format: text

text:
# Pre-big bang in M-theoryThis work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818.

## 1 Introduction and preliminaries

Over the last two decades superstring theory  and, most recently, M-theory  have emerged as the most promising candidates for the theory of quantum gravity. From a cosmological point of view, the key theoretical question to be addressed is whether a successful inflationary model can be constructed from superstring/M-theory. In superstring theories duality relations between different regions of the moduli space provide a much richer setting to investigate inflationary models than Einstein theory. Moreover, the field content of superstring/M-theory in a given region of the moduli space is determined unambigously on theoretical grounds. This provides a firm guidance in the search for inflationary models which is absent in Einstein theory. On the astrophysical/cosmological side a strong test for superstring/supergravity theories is their compatibility with the standard model of early universe. Observational cosmology becomes more and more efficient in constraining cosmological parameters and the spectrum of primordial perturbations. Gravitational wave experiments may provide new and complementary constraints. In the near future, cosmology will be the main laboratory to test whether superstring/M-theory does really describe our universe or is just a nice mathematical construction . In view of these developments superstring/M-theory cosmology is a subject worth investigating.

In the cosmological setting, essential features of superstring/M-theory are the presence of the dilaton, axion, Ramond-Ramond (R-R) forms and various moduli fields, in addition to higher-curvature terms that appear in the low-energy effective actions. The presence of these fields and string duality relations have a profound impact on cosmological scenarios. For instance, simple low-energy string models with graviton and dilaton lead to the so-called pre-big bang (PRBB) scenario  which is structurally different from standard Einstein cosmology. In the PRBB scenario different branches of the solution are related by time reflection and internal transformations – the scale factor duality . The universe evolves from a weakly coupled string vacuum state first to a radiation-dominated and then to a matter-dominated Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) geometry through a region of strong coupling and large curvature.

If M-theory is the ultimate theory of quantum gravity the low-energy world is described by the 11-dimensional supergravity action

$`S^{(11)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{pl,11}^9}}{\displaystyle }d^{11}x\sqrt{g^{(11)}}[R^{(11)}(g_{ab}^{(11)}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}F_{a_1\mathrm{}a_4}F^{a_1\mathrm{}a_4}+`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12^4\sqrt{g^{(11)}}}}ϵ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_3b_1\mathrm{}b_4c_1\mathrm{}c_4}A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_3}F_{b_1\mathrm{}b_4}F_{c_1\mathrm{}c_4}],`$
where $`a_i,b_i,c_i=0\mathrm{}10`$, $`F_{a_1\mathrm{}a_4}=4_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_4]}`$ is the 4-form field strength of the antisymmetric 3-form potential $`A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_3}`$, and $`g^{(11)}`$ denotes the determinant of the 11-dimensional metric $`g_{ab}^{(11)}`$. Equation (1) describes the low-energy limit of M-theory. (Here and throughout the paper we use natural units and set $`l_{pl,11}`$ such that the four-dimensional Planck length is $`l_{pl,4}=1`$.)

Starting from equation (1) several different M-theory cosmological models have been proposed in the literature. In particular, the idea of brane world has emerged in the works of Lukas et al  and Randall and Sundrum . According to this model our four-dimensional universe emerges as the world volume of a 3-brane in a higher-dimensional spacetime. A more standard approach  deals with different classes of cosmological solutions that reduce to solutions of string dilaton gravity. The analysis of four-dimensional isotropic and homogeneous cosmologies derived from M-theory and type IIA superstring theory (see last paper in ) has found that form-fields associated with the Neveu/Schwarz-Neveu/Schwarz (NS-NS) and R-R sectors play a different and crucial role in determining the dynamical behavior of the solutions: the NS-NS fields, such as the axion, tend to forbid inflation whereas the R-R fields have the opposite effect .

The purpose of this paper is to investigate what cosmological scenario follows from three simple assumptions:

* M-theory is the correct description of nature;
* non-gravitational fields live on a three-dimensional brane propagating in the 11-dimensional spacetime;
* the universe originated in the vacuum of the theory (asymptotically past triviality, APT).

We will see that these simple postulates lead naturally to a PRBB cosmological scenario, where two different branches of the solution are related by internal symmetries of the model and the universe evolves from a weakly coupled string vacuum state to a decelerated FRW geometry through a state with large curvature. Although our model is probably too simple to give an accurate or even acceptable description of our universe, we believe it is nevertheless interesting and may represent a good starting point to discuss the PRBB scenario in M-theory.

## 2 The model

Assumption (a) implies that the low-energy world is described by equation (1). Following Witten  we assume that the 11th dimension is compactified on a circle $`S_1`$ of radius $`R_{S_1}`$. Carrying out a Kaluza-Klein reduction we find

$`S^{(10)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{pl,10}^8}}{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\sqrt{g^{(s)}}[e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}}(R^{(10)}(g_{mn}^{(s)})+(\mathrm{\Phi }_{10})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{mnp}H^{mnp})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}F_{mnpq}F^{mnpq}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{384\sqrt{g^{(11)}}}}ϵ^{m_1m_2n_1\mathrm{}n_4p_1\mathrm{}p_4}B_{m_1m_2}F_{n_1\mathrm{}n_4}F_{p_1\mathrm{}p_4}],`$ (2)
where we have rescaled the ten-dimensional metric as $`g_{ab}=R_{S_1}^1g_{ab}^{(s)}`$ ($`a,b10`$) and we have defined the dilaton by $`R_{S_1}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}/3}`$. $`H_{mnp}`$ and $`F_{mnpq}`$ are the field strengths of the potentials $`B_{np}`$ and $`A_{npq}`$, respectively. Note that we have ignored the 1-form potential that arises from the Kaluza-Klein reduction. Equation (2) is the effective action for massless type IIA superstring. The first line of equation (2) corresponds to the NS-NS sector and the second line corresponds to the R-R sector.

Assumption (b) implies, for consistency, that the ten-dimensional geometry must be of the form $`M_4\times C_6`$ and that the only non-trivial components of the field strengths are those associated with $`M_4`$. $`C_6`$ is a six-dimensional compact space which we assume to be a generic (Ricci flat) Calabi-Yau space, or, for sake of simplicity, a six-dimensional torus. Upon compactification on the six-dimensional internal space $`C_6`$ we find ($`l_{pl,4}=1`$)

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_4}\left(R^{(4)}(g_{\mu \nu })+\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_4\right)^26\left(\beta \right)^2\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda }\right)\frac{1}{48}e^{6\beta }F_{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }F^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }\right],$$
(3)
where the radius of the internal space is $`R_{C_6}=e^\beta `$ and the four-dimensional dilaton field is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4=\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}6\beta `$. The field equation for the four-form $`F^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }`$ can be solved and the 3-form $`H^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ can be dualized. The final result is

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_4}\left(R^{(4)}(g_{\mu \nu })+\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_4\right)^26\left(\beta \right)^2\frac{1}{2}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_4}\left(\sigma \right)^2\right)\frac{1}{2}𝒬^2e^{6\beta }\right],$$
(4)
where $`\sigma `$ is the pseudo-scalar axion field dual to the 3-form, $`H^{\mu \nu \lambda }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_4}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }_\kappa \sigma `$, and $`F^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }=𝒬e^{6\beta }ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }`$. Equation (4) describes the world as seen by the four-dimensional observer and is our starting point to investigate M-theory cosmology.

Since we are interested in homogeneous and isotropic cosmologies we impose the metric ansatz

$$ds_{(4)}^2g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu =N^2(t)dt^2+a(t)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k},N(t)>0$$
(5)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3k}`$ is a maximally symmetric three-dimensional unit metric with curvature $`k=0,\pm 1`$, respectively. Moreover, in the spirit of the APT postulate, we assume that the four-dimensional metric (5) is spatially flat, i.e., we set $`k=0`$222Note that the APT, in its general form , admits more general initial states than spatially flat spacetime, namely, generic perturbative solutions of the low-energy string action which lead to gravitational instability.. By substituting equation (5) in equation (4) and requiring for consistency that the modulus field $`\beta `$, the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$, and the axion $`\sigma `$ depend only on $`t`$, the density action per comoving volume in the physical spacetime becomes

$$S=𝑑t\left[\frac{1}{\mu }\left(3\dot{\alpha }^2\dot{\varphi }^2+6\dot{\beta }^2+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\sigma }^2e^{2(3\alpha +\varphi )}\right)\mu \frac{1}{2}𝒬^2e^{3\alpha \varphi 6\beta }\right],$$
(6)
where $`\alpha (t)=\mathrm{ln}[a(t)]`$, and we have defined the ‘shifted dilaton’ field $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }_43\alpha `$ and the Lagrange multiplier $`\mu (t)=Ne^\varphi >0`$. Finally, equation (6) can be cast in the canonical form

$$S=𝑑t\left[\dot{\alpha }p_\alpha +\dot{\varphi }p_\varphi +\dot{\beta }p_\beta +\dot{\sigma }p_\sigma \right],$$
(7)
where the Hamiltonian is

$$=\mu H,H=\frac{1}{24}\left[2p_\alpha ^26p_\varphi ^2+p_\beta ^2+12𝒬^2e^{3\alpha \varphi 6\beta }\left(1+\frac{p_\sigma ^2}{𝒬^2}e^{9\alpha \varphi +6\beta }\right)\right].$$
(8)
The total Hamiltonian $``$ is proportional to the non-dynamical variable $`\mu `$ which enforces the constraint $`H=0`$.

We now make a further assumption. We assume that, at least at the beginning of the evolution, the NS-NS axion field is negligible w.r.t. the R-R 4-form field, namely, we consider a volume in the four-dimensional spacetime which is nearly devoid of axions. Quantitatively, we require

$$|𝒬/p_\sigma |>>1.$$
(9)
(Note that $`p_\sigma `$ is constant.) The dynamical behaviour at the beginning of the evolution is described by the solution

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & \alpha _0\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\kappa 𝒯\right)\right]\alpha _1𝒯,p_\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & \frac{3\kappa }{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\kappa 𝒯\right)6\alpha _1,\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \varphi \hfill & =\hfill & \varphi _0\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\kappa 𝒯\right)\right]\varphi _1𝒯,p_\varphi \hfill & =\hfill & \frac{\kappa }{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\kappa 𝒯\right)+2\varphi _1,\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \beta \hfill & =\hfill & \beta _0+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\kappa 𝒯\right)\right]\beta _1𝒯,p_\beta \hfill & =\hfill & 3\kappa \mathrm{tanh}\left(\kappa 𝒯\right)12\beta _1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where

$$𝒯(t)=_{t_0}^t\mu (t^{})𝑑t^{},t>t_0.$$
(11)
The constants of motion are related by (we choose $`\kappa >0`$ for simplicity)

$`\kappa ^2+6\alpha _1^22\varphi _1^2+12\beta _1^22H`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (12)
$`3\alpha _0\varphi _06\beta _02\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{|𝒬|}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
$`3\alpha _16\beta _1\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (14)
The dynamics of the model is determined essentially by $`\alpha _1`$. The constant $`\kappa `$ determines the scale of the time evolution and can be reabsorbed in the solution by defining the parameter $`\tau =\kappa 𝒯`$ and the constants $`\xi =\alpha _1/\kappa `$, $`\chi =\varphi _1/\kappa `$, $`\rho =\beta _1/\kappa `$ and $`Q=𝒬/\kappa `$. The constants $`\alpha _0`$, $`\beta _0`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are initial conditions for the phase space coordinates $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\varphi `$, respectively.

The evolution proceeds monotonically in the gauge parameter $`\tau `$. The latter is related to the proper time of the four-dimensional world by the relation

$$t_c(\tau )=_{\tau _0}^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}e^{\varphi (\tau ^{})},$$
(15)
Since the integrand in Eq. (15) is positive defined, the time evolution in the cosmic time $`t_c`$ follows the evolution in the gauge parameter $`\tau `$.

The structure of the moduli space is conveniently described in the plane ($`\xi ,\rho `$). The physical points are determined in this plane by the two branches of the hyperbola (12) (see figure 1)

$$(+)\text{ branch: }\rho =\frac{3}{5}\xi +\frac{1}{5}\sqrt{4\xi ^2+\frac{5}{12}};()\text{ branch: }\rho =\frac{3}{5}\xi \frac{1}{5}\sqrt{4\xi ^2+\frac{5}{12}}.$$

(The notation will be clearified soon.) The $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ branches are characterized by a few distinctive kinematical and dynamical properties:

Table 1.

|  | $`(+)`$ branch | $`()`$ branch |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4D effective coupling $`g`$ | Increasing | Decreasing |
| Initial 4D effective coupling | Weak, perturbative | Strong, non-perturbative |
| 11D curvature $`K`$ | Increasing | Decreasing |
| Initial curvature scale | Arbitrarily small | Arbitrarily large |

where $`ge^\varphi `$ and $`KR^{(11)}{}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}R_{}^{(11)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$. The $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ branches remind one of the PRBB and post-big bang (POBB) branches in the PRBB scenario . In the standard dilaton gravity models of PRBB  the two branches coincide with accelerated and decelerated scale factors, respectively. Here, the presence of extra fields (the R-R 4-form) makes the picture more complicated. For each of the two branches we find three different dynamical behaviours of the external geometry according to the value of $`\xi `$: expanding for $`\xi <1/4`$ (accelerated for the $`(+)`$ branch and decelerated for the $`()`$ branch), contracting for $`\xi >1/4`$ (accelerated for the $`(+)`$ branch and decelerated for the $`()`$ branch) and bouncing for $`1/4<\xi <1/4`$ (accelerated at early and late times for the $`(+)`$ branch and decelerated for the $`()`$ branch)333We do not consider here the ‘fine-tuned’ cases $`\xi =\pm 1/4`$.. The qualitative behaviour of the external scale factor is represented in figure 2.

The Hubble parameter and the deceleration parameter of the four-dimensional world are

$$H(t_c)=\frac{e^{\varphi _0\chi \tau }}{\mathrm{cosh}^{1/4}(\tau )}\left(\xi +\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tanh}(\tau )\right),$$
(16)
and

$$q(t_c)=\frac{1}{\xi +\mathrm{tanh}(\tau )/4}\left(\xi +\chi +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}(\tau )\frac{1}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2(\tau )(\xi +\mathrm{tanh}(\tau )/4)}\right),$$
(17)
respectively. For $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ we have

$$H(t_c)2^{1/4}e^{\varphi _0}(\xi +1/4)e^{\tau (\chi +1/4)},$$
(18)
and

$$q(t_c)\frac{1}{\xi +1/4}\left(\xi +\chi +1/2\right).$$
(19)
Note that the deceleration parameter is always finite.

## 3 The scenario

A physical description of our universe requires a large universe at late times. This is achieved in the region of the moduli space $`\xi <1/4`$. Since we are assuming that at small times the 4-form potential is dominant with respect to the axion potential term, the dynamics at the early stages of the evolution is described by the solution above. The APT assumption (c) then implies that the early universe must be described by the (+) branch solution of the hyperbola. Indeed, for the $`()`$ branch of the hyperbola the 11-dimensional curvature blows up at early times and approaches zero at large times. The converse is true for the $`(+)`$ branch. The APT postulate requires that the evolution starts in a low-energy state, i.e. in a state with small curvature. Clearly, the lower branch does not satisfy this requirement. If we restrict attention to the region $`\xi <1/4`$ the similarity of the $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ branches to the PRBB and POBB branches of the PRBB scenario is complete. Table 2 summarizes the kinematical and dynamical properties of the plus and minus branch for $`\xi <1/4`$:

Table 2.

|  | $`(+)`$ branch | $`()`$ branch |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Time evolution | $`\dot{a}>0`$, $`\ddot{a}>0`$ | $`\dot{a}>0`$, $`\ddot{a}<0`$ |
| Hubble parameter | $`H>0`$, $`\dot{H}>0`$ | $`H>0`$, $`\dot{H}<0`$ |
| Event/Particle horizon | Decreasing/– | –/increasing |
| 11D Curvature | Increasing | Decreasing |
| Initial curvature scale | Arbitrarily small | Arbitrarily large |
| 4D effective coupling $`g`$ | $`\dot{g}>0`$, $`g_i=0`$, $`g_e=\mathrm{}`$ | $`\dot{g}<0`$, $`g_i=\mathrm{}`$, $`g_e=0`$ |
| 4D coupling $`g^{(4)}`$ | $`\dot{g}^{\left(4\right)}>0`$, $`g_i^{(4)}=0`$ | $`\dot{g}^{\left(4\right)}`$ undefined, $`g_e^{(4)}=0`$ |

where $`g^{(4)}=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_4}`$, $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ and a dot denotes differentiation with respect to cosmic time $`t_c`$.

The $`(+)`$ branch enjoys all the properties of the PRBB branch of the standard PRBB model . So our model leads to a picture of the evolution of the Universe which does indeed describe a PRBB scenario. According to the latter, the (four-dimensional) universe starts in an expanding weak-coupled, low-curvature regime with growing curvature and growing four-dimensional string coupling $`g^{(4)}`$. The expansion is accelerated and continues until the strongly coupled regime with large curvature is approached. Here non-perturbative effects enter into play and possibly induce a transition to the POBB $`()`$ branch (graceful exit). The expansion is now decelerated and both the Hubble parameter and the four-dimensional coupling constant $`g^{(4)}`$ vanish at large times.

The consistency of this picture requires that the contribution of the axion to the Hamiltonian (8) remains subdominant during the PRBB phase. The axion potential term can be shown to be monotonically decreasing in the region of the moduli space $`\rho >\xi +1/3`$. Therefore, a consistent description of the dynamics constrains the physical solutions to the range $`\xi <17/480.354`$ of the $`(+)`$ branch. This region of the moduli space coincides essentially with the region $`\xi <1/4`$ so an asymptotically past trivial patch of spacetime with dominant 4-form, which is initially expanding, is likely to continue its (accelerated) expansion until it reaches the strong-coupling regime. Therefore, we conclude that a patch of spacetime with dominant 4-form, which is initially expanding and asymptotically past trivial, potentially evolves to a (spatially flat) homogeneous, accelerated expanding universe with finite negative deceleration parameter and infinite curvature (PRBB phase).

Up to now we have not discussed the dynamical behavior of the internal space and of the 11th-dimension. The $`\xi <1/4`$ region of the $`(+)`$ branch is characterized by an expanding internal space for $`\xi 3/41/\sqrt{3}`$, and a bouncing internal space for $`3/41/\sqrt{3}<\xi <1/4`$. In both cases the internal space becomes exponentially large when the strongly coupled region is approached. The ratio between the two scale factors is

$$\frac{a}{R_{C_6}}=e^{\alpha _0\beta _0}\frac{e^{\tau (\rho \xi )}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(\tau )}}.$$
(20)
In the region $`\rho >\xi +1/2`$ of the moduli space $`(\xi ,\rho )`$ the scale factor of the internal space grows at a slower pace than the external scale factor. Therefore for $`\xi <7/12`$ the $`(+)`$ branch solution leads to $`a/R_6>>1`$ at large times. Since $`\xi <7/12<17/48`$, the demand that the size of the six-dimensional internal space is compactified with respect to external space is consistent with the axion potential remaining subdominant during the PRBB phase. Now let us turn to the 11th dimension. We have

$$\frac{a}{R_{S_1}}=e^{(\alpha _0+\varphi _0+6\beta _0)/2}\frac{e^{2\xi \tau }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(\tau )}}.$$
(21)
In the region $`\xi <1/4`$ the ratio $`a/R_{S_1}`$ tend to zero at large times. The size of the 11th dimension becomes much larger than the size of the four-dimensional world both for the (expanding) $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ branches. This implies that a weakly coupled 11-dimensional universe reaches the strong-coupling regime in a state with four large dimensions (where matter exists), one extra-large dimension, and six compactified internal dimensions. From the point of view of a four-dimensional observer, the universe is five-dimensional at the end of the PRBB evolutionary phase. This picture shows some resemblance to the brane world picture of Lukas et al , and of Randall and Sundrum .

The universe emerges from the graceful exit in a five-dimensional state and starts evolving according to the $`()`$ branch. During the POBB evolution the 11th dimension continues to expand at a faster pace than the four-dimensional world. So we expect one extra-large dimension at POBB late times as well. During the POBB phase the six-dimensional internal space is also expanding faster than the four-dimensional scale factor. However, this should not be disturbing because the NS-NS axion potential term will eventually dominate the R-R 4-form potential. If this occurs, at late POBB times the dynamics is described by the solution

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\tau \right)\right]\stackrel{~}{\xi }\tau ,\hfill & p_\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & 3\mathrm{tanh}\left(\tau \right)6\stackrel{~}{\xi },\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \varphi \hfill & =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\tau \right)\right]+3\stackrel{~}{\xi }\tau ,\hfill & p_\varphi \hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{tanh}\left(\tau \right)6\stackrel{~}{\xi },\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \beta \hfill & =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\beta }_0+\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta }{12}\tau ,\hfill & \sigma \hfill & =\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}_\sigma }\mathrm{tanh}\left(\tau \right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where

$`112\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta ^2}{12}}2H`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (23)
$`3\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0\mathrm{ln}\left|\stackrel{~}{p}_\sigma \right|`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (24)
The structure of moduli space of the NS-NS solution is similar to the structure of the moduli space of the R-R solution. The physical points are determined in the plane $`(\stackrel{~}{\xi },\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta )`$ by the two branches of the hyperbola (23) (see figure 3)

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta =\pm 2\sqrt{3}\sqrt{12\stackrel{~}{\xi }^21}.$$
(25)
The left $`()`$ branch and the right $`(+)`$ branch are characterized by the same kinematical and dynamical properties of table 1. The dynamical behaviour of the scale factor of the external space is similar to that of the 4-form dominated solution. The $`()`$ branch describes a solution with expanding four-dimensional scale factor for $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }1/2`$ and bouncing (first contracting then expanding) four-dimensional scale factor for $`1/2<\stackrel{~}{\xi }<1/2\sqrt{3}`$. The $`(+)`$ branch describes bouncing (first contracting then expanding) and contracting four-dimensional scale factor for $`1/2\sqrt{3}<\stackrel{~}{\xi }<1/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }1/2`$, respectively. The sign of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta `$ determines the behaviour of the internal space. Positive values of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta `$ describe solutions with expanding internal dimensions and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta <0`$ solutions with shrinking internal space. The ratio between the two scale factors is

$$\frac{a}{R_{C_6}}=e^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0}e^{\tau (\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta /12+\stackrel{~}{\xi })}\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(\tau )}.$$
(26)
When the axion starts dominating the dynamics of the R-R POBB solution the 11-dimensional universe may find itself either in the $`()`$ or in the $`(+)`$ branch. Accordingly, the four-dimensional world may either: (a) continue its decelerated expansion; (b) contract for a while and then resume its (decelerate) expansion (bouncing solutions); or (c) start an accelerated contracting phase. If we live in the axion-dominated phase, a physical expanding universe at large times requires that the axion-dominated four-dimensional world continues its expansion in the (a) region of the $`()`$ branch. This is achieved by $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }<1/2`$. From Eq. (26) we find that the ratio $`a/R_{C_6}`$ becomes exponentially large for the $`()`$ branch solution. As a consequence, the expansion of the internal dimensions of the R-R POBB phase is eventually halted. Since the size of the six-dimensional internal space is already compactified to small scales by the R-R PRBB phase the internal space remains compactified at late times.

Now let us turn to the 11th dimension. For the axion-dominated POBB phase the ratio between the size of the 11th dimension and the scale factor of the four-dimensional world is

$$\frac{a}{R_{S_1}}=e^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0+6\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0)/2}e^{\tau (\stackrel{~}{p}_\beta /4+\stackrel{~}{\xi })}.$$
(27)
The four-dimensional scale factor increases at a faster pace than the eleven-dimensional radius for the $`()`$ branch. Eventually, for large times we have $`a/R_{S_1}>>1`$. However, when the axion starts dominating the dynamics, the ratio $`a/R_{S_1}`$ is very small because of the R-R PRBB phase. Therefore, the universe can be tuned to remain five-dimensional on very long time scales.

## 4 Justifying the PRBB-POBB transition

The M-theory PRBB model which is described in the previous section requires a transition at high-curvature scales from the $`(+)`$ branch to the $`()`$ branch. This transition, the so-called graceful exit , is typical of the PRBB scenario. One of the main unsolved problems of string cosmology is actually understanding the mechanism responsible for the transition from the inflationary PRBB phase with increasing curvature to the deflationary POBB phase with decreasing curvature. Since in the PRBB phase the curvature is increasing monotonically, the graceful exit necessarily involves a high-curvature, strongly coupled, regime where higher derivatives and string loop terms must be taken into account . In the usual PRBB scenario it has been shown that for any choice of the (local) dilaton potential no cosmological solutions that connect smoothly the PRBB and POBB phases exist at classical level . In contrast, quantum effects may induce a transition from the PRBB phase to the POBB phase. A number of quantum string cosmology models have been investigated in the literature . The outcome of these investigations is that the quantum PRBB-POBB transition probability is generally finite and non-zero. In the quantum cosmology context, the transition from the PRBB phase to the POBB phase is described by a scattering of the PRBB wavefunction by an effective potential barrier that mimics the strongly coupled regime of the theory . In the simplest models the PRBB and the POBB phases are identified, in the weakly coupled region of the phase space, by stationary eigenfunctions of the Wheeler-de Witt (WDW) equation with opposite momentum, say, $`\psi ^+`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$. The PRBB-POBB transition amplitude is then given by the product $`A=(\psi ^+,\psi ^{})`$ in the Hilbert space.

In our model the transition from the $`(+)`$ branch to the $`()`$ branch may be explained by a similar mechanism which involves reflection of wavefunctions. Let us define the gauge-invariant canonical pairs

$$\begin{array}{c}X=\frac{1}{5}\left[6(5\alpha +6\beta +\varphi )+\frac{5p_\alpha +3p_\beta 3p_\varphi }{\kappa }\mathrm{arccosh}\left(\frac{\kappa }{|𝒬|}e^{(3\alpha 6\beta \varphi )/2}\right)\right],\hfill \\ \\ P_X=\frac{1}{48}\left(5p_\alpha +3p_\beta 3p_\varphi \right),\hfill \\ \\ Y=\frac{1}{5}\left[12\left(\beta +\varphi \right)+\frac{p_\beta 6p_\varphi }{\kappa }\mathrm{arccosh}\left(\frac{\kappa }{|𝒬|}e^{(3\alpha 6\beta \varphi )/2}\right)\right],\hfill \\ \\ P_Y=\frac{1}{12}\left(p_\beta 6p_\varphi \right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where

$$\frac{1}{16}\left(p_\alpha +p_\beta p_\varphi \right)^2+𝒬^2e^{3\alpha 6\beta \varphi }=\kappa ^2.$$
(29)
The canonical variables above can be completed by the pair $`(T,H)`$, where

$$T=\frac{1}{\kappa }\mathrm{arccosh}\left(\frac{\kappa }{|𝒬|}e^{(3\alpha 6\beta \varphi )/2}\right),$$
(30)
to give a complete set of canonical variables. Using this canonical set the gauge-fixed density action reads

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝑑t\left[\dot{X}P_X+\dot{Y}P_YH_{gf}\right],$$
(31)
where we have fixed the gauge $`T=tt_0`$. The effective Hamiltonian $`H_{gf}`$ vanishes on-shell. The Schrödinger equation is

$$\widehat{H}_{gf}\mathrm{\Psi }(X,Y;t)=i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }(X,Y;t).$$
(32)
Since the effective Hamiltonian of the system is identically zero the wave functions do not depend on $`t`$. An orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space is given by the set of eigenfunctions of the gauge invariant observables,

$$\widehat{P}_X=i\frac{}{X},\widehat{P}_Y=i\frac{}{Y},$$
(33)
with eigenvalues $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2\pi }e^{i(xX+yY)}.$$
(34)
As was expected, in the low-energy limit the wavefunctions are free plane waves in the two-dimensional $`(X,Y)`$ space with respect to the Hilbert product

$$(\psi _1,\psi _2)=𝑑X𝑑Y\psi _1^{}\psi _2.$$
(35)
Quantum high-curvature effects generate a potential $`V(X,Y)`$. So we expect that when quantum effects are properly taken into account scattering and reflection of wavefunctions occurs in the $`(X,Y)`$ space. Classically, the relation between the moduli parameters and the gauge-invariant variables is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha _0=\frac{5}{48}X\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}|Q|,\hfill & \beta _0=\frac{1}{16}X+\frac{1}{12}Y+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}|Q|,\hfill & \varphi _0=\frac{1}{16}X\frac{1}{2}Y\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}|Q|,\hfill \\ & & \\ \xi =\frac{1}{\kappa }P_X,\hfill & \rho =\frac{1}{5\kappa }(3P_X+P_Y),\hfill & \chi =\frac{3}{5\kappa }(P_X+2P_Y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where

$$\frac{12}{5}(P_Y^24P_X^2)=\kappa ^22H.$$
(37)
A reflection in the $`(X,Y)`$ space with respect to the $`X`$ plane ($`YY`$) is equivalent, in the moduli space $`(\xi ,\rho )`$, to the transformation $`\xi \xi `$, $`\rho 6\xi /5\rho `$, i.e., to a change of branch in the moduli space. Therefore, high-curvature quantum effects may induce a transition from the PRBB branch to the POBB branch, in complete analogy with the standard PRBB scenario.

## 5 Concluding remarks

In this paper we have discussed a cosmological scenario which emerges from (low-energy) M-theory. We have found that the APT postulate and the confinement of the non-gravitational fields on a 3-brane propagating in the 11-dimensional spacetime lead naturally to a PRBB model. In the latter the four-dimensional universe undergoes first a phase of accelerated expansion (PRBB) and then a phase of decelerated expansion (POBB) connected by a state with large curvature.

Our model is clearly too simple to have any pretense of describing the real world. A (partial) list of potential problems and drawbacks contains the following issues: (a) there is no stabilization of the extra-dimensions; (b) three-dimensional spatial curvature has not been considered; (c) when the full phase space of the model (4-form + axion) is considered the dynamics is (probably) non-integrable so at a given evolutionary stage chaotic behaviour may appear; (d) chaotic behaviour certainly appears when all supergravity form fields are excited , so the overall dynamics may be qualitatively different; (e) fine-tuning issues may appear when trying to fit the observed cosmological parameters to the model; (f) as in the standard PRBB scenario, we do not know of any convincing mechanism that could induce the graceful exit, etc.

Though the list above could include many other potential problems, we still believe that some interesting information can be extracted from our model. Firstly, we have learned that the PRBB scenario fits naturally in a model which is not (at least explicitly) invariant under scale factor duality. This provides some evidence about the generality of the cosmological PRBB picture in models derived from M-theory and/or string theory. Scale factor duality may be an accidental symmetry of the simplest dilaton gravity systems that does not exist in more complex models444For instance, $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections to the low-energy string action do not preserve scale factor duality., still PRBB seems to be quite a generic feature. Secondly, R-R forms are recognized to be essential ingredients in the construction of a viable model of the observed universe. Finally, and most importantly, we have seen that PRBB and brane-world cosmologies may be compatible in principle. In this context, it would be worth trying to implement and reinterpret the PRBB scenario in the LOW  and/or RS  brane world models.

## Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Maurizio Gasperini and Paulo Vargas Moniz for interesting discussions and useful comments. Part of this work was completed during the 8th International School of Astrophysics Daniel Chalonge. I thank Norma Sanchez for her kind invitation and the stimulating environment she was able to create in Erice. I acknowledge many discussions with the participants of the school on the subject of this paper. I also thank my friends Gianfranco Bertone, Lilith Haroyan and, in particular, Eun-Joo Ahn for the wonderful time we shared during the school.


text:
# Is Neutrino a Superluminal Particle?

## Abstract

Based on the experimental discovery that the mass-square of neutrino is negative, a quantum theory for superluminal neutrino is proposed. Two Weyl equations coupled together via a mass term respecting the maximum parity violation lead to a new equation which describes the superluminal motion of neutrino with permanent helicity. Various strange features of subluminal and superluminal particles can be ascribed to the relative variation of two contradictory fields superposing coherently inside the particle with the change of its speed u in the whole range ($`0<u<\mathrm{}`$). Being compatible with the theory of special relativity, this theory may have various applications.

PACS: 14.60 Lm, 14.60. Pq, 14.60. st

Recent experimental data in the measurement of tritium beta decay reveal an amazing result that the mass-square of electron neutrino is negative :

$$m^2(\nu _e)=2.5\pm 3.3eV^2.$$
$`(1)`$
The pion decay experiment also shows a similar puzzle that :

$$m^2(\nu _\mu )=0.016\pm 0.023MeV^2.$$
$`(2)`$
The experimental data (1) and (2),though far from accurate, strongly hint that a neutrino might be some particle moving faster than light. Following the existing literature , we shall call it superluminal particle or tachyon, which obeys the kinematic relation:

$$E^2=c^2p^2m_s^2c^4$$
$`(3)`$
with its energy, momentum and “proper mass” denoted by $`E,p`$ and $`m_s`$ respectively, For instance $`m_s(\nu _e)=1.6eV`$. In a short letter  a new Dirac-type equation is established for explaining the negative mass-square of neutrino. As a continuation and development of , here we will elaborate the quantum theory in some detail and explore further the intrinsic essence responsible for the strange behavior of tachyon.

Since the discovery of parity violation in 1956 , the theory for neutrino is based on Weyl equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\xi =ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi ,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\xi (t,x)`$ is a two-component spinor function. Eq. (4) describes a positive energy $`(E>0)`$ solution for left-handed neutrino (with helicity $`H=<\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}>=1,\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}=\stackrel{}{p}/|\stackrel{}{p}|`$) and a negative energy ($`E<0`$) solution for right-handed antineutrino (with helicity $`H=1`$) in accordance with that verified by experiments. The alternative possibility that

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\eta =ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta ,$$
$`(5)`$
was thus abandoned. As now experiments show that $`m_s0`$ , we assume a new equation for neutrino being composed of both $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ coupling via nonzero $`m_s`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\xi =ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi m_sc^2\eta ,\hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\eta =ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta +m_sc^2\xi \hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6)`$
Consider a plane wave solution $`\xi \eta \mathrm{exp}[i(pxEt)/\mathrm{}]`$ along $`x`$ axis for a particle with helicity $`H=1`$, we find

$$\eta =\frac{m_sc^2}{cp+E}\xi $$
$`(7)`$
and Eq.(3) as expected. Based on Eq.(3) with quantum relations $`E=\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`p=\mathrm{}k`$, the velocity of particle, $`u`$, should be identified with the group velocity $`u_g=\frac{d\omega }{dk}`$ of wave versus the phase velocity $`u_p=\frac{\omega }{k}`$. Defining the changeable (total) mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ by $`p=\stackrel{~}{m}u_g=\stackrel{~}{m}u`$, one can easily prove that:

$$u_pu_g=c^2,$$
$`(8)`$
$$p=\stackrel{~}{m}u=\frac{m_su}{\sqrt{\frac{u^2}{c^2}1}},E=\stackrel{~}{m}c^2=\frac{m_sc^2}{\sqrt{\frac{u^2}{c^2}1}}.$$
$`(9)`$
For understanding why a negative solution ($`E<0`$) describes an antiparticle, we introduce two linear combination functions of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ :

$$\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi +\eta ),\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi \eta )$$
$`(10)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\phi =ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\chi +m_sc^2\chi ,\hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\chi =ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi m_sc^2\phi \hfill \end{array}$$
$`(11)`$
Eq. (11) is invariant under the space-time inversion ($`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`tt`$) and transformation:

$$\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\chi (\stackrel{}{x},t),\chi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t)$$
$`(12)`$
(see Refs. ). For a concrete solution of particle:

$$\phi \chi \mathrm{exp}[i(pxEt)/\mathrm{}],(E>0)$$
$`(13)`$
$$\chi =\frac{cpm_sc^2}{E}\phi ,(|\phi /\chi |>1)$$
$`(14)`$
the transformation (12) leads to the wavefunction (WF) of its antiparticle:

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\chi _c(\stackrel{}{x},t)\mathrm{exp}[i(pxEt)/\mathrm{}],\hfill \\ \chi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\phi _c(\stackrel{}{x},t)\mathrm{exp}[i(pxEt)/\mathrm{}],\hfill \end{array}(|\chi _c/\phi _c|>1))$$
$`(15)`$
Eq.(15) implies a negative energy solution if we use the familiar operators of momentum and energy for particle:

$$\widehat{p}=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},\widehat{E}=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}$$
$`(16)`$
But for antiparticle, we should use the counterparts of (16) as

$$\widehat{p_c}=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},\widehat{E_c}=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}$$
$`(16)`$
(subscript $`c`$ denotes the antiparticle). Hence Eq. (15) describes an antiparticle with momentum p and energy $`E(>0)`$ precisely as that in Eq. (13) for a particle. Interesting enough, a modification of Eq. (11) as

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\phi _D=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\chi _D+m_0c^2\phi _D,\hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\chi _D=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi _Dm_0c^2\chi _D\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(18)`$
which still obeys the symmetry (12) is just the Dirac equation:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi _D=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\alpha }\psi _D+\beta m_0c^2\psi _D$$
$`(19)`$
$$\psi _D=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _D\\ \chi _D\end{array}\right),\alpha _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)$$
$`(20)`$
for describing the electron with rest mass $`m_0`$ and speed $`u<c`$.

Why Eq.(11) is so radically different from the Eq.(18)? Let’s first derive the continuity equation for Eq. (11) (or Eq.(6)):

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{j}=0,$$
$`(21)`$
$$\rho =\phi ^+\chi +\chi ^+\phi =\xi ^+\xi \eta ^+\eta ,$$
$`(22)`$
$$\stackrel{}{j}=c(\phi ^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi +\chi ^+\sigma \chi )=c(\xi ^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi +\eta ^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta ),$$
$`(23)`$
versus that for Dirac Eq.(18) or its equivalent form:

$$\xi _D=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi _D+\chi _D),\eta _D=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi _D\chi _D)$$
$`(24)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\xi _D=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi _D+m_0c^2\eta _D,\hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\eta _D=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta _D+m_0c^2\xi _D\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(25)`$
$$\rho _D=\phi _D^+\phi _D+\chi _D^+\chi _D=\xi _D^+\xi _D+\eta _D^+\eta _D,$$
$`(26)`$
$$\stackrel{}{j}_D=c(\phi _D^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\chi _D+\chi _D^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi _D)=c(\xi _D^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi \eta _D^+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta _D).$$
$`(27)`$
Now the normalization condition $`\rho 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}=1`$ for Eq.(6) corresponds to the conservation of helicity in the motion: $`H=1`$ for particle whereas $`H=1`$ for antiparticle. The neutrino (antineutrino) is permanently longitudinal polarized as $`\nu _L(\overline{\nu }_R)`$ and its invariant feature can be maintained in any inertial frame because of its velocity $`u>c`$.

Next, we can find out a radical difference between (6) and (25). Under the space-inversion ($`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}`$) and related transformation:

$$\xi _D(\stackrel{}{x},t)\eta _D(\stackrel{}{x},t),\eta _D(\stackrel{}{x},t)\xi _D(\stackrel{}{x},t)$$
$`(28)`$
Dirac Eq.(25) is invariant whereas Eq. (6) fails to do so because of the opposite sign in mass term. It is just a clearcut reflection of the fact that neutrino yields the maximum violation of parity. The new observation is that the parity violation is triggered by its nonzero (proper) mass which in turn implies that neutrino must be a superluminal particle with permanent helicity: while $`\nu _L`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_R`$ are allowed, $`\nu _R`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_L`$ must be forbidden strictly.

We are now in a position to realize the marvelous kinematical feature of superluminal particle together with that of subluminal one. We define the “ratio” R of “hidden amplitude of antiparticle state” to that of “particle state” in a particle (as what had been done for Dirac particle in Ref.  with R there being redefined as R2 here):

$$R\sqrt{\frac{\chi ^+\chi }{\phi ^+\phi }}=\left[\frac{\frac{u}{c}\sqrt{\frac{u^2}{c^2}1}}{\frac{u}{c}+\sqrt{\frac{u^2}{c^2}1}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},(u>c)$$
$`(29)`$
$$R=\left[\frac{1\sqrt{1\frac{u^2}{c^2}}}{1+\sqrt{1\frac{u^2}{c^2}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},(u<c).$$
$`(30)`$
Similarly, we define a “Weyl parameter” W as the ratio of “hidden amplitude of right-handed helicity state” to that of “left-handed helicity state” in a particle with helicity $`H=1`$:

$$W=\sqrt{\frac{\eta ^+\eta }{\xi ^+\xi }}=\sqrt{\frac{uc}{u+c}},(u>c)$$
$`(31)`$
$$W=\sqrt{\frac{cu}{c+u}},(u<c).$$
$`(32)`$
Being functions of ($`u/c`$), the values of $`R`$ and $`W`$ are symmetric with respect to $`u/c=1`$ in logarithmic scale. So we define the “rapidity” $`y`$ of particle with $`u`$ in whole range for both $`u<c`$ and $`u>c`$:

$$y=\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\left|\frac{c+u}{cu}\right|}$$
$`(33)`$
and find that both R and W can be expressed in a unified manner:

$$R=tanh\left(\frac{y}{2}\right),W=\mathrm{exp}\left(y\right)$$
$`(34)`$
which in turn are anticorrelated each other also in a unified way:

$$R=\frac{1W}{1+W},W=\frac{1R}{1+R}$$
$`(35)`$
The mysteries of SR are now unveiled. The answer is ascribed to the monotonical increase of “hidden field of antiparticle state” and its phase evolution being opposite to that of particle state essentially as shown by Eq.(15) versus (13). Though due to the condition $`|\phi /\chi |>1`$, the “hidden antiparticle field” $`\chi `$ is in subordinate position and is subjected to follow the “particle field” $`\phi `$ as shown in Eq.(13), it does impose an opposite tendency and enhance the inertial mass ($`\stackrel{~}{m}`$) of particle. In some sense, the time reading of clock accompanying $`\phi `$ is clockwise whereas that of $`\chi `$ is anticlockwise essentially. Though the time reading of a moving clock remains clockwise, it runs slower and slower with the enhancement of $`\chi `$ field.

Once the speed limit for a subluminal particle, the speed of light $`c`$, is broken through, a superluminal particle emerges with even more mysterious behavior as shown in Eqs. (3) and (9). Why they are so radically different from that of subluminal particle? The reason can be found from the difference between Eqs. (22) and (26) together with behavior of Weyl parameter. The normalization condition for Dirac particle $`\rho _D𝑑\stackrel{}{x}`$ imposes stringent constraint on $`\xi _D`$ and $`\eta _D`$ such that $`\underset{u0}{lim}{\displaystyle \xi _D^+\xi _D𝑑\stackrel{}{x}}=\underset{u0}{lim}{\displaystyle \eta _D^+\eta _D𝑑\stackrel{}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$. By contrast, the normalization condition for superluminal particle $`\rho 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}=1`$ imposes no constraint on $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ separately. The limiting behavior of $`\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}W=1`$ implies that both of them increase infinitely and approach to equal strength when $`u\mathrm{}`$. The fantastic consequence is their cancellation effect on the hidden antiparticle field $`\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi \eta )`$ to render $`R0`$ and hence the tachyon energy $`E=\stackrel{~}{m}c^20`$ while momentum $`p=\stackrel{~}{m}um_sc`$.

Summary and discussion:

(a) Based on QM, a theory for superluminal particle is established. Being compatible with the theory of SR, it’s actually a complement to SR. Now we realize that a particle can have speed u varying in the whole range ($`0,\mathrm{}`$) with a universal constant c (the speed of light ) as a singularity dividing superluminal particle (tachyon) from subluminal one. Most likely, the neutrino is just a tachyon with spin $`1/2`$.

(b) The crucial point is the cognition that “a particle is always not pure” \[10-12\] and there is no exception to neutrino. Now we realize that once if neutrino has some mass, no matter how tiny it is, two Weyl equations, (4) and (5), should be coupled together via some mass term while still respecting the maximum parity violation. Then Eq. (6) emerges almost as a unique possibility and an inevitable conclusion turns out to be that neutrino must be a superluminal particle with permanent helicity.

(c) Rewriting Eq. (11) in the form of four-component spinor equation, we find a Dirac-type equation :

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi _s=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\alpha }\psi _s+\beta _sm_sc^2\psi _s,$$
$`(36)`$
$$\psi _s=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ \chi \end{array}\right),\alpha _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\beta _s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right).$$
$`(37)`$
However, in comparison with Dirac Eq.(19), $`\beta _s`$ is not a hermitian matrix. Now we realize that the violation of hermitian property is stemming from the violation of parity. Though a nonhermitian Hamiltonian is not allowed for a subluminal particle because it would lead to instability of solutions, it does work for a superluminal particle. Of four solutions for a same momentum of neutrino, two of them are eliminated due to the parity violation, corresponding to $`\nu _R`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_L`$ being forbidden strictly, and other two are stabilized, corresponding to physical realization of $`\nu _L`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_R`$. More importantly, Eq. (36) still preserves the invariance of basic symmetry (12).

(d) The parameter R defined in Eq.(29) could be understood as a measure of “impurity” of a particle being a superposition state of two hidden contradictory fields $`\phi `$ and $`\chi (|\phi /\chi |>1)`$. Though superficially, a free electron (neutrino) is always a particle with lepton quantum number $`L=1`$, it does change intrinsically with its velocity. The larger $`R`$ is, the larger mass(energy) and more instability it will have.

Similarly, the Weyl parameter $`W`$ is the measure of “intrinsic instability of helicity” of a particle with superficial helicity $`H=1`$, ($`|\xi /\eta |>1`$). While an electron can trun its helicity to $`H=1`$ when $`|\eta /\xi |>1`$, a neutrino’s helicity is linked to lepton number $`L`$ ($`L=1,H=1`$ whereas $`L=1,H=1`$) definitely. This difference is stemming from Eq.(26) versus (22). The common anticorrelation between $`R`$ and $`W`$ for both subluminal and superluminal particles implies that a high energy particle being more “impure” ($`R1`$) will be more stable in helicity ($`W0`$). On the contrary, a particle being unstable in helicity ($`W1`$) corresponds to a “relatively pure” particle ($`R0`$) with low energy. A prominent difference between a Dirac particle and neutrino is that for the former $`\underset{u0}{lim}E=m_0c^2`$ whereas for the latter $`\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}E=0`$.

(e) When we talk about $`\chi `$ being the “hidden antiparticle amplitude” inside a particle and $`\eta `$ being the “hidden right-handed helicity amplitude” inside a left-handed neutrino, we have to be cautious. As an example, for a high-energy electron with $`R=1/3`$, can we say that “it is composed of $`75\%`$ (or 90%)electron ingredient and $`25\%`$ (or 10%)antielectron (positron) ingredient”? No, we can’t. Because the $`\chi `$ field inside an electron is a probability amplitude and is in a subordinate position, no hidden opposite “charge” can be observed in a high-energy electron. The hidden $`\chi `$ field can only exhibit its implicit presence via the strange SR effects. Similarly, for a neutrino with $`W=1/3`$, we can not say that “it is composed of $`75\%`$ (or 90%) left-handed rotating state and $`25\%`$ (or 10%)right-handed rotating state” because the neutrion is in $`100\%`$ left-handed helicity state explicitly while both $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ fields enhance drastically and cancel each other considerably inside. Only in an antineutrino with $`|\eta _c/\xi _c|>1`$, can $`\eta _c`$ display itself as a right-handed rotating state, so does $`\xi _c`$ follow accordingly.

Therefore, we should not interprete the “hidden probability amplitude ” too materialized in ordinary language. All fantastic behaviours of particle are due to the linear superposition and interference effect of fields between $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ (or $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ ), not due to their intensity ($`\phi ^+\phi `$ etc.). The existence of superluminal particle and its marvelous feature are new manifestations of subtlety of QM .In some sense,a particle is also a “Schrödinger’s cat”in microscopic scale and could be compared to the recent experimental verification of “macroscopic Schrödinger’s cat” with its theoretical discussions .

(f) Consider a neutrino emitted in a supernova explosion. If being a tachyon, it will arrive at our earth earlier than the visible light by a time

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=\frac{D}{2c}\left(\frac{m_\nu c^2}{E}\right)^2$$
$`(38)`$
with $`D`$ and $`m_\nu (E)`$ being the distance of supernova and proper mass(energy) of neutrino repectively. On the other hand, the time span ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) in the arrival of neutrino will reflect its spreading in energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{D}{c}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{c}\right)\frac{D}{c}\left(\frac{m_\nu c^2}{E}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}$$
$`(39)`$
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}$$
$`(40)`$
In Feb.23, 1987, a supernova explosion (SN 1987A) was observed. Two laboratories in Northern Hemisphere had detected $`8`$ and $`12`$ neutrino events within a time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t6`$ and $`13s`$ respectively . Since $`D=1.6\times 10^5ly`$, using the data in , we can estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/c1.2\times 10^{12}`$ and $`(m_\nu c^2)=44eV`$ ( $`E32MeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E20MeV)`$, which might be regarded as some upper bound for neutrino mass of all flavors. But more importantly, according to above estimation, laboratories in Southern Hemisphere could observe the light signal later than the neutrino events by a time lag $`\mathrm{\Delta }T5s`$. It is regrettable for having no original record available and the theory of supernova explosion being too complicated for reliable conclusion could be drawn from so limited data.

(g) If neutrino is really a tachyon with its motion equation shown as Eq.(33) \[i. e., Eq. (11) or (6)\], then all the weak interaction processes in which neutrino participates need to be restudied. We hope new clues might be found for “neutrino oscillation” and the “missing puzzle of solar neutrino”. Especially, the mystery about dark matter in cosmos should be of the utmost concern.


text:
# Model-independent source imaging using two-pion correlations in 2 to 8𝐴 GeV Au + Au collisions

## Abstract

We report a particle source imaging analysis based on two-pion correlations in high multiplicity Au + Au collisions at beam energies between 2 and 8$`A`$ GeV. We apply the imaging technique introduced by Brown and Danielewicz, which allows a model-independent extraction of source functions with useful accuracy out to relative pion separations of about 20 fm. The extracted source functions have Gaussian shapes. Values of source functions at zero separation are almost constant across the energy range under study. Imaging results are found to be consistent with conventional source parameters obtained from a multidimensional HBT analysis.

One of the robust predictions of Quantum Chromodynamics is that strongly interacting matter can exist in a state with colored degrees of freedom, i.e., quarks and gluons, if subjected to sufficiently high temperature or density . This deconfined state of matter, often called Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP), may have been present in the Universe a few microseconds after the Big Bang. It is also believed that QGP can be produced in collisions of heavy ions at high energies. Experimental searches for evidence of QGP are prominent and challenging priorities in modern heavy-ion physics. A major difficulty is that the sought-after QGP is a transient state which persists only for timescales on the order of fm$`/c`$. After expansion and cooling, any QGP necessarily undergoes a phase transition to hadronic matter, possibly leaving little evidence behind in the final state of the collision. Numerous experimental observables have been proposed as signatures of QGP creation in heavy-ion collisions . One of the more promising of these is based on the expectation that the larger number of degrees of freedom associated with the deconfined state should manifest itself in increased system entropy, which ought to survive subsequent hadronization and freeze-out. The specific prediction is that QGP formation will cause the system to expand more and/or interact for a longer time and produce more particles, relative to a system which remained in the hadronic phase throughout the collision process.

Intensity interferometry  has been extensively used to extract information about spatial-temporal properties of heavy-ion collisions. The HBT approach  is well understood from the theoretical point of view, and is the mainstream analysis method for meson ($`\pi ,K`$) intensity interferometry. Meson final-state interactions are simple, so one may remove most of the distortion of the final-state wavefunctions with a simple Coulomb correction. Furthermore, in the traditional analysis one does not ask for more than the widths of the underlying source function. A novel approach — the imaging technique introduced by Brown and Danielewicz  — offers the opportunity to use any class of like-pair correlations to reconstruct the entire source function, as opposed to the conventional model-dependent parametrization. The two approaches have natural connections, which are especially clear for the case of non-interacting spin-zero bosons . In this paper, we report the first application of the source imaging technique to experimental data, specifically negative pions from Au + Au collisions at beam energies between 2 and 8$`A`$ GeV, with particular emphasis on verification and study of the expected connection with the source parameters obtained from HBT analysis. Comparing the two methods not only allows us to test the model underlying the HBT parametrization, but also lends credibility to the source imaging approach in other contexts such as proton-proton correlations.

We present data from experiment E895 , in which Au beams of kinetic energy 1.85, 3.9, 5.9 and 7.9$`A`$ GeV from the AGS accelerator at Brookhaven were incident on a fixed Au target. The analyzed $`\pi ^{}`$ samples come from the main E895 subsystem — the EOS Time Projection Chamber (TPC) , located in a dipole magnetic field of 0.75 or 1.0 Tesla. Results of the E895 $`\pi ^{}`$ HBT analysis were reported earlier , and in this Letter, we focus on an application of imaging to the same datasets.

In order to obtain the two-pion correlation function $`C_2`$ experimentally, the standard event-mixing technique was used . Negative pions were detected and reconstructed over a substantial fraction of $`4\pi `$ solid angle in the center-of-mass frame, and simultaneous measurement of particle momentum and specific ionization in the TPC gas helped to separate $`\pi ^{}`$ from other negatively charge particles, such as electrons, K- and antiprotons. Contamination from these species is estimated to be under 5%, and is even less at the lower beam energies and higher transverse momenta. Momentum resolution in the region of correlation measurements is better than 3%. Event centrality selection was based on the multiplicity of reconstructed charged particles. In the present analysis, events were selected with a multiplicity corresponding to the upper 11% of the inelastic cross section for Au + Au collisions. Only pions with $`p_T`$ between 100 MeV/$`c`$ and 300 MeV/$`c`$ and within $`\pm 0.35`$ units from midrapidity were used. Another requirement was for each used $`\pi ^{}`$ track to point back to the primary event vertex with a distance of closest approach (DCA) less than 2.5 cm. This cut removes most pions originating from weak decays of long-lived particles, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and K0. Monte Carlo simulations based on the RQMD model  indicate that decay daughters are present at a level that varies from 5% at 4$`A`$ GeV to 10% at 8$`A`$ GeV, and they lie preferentially at $`p_T<100`$ MeV/$`c`$. Finally, in order to overcome effects of track merging, a cut on spatial separation of two tracks was imposed. For pairs from both “true” and “background” distributions, the separation between two tracks was required to be greater than 4.5 cm over a distance of 18 cm in the beam direction. This cut also suppresses effects of track splitting .

Besides such cuts, the correlation functions themselves were corrected for Coulomb final-state interactions and finite momentum resolution effects, using an iterative technique similar to that used by the NA44 Collaboration . See  for details.

Imaging  was used to extract the shape of the source from the measured correlation functions. It has been shown  that imaging allows robust reconstruction of the source function for systems with non-zero lifetime, even in the presence of strong space-momentum correlations. The main features of the method are outlined below; see Refs  for more details. The full two-particle correlation function may be expressed as:

$$C_𝐏(𝐐)1=𝑑𝐫K(𝐐,𝐫)S_𝐏(𝐫),$$
(1)
where $`K=|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐^{()}(𝐫)|^21`$, the total momentum of the pair is $`𝐏`$, the relative momentum is $`𝐐=𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and the relative separation of emission points is $`𝐫`$. Both $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐐`$ are written in the pair center of mass frame. Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐^{()}`$ is the relative wavefunction of the pair and for spin-$`0`$ bosons in the absence of final-state interactions, it is the symetrized sum of free waves:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐^{()}(𝐫)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^{i𝐐/2𝐫}+e^{i𝐐/2𝐫}\right).$$
(2)
However, in general it may be quite complicated. The goal of imaging is to the determine the relative source function ($`S_𝐏(𝐫)`$ in Eq. (1)), given $`C_𝐏(𝐐)`$. The problem of imaging then becomes the problem of inverting $`K(𝐪,𝐫)`$. The source function, $`S_𝐏(𝐫)`$, is the distribution of relative separations of emission points for the two particles in their center-of-mass frame.

In this letter, we analyze the pion correlations in $`Q_{inv}`$. The transition from the full three-dimensional problem in Eq. (1) to the angle-averaged problem is straightforward: one expands the source and correlation in spherical harmonics  and keep $`\mathrm{}=m=0`$ terms. The angle-averaged version of Eq. (1) is

$$C(Q_{inv})1=4\pi 𝑑rr^2K(Q_{inv},r)S(r).$$
(3)
Here $`Q_{inv}=\sqrt{𝐐^2Q_0^2}`$ and since $`Q_0=0`$ in the pair CM frame, $`Q_{inv}=|𝐐|`$. Thus, while the source one reconstructs is a distribution in the pair CM frame, the inversion itself may be done with correlations constructed in any frame. In this equation, the kernel is simply averaged over the angle between $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐫`$:

$$K(Q_{inv},r)=\frac{1}{2}_1^1d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{𝐐𝐫}})K(𝐐,𝐫).$$
(4)
For identical spin-zero bosons with no FSI, this kernel is

$$K(Q_{inv},r)=\mathrm{sin}(Q_{inv}r)/Q_{inv}r.$$
(5)
We comment that since the $`𝐫=0`$ point of the source is a maximum, it is spherically symmetric in a neighborhood around that point and $`S(r0)=S(𝐫0)`$. We now proceed as in  and expand the radial dependence of the source in a Basis Spline basis: $`S(𝐫)=_jS_jB_j(𝐫)`$. With this, Eq. (1) becomes a matrix equation $`C_i=_jK_{ij}S_j`$ with a new kernel:

$$K_{ij}=𝑑𝐫K(𝐐_i,𝐫)B_j(𝐫).$$
(6)
Imaging reduces to finding the set of source coefficients, $`S_j`$, that minimize the $`\chi ^2`$. Here, $`\chi ^2=_i(C_i_jK_{ij}S_j)^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2C_i`$. This set of source coefficients is $`S_j=_i[(K^T(\mathrm{\Delta }^2C)^1K)^1K^TB]_{ji}(C_i1)`$ where $`K^T`$ is the transpose of the kernel matrix. The uncertainty of the source is the square-root of the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix of the source, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2S=(K^T(\mathrm{\Delta }^2C)^1K)^1`$.

For the case of noninteracting spin-zero bosons with Gaussian correlations, there is a natural connection between the imaged sources and “standard” HBT parameters  — the source is a Gaussian with the “standard” HBT parameters as radii:

$$S(𝐫)=\frac{\lambda }{(2\sqrt{\pi })^3\sqrt{det[R^2]}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}r_ir_j[R^2]_{ij}^1\right),$$
(7)
Here $`\lambda `$ is a fit parameter traditionally called the chaoticity or coherence factor in HBT analyses and $`[R^2]`$ is the real symmetric matrix of radius parameters

$$[R^2]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}R_o^2& R_{os}^2& R_o\mathrm{}^2\\ R_{os}^2& R_s^2& R_s\mathrm{}^2\\ R_o\mathrm{}^2& R_s\mathrm{}^2& R_{\mathrm{}}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Eq. (7) is the most general Gaussian one may use, but usually one assumes a cylindrical symmetry of the single particle source so that there is only one non-vanishing non-diagonal element $`R_{ol}^2`$. The asymptotic value of the relative source function at zero separation $`S(𝐫0)`$ is related to the inverse effective volume of particle emission, and has units of fm-3:

$$S(𝐫0)=\frac{\lambda }{(2\sqrt{\pi })^3\sqrt{det[R^2]}}.$$
(9)
As it was shown in  $`S(𝐫0)`$ is an important parameter needed to extract the space-averaged phase-space density. Figure 1 shows measured angle-averaged two-pion correlation functions for central Au + Au collisions at 2, 4, 6 and 8$`A`$ GeV. Figure 2 shows relative source functions $`S(r)`$ obtained by applying the imaging technique to the measured two-pion correlation functions. Note that the plotted points are for representation of the continuous source function and hence are not statistically independent of each other as the source functions are expanded in Basis Splines . Since the source covariance matrix is not diagonal, the coefficients of the Basis spline expansion are also not independent which is taken into account during $`\chi ^2`$ calculations. The sources shown in Figure 2 are consistent with zero, within errors, in the region past $`20`$ fm. Thus with this technique, we may reconstruct the distribution of relative pion separations with useful accuracy out to $`r20`$ fm.

The images obtained at each of the four E895 beam energies are rather similar in shape, and upon fitting with a Gaussian function, values of $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom between 0.9 and 1.2 are obtained. Results of fits to the source function and correlation functions are shown in Table I. One can see that source radii extracted via both techniques are similar, further confirming the validity of a Gaussian source hypothesis. Indeed, the somewhat smaller errors on the $`R_S`$ parameters compared to $`R_{C2}`$ are consistent with the Gaussian fit function being in closer overall agreement with the data points in the case of the imaging approach.

Figure 3 compares the effective volumes of pion emission inferred from the standard Bertsch-Pratt pion HBT parametrization (open circles) with the effective volumes derived from the image source functions shown in Fig. 2 (solid circles), recalling that $`S(𝐫0)=S(r0)`$. Essentially, this figure plots the inverse of the left- and right-hand sides of Eq. 9. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the agreement between imaging and the HBT parametrization is fairly good. Values of source functions at zero separation as well as HBT source size parameters (published in Ref.  and reproduced in Table II) are approximately constant within errors across the 2 to 8$`A`$ GeV beam energy range.

In summary, we present measurements of one-dimensional correlation functions for negative pions emitted at mid-rapidity from central Au + Au collisions at 2, 4, 6 and 8$`A`$ GeV. These correlation functions are analyzed using the imaging technique of Brown and Danielewicz. It is found that relative source functions $`S(r)`$ have rather similar shapes, while zero-separation intercepts $`S(r0)`$, which are related to the effective volume of pion emission, are almost constant across the range of bombarding energies under study. Distributions of relative separation have been measured out to 20 fm, and the extracted source functions are approximately Gaussian. We have performed the first experimental check of the predicted connection between imaging and traditional meson interferometry techniques and found that the two methods are in good agreement. Overall, results of this investigation strengthen the rationale for applying systematic imaging analyses to a variety of particle species (i.e., strongly interacting particles such as protons, antiprotons, etc., as well as pions), and open the door to more detailed inferences about spacetime structure. Such inferences can play an important role in resolving outstanding questions about deconfined nuclear matter.

Stimulating discussions with Drs. G.F. Bertsch, S. Pratt, S.A. Voloshin and N. Xu are gratefully acknowledged. This research is supported by US DOE, NSF and other funding, as detailed in Ref. .