text:
# Potential approximations to 𝛿': an inverse Klauder phenomenon with norm-resolvent convergence

## 1 Introduction

Point interactions are often used for constructing solvable models of quantum mechanical systems \[AGHH\]. To judge a quality of such models one has to be able, of course, to decide how well does a point interaction approximate the “actual” interaction. In the simplest case of a one-dimensional point interaction introduced originally by Kronig and Penney \[KP\] the answer is easy: the appropriate Hamiltonian is a norm-resolvent limit of a family of Schrödinger operators with squeezed potentials, which physically means that a slow particle with a widely smeared wave packet “sees” only the mean value of a localized potential. The problem is more complicated in dimension two and three where squeezed potentials can also be used, however, with a renormalization such that the limiting coupling is “infinitely weak”. The idea belongs to Friedman \[Fr\]; a detailed discussion for a general shape of the approximating potential can be found in \[AGHH\] together with description of other, nonlocal, approximations and the corresponding bibliography. More generally, we have here an important particular case of the question what is the “right Hamiltonian” for a strongly singular perturbation of the Laplace operator – see \[NZ1, NZ2\] and references therein.

A peculiarity of the one-dimensional situation is that not all point interactions are of the $`\delta `$ type. This follows from the standard construction of a point interaction \[BF, AGHH\] which relies on restriction of the free Hamiltonian to functions which vanish in the vicinity of the interaction support, and a consecutive construction of self-adjoint extensions of the obtained symmetric operator. For a single center in dimension one the latter has deficiency indices $`(2,2)`$ leading thus to a four-parameter family of extensions. A subset of them usually called $`\delta ^{}`$ interactions was introduced in \[GHM\], the whole family was later studied in \[GK, Še1, GH\] and subsequent papers by other authors. In distinction to the usual $`\delta `$ interactions the other extensions were constructed as mathematical objects and the question about their physical meaning arose naturally.

Šeba \[Še2\] was the first who addressed the question of approximation of $`\delta ^{}`$ Hamiltonians by those with “regular” interactions. He showed, in particular, that the name is misleading because such Hamiltonians cannot be obtained using families of scaled zero-mean potentials. At the same time he demonstrated that the $`\delta ^{}`$ interaction can be approximated in a nonlocal way using a suitable family of rank-one operators with a nontrivial coupling-constant renormalization. Later local approximations were constructed \[Ca, CH\] but they were not of potential type since they involved first-derivative terms.

The question about the $`\delta ^{}`$ interaction meaning became more appealing when interesting physical properties of this coupling were discovered. Specifically, it was shown that Wannier-Stark systems with an array of $`\delta ^{}`$ interactions have no absolutely continuous spectrum \[AEL, Ex, MS\] and even that the spectrum is pure point for most values of the parameters \[ADE\]. The origin of this effect is the high-energy behaviour of the $`\delta ^{}`$ scattering, with the transmission amplitude vanishing as $`k\mathrm{}`$. Such a behaviour can be approximated, up to a phase factor, within a fixed finite interval of energies by small complicated graph scatterers \[AEL\], and the qualitatively same scattering picture, up to a series of resonances, was found for a sphere with two halflines attached \[Ki\].

Until recently it was believed, however, that no potential-type approximation to the $`\delta ^{}`$ interaction existed. It came thus as a surprise, when two years ago Cheon and Shigehara (CS) constructed an approximation by means of a triple of $`\delta `$ interactions with the coupling constants scaled in a nonlinear way as their distances tend to zero \[CS\]. In distinction to the situations mentioned above this renormalization leads to an “infinitely strong” coupling in the limit. The said authors computed formally the limiting wave function and showed that it obeyed the $`\delta ^{}`$ boundary conditions \[AGHH\]; they also presented an alternative argument based on convergence of the corresponding transfer matrices \[SMMC\].

It is natural to ask in which sense does the limit exist and whether one can construct a similar approximation using regular potentials. We shall answer the second question affirmatively and show that the approximating families converge in a rather strong topology, namely norm resolvent. A nontrivial character of the approximation will be seen from the fact that we do not recover the sought limit when the involved operators are expressed through the respective quadratic forms, in particular, because the form domain of the limiting operator is larger than those of the approximating ones.

Such a disparity between the form domains reminds of the Klauder phenomenon \[Kl, Si\] where a singular perturbation is switched off in the strong resolvent sense yielding an operator different from the free one obtained as the formal limit by putting the coupling constant equal to zero. Here the situation is in several respects opposite. First of all, the coupling here is not switched off as in \[Kl, Si\] but rather becomes infinitely strong, so it is not straightforward to identify the formal limit. On the other hand, the larger form domain corresponds to the true norm-resolvent limit. In addition, the CS-approximation requires a subtle interplay of the coupling constants. If we change this choice, we arrive at an operator the form domain of which is smaller than those of the approximants, namely to the Laplacian with Dirichlet decoupling at the $`\delta ^{}`$ interaction position.

Let us review briefly the contents of the paper. In the next section we will formulate the approximation by triple $`\delta `$ interaction and examine it using the explicit form of the operators involved. Then we combine this result with the known squeezed-potential approximation of the $`\delta `$ interaction \[AGHH, Thm. I.3.2.3\] to show that a $`\delta ^{}`$ can be approximated by a family of potentials consisting of three $`a(ϵ)`$-spaced parts of a “size” $`ϵ`$ which approach each other as $`ϵ0+`$ and at the same time undergo a CS-type scaling. Furthermore, we determine a squeezing rate which yields a convergent approximation: it is sufficient that $`ϵa(ϵ)^{12}`$ tends to zero. In Section 4 we illustrate the mentioned nonstability of the approximation: if we disbalance only slightly the $`ϵ`$ dependence of the coupling constants we get a family which converges in the norm-resolvent sense to the Dirichlet decoupled Laplace operator on the line. To keep things simple we do not strive for a maximum generality. We restrict ourselves to the $`\delta ^{}`$ case, because an extension to the general four-parameter point interaction is easy to obtain by adapting the scheme of \[SMMC\]. We also do not ask about the optimal rate between $`ϵ`$ and $`a(ϵ)`$ needed for the convergence.

## 2 Resolvent approach to the CS approximation

In the following we use the notations and definitions of \[AGHH\]. Let $`H_0=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be free one-dimensional Schrödinger operator in the Hilbert space $`L^2()`$. Its resolvent is an integral operator with the kernel

$$G_k(xx^{})(\mathrm{\Delta }k^2)^1(x,x^{}):=\frac{i}{2k}e^{ik|xx^{}|}$$
(2.1)
for any $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}k>0`$ and $`x,x^{}`$. The related function

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_k(xx^{}):=\mathrm{sgn}(xx^{})\frac{i}{2k}e^{ik|xx^{}|}$$
(2.2)
allows us to express the resolvent for the $`\delta ^{}`$-perturbation of $`H_0`$ centered at the point $`y`$ and having the “strength” $`\beta `$, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$, in the form \[AGHH, Sec. I.4\]:

$$(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}k^2)^1(x,x^{})=G_k(xx^{})\frac{2\beta k^2}{2i\beta k}\stackrel{~}{G}_k(xy)\stackrel{~}{G}_k(x^{}y).$$
(2.3)
Recall that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$ acts as $`H_0`$ away of $`y`$ and its domain consists of those $`fW^{2,2}\left(\{y\}\right)`$ which satisfy the boundary conditions

$$\psi ^{}(y+)=\psi ^{}(y)=:\psi ^{}(y),\psi (y+)\psi (y)=\beta \psi ^{}(y).$$
(2.4)
Our first aim is to approximate the resolvent (2.3) of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$ by a family of those corresponding to the triple $`\delta `$-perturbation of $`H_0`$ with the couplings $`𝒜_a=\{\alpha _j\}_{j=1,0,1}=\{2\beta ^1a^1,\beta a^2,2\beta ^1a^1\}`$ localized at $`Y_a=\{y_j\}_{j=1,0,1}=\{ya,y,y+a\}`$ for $`a0`$ letting $`a0`$. Denote this perturbed operator by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ . Then by \[AGHH, Sec. II.2\] the corresponding resolvent has the kernel

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}k^2)^1(x,x^{})=G_k(xx^{})\underset{j,j^{}=1,0,1}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(k)]_{jj^{}}^1G_k(xy_j)G_k(x^{}y_j^{}),$$
(2.5)
where $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(k)]_{jj^{}}:=\left[\alpha _j^1\delta _{jj^{}}+G_k(y_jy_j^{})\right]_{jj^{}}`$ and $`j,j^{}=1,0,1`$. In particular, for a purely imaginary $`k=i\kappa `$, $`\kappa >0`$, we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+u& w& w^2\\ w& 1+v& w\\ w^2& w& 1+u\end{array}\right).$$
(2.6)
where

$$u:=2\beta \kappa a/(2a\beta ),v:=2\kappa a^2/\beta ,w:=e^{\kappa a}.$$
(2.7)
Let us look how the spectrum of the operators $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}\}_{a0}`$ behaves as $`a0`$ for a fixed $`\beta `$. Since the perturbation in (2.5) is a rank three operator, $`\sigma _{ess}(H_0)=\sigma _{ac}(H_0)=[0,\mathrm{})`$ is not affected by the perturbation and the point spectrum consists of at most three negative eigenvalues, with the multiplicity taken into account \[We, Sec. 8.3\]. Here we have:

###### Proposition 2.1

For small enough spacing $`a`$ the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ has at most one eigenvalue. This happens if and only if $`\beta <0`$, and in that case

$$inf\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a})=\frac{4}{\beta ^2}+𝒪(a).$$
(2.8)
Proof: Since the negative part of $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a})`$ is the point spectrum determined by zeros of $`det\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )`$ by \[AGHH, Sec. II.2\] we arrive at the equation

$$(1+uw^2)\left[(1+u)(1+v)w^2(1v)\right]=0,$$
(2.9)
or

$$e^{2\kappa a}=1+\frac{2\beta \kappa a}{2a\beta }$$
(2.10)
and

$$e^{2\kappa a}=\left(1+\frac{2\beta \kappa a}{2a\beta }\right)\frac{1+2\kappa a^2\beta ^1}{12\kappa a^2\beta ^1}.$$
(2.11)
Expanding the left- and right-hand sides of the last two equations around $`a=0`$, one finds that only (2.10) has a solution for a sufficiently small $`a>0`$ and that it equals

$$\kappa (a)=\frac{2}{\beta }+𝒪(a).$$

Since $`k=i\kappa `$ corresponds to an isolated eigenvalue if and only if $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}k>0`$, the assertion follows readily. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.1 also shows that if $`\kappa >2/\beta `$, $`\beta 0`$, is fixed, then there is $`a_0(\kappa )>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2>0`$ and the resolvent $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1`$ exists for all $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$. We further note that the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ admits a definition in the sense of quadratic forms. Denoting by $`𝒬_{𝒜_a,Y_a}[,]`$ this quadratic form one has

$`𝒬_{𝒜_a,Y_a}[u,v]=(u^{},v^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{a^2}}u(y)\overline{v(y)}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\left\{u(y+a)\overline{v(y+a)}+u(ya)\overline{v(ya)}\right\}`$
for $`u,v\mathrm{dom}(𝒬_{𝒜_a,Y_a})=W^{1,2}()`$. When equipped with the scalar product

$$(u,v)_{𝒬_{𝒜_a,Y_a}}:=(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2}u,\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2}v),$$
(2.13)
where $`\kappa >2/\beta `$ and $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$, the domain $`\mathrm{dom}(𝒬_{𝒜_a,Y_a})`$ becomes a Hilbert space. It is important to note that the norm $`_{𝒬_{𝒜_a,Y_a}}`$ arising from this scalar product is equivalent to the norm of the Hilbert space $`W^{1,2}()`$.

Proposition 2.1 shows that up to an $`𝒪(a)`$ error the spectral properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ coincide with those of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$. Next we compare the corresponding resolvents.

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`\kappa 2/\beta `$ and $`\beta 0`$ be fixed. Then the relation

$$\underset{a0+}{lim}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2\right)^1(x,x^{})=\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}+\kappa ^2\right)^1(x,x^{})$$
(2.14)
holds for any $`x,x^{}`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$ as $`a0+`$ in the norm-resolvent sense.

Proof: By virtue of (2.3), to check (2.14) it is sufficient to compute the pointwise limit of the second term at the right-hand side of (2.5). Using the notations introduced in the preceding proof, we obtain an explicit expression for the inverse matrix in (2.5):

$`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )]^1={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{(w^21u)[(1+u)(1+v)w^2(1v)]}}`$ (2.19)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}w^2(1+u)(1+v)& w(w^21u)& w^2v\\ w(w^21u)& (w^2+1+u)(w^21u)& w(w^21u)\\ w^2v& w(w^21u)& w^2(1+u)(1+v)\end{array}\right).`$
Without loss of generality we may assume $`y=0`$. Suppose, for instance, that $`x,x^{}>a`$, then the resolvent difference kernel is obtained by sandwiching the above matrix between the vectors $`G(x),G(x^{})`$, where

$$G(x):=\left(\begin{array}{c}G_{i\kappa }(x+a)\\ G_{i\kappa }(x)\\ G_{i\kappa }(xa)\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2\kappa }e^{\kappa x}\left(\begin{array}{c}w\\ 1\\ w^1\end{array}\right),$$
(2.20)
which yields the expression

$$\underset{j,j^{}=1,0,+1}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )]_{jj^{}}^1G(xy_j)G(xy_j^{})=\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}e^{\kappa x}e^{\kappa x^{}}\frac{N}{D}$$
(2.21)
with

$$D=\frac{(w^21u)[(1+u)(1+v)w^2(1v)]}{2\kappa }$$
(2.22)
and

$$N=(w^2+w^2)[w^2(1+u)(1+v)]+2w^2v+(w^21u)(u1w^2).$$
(2.23)
It is straightforward if tedious to compute the Taylor expansions of the denominator and numerator: we get

$$D=2\kappa ^2a^4\left(\kappa +2\beta ^1\right)+𝒪(a^5),$$
(2.24)
while in the other expression all the terms cancel up to the third order giving

$$N=4\kappa ^4a^4+𝒪(a^5).$$
(2.25)
The sought kernel is thus

$$\underset{j,j^{}=1,0,1}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(k)]_{jj^{}}^1G_k(xy_j)G_k(x^{}y_j^{})=\frac{\beta }{2(2+\beta \kappa )}e^{\kappa x}e^{\kappa x^{}}\left(1+𝒪(a)\right)$$
(2.26)
as expected. In the same way one can treat the other situations with $`x,x^{}`$ belonging to $`(\mathrm{},a),(a,0),(0,a)`$, and $`(a,\mathrm{})`$. In the coefficient this corresponds to different combinations of $`(w,1,w^1)`$ and $`(w^1,1,w)`$ in (2.20). Due to the symmetry of $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )]^1`$, however, there are just two different expressions, the other one having the numerator replaced by

$$N=(w^4+1)v+2[w^2(1+u)(1+v)]+(w^21u)(u1w^2)$$
(2.27)
leading to

$$N=4\kappa ^4a^4+𝒪(a^5)$$
(2.28)
and the correct kernel again; recall the sign factor in (2.2). This yields the relation (2.14).

For a fixed $`\kappa >0`$ we see from the relation (2.20) that its left-hand side can be majorized by a function from $`L^2(^2)`$ which is independent of $`a`$. The same is, of course, true for the last term in (2.3). Then by (2.3), (2.5), (2.21), and dominated convergence the resolvent converges in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm,

$$\underset{a0}{lim}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_{a(ϵ)},Y_{a(ϵ)}}+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}+\kappa ^2)^1_2=0,$$
(2.29)
and thus, a fortiori, $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}\}_{a0}`$ approximates $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$ in the norm-resolvent topology. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.3

The result remains valid if the coupling constants $`𝒜_a`$ are replaced by

$$\alpha _{\pm 1}(a)=\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{a}+\phi _1(a),\alpha _0(a)=\frac{\beta }{a^2}\left(1+\phi _0(a)\right),$$
(2.30)
where $`\phi _j`$ are smooth functions behaving as $`𝒪(a)`$ for $`a0+`$.

## 3 Approximation of $`\delta ^{}`$ by regular potentials

It is easy to use the above result to prove the existence of an approximation of $`\delta ^{}`$ by local potentials. After a suitable translation we can put $`y=0`$ and we seek in the form

$$W_{ϵ,0}^a(x)=\frac{\beta }{ϵa(ϵ)^2}V_0\left(\frac{x}{ϵ}\right)+\left(\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{a(ϵ)}\right)\left\{\frac{1}{ϵ}V_1\left(\frac{x+a(ϵ)}{ϵ}\right)+\frac{1}{ϵ}V_1\left(\frac{xa(ϵ)}{ϵ}\right)\right\};$$
(3.1)
the general potential approximation $`W_{ϵ,y}^a(x)`$ is obtained by replacing $`x`$ by $`xy`$ at the right-hand side. In this expression $`\beta \{0\}`$, and the involved potentials are supposed to satisfy $`V_jL^1()`$ and

$$_{}V_j(x)𝑑x=1$$
(3.2)
for $`j=1,0,1`$. The function $`a:_+_+`$, to be specified later, is supposed to be continuous at $`ϵ=0`$ with $`a(0)=0`$. The family of one-dimensional Schrödinger operator used to approximate $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$ will be of the form

$$H_{ϵ,y}^a:=\mathrm{\Delta }+W_{ϵ,y}^a.$$
(3.3)
If $`V_jL^1()`$ the r.h.s. is defined in the sense of the corresponding quadratic forms. If we add the requirement $`V_jL^2()`$, then $`W_{ϵ,y}^a(x)`$ is an infinitely small perturbation of the Laplacian and (3.3) as a self-adjoint operator is defined on $`\mathrm{dom}(H_{ϵ,0}^a)=\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta })=W^{2,2}()`$ as an operator sum. We will make this assumption everywhere in the following, except for Theorem 3.1 where we refer directly to a result in \[AGHH\].

To compare the resolvents, we choose $`k=i\kappa `$ which belongs to the resolvent sets of both $`H_{ϵ,y}^a`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}`$ introduced above; this can be achieved if $`k^2`$ is nonreal or with $`\kappa >0`$ large enough. Then we may employ the elementary estimate

$`(H_{ϵ,y}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}+\kappa ^2)^1`$
$`(H_{ϵ,y}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_{a(ϵ)},Y_{a(ϵ)}}+\kappa ^2)^1+(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_{a(ϵ)},Y_{a(ϵ)}}+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}+\kappa ^2)^1`$
to prove the following claim:

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`V_jL^1(),j=1,0,1`$. For any sequence $`\{a_n\}(0,\mathrm{})`$ with $`a_n0`$ there is a sequence $`\{ϵ_n\}`$ of positive numbers with $`ϵ_n0`$ such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(H_{ϵ_n,y}^{a_n}+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}+\kappa ^2)^1=0$$
(3.5)
holds for any $`\kappa >2|\beta |^1`$.

Proof: Without loss of generality we may put $`y=0`$. In view of Theorem 2.2 it is sufficient to deal with the first term at the right-hand side of (3). By \[AGHH, Thm. II.2.2.2\] for each $`a_n>0`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, there exists a sequence of $`\{ϵ_{nm}\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`lim_m\mathrm{}ϵ_{nm}=0`$ such that

$$\underset{m0}{lim}(H_{ϵ_{nm},0}^{a_n}+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_{a_n},Y_{a_n}}+\kappa ^2)^1=0,$$
(3.6)
where $`Y_{a_n}=\{y_j\}_{j=1,0,1}=\{a_n,0,a_n\}`$, $`A_{a_n}=\{\alpha _j^{(n)}\}_{j=1,0,1}=(2\beta ^1a_n^1,\beta a_n^2,2\beta ^1a_n^1)`$ and $`\{H_{ϵ_{nm},0}^{a_n}\}_{n1}`$ are defined by local potentials

$`W_{ϵ_{nm},0}^{a_n}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{ϵ_{nm}a_n^2}}V_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{ϵ_{nm}}}\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_n}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{nm}}}V_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+a_n}{ϵ_{nm}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{nm}}}V_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{xa_n}{ϵ_{nm}}}\right)\right\}.`$
Indeed, in view of (3.2) Theorem II.2.2.2 of \[AGHH\] applies if we choose the real analytic function $`\lambda _j()`$, which enters into Theorem II.2.2.2, of the form $`\lambda _j(ϵ_{nm}):=ϵ_{nm}\alpha _j^{(n)}`$. If $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}k^20`$ the norms at the right-hand side of (3.6) are uniformly bounded and the claim is valid for the diagonal sequence, $`ϵ_n:=ϵ_{nn}`$ – cf. \[RS, Sec. I.3\]. By the first resolvent identity its validity extends to any point outside the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,0}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The diagonal trick used in the above proof introduces a relation between the parameters $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$. Since to a given $`a`$ we choose $`ϵ`$ small enough to meet the requirements, the procedure works if $`a(ϵ)`$ tends to zero sufficiently slowly as $`ϵ0+`$. Put like that the claim is, of course, very vague. Even without computing the resolvents, e.g., we can conjecture that the family (3.3) will not yield the sought approximation if $`a(ϵ)ϵ^\nu `$ with $`\nu >1`$ since then the three potentials will overlap substantially for small values of $`ϵ`$ and eventually the (divergent) overall mean value will prevail.

The question about a rate between $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$ which is sufficient to yield a convergent approximation is subtle, and the rest of the section is devoted to it. As above we put $`y=0`$ in the following argument restoring a general $`y`$ only in the final result. First we introduce the sesquilinear forms $`t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[,]`$,

$$t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[u,v]:=\frac{\beta }{a^2}\left\{u(0)\overline{v(0)}\frac{1}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xV_0(x/ϵ)u(x)\overline{v(x)}\right\},$$

and $`t_{a,ϵ}^{(j)}[,]`$,

$$t_{a,ϵ}^{(j)}[u,v]:=\left(\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{a}\right)\left\{u(ja)\overline{v(ja)}\frac{1}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xV_j(xja/ϵ)u(x)\overline{v(x)}\right\},$$

where $`j=\pm 1`$ and $`\mathrm{dom}(t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)})=\mathrm{dom}(t_{a,ϵ}^{(j)})=W^{1,2}()`$. We set

$$t_{a,ϵ}[,]:=t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[,]+t_{a,ϵ}^{(1)}[,]+t_{a,ϵ}^{(+1)}[,]$$

with $`\mathrm{dom}(t_{a,ϵ})=W^{1,2}()`$. To proceed further we need stronger hypotheses about the potentials, namely the conditions (3.8) and (3.11) below. It can be shown that in combination with $`V_jL^2()`$ they imply $`V_jL^1()`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`V_0L^2()`$. If the conditions (3.2) and

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|x|^{1/2}|V_0(x)|<+\mathrm{},$$
(3.8)
are valid, then $`|t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[u,v]|\sqrt{2}\sqrt{ϵ}|\beta |a^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|x|^{1/2}|V_0(x)|u_{W^{1,2}}v_{W^{1,2}}`$ holds for $`u,vW^{1,2}()`$.

Proof: Changing the integration variable $`xϵx`$ in the definition of $`t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[u,v]`$ we get

$$t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[u,v]=\frac{\beta }{a^2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xV_0(x)\left\{u(0)\overline{v(0)}u(ϵx)\overline{v(ϵx)}\right\},$$

which yields

$$t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[u,v]=\frac{\beta }{a^2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xV_0(x)\left\{(u(0)u(ϵx))\overline{v(0)}+u(ϵx)\overline{(v(0)v(ϵx))}\right\}.$$

Since

$$|f(x)|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{W^{1,2}},fW^{1,2}(),$$
(3.9)
and

$$|f(x)f(y)|\sqrt{|xy|}f_{W^{1,2}},fW^{1,2}(),$$
(3.10)
as it follows from $`f(x)f(y)=_x^yf^{}(t)𝑑t`$ and the Hölder inequality, we find

$$|t_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}[u,v]|2\sqrt{\frac{ϵ}{2}}\frac{|\beta |}{a^2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\sqrt{|x|}|V_0(x)|u_{W^{1,2}}v_{W^{1,2}}$$

for $`u,vW^{1,2}()`$ which proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=\pm 1`$, and $`\beta 0`$. If the conditions (3.2) and

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|x|^{1/2}|V_j(x)|<+\mathrm{},j=\pm 1,$$
(3.11)
are satisfied, then

$$\left|t_{a,ϵ}^{(j)}[u,v]\right|\sqrt{2}\sqrt{ϵ}\left|\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{a}\right|_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|x|^{1/2}|V_j(x)|u_{W^{1,2}}v_{W^{1,2}}$$
(3.12)
holds for any $`u,vW^{1,2}()`$ and $`j=\pm 1`$.

Proof: Let $`j=1`$. Changing the integration variable to $`ϵxa`$ in the definition of $`t_{a,ϵ}^{(1)}[u,v]`$ we get

$$t_{a,ϵ}^{(1)}[u,v]=\left(\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{a}\right)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xV_1(x)\left\{u(a)\overline{v(a)}u(ϵxa)\overline{v(ϵxa)}\right\}.$$

From here we infer

$`t_{a,ϵ}^{(1)}[u,v]=({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}})\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xV_1(x)\left\{(u(a)u(ϵxa))\overline{v(a)}+u(ϵxa)\overline{(v(a)v(ϵxa))}\right\}.`$
Using again (3.9) and (3.10) we complete the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.4

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,+1`$, and $`\beta 0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8), (3.11), then the estimate

$$\left|t_{a,ϵ}[u,v]\right|\sqrt{ϵ}C(a)u_{W^{1,2}}v_{W^{1,2}}$$

is valid for $`u,v\mathrm{dom}(t_{a,ϵ})=W^{1,2}()`$, where the constant $`C(a)`$ is given by

$`C(a):=\sqrt{2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{|\beta |}{a^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dx|x|^{1/2}|V_0(x)|`$ (3.14)
$`+|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dx|x|^{1/2}\{|V_1(x)|+|V_{+1}(x)|\}\}.`$
Let us next introduce the operator $`G(a):L^2()^3`$,

$$G(a)f:=\left(\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xG_{i\kappa }(x+a)f(x)\\ _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xG_{i\kappa }(x)f(x)\\ _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xG_{i\kappa }(xa)f(x)\end{array}\right)$$

for $`f\mathrm{dom}(G(a))=L^2()`$. Obviously, the action of the adjoint operator $`G(a)^{}:^3L^2()`$ is given by

$$\left(G(a)^{}\xi \right)(x)=G_{i\kappa }(x+a)\xi _1+G_{i\kappa }(x)\xi _0+G_{i\kappa }(xa)\xi _{+1},$$

where

$$\xi :=\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _1\\ \xi _0\\ \xi _{+1}\end{array}\right)^3.$$

With these definitions the r.h.s. of (2.5) can rewritten as

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1f=(H_0+\kappa ^2)^1f+G(a)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )^1G(a)f,$$
(3.15)
where $`Y_a=\{y_j\}_{j=1,0,+1}`$ with $`y_j=ja`$ and the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )`$ is given by (2.6). Furthermore, we introduce the operator $`\widehat{G}(a)`$:

$$\widehat{G}(a)f:=\left(\begin{array}{c}(H_0+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}f\\ G(a)f\end{array}\right):L^2()\begin{array}{c}L^2()\\ \\ ^3\end{array}$$
(3.16)
and the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )`$:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa ):=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )\end{array}\right):\begin{array}{c}L^2()\\ \\ ^3\end{array}\begin{array}{c}L^2()\\ \\ ^3\end{array}$$
(3.17)
Using the definitions (3.16) and (3.17) we can rewrite (3.15) as

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1f=\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\widehat{G}(a)f.$$

Since $`G_{i\kappa }(xja)W^{1,2}()`$ for $`j=1,0,+1`$, one gets that $`\mathrm{ran}(G(a)^{})W^{1,2}()`$, and consequently, $`\mathrm{ran}(\widehat{G}(a)^{})W^{1,2}()`$. Thus it makes sense to define the following sesquilinear form

$$d_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{\xi },\widehat{\eta }]:=t_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi },\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\eta }],\widehat{\xi },\widehat{\eta }\mathrm{dom}(d_{a,ϵ})=\widehat{}:=\begin{array}{c}L^2()\\ \\ ^3\end{array}$$

where

$$\widehat{\xi }:=\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ \xi \end{array}\right)\text{and}\widehat{y}:=\left(\begin{array}{c}g\\ \eta \end{array}\right)$$

with $`f,gL^2()`$ and $`\xi ,\eta ^3`$. By construction, the form $`d_{a,ϵ}[,]`$ defines a bounded operator $`D_{a,ϵ}:\widehat{}\widehat{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,+1`$, and $`\beta 0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11) and $`\kappa 1`$, then one has

$$D_{a,ϵ}_{(\widehat{},\widehat{})}4\sqrt{ϵ}C(a)$$
(3.18)
for $`a>0`$.

Proof: Using Corollary 3.4 we find

$$|d_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{\xi },\widehat{\eta }]|=|t_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi },\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\eta }]|\sqrt{ϵ}C(a)\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi }_{W^{1,2}}\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\eta }]_{W^{1,2}}.$$

Since

$$(\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi })(x)=(H_0+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}f+G_{i\kappa }(x+a)\xi _1+G_{i\kappa }(x)\xi _0+G_{i\kappa }(xa)\xi _{+1},$$

we have

$`\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi }_{W^{1,2}}^24((H_0+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}f_{W^{1,2}}^2+G_{i\kappa }(+a)\xi _1_{W^{1,2}}^2`$
$`+G_{i\kappa }()\xi _0_{W^{1,2}}^2+G_{i\kappa }(a)\xi _{+1}_{W^{1,2}}^2)`$
The assumption $`\kappa 1`$ yields

$$(H_0+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}f_{W^{1,2}}^2f^2,fL^2(),$$

and

$$G_{i\kappa }(ja)\xi _j_{W^{1,2}}^2=\frac{1}{4}(\kappa ^1+\kappa ^3)|\xi _j|^2|\xi _j|^2,j=1,0,+1,$$

for $`a0`$. In this way we get the estimate

$$\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi }_{W^{1,2}}^24\left(f^2+\xi _^3^2\right)4\widehat{\xi }_\widehat{}^2.$$

or for $`a0`$. This leads to the estimate

$$|d_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{\xi },\widehat{\eta }]|=|t_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\xi },\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\eta }]|4\sqrt{ϵ}C(a)\widehat{\xi }_\widehat{}\widehat{\eta }_\widehat{}$$

from which (3.18) follows readily. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us further introduce the Neumann iterations $`R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa )`$ defined by

$$R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa ):=\widehat{G}^{}(a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\left(D_{a,ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\right)^n\widehat{G}(a),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

for $`k>\mathrm{max}(2/\beta ,1)`$ and $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$. The meaning of these expressions will become clear below; we note that

$$R_{a,ϵ}^{(0)}(i\kappa )=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1.$$
(3.19)
We also need to know how the norm of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )^1`$ behaves as $`a0`$. The Taylor expansion for all the expressions contained in (2.19) yields

$`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )]^1={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta a^2}{2+\beta \kappa }}`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2\kappa (\kappa +\beta ^1)& 2\kappa (\kappa +2\beta ^1)& 2\kappa \beta ^1\\ 2\kappa (\kappa +2\beta ^1)& 4\kappa (\kappa +2\beta ^1)& 2\kappa (\kappa +2\beta ^1)\\ 2\kappa \beta ^1& 2\kappa (\kappa +2\beta ^1)& 2\kappa (\kappa +\beta ^1)\end{array}\right)\left(1+𝒪(a)\right).`$
Consequently, for $`\kappa >\mathrm{max}(2/\beta ,1)`$ there is a constant $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )>0`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )^1_{(^3,^3)}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )a^2$$
(3.21)
holds for any $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$.

###### Lemma 3.6

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,+1`$, and $`\kappa >\mathrm{max}(2/\beta ,1)`$, $`\beta 0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11), then the Neumann iterations obey the estimate

$$R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa )\frac{2C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )}{a^2}\left(\frac{4\sqrt{ϵ}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )C(a)}{a^2}\right)^n$$
(3.22)
for $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$ and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`C(a)`$ is given by (3.14).

Proof: Since $`\kappa >1`$, we have

$$\widehat{G}(a)_{(,\widehat{})}=\widehat{G}^{}(a)_{(\widehat{},)}\sqrt{2}.$$

An elementary estimate, $`R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa )2\mathrm{\Gamma }_a(i\kappa )^1_{(^3,^3)}^{n+1}D_{a,ϵ}_{(\widehat{},\widehat{})}^n`$, gives

$$R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa )24^nϵ^{n/2}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )^{n+1}C(a)^na^{(2n+2)}$$

so (3.22) follows readily. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`\kappa >\mathrm{max}\{2/\beta ,1\}`$ and the condition

$$\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa ):=\frac{4\sqrt{ϵ}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )C(a)}{a^2}<1$$
(3.23)
is satisfied for some $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$, then the operator $`R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )`$,

$$R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa ):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa ),$$

is well defined. We denote the closed quadratic form which is associated with the self-adjoint operator $`H_{ϵ,0}^a`$ by $`h_{ϵ,0}^a[,]`$. Obviously, its domain is $`\mathrm{dom}(h_{ϵ,0}^a)=W^{1,2}()`$; we note that the natural norm $`_{h_{ϵ,0}^a}`$ on $`\mathrm{dom}(h_{ϵ,0}^a)`$ is equivalent to the norm of the Hilbert space $`W^{1,2}()`$.

###### Lemma 3.7

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,+1`$, and $`\kappa >\mathrm{max}(2/\beta ,1)`$, $`\beta 0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11) and $`\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )<1`$ is valid for some $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$, then $`\kappa ^2`$ belongs to the resolvent set of the operator $`H_{ϵ,0}^a`$ given by (3.3), and moreover, one has

$$(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)^1=R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa ).$$
(3.24)
Proof: Combining the above definitions of the quadratic forms, we get

$$(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2}u,\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2}v)=h_{ϵ,0}^a[u,v]+\kappa ^2(u,v)+t_{a,ϵ}[u,v]$$
(3.25)
for $`u,vW^{1,2}()`$. We use this relation for $`u=R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f`$ and $`v=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2\right)^1g`$ with $`f,gL^2()`$. Since

$$R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )=\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(D_{a,ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\right)^n\widehat{G}(a)$$
(3.26)
and $`\mathrm{ran}(\widehat{G}(a)^{})W^{1,2}()`$ we get $`uW^{1,2}()`$. Since $`v=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2\right)^1gW^{1,2}()`$, we can insert $`u`$ and $`v`$ into (3.25). This yields

$`(R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,g)=h_{ϵ,0}^a[R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g]`$
$`+\kappa ^2(R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g)+t_{a,ϵ}[R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g].`$
Using (3.19) and (3.26) we find

$`t_{a,ϵ}[R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g]`$
$`=`$ $`t_{a,ϵ}[\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(D_{a,ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\right)^n\widehat{G}(a)f,\widehat{G}(a)^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(i\kappa )^1\widehat{G}(a)g]`$
$`=`$ $`(D_{a,ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(D_{a,ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a(i\kappa )^1\right)^n\widehat{G}(a)f,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(i\kappa )^1\widehat{G}(a)g)`$
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa )f,g).`$
Furthermore, from (3.19) we infer that

$`((\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1f,g)`$
$`=h_{ϵ,0}^a[R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g]+\kappa ^2(R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g).`$
Setting now $`h:=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1g`$ we find

$$(f,h)=h_{ϵ,0}^a[R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,h]+\kappa ^2(R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,h)$$
(3.27)
for $`h\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a})`$. Since $`\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a})`$ is a core for the quadratic form $`h_{ϵ,0}^a[,]`$ one concludes that the equality (3.27) extends to each $`h\mathrm{dom}(h_{ϵ,0}^a)`$. In particular, if $`h\mathrm{dom}(H_{ϵ,0}^a)`$ we have

$$(f,h)=(R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f,(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)h).$$

In this way we find $`R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f\mathrm{dom}(H_{ϵ,0}^a))`$ and

$$(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )f=f,f,$$

and

$$R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)h=h,h\mathrm{dom}(H_{ϵ,0}^a).$$

Hence $`\mathrm{ker}(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)=\{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{ran}(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)=`$, so the operator $`H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2`$ is boundedly invertible and $`(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)^1=R_{a,ϵ}(i\kappa )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

With the help of Lemma 3.7 one can prove the following estimate.

###### Lemma 3.8

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,+1`$, and $`\kappa >\mathrm{max}(2/\beta ,1)`$, $`\beta 0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11) and $`\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )<1`$ is valid for some $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$, then

$$(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^12C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )\frac{\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )}{a^2}\left(1\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )\right)^1.$$

Proof: Taking into account (3.24) and (3.19) we find

$$(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R_{a,ϵ}^{(n)}(i\kappa ).$$

Using the notation (3.23) and taking into account the estimate (3.22) one gets

$$(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1\frac{2C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )}{a^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )^n.$$

If $`\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )<1`$ is satisfied, we obtain (3.8) easily. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are ready to say something about the rate of the potential approximation in terms of the relation between $`a`$ and $`ϵ`$. Consider a function $`a:(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$.

###### Theorem 3.9

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0+1`$, and $`\kappa >\mathrm{max}(2/\beta ,1)`$, $`\beta 0`$. Moreover, suppose that $`a(ϵ)0`$ as $`ϵ0+`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11) for $`j=1,0,+1`$, and

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{ϵ}{a(ϵ)^{12}}=0,$$
(3.28)
then

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}(H_{ϵ,y}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_{a(ϵ)},Y_{a(ϵ)}}+\kappa ^2)^1=0$$
(3.29)
and

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}(H_{ϵ,y}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Xi }_{\beta ,y}+\kappa ^2)^1=0.$$
(3.30)
Proof: Since $`H_{ϵ,y}^a`$ is unitarily equivalent to $`H_{ϵ,0}^a`$ by translation and the same is true for the other involved operators, we can again put $`y=0`$ without loss of generality. By assumption, $`a(ϵ)(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$ for $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small. Further, we note that there is a constant $`C=C(V_j,\beta )`$ such that $`C(a)Ca^2`$ for $`a>0`$. Using that we can estimate

$$\tau (ϵ,a(ϵ),\kappa )\frac{4\sqrt{ϵ}C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )C}{a(ϵ)^4}=4C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )Ca(ϵ)^2\frac{\sqrt{ϵ}}{a(ϵ)^6},$$

so $`lim_{ϵ0+}\tau (ϵ,a(ϵ),\kappa )=0`$ by (3.28) and $`lim_{ϵ0}a(ϵ)=0`$. Hence, $`\tau (ϵ,a(ϵ),\kappa )<1`$ holds for $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small. Applying Lemma 3.8 we get

$$(H_{ϵ,0}^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_{a(ϵ)},Y_{a(ϵ)}}+\kappa ^2)^18C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\kappa )^2C\frac{\sqrt{ϵ}}{a(ϵ)^6}(1\tau (ϵ,a(ϵ),\kappa ))^1.$$

Taking into account once again the assumption (3.28) we prove (3.29). Moreover, using Theorem 2.2 together with the estimate (3) we arrive at (3.30). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Exceptional character of the CS approximation

In conclusion we want to show that it is sufficient to disbalance the limiting procedure slightly, say by changing the normalization (3.2), and the result will be completely different than that in Theorem 3.9. For simplicity we will consider the case $`y=0`$ only. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}`$ the Laplace operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions at the origin, i.e

$$\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0})=\{fW^{2,2}(_{})W^{2,2}(_+):f(0)=f(0+)=0\}$$

and

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}f)(x)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}f(x),f\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}).$$

With respect to $`L^2()=L^2(_{})L^2(_+)`$ the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}`$ decomposes into

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}^+$$

with $`\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}^\pm )=\{fW^{2,2}(_\pm ):f(0\pm )=0\}`$. We note that $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}^\pm )=[0,+\mathrm{})`$. The resolvents $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}^\pm +\kappa ^2)^1`$ are integral operators with the kernels

$$D_{i\kappa }^\pm (x,x^{}):=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\pm \frac{1}{\kappa }e^{\kappa x}\mathrm{sinh}(\kappa x^{})& \mathrm{}& \pm x^{}[0,\pm x)\hfill \\ \pm \frac{1}{\kappa }\mathrm{sinh}(\kappa x)e^{\kappa x^{}}& \mathrm{}& \pm x^{}[\pm x,+\mathrm{})\hfill \end{array}$$

A straightforward computation shows that

$$G_{i\kappa }(x,x^{})=D_{i\kappa }^{}(x,x^{})D_{i\kappa }^+(x,x^{})+\frac{1}{2\kappa }e^{\kappa |x|}e^{\kappa |x^{}|}.$$
(4.1)
The indicated modification corresponds to the changed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ with $`𝒜_a`$ replaced by $`\alpha 𝒜_a`$,

$$\alpha 𝒜_a:=\{\alpha (2\beta ^1a^1),\alpha \beta a^2,\alpha (2\beta ^1a^1)\},$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta \{0\}`$. The form $`𝒬_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}[,]`$ associated with the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ is given by

$$𝒬_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}[u,v]=(u^{},v^{})+\alpha \frac{\beta }{a^2}u(0)\overline{v(0)}+\alpha \left(\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{a}\right)\{u(+a)\overline{v(+a)}+u(a)\overline{v(a)}\},$$

where $`u,v\mathrm{dom}(𝒬_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_{a,\alpha }})=W^{1,2}()`$, which means that $`\alpha 1`$ amounts to a simultaneous change of all the $`\delta `$ coupling parameters. The resolvent $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1`$ is again given by Krein’s formula

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1(x,x^{})=G_{i\kappa }(x,x^{})\underset{j,j^{}=1,0,+1}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )]_{jj^{}}^1G_{i\kappa }(xy_j)G_{i\kappa }(xy_j^{}),$$
(4.2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\alpha u& w& w^2\\ w& 1+\alpha v& w\\ w^2& w& 1+\alpha u\end{array}\right),$$

i.e., in comparison with (2.6) we have $`u\alpha u`$, $`v\alpha v`$, while $`w`$ is preserved.

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`\kappa >0`$. The resolvent $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1`$ exists for sufficiently small $`a>0`$ if $`\alpha 1`$.

Proof: It is sufficient that $`\kappa ^2`$ is not an eigenvalue. As in Proposition 2.1 this would be true for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}`$ if $`\kappa `$ satisfies one of the equations analogous to (2.10) and (2.11), with $`\kappa `$ replaced by $`\alpha \kappa `$ at the r.h.s. The Taylor expansion around $`a=0`$ shows that this cannot happen unless $`\alpha =1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the following we fix $`\kappa >0`$, $`\alpha \{0,1\}`$, and $`\beta 0`$. Then there is $`a_0(\kappa )>0`$ such that for all $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$ the resolvent $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1`$ exists.

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`\kappa >0`$, $`\alpha 0,1`$, and $`\beta 0`$ be fixed. Then the relation

$$\underset{a0+}{lim}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2\right)^1(x,x^{})=D_{i\kappa }^{}(x,x^{})D_{i\kappa }^+(x,x^{})$$
(4.3)
holds for any $`x,x^{}`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}`$ as $`a0+`$ in the norm-resolvent sense.

Proof: Considering the case $`x,x^{}a`$ and following the line of reasoning from (2.19) to (2.24) we obtain

$$\underset{jj^{}=1,0+1}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )]_{jj^{}}^1G(xy_j)G(xy_j^{})=\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}e^{\kappa x}e^{\kappa x^{}}\frac{N_\alpha }{D_\alpha }$$
(4.4)
with

$$D_\alpha :=\frac{(w^21\alpha u)[(1+\alpha u)(1+\alpha v)w^2(1\alpha v)]}{2\kappa }$$

and

$$N_\alpha :=(w^2+w^2)[w^2(1+\alpha u)(1+\alpha v)]+2\alpha w^2v+(w^21\alpha u)(\alpha u1w^2).$$

If $`\alpha 1`$, one gets

$$D_\alpha =2\kappa a^2(1\alpha )+𝒪(a^3)$$

and

$$N_\alpha =4\kappa ^2a^2(1\alpha )+𝒪(a^3),$$
(4.5)
so the r.h.s. of (4.4) equals $`2\kappa e^{\kappa x}e^{\kappa x^{}}(1+𝒪(a))`$. Inserting (4.5) into (4.2) and using (4.1), we find

$$\underset{a+0}{lim}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^1(x,x^{})=D_{i\kappa }^+(x,x^{})$$
(4.6)
for $`x,x^{}[a,+\mathrm{})`$. In the same way one can treat the other combinations with $`x,x^{}`$ belonging to $`(\mathrm{},a]`$, $`(a,0)`$, $`(0,a)`$ and $`[a,+\mathrm{})`$; doing so we check (4.3) for $`x,x^{}`$.

Taking into account (4.1) and (4.2) one easily verifies that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2\right)^1(x,x^{})D_{i\kappa }^{}(x,x^{})D_{i\kappa }^+(x,x^{})`$ can be majorized by a function from $`L^2(^2)`$ which is independent of $`a`$. By (4.3) and the Lebesgue convergence theorem the difference $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2\right)^1\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}+\kappa ^2\right)^1`$ converges to zero in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}`$ as $`a0+`$ in the norm-resolvent sense. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us introduce the Schrödinger operator $`H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a`$ defined by

$$H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a:=\mathrm{\Delta }+\alpha W_{ϵ,0}^a$$

for $`\alpha \{0\}`$ as in the previous section. It corresponds to rescaling of the original approximation potential: we have $`H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a=H_{ϵ,0}^a`$ if $`\alpha =1`$. The Neumann iterations are now defined by

$$R_{a,ϵ,\alpha }^{(n)}(i\kappa ):=\widehat{G}^{}(a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )^1\left(D_{a,ϵ}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )^1\right)^n\widehat{G}(a),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

for $`k>1`$ and $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$ where the definition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )`$ is obvious. We note that for for $`\kappa >1`$ and $`\alpha 1`$ there is a constant $`C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }(\kappa )>0`$ such that instead of (3.21) one has the estimate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )^1_{(^3,^3)}C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }(\kappa )a^1$$

for $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$. Lemma 3.6 reads now as follows.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j1,0,+1`$, and $`\kappa >1`$, $`\beta 0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11), then the Neumann iterations obey the estimate

$$R_{a,ϵ,\alpha }^{(n)}(i\kappa )\frac{2C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }(\kappa )}{a}\left(\frac{4\sqrt{ϵ}C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }(\kappa )C(a)}{a}\right)^n$$

for $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$ and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`C(a)`$ is given by (3.14).

The proof is similar to that of Lemma 3.6. In view of Lemma 4.3 one has to modify the parameter $`\tau (ϵ,a,\kappa )`$ to

$$\tau _\alpha (ϵ,a,\kappa ):=\frac{4\sqrt{ϵ}C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }(\kappa )C(a)}{a}.$$

If $`\alpha \tau _\alpha (ϵ,a,\kappa )<1`$ is satisfied, then the operator $`R_{a,ϵ,\alpha }(i\kappa ):=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha ^nR_{a,ϵ,\alpha }^{(n)}(i\kappa )`$ is well defined. With obvious modifications Lemma 3.7 takes the following form.

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,+1`$, and let $`\kappa >1`$, $`\alpha \{0,1\}`$, and $`\beta 0`$. If the the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11) and $`\alpha \tau _\alpha (ϵ,a,\kappa )<1`$ is valid for some $`a(0,a_0(\kappa ))`$, then $`\kappa ^2`$ belongs to the resolvent set of the operator $`H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a`$, and, moreover, one has

$$(H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a+\kappa ^2)^1=R_{a,ϵ,\alpha }(i\kappa ).$$

Lemma 3.8 modifies similarly but we get a slightly stronger result because the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a,\alpha }(i\kappa )^1`$ is now less singular for any $`\kappa >0`$ as $`a0`$.

###### Lemma 4.5

Under the assumptions of the preceding lemma,

$$(H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a+\kappa ^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_a,Y_a}+\kappa ^2)^12\alpha C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }(\kappa )\frac{\tau _\alpha (ϵ,a,\kappa )}{a}\left(1\alpha \tau _\alpha (ϵ,a,\kappa )\right)^1.$$

Taking into account Theorem 4.2 and Lemmata 4.4, 4.5 we thus prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.6

Let $`V_jL^2()`$, $`j=1,0,1`$, and let $`\kappa >1`$, $`\alpha \{0,1\}`$, and $`\beta 0`$. Furthermore, let $`lim_{ϵ0}a(ϵ)=0`$. If the potentials $`V_j`$ satisfy the conditions (3.2), (3.8) and (3.11) and

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{ϵ}{a(ϵ)^8}=0,$$

then

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left(H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a+\kappa ^2\right)^1\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha 𝒜_{a(ϵ)},Y_{a(ϵ)}}+\kappa ^2\right)^1=0.$$

and

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left(H_{ϵ,0,\alpha }^a+\kappa ^2\right)^1\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{D,0}+\kappa ^2\right)^1=0.$$

Using a translation, the analogous conclusion can be made for the family $`\{H_{ϵ,y,\alpha }^a\}`$ with the potential center shifted to a point $`y`$, which naturally converges for $`\alpha \{0,1\}`$ to the Laplacian with the Dirichlet decoupling at $`y`$.

## Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the hospitality in the institutes where parts of this work were done: P.E. and H.N. in Centre de Physique Théorique, CNRS, Marseille-Luminy, and H.N. and V.Z. in Nuclear Physics Institute, AS, Řež near Prague. We also thank the referee for pointing out an error in the first version of the manuscript. The research was partially supported by the GAAS Grant A1048101 and the Exchange Agreement No. 7919 between CNRS and the Czech Academy of Sciences.


format: text

text:
# On closed rotating worlds

## I Introduction

The study of rotating cosmological models is of interest both mathematically and physically (some of the previous work on this subject is overviewed in ). The first stationary metric with vorticity  described an open world filled with dust matter plus the cosmological term. For many years and for the numerous researchers, this model served a kind of theoretical laboratory for the investigation of the specific rotational effects. Besides, it stimulated the study of the role of Mach’s principle in the general relativity theory. In this respect, it is worthwhile to mention the papers of Ozsváth and Schücking  which made a major contribution by providing the true anti-Machian model. The latter describes a spatially closed world, in contrast to the open universe of Gödel.

One can distinguish the two types of rotation in cosmology. The first one, which can be called geometrical (or spacetime) rotation, is determined by the kinematics of the curved spacetime itself, irrespectively of the matter contents of a model. Technically, its properties are described by a formal comoving observer interpreting the cosmic time coordinate line as an own world-line. The second type of rotation arises when the cosmological matter itself has a proper motion such that the corresponding fluid flow is characterized by the nontrivial vorticity (which can be called material rotation).

In the original Gödel’s model , these two rotations coincide because the matter is assumed comoving, however this is not true in general . A typical example is provided in  where the matter flow has nontrivial vorticity, whereas the spacetime (described by the Robertson-Walker metric) is non-rotating. Another example is given by the anti-Machian closed world model  in which the material and geometrical rotations are different (moreover, the matter flow has a nontrivial shear unlike the spacetime geometry itself).

In the study of the rotating cosmological models, it seems natural to consider the spin (intrinsic angular momentum) as an important physical property of the matter source. After all, the elements of the “cosmic fluid” are either galaxies or clusters of galaxies (at modern epoch) or the high energy elementary particles (at early epochs) all of which have spin. Actually, that was one of the basic motivations for Whittaker  to ask how can the largest physical system (universe) be non-rotating when all the other known systems, from particles to galaxies, have rotation.

In the present paper, we will demonstrate that the spinning cosmic matter gives rise to a true anti-Machian rotating closed world. The resulting model is, in a certain sense, a “relative” of the old stationary model of Ozsváth and Schücking . Namely, both models belong to the type-IX Bianchi spatially homogeneous spacetimes. There is however, an essential difference in that the material rotation now coincides with the spacetime rotation (i.e., there is no proper motion of matter) and the shear is absent, in contrast to . It seems worthwhile to note that our new model is stationary and thus, like the Ozsváth and Schücking world , it does not refer directly to the real expanding universe.

## II Spinning matter

We will describe the cosmic matter with spin by means of the Weyssenhoff model. It was proposed in flat spacetime in , and the modern treatment of the curved spacetime variational theory of spinning fluid is presented in .

The ideal Weyssenhoff fluid is a continuous medium, the elements of which are characterized by the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) proportional to the volume element. The spin density is described by the second rank skew-symmetric tensor

$$S^{ij}=S^{ji},$$
(1)
the spatial components of which coincide in the rest frame with the density of the 3-vector of spin of a matter element. This is provided by imposing the covariant constraint, the so called Frenkel condition:

$$S_{ij}u^i=0,$$
(2)
where $`u^i`$ is the four-velocity of a fluid element.

The (metric) energy-momentum tensor of the Weyssenhoff fluid reads:

$$T_{ij}=\epsilon u_iu_jph_{ij}2(g^{kl}+u^ku^l)_k(u_{(i}S_{j)l}),$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy density, $`p`$ is the pressure, and $`h_{ij}=g_{ij}u_iu_j`$ is the standard projector (with the velocity normalized by $`u_iu^i=1`$). The energy-momentum tensor (3) can be written in a different form of a general non-ideal fluid with “the energy flux” $`q^i`$ and “anisotropic pressure” $`\pi _{ij}`$ as

$$T_{ij}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{eff}}u_iu_jp_{\mathrm{eff}}h_{ij}+2u_{(i}q_{j)}+\pi _{ij},$$
(4)
where as usually $`u^iq_i=0,\pi ^i{}_{i}{}^{}=0,\pi _{ij}u^i=0`$, and the newly introduced quantities are defined by the spin:

$`\epsilon _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon 2\omega _{kl}S^{kl},p_{\mathrm{eff}}=p{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\omega _{kl}S^{kl},`$ (5)
$`q_i`$ $`=`$ $`(h^j{}_{i}{}^{}_{l}^{}S_j{}_{}{}^{l}+a^lS_{li}),`$ (6)
$`\pi _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _{(i}^kS_{j)k}2\sigma _{(i}^kS_{j)k}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}h_{ij}\omega _{kl}S^{kl}.`$ (7)
The dynamics of spinning fluid is described by the rotational and translational equations of motion. The rotational equations give the motion of spin:

$$_i(u^iS_{kl})=u_ku^j_i(u^iS_{jl})u_lu^j_i(u^iS_{jk})=u_kS_{lj}a^ju_lS_{kj}a^j.$$
(8)
Hereafter $`a^j=u^i_iu^j`$ is the acceleration field. The translational equations of motion are, as usual, the consequence of the energy-momentum conservation law. From (3) one finds, with the help of (2),(8) and the Ricci identity:

$`_iT^i_j`$ $`=`$ $`u_j(u^i_i\epsilon +\epsilon _iu^i+p_iu^i)h^i{}_{j}{}^{}_{i}^{}p`$ (10)
$`+(p+\epsilon )a_j+2u^iS_{jl}_ia^l+R_{klij}u^iS^{kl}=0.`$
Projections of (10) on $`u^i`$ and on the orthogonal directions read

$`(p+\epsilon )_iu^i+u^i_i\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`(p+\epsilon )a_jh^i{}_{j}{}^{}_{i}^{}p+2S_{ji}u^l_la^i+R_{klij}u^iS^{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (12)
## III Geometry

We will study the stationary spacetime model belonging to the wide class of rotating spatially homogeneous models

$$ds^2=dt^22Rn_adx^adtR^2\gamma _{ab}dx^adx^b.$$
(13)
Hereafter the indices $`a,b,c=1,2,3`$ label the spatial coordinates, $`R=R(t)`$ is the scale factor, and

$$n_a=\nu _Ae_a^A,\gamma _{ab}=\beta _{AB}e_a^Ae_b^B.$$
(14)
Here $`\nu _A,\beta _{AB}`$ are constant coefficients ($`A,B=1,2,3`$), while

$$e^A=e_a^A(x)dx^a$$
(15)
are the invariant $`1`$–forms with respect to the action of a three-parameter group of motion which is admitted by the space-time (13). We assume that this group acts simply-transitively on the spatial ($`t=const`$) hypersurfaces. It is well known that there exist 9 types of such manifolds, distinguished by the Killing vectors $`\xi _A`$ and their commutators $`[\xi _A,\xi _B]=f^C{}_{AB}{}^{}\xi _{C}^{}`$. Invariant forms (15) solve the Lie equations $`_{\xi _B}e^A=0`$ for each Bianchi type, so that models (13) are spatially homogeneous.

More specifically, we will confine our attention to the case of the closed world belonging to the Bianchi type IX. Then, denoting the spatial coordinates $`x=x^1,y=x^2,z=x^3`$, one has explicitly:

$$e^1=\mathrm{cos}y\mathrm{cos}zdx\mathrm{sin}zdy,e^2=\mathrm{cos}y\mathrm{sin}zdx+\mathrm{cos}zdy,e^3=\mathrm{sin}ydx+dz,$$
(16)
which satisfy the structure equations

$$de^A=f^A{}_{BC}{}^{}e_{}^{B}e^C,\mathrm{with}f^1{}_{23}{}^{}=f^2{}_{31}{}^{}=f^3{}_{12}{}^{}=1.$$
(17)
We now write the ansatz for the line element (13)

$$ds^2=g_{\alpha \beta }\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta ^\beta ,g_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1),$$
(18)
in terms of the orthonormal coframe 1-forms $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$:

$$\vartheta ^{\widehat{0}}=dtR\nu _Ae^A,\vartheta ^{\widehat{1}}=Rk_1e^1,\vartheta ^{\widehat{2}}=Rk_2e^2,\vartheta ^{\widehat{3}}=Rk_3e^3.$$
(19)
Here, $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$ are positive constant parameters. The Greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ hereafter label the objects with respect to the orthonormal frame; the hats over indices denote the separate frame components of these objects.

## IV Closed rotating world

In order to finalize the formulation of the problem, we have to specify the assumptions about the cosmic fluid source. As we already mentioned, we are interested in the comoving case, when the mean velocity is

$$u^i=\delta _0^i.$$
(20)
Hence, with respect to the orthonormal frame, $`u^\alpha =(1,0,0,0)`$, and from the Frenkel condition (2) we see that the spin density can have only spatial nontrivial components:

$$S_{\widehat{2}\widehat{3}},S_{\widehat{3}\widehat{1}},S_{\widehat{1}\widehat{2}}.$$
(21)
We are looking for the stationary world, so all the time dependence is absent, and thus the scale factor is fixed at some constant value, $`R=R_0`$, whereas the components of spin (21) are also constant.

The gravitational field equations read, with $`\kappa `$ the Einstein gravitational constant and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (with respect to the orthonormal local frame):

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\alpha \beta }=\kappa T_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(22)
Substituting (19)-(21) into (3) and (22), after some algebra one finds from the off-diagonal components of the Einstein equations:

$$\kappa S_{\widehat{2}\widehat{3}}=\frac{\nu _1}{2R_0k_2k_3},\kappa S_{\widehat{3}\widehat{1}}=\frac{\nu _2}{2R_0k_1k_3},\kappa S_{\widehat{1}\widehat{2}}=\frac{\nu _3}{2R_0k_1k_2}.$$
(23)
Using these in (8), one verifies that the rotational equations of motion are satisfied automatically. Substituting (23) into the diagonal components of (22), one finds that the latter are consistent only when all the three parameters are equal:

$$k_1=k_2=k_3=:k.$$
(24)
Then, the Einstein equations yield for the energy density and the pressure

$`\kappa \epsilon +\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3k^2\nu _1^2\nu _2^2\nu _3^2}{4R_0^2k^4}},`$ (25)
$`\kappa p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\nu _1^2\nu _2^2\nu _3^2}{4R_0^2k^4}}.`$ (26)
For the dust equation of state $`p=0`$ (incoherent matter), we thus finally find:

$$\epsilon =\frac{2(k^2\nu _1^2\nu _2^2\nu _3^2)}{4\kappa R_0^2k^4},\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{k^2+\nu _1^2+\nu _2^2+\nu _3^2}{4\kappa R_0^2k^4}.$$
(27)
## V Discussion and conclusion

It is straightforward to obtain the kinematical quantities which describe the spacetime geometry. A direct calculation of the vorticity, $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=h^\alpha {}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{\beta }{}_{\nu }{}^{}_{[\alpha }^{}u_{\beta ]}`$, shear, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=h^\alpha {}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{\beta }{}_{\nu }{}^{}_{(\alpha }^{}u_{\beta )}\frac{1}{3}h_{\mu \nu }_\lambda u^\lambda `$, and the volume expansion $`\theta =_\lambda u^\lambda `$, yields:

$`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=0,a^\alpha =0,\theta =0,`$ (28)
$`\omega _{\widehat{2}\widehat{3}}={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1}{2R_0k^2}},\omega _{\widehat{3}\widehat{1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _2}{2R_0k^2}},\omega _{\widehat{1}\widehat{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _3}{2R_0k^2}}.`$ (29)
Comparing with (23), we find

$$\kappa S_{\alpha \beta }=\omega _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(30)
This is quite a remarkable relation as it indeed supports the idea which was put forward by Whittaker : the rotation of the local matter elements, i.e. spin $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$, is derived from the overall global rotation of the universe, that is $`\omega _{\alpha \beta }`$. Moreover this result is in complete agreement with the work of King  on closed rotating Bianchi-IX spacetimes. The rotation of the local matter elements are balanced by the rotation of the spacetime, so that there is no net angular momentum. This can be made more explicit by recasting (30) into the form of the equation describing the vanishing of the total (orbital plus spin) angular momentum of the universe,

$$\kappa S_{\alpha \beta }+\omega _{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(31)
Thus, in the sense of King, our solution is not a counterexample to Mach’s principle. We however have a more direct and transparent mechanism of the balance, without the need of the gravitational-wave interpretation developed in . Note that our results have been obtained in the framework of Einstein’s general relativity theory. Similar observations were also reported for the cosmic spinning string solutions in the Einstein-Cartan theory of gravity .

Another interesting result is that, given the radius of the universe $`R_0`$, the magnitude of the angular velocity $`\omega ^2:=\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\alpha \beta }\omega ^{\alpha \beta }=(\nu _1^2+\nu _2^2+\nu _3^2)/(4R_0^2k^4)`$ cannot be arbitrarily large in the closed world. As we see from (27), the energy density is only positive when

$$|\omega |<\frac{1}{2R_0k}.$$
(32)
Recall that in the open Gödel cosmos $`\kappa \epsilon =2\omega ^2`$, and thus the angular velocity could be arbitrary.

## VI Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft with the grants HE 1922/5-1 and 436 RUS 17/72/00.


text:
# The Giessen Model - Vector Meson Production on the Nucleon in a Coupled Channel Approach

## 1 Introduction

The determination of nucleon resonance properties from experiments where the nucleon is excited either via hadronic or electromagnetic probes is one of the major issues of hadron physics. The goal is to be finally able to compare the extracted masses and partial decay widths with predictions from lattice QCD (e.g. ref.) and/or quark models (e.g. ref.).

As has been shown in ref. for a reliable extraction of these properties it is inevitable to analyze photon and pion induced experimental data simultaneously for as many channels as possible. Therefore our coupled channel model developed in ref. incorporates the final states $`\gamma N`$, $`\pi N`$, $`2\pi N`$, $`\eta N`$, and $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where the $`2\pi N`$ channel was modelled for simplicity by an isovector $`0^+`$ meson. But as soon as we try to extend the model to CMS energies up to $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ GeV for an investigation of higher and so-called missing nucleon resonances, the inclusion of the $`\omega N`$ final state becomes unavoidable due to unitarity. This can be seen from the left panel of Fig. 1.

Furthermore, $`\omega `$ production on the nucleon represents a possibility to project out $`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ resonances in the reaction mechanism. Due to its intrinsic spin the inclusion of the $`\omega N`$ final state in our coupled channel model requires an extension of the standard partial wave decomposition (PWD) method developped for $`\pi N/\gamma N\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N\gamma N`$ (see e.g. ref.). Such an extension is provided in section 4. In addition, this formalism enables us to achieve a realistic treatment of the most dominant inelastic channel in $`\pi N`$ scattering, i.e. the $`2\pi N`$ state via $`\rho N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\sigma N`$.

## 2 The Model

Our method to solve the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation is the so called $`K`$ matrix Born-approximation, which is equivalent to setting the intermediate particles in the BS propagator on-shell; for more details cf. ref.. Then the reaction matrix $`T`$, defined by $`S=1+2\text{i}T`$, can be calculated from the potential $`V`$ after a PWD in total spin $`J`$, parity $`P`$, and isospin $`I`$ via matrix inversion:

$$T(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})=\frac{V(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})}{1\text{i}V(p^{},p;\sqrt{s})}.$$
(1)
and unitarity is fulfilled as long as $`V`$ is hermitian.

The potential $`V_{fi}`$ is built up by $`s`$-, $`u`$-, and $`t`$-channel Feynman diagrams by means of effective Lagrangians which can be found in refs.. The advantage of this method is that the background contributions are created dynamically and the number of parameters is greatly reduced, i.e. as compared to Breit-Wigner driven models or those including only pointlike interactions.

## 3 Results on (pseudo)scalar meson production

As an example for the quality of the calculations we show in the right panel of Fig. 1 the total partial wave cross sections, as extracted by the standard PWD, for $`\pi N2\pi N`$ in comparison with the inelasticities from $`\pi N\pi N`$ ($`\times `$) and a $`\pi N2\pi N`$ analysis ($``$). The necessity of the inclusion of a large set of final states in a coupled channel calculation can be seen in various partial waves. In the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave the difference between the inelasticity and the $`2\pi `$ analysis around $`\sqrt{s}=1.5`$ GeV is easily explained by the opening of the $`\eta N`$ final state, the same holds true for $`P_{11}`$ above $`\sqrt{s}=1.6`$ GeV and $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for $`P_{33}`$ above $`\sqrt{s}=1.7`$ GeV and $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. However, there still is a discrepancy left in the $`P_{13}`$ partial wave arising around $`1.7`$ GeV. Since this particular calculation did not include the $`\omega N`$ final state yet, this problem might be solved upon a reanalysis including the $`\omega N`$ final state.

## 4 Vector Meson Production

Since the orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ is not conserved in, e.g., $`\pi N\omega N`$ the standard PWD becomes really clumsy for many of the channels that have to be included. A more elegant and in particular uniform PWD for all channels would be desirable. Hence we use here a generalisation of the standard PWD method which represents a tool to analyze any meson- and photon-baryon reaction on an equal footing.

We start with the decomposition of a two-particle momentum states into states characterized by the total spin $`J`$ and its $`z`$-component $`M`$ (see ref.):

$`|p;JM,\lambda _1\lambda _2=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2J+1}{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle e^{i(M\lambda )\phi }d_{M\lambda }^J(\vartheta )|p\vartheta \phi ;\lambda _1\lambda _2\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }},\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda _2,`$
where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are the helicities of the two particles and the $`d_{M\lambda }^J(\vartheta )`$ are Wigner functions. For the incoming CMS state ($`\vartheta _0=\phi _0=0`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}_z=0`$) one gets $`JM,\lambda _1\lambda _2|\vartheta _0\phi _0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\delta _{M\lambda }`$, hence $`M=\lambda `$ and one can drop the index $`M`$. By using the parity property (cf. ref.) $`\widehat{P}|J,\lambda =\eta _1\eta _2(1)^{Js_1s_2}|J,\lambda `$, where $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$, and $`s_1`$, $`s_2`$ are the intrinsic parities and spins of the two particles, the construction of states with a well defined parity is straightforward:

$`\widehat{P}|J,\lambda ;P\pm :=\widehat{P}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|J,+\lambda \pm |J,\lambda )=\pm \eta _1\eta _2(1)^{Js_1s_2}|J,\lambda ;P\pm ,`$
and we can use them to project out helicity amplitudes with definite parity:

$`T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{J\pm }:`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}|\widehat{T}|J\lambda ;P\pm `$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^J\pm T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^J)\text{with }T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }(x)d_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^J(x)\text{d}x},x=\mathrm{cos}\vartheta .`$
These helicity amplitudes $`T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{J\pm }`$ have definite, identical $`J`$ and definite, but opposite $`P`$. As is quite obvious this method is valid for any meson-baryon final state combination, even cases as e.g. $`\omega N\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$. In the case of $`\pi N\pi N`$ the $`T_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }^{J\pm }`$ coincide with the conventional partial wave amplitudes: $`T_{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}^{J\pm }T_\mathrm{}\pm `$.

This PWD has been used for calculating pion- and photon-induced $`\omega `$ production on the nucleon. For our first results, we have applied the couplings set SM95-pt-3 from ref., i.e. the $`\omega `$ only couples to the nucleon. However, as can be seen in the left panel of Fig. 2 for a reliable calculation of $`\omega `$ production on the nucleon the inclusion of rescattering is a basic requirement.

## 5 Outlook

The next step of the extension of our coupled channel $`K`$ matrix model will be the inclusion of $`\omega N`$ data in the determination of resonance properties. Furthermore, since the partial wave formalism is now settled, the inclusion of additional final states, in particular for a more sophisticated description of the $`2\pi N`$ final state, such as $`\rho N`$, $`\sigma N`$, and $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and accounting for their spectral function is straightforward.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work is supported by DFG and BMBF.


text:
# References

DENSITY PERTURBATIONS IN AN UNIVERSE
DOMINATED BY THE CHAPLYGIN GAS

J. C. Fabris111e-mail: fabris@cce.ufes.br, S.V.B. Gonçalves222e-mail: sergio@cce.ufes.br and P.E. de Souza333e-mail: patricia.ilus@bol.com.br

Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, CEP29060-900, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil

## Abstract

We study the fate of density perturbations in an Universe dominate by the Chaplygin gas, which exhibit negative pressure. We show that it is possible to obtain the value for the density contrast observed in large scale structure of the Universe by fixing a free parameter in the equation of state of this gas. The negative character of pressure must be significant only very recently.
PACS number(s): 98.80.Bp, 98.65.Dx

The nature of ”missing mass” that must dominate the Universe today is one of the most intriguing problem in modern physics. This problem appears at various levels, beginning with the rotation curve of spiral galaxies , and extending to the total mass of the Universe as it is deduced through the first acoustic peak of the spectrum of the anisotropy of cosmic background radiation . A fraction of this missing mass has been called dark energy since it does cluster, remaining a smooth component in the Universe. This problem has acquired a most dramatic face through the results coming from the observation of supernova type Ia, which indicate that the Universe today is in an accelerated expansion . Hence, the inflationary paradigma, first conceived for the primordial Universe, can be applicable to our actual Universe.

In this way, the cosmological constant problem was revived: it is possible that a cosmological constant may be the dominant component of matter in the Universe. However, other types of matter with negative pressure have been considered as candidate of the so-called dark energy of the Universe: fluids of topological defects (domain walls, strings), quintessence (a self-interacting scalar field minimally coupled to gravity), etc. Recently, a different matter component with negative pressure has been presented as possible candidate for this dark energy: the Chaplygin gas .

The Chaplygin gas has an equation of state of the type

$$p=\frac{A}{\rho },$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is a constant. This exotic fluid has an interesting origin. Taking the Nambu-Goto action of string theory, the Chaplygin fluid appears after considering $`d`$-branes in a $`d+2`$ dimensional space-time, in the light cone gauge . In this case, the Nambu action reduces to

$$S=d^{d+1}r[\theta \dot{\rho }(\rho (\theta )^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{A}{\rho })].$$
(2)
A very curious aspect of this action is that the variables $`\theta `$ and $`\rho `$ obey the newtonian hydrodynamic equations for an irrotational fluid with the pressure given by (1). Moreover, the Chaplygin gas admit a supersymmetric extension.

In , the consequences for the evolution of the Universe of such exotic fluid have been investigate. They found that, in the relativistic context, the density is connected to the scale factor as

$$\rho =\sqrt{A+\frac{B}{a^6}}.$$
(3)
Hence, initially the Universe behaves as it was dominated by a dust fluid, and than the density becomes asymptotically constant, revealing that the cosmological constant becomes the dominant component of the Universe. There is an intermediate phase, which can be described by a cosmological constant mixed with a stiff matter fluid. In this sense, this exotic fluid may be a candidate for describing the Universe as the supernova observational results indicate it must be.

In the presente note, we study another aspect of this fluid: the evolution of density perturbations. A relativistic study of this problem leads to some technical difficulties. Considering that we can approximate the Universe filled by such a fluid with the three phases described before, the behaviour of density perturbation in the initial and final phases are already known ($`\delta _{dust}t^{2/3}`$ and $`\delta _{cc}=0`$ respectively). Hence in order to obtain non-trivial effects we must consider the intermediate phase. However, such a phase admits solution for the background, but no analytical solution for the perturbed equations.

Since our intention is to have explicity expression for density perturbations, in order at least to evaluate what happens for the evolution of structure in an Universe dominate by the Chaplygin gas, we will exploit the fact that the action (2) leads to the hydrodynamic newtonian equations. Coupling to (2) a term representing the gravitational potential $`\varphi `$ we have the following equations :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}+.(\rho \stackrel{}{v})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`\dot{\stackrel{}{v}}+\stackrel{}{v}.\stackrel{}{v}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\rho }}+\varphi ,`$ (5)
$`^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho .`$ (6)
If these equations describe an expanding homogeneous and isotropic Universe their solution is

$$\rho =\frac{\rho _0}{a^3},\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{r}\frac{\dot{a}}{a},\varphi =\stackrel{}{r}\frac{4\pi G\rho }{3}.$$
(7)
Notice that these solutions are independent of the pressure. Indeed, since in a homogeneous Universe $`p=p(t)`$, there is no pressure gradient, and the presence of pressure does not influence the evolution of the Universe.

We turn now to the perturbative level. Introducing in equations (4,5,6) the quantities $`\rho =\rho _0+\delta \rho `$, $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{v}_0+\delta \stackrel{}{v}`$, $`p=p_0+\delta p`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi _0+\delta \varphi `$, where each quantity has been expressed as a sum of the background solution plus a small perturbation, we can combine the resulting perturbed equation in order to obtain an unique differential equation for the density contrast $`\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }`$:

$$\ddot{\delta }+2\frac{a}{a}\dot{\delta }+\{\frac{v_s^2n^2}{a^2}3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\}\delta =0.$$
(8)
In this expression $`v_s^2=\frac{p}{\rho }`$ is the the sound velocity and $`n`$ is the wavenumber of the perturbation, which appears due to the fact that we expanded the spatial dependence of the perturbed quantities in plane waves. An important property of the Chaplygin gas is that, in spite of exhibiting negative pressure, its sound velocity is positive. This does not happen in general: fluids with negative pressure quite frequently exhibit instabilities, at least in their hydrodynamical representation, due to an imaginary sound velocity .

Inserting the background solutions and the expression for the sound velocity in (8), we determine the behaviour of density perturbations. The solution reads

$$\delta =t^{1/6}[C_1J_\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma }^2nt^{7/3})+C_2J_\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma }^2nt^{7/3})]$$
(9)
where $`\nu =5/14`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\frac{54}{49}\frac{A\pi G}{a_0^2}`$. In principle $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants that depend on $`n`$.

The solution (9) has two asymptotic regime. For $`t0`$, there is a growing mode given by $`\delta _+t^{2/3}`$. This coincides with the evolution of density perturbations in a dust fluid in General Relativity. On the other hand, for $`t\mathrm{}`$, the density contrast oscillates with decreasing amplitude, $`\delta _\pm t^{4/3}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2nt^{7/3}+\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is a phase, approaching a zero value asymptotically. Hence, for large values of time, the solution approaches the result for density perturbation in General Relativity with a cosmological constant, $`\delta _{cc}=0`$. The transition from a ”dust” phase to a ”cosmological constant” phase is smooth and the moment it happens is essentially dictated by the value of the constante $`A`$ in (2). This behaviour inverts what happens in the traditional case of density perturbations in newtonian gravity with positive pressure. In this case, taking the equation of state $`p\rho ^\gamma `$, $`\gamma >4/3`$, the density contrast initially oscillates, and after it grows with $`\delta _+t^{2/3}`$.

These features have some interesting consequences. In fact, let us suppose that at the moment of decoupling of radiation and matter, $`t_i10^{11}s`$, the amplitude of density perturbations is fixed by the amplitude of the anisotropy of cosmic microwave background radiation, i.e., $`\delta _i10^5`$. Later, deep in the material phase, the newtonian approximation is reasonable. Supposing the Universe from that moment on is dominated by a Chaplygin gas fluid (in more sophisticated words, a gas of p-branes), than density perturbations grow initially, decreasing later. Observations indicate that the large structure are such today that $`\delta _f<1`$, where the subscript indicates an instant near our now. Supposing the first asymptotic regime for the density contrast found before is valid, than

$$\frac{\delta _f}{\delta _i}=(\frac{t_f}{t_i})^{2/3}.$$
(10)
The condition $`\delta _f<1`$, leads to $`t_f10^{17}s`$, that is $`t_ft_0`$, where $`t_0`$ is the age of the Universe. Hence the approximation that the pressure is negligible must be valid until very recently in order to explain observations. This fact limits the value of $`A`$ as $`A<\rho _0`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the density of the Universe today. Only very recently pressure should become important, and the perturbations have stopped growing. This fact may have some consequences for the anisotropy of cosmic microwave background, at least for large multipoles values, that is, small angles.

In this note, we have outlined the behaviour of density of perturbations in a specific type of fluid with negative pressure, the Chaplygin gas, which can be viewed also as a gas of p-branes. This gas may interpolate a regime of a dust dominated Universe to a vacuum energy dominated Universe, given an explanation for the possible accelerated phase today. We performed a newtonian analysis since the Chaplygin gas obeys the equations of newtonian hydrodynamic. The main conclusion is that it admits an initial phase of growing perturbations, with the the same rate as in dust case of the cosmological standard model, from which it follows decreasing oscillations, which asymptotically go to zero. Hence, even if the newtonian analysis is limited for the study of the Universe in large scales, it this case the newtonian solution interpolates conveniently an initial dust phase ($`\delta _dt^{2/3}`$) with a cosmological constant phase ($`\delta _{cc}=0`$). Even if the newtonian background model is very different from the relativistic one, since it gives a dust-like solution for any value of time, the perturbative newtonian analysis is consistent with the different phases predicted by expression (1), which comes from relativistic considerations. Moreover, we notice that the Chaplygin gas, in spite of presenting negative pressure, is stable at small scale, in opposition to what happens in general with perfect fluids with negative pressure. This is due to the fact that the sound velocity in the Chaplygin gas is positive.
Acknowledgements: We thank CNPq (Brazil) for partial financial support.