text:
# Fusion of light proton-rich exotic nuclei at near-barrier energies

## I Introduction

The increasing availability of radioactive ion beams has made possible the study of the interactions and structure of exotic nuclei far from the line of stability. Nuclei located near the neutron or proton drip lines, for which the valence particles are very loosely bound, give rise to interesting new phenomena, e.g., formation of halo structures . The low binding energies of the valence nucleons in these nuclides result in large root mean square (rms) radii and thus, in increased probabilities for specific reaction channels such as breakup, nucleon tranfer and fusion. Breakup reactions, in which the valence nucleons are removed from these exotic nuclei, have very large cross sections of a few barns. This is particularly true for the neutron-halo nuclei with well-developed halo structure, e.g., 11Be, 11Li. However, the breakup cross sections are quite significant also for a light one-proton halo nucleus like 8B .

Since a large flux goes into the breakup channel, many questions concerning the effects of breakup processes on sub-barrier fusion of drip-line nuclei have been raised recently, both from the experimental  and theoretical  points of view. The presence of halo structure in these exotic nuclei means a rms matter radius larger than the usual value deduced from the systematics. Consequently, the sub-barrier fusion cross section should be enhanced since the Coulomb barrier is lowered. On the other hand, one might think that increased breakup probabilities for these nuclei would remove a significant part of flux and thus cross sections for complete fusion would be hindered.

Very recently fusion at near-barrier energies has been investigated theoretically for the neutron halo nuclei 11Be and 6He on Pb. Coupled channel calculations have been performed by discretizing in energy the particle continuum states . The calculations show that the couplings to the breakup channels have appreciable effects. At energies above the Coulomb barrier, it is found that the cross sections for complete fusion are hindered compared to the no-coupling case. On the other hand, at sub-barrier energies the complete fusion cross sections are enhanced significantly. Recent measurements on fusion cross sections for the loosely bound nucleus 9Be  and the two-neutron halo nucleus 6He  on heavy targets at near-barrier energies are in general agreement with the theoretical findings in Ref. .

However, for the proton-rich systems, the effect of coupling to the breakup channels on the fusion process may not be as significant as the neutron-rich nuclei. This is because unlike the neutron-rich systems the valence proton in the loosely bound proton-rich exotic nuclei has to tunnel through the barrier resulting from the Coulomb repulsion due to the charged core, which hinders the formation of halo. In fusion reaction of such a nucleus with a target, this might not lead to a significant lowering of the Coulomb barrier.

Fusion reaction induced by a proton-rich nucleus has received attention only recently. First measurement of fusion cross sections has been done for 17F . Therefore, we present results of calculations on fusion cross sections of the proton drip-line exotic nucleus 17F and compare with the data. But it would also be quite interesting to study fusion induced by a proton-rich nucleus with large breakup probabilities, e.g., the one-proton halo nucleus 8B. In this paper, we also report first calculations on fusion reactions induced by the one-proton halo nucleus 8B. We follow the same theoretical formalism as in Ref. . Within this coupled channel method of calculation, we neglect continuum-continuum couplings. We assume the target to be inert in each case, i.e., possible target excitations are neglected. We choose a heavy target because it would be ideal to study the effects of inclusion of coupling to the breakup channels, as breakup effects increase with target mass.

In section 2, we present the theoretical formalism. Results and discussions are given in section 3. Finally, we summarize and conclude in section 4.

## II Formalism

The coupled channel equations for the projectile($`P`$)-target($`T`$) system (with reduced mass $`\mu `$) in the isocentrifugal approximation  are given by

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu r^2}}+V_N^{(0)}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_PZ_Te^2}{r}}+ϵ_nE\right]\psi _n(r)={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}V_{nm}(r)\psi _m(r).`$ (1)
In writing the above equations, the angular momentum of the relative motion in each channel has been replaced by the total angular momentum $`l`$ . In eqs.(1), $`V_N^{(0)}`$ is the nuclear potential in the entrance channel and $`ϵ_n`$ is the excitation energy of the $`n`$th channel. Here we assume that $`n=0`$ labels the ground state of the projectile nucleus and all other $`n`$’s refer to bound excited states or particle continuum states of the projectile. $`V_{nm}`$ are the coupling form factors computed on the microscopic basis. They are obtained by folding the external nuclear and Coulomb fields with the proper single-particle transition densities, in which the last weakly bound nucleon is promoted from the ground state to excited states below the breakup threshold or in the continuum. More explicitly, the coupling form factor for the promotion of the single valence particle from the bound state $`(n_1l_1j_1m_1)`$ to the continuum state $`(l_2j_2m_2)`$ with continuum energy $`E_c`$ is given by

$`V_{nm}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_c}{}}j_1m_1j_cm_cJ_iM_ij_2m_2j_cm_cJ_fM_f`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`f_{n_1l_1j_1m_1l_2j_2m_2}(r),`$ (3)
where $`J_{i(f)},M_{i(f)}`$ are the total spin of the projectile and its projection quantum number in the initial (final) state. $`j_c`$ is the spin of the core and $`m_c`$ is its projection. We have assumed a core + single particle structure for the projectile. The single-particle form factor is given by

$`f_{n_1l_1j_1m_1l_2j_2m_2}(r)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\pi }{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}(1)^{m_2+\frac{1}{2}}\delta (l_1+l_2+\lambda ,even)j_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}j_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda 0`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2j_1+1}\sqrt{2j_2+1}}{\sqrt{2\lambda +1}}}j_1m_1j_2m_2\lambda (m_2m_1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda +1}{4\pi }}}\delta _{m_1,m_2}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r^2𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑uR_{E_cl_2j_2}^{}(r^{})R_{n_1l_1j_1}(r^{})V_T(\sqrt{r^2+r^22rr^{}u})P_\lambda (u)\right],`$ (7)
where $`P_\lambda `$ is the Legendre polynomial. The functions $`R_{E_cl_2j_2}(r)`$ and $`R_{n_1l_1j_1}(r)`$ are the radial parts of the single-particle wave functions for the continuum and bound states, respectively. In case of a transition from the ground state to a bound excited state, $`R_{E_cl_2j_2}(r)`$ would be replaced by $`R_{n_2l_2j_2}(r)`$ in eq.(3). The potential $`V_T`$, involving both a nuclear and a Coulomb component, is the mean field experienced by the single particle due to the presence of the target, responsible for the transition.

The coupled channel eqs.(1) are solved by imposing the incoming wave boundary condition (IWBC) , where there are only incoming waves at $`r_{\text{min}}`$ which is taken to be the minimum position of the Coulomb pocket inside the barrier. This type of boundary condition is valid for heavy-ion reactions, for which there is a strong absorption inside the Coulomb barrier. The boundary conditions are expressed as

$`\psi _n(r)`$ $``$ $`T_n\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle _{r_{\text{min}}}^r}k_n(r^{})𝑑r^{}),rr_{\text{min}},`$ (8)
$``$ $`H_l^{()}(k_nr)\delta _{n,0}+R_nH_l^{(+)}(k_nr),r>r_{\text{max}},`$ (9)
where

$`k_n(r)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}}(Eϵ_n{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu r^2}}V_N^{(0)}(r){\displaystyle \frac{Z_PZ_Te^2}{r}})}`$ (10)
is the local wave number for the $`n`$th channel and $`k_n`$, in Eq.(5), is equal to $`\sqrt{2\mu (Eϵ_n)/\mathrm{}^2}`$. $`H_l^{()}`$ and $`H_l^{(+)}`$ are the incoming and outgoing Coulomb functions, respectively. $`r_{\text{max}}`$ is taken to be a distance beyond which both the nuclear potential and the Coulomb coupling are sufficiently small.

The fusion probability is defined as the ratio between the flux inside the Coulomb barrier and the incident flux. For the boundary conditions given by eqs.(4) and (5), it becomes

$`P_n={\displaystyle \frac{k_n(r_{\text{min}})}{k_0}}T_n^2`$ (11)
for the $`n`$th channel. Complete fusion is a process where all the nucleons of the projectile are captured by the target nucleus. We thus define cross section of complete fusion using the flux for the non-continuum channel (i.e. $`n=0`$) as

$`\sigma _{\text{CF}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1)P_0={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1){\displaystyle \frac{k_0(r_{\text{min}})}{k_0}}T_0^2.`$ (12)
The flux for the particle continuum channel ($`n0`$) is associated with incomplete fusion, whose cross section is given as

$`\sigma _{\text{ICF}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1){\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}P_n={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(2l+1){\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_n(r_{\text{min}})}{k_0}}T_n^2.`$ (13)
Eqs.(8) and (9) are correct when there is only one bound state below the breakup threshold. If there are some bound excited states below the threshold other than the ground state, the summations in these equations are to be carried out accordingly.

## III Results and discussions

In recent measurements with the proton drip-line exotic nucleus 17F in fusion-fission reaction on Pb at energies around the Coulomb barrier no enhancement of the fusion cross section is observed . In Fig. 1, we show our calculations on the fusion cross sections for 17F + Pb at near-barrier energies alongwith the data . In our calculation, we have considered the effect of the transition from the ground state of 17F (600 keV below the breakup threshold) into the continuum. The bound excited state situated 495 keV above the ground state is also included in the calculation. This means that we have considered ground state (0$`d_{\frac{5}{2}}`$) to first excited state (1$`s_{\frac{1}{2}}`$) coupling (through quadrupole transition) and also couplings from the first excited state to the continuum. The continuum up to 2 MeV has been considered and it has been found that the results converge. The continuum has been discretized into 10 bins with a bin size of 200 keV. The continuum states have been taken to be situated at the middle of each bin. We consider transitions of multipolarity 1 and 2 for transitions into the continuum, with $`s`$-, $`p`$-, $`d`$\- and $`f`$-waves in the continuum. The nuclear part of the valence proton-target interaction, causing the inelastic transition/breakup of 17F, has been taken to be the same as the neutron-target interaction in Ref. . The nuclear part of the ion-ion interaction potential has been taken to be equal to that of the neighbouring nucleus 16O on Pb . As far as the structure of 17F is concerned, we assume a single particle potential model in which the valence proton moves in a Coulomb and Woods-Saxon potential relative to 16O core. The depth of the Woods-saxon potential has been adjusted to reproduce the known one-proton separation energies for the bound states. The radius and diffuseness parameters of the Woods-Saxon potential have been taken to be 1.25 fm and 0.5 fm respectively. This gives a rms proton radius of 3.7 fm.

There is good overall agreement of our calculations with the data. But compared to the no-coupling case, there is no discernible change of the fusion cross sections when the channel coupling effects are considered (see Fig. 1).

However, observations are quite different when calculations on the fusion cross sections of 8B on the same target (Pb) have been done. We use the single-particle potential model used by Esbensen and Bertsch to describe the structure of 8B . This yields a rms proton radius of 4.24 fm. We consider transitions into the continuum of multipolarities 1 and 2, and include $`J`$ = 1, 2 and 3 final channels in the couplings. $`s`$-, $`p`$-, $`d`$\- and $`f`$-waves in the continuum are considered for the appropriate transitions. The inclusion of the $`J`$ = 4 final channel in the calculation has almost got no effect. The $`J`$ = 0 final channel has been left out of calculation as the $`0^+`$ final state appears to be very weak in the low-lying excitation spectrum of 8B . The continuum discretization scheme is the same as that for 17F. The 1+ and 3+ resonances at 0.637 MeV and 2.183 MeV have also been included in the calculations. The nuclear potential for the 8B + Pb system has been taken to be equal to that between the neighbouring nucleus 7Be and Pb as in Ref. . As for 17F, the nuclear part of the valence proton-target interaction, causing the inelastic transition/breakup of 8B, has been taken to be the same as the neutron-target interaction in Ref. .

The results are displayed in Fig. 2. At sub-barrier energies, there is some 20% increase of the total (complete + incomplete) fusion cross sections (dashed line) compared to the zero coupling case. But results of channel coupling are nominal so far as complete fusion cross sections (thick solid line) in this region are concerned. However, at energies above the Coulomb barrier, there is significant suppression of the complete fusion cross sections. The complete fusion cross section is $``$69% of the total fusion cross section, for example, at 60 MeV centre-of-mass (c.m.) energy. This feature of fusion cross sections in 8B induced reaction on a heavy target at above-barrier energies is the same as that for the one-neutron halo nucleus 11Be. But compared to the appreciable enhancement of the complete fusion cross sections in case of 11Be , the changes observed are small in the sub-barrier region.

If only dipole transitions are considered, the breakup effects will be smaller compared to the full (dipole + quadrupole) calculations and we expect that the suppression of the complete fusion cross sections will be less. For 17F + Pb reaction, practically no difference is observed as to this difference in calculation. However, for the 8B induced reaction on Pb, this effect is visible at above-barrier energies (see Fig. 3). But the increase in the complete fusion cross section is not much, e.g., $``$4% at 60 MeV. This indicates that the quadrupole breakup contributions are small in case of 8B + Pb reaction.

The breakup probabilities of an exotic nucleus depend significantly on the separation energy of the valence nucleon and its orbital angular momentum configuration . Any non-zero angular momentum with respect to the core will lead to a centrifugal barrier, which will restrict the extent of the wave function in the coordinate space. This, in turn, decreases the cross sections of breakup processes in which the valence particle is removed from the nucleus . Increase of separation energy of the valence nucleon further decreases the breakup probabilities .

The dominant ground state configuration of 8B is 7Be$`(\frac{3}{2}^{})\pi `$(0$`p_{\frac{3}{2}}`$), whereas for 17F it is 16O$`(0^+)\pi `$(0$`d_{\frac{5}{2}}`$). The valence proton in 17F feels more than two times the Coulomb barrier as the last proton in 8B. The $`\mathrm{}`$=2 centrifugal barrier experienced by the valence proton in 17F is also almost 3.5 times larger compared to the $`\mathrm{}`$=1 centrifugal barrier for the valence proton in 8B. The one-proton separation energy (0.6 MeV) in 17F is almost 4.5 times that (0.137 MeV) in 8B. Thus, breakup through one-proton removal is much more favoured in case of 8B compared to 17F. Dynamical calculations in Ref.  also show that the chances of inelastic excitation/breakup of 17F are small. On the other hand, the breakup probabilities are quite significant for 8B on a heavy target . In fact, within a semiclassical theory , we compute the breakup cross section of 8B on Pb at 60 MeV in the laboratory system arising out of electric dipole transition to be as large as 5.1 b. This is close to 4.6 b, the $`E1`$ dissociation cross section for the one-neutron halo nucleus 11Be on the same target at the same incident energy. On the other hand, for 17F on Pb target at near-barrier energy, the cross section for the same process comes out to be 46.46 mb only. Therefore, it is expected that compared to 17F, the breakup process would have larger effects on the fusion cross sections in 8B induced reactions.

## IV Summary and conclusions

In summary, we have performed coupled channel calculations of fusion cross sections in reactions induced by the proton-rich exotic nuclei 17F and 8B on Pb target at near-barrier energies. Couplings to the inelastic and/or breakup channels have been taken into consideration. For 17F induced reaction, the channel coupling effects are minimal. However, for 8B induced reaction, there is appreciable suppression of the complete fusion cross sections at energies above the Coulomb barrier. The difference in the features of the fusion cross sections in reactions involving these two nuclei is attributed to the difference in their ground state configurations. 8B is a one-proton halo nucleus with larger breakup probabilities, most of its breakup cross sections originating due to dipole transitions. On the other hand, 17F, although proton-rich, is close to an ordinary nucleus so far as its size and breakup cross sections are concerned. We suggest measurement of the different components of the fusion cross sections at near-barrier energies in reaction involving 8B and a heavy target.

One of the authors (P.B.) thanks J. N. De for his encouragement during this work. Fruitful discussions with Andrea Vitturi are gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Carrier induced ferromagnetism in diluted magnetic semi-conductors.

The discovery of carrier induced ferromagnetism in DMS have attracted considerable attention from both theoreticians and experimentalists. The interest for these material is mainly stimulated by the possible technological applications (e.g. semi-conductor spin devices). For example by doping GaAs with magnetic impurities $`Mn^{2+}`$, $`T_c`$ exceeding 100 K has been reached. The doping of a III-V semiconductor compound with Mn impurities introduces simultaneously local magnetic moments ($`S=5/2`$) and itinerant valence band carriers ($`s=1/2`$). One of the important open issues is to find out whether it is possible to reach critical Curie temperature of order 300 K. Thus it is important to understand theoretically how $`T_c`$ varies with the impurity concentration, effective mass, hole concentration and exchange integral. Many theoretical approaches have been performed to analyze ferromagnetism in DMS, this includes mean field theory , spin wave theory , first principle calculations  and Monte-Carlo simulations . In contrast to most of the theoretical work, we present a theory is able totreat disorder in a more realistic manner (beyond coarse graining). Our theory includes quantum fluctuations within RPA and disorder is treated within CPA. It should be stressed that in our approach the spin impurities are treated quantum mechanically.

We start with the following minimal Hamiltonian,

$$H=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\underset{i}{}J_i\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{s}_i$$
(1)
The first term stands for the tight binding part of the itinerant free electron gas, $`t_{ij}=t`$ if i and j are nearest neighbor or 0 otherwise. The second term is the exchange between localized impurities spin and itinerant electron gas, $`J_i`$ are random variables: $`J_i=J`$ if site i is occupied by a $`Mn^{2+}`$ ion or 0. The operator $`\stackrel{}{s}_i=c_{i\alpha }^{}(1/2\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta })c_{i\beta }`$ is the spin operator at i of the itinerant electron gas and $`S_i`$ is the spin of the magnetic impurity.

Let us define the Green’s function,

$$G_{ij}^+(t)=i\theta (t)[S_i^+(t),S_j^{}(0)]=S_i^+;S_j^{}$$
(2)
We write the equation of motion and use Tyablicov decoupling  (equivalent to RPA) which is suitable for ferromagnetic systems. It consists in closing the system by approximating the higher order Green’s function $`S_i^zs_i^+;S_j^{}S_i^zs_i^+;S_j^{}`$. In this approximation, we obtain in frequency space reads,

$`(\omega +J_is^z)G_{ij}^+(\omega )=2S_i^z\delta _{ij}+`$ (3)
$`J_iS_i^zs_i^+;S_j^{}`$ (4)
$`s^z`$ is the magnetization of the itinerant electron gas and $`S_i^z`$ the magnetization of a magnetic ion at site i. It is convenient to rewrite the new Green’s function which appears in the right part of the equality in the following form, $`s_i^+;S_j^{}=\frac{1}{L^2}_{kq}e^{iqR_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{k+q,k}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{k+q,k}=c_{k+q,}^{}c_{k,};S_j^{}`$. We obtain,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{k+q,k}=f(k,q,\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_le^{iqR_l}G_{lj}^+`$ (5)
where,

$`f(k,q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{(n_{k+q,}n_{k,})}{\omega (ϵ_kϵ_{k+q})+cJS_A^z}}`$ (6)
$`n_{k,\sigma }`$ is the occupation number of $`(k,\sigma )`$ state. c is the impurity concentration, $`S_A^z`$ is the averaged magnetization of $`Mn^{2+}`$, and $`ϵ_k`$ denotes the hole’s dispersion. Inserting both eq. (5) and (6) into eq. (4) we immediately find,

$`G_{ij}^+=g_i\delta _{ij}+g_i{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\varphi _{il}G_{lj}^+`$ (7)
where the T dependent locator $`g_i`$ is defined as,

$`g_i(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2S_i^z}{\omega +J_is^z}}`$ (8)
$`\varphi _{il}=\frac{1}{4}J_iJ_l\chi _{il}^0(\omega )`$ and $`\chi _{il}^0(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of the polarized susceptibility $`\chi ^0(q^{},\omega )`$:

$`\chi ^0(q^{},\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{k+q^{},}n_{k,})}{\omega (ϵ_kϵ_{k+q^{}})+cJS_A^z}}`$ (9)
Note that eq. (7) still contains the disorder through $`\varphi _{il}`$ and $`g_i`$. It is also interesting to mention that the previous equation can be interpreted as the propagator of a free particle moving on a disordered medium, $`g_i`$ is the random on-site potential and $`\varphi _{il}`$ the long range-hopping terms. Note also that $`\varphi _{il}`$ is energy dependent through $`\chi _{il}^0(\omega )`$. To solve the problem we have to calculate in a self-consistent manner $`s^z`$ and $`n_{k,\sigma }`$ which appear in eq. (7). For that purpose we have to write the equation of motion for the Green’s function $`K_{ij,\sigma }=c_{i,\sigma };c_{j,\sigma }^{}`$. After decoupling we get,

$`(\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_\sigma J_iS_i^z)K_{ij,\sigma }=\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}t_{il}K_{lj,\sigma }`$ (10)
One can recognize the propagator of the Anderson model, with on-site random potential depending on the spin $`\sigma `$: $`ϵ_{i,\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}z_\sigma J_iS_i^z`$. Since in our model the potential is temperature dependent through $`S_i^z`$ then sufficiently close to $`T_c`$ we will always be in the metallic regime $`k_fl_e1`$ : $`l_e\frac{1}{(JS^z)^2}`$. This is in contrast with the standard Anderson model where the impurities are static. Equations (7) and (10) ($`\sigma =\pm 1`$) provide a closed system of equations which have to be solved self-consistently within CPA.

The simplest is to start with eq. (10). Indeed, it is straightforward to get the solution with the standard CPA since it contains only diagonal disorder. The averaged Green’s function is

$`K_{k,\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ϵ(k)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega )}}`$ (11)
where the self-energy is,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega )=V_\sigma (ϵ_{A,\sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega ))K_\sigma ^{00}(\omega )(ϵ_{B,\sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega ))`$ (12)
where $`ϵ_{A,\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}z_\sigma JS_A^z`$, $`ϵ_{B,\sigma }=0`$ and $`V_\sigma `$ is the average value $`V_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}z_\sigma JcS_A^z`$ and $`K_\sigma ^{00}=\frac{1}{L}_q\frac{1}{\omega ϵ(q)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega )}`$.

The self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega )`$ can re-expressed,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega )=V_\sigma [1+(1c){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_\sigma JS_A^zK^{00}(\omega )]`$ (13)
We see that when $`TT_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{VCA}(\omega )=V_\sigma `$. Thus, in the framework of our decoupling scheme, close enough to $`T_c`$ the CPA for eq. (10) reduces to the VCA.

The final step of the calculation consists in solving eq.(7). In order to provide analytical form for $`T_c`$ we use the similar approximation (VCA) for $`G_{ij}^+`$ as done above for $`K_{ij,\sigma }`$. We expect this approximation to be reasonable in the limit of both low impurity concentration and low density of itinerant carriers. To get the averaged Green’s function, we use the well-known Blackman-Esterling-Beck formalism . By contrast with standard CPA, this approach is suitable for non diagonal disorder problems. It is based on a $`2\times 2`$ matrix Green’s function formalism for binary alloys using locator expansion. Within VCA approximation, one gets for the averaged Green’s function of an atom of type A,

$`G_A^+(k,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{c}{g_A^1c\alpha (k,\omega )}}`$ (14)
where $`\alpha (k,\omega )=\frac{1}{4}J^2\chi ^0(k,\omega )`$.

Note also that since the Ga atoms have no magnetic moment, it implies $`G_B^+(k,\omega )=g_B=0.`$ The $`Mn^{2+}`$ ion propagator can be rewritten, $`G_A^+(k,\omega )=\frac{2}{EE(q)}`$, where $`E=\frac{\omega }{S_z}`$. The dispersion $`E(q)`$ is solution of,

$`E(q)=J{\displaystyle \frac{s_z}{S_z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^2\chi ^0(q,E(q)S_z)`$ (15)
According to ref.  the magnetization can be expressed in the following form,

$`S_A^z={\displaystyle \frac{(s\varphi )(1\varphi )^{2S+1}+(S+1+\varphi )\varphi ^{2S+1}}{(1+\varphi )^{2S+1}\varphi ^{2S+1}}}`$ (16)
where $`\varphi =\frac{1}{L}_𝐪\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega (q)}1}`$.

When $`TT_c`$, $`\varphi =\frac{k_BT_c}{cS_A^z}\frac{1}{L}_𝐪\frac{1}{E(𝐪)}`$. This implies for $`T_c`$ the standard RPA form,

$`T_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}c{\displaystyle \frac{S(S+1)}{\frac{1}{N}_q\frac{1}{E(q)}}}`$ (17)
This expression is similar to the one obtained in the clean limit for the Kondo Lattice Model . In the vicinity of $`T_c`$ the dispersion $`E(q)`$ is,

$`E(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}[k_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4}}]ln({\displaystyle \frac{q+2k_f}{q2k_f}}))`$ (18)
Note that, below $`T_c`$, the eq. (15) should be solved numerically in order to get E(q) as a function of the temperature. This is required to calculate $`S_z`$ and $`s_z`$ as function of T. According to eq. (17) $`T_c`$ is given by,

$`T_c={\displaystyle \frac{S(S+1)}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{J^2c}{t}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C(q,k_f)}})^1`$ (19)
where we define $`C(q,k_f)=\frac{1}{2}(k_f\frac{1}{q}[k_f^2\frac{q^2}{4}]ln(\frac{q+2k_f}{q2k_f}))`$. This implies that $`T_c`$ is proportional to $`J^2`$ and to the effective mass ($`1/t`$). The dependence on the hole concentration is only contained in $`C(q,k_f)`$. We define the hole concentration as $`n_h=\gamma c`$ where $`\gamma 1`$. This is the simplest way to take into account the presence of As-antisites . In Fig. 1 we show the variation of $`T_c`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$.

We observe that in the low hole concentration regime, $`T_c`$ agrees very well with the mean field result (this is more clear in the inset log-log plot). In the mean field regime the magnon excitation spectrum is dispersionless: $`E^{MF}(q)=lim_q\mathrm{}E(q)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{J^2}{t}k_f`$ where $`k_f=(3\pi ^2\gamma c)^{1/3}`$. In this limit,

$`T_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^4}})^{1/3}S(S+1){\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{t}}\gamma ^{1/3}c^{4/3}`$ (20)
When increasing $`\gamma `$, $`T_c`$ strongly deviates from the mean field results and shows a broad maximum. Such a maximum was also observed in ref. . By further increase of $`\gamma `$ the Curie temperature starts to decrease . As we observe it from Fig. 1, for very large $`\gamma `$ $`T_c`$ agrees very well with the case where the magnon spectrum is approximated by $`E(q)=E^{stiff}(q)=Dq^2`$ where the stiffness D is given by $`D=\frac{1}{48\pi ^2}\frac{J^2}{t}\frac{1}{kf}`$, this regime is denoted “stiffness” regime. In this regime we find,

$`T_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(18\pi ^4)^{1/3}}}S(S+1){\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{t}}\gamma ^{1/3}c^{2/3}`$ (21)
The existence of a maximum can be understood in the following way: Like in the RKKY situation , the exchange oscillate with typically length scale $`l_{osc}1/k_f`$. Thus it is expected that when the length scale gets sufficiently large (larger than the average distance between impurities) some Mn-Mn bonds are coupled antiferromagnetically. The induced frustration has for immediate consequence a decrease of $`T_c`$. In Fig. 2 we illustrate the previous discussion by showing the dispersion as a function of $`k/k_c`$ where $`k_c`$ is chosen in order to conserve the volume of the Brillouin zone $`(v=(2\pi )^3)`$. The results are shown for the 3 different regions: “mean field”, “intermediate” and ”stiffness” regime. We observe that in all cases the dispersion goes to 0 (when $`q0`$), as expected when the Goldstone theorem is fulfilled.

In Fig. 3, we show the region for which $`T_c`$ reaches its maximum as a function of c ($`T_c^{max}(c)`$) and the region where MF formula provides a good approximation for $`T_c`$, it corresponds to $`|\frac{T_cT_c^{MF}}{T_c}|0.1`$. First we see that the region of validity of the MF result (dashed area) corresponds to a very narrow region typically $`\gamma 0.05`$. A good approximated value of the $`\gamma `$ for which $`T_c`$ is maximum can be obtained by taking the intersection point between the MF and “stiffness” values. This leads to $`\gamma _{max}c=n_{max}=0.016`$.

So far, for our discussion we did not have to specify the values of the parameters $`t`$ and $`J`$. In order to check the validity of our theory we compare our results with available experimental data. GaAs is known to have a fcc structure with a lattice constant $`a_05.6A`$. For simplification in our calculation we have assumed a simple cubic structure thus the lattice constant which has to be taken in our calculation is $`a_1=\frac{a_0}{4^{1/3}}`$ in order to conserve the volume for the unit cell. By also assuming an effective mass for the holes $`m=0.5m_e`$ one gets $`t=0.63eV`$. The remaining free parameter $`J`$ will be chosen in order to fit the experimental data of ref.. For that purpose we calculate $`\gamma `$ for each sample according to the measured experimental values of the hole concentration given in Fig. 2 of ref.. The results are depicted in Fig. 4. As it can be seen we find a very good agreement with the experimental data if $`\frac{J^2}{t}=10.5eV`$, this implies $`|J|=2.58eV`$ . Note that the deviations observed at low c are due to the uncertainty on the hole concentration value (see the huge error bars in Fig. 2 of ref.).

From the experimental measurements, there is no clear consensus concerning the correct value of this parameter. Indeed, recent core level photoemission has provided $`J=1.2\pm 0.2eV`$ . Whilst, from Magneto-transport measurements a value of $`|J|=2.4\pm 0.9eV`$ was suggested. . And within first principle calculations Sanvito et al. have found $`J4.65\pm 0.25eV`$. In order to proceed to a better estimation of the parameters J one should compare theoretical calculations with other data, for instance transport measurements data . However, it is interesting to note that the band splitting at $`T=0K`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=JcS`$) obtained within our calculations agrees with the experimental value reasonably well . In the inset of Fig. 3, assuming $`\frac{J^2}{t}=10.5eV`$ we show $`T_c`$ as function of c taking $`\gamma `$ on the line of “maximum of $`T_c`$”. For instance if $`c0.1`$ and $`\gamma 0.2`$ a $`T_c`$ of order 230 K can be reached.

Let us proceed further on and compare the calculated magnetization with the measured one. In the experimental data the concentration of $`Mn^{2+}`$ is $`c=0.053\%`$ and the parameter $`\gamma `$ is estimated to be 0.3 (see ref. ) In Fig. 5, we show the magnetization as function of the T where $`m^{}=0.5m_e`$ and $`J=2.58eV`$. . We observe that for sufficiently high temperature $`T0.5T_c`$ there is a very good agreement with the measured $`Mn^{2+}`$ magnetization. When decreasing T some deviation appears, this suggests that the VCA treatment is not good enough in this region, which was expected.

To conclude, we have presented a general theory for carrier induced ferromagnetism in DMS. Our approach allows to treat the disorder beyond simple coarse graining within full CPA treatment. It goes beyond mean-field and includes quantum fluctuations in the RPA approximation. We have shown that, within our decoupling scheme and sufficiently close to $`T_c`$ the CPA for the itinerant gas reduces to VCA, which allowed us to provide analytical results for $`T_c`$ in the low impurity concentration and hole density regime. We have also discussed its dependence on the hole concentration. We have also shown that the mean field approximation is only valid for very low carrier concentration. Additionally, for illustration of our theory a comparison with available experimental data on $`Ga_{1c}Mn_cAs`$ was done. We find a very good agreement with the experimental results assuming a single band for itinerant carriers and a large exchange constant $`J=2.58eV`$. Finally, this work provide a good starting point for higher decoupling scheme.

Note added: After this work was completed we became aware of Yang et al. comment. By analogy with the Kondo Lattice Model  (no disorder) they proposed a similar expression for $`T_c`$ to the one derived in eq.(17).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There is considerable observational evidence that the physical universe has a positive (albeit, disturbingly small) cosmological constant . This observation is at least partially responsible for the recent flurry of investigations into asymptotically de Sitter spacetimes. In particular, the various holographic aspects of de Sitter (dS) space have garnered much attention. (See Ref. for a list of relevant citations. Also see Refs. for more recent work.)

The focal point of dS-based holography has been a conjectured duality between asymptotically dS spacetimes and conformal field theories (CFTs) . This dS/CFT duality can be viewed as an analogy to the celebrated anti-de Sitter (AdS)/CFT correspondence  (which, in turn, is an explicit realization of the renowned holographic principle ). The CFT in a dS-inspired duality, just like its AdS analogue, lives on an asymptotic boundary of the bulk spacetime. However, contrary to the AdS case, the dS boundary is spacelike (located at temporal infinity) and the dual CFT is necessarily a Euclidean one. These distinctions can be attributed to the absence of both a globally timelike Killing vector and a spatial infinity in asymptotically dS spacetimes .

The various investigations into dS holography have, of course, lead to many interesting deductions and observations. At the forefront of these is Bousso’s realization of an entropic upper bound . More specifically, the entropy of pure dS space serves as an upper bound on the total entropy that can be stored in any spacetime with a positive cosmological constant.111Note that the validity of the Bousso bound does depend on some form of the positive energy condition . With guidance from the “Bousso bound”, Balasubramanian, de Boer and Minic  have proposed a similar upper limit on the total mass of an asymptotically dS spacetime. In particular, these authors have conjectured that any such spacetime whose conserved mass222The “BdBM bound” implies a specific definition for the mass . This definition can be viewed as an appropriate generalization of the Brown-York quasi-local energy . exceeds that of pure dS space will contain a naked cosmological singularity.

For the sake of argument, let us accept the conjectured mass bound as being a true property of asymptotically dS spacetimes (as recent analysis does seem to support ). In this case, from a bulk viewpoint, the implications are quite severe; a violation of this bound results in a type of singularity that is considered to be non grata in most cosmological models. On the other hand, from a holographic perspective, the implications are somewhat murkier. As pointed out by Ghezelbash and Mann , for a hypothetical observer located on an asymptotic spacelike boundary (i.e., a “CFT observer”), any such singularity will remain causally hidden behind the cosmological horizon. That is to say, any quantity measured by this observer depends only on the boundary theory; in fact, the observer need not be aware that an interior region even exists. To reword this in a philosophical sense, what exactly constitutes the “true physical” picture: the boundary theory or the bulk (or both or neither)?

Given the stated ambiguity, one might argue that bound-violating asymptotically dS solutions should not be dismissed a priori. Such solutions have been explicitly formulated in a paper by Cai, Myung and Zhang  (with their original motivation being to test the mass-bound conjecture). One of these so-called “topological” de Sitter (TdS) solutions can effectively be obtained with a sign reversal (in the mass term) of a more conventional Schwarzschild-dS solution. As a consequence, the black hole horizon disappears, leaving behind a naked singularity enclosed by the usual cosmological horizon.333It should be kept in mind that a TdS solution can have a spherical, hyperbolic or flat (cosmological) horizon geometry. This is contrary to the Schwarzschild-dS case, which only permits a spherical horizon geometry. It is this diversity in TdS horizon geometries that prompted the topological nomenclature in analogy with Ref.. Furthermore, it can readily be confirmed that, for any TdS solution, the conserved mass (in accordance with the definition of Ref.) does indeed exceed that of its purely dS counterpart.

Since the original presentation by Cai et al. , some subsequent papers have considered the implications of a possible TdS/CFT duality . For the most part, this duality would appear to be preferential to its Schwarzschild-dS counterpart;444In Ref., however, the author argues against TdS solutions in a dynamical-boundary scenario. We elaborate on this point in the final section. inasmuch as the CFT energy can only be positive in the TdS case . (Significantly, a negative energy implies a non-unitary theory.) In view of this desirable feature, we argue that TdS solutions merit further investigation, and proceed on this basis.

Ultimately, one might hope that quantum gravity can be used to deduce the validity (or invalidity) of a field theory that is holographically dual to a TdS bulk. However, as it is well known, a definitive theory of quantum gravity remains currently out of reach. Even the most promising candidate, string theory, fails to provide a suitable description of dS space . Nevertheless, we propose that much can still be learned by subjecting the (conjectured) TdS/CFT correspondence to various holographic “consistency checks”.

With the above proposal in mind, let us consider the intriguing phenomena of holographic renormalization group (RG) flows. Significantly, RG flows are commonly believed to play a prominent role in any holographic bulk/boundary duality. (For instance, see Refs..) More specifically, as any relevant parameter of a bulk spacetime evolves, a RG flow is expected to be induced in the dually related boundary theory. This picture follows from the so-called ultraviolet/infrared correspondence , which implies that bulk evolution towards the infrared translates into boundary flow towards the ultraviolet and vice versa.

What is particularly pertinent to the holographic-RG picture is the existence of a generalized $`C`$-function (in analogy with RG flows in a two-dimensional CFT context ). Moreover, this $`C`$-function should exhibit various monotonicity properties that are reflective of the underlying ultraviolet/infrared duality. In view of all this, an appropriate analysis of a prospective $`C`$-function should serve as a suitable “laboratory” for testing the viability of any conjectured bulk/boundary correspondence. Just such an analysis, in a TdS context, will serve as the focal point of the current paper.

If one sets out to “test” a prospective $`C`$-function, it should be significantly more informative when non-trivial matter fields are allowed in the bulk theory. (See, for instance, Ref..) For this reason, we will generalize our considerations to a certain class of solutions that can be viewed as dilatonic deformations of a TdS geometry . This new class can alternatively be viewed as domain wall solutions having a (flat) cosmological horizon. In fact, these solutions are essentially analytic continuations of domain wall-black hole spacetimes that effectively describe a truncated theory of gauged supergravity .

Before discussing the content of the paper, let us consider a pair of caveats. Firstly, it should be kept in mind that the dilatonically deformed solutions are, in general, not asymptotically de Sitter. Nonetheless, in the limit of a constant dilaton field, a TdS solution (with flat horizon geometry) will always be obtained . Secondly, it is worth emphasizing that the presence of bulk matter (in this case, the dilaton) will typically break the conformal symmetry of a dual boundary theory. That is to say, the holographic duality now under consideration can be viewed as a dS analogue  of the domain wall/quantum field theory (QFT) correspondence .555Notably, the domain wall/QFT duality (assuming its validity) includes the AdS/CFT correspondence as a very special case.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we begin by introducing the relevant action and formulating the ($`n`$+2-dimensional) bulk solutions of interest: dilatonic deformations of a topological de Sitter spacetime with a flat cosmological horizon . (We will subsequently refer to these as “DTdS” solutions.) In what is essentially a review of material in Ref., we then go on to calculate the quasi-local stress tensor  and conserved mass of a DTdS solution. Notably, this calculation necessitates that a surface counterterm be added to the action for the purpose of regulating infrared divergences .

In Section 3, we consider a (presumably) dual, Euclidean QFT that lives on an asymptotic boundary of the bulk spacetime. In particular, we obtain explicit expressions for the QFT stress tensor and thermodynamics by making appropriate identifications with properties of the DTdS bulk. A Cardy-like form  for the QFT entropy is then verified. This result can be viewed as a generalization of the Cardy-Verlinde formula , as appropriate for a flat horizon geometry .666The Cardy-Verlinde formula has already been generalized for a multitude of holographic scenarios. Consult Refs. for a list of relevant citations. Significantly to later analysis, we also identify the Casimir entropy  of the QFT.

The focus of Section 4 is on prospective (generalized) $`C`$-functions in a DTdS/QFT holographic framework. Here, we consider a pair of prescriptions for the quantity of interest. The first is based on a formula that expresses the $`C`$-function in terms of local bulk geometry. (See, for instance, Refs..) The second follows from the premise that the Casimir entropy of a boundary theory  can be regarded, quite literally, as a Cardy-like “central charge”  and, hence, $`C`$-function . Both of the prescribed forms are rigorously tested to see if they evolve monotonically with respect to variations in relevant parameters. Given a few justifiable assumptions, we are able to demonstrate that this is, indeed, always the case.

Finally, Section 5 provides a summary and further discussion; including a brief account on dynamical-boundary scenarios.

## 2 Dilatonic Deformations of TdS Spacetime

In this section, we will begin by formulating the bulk theory of interest; namely, a dilatonically deformed “topological-de Sitter” solution with a flat horizon geometry . Keep in mind that this “DTdS” solution describes a domain wall spacetime with a cosmological (but no black hole) horizon.

### 2.1 Domain Wall Action and Solutions

To start off, let us consider an action that describes an $`n`$+2-dimensional dilaton-gravity theory with a Liouville-like potential. More specifically:

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_{}d^{n+2}x\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi \right)^2+V_oe^{a\varphi _o}\right]+I_{GH},$$
(1)
where $``$ represents the manifold, $`G`$ is the $`n`$+2-dimensional Newton constant, and where $`V_o`$ and $`a`$ are to be regarded as positive constants. Note that we have also included the Gibbons-Hawking surface term, $`I_{GH}`$, which is necessary for a well-defined variational principle on the boundary of the manifold . This surface term takes the form:

$$I_{GH}=\frac{1}{8\pi G}_{}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{\left|h\right|}𝒦,$$
(2)
where $`𝒦`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature on the boundary ($``$).

Interestingly, the above action (1) is known to effectively describe a truncated theory of gauged supergravity . Given this pedigree, $`V_o`$ and $`a`$ can be directly expressed in terms of $`𝒩`$ and $`p`$, where $`𝒩`$ is the number of D$`p`$-branes in the originating theory .

A certain class of domain wall-black hole solutions (with Ricci-flat horizons) has been found for this action . The associated metric and dilaton can be expressed by way of the following formalism:

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f^1(r)dr^2+R(r)^2dx_n^2,$$
(3)
$$f(r)=\frac{V_oe^{a\varphi _o}r^{2N}}{nN\left[N(n+2)1\right]l^{2N2}}\frac{mr^{1nN}}{\sqrt{2nN(1N)}},$$
(4)
$$R(r)=\frac{r^N}{l^{N2}},$$
(5)
$$\varphi (r)=\varphi _o+\sqrt{2nN(1N)}\mathrm{ln}(r).$$
(6)
In the above, $`\varphi _o`$ and $`m`$ are non-negative constants of integration, $`dx_n^2`$ is the dimensionless line element of an $`n`$-dimensional Ricci-flat spacetime, and $`l`$ is some length parameter (insuring correct dimensionality) that will subsequently be set to unity. (Note that $`m=0`$ corresponds to a purely domain wall spacetime.) Furthermore, the parameter $`N`$ has been defined in accordance with:

$$a=\frac{\sqrt{2nN(1n)}}{nN}.$$
(7)
In view of Eq.(4), the following bound should be imposed on $`N`$:

$$(n+2)^1N1.$$
(8)
For later convenience, let us rewrite Eq.(4) in the following form:

$$f(r)=br^{2N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{r^{nN1}},$$
(9)
where:

$$b\frac{V_oe^{a\varphi _o}}{nN\left[N(n+2)1\right]},$$
(10)
$$\stackrel{~}{m}\frac{m}{\sqrt{2nN(1N)}}.$$
(11)
It is now quite evident that the special case of $`N=1`$ describes, with a suitable renormalization of $`m`$, an $`n`$+2-dimensional Schwarzschild-AdS black hole.

When $`N<1`$, this class of solutions is no longer asymptotically AdS. However, one can still obtain a well-defined quasi-local stress tensor , provided that an appropriate surface counterterm has first been added to the action . The conserved mass ($`M`$) can be directly calculated via this stress-energy tensor, and one finds :

$$M=\frac{nN𝒱_n\stackrel{~}{m}}{16\pi G},$$
(12)
where $`𝒱_n`$ is the volume of $`dx_n^2`$ (i.e., the dimensionless volume of the domain wall). Note that there is no vacuum ($`m=0`$) contribution to the mass by virtue of the locally flat solution space .

Now let us suppose that $`V_o<0`$. In this case, the action (1) can still be effectively viewed as the truncation of a gauged supergravity theory . Let us further assume that $`m`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$) $`0`$ and then, for sake of convenience, redefine $`V_oV_o`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}\stackrel{~}{m}`$. The prior solution remains unchanged except for the metric function $`f(r)`$, which should now be revised as follows:

$$f(r)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{r^{nN1}}br^{2N}.$$
(13)
For the special case of $`N=1`$, the revised solution describes a topological de Sitter spacetime  with a flat (cosmological) horizon geometry. For general $`N`$ (but satisfying Eq.(8)), this dilatonically deformed solution is no longer asymptotically dS, but it does, in fact, still possess a cosmological horizon. Denoting the horizon location by $`r=r_c`$, we have:

$$r_c=\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{b}\right]^{\frac{1}{N(2+n)1}}.$$
(14)
It should be kept in mind that, for any allowed $`N`$, the cosmological horizon encloses a naked singularity.

The associated thermodynamics of any cosmological horizon can be obtained via standard identifications . For a DTdS solution in particular, the horizon temperature and entropy are respectively calculated as follows:

$$T_H=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{df}{dr}|_{r=r_c}=\frac{b\left[N(n+2)1\right]}{4\pi }r_c^{2N1},$$
(15)
$$S_H=\frac{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }area^{\prime \prime }}{4G}=\frac{𝒱_nr_c^{nN}}{4G}.$$
(16)
### 2.2 Quasi-Local Stress Tensor and Mass

With the above thermodynamic identities, it can readily be shown that the first law of horizon thermodynamics, $`dM=T_HdS_H`$, is uniquely satisfied (up to the usual constant) for $`M`$ as given by Eq.(12). However, it is still instructive to derive $`M`$ on a more fundamental level; namely, as the conserved charge associated with time translation. Note that the following analysis essentially reviews a calculation that is found in Ref..

Let us begin here by considering the spacetime outside of the cosmological horizon (i.e., $`r>r_c`$) and, thus, appropriately shielded from the naked singularity. (Ultimately, we are interested in the asymptotic limit of $`r\mathrm{}`$; that is, future spacelike infinity or $`_+`$ .) The coordinates $`r`$ and $`t`$ change their character in crossing over the horizon (from spacelike to timelike and vice versa), and so, for illustrative purposes, we will relabel these as $`r\tau `$ and $`t\rho `$. Given that $`\tau \tau _c=r_c`$, the DTdS metric (3,13) takes on the following suggestive form:

$$ds^2=f^1(\tau )d\tau ^2+f(\tau )d\rho ^2+R(\tau )^2dx_n^2,$$
(17)
$$f(\tau )=b\tau ^{2N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{\tau ^{nN1}}0.$$
(18)
Being somewhat more specific, we now focus on an $`n`$+1-dimensional spacelike boundary ($``$). The boundary geometry can suitably be described by the following metric:777Note the following conventions. Greek indices will imply coordinates of the $`n`$+2-dimensional manifold, “low-order” Roman indices ($`a`$, $`b`$, …) will imply boundary coordinates, and higher-order Roman indices ($`i`$, $`j`$, …) will imply coordinates on the $`dx_n^2`$ hypersurface.

$$ds_B^2=h_{ab}dx^adx^b=f(\tau )d\rho ^2+R(\tau )^2dx_n^2,$$
(19)
where, for any specific boundary, $`\tau `$ is fixed at some value greater than $`\tau _c`$.

For a calculation of conserved charges (via a generalized Brown-York treatment ), it is necessary to add an appropriate surface counterterm to the action in question . (The premise being that the counterterm can be used to cancel off the infrared divergences of a given gravitational action .) Generally speaking, such a counterterm is a necessarily complicated expression involving the intrinsic curvature of the boundary metric. However, for the current investigation, this intrinsic curvature vanishes (by virtue of $`dx_n^2`$ being Ricci flat) and the counterterm Lagrangian should reduce into a relatively simple, single-term form. In analogy with the deformed AdS-Schwarzschild theory , a suitably defined counterterm has already been identified for the DTdS form of the action . This result can be expressed as follows:

$$I_{ct}=\frac{1}{8\pi G}_{}d^nx𝑑\rho \sqrt{h}\frac{n}{L},$$
(20)
where we have defined:

$$L^1N\sqrt{b}\tau ^{N1}.$$
(21)
Here, $`L`$ can be viewed as the DTdS generalization of a dS curvature radius. Although $`L`$ generally varies throughout the manifold due to the factor of $`\tau ^{N1}`$,888Actually, the factor of $`\tau ^{N1}`$ was omitted in the original presentation . Such a factor is, however, necessary so as to ensure the correct dimensionality of the counterterm Lagrangian. Other possibilities, such as $`l^{N1}`$ (where $`l`$ is the length parameter that has been set to unity), do not achieve the desired cancellation of infrared divergences. the analogy with dS space becomes evident when $`N=1`$. In this limiting case, $`I_{ct}`$ clearly reduces to the anticipated asymptotically dS form .

One can calculate the (so-called) quasi-local stress tensor  by varying the total action, $`I+I_{ct}`$ (including the Gibbons-Hawking surface term ), with respect to the boundary metric . Applying this prescription, we find:

$$T_{ab}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}\frac{\delta (I+I_{ct})}{\delta h^{ab}}=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\left[𝒦_{ab}𝒦h_{ab}+\frac{nNb^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\tau ^{N1}}h_{ab}\right].$$
(22)
To compute the extrinsic curvature (and its trace), we will employ a standard definition: $`𝒦_{ab}=h_a^\mu h_b^\nu _\mu \eta _\nu `$, where $`\eta ^\mu `$ is the unit normal vector to the boundary. With the normal suitably taken to be $`\eta ^\mu =f^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta _\tau ^\mu `$, some straightforward calculation yields:

$$𝒦_{ij}=\delta _{ij}Nf^{\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^{2N1},$$
(23)
$$𝒦_{\rho \rho }=\frac{1}{2}f^{}f^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(24)
$$𝒦=𝒦_a^a=\frac{nNf^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\tau }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(25)
Note that a prime indicates differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$.

Substituting the above results into the stress tensor (22) and considering the large $`\tau `$ limit, we eventually obtain the following leading-order relations:

$$T_{ij}=\delta _{ij}\frac{(2N1)\stackrel{~}{m}\tau ^{(n1)N}}{16\pi Gb^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(26)
$$T_{\rho \rho }=\frac{nN\stackrel{~}{m}b^{\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^{(n1)N}}{16\pi G}.$$
(27)
Let us now focus our attentions on the calculation of the conserved mass. Once again, we will utilize the techniques of Refs., which constitute a generalization of the Brown-York methodology .

First of all, let us discuss the general formalism for an arbitrary ($`n`$+2-dimensional) spacetime. It is appropriate to consider an $`n`$+1-dimensional boundary ($``$) and an $`n`$-dimensional spacelike surface, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that is enclosed within $``$. Ideally, given a Killing vector ($`k^a`$) that generates an isometry of the boundary geometry, one would like to calculate the associated conserved charge ($`Q`$). This task can be accomplished with the following formula :

$$Q=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^n\varphi \sqrt{\sigma }u^ak^bT_{ab},$$
(28)
where the metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has been parametrized according to $`ds_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\sigma _{ij}\varphi ^i\varphi ^j`$, $`u^a`$ is the unit normal vector to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`T_{ab}`$ is the quasi-local stress tensor associated with $``$.

Next, let us specialize to an asymptotically dS spacetime and a calculation of the conserved mass (i.e., $`Q=M`$). Normally, one associates the conserved mass with a globally timelike Killing vector. Although there is no such Killing vector for an asymptotically dS spacetime, it has satisfactorily been shown that one can consider the analytic continuation of $`_t`$ ; where $`t`$ is the temporal coordinate inside of the cosmological horizon. If we take $`\rho `$ as being the analytic continuation of $`t`$ (outside of the cosmological horizon) and conveniently choose $`u^a`$ to be proportional to the relevant Killing vector, then Eq.(28) takes on the following form:

$$M=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^n\varphi \sqrt{\sigma }N_\rho u^\rho u^\rho T_{\rho \rho },$$
(29)
where the Killing vector has been normalized according to $`k^a=N_\rho u^a`$. ($`N_\rho `$ can be identified with the usual “lapse function” of the boundary metric.)

Finally, we are in a position to consider the model currently under investigation. Assuming that the above formalism can directly be adapted into a DTdS framework, 999It is worth repeating that DTdS solutions are not asymptotically dS, except in the special case of $`N=1`$. we can accordingly re-express Eq.(29) as follows:

$$M=𝒱_n\tau ^{nN}f^{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )T_{\rho \rho }.$$
(30)
To obtain this form, the following identities have been applied: $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^n\varphi \sqrt{\sigma }=𝒱_n\tau ^{nN}`$, $`u^a=\delta _\rho ^af^{1/2}`$, and $`N_\rho =f^{1/2}`$.

Substituting Eq.(27) into the above relation and taking the asymptotic limit, we ultimately find:

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}M=\frac{nN}{16\pi G}𝒱_n\stackrel{~}{m}.$$
(31)
Fortunately, this outcome agrees with the priorly quoted result (12) and, thus, with the first law of DTdS horizon thermodynamics.

## 3 Euclidean QFTs on the Boundary

It has been suggested that the AdS/CFT correspondence  is really just a special case of a more general holographic duality; namely, the domain wall/QFT correspondence . By way of analogy, one might argue that the dS/CFT correspondence  is also a special case of a more encompassing duality. That is to say, there may exist a dual relationship between certain domain wall spacetimes and Euclidean QFTs . Although somewhat speculative, we will adopt this viewpoint for the duration of the paper.

### 3.1 QFT Geometry and Stress Tensor

With the above discussion in mind, let us now consider a Euclidean QFT that lives on an asymptotic boundary of a DTdS bulk spacetime. Presumably (or perhaps naively), the bulk and boundary theories should be dually related in a holographic sense. Keep in mind that, for the very special case of $`N=1`$, the (TdS) bulk theory is asymptotically dS, the boundary theory is a conformal one, and a holographic duality appears to be in evidence .

As is typically the case in holographic bulk/boundary dualities, the metric of the QFT in question will be fixed, up to a conformal factor, as the metric on an asymptotic boundary of the bulk spacetime. By analogy with Ref., we invoke:

$`ds_{QFT}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{ab}dx^adx^b`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau ^{2N}b}}ds^2`$
$`=`$ $`d\rho ^2+b^1dx_n^2,`$
where $`ds^2`$ (in the second line) is the metric defined by Eqs.(17,18). Let us re-emphasize that all current/future considerations are restricted to the region outside of the cosmological horizon (i.e., $`\tau \tau _c`$).

We can calculate the stress tensor ($`𝒯_{ab}`$) of the QFT by way of the following relation :

$$\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}𝒯_{bc}=\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{h}h^{ab}T_{bc},$$
(33)
where $`T_{ab}`$ is the quasi-local stress tensor of Eqs.(26,27) and the boundary metric, $`h_{ab}`$, is defined by Eq.(19).

Utilizing the above relation, we are able to deduce:

$$𝒯_{ij}=\delta _{ij}\frac{(2N1)\stackrel{~}{m}b^{\frac{n2}{2}}}{16\pi G},$$
(34)
$$𝒯_{\rho \rho }=\frac{nN\stackrel{~}{m}b^{\frac{n}{2}}}{16\pi G}.$$
(35)
It is interesting to note that the trace of the stress tensor, $`𝒯=𝒯_a^a`$, only vanishes in the special case of $`N=1`$. Reassuringly, this special case describes an asymptotically dS spacetime, and so the corresponding QFT should, indeed, be a conformal theory. Of further interest, the above results imply the following equation of state for the QFT (with $`ϵ`$ and $`p`$ respectively denoting energy density and pressure):

$`\omega {\displaystyle \frac{p}{ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`b{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_{ij}\delta _j^i}{𝒯_{\rho \rho }}}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N1}{nN}},`$
where we have assumed a perfect-fluid description. As expected, this equation reduces to $`\omega =1/n`$ (i.e., radiative matter) when the $`N=1`$ conformal theory is realized.

### 3.2 QFT Thermodynamics

Let us now consider the thermodynamic properties of this QFT and subsequently determine if they can accommodate a Cardy-Verlinde-like entropic form . As is the usual practice, we first rescale the QFT metric so that the associated boundary is located at a fixed “radial distance”, $``$, from the origin.101010Strictly speaking, $``$ represents temporal evolution when outside of the cosmological horizon. This necessitates the following conformal transformation:

$$ds_{QFT}^2b^2ds_{QFT}^2=b^2d\rho ^2+^2dx_n^2.$$
(37)
However, we have not yet realized the desired form; that is:

$$ds_{QFT}^2=d\rho ^2+^2dx_n^2.$$
(38)
Evidently, the Euclidean time coordinate should be further rescaled such that $`\rho b^{1/2}\rho `$. It follows that, from a QFT perspective, the bulk energy and temperature (having units of inverse time) should be “red shifted” by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[b^{1/2}\right]^1`$.

In accordance with the above discussion, the QFT thermodynamics can be identified as follows:111111Note that the entropy is universally unaffected by any such coordinate rescaling .

$`E_{QFT}=\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{nN𝒱_n\stackrel{~}{m}}{16\pi Gb^{\frac{1}{2}}}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{nN𝒱_nb^{\frac{1}{2}}}{16\pi G}}\tau _c^{N(2+n)1},`$
$$T_{QFT}=\mathrm{\Delta }T_H=\frac{b^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[N(n+2)1\right]}{4\pi }\tau _c^{2N1},$$
(40)
$$S_{QFT}=S_H=\frac{𝒱_n}{4G}\tau _c^{nN},$$
(41)
where we have incorporated Eqs.(14,15,16,31). It can readily be verified that these relations satisfy the first law of QFT thermodynamics; that is, $`dE_{QFT}=T_{QFT}dS_{QFT}`$. We also take note of $`E_{QFT}0`$; which is indicative of a topological-dS, rather than Schwarzschild-dS, holographic framework .

In general and regardless of dimensionality, the entropy of any horizon and, by duality, the entropy of its holographic boundary theory should be expressible in a Cardy-like form . That is to say, one might expect :

$$S_{QFT}=\frac{2\pi }{n}\sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left[L_o\frac{c}{24}\right]},$$
(42)
where $`L_o=E_{QFT}`$ and the “central charge”, $`c`$, is directly proportional to the Casimir (i.e., sub-extensive) energy of the boundary theory . However, given a bulk theory with a flat horizon geometry (which implies a vanishing Casimir energy), the associated QFT can be expected to conform with the following version :

$$S_{QFT}=\frac{2\pi }{n}\sqrt{\frac{cL_o}{6}}.$$
(43)
As a consequence of this form, $`c`$ is, in principle, proportional to an appropriately defined Casimir entropy  (which, unlike the Casimir energy, remains finite and positive, regardless of the horizon geometry ).

We find that the above thermodynamic relations do indeed satisfy Eq.(43) (with $`L_o=E_{QFT}`$), as long as:

$$c=\frac{3n𝒱_n}{2\pi GNb^{\frac{1}{2}}}\tau _c^{N(n2)+1}.$$
(44)
The expected relation between the Casimir entropy ($`S_C`$) and the generalized central charge is $`S_C=\pi c/6n`$ (for instance, ). On this basis:

$$S_C=\frac{𝒱_n}{4GNb^{\frac{1}{2}}}\tau _c^{N(n2)+1}.$$
(45)
It is hard to confirm the validity of this result, insofar as we are unable to calculate the Casimir entropy by more direct means. (This is contrary to the usual scenario for a spherical horizon: the Casimir entropy is directly proportional to the Casimir energy, which represents a violation in the Euler identity .) Nonetheless, it is quite reassuring that $`S_C`$ (as defined above) reduces to its anticipated form in the special $`N=1`$ case .

## 4 Generalized C-Functions

With inspiration from the ultraviolet/infrared correspondence , it is commonly believed that evolution of a bulk spacetime will give rise to some form of RG flow in its holographically related boundary theory (for instance, ). Moreover, there should exist some generalized $`C`$-function (in analogy with two-dimensional RG flows ) that exhibits appropriate monotonicity properties as the state of the system varies. On the basis of such arguments, the existence (or lack thereof) of a suitable $`C`$-function should serve as an appropriate litmus test for a conjectured bulk/boundary duality. This philosophy, in a DTdS/QFT context, will serve as the premise for the analysis that follows.

Given a bulk spacetime and its dually related boundary theory, there are two commonly used prescriptions for the generalized $`C`$-function. We will examine both of these in turn.

### 4.1 Bulk-Geometrical Prescription

Firstly, let us consider any bulk ($`n`$+2-dimensional) spacetime for which the metric can be expressed in the following domain wall-like form:

$$ds^2=dz^2+e^{2A(z)}\left[dy^2+dx_n^2\right].$$
(46)
In this case, one expects the existence of a generalized $`C`$-function that is based on local bulk geometry and can be represented as follows (for instance, ):121212A very recent paper  considered a revised form for this $`C`$-function, which apparently has a wider range of applicability. However, in the case of a flat horizon geometry (as is relevant to the current study), this newer formulation reduces to Eq.(47).

$$C\frac{1}{G\left[A^{}(z)\right]^n}.$$
(47)
Note that a prime now indicates differentiation with respect to $`z`$.

The DTdS bulk metric of Eq.(17) can be cast into the above template (46) by way of the following identifications:

$$dz=\frac{1}{\sqrt{f(\tau )}}d\tau ,$$
(48)
$$y=\frac{\sqrt{f(\tau )}}{R(\tau )}\rho ,$$
(49)
$$A(z)=A(\tau )=\mathrm{ln}[R(\tau )]=N\mathrm{ln}(\tau ).$$
(50)
As it stands, such a calculation of $`C`$ would not be particularly enlightening. Nevertheless, we can still viably proceed by first assuming that the effective mass parameter, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, is much smaller than the other relevant scales. (However, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ should remain a non-vanishing quantity, so that a cosmological horizon is still in existence.) It is significant that, with this assumption, $`f(\tau )b\tau ^{2N}`$ becomes a valid approximation (cf. Eq.(18)).

Applying the pertinent approximation to Eq.(48), we obtain the following useful relation:

$$dz\frac{\tau ^N}{b^{\frac{1}{2}}}d\tau .$$
(51)
In terms of the above formalism, the prescribed $`C`$-function (47) now yields:

$$C\frac{\tau ^{n(1N)}}{GN^nb^{\frac{n}{2}}}.$$
(52)
It is immediately clear that $`C`$ increases monotonically with increasing “radial distance” $`\tau `$ (recalling that $`N1`$). Hence, we have confirmed the anticipated ultraviolet/infrared duality . That is, the infrared (large $`\tau `$) limit of the bulk theory corresponds to the ultraviolet (large $`C`$) limit of the QFT and vice versa.

Interestingly, we see that $`C`$ becomes a constant (with respect to variations in $`\tau `$) when $`N=1`$. That is, the constant-dilaton (TdS) theory translates to a conformal fixed point of the holographic RG flow. Clearly, this $`N=1`$ fixed point is an infrared one.

It should also be instructive to examine the behavior of the $`C`$-function under variations in $`N`$. Significantly, changes in $`N`$ reflect variations in the matter content of the theory. To put it another way, as $`N`$ monotonically decreases below its conformal value of $`1`$, the bulk scalar fields are effectively being “turned on” (cf. Eq.(6)). In fact, simple analysis tells us that the dilaton field will continue to “grow” until $`N=1/2`$ has been reached. Thus, one might expect $`N=1/2`$ to represent a fixed point in the associated RG flow. (Clearly, the conformal value, $`N=1`$, serves as the other fixed point.) We will provide further support for this claim in the latter part of this section.

To proceed along the suggested line, it is necessary to re-express Eq.(52) so that all $`N`$ dependence is explicit. We can accomplish this task by substituting for $`b=b(N)`$ via Eq.(10). This process yields:

$$C\frac{\tau ^{n(1N)}}{G}\left[\frac{nN(n+2)n}{NV_o}\right]^{\frac{n}{2}},$$
(53)
where we have set $`\varphi _o=0`$ for sake of convenience.

Given that $`C`$ is strictly a positive quantity, it is just as informative (and substantially easier) to consider variations in $`\mathrm{ln}(C)`$. Hence, it is useful to write:

$$\mathrm{ln}(C)=n(1N)\mathrm{ln}(\tau )+\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{ln}[N(n+2)1]\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{ln}(N)+constant.$$
(54)
Varying this expression with respect to $`N`$, we have:

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}(C)}{N}=\mathrm{ln}(\tau )+\frac{n}{2N}\left[N(n+2)1\right]^1.$$
(55)
The above result indicates that, for sufficiently large values of $`\tau `$, $`C`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`N`$. Furthermore, since $`1`$ is an upper bound on $`N`$, the conformal theory can be identified as the infrared fixed point with respect to bulk-matter evolution. Given that the $`N=1`$ limit corresponds to an essentially matter-free theory, this identification seems pleasantly intuitive. At this juncture, however, the ultraviolet fixed point seems somewhat less clear.

Before proceeding on to the next phase of the analysis, let us comment on the condition of “sufficiently large $`\tau `$”. This constraint can be viewed as a manifestation of a certain aspect of the DTdS/QFT framework. In particular, any external observer will be unable to access information from behind the cosmological horizon and the duality must, therefore, naturally break down when $`\tau \tau _c`$. To put it another way, $`\tau _c`$ can be viewed as a necessary ultraviolet cutoff for the DTdS bulk or (by duality ) an infrared cutoff for the QFT.

### 4.2 Casimir-Entropic Prescription

Alternatively, given a holographic boundary theory, the Casimir entropy ($`S_C`$) has also been interpreted as a generalized $`C`$-function. (With considerable success; see, for instance, Refs.). This interpretation of $`S_C`$ follows directly from its role as an effective central charge  in the Cardy-Verlinde formula . Recalling Section 3, we have already identified the Casimir entropy (45) for the QFT of interest. On this basis, let us now consider:

$$C=S_C=\frac{𝒱_n}{4GNb^{\frac{1}{2}}}\tau _c^{N(n2)+1}.$$
(56)
Considering our “gameplan”, this $`C`$-function can most conveniently be expressed as an explicit function of $`T_{QFT}`$ and $`N`$. Applying Eq.(10) for $`b=b(N)`$ and Eq.(40) for the temperature, we eventually obtain the following expression:

$$C=\frac{𝒱_n}{4G}\left[\frac{n}{V_o}\right]^{\frac{nN}{2(2N1)}}\left[\frac{N(n+2)1}{N}\right]^{\frac{N(4n)2}{2(2N1)}}\left[4\pi T\right]^{\frac{N(n2)+1}{2N1}}.$$
(57)
Note that $`\varphi _o`$ has again been set to vanish and the subscript “QFT” has been dropped from the temperature.

As discussed before, it is both convenient and sufficient to consider the logarithm of $`C`$. Up to some irrelevant constant terms, we find the following:

$`\mathrm{ln}(C)={\displaystyle \frac{nN}{2(2N1)}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_o}{n}}\right)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(4n)2}{2(2N1)}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N(n+2)1}{N}}\right]`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(n2)+1}{2N1}}\mathrm{ln}(4\pi T).`$
Let us first consider varying $`\mathrm{ln}(C)`$ with respect to the boundary radius ($``$):

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}(C)}{}=\frac{N(n2)+1}{2N1}.$$
(59)
If we assume that (i) $`n2(1/N)`$ and (ii) $`N\frac{1}{2}`$, then the following bound can be established:

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}(C)}{}0.$$
(60)
That is, the ultraviolet/infrared connection has (once again) been verified. Some commentary on the assumed conditions is, however, still in order.

Condition (i) simply limits considerations to a bulk theory of dimensionality three or greater, which obviously covers all physically relevant dimensionalities.

Condition (ii) is more difficult to interpret, given that, strictly speaking, $`N`$ can take on values as low as $`(n+2)^1`$ (cf. Eq.(8)). Nonetheless, it is also of relevance that any value of $`N`$ below $`\frac{1}{2}`$ translates into a QFT with a negative pressure; cf. Eq.(36). Interestingly, it has been argued that the domain wall/QFT correspondence will break down for these types of negative-pressure states . (This argument follows from an observation that gravity fails to decouple from the QFT when the pressure falls below zero.) In view of this consideration, $`N1/2`$ seems to be quite a natural constraint. Furthermore, this lower bound on $`N`$ supports a prior hypothesis; namely, that $`N=1/2`$ is the most suitable candidate for an ultraviolet fixed point. To reiterate, this hypothesis is based on the observance that, as $`N`$ decreases below $`1`$, the dilaton will grow until $`N=1/2`$ has been reached.

Next, let us consider how the $`C`$-function evolves when the temperature is varied. It is clear that $`C`$ has the same functional dependence on $`T`$ as it has on $``$. Hence, imposing the same justifiable constraints as before, we have:

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}(C)}{T}0.$$
(61)
That is, the C-function evolves monotonically with respect to temperature and, moreover, the QFT flows towards the ultraviolet as temperature increases. This outcome agrees with the usual expectation that thermal excitations will induce additional degrees of freedom.

Finally, let us consider variations in the $`C`$-function with respect to the parameter $`N`$; keeping in mind that a decreasing $`N`$ translates into excitations of the bulk scalar. By way of Eq.(58), the following is found:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(C)}{N}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{(2N1)^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi T\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N(n+2)1}{nNV_o^1}}\right)\right]`$ (62)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(n4)+2}{2N(2N1)}}\left[N(n+2)1\right]^1.`$
It is evident that, for both “sufficiently large” values of temperature and $`N\frac{1}{2}`$, the following relation will always be satisfied:

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}(C)}{[N]}0.$$
(63)
Hence, under suitable conditions, $`C`$ is a monotonically increasing function as $`N`$ decreases. This result agrees with our previous finding; thus reconfirming the intuitive notion of bulk matter fields inducing a flow to the ultraviolet.

Let us now comment on the most recently imposed conditions. $`N\frac{1}{2}`$ is just the previously discussed positive-pressure constraint, whereas the condition of large temperature can be justified by virtue of the following argument. The Cardy-Verlinde formula, upon which this definition of $`C`$ has been based, only has validity in a regime of large temperature . In fact, a breakdown can be expected in the Cardy-Verlinde formalism when $`T>>1`$ is no longer satisfied . It is clear that the same limitation can be deduced from our findings.

As an aside, it would be interesting to determine if there is some finite temperature at which Eq.(63) does indeed begin to fail. Significantly, this special value of temperature could be interpreted as the analogue of the Hawking-Page (Schwarzschild-AdS) phase transition . However, it appears that such a determination would require a complicated numerical analysis.

To briefly summarize, we have demonstrated that both definitions of the generalized $`C`$-function (47,56) satisfy the monotonicity properties that would be expected for a bulk spacetime with a QFT dual.

## 5 Concluding Discussion

In summary, we have been investigating into the holographic properties of a special class of domain wall solutions; these having the distinction of a singularity enclosed by a cosmological horizon. Any of these bulk solutions can be interpreted as a dilatonic deformation of a topological de Sitter spacetime . That is to say, in the limit of a constant dilaton field, the once-deformed model will describe an asymptotically de Sitter solution with a cosmological singularity. As discussed in Section 1, such a singularity may not be a particularly critical issue from the perspective of an asymptotic boundary observer . Also of note, any of these deformed “DTdS” solutions can be analytically continued into a domain wall spacetime that effectively describes a truncated theory of gauged supergravity .

The initial phase of the analysis entailed strictly bulk considerations. We began here by introducing the relevant (arbitrary-dimensional) action, which describes gravity coupled to a dilaton field with a Liouville-like potential. For this action, a certain class of domain wall-black hole solutions are known , whereby a trivial redefinition of the potential leads to a DTdS solution space. With the bulk geometry precisely formulated, we went on to calculate the quasi-local stress tensor and conserved mass  by way of the surface-counterterm method . Significantly, the calculated mass is precisely that which satisfies the first law of cosmological horizon thermodynamics. (We again note that this portion of the paper was essentially a review of prior work .)

In the second phase of the analysis, we considered a Euclidean quantum field theory that lives on an asymptotic boundary of the DTdS bulk spacetime. It was argued that the bulk and boundary theories could well have a dual relationship  in analogy with the domain wall/QFT correspondence . Utilizing standard holographic relations , we were able to identify the stress tensor and thermodynamic properties of this QFT. It was then shown that the QFT entropy satisfies a generalized form of the Cardy-Verlinde formula . Notably, this generalization can be viewed as the appropriate one for a flat horizon geometry . On the basis of this formulation, we also identified the Casimir (i.e., sub-extensive) entropy of the QFT.

The final phase of the analysis focused on generalized $`C`$-functions. In this regard, we studied two commonly used prescriptions: (i) a formula that expresses $`C`$ in terms of local bulk geometry (for instance, ) and (ii) an identification between $`C`$ and a QFT-induced Casimir entropy (for instance, ). After formulating the appropriate expressions, we tested these prescriptions by varying each of the $`C`$-functions with respect to relevant parameters. For both versions, the ultraviolet/infrared correspondence  was clearly established. (That is, $`C`$ increases monotonically with respect to an increasing boundary radius.) Furthermore, after imposing a few justifiable conditions, we were able to show that $`C`$ increases monotonically with respect to both increasing temperature and decreasing $`N`$; the latter being a parameter of the bulk theory.131313For sake of accuracy, let us note that the temperature correspondence was only verified with the second prescription, whereas the $`N`$ correspondence was verified for both. Both of these outcomes agree with prior expectations, given that thermal excitations should activate degrees of freedom and a decrease in $`N`$ can be correlated with the activation of bulk matter fields.

Also of interest, a pair of fixed points was identified for the implied renormalization group flows. In particular, the conformal (or constant dilaton) case of $`N=1`$ corresponds to an infrared fixed point, while $`N=1/2`$ describes an ultraviolet fixed point. The significance of the ultraviolet limit is that it describes a boundary theory with vanishing pressure; at which point, a breakdown can be expected in the (prospective) DTdS/QFT duality .

In conclusion, the results of our analysis are definitely in support of a DTdS/QFT and (hence) TdS/CFT correspondence. Further support for the latter duality has come in prior studies; most notably, it has been observed that a TdS bulk gives rise to a positive-energy CFT  (in direct contrast to the more conventional Schwarzschild-dS bulk scenario ). However, we do not mean to imply that these studies in any way verify the legitimacy of topological de Sitter solutions (i.e., asymptotically dS solutions with a cosmological singularity). Rather, we view these positive outcomes as an argument that such solutions should not be disregarded a priori. Let us remind the reader that an asymptotic boundary observer would be causally inhibited from accessing any information from behind the TdS cosmological horizon; including information about the naked singularity . Hence, the potential legitimacy of TdS solutions seems to depend on what constitutes the “fundamental” theory; the bulk or the boundary. It appears that this issue necessitates further investigation.

As a final consideration, we will provide a somewhat brief account on dynamical-brane scenarios.141414In this aside, we prefer brane in lieu of boundary for no particular reason. In a prior paper , the implications of a brane that evolves in a TdS background spacetime were considered. More specifically, the methodology of Savonije and Verlinde , for a radiation-dominated brane universe moving in a Schwarzschild-AdS bulk, was suitably generalized for a TdS framework.151515Note that the Savonije-Verlinde program was first generalized for an asymptotically dS bulk by Ogushi . Remarkably, the desirable features of the Savonije-Verlinde treatment do indeed persist for a TdS bulk. (These features include various holographic entropy bounds , the saturation of these bounds when the brane crosses the bulk horizon, and the coincidence of the FRW equations161616FRW implies the Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmological equations, which typically describe brane dynamics. with CFT thermodynamics at this saturation point.) However, it has subsequently been noted by Myung  that, for a TdS bulk, the induced brane metric and (hence) Hubble parameter are defined with respect to Euclidean cosmological time. When one continues back to Lorentzian cosmological time, the FRW equations are then expressed in terms of an undesirable negative energy density. This problem could be circumvented by adding suitable matter to the brane; however, this is just the type of fine-tuning mechanism that one usually tries to avoid.

If, for sake of argument, the above criticism is disregarded, then it is not difficult to further generalize the Savonije-Verlinde program (and its pertinent outcomes)  to the case of a dilatonically deformed TdS bulk spacetime. One needs only to follow the procedure outlined by Cai and Zhang  for the analogous case of a “dilatonically deformed Schwarzschild-AdS” bulk spacetime (i.e., the spacetime described by Eqs.(3-6)). The only significant difference would be in the definition of the cosmological time parameter ($`\eta `$). More precisely, Eq.(3.4) from their paper:171717We have slightly modified the notation of Ref. for the purpose of (hopefully) avoiding confusion.

$$f(r)\left(\frac{dt}{d\eta }\right)^2\frac{1}{f(r)}\left(\frac{dr}{d\eta }\right)^2=1f(r)=br^{2N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{r^{nN1}},$$
(64)
which leads to an induced brane metric of:

$$ds^2=d\eta ^2+^2(\eta )dx_n^2,$$
(65)
should be replaced with:

$$f(\tau )\left(\frac{d\rho }{d\eta }\right)^2\frac{1}{f(\tau )}\left(\frac{d\tau }{d\eta }\right)^2=1f(\tau )=b\tau ^{2N}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{\tau ^{nN1}},$$
(66)
which then leads to the following Euclidean form:

$$ds^2=d\eta ^2+^2(\eta )dx_n^2.$$
(67)
(Note that $`\tau \tau _c`$ is mandatory, whereas any $`r0`$ is allowed.) After making this substitution, one can essentially follow Ref. in a straightforward manner. Their results (which, for the most part, agree with those of Savonije and Verlinde ) will persist unfettered for the DTdS case.181818However, one should keep in mind that, for the DTdS case, the Hubble constant is Euclidean (rather than Lorentzian) and the bulk horizon is a cosmological one (rather than a black hole).

Finally, let us comment on one of the more interesting outcomes of Ref., which applies vicariously to the deformed TdS model. As it so happens, the resultant FRW equations imply the following equation of state on the brane:

$$\omega =\frac{p}{ϵ}=\frac{1}{nN}.$$
(68)
This only agrees with our prior finding (viz. Eq.(36)):

$$\omega =\frac{2N1}{nN}$$
(69)
in the special conformal case of $`N=1`$. As argued by Cai and Zhang, this discrepancy can be attributed to an effective gravitational constant that varies in time :

$$G_{n+1}=\frac{(n1)Nb}{\left[(\eta )\right]^{\frac{1N}{N}}}G,$$
(70)
as well as the contributions from a dynamical dilaton field.191919From the perspective of a dynamical-brane observer, the dilaton field will naturally be viewed as a function of the cosmological time parameter.

The dynamical contributions from gravity and the dilaton also seem to compensate for the effects of the apparently non-radiative matter (since, in general, $`\omega n^1`$). That is to say, the holographic bounds and brane-horizon coincidences observed by Savonije and Verlinde  can only be expected to persevere in a radiation-dominated universe ; so it seems strange that, for the most part, they do so here. We hope to investigate this matter in a future work.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank V.P. Frolov for helpful conversations.