text:
# Exact Solutions of Open Bosonic String Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

During last few years many different solutions have been studied in string field theory . These solutions include tachyon vacuum and lump solutions (For review and extensive list of references, see .) and solutions representing marginal deformations . Other remarkable solutions have been studied recently in papers 222As we will see the solution given in  has a lot of common with the solution given in this paper.. And recently there were also many papers published regarding to the string field theory formulated around closed string vacuum (See, for example .)

In our recent paper  we have suggested possible exact solutions of the Berkovits superstring field theory . Then we have extended our approach to the open bosonic string field theory  as well. In this paper we will continue our study. We present two solutions that correspond to the marginal deformation of the theory describing single D0-brane. The first solution corresponds to the translation in the target space orthogonal to D0-brane. Since we presume that our D0-brane lives in flat space-time its position should be irrelevant for its description. On the other hand, since D0-brane can be regarded as a defect that breaks Poincare invariance, we will see that there exist nontrivial solution. Our strategy is as follows. We use the fact that closed string theory is invariant under Poincare transformations which are broken by boundary conditions in the open string case describing D0-brane). Then we can construct generator of the translation that does not commute with the open string Hamiltonian thanks to Dirichlet boundary conditions, but can serve as a generator of translation that shifts position of D0-brane. We will see that this is really this case. Following our general discussion given in  and reviewed in section (2) we will construct solution of the open string field theory corresponding to this marginal deformation. We will see that in case of small marginal parameter the BRST operator changes exactly in the same way as we can expect from CFT analysis with accord with the very nice analysis performed in . Then we will discuss possible form of the string field redefinition and we will show that after this redefinition fluctuation fields are the same as the original one as a consequence of the invariance of our configuration under translation.

Then we will extend our solution to the case of finite marginal deformation. We will see that in this case the BRST operator obtains additional term which is not expected from the CFT analysis . At present we do not understand why such a term emerges. However we can still argue that thanks to the form of the new BRST operator we can perform such a field redefinition that maps the new BRST operator to the original one and string field describing the fluctuation around new solution has the same form as the original one thanks to the translation invariance of this configuration.

As the second example we present rotation of the D0-brane in the target space. As in previous case, Dirichlet boundary conditions break this rotation invariance hence we can expect that the generator of rotation does not commute with the BRST operator and hence we can get nontrivial solution. We will also discuss the problem of the field redefinition and we will argue that in this case the field changes since generator of rotation acts non trivially on tensor indexes of various string states, however thanks to the invariance of the bulk part of the BRST operator under rotation we will argue that the physical spectrum is the same. Again this can be interpreted as a trivial consequence of the isotropy of the target space.

In conclusion we outline our results and suggest possible extension of our research.

## 2 Solutions of open bosonic string field theory

As we claimed in the introduction we restrict in this paper to the case of the bosonic open string field theory  since generalization to the Berkovits’ superstring field theory  is straightforward. This section mainly reviews results given in our previous paper .

The string field theory (SFT) action has a form 333For very nice recent reviews of string field theory, see .

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }Q(\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(1)
Variation of the action leads to the equation of motion

$$Q(\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(2)
According to the standard procedure let us consider the expansion of the string field around any solution of the equation of motion (2) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3)
After inserting (3) into (1) and using (2) we obtain SFT action for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that has the same form as the original one (1)

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{Q}(\mathrm{\Psi })+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(4)
however with the modified BRST operator

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(X)=Q(X)+\mathrm{\Phi }_0X(1)^{|X|}X\mathrm{\Phi }_0,$$
(5)
where $`X`$ is any string field of ghost number $`|X|`$. Let us now presume that the new BRST operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(X)=e^K\left(Q(e^K(X))\right),$$
(6)
where $`K`$ is an operator of ghost charge equal to zero that obeys following rules

$`K(XY)=K(X)Y+XK(Y),`$
$`{\displaystyle K(X)Y}={\displaystyle XK(Y)}.`$
In order to have a well defined string field theory for fluctuation field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ must obey following axioms

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(XY)=\stackrel{~}{Q}(X)Y+(1)^{|X|}X\stackrel{~}{Q}(Y),X,Y,`$
$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{Q}(X)}=0,X,`$
where $`X,Y`$ are arbitrary string fields of ghost numbers $`|X|`$ and $`|Y|`$ respectively. Firstly, we can easily show that

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}^2=e^KQe^Ke^KQe^K=e^KQ^2e^K=0$$
(9)
since the original BRST operator $`Q`$ obeys (2) by definition. We also have

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(XY)=e^K\left[Q\left(e^K(XY)\right)\right]=e^K\left[Q\left(e^K(X)e^K(Y)\right)\right]=`$
$`=e^K\left[Q\left(e^K(X)\right)e^K(Y)+(1)^{|X|}e^K(X)Q\left(e^K(Y)\right)\right]=`$
$`=e^K\left[Q\left(e^K(X)\right)\right]e^Ke^K(Y)+(1)^{|X|}e^Ke^K(X)e^K\left[Q\left(e^K(Y)\right)\right]=`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{Q}(X)Y+(1)^{|X|}X\stackrel{~}{Q}(Y),`$
where we have used

$$e^K(XY)=e^K(X)e^K(Y),e^K(XY)=e^K(X)e^K(Y),$$
(11)
which follows from (2). We can also easily see that (6) obeys the third axiom in (2)

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(X)=e^K\left[Q\left(e^K(X)\right)\right]=Q\left(e^K(X)\right)e^K()=Q\left(e^K(X)\right)=0,$$
(12)
where $``$ is ”identity”, the ghost number zero field (For recent discussion of some properties of this field, see .) which is defined as

$$X=X=X,X.$$
(13)
Then we have

$$K(X)=K(X)=K()X+K(X)=K(X)K()=0$$
(14)
and consequently

$$e^K()=e^K()=.$$
(15)
We have shown that the new BRST operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ given in (6) obeys all axioms (2). Now we must find such a solution of the equation of motion (2) that leads to this proposed form of the BRST operator (6). It is easy to see that the field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()})$$
(16)
is desired solution of the equation of motion (2) since we have

$$Q(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=Q(e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()}))=e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()})e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()})$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0=e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()})e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()}).$$
(18)
with $`K`$ obeying (2) and where $`K`$ is split in two parts according to  $`K=K_L+K_R`$. It can be shown  that the solution (16) leads to the BRST operator (6). As was argued in  we can perform field redefinition

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^K(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})$$
(19)
that leads to the string field theory action for fluctuation field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ with the BRST operator of the same form as the original one $`Q`$ and the string field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ now describes open string theory defined around the new background configuration (For more detailed and extensive discussion of the string redefinition in the string field theory we again recommend very nice and seminal paper .).

In the next two sections we will continue our study and give two examples of the solutions reviewed above.

## 3 Translation of D0-brane

In this section we will describe solution of the string field theory equation of motion corresponding to the small translation in the target space. We will see that for small value of the marginal parameter $`a^I,I=1,\mathrm{},25`$ we obtain such a form of the deformed BRST operator as we will get from the perturbation of the open string Lagrangian with the marginal operator. According to the general method outlined in the previous section we will perform string field theory redefinition that maps the new BRST operator to the original one and the old string field to the new string field describing fluctuation around new configuration. However thanks to the fact that our solution corresponds to the translation of a single D0-brane in the target space, it is clear that the Hilbert spaces of the original and final configuration must be isomorphic. We will confirm explicitly this conclusion very easily using the fact that the generator of the translation in the target space acts trivially on the string state describing fluctuation of D0-brane since these states carry zero momentum in the transverse direction. Then in the next section we will construct solution corresponding to the finite translation where we will see some subtle facts that are not completely clear to us at present.

For the beginning we will review well known facts about conserved charges in the bosonic string theory, following . Let us consider an action for the free string

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\sigma \eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(20)
where $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is two-dimensional Minkowski metric with signature $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=diag(1,1)`$ and $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is 26-dimensional Minkowski metric in the target space-time with signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$. Let us suppose that this action describes string ending on D0-brane. In other words, on the boundary of the world-sheet we have Neumann boundary condition for $`X^0`$ and Dirichlet boundary condition for $`X^I,I=1.\mathrm{},25`$, where the boundary of the world-sheet is at the points $`\sigma =0,\pi `$. Now it is easy to see that this boundary conditions break Poincare symmetry under translation, which from the point of view of two dimensional world-sheet theory is global symmetry that acts on the string coordinate $`X^\mu (\sigma )`$ as

$$\delta X^\mu =ϵ^\mu .$$
(21)
Since D0-brane is placed in the point $`X^I=0`$ it is clear that the variation of $`X^I`$ is equal to zero $`\delta X^I=0`$ on the boundary of the world-sheet which leads to the breaking of the Poincare invariance. This seems to be natural fact since D0-brane can be regarded as a defect in the target space. As a result, we cannot define conserved generator of translation $`P_I`$ that commutes with the world-sheet Hamiltonian. On the other hand, $`P_I`$ is the symmetry generator of closed string theory and can be determined using Noether’s method  as follows. Since the string action (20) is invariant under variation $`\delta X^\mu =ϵ^\mu `$ we now presume that $`ϵ`$ is a function of $`\sigma ,\tau `$. Then we have

$`\delta S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta \delta X^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta ϵ^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }}`$
$`_\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\eta ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta X^\mu \eta _{\mu \nu }\right)=0=_\alpha (\eta ^{\alpha \beta }P_{\beta \nu })=0,P_{\beta \mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}_\beta X^\nu \eta _{\nu \mu }.`$
Then we have conserved quantity (In case of closed string or an open string obeying Neumann boundary conditions.)

$$P_\mu =i_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma P_{0\mu }=\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \dot{X}^\nu \eta _{\nu \mu },_\tau X=\dot{X},_\sigma X=X^{}.$$
(23)
Since $`X^\mu (\sigma )`$ is canonical coordinate we obtain from the action (20) its canonical conjugate momentum

$$P_{0\mu }(\sigma )=\frac{\delta L}{\delta \dot{X}^\mu (\sigma )}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\dot{X}^\nu (\sigma )\eta _{\nu \mu }$$
(24)
with the following commutation relation

$$[P_{0I}(\sigma ),X^J(\sigma ^{})]=i\delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})\delta _I^J,$$
(25)
where $`\delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ is a delta function that obeys Dirichlet boundary conditions so that can be written as 444More information about delta function can be found in Appendix.

$$\delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma \mathrm{sin}n\sigma ^{}.$$
(26)
Using (25) we can calculate commutator

$`[H,P_I]=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ((2\pi \alpha ^{})^2P_0^2(\sigma )+X^{}(\sigma )^2),i{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}P_{0I}(\sigma ^{})]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}_\sigma \delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})\delta _I^KX_K^{}(\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma (\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))X_I^{}(\sigma ),`$
where we have used (7). We see that in the case of the string obeying Dirichlet boundary conditions the upper commutator is nonzero which is a consequence of the breaking of Poincare invariance with D0-brane background. On the other hand, open string with Neumann boundary conditions obeys $`X^{}(\sigma )|_0^\pi =0`$ so that the upper commutator is equal to zero and hence there is conserved charge $`P_\mu `$.

Let us consider $`K`$ in the form

$$K=a^\mu P_\mu =\frac{ai}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \dot{X}^1,a^\mu =(0,a,0,\mathrm{},0).$$
(28)
It is easy to see, using contour arguments as in  that $`K`$ given in (28) obeys all conditions (2) We can also prove that $`K`$ obeys (2) using the fact that its action on any string field $`X`$ can be defined as follows

$$K(X)=K_L()XXK_R()=K_R(X)+K_L(X)=K(X)$$
(29)
and operators of this form, as was reviewed recently in  and can be proved very easily, obey (2).

Let us start with situation when $`a<<1`$ so that we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()})(K_L())Q(+K_L())=Q(K_L()).$$
(30)
We can write (30) as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=Q(K_L())=Q_L(K_L())+Q_R(K_L())=`$
$`=Q_L(K_L())+K_L(Q_R())=Q_L(K_L())K_L(Q_L())=[Q_L,K_L]()`$
using

$$Q_L()=Q_R()$$
(32)
and

$`Q_R(K_L())=Q_R(K_L())=Q_L()K_L()=`$
$`=Q_L()K_R()=K_L(Q_L())=K_L(Q_L()).`$
Let us define

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=D_L()=[Q_L,K_L]().$$
(34)
Then the new BRST operator $`Q^{}`$ has the form

$$Q^{}(X)=Q(X)+D_L()X(1)^{|X|}XD_L()=[QD](X)$$
(35)
using

$`D_L()X=D_R(X)=D_R(X),`$
$`(1)^{|X|}XD_L()=(1)^{|X|}XD_R()=D_L(X),`$
$`D_L(X)Y=(1)^XXD_R(Y).`$
The last formula can be proven in the same way as in . Let us calculate the commutator $`[Q,K]`$. Since we have

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma J_0(\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma c^\alpha (\sigma )T_{\alpha 0}(\sigma )+Q_{ghost}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[c^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\dot{X}^2+X^2\right)+c^1\dot{X}X^{}\right]+Q_{qhost},`$
where $`Q_{qhost}`$ denotes the pure ghost part of the BRST operator which is not important for our calculation and $`T_{0\alpha }`$ is the matter stress energy tensor. We see that we must calculate following commutators

$$[T_{00}(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]=\frac{1}{2}[X^2(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]=i_\sigma \delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})X^{}(\sigma ),$$
(38)
$$[T_{10}(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]=[\dot{X}(\sigma )X^{}(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]=i\dot{X}(\sigma )_\sigma \delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}),$$
(39)
where we have used the notation

$$P_{01}(\sigma )=P(\sigma ),X^1(\sigma )=X(\sigma ).$$
(40)
Then we can write

$`D=[Q,K]={\displaystyle \frac{ai}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}[J_0(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ai}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}\left[c^0(\sigma )[T_{00}(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]+c^1(\sigma )[T_{10}(\sigma ),P(\sigma ^{})]\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ai}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}\left[c^0(\sigma )i_\sigma \delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})X^{}(\sigma )+ic^1(\sigma )_\sigma \delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})\dot{X}(\sigma )\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[c^0(\sigma )X^{}(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta (\sigma ,0))+c^1(\sigma )\dot{X}(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[\left(c^+_+Xc^{}_{}X\right)\left(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)\right)\right],`$
using (7) and also where we have used the notation

$`\sigma ^+=\tau +\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=\tau \sigma ,`$
$`_+={\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^+}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma }}),_{}={\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma }}),`$
$`c^+=c^0+c^1,c^{}=c^0c^1,`$
$`c^+_+Xc^{}_{}X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(c^0+c^1)(\dot{X}+X^{})(c^0c^1)(\dot{X}X^{})\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[c^0\dot{X}+c^0X^{}+c^1\dot{X}+c^1X^{}c^0\dot{X}+c^0X^{}+c^1\dot{X}c^1X^{}]=c^0X^{}+c^1\dot{X}.`$
From (35) and (3) we can conclude that our solution leads to the deformation of the stress energy tensor 555Similar construction appeared in case of relevant perturbation in .

$$T_{++}^{}=T_{++}_+X(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)),T_{}^{}=T_{}+_{}X(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)),$$
(43)
using

$`T_{++}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_{00}+T_{10}),T_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_{00}T_{10}),`$
$`c^+T_{++}+c^{}T_{}=c^0T_{00}+c^1T_{10}.`$
In other words, our solution corresponds to the marginal deformation of the world-sheet theory in precise the same way as in .

Now we can ask the question of the field redefinition. Recall, that according to our general discussion in section (2) we know that after suitable field redefinition the new BRST operator $`Q^{}`$ is mapped to the original BRST operator $`Q`$ and the new string field is given as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=e^K(\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(45)
The operator $`K`$ acts trivially on all original fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ since all string states corresponding to the string living on D0-brane do not carry momentum in the transverse directions and hence are invariant under the translation. This is the result that we can expect since our solution should not depend on one particular position of D0-brane in the transverse space. However as we will see on the solution corresponding to the rotation that open string states transform non trivially as a consequence of their nontrivial tensor structure.

Now let us turn to the problem of the finite translation using our general prescription given in the (2) section.

## 4 Finite translation

Let us consider the case of finite deformation where the solution is given as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=e^{K_L()}Q(e^{K_L()}).$$
(46)
In order to calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ we define following function

$$F(t)=e^{K_L()t}Q(e^{K_L()t}),\mathrm{\Phi }_0=F(1)$$
(47)
so that

$$F(1)=F(0)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{d^nF(0)}{d^nt},$$
(48)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^nF(t)}{dt^n}}=e^{tK_L()}[[Q(K_L()),K_L()],\mathrm{},K_L()]e^{K_L()t},n>1,`$
$`F(0)=Q()=0,{\displaystyle \frac{dF(0)}{dt}}=Q(K_L())=[Q,K]_L().`$
We see that we must calculate commutators given in (4). The first commutator was calculated in the (3) section with the result (3)

$$[Q,K]=\frac{a}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \left[\left(c^+_+Xc^{}_{}X\right)\left(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)\right)\right].$$
(50)
Next term is equal to

$$\frac{d^2F(0)}{d^2t}=K_L()[Q,K]_L()+[Q,K]_L()K_L()=[[Q,K],K]_L()=E_L()$$
(51)
and consequently we obtain (Up to the second order, we will see that commutators of higher order vanish.)

$`Q^{}(\mathrm{\Psi })=(QD)(\mathrm{\Psi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_L()\mathrm{\Psi }(1)^{|\mathrm{\Psi }|}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }E_L()=`$
$`=(QD)(\mathrm{\Psi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_R(\mathrm{\Psi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_L(\mathrm{\Psi })=\left(Q[Q,K]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[[Q,K],K]\right)(\mathrm{\Psi }),`$
where

$`[[Q,K],K]=[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left\{c^0(\sigma )X^{}(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))\right\},ia{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}P(\sigma ^{})]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ia^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}\left[c^0(\sigma )_\sigma i\delta _D(\sigma ^{},\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[c^0(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))^2\right].`$
Now it is clear that commutators of higher order vanish and we obtain the final form of the shifted BRST operator

$`Q^{}=Q{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[\left(c^+_+Xc^{}_{}X\right)\left(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)\right)\right]+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[(c^++c^{})(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))^2\right].`$
We see the remarkable fact that the deformation of the BRST operator is the same as in the CFT description  in case of the matter sector, however we also see that there is an additional term which is in fact singular on the boundary and which contains the ghost fields only. At present, we do not completely understand reasons and meanings of this term, it is possible that more detailed analysis performed according to the paper  will explain emergence of this term. We will return to this question in future work.

However in spite of the fact that we have such a unusual additional term, we can still see that according to the general construction given in the (2) section after performing field redefinition with the operator $`K`$ the new BRST operator (4) is mapped to the original one and the original string field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ maps as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=e^K(\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(55)
which is again consequence of the fact that any string field does not carry momentum in the transverse dimensions and hence are invariant under the action of $`e^K`$.

In this section we gave an example of the exact string field theory solution corresponding to the translation of D0-brane in the transverse space. We have seen that this solution is in some sense very simple since the string field theory description of D0-brane should not depend on the position of D0-brane in the transverse space. On the other hand, as was argued in  problem of marginal deformation is quiet nontrivial in the context of the string field theory so that we believe that our approach could be helpful in further study of the string field theory. In the next section we give the second example corresponding to the rotation of the D0-brane position in the transverse space.

## 5 Solution corresponding to the rotation in the transverse space

Let us consider D0-brane that is localized in any point in the transverse space with coordinates $`Y^I,I=1,\mathrm{},25`$ and consider solution of the string field theory equation of motion that corresponds to the rotation of this D0-brane. As in previous example given in (3) section Dirichlet boundary conditions explicitly break rotation invariance. However we can still expect that the theory should not depend on the position of D0-brane in the transverse space. Let us consider following transformation of coordinates

$$\delta X^I=\omega _J^IX^J,\omega _J^I=const.$$
(56)
It is easy to see that the world-sheet Lagrangian is invariant under this transformation. Then the generator of rotation symmetry is given

$$M^{IJ}=i_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma J^{0IJ}=\frac{i}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma (X^I\dot{X}^JX^J\dot{X}^I).$$
(57)
Let us consider string field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=Q(\omega _{IJ}M_L^{IJ}())=D_L();D_L=[Q,\omega _{IJ}M^{IJ}]_L.$$
(58)
It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ solves the linearised equation of motion $`Q(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$ thanks to the nilpotence of $`Q`$. As in previous case the new BRST operator can be written as

$`Q^{}=QD,D=[Q,\omega _{IJ}M^{IJ}]=[Q_{bound},\omega _{IJ}M^{IJ}],`$
$`Q_{bound}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _o^\pi }𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )Y^K\eta _{KL}X^L(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)).`$
where we have used manifest rotation invariance of the bulk part of the BRST operator. We have also included into bulk BRST operator the term proportional $`Y_IY^Ic^0(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0))^2`$ that is manifestly invariant under rotation as well.

We have to say a few words to the fact that we have introduced boundary term $`Q_{bound}`$. As we argued in the previous section we can perform field redefinition and transform the BRST operator $`Q+Q_{bound}`$ to the original one $`Q`$ and we have seen that the new string field is the same as the original one, which was a consequence of the fact that D0-brane physics in trivial background does not depend on D0-brane position in the transverse space. In the same way we could start with D0-brane in the position $`Y^I=0`$ and consequently it would not have a sense to speak about the solution of the string field equation of motion corresponding to the rotation of D0-brane. However we would like to illustrate on this example an application of the general method given in (2) section to generate solution of the equation of motion hence we have introduced the boundary term in the BRST operator that reflects the fact that D0-brane is placed in the position $`Y^I`$. We will perform more interesting calculation in case of $`N`$ D0-branes in separate paper. It is easy to perform calculation of the commutator with the result

$$[Q_{bound},\omega _{IJ}M^{IJ}]=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )Y^I\omega _{IJ}X^J(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)).$$
(60)
As a result, the new BRST operator $`Q^{}`$ is

$$Q^{}=QD=Q_{bulk}\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )Y^I(\eta _{IJ}+\omega _{IJ})X^J(\sigma )\left(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)\right),$$
(61)
We see that our solution corresponds to the rotation in the transverse space to the new Dirichlet boundary conditions

$$Y^K=Y^I(\delta _I^K+\omega _{IM}\eta ^{MK})=(\delta _I^K\eta ^{KM}\omega _{MI})Y^I.$$
(62)
It is a simple exercise to generalize previous solution to the case of finite rotation. Then we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=e^{K_L()}Q\left(e^{K_L()}\right)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}[K,[K,\mathrm{},[K,[K,Q]],\mathrm{}]_L()=D_L()$$
(63)
so that the new BRST operator is equal to

$`Q^{}=Q_{bulk}+Q_{bound}D=Q_{bulk}+Q_{bound}^{}`$
$`Q_{bound}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )Y^I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IJ}X^J(\sigma )\left[\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IJ}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}(\omega )_{IJ}^n,,(\omega )_{IJ}^2=\omega _{IK}\eta ^{KL}\omega _{LJ},\mathrm{},`$
where we have used

$`[K,[K,Q]]=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )Y^I\omega _{IJ}X^J(\sigma )(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)),\omega _{KL}M^{KL}]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )[\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)]Y^I\omega _{IJ}\eta ^{JL}\omega _{KL}_\sigma {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}\delta _D(\sigma ^{},\sigma )X^K(\sigma ^{})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma c^0(\sigma )Y^I\omega _{IJ}\eta ^{JL}\omega _{LK}X^K(\sigma )[\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)]`$
so that

$$D=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}Y^I(\omega ^n)_{IJ}X^J(\sigma )[\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma )].$$
(66)
We see that the new boundary term $`Q_{Bound}^{}`$ corresponds precisely to the situation where D0-brane is placed in the points $`Y^I`$. Following our general discussion in (2) section we can perform the field redefinition that maps the new BRST operator $`Q^{}`$ to the original one $`Q`$ and the original field is mapped to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=e^K(\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(67)
In this case however the new field $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ will differ from the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ since various components can carry different tensor components and hence $`K`$ acts non trivially on these string states. Following standard methods  it is a simple task to obtain the new form of these fields. We will not repeat this calculation here.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper we have presented two examples of the classical solution of the open bosonic string field theory, following our general discussion given in paper . We have seen that this method gives an expected result in case of small marginal deformation corresponding to translation in transverse space to the world-volume of D0-brane, however we have seen that in the case of finite translation there is additional term that contains only ghost contribution and is in fact singular on the boundary of the world-sheet. At present we do not precisely understand nature of this term. It is possible that it can be avoided by careful CFT calculation, following . We are going to make such a calculatin. On the other hand, we have argued that with the appropriate string field redefinition we can map the new BRST operator to the original one and hence we can easily avoid the problems with this term.

To sum up, we hope that our approach gives a new view on the problem of the marginal deformation in the open string field theory. We also believe that in more interesting examples, such as a marginal deformation of the configuration of $`N`$ D0-branes, our approach could be very useful. We return to this problem in our future work.

Of course, our approach is far more complete. As we claimed above, it would be nice to prove detailed analysis based on conformal field theory techniques, following seminal paper . Again we hope to return to this problem in our future research.
Acknowledgment It is my great pleasure to thank to all people at the Department of Theoretical Physics in Uppsala, especially to Joseph Minahan, Ulf Danielsson and Konstantin Zarembo for useful discussions. I am also very graceful to Ulf Lindstrom for his support of my research. This work is partly supported by EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-00122. This work is also supported by the Czech Ministry of Education under Contract No. 143100006.

## 7 Appendix

In this appendix we will discuss some properties of the delta function 666For very nice discussion, see paper .

$$\delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})_D=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma \mathrm{sin}n\sigma ^{}.$$
(68)
that obeys Dirichlet boundary conditions

$$\delta (\sigma ,\pi )_D=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma \mathrm{sin}n\pi =0,\delta (\sigma ,0)_D=0.$$
(69)
It is easy to see that for any function obeying Dirichlet boundary condition

$$f(\sigma )=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_m\mathrm{sin}m\sigma $$
(70)
we get

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma f(\sigma )\delta _D(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }f_m\mathrm{sin}m\sigma sinn\sigma \mathrm{sin}n\sigma ^{}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{cos}(mn)\sigma \mathrm{cos}(m+n)\sigma \right]\mathrm{sin}n\sigma ^{}={\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_m\mathrm{sin}m\sigma ^{}=f(\sigma ^{}).`$
For our purposes it is also very important following formula

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}_\sigma \delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})_D={\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mathrm{sin}n\sigma ^{}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}(\mathrm{cos}(n\pi )\mathrm{cos}(n0))=(\delta _N(\sigma ,\pi )\delta _N(\sigma ,0)),`$
where the delta function obeying Neumann boundary conditions is defined as

$$\delta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\frac{1}{\pi }+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{},n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma \mathrm{cos}n\sigma ^{}.$$
(73)


format: text

text:
# The cosmological constant problem and quintessence.

## 1 Introduction

Einstein (1917) introduced the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ because he believed that a closed static universe which emerged in the presence of both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and matter agreed with Ernst Mach’s concepts of inertia  which forbade the notion of ‘empty space’. However, the discovery by Friedmann (1922) of expanding solutions to the Einstein field equations in the absence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, together with the discovery by Hubble (1929) that the universe was expanding, gave a blow to the static model. Soon after, Einstein discarded the cosmological constant. Although abandoned by Einstein, the cosmological constant staged several come-backs. It was soon realised that, since the static Einstein universe is unstable to small perturbations, one could construct expanding universe models which had a quasi-static origin in the past, thus ameliorating the initial singularity which plagues expanding FRW models. One could also construct models which approached the static Einstein universe during an intermediate epoch when the universe ‘loitered’ with $`a`$ constant. Such a model was proposed by Lemaitre (1927) and was to prove influential later, in 1968, when it was invoked to explain an alleged excess of quasars at a redshift $`z2`$. It is also interesting that during the very same year that Einstein proposed the cosmological constant, de Sitter discovered a matter-free solution to the Einstein equations in the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which had both static and dynamic representations. The de Sitter metric was to play an important role both in connection with steady state cosmology as well as in the construction of inflationary models of the very early universe.

A physical basis for the cosmological constant had to wait until 1968, when Ya. B. Zel’dovich puzzling over cosmological observations which appeared to require $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (the quasar excess at $`z2`$ alluded to earlier) realised that one loop quantum vacuum fluctuations111 The presence of zero-point vacuum fluctuations was predicted by Casimir  and has been verified by several experiments, see  and references therein. gave rise to an energy momentum tensor which, after being suitably regularised for infinities, had exactly the same form as a cosmological constant: $`T_{ik}_{\mathrm{vac}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ik}/8\pi G`$.

Theoretical interest in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remained on the increase during the 1970’s and early 1980’s with the construction of inflationary models, in which matter (in the form of a false vacuum, as vacuum polarization or as a minimally coupled scalar-field) behaved precisely like a weakly time-dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term. The current interest in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stems mainly from observations of Type Ia high redshift supernovae which indicate that the universe is accelerating fueled perhaps by a small cosmological $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term . 222The chronology of interest in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ bears a curious historical parallel to the scientific fascination with the notion of extra dimensions. (I thank Nathalie Duruelle for an interesting discussion on this issue during the meeting.) A fourth spatial dimension was proposed by Nordström (1914) and independently by Kaluza (1921), but the real scientific interest in higher dimensions grew after de Witt (1962), Kerner (1968) and others  had convincingly demonstrated the deep relationship between higher dimensional theories on the one hand, and non-abelian gauge fields on the other. Cosmology in a space-time with extra dimensions really took off during the 1970’s and early 1980’s when grand unified and supergravity models frequently relied on compact extra dimensions to generate the extra gauge degrees of freedom associated with unification. Current interest in higher dimensional cosmologies is spurred by superstring theory as well as by ‘brane-world’ scenario’s of extra dimensions.

## 2 The cosmological constant and vacuum energy

Vacuum fluctuations contributing to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ generate a very large (formally infinite) value of the cosmological constant $`T_{00}_{\mathrm{vac}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{k^2+m^2}k^2𝑑k`$. The integral diverges as $`k^4`$ resulting in an infinite value for $`T_{00}_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ and hence also for the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=8\pi GT_{00}_{\mathrm{vac}}`$. Since each form of energy gravitates and therefore reacts back on the space-time geometry, an infinite value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is expected to generate an infinitely large space-time curvature through the semi-classical Einstein equations $`G_{00}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{00}_{\mathrm{vac}}`$. One way to avoid this is to assume that the Planck scale provides a natural ultra-violet cutoff to all field theoretic processes, this results in $`T_{00}_{\mathrm{vac}}c^5/G^2\mathrm{}10^{76}`$GeV4 which is 123 orders of magnitude larger than the currently observed value $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{47}`$GeV4. A cutoff at the much lower QCD scale doesn’t fare much better since it generates a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^410^3`$GeV4 – forty orders of magnitude larger than observed. Clearly the answer to the cosmological constant issue must lie elsewhere.

The discovery of supersymmetry in the 1970’s led to the hope that the cosmological constant problem may be resolved by a judicious balance between bosons and fermions in nature, since bosons and fermions (of identical mass) contribute equally but with opposite sign to the vacuum expectation value of physical quantities, so that

$$0|H_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{f}}|0𝑑VT_{00}_{\mathrm{vac}}=\pm \frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐤}{}\omega _𝐤.$$
(1)
However supersymmetry (if it exists) is broken at the low temperatures prevailing in the universe today and on this account one should expect the cosmological constant to vanish in the early universe, but to reappear during late times when the temperature has dropped below $`T_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. This is clearly an undesirable scenario and almost the very opposite of what one is looking for, since, a large value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at an early time is useful from the viewpoint of inflation, whereas a very small current value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in agreement with observations.

The cosmological constant also makes an important appearance in models with spontaneous symmetry breaking . For simplicity consider the Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ij}_i\varphi _j\varphi V(\varphi ),`$
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda \varphi ^4.`$ (2)
The symmetric state at $`\varphi =0`$ is unstable and the system settles in the ground state $`\varphi =+\sigma `$ or $`\varphi =\sigma `$, where $`\sigma =\sqrt{\mu ^2/\lambda }`$, thus breaking the reflection symmetry $`\varphi \varphi `$ present in the Lagrangian. If $`V_0=0`$ then this potential results in a broken symmetry state with a large negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=V(\varphi =\sigma )=\mu ^4/4\lambda `$. In order to avoid this situation the value of the free parameter $`V_0`$ is chosen to counterbalance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}`$, as a result one sets $`V_0\mu ^4/4\lambda `$ so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}/8\pi G=V_0\mu ^4/4\lambda 10^{47}`$GeV 4. The ensuing ‘regularization’ of the large negative cosmological constant must be done with considerable care, since even small ‘fluctuations’ in the final value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can result in grave consequences for cosmology. For instance if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}/8\pi G<10^{43}`$GeV 4 the large attractive force exerted by a negative cosmological constant will ensure that the universe re-collapses before it reaches ‘maturity’. The age of the universe in this case will be $`<`$ 1 billion years, much too short for galaxies to form and for life (as we know it) to emerge within the standard big bang scenario. On the other hand if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}/8\pi G>10^{43}`$GeV4, the large repulsive force generated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will ensure that the universe begins accelerating before gravitationally bound systems have a chance to form. Such a scenario will also clearly preclude the emergence of life.

The rather small window permitted for life to emerge in the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has led several researchers  to develop anthropic arguments for the existence of a small cosmological constant. A possibility which is summarised by the following sentence: “if our big bang is just one of many big bangs, with a wide range of vacuum energies, then it is natural that some of these big bangs should have a vacuum energy in the narrow range where galaxies can form, and of course it is just these big bangs in which there could be astronomers and physicists wondering about the vacuum energy” . Anthropic arguments for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will not be examined further by me in this talk.

In the absence of a fundamental symmetry of nature which will set the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to zero one has to look towards physical mechanisms which might generate an acceptably small value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term today.

Exploring the connection between quantum fluctuations and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Zel’dovich suggested that, after the removal of divergences, the energy density of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair interacting gravitationally would be

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{Gm^2}{\mathrm{}c}m(\frac{mc}{\mathrm{}})^3.$$
(3)
(This result is easy to derive if one notes that the interaction energy density is typically $`ϵ_{vac}\rho _{vac}c^2\frac{Gm^2}{\lambda }/\lambda ^3`$ where $`\lambda =\mathrm{}/mc`$ is the mean separation between particle and antiparticle.) This possibility has not been explored much, perhaps because the proton-antiproton (electron-positron) contribution gives a very large (small) value for $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Interestingly the pion-antipion mass gives just the right value $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}\rho _{\mathrm{Pl}}(m_\pi /M_{\mathrm{Pl}})^61.3\times 10^{123}\rho _{\mathrm{Pl}}=6.91\times 10^{30}gcm^3.`$

Purely numerological considerations also allow one to generate a sufficiently small value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through a suitable combination of fundamental constants. For instance the fine structre constant $`\alpha `$ can be combined with the Planck density $`\rho _{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ to give  $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{Pl}}}{(2\pi ^2)^3}e^{2/\alpha }1.2\times 10^{123}\rho _{\mathrm{Pl}}=6.29\times 10^{30}gcm^3`$.

A small vacuum energy may be connected to fundamental physics in other (equally speculative) ways. It is interesting that the mass scale associated with the scale of supersymmetry breaking in some models, $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}1`$ TeV, lies midway between the Planck scale and $`10^3`$ eV. The small observed value of the cosmological constant $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(10^3eV)^4`$ might therefore be associated with the vacuum in a theory which had a fundamental mass scale $`M_XM_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, such that $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}M_X^4(10^3eV)^4`$.

## 3 A dynamical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term.

Any fundamental theory of nature which intends to succesfully generate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be confronted by the ‘fine tuning problem’ since the currently observed value of the cosmological constant is miniscule when compared with either the Planck ($`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^410^{123}`$) or the electroweak scale ($`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_{\mathrm{EW}}^410^{55}`$). During the expansion of the universe the energy density in matter (radiation) decreases as $`a^3`$ ($`a^4`$) while the density in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remains constant. As a result an enormous fine tuning of initial conditions is required in order to ensure that the cosmological $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term comes to dominate the expansion dynamics of the universe at precisely the current epoch, no sooner and no later.

The fine-tuning problem is rendered less acute if we relax the condition $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$constant, and (taking the cue from Inflation) try to construct dynamical models for $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Phenomenological approaches to a dynamical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term belong to three main categories :

(1) Kinematic models.

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is simply assumed to be a function of either the cosmic time $`t`$ or the scale factor $`a(t)`$ of the FRW cosmological model.

(2) Hydrodynamic models.

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is described by a barotropic fluid with some equation of state $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (dissipative terms may also be present).

(3) Field-theoretic models. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term is assumed to be a new physical classical field with some phenomenological Lagrangian.

The simplest class of kinematic models

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }8\pi G\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=f(a)$$
(4)
is equivalent to hydrodynamic models based on an ideal fluid with an equation of state

$$p_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda })=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{d\mathrm{ln}a}).$$
(5)
The expansion of the universe passes through an inflection point the moment it stops decelerating and begins to accelerate. If the equation of state is held constant ($`w=P/\rho <1/3`$) then the cosmological redshift when this occurs is given by

$$(1+z_\mathrm{a})^{3w}=(1+3w)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_X}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}.$$
(6)
We find that $`z_\mathrm{a}0.7`$ for the cosmological constant ($`w=1`$) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$. The acceleration of the universe is therefore a very recent phenomena. This fact is related to the cosmic coincidence conundrum since it appears that we live during a special era when the density of dark matter and dark energy are comparable. The cosmic coincidence puzzle remains in place even if we relax the assumption $`w=1`$ and allow dark energy to be time dependent. Indeed, it is easy to show that the equality between dark matter and dark energy takes place at $`(1+z_{\mathrm{eq}})^3=(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_m)^{1/w}`$. For a cosmological constant this gives $`z_{\mathrm{eq}}0.3`$ and $`z_\mathrm{a}>z_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ implying that the universe begins to accelerate even before it becomes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated. For $`w=2/3`$ $`z_\mathrm{a}=z_{\mathrm{eq}}0.5`$, while for stiffer equations of state $`z_\mathrm{a}<z_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ ($`w>2/3`$) further exacerbating the cosmological coincidence puzzle.

### 3.1 Scalar field models of dark energy

Although the cosmic coincidence issue remains unresolved, the fine tuning problem facing dark energy/quintessence models with a constant equation of state can be significantly alleviated if we assume that the equation of state is time dependent. An important class of models having this property are scalar fields which couple minimally to gravity and whose energy momentum tensor is

$$\rho T_0^0=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ),PT_\alpha ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi ).$$
(7)
A scalar field rolling down its potential slowly generates a time-dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term since $`P\rho V(\varphi )`$ if $`\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi )`$. Potentials which satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }V^{\prime \prime }V/(V^{})^21`$ have the interesting property that scalar fields approach a common evolutionary path from a wide range of initial conditions . In these so-called ‘tracker’ models the scalar field density (and its equation of state) remains close to that of the dominant background matter during most of cosmological evolution. A good example is provided by the exponential potential $`V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{8\pi }\lambda \varphi /M_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$  for which

$$\frac{\rho _\varphi }{\rho _B+\rho _\varphi }=\frac{3(1+w_B)}{\lambda ^2}=\mathrm{constant}<0.2,$$
(8)
$`\rho _B`$ is the background energy density while $`w_B`$ is the associated equation of state. The lower limit $`\rho _\varphi /\rho _{\mathrm{total}}<0.2`$ arises because of nucleosynthesis constraints which prevent the energy density in quintessence from being large initially (at $`tfew`$ sec.). Since the ratio $`\rho _\varphi /\rho _{\mathrm{total}}`$ remains fixed, exponential potentials on their own cannot supply us with a means of generating dark energy/quintessence at the present epoch. However a suitable modification of the exponential achieves this. For instance the class of potentials

$$V(\varphi )=V_0[\mathrm{cosh}\lambda \varphi 1]^p,$$
(9)
has the property that $`w_\varphi w_B`$ at early times whereas $`w_\varphi =(p1)/(p+1)`$ at late times. Consequently (9) describes quintessence for $`p1/2`$ and pressureless ‘cold’ dark matter (CDM) for $`p=1`$.

A second example of a tracker-potential is provided by $`V(\varphi )=V_0/\varphi ^\alpha `$ . During tracking the ratio of the energy density of the scalar field (quintessence) to that of radiation/matter gradually increases $`\rho _\varphi /\rho _Bt^{4/(2+\alpha )}`$ while its equation of state remains marginally smaller than the background value $`w_\varphi =(\alpha w_B2)/(\alpha +2)`$. These properties allow the scalar field to eventually dominate the density of the universe, giving rise to a late-time epoch of accelerated expansion. (Current observations place the strong constrain $`\alpha \text{ }\stackrel{<}{}2`$.)

Several of the quintessential potentials listed in table 1 have been inspired by field theoretic ideas including supersymmetric gauge theories and supergravity, pseudo-goldstone boson models, etc. However accelerated expansion can also arise in models with: (i) topological defects such as a frustrated network of cosmic strings ($`w1/3`$) and domain walls ($`w2/3`$); (ii) scalar field lagrangians with non-linear kinetic terms and no potential term (k-essence ); (iii) vacuum polarization associated with an ultra-light scalar field ; (iv) non-minimally coupled scalar fields ; (v) fields that couple to matter ; (vi) scalar-tensor theories of gravity ; (vii) brane-world models  etc.

Scalar field based quintessence models can be broadly divided into two classes: (i) those for which $`\varphi /M_{\mathrm{Pl}}1`$ as $`tt_0`$, (ii) those for which $`\varphi /M_{\mathrm{Pl}}1`$ as $`tt_0`$ ($`t_0`$ is the present time). An important issue concerning the second class of models is whether quantum corrections become important when $`\varphi /M_{\mathrm{Pl}}1`$ and their possible effect on the quintessence potential . One can also ask whether a given choice of parameter values is ‘natural’. Consider for instance the potential $`V=M^{4+\alpha }/\varphi ^\alpha `$, current observations indicate $`V_010^{47}`$GeV4 and $`\alpha \text{ }\stackrel{<}{}2`$, which together suggest $`M\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ GeV (smaller values of $`M`$ arise for smaller $`\alpha `$) it is not clear whether such small parameter values can be motivated by current models of high energy physics.

Finally, it would be enormously interesting if one and the same field could give rise to both Inflation and dark energy. Such models have been discussed both in the context of standard inflation  and brane-world inflation , we briefly discuss the second possibility below.

### 3.2 Quintessential Inflation in Braneworld scenario’s

In the 4+1 dimensional brane scenario inspired by the Randall-Sundrum  model, matter fields are confined to a three dimensional ‘brane’ which is embedded in a four dimensional ‘bulk’ geometry. The equation of motion of a scalar field propogating on the brane is

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}(\varphi )=0.$$
(10)
where

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi }{3M_4^2}\rho (1+\frac{\rho }{2\lambda _b}),\rho =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ),$$
(11)
and $`\lambda _b`$ is the brane tension. The additional term $`\rho ^2/\lambda _b`$ in (11) arises due to junction conditions imposed at the bulk-brane boundary. The presence of this term increases the damping experienced by the scalar field as it rolls down its potential. This effect is reflected in the slow-roll parameters, which in braneworld models (for $`V/\lambda _b1`$) have the form

$$ϵ4ϵ_{\mathrm{FRW}}(V/\lambda _b)^1,\eta 2\eta _{\mathrm{FRW}}(V/\lambda _b)^1.$$
(12)
Clearly slow-roll ($`ϵ,\eta 1`$) is easier to achieve when $`V/\lambda _b1`$ and on this basis one can expect inflation to occur even for the very steep potentials associated with quintessence models including $`Ve^{\lambda \varphi }`$, $`V\varphi ^\alpha `$ etc. Inflation in these models has been extensively discussed in  within the framework of a scenario in which reheating takes place unconventionally, through inflationary particle production. This leads to an enormous difference between the energy in the inflaton and in radiation at the end of inflation: $`\rho _\varphi /\rho _{rad}|_{\mathrm{end}}10^{16}`$. Since the potential driving inflation is steep, the post-inflationary expansion in these models is driven by the kinetic energy of the scalar field, so that $`w_\varphi 1`$, $`\rho _\varphi a^6`$ and $`at^{1/3}`$. (Because radiation decreases at the slower rate $`\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}a^4`$ the scale factor changes to $`at^{1/2}`$ after the density in the inflaton and in radiation equalize. This usually takes place at a low temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}\mathrm{few}`$ GeV.)

As demonstrated in  inflation can occur for several of the quintessence potentials discussed in the previous section but for a rather narrow region of parameter space (see figure 2). It also appears that quintessential inflation generates a large gravity wave background which could be in conflict with big bang nucleosynthesis considerations .

### 3.3 Reconstructing the cosmic equation of state

Although fundamental theories such as Supergravity or M-theory do provide a number of possible candidates for quintessence they do not uniquely predict its potential $`V(\varphi )`$. Therefore it becomes meaningful to reconstruct $`V(\varphi )`$ and the cosmic equation of state $`w=P/\rho `$ directly from observations in a model independent manner . This is possible to do if one notices that the scalar field potential as well as its equation of state can be directly expressed in terms of the Hubble parameter and its derivative

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}}V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{H_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{6H_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dH^2}{dx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_mx^3,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dx}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3H_0^2x}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}H}{dx}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_mx}{H^2}},x=1+z,`$ (14)
$`w_\varphi (x){\displaystyle \frac{p}{\epsilon }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2x/3)d\mathrm{ln}H/dx1}{1\left(H_0^2/H^2\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_mx^3}}.`$ (16)
Since the Hubble parameter is related to the luminosity distance

$$H(z)=\left[\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{d_L(z)}{1+z}\right)\right]^1,$$
(17)
one can determine both the quintessence potential $`V(\varphi )`$ as well as reconstruct its equation of state $`w_\varphi (z)`$ provided the luminosity distance $`d_L(z)`$ is known from observations. A three parameter ansatz for estimating the luminosity distance was proposed in . Results from that paper reproduced in figure 3 indicate that only a small amount of evolution in $`w_\varphi (z)`$ is permitted by current SnIa observations. The presence of a cosmological constant is therefore in good agreement with these results.

A word of caution should be added: as shown in figure 4 a near degeneracy exists between the equation of state of dark energy and the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. The latter should therefore be known to better than $`5\%`$ accuracy for the reconstruction program to yield very accurate results (see also ).

### 3.4 Probing dark energy using the Statefinder statistic

An issue of the utmost importance is whether dark energy (equivalently quintessence) is a cosmological constant or whether it has a fundamentally different origin. A new dimensionless statistic ‘Statefinder’, recently introduced by Sahni, Saini, Starobinsky and Alam  has the power to discriminate between different forms of dark energy and may therefore be a good diagnostic of cosmological models.

The Statefinder pair $`\{r,s\}`$ is constructed from the scale factor of the universe and its derivatives and probes the cosmic equation of state and its rate of change. It extends the hierarchy of geometrical cosmological parameters to four: $`\{H,q,r,s\}`$, where $`H=(\dot{a}/a)`$, $`q=H^2(\ddot{a}/a)`$,

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{a}}{aH^3}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{9w}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (1+w){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{w}}{H}},`$
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r1}{3(q1/2)}}=1+w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{w}}{wH}}.`$ (18)
From figure 5 we see that while $`r`$ remains fixed at $`r=1`$ in a universe containing matter and a cosmological constant, the value of $`r`$ decreases steadily for time varying forms of dark energy. The Statefinder statistic can therefore help differentiate a cosmological constant from: (i) dark energy with a time-independent equation of state (referred to in  as Quiessence) and (ii) dark energy with a time-dependent equation of state (referred to in  as Kinessence).

## 4 Horizons in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe

The conventional viewpoint regarding the future evolution of a matter-dominated universe can be summarised by the following pair of statements:

\[A\] If the universe is spatially open or flat then it will expand for ever.

\[B\] Alternatively, if the universe is spatially closed then its expansion will be followed by recollapse.

In a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe \[A\] and \[B\] are replaced by

\[A’\] A spatially open or flat universe ($`\kappa =0,1`$) will recollapse if the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term is constant and negative.

\[B’\] A closed universe ($`\kappa =+1`$) with a constant positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term can, under certain circumstances, expand forever.

Recent CMB observations indicate that our universe is close to being spatially flat, therefore, if we wait long enough we will find that the expansion of our universe rapidly approaches the de Sitter value $`H=H_{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}=H_0\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_m}`$, while the density of matter asymptotically declines to zero $`\rho _ma^30`$.

Density perturbations in such a universe will freeze to a constant value if they are still in the linear regime, but the acceleration of the universe will not affect gravitationally bound systems on present scales of $`R<10`$h-1 Mpc (which includes our own galaxy as well as galaxy clusters). The universe at late times will therefore consist of islands of matter immersed in an accelerating sea of dark energy: ‘$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’.

In such a universe the local neighborhood of an observer from which he/she is able to receive signals will eventually contract and shrink so that even those regions of the universe which are currently observable to us will eventually be hidden from view. As an illustration consider an event at ($`r_1,t_1`$) which we wish to observe at our location at $`r=0`$, then

$$_0^{r_1}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1\kappa r^2}}=_{t_1}^t\frac{dt^{}}{a(t^{})}.$$
(19)
An observer at $`r=0`$ will be able to receive signals from any event (after a suitably long wait) provided the integral in the RHS of (19) diverges (as $`t\mathrm{}`$). For $`at^p`$, this implies $`p<0`$, or a decelerating universe. In an accelerating universe the integral converges, signaling the presence of an event horizon. As a result one can only receive signals from those events which satisfy

$$_0^{r_1}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1\kappa r^2}}_{t_1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt^{}}{a(t^{})}.$$
(20)
For de Sitter-like expansion $`a=a_1\mathrm{exp}H(tt_1),H=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}`$, we get $`r_1r_H`$ and $`R=a_1r_H=H^1`$ where $`R`$ is the proper distance to the event horizon. In such a universe light emitted by distant objects gets redshifted and declines in intensity (an analogous situation occurs for an object falling through the horizon of a black hole.) As a result comoving observers once visible, gradually disappear from view as the universe accelerates under the influence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One consequence of this interesting phenomenon is that at any given instant of time, $`t_0`$, one can determine a redshift $`z_H`$, which will define for us the ‘sphere of influence’ of our civilization. Celestial objects with $`z>z_H`$ will always remain inaccessible to signals emitted by our civilization at $`tt_0`$. For a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ one finds $`z_H=1.80`$ . More generally, horizon’s exist in a universe which begins to perpetually accelerate after a given point of time . (To this general category belong models of dark energy with equation of state $`1<w<1/3`$, as well as ‘runaway scalar fields’  which satisfy $`V,V^{},V^{\prime \prime }0`$ and $`V^{}/V,V^{\prime \prime }/V0`$ as $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$.) Since the conventional S-matrix approach may not work in a universe with an event horizon, such a cosmological model may pose a serious challenge to a fundamental theory of interactions such as string theory. Possible ways of cutting short ‘eternal acceleration’ (thereby avoiding horizons) involve scalar fields with non-monotonic potentials. For instance a flat potential with a local minimum will have a negative equation of state during slow roll, which will increase to non-negative values after the cessation of slow roll and the commencement of oscillations (provided the potential is sufficiently steep in the neighborhood of the minimum). An example is provided by a massive scalar field $`V(\varphi )=m^2\varphi ^2/2`$ for which the epoch of accelerated expansion is a transient. Other possibilities are discussed in .

## 5 Conclusions

One of the major concerns of cosmology today is the nature of dark energy (quintessence). While a cosmological constant appears to be the simplest option, formidable fine-tuning problems which confront the latter have led to theoretical models being developed in which both the dark energy as well as its equation of state are functions of time. Type Ia supernovae currently provide the strongest evidence for dark energy. The very recent observations of a supernova at $`z1.7`$ appear to rule out simple extinction and evolution effects as major causes for the diminishing light flux from these high-$`z`$ objects. It therefore appears that the dark energy is ‘real’ and that the universe was decelerating at $`z>0.5`$ .

The observational situation is likely to improve as results from both deep and extensive galaxy and galaxy cluster survey’s come in. It is well known that the presence of a cosmological constant changes the shape of the two point galaxy-galaxy correlation function by increasing the strength of clustering on large scales . Additionally, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ slows down the growth of gravitational clustering, galaxy clusters are expected to be more abundant at high redshift in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM than in the standard cold dark matter scenario (SCDM). (Tracker fields can give rise to a large smooth component of matter at high $`z`$, as a result gravitational clustering takes place at a slower rate in tracker-quintessence models than in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM .) Both these effects are likely to be tested in the near future . Indeed, recent results which measure the gravitational clustering of over 100,000 galaxies in the 2dF survey, determine a matter power spectrum which is consistent with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and inconsistent with SCDM .

Combined results from CMB probes (MAP, PLANCK), galaxy surveys (2dF, SDSS, DEEP), weak lensing statistics and the possibility of a dedicated supernova telescope (SNAP) give rise to expectations that the nature of dark energy will be understood (at least at the phenomenological level) in the not too distant future.

## References


text:
# Enhancement of the Upper Critical Field and a Field-Induced Superconductivity in Antiferromagnetic Conductors

\[

## Abstract

We propose a mechanism by which the paramagnetic pair-breaking effect is largely reduced in superconductors with coexisting antiferromagnetic long-range and short-range orders. The mechanism is an extension of the Jaccarino and Peter mechanism to antiferromagnetic conductors, but the resultant phase diagram is quite different. In order to illustrate the mechanism, we examine a model which consists of mobile electrons and antiferromagnetically correlated localized spins with Kondo coupling between them. It is found that for weak Kondo coupling, the superconductivity occurs over an extraordinarily wide region of the magnetic field including zero field. The critical field exceeds the Chandrasekhar and Clogston limit, but there is no lower limit in contrast to the Jaccarino and Peter mechanism. On the other hand, for strong Kondo coupling, both the low-field superconductivity and a field-induced superconductivity occur. Possibilities in hybrid ruthenate cuprate superconductors and some organic superconductors are discussed.

\]

Recently, superconductivity at high fields exceeding the Chandrasekhar and Clogston limit  (Pauli paramagnetic limit $`H_\mathrm{P}`$) has been examined by many authors , in connection with experimental data for organic superconductors . In $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ and $`\kappa `$-$`(\mathrm{BEDT}`$-$`\mathrm{TTF})_2\mathrm{X}`$ compounds in parallel magnetic fields, the upper critical field exhibits an upturn ($`\mathrm{d}^2H_{\mathrm{c2}}/\mathrm{d}T^2>0`$) at low temperatures, exceeding the value of $`H_\mathrm{P}`$ estimated from the zero-field transition temperature $`T_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}`$ by a simplified formula $`H_\mathrm{P}1.86T_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}`$ . On the other hand, in a $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ compound, a field-induced superconductivity was observed at high fields, while at zero field it is an antiferromagnetic insulator .

There are several possible mechanisms to explain the critical fields higher than $`H_\mathrm{P}`$. For example, triplet superconductivity, the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state (the FFLO state or LOFF state) , spin-orbit coupling, and a strong coupling effect have been examined. Among them, the upturn of the critical field can be explained by triplet superconductivity with dimensional crossover , and also by the FFLO state . The pairing symmetries in organic superconductors seem to be still controversial .

In triplet superconductors, since the orbital pair-breaking effect is largely suppressed in a parallel magnetic field, the critical field of a parallel spin pairing is much higher than $`H_\mathrm{P}`$. The upturn and a reentrant superconducting transition are predicted by a theory of dimensional crossover .

The microscopic origin of the triplet superconductivity has been studied by many authors. For example, on the analogy of the superfluid 3He, a paramagnon theory based on the ferromagnetic fluctuation appears to be a natural explanation, but many of the organics are in proximity to the antiferromagnetic phase. This discrepancy does not exist in phonon mechanisms of the triplet superconductivity. The anisotropic components of the pairing interactions are rather large due to the weak screening effect in the layered systems . Hence, reduction of the $`s`$-wave pairing interaction due to short-range Coulomb repulsion may give rise to triplet superconductivity .

The pairing interactions mediated by antiferromagnetic fluctuations may also be a mechanism of triplet superconductivity. The pairing interactions mediated by antiferromagnetic fluctuations include attractive triplet channels . Hence, suppression of the singlet superconductivity due to some additional mechanism, such as inter-site Coulomb repulsion or a magnetic field (if it is applied), may give rise to triplet superconductivity .

On the other hand, in singlet superconductors, the FFLO state is a candidate for the mechanism of the high-field superconductivity and the upturn of the upper critical field. Recently, it was observed in $`\kappa `$-$`(\mathrm{BEDT}`$-$`\mathrm{TTF})_2\mathrm{Cu}[\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{CN})_2]\mathrm{Br}`$ that the upturn has a tendency to disappear when the direction of the magnetic field is slightly tilted . This behavior is consistent with a theoretical prediction based on the FFLO state. To obtain direct evidence of the FFLO state, observation of the spatial structure of the gap function by scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) would be useful . Purely quantitative arguments for the critical field are difficult because detailed information on the Fermi surface structure and the interactions is necessary for accurate estimation . Subdominant interactions presumably exist in anisotropic superconductors .

Furthermore, it should be noted that in strong coupling superconductors, the observed critical fields are larger than the values of $`H_\mathrm{P}`$ expected from $`T_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}`$ in weak coupling theory, because the ratio $`T_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is reduced by a strong coupling effect, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the BCS gap at $`T=0`$ and $`H=0`$.

Jaccarino and Peter proposed a mechanism of ultrahigh-field superconductivity . They pointed out that the exchange field created by the polarized rare earth spin cancels the magnetic field in certain ferromagnetic metals. The Jaccarino and Peter mechanism explains the field-induced superconductivity in $`\mathrm{Eu}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Sn}_{1\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Mo}_6\mathrm{S}_8`$  and probably that in the $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ compound . An observed temperature dependence of the lower critical field of the high-field superconductivity in $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$  can be explained by the FFLO state in combination with the Jaccarino and Peter mechanism.

In this paper, we propose a mechanism by which the paramagnetic pair-breaking effect is largely reduced in superconductors with coexisting antiferromagnetic long-range and short-range orders. The present mechanism is an extension of the Jaccarino and Peter mechanism of ferromagnetic metals to antiferromagnetic metals. The origin of the enhancement of the critical field is due to a compensation effect similar to that of the Jaccarino and Peter mechanism. However, the resultant phase diagram is quite different for low fields or weak exchange fields. Possible candidates of the present mechanism may be found in some of the layered superconductors in proximity to the antiferromagnetic phase.

In order to describe the mechanism, we divide the system into a conductive electron system and a magnetic subsystem of localized spins. We introduce an antiferromagnetic exchange coupling between the localized spins, and Kondo coupling between the electrons and the spins. This model is called a generalized Kondo lattice model and a spin fermion model. We consider a multilayer structure and parallel magnetic fields, in which the orbital pair-breaking effect is suppressed.

When the magnetic field is applied to the antiferromagnetic long-range order, a canted spin structure occurs. Then, the ferromagnetic moment is induced in the spin subsystem, and it creates the exchange field on the mobile electrons, which cancels the magnetic field in the Zeeman energy term.

In addition to the exchange fields, the localized spins create the internal magnetic fields, which cause the Lorentz force in the mobile electrons. We ignore this additional internal field for simplicity and to concentrate on the spin effect. This simplification is quantitatively correct in the case where magnetic layers and conductive layers are spatially separated. For example, in $`\mathrm{RuSr}_2\mathrm{GdCu}_2\mathrm{O}_8`$ compounds, the ruthenate layers are distant from the cuprate layers, and the internal magnetic field is considered to be weak .

We assume the long-range order for simplicity, but the same effect is expected for the short-range order. Within the antiferromagnetic correlation length, the cancellation effect occurs. The fluctuations of the correlated spins do not change the direction of the exchange field, which is always opposite to the magnetic field.

First, we consider canted spin structures of the localized spin system. In reality, the localized spin state is modified by the mobile electron state, and the total state should be determined self-consistently . However, we assume that such modifications are already included in the spin Hamiltonian considered below, and that the canted spin structure exists as a renormalized state. These assumptions are qualitatively appropriate for the systems with strong antiferromagnetic correlations.

The spin Hamiltonian is defined by

$$_J=J\underset{(i,j)}{}𝐒_i𝐒_j2\mu _0\underset{i}{}𝐒_i𝐇,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`𝐇`$ is the magnetic field. Here, $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic moment of the electron, such that $`2\mu _0=g\mu _\mathrm{B}<0`$ with the Bohr magneton $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ and the $`g`$-factor. We define sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$. The spin coordinate is defined in two ways for convenience. We take the $`z`$-axis in the direction perpendicular to the layers, and the $`x`$ and $`y`$-axes parallel to the layers. For convenience in consideration of the localized spin states, we take $`z^{},x^{},y^{}`$-axes along the $`x,z,y`$-axes, respectively. We consider the magnetic field applied in the $`x`$ direction parallel to the layers, that is $`𝐇=(H,0,0)`$ with $`H<0`$.

We assume the classical spins of the magnitude $`S`$ for simplicity. This treatment is equivalent to the mean field theory at low temperatures, when $`S`$ is replaced by the spin moment. We define the polar coordinate $`(\theta _i^{},\phi _i^{})`$ to express the direction of the classical spin on site $`i`$ in the spin coordinate system $`x^{}y^{}z^{}`$, that is, $`𝐒_i=S(\mathrm{sin}\theta _i^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi _i^{},\mathrm{sin}\theta _i^{}\mathrm{sin}\phi _i^{},\mathrm{cos}\theta _i^{})`$. When we consider quantum spins, the influence of the shrinkage of the spins due to the fluctuations can be partially taken into account by the replacement of $`S`$ with $`M=|𝐒_i|`$. The energy of the localized spin part $`_JE_J`$ is written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_J& =& JS^2\underset{(i,j)}{}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\mathrm{sin}\theta _j^{}\mathrm{cos}(\phi _i^{}\phi _j^{})\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{cos}\theta _i^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _j^{})2\mu _0HS_i\mathrm{cos}\theta _i^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2)`$
which becomes minimum when $`\phi _i^{}=\phi _j^{}+\pi `$ for $`iA`$ and $`jB`$, and $`\theta _i^{}=\theta `$ for any $`i`$, where $`\theta `$ is an angle such that

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{\mu _0H}{zJS}$$
$`(3)`$
for $`|\mu _0H|zJS`$, and $`\theta =0`$ for $`|\mu _0H|>zJS`$. The minimum value is $`E_J=zN_\mathrm{s}JS^2[1+2(\mu _0H/zJS)^2]/2`$ for $`|\mu _0H|zJS`$, and $`E_J=zN_\mathrm{s}JS^2[1+4\mu _0H/zJS]/2`$ for $`|\mu _0H|>zJS`$. Here, $`z`$ and $`N_\mathrm{s}`$ are the number of nearest neighbor sites and the total number of lattice sites, respectively.

Next, we consider the effective Hamiltonian for the mobile electrons, which is defined by

$$_e=_0+_\mathrm{K}$$
$`(4)`$
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _0& =& t\underset{(i,j),\sigma }{}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }\mu \underset{i,\sigma }{}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }\hfill \\ & & \underset{i,\sigma _1,\sigma _2}{}\mu _0𝐇(c_{i\sigma _1}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}c_{i\sigma _2})\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5)`$
and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\mathrm{K}& =& J_\mathrm{K}\underset{i,\sigma _1,\sigma _2}{}𝐒_i(c_{i\sigma _1}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}c_{i\sigma _2}).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6)`$
Here, we have omitted pairing interaction terms in eq. (4) , since our purpose is to examine the modification of the electron dispersion relation by the exchange fields. In terms of the interlayer hopping energy $`t_{}`$ and the on-site Coulomb repulsion on the magnetic layers $`U_\mathrm{m}`$, the Kondo coupling is written as $`J_\mathrm{K}=t_{}^2/U_\mathrm{m}>0`$ within a second-order perturbation theory.

In the background of the canted spin structure of the magnetic layers, $`_\mathrm{K}`$ is rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{_\mathrm{K}=J_\mathrm{K}S\mathrm{cos}\theta [\underset{iA}{}(a_i^{}a_i+a_i^{}a_i)}\\ & & +\underset{jB}{}(b_j^{}b_j+b_j^{}b_j)]+J_\mathrm{K}S\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ & & \times \left[\underset{iA,\sigma }{}\sigma a_{i\sigma }^{}a_{i\sigma }\underset{jB,\sigma }{}\sigma b_{j\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(7)`$
where we have defined the electron operators $`a_{i\sigma }`$ and $`b_{j\sigma }`$ on the sites $`iA`$ and $`jB`$. Here, we find that the weak ferromagnetic moment in the $`x`$ direction ($`S\mathrm{cos}\theta >0`$) increases the population of spins in the $`x`$ direction when $`J_\mathrm{K}>0`$. Furthermore, $`_0`$ is also rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{_0=t\underset{\stackrel{(i,j),\sigma }{iA,jB}}{}(a_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }+b_{j\sigma }^{}a_{i\sigma })\mu [\underset{iA,\sigma }{}a_{i\sigma }^{}a_{i\sigma }}\\ & & +\underset{jB,\sigma }{}b_{j\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }]\mu _0H[\underset{iA}{}(a_i^{}a_i+a_i^{}a_i)\hfill \\ & & +\underset{jB}{}(b_j^{}b_j+b_j^{}b_j)].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
Therefore, we obtain an expression

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\mathrm{e}& =& \underset{𝐤}{}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_𝐤^{}& b_𝐤^{}& a_𝐤^{}& b_𝐤^{}\end{array}\right)_𝐤\left(\begin{array}{c}a_𝐤\\ b_𝐤\\ a_𝐤\\ b_𝐤\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(9)`$
with $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`_𝐤`$ defined by

$$_𝐤=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mu h_z& ϵ_𝐤& h_x& 0\\ ϵ_𝐤& \mu +h_z& 0& h_x\\ h_x& 0& \mu +h_z& ϵ_𝐤\\ 0& h_x& ϵ_𝐤& \mu h_z\end{array}\right)$$
$`(10)`$
and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ϵ_𝐤& & 2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)\hfill \\ \hfill h_x& & \mu _0HJ_\mathrm{K}S\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \\ \hfill h_z& & J_\mathrm{K}S\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(11)`$
where $`𝐤`$ and $`_{𝐤}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are the sublattice momentum and the summation over the first Brillouin zone of the sublattice momentum space, respectively. The lattice constants are taken as unity.

The eigenvalues of the matrix $`_𝐤`$ are expressed as

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐤=\mu \pm \left[(ϵ_𝐤\pm h_x)^2+h_z^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
$`(12)`$
If the system is away from the half-filling and has any pairing interactions, superconductivity occurs in the renormalized electron system with the energy dispersion relation described by eq. (12) .

The first plus or minus sign $`\pm `$ in eq. (12) corresponds to the upper and lower bands which are divided by the exchange field in the $`z`$ direction. The band gap does not affect the superconducting transition when the system is away from the half-filling, whereas near the half-filling, the mobile electron layer becomes an insulator and the superconductivity does not occur when $`\theta 0`$, i.e., $`|\mu _0H|<zJS`$.

The second plus or minus sign $`\pm `$ corresponds to the split of the Fermi surfaces of up and down spin electrons when the $`x`$-axis is taken as the quantization axis of the spin space. This split causes the pair-breaking effect, and as a consequence the upper critical field is bounded by the Pauli paramagnetic limit. However, as shown in eq. (11), the magnitude of $`h_x`$ can be smaller than $`|\mu _0H|`$ due to the cancellation of $`\mu _0H`$ and the exchange field $`J_\mathrm{K}S\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. From eqs. (3) and (11), the effective field $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, such that $`h_x=\mu _0H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, is

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H\left(1\frac{J_\mathrm{K}}{zJ}\right)$$
$`(13)`$
for $`|\mu _0H|zJS`$, and $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H\mathrm{sign}(H)J_\mathrm{K}S/|\mu _0|`$ for $`|\mu _0H|>zJS`$.

The superconductivity occurs when $`|H_{\mathrm{eff}}|<H_c^{(0)}(T)`$, where $`H_c^{(0)}(T)`$ is the upper critical field ($`H_\mathrm{P}`$ or an FFLO critical field) in the absence of the exchange field at a temperature $`T`$. Here, we assume that the antiferromagnetic transition occurs at a higher temperature, and the magnetic order can be regarded as a rigid background. Therefore, for $`|\mu _0H|zJS`$, the superconductivity occurs when

$$|H|<H_c\frac{H_c^{(0)}}{|1J_\mathrm{K}/zJ|}.$$
$`(14)`$
Thus, $`H_c`$ is the critical field when $`J_\mathrm{K}S<zJS\mu _0H_c^{(0)}`$ or $`J_\mathrm{K}S>zJS+\mu _0H_c^{(0)}`$. On the other hand, for $`|\mu _0H|zJS`$, the superconductivity occurs when

$$\frac{J_\mathrm{K}S}{|\mu _0|}H_c^{(0)}<|H|<\frac{J_\mathrm{K}S}{|\mu _0|}+H_c^{(0)}.$$
$`(15)`$
Therefore, we obtain the phase diagram shown in Fig. 1. We have chosen the parameter $`|\mu _0|H_c^{(0)}/zJS=0.2`$ as an example, which is consistent with our assumption that the magnetic long-range or short-range order exists at the superconducting transition temperature. It is found that when $`J_\mathrm{K}S<zJS|\mu _0|H_c^{(0)}`$ the upper critical field is enhanced by the factor $`1/(1J_\mathrm{K}/zJ)>1`$, but a field-induced transition is not obtained, in contrast to the Jaccarino and Peter mechanism. When $`J_\mathrm{K}zJ`$, the critical field reaches a value of the order of $`H_czJS/|\mu _0|T_{\mathrm{AF}}^{}/|\mu _0|`$. Here, $`T_{\mathrm{AF}}^{}`$ is a crossover temperature at which antiferromagnetic fluctuations begin to occur. In the absence of low-dimensional thermal fluctuations, $`T_{\mathrm{AF}}^{}`$ is of the order of the antiferromagnetic transition temperature.

For strong Kondo coupling $`J_\mathrm{K}S>zJS+|\mu _0|H_c^{(0)}`$, we find a reentrant transition to a high-field phase in addition to a low-field phase. For the high fields $`|\mu _0H|>zJS`$, the present mechanism coincides with the original Jaccarino and Peter mechanism, since the spin moments are saturated.

In conclusion, we find that the upper critical field is enhanced by the coupled antiferromagnetic layers due to a cancellation effect of the external field and the exchange field induced by the canted spin structure. In particular, when $`J_\mathrm{K}zJ`$, the system is almost free from the paramagnetic pair-breaking effect for practical strengths of the magnetic field. The critical field reaches a value of the order of $`T_{\mathrm{AF}}^{}/|\mu _0|`$. If such an antiferromagnetic quasi-two-dimensional metal is synthesized and exhibits superconductivity, it can be a superconductor with an extraordinarily high critical field.

The present phase diagram is very different from that of the orignial Jaccarino and Peter mechanism for ferromagnetic metals. It is found that for small $`J_\mathrm{K}`$, a field-induced superconductivity does not occur, whereas for large $`J_\mathrm{K}`$, both the field-induced superconductivity and the low-field superconductivity occur.

In the phase diagram, the metal-insulator transition is not presented. However, for example, at the half-filling, the system is an insulator with a canted spin structure when $`|\mu _0H|<zJS`$. In this case, the phase diagram for large $`J_\mathrm{K}`$ is similar to that in the $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ compound . The spin moments on $`\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ would create an exchange field on the conduction hole band of the two-dimensional network of the $`\mathrm{BETS}`$ molecules. The hybrid ruthenate cuprate compounds are also possible candidates due to their crystal structures.

This work was suppoted by a grant for Core Research for Evolutionary Science and Technology form Japan Science and Technology Corporation.