format: text

text:
# Asymptotic states in brane cosmology with a nonlocal anisotropic stress

## 1 Introduction

The idea that our space has more than three dimensions was attractive during many years, mostly in the scenario of compactification. Recently a new paradigm appeared. In this new approach the matter is trapped in three-dimensional brane embedded in a multi-dimensional space (bulk) . In the case of one extra dimension it is shown that isotropic cosmological evolution being unusual in early stages of the brane Universe  tends to the standard cosmological scenario in the late time .

The field equations on the brane are

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2T_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4S_{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is the fundamental 5-dimensional gravitational constant, $`\kappa `$ is the effective 4-dimensional gravitation constant on the brane. Bulk corrections to the Einstein equations on the brane are of two forms: there are quadratic energy-momentum corrections via the tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ and nonlocal effects from the free gravitational field in the bulk $`_{\mu \nu }`$. The quadratic corrections are significant only in the early stages of cosmological evolution (see the next section). The nonlocal corrections can be decomposed into a scalar (nonlocal energy density), a vector (nonlocal energy flux) and a tensor (nonlocal anisotropic stress) parts . On an isotropic brane there is only a scalar part $`𝒰`$ which decays during the expansion of the Universe as $`𝒰a^4`$ where $`a`$ is the scale factor.

However, if we remove the suggestion of isotropy (for example, in order to study the problem of isotropization of the brane Universe), then the tensor part of nonlocal contribution $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ should be taken into account. The main obstacle to do this is the absence of an evolution equation for the anisotropic stress $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ . Its correct form should be derived from a full $`5`$-dimensional anisotropic metric which is still unknown. In this situation we have to choose some ansatz for $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$. In first papers on Bianchi I brane either all nonlocal corrections  or its tensor part  have been neglected. This approach gives some interesting results such as isotropic character of the initial singularity  and the possible existence of an intermediate anisotropic stage . However, whether these results remain valid when the contribution from $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes important is still an open problem.

Recently Barrow and Maartens have proposed an ansatz for the nonlocal stress which generalizes known anisotropic sources in General Relativity . They have studied the dynamics of isotropization in the limit of small anisotropy. In the present paper we use this ansatz for describing the global properties of the dynamics. We use the techniques of dynamical systems and the expansion normalized variables (for the description of this formalism see ) to find the past and the future attractors of our system. The transient behavior is also covered by studying the future asymptotic states for a pure nonstandard (i.e. with $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ and without $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ terms in (1)) brane dynamics. Of course, in this framework we can not find regimes originated from an interplay between standard (proportional to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$) and nonstandard (proportional to $`S_{\mu \nu }`$) source terms. Up to now several interesting regimes of this type have been found (for example, an analog of the Einstein static Universe  and a stable oscillationary regime ).

The paper is organized as follows: in Sec.2. we describe the dimensionless variables and use them to write down the system of differential equations in a convenient form. In Sec.3 we list stable points of this system neglecting the square energy-momentum correction and describe the future asymptotic states of the Bianchi I brane model. In Sec.4 the stable points of the system without linear energy-momentum contribution are listed and possible transient behavior is obtained. We also discuss the past asymptotic states of our model. Sec.5 provides a brief summary of the results obtained.

## 2 Expansion normalized variables and equation of motion

We will use an orthonormal frame of vector fields $`e_a`$ such that $`e_0=_t`$. In the Bianchi I case we have the following commutation relations for the vector basis (Latin indices run from 0 to 3 and Greek indices from 1 to 3):

$$[e_a,e_b]=C_{ab}^ce_c$$

where

$$C_{0\nu }^\mu =\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu ^\mu ϵ_{\nu \alpha }^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha ,C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =0.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ is the angular velocity of the spatial triad with respect to a Fermi-propagated frame and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ can be decomposed into a volume expansion rate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and a shear $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }\delta _{\mu \nu }+\sigma _{\mu \nu }.$$

If we introduce the metric for the Bianchi I model in the standard form

$$ds^2=dt^2+a_i^2(t)(dx^i)^2,$$
(2)
then the volume expansion rate in terms of the main scale factor $`a=(a_1a_2a_3)^{1/3}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Theta }=3H=3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$, where $`H`$ is the main Hubble parameter.

For these variables we can write the Raychaudhuri equation

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(\rho +3p)=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2(2\rho +3p)\frac{\rho }{\lambda }\frac{6𝒰}{\kappa ^2\lambda },$$
(3)
the Gauss-Codazzi equations

$`\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}𝒫_{\mu \nu },`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }+2\kappa ^2\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{12𝒰}{\kappa ^2\lambda }}`$ (5)
and the conservation equations

$`\dot{\rho }+\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho +p)=0,`$ (6)
$`\dot{𝒰}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }𝒰+\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (7)
$`D^\nu 𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0.`$ (8)
Derivation of these equations from Eq.(1) and the explicit form of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ see in . Here $`\lambda `$ is the brane tension. Quadratic energy-momentum corrections (first terms in RHS of Eqs. (3) and (5)) become significant if a matter density $`\rho `$ on the brane is greater than $`\lambda `$. The current experimental limit on the brane tension is $`\lambda >100(GeV)^4`$ .

Due to presence of the nonlocal stress $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ this system of equations is not closed. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the form of $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ using some additional suggestion. In the present paper we deal with the proposal of Barrow and Maartens . They have suggested that the nonlocal stress is proportional to the nonlocal energy density

$$𝒫_{\mu \nu }=2D_{\mu \nu }𝒰,$$
(9)
$$D_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}\{c_1,c_2,(c_1+c_2)\},$$

where $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ are some constant.

It is worth to notice that choosing the appropriate coordinate system we can diagonalize either $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ or $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$. We choose to make $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ diagonal.

Nevertheless, our system of equations is not completely determined yet. We must fix the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ of the spatial triad associated with $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$. After that we can write the derivatives of the shear tensor as

$$\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }=_t\sigma _{\mu \nu }+2\sigma _{(\mu }^\delta ϵ_{\nu )\gamma \delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^\gamma .$$

In the GR description of cosmological anisotropic sources (for example, the homogeneous magnetic field ) the angular velocity components are constrained by the corresponding equations of motion of the anisotropic fluid (for example, the Maxwell equations in the magnetic field case). As we have no equation for $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$, we should choose an ansatz for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$. In the present paper we consider the simplest possible form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha =0`$ (in the end of the next section one important statement not depending on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ is proved).

After introduction of the deceleration parameter

$$q=\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2}$$
(10)
and dimensionless variables

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\sigma _{22}+\sigma _{33})/\mathrm{\Theta },`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{3}(\sigma _{22}\sigma _{33})/\mathrm{\Theta },`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}`$ $`=\sqrt{3}\sigma _{12}/\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}`$ $`=\sqrt{3}\sigma _{23}/\mathrm{\Theta },`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}`$ $`=\sqrt{3}\sigma _{13}/\mathrm{\Theta },`$
$`U`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{18𝒰}{\kappa ^2\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }^2}},`$
we may rewrite our system in a simpler form.

We have also auxiliary evolution equation for the matter density. There are two ways for description of the quadratic energy-momentum terms. It is possible either to incorporate them into a single evolution equation for the matter as it have been done in  or to consider separately as some kind of a particular effective matter . We choose the latter case and write two evolution equations - one for ”standard” matter and the other for ”nonstandard” matter. In order to do this we introduce dimensionless variables

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda & =\frac{3\kappa ^2\rho ^2}{2\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }^2},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu & =\frac{3\kappa ^2\rho }{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Note that these values are not independent, they connected to each other by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda /\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =\rho /2\lambda `$.

Finally, we introduce a new time variable $`\tau `$ such that $`\frac{dt}{d\tau }=\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$. Now our system becomes (prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`\tau `$)

$`U^{}`$ $`=2U[(q1)3\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(c_1+c_2)\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(c_1c_2)],`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{}`$ $`=3U(c_1+c_2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(q2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}`$ $`=\sqrt{3}U(c_1c_2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(q2),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^{}`$ $`=(q2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}^{}`$ $`=(q2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}^{}`$ $`=(q2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}`$
with the constraint

$$1=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda +\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu +U,$$
(14)
the equation for $`q`$

$$q=2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\frac{1}{2}(3\gamma 2)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu +(3\gamma 1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda +U,$$
(15)
and the evolution equations for matter density

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}`$ $`=[2(1+q)3\gamma ]\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ,`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}`$ $`=[2(1+q)6\gamma ]\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda .`$ (17)
Here

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}^2.$$
(18)
There is an important difference between GR and brane problems. In common GR formulation of the problem the energy density of an anisotropic matter is positive, though the nonlocal energy density on the brane can be either positive or negative and, in principal, can change sign in the cosmological evolution. However, ansatz (9), as we can see from the first equation of system (13) prevents $`𝒰`$ from the change of the sign. The case of negative energy of an anisotropic matter has not been investigated previously in the GR formulation due to its peculiarity from the physical point of view, but in the brane scenario it becomes important. The main feature which arises from $`𝒰<0`$ is that the flat Bianchi I Universe can recollapse without reaching any future nonsingular asymptotic regime. From the mathematical point of view the negativity of $`𝒰`$ makes our phase space noncompact (the phase space, specially constracted to be compact in the $`𝒰<0`$ case see in ). So, from this point we assume $`𝒰>0`$ leaving the opposite case to a future work. Now our phase space becomes compact with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}`$ varying in the range $`[1,1]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ,U`$ varying in the range $`[0,1]`$.

In the next section we start to analyze the system (13) – (17) neglecting the ”nonstandard” matter. All the future attractors for this system are also the future attractors for the initial general problem, because for $`t\mathrm{}`$ we can neglect a nonstandard matter on the brane in comparison with a standard one.

## 3 Equilibrium points and future evolution

Now we list equilibrium points for the system (13) – (17) in the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0`$. It is convenient to use the notations $`c_+=c_1+c_2`$ and $`c_{}=c_1c_2`$. We also have found the corresponding eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of the linearization of system (13) about the equilibrium points and have used the condition $`\lambda _i<0`$ to study the stability of the equilibrium points in the future direction.

1. The isotropic Universe

$`U=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=0`$
$`q={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma 1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =10\gamma 2`$
Stable for $`\gamma <4/3`$ independently on $`c_+,c_{}`$.
2. Equilibrium point

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{(2\gamma )(3\gamma 4)}{12c_+^2+4c_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_+={\displaystyle \frac{c_+(3\gamma 4)}{6c_+^2+2c_{}^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}c_{}(3\gamma 4)}{18c_+^2+6c_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =1{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 4}{18c_+^2+6c_{}^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=0`$
$`\gamma (4/3,2)`$
Stable for $`\gamma <4/3+6c_+^2+2c_{}^2`$.
3. Equilibrium point

$`U=19c_+^23c_{}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=3c_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\sqrt{3}c_{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=0`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =03c_+^2+c_{}^2<1/3`$
Stable for $`\gamma >4/3+6c_+^2+2c_{}^2`$.
4. Equilibrium set (the Kasner Universe)

$`U=0\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =0q=2`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}^2=1`$

The results on stability of the equilibrium points are presented graphically in Fig.1. The space $`(\gamma ,c_+,c_{})`$ is divided into several zones in which only one stable future attractor exists.

We can see that the only stable point for $`\gamma <4/3`$ is the isotropic one, independently on $`c_+`$ and $`c_{}`$. It is possible to strengthen this result and prove that all the solutions with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu >0`$ and $`\gamma 4/3`$ tend to the isotropic solution ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =0`$ is an invariant subset of our phase space, as it can be seen from Eq. (16)). We point out that a physically important boundary case $`\gamma =4/3`$ is included in the conditions of this statement. The key point is the equation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}=[(63\gamma )\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+(43\gamma )U]\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu $$
(19)
which can be obtained from Eqs. (14) – (16). Note, that Eq.(19) follows only from the Raychaudhuri and constraint equations and we do not use the evolution equations for the shear. This means that the consideration presented below does not depend on a particular choice of the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$.

First, consider the case $`\gamma <4/3.`$ Then there is a positive number $`\alpha `$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}\alpha [\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+U]\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu .$$

From this inequality it follows that the quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is strictly increasing if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau _0)>0.`$ Using this fact and the constraint $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu +U=1,`$ one can easily understand that the sum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+U,`$ in turn, strictly decreases. As decreasing and bounded below by zero, this sum has some limit $`\beta 0`$. Assume that $`\beta `$ is not equal to zero. Then, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ goes to infinity: $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau )\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau _0)>\alpha \beta (\tau \tau _0)`$ which contradicts the inequality $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau )1`$. Thus, for any initial conditions satisfying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau _0)>0`$ the solution tends to the point $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=U=0.`$

In the boundary case $`\gamma =4/3`$ it is necessary to be more careful. For $`\gamma =4/3`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}=2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu .$$
(20)
So, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is monotone increasing and, then, tends to some limit value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lim}`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lim}<1`$. Using the constraint (14) and the evolution equations for $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$, we obtain the evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$:

$$\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=6(c_1+c_2)U\mathrm{\Sigma }_++2\sqrt{3}(c_1c_2)U\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}+2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^21).$$

In sequel, we shell use only the fact that the absolute value of the LHS of this equation is bounded above: $`|\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(\tau )|<C`$ for all $`\tau `$. Now assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ does not tend to zero. Then there is a sequence $`\tau _n`$ going to infinity such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(\tau _n)>c`$ for some $`c>0.`$ But the boundedness of the shear square derivative means that there is a positive $`b`$ which does not depend on $`n`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(\tau )>c/2`$ for $`\tau (\tau _nb,\tau _n+b)`$ and all $`n.`$ In this case from equation (20) it follows that the quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ goes to infinity:

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau )\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau _0)=\underset{\tau _0}{\overset{\tau }{}}2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2𝑑t>\underset{n:\tau _n<\tau }{}2cb.$$

This fact contradicts the inequality $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu (\tau )1`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ tends to zero. By the constraint $`1=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu +U,`$ this means that the quantity $`U`$ converges to $`1\mathrm{\Omega }_{lim}>0.`$ But it is impossible because the point $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=0`$ and $`U=const>0`$ is not an equilibrium point of our system for nonzero $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ goes to $`1`$ and both $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ decrease to zero.

For the brane problem this means that if $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the ansatz (9) with $`𝒰>0`$, then an arbitrary anisotropy of the whole 5-dimensional metric does not destroy the future isotropic regime unless $`\gamma >4/3`$.

It is interesting that in the case of $`\gamma =4/3`$ without an anisotropic stress we have a one-dimensional set of equilibria instead of the isotropic equilibrium point. Points of this set have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=0`$ and are marked by the constant ratio $`U/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$. A nonzero $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ makes all these points except for $`U=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =1`$ unstable. As a result, in the presense of a nonlocal anisotropic stress the ”dark energy” $`𝒰`$ can be washed out during the cosmological evolution even in the radiation-dominated epoch.

We finish this section by one remark which is not directly connected with the brane cosmology. As we consider the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0`$, the system of equations (13) – (16) with Barrow-Maartens ansatz for $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ has the same form (with appropriate rescaling of source terms) as the system describing the evolution of the Universe in the presence of an anisotropic matter in the ordinary General Relativity. Since our result on isotropisation does not depend on angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha `$ (these values should be determined separately for each particular anisotropic source), we can claim that in the presence of an anisotropic matter with an anisotropic stress $`\pi _{\mu \nu }`$ proportional to its energy density $`ϵ`$ and an average pressure $`\overline{p}`$ equals to $`ϵ/3`$ all the models isotropize if $`\gamma 4/3`$. Moreover, we can consider an anisotropic matter with an average pressure $`\overline{p}=(\gamma _{eff}1)ϵ`$ and, using the same procedure, claim that all such models with $`\gamma \gamma _{eff}`$ tend to the isotropic attractor. This fact was previously discovered in the particular case of the homogeneous magnetic field  and for the general source in the limit of a small anisotropy  (the ”criticality condition” of Ref.  is exactly $`\gamma =\gamma _{eff}`$ in our notation).

## 4 A pure brane regime

In this section we neglecte the standard matter on a brane. This case describes a purely nonstandard brane dynamics when the matter density on the brane is large in comparison with the brane tension. The past asymptotic states of these models correspond to a brane dynamics near a singularity, future asymptotic states describe some intermediate regime of the brane Universe when a nonstandard asymptotic behavior have already been established but the matter density is still larger than the brane tension.

The isotropic Universe

$`U=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=0`$
$`q=3\gamma 1\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =10\gamma 2`$
Stable in the future for $`\gamma <2/3`$, stable in the past for $`\gamma >1`$.

Equilibrium point

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma )(3\gamma 2)}{3c_+^2+c_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_+={\displaystyle \frac{c_+(3\gamma 2)}{3c_+^2+c_{}^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}c_{}(3\gamma 2)}{9c_+^2+3c_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =1{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 2}{9c_+^2+3c_{}^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=0`$
$`\gamma (2/3,1)`$
Stable in the future for $`\gamma <2/3+3c_+^2+c_{}^2`$.

Equilibrium point

$`U=19c_+^23c_{}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=3c_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\sqrt{3}c_{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}=0`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =03c_+^2+c_{}^2<1/3`$
Stable in the future for $`\gamma >2/3+3c_+^2+c_{}^2`$.

Equilibrium set (the Kasner Universe)

$`U=0\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0q=2`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}^2=1`$
Stable in the future for $`3c_+^2+c_{}^2>1/3`$.

Zones of stability of these equilibrium points are plotted in Fig.2. For $`\gamma <1`$ we can see a complete analogy with Fig.1 if $`\gamma `$ is divided by 2. It is natural, because the nonstandard matter behaves effectively as a ”normal” matter with $`\gamma _{NS}=2\gamma `$. Then, to receive expressions for equilibrium points and stability zones of the system (13) – (17) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =0`$ it is enough to take the corresponding expressions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0`$ and replace $`\gamma `$ by $`2\gamma `$. In particular, the isotropic attractor is stable for $`\gamma <2/3`$.

The part $`\gamma >1`$ in Fig.2 is new (in Fig.1 this part would correspond to the unphysical region $`\gamma >2`$). In this part of the space $`(\gamma ,c_+,c_{})`$ the stability does not depend on $`\gamma `$. As a remarkable feature we can note appearance of the Kasner solution as a future attractor for $`3c_+^2+c_{}^2>1/3`$. For $`3c_+^2+c_{}^2<1/3`$ the point $`3^{}`$ is stable.

As in the previous section, using the expression

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}=[(66\gamma )\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+2(23\gamma )U]\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda $$
(21)
we can conclude that all the models with $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda <1`$ and $`\gamma (0,2/3]`$ isotropize.

Anisotropic brane attractors may naturally appear in the inflationary brane scenario if the transition from nonstandard dynamics to standard one occurs at some moment after the inflation. During the nonstandard brane phase the condition for inflation is $`\gamma <1/3`$ , after the end of the inflation the parameter $`\gamma `$ grows to $`4/3`$ in typical models. In this case the brane Universe evolves consecutively from one stable regime to another one according to a corresponding $`c_+`$=const, $`c_{}`$=const line in Fig.2. When the pressure becomes positive ($`\gamma >1`$), the Universe finally reaches one of the two possible attractors depending on the parameters $`c_+,c_{}`$ and stays in this regime until the matter density on the brane drops below the brane tension and the transition to the standard regime occurs.

Near the initial singularity the nonstandard matter on the brane dominates and we can put the standard matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =0`$. As we now consider the backward time direction, the condition for the stability of the equilibrium points becomes $`\lambda _i>0`$. The results are follows.

For the Kasner set two nonzero eigenvalues are $`\lambda _1=66\gamma `$ and $`\lambda _2=16\mathrm{\Sigma }_+c_+2\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}c_{}`$. Four other eigenvalues are equal to zero. This indicates that we have a four-dimensional set of equilibria. The second nonzero eigenvalue is positive on some subset of the Kasner set and this subset exists for arbitrary $`(c_+,c_{})`$. On the other hand, $`\lambda _1`$ is positive only for $`\gamma <1`$. So, the condition for stability of the Kasner solution in the past is $`\gamma <1`$ independently on $`(c_+,c_{})`$.

In the opposite case $`\gamma >1`$ (a matter with a positive pressure) a stable solution in the past direction is the isotropic Universe. This result appears only in the brane scenario. In the case of $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$ the isotropic character of a brane cosmological singularity in the presence of matter with a positive pressure has been found earlier by several authors .

## 5 Conclusions

We have investigated the Bianchi I cosmological dynamics on a brane in the presence of a nonlocal anisotropic stress $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfying the Barrow-Maartens ansatz (9) with $`𝒰>0`$. The dynamics appears to be more complicated in comparison with the previously known case of $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }=0`$. However, we can mention two important regimes not modified by the anisotropic stress of the form studied in this paper:

* If $`0<\gamma 4/3`$ the anisotropic stress does not prevent the Bianchi I model from isotropization. Using the existence of a monotonic function (19) we can prove that all such models isotropize.
* The anisotropic stress does not alter the past asymptotic state which is the isotropic Universe for $`\gamma >1`$ and the Kasner solution for $`\gamma <1`$.

We also describe the set of future asymptotic states in the case $`\gamma >4/3`$ and possible transient brane dynamics which can exist before the linear energy-momentum contribution in the effective Einstein equations becomes important.

An important problem for the future development is to consider the $`𝒰<0`$ case.

## Acknowledgments

The work was partially supported by RFBR grants Ns. 00-15-96699 and 02-02-16817. AT is grateful to Roy Maartens and Alexei Starobinsky for useful discussions.


text:
# Higher K-energy functionals and higher Futaki invariants

Higher K-energy functionals and higher Futaki invariants

Ben Weinkove

Department of Mathematics

Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

1. Introduction

In 1986, Mabuchi  introduced the K-energy functional, which integrates the Futaki invariant  and whose critical points are metrics of constant scalar curvature. It was used by Bando and Mabuchi  to prove a uniqueness theorem for Kähler-Einstein metrics. The K-energy is strongly related to notions of stability in Geometric Invariant Theory and has been used by Tian  and Phong and Sturm , to give some results on the conjecture of Yau  on the relationship between stability and the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics. Tian  has cast both the K-energy and the Futaki invariant in a more general setting using Bott-Chern forms and Donaldson functionals.

Higher K-energy functionals were defined by Bando and Mabuchi  and generalize the K-energy map to higher Chern classes of the manifold. They integrate higher Futaki invariants (see , , , ). This note presents these functionals with an emphasis on Bott-Chern forms. Two new formulas for the higher K-energy are given and the second K-energy is shown to be related to Donaldson’s Lagrangian applied to metrics on the tangent bundle.

Let $`M`$ be a compact complex manifold of complex dimension $`n`$ with Kähler metric $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$. Let $`\omega =\sqrt{1}g_{i\overline{j}}dz^idz^{\overline{j}}`$ be the corresponding Kähler form. Define

$$P(M,\omega )=\{\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(M)|g_{i\overline{j}}+_i_{\overline{j}}\varphi >0\}.$$

For $`\varphi `$ in $`P(M,\omega )`$, let $`\{\varphi _t\}_{0t1}`$ be a smooth path in $`P(M,\omega )`$ with $`\varphi _0=0`$, $`\varphi _1=\varphi `$. Write $`\omega _t`$ for $`\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi _t`$. Now define the *$`k`$th $`K`$-energy functional* by

$$M_{k,\omega }(\varphi )=(nk+1)_0^1_M\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _t)\mu _k\omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt,$$

where $`c_k(\varphi _t)`$ (also written $`c_k(\omega _t)`$) is the representative of the $`k`$th Chern class of $`M`$ given by the metric $`\omega _t`$, and $`\mu _k`$ is the number given by

$$\mu _k=\frac{1}{V}_Mc_k(\omega )\omega ^{nk},\text{where}V=_M\omega ^n.$$

The case $`k=1`$ corresponds to the original K-energy as defined in .

Theorems 1 and 2 below were proved by Bando and Mabuchi  (also see  for a proof of Theorem 1). We present an alternative derivation using Bott-Chern forms, leading to new formulas for the higher K-energy (Lemma 5.1 and Corollary 5.2) as well as Theorem 3 below, which gives the second K-energy in terms of Donaldson’s Lagrangian.

Theorem 1. $`M_{k,\omega }(\varphi )`$ is independent of the choice of path $`\{\varphi _t\}`$.

To define the higher Futaki invariants, let $`c_k(\omega )`$ and $`Hc_k(\omega )`$ be respectively the $`k`$th Chern form and its harmonic part. There is a real smooth $`(k1,k1)`$ form $`f_k`$ such that

$$c_k(\omega )Hc_k(\omega )=\sqrt{1}\overline{}f_k.$$

Define the *kth Futaki invariant*, which acts on a holomorphic vector field $`X`$, by

$$_{k,\omega }(X)=_M_Xf_k\omega ^{nk+1},$$

where $`_X`$ is the Lie derivative. The case $`k=1`$ corresponds to the original Futaki invariant if $`c_1(M)=\mu _1\omega `$, so that $`Hc_1(\omega )=\mu _1\omega `$. It is shown in  (see also ) that $`_{k,\omega }`$ is independent of choice of metric in the Kähler class.

Now given a holomorphic vector field $`X`$, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ be the integral curve of $`X_R=X+\overline{X}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t:MM`$ is holomorphic, and there exists a smooth path $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ in $`P(M,\omega )`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\omega =\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi _t,\text{and}_M\varphi _t\omega ^n=0.$$

Then the higher K-energy integrates the Futaki invariant in the following sense.

Theorem 2. Suppose that $`c_k(M)=\mu _k[\omega ^k]`$. Then with $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ as above,

$$\frac{d}{dt}M_{k,\omega }(\varphi _t)=2\text{Re}(_{k,\omega }(X)).$$

Donaldson  defined a Lagrangian which was used in his proof that Mumford-Takemoto stable vector bundles over projective algebraic varieties admit Hermitian-Einstein metrics. It is defined in terms of the Bott-Chern forms corresponding to $`\text{Tr}(A)`$ and $`\text{Tr}(AB)`$. It is unsurprising then that this Lagrangian is related to the first and second K-energy functionals, which correspond to the first and second Chern classes.

Let $`E`$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $`r`$ over $`M`$, and let $`H`$ and $`H_0`$ be Hermitian metrics on $`E`$. Let $`\{H_t\}_{0t1}`$ be a smooth path of metrics between $`H_0`$ and $`H_1=H`$. Let $`F_t`$ be the curvature of $`H_t`$. Then Donaldson’s Lagrangian is given by

$`L(H,H_0)`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^1}n\sqrt{1}\text{Tr}(\dot{H}_tH_t^1F_t)\omega ^{n1}dt\lambda {\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{Tr}(\dot{H}_tH_t^1)\omega ^n𝑑t,`$
where

$$\lambda =\frac{2\pi n}{r}\frac{1}{V}_Mc_1(E)\omega ^{n1}.$$

Now consider the case when $`E=T^{}M`$, the holomorphic tangent bundle. Let $`H_0`$ be the Kähler metric $`g`$, and, for $`\varphi `$ in $`P(M,\omega )`$, let $`H`$ be $`g_\varphi `$. Write $`\omega _\varphi `$ for $`\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi `$ and $`L(\varphi )`$ for $`L(g_\varphi ,g)`$. We have the following formula for the second K-energy functional.

Theorem 3. For $`\varphi `$ in $`P(M,\omega )`$,

$`M_{2,\omega }(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2n}}L(\varphi )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi n}}{\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\varphi ^n}{\omega ^n}}\right)(2\mu _1\omega nc_1(\varphi )nc_1(0))\omega ^{n1}`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}\varphi \left(c_2(\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{n2i}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n+2}}\right)\mu _2{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{ni}\right).`$
I am very grateful to my advisor, D.H. Phong, for suggesting to look at these functionals, and for his subsequent guidance. I would also like to thank all the members of the Geometry and Analysis community at Columbia University for many enlightening discussions and talks. This paper will form a part of my forthcoming PhD thesis at Columbia University.

2. Chern classes and Bott-Chern forms

Before proving the above theorems, we will briefly discuss Chern classes and their Bott-Chern forms. For more details on Bott-Chern forms, see ,  and . Let $`E`$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $`r`$ over the compact Kähler manifold $`M`$. If $`H=H_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ is a Hermitian metric on $`E`$, then its curvature is an endomorphism-valued (1,1) form given by

$$(F_H)_\alpha ^\beta =(F_H)_{\alpha }^{\beta }{}_{i\overline{j}}{}^{}dz^idz^{\overline{j}}=\overline{}((H_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }})H^{\overline{\gamma }\beta }).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be an invariant symmetric k-linear function on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(r,𝐂)`$. Then we have a Chern-Weil form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(H)=\mathrm{\Phi }(F_H)=\mathrm{\Phi }(F_H,\mathrm{},F_H)\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{k,k},$$

which represents a characteristic class.

Let $`H`$ and $`H_0`$ be two Hermitian metrics on $`E`$, and let $`\{H_t\}`$ be a smooth path of metrics between them. Then there exists a Bott- Chern form $`\text{BC}_\mathrm{\Phi }(H,H_0)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{k1,k1}/(\text{Im}+\text{Im}\overline{})`$ given by

$$\text{BC}_\mathrm{\Phi }(H,H_0)=k\sqrt{1}_0^1\mathrm{\Phi }(\dot{H}_tH_t^1,F_{H_t},\mathrm{},F_{H_t})𝑑t.$$

It is shown in  that this definition is independent of the choice of path. Moreover we have

$$\sqrt{1}\overline{}\text{BC}_\mathrm{\Phi }(H,H_0)=\mathrm{\Phi }(H)\mathrm{\Phi }(H_0),$$

which can be checked by differentiating with respect to some parameter.

We will restrict to the case of Chern classes of holomorphic vector bundles. The Chern-Weil form for the metric $`H`$ representing the $`k`$th Chern class of $`E`$ is given by

$$c_k(H)=\frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\right)^k\underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}\text{sgn}(\pi )F_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}^{\alpha _1}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}}^{\alpha _k},$$

where $`F=F_H`$ and the usual summation convention is being used.

The Bott-Chern form for the $`k`$th Chern class is then given by

$`\text{BC}_k(H,H_0)`$
$`=k\sqrt{1}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }}\right)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi )(\dot{H_t}H_t^1)_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}^{\alpha _1}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}}^{\alpha _k}dt,`$
where $`F=F_{H_t}.`$ It satisfies

$$c_k(H)c_k(H_0)=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\text{BC}_k(H,H_0).$$

Now consider the case where the vector bundle is $`T^{}M`$, the holomorphic tangent bundle of $`M`$. Then $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$, the Kähler metric on $`M`$, is a Hermitian metric on $`T^{}M`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be in $`P(M,\omega )`$. Write $`g_\varphi `$ for $`g_{i\overline{j}}+_i_{\overline{j}}\varphi `$ and $`c_k(\varphi )`$ for $`c_k(g_\varphi )`$. Then, in normal coordinates for $`g_\varphi `$, we have

$$c_k(\varphi )=\frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\right)^k\underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}\text{sgn}(\pi )F_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}\overline{\alpha }_1}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k},$$

writing $`F_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ for $`R_{\alpha \overline{\beta }i\overline{j}}dz^idz^{\overline{j}}`$, where $`R_{\alpha \overline{\beta }i\overline{j}}`$ is the curvature tensor for $`g_\varphi `$.

3. Higher K-energy functionals

In this section we give an alternative proof of Theorem 1. Let $`\{\varphi _t\}_{0t1}`$ be a smooth path in $`P(M,\omega )`$ with $`\varphi _0=\varphi _1`$, and let $`\lambda `$ be any constant. Calculate

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _t)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _t)c_k(\varphi _0)+c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(\sqrt{1}\overline{}\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,\varphi _0)+c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}(\sqrt{1}\overline{}\dot{\varphi _t})\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,\varphi _0)\omega _t^{nk}dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{nk+1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,\varphi _0){\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\omega _t^{nk+1})dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{nk+1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,\varphi _0)\omega _t^{nk+1}dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt.`$
The next two lemmas will show that this expression is zero. The proof of the theorem will then follow immediately.

###### Lemma 3.1

With $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ as above,

$$_0^1_M\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}dt=0.$$

* The argument is almost identical to one given in , but we will include it for the reader’s convenience. Define

$$\varphi _{t,s}=s\varphi _t,\text{and}\omega _{t,s}=\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi _{t,s},$$

$$D(s)=_0^1_M\frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{t}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _{t,s}^k)\omega _{t,s}^{nk}dt.$$

Notice that $`D(0)=0`$. We will show that $`D^{}(s)=0`$.

$`D^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi _{t,s}}{ts}}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _{t,s}^k)\omega _{t,s}^{nk}dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{t}}((nk)c_k(\varphi _0)\omega _{t,s}^{nk1}\lambda n\omega _{t,s}^{n1})\sqrt{1}\overline{}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{t}})dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{s}})(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _{t,s}^k)\omega _{t,s}^{nk}dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{s}}((nk)c_k(\varphi _0)\omega _{t,s}^{nk1}\lambda n\omega _{t,s}^{n1})\sqrt{1}\overline{}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{t}})dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{t,s}}{s}}(c_k(\varphi _0)\lambda \omega _{t,s}^k)\omega _{t,s}^{nk}\right)𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$

###### Lemma 3.2

With $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ as above,

$$_M\frac{}{t}(\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,\varphi _0))\omega _t^{nk+1}=0.$$

* Writing $`g`$ for $`g_{\varphi _t}`$ we have

$$\dot{g}_{i\overline{j}}g^{\overline{j}k}=(_i_{\overline{j}}\dot{\varphi _t})g^{\overline{j}k}.$$

Hence, using the formula for the Bott-Chern form, and working in normal coordinates,

$`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,\varphi _0)\omega _t^{nk+1}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{(k1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }}\right)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi )_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}_{\overline{\alpha }_1}\dot{\varphi _t}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}\overline{\alpha }_2}\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k}\omega _t^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{(k1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }}\right)^k{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi )_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}_{\overline{\alpha }_1}\dot{\varphi _t}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}\overline{\alpha }_1}\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k}\omega _t^{nk+1}.`$
Integrating by parts, using the Bianchi identity, and defining $`\tau `$ to be the transposition in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ which interchanges 1 and 2, we see that one term in the integrand of (1) will be

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi )_{\overline{\alpha }_1}\dot{\varphi _t}_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}\overline{\alpha }_2}F_{\alpha _{\pi (3)}\overline{\alpha }_3}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k}\omega _t^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi )_{\overline{\alpha }_1}\dot{\varphi _t}_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}}F_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}\overline{\alpha }_2}F_{\alpha _{\pi (3)}\overline{\alpha }_3}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k}\omega _t^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi \tau )_{\overline{\alpha }_1}\dot{\varphi _t}_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}\overline{\alpha }_2}F_{\alpha _{\pi (3)}\overline{\alpha }_3}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k}\omega _t^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_k}{}}\text{sgn}(\pi )_{\overline{\alpha }_1}\dot{\varphi _t}_{\alpha _{\pi (1)}}F_{\alpha _{\pi (2)}\overline{\alpha }_2}F_{\alpha _{\pi (3)}\overline{\alpha }_3}\mathrm{}F_{\alpha _{\pi (k)}\overline{\alpha }_k}\omega _t^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Every other term is zero by the same argument, and the lemma is proved.

The proof of Theorem 1 is now complete.

Remark 3.3 $`M_{k,\omega }`$ satisfies a cocycle condition. Namely, if $`\omega ^{}`$ is another Kähler metric with $`\omega ^{}=\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\psi `$, then

$$M_{k,\omega }(\varphi )M_{k,\omega ^{}}(\varphi \psi )=M_{k,\omega }(\psi ).$$

Remark 3.4 The critical points of $`M_{k,\omega }`$ are metrics $`\omega `$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^kc_k(\omega )`$ constant. An example of such a metric is the Fubini-Study metric on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$.

4. Higher Futaki invariants

In this section we give a proof of Theorem 2. Let $`X`$ be a holomorphic vector field. Recall that the Lie derivative of $`X`$ on forms is given by

$$_X=i_Xd+di_X.$$

The interior product $`i_X\omega `$ is a (0,1) form which is $`\overline{}`$-closed since $`\omega `$ is Kähler. Hence there exists a smooth function $`\theta _X`$ and a harmonic $`(0,1)`$ form $`\alpha `$ such that

$$i_X\omega =\alpha \overline{}\theta _X.$$

We have the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1

$$_{k,\omega }(X)=(nk+1)\sqrt{1}_M\theta _X(c_k(\omega )Hc_k(\omega ))\omega ^{nk},$$

where $`\theta _X`$ is as given above.

* Integrating by parts,

$`_{k,\omega }(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}_Xf_k\omega ^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}f_k_X\omega ^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}f_ki_X\omega ^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}f_k(\alpha \overline{}\theta _X)\omega ^{nk}`$
$`=`$ $`(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}f_k\overline{}\theta _X\omega ^{nk}`$
$`=`$ $`(nk+1)\sqrt{1}{\displaystyle _M}\theta _X(c_k(\omega )Hc_k(\omega ))\omega ^{nk}.`$

To finish the proof of the theorem, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ be the integral curve of $`X_R`$ as before, and let $`\varphi _t`$ be given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\omega =\omega _t=\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi _t,_M\varphi _t\omega ^n=0.$$

Then

$$_{X_R}\omega _t=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\dot{\varphi _t}.$$

Hence

$$i_X\omega _t+\overline{}i_{\overline{X}}\omega _t=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1}(\overline{}\dot{\varphi }_t\overline{}\dot{\varphi }_t)$$

and so

$$i_X\omega _t\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1}\overline{}\dot{\varphi }_t=\alpha _t,$$

where $`\alpha _t`$ is a (0,1) form satisfying $`\text{Re}(\alpha _t)=0`$. It follows from above that

$`2\text{Re}(_{k,\omega _t}(X))`$ $`=`$ $`(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\omega _t)Hc_k(\omega _t))\omega _t^{nk}`$
$`=`$ $`(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi _t}(c_k(\omega _t)\mu _k\omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}M_{k,\omega }(\varphi _t).`$
Finally we must show that $`_{k,\omega _t}(X)=_{k,\omega }(X)`$. This is immediate from , or alternatively can be seen as follows. Since

$$_{X_R}\omega _t=\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}_{X_R}\omega ,$$

we have

$$\overline{}\dot{\varphi }_t=\overline{}\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\dot{\varphi }_0,$$

and so $`\dot{\varphi }_t=\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\dot{\varphi }_0`$. Hence

$`{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_t(c_k(\omega _t)\mu _k\omega _t^k)\omega _t^{nk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\dot{\varphi }_0(\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}c_k(\omega )\mu _k\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\omega ^k)\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\omega ^{nk}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_0(c_k(\omega )\mu _k\omega ^k)\omega ^{nk}.`$
5. Higher K-energy functionals and Donaldson’s Lagrangian

In this section we give a proof of Theorem 3 and give two alternative formulas for the higher K-energy functionals. It is pointed out in  (see also  and ) that the K-energy can be written without a path integral as

$`M_{1,\omega }(\varphi )={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\varphi ^n}{\omega ^n}}\right)\omega _\varphi ^n`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }}\text{Ric}(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{n1i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1}{n+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _M}\varphi \omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{ni}\right).`$
This appears to be both a natural and useful expression for the K-energy (see ). Notice that

$$c_1(\omega )=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\text{Ric}(\omega )\text{and}\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\omega _\varphi ^n}{\omega ^n}\right)=\text{BC}_1(\varphi ,0),$$

where to be precise, the above is only a *representative* of $`\text{BC}_1(\varphi ,0)`$. The following lemma generalizes the above formula to the higher K-energy functionals.

###### Lemma 5.1

$`M_{k,\omega }(\varphi )={\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)\omega _\varphi ^{nk+1}`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}\varphi \left(c_k(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{nki}{\displaystyle \frac{(nk+1)}{n+1}}\mu _k{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{ni}\right).`$
* For a path $`\{\varphi _t\}`$ in $`P(M,\omega )`$, calculate

$`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,0)\omega _t^{nk+1})`$ (2)
$`={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,0))\omega _t^{nk+1}`$
$`+(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi _t,0)\omega _t^{nk}\sqrt{1}\overline{}\dot{\varphi }_t`$
$`=(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_t(c_k(\varphi _t)c_k(0))\omega _t^{nk},`$
using Lemma 3.2 for the first term and integrating by parts for the second. Also

$`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\varphi _tc_k(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _t^{nki})`$ (3)
$`={\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_tc_k(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _t^{nki}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _M}\varphi _tc_k(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}(nki)\omega ^i\omega _t^{nki1}\sqrt{1}\overline{}\dot{\varphi }_t`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_tc_k(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _t^{nki}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_tc_k(0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}(nki)\omega ^i\omega _t^{nki1}(\omega _t\omega )`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_tc_k(0)({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}(nki+1)\omega ^i\omega _t^{nki}`$
$`(nki)\omega ^{i+1}\omega _t^{nki1})`$
$`=(nk+1){\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_tc_k(0)\omega _t^{nk}.`$
Similarly,

$`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(nk+1)\mu _k}{n+1}}\varphi _t{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _t^{ni}\right)=(nk+1)\mu _k{\displaystyle _M}\dot{\varphi }_t\omega _t^n.`$ (4)
The lemma follows from (2), (3) and (4).

We will need a slightly different formula for $`M_{k,\omega }`$.

###### Corollary 5.2

$`M_{k,\omega }(\varphi )={\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)\omega ^{nk+1}`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}\varphi \left(c_k(\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{nki}{\displaystyle \frac{(nk+1)}{n+1}}\mu _k{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{ni}\right).`$
* $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)\omega _\varphi ^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)(\omega +\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi )^{nk+1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk+1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{i}}\right)\omega ^i(\omega _\varphi \omega )^{nk+1i}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)\omega ^{nk+1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)\sqrt{1}\overline{}\varphi {\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{i}}\right)\omega ^i(\omega _\varphi \omega )^{nki}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_k(\varphi ,0)\omega ^{nk+1}{\displaystyle _M}\varphi (c_k(\varphi )c_k(0)){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}\omega ^i\omega _\varphi ^{nki},`$
using, for the last line, the elementary identity

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+1}{i}\right)x^i(yx)^{mi}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}x^iy^{mi},$$

which can be seen by observing that each side is equal to

$$(y^{m+1}x^{m+1})/(yx).$$

The corollary now follows immediately from Lemma 5.1.

We now prove Theorem 3. First note that we have

$`\text{BC}_1(\varphi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{Tr}(\dot{g}_tg_t^1)𝑑t,\text{and}`$
$`\text{BC}_2(\varphi ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left(\text{Tr}(\dot{g}_tg_t^1)\text{Tr}(F_t)\text{Tr}(\dot{g}_tg_t^1F_t)\right)𝑑t,`$
where $`F_t`$ is the curvature of $`g_t`$. Then using the fact that $`\lambda =2\pi \mu _1`$ we have

$`L(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`n(2\pi )^2{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1}}{(2\pi )^2}}\text{Tr}(\dot{g}_tg_t^1F_t)\omega ^{n1}dt`$ (5)
$`(2\pi )^2\mu _1{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\text{Tr}(\dot{g}_tg_t^1)\omega ^n𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`n(2\pi )^2{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_2(\varphi ,0)\omega ^{n1}(2\pi )^2\mu _1{\displaystyle _M}\text{BC}_1(\varphi ,0)\omega ^n`$
$`+n\sqrt{1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^1}\text{Tr}(\dot{g}_tg_t^1)\text{Tr}(F_t)\omega ^{n1}dt.`$
The last term is equal to

$`n\sqrt{1}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^1}(\mathrm{}_t\dot{\varphi }_t)\text{Ric}(\omega _t)\omega ^{n1}dt`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n\sqrt{1}}{2}}{\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\varphi ^n}{\omega ^n}}\right)(\text{Ric}(\omega _t)+\text{Ric}(\omega ))\omega ^{n1}`$
$`=n\pi {\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\varphi ^n}{\omega ^n}}\right)(c_1(\varphi )+c_1(0))\omega ^{n1},`$
where a straightforward integration by parts has been used for the second line. The proof of the theorem now follows from Corollary 5.2 and equations (5) and (6).