format: text

text:
# Rest Frame System for Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes

## 1 Introduction

There is an increasing interest in obtaining results from general relativity that could be applied to real systems. In particular, the possibility of detecting gravitational waves in the near future, motivates the research for the description of systems containing very compact objects. In modeling these systems as isolated ones, it is possible to distinguish at least two very different approaches for tackling this problem. In one of them the description is attempted by introducing data, with some criteria, for the numeric solution of the field equation. In the other the description is attempted by trying to reduce the infinite degrees of freedom of the fields to some finite set, analogously as is done in the particle like description in Newtonian or in post-Newtonian dynamics. If this second approach has any chance of success, it will be because it is possible to ascribe, in a geometric invariant way, the finite degrees of freedom to the physical system one wants to describe.

It is important to emphasize that the present indication of the existence of gravitational radiation comes from the usage of the balance equation in the description of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The applicability of the present derivations of the balance equation to the binary pulsar system is still a matter of discussion. However, even in the case of having a formally complete derivation of this equation valid at an instant of time, one is still faced with the issue of its validity for long periods of time, or for systems involving strong gravitational fields and possible high velocities. The nature of the problem can be seen by noting that the balance equation relates time’s derivatives of the energy of the systems with time derivatives of the quadrupole moments of the system. Although the total energy of the system could be related with the unambiguously defined Bondi momentum; the notion of quadrupole moment has meaning only after one has settled down the issue of supertranslation freedom. Our construction of the center of mass sections at future null infinity through the definition of nice sections provides a procedure to give a precise meaning to concepts as angular momentum and multipole moments.

Therefore, from the study of gravitating isolated systems in the vicinity of the asymptotic region, i.e., future null infinity, one concludes that it is essential to introduce a family of sections of scri, embodying the notion of generalized center of mass. This is the analog of having a frame of reference with respect to which one can study the asymptotic fields. With this aim in ref.  it was introduced the ‘Supercenter of mass’ at future null infinity; which was defined in terms of the so called nice sections. It was indicated in this reference that the notion of center of mass can be attained by requiring an asymptotic nice section for the retarded time $`u\mathrm{}`$ to satisfy that the angular momentum coincides with the intrinsic angular momentum. Then, if the subsequent nice sections are constructed by infinitesimal time translations which are parallel to the Bondi momentum, one obtains a one parameter family of nice sections at future null infinity embodying the notion of center of mass.

In this work we study some mathematical properties of nice sections. In Section II we review the nice section equation and some of its basic properties. We present a more general proof of the existence of solutions to the linearized equation for nice sections, and formalize a local existence proof of nice sections in Section III. The differentiable properties of nice sections are studied in Section IV. We report on the desired non-self-crossing property of this family of solutions in Section V. In Section VI we present a proof of global existence of nice sections. Finally, several complementary results are presented in three Appendices.

## 2 The nice section equation

We will start by recalling the nice section equation. Given a section S of future null infinity, one can always find a Bondi coordinate(see for example ref. ) system $`(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ such that S is given by the equation $`u=0`$ . The supermomentum at S is defined by

$$P_{lm}(S)\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\underset{S}{}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑S^2;$$
(1)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\sigma \dot{\overline{\sigma }}+ð^2\overline{\sigma };$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`\sigma `$ being the leading order asymptotic behavior of the second Weyl tensor component and the Bondi shear respectively, and where we are using the GHP notation for the edth operator of the unit sphere. It is probably worth noting that in a Bondi system the quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a real function on future null infinity (see for example equations (3.35) and (5.20) in ref. ).

Given another section $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ of scri, one can find another Bondi system $`(\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{\zeta },\overline{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }})`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{u}=0`$ . One can further demand for that Bondi system to be aligned with the total (Bondi) momentum at $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ ; i.e., that the $`l=1`$ components of the momentum are zero:

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{l=1,m}(\stackrel{~}{S})=0.$$

The relation between the new and the original Bondi system is given by the BMS transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{u}=K(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\left(u\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right),$$
(3)
$$\overline{\zeta }=\frac{a\zeta +b}{c\overline{\zeta }+d}$$
(4)
with

$$adbc=1,K=\frac{(1+\zeta \overline{\zeta })}{(a\zeta +b)(\overline{a}\overline{\zeta }+\overline{b})+(c\zeta +d)(\overline{c}\overline{\zeta }+\overline{d})};$$

where a, b, c and d are complex constants. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ can also be determined by $`u=\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ .

The section $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is said to be of the nice type if

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{lm}(\stackrel{~}{S})=0\text{for}l0;$$
(5)
that is all the ‘spacelike’ components of the supermomentum, when calculated with respect to the adapted Bondi system, are zero; and the only nonvanishing one, namely $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{00}(\stackrel{~}{S})`$ , coincide with the total Bondi mass at $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$.

This is the original version of the nice section equation; however its information is hidden in the simplicity of its form. Since the nice section can be determined by the supertranslation $`\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ , mentioned above, it is more useful to restate the nice section equation in terms of an equation for $`\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ .

The supermomentum at $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ can also be expressed in terms of the original Bondi coordinate system:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{P}_{lm}(\stackrel{~}{S})& \frac{1}{4\pi }_{\stackrel{~}{S}}Y_{lm}(\stackrel{~}{\zeta },\overline{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝑑\stackrel{~}{S}^2\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4\pi }K_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}_{\stackrel{~}{S}=(u=\gamma )}Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })(\mathrm{\Psi }(u=\gamma )ð^2\overline{ð}^2\gamma )𝑑S^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where the matrix $`K_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}`$ is the transformation matrix of the generators of supertranslations, that is:

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{lm}=K_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}p_{lm}$$
(7)
with

$$p_{lm}=Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\frac{}{u}.$$

The fourth order edth operator appearing in equation (6) comes from the transformation properties of the quantities entering into the definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ ; in particular, the term $`ð^2\overline{\sigma }`$ transforms under the law:

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^2\stackrel{~}{\overline{\sigma }}=\frac{1}{K^3}\left(ð^2\overline{\sigma }ð^2\overline{ð}^2\gamma \right);$$
(8)
and similarly; after a straight forward but long calculation, one can prove that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ transforms as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{1}{K^3}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }ð^2\overline{ð}^2\gamma \right),$$
(9)
where the transformation of Bondi systems under BMS transformations, appearing in the appendix of ref. , have been used in deriving the last two relations. The nice section equation can be understood as a condition for $`\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ and K.

It is important to note that there exists different choices for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the literature; because by adding any function with $`l2`$ (for example $`ð^2\overline{\sigma }`$ ) one obtains the same expression for the Bondi momentum. But the supermomentum (2) is the only one that have the simple transformation (9). We mention also (but we do not make use of this) that the time derivative of (2) have also a very simple form:

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\dot{\sigma }\dot{\overline{\sigma }};$$

the other definitions of supermomentum have a flux that is not positive definite.

Although in equation (6) one has an expression that involves the original Bondi coordinate system $`(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ , the difficulty with it is the appearance of the infinite transformation matrix $`K_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}`$ ; therefore it is convenient to seek a simpler expression. It was indicated in ref.  that equation (5) can be expressed by

$$ð^2\overline{ð}^2\gamma =\mathrm{\Psi }(u=\gamma ,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+K(\gamma ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M(\gamma );$$
(10)
where the function on the sphere $`K`$ is the conformal factor of the BMS transformation that aligns the $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{00}`$ with the Bondi momentum at $`u=\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ ; which justifies the notation indicating the $`\gamma `$ dependence on it; and finally the total mass M is also calculated at $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ . Equation (10) is our main equation that is studied throughout the rest of this article. The validity of equation (10) can be deduced either from the discussion in ref. , using the properties of the matrix $`K_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}`$ ; or it can be deduced from equations (5) and (9); since the nice section equation (5) can be understood as requiring that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ be a constant when evaluated at the section $`u=\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ ; and this constant is precisely the negative of the Bondi mass M evaluated on this section.

Clearly $`K(\gamma ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ and $`M(\gamma )`$ are determined by the value of the total momentum at $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ , which can explicitly be given by:

$$P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\stackrel{~}{S})=\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\mathrm{\Psi }(u=\gamma ,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑S^2,$$
(11)
where $`\underset{¯}{a}=0,1,2,3`$ , and the vector $`l^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ is given in terms of the first spherical harmonics by

$$l^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\sqrt{4\pi }(Y_{00},\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(Y_{11}Y_{11}),\frac{i}{\sqrt{6}}(Y_{11}+Y_{11}),\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}Y_{10}).$$
(12)
Note that one can also express the total momentum at $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\stackrel{~}{S})& =\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\left(_0^\gamma \dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u^{},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑u^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }(u=0,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right)𝑑S^2\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })_0^\gamma \dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u^{},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑u^{}𝑑S^2+P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(S)\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
where a dot means $`u`$ derivative; this shows a more explicit dependence of $`P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\stackrel{~}{S})`$ on $`\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ and the momentum flux. Then, the conformal factor K can be given by

$$K(\gamma ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })=\frac{M(\gamma )}{P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\stackrel{~}{S})l^{\underset{¯}{b}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}},$$
(14)
where the Lorentzian metric $`\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}`$ was defined in  and

$$M(\gamma )=\sqrt{P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\stackrel{~}{S})P^{\underset{¯}{b}}(\stackrel{~}{S})\eta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}}.$$
(15)
Then, it is observed that eq. (10) is an elliptic, non linear, integro-differential equation for $`\gamma (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ . Let us mention same properties of this equation. Calling $`D`$ the differential operator appearing in the left hand side of equation (10), we have that:

$$Dð^2\overline{ð}^2=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplacian of the unit sphere. Note that when the operator $`D`$ is applied to the spherical harmonics it gives

$$DY_{lm}=\frac{\left(l1\right)l\left(l+1\right)\left(l+2\right)}{4}Y_{lm}.$$
(17)
This means that the left-hand side of (10) has an expansion in spherical harmonics with $`l2`$ ; and in order to be a consistent equation the right-hand side must also have this property for an arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (see Appendix 1) for a proof of this property).

In the stationary case, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ , the equation becomes linear and has always solutions. Let $`\gamma _0`$ be the a solution of the stationary case, then if $`x(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ is such that: $`Dx=0`$ we have that $`\gamma _0+x`$ is also a solution. Then, in the stationary case there exists a 4-parameter family of solution (the real solution of $`Dx=0`$ are linear combinations of the spherical harmonics with $`l1`$ , i.e.: they are determined by four real numbers). To illustrate this situation let us consider for example the Schwarzschild spacetime. In the usual coordinates and null tetrad the equation simplifies considerably since $`\mathrm{\Psi }=M`$ and $`K=1`$; where M is the Schwarzschild mass. Therefore, in this case, the right hand side of eq. (10) vanishes, and so $`\gamma _0=0`$ is a nice section. This means that the usual coordinate system is a “global rest frame” system; and one still have the freedom of the translations *x*’s. If instead we had begun with an arbitrary system in the Schwarzschild spacetime, then we would have $`\mathrm{\Psi }M`$ and we would need a non trivial $`\gamma _0`$ to solve the nice section equation (10). This $`\gamma _0`$ is the supertranslation we have to make in order to come back to “global rest frame”. In order to gain the notion of center of mass from this family of solutions, one impose on the “first” section at $`u=\mathrm{}`$ the condition that the angular momentum coincide with the intrinsic angular momentum; this eliminates a 3-dimensional freedom in the choice of the translations x’s. Then, if from the first nice section we only allow for infinitesimal translations that are parallel to the total momentum, we generate from $`u=\mathrm{}`$ the “center of mass system” with the solutions of the nice section equation.

What happens in general, with a radiative asymptotically flat space-time?. Let put first a conjecture:

*Conjecture:* Under mild hypothesis for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ , there exists solutions $`\gamma `$ of (10) of the form: $`\gamma =x+y`$ , for each choice of translation x ( $`Dx=0`$ ), and with y a super-translation (i.e.: with spherical harmonics $`l2`$ expansion). The solution is $`C^2`$ in the sphere and if $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are time constant translation, with $`x_1`$ in the future of $`x_2`$ ; that is:

$$x_1x_2$$

then:

$$\gamma _1\gamma _2()$$

where $`\gamma _1`$ is the solution corresponding to $`x_1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ the corresponding to $`x_2`$.

If this conjecture were true, and by using the selection of “initial” nice section as it was explained for the Schwarzschild case, we would have that for any asymptotically flat space time there exist one globally defined “rest frame” at null infinity, that have the appropriate properties to be interpreted as the “center of mass” system of the space-time. We note that the last property (\*), requires that the sections defining the center of mass system must be a one-parameter family, without self crossing behavior. We also remark that the differentiability property means that they are smooth sections of scri.

Of course this conjecture is very difficult to prove, because the equation (10) is a complicate non linear equation, but we can give here an argument (not a proof) that can help to understand why one might think the conjecture is true.

The idea is to construct a perturbation series beginning with an arbitrary translation $`x`$. Let,

$$\gamma _0=x\gamma _n=x+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_k$$

where $`y_n`$ is the solution of the linear equation

$$ð^2\overline{ð}^2y_n=\mathrm{\Psi }(u=\gamma _{n1},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+K(\gamma _{n1};\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M(\gamma _{n1}).$$

If the series converges we have for each translation $`x`$ a solution $`\gamma `$.

In the following part of this paper we prove the following results that indicate to the validity of the conjecture:

(1) “Local” version of the conjecture: Given a space-time which satisfies, using geometric units, $`\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{u}\right|\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}`$ (\**) and assuming there exists a solution $`\gamma _0`$ , then there exists locally for each infinitesimal translation a solution $`\gamma `$ , which is $`C^2`$ and satisfy (\*).

This is done in Sections III, IV, and V. Let us note that the condition (\**) means that the spacetime does not admit arbitrary amount of radiation; however, for realistic astrophysical systems it turns out that (\**) is always true (see ).

(2) If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is near to the stationary case, then the there exist a global 4-parameter family of solution.

This result is proved in Section VI.

## 3 Local existence of solutions

The result of the local existence of solutions will be constructed around the implicit function theorem; therefore appropriate Banach spaces must be introduced. We begin by introducing some notation.

For any pair of regular functions on the sphere a and b let the inner product $`a|b`$ be defined by:

$$a|b=\overline{a}b𝑑S^2,$$
(18)
and associated to this let the norm of a function a be given by

$$a^2=a|a;$$
(19)
that is; $`||||`$ is the standard $`L^2`$ norm on the unit sphere $`S^2`$.

We will next introduce three sets of real regular functions on the sphere. Let us start with the set:

$$X=\left\{x(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })L^2(S^2)/Dx=0\right\};$$
(20)
note that the real functions $`x(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ are determined by four real numbers.

Let $`Z`$ be the set of real functions on the sphere with finite norm and residing in the orthogonal complement of $`X`$; equivalently

$$Z=X^{}=\{z(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })L^2(S^2)/x|z=0xX\}.$$
(21)
Note that if $`\gamma `$ is in $`L^2`$ , then it can be decomposed as a sum of two terms; one in $`X`$ and the other in $`Z`$; that is $`\gamma =x+z`$, $`xX`$, $`zZ`$. Furthermore, it is convenient to define the projector operator $`T`$, such that $`T\left(\gamma \right)=T\left(x+z\right)=x`$; that is T projects to the subspace $`X`$ and therefore satisfies $`T^2=T`$.

It is clear from the definitions that $`X`$ and $`Z`$ are Hilbert spaces.

Let us now define the following inner product. For any four times differentiable functions $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ , in $`Z`$, let $`|_D`$ be defined by

$$y_1|y_2_DD\overline{y}_1Dy_2𝑑S^2;$$
(22)
the fact that this is really an inner product in $`Z`$ follows from the existence of an inverse of the operator D; as it is deduced from equation (17). It is natural to define the norm

$$y_D^2y|y_D.$$
(23)
As it was stated in ref.  it is not difficult to see that

$$yy_D.$$
(24)
Let us define now the space of real functions on the sphere $`Y`$ by

$$Y=\{y(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })Z/y_D<\mathrm{}\text{ completed with respect to this norm}\};$$
(25)
If one expresses the functions $`x`$ and $`y`$ in terms of spherical harmonics one has

$$x=\underset{\begin{array}{c}l=0\\ |m|l\end{array}}{\overset{1}{}}x^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })$$
(26)
and

$$y=\underset{\begin{array}{c}l=2\\ |m|l\end{array}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }),$$
(27)
for some constant coefficients $`x^{lm}`$ and $`y^{lm}`$.

Note that the space $`Y`$ is also a Hilbert space.

Given regular radiation data at future null infinity, let the real function $`f(x,y)`$ on the sphere be defined in terms of functions $`xX`$ and $`yY`$ by the expression:

$$f(x,y)=Dy\left(\mathrm{\Psi }(u=x+y,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+K(x+y;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M(x+y)\right);$$
(28)
where the radiation data enters into the determination of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ , $`K`$ and $`M`$ at $`u=\gamma =x+y`$ ; and it is easily seen that the condition $`f(x,y)=0`$ coincides with the nice section equation. It is also a property of any $`f(x,y)`$ , so constructed, that it lives in the orthogonal complement space of $`X`$; in other words, for any $`f`$ and any $`x`$ in $`X`$ one has $`f|x^{}=0`$; see Appendix 1 for a proof of this assertion. This means that $`f`$ is expressible in terms of spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}`$ with $`l2`$; that is,

$$f=\underset{\begin{array}{c}l=2\\ |m|l\end{array}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }).$$
(29)
It is worth mentioning that the decomposition of the supertranslation $`\gamma `$ as the sum $`\gamma =x+y`$ , is a natural one due to the fact that $`Dx=0`$ for any $`x`$ in $`X`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ , $`K`$ and $`M`$ are completely determined by the free data at future null infinity, one can see that for smooth data, any $`f`$ will have finite norm and so any $`f`$, so defined, belongs to $`Z`$.

Let us now consider the difference

$$\begin{array}{c}f(x,y+\delta y)f(x,y)\hfill \\ \hfill =D\delta y\underset{x+y}{\overset{x+y+\delta y}{}}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u^{},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑u^{}+K(x+y+\delta y;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M(x+y+\delta y)\\ \hfill K(x+y;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M(x+y)\end{array}$$

From the definition (28) one can prove that

$$f(x,y+\delta y)f(x,y)=f_y(x,y)\delta y+O(\delta y^2)$$
(30)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}f_y(x,y)\delta y=D\delta y\hfill \\ \hfill \left[\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u=x+y,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\delta y+K^3\left(\frac{4P_{\underset{¯}{a}}}{M}3Kl_{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right)\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}\right],\end{array}$$
(31)
where $`P_{\underset{¯}{a}}`$, $`M`$, and $`K`$ are evaluated at $`u=x+y`$, and $`\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ is given by

$$\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u=x+y,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\delta y𝑑S^2;$$
(32)
therefore by definition, $`f_y(x,y)`$ is the Fréchet derivative of the map $`f`$ in terms of the argument $`y`$.

Let us observe that for smooth data $`f_y(x,y)`$ is continuous in $`x`$, and

$$\delta z=f_y(x,y)\delta y$$
(33)
is a linear continuous map from $`Y`$ onto $`Z`$. The *onto* property is deduced from the fact that the first term in eq. (31) is an operator providing an onto map.

Let us assume that

$$f(x_0,y_0)=0;$$
(34)
that is, the pair $`(x_0,y_0)`$ defines a nice section through the relation $`\gamma _0=x_0+y_0`$ , then

$$P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(x_0,y_0)=M(x_0,y_0)\delta _0^{\underset{¯}{a}},$$
(35)
which implies that

$$K(x_0,y_0)=1.$$
(36)
So the last term in equation (31) is given by

$$K^3\left(\frac{4P_{\underset{¯}{a}}}{M}3Kl_{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right)\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\left(4\delta _{\underset{¯}{a}}^03l_{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right)\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}};$$
(37)
which is clearly an expression involving only spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}`$ with $`l1`$.

Therefore one has that(see also Appendix 1)

$$f_y(x_0,y_0)\delta y=D\delta y\left[F\delta yT(F\delta y)\right],$$
(38)
with $`F=F(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u=x_o+y_o,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$. As it was done in ref. , we will assume that the modulus of the flux is bounded by the quantity $`\lambda `$, i.e.:

$$\left|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|\lambda ;$$
(39)
and therefore $`\left|F\right|\lambda `$.

Then the following result holds:

###### Lemma 3.1

If $`\left(\lambda ^2\frac{4}{27}\right)<1`$ then the map $`\delta z=f_y(x_0,y_0)\delta y`$ from $`Y`$ onto $`Z`$ is invertible.

*Proof*:We start with the expression

$$D\delta y\left[F\delta yT(F\delta y)\right]=\delta z.$$
(40)
Note that from eq. (17) one can see that there exists an operator $`D^1`$, acting on elements of Z, such that on spherical harmonics, with $`l2`$ , it gives

$$D^1Y_{lm}=\frac{4}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}Y_{lm},$$
(41)
then one deduces that $`zZD^1zZ`$. Let us now define the operator $`A:YY`$ , such that $`\delta zZ`$,

$$A\delta yD^1(\delta z+F\delta yT(F\delta y).$$
(42)
Then eq. (40) is equivalent to the equation:

$$A\delta y=\delta y.$$
(43)
We will next show that if $`\left(\lambda ^2\frac{4}{27}\right)<1`$ then $`A`$ is a contracting map, and therefore eq.(43) has a unique solution.

It is shown in Appendix 2 that for any function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })Y`$ one has the following inequality:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\frac{4}{27}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2.$$
(44)
This clearly improves the inequality (24). It then follows that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A\delta yA\delta y^{}& =D^1F(\delta y\delta y^{})D^1T(F(\delta y\delta y^{}))_D^2\hfill \\ & =F(\delta y\delta y^{})T(F(\delta y\delta y^{}))^2\hfill \\ & F(\delta y\delta y^{})^2\lambda ^2(\delta y\delta y^{})^2\hfill \\ & \lambda ^2\frac{4}{27}(\delta y\delta y^{})_D^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
where we have used the fact that for any $`\gamma L^2(S^2)`$ one has $`\gamma T\gamma \gamma `$. Consequently $`A`$ defines a contracting map, which implies that (43) has a unique solution. Then $`f_y(x_0,y_0)`$ provides with a one-to-one map and onto from $`Z`$ to $`Y`$.

Therefore $`f_y(x_0,y_0)`$ is an homeomorphism of $`Y`$ onto $`Z`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

This result along with the implicit function theorem allows us to prove the following:

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`\gamma _0=x_0+y_0`$ be a nice section, i.e.: $`f(x_0,y_0)=0`$ , and the smooth data $`\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ satisfying $`|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })|\lambda `$ , with $`\lambda <\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}`$ , then there exist a local 4-parameter family of nice sections near $`\gamma _0`$.

*Proof:* Lemma 3.1 allows us to use the implicit function theorem for the Banach spaces $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$, and the map $`z=f(x,y)`$ ; which tell us that there is a unique continuous mapping $`g:UY`$ defined in a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x_0`$ such that $`y_0=g(x_0)`$ and

$$Dg(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(u=x+g(x),\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+K(x+g(x);\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M\left(x+g(x)\right).$$
(46)
Since there is a 4-parameter family of solutions to the equation $`Dx=0`$ ; one deduces that given a nice section and data satisfying $`\lambda <\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}`$, there exists a 4-parameter family of them in a neighborhood of the original one.$`\mathrm{}`$

This result generalizes the calculations of ref.  in several ways; notably by pushing the permissible upper value of $`\lambda `$ from $`1`$ to $`\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}`$ , and also by allowing a general translation $`x`$.

## 4 Differentiable properties of the local solutions

In order to study the differentiable properties of nice sections we need to introduce further notation. Let us express the Sobolev norm $`H_4`$ by:

$$y_{H_4}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}^{(i)}y;$$
(47)
where the multi-index $`i`$ is used as

$$|^{(i)}y|^2=^{a_1}^{a_2}\mathrm{}^{a_i}y_{a_1}_{a_2}\mathrm{}_{a_i}y.$$
(48)
Since the operator $`D`$ is strongly elliptic of fourth degree on the compact manifold $`S^2`$ , then the following inequalities hold:

$$Dyc_1y_{H^4},$$
(49)
$$y_{H^4}c_2\left(Dy+y\right),$$
(50)
for some positive constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$.

We will use these relations to prove the next result.

###### Lemma 4.1

There exist constants $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ , independent of $`y`$ such that $`yY`$ one has that:

$$Cy_{H^4}y_DC^{}y_{H^4}.$$
(51)
That is the norms are equivalent.

*Proof:* The second inequality is just relation (49). The first inequality follows from (50) and the fact that for $`yY`$ one has:

$$\begin{array}{c}y_{H^4}c\left(Dy+y\right)=c\left(y_D+y\right)\hfill \\ \hfill c\left(y_D+\sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}y_D\right)=c\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)y_D.\end{array}$$
(52)
$`\mathrm{}`$

It then follows:

###### Theorem 4.1

The local 4-parameter family of nice sections is two times differentiable functions on the sphere.

*Proof:* Using the last Lemma and the Sobolev imbedding theorem for compact manifolds(see for example ) one deduces that the solutions $`g(x)`$, mentioned in the proof of the theorem of the last section, are in $`C^2(S^2)`$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Non self-crossing property of the local solutions

Let $`\gamma (\tau )`$ be a one parameter family of nice sections for $`\tau [0,t]`$ . Then since $`\gamma (x,y)`$ is linearly expressed in terms of $`x`$ and $`y`$ by $`\gamma (\tau )=x(\tau )+y(x(\tau ))`$ , it is clear that the Fréchet derivative of $`f(\gamma (x,y))`$ , with respect to $`\gamma `$, $`f_\gamma (\gamma (x,y))`$ , is given by the analog expression (31) when one substitutes $`\delta y`$ by $`\delta \gamma `$ ; that is:

$$\begin{array}{c}f_\gamma (\gamma (x,y))\delta \gamma =D\delta \gamma \hfill \\ \hfill \left[\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u=\gamma ,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\delta \gamma +K^3\left(\frac{4P_{\underset{¯}{a}}}{M}3Kl_{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right)\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\delta \gamma )\right],\end{array}$$
(53)
where $`P_{\underset{¯}{a}}`$, $`M`$, and $`K`$ are evaluated at $`u=\gamma `$ , and $`\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\delta \gamma )`$ is given by

$$\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\delta \gamma )=\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u=\gamma ,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\delta \gamma 𝑑S^2.$$
(54)
Recalling that the nice section equation is equivalent to $`f(x,y)=0`$ , it is deduced from the properties of the equation, that its Fréchet derivative with respect to $`\gamma `$ must also vanish. But it is observed that the equation $`f_\gamma (\gamma )\delta \gamma =0`$ coincides with the linearization of the nice section equation; therefore, if one takes $`\delta \gamma =\frac{d\gamma }{d\tau }d\tau `$ and wants to study the properties of $`\frac{d\gamma }{d\tau }`$ , one needs to analyze the linearized nice section equation.

So, let us consider now the solutions of the linear nice section equation of the form

$$\delta \gamma =\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(55)
with $`\delta xX`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Y`$ . From the arguments of ref., and their extension to general translations, presented above, it is deduced that a solution can be constructed by the sequence $`\delta \gamma _n=\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ defined in the following form:

$$\delta \gamma _0=\delta x$$
(56)
$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_1=A_0\delta \gamma _0,$$
(57)
and in general, for $`n>1`$,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_n=A_0(\delta x+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1})$$
(58)
or

$$\delta \gamma _n=\delta x+A_0\delta \gamma _{n1},$$
(59)
where $`A_0`$ is the trivial extension of the operator defined in (42) to act on $`XY`$ , with $`\delta z=0`$. Let us note that if $`\delta x=0`$, then $`\delta \gamma _1=0`$ which implies that $`\delta \gamma _n=0n`$ , or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$.

It is interesting to observe that this solution for the homogenous linear equation can also be expressed by

$$\delta \gamma =\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_0^i\delta x;$$
(60)
in particular, one can see that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_0^i\delta x.$$
(61)
The proof that (60) gives the solution of the homogeneous linear equation can be given in the following way. First let us check that if the series (60) converges then it is a solution, since

$$A_0\delta \gamma =A_0\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_0^i\delta x\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_0^i\delta x=\mathrm{\Gamma };$$
(62)
which is the representation of the homogeneous linear equation in terms of the operator $`A_0`$. Now let us prove that the series (60) converges. Note that

$$\delta \gamma _n\delta \gamma _{n1}_D=\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}_D=A_0^n\delta x_D;$$
(63)
then, since for $`n1`$, $`A_0^n\delta xY`$ , one has from (45) that

$$A_0y_D\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}y_D;$$
(64)
therefore

$$\delta \gamma _n\delta \gamma _{n1}_D\left(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)^{n1}A_0\delta x_D;$$
(65)
which implies that the sequence converges if $`\left(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)<1`$.

Using the notation of the last section, and denoting $`\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0=\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(u=x_0+g(x_0),\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ , one can prove the following result:

###### Theorem 5.1

Let $`\gamma _0=x_0+g(x_0)`$ be a nice section and let $`\delta x_0`$ be a positive constant such that $`x=x_0+\delta x_0U`$ . There exist $`\lambda _{}(0,\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}})`$ such that for data satisfying $`|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0|<\lambda _{}`$ the solution $`\delta \gamma (\delta x_0)`$ of the linear nice section equation is also positive.

This implies, as is mentioned below, that the solutions of the nice section equation generated by an aligned time translation do not cross among them.

*Proof:* Using the fact that for any $`\gamma L^2\left(S^2\right)`$, $`\gamma T\gamma \gamma `$ , one deduces that if $`\delta \gamma =\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a solution of the linear nice section equation, then

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma })^2\lambda ^2\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\lambda ^2\delta x^2`$
$`\lambda ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{27}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2+\delta x^2\right);`$
therefore

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2\frac{\lambda ^2}{1\frac{4}{27}\lambda ^2}\delta x^2.$$
(66)
From Appendix 2, one has

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{27}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2;$$
(67)
therefore, it is deduced that

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2<\frac{4}{27}\frac{\lambda ^2}{1\frac{4}{27}\lambda ^2}\left(\delta x_0\right)^2.$$
(68)
Then, the inequality

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2<\left(\delta x_0\right)^2;$$
(69)
will be satisfied if

$$\lambda <\lambda _{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}1.8371$$
(70)
$`\mathrm{}`$

The constant $`\lambda _{}`$ appearing in the result depends on the technique one uses for the proof. In order to illustrate this, in the Appendix 3 we present three other alternative proofs, using different techniques, which impose three different bounds on the data; which do not improve the last one.

It is not yet clear to us whether the above value of $`\lambda _{}`$ is the best possible one.

Theorem 5.1 proves that $`\delta \gamma >0`$ for an aligned future time translation

$`d\tau `$ , which implies that $`\frac{d\gamma }{d\tau }>0`$ , and therefore that the nice section family does not show self crossing since $`\gamma (\tau +d\tau )`$ is to the future of $`\gamma (\tau )`$ .

## 6 Global existence of nice sections near the stationary case

The results appearing in the previous sections deal only with local properties of nice sections; in this section the issue of global existence will be tackled. In Ref. 2 it was proved that there exists a 4-parameter family of nice sections in a stationary spacetime. This suggests that when radiation is “small” one could probably find an analogous result. In what follows we will apply once more the implicit function theorem to prove this assertion.

Let $`C^0(^+)`$ represent the vector space of all bounded continuous functions on scri plus, with the norm $`F_{C^0(^+)}=sup\left|F(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|`$. The vector space $`C^0(^+)`$ defines a Banach space.

Let $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ represent the spaces defined in Sec. III, and let us denote with $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ the space whose elements are of the form $`\xi =(x,F)`$ , with $`xX`$, $`FC^0(^+)`$ and with norm $`\xi =x_X+F_{C^0(^+)}`$. The space $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a Banach space. Consider now the map from $`(\mathrm{\Xi },Y)`$ into $`Z`$ defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ,y)=Dy\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\underset{u_0}{\overset{x+y}{}}F(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑u+\mathrm{\Psi }(u_0,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+K(x+y,F;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })^3M(x+y,F)\right)\end{array}$$
(71)
which coincide with the map $`f(x,y)`$ defined in Sec. III, but where now it is taken into account explicitly the dependence on the flux $`F`$. The Fréchet derivative of this map with respect to the variable $`y`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_y(\xi ,y)\delta y=D\delta y\hfill \\ \hfill [F(u=\gamma =x+y,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\delta y+K^3(\frac{4P_{\underset{¯}{a}}}{M}3Kl_{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }))\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}]\end{array}$$
(72)
where $`P_{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ , $`M`$, and $`K`$ are evaluated at $`u=\gamma =x+y`$ ; in particular one has:

$$P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\gamma )=\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\underset{u_0}{\overset{\gamma }{}}F(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑u𝑑S^2+P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(u=u_0)(\text{73})$$
(73)
and $`\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ is given by

$$\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })F(u=\gamma =x+y,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\delta ydS^2.$$
(74)
Let us denote with $`\xi _0`$ the non-radiation case, that is, $`\xi _0=(x_0,F=0)`$; we have shown in Ref. 2 that there exists a relation $`y_0(x_0)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi _0,y_0)=0`$, for any translation $`x_0`$; in other words, in the absence of radiation $`(F=0)`$, the map $`\gamma _0(x_0)=x_0+y_0(x_0)`$ defines a 4-parameter family of nice sections globally on scri. It is observed that $`\delta P^{\underset{¯}{a}}(F=0)=0`$ ; therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_y(\xi (x,F=0),y)\delta y=D\delta y,$$
(75)
and it is clear that the map $`\delta z=\mathrm{\Phi }_y(\xi (x,F=0),y)\delta y`$ from $`Y`$ onto $`Z`$ is invertible; that is, it is an homeomorphism of $`Y`$ onto $`Z`$.

The implicit function theorem implies that there exists a unique continuous mapping $`G`$ defined in a neighborhood $`U_0C^0(^+)`$ of $`F=0`$, $`G:U_0Y`$, parametrized by $`x_0`$, such that $`G(\xi (x_0,F=0))=y_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi (x_0,F),y)=0`$ for $`FU_0`$.

Let us call “small radiation data” the one that satisfies $`\dot{\sigma }\dot{\overline{\sigma }}=FU_0`$ in the last result. Then, the continuity properties contained in the implicit function theorem and the fact that $`x`$ lives in a 4-dimensional vector space, imply the following result:

###### Theorem 6.1

For “small radiation data” there exists a global 4-parameter family of nice sections at scri.

## 7 Final comments

Summarizing, in this article several results concerning local and global properties of the center of mass of isolated systems in general relativity have been presented; in terms of the so called nice sections. In Section 6 the global existence of nice sections has been established for small radiation data. In Section 3 there appears a formal proof of existence of nice sections with less restrictive assumptions on the strength of the radiation data that had appear in the literature before.

Although the global result of Section 6 is very important from a formal perspective of the whole picture based on nice sections; the local result of Section 3 might be more important from the operational point of view, since if one wants to make a concrete calculation based on this construction it is natural to start by taking an initial nice section and calculating then the dynamics of the system on a local family around the initial one. The relaxation of the strength of the radiation warrants a wider set of applicability of this formalism.

Differentiable properties of nice sections have been established in Section 4. And in Section 5 the desired non-self-crossing property of nice sections was proved.

It is important to emphasize that this last property is what one expects from making the analogy with the case of a set of particles in linearized gravity; since in this case any sensible notion of center of mass, defined in the interior of the spacetime, would follow a timelike curve whose future null cones would define the corresponding one parameter family of center of mass at future null infinity. This later family clearly could not show self-crossing since this would imply a faster than light velocity for the trajectory of the center of mass in the interior of the spacetime.

We conclude then that the present approach for the notion of center of mass of isolated gravitating systems, based on the definition of nice sections, not only has the necessary mathematical properties, but it also has the appropriate physical properties that make possible its interpretation.

## Acknowledgments

Most of this work was developed while one of the authors (O.M.) was visiting the Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Potsdam, Germany. This author is very grateful to all the people at the Institute and in particular Dr. Helmut Friedrich, for their kind hospitality.

It is a pleasure to thank Drs. H. Friedrich, O. Reula, B. Schmidt and E. T. Newman for illuminating discussions on our work. We also would like to thank A. Rendall for pointing out an error in the original paper and for discussions.

This research was supported by the “Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas de la Provincia de Córdoba” (CONICOR), the “Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas” (CONICET) and the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG).

## Appendix 1

For any regular real function on the sphere f let us define

$$f^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }l^{\underset{¯}{a}}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })f(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })𝑑S^2,$$

and let us also define

$$\widehat{f}f^{\underset{¯}{a}}l_{\underset{¯}{a}}=f^0\widehat{f}^{(\text{3})},$$

with $`\widehat{f}^{(\text{3})}(f^1l^1+f^2l^2+f^3l^3)`$ . Then it is easy to prove by direct calculation

###### Lemma 7.1

$$T(f)=f^03\widehat{f}^{(\text{3})}.$$

It is also useful the following result.

###### Lemma 7.2

For any timelike vector $`U^a`$ one has

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{l^{\underset{¯}{a}}}{\left(U^{\underset{¯}{b}}l_{\underset{¯}{b}}\right)^3}𝑑S^2=\frac{U^{\underset{¯}{a}}}{\left(U^{\underset{¯}{b}}U_{\underset{¯}{b}}\right)^2}.$$

*Proof:*

First let us prove that the left hand side transforms as a 4-vector under Lorentz transformations. This can easily be seen from the fact that under Lorentz transformations:

$$l^{\underset{¯}{a}}Kl^{\underset{¯}{a}},dS^2K^2dS^2.$$

Therefore

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{l^{\underset{¯}{a}}}{\left(U^{\underset{¯}{b}}l_{\underset{¯}{b}}\right)^3}𝑑S^2=\frac{V^{\underset{¯}{a}}}{\left(U^{\underset{¯}{b}}U_{\underset{¯}{b}}\right)^2};$$

for some 4-vector $`V^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$

Since $`U^a`$ is a timelike vector, one can choose a frame for which

$$U^{\underset{¯}{a}}=(U^0,0,0,0);$$

from which it is immediately deduced that

$$V^{\underset{¯}{a}}=(U^0,0,0,0)=U^{\underset{¯}{a}}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Then it follows:

###### Corollary 7.1

Let $`U^a`$ be a timelike vector, then:

$$T\left(\frac{1}{\left(U^{\underset{¯}{a}}l_{\underset{¯}{a}}\right)^3}\right)=\frac{1}{\left(U^{\underset{¯}{a}}U_{\underset{¯}{a}}\right)^2}\left(u^03\widehat{u}^{(\text{3})}\right);$$

where:

$$U^{\underset{¯}{a}}l_{\underset{¯}{a}}=u^0\widehat{u}^{(\text{3})}.$$

*Proof:*

From Lemma A1.1, one has:

$`T\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(U^{\underset{¯}{a}}l_{\underset{¯}{a}})^3}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(U^{\underset{¯}{a}}l_{\underset{¯}{a}})^3}}(l^0l_03l^i(\zeta ^{},\overline{\zeta }^{}))l^i(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }))dS^{}^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(U^{\underset{¯}{a}}U_{\underset{¯}{a}})^2}}(u^03\widehat{u}^{(\text{3})}),`$
where i=1,2,3 . $`\mathrm{}`$

Then it follows that

$$T(\mathrm{\Psi })=T(K^3M).$$

## Appendix 2

Let us note that for any function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })Y`$ one has

$`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })|^2`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}{\displaystyle \frac{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\right|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}{4}}\right]^2{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}}\right]^2\left|Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
Now, using the addition theorem for the spherical harmonics, one can prove that

$$\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\left|Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }.$$

Also one can see that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2=\left[\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\right|^2\left[\frac{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}{4}\right]^2\right]$$

from which it is deduced that

$$\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2\left\{\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{4}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}\right]^2(2l+1)\right\}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{27}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2.$$

Since the modulus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is bounded by its maximum value, namely

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^24\pi sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2;$$

it is deduced the inequality:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\frac{4}{27}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2.$$
(76)
## Appendix 3

Since the peculiar value of $`\lambda _{}`$ depends on the technique of the proof of Theorem 5.1; we present here three other proofs of this result.

*Proof 1:* Let us observe that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }|\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=ð^2\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\mathrm{\Gamma };$$

the question arises then whether there is an extension of the Sobolev inequality that will relate $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|`$ with the previous expression. We will now prove that there is such a relation.

Let the regular function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }),$$

then one has

$`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })|^2`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}{4}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}}}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\right|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}{4}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}}\right]\left|Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
Now, using the inequality implied by the addition theorem for the spherical harmonics, and that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\right|^2\left[\frac{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}{4}\right]$$

one deduces

$$|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{4(2l+1)}{(l1)l(l+1)(l+2)}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

One also has that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0$$

where we have used that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is orthogonal to the last term appearing in the linear nice section equation.

Let us note that from the Schwarz inequality one obtains

$$|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\delta x|\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda \delta x;$$

and similarly

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^2.$$

From which it is deduced

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{3}\left(\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda \delta x\right).$$

It follows from the techniques used in ref.  and in Section V, that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is expressible as a series of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\lambda +\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\lambda ^2+\mathrm{}$$

which satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\lambda ^n\left(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\lambda $$

with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\delta x+\mathrm{\Psi }_0+K_1^3M_1\sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\delta x\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\delta x$$

Then the modulus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is bounded by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\lambda ^n\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\lambda \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)^n\delta x=\frac{\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}}{1\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}}\delta x,$$

for $`\lambda <\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}2.598`$.

Using this in our main inequality one obtains

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{3}\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\delta x^2=\frac{1}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\delta x^2.$$

Taking $`\delta x=\delta x_0>0`$ where $`\delta x_0`$ is constant, then one has that

$$\delta x^2=4\pi \left(\delta x_0\right)^2$$

and so:

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^22\sqrt{3}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\left(\delta x_0\right)^2.$$

One can see that $`\delta g(\delta x_0)`$ will be positive if

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2<\left(\delta x_0\right)^2$$

which is equivalent to

$$2\sqrt{3}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2<1.$$

This inequality is satisfied for $`\lambda (0,\lambda _{})`$ with

$$\lambda _{}=\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{2\sqrt{3}}}=0.9080.$$

*Proof 2:*From the Sobolev inequality one obtains

$$sup|\mathrm{\Gamma }|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2;$$

as it can be deduced from the following argument.

Let the regular function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta });$$

then one has

$`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}l(l+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{l(l+1)}}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\right|^2\left[l(l+1)\right]^2{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l(l+1)}}\right]^2\left|Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2.`$
Using the inequality deduced from the addition theorem for spherical harmonics and that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\left[\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}\right|^2\left[l(l+1)\right]^2\right];$$

one deduces

$$\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left[\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2l+1)}{\left(l(l+1)\right)^2}\right]=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2.$$

Then from the linear nice section equation, one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }|ð^2\overline{ð}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\frac{1}{2}_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }dS^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0$$

where we have used that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is orthogonal to the last term appearing in the linear nice section equation.

Using the inequalities mentioned in Proof 1 and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(2\pi \right)^2_a\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }dS^2,$$

coming from the Poincaré lemma, one can deduce

$$4\pi sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2+\frac{1}{2\left(2\pi \right)^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda \delta x;$$

or equivalently

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\lambda \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda \delta x\right\}.$$

Substituting the bound for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ found above, one obtains

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\left\{\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\delta x\right)^2\left(\lambda \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\right)+\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\delta x\right)\lambda \delta x\right\};$$

from which it is deduced

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\right)\delta x^2.$$

Taking $`\delta x=\delta x_0>0`$ where $`\delta x_0`$ is constant, one has

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\right)\left(\delta x_0\right)^2.$$

Then in order for $`\delta g(\delta x_0)`$ to be positive, one needs

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2<\left(\delta x_0\right)^2,$$

or equivalently

$$\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\right)<1.$$

This inequality is satisfied for $`\lambda (0,\lambda _{})`$ with

$$\lambda _{}=\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\left(\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}}\right)0.9962.$$

*Proof 3:* Let the regular function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{lm}Y_{lm}(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }).$$

it was proved in Appendix 2 that

$$\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{27}D\mathrm{\Gamma }|D\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{27}\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a solution of the linear nice section equation then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^2\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma })^2\lambda ^2\delta x+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\lambda ^2\delta x^2;$$

as it was explained above. Then using the bound

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\delta x,$$

for $`\left(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{4}{27}}\right)<1`$ ; one obtains

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{4}{27}\left\{\lambda ^2\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2\delta x^2+\lambda ^2\delta x^2\right\}.$$

Taking $`\delta x=\delta x_0>0`$ where $`\delta x_0`$ is constant, then one has that

$$\delta x^2=4\pi \left(\delta x_0\right)^2$$

and so:

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2\frac{4}{27}\lambda ^2\left\{\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2+1\right\}\left(\delta x_0\right)^2.$$

One can see that $`\delta g(\delta x_0)`$ will be positive if

$$sup\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|^2<\left(\delta x_0\right)^2,$$

which is equivalent to

$$\frac{4}{27}\lambda ^2\left\{\left(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\frac{27}{4}}\lambda }\right)^2+1\right\}<1.$$

This inequality is satisfied for $`\lambda (0,\lambda _{})`$ with $`\lambda _{}1.5134`$.


text:
# Identification of perturbation modes and controversies in ekpyrotic perturbations

## I Introduction

The issue of scalar-type structure generated in the recently proposed ekpyrotic scenario is shrouded with controversies by two opposing camps  and ; for an introduction to the scenario, see . The main point of  is that the dominating solution viewed in the zero-shear hypersurface (gauge) in the collapsing phase happens to show a scale-invariant spectrum. However, this mode was identified in  as a transient mode in the subsequent expanding phase, thus uninteresting. In this work we wish to add some additional points to . We will show that the same blue spectrum is generated even in the zero-shear gauge by identifying the mode relevant in the later expanding phase. Apparently, the same final observable spectrum should be derived independently of the gauge conditions used, and our result confirms it. We also point out that the possible scale-invariant spectra and others argued in  are errored by identifying wrong modes (often based on ad hoc joining conditions) which are transient in the expanding phase, thus irrelevant.

Before we embark on studying the evolution of structures through bounce using the linear perturbation theory, we would like to state clearly the provisions we need. In  Lyth has clearly shown that the linear perturbation theory breaksdown inevitably as the model approaches the singularity in a singular bounce (if such a bounce is possible at all, ), see also §VI of . Somehow, this strong conclusion is unduely ignored by many authors . If the bounce is singular we cannot rely on the linear perturbation theory. Thus, in the ekpyrotic scenario and other bouncing models considered in this paper we will explicitly assume that the bounce occurs before the linear theory breaks down, and this requires the bounce to be smooth and nonsingular. Although the authors of  claimed that the bounce in the ekpyrotic scenario to be singular, assuming a nonsingular bounce in such a scenario is legitimate, particularly if we consider the currently unknown physics near the bounce. Since the consequence of the singular bounce is clearly resolved in  (i.e., the linear theory fails!) investigating the remaining window with nonsingular bounce would be important to clearly resolve the remaining issue.

In a single component fluid or field, the scalar-type perturbation is described by a second-order differential equation with two solutions (modes). In the large-scale limit (to be defined later) we can often derive a general asymptotic solution with two modes, see eq. (10). In an expanding phase we can identify clearly which ones are relatively growing ($`C`$-mode) and decaying ($`d`$-mode). If the initial condition is imposed at some early expanding epoch the decaying mode is transient in time, and naturally we are only interested in the relatively growing mode. If we introduce a collapsing phase before the early big-bang phase, however, the conventional growing and decaying classification can be often reversed. Still, if the large-scale conditions are met (and, of course, if the linear theory as well as the classical gravity are intact), the general solutions in eq. (10) remain valid throughout the transition. Thus, in our observational perspective situated in expanding phase we are interested in the initial condition imposed on the $`C`$-mode, even if it was subdominating (relatively decaying) compared with the other mode when the initial condition was imposed. Although we made this point clear in , in this work we will reinforce it by deriving concretely the $`C`$-mode initial conditions coming from the quantum vacuum fluctuations in the two gauge conditions used previously. In this way, we hope we could clear some of the controversies concerning ekpyrotic scenario and others in the literature. §II and III are reviews. §IV contains our main results with consequences analysed in §V. We set $`c1\mathrm{}`$.

## II Basic equations and general large-scale solutions

We consider the scalar-type perturbation in a flat Friedmann world model supported by a minimally coupled scalar field. Our metric convention follows Bardeen’s in

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`a^2(1+2\alpha )d\eta ^22a^2\beta _{,\alpha }d\eta dx^\alpha `$ (2)
$`+a^2\left[g_{\alpha \beta }^{(3)}(1+2\phi )+2\gamma _{,\alpha |\beta }\right]dx^\alpha dx^\beta ,`$
and $`\chi a(\beta +a\dot{\gamma })`$; an overdot and a prime indicate time derivatives based on $`t`$ and $`\eta `$, respectively, with $`dtad\eta `$. The background is described by

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V\right),\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V_{,\varphi }=0,`$ (3)
where $`H\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$. The basic perturbation equations are :

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Gz}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{z}}\right)^{},v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi Gz}}\left(zu\right)^{},`$ (4)
$`v^{\prime \prime }+\left[k^2{\displaystyle \frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}}\right]v=0,u^{\prime \prime }+\left[k^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1/z)^{\prime \prime }}{1/z}}\right]u=0,`$ (5)
where $`za\dot{\varphi }/H`$, and

$`va\delta \varphi _\phi ,\phi _{\delta \varphi }\phi (H/\dot{\varphi })\delta \varphi (H/\dot{\varphi })\delta \varphi _\phi ,`$ (6)
$`u\phi _\chi /\dot{\varphi },\phi _\chi \phi H\chi .`$ (7)
$`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ and $`\phi _\chi `$ are gauge-invariant combinations which are equivalent to the curvature perturbation ($`\phi `$) in the uniform-field gauge ($`\delta \varphi 0`$, equivalently the comoving gauge) and in the zero-shear gauge ($`\chi 0`$), respectively . The perturbed action was derived in

$`\delta ^2S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(v^2v^{|\alpha }v_{,\alpha }+\frac{z^{\prime \prime }}{z}v^2\right)d^3x𝑑\eta }.`$ (8)
In the large-scale limit, meaning for negligible $`k^2`$ terms, eq. (5) has general solutions

$`\phi _{\delta \varphi }(k,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`C(k)d(k){\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4\pi G}}{\displaystyle ^\eta }{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{z^2}},`$ (9)
$`\phi _\chi (k,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi GC(k){\displaystyle \frac{H}{a}}{\displaystyle ^\eta }z^2𝑑\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{H}{a}}d(k).`$ (10)
To the higher-order in the large-scale expansion each of the four solutions have $`[1+_{n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{c}_n(k|\eta |)^{2n}]`$ factor with $`\stackrel{~}{c}_n`$ differing for the four cases. We emphasize the general nature of these solutions in the large-scale limit. These are exact solutions of the spatial curvature perturbation ($`\phi `$) in the respective hypersurfaces (gauges) valid as long as the $`k^2`$ terms in eq. (5) are negligible; thus valid for general (time-varying) potential $`V(\varphi )`$. Similar general solutions exist for the fluid situation for general (time-varying) equation of state $`P(\mu )`$, and even for the generalized gravity theories .

Schwarz has pointed out that as a smooth bounce has to violate the weak energy condition if space-time is flat, $`z^2\mu +P`$ will have (at least two) zeros; this means that $`1/z`$ will be ill defined and the higher order corrections will have singular coefficients, thus the long wavelength expansion becomes inconsistent, . To achieve a bounce, in §V.C of  we have used an additional presence of an exotic matter $`X`$ with negative energy density. Thus, such an $`X`$-matter cannot dominate even during the bouncing phase. In  we have shown that if we concentrate on the evolution of curvature perturbation, assuming near adiabatic initial condition in the collapsing phase, eq. (5) for $`u`$, thus our solution for $`\phi _\chi `$ in eq. (10) as well, remains valid. In this context, $`z^2`$ goes through vanishing points at least twice in the bouncing phase, and indeed, in that case the next order large-scale expansion includes $`(1/z^2)𝑑\eta `$-order terms which are ill defined; one such term already appears in the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ in eq. (10) which is exactly the next order contribution.

As parts of the series solutions in eq. (10) are ill defined for $`z=0`$, in such a case we should go back to our original equations (forms before we combine to make a second-order equation). One such original equation is conveniently available in the second equation of eq. (4) which shows that, for $`z=0`$ we have $`(\phi _\chi a/H)^{}=0`$. Thus, for $`z=0`$ we have an exact solution: $`\phi _\chi H/a`$. Notice that our eq. (10) includes the above solution as a case! Therefore, we conclude that throughout the bounce (including $`z=0`$ points), our leading order aymptotic solution for $`\phi _\chi `$ in eq. (10) remains valid. Thus, the ill defined higher order corrections in the series expansion do not cause any practical problem in the perturbations.

## III Power-law expansion

A field with an exponential potential supports power-law expansion/contraction of the scale factor

$`a|t|^p|\eta |^{p/(1p)},V={\displaystyle \frac{p(13p)}{8\pi G}}e^{\sqrt{16\pi G/p}\varphi },`$ (11)
$`H/\dot{\varphi }=\sqrt{4\pi Gp}.`$ (12)
In the power-law case eq. (5) leads to Bessel equations for $`v`$ and $`u`$ with different orders. Using the quantization based on the action formulation in eq. (8), we have the exact mode function solutions ($`p1`$)

$`\phi _{\delta \varphi k}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\dot{\varphi }}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi |\eta |}}{2a}}\left[c_1(k)H_{\nu _v}^{(1)}(x)+c_2(k)H_{\nu _v}^{(2)}(x)\right],`$ (13)
$`\phi _{\chi k}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|H|\sqrt{\pi ^2G|\eta |}}{k\sqrt{p}}}\left[c_1(k)H_{\nu _u}^{(1)}(x)+c_2(k)H_{\nu _u}^{(2)}(x)\right],`$ (15)
$`\nu _v{\displaystyle \frac{3p1}{2(p1)}},\nu _u{\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{2(p1)}},`$
where $`xk|\eta |`$. The quantization condition implies $`|c_2|^2|c_1|^2=\pm 1`$ depending on the sign of $`\eta `$, .

## IV Mode identification

The Hankel functions can be expanded as

$`H_\nu ^{(1,2)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}})^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\nu \pi }}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\pm ie^{i\nu \pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +n+1)}}`$ (17)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +n+1)}}].`$
Notice that, in the small $`x`$ limit, the first (second) term in the parenthesis dominates for $`\nu <0`$ ($`\nu >0`$). In eq. (10) the leading orders of the $`C`$-modes are time independent whereas the leading orders of the $`d`$-modes behave as $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }|\eta |^{2\nu _v}`$ and $`\phi _\chi |\eta |^{2\nu _u}`$. Since

$`\phi _{\delta \varphi k}|\eta |^{\nu _v}H_{\nu _v}^{(1,2)}(k|\eta |),\phi _{\chi k}k^1|\eta |^{\nu _u}H_{\nu _u}^{(1,2)}(k|\eta |),`$ (18)
we can easily identify the first and the second terms in the parenthesis of eq. (17) as the $`d`$-mode and the $`C`$-mode, respectively.

The lower-bounds of integrations in eq. (10) give rise to terms which can be absorbed to the other modes. Such an ambiguity is removed, for example, by identifying the $`C`$-mode of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ in expanding phase in the large-scale limit when the time-dependent part of the $`d`$-mode has asymptotically decayed away. The authors of  have shown that the $`d`$-mode does not necessarily decay away immediately after the horizon crossing; in some inflationary models we have the $`d`$-mode effect not negligible near the horizon-crossing, and the final result can be interpreted as an amplification of the spectrum. Such an amplification occurs because, in expanding phase, it takes some time to have the time-dependent part of $`d`$-mode be negligible. The point is that there is no such an effect from the $`d`$-mode while in the asymptotically super-horizon scale. In our case of the bounce the relevant scale remains in the asymptotically super-horizon scale during the bounce, thus the solutions in eq. (10) are well valid, and we do not anticipate any ambiguity arising while in the asymptotically super-horizon scale. Accordingly, later in §IV, we will identify the $`C`$\- and $`d`$-modes ignoring the contributions from lower-bounds of integrations of eq. (10).

The power spectrum and the spectral index are defined as $`𝒫_\phi =\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}|\phi _k|^2`$ and $`n_S1d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_\phi /d\mathrm{ln}k`$. The spectral indices for the $`C`$-modes of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ and $`\phi _\chi `$ can be read as (in the following, we assume the simplest vacuum state choice)

$`(n_S1)_{\phi _{\delta \varphi },C}=(n_S1)_{\phi _\chi ,C}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1p}}.`$ (20)
Although not interesting (because it becomes transient in an expanding phase) the spectral indices for the $`d`$-modes are

$`(n_S1)_{\phi _{\delta \varphi },d}={\displaystyle \frac{46p}{1p}},(n_S1)_{\phi _\chi ,d}={\displaystyle \frac{2p}{1p}}.`$ (21)
Notice that the spectral indices of the $`C`$-mode coincide in both gauge conditions, whereas the ones for the $`d`$-mode show strong gauge dependence. This is easily understandable from the general solutions in eq. (10): in the power-law expansion case we have $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }/\phi _\chi =1+p`$ for the $`C`$-mode; the $`C`$-mode of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ remains constant even under the changing potential whereas $`\phi _\chi `$ changes it value. Similarly, for the $`d`$-mode we have $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }/\phi _\chi =\frac{(p1)^2}{3p1}(k|\eta |)^2`$, thus we have $`(n_S1)_{\phi _\chi ,d}=(n_S1)_{\phi _{\delta \varphi },d}4`$.

We note again that the $`d`$-modes show strong gauge dependence: the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ shows more blue spectrum compared with $`\phi _\chi `$. Near singularity, the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$ diverges more strongly compared with the ones in the other gauge conditions ; see §III of  for a summary. The strong divergence in the zero-shear gauge is known to be due to the strong curvature of the hypersurface (temporal gauge condition) . According to Bardeen the behavior of $`\phi _\chi `$ “overstates the physical strength of the singularity”, . Thus, even in the collapsing phase where $`d`$-mode is the proper growing solution, we should not attach more meaning to the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$ than to the one of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$.

## V Consequences

In an ekpyrotic scenario with $`0<p1`$ we have a very blue $`n_S12`$ spectrum for the $`C`$-mode. Although $`n_S10`$ for the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$, we are not interested in the $`d`$-mode. Incidentally, we have $`n_S14`$ for the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ which better characterizes the physical strength of the growing perturbation during the collapsing phase than $`\phi _\chi `$. Our point is that, although the $`d`$-mode is the relatively growing solution in the collapsing phase, our classification of the $`C`$\- and $`d`$-modes is based on the general large-scale solutions in eq. (10). The large-scale conditions used to get these solutions are well met during the transition phase in the ekpyrotic scenario. In  we have shown analytically that, as long as the linear perturbation is valid, the solutions in eq. (10) remain valid throughout a (smooth and nonsingular) bounce, thus there occurs no mixing for the eventual growing solution in the later expanding phase. Thus, claiming the scale-invariant spectrum based on the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$ is incorrect; see the next paragraph for some technical details. The $`C`$-modes of both $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ and $`\phi _\chi `$ show the same blue spectra, and the complete spectrum of the $`C`$-mode and the one for the tensor-type perturbation can be found in .

We would like to comment on several minor complications made in . Firstly, the authors of  claimed that by combining the scale-invariance of the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$ before the bounce and the new joining condition introduced by the authors they can derive a scale-invariant final spectrum. This implies that mixing occurs so that the $`d`$-mode before the bounce sources and dominates the $`C`$-mode in the subsequent expanding phase. This contradicts with our result based on the general large-scale solutions in eq. (10). It was shown in  that the well known joining condition based on equations of motion  in fact confirms our result: i.e., in the large-scale limit the $`C`$-mode is affected only by the $`C`$-mode of the previous era. The new joining condition used in  is ad hoc and is not based on proper physical or mathematical arguments, see . As we have shown in this paper, and more properly in , in order to trace the large-scale evolution of the eventual $`C`$-mode in expanding phase, we can use the analytic solutions in eq. (10), thus we do not need the joining condition at all. Secondly, in  it was emphasized that before the bounce the potential is restored to zero so that expansion rate changes to $`p\frac{1}{3}`$. As the perturbation still remains in superhorizon scale during the bounce such a change in the field potential does not affect the already generated perturbation spectrum. We have emphasized that the large-scale general solution in eq. (7) remains valid even under such a changing potential. We are interested only in the $`C`$-mode and the solution shows that the $`C`$-mode is not affected by the changing potential. Thirdly, the authors of  also stressed that radiation is present after the bounce. In §V.C of  we have shown that the evolution of adiabatic (curvature) perturbation is not affected by the changing background equation of state or the presence of multiple component while in the superhorizon scale. Thus, the presence of radiation component after the bounce adds only a minor complication which does not affect the curvature perturbation in the superhorizon scale.

In a similar context, for $`p=\frac{2}{3}`$ we have $`n_S1=0`$ for the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ (in this case we have $`n_S1=4`$ for the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$). Identifying this as another possibility for generating a scale-invariant spectrum attempted in  is incorrect for the same reason as in the ekpyrotic case; this was pointed out in . For the $`C`$-mode we have $`n_S1=6`$, thus too blue.

Another similar error was made in , now in the case of $`p=\frac{1}{2}`$. In this case we have $`n_S1=4`$ for the $`C`$-modes, and $`2`$ for $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ and $`2`$ for $`\phi _\chi `$ for the $`d`$-modes. Based on the zero-shear gauge authors of  claimed that the generated spectrum has $`n_S=1`$ for $`p=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`n_S=1`$ for $`p0`$ (ekpyrotic!), both of which are the ones for the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$, thus irrelevant for the final surviving (observationally relevant) spectrum. Although  used a bounce model which differs slightly from the one used in , as we have argued, while in the superhorizon scale the final surviving spectrum is independent of the changing background expansion rate. The authors of  also considered a radiation dominated era during the quantum generation stage whereas we considered a scalar field dominated era with $`p=\frac{1}{2}`$. It is well known that the scalar field with an exponential potential can be effectively identified as an ideal fluid with constant $`w(P/\mu )`$, thus the two systems coincide for $`p=\frac{1}{2}`$.

Yet another similar errors were recently added in the literature, . The authors of  argued that one cannot ignore the entropy generation near the bounce of the ekpyrotic scenario; if the bounce is singular, we already have stated that the problem cannot be handled using the linear theory. Based on this argument the authors claimed that the conventional joining conditions should be changed. Unless we use the proper joining conditions derived in , we can show that the growing (and dominating) $`d`$-mode in the collapsing phase can easily dominate and source the $`C`$-mode in the subsequent expanding phase while in the large-scale. In this way, the authors claimed $`n_S=1`$ spectrum for the ekpyrotic scenario which comes from the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$. However, we can see that the entropy generation anticipated near bounce would not affect the superhorizon evolution of (the $`C`$-mode) perturbation. The joining conditions known in the literature give the same result as our present one based on analytic solutions, . Perhaps the entropy generation would be important for the background evolution so that we could achieve a smooth and nonsingular bounce as we have investigated using toy models in .

The authors of  also have claimed, that even for the pre-big bang scenario the final spectrum should pick up the $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$ generated in the collapsing phase. For the pre-big bang scenario based on a conformally transformed Einstein frame we have eq. (12) with $`p=\frac{1}{3}`$; thus we have a vanishing potential. In such a case we have $`n_S1=3`$ for the $`C`$-mode, and $`3`$ for $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ and $`1`$ for $`\phi _\chi `$ for the $`d`$-modes. Based on the same logic as their ekpyrotic case, the authors claimed that the final spectrum should be $`n_S=0`$ which is the one for $`d`$-mode of $`\phi _\chi `$. We already have explained what is wrong with such analysis and result. The correct $`n_S=4`$ spectrum in Einstein frame was derived in . In the original frame based on the low-energy effective action of string theory the pre-big bang scenario shows a pole-like inflation with $`a|tt_0|^{1/\sqrt{3}}`$. The perturbation spectrum was derived by us in the original frame with $`n_S1=3`$, . We also have shown that $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ is conformally invariant . Thus, it is natural for the final spectra from the two frames (despite their very different descriptions of the background evolutions) to coincide. We note that in the orignal frame the pre-big bang scenario does not involve a contracting phase, and is just another inflation. In such a case, as in the case of ordinary inflation, the calculation does not require any joining condition.

If the linear perturbation theory is valid throughout, and the bounce is smooth and non-singular (see  for several examples) we could rely on solutions in eq. (10) as long as the large-scale conditions are met. In such a case, as emphasized in , we do not need to use joining condition which, if we use the ones derived properly, also gives the same result . Several possibilities to have (smooth and non-singular) bounce models were studied in . In , using a toy bounce model based on an exotic matter with a negative energy density we have shown analytically that the pre- and post-bounce results of the $`C`$-modes of $`\phi _{\delta \varphi }`$ and $`\phi _\chi `$ show the same behaviors as the ones we studied in this work (which ignores the precise physics of the bounce), independently of the presence of the exotic matter (and the bounce itself) introduced to connect the collapsing and the expanding phases, see §V.C in .

Equation (20) shows that the only way to get a $`n_S10`$ spectrum from the power-law expansion based on an exponential potential is to have $`p1`$ which is the ordinary power-law expansion or a damped collapsing phase. As pointed out in , in the latter case as the model approaches the bouncing phase the comoving scales shrink faster than the Hubble (dynamical) horizon. Thus, the large-scale condition can be violated near the bounce, and we cannot simply trace the perturbation through the bounce, see . Therefore, the only remaining possibility to get an observationally viable spectrum is the former case which is just a well known version of inflation.

### Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Brandenberger, Patrick Peter, Nelson Pinto-Neto, and Dominik Schwarz for useful correspondences. This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation grants (KRF-2001-041-D00269).


text:
# Acknowledgement

## Acknowledgement

The author expresses his deep gratitude to B.S. Zakirov for help in realization of the accelerator experiments.


text:
# The Ratio of Blue to Red Supergiants in Sextans A from HST Imaging 1footnote 11footnote 1based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

The ratio of blue supergiants to red supergiants (B/R) is an important diagnostic for stellar evolution models. In particular, this ratio is a sensitive test for convection, mass loss, and rotation parameters (see Langer & Maeder (1995) and Maeder & Meynet (2001) for summaries; see also Salasnich, Bressan, & Chiosi (1999)). As Langer & Maeder (1995) discuss, some models reproduce the observed ratios for low metallicity, and others do so for high metallicity. However, there is not yet a self-consistent model that can reproduce (B/R) at both high and low metallicity. The effects of mass loss and rotation will also affect the period of variable stars (Maeder & Meynet, 2001). Thus, any application of, for example, the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship must account for these parameters, and their relationship to metallicity.

Observational studies have been aimed at measuring absolute values of the B/R ratio and also measuring this ratio as a function of metallicity. Previous studies have measured the B/R ratio based on all stars brighter than a chosen absolute magnitude limit (see references in Langer & Maeder (1995)). Typically the calculation was restricted to very massive stars, ($`>15M_{\mathrm{}}`$). This provided a single ratio for each stellar population. For many of these studies this was the only reasonable method because of the limited photometric accuracy. However, there are several theoretical difficulties with this approach.

First, it has been known for some time that the B/R ratio is a fairly strong function of luminosity, and thus mass (e.g., Stothers (1969); Langer & Maeder (1995)). This makes comparison between galaxies difficult. For the comparison to be valid, the mass distribution of the supergiants would have to be identical above the magnitude limit. In other words, the star formation histories (SFHs) would have to be identical.

Second, it is obvious that the magnitude limits would need to be identical, but due to different distances of objects, this is not always practical. Additionally, when comparing galaxy populations to cluster populations, clusters almost never have a statistically significant population of very massive stars, so that the B/R ratios reported for clusters almost always use fainter limiting magnitudes.

Third, in ground-based observations of extragalactic objects, the blue supergiants are usually photometrically confused with the main sequence (MS). Thus, the number of blue supergiants includes those MS stars brighter than the chosen limit. Clearly these MS stars do not have red supergiant counterparts, producing a bias to higher B/R ratios which are not directly comparable to ratios derived from stellar evolution models. If the contamination by MS stars is accounted for in the models, again, the SFH has a strong effect on the resulting B/R ratio.

Clusters are not immune to these difficulties, even though they are isochronic. Since clusters have different ages, each cluster will have supergiant stars with masses corresponding to its particular age. Hence, valid comparison can only be made between clusters with the same age.

To properly use observations to constrain models, one must either incorporate the SFH into the model or eliminate this dependence from the observations. The most reliable way to eliminate the SFH from observations is to compare blue and red stars of the same age. In galaxies with mixed age populations the stars can be divided into age groups. Thus, one can calculate a function, or histogram, of the B/R ratio as a function of age, rather than a single number for the galaxy. In the following section we briefly describe the data and our method for calculating the B/R ratio. We compare the result with a model calculation. The final section discusses the results and the implications for stellar evolution models. Here we will use Hubble Space Telescope observations of Sextans A to demonstrate this method.

## 2 The B/R Supergiant Ratio in Sextans A

HST observations of the dwarf irregular galaxy Sextans A provided, for the first time, a clear photometric separation of MS stars from post-MS supergiants in their core He-burning (HeB) phase of evolution (Dohm-Palmer et al., 1997a). Using the isolated blue HeB stars, a detailed SFH was determined over the past 600 Myr (Dohm-Palmer et al., 1997b). These data were later enhanced by additional HST observations (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2001). Combining the two data sets provides nearly complete coverage of the optically visible portion of the galaxy. It also provides enough supergiants to perform a statistically feasible analysis of the B/R supergiant ratio. The combined data are shown for the upper part of the color magnitude diagram in Fig. 1.

From these data sets we have isolated the blue and red supergiants in the color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs). For the magnitude range of interest, the MS and BHeB populations show little or no change in color-index. Furthermore, these two populations are well separated compared to the photometric errors. To demonstrate this, we have calculated a histogram in color-index (Fig. 2) for the MS and BHeB stars with $`5.6<M_V<3.2`$. The histogram shows an indisputable separation of these two populations. To determine the color-index selection limit for the BHeB stars, we simultaneously fit two Gaussian curves to the histogram. The result is shown in Fig. 2. The equality point between the two fit curves is (V-I)$`{}_{0}{}^{}=0.13`$. We selected the BHeB stars as those stars redward of this limit.

From the simultaneous fit in Fig. 2 we can also estimate the degree of contamination of MS stars into the selected BHeB population. We integrated the curves of those fits and found that 5% of the BHeB stars are blueward of the selection limit. We also found that 6% of the of the BHeB counts are actually due to MS stars. Thus the net loss of stars from the blue count is approximately 1%. This is much smaller than the Poisson errors.

The red stars were selected interactively. Brighter than the RGB, the red supergiants are well isolated from other populations, so the exact selection region in the CMD is not important. The faint end of the red supergiants blends with both the AGB and the RGB. This sets a practical age limit for this calculation of $`200`$ Myr. Even though the observations in Dohm-Palmer et al. (2001) are much deeper than those in Dohm-Palmer et al. (1997b), the errors in the photometry and the completeness corrections for the supergiants of interest here are negligible.

We calculate the B/R ratio in age bins, rather than as a single number for the galaxy. By comparing blue and red stars of the same age we eliminate any dependence on the star formation rate (SFR). The SFR can in general, and does in Sextans A (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2001), change over the time periods for which supergiants exist. It is also crucial to separate the blue supergiants from the MS. MS stars and blue supergiants of the same magnitude have very different masses and ages. Thus, if these populations are mixed, the calculated ratio is extremely sensitive to both the star forming history as well as the initial mass function (IMF).

By separating the stars into age bins, the risk of contamination of the BHeB counts by MS stars is somewhat enhanced. For example, if, at a given luminosity, the number of MS stars greatly exceeds the number of BHeB stars, then the $``$5% of MS stars that will contaminate the BHeB stars could have a disproportionate effect on the BHeB star count in that bin. We have investigated this by plotting histograms similar to Figure 2 for each age bin, and find that the number of MS stars and BHeB stars is roughly comparable in each age bin. In many bins there is a clear gap between the two populations. Thus the contamination of MS stars into the BHeB star counts should be comparable to the number of BHeB stars lost to MS star counts in each bin. Overall, the effect of confusion between the MS and BHeB star counts is conservatively estimated to be less than 10% in each bin. That is, this will be a negligible effect on the outcome.

Table 1 shows the B/R ratio if we were to adopt a faint magnitude limit and calculate a single number for the galaxy. The first column is the adopted magnitude limit, and the second is the resulting B/R ratio. We include several magnitude criteria to demonstrate the dependence of this ratio on the adopted limit. The ratio generally decreases with fainter limits. We see here nearly a factor of two difference between the B/R ratio obtained for the most luminous stars (comparable to galaxy samples) and that obtained for stars with MV $``$ $``$3 (comparable to cluster samples).

To assign ages to the selected stars we have used the stellar evolution models of Schaller et al. (1992), combined with the stellar atmosphere models of LeJeune & Schaerer (2001). We will refer to these as the Geneva models. We used the Z=0.001 models to match the nebular abundance of Sextans A (Skillman, Kennicutt, & Hodge, 1989). The models of this metallicity have been shown to be a good match to the stellar population (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2001), with the blue and red He-burning sequences in the correct predicted locations (see Fig. 1). For both the blue and red supergiants, each star can be assigned a nearly unambiguous age based on its position in the CMD. This is possible for two reasons. First, the lifetimes in these phases are very short compared to the age in which they are entered. Second, the luminosity of these phases is nearly a monotonic function of mass, and hence age.

To be complete, we have also applied a correction for the IMF. We used a power law function with a Salpeter slope of -1.35 (Salpeter, 1955). For a given age, the mass of a blue supergiant will be slightly different from the mass of a red supergiant. However, the mass difference is so small that the resulting correction is negligible. We experimented with a wide range of IMF slopes, but found the B/R ratio to be insensitive to this parameter.

The result of the B/R ratio calculation is show in Fig. 3. The calculated values are given in Table 2. Note that the ages listed are the lower bounds of the histogram bins. The observed ratio is indicated with a histogram. The ratio starts near 2.5 and decreases with age. We have limited the calculation to ages older than 20 Myr. The evolution of younger, more massive, stars is highly uncertain (see Dohm-Palmer et al. (1997b) for a discussion).

To determine the predicted ratio we have created a simulated CMD using the Z=0.001 Geneva stellar evolution models. The simulated CMD was created using Monte Carlo techniques outlined by several authors (e.g., Tosi et al. (1991); Tolstoy & Saha (1996)). We did not incorporate photometric errors into this model. This would only serve to smooth the B/R ratio function in age, and we preferred a pristine model prediction. We also did not apply an incompleteness correction. The observed data is complete for the relevant populations.

There were 200,000 stars in the model, distributed with a power law IMF with a Salpeter slope (-1.35; Salpeter (1955)). The model used a constant star formation rate over the past 200 Myr. This resulted in 5502 blue supergiants and 3843 red supergiants. These stars were then divided into age bins in exactly the same manner as the observed data, including the IMF correction. The model prediction is included in Fig. 3 as a solid thick line.

The predicted ratio is approximately a factor of 2 larger than the observed ratio for all ages. However, the functional forms of the model and observations are remarkably similar. To emphasize this, we have plotted the model prediction reduced by a factor of two as a dashed line.

## 3 Errors in the Stellar Evolution Models

In the previous section we claimed to have eliminated the uncertainty of the star formation history from the calculation of the B/R ratio. Strictly speaking, this is only true if the adopted luminosity-age relationship is accurate for both the red and blue stars. We wish to emphasize three points concerning this issue.

While the stellar evolution models available today are not expected to be perfect, we have found that, in many respects, they are quite good in reproducing the observations. For example, (Dohm-Palmer et al., 1997b) showed that the stellar evolution models (from both the Geneva and Padua groups) of the appropriate metallicity reproduced the positions of the blue and red supergiants in the V, V-I color magnitude diagrams over their entire extent (also shown here in Figure 1). Given the uncertainties in these models (and the lack of very low metallicity, young stellar clusters with which to calibrate the models), we find this agreement both surprising and reassuring.

Second, we have found that the model predictions for the relative ages of the BHeB and MS stars agree remarkably well with the photometric observations in Sextans A (Dohm-Palmer et al., 2001). That is, we have compared the star formation histories calculated from MS stars and BHeB stars, and these two calculations show excellent agreement both qualitatively and quantitatively. The excellent agreement in the functional form of the star formation histories, which is only dependent on the adopted age-luminosity, and mass-luminosity relationships, gives us great confidence that, at least for the blue stars, these relationships are reliable.

Third, and perhaps more important, is that the present calculations are designed to constrain stellar evolution models. Again, we recognize that evolution models are not perfect, and that there is still much work to be done. However, that should not prevent us from using the available models to calculate quantities such as the star formation history. Such calculations, even given the possible inaccuracies due to less than perfect stellar evolution models, can still teach us much about the objects we study. We must simply accept the uncertainty as being the best one can do at present, just as we must accept the uncertainty in other calculations, such as distance estimates.

In the specific case of this paper, we have used stellar evolution models to self-consistently calculate the B/R ratio as a function of age. We find that the observed ratio does not match the predicted ratio. This implies that the model needs to be adjusted in some manner. It is possible that either, or both, the luminosity-age relationship and the relative lifetimes of the two phases need adjustment.

## 4 Discussion

The stars of Sextans A show that, in the specific case of the Geneva models, the predicted B/R ratio is a factor of 2 too large for this metallicity. However, these models do not incorporate stellar rotation. It has been shown by Maeder & Meynet (2001) that rotation increases the core mass during the He-burning phase. This inflates the atmosphere, increases mass loss, and pushes stars redward. Similar results have been found by Salasnich, Bressan, & Chiosi (1999) by increasing mass loss in the red supergiant phase. Thus, a smaller B/R ratio is predicted by incorporating rotation (Maeder & Meynet, 2001). This is exactly the effect needed to account for our observations. It should be noted that the stars discussed by Maeder & Meynet (2001) have masses larger than the masses we consider here, however, the same general trends should apply.

Previous measurements of the B/R ratio have produced a single number for each population studied. As discussed in the introduction, such measurements can be deceiving, and comparisons with models must be made with care. For field stars, the star forming history influences this ratio making comparisons with other objects, and models, difficult. Even for isochronic populations, such as clusters, care must be taken to compare the result with a model of the appropriate age.

Langer & Maeder (1995) discuss the dependence of the B/R ratio on metallicity. The observational data they discuss suggest that this ratio increases with increasing metal abundance. This trend may in fact be true, however, the observational data points have not been adequately decoupled from age and star formation history. We have not resolved the problem of models not matching the B/R ratio at all metallicities. However, we have presented a method for removing ambiguities from the observed B/R ratio, making comparisons with models more meaningful. New calculations of stellar evolution including rotation at a metallicity appropriate to Sextans A would certainly be of interest.

We have demonstrated a technique for deriving a reliable constraint to evolution models of massive stars. This technique relies on clearly separating the blue supergiants from the MS. Unfortunately this may limit the number of objects available for analysis. High resolution imaging, such as with the HST, is required for objects with distance of order 1 Mpc or further. Additionally, in higher metallicity environments, dust can significantly broaden these features in the color magnitude diagram. In which case, multi-color photometry will be required to correct for line-of-sight reddening effects.

###### Acknowledgements.

Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant GO-7496 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 3-26555. Partial support from NASA LTSARP grant no. NAG5-9221 and the University of Minnesota is gratefully acknowledged. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. We thank the referee for insightful comments that improved this manuscript.