text:
# Positive Vacuum Energy and the 𝑁-bound

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Banks’s proposal

Banks  has proposed that the cosmological constant should not be viewed as an effective parameter to be derived in a theoretical framework like QFT or string theory. Instead, it is determined as the inverse of the number of degrees of freedom, $`N`$, in the fundamental theory.111In this paper, $`N`$ always denotes the number of degrees of freedom; it should not be confused with the size of a gauge group, or the level of supersymmetry. The space-time dimension is taken to be 4 in order to keep equations simple, but generalization to arbitrary dimensions is trivial. Planck units are used throughout. It should thus be considered an input parameter at the most fundamental level of physics.

The proposal can be motivated as follows. In the presence of a positive cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the universe tends to evolve to empty de Sitter space. de Sitter space has a finite entropy $`S=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, given by the area of the cosmological horizon. Thus the universe is most economically described by a theory with the corresponding number of degrees of freedom, $`N=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Conversely, a quantum gravity theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom, $`N`$, requires for consistency a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\pi /N`$ to provide a geometric entropy cutoff.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence does not solve the cosmological constant problem except by fiat. It is not clear why the fundamental theory should happen to possess the enormous but finite number of degrees of freedom $`N10^{122}`$ that corresponds to the observationally favoured value of the cosmological constant. But the proposal offers a radical, and potentially fruitful, change of perspective.

Its most profound implication is the following: A quantum gravity theory with an infinite number of degrees of freedom, such as M theory, cannot describe space-times with a positive cosmological constant.222For a quantum theory, $`N`$ is defined to be the logarithm of the dimension of Hilbert space; thus, a theory with finite $`N`$ has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Superstring theories, and current non-perturbative proposals for M-theory , have an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. (Indeed, even a single harmonic oscillator has an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.) This is consistent with the fact that no stable de Sitter vacua are known in M theory. If the proposal is correct, this gap would not be due to our limited understanding of the theory, but must be ascribed to an obstruction in principle.

The correspondence thus suggests that one should look for a theory with finite $`N`$ that is self-consistent and complete; i.e., it will not do to impose a naive cut-off on an $`N=\mathrm{}`$ theory. If such theories exist for arbitrarily large values of $`N`$, one might expect them to limit to M theory. However, finite $`N`$ theories will contain certain qualitative features, such as positive vacuum energy and perhaps supersymmetry breaking,333Ref.  also explores the possibility of a connection between finite $`N`$ and supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking, noting that no stable SUSY-violating vacuum states have been firmly identified in M theory (see, however, Refs. ). One may therefore speculate that SUSY breaking can only occur in theories with finite $`N`$, and that both the SUSY and the vacuum energy scales arise from finite $`N`$. One then faces the challenge of explaining why the SUSY scale is much larger than $`N^1`$. We shall not pursue the connection with supersymmetry in the present paper. which would be entirely absent in the infinite $`N`$ limit and could not have been studied there.

How can the proposal be tested? It asserts that a universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ is a system with $`N=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ degrees of freedom. Unfortunately, this cannot be verified at the semi-classical level, as we have no understanding what the true degrees of freedom are. However, a system with $`N`$ degrees of freedom certainly cannot have entropy greater than $`N`$. Thus, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence predicts that a universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ cannot have entropy greater than $`N=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We call this prediction the $`N`$-bound. It can be tested.

It is not difficult to see that the $`N`$-bound is true for vacuum solutions like de Sitter space (a trivial case). Moreover, one can argue that it is satisfied for all space-times which are asymptotically de Sitter at late times, by the generalized second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, in Ref.  the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence was conjectured to apply only within this class of space-times. This includes, for example, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ flat Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) solution which appears to describe our universe: it starts out with a big bang and is initially radiation- or matter-dominated; then the matter is diluted by the cosmological expansion; and at some time (as it happens, roughly now) the vacuum energy—which is not diluted—starts to dominate and leads the universe to evolve towards empty de Sitter space in the far future.

However, solutions with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ need not necessarily become de Sitter at late times. Consider, for example, the time reversal of the cosmological solution just described: it starts out as empty de Sitter; then more and more matter condenses, which eventually causes the space-time to collapse in a big crunch. This illustrates, in particular, that one can never be sure to have reached the safety of asymptotic de Sitter space; there is always the possibility of a huge collapsing shell of matter that cannot be seen yet but will cause an apocalypse in the future. Another example is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ closed FRW universe. Given a sufficiently large matter density, the cosmological constant will not be strong enough to prevent recollapse. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ might be a negligible contribution to the total energy density at all times.

These $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ solutions are perfectly valid from the perspective of semi-classical gravity. Many of them are physically quite reasonable, and we would find it unconvincing to exclude them a priori. In some cases, a small perturbation can make all the difference between collapse and expansion to asymptotically de Sitter space. These arguments lead us to advocate a stronger version of Banks’s proposal. We conjecture that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence holds for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ universes, including those that do not evolve to de Sitter in the future. But if de Sitter is not the ‘final state’, the second law will be of no help, and it is no longer obvious that the $`N`$-bound holds. The $`N`$-bound is thus a non-trivial prediction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence.

Indeed, at first sight, some solutions may appear to have entropy greater than $`N`$, in contradiction with the correspondence. Nevertheless, it will be argued in this paper that the $`N`$-bound is valid for all universes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. This statement is far from obvious, and its proof will be seen to require a number of non-trivial intermediate results. Therefore, our conclusion may be viewed as evidence in favour of the proposed correspondence.

### 1.2 Outline

Our goal is to prove the following conjecture:

#### $`N`$-bound

In any universe with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (as well as arbitrary additional matter that may well dominate at all times) the observable entropy $`S`$ is bounded by

$$N=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(1)
Here $`S`$ includes both matter and horizon entropy, but excludes entropy that cannot be observed in a causal experiment. Note that $`N`$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of empty de Sitter space. The bound becomes trivial in the limit of vanishing cosmological constant. As we have argued above, an independent proof of the $`N`$-bound provides strong support to the proposed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence ; hence, the correspondence will not be used anywhere in the paper.

In Sec. 2 we ask what constitutes observable entropy. We argue that one should restrict attention to the causal diamond of an observer: the space-time region that can be both influenced and seen by an observer. Thus, the observable entropy lies in a region bounded by the past and future light cones from the endpoints of the observer’s world line.

The covariant entropy bound , reviewed in Sec. 3, can be applied to the cones bounding the observable region. This turns out to imply only $`S2N`$, however, which does not quite suffice. In Sec. 4, we derive a novel bound on the entropy of matter systems in de Sitter space, the ‘D-bound’, which can be tighter than the covariant bound. In Sec. 5 we argue that the two bounds can be combined to imply the $`N`$-bound. The results are discussed in Sec. 6.

Banks’s discussion  of the consistency of his proposal involved many of the considerations that enter our derivation of the $`N`$-bound. The arguments presented here are strongly influenced by Susskind’s emphasis on the operational meaning of physical quantities. The covariant entropy bound , which plays a central role in the present work, generalizes a proposal by Fischler and Susskind  and is thought to have its origin in the holographic principle, first formulated by ’t Hooft  and Susskind . The application of the covariant entropy bound to the past light-cone of an observer was proposed by Banks in Ref. . The D-bound is related to Bekenstein’s bound on the entropy of finite systems in flat space . Its derivation adapts the original arguments of Geroch and Bekenstein, and extends to cosmologically large systems Schiffer’s use of the cosmological horizon to obtain Bekenstein’s bound . Bekenstein’s generalized second law of thermodynamics  underlies most of the work in this paper. The semi-classical description of asymptotically de Sitter space-times was laid out by the work of Gibbons and Hawking ; see also Ref. . Other recent work exploring connections between the holographic principle and the cosmological constant includes Refs. .

## 2 Causal diamonds

We first address the question of which entropy (or information) is actually accessible to a given observer. We will argue that certain space-time regions can be eliminated from consideration, and that the $`N`$-bound need only hold for the remaining region, the ‘causal diamond’ associated with an observer. It will also be shown that these restrictions are necessary, in the sense that the inclusion of unobservable entropy would easily allow the violation of the bound.

Implicit in this approach is the principle, long advocated by Susskind, that a fundamental theory need only answer questions that are operationally meaningful. For example, it need not (and, from an aesthetic standpoint, should not) simultanously describe the experiments made by two separate observers who, for reasons of causal structure, will never be able to compare results. Of course, it must be able to describe each experiment separately. This principle has previously been used to resolve certain apparent paradoxes in the evaporation of black holes .

We will consider an experiment that begins at point $`p`$ and ends at a later point $`q`$ on the observer’s world line. It will be seen that causality limits the space-time region whose entropy can play a role in the experiment. It may be sufficient to consider only ‘the longest experiment possible’, i.e., the limit in which $`p`$ is taken to be in the far past, and $`q`$ in the far future, on the world line. However, it will be simpler and more instructive to carry out the discussion for arbitrary $`p`$ and $`q`$. As experiments often have finite duration, this is the most general case; and all results will continue to hold in the limit of early $`p`$ and late $`q`$.

### 2.1 The past light-cone

There are two independent restrictions. The first is:

(R1) Consider only the observer’s causal past, $`J^{}(q)`$. Ignore everything else.
This is a sensible restriction. At the point $`q`$, the endpoint of the experiment, the observer can only have received signals from the past of $`q`$. The rest of space-time has not yet been seen. For the purposes of the experiment in question, its entropy is operationally meaningless and can be ignored.

For the later application of entropy bounds, note that the observer’s past is bounded by the past light-cone from the point $`q`$, and that all matter within the observer’s past must pass through this cone.444This is intuitively obvious but can be made precise as follows. The causal past of $`q`$, $`J^{}(q)`$, is defined as the set of points that can be reached from $`q`$ via a smooth curve that is everywhere past-directed timelike or null. Define the past light-cone, $`L^{}(q)`$, as the hypersurface generated by the past-directed null geodesics that start at $`q`$ and are terminated if and only if they run into a point conjugate to $`q`$ (a ‘caustic’). Assuming global hyperbolicity one can show  that the boundary of the past of $`q`$, $`\dot{J}^{}(q)`$, is a portion of $`L^{}(q)`$. For any point $`rJ^{}(q)`$, we claim that all future inextendible causal curves through $`r`$ must intersect $`L^{}(q)`$. In fact, the stronger statement holds that they must intersect $`\dot{J}^{}(q)`$; in the notation of Wald , $`D^{}[\dot{J}^{}(q)]=J^{}(q)`$. This follows from the compactness of $`J^+(r)J^{}(q)`$ (Theorem 8.3.10) and Lemma 8.2.1 in Wald . Thus, if one wishes to bound the observable entropy, it will be sufficient to bound the entropy on the past light-cone of the endpoint, $`q`$.

The restriction R1 is necessary for the $`N`$-bound. Consider a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ flat FRW universe starting with a big bang—possibly a good approximation to the universe we inhabit. The entropy density on any homogeneous spacelike slice is constant; thus, the total entropy on the slice is formally infinite, in apparent violation of the $`N`$-bound. The restriction R1 resolves this problem. Because the cosmological constant dominates at late times, any observer has a future event horizon (Fig. 1). The entropy in its interior is finite. Because the event horizon contains the observer’s past for any endpoint $`q`$, the observed entropy is also finite. (We do not show quantitatively that it satisfies the $`N`$-bound as this will follow from the general arguments given in Sec. 5.)

In this example, space-time is asymptotically de Sitter in the future, with entropy $`N`$. Thus, R1 is not only sensible and necessary for the $`N`$-bound, but indeed necessary for the validity of the generalized second law of thermodynamics.

It is instructive to contrast the above example with the case of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ flat FRW universe (Fig. 1). The latter has a different infinity structure. Arbitrarily large portions of any flat hypersurface lie within the past light-cone at sufficiently late times. Even with restriction R1, the observed entropy is unbounded. Of course, this is not a problem, because $`N=\mathrm{}`$ in this case.

### 2.2 The future light-cone

The second restriction is:

(R2) Consider only the observer’s causal future, $`J^+(p)`$. Ignore everything else.
Note that the observer’s future is bounded by the future light-cone of the point $`p`$, and that all matter within the observer’s future must have entered through this cone.555This follows by exchanging ‘past’ and ‘future’, $``$ and $`+`$, and $`q`$ and $`p`$, in the previous footnote.

This restriction may seem less obvious than the previous one. But it is just as sensible. It is not enough for entropy, or information, to lie in the observer’s past. To be observed, it actually has to get to the observer, or at least to a region that can be probed by the observer. But an experiment that commences at $`p`$ can only probe what is in the causal future of $`p`$.

Put differently, all information that reaches the observer, or at least is accessible to the observer, must have passed through the future light cone of $`p`$. For the purpose of describing the experiment in question, one can ignore the space-time region outside the cone; instead, one may think of the initial conditions as residing on the cone. Entropy that fails to enter through the cone is operationally meaningless: though it may well be present in the observer’s causal past, an experiment that starts at $`p`$ will not know about it, because it cannot probe the region where such entropy resides.

How is this consistent with cosmological observations of distant galaxies? By measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation, are we not collecting information about the early universe? These regions are indeed outside the future of our entire world-line, let alone the future of the point when the experiment began. However, all the information we gathered was in photons that interacted with some local apparatus. They had to enter through the future cone to get here. So the entropy we actually observe is quite local. It is certainly insightful to interpret this information in terms of models that involve inaccessible regions. For example, one might say that the early universe contained certain density perturbations. But the information used to obtain this conclusion is here, now. Thus, it is subject to entropy bounds associated with a much smaller region than the one it is interpreted to be an imprint of.

Without the additional restriction R2, the $`N`$-bound would fail. Fig. 2 shows a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ space-time in which the observer’s causal past contains an arbitrarily large entropy. Consider a universe that approaches empty de Sitter space asymptotically in the past. The geometry will resemble the lower half of the de Sitter hyperboloid at early times (see Appendix). It contains exponentially large three-spheres, on which one can place dilute matter with arbitrary entropy. If the total entropy exceeds $`N`$, the universe will necessarily be dominated by this matter at a later time. It will collapse in a big crunch, and there will be no future de Sitter region. One can arrange for the energy and entropy density to be constant on the observer’s past light-cone (by giving it an increasing profile on the early $`S^3`$, in the radial direction away from the observer’s world line). The past light-cone keeps going forever, and so the total entropy on it will be infinite.—Note that the area of surfaces on the past light-cone diverges, so this example does not contradict the covariant entropy bound discussed in Sec. 3.

### 2.3 The causal diamond

Recall that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are two points on an observer’s world line, with $`q`$ later than $`p`$. One can think of $`p`$ as the beginning and $`q`$ as the end of some experiment. The restrictions R1 and R2 define the space-time region that can come into play in such an experiment. According to R2, one can ignore what is outside the causal future of $`p`$, and R1 states that regions outside the causal past of $`q`$ are operationally meaningless as well. Combining both conditions, one can restrict to the points which are both in the future of $`p`$ and in the past of $`q`$. This set,

$$C(p,q)=J^+(p)J^{}(q),$$
(2)
will be called the causal diamond associated with an experiment beginning at $`p`$ and ending at $`q`$. Thus, one obtains the condition

(R1+R2) Consider only the entropy in causal diamonds, i.e.,  in regions of the form $`C(p,q)`$.

(The notion of an observer’s world line was a crutch that can be dropped now. If $`q`$ is in the future of $`p`$, there will be world lines connecting them; if not, then $`C(p,q)`$ will be empty or degenerate.)

Of a fundamental theory, one may demand that it describe any experiment, but no more than that. Hence, it should describe the physics in any causal diamond, that is, in any region of the form $`C(p,q)`$ for some pair of points $`(p,q)`$, but only one causal diamond at a time. One should not demand that the theory simultaneously describe two separate causal diamonds, unless they are both contained in a single larger causal diamond.

For example, the theory should be able to describe an experiment inside a black hole, as well as an experiment outside a black hole. But it should not describe correlation functions between a point inside and a point outside a black hole if those points do not lie in any causal diamond. This example is just a reformulation of some of the arguments that established the concept of ‘black hole complementarity’ . (In this case only the restriction R1 really matters, since R2 can easily be satisfied.) An analogous argument can be made for pairs of points near a big bang singularity. If they are sufficiently far, they cannot lie in a single causal diamond. Then no experiment can be set up that will involve both points. (In this case, R2 is the crucial restriction.)

In space-times that are asymptotically de Sitter in the past and future, any causal diamond lies within both the past and future event horizon. (Both R1 and R2 are used here.) The exponentially large regions beyond those horizons are operationally meaningless. This result has long been advocated by Susskind.

A causal diamond is bounded by a top cone (a portion of the past light-cone of $`q`$), and a bottom cone (a portion of the future light-cone of $`p`$); see Fig. 3. The cones usually, though not necessarily, intersect at a two-dimensional spatial surface, the edge of the causal diamond. In any case, the entropy in the causal diamond must pass through the top cone (and all matter must have entered through the bottom cone).666This follows from the previous two footnotes, with $`\dot{C}(p,q)=[J^+(p)\dot{J}^{}(q)][\dot{J}^+(p)J^{}(q)]`$. The first term in square brackets is the top cone, $`T(p,q)`$; the second is the bottom cone, $`B(p,q)`$; their intersection is the edge, $`E(p,q)`$. Clearly, $`T(p,q)\dot{J}^{}(q)L^{}(q)`$, and similarly, $`B(p,q)L^+(p)`$. It will be seen below that the nature of the boundaries allows for a straightforward application of the covariant entropy bound. For this reason, the entropy within a causal diamond is under good theoretical control.

## 3 The covariant entropy bound

The covariant entropy bound  bounds the entropy on certain null hypersurfaces or ‘light-sheets’. It was developed in order to formulate the holographic principle  for general space-times , and can be viewed as a generalization of the approach of Fischler and Susskind . The use of null hypersurfaces to relate entropy and area was originally suggested by Susskind . Several concepts crucial to a general formulation were first recognized by Corley and Jacobson .

The bound is conjectured to hold for any spacial surface in any space-time with reasonable energy conditions. It will be useful here because it applies even to regions, such as recollapsing universes or black hole interiors, where the second law is of no help. The conjecture has passed a number of non-trivial tests . It has been proven in space-time regions where a fluid approximation to entropy can be made with plausible relations between entropy and energy density .

Consider some 2-dimensional spatial surface of area $`A`$. (We will mostly be interested in closed surfaces, but this is not a necessary restriction.) Any surface has four orthogonal light-like directions. Namely, the surface has two sides, and on each side there is a family of orthogonal light-rays arriving from the past (past-directed light-rays), and a family of future-directed light-rays. In Fig. 4 this is illustrated for the example of a spherical surface. In a Penrose diagram, where light travels at 45 degrees, the four orthogonal light-like directions are indicated by the legs of an ‘X’ centered on the point that represents the sphere.

The orthogonal light-rays generate four 2+1 dimensional null hypersurfaces. On some of them, the light-sheets of the surface $`A`$, the cross-sectional area spanned by the light-rays will be decreasing or constant in the direction away from the original surface. (In the example in Fig. 4, the two cones.) The entropy on any light-sheet is less than $`A/4`$:

$$S(\text{light-sheet of }A)\frac{1}{4}A.$$
(3)
Any surface has at least two light-sheets, since two of the four families of light-rays are just continuations of the opposite two. E.g., if the area is increasing in the future direction to one side, it will necessarily decrease in the past direction to the other side. If it is constant in some direction, both opposing legs will be allowed.

The requirement of decreasing cross-sectional area is a local condition and it must hold everywhere on the light-sheet. This means that the light-sheet must be terminated at or before one reaches a caustic, i.e., before neighbouring light-rays intersect (Fig. 5). In Fig. 4, the tips of the cones are caustics, and the light-sheets end there. The focussing theorem guarantees that contracting light-rays will not become expanding without going through a caustic.777The null convergence condition  is assumed to hold: $`T_{ab}k^ak^b0`$ for all null vectors $`k^a`$. — It has been suggested  that a light-sheet be terminated also at points where non-neighbouring light-rays intersect. As this can only make the light-sheet smaller, it gives a weaker bound, but the smaller light-sheet may be easier to compute practically. The light-sheets in Sec. 5 below are of this simple type, because they are a portion of the boundary of the causal past of a point. If one chooses to terminate the light-sheet before each light-ray reaches a caustic, the end-points will span a non-zero area $`A^{}`$. Then the covariant bound can be strengthened :

$$S\frac{1}{4}\left(AA^{}\right).$$
(4)
The light-sheet directions associated with a surface can be indicated, in a causal diagram, by the corresponding legs of the ‘X’ (Fig. 6). The two allowed directions form a wedge. One may classify closed surfaces as follows. For normal surfaces, both legs of the wedge point to one side, which is called the inside by definition. If both light-sheets are future-directed, the surface is trapped; if the area is contracting in both past directions, it is called anti-trapped. Marginal cases arise for surfaces on the interface between a normal and a trapped or anti-trapped region. Then the expansion vanishes along at least one opposing pair of legs, and three or four legs must be drawn. The covariant entropy bound is particularly powerful when applied to such surfaces, and we will focus on them in Sec. 5.

## 4 The D-bound on matter entropy in de Sitter space

By studying the second law of thermodynamics in asymptotically flat space, Bekenstein found that the total entropy is given by the sum of ordinary matter entropy, $`S_\mathrm{m}`$, plus the semiclassical Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $`S_\mathrm{h}=\frac{1}{4}A_\mathrm{h}`$, associated with the horizons of black holes . Similarly, in asymptotically de Sitter space, the cosmological horizon contributes with

$$S_\mathrm{c}=\frac{1}{4}A_\mathrm{c}$$
(5)
to the total entropy .

Empty de Sitter space has a cosmological horizon of area

$$A_0=\frac{12\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=4N$$
(6)
(see Appendix). Therefore, empty de Sitter space has horizon entropy $`S_\mathrm{c}=N`$. One might think that even a tiny amount of matter entropy would already increase the total entropy, $`S_\mathrm{c}+S_\mathrm{m}`$, above $`N`$. However, the cosmological horizon surrounding a matter system in asymptotically de Sitter space is smaller than $`A_0`$: the more matter, the smaller the cosmological horizon. Thus it is possible that the total entropy remains bounded by $`N`$. (It is instructive to verify this explicitly for the simple case of Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes; see also .)

It will now be shown that the $`N`$-bound is in fact implied by the second law if space-time contains an asymptotically de Sitter region in the future. This will allow us, by subtracting the horizon entropy from $`N`$, to derive a bound on the matter entropy in de Sitter space. Despite the restrictive assumption of an asymptotic de Sitter region, this bound will be useful to our purpose; we will argue later that it may also be applied to certain portions of more general space-times. Thus it will join the covariant bound, and the concept of causal diamonds, as a third ingredient in the argument constructed in Sec. 5 to show that the $`N`$-bound is valid for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ space-times.

Consider the following process. The initial configuration is a matter system in asymptotically de Sitter space. The matter system may contain black holes, whose entropy is taken to be included in the matter entropy, $`S_\mathrm{m}`$. The system is surrounded by a cosmological horizon of area $`A_\mathrm{c}`$. The final state is empty de Sitter space. The transition is achieved by taking the observer to move into the asymptotic region. (To the observer, the matter system appears to fall into the cosmological horizon.) In this process, the matter entropy $`S_\mathrm{m}`$ is lost, while the entropy of the cosmological horizon increases by an amount

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{c}=\frac{1}{4}\left(A_0A_\mathrm{c}\right).$$
(7)
The generalized second law of thermodynamics  implies that the total entropy must not decrease:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{c}S_\mathrm{m}.$$
(8)
With $`A_0=4N`$, one obtains a bound on the matter entropy:

$$S_\mathrm{m}N\frac{1}{4}A_\mathrm{c}.$$
(9)
To distinguish this bound from the covariant entropy bound and the $`N`$-bound, it will be called the D-bound (‘D’ as in Difference between $`N`$ and the horizon entropy).

The D-bound is less general than the covariant bound of Sec. 3, because it only applies to matter systems within a de Sitter horizon. For a dilute system, one has $`A_\mathrm{c}A_0`$, and therefore, $`N\frac{1}{4}A_\mathrm{c}\frac{1}{4}A_\mathrm{c}`$. So the D-bound can be tighter than the covariant bound applied to a surface enclosing the system. In the next section it will be seen that causal diamonds can contain portions to which the D-bound applies.

## 5 The $`N`$-bound

In Sec. 1 the $`N`$-bound was presented as a conjecture: The observable entropy in any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ universe cannot exceed $`N=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In Sec. 2 it was shown that only the entropy within space-time regions of a particular form, causal diamonds, is observable. Hence, to prove the $`N`$-bound, it suffices to show that the entropy of an arbitrary causal diamond does not exceed $`N`$. By applying the covariant entropy bound (Sec. 3) and the D-bound (Sec. 4), we will now give a proof for spherically symmetric causal diamonds. Spherical symmetry allows us to keep the discussion fairly non-technical and focus on the key idea, the interplay between the D-bound and the covariant bound. We expect that the assumption of spherical symmetry can be eliminated in a more refined treatment; this will be discussed briefly at the end of the section.

Consider an experiment beginning at a point $`p`$ and ending at $`q`$, in a universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. We must show that the matter entropy, $`S_\mathrm{m}`$, within the causal diamond, $`C(p,q)`$, plus the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of any black hole or cosmological horizons identified by the experiment, will not exceed $`N`$. To limit $`S_\mathrm{m}`$, it suffices to consider the matter entropy passing through the top cone bounding the diamond, by the second law. It will be seen that the horizon entropy is bounded by the area of the diamond’s edge.

Neither the top nor the bottom cone contain any caustics, except at endpoints, because each is a portion of the boundary of the future or past of a point. Then, by the focussing theorem, each cone has exactly one maximal cross-sectional area. The maximum may be local, or it may lie on the intersection of the two cones, the edge, where they terminate. Depending on the location of the maxima, we distinguish three cases.

#### Case 1: No local maximum on either cone.

Then the maximum area of each cone lies on the edge. Thus, the edge will be a normal surface, with the observer on the inside (Fig. 7). This case applies, for example, to regions within the horizon in an asymptotically de Sitter universe, and to sufficiently small causal diamonds in arbitrary spacetimes.

Consider a space-like hypersurface containing the edge. One can consistently assume, for the sake of argument, that the exterior of the edge is a vacuum solution. With the assumption of spherical symmetry, Birkhoff’s theorem implies that the exterior will be a portion of a Schwarzschild-de Sitter (or a Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter) solution. The space-time thus constructed will be called the auxiliary space-time. It is asymptotically de Sitter in the future and past; hence, it invites the application of the D-bound.

The causal diamond lies within the cosmological horizon of the auxiliary space-time, because the edge is normal and the cosmological horizon is the outermost normal surface. With spherical symmetry it follows that $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{c}A_{\mathrm{edge}}`$. The hat indicates that the cosmological horizon is a surface in the auxiliary space-time. Because the auxiliary space-time is asymptotically de Sitter, the D-bound can be applied to the interior of the cosmological horizon, yielding

$$S_\mathrm{m}N\frac{1}{4}\widehat{A}_\mathrm{c}N\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{edge}}.$$
(10)
Recall from Sec. 4 that the entropy of black holes is already subsumed in $`S_\mathrm{m}`$,888This may play a role when spherical symmetry is abandoned. In the presence of black holes, the edge can contain additional disconnected components, namely spherical surfaces surrounding the black hole horizons, within the cosmological horizon. but not the entropy of the cosmological horizon (supposing that one exists in the actual space-time under consideration). However, the observer cannot assign more cosmological horizon entropy than a quarter of the area of the outermost surface that has been probed:

$$S_\mathrm{c}\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{edge}}.$$
(11)
The two inequalities imply the $`N`$-bound,

$$S=S_\mathrm{m}+S_\mathrm{c}N.$$
(12)
#### Case 2: Local maximum on the top cone.

Now assume that the top cone contains a locally maximal area $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$, an apparent horizon. No assumption is made about the bottom cone. Cases of this type include large expanding or collapsing cosmological regions. They correspond to highly dynamical situations without a quasi-static cosmological horizon, so $`S_\mathrm{c}=0`$. Then we need to show only that the matter and black hole entropy on the top cone does not exceed $`N`$.

The maximal area divides the top cone into two parts. We will show that the D-bound can be applied to one part and the covariant bound to the other. Recall the wedge formalism summarized in Fig. 6. The wedge of the surface $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is constructed by drawing a leg for each light-like direction with decreasing cross-sectional area. Because $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the largest surface on the top cone, the area obviously decreases in the two null directions that generate the cone. Of the other two null directions orthogonal to $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$, at least one must have decreasing area, because they oppose each other. Hence, the wedge associated with $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ has at least three legs. Necessarily, two of them will be pointing to the same spatial side (Fig. 8). Therefore, $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is a marginally normal surface. The side with two legs is, in the wedge sense, the inside of $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The corresponding portion of the top cone will be called $`T_1`$. Note that $`T_1`$ need not be the portion that includes the tip; it may be on the ‘far side’ of $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (Fig. 8, right).

Consider the inside portion, $`T_1`$, in isolation. To this hypersurface one can apply the D-bound, using an argument similar to that of Case 1. One can take $`T_1`$ to be embedded in an otherwise vacuous auxiliary space-time. Because $`T_1`$ is the interior of a normal surface, in the auxiliary space-time it will be surrounded by a cosmological horizon. The area of the cosmological horizon will be no less than $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Because the auxiliary space-time is asymptotically de Sitter, the D-bound applies to the interior of the cosmological horizon. Hence, the entropy on $`T_1`$ satisfies

$$S_1N\frac{1}{4}\widehat{A}_\mathrm{c}N\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(13)
The other part, $`T_2`$, of the top cone, is a light-sheet of the surface $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The covariant entropy bound yields

$$S_2\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(14)
It follows that the entropy on the top cone is bounded by $`N`$:

$$S=S_1+S_2N.$$
(15)
In this result, $`S`$ already includes black hole entropy. A horizon is probed by an experiment only if the edge of the causal diamond contains a portion in the vicinity of the horizon. The edge lies on the far side of the top cone. If this is $`T_1`$, the side to which the D-bound applies, then the black hole entropy is already subsumed in $`S_1`$, as discussed in Sec. 4. If the far side is $`T_2`$, let us split $`S_2`$ into black hole horizon entropy, $`S_\mathrm{h}`$, and ordinary matter entropy, $`S_\mathrm{m}`$:

$$S_2S_\mathrm{h}+S_\mathrm{m}.$$
(16)
If $`A_{\mathrm{edge}}>0`$, the covariant bound on $`T_2`$ can be strengthened :

$$S_\mathrm{m}\frac{1}{4}\left(A_{\mathrm{max}}A_{\mathrm{edge}}\right).$$
(17)
The horizon cannot be larger than the area of the edge:

$$S_\mathrm{h}\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{edge}}.$$
(18)
So Eq. (14) holds, and $`S`$ in Eq. (15) is indeed the total observable entropy.

#### Case 3: Local maximum on the bottom cone but not on the top cone.

Finally, consider the case where the top cone has no local maximum, but the bottom cone does (Fig. 9). Examples include large regions in collapsing universes, or black hole interiors. The edge of the cone is a trapped surface in this case. This implies a dynamical situation without Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. It will suffice to show that the matter entropy on the top cone does not exceed $`N`$.

In the absence of a local maximum, the largest surface on the top cone is the edge. The entire top cone is a light-sheet of the edge. By the covariant entropy bound,

$$S\frac{1}{4}A_{\mathrm{edge}}.$$
(19)
By the arguments used in Case 2, the maximal area on the bottom cone, $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$, is a normal surface. Hence, it can be embedded in an asymptotically de Sitter auxiliary space time, where it is surrounded by a cosmological horizon of area $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{c}`$. By the second law, $`\widehat{A}_c`$ cannot exceed the horizon area of empty de Sitter space, $`A_0`$. Moreover, by construction, $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is larger than the edge. In summary, one finds

$$A_{\mathrm{edge}}A_{\mathrm{max}}\widehat{A}_\mathrm{c}A_0=4N.$$
(20)
Therefore the $`N`$-bound is satisfied:

$$SN$$
(21)
In all three cases, we have used an auxiliary construction by which (portions of) the causal diamond were embedded in an asymptotically de Sitter auxiliary space-time. This method is rigorous only for spherically symmetric situations. The assumption was used in applying Birkhoff’s theorem to establish the auxiliary space-time, and in taking the cosmological horizon as an upper bound on the area of normal surfaces on the light-cone. Spherical symmetry has also simplified the case distinction, since it implies that the maximum is either local or entirely on the edge; in general, the maximal area on the top cone may have locally maximal components as well as portions that lie on the edge.

Our assumption of spherical symmetry notwithstanding, we expect that the above arguments represent the core of a general proof. Causal diamonds, light-sheets, and the entropy bounds are all defined without reference to spherical symmetry. The task of combining them to derive the $`N`$-bound in the non-spherical case is left to future work.

## 6 Outlook

Non-perturbative definitions of quantum gravity have been given for certain space-times that are asymptotically flat or AdS . No such description has been found for space-times with a positive cosmological constant. As no de Sitter solutions of M-theory are known, one does not even have a microscopic framework. Banks  has opened a new perspective on this problem by suggesting that an asymptotically de Sitter universe is described by a microscopic theory with finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Quantitatively, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence relates the cosmological constant of a stable vacuum, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to a theory with $`N=3\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ degrees of freedom (i.e., with a Hilbert space of dimension $`e^N`$).

If this is correct, M-theory (as it is currently understood) will arise only in the limit of vanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and infinite $`N`$. The cosmological constant problem becomes a problem of understanding the particular dimension of Hilbert space chosen for the theory.

In Sec. 1.1, considerations of consistency with semi-classical gravity led us to propose the stronger conjecture that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence applies to all universes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, whether they are de Sitter in the future or not. This conjecture makes the non-trivial, testable prediction that the observable entropy in all such universes is bounded by $`N`$. We then argued that this statement, the ‘$`N`$-bound’, is correct. This required the combination of the covariant entropy bound with two intermediate results derived in Secs. 2 and 4: the D-bound, and the restriction to causal diamonds. It is hard to see what, other than the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ correspondence, would offer a compelling explanation why such disparate elements appear to join seamlessly to imply a simple and general result.

The D-bound has a number of properties that merit further investigation. In particular, one can show that it is closely related to Bekenstein’s bound . Bekenstein’s bound, valid for systems in flat space, can be written as $`S_\mathrm{m}\pi r_\mathrm{g}R`$, where $`r_\mathrm{g}=2m`$ is the ‘gravitational radius’ of the system and $`R`$ is the circumscribing radius. For dilute, spherically symmetric systems in de Sitter space, the D-bound takes precisely this form as well, despite the significant deviation from flat space. A full discussion is given elsewhere .

The restriction to causal diamonds arose in Sec. 2 from the requirement to include only operationally meaningful parts of a space-time in a microscopic description. This principle is independent of the present context of positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and one may expect that causal diamonds will be of wider use. Banks  has sketched a framework for the combination of quantum mechanics and cosmology, in which the variable size of the quantum Hilbert space is related to the maximal area of the observer’s past light-cone. The arguments of Sec. 2.2 suggest a possible modification of this approach that may lead to a more time-symmetric treatment based on the Hilbert space of causal diamonds.

In de Sitter space, an observer will be immersed in quantum radiation coming from the cosmological horizon. At the semi-classical level, this radiation is thermal . One would expect that the radiation will occasionally contain large fluctuations that appear to an observer as classical objects. Taking a global view of the de Sitter space, one would say that quantum fluctuations originate behind the future horizon, while classical objects enter through the past horizon. When one restricts to causal diamonds, however, both of these outside regions are eliminated. Then it is no longer clear how an observer can distinguish between a genuine classical object and a fluctuation in the quantum radiation. (This view has previously been advocated by Susskind.) Indeed, all of standard cosmology may be a rare fluctuation in a long-lived de Sitter space .

Most of high energy physics is based on the S-matrix, with the implicit assumptions that an observer of infinite size is located at the infinity of an asymptotically flat space-time—the observer is ‘outside looking in’. This point of view will have to be transcended in order to describe experiments in cosmology, where the observer is always of finite size, and is ‘inside looking out’. Indeed, a Minkowski infinity typically does not exist in cosmology; but even if it did, real observers would not live there. On the other hand, the approximation of an observer as a point in the space-time bulk is also unsatisfactory, because an experiment involves the collection and analysis of information. According to the holographic principle, a non-vanishing amount of information can be obtained only by an observer of non-zero size. The maximal information involved in an experiment is related not to the size of the universe, but to the size of the experiment. One may be motivated by these considerations to abandon the distinction between observer and experiment, and also to claim that a general experiment is a causal diamond. The bottom cone is best thought of as arising from the limitation of preparing the apparatus in a causal way; the future cone reflects the limitation of analysing the data causally.

The correspondence between finite $`N`$ and positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would impose a surprisingly strong restriction on the fundamental theory, if indeed we live in a universe with positive (and true) vacuum energy. We believe that its implications deserve to be further explored.

###### Acknowledgments.

I have benefitted from discussions with many colleagues, especially T. Banks, J. Bekenstein, O. DeWolfe, M. Fabinger, W. Fischler, V. Hubeny, A. Mikhailov, H. Ooguri, S. Shenker, L. Susskind, R. Wald, and E. Witten. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.

## Appendix A de Sitter space

This Appendix summarizes a number of properties of de Sitter space that are used in the text. An excellent discussion of the classical geometry is found in Ref. . The semi-classical properties are laid out in Ref. .

de Sitter space is the maximally symmetric solution of the vacuum Einstein equations with a positive cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is positively curved with characteristic length

$$r_0=\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}$$
(22)
Globally, de Sitter space can be written as a closed FRW universe:

$$ds^2=dT^2+r_0^2\left(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{T}{r_0}\right)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2$$
(23)
The spacelike slices are three-spheres. The space-time can be visualized as a hyperboloid  (Fig. 10). The smallest $`S^3`$ is at the throat of the hyperboloid, at $`T=0`$. For $`T>0`$, the three-spheres expand exponentially without bound. The time evolution is symmetric about $`T=0`$, so three-spheres in the past are arbitrarily large and contracting.

The Penrose diagram of de Sitter space is a square (Fig. 10). The spatial three-spheres are horizontal lines. As usual, every point represents a two-sphere, except the points on the left and right edge of the square, which represent the poles of the three-sphere. The top and bottom edge are the future and past infinity, where all spheres become arbitrarily large.

In de Sitter space, an observer is surrounded by a cosmological horizon at $`r=r_0`$. This is best seen in the static coordinate system:

$$ds^2=V(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{V(r)}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(24)
where

$$V(r)=1\frac{r^2}{r_0^2}.$$
(25)
This system covers only part of the space-time, namely the interior of a cavity bounded by $`r=r_0`$. By the arguments given in Sec. 2, this is precisely the operationally meaningful portion of de Sitter space, because it is the largest causal diamond possible. It corresponds to a quarter of the Penrose diagram (e.g., for an observer at the left pole, the ‘left triangle’ shown in Fig. 11).

The upper and lower triangles contain exponentially large regions that cannot be observed. The spheres with $`r=r_0`$, the past and future event horizons, are the entire diagonals of the square. However, the spheres with $`r=r_0ϵ`$ (the stretched horizon ) lie within the left (or right) triangle and represent the cosmological horizon of an observer at the corresponding pole.

An object held at a fixed distance from the observer is redshifted; the red-shift diverges near the horizon. If released, the object will accelerate towards the horizon. If it crosses the horizon, it cannot be retrieved. Thus, the cosmological horizon acts like a black hole ‘surrounding’ the observer. Note that the symmetry of the space-time implies that the location of the cosmological horizon is observer-dependent.

The black hole analogy carries over to the semi-classical level . Because matter entropy can be lost when it crosses, the cosmological horizon must be assigned a Bekenstein-Hawking entropy equal to a quarter of its area, in order for the generalized second law of thermodynamics  to remain valid:

$$S_0=\frac{A_0}{4},$$
(26)
where

$$A_0=4\pi r_0^2=\frac{12\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(27)
The horizon emits Hawking radiation with temperature $`(2\pi r_0)^1`$.

de Sitter space can also be written as a flat expanding FRW universe:

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\tau }{r_0}\right)\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right).$$
(28)
This metric covers half of the Penrose diagram (Fig. 12). If matter is present, it gives rise to a singularity on a space-like slice at finite time $`\tau _0`$, which one can take to be $`0`$. One thus obtains a space-time which starts with a big bang and becomes asymptotically de Sitter in the future. Its Penrose diagram is given by a portion of the flat slicing, between some finite $`\tau `$ and asymptotic infinity.

The remaining half of de Sitter space is covered by the contracting flat FRW universe obtained by time-reversal of Eq. (28). By analogy with the previous paragraph, the introduction of matter leads to a flat FRW universe that is asymptotically de Sitter in the past and collapses in a big crunch, with a time-reversed Penrose diagram. (These space-times are used in Sec. 2 to illustrate the restriction to causal diamonds.)


format: text

text:
# Inclusive Particle Spectra at RHIC

## Abstract

A simulation is performed of the recently reported data from PHOBOS at energies of $`\sqrt{s}=56,130A`$ GeV using the relativistic heavy ion cascade LUCIFER which had previously given a good description of the NA49 inclusive spectra at $`\sqrt{s}=17.2A`$ GeV. The results compare well with these early measurements at RHIC.

The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory was constructed with the explicit purpose of creating and analysing a form of hadronic matter referred to as quark-gluon plasma. Certainly partons, when struck with sufficient energy, may acquire enough momentum to travel beyond the confines of their host hadron. In $`p+p`$ experiments at the RHIC energy of $`\sqrt{s}200A`$ GeV the contribution of such ‘jets’ to the inclusive production of mesons is not large, perhaps less than $`5\%`$ . Nevertheless, sufficient thermal energy can possibly be pumped into a massive ion-ion system, via genertation of the less well defined mini-jets , to free or create large numbers of partons in an ion-ion collision. The existence and precise nature of any ensuing phase change, from infinite hadronic to partonic matter , is still the subject of debate. Truly macroscopic systems in which plasma might be realised do exist in nature, in the early universe  or in a neutron star . Although for a finite system the question whether an actual phase change occurs may be somewhat academic, one might still hope to identify a deconfined mode by sufficiently sharp rather than truly discontinuous changes in appropriate observables. For example, the transverse energy measured in an ion-ion collision can be used to define, in a model, the system temperature and the relationship to say the density, of the number of mid-rapidity pions as established by experiment. The hadron number density is a measure of the entropy created in the collision, a quantity definable even for a non-equilibrium finite system, and one reasonably expected to be highly sensitive to the increase in degrees of freedom accompanying parton deconfinement. The overreaching concern is, then, how to identify a meaningful variation in dependences between relevant observables.

Here, we address only the most recent and remarkably prompt measurements by the PHOBOS  collaboration at RHIC. The highly successful, early running of the RHIC facility, albeit at lower than the ultimate energy and luminosity, together with this efficient small detector have already provided the heavy ion community with interesting, perhaps even provocative results. PHOBOS, lacking for the moment particle identification or momentum determination, is initially limited to a measurement of the charged particle density in pseudo-rapidity $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$. We analyse the PHOBOS results theoretically with the hadronic cascade LUCIFER , adopting the position that this analysis simply presents an extrapolation from the earlier NA49 inclusive measurements  to the considerably higher energy RHIC determinations.

It seems appropriate to compare these initial observations at RHIC with simulations which assume no plasma is present. The purest such comparison would employ a model involving only hadronic degrees of freedom. A recent comparison does exist with the partonic code HIJING . The instrument for the present exploration of the RHIC domain is the code LUCIFER, described in detail elsewhere  and available by downloading from a BNL theory home page. Suffice it to say that this simulation was prepared for use at relativistic energies attainable at RHIC and tested against the CERN SPS heavy-ion experiments. This purely hadronic simulation gave a good account of the two general particle production experiments at the SPS, those for S+U and for Pb+Pb . Thus LUCIFER might be used as a standard against which to place the very interesting results from PHOBOS, a means for defining the ‘ordinary’ in proceeding from the SPS to RHIC. This can be accomplished by a slight tuning of LUCIFER multiplicities to provide very close to quantitative agreement for the SPS $`h^{}`$ rapidity spectrum. In retrospect , the predictions for the latter spectrum were perhaps $`1015\%`$ high when compared with the latest NA49 $`h^{}`$ determination .

One possibility, exploited in our methodology, is that to some extent an ion-ion collision is describable by multiple interactions between excited hadrons only. In such a picture the constituent quarks are excited to states differing from those present in the lowest mass hadrons, but the glue holding them in place is still ‘sticky’. The quarks continue to act as if still confined within some hadron. This description was successful in say the Pb+Pb collisions examined in NA49 . It remains to be seen whether at the higher RHIC energies a large fraction of these quarks are free to roam over large spatial distances, and more importantly perhaps whether sufficient ‘free’ gluons are present to create the thermodynamic basis for hadronic material describable as quark-gluon plasma.

Many simulations and/or cascades  have been constructed for relativistic heavy ion collisions. Some of these are purely partonic cascades, some are hybrids of hadronic and partonic cascading. LUCIFER  is a hadronic cascade run sequentially through two stages. In the initial rapid phase I, at high energy, no energy loss is permitted for soft processes; however the complete collision histories are recorded. The time duration of phase I, $`t_{AB}`$, is essentially that which would be taken by the two colliding nuclei to pass freely through each other. Hard or partonic processes for which $`p_tt_{AB}^1`$ could be introduced in this mode and consequent energy loss allowed for.

The second stage, phase II, is a conventional hadronic cascade at greatly reduced energy, similar to that applicable at the AGS and for which soft energy loss is allowed and chronicled. This second cascade begins only after a meson formation time, $`\tau _f`$, has passed. Using the entire space-time and energy-momentum history of phase I, a reinitialisation is performed using an elementary hadron-hadron model fixed by data  as a strict guide. Nucleons travel along light-cones in phase I, but the number and type of collisions they suffer are instrumental in generating the produced mesons which take part in phase II. Participants in the second phase are treated as generic mesons, thought of as of $`q\overline{q}`$ states with masses centered near $`700`$ MeV and in the range $`0.31.0`$ GeV, and generic baryons consisting of $`qqq`$ excited states also with rather light masses, $`0.942.0`$ GeV . This same spectrum of hadrons is of course used to describe the known elementary baryon-baryon and meson-baryon collisions and the parameters of the model thereby determined. Ultimately, the cascade is exploited to derive predictions at the higher energy solely from knowledge of two body interactions and from a general structure which worked well at the lower $`\sqrt{s}20A`$ GeV SPS level.

In phase II of the ion-ion interaction, the generic resonances decay into stable hadrons as well as colliding with each other. The low mass of the generic resonances guarantees that the transverse momentum acquired in any chain of interactions or decays will be relatively small, and hence one is modeling only soft processes. A deeper analysis might add parton production in phase I and cascading perturbatively. Also, and crucially, the sequential decay of the interacting generic hadrons into several mesons and baryons severely restricts the particle multiplicities and thus the amount of cascading during early stages of phase II. Previously included in our modeling  was a suggestion by Gottfried  that the particles produced in elementary two-body collisions not exist for the purpose of secondary interaction until they were sufficiently separated. Implementing such a constraint effectively limits the density of interacting generic hadrons in stage II to non-overlapping configurations. A very simple but accurate representation of this procedure results from just constraining the multiplicity at the end of phase I by this criterion, and in fact the calibration at the NA49 energy $`\sqrt{s}=17.2A`$ GeV then sets the constraint at all energies.

We refer readers to the above mentioned references for more details of the simulation, the major physical assumptions and measured elementary hadron-hadron inputs, and the availability of the code. The most important inputs from involve the total nucleon-nucleon and meson-nucleon cross-sections and of course the division into elastic, single diffractive(SD) and non-diffractive production(NSD). The multi-prong UA(5)  data leading to multiplicity distributions for meson productions in the latter two categories are crucial.

A concomitant problem in the search for quark-gluon ‘plasma’ is to distinguish between such a state and simple medium dependence in a hadronic gas. We constrain the hadronic cascade by imposing no explicit collective effect of the inter-nuclear environment: however, one could still possibly ascribe any departure between cascade predictions and measurements to the A dependences of both particle properties and inter-particle forces on the conditions obtaining during the nuclear collision. For example, the apparently anomalous dilepton spectrum at the SPS  is frequently attributed to medium dependent shifts in the masses of certain vector meson resonances . Clearly also, particle-particle cross-sections might be influenced by the presence of a background medium. We have proceeded however, without introducing any medium dependence whatever.

At RHIC energies the time duration of phase I, $`t_{AB}d_{AB}/\gamma d_{AB}/100`$ with $`d_{AB}`$ being the combined size of the colliding nuclei, is an order of magnitude shorter than at the SPS. Moreover, phase II of the cascade at RHIC energies is a more serious matter. It occurs at higher energies, creates relatively more mesons and lasts for a longer time. At the SPS  we determined the meson formation time, $`\tau _f`$, from collisions of light ion systems, e.g S+S, and we employed this same time, $`\tau _f`$, in the massive Pb+Pb system. Inherent in this procedure is the assumed insensitivity of $`\tau _f`$ to mass number, collision energy, etc. This assumption, equivalent to the one that hadron properties are independent of the nuclear medium, suggests that we must use the same $`\tau _f`$ at RHIC energies, i. e. $`\tau _f0.60.8`$ fm/c. It would be safer to recalibrate this sensitive parameter, essentially the only one in our modeling not determined from two body data, with similar measurements on the light nuclear systems at RHIC. The totality of mesons, particle and energy densities produced in the cascade are to an appreciable extent controlled by $`\tau _f`$, for obvious reasons. For the moment and to avoid the introduction of any other parameters, we employ the same $`\tau _f`$ at all energies.

To facilitate comparison with the computations at $`\sqrt{s}=56200A`$ GeV, we present here LUCIFER results  for Pb+Pb at $`E(lab)=158A`$ GeV. These appear in Figure 1 and are there compared to recent NA49 data . As we described above the code was re-adjusted in this figure to give near the latest NA49 $`\frac{dN}{dy}|_{y=0}`$ for negatively charged hadrons, $`\pi ^{}`$’s for the most part.

In earlier work , we studied the relativistic invariance of the model, and demonstrated that for a worst case scenario, i. e. a zero impact parameter Au+Au collision at $`200A`$ GeV, frame dependence in the cascade, produced by the action at a distance assumptions inherent in the theory, and as measured by the variation in $`\frac{dN}{dy}_\pi |_{y=0}`$, was $`10\%`$, and virtually nonexistent at SPS energies. Calculations in the present work are performed in the equal velocity frame for which the errors are undoubtedly less.

We now exhibit typical meson production expected at RHIC in a purely hadronic simulation. Configurations of the greatest interest involve the most massive ions in the most central collisions. It is here that one might hope to see the greatest measured deviations from our simplified purely hadronic, medium independent picture. The centrality of a collision cannot of course, be defined in a purely theoretical context; one should account for the complete experimental set up. However, for simplicity, we specify centrality here by geometry and initially select $`b4`$ fm so as to approximately reproduce the $`6\%`$ cut specified by PHOBOS . Variations in production levels with impact parameter are not too severe but some error attaches to the precise definition of centrality. We present results for the two energies $`\sqrt{s}=56,130A`$ GeV reported by the PHOBOS Collaboration , as well as for the higher RHIC design energy of $`\sqrt{s}=200A`$ GeV.

The simulation results obtained at SPS energies derived mainly from the above mentioned inputs: the two body energetics and the totality of nucleon-nucleon interactions in the course of an event. Although the time for phase I is considerably compressed at the higher RHIC energy, we expect much the same characteristics determine production levels as at the SPS.

The results of the LUCIFER simulations for $`\sqrt{s}=56,130A`$ GeV are displayed in Figure 2, where they are compared to the corresponding PHOBOS measurements . One notes that the PHOBOS points represent an average over two central units of $`\eta `$. The minimum conclusion to be drawn from the cumulative evidence of Figure 1 and Figure 2 is surely that LUCIFER provides a satisfactory explanation of the PHOBOS central rapidity charged meson density determinations, consistent with the previous normalization of the code to NA49 data. Additional information contained in Figure 2 is the predicted energy dependence for the later full energy runs as well as the shape of $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$ for the complete pseudo-rapidity range. The precise shape of the spectrum for central $`\eta `$ yields some information on the degree of meson cascading. A narrower, less scalloped form suggests a higher degree of meson re-interaction after formation and/or of baryon-baryon interaction before. There is perhaps some indication that the theoretical energy dependence is too muted between $`56A`$ and $`130A`$ GeV, a point to watch in the as yet unreported results from the other RHIC detectors and as improvements surely are achieved with ongoing data taking. Similar results of course can be calculated for the rapidity ($`y`$) spectra of each meson species and for the baryons.

One interesting aspect of the calculations relates to the numbers of final, observed, mesons resulting with and without phase II. With the second stage rescattering turned off, all of the final hadrons are produced from decays of generic resonances that were produced in phase I. It is on the generic hadrons present after phase I that an effective multiplicity constraint is placed by normalizing to the SPS data. This initial multiplicity directly determines the important early particle and transverse energy densities. Phase II begins only after a pause, dependent on $`\tau _f`$ and the relativistic factors $`\gamma `$ for the secondary mesons. Particles produced in phase II begin to materialise only when the interaction region has increased considerably in size. The combined multiplicity increase from phases I+II over phase I with decays is about a factor $`2.25`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV. This reasoning suggests that it is dangerous to tie the final measured $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$, in say PHOBOS, to an initially achieved $`E_T`$ density and on this basis to draw the inference that plasma was formed. Thus the calculated increase in particle multiplicity from the SPS to RHIC, $`2.5`$, is no sure indicator plasma formation is more likely at the higher energy. Indeed $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$, which is a better indicator of central densities during collisions, rises by less than a factor of $`1.4`$. One caveat should be placed on the use of $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$ rather than $`\frac{dN}{dy}`$. An examination of Figure 1 shows the calculated ratio of the central rapidity densities grows by close to a factor of 1.6 from SPS energy to $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV at RHIC, perhaps a more hopeful circumstance.

The relatively low value of meson density found by PHOBOS is in itself interpretable as a lack of unusual medium dependence. The increase in entropy expected from the sudden release of additional parton degrees of freedom ought to show up as a sharp increase of central $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }`$ for mesons. Of course such an increase might yet be present in the neutral mesons, and mitigating effects like shadowing must be accounted for, but the PHOBOS $`\frac{dN}{d\eta }|_{\eta =0}`$ must still be considered not unusually high. Surprises may still arise in the examination of more exclusive observables, for example in the very high $`p_t`$ distributions.

One can now surmise that the anticipated QCD matter behaviour will be, at least, harder to detect and must be sought in rarer events. This conclusion is strengthened by viewing the hadronic cascade as a bridge between SPS and RHIC energies, with the $`\sqrt{s}=17A`$ GeV data calibrating the simulation. In this way the effects of artificialities necessarily present in this or any theoretical treatments of this complex problem are lessened. The PHOBOS data was collected for a centrality cut of $`6\%`$, reproduced theoretically by selecting $`b4`$ fm. Perhaps one must then proceed to an order of magnitude higher centrality, e. g. $`1\%`$, or better still to searching for large multiplicity fluctuations in order to unearth unusual behaviour. A further observation to be drawn from our simulations, which will be presented in more detail elsewhere, is that the hunt for plasma signatures in charmonium suppression is likely to become increasingly difficult and the quarry to become more elusive at RHIC. The reason is already evident in present calculations, although the $`J/\psi `$ survival probability has not yet been estimated. The much larger number of mesons created in phase II of the LUCIFER simulation at higher energy will increase the suppression of $`J/\psi `$. The effective number of ‘comovers’ has been increased, and the survival after purely hadronic interaction will be even less.

We have tried adjusting the dynamics of the simulation to test the stability of the extension to higher energy: the inputs and the sharing of energy among generic resonances. Very little matters aside from the single overall normalization of produced particles at the SPS, with small changes in the latter leading to commensurate effects at RHIC. The broad features of the free multiplicity distributions, the energy lost per collision, and thus deposited in the ion-ion system, together with energy and momentum conservation seem to be the controlling elements.

Finally, since one could view the LUCIFER cascade as equivalent to a quark-gluon cascade in which the explicit role of color is neglected, it is not surprising to find the predictions of apparently widely different theoretical approaches to be alike .

This manuscript has been authored under the US DOE grant NO. DE-AC02-98CH10886. One of the authors (SHK) is also grateful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn, Germany and Hans Weidenmuller, Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg for continued support and hospitality.


text:
# EROs and the formation epoch of field ellipticals

## 1 Introduction

The formation of elliptical galaxies remains one of the most controversial issues of galaxy evolution and structure formation. While there is now wide consensus that the bulk of stars in ellipticals formed at very high redshifts (see e.g. Renzini 1998 and the introduction of Schade et al. 1999 for recent reviews), opinions diverge as to the epoch at which ellipticals have been assembled to their present size and mass. In semianalytical simulations of hierarchical Cold Dark Matter (CDM) cosmologies (e.g. Kauffmann 1996; Baugh, Cole & Frenk 1996; Baugh et al. 1998) massive ellipticals form at relatively low redshift ($`z<1`$) through the merging of spiral galaxies.

Empirical support for this scenario has been claimed from an alleged deficit of old ellipticals at $`z1`$ compared to pure luminosity evolution (PLE) models (Kauffmann, Charlot & White 1996, Zepf 1997, Franceschini et al. 1998, Barger et al. 1999, Menanteau et al. 1999, Treu & Stiavelli 1999). However, others found evidence for a constant comoving density of ellipticals up to $`z2`$ (Totani & Yoshii 1997, Benitez et al. 1999, Broadhurst & Bowens 2000, Schade et al. 1999; Scodeggio & Silva 2000), which would instead favor an early assembly of ellipticals, no matter whether in clusters or in the field. One obvious way to solve the issue is to search for putative high-$`z`$ ellipticals over much larger fields than in previous studies. Passively evolving ellipticals in the redshift range $`1\stackrel{<}{}z\stackrel{<}{}2`$ are in fact characterized by very red colors ($`RK_\mathrm{s}\stackrel{>}{}56`$), which qualify them as extremely red objects (ERO).

In a recent study based on the largest survey for EROs to date, Daddi et al. (2000) reported the discovery of strong EROs angular clustering. This finding suggest that the origin of such discrepant results were definitively in the small fields covered by previous studies (ranging from $`1`$ to $`60`$ arcmin2), which are likely to be affected by field-to-field variations in the number of intercepted large scale structures, hence in the number of red, color selected galaxies. Moreover, the strong clustering argues for the bulk of EROs being made by elliptical (Daddi et al. 2000) rather than starburst galaxies, that can have very red $`RK_\mathrm{s}`$ colors as well (e.g. Cimatti et al. 1998). This agrees with independent indications that ellipticals are at least a fraction of $`70`$% among EROs (Moriondo et al. 2000, Stiavelli et al. 2000 private comunication, Cimatti et al. 1999). Under this assumption, the surface density of EROs can therefore set strong constraints to models for the formation and evolution of elliptical galaxies.

In this Letter we present the results of the comparison between the observed surface density of EROs and the densities predicted by PLE and hierarchical models for the evolution of the elliptical galaxy population. Such a comparison is based on the results of our wide-field survey for EROs (Daddi et al. 2000) and on the Thompson et al. (1999) survey, covering a total area of about 850 arcmin2 resulting in the selection of a total sample of several hundreds of EROs. In addition, the measurements of the angular clustering allow us to quantify for the first time the uncertainties on the surface density of EROs due to cosmic variance. For these reasons, our study represents a significant improvement respect to previous attempts. For example, the widest field analysis most recently done was based only on 16 EROs selected from an area of 60 arcmin2 (Barger et al. 1999).

## 2 Predicting the surface density of high-$`z`$ ellipticals

The surface density of EROs ($`\mu `$, in objects arcmin-2) redder that a color threshold $`T`$, in a survey with limiting magnitude $`K_{\mathrm{LIM}}`$ is calculated as:

$$\mu =_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z_\mathrm{f}_{z_\mathrm{a}(z_\mathrm{f},T)}^{z_\mathrm{b}(z_\mathrm{f},T)}𝑑z_{\mathrm{}}^{M_{\mathrm{UP}}}𝑑MLF(M,z,z_\mathrm{f})\frac{dV(z)}{dz}F(z_\mathrm{f})$$

where $`F(z_\mathrm{f})`$ describes the formation redshift distribution (for a single redshift of formation $`z_\mathrm{f}=z_0`$, $`F(z_\mathrm{f})=\delta (z_\mathrm{f}z_0)`$), $`z_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`z_\mathrm{b}`$ give the redshift range where the galaxy is redder than the threshold $`T`$ (derived from the modeled $`RK_\mathrm{s}`$ color vs. $`z`$), $`M_{\mathrm{UP}}`$ is the absolute $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ magnitude of the faintest galaxy detectable in the survey at a given $`z`$ (calculated from $`K_{\mathrm{LIM}}`$ via the luminosity distance and the K–correction), $`V(z)`$ is the comoving volume intercepted by 1 arcmin2 and LF is the luminosity function where $`M^{}`$ evolves consistently with $`z`$.

The following ingredients are required in order to compute $`\mu `$ in a PLE scenario: a spectral synthesis model, an IMF, a metallicity, a star formation history (i.e. how the initial burst is characterized and how the star formation rate evolves with time), a formation redshift $`z_\mathrm{f}`$, a local LF for elliptical galaxies, a dust reddening and, finally, a set of cosmological parameters. Our calculations are based on the Bruzual & Charlot (1997) spectral synthesis models with the Salpeter IMF, solar metallicity and no dust reddening. Following Barger et al. (1999), the Marzke et al. (1994) pure elliptical LF was used, transforming the magnitudes from the $`B`$ to the $`K`$-band assuming $`BK=4.43`$ as the color of local ellipticals (Huang et al. 1998). The results discussed in the next sections do not significantly change by using instead a $`K`$–band LF (e.g., Loveday 2000; Szokoly et al. 1998; Gardner et al. 1997; Glazebrook et al. 1995; Mobasher et al. 1993), or the $`R`$–band LF (Lin et al. 1996) adopting $`RK2.7`$ for local ellipticals and a fraction of ellipticals in those samples of 25–30% of the total population of galaxies. We adopt $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and $`h_{100}=0.7`$, for which the present age of the universe is $`14`$ Gyr. A wide range of formation redshifts was considered, from $`z_\mathrm{f}=1`$ to $`z_\mathrm{f}=30`$. The star formation rate is assumed to decline exponentially following the beginning of a burst at $`z=z_\mathrm{f}`$, with a timescale $`\tau =0.1`$ and 0.3 Gyr.

## 3 Comparison with the observations

The database consists of the Daddi et al. (2000) and of the Thompson et al. (1999) surveys. The first one is the widest survey for EROs so far and is made of a single mosaic centered at $`\alpha =14^\mathrm{h}49^\mathrm{m}29^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\delta =09^o00^{}00^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000); it is based on $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`R`$ band imaging and it is complete to $`K_\mathrm{s}=18.8`$ over the whole area of 701 arcmin2 and to $`K_\mathrm{s}=19.2`$ over 447.5 arcmin2. The latter survey is smaller (154 arcmin2 centered at $`\alpha =16^\mathrm{h}24^\mathrm{m}33^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\delta =55^o43^{}59^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000)) but, being complete to $`K^{}20`$, it has been used to extend the magnitude range to deeper values, providing sufficient statistics.

EROs were selected using the color thresholds $`RKs>5.3`$ and $`RKs>6`$, which correspond to passively evolving ellipticals at $`z\stackrel{>}{}1`$ and $`z\stackrel{>}{}1.3`$, respectively (Daddi et al. 2000). An $`L=L_{}`$ elliptical evolved at $`z=1`$ and $`z=1.3`$ would have $`K_\mathrm{s}18.5`$ and $`K_\mathrm{s}19.2`$, respectively, thus our samples consist of bright $`LL_{}`$ objects. Fig. 1 shows the resulting surface densities of EROs. After taking into account the different filters used, the Thompson et al. survey yields a surface density of EROs of 0.42 and 0.8 arcmin-2 for the $`RK_\mathrm{s}>5.3`$ samples with $`K_\mathrm{s}<19.2`$ and $`K_\mathrm{s}<19.6`$ respectively, and 0.4 arcmin-2 for the $`RK_\mathrm{s}>6`$ sample with $`K_\mathrm{s}<19.8`$.

The use of such large surveys is of crucial importance to carry out a reliable comparison. In fact Daddi et al. (2000) showed that, as EROs are strongly clustered and large voids are present in their distribution on the sky, small field surveys can easily lead to wrong determinations of the ERO surface density and the probability of an underestimate is much larger than that of an overestimate. As an example of this effect, in the small (43 arcmin2) Chandra/AXAF Deep Field South the surface density of EROs with $`RK_\mathrm{s}>5`$ and $`K<19`$, derived by Scodeggio & Silva (2000), is a factor of 5 smaller than the one derived in the 700 arcmin2 survey by Daddi et al. (2000), with the same color and magnitudes thresholds.

Given the clustering effect, error bars in the surface density of EROs are larger than the mere Poisson statistics for the number of objects. The extreme of error bars shown in Fig. 1 are obtained by solving for $`\overline{n}`$ the equation $`(\overline{n}N)^2=\overline{n}(1+AC\overline{n})`$, where $`\overline{n}`$ and $`N`$ are respectively the expected average and the observed number of ellipticals in the field, $`A`$ is the clustering amplitude and $`C`$ is a factor depending on the geometry (see Daddi et al. 2000 for more details). A direct measure of $`A`$ for the EROs with $`RK_\mathrm{s}>6`$ is not available given the relatively small number of objects in the survey. We therefore used an extrapolation of the relation between $`A`$ and $`RK_\mathrm{s}`$ obtained by Daddi et al. (2000) for $`3.0RK_\mathrm{s}5.7`$ and $`K_\mathrm{s}<19.2`$. In order to estimate the clustering amplitude for the EROs with $`K_\mathrm{s}>19.2`$ taken from the Thompson et al. survey, as it was suggested that $`A`$ decreases with $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ (Daddi et al. 2000), we conservatively used the $`K_\mathrm{s}19`$ value, lowered by a factor of 2. Fig. 1 (panels a-b) shows the comparison between the PLE model predictions and the observed surface density of EROs.

$``$ $`RK_\mathrm{s}>5.3`$: this color threshold corresponds to the selection of $`z>1`$ passively evolving ellipticals, and the plots show good agreement, for the models with high formation redshift, between observed and predicted surface densities, i.e., the density of EROs is consistent with the expectation of PLE of local ellipticals. Models in which ellipticals formed at $`z_\mathrm{f}<2.5`$ ($`\tau =0.1`$ Gyr) or at $`z_\mathrm{f}<3`$ ($`\tau =0.3`$ Gyr) are ruled out because they strongly underpredict the density of EROs. The results do not significantly change if one assumes that a fraction up to 30% of the EROs with $`RK_\mathrm{s}>5.3`$ are dusty starburst galaxies, low mass stars, or brown dwarfs (the observed densities shown in Fig. 1 would decrease only by 0.15 dex).

$``$ $`RK_\mathrm{s}>6`$: this color threshold corresponds to $`z>1.3`$ passively evolving ellipticals. Only the models with $`z_\mathrm{f}>2.5`$ ($`\tau =0.1`$ Gyr) or with $`z_\mathrm{f}>3`$ ($`\tau =0.3`$ Gyr) succeed in reproducing the observed surface densities of EROs, also for this redder threshold. Fig. 1 shows that the densities predicted by the models with the highest $`z_\mathrm{f}`$ are generally higher than the observed ones, but only at $`1\sigma `$ significance level. Our data do not allow us to conclude whether this is a real deficit of the reddest ellipticals, or if it is due to the poorer statistics with respect to the $`RK_\mathrm{s}>5.3`$ sample (typically $`40`$ objects with $`RK_\mathrm{s}>6`$ vs. $`200`$ with $`RK_\mathrm{s}>5.3`$).

Assuming that this deficit of $`RK_\mathrm{s}>6`$ ellipticals is real, this would imply that the formation redshift must be close to $`z_\mathrm{f}2.5`$ (for $`\tau =0.1`$ Gyr) or $`z_\mathrm{f}3`$ (for $`\tau =0.3`$ Gyr). To check this point we also tested a model where ellipticals formed with a constant rate per unit $`z`$ in the range of $`2<z<3`$ ($`\tau =0.1`$ Gyr), or $`2.7<z<3.7`$ ($`\tau =0.3`$ Gyr). Fig. 1 (panel c) shows that this “mixed PLE” scenario provides a good agreement with the observations of the $`RK_\mathrm{s}>6`$ EROs.

These results do not significantly change in case of an open universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`h_{100}=0.7`$) or for a flat universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`h_{100}=0.7`$).

Existing semiempirical models of hierarchical galaxy formation imply a specific surface density of EROs to various limiting magnitudes. However, no such numbers have been explicitly calculated so far, which makes less straightforward the comparison with the observed number of EROs. According to Kauffmann et al. (1999, Fig. 9 and 10; see also Kauffmann & Charlot 1998b), in their $`\tau `$CDM model the number of massive ellipticals (stellar mass greater than $`10^{11}M_{}`$) decreases by a factor of 3 by $`z=1`$ and by a factor of $`15`$ by $`z=2`$. Such massive ellipticals are brighter than $`K=19`$ for $`1<z<1.5`$ (Kauffmann & Charlot 1998a). Hence this specific realization greatly underpredicts the numbers of EROs compared to the empirical values. The comparison is less clear-cut in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model model of Kauffmann et al. (1999), where the number of massive ellipticals decreases by only $`30\%`$ by $`z=1`$ and by a factor of $`3`$ by $`z=2`$. However, only a fraction of such ellipticals would qualify as EROs, given that in the adopted nomenclature they form by merging gas-rich spirals, with the gas being instantly converted into stars. Therefore, most such $`1<z<1.5`$ ‘ellipticals’ contain a significant fraction of young stars, likely to make them bluer than the color threshold for EROs.

## 4 Conclusions

A robust surface density of EROs has been obtained from a field that is at least ten times larger than in previous determinations, thus greatly reducing the influence of the strong field-to-field variations (cosmic variance), that we estimate given the known clustering properties of EROs (Daddi et al. 2000). This observed surface density of EROs is in fine agreement with the density of $`z>1`$ ellipticals with the same color and luminosity thresholds as predicted by a PLE model in which the bulk of field ellipticals were already fully assembled at least by $`z=2.5`$, and evolved passively thereafter. The agreement with the predictions of the PLE models remains good even if some 30% of EROs are not elliptical galaxies (e.g. dusty starburst galaxies). This result argues for much of the merging being already completed by $`z\stackrel{>}{}2`$, in such a way to make elliptical galaxy formation mimicking the old monolithic collapse models.

A more thorough comparison with current realizations of hierarchical models of galaxy formation is hampered by the lack of published predictions for the surface density of EROs. In these models the number density of massive elliptical galaxies drops rapidly with redshift. It does so catastrophically in a $`\tau `$CDM model (Kauffmann & Charlot 1998b), which therefore can be readily excluded, unless only a very small fraction of EROs is made of passively evolving ellipticals. However, this would be in contradiction with the reported strong clustering properties of EROs (Daddi et al. 2000). Less dramatic is the comparison with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, in which the number of ellipticals drops more gently with redshift. Nevertheless, we argue that also this model can hardly account for the observed number of EROs unless merging does not result in significant star formation, which is not the case in existing realizations. Future semianalytical models including specific predictions concerning the number densities of EROs would offer an interesting opportunity, as a comparison with the observed densities is expected to provide a stringent test for such models.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referee, Massimo Stiavelli, for useful comments.