format: text

text:
# Critical Heegaard Surfaces and Index 2 Minimal Surfaces

## 1. Introduction.

It is a standard exercise in 3-manifold topology to show that every manifold admits Heegaard splittings of arbitrarily high genus. Hence, a “random” Heegaard splitting does not say much about the topology of the manifold in which it sits. To use Heegaard splittings to prove interesting theorems, one needs to make some kind of non-triviality assumption. The most obvious such assumption is that the splitting is minimal genus. However, this assumption alone is apparently very difficult to use.

In , Casson and Gordon define a new notion of triviality for a Heegaard splitting, called weak reducibility. A Heegaard splitting which is not weakly reducible, then, is said to be strongly irreducible. The assumption that a Heegaard splitting is strongly irreducible has proved to be much more useful than the assumption that it is minimal genus. In fact, in , Casson and Gordon show that in a non-Haken 3-manifold, minimal genus Heegaard splittings are strongly irreducible.

The moral here seems to be this: since the assumption of minimal genus is difficult to make use of, one should pass to a larger class of Heegaard splittings, which is still restrictive enough that one can prove non-trivial theorems.

Now we switch gears a little. It is a Theorem of Riedemeister and Singer (see ) that given two Heegaard splittings, one can always stabilize the higher genus one some number of times to obtain a stabilization of the lower genus one. However, this immediately implies that any two Heegaard splittings have a common stabilization of arbitrarily high genus. Hence, the assumption that one has a “random” common stabilization cannot be terribly useful. What is of interest, of course, is the minimal genus common stabilization. As before though, the assumption of minimal genus has turned out to be very difficult to use.

In this paper we will review the results of , in which a new class of Heegaard splittings, called critical, was defined. The main result of that paper is that at least in the non-Haken case, this class includes the minimal genus common stabilizations.

The term critical is defined via a 1-complex associated with any embedded, separating surface in a 3-manifold, which is reminiscent of the curve complex. The origin of the definition lies in the analogy between the study of the topology of embedded surfaces in 3-manifolds, and the study of minimal surfaces. This point of view was pioneered by mathematicians such as Hyam Rubinstein, Martin Scharlemann, and Abigail Thompson. We will make these analogies explicit here, and show how from this point of view, the study of critical surfaces is completely natural.

For the sake of brevity, we will assume that the reader is familiar with the standard terminology of 3-manifold topology, that can be found in any introductory text.

## 2. Minimal surfaces

Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold, equipped with some Riemannian metric. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denote the space of all embedded surfaces in $`M`$, together with all surfaces that have been “pinched” at finitely many points (at a point where a surface is “pinched”, there is a coordinate chart in which the surface looks locally like the graph of $`z^2=x^2+y^2`$), and finite collections of points. Hence, a path through the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be thought of as a continuous deformation of some surface, during which one might see some compressions (and “de-compressions”) happen.

Let $`A:\mathrm{\Omega }𝐑`$ denote the area function. What we are interested in is the critical points of $`A`$. Let $`p`$ be such a critical point, and let $`D_pA`$ denote the derivative of the gradient of $`A`$ at $`p`$. Let $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m`$ denote the eigenvalues of $`D_pA`$ which are less than zero (we will only be interested in critical points in which the number of such eigenvalues is finite). Finally, let $`n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}dim(V_i)`$, where $`V_i`$ is the eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvector $`\lambda _i`$. If $`S`$ is the surface in $`M`$ which corresponds to the point $`p`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then we say that $`S`$ is an index $`n`$ minimal surface.

We now take a closer look at index 0, 1, and 2 minimal surfaces.

### 2.1. Index 0 Minimal Surfaces

If $`S`$ is an index 0 minimal surface, and $`p`$ is the point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ corresponding to $`S`$, then it must be that $`D_pA`$ has only eigenvalues which are greater than or equal to zero. A much simpler way of saying this is that any perturbation of $`S`$ will increase its area, or keep it constant. In other words, $`S`$ is a local minimum for the area function, $`A`$. Hence, to locate an index 0 minimal surface, one simply needs to start with any surface, and “flow downhill”. That is, perturb it continuously in such a way so that its area decreases monotonically. Now, it may happen that what you end up with by doing this is a point, or a collection of points. Later we will encounter a topological restriction on the surfaces you can start with to avoid running into this problem.

### 2.2. Index 1 Minimal Surfaces

To gain some intuition, it helps to visualize $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a 2-dimensional Euclidean space. In this case the graph of $`A`$ looks like a mountain range, and the index 1 critical points are the saddle points, i.e., the local maxima of the valleys. At such a point, one can travel through the valley forward or backwards, and “go downhill”, or one can leave the valley, and start to climb up the nearest mountain.

Now, let’s suppose we are faced with the task of finding an index 1 critical point. If we start with a random point and go downhill, then we will miss the index 1 points with probability 1. Instead, we can start with two index 0 points, and examine the paths which connect them. If we always keep the height of such a path as low as possible, then it is guaranteed to go through an index 1 point.

The analogy is that you are a traveller in a mountain range. You want to get to your house, which is located in a pit, and you are starting out in some other pit. The catch is, you have some medical condition which makes you feel progressively more sick as your altitude increases. You would then choose to travel through the valleys, rather than climb over a mountain, even though that might be the shortest path. At some point in your journey, you will reach the highest point of some valley, and you will be at an index 1 critical point.

One interesting note is that you may encounter several index 1 points along your way. If you always keep your altitude as low as possible, then in general your path will take you through a series of critical points which alternate between being index 0 and index 1. In general then, a manifold may contain a whole sequence of minimal surfaces, whose index alternates between 0 and 1.

### 2.3. Index 2 Minimal Surfaces

To find an index 1 minimal surface, we needed to start with two index 0 minimal surfaces, and connect them with an “efficient” path. To find an index 2 minimal surface, we will now need to start with two efficient paths, and connect them with some kind of “efficient” 1-parameter family of paths. Once again, by the term “efficient” we mean that at all times we keep our area (i.e. our altitude in the mountain range) as small as possible.

Let’s look at our mountain range again for some intuition. It may be that you had two different choices of valleys to travel through when you were trying to get home in the previous subsection. Viewed from above, this would just look like two paths from one point to another. If we fill in the region between these two paths, then we are guaranteed to cover the peak of some mountain, an index 2 critical point.

## 3. The Topological analogue of a minimal surface

In this section, we look at analogues of index 0, 1, and 2 minimal surfaces, in the topological category. The main idea is to keep our space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the same, but to change our area function to reflect only changes in topology.

First, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ denote subspace of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which consists of only the embedded surfaces of $`M`$. Now, let $`A_T:\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝐙`$ denote the (continuous!) function defined by $`A_T(S)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(2\chi (S_i))^2`$, where $`\{S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\}`$ are the components of $`S`$. Note that if $`S`$ is homeomorphic to $`S^2`$, then $`A_T(S)=0`$, reflecting the fact that in an irreducible 3-manifold (the kind we usually assume we are working in), every 2-sphere can be shrunk to a point. Also, if $`S^{}`$ is a surface obtained from the surface, $`S`$, by a compression, then $`A_T(S^{})<A_T(S)`$.

### 3.1. Incompressible Surfaces

Recall that to find an index 0 minimal surface, you can try to start with some random embedded surface, and deform it through a path in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which monotonically decreases area. If you ever get “stuck” at a surface with non-zero area, then you have found an index 0 minimal surface.

To find an incompressible surface in a 3-manifold, $`M`$, one can start with some random surface, and try to compress it as much as possible. Each such compression decreases $`A_T`$, and so in some sense we are doing the exact analogue of what we did in subsection 2.1. If the process ever terminates in anything other than a union of 2-spheres (i.e. in anything for which the function, $`A_T`$, is non-zero), then one has found an incompressible surface. Hence, for many purposes it is useful to think of incompressible surfaces as the topological analogue of index 0 minimal surfaces.

### 3.2. Strongly Irreducible Surfaces

To look for some kind of toplogical surface that is the appropriate analogue of an index 1 minimal surface, we follow the strategy of subsection 2.2. That is, we start with two incompressible surfaces (the analogues of index 0 minimal surfaces), and look at the paths from one to the other in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which the function, $`A_T`$, is always as small as possible. This is precisely the strategy of Scharlemann and Thompson from , in which they show that every irreducible 3-manifold contains a strongly irreducible Heegaard splitting for some submanifold cobounded by (possibly empty) incompressible surfaces (in the case of empty incompressible surfaces, their techniques just produce a strongly irreducible Heegaard splitting for the entire manifold). Hence, we will view strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings as the appropriate analogues of index 1 minimal surfaces.

The analogy is really quite good. In subsection 2.2, we saw that an efficient path connecting two index 0 minimal surfaces may contain not just one index 1 minimal surface, but a whole sequence of minimal surfaces whose index alternates between 0 and 1. In the topological category, the aforementioned work of Scharlemann and Thompson shows that every irreducible 3-manifold admits an alternating sequence of incompressible surfaces, and strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings.

### 3.3. Critical surfaces

We now come to the main point of this paper, which was to motivate the study of a new class of topological surfaces. These new surfaces arise naturally as the appropriate analogues of index 2 minimal surfaces. Since index $`n`$ minimal surfaces correspond to critical points, we have chosen the name critical for our new class. The precise definition of a critical surface will be given in the next section. First, we say in what sense they are analogous to index 2 minimal surfaces.

Recall from subsection 2.3 that index 2 minimal surfaces arise when perturbing one “efficient” path through $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to another. Along the way, we will see a sequence of paths that can be described like this: odd elements of the sequence go through an alternating sequence of index 0 and index 1 minimal surfaces. Even elements are similar, except that in place of exactly one index 1 minimal surface we see an index 2 minimal surface.

In the topological category, the strategy is exactly the same. We look at two different sequences of surfaces which alternate between being incompressible and strongly irreducible. We then try to “connect” these sequences with intermediate sequences in such a way so that the function, $`A_T`$, is as small as possible at all times. This is precisely the strategy of . In that paper, we show that the sequences alternate as follows: odd sequences contain an alternating sequence of incompressible and strongly irreducible surfaces. Even sequences are similar, except that in place of exactly one strongly irreducible surface there is a critical surface.

## 4. The definition of a Critical Surface.

To facilitate the definition of a critical surface, we first define a 1-complex for each embedded, orientable, closed, separating surface in a 3-manifold, $`M`$. Suppose $`F`$ is such a surface. If $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are compressing disks for $`F`$, then we say $`D`$ is equivalent to $`D^{}`$ if there is an isotopy of $`M`$ taking $`F`$ to $`F`$, and $`D`$ to $`D^{}`$ (we do allow $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ to be on opposite sides of $`F`$).

We now define a 1-complex, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$. For each equivalence class of compressing disk for $`F`$, there is a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$. Two (not necessarily distinct) vertices are connected by an edge if there are representatives of the corresponding equivalence classes on opposite sides of $`F`$, which intersect in at most a point. A vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ is said to be isolated if it is not the endpoint of any edge.

For example, if $`F`$ is the genus 1 Heegaard splitting of $`S^3`$, then there is an isotopy of $`S^3`$ which takes $`F`$ back to itself, but switches the sides of $`F`$. Such an isotopy takes a compressing disk on one side of $`F`$ to a compressing disk on the other. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ has a single vertex. However, there are representatives of the equivalence class that corresponds to this vertex which are on opposite sides of $`F`$, and intersect in a point. Hence, there is an edge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ which connects the vertex to itself.

###### Definition 4.1.

If we remove the isolated vertices from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ and are left with a disconnected 1-complex, then we say $`F`$ is critical.

Equivalently, $`F`$ is critical if there exist two edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ that can not be connected by a 1-chain.

## 5. Results about critical surfaces

We now state some of the main results about critical Heegaard surfaces from . The first few Lemmas of that paper build up to the following Theorem:

Theorem 4.6. Suppose $`M`$ is an irreducible 3-manifold with no closed incompressible surfaces, and at most one Heegaard splitting (up to isotopy) of each genus. Then $`M`$ does not contain a critical Heegaard surface.

The remainder of  is concerned with the converse of this Theorem. That is, we answer precisely when a (non-Haken) 3-manifold does contain a critical Heegaard surface.

The main technical theorem which starts us off in this direction is:

Theorem 5.1. Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold with critical surface, $`F`$, and incompressible surface, $`S`$. Then there is an incompressible surface, $`S^{}`$, homeomorphic to $`S`$, such that every loop of $`FS^{}`$ is essential on both surfaces. Furthermore, if $`M`$ is irreducible, then there is such an $`S^{}`$ which is isotopic to $`S`$.

Note that this Theorem was already known to be true if one were to replace the word “critical” with either “incompressible” or “strongly irreducible”. This is just more evidence for the naturality of critical surfaces.

As immediate corollaries to this, we obtain:

Corollary 5.7. A reducible 3-manifold does not admit a critical Heegaard splitting.

Corollary 5.8. Suppose $`M`$ is a 3-manifold which admits a critical Heegaard splitting, such that $`M\mathrm{}`$. Then $`M`$ is essential in $`M`$.

It is this last corollary which we combine with a considerable amount of new machinery (all motivated by the analogy with index 2 minimal surfaces) to yield:

Theorem 6.1. Suppose $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ are distinct strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings of some closed 3-manifold, $`M`$. If the minimal genus common stabilization of $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ is not critical, then $`M`$ contains an incompressible surface.

We actually prove a slightly stronger version of this Theorem, that holds for manifolds with non-empty boundary.

Compare Theorem 6.1. to that of Casson and Gordon : If the minimal genus Heegaard splitting of a 3-manifold, $`M`$, is not strongly irreducible, then $`M`$ contains an incompressible surface. Once again, the parallels between these two Theorems is yet more evidence for the naturality of critical surfaces.

## 6. A Conjecture

The relationships between index 0 and 1 minimal surfaces and incompressible and strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings seem to be much deeper than mere analogy. For instance, in , Freedman, Hass and Scott show that any incompressible surface can be isotoped to be a least area surface. Such surfaces are index 0 minimal surfaces. In , Pits and Rubinstein show that strongly irreducible surfaces can always be isotoped to index 1 minimal surfaces. This motivates us to make the following conjecture:

###### Conjecture 6.1.

Any critical surface can be isotoped to be an index 2 minimal surface.

In , we prove a Piecewise-Linear analogue of this.

## 7. A metric on the space of strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings

We now show how our results lead to a natural metric on the space of strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings of a non-Haken 3-manifold. The author believes that it would be of interest to understand this space better.

First, given a critical surface, $`F`$, we can define a larger 1-complex, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$, that contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ as follows: the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$ are equivalence classes of loops on $`F`$, where two loops are considered equivalent if there is an isotopy of $`M`$ taking $`F`$ to $`F`$, and one loop to the other. There is an edge connecting two vertices if there are representatives of the corresponding equivalence classes which intersect in at most a point. Recall that a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ corresponds to an equivalence class of compressing disks for $`F`$. Thus, we can identify each vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ with the vertex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$ which corresponds to the boundary of any representative disk.

Now, suppose $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ are two edges in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$. Define $`d(e_1,e_2)`$ to be the minimal length of any chain connecting $`e_1`$ to $`e_2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$. Now, given two components, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$, we can define $`d(C_1,C_2)`$, the distance between $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, as $`\mathrm{min}\{d(e_1,e_2)|e_1`$ is an edge in $`C_1`$, and $`e_2`$ is an edge of $`C_2\}`$.

Finally, suppose $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings of a 3-manifold, $`M`$, and $`F`$ is their minimal genus common stabilization. As $`F`$ is a stabilization of $`H_i`$, it can be isotoped so that between $`F`$ and $`H_i`$ there is a compression body, $`W_i`$, and so that there are compressing disks for $`F`$, $`D_iW_i`$, and $`E_icl(MW_i)`$, such that $`|D_iE_i|=1`$. Each pair, $`(D_i,E_i)`$ corresponds to some edge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$. In , we show that the edge corresponding to $`(D_1,E_1)`$ is in a component, $`C_1`$, of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F)`$ which is different than the component, $`C_2`$, containing the edge corresponding to $`(D_2,E_2)`$, and that $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ were independent of our exact choices of $`D_i`$ and $`E_i`$. We can therefore define the distance between $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ as $`d(C_1,C_2)`$.

###### Question 7.1.

Can the distance between strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings be arbitrarily high? If not, is there a bound in terms of the genera of the splittings, or perhaps a universal bound?

###### Question 7.2.

Is there an algorithm to compute the distance between two given strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings?

###### Question 7.3.

Is there a relationship between the distance between two strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings, and the number of times one needs to stabilize the higher genus one to obtain a stabilization of the lower genus one?

###### Question 7.4.

Is there a relationship between the distance between two strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings, and the distances of each individual splitting, in the sense of Hempel ?


text:
# Pinning of dynamic spin density wave fluctuations in the cuprate superconductors

(February 25, 2002)

## Abstract

We present a theory of the pinning of dynamic spin density wave (SDW) fluctuations in a $`d`$-wave superconductor by local imperfections which preserve spin-rotation invariance, such as impurities or vortex cores. The pinning leads to static spatial modulations in spin-singlet observables, while the SDW correlations remain dynamic: these are the ‘Friedel oscillations’ of a spin-gap antiferromagnet. We connect the spectrum of these modulations as observed by scanning tunnelling microscopy to the dynamic spin structure factor measured by inelastic neutron scattering.

Many studies of the cuprates assume that high temperature superconductivity is best understood by a theory of doping mobile charge carriers into a Mott insulator which is paramagnetic pwa  i.e. a Mott insulator with no static spin moment on any site and dynamic antiferromagnetic spin density wave (SDW) correlations. Studies of paramagnetic Mott insulators on the square lattice of Cu ions vs  showed that the most promising candidates have broken translational symmetry (and confinement of $`S=1/2`$ spinon excitations) associated with the appearance of spontaneous bond charge order. Here, and henceforth, we define the term “charge order” very generally: there is a periodic spatial modulation in observables which are invariant under spin rotations and time reversal, such as local electron/hole density of states (LDOS), the spin exchange energy or the electron kinetic energy contained in a link of the square lattice; the modulation in the total charge density may well be unobservably small because of screening by the long-range Coulomb interactions.

Upon doping the charge-ordered paramagnetic Mott insulator vs , superconductivity co-exists with charge order for a finite range of carrier concentrations ($`\delta `$), and a $`d`$-wave superconductor with the full square lattice symmetry appears above a critical $`\delta `$. Almost all theoretical and experimental studies have concluded that the low temperature properties of this $`d`$-wave superconductor at optimal $`\delta `$ are qualitatively identical to those of a BCS superconductor obtained by the Cooper instability of a metallic Fermi liquid. This conclusion raises the question of whether the connection to the Mott insulator is even necessary in a description of the low temperature properties of the superconductor at or above optimal $`\delta `$.

A number of works vortex  argued that memory of the Mott insulator should survive in and around vortices in superconducting order: the suppression of superconductivity in the vortex core implies that the Cooper pairs are not condensed, but the electrons should still strive to retain the exchange correlation energy of the Mott insulator. This reasoning, and the studies of the doped paramagnetic Mott insulator vs , led to the suggestion ps  that the static charge order, along with dynamic SDW correlations, should appear near vortex cores.

Hoffman et al. seamus  introduced a novel scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) technology of atomically registered spectroscopic mapping. Applied to slightly over-doped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x, they detected LDOS modulations around the vortex cores at wavevectors $`𝐊_{cx}=(\pi /2,0)`$ and $`𝐊_{cy}=(0,\pi /2)`$ (the square lattice spacing has unit length and this modulation has a period of four lattice spacings), co-existing with well established superconductivity sdw . Bulk charge order with this, and related, periods has been discussed in insulating/superconducting paired hole states from a number of different theoretical perspectives vs ; white ; jan ; steve ; troyer ; ps ; castro ; assa . Neutron scattering studies of the optimally doped cuprates have not (so far) seen dynamic or static charge order, but do see collinear SDW fluctuations at wavevectors $`𝐊_{sx}=(3\pi /4,\pi )`$ and $`𝐊_{sy}=(\pi ,3\pi /4)`$ and at energies above a spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. On symmetry grounds zachar , collinear SDW correlations are accompanied by charge order correlations at wavevectors $`2𝐊_{sx,y}`$, which equal the values of $`\pm 𝐊_{cx,y}`$, modulo reciprocal lattice vectors. This connection was used pphmf  to describe the spatial envelope of the charge order in the doped Mott paramagnet by the pinning of a ‘sliding’ degree of freedom of the SDW (the spin-rotation degree of freedom is not pinned and remains dynamic) by imperfections, such as vortex cores.

This paper presents a description of the energy dependence of the LDOS measured in STM in a simple Gaussian model of the pinning of dynamic SDW fluctuations. We connect the spectroscopic information contained in the STM observation at wavevectors $`𝐊_{cx,y}`$ to the inelastic neutron scattering spectra at wavevectors $`𝐊_{sx,y}`$. Our theory applies to pinning by impurities and most other imperfections that preserve spin rotation invariance. It also applies to pinning by vortex cores, but neglects the Doppler shift in the quasiparticle energies induced by the superflow volovik : this shift has no contribution at the wavevectors $`𝐊_{cx,y}`$, and so its neglect is justifiable. Our results should be distinguished from other recent proposals ting  which assume static SDW order, for which there is no direct evidence in the system of Ref. seamus, .

We begin by identifying the complex order parameters, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{y\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =x,y,z`$ extends over the directions in spin space) for SDW fluctuations; the spin operator on the lattice site $`𝐫`$ is

$$S_\alpha (𝐫,\tau )=\text{Re}\left[e^{i𝐊_{sx}𝐫}\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }(𝐫,\tau )+e^{i𝐊_{sy}𝐫}\mathrm{\Phi }_{y\alpha }(𝐫,\tau )\right],$$

where $`\tau `$ is imaginary time. We use a Gaussian action for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,y\alpha }`$ fluctuations:

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Phi }=T\underset{𝐪,\omega _n,\alpha }{}\chi _x^1(𝐪,\omega _n)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }(𝐪,\omega _n)|^2+(xy);$$
(1)
we have Fourier transformed from $`(𝐫,\tau )`$ to wavevectors $`𝐪`$ and Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _n`$ at a temperature $`T`$. The dynamic spin susceptibilities $`\chi _{x,y}`$ will be inputs from which we will deduce the dynamic structure of the pinned charge order. However, this should not be interpreted as a causal connection from the SDW fluctuations to the charge order; rather, our method relies on the assumed proximity of the superconductor to a quantum transition to a superconducting state with long-range SDW order vs ; sdw . The presence of such a quantum critical point, and the values of $`𝐊_{sx,y}`$ near it, are determined by a complicated interplay between spin and charge correlations in the superconductor and the proximate Mott insulator. A corresponding theory using the charge density wave order parameter can also be developed near a charge-ordering transition in the superconductor; this is not discussed here and it yields results closely related to those in pphmf . We will take a simple functional form for $`\chi _{x,y}`$ (see below), with a spectral weight which vanishes below a spin gap energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (a more accurate form can, in principle, be extracted from neutron scattering experiments). The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be tuned by an applied magnetic field perpendicular to the square lattice layers sdw , and its primary effect is a reduction in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Invariance under translation by $`n_x`$ lattice spacings in the $`x`$ direction (for arbitrary integer $`n_x`$) leads to the symmetry $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,\alpha }e^{in_x\pi /4}\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }`$ obeyed by $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{y\alpha }`$). As long as this symmetry is preserved, no observable will exhibit static charge order at wavevectors $`𝐊_{cx,y}`$. However, this sliding translation symmetry is broken by any imperfection (vortex core or impurity) that may be centered near $`𝐫=𝐫_0`$, provided the spatial extent of the imperfection is not much larger than the charge order period (4 lattice spacings). We account for such an imperfection by adding a pinning term to the action

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{pin}}=\underset{\alpha }{}d\tau [\zeta _x\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }^2(𝐫_0,\tau )+(xy)+c.c.],$$
(2)
where $`\zeta _{x,y}`$ are complex coupling constants representing the pinning potential. Note that $`𝒮_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ contains the simplest terms which break the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,\alpha }e^{in_x\pi /4}\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }`$ symmetry, but preserve spin rotation invariance. Additional terms like $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }(𝐫_0,\tau )\mathrm{\Phi }_{y\alpha }(𝐫_0,\tau )`$ are also permitted but we will not include them for simplicity; such terms lead to a $`90^{}`$ turn in an SDW fluctuation and can be expected to have a small amplitude on physical grounds—their presence will lead to additional charge order at $`\pm 𝐊_{sx}\pm 𝐊_{sy}`$. We also note that the theory for the superconductor proximate to a charge ordering transition has a pinning term linear in the charge order parameter.

STM involves tunneling of single electrons, and so to compute the STM spectra we couple the Gaussian SDW fluctuations described by $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Phi }+𝒮_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ to the electrons, which we describe by a standard $`d`$-wave BCS model:

$$H_{\mathrm{BCS}}=\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤^{}\left[(\epsilon _𝐤\mu )\tau ^z+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\tau ^x\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤.$$
(3)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤=(c_𝐤,c_𝐤^{})`$ is a Nambu spinor at momentum $`𝐤=(k_x,k_y)`$, $`\tau ^{x,y,z}`$ are Pauli matrices in particle-hole space, and $`\mu `$ is a chemical potential. For the kinetic energy, $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ we have first ($`t`$) and second ($`t^{}`$) neighbor hopping, while we assume a $`d`$-wave form for the BCS pairing function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2)(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$. The full Hamiltonian for the conduction electrons reads

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{BCS}+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}c_\mu ^{}(𝐫)\sigma _{\mu \nu }^\alpha c_\nu (𝐫)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }(𝐫)e^{i𝐊_x𝐫}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{x\alpha }^{}(𝐫)e^{i𝐊_x𝐫}+(xy)\right),`$
where $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ are the Pauli spin matrices, and $`\gamma `$ describes the scattering of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles of the superconductor off the SDW fluctuations.

We computed the influence of the collective SDW modes on the single particle properties in the one-loop approximation sketched in Fig 1 with processes of second order in the electron-SDW coupling $`\gamma `$.

Because of the breaking of translational symmetry in $`𝒮_{\mathrm{pin}}`$, the computations were numerically involved: we used lattices of sizes up to 32$`\times `$32 with periodic boundary conditions, and numerically inverted matrices in real space to transform between the self energy and the Green’s function.

Our main results are apparent by considering the linear effect of the lowest order diagram which breaks translational invariance: this is the second diagram on the r.h.s. of Fig. 1, and is of order $`\zeta _{x,y}\gamma ^2`$. We computed its influence on the LDOS in a theory with $`J\chi _{x,y}^1=\omega _n^2+c^2𝐪^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ ($`J`$ is a characteristic spin fluctuation energy scale, and $`c`$ is a spin-wave velocity) so that, after a Fourier transform to real space, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,y}`$ propagators became Bessel functions of $`𝐫`$. Following the method of Hoffman et al. seamus , we computed the energy ($`\omega `$) dependence of

$$\underset{𝐫}{}e^{i𝐊_{cx,y}𝐫}\text{Im}c_\mu (𝐫,\omega _n)c_\mu ^{}(𝐫,\omega _n)|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+},$$
(5)
the coefficients of the spatial Fourier transform of the LDOS at wavevectors $`𝐊_{cx,y}`$. The $`\zeta _{x,y}\gamma ^2`$ term in (5) was evaluated by summations over $`𝐫`$ and frequency space. Its values are shown in Fig 2 for a fermion band corresponding to an optimally doped cuprate.

This method has the advantage that the values of $`\gamma `$, and $`\zeta _{x,y}`$ only modify an overall pre-factor of the modulation, and so do not effect the energy dependence of the results in Fig 2. The change in sign of the LDOS at $`|\omega |<\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ arises from the dynamic nature of the SDW fluctuations, and the resulting interference between the real and imaginary parts of the bare propagator and the self energy.

We also performed computations in a different model in which all the diagrams in Fig 1 were summed. We introduced two real three-component fields $`\phi _{x,y\alpha }(𝐫,\tau )=\text{Re}[e^{i𝐊_{sx,y}𝐫}\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,y\alpha }(𝐫,\tau )]`$, with the $`\phi _{x,y\alpha }`$ taking momenta over the whole Brillouin zone of the square lattice – this simplifies the exact treatment of the pinning term with a $`T`$ matrix. The bulk fluctuations were controlled by the susceptibilities $`\chi _{\phi _{x,y}}(𝐪,\omega _n)=J/(\omega _n^2+\omega _{x,y}(𝐪)^2)`$, where the dispersion $`\omega _{x,y}(𝐪)^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2+c^2\mathrm{min}(|𝐪+𝐊_{sx,y}|,|𝐪𝐊_{sx,y}|)^2`$ dispnote . An important difference in this model is that the pinning term is now $`\zeta 𝑑\tau [\phi _{x\alpha }^2(𝐫_0,\tau )+\phi _{y\alpha }^2(𝐫_0,\tau )]`$, with $`\zeta `$ real; in terms of the previous formulation, this includes both $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,y\alpha }|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,y\alpha }^2`$ terms with equal modulus coefficients. This equality is a weakness of this second model because sdw  the physical origin of the two terms is very different, and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x,y\alpha }(𝐫_0)|^2`$ is better accounted for by a shift in the local spin exciton frequency.

Examples of the spatial dependence of the LDOS of this model are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

Substantial Fourier components at $`𝐊_{cx}`$, $`𝐊_{cy}`$ were present at low energies both for positive and negative bias.

We also used the above results to compute (5) and the results are shown in Fig. 5.

A robust feature of the results in Figs 2 and 5 are the peaks in the modulus of the $`𝐊_{cx,y}`$ Fourier component near $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The remaining structure is influenced by both the size of the spin gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the couplings $`\zeta `$, $`\gamma `$ (for a small range of $`\zeta `$ values, multiple defect scattering processes can lead to a local low-energy bound state in the SDW propagator), and depends strongly on the fermionic host band structure, i.e., the particular form of $`\epsilon _𝐤`$. Therefore we expect different results for different compounds, but a detailed comparison with experiment is difficult, as even the bare LDOS seen in STM is not well represented by a two-dimensional tight-binding form for $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ – in particular the van-Hove singularity present in the theory is not seen experimentally. There are also some differences between the two models in Figs 2 and 5 at small values of the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: these are due to the different pinning terms near $`𝐫_0`$ discussed earlier, along with the modification in the bulk fermion spectrum associated with the first diagram on the r.h.s. of Fig 1 which was included only in Fig 5.

This paper has presented a simple theory of the pinning of dynamic SDW fluctuations. Using the dynamic spin susceptibility (as measured in inelastic neutron scattering) and the quasiparticle dispersion as input, we predict the energy dependence of the LDOS at the charge ordering wavevector, as in Figs 2 and 5. We hope that our method will ultimately allow a quantitative comparison of the spectroscopy by inelastic neutron scattering and by STM, and any possible disagreements should help expose physical effects not covered by our simple model.

While this paper was being completed, two related preprints appeared. Zhu et al. zhu  (like Ref. ting ) discussed static magnetic order in the vortex core, in contrast to our model of dynamic SDW. Howald et al. aharon  reported STM measurements on Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x in zero field, including measurements of the energy dependence of the LDOS at the wavevector $`(\pi /2,0)`$; the analogous quantity for the charge order nucleated by an impurity is computed here in Figs 2 and 5.

We thank Seamus Davis for a number of discussions on his STM experiments seamus , and for informing us about his method of measuring (5). We are also grateful to E. Demler, A. Kapitulnik, S. Kivelson, and J. Zaanen for useful discussions. This research was supported by US NSF Grant DMR 0098226 (A.P. and S.S.) and by the DFG through SFB 484 (M.V.).


text:
# Simple solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics for longitudinally expanding systems

## 1 Introduction

Relativistic hydrodynamics has various applications, including the calculations of single-particle spectra and two-particle correlations in high energy heavy ion collisions. The applications of relativistic hydrodynamics in the field of heavy ion physics have been reviewed in . More recently, there has been an increasing interest in studying RHIC and coming LHC experiments in the framework of relativistic hydrodynamics . The hydrodynamical analysis can also be extended to the study of these processes on event-by-event basis . However, most works in hydrodynamics are numerical so not always transparent. In this sense, exact solutions would be useful, but are rarely found due to the highly non-linear nature of relativistic hydrodynamics. Actually, Landau’s one-dimensional analytical solution of relativistic hydrodynamics  gave rise to a new approach in high energy physics. The boost-invariant Bjorken solution , found more than 20 years later, is frequently utilized as the basis for estimations of initial energy densities in ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. Recently, Biró has found self-similar exact solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics for cylindrically expanding systems , however, his solutions are valid only when the pressure is independent of space and time, as e.g. in the case of a rehadronization phase transition in the middle of a relativistic heavy ion collision.

Here we present an analytic approach, which goes back to the data-motivated exact analytic solution of non-relativistic hydrodynamics found by Zimányi, Bondorf and Garpman (ZBG) in 1978 for low energy heavy ion collisions with spherical symmetry . This solution has been extended to the case of elliptic symmetry by Zimányi and collaborators in . In  a Gaussian parameterization has been introduced to describe the mass dependence of the effective temperature and the radius parameters of the two-particle Bose-Einstein correlation functions in high energy heavy ion collisions. Later it has been realized that this phenomenological parameterization of data corresponds to an exact, Gaussian solution of non-relativistic hydrodynamics with spherical symmetry . The spherically symmetric self-similar solutions of non-relativistic hydrodynamics were obtained in a general manner in , that included an arbitrary scaling function for the temperature profile, and expressed the density distribution in terms of the temperature profile function. The ZBG solution and the Gaussian solution of  are recovered from the general solution of  as special cases, corresponding to different scaling functions of the temperature profile. The Gaussian solution has been generalized to ellipsoidal expansions in , that provides analytic insight into the physics of non-central heavy ion collisions .

Our approach corresponds to a relativistic generalization of these recently obtained analytic solutions  of non-relativistic fireball hydrodynamics to the case of relativistic flows, based on the success of the analytic approach to parameterize the single particle spectra and the two-particle Bose-Einstein correlations in high energy heavy ion physics in terms of hydrodynamically expanding sources .

In particular, we attempt here to solve the 1+1 dimensional relativistic hydrodynamical problem, in trying to overcome two shortcomings of Bjorken’s well-known solution. These two shortcomings of Bjorken’s solutions are that i) it only describes ultra-relativistic limit so that the rapidity distribution is flat; ii) it contains no transverse flow.

Here we present a new family of exact analytic solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics in 1 + 1 dimension (time + longitudinal coordinate), that is able to describe arbitrary inhomogeneous rapidity distributions. The inclusion of the transverse flow will be treated in a subsequent paper.

An interesting aspect of this solution is that the shapes of the rapidity distribution $`dN/dy`$ and temperature distribution are coupled in the way that the larger the rapidity density, the smaller the effective temperature. Choosing the effective temperature distribution $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(y)`$ to be flat, we recover Bjorken’s 1+1 dimensional solution.

## 2 The equations of relativistic hydrodynamics

In order to get solutions that have simple non-relativistic limiting behavior, we consider a gas of one type of particles whose total number is conserved. We then solve the relativistic continuity and energy-momentum conservation equation:

$`_\mu \left(nu^\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2)
Here $`nn\left(x\right)`$ is the number density, the four-velocity is denoted by $`u^\mu u^\mu \left(x\right)=\gamma (1,𝐯)`$, normalized to $`u^\mu u_\mu =1`$, and the energy-momentum tensor is denoted by $`T^{\mu \nu }`$. We assume perfect fluid,

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\left(\epsilon +p\right)u^\mu u^\nu pg^{\mu \nu },$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon `$ stands for the relativistic energy density and $`p`$ denotes the pressure.

We close this set of relativistic hydrodynamical equations with the use of an equation of state. We assume an ideal gas that contains massive conserved quanta,

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`mn+\kappa p,`$ (4)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`nT.`$ (5)
This equation of state has two free parameters, $`m`$ and $`\kappa `$. The case of ultrarelativistic gas is recovered by choosing $`m=0`$ and $`\kappa =3`$. If the thermal motion of the gas is non-relativistic, one has $`mT`$. Using this condition, the equations of non-relativistic hydrodynamics are re-obtained from the above set of equations in the $`𝐯^21`$ limiting case. The non-relativistic ideal gas equation of state corresponds to the case of $`\kappa =3/2`$.

The energy-momentum conservation equation contains 4 independent equations. These can be projected into a component parallel to $`u^\mu `$ and a component orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$, that yield the relativistic energy and Euler equations:

$`u^\mu _\mu ϵ+(ϵ+p)_\mu u^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
$`u_\nu u^\mu _\mu p+(ϵ+p)u^\mu _\mu u_\nu _\nu p`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (7)
The relativistic Euler equation contains only three independent components, by construction.

Using the equation of state and the continuity equation, the energy equation can be rewritten as an equation for the temperature,

$$u^\mu _\mu T+\frac{1}{\kappa }T_\mu u^\mu =0.$$
(8)
From now on we assume that the flow is homogeneous in the transverse direction corresponding to infinitely broad target and projectile in high energy heavy ion collisions. We reduce our equations to the 1 + 1 dimensional case, so the coordinates are $`x^\mu =(t,r_z)`$, $`x_\mu =(t,r_z)`$ and the metric tensor is $`g^{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1)`$.

We solve 3 independent equations, the continuity, the temperature equation and the $`z`$ component of the Euler equation (1,7,8). The equations, (4,5) close this system of equations in terms of 3 variables, $`n`$, $`T`$ and $`v_z`$.

## 3 Self-similar solution

We search for solutions that scale in the $`z`$ direction. We introduce the time dependent scaling variable

$$x=\frac{r_z^2}{Z\left(t\right)^2},$$
(9)
and assume that the longitudinal motion corresponds to a Hubble type of self-similar longitudinal expansion,

$$v_z(t,r_z)=\frac{\dot{Z}(t)}{Z(t)}r_z,$$
(10)
where $`\dot{Z}=dZ(t)/dt`$ stands for the time derivative of the scale parameter $`Z`$. In a relativistic notation, this form is equivalent to

$`u^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cosh}\zeta ,\mathrm{sinh}\zeta ),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{tanh}\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Z}(t)}{Z(t)}}r_z,`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{cosh}\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\dot{Z}^2x}}}\gamma .`$ (13)
Using this ansatz, we find that the continuity equation is solved by the form

$$n(t,r_z)=n_0\frac{Z_0}{Z}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\zeta }𝒢(x),$$
(14)
where $`𝒢(x)`$ is an arbitrary non-negative function of the scaling variable $`x`$ and $`n_0`$ and $`Z_0`$ are normalization constants. We use the convention $`Z_0=Z(t_0)`$ and $`n_0=n(t_0,0)`$ which implies that $`𝒢(x=0)=1`$. The temperature equation, (8) is solved by the following form:

$$T(t,r_z)=T_0\left(\frac{Z_0}{Z}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\zeta }\right)^{1/\kappa }(x).$$
(15)
The constants of normalization are chosen such that $`T_0=T(t_0,0)`$ and $`(0)=1`$. Here again, we find that the solution is independent of the form of the function $`(x)`$, provided that $`(x)0`$.

Using the ansatz for the flow profile and the solution for the density and the temperature, the relativistic Euler equation reduces to a complicated non-linear equation that contains $`Z`$, $`\dot{Z}`$ and $`\ddot{Z}`$ and $`x`$. Taking this equation at $`x=0`$ we express $`\ddot{Z}`$ as a function of $`Z`$ and $`\dot{Z}`$. Substituting this back to the Euler equation we obtain an equation for $`\dot{Z},Z`$ and $`x`$. In particular, for the $`m=0`$ case, $`Z`$ cancels out and this reduces to a second order polynomial equation for $`\dot{Z}^2`$, which has only one positive root. The form of the solution in this case ($`m=0`$) is

$$\dot{Z}^2(t)=F(x).$$
(16)
Observing that the function $`F`$ depends only on the scaling variable $`x`$, while $`\dot{Z}`$ depends only on the time variable $`t`$, we conclude that the only solution of this equation should be a constant

$$\dot{Z}=\dot{Z}_0.$$
(17)
Now we choose the origin of the time axis such that $`Z(t=0)=0`$ without loss of generality. The solutions can be cast in a relatively simple form by introducing the longitudinal proper time $`\tau `$ and the space-time rapidity $`\eta `$ defined as

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{t^2r_z^2},`$ (18)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t+r_z}{tr_z}}\right).`$ (19)
This implies that

$`Z(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{Z}_0t,`$ (20)
$`v_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_z}{t}}=\mathrm{tanh}\eta ,`$ (21)
$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`\eta .`$ (22)
Thus the solution for the flow velocity field corresponds to the flow field of the Bjorken solution. However, in the Bjorken solution the temperature distribution was independent of the $`\eta `$ variable, while in our case the density and the temperature distributions can be both $`\eta `$ dependent, or in other words, our solutions are scale dependent. The scale is defined by the parameter $`\dot{Z}_0`$, in the longitudinal direction.

This special form of the solution for the flow velocity field implies that $`\ddot{Z}=0`$. This equation implies that there is no pressure gradient and there is no acceleration in this class of self-similar solutions. The Euler equation is reduced to the following requirement:

$$(_z+\frac{r_z}{t}_t)\left[\left(\frac{t_0}{\tau }\right)^{(1+1/\kappa )}(1\dot{Z}_0^2x)^{(1+1/\kappa )}𝒢(x)(x)\right]=0$$
(23)
This equation is solved by the trivial $`𝒢(x)(x)=0`$ as well as by the non-trivial solution of

$$𝒢(x)(x)=(1\dot{Z}_0^2x)^{(1+1/\kappa )},$$
(24)
which is indeed only a function of $`x`$ as $`\dot{Z}_0`$ is a constant of time. With this form, the Euler equation is satisfied. This solution implies that the scaling profile functions for the temperature and the density distribution are not independent. As the constraint is given only for their product, one of them can be still chosen in an arbitrary manner.

At this point it is worthwhile to introduce new forms of the scaling functions. Let us define

$`𝒯(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(x)(1\dot{Z}_0^2x)^{1/\kappa },`$ (25)
$`𝒱(x)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢(x)(1\dot{Z}_0^2x).`$ (26)
Then the constraint Eq.(24) can be cast to the simplest form of

$$𝒱(x)𝒯(x)=1.$$
(27)
Let us summarize our new family of solutions of the 1+1 dimensional relativistic hydrodynamics by substituting the results in the density, temperature and pressure profiles.

We obtain

$`v_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_z}{t}}=\mathrm{tanh}\eta ,`$ (28)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\dot{Z}_0^2t^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}^2\eta }{\dot{Z}_0^2}},`$ (29)
$`n(t,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`n_0{\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{\tau }}𝒱(x),`$ (30)
$`p(t,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`p_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{\tau }}\right)^{1+1/\kappa },`$ (31)
$`T(t,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`T_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{\tau }}\right)^{1/\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒱(x)}},`$ (32)
where $`p_0=n_0T_0`$.

This implies that we have generated a new family of exact solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics: a new hydrodynamical solution is assigned to each non-negative function $`𝒯(x)`$. It can be checked that the above solutions are valid also for massive particles, the form of the solution is independent of the value of the mass $`m`$. The form of solutions depends parametrically on $`\kappa `$, that characterizes the equation of state.

## 4 Analysis of the solutions

We have obtained new solutions of the (1+1) dimensional relativistic hydrodynamical equations which describe a self-similar, streaming flow. The pressure and the flow profiles are the same as in the 1+1 dimensional Bjorken solution. In the case of $`𝒱(x)=1,`$ we recover Bjorken’s solution. In this limiting case, the pressure, the density and the temperature profiles depend only on the longitudinal proper time $`\tau `$.

In the general case, our solution contains a characteristic scale defining parameter in the longitudinal direction, $`\dot{Z}_0`$, and an arbitrary scaling function $`𝒱(x)`$. Thus we have an infinitely rich new family of solutions. Let us try to determine the physical meaning of the scaling function $`𝒱(x)`$.

In order to do this we evaluate the single particle spectra corresponding to the new solutions. Here we neglect any possible dynamics in the transverse directions, as usual in case of applications of Bjorken’s solution. The four-velocity field of our solutions thus becomes $`u^\mu =(\mathrm{cosh}\eta ,0,0,\mathrm{sinh}\eta )`$. The four-momentum of the observed particles with mass $`m`$ is denoted by $`k^\mu =(m_t\mathrm{cosh}`$ $`y,k_x,k_y,m_t\mathrm{sinh}`$ $`y)`$. Let us assume that particles freeze out at a constant longitudinal proper-time $`\tau _f`$, for the sake of simplicity. This implies freeze-out at a constant pressure, but at a space-time rapidity dependent temperature and density, and makes it possible to continue the calculation analytically. The source function of locally thermalized relativistically flowing particles in a Boltzmann approximation can be written as

$$S(x,𝐤)=C(\eta )m_t\mathrm{cosh}(\eta y)n(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(k^\mu u_\mu /T\right)\delta (\tau \tau _f),$$
(33)
where $`C(\eta )`$ is an $`\eta `$ dependent normalization factor, given by the condition that $`𝑑𝐤/ES(x,𝐤)=n(x)\delta (\tau \tau _f)`$, which implies that

$$C(\eta )=\left\{4\pi m^2T(\tau _f,\eta )K_2[m/T(\tau _f,\eta )]\right\}^1,$$
(34)
where $`K_\nu (z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}(z\mathrm{cosh}t)\mathrm{cosh}(\nu t)`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind.

The single particle spectrum can be calculated from the emission function as

$$E\frac{d^3N}{d𝐤}=\tau 𝑑\tau 𝑑\eta S(x,𝐤).$$
(35)
Substituting our family of new solutions, and using $`𝒯(x)=1/𝒱(x)`$, we obtain the following form

$`S(x,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`C(\eta )m_t\mathrm{cosh}(\eta y)n(x)f_B(x,𝐤)`$ (36)
$`f_B(x,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_t\mathrm{cosh}(\eta y)}{T_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{t_0}}\right)^{1/\kappa }𝒱({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}^2\eta }{\dot{Z}_0^2}})\right]\delta (\tau \tau _f).`$ (37)
We are interested in the coupling between the measurable rapidity distribution and the rapidity dependence of the effective temperature in the transverse directions as obtained from our new family of solutions. We assume that $`𝒱(x)`$ is a slowly varying function, i.e. $`d\mathrm{log}𝒱(x)/dx1`$ in the region of interest. This assumption implies that the point of maximal emissivity is located at $`\overline{\eta }=y`$ with correction terms of $`𝒪(d\mathrm{log}𝒱(x)/dx)`$ The measurable single-particle spectra can be written as

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{d^3N}{d𝐤}}`$ $`=`$ $`2C(y)n_0t_0𝒱\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}^2y}{\dot{Z}_0^2}}\right)K_1[m_t/T_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(y\right)],`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`n_0t_0𝒱\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}^2y}{\dot{Z}_0^2}}\right).`$ (39)
where

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}(y)=\frac{1}{𝒱\left(\frac{\mathrm{tanh}^2y}{\dot{Z_0}^2}\right)}T_0\left(\frac{t_0}{\tau _f}\right)^{1/\kappa }.$$
(40)
Note that the $`𝒱`$ function is a free fit function that describes the measurable rapidity distribution, including characteristic scales of the size of $`\dot{Z}_0`$.

We see that the slope parameter for transverse mass distribution $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is related to the rapidity distribution as

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}(y)=T_0\left(\frac{t_0}{\tau _f}\right)^{1/\kappa }\frac{dN/dy\left(y=0\right)}{dN/dy}.$$
(41)
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the calculated behavior of the effective temperature distribution as a function of rapidity for a single Gaussian-like and a double Gaussian-like ansatz for the measurable rapidity distribution. In case of a homogeneous rapidity distribution, $`dN/dy=C`$ we recover Bjorken’s result that the effective temperature distribution is rapidity independent. This behavior is expected to appear in high energy heavy ion collisions in the infinite bombarding energy limit.

## 5 Summary

We have found a new family of solutions of (1+1) dimensional relativistic hydrodynamics. This family solves the continuity equation and the conservation of the energy - momentum tensor of a perfect fluid, assuming an ideal gas equation of state. The flow field coincides with that of Bjorken’s solution. However, the shape of the measurable rapidity distribution, $`dN/dy`$ plays the role of an arbitrary scaling function in our solution, and we obtain that the effective temperature of the transverse momentum distribution becomes rapidity dependent. Assuming that $`dN/dy`$ is a slowly varying function of the rapidity $`y`$, we find that the effective temperature is proportional to the inverse of the rapidity distribution, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(y)(dN/dy)^1`$.

As compared to the well-known Bjorken’s solution, we have solved one more equation, the continuity equation. We have considered equations of state that have two free parameters, the mass $`m`$ and $`\kappa =ϵ/p`$. Interestingly, these generalizations resulted in additional freedom in the solution. Our solution, similarly to Bjorken’s case, describes scaling longitudinal flow and a pressure distribution that depends only on the longitudinal proper time. However, in our case, the pressure is a product of the local number density and the local temperature, hence one of these can be chosen in an arbitrary manner. In principle, we obtained that the measured single particle rapidity distribution can be arbitrary, and this measurable distribution plays the role of a scaling function of both the density and the inverse temperature in this family of new solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics. A generalization of the present one dimensional solution to 3 dimensional case can also be done in a similar manner to the nonrelativistic case .

Acknowledgments: T. Cs. would like to thank L. P. Csernai, B. Lukács and J. Zimányi for inspiring discussions during the initial phase of this work, and to Y. Hama and G. Krein for kind hospitality during his stay at USP and IFT, Sao Paulo, Brazil. This work has been supported by the OTKA grant T026435 of Hungary, the NWO - OTKA grant N 25487 of The Netherlands and Hungary, and the grants FAPESP 00/04422-7, 99/09113-3, PRONEX 41.96.0886.00, FAPERJ E-26/150.942/99, and CNPq, Brazil.


text:
# Effective action for the homogeneous radion in brane cosmology

## I Introduction

Intense activity has followed the recent suggestion that our universe could be embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime, while exhibiting the usual law of gravity at least in the range of scales which have been probed by gravity experiments. In the particular case of a single extra dimension, a lot of research has been inspired by the Randall-Sundrum models  based on branes in an Anti de Sitter (AdS) five-dimensional bulk spacetime. It has been shown explicitly in  that usual gravity (up to corrections of order $`\mu ^2r^2`$, where $`\mu `$ is the AdS mass scale) is indeed recovered in the single brane model whereas, in the two-brane models, one gets a Brans-Dicke type gravity. This cannot be compatible with observations if we live on the negative tension brane (the case of interest to solve the hierarchy problem) unless one invokes a stabilization mechanism for the radion, i.e. the interbrane separation, such as the one suggested in . Whatever the specific mechanism, the outcome is usually presented as producing an effective potential for the radion which can be seen as a four-dimensional scalar field.

In the cosmological context, it has been possible to solve exactly the five-dimensional Einstein equations when the bulk includes energy only in the form of a cosmological constant . Whatever the relative motion of the branes, the radion does not appear explicitly since the expansion law of each brane is given, independently of the other, by the unconventional Friedmann equation (which follows from the Israel junction conditions)

$$H^2=\frac{\kappa ^4}{36}\rho ^2\mu ^2+\frac{𝒞}{a^4},$$
(1)
where $`H`$, $`a`$ and $`\rho `$ are, respectively, the Hubble parameter, the scale factor and the total energy density of each brane, while $`𝒞`$ is an integration constant (analogous to the Schwarzschild mass).

At first sight, the two results mentioned above do not seem to be compatible: on the one hand, a four–dimensional perspective yielding a Brans-Dicke type gravity with the radion in the rôle of the Brans-Dicke scalar field, on the other hand a five–dimensional analysis showing that the Friedmann equation in our brane is independent of the radion.

The purpose of the present work is to present a detailed analysis of the dimensional reduction of a two-brane model at the level of the variational problem, i.e. starting from the five-dimensional action and integrating over the extra-dimension to obtain an effective four-dimensional action. We restrict our analysis to homogeneous systems, but we do not require any restriction on the radion velocity (spacetime fluctuations of the radion, although at the linearized level, have been considered in  for Minkowski and in  for de Sitter branes).

Equipped with the full effective four-dimensional action for homogeneous fields, our analysis is then twofold. We first focus on the dynamics of the radion in the cosmological background given by the unconventional Friedmann equation. Since we have not assumed the radion velocity to be small, we get an action which includes the full nonlinear dynamics of the radion, and from which we can recover the equations of motion for the radion obtained in  by writing the junction conditions for a moving brane.

We then consider the four-dimensional action as a variational problem for the full system (radion plus gravity and not only the radion), and explore in which regimes the resulting dynamics is a good approximation of the true five-dimensional dynamics. Since the latter is exactly known, we can quantify the deviation between the true and the “effective” dynamics. Our results illustrate the dangers of extending the four-dimensional intuition to systems which are intrinsically five-dimensional, as already pointed out in . In some sense, our analysis enables us to go beyond the moduli approximation (which consists in promoting free parameters of degenerate solutions into four-dimensional fields) used recently in  in the context of brane cosmology, and provides a quantitative delimitation of its range of validity.

Our plan is the following. We start, in section 2, with a description of the model and the definition of our coordinate system. In section 3, we compute the effective action by integrating explicitly over the extra dimension. The following section analyses the resulting dynamics of the radion. Section 5 is devoted to a comparison between the four-dimensional effective dynamics and the true dynamics. And we give our conclusions in the final section.

## II Bulk metric

We consider a portion of the five-dimensional Anti-de Sitter spacetime with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }6\mu ^2`$, bounded by two “parallel”, spatially homogeneous and isotropic three-branes. The fifth dimension is made effectively periodic by assuming a mirror (orbifold) symmetry across each of the branes.

The purpose of this paper is to derive the four-dimensional effective theory for this system from the point of view of an observer in the brane corresponding to our universe, which we call $`_0`$. For this reason, rather than using a coordinate system in which the metric is manifestly static , we will prefer to use a Gaussian normal (GN) coordinate system based on $`_0`$, in which the metric has the form

$$ds^2=g_{AB}dx^Adx^B=n(t,\stackrel{~}{y})^2dt^2+a(t,\stackrel{~}{y})^2\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j+d\stackrel{~}{y}^2,$$
(2)
and where our brane-universe $`_0`$ is always at $`\stackrel{~}{y}_0=0`$. We will moreover assume that the energy densities in $`_0`$ and in the second brane $`_1`$, respectively $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _1`$, are constants. We thus avoid the delicate point of defining an action for a brane with a generic perfect fluid as matter.

The general (cosmological) solution to the Einstein equations for the above system, in the GN coordinates, is well known . In what follows, we will assume that the Schwarzschild-type constant ($`𝒞`$ in eq. (1)) is zero. This means that we choose the bulk to be strictly AdS rather than Schwarzschild-AdS . This choice simplifies the expression for the bulk metric, that acquires the form

$$n(t,\stackrel{~}{y})=N(t)𝒜(\mu \stackrel{~}{y}),a(t,\stackrel{~}{y})=a_0(t)𝒜(\mu \stackrel{~}{y}),𝒜(\xi )\mathrm{cosh}\xi \eta _0\mathrm{sinh}|\xi |,$$
(3)
where we have introduced the dimensionless quantity $`\eta _0=\kappa ^2\sigma _0/(6\mu )`$ related to the energy density in our brane-universe. In an analogous way, we define $`\eta _1=\kappa ^2\sigma _1/(6\mu )`$.

We will allow here the second brane to move with respect to the frame defined by eq. (2). Its position at any time $`t`$ will be given by

$$\stackrel{~}{y}_1=(t),$$
(4)
where the function $`(t)`$ represents the (homogeneous) radion, which is thus defined as the proper distance between the two branes in the GN coordinate system defined by eq. (2). We will always assume that the GN coordinate system does not break down before reaching the second brane, which means that $`_1`$ is within the horizon.

Usually one prefers to express the size of the extra dimension, and thus its time dependence, in the metric components rather than in a time-dependent coordinate for the boundary of the extra-dimension. We can proceed similarly by introducing a new coordinate $`y`$ defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{y}=y(t),$$
(5)
such that the two branes are now at fixed positions, respectively $`y_0=0`$ and $`y_1=1`$. The metric (2) now reads

$$ds^2=\left(n^2\dot{}^2y^2\right)dt^2+a^2d𝐱^2+2\dot{}ydydt+^2dy^2.$$
(6)
One can notice that, not only the metric component along the fifth dimension is explicitly time dependent, but off-diagonal components also appear. This explicit dependence of the metric on the radion velocity is usually claimed to be ignorable under the assumption that this velocity is small. As we will see later, this is justified only in very specific regimes.

## III Effective action

In this section we derive the effective four-dimensional action of the above system as seen by an observer on $`_0`$. The total five-dimensional action includes the action for each brane, the bulk Einstein-Hilbert action (with a cosmological constant term), but also an extra term, usually called the Gibbons-Hawking  term (involving the trace $`K`$ of the extrinsic curvature tensor on the space boundaries), in order to take proper care of the boundary terms at $`y=0`$ and $`y=1`$. The total five-dimensional action thus reads

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}d^5x\sqrt{g}\left({}_{}{}^{(5)}R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\underset{a=0,1}{}d^4x\sqrt{h_a}K\underset{a=0,1}{}\sigma _ad^4x\sqrt{h_a},$$
(7)
where $`h_a`$ denotes the determinant of the induced metric on each of the branes. Substituting the metric ansatz (6) in this five-dimensional action we get a functional of $`n(t,y)`$, $`a(t,y)`$ and $`(t)`$.

The four–dimensional effective action is defined as the result of the integration of the above expression (7) over the fifth dimension. This requires knowledge of the explicit dependence on $`y`$ of each term in the five-dimensional action. It is thus necessary at this stage to replace the metric components $`n(t,y)`$ and $`a(t,y)`$ by their explicit form given in (3), leaving the variables $`a_0(t)`$, $`N(t)`$ and $`(t)`$ as unspecified functions of time. The resulting four dimensional effective action can be expressed as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2\mu }}{\displaystyle d^4xNa_0^3}`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{(4)}R\psi _1()+12\mu ^2(\psi _2()+\psi _3())+`$ (10)
$`+3\mu 𝒜_1^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{Na_0}}+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_1^{}}{𝒜_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{}}{N}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N𝒜_1\dot{}}{N𝒜_1+\dot{}}}\right)+6\mu 𝒜_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_0}{Na_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{}}{N}}+`$
$`\kappa ^2\mu \sigma _0\kappa ^2\mu \sigma _1𝒜_1^4\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{}^2}{N^2𝒜_1^2}}}],`$
with $`𝒜_1𝒜(\mu )`$ and $`𝒜_1^{}𝒜^{}(\mu )`$, while the $`\psi `$’s are dimensionless functions of $`\mu `$ defined by

$$\psi _1()=_0^\mu 𝑑\xi 𝒜\left(\xi \right)^2,\psi _2()=_0^\mu 𝑑\xi 𝒜\left(\xi \right)^2𝒜^{}\left(\xi \right)^2,\psi _3()=_0^\mu 𝑑\xi 𝒜\left(\xi \right)^4,$$
(11)
and $`{}_{}{}^{(4)}R`$ is the (homogeneous) four–dimensional Ricci scalar

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}R=\frac{6}{N^2}\left(\frac{\dot{a}_0^2}{a_0^2}+\frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}\frac{\dot{N}}{N}\right).$$
(12)
It can be useful to integrate (10) by parts in time in order to get rid of $`\ddot{a}_0`$ and $`\dot{N}`$.

The action (10) is the main result of this work. It depends on the three time-dependent functions $`N(t)`$, $`a_0(t)`$ and $`(t)`$ and it contains, without any approximation, the full dynamics of the radion, as will be checked explicitly in the next section. This result shows that if the radion can indeed be considered as a scalar field from the four-dimensional point of view, its full nonlinear dynamics is governed by a rather unfamiliar type of action.

## IV Equations of motion

As the analysis carried out in the next section will show in detail, the four–dimensional effective action (10), if considered as embodying the dynamics of the variables $`N(t)`$, $`a_0(t)`$ and $`(t)`$, will not yield, in general, the exact dynamics both of the radion and of the scale factor on our brane. Indeed, the dynamics of the latter is governed by the five-dimensional Einstein equations, and their content is partially lost in the four-dimensional reduction of the action. In particular, the unconventional Friedmann equation (equation (1) with $`𝒞=0`$),

$$H_0^2\left(\frac{\dot{a}_0}{Na_0}\right)^2=\frac{\kappa ^4}{36}\sigma _0^2\mu ^2=\mu ^2\left(\eta _0^21\right),$$
(13)
which characterizes the evolution of the scale factor in our brane-universe $`_0`$, does not follow from the four-dimensional action (10).

However, once we put gravity on-shell, i.e. once we assume that the scale factor is a solution of (13), the effective four-dimensional dynamical equations will be able to yield the exact dynamics of the radion field. We will now show that this is indeed the case by comparing the equations of motion obtained from the variation of the action with respect to $`N`$ and $``$ with the equations of motion for the radion obtained in  directly from the junction conditions.

As usual, the lapse function $`N`$ is not a physical degree of freedom as it corresponds to the arbitrariness in the definition of time. The variation of the action with respect to it yields a first integral, which corresponds in ordinary cosmology to the (first) Friedmann equation. In our case the Friedmann equation reads

$$H_0^2\psi _1+2\mu ^2\left(\psi _2+\psi _3\right)+\mu \left(H_0+\mu \frac{𝒜_1^{}}{𝒜_1}\dot{}\right)\frac{𝒜_1^2\dot{}}{1(\dot{}/𝒜_1)^2}=\frac{\kappa ^2\mu }{6}\sigma _0+\frac{\kappa ^2\mu }{6}\sigma _1\frac{𝒜_1^4}{\sqrt{1(\dot{}/𝒜_1)^2}},$$
(14)
where we have set $`N=1`$ after variation.

If we now impose that the expansion rate of $`_0`$ is given by eq. (13), then the constraint (14) simplifies to give

$$\mu \frac{𝒜_1^{}}{𝒜_1}+H_0\frac{\dot{}}{𝒜_1^2}=\mu \eta _1\sqrt{1\frac{\dot{}^2}{𝒜_1^2}},$$
(15)
where we have used the identities $`\left(\eta _0^21\right)\psi _1=\psi _2\psi _3`$$`3\psi _2+\psi _3=𝒜_1^3𝒜_1^{}+\eta _0`$, and $`𝒜^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝒜^2=\eta _0^21`$, which follow from the definitions (3) and (11). This equation corresponds exactly to the result of , obtained by writing directly the junction conditions for a moving brane.

The equation of motion for the radion itself, obtained by variation of the action (10) with respect to $``$, looks at first rather cumbersome, but can be remarkably simplified, using (15), to yield finally

$$\ddot{}+3H_0\left(1\frac{\dot{}^2}{𝒜_1^2}\right)\dot{}+\mu 𝒜_1𝒜_1^{}\left(45\frac{\dot{}^2}{𝒜_1^2}\right)=4\mu 𝒜_1^2\eta _1\left(1\frac{\dot{}^2}{𝒜_1^2}\right)^{3/2},$$
(16)
which is also in agreement with the results of . We can therefore conclude that, if we impose the condition (13), we recover the exact dynamics of the radion. As we will discuss in the next section, however, the condition (13) does not emerge from the dynamical equations of the four dimensional system.

As a particular situation, one can consider the case where the second brane is not moving, i.e. $`\dot{}=0`$. This implies, in the case of two de Sitter branes, that the second brane must be located at the equilibrium position $`_{eq}`$, defined by the condition

$$\left(\frac{𝒜_1^{}}{𝒜_1}\right)_{=_{eq}}=\eta _1.$$
(17)
The linearized dynamics around this equilibrium position can be obtained from the action eq. (10) by substituting $`=_{eq}+\delta \left(t\right)`$, and keeping terms up to the second order in the perturbation $`\delta `$. It is then easy to obtain the canonically normalized radion $`\phi _c`$ as

$$\phi _c\sqrt{\sigma _1}𝒜_1\delta .$$
(18)
The effective mass can also be read from the second-order action and one recovers the familiar result $`m_{eff}^2=4H_0^2`$.

As we mentioned at the end of section 2, ignoring the dependence of the metric (6) on $`\dot{}`$, as is usually done in the moduli approximation, leads after expansion in powers of $`\dot{}`$ to a different action for the radion, difference which shows up in the $`\dot{}^2`$ term. One can show that the discrepancy is negligible, in the regime near equilibrium, if the condition

$$\eta _0^21\frac{𝒜_1^2}{\mu }\frac{\kappa ^2|\sigma _1|}{\mu }$$
(19)
is satisfied. This turns out ot be the case for the regime $`\eta _0=1`$ considered in .

We finally notice that it is possible to rewrite eq. (15) as an equation for the scale factor on the brane $`_1`$, which reads

$$H_1^2=\mu ^2\left(\eta _1^21\right),$$
(20)
where the Hubble parameter on the second brane is given in terms of $`a_0`$ and $``$ by the expression

$$H_1=\frac{1}{𝒜_1\sqrt{1\frac{\dot{}^2}{𝒜_1^2}}}\left(H_0+\mu \frac{𝒜_1^{}}{𝒜_1}\right).$$
(21)
Two equivalent descriptions of the two-brane system are thus possible. One consists in parametrizing the two branes by their scale factor $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ respectively, in which case the dynamics is described by the two unconventional Friedmann equations (13) and (20), which are completely independent. The second description, directly related to the four-dimensional effective point of view, consists in choosing the scale factor $`a_0`$ and the radion as degrees of freedom of the theory. The five-dimensional setup can then be ignored, the radion appearing as a four-dimensional scalar field in our usual four-dimensional spacetime, but the memory of the five-dimensional setup, which is embodied in the unconventional Friedmann equation, has to be added as an additional constraint.

## V Validity of the four-dimensional approach ?

In this section we analyze the coupled dynamics of the scale factor and radion field that one would naively deduce from the four–dimensional action (10) considering the three functions $`N(t)`$, $`a_0(t)`$ and $`(t)`$ as dynamical variables for the variational problem. This means that we do not impose eq. (13) as an external constraint.

The corresponding system is analogous to that of the scale factor and a scalar field in four-dimensional FLRW cosmology, their dynamics being determined by a coupled system of second order differential equations, in addition to the constraint which comes from the variation of the action with respect to $`N`$. Thus, at a fiducial initial time $`t_{}`$, one must specify, for example, the values of $`a_0\left(t_{}\right)`$ (which is in fact arbitrary because of the rescaling property of the system), $`\left(t_{}\right)`$ and $`\dot{}\left(t_{}\right)`$ while $`\dot{a}_0\left(t_{}\right)`$ is deduced from the constraint equation. This must be contrasted with the full five–dimensional dynamics, which is described by eqs. (13) and (15), where the only quantity to be specified at an initial time $`t_{}`$ is $`\left(t_{}\right)`$, since $`\dot{}\left(t_{}\right)`$ is determined by eq. (15). We can thus see that the action (10) generates more solutions than the true (five-dimensional) solutions which belong to a subspace characterized by the unconventional Friedmann equation (13).

Keeping this in mind, let us however examine in more detail the “theory” suggested by the four-dimensional action (10). We will not write here the second order differential equations, which are rather cumbersome, but the inspection of the Friedmann equation (14) is already instructive in itself. A first remarkable feature of eq. (14) is that the energy densities of the two branes enter linearly in the Friedmann equation, the energy density of the second brane being corrected by both a warping effect and a Lorentz factor due to the motion of the brane. This linear behaviour is of course familiar in ordinary cosmology but might appear more surprising in brane cosmology where the brane energy density enters quadratically. As remarked in the previous section, the correct behaviour is recovered only if the unconventional Friedmann law is imposed by hand on one of the two branes.

One can give the Friedmann equation (14) a more familiar aspect by introducing the effective static potential for the radion. It can be read directly from the action (10) and its expression is given by

$$\kappa ^2V_{stat}()=12\mu \left(\psi _2+\psi _3\right)+\kappa ^2\sigma _0+\kappa ^2\sigma _1𝒜_1^4.$$
(22)
The total effective potential for the radion can then be deduced by including gravity. It is given by the expression

$$\kappa ^2V_{tot}()=\kappa ^2V_{stat}12\frac{H_0^2}{\mu }\psi _1.$$
(23)
One can check that its extremum yields the equilibrium position $`_{eq}`$ defined above in (17).

Using the static potential (22), one can now rewrite the Friedmann equation (14) in the form

$$3H_0^2=\kappa _4^2\left[V_{stat}\frac{6}{\kappa ^2}\left(H_0+\mu \frac{𝒜_1^{}}{𝒜_1}\dot{}\right)\frac{𝒜_1^2\dot{}}{1(\dot{}/𝒜_1)^2}\sigma _1𝒜_1^4\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{1(\dot{}/𝒜_1)^2}}\right)\right],$$
(24)
where the effective four–dimensional gravitational coupling is defined by

$$\kappa _4^2\frac{\kappa ^2\mu }{2\psi _1\left(\right)}.$$
(25)
Let us now consider an expansion in the parameter $`\dot{}/𝒜_1`$, which means that the velocity of the radion measured by an observer on the second brane is small. Keeping terms only up to $`\dot{}^2`$ on the right hand side, one then finds in addition to the potential, a kinetic contribution for the radion, which reads

$$\kappa _4^2\left[\frac{12}{\kappa ^2}\mu 𝒜_1^{}𝒜_1+\sigma _1𝒜_1^2\right]\frac{\dot{}^2}{2}$$
(26)
as well as a coupling between the radion velocity and the Hubble parameter. The latter term can be understood by observing that the action (10) describes a Brans-Dicke type theory. In such theories, the scalar curvature in the Lagrangian is multiplied by a scalar field, say $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then an extra term of the form $`3H_0\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ appears on the right-hand side of the Friedmann equation. In our case, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _1`$ and $`\dot{\psi }_1=𝒜_1^2\dot{}`$, which accounts for the term that appears in eq. (24). With the above expansion, the Friedmann equation acquires a familiar look, but in the more general case where the radion velocity is not assumed to be small, all the terms are modified by corrections due to the Lorentz factor $`(1(\dot{}/𝒜_1)^2)^{1/2}`$. Nevertheless, even when the radion velocity is small, the four dimensional system yields a space of solutions that is larger than the actual space of solutions of the full five–dimensional dynamics.

In fact, things are slightly more subtle because the most general Friedmann equation resulting from the five-dimensional analysis is not (13), but includes a radiation-like Weyl term as well (see eq. (1)) with $`𝒞`$ as an integration constant. One can thus wonder if the extra freedom among the initial conditions of the four-dimensional system can somehow mimic this constant of integration of the five-dimensional dynamics. It turns out that this is the case in the particular Randall-Sundrum limit (i.e. with critical branes, $`\eta _0=1`$ and $`\eta _1=1`$) and in the slow-velocity approximation, as was shown explicitly in  by deriving an effective action for the moduli consisting of the scale factors of the two branes.

Here, we can reconsider this question from a more general point of view. To compare the four-dimensional dynamics with the true five-dimensional dynamics, we consider the quantity

$$\chi \dot{H}_0+2\left[H_0^2\mu ^2\left(\eta _0^21\right)\right].$$
(27)
When the brane energy density is constant, as is the case here, this quantity is exactly zero for the true five-dimensional dynamics (1), even when one has a radiation-like term (i.e. $`𝒞0`$ in (1)). The value of $`\chi `$ obtained from the four-dimensional system will therefore represent directly the deviation from the true dynamics.

Let us first consider the Randall-Sundrum regime, for which $`\eta _0=1`$ and $`\eta _1=1`$. Expanding with respect to the brane velocity $`\dot{}`$, one obtains from the equations of motion that

$$\dot{H}_0+2H_0^2=\frac{3+4𝒜_1+𝒜_1^2}{2(1𝒜_1)^2}\mu ^2\dot{}^4+𝒪\left(\dot{}^6\right).$$
(28)
The above formula shows that, at order $`𝒪(\dot{}^2)`$, the four-dimensional effective action yields the expansion law of a radiation–dominated universe: the constant $`𝒞`$ is in fact mimicked by a constant term proportional to $`\dot{}(t_{})^2`$.

There is another regime where the four-dimensional dynamics can mimic the true five-dimensional dynamics. This is when the radion is near its equilibrium point, defined by (17). Keeping only terms up to second order in time derivatives in the equations of motion, one finds

$$\chi =\mu ^2\frac{(\eta _0^21)\dot{}^2}{𝒜_1^22\eta _1\psi _1}.$$
(29)
The four-dimensional dynamics thus approximates the true dynamics near the equilibrium point if

$$ϵ_0\dot{}^2H_0^2/\mu ^2,$$
(30)
with $`ϵ_0=\eta _011`$.

The analysis of the equilibrium regime also gives a solution to the apparent contradiction, mentioned in the introduction, between the Brans-Dicke type behaviour of the effective four-dimensional theory (corroborated by the analysis of the fluctuations ) and the unconventional Friedmann equations, which are independent of the radion, i.e. of the Brans-Dicke field (see also a recent discussion on this problem in  from a different perspective). This can be seen in the low energy limit $`ϵ_01`$, where one gets approximately the usual Friedmann equation with

$$\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_4^2=\kappa ^2\mu ,$$
(31)
in contrast with the gravitational coupling found in (25) which depends explicitely on the radion.

The explanation of this paradox comes from the observation that, in the effective theory, Brans-Dicke gravity couples to the energy densities on both branes, as is explicit in the Friedmann equation (24), which for $`\dot{}=0`$ reduces to

$$3H_0^2=\kappa _4^2V_{stat},$$
(32)
with the potential $`V_{stat}`$ containing an average sum of the energy densities. When the system is close to the Randall-Sundrum regime, one finds that

$$\kappa ^2V_{stat}=6\mu \left(ϵ_0+ϵ_1e^{4\mu }\right),$$
(33)
where we have defined $`ϵ_1\eta _1+11`$. As seen above, the four-dimensional effective theory approximates well the true five–dimensional dynamics only close to the equilibrium point, which requires a fine–tuning between the tension on the two branes, the relation being

$$ϵ_1=ϵ_0e^{2\mu }.$$
(34)
This coupling between $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_0`$ exactly cancels the dependence of $`\kappa _4^2`$ on the radion, and the gravitational coupling to only the matter in our brane does not depend on the radion as expected.

## VI Conclusions

We have computed the four-dimensional effective action, which governs the full non-perturbative dynamics of the homogeneous radion. The correct dynamics for the radion, including corrections due to the Lorentz factor, is obtained in all cases only if one imposes “by hand” the non-conventional Friedmann equation for the brane scale factor.

Our work emphasizes the fact that one cannot in general use a four-dimensional approach to describe a setup which is intrinsically five-dimensional, even if our universe is, in this type of model, a four-dimensional manifold where ordinary matter is confined. This is reminiscent of the realization that the Friedmann equation in the brane must include a $`\rho ^2`$ term because of the five-dimensional nature of gravity . Noticing that, in the case of the Friedmann equation, one recovers the usual four-dimensional form at low energy, i.e. when our brane-universe is close to Minkowski, one could argue that the four-dimensional and five-dimensional approaches are equivalent at low energies. However, this can sometimes be misleading as shown in this work, since at low energy, in a two-brane system, one requires to fine–tune the brane tensions in such a way that gravity looks purely tensorial rather than scalar–tensor if one demands the four–dimensional effective cosmological dynamics to reproduce the actual five-dimensional one.

In the present work, by considering a system simple enough but yielding a non trivial effective potential for the radion, we have been able to compare explicitly the effective and true dynamics. The space of effective solutions is larger than the space of true solutions corresponding to the five-dimensional ansatz, because one constraint is lost in the integration of the action over the fifth dimension. We have shown that in a restrictive range of parameters, namely for critical branes or for a radion near equilibrium point, and with a slow radion in both cases, the two dynamics are compatible (in these two regimes, the effective solutions coincide with the enlarged space of five-dimensional solutions which allow for Weyl radiation even if there solutions were not included in the ansatz before integration of the action). We were also able to evaluate quantitatively the deviation of the effective dynamics with respect to the true dynamics.

By extension, our analysis suggests that studying brane cosmology in a five-dimensional setup appears unavoidable as soon as one wishes to explore regimes far from the quasi-static limit. And, indeed, these regimes might produce new and potentially interesting effects, which cannot be seen in the already thoroughly explored four-dimensional models.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank P. Binétruy and C. Deffayet for very instructive discussions, N. Deruelle and G. Veneziano for reading and commenting our manuscript. D.L. would like to thank the organizers of the workshop on “Braneworld- Dynamics of spacetime with boundary” (YITP, Kyoto), where he had stimulating discussions on the present work, in particular with J. Garriga, N. Kaloper, R. Maartens, K. Maeda, S. Mukohyama, M. Sasaki, T. Tanaka.