text:
# Probing Quintessence with Time Variation of Couplings

## I Introduction

Over the last years several observations point to a universe which is dominated by some form of homogeneously distributed dark energy. An interesting candidate for dark energy is quintessence – the energy density of a slowly evolving scalar field . It is a characteristic feature of the quintessence scenario that fundamental coupling constants depend on time even in late cosmology where such a time variation could be observable . This effect is quite generic: the couplings depend on the expectation value of the scalar “cosmon” field, which in turn varies in the course of its cosmological evolution. The size of this effect depends, however, on physics at the unification scale  and is not known at present. An observation of time-dependent fundamental “constants” could be interpreted as a signal in favor of quintessence – no such time dependence would be connected to dark energy if the latter occurs in the form of a cosmological constant.

Recently, a low value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant has been reported  for absorption lines in the light from distant quasars. The data are consistent with a variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/\alpha _{em}0.710^5`$ for a redshift $`z2`$. This has triggered renewed interest in the theoretical issues related to time varying fundamental couplings , a subject that has been pioneered long ago  and explored in various contexts . Concerning the observational evidence, a definite conclusion seems premature to us – the discussion of this paper can easily be adapted to a smaller time variation of the fundamental constants as well. Nevertheless, taking the reported time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ at face value would fix the coupling strength of the cosmon to matter and radiation.

Typical models of quintessence relate the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ to the time variation of other fundamental parameters, composition-dependent gravity-like forces, a dependence of couplings on the distance from a massive body like the earth and cosmological parameters of dark energy. These links arise on three layers. Logically, the time variation of couplings needs not to be related to the time variation of a scalar field. On this first layer one can nevertheless find connections between the variations of dimensionless couplings like the fine structure constant $`\alpha _{em}`$ and mass ratios like the nucleon to Planck mass. The present work is based on the hypothesis of grand unification. A second layer assumes that the time variation of couplings originates from a scalar field with mass much smaller than the inverse extension of our solar system. On this level we encounter a connection with tests of the equivalence principle. The quantitative relation between the variation of couplings and the violation of the equivalence principle depends, however, on the rate of cosmological change of the scalar field. In general, the scalar field needs not to be related to dark energy. For example, coupling variations due to a “runaway dilaton” in string theories  have not necessarily a sizeable impact on dark energy. If the contribution of the scalar field to the energy density of the universe is very small the rate of change in time is not directly accessible to cosmological observation. The third layer finally postulates that the relevant scalar field is the cosmon whose kinetic and potential energy constitute the dark energy of the universe. The differential acceleration of two test bodies with equal mass can now be quantitatively related to the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ in terms of observable cosmological parameters.

In a quintessence scenario the variation of the gauge couplings can arise from a coupling of the cosmon field $`\chi `$ to the kinetic term for the gauge fields in a grand unified theory

$$_F=\frac{1}{4}Z_F(\chi )F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
Such a coupling preserves all symmetries 111See  for gauge invariant formulations of a time dependent fine structure constant in the context of QED. and makes the renormalized gauge coupling $`gZ_F^{1/2}`$ dependent on $`\chi `$, and therefore on time if $`\chi `$ evolves. In a grand unified theory the time variation of the electromagnetic fine structure constant is directly related to a time variation of the strong gauge coupling and therefore also to a time variation of the nucleon mass $`m_n`$ . We discuss the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`m_n`$ in the case where both the unified coupling $`g(M_{GUT})`$ and the ratio between the unification scale $`M_{GUT}`$ and the Planck mass $`\overline{M}_p`$ may depend on time. Furthermore, one expects a time variation of fermion masses and the weak interaction scale. We include here a possible time variation of the Fermi scale or, more precisely, $`M_W/M_{GUT}`$, keeping the Yukawa couplings fixed for simplicity. This influences the relation between the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`m_n/\overline{M}_p`$. As a result we present bounds on the time variation of $`g(M_{GUT}),M_{GUT}/\overline{M}_p`$ and $`M_W/M_{GUT}`$. We are not aware of a previous investigation taking all these effects simultaneously into account.

The cosmon field depends both on time and space coordinates. For a massive body like the earth $`\chi `$ depends on the distance from the center. Therefore also the fundamental couplings will depend on the location of the probe . Their values in space differ from those measured at the earth surface. Furthermore, a spacially varying scalar field coupling to matter mediates a force. Since the cosmon is effectively massless on the scale of our solar system, this force resembles gravity in many respects , . However, if the cosmon coupling to matter is not precisely proportional to mass, the new gravity-like force will depend on the composition of the test bodies and therefore appear as a violation of the equivalence principle . The existing severe bounds on such violations of the equivalence principle  imply strong restrictions on the size of the cosmon coupling to matter , which we take into account for our bounds on the time variation of couplings. In particular, we find that the violations of the equivalence principle are substantially larger in a grand unified setting as compared to estimates  where only the effect of the variation of the fine structure constant is taken into account.

Since the space and time variation of a scalar field originate from the same kinetic term in the effective action we can express the differential acceleration $`\eta `$ of two test bodies with equal mass in terms of the dependence of $`\alpha _{em}`$ on redshift $`z`$

$$\eta =1.7510^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{z}\right)_{|z=0}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z(1+\stackrel{~}{Q})}{\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}(1+w_h^{(0)})}.$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z=\mathrm{\Delta }Z/(Z+N)0.1`$ for typical experimental tests of the equivalence principle. The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ accounts for the influence of the variation of mass ratios like $`M_W/m_n,m_e/m_n,M_{GUT}/\overline{M}`$ beyond the variation of $`m_n/\overline{M}`$ which is related to the variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ by grand unification. With $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}/\mathrm{ln}z10^6`$ saturating the bound from the Oklo natural reactor, $`\eta `$ comes close to the present detection limit if the present equation of state of quintessence $`w_h^{(0)}`$ is close to $`1`$ as suggested by observation. The effect is enhanced by a large value of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ unless the variation of $`M_W/m_n`$ is severely restricted. We also note that the present energy density of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}`$ cannot be very small if the QSO-observation of a varying fine structure constant is required to be compatible with the present bound $`\eta <310^{13}`$ . Discarding accidental cancellations the QSO observation seems to point towards an association of the scalar field with the cosmon.

Finally, if masses and couplings depend on time, this could also influence the cosmological evolution. For example, this effect modifies the conservation of the energy momentum tensor of matter . In view of the bounds of this paper this effect is very small for ordinary matter  \- a larger coupling to dark matter remains possible, however.

A time variation of couplings may also be observed by local experiments on earth  or within our solar system. This raises the important question to what extent the local time variation is related to the cosmological evolution of the cosmon field $`\chi `$. As far as gravity is concerned a bound local system decouples from the cosmological evolution - we cannot measure the time evolution of the cosmological scale factor by terrestial experiments. We show in this paper (sect. 9) that the situation is very different for the evolution of the cosmon field. Indeed, the values of the fundamental couplings measured on earth or in the solar system depend directly on the cosmological value of $`\chi `$. For the time evolution of couplings the time dependence of $`\chi (t)`$ acts as a universal clock! This important difference with respect to gravity can be traced back to the presence of an effective potential for the cosmon.

In this paper we relate all the different aspects of the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation quantitatively. We derive bounds on the variation of $`M_{GUT}/\overline{M}_p`$ and $`M_W/m_n`$ under the hypothesis that the QSO observation of a varying $`\alpha _{em}`$ fixes the size of the cosmon coupling to radiation and matter and therefore the variation of the unified gauge coupling and $`m_n/\overline{M}_p`$. We investigate the effects of a separate variation of the grand unified gauge coupling and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking or, equivalently, of the characteristic scales of strong and weak interactions. We also account for a possible variation in the ratio between the Planck mass and the scale of grand unification. In this generality our discussion goes beyond previous phenomenological work . For simplicity of the presentation we have associated all fermion masses and the mass of the $`W`$-boson to a common weak interaction scale. This should only serve as a guide – the dependence of these masses on the cosmon field is expected to be more complicated. The corresponding bounds should therefore be used with caution.

An overall picture emerges where quintessence can reconcile the reported time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ from quasar absorption lines with the present bounds from other observations. However this holds only for a particular class of models - the cosmic evolution of the scalar field must have slowed down considerably between $`z2`$ and $`z<0.5`$. For example, combining the QSO value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ with a corresponding bound from the Oklo natural reactor leads to a bound 222 See sect. 9 for cautious remarks concerning the validity of the information about $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$. This bound holds also for the equation of state of a scalar field which is responsible for the time variation of couplings without being relevant for dark energy for the present equation of state of quintessence

$$w_h=p_h/\rho _h<0.9$$
(3)
This bound is comparable with the most severe bounds from cosmological observations. Typically, the order of magnitude of the cosmon coupling turns out such that its effects may soon be seen by other experiments – or the reported time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ may be excluded, at least within the quintessence scenario.

Already now the small size of the cosmon coupling to matter demands for a natural explanation. (This issue would get even more severe if future observations exclude a time variation of couplings with the presently inferred strength.) A recent proposal in this direction invokes that the couplings may be closed to a fixed point of their evolution equations . It is the aim of this paper to draw the attention on the fact that generic models of quintessence based on the late time evolution of a scalar field have to be confronted with the possibility of time varying fundamental constants. There are by now many proposals for obtaining quintessence from some more fundamental considerations. Very few, however, discuss the problem of time varying couplings. The bounds to be respected are very tight and severely constrain the allowed couplings of the scalar field to other forms of matter and radiation. A time variation of the cosmon field necesarily occurs whenever the equation of state for quintessence $`w_h`$ differs from $`1`$. (For $`w_h=1`$ one recovers the phenomenology of a cosmological constant.) For specific proposals of quintessence within string theories or similar unified theories the overall size of the cosmon couplings may not be a free parameter. For $`w_h1`$ a careful discussion of the issue of time varying couplings becomes then mandatory.

The computation of the time variation of couplings in a given model of quintessence involves two steps. First, one needs the dependence of dimensionless couplings and mass ratios on the cosmon field $`\chi `$. At this point the specific proposal for the role of the cosmon field within a unified theory enters. We explore here the simple assumption that the couplings depend on the cosmon field $`\chi `$ logarithmically. In this case we can parameterize the most important quantities relevant for our problem by three parameters. The second step needs the time dependence of the cosmon field, thereby translating the field dependence of couplings into a time dependence. Here the cosmological equations for the cosmon - in particular, the shape of the cosmon potential and kinetic term - play a determinant role. For the latest cosmological epoch this can be parameterized by an equation of state for quintessence.

Our paper is organized as follows. In sects. 2 and 3 we discuss the field dependence of couplings and mass ratios within the setting of a grand unified theory. There we use a language where all mass scales depend on the cosmon field. This is translated to the more familiar Einstein frame with fixed Planck mass in sect. 4. In this section we also discuss the cosmological time dependence of the cosmon field. For this purpose we investigate a very general class of quintessence models where the scalar kinetic term contains two derivatives and the potential vanishes monotonically for large fields.

In the following sections we address the different facets how the cosmon interactions may be observed. In sect. 5 we compute the strength of the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation from the reported time variation of the fine structure constant. Sect. 6 discusses consequences for nucleosynthesis and in sect. 7 we address the tests of the equivalence principle. In sect. 8 we collect the bounds on the field dependence of gauge couplings and mass scales. Sect. 9 turns to terrestial and satellite observations of a time or space dependence of fundamental couplings. We show that the time dependence is universal – it should be the same on earth (or other objects decoupled from the gravitational expansion) and for cosmological observations. Our conclusions are presented in sect. 10.

## II Field-dependent couplings

For a discussion of the origin of the field dependence of couplings we employ a language which is convenient for an understanding of dynamical mass scales. All mass scales including the Planck mass depend on the cosmon field $`\chi `$. This language highlights the basic observation that physical observables can only depend on dimensionless couplings and ratios of mass scales. We will later (sect. 4) switch to the more familiar language where the Planck mass is kept fixed. We use an (euclidean) action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}(_q+_m)$$
(4)
where the gravity and quintessence part

$$_q=\frac{1}{12}f^2(\chi )\chi ^2\overline{R}+\frac{1}{2}Z_\chi (\chi )_\mu \chi _\nu \chi \overline{g}^{\mu \nu }+V(\chi )$$
(5)
describes the dynamics of the metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and the scalar cosmon field $`\chi `$, whereas $`_m`$ accounts for the “matter” and its couplings. Typically, the value of $`\chi `$ will change during the evolution of the universe and therefore the coefficient in front of the curvature scalar or the effective Planck mass

$$M_p^2(\chi )=\frac{4\pi }{3}f^2\chi ^2$$
(6)
depends on time in this formulation. The field $`\chi `$ is associated to a dynamical unification scale, as, for example, in string theories.

For the matter part, let us discuss for definiteness a grand unified theory based on $`SU(5)`$ or $`SO(10)`$. Then $`_m`$ contains a covariant kinetic term for the gauge fields $`A_\mu ^z`$ and fermions $`\psi `$

$$_m=\frac{1}{4}Z_F(\chi )F_{\mu \nu }^zF^{z\mu \nu }+iZ_\psi (\chi )\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi +\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(7)
plus additional pieces $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the scalar fields responsible for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Among them, the Higgs doublet induces masses for the fermions via the Yukawa couplings. In our normalization333If the unification scale is below the Planck mass, the present value of $`f`$ is larger than one. This is a pure matter of convention since we could always rescale $`\chi `$ by a constant factor. $`\chi `$ equals the unification scale where the GUT symmetry is spontaneously broken, $`\chi =M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. The quantity $`f`$ expresses the ratio between the reduced Planck mass $`\overline{M}_p=M_p/\sqrt{8\pi }`$ and the unification scale

$$\frac{\overline{M}_p}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}=\frac{f}{\sqrt{6}}$$
(8)
This ratio may depend on the cosmon field $`\chi `$ such that in our picture a time variation of $`M_{GUT}/\overline{M}_p`$ is described by a nontrivial $`\chi `$-dependence of $`f(\chi )`$. This is equivalent to the more conventional language where $`\overline{M}_p`$ is kept fixed and $`M_{GUT}`$ depends explicitely on time .

We note that $`_m`$ should be associated with the effective action relevant for momenta $`q^2\chi ^2`$ where the gauge couplings are unified. The effective action for lower momenta and the observed particle masses and couplings will be modified by the running of couplings. We use a fixed “bare” gauge coupling $`\overline{g}`$ in the covariant derivative $`D_\mu =_\mu i\overline{g}A_\mu ^zT_z`$ (with $`T_z`$ appropriate generators) and in the usual definition of the nonabelian field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^z`$. Then the renormalized gauge coupling $`g`$ at the scale $`\chi `$

$$g^2(\chi )=\overline{g}^2Z_F^1(\chi )$$
(9)
depends on $`\chi `$ through $`Z_F(\chi )`$. The running of the strong, weak and electromagnetic gauge couplings for momenta below $`\chi `$ is given by the $`\beta `$-functions of the standard model. For example, their values $`(\alpha _s=g_s^2/4\pi `$ etc.) at the $`\chi `$-dependent electroweak scale444With $`M_W`$ the mass of the $`W`$-boson the gauge hierarchy implies $`\zeta _w1`$. We will see below that $`\zeta _W`$ can depend on $`\chi `$ only weakly . $`M_W(\chi )=\zeta _w(\chi )\chi `$ are given in the one-loop approximation and neglecting the (small) contribution of the scalar sector by

$`\alpha _s^1(M_W)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Z_F(\chi )}{\overline{g}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\zeta _w(\chi )`$ (10)
$`\alpha _w^1(M_W)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Z_F(\chi )}{\overline{g}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\zeta _w(\chi )`$ (11)
$`\alpha _{em}^1(M_W)={\displaystyle \frac{32\pi Z_F(\chi )}{3\overline{g}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\zeta _w(\chi )`$ (12)
We conclude that the gauge couplings at the weak scale $`M_W`$ depend on three functions $`Z(\chi ),f(\chi )`$ and $`\zeta _w(\chi )`$. In turn, these functions describe the $`\chi `$-dependence (and therefore time dependence) of the mass ratios $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/M_{GUT},\overline{M}/M_{GUT}`$ and $`M_W/M_{GUT}`$.

## III Field-dependent mass ratios and fine structure constant

The nucleon mass (here the neutron mass $`m_n`$) is in leading order555We use here only the three light quarks for the running of $`\alpha _s`$ below $`M_W`$. The corresponding approximation $`m_t=m_b=m_c=M_W`$ can easily be improved for a more accurate quantitative treatment. proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$,

$$m_n(\chi )=c_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}(\chi )=c_nM_W(\chi )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{9\alpha _s(M_W)}\right)$$
(13)
This implies that the field dependence of the ratio between neutron mass and Planck mass $`(\overline{M}_p^2=M_p^2/(8\pi )=f^2\chi ^2/6)`$ obeys

$$L_{ng}(\chi )=\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_n(\chi )}{\overline{M}_p(\chi )}=\frac{2}{9}\mathrm{ln}\zeta _w\mathrm{ln}f\frac{8\pi ^2Z_F}{9\overline{g}^2}+\mathrm{const}.$$
(14)
Similarly, we define the ration

$$L_{Wn}(\chi )=\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_W(\chi )}{m_n(\chi )}$$
(15)
and observe

$$\frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=\frac{7}{9}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\zeta _w}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }+\frac{8\pi ^2}{9\overline{g}^2}\frac{Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }$$
(16)
The $`\chi `$-dependence of $`L_{ng}`$ can therefore be expressed as

$$\frac{L_{ng}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=\frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\frac{2\pi }{7\alpha _u}\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }+\frac{2}{7}\frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }$$
(17)
where we use the GUT-gauge coupling $`\alpha _u=g^2(\chi )/(4\pi )=\overline{g}^2/(4\pi Z_F(\chi ))1/40`$. Introducing the shorthands

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{ng}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{ng},{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}=\beta _{Wn},`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _F,{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}=B`$ (19)
we obtain the relation

$$\beta _{ng}=B36\eta _F+0.286\beta _{Wn}$$
(20)
The fine structure constant as observed by transitions in atoms and molecules corresponds to $`\alpha _{em}(m_e)`$ and is approximately given666We consider again only the effects of the three light quarks below $`M_W`$ and approximate $`m_\tau m_\mu m_e`$, neglecting $`\chi `$-independent constants. by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{em}(m_e)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{em}(M_W)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_W}{m_n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{m_e}}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{368\pi Z_F}{27\overline{g}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{27\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\zeta _W{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}L_{en}+\mathrm{const}.`$ (22)
Here the electron to neutron mass ratio

$$L_{en}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_e(\chi )}{m_n(\chi )}$$
(23)
typically depends on the Fermi scale and the electron-Yukawa coupling. The field dependence of the fine structure constant therefore combines from the $`\chi `$-dependence of the GUT-gauge coupling $`(Z_F)`$, the $`\chi `$-dependence of the gauge hierarchy $`(\zeta _W)`$ and $`L_{en}`$. Assuming for simplicity $`m_e(\chi )M_W(\chi )`$ or $`L_{en}=L_{Wn}+const`$, the $`\chi `$-dependence of the fine structure constant becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}\alpha _{em}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22}{7\alpha _u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{21\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`126{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}0.26{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ (25)
or

$$\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=6.710^3\eta _F+1.410^5\beta _{Wn}$$
(26)
Combining eqs. (17) and (24) we can relate the relative change in the nucleon mass to the relative change in $`\alpha _{em}`$

$$d\mathrm{ln}m_n=\frac{\pi }{11\alpha _{em}}d\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}+\frac{7}{33}d\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_W}{m_n}+d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{GUT}}$$
(27)
This generalizes earlier estimates to situations where the weak scale becomes time dependent.

Electromagnetic effects and the difference between the mass of the up and down quark can also induce a $`\chi `$-dependence in the ratio between the proton and neutron mass. This will lead to a composition dependence of gravity-like long-range forces which can be looked for by tests of the equivalence principle. With

$`m_nm_p`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{A}(m_dm_u)\widehat{B}\alpha _{em}m_n,`$ (28)
$`\widehat{A}`$ $``$ $`0.6,\widehat{B}0.1`$ (29)
one finds

$$L_{Hn}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_p+m_e}{m_n}\widehat{B}\alpha _{em}\widehat{A}\frac{m_dm_u}{m_n}+\frac{m_e}{m_n}$$
(30)
For constant $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`L_{Hn}`$ is related to the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`\alpha _{em}`$ (26) and the combination

$$r_q=\frac{\widehat{A}(m_dm_u)m_e}{m_n}=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{h}_1/g_w)M_W}{m_n}$$
(31)
with $`\stackrel{~}{h}_1`$ a suitable combination of Yukawa couplings. Neglecting for simplicity the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_1/g_w`$ we may approximate, with $`r_q1.310^3`$,

$$\frac{L_{Hn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }0.1\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }r_q\beta _{Wn}$$
(32)
We observe that a contribution $`\beta _{Wn}`$ will also appear777More precisely, $`L_{Wn}`$ stands here for $`\mathrm{ln}(m_q/m_n)`$ \+ const., with $`m_q`$ an appropriate current quark mass. in a more refined treatment for which the precise value of $`r_q`$ in eq. (32) may get somewhat modified.

A second composition dependence can arise from the nuclear binding energy : the relative contribution of the quark mass to the mass of nuclei may depend on the baryon number B (or also the charge Z). The average mass of the light quarks, $`m_1=(m_u+m_d)/2`$, contributes a fraction of the nucleon mass888For these considerations we neglect isospin violation whose dominant effect is already contained in $`L_{Hn}`$.

$$m_n=c_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}+\widehat{E}m_1$$
(33)
Let us introduce an average nuclear binding energy per nucleon $`ϵ`$ and assume, for simplicity, that it is independent of $`m_1`$, i.e. $`ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and $`m_1`$ depend differently on $`\chi `$, the coupling of the cosmon to a nucleus will not be exactly proportional to mass but also depend on the relative amount of binding energy. One finds, for $`m_1M_W`$ and $`\sigma 4060`$ MeV the nucleon $`\sigma `$-term :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{bn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(ϵ/m_n)}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}\widehat{E}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_1/m_n)}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ (34)
$`\widehat{E}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(M_W/m_n)}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{m_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}0.05\beta _{Wn}`$ (35)
At this point we have expressed the $`\chi `$-dependence of all couplings and mass ratios relevant for our later discussion in terms of three parameters $`\eta _F,\beta _{Wn}`$ and $`B`$. Implicitely we will assume that these parameters are (approximately) independent of $`\chi `$ for the cosmological epoch relevant for our discussion. (This must not hold for the most general scenarios of quintessence.)

## IV Cosmological time variation of the cosmon field

So far we have investigated the dependence of the fundamental couplings on the cosmon field $`\chi `$. In order to translate this into a time dependence we need to know how $`\chi `$ depends on the the cosmological time $`t`$. This is the subject of this section. More explicitely, we need to derive the rate of change of the cosmon field, $`d\mathrm{ln}\chi /dt`$ for a given model of quintessence. Then we can translate eq. (26) into an equation for the time dependence of the fine structure constant and similar for other quantities.

In the last two sections we have used a description where all mass scales depend on $`\chi `$. This language is useful to underline that physical observables can only depend on dimensionless couplings or mass ratios. We never measure a mass or a time difference by itself – we rather express it in terms of some other mass scale which is used to set the units. In a strict sense, observables are therefore always dimensionless quantities. These statements become particularly apparent once one realizes that one can change the mass scales by an appropriate nonlinear field-dependent rescaling of the metric. For example, we will use below a Weyl scaling such that the Planck mass becomes a fixed ($`\chi `$-independent and therefore time-invariant) unit which we may arbitrarily fix as $`10^{19}`$ GeV. After the Weyl scaling, the $`\chi `$-dependence of a dimensionless ratio as $`m_n/\overline{M}_p`$ will be the same as before. However, in the previous language both $`m_n`$ and $`\overline{M}_p`$ did depend on $`\chi `$ whereas after the Weyl scaling only $`m_n`$ varies with $`\chi `$ and time. Similarly, there exists a scaling where $`m_n`$ becomes a constant and $`\overline{M}_p`$ is variable. The choice of the frame of the metric is a matter of convenience. In a sense, it fixes the (inverse) mass unit in which time differences are expressed. The cosmological time evolution of fundamental couplings is most easily studied in a frame where the Planck mass is kept fixed.

The Weyl-scaled metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ obtains by multiplying $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ by a function $`w^2(\chi )`$ such that $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=w^2g_{\mu \nu },\overline{g}^{1/2}=w^4g^{1/2},\overline{R}=w^2\{R6(\mathrm{ln}w);_\mu ^\mu 6(\mathrm{ln}w);^\mu (\mathrm{ln}w)_{;\mu }\}`$. Inserting the particular scaling function $`w=\sqrt{6}\overline{M}_p/(f\chi )`$ the Lagrange density (5) reads in the new variables

$`\sqrt{\overline{g}}_q`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{M}_p^2R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2(\phi )_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi `$ (37)
$`+\overline{M}_p^4\mathrm{exp}(\phi /\overline{M}_p)\}`$
Here $`\phi `$ is related to $`\chi `$ by

$$\phi =\overline{M}_p\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{f^4(\chi )\chi ^4}{36V(\chi )}\right)$$
(38)
and $`k(\phi )`$ is given implicitly as

$$k^2(\phi )=\frac{1}{16}\delta (\chi )\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{ln}V}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\right)^2$$
(39)
with

$$\delta (\chi )/6=Z_\chi /f^2+(1+\mathrm{ln}f/\mathrm{ln}\chi )^2$$
(40)
The quantity $`\delta `$ measures the deviation from a conformally invariant kinetic term. We make the important assumption that $`f^4\chi ^4/V`$ diverges999Alternatively, $`f^4\chi ^4/V`$ could also diverge for $`\chi 0`$. for $`\chi \mathrm{}`$ such that

$$\underset{\chi \mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (\chi )\mathrm{}$$
(41)
Then one can use a standard exponential form of the cosmon potential such that the details of the particular model of quintessence appear in the function $`k^2(\phi )`$ which multiplies the cosmon kinetic term . We emphasize that the effective action (37) covers all scenarios of quintessence where the kinetic term contains only two derivatives and the potential decreases monotonically to zero for large values of the scalar field. Other potentials can be brought to an exponential form by field-rescaling.

We observe that the variable $`\phi `$ is well defined as long as $`f^4\chi ^4/V`$ is monotonic in $`\chi `$ such that $`k(\phi )`$ remains finite. Stability requires $`k^2(\phi )0`$, which is possible even for negative $`Z_\chi `$. For any function $`k(\phi )`$ which remains positive and finite for all $`\phi `$ the dynamics of the cosmon-gravity system drives $`\phi `$ to infinity at large time. Therefore the cosmological constant asymptotically vanishes! We emphasize that the condition (41) and the finiteness and positivity of the expression (39) are sufficient for this purpose and no fine-tuning of parameters is needed! In particular, adding an arbitrary constant to $`V(\chi )`$ does not change this conclusion.

We complete the rescaling by writing the matter and radiation part of the Lagrangian (7) in the frame with constant Planck mass. Performing also an appropriate Weyl scaling of the spinor fields $`\psi w^{3/2}\psi `$ and of the Higgs-scalar $`Hw^1H`$ (the gauge fields are not modified), the kinetic terms become

$$\sqrt{\overline{g}}_m=\frac{1}{4}Z_F(\phi )F_{\mu \nu }^zF^{z\mu \nu }+iZ_\psi (\phi )\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi +\mathrm{}$$
(42)
All mass ratios are invariant with respect to the Weyl scaling. Therefore the $`\chi `$-dependence of the mass ratios directly carries over to a $`\phi `$-dependence. In particular, the quantities $`L_{ng},L_{en}`$ etc. and the fine structure constant are not affected by the Weyl scaling.

The time variation of couplings is most conveniently expressed by their dependence on the redshift $`z`$ (which is closely related to the cosmological “look back time”). An estimate needs information about the cosmological history of the cosmon field. Depending on the question, two pieces of information may be available for a given model.
(i) It may be possible to estimate the difference in the value of $`\phi `$ between some early epoch, say nucleosynthesis, and now, $`\delta \phi (z)=\phi (z)\phi (0)`$. The change of the fine structure constant at the time of nucleosynthesis as compared to now can then be expressed as

$$\delta \alpha _{em}(z)=\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{\phi }\delta \phi (z)$$
(43)
(with straightforward generalization for non-constant $`\alpha /\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ or $`\mathrm{ln}\chi /\phi )`$.
(ii) Differential changes - for example for the recent epoch - can be computed by

$$\frac{\alpha _{em}(z)}{z}=\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{z}=\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }G(z)$$
(44)
We will relate $`G(z)`$ to the equation of state of quintessence.

In order to compute the r.h.s. of eqs. (43)(44) we have to trace back the cosmological history of $`\phi `$. A useful form of the cosmological evolution equation  for $`\phi `$ replaces time by $`\mathrm{ln}a=\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{d\mathrm{ln}a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{M}_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{6(\rho _\phi V(\phi ))}{k^2(\phi )(\rho _m+\rho _r+\rho _\phi }}\right)^{1/2}`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho _\phi }{d\mathrm{ln}a}}`$ $`=`$ $`6\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V(\phi )}{\rho _\phi }}\right)`$ (46)
Here $`V(\phi )=\overline{M}_p^4\mathrm{exp}(\phi /\overline{M}_p),\rho _\phi =V(\phi )+\dot{\phi }^2/2`$ is the total energy density of quintessence, and $`\rho _m,\rho _\rho `$ stand for the energy density of matter and radiation. We assume zero spatial curvative such that $`\rho _m+\rho _r+\rho _\phi =\rho _{cr}=3\overline{M}_p^2H^2=3\overline{M}_p^2(\dot{a}/a)^2`$. The solution to these equations yields directly the dependence of $`\phi `$ on the redshift $`z`$, and, via eq. (38), therefore $`d\mathrm{ln}\chi /dz`$.

To be more specific, let us consider a behavior for large $`\chi `$ with $`V\chi ^{4A},f\chi ^B`$ such that

$$k^2=\frac{\delta }{(A+4B)^2}$$
(47)
This can easily be extended to the most general cosmon potential and gravitational coupling if we allow A and B to depend on $`\chi `$

$$A=4\frac{\mathrm{ln}V}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }$$
(48)
For small enough and slowly varying $`k(\phi )`$ the cosmology of our model is well known . It behaves like “exponential quintessence” where the fraction of dark energy approaches a constant value. During the radiation-dominated $`(n_b=4)`$ or matter-dominated $`(n_b=3)`$ universe, the homogeneous quintessence $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_h=\rho _\phi /\rho _{cr})`$ reaches after some “initial evolution” the value

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h=n_bk^2$$
(49)
This is independent of the precise initial condition. A small amount of dark energy in early cosmology typically requires approximate conformal symmetry of the kinetic term, $`\delta 1`$. In a more recent epoch, however, the qualitative behavior may have changed. An increase of $`\delta `$ (and therefore $`k`$) can lead to a realistic cosmology where $`\rho _\phi `$ accounts today for two third of the total energy density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h2/3`$ .

Our conventions have the advantage that the value of $`\phi `$ at some earlier epoch in cosmology is directly related to the potential energy of the scalar field at a given redshift

$$V(z)=\overline{M}_p^4\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\phi (z)}{\overline{M}_p}\right)$$
(50)
The difference between the value $`\phi (z)`$ in some earlier epoch and today’s cosmological value $`\phi _0`$ obeys therefore the simple relation

$$\delta \phi (z)=\phi (z)\phi (0)=\overline{M}_p\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{V(z)}{V(0)}\right)$$
(51)
The corresponding value of $`\chi `$ follows from eq. (38) and we observe

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{\phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`[4\overline{M}_p(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}V}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }})]^1`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\overline{M}_p\sqrt{\delta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(A+4B)\overline{M}_p}}`$ (53)
In our conventions $`k`$ is positive if $`\phi `$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`\chi `$. With the help of the relations (51) and (52) we can now directly transfer the $`\chi `$-dependence of couplings and mass ratios computed in the last section to a dependence on $`\phi `$ and therefore on redshift.

$$\delta \alpha _{em}(z)=\frac{1}{A+4B}\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\frac{\delta \phi (z)}{M_p}$$
(54)
At this point $`A`$ enters as an additional parameter. For general quintessence models $`k(\phi )`$ determines the cosmology and therefore $`V(z)`$ whereas $`\delta (\phi )`$ is needed for the relation between cosmology and time-varying couplings.

We next want to estimate the differential redshift dependence (44) by computing $`G(z)=\mathrm{ln}\chi /z`$. One useful form combines eqs. (52) and (45),

$$G(z)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{z}=\frac{1}{1+z}\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)}{\delta }\right)^{1/2}$$
(55)
Here we use the equation of the state of quintessence

$$w_h=\frac{p_\phi }{\rho _\phi }=\frac{TV}{T+V},T=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2$$
(56)
We observe that the time variation of couplings is suppressed for large $`\delta `$ and for $`w_h1`$. In particular, there exist models of quintessence where the time evolution of quintessence is very slow today such that $`T|V|,w_h1`$. Then the phenomenology approaches the one for a cosmological constant for which no time variation of the couplings is expected.

Another useful relation expresses $`G(z)`$ in terms of $`w_h(z)`$. For this purpose we invert eq. (45)

$`k(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)\right)^{1/2}/(d\mathrm{ln}V/d\mathrm{ln}a)`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)}}{3(1+w_h)d\mathrm{ln}(1w_h)/d\mathrm{ln}a}}`$ (58)
and use $`V/\rho _\phi =(1w_h)/2`$. Inserting this in eqs. (55), (52) yields the wanted result

$$G(z)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{z}=\frac{1}{A+4B}\left\{\frac{3(1+w_h)}{1+z}\frac{dw_h/dz}{1w_h}\right\}$$
(59)
We can draw a few simple conclusions:
(i) The quantities $`\eta _F,\beta _{Wn}`$ and $`B`$ introduced in the last two sections always appear in the combinations $`\eta _F/(A+4B),\beta _{Wn}/(A+4B),B/(A+4B)`$ as far as the time evolution is concerned.
(ii) The dependence of the fundamental constants on $`z`$ is not linear. Even for $`\eta _F,\beta _{Wn},A,B`$ and $`w_h`$ constant the rate of change of the couplings decreases for large $`z`$ proportional $`(1+z)^1`$.
(iii) The change in $`\alpha _{em}`$ is reduced during cosmological epochs when $`w_h`$ decreases with decreasing $`z`$ or when $`w_h`$ comes close to $`1`$. This is what happens in “leaping kinetic term quintessence”  or “conformal quintessence”  in the very recent period. Such a feature may explain why observations seem to imply that $`d\alpha _{em}/dz`$ is much smaller for $`z0`$ than for $`z2`$.
(iv) We finally observe that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ does not appear in the relation between $`\chi `$ and $`z`$ and therefore does not affect the time evolution of the fundamental couplings. The latter depends only on the equation of state $`w_h`$. Of course, time varying couplings are possible even if the cosmon plays no role in late cosmology, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h1`$.

## V Time dependence of the fine-structure constant

In this section we turn to the time variation of the fine constant as reported  from quasar absorption lines at redshift $`z2`$. For $`z2`$ the recent history of quintessence matters and $`\delta \phi `$ depends sensitively on the particular model. We take here as a reasonable value for this range $`\delta \phi (z)/\overline{M}_p2`$. This means that the potential energy of the cosmon field at $`z2`$ was about eight times its present value. We can now estimate the relative change in $`\alpha _{em}`$ at $`z2`$ as compared to today

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha _{em}}{\alpha _{em}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \phi }{\alpha _{em}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{\phi }}2\overline{M}_p\alpha _{em}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}^1}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{\phi }}`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`\alpha _{em}\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{7\alpha _u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{42\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Wn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}\right)`$ (62)
$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}V}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}\right)^1`$
Using the definitions (18) (48) we arrive at the result that at redshifts $`z2`$ the relative change in the fine structure constant is given by

$$\frac{\delta \alpha _{em}}{\alpha _{em}}(1.84\eta _F+3.810^3\beta _{Wn})/(A+4B)$$
(63)
This is to be compared with the reported measurement  $`\delta \alpha _{em}/\alpha _{em}0.710^5`$. If the effect is mainly due to the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`Z_F`$ we conclude

$$\eta _F3.810^6(A+4B)$$
(64)
On the other hand, if the $`\chi `$-dependence of the ratio between the weak and strong scales dominates, one finds

$$\beta _{Wn}1.810^3(A+4B)$$
(65)
We assume here that there is no accidental cancellation between the two contributions such that either (64) or (65) (or both) should hold approximately.

## VI Modifications of nucleosynthesis

Let us next turn to nucleosynthesis $`(z10^{10})`$. Assuming the presence of early quintessence at the few percent level, we can estimate $`V_{ns}10^2\rho _{ns}310^2\overline{M}_p^2H_{ns}^2`$ or, with $`V_0\rho _0`$,

$`\delta \phi _{ns}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{M}_p(\mathrm{ln}(H_{ns}/H_0)\mathrm{ln}10)`$ (66)
$``$ $`2\overline{M}_p\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{10t_{ns}}}\right)75\overline{M}_p`$ (67)
We consider essentially constant $`\mathrm{ln}V/\mathrm{ln}\chi =4A,\mathrm{ln}f/\mathrm{ln}\chi =B`$ such that the corresponding value of $`\chi `$ obeys

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\chi _{ns}}{\chi _0}\right)=\frac{75}{A+4B}$$
(68)
If we further assume that $`\eta _F`$ and $`\beta _{Wn}`$ are almost $`\chi `$-independent, this yields (cf. eq. (24)) for the fine-structure constant during nucleosynthesis

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}^{ns}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{em}^0}=\frac{0.9510^4}{A+4B}\eta _F\frac{19.5}{A+4B}\beta _{Wn}0.035$$
(69)
The relative change $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}2.610^4`$ is presumably too small to be observable at present by purely electromagnetic effects , . The same holds for the cosmic microwave background  since the relative change in $`\alpha _{em}`$ at last scattering is smaller 101010We discuss here the homogeneous spatially averaged value of $`\alpha _{em}`$ and define the relative change in comparison with the present value. For a discussion of inhomogeneities in $`\alpha _{em}`$ see . than for nucleosynthesis if $`\alpha _{em}`$ depends monotonically on $`\chi `$.

However, in a grand unified theory the change in $`\alpha _{em}`$ is related to the change of the nucleon mass by eq. (27). The variation of $`m_n/\overline{M}_p`$ constitutes the dominant effect of time varying couplings for nucleosynthesis . The analogue of eq. (69) for the nucleon mass (for fixed Planck mass) obtains from eq. (17)

$$\frac{m_n^{ns}}{m_n^0}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{75B}{A+4B}+\frac{2700}{A+4B}\eta _F\frac{21.4}{A+4B}\beta _{Wn}\right\}$$
(70)
The relative change due to the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`Z_F`$ is $`10^2`$. There has been a debate  about the precision with which such a change can be seen with the present accuracy of element abundances. (Remember that this quantity concerns the common mass scale for neutrons and protons.) If one takes the attitude that the observed He-abundance deviates by no more than $`0.8\%`$ from the value computed with constant couplings one infers the bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M}_p)<0.025`$. (This corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}<6.410^4`$ if $`\eta _F`$ dominates.) We find that this bound is obeyed if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ is dominated by $`\eta _F`$.

On the other hand, if the time-dependence of $`\alpha _{em}`$ is due to the change in $`L_{Wn}`$, the relative change in the nucleon mass $`\delta m_n/m_n410^2`$ turns out to be substantially larger. This may indeed influence the details of nucleosynthesis. Inserting the value (65), all QCD mass scales (including binding energies etc.) would be enhanced by 4 % as compared to today. Equivalently, we may keep a fixed strong interaction scale111111Furthermore, for $`\beta _{Wn}0`$ there are effects from the change of weak interaction and decay rates as compared to a fixed nucleon mass which are discussed below. and discuss the effect of a Planck mass that is lower by 4 % as compared to today. (Only the ratio matters!) This would affect the relation between the temperature and the Hubble parameter and therefore modify the relevant “clock”. The net effect is a value of $`H^2`$ that is larger by 8 % for a given temperature characteristic for nucleosynthesis, similar to the addition of half a neutrino species.

An important constraint arises for the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`f`$. Discarding conservatively a change of more than 10 % of the nucleon mass at nucleosynthesis, we obtain the bound

$$|\frac{B}{A+4B}|\stackrel{<}{}1.310^3$$
(71)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M}_p)<0.025`$ as discussed above this bound gets more severe by a factor 4.

We note, however, that for negative $`B`$ the ratio $`m_n/\overline{M}_p`$ during nucleosynthesis would be lower than in the usual scenario. Therefore the effect of the reduced nucleon mass (or enhanced Planck mass) could be compensated by a larger amount of quintessence during nucleosynthesis. In order to test possible effects of this type, we propose to treat the proportionality constant in the law $`HT^2`$ as a free parameter. The number of “effective neutrino species” could come out even smaller than three. Such an outcome would point to a time variation of fundamental “constants”!

We also may have a look at the change in characteristic mass ratios or interaction rates during nucleosynthesis. The first concerns the ratio $`m_e/m_n`$ which is given in our approach by $`\mathrm{exp}L_{Wn}`$. With eq. (65) this ratio would increase by 14 %! Similarly, the pion to nucleon mass ratio would increase by 7 %. (In our approximation $`m_u+m_dm_e`$ one has $`\delta \mathrm{ln}(m_\pi /m_n)=\frac{1}{2}\delta \mathrm{ln}(m_e/m_n)`$). The changes in weak interaction rates $`M_W^4`$ are even more dramatic: the $`\beta `$-decay rate of the neutron would decrease by more than 50 %! This effect seems too strong to be acceptable, and we conclude that the nucleosynthesis bound on the size of $`\beta _{Wn}`$ seems to be more severe than the estimate (65). In turn, this suggests that the most plausible origin of a time dependence in $`\alpha _{em}`$ arises from the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`Z_F`$. A more detailed analysis would be welcome. We will see in the next section that even more restrictive bounds on $`\beta _{Wn}`$ arise from tests of the equivalence principle.

Finally, we briefly discuss the proton-to-neutron mass ratio which obeys a formula closely similar to (32). The electromagnetic effect is tiny (a few times $`10^5`$) and we concentrate on the change of $`L_{Wn}`$. The relative change for nucleosynthesis is

$$\delta \mathrm{ln}\frac{m_p}{m_n}\frac{0.1}{A+4B}\beta _{Wn}$$
(72)
This corresponds to $`210^4`$ inserting (65) and becomes even smaller for smaller $`|\beta _{Wn}|`$. We conclude that the most important issues for nucleosynthesis are the possible change of the weak interaction rates which constrains $`\beta _{Wn}`$ and the change in the clock which constrains $`B`$.

## VII Composition-dependent forces with gravitational strength

If the time variation of the fine structure constant is explained by the variation of a scalar field this immediately implies the existence of a new interaction. The cosmon field can depend on time and on space, and the space variation is intimately connected to a force. Similar to gravity or electromagnetism a source for the cosmon field will generate an inhomogeneous cosmon field around it. For a test body in the cosmon field the potential energy depends on the location, resulting in an effective force. For the cosmon, this force is long ranged and composition dependent .

In this section we discuss the composition dependence of the “fifth force”-type interaction mediated by the exchange of the cosmon. This will yield restrictive bounds for the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation.

The cosmon-interaction is most easily computed in the Weyl-scaled language of sect. 4, where the kinetic terms for the cosmon and graviton are diagonal. On scales of our solar system or smaller the cosmon is massless for all practical purposes 121212In this respect quintessence differs from the intermediate range force discussed in .. Its coupling to matter is at most of gravitational strength. It is therefore convenient to interpret the effects of the cosmon exchange as modifications of Newtonian gravity which are dependent on the composition of the test bodies. For a fermion at rest the gravitational charge is given by its renormalized mass $`m_f/(\sqrt{2}\overline{M}_p)`$, whereas the corresponding cosmon charge $`Q_f`$ obtains by linearizing the $`\phi `$-dependence of the mass $`m_f=m_f(\phi _0)+(m/\phi )(\phi _0)(\phi \phi _0)`$ as

$$Q_f=k^1\frac{m_f}{\phi }$$
(73)
Here the factor $`k^1`$ reflects that a field $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ with standard kinetic term is related to $`\phi `$ by $`d\stackrel{~}{\phi }=kd\phi `$. In complete analogy to gravity the cosmon mediates a composition-dependent correction to the gravitational $`1/r`$ potential. Newton’s law for the attraction between to identical fermions is multiplied by a factor $`(1+\alpha _f)`$

$`V_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_Nm_f^2}{r}}(1+\alpha _f),`$ (74)
$`\alpha _f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_f^2\overline{M}_p^2}{m_f^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{M}_p^2}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}m_f}{\phi }}\right)^2`$ (75)
In eq. (74) the quantities $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}m_f/d\phi `$ and therefore $`\alpha _f`$ are evaluated at the appropriate “background value” $`\phi _0`$. The composition dependence arises from the fact that $`\mathrm{ln}m_f/\phi `$ is different for different species of fermions.

This discussion is easily generalized to a situation with many particles. For laboratory experiments one computes the total cosmon charge of the earth, $`Q_E=k^1M_E/\phi `$, in complete analogy to the total mass $`M_E`$ relevant for gravity. This will then get multiplied by individual cosmon charges of the test bodies (73). Due to the very long range of the cosmon interaction the acceleration of the test bodies does not depend on the location - this differs from earlier versions of a scalar mediated fifth force with intermediate range . The relative acceleration of the test bodies depends solely on their composition. In turn, the cosmon charge can be related to the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation discussed in sects. 2, 3 by

$$\frac{\overline{M}_p}{k}\frac{\mathrm{ln}m}{\phi }=\frac{1}{k(A+4B)}\frac{\mathrm{ln}m}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }$$
(76)
We notice that the normalization factor $`k^1`$ implies that bounds from tests of the equivalence principle will always involve products of the type $`\eta _F/\left((A+4B)k\right)`$, in contrast to bounds from the time variation of couplings where the factor $`k^1`$ does not appear explicitely. This seems to make the relation somewhat less direct. We emphasize, however, that $`k(\phi _0)`$ is closely related to the equation of state of quintessence at the present epoch according to eq. (57). At the end of this section we will present an explicit relation between $`\alpha _{em}/z`$ at $`z=0`$ and the tests of the equivalence principle.

We want to compute the relative differential acceleration $`\eta =2|a_1a_2|/|a_1+a_2|`$ for two test bodies with equal mass $`m_t`$ but different composition. For this purpose we describe the earth as a collection of $`N_E`$ neutrons and $`Z_E`$ protons, and similar for the test bodies. The total mass of an atom and similar for extended objects is given by $`(B=N+Z)`$

$$M=Nm_n+Zm_H+Bϵ$$
(77)
with $`m_H=m_p+m_e`$ and $`ϵ`$ the nuclear binding energy per baryon131313The proportionality of the nuclear binding energy to baryon number is an approximation that could be replaced by a more complicated nuclear mass formula.. This yields

$$\eta =\frac{2\overline{M}_p^2}{k^2M_Em_t}\frac{M_E}{\phi }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }N\frac{m_n}{\phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }Z\frac{m_H}{\phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }B\frac{ϵ}{\phi }\right)$$
(78)
where the equality of the test masses implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_n+\mathrm{\Delta }Zm_H+\mathrm{\Delta }Bϵ=0$$
(79)
We also define $`\overline{m}=M_E/(N_E+Z_E)`$, the difference in the proton fraction of the two test bodies $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z=\mathrm{\Delta }Zm_H/m_t`$ and similar for the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_B=\mathrm{\Delta }Bϵ/m_t`$. The differential acceleration

$$\eta =\frac{2\overline{M}_p^2}{k^2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\overline{m}}{\phi }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z\frac{L_{Hn}}{\phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }R_B\frac{L_{bn}}{\phi }\right)$$
(80)
can then be related to the $`\phi `$-dependence of the partial mass ratios as given by $`L_{Hn}`$ and $`L_{bn}`$ in eqs. (30), (34). Typical experimental bounds  $`|\eta |310^{13}`$ are obtained for materials with $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z0.060.1,\mathrm{\Delta }R_B310^3`$ or smaller.

With eq. (52) and $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{m}/\phi (L_{ng}/\mathrm{ln}\chi )`$ $`(\mathrm{ln}\chi /\phi )`$ we can finally express $`\eta `$ as a function of the quantities estimated previously (17), (32), (34)

$$\eta =\frac{2}{\delta }\frac{L_{ng}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z\frac{L_{Hn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }+\mathrm{\Delta }R_B\frac{L_{bn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }\right)$$
(81)
and therefore relate it to the functions $`f,V,Z_\chi `$ an $`Z_F`$ introduced in eqs. (5), (7). Since comparison of different materials is used in the tests for composition-dependent forces, we exclude cancellations and apply the bound for $`\eta `$ separately to the two contributions in the bracket of eq. (81).

We consider first the case where the dominant contribution arises from the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`Z_F`$ and is given by eq. (64). This yields (in the limit $`\beta _{Wn}/\eta _F0,B/\eta _F0`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Hn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}2.510^9(A+4B),{\displaystyle \frac{L_{bn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}=0,`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{ng}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`36\eta _F=1.410^4(A+4B)`$ (83)
and one estimates

$$\eta 710^{14}/k^2$$
(84)
This comes close to the present experimental bounds! The issue depends crucially on the value of $`k^2`$. In early cosmology the amount of quintessence cannot have been too important. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d<0.2`$ during structure formation one has $`k^2<0.07`$ during this period (cf. eq. (49)). For this range of $`k^2`$ one would expect that a violation of the equivalence principle should already have been detected. However, if quintessence accounts for a large fraction of dark energy today, the effective value of $`k^2`$ must be higher at present , typically of the order one. For these larger values 141414It is not excluded that the microscopic value of $`k^2`$ which enters eq. (84) differs from the effective value of $`k^2`$ which determines the time evolution of quintessence. It is conceivable that the present comparably large value of $`k^2`$ is an effect of the “backreaction” of structure formation , whereas the microscopic value is smaller. of $`k^2`$ we still infer that composition-dependent modifications of Newton’s law should be in the detectable range!

We conclude that the compatibility of the reported time variation of the fine structure constant with present bounds on composition-dependent modifications of gravity starts to place bounds on particular models of quintessence. With $`k^2>0.7`$ and constant $`w_h`$ we infer from eq. (57) the bound

$$w_h\stackrel{<}{}0.65$$
(85)
This bound is comparable to the one from supernovae observations . It relies, of course, on the assumption that the reported variation of the fine structure is confirmed. We emphasize that our estimate of the strength of composition-dependent forces is much higher than in refs. , . This is due to the fact that not only purely electromagnetic effects enter into the determination of the cosmon field of the earth. The latter is proportional to $`\beta _{ng}`$, and in eq. (17) we relate this quantity to the $`\chi `$-dependence of the ratio between the strong interaction scale and the Planck mass.

The strength of the source of the cosmon field can be enhanced by a larger value of $`L_{ng}/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ due to a nonvanishing $`B=\mathrm{ln}f/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$, cf. eq. (20). If we insert the upper bound (71), this would enhance $`\eta `$ by a factor of 10. Clearly, this brings the differential acceleration into a range where it should have been observed by experiment! The present bounds on $`\eta `$ may therefore be used to strengthen the bound on $`|B|`$ as compared to the bound (71) from nucleosynthesis if $`k^2<2`$, i.e.

$$\left|\frac{B}{A+4B}\right|\stackrel{<}{}610^4k^2$$
(86)
Finally, we look at the possibility that the composition-dependent force is dominated by the $`\chi `$-dependence of the ratio between the weak and strong interaction scales $`L_{Wn}/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$. In this case, one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{Hn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`1.3\beta _{Wn},{\displaystyle \frac{L_{bn}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}=0.05\beta _{Wn},`$ (87)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{ng}}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.286\beta _{Wn}`$ (88)
and the contribution from the $`\chi `$-dependence of the binding energy and the proton-neutron mass difference are of the same order. We conclude

$$|\eta |=\frac{8.610^5}{k^2}[\beta _{Wn}/(A+4B)]^2$$
(89)
and infer the approximate bound

$$|\beta _{Wn}|\stackrel{<}{}610^5k(A+4B)$$
(90)
This is so far the strongest bound on $`\beta _{Wn}`$. Comparing with eq. (65), we see that the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`L_{Wn}`$ can only give a small contribution to the time dependence of the fine structure constant and may be neglected!

Furthermore, the bound may even get stronger if $`\beta _{ng}`$ is dominated by $`\eta _F`$ or $`B`$. Indeed, we learn from eq. (90) that the contribution $`\beta _{Wn}`$ is typically smaller than the first two terms in eq. (20). If $`\beta _{ng}`$ is dominated by $`\eta _F`$, the limit on composition-dependent forces implies

$$|\beta _{Wn}|\stackrel{<}{}710^6k^2|A+4B|$$
(91)
This bound holds unless the first two terms in eq. (20) cancel each other. The small value of $`|\beta _{Wn}|`$ implies that the second term on the r.h.s. of eq. (27) is small such that

$$d\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_n}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}=\frac{\pi }{11\alpha _{em}}d\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}=39d\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}$$
(92)
This relates the variation of the fine structure constant to the variation of the nucleon mass. Our formula (92) is somewhat analogous to . We emphasize, however, that it involves $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and not $`\overline{M}_p`$. This is important since the appearance of $`B`$ in

$`d\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{\overline{M}_p}}`$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}}+d\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}{\overline{M}_p}}`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{11\alpha _{em}}}d\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}Bd\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ (94)
destroys the one to one correspondence between the variations of the two quantities.

In the limit $`B=0,\beta _{Wn}=0`$ the differential acceleration can be related directly to $`\alpha _{em}/zs`$ at zero redshift. Indeed, with eqs. (44)(56) one has

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}(z)}{z}_{|z=0}=\eta _FG(0)=\eta _F\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}(1+w_h^{(0)})}{\delta }\right)^{1/2}$$
(95)
Eq. (81) yields

$$\eta =7.2\alpha _{em}\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z\eta _F^2/\delta $$
(96)
and we observe that the relation

$$\eta =1.7510^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{z}\right)_{|z=0}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z}{\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}(1+w_h^{(0)})}$$
(97)
becomes independent of $`k`$ or $`\delta `$. In this relation the only model dependence appears through the quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}`$ and $`w_h^{(0)}`$. We emphasize that the relation (97) holds for arbitrary scalar fields mediating the new force. This can be traced back to the observation that the expression

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{z}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}\frac{\dot{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}}{H}$$
(98)
is independent of the normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$. We can therefore choose a standard kinetic term with $`T=\dot{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}^2/2=\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)\rho _{cr}/2`$ or

$$\frac{\dot{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}^2}{H^2}=3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h).$$
(99)
Therefore the scalar charge Q (eq. (73))

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}}`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{z}}\left[3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)\right]^{1/2}`$ (101)
involves besides $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}/z`$ (at $`z=0`$) only the dependence of the masses on $`\alpha _{em}`$ (including the indirect influence by eq. (93)) and the fraction of scalar energy density over the critical energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$, as well as the equation of state $`w_h`$. Since $`1+w_h2`$ a sizeable variation of fundamental constants is compatible with the bounds on the differential acceleration only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ is not too far below $`1`$! This provides an additional argument in favor of the association of the scalar field with the cosmon. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}0.7`$ and $`w_h^{(0)}`$ can be measured by cosmological observations.

The factor $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ in eq. (2) accounts for the effects of $`\beta _{Wn}`$ and $`B`$ that we have discussed quantitatively above.

## VIII Bounds on field-dependent couplings

We have seen that tests of the time variation of the fine structure constant, cosmological constraints from nucleosynthesis and the search for composition-dependent corrections to Newton’s law all test the field dependence of couplings. We have simplified the situation by concentrating on four quantities, $`\eta _F=\mathrm{ln}Z_F/\mathrm{ln}\chi ,B=\mathrm{ln}f/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$, $`A=4\mathrm{ln}V/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ and $`\beta _{Wn}=\mathrm{ln}(m_W/m_n)/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$. The first three are directly related to the effective action at the unification scale (5), (7), whereas $`\beta _{Wn}`$ stands collectively for the $`\chi `$-dependence of various couplings relevant for weak interactions and fermion masses. The first quantity,

$$\eta _F=\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_F}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=\frac{1}{2g(\chi )}\frac{g(\chi )}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta _g}{g}$$
(102)
describes the dependence of the gauge coupling on the unification scale. It influences strongly the time dependence of the fine structure constant. We have argued that tests of the equivalence principle imply that the contribution $`\beta _{Wn}`$ in eq. (26) is small, such that

$$\alpha _{em}/\mathrm{ln}\chi 6.710^3\eta _F$$
(103)
If the reported time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ is confirmed, $`\eta _F`$ is determined151515We neglect $`|B|`$ as compared to $`|A|`$. as

$$\frac{\eta _F}{A}=3.810^6$$
(104)
(Otherwise $`\eta _F`$ should be even smaller in size.) In a unified theory the variation of the fine structure constant and the strong gauge coupling are related. Neglecting possible accidental cancellations in eq. (20), we infer from eq. (104) an approximate value for the variation of the ratio between the strong interaction scale or baryon mass and the Planck mass

$$|\beta _{ng}|=|\frac{\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M}_p)}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }|1.410^4|A|$$
(105)
The second quantity, $`B=\mathrm{ln}f/\mathrm{ln}\chi `$, modifies the ratio between the gravitational mass scales $`\overline{M}_p`$ and all particle physics mass scale. In particular, it gives an additional contribution $`\beta _{ng}=B+\mathrm{}`$. Tests of composition-dependent gravity like forces measure the strength of the “fifth force” mediated by the cosmon. In particular, the source of the cosmon field of the earth is proportional $`\beta _{ng}`$. From present bounds on the differential acceleration between two test bodies of equal mass but different composition we have concluded that $`|\beta _{ng}|`$ cannot be much larger than its value (105) arising from $`\eta _F`$. Unless there is a cancellation this gives a similar bound on $`B`$, cf. (86). We therefore learn that $`B`$ must be much smaller in size than our third parameter $`A=\mathrm{ln}V/\mathrm{ln}\chi +4`$.

$$|B|\stackrel{<}{}610^4k^2|A|$$
(106)
We conclude that the variation in the ratio between particle masses and $`\overline{M}_p`$ is only a small effect for the cosmological evolution. The dynamics of quintessence depends only on $`A`$ and the scalar kinetic term, i.e. $`\delta `$ or $`Z_\chi /f^2`$. Actually, only very little is known about the shape of the cosmon potential or the parameter $`A`$. It may be as large as $`A=4`$ for $`V(\chi \mathrm{})const`$, or $`A=2`$ in case of a small mass term in the potential, $`V(\chi )=m^2\chi ^2`$ . It could also be in the vicinity of zero and even be negative. (For $`A<0`$ the cosmon field $`\chi `$ decreases towards zero for increasing time.) The cosmological dynamics of quintessence only depends on the ratio $`k^2\delta /A^26Z_\chi /(A^2f^2)`$.

Finally, we have also investigated the effect of a possible change in the ratio between the characteristic scales of weak and strong interactions. In order to keep the discussion simple, this was done in a very simplified setting where we have assumed that all particles whose masses arise from the Higgs mechanism show the same dependence on $`\chi `$ (i.e. $`M_Wm_em_um_d`$). A rather severe bound (90) arises from tests of the composition dependence of a fifth force, eq. (91).

$$|\beta _{Wn}|\stackrel{<}{}710^6k^2|A|$$
(107)
Since $`\beta _{Wn}`$ has a contribution $`2\pi \eta _F/(9\alpha _u)=10^4A`$ we conclude that a substantial cancellation between the two terms in eq. (16) seems necessary unless $`k\stackrel{>}{}3`$. This raises a question of naturalness for quintessence models with $`k\stackrel{<}{}2`$: somehow the physics determining fermion masses and the weak scale should “know” about the strong scale such that ratios become only very weakly dependent on $`\chi `$.

Another question of naturalness concerns the small value of $`\eta _F`$ that corresponds to the reported value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$. It implies a very weak dependence of the grand unified gauge coupling on the unification scale. As a comparison, a “QCD-like” $`\beta `$-function $`\beta _g/gg^2/16\pi ^2210^3`$ is much larger than the value $`\beta _g/g810^6A`$ corresponding to eq. (104) – the latter is rather of the order $`(g^2/16\pi ^2)^2`$. Already the small value of $`|\eta _F|`$ corresponding to the QSO-observation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ calls for an explanation. For example, the association of $`\chi `$ with one of the light scalar fields in a generic string vacuum typically leads to a much stronger $`\chi `$-dependence of the gauge coupling. A much smaller value of $`|\eta _F|`$ would even be harder to understand! A way out of this problem may be the attraction of an effective fixed point in the $`\chi `$\- dependence of $`g`$ . This could naturally explain a small value of $`|\eta _F|`$.

## IX Varying fundamental constants and observations on earth

Beyond cosmology, additional bounds on the time variation of coupling constants and mass ratios arise from observations on earth. For example, the Oklo natural reactor constrains  the variation per year for combinations of the electromagnetic fine structure constant and mass ratios characteristic for nuclear cross sections and decays as $`m_\pi /m_n`$ or $`M_W/m_n`$.

The issue if the time variation of couplings and mass ratios on earth should be the same as in cosmology needs some discussion. This concerns the question if the time variation of the cosmon field is the same on earth as in the whole universe. We emphasize that for the metric this is not the case: once a gravitationally bound object has decoupled from the cosmological evolution, the time variation of the metric in a local neighborhood around the object does not reflect the cosmological evolution of the metric any more. The gravity field near the earth is essentially stationary – its time variation corresponds to motions in our solar system and has nothing to do with the cosmological time evolution. If the situation would be same for the cosmon field, we would not expect a time variation of fundamental constants on earth.

We will see, however, that the cosmon field behaves very different from the metric. Its time variation reflects indeed the cosmological evolution, even around and within objects like the earth. The origin of this different behavior arises from the role of the scalar potential which is absent for the metric. To see this, we start from the scalar field equation (in the limit of constant $`k(\phi )=k`$) in a local region around a compact object

$$k^2D^2\phi +V^{}(\phi )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{\overline{M}_p}\rho $$
(108)
Here $`\rho `$ is the density of a spherically symmetric body (like the earth) which we take for simplicity as $`\rho =\rho _E`$ for $`r<R`$ and $`\rho =0`$ for $`r>R`$. Correspondingly, the coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ in eq. (108) reflects the cosmon coupling to the matter of the compact object. For the earth it is directly related to the cosmon charge discussed in sect. 7,

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\overline{M}_p\frac{}{\phi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_n}{\overline{M}_p}=\frac{\beta _{ng}}{A+4B}$$
(109)
We note that in general $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _E`$ may depend on $`\phi `$.

It is convenient to write $`\phi `$ in the form

$$\phi =\overline{\phi }(t)+\phi _{\mathrm{}}(r,t)+\phi _ϵ(r,t)$$
(110)
where $`\overline{\phi }(t)`$ is the homogenous cosmological “background” solution obeying

$$k^2(\ddot{\overline{\phi }}+3H\dot{\overline{\phi }})+V^{}(\overline{\phi })=\frac{\overline{\beta }}{\overline{M}_p}\overline{\rho }(t)$$
(111)
and $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the local quasistationary cosmon field which is the analogon to the gravity field of the earth. The size of $`\phi _ϵ`$ will determine the validity of an approximate “superposition solution” $`\phi \overline{\phi }+\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$. We will see that $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}/\overline{M}_p`$ and $`\phi _ϵ/\overline{M}_p`$ are much smaller than one (in contrast to $`\overline{\phi }/\overline{M}_p`$ which has today a value of $``$ 276) and we therefore expand

$$V^{}(\phi )=V^{}(\overline{\phi })+V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\phi })(\phi _{\mathrm{}}+\phi _ϵ)$$
(112)
The “local cosmon field” $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is almost stationary and obeys the quasistationary field equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{\mathrm{}}\mu ^2(\overline{\phi })\phi _{\mathrm{}}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\overline{\phi })}{k^2\overline{M}_p}\rho (r)=0$$
(113)
with

$$\mu ^2(\overline{\phi })=\frac{V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\phi }(t))}{k^2}$$
(114)
The mass term is small as compared to $`R^2`$, i.e. $`\mu RHR1`$, and we may neglect it. Then the equation for $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is analogous to Newtonian gravity and one finds

$$\phi _{\mathrm{}}(r,t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _E}{2\overline{M}_pk^2}(R^2\frac{1}{3}r^2)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & r<R\hfill \\ \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _ER^3}{3\overline{M}_pk^2r}\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & r>R\hfill \end{array}$$
(115)
This analogy between the local cosmon field of the earth, $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$, and Newtonian gravity was underlying our discussion of composition-dependent gravity like forces (or the “violation of the equivalence principle”) discussed in sect. 7. In consequence, the cosmon charges and $`\rho _E`$ are evaluated at the present value of $`\overline{\phi }`$. We emphasize, however, that the local cosmon field alone (i.e. $`\phi \phi _{\mathrm{}}`$) would be inacceptable as an approximation to the field equation (108) since $`V^{}(\phi _{\mathrm{}})=\overline{M}_p^3\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\phi _{\mathrm{}}}{\overline{M}_p})`$ is many orders of magnitude larger than $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _E/M_p`$. The cancellation of the force term $`V^{}`$ needs the presence of the background field $`\overline{\phi }`$ also in the gravitationally “decoupled” local region. This constitutes the essential difference to local gravity. We see how the relevance of the “global clock” $`\overline{\phi }(t)`$ also for local gravitationally “decoupled regions” is directly linked to the presence of $`V^{}(\phi )0`$. Furthermore, only the solution $`\phi \overline{\phi }+\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ approaches the cosmological value $`\overline{\phi }`$ at large distances from the local object, as it should be.

In order to get a feeling for the size of $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$, we evaluate the local cosmon field at the surface of the earth

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{\mathrm{}}(R)}{\overline{M}_p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _ER^2}{3\overline{M}_p^2k^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_E}{4\pi \overline{M}_p^2R}}`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_E}{k^2}}210^{13}k^2`$ (117)
(Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }_E=6.910^{10}`$ is the Newtonian potential at the surface of the earth.) Assuming that $`\beta _{ng}`$ is dominated by $`\eta _F`$ as given by the reported cosmological time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$, one has (cf. eq. (104)) $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=1.410^4`$ which leads to the last estimate. Thus $`|\phi _{\mathrm{}}/\overline{M}_p|`$ is indeed a very small quantity and the approximation (112) is justified.

Finally, the size of $`\phi _ϵ`$ determines the accuracy of the approximate solution $`\phi \overline{\phi }+\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$. Its field equation

$`\ddot{\phi }_ϵ+3H\dot{\phi }_ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _ϵ+\mu ^2\phi _ϵ`$ (118)
$`=`$ $`(\ddot{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}+3H\dot{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\beta }\rho _{miss}}{k^2\overline{M}_p}}`$ (120)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho )}{\phi }}_{|\overline{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho }{k^2\overline{M}_p}}(\phi _{\mathrm{}}+\phi _ϵ)`$
has a source term generated by the time dependence of $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$. In presence of a possible coupling $`\overline{\beta }`$ of quintessence (i.e.$`\overline{\phi }`$) to the average cosmological energy density of matter and radiation $`\overline{\rho }`$ there is also a contribution due to the fact that space is empty in a certain region $`(r<r_R)`$ around the compact object, i.e.$`\rho _{miss}=\overline{\rho }\theta (r_Rr)`$. Finally, the last term reflects the $`\phi `$-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and the local density $`\rho _E`$. We note that the source term is nonvanishing only within a finite region around the compact object and we are therefore interested in solutions where $`\phi _ϵ`$ vanishes outside this region for $`rr_R`$.

The correction $`\phi _ϵ`$ is negligible in the vicinity of the compact object if the source term on the r.h.s. of eq. (118) is much smaller than the source term for $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ in eq. (113), i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _E/k^2\overline{M}_p`$. We will see that this is indeed the case. In leading order (neglecting relative corrections to $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ of the order $`\mu R`$) one has for $`r=R`$ (cf. eq. (115))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}}{\phi _{\mathrm{}}}}=_t\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\rho _ER^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\beta }\dot{\overline{\phi }}}{\overline{M}_p}}`$ (122)
$`\widehat{\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A+4B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}M_E}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}R}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }}\right)`$
The mass of the earth is proportional to the nucleon mass, $`\mathrm{ln}M_E/\mathrm{ln}\chi =\beta _{ng}`$, whereas $`R`$ is proportional to a typical atomic size. In our approximation $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is essentially constant. We see that the time variation of the local field is negligible as compared to the cosmological time variation

$$\frac{\dot{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}}{\dot{\overline{\phi }}}=\widehat{\beta }\frac{\phi _{\mathrm{}}}{\overline{M}_p}210^{17}k^2$$
(123)
Also the term $`3H\dot{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\beta }H^2\phi _{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{\beta }/\overline{M}_p)(\phi _{\mathrm{}}/M_p)\overline{\rho }`$ is suppressed as compared to $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\rho _E/\overline{M}_p)`$ by tiny factors $`(\overline{\rho }/\rho _E)(\phi _{\mathrm{}}/\overline{M}_p)`$ and similar for $`\ddot{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$. The other two source terms are also suppressed by very small factors $`\overline{\rho }/\rho _E`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }\phi _{\mathrm{}}/\overline{M}_p`$, respectively.

We conclude that in the vicinity of a local compact object the superposition of the cosmological background solution and a quasistationary local solution holds to high accuracy $`\phi \overline{\phi }+\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$. Furthermore, for a static local situation the time change of the cosmon field is completely dominated by the cosmological background solution. This establishes $`\overline{\phi }(t)`$ as a “universal clock” which determines the time variation of fundamental coupling constants independently of the details of a particular static local situation. The time variation of couplings measured on earth must be the same as anywhere else in the universe! Turning the argument around: any measurement of a time variation of couplings is directly connected to the cosmological time evolution of quintessence!

Let us next turn to bounds on the time variation of couplings from the Oklo natural reactor. We have argued previously that the outcome of any experiment or physical process can only depend on dimensionless couplings or ratios of masses. For the Oklo reactor, this holds, for example, for the relative fraction of $`Sm`$-isotopes from which bounds on the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ are derived. In particular, it cannot depend on the nucleon mass alone and the time variation cannot involve an isolated contribution $`\dot{m}_n/m_n`$. After all, we could always use a description in a frame where $`m_n`$ is constant. In this respect it is important to remember that the relevant clock for a given process should measure “seconds” in units of the appropriate inverse mass scale. For example, for radioactive decays the time unit is typically given by a weak decay rate $`m_n^3M_W^4`$. The appropriate time unit therefore also depends on the value of $`\overline{\phi }`$ and on time. A similar remark applies to the relevant unit of temperature.

The best way of keeping track of these issues is to express systematically all observables as dimensionless quantities which only can depend on dimensionless couplings and mass ratios. (We have always done so in this paper.) Typically, the Oklo natural reactor will therefore give bounds on the time variation of combinations of $`\alpha _{em},m_\pi /m_n,m_e/m_n`$ and $`M_W/m_n`$. Gravitational effects are unimportant such that ratios like $`m_\pi /\overline{M}_p`$ (or only $`m_\pi `$ for fixed $`\overline{M}_p`$) are not involved161616In this respect our discussion differs from .. In view of the small value of $`|\beta _{Wn}|`$ (eq. (91)) we may explore the hypothesis that the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ gives a dominant contribution. Under this condition one may infer a bound  $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/\alpha _{em}|\stackrel{<}{}10^7`$ for $`z0.13`$. This bound can be compared with our discussion of the QSO result in sect. 7 for which we have assumed $`\delta \phi (z_{\mathrm{QSO}})/\overline{M}_p2`$. Compatibility would require

$$\frac{\delta \phi (z=0.13)}{\overline{M}_p}\stackrel{<}{}0.03$$
(124)
or

$$\frac{V(z=0.13)V(0)}{V(0)}0.13\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V}{dz}\stackrel{<}{}0.03$$
(125)
Such a small change could only be consistent with a cosmology where in the present epoch (say $`z<1`$) the dark energy is dominated by the potential term and $`\phi `$ moves only very little. More quantitatively, we can express the bound (125) in terms of the equation of state of quintessence $`w_h`$, i.e.

$$1+w_h=\frac{\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2}{V+\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2/2}\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V}{dz}\stackrel{<}{}0.08$$
(126)
This bound is comparable to bounds from supernovae  and may be considered as an example how the combination of two different observations concerning the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ (QSO and Oklo) constrains the acceptable models of quintessence. However, in view of the many uncertainties, in particular concerning the influence of possible time variations of mass ratios on the Oklo bound, the bound (126) should only be interpreted as an indication that more robust data on the time variation of couplings will lead to interesting criteria distinguishing between different proposed models of quintessence.

For a given equation of state a bound

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)}{\alpha _{em}}<10^7\kappa $$
(127)
can be translated into a bound on $`\eta _F/A`$ using eqs. (26), (59)

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{z}}\right|`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10^7\alpha _{em}\kappa }{0.13}}=5.610^9\kappa `$ (128)
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _F}{A}}\right|`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5.610^9\kappa }{6.710^3G(0.13)A}}{\displaystyle \frac{3.210^7\kappa }{1+w_h}}`$ (129)
(We have neglected a possible $`z`$-dependence of $`w_h`$ in eq. (59).)

The local cosmon field $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ decays $`1/r`$ in outer space around the earth. One may therefore ask if precision measurements of fundamental couplings by satellite experiments could see different values as compared to laboratory experiments. The sensitivity of satellite experiments may be high, especially if a possible variation of couplings is correlated with a change of $`r`$ according to the orbit. The size of such an effect can be estimated from eq. (116). As an example, we compute the change of $`\alpha _{em}`$ for an orbit at $`r=2R`$

$$\frac{\delta \alpha _{em}}{\alpha _{em}}=\frac{0.9\eta _F}{A}\frac{\phi (2R)\phi (R)}{\overline{M}_p}=\frac{0.9\beta _{ng}\eta _F\mathrm{\Phi }_E}{A^2k^2}$$
(130)
With the QSO-estimate (104) and assuming that $`\beta _{ng}`$ is dominated by $`\eta _F`$ this yields

$$\frac{\delta \alpha _{em}}{\alpha _{em}}=3.310^{19}k^2$$
(131)
The effect is tiny. Measuring it, for example by using high precision “clocks” (atomic frequencies depend on $`\alpha _{em}`$) constitutes a hard experimental challenge. Using orbits exploring the larger variations of the cosmon field of the sun enhances the size of the signal.

## X Conclusion

Quintessence relates various interesting possible phenomena: a time or space dependence of fundamental constants, composition-dependent gravity like long-range forces and a dynamical dark energy of the universe, as well as possible modifications of the energy momentum conservation for matter and radiation in the cosmological equations. These issues are connected to the coupling of the cosmon field to matter and radiation, which can in turn be interpreted in terms of running couplings at the unification scale. Some of the relations between the variations of fundamental couplings or mass ratios do not rely on quintessence but rather on the assumption of grand unification. However, any field-theoretical description of a cosmological time variation of fundamental constants almost necessarily involves a scalar 171717A logical alternative is a second rank symmetry tensor. field which continues to evolve in time in the recent cosmological history . It is then quite natural (although not compulsory) to associate the potential and kinetic energy of this scalar field with dark energy and the scalar field with the cosmon . The field description of the time variation of couplings constitutes the link to tests of the equivalence principle. It is also needed for an answer to the question if the time variation of constants on earth should be the same as for cosmology (see sect. 9).

In principle, the various facets of the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation constitute a net of predictions in different areas of observation. Due to the presence of several unknown parameters like $`\eta _F,B,A,k`$ and “$`\beta _{Wn}`$”, this net is still rather loose. Under the assumption of the validity of the QSO observation our present bounds and values for the various parameters are summarized in sect. 8 and in eq. (128). For this we have assumed that $`\eta _F,B,A`$ and $`\beta _{Wn}`$ have been essentially constant for the relevant cosmological history. Interesting new features may show up if this is not the case.

For the moment, the reported QSO observation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ seems still consistent with the bounds from other observations. It comes, however, already near those bounds, especially for the tests of the equivalence principle and for the limits on the time variation of couplings inferred from the Oklo natural reactor . A further improvement of laboratory or satellite experiments concerning the time or space variation of couplings and the validity of the equivalence principle would be of great value. If the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ reported from the QSO is correct, new discoveries may be around the corner!

We may take an optimistic attitude and imagine that in a not too distant future several independent observations would measure effects of the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation. What would we learn from it about the fundamental interactions? First, a consistent picture of time varying fundamental constants would establish the existence of a new fifth force beyond gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions. Second, the time history of the variation of couplings directly “measures” important aspects of the time history of the cosmological value of the cosmon field. These aspects of the time history \- for example the equation of state $`w_h`$ \- would then be established completely independently of the cosmological observation. Comparing it with the time history needed for a realistic cosmology would provide us with very strong tests for the cosmological model!

Already now, the reported QSO observation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$, if confirmed, places important restrictions on quintessence. Models with a rather slow time evolution of the cosmon field in a recent epoch $`(z\stackrel{<}{}1)`$ and a more rapid evolution in the earlier universe $`(z\stackrel{>}{}1)`$ are clearly favored. More quantitatively, we have assumed a variation for the cosmon field $`\delta \phi (z=2)/\overline{M}_p2`$ for our numerical estimates. If the magnitude of the variation would be much smaller, the corresponding value of $`\eta _F`$ would be substantially larger, in contradiction with the tests of the equivalence principle.

Finally, we have seen that the various cosmon couplings can be related to the dependence of the couplings on the unification scale in a unified theory. Measuring the cosmon couplings would open a completely new window for the exploration of the physics at the unification scale!

Note added: Based on the present work a model of crossover quintessence has recently been proposed that is consistent with all observations and constraints on the time variation of couplings, tests of the equivalence principle and cosmology .