format: text

text:
# The Velocity Distribution of the Nearest Interstellar Gas

## 1 Introduction

A number of studies have searched for correlations between the velocity of interstellar gas observed inside the solar system and towards external stars (Adams & Frisch, 1977; McClintock et al., 1978; Lallement & Bertin, 1992). Adams & Frisch (1977) showed that the velocity of interstellar gas inside the solar system differs by several km s-1 from interstellar cloud velocities towards stars located in the upstream direction. The discovery that the $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ L$`\alpha `$ line is redshifted by several km s-1 from the D0 line towards the nearest star ($`\alpha `$ Cen, 1.3 pc) confused the identification of the cloud velocity in this direction (Landsman et al., 1984). This shift has since been successfully modeled by including the L$`\alpha `$ absorption from compressed $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ in the heliosheath (Linsky & Wood, 1996; Gayley et al., 1997). However, the heliosheath is observed only in the strong L$`\alpha `$ line. The D0, Mg+, and Fe+ line velocities towards $`\alpha `$ Cen ($``$–19 km s-1, Lallement et al., 1995; Linsky & Wood, 1996) disagree by $``$2 km s-1 with interstellar gas and dust velocities found inside the solar system (e.g. Weller & Meier, 1981; Witte et al., 1996; Flynn et al., 1998; Frisch et al., 1999) when projected towards $`\alpha `$ Cen. Optical and ultraviolet (UV) data show that the bulk flow of the closest interstellar material (ISM) has an upstream direction towards the Loop I supernova remnant, and a velocity $``$20 km s-1 in the local standard of rest (LSR) (Frisch, 1981; Crutcher, 1982; Frisch, 1995). This bulk flow is similar to ISM expanding around OB associations (e.g. Münch, 1957). Following Slavin & Frisch (2002, hereafter SF02), the ISM within 30 pc is referred to as the complex of local interstellar clouds (CLIC), while the cloudlet feeding ISM into the solar system is denoted the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC). Optical Ca+ and UV absorption data show that the CLIC is inhomogeneous on subparsec scales, and that multiple absorption components are present towards the nearest stars (e.g. Munch & Unsold, 1962; Ferlet et al., 1986; Lallement et al., 1986; Vallerga et al., 1993; Lallement et al., 1994; Crawford & Dunkin, 1995; Welty et al., 1996; Frisch, 1995, 1996; Crawford et al., 1997, 1998). The kinematics of the CLIC provides the opportunity to probe the history of a diffuse cloud, the relevance of small scale structure to ISM physics, and to gauge the past and future galactic environment of the Sun (Frisch, 1997).

Nearby ISM provides a unique set of constraints for determining diffuse cloud physics. Observations of both pickup ions inside the solar system (formed by interactions of interstellar neutrals with the solar wind) and interstellar absorption lines towards nearby stars have been used to constrain the first full radiative transfer model of nearby ISM (SF02). These results indicate that the interstellar properties at the solar location are T$``$7,000 K, $`n(\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o})`$$``$0.24 cm-3, $`n(\mathrm{e}^{})`$$``$0.13 cm-3, and fractional ionizations $`X`$(H)$``$31% and $`X`$(He)$``$48%, with both density and ionization levels varying towards the cloud surface (Model 17). The model includes emission from a conductive interface, which yields an excess of helium compared to hydrogen ionization (SF02). If the density $`n(\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o})`$$``$0.24 cm-3 is typical for all cloudlets near the Sun, then $`N(\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o})`$ towards $`\alpha `$ Cen (1.3 pc, Linsky & Wood, 1996) suggests a filling factor $`f`$0.4. Enhanced refractory element abundances in warm nearby gas provide evidence that local ISM has been shocked (Frisch et al., 1999). The presence of cold Ca+ and Nao absorption components (Doppler width $`b_\mathrm{D}`$0.8 km s-1) towards $`\alpha `$ Pav (56 pc) and $`\delta `$ Cyg (52 pc) indicate at least an order of magnitude variation for ISM temperatures within 50 pc (see references in Table 3).

The sensitivity of heliosphere properties (Zank & Frisch, 1999) — and astrospheres in general (including extra-solar planetary systems, Frisch, 1993) — to the physical conditions of the surrounding ISM motivates this exploration of small scale structure in the nearby ISM using cloud velocity as a structure proxy. Understanding small scale structure in the CLIC will also help decipher the signature that astrospheres leave on the interstellar $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption line. This paper focuses on the bulk flow kinematics of ISM within $``$30 pc of the Sun. Anticipating a conclusion, the CLIC appears to consist of an ensemble of cloudlets at velocities consistent with a random distribution about a mean bulk flow velocity. The first results of this study were presented by Frisch (2001).

## 2 Velocities of Absorption Components

### 2.1 Method

In this analysis we assume that the motions of nearby interstellar clouds (i.e. the CLIC) in the local standard of rest (LSR) can be described by a linear flow vector, $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$, which is characterized by the flow velocity and the galactic coordinates of the direction from which the gas flows (implying that the flow velocity is $`<`$0). Our approach is to calculate a best fitting flow vector for a set of observed interstellar cloud component radial velocities which sample interstellar gas within $``$30 pc (Section 2.2), and then to determine the distribution of component velocities about this bulk flow vector. If the CLIC (d$`<`$30 pc) is part of an expanding shell feature from Loop I (Section 3.1), it will subtend a total angle equivalent to about 10% of the expanding shell and yield $`<`$5% deviations from a linear flow velocity (i.e. $``$1 km s-1 for uniform expansion). Therefore, over the scale length of the CLIC, the linear assumption is sufficient. The bulk flow velocity vector is determined from a fitting procedure that varies $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$ in order to minimize the sum, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{m}`$, over m observed interstellar absorption line components, of the square of the difference between the projected flow and observed velocity towards each star, i.e., to minimize:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{m}=\underset{\mathrm{i}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{m}}{}}\text{d}V_\mathrm{i}^2,$$
(1)
where

$$\text{d}V_\mathrm{i}=v_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{obs}}\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}\widehat{k}_{\mathrm{star}}.$$
(2)
For a flow vector calculated from a set of m components ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(m)),

$$\text{d}V_\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{m})=v_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{obs}}\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}(\mathrm{m})\widehat{k}_{\mathrm{star}},$$
(3)
where d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(m) is the scalar radial velocity (at the solar location) of component i in the rest frame of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(m). Here $`\widehat{k}_{\mathrm{star}}`$ is the unit position vector towards each star and $`v_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the observed heliocentric (HC) radial velocity for an interstellar velocity component towards that star (here denoted i, where i=1,m). The fits were performed using the FindMin function in Mathematica, which determined the local minima of the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{m}`$ as a function of the three variables V,l,b which define $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$. Note that since many stars show more than one interstellar absorption component, the number of components (m) is greater than the number of stars. An unweighted fit was employed since there is no obvious weighting function. Line broadening is not suitable since instrument resolutions and thermal broadening vary (artificially blending velocity components). Column densities are unsuitable since they vary between species. Note that since we are interested in the distribution of the deviation of component velocities in the rest frame of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$, the component data set includes all measured components for each star. We find that this procedure yields a predicted flow velocity, $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$, which is relatively insensitive to the detailed set of the selected velocity components, provided that sky coverage is good and that several stars with components at anomalous velocities are removed from the sample (next section).

In principle, the full three-dimensional flow vector $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$ is calculated correctly for cases where the perturbations from the flow (d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$) are random, since the Sun is immersed in the flow. Alternative cases whereby perturbations in the flow have a directional dependence (or preference), or where the flow is decelerated (Frisch, 1995), are not considered here. However, we make an elementary attempt to identify systematic regional patterns in the velocity components.

### 2.2 Component Set and Bulk Velocity

The velocities of optical and ultraviolet absorption lines towards nearby stars, and towards more distant stars which sample primarily the CLIC gas, are used to evaluate the velocity distribution of the CLIC. Interstellar absorption line data for 67 stars which sample the CLIC are listed in Table 2, with component information in Table 3. This component set forms the “unrestricted sample”. A range of data sources was used in order to cover as much of the sky as possible. Observations of the optical interstellar Ca+ lines represent the primary source of cloud velocity data, but the optical data do not adequately sample the downstream region where column densities are low over the first $``$30 pc (e.g. $`N`$(Ca+)$`<<10^{10}`$ cm-2, Bruhweiler & Kondo, 1982; Frisch & York, 1983; Frisch, 1995; Lallement et al., 1995). Observations of the intrinsically stronger UV lines of Fe+, Mg+, D0, and $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ are available for several stars in the downwind direction and towards the north galactic pole (where column densities are also low).

The component sample results primarily from fits to optical and UV absorption lines observed at relatively high resolution ($`<`$3 km s-1); medium resolution UV data were used for a few stars. When both optical and UV data exist, the optical Ca+ data (resolution 0.5–3 km s-1) are the first choice, and the UV data second choice since about 50% of the optical spectra were acquired with resolution FWHM$`<`$1.5 km s-1. Component velocities are generally obtained from a process which iteratively fits each discernible component in the absorption line profile with a population of atoms with a Maxwellian velocity distribution about the central component velocity, with a projection in the radial line-of-sight towards the Sun of $`v_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ (denoted $`v_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{obs}}`$ in eqs. 2, 3). The number of components and the component descriptors (column density, $`v_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, and Doppler broadening constant, $`b_\mathrm{D}`$) are sensitive to instrument resolution and signal-to-noise and to the judgment of the observer.

The component sample used here is not of uniform quality. For example, the star $`\alpha `$ Oph (14 pc) has been observed at resolutions of 0.3 km s-1 by Crawford & Dunkin (1995) and 1.2 km s-1 Welty et al. (1996). The 0.3 km s-1 resolution profiles were fitted with four components with velocities –32.0$`\pm `$0.5, –28.4$`\pm `$0.3, –26.2$`\pm `$0.2 and –23.6$`\pm `$0.5 km s-1. The 1.2 km s-1 resolution profiles were fitted with three components with velocities –33.03 km s-1, –26.25 km s-1, –22.16 km s-1. While temporal variations in interstellar Ca+ absorption profiles are seen in a few cases (e.g. Hobbs et al., 1991), comparisons between the two absorption profiles suggest that the component at –28.4 km s-1 was unresolved in the lower resolution data.

The derived flow vector depends on the component set used in the fitting procedure, and the unrestricted sample is small enough that lines incorrectly identified as interstellar may alter the results. Therefore, the basic star sample was restricted to omit stars with either identified circumstellar disks or strong emission line spectra (where misidentification of circumstellar features is possible). Thus the stars $`ϵ`$ Eri (3.2 pc), $`\beta `$ Pic (19.3 pc), $`\beta `$ Leo (11.0 pc), $`\alpha `$ Lyr (7.6 pc), $`\alpha `$ PsA (7.7 pc), which have circumstellar disks identified at 60 $`\mu `$m (e.g. Habing et al., 2001), were omitted from the sample. Although interstellar components can in principle be distinguished from circumstellar disk components since stellar velocities are known, we considered the sample to be more reliable when stars with circumstellar disks are omitted. The emission line star $`\alpha `$ Eri (44 pc) was also omitted, as it shows variable Heo and Mg+chromospheric features indicating that weak circumstellar absorption features may be present. The active RS CVn variable HR 1099 (Wood et al., 1996b) was also omitted from the sample because the inclusion of the components towards this star yielded results that are inconsistent with fits towards the other stars (see below). With the above omissions, the remaining restricted sample consists of 60 stars with a total of 96 components. Star distances range from 1.3 pc ($`\alpha `$ Cen) to 132 pc ($`ϵ`$ CMa). Components towards the two stars beyond 70 pc, $`ϵ`$ CMa and 31 Com, were included because these stars primarily sample ISM within 30 pc (Gry & Jenkins, 2001; Dring et al., 1997) and fill a gap in the spatial coverage.

This basic component sample was fitted for the flow vector $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$, yielding a HC vector $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) with radial velocity –28.1$`\pm `$4.6 km s-1, flowing from the upstream direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=12.4o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=11.6o. The uncertainty is the 1-$`\sigma `$ value of the velocity component distribution about the bulk flow velocity. Figure 1a shows the deviations d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) plotted against the stellar distance (omitting the two stars more distant than 70 pc). Note that 76 of these 96 components originate in the upstream direction, while the remaining components originate downstream, reflecting the higher column densities of nearby ISM found upstream (e.g., Frisch, 1995).

The positions of the stars forming the 96 component set are plotted in Figure 2a. Most of the sky is well sampled, except for the interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o–180 o in the direction of the third galactic quadrant void (also known as the Puppis window or the $`\beta `$ CMa tunnel), where mean interstellar column densities are low out to $``$100 pc ($`\overline{n_{\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}}}<`$0.003 cm-3). Figure 3a shows d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) as a function of the galactic longitude of the star; no strong systematic spatial dependence is seen. For comparison, the LSR velocities of the 96 components (d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(LSR)) are plotted against galactic longitude in Figure 3b, illustrating the expected behavior for an incorrect vector describing the flow. Throughout this paper we use the solar apex motion based on $`Hipparcos`$ data, corresponding to a solar motion towards the galactic coordinates $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=27.7o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=32.4o at the velocity $`V`$=13.4 km s-1 (Dehnen & Binney, 1998).

The robustness of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) was tested in several ways. The first test was to restrict the star sample to stars within 29 pc of the Sun (except for $`ϵ`$ CMa and 31 Com, which sample the nearest ISM and are required for completeness in low column density directions). This restriction gives 46 components towards 31 stars. The best fit HC flow vector for this 46 component sample, $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(46), corresponds to an upstream direction of $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=12.5o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=12.5o, with an inflow velocity of –28.1$`\pm `$4.3 km s-1. The fact that $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(46) is virtually identical to $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) is not a coincidence, since the initial selection of stars in Table 3 was restricted to stars which did not appear to contain neutral ISM more distant than $``$30 pc. The closeness of the $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) and $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(46) vectors support the validity of eliminating HR 1099 from the component sample, since had HR 1099 been retained in the restricted sample the resulting fitted vector ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(99)) would have differed from $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(46) by 0.6 km s-1 and 2o.

The second test was a search for spatially correlated variations in d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96). Star positions are replotted in Figure 2b, with symbols coded for d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96). No systematic positional dependence appears for components with $`|\text{d}V_\mathrm{i}(96)|>`$5 km s-1. However, when the components with $`|\text{d}V_\mathrm{i}(96)|<`$5 km s-1 are plotted with symbols which code the sign of d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96), stars in the interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o$``$250o are found to show components with systematically small but negative d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) values (Figure 2c, note several components are overplotted). The best-fitting flow vector, $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(20), for the 20 components toward 14 stars located in the interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o$``$250o corresponds to a vector velocity –25.8$`\pm `$4.3 km s-1 from the upstream direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=6.2o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=10.4o. If only a single component per star is selected for the fit, biasing towards components with small d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He) values, the resulting fitted vector $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(14) corresponds to a velocity –25.6$`\pm `$1.3 km s-1 from the upstream direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=6.4o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=13.1o, which is close to $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) (Table 1, Section 3.3.1). The dispersion of the same 14 components around $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) is $`\pm `$1.7 km s-1. Gas near the LIC velocity (Table 1) dominates in the downwind direction (l$``$180o), as found previously. The LIC and other regional variations in $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) are discussed in Section 3.3.

### 2.3 Component Velocity Dispersion

The randomness of interstellar cloud velocities has long been of considerable interest, with early arguments presented for random motions of $``$20 km s-1 for interstellar particles (Spitzer, 1942), compared to recent data showing root-mean-square velocity dispersions of $``$0.5 km s-1 in individual cold clouds. Early studies of diffuse cloud kinematics found an exponential distribution for cloud velocities, suggestive of a turbulent ISM (Blaauw, 1952; Münch, 1957).

The functional form of the velocity distribution of the CLIC gas was tested, but the results prove inconclusive. A plot of the number of components (N, ordinate) binned for a given value of d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) (abscissa) is shown in Figure 4. Here, N is determined with d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) binned with 1 km s-1 bin sizes. The histogram is “noisy” because the sample is small.

For a purely random distribution of individual components about the central flow velocity $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96), the form of the d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$ distribution should be Gaussian:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(V)=\frac{c_\mathrm{g}}{b\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(VV_o)^2/b^2$$
(4)
The Blaauw (1952) and Münch (1957) results for Ca+ and Nao lines, based on low resolution data (FWHM$`>`$5 km s-1), are consistent with an exponential distribution for cloud velocities:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(V)=\frac{c_\mathrm{e}}{2\eta }\mathrm{exp}|VV_o|/\eta ,$$
(5)
such as is expected for a turbulent flow. Here, $`b=\sigma \sqrt{2}`$, $`c_\mathrm{g}`$ and $`c_\mathrm{e}`$ are normalizing constants, and $`\sigma `$ and $`\eta \sqrt{2}`$ are the root-mean-square deviations of the Gaussian and exponential distributions respectively.

The 96 component sample was tested for the distribution of d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96), assuming alternatively Gaussian and exponential distributions. The best-fit Gaussian distribution yields $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=6.2 km s-1, and the best-fit exponential distribution yields $`\eta `$=5.1 km s-1. The present data do not distinguish between these two distributions (see overplotted functions in Figure 4). Blaauw concluded that an exponential function with mean speed $`\eta `$5$`\pm `$1 km s-1 provided the best fit to Ca+ K-line data towards 300 stars observed by Adams (1949) with instrumental resolution $``$9 km s-1. Munch inferred that an exponential form fit observations of the Ca+ and Nao doublets towards 112 stars, with $`\eta `$5–6 km s-1 for Ca+ in the Orion arm and a somewhat smaller value for Nao. Munch concluded that turbulence dominates the velocity distribution of these components. These early low resolution data undersample blended components at low velocity and therefore probably enhance component statistics in the distribution wings with respect to the central region. It is therefore puzzling that we find a similar value from higher resolution data. This issue is discussed further in a subsequent paper (Frisch & Welty, 2002).

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Upstream Direction and Loop I

The best-fit heliocentric velocity vector, $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96), corresponds to a bulk velocity –28.1 km s-1 flowing from the upstream direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=12.4o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=11.6o (Section 2.2). However in order to compare $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) with morphological features in the astronomical sky the solar apex motion through the LSR must be subtracted. Subtracting the solar apex motion from $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) gives a “true” upstream direction (in LSR) in galactic coordinates of $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=2.3o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–5.2o, with flow velocity –17.0 km s-1.111For comparison, the standard solar apex motion (based on the brightest stars with a range of ages) is 19.7 km s-1 towards $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=57o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=+22o, which yields an upstream LSR flow motion of –19.4 km s-1 from the direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=331.4o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–4.9o. The $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) upwind direction is shown plotted against the filamentary $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ structure associated with Loop I (21 cm data, Figure 5, Hartmann & Burton, 1997). The position of the radio continuum Loop I shell, defined from the discovery 408 MHz radio continuum data, is marked (from Berkhuijsen, 1971; Haslam et al., 1982).

Low column densities in the CLIC components ($`N`$(H)$`<10^{18.5}`$ cm-2, typically) prevent linking CLIC velocities to individual features in the 21-cm $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ sky maps. The relation between the flow of interstellar gas past the Sun and the Loop I superbubble has been discussed from several viewpoints (e.g. Frisch, 1979, 1981; Crutcher, 1982; Frisch, 1995; Crawford, 1991; de Geus, 1992). The Loop I superbubble remnant (the brightest segment of which is the North Polar Spur) is centered near $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$$``$320o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$$``$5o, with distance $``$130 pc and radius $``$80o (based on $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ 21 cm data, Heiles, 1998). The radio-continuum Loop I is centered at $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=329o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=+17.5o, radius 58o, and is strongly limb-brightened in the tangential direction near $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$$``$35o (Berkhuijsen, 1973). The center of Loop I defined from $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ data is offset from the radio-continuum center by $``$15o. The $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ shell shows a polar cap at $`v_{\mathrm{lsr}}`$$``$–30 km s-1 and $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$,$`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$$``$300o,–10o (Heiles, 1989), where the cold component seen at –19.6 km s-1 towards $`\alpha `$ Pav may originate (Table 3). This expansion velocity implies a projected velocity of $``$–14 km s-1 for the $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) LSR upwind direction, versus the best-fit LSR velocity of –17.0 km s-1. The filamentary structure and likely asymmetric expansion of the $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ shell make it difficult to identify the approaching portion of the $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ shell, so the $``$20% difference between the projected polar cap velocity and the LSR bulk velocity of the CLIC gas possibly is within uncertainties. However, the $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ shell regions traced by the 21-cm polar cap emission are denser and colder than the CLIC gas appears to be. Alternatively, models of shell expansion from the formation of the Sco-Cen Association Upper Scorpius subgroup place an $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ shell with LSR velocity $``$–22 km s-1 and age $``$4 Myrs at the solar location (Crawford, 1991; de Geus, 1992; Frisch, 1995).222Note the age given for the most recent shell-forming event should be 4 Myrs, not 400,000 yrs (Frisch, 1995, page 532).

### 3.2 Comparison with Previous Models

The bulk flow of nearby interstellar gas has been determined from optical absorption lines observed towards nearby stars (primarily Ca+, e.g. Crutcher, 1982; Frisch, 1986; Lallement et al., 1986; Lallement & Bertin, 1992; Vallerga et al., 1993; Frisch, 1995, 1997). The velocity vectors determined from these earlier studies are summarized in Table 5 and shown in Figure 7. Since column densities in the downstream direction are low (log\[$`N(\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o})`$\]$`<`$18 cm-2), optical lines do not easily sample this interval. This causes bulk flow vectors based primarily on Ca+ data to be strongly weighted towards upstream gas and quite sensitive to the details of the star sample. The inclusion of UV data provides an adequate sample of downstream gas, but at lower resolution (3 km s-1). Lallement & Bertin (1992, LB92) used UV data to identify the ISM in the downstream direction, denoting it the “anti-Galactic” cloud (AG, Table 5), which is the same as the LIC. ISM identified in the upstream direction, generally towards the galactic-center hemisphere, was denoted the “Galactic” cloud (G, Table 5). The velocity difference between the G and AG clouds is smaller than found by Adams and Frisch (1977), based on backscattered L$`\alpha `$ $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ data, because of the deceleration and compression of $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ in the heliosheath regions (which was unknown in 1977). LB92 concluded that either the Sun is located in a patch of gas with velocity intermediate between the G and AG clouds, or that $`\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o}`$ is decelerated in the heliosheath (or both). The $`Ulysses`$ He and 584 Å backscattering data confirm the velocity of ISM inside the solar system, so that the general velocity difference between the upstream and downstream ISM is real. However, the fact that the velocities of CLIC cloudlets are consistent with a random distribution about the mean bulk flow velocity suggests that the upstream/downstream velocity gradient locally displayed by the G versus LIC vectors may be an artifact of the location of the Sun with respect to the “edge” of the CLIC complex. Alternatively, the presence of a blue-shifted cloud towards CMa (Lallement et al., 1994; Gry & Jenkins, 2001) is also consistent with a velocity gradient.

For comparison with the LB92 G-AG two-flow model, a separate bulk flow velocity was calculated for downstream components. The 20 LIC components originating in the interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o$``$250o were removed from the 96 component sample. The fit to the resulting 76 components yields $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76)=–29.3$`\pm `$4.0 km s-1, from HC upstream direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=13.1o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=11.2o. The velocities of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) and the G vector ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(G)) coincide, although the upstream directions differ by $``$12o. The observed 3.5 km s-1 difference between $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) and $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(20) and the near coincidence of upwind directions (within $``$8o) suggests a deceleration of the bulk flow. The two-flow model with the two vectors $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(20) and $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) (or alternatively with $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) and $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(G)) is not a unique description of CLIC gas. For example, the velocity dispersion of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) is about equal to the difference between the $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) and $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(20) velocities ($``$4 km s-1). The second shortcoming is that 6 stars in the $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o$``$250o interval show two absorption components, and the second components are not accommodated by the two-flow model. The dispersion of the entire 20 components about $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) is 5.4 km s-1. The dispersion around $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) of the 14 components best matching the LIC velocity (1.5 km s-1) is only slightly better than the dispersion of these components about $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96) (1.6 km s-1).

### 3.3 Regional Properties

The small filling factor of nearby ISM, combined with the component distribution, led to attempts to understand the positions of nearby ‘cloudlets’ (e.g. Lallement et al., 1986; Frisch, 1996), the clouds towards $`\alpha `$ Oph and $`\alpha `$ Aql (Munch & Unsold, 1962; Frisch, 1981; Ferlet et al., 1986), and the “shape” of the cloud around the solar system (Frisch, 1996; Redfield & Linsky, 2000). These earlier approaches used velocities grouped either in the observed heliocentric velocity, or in the LIC velocity. Here we use an alternative approach, and evaluate cloud membership in the rest frame of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96). Using the d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) values, we identify regional clumps of ISM based on similar d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) values for stars sampling a relatively compact region of the sky, except for the LIC which is identified by d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He) (or d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(20)). The component groups that appear to represent subsets of the flow are listed in Table 4 and are discussed in order below. The positions of the clouds are plotted in Figure 6 as symbols overlying star positions.

#### 3.3.1 1. Cloud Surrounding the Solar System

The velocity of the interstellar cloud surrounding the solar system, the LIC, has been determined from observations of the resonance fluorescence of the 584 A transition from interstellar Heo inside the solar system (e.g. Weller & Meier, 1981; Flynn et al., 1998) and from $`Ulysses`$ $`insitu`$ measurements of interstellar Heo (Witte et al., 1996). Since the trajectories of interstellar H atoms inside the solar system are subject to radiation pressure, these Heo data yield the best LIC velocity. The $`Ulysses`$ $`GAS`$-detector data give $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He)=–25.3$`\pm `$0.5 km s-1, $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=3.9$`\pm `$1.0o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=15.8$`\pm `$1.3o (and $`T`$=6,550$`\pm `$1,050 K) for the HC upstream direction (Witte et al., 1996, and private communication), which is within the uncertainties of the Heo 584 Å backscattered radiation vector (Flynn et al., 1998). When this He motion is converted to a vector in the local standard of rest (LSR) using the $`Hipparcos`$ solar apex motion (Dehnen & Binney, 1998), the upstream direction corresponds to a velocity of –14.7 km s-1, arriving from the upwind direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=345.9o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–1.1o. In the LSR, this differs by $``$2 km s-1 and $``$20o in direction from the bulk velocity vector. Pure deceleration of the flow would not alter the upstream direction, so shear motions may be present in the bulk flow.

$`Copernicus`$, $`IUE`$ and $`HubbleSpaceTelescope`$ ($`HST`$) observations of interstellar D0, Fe+, Mg+, towards $`\alpha `$ Cen (1.3 pc) indicate a HC velocity for the ISM in the range –17.7$`\pm `$0.1 to –18.2$`\pm `$0.1 km s-1, versus the value –16.1 km s-1 predicted by the projection of the $`Ulysses`$ vector (Landsman et al., 1984; Lallement et al., 1995; Linsky & Wood, 1996). This difference has been interpreted as indicating that the cloud surrounding the solar system terminates within $``$10,000 au of the Sun in the direction of $`\alpha `$ Cen. The $`\alpha `$ Cen cloud shows d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He)$``$–2.8 km s-1 (and d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)=–3.8 km s-1). This evidence for a cloud boundary close to the Sun in the direction of $`\alpha `$ Cen is consistent with column densities measured towards the nearest stars, which indicate that $`<`$40% of space is filled with ISM for volume density $`n(\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{o})`$$``$0.24 cm-3 as found for the LIC (SL02).

Thirty CLIC components have velocities consistent with the velocity of interstellar He inside the solar system ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He)) using the criterion $`|`$d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He)$`|<`$1.5 km s-1. However, components towards stars beyond 15 pc (Figure 1b) have predominantly negative d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He) values since these stars are generally located in the upstream direction. The stars showing these 30 $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) components are distributed relatively uniformly across the sky (Figure 2d). Refitting the 30 components essentially reproduces $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He), and does not alter the distance dependence, suggesting the more distant components with $`|`$d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He)$`|<`$1.5 km s-1 either are blends of local and distant gas or are formed in independent cloudlets with no local contribution. The five stars within 15 pc with $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) components are $`\alpha `$ CMa (2.7 pc), 61 CygA (3.5 pc), $`ϵ`$ Ind (3.6 pc), 40 EriA (5 pc), and $`\alpha `$ Aur (13 pc). The UV absorption lines towards $`\alpha `$ CMi (3.5 pc) have been fitted with both single-component and two-component models (Linsky et al., 1995). With the single-component fit (Table 3), d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He)=1.8 km s-1; however d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(20)=0.5 km s-1 so that $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(20) provides a better fit for local gas towards this star. (A second component redshifted by $``$2.6 km s-1 (with $``$50% of the column density of the main component) is not coincident with either flow vector.)

The velocity vector of the cloud within the solar system provides poor agreement with the restricted sample of 96 components, as seen in Figure 3c where d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He) is plotted for all 96 components. The fact that $`|`$$`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He)$`|<|`$$`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96)$`|`$ yields the effect that nearby ISM in the downstream direction is blueshifted in the rest frame of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96).

Several studies have noted the small distance to the upstream cloud edge for the ISM surrounding the solar system ($`<10^4`$ au, e.g., LB92). The relative Sun-cloud velocity ($``$25 pc/106 yrs) suggests that the galactic environment of the Sun will vary within the next $``$2,000 years (Frisch, 1997; Wood et al., 2000b).

The LIC is reliably identified only in the $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o$``$250o interval where slightly more distant gas is absent, and in this interval $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) is an excellent descriptor of component velocities. The inability to identify the LIC reliably in sidestream and upstream directions indicates the two-flow model must be evaluated with caution in most sightlines, and in particular where velocity information is unavailable. In addition, since the CLIC represents a cluster of comoving clouds with a velocity dispersion of $``$5 km s-1, simple closed surface LIC models which can be topologically deformed to a sphere may not realistically represent the LIC cloudlet.

#### 3.3.2 Other Regional Component Groups

##### 2. Blue Cloud:

The “Blue Cloud” (BC) has been identified towards $`\alpha `$ CMa and $`ϵ`$ CMa, placing the cloud within 3 pc of the Sun (Lallement et al., 1994; Hebrard et al., 1999; Gry & Jenkins, 2001, GJ). The BC has d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)$``$–10 km s-1, and is blueshifted from the LIC by $``$6.5 km s-1. The filling factor of the LIC towards $`\alpha `$ CMa is $`f0.3`$, suggesting that the BC is a spatially separate feature. Towards $`\alpha `$ CMa the BC appears to be cooler and denser than the LIC (Hebrard et al., 1999), while towards $`ϵ`$ CMa it appears warmer and denser than the LIC (GJ).

##### 3. Aquila-Ophiuchus Cloud:

The Aquila-Ophiuchus cloud (AOC) is disclosed by a set of Ca+ components with d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)=–6.1$`\pm `$0.9 km s-1 towards stars located in the interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=28o to 48o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–5o to +23o. The stars $`\alpha `$ Aql, $`\alpha `$ Oph, $`\zeta `$ Aql, $`\gamma `$ Oph, and $`\lambda `$ Aql show the Aql-Oph cloud component, and the 5.1 pc distance of $`\alpha `$ Aql places the cloud close to the Sun. For each of these five background stars, the component formed in the AOC is the weakest and most blue-shifted component seen towards the star. The similarity between the AOC velocity and the velocity of weakest and most blueshifted component towards $`\delta `$ Cyg (d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)=–6.9 km s-1) may be a coincidence since the the $`\delta `$ Cyg component originates in a cold cloud ($`b`$=0.47 km s-1, 0.42 km s-1 for Ca+, Nao respectively, Welty et al., 1996), and cold clouds are not expected within 5 pc. The AOC is located near the solar apex direction, $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=27.7o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=32.4o. If the unobserved tangential velocity component is $``$0 km s-1, the Sun may encounter this cloud within the next $``$160,000 years. Components from this cloud are seen clearly in Figure 3a.

##### 4. Pegasus-Aquarius Cloud:

The Pegasus-Aquarius cloud, with d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)=4.2$`\pm `$0.5 km s-1, is seen towards stars grouped in the interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=75o$`\pm `$13o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–44o$`\pm `$5o. Background stars are $`\theta `$ Peg, $`\alpha `$ Peg, $`\gamma `$ Aqr, $`\eta `$ Aqr, and this cloud must be within 30 pc of the Sun.

##### 5. North Pole Cloud:

A group of components with velocity 1.7$`\pm `$0.6 km s-1 is found towards stars at high galactic latitudes, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$$`>`$53o, including the Ursa Majoris region. The nearest star with a component in this group is $`\alpha `$ CrB, at 23 pc.

##### 6. South Pole Cloud:

A cloud with $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96)=2.4$`\pm `$1.0 km s-1 occupies an irregularly shaped region covering the South Galactic Pole ($`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$$``$48o). The South Pole Cloud (SPC) cloud is seen towards $`ϵ`$ Ind, $`\alpha `$ Hyi, $`\tau ^3`$ Eri, $`\beta `$ Cet. However, two of these components (towards $`ϵ`$ Ind and $`\beta `$ Cet) also have $`|`$d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(He)$`|<`$0.1 km s-1, indicating they also could be formed in the LIC (which is seen towards two other low latitude stars, 40 Eri and EP Eri). If so, the SPC is not a separate cloudlet. The nearest star in this sample is $`ϵ`$ Ind at 3.6 pc, indicating the SPC, if real, is quite nearby. Additional data are required to test for the SPC.

##### 7. Filamentary-like Feature:

Perhaps the most puzzling of the component groups suggests a filamentary structure, with d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)= +6.9$`\pm `$1.5 km s-1. Since this feature has a large angular extent ($``$90o, Figure 6), it represents a single cloudlet only if the tangential (unobserved) velocity is $``$0 km s-1 for all of the stars, similar to a fragment of an expanding ring. This feature is at $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=284o$`\pm `$12o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–4o$`\pm `$50o, and it is seen towards $`\delta `$ CrV, $`\gamma `$ CrV, HR 4023, $`\delta `$ Vel, $`\alpha `$ Hyi.

## 4 Conclusions

The principal conclusions of this paper are that:

1. The bulk flow velocity for interstellar matter within $``$30 pc of the Sun is determined from optical and UV absorption line data. A self-consistent flow vector is determined if stars with infrared-emitting circumstellar disks ($`ϵ`$ Eri, $`\beta `$ Pic, $`\beta `$ Leo, $`\alpha `$ Lyr, and $`\alpha `$ PsA), variable emission lines ($`\alpha `$ Eri), and HR 1099 are omitted from the sample. Fits to the remaining 96 component sample (60 stars) yield a bulk flow velocity ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96)) through the LSR (using $`Hipparcos`$ data on the solar apex motion) of magnitude –17.0 km s-1, with an upstream direction of $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=2.3o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=–5.2o (Table 1). In the heliocentric velocity frame (i.e. with respect to the Sun), $`|`$$`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96)$`|`$=28.1 km s-1, approaching the Sun from the upstream direction $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=12.4o, $`b^{\mathrm{II}}`$=+11.6o (the 1-$`\sigma `$ velocity uncertainty is $`\pm `$4.6 km s-1, based on the component distribution about the bulk flow velocity).

2. The CLIC gas (Cluster of Local Interstellar Clouds) is defined by this ensemble of velocity components, which show a Gaussian or exponential distribution in the rest frame of the central flow velocity, and the dispersion of this distribution is typical for dispersions determined from lower resolution observations of diffuse clouds. The dispersion in the velocities of the individual CLIC components partaking in the bulk flow explains the difference between the velocity of the interstellar cloud inside the solar system (25.3 km s-1, HC) versus the overall bulk flow velocity (–28.1 km s-1, HC).

3. This LSR upstream direction suggests the CLIC gas may be part of a superbubble shell expanding from the Loop I supernova remnant, or from an earlier epoch of superbubble formation in the Scorpius-Centaurus Association. The cold absorption component formed in the polar cap of Loop I appears to be present in front of $`\alpha `$ Pav.

4. The velocity of the interstellar cloud observed inside the solar system, and in the downstream direction towards nearby stars ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He)) differs both from $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96), and from the velocity of ISM towards the nearest star $`\alpha `$ Cen. However, 85% of the observed components consistent with $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He) are probably formed in unrelated parts of the CLIC. This complexity suggests that simple smooth closed-surface models for local interstellar gas are unlikely to be accurate in detail. The components within 1.5 km s-1 of the velocity of interstellar He within the solar system ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(He)) dominate the galactic longitude interval $`l^{\mathrm{II}}`$=150o$``$250o, suggesting a deceleration of the flow in the third galactic quadrant. The Sun is likely to emerge from the gas-patch now surrounding it within the next several thousand years.

5. Several spatially distinct groups of components sharing a common d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96) suggest the bulk flow is composed of cloudlets (Table 4), including the previously known LIC and Blue Cloud in the downstream direction. Distinct cloudlets in the upstream direction include the Aquila-Ophiuchus cloud with components at at d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)$``$–6 km s-1. This cloud may extend to within 5 pc of the Sun since it is seen towards $`\alpha `$ Aql. Components in this cloud form the weakest and highest velocity Ca+ component for each star in which it is observed. This cloud is in the solar apex direction, and if the non-radial component of the cloud velocity is small the Sun will encounter this cloud in $`<`$200,000 years. A distinct cloud is seen towards Pegasus/Aquarius, at d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)=3.8$`\pm `$0.3 km s-1. Another distinct cloud is found within 22 pc towards the North Galactic Pole, with d$`V_\mathrm{i}`$(96)=1.7$`\pm `$0.6 km s-1.

6. These results show the kinematics of CLIC components are consistent with early studies showing macroscopic turbulence in the ISM within $``$500 pc (Blaauw, 1952; Münch, 1957). Low filling factors for nearby ISM($`<`$40%), and mean cloudlet speed $`\eta `$5 km s-1 in the flow reference frame ($`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(96)) suggest that the CLIC is a cluster of comoving cloudlets. If this velocity dispersion is due to turbulence (as the larger samples considered by Blaauw and Munch suggest), then it is distinct from the microscopic turbulence which broadens absorption lines towards nearby stars ($`b^2`$=$`2kT/m`$ \+ 2$`V_{\mathrm{turb}}^2`$, where $`V_{\mathrm{turb}}`$1 km s-1).

7. A two-flow model of the velocity components is not a unique description of CLIC gas. For example, the velocity dispersion of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) is about equal to the difference between the $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(76) and $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{flow}}`$(20) velocities ($``$4 km s-1). In addition, multiple components in the downstream gas are not accommodated by a two-flow model. The result is that morphological models of the LIC must include velocity information for accurate results.

Studies of the CLIC, where individual cloudlets can be studied in high resolution UV data, and in some sightlines in optical data, offer the best opportunity for reliably determining the relation between the kinematical and spatial characteristics of diffuse interstellar clouds.

This research has been supported by NASA grants NAG5-6405 (Frisch), NAG5-8163 (Frisch), and NAG5-3228 (Welty).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been an increasing interest in gravity on de Sitter (dS) spacetimes . The motivation for this comes partially from recent astrophysical data that point towards a positive cosmological constant, but apart from phenomenological aspects, it also remains an outstanding challenge to understand the role of de Sitter space in string theory, to clarify the microscopic origin of de Sitter entropy 111For microscopic derivations of dS entropy based on the Chern-Simons formulation of 2+1 dimensional dS gravity, or on other approaches that are not directly related to string theory, cf. ., and to study in which way the holographic principle  is realized in the case of de Sitter gravity. Whereas string theory on anti-de Sitter spaces is known to have a dual description in terms of certain superconformal field theories , such an explicit duality emerging from string theory is still missing for dS spacetimes. Yet, based on , where the first evidence for a dS/CFT correspondence was given, and on related ideas that appeared in , Strominger proposed recently a holographic duality relating quantum gravity on dSD to a Euclidean conformal field theory residing on the past (or alternatively future) boundary $`^{}`$ ($`^+`$) of dSD . Subsequently, this correspondence was further explored in .

In general, the conformal field theories in question seem to be non-unitary. Indeed, if the bulk fields, to which CFT operators couple, become sufficiently massive, the conformal weights of these operators turn out to be complex . In a certain sense, this is puzzling, because the bulk fields provide unitary representations of the de Sitter isometry group SO$`(D,1)`$ for arbitrarily large masses .

A full understanding of the proposed dS/CFT correspondence seems to require an embedding of de Sitter space in string theory. De Sitter solutions in ordinary supergravity theories  break of course all supersymmetries, and this makes it questionable how far one could trust a Maldacena-type argument in this case. On the other hand, Hull’s IIB theory  admits a supersymmetric dS5 $`\times `$ H5 vacuum, but unfortunately the theory has ghosts.

While at present we do not yet have a satisfactory comprehension of these issues, we can still try to get some insight by studying the simplest explicit example of a dS/CFT correspondence, namely the one between pure dS gravity in three dimensions, and Euclidean Liouville theory . This is the aim of the present paper.

We will see that Liouville field theory is able to capture many features of 3d gravity with positive cosmological constant. First of all, it reproduces correctly Strominger’s central charge $`c=3l/2G`$ 222Cf. also  for alternative derivations of the central charge. that appears in the asymptotic symmetry algebra of dS3 gravity. Furthermore, we show that the spectrum of Liouville vertex operators is in one-to-one correspondence with the spectrum of bulk (gravity) solutions. While the classical conformal dimensions of these operators reproduce exactly the mass of the point particle sources that are present on the 3d gravity side, their quantum dimensions coincide with the mass of the bulk solutions computed with the Brown-York stress tensor. Classical de Sitter gravity thus encodes the quantum properties of Liouville theory. We shall see that features of Liouville theory, like the Seiberg bound , as well as the appearance of macroscopic (normalizable) and microscopic (non-normalizable) states  do all have an interpretation in 3d de Sitter gravity. In particular, bulk solutions with cosmological event horizons correspond to microscopic Liouville states, whereas those without horizons correspond to macroscopic states. Besides, complex conformal weights occur naturally in Liouville theory, which is exactly what seems to be required in a CFT dual to dS gravity.

The remainder of our paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we briefly review the Kerr-de Sitter solution in three dimensions, and compute the associated Brown-York boundary stress tensor and the conserved charges like mass and angular momentum. Furthermore, we discuss the thermodynamics of the solution, and argue that a consistent thermodynamics can be formulated only in absence of conical defects. We observe that the basic obstacle in understanding thermodynamics is rooted in the absence of a zero temperature state. In section 3 we introduce other configurations of de Sitter gravity, just to remind ourselves and the reader that Liouville field theory has to face many other problems before one can say it is a successful description of quantum three-dimensional gravity. In section 4, starting from the Liouville action obtained in , we compute the central charge and show that it coincides with the one obtained in . The Liouville field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponding to the Kerr-dS3 solution is then determined. This leads to a relation between Liouville vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and bulk solutions. We show that the Liouville stress tensor equals the Brown-York stress tensor of dS3 gravity, and that the quantum dimensions of vertex operators reproduce exactly the masses of the bulk solutions. After that, it is shown what normalizable states and the Seiberg bound in Liouville theory correspond to on the bulk side. In section 5, we comment on recent criticisms by Dyson, Lindesay and Susskind , and point out that the contradictions found by these authors may be resolved if the dual CFT is not able to capture the thermal nature of de Sitter space. Indeed we find that on the CFT side, de Sitter entropy is merely Liouville momentum, and thus has no statistical interpretation in this approach. We conclude with some final remarks.

## 2 The Kerr-de Sitter solution

Consider the Einstein-Hilbert action with positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=l^2`$,

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_{}d^3x\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{2}{l^2}\right)+\frac{1}{8\pi G}_{}d^2x\sqrt{\gamma }K,$$
(2.1)
where we included the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term necessary to have a well-defined variational principle. $`K`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature $`K_{\mu \nu }=_{(\mu }n_{\nu )}`$ of the spacetime boundary $``$, with $`n^\mu `$ denoting the outward pointing unit normal. $`\gamma `$ is the induced metric on the boundary.

The equations of motion following from (2.1) admit the Kerr-de Sitter solution given by

$$ds^2=N^2dt^2+N^2dr^2+r^2(d\varphi +N^\varphi dt)^2,$$
(2.2)
with the lapse and shift functions

$$N^2=\mu \frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{16G^2J^2}{r^2},N^\varphi =\frac{4GJ}{r^2}.$$
(2.3)
(2.2) describes the gravitational field of a point particle with spin $`J`$, and mass related to the parameter $`\mu `$ (cf. below). The Kerr-dS spacetime has a cosmological event horizon located at333The horizon exists for every $`\mu \text{}`$ if $`J0`$, and for positive $`\mu `$ if $`J=0`$.

$$r=r_+=\frac{l}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }+\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}),$$
(2.4)
where we defined

$$\tau =\mu \frac{8GJi}{l}.$$
(2.5)
The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, temperature, and angular velocity of the horizon are given respectively by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{4G}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi l}{4G}}(\sqrt{\tau }+\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}),`$
$`2\pi lT`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16G^2J^2l}{r_+^3}},`$ (2.6)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4GJ}{r_+^2}}.`$
In order to compute the mass and angular momentum of the spacetime (2.2) one can proceed as in , and integrate the Killing identity in the static patch from $`r=0`$ to $`r=r_+`$. In doing this, one has to take into account the delta function sources at $`r=0`$. An alternative approach, which we will pursue here, makes use of the conserved stress tensor  associated to the boundary $``$. In our setting, $``$ is the past boundary $`^{}`$ ($`r\mathrm{}`$) of the conformal compactification of the Kerr-dS3 spacetime, and the stress tensor derived from the action (2.1) reads

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\left[K^{\mu \nu }K\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{l}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(2.7)
where the last term comes from a surface counterterm added to the action (2.1) in order to cancel divergences .

For the metric (2.2), a straightforward calculation yields for $`r\mathrm{}`$

$$T_{tt}=\frac{\mu }{16\pi Gl},T_{t\varphi }=\frac{J}{2\pi l},T_{\varphi \varphi }=\frac{\mu l}{16\pi G}.$$
(2.8)
Note that (2.8) is traceless, $`h^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }=0`$, where $`h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =dt^2+l^2d\varphi ^2`$ denotes the CFT metric. In complex coordinates $`z=\varphi +it/l`$, the energy-momentum tensor reads

$$T_{zz}T(z)=\frac{l\tau }{32\pi G},T_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}\overline{T}(\overline{z})=\frac{l\overline{\tau }}{32\pi G},T_{z\overline{z}}=0.$$
(2.9)
For later use, we also need the stress tensor on the plane. One can pass from the cylinder to the plane (with coordinates $`w,\overline{w}`$) by setting

$$w=e^{iz}.$$
(2.10)
This leads to

$$T(w)=\frac{1\tau }{4\pi \gamma ^2w^2},\overline{T}(\overline{w})=\frac{1\overline{\tau }}{4\pi \gamma ^2\overline{w}^2},T_{w\overline{w}}=0,$$
(2.11)
where the $`\tau `$\- and $`\overline{\tau }`$-independent parts come from the Schwartzian derivatives.

To each bulk Killing vector field $`\xi `$ one can associate a conserved charge $`Q_\xi `$ ,

$$Q_\xi =_0^{2\pi }T_{\mu \nu }u^\mu \xi ^\nu \sqrt{\sigma }𝑑\varphi ,$$
(2.12)
where $`u=(N^2)^{1/2}(_tN^\varphi _\varphi )`$ is the unit normal to the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ of constant $`t`$ in $``$, and $`\sigma `$ denotes the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. One then gets for the mass $`Q__t`$ and angular momentum $`Q__\varphi `$

$$Q__t=\frac{\mu }{8G}=:M,Q__\varphi =J,$$
(2.13)
confirming that the parameter $`J`$ represents the angular momentum of the system.

Consider now the case of vanishing angular momentum, $`J=0`$. By the coordinate transformation

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mu }l\mathrm{cosh}\tau \mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{\sqrt{\mu }}}\mathrm{artanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}\tau }{\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right),`$ (2.14)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{\sqrt{\mu }}},`$
the metric can be cast into the form

$$ds^2=l^2d\tau ^2+l^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2).$$
(2.15)
(2.14) is valid inside the static patch $`0r<r_+`$. For $`r>r_+`$ one has to use instead

$$t=\frac{l}{\sqrt{\mu }}\mathrm{artanh}(\mathrm{coth}\tau \mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(2.16)
and the transformation formulas for $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ remain unchanged.

(2.15) describes dS3 as a contracting and expanding two-sphere, with global coordinates $`\tau ,\theta ,\phi `$. We have to take into account however that $`\phi `$ is identified modulo $`2\pi \sqrt{\mu }`$, so one has a deficit angle $`2\pi (1\sqrt{\mu })`$ for $`\mu <1`$, and an excess angle $`2\pi (\sqrt{\mu }1)`$ for $`\mu >1`$. One might assume that excess angles lead to inconsistencies. Yet, as we shall see in section 4, excess angles imply negative conformal weights of the corresponding vertex operators in the dual Liouville field theory. As is well-known, this is not a problem in Liouville theory, where the spectrum of conformal dimensions is not bounded from below .

Now we would like to discuss an important feature of the solutions so far discussed. The Euclidean section of the spinless defects suggests that Euclidean time is a periodic variable with period $`\beta =2\pi l/\sqrt{\mu }`$. The Wightman functions will share this periodicity, so an Unruh detector will register a local temperature $`T_{\mathrm{loc}}=(g_{tt})^{1/2}\beta ^1`$. However, this does not necessarily mean that there exists a thermal equilibrium state regular everywhere, because the metric is still singular at the conical defect located in $`r=0`$ (this will produce divergences in the stress tensor for matter at any temperature, near $`r=0`$) and there is no possibility to obtain a Euclidean metric that is everywhere nonsingular444This is somehow reminiscent of the higher-dimensional case, where one has two horizons, a cosmological one and a black hole horizon..
Anyway, thinking for a while in terms of temperature, one may note that there is no zero temperature state in this case, since the metric (2.2) (with $`J=0`$) describes actually a cylindrical universe expanding (or contracting) from (to) a wirelike singularity. The solution is either timelike and null geodesically incomplete in the past or in the future. The future incomplete solution can be written in the form

$$ds^2=dT^2+e^{2T/l}(dR^2+l^2d\varphi ^2),$$

and the other has the scale factor with positive exponent. The non-existence of a zero temperature state makes it hard to make sense of a statistical partition function, like the familiar $`tr\mathrm{exp}(\beta H)`$.

We will now gain some evidence in favour of a non-thermal interpretation of the partition function for de Sitter gravity, by computing the Euclidean action

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_{}d^3x\sqrt{g}(R2l^2)$$

for the solution (2.2) with $`J=0`$. The action is not really well-defined, so we cut a small disk around $`r=0`$ with radius $`ϵ`$ and compute $`I`$ as a sum of two contributions, one from the disk and the other from the complementary region. At the end we let $`ϵ0`$. The bulk contribution trivially has a limit as $`ϵ0`$, which is

$$I_0=\frac{\pi l\sqrt{\mu }}{2G}.$$
(2.17)
The disk contribution can be calculated using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem: the lapse function near $`r=0`$ is $`\sqrt{\mu }`$, the three-dimensional scalar curvature reduces to the two-dimensional curvature on the disk, so Gauss-Bonnet gives

$$I_{\mathrm{disk}}=\frac{\pi l}{2G}(1\sqrt{\mu }).$$

Since $`I=I_0+I_{\mathrm{disk}}`$, the $`\mu `$-dependent terms cancel and we are left with the Euclidean action of pure de Sitter space! This indicates that the static, structureless pointlike defect carries no entropy, which entirely comes from the cosmological horizon. Indeed, the disk contribution to the action can be written as $`\beta _{\mathrm{dS}}m_{\mathrm{class}}`$, where $`\beta _{\mathrm{dS}}=2\pi l`$ is the inverse temperature of de Sitter space and $`m_{\mathrm{class}}=(1\sqrt{\mu })/4G`$ is the classical mass of the point defect (see below). This also suggests to take $`I=I_0`$, i.e. one deletes the singular point $`r=0`$ from the manifold to obtain a regular one. Interpreted as a thermal partition function, this gives an entropy which is twice as large as the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Interpreted as a microcanonical partition function instead, it gives an entropy

$$S=\frac{\pi l\sqrt{\mu }}{2G}=\frac{A}{4G}.$$

To check the internal consistency of the microcanonical interpretation, we note that if we knew the mass the temperature could be derived from the Gibbons-Hawking differential mass formula  in de Sitter space, which states that

$$\frac{dS}{d(M)}=\frac{2\pi }{\kappa }=\beta ,$$

where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity of the cosmological horizon and $`M`$ is the mass within the horizon (so $`M`$ is the mass outside the horizon). Considering the mass (2.13) we find indeed the correct relation

$$\frac{dS}{d(M)}=\frac{2\pi l}{\sqrt{\mu }}.$$

The canonical partition function $`I_c`$ is a different object, and is defined as the Legendre transform of $`I_0`$,

$$I_c=I_0M\frac{dI_0}{dM}=I_0\beta M=\frac{\pi ^2l^2}{2G}\beta ^1.$$

The internal energy in the canonical ensemble is then $`U=_\beta I_c=M`$ and the entropy is $`A/4G`$ again555For similar conclusions in the case of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution in four dimensions cf. .. It is worth noting that by adding to $`I_c`$ the term $`\beta E_c`$, where $`lE_c=(c+\stackrel{~}{c})/24`$ is the Casimir energy, one obtains a modular invariant partition function, invariant under $`\beta 4\pi ^2l^2/\beta `$.

Comparing with AdS3, the situation is clear: there the action is infinite, but we have a zero temperature state to compare with, the difference between the two actions is finite and describes correctly the semi-classical thermodynamics of AdS3 black holes. In the de Sitter case, the action is already finite but there is no zero temperature state to compare with, so the action has no simple thermodynamical interpretation. Instead, it can be interpreted consistently as a microcanonical partition function. In this case, $`\mathrm{exp}(I)`$ is directly related to the probability of a de Sitter configuration with given energy (see, e.g.  and references therein).

Below we will propose an alternative description of de Sitter entropy in Liouville field theory. We shall see that $`S`$ is essentially the Liouville momentum, and has thus no statistical interpretation in this approach.

## 3 Other configurations

The Kerr-de Sitter solution is of course not unique, three-dimensional gravity with positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=l^2`$ having a lot of other solutions. The only degree of freedom of the spherical sector of 3d gravity is the total volume $`\sqrt{g^{(2)}}`$ of the space. For different topological sectors there is more than this, the moduli of the spatial metric being a complete set of configuration variables . We present here the general vacuum solution with toroidal topology, and confirm that this also leads to a central charge $`3l/2G`$. This will amount to show that the asymptotic behaviour at past or future infinity is locally the same as for de Sitter gravity.

In a gauge where the spatial metric depends only on time,

$$ds^2=dt^2+g_{ij}(t)dx^idx^j,x^i=(x,y),$$

the field equations (in a self-explanatory matrix notation) are

$$_ttr(g^1\dot{g})+\frac{1}{2}tr(g^1\dot{g}g^1\dot{g})=4\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(3.1)
$$_t(g^1\dot{g})+\frac{1}{2}g^1\dot{g}tr(g^1\dot{g})=4\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(3.2)
One consequence is the identity expressing the Hamiltonian constraint of general relativity,

$$tr(g^1\dot{g})tr(g^1\dot{g})tr(g^1\dot{g}g^1\dot{g})=8\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(3.3)
It is readily verified that (3.3) is equivalent to the statement that $`det(g^1\dot{g})=4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this case

$$S=\frac{l}{2}g^1\dot{g}\mathrm{SL}(2,\text{}).$$

The Einstein equations admit then an SL$`(2,\text{})`$ $`\times `$ SL$`(2,\text{})`$ symmetry, $`gUgV^1`$, under which the matrix $`S`$ transform as $`SVSV^1`$. Since we are assuming that space is a torus, the general solution must depend on four integration constants, corresponding to the two moduli of a torus and their conjugate momenta. We can encode these constants into the periods of the spatial variables, which we assume to be identified according to

$$(x,y)(x+q_1,y+q_2)(x+q_3,y+q_4).$$

It is not hard to verify that the general solution of the field equations is (almost, but not quite)

$$ds^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2(t/l)dx^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/l)dy^2,$$
(3.4)
with the given identifications for the pair $`(x,y)`$. There is also a special solution

$$ds^2=dt^2+e^{\pm 2t/l}|dx+\tau dy|^2,\tau =\tau _1+i\tau _2,$$
(3.5)
this time with $`(x,y)`$ ranging over the unit square. $`\tau `$ with $`\tau _2>0`$ is the modulus of the torus. Passing to the new variables $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ given by $`x=q_1\theta _1+q_2\theta _2`$, $`y=q_3\theta _1+q_4\theta _2`$, the metric (3.4) can also be cast in the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+(q_1^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(t/l)+q_3^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(t/l))|d\theta _1+\tau (t)d\theta _2|^2,$$

where $`\tau (t)`$ is a time dependent modulus which goes over to a constant $`\tau `$ in the limits $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. The special solution (3.5) is thus the asymptotic limit of the general solution. In both cases the metric approaches

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{2t/l}dzd\overline{z}$$

asymptotically at $`t\mathrm{}`$. Note also that the solutions either expand from a wirelike singularity to an infinite volume torus, or either collapse from an infinite torus to a wirelike singularity. So there is only one conformal boundary in this case. This observation is pertinent to Strominger’s proposal that there is actually only one CFT for three-dimensional de Sitter gravity .

The given asymptotic form is locally the same as the de Sitter case (globally not, of course, the conformal Killing group of the torus is two-dimensional), so Strominger’s analysis can be applied: the central charge must be given by $`3l/2G`$. The boundary stress tensor (2.7) has vanishing trace, which is consistent with the fact that the scalar curvature of the torus vanishes.

Now we observe that there cannot be globally static solutions, because the Hamiltonian constraint would give the curvature of the torus as twice the cosmological constant. This contradicts the fact that the Euler characteristic vanishes. There should also be no locally static solutions (we have not proved this), as the space volume always end or begins in a wirelike singularity666There is, however, a cosmological horizon, so the possibility exists for a coordinate transformation to a locally static region.. The torus Liouville field theory must then be compared with the dynamics, a challenge for the dS3/CFT2 correspondence. The difficulty is that the Liouville equation appears as the Hamiltonian constraint for Einstein gravity for a spatial metric which is conformal to a constant curvature metric. Thus, classically, the correspondence would mean that the dynamics reduces to the solution of the constraint equations. It was pointed out by Witten  that there is a gauge, in the Chern-Simon formulation of 3d gravity, in which the field equations reduce indeed to the constraints, but such a gauge cannot be applied to Einstein equations.

## 4 dS3 gravity and Liouville theory

In  it was shown that the asymptotic dynamics of pure de Sitter gravity in three dimensions is described by Euclidean Liouville field theory. This correspondence was established by writing dS3 gravity as an SL$`(2,\text{})`$ Chern-Simons theory, with action

$$I=\frac{is}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA)\frac{is}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}(\overline{A}d\overline{A}+\frac{2}{3}\overline{A}\overline{A}\overline{A}),$$
(4.1)
where, in the conventions of ,

$$s=\frac{l}{4G},$$
(4.2)
and

$$A=A^a\tau _a=\left(\omega ^a+\frac{i}{l}e^a\right)\tau _a,\overline{A}=\overline{A}^a\tau _a=\left(\omega ^a\frac{i}{l}e^a\right)\tau _a,a=0,1,2,$$
(4.3)
where $`e^a`$ is the dreibein, $`\omega ^a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abc}\omega _{bc}`$ the spin connection, and the $`\tau _a`$ are the SL$`(2,\text{})`$ generators given in .

Chern-Simons theory is known to reduce to a WZNW model in presence of a boundary . The boundary conditions for asymptotically past de Sitter spaces  provide then the constraints for a Hamiltonian reduction from the WZNW model to Liouville field theory.

The Liouville action obtained in  reads

$$I=\frac{1}{8\pi G}𝑑\varphi 𝑑t\left[\frac{1}{2}_z\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Phi }+2\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Phi }\right],$$
(4.4)
where we used the complex coordinate $`z=\varphi +it/l`$. In order to conform with the conventions of , we rescale $`\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }`$, with $`\gamma =\sqrt{8G/l}`$. This leads to the action

$$I=\frac{1}{4\pi }\sqrt{h}d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{\lambda }{2\gamma ^2}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma \mathrm{\Phi })\right],$$
(4.5)
where the ”cosmological constant” $`\lambda `$ is given by $`\lambda =16l^2`$, and the CFT metric on the cylinder is $`h_{ij}dx^idx^j=dt^2+l^2d\varphi ^2`$. (4.5) coincides, up to the overall sign, with the expression given in . There are some subtleties concerning this sign difference. First of all, when deriving (4.5), one starts from a Lorentzian gravitational (or Chern-Simons) action, end ends up with a Euclidean action. This usually involves an additional minus sign, which would eliminate the minus in front of (4.5). Presumably these sign ambiguities are also related to the different definitions of the stress tensor used in  and , that differ by an overall sign. The former implies a positive central charge, whereas the latter leads to $`c=3l/2G`$ . Some discussion of these ambiguities can be found in . It would certainly be desirable to understand these better. For the time being, we use the plus sign in front of (4.5). It will turn out that this leads in fact to results that make sense physically. First of all, we can check that the value of the central charge in Liouville theory matches perfectly with that computed from the gravitational side. We have only to remember that the action (4.5) was obtained in a gauge with flat fiducial metric $`h_{ij}`$: changing to a conformal gauge, $`h_{ij}g_{ij}=e^{2u}h_{ij}`$, the Liouville field changes from $`\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }2u`$. Substituting into Eq. (4.5) (with a plus sign in front) and observing that $`R=e^{2u}^2u`$, one obtains the action (modulo a field independent term)

$$I=\frac{1}{4\pi }\sqrt{g}d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{\lambda }{2\gamma ^2}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma \mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{Q}{2}R\mathrm{\Phi }\right],$$
(4.6)
where

$$Q=\sqrt{\frac{l}{2G}}$$

is the background charge. As is well-known, this theory has a classical central charge $`c=3Q^2`$, which is equal to the de Sitter charge $`3l/2G`$. This is positive, as it should be, when one uses the conventions of .

As a further consistency check, we will show below that the Liouville stress tensor reproduces the gravitational energy-momentum tensor (2.7), which was defined with the conventions of . Note also that in this way we obtain for the classical Liouville central charge

$$c=\frac{12}{\gamma ^2},$$
(4.7)
confirming the classical relation of Liouville theory $`Q=2/\gamma `$. For the Kerr-dS3 solution (2.2), the Chern-Simons connection (4.3) has the asymptotic behaviour for $`r\mathrm{}`$

$`A_r`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2r}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2r}\end{array}\right),A_z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{il\tau }{4r}\\ \frac{ir}{l}& 0\end{array}\right),A_{\overline{z}}=0,`$ (4.12)
$`\overline{A}_r`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2r}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2r}\end{array}\right),\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{ir}{l}\\ \frac{il\overline{\tau }}{4r}& 0\end{array}\right),\overline{A}_z=0.`$ (4.17)
Following , it is straightforward to compute the corresponding Liouville solution

$$e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{\tau \overline{\tau }}{4}\left[\overline{\omega }e^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z+\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}+\omega e^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z+\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}ue^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}ve^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}\right]^2,$$
(4.18)
where $`\omega \text{}`$ and $`u,v\text{}`$ denote arbitrary constants satisfying $`\omega \overline{\omega }uv=|\tau |/4`$777This equality comes from the requirement that the group element $`g`$ SL$`(2,\text{})`$ that appears in the WZNW action, and whose Gauss decomposition contains $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ , must have unit determinant.. If we set $`\omega =\rho \sqrt{|\tau |}\mathrm{exp}(i\zeta )`$, $`\rho 0`$, and translate

$$\sqrt{\tau }z\sqrt{\tau }z+\zeta +i\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{\sqrt{|\tau |}(r\frac{1}{2})},$$
(4.19)
we obtain

$`e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\tau |}{4}}[\rho e^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z+\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}+\rho e^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z+\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}`$ (4.20)
$`(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})e^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}(\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})e^{\frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{\tau }z\sqrt{\overline{\tau }}\overline{z})}]^2.`$
Let us now specify to the case $`J=0`$ and $`\mu 0`$. We choose $`\rho =0`$ in (4.20). This yields the $`\varphi `$-independent solution

$$e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}=\mu \left[e^{\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\mu }(z\overline{z})}e^{\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{\mu }(z\overline{z})}\right]^2.$$
(4.21)
Now remember that the asymptotic boundary of the spacetime (2.2) has the topology of a cylinder. One can pass to the plane (with coordinates $`w,\overline{w}`$) by the transformation (2.10), leading to

$$e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}dzd\overline{z}=\frac{\mu }{(w\overline{w})^{1\sqrt{\mu }}\left[1(w\overline{w})^\sqrt{\mu }\right]^2}dwd\overline{w},$$
(4.22)
which is the standard classical elliptic solution of Liouville theory .

Semiclassically, the Liouville vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ appear as sources of curvature in the classical equation of motion and lead to solutions with local elliptic monodromy with $`\sqrt{\mu }=1\gamma \alpha `$ . From this we obtain

$$\alpha =\frac{1\sqrt{\mu }}{\gamma },$$
(4.23)
i. e. , a relation between the mass parameter $`\mu `$ of the dS3 solution and the parameter $`\alpha `$ of the vertex operator888In the AdS3 case, an interpretation of Liouville non-normalizable states in terms of particles moving in the bulk was developed in .. In the classical theory, $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ has conformal dimension

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{class}}(e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }})=\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }=\frac{1\sqrt{\mu }}{\gamma ^2}=\frac{l}{8G}(1\sqrt{\mu }).$$
(4.24)
Now the Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution contains a pair of conical defects at antipodal points on the spatial two-sphere, so only one of these is inside the cosmological horizon. From the Gauss-Bonnet theorem applied to the upper hemisphere containing the point $`r=0`$, we obtain

$$R^{(2)}=4\pi (1\sqrt{\mu })+C,$$

where $`R^{(2)}`$ denotes the spatial curvature scalar and $`C`$ is a constant (the integral of $`R^{(2)}`$ over the space as if there were no defect). This means that there is a curvature singularity with strength

$$R_{\mathrm{sing}}^{(2)}=4\pi (g^{(2)})^{1/2}(1\sqrt{\mu })\delta (\stackrel{}{r}).$$

The Hamiltonian constraint for a static solution is999The stress tensor appearing in Eq. (4.25) is not to be confused with (2.7).

$$R^{(2)}2\mathrm{\Lambda }=16\pi GT^{00},$$
(4.25)
so by comparison we get

$$\sqrt{g^{(2)}}T^{00}=\frac{1}{4G}(1\sqrt{\mu })\delta (\stackrel{}{r}).$$

In general, the stress-energy tensor for pointlike masses located at isolated points $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is $`\sqrt{g^{(2)}}T^{00}=_im_i\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$, so we learn that the bare mass of the conical defect is

$$m_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{1\sqrt{\mu }}{4G}.$$
(4.26)
Comparing this with (4.24), one obtains

$$lm_{\mathrm{class}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{class}}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{class}},$$
(4.27)
so the classical conformal weights reproduce exactly the mass of the classical point particle in dS3 that causes the conical defect.

The quantum dimension of the operator $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }})=\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2+𝒪(1)=\frac{1\mu }{2\gamma ^2}=\frac{c}{24}(1\mu )=\frac{l}{16G}(1\mu ).$$
(4.28)
Using $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (the vertex operators are scalars), and $`\stackrel{~}{c}=c`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=lM+\frac{c+\stackrel{~}{c}}{24},$$
(4.29)
so that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})/l`$ coincides (modulo a constant shift of $`(c+\stackrel{~}{c})/24l`$ coming from the transformation (2.10) from the cylinder to the plane) with the mass $`M`$ that we computed in (2.13).

This mass includes the contribution of the gravitational field, and should not be confused with the bare mass of the particles that cause the conical defects and which act as static external conditions. In particular, since $`\mu `$ must be strictly positive to have a static solution, the bare masses should be bounded from above, a fact that will be confirmed below from the Seiberg bound. If we like, we can think of the mass that it is a kind of gravitational dressing effect.

We have thus established a one to one correspondence between Liouville vertex operators in the boundary CFT and de Sitter solutions in the bulk. The quantum conformal weights of the operators are identical to the masses of the bulk solutions. Also, as already noticed above, the spectrum of conformal dimensions in Liouville theory, unlike the one of a generic CFT, is not bounded from below. Instead one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2/8`$ , where $`Q`$ denotes the background charge101010Strictly speaking, in the quantum theory one has $`Q=2/\gamma +\gamma `$. As $`\gamma ^2=8l_P/l`$ ($`l_P=G`$ denotes the Planck length in three dimensions), and we only consider the regime $`ll_P`$ where one can trust classical gravity, we have $`\gamma 1`$, so that the corrections to the classical background charge $`2/\gamma `$ can be neglected., $`Q=2/\gamma `$. This leads to the inequality $`\mu 0`$, but otherwise $`\mu `$ is unrestricted. In particular, values $`\mu >1`$ corresponding to excess angles, yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$, and thus seem to be entirely consistent from the Liouville point of view. Furthermore, we note that the solution with $`\mu =0`$, which is essentially de Sitter space in inflationary coordinates, has $`\alpha =1/\gamma `$, i. e. , it corresponds to the puncture operator.

A further point to check is the equality of the Liouville stress tensor and the Brown-York energy-momentum tensor (2.11) of three-dimensional de Sitter gravity. For $`J=0`$, the latter is given by

$$T(w)=\frac{1\mu }{4\pi \gamma ^2w^2},\overline{T}(\overline{w})=\frac{1\mu }{4\pi \gamma ^2\overline{w}^2},$$
(4.30)
which indeed coincides with the Liouville stress tensor for elliptic solutions . Note also that $`T(w)`$ can be written as

$$T(w)=\frac{1}{2\pi \gamma ^2}S[f(w);w],$$
(4.31)
where

$$S[f(w);w]=\frac{f^{\prime \prime \prime }}{f^{}}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{f^{\prime \prime }}{f^{}}\right)^2$$
(4.32)
denotes the Schwartzian derivative, and the ”uniformizing map” $`f(w)`$ is given by $`f(w)=w^\sqrt{\mu }`$.

Let us now consider the gravity solutions with $`\mu <0`$. We will see that they also have a nice interpretation in Liouville theory.

Defining $`E`$ by $`\sqrt{\mu }=iE\gamma `$, one gets for the classical Liouville solution corresponding to (2.2) with $`J=0`$ and $`\mu <0`$111111It is interesting to note that the solutions with temperature ($`\mu >0`$) have elliptic monodromy, whereas those without temperature ($`\mu <0`$) have hyperbolic monodromy. In AdS3 it happens the other way round: The BTZ black hole has hyperbolic monodromy, whereas a particle in AdS3 has elliptic monodromy .

$$e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}dzd\overline{z}=\frac{E^2\gamma ^2}{4w\overline{w}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{E\gamma }{2}\mathrm{ln}w\overline{w}\right)}dwd\overline{w},$$
(4.33)
which can also be obtained from (4.22) by analytical continuation. As is well-known (cf. e. g.  for a review), the hyperbolic solution (4.33) corresponds in the semiclassical limit $`\gamma 0`$ to the normalizable quantum states $`\psi _E`$ with momentum $`E`$, i. e. , to the so-called macroscopic states. Formally, these states can be associated to vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with

$$\alpha =\frac{Q}{2}+iE.$$
(4.34)
If we use $`\sqrt{\mu }=iE\gamma `$ in our relation (4.23) that connects vertex operators and bulk solutions, we get exactly (4.34). Furthermore, since the quantum state $`\psi _E`$ has energy $`E^2/2+Q^2/8`$ , the sum of the energies of $`\psi _E`$ (right-moving) and $`\psi _E`$ (left-moving) is

$$E^2+\frac{Q^2}{4}=\frac{1\mu }{\gamma ^2}=lM+\frac{c+\stackrel{~}{c}}{24},$$
(4.35)
which gives again the mass (2.13).

Summarizing, one has thus the following picture for $`J=0`$: Gravity solutions that have a temperature (i. e. , with $`\mu 0`$) correspond to vertex operators with $`\alpha =(1\sqrt{\mu })/\gamma `$, i. e. , to non-normalizable or microscopic states. Solutions with $`\mu <0`$ correspond to normalizable or macroscopic states with real momentum $`E`$, where $`E`$ is given by $`\sqrt{\mu }=iE\gamma `$. Also the Seiberg bound , which states that operators with $`\alpha >Q/2`$ do not exist, has an interpretation in de Sitter gravity. Using (4.24) and $`lm_{\mathrm{class}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{class}}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{class}}`$, the Seiberg bound implies an upper mass bound $`m_{\mathrm{class}}1/4G`$ for classical point particles in de Sitter space.

Up to now we only considered the case of vanishing angular momentum. It is of course natural to ask how to interpret the rotating Kerr-dS3 solution on the CFT side. The first point we note is that one can formally associate the solution to CFT operators with complex conformal weights

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1\tau }{2\gamma ^2},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{1\overline{\tau }}{2\gamma ^2},$$
(4.36)
in terms of which

$$lM=\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{c+\stackrel{~}{c}}{24},iJ=\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(4.37)
In Liouville theory, one may consider more general vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with $`\alpha \text{}`$ . These are in one-to-one correspondence with microscopic states if and only if $`\mathrm{}(\alpha )<Q/2`$ , which is the generalized Seiberg bound. If we replace $`\mu `$ by $`\tau `$ in (4.23) for $`J0`$, we get for the case of nonvanishing angular momentum

$$\alpha =\frac{1\sqrt{\tau }}{\gamma },$$
(4.38)
which is complex and has $`\mathrm{}(\alpha )Q/2`$, i. e. , does not correspond to normalizable states. Using (2.5), one obtains from (4.38)

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\gamma }\sqrt{\frac{\mu +|\tau |}{2\gamma ^2}}\pm \frac{i\gamma J}{\sqrt{2(\mu +|\tau |)}}.$$
(4.39)
If we choose the upper sign in (4.39), the Seiberg bound $`\mathrm{}(\alpha )<1/\gamma `$ is satisfied. One can thus make sense of vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$, with $`\alpha `$ given by the upper sign expression in (4.39). In the quantum theory, these have conformal weights

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2=\frac{1\mu }{2\gamma ^2}+\frac{iJ}{2},$$
(4.40)
which is exactly (4.36). In conclusion, we showed that the Kerr-de Sitter solution with nonvanishing angular momentum can be associated to vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with $`\alpha `$ as in (4.39) with the upper signs.

## 5 Is the dual CFT thermal?

Recently, some criticisms concerning the existence of a dS/CFT correspondence appeared in the literature . In particular, the authors of  considered a general finite closed system described by a thermal density matrix, and a thermal correlator

$$F(t)=<𝒪(0)𝒪(t)>.$$
(5.1)
It was then shown that the long time average of $`F(t)F^{}(t)`$ is non-zero and positive, which leads to a contradiction with the dS/CFT result in static coordinates 121212We only consider the simple case of operators $`𝒪`$ that couple to bulk scalars of mass $`m`$.,

$$<𝒪(0,0)𝒪(t,\varphi )>\left[\mathrm{cosh}\frac{t}{l}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right]^h,$$
(5.2)
where $`h=1+\sqrt{1m^2l^2}`$. (5.2) is not the standard thermal correlator, rather it is the two-point function for dimension $`(h,h)`$ operators on a cylinder, whose length (not circumference) is parametrized by the Euclidean time coordinate $`t`$. (5.2) behaves like

$$<𝒪(0,0)𝒪(t,\varphi )>e^{ht/l}$$
(5.3)
for large $`t`$. Clearly the behaviour (5.3) would imply a zero long-time average. Obviously the apparent contradiction found in , which is based on the assumption that the dual CFT is described by a thermal density matrix, is resolved if the conformal field theory does not encode the thermal nature of de Sitter space. We would like to point out here some arguments in favour of this.

First of all, the concept of assigning a temperature to de Sitter space is well-defined only in the static patches. However, the past (and future-) boundary, where the CFT resides, lies outside the static region. In particular, the local Tolman temperature of de Sitter space,

$$T(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi l\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{l^2}}}$$
(5.4)
formally becomes imaginary for $`r>l`$. It might thus be that the conformal field theory on $`^{}`$ does not capture the thermal nature of de Sitter space. If this is true, and if the dual CFT nevertheless accounts somehow for de Sitter entropy, we do not expect this entropy to be thermal131313A non-thermal interpretation of de Sitter entropy in terms of a sort of Euclidean entanglement entropy was recently proposed in ..

In section 2 we argued that the partition function of dS gravity might have a non-thermal interpretation. We will now confirm that in our Liouville approach this is indeed the case. Let us start with the KPZ equation for gravitational dressing of CFT operators with bare conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ by vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$,

$$\alpha \frac{Q}{2}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}Q^22+2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}.$$
(5.5)
Setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ yields

$$\alpha \frac{Q}{2}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}Q^22\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(5.6)
which is of course the formula for the quantum conformal weights $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of vertex operators $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Now observe that the entropy of the Schwarzschild-dS3 solution ((2.2) with $`J=0`$) is given by

$$S=\frac{\pi l\sqrt{\mu }}{2G}=\frac{4\pi \sqrt{\mu }}{\gamma ^2},$$
(5.7)
and, using (4.23), that

$$\alpha \frac{Q}{2}=\frac{\sqrt{\mu }}{\gamma }=\frac{S\gamma }{4\pi }.$$
(5.8)
Inserting (5.8) into (5.6), one obtains

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{2Q^2\left(\frac{Q^2}{8}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}.$$
(5.9)
If we finally use the central charge $`c=3Q^2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we get

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(\frac{c}{24}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)}+2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(\frac{c}{24}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)}.$$
(5.10)
(5.10) looks like the Cardy formula for the asymptotic level density of conformal field theories, but actually it is not, because the signs of the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`c/24`$ are interchanged. Rather, we saw that (5.10) is the KPZ equation. Looking at (5.8), one also sees what de Sitter entropy corresponds to in Liouville theory. Using

$$iE=\alpha \frac{Q}{2}$$
(5.11)
for the Liouville momentum $`E`$, one finally obtains

$$S=\frac{4\pi i}{\gamma }E,$$
(5.12)
so that de Sitter entropy is essentially Liouville momentum. In particular, it has no statistical meaning in this approach. Note that the Schwarzschild-dS3 solution with cosmological horizon corresponds to imaginary momentum $`E`$, so that $`S`$ is real, as it should be.

## 6 Final remarks

In summary, we established a detailed and quantitative correspondence between three-dimensional gravity with positive cosmological constant and Euclidean Liouville theory. Of course the relationship between gravity in three dimensions and Liouville theory at the classical level is rather well-known; in fact the appearance of the Liouville equation in the context of three-dimensional de Sitter gravity was already pointed out in . What is less obvious, and comes as a surprise, is that classical gravity with positive cosmological constant encodes the quantum properties of Liouville theory. Indeed we found that the quantum dimensions of Liouville vertex operators coincide exactly with the masses of the gravity solutions, computed with the Brown-York stress tensor, which is an entirely classical concept. This fits nicely into the usual notion of duality: On one side, we are at a classical level, whereas in the dual theory we are in the quantum regime.

A further point that seems worth mentioning is that all the bulk solutions with cosmological event horizons (i. e. , the ones with $`J0`$ or with $`J=0`$, $`\mu >0`$ in (2.2)) correspond to microscopic states in Liouville theory, whereas the solutions without horizons ($`J=0`$, $`\mu <0`$) correspond to macroscopic (normalizable) states. This may be a pure coincidence, but it would certainly be interesting to understand this better. We note in this context that solutions with event horizon have a (real) entropy $`S`$, and thus, since $`S`$ is related to the Liouville momentum $`E`$ by (5.12)141414(5.12) is valid for $`J=0`$, but probably there exists an appropriate generalization to the spinning case., must have imaginary $`E`$, i. e. , must correspond to non-normalizable (microscopic) states.

We also note that turning on angular momentum on the bulk side leads to complex conformal weights, and we saw that such conformal weights indeed naturally appear in Liouville theory. This is what one expects from a CFT that is dual to dS gravity.

It would be interesting to check if the Liouville partition function (probably with vertex operator insertions) reproduces the gravitational (bulk) partition function. This is currently under investigation.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by INFN, MURST and by the European Commission RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which D. K. is associated to the University of Torino. The authors would like to thank Sergio Cacciatori for helpful discussions, and Benedicte Ponsot for clarifying correspondence.