text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0203221 UCLA-02-TEP-3

Photons and Gravitons as Goldstone Bosons, and the Cosmological Constant

Per Kraus and E. T. Tomboulis

Department of Physics and Astronomy,

UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547,

pkraus, tombouli@physics.ucla.edu

We reexamine a scenario in which photons and gravitons arise as Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance. We study the emergence of Lorentz invariant low energy physics in an effective field theory framework, with non-Lorentz invariant effects arising from radiative corrections and higher order interactions. Spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz group also leads to additional exotic but weakly coupled Goldstone bosons, whose dispersion relations we compute. The usual cosmological constant problem is absent in this context: being a Goldstone boson, the graviton can never develop a potential, and the existence of a flat spacetime solution to the field equations is guaranteed.

March, 2002

1. Introduction

Massless particles can arise by a variety of mechanisms: gauge symmetry, chiral symmetry, supersymmetry, and the spontaneous breaking of global symmetry. The masslessness of the photon and graviton is typically associated with the existence of gauge symmetry; here we explore an alternative option in which it is associated with the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance, with the “gauge” fields arising as Goldstone bosons. This basic idea has a long history, dating back to the 1964 work of Bjorken . For related work see \[2,,3,,4,,5\].

At the level of low energy effective field theory, the usual argument in favor of exact gauge invariance is based on Lorentz invariance. Some form of gauge invariance is required in order to obtain an interacting, unitary, Lorentz invariant theory of massless particles with spin $`1`$ or $`2`$. In a manifestly Lorentz invariant formulation a violation of gauge invariance will typically imply a noncancellation of timelike and longitudinal modes, yielding a non-unitary S-matrix in the physical sector. In a noncovariant gauge fixed formulation unitarity is manifest, but the action is required to be formally gauge invariant in order to recover Lorentz invariance of the S-matrix.

Especially in the case of gravity, there are various motivations for exploring alternatives. First, it is a basic fact that we inhabit a universe that is not Lorentz invariant at large scales due to cosmological expansion. Second, in the case of gravity gauge invariance is insufficient to guarantee masslessness, since a potential $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\sqrt{g}`$ is allowed. Since a nonzero cosmological constant leads to a non-Lorentz invariant vacuum, the original motivation for gauge invariance is not actually realized.

As an alternative we turn to effective actions that yield massless photons and gravitons as Goldstone bosons of spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance. Of course, the effective theory must be consistent with the observed accuracy of Lorentz invariance at distances small compared to the curvature scale of the universe. This is achieved by effective theories consisting of three sorts of terms: gauge invariant kinetic terms, non-gauge invariant potential terms, and small corrections to these. The simplest example is $`=(F_{\mu \nu })^2V(A^\mu A_\mu )`$. As we will discuss, it is not too hard to generate such effective actions from some more conventional underlying dynamics. All terms in the action are taken to be Lorentz invariant; however the potential is assumed to give rise to a constant non-Lorentz invariant vacuum expectation value. The broken Lorentz generators imply the existence of massless Goldstone bosons. In the absence of the potential, the vacuum expectation value would have no physical effect, being pure gauge; in particular exact Lorentz invariance would be maintained. With the potential included gauge invariance is broken and with it exact Lorentz invariance. However, by definition the Goldstone bosons do not appear in the potential; the expansion of the potential is in terms of massive fields. Since Lorentz invariance is broken only by the potential, the breaking will be suppressed by the inverse mass of the heavy fields. So at low energies we will have an approximately Lorentz invariant theory of Goldstone bosons. The expansion of the potential to quadratic order in fluctuations simply acts a gauge fixing term, so the low energy theory is approximately that of photons or gravitons in a non-covariant gauge.

Actually, there are additional interesting complications in the quantum theory, where loops induce small non-Lorentz invariant kinetic terms. This leads to the appearance of additional non-Lorentz invariant but “weakly coupled” Goldstone bosons whose effects we discuss. Directly related to this is that it is crucial to study whether the form of our effective action is stable under radiative corrections, as these will generically induce all possible operators consistent with the symmetries. We study this question carefully, and find that with reasonable starting assumptions the resulting low energy physics appears approximately Lorentz invariant.

Motivated by the cosmological constant problem, a multitude of authors have experimented with modifying gravity in various ways (see  for a review of some attempts). From the point of view of low energy effective field theory the problem is that general covariance allows one – and only one – potential term, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\sqrt{g}`$, and so unless this term vanishes there exists no solution to the equations of motion with constant fields. But in a scenario in which the graviton is a Goldstone boson this problem does not arise, since a Goldstone boson can never acquire a potential. So even if some scalar field undergoes a phase transition, contributing a term $`V(\varphi _0)\sqrt{g}`$ to the effective action, one knows that the vacuum expectation value for massive fields can be shifted such that the Goldstone boson gravitons remain massless. Therefore, there will always exist an exact vacuum solution with constant fields, and on which propagate massless gravitons with approximately Lorentz invariant physics. This then guarantees the existence of the sort of solution one wants without fine tuning. However, one should note that there may also exist other solutions with space-time varying fields. A complete solution to the problem should address why a flat (or nearly flat) spacetime solution is preferred; we discuss this in section 3.

The first part of this paper is devoted to the detailed study of the photon as a Goldstone boson, but this is essentially a warmup for the more interesting case of gravity, which provides our main motivation. There does not seem to be any obvious advantage in producing the photon as a Goldstone boson, and we have made no attempt at a realistic model by including the other standard model fields. We should also stress that we will work in an effective field theory framework in which the graviton is to be thought of as a composite of more fundamental degrees of freedom. It may be worth mentioning why our scenario is not in conflict with the theorem of Weinberg and Witten , which rules out “composite gravitons” in a broad class of models. Specifically, the theorem states that a Lorentz invariant theory with a Lorentz invariant vacuum and a Lorentz covariant energy-momentum tensor cannot have a massless spin two particle in its spectrum. There is no conflict here since our vacuum will not be Lorentz invariant.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we study in detail the example of the photon as a Goldstone boson. The photon example illustrates most of the important general features and is much simpler computationally than the gravity case. We also discuss the relation to previous work on this subject. In section 3 we discuss the graviton and the cosmological constant problem in this context. Section 4 has some final comments, and Appendix A contains technical results for the gravity case.

2. Photon as Goldstone Boson

We begin by writing down a certain effective action for a vector field $`A_\mu `$ coupled to matter. The motivation for this form will be discussed subsequently. The action is to be thought of as an effective action defined at a UV cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We thus consider the Lagrangian

$$=N\left\{\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }V(A^\mu A_\mu )+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{derivatives}\right\}+_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,A_\mu )+𝒪(N^0).$$

In the above, $`N`$ is some large number, and we have written out the leading $`N`$ terms in the action. The action is Lorentz invariant – all indices being raised and lowered with the Minkwoski metric – but not gauge invariant. In particular, the potential $`V(A^\mu A_\mu )`$ is not gauge invariant; a crucial point is that this is the only non-gauge invariant term at leading order in $`N`$. In particular, the higher derivatives terms are terms like $`(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })^2`$, $`^\alpha F^{\mu \nu }_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }`$, etc. Similarly, the generic matter fields $`\varphi `$ are gauge invariantly coupled to $`A_\mu `$ in $`_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,A_\mu )`$. Apart from these stipulations the action is generic in the sense that all dimensionless couplings (apart from $`N`$) are of order unity; that is, all dimensionful quantities are of the order the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the appropriate power.

Since in our effective action we have explicitly excluded various terms which are consistent with the symmetries of the theory, two questions immediately come to the fore: how might an action of this form be generated from some underlying dynamics, and is the assumed structure of the action stable under radiative corrections? We now address these two points in turn.

2.1. Effective action from fermions

To show why an action of the form (2.1) is fairly natural, we show how it can be generated by integrating out some large number of fermion species. This will be a generalization of the original mechanism proposed by Bjorken , which considered four fermion interactions. So consider $`N`$ species of Dirac fermions $`\psi _i`$. We imagine these fermions being coupled to gauge fields which acquire masses at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Integrating out the massive gauge bosons will yield an infinite set of fermion interactions, and we will focus on the following subset:

$$_\psi =\overline{\psi }_i(i/m)\psi _i+N\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _{2n}\frac{\left(\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu \psi _i\right)^{2n}}{N^{2n}}.$$

Here, summation over flavor indices $`i`$ and spacetime indices $`\mu `$ is implied. We wrote the action to have a $`U(N)`$ flavor symmetry. The couplings $`\lambda _{2n}`$ are of order unity times the appropriate power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\lambda _{2n}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{46n}.$$

Factors of $`N`$ have been inserted in order to give a well defined large $`N`$ limit. In particular, the normalized bilinears $`𝒪^\mu =\frac{1}{N}\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu \psi _i`$ then have correlators scaling as $`N^0`$, and the action written in terms of $`𝒪`$ has an overall factor of $`N`$.

We will employ the standard trick of rendering the action quadratic in fermions by introducing an auxilliary field $`A^\mu `$. We therefore consider

$$_{\psi ,A}=\overline{\psi }_i(i/A/m)\psi _iNV(A^\mu A_\mu ).$$

The potential $`V`$ is a power series in $`A^\mu A_\mu `$ with coefficients chosen such that by solving the algebraic equations of motion for $`A^\mu `$ and substituting back in we recover (2.1). The most familiar case corresponds to a pure four fermion interaction, with only $`\lambda _2`$ nonvanishing, in which case $`V(A^\mu A_\mu )=A^\mu A_\mu /4\lambda _2`$. The quantum version of this theory is defined by a path integral (with a cutoff) over the fields $`\psi _i`$ and $`A^\mu `$. The idea is to imagine first doing the path integral over $`\psi _i`$ to yield an effective action for $`A^\mu `$. Since $`\psi _i`$ is minimally coupled to $`A^\mu `$, provided we choose a gauge invariant cutoff the terms in the effective action generated in this way will be gauge invariant. Furthermore, since there are $`N`$ species of fermions the effective action will have an overall factor of $`N`$. Therefore, the form of the effective action is that of the first set of terms in (2.1).

Now suppose we had included the other fermion terms in (2.1) that would certainly arise upon integrating out massive gauge fields. This will introduce other bilinears in the theory, e.g., $`\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _i`$, $`\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu ^\nu \psi _i`$, etc. The above procedure should then be generalized by introducing a new auxilliary field for each bilinear. Integrating out the fermions then yields an effective action for a set of interacting auxilliary fields. The analysis rapidly becomes complicated; however, one expects on general grounds that the auxilliary fields will acquire mass terms of order of the cutoff and so can be neglected at lower energies. By contrast, in our scenario certain components of $`A^\mu `$ will remain massless since they will correspond to Goldstone bosons.

To reiterate somewhat, in our approach where we consider $`A^\mu `$ as the only auxilliary field it is consistent to omit terms like $`(\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\mu \psi _i)^2\overline{\psi }_j/\psi _j`$ which might seem to lead to non-gauge invariant terms like $`f(A^\mu A_\mu )F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$ in the effective action for $`A^\mu `$. If such fermionic terms are to be included one should introduce a new scalar auxilliary field for the bilinear $`\overline{\psi }_i/\psi _j`$, and we are not doing this for the reasons stated above.

We have thus demonstrated one possible way of generating an effective action with the structure (2.1), though there are presumably other ways as well. For the most part we consider (2.1) in its own right, without reference to its origin.

2.2. Coupling to matter

By coupling a matter field $`\varphi `$ to the fermions via conserved currents, $`J^\mu (\varphi )\overline{\psi }_i\gamma _\mu \psi _i`$, we will generate the matter couplings given in (2.1). An easy way to accomplish this is to modify (2.1) by taking the mass for some of the fermions to be much less than the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this case we would keep the light fermions in the low energy effective action rather than integrating them out. From (2.1) we see that these fermions will be minimally coupled to $`A^\mu `$. Whether we use this or some other mechanism to generate the matter couplings, it will be important that the matter action is gauge invariant, at least up to the level of two derivative terms .

2.3. Stability under radiative corrections

Treating (2.1) as an effective field theory at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to extract out low energy physics we still need to integrate out the fluctuations of $`A^\mu `$. Since the potential term violates gauge invariance, once we start computing loop diagrams all possible Lorentz invariant, but not necessarily gauge invariant, terms will generically be generated. Some of these terms would lead, after spontaneous symmetry breaking, to large violations of Lorentz invariance at low energies and so need to be suppressed. The need to suppress such terms is our motivation for introducing the large number $`N`$. Given the form (2.1), the loop expansion is an expansion in $`1/N`$, so the dangerous terms will only arise at order $`N^0`$.

So at order $`N^0`$ we need to consider all possible Lorentz invariant terms generated by computing loop diagrams for $`A^\mu `$. At energies low compared to the cutoff we can restrict attention to terms with at most two derivatives. We further assume symmetry under charge conjugation $`C`$, acting as sign reversal on $`A^\mu `$. This forbids single derivative terms. Terms with no derivatives just give a small correction to the potential in (2.1), which we are taking to be arbitrary, so we need consider only two derivative terms. Up to integration by parts, there are seven independent terms:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1)& f_1(A^2)_\mu A_\nu ^\mu A^\nu \hfill \\ \hfill 2)& f_2(A^2)_\mu A_\nu ^\nu A^\mu \hfill \\ \hfill 3)& f_3(A^2)A^\mu A^\alpha _\mu A_\nu _\alpha A^\nu \hfill \\ \hfill 4)& f_4(A^2)A^\nu A^\alpha _\mu A_\nu _\alpha A^\mu \hfill \\ \hfill 5)& f_5(A^2)A^\nu A^\alpha _\mu A_\nu ^\mu A_\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill 6)& f_6(A^2)A^\mu A^\nu A^\alpha _\mu _\nu A_\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill 7)& f_7(A^2)A^\mu A^\nu A^\alpha A^\beta _\mu A_\nu _\alpha A_\beta \hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`A^2A^\mu A_\mu `$. As always, we assume that all dimensionful couplings in $`f_i`$ are of order unity times the appropriate power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As we will see, after spontaneous symmetry breaking some of these terms will lead to low energy violations of Lorentz invariance at order $`1/N`$.

2.4. Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Our potential will generically have the form

$$V(A^2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n\left(\frac{A^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^n,$$

with the coefficients $`V_n`$ of order unity. $`V_n`$ can be determined in terms of the $`\lambda _{2n}`$ appearing in (2.1). We will assume that the potential leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking,

$$A_\mu =c\mathrm{\Lambda }n_\mu ,$$

where for definiteness $`n_\mu `$ is a spacelike unit vector and $`c`$ is of order unity. This expectation value spontaneously breaks Lorentz invariance at the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Nevertheless, we will see that low energy physics is approximately Lorentz invariant.

We now expand the action around the vacuum (2.1) by writing

$$A_\mu =c\mathrm{\Lambda }n_\mu +a_\mu .$$

To quadratic order in $`a_\mu `$ the potential becomes

$$V=V(c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+\frac{1}{2\alpha }(na)^2+\mathrm{},$$

where

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{4V^{\prime \prime }(c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$

Shifting the vacuum has a trivial effect on the $`A^\mu `$ kinetic terms since, being gauge invariant, these depend only on derivatives of $`A^\mu `$. Hence in the kinetic terms we can just replace $`A^\mu a^\mu `$. We can similarly make this replacement in the matter Lagrangian after performing a compensating gauge rotation of the matter fields:

$$_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,A_\mu +a_\mu )=_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ^{},a_\mu ),$$

where $`\varphi ^{}`$ is a gauge transformation of $`\varphi `$. We will henceforth drop the prime on $`\varphi `$. Therefore, the action takes the form

$$=N\left\{\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2\alpha }(na)^2+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{derivatives}+𝒪(a^3)\right\}+_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,a_\mu )+𝒪(N^0).$$

The $`(na)^2`$ term plays the role of an axial gauge fixing term. It gives a mass of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to a spacelike component of $`a_\mu `$. So to the above order our action takes the form of an axial gauge fixed photon coupled gauge invariantly to matter. Neglecting the higher derivative terms, the photon propagator is given by

$$\frac{i}{Np^2}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{np}(n_\mu p_\nu +n_\nu p_\mu )\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{(np)^2}(\alpha p^2n^2)\right).$$

As usual, only the first term contributes when the propagator is sandwiched between conserved current, and the result is Lorentz invariant. Corrections to this Lorentz invariant result are suppressed by $`p/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and/or $`1/N`$, as will be discussed below.

2.5. Goldstone bosons

After spontaneous symmetry breaking we have “massless particles”1 We employ quotation marks since we can no longer use the standard definition of particles as being irreducible representations of the (now spontaneously broken) Poincare group. But it should be clear what we mean when we use the particle terminology. by virtue of Goldstone’s theorem. In particular, a spacelike vector breaks the Lorentz group according to

$$SO(3,1)SO(2,1).$$

There are thus three broken generators corresponding to two rotations and a boost. The corresponding three Goldstone bosons are the three components of $`a^\mu `$ orthogonal to $`n^\mu `$. We choose a basis of two transverse components and a timelike component:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{transverse}:ϵ_\mu ^{(1,2)},kϵ^{(1,2)}=nϵ^{(1,2)}=0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{timelike}:ϵ_\mu ^{(0)}=k_\mu +(nk)n_\mu ,\mathrm{obeys}:nϵ^{(0)}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

At low energies only the Goldstone bosons are relevant. At leading order in $`N`$ the gauge invariant form of the kinetic terms implies that only the transverse Goldstone bosons propagate, giving us the conventional Lorentz invariant electrodynamics. However, at order $`N^0`$ the timelike component will also propagate, and this will lead to interesting effects.

We now concentrate on the low energy physics of the Goldstone bosons coupled to matter. The Goldstone bosons can be thought of as coordinates on the coset $`SO(3,1)/SO(2,1)`$. Since the Goldstone bosons label flat directions of the potential, the cubic and higher order terms from the expansion of the potential all involve the massive component $`na`$, and so are irrelevant at low energies. Now consider the order $`N^0`$ terms (2.1). Note that after spontaneous symmetry breaking the terms (4) - (7) expanded to quadratic order in fluctuations will all involve at least one factor of $`na`$. Therefore, only terms (1) - (3) are relevant for low energy physics. Furthermore, one linear combination of (1) and (2) is proportional to $`(F_{\mu \nu })^2`$ and so just provides a small correction to the order $`N`$ value of this term. Hence we can omit one linear combination, say (2), and focus only on terms (1) and (3). It is also convenient at this point to rescale $`a^\mu a^\mu /\sqrt{N}`$ to put the gauge kinetic term in standard form. Therefore to order $`N^0`$, and discarding terms suppressed at low energies by $`p/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the effective action is

$$=\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2\alpha }(na)^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{c_1}{N}^\mu a^\nu _\mu a_\nu +\frac{1}{2}\frac{c_2}{N}n^\alpha n^\beta _\alpha a_\mu _\beta a^\mu +_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,a_\mu /\sqrt{N}).$$

Here we defined the order unity numerical coefficients $`c_{1,2}`$ as

$$f_1(A^2)=\frac{1}{2}c_1,c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2f_3(A^2)=\frac{1}{2}c_2.$$

We also kept the term $`(na)^2`$ as a convenient way of implementing the axial gauge condition.

(2.1) clearly shows the need for a $`1/N`$ suppression of the third and fourth terms in order to have approximate Lorentz invariance at low energies. It is easiest to compute the propagator from the first two terms and to think of the third and fourth terms as interactions. Then it is clear that when we compute interaction between conserved matter currents we will get the standard QED results at leading order, with non-Lorentz invariant corrections occurring at order $`1/N`$.

2.6. Low energy spectrum

We now determine the dispersion relations for the three Goldstone bosons by solving the linearized equations of motion. The latter are

$$\left(1+\frac{c_1}{N}\right)^\mu _\mu a^\nu ^\nu _\mu a^\mu +\frac{c_2}{N}n^\alpha n^\beta _\alpha _\beta a^\nu \frac{1}{\alpha }n^\mu a_\mu n^\nu =0.$$

First consider the transverse modes. Plugging in the ansatz (see (2.1))

$$a_\nu =ϵ_\nu ^{(1,2)}e^{ikx}$$

we find the dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{transverse}:\left(1+\frac{c_1}{N}\right)k^2+\frac{c_2}{N}(nk)^2=0.$$

This corresponds to an anisotropic speed of light. The speed of light parallel to $`n^\mu `$ differs from that orthogonal to $`n^\mu `$ by an amount of order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$.

Now consider the timelike mode. We plug in the ansatz

$$a_\nu =(k_\nu +\gamma n_\nu )e^{ikx}.$$

We find

$$\gamma =nk+𝒪(\alpha k^2),$$

and the dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{timelike}:k^2\frac{N}{c_1}(nk)^2=0.$$

In the dispersion relation we have dropped terms down by $`1/N`$ or $`\alpha k^2`$. The dispersion relation (2.1) is non-Lorentz invariant at leading order. The timelike modes propagate at the ordinary speed of light in directions orthogonal to $`n^\mu `$, but at a speed of order $`\sqrt{N}`$ in the direction parallel to $`n^\mu `$. We are assuming that $`c_1>0`$.

The physics of the transverse modes is thus standard up to small corrections, while that of the timelike mode is quite exotic. The reason for this is that the timelike mode does not propagate with respect to the leading $`N`$ gauge invariant kinetic terms of (2.1). It only acquires a kinetic term at order $`N^0`$, and these terms are non-Lorentz invariant after spontaneous symmetry breaking.

While exotic, the timelike mode leads to acceptably small effects for sufficiently large $`N`$. Its contribution to the interaction between conserved currents is suppressed by $`1/N`$, since as we have discussed we can use the standard axial gauge propagator at leading order and regard corrections as coming from interaction vertices with coefficients of order $`1/N`$.

The timelike mode is also suppressed by phase space considerations. For fixed available energy $`k^0`$ the dispersion relation forces

$$|kn|<\sqrt{\frac{c_1}{N}}k^0.$$

Consider putting the system in a box of size $`L`$. Then for $`N>(k^0L)^2`$ only the zero momentum mode parallel to $`n^\mu `$ survives, yielding a phase space suppression proportional to $`1/L`$.

While the timelike mode gives small corrections to the interaction between conserved currents it could have more dramatic consequences given its unusual dispersion relation. We should emphasize that the result (2.1) does not necessarily imply faster than light2 Here we refer to the speed of light as the speed of the transverse modes after spontaneous symmetry breaking. signal propagation, since (2.1) is only valid for long wavelengths. Also, even if (2.1) could be extrapolated to short wavelengths so that signals could propagate faster than light, there would be no conflict with causality since Lorentz invariance has been spontaneously broken by a preferred frame. It would be interesting to study the physics of the timelike mode in more detail.

2.7. Summary and relation to previous work

Let us summarize what has been accomplished. We have shown that spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry can lead to an approximately Lorentz invariant low energy theory of massless photons coupled to matter. This is possible in the context of a theory in which gauge invariance is violated at leading order only by a potential term. Since the Goldstone boson photons do not appear in the potential, the Lorentz violating condensate leads to only small corrections to the low energy physics of the photons. On the other hand, the existence of three broken Lorentz generators implies the existence of a third Goldstone boson whose physics is not even approximately Lorentz invariant. However, its effects are suppressed by $`1/N`$ and phase space considerations. Altogether, Lorentz invariance appears as an approximate symmetry of the low energy world.

This is a good place to compare and contrast with previous work on this subject, in particular the original work of Bjorken . The main difference is that we have taken a modern effective field theory point of view, emphasized that the violation of Lorentz invariance is real, and pointed out the existence of an extra Goldstone boson. Earlier work started from a four-fermi interaction, i.e. just keeping the term $`\lambda _2`$ is (2.1). The trouble with this is that it is incompatible with spontaneous symmetry breaking, since it corresponds to a potential $`VA^\mu A_\mu `$ with no higher order terms. A reflection of this is that the condensate was never actually computed in earlier work, but was either assumed to arise somehow, or emerged after formal manipulations with divergent integrals. The claim was then made that the physics after spontaneous symmetry breaking was the usual exactly Lorentz invariant quantum electrodynamics. This conclusion was again dependent on manipulating divergent quantities. As far as we can tell, the origin of this claim is that if one takes the pure four fermi interaction and assumes (wrongly) that this leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking, then expanding $`VA^\mu A_\mu `$ around the new vacuum would yield an axial gauge fixing term and nothing more. This of course gives usual QED in axial gauge. But from our point of view it is clear what would actually happen in this theory. The four fermi theory either leads to an instability or to a stable vacuum with a massive vector field $`A_\mu `$. In neither case does one find QED. On the other hand, the problem disappears once one includes the higher order fermion terms as we have done; this is also the natural starting point from the view of effective field theory.

Since earlier work took the point of view that the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance was somehow fictitious, the existence of the extra Goldstone boson was not noted.

Before turning to gravity we should also note that some of the above criticisms were commented on recently by Bjorken . In particular it was noted that the four fermi theory by itself is inadequate, and that some real violations of Lorentz invariance should be expected once quantum effects are taken into account. These points were also examined by Banks and Zaks in  in the context of non-abelian gauge fields; they also concluded that there is a real violation of Lorentz invariance. We hope to have resolved these issues here.

3. Graviton as Goldstone boson

We now turn to our main interest: producing a graviton as a Goldstone boson. Fortunately, the analysis closely parallels the photon case, and so we can draw on our experience from that example to navigate in the more complicated gravitational setting. The main difference is in the different pattern of spontaneous Lorentz breaking as well as in the connection to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant provides a motivation for modifying the low energy effective theory of general relativity, and indeed we will see that the problem is avoided in the sense that the Goldstone boson graviton remains massless even in the presence of vacuum energy.

To adapt the previous approach to the case of gravity we consider an effective action in direct analogy with (2.1),

$$=N\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\sqrt{g}R(g)\mathrm{\Lambda }^4V(h)+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{derivatives}\right\}+_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ,g)+𝒪(N^0).$$

Here $`h`$ is defined via expansion of the metric around flat spacetime

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }.$$

Flat spacetime thus plays a preferred role in this context; indeed we think of the underlying dynamics as that of a nongravitational theory in Minkowski spacetime. Appendix A discusses one possibilty for such an underlying theory. The Einstein-Hilbert term in (3.1) is standard while the potential is some generic Lorentz invariant function of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ with indices contracted with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Odd powers of $`h`$ are allowed, for instance the term $`h_\mu ^\mu `$ can appear in the expansion of $`V(h)`$. As in the photon case the higher derivative terms are generally covariant, as is the matter action. General covariance is violated only by the potential.

Note that the observed Newton’s constant will be

$$G_N\frac{1}{N\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$

Therefore, the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is smaller by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ compared to the usual Planck scale. Indeed, this lowered value of the cutoff is responsible for suppressing loop corrections. $`N`$ is a large number but presumably need not be more than $`10^4`$ or so. Thus the cutoff can still be well above observeable energy scales.

We consider potentials leading to a vacuum expectation value for $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. By performing a Lorentz transformation we can bring the expectation value to the form

$$h_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{h}_{00}& & & \\ & \overline{h}_{11}& & \\ & & \overline{h}_{22}& \\ & & & \overline{h}_{33}\end{array}\right).$$

For $`\overline{h}_{\mu \mu }`$ all nonvanishing and distinct, the Lorentz group will be completely broken:

$$SO(3,1)\mathrm{nothing}.$$

Being dimensionless, we expect $`\overline{h}_{\mu \mu }`$ of order unity. Therefore there will be $`6`$ Goldstone bosons corresponding to the six broken Lorentz generators. The Lorentz generator $`J^{\mu \nu }`$ acts on $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ by exciting the $`\mu \nu `$ components. So the Goldstone bosons are the six off-diagonal components of the symmetric matrix $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. Fluctuations of the diagonal components will generically correspond to massive fields. We will ultimately associate two of the Goldstone bosons with the two physical polarizations of the graviton, while the remaining four will appear in analogy with the timelike Goldstone boson in the the photon case.

We now consider fluctuations around the vacuum by writing

$$h_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }.$$

The expansion of the potential will correspond to mass terms for the diagonal components of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. The precise form of this mass matrix is not important, so we will write

$$V(h)=\mathrm{constant}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{3}{}}(f_\alpha n_{(\alpha )}^\mu n_{(\alpha )}^\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu })^2+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{h}^3).$$

Here

$$n_{(\alpha )}^\mu =\delta _\alpha ^\mu ,$$

and $`f_\alpha `$ are numbers of order unity.

We can simplify the action by performing a general coordinate transformation to put the background metric back in standard form. In particular, introduce new coordinates $`x^\mu `$ such that

$$\frac{x^\mu }{x^\alpha }\frac{x^\nu }{x^\beta }\eta _{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\alpha \beta }+h_{\alpha \beta }.$$

The metric appearing in the action will then be $`\eta _{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ where

$$\frac{x^\mu }{x^\alpha }\frac{x^\nu }{x^\beta }\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^{}(x^{})=\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }(x).$$

We similarly act with a coordinate transformation on the matter fields; e.g. for a scalar

$$\varphi ^{}(x^{})=\varphi (x).$$

After changing the integration variable to $`x^{}`$ the potential term is modified while the general covariant terms are of course invariant. Given the form (3.1), the modification of the potential can be absorbed in a redefinition of the constants $`f_\alpha `$. So after the coordinate transformation our action takes the form

$$=N\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\sqrt{g}R(g)\mathrm{\Lambda }^4V(\stackrel{~}{h}^{})+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{derivatives}\right\}+_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi ^{},g)+𝒪(N^0),$$

with

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^{}$$

and

$$V(\stackrel{~}{h}^{})=\mathrm{constant}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{3}{}}(f_\alpha n_{(\alpha )}^\mu n_{(\alpha )}^\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }^{})^2+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{h}^3).$$

We henceforth relabel fields: $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{}h`$, $`\varphi ^{}\varphi `$.

We think of the quadratic terms in the potential as gauge fixing terms, corresponding to the gauge

$$g_{\mu \mu }=\eta _{\mu \mu },\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}.$$

This defines an acceptable noncovariant gauge. The graviton propagator in this gauge is extremely complicated and unwieldy, and so we will not display it here. Fortunately, for leading order calculations we only need to know that it has the structure of the standard covariant propagator

$$\frac{i}{p^2}\left(\eta _{\mu \alpha }\eta _{\nu \beta }+\eta _{\mu \beta }\eta _{\nu \alpha }\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\alpha \beta }\right)$$

plus terms with at least one factor of $`p`$ (vector) in the numerator. Sandwiched between conserved energy momentum tensors the latter $`p`$ terms vanish, and so we recover the standard Lorentz invariant result. Of course this is no suprise, since (3.1) represents a valid gauge choice.

The low energy physics is therefore quite similar to what we found in the photon example. We will have two graviton states which propagate at the speed of light, up to a small anisotropic correction. Further there are four additional Goldstone bosons that acquire kinetic terms at order $`1/N`$. These will have highly non-Lorentz invariant dispersion relations, but their couplings to conserved currents are suppressed by $`1/N`$. Working out these dispersion relations explicitly would be quite involved given the large number of terms in the action at order $`1/N`$ and the proliferating indices. However from our discussion of the photon example it should be clear that the essential physics is independent of these details.

3.1. The cosmological constant

Notice that we have obtained an approximately Lorentz invariant theory of gravity without making any specific assumptions about the form of the potential $`V(h)`$. Therefore, we see that if the potential is suddenly modified, say by a matter phase transition, then the vacuum expectation value of $`h`$ can simply shift to the new minimum, leaving us again with an approximately Lorentz invariant theory. In particular, the term $`\sqrt{g}V_{\mathrm{matter}}(\varphi _0)`$ can be added to our previous potential and the analysis proceeds as before. We have therefore evaded the usual cosmological constant problem. The usual problem arises because of general covariance: only a single potential term is allowed, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\sqrt{g}`$, and a nonzero value of this term is incompatible with a Lorentz invariant solution. If one is willing to violate general covariance by writing a more general potential then this conclusion need not follow. Indeed, if the graviton is a Goldstone boson one is guaranteed to find a solution with constant fields and a massless graviton. What is perhaps surprising is that the physics around such a non-Lorentz invariant solution is approximately Lorentz invariant, as we have seen.

On the other hand, the above discussion does not immediately imply that the approximately Lorentz invariant solutions are the only solutions. Indeed, at least in the weak field approximation we will find additional approximately de Sitter and anti-de Sitter solutions. This follows from the fact that at low energies and for weak fields our theory is that of standard gravity in a noncovariant gauge, plus additional weakly coupled Goldstone bosons. If one now takes a standard solution with a given energy momentum tensor and expresses it in our gauge, this must continue to be an approximate solution of our theory. The existence of multiple solutions is hardly surprising given that we are solving (at leading order) second order differential equations3 It is also reminiscent of brane world scenarios for addressing the cosmological constant problem \[10,,11\]. But there the Lorentz invariant solution on the brane is tied up with a naked singularity away from the brane, and so need not exist.. Note that the approximately Lorentz invariant solution with constant fields is guaranteed to be an exact solution as it just corresponds to extremizing the potential, while the other solutions with spacetime varying fields need not be exact. In a more conventional field theory context one would expect a solution with time dependent fields to eventually settle down to a static solution by radiating energy. One might expect the same here, with the time dependent fields of the de Sitter type solutions radiating away leading to the solution with constant fields. A realistic proposal in this framework must involve showing how to make the transition from an expanding radiation or matter dominated universe to the approximately Lorentz invariant solution discussed above. We hope to return to this in future work.

4. Concluding Remarks

Building on the work of Bjorken, we have shown that massless photons and gravitons can be produced as Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance, and with low energy physics appearing Lorentz invariant to high accuracy. The most dramatic effect of the Lorentz breaking is the existence of additional weakly coupled Goldstone bosons obeying highly non-Lorentz invariant dispersion relations. These fields would be difficult to detect as they couply weakly to conserved currents. A rather general framework for studying Lorentz violating extensions of the Standard Model has been developed (see, e.g., ), and it might be useful to study some of our results in that language.

We find it interesting that the observed low energy physics of gravity can be produced in the context of an effective field theory that differs markedly from general relativity, and which does not suffer from the usual cosmological constant problem. While it remains to be seen whether a theory of this type could be incorporated into a truly fundamental framework or be developed into a realistic cosmology, it seems to be an idea worth pursuing.

Appendix A.

In this appendix we indicate one way the gravitational effective action (3.1) may emerge from some underlying conventional dynamics. There may be others. Here we employ the same mechanism as in the photon case, (2.1). Thus we consider $`N`$ fermions coupled to gauge fields that acquire masses. We then imagine integrating out the fields from some initial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ down to a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ obtaining the effective action

$$\overline{\psi }_i\left(i\overline{)}M\right)\psi _i+4\pi ^2N\underset{k}{}C_k(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝒪_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

involving an infinite set of fermion interactions. Restricting first to the subset consisting only of powers of

$$𝒪_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{N}\overline{\psi }_i\frac{i}{2}(\gamma _\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\gamma _\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}})\psi _i,$$

we introduce the symmetric auxiliary field $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ to render the effective action quadratic in the fermions, so that we may write it in the form (cp. (2.1)):

$$_{\psi ,h}=(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+h^{\mu \nu })\overline{\psi }_i\frac{i}{2}(\gamma _\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\gamma _\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}})\psi _iM\overline{\psi }_i\psi _iN\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{4\pi ^2}V(h).$$

All indices are raised and lowered by the flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$.

Integrating out the fermions, the effective action from the resulting determinant can be expressed, as usual, as the sum over all fermion 1-loop diagrams with external $`h`$ legs. Note, in particular, that the diagram with one external $`h`$-leg is in general nonvanishing. This reflects the fact that (A.1) has a nonvanishing expectation (proportional to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$) even in ordinary perturbation theory on a Lorentz invariant vacuum, i.e. interactions built from (A.1) shift the classical background. Correspondingly, all terms, including a linear term, are included in the general potential $`V(h)`$ in (3.1) (cp. discussion in the text).

Explicit evaluation of the fermion-loop graphs with one and two external $`h`$-legs gives, after a lengthy computation, the contribution to the effective action to $`𝒪(h^2)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^{(2)}& =NI_4\left[h_\mu ^\mu +\frac{1}{2}h^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}(h_\mu ^\mu )^2\right]\hfill \\ & +\frac{N}{6}I_2\left[(_\lambda h^{\mu \nu })^2(_\nu h_\mu ^\mu )^2+2_\mu h^{\mu \nu }_\nu h_\lambda ^\lambda 2(_\mu h^{\mu \nu })^2\right]\hfill \\ & \frac{N}{20}I_0[(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }h^{\mu \nu })^2\frac{1}{3}(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }h_\mu ^\mu )^22(_\mu _\lambda h^{\lambda \nu })^2+\frac{2}{3}_\mu _\nu h^{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }h_\lambda ^\lambda \hfill \\ & +\frac{2}{3}(_\mu _\nu h^{\mu \nu })^2]+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

(A.1) displays explicitly the leading terms, i.e. the local, cut-off dependent (‘divergent’) part of the result of the loop integrations. The ellipses denote the subleading pieces from the finite, non-local parts, which can be expanded in powers of $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }/M^2`$, and contribute to higher derivative interactions relevant only for short distance behavior near the cutoff. Dimensional regularization, under the usual correspondence $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/ϵ+\text{const.})`$, gives

$$I_n=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}M^n\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}),n=0,2,4.$$

In Pauli-Villars regularization, which appears more physical in the present context, one has

$$I_n=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}c_kM_k^n\mathrm{ln}(\frac{M_k^2}{M^2}),n=0,2,4.$$

Three regulator masses $`M_k`$, of order of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are required here with coefficients $`c_k`$ satisfying $`_{k=1}^3c_kM_k^n+M^n=0`$, for $`n=0,2,4`$.

(A.1) is now seen to be the flat space expansion to 2nd order of the gravitational action

$$=\sqrt{g}N\left[I_4+\frac{1}{6}I_2R\frac{1}{20}I_0(R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}R^2)\right]$$

with the metric expressed in terms of the vierbein4 Curved and flat indices are denoted by Greek and Latin letters, respectively.

$$g^{\mu \nu }=e_a^\mu e^{a\nu },e_a^\mu =\delta _a^\mu +h_a^\mu ,$$

and

$$h^{\mu \nu }=\delta _a^\mu h^{a\nu }.$$

Taking $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ to be symmetric, as done in the above calculation, amounts to the (standard) local Lorentz gauge fixing to a symmetric vierbein. (It is known that the antisymmetric part in fact decouples in (A.1).) Thus our effective gravitational action (3.1) is reproduced to this order.

To see how this comes about, note that the result (A.1) is precisely what one obtains after integrating out the fermion fields in the Lagrangian for $`N`$ fermions in curved space:

$$=e^{(12w)}[e_a^\mu \overline{\psi }_i\frac{i}{2}(\gamma ^a\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\gamma ^a)\psi _iM\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i],$$

to 2nd order in the expansion about flat space (A.1). In (A.1), $`e=\text{det}e_{a\mu }`$, and

$$\underset{\mu }{\overset{\stackrel{}{}}{}}\underset{\mu }{\overset{\stackrel{}{}}{}}\frac{i}{2}\omega _{\mu ab}S^{ab}$$

with Lorentz generators $`S^{ab}=\frac{i}{4}[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]`$. The spinor $`\psi `$ may, in general, be taken to transform under general coordinate transformations as a density of weight $`w`$. The result of the explicit computation is in fact found to be independent of $`w`$ (see, for example, ). Indeed, note that, in terms of the functional integration, the factor $`e^{(12w)}`$ can be absorbed by the change of variables: $`\psi e^{(12w)/2}\psi ^{}`$, $`\overline{\psi }e^{(12w)/2}\overline{\psi }^{}`$. The spin connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ is given in terms of the vierbein by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \omega _{\mu ab}& =\frac{1}{2}e_\mu ^a(T_{amn}T_{mna}T_{nam}),\hfill \\ \hfill T_{mn}^a& =(e_m^\rho e_n^\sigma e_n^\rho e_m^\sigma )_\sigma e_\rho ^a.\hfill \end{array}$$

(A.1) implies that the connection terms in (A.1), in the expansion (A.1), do not give a $`h\overline{\psi }\psi `$ vertex, but only ‘seagull’ $`h^2\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and higher $`h`$ powers vertices. This is most easily seen by rewriting the connection terms in (A.1), after a little rearangemant, in the form

$$e_m^\mu \overline{\psi }\frac{1}{4}\omega _{\mu ab}ϵ^{mabc}\gamma _c\gamma ^5\psi .$$

Furthermore, it follows from this form that all fermion 1-loop diagrams with two external $`h`$-legs do not receive any contribution from the spin connection interaction. The result to $`𝒪(h^2)`$ thus agrees with that obtained from (A.1).

The vertices from the spin connection terms will, however, contribute to the diagrams with three or more external legs, reproducing (A.1) to all orders, as dictated by the general coordinate invariance of (A.1). It may therefore appear that, in addition to (A.1), one would need an infinite set of different operators5 Note that (A.1) contains both $`e^{a\mu }`$ and its inverse. from (A.1), with precisely specified coefficients, to be included in (A.1) in order to generate (A.1). This, however, is not the case. In the context of (A.1), the connection arises naturally when (A.1) is extended to include the set of powers of the operator

$$𝒪_\mu ^{\kappa \lambda }=\frac{i}{4N}\overline{\psi }_i\{\gamma _\mu ,[\gamma ^\kappa ,\gamma ^\lambda ]\}\psi _i,$$

in addition to those of (A.1). Introducing the corresponding independent auxiliary field $`\omega _{\kappa \lambda }^\mu `$, (A.1) is extended to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\psi ,h}& =(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+h^{\mu \nu })\overline{\psi }_i\frac{i}{2}\left(\gamma _\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\gamma _\mu \underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}+\frac{1}{8}\omega _{\nu \kappa \lambda }\{\gamma _\mu ,[\gamma ^\kappa ,\gamma ^\lambda ]\}\right)\psi _i\hfill \\ & M\overline{\psi }_i\psi _iN\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{4\pi ^2}V(h,\omega ).\hfill \end{array}$$

The fermionic part of (A.1) is equivalent to (A.1) in the first order (Palatini) formulation.

Now, in the first order formalism, the nonpropagating connection in (A.1) serves as a constraint field enforcing vanishing of torsion $`e_m^\mu 𝒪^{mab}`$ generated by the fermions.

(A.1) differs from (A.1) by the presence of a potential in $`\omega `$. Hence, variation of the connection will not imply vanishing torsion, and $`\omega `$ will not be expressible entirely in terms of the vierbein as in (A.1).6 This is analogous to considering (A.1) in the first order formalism not just by itself, but with the addition of the Einstein-Hilbert action. The latter provides a potential for the connection $`\omega `$, thus leading to the usual result of torsion generated by fermions. This is of course the usual situation. In the above we were lead to consider (A.1) by itself in the context of generating the Einstein-Hilbert action from (A.1). For illustration purposes, we may adopt a model where the quadratic terms in the potential for $`\omega `$ are supressed. Then, upon integrating out the fermions, (A.1) and the effective gravitational action (3.1) are reproduced to within small deviations. This is easily seen to be stable under radiative corrections from graviton loops.

It is perhaps worth pointing out again that, as we saw, just the fermionic self-interactions of products of (A.1) in flat space-time already suffice to fully reproduce to second order the Einstein-Hilbert (plus $`R^2`$ terms) parts in our effective gravitational action (3.1), i.e reproduce the full content of linearized GR.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by NSF grants PHY-0099590 and PHY-9819686.

References

relax J. D. Bjorken, Annals Phys. 24, 174 (1963). relax G. S. Guralnik, Phys. Rev. D 136, B1404 (1964). relax P. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 146, 966, (1966). relax H. C. Ohanian, Phys. Rev. 184, 1305 (1969). relax D. Atkatz, Phys. Rev. D 17, 1972 (1978). relax S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989). relax S. Weinberg and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 96, 59 (1980). relax J. Bjorken, arXiv:hep-th/0111196. relax T. Banks and A. Zaks, Nucl. Phys. B 184, 303 (1981). relax S. Kachru, M. Schulz and E. Silverstein, Phys. Rev. D 62, 045021 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0001206\]. relax N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, N. Kaloper and R. Sundrum, Phys. Lett. B 480, 193 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0001197\]. relax D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9809521\]. relax D. M. Capper and M. J. Duff, Nucl. Phys. B 82, 147 (1974).


format: text

text:
# 1 Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Cosmology

## 1 Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Cosmology

The most common physical interpretation of General Relativity The following section can not replace an introduction to General Relativity; to this end see the corresponding literature. is that space-time has to be considered as a generally non-trivial four-dimensional Riemannian manifold: Let $`x^\mu \{x^i,t\}`$ be $`3+1`$ coordinates on this manifold, then there exists a metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ which defines a line element

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(1.1)
Flat Minkowski space corresponds to

$$g_{\mu \nu }(x)=\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1).$$
(1.2)
An essential feature of General Relativity is that $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is considered as a dynamical field which is determined by its equations of motion, the so-called Einstein equations. They involve the Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ and the Ricci scalar $`R`$ constructed from the metric (1.2):

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }$$
(1.3)
with

$`\kappa =8\pi 𝒢/c^21,86510^{29}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{g},`$
$`𝒢=\text{Newton’s constant }6,66810^{14}\text{ m}\text{3}\text{/(g sec}\text{2}\text{)  .}`$ (1.4)
$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ in (1.3) is the energy-momentum tensor of matter which acts as source for the gravitational field, the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$. Its role is analogous to the one of electro-magnetic currents $`J_\mu `$, which act as sources for the electro-magnetic field $`A_\mu `$ in Maxwell’s equations. Note, however, that the left-hand side of (1.3) is highly nonlinear in $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ (in some analogy to non-abelian Yang-Mills field equations), and that also $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ depends in general on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. This becomes clear if we derive (1.3) from an action principle. To this end we have to assume that the equations of motion for matter can be derived from a Lagrangian $`_M`$, which can correspond to point particles or classical fields. For consistency (the Bianchi identities for the Riemann tensor which imply, via (1.3), that $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is covariantly conserved) it is necessary that the space-time integrated matter Lagrangian is invariant under general coordinate transformations. A corresponding Lagrangian for a real scalar field $`\phi (x)`$, e.g., is given by

$$d^4x_M(\phi ,g_{\mu \nu })=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \phi V(\phi )\right)$$
(1.5)
where

$$g=det\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)(=1\text{for}g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }).$$
(1.6)
In general the matter energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g(x)}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }(x)}d^4x^{}_M(x^{}).$$
(1.7)
(The factor $`\sqrt{g}`$ on the right-hand side of eq. (1.5) renders the volume integration invariant and is sometimes written explicitly under the $`d^4x^{}`$ integral in eq. (1.7)). The general dependence of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is now apparent.

The left-hand side of eq. (1.3) can also be derived from an action, the integrated Einstein Lagrangian

$$d^4x_E=\frac{1}{2\kappa }d^4x\sqrt{g}R.$$
(1.8)
The variation of eq. (1.8) with respect to $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ gives, up to an integral of a total derivative (which can be important in the context of brane universes, but which is dropped here),

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }(x)}d^4x^{}_E(x^{})=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }\left(R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R\right),$$
(1.9)
hence eq. (1.3) follows from $`2\kappa /\sqrt{g}`$ times the vanishing variation of

$$d^4x_{Tot}=d^4x\left(_E+_M\right).$$
(1.10)
The following configurations of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ are of particular physical importance:

a) The Schwarzschild solution around a point-like source (and the Kerr solution around rotating point-like sources as pulsars): It determines the dynamics of astronomical objects (stars, planets, galaxies etc.) and reproduces, in the non-relativistic and weak field limit, the Newton potential $`M𝒢/r`$. This solution of Einstein equations is tested down to scales of $`𝒪`$(1 mm).

b) Gravitational waves, which are solutions of the Einstein equations in the vacuum ($`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$) and await their discovery.

c) Cosmological configurations, which determine the global geometry of the universe and its temporal evolution. They are the esssential subject of this chapter.

The search for such configurations of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is greatly simplified by the assumptions of isotropy of the universe (it looks the same in all directions) and homogeneity of the universe (no point is singled out, and physically relevant quantities as the Riemann scalar $`R`$ and the left-hand side of eq. (1.3), the Einstein tensor, do not depend on $`x^i`$). Experimental evidence for these assumptions is not overwhelming: Seemingly matter is lumped in our universe, from stars to galaxies to clusters of galaxies up to large scale structures of the size of the observed part of the universe.

Nevertheless the assumption is that matter can be described by an approximately $`x^i`$-independent (but $`t`$-dependent) energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }(t)`$. From isotropy it follows that the only non-vanishing components of $`T_{\mu \nu }(t)`$ are

$$T_{00}(t),T_{11}(t)=T_{22}(t)=T_{33}(t)T_s(t).$$
(1.11)
A convenient way to write a cosmological configuration of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is in terms of the Robertson-Walker line element in spherical coordinates

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right).$$
(1.12)
Here the constant $`k`$ can be chosen, after an appropriate rescaling of $`r`$ and $`a(t)`$, as $`k=0,\pm 1`$. It determines the global geometry of three-dimensional space, which is flat for $`k=0`$, a three-dimensional hypersphere (and hence closed) for $`k=1`$, and hyperbolic (open) for $`k=1`$. $`a(t)`$ in (1.12) is a scale factor of the three-dimensional space, and its time dependence is determined by the 00 or $`ii`$ components of Einstein equations (1.3):

$`3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}}=\kappa T_{00}(t),`$ (1.13a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2a\ddot{a}+\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}}=\kappa T_s(t)`$ (1.13b)
where $`\dot{a}=da/dt`$. Evidently eqs. (1) imply some relation between $`T_{00}`$ and $`T_s`$, which can be written as

$$\dot{T}_{00}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(T_{00}+T_s\right)=0$$
(1.14)
and corresponds to the covariant conservation of the energy-momentum tensor. More properties of $`T_{00}`$, $`T_s`$ have to be derived from ansätze for the properties of matter. Traditionally matter is modelled by a perfect fluid with density $`\rho (t)`$ and pressure $`p(t)`$. Even if stars (or galaxies) would be homogeneously distributed in our universe this model has its subtle problems: Evidently $`\rho (t)`$ and $`p(t)`$ play the role of effective spatial averages over “point-like” stars or galaxies, and $`a(t)`$ corresponds to a spatial average of spatial diagonal components of $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ (the superposition of a large number of Schwartzschild solutions in the weak field limit). However, instead of writing eqs. (1) for these spatial averages, one should take the spatial average of Einstein’s equations (1.3). Due to the non-linear nature of these equations this is not the same. In addition, the spatial average of a metric on which spatial volumina depend is very difficult to define properly. For more discussions and literature on this subject see .

Within the perfect fluid model of matter the components of the energy-momentum tensor take the form

$$T_{00}=\rho (t)+\mathrm{\Lambda },T_s=p(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(1.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the so-called cosmological constant. Its physical origin will be discussed in detail below.

The equation of state of a perfect fluid determines a relation $`p=p(\rho )`$. Usually one assumes

$$p=w\rho $$
(1.16)
where the constant $`w`$ depends on the microscopic properties of the fluid. Now eq. (1.14) (energy-momentum conservation) assumes the simple form

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(1+\omega )\rho =0.$$
(1.17)
It is instructive to derive expressions for the parameters $`w`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the case where matter is modelled by plane waves of a scalar field. This model is possibly more realistic in an early hot and dense phase of the universe, but it also helps to interpret the physical significance of the above quantities at later epochs.

Let us consider the scalar field Lagrangian (1.5), with $`V(\phi )`$ developed up to quadratic order in $`\phi `$ around its minimum $`V_0`$:

$$d^4x_M^{(2)}(\phi ,g_{\mu \nu })=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \phi V_0\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2\right).$$
(1.18)
If one constructs the components of the energy momentum tensor according to eq. (1.7) the following relation is useful:

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\sqrt{g}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(1.19)
Then one obtains

$`T_{00}=_0\phi _0\phi g_{00}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \phi g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \phi {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\phi ^2V_0\right)`$ (1.20a)
$`T_{ij}=_i\phi _j\phi g_{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \phi g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \phi {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\phi ^2V_0\right).`$ (1.20b)
Subsequently we will replace, for simplicity, $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ by $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ in $`T_{\mu \nu }`$; this avoids the need to discuss plane waves in curved space time. Hence we take $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ to be static; this still allows us to obtain expressions for $`w`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from eqs. (1.15) and (1.16). Then eqs. (1) (cf. our conventions (1.2)) simplify to

$`T_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\left(_0\phi \right)^2+\left(_i\phi \right)^2+m^2\phi ^2\right)+V_0`$ (1.21a)
$`T_{ij}=_i\phi _j\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{2}}\left(\left(_0\phi \right)^2+\left(_i\phi \right)^2+m^2\phi ^2\right)\delta _{ij}V_0`$ (1.21b)
Next we replace the fields $`\phi (x^i,t)`$ by plane waves with constant amplitude $`\phi _0`$:

$$\phi (x^i,t)=\phi _0\mathrm{sin}(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})$$
(1.22)
where the equations of motion enforce the dispersion relation

$$\omega ^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2.$$
(1.23)
Equations (1) become

$`T_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _0^2\left(\left(\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})+m^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})\right)+V_0`$ (1.24a)
$`T_{ij}=\phi _0^2((k_ik_j{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{2}}\stackrel{}{k}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{2}}\omega ^2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{2}}m^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})\delta _{ij}V_0.`$ (1.24b)
Now we perform two averages: First, due to isotropy, we average over the angular dependence of the wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, using

$$<k_ik_j>_{\phi ,\theta }=\frac{\delta _{ij}}{3}\stackrel{}{k}^2.$$
(1.25)
Second, due to homogeneity, we average over space using

$$<\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})>_x=<\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}>_x=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(1.26)
The final expressions for the components of the energy-momentum tensor are (with the notation $`T_s`$ for its spacial components, cf. (1.11), and actually we should have written $`<T_{00}>`$ and $`<T_s>`$)

$`T_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\phi _0^2\left(\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2\right)+V_0`$ (1.27a)
$`T_s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\phi _0^2\left(\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{}{k}^2m^2\right)V_0.`$ (1.27b)
Comparing with eqs. (1.15) and (1.16) we immediately find for the cosmological constant

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=V_0$$
(1.28)
and for $`w`$, the ratio of the pressure to density,

$$w=\frac{\omega ^2\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{k}^2m^2}{\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2}=\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{3(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2)}$$
(1.29)
where we have used the dispersion relation (1.23) in the second step in (1.29). From (1.29) one finds for radiation, $`m^2=0`$,

$$w_{rad}=\frac{1}{3},$$
(1.30)
and for non-relativistic matter, $`\stackrel{}{k}^2m^2`$,

$$w_{nr}0.$$
(1.31)
Sometimes $`w`$ is not defined by the ratio of pressure and density as in (1.16), but directly by the ratio of $`T_s/T_{00}`$. Then, if the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominates over $`\rho `$ over $`p`$, one obtains an effective $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with

$$w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{T_s}{T_{00}}=1.$$
(1.32)
After this intermezzo on the physical meaning of $`w`$ in eq. (1.16) we plug the first of eqs. (1.15) into eq. (1.13a), which becomes

$$3\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=\frac{3k}{a^2}+\kappa \rho (t)+\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(1.33)
and we recall eq. (1.17),

$$\dot{\rho }(t)+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(1+w)\rho (t)=0.$$
(1.34)
If the term $`\kappa \rho (t)`$ dominates the right-hand side of eq. (1.33) (and $`w1`$), the solution of eqs. (1.33) and (1.34) is

$`a(t)=a_0t^{\frac{2}{3}(1+w)}`$ (1.35a)
$`\kappa \rho (t)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3(1+w)^2}}t^2.`$ (1.35b)
Hence the universe expands, and $`\rho (t)`$, the matter density, decreases.

If the term $`\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominates the right-hand side of eq. (1.33) (or, alternatively, $`w=1`$ and $`\rho (t)`$ = const. $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) the universe expands exponentially, which corresponds to an inflationary epoch.

The ratio $`\dot{a}/a`$ today is called the Hubble constant $`H_0`$:

$$H_0=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}|_{today}.$$
(1.36)
Apparently our universe expands today, i.e. distant galaxies (with distances measured in $`Mpc3,110^{22}`$ m) move away with apparent speeds (of the order of km/sec) which are roughly proportional to $`H_0`$ times their distance. Hence one measures $`H_0`$ in these units,

$$H_0=h_0100\frac{\mathrm{km}}{\mathrm{sec}}(Mpc)^1,$$
(1.37)
with

$$h_00.65.$$
(1.38)
The motion of distant galaxies reveals itself in a redshift $`z`$, i.e. the measured wavelengths $`\lambda _m`$ and frequencies $`\nu _m`$ differ from the emitted wavelengths $`\lambda `$ and $`\nu `$:

$$\frac{\lambda _m}{\lambda }=\frac{\nu }{\nu _m}=1+z.$$
(1.39)
For a time dependent scale factor $`a(t)`$ one obtains

$$1+z=\frac{a(0)}{a(t)}$$
(1.40)
where $`t`$ is the time when the signal was emitted. For the light-like distance $`D`$ (or luminosity distance) of these galaxies one finds with the metric (1.12)

$$D=a(0)_0^r\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}=a(0)_t^0\frac{dt^{}}{a(t^{})}.$$
(1.41)
Here we have used (for light-like distances)

$$0=ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}.$$
(1.42)
These results will be used in the next chapter. Let us reconsider eq. (1.33) today, using (1.36)

$$3H_0^2=\frac{3k}{a(0)^2}+\kappa \rho (0)+\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(1.43)
It is convenient to define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{\kappa \rho (0)}{3H_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_0^2}$$
(1.44)
which turns eq. (1.43) into

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{k}{H_0^2a^2(0)}=1.$$
(1.45)
Let us recall that inflation predicts $`k=0`$ (a spacially flat universe), hence in this case

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{!}{=}1.$$
(1.46)
This value for $`k`$ is also compatible with recent measurements of fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background . Note that $`\rho (0)`$ in (1.44), and hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, includes both baryonic (visible or invisible) and dark matter. The corresponding split will not concern us here; subsequently we will assume, however, that the equation of state for matter is such that $`w=0`$ corresponding to nonrelativistic (baryonic and/or dark) matter.

## 2 Measurement of the Cosmological Constant

It turns out that we could measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if we could determine the precise dependence of the distance of astronomical objects on the redshift $`z`$, $`D(z)`$: If we put $`w=0`$ in (1.34) (correspond to nonrelativistic matter) one can solve eqs. (1.33) and (1.34) for $`a(t)`$, $`\rho (t)`$, with $`\dot{a}(0)/a(0)=H_0`$ and $`\rho (0)`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as boundary conditions. The solution for $`a(t)`$ can be plugged into eq. (1.41) for the luminosity distance $`D`$, and the integral $`dt^{}`$ can be written as an integral over $`dz^{}`$ using (1.40). The resulting expression for $`D(z)`$ reads (re-installing the speed of light $`c`$)

$$D(z)=\frac{c(1+z)}{H_0\sqrt{|\lambda |}}\widehat{\mathrm{sin}}\left(\sqrt{|\lambda |}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{\sqrt{(1+z^{})^2(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_Mz^{})(2+z^{})z^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)$$
(2.1)
with

$$\lambda =1\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(2.2)
and

$`\widehat{\mathrm{sin}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(x)\mathrm{for}\lambda <0`$ (2.3)
$`=`$ $`x\mathrm{for}\lambda =0`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}(x)\mathrm{for}\lambda >0.`$
For small $`z`$ one obtains approximately

$$D(z)\frac{cz}{H_0}\left(1+\frac{z}{2}\left(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_M\right)\right)+𝒪(z^3).$$
(2.4)
Hence, apart from $`H_0`$, $`D(z)`$ depends on the two parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Their separate determination requires, however, the measurement of the terms of $`𝒪(z^3)`$ in (2.1) or (2.4).

In order to determine the distance $`D(z)`$ of distant objects we need objects with very well known absolute magnitude $`M`$. These are supernovae of type Ia, which light up within a few weeks and fade away within a few months. From the light curve the absolute magnitude can be determined to high precision.

The luminosity distance $`D`$ then follows from a measurement of the apparent magnitude $`m`$, which is related to $`M`$ and $`D`$ by

$$m=M+5\mathrm{log}(D)+K,$$
(2.5)
where $`K`$ includes a constant and a correction for the variation of the apparent magnitude with the redshift. (The factor 5 and the logarithm of $`D`$ in (2.5) have its origin in the logarithmic scale for apparent and absolute magnitudes.)

The search for high redshift ($`z.4.9`$) supernovae starts with the observation of patches of sky with tens of thousands of galaxies. Some weeks later the same patches are observed again, and by comparison one finds a few dozens of supernovae, which have not been there before. Generally these have not yet reached peak brightness, and subsequently their light curves are tracked more or less continuously, partly with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope.

Two experimental groups lead by S. Perlmutter  and B. Schmidt  have pursued this program, and results from best fits to $`D(z)`$ up to $`z1`$ (one with $`z1.7`$ in ) can directly be plotted in the plane $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, see fig. 1. The results of both groups agree well, and systematic errors as absorption of light by dust, supernovae evolution and selection bias are believed to be under control.

The figure shows that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is ruled out at the 99 percent level, assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M>0`$ (but no other assumptions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$)

– a flat universe ($`k=0)`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, is consistent with the $`1\sigma `$ contour, and leads to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3`$.

The essential and amazing features of this result are

a) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is tiny, but non-vanishing: For the density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one obtains (with $`c=1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }610^{24}\frac{g}{m^3}.$$
(2.6)
b) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of the same order as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, which is a priori difficult to understand, since both quantities depend very differently on the time: Whereas $`\rho (t)`$ decays like $`t^2`$ (cf. (1.35b)), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remains constant, hence the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ also decays like $`t^2`$.

Hence we happen to live in an epoch where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are of comparable order of magnitude; this is the so-called “coincidence problem”.

## 3 The Cosmological Constant in Classical and Quantum Field Theory

As long as we consider classical general relativity coupled to matter in the form of point-like sources (or a fluid made out of point particles) the cosmological constant appears as an arbitrary free parameter. Note that this framework is consistent with all present tests of general relativity.

Problems appear once we extrapolate from length scales of $`𝒪`$(1 mm) (where gravity is tested) down to length scales of 1 Fermi, 1 TeV<sup>-1</sup> or even smaller, where we describe matter by classical or quantum field theory. Usually it is assumed that the consistent coupling of macroscopic matter to gravity has its origin in microscopic Lagrangians (for fundamental fields describing elementary particles) which are invariant under general coordinate transformations, cf. the Lagrangian for a scalar field in chapter 1.

The Higgs sector of the standard model is traditionally described by such a Lagrangian for the Higgs field $`H`$, including a potential

$$V^H(H^2)V_0^H+𝒪(H^2)$$
(3.1)
where we have developed $`V^H`$ around its non-trivial minimum. The correct dimension of the constant $`V_0^H`$ is $`g/`$(m sec<sup>2</sup>), which is obtained from the condition that the action

$$S=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}𝑑td^3xV_0^H$$
(3.2)
is dimensionless. (Recall that $`\mathrm{}10^{31}gm^2`$/sec.) This dimension coincides with the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as obtained from eq. (1.44) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dimensionless, and the dimensions of $`H_0`$ and $`\kappa `$ given in eqs. (1.37) and (1). Traditionally, however, particle physicists put $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$. In these units the natural scale of $`V_0^H`$ is simply given by the 4th power of the Higgs vev, i.e.

$$V_0^H(100\mathrm{GeV})^4=10^8\mathrm{GeV}^4.$$
(3.3)
In order to bring eq. (3.3) into the form of eq. (2.6) (which has the dimension of a matter density) we have to use

$$1\mathrm{GeV}^42.310^{23}\frac{g}{m^3},$$
(3.4)
hence (3.3) corresponds to a natural value of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^H`$ of the order

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^H210^{31}\frac{g}{m^3}.$$
(3.5)
This is 55 orders of magnitude off the observed value (2.6).

From a Higgs sector of a grand unified theory, where

$$V_0^{GUT}\left(10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}\right)^4,$$
(3.6)
we would obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{GUT}210^{87}\frac{g}{m^3},$$
(3.7)
which is 111 orders of magnitude away from (2.6).

What about quantum field theory? We cannot consistently quantize gravity, but we can couple the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ as an external field to the bare action of a quantum field theory such that it becomes invariant under general coordinate transformations. For its partition function we write schematically

$$e^{iG(J,g_{\mu \nu })}=𝒟\phi e^{iS_{bare}(\phi ,g_{\mu \nu })+iJ\phi }$$
(3.8)
where $`\phi `$ are quantum fields and $`J`$ the corresponding sources. Then $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ plays actually the role of a source for the (composite) energy-momentum operator, i.e. functional derivatives of (3.8) with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ generate the corresponding matrix elements. Instead of the functional $`G(J,g_{\mu \nu })`$ in (3.8) it is more convenient to work with the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\phi _c\mathrm{},g_{\mu \nu })`$, which is obtained by a Legendre transform from $`G(J,g_{\mu \nu })`$, keeping $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ fixed. Now the components of the energy momentum tensor, which have to be inserted into the Einstein equations (1.3), are obtained in analogy to eq. (1.7):

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g(x)}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }(x)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\phi _c\mathrm{},g_{\mu \nu })$$
(3.9)
where, in the vacuum, the fields $`\phi _c\mathrm{}`$ are extrema of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\phi _c\mathrm{},g_{\mu \nu })`$. The leading diagrams, which contribute to the diagonal components of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ and hence to the cosmological constant, are quartically (!) divergent tadpole diagrams. Hence an UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}`$ is required, and the quantum contribution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{Quant}`$ to the cosmological constant is of the order

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{Quant}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}\right)^4.$$
(3.10)
If one uses the Planck scale $`10^{19}`$ GeV as an UV cutoff (under the assumption that local quantum field theory is valid up to this scale) eq. (3.10) gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{Quant}10^{97}\frac{g}{m^3}$$
(3.11)
which is 120 orders of magnitude off the experimental result (2.6). This is the world record on disagreement between theory and experiment.

What size of the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}`$ could we tolerate in order not to be in conflict with the experimental result (2.6)? A rapid calculation show that we would need

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}<810^3\mathrm{eV}$$
(3.12)
or

$$\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}\right)^1>0.025\mathrm{mm}.$$
(3.13)
Hence even very low energy quantum effects, at sizes much larger than the size of atoms (where quantum mechanics is well tested), lead to untolerable contributions to the cosmological constant.

The contradiction between the field theoretical results for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^H`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{GUT}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{Quant}`$ and the experimental result (2.6) is the famous ”cosmological constant problem” .

## 4 Towards Solutions of the Problem

a) Supersymmetry

Unbroken global supersymmetry  would lead to a nice solution of the cosmological constant problem. This is because the energy operator $`P^0`$ can be written as a sum over squares of supercharges $`Q_\alpha `$:

$$P^0=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\alpha }{}\left(Q_\alpha +\overline{Q}_\alpha \right)\left(Q_\alpha +\overline{Q}_\alpha \right),$$
(4.1)
hence matrix elements of $`P^0`$ can be written as

$$<\psi |P^0|\psi >=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\alpha }{}<\psi _\alpha |\psi _\alpha >$$
(4.2)
with

$$\psi _\alpha =\left(Q_\alpha +\overline{Q}_\alpha \right)|\psi >.$$
(4.3)
The right-hand side of eq. (4.2), and hence all expectation values of $`P^0`$, is semi-positive in a semi-positive Hilbert space. Thus, if a single state $`\psi _0`$ with $`<\psi _0|P^0|\psi _0>=0`$ exists, it is the state of lowest (vanishing) energy and hence the vacuum state. This argument includes all quantum effects, and would nicely explain a vanishing energy in the vacuum. However, eqs. (4.2) and (4.3) show that in this vacuum state supersymmetry would be unbroken,

$$\left(Q_\alpha +\overline{Q}_\alpha \right)|\psi _0>=0$$
(4.4)
which would imply untolerable Fermion/Boson degeneracies in the physical spectrum.

In classical $`N=1`$ supergravity it is possible to break spontaneously global supersymmetry, with vanishing vacuum energy and without fine tuning, provided the kinetic Lagrangian of the $`n`$ matter fields is invariant under a non-linearly realized global $`SU(n,1)`$ symmetry, i.e. if it parametrizes the coset space of a $`SU(n,1)/SU(n)\times U(1)`$ non-linear sigma model . Such $`N=1`$ supergravity theories in $`d=4`$ appear naturally by compactifying $`N=1`$ supergravity in $`d=10`$ down to $`d=4`$, hence in most realistic superstring theories to lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ .

However, here the vanishing of the vacuum energy is a purely classical phenomenon and spoiled by quantum corrections. If the spontaneous breakdown of supersymmetry manifests itself in the form of gaugino masses, positive definite scalar masses or trilinear scalar couplings of order $`M_{susy}`$, the quantum corrections to the cosmological constant are still of the order

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}M_{susy}^2\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}\right)^2,$$
(4.5)
which is much too large for $`M_{susy}100`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{UV}M_{Planck}10^{19}`$ GeV.

If the spontaneous breakdown of supersymmetry manifests itself only in the form of opposite mass shifts among scalars and pseudo-scalars of a massive chiral multiplet (so-called $`F`$-type splitting)  the quantum corrections to the cosmological constant are reduced to the order

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}M_{susy}^4$$
(4.6)
to all orders in perturbation theory. However, this value is still too large, and comparable to the contribution of the classical Higgs potential in the classical standard model. Hence, since a supersymmetry breaking scale $`M_{susy}<10^2`$ eV (cf. eq. (3.12)) is out of question, supersymmetry alone is finally not able to explain the measured value of the cosmological constant.

b) Dilaton

It is tempting to obtain a vanishing vacuum energy as a consequence of the equation of motion of a scalar field. A natural candidate for such a field is the dilaton $`\varphi `$, which helps to realize scale invariance non-linearly: In the presence of a dilaton all mass scales $`M`$ appear multiplied with an exponential of $`\lambda \varphi `$. (The smallest possible value for the coupling $`\lambda `$ is $`\lambda \sqrt{𝒢}=M_{Planck}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$.) Hence the “vacuum energy” $`V_0(\varphi )`$, which is of the order $`M^4`$, is roughly of the form

$$V_0(\varphi )M^4e^{4\lambda \varphi }.$$
(4.7)
Scalars with this property appear in string theory and compactified supergravity theories; often the dilaton $`\varphi `$ with the property (4.7) in $`d=4`$ is a linear combination of several such scalars.

At first sight eq. (4.7) implies indeed

$$\frac{dV_0(\varphi )}{d\varphi }=0V_0(\varphi )=0.$$
(4.8)
The value $`\varphi _0`$ which solves (4.8) is obviously $`\varphi _0=\mathrm{}`$. This is the “dilaton run away problem”: In string theory and compactified supergravity theories couplings depend typically on $`\varphi `$, and these couplings vanish (or even tend to infinity in some cases) in this limit.

Moreover particle masses $`m`$ depend necessarily on the dilaton in the form $`m(\varphi )Me^{\lambda \varphi }`$. Hence, whenever $`V_0(\varphi )`$ vanishes, all masses vanish as well (and scale invariance is restored). In addition, near the minimum of its potential the dilaton itself is nearly massless, and the coupling of the dilaton to particles of mass $`m`$ is of the order of $`\sqrt{𝒢}m=m/M_{Planck}`$. Light scalars induce long-range interactions which are strongly constraint by limits on ”fifth forces” and/or violations of the equivalence principle.

Note that these arguments apply also if mass scales are generated by dimensional transmutation (as in QCD or technicolour) once the $`\varphi `$ dependence of the UV cutoff is correctly taken into account. Hence, despite many efforts in this direction , no working model could be constructed up to date.

c) 3-Form-Field

A 3-form-field $`A_{\mu \nu \rho }=A_{[\mu \nu \rho ]}`$ appears in $`N=8`$ supergravity . It has a field strength $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}`$ and satisfies the equations of motion

$$^\mu F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=0$$
(4.9)
(suitably covariantized). The equation of motion (4.9) follows from a Lagrangian

$$_A=\lambda F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }.$$
(4.10)
The only non-trivial solutions of (4.9) which respect Lorentz covariance are of the form

$$F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }$$
(4.11)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an arbitrary constant. If one naively plugs (4.11) back into $`_A`$, one obtains an effective contribution to the cosmological constant

$$V_A=24\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }^2.$$
(4.12)
This does not solve the cosmological constant problem, but the arbitrary value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ could be used to cancel other contributions to it. Based on a path integral approach to Euclidean quantum gravity Hawking has argued  that, if $`S_{Eucl}`$ contains an arbitrary parameter as in (4.12), the most probable value of $`\mathrm{exp}(S_{Eucl})`$ is where $`S_{Eucl}`$ is minimal. Chosing the four sphere $`S^4`$ for Euclidean space time, the minimum of $`S_{Eucl}`$ (actually $`\mathrm{}`$) is achieved for a vanishing cosmological constant, i.e. infinite volume. Subsequently Duff has pointed out , however, that one should not plug ansätze for solutions back into the action, but rather vary the unconstrained action, and that consequently the $`A`$-contribution to the Euclidean action is positive, invalidating Hawking’s argument.

Brown and Teitelboim  have coupled a $`d1`$-form field $`A`$ (in $`d`$ space-time dimensions) to a $`d2`$-brane. Based on a 2-dimensional toy model they proposed that then the value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ could relax dynamically to the one corresponding to a vanishing cosmological constant.

But, all in all no convincing mechanism is known which naturally generates such a value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`d=4`$.

d) Quintessence

Quintessence  does not aim at a solution of the problem of the smallness of the cosmological constant with respect to particle physics scales, but at a solution of the coincidence problem: Why is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the order of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$?

In this approach the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is replaced by a potential $`V(\varphi )`$ of a scalar field $`\varphi `$, which is not assumed to have reached its minimum value by now. One uses that for potentials with

$$\frac{V^{\prime \prime }V}{(V^{})^2}1$$
(4.13)
the values of the scalar fields $`\varphi `$ evolve with time such that, for a wide range of initial conditions, $`V(\varphi )`$ is of the order of the density of background (standard) matter today. The solution of the coupled Einstein equations and equations of motion for $`\varphi `$ is required for this result. As a by-product one finds that the effective parameter $`w_\varphi `$ (cf. eq. (1.16) ff), associated to the equation of state for $`\varphi `$, is often time-dependent.

A simple potential satisfying (4.13) is given by

$$V(\varphi )e^{\lambda \varphi }.$$
(4.14)
However, now the full cosmological evolution has to be reconsidered, and notably nucleosynthesis constraints (which require the quintessence energy density not to be too large at that epoch) rule out the simple model (4.14). Among the many working models is

$$V(\varphi )\frac{\lambda }{\varphi ^\alpha },0<\alpha <2.$$
(4.15)
Motivations for quintessence fields and potentials can again be found in dilaton (or moduli) sectors of superstring or supergravity models, where the “dilaton run away problem” is now turned into a goody. However, the coupling of $`\varphi `$ to matter has to be reduced ad hoc in order not to generate additional dangerous long-range forces. Moreover, of course, the absolute value of the cosmological constant (the minimum of all scalar potentials) is still fine-tuned to zero here; the finite observed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is just explained by the fact that the quintessence field $`\varphi `$ has not yet reached the minimum of its potential.

It should be noted that once $`D(z)`$ (cf. (2.1)) can be determined to even better accuracy by measuring even more supernovae, various quintessence scenarios, i.e. various dependences of the cosmological ”constant” on time, can be distinguished experimentally.

e) Brane Universes

In brane worlds the dimension of space-time is extended beyond $`d=4`$. In contrast to the standard Kaluza-Klein approach, however, matter fields are confined to live on $`3+1`$ dimensional manifolds (3-branes) which are embedded into the higher dimensional space-time manifold. Only gravity (and so-called bulk fields) lives in this higher dimensional manifold.

The most studied examples consist in one extra fifth dimension (denoted by $`y`$) and one or two embedded 3-branes. The fifth dimension is compact, i.e. $`y`$ varies between $`\pi R_5y+\pi R_5`$ where the points $`y=\pm \pi R_5`$ are identified. The branes are located at $`y=0`$ (and $`y=\pm \pi R_5`$), and only symmetric modes of the $`y`$-dependent metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ under $`yy`$ are allowed.

This example is motivated by the Hořava-Witten construction of the strong coupling limit of the heterotic superstring , which is formulated in 11 dimensions with two 9-branes. After compactification of 6 space dimensions the above picture in 5 dimension emerges. Many more general brane worlds have been constructed since then, motivated by the presence of Dirichlet branes in string theories .

In this approach one can put constant energy densities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ on either of the two branes, and another constant energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in the bulk outside the branes. Which of these plays the role of the cosmological constant in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology (1.33)?

In order to answer this question one has to start with the five dimensional Einstein equations for $`g_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$. Assuming translational invariance in the three spacial $`x^i`$ dimensions and a constant diagonal energy momentum tensor $`T_\mu ^\nu `$ in the bulk the $`y`$ dependence of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ can be fixed completely. Actually the first derivatives of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ with respect to $`y`$ are discontinuous across the branes. This solution for the $`y`$ dependence of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ can be plugged back into the Einstein equations, and the $`t`$ dependence of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane(s) can be parametrized by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker ansatz (1.12).

Although the five-dimensional Einstein equations contain additional terms compared to the four dimensional Einstein equations (involving non-vanishing terms $`_yg_{\mu \nu }`$) the resulting equations for $`a(t)`$ can be written in the form of eq. (1.33) plus corrections on its right-hand side , provided $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ (as in the Hořava-Witten construction). The term $`\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in eq. (1.33) is now replaced by

$$\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=\frac{\kappa _5}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2$$
(4.16)
where $`\kappa _5`$ is the five dimensional gravitational coupling.

More generally, in the presence of bulk fields $`\phi _i`$ with potentials $`V^1(\phi )=V^2(\phi )`$ on the branes, a potential $`V_b(\phi )`$ in the bulk and a general sigma model metric $`𝒢_{ij}(\phi )`$ for the kinetic terms in the bulk, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}`$ corresponds to the minimum of the effective potential

$$V_{eff}(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}V_b\frac{1}{32}V_{,i}^1𝒢^{ij}V_{,j}^1+\frac{\kappa _5}{12}(V^1)^2.$$
(4.17)
(Curiously enough $`V_{eff}`$ ressembles the scalar potential in $`N=1`$ supergravity, with $`V^1`$ playing the role of the superpotential).

Generically even two five tunings ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, and the vanishing of the right-hand side of eq. (4.16) through an appropriate choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$) are required in order to reproduce both a small effective cosmological constant and a time independent effective four dimensional gravitational constant in brane worlds with two 3-branes. Scenarios with just one 3-brane and a non-compact fifth dimension also exist  where just one fine-tuning is required.

It has been claimed that even this fine-tuning can be avoided if one puts a scalar field in the bulk, with either no potential at all in the bulk and an exponential potential on the brane  or an exponential potential in the bulk : Then the combined equations of motion for the metric and the scalar field generically possess a (static) solution which corresponds to a vanishing effective cosmological constant. This scenario seems to violate the above theorem (4.17) on the effective cosmological constant. Indeed this “self-tuning”-scenario always involves a $`y`$-dependent metric with naked singularities in $`y`$. As shown in , any attempt to regularize these singularities requires a new fine-tuning. Moreover this scenario would require fine-tuned initial conditions.

The previous scenario involving a 3-form-field has also been applied to brane universes . However, again fine-tuned initial conditions are required if the static solution corresponding to a vanishing effective cosmological constant is to be realized .

## 5 Conclusions

None of the attempts listed above has led to a successful explanation for the observed smallness of the cosmological constant. We did not have time to discuss the approach of Verlinde et al. , which is based on an interpetation of the AdS/CFT correspondence as an AdS/Renormalization Group correspondence. This concept is reviewed in .

Let us recall that the origin of the problem is the coupling of local four dimensional quantum field theory (supposedly valid down to length scales of $`𝒪`$((100 GeV)<sup>-1</sup>)) to gravity, whose Einstein action is tested down to length scales of $`𝒪`$(1 mm). Any attempt to solve the cosmological constant problem – involving extra dimensions, branes, AdS/CFT or whatsoever – must either fit into these frameworks (possibly with new extra fields) or be precise on its modifications.

Modifications of the Einstein action – either through effects due to quantum gravity, “large” extra dimensions, curvature squared terms from string theory etc. – face the following obstacle: Gravitational interactions from millimeters to astronomical distances should not be (drastically) modified, but there should be an effect on the equation of motion of the “global” Robertson-Walker mode $`a(t)`$ of the gravitational field – without spoiling the very successful part of the cosmological standard model. Notably no “short-distance” modifications (affecting only small wave length modes of the gravitational field) can do this job.

Recall also that extra dimensions – with or without branes – can always be represented in terms of effective four dimensional fields (including possibly infinite towers of massive states) with local interactions. Hence any cancellation of the vacuum energy within an approach based on extra dimansions must be representable by an effective four-dimensional Lagrangian with peculiar properties.

Then one finds oneself automatically in one of the frameworks (dilaton etc.) considered and discarded before. It seems that any dynamics sensitive to a vacuum energy density of $`𝒪`$(($`10^3`$ eV)<sup>4</sup>) must involve fields with masses of this order or lighter. On the one hand these fields have to couple to matter and/or gravity (in order to detect the vacuum energy), but they should neither imply new long-range interactions nor have disastrous cosmological effects like important relic densities. Altogether these constraints seem to be self-contradictory.

In this situation some scientists appeal to anthropic principles as, e.g., “we happen to live in one long-living among $`10^{100}`$ possible universes”. Otherwise we possibly have to touch at one of the “hidden assumptions” – the local coupling of fundamental fields to gravity. Work in this direction is in progress .

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the participants of the Workshop for various critical and helpful comments on the subject.

References

1. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972.
2. R. Sexl, H. Urbantke, Gravitation and Kosmologie, B I Mannheim, 1983.
3. R. Wald, General Relativity, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
4. A. Krasiński, Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), 1997.
5. S. Perlmutter et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15 S1 (2000) 715, eConf/990809, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565.
6. A. Riess et al., Astron. J. 516 (1998) 1009, Astrophys. J. 560 (2001) 49 (astro-ph/0104455).
7. P. de Bernardis et al., Nature 404 (2000) 955.
8. For reviews and references see S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1, and S. M. Carroll, astro-ph/0004075.
9. J. Wess, J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983.
10. H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. 110C (1984) 1.
11. N. Dragon, U. Ellwanger, M. G. Schmidt, Progress in Part. and Nucl. Phys. 18 (1987) 1.
12. N. Dragon, U. Ellwanger, M. G. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B145 (1984) 192; Nucl. Phys. B255 (1985) 549; Phys. Lett. B154 (1985) 373.
13. E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B155 (1985) 151;
U. Ellwanger, M. G. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B294 (1987) 445.
14. U. Ellwanger, Phys. Lett. B349 (1995) 57.
15. A. Aurilia, H. Nicolai, P. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B176 (1980) 509.
16. S. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B134 (1984) 403.
17. M. Duff, Phys. Lett. B226 (1989) 36.
18. J. Brown, C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B195 (1987) 177, Nucl. Phys. B297 (1988) 787.
19. For reviews see P. Binétruy, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39 (2000) 1859, hep-ph/0005037, and V. Sahni, astro-ph/0202076.
20. B. Ratra, P. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 3406.
21. C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B302 (1988) 668;
P. Ferreira, M. Joyce, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 4740 Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 023503.
22. P. Hořava, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. 460 (1996) 506, Nucl. Phys. B475 (1996) 94.
23. J. Polchinski, Tasi Lectures on $`D`$-Branes, hep-th/9611050.
24. P. Binétruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger, D. Langlois, Phys. Lett. B477 (2000) 285.
25. O. De Wolfe, D. Freedmann, S. Gubser, A. Karch, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 046008;
U. Ellwanger, Phys. Lett. B473 (2000) 233.
26. M. Gogberashvili, Mod. Phys. Lett. A14 (1999) 2025;
L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4670.
27. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, N. Kaloper, R. Sundrum, Phys. Lett. B480 (2000) 193.
28. S. Kachra, M. Schulz, E. Silverstein, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 045021.
29. S. Förste, Z. Lalak, S. Lavignac, H. P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B481 (2000) 360, JHEP 0009 (2000) 34.
30. J. Kim, B. Kyae, H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4223, Nucl. Phys. B613 (2001) 306.
31. A. Medved, hep-th/0109180.
32. E. Verlinde, Class. Quant. Grav. 17 (2000) 1277;
E. Verlinde, H. Verlinde, JHEP 0005 (2000) 34.
33. U. Ellwanger, Lectures at the LPT Orsay, hep-th/0009006.
34. U. Ellwanger, hep-th/0201163.