text:
# Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays from relic topological defects

## introduction

The observation of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECR) with energies above $`10^{20}`$ eV Hayashida et al. (1994); Bird et al. (1994) is hard to explain. First of all, is not clear that there is any site that at which particles might be accelerated to such large energies. Even if such sites exist, for example in active galactic nuclei, it is hard to explain the absence of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin Greisen (1966); Zatsepin and Kuzmin (1966) cutoff. Cosmic rays with energies above about $`E_{GZK}=4\times 10^{19}`$ eV will interact with cosmic microwave background photons and lose energy until they are below $`E_{GZK}`$. If the highest energy cosmic rays are produced by sources which are homogeneous in the universe (even if some of the sources are nearby), then there must be a large deficit in particles with $`E>E_{GZK}`$ as compared to those with $`E<E_{GZK}`$, because the former are converted into the latter. Such a cutoff is not observed.

In this talk, we will try to construct a relic topological defect model (see Bhattacharjee and Sigl (2000) for a review of such models and others) which addresses these difficulties. A relic model explains the UHECR as the decay products of some very high energy particle. As long as the progenitor has mass $`M_Xc^210^{20}`$ eV, the high energies observed are trivially explained. However, to explain the UHECR, the relic must also be sufficiently long-lived to still be decaying today. This means that the progenitor lifetime must be extremely large as compared to the naive dimensional analysis value $`\tau \mathrm{}/(M_Xc^2)`$

To solve the GZK problem, the relics must be strongly clustered near us, and the obvious place for this is in the galactic halo. This is easily arranged, as long as the relic velocities are not too high to prevent them from being captured in the gravitational potential of the galaxy.

## topological defects

Topological defects result from misalignment of fields after symmetry breaking transitions in the early universe. (For a review, see Vilenkin and Shellard (1994).) Because they are topologically stabilized, they can persist until the present time. If the scale of symmetry breaking is high, for example the grand unification scale $`E10^{25}`$ eV, then there is no difficulty reaching the required energies for the UHECR. However, one does need a mechanism by which the energy can be released from the defect at the necessary rate. One also needs an appropriate amount of total energy stored in defects. It must be large enough to explain the observed UHECR flux, while not being so large as to exceed bounds on the total density of the universe.

The dimensionality of the topological defects depends on the symmetry that was broken to create them. One can have monopoles (0-dimensional defects), strings (1-dimensional defects), or domain walls (2-dimensional defects). If there are multiple symmetry breaking transitions, one can have hybrid defects. For example, a high-energy transition can produce monopoles, and then a subsequent transition at a lower energy can confine the flux from the monopoles into strings. In this case, the monopoles’ flux must not be the regular magnetic field, because that is not confined today.

We can now consider the various defect types as UHECR sources. Domain walls are ruled out because they contribute too much total mass to the universe. Cosmic strings would evolve into a scaling regime, so their total mass contribution is not too large. However, strings move relativistically and would not cluster in the galactic halo. Monopoles produced with a thermal abundance would also overclose the universe, but is possible that they were produced with a smaller abundance during reheating or by gravitational particle creation Kuzmin and Tkachev (1999). In this case, they are not ruled out, and they would cluster in the halo. However, it is hard to see how to get the energy out of the monopoles. The only real possibility is monopole-antimonopole annihilation Hill (1983); Bhattacharjee and Sigl (1995). Unfortunately Blanco-Pillado and Olum (1999), monopole-antimonopole pairs would not be formed with sufficient density to explain the observed flux.

However, if after the monopoles have formed, a subsequent symmetry breaking transition connects them by strings, then every monopole will be paired with an antimonopole and there will be no problem having sufficient annihilations Blanco-Pillado and Olum (1999).

## scenario

We imagine a first symmetry breaking transition which gives monopoles of mass $`m_M`$, and a second symmetry breaking transition which connects them by strings of energy scale111We will henceforth work in units where $`k_B=\mathrm{}=c=1`$. $`T_s`$. A system of monopole and antimonopole attached by a string will oscillate with a timescale given by the acceleration of the monopole, $`\mu /m_M`$, where $`\mu `$ is the string tension, $`\mu T_s^2`$.

We take the monopole not to have any unconfined flux, so the loss of energy of the system is purely in gravitational radiation. To produce a long lifetime, we want small acceleration, and thus low string tension and high monopole mass, so we take $`T_s100`$ GeV, and $`m_M10^{14}`$ GeV.

To explain the observed UHECR flux we require a sufficient density of monopoles clustered in the halo. The minimum necessary density is achieved when the decay lifetime is approximately the age of the universe. In this case, for $`m_M=10^{14}`$ GeV, we found the needed present density in the universe as a whole Blanco-Pillado and Olum (1999),

$$N_{M\overline{M}}>10^{30}/\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(1)
At the time of string formation, this was

$$n_M10^{32}T_s^310^{18}/\mathrm{cm}^3,$$
(2)
which gives a typical monopole separation

$$L_i10^6\mathrm{cm}.$$
(3)
This is much smaller than the horizon distance, $`d_H3`$ cm at $`T100`$ GeV.

When the strings are formed they may have excitations on scales smaller than the distance between monopoles, but these will propagate relativistically and thus be quickly smoothed out by gravitational radiation, leaving a straight string. The energy stored in the string is then $`\mu L_i`$. This is smaller than the monopole mass by the ratio

$$\frac{\mu L_i}{m_M}10^2$$
(4)
so the monopoles will move non-relativistically.

We thus have a system of monopole and antimonopole connected by a straight string, which produces a constant force of acceleration $`a=\mu /m_M`$. The monopoles will move in elliptical orbits, but since their thermal velocities at the time of string formation will be small compared to the velocities they acquire during acceleration, the motion will be nearly linear, although with enough angular momentum to prevent the monopoles from colliding as they pass by.

To estimate the gravitational radiation rate, we will take the linear motion, in which a half oscillation of one monopole is parameterized by

$$x(t)=(2aL)^{1/2}t\frac{1}{2}at^2$$
(5)
for $`0<t<(8L/a)^{1/2}`$. Using the quadrupole approximation,222The fully relativistic situation was considered in Martin and Vilenkin (1997). the rate of energy loss of the system is

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{288}{45}G\mu ^2\left(\frac{\mu L}{m_M}\right).$$
(6)
Now $`\mu L`$ is just the energy in the string, so we can write $`dE/dt=\mu dL/dt`$, and integrate to get

$$L=L_ie^{t/\tau _g}$$
(7)
with

$$\tau _g=\frac{45}{288}\frac{m_M}{G\mu ^2}=\frac{45}{288}\frac{m_{pl}^2m_M}{T_s^4}.$$
(8)
The monopoles thus move on smaller and smaller orbits, until they annihilate, approximately when $`L`$ reaches the monopole core radius, $`r_Mm_M^1`$. The system thus lives for a time about $`\tau _g\mathrm{ln}(L_i/r_M)`$. With $`T_s100`$ GeV and $`m_M10^{14}`$ GeV, Eq. (8) gives $`\tau _g10^{17}`$ sec, comparable with the age of the universe.

## observational consequences

How can a model such as that presented here be verified or disproved? Unfortunately, all models which involve topological relics or relic particles decaying in the halo gave rise to the same observations, dependent essentially on one unknown parameter, the mass of the decaying primary. Thus, the specific model of monopoles bound by strings cannot be verified by cosmic ray observations. However, the low string energy scale which is necessary for long lifetimes means that the string fields might be detected in future accelerators.

Halo relic models as a class, however, do have observable consequences.

### Spectrum

All relic models produce the observed cosmic ray primaries by the decay and fragmentation of super-heavy particles (produced, in this case, by monopole-antimonopole annihilation). The spectrum, thus, has little dependence on the type of defect that is decaying, but rather results primarily from the fragmentation process. Fragmentation of such high-energy particles is not completely understood, but we know that the spectrum we observe depends on the mass of the decaying particle, and in all cases it is much harder than the steeply falling spectrum of cosmic rays at lower energies. Current data does not constrain the ultra-high-energy spectrum tightly, but future experiments Zavrtanik (2000); Streitmatter (1998) should be able to validate decaying particle models and determine the particle mass.

### Particle type

Fragmentation also produces a large fraction of photons, and thus a generic prediction of relic models is that most of the observed cosmic rays will be photons. Identifying individual particles is difficult, but recent studies Ave et al. (2000) of large zenith angle showers have found that no more than about 40% of the particles can be photons at the highest energies. If the studies are correct, then all relic models appear to be ruled out.

### Anisotropy

Because the earth is not at the center of the galactic halo, cosmic rays coming from halo sources would be seen to somewhat higher degree from the direction of the galactic center. (See Tanco and Watson (1999) and references therein.) The low number of observed events, combined with the lack of an observatory in the Southern Hemisphere where the galactic center is located, prevents a clear confirmation or disconfirmation of this effect. However, a statistically insignificant anisotropy is observed of generally the right form. The strongest confirmation of a halo model would be to see enhancements of the cosmic ray flux coming from the halo of M31. Unfortunately, this also must wait for future experiments.

### No clustering

Any model of relic particles or monopoles will have all observed cosmic rays coming from different sources. Thus we would not expect arrival directions to be clustered into multiplets, except for an effect due to inhomogeneities in the dark matter distribution Blasi and Sheth (2000). Current claims of doublets and triplets are consistent with dark matter inhomogeneity, but if further data yields greater multiplets, model such as this will be ruled out.

### No correlations with known astrophysical sources

If the UHECR come from otherwise-invisible particles in the halo, there should be no correlation in arrival direction with any known object. Such correlations have been claimed Farrar and Biermann (1998); Virmani et al. (2000), but there is some question Sigl et al. (2000) about the correctness of these claims.

## discussion

We have argued that relic topological defects have several advantages as sources of the observed ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. They naturally explain very high energies and can cluster in galactic halos and thus explain the absence of the GZK cutoff. However, most topological defect models do not have the required properties. Monopoles bound by strings seem to be a good candidate. With heavy monopoles and light strings, the required lifetime can be achieved, and because there is perfect efficiency in monopole-antimonopole binding, the required monopole density is quite small. (Necklaces — monopoles connected to two strings each Berezinsky and Vilenkin (1997) — also seem like a good candidate.)

Of course, hybrid topological defects are “exotic”, in the sense that they involve two extra fields introduced just for this purpose. However, since conventional mechanisms do not solve the puzzle of UHECR origin, it seems reasonable to consider exotic models. Unfortunately, it appears that even exotic models don’t seem to be in agreement with observation, especially the low bound on the photon fraction from recent studies Ave et al. (2000).

## acknowledgments

We would like to thank the organizers of the 20th Texas Symposium for an excellent conference, and Xavier Siemens, Gunter Sigl, Alex Vilenkin, and Alan Watson for helpful conversations. K. D. O. is grateful for support from the Symposium and from the National Science Foundation. J. J. B. P. was supported in part by the Fundación Pedro Barrie de la Maza.


format: text

text:
# Vortex stabilization in a small rotating asymmetric Bose-Einstein condensate

## I Introduction

The first experimental creation and detection of a vortex in a dilute trapped Bose-Einstein condensate relied on two hyperfine components in a nonrotating symmetric trap, with an applied electromagnetic field coupling the two components . In other recent related experiments, several groups have used rotating nonaxisymmetric traps , focussing, respectively, on the irrotational flow induced by the nonaxisymmetric shape  and on the stabilization of vortices in such geometries . Indeed, the Paris group  also measured the angular momentum of the rotating Bose condensate. In all these experiments, the condensate is large and generally well-described by the Thomas-Fermi approximation .

In contrast, the present work focuses on a small rotating nonaxisymmetric condensate, which requires a small dimensionless interaction strength $`\gamma `$. Although current experiments have $`\gamma `$ $`10`$-$`1000`$, this value, in principle, can be decreased by reducing the particle number and/or tuning the scattering length with the help of a Feshbach resonance . So far, this limit has been studied for rotationally symmetric traps with a fixed angular momentum $`L_z`$ . However, since experiments do not fix the angular momentum and since we focus on nonaxisymmetric traps, we work at a fixed applied rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We first consider a noninteracting system in a rotating anisotropic harmonic trap. Although the energy eigenvalues for this problem have been studied previously, the relevant structure of the corresponding quantum-mechanical eigenstates has not been considered in detail. A subset of these low-lying eigenstates of the anisotropic harmonic trap becomes nearly degenerate for increasing trap rotation, and conventional perturbation theory fails (as it does for a symmetric trap ). Therefore, we use a variational approach to study the ground state of the interacting system. This method permits us to determine the phase diagram with respect to the interaction strength $`\gamma `$ and the applied rotation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Monitoring the evolution of the variational ground state provides insight into the character of the transition to states containing one or more vortices. Moreover, we discuss the resulting angular momentum carried by the condensate, which increases quasicontinuously for rotations beyond that required for stabilization of a few vortices.

One striking new feature of a small condensate in a rotating anisotropic trap is the possibility of increasing the angular momentum by elongating (which increases the moment of inertia) and simultaneously decreasing the number of vortices (because fewer cores can fit in the stretched form). In this way, the anisotropic condensate mimics solid-body rotation in a qualitatively different way from the familiar addition of more singly quantized vortices . Our investigations illustrate the changing relative importance of rotational and asymmetry effects in different areas of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\gamma `$ space and different values of the anisotropy parameter $`\omega _y/\omega _x`$.

The basic formalism is presented in Sec. II along with the variational trial wave function. For a fixed anisotropy, the phase diagram is discussed in Sec. III as a function of the interaction parameter and the externally applied rotation, showing asymmetric vortex states and in some cases re-entrant behavior. Since angular momentum is not conserved in an asymmetric trap, its behavior is analyzed in Sec. IV.

## II Basic Formalism

In this section, we introduce the geometric configuration, construct the exact eigenstates of the asymmetric noninteracting Bose condensate in a rotating anisotropic harmonic trap, and investigate their behavior for different rotation speeds and asymmetries. These states provide the basis of our variational trial function for the interacting system. This ansatz, along with its numerical implementation, is described at the end of this section.

### A Hamiltonian for a rotating anisotropic harmonic trap

To study the stationary states of a low-temperature Bose-Einstein condensate in the rotating frame (when the trap potential becomes time-independent), we start with the time-independent Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation

$$(H^{(0)}+V_H\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(1)
Here $`H^{(0)}=T+V_{\mathrm{tr}}\mathrm{\Omega }L_z`$ is the Hamiltonian for a single particle with kinetic energy $`T=\mathrm{}^2^2/2M`$ in an anisotropic harmonic trap $`V_{\mathrm{tr}}=\frac{1}{2}M(\omega _x^2x^2+\omega _y^2y^2+\omega _z^2z^2)`$ that rotates about the $`z`$ axis with an angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`V_H=g|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ is the self-consistent Hartree interaction term (the $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$ determines the coupling constant $`g=4\pi a\mathrm{}^2/M`$). For definiteness, we assume $`\omega _x\omega _y`$.

In the absence of rotation, the noninteracting Hamiltonian $`H^{(0)}`$ separates into a sum of three cartesian terms $`H_j=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _j(a_j^{}a_j+a_ja_j^{})`$, where $`j=x,y,z`$. It is convenient to use the three oscillator lengths $`d_j=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/M\omega _j}`$ to scale the three cartesian coordinates, in which case the harmonic-oscillator operators have the dimensionless form

$$a_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_j+\frac{}{x_j}\right)\text{and}a_j^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_j\frac{}{x_j}\right).$$
(2)
When the trap potential $`V_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ rotates, the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }L_z=\mathrm{\Omega }(xp_yyp_x)`$ couples $`H_x`$ and $`H_y`$, and the unperturbed Hamiltonian becomes $`H^{(0)}=H_{}+H_z`$. Use of Eq. (2) shows that

$`H_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _x\left(a_x^{}a_x+a_xa_x^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _y\left(a_y^{}a_y+a_ya_y^{}\right)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\sqrt{\omega _x\omega _y}}}\left[\left(\omega _x+\omega _y\right)\left(a_x^{}a_ya_y^{}a_x\right)+\left(\omega _x\omega _y\right)\left(a_x^{}a_y^{}a_ya_x\right)\right].`$
In addition to the usual “diagonal” (number-conserving) terms proportional to $`a_ja_k^{}`$, this operator also has an “off-diagonal” (number-violating) term proportional to $`a_x^{}a_y^{}a_ya_x`$.

As in the familiar case of the two-component Bogoliubov transformation for a dilute Bose gas , $`H_{}`$ can be diagonalized with a generalized Bogoliubov transformation that couples all four operators. It is convenient to define a four-component vector $`a=(a_x,a_y,a_x^{},a_y^{})`$; its elements obey the commutation relations $`[a_j,a_k^{}]=J_{jk}`$, where $`J`$ is a diagonal matrix with elements $`(1,1,1,1)`$. The Hamiltonian can now be written in matrix form as $`H_{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}a^{}a`$, where $``$ is a $`4\times 4`$ hermitian matrix given by

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _x& ic& 0& id\\ ic& \omega _y& id& 0\\ 0& id& \omega _x& ic\\ id& 0& ic& \omega _y\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
with $`c=(\mathrm{\Omega }/\sqrt{\omega _x\omega _y})\frac{1}{2}(\omega _x+\omega _y)`$ and $`d=(\mathrm{\Omega }/\sqrt{\omega _x\omega _y})\frac{1}{2}(\omega _x\omega _y)`$.

The quadratic form $`H_{}`$ can now be diagonalized with a linear canonical transformation to a new set of four “quasiparticle” operators $`\alpha _k`$, defined by the matrix relation $`a=𝒰\alpha `$, where the quasiparticle operators $`\alpha _k`$ obey the same boson commutation relations $`[\alpha _j,\alpha _k^{}]=J_{jk}`$ . The transformation matrix $`𝒰`$ follows from the eigenvalue problem

$$u^{(k)}=\lambda _kJu^{(k)},$$
(6)
where $`u^{(k)}`$ is the $`k`$th eigenvector and $`\lambda _k`$ is the corresponding $`k`$th eigenvalue obtained from the determinantal condition $`|\lambda J|=0`$. The four roots are the eigenvalues

$$\omega _\pm ^2=\omega _{}^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\left(\omega _y^2\omega _x^2\right)^2+4\omega _{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2},$$
(7)
where $`\omega _{}^2\frac{1}{2}(\omega _x^2+\omega _y^2)`$; these eigenvalues are identical with the classical normal-mode frequencies.

To understand our choice of notation $`\omega _\pm `$, note that the eigenvalues reduce to $`\omega _\pm ^2=(\omega _{}\mathrm{\Omega })^2`$ for an axisymmetric trap ($`\omega _x=\omega _y=\omega _{}`$). In the absence of rotation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$), these two modes are degenerate. As is familiar from degenerate perturbation theory, applying an infinitesimal rotation breaks the degeneracy and selects out the circularly polarized helicity states with unnormalized wave functions $`\psi _\pm (r,\varphi )(x\pm iy)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}r^2)=re^{\pm i\varphi }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}r^2)`$. In particular, the $`+`$ mode rotates in the positive sense defined by the right-hand rule and its frequency $`\omega _+=\omega _{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ decreases with increasing angular velocity as is obvious when viewed in the rotating frame.

In the general case of an anisotropic trap with $`\omega _x<\omega _y`$, the two modes $`\omega _\pm `$ are nondegenerate even for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, when the $`+`$ mode with $`\omega _+=\omega _x`$ is linearly polarized along $`x`$ and the $``$ mode with $`\omega _{}=\omega _y`$ is linearly polarized along $`y`$. For nonzero rotation speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the dispersion relation (7) exhibits a crossover near $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|(\omega _y^2\omega _x^2)/4\omega _{}`$ from an anisotropy-dominated regime that favors linearly polarized states at small $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to a rotation-dominated regime that favors elliptically polarized states with definite helicity at large $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. After the cross-over (at relatively small rotation speeds, for example $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.05\omega _x`$ for an asymmetry of 10%), the smaller positive eigenvalue $`\omega _+`$ decreases nearly linearly for moderate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; in the large-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ regime ($`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x1`$), however, $`\omega _+`$ vanishes like $`\sqrt{(\omega _y\omega _x)(\omega _x\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ with an infinite slope as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$. In contrast, the larger positive eigenvalue $`\omega _{}`$ increases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Figure 1 illustrates the positive eigenvalues $`\omega _\pm `$ as functions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for two asymmetries. For the small asymmetry $`\omega _y=1.014\omega _x`$, the deviations of $`\omega _\pm `$ from the axisymmetric case are hardly visible. For $`\omega _y=1.1\omega _x`$, the deviation of $`\omega _x`$ from a straight line is seen at both ends of the range of rotation speed $`0\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$.

The four eigenvalues in Eq. (7) of $`H_{}`$ in Eq. (6) can be taken to constitute a diagonal matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with elements $`(\omega _+,\omega _{},\omega _+,\omega _{})`$. For the two positive eigenvalues $`\omega _\pm `$, the eigenvectors have the form

$$u^{(\pm )}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cosh}\chi _\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _\pm \\ \pm i\mathrm{cosh}\chi _\pm \mathrm{sin}\theta _\pm \\ \mathrm{sinh}\chi _\pm \mathrm{sin}\eta _\pm \\ \pm i\mathrm{sinh}\chi _\pm \mathrm{cos}\eta _\pm \end{array}\right).$$
(8)
These two eigenvectors satisfy the normalization condition $`u^{(j)}Ju^{(k)}=\delta _{jk}`$, where $`+`$ and $``$ correspond to $`j`$ and $`k=1`$ and $`2`$, respectively. It is not difficult to obtain explicit expressions for the (real) hyperbolic parameters $`\chi _\pm `$ and for the (real) trigonometric parameters $`\theta _\pm `$ and $`\eta _\pm `$; they depend on the trap frequencies $`\omega _x`$ and $`\omega _y`$ and on the external rotation speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Symmetry considerations readily relate the remaining two eigenvectors (those for the two negative eigenvalues $`\omega _\pm `$) to $`u^{(\pm )}`$. The resulting four eigenvectors $`u^{(j)}`$ with $`j=1,\mathrm{},4`$ form a complete basis set and obey the normalization condition

$$u^{(j)}Ju^{(k)}=J_{jk}.$$
(9)
The transformation to the quasiparticle operators is determined by the matrix $`𝒰_{jk}=u_j^{(k)}`$ of the four eigenvectors written in successive columns (it is the analog of the “modal matrix” that plays a central role in the theory of small oscillations of mechanical systems about stationary configurations ). In this way, the matrix $`𝒰`$ satisfies the eigenvalue equation \[compare Eq. (6)\]

$$𝒰=J𝒰\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(10)
and the normalization (9) for the eigenvectors implies that $`𝒰^{}J𝒰=J`$. Equivalently, multiplication of the eigenvalue equation (10) by $`𝒰^{}`$ gives $`𝒰^{}𝒰=J\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, showing that the transformation matrix $`𝒰`$ indeed diagonalizes the hamiltonian matrix $``$ with the appropriate boson metric $`J`$. Correspondingly, the quasiparticle operators follow from the matrix equation

$$\alpha =J𝒰^{}Ja,$$
(11)
and it is easy to see that the transformed unperturbed Hamiltonian has the expected diagonal form

$$H_{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}a^{}a=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+(\alpha _+^{}\alpha _++\alpha _+\alpha _+^{})+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}(\alpha _{}^{}\alpha _{}+\alpha _{}\alpha _{}^{})$$
(12)
that represents a set of uncoupled harmonic oscillators. Evidently, the spectrum of allowed states has the eigenvalues

$$ϵ_{n_+n_{}}=\mathrm{}(n_++\frac{1}{2})\omega _++\mathrm{}(n_{}+\frac{1}{2})\omega _{},$$
(13)
where $`n_\pm `$ is a nonnegative integer. As is clear from Fig. 1, the set of lowest eigenvalues $`ϵ_{n_+}=\mathrm{}(n_++\frac{1}{2})\omega _+`$ vanishes as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches the confinement limit ($`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$). This degeneracy precludes a simple perturbation approach for the interacting system.

Equation (11) yields explicit expressions for the quasiparticle operators

$$\alpha _\pm =\mathrm{cosh}\chi _\pm (\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pm a_xi\mathrm{sin}\theta _\pm a_y)+\mathrm{sinh}\chi _\pm (\mathrm{sin}\eta _\pm a_x^{}\pm i\mathrm{cos}\eta _\pm a_y^{}),$$
(14)
along with their adjoints. Here, the hyperbolic parameters $`\chi _\pm `$ and the trigonometric parameters $`\theta _\pm `$ and $`\eta _\pm `$ guarantee the correct commutation relations for the quasiparticle operators. In particular, the parameters $`\chi _\pm `$ determine the number-violating “Bogoliubov” coupling between the $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ operators. As expected from the form of Eq. (4), these parameters vanish for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, and $`\chi _{}`$ remains small and positive for all allowed $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$, whereas $`\chi _+`$ is negative and decreases rapidly as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$. For an axisymmetric trap, $`\chi _\pm `$ vanish identically for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the quasiparticle operators $`\alpha _\pm `$ then reduce to the familiar helicity operators $`a_\pm =(a_xia_y)/\sqrt{2}`$.

We can now analyze the noninteracting eigenstates. The rotating ground state $`\phi _{00}(x,y)`$ is determined from the pair of conditions $`\alpha _\pm \phi _{00}=0`$; it has the form

$$\phi _{00}(x,y)=\left(\frac{ln}{\pi ^2}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(lx^2+2imxy+ny^2)\right],$$
(15)
where the real quantities $`l`$, $`m`$, and $`n`$ depend on the trap frequencies and the rotation speed . For an axisymmetric trap with $`\omega _x=\omega _y=\omega _{}`$, the ground state has the expected isotropic structure with $`l=n=1`$ and $`m=0`$. This state remains isotropic for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }<\omega _{}`$.

For an anisotropic trap with $`\omega _x<\omega _y`$, however, the noninteracting ground state has a nontrivial phase $`xy`$ that represents the irrotational flow induced by the rotating trap . For small rotation speeds and small asymmetry, the ground-state density is indistinguishable from that of the symmetric trap, so that it has an essentially circular shape fitting wholly into the elliptical trap geometry. For fast rotations, when the angular momentum per particle is considerable, the condensate experiences a torque that stretches the ground state density along the axis of lesser confinement (the $`x`$ axis in our choice). For $`10\%`$ trap asymmetry, the central peak also decreases appreciably. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches the smaller transverse oscillator frequency (here, $`\omega _x`$), the parameter $`l`$ vanishes. Thus the oscillator confinement for the noninteracting anisotropic trap disappears at the critical value $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _x`$, as is well known from classical mechanics.

The normalized excited states are given by the familiar harmonic-oscillator construction

$$\phi _{n_+n_{}}(x,y)=\frac{(\alpha _+^{})^{n_+}}{\sqrt{n_+!}}\frac{(\alpha _{}^{})^n_{}}{\sqrt{n_{}!}}\phi _{00}(x,y).$$
(16)
In the axisymmetric, static limit ($`\omega _x=\omega _y,\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$), $`\phi _{10}`$ and $`\phi _{01}`$ reduce to the degenerate pair $`\psi _\pm `$ discussed below Eq. (7). For $`\omega _x<\omega _y`$, the first excited noninteracting state $`\phi _{10}`$ has an excitation energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _+`$ and represents a nonaxisymmetric vortex with unit positive circulation and a node at the trap center. The other noninteracting singly quantized vortex state $`\phi _{01}`$ also has a node at the trap center, with higher excitation energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$ and unit negative circulation.

A recent study  of a small rotating axisymmetric Bose-Einstein condensate works at fixed angular momentum $`L_z=\mathrm{}l`$ (which is appropriate only for an axisymmetric trap). The resulting equilibrium configuration is then determined by minimizing the total energy $`NE_{\mathrm{lab}}(l)`$ subject to the constraint of fixed $`l`$. The corresponding angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ then follows from the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E_{\mathrm{lab}}/\mathrm{}l`$.

The constraint of fixed $`L_z=\mathrm{}l`$ is analogous to the constraint of fixed total $`N`$ in the canonical ensemble. As in the transition to the grand canonical ensemble, however, it is often advantageous to eliminate the constraint by making a Legendre transformation from fixed $`l`$ to fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which here merely means transforming to a rotating frame. Since the resulting Hamiltonian $`H=H^{(0)}+V_H`$ then contains the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }L_z`$, the expectation value $`L_z`$ for the angular momentum as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ follows directly from the Hellmann-Feynman theorem  $`L_z=E(\mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`E=H`$ is the energy in the rotating frame. For example, the expectation value of the angular momentum for the noninteracting eigenstate $`\phi _{n_+n_{}}`$ is simply

$$L_{n_+n_{}}/\mathrm{}=(n_++\frac{1}{2})\omega _+/\mathrm{\Omega }(n_{}+\frac{1}{2})\omega _{}/\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(17)
as follows directly from Eq. (13). Figure 1 shows the dependence of $`\omega _\pm `$ on the external rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the resulting $`L_{n_+n_{}}`$ also depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for any nonzero trap anisotropy. With the definition $`L_\pm =\mathrm{}\omega _\pm /\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have $`L_{00}=\frac{1}{2}(L_++L_{})`$ and $`L_{10}=L_{00}+L_+`$. These angular momenta per particle for the two lowest noninteracting states $`\phi _{00}`$ and $`\phi _{10}`$ are included in Figure 1. For both anisotropies shown ($`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.014`$ and $`1.1`$), $`L_{00}`$ remains small until $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches $`\omega _x`$; in contrast, $`L_{10}`$ rises rapidly and linearly for small $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, remains close to one quantum of angular momentum for most of the allowed range, and then grows rapidly as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$.

The asymmetric noninteracting excited states possess a rich structure and the complete density distribution is needed to characterize them. As an example, Fig. 2 presents density contours of $`|\phi _{30}|^2`$ across the whole $`xy`$ plane, for slow, medium and fast rotation and for two different values of $`\omega _y/\omega _x>1`$. The asymmetry aligns the vortex cores along the axis of weak confinement. At slow rotation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x=0.01`$), most of the condensate density accumulates at the ends on the weak axis. For the case of $`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.1`$, the depletion along the tight axis essentially splits the condensate at the position of each vortex “core.” This result is plausible because this small $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is in the asymmetry-dominated regime where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x\omega _y^2\omega _x^2`$. For medium rotation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x=0.5`$), the effect of the asymmetry smears out, and the densities resemble rotation-distorted symmetric trap eigenstates, with the vortex cores located close to the trap center and surrounded by a region of nearly constant density toward the edge. For fast rotation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x=0.95`$), the condensate stretches along the weak axis, particularly pronounced for $`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.1`$. There, the non-ellipsoidal shape of the inner most contour indicates that two of the three overlapping vortex cores are now off-center on the $`x`$-axis. The corresponding loss in angular momentum is again compensated by having a larger density at the ends of the weak axis. Note that the depletion along the tight axis is here much less than for slow rotation so that the core area is still fully surrounded by the condensate.

### B Variational ansatz

The noninteracting eigenstates now allow us to treat the interacting problem. With the previous dimensionless spatial variables, the GP equation (1) becomes

$$(H^{(0)}\mu +4\pi \gamma \mathrm{}\sqrt{\omega _x\omega _y}\psi ^{}\psi )\psi =0,$$
(18)
where $`H^{(0)}=H_{}+H_z`$, with $`H_{}`$ in diagonal form taken from Eq. (12), $`\gamma =Na/d_z`$ is the small interaction parameter, and $`\psi `$ is the condensate wave function normalized to 1. Note that we assume a nonaxisymmetric trap rotating with a fixed angular speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This approach describes a “helium-bucket-like” experiment  and complements the theoretical work on vortices in small axisymmetric condensates (for example, Refs. ), where the angular momentum (a good quantum number) is fixed.

As is obvious from the vanishing of the noninteracting eigenfrequency $`\omega _+(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$, the lowest eigenstates $`\phi _{n0}`$ become nearly degenerate for asymmetric traps, and straightforward perturbation theory is not applicable. Because we are interested in small condensates with $`\gamma 1`$, however, the noninteracting eigenfunctions discussed in Sec. II.A provide a suitable basis set for an expansion of the planar part of the interacting condensate wave function. Our strategy is thus to use a linear combination of the lowest eigenstates as a trial function ,

$$\psi _n(x,y)=\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_s\phi _{s0}(x,y),$$
(19)
where $`n`$ indicates the cutoff of the $`n`$th-order trial function at the excited state $`\phi _{n0}`$. This cutoff makes the calculation tractable; it can be chosen so that the trial function captures the essential physics for rotation speeds at which higher excited states do not contribute. This trial function restricts the region in the phase diagram that we can investigate.

We assume that the bosons are in their ground state along the axis of rotation $`\phi _0(z)=\pi ^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}(z^2/2)`$. The variational ground state follows by minimizing the free-energy functional

$$\frac{E}{\mathrm{}}=\underset{s}{}|c_s|^2\omega _s^{(0)}+\sqrt{2\pi }\gamma \sqrt{\omega _x\omega _y}\underset{ijkl}{}c_i^{}c_j^{}c_kc_lI_{ijkl},$$
(20)
with respect to the set of variational parameters $`c_s`$. Here $`\omega _s^{(0)}=(s+\frac{1}{2})\omega _++\frac{1}{2}(\omega _{}+\omega _z)`$ and $`I_{ijkl}=d^2r\phi _{i0}^{}\phi _{j0}^{}\phi _{k0}^{}\phi _{l0}^{}`$. The variation is constrained by the normalization condition

$$d^2r\psi ^{}\psi =d^2r\underset{ss^{}=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_s^{}c_s^{}^{}\phi _{s0}^{}(x,y)\phi _{s^{}0}^{}(x,y)=\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}|c_s|^2=1.$$
(21)
In general, the parameters $`c_s`$ are complex, leading to $`2\times (n+1)`$ real variational parameters. This number is reduced by one through the norm condition (21). We can eliminate another degree of freedom by fixing the arbitrary phase of the wave function. Therefore we have to minimize the energy (20) for an $`n`$th-order trial function with respect to $`2n`$ independent variables.

### C Numerical implementation

We use a well-known simplex algorithm  to minimize the energy (20) in terms of the $`c_s`$ as variational variables. The algorithm basically determines the function to be minimized with respect to $`2n`$ variational parameters at the corners of a $`2n+1`$-dimensional simplex in parameter space. We reduce the number of independent variables by choosing the phase of one of the $`c_s`$ to be equal to zero and rewriting its modulus explicitly as a function of the other variational parameters $`|c_k|=\sqrt{1_{sk}|c_s|^2}`$. The energy functional is restricted to the unit sphere. We filled the space outside by taking the values of the energy on the surface of the unit sphere and magnifying them with increasing distance from the sphere. This procedure allows us to minimize in an unrestricted space and yet ensures that the variational equilibrium state satisfies the norm condition. In principle, it makes no difference which $`c_k`$ we exclude from the minimization procedure. However, since we have to find the minimum with respect to many parameters and since the energy functional has many local minima, we swept all $`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$ for a given point in the phase diagram. This way, we repeated the minimization on $`n+1`$ different representations of the energy and thus drastically enhanced the likelihood of finding the true global minimum.

We monitored the reliability of our results by comparing the contributions of higher excited states. We conclude that we have captured all important ingredients when the distribution of weights among the $`c_s`$ was not affected by including higher excited states into the trial function. For reasons of symmetry, this test required increasing $`n`$ by at least $`2`$. The minimization was very robust and reliable for most rotation speeds and interaction strengths that we examined. The behavior of the resulting $`c_s`$ with increasing rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was generally very smooth apart from the transition lines between equilibrium states with different numbers of vortices. Another check was the convergence of the equilibrium energies for different $`n`$. If a higher basis state was important, the energy clearly decreased when it was included. If the additional dimensions in the minimization space were irrelevant, the resulting minimal energy was the same within the numerical errors.

## III The phase diagram

In this section, we determine the lowest transition lines between variational equilibrium states in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\gamma `$ space for symmetric traps and for weakly and moderately asymmetric traps. In discussing the variational equilibrium condensate, we clarify our criterion for the transition with increasing rotation speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when the interaction and the trap geometry are fixed. Moreover, we investigate the change in the character of the transition in different regions of the phase diagram.

### A Symmetric geometry

First, we review the phase diagram for an axisymmetric trap that serves as a comparison for the new features induced by the asymmetry. The transition lines between equilibrium states are determined by minimizing the energy (20) for many sets of parameters $`(\omega _y,\mathrm{\Omega },\gamma )`$ and comparing the resulting states. We call a state a $`q`$ vortex if $`\phi _{q0}`$ dominates the complete trial function $`\psi `$, namely $`|c_q|^2>|c_s|^2`$, for all $`sq`$. A transition between two states is identified by a change in the dominant weight from $`|c_q|^2`$ to $`|c_q^{}|^2`$. This criterion works well for “clear” states, where one particular $`|c_q|^2`$ dominates strongly over the other contributions.

From previous theoretical studies  and from the experiments of the Paris and MIT groups , we expect that the axisymmetric condensate accommodates the angular momentum associated with the rotation by a sequence of transitions to states with more vortices. For the axisymmetric trap potential, our results agree completely with the earlier theoretical phase diagram . As seen in the dot-dashed lines in Fig. 3, the first two transition lines are strictly linear in $`\gamma `$ and pass through $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _x`$ in the noninteracting limit ($`\gamma 0`$). As expected, the line $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c(\gamma )`$ for the first transition to a state with a single vortex agrees exactly with the critical frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c/\omega _x=1\gamma /\sqrt{8\pi }`$ obtained with first-order perturbation theory . Most of our data are obtained with an $`8`$th-order trial function (the area very close to $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$ has been tested by using $`n=10`$). For the phases with up to two vortices, only the lowest five $`\phi _{s0}`$ contribute significantly.

In order to characterize the various phases more precisely, it is instructive to monitor the behavior of the variational parameters along a vertical cut in the phase diagram, namely with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for a fixed interaction strength $`\gamma `$. Such a cut is included in Fig. 4 for an axisymmetric trap with $`\gamma =1`$ (we measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in units of $`\omega _x`$). We plot the $`|c_s|^2`$ starting in the no-vortex phase. Below the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ range shown in Fig. 4, we always find $`|c_0|^2=1`$, confirming that the noninteracting ground state is also the variational equilibrium state for these slow rotations. At $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.80053=11/\sqrt{8\pi }`$, there is a sharp transition to a new state that consists purely of the noninteracting $`\phi _{10}`$ state. This behavior identifies the critical frequency for thermodynamic stability of a singly quantized central vortex. The next three transitions to other combinations are also clearly seen, indicating a sequence of transitions to states with an increasing number of singly quantized vortices, each in a well-separated range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Beyond the one-vortex phase, the variational states are mixtures of various noninteracting states. In particular, the two-vortex phase involves mixing with other states of two-fold symmetry $`(\phi _{00},\phi _{40})`$ and the three-vortex phase similarly contains other states with three-fold symmetry $`(\phi _{00},\phi _{60})`$. For rotation speeds higher than $`0.98\omega _x`$, we are too close to the degeneracy limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _x`$ to exclude the possibility that higher-order trial functions might change the distribution of weights. In the present symmetric case (dot-dashed lines in Fig. 3), the order of appearance of the different phases is the same for any vertical cut at fixed $`\gamma `$ in the phase diagram.

We have included the angular momentum $`L_z(\mathrm{\Omega })=E/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Fig. 4 for $`\gamma =1`$. Each transition that adds one more vortex induces a discontinuous upward jump in the angular momentum. Evidently, not all values of angular momentum are allowed. Specifically, values in the range $`0<L_z<1`$ are absent, which is consistent with the character of the equilibrium functions before and after the first transition (they consists purely of $`\phi _{00}`$ or $`\phi _{10}`$, carrying exactly zero or one quantum of angular momentum respectively). For the allowed ranges of $`L_z`$, direct comparison with Ref.  shows that we found the same mixtures of $`\phi _{s0}`$, although they fix the angular momentum. Since the transition lines are linear in $`\gamma `$, we can also make contact with the results from Ref. . In particular, the first three transition frequencies indicated in their Fig. 2 for fixed angular momentum are the same as those found here for fixed rotation speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Furthermore, the phases have the same symmetry, the lowest two being pure $`\phi _{00}`$ and $`\phi _{10}`$ and thus rotationally symmetric, whereas the equilibrium state of the $`q=2`$ and $`q=3`$ phases have off-center vortex cores arranged to give a two-fold or three-fold symmetric structure.

### B Asymmetric geometry

We investigate two specific trap asymmetries in detail. A weakly distorted trap with $`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.014`$ already shows some new features and reflects a delicate balance between the symmetric (rotation-dominated) and asymmetric (trap-dominated) influences. A second trap geometry of $`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.1`$ displays more pronounced effects of the asymmetry and thus provides a clearer picture of the basic physics. Figure 3 shows the first two transitions in the $`\gamma `$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ plane for both asymmetries, along with the corresponding curves for the symmetric trap with $`\omega _y/\omega _x=1`$.

#### 1 Transition lines

First, note that the transitions for the asymmetric traps occur at higher rotation speeds $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ than in the symmetric case; in addition, the shift increases with increasing asymmetry. In contrast to the linear behavior ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_c\gamma `$) of the symmetric system, the transition lines curve significantly for small interaction strengths and high rotation speeds. Most remarkably, there is a critical threshold coupling constant $`\gamma _c`$ below which a ground state with a singly quantized vortex is never favorable. This behavior is understandable because the vortex core size decreases with increasing interaction parameter and only fits into the trapped condensate for not too weak interactions. Since the semi-minor axis of the ellipsoidal trap fixes the size available for a vortex core, a smaller asymmetry allows the introduction of a vortex at lower $`\gamma `$.

Second, the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }L_z`$ in the Hamiltonian tends to favor states with large angular momentum. In addition to increasing the number of vortices, a greater trap asymmetry makes the condensate more susceptible to rotation-induced elongation, placing a greater part of the condensate farther away from the rotation axis, increasing the moment of inertia and hence the angular momentum. In this way, the condensate can accommodate a higher angular momentum without introducing vortices.

For fixed interaction strength $`\gamma `$ not too far above $`\gamma _c`$, we even find a re-entrant region where the one-vortex phase is followed for *higher* rotation speeds by a no-vortex phase. The tip of the one-vortex phase surrounded by the no-vortex phase for the small asymmetry ($`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.014`$) is illustrated by the occupancies $`|c_s|^2`$ along a cut through that tip (at $`\gamma =0.08935`$, Fig. 5). The occupancies in the re-entrant no-vortex phase continue as if it had never been interrupted by the one-vortex phase. For illustration, Fig. 5 also includes typical density contours for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ around the lobe tip. The elongation along the horizontal $`x`$ axis for the vortex-free states is pronounced. The thinner waist of the condensate on the vertical axis results from the admixture of $`\phi _{20}`$. The one-vortex state again has only $`\phi _{10}`$ as a constituent and illustrates how the circular ring of maximal density in the symmetric case deforms to two pronounced density peaks on the $`x`$ axis for this range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This re-entrant behavior reflects the singular character of the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$ for asymmetric geometries, when the confinement parameter $`l`$ in Eq. (15) tends to zero. Below the threshold interaction strength for vortex stabilization, the density contours always represent elongated no-vortex states; their width is smaller for smaller interactions strengths and increases slowly with increased rotation. This elongation seems to hinder vortex formation.

In order to study the detailed structure of the phases in the asymmetric cases, we considered again the intermediate interaction strength $`\gamma =1`$ and determined the occupancies $`|c_s|^2`$ for small ($`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.014`$) and moderate ($`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.1`$) asymmetry, as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 respectively. As the applied rotation increases, the smaller asymmetry shows phases with increasing number of vortices, just as in the case of a symmetric trap (compare Fig. 4 for a symmetric trap). In contrast to the re-entrant behavior for $`\gamma =0.09`$ (Fig. 5), we conclude that these relatively strong interactions $`\gamma =1`$ eliminate the effect of the (small) asymmetry, in part because the transitions occur at slower angular velocity. For the moderate asymmetry ($`\omega _y=1.1\omega _x`$), however, the phase diagram in Fig. 7 still exhibits re-entrant behavior; thus a $`10\%`$-asymmetry dominates the behavior for this interaction strength ($`\gamma =1`$) and precludes more than two vortex cores. Note that the one-vortex phase continues for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x0.99`$ as if it had not been interrupted by the two-vortex phase.

Typical density contours for the two asymmetries are included in Fig. 8. Several features differ significantly from the symmetric geometry. The no-vortex phase has a considerable $`\phi _{20}`$ admixture, producing a constriction along the $`y`$ axis. In the one-vortex phase, the condensate has a central vortex, but the elliptical trap and rotation-induced elongation deform the condensate noticeably. For $`\omega _y=1.1\omega _x`$, the contributions from $`\phi _{50}`$ (and other odd states) grow as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ approaches the transition to two vortices, deforming the surface region because of four vortex cores that move in from infinity. The density contours for the interacting two-vortex state show the admixture of the noninteracting ground state because the vortex cores are pushed further from the center of the trap than in the symmetric case. The small admixtures of other basis states with an even number of vortex cores favors the accumulation of density closer to the center (outside the core regions).

For the smaller asymmetry, the subsequent figures display three and four separate cores, respectively. In the three-vortex phase, however, the cores are not symmetrically distributed around the center (the appreciable occupation of $`\phi _{20}`$ enhances the two vortices along the $`x`$ axis, placing the third core on the horizontal axis and further away from the trap center). From Fig. 6, note that the mixture of noninteracting states differs from the symmetric case (Fig. 4), where the states contained only noninteracting states with the same rotational symmetry. The last two density contours in the right column illustrate that the re-entrant phases can indeed be classified as states with one or zero vortices. For such fast rotations, the condensate is very elongated and very flat (as can be seen from the fewer density contours). It is energetically favorable to reduce the number of vortices (which need a wider condensate) and to compensate the loss of vorticity in the vortex cores by expanding the condensate along the horizontal axis. In the re-entrant $`\phi _{00}`$-phase, we have several small contributions from basis states with an even number of cores. This causes small ripples on a thin extended Gaussian density. Basis states with an odd number of cores would put a density minimum at the center of the trap, but the dominant $`\phi _{00}`$ suppresses this tendency.

In recent experiments , the Paris group measured the nucleation of vortices in their large, cigar-shaped condensate and the corresponding angular momentum resulting from the vortices alone. When ramping up the rotation, they eventually find vortex-free states again, which is a re-entrant phenomenon similar to what we find in our analysis for much smaller condensates. Moreover, they also measure the nucleation of vortices when sweeping the asymmetry $`ϵ`$ and keeping the rotation fixed, leading again to a window of vortex stabilization. For the small condensate, we also determined the transition to a one-vortex state in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\omega _y`$ plane, as illustrated for several $`\gamma `$ and asymmetries up to $`20\%`$ ( Fig. 9). For asymmetries larger than the rightmost end of the graphs, there is no vortex state for rotations up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x=1`$. In agreement with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\gamma `$ phase diagram (Fig. 3), we here see the re-entrance in that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\omega _y`$ phase diagram, leading to a qualitatively similar restricted rotation window for stabilizing a vortex.

#### 2 Types of transition

Having discussed the typical phases, we can now consider the details of the transitions themselves. The occupations of the separate constituent noninteracting states (compare Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) have an important new feature. There is a smooth transition between the no-vortex and the one-vortex state for $`\gamma =1`$ for both asymmetric geometries, reminiscent of a second-order transition. This phenomenon can already be found for a very small asymmetry, as illustrated for $`\omega _y=1.001\omega _x`$ in Fig. 10. The critical frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=(0.80125\pm 0.00005)\omega _x`$ is a few per cent larger than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0.80053\omega _x`$ for the symmetric trap. Nevertheless, the density contours close to the transition reveal that a vortex core gradually enters the condensate along the $`y`$ axis (as seen in Fig. 10). This behavior is qualitatively distinct from that for the symmetric case (for the first transition at $`\gamma =1`$, we examined points as close as rotation speeds $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x)=\pm 10^7`$). Thus we infer that the character of the transition in asymmetric traps differs fundamentally from the symmetric case, for we now have a cross-over region where both $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are nonzero. In this situation, the meaning of the critical transition frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ becomes somewhat blurred. For both asymmetric geometries ($`\omega _y/\omega _x=1.014`$ and $`1.1`$), this cross-over region shrinks for smaller interactions. In fact, we find a sharp transition below $`\gamma <0.1`$ for the smaller asymmetry and below $`\gamma <0.8`$ for the moderate asymmetry. For all other subsequent equilibrium phases, we found spontaneous jumps in the occupancies, similar to first-order transitions.

The change in character can be understood as follows: for parameters that lead to a sharp transition, the energy functional has two competing, well-separated main minima, one lying in the $`c_0`$-dominated sector and the other in the $`c_1`$-dominated sector. Indeed, depending on whether we choose $`c_0`$ or $`c_1`$ to implement the norm condition in our minimization procedure, we find one or the other minimum in the neighborhood of the transition. The comparison of the energies then gives the true global minimum. The depth of these two minima gradually changes with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; at the transition, the minimum representing the one-vortex state becomes deeper. This picture allows for hysteresis in stabilizing a single vortex with increasing rotation. In fact, hysteresis is the favored explanation for the deviation of the measured $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ from the Thomas-Fermi predictions (see  and references therein). Moreover, the fact that the phase after re-entrance appear to be the continuation of the phase before the previous transition means that the corresponding minimum still exists and again lies below the energy of the intervening higher-vortex state. For a continuous transition, in contrast, the minimum energy functional must lie in a valley connecting the two sectors. Here, the different implementations of the norm condition lead to the same minimal state. With increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this global minimum gradually moves along this valley from the $`c_0`$-dominated sector through a cross-over region to the $`c_1`$-dominated sector.

From Fig. 6 for the smaller asymmetry with $`\omega _y=1.014\omega _x`$, we can also observe that the three-vortex phase undergoes much stronger changes across its range than other phases. Although there is a sharp transition to a phase with $`\phi _{30}`$, an appreciable amount of the two-vortex basis-state remains and $`\phi _{20}`$ dies out only gradually. This behavior yields a very complicated picture for smaller interaction strengths (roughly at $`\gamma 0.6`$), where the $`\phi _{30}`$-dominated phase disappears completely leading to a direct transition from two to four vortices. For even smaller $`\gamma `$, the two-vortex phase is followed by a one-vortex phase before the four-vortex phase develops. In part, this complicated picture arises from the suppression of the $`\phi _{30}`$ contribution to the one-vortex phase (which in the moderately asymmetric trap with $`\omega _y=1.1\omega _x`$ leads to an contribution of $`\phi _{50}`$ rather than $`\phi _{30}`$ to the one-vortex phase).

## IV The angular momentum

The asymmetry in the trap geometry breaks the cylindrical symmetry, so that the angular momentum $`L_z`$ around the axis of rotation is no longer a good quantum number. We therefore investigate the effect of the asymmetry on $`L_z`$ in some detail.

The angular momentum (in units of $`\mathrm{}`$) as a function of the trap rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is shown in Fig. 11 for all three geometries ($`\omega _y/\omega _x=`$ 1.0, 1.014, and 1.1) for the fixed interaction $`\gamma =1`$. The intimate relation to the occupancies within the various phases for each geometry can be seen in the corresponding plots (Figs. 46, and 7). The sharp kinks in $`L_z`$ for the symmetric trap arise from the sudden changes in the occupancies and the different angular momentum carried by the noninteracting states. The finite slope of the plateaus beyond the second transition reflects the mixing of the various noninteracting states in the variational ground state and the off-center positions of the vortex cores .

For the asymmetric rotating trap, even the noninteracting eigenstates $`\phi _{s0}`$ with a central $`s`$-fold vortex carry an angular momentum different from $`s`$ (in fact, the angular momentum diverges for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$). The divergence comes from the contribution of the circulating quanta with positive helicity, $`L_+(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, occurring in the angular momentum of every basis state $`\phi _{s0}`$. This is easily seen by expanding $`L_+=\omega _+/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for small $`\omega _x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and small asymmetries $`\omega _y^2=1+2ϵ^2`$, leading to

$$L_+\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{\omega _x\mathrm{\Omega }}}\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x.$$
(22)
In asymmetric traps, this divergence dominates the angular momentum in all noninteracting eigenstates $`\phi _{s0}`$ for high rotation speeds and hence in any linear combinations of them. Thus, even discrete changes in the structure of the equilibrium state (as at a transition) will have a far less dramatic effect on the angular momentum at large rotation speeds near $`\omega _x`$. Moreover, asymmetric condensates are significantly elongated along the axis of weaker confinement as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$. The resulting redistribution of density (and mass) with respect to the axis of rotation produces an additional, nonquantized contribution to the angular momentum.

Compared to the symmetric condensate, the angular momentum for the trap with smaller asymmetry at $`\gamma =1`$ has its jumps smoothed over a small but finite range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ because of the continuous transition where one off-center vortex gradually moves towards the center (see Fig. 6); in addition, the transition is shifted toward higher rotation speeds (see Fig. 11). The subsequent sequence of phases corresponds to an increasing number of vortex cores that cause nearly vertical jumps just as in the symmetric case. The divergence of the angular momentum dominates only at $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x1`$.

For the moderate asymmetry, the stronger admixture of $`\phi _{20}`$ in the no-vortex phase yields a faster rise of the angular momentum below the first transition. The first kink is even more tilted because of the extended range for the transition to a one-vortex state. Inside this one-vortex phase, there is a broad region with a pure $`\phi _{10}`$ state (up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _x0.92`$). The angular momentum, however, exceeds one because of both the initial growth of $`L_+`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the deformation of the condensate density. The rapid rise of $`L_z`$ below the second transition reflects the growing admixture of $`\phi _{50}`$. That second transition, seen as a discontinuous derivative in $`L_z`$, occurs at an angular momentum $`L_z2.4`$, already exceeding the value for a symmetric trap with two vortices. Beyond that point, the angular momentum increases smoothly with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, even beyond the re-entrant transitions at $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.9905\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.9945\omega _x`$ respectively (see inset in Fig. 11). In this limit, the divergent $`L_+`$ completely dominates the behavior.

## V Conclusion

The behavior of a small Bose condensate in a rotating anisotropic trap differs significantly from that of a symmetric condensate, even for very small asymmetries. In large part, this difference arises from the stretching of the condensate along the axis of weak confinement, especially for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$. In addition, it reflects the irrotational flow induced by the rotating confining potential that pushes on the gas when viewed from the laboratory frame .

For any specific asymmetry and sufficiently small interaction strength, a one-vortex state can never be stabilized, as illustrated in Fig. 3. For somewhat larger values of the coupling constant $`\gamma `$, the first transition, from a no-vortex state to a one-vortex state, is sharp, but the subsequent transitions are re-entrant, back to a no-vortex state with significant elongation that carries the relevant angular momentum (see Figs. 5 and 8). For these weak interactions, the transitions all occur close to $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _x`$, so that the stretching dominates.

For larger interaction strength ($`\gamma 1`$), the transitions occur at lower values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and they become quasicontinuous in that the occupation $`|c_0|^2`$ of the noninteracting ground state vanishes smoothly (see Figs. 6, 7, and 10). As in the case of a classical fluid in a rotating elliptic cylinder , the angular momentum is finite even below the transition to a state with one vortex because of the irrotational flow induced by the rotating asymmetric trap (see Fig. 11).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Grant No. DMR-9971518 and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant No. SSP 1073. ALF is grateful to G. Bertsch for guidance on the nuclear-physics literature and to the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was initiated.


text:
# Shortcuts in the fifth dimension

## I Introduction

The idea that our Universe may be a boundary of a larger spacetime manifold has triggered an outburst of creative and profound research in particle physics and cosmology. The notion of a boundary or brane-world was first made concrete in Horava-Witten theory , an M-theory in which the gauge fields are confined to a series of fundamental domain walls and gravity inhabits the bulk space between the walls. Inspired by such M-theory developments, the extra dimensions have been exploited in a variety of situations, notably in an explanation of the mass scale hierarchy problem . The Randall-Sundrum model  has demonstrated that extra dimensions need not be compact or even small, leading to fascinating speculation for cosmology and experiment. That is, these extra dimensions are not just the realm of abstract theory, but may have observable consequences ranging from astrophysics  and accelerators  to the laboratory .

The brane-world has become a new forum for the investigation of cosmology. Numerous studies have explored the dynamics of inflation, or the generation and evolution of fluctuation spectra in the early Universe brane-world. A significant result which has spurred on much work is the analog of the FRW equation for the cosmic evolution on a three-brane embedded in five-dimensional anti-deSitter . Although the gravity is Einsteinian, the backreaction of the curvature at the brane/bulk interface onto the brane causes the cosmological expansion law to become

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{\kappa _{(5)}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{36}\rho _{brane}^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}$$
(1)
where the five-dimensional Newton’s constant and mass scale are related by $`\kappa _{(5)}^2=M_{(5)}^3`$ and where the four-dimensional Planck mass is given by $`M_{pl}^2=M_{(5)}^3\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{6/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ being the anti-deSitter radius of curvature. It has been recognized  that if the brane carries, in addition to ordinary matter, a tension $`\sigma `$ (such that $`\rho _{brane}=\rho +\sigma `$) which compensates the effect of the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or more precisely such that $`\kappa _{(5)}^4\sigma ^2=6\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the standard expansion law can be recovered in the late-time limit when $`\rho \sigma `$.

Few brane-world studies have considered the simpler, yet deeper issue of causality. In previous work, Chung and Freese  have demonstrated that a null geodesic passing through an extra dimension can connect points in the lower-dimension which are causally disconnected with regard to null geodesics confined to the brane. They further speculated that such null geodesics could be used to solve the cosmological horizon problem, in place of inflation. However, they did not consider a realistic spacetime in their analysis. Next, Ishihara  has shown quite generally that the condition for the existence of “causality violating” null geodesics which pass through the anti-deSitter bulk is merely the deviation from a pure tension-like stress-energy tensor. That is, provided $`\rho _{brane}+p_{brane}>0`$, then the extrinsic curvature bends the brane concave towards the bulk, allowing for the existence of such null geodesics. These two results serve as the starting point for our investigation.

In this paper, we reduce the analysis of graviton propagation in an infinite, warped bulk into a practical form. Our principle result is a useful expression for what we will call the “gravitational horizon radius” in contrast to the standard, photon horizon radius in an FRW spacetime. This result will allow us to demonstrate that the horizon problem is not so easily solved: although light is supplanted by the graviton in determining the causal structure of the brane-world, the effect in a realistic scenario is small.

## II The spacetime

The starting point for our investigation is a five-dimensional spacetime, analogous to the Randall-Sundrum model, where we take the extra dimension to be infinite in extent.

### A The bulk

In fact, a generalization of the bulk spacetime is Schwarzschild - anti-deSitter, which we find convenient for this analysis. The metric can be written as

$$ds^2=f(R)dT^2+f(R)^1dR^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2,$$
(2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2`$ stands for the metric of maximally symmetric three-dimensional spaces ($`k=0`$ for a flat three-space, $`k=1`$ for a three-sphere, $`k=1`$ for a hyperbolic three-space), and with

$$f(R)=k+\frac{R^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{\mu }{R^2}.$$
(3)
Here, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the constant curvature radius of anti-deSitter and $`\mu `$ is the five-dimensional Schwarzschild-like mass. We will be interested primarily in the simplest case $`k=\mu =0`$. In addition, we take the bulk to be empty. This is not generally true, as the bulk is typically filled with other fields such as a supergravity multiplet, as well as other branes, in more realistic models. Nevertheless, provided these additional elements are minor, e.g. the energy due to the additional fields is negligible compared to the negative cosmological constant, and the additional branes are distant, then our assumption of an empty bulk should be reasonable.

### B The brane

We assume that the spacetime of the three-brane is homogeneous and isotropic. Therefore, the trajectory of the brane is simply determined by its position in the fifth dimension, i.e. by a function $`R_b(T)`$. In other terms, the problem of the motion of the brane in the bulk is analogous to the motion of a particle in a two-dimensional spacetime with coordinates $`R`$ and $`T`$.

It is useful to introduce the proper time $`t`$ for the brane, defined by

$$dt^2=f(R_b)dT^2\frac{dR_b^2}{f(R_b)},$$
(4)
so that

$$dT=\frac{\sqrt{f(R_b)+\dot{R}_b^2}}{f(R_b)}dt$$
(5)
where the dot indicates the derivative with respect to $`t`$. Then, the induced metric on the brane is simply

$$ds_{brane}^2=dt^2+R_b(t)^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2,$$
(6)
and $`R_b(t)a(t)`$ can be identified with the usual cosmological scale factor in the brane-world.

### C Null geodesics

Our purpose now is to compute the trajectories of null geodesics in the bulk spacetime, which start from some point within the brane. Let us consider such an initial point, A, as illustrated in Figure 1. It is convenient to introduce a spherical coordinate system $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ in the brane, which is centered on A, so that any signal can be described by a radial geodesic. Then, free to ignore the angular variables $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$, we are left with a three-dimensional problem with a metric

$$ds^2=f(R)dT^2+f(R)^1dR^2+R^2dr^2.$$
(7)
To compute the geodesic trajectories, it is convenient to resort to the Killing vectors of the metric, which are here $`\left(\frac{}{T}\right)^a`$ and $`\left(\frac{}{r}\right)^a`$. If one denotes $`k^a=(dx^a/d\lambda )`$ as the vector tangent to the geodesic, then the existence of these two Killing vectors implies that

$$k_T=f(R)\frac{dT}{d\lambda }=E$$
(8)
and

$$k_r=R^2\frac{dr}{d\lambda }=P$$
(9)
are constants of motion along the geodesics. Imposing moreover that $`k^a`$ is a null vector, one finds

$$\left(\frac{dR}{d\lambda }\right)^2=E^2P^2\frac{f(R)}{R^2}.$$
(10)
Combining (9) with (10), one easily gets

$$\left(\frac{E^2}{P^2}\frac{f}{R^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{dR}{R^2}=dr.$$
(11)
This is the seed of our result, as it relates distances on the three-brane to the radial coordinate in the five-dimensional space or equivalently the expansion scale factor on the brane. In the particular case $`k=\mu =0`$ it is straightforward to integrate to get

$$\frac{1}{R_A}\frac{1}{R}=\frac{E}{P}\alpha r,$$
(12)
with

$$\alpha \sqrt{1\frac{P^2}{E^2l^2}}.$$
(13)
Similarly, combining (8) with (10), one gets the trajectory of the geodesic along the time coordinate. The infinitesimal version is

$$\frac{dR}{f\sqrt{1\frac{P^2f}{E^2R^2}}}=dT.$$
(14)
Once more, in the case $`k=\mu =0`$ it can be integrated to yield the very simple relation

$$\frac{1}{R_A}\frac{1}{R}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2}\left(TT_A\right).$$
(15)
One can also relate directly $`T`$ to the radius $`r`$, according to

$$r=\frac{P}{E\mathrm{}^2}\left(TT_A\right).$$
(16)
Finally, it is possible to get rid of the parameters $`E`$ and $`P`$ to get the following equation for the geodesic

$$\left(\frac{1}{R_A}\frac{1}{R}\right)^2+\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^4}(TT_A)^2.$$
(17)
Let us now denote B as the point where the null geodesic starting from A again crosses the brane. The time difference $`T_BT_A`$ can be expressed, using (5), in terms of the brane proper time, i.e. the brane-world cosmic time:

$$T_BT_A=\mathrm{}_{t_A}^{t_B}\frac{dt}{a}\sqrt{1+\mathrm{}^2H^2}.$$
(18)
Then we see that between times $`t_A`$ and $`t_B`$, the null geodesic has traversed a comoving distance $`r_g`$:

$$r_g=\left(\left[_{t_A}^{t_B}\frac{dt}{a}\sqrt{1+\mathrm{}^2H^2}\right]^2\left[_{t_A}^{t_B}\frac{dt}{a}\mathrm{}H\right]^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
This equation represents the main result of this paper, a simple expression which gives the horizon radius for the causal propagation of gravitational signals between two points on the brane through the bulk. Hence, we call this the gravitational horizon radius.

The horizon radius for the causal propagation of luminous signals on the brane, as in the standard FRW cosmology, is given by

$$r_\gamma =_{t_A}^{t_B}\frac{dt}{a}$$
(20)
where the subscript indicates that this is the path traveled by photons and other fields confined to the brane manifold. We will be interested in cases in which $`r_g`$ and $`r_\gamma `$ are different. Note that, if our universe was static, i.e. $`H=0`$, which in the present model would correspond to the strict Randall-Sundrum configuration , or de Sitter, i.e. $`H>0`$ and constant, then the photon horizon and the bulk gravitational horizon would be exactly identical. (This agrees with the results of Ishihara , since $`\rho _{brane}+p_{brane}=0`$.)

## III Causal Distances

There are two interesting regimes for the evaluation of $`r_g`$, depending on the ratio between the Hubble radius and the five-dimensional length scale. We examine in turn the two regimes.

### A The low energy regime: $`\mathrm{}H1`$

This regime corresponds to a universe governed by the standard FRW equation. In this case it is simple to manipulate the integrals in (19,20) using $`dt/a=da/(a^2H)`$ to obtain the ratio of the gravitational to photon distances traveled by a signal propagating between times $`t_A`$ and $`t_B`$. Expanding in terms of the small parameter $`\mathrm{}H`$, we obtain

$`r_g/r_\gamma `$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{}H_B)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+3w}{5+3w}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_B}{a_A}}\right)^{(5+3w)/2}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1(a_A/a_B)^{(5+3w)/2}}{1(a_A/a_B)^{(1+3w)/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+3w)(5+3w)[1(a_A/a_B)]^2}{4[1(a_A/a_B)^{(1+3w)/2}]^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_A}{a_B}}\right)^{(1+3w)/2}\right]`$ (22)
$``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{}H_B)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+3w}{5+3w}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_B}{a_A}}\right)^{(5+3w)/2}`$ (23)
where $`w=P/\rho `$ is the equation of state of the background matter on the brane (e.g. $`w=1/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ in the radiation, matter eras), and the last approximation is valid for $`w>1/3`$ and $`a_Ba_A`$.

Let us consider a signal which would reach us now, at $`t_B=t_0`$. Then the above ratio reduces to

$$r_g/r_\gamma 1+\frac{1}{10}(\mathrm{}H_0)^2\left(1+z\right)^{5/2},$$
(24)
where $`H_0`$ is the present Hubble parameter, and $`z`$ the redshift of the source emitting the signal, which we have assumed to be in the matter-dominated era. We see that the magnitude of the time delay depends on the curvature radius, $`\mathrm{}`$, of the 5-dimensional anti-deSitter spacetime. However, based on precision tests of the gravitational force law, the size of the extra dimension must be less than $`1`$ mm , so that $`\mathrm{}H_010^{29}`$. We conclude that, although the time delay increases with the redshift of the source, it is not enough to compensate for the extremely small factor $`(\mathrm{}H_0)^2`$ in order to obtain a significant cosmological time delay at present.

### B The high energy regime: $`\mathrm{}H1`$

This regime corresponds to the early Universe, for energy densities $`\rho \sigma M_{Pl}^2/\mathrm{}^2M_{(5)}^6/M_{Pl}^2`$. Interestingly, the leading contribution to the gravitational distance is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, so that the ratio becomes

$$\frac{r_g}{r_\gamma }\left[_A^B\frac{da}{a^2H^2}_A^B\frac{da}{a^2}\right]^{1/2}/_A^B\frac{da}{a^2H}.$$
(25)
At these energy scales the non-standard cosmic evolution of equation (1) applies, with $`H^2\rho ^2`$ (e.g. radiation, with an equation of state $`w=1/3`$ drives $`Ha^4`$). Therefore we find

$$\frac{r_g}{r_\gamma }\left[\frac{(2+3w)^2}{(5+6w)}\frac{\left(a_B/a_A1\right)\left(1(a_A/a_B)^{5+6w}\right)}{\left(1(a_A/a_B)^{2+3w}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{2+3w}{\sqrt{5+6w}}\sqrt{\frac{a_B}{a_A}},$$
(26)
where the last approximation is valid for $`w>2/3`$ and $`a_Ba_A`$. The ratio $`r_g/r_\gamma `$ thus goes to infinity when $`a_A`$ goes to zero. However, there is a limit to the applicability of this result, since there is a lower bound on the time for which the physics of this scenario is valid. In standard cosmology, this limiting time is the Planck time. In a model with extra-dimensions, the limiting time is related to the fundamental mass scale of the theory, which is here $`M_{(5)}=(M_{pl}^2/\mathrm{})^{1/3}`$ (with $`M_{(5)}10^8`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{}1`$ mm). Indeed, the theory will be invalid for energy densities in the brane higher than $`M_{(5)}^4`$, which corresponds to a cut-off Hubble parameter $`HM_{(5)}`$. As a result of this constraint, the largest ratio for the gravitational to luminous horizon radii is obtained with $`t_B\mathrm{}`$ and $`t_AM_{(5)}`$, which yields

$$\frac{r_g}{r_\gamma }\sqrt{\frac{a_B}{a_A}}\left(\frac{H_A}{H_B}\right)^{1/8}\left(M_{(5)}\mathrm{}\right)^{1/8}\left(\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(27)
where we have assumed a non-standard, radiation-dominated era. With the lowest possible value $`M_{(5)}10^8`$ GeV, this gives a maximum ratio $`r_g/r_\gamma 10^3`$.

Now we turn to the classic horizon problem. The ratio of the horizon radius at the present time $`t_0`$ to the horizon radius at some early time $`t_B`$ is given by

$$r_{\gamma 0}/r_{\gamma B}=\frac{^{t_0}𝑑t/a}{^{t_B}𝑑t/a}\frac{a_B}{a_0}\frac{H_B}{H_0}.$$
(28)
Since this is a standard textbook problem, it is sufficient to observe that $`r_{\gamma 0}/r_{\gamma B}>1`$ is the essence of the horizon problem. For $`t_B\mathrm{}`$, one finds that

$$r_{\gamma 0}/r_{\gamma B}\frac{a_B}{a_0}\frac{H_B}{H_0}\left[(\mathrm{}H_0)^2(1+z_{eq})\right]^{1/4}.$$
(29)
For $`\mathrm{}1`$ mm, this gives $`r_{\gamma 0}/r_{\gamma B}10^{14}`$. It is thus clear that the $`10^3`$ ratio between the bulk gravitational horizon and the usual horizon is quite insufficient to account for the horizon problem. Even relaxing the bound on $`\mathrm{}`$ due to gravitational experiments today (by considering an effective bulk cosmological constant that varies with time so that $`\mathrm{}`$ contracts on millimeter scales after nucleosynthesis) would not be sufficient. Indeed, the constraint on $`\mathrm{}`$, or $`M_{(5)}`$, would then be the nucleosynthesis constraint, which can be expressed by the condition

$$\sigma ^{1/4}<1\mathrm{MeV},$$
(30)
implying a minimum mass $`M_{(5)}10^4`$ GeV (since $`\sigma M_{(5)}^6/M_{Pl}^2`$). The ratio $`r_g/r_\gamma `$ given by (27) can then be increased by one order of magnitude up to $`10^4`$, while the ratio $`r_{\gamma 0}/r_{\gamma B}`$ can be decreased to the value $`10^8`$. Still, this is not enough to solve the horizon problem.

## IV Analysis

We have shown that shortcuts through the fifth dimension, with the gravitational horizon radius given by equation (19), are not short enough to solve the classical horizon problem. We have furthermore argued that a time evolving bulk energy density, which would permit $`\mathrm{}`$ to start out large and decrease with time, cannot fully solve the problem due to other constraints.

We caution that our results are valid strictly for the case of an empty bulk spacetime with a single, infinite, extra dimension as described in this paper. Motivated by the Randall-Sundrum scenario and other work on brane-world cosmology, this case has added appeal due to the simplicity of the geodesic paths. Naturally, one may ask how these results apply to more general cases. Since the shortcut is a consequence of the warping of space in the extra dimension, there is no shortcut for compact, flat extra dimensions. We have not explored the case of more than one extra warped dimension (we are unaware of any such models in cosmology), though such scenarios, with additional bulk fields, might be more realistic in the context of certain particle physics models. Once the spacetime metric is known, one should repeat the procedure described in this paper.

Returning to our specific results, the difference between the gravitational and photon horizons, may be enough to provide for some very interesting physics. Specifically, gravitational effects on the brane propagate outside the light cone, as illustrated in Figure 2, due to the shortcuts through the fifth dimension, forcing a redefinition of past and future causal domains. The communication of gravitational effects, both radiative and non-radiative degrees of freedom, over length scales $`r_gr_\gamma `$ beyond the influence of fields on the brane has not yet been investigated. While we cannot comment decisively, this seems to have an important bearing on at least two problems: the initial conditions for inflation, and phase transitions in the early Universe.

The inflaton must be homogeneous and potential-dominated over a region larger than the horizon volume in order to initiate inflationary expansion. (See  for details.) If information about the gradients or inhomogeneities in the inflaton field are carried by gravity, then correlations in the inflaton can arise on length scales $`r_gr_\gamma `$. (Of course, it has already been pointed out that correlations can exist on superhorizon scales , but the amplitude must decay .) The outcome depends on whether the gravitational interaction leads to dissipation or amplification of inhomogeneities.

The rate at which a phase transition proceeds in the expanding Universe, and the formation of topological defects through the Kibble mechanism hinges on the relative sizes of the correlation length of the order parameter and the causal length scale. If information about the fields involved in the phase transition, such as local fluctuations in the energy density, are carried by gravity, this could affect the rate of the phase transition, and the rate at which topological defects are formed.

We also pause to mention that other analyses of phase transitions and challenges to inflation (specifically, the flatness problem) have been carried out in the context of the brane-world .

Finally, we note that it is unlikely that shortcuts due to a local gravitational distortion of the brane have an observable effect. Assuming that the ratio $`\mathrm{}/\lambda `$ plays a similar role as $`\mathrm{}H`$ in determining the size of the shortcut, where $`\lambda =c(r^3/GM)^{1/2}10^{13}`$ cm for the Earth, then the effect is negligible.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Dan Chung for useful comments. RRC thanks the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris for hospitality, where this work was initiated.