text:
# DYNAMICAL COMPACTIFICATION, STANDARD COSMOLOGY AND THE ACCELERATING UNIVERSE

## I Introduction

The idea that our four-dimensional world could have emerged, through compactification, from a higher dimensional space-time is receiving much attention nowadays (see  for a review). However, the question of why and how does this compactification take place remains to be answered. In string theory, considered to be a potential candidate for unifying gravity with the other forces, the higher dimensional manifold has to possess special properties. There, the compactification is possible if the geometry of the manifold allows, for instance, the existence of suitable Killing vectors. The major difficulty is, however, to understand why such manifolds are favoured and whether other means for carrying out compactification are possible.

In cosmology other types of compactifications, not necessarily relying on Killing vectors, could be encountered. This approach is known as dynamical compactification. Here the extra dimensions evolve in time to extremely small sizes and the universe reduces to an effective four-dimensional one. This type of compactification was considered in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories by Chodos and Detweiler . However, the use of extra dimensions in cosmology was already initiated in . The study of ref. is based on a Kasner type metric in the vacuum and various issues were later explored by other authors .

Naturally, one would like to know how does this effective four-dimensional universe evolve and whether the corresponding cosmology differs from the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker of ordinary space-time without extra dimensions. Most of the investigations in this context have dealt with finding solutions to the higher dimensional equations. Some of these solutions are indeed of the form found in ordinary four-dimensional cosmology à la Friedmann-Robertson-Walker. However, this could hardly be considered as an indication that standard cosmology is obtainable from higher dimensions upon compactification.

In this paper we will revisit the programme of dynamical compactification using a more general metric as compared to ref.. We will also include matter without specifying its nature or origin (see refs. for some derivations of the matter contribution in Kaluza-Klein cosmology). The size of the compact space evolves as an inverse power of the radius of our universe. It will be shown that standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology is obtained. Indeed, we are able to find an effective pressure in such a way that the higher dimensional equations of motion yield the usual equations of motion of ordinary four-dimensional cosmology. There is one remaining equation which simply determines, in terms of the radius of our universe, the pressure along the compact dimensions.

We start, in this paper, by outlining the main points of the standard model of cosmology in four dimensions. In section three, the higher dimensional model is presented together with its equations of motion. These are shown to yield the four-dimensional equations of motion stated in section two. Finally, some particular solutions are given in section four. The implications of our model are also discussed.

## II Standard four dimensional cosmology

In order to compare standard cosmology with Kaluza-Klein cosmology, it is instructive to briefly recall the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations. We start from the four-dimensional action

$$S=\alpha d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\}+S_\mathrm{m}^{(4)},$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =\frac{1}{16\pi G}`$ in a system of units where the speed of light $`c=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cosmological constant and $`S_\mathrm{m}^{(4)}`$ is the action for the matter fields. The variation of the above action with respect to $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ leads to

$`2\alpha \left(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R+g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=T_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the contribution of the matter action $`S_\mathrm{m}^{(4)}`$ and is defined by $`\delta _gS_\mathrm{m}^{(4)}=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}T_{\mu \nu }\delta g^{\mu \nu }`$. Standard cosmology is built on the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+a\left(t\right)^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right].$$
(3)
Here $`k`$ is the spatial curvature. This metric is accompanied by the energy-momentum tensor $`T_\nu ^\mu `$

$$T_\nu ^\mu =\mathrm{diag}[\varrho \left(t\right),P\left(t\right),P\left(t\right),P\left(t\right)].$$
(4)
The equations of motion reduce to the following two equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varrho }{2\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`3H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3k}{a^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{2\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (6)
Here a dot denotes differentiation with respect to $`t`$ and $`H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$ is the Hubble parameter.

Combining these last two equations results in

$`6{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}\left(\varrho +3P\right)2\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.`$ (7)
The combination $`\left(\varrho +3P\right)`$ is a typical characteristic of four-dimensional cosmology. This remark will be of use when considering the higher dimensional case. This last equation shows, in the case of a vanishing cosmological constant§§§Alternatively, the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be absorbed by redefining the energy density and the pressure as follows: $`\varrho \varrho _{\mathrm{tot}}2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`PP_{\mathrm{tot}}+2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$., that the sign of the acceleration of the universe, $`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}`$, is given by the sign of the quantity $`\left(\varrho +3P\right)`$. In particular, if the universe is accelerating (as it is at the present time ) then $`P<\frac{\varrho }{3}`$. It is clear that physical matter cannot be described by a negative pressure. However, the energy-momentum tensor corresponding to an interacting scalar field can lead, under the assumption that the scalar field depends on time only, to negative pressure. The scalar field representation of the energy-momentum tensor in this case is known as quintessence .

Another important equation is derived from the conservation equation $`_\mu T_\nu ^\mu =0`$. This is a direct consequence of the Bianchi identities of the Riemann tensor in the above equations of motion. It reads

$$\dot{\varrho }a+3\left(\varrho +P\right)\dot{a}=0.$$
(8)
The physical interpretation of this last equation is better understood by rewriting it in the form

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\varrho \right)+P\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\right)=0.$$
(9)
This means that the rate of change of total energy in a volume element of size $`V=a^3`$ is equal to minus the pressure times the change of volume: $`dE=PdV`$.

It is this last equation which will be our guiding principle when dealing with the Kaluza-Klein case. It allows us to define an effective pressure, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, such that an equation of the form $`dE=\stackrel{~}{p}dV`$ can always be found.

## III Kaluza-Klein cosmology

We would like to investigate now whether the equations of the previous section can be derived from higher dimensions. The starting point for this study is the action functional

$$S=\beta d^Dx\sqrt{𝒢}\left\{2\lambda \right\}+𝒮_\mathrm{m}^{(D)},$$
(10)
where $`D=4+d`$, $``$ is the Ricci scalar corresponding to the D-dimensional metric $`𝒢_{ij}`$ ($`i,j,\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},3+d`$) and $`\beta `$ is the higher dimensional gravitational coupling constant. We have also included a cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ and a matter action $`𝒮_\mathrm{m}^{(D)}`$. Varying the above action with respect to $`𝒢^{ij}`$, we find

$`_{ij}2\beta \left(_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒢_{ij}+𝒢_{ij}\lambda \right)𝒯_{ij}=0.`$ (11)
Here $`𝒯_{ij}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor derived from the matter action $`𝒮_\mathrm{m}^{(D)}`$.

A cosmological setting based on Kaluza-Klein theory could be realised through a generalisation of the homogeneous Friedmann-Robertson-Walker space-time. More specifically, the higher dimensional metric $`𝒢_{ij}`$ is chosen to have the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+a\left(t\right)^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1Kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]+b\left(t\right)^2\gamma _{ab}\left(y\right)dy^ady^b,$$
(12)
where the extra coordinates are denoted by $`y^a`$ ($`a,b,\mathrm{}=4,\mathrm{},3+d`$) and the compact manifold is described by the metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$. This spatial manifold is chosen to be maximally symmetric with a Riemann tensor given by $`R_{abcd}=\kappa \left(\gamma _{ac}\gamma _{bd}\gamma _{ad}\gamma _{bc}\right)`$, where $`\kappa `$ is a constant. The parameter $`K`$ is the constant curvature of the spatial manifold spanned by the coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. Notice that if the scale factor $`b\left(t\right)`$ gets extremely small, then the sizes of the extra dimensions shrink to zero and the space-time becomes an effective four-dimensional one. This is the main idea behind dynamical compactification.

The form of the energy-momentum tensor $`𝒯_j^i`$ is dictated by Einstein’s equations and by the symmetries of the above metric. In this case it is given by

$$𝒯_j^i=\mathrm{diag}[\rho \left(t\right),p\left(t\right),p\left(t\right),p\left(t\right),p_d\left(t\right),\mathrm{},p_d\left(t\right)],$$
(13)
where $`p_d\left(t\right)`$ is the pressure along the extra dimensions. We can now proceed to the analyses of the equations of motion. The component $`_0^0`$ yields the energy density

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{3H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}\lambda \right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}+3d{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{b^2}}`$ (14)
$``$ $`\left\{3H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}\lambda \right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{2\beta }},`$ (15)
where $`H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$ denotes the Hubble parameter as before. Next we have $`_1^1=_2^2=_3^3`$ and we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}+\lambda \right\}d{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}2d{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{b^2}}`$ (16)
$``$ $`\left\{2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}+\lambda \right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{2\beta }}.`$ (17)
Finally, the components $`_b^a`$ lead to the single equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_d}{2\beta }}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}3H^2{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}+\lambda \left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(d1\right)\left(d2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}3\left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(d1\right)\left(d2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{b^2}}.`$ (18)
The expressions between curly brackets in the equations of $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ resemble those found on the right-hand-side of the four-dimensional Freedmann-Robertson-Walker expressions in (6). Therefore, the four-dimensional energy density $`\varrho `$ and pressure $`P`$ are, respectively, identified with the quantities $`\left(\rho \rho _0\right)`$ and $`\left(pp_0\right)`$. This is the usual and standard interpretation of the higher dimensional equations of motion. In this interpretation, however, $`\varrho `$ and $`P`$ contain contributions involving the scale factors $`a`$ and $`b`$. It seems also that the form of the scale factor $`b`$ does not intervene (in other words, the resulting four-dimensional quantities do not know whether $`b`$ is increasing or decreasing with time). The natural question to be asked now is whether there are other interpretations of the higher dimensional equations of motion. It will be shown in this note that the answer to this question is affirmative. In particular, the four-dimensional quantities $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ are found to be given by linear combinations of $`\rho `$, $`p`$ and $`p_d`$ without any explicit dependence on the scale factors $`a`$. This interpretation is, however, associated with a specific choice of the scale factor $`b`$.

A full comparaison with the four-dimensional case, however, requires also the determination of the equivalent of the conservation equation (9). This could only result from the higher dimensional conservation equation. As a consequence of the Bianchi identities of the Riemann tensor, the equations of motion lead to $`_i𝒯_j^i=0`$. Explicitly, this conservation equation reads

$$\left\{\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\rho \right)+p\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\right)\right\}+da^3\frac{\dot{b}}{b}\left(\rho +p_d\right)=0$$
(19)
Again, the quantity between curly brackets is of the form of the four-dimensional conservation equation (9). In the standard interpretation of the higher dimensional equations, this last equations takes, as expected, the form $`\frac{d}{dt}\left[a^3\left(\rho \rho _0\right)\right]+\left(pp_0\right)\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\right)=0`$.

The key point in the alternative interpretation of the higher dimensional equations of motion resides in the last equation (19). It is the factor in the last term of this equation, $`a^3\frac{\dot{b}}{b}`$, which one has to handle with care. In the simplest of all cases, one could make this term to vanish by choosing the scale factor $`b\left(t\right)`$ to be a constant equal to $`b_0`$. In this situation, the conservation equation (19) is equivalent to the conservation equation of four dimensions (9). Furthermore, the expressions of $`\rho `$ in (15) and $`p`$ in (17) yield the four-dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations (6) provided that we make the identifications

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`v^{(d)}\beta `$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\left(d1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{b_0^2}}`$ (21)
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`K,`$ (22)
where $`v^{(d)}`$ is the finite volume of the extra $`d`$-dimensional spatial manifold. The introduction of this volume is necessary in order for $`\alpha `$ to have the right dimensionality. Notice that the four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ could be adjusted to zero by tuning the curvature $`\kappa `$. However, if $`d=1`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vanishes only when the higher dimensional cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ is itself zero. The components of the four-dimensional energy-momentum tensor are given by

$$\varrho =v^{(d)}\rho ,P=v^{(d)}p.$$
(23)
The remaining equation, namely (18), expresses simply the pressure along the extra spatial directions. It is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_d}{2\beta }}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}3H^2{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}+\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(d1\right)\left(d2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{b_0^2}}.`$ (24)
Choosing $`b\left(t\right)=b_0`$ leads to simple expressions but it is very difficult to justify. Furthermore, in the context of dynamical compactification, $`b`$ has to be a decreasing function of time.

The second situation we would like to examin now is when the scale factor $`b\left(t\right)`$ evolves in time. However, the dependence on time of $`b`$ is chosen such that $`a^3\frac{\dot{b}}{b}`$ is proportional to $`\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\right)`$. This is the case if we have

$$b=\frac{1}{a^n}.$$
(25)
The parameter $`n`$ must be positive for dynamical compactification to take place. Therefore $`b`$ gets smaller as the radius of our universe $`a`$ becomes bigger.

The fact that now $`a^3\frac{\dot{b}}{b}=\frac{n}{3}\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\right)`$ allows one to write the conservation equation (19) as

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\rho \right)+\stackrel{~}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\right)=0,$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is an effective pressure given by

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=p\frac{dn}{3}\left(\rho +p_d\right).$$
(27)
The higher dimensional conservation equation is now of the same form as that of four dimensions (9). Let us see what becomes of the other equations.

Substituting for $`b`$ in (15), the expression of the energy density becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa d\left(d1\right)a^{2n}`$ (28)
while that of the pressure $`p`$ in (17) leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(dn2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2+dn\left(dn+n2\right)\right]H^2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}+\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa d\left(d1\right)a^{2n}.`$ (29)
Similarly, the pressure, $`p_d`$ in (18) is found to be given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_d}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(dnn3\right){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[6+n\left(d1\right)\left(dn4\right)\right]H^2{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}+\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa \left(d1\right)\left(d2\right)a^{2n}.`$ (30)
Finally, the effective pressure, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, is computed from these last three equations and is found to take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]H^2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}+\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\kappa d\left(2n+3\right)\left(d1\right)a^{2n}.`$ (31)
The terms proportional to $`a^{2n}`$ in the expressions of $`\rho `$, $`p`$ and $`p_d`$ are physically unacceptable as it means that these quantities are increasing with the radius of the universe. This can of course happen if the universe is contracting which is not the case of interest to us here. The solution to this problem is to take either $`d=1`$ or $`\kappa =0`$. Therefore in the case of many compact dimensions, the scalar curvature of the compact manifold has to vanish.

Let us therefore consider the case when $`\kappa =0`$ (if $`d=1`$ then $`\kappa `$ is automatically zero). The terms in the expressions of $`\rho `$ in (28) and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ in (31) have, for $`\kappa =0`$, the same relative factors as in the standard Freedmann-Robertson-Walker equations in (6). Indeed, the four-dimensional Freedmann-Robertson-Walker equations are recovered from equations (28) and (31) provided that one makes the identifications

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{6}}\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]v^{(d)}`$ (32)
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6K}{\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]}}`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6\lambda }{\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]}}.`$ (34)
The four-dimensional quantities $`\varrho `$ and $`P`$ are then identified with

$$\varrho =v^{(d)}\rho ,P=v^{(d)}\stackrel{~}{p}.$$
(35)
We are, of course, assuming here that $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]0`$.

In conclusion, the three equations of motion of the higher dimensional theory (28), (29) and (30), can be combined in such a way that two of these, (28) and (31), yield the equations of motion of ordinary four-dimensional cosmology. The third equation, namely (30), expresses simply the pressure along the extra dimensions in terms of the radius $`a\left(t\right)`$ of the observed universe. It is interesting to notice that although the sizes of the extra dimensions evolve towards zero, the pressure along these directions does not necessarily vanish. Furthermore, taking $`\kappa =0`$ and combining the expressions of $`\rho `$ in (28) and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ in (31), we obtain

$$\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{1}{2\beta }\left(\rho +3\stackrel{~}{p}\right)2\lambda =0.$$
(36)
Again, this equation is of the same form as the four-dimensional equation (7).

At this stage some remarks are appropriate. We observe, from the first relation in (34), that in order for the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ to be positive, one must have either $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]>0`$ and $`\beta `$ positive or $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]<0`$ and $`\beta `$ negative. The latter situation corresponds to a ‘repulsive gravitational interaction‘ in the higher dimensional theory! Furthermore, for $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]<0`$, the signs of the four-dimensional quantities $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are opposite to those of $`K`$ and $`\lambda `$, respectively. Finally, for large $`n`$, both the four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the spatial curvature $`k`$ tend to zero.

Another observation concernes equation (36). This equation, upon using (34), is written as

$`6{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}\left(\rho +3\stackrel{~}{p}\right)v^{(d)}2\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (37)
which is, as expected, of the same form as the four-dimensional equation (7). In the case of a vanishing $`\lambda `$ (implying that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$), the sign of $`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}`$ is given by the sign of the quantity $`\left(\rho +3\stackrel{~}{p}\right)`$. Therefore, an accelerating universe is obtained when the effective pressure $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is such that $`\stackrel{~}{p}<\frac{\rho }{3}`$. However, this is now acceptable as $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is only an effective pressure and all that $`\stackrel{~}{p}<\frac{\rho }{3}`$ means is that $`p<\left(dn1\right)\frac{\rho }{3}+\frac{dn}{3}p_d`$. Thas is, the four-dimensional pressure $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ could be negative when the higher dimensional pressures $`p`$ and $`p_d`$ are positive.

We return now to the discussion of the case when $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]=0`$. Here we have the following two equations for the energy density and the effective pressure:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}\lambda `$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}+\lambda .`$ (39)
These equations are of the form of the four-dimensional equations (6) only for a radius $`a\left(t\right)`$ satisfying

$$H^2=\frac{\omega }{a^2}+\gamma ,$$
(40)
where $`\omega `$ and $`\gamma `$ are two constants. This conclusion is reached by comparing the two expressions of the energy densities in (39) and (6). The general solution to this last differential equation, if $`\gamma 0`$, is given by

$$a\left(t\right)=\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\gamma }t\right)\frac{\omega }{4\psi \gamma }\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\gamma }t\right),$$
(41)
where $`\psi `$ is an integration constant. Substituting this expression of $`a\left(t\right)`$ into the four-dimensional equations in (6) leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varrho }{2\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left(\omega +k\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }3\gamma \right)`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{2\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\omega +k\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}+\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }3\gamma \right).`$ (43)
These equations are of the form of the higher dimensional equations (39) upon the identification

$`\beta Kv^{(d)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \left(k+\omega \right)`$ (44)
$`\beta \lambda v^{(d)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }3\gamma \right)`$ (45)
together with $`\varrho =v^{(d)}\rho `$ and $`P=v^{(d)}\stackrel{~}{p}`$. We see that in the last equation there are only two relations for the determination of the three parameters $`\alpha `$, $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. With $`a\left(t\right)`$ as given by (41), the corresponding pressure along the extra dimensions is given by

$$\frac{p_d}{2\beta }=\left[n\left(d+2\right)\omega +3K\right]\frac{1}{a^2}+\left[\lambda 3\left(n+1\right)\gamma \right].$$
(46)
Here $`n`$ and $`d`$ are related by $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]=0`$. We notice, in particular, that $`p_d`$ can be made to vanish by taking $`K=n\left(d+2\right)\frac{\omega }{3}`$ and $`\lambda =3\left(n+1\right)\gamma `$.

The solution (41) represents an inflationary epoch if the constant $`\gamma `$ is positive. Indeed, we have $`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\gamma `$ and the expansion of the universe is accelerating for a positive $`\gamma `$. If on the other hand $`\gamma `$ is negative then $`a\left(t\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\gamma }}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{\gamma }t+\zeta \right)`$, where $`\zeta `$ is a constant and $`\omega `$ is assumed positive. This oscillation in time causes the universe to expand and to collapse repeatedly. However, this behaviour of $`a\left(t\right)`$ might not be suitable for dynamical compactification. It is also worth examining the case when $`\gamma =0`$. Here the radius takes the form $`a\left(t\right)=\pm \sqrt{\omega }t+\chi `$ for some constant $`\chi `$ and $`\omega `$ must be positive.

Finally, an equation of state relating the energy density $`\rho `$ and the pressure $`p`$ emerges from (39). This is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{1}{3}\rho +\frac{4}{3}\beta \lambda .$$
(47)
This equation holds regardless of whether the universe is accelerating ($`\gamma >0`$) or decelerating ($`\gamma <0`$). This is so because there is no relation relating $`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}`$ and $`\left(\rho +3\stackrel{~}{p}\right)`$ as in (36).

## IV Particular solutions in five dimensions

One of the first solutions in the context of dynamical compactification was presented in ref.. The model considered there is a five-dimensional one and a solution was found in the vacuum. In our language, this solution corresponds to the particular case $`d=1`$ and $`n=1`$ together with setting the curvature $`K=0`$ and the five-dimensional cosmological constant $`\lambda =0`$. In this case, the five-dimensional expressions of $`\rho `$ in (28) and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ in (31) yield $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{p}=0`$ regardless of the function $`a\left(t\right)`$. The expression of $`p_1`$ ($`p_1=p_d`$ for $`d=1`$) in (30), on the other hand, reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{2\beta }}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}3H^2.`$ (48)
When the pressure $`p_1`$ vanishes (since we are in the vacuum) then the radius is given by

$$a\left(t\right)=\sqrt{\mu t+\nu }$$
(49)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are two integration constants. The solution of ref. is then found by taking $`\nu =0`$.

We have already presented in the previous section a particular solution when $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]=0`$. To add to the above examples, let us investigate whether other interesting solutions can be found. We will consider here for simplicity the five-dimensional model onlyWe are assuming that $`n1`$ as the pair of values $`d=1`$ and $`n=1`$ is a solution to $`\left[6+dn\left(dnn6\right)\right]=0`$ and this case has been discussed before.. We start by examining the case for which the pressure along the fifth dimension vanishes, $`p_1=0`$. This is dictated by the fact that the fifth dimension in our model tends to zero with time. It is therefore natural to require that $`p_1=0`$. The equation $`p_1=0`$ takes the form

$$\frac{p_1}{2\beta }=3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}3H^2\frac{3K}{a^2}+\lambda =0.$$
(50)
This equation can be simplified by making the change of variables

$$a\left(t\right)=\sqrt{h\left(t\right)}.$$
(51)
Our differential equation, $`p_1=0`$, reduces then to

$$3\ddot{h}2\lambda h+6K=0.$$
(52)
The solution to this equation, if $`\lambda 0`$, is given by

$$h\left(t\right)=\frac{3K}{\lambda }+B\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}\lambda }t\right)+C\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}\lambda }t\right),$$
(53)
where $`B`$ and $`C`$ are two integration constants. The corresponding expression for the energy density in (28) is found to be

$$\frac{\rho }{2\beta }=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\left(n1\right)\left(9K^24BC\lambda ^2\right)\frac{1}{h^2}+\frac{3nK}{h}\left(n+1\right)\frac{\lambda }{2}.$$
(54)
Of course the different parameters in this last expression are such that $`\rho `$ is positive. Similarly, the expression of the effective pressure in (31) yields

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}}{2\beta }=\frac{1}{6\lambda }\left(n1\right)\left(9K^24BC\lambda ^2\right)\frac{1}{h^2}\frac{nK}{h}+\left(n+1\right)\frac{\lambda }{2}.$$
(55)
By expressing $`h`$ in terms of $`\rho `$ and replacing it in the expression of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, we get the following equation of state

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{1}{3}\rho 4\beta \left[\frac{nK}{h}\left(n+1\right)\frac{\lambda }{3}\right],$$
(56)
where $`h`$ is given in terms of $`\rho `$ by the expression

$$h=\frac{\beta }{\left[\rho +\left(n+1\right)\beta \lambda \right]}\left\{3nK\pm \sqrt{9n^2K^2\frac{1}{\beta \lambda }\left(n1\right)\left(9K^24BC\lambda ^2\right)\left[\rho +\left(n+1\right)\beta \lambda \right]}\right\}$$
(57)
Notice that if $`K=0`$ then this equation of state is that of a radiation dominated universe in the presence of a cosmological constant equal to $`\beta \left(n+1\right)\lambda `$. Finally, the acceleration of the universe is given by

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{1}{6}\left[\lambda \frac{1}{\lambda }\left(9K^24BC\lambda ^2\right)\frac{1}{h^2}\right]$$
(58)
with $`h\left(t\right)`$ as given in (53). Hence, one could not in general determine the sign of this acceleration. An accelerating universe, for example, is obtained for $`\left(9K^24BC\lambda ^2\right)<0`$ and a positive $`\lambda `$. In this case the effective pressure $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is negative which simply means that $`p<\left(n1\right)\frac{\rho }{3}`$. We should mention here that if $`n<1`$ then $`\beta `$ is positive while $`n>1`$ forces $`\beta `$ to be negative. Finally, a negative cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ leads to an oscillatory regime for the radius $`a=\sqrt{h}`$.

We have assumed so far that $`\lambda 0`$. Let us now discuss the case when $`\lambda =0`$. With this value of $`\lambda `$, the solution to equation (52) is given by

$$h\left(t\right)=Kt^2+zt+w$$
(59)
for some two integration constants $`z`$ and $`w`$. The corresponding expressions for $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(n1\right)\left(4K\omega +z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{h^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3nK}{h}}`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n1\right)\left(4K\omega +z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{nK}{h}},`$ (61)
where $`h\left(t\right)`$ is as given by (59). The equation of state relating $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{1}{3}\rho \frac{4\beta nK}{h}.$$
(62)
The acceleration of the universe is found to be given by

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{1}{4}\left(4K\omega +z^2\right)\frac{1}{h^2}.$$
(63)
The universe is, in particular, in a period of deceleration and is radiation dominated if $`K=0`$.

The other particular case we would like to study corresponds to the situation when $`p_1=\rho `$. This choice is interesting as it leads to $`\stackrel{~}{p}=p`$. The general solution to the differential equation $`p_1=\rho `$, which reads $`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+nH^2=0`$, is

$$a\left(t\right)=\left[\left(n+1\right)\left(qt+u\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{n+1}},$$
(64)
where $`q`$ and $`u`$ are two integration constants. This expansion is, however, a slow one. The corresponding expressions for the energy density $`\rho `$ and the effective pressure $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3q^2\left(n1\right)}{a^{2\left(n+1\right)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3K}{a^2}}\lambda `$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}}{2\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2\left(n1\right)\left(2n1\right)}{a^{2\left(n+1\right)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}+\lambda `$ (66)
with $`a\left(t\right)`$ as given in (64). We notice that the energy density $`\rho `$ and the effective pressure $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ are, when $`n\frac{1}{2}`$, related by

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{1}{3}\left(2n1\right)\rho \frac{2\beta }{3}\left[\frac{6nK}{a^2}2\left(n+1\right)\lambda \right].$$
(67)
On the other hand when $`n=\frac{1}{2}`$ then we have

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{\rho }{3}+\beta \left[\frac{q^2}{a^3}+\frac{4}{3}\lambda \right].$$
(68)
The acceleration of the universe is given, for any value of $`n`$, by the expression

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{nq^2}{a^{2\left(n+1\right)}}.$$
(69)
The universe, for this solution, is slowly expanding and going through a deceleration phase.

## V Discussion

We have found, in the context of Kaluza-Klein cosmology, a higher dimensional metric which dynamically evolves towards an effective four-dimensional one. This metric depends on two scale factors: one is interpreted as the radius of our universe while the other tends to zero with time. In addition, the compact space has to be flat ($`\kappa =0`$). The remarkable feature of the model constructed here is that it gives exactly the four-dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations of standard cosmology. The component of the four-dimensional energy-momentum tensor are expressed as linear combinations of their higher dimensional counterparts. In particular, the pressure in our universe $`\stackrel{~}{p}=p\frac{dn}{3}\left(\rho +p_d\right)`$ could be negative when the higher dimensional quanties $`\rho `$, $`p`$ and $`p_d`$ are all positive. This fact could provide an explanation for the negative pressure needed to account for the present acceleration of our universe. This would be an alternative to the quintessence scalar field.

The parameters of the four-dimensional world $`(\alpha ,k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are given in terms of the parameters of the higher dimensional theory $`(\beta ,K,\lambda ,n,d)`$. We noticed that peculiar properties appear when the parameter $`n`$ is in the range

$$\frac{1}{d1}\left[3\sqrt{3+\frac{6}{d}}\right]<n<\frac{1}{d1}\left[3+\sqrt{3+\frac{6}{d}}\right]$$
(70)
and $`d1`$. First of all the higher dimensional gravitational constant $`\beta `$ has to be negative for the four-dimensional one, $`\alpha `$, to be positive. In the same range of $`n`$, the curvature $`K`$ and the cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ are of opposite signs to the four-dimensional quantities $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In order to have a very rapid dynamical dimensional reduction, large values of $`n`$ are needed. In this case (when $`n\mathrm{}`$), the resulting four-dimensional universe is spatially flat ($`k0`$) with a vanishing cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$).

The five-dimensional case ($`d=1`$) deserves a special mention. Here, the five-dimensional coupling constant $`\beta `$ is negative for $`n>1`$ (that is for a rapidely decreasing $`b`$). Similarly, for $`n>1`$, the constants $`K`$ and $`\lambda `$ have the opposite signs of $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

$`\underset{¯}{\text{Acknowledgments}}`$: I would like to thank the members of the Division of Theoretical Physics at the University of Liverpool for their hospitality. This research is supported by the CNRS.


format: text

text:
# Neural Networks with Quantum Gated Nodes

## I INTRODUCTION

Quantum computers have recently become a topic of elaborate research. It has been shown NC1  that a quantum computer can compute some NP hard problem much faster than a classical computer because the memory elements can simultaneously hold multiple information and the processor can operate in parallel on many qubits. Quantum entanglement between the elements permits the use of different kinds of algorithms SH1 ; GR1  for such quantum computers as well, which too are now being explored extensively.

Closely related to computing is the process of memory and pattern recognition. Biologically, the human brain has been modeled as a network of neurons firing signals with different time sequence patterns corresponding to different input signals. Hebbian learning is achieved by taking into account the plasticity of the weights with which the neurons are connected to each other. A dynamic type of memory system in a classical network with integrate-and-fire neurons was first presented by Hopfield and Herz JH1  which was later extended to the more complicated case of a still classical model with nonzero widths of the action potentials FS1  with some features similar to the zero-width case and other novel features related to the finite width.

An effort to enter the quantum realm with such dynamic networks was made in the semiclassical version reported in FS2 . In all these works the periodicity and the pattern of collective and firings of the dynamical neural networks acted on by the environment and also with nearest neighbor action between the neighboring neurons were studied in detail. However, in the previous semiclassical neural network model the analogies retained with the classical case took it somewhat away from the current focus in quantum computing, where quantum gates replace arbitrary time-dependent potentials so that there is a well-defined unitary operator representing the transitions at the nodes of the network.

In the present work, we investigate a quantum machine with such easily referrable and repeatable quantum gates, which at the same time also most closely resembles our previously studied models, so that we can understand aspects of the differences between a classical or a semiclassical model having given potentials between the nodes, with a quantum computer-like gated system, where the building block is the quantum transition operation representing a logical operation, not a general potential.

Whereas a quantum computer would be useful for calculating quantities, with an input operated on by the processor and producing a quantitative output, a quantum neural network may possibly also be used for the purpose of enriched learning of a variety different from the Hebbian learning of classical networks. This possibility has not yet been fully explored, though Altaisky AL1  has made some preliminary investigations into a single quantum perceptron. Learning is of course an irreversible process, and the unitarity of the operators involved in a net does not permit an irreversible change of the system in the ordinary sense. There have been many attempts OT1  to explain such a change using decoherence at the output with reversibility of the intermediate processes in a quantum computer. This approach has mostly been suggested for quantum computers. For quantum neural networks usually the transition to a certain eigenstate is inserted in an ad hoc manner, as in the work of Altaisky and also that of Zak et al ZK1 .

In this work we shall not go into the details of the complications of the separation of the quantum processing followed by a classical output. We shall instead try to mimic as nearly as possible our previous biologically motivated model of an integrate-and-fire neural network, because biological or quasi-biological models are always a fascinating benchmark for the comparison of any system that aims at intelligence-like functions. However, in this case we have, in place of deterministic neurons, qubits being interconnected to nearest neighbors by quantum gates with well-defined operatorial roles .

## II THE QUANTUM NEURAL NETWORK MODEL

In the integrate-and-fire model a neuron receives a current from the fired neighbors, and when its own potential exceeds the threshold it too fires, feeding its own neighbors. We have studied the effect of the finite duration of the signal from a neuron to the neighbor. In a quantum process all transitions of the neurons must be designated by unitary operators. So in place of the firing of a neuron we have a less spectacular unitary transformation that simply performs a sort of rotation of the state vector or the qubit.

In principle this operation should involve time too, and we should write:

$$|t=U(t,t_0)|0$$
(1)
to indicate the transformation of a neuron from time $`t_o`$ time $`t`$. For small time changes it is usually possible to write:

$$U(t+dt,t)=U(t,t)+idtH$$
(2)
So that

$$d|t=idtH|t$$
(3)
in the lowest order, with a hermitian operator $`H`$, usually the Hamiltonian.

In quantum computing it has been shown that a complete set of unitary operators exist to express the classical logical operations such as NOT, AND or XOR. These may make use of Hadamard gates, phase-change gates or controlled-NOT (c-NOT) gates. These gates may be combined to give entanglement between different nodes, e.g. the c-NOT or the Toffoli gate, which is a kind of adder.

It is not necessary for the whole network to be completely entangled by the basic operators of the net to form a useful network. It is known that we can have pair-wise entanglements at the lowest nontrivial level. However, even if we entangle only nearest neighbors, the entanglement may spread throughout the net after successive operations. The process is similar to obtaining a dense matrix from the multiplication of a large number of sparse matrices with nonzero elements at different positions.

We postulate the following physical model:

$`1.`$ the neurons represent qubits;

$`2.`$ an excited neuron $`|1`$ will turn on a neighbor in a ground state $`|0`$;

$`3.`$ an excited state will make an excited neighbor ’fire’ and go down to the ground state (induced emission) ;

$`4.`$ the excited state itself will go down to the ground state after exciting the neighbors;

$`5.`$ an unexcited neuron does nothing to itself or any neighbor.

Postulates 2, 3 and 5 can be satisfied by a c-NOT gate, with the first neuron serving as the controller, and operating on its neighbor. With a square lattice we consider for simplicity there are four neighbors for each neuron, so that in place of c-NOT gates we shall need $`cNOT^4`$ gates, i.e. one controller flipping all four neighbors if it is in state $`|1`$ and doing nothing if it is in state $`|0`$.

Postulate 4 can be satisfied by using an AND gate connection every neuron with a common $`|0`$ sate after the $`cNOT^4`$ gate.

For any particular neighbor the c-NOT gate can be represented by

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \sigma _1\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _1`$ is the flipping Pauli matrix. Eq. represents a hermitian operator. We, however, connect the c-NOT matrices using a weight factor, $`ϵ`$ to represent the strength with which a neuron can affect its neighbor. This weight factor is not the same as the weight factors in a classical neural network, which must sum up to one, but just a measure of the strength with which the neurons are able to affect the neighbors.

The $`.AND.|0`$ can be represented by another hermitian operator in the qubit space:

$$U^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
where the sequence of states in the rows and columns are, as usual $`|1|1`$, $`|1|0`$, $`|0|1`$ and $`|0|0`$, the first being the controlling state.

Although hermitian, the AND operator is obviously not unitary. The nonunitarity of the AND operator is responsible for the collapse of the state to the ground state after it has reached a threshold. This situation is not the standard quantum computer situation, where all gates are required to be strictly unitary, but is a mix between unitary connections among neurons and a nonunitary collapse. The introduction of unitary rotations of the neurons in the qubit space makes our device fast and efficient, and the collapse to the ground state by the AND operator lets us mimic the classical neural network model as closely as possible. However, The collapse of the state to the ground state simply restarts the rotational activity of a neuron when connected to an excited neighbor. So this situation is not quite the same as decoherence when in contact with nature, and states are collapsed probabilistically to one of the superposed states and delete all memory. Rather, this collapse is a conditional collapse to a specified state, and the timing of the collapse holds information about when that specific threshold was reached to enable a time sequence pattern.

So we get at each node the controlling qubit remaining unchanged due to its own action:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ s\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
and the following change for the neighbors receiving signal from it, i.e. operated on by the $`cNOT^4`$ gates:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}c^{}\\ s^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c^{}\\ s^{}\end{array}\right)+ϵ\left(\begin{array}{c}s^{}.c\\ c^{}.c\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
Since the small $`ϵ`$ approximation of the unitary operators are not themselves unitary, in simulation it is necessary to renormalize each qubit at each step.

## III RESULTS OF SIMULATION

As in the classical cases in previous works, for ease of comparison we constructed a 40X40 network of qubits with periodic boundary conditions, so that it behaves in some ways as a much larger lattice. In the quantum case of course in reality a large lattice would very difficult to realize in the laboratory at the present stage of technology, but for such a theoretical study it makes no difference.

We put the input data on qubits in the periphery and made the inside neurons either all random or all zero $`[(0,1)]`$. Then we updated the qubits according to Eq.6 and 7.

A large number $`(40,000)`$ of time steps were chosen and various $`ϵ`$ values. This parameter may be interpreted as the strength of coupling of the neurons, but as it occurs together with $`dt`$, it may also indicate the width of the pulse at each time step.

In our first model we did not use a threshold for the firing of the neurons, so that each neuron was allowed to go up to its full qubit value of $`(1,0)`$ with $`c=+1`$ or $`1`$. It is interesting to observe that in this case there is no well-defined periodicity, either for any single neuron or for the average neuron (i.e. the sum) in the network (Figs. 1, 2). Though all neurons do indeed go through the $`(1,0)`$ to $`(0,1)`$ cycles, the oscillations are aperiodic. This may be because the exact equation of motion coupling the nearest neighbor neurons becomes insoluble in terms of periodic functions.

We also experimented with a slightly different version of the model of the network more akin to the classical one. Here we introduced a threshold for the excited part of the neuron, which when crossed, causes the qubit to jump to the ground state $`(0,1)`$, i.e. if $`c>c_thres`$, any $`(c,s)`$ makes a transition to the $`(0,1)`$ state. This may be considered to be due to emission of energy by an excited element on reaching a threshold. So, in this case the $`.AND.|0`$ operation works on reaching the threshold. A notable difference between the two models is that whereas in the first model, the AND gate brought back the qubit slowly to the ground state, in the second model, the qubit was collapsed to the ground state immediately.

We found more interesting results with this model. In this case we get periodic oscillations of the system, with all neurons almost in the same phase. We put the threshold at $`0.7`$ which is just below $`1/\sqrt{2}`$, because this seems to be critical threshold that gives regular oscillations.

We believe this happens because here the cut-off effectively serves to truncate the complicated coupled behavior of the system, reducing it to a simpler periodic system, just as the truncation of a transcendental function by a polynomial with a finite number of terms provides it with a simpler behavior. For example, the function:

$$F(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta +ϵ\mathrm{sin}\theta )$$
(8)
with $`\theta =\omega t`$ assumes the periodic form

$$F(t)=\mathrm{cos}[(1+ϵ)\omega t]$$
(9)
for small enough $`ϵ`$ only, but has a more complicated behavior at large $`ϵ`$. Obviously this requires more thorough and careful study.

However, the other reason for this behavior might be that the rate at which the AND operator acted was different from the rate at which the c-NOT operator acted on the system, and the coupling of the two incongruous frequencies yielded a complex pattern.

We note that these oscillations are seen in the behavior of a single neuron (Fig. 3), or the sum of all neurons of the system, or even in the correlation $`i|j`$ between neuron $`|i`$ and neuron $`|j`$ (Fig. 4).

Most interestingly, it appears that for large $`ϵ`$ ($`>0.7`$), if we put the initial signal only at two parallel sides of the square, there is no oscillation (Fig. 5), but a static asymptotic state, which is quickly reached, but if we put the signal on all four sides, then periodic oscillations continue with changed frequency.

It is possible that the lack of signal in the orthogonal direction allows the neurons in the net the extra freedom to adjust themselves to fixed static states in the direction of the signal. This is reminiscent of the one-dimensional Ising model having a trivial phase transition. When signals arrive from both $`x`$ and $`y`$-directions, presumably the attractor for the system becomes dynamic, as it tries to adjust in both directions, but cannot find a static equilibrium state.

## IV  CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that a quantum neural network similar to the integrate-and-fire neuron network in some ways can be constructed with quantum elements, consisting of qubit nodes connected by c-NOT and AND gates. However, the quantum gated system also has significant differences.

We have found the interesting property that, with no threshold the system converges to a dynamic state with no fixed period and no phase locking, similar to a chaotic system, but with an average behavior which is not entirely chaotic.

With an assigned threshold that takes an excited qubit to the zero state, we see dynamic oscillations of the system. The period is almost inversely proportional to the coupling strength (Fig. 6), but shows nonlinearity for strong coupling. For quite strong coupling, if there are initial excitations only in one direction, the system seems to converge rapidly to a static attractor, but with excitations from both directions of the square lattice, dynamic oscillations continue. This is a very significant difference in the mapping of the initial spatial pattern into dynamic patterns of the system that promises to make such a system a useful device for conversion of static patterns into dynamic memory.

In the case of fixed period oscillations, the correlation between neurons as measured by the overlap of the two qubits, $`i|j`$ also shows periodic time dependence. Interestingly ,we have found that despite the simplicity of the model of this quantum neural network with c-NOT gates, it can hold dynamic memories of the input indefinitely.

Obviously, with complex phases in the coupling the pattern generated may be more interesting, also if there is a dynamic external agent affecting the peripheral neurons, and not just an initial input. We can also introduce delay lines between the neurons to introduce a time scale.


text:
# The neutrinoless double 𝛽 decay and the neutrino mass hierarchy

## 1 Introduction

Recently the evidences of neutrino oscillations are strongly supported by both of the atmospheric  and the solar neutrino experiments . The former suggests an almost maximal lepton flavor mixing between the 2nd and the 3rd generations, while the favorable solution to the solar neutrino deficits is given by large mixing angle solution between the 1st and the 2nd generations ( LMA, LOW or VO ) . Neutrino oscillation experiments indicate that the neutrinos have tiny but finite masses, with two mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$. However, we cannot know the absolute values of the neutrinos masses from the oscillation experiments.

Recently, a paper announces the evidence of the neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$) decay. This paper suggests

$`m=(0.050.86)\mathrm{eV}at\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}95}\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.(\mathrm{best}\mathrm{value}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.4}\mathrm{eV}).`$ (1)
This results is very exciting. It is because $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiments could tell us about the absolute value of the neutrino masses, while neutrino oscillation experiments show only mass squared differences of neutrinos. The evidence for $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay also means neutrinos are the Majorana particles and the lepton number is violated, since $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay cannot occur in the case of Dirac neutrinos. This evidence is also closely related to the recent topics of the cosmology such as the dark matter candidate of universe.

The tiny neutrino masses and the lepton flavor mixings have been discussed in a lot of models beyond the Standard Model (SM). One of the most promising ideas is that light neutrinos are constructed as Majorana particles in the low energy, such as the see-saw mechanism. Here we are concentrating on the light Majorana neutrinos which masses are induced by the dimension five operators in the low energy effective Yukawa interactions.

In this paper, we will estimate the magnitude of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in the classification of the neutrino mass hierarchy patterns as Type A, $`m_{1,2}m_3`$, Type B, $`m_1m_2m_3`$, and Type C, $`m_1m_2m_3`$, where $`m_i`$ is the $`i`$-th generation neutrino absolute mass . The magnitude of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay strongly depends on the neutrino mass hierarchy. We will analyze the value of $`m`$ in the parameter space of the Majorana $`CP`$ phases, and search the region of being consistent with the data of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiment.

## 2 Neutrino masses and flavor mixings

Before starting our discussions, let us show the notations of neutrino masses and their mixing angles. Since we would like to be concentrating on the low energy mass matrix of Majorana neutrinos, we add the dimension five operator to the standard model in the lepton sector as,

$`=(Y_e)_{ij}L_iE_jH_1+\kappa _{ij}(L_iH_2)(L_jH_2),`$ (2)
where $`\kappa _{ij}`$ is the coefficient of the dimension five operator, and $`L_i`$ and $`E_i`$ are $`i`$-th generation lepton doublet and charged lepton singlet with $`(i=13)`$, respectively, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are Higgs doublets *** Although we write Yukawa interactions in Eq.(2) by the supersymmetric forms, the results in this paper do not depend on whether the model is supersymmetric or not. . The light neutrinos obtain masses from the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of $`v_2=H_2`$ as

$`(M_\nu )_{ij}=\kappa _{ij}v_2^2,`$ (3)
The energy scale of $`\kappa _{ij}^1`$ suggests the scale of the new physics and the lepton number violation. In the diagonal base of the charged lepton sector, the light neutrino mass matrix, $`(M_\nu )_{ij}`$, is diagonalized by $`U_{ij}`$ as

$`U^\mathrm{T}M_\nu UM_\nu ^{diag}=diag(m_1,m_2,m_3).`$ (4)
Here the matrix $`U`$ is so-called MNS matrix denoted by

$`U=VP,`$ (5)
where $`V`$ is the CKM-like matrix, which contains one $`CP`$-phase ($`\delta `$),

$`V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}c_{12}& c_{13}s_{12}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)`$
and $`P`$ contains two extra Majorana phases ($`\varphi _{1,2}`$),

$`P=diag.(e^{i\varphi _1/2},e^{i\varphi _2/2},1).`$
For the latter convenience, we introduce the matrix

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu P^{}M_\nu ^{diag}P^{}=diag.(m_1e^{i\varphi _1},m_2e^{i\varphi _2},m_3)=diag.(\stackrel{~}{m}_1,\stackrel{~}{m}_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_3).`$ (7)
Table 1 shows the results from the recent neutrino oscillation experiments .

These results indicate that the neutrinos have tiny but finite masses, with two mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$. The naive explanation of the present neutrino oscillation experiments is that the solar neutrino anomaly is caused by the mixings of the 1st and the 2nd generations ($`\theta _{}\theta _{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2m_2^2m_1^2`$), and atmospheric neutrino deficit is caused by the mixings of the 2nd and the 3rd generations ($`\theta _{atm}\theta _{23}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2m_3^2m_2^2`$). Considering the results of the oscillation experiments, the hierarchical patterns of neutrino masses are classified by the following three types:

| A | : | $`m_3m_{1,2}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| B | : | $`m_1m_2m_3`$ |
| C | : | $`m_1m_2m_3`$ . |

Taking into account of the mass squared differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$, the absolute masses of the neutrino in the leading are written by

(20)
in each type, respectively. Where $`m_\nu `$ in Type C is the scale of the degenerated neutrino masses.

Table 1 shows the flavor mixing angles in the lepton sector. The mixing angle between the 2nd and the 3rd generations is almost maximal mixing from the atmospheric neutrino experiments. There are three candidates  Since there are no defferences between the three solutions LOW, VO and Just So, we consider them together VAC solution.  of solutions for solar neutrino problems. Recent super-kamiokande data of day/night effects implies the LMA solution are most favorable solution . We use the center values of the mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=3.2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=1.0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=4.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}=4.1\times 10^1,`$
in the following numerical analyses. The rest of the mixing angle, $`\theta _{13}`$, is not measured as the deficit value, the upper bound is given as,

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.1,`$
from the CHOOZ experiments.

In the zeroth order approximations, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=0`$, we can obtain the zeroth order form of the MNS matrix The deviation from this zeroth order approximation is important. As will be shown in the next section, the tiny difference between the maximal and the LMA angle causes the sensitive effects to the mass neutrino matrix.  as,

$`V^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
The neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ is determined by $`U`$ and $`M_\nu ^{diag}`$ from Eqs.(4)$``$(7). The zeroth order form of the neutrino mass matrix is determined by the approximated MNS matrix, $`V`$, according to the patterns of neutrino mass hierarchy, Types A$``$C. In Ref., the zeroth order forms of neutrino mass matrices are shown when Majorana $`CP`$ phases are $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, which are shown in Table 2. These mass matrices are useful for the first approximations of estimating the probability of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$. We use continuous values of Majorana $`CP`$ phases in the following analyses.

## 3 Neutrino mass hierarchies and $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay

Now we are in a position of discussing the relations between the neutrino mass hierarchy patterns and the magnitude of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. The effective neutrino mass $`m`$, which shows the magnitude of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in Eq.(1) is defined by

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{ei}^2m_i|=|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{ei}m_iU_{ie}^\mathrm{T}|=|V_{e1}^2m_1e^{i\varphi _1}+V_{e2}^2m_2e^{i\varphi _2}+V_{e3}^2m_3|,`$ (25)
where $`i`$ denotes the label of the mass eigenstate ($`i=1,2,3`$). What pattern of neutrino mass hierarchy can induce the sizeable amount of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay amplitude in Eq.(1)? In the approximation in the previous section, the value of $`m`$ is equal to that of $`(1,1)`$ component of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\nu `$. Thus, Table 2 suggests that the forms of the neutrino mass matrix should be B2 or C0 or C3, in order to obtain the suitable large magnitude of $`(1,1)`$ component. However, it is too naive estimation. We will estimate the magnitude of $`m`$ more accurately, which patterns of neutrino mass hierarchies are really consistent with $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay data in Eq.(1) within the fluctuations of physical parameters of a tiny value of $`|U_{e3}|(=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13})`$, CKM-like phase $`\delta `$ and Majorana phases $`\varphi _{1,2}`$. We will show the analyses according to the neutrino mass hierarchy patterns, Type A$``$C in the base of Majorana $`CP`$ phases.

### 3.1 Type A

Equation (25) suggests the largest value of $`m`$ is given by ,

$`m_{\mathrm{MAX}}=|V_{e1}|^2m_1+|V_{e2}|^2m_2+|V_{e3}|^2m_3.`$ (26)
In the Type A mass hierarchy, the main contribution to $`m`$ is 2nd term or 3rd term of Eq.(26) depending on the magnitude of $`V_{e3}`$. However, both terms induce $`𝒪(10^3)\mathrm{eV}`$ contribution to the value of $`m`$ within the fluctuations of physical parameters, $`V_{e3}`$. Even if $`m_1`$ in Eq.(26) is lifted as $`m_1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}m_2`$, the magnitude of $`m`$ is still less than of $`𝒪(10^2)`$ eV. These magnitudes are too small to explain the recent $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiments in Eq.(1). Thus we can conclude that the Type A neutrino mass hierarchy pattern can not explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ results in Eq.(1).

### 3.2 Type B

Next, let us see the case of Type B. When Majorana $`CP`$ phases take the specific values of $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, Type B is devided into two cases B1 and B2, which are shown in Table 2.

$`(\stackrel{~}{m}_1,\stackrel{~}{m}_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_3)=\{\begin{array}{ccccccc}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}(1,\hfill & \hfill 1,& 0)& & (\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(0,\pi )& & (\mathrm{TypeB1})\hfill \\ \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}(1,\hfill & \hfill 1,& 0)& & (\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(0,0)& & (\mathrm{TypeB2})\hfill \end{array}`$
Where mass eigenvalues show the zeroth order values. The sign of $`m_1`$ is the opposite (same) as that of $`m_2`$ in Type B1 (B2). Table 2 shows that B2 induces $`m=𝒪(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2})`$, while that of B1 does not in the zeroth order. Thus we can expect the sizeable amplitude of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in B2, not B1. Since the Majorana phases, $`\varphi _{1,2}`$, connect B1 and B2 continuously, we estimate the value of $`m`$ with nontrivial Majorana phases, and see also the effects of other small quantities such as $`U_{e3}`$.

At first, we estimate the effect of the tiny difference of LMA mixing angle $`\theta _{}`$ from the maximal mixing between the 1st and the 2nd generations. The recent oscillation experiments show the LMA solution disfavor the complete maximal mixing. Figure 1 shows the values of $`m`$ with the 1-2 maximal mixing, $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{}=0`$ in (a), and the LMA center value, $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{}=2.6\times 10^1`$, in (b). Other values are taken as $`U_{e3}=0`$ and $`\theta _{atm}=\pi /4`$. The lines where $`\varphi _1\varphi _2=(2n+1)\pi `$ ($`\varphi _1\varphi _2=2n\pi `$) correspond to Type B1 (B2) where $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2\mathrm{}`$. Only one degree of freedom, $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$, is physical since $`m_3=0`$ in Type B (see Eq.(7)). The region of the large value of $`m`$ satisfying Eq.(1) is shown as the grayed drown region. Apparently only the region around B2 can satisfy Eq.(1). The wide region include B1 does not satisfy Eq.(1). Figure 1 shows that Majorana phases connect B1 and B2 continuously. Comparing to (b) with (a) in Fig.1, we find that the small change from the maximal mixing, makes an allowed region, where the value $`m`$ is larger than $`0.05\mathrm{eV}`$, be spreaded. Especially for the values of $`m`$, although they are almost zero in the region around Type B2 in (a), they become significantly enhanced in the same region in (b). This means that the tiny deviation of $`\theta _{}`$ from the zeroth order classification of neutrino mass matrices, in Table 2, is important. It is because the accidental cancellation between $`U_{e1}`$ and $`U_{e2}`$ induced from two maximal mixings, $`\theta _{}=\theta _{atm}=\pi /4`$, in (a) is forbidden in (b). In the following analyses we use the $`\theta _{}=2.6\times 10^1`$ as LMA angle, not maximal mixing.

Next, we see the effect of $`U_{e3}`$ in Type B. In general the change of $`U_{e3}`$ induces the changes of $`U_{e1}`$ and $`U_{e2}`$, which causes the deviation of $`m`$ in Eq.(25). Since we only know the upper bound of $`|U_{e3}|`$ as, $`|U_{e3}|<0.16`$, we compare the cases of $`|U_{e3}|=0`$ in Fig.2 (a), and $`|U_{e3}|=0.1`$ in Fig.2 (b). The value of $`m`$ becomes small as the magnitude of $`U_{e3}`$ becomes large. However, this effect is negligibly small shown in Fig.2 (a) and (b). So the effect of the magnitude of $`U_{e3}`$ to $`m`$ is negligible. The crucial point of this result comes from $`m_30`$ in Eq.(25). In the case of non-zero value of $`U_{e3}`$, $`CP`$ phase $`\delta `$ is physical, but this effect is also negligible.

We also estimete the effect of the deviation from $`m_3=0`$. Since $`m_3`$ should be much smaller than the value of $`|m_1|5.6\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}`$ in Type B, we take $`m_3=0.1\times m_1`$. We find that this effect is also negligible.

As shown above, the values of $`m`$ cannot be larger than $`0.06`$ eV in any parameter sets in Type B. The region where $`m>0.05`$ eV only exists just around B2. This magnitude of $`m`$ is just edge of the allowed region of experimental value of $`95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.`$ in Eq.(1), and far from the best fit value, $`0.4`$ eV. The improvement of experiments might dispose the possibility of type B in the near future.

### 3.3 Type C

The neutrino masses are degenerate in Type C, and we set the value of the degenerate mass as $`m_\nu `$. In Ref., Type C mass hierarchy is classified to four subgroups, C0, C1, C2 and C3, by relative signs $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$.

$`(\stackrel{~}{m}_1,\stackrel{~}{m}_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_3)=\{\begin{array}{cccccccc}\hfill m_\nu (& \hfill 1,& \hfill 1,& 1)& & (\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(0,0)& & (\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{C0})\\ \hfill m_\nu (& \hfill 1,& \hfill 1,& 1)& & (\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(0,\pi )& & (\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{C1})\\ \hfill m_\nu (& \hfill 1,& \hfill 1,& 1)& & (\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(\pi ,0)& & (\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{C2})\\ \hfill m_\nu (& \hfill 1,& \hfill 1,& 1)& & (\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(\pi ,\pi )& & (\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{C3})\end{array}`$
Seeing the zeroth order neutrino mass matrices in Table 2, we suppose naively only Type C0 and C3 might explain $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiments because the (1,1) element of mass matrix is of $`𝒪(m_\nu )`$. Can Type C1 and C2 not really explain Eq.(1)?

In Fig.3 (a) and Fig.3 (b), the values of $`m`$ are shown in the case of $`m_\nu =0.07`$ eV and $`m_\nu =0.15`$ eV, respectively. Where we take $`U_{e3}=0`$. It is worth noting that the values of $`m`$ strongly depend on the value of $`m_\nu `$. In the case of $`m_\nu =0.15`$ eV in Fig.3 (b), any values of $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ can explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay in Eq.(1). The suitably large value of $`m`$ satisfying Eq.(1) can be obtained in Type C1 and C2, although zeroth order forms of neutrino mass matrices in Table 2 show tiny $`(1,1)`$ elements in Type C1 and C2. This is simply because that $`\theta _{}`$ deviates from the maximal mixing tinily and that all elements, of course including the $`(1,1)`$ component, become large as $`m_\nu `$ becomes large. Thus the suitable large $`m`$ can be obtained even if the $`(1,1)`$ component is of order zero in the zeroth order approximation in Table 2.

As for the effects of $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`CP`$ phase $`\delta `$, they should induce the sensitive effects to the magnitude of $`m`$ in Type C, because the value of $`m_3`$ is large comparing to Type B. We show the case of $`CP`$ phase $`\delta =\pi /2`$ (Fig.3 (c)), where we take $`|U_{e3}|=0.10`$ and $`m_\nu =0.07`$ eV. From Figs.3 (a) and (c), we find that the region around $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(\pi ,\pi )`$ receives the sensitive effects from $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`\delta `$, but they are not so large. We also estimate the effects in the case of $`\delta =0`$, but we find that this effect is negligible.

As shown above, the main contribution which lifts the value of $`m`$ exists in $`m_\nu `$ in Type C. Thus we can conclude that the suitably large $`m_\nu `$ makes the value of $`m`$ be large enough to satisfy Eq.(1) in any values of Majorana phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ in Type C.

## 4 Conclusion

A recent paper announces the evidence of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay, and the value of $`m`$ is large as Eq.(1). In this paper, we have estimated the value of $`m`$ according to the neutrino mass hierarchy patterns, Type A, B and C. We have searched which mass hierarchy is consistent with the recent $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay experiments. We have also analyzed the deviation from the zeroth order forms of neutrino mass matrices with the fluctuations of small physical parameters in the base of the Majorana $`CP`$ phases.

The results are the followings. Type A cannot explain the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ results in Eq.(1). In Type B, the region where $`m>0.05`$ eV exists around B2 in the parameter space of Majorana $`CP`$ phases. In Type C, the suitably large $`m_\nu `$ makes the value of $`m`$ be large enough to satisfy Eq.(1) in any values of Majorana phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, contrary to the zeroth order estimations. The effects of $`|U_{e3}|`$ and $`\delta `$ are not be significant in all types of neutrino mass hierarchies.

## Acknowledgment

We would like to thank M. Tanimoto for letting authors know the papaer of neutrinoless double $`\beta `$. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No. 12740146 ).