text:
# Large-N expansion based on the Hubbard-operator path integral representation and its application to the 𝑡-𝐽 model

## I Introduction

The role of electronic correlations is an important and open problem in solid state physics. Its close connection with the phenomena of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity  makes this problem relevant in present days.

One of the most popular models in the context of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity is the $`tJ`$ model. A natural representation of the $`tJ`$ model is in terms of Hubbard operators . Although the $`tJ`$ model is quadratic, when is written using Hubbard-operators , there are several difficulties in the calculation of physical quantities. These difficulties are mainly: a)the complicate commutation rules of the Hubbard operators  (X-operators) and, b) any of the model parameters can be taken to be small in a perturbative evaluation of the observables.

To handle the point a), a popular method is to use slave particles (slave boson and fermion) to decouple the original $`X`$-operator in usual bosons and fermions . For point b), one of the nonperturbative techniques (which will be relevant in the present paper) is the large-$`N`$ expansion. $`N`$ is the number of electronic degrees of freedom per site (see below) and $`1/N`$ can be considered as a small parameter.

The large-$`N`$ expansion was developed in the framework of slave boson representation  and, using Baym-Kadanoff  functional theory in terms of the $`X`$-operators .

In this paper we develop a large-$`N`$ expansion for the $`tJ`$ model based on the path integral representation for $`X`$-operators.

In a series of papers  we have studied the path integral formulation for Hubbard-operators. Our point of view is to write a path integral for t-J model by using directly the Hubbard $`X`$-operators as fields variables, without any decoupling. Our starting point was the construction of a particular family of first-order constrained Lagrangians by using the Faddeev-Jackiw and Dirac methods . We showed that the constrains of the model are second class. The canonical quantization of this constrained theory leads to the commutation rules of the Hubbard-operators. Next, by using path-integral techniques, the correlation functional and effective Lagrangian were constructed.

In Ref.\[\], we found a particular family of constrained Lagrangians and showed that the corresponding path-integral can be mapped to that of the slave-boson representation in the radial gauge . The path-integral formulation defined in \[\] is the starting point for our large-N expansion.

In section II we give a summary of the formalism which will be useful for understanding our large-N expansion. In section III, we develop our large-N method. We present explicit calculations for the case $`J=0`$ of the $`tJ`$ model ($`U`$-infinite Hubbard model). In section IV, we calculate spin-spin and charge-charge correlation functions to leading order of large-N expansion. Finally, in section V we give our main discussions and conclusions.

## II Preliminaries and definitions

In this section we give a summary of the main results obtained in , which are the starting point for our large-N expansion.

As we mentioned in the introduction, although the $`tJ`$ model is quadratic when is written using X-operators, the complicate commutation rules between them make this model highly nontrivial. To attack the problem, our method works as follows:

a) We construct a Lagrangian written in terms of Hubbard operators

$`L={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_{i\alpha \beta }(X)\dot{X_i}^{\alpha \beta }H(X)`$ (1)
where the $`tJ`$ model Hamiltonian $`H(X)`$, with the addition of a chemical potential $`\mu `$, reads as:

$`H(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}t_{ij}X_i^{\sigma 0}X_j^{0\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij;\sigma }{}}J_{ij}(X_i^{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}X_j^{\overline{\sigma }\sigma }`$ (2)
$``$ $`X_i^{\sigma \sigma }X_j^{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\sigma }})\mu {\displaystyle }_{i,\sigma }X_i^{\sigma \sigma }.`$ (3)
In (1) the coefficients $`a_{i\alpha \beta }(X)`$ are unknown and must be determined.

The indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can take both $`0`$ value (empty state) or spin index $`\sigma =\pm `$ ($`up`$ and $`down`$ state, respectively). The five Hubbard $`\widehat{X}`$-operators $`X^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ and $`X^{00}`$ are boson-like and the four Hubbard $`\widehat{X}`$-operators $`X^{\sigma 0}`$ and $`X^{0\sigma }`$ are fermion-like . In (2), $`t_{ij}`$ and $`J_{ij}`$ are hoping and exchange parameters, respectively, between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$.

b) We introduce (via Lagrangian multipliers $`\lambda ^{\alpha \beta }`$) a set of bosonic constrains $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta }`$ which must be also determined.

c) After these definitions and proposals, we impose that the Dirac brackets  between X-variables obtained using our constrained theory verify the correct commutation rules for Hubbard operators. With this prescription, we obtain a set of differential equations for the coefficients $`a_{i\alpha \beta }(X)`$ and constrains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$. A particular solution for the coefficients is

$`a_{i0\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2X_i^{00}}}X_i^{\sigma 0},a_{i\sigma 0}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2X_i^{00}}}X_i^{0\sigma }`$ (4)
and for the constrains,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{00}=X_i^{00}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }1=0,`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=X_i^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma ^{}}}{X_i^{00}}}=0.`$ (6)
The boson-like Lagrangian coefficients are all zero. The constrains are second class because none of them commutes with all the other ones.

Consequently, the dynamics is given by the Lagrangian

$`L(X,\dot{X})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\dot{X_i}^{0\sigma }X_i^{\sigma 0}+\dot{X_i}^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma })}{X_i^{00}}}H(X)`$ (7)
and the constrains (4) and (5).

Now, in order to write the path integral representation we use the method of Faddeev-Senjanovich . This method is currently used in quantum field theory to obtain the path integral of constrained systems.

The partition function reads as:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟X_i^{\alpha \beta }\delta [X_i^{00}+\underset{\sigma }{}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }1]\delta [X_i^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\frac{X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma ^{}}}{X_i^{00}}]}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`(sdetM_{AB})_i^{\frac{1}{2}}exp(i{\displaystyle 𝑑tL(X,\dot{X})}).`$ (9)
where the superdeterminant

$`(sdetM_{AB})^{\frac{1}{2}}=1/{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(X_i^{00})^2}}.`$ (10)
is just the superdeterminant of the Dirac matrix  (or equivalently the sympletic matrix of the Faddeev-Jackiw method) formed with the set of all the second class constrains of the theory.

The power two on $`X^{00}`$ in $`(sdetM_{AB})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ appears because we are working with two spin projections. This point will be very important for our large-N extension in the next section.

Note the first constrain (4) (the first $`\delta `$-function in (7)) is the completeness condition which means that ”double occupancy” at each site is forbidden. The constrains (5) (the second $`\delta `$-function in (7)) is obtained in our formalism as a consequence of imposing that the commutation rules of X-operators must be fulfilled.

From the above equations our theory corresponds to a configuration in which the bosons are totally constrained and the dynamics is carried out only by the fermions. As it was shown in Ref, the path integral formalism corresponding to this dynamical situation is mapped in the slave boson representation.

Equation (7) is our main formula to develop the large-N expansion.

## III The large-$`N`$ expansion

In this section, we present the large-$`N`$ expansion in the framework of the path integral representation for Hubbard operators. We present our explicit results for the $`J=0`$ case ($`U`$-infinite Hubbard model) which will be very useful to show how our method works and to compare our results with previously ones found in the literature.

Our starting point is the partition function (7) written in the Euclidean form:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟X_i^{\alpha \beta }\delta [X_i^{00}+\underset{\sigma }{}X_i^{\sigma \sigma }1]\delta [X_i^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\frac{X_i^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma ^{}}}{X_i^{00}}]}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`(sdetM_{AB})_i^{\frac{1}{2}}exp({\displaystyle 𝑑\tau L_E(X,\dot{X})}).`$ (12)
The Euclidean Lagrangian $`L_E(X,\dot{X})`$ in (9) is:

$`L_E(X,\dot{X})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\dot{X_i}^{0\sigma }X_i^{\sigma 0}+\dot{X_i}^{\sigma 0}X_i^{0\sigma })}{X_i^{00}}}+H(X).`$ (13)
First, we make the following steps in the path integral (9):

a) we integrate over the boson variables $`X^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ using the second $`\delta `$-function in (9),

b) the spin index $`\sigma =\pm `$, is extended to a new index $`p`$ running from $`1`$ to $`N`$. In order to get a finite theory in the $`N`$-infinite limit, we re-scale the hoping $`t_{ij}`$ to $`t_{ij}/N`$ in the Hamiltonian,

c) the completeness condition ($`X_i^{00}+_pX_i^{pp}=N/2`$) can be exponentiated, as usual, by using the Lagrangian multipliers $`\lambda _i`$,

d) in order to prepare the path integral for the large-N expansion, we write the boson fields in terms of static mean-field values and dynamic fluctuations

$`X_i^{00}=Nr_0(1+\delta R_i),`$ (14)
$`\lambda _i=\lambda _0+\delta \lambda _i,`$ (15)
e) finally, we make the following change of variables

$`f_{ip}^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{Nr_o}}}X_i^{p0},`$ (16)
$`f_{ip}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{Nr_o}}}X_i^{0p},`$ (17)
By following the steps a-e, we find the effective Lagrangian for the $`J=0`$ case

$`L_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,p}{}}\left(\dot{f_{ip}}f_{ip}^++\dot{f_{ip}^+}f_{ip}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\delta R_i)}}`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,p}{\overset{N}{}}}t_{ij}r_of_{ip}^+f_{jp}(\mu \lambda _0){\displaystyle \underset{i,p}{}}f_{ip}^+f_{ip}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\delta R_i)}}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`Nr_0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta \lambda _i\delta R_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i,p}{}}f_{ip}^+f_{ip}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\delta R_i)}}\delta \lambda _i`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`L_{ghost}.`$ (21)
In (15), $`L_{ghost}`$ is defined via the exponentiation of the superdenterminant using ghost fields. After the extension to large-$`N`$, the superdeterminant becomes:

$`(sdetM_{AB})_i^{\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(Nr_0)^N}{\left(\frac{1}{1+\delta R_i}\right)^N}}.`$ (22)
The numerator of (16) together with the Jacobian of the transformations (11-14) contribute to the path-integral normalization factor. The denominator of (16) can be seen as a $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrix and the integral representation is given in terms of complex boson ghost fields $`𝒵_p`$. Therefore,

$`L_{ghost}(𝒵)={\displaystyle \underset{ip}{}}𝒵_{ip}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\delta R_i}}\right)𝒵_{ip}.`$ (23)
To implement the $`1/N`$ expansion, the nonpolynomial $`L_{eff}`$ should be developed in powers of $`\delta R`$. Up to order $`1/N`$, it is sufficient to retain terms up to $`\delta R^2`$. Then,

$`L_{eff}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,p}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\dot{f_{ip}}f_{ip}^++\dot{f_{ip}^+}f_{ip}\right)(1\delta R_i+\delta R_i^2)`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,p}{\overset{N}{}}}t_{ij}r_of_{ip}^+f_{jp}\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i,p}{}}f_{ip}^+f_{ip}(1\delta R_i+\delta R_i^2)`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`Nr_0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta \lambda _i\delta R_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i,p}{}}f_{ip}^+f_{ip}(1\delta R_i+\delta R_i^2)\delta \lambda _i`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ip}{}}𝒵_{ip}^{}\left(1\delta R_i+\delta R_i^2\right)𝒵_{ip},`$ (27)
where we have changed $`\mu `$ to $`\mu \lambda _0`$ and dropped constant and linear terms in the fields.

Looking at the effective Lagrangian (18), the Feynman rules can be obtained as usual. The bilinear parts give rise to the propagators and the remaining pieces are represented by vertices. Besides, we assume the equation (18) written in the momentum space once the Fourier transformation was performed.

In summary, the Feynman rules are:

i) Propagators: We associate with the two component $`\delta X^a=(\delta R,\delta \lambda )`$ boson field, the propagator

$`D_{(0)ab}(q,\omega _n)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{Nr_0}\\ \frac{1}{Nr_0}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (30)
which is represented by a dashed line in Fig.1 connecting two generic components a and b.

The quantities $`q`$ and $`\omega _n`$ are the momentum and the Bose Matsubara frequency of the bosonic field, respectively.

We associate with the N-component fermion field $`f_p`$, the propagator

$`G_{(0)pp^{}}(k,\nu _n)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{pp^{}}}{i\nu _n(\epsilon _k\mu )}}`$ (31)
which is represented by a solid line in Fig.1 connecting two generic components p and p’.

In (20) the electron bare dispersion was defined as $`\epsilon _k=2tr_o(cosk_x+cosk_y)`$, where $`t`$ is the hopping between nearest neighbors sites on the square lattice.

The quantities $`k`$ and $`\nu _n`$ are the momentum and the Fermionic Matsubara frequency of the fermionic field, respectively.

We associate with the N-components ghost field $`𝒵_p^{}`$, the propagator

$`𝒟_{pp^{}}=\delta _{pp^{}}`$ (32)
which is represented by a dotted line in Fig.1 connecting two generic components p and p’.

ii)Vertices: The expressions of the different three-leg and four-leg vertices are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{pp^{}}=(1)({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\nu +\nu ^{})+\mu ;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1})\delta ^{pp^{}}`$ (33)
representing the interaction between two fermions and one boson (Fig.1a);

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ab}^{pp^{}}=(1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i}{2}(\nu +\nu ^{})\mu & \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^{pp^{}},`$ (36)
representing the interaction between two fermions and two bosons (Fig.1b);

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pp^{}}^a=(1)(\delta _{pp^{}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}),`$ (37)
representing the interaction between two ghosts and one boson (Fig.1c); and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pp^{}}^{ab}=(1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\delta _{pp^{}}`$ (40)
representing the interaction between two bosons and two ghosts (Fig.1d). Each vertex conserves the momentum and energy.

In the $`N`$-infinite limit (order $`O(1)`$), we only have free fermions with renormalized band due to correlations, $`\epsilon _k=2tr_0(cosk_x+cosk_y)`$. For a given value of $`\mu `$, $`r_0`$ (which from (11) and the completeness condition is equal to $`\delta /2`$, where $`\delta `$ is the hole doping away from half-filling) must be determined self-consistently. This result is in agreement with previous calculation .

The bare boson propagator (19), which is of order $`O(1/N)`$, is renormalized by a series of electronic bubbles which contribute also in $`O(1/N)`$. Then, in $`O(1/N)`$, the boson propagator is dressed by electronic interactions.

By looking at the diagrammatic, it can be seen that the irreducible boson self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ is given by the sum of the contributions corresponding to the one-loop diagrams (in order $`1/N`$) seen in Fig.1e.

The presence of the last two diagrams in Fig.1e involving ghost fields is very important. It is possible to show that these two diagrams exactly cancel the infinities, due to the frequency dependence of our vertices, of the two first diagrams in Fig.1e. Therefore, using our Feynman rules, the final (and finite) result for each component of the boson-self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ is:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{RR}`$ $`(`$ $`q,\omega _n)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{N_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }_k[2n_F(\epsilon _k\mu )(\epsilon _{k+q}\epsilon _k)`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`(\epsilon _{k+q}+\epsilon _k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{[n_F(\epsilon _{k+q}\mu )n_F(\epsilon _k\mu )]}{i\omega _n+\epsilon _{k+q}\epsilon _k}}],`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda R}(q,\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{N_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(\epsilon _{k+q}+\epsilon _k)`$ (44)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[n_F(\epsilon _{k+q}\mu )n_F(\epsilon _k\mu )]}{i\omega _n+\epsilon _{k+q}\epsilon _k}}`$ (45)
and,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \lambda }(q,\omega _n)={\displaystyle \frac{N}{N_s}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[n_F(\epsilon _{k+q}\mu )n_F(\epsilon _k\mu )]}{i\omega _n+\epsilon _{k+q}\epsilon _k}}.`$ (46)
From the Dyson equation $`(D_{ab})^1=(D_{(0)ab})^1\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ the dressed components $`D_{ab}`$ of the boson propagator can be found.

Our expressions (26)-(28) agree with the previously irreducible boson self energies calculated in the context of the large-$`N`$ slave boson approach .

The ghost fields interact only with the boson fields (Fig.1c and Fig.1d). The only role of the ghost fields, in order 1/N, is to cancel infinities in the boson self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ due to the frequency dependence of our vertices (22) and (23). For the evaluation of quantities to higher orders than 1/N, we must include and check the contribution of the ghost fields in each particular calculation. Moreover it should be noted that in this case we must consider terms beyond $`\delta R^2`$ in developing the nonpolinomial parts of $`L_{eff}`$. Although this seems to be complicated, all the contributions can be controlled by the small number 1/N via the vertices and propagators. At this point we want to remark that so far not many calculations go beyond the order 1/N. In order 1/N, diagramatic rules are well defined in the present paper.

In summary, we have developed a diagrammatic technique for a large-$`N`$ expansion in the same spirit of the large-$`N`$ expansion in quantum field theory. It means, via the order of the propagators and vertices, we can determine the order of the diagram contribution. Note that our Green’s functions are calculated in terms of the original Hubbard operators. For example, from (13) and (14) we can see that our fermions $`f_{ip}`$ are always proportional to the Fermi-like $`X`$-operator $`X^{op}`$ and not only in the leading order like in the slave-boson formulation .

## IV Charge-charge and spin-spin correlation function

In this section we calculate numerically the charge-charge and spin-spin correlation functions on the square lattice for the nearest neighbor hopping $`t`$. We choose $`t=1.0`$ as the energy unit and the temperature $`T=0.0K`$.

We can define retarded density-density $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ and spin-spin $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ Green’s functions as

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{pq}{}}<T_\tau X_i^{pp}X_j^{qq}>`$ (47)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}=<T_\tau X_i^{pq}X_j^{qp}>,`$ (48)
respectively.

Using $`_qX_i^{qq}=N/2X_i^{00}`$ and (11) we find for $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$, in $`O(1)`$, in the Fourier space

$`\stackrel{~}{D}(Q,\omega _n)=N({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}})^2D_{RR}(Q,\omega _n)`$ (49)
Using the constrains (5), it is easy to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, in $`O(1)`$, is the electron bubble formed with two bare electron Green’s functions (20). The analytical expression for $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ agrees with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \lambda }`$.

In Fig.2, we show $`D(Q,\omega )=Im[\stackrel{~}{D}(Q,\omega )]`$ and $`S(Q,\omega )=Im[\stackrel{~}{S}(Q,\omega )]`$ using $`\eta =0.1t`$ in the analytical continuation $`i\omega _n=\omega +i\eta `$.

To make explicit comparison with exact diagonalization  and analytical  calculation we choose the same densities and momenta $`Q`$ of these two references.

In Fig.2a, we plot $`D(Q,\omega )`$ (solid line) and $`S(Q,\omega )`$ (dashed line) for doping $`\delta =0.12`$. In Fig.2b, we present similar results for doping $`\delta =0.78`$. In agreement with analytical calculation based on $`X`$-operator canonical approach  (see also slave boson calculation ), there is no collective excitations (like magnons) in the spin-spin correlation function to leading order of the $`1/N`$ expansion. The spin-spin correlation functions is determined by the particle-hole bubble with the renormalized electron dispersion by correlations. In contrast to $`S(Q,\omega )`$, $`D(Q,\omega )`$ contains collective excitations (zero sound) that can live inside or outside of the spectrum .

For low doping (Fig.2a) the collective excitations lie outside the particle-hole spectrum. Therefore, they show up as sharp peaks. In contrast, for high doping (Fig. 2b) the collective excitations lie inside the particle-hole spectrum and they show up as broad peaks. The dominance of collective excitations in $`D`$, for low doping, can be clearly seen for $`Q=(\pi ,\pi )`$.

It is also very important to point out that spin and charge fluctuations occur at low doping (Fig.2a), near half filling, on different energy scales. This picture disappears at high doping as it can be seen in Fig.2b. This behavior is not present in the uncorrelated case where spin and charge excitations are essentially degenerate.

The agreement between our results and previous ones (see Fig.1 of Ref\[\]) is excelent, proving the consistency of our large-$`N`$ method.

## V Conclusions and discussions

Based on our Hubbard operator path-integral representation, defined for the first time in Ref.\[\], we have developed a large-$`N`$ expansion for the $`tJ`$ model.

Because our path integral is written in terms of $`X`$-operators, we do not need any decoupling scheme for the Hubbard operators. Then, we do not invoke a gauge invariance or Bose condensation, like in the slave boson formulation . Our dynamical variables are the original Hubbard operators and, there is no need to introduce spinons and holons excitations.

The use of a path integral allows us to define a Feynman diagram technique which is a very important and interesting problem in electron correlated systems .

As we mentioned previously, the large-$`N`$ expansion was formulated using canonical quantization in terms of $`X`$-operator  or slave boson path integral approach . The first one cannot be defined in a diagrammatic form while the second one can be developed in terms of Feynman diagrams but needs the introduction of spinons and holons. In the formulation presented in this paper we have diagrammatic rules: propagators and vertices in terms of the original $`X`$-operators.

One important point is that in our diagram technique the fermion operator $`f_\sigma `$ is proportional to the fermion $`X`$\- operator $`X^{0\sigma }`$ for all orders in the large $`N`$ expansion. This is very important for the interpretation of the experimental spectral susceptibilities. In the slave boson approach the spinon is only proportional to the fermion $`X^{0\sigma }`$ operator in the leading order of $`1/N`$ expansion .

It is also important to note that our diagram technique contains ghost fields that cancel infinities to order $`O(1/N)`$ in the boson propagator. In the slave boson approach in the radial gauge, the ghost fields necessary to treat the Jacobian, cancel infinities in $`O(1/N^2)`$ .

Using our large-$`N`$ expansion, we have calculated the boson propagator and the charge-charge and spin-spin correlation functions in $`O(1)`$. In sections III and IV we have shown that these quantities agree with those calculated by slave boson  and $`X`$-operator canonical approach . These results, which are far nontrivial, show the consistency of our formulation.

We showed that in the N-infinite limit we have well defined electronic excitations with renormalized band due to correlations. This means (and we think) that the large-N expansion, in the form presented in this paper, is a better approximation to describe high-$`Tc`$ cuprates in optimal doping and overdoped than in underdoped close to antiferromagnetism.

We believe that our formulation will be useful (and simpler than previous ones) to calculate quantities in the next order in $`O(1/N)`$, such as superconductivity and electronic self-energy corrections. We are also planning to extend the method to the case of finite $`J`$.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank to O. Zandron for valuable discussions. A.G. wishes to acknowledge many interesting discussions with A. Dobry, O. Fojón and R.Zeyher.


format: text

text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The possibility of spontaneous $`N=2N=1`$ supersymmetry breaking in four space-time dimensions ($`D=4`$) was first discussed in string theory  and then further developed in global supersymmetry and supergravity (see, for example, refs. ).333The truncation of $`N=2N=1`$ theories has been worked out in  and aspects about partial supersymmetry breaking for $`N>2`$ has been discussed in .  In this talk we focus on the situation in supergravity where so far only a few models with spontaneous $`N=2N=1`$ breaking are known . Thus it is of interest to uncover the general story of spontaneous $`N=2N=1`$ breaking or in other words ask the questions

* Under what (geometrical) conditions does the $`N=2`$ theory have ground states that are $`N=1`$ supersymmetric.
* What is the low energy effective $`N=1`$ action which describes the interactions below the scale of supersymmetry breaking.

As we will see the first question (i) can be rephrased as a geometrical conditions on the scalar manifold which is spanned by the scalar fields in vector- and hypermultiplets. The second question (ii) imposes a set of consistency conditions on the couplings of both the original $`N=2`$ theory and the low energy effective $`N=1`$ theory. Again these conditions can be stated as geometrical properties of the scalar manifold. In this talk we address both issues and give some partial results but leave a more detailed and complete analysis to a separate publication .

## 2. The starting point: gauged $`N=2`$ supergravity

Let us first briefly recall the starting point of our analysis. In $`D=4`$ the spectrum of a generic $`N=2`$ theory consists of a gravitational multiplet, $`n_v`$ vector multiplets and $`n_h`$ hypermultiplets . The gravitational multiplet $`(g_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu A},A_\mu ^0)`$ features the space-time metric $`g_{\mu \nu },\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},3`$, two gravitini $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu A},A=1,2`$ and the graviphoton $`A_\mu ^0`$. A vector multiplet $`(A_\mu ,\lambda ^A,z)`$ contains a vector $`A_\mu `$, two gaugini $`\lambda ^A`$ and a complex scalar $`z`$. Finally, a hypermultiplet $`(\zeta _\alpha ,q^u)`$ contains two hyperini $`\zeta _\alpha `$ and 4 real scalars $`q^u`$. For an arbitrary number of vector- and hypermultiplets there is a total of $`2n_v+4n_h`$ real scalar fields in the spectrum with $`\sigma `$-model type interactions of the form

$$L=g_{i\overline{j}}(z,\overline{z})D_\mu z^iD_\mu \overline{z}^{\overline{j}}h_{uv}(q)D_\mu q^uD_\mu q^v+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where the range of the indices is $`i,\overline{j}=1,\mathrm{},n_v`$ and $`u,v=1,\mathrm{},4n_h`$. The scalars $`(z^i,q^u)`$ can be viewed as coordinates of the manifold

$$𝐌=𝐌_v\times 𝐌_h,$$
(2)
where $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$ is the metric of the $`2n_v`$-dimensional space $`𝐌_v`$ while $`h_{uv}`$ is the metric on the $`4n_h`$-dimensional space $`𝐌_h`$. $`N=2`$ supersymmetry imposes that $`𝐌_v`$ is a special Kähler manifold  while $`𝐌_h`$ has to be a quaternionic-Kähler manifold .

Both sets of scalar fields can be charged under the isometries of $`𝐌`$

$$\delta q^u=\mathrm{\Lambda }^Ik_I^u(q),\delta z^i=\mathrm{\Theta }^Ik_I^i(z),I=0,\mathrm{},n_v,$$
(3)
where $`k_I^u(q),k_I^i(z)`$ are Killing vectors of $`𝐌_h`$ and $`𝐌_v`$, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^I,\mathrm{\Theta }^I`$ are the respective gauge parameters. This in turn fixes the covariant derivatives to be

$$D_\mu q^u=_\mu q^u+k_I^uA_\mu ^I,D_\mu z^i=_\mu z^i+k_I^uA_\mu ^I.$$
(4)
In the following we are mainly interested in the case where $`k_I^i=0`$ and for simplicity we focus on this situation henceforth.

On a quaternionic manifold the Killing equation $`_uk_v+_vk_u=0`$ determines the Killing vectors in terms of a triplet of Killing prepotentials $`P^x(q),x=1,2,3`$

$$k_I^uK_{uv}^x=D_vP_I^x,$$
(5)
where $`K_{uv}^x`$ is the triplet of covariantly constant hyper-Kähler two-forms which exist on a quaternionic-Kähler manifold. They are related to the triplet of complex structures $`J^x`$ (which satisfy the quaternionic algebra $`J^xJ^y=\delta ^{xy}\mathrm{𝟏}+ϵ^{xyz}J^z`$) via

$$K_{uv}^x=h_{uw}(J^x)_v^w.$$
(6)
$`D_v`$ in (5) is a covariant derivative with respect to the $`Sp(1)`$ connection of the holonomy group $`Sp(1)\times Sp(2n_h)`$.

$`N=2`$ supersymmetry determines the Lagrangian and thus the interaction of the various multiplets . Here we do not recall all the couplings but only focus on those terms which are relevant for our analysis. Apart from the $`\sigma `$-model terms (1) there is a set of mass-like terms for the fermions and the scalar fields interact via the potential (the conventions follow )

$$V=12S_{AB}\overline{S}^{BA}+g_{i\overline{j}}W^{iAB}\overline{W}_{AB}^{\overline{j}}+2N_\alpha ^A\overline{N}_A^\alpha ,$$
(7)
where $`S_{AB},W^{iAB},N_\alpha ^A`$ are scalar field dependent quantities given by

$`S_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{K}{2}}X^IP_I^x(\sigma ^xϵ)_{AB},`$
$`W^{iAB}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\sigma ^xϵ)^{AB}P_I^xg^{i\overline{j}}\overline{D}_{\overline{j}}\overline{X}^I,`$ (8)
$`N_\alpha ^A`$ $`=`$ $`2e^{\frac{K}{2}}U_{\alpha u}^Ak_I^u\overline{X}^I.`$
The $`X^I(z)`$ are holomorphic functions of the $`z^i`$ and their covariant derivatives are defined as $`D_iX^I=_iX^I+(_iK)X^I`$ where $`K`$ is the Kähler potential of $`𝐌_v`$, i.e. $`g_{i\overline{j}}=_i\overline{}_{\overline{j}}K`$. The $`U_{\alpha u}^A`$ is the ‘vielbein’ of the quaternionic metric $`h_{uv}=U_{\alpha u}^AU_{\beta v}^Bϵ_{AB}C^{\alpha \beta }`$ with $`C^{\alpha \beta }`$ being the invariant $`Sp(2n_h)`$ matrix.

$`S_{AB}`$ is also the mass matrix of the two gravitini and $`W^{iAB},N_\alpha ^A`$ are related to the mass matrix of the spin-$`1/2`$ fermions. Furthermore, these quantities appear in the supersymmetry transformations of the fermions

$`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu A}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{AB}\gamma _\mu ϵ^B+\mathrm{},`$
$`\delta \lambda ^{iA}`$ $`=`$ $`W^{iAB}ϵ_B+\mathrm{},`$ (9)
$`\delta \zeta _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`N_\alpha ^Aϵ_A+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\gamma _\mu `$ are Dirac matrices and $`ϵ^A`$ are the parameters of the two supersymmetry transformations.

## 3. Spontaneous $`N=2N=1`$: the necessary conditions

We just sketched a generic $`N=2`$ supersymmetric theory. It is of interest to understand under what conditions the potential $`V`$ can have minima which preserves only $`N=1`$ supersymmetry but not the full $`N=2`$. So far there are only a few examples known where this situation is realized .

The presence of an unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry amounts to the requirement that the supersymmetry transformations (2) of the fermions evaluated in the ground states vanish for one of the two supersymmetry transformations, say $`ϵ_2`$

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu A}=\delta \lambda ^{iA}=\delta \zeta _\alpha =0.$$
(10)
Here the bracket $``$ indicates that the fermion transformtions have to be evaluated in the ground states and for $`ϵ_1=0,ϵ_20`$. So the answer to the first question (i) of the introduction amounts to determining the properties of the couplings $`S_{AB},W^{iAB},N_\alpha ^A`$ that they have to obey in order to results in a solution of (10). From (2) we see immediately that this is equivalent to geometrical conditions on the scalar manifold $`𝐌`$ and its (gauged) isometries.

The ground states can have various space-time properties, they can be flat Minkowski spaces, anti-de Sitter spaces or an extended domain walls or $`p`$-brane solutions. For simplicity we impose in the following the additional requirement that the ground states spontaneously break $`N=2N=1`$ in flat Minkowski space leaving the more general cases to a separate publication . However, we do allow for the possibilty that there is a continuous family of ground states which have $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. This means that there can be solutions of (10) which do depend on (some of) the scalar fields.

Solving (10) directly from the definitions (2) is not straightforward. Instead we can gain a little more insight by further using the fact $`S_{AB}`$ is also the mass matrix for the two gravitinos. A necessary condition for the existence of $`N=1`$ ground states is that the two eigenvalues $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1},m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}`$ of $`S_{AB}`$ are non-degenerate, i.e. $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}`$. In Minkowski ground states one also needs $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}=0`$ or in other words one of the two gravitini has to become massive while the second one stays massless. Furthermore, the unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry implies that the massive gravitino has to be a member of an entire $`N=1`$ massive spin-$`3/2`$ multiplet which has the spin content $`s=(3/2,1,1,1/2)`$. This in turn requires that also two vectors, say $`A_\mu ^0,A_\mu ^1`$ and a spin-$`1/2`$ fermion $`\chi `$ have to become massive or equivalently there have to be two massless gauge bosons together with two Goldstone bosons, a Goldstone fermion and a massive fermion . The Goldstone bosons have to be ‘recruited’ out of a hypermultiplet while the two gauge bosons require at least one vector multiplet. Thus, the minimal $`N=2`$ spectrum which allows the possibility of a spontaneous breaking to $`N=1`$ consists of the $`N=2`$ supergravity multiplet, one hypermultiplet and one vector multiplet.

Since our analysis assumes Minkowskian ground states the unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmtry implies that the spin-$`3/2`$ multiplet has to be degenerate in mass, i.e.

$$m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}=m_{A^0}=m_{A^1}=m_\chi m,m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}=0.$$
(11)
As we already said the fermionic mass matrices are directly determined by the $`S_{AB},W^{iAB},N_\alpha ^A`$ defined in (2). On the other hand the gauge bosons obtain their mass via a Higgs mechanism. This means that among the hypermultiplet scalars there have to be two Goldstone bosons $`\eta ^1,\eta ^2`$ with couplings

$$D_\mu \eta ^1=_\mu \eta ^1+e_0A_\mu ^0,D_\mu \eta ^2=_\mu \eta ^2+e_1A_\mu ^1,$$
(12)
where $`e_0,e_1`$ are constant charges and we have arbitrarily chosen $`I=0,1`$ as the massive gauge bosons. In geometrical terms this means that $`𝐌_h`$ has to admit two commuting, translational $`𝐑^2`$-isometries and these isometries have to be gauged . In this case the $`\sigma `$-model interactions (1) imply a set of mass terms

$$L=\frac{1}{2}m_{IJ}^2A_\mu ^IA_\mu ^J+\mathrm{}$$
(13)
where

$$\frac{1}{2}m_{IJ}^2=k_I^uh_{uv}k_J^v,k_I^u=e_0\delta _{I0}\delta ^{u1}+e_1\delta _{I1}\delta ^{u2}.$$
(14)
The constraint (11) implies that the two Killing vectors $`k_0^u,k_1^u`$ have to be orthonormal, i.e. satisfy

$$k_0^uh_{uv}k_0^v=k_1^uh_{uv}k_1^v\frac{1}{2}m^2,k_0^uh_{uv}k_1^v=0.$$
(15)
We just established the fact that we need two orthonormal Killing vector and thus via equation (5) we have two Killing prepotentials $`P_0^x,P_1^x`$ which generically span a plane in $`SU(2)`$. Thus, without loss of generality we can always choose an SU(2) basis where $`P_0^3=P_1^3=0`$. This choice fixes an $`SU(2)`$ gauge and leaves a $`U(1)`$ rotation intact. In this basis $`S_{AB}`$ is diagonal and given by

$$S_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}& 0\\ 0& m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where

$$m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}=e^{\frac{K}{2}}X^I(P_I^1iP_I^2),m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}=e^{\frac{K}{2}}X^I(P_I^1+iP_I^2).$$
(17)
Since the $`P_I`$ are real we see immediately that $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}=0`$ cannot be satisfied when the $`X^I`$ are linearly independent . This implies that on $`𝐌_v`$ one has to choose a particular basis of gauge fields where the couplings (12) are realized. Leaving the detailed analysis to ref.  let us just state that indeed such a basis exists for a large class of special Kähler manifolds $`𝐌_v`$  and that

$$𝐌_v=\frac{SU(1,1)}{U(1)},\text{with}X^0=\frac{1}{2},X^1=\frac{i}{2},$$
(18)
is a representive choice . (Other manifolds can be found in .) For (18) the constraint $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^2}=0`$ is solved by

$$P_0^2=P_1^1,P_1^2=P_0^1.$$
(19)
This is a strong constraint on the scalar manifold $`𝐌_h`$ and its gauged isometries and generically defines a subspace of $`𝐌_h`$. On this subspace one shows that (11) implies

$$V|0,$$
(20)
where the $`|`$ indicates that the potential is evaluated on the subspace where (19) holds.

Before we turn our attention to question (ii) let us summarize the necessary conditions found so far. The possibilty of $`N=1`$ ground states is equivalent to the existence of solutions of $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mu A}=\delta \lambda ^{iA}=\delta \zeta _\alpha =0`$. By relating it to properties of a massive $`N=1`$ spin-$`3/2`$ multiplets we were able to rephrase this as conditions on the scalar manifold $`𝐌`$. In particular on $`𝐌_v`$ one has to choose a basis where the $`X^I`$ are linearly dependent while $`𝐌_h`$ has to admit two commuting, orthonormal, translational $`𝐑^2`$-isometries which additionally obey (19) and (11). It would be interesting to rephrase the constraints (19), (11) in a more geometrically language and to determine the manifolds $`𝐌`$ which satisfy all these constraints.

## 4. The low energy effective $`N=1`$ theory

Let us now turn to question (ii) of the introduction and focus on the properties of the low energy effective $`N=1`$ theory which is valid well below the scale of the supersymmetry breaking set by $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}`$. The Lagrangian of this effective theory can be derived by ‘integrating out’ the massive gravitino multiplet together with other ($`N=1`$) multiplets which might have acquired a mass of the same order. At the two derivative level this is achieved by using the equation of motions of the massive fields to first non-trivial order in $`p/m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}`$ where $`pm_{\mathrm{\Psi }^1}`$ is a characteristic momentum. For the fermions and scalars this is a straightforward procedure in that they are simply set to zero in the $`N=2`$ Lagrangian. This in turn truncates the scalar manifold to a subspace spanned by the left over massless states. For the spin-1 gauge bosons the situation is slightly more complicated. Due to their couplings to the Goldstone bosons (12) eliminating $`A_\mu ^{0,1}`$ also elimates the two Goldstone bosons and furthermore changes the $`\sigma `$-model interactions of the remaining scalar fields. This amounts to taking the quotient of $`𝐌_h`$ with respect to the two translational $`𝐑^2`$-isometries .444We thank G. Horowitz for reminding us of this fact.

The effective theory contains the left over massless $`N=1`$ multiplets which include a gravity multiplet, $`n_v^{}`$ vector multiplets and $`n_c`$ chiral multiplets. In addition, the effective theory has to be manifestly $`N=1`$ supersymmetric. This implies in particular that the scalar manifold is Kähler, the gauge coupling functions $`f(z)`$ are holomorphic and the potential is expressed in terms of a holomorphic superpotential $`W`$. This imposes a set of conditions implied by the consistency of the integrating out procedure and the following (non-trivial) facts have to hold

* Quaternionic-Kähler manifolds which admit $`𝐑^2`$-isometries of the type specified in section 3 have a quotient $`𝐌_h/𝐑^2`$ which is Kähler (with Kähler potential $`K_h`$).555The scalar manifold for the vector multiplets is already Kähler so that no new constraint arises here.
* The inverse gauge couplings $`g`$ of the gauge bosons are harmonic

$$g^2=f(z)+\overline{f}(\overline{z}).$$
* The $`N=1`$ potential obeys

$$V^{N=1}=e^{K_v+K_h}\left(g^{i\overline{j}}D_iW\overline{D}_{\overline{j}}\overline{W}+g^{u\overline{v}}D_uW\overline{D}_{\overline{v}}\overline{W}3|W|^2\right),$$

where $`W`$ is holomorphic and

$$D_iW=_iW+(_iK_v)W,D_uW=_uW+(_uK_h)W.$$

($`g_{u\overline{v}}`$ denotes the Kähler metric on the quotient $`𝐌_h/𝐑^2`$.)

A generic $`N=2`$ theory does not satisfy (a)–(c) but supersymmetry imposes these conditions on the low energy effective $`N=1`$ theory. The fact that we have chosen to consider an $`N=2`$ spectrum with only one vector multiplet immediately implies that the low energy $`N=1`$ theory contains no vector multiplets and hence (b) is trivially satisfied. Furthermore Minkowskian ground states the $`N=1`$ gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2`$ is exactly massless which implies $`W=V^{N=1}0`$ and hence also (c) is satisfied. Thus, for the case at hand the only non-trivial constraint left to check is condition (a).

Eliminating the two massive gauge bosons via their equations of motions results in $`\sigma `$-model type couplings in the effective $`N=1`$ Lagrangian which are as in eq. (1) but with $`h_{uv}`$ replaced by the metric $`\widehat{h}_{uv}`$ on the quotient given by

$$\widehat{h}_{uv}=h_{uv}\frac{2}{m^2}\left(k_{0u}k_{0v}+k_{1u}k_{1v}\right),k_{Iu}k_I^wh_{wu}.$$
(21)
$`\widehat{h}_{uv}`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{h}_{uv}k_I^v=0,\widehat{h}_{uv}h^{vw}\widehat{h}_{wr}=\widehat{h}_{ur},$$
(22)
where $`h^{vw}h_{wu}=\delta _u^v`$. Thus $`\widehat{h}_{uv}`$ has two null directions and $`h^{vw}`$ is the inverse metric.

Among the three hyper-Kähler two-forms $`K_{uv}^3`$ plays a preferred role in that it points in the direction (in $`SU(2)`$-space) normal to the plane spanned by $`P_0^x,P_1^x`$. By using a two-dimensional $`\sigma `$-model one can compute the two-form which decends from $`K_{wu}^3`$ to the quotient to be666We thank E. Zaslow for suggesting this procedure.

$$\widehat{K}_{uv}=K_{uv}^3\frac{1}{k}\left(k_0^wK_{wu}^3k_1^wK_{wv}^3k_1^wK_{wu}^3k_0^wK_{wv}^3\right),$$
(23)
where $`kk_0^wK_{wu}^3k_1^u`$. From (10) one derives

$$k_0^wK_{wu}^3=k_{1u},k_1^wK_{wu}^3=k_{0u}.$$
(24)
which in turn can be used to show777The details of the computation will be presented in . The proof of (25) does not require the ground state to be Minkowskian.

$$d\widehat{K}=0,\widehat{J}^2=\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{K}_{uv}=\widehat{h}_{uw}\widehat{J}_v^w`$. This proves that the quotient is indeed a Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\widehat{K}`$ and complex structure $`\widehat{J}`$.888It is tempting to conjecture that this Kähler manifold is somehow related to the twistor space . We thank P. Aspinwall, S. Vandoren and B. de Wit for discussions related to this conjecture. Hence the consistency condition (a) is satisfied.

Let us close by summarizing the properties of the Kähler manifold just constructed. We started from a quaternionic manifold $`𝐌_h`$ which admits two orthonormal Killing vectors of an $`𝐑^2`$-isometry. We showed that if in addition (24) holds the quotient manifold $`𝐌_h/𝐑^2`$ is Kähler. It would be interesting to determine the quaternionic geometries which do satisfy (24) and thus (25).

Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the German Science Foundation (DFG), the German–Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research (GIF), the European RTN Program HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

It is a great pleasure to thank P. Aspinwall, B. de Wit, S. Ferrara, J. Gheerardyn, B. Gunara, G. Horowitz, V. Kaplunovsky, P. Mayr, G. Moore, F. Roose, A. Strominger, S. Theisen, C. Vafa, S. Vandoren, A. Van Proeyen, E. Zaslow for helpful discussions and D.V. Alekseevsky, V. Cortés, C. Devchand, A. Van Proeyen for organizing a fruitful and stimulating workshop.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The standard procedure of Physical Cosmology is to take present-day knowledge and data and travel backwards in time, applying as well as possible our local, laboratory- and observatory-tested Physics. That Physics, as we know it today, is able to explain so many of the progressively distant and red–shifted data is the best mark we have of its astounding range of validity. The remotest time for which we have reliable results is the nucleosynthesis epoch: well–established Physics is able to give a fair account of the cosmological origin of the lightest elements. We shall here be interested in the period just preceding that nucleosynthesis era, which we shall call “pre–nucleosynthesis period” (PNS period).

The end of that period – the beginning of the nucleosynthesis age – must correspond to a temperature $`kT`$ of the order of the deuteron binding-energy, which means a few MeVs and a red-shift $`z`$ 2 $`\times 10^{10}`$. The PNS period could also be called the “close-packing period”. The “closely-packed” constituents referred to are protons or, more precisely, nucleons. A rough estimate gives for their concentration a value around $`10^{23}cm^3`$ and for their mean free path $`\lambda `$ $`(n_b\sigma )^1(10^{23}\times `$ $`10^{26})^1=1000cm`$. The usual approximation assuming ideal fluids fails, but the physical assumptions on the large ratio between the total volume of the system and the total volume occupied by the constituents are valid and current Physics can be expected to hold.

Protons are remarkably stable (lifetime larger than $`1.6\times 10^{25}`$ years ), and neutrons decay into protons. Thus, we can safely suppose that the nucleons present today in the Universe have been around from the “beginning”. The values of the critical density and baryon density \[see below, equation (12)\] imply a remnant nucleon density $`n_N`$ in the range $`0.059n_N`$ 0.296 $`(nucleon\times m^3)`$ at present time. Now, each nucleon occupies a volume of the order $`2.2\times 10^{45}m^3`$, which means that at $`z10^{15}`$ they attain a tightly packed state: one nucleon per nucleon volume. This will define for us the beginning of the PNS period. The mean free path is then of the order of the size of the constituents. In a nutshell: the causally-related Universe has a volume $`V_U`$ $``$ $`10^{81}cm^3`$ and contains $`N_N10^{74}`$ nucleons. The total “internal” volume of these nucleons is $`V_n10^{35}cm^3`$. The Universe had that volume when $`z10^{15}`$. The assumption of infinite system volume – which underlies the thermodynamic limit, as well as the very definition of cross-section – is then at least doubtful, and the ideal fluid hypothesis is clearly untenable. We shall later refine this crude estimate, but the result will be, not quite surprisingly, essentially the same for the remnant protons. The interest of the more refined approach rests on its formulas, which can be applied to the protons belonging to the radiation bath.

The PNS period runs consequently between $`z10^{10}`$ and $`z10^{15}`$. The strategy to be followed will be rather circular. Quark deconfinement will be ignored to start with and protons will be taken as stable. We shall describe them by a potential and find that the pressure related to present–day matter tends to an infinite value. That would happen, however, at energies for which the notion of potential does not apply and for which deconfinement is quite possible. We then reconsider the question from the point of view of the radiation–belonging nucleons, and find the same effect at much lower energies, for which potentials do have a meaning and there is no possibility of deconfinement.

In a first dealing with such unusual conditions we shall feel justified in taking a naïve approach. Instead of facing the intricacies of the high-density matter equation of state , we shall content ourselves with reasonable order–of–magnitude estimates. The proton will be considered as a hard constituent, occupying an irreducible hard-core volume $``$ $`1fermi^3`$ $`10^{39}cm^3`$, represented by a hard-sphere potential. Potentials have been used from time to time in Cosmology, for instance to show how the initial singularity can be avoided . They should, of course, be carefully handled in relativistic conditions. We shall be attentive to the energy conditions under which the very notion of potential can loose its validity.

Section 2 is a summary of the Standard Model, actually a commented formulary devoted to fixing notation, showing the numbers we use and summing up some observation values relevant to our subject. We shall ignore non-standard possibilities, as eventual “dark” constituents, and accept usual reasonable assumptions, such as the Debye screening which renders electrostatic effects negligible. Such a review of well–known topics is necessary to show how and when we part from the standard procedure. In section 3 a general overview of physical problems appearing in the PNS period is given. In particular, we present our assumption that protons keep their identity in energies much higher than usually supposed. We then proceed to a discussion of the hard-sphere potential and to a naïve application to the Friedmann equations. The result is that an infinite matter pressure would block the backward progress at around $`z`$ $`10^{15}`$ if we take into account only the “remnant” protons existing at present time. At those red–shifts the nucleons are relativistic and the idea of a hard-sphere potential is unrealistic, but it is easier to argue starting from the consideration of the remnant present–day protons. We show then (section 5) that the protons appearing through pair-creation from the radiation background produce the same effect at much lower energies. Pairs of photons with energy barely enough to produce proton–antiproton pairs will create non-relativistic protons and anti–protons, and for these the notion of a potential does make sense. Pair creation is a very efficient process: the number of created protons is very large already at energies much lower than $`1GeV`$. The pressure blockage, in consequence, takes place at rather low red–shifts. The possible meanings of these results are discussed in the last section. A briefing on relativistic quantum gases is given in Appendix A.

## 2 The standard model

The large scale evolution of the Universe is described  by the two Friedmann equations for the scale parameter $`a(t)`$:

$$\dot{a}^2=\left[2\left(\frac{4\pi G}{3}\right)\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}\right]a^2kc^2$$
(1)
$$\ddot{a}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho +\frac{3p}{c^2}\right)\right]a(t)$$
(2)
which, once combined, lead to the two equivalent expressions

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2}\right),$$
(3)
$$\frac{d}{da}(ϵa^3)+3pa^2=0.$$
(4)
This equation can be alternatively obtained from the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the source energy-momentum tensor, and reflects simply energy conservation. Notation is hopefully obvious: $`\rho `$ = $`ϵ/c^2`$ is the source energy density in mass, $`p`$ the pressure, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the cosmological constant. The index “0” will indicate present–day values: the red-shift $`z`$, for example, is given by

$$1+z=\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t)}.$$
(5)
The Hubble function

$$H(t)=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}=\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{ln}a(t)$$
(6)
has the present-day value $`H_0=100hkmsec^1Mpc^1`$ = $`3.24\times 10^{18}hsec^1`$ (with the parameter $`h`$, of the order of unity, encapsulating the uncertainty in present-day measurements).

Given an equation of state in the form $`p`$ = $`p(\rho )`$, equation (4) can be integrated to give

$$1+z=\frac{a_0}{a(t)}=e^{\frac{1}{3}_{ϵ_0}^ϵ\frac{dϵ}{ϵ+p(ϵ)}}.$$
(7)
For example, for a pure radiation content the equation of state is $`p`$ = $`\frac{1}{3}ϵ`$, so that

$$ϵ_z=ϵ_0(1+z)^4.$$

The energy density of dust matter, with $`p=0`$, will behave according to

$$ϵ_z=ϵ_0(1+z)^3.$$

Recall that Eq.(4) is a mere consequence of energy conservation. These results are independent of the parameters $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The relationship between $`z`$ and the Hubble function is easily found. Taking the time derivative of Eq.(5) and comparing with the last expression, one arrives at $`\frac{dz}{dt}`$ = $`H(t)(1+z)`$, which integrates to

$$1+z=e^{_{t_0}^tH(t)𝑑t}.$$
(8)
The critical mass density is

$$\rho _{crit}=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}=1.88\times 10^{26}h^2kg\times m^3.$$
(9)
The baryon concentration and mass density are given by

$$n_b=11.2\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2(1+z)^3m^3$$
(10)
$$\rho _b=1.88\times 10^{26}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2(1+z)^3kgm^3,$$
(11)
where the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}`$ = $`\frac{8\pi G}{3}\frac{\rho _{b0}}{H_0^2}`$ = $`\frac{\rho _{b0}}{\rho _{crit}}`$ has observational values in the range

$$0.0052\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^20.026.$$
(12)
These values for the critical and baryon density lead to the remnant nucleon density range used in the Introduction. In terms of $`H(t)`$, the equations can be written as

$$H^2=2\left(\frac{4\pi G}{3}\right)\rho \frac{kc^2}{a^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}$$
(13)
$$\dot{H}=4\pi G\left(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2}\right)+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}$$
(14)
$$\dot{a}(t)=H(t)a(t);\frac{d\rho }{dt}=3H(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2}).$$
(15)
Introducing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = $`\frac{\rho }{\rho _{crit}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3H_0^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t)`$ = $`\frac{kc^2}{a^2H_0^2}`$, equation (13) takes the form

$$\frac{H^2}{H_0^2}=\frac{\rho }{\rho _{crit}}\frac{kc^2}{a^2H_0^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3H_0^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(16)
Notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ refers to the total amount of content: if baryons and radiation are to be considered, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma `$. The above expression gives on present-day values the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{k0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{k0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.$$
(17)
We have used $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k0}`$ = $`\frac{kc^2}{a_0^2H_0^2}`$, with $`a_0`$ = $`a(t_0)`$. There is a recent evidence for a large value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a small value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k0}`$ . Choosing for time and length the convenient units

$$H_0^1=3.0857\times 10^{17}h^1sec;\frac{c}{H_0}=9.25\times 10^{25}h^1m,$$
(18)
the Friedmann equations acquire the simpler forms

$$H^2=\frac{\rho }{\rho _{crit}}\frac{k}{a(t)^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}$$
(19)
$$\dot{H}=\frac{3}{2}H^2\frac{3}{2}\frac{p}{c^2\rho _{crit}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{k}{a(t)^2}.$$
(20)
Gases at high energies in the presence of pair production are also better considered in adapted units, which we introduce here while leaving details to Appendix A. First of all, given a particle of mass $`m`$, it is convenient to use

$$\tau =\frac{kT}{mc^2}$$
(21)
as the temperature variable. There are also two lengths of major interest, the Compton length and the thermal wavelength. The static Compton length is a most natural unit of length:

$$\lambda _C=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{mc^2}.$$
(22)
For the electron and for the proton, respectively, $`\lambda _e`$ $`=3.81\times 10^{11}cm`$ and $`\lambda _p`$ $`=2.08\times 10^{14}cm`$. A natural volume cell for the proton will be $`\lambda _p^3`$ $`=9.0\times 10^{42}cm^3`$.

If $`\beta `$ = $`1/kT`$ is the inverse temperature, (the cube of) the relativistic generalization  of the thermal wavelength is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(\beta )=2\pi ^2\beta mc^2\frac{e^{\beta mc^2}}{K_2(\beta mc^2)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{mc^2}\right)^3=\frac{2\pi ^2}{\tau }\frac{e^{1/\tau }}{K_2(1/\tau )}\lambda _C^3.$$
(23)
Here $`K_2(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of second order, whose asymptotic behaviors, leading to the nonrelativistic and the ultra–relativistic limits, are given in Appendix A. Here we only remark that the non-relativistic limit gives the usual expression

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NR}(\beta )=\lambda =\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \beta }{m}}=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\tau }}\lambda _C.$$
(24)
For instance, a proton at $`kT`$ $`4MeV`$ will have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NR}`$ $``$ $`40\lambda _p`$. A proton will “occupy” a degeneracy-volume $`\lambda ^3`$ = $`\frac{1.42\times 10^{40}}{\tau ^{3/2}}cm^3`$, from which every other proton will be statistically excluded by Fermi repulsion. The ultra-relativistic limit will be

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UR}(\beta )=\pi ^{2/3}\beta \mathrm{}c=\pi ^{2/3}\frac{\lambda _C}{\tau }.$$
(25)
The pressure $`p`$ and the mass density $`\rho `$ in (1) and (2) are those of matter and radiation present in the Universe, introduced through their expressions for ideal gases. Interactions are only taken into account through reactions supposed to take place in restricted conditions. As examples, a weak Thomson scattering lies behind thermal equilibrium before recombination, and pair production will be responsible for the existence of a huge number of electrons when $`kT`$ is higher than $`0.5MeV`$.

The values $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`k=0`$ lead to very simple solutions and are helpful in providing a qualitative idea of the general picture. They will be used as reference cases. We shall later exhibit the expression of $`H(z)`$ in the pre–recombination period, as well as the implicit expression of $`a(t)`$. Nevertheless, in order to get a firmer grip on the relevant contributions and the role of each term, it is useful to review the customary discussion on the matter- and radiation- dominated ages.

### 2.1 Matter–dominated age

Always in the standard approach, baryons (essentially nucleons) dominate the energy content at present time. This domination goes back to the “turning point” time given below (equation (48)), when radiation takes over. Protons are non-relativistic during all this period. The standard argument runs as follows. Matter pressure has the expression $`p_b=n_bkT_b`$. It appears, however, always in the combination $`\rho _b+p_b/c^2`$ = $`n_b[m+kT_b/c^2]`$ = $`\frac{n_b}{c^2}[mc^2+kT_b]`$. Thus, $`p_b`$ is negligible in the non-relativistic regime. Putting $`p=0`$, the reference case with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`k=0`$ has for equations

$$\dot{H}=\frac{3}{2}H^2=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\rho _b}{\rho _{crit}}.$$

The general solution is

$$\frac{1}{H\left(t\right)}=\frac{3}{2}t+C.$$
(26)
Let us quickly examine $`3`$ models, two with $`k=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and a third case with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$.

a) Matter–domination: dust Universe

This unrealistic model supposes matter domination all the time along. It takes at the “beginning” $`H_{t=0}=\mathrm{}`$. The integration constant $`C`$ vanishes and the solution is simply

$$H(t)=\frac{2}{3t}.$$

This means that

$$\frac{da}{a}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{dt}{t}.$$

The expressions relating the Hubble function, the expansion parameter, the red-shift, and the density follow immediately (we reinsert $`H_0`$ for convenience):

$$\frac{H^2}{H_0^2}=(1+z)^3.$$
(27)
$$\frac{a(t)}{a(t_0)}=\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{2/3};$$

$$1+z=\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^{2/3}=\left(\frac{2}{3H_0t}\right)^{2/3};$$
(28)
$$\frac{\rho _b}{\rho _{crit}}=\frac{H^2}{H_0^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}=(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}.$$
(29)
The age of the Universe can be got from (28), by putting $`z=0`$. One obtains $`t_0`$ = $`2/(3H_0)`$ $`6.5\times 10^9`$ years, a rather small number. There is, as said, a serious flaw in this exercise-model: it supposes that matter dominates down to $`t0`$, which is is far from being the case. Furthermore, the protons cannot, of course, be non-relativistic at the high temperatures of the ”beginning” and matter pressure should be added. Let us see two more realistic cases.

b) Matter–domination: present time

Let us go back to the general solution (26) and fix the integration constant by the present value

$$\frac{1}{H\left(t_0\right)}=\frac{1}{H_0}=\frac{3}{2}t_0+C.$$

The solution, now more realistic, will be

$$H(t)=\frac{H_0}{1+\frac{3}{2}H_0(tt_0)}.$$
(30)
Integrations of $`\frac{da}{a}=H(t)dt`$ leads then to

$$1+z=\frac{a_0}{a(t)}=\frac{1}{[1+\frac{3}{2}H_0(tt_0)]^{2/3}}.$$
(31)
Equation (29) keeps holding. Using that equality, and the value (9) of the critical density, we find

$$\rho _b=1.878\times 10^{26}(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2[kgm^3]$$
(32)
Dividing by the proton mass, the number density is

$$n_b=11.2\times (1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2[m^3]$$
(33)
Actually, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}`$ = $`1`$ in the reference case we are considering. This gives a few nucleons per cubic meter at present time. The age of the Universe is basically the same as that for the dust Universe: we look for the time $`t`$ corresponding to $`z\mathrm{}`$, and find $`t_0t`$ = $`2/(3H_0)`$. Equations (30) and (31) hold from the turning point down to present times (provided $`k=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0).

c) Matter–domination: k = 0 but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 0

Recent evidence for $`k=0`$ and a nonvanishing cosmological constant at present time gives to this case the prominent role.

Let us insert (8) into (29), to get

$$\rho =\rho _0e^{3_{t_0}^tH(t)𝑑t}$$

and then insert this expression into the Friedmann equation (13):

$$H^2=2\left(\frac{4\pi G}{3}\right)\rho _0e^{3_{t_0}^tH(t)𝑑t}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}.$$

The time derivative gives

$$\frac{dH}{dt}=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}H^2\right).$$

Integration leads then to the expression

$$H(t)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}\frac{\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}+H_0\right)e^{3\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}(tt_0)}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}H_0\right)}{\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}+H_0\right)e^{3\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}(tt_0)}+\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}H_0\right)}.$$
(34)
This expression for $`H(t)`$ gives $`H=H_0`$ when $`tt_0`$ and tends to (30) when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. To have it in terms of more accessible parameters, we may rewrite it as

$$H(t)=H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}+1\right)e^{3H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tt_0)}\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}1\right)}{\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}+1\right)e^{3H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tt_0)}+\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}1\right)}.$$
(35)
To get the relation with $`z`$, we notice that

$$H^2=2\left(\frac{4\pi G}{3}\right)\rho _0(1+z)^3+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_b(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$

gives

$$H^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}=2\left(\frac{4\pi G}{3}\right)\rho _0(1+z)^3$$

$$H_0^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}=2\left(\frac{4\pi G}{3}\right)\rho _0,$$

which together imply

$$\frac{H^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}{H_0^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}=(1+z)^3.$$

Alternatively,

$`(1+z)^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{H_0^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })}};`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (37)
It remains to use (34) to obtain

$$1+z=\left(4\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}\right)^{1/3}\frac{e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}(tt_0)}}{\left[\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}+H_0\right)e^{3\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}(tt_0)}+\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3}}H_0\right)\right]^{2/3}},$$
(38)
which is the same as

$$\frac{a_0}{a(t)}=1+z=\left(4\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1/3}\frac{e^{H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tt_0)}}{\left[\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}+1\right)e^{3H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tt_0)}+\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}1\right)\right]^{2/3}}.$$
(39)
The neglected matter pressure is given by

$$\frac{p_b}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=9.2\times 10^{14}T_b\left(1+z\right)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}.$$
(40)
This will be one of our main points. Matter pressure is neglected in usual treatments for the reasons given above, which assume an ideal gas. We intend to take into account interactions between nucleons, and shall find indications of a very abrupt raise of this pressure during the PNS period.

### 2.2 Radiation–dominated age

For photons, the temperature behaves as a frequency so that, by the very definition of red–shift, $`T_\gamma =T_{\gamma 0}(1+z)`$. For example, hydrogen recombination takes place at $`T_\gamma =T_b3000K`$. This, together with the present value $`T_{\gamma 0}2.7`$ for the thermal background, gives a red–shift $`(1+z)1.1\times 10^3`$. The mass–equivalent density is therefore

$$\frac{\rho _\gamma }{\rho _{crit}}=2.1\times 10^7T_\gamma ^4h^2=1.1\times 10^5(1+z)^4h^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4,$$
(41)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}=1.1\times 10^5h^2.$$
(42)
Consider again the reference case $`k=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Because $`ϵ_\gamma =3p_\gamma `$ and $`\rho _\gamma =\frac{ϵ_\gamma }{c^2}`$, we have

$$\dot{H}=2H^2=2\frac{\rho _\gamma }{\rho _{crit}},$$

leading automatically to

$$H^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4.$$
(43)
Solving the equation is only necessary to fix the relation between the time parameter and the red–shift. The solution,

$$H(t)=\frac{1}{2t},$$

implies

$$t=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}}(1+z)^2};\frac{a(t)}{a_0}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}^{1/4}\sqrt{2t}.$$
(44)
Before recombination (that is, for higher z’s) there is thermal equilibrium between matter and radiation, because electrons are free and the mean free path of the photons is very small. An estimate of the energy per photon at a certain $`z`$ can be obtained from $`kT_{\gamma 0}=2.3\times 10^{10}MeV`$, which leads to

$$kT_\gamma =kT_{\gamma 0}(1+z)=2.32\times 10^{10}(1+z)MeV.$$
(45)
For example, an energy of $`4MeV`$ corresponds to $`z2\times 10^{10}`$. Thus, the thermalized state before recombination makes of $`T_\gamma `$, or its corresponding red–shift, the best time parameter. We shall retain for later use the expressions

$$\frac{p_\gamma }{c^2\rho _{crit}}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\rho _\gamma }{\rho _{crit}}=7.\times 10^8T_\gamma ^4h^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}}{3}(1+z)^4$$
(46)
$$\frac{\rho _\gamma }{\rho _b}=2.31\times 10^5(1+z)\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}^1.$$
(47)
At recombination time, $`\frac{\rho _b}{\rho _\gamma }39.5\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}`$. The scale parameter, and consequently the red–shift, behave quite differently in a matter–dominated Universe (28) and in a radiation–dominated one (44). Equation (47) shows that radiation becomes dominant at high $`z`$’s. The turning point, or change of regime, takes place when $`\rho _\gamma \rho _b`$, or

$$1+z4.3\times 10^4\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}.$$
(48)
This corresponds to $`t7.4\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}^{3/2}/H_0`$ = $`2.2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}^{3/2}`$ sec. When there is no thermalization, non-interacting matter pressure is negligible with respect to radiation pressure by a factor $`\frac{p_b}{p_\gamma }\frac{10^{10}}{1+z}T`$.

With our proton-related variables, the temperature during the thermalized period preceding recombination will be

$$\tau =\frac{kT_\gamma }{mc^2}=2.5\times 10^{13}(1+z).$$
(49)
In terms of those variables we shall have, for example,

$$n_\gamma =3.8\times 10^{39}(1+z)^3\lambda _p^3=0.24\left(\frac{\tau }{\lambda _p}\right)^3$$
(50)
and

$$n_b=6.3\times 10^9\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2\left(\frac{\tau }{\lambda _p}\right)^3.$$
(51)
### 2.3 The Friedmann solutions

Let us now go back to the general equations (19) and (20). Thermalization at $`z>10^3`$ has important formal consequences. Dependence of a single temperature makes it more convenient to use the variable $`z`$, and much of the discussion can be made in terms of energies, by using (45). Using the units given in Eq.(18), adding matter (29) and radiation (41) densities and extracting from (17) the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}`$, Eq. (19) becomes

$$H^2(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4\frac{k}{a_0^2}(1+z)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}+(1+z)^3(1+\frac{k}{a_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}).$$
(52)
This will be modified when interactions between nucleons are taken into account (see equation (64) below). In the reference case,

$$H^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0})(1+z)^3,$$
(53)
which reduces to (27) when the last term dominates the right-hand side, and to (43) when the first term dominates.

All this can be see from another point of view. In fact, we have $`(1+z)H(t)=\frac{dz}{dt}`$. We can consequently introduce the function $`f(z)=\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}`$, with $`f(0)=1`$ and $`a(z)=\frac{a_0}{1+z}`$. In the units (18), equation (20) becomes

$$(1+z)\frac{df}{dz}=3f+3\frac{p}{c^2\rho _{crit}}+\frac{k}{a_0^2}(1+z)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(54)
Use now x = 1+z, with $`f(x=1)=1`$. As radiation pressure largely dominates at all time, the only contribution to $`p`$ will come from (46). We shall take $`3\frac{p}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}`$ as given in (42), and rewrite the equation as

$$x\frac{df}{dx}=3f+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4+\frac{k}{a_0^2}x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(55)
The solution is

$$f\left(x\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4\frac{k}{a_0^2}x^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}+x^3(1+\frac{k}{a_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}),$$
(56)
which is the same as (52). This point of view will be of interest when the pressure of matter is added. This is due to the fact that pressure appears only in the equation (14) for the derivative of $`H`$ and not in the expression (13) for $`H^2`$.

Things are not that simple for the expansion parameter, or for the relation between $`z`$ and $`t`$. Noting that $`x=a_0/a`$, we have

$$a\frac{da}{dt}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}a_0^4ka^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^4+a_0^3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}+k\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3})a},$$

whose solution is given by

$$t=t_0+_{a(t_0)}^{a\left(t\right)}\frac{ydy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}a_0^4ky^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4/3+y\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}+ka_0^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3\right)a_0^3}}.$$
(57)
Most aspects for $`z>10^3`$ can be discussed in terms of the red–shift, and we shall have little use for the time variable.

## 3 Microphysics at the PNS period

There are many interesting questions concerning the applicability of usual physical assumptions and consequent results in the period between $`z10^{15}`$ ($`kT400GeV`$) and $`z10^{10}`$ ($`kT4MeV`$). They are worth a brief parenthesis, as they constitute the background to the discussion of the particular questions we shall be concerned with.

First, concerning Particle Physics, it may be that the usual treatment of cross–sections need revision, due to scarcity of space. In that treatment, particles are supposed to start in an interaction–free asymptotic region, interact in some finite intermediate region, and finish the process as a free object in yet another asymptotic domain. The ingoing and outgoing flows are compared to define the cross-section. Total volume is supposed to be much larger than the volumes of the particles concerned. Even if for decay rates and production processes with two initial particles (such as pair production) the volume factor cancels out , such processes can be inhibited by the smallness of complete (configuration plus momentum) phase space and by final state interactions. The usual elementary definition of the scattering matrix  involves a Dirac delta function in four momentum which actually assumes a very large volume. This is a rather difficult question, but one which can in principle be theoretically solved.

Other, deeper Particle Physics aspects are to be considered. Nucleons are non-relativistic at $`z10^{10}`$, but highly relativistic at $`z10^{15}`$. How far will a proton, when energy grows from $`4MeV`$ to $`400GeV`$, remain a proton ? Is it true that at the energies involved in the period we can already talk of deconfined quarks and unshielded gluons ? It is usually supposed that at high enough energies nucleons loose their identities and the system must be considered as a quark–gluon plasma . The energy at which that happens, however, remains unknown. The search for a signal of quark deconfinement, which has been actively looked for in the interval $`15200GeV`$ per proton, has not yet given a definitive answer . The experimental results are consistent with the presence of deconfinement, but do not exclude other interpretations. This means that the signal is not unambiguous, is not conclusive . What happens at still higher energies is simply not known, as the mechanisms of confinement and eventual deconfinement are as yet unclear even from the purely theoretical point of view . We shall here suppose that protons keep their identities and examine the consequences. We shall find, as we proceed backwards in time, that radiation protons produce a pressure blockage at energies of the order of hundreds of $`MeV`$, much too low for confinement to take place.

Concerning Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics aspects, the system should be treated, quite probably, as a finite system . Another point concerns fermions in general. The Pauli principle can be seen as a consequence of an effective repulsive potential between kin fermions, whose range is the thermal wavelength. This wavelength decreases with temperature. At the period under consideration, it will be very small for electrons, but large for non-relativistic protons. What has been said of phase space for cross sections should be repeated in this context: pair production of protons, for example, would be inhibited by the presence of many protons in the final state.

Anyhow, the first problem to be faced is much simpler. The picture we have of the early Universe comes from inserting ideal fluid equations of state in the Friedmann equations. In the PNS period, excepting the reactions leading to nucleosynthesis and their nuclei–breaking inverses, interactions are not taken into account at all, let alone the possibility of any abrupt behavior related to phase-transitions. Thus, the first thing to be done would be to consider a real, interacting gas. This is already a difficult enough task. We shall make a first attempt by taking into account the size of the nucleons. Protons and neutrons are, of course, the hardest known objects. Instead of structureless, pointlike particles, we shall assume a hard–sphere gas.

A negative point is that the only known means to do it is by considering a hard-sphere potential, and potentials loose progressively their meaning when the particles represented become more and more relativistic. Taking into account pair creation and annihilation become more and more necessary to avoid difficulties akin to the Klein paradox . We shall do it as carefully as possible, in the hope of finding effects in the non-relativistic regime. The nucleon size–effect will be simulated by a hard-sphere with the nucleon radius. What we should take for the proton radius is as yet a matter of controversy , but the uncertainty between $`0.80`$ fermi and $`0.86`$ fermi is, of course, irrelevant for the gross estimate we have in view. We shall use $`0.8\times 10^{13}`$ cm for the proton radius and undertake the usual backward path, from $`z10^{10}`$ to $`z10^{15}`$.

## 4 A solvable model for primeval close packing

We have presented in the introduction a very rough estimate of the red–shift at which a blockage can take place, and proceed now to a somewhat more elaborate evaluation. The result will be essentially the same as long as only the remnant protons are concerned. This more refined approach provides, however, general formulae which can be applied also to the protons belonging to the radiation.

The hard-sphere gas is one of the great unsolved problems of Theoretical Physics. The virial coefficients have been calculated analytically only up to the fourth order (by Boltzmann). Numerical results exist for higher orders, but the virial series has, if any, a poor convergence. The best picture of the system is given by a computer simulation refined through the use of Padé approximants. The outcome is a curve for the equation of state . It shows a clear phase transition (possibly two), in which the pressure grows steeply to $`\mathrm{}`$. The curve can be parametrized by an equation of state of the type

$$p_b=\frac{n_bkT}{1n_b/n_c},$$
(58)
where $`n_c=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{D^3}`$, $`D`$ being the sphere diameter. This equation can be qualitatively understood in the “excluded volume” approach to the hard sphere gas. The canonical partition function for an $`N`$-particle gas with interactions given by a potential $`V_{ij}`$ = $`V(|𝐫_i𝐫_i|)`$ is

$$Q_N=\frac{1}{\lambda ^{3N}}d^3r_1d^3r_2\mathrm{}d^3r_Ne^{\beta _{i=1}^{N1}_{j=i+1}^NV_{ij}}$$

$$=\frac{1}{\lambda ^{3N}}d^3r_1d^3r_2\mathrm{}d^3r_N\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{\beta V_{ij}}.$$

For a hard–sphere potential, the integrand vanishes every time it happens that $`|𝐫_i𝐫_j|<D/2`$ for any pair $`(i,j)`$ of particles. Thus, it all amounts to forbid the regions with $`|𝐫_i𝐫_j|<D/2`$ for every pair, or to exclude the interior of all the spheres. As the potential simply vanishes outside the spheres, the final picture is that of an ideal gas in a volume reduced by the total volume of the $`N`$ spheres. With the volume $`v_s`$ = $`\frac{\pi }{6}D^3`$ for each sphere, the equation would be $`p(VNv_s)`$ = $`NkT`$, or $`p`$ = $`nkT/(1nv_s)`$. There are actually some geometric factors before $`v_s`$, as the excluded volume increases at close packing. In a configuration like $``$$``$ $``$$``$ each sphere actually excludes a cube of size $`D`$. These geometric factors have been found by the authors of , the second suggested phase transition corresponding to the still tighter packing of type $``$$``$ $``$ .

Let us now apply (58) to our problem. The proton radius gives $`D^3=4.1\times 10^{39}cm^3`$, so that $`n_c=0.345\times 10^{39}cm^3`$. Using (10), we find

$$\frac{n_b}{n_c}=3.18\times 10^{44}(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2.$$
(59)
The denominator in (58) vanishes when $`1+z=\frac{3.1\times 10^{14}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}^{1/3}h^{2/3}}`$, corresponding to

$$kT\frac{73.6}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}^{1/3}h^{2/3}}GeV.$$

Thus, if $`h=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}=0.03`$, then $`kT300GeV`$. The recently more favored value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}=0.2`$ would give $`kT160GeV`$. This is an indication of close-packing for the protons existing today, but at the very high value $`z`$ $`10^{15}`$. The close-packing effect will actually take place at much lower $`z`$ because of the pair–production effect, to be discussed in the next section. Notice anyhow that, even neglecting the pair–produced protons, the proton mean free path would be $`(n_c\lambda _P^2)^1`$, comparable to $`\lambda _P`$ itself.

Using ( 40), the baryon pressure (58) will be given by

$$\frac{p_b}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=9.2\times 10^{14}\left(1+z\right)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}T\frac{1}{13.18\times 10^{44}(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2}.$$
(60)
As there is thermal equilibrium at the period of interest, $`T`$ will be the radiation temperature and consequently

$$\frac{p_b}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=2.48\times 10^{13}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}\left(1+z\right)^4\frac{1}{13.18\times 10^{44}(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2}.$$

The relation between this and the radiation pressure is

$$\frac{p_b}{p_\gamma }=3.17\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2\frac{1}{13.18\times 10^{44}(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2}.$$

We can introduce the notation

$$M=2.48\times 10^{13}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}h^2,Q=3.15\times 10^{15}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b0}^{1/3}h^{2/3}$$
(61)
and write

$$\frac{p_b}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=M\left(1+z\right)^4\frac{1}{1[Q(1+z)]^3}.$$
(62)
This is to be added to the Friedmann equation in the form (55), which becomes

$$x\frac{df}{dx}=3f+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4+\frac{k}{a_0^2}x^2+Mx^4\frac{1}{1(Qx)^3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(63)
The solution is

$$f(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4\frac{k}{a_0^2}x^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}+x^3[1+\frac{k}{a_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}]+\frac{M}{3}\times $$

$$x^3\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{(1Q)\sqrt{1+Qx+Q^2x^2}}{(1Qx)\sqrt{1+Q+Q^2}}+\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\sqrt{3}Qx}{2+Qx}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\sqrt{3}Q}{2+Q}\right\}.$$
(64)
This is just (56), with the additional term proportional to $`M`$. As $`Q1`$, a good approximation is

$$f(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4\frac{k}{a_0^2}x^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}+x^3\left[1+\frac{k}{a_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right]$$

$$+\frac{M}{3}x^3\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{1+Qx+Q^2x^2}}{1Qx}+\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\sqrt{3}Qx}{2+Qx}\right\}.$$
(65)
When $`x`$ tends to $`Q^1`$ from smaller values, the functions $`f(x)`$ and $`H(z)`$ become infinite. The implicit solution for $`a(t)`$ is still given by (57), with $`f(x)`$ now given by (64).

We arrive thus at the following provisional picture. If we proceed backwardly in time, there will be a value of the increasing red-shift for which matter pressure produced by the remnant protons becomes practically infinite. This value corresponds to energies of a few hundreds of GeV. Of course, at such energies the very notion of potential is unacceptable. But this is only a first step in our reasoning chain. Actually, there will be a much larger number of protons in the medium. We have up to now neglected those which are produced in pairs by the radiation background. If that number is high enough, the pressure may become exceedingly high at lower energies, in which potentials still do make sense.

## 5 Radiation-belonging nucleons

The radiation background contains a large amount of massive particles as soon as the pair production $`\gamma \gamma e^{}e^+`$ threshold is attained. As to the process of hadron production $`\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}`$, it is clearly at work at $`kT`$ around $`1GeV`$. Actually, the reaction threshold is much lower , because of the huge number of photons. Even at lower energies, there are many photons with energy high enough to produce pairs. The number of radiation-created hadrons becomes of the same order of the number of photons a little above the threshold , much larger in effect than the number of remnant protons considered previously. Let us say a few more words on these statements.

The basic question would be: when we proceed backwards in time, from which energy on can we consider that the reaction $`\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}`$ is in equilibrium ? This energy is important because, above it, the remnant protons are negligible and the previous argument should be applied, instead, to the radiation-belonging protons.

With an annihilation cross section $`\sigma _a2\times 10^{26}cm^2`$, the annihilation mean free path of a proton is $`\lambda _a`$ $``$ $`\frac{1}{n_\gamma \sigma _a}`$ $``$ $`10^{23}(1+z)^3`$ cm. This gives $``$ $`10^{22}`$ cm at $`400`$ GeV, $``$ $`2\times 10^{21}cm`$ at $`20GeV`$, and $`10^7`$ cm at $`4`$ MeV. For the inverse reaction, pair creation, we could use the Breit–Wheeler cross-section , but the exact value is not necessary in our simplified approach. An estimate, using only mean free paths, can be made along the following lines. The mean free path for a photon, due to pair creation, is $`\lambda _{\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}}`$ = $`[n_\gamma \sigma _{\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}}]^1`$. This means that, on the average, a $`\gamma `$ will meet another $`\gamma `$ to produce a pair every time the volume $`\lambda _{\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}}\sigma _{\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}}`$ is spanned by a $`\gamma `$. Thus, a traveling photon will “deposit” one antiproton at each volume of that value. But that volume is just $`1/n_\gamma `$, so that the concentration of antiprotons is roughly the same as that of the photons.

A more precise description of the interplay between annihilation and pair production requires a detailed analysis of the kinetics involved. A kinetic estimate  gives $`\tau 1/440.02`$ (corresponding to $`20MeV`$) for the temperature above which there is equilibrium. We insist that, as soon as chemical equilibrium is attained, at kT $`20MeV`$, the number of antiprotons becomes enormous, of the order of $`n_\gamma `$.

We can also estimate the temperature at which the number of pair–produced protons (or antiprotons) becomes larger than the number of remnant protons, by equating (85) and (51). The result of a numerical analysis is that the number of antiprotons overcomes that of the remnant protons at $`\tau 0.058`$. Thus, we can choose for security a reasonable value $`0.06`$ (corresponding to $`60MeV`$) and say that, for $`\tau `$ above it, the reaction is in equilibrium and there will be a large amount of protons and antiprotons. At $`kT60MeV`$, these protons and antiprotons are nonrelativistic and for them the potential–based arguments are valid.

We have repeatedly said that the concentration of protons is actually of the same order of magnitude of that of photons, many orders of magnitude above the number of the remnant protons we have considered in the previous section. In fact, using the numerical factor $`n_\gamma /n_{\overline{p}}=4/3`$ discussed at the end of Appendix A, and equations (50) and (51), we find

$$\frac{n_{\overline{p}}}{n_b}=2.9\times 10^7[\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2]^1.$$
(66)
There is consequently an abrupt jump in the concentration, and (59) will change dramatically. To take this effect into account, it is sufficient to change the numerical parameters (61): $`M`$ and $`Q^3`$ must be multiplied by $`\frac{n_{\overline{p}}}{n_b}`$, given by (66). Thus, the formulae of the previous section can be used, with the parameters $`M`$ and $`Q`$ of (61) replaced by

$$M^{}=\frac{n_{\overline{p}}}{n_b}M=7.2\times 10^6;Q^{}=\left(\frac{n_{\overline{p}}}{n_b}\right)^{1/3}Q=9.56\times 10^{13}.$$
(67)
In that case, $`\frac{p_b^{}}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=M^{}\left(1+z\right)^4\frac{1}{1[Q^{}(1+z)]^3}`$, or, as $`M^{}`$ = $`0.65h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}`$,

$$\frac{p_b^{}}{c^2\rho _{crit}}=\frac{1.95h^2}{1[Q^{}(1+z)]^3}\frac{p_\gamma }{c^2\rho _{crit}}=\frac{0.65h^2}{1[Q^{}(1+z)]^3}\frac{ϵ_\gamma }{c^2\rho _{crit}}.$$
(68)
The term $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}x^4`$ in (63) is the radiation contribution. That equation becomes

$$(1+z)\frac{df}{d(1+z)}=3f+\frac{k}{a_0^2}(1+z)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4\left[1+\frac{0.65h^2}{1[Q^{}(1+z)]^3}\right].$$
(69)
The last term corresponds to the radiation contribution, with the term in $`h^2`$ giving the nucleon interaction correction to the equation of state (46). The solution is still (64), but with the replacements $`MM^{}`$ and $`QQ^{}`$.

Matter pressure now becomes infinite at $`z=1.0\times 10^{12}`$, or $`kT=232MeV`$. At such energies, it is possible that deconfinement, conjectured to happen at $`150MeV`$, has taken place. We are, however, neglecting some effects (discussed below) which would tend to lower that value. And even at $`230MeV`$ the non–relativistic argument, based on the notion of a potential, is valid. Notice that the energy at which pair production attains equilibrium is much lower: $`\tau 0.05`$ corresponds to $`kT_\gamma 50MeV`$. A last point is that antiprotons attain a concentration comparable to that of photons a bit above the reaction threshold, which can be lower than the equilibrium temperature. We are, thus, quite probably overestimating the above energies.

## 6 Conclusions and speculations

The conclusion is that, as soon as pair creation starts up, the number of protons becomes so high as to create a blockage. This might mean that the reaction is inhibited by a “wall” of occupied phase space in the final state, or that the use of cross–sections is inadequate, or still that usual thermodynamics does not apply. It is common knowledge that, in consequence of fundamental requirements, pressure in a fluid cannot go to infinity. It can at most attain the incompressibility limit, at which the equation of state is $`p=ϵ`$ and beyond which causality would be violated. With $`h=1`$, this point would correspond to $`z10^{12}`$.

In its details, the primeval blockage we have dealt on has, unfortunately, a crucial dependence on the values of the as yet undetermined cosmological parameters. Some of the neglected aspects would, however, add to the repulsion and, consequently, to the effect. Notice that any effect leading to a higher effective value for the sphere volumes in (58) will bring the critical redshift to lower values. For instance, scattering theory will tell us that a sphere appears larger in the quantum case: naïve shadow scattering by a disk of radius $`r`$ will see a transverse area $`4\pi r^2`$, instead of the classical $`\pi r^2`$. This would mean an effective radius twice as large, and a red-shift half that found above ($`z=0.5\times 10^{12}`$, or $`kT=116MeV`$). Still another possiblility is the breaking of Debye electromagnetic screening, which would lead to an increase of the electrostatic Coulomb repulsion. Finally, we have completely neglected the Fermi repulsion due to Pauli exclusion. This effect is feeble in the ultrarelativistic regime, but the thermal wavelengths (23) or (24) can be larger than the diameter of the excluded sphere for the range of energies found.

We have not attempted to relate our results to the current negative–pressure approach to inflation . We shall only indulge in a wild remark. As Lee and Yang have taught us long ago , equations of state have the same analytical form both sides of a phase transition. If equation (58) holds for $`n_b/n_c>1`$, the pressure will be negative “the other side” of the thermodynamic singularity. In effect, the expression for the total radiation pressure, including the nucleon–antinucleon pairs,

$$\frac{p_\gamma }{c^2\rho _{crit}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\gamma 0}(1+z)^4\left[\frac{1}{3}+\frac{0.65h^2}{1[Q^{}(1+z)]^3}\right],$$
(70)
or (using $`ϵ_\gamma `$ for the ideal energy density)

$$p_\gamma =\left[\frac{1}{3}+\frac{0.65h^2}{1[Q^{}(1+z)]^3}\right]ϵ_\gamma =\left[\frac{1}{3}+\frac{0.65h^2}{1\left[\frac{kT_\gamma (MeV)}{232}\right]^3}\right]ϵ_\gamma ,$$
(71)
will be negative in a short interval before the singular red–shift. A comparison of (19) and (52) shows that, for the large values of $`z`$ we are considering now, the energy density is dominated by the quartic term. Consequently, the ideal $`ϵ_\gamma `$ of the last expressions is the true radiation energy and (71) is indeed an equation of state. The equation would be of the exponential inflationary type $`p=ϵ`$ type  only for a very particular value of $`z`$. We can however, speculate on the possibility of a more general type of inflation. For a barotropic equation $`p=(\gamma 1)ϵ`$ an extended, power–law type inflation  occurs for $`\gamma `$ in the range $`0\gamma 2/3`$ . For $`h=1`$, this would correspond to a tiny interval $`1.14Q^{}(1+z)1.25`$ before the pressure singularity.

## Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to Professor R.A. Salmeron, of the École Polytéchnique, Palaiseau, and CERN, Geneva, for illuminating discussions on the experimental evidence concerning quark deconfinement. One of the authors (R.A.) is grateful to FAPESP (São Paulo, Brazil) for financial support.

## Appendix A Relativistic Gases

We justify here some statements and formulae of the text, and rewrite some of the most usual expressions in units specially adequate to our case.

To see how (23) comes out, let us recall that the grand-canonical partition function for a gas of non-interacting quantum particles with chemical potential $`\mu `$ is the trace of the density operator:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(V,\beta ,\mu )=tr\left[e^{\beta _i(ϵ_i\mu )\widehat{n}_i}\right]=\underset{\{n_j\}}{}n_0n_1n_2\mathrm{}|e^{\beta _i(ϵ_i\mu )\widehat{n}_i}|n_0n_1n_2\mathrm{}=$$

$$\underset{n_0}{}\underset{n_1}{}\underset{n_2}{}\mathrm{}e^{\beta (ϵ_0\mu )n_0}e^{\beta (ϵ_1\mu )n_1}e^{\beta (ϵ_2\mu )n_2}\mathrm{}=\underset{i}{}\underset{n}{}e^{\beta (ϵ_i\mu )n}$$

$$=\underset{ϵ}{}\underset{n}{}e^{\beta (ϵ\mu )n}.$$

In this non-interacting case, each level contributes an independent factor. The system can have also internal degrees of freedom, which will likewise contribute separately. Suppose a single degree of freedom (spin, for example) taking $`g`$ possible values. The partition function will be

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(V,\beta ,\mu )=\underset{ϵ}{}\left[\underset{n}{}e^{\beta (ϵ\mu )n}\right]^g.$$
(72)
The kind of statistics appears in the summation, which is over the possible values of the occupation number $`n`$, from $`n=0`$ up to the maximum number of particles allowed in each state: $`1`$ for fermions, $`\mathrm{}`$ for bosons. To treat bosons and fermions at the same time, we adopt the usual convention: upper signs for bosons, lower signs for fermions. Transforming the product into a summation by using the formal identity $`_ϵ\{\mathrm{}\}=_ϵ[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}\{\mathrm{}\})]=exp_ϵ\mathrm{ln}\{\mathrm{}\}`$, the above expressions lead to

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }^{B,F}(V,\beta ,\mu )=g\underset{ϵ}{}\mathrm{ln}\left[1e^{\beta (ϵ\mu )}\right].$$
(73)
It is convenient to use the fugacity variable, either the usual non-relativistic fugacity $`z=e^{\beta \mu }`$ or its relativistic version $`Z=e^{\beta \mu _R}=ze^{\beta mc^2}`$. If we do not care about zero–energy states, the sum over the energy levels can be replaced by an integral over the momenta through the prescription $`_ϵh^3d^3xd^3p`$, which leads to

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }^{B,F}(V,\beta ,\mu )=g\frac{4\pi V}{h^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}p^2𝑑p\mathrm{ln}\left[1Ze^{\beta (p^2c^2+m^2c^4)^{1/2}}\right].$$

Expanding the logarithm and collecting like terms, the partition function acquires the form

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{B,F}(V,\beta ,z)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{gV}{h^3}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\pm 1)^{j1}}{j}z^jd^3pe^{j\beta [(p^2c^2+m^2c^4)^{1/2}mc^2]}\right\}.$$
(74)
The relativistic thermal wavelength (23) appears now in the form

$$\frac{1}{h^3}d^3pe^{\beta [(p^2c^2+m^2c^4)^{1/2}mc^2]}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(\beta )},$$
(75)
and the final expression for the grand-canonical partition function for a gas of non-interacting quantum particles is

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{B,F}(V,\beta ,z)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{gV\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\pm 1)^{j1}}{j}z^j\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(j\beta )}\right\},$$
(76)
or its equivalent

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^{B,F}(V,\beta ,z)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{g\frac{4\pi V}{h^3c^3}\frac{(mc^2)^2}{\beta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\pm 1)^{j1}}{j}Z^jK_2(j\beta mc^2)\right\}.$$
(77)
Here $`K_2(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of second order. Limits can be found by using the properties

$$K_2(x)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2x}}e^x\left(1+\frac{15}{8x}+\mathrm{}\right);$$

$$K_1(x)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2x}}e^x\left(1+\frac{3}{8x}+\mathrm{}\right)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{x}>>1;$$

$$K_2(x)2x^2;K_1(x)x^1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{x}<<1.$$

$`K_1(\beta mc^2)`$ will appear only in the energy expression. The non-relativistic and the ultra–relativistic limits give (24) and (25). The pressure and the particle number follow by standard thermodynamic relations:

$$pV=kT\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }=gkT\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\pm )^{l1}}{l}z^l\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(l\beta )},$$
(78)
$$\overline{N}=\left[z\frac{}{z}ln\mathrm{\Xi }(V,\beta ,z)\right]_{V,\beta }=g\underset{ϵ}{}\frac{1}{z^1e^{\beta ϵ}1}$$

$$=\frac{gV}{h^3}\frac{d^3p}{z^1e^{\beta \sqrt{p^2c^2+m^2c^4}}\pm 1}=gV\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\pm )^{l1}z^l\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(l\beta )}.$$
(79)
The expressions in terms of integrals or of series are more or less convenient, depending on the application in view. We can extract the density number of particles at energy $`ϵ`$, $`n_ϵ`$ = $`g[z^1e^{\beta ϵ}1]^1`$. The average energy, including the masses, is

$$\overline{E}=\left(\frac{}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }(V,\beta ,z)\right)_{Z,V}=\underset{ϵ}{}n_ϵϵ$$

$$=3pV+4\pi g\left(\frac{mc^2}{\lambda _C^3}\right)\left(\frac{kT}{mc^2}\right)\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\pm )^{l1}}{l}z^le^{l\beta mc^2}K_1(l\beta mc^2).$$
(80)
The degree of degeneracy is

$$d=\frac{\overline{N}\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(\beta )}{V}=g\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\pm )^{l1}z^l\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(\beta )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(l\beta )}=g\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\pm )^{l1}}{l}z^l\frac{e^{\beta mc^2}K_2(l\beta mc^2)}{e^{l\beta mc^2}K_2(\beta mc^2)}.$$
(81)
We are particularly interested in $`n=\frac{\overline{N}}{V}`$. For a massless particle, the change of variables $`x=pc/kT`$ can be used directly to give

$$n=\frac{g}{2\pi ^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{\lambda _C^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^2dx}{z^1e^x\pm 1}.$$
(82)
For a gas of photons (using g = 2, z = 1), there are many expressions of interest:

$$n_\gamma =\frac{\overline{N}_\gamma }{V}=\frac{2}{h^3}\frac{d^3p}{e^{\beta pc}1}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{\lambda _C^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^2dx}{e^x1}=2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UR}^3(l\beta )}$$
(83)
$$=2\frac{\tau ^3}{\pi ^2\lambda _C^3}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{l^3}=\frac{2\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{kT_\gamma }{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3=0.244\frac{\tau ^3}{\lambda _C^3}.$$
(84)
The pressure is found to be $`p_\gamma =\frac{\zeta (4)}{\zeta (3)}n_\gamma kT_\gamma `$ = $`\overline{E}_\gamma /3V`$ = $`ϵ_\gamma /3`$. For a gas of fermions with g = 2 (like protons or antiprotons),

$$n_{\overline{p}}=\frac{\overline{N}_p}{V}=2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}()^{l1}z^l\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^3(l\beta )}=n_{\overline{p}}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\tau }{\lambda _p}\right)^3_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^2dx}{z^1e^{\sqrt{1/\tau ^2+x^2}}+1}.$$
(85)
In the ultrarelativistic regime this becomes

$$n_{\overline{p}}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{\lambda _C^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^2dx}{e^x+1}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{\lambda _C^3}=0.183\frac{\tau ^3}{\lambda _C^3}.$$
(86)
A factor $`\frac{n_\gamma }{n_{\overline{p}}}=\frac{4}{3}`$ comes from the fermion repulsion effect, encapsulated in the sign in the integrand denominator, opposite to that in (83). It is more difficult to pack fermions than bosons together. This can be seen also from the limits of the degeneracy index (81). In this ultrarelativistic regime, its values are, for photons and antiprotons, respectively, $`n_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{UR}^3`$ = $`0.244\pi `$ = $`0.766`$ and $`n_{\overline{p}UR}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UR}^3`$ = $`0.183\pi `$ = $`0.575`$. The relativistic or nonrelativistic character of the protons depend on the above numerical factors. They are possibly irrelevant to rough estimates of the main text, but may come to be important in a more detailed consideration of Fermi repulsion.

## References