format: text

text:
# M-theory, Cosmological Constant and Anthropic Principle

## I Introduction: Anthropic constraints on the cosmological constant

After many desperate attempts to prove that the cosmological constant must vanish, now we face an even more complicated problem. We must understand why the cosmological constant, or the slowly changing dark energy, is at least 120 orders smaller than the Planck density $`M_p^4`$, and, simultaneously, why its value is as large as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D\rho _0`$. Here $`\rho _010^{29}`$ g/cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}10^{120}M_p^4`$ is the total density of matter in the universe at present, including the cosmological constant, or dark energy, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D0.7`$. One of the most interesting attempts to provide such an explanation is related to anthropic principle barrow .

This principle for a long time was rather controversial. It was based on an implicit assumption that the universe was created many times until the final success. It was not clear who did it and why was it necessary to make it suitable for our existence. Moreover, it would be much simpler to create proper conditions for our existence in a small vicinity of a solar system rather than in the whole universe.

These problems were resolved with the invention of inflationary cosmology. First of all, inflationary universe itself, without any external intervention, may produce exponentially large domains with all possible laws of low-energy physics LindeCam . And if the conditions suitable for our existence are established near the solar system, inflation ensures that similar conditions appear everywhere within the observable part of the universe. In addition to considering a single inflationary universe consisting of many domains with different values of constants, one may also consider a possibility that the inflationary universe may be born in many different quantum states with different values of coupling constants, see e.g. Hawking:hk ; book ; Vilenkin ; BellLin . This provides a simple justification of the cosmological anthropic principle and allows one to apply it to the cosmological constant problem.

If, for example, the cosmological constant is large and negative, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{29}`$ g/cm3, then such a universe, even if it is flat, would collapse within the time that is smaller than the age of our universe $`t14`$ billion years barrow ; linde300 . This would make our life impossible. One may wonder whether intelligent life could emerge within $`7`$ billion years or $`5`$ billion years, but we have no reason to believe that it could happen on a much shorter time scale.

Since we are entering the age of precision cosmology, let us improve the order-of-magnitude estimates of barrow ; linde300  and obtain a numerical constraint on negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The investigation is straightforward, so we will simply show the results in Fig. 1. We find that the anthropic constraint on the negative cosmological constant is a bit less stringent than it was anticipated. If $`7`$ billion years is sufficient for emergence of human life, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }18.8\rho _02\times 10^{28}`$ g/cm3. If we really need about $`14`$ billion years, as one can infer from Lineweaver:2002gd , then the constraint is somewhat stronger: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4.7\rho _05\times 10^{29}`$ g/cm3.

However, the present observational data suggest that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. In this case the use of the anthropic considerations become more involved. In linde300  it was argued that the life of our type is impossible for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{29}`$ g/cm3 because in this case the density of matter of the universe would be exponentially small due to its exponential expansion at the present stage. A more precise and rigorous constraint was obtained later by Weinberg Weinberg87 . He pointed out that the process of galaxy formation occurs only up to the moment when the cosmological constant begins to dominate the energy density of the universe and the universe enters the stage of late-time inflation. (By galaxy formation we understand the growth of density contrast until the moment when the galaxy separates from the general cosmological expansion of the universe. After that, its density rapidly grows by a factor of $`O(10^2)`$, and its subsequent evolution becomes much less sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.) For example, one may consider galaxies formed at $`z4`$, when the energy density of the universe was 2 orders of magnitude greater than it is now. Such galaxies would not form if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^2\rho _010^{27}`$ g/cm3.

Thus, anthropic considerations may reduce the disagreement between the theoretical expectations ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_p^4`$) and observational data ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _010^{120}M_p^4`$) from $`120`$ orders of magnitude to only 2 orders of magnitude! But this is not yet a complete solution of the cosmological constant problem. Assuming that all values of the cosmological constant are equally probable, one would find himself in a universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$ with the probability about $`1\%`$.

The next important step was made in Efstathiou ; Vilenkin:1995nb ; Weinberg96 ; Garriga:1999bf ; Bludman:2001iz . The authors considered not only our own galaxy, but all other galaxies that could harbor life of our type. This would include not only the existing galaxies but also the galaxies that are being formed at the present epoch. Since the energy density al later stages of the evolution of the universe becomes smaller, even a very small cosmological constant may disrupt the late-time galaxy formation, or may prevent the growth of existing galaxies. This allowed the authors of Efstathiou ; Vilenkin:1995nb ; Weinberg96 ; Garriga:1999bf ; Bludman:2001iz  to strengthen the constraint on the cosmological constant. According to Weinberg96 , the probability that an astronomer in any of the universes would find a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=\mathrm{\Lambda }/\rho _0`$ as small as $`0.7`$ ranges from $`5\%`$ to $`12\%`$, depending on various assumptions.

However, our goal is not to find suitable conditions for the human life in general, but rather to explain the results of our observations. These results include the fact that for whatever reason we live in an internal part of the galaxy that probably could not be strongly affected by the existence of a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$. Does it mean that we are not typical observers since we live in an atypical part of the universe where we are protected against a small cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$? Also, galaxy formation is not a one-step process. The central part of our galaxy was formed very early, at $`z20`$, when the energy density in the universe was 4 orders of magnitude greater than it is now. To prevent formation of such regions one would need to have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^4\rho _010^{25}`$ g/cm3. It may happen that the probability of emergence of life in such regions, or in the early formed dwarf galaxies, is very small. Moreover, one could argue that the probability of emergence of life is proportional to the fraction of matter condensed into large galaxies Efstathiou ; Vilenkin:1995nb ; Weinberg96 ; Garriga:1999bf ; Bludman:2001iz . Even if it is so, in an eternally existing inflationary universe there should be indefinitely many regions suitable for existence of life, so life would eventually appear in one of such places even if the probability of such event is extremely small. A more detailed investigation of this issue is in order GarVil .

In this respect the anthropic constraint on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ seems to be less ambiguous. But it is also less important since it does not seem to apply to an accelerating universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7\rho _0`$. In this paper we will show, however, that a similar constraint based on investigation of the total lifetime of a flat universe can be derived in a broad class of theories based on N=8 supergravity that can describe the present stage of acceleration Kallosh:2001gr ; Linde:2001ae ; Kallosh:2002wj ; Kallosh . This may allow us to avoid fine-tuning that is usually required to explain the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$.

## II Maximal Supergravity as Dark Energy Hidden Sector

Usually in all discussions of the cosmological constant in the astrophysical literature it is assumed that one can simply add a cosmological constant term describing vacuum energy to the gravitational Lagrangian. However, it appears to be extremely difficult to do so in the context of M/string theory.

All known compactifications of the fundamental M/string theory to four dimensions do not lead to potentials with de Sitter solutions corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. However, there are versions of the maximally extended $`d=4`$ $`N=8`$ supergravity which have dS solutions. They are also known to be solutions of $`d=11`$ supergravity with 32 supersymmetries, corresponding to M/string theory Hull:1988jw . $`dS_4`$ solutions of $`d=4`$ $`N=8`$ supergravity correspond to solutions of M/string theory with non-compact internal seven (six) dimensional space. The relation between states of higher dimensional and four dimensional theory in such backgrounds is complicated since the standard Kaluza-Klein procedure is not valid in this context. It is nevertheless true that the class of $`d=4`$ supergravities with dS solutions that we will consider below as dark energy candidates has a direct link to M/string theory, as opposite to practically any other model of dark energy. Moreover, these theories with maximal amount of supersymmetries are perfectly consistent from the point of view of the $`d=4`$ theory: all kinetic terms for scalars and vectors are positive definite.

All supersymmetries are spontaneously broken for dS solutions of $`N=8`$ supergravity. These dS solutions are unstable; they correspond either to a maximum of the potential for the scalar fields $`\varphi `$ or to a saddle point. In all known cases one finds Kallosh:2001gr  that there is a tachyon and the ratio between $`V^{\prime \prime }=m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=V`$ at the extremum of $`V(\varphi )`$ is equal to $`2`$.

According to current cosmological data, the relevant $`dS_4`$ space is defined as a hypersurface in a 5d space $`T^2+(X^2+Y^2+Z^2+W^2)=H_0^2`$. Here $`H_0`$ is the Hubble parameter. Its inverse, $`H_0^1`$, determines time scale of the same order as the age of the universe, $`H_0^110^{10}\mathrm{years}`$. One of the simplest solutions of $`d=11`$ supergravity is given by a warped product of a four-dimensional dS space and a seven-dimensional hyperboloid $`H^{p,q}`$. A fiducial model where all scalars are constant is defined by dS surface presented above and the surface in an eight-dimensional space defining an internal space hyperboloid $`H^{p,q}`$. This surface is given by $`\eta _{AB}z^Az^B=\alpha H_0^2`$, where the constant $`\alpha `$ depends on $`p,q`$ and the metric $`\eta _{AB}`$ is constant and has $`p`$ positive eigenvalues and $`q`$ negative eigenvalues and $`p+q=8`$.

A simplest (and typical) representative of $`d=4`$ $`N=8`$ supergravities with dS maximum, originated from M-theory, has the following action Hull:rt :

$$g^{1/2}L=\frac{1}{2}R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(2\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{2}\varphi ).$$
(1)
Here we use units $`M_p=1`$. At the critical point $`V^{}=0,V_{cr}=\mathrm{\Lambda },\varphi _{cr}=0`$.

This corresponds to the case $`p=q=4`$ and $`d=4`$ supergravity has gauged $`SO(4,4)`$ non-compact group. At dS vacuum it is broken down to its compact subgroup, $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$. The value of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is related to $`H_0`$ and to the gauge coupling $`g`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=3H_0^2=2g^2.$$

A similar potential was obtained in N=4 gauged supergravity in Gates:1983ct , where dS solution of extended supergravity was found for the first time and where it was pointed out that it is unstable, being a maximum of the potential.

The gauge coupling and the cosmological constant in $`d=4`$ supergravity have the same origin in M-theory: they come from the flux of an antisymmetric tensor gauge field strength Hull:1988jw . The corresponding 4-form $`F_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ in $`d=11`$ supergravity is proportional to the volume form of the $`dS_4`$ space:

$$F_{0123}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}V_{0123}.$$
(2)
Here $`F=dA`$ where $`A`$ is a 3-form potential of $`d=11`$ supergravity. According to this model, the small value of the cosmological constant is due to the 4-form flux which has the inverse time-scale of the order of the age of the universe. Note that in our model there is no reason for the flux quantization since the internal space is not compact. This makes it different from Bousso:2000xa  where the flux and/or its changes were quantized. The eleven-dimensional origin of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ in the potential can be explained as follows. Directly in d=4 $`N=8`$ gauged supergravity has 35 scalars and 35 pseudo-scalars, forming together a coset space $`\frac{E_{7(7)}}{SU(8)}`$. The field $`\varphi `$ is an $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ invariant combination of these scalars and it may also be viewed as part of the $`d=11`$ metric.

The first idea would be to discard this model altogether because its potential is unbounded from below. However, the scalar potential in this theory remains positive for $`|\varphi |1`$, and for small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the time of development of the instability can be much greater than the present age of the universe, which is quite sufficient for our purposes Kallosh:2001gr ; Linde:2001ae ; Kallosh:2002wj ; Kallosh . In fact, we will see that this instability allows us to avoid the standard fine-tuning/coincidence problem plaguing most of the versions of the theory of quintessence. To use these theories to describe the present stage of acceleration (late inflation) one should take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{120}M_p^4`$. This implies that the tachyonic mass is ultra-light, $`|m^2|(10^{33}\mathrm{eV})^2`$.

In the early universe the ultra-light scalar fields may stay away from the extrema of their potentials; they ‘sit and wait’ and they begin moving only when the Hubble constant decreases and becomes comparable with the scale of the scalar mass. This may result in noticeable changes of the effective cosmological constant during the last few billion years.

Since the potential of $`N=8`$ supergravity with dS solution is unbounded from below, the universe will eventually collapse. If the initial position of the field is not far from the top of the potential, the time before the collapse may be very long Kallosh .

From the perspective of the $`d=11`$ theory it is natural to consider a large ensemble of possible values for the fields $`F\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\varphi `$ and study it. In the context of the $`d=4`$ theory one may also study a large ensemble of values for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi `$.

## III Anthropic constraints on the cosmological constant in N=8 supergravity

Consider a theory of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with the effective potential $`V(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(2\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{2}\varphi )`$ in the $`N=8`$ theory (1). In order to understand the cosmological consequences of this theory, let us first consider this potential at $`|\varphi |1`$. In this limit the potential has a very simple form,

$$V(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(1\varphi ^2)=3H_0^2(1\varphi ^2).$$
(3)
The main property of this potential is that $`m^2=V^{\prime \prime }(0)=2\mathrm{\Lambda }=6H_0^2`$. One can show that a homogeneous field $`\varphi 1`$ with $`m^2=6H_0^2`$ in the universe with the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ grows as follows: $`\varphi (t)=\varphi _0\mathrm{exp}cH_0t`$, where $`c=(\sqrt{33}3)/21.4`$. Consequently, in the universe with the energy density dominated by $`V(\varphi )`$ it takes time $`t0.7H_0^1\mathrm{ln}\varphi _0^1`$ until the scalar field rolls down from $`\varphi _0`$ to the region $`\varphi 1`$, where $`V(\varphi )`$ becomes negative and the universe collapses.

This means that one cannot take large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ without making the total lifetime of the universe too short to support life, unless the scalar field $`\varphi _0`$ was exponentially small. But if the potential of the field $`\varphi `$ always was very flat, then one can assume that the field $`\varphi `$ initially (or after inflation) can take any value $`\varphi _0`$ with equal probability, so there is no reason to expect that $`\varphi _0`$ must be very small. This means that for $`\varphi _01`$ the typical lifetime of the universe is $`t_{\mathrm{tot}}H_0^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$. Therefore the universe can live longer than 14 billion years only if the cosmological constant is extremely small, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$.

On the other hand, for $`\varphi 1`$ the potential falls down exponentially, $`V(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\sqrt{2}|\varphi |`$. Therefore for $`\varphi 1`$ the universe almost instantly collapses even if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$.

Now we can study this process numerically, solving a system of equations for the scale factor $`a(t)`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$.

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\varphi }V^{}(\varphi )=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{V\dot{\varphi }^2\rho _M}{3}},`$
where $`\rho _M=C/a^3(t)`$, and $`\varphi _0^{}=0`$. A detailed description of our approach can be found in Kallosh . Here we will present some of our results related to the cosmological constant problem.

Fig. 3 shows expansion of the universe for $`\varphi _0=0.25`$, and for various values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ranging from $`0.7\rho _0`$ to $`700\rho _0`$. Time is given in units of $`14`$ billion years. One finds, as expected, that the total lifetime of the universe for a given $`\varphi _0`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$, which means that large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are anthropically forbidden.

Fig. 4 shows expansion of the universe for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7\rho _0`$. The upper (red) line corresponds to the fiducial model with $`\varphi _0=0`$. In this case the field does not move and all cosmological consequences are the same as in the standard theory with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7\rho _0`$. The difference will appear only in a very distant future, at $`t10^2H_0^110^3`$ billion years, when the unstable state $`\varphi _0=0`$ will decay due to the destabilizing effect of quantum fluctuations Kallosh:2001gr . For $`\varphi _0>1`$ the total lifetime of the universe becomes unacceptably small, which means that large $`\varphi _0`$ are anthropically forbidden.

Further conclusions will depend on various assumptions about the probability of parameters $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\varphi _0)`$. In this section we will make the simplest assumption that all values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are equally probable. We will discuss alternative assumptions and their consequences in the next section.

All possible values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ corresponding to the total lifetime of the universe greater than $`14`$ billion years are shown in Fig. 5, in the region under the thick (red) line. If all values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are equally probable, the measure of probability is given by the area. The total area under the curve is finite, $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}3.5`$. One can easily estimate the probability to be in any region of the phase space $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\varphi _0)`$ by measuring the corresponding area and dividing it by $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}`$.

The dashed line $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1.5\rho _0`$ separates the anthropically allowed region into two equal area parts. This implies that the average value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in this theory is about $`1.5\rho _0`$. It is obvious that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be somewhat larger or somewhat smaller than $`1.5\rho _0`$, but the main part of the anthropically allowed area corresponds to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=O(\rho _0)10^{120}M_p^4.$$

This is one of the main results of our investigation. This result is a direct consequence of the relation $`m^2=6H_0^2`$ which is valid for all known versions of $`d=4`$ $`N=8`$ supergravity that allow dS solutions.

The region below the thin (blue) curve corresponds to all universes with the lifetime greater than 28 billion years, i.e. to the universes that would live longer than $`14`$ billion years after the present moment. The area below this curve is 3 times smaller than the area between the thin (blue) curve and the thick (red) curve. This means that the “life expectancy” of a typical anthropically allowed universe (the time from the present moment until the global collapse) is smaller than the present age of the universe. The prognosis becomes a bit more optimistic if one takes into account that we live in the universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.7`$: The probability that the universe will survive more than 14 billion years from now becomes better than 50%.

Finding the average value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not immediately tell us what is the most probable value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$. In order to do it we plot in Fig. 6 the curves corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.5`$ (blue line, just below the thick red line), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.7`$ (green line, just below the line $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.5`$), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.9`$ (pink line, below the line $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.7`$). The region to the left of the thin dashed line corresponds to the universes that accelerate at the present time (14 billion years after the big bang).

The total probability to live in an accelerating universe at the time 14 billion years after the big bang is determined by the area bounded by the thin dashed line in Fig. 6. Dividing this area by $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}3.5`$, one can find that this probability is about 35%. About a half of this area corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d>0.9`$. The most interesting part of the accelerating region is bounded by the blue curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.5`$, the pink curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.9`$ and the thin dashed line. All points inside this region correspond to accelerating universes with $`0.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_D<0.9`$. As one can easily see from Fig. 6, the area of this region is about $`0.4`$. Dividing it by the total area of the anthropically allowed region $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}3.5`$ one finds that the probability to live in such a universe is about 10%. These results resolve the fine-tuning/coincidence problem in the theory of dark energy.

## IV Discussion

Most of the theories of dark energy have to face two problems. First of all, it is necessary to explain why does the bare cosmological constant vanish. Then one must find a dynamical mechanism imitating a small cosmological constant and explain why $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D0.7`$ at the present stage of the evolution of the universe.

In this paper we studied cosmological consequences of the simplest toy model of dark energy based on $`N=8`$ supergravity. We have found that in the context of this theory one can completely resolve the cosmological constant problem, as well as the coincidence problem plaguing most models of quintessence.

Indeed, one simply cannot add a cosmological constant to this theory. The only way to introduce something similar to the cosmological constant is to put the system close to the top of the effective potential. If the potential is very high, then it is also very curved, $`V^{\prime \prime }(0)=2V(0)`$. We have found that the universe can live long enough only if the field $`\varphi `$ initially is within the Planck distance from the top, $`|\varphi |M_p`$, which sounds reasonable, and if $`V(0)`$, which plays the role of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in this theory, does not exceed much the critical value $`\rho _010^{120}M_p^4`$.

In our paper we made the simplest assumption that the probability to live in the universe with different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ does not depend on their values. However, in realistic models the situation may be different. For example, as we mentioned, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$ is related to the 4-form flux in $`d=11`$ supergravity, see Eq. (2). This may suggest that the probability distribution should be uniform not with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ but with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}`$ and $`\varphi _0`$. We studied this possibility and found that the numerical results change, but the qualitative features of the model remain the same.

The probability distribution for $`\varphi _0`$ also may depend on $`\varphi _0`$ even if $`V(\varphi )`$ is very flat at $`\varphi <1`$. First of all, it might happen that the fields $`\varphi 1`$ (i.e. $`\varphi M_p`$) are forbidden, or the effective potential at large $`\varphi `$ blows up. This is often the case in $`N=1`$ supergravity. Secondly, interactions with other fields in the early universe may create a deep minimum capturing the field $`\varphi `$ at some time-dependent point $`\varphi <1`$. This also often happens in $`N=1`$ supergravity, which constitutes one of the features related to the cosmological moduli problem. If this happens in our model, one will be able to ignore the region of $`\varphi _0>1`$ (the right part of Figs. 5, 6) in the calculation of probabilities. This will increase the probability to live in an accelerating universe with $`0.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_D<0.9`$.

In our estimates we assumed that the universe must live as long as 14 billion years before the human life appears. One could argue that the first stars and planets were formed long ago, so we may not need much more than about 5-7 billion years for the development of life. This would somewhat decrease our estimate for the probability to live in an accelerating universe with $`0.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_D<0.9`$, but this would not alter our results qualitatively. On the other hand, most of the planets were probably formed at later stages of the evolution of the universe Lineweaver:2002gd , so one may argue that the probability of emergence of human life becomes much greater at $`t>14`$ billion years, especially if one keeps in mind how many coincidences have made our life possible. If one assumes that human life is extremely improbable (after all, we do not have any indications of its existence anywhere else in the universe), then one may argue that the probability of emergence of life becomes significant only if the total lifetime of the universe can be much greater than 14 billion years. This would increase our estimate for the probability to live in an accelerating universe with $`0.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_D<0.9`$.

So far we did not use any considerations based on the theory of galaxy formation Weinberg87 ; Efstathiou ; Vilenkin:1995nb ; Weinberg96 ; Garriga:1999bf ; Bludman:2001iz . If we do so, the probability of emergence of life for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$ will be additionally suppressed, which will increase the probability to live in an accelerating universe with $`0.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_D<0.9`$.

To the best of our knowledge, only in the models based on extended supergravity the relation $`|m^2|H^2`$, together with the absence of freedom to add the bare cosmological constant, is a property of the theory rather than of a particular dynamical regime. That is why the increase of $`V(\varphi )`$ in such models entails the increase in $`|m^2|`$. This, in its turn, speeds up the development of the cosmological instability, which leads to the anthropically unacceptable consequences.

The $`N=8`$ model discussed in our paper is just a toy model. In this model we were able to find a complete solution to the cosmological constant problem and to the coincidence problem (explaining why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$ and why $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ noticeably differs both from $`0`$ and from $`1`$ at the present stage of the evolution of the universe). This model has important advantages over many other theories of dark energy, but to make it fully realistic one would need to construct a complete theory of all fundamental interactions including the dark energy sector described above. This is a very complicated task that is beyond the scope of the present investigation. However, most of our results are not model-specific. For example, instead of $`N=8`$ supergravity one could study any model with the effective potential of the type $`V(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(1\alpha \varphi ^2)`$ with $`\alpha =O(1)`$. Another example is provided by the simplest N=1 Polónyi-type SUGRA model with a very low scale of supersymmetry breaking and with a minimum of the effective potential at $`V(\varphi )<0`$. As shown in Kallosh , models of this type also have the crucial property $`|m^2|H^2`$. In fact, this property is required in most of the models of quintessence.

Therefore it would be interesting to apply our methods to the models not necessarily related to extended supergravity. A particularly interesting example is the axion quintessence model. The original model suggested in Frieman:1995pm  has the potential $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi /f\right)+C]`$, and it was assumed that $`C=1`$. It was however emphasized in Frieman:1995pm  that this is just an assumption. The positive definiteness of the potential with $`C=1`$ and the fact that it has a minimum at $`V=0`$ could be motivated, in particular, by the global supersymmetry arguments. In supergravity and M/string theory these arguments are no longer valid and the derivation of the value of the parameter $`C`$ is not available. In Choi:1999xn  the axion model of quintessence was studied using the arguments based on M/string theory. The potential was given in the form $`V=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi /f\right)`$ without any constant part.

This potential has a maximum at $`\varphi =0`$, $`V(0)=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The universe collapses when the field $`\varphi `$ rolls to the minimum of its potential $`V(f\pi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The curvature of the effective potential in its maximum is given by $`m^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/f^2=3H_0^2/f^2`$. For $`f=M_p=1`$ one finds $`m^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }=3H_0^2,`$ and for $`f=M_p/\sqrt{2}`$ one has $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }=6H_0^2`$, exactly as in the $`N=8`$ supergravity. Therefore the anthropic constraints on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ based on the investigation of the collapse of the universe in this model (for $`C=0`$) are similar to the constraints obtained in our paper for the $`N=8`$ theory KKL . However, in this model, unlike in the models based on extended supergravity, one can easily add or subtract any value of the cosmological constant. In order to obtain useful anthropic constraints on the cosmological constant in this model one should use a combination of our approach with the usual approach based on the theory of galaxy formation Weinberg87 ; Efstathiou ; Vilenkin:1995nb ; Weinberg96 ; Garriga:1999bf ; Bludman:2001iz .

In this sense, our main goal was not to replace the usual anthropic approach to the cosmological constant problem, but to suggest its possible enhancement. We find it very encouraging that our approach may strengthen the existing anthropic constraints on the cosmological constant in the context of the theories based on extended supergravity.

One may find it hard to believe that in order to explain the results of cosmological observations one should consider theories with an unstable vacuum state. However, one should remember that exponential expansion of the universe during inflation, as well as the process of galaxy formation, is the result of the gravitational instability, so we should learn how to live with the idea that our world can be unstable. Also, we did not willingly pick up the theories with an unstable vacuum. We wanted to find the models based on M/string theory that would be capable of describing de Sitter state. All models related to M/string theory that we were able to find so far, with exception of the recently constructed model based on $`N=2`$ supergravity Fre:2002pd , lead to unstable dS vacuum. So maybe we need to take this instability seriously.

This brings us good news and bad news. The bad news is that in all the theories we have considered in this paper, our part of the universe is going to collapse within the next 10-20 billion years or so.

The good news is that we still have a lot of time to find out whether this is really going to happen.

### Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank T. Banks, M. Dine, T. Dent, J. Frieman, N. Kaloper, A. Klypin, L. Kofman, D. Lyth, L. Susskind, A. Vilenkin and S. Weinberg for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-9870115. The work by A.L. was also supported by the Templeton Foundation grant No. 938-COS273.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Cancellation of the trace anomaly associated with an anomalous $`U(1)_X`$ by the GS mechanism  leads to an FI term  for the D-term of $`U(1)_X`$:

$$D_X=\underset{i}{}K_iq_i^X\varphi ^i+\xi ,\xi =\frac{g_H^2\text{tr}Q_X}{192\pi ^2}m_P^2.$$

$`K_i=K/\varphi ^i`$ is the field derivative of the Kähler potential, $`g_H`$ is the unified coupling at the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$, the charge of the scalar field $`\varphi ^i`$ is given by $`q_i^X`$ and $`m_P=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}=2.44\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass.

Large matter field vacuum expectation values (vevs) are generic in semi-realistic string-inspired models because anomalous $`U(1)_X`$’s are generic. In  it was shown that the presence of a $`U(1)_X`$ factor in the gauge group $`G`$ is generic for semi-realistic $`Z_3`$ orbifold models. For the class of standard-like orbifolds studied there, only $`7`$ of $`175`$ models did not have a $`U(1)_X`$. In the semi-realistic free fermionic models  a $`U(1)_X`$ is also generic.

The $`n`$ fields $`\varphi ^i`$ which acquire nonvanishing vevs $`\varphi ^iv^i`$ will be referred to here as X-Higgs fields. For canonical $`K=_i|\varphi ^i|^2`$, we have 1 constraint:

$$D_X=\underset{i}{}q_i^X|v_i|^2+\xi .$$
(1.1)
These vevs are generically complex. Indeed, (1.1) is completely “phase-blind.” In addition, $`D_X=0`$ only constrains the magnitudes of the vevs to take values on a $`n`$-dimensional hyperboloid. The moduli which parameterize the unconstrained complex phases and the location on the $`n`$-dimensional hyperboloid are flat directions of the D-term part of the scalar potential and are pseudo-Goldstone bosons which were termed D-moduli in a previous work done in collaboration with Mary K. Gaillard (MKG) . The D-moduli correspond to the $`U(r,nr)`$ invariance of $`D_X=0`$, where $`r`$ is the number of fields with $`q_i^X>0`$. Only one of these D-moduli chiral multiplets gets “eaten” by the $`U(1)_X`$ vector multiplet when it gets massive.

This vacuum degeneracy is a generic problem in supersymmetric models . Typically one chooses a flat direction which gives rise to “good” phenomenology. However this is arbitrary and may not be consistent with the dynamics employed to break supersymmetry. An effective theory of supersymmetry breaking can potentially lift most vacuum degeneracy. Accounting for effects of dynamical supersymmetry breaking, arbitrariness in the phenomenology due to X-Higgs vevs can be removed.

Here, we assume supersymmetry breaking via gaugino condensation in a hidden sector. Improvements in our understanding of strongly coupled super-Yang-Mills (embedded into string-derived effective supergravity) increase the reliability of this approach toward solving vacuum selection problems. It is already known that different string embeddings are related to each other by X-Higgs vevs. For example, in the work of Aldazabal et al.  $`k=1`$ constructions and $`k=2`$ constructions are related at special values of X-Higgs vevs. Thus an effective field theory approach to dynamical vacuum selection can make modest progress in the vacuum selection problem of string theory.

## 2 Scope

Efforts are underway in work with MKG to stabilize these moduli in semi-realistic models by including various terms in $`V`$ (intentionally) neglected in our earlier work . MKG has found ways to: consistently fix to unitary gauge (not an easy task with dynamical string moduli); preserve manifest target-space modular invariance; effectively include tree-level exchange of heavy multiplets in the general case of many fields and $`U(1)`$’s. The machinery is forthcoming .

Here I report only on stabilization in some rather simple “toy” models. I do not account for tree-level exchange of the heavy fields. I do not include compactification moduli or target space modular invariance. I oversimplify so as to isolate the issue of D-moduli stabilization. Fixing to unitary gauge is simple when string moduli are treated as constant background fields.

## 3 Background

In , the scalar potential $`V`$ for SUGRA with a $`U(1)_X`$ was studied for vacuum configuations satisfying

$$V=V/\varphi ^i=0.$$
(3.1)
Supersymmetry breaking was characterized by

$$\frac{1}{m_P^4}|W|^2=|\delta |^2,\frac{1}{m_P^2}K_{i\overline{ȷ}}F^i\overline{F}^{\overline{ȷ}}=\alpha |\delta |^2e^{K/m_P^2},\alpha 𝒪(1).$$

According to expectations, it was found that (3.1) together with a reasonable supersymmetry breaking scale $`|\delta |1`$ TeV requires

$$D_X|\delta |^2|\xi |.$$

We found that in the stable vacuum only fields with the minimum charge $`\mathrm{min}\{q_i\}`$ can get vevs. One combination of fields from this set gets eaten by the $`U(1)_X`$ multiplet while the remainder are massless after supersymmetry breaking! For canonical Kähler potential

$$D_X=\underset{i}{}q_i^X|v_i|^2+\xi ,q_i^X1|v^i|\sqrt{|\xi |}.$$

Research in progress with MKG finds that these order of magnitude relations hold in cases more complicated than those studied in our earlier work. This is also in agreement with work of Barreiro et al. .

Based on $`|v^i|\sqrt{|\xi |}`$, the $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$ may be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_X=\sqrt{|\xi |}.$$

For the class of models studied in  it was found that for the 168 of 175 cases where $`\xi 0`$,

$$\frac{g_H}{8.00}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_X}{m_P}\frac{g_H}{4.63}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_H}{m_P}.$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H0.216\times g_Hm_P`$ is the approximate string scale obtained by Kaplunovsky . With $`g_H1`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X0.1\times m_P`$ is a generic prediction. The result of this is that nonrenormalizable operators should contribute significantly to the (effective) Yukawa couplings of the lighter quarks, since they are only down by $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_X/m_P)^n10^n,n>0`$. Operators with $`1n4`$ would typically be present.111It is worth noting, however, that along certain flat directions in explicit string constructions, effective mass operators for light fields are forbidden by selection rules at all nonrenormalizable orders of the superpotential, as has been emphasized recently in . Given $`\lambda _{u,d}/\lambda _t10^5`$ after running to the high scale, it is difficult to believe that nonrenomalizable operators would not play a role, generically speaking. This serves as an example of how stabilization of the D-moduli is a crucial ingredient in predicting low-energy physics.

## 4 Effective scalar potential

This is a modification of the linear multiplet ($`L`$) toy model considered in earlier work with MKG . The desire is to lift vacuum degeneracy by coupling D-moduli to matter condensates of the hidden sector condensing group $`G_C`$. Such couplings are expected222I thank Emilian Dudas for pointing this out to us. from the mixed trace anomaly matching condition $`\text{tr}T^aT^aQ_X0,`$ where $`T^a`$ is a generator of $`G_C`$. We have

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(L)+G(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{A},\overline{B},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}),k(L)=\mathrm{ln}L+g(L),`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|A_i|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|B_i|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_i|^2.`$
The chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ are supposed to be the X-Higgses. We denote the scalar components $`\varphi _i`$ and the corresponding vevs $`v_i=\varphi _i`$. The chiral superfields $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ are supposed to be charged under an unbroken factor of the low energy gauge group, such as $`SU(3)_c`$, so that they are forbidden from acquiring vevs.

I add a term $`\stackrel{˘}{W}`$ to the superpotential so that it now takes the form

$`W(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi })`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{W}(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi })+\stackrel{˘}{W}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi }),`$
$`\widehat{W}(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\lambda _{ijk}A_iB_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k,\stackrel{˘}{W}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi })={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}c_\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha .`$ (4.1)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$ are hidden sector matter condensate superfields. The functional $`c_\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is left unspecified at this point. We implement dynamical supersymmetry breaking through a Veneziano-Yankielowicz-Taylor effective Lagrangian , following Binétruy, Gaillard and Wu (BGW) :

$$_{\mathrm{VYT}}=\frac{E}{8R}U\left[b^{}\mathrm{ln}(e^{K/2}U)+\underset{\alpha }{}b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$

The chiral superfield $`U`$ corresponds to the condensing gaugino bilinear and the coefficients $`b^{}`$ and $`b^\alpha `$ are determined by anomaly matching. We have no compactification moduli appearing, no threshold corrections, and the only GS term is the one required to cancel the $`U(1)_X`$ anomaly. Following the BGW formulation one obtains for the scalar potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{1+f(\mathrm{})}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}D_aD_a+(\mathrm{}g^{}(\mathrm{})2)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}u}{4}}e^{K/2}W\right|^2`$
$`+\left|e^{K/2}(W_I+WG_I){\displaystyle \frac{b^{}u}{4}}G_I\right|^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{}g^{}(\mathrm{})}{16\mathrm{}^2}}\right)\left[(1+2\mathrm{}b^{})|u|^2\mathrm{}e^{K/2}(W\overline{u}+\overline{W}u)\right].`$
Here, $`\mathrm{}=L|,u=U|`$ and the functional $`f(\mathrm{})`$ is closely related to the nonperturbative correction $`g(\mathrm{})`$ to the dilaton Kähler potential. Nevermind all the details in $`V`$; the point is that in principle we can find the stable vacua. What remains is purely a technical challenge.

We restrict our attention to the case where $`D_X`$ is the only nonvanishing D-term, and $`A_i=B_i=0`$. In this case $`V`$ is, after straightforward manipulations, given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_H^2D_X^2+\widehat{V},`$
$`\widehat{V}`$ $`=`$ $`e^K\sigma ^2\left[b_c^2(v^22+\mathrm{}g^{})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{}g^{}}{2\mathrm{}^2}}\right)(2+3\mathrm{}b^{}+\mathrm{}b_c)\right],`$ (4.2)
where all quantities from here on out are taken at their vevs and

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|v_i|^2\right]^{1/2},g_H^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{1+f(\mathrm{})}},`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(\mathrm{})+v^2,b_c=b^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b^\alpha ,`$
$`D_X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i|v_i|^2+\xi ,\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{4}}e^{K/2}|u|,`$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_cg_H^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{b_c}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{4c_\alpha (v)}{b^\alpha }}\right|^{b^\alpha /b_c}.`$
Note that $`\sigma `$ is essentially a reparameterization of the gaugino condensate; i.e., it is the order parameter for supersymmetry breaking. From these expressions it is not hard to work out $`V_i=V/v_i`$:

$$V_i=\overline{v}_i\left[𝒜q_i+\right]+\mu _i\widehat{V},$$
(4.3)
where

$$𝒜g_H^2D_X,b_c^2\sigma ^2e^K+\widehat{V},\mu _i\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b^\alpha }{b_c}\frac{}{v_i}\mathrm{ln}c_\alpha (v).$$
(4.4)
Note that the term $`\mu _i\widehat{V}`$ in (4.3) was not present in our previous work. Then for the nonvanishing vevs we had only 1 constraint: $`𝒜q_i+=0`$ for the minimum charge $`q_i=q`$. However we now have the term $`\mu _i\widehat{V}`$ due to the coupling $`\stackrel{˘}{W}(\varphi ,\pi )`$ and consequently $`n`$ constraints on the $`n`$ fields getting vevs. Thus we expect that (4.3) provides the necessary constraints to lift the D-moduli flat directions, barring flavor symmetries which might lead to redundant equations. In addition to the vanishing of (4.3), we also impose $`V=0`$. Analysis of these two conditions, keeping in mind $`\sigma ^2|\xi |`$, leads to the results:

$`|v_i|`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }_X=\sqrt{|\xi |}q_i=q,\hfill \\ \sigma q_iq;\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.7)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{q_i\}.`$ (4.8)
Thus we get a considerable vacuum selection: only fields with $`q_i=q`$ can get large vevs; the remainder get vevs of order the supersymmetry breaking scale. In many cases this may be sufficient to rule out flat directions333More precisely, directions which were flat in the absence of supersymmetry breaking. which were assumed for phenomenological reasons. The pleasing feature of this result is that it does not require a detailed knowledge of the form of $`\stackrel{˘}{W}(\varphi ,\pi )`$.

Note that we have only considered the case with X-Higgses charged solely under $`U(1)_X`$. The analogous vacuum selection which occurs for the more general case of X-Higgses charged under several factors of the gauge group will be considered elsewhere .

Notice that all of the quantities in (4.3) are real except $`\overline{v}_i`$ and $`\mu _i`$. From (4.3) we see that the phase of $`v_i`$ will be related to the phase of $`\mu _i`$. More precisely,

$$\mathrm{arg}v_i=\mathrm{arg}\mu _i\text{mod}\pi .$$

We next suppose in (4.1)

$$c_\alpha (v)=\underset{A}{}c_{\alpha A}(v),c_{\alpha A}(v)=\lambda _{\alpha A}\underset{i}{}(v_i)^{p_{iA}^\alpha }.$$
(4.9)
Then it is easy to check that (4.4) yields

$$v_i\mu _i=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b^\alpha }{b_c}\frac{\underset{A}{}p_{iA}^\alpha c_{\alpha A}(v)}{_Ac_{\alpha A}(v)}.$$

Consequently we can rewrite the minimization constraint which follows from (4.3) as

$$0=|v_i|^2\left[𝒜q_i+\right]+\widehat{V}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b^\alpha }{b_c}\frac{\underset{A}{}p_{iA}^\alpha c_{\alpha A}(v)}{_Ac_{\alpha A}(v)}.$$
(4.10)
In the case where the sum in (4.9) has only a single term, the $`c_{\alpha A}(v)`$ cancel in (4.10) and no phase constraints exist. Thus, a non-monomial polynomial assumption for $`c_\alpha (v)`$ is required for phase stabilization.

## 5 A simple example

As an example, we review the simple case considered previously in , the case of only two fields $`\varphi ^1,\varphi ^2`$ of charges $`q_1=q_2q`$ and a single matter condensate field $`\pi `$ with superpotential coupling

$$\stackrel{˘}{W}(\varphi ,\pi )=c(\varphi )\pi ,c(\varphi )=\lambda _1\varphi _1+\lambda _2\varphi _2.$$

We define

$$v_1=e^{i\phi _1}v\mathrm{cos}\eta ,v_2=e^{i\phi _2}v\mathrm{sin}\eta .$$

$`\phi _1\phi _2`$ is the phase we would like to stabilize and $`\eta `$ is the mixing angle to the mass eigenstate basis which we would also like to stabilize. These are the D-moduli. The scalar modes corresponding to $`v`$ and $`\phi _1+\phi _2`$ are eaten by the $`U(1)_X`$ vector multiplet.

It is not hard to check that (4.3) gives

$$0=b_c(\lambda _1|v_1|^2+\lambda _2\overline{v}_1v_2)(q𝒜)+b^\alpha \lambda _1\widehat{V},$$

and a similar equation with $`12`$, and then 2 conjugate equations. Manipulations on these four equations lead simply to

$$\frac{v_1\overline{v}_2}{\overline{v}_1v_2}=\frac{\overline{\lambda }_1\lambda _2}{\lambda _1\overline{\lambda }_2}\phi _1\phi _2=\mathrm{arg}(\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1})\text{mod}\pi .$$

It is also straightforward to check

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\eta =\frac{b^\alpha \widehat{V}(|\lambda _1|^2|\lambda _2|^2)+b_cv^2|\lambda _1|^2(q𝒜)}{2b_cv^2|\lambda _2|^2(q𝒜)}.$$

Thus the D-moduli are stabilized and the phase and mixing are determined.

## 6 A less simple example

We have fields $`S,X^i,Y^i`$ which are X-Higgses evaluated at their vevs. We assume charges $`Q_X(S)=q_S`$, $`Q_X(X^i)=q_X`$, $`Q_X(Y^i)=q_Y`$, ($`i=1,2,3`$) satisfying $`q_S=\mathrm{min}(q_S,q_X,q_Y)=2q_X=2q_Y`$. It is convenient to define $`w^\alpha (X,Y)=X^jY^k+X^kY^j`$ where $`\alpha jk\alpha `$ everywhere here and below. We assume matter condensates $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha (\alpha =1,2,3)`$ in the hidden sector and we impose string-inspired discrete symmetries on the couplings such that

$$\stackrel{˘}{W}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}c_\alpha (S,X,Y)\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ,c_\alpha (S,X,Y)=\lambda Sw^\alpha (X,Y).$$

We examine generic points in moduli space, for which none of the fields $`S,X^i,Y^i`$ vanish and $`𝒜q_S+0`$, $`𝒜q_X+0`$, $`𝒜q_Y+0`$. Applying the conditions of minimization and cancellation of the cosmological constant, we have

$$|S|^2=\frac{(b^{}b_c)\widehat{V}}{b_c(𝒜q_S+)}$$

and the constraints (together with conjugates)

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`b_c(𝒜q_X+)w^jw^k|X^\alpha |^2+b^\alpha \widehat{V}(w^jX^\alpha Y^j+w^kX^\alpha Y^k),`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`b_c(𝒜q_Y+)w^jw^k|Y^\alpha |^2+b^\alpha \widehat{V}(w^jY^\alpha X^j+w^kY^\alpha X^k).`$
By judiciously combining these equations it is not difficult to show that

$$0=b_c(𝒜q_X+)|X^\alpha |^2+b_c(𝒜q_Y+)|Y^\alpha |^2+2b^\alpha \widehat{V}.$$

The 3 scale moduli $`\eta _\alpha `$ which parameterize solutions to these equations are defined by ($`\widehat{V}<0`$)

$`b_c(𝒜q_X+)|X^\alpha |^2`$ $``$ $`2b^\alpha \widehat{V}\mathrm{cos}^2\eta _\alpha ,`$
$`b_c(𝒜q_Y+)|Y^\alpha |^2`$ $``$ $`2b^\alpha \widehat{V}\mathrm{sin}^2\eta _\alpha .`$ (6.1)
Note that $`\eta _\alpha `$ correspond to 3 real scalars which remain massless even after supersymmetry breaking and the superpotential interactions $`c_\alpha `$ are included. In the model studied here $`q_S`$ is the minimum charge so according to (4.8) it is this field which mostly cancels the FI term. On the other hand, $`q_S=2q_X=2q_Y`$. Then it is easy to show that minimization subject to cancellation of the cosmological constant yields

$$𝒜q_S+=𝒪(\sigma ^4),𝒜q_X+=𝒜q_Y+=\frac{3}{2}+𝒪(\sigma ^4).$$

Noting $`=𝒪(\sigma ^2)`$ and $`\widehat{V}=𝒪(\sigma ^4)`$ we have from (6.1)

$$|X^\alpha |^2=\frac{4b^\alpha |\widehat{V}|}{3b_c}\mathrm{cos}^2\eta _\alpha +𝒪(\sigma ^4)=𝒪(\sigma ^2),$$

$$|Y^\alpha |^2=\frac{4b^\alpha |\widehat{V}|}{3b_c}\mathrm{sin}^2\eta _\alpha +𝒪(\sigma ^4)=𝒪(\sigma ^2),$$

in agreement with (4.8).

After some manipulation the constraints on complex phases are found to be

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`2|X^\alpha |^2|Y^j||Y^k|\mathrm{sin}^2\eta _\alpha +2|Y^\alpha |^2|X^j||X^k|\mathrm{cos}^2\eta _\alpha e^{i\beta _3^\alpha }`$
$`+2(2\mathrm{cos}^2\eta _\alpha )|X^\alpha ||Y^\alpha |\left(|X^j||Y^k|e^{i\beta _2^\alpha }+|Y^j||X^k|e^{i\beta _4^\alpha }\right)`$
where

$$\beta _3^\alpha =2(\varphi _Y^\alpha \varphi _X^\alpha )(\varphi _Y^j\varphi _X^j)(\varphi _Y^j\varphi _X^j),$$

$$\beta _2^\alpha =(\varphi _Y^\alpha \varphi _X^\alpha )(\varphi _Y^j\varphi _X^j),\beta _4^\alpha =(\varphi _Y^\alpha \varphi _X^\alpha )(\varphi _Y^k\varphi _X^k),$$

and $`\varphi _X^i=\mathrm{arg}X^i,\varphi _Y^i=\mathrm{arg}Y^i`$. These 3 constraints on the 3 independent phases $`(\varphi _Y^i\varphi _X^i)`$ fix these pseudoscalar D-moduli. On the other hand, we have 3 orthogonal phases $`(\varphi _Y^i+\varphi _X^i)`$ which do not get fixed, corresponding to 3 massless pseudoscalar moduli. The phase of $`S`$ also was not fixed by the minimization conditions. One linear combination of these 4 pseudoscalar moduli is eaten by the $`U(1)_X`$ vector boson when it becomes massive. Thus, we are left with 3 pseudoscalar D-moduli which remain massless after taking into account supersymmetry breaking and the superpotential interaction $`c_\alpha `$. These pair up with the 3 real massless scalars corresponding to $`\eta _\alpha `$ to give three complex massless scalars.

## 7 Conclusions

Presumably, loop effects and additional terms added to the superpotential would stabilize the remaining moduli in the last example. I have (here) only examined models with simplified X-Higgs content and couplings relative to semi-realistic string models. Already the analysis is tedious. To study the vacuum generally would be rather involved and does not make much sense to do unless the model is exceptionally promising. In semi-realistic cases the litany of nonrenormalizable superpotential interactions which might play a significant role in D-moduli stabilization poses a technical challenge for understanding the structure of the vacuum. It is impossible to perform a systematic numerical scan of the parameter space spanned by $`𝒪(50)`$ independent vevs. However, such technical challenges have been overcome in other subfields of physics, such as nuclear, atomic and lattice gauge, through semi-analytic techniques and importance sampling. For instance, a Metropolis algorithm which minimizes $`V`$, or other advanced techniques for minimization of a nonlinear function of many variables, may give us a handle on global minima. Local minima identified by such techniques may represent metastable vacua with interesting cosmological consequences. Once minima are identified numerically, one could perhaps expand about these minima analytically and check for moduli; i.e., remaining flat directions.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are extended to my collaborator in this research, Mary K. Gaillard. The author also thanks the organizers of the Superstring Phenomenology Conference for their hard work and hospitality. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.


text:
# HKR characters and higher twisted sectors

## 1. Basic definitions

This paper is meant to be expository. Its first main point is that the inertia stack construction, which has been a focus of considerable attention in recent work on orbifolds and stacks, can be iterated to define a simplicial object $`𝕀^{}(𝒳)`$, which is a convenient device for organizing the ‘higher twisted sectors’ of the cohomology of an orbifold $`𝒳`$. The twisted sectors defined by the twice-iterated intertia stack construction are crucially important in elliptic cohomology (, cf. also ), but the significance in physics of even higher iterations is not yet clear. They are nevertheless interesting invariants, and my second main point is that these things already have a deep literature in mathematics. The study of conjugacy classes of groups is absolutely fundamental to the theory of linear representations, and it seems that conjugacy classes of commuting tuples of group elements play a systematically analogous role in the theory of actions on manifolds.

This section recalls some standard facts from the ‘classical’ theory of orbifolds. The second section is concerned with the semisimplicial constructions mentioned above, and the third is a quick account of the higher character theory of Hopkins, Kuhn, and Ravenel.

This paper began as a talk at the ChengDu (Sichuan) satellite ICM conference on stringy orbifolds. I want to thank Alejandro Ádem and Yongbin Ruan on one hand, and Arkady Vaintrob and the referee on the other, for their interest and helpful comments. I owe Ian Leary a special acknowledgement, for contributing an important idea at a crucial point (§2.3). This paper grew out of many conversations with Matthew Ando; in a better world he would be its coauthor.

1.0 I will work in a convenient ad hoc category of orbispaces. For my purposes, an orbispace is a (topological) category $`𝒳:=[X/G]`$ (with the points of a topological space $`X`$ as objects), defined by an action of a compact Lie group $`G`$ on $`X`$, subject to the restriction that the isotropy group $`G_x`$ of any point $`xX`$ be finite. Morphisms of orbispaces are to be equivalence classes, under invertible natural transformations, of (continuous) functors between categories. This class is rich enough to contain some interesting examples:

Ex 1 If $``$ is a reduced $`d`$-dimensional orbifold, then its principal orthogonal frame ‘bundle’ $`𝕆(M)`$ is a smooth manifold upon which the orthogonal group $`𝕆(d)`$ acts with finite isotropy. By a fundamental lemma \[10 §1 (example)\] of Kawasaki, the category (or groupoid) $`[𝕆(M)/𝕆(d)]`$ is equivalent to the category defined by the original orbifold $``$.

Ex 2 If $`G`$ is a finite group, then the category $`[/G]`$ with one object, and the set $`G`$ of morphisms, is an interesting unreduced orbifold.

Remarks: Useful topological constructions take us out of the category of smooth objects, so it is convenient to work with a class slightly larger than the usual orbifolds. In general, I will use the mathcal typeface for an orbispace, and the usual mathematical typeface for its underlying space of objects; thus $`𝒳:=[X/G]`$ has objects $`X`$ and underlying quotient space $`X/G`$. However, there will be exceptions:

1.1 If $`G`$ is a group, and $`X(G\mathrm{spaces})`$, then

$$I(X):=\{(g,x)G\times X|gx=x\}$$

is itself a $`G`$-space, with action defined by

$$h(g,x)=(hgh^1,hx).$$

$`I`$ is thus a functor from the category of $`G`$-spaces to itself. The isotropy group of $`(g,x)I(X)`$ is

$$\{hG|h(g,x)=(hgh^1,hx)=(g,x)\};$$

being a subset of $`G_x`$, it is finite if the latter is. It follows that if $`𝒳=[X/G]`$ is an orbispace, in the sense above, then

$$𝕀(𝒳):=[I(X)/G]$$

is again such an orbispace; following the terminology of algebraic geometers, it is now called the inertia stack of $`𝒳`$. \[It is also the fixed-point orbispace  of the circle group, acting on the free loops in $`𝒳`$.\] The description above makes it clear that $`𝕀`$ is an endofunctor of the category of orbispaces.

1.2 These constructions define some useful invariants. I will call the Borel cohomology

$$H^{}(𝒳,):=H_G^{}(X,):=H^{}(EG\times _GX,)$$

(in this paper all coefficients will be vector spaces over $``$) the ordinary cohomology of the orbispace $`𝒳`$: its Leray spectral sequence has as $`E_2`$-term, the cohomology

$$H^{}(X/G,^{}(G_x,))$$

of the quotient with coefficients in a sheaf whose stalk at $`x`$ is the group cohomology of $`G_x`$. Since these groups are by hypothesis finite, this sheaf is concentrated in degree zero, and the spectral sequence degenerates to an isomorphism

$$H^{}(𝒳,)H^{}(X/G,)=H^0(G,H^{}(X,))$$

with the cohomology of the quotient space. This is interesting enough, but it is not very subtle.

A more powerful invariant is defined by the equivariant $`K`$-theory

$$K^{}(𝒳):=K_G^{}(X)$$

of the orbispace.

1.3 Theorem: There is a natural multiplicative transformation

$$K^{}(𝒳)=K_G(X)^{}H_G^{}(I(X),)=H^{}(𝕀(𝒳),)$$

which becomes an isomorphism after tensoring with $``$ on the left.

Remarks: This is proved in ; nowadays this (rational) invariant is usually called the Adem-Ruan, or classical, orbifold cohomology. It is to be distinguished from the Chen-Ruan  orbifold cohomology, which has a different multiplicative structure. \[I will ignore some deep questions about the gradings of these theories, since I have nothing to say about them.\] I should note that the existence of some such generalized Chern character was also known to Baum and Brylinski .

The cohomology groups on the right have a natural decomposition \[2 §5.1\] as

$$_{g\widehat{G}}H_{C(g)}^{}(X^g,)$$

where $`\widehat{G}`$ denotes the set of conjugacy classes in $`G`$, $`X^g`$ is the set of $`g`$-fixed points in $`X`$, and $`C(g)`$ is the centralizer of $`g`$ in $`G`$. \[More precisely: for any choice of $`g`$ in the appropriate conjugacy class, the cohomology group in question is well-defined under conjugation by elements of $`G`$.\]

The contributions to this sum, indexed by conjugacy classes other than the identity are now called the twisted sectors of the cohomology.

## 2. Higher inertia stacks

2.1 Definition: If $`𝒳=[X/G]`$ as above, let

$$𝕀^n(𝒳)=[I^n(X)/G];$$

note that

$$I^n(X)=\{(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n;x)G^n\times X|g_iG_x,i,k[g_i,g_k]=1\}.$$

Proof: See the argument in §1.1, and induct.

For example: If $`X=`$ is a single point,

$$𝕀^n[/G]=\mathrm{Hom}(^n,G)/G$$

is the set of conjugacy classes of commuting $`n`$-tuples of elements in $`G`$. When $`n=1`$, this is just the classical set $`\widehat{G}`$ of conjugacy classes in $`G`$.

The construction of the inertia stack is essentially local, so more generally

$$𝕀^n[X/G]=[(\underset{xX}{}I^n[\{x\}/G_x])/G].$$

2.2 Recall now that a simplicial object in a category $`𝒞`$ can be defined as a functor $`C`$ from the category of finite ordered sets to $`𝒞`$. We can think of such a functor as defined by its sets $`C[n]`$ of $`n`$-simplices, together with various face and degeneracy maps between them.

A simplicial object in the category of spaces (for example, a simplicial set) has a geometric realization

$$|C|=\underset{n0}{}(C[n]\times \mathrm{\Delta }^n)/(\mathrm{face}\&\mathrm{degeneracy}\mathrm{relations}).$$

For example: a category $`𝒞`$ can be regarded, following Grothendieck and Segal , as a simplicial set with objects as zero-simplices, morphisms as one-simplices, and chains of $`n`$ composable morphisms as its $`n`$-simplices. The face maps are defined by composing maps, and degeneracies are defined by inserting identities. The geometric realization of this simplicial set is sometimes called the classifying space for the category; in particular,

$$|[/G]|=BG$$

is the classifying space for the (discrete) group $`G`$, and more generally the geometric realization

$$|[X/G]|=EG\times _GX$$

of (the category defined by) a transformation group is homotopy equivalent to its Borel construction. The map

$$|[X/G]|=EG\times _GX\times _GX=X/G$$

which collapses (the free contractible $`G`$-space) $`EG`$ to a point is sometimes called the ‘homotopy-to-geometric’ quotient; the arguments of §1.2 above show that for our class of orbispaces, this map induces an isomorphism on rational cohomology.

2.3 Conjugation by a group element defines a functor from the category $`[/G]`$ to itself; thus $`G`$ acts on $`|[/G]|=BG`$. This endofunctor is naturally equivalent to the identity: natural transformations of functors become (un-base pointed) homotopies under geometric realization, but the resulting action of $`G`$ on $`BG`$ need not be trivial. This construction generalizes to an action of $`G`$ on the category $`[X/G]`$ and its realization $`|[X/G]|`$: thus the homotopy quotient of a $`G`$-action is again a (not necessarily trivial!) $`G`$-space. I will write $`X//G`$ for the quotient of the homotopy quotient by $`G`$: the homotopy-to-geometric quotient map can thus be factored, as

$$|[X/G]||[X/G]|/G:=X//GX/G.$$

I owe thanks to Ian Leary for help in understanding this intermediate quotient. He notes that if $`G\times G`$ acts on $`G`$ by $`(g,h)kgkh^1`$ then the usual construction for $`EG`$ (as a simplicial set with $`n`$-simplices $`G^{n+1}`$) becomes a space with $`G\times G`$-action; as such it is a classifying space for the family consisting of subgroups of $`G\times G`$ which are conjugate to a subgroup of the diagonal. It follows that

$$EG/(G\times G)=BG/G=//G,$$

and that $`\pi _1(//G)H_1(G,)`$ is the abelianization of $`G`$; the quotient $`|[/G]|//G`$ is a homotopy equivalence if and only if $`G`$ is abelian.

2.4 The simplicial set $`n^n`$ defining $`[/]`$ is in fact a simplicial object in the category of abelian groups: group composition is a homomorphism when the group is abelian. It follows that the covariant functor

$$n(\stackrel{ˇ}{})^n:=\mathrm{Hom}(^n,)$$

is, in a natural sense, a cosimplicial abelian group.

Definition: The functor

$$n\mathrm{Hom}((\stackrel{ˇ}{})^n,G)/G$$

defines the simplicial set $`𝕀^{}[/G]`$ of conjugacy classes of commuting tuples of elements $`G`$, cf. \[11 §4\]; more generally,

$$𝕀^{}[X/G]:=[(\underset{xX}{}𝕀^{}[\{x\}/G_x])/G]$$

is the simplicial inertia stack of $`𝒳`$.

We can use this construction to elaborate Adem and Ruan’s construction for orbifold cohomology:

$$nH^{}(𝕀^n(𝒳),)$$

is a cosimplicial object in the category of graded-commutative algebras, which keeps simultaneous track of the higher inertia stacks of $`𝒳`$.

2.5 Theorem: There is a natural transformation

$$|𝕀^{}[X/G]|X//G$$

which is an equivalence if $`G`$ is abelian.

The proof is by construction; it is easiest to begin in the special case when $`X`$ is a point. Then $`𝕀^{}[/G]`$ is a simplicial set with one zero-simplex; a one-simplex is a conjugacy class, a two-simplex is a conjugacy class of commuting pairs, etc. If $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_n`$ is an $`n`$-simplex, then its faces are the maps

$$g_1,\mathrm{},g_ng_1,\mathrm{},g_{i1}g_i,\mathrm{},g_n$$

and its degeneracies are the maps which insert identity elements. These are exactly the maps defining the classifying space of $`G`$; but we are working now not with group elements, but conjugacy classes.

The promised map is then the quotient of the obvious equivariant inclusion

$$\mathrm{Hom}((\stackrel{ˇ}{})^{},G)BG$$

by $`G`$. Because $`𝕀^{}`$ is a local construction, this definition now extends directly to $`[X/G]`$; alternately, we can display the simplicial object $`𝕀^{}[X/G]`$ (with most of its maps supressed) as

$$\mathrm{}[(X^gX^h)/C(g,h)][X^g/C(g)][X/G],$$

where the $`n`$th coproduct is indexed by conjugacy classes of commuting $`n`$-tuples, and $`C(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)`$ is the centralizer of the commuting tuple.

Remarks: It is tempting to think of this construction as a kind of blowup or resolution of the Borel construction; it seems analogous in some ways to Segal’s  reconstruction of a manifold, up to homotopy, from the category defined by the sets of an atlas with inclusions as morphisms. In our case, the charts are reminiscent of the complete sets of commuting observable of classical quantum mechanics. Kuhn \[11 §7\] remarks that $`|𝕀^{}[/G]|`$ is in fact a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space \[though not, in general, a special $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space\] in the sense of Segal.

I am reluctant to admit that I don’t know how a single example works out. Symmetric groups and finite subgroups of $`\mathrm{Sl}_2()`$ are of course very interesting candidates.

This construction may also be related to the theory of motivic integration: if $`X`$ is an algebraic variety, say over the complexes, the $`n`$-simplices of $`𝕀^{}`$ are roughly deformations of the scheme over fields of transcendence degree $`n`$. To make this precise would require a better understanding of the degree-shifting numbers \[4; 12 §8; 14 §2\], which do not appear in the formalism above.

When $`n=1`$, these are locally constant $``$-valued functions $`w`$ on the fixed-point set $`X^g`$, which are slightly more sophisticated than the function which assigns to $`g`$, the number

$$\mathrm{log}det(g|\nu ),$$

where $`g|\nu `$ represents the action of $`g`$ on the normal bundle of $`X^g`$ in $`X`$. \[I’m assuming here that the orbifolds in question have complex structures on their tangent spaces.\] In general, the normal bundle to the fixed point set of a commuting $`n`$-tuple $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_n`$ has a flag decomposition as a sum

$$X^{g_1}\mathrm{}X^{g_{i1}}X^{g_1}\mathrm{}X^{g_i}$$

of normal bundles, and it seems reasonable to expect that the degree-shifting number of this $`n`$-tuple will be the sum of the degree-shifting numbers of these subbundles.

## 3. HKR characters

3.0 A homomorphism from a free abelian group to a finite group $`G`$ factors through some finite abelian quotient group, so

$$\mathrm{Hom}(^n,G)/G=\mathrm{Hom}(\widehat{}^n,G)/G=\underset{p}{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{Hom}(_p^n,G)/G$$

decomposes as the restricted product (with only finitely many nontrivial entries) of $`p`$-local contributions, indexed by primes $`p`$. This uses the fact that

$$\widehat{}=\underset{p}{}_p,$$

where $`_p=lim/p^n`$ the $`p`$-adic integers.

Since products of simplicial sets (and spaces) are defined coordinate-wise, $`𝕀^{}[X/G]`$ can be expressed as a restricted infinite fiber product (over $`[X/G]`$) of $`p`$-local objects $`𝕀_p^{}[X/G]`$ built like $`𝕀`$ but with $`_p`$ replacing $``$. I will ignore questions about infinite restricted products by assuming that $`[X/G]`$ is ‘ramified’ at a finite set of primes (dividing $`\mathrm{\#}G`$, say, when the group is finite); the cohomology of the simplicial inertia stack can then be calculated from the local contributions, one prime at a time.

3.1 In this context, Hopkins, Kuhn, and Ravenel  provide, for each $`n1`$, an interpretation of $`H^{}(𝕀_p^n[X/G],)`$ which reduces when $`n=1`$ to the theorem of Adem and Ruan in §1.3 above. To state these results, however, requires a short digression about cobordism.

Very briefly, then: cobordism is to homology as smooth manifolds are to simplices. In this theory, a $`d`$-dimensional chain is not some sum of nasty singular simplices, but a map, say $`f:MX`$, of a nice smooth $`d`$-manifold $`M`$ to the space $`X`$ of interest. Instead of boundaries of simplices, we take boundaries of manifolds; thus $`f:MX`$ is the boundary of $`f`$, which is said to be closed if $`M=0`$. Similarly, $`f=F`$ if $`F:WM`$ such that $`W=M`$ and $`F|_W=f`$. The analog of the homology of $`X`$ is the quotient of the abelian semigroup of closed objects (cycles) by the subsemigroup of boundaries; this is well-defined, since of course $`=0`$. It is more usual to say that these groups are defined by classes of maps of smooth manifolds to $`X`$ under the equivalence relation defined by cobordism: which is to say that two maps of closed manifolds to $`X`$ are related if they are the boundary values of maps defined on a smooth manifold of one higher dimension.

These groups are obviously homotopy-invariant (use the cobordism defined by a cylinder) and covariant: a map $`\varphi :XY`$ pushes the class $`[f]`$ to the class $`[\varphi f]`$. Atiyah’s convention is to call this (graded-abelian-group-valued, homological) functor the bordism of $`X`$; there is a corresponding cohomological theory (contravariant under pullback or fiber product, using Thom’s theory of transversality), now usually called the cobordism of $`X`$. One advantage of the latter theory is a nice multiplicative structure, defined by the obvious Cartesian product, without need for any Eilenberg-Zilber foolishness.

Cobordism theory has very natural connections with the theory of group actions on manifolds: the Borel construction

$$EG\times _GMEG\times _G=BG$$

associated to a $`G`$-manifold $`M`$ is a kind of relative manifold, which defines a $`(d)`$-dimensional class in the cobordism of $`BG`$. This is the beginnings of a rich subject; a more sophisticated approach can be found in . HKR theory is a natural generalization of the classical theory of characters of representations of groups on vector spaces to a theory of characters for actions on manifolds.

The advantages of cobordism (geometric naturality, etc.) are recognized in the Russian literature, where it is usually called ‘intrinsic homology’. Its disadvantages include the fact that there are many cobordism theories, depending on one’s favorite choice of manifold: oriented, spin, symplectic, framed …each with its own special features. A more substantial issue is that the ground ring of such a theory (ie, the value of the cohomology theory on a point) tends to be quite large. It is arguably the cobordism theory of stably almost complex manifolds (with a complex structure on the sum of the tangent bundle with some trivial bundle) which is technically most accessible; that theory, called complex cobordism, has a polynomial ground ring

$$MU^{}:=MU^{}(\mathrm{pt})MU^{}[x_i|i1]$$

with one generators of each even degree. \[Frank Adams’s convention is to write $`ML^{}`$ for the cobordism theory of manifolds with structure group reduced to the Lie group $`L`$, eg $`U`$ for weakly almost complex manifolds\]. Over the rationals,

$$MU^{}(\mathrm{pt})=[P_n|n1]$$

is the polynomial ring generated by the complex projective spaces; but these classes do not generate over the integers.

More generally, an old argument of Dold shows that there is a natural multiplicative transformation

$$MU^{}(X)H^{}(X,MU^{})$$

which factors through an isomorphism of the rationalization of the left-hand side. Over the rationals, then, there is in some sense little difference between cobordism and ordinary cohomology. \[In some sense the chromatic filtration and the Atiyah-Swan filtration of ordinary cohomology by size of supporting elementary abelian subgroups are aspects of some common underlying phenomenon; see  for recent work on the latter topic.\] The advantage of cobordism lies in its naturality: its cycles are geometric objects, which carry characteristic class data (for example, of the sort familiar to physicists in the theory of ‘gravitational descendents’).

3.2 However, These cobordism theories are often too big to be technically convenient - for example, their ground rings are not Noetherian - so topologists have developed an arsenal of techniques to make them more useful. One useful ruse is to work $`p`$-locally, at some fixed prime. It turns out that to understand $`MU`$ in general, it suffices to understand a hierarchy of cohomology theories with ground rings

$$\widehat{E}_n^{}=_p[v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}]((v_n^1))$$

indexed by integers $`n1`$, defined as truncations (in a suitable sense) of the $`p`$-completion of $`MU`$; here $`v_k`$ can be taken to be the cobordism class of a degree $`p`$ hypersurface in $`P(p^k)`$, and $`A((x))`$ is the formal Laurent series extension of a ring $`A`$ which allows only finitely many negative powers of $`x`$. When $`n=1`$, this theory is a version of $`p`$-adically completed complex $`K`$-theory.

The study of these theories tends to involve some quite subtle number theory, and one of the main technical advances in  is the construction of a certain faithfully flat ring extension $`\widehat{E}_n\widehat{D}_n`$, which is most naturally interpreted as a kind of generalized Galois extension, with Galois group $`\mathrm{Gl}_n(_p)`$.

Theorem: There is a natural multiplicative transformation

$$\widehat{E}_n^{}(|[X/G]|)H^{}(𝕀_p^n[X/G],\widehat{D}_n)^{\mathrm{Gl}_n(\widehat{}_p)\mathrm{inv}}$$

which factors through an isomorphism with the rationalization of the group on the left.

The term on the right is the subring of invariants under the action of the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gl}_n(_p)`$, but that action requires some clarification. The point is that this group acts on the coefficient ring $`\widehat{D}_n`$, but it also acts on $`𝕀_p^n`$, through its construction in terms of conjugacy classes of homomorphisms from $`_p^n`$ to $`G`$. The relevant action on the right is the (diagonal) product of these two natural actions. These groups can be expressed in terms of fixedpoint sets by formulae generalizing \[2 §5.1\].

3.3 This indeed restricts when $`n=1`$ to the theorem of §1.3, plus (a $`p`$-adic version of) a theorem of Artin: there is a natural multiplicative transformation

$$R(G)\mathrm{Fns}(\widehat{G},_{cyc})^{\mathrm{Gal}(_{cyc}/)\mathrm{inv}}$$

which factors through an isomorphism with the rationalization of the left-hand side; where $`_{cyc}`$ is the cyclotomic closure of the rationals (defined by adjoining all roots of unity).

This natural transformation is nothing but the map which assigns to a representation, its character; this version of the theorem encompasses the fact, also due to Artin, that the values of such characters lie in $`_{cyc}`$. The Galois group

$$\mathrm{Gal}(_{cyc}/)\widehat{}^\times $$

of this extension is the multiplicative group of profinite integers, whose $`p`$-local component is the $`p`$-adic unit group

$$_p^\times =\mathrm{Gl}_1(_p).$$

The statement above conceals an action of $`\widehat{}^\times `$ on the conjugacy classes, in which $`k`$ sends the class of $`g`$ to the class of $`g^k`$ (away from the order of $`g`$).

3.4 Here are a few closing remarks:

i) The rings $`\widehat{E}_n`$ classify (in a suitable sense) one-dimensional formal groups of height $`n`$ over $`p`$-adic integer rings, and the rings $`\widehat{D}_n`$ classify such groups, together with a level structure: this is a preferred basis for the torsion subgroup.

In the theory of algebraic stacks , the cyclotomic Galois action plays a distinguished role; the level structure is just a choice of isomorphism of $`_p/_p`$ with the group of $`p`$-power roots of unity. In the case of a stack defined over $``$, it is natural to think of the center of $`\mathrm{Gl}_n(\widehat{Z}_p)`$ as acting through the determinant

$$det:\mathrm{Gl}_n(_p)_p^\times $$

on the roots of unity.

ii) The $`\widehat{E}_n`$’s and the $`\widehat{D}_n`$’s do not fit together naturally as a (co)simplicial ring. In particular, the natural action of the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ on $`𝕀^n`$ gets lost in the action of $`\mathrm{Gl}_n`$ on $`\widehat{D}_n`$.

This suggests that there is lots of room in the transition between chromatic levels for all sorts of gerbish orbifold twisting, and other kinds of noncommutative monkey business …