text:
# IC 10: More evidence that it is a blue compact dwarf

## 1 Introduction

IC 10 has long been recognized as a peculiar object (Hubble Hubble1936 (1936)), and is now considered the Local Group’s representative of a starburst galaxy (van den Bergh vandenBergh2000 (2000)). As we will show, IC 10 may very well be the nearest example of a blue compact dwarf galaxy (BCD). Certainly, its surface brightness is similar to that seen in BCDs once we account for the foreground reddening. Among Local Group dwarf galaxies, IC 10 has the highest surface density of WR stars and the highest current rate of star formation (Mateo Mateo1998 (1998)). The presence of so many WR stars and the high H$`\alpha `$ luminosity emphasize that IC 10 is undergoing a strong burst of star formation that began at least 10 Myr ago. Observations of 21-cm emission from H i reveal that IC 10 consists of an inner disk embedded in an extended, complex, counter-rotating envelope (Shostak & Skillman ShostakSkillman1989 (1989)), and leads Wilcots & Miller (WilcotsMiller1998 (1998)) to conclude that IC 10 is still in its formative stage. These H i observations emphasize the youth of the current star formation episode, for there is a notable lack of interstellar medium structures that are attributable to supernovae (Wilcots & Miller WilcotsMiller1998 (1998)). Several studies of the stellar populations in IC 10 have revealed the existence of young, intermediate-age, and old stellar populations (Massey & Armandroff MasseyArmandroff1995 (1995); Sakai et al. Sakaietal1999 (1999); Borissova et al. Borissovaetal2000 (2000)). However, with the exception of the very recent star formation, very little is known of the history of star formation in IC 10, and nothing is known of the star formation history outside of the star-forming region.

All optical studies of IC 10 are hampered by the large foreground reddening due to its position near the plane of our galaxy $`(l,b)=(119^{},3^{})`$. Our objective here is to reconsider the nature of IC 10 on the bases of its photometric properties and a new determination of its foreground reddening. We investigate its foreground reddening using spectroscopy of eleven of its H ii regions. We find that IC 10 should be considered a BCD instead of a typical dwarf irregular galaxy.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

### 2.1 Spectroscopy

The spectroscopic observations were carried out at three different observatories. The details of the observations are listed in Table 1. At Steward Observatory, the spectra were obtained with the Boller & Chivens (B&C) grating spectrograph at the telescope’s Cassegrain focus. The spectrograph slit covered $`2.\mathrm{}5\times 4.\mathrm{}1`$ on the sky and was oriented at a position angle of 10° (from north towards east). At the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional in San Pedro Mártir (SPM), Baja California, México, the spectra were obtained with a similar B&C spectrograph at the telescope’s Cassegrain focus. The spectrograph slit covered $`2.\mathrm{}2\times 5\mathrm{}`$ on the sky and was oriented and positioned very similarly to the Steward observations. At the Observatorio Astrofísico Guillermo Haro (GH), Sonora, México, the observations were obtained using two techniques. First, we obtained long slit spectroscopy using a B&C spectrograph at the telescope’s Cassegrain focus. The slit covered $`2.\mathrm{}5\times 3\mathrm{}`$ on the sky and was oriented east-west. Second, we obtained multi-object spectroscopy with the LFOSC imaging spectrograph, which uses a transmission grism as the dispersing element (Zickgraf et al. Zickgrafetal1997 (1997)). Objects were selected for spectroscopy using focal plane masks constructed from direct images obtained with the spectrograph. Holes of 3″ in size were used for the objects of interest. Any object could be selected provided that it was not aligned with another in declination, for the dispersion axis was oriented east-west. The standard stars that were observed in each case are listed in Table 1.

The reduction of these spectra was carried out using the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF)111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomical Observatories, which is operated by the Associated Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract to the National Science Foundation. software package (specifically the specred package). First, the bias images were combined and their signature subtracted from all of the images. Next, pixel-to-pixel variations were removed using spectra of the internal lamp. For the long slit spectra, sky emission for each H ii region was subtracted by identifying a neighbouring area without emission. For the multi-object spectra, two adjacent holes were always used, one for the object (H ii region or standard star) and the other for the sky, which ensured the same spectral range for each object-sky pair. The standard star spectra were obtained using the masks cut for the H ii regions. The spectra of all objects were calibrated in wavelength using the arc lamp spectra obtained at the same time as the observations. Finally, the flux calibration was made using the observations of the spectrophotometric standard stars listed in Table 1 to obtain the instrumental sensitivity function.

### 2.2 Photometry

The optical photometry of foreground fields towards IC 10 was obtained at the Bulgarian National Astronomical Observatory (Rozhen). The CCD had a plate scale of $`0.\mathrm{}33\mathrm{pixel}^1`$, yielding a $`5.\mathrm{}6\times 5.\mathrm{}6`$ field of view. The seeing was $`1.\mathrm{}2`$ under stable and very good photometric conditions. Three selected fields towards IC 10 were observed, and are shown in Fig. 1. Sets of $`UBVR`$ images were obtained for Fields I and II, and a $`BVR`$ set was obtained for Field III. Landolt (Landolt1992 (1992)) standards were taken before and after all observations. The IRAF data reduction package was used to carry out the basic image reductions. The stellar photometry of the frames was performed with the point-spread function fitting routine ALLSTAR available in DAOPHOT (Stetson Stetson1993 (1993)). Complete details of the data reduction and analysis may be found in Georgiev et al. (Georgievetal1999 (1999)).

## 3 A new WR star

The Steward spectrum of HL111c (Fig. 2) contained broad He ii$`\lambda `$4686 emission indicating the presence of at least one WR star (WN specifically since there is no C iv emission at 4650Å). This feature is absent in the SPM spectrum, undoubtedly due to the slightly different placement of the slit for the two observations. In accordance with the stronger continuum expected due to the WR star, the equivalent widths of all of the emission lines are smaller in the Steward spectrum. The He ii$`\lambda `$4686 emission has an equivalent width of 3Å. Given the correlation between He ii$`\lambda `$4686 and H$`\beta `$ line intensities in WN stars, we expect an H$`\beta `$ equivalent width of order 0.6Å in emission (Conti et al. Contietal1983 (1983)).

## 4 Line intensities

Tables 2-4 list the raw line intensities and reddenings for the H ii regions observed in IC 10. The line intensities were measured using locally-developed software (McCall et al. McCalletal1985 (1985)). The errors quoted for each line intensity include contributions from the fit to the line itself, from the fit to the reference line, and from the noise in the continuum for both the line and reference line. Table 2 also includes the electron temperature computed from the \[O iii\] lines and the corresponding oxygen abundance, calculated using the prescription given in Richer (Richer1993 (1993)) but adopting an electron density of $`100\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

To compute the reddening, we first corrected the Balmer lines for underlying stellar absorption according to

$$F_c(\lambda )=F_o(\lambda )\times \left(1+\frac{W_{\mathrm{abs}}}{W_\lambda }\right)/\left(1+\frac{W_{\mathrm{abs}}}{W_{\mathrm{H}\beta }}\right),$$
(1)
where $`F_o(\lambda )`$ and $`F_c(\lambda )`$ are the observed and corrected fluxes and $`W_{\mathrm{abs}}`$, $`W_\lambda `$, and $`W_{\mathrm{H}\beta }`$ are the equivalent widths of the underlying stellar absorption, of the emission line in question, and of H$`\beta `$, respectively. In all cases, except for the Steward spectrum of HL111c, we used $`W_{\mathrm{abs}}=1.9`$Å (McCall et al. McCalletal1985 (1985)). Actually, our H$`\alpha `$-based reddenings would not be changed significantly for any $`W_{\mathrm{abs}}<5`$Å. For the Steward spectrum of HL111c, $`W_{\mathrm{abs}}`$ was required to be less than 0.2Å in order to derive an H$`\gamma `$-based reddening that is consistent with the H$`\alpha `$\- and H$`\gamma `$-based reddenings from the SPM spectrum, i.e., there is very little remaining absorption once one accounts for the H$`\beta `$ emission from the WR star (0.6Å). The values given in Table 2 were calculated using $`W_{\mathrm{abs}}=0`$Å. Though an upper limit of 0.8Å is considerably smaller than the typical Balmer absorption found by McCall et al. (McCalletal1985 (1985)), it is not unreasonable for a very young cluster (Santos et al. Santosetal1995 (1995)).

We used these corrected line intensities to calculate the reddening via

$$\mathrm{log}\frac{F(\lambda )}{F(\mathrm{H}\beta )}=\mathrm{log}\frac{I(\lambda )}{I(\mathrm{H}\beta )}0.4E(BV)\left(A_1(\lambda )A_1(\mathrm{H}\beta )\right),$$
(2)
where $`F(\lambda )`$ and $`I(\lambda )`$ are the observed and theoretical emission-line fluxes at wavelength $`\lambda `$, $`E(BV)`$ is the reddening, and $`A_1(\lambda )=A(\lambda )/E(BV)`$. Values of $`A_1(\lambda )`$ were derived from Fitzpatrick’s (Fitzpatrick1999 (1999)) monochromatic reddening law parametrized with a ratio of total-to-selective extinction of 3.041. This parametrization gives a law that delivers a true ratio of total-to-selective extinction equal to 3.07 when integrated over the spectrum of Vega (McCall & Armour McCallArmour2000 (2000)). For all of the H$`\alpha `$\- and H$`\gamma `$-based reddenings of H ii regions in IC 10, we adopted $`I(\mathrm{H}\alpha )/I(\mathrm{H}\beta )=2.86`$ and $`I(\mathrm{H}\gamma )/I(\mathrm{H}\beta )=0.468`$, respectively, appropriate for an electron density and temperature of $`100\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`10^4\mathrm{K}`$, respectively (Osterbrock Osterbrock1989 (1989)).

Several external tests indicate that our flux calibrations, and hence our reddenings, are secure within the quoted errors. The $`\mathrm{H}\gamma `$ and H$`\delta `$ line intensities from the Steward and SPM long slit spectra (Tables 2 and 3) are identical within errors for all objects in common. (Blueward of H$`\delta `$, the sensitivity of the SPM data drops rapidly.) All of the line intensities for HL111c from both datasets agree with those observed by Lequeux et al. (Lequeuxetal1979 (1979)). For the Cananea multi-object spectra (Table 4), the line intensities and reddening we derive for HL45 are identical to those found by Lequeux et al. (Lequeuxetal1979 (1979)). There are no extant data with which we might compare our Cananea long slit data (Table 4). As we show below, however, the reddenings we derive for HL77 and HL111d+e are consistent with those for the other H ii regions. We therefore conclude that our flux calibrations and the resulting reddenings are not affected by any serious systematic errors.

## 5 The foreground reddening towards IC 10

The minimum reddening towards an H ii region in IC 10 is a first estimate of the foreground reddening towards this galaxy. The minimum value in Tables 2-4 is $`0.68\pm 0.02\mathrm{mag}`$ for the H ii region HL111c. (Throughout we use H$`\alpha `$-based reddenings when available.) This value is substantially lower than the values found in the literature, commonly $`0.851.15\mathrm{mag}`$ (cf. Sect. 6). The reddening towards HL111c is all the more surprising since this H ii region likely suffers some reddening due to dust within IC 10.

A second estimate of the foreground reddening toward IC 10 may be obtained from a plot of the reddening for each H ii region as a function of the column density of H i within IC 10 along that line of sight (McCall McCall1989 (1989)). The H i in the central part of IC 10 is in a disk (Shostak & Skillman ShostakSkillman1989 (1989); Wilcots & Miller WilcotsMiller1998 (1998)) and the H ii regions we observed are necessarily embedded within it. Thus, in Fig. 3, we plot the reddening as a function of half of the H i column density along the line of sight within IC 10 using the Wilcots & Miller (WilcotsMiller1998 (1998)) column density map (11″ beam; their Fig. 2). The adopted column densities are given in Tables 2-4 and were determined from a surface brightness map provided by B. Miller. As can be seen, there is a good correlation. The straight line is an unweighted least squares fit to all of the data points. This fit extrapolates to a reddening of $`0.77\pm 0.07\mathrm{mag}`$ at zero column density. We adopt this value as our second estimate for the foreground reddening toward IC 10.

As a test of this method, in Fig. 3 we also plot the reddenings and H i column densities for the H ii regions in the SMC from Caplan et al. (Caplanetal1996 (1996)). We excluded their data for N84c and N88, which deviate most strongly. The fit to the remaining points yields a foreground reddening of $`0.02\pm 0.03\mathrm{mag}`$. The Schlegel et al. (Schlegeletal1998 (1998)) maps indicate reddenings of $`0.030.05\mathrm{mag}`$ in the vicinity of the SMC. Likewise, McNamara & Feltz (McNamaraFeltz1980 (1980)) found a foreground reddening of $`0.02\mathrm{mag}`$. That our intercept is in good agreement with these values implies that the H i is reliably tracking the dust content. Thus, the intercept appears to yield the true foreground reddening.

The scatter about the fitted line for IC 10 in Fig. 3, $`0.13\mathrm{mag}`$, is likely primarily due to variations in foreground dust within the Milky Way. This scatter could be produced by fluctuations of order 10% of the mean foreground H i column density, $`6.4\times 10^{21}\mathrm{atoms}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Cohen Cohen1979 (1979)), supposing the gas-to-dust ratio found by Bohlin et al. (Bohlinetal1978 (1978)). If due entirely to dust within IC 10, the scatter would require differences in the depths of the H ii regions within IC 10’s disk of order $`\pm 26\%`$ of the total column density (Shostak & Skillman ShostakSkillman1989 (1989)) or might be due to unresolved dust clouds. Regardless of the origin of the scatter, its magnitude is easily accounted for and its effect upon the intercept in Fig. 3 should be minimal by virtue of our large number of sight lines.

Given IC 10’s low galactic latitude, $`b=3^{}`$, it was not removed from the Schlegel et al. (Schlegeletal1998 (1998)) reddening maps. Indeed, at the position of IC 10, there is a feature of roughly the size expected for IC 10. Although the area around IC 10 in these maps is very complex, the foreground reddening implied is $`E(BV)=0.751.00\mathrm{mag}`$, in excellent agreement with our spectroscopy of IC 10’s H ii regions. Within IC 10, the reddening maps indicate $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{max}}=1.60\mathrm{mag}`$.

de Vaucouleurs & Ables (deVaucouleursAbles1965 (1965)) deduce a foreground reddening of $`E(BV)=0.87\pm 0.05\mathrm{mag}`$ by comparing IC 10’s apparent colours with those for unreddened dwarf irregulars. If IC 10’s colours are atypical of dwarf irregulars (Sect. 7), this method will over-estimate the reddening.

Finally, in Fig. 4, we present colour-colour diagrams based upon our $`BVR`$ photometry for the foreground stars along the line of sight towards IC 10 in Fields I, II, and III (Fig. 1). We fit the colours of main sequence stars (Bessell Bessell1990 (1990)) to our $`(BV)(VR)`$ colour-colour diagrams to obtain a mean reddening for the stars in all three fields of $`E(BV)=0.37\pm 0.06\mathrm{mag}`$, with no evidence for significant variation between them. These foreground stars will not sample the full column density of gas and dust towards IC 10, so this estimate of the foreground reddening should be interpreted as a lower limit to the reddening towards IC 10.

Considering the above evidence as well as that to be presented in the following section, we adopt the intercept in Fig. 3, $`E(BV)=0.77\pm 0.07\mathrm{mag}`$, as the most reliable estimate of the foreground reddening toward IC 10 since it is based upon many independent reddening estimates along individual lines of sight.

## 6 Internal dust

Fig. 3 clearly implies that IC 10 contains a considerable amount of internal dust. The slope found differs from zero at the 95% confidence limit, despite the scatter. Extant studies of IC 10’s different stellar populations corroborate the existence of internal dust. Massey & Armandroff (MasseyArmandroff1995 (1995)) obtain $`E(BV)=0.80\pm 0.05\mathrm{mag}`$ and $`0.75\mathrm{mag}`$ for WR and blue plume stars, respectively. Sakai et al. (Sakaietal1999 (1999)) obtain $`E(BV)=1.16\pm 0.08\mathrm{mag}`$ and $`0.85\mathrm{mag}`$ for Cepheids and RGB stars, respectively. Borissova et al. (Borissovaetal2000 (2000)) find $`E(BV)=1.05\pm 0.10\mathrm{mag}`$ and $`1.8\pm 0.2\mathrm{mag}`$ for red supergiant and Br$`\gamma `$ sources, respectively. Generally, younger stellar populations suffer greater reddening. The exceptions are the blue plume and WR reddenings, but these are likely skewed towards the lower limits for these stellar populations since the least reddened stars in these populations are the easiest to study. Curiously, the reddening found for Br$`\gamma `$ sources is similar to the maximum reddening in the Schlegel et al. (Schlegeletal1998 (1998)) maps. All of these reddenings match or exceed our foreground value, implying the reality of significant internal dust.

The slope of the relation in Fig. 3 is $`E(BV)/N(H\text{i})=(1.7\pm 0.8)\times 10^{22}\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, only slightly less than that found for the Milky Way (Knapp & Kerr KnappKerr1974 (1974); Bohlin et al. Bohlinetal1978 (1978); Burstein & Heiles BursteinHeiles1978 (1978)).

## 7 The nature of IC 10

In light of IC 10’s foreground reddening, we now consider its photometric properties, and, in particular, whether it should be considered a typical dwarf irregular. We summarize some of IC 10’s relevant properties in Table 5.

There is no modern surface photometry for IC 10. The best available photoelectric aperture photometry is that of de Vaucouleurs & Ables (deVaucouleursAbles1965 (1965)), who obtained the results listed in Table 5. Since their data for their smallest apertures is uncertain, we concentrate on their effective aperture values, i.e., the values for an aperture containing one half of IC 10’s total luminosity.

We adopt the distance modulus from Sakai et al. (Sakaietal1999 (1999)), which is based upon $`VIJHK`$ photometry of Cepheids, incorporates a self-consistent reddening, and is corroborated by that found by Borissova et al. (Borissovaetal2000 (2000)).

The derived photometric parameters were calculated as follows:

$`B_T^0=B_TA_B`$,

$`(BV)^0=(BV)E(BV)`$,

$`(UB)^0=(UB)E(UB)`$,

$`\mu _e^0(B)=\mu _e(B)A_B`$,

$`\mu _e^0(V)=\mu _e^0(B)(BV)^0`$

where

$`A_B=(1+R_V)E(BV)`$,

and

$`E(UB)/E(BV)=0.70+0.05E(BV)`$

(FitzGerald FitzGerald1970 (1970)).

The colours we derive for IC 10 are rather different from those of dwarf irregulars (de Vaucouleurs et al. deVaucouleursetal1981 (1981)). Although its $`(UB)`$ colour is similar to that of dwarf irregulars, its $`(BV)`$ colour is much too red. Instead, IC 10’s colours are very similar to those of Markarian galaxies (Huchra Huchra1977 (1977)).

The surface brightnesses we derive for IC 10 are very high! Admittedly, the higher reddening values mentioned earlier imply even higher surface brightnesses, but we believe our foreground reddening is more reliable and the photometric parameters we derive therefore more reliable. Patterson & Thuan (PattersonThuan1996 (1996)) find that the central surface brightness for typical dwarf irregulars is fainter than $`22.7\mathrm{mag}/\mathit{}\mathrm{}`$ in the $`B`$ band, nearly two magnitudes fainter than the mean surface brightness within IC 10’s effective radius. In fact, IC 10’s effective surface brightness is brighter than the canonical central surface brightness for spiral galaxy disks (Freeman Freeman1970 (1970)).

Only when we consider more actively star-forming galaxies do we find surface brightnesses similar to that of IC 10. Fig. 5 illustrates this graphically. Here, we plot the mean effective surface brightness as a function of absolute magnitude, both in the $`B`$ band, for various samples of dwarf galaxies. IC 10’s effective surface brightness is typical of that of BCDs, but at least two magnitudes brighter than that of typical dwarf irregulars. Quantitatively, IC 10’s effective surface brightness is similar to or brighter than the mean for the galaxy samples plotted in Fig. 5 or of the mean for the dwarfs in Telles & Terlevich’s (TellesTerlevich1997 (1997)) sample of H ii galaxies. IC 10’s effective radius is typical of galaxies in any of these samples.

Massey & Armandroff (MasseyArmandroff1995 (1995)) found at least 15 WR stars in IC 10. We have located another in our Steward spectrum of HL111c. Thus, at least 16 WR stars are known within the $`7\mathrm{}\times 5\mathrm{}.5`$ extent of the optically-bright part of the galaxy. Given IC 10’s distance of $`661\mathrm{kpc}`$ (Sakai et al. Sakaietal1999 (1999)), its surface density of WR stars is then $`11.2\mathrm{kpc}^2`$. This surface density exceeds that found in discrete centres of active star formation in local galaxies by at least a factor of two (Massey & Johnson MasseyJohnson1998 (1998)), even though it applies to the entire area of the optically-bright part of the galaxy. Thus, there can be little doubt of the exceptional strength of IC 10’s recent episode of star formation.

IC 10’s $`12\mu \mathrm{m}/25\mu \mathrm{m}`$ flux ratio is consistent with its dust emission being dominated by a strong starburst component (IRAS PSC PSC (1988); Helou Helou1986 (1986)). The $`60\mu \mathrm{m}/100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ flux ratio is less conclusive because of the uncertainty in the $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ flux.

In summary, IC 10 is not a typical dwarf irregular. Given the foreground reddening we obtain, which is lower than most of the values that have been suggested, its surface brightness is typical of that found for dwarf starburst galaxies. The same is true of the scale length of the optically-bright part of the galaxy. That the entire surface area of the optically-bright part of the galaxy has a surface density of WR stars double that in active centres of massive star formation observed elsewhere leaves no doubt that IC 10 is undergoing an intense starburst on a large scale. Thus, IC 10 should be considered to be a blue compact dwarf galaxy (BCD).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Margarita Valdéz Gutiérrez for her help in obtaining the telescope time at the Observatorio Astrofísico Guillermo Haro. We thank Bryan Miller for allowing us the use of his H i map in constructing Fig. 3. We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. MGR thanks Stanley Kurtz and Robin Fingerhut for very helpful discussions. MGR thanks the staff of the Observatorio Astrofísico Guillermo Haro for their hospitality and Raúl González and Gerardo Miramon for their able assistance with the observations. AB acknowledges a Mutis graduate fellowship from the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional. MR, MGR, and AB acknowledge financial support from CONACYT project 27984-E and DGAPA project IN122298. Support for JB and RK was provided by a Bulgarian National Science Foundation grant under contract No. F-812/1998 with the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Sciences. MLM and RLK thank the staff of the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional in San Pedro Mártir for its help with the observations and gratefully acknowledge the continuing support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. MLM thanks the staff of the Steward Observatory for its assistance with observations. LG acknowledges financial support from DGAPA project IN113999.


format: text

text:
# Nature and number of distinct phases in the random field Ising model

## I Introduction

The random-field Ising model (RFIM) is one of the simplest problems that one can define theoretically in which disorder is present and plays a significant role in the physics. This problem gains further interest since a related random system which may be realized experimentally—namely, the site-diluted antiferromagnet in a uniform field—may be mapped onto the RFIM. The RFIM has been subjected to considerable study, both experimental and theoretical, for over 25 years . Much effort has been focussed on the nature of the phase diagram. It is known rigorously that, for low temperatures and low random fields, the ferromagnetic (FM) phase found in the pure system survives for $`d3`$ (where $`d`$ is the space dimension). However most other questions that one can ask about this system for $`d=3`$ (hence beyond the range of validity of mean-field theory) remain unanswered. For example, is the phase transition first-order or continuous? Is there a tricritical point, separating a critical line from a line of first-order transitions? Does the answer to these questions, and/or the universality class of the critical line, depend on the distribution of random fields? And finally: is there a third, spin-glass (SG) phase, in addition to (and likely separating) the FM and paramagnetic (PM) phases?

In this work we focus on this last question. Early numerical studies using mean-field theory  defined a nonequilibrium “domain state”, characterized by various forms of irreversible behavior, of a similar nature to the irreversible behavior seen experimentally. This irreversibility region, found between the PM and FM phases, gives (at most) hints of the presence of an equilibrium glassy phase. Stronger arguments for a glassy phase were made by de Almeida and Bruinsma , who showed that, although mean-field theory in strictly infinite dimension gives replica symmetry , in large dimensions there is a stable glassy phase with replica symmetry breaking (RSB). This result is supported by the work of Mezard and Young  and of Mezard and Monasson , who showed that there is a SG phase with RSB in the limit of a large number of spin components, and by Guagnelli et al , who showed the presence of multiple solutions to the mean-field equations in $`d=3`$, at a temperature well above the FM ordering temperature. Subsequently, Brezin and de Dominicis  developed a renormalization-group approach for a replicated theory, and argued for RSB on the basis of a loss of stability of the fixed point. Finally, we mention exact numerical zero-temperature studies  which show the appearance of extensive entropy in the ground state at the point where FM order disappears.

Thus there are good reasons to consider the possibility of a SG phase for the RFIM, located between the FM and PM phases, and likely (see ) more easily detected at low $`T`$ and large random field. It is also of great interest to test for the presence of RSB in this phase. To date, conclusive evidence for RSB is confined to theoretical models in infinite dimension; to confirm RSB in a three-dimensional problem—which can be studied experimentally—would be an important step.

In earlier work  we have developed a method for detecting RSB in finite-size numerical studies. The method relies on examining the eigenvalues of the spin-spin correlation matrix. We showed that, in the limit of large number of spins $`N`$, there are multiple $`O(N)`$ eigenvalues of this matrix, if  and only if  there is RSB. This was clearly confirmed by Monte-Carlo (MC) studies of the infinite-ranged Sherrington-Kirkpatrick problem, which is known to have RSB. Unfortunately, this method gave no evidence for RSB in a finite-(4)-dimensional version of the same problem.

We apply the same method to the 3-dimensional RFIM in this work. We note that previous numerical studies  of phase transitions of the RFIM are almost entirely confined to two regions: either relatively high temperatures and low random fields, or zero temperature. However, based on the location of the irreversibility regions in phase space, and on the results of Ref. , one is most likely to find a glassy phase by looking in the high-field, low-$`T`$ region; this we do here.

Our results, in short, are as follows. We find some, rather ambiguous, evidence for RSB in the behavior of the spin-spin eigenvalues, over a small range of field, at fixed, low temperature. On either side of this region we see clearly the PM and FM phases. Thus this narrow region is either the sought-for glassy phase, or simply the finite-size effects of the phase transition itself. Examination of the order parameter function $`P(q)`$ enables us to rather conclusively rule out the former explanation in favor of the latter: a FM/PM phase boundary. Finally, we see at the transition the discontinuity (or near-discontinuity ) in magnetization that has been seen in many other studies, both at zero  and at higher  temperature.

We organize the rest of this paper as follows. In Sec. II we briefly explain the general technique of correlation matrix spectral analysis introduced in our previous work . In Sec. III we present the procedures and results of the numerical analysis of the bi-modal RFIM model in a cross-section of the phase diagram. Finally in Sec. IV we present our conclusions.

## II correlation matrix spectral analysis

In considering frustrated and disordered systems such as spin glasses, one is forced to broaden the concept of ‘ordering’ in describing the frozen phase. The key point, as recognized long ago by Edwards and Anderson , is simply the freezing itself: long-time averages become nonzero. One can detect this freezing through correlation functions: if the freezing is long-ranged (i.e., truly a distinct phase), then so are the correlations. Viewing the correlation function as a matrix, one finds that ordering (freezing) appears in the spectrum of the correlation matrix as an extensive (which we will also call ‘large’) eigenvalue . Thus examination of this spectrum allows one to detect ordering/freezing, while completely avoiding any need to guess the nature of the ordering (i.e., the eigenfunction corresponding to the large eigenvalue).

For Ising systems, a suitable correlation function is

$`C_{ij}S_iS_j;`$

this is a real symmetric positive semi-definite matrix with trace equal to the system volume $`N`$. In the frozen phase at least one of the eigenvalues of $`C_{ij}`$ is extensive, i.e., of $`O(N)`$. For a simple Ising ferromagnet without quenched disorder, freezing leads to the partitioning of spin configuration space into two disjoint regions ($`+`$ and $``$); each is frozen, and each has the same thermodynamic weight since they are related by a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, namely spin inversion. Since $`C_{ij}`$ is invariant under this symmetry, the two (symmetry breaking) frozen states give only a single large eigenvalue.

In the case of replica symmetry breaking or RSB, there are multiple frozen states which are not related by any symmetry of the Hamiltonian. We have shown  that, when there is RSB, there must be more than one extensive eigenvalue in the spectrum of $`C_{ij}`$—assuming of course that the thermal average is taken over the entire configuration space. We have also shown  that, in the absence of RSB, there can only be one such extensive eigenvalue. Given these results, one can obtain a definitive answer to the question of whether or not a system exhibits RSB, by determining whether there is or is not more than one large eigenvalue in the spectrum.

This latter question is well defined, but is vulnerable to finite-size uncertainties (as are other criteria such as the overlap distribution $`P(q)`$). Here such uncertainties arise because the definition of an extensive eigenvalue depends on taking the large-$`N`$ limit. Thus, in numerical studies of finite systems, one must look for convincing evidence that one has indeed found the asymptotic behavior, at least of the two largest eigenvalues of $`C`$, as $`N`$ increases. In particular, one must determine if the second largest eigenvalue $`\lambda _2`$ grows linearly with $`N`$ at large $`N`$. In the absence of RSB, $`\lambda _2`$ can grow  with $`N`$ as $`\lambda _2`$ $`N^{1\delta }`$ with $`\delta >0`$. RSB, in contrast, requires that $`\delta `$ be strictly zero.

Let us now discuss these ideas as applied specifically to the RFIM. In the paramagnetic phase (for nonzero values of the random field) there is freezing of the spins, which (on average) simply follow the random field. Thus the frozen configuration is unique, giving a single large eigenvalue. In the ferromagnetic phase there is a $`+`$ and a $``$ state. However, due to the random field, the two are no longer strictly related by symmetry; nor—due to a net field of $`O(N^{1/2})`$—do they have equal thermodynamic weight. (These two states are termed ‘similar but incongruent’ by Huse and Fisher .) Hence we again expect a single extensive eigenvalue in the FM phase.

In this work we will look for signs of a spin-glass phase in a low-temperature region between the PM and FM phases. If the SG phase has RSB—and we are able to study a range of $`N`$ beyond the threshold  for observing RSB—then we should find multiple large eigenvalues of $`C`$. Note that, if $`\lambda _2/N`$ decays over the entire range of $`N`$ studied, and reaches a very small value within that range, then that small value offers a rough upper bound for the thermodynamic weight which may be assigned to any putative RSB state. Hence there may be RSB in such a case; but it would be a ‘weak’ RSB, where only one state has large thermodynamic weight. We also do not rule out the possibility of a SG phase without RSB, i.e., with a single large eigenvalue. In this case one needs other measures (such as qualitative changes in the scaling of $`\lambda _2/N`$, in $`P(q)`$, or in the spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi _{SG}`$) to distinguish the SG phase from the other two.

## III Numerical procedures and results

### A The numerical method

The RFIM Hamiltonian is given by

$$=J\underset{ij}{}S_iS_j\underset{i}{}h_iSi$$
(1)
with $`ij`$ indicating the sum over nearest neighbors, $`J`$ being the strength of the ferromagnetic coupling, and $`h_i`$ being a quenched random variable. In this work we will take $`J=1`$, so that temperatures and fields are measured in units of $`J`$. The two common probability distributions for $`h_i`$ are a Gaussian distribution, with variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, or the bi-modal distribution

$`P(h_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }h_i)+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }+h_i)].`$

As we noted in the Introduction, there is some uncertainty as to which features of the phase diagram are sensitive to the choice between these two distributions. For example, Aharony  predicts a tricritical point for the bimodal distribution, but not for the Gaussian. We will work with the bimodal distribution, principally because it enables faster Monte-Carlo simulation. Also, we know of no reason to expect that a SG phase is more or less likely to occur for one or the other distribution.

As is the case in all glassy systems, the system sizes of Monte Carlo simulations are severely restricted by long relaxation or equilibration times. The typically long time that it takes to jump across large energy barriers in configuration space can be greatly reduced by the parallel tempering or exchange Monte Carlo technique . This technique consists of running simultaneously multiple replicas of the system at different temperatures, while allowing the swapping of spin configurations between adjacent temperatures. Such swaps are attempted every $`N_s`$ Monte Carlo steps. By choosing the probability of swapping correctly—meaning that the probability of a given spin configuration being accepted from another replica at a different temperature is constrained to be consistent with the Boltzmann distribution at the original temperature—all copies of the system remain in equilibrium under the swapping process. This effectively enables the jumping of free-energy barriers, since different replicas are likely to be in different local minima of the free energy.

Another important aspect of Monte Carlo simulations in quenched-disorder systems is a set of robust equilibration criteria, needed to obtain reliable numerical data. The parallel tempering technique does not allow one to use the equilibrium criteria used in Reference , in which two methods of calculating the disconnected spin glass susceptibility approach the equilibrium value from different directions. In the case of spin glasses with Gaussian random bonds, a different technique was used to determine the Monte Carlo time needed for equilibrated results . This criterion cannot be used in the RFIM problem, but another one, which can be derived in a similar fashion, can be used for Gaussian distributed random fields. In the spirit of reference , it is straightforward to show that

$$q_{EA}=1\frac{T}{N\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\underset{i}{}[h_iS_i_T]_{av},$$
(2)
where $`q_{EA}(1/N)_i[S_i_T^2]_{av}`$ is the Edwards-Anderson order parameter, and $`\mathrm{}_T`$ and $`[\mathrm{}]_{av}`$ indicate thermal and disorder average respectively. One can calculate $`q_{EA}`$ numerically using the overlap of two uncorrelated replicas ($`a`$ and $`b`$) at the same temperature,

$$q_{EA}^{(1)}\frac{1}{Nt_0}\underset{i}{}\underset{t=1}{\overset{t_0}{}}S_i^{(a)}(t)S_i^{(b)}(t)$$
(3)
or by using expression (2) to obtain what we will call $`q_{EA}^{(2)}`$. These two quantities approach the thermodynamic equilibrium value $`q_{EA}`$ from opposite directions as $`t_0`$, the number of Monte Carlo steps used, increases. Hence one can use their convergence to a common value as a criterion for the equilibration time.

We have not found an expression analogous to (2) for the case of a bi-modal distribution of fields. We note however that the time evolution of $`q_{EA}^{(1)}(t_0)`$ for the bimodal case follows that for the Gaussian distribution (using the same parameters) very closely. Therefore, we can take the equilibrating value of $`t_0`$ obtained for the Gaussian distribution, and use it for the bi-modal case as a minimum Monte Carlo time needed to reach equilibrium for each disorder configuration. We retain the bi-modal distribution for the bulk of our MC studies as it allows for a faster algorithm.

In Fig. 1 we show the behavior of the two versions of $`q_{EA}`$, calculated with a Gaussian distribution for $`T/J=2.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J=0.4`$, and $`L=5`$. We also show these two quantities for the bi-modal model. It is clear that $`q_{EA}^{(2)}`$ is not equivalent to $`q_{EA}^{(1)}`$ in this case. However, as noted above, both $`q_{EA}^{(1)}`$ and $`q_{EA}^{(2)}`$ for the bi-modal model plateau at the same point where $`q_{EA}^{(1)}`$ and $`q_{EA}^{(2)}`$ meet for the Gaussian model.

As criteria for equilibrium we then have several requirements. First, the equilibration time must be at least twice the time needed to establish convergence of $`q_{EA}^{(1)}`$ and $`q_{EA}^{(2)}`$ for the Gaussian case. Second, we require that two distinct ways of computing $`\chi _{SG}^{(1)}\frac{1}{N}_{ij}S_iS_j_T^2`$, one using two replicas at the same temperature and the other a direct Monte Carlo method, agree within statistical error .

Our third criterion has to do with the exchange Monte Carlo method. In order to ensure that equilibrium holds for all the various temperatures simulated in parallel, we require that the probability histogram for visiting the different temperatures is flat, and also that the acceptance ratio for swapping among the configurations at different temperatures is at least $`0.3`$. In order to avoid the bottlenecks mentioned in reference  with regard to the acceptance ratios among the different temperatures, we follow a procedure introduced by Hukushima . Here we perform a quick Monte Carlo simulation (only a few disorder realizations) with an equidistant set of $`\beta `$’s to obtain an approximation for the average energy of the system. In order to obtain homogeneous acceptance ratios one performs the following mapping:

$`\beta _n(t+1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\beta _n(t)+g(\beta _n(t))],`$ (4)
where

$`g(\beta _n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(\beta _{n1})E(\beta _{n+1})}}\times [\beta _{n1}E(\beta _{n1})`$ (5)
$`\beta _{n+1}E(\beta _{n+1})E(\beta _n)(\beta _{n1}\beta _{n+1})].`$ (6)
Here the values of $`E(\beta _i)`$ are obtained by extrapolation from the ones obtained in the initial Monte Carlo runs. Using this procedure we obtain a set of temperatures ($`\beta `$’s) that yield homogeneous acceptance probabilities when a swap between two adjacent temperatures is attempted. We can then, if necessary, increase the number of $`\beta `$’s and repeat the procedure, until the uniform swapping probability reaches our minimum goal of at least 0.3. In Fig. 2 we show the swapping acceptance ratios after zero, one, and two iterations of this procedure, for $`L=11`$, $`T_{min}/J=1.5`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J=0.6`$. It is clear from the figure that the bottleneck at $`T/J=4`$ is removed by the iterative procedure.

Our final criterion is to require that the maximum temperature used in the parallel tempering process shows a ‘melted’ $`P(q)`$; that is, $`P(q)`$ at the smallest $`\beta `$ must have an approximate Gaussian shape centered at or near $`q=0`$. This criterion is necessary to ensure that all free-energy barriers have vanished at this $`\beta `$, so that the different thermodynamic states in the low-temperature phase(s) will be visited with a probability corresponding to their thermodynamic weight.

### B Numerical results

As mentioned in Sec. I, there are indications from mean field studies  that a SG phase with RSB may exist in an intermediate region of the phase diagram, which roughly coincides with the irreversibility region found in dynamical calculations . One can see a hint of this by doing a Monte Carlo simulation, and computing the spectrum of $`C_{ij}`$, for a single disorder realization at a relatively small system size (in order for the calculation to be feasible) over the whole phase diagram. We plot the first two eigenvalues of $`C_{ij}`$ for a single disorder realization in Fig. 3. In the FM and PM phases there is clearly a single large eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$, while in a region between the two phases the first two eigenvalues are of the same order of magnitude. This could be due to an intermediate phase with RSB. On the other hand, such behavior could also be due to the FM and PM eigenvectors (which represent two distinct forms of ordering) trading places in the spectrum as one moves from one phase to the other.

We can follow up these hints by studying larger systems, at a single (low) temperature, over a range of fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which spans the intermediate region seen in Fig. 3. Hence we have performed a rather thorough Monte-Carlo scan of the field parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at a fixed, low temperature $`T=1.5`$. For a preliminary coarse scan we studied the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J=2.0,3.0`$, and $`4.0`$. The system sizes for each $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are $`L=5,7,9`$, and 11, with the number of disorder realizations being 2000, 2000, 850, and 650, respectively. Previous work  has yielded the dynamical phase diagram shown in the inserts of Figs. 4 and 5. Our coarse scan has been chosen to both bracket and sample the irreversibility region, as shown in the inserts in Figs. 4 and 5. In these figures we plot (respectively) the average and typical values (where $`[\lambda _i]_{\mathrm{typ}}\mathrm{exp}([\mathrm{ln}\lambda _i]_{\mathrm{ave}})`$) for the $`\lambda _i/N`$, plotted against $`N`$ on a log scale. There is a clear power-law falloff of $`\lambda _2/N`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3.0`$ and $`4.0`$. The same is not quite true for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.0`$. That is, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.0`$ the falloff at small $`N`$ grows weaker ($`[\lambda ]_{typ}`$) or even ceases ($`[\lambda ]_{av}`$) at larger $`N`$. Therefore we performed a second, finer scan over the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.8`$, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6, with the same number of of disorder realizations as given previously.

Results from this scan ($`[\lambda _i]_{\mathrm{ave}}`$ only) are plotted in Fig. 6. The hints of possible RSB seen in Fig. 3 are considerably stronger here, particularly at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.4`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.8`$ is clearly in the FM phase. Also, it seems very likely that the falloff of $`\lambda _2/N`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.6`$ will persist at larger $`N`$. Hence, we may take $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.6`$ to lie in the PM phase. The question is then, have any of the other plots of $`\lambda _2/N`$ in Fig. 6 reached asymptotic behavior?

It is in fact impossible to answer this question from examination of Fig. 6 alone. One main problem is the rise in $`\lambda _2/N`$ that occurs in many of the plots at small $`N`$. This obvious finite-size effect is likely due to the fact that we are not far from one (or two) phase boundaries. Such a rise must be followed by an asymptotic behavior which is either flat or falling; and, as is clear from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.6`$ plot, the latter can occur. For these reasons the flat region at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.4`$ gives no unambiguous conclusion: it may be just a local maximum in $`N`$, or it may be the large-$`N`$ behavior. And we are equally unsure of the large-$`N`$ behavior for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.0`$$`2.3`$. Taken as a whole, the six plots in Fig. 6 can be viewed either as an RSB phase developing between two other phases, or as the finite-size effects of a phase transition between two competing order parameters.

We find that this ambiguity is considerably diminished by a study of the equilibrium $`P(q)`$ distributions for the various $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values. Figure 7 shows the full $`P(q)`$ distribution for the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values seen in Fig. 6. The overall impression is clear: two different kinds of order, represented by peaks at different values of the overlap $`q`$, are competing (via fluctuations) in the intermediate values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. At the lower end of the scan, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.8`$, the FM phase gives a peak at $`q`$ very close to one. There is a much smaller peak at $`q`$ near $`1`$ (not shown in the Figure) which comes from fluctuations into the “wrong” spin ordering, i.e., that which is not favored by the net random field \[which is, again, of $`O(N^{1/2})`$\].

At the other extreme ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.6`$) it is equally clear that FM fluctuations (present at small $`N`$) disappear at larger $`N`$, leaving a clear peak in $`P(q)`$ at the (lower) $`q`$ value appropriate to the PM phase. The dying off of these ferromagnetic fluctuations is well correlated with the decay of $`\lambda _2/N`$ in Fig. 6.

This interpretation is readily extended to the remaining $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values. For instance, at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.2`$ in Fig. 7 there are clearly PM fluctuations giving a very broad peak at $`q0.9`$. This is even more clear if we expand the negative-$`q`$ portion of the $`P(q)`$ plot for the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Figure 8). Here we see a small peak near $`q=1`$ showing overlap between “wrong” and “right” FM states, and an even smaller peak which we ascribe to overlap between “wrong” FM fluctuations and PM fluctuations. Very similar behavior is seen in $`P(q)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.3`$—both at positive and negative $`q`$. The main difference is that the PM fluctuations are stronger than they are at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.2`$. Hence we conclude that both of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values lie in the FM phase for the RFIM, and that the growth of $`\lambda _2/N`$ with increasing $`N`$ for these $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values is purely due to finite size, plus nearness to a phase boundary.

Finally, we see no justification for postulating a distinct thermodynamic phase based on the behavior at the remaining $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.4`$). The behavior both of its eigenvalue spectrum, and of its $`P(q)`$ distribution, is clearly intermediate to the behaviors at lower and higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Furthermore, its $`P(q)`$ distribution, viewed on its own, gives no convincing sign of converging towards a distribution appropriate for a spin glass. In fact, the trend with $`N`$ (Fig. 7) shows that the PM peak is steadily growing with $`N`$, at the expense of the FM peak. This is, again, a picture of competition between two forms of order (each rather strong) near a phase transition, rather than a distinct phase. Furthermore, if one plots the total weight at negative $`q`$ \[that is, the integral $`I_{}=_1^0𝑑qP(q)`$\] against $`N`$ for the various $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ values, one finds very similar behavior for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.6`$ and $`2.4`$: $`I_{}`$ falls very fast, reflecting the fact that the “wrong” FM fluctuations vanish rapidly with increasing system size. For all of these reasons, we tentatively assign $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.4`$ to the PM phase.

Figs. 6, 7, and 8, viewed together, give, we believe, a rather clear picture. There are two phases—FM and PM—of the bimodal RFIM at $`T=1.5J`$. The transition between these two phases occurs (probably) between $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.3`$ and $`2.4`$.

There is a further conclusion which seems obvious from the above considerations, and from Fig. 7. The location (in $`q`$) of the peak in $`q`$, for the FM phase, shows no sign of going to zero as the transition is approached from below. Hence, either the magnetization is discontinuous at the phase boundary  or it is continuous, but with an extraordinarily small exponent $`\beta `$ , such that it is ‘practically’ discontinuous. Obviously, our numerical studies cannot distinguish these two possibilities. However, this aspect of the behavior of $`P(q)`$ at $`T=1.5`$—that is, the abrupt vanishing of the magnetization at the transition—is completely consistent with the behavior seen at higher temperatures (closer to the pure critical point) and at zero temperature. This consistency, we believe, adds further support to our claim that there is no new, third phase in the part of the phase diagram studied here.

## IV Conclusion

The above results and reasoning have presented a rather clear picture: there is no spin-glass phase, and no replica symmetry breaking, for the bimodal random-field Ising model in the low-temperature region that we have examined. One of the tests that we have applied was to study the scaling with $`N`$ of the spectrum of eigenvalues of the spin-spin correlation function $`C_{ij}`$. We have used this technique previously  to give unambiguous confirmation of RSB in a case (the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick problem in infinite dimension) where it is strongly believed to occur, and also to give strong evidence against RSB for a finite-dimensional version of the same problem (for which there is still controversy). Here we have sought evidence for RSB in a different problem, the RFIM—which may be mapped to the diluted antiferromagnet in an external field, a system which may be studied experimentally. We have found that the eigenvalue spectrum gives no sign at all of RSB over most of the range of random field strength $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that we have studied. There is a small range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which the behavior of this spectrum is ambiguous. However examination of the overlap distribution $`P(q)`$ removes the ambiguity, giving instead clear evidence for a single phase transition between the FM and PM phases, with no intervening equilibrium phase. Hence we view the behavior of the eigenvalue spectrum (Figs. 3 and 6) in this intermediate region as purely the finite-size effects of closeness to a phase boundary. In particular, the failure of $`\lambda _2/N`$ to decay for this range of fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, even out to $`N=1331`$ spins, stems from the persistence of fluctuations between two adjacent phases, each with a large order parameter. Hence we speculate that the eigenvalues would behave less ambiguously—i.e., they would display a reduced tendency to mimic RSB—if the transition were continuous in a conventional sense, such that the order parameters on either side vanished more smoothly.

It is possible (although, we feel, very unlikely) that studies at larger system sizes may reveal these conclusions to be wrong, confirming instead a spin-glass phase confined to a narrow range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at low $`T`$. A more promising direction for future work might be to examine the RFIM with a Gaussian distribution of fields, since it remains possible that the two problems have differing phase diagrams. Also, one might argue that a SG phase is suppressed by the strength of the order parameters on each side of the transition. By this argument, one should look at higher $`T`$, closer to the pure critical point. However, both nonequilibrium  and equilibrium  mean-field arguments point to the low-temperature region as being most likely to support a spin glass phase. This is why we looked at low $`T`$; and our results rather clearly imply only two phases there.

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with A. Aharony, H. Castillo, and E. Fradkin. GSC thanks the Theory Group, Physics Institute, University of Oslo, for hospitality. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DMR-9820816 and the Welch Foundation.


text:
# Brane Dynamics in the Randall-Sundrum model, Inflation and Graceful Exit

## I Introduction

The quest to explore physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) has, in the past couple of years, been dominated by the idea that space time is of a dimension larger than four and that we are essentially confined to a 4-dimensional hypersurface thereof. Although such suggestions go back to the work of Akama Akama  and Rubakov and ShaposhnikovRubakov:1983bb ; Rubakov:1983bz , the present interest has been occasioned by the recognition that such solitonic hypersurfaces (or branes) abound in string theory. While an exact and viable low-energy realization of string theory is still some way off, considerable excitement has been aroused by the prospect of explaining the embarassing gap between the electroweak scale $`M_\mathrm{W}`$ and the Planck scale ($`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}/M_\mathrm{W}10^{16}`$) by invoking the presence of such extra dimensionsArkani-Hamed:1998rs ; Antoniadis:1998ig ; Arkani-Hamed:1999nn ; Randall:1999ee ; Randall:1999vf . What is particularly new of such models is that the ordinary matter is confined to our four-dimensional brane while the gravity propagates in the whole spacetime.

These models can be broadly divided into two sets. The first, stimulated primarily by the papers of Arkani-Hamed et al.Arkani-Hamed:1998rs ; Antoniadis:1998ig ; Arkani-Hamed:1999nn  (ADD)(see also Antoniadis:1990ew ), invokes large (possibly sub-mm) new spatial dimensions transverse to the SM brane, with the higher-dimensional metric being factorizable and essentially flat. With such a construction in place, it can be shown that the fundamental gravitational scale could be close to the TeV scale, with the aforementioned hierarchy being explained by the large volume of the compactified dimensions.

Subsequently, Randall and Sundrum Randall:1999ee ; Randall:1999vf  introduced an important variation, wherein the directions parallel and transverse to the branes do not factorize into a product space. An immediate consequence is that the 4-dimensional graviton wavefunction has a non-trivial dependence on the transverse coordinate(s). If this dependence is of the ‘correct’ form, the bulk (i.e. higher dimensional) graviton would be localized away from the brane that we live on, resulting in a suppression of gravitational interactions in our world. While such ‘warped’ compactifications had already been considered in the literatureRubakov:1983bz ; vanNieuwenhuizen:1985ri  it was only after RS incorporated the modern brane idea, that the activity started in right earnest.

The fact that the RS models have far less striking phenomenological consequences (especially in collider experiments or in astrophysical contexts) as compared to the those for ADD models could have been expected to lead a gradual dissolution of interest in such models. That this has not been the case is, to a great extent, due to the fact that RS-models are perhaps more easily embeddable in supergravity and superstring compactificationsHW ; CS . A particular example is afforded by the heterotic M theory, whose field theory limit is the 11-dimensional supergravity compactified on $`S_1/Z_2`$ with Yang-Mills, albeit supersymmetric, fields living on the two boundariesHW . Furthermore, on account of their warped geometry, the RS models are able to resolve the SM hierarchy problem without needing to introduce large dimensions (a hierarchy problem in itself). At a more prosaic level, it has been argued that the early universe evolution of the RS models is dramatically different from that of standard FRW cosmology. It is this aspect that we intend to focus on in this artcle.

As is well known, Big Bang cosmology, while successful in answering many questions, leaves many others unanswered. Prominent amongst these are the flatness problem, the observed low density of monoples and the horizon problem. Theories with inflation (a period in the distant past characterized by an exponential growth of the scale factor) offer solutions to all of these, and in fact are the only ones to do so. Inflation, however, is associated with its own set of problems. Primary amongst these is the generation of a correct (scalar) potential that would drive inflation, and equally importantly, the mechanism of a noncontrived exit of the universe from an inflationary phase. This graceful exit problem has been plaguing both cosmologists and string theorists with no simple solution in sight. Naturally, questions such as this reside at the core of our investigations.

The cosmological implications of models with extra dimensions have been discussed by many authors BDL ; CGKT ; CGS . Inflationary solutions were obtained for both flat bulk geometry LOW , as well as for a AdS bulk geometry Nihei ; Kaloper ; Inflation ; more ; CGRT . Inflation, in our model, occurs though in a novel way. To be specific, we use the dynamics of the warp factor to drive inflation. Starting from the effective four-dimensional action, recast in terms of the variables of the negative tension brane, we find that, after some field redefinitions, it could be interpreted as an action for scalar-tensor gravity. Solving the consequent equations of motion, we find that the evolution is governed by an initial exponential inflationary phase followed by a decelerating phase at the end of which the radion stabilises at its present day value. In other words, the exit is indeed graceful. Since the warp factor itself is the ‘inflaton’ in this theory, neither the adequate growth of the scale factor nor the exit demands any unnatural tuning of parameters.

In section II, we will show that the averaged four dimensional action obtained by integrating out the fifth dimension $`y`$CGRT , can be written as an action for a generalised Brans-Dicke theory BD . The function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ in this theory turns out to be

$$\omega (\varphi )=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\alpha \varphi }{1+\alpha \varphi }.$$
(I.1)
In section III, we obtain a solution to the Brans-Dicke equations of motion. Solution to the equations of motion is such that the Brans-Dicke (BD) scalar rapidly approaches its equilibrium value. The universe on the visible brane, which is also known as the standard model brane, undergoes exponential inflation during this time. As the scalar settles down to its equilibrium value, its equations of motion decouples and we effectively get four dimensional Einstein equations. We also study the behaviour of the deceleration parameter. We find that it is negative at early times but that its sign changes well before the BD scalar stabilizes. This, in turn, implies that the universe on the visible brane exits the inflationary era.

## II Brans-Dicke Gravity on the Brane

The Randall-Sundrum model that we will be interested in this paper consists of five dimensional Einstein gravity with negative cosmological constant and two 3-branes located at the fixed points of the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$. We parametrize the orbifold direction $`y`$ in such a way that the orbifold fixed points are at $`y=0`$ and at $`y=1/2`$ where the positive tension and negative tension branes are respectively located. The action333Our metric signature is $`(,+,+,+,+)`$. is given by Randall:1999ee ; Randall:1999vf

$$S=2d^4x_0^{1/2}𝑑y\sqrt{G}(M_5^3R\mathrm{\Lambda }+_R)+d^4x\sqrt{g^{(+)}}(L^+V^+)+d^4x\sqrt{g^{()}}(L^{}V^{})$$
(II.1)
where $`G_{MN}(M,N=\mu ,y)`$ is the five dimensional bulk metric, $`R`$ is the five dimensional Ricci scalar and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant in bulk, $`M_5`$ is five dimensional Planck mass. $`_R`$ is some non-specified bulk dynamics responsible for generating a potential for the radion. The four dimensional metrics $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }^{()}`$, relevant to the positive and negative tension brane respectively, can be expressed in terms of $`G_{MN}`$ as

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}=G_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,y=0),g_{\mu \nu }^{()}=G_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,y=1/2).$$
(II.2)
This restriction can be implemented through delta-functions which fix the locations of two 3-branes. While $`L^+`$ and $`L^{}`$ are the Lagrangians for the matter fields confined to the positive and negative tension branes respectively, $`V^\pm `$ correspond to the associated brane tensions.

Equations of motion, in the absence of matter on either brane, are solved for the metricRandall:1999ee ; Randall:1999vf

$$ds^2=e^{2m_0r_c|y|}(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu )+r_c^2dy^2,$$
(II.3)
provided the brane tensions and the bulk cosmological constant are related through

$$V^+=V^{}=12m_0M_5^3,\mathrm{\Lambda }=12m_0^2M_5^3.$$
(II.4)
This metric, as is well known by now, gives rise to an exponential hierarchy between the natural mass scale on the positive tension brane and that on the negative tension brane. For an appropriate choice of $`m_0r_c`$, it is possible to generate the Planck mass $`M_{pl}`$ on the negative tension brane to be of the order of $`10^{19}`$ GeV starting from a bulk energy scale of about a few TeV. What is of prime interest is that the resolution of the hierarchy (between the four dimensional Planck mass and the electroweak scale) does not necessitate choosing unnaturally small or big values for any of the parameters in the theory.

We would like to see what kinds of cosmological models we can accomodate in this scenario. Since our purpose is to study cosmological evolution, we will consider a new ansatz for the metric where the metric components are functions of the coordinate $`y`$ as well as functions of time $`t`$. We will consider only a minimal modification of the RS static brane ansatz to accomodate temporal dependenceCGRT . In other words, we now have

$$ds^2=e^{2m_0b(t)|y|}\left[g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu \right]+b^2(t)dy^2$$
(II.5)
where

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,a^2(t),a^2(t),a^2(t)).$$
(II.6)
Clearly, this choice is such that when $`b(t)\mathrm{const}.=b_0`$ and $`a(t)\mathrm{const}.=1`$, we recover the static RS solution.

The metrics on the two branes can be readily obtained from this ansatz:

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{(+)}=g_{\mu \nu },g_{\mu \nu }^{()}=e^{m_0b(t)}g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(II.7)
It is worth pointing out that the metric on the negative tension brane is related to that on the positive tension brane by a conformal transformation. This has an interesting consequence for brane inflation, which we will discuss in the next section. We can now use this ansatz to determine equations of motion for $`a(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$. To get these equations let us first substitute (II.5) and (II.6) into (II.1). After performing the $`y`$ integration we get the four dimensional effective action CGRT

$$S_{eff}=\frac{3}{\kappa ^2m_0}d^4xa^3\left[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2)\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+m_0\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{b}\frac{m_0^2}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2\dot{b}^2V_r(b)\right]+d^4xa^3L^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^4,$$
(II.8)
where $`\kappa ^2=1/2M_5^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_be^{m_0b(t)/2}`$ and $`a^3V_r(b)=b(t)𝑑y\mathrm{\Omega }_b^4_R`$. We have ignored the matter term in the positive tension brane but have considered one on the negative tension where our observable universe resides. A straightforward calculation shows that the action (II.8) can now be written as

$$S_{eff}=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2m_0}d^4xa^3\left[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2)R_4(a)+\frac{3}{2}m_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2\dot{b}^26V_r(b)\right]+S_M,$$
(II.9)
where

$$R_4(a)=6\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}6\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2},$$
(II.10)
and $`S_M=d^4xa^3L^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^4`$ is the matter action on the negative tension brane. Notice that $`R_4(a)`$ is a Ricci scalar derived from the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ given in equation (II.6). From equation (II.7), it is, therefore, obvious that $`R_4(a)=R_4^{(+)}(a)`$. The four dimensional effective action on the positive tension brane can then be easily read out from (II.9)CGRT , viz.,

$$S_{eff}^{(+)}=d^4x\sqrt{g^{(+)}}\left[\frac{R_4^{(+)}(a)}{16\pi G^{(+)}}+\frac{3m_0}{4\kappa ^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2\dot{b}^2\frac{3}{\kappa ^2m_0}V_r(b)\right]+S_M,$$
(II.11)
where $`16\pi G^{(+)}=\frac{2\kappa ^2m_0}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2}=[M_{pl}^{(+)}]^2`$ corresponds to the Newton’s constant on the positive tension brane. This action governs evolution of the positive tension brane. We, however, are interested primarily in our (negative tension) brane. To study the cosmology in our universe, we need to determine the effective four dimensional action on the negative tension brane. Let us parametrize the metric on the negative tension brane byCGRT

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{()}=[1,Y^2(\tau ),Y^2(\tau ),Y^2(\tau )],$$
(II.12)
where $`\tau `$ is the new time coordinate on the negative tension brane. From eq.(II.7), it is easy to see that $`\tau `$ is related to the time $`t`$ on the positive tension brane through

$$d\tau =e^{m_0b/2}dt,Y=e^{m_0b/2}a.$$
(II.13)
Using these relations in (II.8), we get the effective action on the negative tension brane to be

$$S_{eff}^{()}=\frac{3}{\kappa ^2m_0}d^3x𝑑\tau Y^3(\tau )\left[\frac{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2)(\tau )}{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2(\tau )}\frac{Y^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )}{Y^2(\tau )}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )}{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^4(\tau )}2\frac{Y^{^{}}(\tau )}{Y(\tau )}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{^{}}(\tau )}{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^3(\tau )}\frac{V_r(b)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^4}\right]+S_M,$$
(II.14)
where $`S_M=d^3x𝑑\tau Y^3(\tau )L^{}`$ is the action on the negative tension brane in the new coordinate system and prime denotes differentiation with respect to the argument.

This action can be brought to the Brans-Dicke form. To see this, we define a new variable $`\varphi `$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2=\frac{1}{1+\alpha \varphi },$$
(II.15)
where $`\alpha =m_0/16M_5^3\pi `$. It follows, after a straightforward calculation, that the action (II.14) can be recast in the form

$$S_{eff}^{()}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\sqrt{g^{()}(\tau )}d^3x𝑑\tau \left[\varphi (\tau )R_4^{()}(\tau )\frac{\omega (\varphi (\tau ))}{\varphi (\tau )}\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )V(\varphi )\right]+S_M^{()},$$
(II.16)
where

$`\sqrt{g^{()}(\tau )}`$ $`=`$ $`Y^3(\tau ),`$ (II.17)
$`R_4^{()}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{^{\prime \prime }}(\tau )}{Y(\tau )}}6{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )}{Y^2(\tau )}},`$ (II.18)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V_r(b)(1+\alpha \varphi )^2,`$ (II.19)
$`\omega (\varphi (\tau ))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \varphi (\tau )}{1+\alpha \varphi (\tau )}}.`$ (II.20)
The action (II.14), rewritten as in (II.16), corresponds to a generalised BD theory BD , where the BD parameter $`\omega `$ is a function of the BD scalar field $`\varphi `$. A few comments are in order at this point. Recall that the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is instrumental in providing the resolution of the large mass hierarchy between the electroweak scale and the four dimensional Planck scale. This can be achieved only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ takes very small value (of $`o(10^{16})`$). It is, therefore, clear from (II.15) that typical values that $`\alpha \varphi `$ should take, to conform to the expected behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, will be quite large (of $`o(10^{16})`$). An immediate implication of this is that $`\omega (\varphi )`$ stays mostly in the vicinity of $`3/2`$. This, though, seems to be in direct conflict with astronomical observations (particularly the Solar system experiments WND ) which require $`|\omega |>3000`$. We will, however, see in the next section that our solution to the equations of motion are such that the Brans-Dicke scalar stabilizes to its equilibrium value well within the inflationary epoch444Some of these results are similar to those obtained by Chiba chiba  in the static metric limit..

## III Inflation and Graceful exit

The four dimensional averaged action for the RS field, as we saw in the previous section, gives us the Brans-Dicke action with a specific form for $`\omega (\varphi )`$ given in (II.20). In this section, we will write down the equations of motion and obtain a solution to these equations of motion. As mentioned in the last section, the solution we wish to seek is the one which, in the static limit, reduces to the Randall-Sundrum solution. While preserving the solution to the hierarchy problem on the visible brane, this still leaves open the possibility of interesting phenomena in early cosmology. Before we venture to obtain the solution to the equations of motion, we would like to point out that, as in the Brans-Dicke theory, the effective Newton’s constant in this case equals the inverse of the Brans-Dicke scalar field $`\varphi `$. Therefore, using our definition of $`\varphi `$ as in (II.15), we can write

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{G^{()}}=\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2}.$$
(III.1)
Viewing gravity on the branes as a four-dimensional theory, the corresponding ‘Planck masses’ are then given by

$$M_{pl}^{()2}=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2m_0}\frac{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^2}=e^{m_0b}M_{pl}^{(+)2}.$$
(III.2)
The relation between $`M_{pl}^{(\pm )}`$ is the same as obtained by RS and serves to explain the hierarchy between the energy scales. To have the right size for this ratio, one needs have $`m_0b_070`$ where $`b_0`$ is the stabilised value of the radion $`b`$. In other words, for the stabilised situation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b_0}`$ is a very small number. We will ignore the matter terms on the negative tension brane. However, we will keep the bulk matter fields in our analysis. This assumption is justified because time evolution of the bulk metric is expected to be much slower than that on the brane which is undergoing exponential inflation due to warp factor. Therefore, the brane matter is getting inflated away while the bulk matter, which we will take to be independent of brane spatial coordinates, is not.

The equations of motion, as obtained from the action in (II.16), are BD

$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mu \nu }}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}}(\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\alpha }\varphi ^{,\alpha })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}[\varphi _{{}_{,}{}^{}\mu _{;}^{}\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\varphi ]g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }},`$ (III.4)
$`(2\omega +3)\text{ }\text{ }\varphi =T+\left[\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{dV(\varphi )}{d\varphi }}2V(\varphi )\right],`$
where $`T`$ is the trace of energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ of the matter fields on the brane. Neglecting the matter fields on the brane, the independent set of equations of motion are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 3H^2& =& \frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}\frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )}{\varphi ^2(\tau )}3H\frac{\varphi ^{^{}}(\tau )}{\varphi (\tau )}+\frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }\hfill \\ \hfill 2H^{}+3H^2& =& \frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}\frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )}{\varphi ^2(\tau )}\frac{\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\tau )}{\varphi (\tau )}2H\frac{\varphi ^{}(\tau )}{\varphi (\tau )}+\frac{V(\varphi )}{2\varphi }\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\tau )+3H\varphi ^{^{}}(\tau )& =& \frac{1}{2\omega (\varphi )+3}\left[\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2(\tau )\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }+\varphi \frac{dV(\varphi )}{d\varphi }2V(\varphi )\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`H=\frac{Y^{}(\tau )}{Y(\tau )}`$. It can be easily seen that only two of these three equations are independent. For example, if we choose to work with the first two, then it can be shown that the wave equation for the BD scalar field (III.4) is satisfied identically.

Let us now perform the transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=\varphi g_{\mu \nu },\stackrel{~}{Y}^2=\varphi Y^2,d\stackrel{~}{\tau }^2=\varphi d\tau ^2,$$
(III.5)
followed by a field redefinition

$$\varphi \psi :\left(\frac{d\psi }{d\varphi }\right)^2=\frac{2\omega (\varphi )+3}{4\varphi ^2}.$$
(III.6)
In other words,

$$\psi =\pm \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+\alpha \varphi }+1}{\sqrt{1+\alpha \varphi }1}\right),$$
(III.7)
and for the sake of convenience, we shall work with the positive branch. Also, from now on, prime denotes differentiation w.r.t. $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$.

The above serve to simplify the equations of motion considerably rendering them identical to those for a scalar coupled minimally to gravity:

$`3\stackrel{~}{H}^2(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{}_{}{}^{}2(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+V(\psi ),`$ (III.8)
$`2\stackrel{~}{H}^{^{}}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+3\stackrel{~}{H}^2(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{}_{}{}^{}2(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+V(\psi ),`$ (III.9)
$`\psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+3\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })\psi ^{^{}}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\psi }}.`$ (III.10)
The above set of equations involve three unknowns, viz., $`\psi (\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ and $`V(\psi )`$. However, only two of the equations are independent. The system is thus underdetermined555Of course, if the stabilising potential were specified, so would $`V(\psi )`$ be. And then the system is no longer underdetermined., and consequently we are forced to fix one of them by making a suitable Ansatz. A convenient way of parametrizing the same is to posit that

$$\frac{d\psi }{d\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=K(\psi )$$
(III.11)
where $`K(\psi )`$ is an as yet undetermined function of $`\psi `$. $`K(\psi )`$ can also be an explicit function of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. However, if $`\psi `$ is a monotonic function of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, which is a sensible assumption at least for the inflationary era, then explicit $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ dependence of $`K(\psi )`$ can be reexpressed in terms of its dependence on $`\psi `$. As we will see below this is precisely what we observe. Even before we choose a specific form for $`K(\psi )`$, we may further simplify our equations of motion. Subtracting (III.8) from (III.9) and using (III.11) gives

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{H}}{d\psi }=K(\psi ),V(\psi )=3\stackrel{~}{H}^2(\psi )K^2(\psi )$$
(III.12)
We are now in a position to specify an Ansatz for $`K(\psi )`$. Let us start with the simplest of relations, namely a monomial form

$$K(\psi )=\beta \psi ^\gamma ,$$
(III.13)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are constants. This immediately leads to

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(\psi )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\beta \left[\frac{\psi ^{\gamma +1}}{\gamma +1}+H_0\right]\hfill & & \gamma 1\hfill \\ \beta \left[\mathrm{ln}\psi +H_0\right]\hfill & & \gamma =1\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.14)
and

$$\psi =\{\begin{array}{ccc}\psi _0e^{\beta (\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0)}\hfill & & \gamma =1\hfill \\ \left[\beta (1\gamma )(\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0)+\psi _0^{1\gamma }\right]^{1/(1\gamma )}\hfill & & \gamma 1\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.15)
where $`H_0`$ and $`\psi _0`$ are constants of integration. It follows then that, for $`\gamma 1`$,

$$V(\psi )=\beta ^2\left\{3\left[\frac{\psi ^{\gamma +1}}{\gamma +1}+H_0\right]^2\psi ^{2\gamma }\right\}.$$
(III.16)
A potential bounded from below is achieved only for $`\gamma >0`$ and this is a condition that we need to impose. Such a potential has extrema at the origin as well as at $`\psi _m`$, which is a solution of

$$\frac{\psi _m^{\gamma +1}}{\gamma +1}\frac{\gamma }{3}\psi _m^{\gamma 1}+H_0=0.$$
(III.17)
As already pointed out, a resolution of the hierarchy problem needs $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bo(10^{16})`$, or, in other words, $`m_0b_070`$ at the present epoch. Since $`\psi _m\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, it immediately follows that we can neglect the first term in the above equation, and

$$H_0\frac{\gamma }{3}\psi _m^{\gamma 1}.$$
(III.18)
The magnitude and sign of the vacuum energy at the minimum in question depends crucially on $`H_0`$ and $`\gamma `$. As observations support a small positive value for the cosmological constant, this may be used to eliminate large regions of values of $`\gamma `$. In view of the recent interest in tachyon-driven inflation, let us reconsider $`\gamma <0`$. However, this immediately leads to a very large and negative value for $`H_0`$ (as long as we want a small $`\psi _m`$) and is therefore severely disfavoured. For $`\gamma =0`$ (when the potential is quadratic and hence seems to resemble the chaotic inflation scenario), we again get a negative, albeit small, value for $`H_0`$. For $`0<\gamma <1`$, on the other hand, we have a reversal of the earlier situation. Now $`H_0`$ to be positive but very large positive which, again, is not a desireable feature. The point $`\gamma =1`$ is special as this is associated with $`H_01/3`$ which implies small positive vacuum energy. And finally, for $`\gamma >1`$ it is easy to see that the extremum of the potential at a small $`\psi _m`$ is actually a maximum and hence does not represent a real vacuum. Thus, phenomenological considerations restrict us to the case of $`\gamma =1`$, and we now examine it in greater detail.

Substituting $`\gamma =1`$ in eqs.(III.14III.16), we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi (\stackrel{~}{\tau })& =& \psi _0e^{\beta (\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0)},\hfill \\ \hfill H(\psi )& =& \beta [\psi ^2/2+H_0],\hfill \\ \hfill V(\psi )& =& \beta ^2[3H_0^2+(3H_01)\psi ^2+\frac{3}{4}\psi ^4].\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.19)
Also from (III.18) one gets $`H_01/3`$.

While we may continue to work with the field $`\psi `$ and eqs (III.8)-(III.10), the calculation of the different parameters characterizing inflation and the comparison with the observational data is better achieved if we recast the physics in terms of a (conventional) dimensionful field $`\chi `$. We define,

$$\chi =\sqrt{2}M\psi $$
(III.20)
where $`M=M_{pl}/\sqrt{8\pi }0.2M_{pl}`$ is the reduced Planck mass. At the minimum, then, $`\chi _m5.3\times 10^2\mathrm{GeV}`$. In terms of $`\chi `$, we may rewrite the evolution equations as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 3H^2& =& \frac{1}{M^2}\left[\frac{\chi ^2}{2}+V(\chi )\right],\hfill \\ \hfill 2H^{}+3H^2& =& \frac{1}{M^2}\left[\frac{\chi ^2}{2}+V(\chi )\right],\hfill \\ \hfill \chi ^{\prime \prime }+3H\chi ^{}& =& \frac{dV}{d\chi }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(III.21)
In the above, the potential has been redefined to be

$$V(\chi )M^2V(\psi ).$$
(III.22)
Suppressing, for the moment, the quadratic terms, the potential now reads

$$V(\chi )3M^2\beta ^2\left[H_0^2+\frac{1}{16}\frac{\chi ^4}{M^4}\right].$$
(III.23)
Thus, only one unknown parameter, viz. $`\beta `$, remains in the potential and this we will fix by comparing our results with observations.

Apart from the Hubble parameter, cosmological expansion is also characterized by the deceleration parameter $`q`$:

$$q=\left[\frac{H^{}}{H^2}+1\right].$$

For an inflating universe, $`q<0`$ and inflation stops at $`q=0`$. One could also investigate inflation in terms of the slow roll paramters which are defined as

$$ϵ=\frac{M^2}{2V^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}\chi }\right)^2,\eta =\frac{M^2}{V}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2V}{\mathrm{d}\chi ^2}.$$
(III.24)
For slow roll inflation to occur, both $`|ϵ|1`$ and $`|\eta |1`$ need to be satisfied. If the slow roll conditions were valid, eqns.(III.21) can be approximated to read

$$3H^2=\frac{1}{M^2}V(\chi ),3H\chi ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}\chi }.$$
(III.25)
Within the region of validity of the above equations, one then has

$$qϵ1,$$
(III.26)
and hence $`q0`$ is nearly equivalent to $`ϵ1`$. Henceforth we will investigate the evoution of the universe in terms of $`ϵ`$ as it renders easier comparison with different observational parameters.

Now, with the potential of eqn.(III.23), one has

$$ϵ8\left[\frac{M\chi ^3}{\chi ^4+16H_0^2M^4}\right]^2,\eta \frac{12M^2\chi ^2}{\chi ^4+16H_0^2M^4}.$$
(III.27)
Clearly, slow roll is possible for both $`\chi M`$ and $`\chi M`$. In the former case, the field $`\chi `$ has to increase from a value $`<5.3\times 10^2\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\beta `$ needs to be positive. But from the expression of $`H`$ in eqn.(III.19), one concludes that, in such a case the universe is actually collapsing. In other words, the scalar field in this model can not increase from a small value and yet be consistent with observations.

What if $`\chi `$ is actually decreasing from a large value? For this to occur, $`\beta <0`$ and eqn.(III.19) immediately implies that the universe is always expanding. In Fig.1, we present the deceleration parameter as a function of the field $`\chi `$. For a large initial value $`\chi _i`$, the universe starts with an inflationary period which ends around $`\chi _f3.44M=0.69M_{pl}`$. The total amount of inflation is, of course, decided by the initial value $`\chi _i`$ and thus can be used to determine the latter. This quantity is usually expressed as the number of e-foldings $`N_e`$ of inflation and can be quantified by

$$N_e=\frac{1}{M^2}_{\chi _i}^{\chi _f}𝑑\chi V(\chi )\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}\chi }\right)^1\frac{\chi _i^2\chi _f^2}{8M^2}$$
(III.28)
The minimal value of $`N_e`$, required for a satisfactory solution of the horizon and flatness problems, depends crucially on the energy scale of the inflationary expansion. Assuming that our inflation is a GUT scale one (an assumption we shall justify later), we must have had at least 60 e-foldings of inflation. Using this minimal criterion (and the already determined value $`\chi _f3.44M`$), one obtains $`\chi _i4.42M_{pl}`$. This superPlanckian starting point is quite reminiscent of the chaotic inflationary scenario.

Does our model lead to the right density perturbation spectrum? To answer this question, we need to consider two quantities, namely the spectral tilt $`n_s`$

$$n_s=16ϵ+2\eta $$
(III.29)
which describes the scale dependence of the perturbation and the ratio $`r`$ of the amplitude of tensor and scalar perturbations

$$r4\pi A_t^2/A_s^2.$$
(III.30)
Both these quantities are to be evaluated at the instant when the comoving scale equals the Hubble radius ($`k=aH`$). For a GUT scale inflation with prompt reheating, this happens at around 55 e-foldings. Within our model, these quantities turn out to be

$$n_s0.95,\mathrm{and}r0.12$$
(III.31)
and are very much consistent with the observational bounds inferred by the BOOMERANG BOOM , MAXIMA maxima , and DASI dasi  collaborations, namely

$$0.8<n_s<1.05,r<0.3.$$
(III.32)
. Note also that the spectral tilt is very similar to that for the Harrison-Zeldovich spetrum ($`n_s=1`$).

Before we end our discussion of the phenomenogical aspects of the model, we must comment on the as yet undetermined parameter $`\beta `$. It can be related to the amplitude of scalar perturbation:

$$A_s^2=\frac{512\pi V^3}{75M_{pl}^6}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}\chi }\right)^2.$$
(III.33)
Observational data estimates $`A_s2\times 10^5`$ leading to a small value of $`\beta 9.32\times 10^8M_{pl}`$. Using this value of $`\beta `$ we have $`V(\chi _f)^{1/4}10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$, where $`V(\chi _f)`$ is the vacuum energy at the end of the inflation. This justifies our implicit assumption of GUT scale inflation.

Could there be a second phase of inflation? A naive reading of Fig. 1 would cerainly seem to suggest that inflation could restart once $`(\chi /M)\stackrel{<}{}1`$. But, in reality, this is not the case. Once the original phase of inflation ends, matter creation starts in right earnest. The presence of the matter terms in the r.h.s. of eqns.(III) alters the dynamics radically thereby negating the possibility of a late inflation.

It is interesting to consider the dynamics of the field $`b(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$. Using eqns.(III.1), (III.7) and (III.15), we have, for $`\gamma =1`$,

$$m_0b(\stackrel{~}{\tau })=2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }\chi (\stackrel{~}{\tau })}{\sqrt{3}M_{pl}}\right]=2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }\chi _ie^{\beta \stackrel{~}{\tau }}}{\sqrt{3}M_{pl}}\right]$$
(III.34)
where we denote the field at the initial instant of time by $`\chi _i`$. Note that while the first equality in eqn.(III.34) is but a definition (and hence valid for all times and all $`\gamma `$’s), the second equality is valid only when our approximation of neglecting the matter terms on the brane is a good one. While this approximation is an excellent one during the inflationary era, it certainly is not so when matter creation and reheating effects become important. Thus, although the ultimate settling down of the warp-factor to its current value is ensured, the time scale for the process cannot be determined from this analysis alone. It is also interesting to note that the warp factor remains close to unity (and hence gravity on our brane is not suppressed in the least) during almost the entire inflationary era. Examining this issue quantitatively, although $`b(t)`$ changes by nearly 7 orders of magnitude during the inflationary era (from $`m_0b(\chi _i)5.5\times 10^8`$ to $`m_0b(\chi _f)0.24`$), this change is approximately only linear (vide eqn.III.34) in time666Subsequent evolution increases $`b(t)`$ by an additional factor of nearly 300 to reach $`m_0b_070`$.. In other words, the expansion of the fifth dimension during inflation is far less than that of the observable brane. Consequently, the matter energy density on the brane, which, to begin with, was already much smaller than that in the bulk, is inflated away to a far greater degree than the latter. The asymmetric inflationary expansion of the higher dimensional world, thus, provides a further justification for ignoring the matter terms in the brane but not those in the bulk. Furthermore, the relatively slow variation of the radion field $`b(t)`$ also explains the nearly scale-invariant nature of the primordial density perturbation which, in our model, arises primarily due to the fluctuations of the radion field.

We now return to another important issue of our scenario. The result $`|\omega |\stackrel{<}{}3/2`$ seems to run counter to the findings of the Solar system experiments WND . However, it needs to be realized that this model exits the Brans-Dicke phase at early times itself. With $`\psi `$, and hence $`\varphi `$, assuming a constant value very quickly with time, it essentially decouples from the equations of motion (see III.4). And also as our BD field is massive, it no longer mediates any long range force—at least classically— and hence plays no role in observables such as those considered in Ref. WND  where one considered the massless BD field.777For other interesting cosmological solutions to the Brans-Dicke gravity with this behaviour of the scalar and the scale factor and with the late time acceleration in the presence of a potential for the BD scalar, see ref.anjan\_soma .. It might be argued though that this line of reasoning depends crucially on our having ignored the matter energy density and pressure. Once the variation of the BD scalar field $`\varphi `$ becomes negligible with time and particle creation processes take over, such terms may well become dominant. Of course, the actual process of matter creation, which takes place primarily through the processes of reheating and cooling, depends on the details of the radion potential as well as the radion couplings to the SM particles. The latter, however, become relevant only at very late times, and even then are not of a sufficiently large magnitude to significantly alter the aforementioned results.

## IV Summary

To conclude, we exhibit that a five-dimensional world with a warped geometry (a time-dependent analog of the Randall-Sundrum metric ansatz), supports an inflationary evolution on the brane with the desirable property of a graceful exit mechanism. The key ingredient is the radion field whose coupling to the gravity on the negative tension brane is as that of a scalar field in scalar tensor gravity. By a field transformation, we have recast the action in a Brans-Dicke-like form. The advantage of our approach over canonical models of inflation is that we do not need to introduce any extra scalar (the inflaton). Rather, the radion itself drives inflation. Even more interestingly, the radion evolution exits the inflationary phase in a completely natural way, thus providing for a graceful exit. We have also made a detailed analysis of the cosmological implications of our inflationary model by investigating the density perturabations generated by the radion. For this we have assumed a GUT scale inflation which has also been justified by comparing the amplitude of the scalar perturbation in our model with the COBE normalized value. Two concrete predictions of our model are the values of the spectral index $`n_s`$ and the ratio of the tensor and scalar perturbations $`r`$ which are both well within the range predicted by current CMB observations. As a number of new missions (map and planck) of CMB observations is under way, one can get a more constrained range for $`n_s`$ and $`r`$. Since $`\gamma =1`$ is the only case of successful inflation in this model, brane inflation based on RS type model will be tested more accurately by future observations.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Debashis Ghoshal, Ashoke Sen and Somasri Sen for useful discussions. We are extremely thankful to the referee for detailed report, suggestions and illuminating comments. SB thanks the Harish-Chandra Research Institute for hospitality. DC thanks the Department of Science and Technology, India for financial assistance under the Swarnajayanti Fellowship grant.