format: text

text:
# Braneworld Cosmology in (Anti)–de Sitter Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet–Maxwell Gravity

## 1 Introduction

The holographic principle in string/M–theory is formulated in terms of the AdS/CFT or dS/CFT correspondences . These correspondences have bridged the gap between previously distinct branches of high energy physics. In particular, it has become clear that the physics of higher–dimensional black holes is closely related to that of early universe cosmology. The possibility that our observable universe may be viewed as a domain wall or ‘brane’ living on the boundary of a higher–dimensional black hole has recently been extensively discussed . In extensions to the second Randall–Sundrum model , for example, the brane is embedded in a five–dimensional Schwarzschild–Anti de Sitter (SAdS) bulk and the mass of the black hole induces a ‘dark radiation’ term into the effective Friedmann equation on the brane . This term alters the asymptotic behaviour of the cosmic dynamics at high energies . Thus far, attention has focused primarily on the case where the higher–dimensional bulk is represented by an AdS black hole (or more simply pure AdS space). However, the recently proposed dS/CFT correspondence provides motivation for considering the scenario where the bulk is (asymptotically) a de Sitter black hole .

In an attempt to place the braneworld scenario in a more string theoretic setting, a number of authors have considered the effects of introducing higher–derivative terms in the curvature . Within the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence, higher curvature terms in the bulk theory can arise as next–to–leading order corrections in the $`1/N`$ expansion of the conformal field theory (CFT) in the limit of strong coupling . The Gauss Bonnet (GB) combination of curvature invariants is of particular interest to the braneworld cosmological scenario . This combination appears naturally in the next–to–leading order term of the heterotic string effective action . Although it contains higher–derivative gravitational terms in the metric, it is the unique combination in five dimensions that results in second–order field equations, albeit of a much more complicated form than that of standard Einstein gravity . Furthermore, from the point of view of the Randall–Sundrum scenario , this property is crucial in ensuring a localization of gravity on the brane . The singular source associated with the brane manifests itself as a $`\delta `$–function in the energy–momentum tensor and this must be cancelled, at the level of the field equations, by second derivatives in the metric.

In view of the above developments, therefore, the study of black holes and braneworlds in the GB theory is well motivated, both from the field theoretic and cosmological points of view. Recently, Cai found a class of topological black holes in $`D`$–dimensional Einstein–GB theory with a cosmological constant , generalizing an earlier solution due to Boulware and Deser . These solutions were further generalized to a class of charged SAdS and Schwarzschild–de Sitter (SdS) black holes in the Einstein–GB–Maxwell theory, where a non–trivial electromagnetic field is present . In this paper, we investigate the dynamics of four–dimensional vacuum branes embedded in this class of five–dimensional (Anti)–de Sitter black holes.

The structure of the paper is as follows. We present the bulk black hole solutions and the general form of the braneworld Friedmann equation in Section 2. We proceed in Section 3 to derive the effective Friedmann equation on the brane for the case where the higher–dimensional spacetime is asymptotically AdS. We determine the asymptotic behaviour of the brane cosmologies in Section 4 for this case. In Section 5, we consider the corresponding scenario where the bulk space is asymptotically de Sitter. Section 6 contains a discussion on the (generalized) Cardy–Verlinde formulae  in both Einstein and higher–derivative theories of gravity with a cosmological constant. We conclude with a discussion in Section 7.

## 2 Bulk Black Hole Geometry and Brane Dynamics

The $`(d+1)`$–dimensional Einstein–GB–Maxwell bulk action has a matter sector consisting of a one–form gauge potential, $`A_\mu `$, with an antisymmetric electromagnetic field strength, $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, and a higher–order GB term in the gravitational sector of the theory. The action is given by111In this paper, upper case Latin indices run from $`(A,B)=(1,2,3)`$ over the spatial sections of the world–volume of the brane, lower case Latin indices span the world–volume, $`(i,j)=(0,1,2,3)`$, lower case Greek indices span the bulk coordinates, $`y`$ is the component associated with the fifth dimension and a comma denotes partial differentiation.

$`S={\displaystyle }d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}R\mathrm{\Lambda }+c(R^24R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+R_{\mu \nu \xi \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \xi \sigma })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }\},`$ (2.1)
where $`c`$ is an arbitrary coupling constant, $`\kappa ^2`$ parametrizes the $`(d+1)`$–dimensional Planck mass, the Riemann tensor, $`R_{\mu \nu \xi \sigma }`$, and its contractions are constructed from the metric, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and its derivatives, $`g\mathrm{det}g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ represents the bulk cosmological constant.

By extremising the variations of the action (2) with respect to the metric tensor and gauge field, respectively, we obtain the field equations

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\mu \nu }\left\{c\left(R^24R_{\rho \sigma }R^{\rho \sigma }+R_{\rho \lambda \xi \sigma }R^{\rho \lambda \xi \sigma }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}R\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\}`$ (2.3)
$`+c\left(2RR^{\mu \nu }+4R_\rho ^\mu R^{\nu \rho }+4R^{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }R_{\rho \sigma }2R^{\mu \rho \sigma \tau }R_{\rho \sigma \tau }^\nu \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}R^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(F^{\mu \sigma }F_{}^{\nu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\sigma \rho }F^{\sigma \rho }g^{\mu \nu }\right)`$
$`_\nu \left(\sqrt{g}F^{\mu \nu }\right)=0.`$
We consider the case where the bulk spacetime corresponds to a static, hyper–spherically symmetric geometry with a line element given by

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\nu (r)}dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda (r)}dr^2+r^2\underset{A,B=1}{\overset{d1}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}dx^Adx^B,$$
(2.4)
where $`\{\nu (r),\lambda (r)\}`$ are functions of the radial coordinate, $`r`$, and the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$ is the metric of the $`(d1)`$–dimensional Einstein manifold with a Ricci tensor defined by $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}=kg_{ij}`$. The constant $`k`$ has values $`k=\{d2,0,(d2)\}`$ for a $`(d1)`$-dimensional unit sphere, a flat Euclidean space and a $`(d1)`$-dimensional unit hyperboloid, respectively.

Restricting to the five–dimensional case $`(d=4)`$, Eqs. (2.3) and (2.3) admit the charged black hole solution :

$`\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }`$ (2.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}\{ck+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2\kappa ^2}}`$
$`\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{4\kappa ^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4c\kappa ^2}{l^2}}1\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2c\mu }{\kappa ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4c\kappa ^2}{l^2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{2cQ^2}{3r^2}}}\},`$
$`F_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r^3}},`$ (2.6)
where the constants $`\{Q,\mu \}`$ are related to the charge and gravitational mass of the black hole, respectively, and

$$\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{1}{4c\kappa ^2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{2c\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^4}{3}}\right).$$
(2.7)
The constant, $`l^2`$, is determined by the Gauss–Bonnet coupling parameter, $`c`$, and the bulk cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It corresponds to the length parameter of the asymptotically AdS space when $`r`$ is large. If $`c\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, $`l^2`$ can be formally negative and the spacetime then becomes asymptotically de Sitter. (In this case, it represents a charged de Sitter space or the charged Nariai (SdS) black hole. See Ref.  for details). In principle, the above solution (2.5)–(2.6) for positive $`l^2`$ generalizes the well-known Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS black hole solution to Einstein–GB–Maxwell gravity. Moreover, it may also correspond to pure, charged AdS space and it has been observed that Hawking–Page phase transitions  between the SAdS black hole and pure AdS space can be realized . We refer to the two solutions in Eq. (2.5) as the ‘positive–’ and ‘negative–branch’ solutions, respectively. They reduce to the class considered recently by Cai in the charge neutral limit $`(Q=0)`$ .

We now proceed to consider the motion of a domain wall (three-brane) along a timelike geodesic of the five–dimensional, static background defined by Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5). The equation of motion of the brane is interpreted by an observer confined to the brane as an effective Friedmann equation describing the expansion or contraction of the universe. ¿From this Friedmann equation, we can deduce the energy and entropy of the matter in the brane universe. Specifically, we consider a brane action of the form:

$$S_{\mathrm{br}}=\eta d^4x\sqrt{h},$$
(2.8)
where $`\eta `$ is a positive constant representing the tension associated with the brane and $`h`$ is the determinant of the boundary metric, $`h_{ij}`$, induced by the bulk metric, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$.

We employ the method developed in Ref.  to derive the Friedmann equation. The metric (2.4) is rewritten by introducing new coordinates $`(y,\tau )`$ and a scalar function $`A=A(y,\tau )`$ that satisfies the set of constraint equations:

$`l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A+2\lambda }A_{,y}^2\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }t_{,y}^2=1,`$
$`l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A+2\lambda }A_{,y}A_{,\tau }\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }t_{,y}t_{,\tau }=0,`$
$`l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A+2\lambda }A_{,\tau }^2\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }t_{,\tau }^2=l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A},`$ (2.9)
where a comma denotes partial differentiation. When $`\lambda =\nu `$, as in Eq. (2.5), the metric (2.4) may then be written in the form

$$ds^2=dy^2+\mathrm{e}^{2A(y,\tau )}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(2.10)
where $`r=l\mathrm{exp}(A)`$. The non–trivial Riemann components and its contractions for this metric are shown in the appendix. Since we are interested in the cosmological implications, we assume that the metric, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$, respects the same symmetries as the metric of the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) models, i.e., we assume that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}dx^idx^jl^2\left(d\tau ^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,3}^2\right),$$
(2.11)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,3}^2`$ is the metric of unit three–sphere for $`k>0`$, three–dimensional Euclidean space for $`k=0`$ and the unit three–hyperboloid for $`k<0`$. Thus, choosing a timelike coordinate, $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, such that $`d\stackrel{~}{t}l\mathrm{e}^Ad\tau `$, implies that the induced metric on the brane takes the FRW form:

$$ds_{\mathrm{brane}}^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,3}^2.$$
(2.12)
It follows by solving Eqs. (2) that

$$H^2=A_{,y}^2\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }\mathrm{e}^{2A}}{l^2},$$
(2.13)
where the Hubble parameter on the brane is defined by $`HdA/d\stackrel{~}{t}`$. Thus, for a vacuum brane that has no matter confined to it, the cosmic expansion (contraction) is determined once the functional forms of $`\{A,\lambda \}`$ have been determined.

## 3 Brane Dynamics in Asymptotically AdS Space

In this Section we consider the brane equation of motion in an asymptotically AdS space, corresponding to $`l^2>0`$. We defer the case $`l^2<0`$ to Section 5.

The functional form of $`A_{,y}`$ is deduced by deriving the surface counterterms in the Gauss–Bonnet theory (2) that generalize the Gibbons–Hawking term in Einstein gravity . This has been done previously in Ref.  and we briefly summarize the approach here. The reader is referred to  for details. Auxiliary fields, $`F`$, $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ are introduced and the Gauss–Bonnet sector of the action (2) is rewritten in terms of these variables by employing the field equations. Imposing a Dirichlet type of boundary condition allows appropriate boundary conditions to be imposed on the scalar quantities. This in turn implies that the action can be expressed in terms of a bulk part and a surface term. The variational principle then becomes well defined if an appropriate boundary term is introduced. An important point is that the complete boundary action does not acquire terms from the form field, since the bulk action for the form field does not contain second– or higher–order derivatives. Thus, we may extract the relevant equations from , specialized to the Gauss–Bonnet interaction. In particular, the counterterm is identical to Eq. (130) of :

$`S_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{h}[4c_\mu n^\mu F8c(n_\mu n_\nu _\sigma n^\sigma +_\mu n_\nu )B^{\mu \nu }`$ (3.2)
$`+8cn_\mu n_\nu _\tau n_\sigma C^{\mu \tau \nu \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa ^2}}_\mu n^\mu \eta ],`$
where $`n^\mu `$ is the unit vector perpendicular to the boundary and we have also included the Gibbons–Hawking term and the counterterm (2.8) arising from the vacuum energy on the brane. Extremizing the variation over $`F`$ of the full action222A factor of two arises because two bulk spacetimes with a common boundary are being considered. In , two copies of the AdS spaces are glued by a brane by imposing the $`Z_2`$-symmetry. In deriving the corresponding Friedmann equation in , essentially only one side was considered. In the situation that we are considering above, there are two copies of the AdS space as in , and we therefore need twice the surface counterterms. $`(S+2S_b)|_{y=y_0}`$ then implies that

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`16cR_{,y}8c\left(4R_{yy,y}+R_{i,y}^i\right)+8cC_{yiy,y}^i`$ (3.3)
$`+\left(48cF192cB_{yy}+c\left(56R_{yy}8R_i^i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{\kappa ^2}}\right)A_{,y}+4\eta .`$
It is important to emphasize that the boundary terms are derived from the internal consistency of the theory and are not simply introduced in an ad hoc fashion.

When the metric has the form (2.4) with $`\lambda =\nu `$, the Ricci scalar and non–trivial components of the Ricci tensor are given by

$`R=\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }\right)^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{6}{r}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{r^2}}\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{3k}{r^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{ϵl^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2cr^6}}\{2\stackrel{~}{Q}^4+18ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)\stackrel{~}{Q}^2r^2+6\left(2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)\right)^2r^4`$ (3.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{31\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}\stackrel{~}{Q}^2r^6{\displaystyle \frac{15\left(4ϵ1\right)^3ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\kappa ^4}}r^8+20\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}\right)^2r^{12}\}`$
$`\times \left\{\left(2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }\left(4ϵ1\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^4\right\}^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
and

$`R_{yy}=\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }R_{rr}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }\right)^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }\right)^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵl^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2cr^6}}\{\stackrel{~}{Q}^4{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{\kappa ^4}}\stackrel{~}{Q}^2r^6{\displaystyle \frac{6\left(4ϵ1\right)^3ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\kappa ^4}}r^8`$ (3.5)
$`+8\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}\right)^2r^{12}\}\times \{2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^4\}^{\frac{3}{2}}.`$
respectively, where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$, we have defined the rescaled parameters

$$ϵ\frac{c\kappa ^2}{l^2},\stackrel{~}{\mu }\frac{l^2\mu }{\kappa ^4},\stackrel{~}{Q}^2\frac{2c}{3}Q^2$$
(3.6)
to simplify the notation and the coordinates $`y`$ and $`r`$ are related to each other by $`dy=\mathrm{e}^\nu dr`$. Substituting Eqs. (3) and (3) into Eq. (3.3) then yields a relationship between $`A_{,y}`$ and the parameters of the bulk solution:

$`0=4\eta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{12}{r^7}}\{3\stackrel{~}{Q}^4+16ϵ^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2(4ϵ1)^2r^4+6\stackrel{~}{Q}^2r^2\left(2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }\right(4ϵ1)`$ (3.7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^4)\}\times \{2c\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^4\}^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵl^2}}\right)r^2\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}\left\{2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^4\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`+[24c\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵl^2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2cr^6}}\{6\stackrel{~}{Q}^4+3\stackrel{~}{Q}^2(10ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)r^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^6)`$
$`+2r^4(5\left(2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)\right)^2+6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}\right)^2r^8{\displaystyle \frac{9\left(4ϵ1\right)^3ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{2\kappa ^4}}r^4)\}`$
$`\times \{2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}r^4\}^{\frac{3}{2}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{\kappa ^2}}]A_{,y}.`$
It now only remains to identify the scale factor of the metric on the brane, $`a(\stackrel{~}{t})l\mathrm{e}^A`$, with the radial coordinate, $`r`$, of the brane in the bulk metric (2.4):

$$a=r(\stackrel{~}{t})=l\mathrm{e}^{A(\stackrel{~}{t})}.$$
(3.8)
By combining Eqs. (2.13), (3.7) and (3.8), we arrive at the Friedmann equation describing the motion of the 3-brane in the bulk spacetime. We find it convenient to express this equation in the compact form

$$H^2=\frac{𝒢^2}{^2}\frac{X(a)}{a^2},$$
(3.9)
where

$`𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`4\eta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{12X^{1/2}}{Y^{3/2}a^7}}\{3\stackrel{~}{Q}^4+16ϵ^2\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2(4ϵ1)^2a^4`$ (3.10)
$`+6\stackrel{~}{Q}^2a^2(2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}a^4)\}`$
and

$`={\displaystyle \frac{48}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{Y^{3/2}a^6}}\{6\stackrel{~}{Q}^4+3\stackrel{~}{Q}^2(10ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)a^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}a^6)`$
(3.11)
$`+2a^4(5\left(2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1)\right)^2+6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(4ϵ1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}\right)^2a^8`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{9\left(4ϵ1\right)^3ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{2\kappa ^4}}a^4)\}`$ (3.12)
and we have identified the two important functions of the scale factor:

$`X{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4ϵl^2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{Y^{1/2}}{2c}}`$ (3.13)
$`Y2ϵ\stackrel{~}{\mu }(4ϵ1){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(4ϵ1)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}a^4.`$ (3.14)
In the following Section, we proceed to analyze the qualitative early– and late–time behaviour of the cosmic dynamics on the brane.

## 4 Qualitative Dynamics of the Brane Cosmology

The simplest case to consider arises when the black hole has vanishing mass and charge. In this case, the Friedmann equation (3.9) simplifies to

$$H^2=\frac{\eta ^2\kappa ^4}{36}\left[2\pm 3|4ϵ1|\right]^2\frac{k}{2a^2}\frac{1}{4ϵl^2}\left(1\pm |4ϵ1|\right).$$
(4.1)
We should note that the $`\pm `$ signs in (4.1) correspond to the two solutions in (2.7). Formally, this is equivalent to the standard Friedmann equation, containing a cosmological constant term and a curvature term. The three parameters, $`\{\eta ,c,l^2\}`$, in Eq. (4.1) are related by requiring that the leading–order divergence in the bulk AdS action is cancelled when the brane moves to infinity in the asymptotic AdS space. The divergence is cancelled if the brane tension satisfies

$$\frac{\eta }{l}=\frac{72c}{l^4}\frac{6}{\kappa ^2l^2}.$$
(4.2)
When no higher–order curvature invariants are included in the action (2), Eq. (4.2) reduces to the fine–tuning condition imposed by Randall and Sundrum for the vacuum brane to respect four–dimensional Poincare invariance . Once the brane tension has been specified by Eq. (4.2), there are no a priori restrictions on the remaining two parameters, and in principle, an appropriate choice can then be made to yield an effective positive cosmological constant on the brane. Consequently, the brane can undergoe a de Sitter phase of expansion (inflation).

An interesting special case arises for $`l^2=4c\kappa ^2`$ $`(ϵ=1/4)`$, where the two branches of the bulk solution (2.5) coincide. Eq. (4.2) then implies that $`\eta l\kappa ^2=12`$ and when this expression is substituted into Eq. (4.1), the effective cosmological constant vanishes. In this model, therefore, the vanishing of the cosmological constant is associated with the cancellation of the leading–order divergence of the action. In the limit of small Gauss–Bonnet coupling, $`ϵ1`$, the brane tension also cancels the contributions from the five–dimensional cosmological constant when the negative–branch solution is considered and Eq. (4.2) is satisfied. Unless otherwise stated, we consider this branch in what follows333The bulk solution for the positive–branch has been shown to be unstable ..

It is of interest to determine how the expansion of the braneworld is affected by the charge and mass associated with the bulk black hole. The advantage of the parametrization (3.10)–(3.14) is that it separates the Friedmann equation (3.9) into two sectors that both admit a physical interpretation. The first term is determined by the ratio, $`𝒢^2/^2`$, and the numerator, Eq. (3.10), contains the brane tension, $`\eta `$, and some further terms that depend on the parameters of the bulk black hole. In the limit of small Guass–Bonnet coupling, $`ϵ1`$, and vanishing charge, we find that $`𝒢=4\eta +𝒪(ϵ^2)`$. In effect, therefore, this term parametrizes the vacuum energy of the brane. By analogy with the standard, four–dimensional Friedmann equation, the denominator, Eq. (3), then plays the role of the effective Planck mass. This parameter is time–dependent, in general, due to the non–trivial black hole mass and charge. To lowest–order in $`ϵ`$, it also reduces to a constant, $`=24(112ϵ)/\kappa ^2+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$, when the charge vanishes.

The second sector of the Friedmann equation, $`X/a^2`$, may be interpreted as a generalized curvature term. This sector depends directly on the spatial curvature of the world–volume, $`k`$, but also acquires corrections due to deviations of the bulk geometry from pure $`\mathrm{AdS}`$ space. Indeed, Eq. (3.13) reduces to a constant value in the limit where the first term on the right–hand side of this equation is dominant.

When Eq. (4.2) is satisfied and the black hole charge vanishes, the limit of the negative–branch Friedmann equation (3.9) as $`ϵ0`$ is given by

$$H^2=\frac{k}{2a^2}+\frac{\mu }{a^4}\frac{2c\kappa ^2\mu ^2}{a^8}+𝒪(c^2),$$
(4.3)
where we have returned to the original parameters (3.6). As in the massless case considered above, Eq. (4.2) ensures that the cosmological terms are cancelled. At this order, the leading terms in Eq. (4.3) correspond to those of the second Randall–Sundrum model , as expected. The term due to the Gauss–Bonnet sector has a strong dependence on the scale factor and is rapidly redshifted by the cosmic expansion. Introducing a bulk charge in this limit results in a complicated expression for the Friedmann equation, where all but one of the new terms that arise do so with a linear dependence on $`ϵ`$. The remaining term arises from the expansion of Eq. (3.13) and plays the role of a shear or anisotropic stress. It corresponds to the contribution that arises when the brane is embedded in the Reissner–Nordstrom–AdS black hole bulk space .

More generally, the functions (3.13) and (3.14) play a crucial role in determining the asymptotic behaviour of the braneworld and, in particular, they must both remain semi–positive definite if physical solutions to Eq. (3.9) are to exist. (These functions are not constrained in this way in the special case where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2=\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0`$, since Eq. (3.10) then depends only on the brane tension). We may deduce immediately, therefore, that the effective curvature term in the Friedmann equation (3.9) always acts to reduce the expansion rate of the brane if the black hole has a mass and/or a charge. An alternative interpretation is that the brane expands as if its effective curvature is positive and this is independent of its specific curvature, $`k`$. An important consequence of this property is that the brane may recollapse before the effective cosmological constant on the brane is able to dominate the dynamics444We are assuming implicitly in this discussion that the effective cosmological constant on the brane is positive.. This is true for all spatially open, flat and closed branes and therefore differs from the second Randall–Sundrum scenario based on the SAdS bulk space, where recollapse is only possible in the positively curved model .

In determining the asymptotic behaviour, we first consider the large world–volume limit, $`a\mathrm{}`$. It is straightforward to verify that both the mass and charge become negligible in Eqs. (3.13) and (3.14) as the scale factor diverges. However, to ensure that the function (3.13) remains positive in this limit, we require that $`1\pm |4ϵ1|>0`$ when $`ϵ>0`$ and $`1\pm |4ϵ1|<0`$ when $`ϵ<0`$. There is no corresponding limit on the value of the black hole mass. Moreover, the leading–order term in Eq. (3.10) redshifts as the eighth (sixth) power of the scale factor when the charge is trivial (non–trivial). Thus, this function tends to a constant, $`𝒢4\eta `$, as in the massless, neutral solution. Similarly, the dominant term in Eq. (3) is the term corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\stackrel{~}{Q}=0`$. The asymptotic behaviour in the region of parameter space where the scale factor can become arbitrarily large is therefore given by Eq. (4.1). This behaviour can be understood from a physical point of view, since an increase in the spatial volume of the brane corresponds to the brane being located at greater distances from the event horizon of the black hole.

An ambiguity arises, however, when considering the opposite limit, where the scale factor becomes small. Let us first consider the case where the black hole is massive but has vanishing charge. The range of the Gauss–Bonnet parameter, $`ϵ`$, is important in this case. In the region of parameter space $`0<ϵ<1/4`$, Eq. (3.14) is positive–definite for all allowed values of the scale factor. Further motivation for considering this range of values for $`ϵ`$ arises from the asymptotic form of the bulk solution (2.5) as $`r`$ diverges. In this limit, the metric reduces to the standard Reissner–Nordstrom–AdS black hole with a real charge . On the other hand, Eq. (3.13) implies that for the non–positively curved brane, $`k0`$, it is necessary to take the positive–branch if $`a`$ is to become arbitrarily small. In the negatively curved model, the further constraint, $`|ϵ(4ϵ1)|>2c^2/\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, must also be satisfied. There is no constraint for the positively curved brane on the positive branch solution, but the corresponding limit $`|Y|^{1/2}<2c`$ must be satisfied for the negative–branch.

Nevertheless, even when the above necessary conditions are satisfied, we find that the ratio

$$\frac{𝒢^2}{^2}\frac{4X}{25a^2}$$
(4.4)
in the limit $`a0`$. Substituting this limit into the Friedmann equation (3.9) then implies that $`H^2<0`$. Although this is indicative of unphysical behaviour, it is interesting because it implies that when $`0<ϵ<1/4`$, the scale factor of the vacuum brane is bounded from below and consequently can not approach zero in a continuous fashion. It is interesting that this conclusion holds for arbitrary values of the black hole mass.

In the remaining region of parameter space, $`ϵ(4ϵ1)>0`$, it follows that $`Y0`$ at some finite value of the scale factor as the spatial volume decreases, assuming implicitly that the black hole mass parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }>0`$. Although the Hubble parameter remains finite as $`Y0`$, the Ricci curvature of the world–volume diverges and this corresponds to a singular initial state of finite volume. It is difficult to motivate such behaviour from a physical point of view.

To summarize, thus far, there is a lower limit to the spatial volume associated with physical cosmological solutions on the brane world–volume. This conclusion holds for all values of $`ϵ`$, and hence the Gauss–Bonnet coupling, $`c`$. It is also independent of the value of the bulk cosmological constant (modulo the restriction imposed in this Section that $`l^2>0`$). This implies that the vacuum brane can not expand from a big bang initial (singular) state of vanishing spatial volume.

When the black hole charge is non–trivial, the functional forms of Eqs. (3.13) and (3.14) differ in the limit of small scale factor. In particular, they are dominated by the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2/a^2`$, indicating that a necessary condition for the brane to expand from an arbitrarily small volume is that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2<0`$. Since the charge of the black hole should be real, this implies that $`ϵ<0`$ ($`c<0`$). In this case, it is possible to find appropriate values of the charge to ensure that $`Y`$ is positive–definite. On the other hand, since Eq. (3.13) becomes dominated by the third term on the right hand side, we must choose the positive branch in this limit. However, in this region of parameter space, we deduce that

$$\frac{𝒢^2}{^2}\frac{X}{4a^2}$$
(4.5)
and it follows, after substitution into Eq. (3.9), that the scalar factor of the world–volume is once more bounded from below, as in the charge neutral case.

We conclude, therefore, that the charge and mass of the bulk black hole have significant effects on the asymptotic behaviour of the brane cosmology at small spatial volumes, but become negligible in the region of parameter space where expansion is unbounded from above.

Before concluding this Section, we consider a second special case where the restriction on the positivity of Eq. (3.13) need not be imposed. This arises when the tension of the brane formally vanishes, $`\eta 0`$. Although the interpretation of a vacuum brane with vanishing tension is unclear (note that the effective tension does not vanish), the function $`X`$ in this case appears linearly in the Friedmann equation (3.9). Moreover, it follows from Eq. (4.2) that $`ϵ=1/12`$ when the brane tension vanishes and it is interesting that this is precisely the critical value for the thermodynamical entropy associated with the bulk black hole spacetime to also vanish . This value of $`ϵ`$ ensures that Eq. (3.14) is always positive when the black hole is neutral and we may therefore consider the small volume behaviour of the brane555We do not consider the charged case, since this requires $`ϵ<0`$ for consistency.. The limit of the Friedmann equation (3.9) is then deduced from Eq. (4.4):

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X}{a^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{21}{25}}{\displaystyle \frac{4a^2}{25\kappa ^2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}}\right)`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{21}{25a^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}{6c}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{63}{25l^2}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}{6c}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{25\kappa ^2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}}+𝒪\left(a^2\right).`$
Eq. (4.7) implies that the brane behaves as if it were dominated by its spatial curvature, in the sense that $`Ha^1`$. (There is a subdominant negative cosmological constant). The specific curvature of the spatial hypersurfaces of the induced metric of the brane is uniquely specified by the sign of $`k`$. However, the brane acts as if it had arbitrary curvature, because the sign of the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (4.7) is not specified a priori. It is determined by the mass of the black hole and the Gauss–Bonnet coupling.

This concludes the discussion on brane dynamics in asymptotically AdS bulk spaces. In the next Section, we determine the form of the Friedmann equation when the bulk space is asymptotically de Sitter.

## 5 Brane Dynamics in Asymptotically dS Space

In the case where $`l^2`$, as defined in Eq. (2.7), is formally negative, the higher–dimensional bulk spacetime is asymptotically de Sitter space. In order to analyse this region of parameter space, it proves convenient to define

$$\overline{l}^2l^2>0.$$
(5.1)
If we then consider a metric of the form (2.10), where

$$\overline{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j\overline{l}^2\left(d\tau ^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,3}^2\right),$$
(5.2)
is introduced instead of Eq. (2.11), we find that the effective Hubble parameter on the brane is given by

$$H^2=A_{,y}^2\frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }\mathrm{e}^{2A}}{\overline{l}^2}.$$
(5.3)
We may now follow the same argument as that presented in Section 3 to deduce the form of $`A_{,y}`$. Omitting the details, we find after defining the parameters:

$$\overline{ϵ}\frac{c\kappa ^2}{\overline{l}^2},\overline{\mu }\frac{\mu \overline{l}^2}{\kappa ^4},\overline{Q}^2=\frac{2c}{3}Q^2$$
(5.4)
that the Friedmann equation has the form

$$H^2=\frac{\overline{𝒢}^2}{\overline{}^2}\frac{\overline{X}}{a^2},$$
(5.5)
where

$`\overline{𝒢}`$ $`=`$ $`4\eta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{12\overline{X}^{1/2}}{\overline{Y}^{3/2}a^7}}\{3\overline{Q}^4+16\overline{ϵ}^2\overline{\mu }^2(4\overline{ϵ}+1)^2a^4`$ (5.6)
$`+6\overline{Q}^2a^2(2\overline{ϵ}\overline{\mu }(4\overline{ϵ}+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(4\overline{ϵ}+1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}a^4)\}`$
$`\overline{}{\displaystyle \frac{48}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{\overline{Y}^{3/2}a^6}}\{6\overline{Q}^4+3\overline{Q}^2(10\overline{ϵ}\overline{\mu }(4\overline{ϵ}+1)a^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(4\overline{ϵ}+1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}a^6)`$
$`+2a^4(5(2\overline{ϵ}\overline{\mu }(4\overline{ϵ}+1))^2+6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(4\overline{ϵ}+1\right)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}\right)^2a^8`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9\left(4\overline{ϵ}+1\right)^3\overline{ϵ}\overline{\mu }}{2\kappa ^2}}a^4)\}`$ (5.7)
and

$`\overline{X}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4\overline{ϵ}\overline{l}^2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Y}^{1/2}}{2c}}`$ (5.8)
$`\overline{Y}2\overline{ϵ}\overline{\mu }(4\overline{ϵ}+1){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Q}^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(4\overline{ϵ}+1)^2}{4\kappa ^4}}a^4.`$ (5.9)
The dependence on the scale factor, $`a`$, of the Friedmann equation (5.5) is identical to that given in Eq. (3.9). Thus, in general, Eqs. (5.8) and (5.9) must remain positive definite and the asymptotic limit of the brane in the large volume limit is qualitatively similar to the corresponding model where the bulk space is asymptotically AdS ($`l^2>0`$). The region of parameter space where such a limit is consistent is given by $`1\pm |4\overline{ϵ}+1|>0`$ if $`\overline{ϵ}>0`$ and $`1\pm |4\overline{ϵ}+1|<0`$ if $`\overline{ϵ}<0`$. Finally, similar conclusions to those of previous Section are drawn regarding the restrictions on the small volume limit.

The physical interpretation of the functions (5.6), (5) and (5.8) may also be made along similar lines to that discussed in Section 4. In the next Section, we consider the physical interpretation of the Friedmann equation (3.9) in more detail and investigate whether an analogy can be made between this equation and a generalized Cardy–Verlinde formula .

## 6 Cosmological Entropy and Generalized Cardy-Verlinde Formula

As we have seen in the previous Sections, the GB term in action (2) results in a complicated form for the Friedmann equation (3.9). Recently, Verlinde  drew an interesting analogy between the FRW equations of a standard, closed, radiation–dominated universe and the two-dimensional entropy formula due to Cardy . In this Section, we will extend this analogy to the FRW equations under consideration.

Let us first investigate this analogy in Einstein gravity for the usual $`(n+1)`$-dimensional FRW Universe with a metric

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+a^2(\tau )g_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(6.1)
where the $`n`$-dimensional spatial hypersurfaces with negative, zero or positive curvature are parametrized by $`k=1`$, $`0`$, $`1`$, respectively666 In our discussion of cosmology based on Einstein gravity, we parametrize the curvature of the spatial hypersurfaces in terms of $`k=1`$, $`0`$, $`1`$ since direct comparison with the standard cosmological equations is then straightforward.. We limit our discussion mainly to that of the closed universe ($`k=1`$), with a spatial volume defined by $`V=a^nd^nx\sqrt{g}`$. The standard FRW equations may then be written as

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{n(n1)}}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}},`$
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{(n1)}}\left(\rho +p\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}},`$ (6.2)
where $`\rho =\rho _m+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$, $`p=p_m\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cosmological constant and $`\rho _m`$ and $`p_m`$ are the energy density and pressure of the matter contributions. The energy conservation equation is

$$\dot{\rho }+n(\rho +p)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=0$$
(6.3)
and, for a perfect fluid matter source with equation of state $`p_m=\omega \rho _m`$ $`(\omega =\mathrm{constant})`$, Eq. (6.3) is solved as:

$$\rho =\rho _0a^{n(1+\omega )}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}.$$
(6.4)
The definitions for the Hubble, Bekenstein and Bekenstein-Hawking entropies are :

$$S_H=(n1)\frac{HV}{4G},S_{BH}=(n1)\frac{V}{4Ga},S_B=\frac{2\pi a}{n}E,$$
(6.5)
where the total energy, $`E`$, is defined as $`E=\rho V`$ and contains the contribution from the cosmological constant term. This differs from that of the standard case, where the definitions of the entropies $`S_{BH}`$ and $`S_B`$ may differ slightly in their coefficients. This is specific to the presence of a cosmological constant .

By employing the above definitions (6.5), one can easily rewrite the FRW equations (6) as a cosmological Cardy-Verlinde (CV) formula:

$`S_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n}}a\sqrt{E_{BH}\left(2EkE_{BH}\right)},`$
$`kE_{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`n\left(E+pVT_HS_H\right),`$ (6.6)
where the energy and Hawking temperature of the black hole are defined as

$$E_{BH}=n(n1)\frac{V}{8\pi Ga^2},T_H=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}.$$
(6.7)
and we have separated the energy into a matter part and a cosmological constant part, i.e., $`E=E_m+E_{\mathrm{cosm}}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{cosm}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}V`$. This is simply a way to rewrite the FRW equations in a form that resembles the equation defining the entropy of a two–dimensional CFT. However, the following remark is in order: the presence of cosmological constant may change some of the coefficients in Eq. (6) and this depends on precisely how the separation between the strongly and weakly interacting gravitational phases is made (compare with ). In any case, the energy associated with the cosmological constant term is hidden in the expression for $`E`$, Eq. (6).

Eq. (6.5) may also be rewritten in another form:

$$S_H^2=S_{BH}\left(2S_BkS_{BH}\right).$$
(6.8)
Since the definition of $`S_B`$ normally contains only matter contributions, it is reasonable to define $`S_BS_B^m+S_B^{\mathrm{cosm}}`$, where the entropy associated with the cosmological constant is given by

$$S_B^{\mathrm{cosm}}=\frac{aV\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4nG}.$$
(6.9)
The appearance of such a new “cosmological constant” contribution to the entropy in the CV formula is quite remarkable.

Thus far, we have discussed the appearance of the CV formula as a way to rewrite the FRW equations. However, the CV formula appears in a second formulation when one calculates the entropy, $`S`$, of the universe. Indeed, following Ref. , one can represent the total energy $`E=\rho V`$ of the universe as the sum of the extensive energy, $`E_E`$, and the subextensive (Casimir) energy $`E_C`$:

$$E(S,V)=E_E(S,V)+\frac{1}{2}E_C(S,V).$$
(6.10)
Note that unlike the case considered by Verlinde , the cosmological constant contribution appears in $`E_E`$. Nevertheless, the constant rescaling of the energy is given by

$`E_E(\lambda S,\lambda V)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda E_E(S,V),`$
$`E_C(\lambda S,\lambda V)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{1\frac{2}{n}}E_C(S,V).`$ (6.11)
Now, if we assume that the first law of thermodynamics is valid and that the expansion is adiabatic, we deduce that

$$dS=0,s=\frac{a^n}{T}\left(\rho +p\right)+s_0,$$
(6.12)
where the entropy $`Ssd^nx\sqrt{g}`$, $`s_0`$ is an integration constant and $`T`$ is the temperature of the universe. It then follows that the Casimir energy is given by

$$E_C=n\left(E+pVTS\right)=nTs_0d^nx\sqrt{g}$$
(6.13)
and, consequently, that $`E_Ca^{n\omega }`$ and $`E_EE_{\mathrm{cosm}}a^{n\omega }`$. This further implies that the products $`E_Ca^{n\omega }`$ and $`\left(E_EE_{\mathrm{cosm}}\right)a^{n\omega }`$ are independent of the spatial volume of the universe, $`V`$. By employing the scaling relations (6) one then concludes that :

$$E_EE_{\mathrm{cosm}}=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi a^{n\omega }}S^{\omega +1},E_C=\frac{\beta }{2\pi a^{n\omega }}S^{\omega +1\frac{2}{n}},$$
(6.14)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are arbitrary constants. Hence, the entropy is given by

$$S=\left[\frac{2\pi a^{n\omega }}{\sqrt{\alpha \beta }}\sqrt{E_C\left(E_EE_{\mathrm{cosm}}\right)}\right]^{\frac{n}{(\omega +1)n1}}.$$
(6.15)
Eq. (6.15) represents the generalization of the Cardy-Verlinde formula found by Youm  in the absence of a contribution from the cosmological constant. The negative term associated with such a cosmological entropy is quite remarkable. In the case of a radiation-dominated universe, Eq. (6.15) reduces to the standard CV formula with the familiar square root term.

We may now proceed to consider whether a similar formulation of the Friedmann equation (3.9) is possible for the Einstein–GB–Maxwell braneworld model. We may rewrite Eq. (3.9) in the form:

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _4^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{E}}{V}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6V_3a^3}{\kappa _4^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢^2}{^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2ϵl^2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{Y^{1/2}}{c}}\right\}\right],`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`a^3V_3,`$ (6.16)
where $`V_3`$ is the volume of the three–dimensional sphere with unit radius and $`\kappa _4`$ is the four–dimensional gravitational coupling.

In , it was shown that the standard FRW equation in $`d`$ dimensions can be regarded as a $`d`$–dimensional analogue of the Cardy formula for a two–dimensional CFT :

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(L_0\frac{k}{d2}\frac{c}{24}\right)},$$
(6.17)
where $`c`$ is the analogue of the two-dimensional central charge and $`L_0`$ is the analogue of the two-dimensional Hamiltonian. In the present case, making the identifications

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{E}r}{d1}}`$ $``$ $`2\pi L_0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)V}{\kappa _d^2r}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi (d2)HV}{\kappa _d^2}}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮},`$ (6.18)
implies that the FRW-like equation (6) has the same form as Eq. (6.17). This is the first analogy that has been made with the CV formula, when one rewrites the FRW equation in a form similar to that of the Cardy formula.

It is also interesting to develop a relationship with thermodynamics. In , it was shown that the thermodynamical energy, $`E`$, and entropy, $`𝒮`$, of the bulk spacetime are given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2}{16\kappa ^2}}V_3\left(112ϵ\right)\left(k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16\kappa ^4\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{l^4}}\right),`$ (6.19)
$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3}{\kappa ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{112ϵ}{14ϵ}}\right)\left(4\pi r_H^3+24ϵk\pi r_H\right)+𝒮_0,`$ (6.20)
where $`r_H`$ is the black hole radius, defined by the condition that $`\mathrm{e}^{2\nu }`$ in Eq. (2.5) vanishes at $`r=r_H`$. This constraint reduces to

$$0=r_H^6\frac{kl^2r_H^4}{2\left(2ϵ1\right)}\frac{\kappa ^4\stackrel{~}{\mu }\left(4ϵ1\right)r_H^2}{2ϵ1}\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2\kappa ^4}{2\left(2ϵ1\right)}$$
(6.21)
and solving Eq. (6.21) with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, we find that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^4}\left(kϵ\frac{1}{2}\right)^1\left\{(2ϵ1)r_H^4kr_H^2l^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2\kappa ^2l^2}{2cr_H^2}\right\}.$$
(6.22)
It is unclear from the above relations how to relate the Friedmann equation to the thermodynamics of the bulk black hole through a CV formula. In order to understand this issue more fully, therefore, we now consider a simpler five-dimensional theory that has a dual quantum field theory (QFT) analogue. Specifically, instead of the Gauss-Bonnet theory, we can begin with the following five-dimensional, higher–order gravity theory:

$$S=d^{d+1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\left\{\widehat{a}\widehat{R}^2+\widehat{b}\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\widehat{R}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\},$$
(6.23)
where $`\{\widehat{a},\widehat{b}\}`$ are coupling constants. In this case, the Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter (SAdS) space is an exact solution :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _0}dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _0}dr^2+r^2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{d1}{}}}g_{ij}dx^idx^j,`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{d2}}}\left(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{kr^{d2}}{d2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^d}{l^2}}\right),`$ (6.24)
where $`\mu `$ parametrizes the mass of the black hole and the scale parameter, $`l`$, is determined by solving the constraint equation:

$$0=\frac{80\widehat{a}}{l^4}+\frac{16\widehat{b}}{l^4}\frac{12}{\kappa ^2l^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(6.25)
and the horizon radius, $`r_h`$, is deduced by solving the equation $`e^{2\rho _0(r_H)}=0`$ in (6), i.e.,

$`r_H^2={\displaystyle \frac{kl^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}l^4+4\mu l^2}.`$ (6.26)
The Hawking temperature, $`T_H`$, is then given by

$`T_H={\displaystyle \frac{(e^{2\rho })^{}|_{r=r_H}}{4\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{4\pi r_H}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{\pi l^2}},`$ (6.27)
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$. One can also rewrite the mass parameter, $`\mu `$, using $`r_H`$ or $`T_H`$ from Eq. (6.26) as follows:

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^4}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{kr_H^2}{2}}=r_H^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_H^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\right)`$ (6.28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\pi l^2T_H\pm \sqrt{(\pi l^2T_H)^2kl^2}\right)^2`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4l^2}}\left(\pi l^2T_H\pm \sqrt{(\pi l^2T_H)^2kl^2}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\right).`$
The entropy $`𝒮`$ and the thermodynamical energy $`E`$ of the black hole are given by

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3\pi r_H^3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{320\widehat{a}}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{64\widehat{b}}{l^2}}\right)`$ (6.29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3\pi }{16}}\left(\pi l^2T_H\pm \sqrt{(\pi l^2T_H)^2kl^2}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{320\widehat{a}}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{64\widehat{b}}{l^2}}\right).`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3V_3\mu }{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{320\widehat{a}}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{64\widehat{b}}{l^2}}\right).`$ (6.30)
On the other hand, the FRW equations of the brane universe in the SAdS background are given by

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{k}{2a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _4^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{E}}{V}},\dot{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _4^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{E}}{V}}+p\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2a^2}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{6\mu V_3}{\kappa _4^2a}},p={\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{a^4\kappa _4^2}},V=a^3V_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _4^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{40\widehat{a}}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\widehat{b}}{l^2}}\right).`$ (6.31)
Since $`3p=\stackrel{~}{E}/V`$, the trace of the energy-stress tensor arising from the matter on the brane vanishes, i.e., $`T_{}^{\mathrm{matter}\mu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}=0`$. Thus, the matter on the brane can be regarded as radiation or, equivalently, as massless fields. In other words, the field theory on the brane should be a conformal theory.

We now assume that the total entropy $`𝒮`$ of the CFT on the brane is given by Eq. (6.29). If this entropy is constant during the cosmological evolution, the entropy density $`s`$ is given by

$$s=\frac{𝒮}{a^3V_3}=\frac{4\pi r_H^3}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2a^3}=\frac{8\pi r_H^3}{l\kappa _4a^3}.$$
(6.32)
If we further assume that the temperature $`T`$ on the brane differs from the Hawking temperature $`T_H`$ by the factor $`l/a`$ (for a discussion of why such a rescaling is necessary, see ), it follows that

$$T=\frac{l}{a}T_H=\frac{r_H}{\pi al}+\frac{kl}{4\pi ar_H}$$
(6.33)
and, when $`a=r_H`$, this implies that

$$T=\frac{1}{\pi l}+\frac{k}{4\pi r_H^2}.$$
(6.34)
If the energy and entropy are purely extensive, the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{E}+pVT𝒮`$ vanishes. In general, this condition does not hold and one can define the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ as in the above case for Einstein gravity:

$$E_C=3\left(\stackrel{~}{E}+pVT𝒮\right).$$
(6.35)
Then, by using Eqs. (6), (6.32), and (6.33), we find that

$$E_C=\frac{6kr_H^2V}{\kappa _4^2a^4}=\frac{6kr_H^2V_3}{\kappa _4^2a}=\frac{3lkr_H^2V_3}{\kappa _4^2a}\left(1\frac{40\widehat{a}\kappa ^2}{l^2}\frac{8\widehat{b}\kappa ^2}{l^2}\right).$$
(6.36)
Consequently, the Casimir energy vanishes for $`k=0`$. When $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ are small, $`E_C`$ is positive (negative) for $`k=2`$ ($`k=2`$). If, on the other hand, either $`\widehat{a}`$ or $`\widehat{b}`$ is large and positive, $`E_C`$ can be negative (positive) even when $`k=2`$ ($`k=2`$). Finally, by combining Eqs. (6.29), (6), and (6.36), for the case where $`k0`$, we find that

$$𝒮=\frac{4\pi a}{3\sqrt{|2k|}}\sqrt{\left|E_C\left(\stackrel{~}{E}E_C\right)\right|}.$$
(6.37)
Eq. (6.37) has precisely the same form as the corresponding equation that arises in Einstein gravity. Thus, we have demonstrated how the FRW equation, when written in the CV form, can be related to the thermodynamics of the bulk black hole. However, in the theory where the GB term is present, it is anticipated that the dual QFT (if it exists) will not be a conformal theory. In this case, an extension of AdS/CFT correspondence to include a non–CFT will be required and it is not clear how the FRW equation can be related to black hole thermodynamics in this scenario. It is possible that strong differences between the two approaches may arise.

## 7 Discussion

In this paper we have derived the brane Friedmann equation for the general, vacuum FRW brane embedded in five–dimensional Einstein–GB–Maxwell gravity, where the bulk spacetime may be interpreted as a charged black hole in an asymptotically AdS (or dS) space.

Recently, brane dynamics of the second Randall-Sundrum model  has been discussed within the framework of Einstein–GB gravity . Our approach is different to these previous works because we have considered the surface terms that must be introduced into the bulk action (2) to ensure that the variational principle is well–defined. Moreover, our boundary action is fixed by the finiteness of the bulk space, or equivalently, by cancelling the leading–order divergences in the asymptotically AdS bulk.

It is well known that in Einstein gravity, the variational principle is ill–defined when the manifold has a boundary, since the scalar curvature contains second–order derivatives of the metric, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. Consequently, when the action is varied with respect to the metric, it acquires a non–trivial term that is proportional to the derivative of $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ with respect to the coordinate that is transverse to the boundary. This term is cancelled by introducing the Gibbons–Hawking surface term  into the action. In this paper, the analogous counterterms for the GB contribution were introduced, together with the Gibbons–Hawking term and the leading counterterm arising from the brane vacuum energy. The crucial point is that once the action is varied, terms in $`\delta A_{,y}`$ no longer arise, thus ensuring that the variational principle is now well–defined . Extremizing the action then led to the functional form of $`A_{,y}`$ and, hence, the effective Friedmann equation (3.9) on the brane. We emphasize that the introduction of the boundary terms is not ad hoc and that their functional form is determined directly from the requirement that the variational principle be well defined and that the bulk space should be finite.

When the higher–order Gauss–Bonnet terms are present, the derivative terms in Eq. (3.3) are non–trivial because the bulk spacetime is no longer an Einstein space. This leads to the extra complications in the form of $`A_{,y}`$, as summarized in Eq. (3.7), once the expressions (3) and (3) for the Ricci scalar and tensor are substituted.

Consequently, the form of the Friedmann equation (3.9) is itself highly non–trivial. Nevertheless, the qualitative dynamics can be established. The condition (4.2) may be imposed on the parameters of the model by requiring the bulk action to be finite. When this condition is satisfied, the effective cosmological constant on the brane vanishes for the negative–branch cosmologies. The main conclusion is that although the charge and mass of the bulk black hole are negligible at large spatial volumes, they radically alter the dynamics as the scale factor diminishes in size. In particular, the Friedmann equation is dominated by a negative term in the limit of vanishing spatial volume, implying that such a limit is unphysical.

Finally, we discussed two approaches where a (generalized) Cardy-Verlinde formula arises in FRW cosmology. The first approach rewrites the FRW equations in a suitable form and this method may be adapted to the GB braneworld model considered in this paper. In the second approach, the entropy of the universe is calculated in terms of a dual quantum field theory. However, at present, it is not clear how this technique may be employed within the context of the GB braneworld scenario, since it is expected that the QFT that is dual to the AdS black hole should be non-conformal in the presence of a GB term.

Acknowledgments

JEL is supported by the Royal Society. The work by SN is supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan under the grant number 13135208.

## Appendix A Appendix

When the five–dimensional metric has the form given in Eqs. (2.10) and (2.11), the non–vanishing components of the curvature tensor and its contractions are:

$`R_{yiyj}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2A}\left(A_{,yy}\left(A_{,y}\right)^2\right)\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$
$`R_{yA\sigma B}`$ $`=`$ $`l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}A_{,y\sigma }g_{AB}^s`$
$`R_{\sigma A\sigma B}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}A_{,\sigma \sigma }l^2\mathrm{e}^{4A}\left(A_{,y}\right)^2\right)g_{AB}^s`$
$`R_{ABCD}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}\left(A_{,\sigma }\right)^2l^4\mathrm{e}^{4A}\left(A_{,y}\right)^2\right)\left(g_{AC}^sg_{BD}^sg_{AD}^sg_{BC}^s\right)`$
$`R_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(A_{,yy}\left(A_{,y}\right)^2\right)`$
$`R_{y\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`3A_{,y\sigma }`$
$`R_{\sigma \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}\left(A_{,yy}4\left(A_{,y}\right)^2\right)3A_{,\sigma \sigma }`$
$`R_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}\left(A_{,yy}4\left(A_{,y}\right)^2\right)A_{,\sigma \sigma }2\left(A_{,\sigma }\right)^2+2\right)g_{AB}^s`$
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`8A_{,yy}20\left(A_{,y}\right)^2+l^2\mathrm{e}^{2A}\left(6A_{,\sigma \sigma }6\left(A_{,\sigma }\right)^2+6\right),`$ (A.1)
where $`g_{AB}^s`$ represents the metric on the three–space with the line–element given by $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{k,3}^2`$ in Eq. (2.11).


text:
# Creation of Spin-1/2 Particles in the Hyperboloid de Sitter Space-Time

## 1 Introduction

The creation of elementary particles in curved space-time by strong fields is one of the most exciting problem and still matter of investigation in contemporary theoretical physics. In the literature a lot of studies can be found concerning with the phenomenon of particle creation, mainly in four-dimensional isotropic and homogeneous cosmological models as well as two-dimensional toy models. In curved space-time quantum field vacuum must be defined carefully since the vacuum plays an important role in understanding the nature of particle creation. One of the most studied technique to compute the densitiy number of particles created is the Bogoliubov Transformation Technique(BTT). In this technique ‘in’ and ‘out’ vacuum states are determined from the solutions of relativistic wave equations using a particular choice of time. Then the vacuum is specified $`|in,0`$ and $`|out,0,`$ and the Bogoliubov mixing transformation is found between them;

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{in,k}(x)=\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{out,k}(x)+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{out,k}^{}(x),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are mixing coefficients, and they are related to the density number of particles created. The studies in the literature have considered four-dimensional isotropic space-times as well as two-dimensional simple models.

In this work we will use two-dimensional de Sitter space-time represented as the hyperboloid

$$z_0^2z_1^2z_2^2=a^2$$
(2)
embeded in three dimensional Minkowski space, where

$`z_0`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{sinh}(t/a),`$ (3)
$`z_1`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{cosh}(t/a)\mathrm{cos}x,`$ (4)
$`z_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(t/a)\mathrm{sin}x.`$ (5)
The line element of the space-time is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(t/a)dx^2,(\pi <x<\pi ).$$
(6)
Because of the simple form of the line element the solution of the Dirac equation and definition of Bogoliubov coefficients are easy. For the model in Eq.(5) the Hawking effect for scalar particles has been studied by using BTT.

## 2 Solution of the Dirac Equation

The covariant generalization of Dirac equation is

$$\left[i\gamma ^\mu (_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )m\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0,$$
(7)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are curved space-time Dirac gamma mattricies related to flat space-time gammas as $`\gamma ^\mu (x)=e_{(i)}^\mu \gamma ^{(i)}`$ with the tetrad definition

$$e_{(i)}^\mu e_{(k)}^\nu \eta ^{(i)(k)}=g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(8)
The spin connections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda `$ are defined

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda =\frac{1}{8}g_{\mu \alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\alpha [\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ],$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\alpha `$ are Christoffel symbols given

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }(_\nu g_{\lambda \beta }+_\lambda g_{\beta \lambda }_\beta g_{\lambda \nu }).$$
(10)
We can simplify calculations by introducing a conformal time given

$$\eta =2\mathrm{arctan}[\mathrm{exp}(t/a)],$$
(11)
then Eq.(6) becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{a^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\eta }(d\eta ^2+dx^2),(0<\eta <\pi ).$$
(12)
The Dirac equation Eq.(7), after multiplying $`\gamma ^{(0)}`$ from left, becomes

$$(_\eta \gamma ^{(0)}\gamma ^{(1)}ik\frac{ima}{\mathrm{sin}\eta }\gamma ^{(0)})\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )=0,$$
(13)
where the function of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}x}}e^{ikx}\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )$$
(14)
introduced to separate variables and to cancel out the terms coming from spin connections. If we choose Dirac matrices in two dimensions as ($`\{\gamma ^{(i)},\gamma ^{(k)}\}=2\eta ^{(i)(k)}`$)

$$\gamma ^{(0)}=i\sigma ^3,\gamma ^{(1)}=\sigma ^1,$$
(15)
Eq.(13) gives two coupled equations

$`(_\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{\mathrm{sin}\eta }})\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\eta )k\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
$`(_\eta {\displaystyle \frac{ma}{\mathrm{sin}\eta }})\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\eta )+k\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
It is easy to see that each component of the spinor satisfies hypergeometric differential equation if we introduce the following functions in Eqs.(16) and (17)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^{ma}\eta \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}f_1(\eta ),`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^{ma}\eta \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}f_2(\eta ).`$ (19)
Then we obtain

$`[(x1)_x+\alpha ]f_1+kf_2,`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (20)
$`[(x+1)_x+\alpha ]f_2+kf_1,`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
where

$$\alpha =ma+1/2;x=\mathrm{cos}\eta .$$
(22)
Substituting Eq.(20) into Eq.(21) we obtain

$$\left\{u(1u)_u^2+[C(A+B+1)u]_uAB\right\}f_1(u)=0,$$
(23)
where

$$u=\frac{x+1}{2};A_{1,2}=ma+\frac{1}{2}\pm k;B_{1,2}=ma+\frac{1}{2}k;C=ma+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(24)
Solution to Eq.(23) is

$$f_1(x)=N_2F_1(ma+\frac{1}{2}\pm k,ma+\frac{1}{2}k,ma+\frac{1}{2};\frac{x+1}{2})$$

$$+M\left(\frac{x+1}{2}\right)_2^{\frac{1}{2}ma}F_1(\pm k+1,k+1,ma\frac{3}{2};\frac{x+1}{2}),$$
(25)
where $`N`$ and $`M`$ are normalization constants. The second component of the spinor can be found using the recursion relations of the hypergeometric functions. Then the exact solution of the first component of the spinor is found as follow:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\eta ,x)=e^{ikx}\mathrm{sin}^{ma\frac{1}{2}}\eta \mathrm{sin}\frac{\eta }{2}[N_2F_1(ma+\frac{1}{2}\pm k,ma+\frac{1}{2}k,ma+\frac{1}{2};\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +1}{2})$$

$$+M\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +1}{2}\right)_2^{\frac{1}{2}ma}F_1(\pm k+1,k+1,ma\frac{3}{2};\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +1}{2})].$$
(26)
## 3 Particle Creation

In order to analyze the phenomenon of the particle creation we proceed to discuss the behaviour of the solutions of the Dirac equation in the hypersurfaces $`\eta =0,\pi `$ or equivalently when $`x=\pm 1.`$ To relate two different vacuum for $`x=\pm 1`$, we can make use of the relation for the hypergeometric functions,

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma \alpha \beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma \beta )}_2F_1(\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \gamma +1;1z)$$

$$+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta \gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )}_2F_1(\gamma \alpha ,\gamma \beta ,\gamma \alpha \beta +1;1z),$$
(27)
then the negative frequency mode for $`x=1`$ reads

$$f_{(x=1)}^{}=C_2^{}F_1(ma+\frac{1}{2}\pm k,ma+\frac{1}{2}k,ma+\frac{1}{2};\frac{x+1}{2})$$
(28)
whereas the positive frequency mode for $`x=+1`$takes the form

$$f_{(x=+1)}^+=C_2^+F_1(ma+\frac{1}{2}\pm k,ma+\frac{1}{2}k,ma+\frac{1}{2};\frac{x+1}{2}),$$
(29)
where $`C^+`$ and $`C^{}`$ are normalization constants. Using the relation (LABEL:36) we obtain

$$f_{(x=1)}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}f_{(x=+1)}^++\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma+\frac{1}{2}+k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma+\frac{1}{2}k)}f_{(x=+1)}^{}.$$
(30)
Finally we obtain using Bogoliubov coefficients

$$n\frac{\left|\beta \right|^2}{\left|\alpha \right|^2}=\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma+\frac{1}{2}+k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ma+\frac{1}{2}k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}\right|^2$$
(31)
From Eq.(31) and relation $`\left|\alpha \right|^2+\left|\beta \right|^2=1`$ we find that the density of particles created $`\left|\beta \right|^2`$ is given

$$\left|\beta \right|^2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2k\pi }{\mathrm{cos}^2(ma+\frac{1}{2}+k)\pi }.$$
(32)
The expression (LABEL:41) shows that the density of particles created has a maximum for $`ma+k=n\frac{1}{2}`$, where n is integer. Also have that there is no particle creation when $`k`$ takes integer values. Hence, if the universe has the phenomenon of particle creation, the momentum can not take integer values. When massless particles couples conformally to the metric  Eq.(32) takes the form

$$\left|\beta \right|^2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2k\pi }{\mathrm{cos}^2(\frac{1}{2}+k)\pi }=1.$$
(33)
Equation (33) shows that the density of particles created has a maximum for negative modes.

For the de Sitter space-time studied by Villalba the density of particles created is

$$\left|\beta \right|^2=\frac{1}{e^{2\pi m/H}+1}.$$
(34)
We can see that both results in Eqs.(32) and (34) are depend on the mass value of the particle while in Eq.(32) it also depends on momentum value of the particle.

## 4 Conclusions

We solved the Dirac equation using the merhod of seperation of variables for de Sitter space-time. Then using the BTT method we computed that the density number of particles created and also found that the particle creation does not occur when the momentum of spin-1/2 particle has integer values.


text:
# Stabilization of Hyperbolic Brane-World Scenarios.

## I Introduction

In the last couple of years brane-world scenarios have received much attention. These constructions are effective models, where our 4-dimensional world is realized as a brane embedded in a bigger universe, usually called the bulk space-time. Ideally this picture should result from a low energy limit of a more fundamental theory like string theory. In this short note we address the problem of stabilization of the extra-dimensions for the particular case of compact hyperbolic brane-world scenarios (CHBS). In CHBS the bulk space-time is of the form $`M_4H_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`M_4`$ is identified with our 4-dimensional world, $`H_d`$ is a d-dimensional hyperbolic manifold (a homogenous Euclidean space with constant negative curvature) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete subgroup of SO(d,1) acting freely. These types of constructions enjoy many appealing characteristics that makes the investigation of the stability issue worthwhile. For information on the phenomenological implications of these models we refer the original articles kmst ; sst1 ; sst2 .

The main purpose of this talk is to present a detailed analysis of radion stabilization in CHBS (see the original paper nsst ). It has recently been demonstrated Carroll:2001ih  that, in the context of general relativity in $`4+d`$ dimensions, stabilization of large hyperbolic extra dimensions, leaving Minkowski space on our brane, requires a violation of the null dominant energy condition. Here we extend this argument to the case in which our brane is allowed to exhibit standard FRW expansion and comment on the regime of validity of this result. We then turn to possible ways in which stabilization may work due to a breakdown of the assumptions in the previous argument by considering holography and type IIA\*/IIB\* supergravities.

In the second section, we show the flat brane case and recover the results of Carroll:2001ih . In the third section, we generalize to FRW branes and in the fourth section, the inclusion of extra compact directions like a n-sphere is considered. The fifth section contains some comments on possible ways to bypass the no-go-theorem and a small discussion on supersymmetry.

## II Flat Brane-world and d-dimensional Hyperbolic manifold

Our starting point is for the Einstein gravity in 4+d-dimensional space-time, with bulk matter.

$`S_{d+4}={\displaystyle 𝑑X^{4+d}\sqrt{G}\left(M^{d+2}R(G)_{bulk}\right)},`$ (1)
where $`M`$ is the $`4+d`$ plank mass, $`_{bulk}`$ stands for the bulk matter field, the geometry is described by the metric $`ds^2=G_{AB}dX^AdX^B=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +r^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j`$, where capital Latin letters runs over all of the space-time dimensions, Greeks letters over the 4-dimensional brane-world and lower case Latin over the hyperbolic manifold. $`\overline{g}`$ is the brane metric, $`\gamma `$ is the hyperbolic metric of radius $`d(d+1)`$ and $`r`$ is the radion, that we want to stabilized at the value $`R_h`$. Using that we are in the case of compact hyperbolic manifold with volume $`e^\alpha `$, we define the 4-dimensional planck mass $`M_4^2=M^{2+d}R_h^de^\alpha `$ and the field $`\varphi `$ by the equation $`r=R_he^{\sqrt{1/d(d+2)}\varphi /M_4}`$. Also we need a conformal rescaling on the brane metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }e^{\sqrt{d/(d+2)}\varphi /M_4}`$, to decouple the new field $`\varphi `$ and the reduced Einstein tensor. After some algebra we get the 4-dimensional effective action,

$`S_{d+4}=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^d\frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{e^\alpha }S_{eff}},`$
$`S_{eff}=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4\sqrt{g}\left[M_4^2R(g)\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2W(\varphi ,g)\right]},`$ (2)
where

$$W(\varphi ,g)=\frac{M_4^2}{M^{d+2}}e^{\sqrt{d/(d+2)}\varphi /M_4}_{bulk}+\frac{d(d1)M_4^2}{R_h^2}e^{\sqrt{(d+2)/d}\varphi /M_4}$$
(3)
and we have used that $`R(\gamma )=d(d1)`$. The stabilization of the radion translates into the following system of equations

$`_\varphi W|_{\varphi =0}=0,_\varphi ^2W|_{\varphi =0}>0`$
$`\left(g_{\mu \nu }W2{\displaystyle \frac{W}{g^{\mu \nu }}}\right)|_{\varphi =0}=0.`$ (4)
To obtain information about the energy conditions that the bulk matter has to obey in other to satisfy this equations, we have to rewrite these effective equations in terms of the stress energy tensor of the bulk space-time. Here we use that the radion filed is really part of the metric, therefore its field equations involve some combinations of the stress energy tensor of the bulk matter fields, i.e.

$$\frac{}{\varphi }=\frac{G^{\mu \nu }}{\varphi }\frac{}{G^{\mu \nu }}+\frac{G^{ij}}{\varphi }\frac{}{G^{ij}},$$
(5)
taking into account the conformal transformation on the brane metric, part of the set of equations 4 translates into

$`T_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)M^{d+2}}{2R_H^2}}G_{\mu \nu },`$
$`dG^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }2G^{ij}T_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{d(d+2)(d1)M^{2+d}}{R_h^2}},`$ (6)
where we have assume that the stabilization is archive by the matter field on the bulk. Next, using the following form for the stress energy tensor,

$`T_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ,`$
$`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta },`$
$`T_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`qR_h^2\gamma _{ij},`$ (7)
where $`\mu `$ has been divided into time and the three space-like directions $`(t,\alpha )`$. Then we get the constraints

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)M^{2+d}}{2R_h^2}},`$
$`p={\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)M^{2+d}}{2R_h^2}},`$
$`q={\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)M^{2+d}}{4R_h^2}}.`$ (8)
This type of matter field does not obey the null energy condition as can be easily seen by considering a general null-vector along the hyperboloid, like $`\text{l}=_t+e_i`$, where $`e_i`$ are orthogonal vector basis on the hyperboloid. Then, contracting l twice with the stress energy tensor $`T_{AB}`$ gives $`\frac{(d1)M^{2+d}}{R_h^2}`$, a negative number violating the above energy condition. Therefore we conclude this part of the discussion saying that:

Although in principle equation 8 can be satisfied, the matter field required will not satisfy the null energy condition.

To clarify the above general statement, let us consider a simple example of stabilization due to matter field violating the null energy condition. Consider a flat brane-world and as bulk matter a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M^{d+4}\lambda `$, also include a d-form over the hyperbolic manifold $`F_{[d]}`$. The bulk lagrangian is $`L_b=\mathrm{\Lambda }+F^2/(2d!)`$, and the field equation for $`F_{[d]}`$ can be solved by the ansatz $`F_{45..d+4}=B`$ with $`B`$ independent of the hyperbolic coordinates. Using that there is a trapped magnetic flux on the compact hyperbolic space, the constant $`B`$ is related to the “radion” by the equation $`B=bM^{(d+4)/2}(R_h/r)^d`$. Therefore the on-shell form of the bulk lagrangian is $`L_b=M^{d+4}\lambda +M^{d+4}\frac{b^2}{2}(\frac{R_h}{r})^{2d}`$, and the equation 4 reduces to

$`\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2}}+d(d1)\beta ^2=0,`$
$`b^2d+d(d1)(d+2)\beta ^2=0,`$ (9)
where $`\beta ^1=R_hM`$. The corresponding solution is $`\lambda =(d1)(d2)\beta ^2/2`$, and $`b^2=(d1)(d+2)\beta ^2`$, but the on-shell stress energy tensor of the d-form is $`T_{AB}=\frac{(d1)(d2)\beta ^2}{8}(g_{AB}\delta _{AB}^{ij}g_{ij})`$, therefore when contracted twice with a null vector along one of the hyperbolic directions (i.e. $`l=l^0e_0+l^ie_i`$), we get $`Tll=\frac{(d1)(d2)\beta ^2}{8}g_{ii}l^il^i<0`$, violating the null energy condition.

## III FRW Brane-world and d-dimensional Hyperbolic manifold

Let us assume now that the metric of the four dimensional space-time is a of the form of a FRW metric,

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2d\sigma ^2,$$
(10)
where $`d\sigma ^2`$ stands for the spatial part of the metric, with curvature $`k=(+1,1,0)`$. We can repeat the calculations of the previous section with this new metric obtaining the following set of equations:

$`T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)M^{d+2}}{2R_h^2}}G_{\mu \nu }=(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}RG_{\mu \nu })M^{d+2},`$
$`dG^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }2G^{ij}T_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{d(d+2)(d1)M^{2+d}}{R_h^2}},`$ (11)
where $`R_{\mu \nu },R`$ are the Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar of the four dimensional space-time and derivative respect to time are wrote as dots. Then, using the usual form for the stress energy tensor (see equation 7) we get,

$`\rho =\left[3\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2R_h^2}}\right]M^{2+d},`$
$`p=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2R_h^2}}\right]M^{2+d},`$
$`q=\left[3\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)}{4R_h^2}}\right]M^{2+d}.`$ (12)
Then, using general null vectors, we have to impose the following system of inequalities in order to satisfy the null energy condition:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}0,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)}{3R_h^2}},`$ (14)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+2({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}},`$ (15)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+2({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)^2}{3R_h^2}}.`$ (16)
Note that if the first inequality is saturated then the third is irrelevant since the third inequality comes multiplied by the first inequality originally. The same is truth for second and fourth. After some analysis we get the following conclusions:

* If the first is saturated also the second has to be saturated to get a solution, then the space-time is of the form $`AdS_4H_d`$, and the curvature of $`Ads_4`$ is same as $`H_d`$.
* If the second is saturated but not the first, the resulting space time is not geodesically complete, as a parts of space has to be cut off.
* If third or fourth are saturated, there is no solution.
* If none of the inequalities are saturated then the second inequality rules out any physical solution as the acceleration of the brane-world radius $`a(t)`$ measure in natural units is huge, producing incompatibilities with phenomenological data.

Although in principle equation 12 can be satisfied, the matter field required will not satisfy the null energy condition or the solutions will not be relevant in this context.

## IV FRW Brane-world, d-dimensional Hyperbolic manifold and n-spheres

Let us add to the previous space-time an n-dimensional sphere of radius $`r_s`$ i.e. $`d(sphere)_n^2=r_s^2d\omega _{ab}dx^adx^b`$ where $`d\omega _{ab}dx^adx^b`$ corresponds to the metric of an n-sphere of unit radius with volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. We have to modify our previous definitions by: the 4-dimensional plank mass is given by $`M_4^2=M^{2+d+n}(R_h^de^\alpha )(R_s^n\mathrm{\Omega }_n)`$, we define the new field $`\psi `$ by the equation $`r_s=R_se^{\sqrt{1/n(n+2)}\psi /M_4}`$. Also, we need a new conformal rescaling on the brane metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }e^{[\sqrt{d/(d+2)}\varphi /M_4\sqrt{n/(n+2)}\psi /M_4]}`$, to decouple the fields $`(\varphi ,\psi )`$ and the reduced Einstein tensor. After some algebra we get,

$`S_{4+d+n}={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{d+n}\frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{e^\alpha }\frac{\sqrt{\omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}S_{eff}},`$ (17)
where

$`S_{eff}={\displaystyle }dx^4\sqrt{g}[M_4^2R(g){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\psi )^2`$
$`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{nd}{(d+2)(n+2)}}}\varphi \psi W(\varphi ,\psi ,g)],`$ (18)
and the potential is given by the expression

$`W(\varphi ,\psi ,g)={\displaystyle \frac{M_4^2}{M^{n+d+2}}}_{bulk}e^{[\sqrt{d/(d+2)}\varphi /M_4\sqrt{n/(n+2)}\psi /M_4]}+`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{R_s^2}})M_4^2e^{[\sqrt{(d+2)/d}\varphi /M_4\sqrt{(n+2)/n}\psi /M_4]}.`$ (19)
where we used that $`R(\omega )=n(n1)`$. The stabilization of the two radions translates into the following system of equations:

$`_\varphi W|_{(\varphi ,\psi )=0}=0,_\varphi ^2W|_{(\varphi ,\psi )=0}>0`$
$`_\psi W|_{(\varphi ,\psi )=0}=0,_\psi ^2W|_{(\varphi ,\psi )=0}>0`$
$`\left(g_{\mu \nu }W2{\displaystyle \frac{W}{g^{\mu \nu }}}\right)|_{(\varphi ,\psi )=0}=0.`$ (20)
In terms of the stress energy tensor we get

$`T_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{R_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}})M^{n+d+2}G_{\mu \nu }=(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}RG_{\mu \nu })M^{n+d+2},`$
$`dG^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }2G^{ij}T_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{d(d+2)(d1)M^{2+n+d}}{R_h^2}},`$
$`dG^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }2G^{ab}T_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{n(n+2)(d1)M^{2+n+d}}{R_s^2}}.`$ (21)
Assuming the that $`T_{ab}=eR_s^2\omega _{ab}`$ and equation 7 we the following set of equations,

$`\rho =3\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{R_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}}\right)M^{2+d+n},`$
$`p=\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{R_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}}\right)M^{2+d+n},`$
$`q=3\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2n(n1)}{R_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(d2)}{R_h^2}}\right)M^{2+d+n},`$
$`e=3\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{R_s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2d(d1)}{R_h^2}}\right)M^{2+d+n}.`$ (22)
Then, the null energy condition impose the following system of inequalities:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}0,`$ (23)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+2({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{R_s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}}),`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{R_s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)}{R_h^2}}),`$ (25)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+2({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{3n(n1)}{R_s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)^2}{R_h^2}}),`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{2(n1)}{R_s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{R_h^2}}),`$ (27)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+2({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{2(n1)^2}{R_s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3d(d1)}{R_h^2}}).`$ (28)
Note that if the first inequality is saturated then the second is irrelevant since the second inequality comes multiplied by the first inequality originally. The same is truth for the third and fourth, and fifth and sixth. After some analysis we find that:

* If inequality 23 is saturated, the solution is not useful as the Ricci scalar is of the same order as the Hyperbolic manifold.
* If inequality 24 is saturated the resulting space time is not geodesically complete, as a parts of space have to be cut off.
* If inequality 27 is saturated, the Ricci scalar of the brane-world is bigger than the biggest curvature scalar of any of the compact spaces.
* If any of the reaming inequalities are saturated there are no solutions to the system.
* If none of the inequalities are saturated, although in principle there could be solutions to the system, by means of inequality 25 we get back to situation in the previous section, where the acceleration of the brane-world radius $`a(t)`$ measured in natural units is huge, producing incompatibilities with phenomenological data..

Therefore the conclusion of the previous analysis is:

Although in principle equation 22 can be satisfied, the matter field required will not satisfy the null energy condition or the solutions will not be relevant in this context.

## V Comments on CHBS and string theory

If you want to insist on the possibility of hyperbolic brane-world scenarios, some of the initial assumptions have to be relaxed to bypass the no-go theorem. Because these scenarios are thought to be induced from string theory or M-theory, there are a couple of generalization that can be introduced within the framework of the different string dualities.

First let us consider the possibility of more general geometries than the one used. Basically we can look for ten or eleven dimensional supersymmetric solutions with hyperbolic spaces built in. In general lets start with the action

$$S_{eff}=𝑑x^D\sqrt{G}(R\underset{k}{}\frac{1}{2k!}F_{[k]}^2),$$
(29)
in $`D`$-dimensions, with a few k-form field strengthes $`F_k`$. For example, assuming we have three fields $`F_d,F_p,F_q,`$ where each one is proportional to the corresponding volume-form on the different subspace where the three field strength lives, we get the following space-time types of solutions:

$`AdS_dH_pS^q,`$
$`AdS_dH_pT^q,`$
$`AdS_dH_pH^q.`$ (30)
Where the different solutions correspond to different ratios between the proportionality constants of the fields $`F_k`$. The $`AdS`$ part of the solution can not be understood as our brane-world, as its curvature is proportional to the hyperbolic manifold curvature, giving no useful phenomenological models. Nevertheless, what you can certainly do is to pick up a solution of the form $`AdS_5H_dsomething`$ and instead of thinking of it as a solution of low energy critical string theory, use it as a solution of a non-critical string theory, where one of the $`AdS`$ directions is identify with the Liouville field. In this case taking the usual holographic coordinates in $`AdS_5`$ we get a flat 4-dimensional brane world, with a hyperbolic manifold and a holographic direction giving information about the different energy scales probed by the theory. This type of interpretation is along the same line of reasoning of the confining string of Polyakov pol1 , and also in the Verlinde et. al. constructions ver1 . Of course in the ultraviolet limit there will be no gravitation on the brane (only a flat brane with no gravitons propagating on it), but at intermediate energies there will be gravity on the brane, and generalizations to curved branes are possible. This picture will look like a Randall-Sundrum curved brane-world.

Another arena where to look for CHBS is within the context of type IIA\*/IIB\* supergravity. These supergravity theories have been argue to result from t-dualizing along the time-like direction. As a result of this duality the signature of the space-time metric can change, obtaining for example two time-like directions (see hull ). To illustrate the mechanism that allows the bypassing of the theorem, let us consider F-theory vafa  (just as an example of a framework with two time-like directions). The bulk manifold has twelve dimensions including two time-like directions. We will be using the signature $`(++++++++++)`$. In this framework we are in the presence of a 4-form $`F_4`$ k1 , therefore using the ansatz

$`F_{[4]}=f_{[4]}^a+f_{[4]}^b,`$
$`f_{[4]\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\mathrm{}8}^a=aϵ_{4\mathrm{}8},`$
$`f_{[4]\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}9}\mathrm{}11}^b=bϵ_{9\mathrm{}11},`$ (31)
and decomposing the $`4,5,6,7`$ directions into $`\tau ,u,x,y`$, we get the following space-time solution,

$`M_{(0,1,2,3)}H_{(x,y)}S^4Ads_{(\tau ,u)}\left(a=b\right),`$
$`Ads_4H_{(x,y)}S^4Ads_{(\tau ,u)}\left(a>b\right),`$
$`dS_4H_{(x,y)}S^4Ads_{(\tau ,u)}\left(a<b\right).`$ (32)
The first case has exactly the structure we are looking for, and also note that we have the correct $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry in the part of the metric that should account for the corresponding type IIB symmetry between the dilaton and the axion. Thus due to the presence of an extra time-like direction the no-go theorem is bypass.

Finally, assuming that the above frameworks bring no other problems or conflicts with phenomenological observations, a short discussion on the supersymmetric properties of CHBS seems necessary.

A question of great interest when suggesting any compactification scheme is that of low-energy supersymmetry. For the case of interest in this paper, we may begin with an explicit construction of the Killing spinors of maximally symmetric spaces with negative cosmological constant lpt1 ; lpr1 . For the space $`H^d`$ we choose coordinates in the horospherical frame in which the metric takes the form,

$$ds^2=e^{2r}\delta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +dr^2.$$
(33)
In this frame, the killing spinors are given by,

$$\xi =e^{\frac{1}{2}r\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}x^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (1\mathrm{\Gamma }_r)\right]ϵ,$$
(34)
where $`ϵ`$ is an arbitrary constant spinor (the cases d=2,3 are special and expressions can be found in ref fy1 ).

We can see from this expression that the number of supersymmetries of $`H^d`$ is equal to the number of independent spinor components. Now, recall that the isometry group is $`SO(1,d)`$ and that compact hyperbolic manifolds are obtained by quotient of $`H^d`$ by a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`SO(1,d)`$, with no fixed points. Whether or not any killing spinors survive this quotienting process depends on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ kr1 .

1. If d is even then the spinors are in an $`SO(1,d1)`$ representation, and all supersymmetries are broken.
2. If $`d`$ is odd, then the spinors are in an $`SO(1,d)`$ representation. In this case there are several possibilities.

1. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a subgroup of $`SO(1,d1)`$ some killing spinors may survive, since we can decompose the original killing spinors into Weyl spinors on the representation of this group.
    2. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a not subgroup of $`SO(1,d1)`$ then all supersymmetries are broken.
    3. In the special case $`d=3`$ there also remain no supersymmetries.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the organizers of the conference Theoretical Hight Energy Physics: SUNY Utica/Rome, where this talk was presented. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0098747 to Syracuse University and by funds from Syracuse University.