format: text

text:
# Casimir energy in a small volume multiply connected static hyperbolic pre-inflationary Universe

## I Introduction

There has been an increase of interest in the topology of the Universe in recent years. As is well known, the Einstein equations (EQ) restrict the spatial homogeneous and isotropic sections to either $`R^3,S^3`$ or $`H^3`$, locally. Recent observational data indicate that the curvature of the Universe is small, without ruling out the negatively curved case. On the other hand, the EQ are insensitive to the global nontrivial topology, induced by a discrete group of isometries $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting freely and properly discontinuously in the covering space. This group acts according to a type of generalization of Poincaré’s theorem - the tessellations of $`H^3`$ by hyperbolic polyhedra . The polyhedra are pasted together, filling up the entire $`H^3`$, without leaving any empty space. The motions of the polyhedra, are performed by the discrete group of isometries $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For a review of topology in connection with cosmology, see  and references therein. Among the first applications of the topology considerations, was an attempt to explain multiple quasar images . Constraints due to the homogeneity of the CMBR set a lower limit for the size of the fundamental cell today to $`3000Mpc`$ ,  and . The results apply only to compactifications of flat space. There are arguments, however, which allow for a compact hyperbolic manifold as the space section . The effect of the topology induces the formation of circles in the sky, which, in principle could be measured in the CMBR .

A very attractive argument in favor of compact hyperbolic manifolds is connected with pre-inflationary homogenization through chaotic mixing, as was discussed by Cornish et al. . They suggested that inflation occurred near the Planck era, after the chaotic homogenization, so that the two processes together are better suited to explain the large scale structure of the Universe observed today. The motivation for this work is based on this argument.

Due to the particular interest in the small volume hyperbolic Universe, we make a numerical calculation of the vacuum expectation value of the energy of a conformally coupled massive scalar field (e.g., inflaton) in a static space-time $`R\times `$, where the spatial section is the compact hyperbolic 3-manifold of the smallest volume known, $`V=0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3`$, called the Weeks manifold , $``$, where $`R_{\text{CURV}}`$ is the radius of curvature of the Universe. The quantum field theoretical effects were strongest in the era under consideration by Cornish et al.  than in any other. Previously, the Casimir energy for static multiply connected flat space-times, was obtained in DeWitt et al. . We calculate a generalization of their result for a particular multiply connected hyperbolic space section. We use the point splitting technique which is very useful in determining the ultraviolet behavior in curved space, since it involves the evaluation of field quantities infinitesimally displaced. The obtained propagator is exact and possesses information about the global properties of the manifold in the sense that the infrared modes are taken into account, for Lie groups, as well as some homogeneous space-times, such as the static $`R\times S^3`$ and $`R\times H^3`$ . When the space-time is multiply connected, the propagator is obtained as the usual sum over paths: all the nontrivial geodesics connecting the two points are taken into account, which is the technique used in , and the one used in this work.

We find a static hyperbolic solution for the EQ, whose spatial section is the Weeks manifold in section II. In section III, we write the expression for the vacuum expectation value of the energy momentum tensor. We obtain the numerical values of the Casimir energy in the multiply connected static space time of section II, in section IV. Our conclusions are presented in section V. (We use natural units, $`G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$, except in section II.)

## II The Static Universe $`R\times `$

It is well known that hyperbolic geometry can be obtained via “Minkowski” space, together with an additional constraint

$`dl^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2dw^2,`$ (1)
$`\left(xx^{}\right)^2+\left(yy^{}\right)^2+\left(zz^{}\right)^2\left(ww^{}\right)^2=R_{\text{CURV}}^2.`$ (2)
It can be easily seen that the isometry group is the proper, orthocronous Lorentz group, also called $`SO(1,3),`$ which is isomorphic to $`PSL(2,C)=SL(2,C)/\{\pm I\}`$ . This space is homogeneous in the sense that every point in it can be reached from any other by the action of an element of the isometry group. Using the constraint in the line element of Eq. (2) we obtain

$`dl^2`$ $`=`$ $`dx^2+dy^2+dz^2`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(xx^{}\right)dx+\left(yy^{}\right)dy+\left(zz^{}\right)dz\right)^2}{\left(xx^{}\right)^2+\left(yy^{}\right)^2+\left(zz^{}\right)^2+R_{\text{CURV}}^2}},`$
$`dl^2`$ $`=`$ $`g(x,x^{})_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$ (5)
where we interchangeably write $`(x^1,x^2,x^2)(x,y,z)`$. Both connections, $`_x`$ and $`_x^{}`$, compatible with the metric of Eq. (5), can be defined as

$`_\mu g(x,x^{})_{\alpha \beta }=`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}g(x,x^{})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \mu }^\nu g(x,x^{})_{\nu \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^\nu g(x,x^{})_{\alpha \nu }0,`$ (7)
$`_\mu ^{}g(x,x^{})_{\alpha \beta }=`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}g(x,x^{})_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \mu }^\nu g(x,x^{})_{\nu \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^\nu g(x,x^{})_{\alpha \nu }0,`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ means that all derivatives are taken with respect to $`x^{}.`$ Spherical coordinates and the substitution

$$r=\sqrt{\left(xx^{}\right)^2+\left(yy^{}\right)^2+\left(zz^{}\right)^2}$$
(10)
in Eq. (5) yield the popular Robertson-Walker line element, written in the Lobatchevsky form

$`ds^2=dt^2+R_{\text{CURV}}^2\left[d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R_{\text{CURV}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(xx^{}\right)^2+\left(yy^{}\right)^2+\left(zz^{}\right)^2}{R_{\text{CURV}}^2}}.`$ (12)
As is well known, the EQ for the homogeneous and isotropic space sections in Eq. (11) with $`R_{\text{CURV}}=R_{\text{CURV}}(t)`$, reduces to the Friedmann equations

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}_{\text{CURV}}}{R_{\text{CURV}}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_{\text{CURV}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}},`$
$`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{R}_{\text{CURV}}}{R_{\text{CURV}}}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}_{\text{CURV}}}{R_{\text{CURV}}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_{\text{CURV}}^2}}=8\pi Gp+\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
where the right hand side is the classical energy momentum source for the geometry $`T^{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u^\mu u^\nu +pg^{\mu \nu }`$, and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\mu \nu }`$.

During the stages just after the Planck era, it is likely that the Universe was radiation-dominated, so that we have the equation of state $`\rho /3=p`$. Thus the energy density scaled as $`\rho =\rho _0(R_{\text{CURV}0}/R_{\text{CURV}}(t))^4`$. We define $`8\pi G\rho _0R_{\text{CURV}}^4/3=C`$. By imposing that $`\dot{R}_{\text{CURV}}=\ddot{R}_{\text{CURV}}=0`$ for a static Universe, we obtain from the above

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R_{\text{CURV}}^2}}+1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}R_{\text{CURV}}^2=0,`$
$`C+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}R_{\text{CURV}}^4=0,`$
which have a solution

$`R_{\text{CURV}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}},`$ (13)
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}},`$ (14)
$`ds^2=dt^2+R_{\text{CURV}}^2\left[d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],`$ (15)
where the cosmological constant is negative.

According to quantum cosmology, a smaller Universe has a greater probability of being spontaneously created. Also, the chaotic mixing becomes more significant in this case . The smallest known compact 3-manifold $``$, with volume $`V=0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3`$ was discovered by Weeks . It is a multiply connected manifold with universal covering $`H^3`$, $`=H^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(1,3)`$, a discrete finite subgroup with no fixed point. Group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is isomorphic to $`\pi _1()`$, the first homotopy group, also called the fundamental group of $``$. $`\pi _1()`$ is the group of nontrivial loops composed of the maps of the manifold to the sphere $`S^1`$ . For this smallest volume manifold, the $`18`$ $`SO(1,3)`$ matrices $`g_i`$, which generate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)`$, were obtained with the computer program SnapPea . The fundamental domain is shown in FIG. 1. We note that the isometries preserve the form of the spatial part of the metric in Eq. (11), so that the Friedmann equations remain unaltered since they depend only on time $`t`$, and the solution of EQ is the same as in Eq. (15).

## III The Vacuum Expectation Energy in The Covering Space

We now wish to evaluate the vacuum expectation value for the energy density for the case of a Universe consisting of a classical radiation fluid, a cosmological constant, and a non interacting quantum scalar field. The solution of EQ is given in Eq. (15), where the spatial part is written as Eq. (5) and the topology is $`R\times H^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }(0.942797\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)`$. We use the point splitting method in the Universal covering space $`R\times H^3`$, for which the propagator is exact. The point splitting method was constructed to obtain the renormalized (finite) expectation values of the quantum mechanical operators. It is based on the Schwinger formalism  and was developed in the context of curved space by DeWitt . Further details are contained in the articles of Christensen , . For a review, see .

Metric variations in the scalar action $`S`$ with conformal coupling $`\xi =1/6,`$

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{g}(\varphi _{,\rho }\varphi ^{,\rho }+\xi R\varphi ^2+m^2\varphi ^2)d^4x},`$

give the classical energy momentum tensor

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi _\rho \varphi ^{,\rho }g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\varphi \varphi _{;\mu \nu }`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi ^2G_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2g_{\mu \nu },`$
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor. As expected for massless fields, where $`m=0`$, it can be verified that the trace of the above tensor is identically zero. Variations with respect to $`\varphi `$ result in the curved space generalization of the Klein-Gordon equation,

$$\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{R}{6}\varphi m^2\varphi =0.$$
(18)
The renormalized energy momentum tensor involves field products at the same space-time point. Thus the idea is to calculate the products at separated points, $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$, taking the limit at the end $`xx^{}`$:

$$0|T_{\mu \nu }|0\underset{xx^{}}{lim}_\mu _\nu ^{}\frac{1}{2}0|(\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})+\varphi (x^{})\varphi (x))|0,$$
(19)
where the covariant derivatives are defined in Eqs. (7) and (9).

We introduce the causal Green function

$`G(x,x^{})=i0|T\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})|0,`$

where $`T`$ is the time ordering operator. Taking the real and imaginary parts of the Feynman propagator,

$$G(x,x^{})=G_s(x,x^{})+\frac{i}{2}G^{(1)}(x,x^{}),$$
(20)
results in the Hadamard function

$`G^{(1)}(x,x^{})=0|\{\varphi (x),\varphi (x^{})\}|0,`$

which is the expectation value of the anti-commutator $`\{\varphi (x),\varphi (x^{})\}=\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})+\varphi (x^{})\varphi (x)`$, which appears in Eq. (19). By the above reasoning, taking into account Eq. (18) and the field products in the classical equation (17), the vacuum expectation value is obtained

$`0|T_{\mu \nu }|0=`$ (21)
$`\underset{xx^{}}{lim}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(_\mu _\nu ^{}+_\mu ^{}_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g(x,x)_{\mu \nu }_\rho ^\rho ^{}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(_\mu _\nu +_\mu ^{}_\nu ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}g(x)_{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^{}\right)`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(R(x)_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R(x)g(x)_{\mu \nu }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}m^2g(x)_{\mu \nu }]`$ (24)
$`G^{(1)}(x,x^{}),`$ (25)
$`0|T_{\mu \nu }|0=\underset{xx^{}}{lim}\left[T(x,x^{})_{\mu \nu }\right],`$ (26)
where the metric used to abtain the curvature tensor $`R(x)_{\mu \nu }`$, $`g(x)_{\mu \nu }=g(x,x^{}=0)_{\mu \nu }`$, is given in (5), and the covariant derivatives are given in (7) and (9).

## IV The Feynman Propagator and the Casimir Energy in $`R\times `$

The Feynman propagator involves a summation over all possible classical paths. When the space is multiply connected, it is necessary to sum over all nontrivial geodesics connecting two points. Green functions are solutions of Eq. (18) with the boundary condition

$`F(x,x^{})G(x,x^{})=\delta (xx^{}),`$
$`F(x,x^{})=F(x)/\sqrt{g}\delta (xx^{}),`$
where $`F(x)=\mathrm{}R/6m^2.`$

We introduced an auxiliary evolution parameter $`s`$ and a complete orthonormal set of states $`|x`$, such that

$`G(x,x^{})=x|\widehat{G}|x^{},`$
$`F(x,x^{})=x|\widehat{F}|x^{},`$
$`\widehat{F}\widehat{G}=\widehat{I}.`$
This last equation implies that $`\widehat{G}=(\widehat{F}i0)^1`$, so that the causal Green function becomes

$$G(x,x^{})=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sx|\mathrm{exp}(is\widehat{F})|x^{}$$
(27)
and the matrix element $`x|\mathrm{exp}(is\widehat{F})|x^{}=x(s)|x^{}(0)`$ satisfies a Schrödinger type equation,

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}x(s)|x^{}(0)=\left(\mathrm{}R/6m^2\right)x(s)|x^{}(0).`$

Dowker and Critchley  obtained the Green function for the static homogeneous space-time with spherical space sections $`(S^3)`$, using the above technique. Using a similar procedure, the result for a static hyperbolic space section is obtained. Assuming that $`x(s)|x^{}(0)`$ depends only on the geodesic distance $`\chi `$, given in Eq. (11), the above equation is easily solved. By substituting the solution $`x(s)|x^{}(0)`$ for the integrand in Eq. (27),

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{m}{8\pi }\frac{\chi }{\mathrm{sinh}\chi }\frac{H_1^{(2)}\left(m\sqrt{\left(tt^{}\right)^2R_{\text{CURV}}^2\chi ^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\left(tt^{}\right)^2R_{\text{CURV}}^2\chi ^2}},$$
(28)
where $`H_1^{(2)}`$ is the Hankel function of the second kind of order $`1`$, the causal Green function is obtained.

The Klein-Gordon equation remains unchanged under isometries,

$`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \left[\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}m^2\right)\varphi \right]=\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}m^2\right)\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \varphi ,`$

where $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi `$ is the Lie derivative with respect to $`\xi `$, is the Killing vector that generates the isometry, so that summations in the Green functions over the discrete elements of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)`$ remains well defined. For comparison, we have from Eq. (6) in ,

$`G(x,x^{},\kappa ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{8\pi a\mathrm{sin}(s/a)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(s+2\pi na\right){\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(2)}\left(\kappa \sqrt{(tt^{})^2s^2}\right)}{\kappa \sqrt{(tt^{})^2s^2}}}.`$
The infinite summation appears because the space sections $`S^3`$ are compact and, therefore, there are an infinite number of geodesics connecting two points. In fact, by removing the summation, leaving only the direct path and making the substitutions $`s/ai\chi `$, $`aiR_{\text{CURV}},`$ each formula may be derived from the other. The Hadamard function can be obtained from Eqs. (28) and (20),

$$G^{(1)}(x,x^{})=\frac{m}{2\pi ^2}\frac{\chi }{\mathrm{sinh}\chi }\frac{K_1\left(m\sqrt{\left(tt^{}\right)^2+R_{\text{CURV}}^2\chi ^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\left(tt^{}\right)^2+R_{\text{CURV}}^2\chi ^2}},$$
(29)
where $`K_1`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind.

Substituting Eq. (29) and the covariant derivatives (7) and(9) in Eq. (25), we obtain $`T(x,x^{})_{\mu \nu }`$ in Eq. (26). In $`=R\times H^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }(0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)`$, the summation over the infinite geodesics connecting the two points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ is performed by the action of the generators $`g_i`$ of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)`$ and their products on the points $`x^{}`$, (for example, in (26)):

$$0\left|T(x,0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)_{\mu \nu }\right|0=\underset{xx^{}}{lim}\underset{i}{}T(x,\mathrm{\Gamma }_ix^{})_{\mu \nu }.$$
(30)
We evaluated Eq. (30) numerically for the compact space-time $``$. In the summation, the direct path gives a divergent contribution. It can be shown that avoiding the direct path is equivalent to a renormalization of the cosmological constant . We shall use the same type of renormalization. In Eq. (30), we summed over the generators and their products up to three factors (see below) and assured that no transformed point in the covering space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ix^{}`$ is summed more than once. We also checked that relation (2) was verified for each transformed point, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ix^{}`$.

We obtained the result shown in FIG. 2, for a scalar field with mass $`m=0.5`$, $`R_{\text{CURV}}=10`$. The values of the vacuum energy, E, in FIG. 2, seen by an observer with a four velocity $`u^\mu =(1,0,0,0)`$ of

$`E=0\left|T(x,0.942707\mathrm{}R_{\text{CURV}}^3)_{\mu \nu }\right|0u^\mu u^\nu `$

at each point $`x`$ on the surface of a sphere inside the fundamental polyhedron in FIG. 1. The radius of the sphere is chosen to be $`r=0.6`$, where $`r`$ is given in Eq. (10). $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ correspond to the latitude and longitude, so that the lines $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ correspond to the south and north poles, respectively. It is clear from FIG. 2 that there are spontaneous vacuum excitations of low multipolar components.

The infinite summation in Eq. (30) occurs because the space-time $`R\times `$ is static, so that there has been enough time for the quantum interaction of the scalar field with the geometry to travel through space. Since the Universe is expanding, we know that the summation ceases to be strictly physically valid. The presence of the mass term, however, naturally introduces a cutoff.

In Eq. (30), we summed over the generators and their products. We found that products of four generators or more, contributed less than $`10^{14}`$ to the values in FIG. 2 (i.e. $`10^8`$ of the plotted values of $`T_{00}`$).

## V Conclusions

We explicitly evaluated the distribution of the vacuum (Casimir) energy of a conformally coupled massive scalar field for a specific interesting situation: the smallest static Universe of negative curvature known, whose spatial sections are the Weeks manifold. As a specific example, we chose $`m=0.5`$ for the mass of the scalar field, $`R_{\text{CURV}}=10`$ for the radius of curvature of the Universe and values of $`T_{00}`$ on a sphere of radius $`r=0.5`$ inside the fundamental polyhedron FIG. 1, are shown in FIG. 2. It can be seen in FIG. 2 that there is a maximum of $`T_{00}2.6\times 10^6`$ at $`\theta 3\pi /4`$, $`\varphi \pi /2`$ and a minimum of $`T_{00}2.7\times 10^6`$ at $`\theta \pi /4`$, $`\varphi 3\pi /2`$. It is to be noted that this type of topological effect depends on the mass: for smaller values of $`m`$ the maximum values are bigger and the minimum values are smaller.

## Acknowledgments

D.M. would like to thank the Brazilian agency FAPESP for financial support. H. V. F. thanks the Brazilian agency CNPq for partial support. R.O. thanks FAPESP and CNPq for partial support.


text:
# Symmetry properties under arbitrary field redefinitions of the metric energy–momentum tensor in classical field theories and gravity

## 1 Introduction

Total energy and energy density are clearly among the most significant physical quantities in any field theory. The lesson we have learnt from Einstein’s General Relativity is that the adequate description of energy and momentum of any kind of matter and field, except for the gravitational field itself, is in terms of the variational (with respect to the spacetime metric) energy–momentum tensor(the metric stress tensor, for short).

In the gauge theories of particle physics the metric stress tensors for the gauge fields are all gauge invariant. This may arouse a conviction that this is a generic feature of any gauge invariant theory. However this is not the case. In general the metric stress tensor does not inherit the gauge–independence property of the underlying Lagrangian. The most important example is linearized General Relativity. This theory is dynamically equivalent to the linear massless spin–two field, whose metric stress tensor is gauge dependent . Then two related problems arise. Why does the metric stress tensor for a gauge invariant field in Minkowski space lose this symmetry? Is it possible to construct a linear spin–two field theory in flat spacetime with a gauge invariant metric stress tensor?

An answer to the first problem follows from a ”folk theorem”, rigorously stated and proven by Deser and McCarthy in  to the effect that the Poincaré generators, being spatial integrals of the metric stress tensor, are gauge invariant and thus unique. The theorem shows that in quantum field theory, where only global (i.e. integrals over all 3–space) quantities, such as total energy and momentum of a quantum system, are physical (measurable) ones, the inevitable gauge dependence of the metric stress tensor (for fields carrying spin larger than one) is quite harmless. It follows from the proof that the gauge dependence of this tensor is due to the fact that the gauge transformations involve the spacetime metric. The negative answer to the second problem is also contained in that work: it is stated there that this gauge dependence is unavoidable (see also sect. 4 below).

In a classical gauge invariant field theory any gauge dependence of the metric stress tensor is truly harmful since this tensor cannot act as the source in Einstein field equations and this defect makes the theory unphysical. Even if such a field is viewed as a test one in a fixed spacetime, its theory remains defective since the local conserved currents (which exist if there are Killing vectors) do not determine physical flows of energy or momentum through a boundary of a spatially bounded region.

One may consider arbitrary field redefinitions depending on additional quantities and some of these may be symmetries of specific Lagrangians. It is interesting to see how generic is the case of gauge symmetry breaking by the metric stress tensor for fields with spins $`s>1`$. To get an overall and unified picture we investigate in the present paper symmetry properties of the stress tensor in any classical generally covariant Lagrangian field theory. We establish conditions under which any symmetry (which is ”internal” in the sense that it is not mere covariance under coordinate transformations) of the underlying Lagrangian becomes the symmetry of the metric stress tensor. To this end we derive a generic identity, valid for any Lagrangian in a curved spacetime for an arbitrary field transformation (being a symmetry or not), which determines how the stress tensor is altered under this transformation. This identity is the thrust of the paper. For a symmetry transformation of the Lagrangian the identity shows that the metric stress tensor inherits the symetry property provided that either the field equations hold or the transformation is metric independent. Thus it turns out that the spacetime metric plays a key role for all symmetries in a field theory and not only for gauge invariance. Furthermore it follows from the identity that if a symmetry of the field Lagrangian holds only in flat spacetime (more generally: in a narrow class of curved spacetimes) and is broken in a generic curved one (actually in an open neighbourhood of flat spacetime or of that class, respectively), then the symmetry is broken for the metric stress tensor even in Minkowski space (this class of spacetimes).

As a first application of the identity we provide a different derivation of the result already given in  that all known metric stress tensors for a linear spin-two field (and for higher spins) in flat spacetime are gauge dependent. Next the identity furnishes an alternative (to that implicit in ), simple and direct proof of a no–go theorem: if in the weak–field approximation gravity is described by a gauge invariant linear and symmetric tensor field and its stress tensor is quadratic and contains no higher than second derivatives of the field, then this tensor cannot be gauge invariant. If the assumptions are valid, then no meaningful notion of local gravitational energy can arise in this way. Since the identity works equally well for any other field symmetry we expect that it will find further nontrivial applications.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is the heart of the paper: we derive there the identity for the stress tensor variation under any field redefinition. In section 3 we study the gauge invariant linear massless spin-two field in Minkowski space and show, as a direct consequence of the identity, that the metric stress tensor breaks the gauge symmetry. Following the same way the no–go theorem for the weak–field approach to linear gravity is proven in section 4. Conclusions are contained in section 5.

## 2 Transformation of the metric stress tensor under a field redefinition

Let $`\varphi `$ be a dynamical field or a multiplet of fields (indices suppressed) described by a generally covariant action functional with a Lagrangian density $`\sqrt{g}L(\varphi ,g_{\mu \nu })`$, residing in a curved spacetime with a (dynamical or background) metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$; for simplicity we assume that $`L`$ does not depend on second and higher derivatives of $`\varphi `$. Let $`\varphi =\phi (\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)`$ be any invertible transformation of the dynamical variable, which in general involves the metric tensor111Throughout the paper the symbol $`g`$ has two distinct meanings: it denotes either the determinant of the metric, or the metric itself. The ambiguity should not cause any confusion. The covariant derivatives $`_\alpha ff_{;\alpha }`$ are taken with respect to the spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. and a non–dynamical vector or tensor field $`\xi `$ and its first covariant derivative $`\xi `$. The transformation is arbitrary with the exception that we exclude the tensor (or spinor) transformations of the field under a mere coordinate transformation. As a consequence, as opposed to many authors (see e.g. , , ), we do not view the transformation group of the dynamical variables induced by spacetime diffeomorphisms as a gauge group. The transformation need not be infinitesimal. Under the change of the dynamical field one sets

$$L(\varphi ,g)=L(\phi (\varphi ^{},\xi ,g),g)L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g).$$
(1)
The variational (metric) stress tensor222We emphasize that $`L`$ is a matter Lagrangian. Whenever the metric is regarded as a dynamical field one should add to $`L`$ a separate gravitational Lagrangian $`L_g`$. Our investigations are independent of the form of gravitational field equations and whether they hold at all, thus we do not take $`L_g`$ into account. (signature is $`+++`$) is defined as usual by

$$T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta (\sqrt{g}L)}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}.$$
(2)
As is well known, the definition of variational derivative implies that the tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is not affected by adding a total divergence to the Lagrangian, a property that we shall use in the sequel. In concrete computations, one obtains the variational stress tensor by taking the variation of the action functional, then factorizing the variation $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }`$ of the metric: this requires dropping a total divergence to get rid of terms containing covariant derivatives of $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }`$. Having in mind this standard procedure, in the subsequent computations we rely on the following expression, equivalent to (2):

$$\delta _g(\sqrt{g}L)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\left[T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)\delta g^{\mu \nu }+\text{div}\right],$$
(3)
where div means a full divergence which we will sometimes omit, as this term plays no role in our discussion; we will mark its presence from time to time to display an exact equality. In evaluating the variation in eq. (3) one assumes that $`\varphi `$ is a fundamental field, i.e. is not affected by metric variations, $`\delta _g\varphi =0`$. This is the case of the vector potential (one–form) $`A_\mu `$ in electrodynamics while $`A^\mu `$ is already metric dependent with $`\delta _gA^\mu =A_\nu \delta g^{\mu \nu }`$. Hence, in evaluating $`\delta _gL`$ one takes into account only the explicit dependence of $`L`$ on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu ,\alpha }`$ (or covariantly, on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$).

In terms of the new field $`\varphi ^{}`$ and of the transformed Lagrangian $`L^{}`$, the stress tensor of the theory is re-expressed as follows:

$$\delta _g(\sqrt{g}L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g))\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\left[T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)\delta g^{\mu \nu }+\text{div}\right].$$
(4)
To evaluate $`T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)`$ one assumes that the appropriate (covariant or contravariant) components of the field $`\xi `$ are metric independent, i.e. $`\delta _g\xi =0`$, while metric variations of the new dynamical field $`\varphi ^{}`$ are determined by the inverse transformation $`\varphi ^{}=\phi ^1(\varphi ,\xi ,g)`$, i.e.

$$\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}=\frac{\phi ^1}{g^{\mu \nu }}\delta g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\phi ^1}{g^{\mu \nu }_{,\alpha }}\delta g^{\mu \nu }{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}.$$
(5)
We denote this variation by $`\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}`$ to emphasize that $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ are not independent fields: the value $`\varphi ^{}(p)`$ at any point $`p`$ depends both on $`\varphi (p)`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }(p)`$. Any scalar or tensor function $`f(\varphi ^{},\varphi ^{},g)`$ depends on the metric both explicitly (including the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and implicitly via $`\varphi ^{}`$, therefore its metric variation is determined by the substantial (or total) variation $`\overline{\delta }_g`$,

$$\overline{\delta }_gf\delta _gf+\delta _\phi f.$$
(6)
Here $`\delta _gf`$ is the variation taking into account only the explicit metric dependence of $`f`$, i.e.

$$\delta _gf\frac{f}{g^{\mu \nu }}\delta g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{f}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _g\varphi ^{}.$$
(7)
To compute $`\delta _g\varphi ^{}`$ one writes symbolically $`\varphi ^{}=\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (assuming that $`\varphi `$ is a covariant tensor) and recalling that $`\delta _g`$ does not act on $`\varphi ^{}`$ one gets

$$\delta _g\varphi ^{}=\varphi ^{}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(8)
On the other hand the variation $`\delta _\phi `$ takes into account the metric dependence of $`f`$ via $`\varphi ^{}=\phi ^1(\varphi ,\xi ,g)`$, then

$$\delta _\phi f\frac{f}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}+\frac{f}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}$$
(9)
with $`\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}`$ given by (5) and

$`\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\phi (\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi ^{})=\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\delta _\phi \varphi ^{},`$
thus $`\delta _\phi `$ commutes with the covariant derivative $``$. For a function $`f(\varphi ,\varphi ,g)`$ the operators $`\overline{\delta }_g`$ and $`\delta _g`$ coincide, i.e.

$`\overline{\delta }_gf(\varphi ,\varphi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _gf(\varphi ,\varphi ,g)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{g^{\mu \nu }}}\delta g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\varphi }}\delta _g\varphi ,`$
where

$$\delta _g\varphi =\delta _g(\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi )=\varphi \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(12)
Accordingly, $`\delta _g`$ on the l.h.s. of eq. (4) should be replaced by $`\overline{\delta }_g`$.

The identity (1), which is valid for all $`\varphi `$, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and transformations $`\phi `$, implies

$$\delta _gL(\varphi ,g)=\overline{\delta }_gL^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g),$$
(13)
what in turn implies the crucial equality

$$T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)=T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g);$$
(14)
in general the two tensors depend differently on their arguments. We stress that in this way we have not constructed the stress tensor for the different theory (also described by the Lagrangian $`L^{}`$) in which $`\varphi ^{}`$ would represent a new, metric–independent field variable; this tensor would not coincide with $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ unless the fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$, related by the transformation $`\phi `$, are also solutions of the respective field equations: an expression for this new stress tensor can be found, for instance, in  (notice that their equation (2.11) holds whenever the transformation does not depend on the derivatives of the metric, otherwise an additional term occurs). Here, we are dealing with field redefinitions within the same theory, not with transformations relating theories which are dynamically equivalent but different in their physical interpretation333As far as one takes the variation of $`L^{}`$ with respect to $`\varphi ^{}`$ to derive the field equations, it is irrelevant to state whether this field is metric independent or not: the resulting equations are the same, and this may be the reason why the distinction between the two viewpoints is usually not remarked in the literature. However, the variational derivatives of $`L^{}`$ w. r. to $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ are different in the two cases..

We are interested first in finding out a generic relationship between $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)`$ and then in its reduced version in the case of a metric–dependent symmetry transformation $`\varphi =\phi (\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)`$ with a specific $`\phi `$. To this end we explicitly evaluate $`T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)`$ from the definition (4) and then apply the equality (14).
It is convenient to write the transformed Lagrangian as a sum

$$L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)L(\varphi ^{},g)+\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g),$$
(15)
this is a definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)`$. This splitting allows one to obtain $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)`$ upon applying $`\overline{\delta }_g`$ to eq. (15). It is furthermore convenient to make the inverse transformation in the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)=\mathrm{\Delta }L^{}(\phi ^1(\varphi ,\xi ,g),\xi ,g)\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g),$$
(16)
and this is a definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g)`$. Then eq. (15) takes the form

$$L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)=L(\varphi ^{},g)+\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g).$$
(17)
The Lagrange equations for $`\varphi `$ arising from $`L(\varphi ,g)`$ are

$$E(\varphi )\frac{\delta L}{\delta \varphi }=\frac{L}{\varphi }\left(\frac{L}{\varphi }\right)=0;$$
(18)
the tensor $`E(\varphi )`$ has the same rank and symmetry as the field $`\varphi `$, and the definition (3) provides the energy–momentum tensor for $`\varphi `$,

$$T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)\delta g^{\mu \nu }=\delta g^{\mu \nu }(g_{\mu \nu }L2\frac{L}{g^{\mu \nu }})2\frac{L}{\varphi }\delta _g\varphi .$$
(19)
We can now evaluate $`T_{\mu \nu }^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)`$:

$`\overline{\delta }_g(\sqrt{g}L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{g}[g_{\mu \nu }\delta g^{\mu \nu }(L(\varphi ^{},g)+\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g))`$
$`2\overline{\delta }_g(L(\varphi ^{},g)+\mathrm{\Delta }L)].`$
Here from eqs. (6), (7) and (9)

$$\overline{\delta }_gL(\varphi ^{},g)=\left[\frac{L(\varphi ^{})}{g^{\mu \nu }}\delta g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{L(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _g\varphi ^{}\right]+\left[\frac{L(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}+\frac{L(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}\right],$$

and the first square bracket contributes to $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)`$ while the second one is equal, after applying (10), to

$$\left[\frac{L(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^{}}\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}\left(\frac{L(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^{}}\right)+\text{div}\right].$$
(20)
Employing (11) one has $`\overline{\delta }_g\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g)=\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L`$. Then employing eqs. (19), (18) and (14) and dropping a full divergence one arrives at the fundamental relationship

$`\delta g^{\mu \nu }[T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)+g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g)]`$
$`2E(\varphi ^{})\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}2\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (21)
This is an identity (up to a total divergence) valid for any field, Lagrangian and any field transformation. The two terms containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ can be written together as

$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\delta _g(\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }L).$$
(22)
We remark that if all full divergence terms were kept in the derivation of the identity, a divergence term would replace zero on the r.h.s. of eq. (21). However a total divergence cannot cancel the last three terms on the l.h.s. of the identity since in general these terms do not sum up into a divergence. Therefore the difference $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)`$ does not vanish in general.

The transformation $`\varphi \varphi ^{}`$ is a *symmetry transformation* of the theory (of the Lagrangian) iff $`L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)=L(\varphi ^{},g)+\text{div}`$, i.e. if $`\mathrm{\Delta }L(\varphi ,\xi ,g)=\text{div}`$ or is zero. According to the proposition “the metric variation of a divergence is another divergence”, adding a covariant divergence to $`L(\varphi ,g)`$ does not affect the variational stress tensor; in a similar way one shows that the variation with respect to the dynamical field $`\varphi `$ of a full divergence gives rise to another divergence, thus the Lagrange field equations remain unaffected too. The equality $`L^{}(\varphi ^{},\xi ,g)=L(\varphi ^{},g)+\text{div}`$ should hold identically for a symmetry independently of whether the field equations are satisfied or not. It is worth stressing that we impose no restrictions on the transformation $`\phi `$ and on possible symmetries — they should only continuously (actually smoothly) depend on a set of parameters corresponding to a set of scalar functions or to the components of a vector or tensor field $`\xi `$; discrete transformations, like reflections, are excluded. The identity (2) has deeper consequences usually when the transformation $`\phi `$ depends on the spacetime metric (possibly through covariant derivatives of the field $`\xi `$). For any symmetry the identity (2) reduces to

$$\delta g^{\mu \nu }[T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)]2E(\varphi ^{})\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}=0$$
(23)
since for $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\text{div}_\alpha A^\alpha (\varphi ,\xi ,g)`$ one has

$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\delta _g(\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }L)=2_\alpha (\delta _gA^\alpha \frac{1}{2}A^\alpha g_{\mu \nu }\delta g^{\mu \nu })$$
(24)
and the divergence is discarded. As a trivial example, consider Maxwell electrodynamics. Here $`\varphi =A_\mu `$, $`\varphi ^{}=A_\mu +_\mu f`$ with arbitrary $`f`$; since the gauge transformation is metric independent, $`\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}=0`$. Then the term $`E(\varphi ^{})\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}=_\nu F^{\mu \nu }\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}`$ vanishes giving rise to the gauge invariance of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ independently of Maxwell equations. A nontrivial example is considered in the next section.

Since the term $`E(\varphi ^{})\delta _\phi \varphi ^{}`$ is different from zero in general (i.e. for fields not being solutions and for metric–dependent symmetry transformations), one arrives at the conclusion: *the metric energy–momentum tensor for a theory having a symmetry does not possess this symmetry*. The symmetry implies that

$$L(\varphi ,g)=L(\varphi ^{},g)+\text{div},$$
(25)
i.e. replacing $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi ^{}`$ in the Lagrangian alters the action

$$S[\varphi ,g]=d^4x\sqrt{g}L(\varphi ,g)$$
(26)
by at most a surface term. Yet the associated integral

$$\delta _gS=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)\delta g^{\mu \nu }$$
(27)
does depend on the transformation. It is only for solutions, $`E(\varphi ^{})=E(\varphi )=0`$, that the energy–momentum tensor does possess the same symmetry, $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ^{},g)=T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ,g)`$.
In physics one is mainly interested in quantities built up of solutions of equations of motion, but from the mathematical viewpoint it is worth noticing that the symmetry property is not carried over from $`S`$ to $`\delta _gS`$.

## 3 Linear massless spin–2 field in Minkowski space

In gauge theories of particle physics the field potentials are exterior forms since the fields carry spin one. Then the gauge transformations are independent of the spacetime metric and the identity (23) implies gauge invariance of the stress tensor for arbitrary fields, not necessarily being solutions to the field equations. Yet it is characteristic for gauge theories that *for integer spins larger than one* a gauge transformation necessarily involves covariant derivatives of vector or tensor fields , giving rise to gauge dependent energy–momentum tensors. However the gauge symmetry in these theories holds only in flat spacetime (more precisely, the Lagrangians are gauge invariant only in Minkowski space, while Lagrange field equations are gauge invariant in empty spacetimes, i.e. for $`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$) and disappears in a generic curved one. Yet the stress tensors are gauge dependent for solutions even in Minkowski space. This case is comprised in the generic theory developed in the previous section, identity (2), but is rather misleading and confusing and because of its relevance for gravity it deserves a separate treatment.

We illustrate the effect in the case of spin–two field $`\psi _{\mu \nu }=\psi _{\nu \mu }`$. Any Lagrangian $`L(\psi _{\mu \nu },\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha },g_{\alpha \beta })`$ generates equations of motion of the form

$$E^{\mu \nu }(\psi )\frac{\delta L}{\delta \psi _{\mu \nu }}=\frac{L}{\psi _{\mu \nu }}_\alpha (\frac{L}{\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha }})=0$$
(28)
and the expression (19) for the stress tensor reads now

$`T_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }L2{\displaystyle \frac{L}{g^{\mu \nu }}}+`$ (29)
$`2_\sigma [2{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\psi _{\beta (\alpha ;\sigma )}}}\psi _{\beta (\mu }g_{\nu )\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\psi _{\beta (\alpha ;\tau )}}}\psi ^\sigma {}_{\beta }{}^{}g_{\alpha (\mu }^{}g_{\nu )\tau }].`$
Let $`L`$ be gauge–invariant under $`\psi _{\mu \nu }\psi _{\mu \nu }^{}\psi _{\mu \nu }+\xi _{\mu ;\nu }+\xi _{\nu ;\mu }`$ in flat spacetime. Using covariant expressions in Minkowski space (coordinates need not be Cartesian ones) this symmetry implies that

$$L(\psi ,g)=L(\psi ^{},g)+_\alpha A^\alpha (\psi ,\xi ,g)$$
(30)
for some vector $`A^\alpha `$ provided that the covariant derivatives commute, $`_\mu _\nu =_\nu _\mu `$. In a generic curved spacetime the ”gauge” transformation is no more a symmetry since

$$L(\psi ,g)=L(\psi ^{},g)+\mathrm{div}+\mathrm{\Delta }L(\psi ,\xi ,g),$$
(31)
with div denoting a full divergence while $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is a sum of terms proportional to Riemann tensor. For $`\delta _g\psi _{\mu \nu }=0=\delta _g\xi _\mu `$ one gets for this gauge transformation

$$\delta _\phi \psi _{\mu \nu }^{}=2\xi _\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha .$$
(32)
In this case the fourth term in the identity (2) reads

$$2E^{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{})\delta _\phi \psi _{\mu \nu }^{}=4E^{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{})\xi _\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha $$
(33)
and discarding the full divergence arising from $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }_{;\alpha }`$ one arrives at the following explicit form of (2) for the linear massless spin–2 field $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$,

$`\delta g^{\mu \nu }\{T_{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{},g)T_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,g)+g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }L(\psi ,\xi ,g)`$
$`+2_\alpha [2\xi _{(\mu }E_{\nu )}^\alpha (\psi ^{},g)\xi ^\alpha E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{},g)]\}`$ (34)
$`2\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L(\psi ,\xi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
We recall that this identity is valid only for the transformation $`\psi _{\mu \nu }^{}=\psi _{\mu \nu }+2\xi _{(\mu ;\nu )}`$. One is interested in evaluating this identity in flat spacetime, $`R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }(g)=0`$, what will be symbolically denoted by $`g=\eta `$. One has $`\mathrm{\Delta }L|_{g=\eta }=\mathrm{div}`$ while $`\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L|_{g=\eta }0`$. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is a sum of terms of the form $`t^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ where $`t^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ is made up of $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha }`$, $`\xi _\alpha `$, $`\xi _{\alpha ;\mu }`$ and $`\xi _{\alpha ;\mu \nu }`$ (see eq. (42) below). Then $`\delta _g\left(t^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\right)|_{g=\eta }=0+t^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\delta R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }|_{g=\eta }`$ and the latter term does not vanish, in general, even for $`R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }(g)=0`$.

Let us denote the expression in square backets in (3) by $`F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (\psi ^{},\xi ,g)`$. In flat spacetime the gauge invariance implies (for any $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$, not necessarily a solution) that $`E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{},\eta )=E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,\eta )`$ and then $`_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (\psi ^{},\xi ,g)|_{g=\eta }=_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (\psi ,\xi ,\eta )`$. Assuming that $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ is a solution in Minkowski space, $`E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,\eta )=0`$, one gets that $`_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (\psi ,\xi ,\eta )=0`$. Thus, the indentity (3) reduces for solutions of the fields equations, in Minkowski space, to

$$\delta g^{\mu \nu }\{T_{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{},\eta )T_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,\eta )\}2\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L(\psi ,\xi ,g)|_{g=\eta }=0.$$
(35)
This relationship (not an identity) shows that the stress tensor is *not* gauge invariant even in flat spacetime. In other terms, the symmetry properties of the Lagrangian in Minkowski space are insufficient for determining symmetry properties of the metric stress tensor in this spacetime. To this end one must investigate the Lagrangian in a general curved spacetime and its behaviour there is relevant for the stress tensor in flat spacetime.

The gauge invariant linear massless spin–2 field was introduced by Fierz and Pauli  and its Lagrangian usually bears their names. Finding out the appropriate Lagrangian is not straightforward and they had to use a rather indirect procedure. For our purposes it is adequate to employ the dynamical equivalence of this field to linearized General Relativity and following Aragone and Deser  generate a Lagrangian for it as the Lagrangian for a metric perturbation around Minkowski space. The resulting Lagrangian is of first order and may be unambiguously expressed in any curved background as

$$L_W(\psi ,g)=\frac{1}{4}\left(\psi ^{\mu \nu ;\alpha }\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha }+2\psi ^{\mu \nu ;\alpha }\psi _{\alpha \mu ;\nu }2\psi ^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}\psi _{;\mu }^{}+\psi ^{;\mu }\psi _{;\mu }\right)$$
(36)
with $`\psi =g^{\mu \nu }\psi _{\mu \nu }`$. This Lagrangian appeared first in the textbook  and will be referred hereafter to as *Wentzel Lagrangian*. Actually in Minkowski space the choice of a Lagrangian for $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ is not unique and a number of equivalent Lagrangians exist444In fact the requirement of gauge invariance uniquely fixes a quadratic Lagrangian for the field up to some boundary terms .. For example one can replace the second term in (36) by a more symmetric term $`\psi ^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}\psi _{\mu \alpha }^{}^{;\alpha }`$ and the resulting Lagrangian $`L_S`$ differs from $`L_W`$ by a full divergence. However in a curved spacetime the two Lagrangians differ by a curvature term, $`L_S(\psi ,g)=L_W+\mathrm{div}+H`$, where $`H\psi ^\nu {}_{\mu }{}^{}\psi _{}^{\mu \alpha }{}_{;[\nu \alpha ]}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\psi ^{\alpha \beta }(\psi _\beta {}_{}{}^{\mu }R_{\mu \alpha }^{}+\psi ^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \alpha \beta \nu })`$. There exists also a second–order Lagrangian

$$L_{II}(\psi ,g)=\frac{1}{2}\psi ^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{L}(\psi ,g)$$
(37)
where

$`G_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{L}(\psi ,g)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha }{}_{}{}^{;\alpha }+\psi ^\alpha {}_{\mu ;\nu \alpha }{}^{}+\psi ^\alpha {}_{\nu ;\mu \alpha }{}^{}\psi _{;\mu \nu }`$ (38)
$`g_{\mu \nu }\psi _{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{;\alpha \beta }+g_{\mu \nu }\psi _{;\alpha }{}_{}{}^{;\alpha })`$
is the Einstein tensor linearized around Minkowski space and then formally written down for an arbitrary background (actually, if $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is linearized around a curved background, then there appear in the expansion additional terms depending on the background curvature). This Lagrangian is equivalent (also in a curved spacetime) to Wentzel Lagrangian, $`L_{II}(\psi ,g)=L_W(\psi ,g)+\mathrm{div}`$.

The Lagrange equations of motion arising from $`L_W`$ (or equivalently from $`L_{II}`$) in any spacetime are

$$E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,g)=G_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{L}(\psi ,g)=0,$$
(39)
while those resulting from $`L_S`$ contain additional curvature terms. However, as is well known (,), the linear spin–2 field is inconsistent in a curved spacetime since both sets of field equations develop additional constraints due to the curvature. We shall assume that eqs. (39) hold only in flat spacetime.

The inequivalence of $`L_W`$ and $`L_S`$ (and most other Lagrangians) raises the problem of which Lagrangian should be used, since the stress tensors associated with these Lagrangians will be different even in flat spacetime. The inconsistency of the theory in the presence of a gravitational field shows that a proper choice does not exist. Equivalence of $`L_W`$ and $`L_{II}`$ points rather to $`L_W`$ and we shall employ Wentzel Lagrangian. Actually the problem of gauge dependence of any stress tensor is independent of the choice; in each case computations are of the same length and give the same outcome.

The metric energy–momentum tensor generated by Wentzel Lagrangian is

$`T_{\mu \nu }^W(\psi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi _{\alpha (\mu }\psi _{\nu )\beta }{}_{}{}^{;\alpha \beta }\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{\alpha (\mu }\psi _{;\nu )}{}_{}{}^{;\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\psi `$ (40)
$`\psi _{\mu \nu }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{;\alpha \beta }{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{;\alpha \beta }2\psi _{\alpha \beta ;(\mu }\psi _{\nu )}{}_{}{}^{\alpha ;\beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\alpha \beta ;\mu }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }_{;\nu }`$
$`+2\psi _{(\mu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha ;\beta }\psi _{\nu )(\alpha ;\beta )}^{}\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{;\beta }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\mu \nu ;\alpha }\psi ^{;\alpha }+\psi _{;(\mu }\psi _{\nu )\alpha }^{;\alpha }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{;\mu }\psi _{;\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }\left(\psi ^{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }\psi _{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }+2\psi ^{\alpha \beta ;\sigma }\psi _{\sigma \alpha ;\beta }+\psi ^{;\alpha }\psi _{;\alpha }\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{}\psi ^\alpha _\alpha \psi `$. This covariant expression holds only in flat spacetime since in deriving it one assumes that the covariant derivatives commute.

Now one can prove the gauge dependence of $`T_{\mu \nu }^W(\psi ,\eta )`$ either directly from its explicit form (40) or employing the relationship (35). The latter method is more convenient if one wishes to show (as is done in the next section) that this deficiency is not peculiar to $`T_{\mu \nu }^W`$ but is a generic feature of all Lagrangians which are equivalent to $`L_W`$ in flat spacetime.

Wentzel Lagrangian and any other Lagrangian equivalent to it is gauge invariant only in flat spacetime. In fact, writing (17) as

$$L_W(\psi ,g)=L_W(\psi ^{},g)+\mathrm{\Delta }L_W(\psi ,\xi ,g).$$
(41)
one finds (disregarding a divergence) that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_W(\psi ,\xi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }(h^{\mu \beta ;\alpha }\xi ^\nu h^{\nu \beta }\xi ^{\mu ;\alpha })`$ (42)
$`+R_{\alpha \beta }(h^{\alpha \mu }\xi ^\beta {}_{;\mu }{}^{}h^{\alpha \mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}\xi _{}^{\beta }+2\xi ^\alpha {}_{;\mu }{}^{}\xi _{}^{(\beta ;\mu )}\xi ^{\alpha ;\beta }\xi ^\mu {}_{;\mu }{}^{})`$
$`+R_{\mu \nu }(\xi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{;\alpha \mu }\xi _{}^{\nu }\xi ^{\mu ;\nu \alpha }\xi _\alpha ),`$
where $`h_{\mu \nu }\psi _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\psi `$.

One notes in passing that the tensor $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ is gauge invariant in any empty spacetime $`(R_{\mu \nu }=0)`$ ,

$`E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ^{},g)`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,g)\xi ^\alpha R_{\mu \nu ;\alpha }2\xi _{\alpha ;(\mu }R_{\nu )}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }+`$ (43)
$`+g_{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^\alpha R_{;\alpha }+\xi ^{\alpha ;\beta }R_{\alpha \beta }\right),`$
i.e. even in the backgrounds where the gauge symmetry of $`L_W`$ is broken.

The variation $`\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L_W`$ evaluated in Minkowski space is different from zero, showing the gauge dependence of $`T_{\mu \nu }^W`$. The expression is extremely involved; in the special case of the solution $`\psi _{\mu \nu }=0`$ it is shown in eq. (49) in the next section.

## 4 Nonexistence of a gauge invariant metric stress tensor and the problem of gravitational energy density

The fact that the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^W`$ depends on the gauge was known long ago  (actually Aragone and Deser investigated a Lagrangian different from $`L_W`$, giving rise to a stress tensor different from $`T_{\mu \nu }^W`$, nevertheless the conclusion was clearly the same). More interesting is the problem whether there exists a Lagrangian $`L_K(\psi ,g)`$, which is equivalent to $`L_W`$ in Minkowski space, but which generates a different, gauge–invariant stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^K`$ in this spacetime. The no–go theorem stating that such gauge invariant stress tensor does not exist was given in . The authors of that work did not publish a detailed proof and only referred to the underlying ”folk” wisdom. According to S. Deser, for all gauge fields (with metric dependent gauge transformations) in flat spacetime the manifest covariance of energy–momentum density objects is incompatible with their gauge invariance, i.e. these objects are either covariant or gauge invariant but not both . In fact, one can always remove (in a non–covariant way) the non–physical components of the fields, so that the result will have no residual gauge dependence; notice however that this is not the same as producing a gauge–independent definition in the usual sense. Here we give an alternative direct proof of the no–go theorem based on the relationship (35).

We set by definition

$$L_K(\psi ,g)=L_W(\psi ,g)+K(\psi ,g);$$
(44)
the term $`K`$ should reduce to a full divergence in flat spacetime, while in a curved one it should contain a sum of terms proportional to the Riemann tensor:

$`K(\psi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A^\mu +a_1R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\psi ^{\alpha \mu }\psi ^{\beta \nu }+a_2R_{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi +a_3R_{\alpha \beta }\psi ^{\alpha \mu }\psi ^\beta _\mu `$ (45)
$`+a_4R\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\psi _{\alpha \beta }+a_5R\psi ^2.`$
The curvature terms in $`K`$ generate a nonvanishing contribution to $`T_{\mu \nu }^K(\psi ,\eta )`$, possibly making it gauge independent for an appropriate choice of the constant coefficients $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_5`$. On the other hand, $`L_K`$ and $`L_W`$ give rise to the same Lagrange field equations in Minkowski space, $`E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,\eta )=G_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{L}(\psi ,\eta )=0`$.

The expression (45) is the most general one providing a physically acceptable stress tensor. In fact, we assume that

1. $`T_{\mu \nu }^K`$ should be exactly quadratic in $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$. In fact, the term $`K(\psi ,g)`$ is expected to cancel out the quadratic gauge–dependent terms in the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^W`$: if $`K(\psi ,g)`$ contains cubic or linear terms, they would produce new gauge–dependent terms in the stress tensor which would not be compensated by terms arising from $`L_W`$.
2. $`T_{\mu \nu }^K`$ should contain at most second derivatives of $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$. This is a physical postulate: the order of field derivatives in the energy–momentum tensor should not exceed the order of the Lagrange equations of motion.

The latter assumption implies that $`K`$ should be linear in the Riemann tensor, and should not contain derivatives of the Riemann tensor itself; moreover, it should not contain derivatives of the field $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ multiplied by the curvature components. Otherwise, it is easy to see that the metric variation of $`K`$ would necessarily produce at least third derivatives of $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$. Therefore, one should set $`K(\psi ,g)=_\mu A^\mu +k^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ , the coefficients $`k^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ being functions of the field $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ not depending on its derivatives. The first assumption entails that these functions should be exactly quadratic in $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$. Hence, we conclude that $`K`$ cannot contain other terms besides those occurring in (45).

We now apply the formula (35) to $`L_K(\psi ,g)`$: for solutions of the field equations in Minkowski space, one has

$$\delta g^{\mu \nu }\{T_{\mu \nu }^K(\psi ^{},\eta )T_{\mu \nu }^K(\psi ,\eta )\}2\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L_K(\psi ,\xi ,g)|_{g=\eta }=0.$$
(46)
One concludes that the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^K(\psi ,\eta )`$ is gauge invariant for solutions if and only if

$$\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L_K|_{g=\eta }=\delta _g(\mathrm{\Delta }L_W+\mathrm{\Delta }K)|_{g=\eta }=0.$$
(47)
Our aim is to show that eq. (47) cannot hold for arbitrary $`\xi _\alpha `$. Under the gauge transformation $`K`$ varies by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }K(\psi ,\xi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`a_1R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }(2\psi ^{\alpha \mu }\xi ^{\beta \nu }+\xi ^{\alpha \mu }\xi ^{\beta \nu })`$ (48)
$`R_{\alpha \beta }[a_2(\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\xi +\psi \xi ^{\alpha \beta }+\xi ^{\alpha \beta }\xi )+a_3(2\psi ^{\mu (\alpha }\xi ^{\beta )}{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\xi ^{\alpha \mu }\xi ^\beta {}_{\mu }{}^{})]`$
$`R[a_4(2\psi ^{\alpha \beta }\xi _{\alpha \beta }+\xi ^{\alpha \beta }\xi _{\alpha \beta })+a_5(2\psi \xi +\xi ^2)],`$
where we introduced the abbreviations $`\xi _{\mu \nu }\xi _{\mu ;\nu }+\xi _{\nu ;\mu }`$ and $`\xi g^{\mu \nu }\xi _{\mu \nu }=2\xi ^\mu _{;\mu }`$.

If a gauge invariant $`T_{\mu \nu }^K`$ exists, eq. (47) should become an identity with respect to $`\xi _\alpha `$ for any solution $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ of $`E_{\mu \nu }(\psi ,\eta )=0`$. We show that this is not the case for the solution $`\psi _{\mu \nu }=0`$. Even in this simplest case the expression for $`\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }K`$ in flat spacetime is too long to be presented here. The expression for $`\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L_W`$ is shorter a bit and is worth exhibiting,

$`\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }L_W(0,\xi ,g)|_{g=\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }[\xi _{(\mu }{}_{}{}^{;\alpha }\mathrm{}\xi _{\nu );\alpha }+\xi ^\alpha {}_{;(\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{}\xi _{\nu );\alpha }2\xi _{(\mu ;\nu )\alpha \beta }\xi ^{\alpha ;\beta }`$ (49)
$`\xi _{(\mu ;\nu )}\mathrm{}\xi ^\alpha {}_{;\alpha }{}^{}+g_{\mu \nu }\xi ^{\alpha ;\beta }\xi ^\sigma {}_{;\sigma \alpha \beta }{}^{}+\xi _{\mu ;\alpha \beta }\xi _\nu ^{;\alpha \beta }`$
$`\xi _{(\mu ;\nu )\alpha }\mathrm{}\xi ^\alpha 2\xi _{(\mu ;\nu )\alpha }\xi ^{\beta ;\alpha }{}_{;\beta }{}^{}+\xi ^\alpha {}_{;\alpha (\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{}\xi _{\nu )}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\xi ^\sigma {}_{;\sigma \alpha }{}^{}(\mathrm{}\xi ^\alpha +\xi ^{\beta ;\alpha }{}_{;\beta }{}^{})].`$
Each term in eq. (49) should be separately cancelled by an appropriate term arising from $`\delta _g\mathrm{\Delta }K`$, what implies that eq. (47) decomposes into 27 linear algebraic equations for the coefficients $`a_i`$. Among these, there are 10 linearly independent equations, and they clearly form and overdetermined system which admits no solution. This proves that eq. (47) cannot hold identically for an arbitrary vector field $`\xi _\alpha `$ and the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^K`$ *cannot* be gauge invariant, for any choice of the coefficients $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_5`$.

The same outcome can indeed be obtained by just evaluating the difference $`T_{\mu \nu }^K(\psi ^{},\eta )T_{\mu \nu }^K(\psi ,\eta )`$ for $`K`$ given in (45). In this case, however, the computation is much longer.

The physical relevance of the linear massless spin–two field $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$ in flat spacetime stems from the fact that it is dynamically equivalent to linearized General Relativity. Hence this field is closely related to the problem of gravitational energy density. A conventional wisdom says that gravitational energy and momentum densities are nonmeasurable quantities. Nevertheless since the very advent of General Relativity there have been numerous attempts to construct a local concept of gravitational energy. A gravitational energy–momentum tensor is highly desirable for a number of reasons. For instance, it is emphasized in  that such a genuinely local tensor is required for a detailed description of cosmological perturbations in the early universe. Approaches to the problem in the framework of General Relativity include the use of a quasilocal energy–momentum tensor for a spatially bounded region (see e.g. ), various effective energy–momentum tensors which are conserved and may be invariant with respect to diffeomorphism–induced gauge transformations555A different viewpoint is based on the fact that geometrical General Relativity, including the full nonlinear Einstein field equations, can be uniquely derived as a consistent self–coupled theory arising from the free linear massless spin–2 field theory in Minkowski space , , see also . In this approach an energy–momentum tensor for the gravitational field arises as a part of the field equations in the form of a Noether current. ,  and applications of the Noether approach with some version of the Belinfante symmetrization method . Our considerations here do not apply to these objects.
A completely different approach to the problem is provided by the field theory approach to gravitation, according to which gravity is just a tensor field existing in Minkowski space, which is the spacetime of the physical world (for a historical review see ). In these theories of gravity the metric energy–momentum tensor again serves as the most appropriate local description of energy for the field . The best and most recent version of field theory of gravitation given in  satisfies the natural requirement that all viable theories of gravity should dynamically coincide in the weak–field approximation with the linearized General Relativity i.e. gravitation should be described by the linear field $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$. Furthermore the metric stress tensor derived in  has a number of nice properties and according to the authors, their $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the correct energy–momentum tensor for the gravitational field. However, while the linearized Lagrange equations of their theory are gauge invariant (as being equivalent to those for $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$), their energy–momentum tensor in this approximation shares the defect of all the metric stress tensors for $`\psi _{\mu \nu }`$, i.e. breaks the gauge symmetry. Applying a physically undeniable condition that the energy–momentum tensor should have the same gauge invariance as the field equations, we conclude that also this approach to gravity does not furnish a physically acceptable notion of gravitational energy density666In an earlier work  it is shown that the field–theoretical formulation of General Relativity in a Minkowski background does not provide a gauge invariant energy–momentum tensor, but the authors do not regard this fact as a defect of their approach.. Of course, this does not mean that in linearized General Relativity there are no conserved tensors which are gauge invariant, symmetric and quadratic in (second) derivatives of fields, which to some extent may play the role of energy density. The famous Bel–Robinson superenergy tensor  is the best example.

To avoid any misunderstanding, we emphasize that we do not regard the field–theoretical approach to gravity as an alternative theory of gravitation which might in principle replace General Relativity as an adequate description of reality. If instead one views this approach as a different theory of gravity then one may claim that the “gauge” transformation actually maps one solution of field equations to another *physically distinct* solution. Then the energy density need not be gauge invariant and measurements of energy may be used to discriminate between two physically different solutions related by the “gauge” transformation (which should then be rather called a “symmetry transformation”). The gravitational field of  or the spin–2 field with the Wentzel Lagrangian would then be measurable quantities rather than gauge potentials. If the transformation of these fields is not an internal gauge but corresponds to a change of physical state, this raises a difficult problem of finding out a physical interpretation of it. Clearly it is not a transformation between reference frames of any kind.

Here we adopt the opposite view that the field theory approach to gravity is merely an auxiliary procedure for constructing notions which are hard to define in the framework of General Relativity. It is commonly accepted that in the weak field limit of General Relativity the spacetime metric is measurable only in a very restricted sense: if two almost Cartesian coordinate systems are related by an infinitesimal translation $`x^\mu =x^\mu +\xi ^\mu `$, then no experiment can tell the difference of their metrics while the curvature tensor has the same components in both systems. This implies that all different coordinate systems connected by this transformation actually represent the same physical reference frame and from the physical viewpoint the transformation is an internal gauge symmetry . Thus, showing a mathematical equivalence of the corresponding field equations is insufficient to achieve compatibility of an approach to gravity with the linearized General Relativity. The weak field gravity should be described by a gauge potential. In consequence, any gravitational energy density should be a gauge invariant quantity.

There are numerous no–go theorems in physics and it is not unlikely that this one will be somehow circumvented as most of them have been and an acceptable notion of gravitational energy density will be ultimately defined. However, this notion cannot be expressed in terms of the metric energy–momentum tensor in a Lagrangian field theory since in the weak–field approximation the latter cannot be gauge invariant. Therefore we feel that the theorem closes one line of research of gravitational energy density. This makes the quest of this notion harder than previously.

## 5 Conclusions

Our approach allows one to clarify in full generality the rather surprising fact that the metric energy–momentum tensor may not possess a symmetry property of the underlying field Lagrangian. This feature, first encountered in the case of gauge symmetry of the massless linear spin-two field, turns out to be a generic one. This is due to the presence of the spacetime metric. The metric stress tensor acquires a symmetry only if the Lagrangian has this symmetry in an open neighbourhood in the space of Lorentzian metrics; if the symmetry only holds for a specific spacetime (e.g. in Minkowski space), the stress tensor cannot inherit it besides exceptional cases (when the variational derivative in the last term in eq. (2) vanishes). Whenever the symmetry transformation of the field variables depends on the metric, the stress tensor acquires the symmetry only for solutions.

As an obvious application we have used our generic method to the case of gauge fields with spins larger than one and rederived in a different way previous conclusions . The case of these high spin fields has been additionally obscured by the well known fact that these theories are dynamically inconsistent in the presence of gravitation and this is closely connected with the gauge invariance breaking in a curved spacetime. We believe that our approach sheds new light on the confusing issue of these fields.

We expect that the generic picture of symmetry breaking for the metric energy–momentum tensor in Lagrangian field theories presented in this work will find further physical applications besides the case of the gauge invariance of high spin linear fields. However, even in this case our method employed to the massless spin–2 field allows to show in a simple and direct way that the field–theory approach to gravitational energy density is actually hopeless.

The authors are grateful to Stanley Deser for his comments regarding his work on the subject and to Marco Ferraris for his suggestions concerning the gauge dependence of the stress tensor for the Wentzel Lagrangian. The work of L.M.S. was partly supported by KBN grant no. 2P03D01417 and by the INdAM-GNFM project *“Metodi Geometrici in Fisica Matematica”*.


text:
# Quintessence and the first Doppler peak

## 1 Introduction

Recent experiments and observations have already opened up what one can actually call the era of precision cosmology. It is now hoped that next years will see rather impressive advances leading not just to the determination of key cosmological parameters with an accuracy not even dreamed five years ago, but also to unprecedented scrutinies on fundamental aspects of particle and field theories. In particular, the connection between recent Boomerang (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and Maxima (Hanany et al. 2000) experiments with theory is twofold. They are linked through predictions from either inflationary (and perhaps cosmic string) models by using fundamental particle physics arguments (Hu and White 1996) or from general more or less standard cosmological scenarios which may or may not include some new concepts such as quintessence (Cadwell, Dave and Steinhardt 1998). The aim of this paper will concentrate at a particular aspect of CMB anisotropy measurements: the dependence of the position of the first Doppler peak on the values of the relevant cosmological parameters within the realm of a quintessence model. Kamionkowski, Spergel and Sugiyama (1994) originally derived the simple relation that the position of the first Doppler peak $`\mathrm{}200\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{1/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which has been the subject of some controversy. While Frampton, Ng and Rohm (1998) have recently derived a similar dependence using a simple quintessential model, Weinberg (2000) has argued that this formula is not even a crude approximation when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For a very recent discussion on quntessential model of CMB anisotropies see Bond et al. (2000). Assuming the holding of the cosmic triangle condition, we obtain in this paper that $`\mathrm{}`$ only depends on the topology of the universe, so confirming the original proposal by Kamionkowski, Spergel and Sugiyama (1994).

## 2 Calculation of $`\mathrm{}`$

In order to derive an expression relating the position of the first Doppler peak with the scalar field potential of quintessence models, we choose a general tracking model with time-dependent parameter $`\omega (t)`$ for the state equation (Zlatev, Wang and Steinhardt 1999). This kind of models can be related to particle physics and may solve the so-called cosmic coincidence problem (Steinhardt 1997). One typically considers tracking quintessence fields $`\varphi `$ for a Ratra-Peebles potential $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^\alpha `$ with a given constant parameter $`\alpha `$ (Ratra and Peebles 1988). During its cosmic evolution, the equation of state parameter $`\omega `$ passes through several distinct regimes (Brax, Martin and Riazuelo 2000), including first a kinetic regime lasting until $`z10^{20}`$ with $`\omega =+1`$, then the transition and potential regimes chracterized by $`\omega =1`$, to finally reach the proper tracking regime at $`z10^{15}`$, where $`\omega =(\alpha \omega _B2)/(\alpha +2)`$ (with $`\omega _B=1/3`$ for radiation dominated universe and $`\omega _B=0`$ for matter dominated universe). On this regime, there exists a particular solution for the scalar field, $`\varphi =\varphi _0\eta ^{4/(\alpha +2)}`$ (in which $`\eta =𝑑t/R(t)`$ is the conformal time, with $`R(t)`$ the scale factor) which is an attractor able to solve the cosmic coincidence problem.

For $`\alpha 0`$ a change of $`\omega `$ should then be expected when the universe becomes matter dominated once the the surface of last scattering is overcome. Since the tracking regime is characterized by $`\omega =c_s^2`$ ($`c_s^2`$ being the sound velocity defined as $`(dp_\varphi /d\eta )/(d\rho _\varphi /d\eta )`$ (Brax, Martin and Riazuelo 2000)), parameter $`\omega `$ becomes a constant given by $`\omega =2/(\alpha +2)`$ when matter dominates. It has been recently argued that $`\alpha 2`$ (Balbi et al. 2001), so that if we choose for definiteness $`\alpha =1`$, then $`\omega =2/3`$ for the vacuum quintessence field. In this case, the Ratra-Peebles potential becomes

$$V(\varphi )\varphi ^1.$$
(1)
Since the corresponding tracking solution, $`\varphi \eta ^{4/3}`$, would then correspond to a constant parameter $`\omega <0`$ for the quintessence field, it should satisfy the constraint equation derived from the corresponding conservation laws and cosmological field equations (Di Pietro and Demaret 1999, González-Díaz 2000). In terms of the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, $`i=M,\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda },k`$, and the quintessence field potential $`V(\varphi )`$, this constraint equation can be written as (González-Díaz 2000)

$$\left(\frac{V^{}}{V_0^{}}\right)^2=$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{(\omega +2)/(\omega +1)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_k\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{(3\omega +1)/[3(\omega +1)]}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{(3\omega +4)/[3(\omega +1)]},$$
(2)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}d/d\varphi `$, the subscript 0 means current value and $`V_0/v_0^{}=\pm \sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi /(1+\omega )}`$. Eqn. (2) corresponds to the generalized quintessence model with negative constant parameter for the state equation recently suggested (González-Díaz 2000). Besides the contributions from the topological curvature, $`k`$, and gravitationally observable mass, $`M`$, this model distinguishes two essentially distinct contributions from vacuum energy: a varying cosmological term with positive energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ assumed to satisfy the conservation law $`8\pi G\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(R_0/R)`$ at sufficiently small redshifts, and a quintessence negative energy density such that while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =8\pi G\rho _\varphi /3H_0^2`$ ($`H_0`$ being the current value of the Hubble constant) is always negative, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ is always positive, so satisfying the Ford-Roman’s quantum interest conjecture (Ford and Roman 1999).

Adapting then the relation between the position of the first Doppler peak $`\mathrm{}`$ and the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ first derived by Frampton, Ng and Rohm (1998)to our generalized model, we can finally obtain a general relation between $`\mathrm{}`$ and the quintessence potential $`V(\varphi )`$ of the form:

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{6\pi (1+\omega )V_0}{(3\omega +1)\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}V_0^{}}\times $$

$$\frac{d}{d\varphi }\left[\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{(3\omega +1)/[6(\omega +1)]}\right]|_{z=Z_R}S\left\{\frac{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}V_0^{}}{3(\omega +1)v_0}_{\varphi (z=0)}^{\varphi (z=z_R)}\frac{d\varphi }{\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{(3\omega +1)/[6(\omega +1)]}}\right\},$$
(3)
where $`z_R=1100`$ is the redshift at recombination, we have used the relation (Di Pietro and Demaret 1999)

$$\frac{V}{V_0}=\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right)^{3(\omega +1)}=(1+z)^{3(\omega +1)},$$
(4)
and $`S(x)=1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$, $`S(x)=\mathrm{sin}(x)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k<0`$ and $`S(x)=\mathrm{sinh}(x)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k>0`$. In the case of interest $`\omega =2/3`$, where we obtain both topological and dynamical acceleration, Eqn. (3) reduces to

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{2\pi V_0}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}V_0^{}}\frac{d}{d\varphi }\left[\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{1/2}\right]|_{z=z_R}S\left\{\frac{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}V_0^{}}{V_0}_{\varphi (z=0)}^{\varphi (z=z_R)}𝑑\varphi \left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{1/2}\right\},$$
(5)
and there is a solution to the constraint equation (2) given by

$$V=V_0\left\{\mathrm{sinh}\left[\beta _0(\varphi \varphi _0)\right]+\xi _0\right\}^1,$$
(6)
where

$$\beta _0=\pm \frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}=\pm \frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_v}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}$$
(7)
$$\xi _0=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_k}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_v}.$$
(8)
In this case, the cosmological parameters must satisfy the relations

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_v=\frac{1}{4}\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\sqrt{12\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2}\right]0$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{1}{4}\left[3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_k)\sqrt{12\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2}\right]>0.$$
(10)
Together with the triangle equation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1`$, Eqns. (9) and (10) will restrict the values that the cosmological parameters may take on. On the other hand, we note from Eqns. (4) and (6) that for large $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k0`$ one obtains $`\varphi \eta ^2R`$ and $`V\varphi ^1R^1`$; that is, while the potential (6) can be consistently interpreted as a generalization for smaller values of $`z`$ from the Ratra-Peebles potential, the attractor solution $`\varphi R^{4/3}`$ must necessarily change into $`\varphi R`$ as the universe becomes matter dominated.

Performing the derivative and integration in Eqn. (5) after inserting solution (6), we finally obtain for the position of the first Doppler peak when $`\omega =2/3`$

$$\mathrm{}=\pi \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_v(1+z_R)}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}\left[1+\left(\frac{1}{1+z_R}\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_v}\right)^2\right]}T\left\{\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}{\mathrm{\Omega }_v\phi _0}}F[\phi (z),r_0]|_0^{z_R}\right\},$$
(11)
where $`F[\phi ,r_0]`$ is the elliptic integral of the first kind (Abramowitz and Stegun 1965),

$$\phi =\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{\phi _0\frac{1}{1+z}}{\phi _0+\frac{1}{1+z}}\right),$$
(12)
$$r_0=\left(\frac{\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_v}+\phi _0}{2\phi _0}\right)^{1/2},$$
(13)
$$\phi _0=\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_v}\right)^2},$$
(14)
and $`T(x)=1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$ and, unlike the function $`S(x)`$, $`T(x)=\mathrm{sin}(x)`$ both for the closed and open cases. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ can run between two extreme values, such that

$$(1+\sqrt{2})\mathrm{\Omega }_k\sqrt{2}1.$$
(15)
A plot for the position of the first Doppler peak, $`\mathrm{}`$, against the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is given in Fig. 1. It can be seen that the maximum value for $`\mathrm{}`$ is reached when $`\mathrm{}`$ approaches the value 190 at the flat case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$, decreasing slowly therefrom as $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|`$ increases, a little more steeply for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k>0`$ than for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k<0`$. This seems to quite reasonably reproduce the results provided by Boomerang, Maxima and previous (Netterfield et al. 1997, Vollaek et al. 1997) experiments. Although uncertainties about our results for $`\omega =2/3`$ must come from the possibility of having values of $`\alpha `$ other than just unity (provided they are on the interval (0,2), or small deviation from time-independence of $`\omega `$ during cosmic evolution after recombination, they seems to strongly suggest a nearly flat topology for the universe.

We note that CBM anisotropies and cosmic acceleration can be easily related in our model. To see this, let us consider solution (6) for the the flat case, i.e.

$$V=V_0\left\{\mathrm{sinh}\left[\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}(\varphi \varphi _0)\right]\right\}^1,$$

with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_v=\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{1}{2}.$$

This allows us to also construct a plot for the luminosity distance versus redshift by using the expression (González-Díaz 2000)

$$D_LH_0=\sqrt{2}(1+z)\left\{F[\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{1\frac{1}{1+z^{}}}{1+\frac{1}{1+z^{}}}\right),45^{}]|_0^z\right\}.$$
(16)
One can see readily that our flat solution in fact gives rise to a $`5\mathrm{log}D_LH_0z`$ plot with a nearly straight line between $`z0.01`$ and $`z0.5`$ which appears to slightly accelerate thereafter, the full $`5\mathrm{log}D_LH_0`$ that corresponds to the $`z`$-interval of presently available type Ia supernova observations, $`[(0.011)]`$, being around 12. This accelerating behaviour for the universe conforms quite well the data obtained from distant supernova Ia (Perlmutter et al. 1999, Reiss et al. 1998). It is worth noticing that though our universe model is dynamically accelerating it still is topologically uniform as $`q_0=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_v)`$ exactly vanishes in the flat case. As one separates from flatness one model produces topologically decelerating scenarios.

## 3 Conclusions

Consistent solutions to the constraint equation for the quintessence potential have been obtained which all correspond to particular fixed sets of values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, $`i=k,M,\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in such a way that the resulting value of the position of the first Doppler peak $`\mathrm{}`$ becomes automatically fixed once just one of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ is fixed, but does not depend on the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi /\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. One can also conclude that $`\mathrm{}`$ acquires a maximum value which fits fairly well experimental results at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\mathrm{\Omega }_v=1/2`$). As the topology of the universe separates from flatness ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_v>1/2`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k<0`$, or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_v<1/2`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k>0`$), $`\mathrm{}`$ always decreases from its maximum value. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi <0`$, from the condition that $`V/V_0`$ be real it follows that the quintessence field $`\varphi `$ is pure imaginary. This amounts to the interpretation that the classical solution is axionic, and hence the quintessence field can be taken as a genuine component of dark matter in such a way that one can define for the gravitationally observable mass of the universe the quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi >0`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v>0`$. Thus, one can always adjust our results to the currently favoured combination $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.7`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$.

We finally remark that the results obtained in this paper refer only to the case of a quintessence parameter for state equation $`\omega =2/3`$ (i.e. $`\alpha =1`$). It is expected that results even more adjusted to observation (i.e. closer to 200) can also be obtained within the model of this paper by slightly shifting $`\omega `$ towards more realistic smaller values approaching -0.8.

For helpful comments, the author thanks C. Sigüenza. This research was supported by DGICYT under research project No. PB97-1218.