text:
# Optical Approach to Gravitational Redshift

## 1 Introduction

Four classic tests are recognized as experimental verifications of the general theory of relativity: the gravitational redshift of spectral lines, the deflection of light by the Sun, the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of the planet Mercury, and the time delay of radar echoes passing close to the Sun. Three of these tests examine the influence of the gravitational potential on the propagation of light. Only the planetary orbit precession investigates the motion of a particle of finite mass in the gravitational field of the Sun. The general theory has been essentially mathematical in character, being concerned with the consequences of a “geometrization” of the space-time manifold. The application of the theory involves thus the use of special mathematical methods which, although relevant to optics in three cases, may easily be considered separately from it. Because these are optical phenomena, nevertheless, one may raise a question as to whether the three classic tests can also be inferred from the point of view of optics.

Before the general theory of relativity, Einstein (1911) himself inferred the redshift effect from a consideration of the velocity of light in the gravitational field, and derived the deflection of light in the solar gravitational field by means of Huyghens’ principle. Eddington (1920), who verified experimentally the bending of light rays round the Sun during the eclipse in 1919, calculated the bending effect by assuming a gravitational index of refraction $`n(r)=1/(12GM_{}/c^2r)`$. The idea of an equivalent refractive medium was utilized in the investigation of specific problems, but the effective index of refraction was defined by the isotropic form of the Schwarzschild metric (Plebanski 1960; de Felice 1971). For educational purpose, Schiff (1960) showed how the deflection of light can correctly be inferred from Huyghens’ principle. The optical analogy gives the results in a way that is easy and instructive. The problem is that the discussion and results do not go beyond an formal analogy of the classic tests. Their formal analogy cannot be an answer to the question.

An optical approach begins by interpreting the gravitational redshift resulting to a change in the relative velocity of light due to the medium of propagation in the gravitational field. From the optical point of view it is natural to think of the effect as due to the velocity change of light in the medium of propagation. In such a thought, the redshift effect has nothing to do with relativity but rather is of a purely optical phenomenon. When we check an optical form of expression for the deflection of light, we find that the equation of rays has previously had the form as given by the geodesic equation. It is of particular interest to note the fact that there is an agreement in form between the equation for rays in geometrical optics and the geodesic equation of general relativity. It becomes evident that the classic tests can also be predicted in exactly the same form from the optical point of view. The development of an optical analogy suggests introducing an optical version of the Schwarzschild metric. In this attempt to deduce their optical nature, one may pass from the mathematical language to the physical language, and see how they can be reconciled with each other.

## 2 Gravitational Redshift

In 1911, Einstein predicted a change in the frequency of spectral lines with gravitational potential, generally referred to as the gravitational redshift. His argument begins by pointing out the equivalence between a system in the gravitational field of $`𝐠`$ and a gravitation-free system with acceleration $`𝐠`$. From the customary point of view, however, it is natural to think of the frequency change as a result of the relative velocity change of light. As can also be seen in his argument, phenomenologically at least, the effect would appear to be due to the change of velocity which the radiation experiences during propagation along the lines of force of the gravitational field. If we try to find an optical interpretation of this change of velocity, we find without difficulty that it is equal to the velocity difference due to the medium which the radiation experiences during propagation.

Let $`\rho `$ be the density and $`\varphi `$ be the gravitational potential with $`𝐠=\varphi `$. A pressure uniform throughout a fluid mass produces no effect on the motion. The time rate of change of the momentum of fluid is equal to and opposite to the pressure gradient force in the medium. The velocity difference due to fluid with differing gravitational potential is calculated according to

$$\frac{d𝐯}{dt}=𝐠\text{or}\varphi .$$
(1)
This leads to a phenomenological interpretation of it: the redshift effect is attributed to the relative velocity change due to the medium by which light is affected during propagation. It is natural to have an intuitive way of arriving at the redshift result. In such an intuitive way, the redshift effect appears to be an optical phenomenon in nature. There is no difference in the redshift result from Einstein’s argument. There is thus no objection to interpreting the redshift effect from the optical point of view.

A difference of interpretation already existed at the first time of observation. Jewell in 1897 and Fabry and Boisson in 1909 found displacements of solar spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, and ascribed them to an effect of pressure in the absorbing layer. However, Einstein’s theory of general relativity in 1916 established in most physicist’s minds the interpretation of redshift as a manifestation of time dilation in a gravitational potential. This interpretation has been regarded as justified in the context of the space-time formulation of general relativity. But when viewed from the optical point, phenomenologically, the redshift is no more than an effect that the velocity of light is altered, linearly to a first approximation, by the medium as a result of pressure gradient force. The optical point of view reopens the question of interpretation and reminds us of the effect of pressure on the redshift of solar spectral lines. This means that, not only the gravitational potential, but any change in mechanical pressure, density and temperature of the medium would give rise to an effect of the same kind on the redshift of spectral lines.

In order to complete the present description, it is necessary to consider the hydrodynamic equation. The hydrodynamic equation is

$$\rho \frac{d𝐯}{dt}=\rho 𝐠P+𝐅_{vis},$$
(2)
where $`P`$ is the gradient of pressure and $`𝐅_{vis}`$ is viscous force. In case of the conducting medium with a magnetic field, it is necessary to include the magnetic force term in the hydrodynamic equation. We restrict our discussion to one-dimensional case along the lines of force of gravitational field. If we neglect viscous effects, the hydrodynamic equation takes the form

$$\rho \frac{dv}{dt}=\rho \frac{d\varphi }{dr}\frac{dP}{dr}.$$
(3)
Since the time required to propagate a path $`dr`$ is $`dr/c`$ to a first approximation, the integration of (3) gives

$$\mathrm{}v=\frac{1}{c}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{}P}{\rho }\right)$$
(4)
for the relative change of velocity in the medium which light experiences during propagation along the path. The velocity of light at the point of observation thereby becomes

$$c^{}(r)=c\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{}v}{c}\right]=c\left[1+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{}P}{\rho }\right)\right],$$
(5)
as compared with its velocity $`c`$ at the moment of emission. By Doppler’s principle, it can be written in terms of frequency as

$$f^{}(r)=f\left[1+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{}P}{\rho }\right)\right].$$
(6)
The optical approach sheds additional light on its relation to property of the medium of propagation. The speed of light in (5) can be thought of as a speed in a medium with an index of refraction given by $`c^{}(r)=c/n(r)`$. Thus

$$\frac{1}{n(r)}=1+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{}P}{\rho }\right).$$
(7)
This illustrates how the gravitational redshift can be understood in terms of a refractive index of the medium of propagation. It has a consequence which is of fundamental importance for describing the deflection of light and the radar echo delay from the point of view of optics. To reconcile optics and general relativity, however, a vacuum must be understood to exclude even a gravitational potential.

The redshift effect was qualitatively in agreement with astronomical observations both in the case of the Sun and in the case of white dwarf star like Sirius B where the effect is about thirty times larger. However, the quantitative agreement was not very good. While the predicted shift is independent of the point of observation on the solar disk, observations have shown that the wavelength of spectral lines increases as the point of observation moves toward the limb (Higgs 1960). Furthermore, the solar lines observed at the limb are definitely asymmetric, having pronounced red flanks. There seems to be a systematic change in profile as one approaches the limb. In atomic spectra (White 1934), the broadening of a spectrum line due to pressure has shown that the spectrum line observed is spread out more on the long wavelength side than it is on the short. With increasing pressure, the mean collision time increases and the time between collisions decreases with the result that, as the line is shifted to the red, it is broadened asymmetrically. From this point of view, the asymmetry observed in limb lines seems to be of pressure character. In fact, Blamont and Roddier (1961) found a complete interpretation of their experimental value at the limb when they added to the gravitational redshift the pressure redshift of the Lindholm effect. Together with asymmetric profile, their interpretation reminds us of the effect of pressure on the redshift of solar spectral lines.

The controlled experiments using Mössbauer effect are able to test the gravitational redshift to an excellent accuracy. In the experiments, $`\gamma `$rays in a nuclear resonance passed through an evacuated tube or a tube filled with helium along the lines of force of the gravitational field. The redshifts observed by Pound and Rebka (1959, 1960) were shown to be in agreement with the predicted shift when the effects were corrected by the temperature difference between source and observer. A measurement of redshifts in a rapidly rotating system was shown to fit the dependence of an effective acceleration of gravity on angular velocity (Hay et al. 1960).

## 3 Deflection of Light

The Schwarzschild metric, appropriate for the region exterior to a spherically symmetric distribution of mass $`M`$, is given in the standard form as

$$c^2d\tau ^2=\left(1\frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right)c^2dt^2\left(1\frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right)^1dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2).$$
(8)
In what follows, we use for the components of the metric tensor the expressions $`g_{00}(r)=1/g_{rr}(r)=12GM/c^2r`$. Assuming that the whole motion takes place in the plane $`\phi =0`$, we obtain as the equations of motion three differential equations. For light rays propagating along the geodesic lines, we replace the parameter $`\tau `$ by a parameter $`p`$ describing trajectory. In particular, one may choose to normalize $`p`$ so that

$$g_{00}\frac{cdt}{dp}=1\text{in}g_{00}\frac{cdt}{dp}=\text{constant}.$$
(9)
On this normalization condition the three differential equations can be combined into one differential equation, which is of the same structure as (8). According to Weinberg (1972), the change in $`\theta `$ as $`r`$ decreases from infinity to its minimum value $`r_0`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{}\theta =\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{r_0}{}}\left[\frac{g_{00}(r_0)r^2}{g_{00}(r)r_0^2}1\right]^{1/2}\frac{g_{rr}^{1/2}(r)dr}{r}.$$
(10)
This integral can be evaluated by expanding in the small parameters $`GM/c^2r`$ and $`GM/c^2r_0`$ to first order, giving $`4GM/c^2r_0`$ for a light ray deflected by the Sun.

Let us consider rays in a medium which has spherical symmetry, i.e. where the refractive index depends only on the distance $`r`$ from a fixed point O: $`n=n(r)`$. This case is approximately realized by the Earth’s atmosphere, when the curvature of the Earth is taken into account. The light rays are then plane curves, situated in a plane through the origin. If $`(r,\theta )`$ are the polar coordinates of a plane curve, the angle $`\psi `$ between the radius vector to a point $`r`$ on the curve and the tangent at $`r`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\psi =\frac{rd\theta }{(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2)^{1/2}}.$$
(11)
Along each ray

$$n(r)r\mathrm{sin}\psi =\text{constant}.$$
(12)
The relation in (12) represents a law of refraction in a medium which has spherical symmetry. Actually, Snell’s law of refraction becomes the form of (12) when applied to a medium of spherically varying refractive index.111Snell’s law can be written $`n(r)\mathrm{sin}\psi =n(r+dr)\mathrm{sin}(\psi +d\psi )`$, from which we obtain $`d\psi =(n/dn)\mathrm{tan}\psi `$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\psi =rd\theta /dr`$. In order to give an angle of refraction from the spherically varying radius vector, we must add $`d\theta `$ to the angle $`d\psi `$ between the incident at $`r`$ and refracted ray at $`r+dr`$. So we have $`d\psi +d\theta =(n/dn)\mathrm{tan}\psi `$, obtaining the relation in (12). Since $`\psi =\pi /2`$ at the point $`r_0`$ of closest approach of the ray to the origin, (12) may also be written as $`n(r_0)r_0=`$ constant. This relation is sometimes called the formula of Bouguer in geometrical optics. The law of refraction can therefore be written in the form

$$\mathrm{}\theta =\left[\frac{n^2(r)r^2}{n^2(r_0)r_0^2}1\right]^{1/2}\frac{dr}{r},$$
(13)
which is the equation of rays in a medium with spherical symmetry (Born and Wolf 1975).

At first sight, we can see a striking equivalence of expressions between the equation for rays in geometrical optics and the geodesic equation expressed in (10). Compared to the geodesic equation, the equation for rays is lacking a term arising from the difference in path length. For lack of the term, the equation of rays corresponds to the case which is obtained when the curvature of the physical space is neglected. According to general relativity, the deflection of light is due partly to the varying velocity of light and partly to the non-Euclidean character of the spatial geometry. Since these are known to contribute equally to the deflection, it can therefore be stated that the equation of rays will give a deflection of only half of the correct value.

This result is to be expected on optical grounds, because the non-Euclidean character of the spatial geometry has been neglected in optics. In order to compensate for the change in light path, one may use the notion of optical path. The optical path represents the distance light travels in a vacuum in the same time it travels a distance in the medium. If a light ray travels in a medium with spherical symmetry, the optical path is given by integral over $`n(r)dr`$. This means that the radial interval of integration must be corrected by multiplication with $`n(r)`$ to take into account the difference in path length. Upon integration over $`n(r)dr`$ instead of the original integration over $`dr`$, it would yield a result in which the effect arising from the difference in path length is taken into consideration. Using the optical path to correct the change in light path, the equation of rays is modified to

$$\mathrm{}\theta =\left[\frac{n^2(r)r^2}{n^2(r_0)r_0^2}1\right]^{1/2}\frac{n(r)dr}{r}.$$
(14)
The equation of rays so modified is in complete agreement in form with (10). From the proposition which has just been proved, one may picture what it is to be a curved space in a region of strong gravitational potential. When viewed from the present point, the curvature of the physical space in the gravitational field of the Sun can best be understood in terms of the medium with spherical symmetry in which the path of rays is to be curved.

A comparison of (10) with (14) identifies $`g_{rr}(r)`$ with $`n^2(r)`$. In the geometrical-optics equation of rays $`n^2(r)`$ plays exactly the same role $`g_{rr}(r)`$ has played in the geodesic equation of general relativity. This suggests introducing an optical metric tensor $`n^2(r)`$ in place of $`g_{rr}`$. The optical metric is an optical version of the Schwarzschild metric, satisfying the eikonal equation with the line element

$$ds^2=\frac{c^2}{n^2(r)}dt^2=n^2(r)dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2.$$
(15)
In terms of the components the line element is written as

$$ds^2=c^2\left[1\frac{GM}{c^2r}\frac{\mathrm{}P}{c^2\rho }\right]^2dt^2=\left[1\frac{GM}{c^2r}\frac{\mathrm{}P}{c^2\rho }\right]^2dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2.$$
(16)
It should be noted that the optical metric is based on the interpretation of the deflection of light as a refraction in the gaseous layers surrounding the Sun.

## 4 Radar Echo Delay

Shapiro (1964) suggested a fourth test of general relativity. This test involves measuring the time delays between transmission of radar signals from Earth to either Mercury or Venus and detection of the echoes (Shapiro et al. 1968, 1971). The time delay is a result of the path of a radar wave deflected with its varying velocity by the Sun. In content, it amounts to the test of measuring the deflection of light in terms of the time of propagation. According to Weinberg, the time required for light to go from $`r_0`$ to $`r^{}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{}t=\underset{r_0}{\overset{r^{}}{}}\left[1\frac{g_{00}(r)r_0^2}{g_{00}(r_0)r^2}\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{g_{rr}(r)}{g_{00}(r)}\right)^{1/2}\frac{dr}{c}.$$
(17)
The integral can be evaluated by expanding in the small parameters $`GM/c^2r`$ and $`GM/c^2r_0`$ to first order, giving 240 $`\mu `$sec for the maximum round-trip excess time delay.

We now have the task to derive an optical form of expression for the excess time delay. Its explicit form will follow from an equation which specifies the path of rays. We can thus obtain the desired expression by converting the equation of rays into an equation for the path of rays.

A procedure starts from (11). Substitution of (11) into (12) gives

$$\frac{n(r)r^2d\theta }{(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2)^{1/2}}=\text{constant}.$$
(18)
Since the path of rays is $`ds=(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2)^{1/2}`$ in the polar coordinates of plane curve, this may also be written as

$$\frac{n(r)r^2d\theta }{ds}=\text{constant}.$$
(19)
Solving for $`ds`$, we have

$$ds=\frac{n(r)r^2d\theta }{n(r_0)r_0}.$$
(20)
Bouguer’s formula has been used in the above equation. By making use of the integral in (13), the variable of integration can be changed from $`d\theta `$ to $`dr`$, obtaining the result

$$\mathrm{}s=\left[1\frac{n^2(r_0)r_0^2}{n^2(r)r^2}\right]^{1/2}𝑑r.$$
(21)
Hence, by dividing $`ds`$ by $`c^{}(r)=c/n(r)`$, the time of propagation of rays is found to be

$$\mathrm{}t=\left[1\frac{n^2(r_0)r_0^2}{n^2(r)r^2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{n(r)dr}{c},$$
(22)
where $`c^{}(r)`$ is the speed of propagation of light in a medium with spherical symmetry. Although the details are altered by the new form of expression, the optical characteristics of (22) remain the same as in (13). For the correct calculation of excess time delay, therefore, we must take into account a difference in the radial interval of the path of rays.

As discussed in the case of deflection, this requires integrating the resulting equation along the optical path. However, it draws a clear distinction between geometrical optics and general relativity. This is because (22) has already manifested the form of an integral over optical path. The geodesic equation of general relativity enables us to make a correction not only in the velocity of light but also in its path length. If we make a correction to the radial component of the path of rays, the integral in (22) becomes

$$\mathrm{}t=\left[1\frac{n^2(r_0)r_0^2}{n^2(r)r^2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{n^2(r)dr}{c}.$$
(23)
This integral is in complete agreement in structure with the geodesic equation expressed in (17). It becomes evident that the equation for rays in geometrical optics also predicts the radar echo delay in exactly the same form as given by the geodesic equation of general relativity. Again, we identify $`n^2(r)`$ with $`g_{rr}(r)`$ in their roles, leading to consider $`n^2(r)`$ as an optical version of $`g_{rr}(r)`$.

## 5 Plasma Effect of Corona

In radio astronomy, it is possible to measure the deflection of radio signals by the Sun with potentially far greater accuracy than is possible in optical astronomy. At radio frequencies, however, it is necessary to analyze the data in terms of a model, in which part of deflection arises from general relativity, and the rest is produced by the corona. No prediction can be drawn from general relativity since the plasma effect is frequency dependent and the gravitational effect is not. In contrast with this, the optical approach affords a straightforward way to calculate in the integrated form the gravitational effect and the plasma effect of corona. We are going to evaluate the plasma effect of corona.

In the discussion of gravitational redshift we have used the notion of a spherically varying refractive index. If we include a frequency-dependent dielectric constant $`ϵ(\omega )`$, we can describe in an integrated form the frequency dependence of radio waves. In high-frequency limit, the dielectric constant takes on a simple form. Since $`n(r)`$ is a varying refractive index in a given medium due to the gradient force, the integrated index of refraction would therefore be written

$$n^2(r,\omega )=ϵ(\omega )n^2(r)=\left(1\frac{4\pi e^2N}{m\omega ^2}\right)\left[1+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{}P}{\rho }\right)\right]^2,$$
(24)
where $`m`$ and $`e`$ are the mass and charge on the electron, and $`N`$ is the total number of electrons per unit volume. Since the characteristics of propagation obviously depend on the index of refraction, it is very natural to expect the frequency dependence of the deflection of light so discussed. In fact, there has been an interferometric measurement of the deflection of radio waves using an effective index of refraction. Muhleman et al. (1970) analyzed their experimental data by using geometrical-optics techniques in a spherically symmetric refracting medium of index

$$n(r,\omega )=1+\frac{2GM}{c^2r}\frac{2\pi e^2N(r)}{m\omega ^2},$$
(25)
where $`N(r)`$ is the electron-density profile in the corona and interplanetary medium. We may draw a correspondence between their technique and the present approach.

As a first important example, we consider the deflection of light as a combination of the general relativistic effect and of refraction in the coronal plasma. The expected angular deviation can be accurately computed using the frequency-dependent refractive index expressed in (24) in the equation of rays (14):

$$\mathrm{}\theta =\left[\frac{n^2(r,\omega )r^2}{n^2(r_0,\omega )r_0^2}1\right]^{1/2}\frac{n(r,\omega )dr}{r}.$$
(26)
In order to evaluate this integral, we use in the integrand expansions in the small parameters. It is both easier and more instructive to evaluate the integral after the expansions. The integration of (26) can be carried to first order in the small parameters with high accuracy.

The argument of the square root in (26) can be expanded to first order in the small parameters. Taking only the leading gravitational potential in (7), we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2(r,\omega )r^2}{n^2(r_0,\omega )r_0^2}}1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{r_0^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM}{c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{m\omega ^2}}\left(N(r)N(r_0)\right)\right]1`$ (27)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{r_0^2}}1\right)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2GMr}{c^2r_0(r+r_0)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2r^2}{m\omega ^2(r_0^2r^2)}}\left(N(r)N(r_0)\right)\right],`$
so (26) gives

$$\mathrm{}\theta \left(\frac{r^2}{r_0^2}1\right)^{1/2}\frac{dr}{r}\left[1+\frac{GM}{c^2r}+\frac{GMr}{c^2r_0(r+r_0)}\frac{2\pi e^2N(r)}{m\omega ^2}\frac{2\pi e^2r^2\left(N(r)N(r_0)\right)}{m\omega ^2(r_0^2r^2)}\right].$$
(28)
Consequently, the deflections from the individual effects are combined linearly. Refraction effect in the solar corona is now represented by

$$\delta \theta _c\left(\frac{r^2}{r_0^2}1\right)^{1/2}\frac{dr}{r}\left[\frac{2\pi e^2N(r)}{m\omega ^2}+\frac{2\pi e^2r^2\left(N(r)N(r_0)\right)}{m\omega ^2(r_0^2r^2)}\right].$$
(29)
This must be an addition to the general-relativity deflection.

In the Allen-Baumbach model (Allen 1947), the electron-density profile in the corona is assumed to have the form $`N(r)=1.55\times 10^8(R_{}/r)^6`$ electron/cm3. Using more recent results on the corona, Erickson (1964) found that $`N(r)=5\times 10^5(R_{}/r)^2`$ electron/cm3 represents the data reasonably well from $`4R_{}`$ to $`20R_{}`$. Refraction effect is significant where $`r<3R_{}`$, at which the $`(R_{}/r)^6`$ term dominates. Hence, we use the electron distribution of the Allen-Baumbach model, resulting in

$$\delta \theta _c\frac{6.24\times 10^{15}}{f^2}\left(\frac{r^2}{r_0^2}1\right)^{1/2}\frac{dr}{r}\left[\left(\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^6+\frac{r^2}{r_0^2r^2}\left(\left(\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^6\left(\frac{R_{}}{r_0}\right)^6\right)\right].$$
(30)
The integration for $`\delta \theta _c`$ is straightforward, and gives

$$\delta \theta _c\frac{6.24\times 10^{15}}{f^2}\left(\frac{R_{}}{r_0}\right)^6\left[\frac{105}{48}\theta +\frac{57}{48}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{11}{24}\mathrm{cos}^3\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{cos}^5\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \right],$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =r_0/r`$.

The total change in $`\theta `$ as $`r`$ decreases from infinity to its minimum value $`r_0`$ and then increases again to infinity is just twice its change from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`r_0`$, that is, $`2\mathrm{}\theta `$. Hence, the deflection of the path of rays from a straight line is given by $`\delta \theta =2\mathrm{}\theta \pi `$, which is calculated positively if concave toward the Sun and negatively if convex. Putting in the numerical factors, the total deflection is

$$\delta \theta 1.75^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{R_{}}{r_0}\right)\frac{6.24\times 10^{15}}{f^2}\left(\frac{105\pi }{48}\right)\left(\frac{R_{}}{r_0}\right)^6.$$
(32)
Equation (32) describes an interesting behaviour of the radiation bending near the Sun. The first term represents the general relativistic effect by which the path of rays is bent toward the Sun. The second term represents the coronal refraction by which the path of rays is bent away from the Sun to the contrary. This explanation is given by the difference in sign between those terms. At optical frequencies, coronal refraction is extremely small, so it can be neglected. However, it plays an important part at radio frequencies, as can be seen when we illustrate the deflection angle as a function of frequency for the distances in solar radii of the ray’s point of closest approach to the Sun’s center.

The question might be raised as to whether varying velocity of light in the coronal plasma also gives rise to a change in path length therein. If we assume that varying velocity of light in the coronal plasma does not give rise to a change in the path length of rays, the radial interval of integration must still be corrected by multiplication with $`n(r)`$ even in the coronal plasma, not with $`n(r,\omega )`$ as used in (26). We must then drop the fourth term in the integrand of integral in (28), that is, the first term in (29). Coronal refraction thus obtained will be exactly the same as what one finds by evaluating the original equation of rays (13) on purely optical grounds. Note that under such assumption there is a complete agreement in the form of expression for the plasma effect between (13) and (26). In fact, the evaluation of coronal refraction from the equation of rays (13) was carried out to first order by Bracewell et al. (1969). Their calculation gives $`82(R_{}/r_0)^6`$ sec for the angular deviation of a ray of frequency 9.6 GHz in the corona assuming the Allen-Baumbach model. When Erickson’s coronal model is instead assumed, the angular deviation is given by $`0.14(R_{}/r_0)^2`$ sec. Seielstad et al. (1970) used in data analysis these values as parameters describing refraction effects in the solar corona, when they measured the deflection of 9.602 GHz radiation from 3C279 in the solar gravitational field using an interferometer at the Owens Valley Radio Observatory. The results of their calculation are in exact agreement with what we would obtain from each model if we excluded the first term from the integrand of integral in (29). However, on the assumption that varying velocity of light in the coronal plasma also gives rise to a change in its path length, we obtain from (32) coronal refraction of $`96(R_{}/r_0)^6`$ sec for 9.6 GHz frequency. If we used Erickson’s coronal model, we would obtain coronal refraction of $`0.21(R_{}/r_0)^2`$ sec.

As characteristic for a comparison, one may write down the difference of calculation in terms of the metric tensor. We have used in (32) the metric tensor of the components

$$g_{00}=\frac{1}{ϵ(\omega )n^2(r)}\text{and}g_{rr}=ϵ(\omega )n^2(r).$$
(33)
When viewed from the present point, their calculation corresponds to the case which is obtained when the components of the metric tensor are

$$g_{00}=\frac{1}{ϵ(\omega )n^2(r)}\text{but}g_{rr}=1\text{ or }n^2(r).$$
(34)
The reason for this difference is readily understood by referring to the equations of rays (14) and (13) from which angular deviations were calculated respectively.

As a second example, let us calculate the plasma effect of corona on the time delay of radar echoes. The time of propagation of rays is given by (23). To evaluate its frequency dependence, the integration of (23) should be carried out with the frequency-dependent refractive index in (24):

$$t(r_0,r^{})=\underset{r_0}{\overset{r^{}}{}}\left[1\frac{n^2(r_0,\omega )r_0^2}{n^2(r,\omega )r^2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{n^2(r,\omega )dr}{c}.$$
(35)
In order to evaluate this integral, we once again use in the integrand the expansions in the small parameters to first order. Proceeding in exactly the same way as for (26), (35) gives

$$t(r_0,r^{})\underset{r_0}{\overset{r^{}}{}}\left(1\frac{r_0^2}{r^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{dr}{c}\left[1+\frac{2GM}{c^2r}+\frac{GMr_0}{c^2r(r+r_0)}\frac{4\pi e^2N(r)}{m\omega ^2}\frac{2\pi e^2r_0^2\left(N(r_0)N(r)\right)}{m\omega ^2(r^2r_0^2)}\right].$$
(36)
The time required for radar signals to travel to Mercury and be reflected back to Earth is $`2[t(r_E,r_0)+t(r_0,r_M)]`$, where $`r_E`$ and $`r_M`$ are astronomical radii of the orbits of the Earth and the Mercury around the Sun. The round-trip excess time delay is then given by $`\delta t=2[t(r_E,r_0)+t(r_0,r_M)T(r_E,r_0)T(r_0,r_M)]`$, where $`T(r_E,r_0)`$ and $`T(r_0,r_M)`$ are the times required for radar signals to travel the paths in straight lines at speed $`c`$. The distance $`r_0`$ of closest approach of the radar wave to the center of the Sun is much smaller than the distances $`r_E`$ and $`r_M`$ of the Earth and Mercury from the Sun.

Assuming the electron distribution of the Allen-Baumbach model, the integral yields

$$\delta t\frac{4GM}{c^3}\left[1+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4r_Er_M}{r_0^2}\right)\right]\frac{6.24\times 10^{15}}{f^2}\left(\frac{21\pi r_0}{4c}\right)\left(\frac{R_{}}{r_0}\right)^6.$$
(37)
If, instead, we use Erickson’s coronal model, we then have

$$\delta t\frac{4GM}{c^3}\left[1+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4r_Er_M}{r_0^2}\right)\right]\frac{2.01\times 10^{13}}{f^2}\left(\frac{6\pi r_0}{c}\right)\left(\frac{R_{}}{r_0}\right)^2.$$
(38)
As in the case of deflection, because of the sign difference, the plasma effect of the solar corona on the time delay is opposite to what is usually expected from the general relativistic effect. For either equation, the positive terms on the right describe a general relativistic delay in the time it takes a radar signal to travel to Mercury and back. In contrast, the negative terms describe a coronal plasma contraction, that is, a radar time contraction. Figure 1 shows calculated curves of the excess time delay as a function of frequency for $`r_0/R_{}=1.5,2,3,4`$. Exactly the same curves are obtained for the deflection angle calculated from (32). In the case of deflection angle, the ordinate ranges from $`5`$ second to $`+1`$ second.

We now compare Shapiro’s calculation with the results obtained from the preceding equations. At the beginning of measurement, Shapiro estimated $`\delta t140370\mu `$sec for observations of Mercury near superior conjunction with $`r_04R_{}`$ at 430 MHz frequency of the Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory. This difference in time delays between the general relativistic effect and the coronal plasma effect was nowhere large enough and positive for a really reliable result to be obtained solely from Arecibo data. He was thus tried to reduce the plasma effect by a factor of almost 400 by using measurements made at 8350 MHz frequency of Haystack radar of Lincoln Laboratory. For observation of Mercury with $`r_0=4R_{}`$ at 430 MHz radiation, (37) gives $`\delta t1801260\mu `$sec, and (38) gives $`\delta t1801190\mu `$sec. The values obtained for the plasma effect are about three times larger than Shapiro’s estimate. This is because we have made a correction in the radial interval of the path and integrated the resulting equation along the optical path bending near the Sun, unlike Shapiro’s calculation along the optical path in a straight line without any correction. If we assume that the difference in path length is ascribed solely to differing gravitational potential, the radial interval of integration must still be corrected by multiplication with $`n(r)`$ even in the coronal plasma, not with $`n(r,\omega )`$ as used in (35). The excess time delays are then given by $`180840\mu `$sec and $`180790\mu `$sec, respectively. The values so obtained for the plasma effect are just what we should expect if the excess time delays were calculated from the equation of rays without any correction on purely optical grounds.

I conclude this section by commenting on the current evaluation of the plasma effect in the corona. A refraction effect in the corona has previously been estimated using the equation of rays in literatures. But the equation of rays is lacking a correction in the radial interval of the path of rays. So the current estimate corresponds physically to half the correct value. The refraction effect in the corona should be evaluated by the modified equation of rays (14). In the case of excess time delay, the correct calculation can now be made using (23). It is desirable and required to use the correct value as a parameter in radio data analysis for a least-squares fit.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

When viewed from the optical point, the redshift is no more than an effect that the velocity of light is altered, linearly to a first approximation, by the medium in the gravitational field. This leads us to consider the redshift effect as due ultimately to the pressure gradient force. It is because gravitational potential is a leading term of the pressure gradient force in the medium of propagation. Not only gravitational potential, accordingly, but any change in pressure and density of the medium would give rise to an effect of the same kind on the redshift of spectral lines. In fact, asymmetry profiles observed in the redshifts of solar spectral lines seem to be of pressure character at the point of observation on the solar disk. Einstein’s interpretation is in a certain sense the general-relativity analogue of the Lorentz time dilation in special relativity physics. I should mention the Lorentz time dilation. In my argument (Yi 1997, 2000), which shows a physics behind the aberration of starlight, the Lorentz time dilation is a result of confusion leading us to a misunderstanding of relativistic phenomena.

There is an agreement in structure between the equation for rays in geometrical optics and the geodesic equation of general relativity. From a comparison with the geodesic equation, we learn that the radial component of the path of rays must take the form of an optical path in the equation of rays. To be reconciled with general relativity, that is, the length of the path of a ray should be given by $`ds^2=n^2(r)dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2`$, not by $`ds^2=dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2`$, in a medium with spherical symmetry of refractive index $`n(r)`$. Using this path length in the equation of rays, we find a complete agreement in structure between the equation of rays and the geodesic equation. Comparisons have been made with the geodesic equations formulated by Weinberg. In light of this fact, Weinberg’s formalism has opened a door to introduce the relation between general relativity and geometrical optics, apparently unrelated areas of physics. Indeed, it was an agreement in form between (10) and (13) that enabled the present approach to be proposed.

The development of an optical analogy suggests introducing $`n^2(r)`$ in place of $`g_{rr}`$ as an optical version of the Schwarzschild metric. While $`g_{rr}`$ is a solution for the motion of a particle in the gravitational field, $`n(r)`$ is a refractive index given by properties of the medium of propagation. The equation of rays provides a theoretical curve for observation that any beam of radiation is deflected during its passage near the Sun as a result of the gravitational effect and of refraction in the coronal electron plasma. In addition to the gravitational effect, there would be a pressure effect in the gaseous layers surrounding the Sun. As the light rays are passed close to the Sun’s disk, a pressure effect would appear pronounced in addition to the gravitational effect. In the case of a conducting medium, we may expect even a magnetic-field effect from the hydrodynamic equation. The optical approach may be supposed to serve as a means of describing additional gravitational effects involving optical phenomena. But it should be emphasized that the optical point of view replaces the general-relativity explanations in terms of time and gravitation.

Acknowledgements I should like to express my gratitude to a reviewer of this Journal for comments and corrections. Although a long time has passed, I wish to express gratitude to a reviewer of Physics Essays for corrections in the early draft of this paper.

Allen, C. W.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 107, 426 (1947).

Blamont, J. E., Roddier, F.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 437 (1961).

Born, M., Wolf, E.: Principles of Optics. 5th ed. p. 123. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1975).

Bracewell, R. N., Eshelman, V. R., Hollweg, J. V.: Astrophys. J. 155, 367 (1969).

De Felice, F.: Gen. Rel. Grav. 2, 347 (1971).

Eddington, A. S.: Space, Time and Gravitation. p. 109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1920).

Einstein, A.: Ann. Physik 35, 898 (1911).

Erickson, W. C.: Astrophys. J. 139, 1290 (1964).

Fabry, Ch., Boisson, H.: Comptes Rendus 148, 688 (1909).

Hay, H. J., Schiffer, J. P., Cranshaw, T. E., Egelstaff, P. A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 165 (1960).

Higgs, L. A.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 121, 421 (1960).

Jewell, L. F.: J. de Phys. 6, 84 (1897).

Muhleman, D. O., Ekers, R. D., Fomalont, E. B.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 1377 (1970).

Plebanski, J.: Phys. Rev. 54, 1396 (1960).

Pound, R. V., Rebka Jr., G. A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959).

Pound, R. V., Rebka Jr., G. A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960).

Schiff, L. I.: Am. J. Phys. 28, 340 (1960).

Seielstad, G. A., Sramek, R. A., Weiler, K. W.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 1373 (1970).

Shapiro, I. I.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789 (1964).

Shapiro, I. I., et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1265 (1968).

Shapiro, I. I., et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1132 (1971).

Weinberg, S.: Gravitation and Cosmology. p. 189. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1972).

White, H. E.: Introduction to Atomic Spectra. p. 431. McGraw-Hill, Tokyo (1934).

Yi, Y. G.: Physics Essays 10, 186 (1997).

Yi, Y. G.: arXiv:physics/0006005 (2000).


format: text

text:
# Relic Neutrino Asymmetries1footnote 11footnote 1Invited talk at 2nd Tropical Workshop on Particle Physics and Cosmology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2000.

## Abstract

I review the topic of relic neutrino asymmetry generation through active-sterile neutrino and antineutrino oscillations in the early universe. Applications to (i) the suppression of sterile neutrino production, and (ii) the primordial Helium abundance are briefly presented.

Reasonably large relic neutrino asymmetries will be generated by active-sterile neutrino and antineutrino oscillations in the early universe provided that certain mild conditions are met 1 . “Reasonably large” in this context means that the neutrino asymmetry, defined by

$$L_{\nu _\alpha }\frac{n_{\nu _\alpha }n_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }}{n_\gamma },$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and the $`n`$’s are number densities, can have a final value as large as about $`3/8`$ 2 ; 3 . The mild conditions are that the vacuum mixing angle $`\theta _0`$ should be small and that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ should be negative. The flavour and mass eigenstates are related by

$`|\nu _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|\nu _a+\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|\nu _b`$ (2)
$`|\nu _s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|\nu _a+\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|\nu _b,`$
so $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<0`$ means that the predominantly sterile mass eigenstate is lighter than the predominantly active mass eigenstate. We focus on that epoch of the early universe subsequent to the disappearance of a significant muon/antimuon component to the plasma, and ending with the period of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).

One reason the generation of neutrino or lepton asymmetries is interesting is evident from the effective matter potential,

$$V_{eff}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2p}(a+b)$$
(3)
where $`p`$ is the neutrino momentum, and

$`a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_FT^3p}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}}L^{(\alpha )},`$ (4)
$`b`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}}A_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{G_FT^4p^2}{m_W^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}}.`$ (5)
The function $`a`$ is just the generalisation of the usual Wolfenstein effective potential 4  pertinent to the considered epoch of the early universe. $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`T`$ is the temperature and the “effective asymmetry” $`L^{(\alpha )}`$ is given by

$$L^{(\alpha )}L_{\nu _\alpha }+L_{\nu _e}+L_{\nu _\mu }+L_{\nu _\tau }+\eta ,$$
(6)
where $`\eta 10^{10}10^9`$ is related to the baryon and electron asymmetries required to produce the universe we observe. When lepton asymmetries are large, the effective potential is also large, leading to small matter-affected mixing angles and thus also to the suppression of sterile neutrino production. The asymmetry generation effect must be taken into account when exploring the implications for BBN of neutrino scenarios involving light sterile degrees of freedom. In particular, $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ oscillation parameters motivated by the atmospheric neutrino deficit are far from being necessarily ruled out by BBN 1 ; 2 ; 5 ; 6 . The function $`b`$ is the leading finite-$`T`$ correction to the Wolfenstein term 7 . The constant $`m_W`$ is the $`W`$-boson mass, while $`A_\alpha `$ is a numerical factor given by $`A_e17`$ and $`A_{\mu ,\tau }4.9`$. At high temperatures, $`b`$ is large enough to suppress sterile neutrino production by itself. However, it decreases with temperature as $`T^6`$, so a large asymmetry is eventually required to keep sterile neutrino production suppressed at lower temperatures.

Another reason lepton asymmetries are interesting is conveyed by the reactions,

$$\nu _ene^{}p,\overline{\nu }_epe^+n,$$
(7)
which play an important role in setting the $`n/p`$ ratio at weak freeze-out just prior to BBN. A sufficiently large electron neutrino asymmetry (a few percent) will alter this ratio and hence change the predicted Helium abundance 3 ; 8 ; 9 . In particular, successful BBN can be achieved with a higher than usual baryon density, provided that $`L_{\nu _e}`$ is positive and of the correct magnitude. The threatened overproduction of Helium is compensated by the preferential conversion of neutrons into protons due to the positive $`L_{\nu _e}`$.

Light sterile neutrinos are themselves of considerable interest independent of their possible role in asymmetry generation. For instance, two-fold maximal mixing is easily achieved through a pseudo-Dirac structure 10  or through ordinary-mirror neutrino mixing 11 . (Mirror neutrinos are strictly speaking not sterile because they feel mirror weak interactions. However, they are effectively sterile from the point of view of ordinary weak interactions.) Two-fold maximal mixing is of great interest in light of the solar and atmospheric neutrino deficits. In addition, it is well known that least one light sterile flavour is required if oscillations are to simultaneously explain the solar, atmospheric and LSND neutrino data.

As a final comment about motivation, let me also add that collision and matter affected neutrino oscillation dynamics is a fascinating subject in its own right. As we will see, neutrino asymmetry generation is driven by a subtle interplay between quantal coherence and decoherence.

Consider for simplicity a two-flavour active-sterile system $`\nu _\alpha +\nu _s`$ together with its antiparticle counterpart. The appropriate dynamical variables are the 1-body reduced density matrices for the neutrinos and antineutrinos,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}(P_0+\stackrel{}{P}\sigma ),\overline{\rho }=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{P}_0+\stackrel{}{\overline{P}}\sigma ),$$
(8)
respectively. The decomposition with respect to the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix and the Pauli matrices proves to be convenient. All of these quantities are functions of neutrino momentum $`p`$ and time $`t`$ (or equivalently temperature $`T`$).

The diagonal entries $`\rho `$ are appropriately normalised distribution functions for $`\nu _\alpha `$ and $`\nu _s`$:

$`\rho _{\alpha \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_0+P_z)={\displaystyle \frac{N_\alpha }{N^{eq}(0)}},`$
$`\rho _{ss}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_0P_z)={\displaystyle \frac{N_s}{N^{eq}(0)}},`$ (9)
where $`n_f=_0^{\mathrm{}}N_f𝑑p`$ and $`N^{eq}(\xi )`$ is the Fermi-Dirac (FD) distribution with dimensionless chemical potential $`\xi \mu _{\nu _\alpha }/T`$,

$$N^{eq}(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{p}{T}\xi )+1}.$$
(10)
We have chosen to normalise the neutrino distribution to the FD distribution with zero chemical potential.

The off-diagonal entries,

$$\rho _{\alpha s}=\rho _{s\alpha }^{}=\frac{1}{2}(P_xiP_y),$$
(11)
are coherences. They quantify the amount of quantal or phase coherence enjoyed by the neutrinos. These quantities are needed because non-forward neutrino scattering off the background plasma decreases quantal coherence. The entries of $`\overline{\rho }`$ have a similar interpretation.

The evolution of $`\rho `$ is given by the Quantum Kinetic (or Boltzmann) Equations (QKEs) 12 ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{V}\times \stackrel{}{P}D\stackrel{}{P}_T+{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{t}}\stackrel{}{z},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{t}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N^{eq}(\xi )}{N^{eq}(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_0+P_z)\right],`$ (12)
where $`D=\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_TP_x\stackrel{}{x}+P_y\stackrel{}{y}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},\stackrel{}{z}`$ being unit vectors in the stated directions. The second equation above has an approximate equality sign because the righthand side assumes that all background fermions have thermal FD distributions, and that $`\nu _\alpha `$ is distributed in an approximately thermal manner.

The $`\stackrel{}{V}\times \stackrel{}{P}`$ term is just a re-expression of coherent matter-affected oscillatory neutrino evolution. It is equivalent to the usual Schrödinger Equation governing matter-affected neutrino oscillations. Note, however, that in the early universe this evolution is non-linear because of neutrino scattering off the background neutrinos of the same flavour. The vector $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{V}=\beta \stackrel{}{x}+\lambda \stackrel{}{z},$$
(13)
where

$$\beta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2p}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0,\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2p}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0+V_{eff}.$$
(14)
The non-linear effects enter through $`V_{eff}`$.

The $`D\stackrel{}{P}_T`$ term drives collisional quantal decoherence. The decoherence rate is equal to half of the collision rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for a neutrino of momentum $`p`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }y_\alpha G_F^2T^5\frac{p}{p}.$$
(15)
The quantity $`p3.15T`$ is the average momentum for a FD distribution with zero chemical potential, while $`y_e4`$ and $`y_{\mu ,\tau }2.9`$. This expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is correct provided that thermal equilibrium holds and asymmetries are not very large. The $`D\stackrel{}{P}_T`$ term tries to exponentially damp the coherences $`P_{x,y}`$ to zero. Since the collision rate goes as $`T^5`$, quantal coherence is expunged at high temperatures. In typical applications, the $`\stackrel{}{V}\times \stackrel{}{P}`$ term begins to dominate over the $`D\stackrel{}{P}_T`$ term as $`T`$ approaches a few MeV.

The $`P_0/t`$ equation describes the repopulation of the $`\nu _\alpha `$ distribution from the background plasma heat bath. It is proportional to the total weak collision rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the term in square brackets on the righthand side acts to drive the actual $`\nu _\alpha `$ distribution function $`(P_0+P_z)N^{eq}(0)/2`$ to FD form $`N^{eq}(\xi )`$.

The neutrino asymmetry $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ enters these equations through the function $`a`$ in $`V_{eff}`$, and through the chemical potential $`\xi `$ in $`P_0/t`$. For small $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$,

$$L_{\nu _\alpha }\frac{T^3}{6n_\gamma }\xi .$$
(16)
In thermal equilibrium the existence of a neutrino asymmetry is equivalent to the existence of a nonzero $`\xi `$ (where the chemical potential for antineutrinos is equal and opposite that of the neutrinos above the chemical decoupling temperature).

The antineutrino QKEs are of the same form as the above equations with the substitutions $`L_{\nu _\alpha }L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ and $`L^{(\alpha )}L^{(\alpha )}`$.

We are primarily interested in the evolution of the asymmetry $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$. This is indirectly given by the neutrino and antineutrino QKEs. It is easy enough, however, to derive a redundant but useful direct evolution equation for the asymmetry. Employing the QKEs and $`\alpha +s`$ lepton number conservation one obtains

$$\frac{dL_{\nu _\alpha }}{dt}=\frac{1}{2n_\gamma }_0^{\mathrm{}}\beta (P_y\overline{P}_y)N^{eq}(0)𝑑p.$$
(17)
This equation is numerically useful because, during most of its evolution, $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ is the difference of two large numbers (the neutrino and antineutrino number densities per photon). The use of Eq.(17) circumvents this numerical difficulty. This equation is also a very useful starting point for developing approximate evolution equations 2 ; 13 .

We now discuss the behaviour of the QKEs. We will suppose that the initial asymmetries are very small or zero, and that a negligible fraction of the primordial plasma is in the form of sterile states. Also, we consider $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|`$ values higher than about $`10^4`$ eV2, because for lower values asymmetry growth begins when decoherence is negligible, and it tends to be oscillatory 14 .

For sufficiently high temperatures $`T`$, neutrino and antineutrino oscillations are severely damped or frozen. There are two reasons for this. First, the decoherence function $`DT^5`$ is large and drives $`P_{x,y}`$ and $`\overline{P}_{x,y}`$ to zero, and hence also the righthand side of Eq.(17) (Quantum Zeno Effect). Second, the $`b`$-term in $`V_{eff}`$ also rises as $`T^5`$, so the effective matter mixing angle is very small anyway.

As $`T`$ decreases with the expansion of the universe, the oscillations begin to unfreeze. Their initial non-trivial evolution is, however, still dominated by non-forward scattering. During this phase, a very interesting phenomenon will occur provided that the mild conditions discussed at the beginning of this article are met: small $`\theta _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<0`$. There is a critical temperature $`T_c`$, roughly given by

$$T_c(1518\mathrm{MeV})\left[\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|}{\mathrm{eV}^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{6}}.$$
(18)
Above $`T_c`$, the evolution equations drive $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ such as to impel the effective asymmetry $`L^{(\alpha )}`$ towards zero (in other words, $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ evolves from zero such as to cancel the $`\eta `$ term in the effective asymmetry). We can call this the asymmetry destruction phase, and $`L^{(\alpha )}=0`$ is a stable fixed point of the evolution equations. At $`T_c`$, this stable fixed point becomes unstable and runaway positive feedback leads to an exponential increase in $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ during the explosive growth phase. The approximately exponential growth is cut off by the non-linear terms in the QKEs after $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ reaches a value which is several orders of magnitude higher than the baryon and electron asymmetries. A power law growth phase, as per $`L_{\nu _\alpha }T^4`$, then sets in. Typically, collision dominated evolution gives way to oscillation dominated evolution during the power law phase. This is important, because physically there is a “hand over” from collisional asymmetry growth to non-linear MSW driven growth during this phase. Finally, asymmetry growth stops when $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ reaches about $`0.20.3`$.

Some examples of asymmetry evolution are given in Fig.1, which is taken from Ref.5 . These curves were produced by numerically solving the QKEs together with Eq.(17). An analytical understanding of why these curves take the displayed form has been given in the literature 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 13 . The key idea is to take the adiabatic limit of the QKEs. At high $`T`$, it is then possible to define precisely what is meant by collision dominated evolution, and to derive an approximate $`dL_{\nu _\alpha }/dt`$ equation which makes the critical behaviour at $`T_c`$ manifest. At low $`T`$, when collisions can be neglected, the adiabatic limit of the QKEs is exactly the same as the adiabatic limit for non-linear MSW evolution. See Refs.2 ; 3 ; 13  for a complete discussion.

I will now review two applications, beginning with the suppression of sterile neutrino production. Suppose that we wish to solve the atmospheric neutrino problem by maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ oscillation with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu s}^2|`$ in the range $`10^3`$ eV2 to $`10^2`$ eV2.333SuperKamiokande claim that present data disfavour the $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ possibility relative to the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mode 15 . However, the dust has yet to settle on this issue. If the $`\nu _\mu +\nu _s`$ subsystem does not mix with any other neutrino, then the sterile neutrinos (and antineutrinos) will certainly be brought into thermal equilibrium with the rest of the plasma prior to BBN (unless there are large pre-existing lepton asymmetries 16 ). The resulting increase in the expansion rate of the universe will lead to a higher than standard Helium-4 abundance. I will assume for the sake of the example that primordial abundance observations cannot tolerate such an increase in the expansion rate. (A complete account of the somewhat complicated status of primordial abundance observations vis-à-vis BBN is beyond the scope of this talk.)

Small mixing between the $`\nu _s`$ and, say, a more massive $`\nu _\tau `$ can completely change the conclusion that $`\nu _s`$ is brought into thermal equilibrium. The $`\nu _\tau /\nu _s`$ oscillation parameters, as chosen in the previous sentence, satisfy the requirements for large $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ generation. If the large $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ does not have its effects cancelled (see below), and if it is generated early enough, then the large matter potential consequently generated for the $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ mode will suppress these oscillations and hence also $`\nu _s`$ production. A numerical calculation is required to properly analyse the outcome, because the maximally mixed $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ mode always tends to induce $`L^{(\mu )}0`$. In other words, the large $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ that is being created by the $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$ mode could be compensated by $`L_{\nu _\mu }`$ creation driven by $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$, with the overall effect being that the $`\mu `$-like effective asymmetry $`L^{(\mu )}`$ is driven to zero, and consequently that $`\nu _s`$ production through the $`\nu _\mu `$ channel is unsuppressed after all.

Figure 2 shows the outcome of such a numerical calculation 2 ; 5 ; 6 . It is a plot in $`\nu _\tau /\nu _s`$ oscillation parameter space. The solid lines correspond to $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu s}^2|=10^3,10^{2.5},10^2`$ eV2 in ascending order up the page. Choose your favourite atmospheric $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu s}^2`$. In the parameter region above the relevant solid line, the $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ asymmetry is not cancelled such that $`L^{(\mu )}0`$. Below the solid line, it is cancelled. The transition is very sharp. So, above the solid line, $`\nu _s`$ production via the $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ mode is very suppressed. The dot-dashed line refers to $`\nu _s`$ production via the other available mode, $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$. This small angle mode receives very little “self-suppression” from its own $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ creation activity, so its oscillation parameters must satisfy a different sort of bound. This bound is actually very similar to the old constraints calculated in Ref.17  with asymmetry generation artifically switched off. For illustrative purposes, the dot-dashed line assumes that no more than $`0.6`$ extra effective neutrino flavours are allowed.

The second application concerns the direct effect of a $`\nu _e`$ asymmetry on the neutron to proton ratio at weak freeze out. The implications of neutrino asymmetry generation in multi-flavour scenarios must be studied on a case-by-case basis. Here I will consider the scenario of Ref.18 : there is one sterile flavour, which is used to solve the solar neutrino problem via an MSW style solution. The more massive $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ states are maximally mixed, with the mass gap between $`(\nu _e,\nu _s)`$ and $`(\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ set in the LSND range. In this scenario, both the $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ and $`\nu _\tau \nu _s`$ modes satisfy the conditions for asymmetry generation. Once $`L_{\nu _\mu }`$ and $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$ have been generated, these asymmetries can be reprocessed into $`L_{\nu _e}`$ via $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }\nu _e`$ oscillations 8 . The $`L_{\nu _e}`$ outcome is insensitive to the $`\nu _e/\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ mixing angles for a large range of these parameters because the MSW transitions are adiabatic. It is, however, somewhat sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ between $`(\nu _e,\nu _s)`$ and $`(\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$. Figure 3 shows a plot of the change in the effective number of neutrino flavours during BBN as a function of this $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ parameter 8 . The “effective number of neutrino flavours” is just a convenient measure of the change in the Helium mass fraction $`Y_p`$ relative to standard BBN, roughly obeying the relation $`\delta Y_p0.012\delta N_\nu ^{eff}`$. It is affected by both expansion rate alterations and $`L_{\nu _e}`$. Figure 3 incorporates both effects.

There are a few other interesting neutrino models that have been analysed in the literature. A particularly interesting case is the Exact Parity or Mirror Matter Model 11 . The full analysis is very complicated; please see Ref.19  for all of the details.

To conclude: If light sterile or mirror neutrinos exist, then they should play a major role in cosmology. The oscillation generated neutrino asymmetry phenomenon would be a central feature. Sufficiently large neutrino asymmetries would suppress sterile or mirror neutrino production, and an electron-neutrino asymmetry of the right magnitude and sign would affect primordial Helium abundance. In particular, a positive $`L_{\nu _e}`$ would allow a larger baryon density to exist without the overproduction of Helium. We note with interest that the recent Boomerang/Maxima cosmic microwave background anistropy measurements favour a larger than standard baryon density 20 . While the combined solar, atmospheric and LSND data require at least one light sterile neutrino if oscillations are to simultaneously resolve all of the anomalies, we especially look forward to future experiments that could provide further evidence for light sterile neutrinos: SNO, MiniBooNe, the longbaseline experiments, as well as further SuperKamiokande data.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Jose Nieves, Arthur Halprin, Terry Leung and Qaisar Shafi and all of the very helpful staff for organising an extremely enjoyable workshop. Thanks to Yvonne Wong for technical assistance. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.


text:
# Low-dimensional BEC

Low-dimensional BEC

## Abstract

The Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) temperature $`T_c`$ of Cooper pairs (CPs) created from a general interfermion interaction is determined for a linear, as well as the usually assumed quadratic, energy vs center-of-mass momentum dispersion relation.  This explicit $`T_c`$ is then compared with a widely applied implicit one of Wen & Kan (1988) in $`d=2+ϵ`$ dimensions, for small $`ϵ`$, for a geometry of an infinite stack of parallel (e.g., copper-oxygen) planes as in, say, a cuprate superconductor, and with a new result for linear-dispersion CPs. The implicit formula gives $`T_c`$ values only slightly lower than those of the explicit formula for typical cuprate parameters.

PACS numbers: 74.20.Fg; 64.90+b; 05.30.Fk; 05.30.Jp

Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of Cooper pairs (CPs) can lead to a phase transition (even in 2D) in any many-fermion system dynamically capable of forming CPs. This transition could be the origin of “exotic” superconductivity in the quasi-2D cuprates and in the quasi-1D organo-metallic (Bechgaard) salts, as well as of the superfluidity in liquid 3He or in trapped Fermi gases in 3D.

The familiar BEC formula for the transition temperature is

$$T_c3.31\mathrm{}^2n_B^{2/3}/m_Bk_B,$$
(1)
with $`n_B`$ the number density of bosons of mass $`m_B`$ and $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant. This is a special case of the more general expression  valid for any space dimensionality $`d>0`$ and any boson dispersion relation $`\epsilon _K=C_sK^s`$ with $`s>0`$ and $`C_s`$ constant, given by the explicit $`T_c`$-formula

$$T_c=\frac{C_s}{k_B}\left[\frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)(2\pi )^dn_B}{2\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/s)g_{d/s}(1)}\right]^{s/d}.$$
(2)
If $`\mu (T)`$ is the boson chemical potential and $`e^{\mu (T)/k_BT}z`$ the fugacity, $`g_\sigma (z)_{l=1}^{\mathrm{}}z^l/l^\sigma `$ are the Bose integrals. For $`z=1`$ and $`\sigma 1`$ the $`g_\sigma (1)`$ is just $`\zeta (\sigma )`$, the Riemann Zeta-function of order $`\sigma `$ which is finite for $`\sigma >1`$ and infinite for $`\sigma =1`$, while the series $`g_\sigma (1)`$ diverges for all $`\sigma 1`$. For $`s=2`$, $`C_2=\mathrm{}^2/2m_B`$, and since $`\zeta (3/2)2.612`$, this leads to the usual BEC $`T_c`$-formula (1). Since $`g_{d/2}(1)`$ diverges for all $`d/21`$, $`T_c=0`$ for all $`d2`$. This follows from the boson number equation

$$N=N_0(T)+\underset{𝐊0}{}\left[e^{\{\epsilon _K\mu (T)\}/k_BT}1\right]^1$$
(3)
where $`N_0(T)`$ is the number of bosons in the $`K=0`$ state. At $`T=T_c`$ both $`N_0(T_c)`$ and the boson chemical potential $`\mu (T_c)`$ virtually vanish so that replacing

$$\underset{𝐤\mathrm{𝟎}}{}(L/2\pi )^d_{0^+}d^dk=(L/2\pi )^d\frac{2\pi ^{d/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{d1}$$
(4)
in (3) eventually yields (2) where $`n_BN/L^d`$.

The fact that a CP can have a linear ($`s=1`$), as opposed to the usual quadratic ($`s=2`$), dispersion relation was mentioned as far back as 1964 by Schrieffer , p. 33, for the BCS model interaction in 3D. This was recently confirmed  to be the case for both 2D and 3D under a very general interfermion interaction for any coupling provided the fermion number-density is nonzero, i.e., in the presence of a Fermi sea. The CP dispersion relation becomes quadratic only in the extremely dilute (or vacuum) limit where the CPs are just the so-called “local pairs.” For any sizeable fermion density the nonnegative CP excitation energy $`\epsilon _K\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ behaves like $`a(d)\mathrm{}v_FK`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ (not to be confused with the BCS gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) is the (positive) binding energy of a CP of center-of-mass momentum (CMM) $`\mathrm{}K`$, $`v_F\mathrm{}k_F/m`$ and $`k_F`$ the Fermi velocity and wavenumber, respectively, $`m`$ the fermion effective mass, while $`a(d)`$ $`2/\pi `$ and $`1/2`$ in 2D and 3D, respectively, precisely as established  previously for the BCS model interaction. For linear dispersion $`s=1`$, $`C_1=`$ $`a(d)\mathrm{}v_F`$, $`T_c=0`$ from (2) for all $`d1`$ only—and $`T_c>0`$ for all $`d>1`$, which is precisely the range of dimensionalities for all known superconductors if one includes the quasi-1D organo-metallic Bechgaard salts . Using the interpolation $`a(d)=(7/26/\pi )+(8/\pi 13/4)d+(3/42/\pi )d^2`$, which correctly reduces to $`1,`$ $`2/\pi `$ and $`1/2`$ in 1D, 2D and 3D, respectively, Fig. 1 graphs (2) for $`s=1`$ and $`2`$ (in units of the Fermi temperature $`T_F`$) vs $`d`$—if one imagines all the fermions in the initial, interactionless many-fermion system paired into CPs of mass $`m_B=2m`$. The particle number density of the original fermions is $`nk_F^d/2^{d2}\pi ^{d/2}d\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)`$ and equals $`2n_B`$, and we have used $`\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m=\frac{1}{2}mv_F^2=E_Fk_BT_F`$. These curves are upper bounds to the $`T_c`$ from a more realistic model  where chemical equilibrium allows only a fraction of all fermions to be actually bound into pairs.

A rather general interfermion interaction is the $`S`$-wave attractive separable potential whose double Fourier transform is

$$V_{pq}=(v_0/L^2)g_pg_q.$$
(5)
Here $`L`$ is the size of the “box” confining the many-fermion system, $`v_00`$ is the interaction strength and $`g__p`$ given, e.g.,  by $`(1+p^2/p_0^2)^{1/2}`$ where $`p_0`$ is the inverse range of the potential. Hence, $`p_0\mathrm{}`$ implies $`g__p=1`$ and corresponds to the attractive contact (or delta) potential $`V(r)=v_0\delta (𝐫)`$, while $`p_0=k_F`$ implies a range of order of the average interfermion spacing, etc. If $`g_p=\theta (\mathrm{}\omega _D+\mu _Fp^2/2m)`$, with $`\theta (x)`$ the unit step function, (5) becomes the BCS model interaction where $`\omega _D`$ is the Debye frequency and $`\mu _F`$ the fermionic chemical potential that becomes $`E_F`$ for $`T=0=v_0`$.

Using a renormalized CP equation  whose coupling depends only on the two-body binding energy $`B_2`$ , the CP excitation energy $`\epsilon _K\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ for zero range was obtained numerically  as an exact curve that for very small $`B_2/E_F`$ is virtually linear, i.e., $`\epsilon _K2\mathrm{}v_FK/\pi `$. It is only in the dilute limit ($`v_F`$ or $`E_F0`$) that $`\epsilon _K`$ tends asymptotically to the exact quadratic $`\mathrm{}^2K^2/2(2m)`$ for any coupling. Assuming $`n_B=n/2`$ and $`m_B=2m`$ to introduce the temperature scale $`T_F`$ as before, Fig. 2 shows the BEC $`T_c`$’s of a pure gas of unbreakable CPs. Significantly, $`T_c`$ is no longer zero in 2D—as would be predicted in a BEC picture by a quadratic relation appropriate for “local-pair” CPs in vacuum, a result that wrongly suggests that BEC cannot apply for quasi-2D cuprate superconductors.

More accurate BEC $`T_c`$’s should include refinements such as non-$`S`$-wave interactions, allowing for unpaired fermions in a more realistic binary boson-fermion mixture model —and most importantly, CP-fermion interactions that link  the BEC condensate fraction temperature-dependence with that of the BCS fermionic energy gap, among other corrections.

The linear dispersion relation of a CP should not be confused with the linear dispersion of Anderson-Bogoliubov-Higgs (ABH) many-body excitation phonon-like modes. Collective modes in a superconductor were studied since the late 1950’s by several workers. A more recent treatment for 1D, 2D and 3D is available  which confirms the linear ABH form $`\mathrm{}v_FK/\sqrt{d}`$ for $`d`$ =1, 2 or 3 in the zero-coupling limit. Our CPs are taken as “bosonic” even though they do not obey (Ref.  p. 38) Bose commutation relations. This is because for a given $`K`$ they have indefinite occupation number since for fixed $`K`$ there are (after the thermodynamic limit) an indefinitely large number of allowed (relative wavenumber) $`k`$ values, so that—for any coupling and thus any degree of overlap between them—CPs do in fact obey the Bose-Einstein distribution from which BEC is determined. By contrast, ABH phonons (like photons or plasmons, etc.) cannot suffer a BEC as their number is always indefinite. The number of CPs, on the other hand, is fixed at half the number of (pairable) fermions if all of these are imagined paired at a given temperature and coupling.

To model cuprate superconductors consider the bosons confined to an infinite set of planes stacked along the $`z`$-direction, parallel to each other with equal spacing $`c`$ between adjacent planes. The BEC transition temperature formula, for $`s=2`$ bosons in each plane, is the implicit $`T_c`$-formula

$$k_BT_c=\frac{2\pi n_{B3D}\mathrm{}^2c}{m_B\text{ln}[M_Bc^2k_BT_c\nu (t_c)/\mathrm{}^2]},$$
(6)
and is valid in $`2+ϵ`$ dimensions where $`ϵ`$ is small and given by

$$ϵ2[\text{ln}(n_{B3D}M_Bc^3/m_B)]^1.$$
(7)
This expressly vanishes as $`M_Bc^3\mathrm{}`$, as it should. Here $`n_{B3D}N/L^3`$ while $`\nu (t)=1t+O(t^2)1`$ if $`t<<1`$, where $`t\mathrm{}^2/M_Bc^2k_BT=\mathrm{}^2/2mc^2(M_B/m_B)k_BT`$. Using $`\mathrm{}^2/mk_B=88,419`$ K Å2 with $`m`$ the electron mass, and $`c=12`$ Å, this inequality is well satisfied for the higher cuprate transition temperatures, today ranging up to 164 K, since $`T_c>>307`$K$`/(M_B/m_B)`$ as typically $`M_B/m_B`$ can range from $`10^2`$ to $`10^5`$. Clearly, for $`M_Bc0`$ (infinitely separated planes and/or perfect confinement to the $`z`$-direction in each plane) $`T_c`$ vanishes as it should in 2D. As state, this $`T_c`$-equation is implicit or transcendental, unlike the simpler explicit $`T_c`$ equations (1) and (2), and has been used for varied purposes by numerous authors —though only for quadratic dispersion bosons.

We have generalized (6) for any $`s>0`$ and found

$$k_BT_c=C_s\left[2\pi n_{B3D}sc/\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/s)g_{2/s}(e^{\mathrm{}^2/M_Bc^2k_BT_c})\right]^{s/2}.$$
(8)
Thus, an exact (again, implicit) equation for $`T_c`$ is obtained for any $`s>0`$. For $`s=2`$ and $`C_2=\mathrm{}^2/2m_B`$ we recover (6). In Fig. 1 (right) we plot results for both values of $`s`$ as points, for $`M_B/m_B=10^2`$ and $`10^5`$. They can be seen to differ very slightly from the results for $`s=2`$ or $`s=1`$ bosons in $`d=2+ϵ`$ dimensions, with $`ϵ`$ small, that came directly from (2) which, moreover, is valid for all $`d>0`$.

To compare our results, consider the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless  transition temperature formula

$$k_BT_c^{BKT}=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_B}{m_B}$$
(9)
valid in 2D, and assume as before that $`n_B=n/2`$ $`k_F^2/4\pi `$ and $`m_B=2m`$. This gives $`T_c^{BKT}/T_F=1/8=0.125`$ and is displayed as a square in Fig. 1.

In conclusion, BEC $`T_c`$’s related to a pure gas of unbreakable composite linear-dispersion bosons were calculated in $`d=2`$ for Cooper pairs formed via a general separable potential and whose coupling for any CMM is characterized solely by its two-body binding energy in vacuum. A $`T_c`$-formula valid for any dispersion relation of the form $`\epsilon _K=C_sK^s`$ with $`s>0`$ and $`C_s`$ constant is deduced for the BEC of a pure gas of unbreakable bosons confined to move in infinitely-many identical planes parallel to each other. It is a peculiar implicit $`T_c`$-equation valid in $`2+ϵ`$ where $`ϵ`$ is small and vanishes, as it must, when the inter-plane spacing or the boson mass in the direction perpendicular to the planes diverges. However, for either $`s=2`$ or $`1`$ we find results that are just slightly different than those of the explicit BEC $`T_c`$-formula which is valid more generally for any $`d>0`$.

Partial support from UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT (México) # IN102198, CONACyT (México) # 27828 E, DGES (Spain) # PB95-0492 and FAPESP (Brazil) is acknowledged.


text:
# Primordial Gaussian Fluctuations from Cosmic Defects

## I Introduction

The recent high-resolution measurements of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies on degree and sub-degree scales  have started to provide cosmologists with a realistic chance of probing the main physical mechanisms and conditions of the early universe . However, one too often forgets that any subsequent treatment of the data (eg, to determine “preferred” cosmological parameters) will require model-dependent assumptions, and one must make sure that these are properly justified. Two recent papers  illustrate a rather eclectic range of ways in which to use a given data set.

Consider the two basic paradigms that could be responsible for producing these anisotropies—topological defect  and inflationary  models. There are of course some rather generic differences between the two, but still the task of unambiguously distinguishing between them is not at all trivial . The presence of super-horizon perturbations or of “Doppler peaks”  on small angular scales, for example, are not good discriminants  (at least if they are taken on their own). This issue is further complicated since one can easily obtain ‘natural’ models where both defects and inflation generate density fluctuations .

In previous work , we have presented an explicit example of a mechanism whereby the primordial fluctuations are generated by a network of cosmic defects, but are nevertheless very similar to a standard inflationary model. Such models arise in the context of “two-metric” theories . The only difference between the observational consequences of these models and those of the standard inflationary scenario is a relatively small non-Gaussian component. Here we discuss an alternative model arising in the same context, but where the defect-induced primordial fluctuations are also Gaussian. In this case the evolution of the defect network is standard, but we require that the characteristic speed of the decay products of the defect network is much larger than the speed characterizing gravity and all the standard model particles. We show that this model will exactly reproduce the CMB and large-scale structure (LSS) predictions of the standard inflationary models, and the only way to identify it would be through the decay products of the defect network involved.

## II The model

As in our previous work , we shall consider the so-called “two-metric” theories , which contain two natural speed parameters. In  we assumed that the scalar field which produced the defects had a characteristic speed $`c_\varphi `$ that was much larger than the characteristic speed of gravity and the standard model interactions. Here we shall instead concentrate on the decay products of the defect network.

In recent years there has been some debate over the issue of which is the dominant energy loss mechanism for defect networks. In particular, for the case of cosmic strings, there are two quite distinct possibilities, namely an energy loss mechanism based on gravitational radiation  and one based on particle production . Furthermore, some preliminary studies  indicate that the cosmological consequences—say, as measured from the CMB and matter power spectra—have some significant differences, although one should be cautious given the number of simplifying assumptions made in order to derive these results.

In this paper we shall assume a two-metric theory where cosmic strings are produced, and where the long string network evolves in the standard way (with the comoving correlation length of the network being of the order of $`c\eta `$), and suppose that this network decays via particle production. Furthermore, we also assume that the decay products have a characteristic speed $`c_p`$ which obeys $`c_pc`$. In this case, the point will be to have the “compensation” scale much larger than the horizon size (defined in the usual way)—note that this will be so because one expects the compensation scale to be of the order of the free streaming length of the decay products.

As in , the point of this paper is to describe a rather simple and general mechanism and its basic consequences, rather than a specific realization of it. Hence we will not concern ourselves with discussing particular models. In particular, the mechanism we will be discussing is independent of $`c_p`$ being a constant or a time-varying quantity. For the time being we shall assume that $`c_p`$ is a time-independent quantity, simply for the purpose of simplifying the discussion. We will later relax this assumption and discuss the implications for structure formation of variable $`c_p`$. Moreover, what the ultimate decay products of the defect network are will also not affect the model’s ability to work, although it will of course affect its detailed quantitative predictions (or, if one wants to put it in other words, its efficiency).

For example, the decay products could be massless particles with velocity $`c_pc`$; these would, in analogy with the Cerenkov effect, emit gravitons and thus produce a stochastic gravitational wave background . On the other hand, if the decay products are massive particles produced with characteristic velocity $`c_p`$, then we expect them to eventually be slowed down to below the characteristic speed of gravity, on a timescale related to the graviton emission rate. As will become clear below, our mechanism will be more efficient in the former case than in the latter. On the other hand, the subsequent evolution of these decay products can potentially be used to impose constraints on specific realizations of the mechanism, and the detection of a “background” of these decay products would provide an obvious way to test the mechanism.

The only detailed assumption we require is that the decay of the defect network proceeds in such a way to allow its evolution to be qualitatively analogous to the standard case . In particular, we assume that some “scaling” solution will be reached after a relatively short transient period. However, we do allow (and indeed expect) a “scaling” solution that is quantitatively different from the usual, “scale-invariant” one—see  for a more detailed discussion of these concepts. This assumption still allows us to make use of some of the standard results on string-seeded structure formation in the following section.

We emphasize that there are significant differences between the model being discussed here and the one previously presented in . In our previous work the speed characterizing the defect-producing scalar field $`c_\varphi `$ was much larger than the speed $`c`$ characterizing gravity and standard model particles. Hence the comoving correlation length of the network was of order $`c_\varphi \eta c\eta `$. On the other hand, the decay products of the network were assumed to be standard, ie to have a characteristic speed $`c`$. In the present work we assume that the evolution of the network is standard (with the comoving correlation length of the network being of the order of $`c\eta `$), but that its decay mechanism is through a channel with some characteristic speed $`c_p`$ that is much larger than the standard one.

## III Cosmological consequences

In the synchronous gauge, the linear evolution equations for radiation and cold dark matter perturbations, $`\delta _r`$ and $`\delta _m`$, in a flat universe with zero cosmological constant are

$`\ddot{\delta }_m+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\delta }_m{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\delta _m+2a_{eq}\delta _r}{a+a_{eq}}}\right)=4\pi G\mathrm{\Theta }_+,`$ (1)
$`\ddot{\delta }_r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}^2\delta _r{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\ddot{\delta }_m=0,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the external source, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+=\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{ii}`$, $`a`$ is the scale factor, “eq” denotes the epoch of radiation-matter equality, and a dot represents a derivative with respect to conformal time. We will consider the growth of super-horizon perturbations with $`ck\eta 1`$. Then eqn. (1) becomes:

$$\ddot{\delta }_m+\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta }_m\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2\left(\frac{3a+8a_{eq}}{a+a_{eq}}\right)\delta _m=4\pi G\mathrm{\Theta }_+,$$
(3)
and $`\delta _r=4\delta _m/3`$. Its solution, with initial conditions $`\delta _m=0`$, $`\dot{\delta }_m=0`$ can be written as

$$\delta _m^S(𝐱,\eta )=4\pi G_{\eta _i}^\eta 𝑑\eta ^{}d^3x^{}𝒢(X;\eta ,\eta ^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_+(𝐱^{},\eta ^{}),$$
(4)
$$𝒢(X;\eta ,\eta ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(k;\eta ,\eta ^{})\frac{\mathrm{sin}kX}{kX}k^2𝑑k.$$
(5)
Here $`X=|𝐱𝐱^{}|`$ and ‘S’ indicates that these are the ‘subsequent’ fluctuations, according to the notation of , to be distinguished from ‘initial’ ones.

We are interested in computing the inhomogeneities at late times in the matter era. When $`\eta _0\eta _{eq}`$, the Green functions are dominated by the growing mode, $`a_0/a_{eq}`$, so the function we would like to solve for is

$$T(k;\eta )=\underset{\eta _0/\eta _{eq}\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{a_{eq}}{a_0}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(k,\eta _0,\eta ).$$
(6)
Consider the growth of super-horizon perturbations generated during the radiation era, for which the transfer function can be written***For super-horizon perturbations generated during the matter era, the transfer function would differ from the above by a factor of two.

$$T(0;\eta )=\frac{\eta _{eq}}{10(32\sqrt{2})\eta }.$$
(7)
The linear perturbations induced by defects such as cosmic strings, are the sum of initial and subsequent perturbations:

$`\delta _m(k;\eta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _m^I(k;\eta _0)+\delta _m^S(k;\eta _0)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`4\pi G(1+z_{eq}){\displaystyle _{\eta _i}^{\eta _0}}𝑑\eta T_c(k;\eta )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_+(k;\eta ),`$ (10)
where $`\eta _i`$ is the time when the network of cosmic defects was generated and $`T_c`$ is the transfer function for the subsequent perturbations, those generated actively by the defects. In order to include compensation for the initial perturbations, $`\delta _m^I`$, the substitution is usually made:

$$T_c(k;\eta )=\left(1+(k_c/k)^2\right)^1T(k;\eta ),$$
(11)
where $`k_c`$ is a long-wavelength cut-off at the compensation scale. In the case where the defects have several possible decay channelsFor the case of cosmic strings these could be loops, gravitational radiation and in our theory particles with velocity $`c_pc`$. there may be several scales associated with compensation due to the different dynamics of the defect decay products. However, for simplicity we shall assume that eqn. (11) is a good approximation with the compensation scale, $`k_c`$, determined by particles generated by the defect network with $`c_pc`$. Consequently, we expect $`k_c(c_p\eta )^1`$. If there are other decay channels this assumption may slightly alter the power spectrum normalization but will not otherwise affect the predictions of our model.

Note also that both in the present work and in our previous work  we get a compensation scale that is much larger than $`c\eta `$, but the reasons for this are slightly different in the two cases. In  the compensation scale is expected to be of the order of the correlation length of the network, while in the present work the compensation scale is expected to be of the order of the free-streaming length of the decay products.

For $`(c_p\eta _0)^1k(c_p\eta _i)^1`$ the analytic expression for the power spectrum of density perturbations induced by defects can be written as

$$P(k)=16\pi ^2G^2(1+z_{\mathrm{eq}})^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta (k,\eta )|T_c(k,\eta )|^2,$$
(12)
where $`(k,\eta )`$ is the structure function which can be obtained directly from the unequal time correlators . Still in the case of super-horizon perturbations, it can easily be shown  that for a scaling network $`(k,\eta )=(k\eta )`$ which, combined with eqns. (7), (11) and (12), gives

$$P(k)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta 𝒮(k\eta )/\eta ^2k$$
(13)
for super-horizon modes. Here the function $`𝒮`$, is just the structure function, $``$, times the compensation cut-off function.

Up until now we only considered the spectrum of primordial fluctuations induced by cosmic defects (by primordial we mean generated at very early times). In our model a Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum is predicted (see eqn. (13)) just as in the simplest inflationary models. The final processed spectrum taking into account the growth of the perturbations inside the horizon in the radiation and matter eras will also be the same as for the simplest inflationary models. Note that if $`c_p`$ is a time varying quantity then the compensation cut-off is no longer a function of $`k\eta `$ alone, and so it is possible to have deviations from a pure Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum just as in generic inflationary models.

On large scales $`k(c\eta )^1`$ the structure function $`(k,\eta )`$ has a white noise spectrum. The turn-over scale, if it exists, only appears at the correlation length of the network $`k_\xi \text{ }>(c\eta )^1`$ . This means that perturbations induced on scales larger than the correlation length are generated by many defect elements and, therefore, have a Gaussian distribution according to the central limit theorem. On the other hand, perturbations induced on smaller scales are very non-Gaussian because they can be either very large within the regions where a string has passed by or else very small outside these. This allows us to roughly divide the power spectrum of cosmic-string-seeded density perturbations into a nearly Gaussian component generated when the string correlation length was smaller than the scale under consideration, and a strongly skewed non-Gaussian component generated when the string correlation length was larger (we call these the ‘Gaussian’ and ‘non-Gaussian’ contributions respectively).

The ratio of these two components may be easily computed by splitting the structure function in (12), in two parts: a Gaussian part $`_\mathrm{g}(k,\eta )=(k,\eta )`$ for $`k<k_\xi `$ ($`_\mathrm{g}=0`$ for $`k>k_\xi `$) and a non-Gaussian part $`_{\mathrm{ng}}(k,\eta )=(k,\eta )`$ for $`k>k_\xi `$ ($`_{\mathrm{ng}}=0`$ for $`k<k_\xi `$). We can then integrate (12) with this Gaussian/non-Gaussian split, to compute the relative contributions to the total power spectrum. The final result will of course depend on the choice of compensation scale $`k_c`$, but recall that in any case we expect the network correlation length to be much smaller than the compensation scale. Thus, given that in our model $`k_c(c\eta )^1`$ the ‘non-Gaussian’ component will simply be too weak to be detected.

By allowing for a characteristic velocity for one of the decay channels of a defect network $`c_p`$ much larger than the velocity of light (and gravity) $`c`$ we were able to construct a model with primordial, adiabatic ($`\delta _r=4\delta _m/3`$), nearly Gaussian fluctuations whose primordial spectrum is of the Harrison-Zel’dovich form. This model is indistinguishable from the simplest inflationary models (as far as structure formation is concerned). The $`C_l`$ spectrum and the polarization curves of the CMBR predicted by this model should also be identical to the ones predicted in the simplest inflationary models as the perturbations in the CMB are not generated directly by the defects. Moreover, the gravitational wave background generated by the defects in this theory should be too weak to be detected as the energy scale of the defects can be significantly lower than in the standard case.

## IV Discussion and conclusions

Following up our previous work on the cosmological consequences of “varying speed of light” theories , we have presented a further general illustration of non-negligible overlap between topological defect and inflationary structure formation models, in the context of “two-metric” theories of gravity.

According to Liddle’s criterion , such “mimic” models of inflation require some form of “violation of causality”. In our previous work , this was provided by a defect-producing scalar field with a characteristic speed much larger than that of gravity and the standard model interactions. In the present work, it is instead provided by a similarly large “superluminal” characteristic speed of the decay products of the defect network. Hence we see that defects in two-metric theories can produce either Gaussian or non-Gaussian  primordial fluctuations. The only distinguishing characteristics of these models, by comparison with the simplest inflationary models, will be a small non-Gaussian signal in the former case, and a background of the defect decay products in the latter. Both of these could be detected by future experiments. A more detailed discussion will be presented in .

As we already pointed out in , these models might admittedly seem somewhat “unnatural” in the context of our present theoretical prejudices, though they are certainly not the only ones to fit in this category . However, if one keeps in mind that any fully consistent cosmological structure formation model candidate should eventually be derivable from fundamental physics, one could argue that at this stage they are, caeteris paribus, on the same footing as inflation. Certainly no single fully consistent realization of an inflationary model is known at present.

In any case, what these models do provide is explicit evidence of the fact that one must be extremely careful with one’s prior assumptions when using cosmological datasets, and that one must keep looking for efficient and unambiguous ways to test the main paradigms of cosmology. We shall return to this topic in a future publication.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Paul Shellard for useful discussions and comments. C.M. is funded by FCT (Portugal) under ‘Programa PRAXIS XXI’, grant no. PRAXIS XXI/BPD/11769/97. We thank Centro de Astrofísica da Universidade do Porto (CAUP) for the facilities provided.