text:
# Bi-refringence versus bi-metricity.

## I Introduction

It is commonly assumed that electromagnetic phenomena (in sharp contrast with gravitational phenomena) can be described by a linear field theory even in strong fields. But there are many reasons to expect that this is not ultimately what happens. Born and Infeld Born-Infeld  proposed that some specific non-linearities could appear at strong fields preventing the existence of arbitrary large values for the electric field surrounding a charged point particle. For their part, Euler and Heisenberg Euler-Heisenberg  (see also Schwinger Schwinger ) argued that at high values of the electric field, the quantum creation and annihilation of electron-positron pairs would give rise to an effective non-linear electrodynamic theory. This effective non-linear electrodynamic theory can be further modified by externally driven alterations of the quantum vacuum owing to background electromagnetic EMbackground  and gravitational fields Gbackground , or to geometrical boundary conditions (Casimir plates, *etc.*GBCbackground . For some additional important examples see the references in Addbackground . Remarkably enough, in most cases these non-linear electrodynamic theories can be described by the use of appropriate (non-linear) media, with their associated refractive indices.

Over the last few years Professor Mário Novello and co-authors have devoted considerable effort to investigating some of the consequences of having a non-linear electrodynamic theory. On the one hand, they have been interested in the possible role of non-linear electrodynamics in circumventing the singularity problem of general relativity. In particular, they have shown that in Euler–Heisenberg electrodynamics it is possible to have a cosmology without an initial singularity NovelloGS . On the other hand, Professor Novello and co-workers have been investigating what effects one should expect to see in the propagation of photons; now viewed as linear perturbations around a background electromagnetic configuration NovelloPP . They were aware that in this case the causal propagation of photons is not controlled by the “physical” spacetime metric (or others conformally related to it), but by an “effective” metric depending on the background electromagnetic fields Plebansky . Professor Novello and his collaborators realized that this opened up the possibility of building “geometric structures” in a manner analogous to, but different from, the realm of usual general relativity. For arbitrary non-linear theories they have shown that black holes NovelloBH , wormholes NovelloWH  and even geometries with closed “timelike” curves NovelloCTC  can be constructed. These “effective” geometries will only be felt by the photons, while other matter fields will feel the usual gravitational spacetime metric.

A very important point addressed by Professor Novello and co-workers is the quite generic appearance of bi-refringence in non-linear electrodynamics NovelloPP . (See also the work of Plebanski Plebansky , Dittrich and Gies Dittrich-Gies , Schrodinger Schrodinger , and Boillat Boillat .) The two polarization states of the photon propagate differently. The present authors have similarly been confronted with the question of bi-refringence (or more generally multi-refringence) in general systems of second order partial differential equations (PDEs); this investigation being motivated by an abstract approach to analog relativity normal-modes2 . (The last few years have seen a proliferation of analog models of/for general relativity in the literature. See Barcelo  for an extensive reference list.) In a series of papers normal-modes ; normal-modes2  we have shown that the crucial issue in building an analog model of general relativity is the linearization of non-linear field theories around some background solution. In the present article we will apply the general analysis and language of normal-modes2  to a generalization of non-linear electrodynamics. We will show that the existence of bi-refringence is quite easily established, but that the step to bi-metricity (the existence of two different effective metrics controlling the propagation of each photon polarization) requires special conditions that are satisfied by electrodynamics in (3+1) dimensions.

We would also like to point out that nonlinear electrodynamics (in particular Born–Infeld theory) has in recent years seen a marked resurgence of interest with the advent of the notion of D-brane (see for example Polchinski Polchinski ). Many physicists feel that D-branes will be a crucial ingredient in any final formulation of M/String theory. It happens that the motion of a D-brane in the bulk spacetime is controlled by a Born–Infeld type action Gibbons1 . This implies that while closed strings propagate following the bulk spacetime metric, open strings (whose end points are attached to D-branes) follow an effective metric derived from the Born–Infeld Lagrangian Gibbons2 .

Finally, we point out that much of the formalism developed below owes a great debt to related work (by SL, Sebastiano Sonego, and MV) on photon propagation at oblique angles in the Casimir vacuum Oblique .

## II Generalized Nonlinear Electrodynamics

Consider a general class of Lagrangians of the form

$$_{\mathrm{effective}}=(F_{\mu \nu }(x),B(x)).$$
(1)
Here $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the electromagnetic field strength; and it is assumed that derivatives of this field strength do not occur in the Lagrangian. In terms of the vector potential

$$F_{\mu \nu }(x)=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .$$
(2)
In addition $`B(x)`$ denotes a generic class of *external* non-dynamical background fields. These could represent, for example, a refractive index, the 4-velocity of a dielectric, the location and 4-velocity of Casimir plates or other conductors, assorted inhomogeneities and/or boundary conditions, an external gravitational field, *etc.* If these background fields are all set to their trivial position-independent values then the system reduces to ordinary nonlinear electrodynamics in which the Lagrangian depends only on the two independent Lorentz invariants that can be constructed from the field strength tensor (for example, Born–Infeld or Euler–Heisenberg electrodynamics).

The complete equations of motion for nonlinear electrodynamics consist of the Bianchi identity,

$$F_{[\mu \nu ,\lambda ]}=0,$$
(3)
plus the dynamical equation

$$_\nu \left(\frac{}{F_{\mu \nu }}\right)=0.$$
(4)
We now adopt a linearization procedure: Split the electromagnetic field into an internal (possibly dynamical) background field plus a propagating photon

$$F_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{background}}+f_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{photon}}.$$
(5)
Then, assuming the background satisfies the equations of motion and retaining only linear terms in the propagating photon, we have

$$(f^{\mathrm{photon}})_{[\mu \nu ,\lambda ]}=0,$$
(6)
and

$$_\nu \left(\frac{^2}{F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }}|_{\mathrm{background}}f_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{photon}}\right)=0.$$
(7)
On defining

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=\frac{^2}{F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }}|_{\mathrm{background}},$$
(8)
equation (7) can be rewritten in the somewhat more compact form

$$_\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }f_{\nu \beta }^{\mathrm{photon}}\right)=0.$$
(9)
Note that the tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is symmetric with respect to exchange of the pairs of indices $`\mu \nu `$ and $`\alpha \beta `$, and antisymmetric with respect to exchange of indices within each pair. That is: $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ has most of the key symmetries of the Riemann tensor. If one wishes to work directly at the level of the linearized Lagrangian one has:

$$_{\mathrm{linearized}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }f_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{photon}}f_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{photon}}.$$
(10)
The key observation is that this linearized Lagrangian generically leads to birefringence.

We now apply a restricted form of the eikonal approximation by introducing a slowly varying amplitude $`f^{\mu \nu }`$ and a rapidly varying phase $`\varphi `$:

$$f_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{photon}}=f_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }.$$
(11)
The 4-wavevector is then defined as $`k_\mu =_\mu \varphi `$. This approximation is similar to, but not quite identical with, the usual eikonal approximation. This is because one assumes that $`\varphi `$ varies on scales much smaller than those of the background, while, on the other hand, use of the Lagrangian (1) also implies that the components of $`k`$ are much smaller than the values fixed by the electron mass. (This is the so-called soft-photon regime). Under these hypotheses,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }k_\alpha f_{\nu \beta }=0.$$
(12)
But in general the internal dynamical background field is itself subject to quantum fluctuations, and to take this into account the coefficients of this equation are to be identified with the expectation value of the corresponding quantum operators in the background state $`|\psi `$:

$$\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi k_\alpha f_{\nu \beta }=0.$$
(13)
In taking this expectation value we are using the fact that the fluctuations in the internal dynamical background fields are influenced by the external non-dynamical background fields $`B(x)`$. (For example, in the case of the Casimir geometry, by the distance between the plates.) In the spirit of the restricted eikonal approximation there is a separation of scales between the internal dynamical background fluctuations and the propagating photon.

The Bianchi identity (6) constrains $`f^{\mu \nu }`$ to be of the form

$$f_{\mu \nu }=k_\mu a_\nu k_\nu a_\mu ,$$
(14)
where we have introduced the linearized gauge potential $`a`$ for the propagating field. Inserting (14) into (13) we find

$$\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi k_\alpha k_\beta a_\nu =0.$$
(15)
Note that this last equation implies that any completely antisymmetric part of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ can be discarded without affecting the equations of motion.

Of course, this entire discussion could alternatively be rephrased in terms of Hadamard’s theory of the propagation of weak discontinuities Hadamard , the formalism preferred by Professor Novello NovelloPP . An identical equation (relating the polarization and the wavevector) is encountered.

We emphasise that the discussion in this section has (so far) been completely independent of the dimensionality of spacetime. If we now ask how many independent components arise in

$$\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }|\psi =\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{([\mu \nu ][\alpha \beta ])}\psi $$
(16)
we find \[in (d+1) dimensions\]

$$\frac{d(d+1)(d^2+d+2)}{8}.$$
(17)
In particular in (3+1) dimensions this quantity has 21 independent components. One of these components can be taken to be the coefficient of the Levi–Civita tensor, and so does not affect the equations of motion (15). Another component can be interpreted as the overall scale of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which again does not affect the equations of motion. So the number of useful independent components in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is 19. In contrast, two light cones only specify $`2\times 9=18`$ components. (Two metrics would specify $`2\times 10=20`$ components, but in this paper we are only looking at the null cones.) It is ultimately this close relationship which makes (3+1) dimensions so special (and tricky).

## III Fresnel equation

Equation (15) represents a condition for $`a`$ as a function of $`k`$ — it constrains $`a`$ to be an eigenvector, with zero eigenvalue, of the $`k`$-dependent matrix

$$A^{\mu \nu }(k)=\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi k_\alpha k_\beta .$$
(18)
Any non-zero solution corresponds to a physically possible field polarization, that can be identified by a unit polarization vector $`ϵ`$ (provided $`a`$ is not a null vector — a possibility that can always be avoided by a suitable gauge choice).

A necessary and sufficient condition for the eigenvalue problem $`A^{\mu \nu }a_\nu =0`$ to have non-zero solutions is $`\text{det}\left(A^{\mu \nu }\right)=0`$; however, this gives us no information at all. Indeed, any $`a`$ parallel to $`k`$ is always a non-zero solution, so the condition $`det\left(A^{\mu \nu }\right)=0`$ is actually an identity. On the other hand, $`ak`$ is merely an unphysical gauge mode that corresponds to $`f_{\mu \nu }=0`$ by (14), so we need to find other, physically meaningful, solutions of the eigenvalue problem.

To this end, we exploit gauge invariance under $`aa+\lambda k`$ and fix a gauge, thus removing the spurious modes. For the current subsection, it is particularly convenient to adopt the temporal gauge $`a_0=0`$. Then we can define a polarization vector $`ϵ_\mu a_\mu /\left(a_\nu a^\nu \right)^{1/2}`$, and the eigenvalue problem $`A^{\mu \nu }ϵ_\nu =0`$ splits into the equation

$$A^{0i}ϵ_i=0,$$
(19)
plus the reduced eigenvalue problem

$$A^{ij}ϵ_j=0.$$
(20)
The latter admits a nontrivial solution only if

$$det\left(A^{ij}\right)=0.$$
(21)
The condition (21) plays the same role as the Fresnel equation in crystal optics Landau  — it is a scalar equation for $`k`$ and thus gives the dispersion relation for light propagating in our “medium”.

The spatial components of the matrix (18) are

$`A^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0j0}|\psi +\omega k_m\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0jm}+\mathrm{\Omega }^{imj0}|\psi `$ (22)
$`+k_mk_n\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{imjn}|\psi ,`$
where $`\omega =k_0`$. Let us define the unit vector $`\widehat{k}=\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|`$. Then the components of $`A^{ij}`$ in a basis with one axis directed along $`\widehat{k}`$ are

$`A^{ij}\widehat{k}_j`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0j0}|\psi \widehat{k}_j+\omega k_m\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{imj0}|\psi \widehat{k}_j`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\omega \left(\omega \psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0j0}|\psi \widehat{k}_j+\widehat{k}_m\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{imj0}|\psi \widehat{k}_j\right)`$
$``$ $`\omega V^i.`$
In particular

$$A^{ij}\widehat{k}_i\widehat{k}_j=\omega ^2\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0j0}|\psi \widehat{k}_i\widehat{k}_j\omega ^2S.$$
(24)
If we now specialize for definiteness to (3+1) dimensions, then the matrix $`A^{ij}`$ has the following structure

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega ^2S& \omega V^J\\ \omega V^I& T^{IJ}\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
where $`I`$ and $`J`$ label the two directions orthogonal to $`\widehat{k}`$ in the sense of vector-space duality. (The $`V^I`$ are linear in the 4-wavenumber $`k`$, while the $`T^{IJ}`$ are quadratic in the 4-wavenumber $`k`$.) Evaluating the determinant by expanding in the first row or column, it is easy to see that every term will contain at least two factors of $`\omega `$, which establishes

$$\text{det}\left(A^{ij}\right)=\omega ^2𝒫_4(k),$$
(26)
where $`𝒫_4(k)`$ is a homogeneous fourth-order polynomial in the 4-wavenumber $`k_\mu =(\omega ,|\stackrel{}{k}|\widehat{k}_i)`$. While the determinant is itself a *sextic*, the physically interesting part is given by the *quartic* $`𝒫_4`$. In fact, by the rules for partitioning determinants

$$\text{det}\left(A^{ij}\right)=\omega ^2Sdet\left[T^{IJ}\frac{V^IV^J}{S}\right],$$
(27)
so that $`𝒫_4`$ is effectively a $`2\times 2`$ determinant

$$𝒫_4(k)=Sdet\left[T^{IJ}\frac{V^IV^J}{S}\right],$$
(28)
where the elements of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix are themselves quadratic in the 4-wavenumber. This allows us to re-phrase the current analysis in the language of our more general “normal modes” analysis normal-modes2  by introducing a matrix $`f^{\mu \nu ;IJ}`$ (extremely similar to but not identical with the related quantity introduced in that article) and writing

$$𝒫_4(k)=det\left[f^{\mu \nu ;IJ}k_\mu k_\nu \right].$$
(29)
Here the two polarization states take on the role of (dual) “field indices” as discussed in reference normal-modes2 . The determinant is to be taken on the $`IJ`$ indices.

The upshot of this analysis is that in the most general case there appear to be four dispersion relations, corresponding the four roots of the quartic equation

$$𝒫_4(k)=0.$$
(30)
If we write $`k=(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})=(\omega ,|\stackrel{}{k}|\widehat{k})`$ then two of these roots correspond to propagation in the $`+\widehat{k}`$ direction, while the other two correspond to propagation in the $`\widehat{k}`$ direction.

Different polarization states are represented by linearly independent solutions of the eigenvalue problem (20), under the condition (21). Thus, the space of polarizations is exactly two-dimensional. Since equation (21) gives rise to two dispersion relations, the polarization states actually satisfy two (in general, different) eigenvalue equations,

$$\overline{A}_{(r)}^{\mu \nu }ϵ_\nu ^{(r)}=0,$$
(31)
where $`r=1,2`$ labels the dispersion relations and $`\overline{A}_{\mu \nu }^{(r)}`$ is obtained from $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ by imposing the corresponding condition on $`k`$ as derived from equation (30). Indeed, suppose you pick a specific 3-direction $`\widehat{k}`$ and have by some means determined two independent polarization states $`ϵ_\nu ^{(r)}`$, which are *implicitly* functions of $`\widehat{k}`$ and the corresponding solutions $`\overline{k}`$ of $`𝒫_4(k)=0`$, then one can construct a pair of two-index matrices

$$\overline{𝒢}_{(r)}^{\mu \nu }=\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi ϵ_\alpha ^{(r)}ϵ_\beta ^{(r)}.$$
(32)
Although these quantities are matrices with the correct index structure to be interpreted as “effective metrics” they are in the general case implicitly functions of $`\overline{\omega }`$, $`\overline{|\stackrel{}{k}|}`$, and the direction $`\widehat{k}`$, and so these quantities *cannot* be viewed as spacetime metrics.

It is only in some special cases (*e.g.*, ordinary nonlinear electrodynamics) that the polynomial $`𝒫_4(k)`$ factorizes into two quadratic forms,

$$𝒫_4(k)=\left(𝒢_{(1)}^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu \right)\left(𝒢_{(2)}^{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta \right),$$
(33)
in which case we obtain two second-order dispersion relations:

$$𝒢_{(1)}^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0\text{and}𝒢_{(2)}^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0,$$
(34)
with momentum-independent matrices $`𝒢_{(r)}`$. We *can* now interpret these two matrices $`𝒢`$ as the two (inverse) effective metrics of a bi-metric theory. (More precisely they are representative elements of two conformal classes of inverse metrics, since multiplication by an arbitrary position-dependent scalar will not modify the dispersion relations.)

In very special cases not only does (33) hold, but also $`𝒢_{(1)}^{\mu \nu }=𝒢_{(2)}^{\mu \nu }`$. (That is, the fourth-order polynomial $`𝒫_4(k)`$ is a perfect square.) In this case one ends up with a single quadratic dispersion relation of the familiar form

$$𝒢^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0,$$
(35)
where $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ is some symmetric tensor, which we shall call the (inverse) effective metric (again defined only up to an arbitrary conformal factor).

We now wish to investigate the conditions under which these factorization (bi-metric) and uniqueness properties hold. Since the entire formalism ultimately derives from the tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }`$, we shall look for suitable algebraic constraints on this tensor.

## IV Single Effective metric

In the case of a single effective metric we have

$$𝒢^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0.$$
(36)
It should be clear from our previous discussion that a necessary condition for this to happen is the absence of birefringence. We see that the wave vector is now null with respect to this (unique) “effective metric” $`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$, which therefore defines an effective geometry for the propagation of light.

We warn the reader that even when a unique (inverse) effective metric $`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined, we always raise and lower indices using the flat Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, or in the presence of a gravitational field the physical spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The effective metric itself, denoted $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }`$, is the matrix inverse of $`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$. Because of the way indices are raised and lowered using the physical metric you cannot use index placement to distinguish $`𝒢=𝐠^1`$ from $`𝐠`$.

This single effective metric situation implies that (up to possibly a piece proportional to the Levi–Civita tensor) the tensor $`\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi `$ must be algebraically constructible solely in terms of $`𝒢^{\mu \nu }`$. In view of the symmetries of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }`$ we know, without need for detailed calculation, that it must be of the form

$$\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝒢^{\mu \nu }𝒢^{\alpha \beta }𝒢^{\mu \beta }𝒢^{\nu \alpha }\right)+\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }$$
(37)
for some quantities $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. By appealing to the conformal invariance of the null cones we can always absorb a factor of $`2\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Psi }|}`$ into the inverse metric $`𝒢`$ and so rewrite this as

$$\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi =\pm \frac{\left(𝒢^{\mu \nu }𝒢^{\alpha \beta }𝒢^{\mu \beta }𝒢^{\nu \alpha }\right)}{4}+\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }.$$
(38)
Conversely, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }`$ is of the form (38), then the matrix (18) is

$`A^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`\left\{𝒢^{\mu \nu }\left(𝒢^{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta \right)\left(𝒢^{\mu \alpha }k_\alpha \right)\left(𝒢^{\nu \beta }k_\beta \right)\right\},`$
and the photon propagation equation, $`A^{\mu \nu }a_\nu =0`$, becomes

$$\left(𝒢^{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta \right)𝒢^{\mu \nu }a_\nu \left(𝒢^{\alpha \beta }a_\alpha k_\beta \right)𝒢^{\mu \nu }k_\nu =0.$$
(40)
This equation is obviously satisfied by the uninteresting gauge modes $`ak`$, with no constraints on $`k`$. Solutions corresponding to a non-vanishing $`f^{\mu \nu }`$ exist only if the coefficient of $`𝒢^{\mu \nu }a_\nu `$ is zero, *i.e.*, if (35) holds. Thus, the two polarization states propagate with the same dispersion relation (35), and there is no birefringence.

Substituting (35) back into the propagation equation (40) we find another relationship typical of this case,

$$𝒢^{\mu \nu }k_\mu a_\nu =0.$$
(41)
Formally, the above equation looks like a gauge condition. This might seem puzzling, because nowhere in the present subsection have we fixed a gauge. In fact, (41) is a consequence of the dynamical equation $`A^{\mu \nu }a_\nu =0`$, when the “on-shell” condition (35) is satisfied, and it does not imply any gauge fixing.

It is also interesting to notice that there is now a self-consistency or “bootstrap” condition,

$$\pm \frac{3}{4}𝒢^{\mu \nu }=\psi |\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }|\psi 𝐠_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(42)
We stress that these relations depend only on the assumed existence of a single unique effective metric $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }`$ — they do not make any reference to other specifics of the external background fields $`B(x)`$ or the quantum state.

Finally we point out that in this mono-refringent case the linearized Lagrangian reduces to

$`_{\mathrm{linearized}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒢^{\beta \mu }f_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{photon}}𝒢^{\nu \alpha }f_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{photon}}`$ (43)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }f_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{photon}}f_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{photon}}.`$
With hindsight, this is exactly what we should have expected. If we now use this Lagrangian formulation to demand positivity of energy \[a feature missing from the purely kinematical analysis based on equation (15)\] then we should set $`\pm +1`$. Note that we have also used the conformal invariance of the null cones to normalize $`𝒢`$ in the conventional manner. Finally the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ term is simply the well-known Pontryagin index.

## V Ordinary Nonlinear Electrodynamics

In order to see how to develop a general ansatz that leads to bi-metricity (perhaps not the most general ansatz) it is useful to consider the explicit form of the tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ for *ordinary* nonlinear electrodynamics:

$$_{\mathrm{NLE}}=(,𝒢).$$
(44)
Here we have adopted the now common variables Dittrich-Gies

$``$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{}{B}^2\stackrel{}{E}^2\right),`$ (45)
$`𝒢`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}.`$ (46)
For such Lagrangians

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(_{}\right)\left(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu _\beta }\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\right)`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(_𝒢\right)ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$
$`+F^{\mu \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }\left(_{}^2\right)+{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta }\left(_𝒢^2\right)`$
$`+\left(F^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta }+{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }\right)_𝒢.`$
As soon as one inserts this tensor into the photon equation of motion (12), the completely antisymmetric part proportional to the Levi–Civita tensor drops out, because of the Bianchi identity (6). The remaining pieces reproduce the photon equation of motion in the perhaps more usual form considered by Dittrich and Gies Dittrich-Gies , or Novello and co-workers NovelloPP .

Unless one has a specific need to perform calculations to orders higher than $`O(\alpha ^2)`$, it is often sufficient to consider the Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian Euler-Heisenberg  which, in the $``$$`𝒢`$ formalism adopted above, takes the form

$$_{\mathrm{EH}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }+c_1^2+c_2𝒢^2,$$
(48)
with

$$c_1=\frac{\alpha ^2}{90\pi ^2m_\mathrm{e}^4},c_2=\frac{7\alpha ^2}{360\pi ^2m_\mathrm{e}^4}.$$
(49)
The terms proportional to $`^2`$ and $`𝒢^2`$ of this Lagrangian are quartic in the field, and describe the low-energy limit of the box diagram in QED, when four photons couple to a single virtual electron loop. Thus, the Lagrangian (48) is only accurate to order $`\alpha ^2`$, and it is meaningless to retain higher order terms within this model. For the Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian, the tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{2}}\right)\left(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\right)`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2𝒢}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{2}}F^{\mu \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta }.`$
Again, when one inserts this tensor into the photon equation of motion (12), the completely antisymmetric part proportional to the Levi–Civita tensor drops out.

Suppose we now adopt the “rotated” quantity

$$K=\mathrm{cos}\theta F+\mathrm{sin}\theta {}_{}{}^{}F,$$
(51)
so that

$${}_{}{}^{}K=\mathrm{sin}\theta F+\mathrm{cos}\theta {}_{}{}^{}F.$$
(52)
Then for both (ordinary) NLE and Euler–Heisenberg electrodynamics we can put $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\right)`$ (53)
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$
$`+aK^{\mu \nu }K^{\alpha \beta }+b{}_{}{}^{}K_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}K_{}^{\alpha \beta }.`$
The matrix $`A^{\mu \alpha }`$ is then \[suppressing explicit indices\]

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\{\eta (k,k)\eta (\eta k)(\eta k)\}`$ (54)
$`+a(Kk)(Kk)+b({}_{}{}^{}Kk)({}_{}{}^{}Kk).`$
Note that because both $`K`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}K`$ are antisymmetric $`K(k,k)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}K(k,k)=0`$; therefore $`Ak=0`$ as expected. \[We have defined $`\eta (k,k)\eta ^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$, $`K(k,k)K^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$, *etc.*\] Now consider $`det^{}(A)`$, the “reduced” determinant in the three directions orthogonal to $`k`$. We adopt this particular reduced determinant as a technically convenient alternative to using the temporal gauge. To be precise we define

$$\stackrel{}{det}(A)=\frac{\mathrm{d}[det(A+ϵI)]}{\mathrm{d}ϵ}|_{ϵ=0}.$$
(55)
which implies

$$\stackrel{}{det}A=\frac{1}{3!}\left\{[\mathrm{Tr}(A)]^3+2[\mathrm{Tr}(A^3)]3[\mathrm{Tr}(A)][\mathrm{Tr}(A^2)]\right\}.$$
(56)
Now use this formula, or the fact that in 3 dimensions

$`det{}_{3}{}^{}(\lambda I+uu+vv)`$ (57)
$`=\lambda \left\{\lambda ^2+\lambda (u^2+v^2)+[u^2v^2(uv)^2]\right\}`$
(useful when $`k`$ is timelike with respect to $`\eta `$), to deduce

$`det{}_{}{}^{}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }I(k,k)\{\mathrm{\Psi }^2\eta (k,k)^2`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }\eta (k,k)[a\gamma (Kk,Kk)+b\gamma ({}_{}{}^{}Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)]`$
$`+ab[\gamma (Kk,Kk)\gamma ({}_{}{}^{}Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)`$
$`\gamma (Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)^2]\}.`$
\[The presence of the $``$ sign arises from the indefinite nature of the metric $`\eta `$. We have also verified the above formulae via explicit evaluation of the determinants using Maple. Note that we now distinguish between the (inverse) contravariant Minkowski metric $`\eta `$ and the covariant Minkowski metric $`\gamma =\eta ^1`$. The wavevector $`k`$ is always taken to be covariant while both $`K`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}K`$ are assumed doubly contravariant. We have defined $`\gamma (Kk,Kk)\gamma _{\mu \nu }(Kk)^\mu (Kk)^\nu `$, *etc.*\]

Discarding the uninteresting factor of $`I(k,k)=k^Tk`$ (it corresponds to the factor $`\omega ^2`$ encountered when we worked in temporal gauge) we identify

$`𝒫_4(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^2\eta (k,k)^2`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }\eta (k,k)[a\gamma (Kk,Kk)+b\gamma ({}_{}{}^{}Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)]`$
$`+ab[\gamma (Kk,Kk)\gamma ({}_{}{}^{}Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)`$
$`\gamma (Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)^2].`$
This is clearly a quartic in $`k`$, and the “miracle” of (ordinary) nonlinear electrodynamics is that it factorizes into two quadratics. To establish this factorization we use some very special properties of (3+1) dimensions:

$`T_{\mathrm{Maxwell}}`$ $`=`$ $`F\gamma F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}(F\gamma F\gamma )\eta `$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}F\gamma {}_{}{}^{}F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{}F\gamma {}_{}{}^{}F\gamma )\eta `$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}F\gamma {}_{}{}^{}F+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}(F\gamma F\gamma )\eta `$ (62)
and

$`F\gamma {}_{}{}^{}F=𝒢\eta ={}_{}{}^{}F\gamma F.`$ (63)
In terms of the “rotated variables” the Maxwell stress energy tensor is given by

$`T_{\mathrm{Maxwell}}`$ $`=`$ $`K\gamma K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}(K\gamma K\gamma )\eta `$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}K\gamma {}_{}{}^{}K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{}K\gamma {}_{}{}^{}K\gamma )\eta `$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}K\gamma {}_{}{}^{}K+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}(K\gamma K\gamma )\eta .`$ (66)
Additionally

$`K\gamma {}_{}{}^{}K=𝒢_\theta \eta ={}_{}{}^{}K\gamma K,`$ (67)
where

$`_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )𝒢`$ (68)
$`𝒢_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )+\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )𝒢.`$ (69)
From these relations we can deduce

$`\gamma (Kk,Kk)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\mathrm{Maxwell}}(k,k)_\theta \eta (k,k),`$ (70)
$`\gamma ({}_{}{}^{}Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\mathrm{Maxwell}}(k,k)+_\theta \eta (k,k),`$ (71)
$`\gamma (Kk,{}_{}{}^{}Kk)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢_\theta \eta (k,k).`$ (72)
When substituted into $`𝒫_4`$ this implies (dropping the explicit “$`\mathrm{Maxwell}`$” subscript)

$$𝒫_4=a_0\eta (k,k)^2+a_1\eta (k,k)T(k,k)+a_2T(k,k)^2,$$
(73)
for suitable $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$. Indeed

$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\mathrm{\Psi }(ab)_\theta ab(_\theta {}_{}{}^{2}+𝒢_\theta {}_{}{}^{2}),`$ (74)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a+b),`$ (75)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`ab.`$ (76)
The quartic will factorize provided

$$a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2=0$$
(77)
has a solution in the real numbers. Fortunately the discriminant is easily seen to be a sum of squares and so is always positive.

$$a_1^24a_0a_2=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(ab)+2ab_\theta \right]^2+\left[2ab𝒢_\theta \right]^20.$$
(78)
This is now enough to guarantee that $`𝒫_4`$ factorizes, indeed

$$𝒫_4=a_0\left[\eta (k,k)+b_1T(k,k)\right]\left[\eta (k,k)+b_2T(k,k)\right]$$
(79)
for suitable $`a_0`$, $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$. These coefficients will be functions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`a`$, $`b`$, $`_\theta `$ and $`𝒢_\theta `$ whose precise form is not needed for the point we are currently making: *As long as the Lagrangian is only a function of the two invariants $``$ and $`𝒢`$, then the theory is not just birefringent, it is truly bi-metric.*

## VI A general bi-metric ansatz

Based on the above we can now guess a general ansatz for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ that always leads to bi-metric propagation (we do not guarantee that this is the most general ansatz). Let

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }g^{\mu \beta }g^{\nu \alpha }\right)`$ (80)
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$
$`+aK^{\mu \nu }K^{\alpha \beta }+b{}_{}{}^{}K_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}K_{}^{\alpha \beta },`$
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is now any symmetric matrix of Lorentzian signature and $`K^{\mu \nu }`$ is any anti-symmetric matrix — in particular $`K`$ does not necessarily have anything to do with the electromagnetic field. All the analysis in the previous section can now be converted into purely algebraic statements about $`g`$ and $`K`$. For example $`T`$ no longer has the interpretation of being the Maxwell stress-energy tensor, it is simply an algebraic matrix defined by

$$T=Kg^1K\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}(Kg^1Kg^1)g.$$
(81)
Reinterpreting everything in this purely algebraic manner, and repeating the analysis of the previous section, we see that (80) leads to bi-metric propagation with the two light cones being given by linear combinations of $`g`$ and $`T`$.

Though rather general, this is not likely to be the most general bi-metric ansatz. To see this note that (80) above appears to contain $`10(g)+6(K)+4(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi },a,b)=20`$ free parameters. But $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be absorbed by redefining $`g`$, while $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not affect the equations of motion, $`a`$ can be absorbed by redefining $`K`$, and an overall scale factor does not affect the equations of motion. This leaves 16 physically interesting free parameters in (80) to be compared with $`2\times 9=18`$ free parameters encoded in a pair of light cones. We have not as yet been able to deduce the most general form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ compatible with bi-metricity.

In terms of the linearized Lagrangian our bi-metric ansatz (80) corresponds to

$`_{\mathrm{linearized}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{tr}(f_{\mathrm{photon}}g^1f_{\mathrm{photon}}g^1)`$ (82)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{tr}(f_{\mathrm{photon}}g^1{}_{}{}^{}f_{\mathrm{photon}}^{}g^1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a\mathrm{tr}(Kg^1f_{\mathrm{photon}}g^1)^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{}Kg^1f_{\mathrm{photon}}g^1)^2.`$
## VII Birefringence without bi-metricity

To wrap up, can we now give a simple explicit example of a model that is birefringent *without* being bi-metric? Suppose we have a pair of two-forms $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ with $`J_1\propto ̸{}_{}{}^{}J_{2}^{}`$. Then consider (as a particular example)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\right)`$ (83)
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$
$`+aJ_1^{\mu \nu }J_1^{\alpha \beta }+bJ_2^{\mu \nu }J_2^{\alpha \beta }.`$
In this case, because you are now not satisfying the special algebraic constraints of the previous section, there is no reason for the determinant to factorize. Indeed

$`𝒫_4(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^2\eta (k,k)^2`$ (84)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }\eta (k,k)[a\gamma (J_1k,J_1k)+b\gamma (J_2k,J_2k)]`$
$`+ab[\gamma (J_1k,J_1k)\gamma (J_2k,J_2k)`$
$`\gamma (J_1k,J_2k)^2].`$
In terms of the linearized Lagrangian (suppressing the inverse Minkowski metric $`\gamma =\eta ^1`$ as being understood)

$`_{\mathrm{linearized}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{tr}(f_{\mathrm{photon}}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{tr}(f_{\mathrm{photon}}{}_{}{}^{}f_{\mathrm{photon}}^{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{a\mathrm{tr}(J_1f_{\mathrm{photon}})^2+b\mathrm{tr}(J_2f_{\mathrm{photon}})^2\right\}.`$
The key point here is that the linearized Lagrangian is *not* a simply a function of the invariants $``$ and $`𝒢`$. In going to generalized nonlinear electrodynamics we have permitted additional structure in the form of external fields and boundary conditions. Unless these external fields satisfy rather particular conditions (*e.g.*, in the present example, $`J_1{}_{}{}^{}J_{2}^{}`$) there is no reason to believe the Fresnel determinant factorizes, and no reason to expect a bi-metric theory.

Indeed, if one picks a tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ “at random” and explicitly evaluates $`P_4(k)`$ (using a symbolic program such as Maple) one rapidly concludes that arranging factorization (and so bi-metricity) is not an easy task. Bi-metricity is not generic in the set of all birefringent theories.

## VIII Conclusions

In this Festschrift article we have discussed, on quite general grounds, the phenomenon of bi-refringence and bi-metricity in \[generalized\] (3+1)-dimensional non-linear electrodynamics. Our treatment encompass any non-linear electrodynamic theory in interaction with an arbitrary number of external non-dynamical fields characterizing a general medium (for example, a flowing dielectric, external gravitational fields, moving Casimir plates, *etc.*). We have seen that the phenomenon of bi-refringence is both generic and easily established in these theories. In (3+1) dimensions, the Fresnel equation is quartic and in special cases (*e.g.*, ordinary nonlinear electrodynamics) factorizes into two quadratics (*i.e.*, two metrics), typically different from each other. In more specialized situations these two metrics can be identical, leaving no opportunity for bi-refringence.

If we consider generalized nonlinear electrodynamics, then because of the presence of additional background fields, the close link between bi-refringence and bi-metricity can be broken — in such situations the Fresnel equation is intrinsically *quartic* and to naturally describe the geometry one would need to go beyond the notion of Lorentzian geometry and instead introduce the notion of a pseudo–Finsler geometry as described in normal-modes2 .

In closing we emphasise that the use of nonlinear extensions to electrodynamics is currently becoming ubiquitous. The implied notions of birefringence, bi-metricity, and pseudo-Finsler geometries will doubtless continue to attract considerable attention. Professor Novello’s work on effective geometries and birefringence will continue to have important repercussions down the road.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank C. Herdeiro for bringing reference Gibbons2  to our attention. Additionally, MV and CB would like to thank Professor Mário Novello for his hospitality during the workshop on “Analog models of General Relativity”.


format: text

text:
# Floquet Stability Analysis of Ott-Grebogi-Yorke and Difference Control

## 1 Introduction

Controlling chaos, or stabilization of instable periodic orbits of chaotic systems, has matured to a field of large interest in theory and experiment . Most of these techniques are applied to dissipative systems, but with respect to applications as suppression of transport in plasmas, there has been recent interest also in controlling chaos in Hamiltonian systems  and in the stability of periodic orbits in multidimensional systems . Control of chaos in general, however, does not rely on the existence of a Hamiltonian, so the system can be given as any dynamical system described by a set of differential equations, or can be an experimental system. The aim of chaos control is the stabilization of unstable periodic orbits (UPOs), or modes in spatial systems. The central idea of the Hübler and Ott-Grebogi-Yorke approaches to the control of chaos is to utilize the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, be it system variables , or system parameters  to steer the trajectory on an (otherwise unstable) periodic orbit of the system. To accomplish this task, a feedback is applied to the system at each crossing of a suitably chosen Poincaré plane, where the feedback is set proportional to the actual deviation of the desired trajectory. Contrary to Pyragas control , where control is calculated quasi continuously at a high sampling rate, here the approach is to stabilize by a feedback calculated at each Poincaré section, which reduces the control problem to stabilization of an unstable fixed point of an iterated map. The feedback can be chosen proportional to the distance to the desired fixed point (OGY scheme), or proportional to the difference in phase space position between actual and last but one Poincaré section. This latter method, difference control , or Bielawski-Derozier-Glorieux control, being a time-discrete counterpart of the Pyragas approach , allows for stabilization of inaccurately known fixed points, and can be extended by a memory term  to improve stability and to allow for tracking  of drifting fixed points .

In this paper the stability of perturbations $`x(t)`$ around an unstable periodic orbit being subject to a Poincaré-based control scheme is analyzed by means of Floquet theory . This approach allows to investigate viewpoints that have not been accessible by considering only the iteration dynamics between the Poincaré sections, as measurement delays and variable impulse lengths. The impulse length is, both in OGY and difference control, usually a fixed (quasi invisible) parameter; and the iterated dynamics is uniquely definded only as long as this impulse length is not varied. The influence of the impulse length has not been point of consideration before; if mentioned at all, usually a relative length of approximately 1/3 is chosen without any reported sensitivity. Whereas for the Pyragas control method (in which the delayed state feedback enforces a time-continuous description) a Floquet stability analysis is known , here the focus is on the time-discrete control.

### 1.1 Floquet stability analysis

The linearized differential equations of both schemes are invariant under translation in time, $`tt+T`$. Herby, we assume that the system under control is not explicitely time-dependent. According to the theory of delay-differential equations , a stability condition can be derived from a simple eigenvalue analysis of Floquet modes. The Floquet ansatz expands the solutions after periodic solutions $`u(t+T)=u(t)`$ according to

$`x(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\gamma t}u_\gamma (t).`$ (1)
The necessary condition on the Floquet multiplier $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}`$ of an orbit of duration $`T`$ for stability of the solution is Re$`\gamma <0`$; and $`x(t)0`$ refers to motion along the orbit. In Poincaré-based control the effective motion can be transformed into the unstable eigenspace, see e.g. App. A in ; the stability is governed by the motion therein. For the case of one unstable Lyapunov exponent, this subspace is one-dimensional.

### 1.2 OGY control

The method proposed by Ott, Grebogi and Yorke  applies a control amplitude $`r(t)=\epsilon (t)(x(t_\times )x^{})`$, in vicinity of a fixed point $`x^{}`$. Here $`\epsilon (t)`$ is a (possibly time-dependent) feedback gain parameter, and $`x(t_\times )`$ is the position of the last Poincare crossing. Without loss of generality, we can place the fixed point at $`x=0`$, so that the OGY feedback scheme becomes $`r(t)=\epsilon (t)x(t_\times )`$, where $`t_\times t(t\mathrm{mod}T)`$ is the time of the last Poincare crossing. Now one considers the linearized motion in vicinity of an unstable periodic orbit (which is a stable periodic orbit of a successfully controlled system). The Poincaré crossing reduces the dimensionality from $`N`$ to $`N1`$ dimensions, in the lowest-dimensional case from 3 to 2. In this case it is sufficient to consider a linearized one-dimensional time-continuous motion around the orbit, $`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)+\mu r(t)`$, which now can be complex-valued to account for flip motion around the orbit , i.e., one has the dynamical system

$`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)+\mu \epsilon x(t(t\mathrm{mod}T)).`$ (2)
Without control ($`r(t)=0`$), the time evolution of this system is simply $`x(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}`$ and the Ljapunov exponent of the uncontrolled system is $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda `$. Here it must be emphasized that assuming constant $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ is a quite crude approximation, so only qualitative results can be concluded. Now we see – a central observation – that no delay-differential equation  is obtained: As the “delay” term always refers to the last Poincaré crossing, this type of dynamics can be integrated piecewise. In the first time interval between $`t=0`$ and $`t=T`$ the differential equation reads

$`_{0<t<T}\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)+\mu \epsilon x(0).`$
Integration of this differential equation yields

$`x(t)=\left((1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }})\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\right)x(0).`$
This gives us an iterated dynamics (here we label the begin of the time period again with $`t`$)

$`x(t+T)=\left((1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }})\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\right)x(t).`$
This equation allows to determine the Floquet modes $`x(t+T)=\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}x(t)`$ by inspection. The Floquet multiplier $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}`$ of an orbit, assuming an impulse duration of full orbit length, therefore is given by

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }})\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}.`$ (3)
The remainder of the paper investigates, both for OGY and difference control, how the Floquet multiplier is modified for different impulse lengths.

## 2 Influence of impulse length: OGY case

The time-discrete viewpoint now allows to investigate the influence of timing questions on control. First we consider the case that the control impulse is applied timely in the Poincaré section, but only for a finite period $`pT`$ within the orbit period ($`0<p<1`$) (see Fig. 1a).

This situation is described by the differential equation

$`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)+\mu \epsilon x(t(t\mathrm{mod}T))\mathrm{\Theta }((t\mathrm{mod}T)p),`$ (4)
here $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a step function ($`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=1`$ for $`x>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=0`$ elsewhere). In the first time interval between $`t=0`$ and $`t=pT`$ the differential equation reads $`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)+\mu \epsilon x(0).`$ Integration of this differential equation yields

$`_{0<tpT}x(t)=\left((1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }})\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\right)x(0).`$ (5)
In the second interval between $`t=pT`$ and $`t=T`$ the differential equation is the same as without control, $`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t).`$ From this one has immediately

$`_{pT<t<T}x(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda (tpT)}x(pT)`$ (6)
and the Floquet multiplier of an orbit is given by

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT})\right).`$ (7)
The consequences are shown in Fig. 2. One finds that in zero order the “strength” of control is given by the product $`pT\mu \epsilon `$; in fact there is a weak linear correction in $`p`$. This analysis reproduces well the experimental results of Mausbach . For $`\lambda pT1`$ one has

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}(1+\mu \epsilon pT{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \epsilon \lambda p^2T^2+o(p^3))`$ (8)
i.e. the condition of a constant strength of control reads

$`\mu \epsilon pT={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{\lambda T}{2}p}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda T}{2}}p+o(p^2).`$ (9)
The result is: Apart from a weak linear correction for OGY control the length of the impulse can be chosen arbitrarily, and the “strength” of control in zero order is given by the time integral over the control impulse.

For the case where the system can only be measured delayed – by a delay time of the orbit length and longer – stability borders  and improved control schemes have been given in  and successfully applied experimentally . In experimental situations one often has the intermediate case that there is a measurement delay $`sT`$ that is not neglectable, but within the orbit length. To keep the case general, we again consider a finite impulse length $`pT`$ with $`0<p<1`$ und $`0<(s+p)<1`$, see Fig. 1b. Again we can integrate piecewise, and the Floquet multiplier is given by

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT})\right)`$ (10)
and (7) is included as the special case of $`s=0`$.

## 3 Impulse length influence: Difference control

Now we analyze the difference control scheme

$`r(t)=\epsilon (x(t_\times )x(t_{\times \times })),`$ (11)
where $`t_\times `$ and $`t_{\times \times }`$ denote the times of last and last but one Poincaré crossing, respectively. Again the starting point is the linearized equation of motion around the periodic orbit when control is applied. For difference control now there is a dependency on two past time steps,

$`\dot{x}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda x(t)+\mu \epsilon x(t(t\mathrm{mod}T))`$ (12)
$`\mu \epsilon x(tT(t\mathrm{mod}T)).`$
Although the right hand side of (12) depends on $`x`$ at three different times, it can be nevertheless integrated exactly, which is mainly due to the fact that the two past times (of the two last Poincaré crossings) have a fixed time difference being equal to the orbit length. This allows not only for an exact solution, but also offers a correspondence to the time-discrete dynamics and the matrix picture used in time-delayed coordinates.

Now also for difference control the experimentally more common situation of a finite but small measurement delay $`sT`$ is considered, together with a finite impulse length $`sT`$ (here $`0<p<1`$ and $`0<(s+p)<1`$). An analogeous calculation  as for the OGY case can also be performed as follows. Piecewise integration in the first interval $`0<t<Ts`$, where the differential equation reads $`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)`$, yields again $`x(Ts)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda Ts}x(0)`$. In the second interval $`Ts<t<T(s+p)`$ the differential equation reads

$`\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)+\mu \epsilon (x(0)x(T)).`$
Integration yields

$`_{Ts<t<T(s+p)}x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}(x(0)x(T))`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}(x(0)x(T))+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}x(0)\right)\mathrm{e}^{\lambda (tsT)}`$
$`x(T(s+p))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}(x(0)x(T))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}(x(0)x(T))+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}+\mathrm{e}^{\lambda (s+p)T}x(0).`$
For the third interval again there is no control, thus

$`_{T(s+p)<t<T}x(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda (t(s+p)T)}x(T(s+p)).`$
Collecting together, we find for $`x(T)`$

$`x(T)`$ $`=`$ $`x(0)\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT})\right)`$ (13)
$`x(T)\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT})`$
or, in time-delayed coordinates of the last and last but one Poincaré crossing

$`(\begin{array}{c}x_{n+1}\\ x_n\end{array})=(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}(1+\frac{\mu \epsilon \left(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}\right)}{\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}})& \mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}\frac{\mu \epsilon \left(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}\right)}{\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}}\\ 1& 0\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}x_n\\ x_{n1}\end{array}).`$ (20)
If we identify with the coefficients of the time-discrete case, $`\lambda _𝖽=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}`$ and $`\mu _𝖽\epsilon _𝖽=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT})\frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }`$, the dynamics in the Poincaré iteration $`t=nT`$ becomes identical with the pure discrete description; this again illustrates the power of the concept of the Poincaré map. In principle, due to the low degree of the characteristic polynomial, one could explicitely diagonalize the iteration matrix, allowing for a closed expression for the $`n`$-th power of the iteration matrix. However, for the stability analysis only the eigenvalues are needed. For the Floquet multiplier one has

$`\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma T}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT})\right)`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}).`$
This quadratic equation yields two Floquet multipliers,

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}\left(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}\right)\right)`$
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}))\right)^2}`$
$`\overline{+4\mathrm{e}^{\lambda T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda sT}\left(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda pT}\right)}.`$
Figures 4 and 4 show, by example of Re$`\lambda =0.2`$, (resp. Re$`\lambda =0.6`$) that at Im$`\lambda =\pi `$ for $`p<p_{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{Re}\lambda =0.2)0.505401`$ (resp $`p<p_{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{Re}\lambda =0.6)0.367`$) there exists an island of stability, whose width decreases to zero for $`pp_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Here explicitely the influence of the impulse length can be seen. The maximal value of $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is shown in Fig. 5.

## 4 Discussion of the time-continuous model: Relaxing the assumption of a constant local Ljapunov exponent

The quantitative analysis given above was based on the model assumption that one has a constant local Ljapunov exponent around the orbit – a condition that will almost never be fulfilled exactly for a typical orbit of a chaotic system. To test whether this assumption is crucial, the stability can be investigated for OGY control by assuming $`\lambda `$ to be time-dependent along the orbit. For simplicity, we consider the exemplaric case shown in Fig. 6 that $`\lambda (t)=\lambda _1`$ for $`0<t<qT`$ and $`\lambda (t)=\lambda _2`$ for $`qT<t<T`$, generalizing the case $`q=1/2`$ already sketched in .

### 4.1 The case $`p<q`$ of a short impulse

If we assume $`p<q`$, we have for the OGY case,

$`x(pT)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}(1+(\mu \epsilon /\lambda _1))(\mu \epsilon /\lambda _1))x(0)`$
$`x(qT)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1(qTpT)}x(pT)`$
$`x(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _2(TqT)}x(qT).`$ (22)
Using $`\overline{\lambda }:=q\lambda _1+(1q)\lambda _2`$, the Floquet multiplier reads now

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}=\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT})\right)`$ (23)
in contrast to eq. (7). Again in zero order the “strength” of control is given by the product $`p\mu \epsilon `$; in first order $`\lambda _1pT1`$ again the weak linear dependence on $`p`$ applies,

$`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}=\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}(1+\mu \epsilon pT(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1pT+o(p^2))),`$ (24)
i.e. for a constant “strength” of control, one has to fulfill

$`\mu \epsilon pT={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{\lambda _1T}{2}p}}+o(p^2)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1T}{2}}p+o(p^2).`$ (25)
Thus, the value of $`\lambda _1`$, i.e. here, the deviation of $`\lambda (t)`$ from its average value $`\overline{\lambda }`$ during the control impulse, only contributes in first order. More complicated cases can be tackled likewise, giving corrections for the quantitative $`p`$-dependence of the optimal control gain $`\epsilon `$, but preserving the qualitative behaviour discussed above.

### 4.2 The case $`p>q`$ of a long impulse

While a short impulse is the experimentally more feasible case, for completeness, also the $`p>q`$ shown in Fig. 7 can be investigated in this manner. Here we have two time intervals where the control is active; and in the second one the initial condition $`x(pT)`$ has to be distinguished from the position $`x(0)`$ at the last Poincaré crossing, from which the control value is calculated and which determines the inhomogenity of the ODE.

Integration over the three time intervals yields

$`x(qT)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1qT}x(0)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}\right)x(0){\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}`$
$`x(pT)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _2(pTqT)}\left(x(qT)+x(0){\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _2}}\right)x(0){\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _2}}`$
$`x(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _2(TpT)}x(pT)`$
so that we arrive at

$`x(T)`$ $`=`$ $`x(0)\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1qT})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _2}}(1\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _2(pq)T})\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1qT}\right].`$ (26)
#### Weakly nonlinear approximation for $`q=1/2`$

As $`p>q`$, and $`q`$ is a fixed value for the given system, a discussion of $`p\lambda T1`$ can no longer be based on the $`p0`$ case. As $`p`$ is of order 1, an expansion as above is meaningful only for the case where $`\lambda T1`$, i.e., we derive an approximation for those UPOs which have an only marginally positive Floquet multiplier. For $`q=1/2`$ we now explicitely discuss this “weakly nonlinear” case $`\lambda _1T1`$, $`\lambda _2T1`$,

$`x(T)`$ $`=`$ $`x(0)\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\lambda _1{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2T^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^3T^3}{48}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _2}}(\lambda _2T(p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2^2T^2(p\frac{1}{2})^2}{2}})({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1T}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2T^2}{8}})]`$
$`=`$ $`x(0)\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon T}{2}}\left(1\lambda _1T(p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})+o(\lambda _1^2,\lambda _1\lambda _2,\lambda _2^2)\right)\right]`$
that is, control is kept constant in lowest order for

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon T}{2}}\stackrel{!}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\lambda _1T(p\frac{1}{4})}}1+\lambda _1T(p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})`$ (27)
for orbits sharing the same value of $`\overline{\lambda }`$.

### 4.3 Difference control and nonconstant local Ljapunov exponent

For completeness, now also the case of difference control is considered. As has been shown before, for the case of a constant Ljapunov exponent, impulse lengths of $`p>\frac{1}{2}`$ do not lead to stable control; therefore the case $`p>q`$ is completely irrelevant, and only the case $`p<q`$ has to be be considered. In the first interval, $`\lambda _1`$ is active and integration yields

$`x(pT)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}\left[x(0)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1)\right)x(T){\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1)\right]`$ (28)
and the subsequent intervals have the control switched off,

$`x(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _2(1q)T}x(qT)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _2(1q)T}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1(qp)T}x(pT)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}\left[x(0)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1)\right)x(T){\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1)\right].`$ (30)
Again we use the average value $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda _1q+\lambda _2(1q)`$ to simplify the expressions, and the coordinates in the Poincaré countings $`x_{n+1}=x(T)`$, $`x_n=x(0)`$, $`x_{n1}=x(T)`$. We have

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}x_{n+1}\\ x_n\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}(1+\frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1))& \mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}\frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1)\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_n\\ x_{n1}\end{array}\right)`$ (37)
which leads to the characteristic equation for the two Floquet multipliers $`\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}`$

$`\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma T}=\mathrm{e}^{\gamma T}\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1)\right)\mathrm{e}^{\overline{\lambda }T}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _1pT}1).`$ (39)
This generalizes the discussion of difference control to the case of nonconstant $`\lambda `$.

## 5 Conclusions and Outlook

To summarize, a new time-continuous stability analysis of Poincaré-based control methods was introduced. This general and novel approach allows to investigate timing questions of Poincaré based control schemes that cannot be analyzed within the picture of the Poincaré iteration. For both OGY and difference control it has been possible for a homogeneous case to integrate the dynamics exactly. While for OGY control the impulse length turns out not to be crucial, for difference control it is, and the impulse has to be shorter than a critical fraction of the period, which is of the order of half of the period and decreases for larger Ljapunov exponents. Such timing dependence is not completely uncommon in feedback systems with delay; in time-continuous feeedback control, a half-period feedback resulted in an enlarged stability range .

Techniques of chaos control, be it Poincaré-based, following the Pyragas technique, or open-loop  have been of great interest not only in technical systems, but also in biologically, especially neural systems and excitable media . Besides the approach of controlling pathological neural subsystems directly, the intact brain already bears implementations of feedback control , implying that the failure of the respective circuits eventually results in migraine or stroke. Also the human gait system, as virtually any perception-motor system, performs control of a bio-mechanical system with delays; and disturbances of the delay loops as well as the cortical control may result in tremor and related movement disorders . In the thalamocortical system, a designated impulse shape, formed by the so-called slow waves that emerge in the cortex during S2 sleep, has been shown to act as an open-loop controller of thalamic oscillator networks . This offers further possibilities to influence human sleep in the case of sleep disturbances: Recent control techniques by transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation  have been demonstrated to influence human sleep as well as to affect memory consolidation during sleep. In most of these techniques, the impulse shape and relative duration of the control impulse has significant impact on the results, thus different control goals may become accessible within the same setup. For the systematic understanding how such control techniques influence the brain, detailed models are of likewise importance as the methodical understanding of the theoretically possible control methods.

### Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges financial support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through SFB-654 “Plasticity and Sleep”.


text:
# Wormholes, naked singularities and universes of ghost radiation

## Abstract

Both the static and homogeneous metrics describing the spherically symmetric gravitational field of a crossflow of incoming and outgoing null dust streams are generalized for the case of the two-component ghost radiation. Static solutions represent either naked singularities or the wormholes recently found by Hayward. The critical value of the parameter separating the two possibilities is given. The wormhole is allowed to have positive mass. The homogeneous solutions are open universes.

The static, spherically symmetric solution describing the gravitational field of a crossflow of null dust streams  was recently extended by Hayward  for the case of two-component ghost radiation, the resulting solution being interpreted as a wormhole ***For recent developments in the subject see ,  and for an earlier review  . The original static solution  however has a homogeneous counterpart -, the similar generalization of which is the principal aim of this letter. We also find the critical value of one of the metric parameters, which separates naked singularities from wormholes in the static case. We show, that despite the negative energy density of the ghost radiation, the wormholes can have positive mass.

The null dust solutions can be concisely written as

$$ds^2=\frac{ae^{L^2}}{cR}\left(dZ^22R^2dL^2\right)+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(1)
where $`c=1`$ refers to the static case (naked singularities) and $`c=1`$ to the homogeneous case (closed universe). Providing $`R>0`$, the metric has the signature $`(c,c,+,+)`$. Accordingly , $`Z`$ is time coordinate in the static case and radial coordinate in the homogeneous case while $`L`$ is time coordinate in the homogeneous case and radial coordinate in the static case. The parameter’s notation was changed to $`a=1/C>0`$ for easier comparison with Ref. . A second parameter $`B`$ is contained in the metric function $`R`$:

$$cR=a\left(e^{L^2}2L\mathrm{\Phi }_B\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_B=B+^Le^{x^2}𝑑x.$$
(2)
Both metrics have a true singularity at $`R=0.`$ ($`_{ab}^{ab}=2/a^2e^{2L^2}R^2`$ and the Kretschmann scalar $`_{abcd}^{abcd}`$ contains $`R^6`$ in the denominator.) The energy-momentum tensor is

$$T_{ab}=\frac{\beta }{8\pi GR^2}\left(u_a^+u_b^+\pm u_a^{}u_b^{}\right)$$
(3)
where $`u^\pm `$ are duals to the relatively normalized ($`g(u_+,u_{})=1)`$ propagation null vectors

$$\sqrt{2}u_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{cg_{00}}}\frac{}{Z}\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{cg_{11}}}\frac{}{L}.$$
(4)
From the Einstein equation the function $`\beta `$ is found positive, irrespective of the value of $`c`$:

$$\beta =\frac{R}{ae^{L^2}}.$$
(5)
The source can be equally interpreted as an anisotropic fluid with no tangential pressures and both the energy density and radial pressure equal to $`\beta /8\pi GR^2=1/8\pi Gae^{L^2}R`$ (these also became infinite at $`R=0`$). As a third interpretation, it represents a massless scalar field in the two dimensional sector obtained by spherically symmetric reduction of Einstein gravity .

The metrics (1) are invariant w. r. to the simultaneous interchange $`(L,B)(L,B)`$. This suggest the existence of two identical copies of the space-time. Cf.  for each value of $`B`$ there are two copies of the singularity $`R=0`$ which devide the range of the coordinate $`L`$ in three distinct regions (Fig 1a). From among these $`L\left(\mathrm{},L^{}<0\right)`$ and $`L\left(L^+>0,\mathrm{}\right)`$ are two identical copies of the static naked singularity given locally by the metric (1), case $`c=1.`$ The patches $`(L^{},0)`$ and $`(0,L^+)`$ can be smoothly glued through $`L=0`$ in order to obtain a single homogeneous closed Kantowski-Sachs type universe. In this latter case $`R`$ is interpreted as the time-dependent radius of the universe described locally by the metric (1), case $`c=1`$, which is born from and collapses to the singularity $`R=0`$. During its ephemeral existence, the energy density of the universe evolves cf. Fig 1b.

Solutions describing the crossflow of ghost fields can be found by substituting

$$L=il,Z=i\tau ,B=ib$$
(6)
in the metric (1). Then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B=i\left(b+^le^{x^2}𝑑x\right)=i\varphi ,cR=a\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi \right).$$
(7)
and the new metric becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{a}{e^{l^2}cR}\left(d\tau ^2+2R^2dl^2\right)+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(8)
These are the static solutions of Hayward for $`c=1`$ ($`\tau `$ time) and new homogeneous solutions for $`c=1`$ ($`l`$ time). The signature of the metric (8) being $`(c,c,+,+)`$, the propagation null vectors are

$$\sqrt{2}u_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{cg_{00}}}\frac{}{\tau }\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{cg_{11}}}\frac{}{l}.$$
(9)
The energy-momentum tensor

$$T_{ab}=\frac{\beta }{8\pi GR^2}\left(u_a^+u_b^+\pm u_a^{}u_b^{}\right)$$
(10)
contains a negative $`\beta `$, again irrespective of the value of $`c`$:

$$a\beta =e^{l^2}R.$$
(11)
Therefore the source represents a crossflow of incoming and outgoing ghost radiation. Alternatively it can be regarded as an anisotropic fluid with no tangential pressures and both the energy density and radial pressure equal to $`\beta /8\pi GR^2=e^{l^2}/8\pi GaR<0`$ (infinite at $`R=0`$). In two dimensions it represents a massless scalar field.

As $`_{ab}^{ab}=2e^{2l^2}/a^2R^2`$ and the Kretschmann scalar $`_{abcd}^{abcd}`$ still contains $`R^6`$ in the denominator, the singular character of the solutions at $`R=0`$ continues to hold. The constant $`b`$ can be related to the value $`l_{0\text{ }}`$of the coordinate $`l`$ at the singularity:

$$b=\zeta \left(l_0\right)=\frac{1}{2l_0e^{l_0^2}}\frac{1}{2l_0}^{l_0}e^{x^2}𝑑x.$$
(12)
As this equation has no solution for $`b(b_{cr},b_{cr})`$, with $`b_{cr}=.8862269255`$ (Fig 2a.), the singularity is absent for the above parameter range, and the corresponding solutions are the wormholes of Hayward. This is the major difference w. r. to the null dust case.

For any other value of $`b`$ the singularity is present. We discuss next this possibility. First we remark the symmetry of the metric w. r. to the simultaneous interchange $`(l,b)(l,b)`$. In particular the two branches of the curve $`\zeta \left(l_0\right)`$ represent the same singularity. By inspecting Eq. (7), written in the form

$$cR=2al\left[\zeta \left(l\right)\zeta \left(l_0\right)\right],$$
(13)
with the remark that $`\zeta `$ is a monotonously decreasing function ($`d\zeta /dl=e^{l^2}`$) we see that for $`b<b_{cr}`$ the singularity devides the $`l>0`$ coordinate range in two domains, characterized by $`c=1`$ and $`c=1`$, respectively. Similarly for $`b>b_{cr}`$ the singularity splits $`l<0`$ in the $`c=1,c=1`$ domains.

Homogeneous solutions ($`c=1`$ case). These solutions are new and they lie ”outside” the two branches of the curve $`\zeta \left(l_0\right).`$ The evolution of the radius $`R`$ in coordinate time $`l`$ is shown on Fig 3. The solutions represent open universes, either expanding ($`b<b_{cr}`$) or contracting ($`b>b_{cr}`$). This is to be contrasted with the null dust case, where the universe was closed. The evolution of the energy density in the expanding case is shown in Fig 2b. Contrarily with open universes filled with ordinary matter, here the magnitude of the energy density first decreases from its original singular value but afterwards it increases again towards infinity.

Static solutions ($`c=1`$ case). The region between the two branches of the curve $`\zeta \left(l_0\right)`$ contain the static solutions. They are either wormholes or naked singularities. We verify this latter possibility by rewriting the metric (8), case $`c=1`$ as

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{a}{e^{l^2}R}}dx^\pm \left(dx^\pm 2\sqrt{2}Rdl\right)+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$

where the null coordinate is given by $`dx^\pm =d\tau \pm \sqrt{2}Rdl.`$ Radial null geodesics are then characterized by

$$\frac{dl}{dx^\pm }=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}>0$$
(14)
and there is no horizon.

The mass function for the static solutions  is $`m=\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi 2e^{2l^2}\varphi ^2\right)a/2`$. There is a domain of the radial coordinate $`l`$ with the mass positive, but only for wormholes (Fig 4a). Naked singularities are characterized by negative $`m`$, irrespective of the value of the metric parameters (Fig 4b). The mass function of static wormholes is represented on Fig. 5. By cutting the wormhole solution at values $`l_\pm `$ (lying in the positive mass range), and gluing to spherically symmetric exterior solutions (as described in ) we obtain a wormhole composed of a crossflow of negative-energy radiation, still with positive mass.

Summarizing, by switching from a positive to a negative energy density (ghost radiation), the static naked singularity is either kept or it transmutes to a (possibly positive mass) wormhole. In addition, the homogeneous closed universe opens up.

A final remark is that all solutions considered here exhibit a vanishing Ricci-scalar, similarly as the wormhole solutions of .

Acknowledgments. This work has been completed under the support of the Zoltán Magyary Fellowship. Numerical plots were done with MapleV.