text:
# Symmetries of Gromov-Witten Invariants

## 1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to present certain symmetry properties of the Gromov-Witten invariants for type $`A`$ complex flag manifolds.

Recall that the cohomology ring of the complex flag manifold $`Fl_n`$ has an additive basis of Schubert classes $`\sigma _w`$, which are indexed by permutations $`w`$ in the symmetric group $`S_n`$. For permutations $`u,v,wS_n`$, the Schubert number $`c_{u,v,w}`$ is the structure constant of the cohomology ring in the basis of Schubert classes:

$$\sigma _u\sigma _v=\underset{wS_n}{}c_{u,v,w}\sigma _{w_\mathrm{o}w},$$

where $`w_\mathrm{o}`$ is the longest permutation in $`S_n`$. Equivalently,

$$c_{u,v,w}=\sigma _u\sigma _u\sigma _w$$

is the intersection number of Schubert varieties. Thus these numbers are nonnegative integers symmetric in $`u`$, $`v`$, and $`w`$. They generalize the famous Littlewood-Richardson coefficients. If $`\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)+\mathrm{}(w)\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ then the Schubert number $`c_{u,v,w}`$ is zero for an obvious degree reason.

A long standing open problem is to find an algebraic or combinatorial construction for the coefficients $`c_{u,v,w}`$ that would imply their nonnegativity. A possible approach to this problem could be in its generalization to the quantum cohomology ring of the flag manifold $`Fl_n`$. The structure constants of this ring are certain polynomials whose coefficients are the Gromov-Witten invariants $`\sigma _u,\sigma _v,\sigma _w_{(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{n1})}`$ The Schubert number $`c_{u,v,w}`$ is a special case of the Gromov-Witten invariants: $`c_{u,v,w}=\sigma _u,\sigma _v,\sigma _w_{(0,\mathrm{},0)}`$. These invariants are defined as numbers of certain rational curves in $`Fl_n`$. The geometric definition of the Gromov-Witten invariants implies their nonnegativity.

In this paper we establish cyclic symmetries of the Gromov-Witten invariants that could not be detected in their full generality on the “classical” level of the Schubert numbers $`c_{u,v,w}`$. Several related results for the $`c_{u,v,w}`$ when $`u`$ is a Grassmannian permutation were, however, found by Bergeron and Sottile, see \[2, Theorems 1.3.4, 1.3.4\]. In case of the Gromov-Witten invariants we do not need to restrict the rule to Grassmannian permutations. Similar symmetries of the Gromov-Witten invariants for Grassmannian varieties were found in .

## 2 Gromov-Witten invariants

Let $`Fl_n`$ denote the manifold of complete flags of subspaces in the complex $`n`$-dimensional linear space $`^n`$. One can also define the flag manifold as $`Fl_n=GL_n()/B`$, where $`B`$ is the Borel subgroup of upper triangular matrices in the general linear group. The flag manifold is a compact smooth complex manifold. For a permutation $`wS_n`$, the Schubert variety $`X_w`$ is the closure of the Schubert cell $`B_{}wB/B`$ in $`Fl_n`$, where $`B_{}`$ is the subgroup of lower triangular matrices and $`w`$ is viewed as a permutation matrix in $`GL_n`$. The Schubert classes $`\sigma _w\mathrm{H}^{}(Fl_n,)`$, indexed by permutations $`wS_n`$, are defined as the Poincaré duals of the homology classes $`[X_w]`$ of Schubert manifolds. They form an additive $``$-basis of the cohomology ring $`\mathrm{H}^{}(Fl_n,)`$. Moreover, $`\sigma _w\mathrm{H}^{2l}(Fl_n,)`$, where $`l=\mathrm{}(w)`$ is the length of permutation $`w`$, i.e., its number of inversions.

Recently, attention has been drawn to the (small) quantum cohomology ring $`\mathrm{QH}^{}(Fl_n,)`$ of the flag manifold. The definition of quantum cohomology can be found, for example, in . Here we briefly outline several notions and results.

As a vector space, the quantum cohomology of $`Fl_n`$ is the usual cohomology tensored with the polynomial ring in $`n1`$ variables:

$$\mathrm{QH}^{}(Fl_n,)\mathrm{H}^{}(Fl_n,)[q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}].$$
(1)
The Schubert classes $`\sigma _w`$, thus, form a $`[q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}]`$-basis of the quantum cohomology ring.

The multiplication in $`\mathrm{QH}^{}(Fl_n,)`$ (quantum product) is a commutative $`[q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}]`$-linear operation. It is therefore sufficient to specify the quantum product of any two Schubert classes. To avoid confusion with the multiplication in the usual cohomology ring, we will use “$``$” to denote the quantum product. The quantum product $`\sigma _u\sigma _v`$ of two Schubert classes can be expressed in the basis of the Schubert classes as

$$\sigma _u\sigma _v=\underset{wS_n}{}C_{u,v,w}\sigma _{w_\mathrm{o}w},$$
(2)
where $`C_{u,v,w}[q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}]`$ and $`w_\mathrm{o}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& \mathrm{}& n\\ n& n1& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\text{ }\right)`$ is the longest permutation in $`S_n`$.

The coefficient of $`q_1^{d_1}\mathrm{}q_{n1}^{d_{n1}}`$ in the polynomial $`C_{u,v,w}`$ is the Gromov-Witten invariant $`\sigma _u,\sigma _v,\sigma _w_{(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{n1})}`$. The Gromov-Witten invariants are defined geometrically as numbers of certain rational curves in $`Fl_n`$. (See  or  for details.) Let us summarize the main properties of these invariants. It will be more convenient for us to work with the polynomials $`C_{u,v,w}`$.

1. (Nonnegativity) All coefficients of the $`C_{u,v,w}`$ are nonnegative integers.
2. ($`S_3`$-symmetry) The polynomials $`C_{u,v,w}`$ are invariant with respect to permuting $`u`$, $`v`$, and $`w`$.
3. (Degree condition) The polynomial $`C_{u,v,w}`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)+\mathrm{}(w)\frac{n(n1)}{2})`$.
4. (Classical limit) The Schubert number $`c_{u,v,w}`$ is the constant term of the polynomial $`C_{u,v,w}`$.
5. (Associativity) The operation “$``$” defined by (2) via the polynomials $`C_{u,v,w}`$ is associative.

The first four properties are clear from geometric definitions. It was conjectured in  that nonnegativity, associativity, degree condition, and classical limit condition uniquely determine the Gromov-Witten invariants.

The conditions 3 and 4 immediately imply the following statement.

###### Proposition 1

We have

$$C_{u,v,w}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{if }\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)+\mathrm{}(w)<\frac{n(n1)}{2},\hfill \\ 0& \text{if }\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)+\mathrm{}(w)\frac{n(n1)}{2}\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ c_{u,v,w}& \text{if }\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)+\mathrm{}(w)=\frac{n(n1)}{2},\hfill \\ \mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}& \text{overwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

In  we gave a method for calculation of the Gromov-Witten invariants. Among several approaches presented in that paper, one is based on the quantum analogue of Monk’s formula.

For $`1i<jn`$, let $`s_{ij}`$ be the transposition in $`S_n`$ that permutes $`i`$ and $`j`$. Then $`s_i=s_{ii+1}`$ is an adjacent transposition. Also, let $`q_{ij}`$ be a shorthand for the product $`q_iq_{i+1}\mathrm{}q_{j1}`$.

###### Proposition 2

\[3, Theorem 1.3\] (quantum Monk’s formula) For $`wS_n`$ and $`1k<n`$, the quantum product of the Schubert classes $`\sigma _{s_k}`$ and $`\sigma _w`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{s_k}\sigma _w=\sigma _{ws_{ab}}+q_{cd}\sigma _{ws_{cd}},$$
(3)
where the first sum is over all transpositions $`s_{ab}`$ such that $`ak<b`$ and $`\mathrm{}(ws_{ab})=\mathrm{}(w)+1`$, and the second sum is over all transpositions $`s_{cd}`$ such that $`ck<d`$ and $`\mathrm{}(ws_{cd})=\mathrm{}(w)\mathrm{}(s_{cd})=\mathrm{}(w)2(dc)+1`$.

###### Remark 3

The two-dimensional Schubert classes $`\sigma _{s_k}`$ generate the quantum cohomology ring. Thus formula (3) uniquely determines the multiplicative structure of $`\mathrm{QH}^{}(Fl_n,)`$ and, therefore, the Gromov-Witten invariants.

## 3 Cyclic symmetry

Let $`o=(1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ be the cyclic permutation in $`S_n`$ given by

$$o(i)=i+1,\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},n1,o(n)=1.$$

Recall that $`q_{ij}=q_iq_{i+1}\mathrm{}q_{j1}`$ for $`i<j`$. We also define $`q_{ij}=q_{ji}^1`$ for $`i>j`$ and $`q_{ii}=1`$.

###### Theorem 4

For any $`u,v,wS_n`$ we have

$$C_{u,v,w}=q_{ij}C_{u,o^1v,ow},$$
(4)
where $`i=v^1(1)`$ and $`j=w^1(n)`$.

The $`S_3`$-invariance of the $`C_{u,v,w}`$ under permuting $`u`$, $`v`$, and $`w`$ implies a more general statement.

For $`wS_n`$ and $`1an`$, define the following Laurent monomials in the $`q_i`$

$$Q_{w,a}=\underset{i:w(i)na+1}{}q_{1i},Q_{w,a}=\underset{j:w(j)a}{}(q_{1j})^1,$$

and let $`Q_{w,0}=1`$.

###### Corollary 5

For any $`u,v,wS_n`$ and $`na,b,cn`$ such that $`a+b+c=0`$, we have

$$C_{u,v,w}=Q_{u,a}Q_{v,b}Q_{w,c}C_{o^au,o^bv,o^cw}.$$
(5)
In many cases Corollary 5 and Proposition 1 allow us to reduce the polynomials $`C_{u,v,w}`$ to the Schubert numbers $`c_{u,v,w}`$:

###### Corollary 6

For $`u,v,wS_n`$, let us find a triple $`na,b,cn`$, $`a+b+c=0`$, for which the expression

$$\mathrm{}_{a,b,c}=\mathrm{}(o^au)+\mathrm{}(o^bv)+\mathrm{}(o^cw)$$

is as small as possible. If $`\mathrm{}_{a,b,c}<\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ then $`C_{u,v,w}=0`$. If $`\mathrm{}_{a,b,c}=\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ then $`C_{u,v,w}=Q_{u,a}Q_{v,b}Q_{w,c}c_{o^au,o^bv,o^cw}`$ .

###### Remark 7

(Reduction of Gromov-Witten invariants) The Gromov-Witten invariants have the following stability property. If $`u,v,wS_n`$ are three permutations such that $`u(n)=v(n)=n`$ and $`w(n)=1`$ then $`C_{u,v,w}=C_{u^{},v^{},w^{}}`$, where $`u^{},v^{},w^{}S_{n1}`$ are permutations obtained from $`u,v,w`$ by removing the last entry (and subtracting 1 from all entries of $`w`$).

For a triple of permutation $`u,v,wS_n`$ such that $`u(n)+v(n)+w(n)1(modn)`$, we can use the relation (5) to transform the triple to the above case when we can use the stability property. This shows that $`1/n`$ of all Gromov-Witten invariants for $`Fl_n`$ can be reduced to the Gromov-Witten invariants of $`Fl_{n1}`$. Analogously, we can reduce the problem to a lower level for a triple of permutations $`u,v,wS_n`$ such that $`u(1)+v(1)+w(1)2(modn)`$.

###### Remark 8

(New rules for multiplication of Schubert classes) Suppose that a rule is know for the quantum multiplication of an arbitrary Schubert class by certain Schubert class $`\sigma _u`$. Theorem 4 immediately produces a new rule for the quantum multiplication by $`\sigma _{o^au}`$, where $`a`$. For example, we get for free a rule for $`\sigma _{o^a}\sigma _w`$. Quantum Monk’s formula (3) can be extended to a rule for $`\sigma _{o^as_k}\sigma _w`$. More generally, quantum Pieri’s formula \[6, Corollary 4.3\] extends to an explicit rule for $`\sigma _{o^au}\sigma _w`$, where $`u`$ is a permutation of the form $`u=s_ks_{k+1}\mathrm{}s_{k+l}`$ or $`u=s_ks_{k1}\mathrm{}s_{kl}`$.

## 4 Twisted cyclic shift

Let $`T_{ij}`$, $`1i<jn`$, be the $`[q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}]`$-linear operators that act on the quantum cohomology ring $`\mathrm{QH}^{}(Fl_n,)`$ by

$$T_{ij}:\sigma _w\{\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _{ws_{ij}}& \text{if }\mathrm{}(ws_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)+1,\\ q_{ij}\sigma _{ws_{ij}}& \text{if }\mathrm{}(ws_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)2(ji)+1,\\ 0& \text{otherwise.}\end{array}$$
(6)
Then quantum Monk’s formula (3) can be written as:

$$\sigma _{s_k}\sigma _w=\underset{ik<j}{}T_{ij}(\sigma _w).$$
(7)
The operators $`T_{ij}`$ satisfy certain simple quadratic relations. The formal algebra defined by these relations was studied in  and .

Let us also define the twisted cyclic shift operator $`O`$ that acts on the quantum cohomology ring $`\mathrm{QH}^{}(Fl_n,)`$, linearly over $`[q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n1}]`$, by

$$O:\sigma _wq^{(w)}\sigma _{ow},$$

where $`q^{(w)}=q_{rn}`$ with $`r=w^1(n)`$.

###### Proposition 9

For any $`1i<jn`$, the operators $`T_{ij}`$ and $`O`$ commute:

$$T_{ij}O=OT_{ij}.$$

The following lemma clarifies the conditions in the right-hand side of (6). Its proof is a straightforward observation.

###### Lemma 10

Let $`wS_n`$ and $`1i<jn`$. Then

1. $`\mathrm{}(ws_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)+1`$ if and only if for all $`ikj`$ we have

$$w(k)w(j)w(i)\text{or}w(j)w(i)w(k);$$
2. $`\mathrm{}(ws_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)\mathrm{}(s_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)2(ji)+1`$ if and only if for all $`ikj`$ we have

$$w(i)w(k)w(j).$$

Proof of Proposition 9 —  The crucial observation is that, for fixed $`ikj`$, the set of permutations $`w`$ such that

$$w(k)w(j)w(i)\text{or}w(j)w(i)w(k)\text{or}w(i)w(k)w(j)$$

is invariant under the left multiplications of $`w`$ by the cycle $`o`$. This fact, together with Lemma 10, implies that $`(T_{ij}O)(\sigma _w)`$ is nonzero if and only if $`T_{ij}(\sigma _w)`$ is nonzero. Assume that $`T_{ij}(\sigma _w)0`$ and consider three cases:

I. Neither $`w(i)`$ nor $`w(j)`$ is equal to $`n`$. Then either of the conditions in the right-hand side of (6) is satisfied for $`w`$ if and only if the same condition is satisfied for $`ow`$. Also $`q^{(w)}=q^{(ws_{ij})}`$. Thus $`(T_{ij}O)(\sigma _w)=(OT_{ij})(\sigma _w)`$.

II. We have $`w(j)=n`$. Then $`w(i)<w(j)`$ and $`ow(i)>ow(j)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{}(ws_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)+1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(ows_{ij})=\mathrm{}(ow)\mathrm{}(s_{ij})`$. Thus $`T_{ij}(\sigma _w)=\sigma _{ws_{ij}}`$ and $`T_{ij}(\sigma _{ow})=q_{ij}\sigma _{ows_{ij}}`$. Also we have $`q^{(w)}=q_{jn}`$ and $`q^{(ws_{ij})}=q_{in}`$. Therefore, $`(T_{ij}O)(\sigma _w)=q_{ij}q_{jn}\sigma _{ows_{ij}}=q_{in}\sigma _{ows_{ij}}=(OT_{ij})(\sigma _w)`$.

III. We have $`w(i)=n`$. Then $`w(i)>w(j)`$ and $`ow(i)<ow(j)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{}(ws_{ij})=\mathrm{}(w)\mathrm{}(s_{ij})`$ and $`\mathrm{}(ows_{ij})=\mathrm{}(ow)+1`$. Thus $`T_{ij}(\sigma _w)=q_{ij}\sigma _{ws_{ij}}`$ and $`T_{ij}(\sigma _{ow})=\sigma _{ows_{ij}}`$. Also we have $`q^{(w)}=q_{in}`$ and $`q^{(ws_{ij})}=q_{jn}`$. Therefore, $`(T_{ij}O)(\sigma _w)=q_{in}\sigma _{ows_{ij}}=q_{ij}q_{jn}\sigma _{ows_{ij}}=(OT_{ij})(\sigma _w)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 11

For any $`wS_n`$, the operator of quantum multiplication by the Schubert class $`\sigma _w`$ commutes with the operator $`O`$.

Proof — Proposition 9 and quantum Monk’s formula (7) imply that the operator of quantum multiplication by a two-dimensional Schubert class $`\sigma _{s_k}`$ commutes with the twisted cyclic shift operator $`O`$. By Remark 3, for any $`wS_n`$, the operator of quantum multiplication by $`\sigma _w`$ commutes with $`O`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

This also proves Theorem 4, because it is equivalent to Corollary 11.

## 5 Transition graph

The Bruhat order $`Br_n`$ is the partial order on the set of all permutations in $`S_n`$ given by the following covering relation: $`uw`$ if $`w=us_{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{}(w)=\mathrm{}(u)+1`$. In other words, $`uw`$ if $`\sigma _w`$ appear in the expansion of $`\sigma _{s_k}\sigma _u`$ for some $`1k<n`$ (the product in the usual cohomology ring).

The analogue of the Bruhat order for the quantum cohomology ring is the following transition graph. The transition graph $`Tr_n`$ is the directed graph on the set of permutations in $`S_n`$. Two permutations are connected by an edge $`uw`$ in $`Tr_n`$ if $`w=us_{ab}`$ and either $`\mathrm{}(w)=\mathrm{}(u)+1`$ or $`\mathrm{}(w)=\mathrm{}(u)\mathrm{}(s_{ab})`$. We will label the edge $`uus_{ab}`$ by the pair $`(a,b)`$. Equivalently, two permutations are connected by the edge $`uw`$ in $`Tr_n`$ whenever $`\sigma _w`$ appear in the expansion of the quantum product $`\sigma _{s_k}\sigma _u`$ for some $`1k<n`$.

Proposition 9 implies the cyclic symmetry of the transition graph:

###### Corollary 12

The transition graph $`Tr_n`$ is invariant under the cyclic shift: $`wow`$, for $`wS_n`$.

Figures 1 and 2 show the Bruhat order $`Br_3`$ and the transition graph $`Tr_3`$. The transition graph $`Tr_3`$ is obtained by adding several new edges to $`Br_3`$, which makes the picture symmetric with respect to the cyclic group $`/3`$. The generator $`o`$ of the cyclic group rotates the graph $`Tr_3`$ by $`180^\mathrm{o}`$ clockwise.


format: text

text:
# Quasi-SU(3) truncation scheme for even-even 𝑠𝑑-shell nuclei

## 1 Introduction

More than 40 years ago Elliott pointed out the fundamental role SU(3) plays in a description of light rotational nuclei . The introduction of SU(3) yields insight into relevant degrees of freedom underlying collective rotational motion, and in particular it points to the importance of the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction. Furthermore, even though the spin-orbit interaction breaks SU(3), it can still be used to truncate full model spaces into small subspaces in which realistic calculations can be performed.

In heavy deformed nuclei the pseudo-SU(3) symmetry  has played a similar role. While in the 1980s it was employed as an exact symmetry , after the development of new computer codes for calculating reduced matrix elements of 1- and 2-body operators , it was possible to take into account pseudo-SU(3) symmetry breaking terms in the Hamiltonian (i.e. realistic single-particle energies and the pairing interaction) which have been shown to be important in a description of low-energy bands and associated electromagnetic transition strengths in even-even  as well as odd-mass  nuclei.

Although the pseudo-SU(3) model is a successful shell-model scheme, it is limited by the formal exclusion of valence nucleons occupying unique parity orbitals. In certain cases a reparametrization of the theory can be used to compensate for this exclusion, while in other cases the nucleons in unique parity orbitals have to be included explicitly . The quasi-SU(3) truncation scheme therefore offers the possibility of including nucleons in intruder orbits within the framework of a complementary SU(3) formalism and thereby yielding a complete theory for heavy deformed nuclei .

The quasi-SU(3) symmetry was uncovered in full pf and sdg shell-model calculations for even-even  and odd-even  nuclei. It owes its importance to the dominance of the single-particle and quadrupole-quadrupole terms in a Hamiltonian used to describe well-deformed nuclei. Needless to say, other terms such as pairing are crucial in determining observed moments of inertia, but most of these effects can be accounted for perturbatively because they introduce small changes in the wavefunctions .

The quasi-SU(3) symmetry also leads to an efficient truncation scheme. In shell-model calculations it has been shown that the single-particle levels with $`j=l+\frac{1}{2}`$ play a dominant role in the low-energy spectra, allowing significant reductions in the size of the Hilbert space . In  it is reported that, when a single-particle plus quadrupole-quadrupole Hamiltonian is diagonalized in an SU(3) basis, very few SU(3) irreducible representations (irreps) are needed to describe the yrast band. The ground state band is built from the S=0 leading irrep, which strongly mixes with the leading S=1 irreps in the proton and neutron subspaces. Using a realistic Hamiltonian the change in the wavefunction associated with backbending in 48Cr was studied in .

In the present article the quasi-SU(3) truncation scheme obtained in  is used in conjunction with a realistic Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian has single-particle terms for protons and neutrons, quadrupole-quadrupole and pairing interactions, and three rotor-like terms that allow for a fine tuning of the different bands. The energy spectra and B(E2) transition strength of 20,22Ne, 24Mg and 28Si are studied. The effects of the size of the Hilbert space on both observables are discussed at length, as well as the yrast band wavefunction and the role played by the different terms in the Hamiltonian.

The main goal is to show that the combination of the quasi-SU(3) truncation scheme and a realistic but simple Hamiltonian is a powerful combination for generating a description of the low-energy properties of deformed nuclei. This work, and a follow-on one where odd-mass and odd-odd light nuclei are discussed , provide justification for applications of the quasi-SU(3) truncation scheme to nucleons occupying unique parity orbitals in heavy deformed nuclei.

We study two nuclei, for which a diagonalization in the full Hilbert space in the SU(3) scheme is feasible (20,22Ne), to analyse the effects of the truncation on the energy spectra and B(E2) values. The heavier 24Mg and 28Si nuclei have a richer structure and are used to help exhibit the efficiency of the model. The last two nuclei are more affected by the spin-orbit interaction, which introduces significant mixing of SU(3) irreps in the yrast band wavefunction. We will also discuss changes in the rotor-like terms in the Hamiltonian which allow for a best description of the nuclear properties in each truncated subspace.

The article is organized as follows: In Section 2 a brief review of the SU(3) basis and the model Hamiltonian is presented. Results for 20Ne are shown and discussed in Section 3, for 22Ne in Section 4, for 24Mg in Section 5, and for 28Si in Section 6. Conclusions are given in Section 7.

## 2 The quasi SU(3) model

There are many articles and books were the SU(3) nuclear model is discussed extensively and to which the interested reader is referred . In the present section we review some properties of the model which are of concern in the present work.

The basis states are written as

$`|\{n_\pi [f_\pi ]\alpha _\pi (\lambda _\pi ,\mu _\pi ),n_\nu [f_\nu ]\alpha _\nu (\lambda _\nu ,\mu _\nu )\}\rho (\lambda ,\mu )kL\{S_\pi ,S_\nu \}S;JM`$ (1)
where $`n_\pi `$ is the number of valence protons in the sd shell and $`[f_\pi ]`$ is the irrep of the U(2) spin group for protons, which has associated with spin $`S_\pi =(f_\pi ^1f_\pi ^2)/2`$. The SU(3) irrep for protons is $`(\lambda _\pi ,\mu _\pi )`$ with a multiplicity label $`\alpha _\pi `$ associated with the reduction from $`U(6)`$. Similar definitions hold for the neutrons, labeled with $`\nu `$. There are other two multiplicity labels: $`\rho `$, which counts how many times the total irrep $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ occurs in the direct product $`(\lambda _\pi ,\mu _\pi )(\lambda _\nu ,\mu _\nu )`$ and $`K`$, which classifies the different occurrences of the orbital angular momentum $`L`$ in $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$.

The vector states (1) span the complete shell-model space within only one active (harmonic oscillator) shell for each kind of nucleon. As an example, for two protons ($`n_\pi =2`$) in the sd shell there are three possible irreps: $`(\lambda _\pi ,\mu _\pi )=`$ (4,0), (2,1) and (0,2). The first and third irreps have spin zero, the second one has spin 1. Each one occurs only once ($`\alpha _\pi =1`$). The same numbers are obtained for 2 neutrons. The coupled SU(3) irreps are ordered by decreasing values of the expectation value of the second order Casimir operator, $`C_2`$,

$$(\lambda ,\mu )|C_2|(\lambda ,\mu )=(\lambda +\mu +3)(\lambda +\mu )\lambda \mu .$$
(2)
They are listed in Table 1, with the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ labeling the coupled irreps in the third column, the possible values of the total spin S in the fourth, and the $`C_2`$ value in the fifth column.

There is a total of 66 irreps, including the outer multiplicity $`\rho =1,2`$ in the couplings $`(2,1)_\pi (2,1)_\nu =(3,1),(1,2)`$, and the total spin S. For each irrep and each spin there are many states, labeled by their orbital angular momentum $`L`$, its multiplicity $`K`$, their total angular momentum $`J`$ and its projection $`M`$.

For 20Ne and 22Ne all possible states were included. For 24Mg and 28Si the space was truncated to allow for faster calculations and to analyze the validity of a truncation scheme based on the quasi-SU(3) basis. The quasi SU(3) truncation scheme is very simple : only the SU(3) irreps with the largest $`C_2`$ value, in the separate proton and neutron spaces as well as the coupled space, and spin 0 and 1 are included. The inclusion of spin 1 states represents the most important difference from previous SU(3) based truncation schemes .

The Hamiltonian of the model is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{sp,\pi }+H_{sp,\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi QQG_\pi H_{pair,\pi }`$
$`G_\nu H_{pair,\nu }+aK_J^2+bJ^2+A_{sym}\stackrel{~}{C}_2.`$
The first terms are spherical Nilsson single-particle energies, the quadrupole-quadrupole and pairing interactions. They are the basic components of any realistic Hamiltonian  and have been widely studied in the nuclear physics literature, allowing their respective strengths to be fixed by systematics . The remaining are three rotor-like terms used to fine tune the moment of inertia and the position of the different $`K`$ bands. The SU(3) mixing is due to the single-particle and pairing terms.

The single-particle part of the Hamiltonian is

$$H_{sp}=\mathrm{}\omega _0\left(\eta +\frac{3}{2}2\kappa \stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{s}+\kappa \mu \stackrel{}{l}^2\right),$$
(4)
with parameters

$`\mathrm{}\omega _0=41A^{1/3}[MeV],`$ $`\kappa _\pi =\kappa _\nu =0.08,`$ $`\mu _\pi =\mu _\nu =0.0.`$ (5)
The pairing interaction is

$$V_p=\frac{1}{4}G\underset{j,j^{}}{}a_j^{}a_{\overline{j}}^{}a_j^{}a_{\overline{j^{}}}$$
(6)
where $`\overline{j}`$ denotes the time reversed partner of the single-particle state $`j`$ and $`G`$ is the strength of the pairing force. Its second quantized expression in term of SU(3) tensors is reviewed in . The quadrupole-quadrupole ($`\chi `$) and pairing ($`G_{\pi ,\nu }`$) interaction strengths used are

$$\chi =\frac{17}{A^{5/3}},G_\pi =G_\nu =\frac{9.5}{A}.$$
(7)
The pairing force parameter (9.5) in these light nuclei ($`A1728`$) is about half the one used in heavier nuclei.

The three ‘rotor-like’ terms have been studied in detail in previous papers where the SU(3) and pseudo SU(3) symmetry were used as a dynamical symmetries . In the present work, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the two parameters used to fit the spectra. $`A_{sym}`$ was used for 22Ne and 24Mg. The term proportional to $`K_J^2`$ breaks the SU(3) degeneracy of the different K bands . The term proportional to $`J^2`$ is used to fine tune the moment of inertia. It represents a small correction to the quadrupole-quadrupole term, which contributes to the rotor spectra with strength $`3/2\chi `$ . The symmetry term distinguishes SU(3) irreps with both $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ even from the others , having zero strength in the first case and a positive value in the the second. The net effect of this term is to make contributions of irreps with both $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ even enhanced relative to the other because they belong to different symmetry types of the intrinsic Vierergruppe $`D_2`$ .

The values of the Hamiltonian parameters used for the different nuclei are listed in Table 2. The $`a,b`$ and $`A_{sym}`$ paramenters were adjusted to obtain a best fit for each Hilbert space, which is indicated as full or truncated. In 28Si we also studied a Hamiltonian with an extra term proportional to the third order Casimir $`C_3`$ (see Section 6).

In the following sections we present results for the nuclei 20Ne, 22Ne, 24Mg and 28Si. The effects of both the truncation of the Hilbert space and the rotor-like terms of the Hamiltonian (2) on the energy spectra and the B(E2) electromagnetic transition strengths are investigated. When possible, a comparison with experimental data  and full sd-shell model calculations  is given.

## 3 The 20Ne case

20Ne is considered to be a nucleus with 2 protons and 2 neutrons in the sd-shell, outside an inert 16O core. The list of the 66 SU(3) irreps that define the full Hilbert space is shown in Table 1.

The energy spectra of 20Ne obtained with Hamiltonian (2) diagonalized in this basis is shown in the second column of Fig. 1, labeled ‘Full’. A truncated Hilbert space built with only the 12 irreps with the largest $`C_2`$ values (listed in the upper six lines in Table 1) was also used. The energy spectra is shown in the first column of Fig. 1, labeled ‘Trunc’. For the full space the rotor parameters were $`A_{sym}=0,b=0.01,a=0.6`$ MeV and for the truncated space $`A_{sym}=b=0,a=0.3`$ MeV. The theoretical results are compared with the experimental energies , shown in the third column, and with the energies obtained in previous theoretical studies using an SU(3) basis restricted to S=0 states  and the full sd shell-model . In the figure, a) includes the ground state as well as the $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ bands, while b) shows other excited configurations.

The ground state band ($`0_1^+,2_1^+,4_1^+,6_1^+,8_1^+`$) is described almost perfectly by all the models. The $`\gamma `$ band, which starts with the $`0_2^+`$, and the $`\beta `$ band, which starts with the $`2_2^+`$ state, are also described well, however, in the truncated basis their order is reverted. The excited $`4_2^+,6_2^+,6_3^+`$ are also reproduced well.

The excited $`0_3^+,0_4^+`$ states have energies around 8 MeV. The full basis yields a correct description, while with the truncated space their energies are too high. This is a clear indication of a limitation of the truncated space, namely, it cannot be used to describe highly excited states.

Part b) displays many excited states. While some of them are correctly reproduced, as for example $`2_4^+,4_3^+,4_4^+`$, other are not. The $`1^+`$ states are some of the worst described. The energies reported in , fourth column, are less accurate in their description of some excited states due to the absence of $`S=1,2`$ states in the basis. It is important to note that even the full space calculation shown in the fifth column does not give a good description of these states.

To analyze the effect the truncation of the Hilbert space has on the B(E2) transition strengths, in Table 3 B(E2) values are shown as a function of the number of SU(3) irreps included in the basis. These numbers (1, 4, 12, 17, 25, 66) were selected based on changes in the values of $`C_2`$ in Table 1, guaranteeing in this way that irreps which contribute with the same intensity to the quadrupole-quadrupole force are all included or all neglected. The first column shows the initial and final angular momentum state of the transition, the second the experimental B(E2) value, and the remaining six the theoretical B(E2) values obtained using the same Hamiltonian parameters but reducing the size of the basis (indicated at the top of each column). The last column, labeled 12, shows the B(E2) values obtained using a space with 12 irreps (as for the sixth column) but the Hamiltonian parameters optimized for this space, namely, the same set used to calculate the energy spectra shown in Fig. 1. In all cases an effective charge of $`q_{ef}=1.558`$ was used.

For the B(E2) transitions within the ground state band any space produces very good results. For the same Hamiltonian parameters, the B(E2) values all increase as the number of irreps in the basis decreases. The results for 12 irreps with the best-fit parameters are as good as those obtained with the complete basis, and very close to the experimental ones, as can be seen in the first four rows of Table 3.

For B(E2) transitions from states in excited bands to states in the ground state band the situation changes drastically. The leading irrep is (8,0), which has no $`\gamma `$ band. So including only one SU(3) irrep yields no excited bands and no transitions. The transition $`0_22_1`$ is pretty well described with 12 irreps. The $`0_32_1`$ transition (next to the last entry in Table 3) is is not so well described. The last entry is only reasonable in the complete basis. For basis including 1 or 4 irreps the $`8_1^+`$ state always has an energy higher than that observed because the wavefunction is close to a pure rotor. At least 12 irreps are needed to move this state down to the observed energy.

The percentage each SU(3) irrep contributes to the wavefunction of states in the ground state band is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of the angular momentum of each state. Results obtained with the full basis are presented in insert a), and with a basis truncated to 12 irreps in insert b). In both cases the rotor parameters which fit the spectra best were used. It is remarkable that the wavefunctions in the truncated basis are very similar to those obtained using the full basis. This is an important result because even for 20Ne, the textbook example of a ‘pure’ SU(3) rotor, the leading irrep (8,0) displays very large mixing with the irreps (6,1) with S=1 and, for J=8, with the irrep (4,2) with S=2. For J=6 the irrep (8,0) contributes only with 44 %, and for J=8 with 23 %.

The most important conclusion from the 20Ne results is that while including a few SU(3) irreps in the basis is enough to obtain good wavefunction, irreps with spin 1 and 2 and largest $`C_2`$ values must be present. This particular selection of states is what we identify as the the quasi SU(3) truncation scheme. This appears to be at work in all the nuclei studied in the present work.

## 4 The 22Ne case

The 22Ne nucleus has 2 protons and 4 neutrons occupying the sd shell. The proton SU(3) irreps are the same as for 20Ne. The 4 neutrons can be configured in any one of the 10 irreps listed in Table 4. By coupling the proton and neutron irreps one gets a complete basis, which contains 307 irreps, including the external multiplicity $`\rho `$ and all allowed spins. Results are presented in Table 5 for a truncated basis with only the 13 irreps with largest $`C_2`$ values. Notice that only proton and neutron irreps with spin 0 and 1 appear in the list (irreps with spin 2 have always a very small $`C_2`$ value). These couple to irreps with spin 0, 1 and 2.

The 22Ne energy spectra is presented in Fig. 3. The first column on the left hand side shows the energies obtained using the truncated basis, the second the energies obtained using the complete basis, the third the experimental energies  and the fourth the energies obtained using full $`sd`$-shell model calculations . Insert a) displays the ground state and $`\beta `$ bands, insert b) other excited bands. The ground state and the $`\beta `$ bands are very well described with both the complete and the truncated basis. Other states like $`1_1^+`$, $`3_1^+`$, $`4_2^+`$, $`3_2^+`$, $`0_2^+`$ and $`4_3^+`$ are also reasonable well predicted. In contrast, for a number of highly excited states ($`5_1^+`$, $`1_2^+`$, $`6_2^+`$, $`0_3^+`$, $`0_4^+`$) the model fails when the truncated basis is used. This is particularly so for the states $`2_4^+`$, $`1_2^+`$, $`0_3^+`$ and $`0_4^+`$. Nonetheless, the overall description of 22Ne is quite good.

As was seen for the 20Ne case, the single particle energies together with the pairing and quadrupole-quadrupole interactions suffices to reproduce the gross features of the energy spectrum. Small corrections are introduced by the rotor-like terms ($`K^2`$ for 20Ne, $`J^2`$ for 22Ne), which allow for a fine tuning of the energies. This is another very important result. It reflects on the fact that the Hamiltonian parameters taken from systematics are quite good, allowing a description comparable to the $`sd`$-shell model. When coupled with the truncation scheme outlined above, they constitute the main ingredients of a powerful and predictive model, the quasi-SU(3) scheme.

The 22Ne B(E2) transition strengths are presented in Table 6. The theoretical results obtained with $`q_{eff}=1.3`$ agree well with the known experimental data (there are three strengths measured between states in the ground state band as well as two transitions between bands). As was the case for 20Ne, the B(E2) transition strengths between members of the ground state band are pretty well described within both the truncated and the complete Hilbert space, while the transitions between states in gamma bands differ, with the complete space predictions being smaller.

The ground state wavefunctions obtained using the complete and truncated bases are displayed in Fig. 4 as a function of the angular momentum of the states. While the details may differ, a comparison of the wavefunctions exhibit the same trends in both the complete and truncated basis. For J=0 the irrep $`(4,0)_\pi (4,2)_\nu (8,2)`$ S=0 dominates, with significant mixing with the irreps (9,0) S=1, (6,3) S=1 and (7,1) S=1. For larger values of the angular momentum, the contribution of the irrep (8,2) S=0 decreases, being replaced by the irrep (7,1) S=2 for J = 8 and 10. The important role played by the SU(3) irreps with spin S = 1 and 2 in the ground state band is the most significant departure from the usual Elliot SU(3) symmetry and, as mentioned above, is the manifestation of the quasi-SU(3) symmetry.

## 5 The 24Mg case

The 24Mg nucleus has four protons and four neutrons in the active sd shell. The 10 SU(3) irreps for protons and neutrons are those listed in Table 4. The complete basis includes 1599 irreps, taking into account the external multiplicity $`\rho `$ and the different spin values. Calculations were carried out in truncated Hilbert space built with the 11 SU(3) irreps listed in Table 7. Again, these are the SU(3) irreps with the largest $`C_2`$ value. Proton and neutron irreps either spin S=0 and 1 and the coupled irreps have spin S = 0, 1 and 2.

As can be seen in Table 2, the Hamiltonian parameters include an symmetry parameter. This is required to lower the energy of the $`8_1^+`$ state, which is a member of the ground state band. The energy spectra of 24Mg is shown in Fig. 5. The first column displays the shell-model values, the second the experimental data, and the third the predicted energies in the truncated basis. The last three columns show the effect on the spectra of turning off the $`K^2`$ term ($`a=0`$), both the $`K^2`$ and the symmetry term ($`a=A_{sym}=0`$) and the three rotor terms ($`a=b=A_{sym}=0`$), respectively.

The present theoretical spectra (‘Trun’) reproduce the observed energy levels and the full shell-model calculations fairly well. As mentioned above, gross features of the spectra are reproduced by the dominant terms in Hamiltonian (2): the single particle, pairing and quadrupole-quadrupole interactions, whose strength are fixed from systematics. The spectra obtained with no rotor-like terms is shown in the last column (right hand side) of Fig. 5. The ordering of the levels is correct, with only one crossing of two neighboring levels: $`1_1^+`$ and $`4_2^+`$. The first $`2^+`$ state is about at the right energy. However, without the rotor-like terms the model fails to reproduce the moment of inertia of the ground state band, the energy of the $`\gamma `$ band head and other features. The energy of the state in the $`\gamma `$ band is substantially controlled by the $`K^2`$ term. This is why it was introduced . Without only this term the $`\gamma `$ band energies are clearly depressed, as seen in the third column. The most prominent effect of not including the symmetry term is in the energy of the $`8_1^+`$ state. This term reduces the mixing of the leading irrep (8,4) S = 1 with other irreps which have $`\lambda `$ or $`\mu `$ odd, a mixing that is driven by the single particle terms of the Hamiltonian. It was also noted in a study of the mapping of the rotor to the SU(3) model . It is shown here to contribute to the correct prediction of the energies of high energy states belonging to the ground state band.

Fig. 6 shows the percentage each irrep contributes to the wavefunction of states in the ground state band of 24Mg as a function of their angular momentum. The upper panel show the results using the complete Hamiltonian (2), the lower panel the results of setting $`a=b=A_{sym}=0`$. The introduction of the symmetry term strongly diminishes the mixing. There is a sudden change in the wavefunction from J=6 to J=8, where the dominance of the (8,4) S=0 irrep is replaced by the (10,0) S=2. This change in the spin contribution to states in the ground state band was also found in full shell-model calculations of 24Mg .

Calculations were performed also for other basis sets, containing 1, 4, 8, 26, 34, 54, and 62 irreps. In all cases similar fits were found, with the parameter $`b`$ ranging between 0.01 and 0.03 and $`A_{sym}`$ between 0.04 and 0.08.

The B(E2) transition strengths for $`{}_{}{}^{24}Mg`$ are listed in Table 8. Experimental values are shown in the second column. Theoretical values were calculated using an effective charge $`q_{eff}=1.6`$ and are displayed in the third column. The overall agreement is reasonable. The change in the wavefunction of the $`8_1^+`$ state reflects in a fragmentation of the B(E2) strengths between the transitions $`6_1^+8_1^+`$ and $`6_1^+8_2^+`$. None of these have been measured.

## 6 The 28Si case

The 28Si nucleus has 6 protons and 6 neutrons occupying the sd shell. Six like particles in the $`sd`$-shell populate the 15 irreps listed with their spin S in Table 9.

The complete basis includes 4045 irreps, taking into account the external multiplicity $`\rho `$ and the different spin values. Calculations were carried out in a severely truncated Hilbert space, built with the 24 SU(3) irreps listed in Table 10. Again, these are the SU(3) irreps with the largest $`C_2`$ values. As in previous cases, proton and neutron irreps include those with spin S = 0 and 1, while total irreps have spin S = 0, 1 and 2. The proton and neutron spin $`S_\pi ,S_\nu `$ are shown explicitly in order to distinguish the irreps (3,3) with spin S = 0 and 1.

The 28Si energy spectra is shown in Fig. 7. In was obtained with the parametrization given in Table 2 for the Hamiltonian (2) plus a term proportional to $`C_3`$, the third order SU(3) Casimir operator. The $`C_3`$ eigenvalues go like cubic powers of $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ , being in general large numbers. For this reason its coefficient was selected to be very small: 4.64 $`\times 10^4`$. Its effect on the wavefunction can be appreciated in Figure 8. It drives irreps with $`\mu \lambda `$ lower in energy than those with $`\mu \lambda `$. As this is a mid-shell nucleus so it has the same number of particles and holes, it has two bands originated from the (12,0) and (0,12) irreps which would be degenerated for a pure quadrupole-quadrupole interaction. A similar feature has been found in Hartree-Fock calculations, where two minima coexist . It was shown that the $`ls`$ single particle term breaks this degeneracy and favors the dominance in the ground state band of the (0,12) irrep . But the $`ls`$ term alone is unable to push the first excited $`0^+`$ state to an energy of 4.98 MeV. We found that, at most, it breaks the degeneracy putting this state at 1.16 MeV. A similar trend is observed in other states belonging to the first excited (prolate) band. The term proportional to $`C_3`$ allows us to put the first excited $`0^+`$ at the correct energy, as can be seen in Figure 7. With this Hamiltonian we obtain a very good description of this nucleus. Some states ($`1_1`$, $`2_3`$, $`2_4`$ and $`5_1`$) deviate from the experimental values in a way that is similar to those predicted by shell-model calculations .

In Figure 8 the crossing of the oblate \[(0,12),(1,10)\] and prolate \[((12,0), (10,1)\] bands can be seen, which is a special feature of this mid-shell nucleus. With the $`C_3`$ term in the Hamiltonian, the crossing in Figure 8 insert a) occurs at J = 6, while without this term, insert b), it occurs at J = 4. This happen because $`C_3`$ favors the J = 4 state belonging to the (0,12) band, driving it lower in energy than its counterpart from (12,0). Without $`C_3`$ there is a state with J = 4 at 4.58 MeV dominated by the (0,12) irrep, as for the calculation with $`C_3`$, but in this case there is another J = 4 state dominated by the (12,0) irrep at 2.87 MeV.

As it was the case for lighter nuclei, the energy spectra is reproduced fairly well, and the quality of the results is comparable with those obtained by Wildenthal and Endt  with a full shell-model calculation. The ground state band and many excited states are properly described. Given that this nucleus lies exactly at mid-shell, it is the most complex even-even nuclei of the sd shell. The presence of a $`3_1^+`$ state that is lower in energy than the $`2_2^+`$ state, i.e. which does not belong to the $`\gamma `$ band, is impossible to understand within the context of the present model, while shell-model calculations reproduce this state. Similar problems occur for other excited states, like the $`2_3^+,6_2^+,6_3^+`$.

In Table 11 the B(E2) transition strengths are shown. While there are many measured transitions, mostly of them involve the $`0^+`$, $`2^+`$ and $`4^+`$ states. The agreement between theory and experiment is not as good as in the other nuclei, but shows the same trend found in full shell-model calculations for 28Si. There are few B(E2) experimental intensities with large strength, they allow us to identify some bands like those formed by the set of states ($`0_1^+`$, $`2_1^+`$, $`4_1^+`$, $`6_1^+`$); ($`2_2^+`$, $`4_3^+`$) and ($`2_4^+`$, $`4_4^+`$). On other hand, theoretical strengths suggest the following associations between positive parity states: ($`0_1`$, $`2_1`$, $`4_1`$, $`6_3`$, $`8_5`$); ($`0_2`$, $`2_2`$, $`4_2`$, $`6_2`$, $`8_1`$, $`10_1`$); ($`0_3`$, $`2_3`$, $`4_6`$, $`6_7`$, $`8_{11}`$, $`10_6`$); ($`0_4`$, $`2_6`$, ($`4_7`$, $`4_9`$)), where a couple of states with J = 4 in parentheses means that there are large strengths toward both states.

## 7 Conclusions

The quasi SU(3) symmetry concept, first introduced in full shell-model calculations, was used in this work to explore the structure of four even-even sd-shell nuclei. While the SU(3) symmetry of these nuclei has been used since 1959, the new feature in this work is a close look at the role of proton and neutron irreps with spin S=1. It turns out that these configurations make large, often dominant contributions to the structure of members of the ground-state band, especially those states with higher angular momentum values.

The energy spectra and B(E2) transition strengths of 20,22Ne, 24Mg and 28Si were calculated in a truncated basis based on the quasi SU(3) symmetry. A simple Hamiltonian which contains realistic single-particle energies, pairing and quadrupole-quadrupole terms was used. Both, the energy spectra and B(E2) transition were found to be very close to the corresponding experimental values. For the 20,22Ne cases the calculations were performed in the complete as well as a quasi SU(3) truncated basis, allowing for a discussion of the benefits and limitations of the truncation scheme. While including a few SU(3) irreps in the basis is enough to obtain good description of deformed nuclei, irreps with spin 1 and 2 and largest $`C_2`$ values must be present. Effects of the three rotor-like terms in the Hamiltonian were discussed in detail for the 24Mg case.

The results of this work re-enforce the claim that the quasi SU(3) symmetry is a very powerful concept, raising expectations for its use in a description of intruder states in heavy deformed nuclei. Together with a pseudo SU(3) description for nucleons in normal parity states in these nuclei, one can anticipate a relatively simple SU(3) description (pseudo for normal parity orbitals and quasi for intruders) of heavy deformed nuclei which has been missing up to now.

## 8 Aknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Conacyt (México) and the National Science Fundation under Grant PHY-9970769 and Cooperative Agreement EPS-9720652 that includes matching from the Louisiana Board of Regents Support Fund.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The thermodynamic arrow of time is so all-encompassing that, paradoxically, it can be invisible. The ancients did not explain friction, just as they did not think to try to explain why things fell down. There were myths for spring and myths for rain, but as far as I know, no myths for terrestrial gravity or friction. Nevertheless, once Newton had formulated reversible laws of mechanics (by studying the nearly frictionless motion of the planets) it was realized that the enormous asymmetries of our lives—breaking eggs, graying beards, heating brake pads—required an explanation that went beyond the laws of dynamics.

It is not always appreciated that this explanation involves two separate logical steps. The first is to go from reversible microscopic dynamics to irreversible macroscopic manifestations. A result of this kind is the Boltzmann H-theorem. The second step takes the first as given, but then asks, why do we have the particular arrow that we do, what is it that picks the actual direction? Is it a physical effect, like CP violation or the expansion of the universe? Or perhaps it’s more subtle. Any sufficiently large system must have some arrow, so that the directionality question loses its meaning. One would still need to establish, however, that there must be but a single arrow. Background on both aspects can be found in , although emphasis in the present article and in  is on the second matter.

The study of irreversibility is closely related to ergodic theory and the tools in the present study are the tools of that field. In particular I use the model systems popular there, one of the most congenial of these being the “cat map.” I will first use this to show how an arrow of time can apparently develop in a symmetric system and how this can be related to cosmology. Then a system with two arrows will be exhibited. Next I will treat the important physical question of whether we could hope to see this phenomenon. Finally I will take up one of the amusing aspects of this research, the possibility of causal paradoxes, very much like those that arise in time travel scenarios.

## II The cat map

The “cat map” is a mixing transformation of the unit square onto itself. As for “Schrödinger’s cat,” the whimsical name was acquired when a fundamental idea was illustrated by having unpleasant things happen to a cat. For $`x,yI^2=`$ the unit square, the mapping $`\varphi :I^2I^2`$ is

$`x^{}=\varphi _1(x,y)`$ $`x+y\text{ mod 1}`$ (3)
$`\text{or }\left(\begin{array}{c}x^{}\\ y^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right)\text{ mod 1}`$
$`y^{}=\varphi _2(x,y)`$ $`x+2y\text{ mod 1}`$ (5)
The matrix on the right has determinant one, so that $`\varphi `$ is measure preserving. If one thinks of $`I^2`$ as phase space, then this is a model of classical mechanics. Technically, $`\varphi `$ is effective at producing apparently irreversible effects because the matrix in Eq. (3) has as its larger eigenvalue $`\lambda \left(3+\sqrt{5}\right)/22.6>1`$.

But it is the non-technical illustration of the relaxation that earned the map its name. In a classic text , an initial pattern consisting of an image of a cat is shown. When $`\varphi `$ is applied once, the image is stretched by a factor $`\lambda `$, squeezed transversely by $`1/\lambda `$, snipped (when overshooting $`I^2`$), and reassembled. Within two or three applications of $`\varphi `$, the poor cat is hardly recognizable.

Feline images will not be needed in this article. Rather I place several hundred points in $`I^2`$ and allow each to move independently under $`\varphi `$. This models a collection of non-interacting atoms, an “ideal gas,” coming to equilibrium—or failing to do so, as the case may be.

To gain a quantitative handle on relaxation and to define an “entropy,” it is necessary to introduce “coarse grains” in $`I^2`$. Some such device is always necessary (see ), since if one knows precise coordinates and microscopic dynamics there is no loss of information, hence no entropy increase. The coarse grains are here obtained by placing a grid over $`I^2`$ and taking as the macroscopic state only the number of points within each rectangle defined by the grid. For $`N`$ ($`1`$) identical atoms in $`G`$ coarse grains, the entropy is

$$S=\underset{k=1}{\overset{G}{}}\rho _k\mathrm{log}\rho _k\text{with}\rho _k=n_k/N$$
(7)
where $`n_k`$ is the number of points in coarse grain (rectangle) #$`k`$.

In the next section the time dependence of the entropy will be illustrated. If all points are in a single rectangle, then $`S=0`$; when the points are Poisson distributed $`S<\mathrm{log}G`$. The relaxation time to go from a single $`0.1\times 0.1`$ grain to equilibrium is about 5. Using smaller grains, one can see that $`S(t)t\mathrm{log}\lambda `$ (and $`\mathrm{log}\lambda `$ is the Lyapunov exponent).

## III Cosmology and two-time boundary value problems

Around 1960 Gold  argued that the thermodynamic arrow of time followed the expansion of the universe. In other words, your coffee cools because the quasar 3C273 recedes. Lest this reformulation test your credibility, let me give perspective. The expansion of the universe is another factual arrow of time, a “cosmological” arrow. Lacking any great asymmetry in the laws of nature, it is plausible that the two all-pervasive arrows, cosmological and thermodynamic, could have something to do with each other. To make the case you need to show how the distant and unnoticed-until-1930 cosmological arrow could induce the thermodynamic one. Gold argued that the expansion of the universe provides a sink for free energy, by accepting—due to its expansion—all radiation thrown off by stars, etc. He also showed how the influence of large scale processes reached to smaller scales, even to coffee at Café Epsilon. He clinched his argument with a gedanken experiment in which a star was put in an insulated box and held there till it equilibrated. At this point the contents of this large box no longer had a thermodynamic arrow. He then imagined that he would open a window in the box for a short time, during which radiation would escape to the universe at large, this escape (rather than its opposite) being the consequence of expansion (cf. Olber’s paradox). With the box again closed and with some of its contents gone, the system within is no longer in equilibrium. The subsequent return to equilibrium is exactly what provides the sought-for arrow and the connection to the larger cosmological scenario. A consequence of Gold’s ideas is that in a contracting universe (which occurs for some solutions of the equations of general relativity) the arrow would be reversed.

Back in 1972 I was totally enamored of this argument. But now one learns why it is useful for physicists to talk to mathematicians. I tried to explain Gold’s argument to a mathematician colleague of mine, Andrew Lenard, and mid-story came to a halt. Trying to maintain his high standards of logic I realized that Gold’s star-in-a-box argument was circular.

First a counterexample: suppose the radiation had entered the box (as in a contracting universe, a lá Olber). According to the tale above, there would still be an arrow in the box after the window closed, as the system recovered from the influx of radiation. It would need to recover from any change. So something is clearly fishy.

Now if Gold’s arrow in his star-in-a-box parable does not arise from the efflux/influx distinction, where does it come from? The answer is, it is the arrow of the narrator. In listening to this story one automatically accepts that prior to the opening of the window there is no effect of the opening. But that is already an assumption about the arrow of time! If this same process of opening and closing had been observed by someone with an opposite arrow (a notion one must allow if one is engaged in establishing the existence of one or the other arrow) that observer would naturally have assumed that the effect of that process would have occurred on the other side of the interval within which the window was open, namely an epoch we (or the narrator) would consider to be before the opening.

How can this circularity be avoided? I proposed  that one should give boundary conditions at two remote times and look for the emergence of an arrow between them. For example, if our universe has both a big bang and a big crunch (expansion followed by contraction), then the following sort of boundary condition would fit this prescription. Take the matter and radiation distributions as roughly homogeneous at some time interval $`\tau `$ both after the big bang and before the big crunch. Such homogeneity appears to have obtained at the epoch of radiation-matter decoupling, with $`\tau `$ 300,000 years. Now include the expansion and contraction and try to derive that at first (after time-$`\tau `$) there would be an arrow in one direction, then—as the big crunch becomes nearer in time than the big bang—the other. This does not mean that we must live in such a universe. It is only a framework within which Gold’s idea can be logically explored.

As stated, the project is daunting. But I have taken the usual route of statistical mechanicians, namely to abstract the problem, retaining the essential conceptual features while making the mathematics tractable.

The model system is a “gas” of particles each of which has cat map dynamics in the phase space $`I^2`$. How to model the expansion of the universe? The essential feature (for our purposes) of a rapid expansion from a homogeneous configuration is that homogeneity is a far, far from equilibrium state when the dynamics of the system are dominated by gravity. Gravity makes things clumpier; it enhances density differences. So the homogeneous matter and radiation distribution that prevailed at $`\tau `$—and which we will demand prevail at $`𝒯\tau `$ (with $`𝒯`$ the big crunch time)—is far from equilibrium, or it will become that as the universe expands .

For the cat map gas, the way to be out of equilibrium is to not be uniformly distributed, and for a given coarse graining this can be accomplished by putting all the points in a single grain. As observed earlier (following Eq. (7)) this gives the system entropy $`S=0`$. But now we want two-time boundary conditions, and we want them symmetric. So we pick a pair of times, 0 and $`T`$, and demand the same sort of nonequilibrium state for the gas at both these times.

Solving two-time boundary value problems can be difficult. Imagine a similar problem for the gas in a 40 m3 room. Demand that all the gas be in a single cubic meter at time-0 (so the rest of the room is in vacuum), and require that under particle-particle interactions alone (and with the room totally isolated) all the gas spontaneously find itself in that same cubic meter one hour later. It is extremely unlikely that the exact initial data for the gas would lead to this eventuality, although some initial conditions do reach the desired time-$`T`$ state. Finding them is another matter. If you randomly chose initial velocities and positions within the required cubic meter, a conservative estimate suggests that you would have less than one chance in $`10^{10^{26}}`$ to have all the particles arrive where you want them an hour later. For the ideal gas though the job is easy. I want a gas of 250 “atoms” and a coarse graining that divides $`I^2`$ into 50 rectangles. The trick is to randomly place 12,500 points in the desired initial rectangle and let these atoms evolve $`T=19`$ time steps. The result is a square fairly uniformly covered with points. Then, discard all points that do not fall into the desired final rectangle. (For an ideal gas this does not affect the dynamics of those that remain.) This leaves you with about 250 successful points (1/50th of 12,500).

Figure 1. History of 250 points that begin in a single coarse grain at time-0 and end in a single coarse grain at time-19. Selected times are shown according to the following scheme: top row (left to right), \[0 1 2 4\]; second row, \[5 8 11 14\]; third row, \[15 17 18 19\].

In Fig. 1 is a “movie” of the history of these points, with 12 selected time steps shown. Note the first half of the movie: if I would show you the expansion of a gas with no future boundary condition you would not be able to tell the difference. To illustrate this, in Fig. 2a I show the entropy as a function of time for a gas of 250 particles under free expansion, and in Fig. 2b is the time dependence of the entropy for the actual “movie.” Compare the initial increases in entropy for the two situations: they are indistinguishable, up to statistical fluctuations. For this macroscopic quantity, the patterns of entropy increase are essentially identical. A second point is that if Fig. 2b were flipped about its middle ($`t=9.5`$) it would look the same (up to statistical fluctuations).

Figure 2. Entropy, $`S`$, as a function of time. The left figure (2a) is $`S(t)`$ without future conditioning. On the right (2b) is $`S(t)`$ for a two-time boundary condition solution, such as Fig. 1. Note the similarity of the initial time dependence. Also of interest is the reflection symmetry of Fig. 2b about its temporal midpoint.

Now let’s apply the message of this simulation to the grand issue of cosmology. Both boundary times, 0 and 19, are states of low entropy. This is analogous to the state of the universe long enough after “decoupling” (or before, coming back from the big crunch) for the homogeneous distribution no longer to represent equilibrium. For early times (in the cat movie) the entropy increases and indeed there is an arrow of time. As remarked, this arrow is indistinguishable from what you would have if there were $`\underset{¯}{\text{no}}`$ future conditioning. Thus we have no way of knowing from this statistical information alone whether there is or is not a big crunch coming. The point of this demonstration is that the expansion of the universe creates a situation in which the homogeneous distribution, which is disordered—and $`\underset{¯}{\text{likely}}`$—during one epoch, becomes extremely $`\underset{¯}{\text{un}\text{likely}}`$ at a later epoch (once gravity dominates). As the larger system proceeds to its more disordered state, as it relaxes, it is temporarily trapped in all sorts of metastable states, for example stars, which in turn relax and drive shorter term metastable states, such as people. Note too, from the symmetry about the midpoint in Fig. 2b, that the arrow toward the end is reversed.

## IV 4. Opposite arrows

So far we have talked about “the” thermodynamic arrow of time. Could it happen that within some large system there are two subsystems, each with a different arrow of time? To see how this might come about imagine that we do indeed live in a big bang-big crunch universe. Now get a well-insulated spaceship and put yourself in a cryogenic bath for a long time—until the universe has begun to contract. Now your alarm clock awakens you and you look out the porthole to see the world around you with an opposite-running arrow! Similarly I can imagine that there could be matter in regions that have been relatively isolated “since” the big crunch and which “survive”  into our epoch.

But could there really be two arrows at once, entropy increasing in one region, decreasing in another? Here is an argument against this possibility. From the standpoint of one of the observers (a sentient being in one component) the events in the other region are entropy lowering. An example of this would be if someone carefully arranged the positions and velocities of 11 billiard balls so they would come together, with 10 of them forming a triangle of balls at rest and the eleventh going away from them along one of the axes of the triangle (the reverse of a “break”). This would be a system with decreasing entropy; it becomes more ordered. Now if such a system is disturbed even slightly, someone coughing while the balls collided, it would ruin the enormous coordination required for the entropy lowering process. So for an observer in either region to see (and maybe yell in surprise at) the creation of order in the other, would be to destroy that order. It follows that opposite running arrows cannot coexist if systems interact.

The foregoing argument is wrong. It is given from the perspective of one observer, and implicitly assumes that the way to formulate a macroscopic problem is as an initial value problem in the time sense of that observer. It is true that for an initial value problem even small perturbations will disturb entropy lowering, but we should use arguments that do not already assume the validity of one arrow. As discussed, the way to do this is to give macroscopic boundary values at two times, and solve for the motion between.

This leads to the following formulation for producing simultaneous opposite arrows of time. Consider a system with two component subsystems; call them A and B. Give macroscopic boundary conditions such that A’s entropy at time-0 is lower than it is at time-$`T`$, and B’s entropy has the reverse specification. A and B are allowed to interact .

What sort of solution can be expected in the time interval $`[0,T]`$? If there were zero interaction, this would be equivalent to two separate problems. A’s entropy would increase as a function of the time parameter $`t`$, while B’s would decrease. This is a trivial consequence of the boundary conditions and the only anomaly is that B made a poor choice of time parameter. This emphasizes that “$`t`$” is a parameter for microscopic time evolution, with no a priori relation to thermodynamics.

Now allow interaction. Do the arrows survive? I investigated this with an extension of the cat map. Take two squares, A and B (copies of $`I^2`$), and allow $`N`$ particles in each to evolve under the cat map. In addition, each point in A or B is associated with a particular point in the other box, and is influenced by the position of that other point. To describe the map efficiently introduce additional notation. Recall that the original cat map (Eq. (3)) is called $`\varphi `$. Now define a map, $`\psi _\alpha (u,v)(u+\alpha v,v)\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, depending on the real parameter $`\alpha `$. Like $`\varphi `$, $`\psi `$ is measure preserving, but the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix are both unity, so it is not chaotic. For each time step, the combined motion of each pair of pairs $`[(x_A,y_A),(x_B,y_B)]`$ is a three-step process: 1) A-B interaction: $`\psi _{\alpha /2}`$ applied to $`(x_A,y_B)`$ and $`(x_B,y_A)`$ separately; 2) the usual cat map evolution: $`\varphi `$ applied to $`(x_A,y_A)`$ and $`(x_B,y_B)`$ separately; 3) repeat step #1 .

$`\text{A, }\text{}`$

$`\text{ }\text{t},\text{B}`$

Figure 3. Images of a pair of interacting systems, each having a different arrow of time. For the upper row (system A) the boundary conditions are that all points are in a single coarse grain at time zero, with no condition set for time $`T`$ ($`=7`$). For the lower row (system B) all points are in a single coarse grain at time-$`T`$, with no requirement for time-0. The systems are coupled to each other with the parameter $`\alpha `$ (in the map $`\psi _\alpha `$) taking the value 0.2.

The results of the simulation are shown in Fig. 3. Clearly the the goal of opposing arrows has been realized. It is interesting though to note the effects of the coupling. Without coupling the result of a single time step on the initial rectangle for system A would be a neat parallelogram, the image of that rectangle under the cat map (cf. Fig. 1, time step 1). In Fig. 3 it is clear that the parallelogram has been smudged. This is the effect of $`\psi `$ and system B. Nevertheless, the overall expansion shows an arrow ($`S(t)`$ will be displayed momentarily). The effect of B on A is thus seen to be essentially noise, and correspondingly for the effect of A on B.

In Fig. 4L (left) is the time dependence of the entropy (but not for the same run as Fig. 3). Three values of $`\alpha `$ (in $`\psi _\alpha `$) are shown. The first is $`\alpha =0`$, for which as discussed, it is trivial that there should be two arrows. For $`\alpha =0.2`$ increase and decrease of entropy in each system is quite similar, although looking carefully one can note that the relaxation is slightly quicker. This is consistent with the images of Fig. 3 and with the idea that the effect of each system on the other is noise. Finally the lowest image shows the behavior for the stronger coupling, $`\alpha =0.5`$. Now the relaxation is rapid, for both systems, showing that with strong coupling the boundary values can force low entropy momentarily, but it is quickly lost.

For Fig. 4R (right) I take up another question: m$`\underset{¯}{\text{a}}`$croscopic causality. I take this to mean that macroscopic effect follows macroscopic cause, and distinguish it from m$`\underset{¯}{\text{i}}`$croscopic causality, stated, e.g., in terms of field commutators. Defining a noncircular test of (macro) causality requires caution. If we were to use initial conditions, then the effect of a perturbation would by definition be subsequent.

Figure 4. Entropy, $`S`$, as a function of time. The left figure (L) depicts $`S(t)`$ for three values of the parameter $`\alpha `$. The uppermost (a), $`\alpha =0`$ shows the non-interacting system and gives, as it trivially should, increasing entropy for A (as a function of the non-thermodynamic time parameter $`t`$), and decreasing entropy for B. Below that (b & c) are shown $`S(t)`$ for $`\alpha =0.2`$ and 0.5, respectively. On the right (R) are shown entropy and entropy differences when the system is perturbed. The perturbation takes place effectively at time 3.5 and for A the changes in macroscopic behavior (whether for $`\alpha =0`$ or 0.2) occur later by A’s clock. For B the changes take place at lower $`t`$ values, which are also later—by B’s clock.

In  appears a consistent test of causality in the framework of macroscopic two-time boundary conditions (our usual way of maintaining logical consistency in arrow-of-time questions). The system is required to be in particular coarse grains at times 0 and $`T`$, and is evolved microscopically from initial to final grains with a particular evolution law, yielding some macroscopic history. Next the system is evolved a second time, but now with a perturbation. The same boundary data are used for both runs. A “perturbation” consists of changing the evolution law on a single time step, some $`t_0`$, with $`0<t_0<T`$. In general the set of microscopic points satisfying the macroscopic boundary conditions without the perturbation will be different from those satisfying the (same) boundary conditions with the perturbation. So except for times 0 and $`T`$ the points need not occupy the same coarse grains. Now we can state the test of macroscopic causality: if the macroscopic behavior is the same before the perturbation but not after, there is macroscopic causality. If it is the other way around, there is reverse causality. If the macroscopic behavior is different both before and after, there is no causality. Now apply this test to our elaborated cat map. The perturbation is that on a particular time step ($`t_0`$), instead of applying $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$, another rule is used. That rule is that at $`t_0`$, instead of $`\varphi `$, we use a “faster” cat. That is, the matrix of the usual cat map Eq. (3), $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}\right)`$, is replaced by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3}{2}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{3}\right)`$, which has a larger Lyapunov exponent.

In Fig. 4Ra an entropic history is shown for uncoupled systems, with, again, $`T=7`$. The perturbation is nominally at $`t_0=4`$, but because entropy ($`S`$) values are calculated between steps, it is best to think of this as $`t_0=3.5`$. To better see the effect of the perturbation, in Fig. 4Rb I show only the entropy change due to the perturbation. For A the major difference occurs at 4, while for B it is at 3, consistent with causality. As indicated earlier, for uncoupled systems this result is trivial and only confirms our method. In Fig. 4Rc, coupling (0.2) is turned on and the same comparison made. Qualitatively causality persists, although the coupling (by inducing noise) reduces all deviations.

This demonstration of causality responds to another question the reader may have had. My evidence for arrows of time in the earlier discussion consisted solely of increase or decrease of entropy. This now shows that such increase or decrease corresponds to deep-rooted concepts of cause and effect.

## V Physical implications

The foregoing development shows that it is possible for there to be two opposite running arrows. But, does it actually happen? Could we look across the Milky Way and watch coffee unstir, stars unexplode, Humpty Dumpty come together?

This is a two-part question. First, is there opposite-arrow matter out there? Second, if it’s there, could you observe it? Norbert Wiener thought you could not . Thus I will devote a short subsection to checking this.

### A Communication between opposite-arrow regions

Using the same modelling methods that established the possibility of contrary arrows, I will now show that a signal can pass from one system to the other. In  I considered electromagnetic radiation, and used the time-symmetric Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory  as a framework for studying electromagnetic communication between the regions. That demonstration has subtleties, particularly in connection with the origins of radiation reaction, that I now prefer to avoid. You need not resolve all the old issues of classical radiation in order to see that opposite arrow regions can have a macroscopic influence on one another.

Again we consider a two-time boundary value problem, and again A will be in a single grain at time-0 and B in a single grain at time-$`T`$. But in this experiment, at a particular intermediate time, $`t_0`$, I will wiggle A. By “wiggle” I mean that instead of the usual composite cat map step at $`t_0`$, the points of A will be shifted. That’s all. On that same step, nothing happens to B. To be precise, in the example I worked out for Fig. 5, on time step 4, the points of B were mapped by the identity ($`2\times 2`$) matrix, while those of A underwent the following transformation: $`x^{}=x+0.3`$, $`y^{}=y+0.5`$, both mod 1. Of course this affects the points selected (to satisfy the two-time boundary value problem) at the microscopic level. But what is the macroscopic effect? To see this, I compare this run to one in which neither A nor B does anything on time step 4. (For all these the same boundary conditions were used.) This was done with more points than the earlier work in order to reduce statistical fluctuations. The entropic history of both runs is recorded, and Fig. 5 shows the difference between the entropies in the two cases.

Figure 5. Difference in entropy between a run in which the evolution on time step #4 is the identity versus one in which points of A (alone) undergo a shift (details in the text).

First note that almost nothing happens to A. The shift is by integer multiples of 0.1 which is also the linear dimension of the coarse grains. But B does indeed respond to the “wiggling” of A. However primitive this may be as a form of communication, this shows that wiggling A causes a macroscopic response in B.

### B Possible physical origins of opposite-arrow regions

As discussed earlier, I believe the source of the thermodynamic arrow of time is the expansion of the universe . Suggestions for the occurrence of opposite arrow regions will be developed in that same context. At the beginning of Sec. 4, I proposed one way to arrive at an opposite-arrow region that bucks the overall flow, namely a “spaceship,” or isolation. Thus you could have a region that has relatively little interaction with its surroundings, so that at a time closer to (say) the big bang, its most important conditioning would be from the big crunch end of the universe. There is a mathematical question hidden in this possibility. Specifically, if you condition a process to take a particular value at two widely separated times (0 and $`T`$), then in between it will tend to move away, and is likely to be farthest at $`T/2`$. Its entropy will be a symmetric function of time (cf. ). By allowing spaceship survival and the like, I am introducing events for which a large excursion is moved away from the center. How unlikely is that? A much simplified way to examine this is to look at Brownian motion with diffusion constant $`D`$ that is conditioned on starting from 0 and returning to 0 at time-$`T`$. It is easy to see  that the probability that it is at $`x`$ at time-$`t`$ is $`1/[4\pi DTs(1s)]\mathrm{exp}\left(x^2/4DTs(1s)\right)`$, with $`s=t/T`$. Using this we can evaluate how unlikely various excursions are; for example, by integration it follows that $`\mathrm{Pr}\left(x^2>\rho ^2DT\text{ at }t\right)=1\text{erf}\left(\rho /2\sqrt{s(1s)}\right)`$. If $`\rho `$ is not large this function imposes little relative penalty on deviations being displaced from $`T/2`$. For example, for $`\rho `$ as large as 5 (which is extremely unlikely—but least unlikely at $`T/2`$), it is only 3 times more unlikely at $`0.4T`$. (At $`T/2`$ the probability is about $`10^{12}`$.)

Starting therefore from the cosmo/thermo arrow connection, the only justification I can imagine for having opposite-arrow regions  is living in a big bang-big crunch universe in which some regions manage the isolation needed to pass through the epoch of maximal expansion with arrow intact .

### C Detection of opposite-arrow regions

What should this stuff look like, if it’s there? By and large it should be extremely dull. Taking the opposite-arrow material to be “relics” from the future, as discussed in Sec. 5.2, one must first consider how far off the big crunch is. Of course this is completely unknown, since there is at present no evidence that there will be a big crunch. (On the contrary, evidence today favors an ever expanding universe—but bear in mind the caveat in ). Just to grab a number, suppose the big bang-big crunch time separation is 500 Gyr. We are a mere 10–15 Gyr from the big bang and still see stars burning. But anything that’s 485 Gyr old would be unlikely to have hydrogen burning and would probably be invisible at optical—or any other easily seen—frequencies. So this stuff would have gravitational interactions but be pretty much invisible, characteristics attributed to “dark matter” . Like other dark matter candidates, this would be picked up in microlensing observations, which by themselves however give no indication of statistical properties.

Nevertheless, there are ways to make a positive detection. One possibility is to see an “unexplosion.” The idea is that even very old matter could have slowly developing processes that eventually lead to something dramatic—an explosion. From our perspective we would first see some fuzzy, relatively big region. It would gradually shrink in size, becoming brighter. Ultimately it would disappear.

A second method is to identify something that is very old. A way to achieve this is again to study the astrophysics of old objects, objects in which hydrogen burning has ceased, but in which other nuclear processes continue. Again these will be weak, for if they were strong they would long “ago” have burnt themselves out (unless a threshold for something traumatic is achieved, as in the last paragraph). If specific nuclei can be identified for these processes, then there may exist particular gamma emission lines that characterize matter of such great age.

A variant of this is the suggestion  that one could extend a technique now used to date old rocks, namely isotope abundance. Thus if there is evidence that a particular isotope with a lifetime of say 106 year was present at a rock’s creation, then its absence today can be taken as evidence that the rock is many times that age. Similarly, isotopes with lifetimes much greater are known (even $`10^{21}`$ yr), and finding appropriate samples depleted of these isotopes could be another indicator.

The search for observational evidence is what I consider the most significant challenge now connected with the newly-raised possibility of opposite-arrow regions of the cosmos.

### D Cosmological implications

The central problem in the modern study of cosmology is, is the universe open or closed? Will it continue to expand forever, or will it turn around and collapse? Finding an opposite-arrow region would be strong evidence for a big crunch. As indicated, it is difficult to think of any other source of opposite-arrow material.

You could have a big crunch without a reversal of the thermodynamic arrow, and indeed early work on cosmology considered oscillating universes that warmed on each successive pass. Arguing from elegance, I consider that unlikely: if the geometry is symmetric and can nevertheless provide a thermodynamic arrow, why demand extra asymmetry ($`\mathrm{}`$ notwithstanding Pauli’s remark: “Elegance is for tailors”).

As a small digression, I would like discuss other statistical ways to discern cosmological structure, supplementing material in . Consider a world with a big bang and big crunch, a world that must meet boundary conditions at both ends, boundary conditions that are far from equilibrium (or extremely unlikely) with respect to time periods interior to the time interval in question. To clarify, suppose the big bang and big crunch are at $`\pm 𝒯/2`$ and we study an interval $`\pm T/2`$, with $`𝒯>T`$ and $`(𝒯T)/2`$ the duration of the interval from the big bang to the decoupling time. The homogeneous distribution of matter and its low metallicity at decoupling are natural when one works from an initial value close to the big bang. However, if one needs to meet this condition when emerging from a gravity-dominated universe and heading toward a big crunch, I expect it to be extremely unlikely. Things must smooth out and you must get rid of all those big nuclei that formed along the way. So this is not an easy boundary condition to satisfy. One thing that would help would be to minimize the amount of processing of hydrogen, the amount that is caught up in burning stars. A state of the universe in which matter mostly did not accumulate in big masses, but stayed in bodies much smaller than the sun, would eliminate quite a bit of heavy element production, so that satisfying the boundary conditions we have described favors the existence of what would otherwise seem to be a disproportionate amount of nonluminous baryonic matter, for example, in the form of brown dwarfs.

Thus the prevalence of nonluminous baryonic matter, perhaps in the form of brown dwarfs, is consistent with the assumption of a geometrically and statistically symmetric universe. Could this “consistency” be upgraded to evidence for a big crunch? Not quite, because at this point one really doesn’t know what the abundance of such matter ought to be, reflecting for example uncertainties in just how many brown dwarfs should be created in an episode of galactic star formation.

## VI Paradoxes and causal loops

In this section we take up the causal loops and paradoxes that could arise if opposite-arrow material is present and if communication between opposite running regions occurred. These paradoxes have been used  to argue against Gold’s idea, so it is worth confronting them here.

Consider the following tale of two observers with opposite-running thermodynamic arrows of time. We rename system A, Alice, and system B, Bob. The tale begins with Alice, who at 8 a.m. her time, sees rain coming in Bob’s window (say this is 5 p.m. his time). With an hour’s delay she informs Bob. He receives the signal at 4 p.m. his time and closes the window before the rain starts (say at 4:40p.m. his time). Did Alice see the rain coming in or not?

The resolution of this paradox is similar to that in  and I have dealt with it at length in . The idea is that making the paradox precise requires setting up boundary conditions, in this case at two separate times, such that it would appear that no consistent intermediate motion could occur. Having done that, there are two possible resolutions. The first is that indeed your boundary conditions have no solution. From the perspective of the Setter of the boundary conditions this would mean that the world history He or She desired just doesn’t happen. The second possible resolution uses assumptions of continuity and boundedness. In  it is shown that in reasonable situations, including that suggested above in the carpet paradox, there will be some intermediate motion that does satisfy the boundary conditions.

For the soggy carpet paradox such resolution could take the following form. You set up Alice at 7:30 a.m. her time with instructions to send a message to Bob about his window, should that be necessary. You “start” Bob at 3:30 p.m. his time with an open window. The self-consistent solution has Alice noting a slightly open window at 8 a.m. her time. Seeing this, Alice is unsure whether to send a message, and finally, at 9 a.m. her time, waffles, “It will rain in a bit, you might think about closing your window.” Bob gets this message and balances fresh air versus dry carpet by mostly closing the window, but nevertheless leaving it open a crack—which is just what Alice sees at 8 a.m. her time! This kind of self-consistent loop is favored by (what I consider) the better science fiction writers in their dealing with time-travel paradoxes .

## Acknowledgment

This article is dedicated to Prof. Jean Vaillant on the occasion of his retirement. Much of this work was done at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. I am grateful to P. Facchi, E. Mihokova, A. Ori, S. Pascazio, A. Scardicchio, L. J. Schulman, and M. Roncadelli for helpful discussions. My research is supported in part by the United States National Science Foundation grant PHY 97 21459.