text:
# Unquenched domain wall quarks with multi-bosons

## 1 Introduction

Domain wall fermions  offer the possibility of improving chiral symmetry of lattice discretizations for fermionic theories by tuning the action parameters in an extra (fifth) dimension. It can be shown  that in the limit of vanishing lattice spacing in the fifth dimension the domain wall formulation is equivalent to the overlap formulation  which fulfills the Ginsparg-Wilson relation  for lattice chiral symmetry . The price of the chiral symmetry at non-zero lattice spacing is the extra dimension enlarging the number of degrees of freedom and, from a technical point of view, the extensions of the fermion matrix. It is an interesting question how much numerical simulations with light domain wall quarks become slower than, say, with “unimproved” Wilson fermions.

Up to now unquenched domain wall fermions have been treated either by the Hybrid Monte Carlo  or, in case of an odd number of fermionic flavours, by the Hybrid Molecular Dynamics R-algorithm . (For a few examples of these simulations see, for instance, . For a recent review see .) In the present paper the application of the two-step multi-boson (TSMB) algorithm  for domain wall fermion simulations is considered. This algorithm is applicable for any number of fermion flavours and has a tolerable slowing down towards light fermions.

The plan of this paper is as follows: in the next Section the lattice action for two degenerate domain wall quarks is formulated. In Section 3 the TSMB algorithm is briefly recapitulated and the generalization to the case of an odd number of domain wall fermion flavours is discussed. In Section 4 the results of test runs on $`8^34`$ lattices near the thermodynamical cross over are given.

## 2 Lattice action

In this paper the domain wall fermion action is constructed according to Shamir’s prescription . Therefore the fermion field is defined on a five dimensional hypercubic lattice and the light chiral fermion modes are located on two boundaries of the fifth dimension. The gauge field links depend only on the coordinates of the four-dimensional space-time. The bosonic Pauli-Villars fields subtracting the heavy fermion modes are introduced as in .

The complete lattice action is given by

$$S=S_G[U]+S_F[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi },U]+S_{PV}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi },U].$$
(1)
Here the standard Wilson action $`S_G`$ for the SU($`N_c`$) gauge field $`U`$ is a sum over plaquettes

$$S_G=\beta \underset{pl}{}\left(1\frac{1}{N_c}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}U_{pl}\right),$$
(2)
with the bare gauge coupling given by $`\beta 2N_c/g^2`$. In particular, in QCD the number of colours is $`N_c=3`$. The Pauli-Villars action in (1) $`S_{PV}`$ will be discussed later and the fermion action $`S_F`$ for a single fermion flavour is given by

$$S_F=\underset{x,s;x^{},s^{}}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x^{},s^{})D_F(x^{},s^{};x,s)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,s).$$
(3)
The four-dimensional space-time coordinates are denoted by $`x,x^{}`$ and the fifth coordinates are $`s,s^{}`$. The domain wall fermion matrix $`D_F`$ is constructed from the standard four-dimensional Wilson fermion matrix

$$D(x^{},x)=\delta _{x^{}x}(4am_0)\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}\left[\delta _{x^{},x+\widehat{\mu }}(1+\gamma _\mu )U_{x\mu }+\delta _{x^{}+\widehat{\mu },x}(1\gamma _\mu )U_{x^{}\mu }^{}\right].$$
(4)
The notations are standard: $`a`$ is the (four-dimensional) lattice spacing and $`\widehat{\mu }`$ denotes the unit vector in direction $`\mu `$. The bare mass $`m_0`$ is chosen to be negative and should be tuned properly for producing the light boundary fermion state. In an $`s`$-block notation the domain wall fermion matrix is

$$D_F=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\sigma +D& \sigma P_L& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& am_fP_R\\ \sigma P_R& \sigma +D& \sigma P_L& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sigma P_R& \sigma +D& \sigma P_L& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \sigma P_R& \sigma +D& \sigma P_L\\ am_fP_L& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \sigma P_R& \sigma +D\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Here $`m_f`$ denotes the bare fermion mass of the light boundary fermion, $`P_R=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5),P_L=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$ are chiral projectors and $`\sigma a/a_s`$ determines the lattice spacing in the fifth dimension $`a_s`$ relative to $`a`$ .

The domain wall fermion matrix $`D_F`$ is non-hermitean but it satisfies the relation

$$D_F^{}=\gamma _5R_5D_F\gamma _5R_5$$
(6)
with the reflection in the fifth dimension $`(R_5)_{s^{},s}\delta _{s^{},N_s+1s},(1sN_s)`$. This relation implies that the determinant of $`D_F`$ is real and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F\gamma _5R_5D_F`$ is hermitean. Using the hermitean Wilson fermion matrix $`\stackrel{~}{D}\gamma _5D`$ the hermiticity of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F`$ in nicely displayed in an $`s`$-block form:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_F=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}am_fP_L& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \sigma P_R& \sigma \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{D}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \sigma P_R& \sigma \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{D}& \sigma P_L\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \sigma P_R& \sigma \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{D}& \sigma P_L& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \sigma \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{D}& \sigma P_L& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \sigma P_R& \sigma \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{D}& \sigma P_L& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \sigma \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{D}& \sigma P_L& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& am_fP_R\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The Pauli-Villars action is designed to cancel the contribution of the heavy fermions in the large $`N_s`$ limit. It has a Gaussian form resulting after integration in the inverse of the fermion determinant. In order that the Gaussian integrals be well defined let us first only consider the case of two degenerate fermion flavours when the Pauli-Villars action is

$$S_{PV}=\underset{x,s;x^{},s^{};x^{\prime \prime },s^{\prime \prime }}{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x^{\prime \prime },s^{\prime \prime })D_F^{}(x^{\prime \prime },s^{\prime \prime };x^{},s^{})_{am_f=1}D_F(x^{},s^{};x,s)_{am_f=1}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,s).$$
(8)
As it is shown by the notation, the bare mass parameter $`am_f`$ is fixed here at $`am_f=1`$. After performing the Grassmannian integrals over the fermion fields $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the Gaussian integrals over the Pauli-Villars fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the result, for two degenerate fermion flavours, is the ratio of determinants

$$\frac{det(D_F)det(D_F)}{det(D_{F,am_f=1}^{}D_{F,am_f=1})}=\frac{det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)}{det(\stackrel{~}{D}_{F,am_f=1}^2)}.$$
(9)
Here we used the fact that $`det(D_F)`$ is real and $`det(D_F)=det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F)`$.

According to (9) the effective gauge action describing two degenerate flavours of fermions is a function of the squared hermitean fermion matrix $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$. The same is also true in case of any number of flavours, as it will be discussed in the next section. The non-zero matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$ are, in an $`s`$-block form:

$`(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)_{s,s}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sigma ^2+2\sigma D_r+\stackrel{~}{D}^2+\delta _{s,1}(a^2m_f^2\sigma ^2)P_L+\delta _{s,N_s}(a^2m_f^2\sigma ^2)P_R,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)_{s,s+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)_{s+1,s}=\sigma ^2\sigma D_r,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)_{1,N_s}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)_{N_s,1}=am_f(\sigma +D_r),`$ (10)
where $`D_r=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _5\stackrel{~}{D}+\stackrel{~}{D}\gamma _5)`$ contains the Wilson term in the Wilson-fermion action:

$$D_r(x^{},x)=\delta _{x^{}x}(4am_0)\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}\left[\delta _{x^{},x+\widehat{\mu }}U_{x\mu }+\delta _{x^{}+\widehat{\mu },x}U_{x^{}\mu }^{}\right].$$
(11)
## 3 TSMB algorithm for domain wall fermions

The absolute value of the fermion determinant of an arbitrary (integer) number $`N_f`$ of domain wall fermion flavours is, according to (9),

$$\left|det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F)\right|^{N_f}=\left\{det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)\right\}^{N_f/2}.$$
(12)
Negative values of $`N_f`$ describe the Pauli-Villars fields. (The mass parameter $`am_f`$ is different for physical fermion flavours and for Pauli-Villars fields, but this difference does not play a rôle in what follows.) For odd numbers of flavours the sign of the determinant is neglected in (12). However, if the mass parameter is positive ($`m_f>0`$) this sign is expected to be irrelevant because of the relation of domain wall fermions to overlap fermions which have a positive determinant if the mass is positive .

Multi-boson algorithms  are based on polynomial approximations $`P_n`$ satisfying

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}P_n(x)=x^{N_f/2}$$
(13)
which allow to represent the fermion determinant as

$$\left\{det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)\right\}^{N_f/2}\frac{1}{detP_n(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)}.$$
(14)
Assuming that the polynomial roots occur in complex conjugate pairs, one can write $`P_n`$ as

$$P_n(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\stackrel{~}{D}_F\rho _j^{})(\stackrel{~}{D}_F\rho _j).$$
(15)
This leads to the multi-boson representation

$`\left|det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F)\right|^{N_f}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}det[(\stackrel{~}{D}_F\rho _j^{})(\stackrel{~}{D}_F\rho _j)]^1`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle [d\varphi ][d\varphi ^+]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{xx^{}}{}\varphi _{jx^{}}^+[(\stackrel{~}{D}_F\rho _j^{})(\stackrel{~}{D}_F\rho _j)]_{x^{}x}\varphi _{jx}\right\}}.`$
Here $`\varphi _{jx},(j=1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ are complex boson (pseudofermion) fields.

The two-step multi-boson algorithm  is based, instead of (13), on a polynomial approximation by a product of polynomials

$$\underset{n_2\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{n_1}^{(1)}(x)P_{n_2}^{(2)}(x)=x^{N_f/2},$$
(17)
where the first polynomial $`P_{n_1}^{(1)}(x)`$ itself is an approximation to $`x^{N_f/2}`$, but it has a relatively low order. The multi-boson representation (16) is only used for the first polynomial $`P_{n_1}^{(1)}`$. The correction factor $`P_{n_2}^{(2)}`$ in

$$\left|det(\stackrel{~}{D}_F)\right|^{N_f}\frac{1}{detP_{n_1}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)detP_{n_2}^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2)}$$
(18)
is realized in a stochastic noisy Metropolis correction step with a global accept-reject condition, in the spirit of . In order to obtain the appropriate Gaussian vector for the noisy correction the inverse square root of $`P_{n_2}^{(2)}`$ is also needed. This can be represented by another polynomial approximation

$$P_{n_3}^{(3)}(x)P_{n_2}^{(2)}(x)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(19)
A practical way to obtain $`P^{(3)}`$ is to use a Newton iteration

$$P_{k+1}^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(P_k^{(3)}+\frac{1}{P_k^{(3)}P^{(2)}}\right),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(20)
The TSMB algorithm becomes exact only in the limit of infinitely high polynomial order: $`n_2\mathrm{}`$ in (17)-(18). Instead of investigating the dependence of expectation values on $`n_2`$ by performing several simulations, it is better to fix some relatively high order $`n_2`$ for the simulation and perform another correction in the “measurement” of expectation values by still finer polynomials. This is done by reweighting the configurations . The reweighting for general $`N_f`$ is based on a polynomial approximation $`P_{n_4}^{(4)}`$ which satisfies

$$\underset{n_4\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{n_1}^{(1)}(x)P_{n_2}^{(2)}(x)P_{n_4}^{(4)}(x)=x^{N_f/2}.$$
(21)
For more details see, for instance, .

Up to this point the particular form of the domain wall fermion action introduced in the previous section makes no difference compared to other applications of TSMB. The occurrence of negative number of flavours, as used for the Pauli-Villars fields, is the only new feature. However, for even number of flavours one can just use the form given by (9). In this case the first polynomial $`P^{(1)}`$ for the Pauli-Villars fields is exact and no corrections are needed. For odd number of flavours one has to deal with polynomial approximations of some integer power of $`\sqrt{x}`$ and the machinery of polynomial approximations works as usual.

Another peculiarity of domain wall fermions is that the fermion field has an extra index labeling the fifth coordinate. In practice this can easily lead to a situation where the storage of $`n_1`$ multi-boson fields in computer memory becomes a problem. (For typical simulation parameters including the values of $`n_1`$ see the recent studies in .) Fortunately, in cases if the storage of the multi-boson fields is problematic, one can organize the gauge field update in such a way that the dependence on the multi-boson fields is collected in a few auxiliary $`33`$ matrix fields which can be easily stored in memory. The multi-boson fields can be kept on disk and have to be read before and written back after a complete boson field update. The duration of the input-output is negligible compared to the time of the update.

The auxiliary $`33`$ matrix fields are spin-traces over the multi-boson fields which can be constructed as follows. The dependence of the effective gauge field action on the multi-boson fields can be summarized by the formula

$$S_{eff}(U_{x\mu },\varphi )=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_{x\mu }S_{x\mu }^{(1)}(\varphi )+U_{x\mu }S_{x\mu }^{(2)}(\varphi )\right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(22)
Here $`U_{x\mu }`$ is the gauge link variable to be updated. The omitted part denoted by the dots contain terms from the pure gauge action and other terms which do not depend on $`U_{x\mu }`$. $`S_{x\mu }^{(1,2)}(\varphi )`$ display the dependence on the multi-boson fields. $`S^{(1)}`$ gives the nearest neighbour contributions and $`S^{(2)}`$, which appears because of the quadratic nature of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$, stands for next–to–nearest neighbour contributions. A consideration of the multi-boson action (16) and of the matrices in (7), (2) gives that

$$S_{x\mu }^{(1)}(\varphi )=\underset{s=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}_{s,N_s+1s;x\mu }+\chi f_{s,s;x\mu }^{(r)}\right)+\mu _ff_{1,N_s;x\mu }^{(r)}\sigma \underset{s=1}{\overset{N_s1}{}}f_{s,s+1;x\mu }^{(r)}$$
(23)
and

$$S_{x\mu }^{(2)}(\varphi )=\underset{\nu \mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(f_{x,\mu \nu }^{(++)}U_{x+\widehat{\mu },\nu }+f_{x,\mu \nu }^{(+)}U_{x+\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu },\nu }^{}+U_{x,\nu }^{}f_{x+\widehat{\nu },\nu \mu }^{(+)}+U_{x\widehat{\nu },\nu }f_{x\widehat{\nu },\nu \mu }^{(++)}\right).$$
(24)
Here we used the notations

$$\mu _fam_f,\mu _0am_0,\chi 4\mu _0+\sigma .$$
(25)
The traces over spinor indices appearing in (23), resp. (24) are defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{s^{},s;x\mu }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}\mathrm{Re}\rho _j\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{sp}}\left[(\gamma _5+\gamma _5\gamma _\mu )\varphi _{js,x}\varphi _{js^{},x+\widehat{\mu }}^{}\right]+(ss^{}),`$
$`f_{s^{},s;x\mu }^{(r)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{sp}}\left[\varphi _{js,x}\varphi _{js^{},x+\widehat{\mu }}^{}\right]+(ss^{}),`$
$`f_{x,\mu \nu }^{(++)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{sp}}\left[(1+\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu )\varphi _{js,x}\varphi _{js,x+\widehat{\mu }+\widehat{\nu }}^{}\right],`$
$`f_{x,\mu \nu }^{(+)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{sp}}\left[(1+\gamma _\mu +\gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu )\varphi _{js,x}\varphi _{js,x+\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}^{}\right],`$
$`f_{x,\nu \mu }^{(+)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{sp}}\left[(1\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu )\varphi _{js,x}\varphi _{js,x\widehat{\nu }+\widehat{\mu }}^{}\right].`$ (26)
The indices on the multi-boson fields $`\varphi _{js,x}`$ are as follows: $`j`$ is labeling the different multi-boson fields as they appear in (16), $`x`$ is the four-dimensional site and $`s`$ the fifth coordinate. The colour and spinor indices are not shown. After performing the trace over spinor indices the result is, of course, a $`33`$ complex matrix.

Using the formulas (23)-(3) the effect of the multi-boson fields can be collected in the auxiliary $`33`$ matrices. The total number of $`33`$ matrices to be stored in memory is $`4+312=40`$ per four-dimensional site, which is usually not a problem. The multi-boson fields can be updated one-by-one and kept otherwise on disk. This means that one has to store $`\varphi _{js,x}`$ only for a single value of the multi-boson index $`j`$. Of course, due to the index $`s`$, the storage requirement is increasing with $`N_s`$.

## 4 Numerical simulation tests

Test runs have been performed for two degenerate quark flavours $`N_f=2`$ on $`8^34`$ lattices in the vicinity of the $`N_t=4`$ thermodynamic crossover. The parameter sets have been chosen from the points in parameter space which were investigated in . Typical parameters were: $`\mu _0=1.9,\mu _f=0.1,\sigma =1.0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}`$ and $`5.20\beta 5.45`$.

The first task is to determine the parameters of the necessary polynomials for different extensions of the fifth dimension $`N_s`$. These will be largely influenced by the condition number of the squared hermitean fermion matrix $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$, because the interval $`[ϵ,\lambda ]`$ where the polynomial approximations are optimized has to cover the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$ on a typical gauge configuration. A set of polynomial parameters for different $`N_s`$ is given in table 1. As it is shown by the table, the largest eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_F^2`$ are only slightly increasing with $`N_s`$ but, in the covered range, the smallest ones decrease roughly proportional to $`1/N_s`$. Therefore the condition number $`\lambda /ϵ`$ is proportional to $`N_s`$. (For a discussion of bounds on the condition number see .)

Table 1 refers to the case $`N_f=2`$ which is considered in the present paper. As discussed in the previous section, an odd number of flavours would also require polynomial approximations for the Pauli-Villars fields. Since the mass parameter is kept there at $`\mu _f=1`$, the corresponding condition numbers are much smaller and the polynomial orders substantially lower. In the runs shown by table 1 the ratio of condition numbers is typically of the order of 10. This would require, for instance, in case of the first line of the table polynomial orders $`n_1=32,n_2=60,n_3=90,n_4=100`$.

A first estimate of the computation work can be given in terms of the number of fermion-matrix vector multiplications needed for performing a sweep over the multi-boson and gauge fields. An approximate formula per update cycles is:

$$N_{MVM}2I_{QHB}c_{QHB}^1+6(n_1N_B+N_G)+2N_C(n_2+n_3).$$
(27)
Here $`N_B`$ is the number of boson field update sweeps per cycle, $`N_G`$ the number of gauge field update sweeps and $`N_C`$ the number of noisy Metropolis accept-reject steps. It is assumed that a global quasi heatbath for the boson fields  is performed once per $`c_{QHB}`$ cycles with a average number of matrix inverter iterations $`I_{QHB}`$. (Note that $`I_{QHB}`$ is a sum over $`n_1`$ inversions.) The relative contributions of the three terms in (27) are subject to optimization. The quasi heatbath is typically an important part of operations and $`I_{QHB}`$ is characteristic for the total number of matrix vector multiplications $`N_{MVM}`$. For the actual values occurring in the runs see table 1 which shows that, for a given value of lattice spacing ratio $`\sigma `$, $`I_{QHB}`$ increases somewhat faster than $`N_s^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

In order to obtain an estimate for the total amount of necessary computation work, $`N_{MVM}`$ has to be multiplied by the integrated autocorrelation length $`\tau _{int}`$ given in number of update cycles. The measurement of autocorrelations requires high statistics and a lot of computer time and is beyond the scope of the present paper. A rough estimate based on previous experience with TSMB tells that $`\tau _{int}`$ is proportional to $`n_1`$. According to the table a very rough estimate for the increase of $`n_1`$ is $`n_1N_s^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Taking into account that a single matrix vector multiplication grows linearly with $`N_s`$, this would finally imply that the increase of the necessary computation work is between $`N_s^2`$ and $`N_s^3`$. The fast increase with $`N_s`$ favors domain wall fermion schemes with $`\sigma <1`$ and relatively small $`N_s`$, as proposed in .

As these test runs show, the application of the TSMB algorithm for numerical simulations of domain wall quarks is possible. Simulations using alternative formulations based on overlap fermions, as proposed in , should also be feasible along the same lines. The interesting question about the computation speed compared to, say, Wilson quarks requires a more detailed analysis including the measurement of autocorrelations. Since the good chiral properties of domain wall fermions develop only sufficiently close to the continuum limit, the performance studies have to be finally performed on large lattices.

Acknowledgement

I thank Yigal Shamir for helpful discussions and correspondence.


format: text

text:
# Multi-dimensional vector product

## Abstract

It is shown that multi-dimensional generalization of the vector product is only possible in seven dimensional space.

The three-dimensional vector product proved to be useful in various physical problems. A natural question is whether multi-dimensional generalization of the vector product is possible. This apparently simple question has somewhat unexpected answer, not widely known in physics community, that generalization is only possible in seven dimensional space. In mathematics this fact was known since forties , but only recently quite simple proof (in comparison to previous ones) was given by Markus Rost . Below I present a version of this proof to make it more accessible to physicists.

For contemporary physics seven-dimensional vector product represents not only an academic interest. It turned out that the corresponding construction is useful in considering self-dual Yang-Mills fields depending only upon time (Nahm equations) which by themselves originate in the context of M-theory . Other possible applications include Kaluza-Klein compactifications of $`d=11,N=1`$ Supergravity . That is why I think that this beautiful mathematical result should be known by a general audience of physicists.

Let us consider n-dimensional vector space $`^n`$ over the real numbers with the standard Euclidean scalar product. Which properties we want the multi-dimensional bilinear vector product in $`^n`$ to satisfy? It is natural to choose as defining axioms the following (intuitively most evident) properties of the usual three-dimensional vector product:

$$\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{A}=0,$$
(1)
$$(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{A}=(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{B}=0,$$
(2)
$$|\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B}|=|\stackrel{}{A}||\stackrel{}{B}|,\mathrm{if}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}=0.$$
(3)
Here $`|\stackrel{}{A}|^2=\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the norm of the vector $`\stackrel{}{A}`$.

Then

$$0=(\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{B})\times (\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{B})=\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B}+\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A}$$

shows that the vector product is anti-commutative. By the same trick one can prove that $`(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{C}`$ is alternating in $`\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}`$. For example

$$0=((\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{C})\times \stackrel{}{B})(\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{C})=(\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{A}+(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{C}$$

shows that $`(\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{A}=(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{C}`$.

For any two vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ the norm $`|\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B}|^2`$ equals to

$$\left|\left(\stackrel{}{A}\frac{\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}}{|\stackrel{}{B}|^2}\stackrel{}{B}\right)\times \stackrel{}{B}\right|^2=\left|\stackrel{}{A}\frac{\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}}{|\stackrel{}{B}|^2}\stackrel{}{B}\right|^2|\stackrel{}{B}|^2=|\stackrel{}{A}|^2|\stackrel{}{B}|^2(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})^2.$$

Therefore for any two vectors we should have

$$(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})=(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{A})(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{B})(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})^2.$$
(4)
Now consider

$$|\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A})(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{A})\stackrel{}{B}+(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{A}|^2=$$

$$=|\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A})|^2+|\stackrel{}{A}|^4|\stackrel{}{B}|^2(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})^2|\stackrel{}{A}|^22|\stackrel{}{A}|^2(\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A}))\stackrel{}{B}.$$

But this is zero because

$$|\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A})|^2=|\stackrel{}{A}|^2|\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A}|^2=|\stackrel{}{A}|^4|\stackrel{}{B}|^2(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})^2|\stackrel{}{A}|^2$$

and

$$(\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A}))\stackrel{}{B}=(\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A})(\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A})=|\stackrel{}{A}|^2|\stackrel{}{B}|^2(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})^2.$$

Therefore we have proved the identity

$$\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A})=(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{A})\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{A}.$$
(5)
Note that arrangement of the brackets in the l.f.s. is in fact irrelevant because the vector product is anti-commutative.

However, familiar identity

$$\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})=\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{C})\stackrel{}{C}(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B})$$
(6)
does not follow in general from the intuitively evident properties (1-3) of the vector product . To show this, let us introduce the ternary product  (which is zero if (6) is valid)

$$\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\}=\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{C})+\stackrel{}{C}(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}).$$

Equation (5) implies that this ternary product is alternating in its arguments. For example

$$0=\{\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\}=\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\}+\{\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{C}\}.$$

If $`\stackrel{}{e}_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ is an orthonormal basis in the vector space, then

$$(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{A})(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{B})=((\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{B})\times \stackrel{}{e}_i)\stackrel{}{A}=[\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{e}_i)\stackrel{}{e}_i]\stackrel{}{A}$$

and, therefore,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{A})(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{B})=(n1)\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}.$$
(7)
Using this identity we obtain

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B}\}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\}=$$

$$=(n5)(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})(\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D})+2(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{C})(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{D})2(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{D})(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{C}).$$
(8)
Hence

$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{A}\}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{B}\}=(n1)(n3)\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}$$
(9)
and

$$\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k\}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k\}=n(n1)(n3).$$
(10)
The last equation shows that there exists some $`\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k\}`$ that is not zero if $`n>3`$. So equation (6) is valid only for the usual three-dimensional vector product ($`n=1`$ case is, of course, not interesting because it corresponds to identically vanishing vector product). Surprisingly, we do not have much choice for $`n`$ even in case when validity of (6) is not required. In fact the space dimension $`n`$ should satisfy  (see also )

$$n(n1)(n3)(n7)=0.$$
(11)
To prove this statement, let us note that using

$$\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})+(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\times \stackrel{}{C}=(\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{C})\times \stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{C})\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}=$$

$$=2\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{C}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{C}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{C}\stackrel{}{A}$$

and

$$\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}))=\frac{1}{2}[\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}))+(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D})$$

$$(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D})((\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\times \stackrel{}{C})\times \stackrel{}{D}+((\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\times \stackrel{}{C})\times \stackrel{}{D}+$$

$$+(\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}))\times \stackrel{}{D}(\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}))\times \stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{A}\times ((\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})\times \stackrel{}{D})+$$

$$+\stackrel{}{A}\times ((\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})\times \stackrel{}{D})+\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}))\frac{}{}]$$

we can check the equation

$$\stackrel{}{A}\times \{\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\}=\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}\}+\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}))\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}\}+$$

$$+\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times (\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}))\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}\}+\stackrel{}{A}\times (\stackrel{}{D}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}))=$$

$$=\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}\}\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}\}\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}\}+3\stackrel{}{A}\times \{\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\}.$$

The last step follows from

$$3\{\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\}=\{\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\}+\{\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{B}\}+\{\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\}=$$

$$=\stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D})+\stackrel{}{C}\times (\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B})+\stackrel{}{D}\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}).$$

Therefore the ternary product satisfies an interesting identity

$$2\stackrel{}{A}\times \{\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\}=\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\times \stackrel{}{D}\}+\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{C},\stackrel{}{D}\times \stackrel{}{B}\}+\{\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}\}$$
(12)
Hence we should have

$$4\underset{i,j,k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \{\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k,\stackrel{}{e}_l\}|^2=$$

$$=\underset{i,j,k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k\times \stackrel{}{e}_l\}+\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_k,\stackrel{}{e}_l\times \stackrel{}{e}_j\}+\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_l,\stackrel{}{e}_j\times \stackrel{}{e}_k\}|^2.$$

L.h.s. is easily calculated by means of (7) and (10):

$$4\underset{i,j,k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \{\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k,\stackrel{}{e}_l\}|^2=4n(n1)^2(n3).$$

To calculate the r.h.s. the following identity is useful

$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{A}\}\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j\times \stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C}\}=(n3)(n6)\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})$$
(13)
which follows from (8) and from the identity

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{A})((\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{B})\times \stackrel{}{C})=$$

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{A})[2\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{C}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{C}\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{C}\stackrel{}{e}_i\times (\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C})]=$$

$$=(n4)\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{C}).$$

Now, with (9) and (13) at hands, it becomes an easy task to calculate

$$\underset{i,j,k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_k\times \stackrel{}{e}_l\}+\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_k,\stackrel{}{e}_l\times \stackrel{}{e}_j\}+\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_l,\stackrel{}{e}_j\times \stackrel{}{e}_k\}|^2=$$

$$=3n(n1)^2(n3)+6n(n1)(n3)(n6)=3n(n1)(n3)(3n13).$$

Therefore we should have

$$4n(n1)^2(n3)=3n(n1)(n3)(3n13).$$

But

$$3n(n1)(n3)(3n13)4n(n1)^2(n3)=5n(n1)(n3)(n7)$$

and hence (11) follows.

As we see, the space dimension must equal to the magic number seven if unique generalization of the ordinary three-dimensional vector product is possible.

So far we only have shown that seven-dimensional vector product can exist in principle. What about its detailed realization? To answer this question, it is useful to realize that the vector products are closely related to composition algebras  (in fact these two notions are equivalent ). Namely, for any composition algebra with unit element $`e`$ we can define the vector product in the subspace orthogonal to $`e`$ by $`x\times y=\frac{1}{2}(xyyx)`$. Therefore from a viewpoint of composition algebra, the vector product is just the commutator divided by two. According to Hurwitz theorem  the only composition algebras are real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions. The first two of them give identically zero vector products. Quaternions produce the usual three-dimensional vector product. The seven-dimensional vector product is generated by octonions . It is interesting to note that this seven-dimensional vector product is covariant with respect to smallest exceptional Lie group $`G_2`$  which is the automorphism group of octonions.

Using the octonion multiplication table  one can realize the seven-dimensional vector product as follows

$$\stackrel{}{e}_i\times \stackrel{}{e}_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{7}{}}f_{ijk}\stackrel{}{e}_k,i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},7,$$
(14)
where $`f_{ijk}`$ is totally antisymmetric $`G_2`$-invariant tensor and the only nonzero independent components are

$$f_{123}=f_{246}=f_{435}=f_{651}=f_{572}=f_{714}=f_{367}=1.$$

Note that in contrast to the three-dimensional case $`f_{ijk}f_{kmn}\delta _{im}\delta _{jn}\delta _{in}\delta _{jm}.`$ Instead we have

$$f_{ijk}f_{kmn}=g_{ijmn}+\delta _{im}\delta _{jn}\delta _{in}\delta _{jm}$$
(15)
where

$$g_{ijmn}=\stackrel{}{e}_i\{\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_m,\stackrel{}{e}_n\}.$$

In fact $`g_{ijmn}`$ is totally antisymmetric $`G_2`$-invariant tensor. For example

$$g_{ijmn}=\stackrel{}{e}_i\{\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_m,\stackrel{}{e}_n\}=\stackrel{}{e}_i\{\stackrel{}{e}_m,\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_n\}=$$

$$=\stackrel{}{e}_i(\stackrel{}{e}_m\times (\stackrel{}{e}_j\times \stackrel{}{e}_n))+(\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_j)(\stackrel{}{e}_m\stackrel{}{e}_n)(\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_n)(\stackrel{}{e}_m\stackrel{}{e}_j)=$$

$$=\stackrel{}{e}_m(\stackrel{}{e}_i\times (\stackrel{}{e}_n\times \stackrel{}{e}_j))+(\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_j)(\stackrel{}{e}_m\stackrel{}{e}_n)(\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_n)(\stackrel{}{e}_m\stackrel{}{e}_j)=$$

$$=\stackrel{}{e}_m\{\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_n,\stackrel{}{e}_j\}=\stackrel{}{e}_m\{\stackrel{}{e}_j,\stackrel{}{e}_i,\stackrel{}{e}_n\}=g_{mjin}.$$

The only nonzero independent components are

$$g_{1254}=g_{1267}=g_{1364}=g_{1375}=g_{2347}=g_{2365}=g_{4576}=1.$$

In conclusion, generalization of the vector product we have considered is only possible in seven-dimensional space and is closely related to octonions – the largest composition algebra which ties up together many exceptional structures in mathematics . In a general case of p-fold vector products other options arise . We recommend that interested reader consults references to explore these possibilities and possible physical applications.


text:
# General relativity limit of the scalar-tensor theories for traceless matter field

## I. Introduction

Recently Damour and Nordtvedt  has been demonstrated quite generally that scalar tensor (ST) theories generically contain a natural attractor mechanism toward general relativity (GR). Such a possibility was also suggested previously  but only for some particular classes of models. This means ST theories are cosmologically evolved toward a state with no scalar admixture to gravity during matter dominated era  or even during radiation era . This attractor feature is important because it diminishes the doubt on the existence of massless scalar field with gravitational-strength coupling by providing reasonable explanation for the small effect of the scalar fields (in comparison with curvature effect) in the present epoch without requiring any fine-tuned large value of the coupling parameter as needed in the case of celebrated Brans-Dicke (BD) theory . It is worth mentioning that a scalar partner to gravity is inevitable in most efforts at unifying gravity with the other interactions, such as superstring theories  or Kaluza-Klien theories . In cosmology also, the scalar field is found to play an appreciable role by providing a natural way to overcome the fine tuning problem of ”new” inflationary model of universe by terminating the inflationary era through nucleation of bubbles . The present acceleration of the universe, as revealed from the observational data of the type 1a supernova , also can be accommodate with the scalar field coupled gravity theories without the need of any new kind of matter field (so called ”Quintessence matter”) having a positive energy density but a negative pressure .
The attractor mechanism is based on the idea that a ST theory converges to GR for certain values of the characteristic coupling parameter $`\omega (\varphi )`$, which represents the strength of the coupling between the scalar field and the curvature. During cosmological evolution, the Einstein frame coupling parameter $`\alpha (\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ tends to zero  or equivalently in Jordan frame $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ ($`\alpha ^2(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\frac{1}{3+2\omega (\varphi )}`$) and this limit is usually regarded as GR limit of ST theories. However, recently it has been shown that the BD theory, which is the simplest ST theory with constant $`\omega `$, does not necessarily reduce to GR in the limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ when the trace of the matter energy-momentum tensor vanishes \[13-16\]. It is, therefore, important to examine the $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ limit of ST theories.
In the present work, we investigate $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ limit of ST theories in the radiation (and vacuum) universe. We shall rigorously show that the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ does not reduce a ST theory to GR. The cosmological evolution of the scale factor a(t) during radiation era will also be analyzed, in presence of a scalar field satisfying the modified (explain below) Nordtvedt conditions .
The paper is organized as follows: the general field equations of ST theories are set up in the next section. The non-convergence of ST theories to GR is discussed in sec. III. An exact solution of scale factor $`a(t)`$ in radiation universe is obtained in sec. IV for general ST theories under modified Nordtvedt conditions, and the results are discussed in sec. V.

## II. Field equations

Here we consider the most general ST theories of gravity with a single scalar field. In the Jordan conformal frame (since experimentally observed quantities are those written in the Jordan frame, we shall work in this frame throughout the paper), the general form of the action describing a massless scalar-tensor theory of gravity in natural units ($`G=c=1`$) is

$$𝒜=\frac{1}{16\pi }\sqrt{g}d^4x\left[\varphi R\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi }g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +16\pi _m\right]$$
(1)
where R is the Ricci scalar constructed from the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`_m`$ is the Lagrangian density of ordinary matter which could include electromagnetic field, nuclear field etc. The principle of equivalence is guaranteed by requiring that the matter field Lagrangian can depend only on the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ but not on $`\varphi `$. A variation of (1) with respect to $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\varphi `$ yields, respectively, the field equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\frac{8\pi }{\varphi }T_{\mu \nu }+\frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}\left(\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi ^{,\sigma }\varphi _{,\sigma }\right)+\frac{1}{\varphi }\left(\varphi _{,\mu ;\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\varphi \right),$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{8\pi }{2\omega (\varphi )+3}T\frac{\omega ^{}}{2\omega (\varphi )+3}g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu };$$
(3)
with the energy momentum conservation equation

$$T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$, $`T`$=$`T_\mu ^\mu `$ is the trace of the matter energy momentum tensor and $`\omega ^{}\frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }`$. It is clear that the scalar field plays the role which in GR played by the gravitational constant, but with $`\varphi `$ now a dynamical variable.
To proceed further, we consider a homogenous and isotropic universe. The line element has then a Robertson-Walker form:

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right];$$
(5)
curvature constant $`k=1,0,+1`$ for an open, flat or closed universe respectively. The condition of homogeneity implies that the scalar field is only a function of the time coordinate, $`\varphi \varphi (t)`$. For the above line element, the Eq. (4) reduces to

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\rho +p)=0$$
(6)
where an over dot denotes $`d/dt`$. For a radiation universe with equation of state $`P=\frac{1}{3}\rho `$, the above equation yields

$$\rho =\frac{3}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }a^4$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a positive constant. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ corresponds to vacuum ($`\rho =P=0`$). The field equations (2) and (3) thus yield

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\varphi a^4}\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{6}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2},$$
(8)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\varphi a^4}\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}2\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi },$$
(9)
and

$$\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{3\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }=\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{3+2\omega (\varphi )}.$$
(10)
When $`\varphi `$ is a constant, the above equations (8) and (9) reduce to the GR equations with a gravitational constant $`G=\frac{1}{\varphi }`$.

## III. Non-convergence of ST theories to GR

The first integral of the equation (10) immediately gives,

$$\dot{\varphi }=\frac{A}{a^3\sqrt{(3+2\omega (\varphi ))}}$$
(11)
where A is a constant. The above equation is true for any radiation or vacuum cosmological Friedmann solution and is valid for all ST theories. It is to be noted that since $`A`$ is independent of time, it can not be a function of $`\omega (\varphi )`$ but for Brans-Dicke theory ($`\omega `$ is constant) $`A`$ may depend on $`\omega `$. Inserting $`\dot{\varphi }`$ from Eq. (11) into Eqs. (8) and (9) we get under the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\varphi a^4}+\frac{A^2}{12\varphi ^2a^6},$$
(12)
and

$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2+k}{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\varphi a^4}\frac{A^2}{4\varphi ^2a^6}(1\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}).$$
(13)
and the Ricci scalar in the same limit is given by

$$R\frac{1}{\varphi }\left(\frac{3\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{4\omega ^2(\varphi )}\frac{1}{2\varphi }\right)\frac{A^2}{a^6},$$
(14)
When a scalar-tensor theory converges to GR, the scalar curvature must approach to zero and at the same time, the scalar field must become a constant as well. It is evident from Eq. (11) that as $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, $`\varphi `$ is tending to a constant value ($`1`$). $`A`$ should not vanish in this limit since $`A`$ is independent of $`\omega (\varphi )`$. $`a(t)`$ must be bounded for any realistic theory of gravity. Then it follows from Eq. (14) that $`R`$ is not approaching its GR value ($`0`$) for large value of $`\omega (\varphi )`$ or even for the Nordtvedt conditions  viz. $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{},\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^3(\varphi )}0`$. These conditions are essential if the solar system tests are to accord with observations. In fact the first term at the right hand side of Eq. (14) is ambiguous under Nordtvedt conditions. On the other hand, the second term at the right hand side of Eq. (14) becomes non-zero constant as $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$. The said ambiguity in the expression of $`R`$ under original Nordtvedt conditions can be avoided by slightly modifying the Nordtvedt conditions as

$$\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{},\frac{\omega ^{}(\varphi )}{\omega ^2(\varphi )}0$$
(15)
But even for such modified conditions, $`R`$ remains non-zero and the field equations are clearly different from the corresponding GR equations with the same energy momentum tensor. This shows that GR cannot be recovered from ST theories by imposing constraints on the coupling parameter $`\omega (\varphi )`$.

## IV. Radiation solution

To obtain solution of the simultaneous equations (12) and (13) under modified Nordtvedt conditions, we first write these equations in the synchronous gauge

$$a^2+ka^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{A^2}{12a^2}$$
(16)
and

$$2aa^{\prime \prime }a^2+ka^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{A^2}{4a^2}$$
(17)
where prime denotes $`d/d\eta `$ and the conformal time $`\eta `$ is defined through

$$ad\eta =dt$$
(18)
For flat universe ($`k=0`$), solution of (16) and (17) is

$$a(\eta )=\left(\frac{A}{\sqrt{3}}\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta ^2\right)^{1/2};$$
(19)
and the cosmic time ($`t`$) is related with the conformal time ($`\eta `$) via

$$t=a𝑑\eta =\left(\frac{A}{4\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\frac{\eta }{2}\right)\left(\frac{A}{\sqrt{3}}\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta ^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{A^2}{12\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3/2}}Log\left[2\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta }+2\sqrt{3}\sqrt{\frac{A}{\sqrt{3}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta }\right]$$
(20)
It is expected that all radiation solutions of ST theories with an arbitrary coupling function will converge to the above solutions under modified Nordtvedt conditions. For verification, we consider solutions obtained by Barrow for a class of ST theory  defined through $`2\omega (\varphi )+3=2B_1(1\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0})^\alpha `$; $`\alpha >0`$, $`B_1>0`$ constants. The theory reduces to Barker’s “constant” $`G`$ theory  for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`B_1=1/2`$ and to Brans-Dicke theory  for $`\alpha =0`$. The theory has been studied extensively in . The exact radiation solutions for $`\alpha =1`$ is given by

$$\varphi (\eta )=\frac{4\varphi _0K^\lambda \eta ^\lambda (\eta +2\eta _0)^\lambda }{[(\eta +2\eta _0)^\lambda +K^\lambda \eta ^\lambda ]^2}$$
(21)
$$a^2(\eta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta (\eta +\eta _0)}{\varphi (\eta )}$$
(22)
where $`\lambda =(3/2B_1)^{1/2}`$, and $`K`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are constants. As $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$, scalar field approaches $`\varphi _0`$ and the expression for scale factor (22) indeed converges to (19).
It is clear from Eqs. (19) and (20) that for large $`\eta `$, $`t\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{2}\eta ^2`$ and $`at^{1/2}`$ i.e., the solution approaches the usual radiation dominated Friedmann model of GR. But when t is not very large, the scale factor differs from that of GR.

## V. Conclusion

The evolution of scalar field suggests  that the coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ may evolve to a large value during radiation era. Some authors have discussed the effect of an inflationary phase in pushing $`\omega (\varphi )`$ towards the extremum . Consequently, there is a standard belief that ST theories are indistinguishable from GR at late radiation epoch and during matter dominated era. We have shown that the limit $`\omega (\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ does not reduce a ST theory to GR for trace-free stress energy. But this is not surprising as the PPN parameters describe the possible deviations from GR in the local interaction of massive bodies and the Nordtvedt conditions reduce ST theories to GR only in the weak field limit. It is already known that the Brans-Dicke theory also does not always reduce to GR when $`T=0`$. But in that case the dependence of the BD scalar field $`\varphi `$ on the coupling constant essentially remains arbitrary  and the asymptotic behavior of $`\varphi `$ should be fixed respecting Machian nature of the BD theory (which is the motivation for the development of the theory) which immediately suggests $`\varphi \varphi _0+O\left(\frac{1}{\omega }\right)`$ for large values of $`\omega (\varphi )`$, so that the theory reduces to GR asymptotically . But such a constraint on the functional dependence of $`\varphi `$ on $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is not allowed for general ST theories.
For compatibility with post-Newtonian weak field observations, Nordtvedt conditions are usually imposed on ST theories. However, it is found that the original Nordtvedt conditions lead to an ambiguity in the value of Ricci scalar. As a result a slight modification of the second Nordtvedt condition is proposed (15) so that the Ricci scalar becomes finite and at the same time ST theories remain consistent with weak field observations.
The evolution of the scale factor during radiation era is studied for general ST cosmology under modified Nordtvedt conditions. An exact solution is obtained for flat universe which for certain conditions gives the corresponding GR solution. All classes (compatible with solar system observations) of ST radiation solutions should tend to this solution in the limit of large $`\omega (\varphi )`$. At late times ($`t\mathrm{}`$) this solution tends to GR radiation solution but at early periods (when $`t`$ is not very large) it differs from the GR solution. The effect of such a difference on cosmological observations should be very interesting and will be investigated in a subsequent work. But it is evident that at least on principle the presence of a Brans-Dicke scalar field with an extremely large $`\omega (\varphi )`$ could be detected through cosmological observations.

Acknowledgment : The author wishes to thank IUCAA Reference Centre (NBU) for providing its facilities. It is a pleasure to thank G. Majumder (TIFR) for stimulating comments and various help.