text:
# Discrete gravity and its continuum limit

## I Introduction

The cosmological singularity is a longstanding and fundamental problem in quantum cosmology. Nowadays both string theory and loop quantum gravity have been taking this issue into account seriously, seeKhoury ; Liu  and Bojowald  for recent progress along both approaches respectively. Motivated from string theory, the cosmological solution from big crunch to big bang has been proposed in Khoury , which can also be viewed as the orbifold compactification of solutions in higher dimensional field theory. This solution has very peculiar features. For instance it can be viewed as the Milne universe but identified by the boost such that it contains closed timelike loops and more badly, not Hausdorff. On the other hand this solution plays a special role in string/M theory since such spacetime is flat everywhere except at the singularity and the scalar field keeps staying in the weak coupling region while approaching to the singularity. Consequently the behavior of strings nearby such singularity in context of string/M theory has been studied. Although some positive results have been obtained in Liu , implying strings may pass through such singularity, the instability of this solution was also pointed out in Horowitz . Therefore further delicate consideration is needed to the understanding of cosmological singularity in string theory.

Recently another novel program called as discrete gravity has shed new light on this problemGambini1  as well. The idea is to discretize Einstein equations. But in contrast to usual lattice quantum gravity with fixed multipliers which breaks diffeomorphism invariance manifestly, in discrete gravity the lagrangian multipliers have to vary with “time” level $`n`$ such that discretized equations can be preserved consistent. Furthermore, unlike ordinary mechanism of canonical quantum gravity, discrete gravity contains an attractive feature of constraint free such that many conceptual problems like the problem of time might be solved in a more promising wayGambini2 . In context of cosmology this program has also appealing advantages of evolving through the Big-Bang singularity in a general fashion and naturally introducing a notion of time at quantum mechanical level.

In this paper we apply the discrete techniques to study the cosmological model which describes the universe may evolve from a big crunch to a big bang. In this context we will see our results support the argument that the cosmological singularity can be avoided in a general fashion. But with a distinct starting point from Gambini1 , we prefer to considering the fate of singularities in universes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ because in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, the classical singularities in vacuum are often coordinate singularities in the absence of matter, although this claim does not mean that the singularity at quantum mechanical level must not genuine. The discrete theory of FRW cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ has been considered inGambini1 . However, as its authors pointed out, the discrete theory describing the universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ often suffers from the absence of the continuum limit, which has negative implications to the quantization of the theory. We will also meet this trouble in next section when the model with massless scalar field is considered. One purpose of our paper is to see whether we may improve the continuum behavior of the discrete theory with zero cosmological constant. As a way coming out, we consider the universe dominated by Chaplygin gas rather than the ordinary massless scalar field in section four. Such an exotic fluid behaves as matter dust at early time, but contribute a nonzero effective cosmological constant at later time.

We organize the paper as follows. In next section we briefly review the framework of discrete mechanics focusing on constrained system. Then we turn to consider the model with a massless scalar field with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ in section three. After discussing the relations between solutions in discretized theory and those in continuum field theory, we argue that the singularity may be avoided in discrete cosmology. In section four we study Chaplygin gas dominated universe to obtain a better continuum limit of such universes with vanishing cosmological constant at early time.

## II Discrete theory of constrained system

In this section we briefly review the classical framework of discrete theory of constrained system which we will use in next sections. For more details and in particular the quantization of discrete system we refer to Gambini1 ; Gambini2 . We start with the action of a continuum mechanical system

$$S=𝑑tL_c(q,\dot{q}).$$
(1)
The discretized formalism is implemented by splitting time into equal intervals $`t_n=nϵ`$ where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal constant. As a result, all the derivatives with respect to time are replaced by discrete first order finite difference,

$$q=q_n,\dot{q}=\frac{q_{n+1}q_n}{ϵ}.$$
(2)
The time integral in the action then is replaced by a sum $`S=_{n=1}^NL(q_n,q_{n+1})`$, where $`L(q_n,q_{n+1})`$ is understood as the discretized Lagrangian at instant $`n`$ with relations $`L(q_n,q_{n+1})=ϵL_c(q,\dot{q})`$.

For a constrained system, we can straightforwardly obtain $`L(q_n,q_{n+1})`$ from $`L_c(q,\dot{q})`$ with the form,

$`L(q_n,q_{n+1})`$ $``$ $`L(n,n+1)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`p_n(q_{n+1}q_n)ϵH(q_n,p_n)\lambda _nC(q_n,p_n),`$
where $`H`$ is the discrete version of Hamiltonian and $`C`$ denotes the constraint. Note in the last term the parameter $`ϵ`$ has been absorbed into $`\lambda _n`$. In this form we have also defined the canonically conjugate momenta as

$$p_{n+1}=\frac{L(q_n,q_{n+1})}{q_{n+1}}.$$
(4)
In terms of canonical conjugate pairs the equations of motion can be written as,

$`P_{n+1}^qP_n^q`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{H(q_n,P_{n+1}^q)}{q_n}}\lambda _n{\displaystyle \frac{C(q_n,P_{n+1}^q)}{q_n}}`$
$`q_{n+1}q_n`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{H(q_n,P_{n+1}^q)}{P_{n+1}^q}}+\lambda _n{\displaystyle \frac{C(q_n,P_{n+1}^q)}{P_{n+1}^q}}`$
$`C(q_n,P_{n+1}^q)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5)
One significant difference between these equations and those continuum ones is that in discrete theory the lagrangian multipliers have to be fixed at each instant in order for the discrete version of the “constraints” to be preserved.

Therefore given a continuum theory with constraints we may obtain its discrete Lagrangian and equations of motion. Going further along this approach, we have two important issues to consider. One is to investigate whether the discrete theory may give rise to any different prediction comparing with the continuum theory. The other one is to check whether the continuum theory can be recovered by taking the continuum limit of the discrete theory. In next sections we will apply this framework to cosmology and see these cosmological models may help us to clarify these questions.

## III Big crunch/bang universe

Consider a general 4d theory of a scalar field coupled to gravity. The Lagrangian has the form

$$S=_M(R\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi V(\varphi )),$$
(6)
where we use the $`(,+,+,+)`$ signature for spacetime. In context of cosmology we adopt minisuperspace description. The metric reduces in conformal coordinate system to

$$ds^2=a^2(t)\left[N^2(t)dt^2+dx_i^2\right],$$
(7)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor and $`N`$ lapse function. We strict our attention in four dimensional spacetime with vanishing $`V(\varphi )`$ in this section such that the lagrangian has the form

$$=\frac{1}{N}(4\dot{a}^2\frac{1}{3}a^2\dot{\varphi }^2).$$
(8)
The cosmological solution from big crunch to big bang has the form Khoury ,

$$a(t)=a(0)|t|^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi (t)=\varphi (0)+\sqrt{3}ln|t|,$$
(9)
where $`t`$ is from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. Obviously this solution has a singularity at $`a=0`$ and $`\varphi =\mathrm{}`$ as $`t`$ goes to zero. Such a singularity implies that the lagrangian breaks down near the neighborhood of that point. As in the quantum or semiclassical theory of hydrogen whose apparently continued spectrum is actually discrete at microscopic level, we propose the similar consideration should be applicable to the semiclassical theory of spacetime geometry.111This proposal has been strongly supported by loop quantum gravity, where the spectra of the area and volume operator are obtained at least at kinematical level and always taking discrete values. As a result we conjecture a discretized version of lagrangian (8) probably is a good starting point to better understand the microscopic origin of the universe. The classical solution (9) may be only valid macroscopically, but should be achieved by taking continuum limit of solutions in the discretized theory.

First consider the canonical formalism of the theory. We define conjugate momenta to scalar factor $`a(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$,

$$\pi _a=\frac{}{\dot{a}}=\frac{8\dot{a}}{N},\pi _\varphi =\frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}=\frac{2a^2\dot{\varphi }}{3N},$$
(10)
while the conjugate momentum of lapse function $`N`$, $`\pi _N`$, is zero. The hamiltonian can be constructed as

$$=\pi _a\dot{a}+\pi _\varphi \dot{\varphi }=\frac{N}{4}(\frac{\pi _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}\frac{3\pi _{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{a^2})NH.$$
(11)
The discrete version of an action is obtained from (3)

$`L(n,n+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{\varphi n}(\varphi _{n+1}\varphi _n)+\pi _{an}(a_{n+1}a_n)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_n}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{an}^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi _{\varphi n}^2}{a_n^2}}),`$
where $`ϵ`$ has been absorbed into the multiplier $`N_n`$.

From (4) one find the momenta at instants $`n`$ and $`n+1`$ respectively are

$`P_{n+1}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{\varphi n}P_n^\varphi =\pi _{\varphi n}`$
$`P_{n+1}^{\pi _\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`0P_n^{\pi _\varphi }=(\varphi _{n+1}\varphi _n)+{\displaystyle \frac{3N_n\pi _{\varphi n}}{2a_n^2}}`$
$`P_{n+1}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{an}P_n^a=\pi _{an}{\displaystyle \frac{3N_n\pi _{\varphi n}^2}{2a_n^3}}`$
$`P_{n+1}^{\pi _a}`$ $`=`$ $`0P_n^{\pi _a}=(a_{n+1}a_n){\displaystyle \frac{N_n\pi _{an}}{8}}`$
$`P_{n+1}^N`$ $`=`$ $`0P_n^N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{an}^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi _{\varphi n}^2}{a_n^2}}).`$ (13)
Taking $`(a_n,\varphi _n,P_{n+1}^a,P_{n+1}^\varphi )`$ as the fundamental variables yields the following compact equations

$`P_{n+1}^\varphi P_n^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`P_{n+1}^aP_n^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3N_n\pi _{\varphi n}^2}{2a_n^3}}`$
$`\varphi _{n+1}\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3N_n\pi _{\varphi n}}{2a_n^2}}`$
$`a_{n+1}a_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_n\pi _{an}}{8}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(P_{n+1}^a)^2}{4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(P_{n+1}^\varphi )^2}{a_n^2}}.`$ (14)
We see $`P_n^\varphi `$ is a conserved quantity independent of level $`n`$. For convenience we may set it as a positive constant $`C`$. Plugging it into the last equation, we have

$$P_{n+1}^a=\pm \frac{2\sqrt{3}C}{a_n}.$$
(15)
Then from the other equations in (14) it’s straightforward to obtain the recurrence relation of the scale factor as

$$\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}=\frac{a_n}{a_{n1}}q,$$
(16)
where $`q`$ can be any positive constant. Given a fixed $`q`$ and initial conditions, we have two kinds of solutions corresponding to the different signs of $`P_{n+1}^a`$ in (15).

$`a_n`$ $``$ $`a_0q^n,\varphi _n\varphi _0+2\sqrt{3}n(q1)`$
$`N_n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4a_0^2q^{2n}(q1)}{\sqrt{3}C}},P_{n+1}^a2\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{a_n}}`$ (17)
or

$`a_n`$ $``$ $`a_0^{}q^n,\varphi _n\varphi _0^{}+2\sqrt{3}n(1q^{})`$
$`N_n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4a_0^2q^{2n}(1q^{})}{\sqrt{3}C^{}}},P_{n+1}^a2\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{a_n}}.`$ (18)
One remarkable result from these solutions is that the lapse $`N_n`$ is determined at each instant by the equation, contrasting to the continuum theory where $`N`$ is a free Lagrangian multiplier and may be set to one uniformly. Unfortunately we notice from (16) that unless the factor $`q`$ is very close to one the continuum limit can not be achieved as the “time” level $`n`$ approaches to infinity. In particular the continuum solution can only be achieved with a certain accuracy as we choose the desired $`q`$. Nevertheless, this discrete solution may give rise to the classical solution given in (9). To see this we need set the lapse function to unity as $`n`$ approaches to infinity, otherwise the comparison is not meaningful. Consider the solutions (17) and note that

$$ϵNN_n\frac{4a_n(a_{n+1}a_n)}{\sqrt{3}C},$$
(19)
we take the continuum limit and set $`N=1`$, leading to

$$a\dot{a}1,$$
(20)
whose solution is $`at^{1/2}`$. Here we have also defined that $`t=nϵ`$ and $`\dot{a}=\frac{a_{n+1}a_n}{ϵ}`$. If $`qe^\delta `$ where $`\delta `$ is a small number, then we have $`\delta \frac{ln(t)}{2n}`$, yielding the classical solution $`\varphi \varphi _0+\sqrt{3}ln(t)`$. Of course in this sense $`q`$ is not a strict constant any more but approaches to one as $`n`$ goes to infinity.

The cosmological solution from big crunch to big bang can be obtained by combining the solution (18) with $`q^{}<1`$ when $`n0`$ and (17)with $`q>1`$ when $`n0`$. To be single valued at $`n=0`$, we have adjoint conditions $`a_0=a_0^{},C=C^{},\varphi _0=\varphi _0^{}`$ and $`q+q^{}=2`$. But we note that the conjugate momentum of $`a_n`$ has a jump from $`\pi _0^{}^a^{}=2\sqrt{3}\frac{C}{a_0}`$ to $`\pi _{0^+}^a=2\sqrt{3}\frac{C}{a_0}`$. Physically it means the universe contracts as the time level $`n`$ increases from $`\mathrm{}`$ until $`n=0`$ and then rebound at the minimum size of the universe, turning into an expanding phase as $`n>0`$. In this discretized version, we find the singularity as t approaches to zero is always avoided unless we set $`a_0=0`$ by hand. But in generic points $`a_0`$ should be determined by the evolution of scale factor from $`n<0`$ to $`n=0`$, which in classical limit corresponds to the evolution from $`t=\mathrm{}`$ to $`t=0`$. As a matter of fact, all these intuitive considerations might be invalid as the gravitation effect becomes so strong that the quantum theory of gravity should be taken into account. Then the quantum states of the universe is the superpositions of such states describing expanding and contracting universes. Nevertheless based on this heuristic analysis we believe the evolution of universe becomes more delicate due to the quantum effect of gravity and rather than a genuine crunch occurs, it might rebound once a minimum size of the scale factor is saturated.

We realize once the quantization of discrete theory is concerned, we need a probability explanation of such special initial conditions, namely why the recurrence constant $`q`$ is close to one but not else. In classical theory we are short of such strategy to present a satisfying explanation. Based on above consideration, we see the closest argument appearing in cosmological model from big crunch to big bang is the requirement that $`q+q^{}=2`$. If $`a_n`$ is always positive as it should be, then $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ could be any positive number in $`(0,2)`$, not directly leading to our expected value $`e^\delta `$ and $`e^\delta `$ respectively. One might expect that the classical solution (16) is not stable unless the $`q`$ approaches to unity, in other words $`q=1`$ might be thought of as an attractor and such running of $`q`$ from any initial constant to unity might be implemented or required at quantum mechanical level. But following perturbative analysis shows it’s not the case. Consider the perturbation

$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`a_n^{(0)}+\delta a_n,\varphi _n=\varphi _n^{(0)}+\delta \varphi _n,`$
$`P_n^a`$ $`=`$ $`P_n^{a(0)}+\delta P_n^a,P_n^\varphi =P_n^{\varphi (0)}+\delta P_n^\varphi `$
$`N_n`$ $`=`$ $`N_n^{(0)}+\delta N_n.`$ (21)
Substituting into equations of motion (14) and keeping the first order correction, we have

$$\delta a_{n+1}+\frac{2q8}{3}\delta a_n+q^2\delta a_{n1}=0.$$
(22)
On the other hand, perturbations directly based on (16) leads to

$$\delta a_{n+1}2q\delta a_n+q^2\delta a_{n1}=0.$$
(23)
The consistency requires that $`q1`$, which looks satisfying. But another kind of reasonable perturbation is $`a_n=a_0(q+\delta q)^n`$ such that $`\delta a_{n+1}=\frac{n+1}{n}q\delta a_n`$. It immediately leads to the conclusion that solutions (17) and (18) are classically stable except for $`q=1`$, at that point $`\delta a_n`$ could be any value, which is opposite to what we desire.

We hope this dilemma may be solved by further progress in the quantum theory of gravity. But before that we want to present another model where a good continuum limit can be achieved nearby the singularity in next section.

## IV Chaplygin Gas

Chaplygin gas as an exotic fluid has been greatly investigated in FRW cosmological modelChaplygin ; Gibbons ( also see Gibbons  for more references). Since it behaves like a cosmological constant at $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟}`$ time of the universe, namely contributing a positive energy density and negative pressure, it is supposed to be responsible for the acceleration of the universe, as indicated by recent observationIa . But at early time of the universe it behaves just like a dust matter such that the effective cosmological constant is zero. One interesting feature of Chaplygin gas is that its lagrangian is quite similar to the effective lagrangian of tachyon field in string theory, which has been proposed by A. SenSen1 , even though the exact expression is not clear yet. The lagrangian of both Chaplygin gas and tachyon fields can be given as

$$=\frac{1}{2N}\left(\dot{a}^2+\frac{8\pi Ga^4N^2V}{3}\sqrt{1\frac{\dot{T}^2}{N^2a^2}}\right).$$
(24)
For Chaplygin gas, the potential $`V(T)`$ is a constant, while for tachyon fields $`V(T)`$ has a maximum at $`T=0`$ and exponentially decreases for large $`T`$222In particular, inSen2  Sen conjectured that the tachyon field may not be physical matter, but viewed as the time variable in quantum cosmology as $`\varphi `$ goes large. This interesting treatment has its advantages in quantum cosmology and more implications in nonperturbative quantum gravity may be further studied and discussed elsewhere..

In this section we consider the discrete theory of Chaplygin cosmology. To compare our result with those in previous section, we still adopt the conformal coordinate system

$$ds^2=a^2(t)[N^2(t)dt^2+dx_i^2].$$
(25)
As a matter of fact, we are free to redefine the lapse function,

$$N^{}(t):=N(t)a(t),$$
(26)
and then turn to

$$ds^2=N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(t)dt^2+a^2(t)dx_i^2.$$
(27)
The equations of motion and constraints have the following familiar form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{aN^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{N^{}}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1\frac{\dot{T}^2}{N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3\dot{T}^2}{2N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1\frac{\dot{T}^2}{N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N^2\dot{T}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{T}}{N^{}}}\right)+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}\dot{T}}{aN_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dT}}=0.`$ (28)
As is familiar, we call the first two equations as Raychaudhuri and Friedman equations respectively in standard cosmology and the third one is the equation of motion for tachyon fields. Furthermore, as these three equations are not independent we are free to set the lapse function $`N^{}=1`$.

Next we consider the canonical formalism of the theory. Define the conjugate momenta of scale factor $`a`$ and scalar field $`T`$

$`\pi _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{N}}`$
$`\pi _T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{T}}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^3V\dot{T}}{\sqrt{N^2a^2\dot{T}^2}}},`$ (29)
then the Hamiltonian is given as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\pi _a\dot{a}+\pi _T\dot{T}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}\left(\dot{a}^2{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi Ga^4N^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{1\frac{\dot{T}^2}{N^2a^2}}}}\right).`$
The discretized version of the lagrangian is

$`L(n,n+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{an}(a_{n+1}a_n)+\pi _{Tn}(T_{n+1}T_n)`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_n}{2}}\left[\pi _{an}^22a_n\sqrt{\pi _{Tn}^2+({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Ga_n^3V}{3}})^2}\right].`$
The canonically conjugate momenta of these variables at instant $`n+1`$ and $`n`$ are respectively given by

$`P_{n+1}^a=\pi _{an}`$ $`P_n^a=\pi _{an}+N_n\left[\lambda _n+({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi GV}{3}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{3a_n^6}{\lambda _n}}\right]`$
$`P_{n+1}^{\pi _a}=0`$ $`P_n^{\pi _a}=\left[(a_{n+1}a_n)+N_n\pi _{an}\right]`$
$`P_{n+1}^{\pi _T}=0`$ $`P_n^{\pi _T}=\left[(T_{n+1}T_n){\displaystyle \frac{N_na_n\pi _{Tn}}{\lambda _n}}\right]`$
$`P_{n+1}^T=\pi _{Tn}`$ $`P_n^T=\pi _{Tn}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Ga_n^3}{3}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_na_nV}{\lambda _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dT}}`$
$`P_{n+1}^N=0`$ $`P_n^N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\pi _{an}^22a_n\lambda _n),`$ (32)
where we have defined

$$\lambda _n\sqrt{\pi _{Tn}^2+\left(\frac{4\pi Ga_n^3V}{3}\right)^2}.$$
(33)
In discrete theory the time evolution is described by a canonical transformation from the variables from $`(q_n,p_n)`$ to $`(q_n,p_{n+1})`$. Taking $`(a_n,T_n,P_n^a,P_n^T)`$ as the set of basic variables, we rewrite these equations of motion as

$`a_{n+1}a_n=N_n\pi _{an}`$
$`P_{n+1}^aP_n^a=N_n\left[\lambda _n+3({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi GV}{3}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{a_n^6}{\lambda _n}}\right]`$
$`T_{n+1}T_n={\displaystyle \frac{N_na_n\pi _{Tn}}{\lambda _n}}`$
$`P_{n+1}^TP_n^T=\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Ga_n^3}{3}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_na_nV}{\lambda _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dT}}`$
$`(P_{n+1}^a)^22a_n\lambda _n=0`$ (34)
Above consideration is applicable to both Chaplygin gas and tachyon field. From now on we only focus on the case of Chaplygin gas which has a constant $`V`$. The immediate consequence from above equation is that $`P_{n+1}^T`$ is conserved, which is nothing but $`\pi _{Tn}`$. First we consider the expanding universe with very small scale factor comparing with $`\pi _{Tn}`$,

$$\pi _{Tn}(\frac{4\pi Ga_n^3V}{3}),$$
(35)
then $`\lambda _n\pi _{Tn}=P_{n+1}^T`$ and the equations of motion reduce to

$`a_{n+1}a_n=N_n\pi _{an}`$
$`P_{n+1}^aP_n^a=N_n\pi _{Tn}`$
$`T_{n+1}T_n=N_na_n`$
$`P_{n+1}^TP_n^T=0`$
$`(P_{n+1}^a)^22a_nP_{n+1}^T=0.`$ (36)
After solving for $`N_n`$ and $`P_n^a`$ from the second and fifth equation, we may obtain the recurrence relations of $`a_n`$ from the first equation as

$$a_{n+1}^26a_{n+1}a_n+9a_n^24a_na_{n1}=0.$$
(37)
As we mentioned the evolution scheme is given by the canonical transformation from $`n`$ to $`n+1`$. Given the initial conditions, the value of scale factor can be determined at any instant by the recurrence relation (37). In particular, whether the universe expands or contracts depends only on these initial data. For instance if we take $`a_1>a_0`$, then we will see $`a_{n+1}>a_n`$ for any $`n>1`$, implying an expanding universe. On the other side, if we choose $`a_1>a_0`$, then we find $`a_{n+1}<a_n`$ for any $`n<1`$, hence implying an contracting universe. Similar to the discussion in previous section, the universe from big crunch to big bang may be obtained by connecting these two solutions at $`n=0`$. We may also plot graphs to illustrate the discrete evolution of $`a`$ by choosing appropriate parameters such that the scale factor goes to zero as $`n`$ approaches to $`0`$ from both $`n<0`$ and $`n>0`$, implying a singularity at $`t=0`$ in the continuum limit. But in discrete theory more detailed analysis indicates that scale factor takes a small but non-zero value at $`n=0`$ in general. Thus its solutions may also be used to describe a universe from big crunch to big bang but avoiding the singularity.

We remark that it is a conjecture that the universe from big crunch to big bang may be obtained by connecting two solutions at singularity, but not a simple solution to classical equationsKhoury . In our discrete theory it says that the set of $`(a_1,a_0,a_1)`$ does not satisfy the classical equations (16) or (37). The dynamical explanation of how the universe rebounds at the minimum size $`a_0`$ is absent in this classical framework, but it is not unreasonable as we expect the quantum theory of discrete gravity would play an essential role to solve this issue.

Now we turn to consider the continuum limit as $`n`$ goes to infinity. This can be done by recovering the first and second order derivatives with respect to time through

$`\dot{a}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{n+1}a_n}{ϵ}}`$
$`\ddot{a}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{n+1}2a_n+a_{n1}}{ϵ^2}}.`$ (38)
Then equation (37) becomes

$$\dot{a}^24a\ddot{a}=0.$$
(39)
The general solution to this equation is

$$a=c_1(t+c_2)^{\frac{4}{3}},$$
(40)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are two constants, viewed as a remnant of the reparameterization invariance of the continuum theory. Now going back to the other equations in (36) and taking the continuum limit we straightforwardly obtain the asymptotical behavior of other parameters

$$\pi _{an}t^{2/3}N_nt^{1/3}Tt^2,$$
(41)
and thus the metric has the form

$$ds^2t^{8/3}(t^{2/3}dt^2+dx_i^2).$$
(42)
To see Chaplygin gas may be though of as a dust matter during this epoch we turn to the following conventional coordinate system with lapse function $`N^{}=1`$:

$$ds^2dT^2+T^{4/3}dx_i^2.$$
(43)
Therefore the “effective” scale factor behaves as $`a^{}T^{2/3}`$, indicating an expanding but decelerating universe as $`T>0`$. One interesting point here is that during the origin of the universe the Chaplygin gas field may be understood as the proper time of the universe. Such kind of behavior is something like the time reversal of tachyon field, as pointed out in Sen2 , where tachyon may play a role of time variable as rolling down to infinity at $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟}`$ time of the universe.

To see our discrete scheme actually leads to the same physics as the continuum field theory of Chaplygin gas, we may also consider the continuum limit for large scale factor. In this case we have,

$$\pi _{Tn}(\frac{4\pi Ga^3V}{3}).$$
(44)
Since $`V`$ is a constant, then

$$\lambda _n\frac{4\pi Ga^3V}{3},$$
(45)
and the equations reduce to

$`a_{n+1}a_n=N_n\pi _{an}`$
$`P_{n+1}^aP_n^a=4N_n\lambda _n`$
$`T_{n+1}T_n={\displaystyle \frac{N_na_n\pi _{Tn}}{\lambda _n}}`$
$`P_{n+1}^TP_n^T=0`$
$`(P_{n+1}^a)^22a_nP_{n+1}^T=0.`$ (46)
Similarly we obtain the recurrence relation of $`a_n`$

$$2a_na_{n+1}3a_n^2+a_{n1}^2=0.$$
(47)
Taking the continuum limit yields the differential equation

$$2a\ddot{a}+\dot{a}^2=0.$$
(48)
One solution to this equation is $`at^{2/3}`$. Substituting it back to (46) we obtain the asymptotical behavior of other variables as follows

$$\pi _{an}t^{4/3}N_nt^{5/3}Tt^2.$$
(49)
As a result, the metric becomes

$$ds^2\frac{1}{T^2}dT^2+T^{2/3}dx_i^2.$$
(50)
We note that the Chaplygin gas does not play a role of proper time any more. In effect in the coordinate system with $`N^{}=1`$ the metric goes to

$$ds^2d\tau ^2+\mathrm{exp}\frac{4}{3}\tau dx_i^2.$$
(51)
It indicates the universe is accelerating, thus with a positive cosmological constant, which is consistent with the result of continuum theory of Chaplygin gas.

## V Conclusions

We have applied discrete gravity theory to investigate the universes from big crunch to big bang, mainly concerning the following two issues. One is on the fate of cosmological singularity. We proposed an attractive point of view on this issue based on the consistent discretization approach to general relativity. On the other hand we investigated the continuum limit of discrete theories describing the universe with vanishing cosmological constant. It’s clear one may take the attempts presented here as the first step to understand what role the discrete gravity would play in quantum gravity and cosmology. In particular in this paper we leave all the considerations on the quantization of discrete gravity for further investigation. We expect the approach to discrete general relativity will show more insight into the problem of the cosmological singularity and quantum gravity.

## Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Jorge Pullin and Lee Smolin for correspondence and helpful discussions. This work is partly supported by NSFC (No.10205002), SRF for ROCS, SEM and K.C.Wong Education Foundation, Hong Kong.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Almost all observations strongly suggest that the present universe is dominated by an enigmatic component called dark energy. The simplest candidate for dark energy is the cosmological constant; other models such as quintessence , k-essence , that of stringy origin , the generalized Chaplygin gas  and Cardassian models  have also been discussed. It is very important to consider whether we can differentiate these models of dark energy from current observations. Many authors have studied this subject for specific models or in a phenomenological way. Phenomenologically, the dark energy is characterized by its equation of state $`w_\mathrm{X}=p_\mathrm{X}/\rho _\mathrm{X}`$ where $`\rho _\mathrm{X}`$ and $`p_\mathrm{X}`$ are its energy density and pressure respectively. For the cosmological constant, $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ is equal to $`1`$; however, in other models, it can possibly deviate from $`1`$. Several authors have studied constraints on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ from observations such as cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure (LSS) and type Ia Supernovae (SNeIa) . Since observations of CMB strongly suggest that the universe is flat , most analyses were done with the prior of a flat universe to study constraints on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. However it is important to notice that almost all works which obtained constraints on the geometry of the universe from CMB observations assumed a cosmological constant as the dark energy, i.e., equation of state $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$. It is well-known that the peak location of the power spectrum of CMB is sensitive to the geometry of the universe. However, it is also known that the equation of state of dark energy affects the location of acoustic peaks. Thus it is interesting to study the power spectrum of CMB with varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ is the energy density of curvature normalized by the critical energy density.

In this paper, we discuss observational consequences of varying the geometry of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and the equation of state of dark energy $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. Although many models have time-dependent equation of state and some papers investigate observational consequences of such cases , to study it phenomenologically, we assume that $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ is independent of time throughout this paper. By studying the angular power spectrum of the CMB varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, one can find that there is a degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ in CMB. This means that we cannot know precisely the geometry of the universe without knowledge of the equation of state of the dark energy from observations of CMB. This also means that the constraints on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ obtained so far which assume a flat universe is changed if we also consider the case with a non-flat universe#1#1#1 In , the authors discussed a $`(w_\mathrm{X},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c})`$-degeneracy in an open universe. . In most analyses so far, it is assumed the equation of state as $`w_\mathrm{X}1`$ since the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$ violates the weak energy condition. However, some models which predict $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$ have been proposed  and some authors discuss constraints on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ for such cases . Thus, in this paper, we discuss the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}1`$ in which the degeneracy occurs in a closed universe. It is interesting to notice that the degeneracy in the region where $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$ affects a observational lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. Compared to the one obtained assuming a flat universe, a lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ becomes less stringent.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section, we examine the degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ in CMB. Then, in section 3, we study implications to this degeneracy from the observation of type Ia supernovae. The last section is devoted to summary.

## 2 Degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ in CMB

Observations of the CMB can measure cosmological parameters very precisely as seen from the recent WMAP result . However, it is known that there exist some degeneracies in certain sets of cosmological parameters which cannot be removed from the observations of the CMB alone . One such example is a degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`h`$ where $`h`$ is the Hubble parameter (in units of 100 km/s/Mpc). Although we cannot break this degeneracy with observations of CMB, the Hubble parameter can be independently determined by other observations such as from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) . Once $`h`$ is determined independently of CMB observations, the degeneracy is lifted.

Here we discuss another degeneracy. As we will show in the following, there is a degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. To illustrate this degeneracy, we plot the CMB angular power spectrum $`C_l`$ for the cases with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}=0,w_\mathrm{X}=1`$ and with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}=0.05,w_\mathrm{X}=5`$ in Fig. 1. To calculate the angular power spectrum $`C_l`$, we used a modified version of CMBFAST , and in the present analysis, we consider constant $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ and included fluctuation of dark energy according to . Here we took the sound speed in the rest frame of the dark energy as $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}=1`$. In this figure, other cosmological parameters are fixed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}=0.27,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.024`$ and $`n=0.99`$ and $`\tau =0.166`$ which correspond to the best-fit values for the power law $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model from WMAP results , where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}`$ are the energy density of matter, baryon and cold dark matter (CDM) respectively, $`n`$ is the initial spectral index and $`\tau `$ is the optical depth of reionization. From this figure, we can see the degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. Since the current constraint on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ assuming the flat universe is $`1.38<w_\mathrm{X}<0.82`$ (at 95 % C.L.) , $`w_\mathrm{X}=5`$ is completely disfavored in the flat universe. However if we consider such a value in the non-flat universe, the resulting angular power spectrum can become almost the same as the best-fit model. When we take the equation of state as $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$, effects of dark energy becomes significant only at late times, thus the structure of the acoustic peaks is mostly determined by the energy density of matter (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$). Therefore the shape of the acoustic peaks is almost the same even if we change the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. However the location of the acoustic peaks is affected by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. In a closed universe (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}<0`$), the peak location is shifted to lower multipole. On the other hand, by decreasing $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, it is shifted to higher multipole. If we take the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ to cancel these effects, we can have almost the same angular power spectrum for different sets of these parameters. Notice that, since the angular power spectrum at low multipole region is affected by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect, the different sets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ may give different structure at low multipoles even if they have indistinguishable structure of acoustic peaks. However, also notice that even in such a region, it may be difficult to distinguish them due to the cosmic variance.

Changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, the location of the peaks can be shifted because the peak position is mostly determined by the angular diameter distance to the last scattering surface which can be affected by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. The location of the acoustic peak is inversely proportional to the angular diameter distance #2#2#2 It also depends on the sound horizon at the surface of last scattering. However, since we assume that the equation of state is constant here, the dark energy affects the CMB only at late time, i.e., the sound horizon at the surface of last scattering is not affected by changing $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. Thus we do not consider the effect of the sound horizon on the location of the peaks here.

$`l_{\mathrm{peak}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_\mathrm{A}(z_{\mathrm{rec}})}}`$ (1)
where $`d_\mathrm{A}`$ is given by

$`d_A(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+z)|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}|^{1/2}H_0}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sinn}\left\{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}|^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑z^{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{r}(1+z^{})^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z^{})^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}(1+z^{})^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}(1+z^{})^{3(1+w)}\right]^{1/2}\right\}.`$
Here “$`\mathrm{sinn}`$” is defined as “$`\mathrm{sin}`$” for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}<0`$, “1” for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}=0`$ and “$`\mathrm{sinh}`$” for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}>0`$. In Fig. 2, we plot the angular diameter distance in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}w_\mathrm{X}`$ plane. The points shown in the figure indicate the same parameters which are used in Fig. 1. We can clearly see that the parameter sets which give the same angular diameter distance also give almost the same peak position.

For intuitive understanding, we consider the effects of the equation of state and the geometry of the universe with an example. Now we compare the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}=2`$. If $`w_\mathrm{X}=2`$, the energy density of the dark energy $`\rho _\mathrm{X}`$ grows proportional to $`a^3`$. When the present energy density of the dark energy is fixed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}=0.7`$, this means that the total energy density of the universe in the past is smaller than that for the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$ since the energy density of dark energy grows faster than for the $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$ case. In other words, the expansion of the universe is slower than that for the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$. This means that the distance to the last scattering surface becomes larger. Thus, if we take $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ more negative, the locations of peaks are shifted to higher multipoles. On the other hand, in a closed universe (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}<0`$), the locations of the acoustic peaks are shifted to lower multipoles compared to the case with a flat universe because of the geodesic effects on the trajectories of photons. So, if we consider the dark energy with super-negative $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ (i.e., $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$) in a closed universe, these effects can cancel each other, and the resulting location of the peaks becomes the same as that of the flat universe with a cosmological constant. Conversely, when we consider dark energy with $`w_\mathrm{X}>1`$ in an open universe, this kind of cancellation can also happen. But in this case, the dark energy affects the history of the universe from earlier times than for the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$. Thus the degeneracy is milder compared to the case with a super-negative equation of state, $`w_\mathrm{X}<1`$.

Notice that, if we take the equation of state as $`w_\mathrm{X}1`$, the dark energy is less relevant to the angular diameter distance. As we can see from Eq. (2), for the case with $`w_\mathrm{X}1`$, the term related to the dark energy becomes less significant in the integral. This means that the shift of the location of the acoustic peaks saturates at some point . Thus even if we take very negative values of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ which is need to realize the same peak location as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model does not change much. This means that we cannot obtain a significant lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ from CMB observations alone.

To study this degeneracy quantitatively, we show contours of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}w_\mathrm{X}`$ plane in Fig. 3. In this figure, for an illustration, we fixed the other cosmological parameters except $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}h^2=0.14,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.024,h=0.71`$, $`n=0.99`$ and $`\tau =0.166`$ and the normalization of spectra is marginalized. The value of $`\chi ^2`$ is calculated using the code provided by WMAP team . Here we used the TT mode data only. Since locations of the acoustic peaks are strongly dependent on the angular diameter distance, contours of constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ look similar to $`d_A`$. As we can see from the figure, the allowed region extends to more negative $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ region, which indicates that we cannot obtain a significant lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ from CMB data alone without specifying the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ as we mentioned above. This is because effects of decreasing $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ on the peak location saturate at some points. This also means that we cannot determine the geometry of the universe without the knowledge of the equation of state of the dark energy. However if we use other cosmological data such as SNeIa, we can lift the degeneracy to some extent. We will discuss this issue in the next section.

## 3 Implications from SNe observations

In this section, we see whether we can break the degeneracy which exists in the power spectrum of CMB. It is well-known that confidence level contours in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane from CMB observations lie almost along the flat universe line, while contours from SNe observations are roughly orthogonal to those from CMB observations. So, in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane, observations of CMB and SNeIa are complementary. Thus we can expect that this kind of complementarity exists in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}w_\mathrm{X}`$ plane. In the following, we study the constraint with current SNe data in this plane.

First, we explain some technical details which are needed to consider constraints from SNeIa observations. Observations of SNeIa give a measured distance modulus $`\mu _0`$ which is given by

$$\mu _0=5\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{d_L(z)}{\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)+25,$$
(3)
where $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance in units of Mpc. The luminosity distance is calculated as

$$d_L(z)=\frac{1+z}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}|^{1/2}H_0}\mathrm{sinn}\left\{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}|^{1/2}_0^z𝑑z^{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z^{})^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}(1+z^{})^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}(1+z^{})^{3(1+w)}\right]^{1/2}\right\}.$$
(4)
in which definition of “$`\mathrm{sinn}`$” is given in the previous section.

To find constraints from SNeIa observations, we used data from High-z Supernova Search Team  and Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) . We also included the data from SNeIa discovered recently . The published data of High-z Supernova Search Team gives the distance modulus of each SNeIa defined in Eq. (3), while the SCP team gives the estimated effective B-band magnitude of each SN Ia $`m_\mathrm{B}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The effective B-band magnitude $`m_\mathrm{B}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the distance modulus $`\mu _0`$ are related by

$$m_\mathrm{B}^{\mathrm{eff}}=M_\mathrm{B}+\mu _0.$$
(5)
where $`M_\mathrm{B}`$ is the peak absolute magnitude of a “standard” SN Ia in the B-band. Wang  found the relation between the data of SCP team and High-z SN team

$$M_\mathrm{B}^{\mathrm{MLCS}}m_\mathrm{B}^{\mathrm{MLCS}}\mu _0^{\mathrm{MLCS}}=19.33\pm 0.25,$$
(6)
where all quantities in this equation are estimated with the multi light curve shape (MLCS) method.

We use this relation to combine data of High-z SN Search team and SCP team. The data set of High-z SN team and SCP team consist 50 SNe and 42 SNe. In their data set, 18 SNe are the same, thus, including recently discovered 3 SNe, 95 SNe are used in total in our analysis.

The likelihood for the parameters are determined from a $`\chi ^2`$ statistics,

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i}{}\frac{[\mu _0^{\mathrm{th}}(z_i;\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X},h,w)\mu _{0,i}^{\mathrm{exp}}]^2}{\sigma _{\mu 0,i}^2+\sigma _v^2}$$
(7)
where $`\mu _0^{\mathrm{th}}(z_i;\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X},h,w)`$ is a predicted distance modulus for a given cosmological parameters, $`\mu _{0,i}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the measured distance modulus for each SN, $`\sigma _{\mu 0,i}`$ is the measurement error of the distance modulus and $`\sigma _v`$ is the velocity dispersion in galaxy redshift in units of the distance modulus. For the data of High-z SN team, following , we adopted $`\sigma _v=200\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$ and added 2500 km/s in quadrature for high-redshift SN Ia whose redshift were determined from the broad features in the SN spectrum. We calculated the likelihood function as $`=_0\mathrm{exp}[\chi ^2/2],`$ where $`_0`$ is an arbitrary normalization constant.

First, we show the likelihood contours in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}`$ plane in Fig. 4. In this figure, the equation of state of dark energy is fixed as $`w_\mathrm{X}=1,2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. As $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ decreases, the allowed region is shifted to lower values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}`$. This is because a lower value of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ can result in a more accelerating universe for the same value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{X}`$. Also notice that, similarly to the case with the angular diameter distance, the dark energy is less relevant to the luminosity distance if we take the equation of state $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ at a very negative value. Thus the likelihood contours for the cases with $`w_\mathrm{X}=2`$ and $`3`$ are less different compared to than those for the $`w_\mathrm{X}=1`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}=2`$ cases.

In Fig. 5, the likelihood contours in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}w_\mathrm{X}`$ plane are shown. In this figure, the density parameter for matter is fixed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.25,0.3`$ and 0.35. As we can see from this figure, allowed regions extends to very negative values of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$. The situation is similar to the case with CMB which we discussed in the previous section. However, the allowed parameter space which extends to more negative region in Fig. 5 is different from that in the case of CMB (see Fig. 3).#3#3#3 Even though we can see that allowed regions extends to very negative values of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ as in the case of CMB, this is not an intrinsic degeneracy. We can have a significant lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ using future SNe observations such as SNAP . In this sense, observations of SNe and CMB are complementary each other in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}w_\mathrm{X}`$ plane too. Thus we can break the degeneracy in CMB to some extent with observations of SNeIa. But it is important to notice that, even if we can break the degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, the constraint on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ without assuming the flat universe is less stringent than that obtained assuming the flat universe. Thus, to impose a more general lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ would require a new global fit to all cosmological parameters with the prior of the flat universe lifted. Detailed investigation of this issue is beyond the scope of this paper.

## 4 Summary

We discussed the degeneracy between the geometry of the universe and the equation of state of dark energy which exists in the CMB power spectrum. As is well-known, the geometry of the universe affects the location of the acoustic peaks. For the open universe, the peak position is shifted to higher multipole compared to that of the flat universe, while, for the closed universe, it is shifted to lower multipoles. It is also known that the equation of state of dark energy affects the location of the peaks. If we take a smaller value of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, the peak location is shifted to higher multipoles, and for a larger value of $`w_\mathrm{X}`$, it becomes lower. If we take the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ to cancel these effects, we can have almost the same angular power spectrum for different sets of these parameters. For example, even if we take $`w_\mathrm{X}=5`$, we can have a power spectrum which has good agreement with CMB data for models which predict moderate ISW effect at low multipole by choosing the non-flat universe as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{k}=0.05`$. Since effects of decreasing $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ on the location of the acoustic peaks saturate at some points, we cannot obtain a significant lower bound on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ from CMB observations alone if we remove the assumption of the flat universe. However, observation of SNeIa can remove this degeneracy to some extent, as discussed in section 3. For the degeneracy that we discussed here, observations of CMB and SNeIa are complementary. But it is interesting to notice that, when we relax the assumption of the flat universe, the constraint on $`w_\mathrm{X}`$ becomes less stringent compared to that assuming a flat universe. The full investigation of this issue will be the subject of a future work.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-97ER-41036. We acknowledge the use of CMBFAST .


text:
# Energy Scan Program at the Cern SPS and An Observation of the Deconfinement Phase Transition in Nucleus–Nucleus Collisions *footnote **footnote *presented at 7th International Conference on Strange Quarks in Matter, SQM 2003, March 2003, Atlantic Beach, USA

## Abstract

The history and the main results of the energy scan program at the CERN SPS are reviewed. Several anomalies in energy dependence of hadron production predicted as signals of deconfinement phase transition are observed and they indicate that the onset of deconfinement is located at about 30 A$``$GeV. For the first time we seem to have clear evidence for the existence of a deconfined state of matter in nature.

1. Introduction. During the last decade rich experimental data on Pb+Pb collisions at five beam energies (20, 30, 40, 80 and 158 A$``$GeV) were recorded by several experiments (NA49, NA45, NA57, NA50 and NA60) at the CERN SPS. The primary aim of this program is the search for the onset of deconfinement predicted to be at the low SPS energies.

In this report we briefly review the history and the basic results of the energy scan program at the CERN SPS. Conclusions and suggestions for possible directions of future studies close the paper.

2. A Brief History of Ideas. In the mid 90s numerous results on collisions of light nuclei at the BNL AGS (beams of Si at 14.6 A$``$GeV) and the CERN SPS (beams of O and S at 200 A$``$GeV) were obtained. The experiments with heavy nuclei (AGS: Au+Au at 11.6 A$``$GeV, SPS: Pb+Pb at 158 A$``$GeV) were just starting. This was the time when the first look at the energy dependence of hadron production in nucleus–nucleus (A+A) collisions at high energies was possible. Two compilations, on pion production  and on strangeness production  resulted in a clear conclusion: the energy dependences of hadron multiplicities measured in A+A collisions and p+p interactions are very different. Further more the data on A+A collisions suggested that there is a significant change in the energy dependence of pion and strangeness yields which is located between the top AGS and SPS energies. Based on the statistical approach to strong interactions  it was speculated  that the change is related to the onset of deconfinement at the early stage of the A+A collisions. Soon after, following this conjecture, a quantitative model was developed, the Statistical Model of the Early Stage (SMES) . It assumes creation of the early stage matter according to the principle of maximum entropy. Depending on the collision energy the matter is in the confined ($`E<30`$ A$``$GeV), mixed ($`30<E<60`$ A$``$GeV) or deconfined ($`E>60`$ A$``$GeV) phases. The phase transition is assumed to be of the first order.

3. A Brief History of Experiments. Based on these ideas in 1997 the NA49 Collaboration proposed to study hadron production in Pb+Pb collisions at 30 A$``$GeV . At this energy the SMES predicted a sharp maximum of a strangeness to pion ratio as a characteristic signal of the onset of deconfinement. Following this request the 40 A$``$GeV Pb–beam was delivered to NA49 in 1998 as a test. The 5 weeks long run at 40 A$``$GeV took place in 1999 The program was started by 40 A$``$GeV run instead of originally requested 30 A$``$GeV run due to technical SPS reasons.. The data were registered by NA49, NA45, NA50 and NA57. The success of this first run at low SPS energy and the exciting preliminary results shown by NA49 justified a continuation of the program. In 2000 a beam at 80 A$``$GeV was delivered for 5 days to NA49 and NA45. The program was completed in 2002 by the run (NA49 and NA60) at 30 A$``$GeV (7 days) and 20 A$``$GeV (7 days).

Numerous experimental results from the run at 40, 80 and 158 A$``$GeV are already published, see e.g. , and presented at conferences see e.g. . The results from the 30 A$``$GeV run are shown for the first time at this conference . The data at 20 A$``$GeV are still being analysed.

4. Signals of Deconfinement. Originally two signals of the deconfinement phase transition were proposed within the SMES: the energy dependence of mean pion and mean strangeness multiplicities . Recently two new signals were suggested within the SMES: the energy dependence of the shape of the transverse mass spectrum of kaons  and the energy dependence of properly filtered multiplicity fluctuations . Intuitive arguments which lead us to the proposed signals as well as the experimental status of the signals are reviewed here.

4a. The Pion Kink. The majority of all particles produced in high energy interactions are pions. Thus, pions carry basic information on entropy created in the collisions. On the other hand, the entropy production should depend on the form of matter present at the early stage of collisions. Deconfined matter is expected to lead to a state with higher entropy than that created in confined matter. Consequently, it is natural to expect that the onset of creation of deconfined matter should be signalled by an enhancement of pion production. Clearly a trivial dependence of the pion multiplicity on the size of colliding nuclei should be removed and thus a relevant observable is the ratio of the mean pion multiplicity $`\pi `$ to the mean number of wounded nucleons $`N_W`$ (the notation $`\mathrm{}`$ will be used to denote the mean multiplicity in full phase space throughout the paper).

This simple intuitive argument can be quantified within the SMES. Due to the assumed generalised Fermi–Landau initial conditions  the $`\pi /N_W`$ ratio increases approximately linear with $`F`$ $`F`$ is the Fermi’s energy measure : $`F(\sqrt{s_{NN}}2m_N)^{3/4}/\sqrt{s_{NN}}^{1/4}`$, where $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ is the c.m.s. energy per nucleon–nucleon pair and $`m_N`$ the rest mass of the nucleon. outside the transition region. The slope parameter is proportional to $`g^{1/4}`$ , where $`g`$ is an effective number of internal degrees of freedom at the early stage. In the transition region a steepening of the pion energy dependence is predicted, because of activation of a large number of partonic degrees of freedom.

A recent compilation of the data on pion multiplicity in central Pb+Pb (Au+Au) collisions and p+p interactions is shown in Fig. 1. In this figure the ratio $`\pi /N_W`$ is plotted as a function of $`F`$. One observes that the mean pion multiplicity per wounded nucleon in $`p+p`$($`\overline{p}`$) interactions is approximately proportional to $`F`$; the dashed line in Fig. 1 indicates a fit of the form $`\pi /N_W=aF`$ to the data. For central A+A collisions the dependence is more complicated and cannot be fitted by a single linear function. Below 40 $`A`$GeV the ratio $`\pi /N_W`$ in A+A collisions is lower than in $`p+p`$ interactions (pion suppression), while at higher energies $`\pi /N_W`$ is larger in A+A collisions than in $`p+p`$($`\overline{p}`$) interactions (pion enhancement). In the region between the AGS and the lowest SPS energy (15–40 $`A`$GeV) the slope changes from $`a=1.01\pm 0.04`$ GeV-1/2 for the fit to the points up to the top AGS energy to $`a=1.36\pm 0.03`$ GeV-1/2 for the fit to the top SPS energy and the RHIC data points (the full line in Fig. 1).

The measured increase of the slope for A+A collisions by a factor of about 1.3, is interpreted within the SMES as due to an increase of the effective number of the internal degrees of freedom by a factor of (1.3)4 $``$ 3 and is caused by the creation of a transient state of deconfined matter at energies higher than 30 A$``$GeV.

The suppression of pion production in A+A collisions in comparison to $`p+p`$ interactions is interpreted as due to entropy transfer from mesons to baryons, which is expected to result in a constant shift of the $`\pi /N_W`$ ratio . The transition from pion suppression to pion enhancement is demonstrated more clearly in the insert of Fig. 1, where the difference between $`\pi /N_W`$ for A+A collisions and the straight line parametrisation of the $`p+p`$ data is plotted as a function of $`F`$ up to the highest SPS energy.

4b. The Strange Horn. The energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio is a crucial signal of deconfinement due to its weak dependence on the assumed initial conditions .

Within the SMES at low collision energies, when confined matter is produced, the strangeness to entropy ratio steeply increases with collision energy, due to the low temperature at the early stage ($`T<T_C`$) and the high mass of the carriers of strangeness ($`m_S500`$ MeV, the kaon mass). When the transition to deconfined matter is crossed ($`T>T_C`$), the mass of the strangeness carriers is significantly reduced ($`m_S170`$ MeV, the strange quark mass). Due to the low mass ($`m_S<T`$) the strangeness yield becomes (approximately) proportional to the entropy, and the strangeness to entropy (or pion) ratio is independent of energy. This leads to a ”jump” in the energy dependence from the larger value for confined matter at $`T_C`$ to the value for deconfined matter. Thus, within the SMES, the measured non–monotonic energy dependence of the strangeness to entropy ratio is followed by a saturation at the deconfined value which is a direct consequence of the onset of deconfinement taking place at about 30 $`A`$GeV.

One can argue that the strangeness to entropy ratio is closely proportional to the two ratios directly measured in experiments: the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio and the $`E_S=(\mathrm{\Lambda }+K+\overline{K})/\pi `$ ratio. The energy dependence of both ratios is plotted in Fig. 2 for central Pb+Pb (Au+Au) collisions and p+p interactions. For p+p interactions both ratios show monotonic increase with energy. However, very different behaviour is observed for central Pb+Pb (Au+Au) collisions. The steep threshold rise of the ratio characteristic for confined matter then settles into saturation at the level expected for deconfined matter. In the transition region (at low SPS energies) a sharp maximum is observed caused by a higher strangeness to entropy ratio in confined matter than in deconfined matter. As seen in Fig. 2 the measured dependence is consistent with that expected within the SMES.

4c. The Step in Slopes. With increasing collision energy the energy density at the early stage increases. At low and high energies, when pure confined or deconfined phases are produced, this leads to an increase of the initial temperature and pressure. This, in turn, results in increase of transverse expansion of matter and consequently a flattening of transverse mass spectra of final state hadrons. In the phase transition region the initial energy density increases with collision energy, but temperature $`T_0=T_C`$ and pressure $`p_0=p_C`$ remain constant. Consequently the shape of the $`p_T`$ spectrum is expected to be approximately independent of collision energy in the transition region. Thus one expects a characteristic energy dependence of transverse hadron activity: the average transverse momentum increases with collision energy when the early stage matter is either in pure confined or in pure deconfined phases, and it remains approximately constant when the matter is in the mixed phase .

The energy dependence of the inverse slope parameter fitted to the $`K^+`$ (left) and $`K^{}`$ (right) transverse mass spectra at midrapidity for central Pb+Pb (Au+Au) collisions is shown in Fig. 3 . The striking features of the data can be summarised and interpreted as follows.

The $`T^{}`$ parameter increases strongly with collision energy up to the lowest (30 A$``$GeV) SPS energy point. This is an energy region where the creation of confined matter at the early stage of the collisions is expected. Increasing collision energy leads to an increase of the early stage temperature and pressure. Consequently the transverse activity of produced hadrons, measured by the inverse slope parameter, increases with increasing energy. The $`T^{}`$ parameter is approximately independent of the collision energy in the SPS energy range. In this energy region the transition between confined and deconfined matter is expected to be located. The resulting modification of the equation of state “suppresses” the hydrodynamical transverse expansion and leads to the observed plateau structure in the energy dependence of the $`T^{}`$ parameter. At higher energies (RHIC data) $`T^{}`$ again increases with collision energy. The equation of state at the early stage becomes again stiff, the early stage temperature and pressure increase with collision energy. This results in increase of $`T^{}`$ with energy.

4d. The Shark Fin in Entropy Fluctuations. In thermodynamics, the energy $`E`$ and entropy $`S`$ are related to each other through the equation of state, EoS. Thus, various values of the energy of the initial equilibrium state lead to different, but uniquely determined, initial entropies. When the collision energy is fixed, the energy, which is used for hadron production still fluctuates. Consequently, simultaneous event–by–event measurements of both the entropy and energy yield information on the EoS. Since the EoS changes rapidly in the phase transition region this should be visible in the ratio of entropy to energy fluctuations .

Within the SMES the ratio of entropy to energy fluctuations is given by a simple function of the $`p/\epsilon `$ ratio:

$$R_F\frac{(\delta S)^2/S^2}{(\delta E)^2/E^2}=\left(1+\frac{p}{\epsilon }\right)^2.$$
(1)
Thus it is easy to predict a qualitative dependence of the $`R_F`$ ratio on collision energy. Within the model, confined matter modelled as an ideal gas is created below $``$30 A$``$GeV beam energy. In this domain, the ratio $`p/\epsilon `$, and consequently the $`R_F`$ ratio, are approximately independent of collision energy and equal to the ideal gas value of about 1/3 and 0.6, respectively. The model assumes that the deconfinement phase–transition is of the first order. Thus, there is a mixed phase region, corresponding to the energy interval $``$30 $`÷`$ $``$60 A$``$GeV. At the end of the mixed phase the $`p/\epsilon `$ ratio reaches a minimum (the “softest point” of the EoS ). Thus in the transition energy range the $`R_F`$ ratio increases and reaches its maximum, $`R_F0.8`$, at the end of the transition domain. Further on, in the pure deconfined phase, which is represented by an ideal quark-gluon gas under bag pressure, the $`p/\epsilon `$ ratio increases and approaches its asymptotic value 1/3 at the highest SPS energy of 160 A$``$GeV. This results in a decrease of the $`R_F`$ ratio and its saturation at the value of about 0.6.

An estimate of the entropy fluctuations can be obtained from the analysis of multiplicity fluctuations as proposed in .

Experimental results on the energy dependence of the $`R_F`$ ratio are not yet available.

5. Conclusions and Future. The energy scan program at the CERN SPS together with the measurements at lower (LBL, JINR, SIS, BNL AGS) and higher (BNL RHIC) energies yielded systematic data on energy dependence of hadron production in central Pb+Pb (Au+Au) collisions. Predicted signals of the deconfinement phase transition, namely anomalies in the energy dependence of hadron production (the pion kink, the strange horn and the step in slopes) are observed simultaneously at low SPS energies. They indicate that the onset of deconfinement is located at about 30 A$``$GeV. For the first time we seem to have clear evidence for the existence of the deconfined state of matter in nature.

The analysis of the data from the energy scan program is still in progress. In particular we are soon expecting first results at 20 A$``$GeV. Many new observables can be studied in the near future. We hope that the properly analysed event–by-event fluctuations may also be sensitive to the onset of deconfinement and can serve as further confirmation of the current interpretation of the data.

The observed striking difference between the energy dependence measured for central Pb+Pb collisions and p+p interactions suggests a systematic experimental study of the system size dependence of the energy dependence of hadron production. We hope that these measurements can be done in the near future and will lead to substantial progress in our understanding of the properties of strongly interacting matter at high densities.

Acknowledgements The results presented in this report were to a large extend obtained thanks to my close collaboration with Mark I. Gorenstein (theory) and Peter Seyboth (experiment, the NA49 spokesman). I would like to thank them for a very exciting and fruitful period of common study.

This work was partially supported by Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (Germany) and the Polish Committee of Scientific Research under grant 2P03B04123.


text:
# Domain wall superconductivity in hybrid superconductor – ferromagnetic structures

## I Introduction

The problem of coexistence of superconducting and magnetic orderings has been studied for several decades (see, e.g., Refs.  for review). One can separate two basic mechanisms responsible for interaction of superconducting order parameter with magnetic moments in the ferromagnetic state: (i) the electromagnetic mechanism (interaction of Cooper pairs with magnetic field induced by magnetic moments) which was first discussed by V. L. Ginzburg  in 1956; (ii) the exchange interaction of magnetic moments with electrons in Cooper pairs. The revival of interest to the fundamental questions of magnetism and superconductivity coexistence has been stimulated, in particular, by the recent investigations of the hybrid superconductor/ferromagnetic (S/F) systems. Such thin film structures consist of a ferromagnetic insulator film and superconducting film deposited on it. Similar situation can be obtained with a metallic ferromagnet when a superconducting film is evaporated on the buffer oxide layer in order to avoid proximity effect. The superconducting properties of such structures attract a growing interest due to a large potential for applications. In particular, such hybrid S/F systems are intensively investigated in connection with the problem of controlled flux pinning. The enhancement of the depinning critical current density $`j_c`$ has been observed experimentally for superconducting films with arrays of submicron magnetic dots,  antidots,  and for S/F bilayers with domain structure in ferromagnetic films.  Theory of vortex structures and pinning in the S/F systems at rather low magnetic fields (in the London approximation) has been developed in Refs. .

A nonhomogeneous magnetic field distribution induced by the domain structure in a ferromagnetic layer influences strongly the conditions of the superconducting order parameter nucleation, and, as a consequence, the hybrid S/F systems reveal a nontrivial phase diagram in an external applied magnetic field $`𝐇`$ (see, e.g., Refs. ). In this paper we focus on the theoretical study of this phase diagram on the basis of phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau (GL) model. We assume that the electromagnetic mechanism mentioned above plays a dominant role and neglect the exchange interaction which is obviously suppressed provided superconducting and ferromagnetic layers are well separated by an insulating barrier. We also assume that the domain walls are well pinned and do not take account of changes in the domain structure with an increase in $`H`$.

The distribution of the magnetic field induced by the domain structure is determined by the ratio of two length scales: thickness of ferromagnetic film $`D`$ and distance between the domain walls $`w`$ (hereafter we neglect a finite width of the domain wall, i.e. consider this width to be much less than the superconducting coherence length). Provided the ferromagnetic film is rather thick ($`Dw`$), the magnetic field in a thin superconducting film is almost homogeneous over the domain and suppresses the critical temperature of superconductivity nucleation. In this case with the decrease in the temperature the superconductivity must firstly appear just above the domain wall (see Refs. ) due to the mechanism analogous to the one responsible for the surface superconductivity below $`H_{c3}`$ (see Ref. ). Thus, in this limit the domain walls stimulate the nucleation of the superconducting order parameter. Note, that the same effect should reveal for two-dimensional magnetic field distributions induced, e.g., by magnetic dots, and results in the dependence of the upper critical field on the angular momentum of the superconducting nucleus wave function (see Refs. ).

For a thin ferromagnetic film ($`Dw`$) the magnetic field decays with the increase in the distance from the domain wall and almost vanishes inside the domain. In the absence of the external field such domain wall should locally weaken superconductivity as it was discussed in Ref. . The superconducting nucleus in this case should appear far from the domain wall. As we switch on an external magnetic field, we can control the position of the superconducting nucleus suppressing the order parameter inside the domains. Thus, the phase diagram of the S/F bilayer is generally determined by the interplay between the superconductivity nucleated at the domain walls and in between these walls. For small period domain structures (when $`w`$ is comparable with the nucleus size) this simple physical picture based on consideration of isolated superconducting nuclei should be modified taking account of the interaction between the superconducting nuclei localized above different domain walls.

Our further consideration is based on the linearized GL equation for the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$\left(+\frac{2\pi i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}𝐀\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\xi ^2(T)}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(1)
Here $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ is the vector potential, $`𝐁(𝐫)=\times 𝐀(𝐫)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum, $`\xi (T)=\xi _0/\sqrt{1T/T_{c0}}`$ is the coherence length, and $`T_{c0}`$ is the critical temperature of the bulk superconductor at $`B=0`$. For superconducting films with thickness $`d`$ much smaller than coherence length the role of the parallel component of the magnetic field is negligibly small. Thus, we can take account only of the magnetic field component $`B_z`$ perpendicular to the film surface and also neglect the dependence of the order parameter on $`z`$. For the sake of simplicity we restrict ourselves to the consideration of the one-dimensional case: $`B_z(x)=H+b(x)`$, where $`H`$ is a uniform external magnetic field and $`b(x)`$ is the $`z`$–component of the field induced by the magnetization $`𝐌=M(x)𝐳_0`$ (see Fig. 1).

Choosing the gauge $`𝐀=A(x)𝐲_0`$, one can easily see that the momentum along the $`y`$ axis is conserved, hence we can find the solution of the Schrödinger-like equation (1) in the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=f_k(x)\mathrm{exp}(iky)`$, where function $`f_k(x)`$ should be determined from a solution of the one-dimensional problem:

$$\frac{d^2f_k}{dx^2}+\left(\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}A(x)k\right)^2f_k=\frac{1}{\xi ^2(T)}f_k.$$
(2)
Nontrivial solutions of Eq.(2) exist only for a discrete set of temperatures $`T_n(k)`$. The superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$ should be define as the highest value $`\mathrm{max}\{T_n(k)\}`$, corresponding to the lowest ”energy level” $`1/\xi ^2(T)`$ of the Schrödinger-like equation (2).

## II Superconductivity nucleation at a domain wall: an isolated order parameter nucleus

Let us start from consideration of a superconducting nucleus at a single domain wall taking the magnetization $`𝐌`$ near the wall in the form: $`𝐌=M\mathrm{sign}(x)𝐳_0`$ (we assume that the domain wall width is much less than the superconducting coherence length).

### A Domain wall in a thick ferromagnetic film: step-like magnetic field profile

As it was mentioned above, for a rather thick ferromagnetic film ($`Dw`$) the expression for the distribution of magnetic field near the surface reads: $`B_z=4\pi M\mathrm{sign}(x)+H`$, where $`H`$ is an external applied magnetic field. We choose the gauge in the form: $`𝐀=(4\pi M|x|+Hx)𝐲_0`$. At high temperatures the superconductivity far from the domain wall can be completely suppressed due to the orbital effect. On the contrary, near the boundary the superconducting nucleus can be still energetically favorable due to the mechanism analogous to the one responsible for the existence of $`H_{c3}`$ critical field for superconducting nucleus near the superconductor-insulator interface (see, e.g., Ref. ). Thus, a change of the magnetization direction which occurs at a domain boundary is responsible for a partial decrease of the orbital effect which provides conditions for the formation of localized superconducting nuclei at the domain walls at high temperatures (above the critical temperature far from the walls). Such a localized nucleus can appear only if we take account of proximity effect, i.e. consider the Cooper pairs to exist on both sides of the domain boundary. Such systems can reveal an interesting behavior in an external magnetic field. An external magnetic field applied to the sample results in a partial compensation of the field above one of the domains. As a result, the critical temperature of superconductor can depend nonmonotoneously on the applied magnetic field. Both the critical temperature of superconductivity nucleation far from the domain wall and critical temperature of formation of localized superconductivity at the wall should increase up to the external field value equal to the magnetic induction induced by the ferromagnetic moment.

It is convenient to rewrite equation (2) in the following dimensionless form:

$$\frac{^2f_k}{t^2}+(|t|+htt_0)^2f_k=Ef_k,$$
(3)
where $`t=x/L`$, $`t_0=kL`$, $`L^2=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi B_0)`$, $`h=H/B_0`$, $`E=(T_{c0}T)/\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{orb}`$, the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{orb}=T_{c0}\xi _0^2/L^2`$ characterizes the shift of critical temperature due to the orbital mechanism, and $`B_0`$ is the maximum absolute value of the field $`b`$ (in this subsection $`B_0=4\pi M`$).

For the case $`|t_0|\mathrm{}`$ a superconducting nucleus will appear far from the domain boundary at a certain $`T_c^{\mathrm{}}`$. In this limit the lowest eigenvalue $`E=|1|h||`$ of equation (3) and, hence, the critical temperature is not disturbed by the presence of the domain boundary. On the contrary, for finite $`t_0`$ values the superconducting nuclei to the left and to the right from the domain wall can not be considered separately due to the proximity effect. Provided the lowest energy level in the resulting potential well in equation (3) is minimal for a certain finite $`t_0`$ coordinate, we get a superconducting nucleus localized at the domain boundary for temperatures above $`T_c^{\mathrm{}}`$. The mechanism resulting in the appearance of such localized nucleus is analogous to the one responsible for existence of the surface superconductivity at the superconductor/insulator boundary for magnetic fields $`H_{c2}<H<H_{c3}`$. Indeed, for $`h=0`$ the potential well $`V(t)`$ in Schrödinger equation (3) is symmetric ($`V(t)=V(t)`$) and the eigenvalue problem (3) can be considered only for $`t>0`$ with the boundary condition $`f_k^{}(t=0)=0`$. For this particular case the energy minimum corresponds to $`t_0^2=E_{min}=0.59010`$ (Ref. ). An increase in the $`h`$ value will obviously result in an increasing asymmetry of the well $`V(t)`$, and, thus, in the suppression of superconductivity localized at the domain wall. The equation (3) can be solved exactly in terms of Weber functions (see Ref. ):

$$f_k=C_1W(\sqrt{1+h}t\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1+h}},\frac{E}{1+h}),t>0,$$
(4)
$$f_k=C_2W(\sqrt{1h}t\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1h}},\frac{E}{1h}),t<0.$$
(5)
Here $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants, and the Weber function $`W(s,\epsilon )`$ is the solution of the following equation:

$$\frac{^2W}{s^2}+s^2W=\epsilon W$$
(6)
with the boundary condition $`W(s+\mathrm{},\epsilon )0`$. Matching these solutions at $`t=0`$ we obtain:

$$\frac{\sqrt{1+h}W_s^{^{}}(\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1+h}},\frac{E}{1+h})}{W(\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1+h}},\frac{E}{1+h})}=\frac{\sqrt{1h}W_s^{^{}}(\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1h}},\frac{E}{1h})}{W(\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1h}},\frac{E}{1h})}.$$
(7)
This equation can be solved numerically which allows us to obtain the function $`E(t_0,h)`$. The resulting dependence of the critical temperature of superconductivity nucleation on parameter $`h`$ is shown in Fig.2.

One can see that the external field suppresses the localized superconducting nuclei and the superconductivity localized at the domain wall exists only at a relatively weak applied field. As we increase an external field the superconducting nucleus shifts away from the domain wall towards the region where the absolute value of the total magnetic field is minimal. For $`0|h|1`$ the curve $`E(h)`$ calculated numerically can be fitted by the following simple expression:

$$E(h)\left(E_{min}\frac{1}{2}\right)h^4+\left(\frac{1}{2}2E_{min}\right)h^2+E_{min}.$$
(8)
### B Domain wall in a thin ferromagnetic film

In this subsection we proceed with consideration of another limiting case $`Dw`$ and consider the problem of superconductivity nucleation in the field of an isolated domain wall in a thin ferromagnetic film: $`B_z(x,z=0)=4M\mathrm{tan}^1(D/x)+H`$. Obviously, for rather weak external magnetic fields $`H<B_0`$ (in this subsection the maximum value of the domain wall field at $`z=0`$ is given by the expression $`B_0=2\pi M`$) the superconducting order parameter nucleates in the region near the point $`x_0`$ where $`B_z(x_0)=0`$. Provided the localization length $`\mathrm{}`$ of the superconducting nucleus is much smaller than the characteristic length scale of magnetic field distribution, we can expand vector potential as

$$A(x)A(x_0)+\frac{1}{2}B_z^{}(x_0)(xx_0)^2.$$

Such a local approximation is valid if the following conditions are fulfilled:

$$\left|\frac{B_z^{\prime \prime }(x_0)}{B_z^{}(x_0)}\mathrm{}\right|1\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}x_0.$$
(9)
Introducing a new coordinate $`t=(xx_0)/\mathrm{}`$ we obtain the dimensionless equation

$$\frac{d^2f}{dt^2}+(t^2Q)^2f=ϵf,$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{}=\sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi |B_z^{}(x_0)|}}=D\sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi MD^2\mathrm{sin}^2(H/4M)}},$$
(11)
$$ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\xi _0^2}\left(1\frac{T}{T_{c0}}\right),$$
(12)
$$Q=\sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi B_z^{}(x_0)}}\left(k\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}A(x_0)\right).$$
(13)
The lowest eigenvalue of Eq.(10) $`ϵ_00.904`$ is achieved at $`Q0.437`$. For the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of superconductivity nucleation we obtain:

$$\frac{T_{c0}T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{orb}}=\frac{ϵ_0}{\pi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2B_0D^2}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{sin}^{4/3}\left(\frac{\pi |H|}{2B_0}\right).$$
(14)
This expression is valid when

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{sin}^{1/3}(H/4M)}{\mathrm{cos}(H/4M)}\right|\frac{4\pi MD^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}.$$
(15)
Note that close to $`T_{c0}`$ the upper critical field has an unusual temperature dependence: $`(T_{c0}T)^{3/4}`$.

As we increase an external magnetic field $`H`$ the position of superconducting nucleus shifts from infinity to the domain wall at $`x=0`$. For rather large fields $`H`$ the nucleus appears to be localized at the domain wall. Thus, the behavior of the nucleus coordinate in an external field is an opposite to the one considered in the subsection II A. The critical temperature for high field $`H`$ limit is given by the expression

$$\frac{T_cT_{c0}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{orb}}=1|H|/B_0.$$
(16)
The simple asymptotical formulas given above are in a good agreement with our numerical simulations of Eq.(2) (see Fig.3).

For numerical analysis of the localized states of Schrödinger-like equation (2) with an external magnetic field we approximated it on a equidistant grid and obtained the eigenfunctions $`f_k(x)`$ and eigenvalues $`1/\xi ^2(T)`$ by the diagonalization method of tridiagonal difference scheme. The typical behavior of the ground state wavefunction is shown in Fig.4.

## III Nucleation of superconductivity for a periodic domain structure

In this section we consider the effect of interaction of Cooper pair wavefunctions nucleated at different domain walls. Surely such interaction is important only for temperatures close to $`T_{c0}`$ ($`\xi (T)>w`$), otherwize for a rather large domain size $`w\xi (T)`$ the overlapping of superconducting nuclei above different domain walls is exponentially small. For the sake of simplicity we consider here the case $`wD`$ and take the step-like distribution of magnetic field induced by the domain structure with the period $`a=2w`$: $`b(x)=B_0\mathrm{sign}(x)`$, for $`|x|<w`$ and $`b(x+na)=b(x)`$, where $`n`$ is an integer. The corresponding vector potential can be chosen in the form: $`A(x)=B_0|x|`$ for $`|x|<w`$ and $`A(x+na)=A(x)`$.

In the absence of external field the general solution of Eq.(2) meets the Bloch theorem:

$$f_{kq}(x+a)=f_{kq}(x)e^{iqa},$$
(17)
where $`q`$ is a quasimomentum. The nodeless wavefunction of the ground state corresponds to the value $`q=0`$ and is an even function of $`x`$, and, thus, we obtain $`f_k^{}(0)=f_k^{}(w)=0`$. So we conclude that the solution at zero external field is identical to the one describing the superconductivity nucleation in a superconducting film of the thickness $`w`$ in the uniform magnetic field $`B_0`$. Following Ref.  we can obtain the ground state wavefunctions and energy $`E=(T_{c0}T_c)/\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{orb}`$ as a function of the momentum $`k`$. The behavior of the resulting dependence of $`E(k)`$ strongly depends on the parameter $`w/L`$. Two different regimes could be realized: for small values of $`w/L<2.5`$ there is only one minimum of $`E(k)`$ at $`k=w/(2L^2)`$, which corresponds to the superconductivity nucleation above the domain center. For larger values of $`w/L`$ one obtains two minima with equal energies $`E`$ at $`k_1^{min}`$ and $`k_2^{min}`$ ($`k_1^{min}+k_2^{min}=w/L^2`$). For $`w/L1`$ the coordinates of these minima $`k_1^{min}`$ and $`k_2^{min}`$ and minimum energy $`E`$ approach the values corresponding to the ones for isolated domain walls (see subsection II A). Depending on the $`k`$-momentum value the superconducting nuclei appear either above the walls at $`x=na`$ (for $`k_1^{min}`$) or at $`x=w+na`$ (for $`k_2^{min}`$). Thus, the nuclei at neighboring domain walls do not interact within the linearized GL theory. The dependence of the critical temperature on the field $`B_0`$ in a periodic domain structure is described by the formula:

$$1T_c/T_{c0}=\frac{4\xi _0^2}{w^2}F\left(\frac{\pi B_0w^2}{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right),$$

where the function $`F(z)`$ coincides with that for a superconducting film in the uniform magnetic field $`B_0`$ which is plotted, e.g., in Ref. . For a finite domain thickness $`w`$ the critical temperature $`T_c(B_0)`$ appears to be larger than the one for a single domain wall. This difference in $`T_c`$ becomes rather large for small values $`z=\frac{\pi B_0w^2}{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$ when the nucleus is not localized near the domain boundary. For large $`z`$ values one can obtain: $`F(z)z/1.69`$, which corresponds to the dependence $`T_c(B_0)`$ for a nucleus at a single domain wall.

If we apply an external magnetic field $`H`$ the Bloch theorem is no more valid and the solution $`f_k(x)`$ appears to be localized. The energy level $`E(k)`$ becomes a periodic function of the momentum $`k`$: $`E(k+4\pi Hw/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=E(k)`$. The behavior of the upper critical field and structure of superconducting nuclei are controlled by the parameter $`w/L`$. The results of our calculations carried out using the same numerical scheme as in subsection II B are shown in Fig.5.

For large values $`w/L`$ the phase transition line is very close to the one found in the subsection II A, except for the small temperature region close to $`T_{c0}`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }T4T_{c0}\xi _0^2/w^2`$. Outside this narrow temperature interval (and for $`H<B_0`$) the wavefunction is localized at the domain walls (see Fig.6).

The coordinates of these localized nuclei shift at $`ma`$ as we change the momentum at $`4\pi Hwm/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ ($`m`$ is an integer). Let us note, that for rather weak magnetic fields $`H<B_0`$ we observed a very peculiar behavior of the order parameter for a discrete set of field values given by the condition $`k_2^{min}k_1^{min}=4\pi Hwm/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$: the ground state wavefunction $`f_k(x)`$ has a two peak structure (see Fig.7).

This fact is a natural consequence of the equivalence of the momenta $`k`$ and $`k^{}=k+4\pi Hwm/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and the resulting resonant interaction of nuclei localized at domain walls separated by the distance $`w(2m1)`$.

For not very large values $`w/L<2.0`$ the critical temperature becomes a monotonic function of the external magnetic field because of the strong overlapping of wavefunctions corresponding to different domains. Therefore, the wavefunction is no more localized in a single domain (see Fig.8).

However, even in this case we still observe a change in the slope of the phase transition line (see dash line in Fig.5).

The behavior of the upper critical field discussed above is not specific for step-like field distributions. To demonstrate this fact we studied the superconductivity nucleation for the field profile $`B_z(x)=B_0\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x/a)+H`$. The phase diagram on the plane $`HT`$ appears to be qualitatively similar to the one shown in Fig.5. The critical temperature is a monotonic function of the external magnetic field for $`a/L<4.5`$. For large parameters $`a/L1`$ and $`H<B_0`$ the behavior of the critical temperature can be analyzed analytically following the approach used in subsection II B. The characteristic size of a superconducting nucleus and the critical temperature of superconductivity nucleation are given by the expressions:

$`\mathrm{}=a\sqrt[3]{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi ^2B_0a^2}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{B_0^2}}\right)^{1/6},`$ (18)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{T_{c0}}}\right)=ϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0^2}{a^2}}\sqrt[3]{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2B_0a^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{B_0^2}}\right)}.`$ (19)
The validity range of this approximate description is defined by the conditions:

$$\left(\frac{H/B_0}{1H^2/B_0^2}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{2\pi ^2B_0a^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{and}\left(\frac{2\pi ^2B_0a^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^{1/3}1.$$

## IV Conclusions

To summarize, we investigated the conditions of nucleation of localized superconductivity at the domain boundaries in hybrid S/F systems. The appearance of these localized superconducting nuclei should result in a broadening of the superconducting transition probed, e.g., by the resistivity measurements. We predict different regimes for the temperature dependence of the upper critical field near $`T_c`$. The crossover between these regimes could be easily seen on experiment. In fact, the beginning of the resistivity decrease with the temperature decrease would correspond to the domain wall superconductivity, while its complete disappearance would signal the bulk superconductivity. External magnetic field would shrink the region of the domain wall superconductivity. Let us discuss some estimates of the physical parameters for the systems where the nucleation of superconductivity at domain boundaries could be observable. We can take, for example, the parameters of $`Nb`$ ($`T_c9K`$ and $`dH_{c2}/dT0.5kOe/K`$) and typical values of magnetization for ferromagnetic insulators $`4\pi M110kOe`$. The resulting increase in the critical temperature above a domain wall is quite strong: $`\delta T_c13K`$. The thickness of a superconducting film must be much smaller than the distance between domains and ideal conditions correspond to the thickness of the order of several coherence lengths. So we conclude that the effects discussed above may be easily observed and could be quite important. Note that the behavior observed in Ref.  for S/F bilayers with bubble domains in a ferromagnetic film is qualitatively similar to our predictions. Generally the temperature behaviour of the critical field in S/F structures can be very rich (see Figs.2,3,5) and it is strongly dependent on the domain structure and method of determination of the critical field. Careful measurements of the resistive and magnetic transition (including the measurements of the transition broadening) on the samples with a controllable domain structure would be very useful for the interpretation of the phase diagram and could give an important information on the domain wall superconductivity.

Note in conclusion, that the existence of localized superconducting channels near the domain walls in S/F heterostructures can provide an interesting possibility to realize a switching behavior provided we can move the ferromagnetic domain wall. The superconducting channel in this case should follow the motion of the domain wall, which provides a possibility to control the conductance between certain static leads.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. I. A. Shereshevskii for fruitful discussions. This work was supported, in part, by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant No. 03-02-16774, Russian Academy of Sciences under the Program ’Quantum Macrophysics’, Russian State Fellowship for young doctors of sciences (MD-141.2003.02), University of Nizhny Novgorod under the program BRHE and ’Physics of Solid State Nanostructures’, ESF ’Vortex’ Programme and Materials Theory Institute at the Argonne National Laboratory.