`10`$. Albert et al.12 have measured the critical current densities versus $`L_{N2}`$ (though with $`L_{F1}=8nm,L_{F2}=2nm`$), and their values are shown as solid and open squares for the P and AP states, respectively. Like us, they find that $`j_c^P`$ and $`j_c^{AP}`$ increase, and that $`j_c^P`$ increases faster. The increases are in a ratio of $`3`$. In our theory, these variations of $`j_c^P`$ and $`j_c^{AP}`$ with $`L_{N2}`$ reflect directly the spatial variation of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }/K_F`$ across the spacer $`N_2`$ in Fig. 3. It is therefore more pronounced for variable than for constant lead cross section, leading to better agreement with experiments.

Albert et al. 12 have explained quantitatively these experimental results with a model which, for $`j_c^P`$, involves only spin-down electrons reflected at the $`F_1/N_2`$ interface. However, the spin-down reflection coefficient at a Co/Cu interface being 6 0.39, only a fraction of incident spin-down electrons would take part in such a process. Current-dependent torques by spin-down and spin-up electrons transmitted from $`F_1`$ to $`F_2`$ should also be considered if the model is to be quantitative. We have been able to explain qualitatively these same results (Fig. 7) with a theory where Fig. 3 shows that interface reflections and scattering inside the layers cause comparable spatial variations of the spin accumulation.

Finally, the dependence of current-induced drive torques on the thickness $`L_{F2}`$ of the free magnetic layer was already calculated in our 1997 paper 2, for the Fermi-surface translation mechanism. We found the torque to be proportional to $`L_{F2}^1`$, with added oscillations periodic in $`L_{F2}`$. Except for the oscillations, this is also consistent with the Albert data 12.

RELATION TO GIANT MAGNETORESISTANCE

It has been shown 14 that the giant magnetoresistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ of a magnetic multilayer may be increased by inserting a thin layer of a material with fast electron-spin relaxation near the current leads. This is just the opposite of the situation for the spin accumulation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ as described in the present paper, where $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$ is maximized by reducing the total rate of spin relaxation in the leads.

By using an equivalent dc electrical circuit which describes 15 both conduction and spin relaxation in the sample, it is easy to confirm that $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ and $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$ are influenced very differently by spin relaxation in the leads.

MINIMIZATION OF CRITICAL CURRENT

For technical applications, it is important to minimize the critical current densities $`j_c^P,j_c^{AP}`$. According to Eq. 6, one strategy would be to maximize $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$ for given current density. As we saw earlier, this would require increasing the thickness of nonmagnetic layers $`N_1,N_3`$ (Fig. 2a), to values approaching the spin diffusion length. This would move the electrodes further away from the important magnetic layers $`F_1,F_2`$, thus increasing the ratio of $`0.2`$ appearing in Eq. 4 and increasing $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$ itself. After that is done, increasing the thickness of fixed magnetic layer $`F_1`$ would also be useful. A second way to maximize $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$ and, in turn, reduce the critical current density might be to increase the constant $`K_N`$ in Eq. 4 by making the electrodes and layers $`N_1,N_3`$ of a light material with slow spin relaxation, such as aluminum.

As we saw in the section on critical current, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is sometimes comparable to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ in the case of leads with variable cross section. This suggests an opposite strategy of maximizing $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\mu |`$ instead of $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }|`$, in Eq. 6. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mathrm{\Delta }I`$, this means that we should decrease the ratio of 0.2 appearing in Eq. 4 by reducing or eliminating layers $`N_1,N_3`$; or that we should increase the constant $`K_N`$ in Eq. 4 by making these layers and the electrodes of a spin-relaxing material. Indeed, Urazhdin et al. 16 have caused a decrease of both $`j_c^P`$ and $`j_c^{AP}`$ by a factor of $`2`$ through insertion of a relaxing $`Fe_{50}Mn_{50}`$ layer near one lead.

Which one of these two strategies works best may depend on whether $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ happens to be initially larger, which in turn depends on the initial lead configuration. Note, however, that Eqs. 1 show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/A`$ can never exceed $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_0/A0.36`$, so that the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\mu |`$ value itself is limited.

CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS

Most pillar samples used in experiments of current-driven spin precession in magnetic multilayers have current leads of cross section much larger than that of the pillar itself. By treating a specific geometry, we show that one kind $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ of spin accumulation responsible for these oscillations is reduced significantly by the presence of such leads, and the other $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is increased. Also, the critical current density for spin precession becomes less dependent on the thickness of the fixed magnetic layer $`F_1`$ and more dependent on the thickness of the spacer $`N_2`$, bringing better agreement with existing experimental results by Albert et al. 12. One limitation is that we have assumed that the two current leads have exactly the same geometry and composition, which is not quite realistic 8.

While the original 1996 theories of spin transfer 1,2 assumed smooth interfaces which conserve the momentum component parallel to the interface, or assumed a specific model of the Fermi surface, the present work does not need such assumptions.

I am grateful to A. Rebei, J. Zhu and Ya.B. Bazaliy for useful discussions.

REFERENCES

1. J.C. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. $`\underset{¯}{159}`$, L1 (1996); $`\underset{¯}{195}`$, L261 (1999); $`\underset{¯}{247}`$, 324 (2002).

2. L. Berger, Phys. Rev. B $`\underset{¯}{54}`$, 9353 (1996); J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{81}`$, 4880 (1997).

3. L. Berger, IEEE Trans. Magn. $`\underset{¯}{34}`$, 3837 (1998); J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{89}`$, 5521 (2001).

4. M. Johnson and R.H. Silsbee, Phys. Rev. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{55}`$, 1790 (1985).

5. T. Valet and A. Fert, Phys. Rev. B $`\underset{¯}{48}`$, 7099 (1993); A. Fert and S.F. Lee, Phys. Rev. B, $`\underset{¯}{53}`$, 6554 (1996).

6. M.D. Stiles and A. Zangwill, J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{91}`$, 6812 (2002).

7. L. Berger, J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{93}`$, 7693 (2003).

8. J.A. Katine, F.J. Albert, R.A. Buhrman, E.B. Myers and D.C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{84}`$, 3149 (2000); F.J. Albert, J.A. Katine, R.A. Buhrman and D.C. Ralph, Appl. Phys. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{77}`$, 3809 (2000); J. Grollier, V. Cros, H. Hamzic, J.M. George, H. Jaffres and A. Fert, Appl. Phys. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{78}`$, 3663 (2001); E.B. Myers, F.J. Albert, J.C. Sankey, E. Bonet, R.A. Buhrman and D.C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{89}`$, 196801 (2002); F.J. Albert, N.C. Emley, E.B. Myers, D.C. Ralph and R.A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{89}`$, 226802 (2002); J.Z. Sun, D.J. Monsma, T.S. Kuan, M.J. Rooks, D.W. Abrahams, B. Oezyilmaz, A.D. Kent and R.H. Koch, J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{93}`$, 6859 (2003).

9. L. Piraux, S. Dubois, A. Fert, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. $`\underset{¯}{159}`$, L287 (1996).

10. L. Piraux, S. Dubois, A. Fert, and L. Belliard, Eur. Phys. J. B 4, 413 (1998).

11. L. Berger, J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{91}`$, 6795 (2002). See Section V.

12. See Figs. 2 and 4 of F.J. Albert, N.C. Emley, E.B. Myers, D.C. Ralph and R.A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. $`\underset{¯}{89}`$, 226802 (2002).

13. F. Schreiber, J. Pflaum, Z. Frait, Th. Muhge and J. Pelzl, Solid State Comm. $`\underset{¯}{93}`$, 965 (1995).

14. J.Y. Gu, S.D. Steenwyk, A.C. Reilly, W. Park, R. Loloee, J. Bass and W.P. Pratt, J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{87}`$, 4831 (2000).

15. See Fig. 3 of L. Berger, J. Appl. Phys. $`\underset{¯}{89}`$, 5521 (2001).

16. S. Urazhdin, Norman O. Birge, W.P. Pratt and J. Bass, arXiv:cond-mat/0309191.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG. 1. a) Multilayer for current-driven experiments, with current leads of same cross section area as the multilayer itself, where $`F_1`$ is the fixed magnetic layer and $`F_2`$ the free magnetic layer. b) Current-induced translation of spin-up and spin-down Fermi surfaces in momentum space. c) Current-induced expansion of spin-down and contraction of spin-up Fermi surfaces, near an interface.

FIG. 2. a) Multilayer for current-driven experiments, with current leads of large cross section in the shape of flat electrodes. Pillar length and layer thicknesses are smaller than shown here. b) Normalized spin accumulation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }i`$ versus normalized radial coordinate r, in the flat electrode of (a).

FIG. 3. Normalized spin accumulation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ versus normalized coordinate x for the multilayer of Fig. 2a (curve labelled “variable cross section”) and for that of Fig. 1a (curve labelled “constant cross section”). For plotting purpose, the current density in the pillar is assumed to be $`1A/m^2`$. The parallel state is assumed and layer thicknesses $`L_{F1}=10nm,L_{F2}=2.5nm,L_{N2}=6nm`$.

FIG. 4. Normalized spin accumulation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }`$ in $`F_2`$ at x=0, versus thickness $`L_{F1}`$ of the fixed magnetic layer. Curves for parallel and antiparallel states are labelled P and AP, respectively. Another label indicates the nature of the current leads. For plotting purpose, the current density in the pillar is assumed to be $`1A/m^2`$. The thickness of the free magnetic layer and of the spacer are $`L_{F2}=2.5nm,L_{N2}=6nm`$.

FIG. 5. a) Ratio of critical current densities for parallel and antiparallel states versus thickness $`L_{F1}`$ of fixed magnetic layer, with leads of variable cross section. The thickness of the free magnetic layer and of the spacer are $`L_{F2}=2.5nm,L_{N2}=6nm`$. Open circles indicate experimental values of the ratio from various authors in Ref. 8. b) Magnetic poles on the surface of layer $`F_1`$ create a dipolar field $`H_z^D`$ at the $`N_2/F_2`$ interface.

FIG. 6. Normalized values of critical current densities $`j_c^P,j_c^{AP}`$ and of $`j_c^Pj_c^{AP}`$ versus thickness $`L_{F1}`$ of fixed magnetic layer, with leads of variable cross section. The thickness of the free magnetic layer and of the spacer are $`L_{F2}=2.5nm,L_{N2}=6nm`$. The dashed line represents the best fit of the theory to experimental values of $`j_c^Pj_c^{AP}`$ obtained by Albert et al. 12, and corresponds to $`\alpha _b/\alpha _s=5.04`$.

FIG. 7. Critical current densities $`j_c^P,j_c^{AP}`$ normalized to their values for $`L_{N2}=6nm`$, plotted versus thickness $`L_{N2}`$ of spacer $`N_2`$, with leads of variable cross section. The two dashed curves represent the predictions for the P and AP state. The thicknesses of the fixed and free magnetic layers are $`L_{F1}=10nm,L_{F2}=2.5nm`$, respectively. The solid and open squares represent experimental values of $`j_c^P`$ and $`j_c^{AP}`$, respectively, obtained by Albert et al.12 for three different $`L_{N2}`$ values.


format: text

text:
# Constraining the variation of fundamental constants using 18cm OH lines

## I  Introduction

The recent claim by Webb et al. Webb et al. (1999, 2001) that the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ evolves with redshift, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(1.88\pm 0.53)\times 10^5`$ from $`z1.6`$ to today and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(0.72\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$ for $`0.5<z<3.5`$ (but see Bekenstein (2003)) has spurred interest in the possibility that the numerical values of the fundamental constants change with time. Theories that can account for such variations include extra-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theories and superstring theories. In such models, the values of the coupling constants depend on the expectation values of some cosmological scalar field(s); changes in the values of the coupling constants are thus to be expected if this field varies with location and time. Further, depending on the details of the theory, all of the different coupling constants (such as $`\alpha `$, the proton g-factor $`g_p`$, the electron-proton mass ratio $`ym_e/m_p`$, the gravitational constant $`G`$, etc) could, in principle, vary simultaneously. For example, Calmet & Fritzsch Calmet and Fritzsch (2002) and Langacker et al. Langacker et al. (2002) find that variations in the value of $`\alpha `$ should be accompanied by much larger changes (by $`2`$ orders of magnitude) in the value of $`y`$. However, Ivanchik et al. Ivanchik et al. (2003) constrain the variation in $`y`$ to be $`(3.0\pm 2.4)\times 10^5`$ over the redshift range $`0<z<3`$, comparable to the change claimed in the fine structure constant. A review of the available experimental and observational measurements on the variability of the coupling constants can be found in Uzan (2003).

One of the main problems in most of the astrophysical techniques used to measure (or constrain) the values of the different constants (e.g. Carilli et al. (2000); Webb et al. (2001); Ivanchik et al. (2003)) is that they involve a comparison between the redshifts of spectral lines of different species (e.g. the HI 21cm line, millimetre-wave molecular lines and optical fine structure lines Webb et al. (2001); Carilli et al. (2000)). These species are unlikely to all arise at the same physical location in a gas cloud and might thus have systematic velocity offsets relative to each other; the redshift differences may thus be dominated by these effects rather than the measurement errors (i.e. the spectral resolution, which can be quite small, $``$ few km/s, for HI 21cm and mm-wave molecular absorption spectra). Conclusions drawn from a comparison between different species might thus well be incorrect.

Clearly, the best way to test the variation of the coupling constants is to use lines originating from a single species, but with different dependences on these constants. Further, since many constants may be varying simultaneously, it would be very useful if one could simultaneously measure the changes in a number of constants from this single species, rather than assuming that changes occur in only one of the constants and that the others remain unchanged. We present here a new technique which satisfies both these requirements, using the 18cm lines of the OH radical.

The ground $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{3/2}^{}`$ J=3/2 state of OH is split into two levels by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doubling and each of these $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doubled levels further split into two hyperfine states. Transitions between these levels lead to four spectral lines with wavelength $`18`$cm. Transitions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=0`$ are called the “main” lines, arising at rest frequencies of 1665.4018 MHz and 1667.3590 MHz, while transitions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=1`$ are called “satellite” lines, with rest frequencies of 1612.2310 MHz and 1720.5299 MHz. Since the four OH lines arise from two very different physical processes, viz. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doubling and hyperfine splitting, the transition frequencies have different dependences on the fundamental constants. A perturbative treatment of the OH molecule has been carried out by Dousmanis et al. Dousmanis et al. (1955) (see also Townes and Schawlow (1955)); we use the expressions derived in these references to determine the dependence of linear combinations of the four OH line frequencies on $`\alpha `$, $`g_p`$ and $`ym_e/m_p`$ and show that it is possible to simultaneously measure changes in both $`\alpha `$ and $`y`$, if all four line frequencies are known (assuming that $`g_p`$ does not vary with time). Since OH and HCO+ column densities are observed to be tightly correlated, both in the Galaxy Liszt and Lucas (1996) and out to $`z1`$ Kanekar and Chengalur (2002), these species are likely to arise at the same physical location; a comparison between the redshifts of the four 18cm OH lines and the HCO+ line should thus allow one to constrain the evolution of all the above three parameters. We use our observations of the OH main lines in the $`z0.6846`$ gravitational lens towards B0218+357, in tandem with published HI 21cm and mm-wave molecular redshifts, to constrain $`\mathrm{\Delta }y/y`$ between $`z0.68`$ and today. Finally, as this work was being written up, an analysis on the use of OH lines to constrain changes in fundamental constants was also carried out by Darling Darling (2003); the latter, however, only considers variations in the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$.

## II  Constraints from Radio Spectral Lines

Consider two transitions whose rest frame frequencies $`\nu _i(z),i=1,2`$ depend on redshift, due to the evolution of various fundamental constants, such as $`\alpha ,g_p,m_e/m_p`$, etc. If the lines arise in a source at a “true” redshift $`z`$, the measured redshift $`\widehat{z}_i`$ of each line is given by

$$\left(1+\widehat{z}_i\right)^1=\frac{\nu _i(z)}{\left(1+z\right)\nu _i(0)}=\frac{1+\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _i(z)/\nu _i(0)\right]}{1+z},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _i(z)\nu _i(z)\nu _i(0)`$; note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _i(z)=0`$ if the fundamental constants do not change with time. The first order difference between the two measured redshifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=\widehat{z}_1\widehat{z}_2`$ is then

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{1+\overline{z}}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _2}{\nu _2(0)}\right]\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _1}{\nu _1(0)}\right],$$
(2)
where $`\overline{z}`$ is the mean measured redshift. Given two spectral lines (or linear combinations of line frequencies) with different dependences on some fundamental parameter, one can thus use the differences between the measured redshifts to constrain the evolution of the parameter in question.

In the case of the four 18cm OH lines, the following three independent relations have been shown to be satisfied by the line frequencies Townes and Schawlow (1955); Dousmanis et al. (1955); note that the lines must also satisfy the constraint $`\nu _{1665}+\nu _{1667}=\nu _{1720}+\nu _{1612}`$

$$\nu _A\nu _{1667}+\nu _{1665}=q_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\left(2+\frac{A^{}}{B^{}}\right)\left(1\frac{2A/B}{X}\right)\frac{12}{X}\right],$$
(3)
$$\nu _B\nu _{1667}\nu _{1665}=\frac{8d\left(X2+A/B\right)}{15X}\mathrm{and}$$
(4)
$$\nu _C\nu _{1720}\nu _{1612}=\frac{4}{15X}\left[2a\left(2X+2A/B\right)+12b+\left(b+c\right)\left(X+42A/B\right)\right]$$
(5)
Equations (3), (4) & (5) correspond to the energy split due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ doubling and the difference and sum of the hyperfine splits in the two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ doubled levels respectively. Here, $`X\left[\left(A/B\right)\{\left(A/B\right)4\}+16\right]^{1/2}`$, $`A`$ is the fine structure interaction constant, $`B`$, the rotational constant, $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$, the off-diagonal matrix elements of these operators, $`q_\mathrm{\Lambda }4B^2/h\nu _e`$ (where $`h\nu _e`$ is the energy difference between the ground and first excited electronic state), and, finally, $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are “hyperfine constants” Dousmanis et al. (1955), whose experimental values are $`a=86.012\pm 0.002`$ MHz, $`b=116.719\pm 0.008`$ MHz, $`c=130.75\pm 0.01`$ MHz and $`d=56.632\pm 0.004`$ MHz Coxon et al. (1979). Numerically, $`A/B=7.547`$ and $`A^{}/B^{}=6.073`$ Townes and Schawlow (1955). These quantities have the following dependences on the fundamental constants $`\alpha `$, $`y`$, $`R_{\mathrm{}}m_ee^4/\mathrm{}^3c`$ and $`g_p`$ : $`A^{}A\alpha ^2R_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`B^{}ByR_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`a,b,c,dg_p\alpha ^2yR_{\mathrm{}}`$ Townes and Schawlow (1955). For the rotational constant $`B`$, we have assumed, as usual (e.g. Murphy et al. (2001)), that variations in $`(m_p/M)`$, which are suppressed by a factor $`m_p/U100`$ (where $`M`$ is the reduced mass and U the binding energy) can be ignored. Thus, we have $`\left[A^{}/B^{}\right]\left[A/B\right]\left(\alpha ^2/y\right)`$. Replacing the above scalings in equation (3) for $`\nu _A`$, we obtain $`\nu _Ay^2R_{\mathrm{}}F\left(\alpha ^2/y\right)`$, where $`FF\left(\beta \right)`$ is a function which depends only on the ratio $`\beta A/B\alpha ^2/y`$ and is defined by

$$F\left(\beta \right)=\left[\left(2+\frac{6.073}{7.547}\beta \right)\left(1+\frac{2\beta }{X\left(\beta \right)}\right)+\frac{12}{X\left(\beta \right)}\right]$$
(6)
Thus,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _A}{\nu _A}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F\left(\beta \right)}{F\left(\beta \right)}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{d\beta }}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}}\right]`$ (8)
Evaluating the quantity on the right-hand-side of the above equation, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _A}{\nu _A}=2.571\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}1.141\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}}$$
(9)
In similar fashion, equations (4) and (5) yield

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _B}{\nu _B}=2.442\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}0.883\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g_p}{g_p}\mathrm{and}$$
(10)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _C}{\nu _C}=0.722\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}+2.557\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g_p}{g_p}$$
(11)
Equations (911) govern the way in which a change in one of the fundamental constants affects the line rest frequencies. Combining them in pairs in equation (2) yields :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z_{AB}}{1+\overline{z}_{AB}}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _B}{\nu _B}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _A}{\nu _A}\right]=0.129\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}+0.258\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g_p}{g_p},$$
(12)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z_{AC}}{1+\overline{z}_{AC}}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _C}{\nu _C}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _A}{\nu _A}\right]=1.849\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}+3.698\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g_p}{g_p}\mathrm{and}$$
(13)
If all four OH lines are detected in absorption in a single cosmological system, we thus have two independent equations relating the differences in measured redshifts to the changes in $`\alpha `$, $`g_p`$ and $`y(m_e/m_p)`$. Most analyses (using other lines) assume that $`g_p`$ remains unchanged and then estimate the variation of $`\alpha `$ Murphy et al. (2001); Carilli et al. (2000). If one makes the same assumption in the case of the OH lines, equations (1213) immediately allow one to simultaneously solve for changes in both $`\alpha `$ and $`(m_e/m_p)`$. Of course, one further equation is needed to simultaneously constrain the evolution of all three constants. Candidates include the HI 21cm and mm-wave molecular lines. The best of these are likely to be the HCO+ lines since HCO+ and OH column densities are found to show a strong correlation (extending over more than two orders of magnitude in column density) both in the Galaxy Liszt and Lucas (1996) and out to $`z1`$; Kanekar and Chengalur (2002), this suggests that HCO+ and OH are located in the same region of the molecular cloud. Since the HCO+ line arises from a rotational transition, we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{HCO^+}}{\nu _{HCO^+}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(14)
Equations (12), (13) and (14) all have the same dependence on the Rydberg constant $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, which hence cancels out (note that $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ itself depends on $`\alpha `$ through the relation $`R_{\mathrm{}}m_ee^4/\mathrm{}^3c`$). One might thus combine HCO+ absorption redshifts with those derived from the 18cm OH lines to provide the last equation needed to solve for the evolution of $`\alpha `$, $`y`$ and $`g_p`$. This would allow a simultaneous measurement of all three constants, which has been hitherto impossible. We note that it is also possible to use other OH $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-doubled transitions to simultaneously constrain the variation of the above parameters; this is discussed elsewhere Kanekar and Chengalur (2003), for the “main” OH lines. It would also be interesting to carry out an analysis similar to that of Bekenstein Bekenstein (2003) to test whether these analyses of the OH lines are also affected by the possibility that the Hamiltonians involved might vary with time (i.e. dynamical variability of the different parameters); this is beyond the scope of the present paper. It should also be pointed out that the present calculation is based on an analysis of the OH levels using perturbation theory Dousmanis et al. (1955); more recent analyses Brown and Merer (1979) use the “effective Hamiltonian” approach, giving rise to higher order effects. While it would be interesting to attempt the present calculation in the latter framework, we emphasise that it should only result in small changes to the coefficients in equations (911) and does not affect the validity of our approach. Finally, while other “Lambda-doubled” systems could, in principle, be used for a similar analysis, none of these have multiple transitions detected in astrophysical objects (to the best of our knowledge). While it would be interesting to carry out searches for these other transitions, we suspect that OH is yet likely to prove the best candidate because of the strength of its multiple lines.

## III Application to the $`z=0.6846`$ absorber towards B0218+357

While the above analysis shows that one can use the four 18cm OH lines (in conjunction with the HCO+ transition) to constrain the evolution of three separate fundamental parameters, the weaker, satellite 1612 MHz and 1720 MHz lines have so far not been detected at cosmological distances. Observations are currently being scheduled to carry out deep searches for these lines in the four known OH absorbers at intermediate redshift Chengalur et al. (1999); Kanekar and Chengalur (2002); Kanekar et al. (2003). For the present, we will instead use the detected 1665 MHz and 1667 MHz transitions (i.e. equations (9) and (10)) along with the HI 21cm and millimetre (HCO+) lines in the $`z=0.6846`$ absorber towards B0218+357 to estimate changes in the fundamental parameters (assuming that the lines arise in the same gas cloud). Since the HI 21cm frequency arises from a hyperfine split and is hence proportional to $`g_py\alpha ^2R_{\mathrm{}}`$, we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{21}}{\nu _{21}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }y}{y}+2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g_p}{g_p}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_{\mathrm{}}}{R_{\mathrm{}}}$$
(15)
Equations (9), (10), (14) and (15) can now be solved to measure changes in $`\alpha `$, $`g_p`$ and $`m_e/m_p`$. The HI 21cm redshift is $`z_{HI}=0.684676\pm 0.000005`$ Carilli et al. (2000), while that of the HCO+ absorption lines is $`z_{HCO^+}=0.684693\pm 0.000001`$ Wiklind and Combes (1997). Our new GMRT OH absorption spectra towards B0218+357 Kanekar et al. (2003) yield the following redshifts for the sum and difference of the 1665 MHz and 1667 MHz line frequencies : $`z_{sum}=0.684682\pm 0.0000056`$ and $`z_{diff}=0.685780\pm 0.0067`$. A simultaneous solution of equations (9), (10), (14) and (15) then yields $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha )=(0.38\pm 2.2)\times 10^3`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }y/y)=(0.27\pm 1.6)\times 10^3`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }g_p/g_p)=(0.77\pm 4.2)\times 10^3`$. Since the error on $`z_{diff}`$ is far higher than the other errors, this dominates the errors on the above estimates and results in relatively uninteresting upper limits on changes in the three constants. We emphasise, however, that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a simultaneous constraint on the variation of these three fundamental parameters has been obtained in a cosmologically distant object. Further, the weakness of the constraint arises from the relatively small difference between the frequencies of the main lines; this is clearly not a fundamental limitation but depends entirely on the sensitivity of the observations.

Next, if we assume that $`ym_e/m_p`$ is constant, equations (9) and (14) yield $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha \right]=5.7\pm 3.0\times 10^6`$. This is more than $`3\sigma `$ deviant from the estimate $`\left[2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha \right]=1\pm 0.3\times 10^5`$ of Carilli et al. (2000) Carilli et al. (2000). Since the latter analysis assumed that $`g_p`$ was constant, the difference between the two estimates implies either that the assumptions that $`y`$ and/or $`g_p`$ are constant is unjustified or that systematic velocity offsets do exist between the three species.

Further progress can be made if one of the three parameters, $`\alpha `$, $`g_p`$ and $`y`$ is assumed to not change with time (while retaining the assumption that velocity offsets are not significant). We can then avoid having to use the equation governing the difference between the OH redshifts and can thus obtain a far stronger limit on changes in the remaining two quantities. For example, if we assume (as is often done, e.g. Carilli et al. (2000)) that $`g_p`$ remains constant, the HI 21cm and mm-wave molecular line redshifts imply $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha \right]=(5\pm 1.5)\times 10^6`$ Carilli et al. (2000). Combining equations (9) and (14) then yields $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }y/y\right]=(7.8\pm 2.4)\times 10^6`$. Similarly, if we assume that $`ym_e/m_p`$ is constant, equations (9) and (14) yield $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha \right]=(5.7\pm 3.0)\times 10^6`$ and $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }g_p/g_p\right]=(2.2\pm 0.67)\times 10^6`$. Finally, if $`\alpha `$ remains unchanged, we obtain $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }y/y\right]=(4.2\pm 2.2)\times 10^6`$ and $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }g_p/g_p\right]=(1\pm 0.3)\times 10^5`$. The above limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }y/y`$ are a factor of $`4`$ stronger than the best earlier limits on changes in this quantity Ivanchik et al. (2003). It is very interesting that all three cases result in a higher than $`3\sigma `$ significance for the variation of at least one of the parameters. This implies either that one (or more) of these parameters indeed varies with cosmological time or that systematic motions between the three species cause the above uncertainties (which only include measurement errors) to be under-estimated.

Finally, we note that, while the OH 1667 MHz and 1665 MHz, HCO+ and HI lines have been detected in four absorbers at intermediate redshifts, two of the absorbers (PKS1413+135 and B2 1504+377) are believed to have velocity offsets between the HI and HCO+ redshifts Carilli et al. (2000); Wiklind and Combes (1996a). The last system, at $`z0.889`$ towards PKS1830$``$21, does not at present have OH data of sufficiently high quality to carry out the above analysis.

In summary, we have demonstrated a new technique to simultaneously measure the evolution of the three fundamental constants $`\alpha `$, $`g_p`$ and $`m_e/m_p`$, using 18cm OH absorption lines in conjunction with one additional transition, (which could be an HCO+ mm-wave line). At present, only the 1665 MHz and 1667 MHz “main” OH lines have been discovered at cosmological distances; we have used these line redshifts in conjunction with those of HI 21cm absorption and millimetre-wave molecular lines to constrain the variation of $`y`$, $`g_p`$ and $`\alpha `$ between $`z=0.6846`$ and today. We argue that one (or more) of the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`y`$ and $`g_p`$ must vary with cosmological time, unless systematic velocity offsets exist between the above three species. The constraints placed on changes in the parameter $`ym_e/m_p`$ (assuming that either $`\alpha `$ or $`g_p`$ are constant) are a factor of $`4`$ stronger than earlier limits on variations in this parameter.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Rajaram Nityananda for very useful discussions on the energy levels of the OH ground state.


text:
# An action principle for the quantization of parametric theories and nonlinear quantum cosmology

## 1 Introduction

The Hamiltonian formalism and canonical quantization of Einstein’s theory of gravitation was originally developed by Dirac , Arnowitt, Deser, Misner (ADM) , Wheeler , DeWitt  and others. The Dirac-ADM action for general relativity is constructed by representing the spacetime metric using the spatial metric components together with the lapse and shift functions that specify a time foliation. The latter set of functions enter into the action principle as Lagrangian multipliers ensuring the general covariance of the theory. Indeed, the ‘already parametrized’ form of the Dirac-ADM action requires that not all three-metric components and their conjugate momenta are to be freely specified on a spatial Cauchy surface. The Hamiltonian and momentum constraints must be satisfied initially and will be dynamically preserved . A major challenge in quantizing general relativity is the treatment of these constraints. The straightforward application of the Dirac constraint quantization leads to a functional form of the Klein-Gordon equation, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and the associated difficulties in admitting a probabilistic interpretation. An alternative approach, the ADM quantization method, attempts to circumvent these problems by isolating four out of the six spatial metric components (and their momenta) and regarding them as the evolution and coordinatization parameters, known as the embedding variables , for the quantum evolution of the remaining ‘true’ gravitational degrees of freedom. However different set of embedding variables can result in inequivalent quantizations. A further drawback of this approach is that the reduced Hamiltonian operator may involve a square root of an indefinite expression and therefore may not be Hermitian.

The above pioneering work was followed by Kuchař’s significant contributions to canonical quantum gravity in which Dirac quantization and the use of embedding variables are assimilated . Guided by the analogy with parametrized field theory, a canonical transformation is sought such that in the new set of variables the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are linear in the conjugate momenta of the embedding variables . Remarkably, if this ‘Kuchař transformation’ exists then Dirac and ADM quantization in fact coincide, with both methods leading to the same functional Schrödinger equation for the quantum evolution of the non-embedding variables. Furthermore, this approach holds out the possibility of constructing a framework for quantum geometrodynamics with the genuine Lie algebra of spacetime diffeomorphism. This was meticulously investigated by Isham and Kuchař . A stringent criterion for Kuchař’s embedding variables is that they must be spacetime scalars, to guarantee the integrability of quantum evolution and its independence of time slicing . Nevertheless, Kuchař successfully demonstrated that in certain midisuperspace models, i.e. simple field-theoretical models with Killing symmetries, it is possible to find embedding variables explicitly that fulfill this requirement . Unfortunately, for some other important models, notably the ‘scalar geons’ , finding the embedding variables has proven to be a formidable task.

Recently, Hájíček and Kijowski developed a new approach in which the local existence of covariant gauge fixings is exploited to effect the decomposition of canonical variables on the constraint surface (defined by the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints) into embedding and dynamical variables . The resulting ‘Kuchař decomposition’ may form a basis for a complete Kuchař transformation for a large class of geometries. The usefulness of this approach has been demonstrated by Hájíček and Kiefer in studying the quantum dynamics of a collapsing shell of null dust with spherical symmetry  derived from the ‘Louko-Whiting-Friedman model’ . However if a full theory of quantum gravity is to be constructed based on the covariant gauge fixing description then some obstructions will be encountered as have been noted in : A complete Kuchař transformation becomes unattainable for geometries with Killing symmetries, which has also been observed by Torre . Besides, different gauges can lead to inequivalent quantum theories  and global gauge fixing may not exist at all .

The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative approach to the quantization of a parametric theory, with a view to quantizing gravity, that will complement the above developments. While much insight has been gained from the quantization of a theory parametrized at the classical level, guidance for quantum gravity gleaned this way appears to be limited. Apart from technical difficulties and topological restrictions of the explicit constructions of Kuchař’s embedding variables, there is a conceptual issue concerning these preferred variables. This is part of what has been attributed to the ‘problem(s) of time’ . More specifically, the existence of a functional time relies on the canonical transformation for the geometrodynamical variables: $`(g_{ab},p^{ab})(X^A,P_A,q^r,p_r)`$ that splits the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints $`_A(X^B,P_B,q^r,p_r)`$ into a ‘kinematic part’ $`_A^\text{K}(X^B,P_B)`$ and a ‘dynamic part’ $`_A^\text{D}(X^B,q^r,p_r)`$, i.e.

$$_A(X^B,P_B,q^r,p_r)=_A^\text{K}(X^B,P_B)+_A^\text{D}(X^B,q^r,p_r).$$
(1)
(Here $`a,b=1,2,3;A,B=0,1,2,3;r=1,2`$.) A crucial assumption made by Kuchař is that $`_A^\text{K}(X^B,P_B)`$ are linear in $`P_A`$ so that the theory is ‘deparametrizable’ with $`X^A`$ and $`q^r`$ identified as embedding and dynamical variables respectively. However an obstacle typical of midisuperspace models that prevents deparametrization is the nonlinear nature of $`_A^\text{K}(X^B,P_B)`$. Although in some cases, an ingenious choice of $`X^A`$ may well be the way out, this can be technically infeasible and might not be possible in principle. In these circumstances, we adopt the viewpoint that it may be possible to formulate a parametric quantum evolution of the dynamical variables $`q^r`$ and treat the remaining variables $`X^A`$ as unquantized kinematic variables without further restrictions. The new formulation sought should, nevertheless, reduce to Dirac quantization and is expected to be equivalent to certain other schemes up to a factor ordering  (in a semiclassical limit) if Kuchař transformation exists that reduces $`_B^\text{K}(X^A,P_A)`$ to simply $`P_A`$.

As a first step towards the fully quantum field-theoretical formulation of our approach, a quantum mechanical description is adopted. In this simplified picture it is possible to focus on conceptual issues while establishing the essential methodology with a view to further generalization. Following a recent publication  where a new quantization scheme was proposed, we report in this paper how the proposed scheme can arise from a direct parametric description of quantum evolution as opposed to seeking to quantize a parametrized classical theory in a conventional manner. In section 2, a parametric form of quantum evolution equations is introduced based on a parametrized action principle for the Schrödinger equation describing a non-relativistic particle. The advantage of this reformulation is that it opens up new avenues for generalized parametric quantum evolution beyond the description of a Newtonian particle. The generalized method is applied in section 3 to a simple Friedmann universe filled with a massless scalar field. Two further cosmological models, of Bianchi types I and IX, both involving gravity only are analyzed in sections 4 using the nonlinear quantization scheme. Conclusions and discussions are made in section 5 where speculations on future work are discussed. Units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=16\pi G=1`$ are adopted throughout.

## 2 Parametrized quantum evolution of a non-relativistic particle

Consider a non-relativistic quantum particle of unit mass moving in an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $`M`$ with a time-dependent metric and coordinates $`q^a,(1an)`$ subject to a potential $`V(q^a,T)`$. In terms of the Newtonian time $`T`$, the weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$ wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,T)`$ of the particle satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{T}=\widehat{h}\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2)
where the $`\widehat{h}=\widehat{h}(T)`$ denotes the time-dependent Hamiltonian operator

$$\widehat{h}(T)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }+V$$
(3)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denoting the Laplace-Beltrami operator on weight $`\frac{1}{2}`$ functions on $`M`$ .

It has long been known that, in terms of the equal time inner product

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2:=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{d}^nq$$
(4)
of wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, the Schrödinger equation (2) can be derived from the action integral (e.g. ):

$$S_\text{Q}[\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}]=dT\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi },(\mathrm{i}_T\widehat{h})\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(5)
by freely varying $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and its complex conjugate $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$.111The subscript ‘Q’ indicates ‘quantum’. However the potential significance of this formulation in the context of constrained Hamiltonian systems does not appear to have been fully recognized in the literature and will be explored in this paper. In what follows an action integral equivalent to (5) will be constructed that generates quantum evolution equations with respect to a general time coordinate, by parametrizing the Newtonian time and turning it into a constrained classical variable.

We anticipate the parametrized $`T`$ and its momentum to couple with a reformulated Schrödinger equation in a manner similar to the interaction between classical and quantum variables. Of course, the ‘classical variables’ arising from this procedure do not carry additional physical degrees of freedom due to the constraining relations accompanying the parametrized theory. Therefore these ‘constrained classical variables’ are really kinematic (embedding) variables, rather than genuine dynamical variables, forging a link between the physical and geometrical descriptions of the systems . Nonetheless the expected mathematical similarity with the semiclassical theory suggests that the action integral of the parametrized quantum theory is a sum of its kinematic and dynamic parts. While the kinematic part depends on ‘classical variables’ only the dynamic part will involve both classical and quantum variables derived from the original action (5), whose solutions have the scaling invariance under $`\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }`$ for any complex constant $`\lambda `$, even though $`\left|\lambda \right|1`$ . However this scaling invariance will apparently be violated due to the presence of the kinematic part of the action that is independent of the quantum variables. A way to avoid this problem is to eliminate the scaling invariance by using, instead of (5), the modified action integral :

$$S_\text{Q}[\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\alpha ]=dT\left\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{i}_T\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi },\widehat{h}\mathrm{\Psi }+\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }1\right)\right\}$$
(6)
with $`\alpha =\alpha (T)`$. With respect to this Lagrangian multiplier, the variation of (6) enforces the normalization condition

$$\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }=1$$
(7)
for the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, whereas the variation with respect to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ yields the Schrödinger equation of the form

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{T}=(\widehat{h}\alpha )\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(8)
Despite that $`\alpha `$ can be specified arbitrarily, different choices of it correspond to wavefunctions unitarily related by a phase depending only on time and therefore considered as physically equivalent.

The action (6) will now be brought to a parametric form. This procedure starts by expressing $`T`$ as an arbitrarily chosen function of a parameter time $`t`$ to yield

$$S_\text{Q}[\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\alpha ]=dt\left\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{i}_t\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{T}\left[\mathrm{\Psi },\widehat{h}\mathrm{\Psi }\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }1\right)\right]\right\}$$
(9)
where the over dot denotes $`_t`$. Note that in this expression $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,t):=\mathrm{\Psi }(q^a,T(t))`$, $`\alpha =\alpha (t):=\alpha (T(t))`$ and $`\widehat{h}=\widehat{h}(t):=\widehat{h}(T(t))`$ (with slight abuse of notation). At this stage $`T(t)`$ is merely an externally supplied function. It can, however, be included as part of an enlarged set of dependent variables augmented with a new pair of Lagrangian multiplier and constraint. To this end introduce the variable $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ and use it to define the quantity

$$_\text{Q}:=\mathrm{\Pi }+\mathrm{\Psi },\widehat{h}\mathrm{\Psi }\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }1\right)$$
(10)
so that, if $`_\text{Q}`$ vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ equals the coefficient of $`\dot{T}`$ in the action thereby serving as the momentum of $`T(t)`$. By replacing the coefficient of $`\dot{T}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in the Lagrangian for (9) and adjoining this Lagrangian with the term $`N_\text{Q}`$ using a Lagrangian multiplier $`N=N(t)`$, we are led to the following action

$$S_\text{Q}[\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\alpha ,T,\mathrm{\Pi },N]=dt\left\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{i}_t\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Pi }\dot{T}N_\text{Q}\right\}.$$
(11)
This action takes a parametric form and is equivalent to (9) upon variation with respect to all components in the extended set of variables $`\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\alpha ,T,\mathrm{\Pi },N\}`$. It is not hard to further express this action in a complete canonical form by defining the conjugate momenta of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. This form is however not required in our present analysis.

It is instructive to split $`_\text{Q}`$ into its ‘kinematic’ part

$$_\text{Q}^\text{K}=\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(12)
and ‘dynamic’ part

$$_\text{Q}^\text{D}=\mathrm{\Psi },\widehat{h}\mathrm{\Psi }\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }1\right)$$
(13)
so that

$$_\text{Q}=_\text{Q}^\text{K}+_\text{Q}^\text{D}.$$
(14)
Accordingly, the structure of parametrized action (11) can be made more transparent with a similar split:

$$S_\text{Q}=S_\text{Q}^\text{K}+S_\text{Q}^\text{D}$$
(15)
in terms of the kinematic part

$$S_\text{Q}^\text{K}[T,\mathrm{\Pi },N]=dt\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }\dot{T}N_\text{Q}^\text{K}\right\}$$
(16)
and the dynamic part

$$S_\text{Q}^\text{D}[\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\alpha ,T,\mathrm{\Pi },N]=dt\left\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{i}_t\mathrm{\Psi }N_\text{Q}^\text{D}\right\}.$$
(17)
The parametrized quantum evolution equations can be explicitly derived from the action (11) under variations with respect to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and its conjugate, $`\alpha `$, $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`N`$ to be

$$\mathrm{i}_t\mathrm{\Psi }=N(\widehat{h}\alpha )\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(18)
$$\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }=1$$
(19)
$`\dot{T}`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{_\text{Q}}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}`$ (20)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{_\text{Q}}{T}}`$ (21)
$$_\text{Q}=0$$
(22)
respectively. The structure of these equations indeed resembles that of a semiclassical theory. It is evident that the kinematic action $`S_\text{Q}^\text{K}`$ involves only ‘classical’ variables and takes a canonical form. This makes it possible to perform a canonical transformation, say, from $`(T,\mathrm{\Pi })`$ to $`(T^{},\mathrm{\Pi }^{})`$ by preserving the form of $`S_\text{Q}^\text{K}[T,\mathrm{\Pi },N]=S_\text{Q}^\text{K}[T^{},\mathrm{\Pi }^{},N]`$. It follows immediately that with these transformed variables, the action $`S_\text{Q}[\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\alpha ,T^{},\mathrm{\Pi }^{},N]`$ will yield equivalent quantum evolution equations of the same form as (18)–(22) with the substitutions $`TT^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$. This suggests the set of parametric quantum evolution equations is somehow more flexible in choosing a ‘time’ variable than that of the Schrödinger equation (2) that assumes the existence of a preferred choice of time. A further advantage of the present approach is the implication that the action (11) for a wider class of the kinematic actions with a general $`_\text{Q}^\text{K}=_\text{Q}^\text{K}(T,\mathrm{\Pi })`$ in place of (12) may play a fundamental role in the quantization of a parametric theory where no preferred (Newtonian) time can be identified. In this case the parametric quantum evolution system (18)–(22) becomes nonlinear and cannot be reduced to the Schrödinger equation (2). The following sections will provide illustrative examples for this generalization based on minisuperspace models.

## 3 Friedmann universe with a quantized massless scalar field

The theoretical framework for the quantization scheme developed in the previous section will now be employed in the quantization of a simple Friedmann universe filled with a massless scalar field. The nonlinear quantization of a similar model with a massive scalar field was addressed in  in terms of a nonlinear integro-partial differential system derived from (18)–(22) (for $`\alpha =0`$), which was reduced to a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations of infinite dimensions. The latter was further truncated for numerical simulation. Not surprisingly, the reduced system can be shown to be non-dissipative since there exists an underlying variational principle as developed in the previous section.

The present Friedmann model with a massless scalar field can be investigated analytically. The classical Lagrangian for this model may be found from  and  by dropping the mass term to obtain

$$L(\varphi ,\dot{\varphi },R,\dot{R},N)=\frac{6R}{N}\dot{R}^2+\frac{6R^3}{N}\dot{\varphi }^2+6NKR.$$
(23)
Here $`\varphi =\varphi (t)`$ is the scalar field $`\varphi `$ which has been conveniently re-scaled. The positive variables $`R=R(t)`$ and $`N=N(t)`$ are the scale factor and lapse function respectively appearing in the Robertson-Walker metric

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=N^2\mathrm{d}t^2+R^2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}^2$$
(24)
with $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}^2`$ denoting the squared line element on the homogeneous and isotropic 3-space, which may be closed ($`K=1`$), flat ($`K=0`$) or ‘open’ ($`K=1`$). The momenta conjugate to $`R`$ and $`\varphi `$ are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{R}}}={\displaystyle \frac{12R}{N}}\dot{R}`$ (25)
$`p`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{\varphi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{12R^3}{N}}\dot{\varphi }.`$ (26)
It follows that the corresponding Hamiltonian $`H(\varphi ,p,R,\mathrm{\Pi },N):=p\dot{\varphi }+\mathrm{\Pi }\dot{R}L`$ takes the form $`H=N`$ where

$$(\varphi ,p,R,\mathrm{\Pi })=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}+\frac{p^2}{24R^3}6KR.$$
(27)
The canonical equations of classical motion can be derived with arbitrary $`N(t)`$. The gauge condition $`N=12R^3`$ is chosen so that these equations take a simpler form as follows

$$\dot{\varphi }=p$$
(28)
$$\dot{p}=0$$
(29)
$$\dot{R}=R^2\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(30)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{R\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{2}+\frac{3p^2}{2R}+72KR^3$$
(31)
subject to the (Hamiltonian) constraint

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}+\frac{p^2}{24R^3}6KR=0.$$
(32)
Clearly, from (29) the momentum $`p`$ is a constant of motion, with which (28) is readily integrated. With a suitable choice of the origin of the coordinate time $`t`$, one obtains

$$R^2=\frac{\left|p\right|e^{2\left|p\right|t}}{6(1+Ke^{4\left|p\right|t})}$$
(33)
for $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$ with $`K=0,1`$ and $`\mathrm{}<t<0`$ with $`K=1`$. In terms of this expression (30) can be easily solved for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

The quantization of this model requires a degree of freedom to be quantized. We choose this to be the scalar field $`\varphi `$, thereby regarding the scale factor as the ‘geometric time’. As per discussions in section 2 we split $``$ by

$$=^\text{K}+^\text{D}$$
(34)
where

$$^\text{K}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}$$
(35)
$$^\text{D}=\frac{p^2}{24R^3}6KR.$$
(36)
To proceed the operator

$$\widehat{h}=\frac{1}{24R^3}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}6KR$$
(37)
is constructed by substituting $`p\widehat{p}:=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\varphi }`$ into $`^\text{D}`$. This operator is Hermitian with respect to the inner product

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2:=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2d\varphi $$
(38)
of any two wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\varphi ,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\varphi ,t)`$.

In the gauge $`N=12R^3`$, the following nonlinear evolution equations for the normalized wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,t)`$ and kinematic variables $`R(t),\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ then arise from (18)–(22):

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\varphi ^2}$$
(39)
$$\dot{R}=R^2\mathrm{\Pi }$$
(40)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{R\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{2}+\frac{3\widehat{p}^2}{2R}+72KR^3$$
(41)
subject to the constraint

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}+\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{24R^3}6KR=0$$
(42)
where

$$\widehat{p}^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}\mathrm{\Psi }d\varphi $$
(43)
and the phase condition $`\alpha =6KR`$ has been used for simplicity. These equations are similar in structure to those obtained by Kim in analyzing the Friedmann universe filled with a massless scalar field in the context of semiclassical gravity .

The wave equation (39) in fact decouples from the others and takes the same form as the 1-dimensional Schrödinger equation for a free non-relativistic particle. Hence $`\widehat{p}^2`$ is preserved under evolution. It follows that the solution for $`R`$ can be generated from the classical solution (33) by replacing $`\left|p\right|`$ with $`\sqrt{\widehat{p}^2}`$. Like the classical case, there is no singularity avoidance and $`R`$ can become arbitrarily close to zero for all possibilities of $`K`$. Unlike the classical case, however, it is possible to envisage a wave packet with zero mean scalar field and momentum ($`\varphi =\widehat{p}=0`$) but nonzero deviations ($`\varphi ^2>0`$ and $`\widehat{p}^2>0`$). In this case, the evolution of the Friedmann universe can be thought of as being ‘purely quantum-driven’.

## 4 Nonlinear quantum cosmology of the Bianchi type

The foregoing Friedmann universe with a scalar field was quantized while maintaining the classical nature of the scale factor which carries the gravitational degree of freedom of the universe. In this section, two vacuum cosmological models, of Bianchi types I and IX, will be examined. Both belong to a wider class of homogeneous but anisotropic spacetimes . In Misner’s seminal paper , the classical dynamics and quantization of Bianchi I and IX universes in the context of ADM quantization has been studied in detail. Below we will give derivations of the quantum evolution equations for these two cosmological models and comment on the consequences. The emphasis will be placed on the nonlinearity inherent in the derived quantum systems.

Just as in the Friedmann universe, the geometrical description of the Bianchi I and IX models involves the lapse function $`N(t)`$ and scale factor $`R(t)`$. Two additional functions $`\beta _+(t)`$ and $`\beta _{}(t)`$ are used, to allow for the dynamical anisotropy of the spacial hypersurface at any coordinate time $`t`$. Following Misner’s notation we consider a spacetime metric of the form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=N^2\mathrm{d}t^2+R^2(e^{2\beta })_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j$$
(44)
for $`i,j=1,2,3`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ denote some basis 1-forms of the spatial hypersurface and $`\beta `$ is a traceless matrix with elements given by

$$\beta _{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{},\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{},2\beta _+).$$
(45)
The constant time spacial hypersurface for the Bianchi I universe is open and has an Abelian homogeneity group. Thus $`\sigma _i`$ are chosen so that $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _i=0`$ and can be simply expressed as $`\sigma _1=\mathrm{d}x,\sigma _2=\mathrm{d}y,\sigma _3=\mathrm{d}z`$, for $`\mathrm{}<x,y,z<\mathrm{}`$. The homogeneity group of the closed spacial hypersurface for the Bianchi IX universe is that of $`\mathrm{S}^3`$. Therefore the basis 1-forms $`\sigma _i`$ are chosen to satisfy the structure equations

$$\mathrm{d}\sigma _i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _j\sigma _k$$
(46)
and can be expressed explicitly as

$$\sigma _1=\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{d}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi ,\sigma _2=\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{d}\vartheta +\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi ,\sigma _3=\mathrm{d}\psi \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi $$
(47)
for $`0\vartheta \pi `$, $`0\phi <2\pi `$ and $`0\psi <4\pi `$.

The classical dynamics of the models is generated by the Dirac-ADM action subject to the homogeneity condition for all metric functions. Up to an overall factor, the resulting Lagrangian takes the form

$$L(\beta _\pm ,\dot{\beta }_\pm ,R,\dot{R},N)=\frac{6R}{N}\dot{R}^2+\frac{6R^3}{N}\left(\dot{\beta }_+^2+\dot{\beta }_{}^2\right)+NR^3$$
(48)
where $``$ denotes the scalar curvature on the spatial hypersurface. It can be conveniently expressed as

$$=\frac{3}{2R^2}(1V)$$
(49)
where

$$V=1$$
(50)
for the Bianchi I model (such that $`=0`$) and

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V(\beta _+,\beta _{})=`$ (51)
$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{8\beta _+}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{4(\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{4(\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{4\beta _+}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{2(\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{2(\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{})}`$
for the Bianchi IX model. By introducing the conjugate momenta

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{R}}}={\displaystyle \frac{12R}{N}}\dot{R}`$ (52)
$`p_\pm `$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{\beta }_\pm }}={\displaystyle \frac{12R^3}{N}}\dot{\beta }_\pm `$ (53)
we can construct the Hamiltonian $`H(\beta _\pm ,p_\pm ,R,\mathrm{\Pi },N):=\mathrm{\Pi }\dot{R}+p_+\dot{\beta }_++p_{}\dot{\beta }_{}L=N`$ where

$$(\beta _\pm ,p_\pm ,R,\mathrm{\Pi })=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}+\frac{1}{24R^3}\left(p_+^2+p_{}^2\right)+\frac{3R}{2}(V1).$$
(54)
From (54) the canonical equations of motion can be derived and take a simpler form using the choice $`N=12R^3`$ as in the Friedmann case. In this gauge, denoting $`_\pm :=_{\beta _\pm }`$, one obtains:

$$\dot{\beta }_\pm =p_\pm $$
(55)
$$\dot{p}_\pm =18R^4_\pm V$$
(56)
$$\dot{R}=\mathrm{\Pi }R^2$$
(57)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2R}{2}+\frac{3}{2R}\left(p_+^2+p_{}^2\right)18R^3(V1)$$
(58)
and the Hamiltonian constraint

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2R^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(p_+^2+p_{}^2\right)+18R^4(V1)=0.$$
(59)
The analogy between the Bianchi and Friedmann models should be apparent. Specifically by comparing the Lagrangian in (48) with that in (23) we see that the kinetic terms in both cases share the same structure with the functions $`\beta _\pm `$ resembling the scalar field $`\varphi `$.

For the Bianchi I model with $`V=1`$, both $`p_+`$ and $`p_{}`$ are constants of motion. By introducing

$$p:=\sqrt{p_+^2+p_{}^2}$$
(60)
the solution for $`R`$ may be generated from the scale factor in the Friedmann model with zero curvature, i.e. $`K=0`$, given in (33). This yields

$$R^2=\frac{p}{6}e^{2pt}$$
(61)
for $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, from which $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ can be evaluated using (57). The scale factor (61) together with $`N=12R^3`$ and arbitrary constants $`p_\pm `$ is equivalent to the Kasner solution for the Bianchi I universe .

The quantization of the Bianchi models can be performed once the dynamical variables to be quantized are decided. Guided by the analogous roles played by $`\beta _\pm `$ and $`\varphi `$, we choose to turn $`\beta _\pm `$ into quantum variables and introduce their wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\beta _\pm ,t)`$. The inner product of two such wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ can be defined to be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2:=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2d\beta _+d\beta _{}.$$
(62)
We are concerned only with normalized wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }=1`$ so that $`\widehat{o}=\mathrm{\Psi },\widehat{o}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for any operator $`\widehat{o}`$.

As before, the scale factor $`R`$ will act as the classical time that evolves with respect to the coordinate time $`t`$. The coupling between these quantum and classical variables follow from (18)–(22) applied in the current setting. In accordance with procedures leading to (39)–(42), we perform the ‘kinematic-dynamic’ split

$$=^\text{K}+^\text{D}$$
(63)
where

$$^\text{K}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}{24R}$$
(64)
$$^\text{D}=\frac{1}{24R^3}\left(p_+^2+p_{}^2\right)+\frac{3R}{2}(V1)$$
(65)
and construct the operator

$$\widehat{h}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_+^2+_{}^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }+18R^4(V1)$$
(66)
from $`^\text{D}`$ with the substitutions $`p_\pm \widehat{p}_\pm :=\mathrm{i}_\pm `$.

By using the conditions $`N=12R^3`$ and $`\alpha =0`$ we arrive at the following nonlinear evolution equations

$$\mathrm{i}_t\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(_+^2+_{}^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }+18R^4(V1)\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(67)
$$\dot{R}=\mathrm{\Pi }R^2$$
(68)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2R}{2}+\frac{3}{2R}\widehat{p}_+^2+\widehat{p}_{}^218R^3(V1)$$
(69)
subject to the constraint

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2R^2+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}_+^2+\widehat{p}_{}^2+18R^4(V1)=0$$
(70)
for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\beta _\pm ,t)`$, $`R(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$.

For the quantized Bianchi I model ($`V=1`$), the decoupled wave equation (67) has the same structure as the Schrödinger equation for a free non-relativistic particle in 2-dimensions as expected. Hence $`\widehat{p}_+^2+\widehat{p}_{}^2`$ is preserved under evolution and the solution for $`R`$ can be generated from the classical solution (61) by replacing $`p`$ with $`\sqrt{\widehat{p}_+^2+\widehat{p}_{}^2}`$. Clearly as $`t\mathrm{}`$ the scale factor tends to zero, i.e. $`R0`$, where the spacetime becomes singular. Using the above properties, one may demonstrate explicitly how this universe may be driven by quantized geometry described by a wave packet with zero means of the dynamical gravitational fields and their momenta ($`\beta _\pm =\widehat{p}_\pm =0`$) but with nonzero deviations ($`\beta _+^2+\beta _{}^2>0`$ and $`\widehat{p}_+^2+\widehat{p}_{}^2>0`$).

For the quantized Bianchi IX model where $`V`$ is given in (51), equations (67)–(70) constitute a system of fully coupled nonlinear integro-partial differential equations. In the absence of explicit solutions it is not possible to analyze the dynamical behaviour of this model in detail. Nonetheless, it is worth noting two generic properties that one may conclude from this system. First, it can be shown that $`V`$ is nonnegative with its minimum $`V=0`$ taking place at $`\beta _\pm =0`$. (In fact $`V8\beta _+^2+8\beta _{}^2`$ for $`\left|\beta _\pm \right|1`$. For further details of $`V`$, see .) It follows that the term $`V1`$ in $``$ can become negative which could be problematic for ADM quantization due to a square root taking procedure. The proposed quantization scheme is free from this problem, as exemplified in (67)–(70) where no square roots are involved. Secondly, although the scale factor is treated as a classical variable it is not used as an evolution parameter. As such, the quantum evolution will not come to a halt at the ‘maximum hypersurface’ where $`\dot{R}=0`$ classically. By comparison, the pathology associated with time integration across such a hypersurface could be suffered by both ADM quantization and Dirac quantization using Kuchař’s embedding variables .

## 5 Conclusions and discussions

By virtue of its action principle, we have reformulated the Schrödinger equation in non-relativistic quantum mechanics into a parametric form. In this formalism the Newtonian time acts as a kinematic variable that evolves with respect to a general time coordinate while coupling to a quantum wavefunction in a semiclassical fashion. A gratifying feature of this description is that the parametrized action decomposes into a kinematic part and dynamic part. The former part of the action depends only on classical variables and takes a canonical form. Therefore, by preserving this form, one may perform a canonical transformation that redefines the kinematic time and its conjugate momentum. This suggests a natural extension of the proposed quantization method by accommodating a general expression of the kinematic time and its conjugate momentum that enter into the kinematic action. A quantum description obtained from this generalization is no longer reducible to the standard Schrödinger equation. Instead, it leads to a theory for nonlinear quantum evolution previously proposed based on heuristic arguments . In spite of the breakdown of the principle of superposition in time evolution, the resulting theory belongs to a class of nonlinear quantum theories admitting both probabilistic interpretation and a Hilbert space with Euclidean norm .

These properties have indeed been demonstrated in the quantization of three types of cosmological models in this paper. The first model we considered was the Friedmann universe with a massless scalar field. The model consists of both gravitational and matter degrees of freedom, carried by the scale factor and scalar field respectively. Although classically these two variables take the same status as dynamical variables, given the physical origin of this model, we believe that it is matter that should be quantized thereby making the scale factor the intrinsic geometric time. In doing so we have not treated the scale factor merely as an evolution parameter as in certain alternative quantization methods. One obvious benefit of allowing the intrinsic geometric time to evolve as a classical variable is so that the theoretical description is not confined to scenarios with monotonically ascending geometric time. This avoids the diverse choice of time variables for different curvature parameters if the same cosmological model was quantized using the ADM method . It might be perceived at this point that our approach only applies to the quantization of matter in classical spacetime. To explicitly demonstrate it is not the case, we then considered the Bianchi I and IX cosmological models describing the evolution of an ‘empty’ universe. No matter fields are present there and one must decide which gravitational degrees of freedom should be quantized. In section 4 the two metric functions representing the anisotropy of the universe have been chosen for this purpose. Arguably this is the most appropriate choice due to the physical interpretation of these two functions as the gravitational ‘waves’ in the cosmological model. These considerations suggest that in extending the proposed quantization to quantum gravity, a primary concern is to determine which two gravitational field components are to be quantized so that the remaining four fields will act as classical kinematic variables. Unlike Kuchař’s embedding variables, however, our approach does not require that the momenta of the kinematic variables to be resolved in the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints. In contrast, it may be speculated that if gravity were to be quantized based on the proposed quantization then the corresponding action integral should contain a kinematic part of the form

$$S^\mathrm{K}[X^A,P_A,N^A]=dt\mathrm{d}^3x\left\{P_A\dot{X}^AN^A_A^\text{K}(X^B,P_B)\right\}$$
(71)
with $`A,B=0,1,2,3`$ where $`N^A`$ are Lagrangian multipliers proportional to the lapse and shift functions, $`X^A`$ and $`P_A`$ denote the gravitational fields and their momenta to act as classical kinematic variables and $`_A^\text{K}(X^B,P_B)`$ are some expressions, not necessarily linear in $`P_A`$, to be determined. If such a split can be found uniquely in the full theory, then the classification of the geometrodynamical variables into kinematic and dynamic sets will follow naturally. In contrast, the classifications of variables in the truncated cosmological models in sections 3 and 4 have been partly guided by physical intuition.

A main thrust for this work has been the preservation of unitarity in quantizing physical systems with generic nonlinear kinematical structure. Of course, there exist other model-dependent strategies for unitary evolution within the linear quantum formulation, e.g. . In a broader context, even the principle of unitarity can be debated by relaxing the probabilistic interpretation. Some have suggested that it is at best an approximate concept . However, a more conclusive argument on the probabilistic interpretation of quantum gravity does not appear to be available at present. The non-unitary Wheeler-DeWitt equation is thought to be capable of describing a tunnelling  or topology-changing  wavefunction in certain models of the early universe. To what extent these theoretical scenarios can be accommodated or precluded by our approach would form a subject for future investigation.

Although the proposed framework is somewhat reminiscent of semiclassical gravity original developed by Møller and Rosenfeld  as an exact theory, where all gravitational degrees of freedom are classical, it is worth stressing that we seek to quantize two gravitational field components. On the other hand, the remaining kinematic variables in our approach are classical by construction and therefore do not arise from a decoherence process required by Kiefer’s approach to semiclassical gravity as an approximation to quantum gravity .

Before further potential implications of this work on quantum gravity can be contemplated seriously, several pressing issues ought to be addressed first, regarding the extension of the current quantum mechanical approach to a field-theoretical description. In this respect, it would be profitable to investigate the quantum dynamics of systems such as scalar fields in curved spacetime and gravitational wave spacetimes . Progress made along these lines will pave the way for the analysis of a number of midisuperspace models where Dirac quantization using Kuchař’s method has not been successfully applied. Results from research described above will be reported elsewhere.

## Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to A Balanov, D A Burton, C J Isham, N Janson, J Louko, R Maartens, M A H MacCallum and R W Tucker for fruitful conversations and helpful comments on aspects in general relativity, quantum gravity, cosmology and nonlinear dynamical systems. Thanks are also due to the referees who drew our attention to works in . The research has been carried out under partial financial support from the EPSRC.