text:
# On Cosmological Evolution with the Λ-Term and Any Linear Equation of State

## 1 Introduction

Recent data on the brightness of distant SN Ia (; see  and the references therein), as well as evidence coming from the cosmic age, large scale structure, and cosmic microwave background anisotropy combined with the cluster dynamics, indicate, most probably, that the observed cosmological expansion is accelerating. Perhaps the most natural, although definitely not unique, reason for this acceleration is the presence of a cosmic vacuum of nonzero energy and pressure; because of that, investigation of various cosmological models including a positive cosmological constant becomes interesting, once again. In this paper we study one such model involving matter with an arbitrary (linear) equation of state; in particular, an interplay between vacuum and quintessence  is studied.

We consider a Friedmann cosmology described by the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric ,

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right),$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the element of solid angle and $`k=1,0`$, or $`1`$, according to whether the universe is open, flat, or closed (we use the units with $`G=c=1`$). As usual, the energy-momentum tensor, consistent with homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, is the one corresponding to a perfect fluid, described by the energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$. The latter are assumed to satisfy the linear equation of state

$$p=w\rho ,w=\mathrm{const}>1.$$
(2)
The range of values of $`w`$ is chosen on the grounds that $`w=1`$ corresponds to the vacuum equation of state, and vacuum contributions are already included in our model with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. Moreover, no physical reasons seem to be known so far to justify the values of $`w`$ which are more negative that the vacuum one, $`w=1`$, and the cosmological evolution in this range is very different. On the other hadn, it is not easy to imagine the kind of physics that would lead to matter with the pressure larger than its density, but the following analysis does not depend at all on whether $`w`$ is larger or smaller than one, so we do not limit this parameter from above. Condition (2) allows for quintessence , that is, for $`1<w<0`$; investigation of its influence on cosmological expansion is one of the goals of this paper.

Under these assumptions, Einstein’s equations reduce to

$$3\left(\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2=8\pi \rho +\mathrm{\Lambda }3\frac{k}{a^2},\frac{d\rho }{dt}=3\frac{\rho +p}{a}\frac{da}{dt},$$
(3)
the second one expressing energy conservation. By (2), this equation is easily integrated giving the density in terms of the scale factor,

$$\rho =\frac{M}{a^{3(w+1)}},$$
(4)
where the constant $`M>0`$ characterizes the abundance of matter in the universe. A substituion of (4) in the first of equations (3) produces the equation for the scale factor $`a(t)`$ only,

$$\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi M}{3}\frac{1}{a^{3w+1}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2k;$$
(5)
we append it with the Big Bang initial condition

$$a(0)=0.$$
(6)
As seen from (4), the initial value of the density, $`\rho (0)`$, is then infinite for $`w>1/3`$, and zero for $`1<w<1/3`$; it is finite and positive for $`w=1/3`$, which value corresponds to the so called Einstein quintessence111The term ‘Einstein quintessence’ was coined recently in  on the grounds of the effective equation of state for Einstein’s cosmological solution  of 1917..

Equation (5) with the initial condition (6) constitute the problem studied below; its solution, together with formula (4), specifies completely the corresponding cosmological expansion at all times.

## 2 Large–Time Expression for the Scale Factor

### 2.1 Problem Reformulation and Parameter Range

For convenience, we rescale the variables according to

$$t=\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\tau ,a(t)=\left(\frac{8\pi M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{1/3(w+1)}y(\tau ),$$
(7)
and introduce new parameters:

$$\nu 3w+1,\nu >2;\omega \frac{3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi M}\right)^{2/3(w+1)}=3\left(8\pi M\right)^{2/(\nu +2)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{\nu /(\nu +2)}>0.$$
(8)
Denoting by a dot the derivative with respect to $`\tau `$, we rewrite (5) and (6) as

$$\dot{y}^2=y^\nu +y^2k\omega ,y(0)=0;\nu >2;k=0,\pm 1;\omega >0;$$
(9)
since we are studying the expansion, a positive square root of the right hand side of (9) is, of course, always taken for $`\dot{y}`$.

The equation and initial condition (9) are consistent for any value of parameter $`k\omega `$ if $`\nu `$ is positive, because at small times $`\dot{y}^2y^\nu >0`$. For $`\nu =0`$ at small times one gets $`\dot{y}^21k\omega `$, so $`\omega `$ is limited by unity for the closed universe ($`k=1`$). When $`2<\nu <0`$, the governing equation in the beginning of the expansion becomes $`\dot{y}^2k\omega `$, so only open and flat universe ($`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$) solutions are possible.

Moreover, we are interested only in the solutions describing an unbounded cosmological expansion, i. e., those with $`y(\tau )\mathrm{}`$ at $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. A simple mechanical analogy helps to establish parameter limits ensuring that. Namely, equation (9) describes the motion of a particle of a unit mass along the positive $`y`$ axis, starting at the origin, in the potential

$$V(y)=\left(y^\nu +y^2\right)0;$$

the total energy of the particle is $`k\omega `$. When $`2<\nu <0`$, the potential is monotonically decreasing, with the largest value $`V(0)=0`$. Hence any such motion with a non-negative total energy ($`k=1,0`$, open and flat universe) is infinite. The same monotonicity of the potential holds for $`\nu =0`$, but the largest value now is $`V(0)=1`$, which yields the already known restriction $`\omega <1`$ for any infinite motion in the case $`k=1`$ (closed universe).

Finally, for $`\nu >0`$ the potential is strictly negative and non-monotonic: at $`y=y_\nu >0`$ such that $`V^{^{}}(y_\nu )=0`$ it reaches a unique maximum $`V(y_\nu )=\omega _\nu `$ given by

$$\omega _\nu \underset{y0}{\mathrm{min}}\left(y^\nu +y^2\right)=y_\nu ^\nu +y_\nu ^2=\frac{\nu +2}{\nu }y_\nu ^2,y_\nu =\left(\frac{\nu }{2}\right)^{1/(\nu +2)}.$$
(10)
An infinite motion requires the total energy to be larger than that maximum, $`k\omega >\omega _\nu `$, which is automatically fulfilled for the open and flat universe; however, for the closed universe ($`k=1`$), the parameter $`\omega `$ proves to be limited from above, $`\omega <\omega _\nu `$. This constraint has a clear physical meaning: to overwhelm the curvature effect in the closed universe and get an unbounded expansion, one has to have enough vacuum repulsion, that is, a large enough $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. But for $`\nu >0`$ the parameter $`\omega `$ is proportional to a negative power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ \[see (8)\], hence $`\omega `$ cannot be too large.

Note that $`y_\nu +0`$ and $`\omega _\nu 1+0`$ when $`\nu +0`$, which allows us to describe the cases of positive and zero $`\nu `$ uniformly. Also, both $`y_\nu `$ and $`\omega _\nu `$ tend to unity from above when $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, hence they have at least one maximum. In fact, each of the functions, plotted in Fig.1, has one maximum exactly: $`\mathrm{max}\omega _\nu =2`$ at $`\nu =2`$ (for some reason, it is relativistic gas that has the largest ‘store of expansion’ in the closed universe), and $`\mathrm{max}y_\nu 1.149`$ at $`\nu 7.182`$. Some values of particular interest are: for $`\nu =0`$ ($`w=1/3`$, Einstein quintessence), $`y_\nu =0`$, $`\omega _\nu =1`$; for $`\nu =1`$ ($`w=0`$, pressureless ‘dust’), $`y_\nu =2^{1/3}0.794`$, $`\omega _\nu =3\times 2^{2/3}1.890`$; for $`\nu =2`$ ($`w=1/3`$, relativistic gas), $`y_\nu =1`$, $`\omega _\nu =2`$; for $`\nu =4`$ ($`w=1`$, Zeldovich’s superstiff fluid), $`y_\nu =2^{1/6}1.122`$, and again $`\omega _\nu =3\times 2^{2/3}1.890`$.

Summarizing, the range of parameters of interest is

$$k=1:\nu 0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\omega <\omega _\nu ;k=0,1:\nu >2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\omega <\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
### 2.2 Expansion Amplitude and Its Basic Properties

With parameters in the range (11), the cosmological expansion goes indefinitely \[unique solution to problem (9) grows unboundedly\], and at large times it is exponential in time, since for $`y\mathrm{max}\{1,\omega \}`$ the equation becomes $`\dot{y}y`$ \[for $`k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ the large time condition is apparently relaxed to just $`y1`$\]. Therefore

$$y(\tau )y(\tau ,\nu ,k\omega )=A_\nu (k\omega )e^\tau [1+o(1)],\tau \mathrm{},$$
(12)
and we are particularly interested in the behavior of the expansion amplitude $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ for the whole parameter range (11). For $`\nu 0`$ and $`k\omega =\omega _\nu `$ (i. e., $`k=1,\omega =\omega _\nu `$) the solution $`y(\tau )`$ reaches the (unstable) rest point $`y_\nu `$ in an infinite time, so $`A_\nu (\omega _\nu )`$ should be zero, which remains to be proved.

We derive an explicit expression for the amplitude by integrating equation (9),

$$\tau (y)\tau (y,\nu ,k\omega )=_0^y\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2k\omega }}.$$
(13)
For $`y,\tau \mathrm{}`$ the integral here diverges logarithmically, as it should. To get the desired expression for the amplitude, one needs to extract this logarithm of $`y`$, that is, to add and subtract something in the integrand allowing for a closed–form quadrature. The most natural choice seems the same integrand with $`k=0`$, in which case one writes:

$$\tau (y)=\frac{2}{\nu +2}\mathrm{ln}\left[y^{(\nu +2)/2}+\sqrt{1+y^{(\nu +2)}}\right]+_0^y\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2k\omega }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2}}\right]𝑑x=$$

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[2^{2/(\nu +2)}y\right]+_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2k\omega }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2}}\right]𝑑x+o(1),y\mathrm{}$$
(14)
\[unlike (13), the integral here converges at infinity\]. This expression can be combined with the equality (12) to write the desired fomula for the amplitude as

$$A_\nu (k\omega )=A_\nu (0)e^{\varphi _\nu (k\omega )},\varphi _\nu (k\omega )_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2k\omega }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2}}\right]𝑑x,$$
(15)
where

$$A_\nu (0)=2^{2/(\nu +2)}$$

(note that, naturally, $`\varphi _\nu (0)=0`$).

Two features of the expansion amplitude behavior can be established immediately. First, when $`k\omega =\omega \omega _\nu 0`$, the integral (15) for $`\varphi _\nu (k\omega )`$ diverges at $`x=y_\nu `$, so $`\varphi _\nu (k\omega )`$ goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$; therefore $`A_\nu (\omega _\nu )=0`$, as expected.

Next, we have, for a given $`\nu `$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}A_\nu (k\omega )}{d(k\omega )}=\frac{d\varphi _\nu (k\omega )}{d(k\omega )},$$
(16)
and the latter derivative is readily found from (15):

$$\frac{d\varphi _\nu (k\omega )}{d(k\omega )}=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{\left(x^\nu +x^2k\omega \right)^{3/2}}>0.$$
(17)
Therefore $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ is a decreasing function of $`k\omega `$ for any given relevant $`\nu `$; in particular,

$$A_\nu (\omega )>A_\nu (0)[>A_\nu (\omega ),\nu 0,\omega <\omega _\nu ].$$
(18)
That means that, as one expects intuitively, for the same parameters $`w`$, $`M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the amplitude for the open universe is larger than that for the flat universe which, in its turn, is larger than the amplitude for the closed universe if the latter exists. Generally, by figuring out the signs of the curvature and parameter $`\nu `$ and taking into account expression (8) for $`\omega `$, one can see that, given $`k=\pm 1,\nu `$, and the matter abundance $`M`$, the growth amplitude is larger for larger cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. That clearly makes physical sense: the larger the contribution of the vacuum repulsion, the stronger the expansion is.

## 3 Closed–Form Cosmological Solutions

The closed–form and, especially, elementary solutions are always most valuable; in the context of this study, they specifically shed light on how the expansion amplitude behaves.

It is not difficult to see that all the integrals involved in the general cosmological solution of the previous section prove to be elementary in the following four cases.

### 3.1 Flat Universe: $`k=0`$

For $`k=0`$ equation (13) gives the result presented in part in the previous section; here is how it looks in full:

$$\tau (y)=\frac{2}{\nu +2}\mathrm{ln}\left[y^{(\nu +2)/2}+\sqrt{1+y^{(\nu +2)}}\right],y(\tau )=\left[\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\nu +2}{2}\tau \right)\right]^{2/(\nu +2)}.$$
(19)
Thus for flat universe the amplitude of the exponential growth of the scale factor is

$$A_\nu (0)=2^{2/(\nu +2)},0<A_\nu (0)<1.$$
(20)
Note also the small time asymptotics expression,

$$y(\tau )=\left(\frac{\nu +2}{2}\tau \right)^{2/(\nu +2)}[1+o(1)],\tau +0,$$

which is valid for all the values of $`k\omega `$ and $`\nu >0`$ (the curvature and cosmological constant do not play any role in the early universe). For $`\nu =0`$, and $`\nu <0,k=1,`$ the expansion becomes linear with the time, in the beginning.

### 3.2 Relativistic Gas: $`w=1/3`$

Here $`\nu =2`$, and we have:

$$\tau (y)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2y^2k\omega +2\sqrt{y^4k\omega y^2+1}}{2k\omega },$$

$$y(\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{2k\omega }{4}\mathrm{exp}(2\tau )\frac{2+k\omega }{4}\mathrm{exp}(2\tau )+\frac{k\omega }{2}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau )k\omega \mathrm{sinh}^2\tau },$$
(21)
so that

$$A_2(k\omega )=\frac{\sqrt{2k\omega }}{2}$$
(22)
(all these results agree with the above ones for $`k=0`$). Note that $`\omega _2=2`$ \[the definition of $`\omega _\nu `$ is given in (10) \], and the expression (22) for the amplitude is well defined exactly up to $`\omega =\omega _2=2`$, for the closed universe ($`k=1`$).

### 3.3 Einstein quintessence: $`w=1/3`$

In this case we have $`\nu =0`$, and

$$\tau (y)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{y+\sqrt{1k\omega +y^2}}{\sqrt{1k\omega }},y(\tau )=\sqrt{1k\omega }\mathrm{sinh}\tau ,$$
(23)
hence

$$A_0(k\omega )=\frac{\sqrt{1k\omega }}{2},$$
(24)
again in agreement with section 3.1. Of course, as seen from (10), $`\omega _0=1`$.

### 3.4 Quintessence with $`w=2/3`$

Finally, here $`\nu =1`$, thus

$$\tau (y)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{2y+2\sqrt{y^2+yk\omega }}{2\sqrt{k\omega }+1},k=0,1;$$

$$y(\tau )=\frac{1+2\sqrt{k\omega }}{4}\mathrm{exp}(\tau )+\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{exp}(\tau )1\right]=\sqrt{k\omega }\mathrm{sinh}\tau +\mathrm{sinh}^2(\tau /2),$$
(25)
and

$$A_1(k\omega )=\frac{1+2\sqrt{k\omega }}{4},$$
(26)
Naturally, these expressions remain physically meaningful only for $`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, coinciding with the results of section 3.1 in the latter case of flat universe.

Note that all the above solutions are known (see c. f. ), although not always in exactly the same form. In the proper current theoretical context, the state equation with $`w=1/3`$ is called the equation of state for strings, while $`w=2/3`$ provides the equation of state for domain walls (e. g. ).

### 3.5 Closed–Form Solutions in Terms of Elliptic Functions

By definition, an elliptic integral is the integral of any rational function of the integration variable and the square root of a polynomial of this variable whose degree is three or four. Any elliptic integral can be reduced to a combination of elementary functions and three standarad elliptic integrals (see c. f. ).

The form of integrals (13) and (15) determining our cosmological solution and its large-time asymptotics prompts an arbitrary power change of the integration variable to try reducing them to elliptic integrals. Such an attempt turns out to be successful for four different positive values of parameter $`\nu `$. By the transformation property of section 5, four reciprocal negative values should be added to the list, making a total of eight different exact solutions in terms of elliptic functions. Since these representations are rather cumbersome and not very informative, we choose not to give them here explicitly; instead, in Table 1 below we show the corresponding values of $`\nu `$ and $`w`$, and the proper substitution making the integrals elliptic.

Table 1. Elliptic function solutions for $`\nu >0`$

$`\nu `$ $`w`$ Substitution    6 5/3 $`x=\xi ^{1/2}`$  4 1 $`x=\xi ^{1/2}`$  1 0 $`x=\xi ^1`$  2/3 -1/9 $`x=\xi ^2`$

Note that $`w=0`$ describes pressureless matter (‘dust’), and $`w=1`$ corresponds to Zeldovich’s superstiff fluid . According to (39), the reciprocal negative values of $`\nu `$ allowing for the elliptic function solutions are $`\nu =3/24/3,2/3,1/2`$, $`k=1`$.

## 4 Estimates of the Scale Factor and Expansion Amplitude

In the general case, no closed–form solution is available, so it is useful to have at least some estimates illustrating the behavior of cosmological expansion. Here we derive two groups of such estimates differing by the parameters involved in them. It is not difficult to check that all the exact elementary solutions satisfy these estimates, as they must.

### 4.1 Estimates Independent of the State Equation

Some estimates of the scale factor and the expansion amplitude follow immediately from (9). Indeed, we have

$$\dot{y}=\sqrt{y^\nu +y^2k\omega }>\sqrt{y^2k\omega }$$

for all $`y0`$ when $`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, and for $`y\sqrt{\omega }`$ when $`k=1`$. From here we obtain:

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\sqrt{y^2k\omega }\right)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},y0,k=1;y\sqrt{\omega },k=1.$$
(27)
In the case of an open universe we integrate this between zero and an arbitrary moment of time, which, due to the initial condition (9), results in

$$y+\sqrt{y^2+\omega }>\sqrt{\omega }\mathrm{exp}\tau .$$

Solving this inequality for $`y`$ provides a simple lower bound of the open universe expansion at all times:

$$y(\tau )=y(\tau ,\nu ,\omega )>\sqrt{\omega }\mathrm{sinh}\tau ,\tau 0(\mathrm{resp}.,y0),,k=1;.$$
(28)
Sending $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and comparing to (12), we find the estimate for the growth amplitude:

$$A_\nu (\omega )\sqrt{\omega }/2,k=1.$$
(29)
In the case of closed universe we integrate inequality (27) up to an arbitrary moment of time starting with \[see (13)\]

$$\tau _\omega \tau (\sqrt{\omega },\nu ,\omega )=_0^\sqrt{\omega }\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2\omega }},$$
(30)
with $`y`$ changing, respectively, from $`\sqrt{\omega }`$ to $`y(\tau )`$. Thus we arrive at

$$y+\sqrt{y^2\omega }>\sqrt{\omega }\mathrm{exp}(\tau \tau _\omega );$$

solution of this inequality yields the estimate

$$y(\tau )=y(\tau ,\nu ,\omega )>\sqrt{\omega }\mathrm{cosh}(\tau \tau _\omega ),\tau \tau _\omega (\mathrm{resp}.,y\sqrt{\omega }),k=1.$$
(31)
Again, in the limit $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ this inequality combined with (12) allows for the corresponding estimate of the expansion amplitude:

$$A_\nu (\omega )\left(\sqrt{\omega }/2\right)\mathrm{exp}(\tau _\omega ),k=1,\nu 0.$$
(32)
Note that, by (30), $`\tau _\omega \mathrm{}`$ when $`\omega \omega _\nu 0`$, hence the estimate (32) does not contradict the amplitude approaching zero at $`\omega _\nu `$. Clearly, all these estimates do not explicitly depend on $`\nu `$, except the dependence on it of $`\tau _\omega `$ in the case of a closed universe.

### 4.2 Estimates Independent of Parameter $`\omega `$

On the physical grounds, one expects that the time in which the expansion reaches a given value of the scale factor, $`y`$, increases from open to flat to closed universe,

$$\tau (y,\nu ,\omega )<\tau (y,\nu ,0)[<\tau (y,\nu ,\omega ),\nu 0],$$

because of the curvature effect. Formally, this is easily derived from the general solution (13) by dropping the term $`k\omega `$ in the denominator of the integrand there, and choosing the inequality sign accordingly. Using the exact solution (19) for the flat universe, we thus obtain:

$$\tau <\frac{2}{\nu +2}\mathrm{ln}\left[y^{(\nu +2)/2}+\sqrt{1+y^{(\nu +2)}}\right],k=1,\nu >2;$$

(33)
$$\tau >\frac{2}{\nu +2}\mathrm{ln}\left[y^{(\nu +2)/2}+\sqrt{1+y^{(\nu +2)}}\right],k=1,\nu 0.$$

By inverting these, we get the estimates for the scale factor:

$$y(\tau )>\left[\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\nu +2}{2}\tau \right)\right]^{2/(\nu +2)},k=1,\nu >2;$$

(34)
$$y(\tau )<\left[\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\nu +2}{2}\tau \right)\right]^{2/(\nu +2)},k=1,\nu 0.$$

Naturally, the estimates for the growth amplitude implied by (34) are nothing else than (18), in view of (20).

## 5 Transformation Property of Cosmological Solutions and Expansion Amplitude for the Open Universe

### 5.1 Derivation of Transformation Property

A family of cosmological solutions describing an open universe turns out to have a useful transformation property. It relates, in a rather simple algebraic way, a solution with a given set of parameters $`\nu ,\omega `$ to another with different values of these parameters.

To establish this property, let us consider the initial value problem (9) with $`k=1`$, $`k\omega =\omega `$, and introduce a new unknown function $`z=z(\tau )=z(\tau ,\nu ,\omega )`$ instead of $`y=y(\tau )=y(\tau ,\nu ,\omega )`$ according to

$$y=\omega ^{1/2}z^{2/(\nu +2)};\dot{y}=\frac{2\omega ^{1/2}}{\nu +2}z^{\nu /(\nu +2)}\dot{z}.$$
(35)
Since $`\nu +2>0`$, the initial condition for $`z`$ is the same as for $`y`$,

$$z(0)=0.$$
(36)
On the other hand, equation (9) after substitution (35) becomes

$$\left(\frac{2}{\nu +2}\right)^2\dot{z}^2=\omega ^{\nu /21}+z^{(4+2\nu )/(\nu +2)}+z^{\left(2\nu /(\nu +2)\right)}.$$

Introducing the new time,

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\frac{\nu +2}{2}\tau ,$$
(37)
and denoting by a prime the derivative, we rewrite the last equation as

$$\left(z^{^{}}\right)^2=z^{\left(2\nu /(\nu +2)\right)}+z^2+\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}.$$
(38)
Clearly, the initial value problem (38), (36) coincides with the original problem (9) in which $`\tau `$ is replaced with $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, $`\nu `$ with $`2\nu /(\nu +2)`$, and $`\omega `$ with $`\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}`$, so that, by the uniqueness theorem,

$$z=z(\stackrel{~}{\tau },\nu ,\omega )=y((\nu +2)\tau /2,2\nu /(\nu +2),\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}).$$

But then, according to (35) and (37)

$$y(\tau ,\nu ,\omega )\omega ^{1/2}\left[y((\nu +2)\tau /2,2\nu /(\nu +2),\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2})\right]^{2/(\nu +2)},k=1,$$
(39)
where the identity sign stresses that the equality holds for all moments of time, as well as for any $`\nu >2`$ and $`\omega >0`$. Sending $`\tau `$ to infinity provides, by (12), the corresponding transformation property of the expansion amplitude,

$$A_\nu (\omega )\omega ^{1/2}\left[A_{2\nu /(\nu +2)}\left(\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}\right)\right]^{2/(\nu +2)},k=1.$$
(40)
In particular, our previous results (23) and (24) for $`\nu =0`$ satisfy (39) and (40), respectively.

Note also the corresponding transformation of cosmic ages as functions of the scale factor $`y`$,

$$\tau (y,\nu ,\omega )=\frac{2\omega ^{1/2}}{\nu +2}\tau (\left(y/\omega ^{1/2}\right)^{(\nu +2)/2},2\nu /(\nu +2),\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}),$$
(41)
which is easily obtained either by directly inverting (39), or by properly changing the integration variable in (13).

### 5.2 Parameter Duality Map

The correspondence of the indeces involved in (39),

$$_\nu :\nu \frac{2\nu }{\nu +2},$$

is a one–to–one map of the semiaxis $`\nu (2,\mathrm{})`$ into itself with the only fixed point $`\nu =0`$, so that $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ is mapped into $`(2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, and vice versa. Therefore for the case of the open universe it is enough to study cosmological solutions with either positive or negative $`\nu `$, getting then the results for the opposite sign of this parameter immediately from (39) and (40); we are intensively using this approach below.

Moreover, it is easy to see that $`_\nu `$ is a duality map, that is, $`_\nu =_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, or $`_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=`$, $``$ being the unit map. The whole range of values of $`\nu `$ is thus represented as a set of pairs of values reciprocal under the map $`_\nu `$, with $`\nu =0`$ reciprocal to itself. In particular, one reciprocal pair is $`\nu =2`$ (relativistic gas) and $`\nu =1`$; it is straightforward to see that $`A_2(k\omega )`$ from (22) and $`A_1(k\omega )`$ from (26) satisfy (40).

Note that for the physical parameter $`w`$ entering the equation of state, the corresponding duality relation is

$$_w:w\frac{w+5/9}{w+1},w>1.$$

It gives a one-to-one map of the interval $`(1,1/3)`$ into the semiaxis $`(1/3,\mathrm{})`$ and vice versa; its only fixed point $`w=1/3`$ corresponds to the Einstein quintessence, which once again separates one group of cases from the other. The reason for that is well known, and it is seen from the equation for the universal acceleration, which is obtained by the obvious manipulation with the governing equations (3):

$$\frac{3}{a}\frac{d^2a}{dt^2}=4\pi (\rho +3p)+\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\pi (3w+1)\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(42)
Therefore matter with $`w<1/3`$ enhances the accelerating effect of vacuum, while matter with $`w>1/3`$ diminishes it. It is only the Einstein quintessence, which is thus said to have no gravitational mass, that does not contribute to the acceleration. So, given the matter abundance $`M`$ and $`k=1`$, an expansion with $`w>1/3`$ and certain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can in principle be related only to some expansion with $`w<1/3`$ and smaller $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as it occurs according to (39). Of course, the Einstein quintessence solution cannot reciprocate with any other having a different equation of state.

### 5.3 Open Universe with $`\omega 1`$

As a first example of using the transformation property, let us consider the asymptotic behavior of the expansion amplitude for the open universe ($`k=1`$) when $`\omega `$ is large, which is easily found from (40) and (20). Indeed, in this case $`\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}0`$, and we have:

$$A_\nu (\omega )=\omega ^{1/2}\left[A_{2\nu /(\nu +2)}\left(0\right)\right]^{2/(\nu +2)}\left[1+o(1)\right]=\frac{\omega ^{1/2}}{2}\left[1+o(1)\right].$$
(43)
This result agrees with all the exact solutions (22), (24), and (26), as well as with the estimate (29).

Thus the main term giving the large–time behavior of the open universe with $`\omega 1`$ does not depend on the equation of state. The corresponding full asymptotic series, which proves to be converging, is found in section 6.5; all higher order corrections involved in it do depend on $`\nu `$, i. e., on the state equation.

## 6 Expansion Amplitude at $`\omega `$ Near the Cutoff Value

As explained in section 2, cosmological expansion remains infinite, and its growth amplitude is thus well defined, up to $`\omega =\omega _\nu `$ for $`\nu 0`$ and closed universe ($`k=1`$), which value forms thus a physical cutoff, in this case. For $`2<\nu <0`$ and open universe the solution exists for all positive values of $`k\omega `$, so $`k\omega =0`$ should be also treated as a cutoff. The expansion amplitude behavior near the cutoff value, which cannot be smooth, is of interest in both cases.

We first consider $`\nu >0`$, $`k=1`$, and $`\omega `$ near $`\omega _\nu `$, that is, $`\omega _\nu \omega +0`$. In this case the main contribution to the integral (15) for $`\varphi _\nu (k\omega )`$ comes from the vicinity of the point $`x=y_\nu `$, where

$$x^\nu +x^2k\omega \omega _\nu \omega +(\nu +2)(xy_\nu )^2.$$
(44)
Using this approximation it is not difficult to find that

$$\varphi _\nu (\omega )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\mathrm{ln}(\omega _\nu \omega )+O(1),k=1,\omega \omega _\nu 0,$$

and

$$A_\nu (\omega )=A_\nu (0)K_\nu \left(\omega _\nu \omega \right)^{1/\sqrt{\nu +2}}[1+o(1)],k=1,\omega \omega _\nu 0.$$
(45)
Calculation of the value of the constant $`K_\nu `$ requires more tedious analysis carried out in section 6.4, which provides

$$K_\nu =\omega _\nu ^{1/\sqrt{\nu +2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(\nu )\right],$$
(46)
where the coefficients $`C_n(\nu )=O(1/n^2),n\mathrm{}`$, are given explicitly in (54).

For Einstein quintessence, $`\nu =0`$, and any curvature, approximation (44) works uniformly in $`\nu 0`$ only for the function and its first derivative, but not for the second one. Therefore, with $`\nu `$ formally set to zero, it gives a wrong coefficient at the quadratic term (2 instead of 1). So for $`\nu =0`$ the right answer is given not by (44) with $`\nu =0`$, but by the exact formula (24) (rederived, by the way, in a different manner in section 7.3).

Finally, when $`2<\nu <0`$, we should consider the open universe only, $`k=1`$, in which case we can write, for $`\omega +0`$:

$$\varphi _\nu (k\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2+\omega }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^\nu +x^2}}\right]𝑑x=$$

$$\omega ^{1/2\nu }_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi ^\nu +\omega ^{(2+\nu )/\nu }\xi ^2+1}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi ^\nu +\omega ^{(2+\nu )/\nu }\xi ^2}}\right]𝑑\xi =O(\omega ^{1/2\nu })$$

\[recall that $`1/2\nu ,(2+\nu )/\nu >0`$\]. So, by (15) and (20),

$$A_\nu (\omega )=A_\nu (0)\left[1+O(\omega ^{1/2\nu })\right],A_\nu (0)=2^{2/(\nu +2)},\omega +0,$$
(47)
The exact result (26) for $`A_1(k\omega )`$ agrees with this. Note that the remainder term in (47) diverges at $`\omega +0`$, hence so does the derivative of $`A_\nu (\omega )`$, as expected. Thus, in fact, the behavior of the growth amplitude at both cutoffs, $`\omega =\omega _\nu ,\nu 0`$, and $`\omega =0,\nu <0`$, is similar, with the only difference that the limit value of the amplitude is zero in the first case and positive in the second.

## 7 Power series in $`k\omega `$ for $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ and its implications

### 7.1 Power series in $`k\omega `$ for $`\nu 0`$

Repeated differentiation of the equality (16) in $`k\omega `$ provides

$$\left[\mathrm{ln}A_\nu (k\omega )\right]^{(n)}=\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(k\omega ),n=1,2,\mathrm{};f^{(n)}(k\omega )\frac{d^nf(k\omega )}{d(k\omega )^n}.$$
(48)
Also, repeated differentiation of (17) shows that, for $`\nu 0`$,

$$\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_n_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{\left(x^\nu +x^2\right)^{n+1/2}},n=1,2,\mathrm{};$$
(49)
where the Pochhammer symbol $`(\alpha )_n`$ is defined in a usual way, $`(\alpha )_01,(\alpha )_n`$$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )=(\alpha +n1)(\alpha +n2)\mathrm{}(\alpha +1)\alpha ,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )`$ is the Euler gamma–function. \[Note that the integral in (49) diverges at the lower limit when $`\nu <0`$\]. Therefore

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{A_\nu (k\omega )}{A_\nu (0)}\right]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)}{n!}(k\omega )^n,$$
(50)
and the coefficients of this series are found to be (see Appendix)

$$\frac{\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)}{n!}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2n}{\nu +2}+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\nu n}{\nu +2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{n},n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(51)
The radius of convergence and other properties of this series are studied below. Since the radius proves to be non-zero, function $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ is regular at $`k\omega =0`$. That means that, for a given positive $`\nu `$, the expansion amplitude for the open universe is an analytical continuation of that for the closed one, and vice versa.

### 7.2 Case $`\nu =2`$

The result (22) for $`\nu =2`$ is easily obtained from the series (50). Indeed, by (51) we have

$$\frac{\varphi _2^{(n)}(0)}{n!}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{n\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)}{n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^n\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)}=\frac{1}{n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{n+1}},$$

where we have used the double argument formula for the gamma-fucntion, $`2^{2z1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(z+1/2\right)=\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(2z)`$, with $`z=(n+1)/2`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{A_0(k\omega )}{A_0(0)}\right]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(k\omega /2)^n}{n}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(1k\omega /2),$$

and, according to (20), it is exactly the formula (24): $`A_2(k\omega )=0.5(2k\omega )^{1/2}`$. Note that the radius of convergence of the series (50) coincides with the cutoff value for this case, $`2=\omega _2`$.

### 7.3 Case $`\nu =0`$

In this case formula (51) gives immediately $`\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)=1/2n`$, so

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{A_0(k\omega )}{A_0(0)}\right]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(k\omega )^n}{n}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(1k\omega ),$$

that is, by (20), $`A_0(k\omega )=0.5(1k\omega )^{1/2}`$ , which is exactly the expression (24). Here again the radius of convergence of series (50) coincides with the cutoff, $`1=\omega _0`$, hinting that this should probably be a generic property.

### 7.4 General case $`\nu >0`$

The general result for $`\nu >0`$ comes from studying the behavior of the coefficients of the series (50) with large numbers $`n`$. As demonstrated in the Appendix,

$$\frac{\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)}{n!}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _\nu }\right)^n\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right],n\mathrm{}.$$
(52)
This means that the convergence radius of the series (50) always coincides, as one would now expect, with the cutoff value $`\omega _\nu `$, and allows us to rewrite the series as

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{A_\nu (k\omega )}{A_\nu (0)}\right]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(k\omega /\omega _\nu )^n}{n}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(\nu )(k\omega /\omega _\nu )^n=$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\mathrm{ln}(1k\omega /\omega _\nu )+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(\nu )(k\omega /\omega _\nu )^n,$$
(53)
where, in view of (51) and (52),

$$C_n(\nu )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\frac{1}{n}\left[1\frac{\omega _\nu ^n}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\nu +2}{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2n}{\nu +2}+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\nu n}{\nu +2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{n!}\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right),n\mathrm{}.$$
(54)
Expression (53) is useful for computing $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ in the whole range $`k\omega \omega _\nu `$. Also, for $`k=1`$ it determines completely the asymtotics of the amplitude near the cutoff $`\omega _\nu `$, whose main term is given above in (45), (46).

### 7.5 Series in inverse powers of $`\omega `$ for $`2<\nu <0,k=1`$

To obatin some series for $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ with negative $`\nu `$ (and thus $`k=1`$), we combine the above result (53) with the amplitude transformation property (40). Writing for brevity $`\mu =2\nu /(\nu +2)`$, the latter provides

$$\mathrm{ln}A_\nu (\omega )=\mathrm{ln}\omega ^{1/2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\mathrm{ln}A_\mu (\omega ^{\nu /(\nu +2)})=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega ^{1/2}}{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{A_\mu (\omega ^{\nu /(\nu +2)})}{A_\mu (0)}\right],$$

where we used the value of $`A_\mu (0)`$ from (20). Since, by definition, $`\mu >0`$, we can now replace the last term by its series expansion (53) provided that $`\omega ^{\nu /(\nu +2)}<\omega _\mu `$, or

$$\omega >\frac{\nu +2}{\nu }\left(\frac{\nu }{2}\right)^{2/(\nu +2)}$$
(55)
\[recall $`(\nu +2),(\nu )>0`$\]. Under this condition we thus obtain the desired series for $`2<\nu <0,k=1`$ in the form \[the series coefficients are given in (54)\]:

$$\mathrm{ln}A_\nu (\omega )=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega ^{1/2}}{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\kappa _\nu (\omega )\right]+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(\mu )\left[\kappa _\nu (\omega )\right]^n,$$
(56)
$$\mu =\frac{2\nu }{\nu +2},0<\kappa _\nu (\omega )\frac{\nu /2}{\left[\nu \omega /\left(\nu +2\right)\right]^{(\nu +2)/2}}<1.$$

This series converges if condition (55) holds, and also provides the asymptotic formula

$$A_\nu (\omega )=\frac{\omega ^{1/2}}{2}\left[1+O\left(\omega ^{(\nu +2)/2}\right)\right],\omega \mathrm{},2<\nu <0,k=1,$$
(57)
which sharpens expression (43) by giving the exact order of the remainder.

It is worthwhile to note that similar power series representations can be obtained also for the cosmological solution (13), $`\tau (y,\nu ,k\omega )`$. However, the $`y`$–dependent coefficients of these series are no longer expressed via $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–functions, but, instead, through the hypergeometric functions.

## 8 Discussion

### 8.1 Cosmological Applications

We have determined various significant properties of the cosmological solution, particularly, those of the expansion amplitude, and provided different expressions for the latter. The plots of $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$ as a function of $`k\omega `$ for several ‘popular’ values of the parameter $`\nu `$, including positive, zero, and negative ones, are given in Fig. 2.

An interesting question is what information on the universe can be gotten if the value of the expansion amplitude, say, $`A_{}`$, is known? Even if no other information is available, but $`A_{}>1`$, from (20) and the monotonicity of the amplitude established in sec. 2, one immediately concludes that the universe is open, since $`A_\nu (k\omega )<1`$ for $`k=1`$ (and, of course, $`\nu 0`$). If, on the other hand, $`0<A_{}<1`$, but the equation of state, i. e., parameter $`\nu `$, is more or less known, then equation

$$A_\nu (k\omega )=A_{}$$

provides, again due to the monotonic property, a unique solution for $`k\omega `$, which gives the sign of the curvature, and a relation between $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ \[see (8)\].

One way of inferring the amplitude from observational data is as follows. Formula (4) for the density combined with (7) reduces to $`8\pi \rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }/y^{\nu +2}`$, therefore

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{8\pi \rho }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{y^{\nu +2}},$$

so that

$$y=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/(\nu +2)}.$$
(58)
This equality holds at all moments of time. If, however, the expansion is in the asymptotic regime, (58) and (12) allow for

$$A_\nu (k\omega )\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/(\nu +2)}\mathrm{exp}(\tau ),y(\tau )1.$$
(59)
So, if the matter equation of state, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, and the properly scaled \[see (7)\] cosmic age are known, the expansion amplitude is known as well, if the asymptotic stage of the expansion is reached. By (58), the latter requires

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/(\nu +2)}1,$$
(60)
which, for $`\nu `$ not much smaller than negative unity, means just $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M1`$. But in case the dominant form of matter in the universe is quitessence with the equation of state close to the vacuum one, condition (60) might hold, and the expansion be in the asymptotic regime, despite the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M>1`$ is still of the order of unity.

For any moment of the expansion the estimates for the age of the universe come from combining expression (58) for the scale factor via observables with ‘geometrical’ inequalities (33):

$$\tau <\tau _{Fl}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\nu ),k=1;\tau >\tau _{Fl}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\nu ),k=1.$$
(61)
Here

$$\tau _{Fl}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\nu )\frac{2}{\nu +2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/2}+\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/2}\right]$$
(62)
is the exact age of the flat universe with the same parameters. If $`\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, and the cosmic age are known accurately enough, its comparison with the bound (62) allows for an immediate determination of the curvature of the universe. If, instead, only the last two parameters and the sign of the curvature are known, the state equation parameter can be estimated.

We now apply the above results to the currently favored cosmological model. It includes baryonic and dark matter, both with the same equation of state $`w=0`$ and total $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3\pm 0.1`$, and vacuum with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7\pm 0.1`$. The third component is relativistic particles ($`w=1/3`$), but its abundance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R<0.001`$ is so small compared to the first two that it should be neglected. This results in exactly the studied model with $`\nu =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1.5÷4`$. Thus

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/(\nu +2)}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/3}=1.1÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.6}1,$$
(63)
so, by (58), we are still rather far from the large time regime.

According to (62) and (63), for our universe

$$\tau _{Fl}=0.7÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.0}.$$
(64)
The dimensional time is related to $`\tau `$ by \[see (7)\]

$$T=\tau \sqrt{\frac{3}{G\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=\tau (0.7÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8})\times 10^{18}sec=\tau (22.2÷25.4)Gyr,$$
(65)
with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=8\pi \rho _V=8\pi (0.7\pm 0.1)\rho _c=(1.0÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.6})\times 10^{28}g/cm^3$$

based on

$$\rho _c=(0.7\pm 0.08)\times 10^{29}g/cm^3,$$

which corresponds to the range of the Hubble constant $`H=70\pm 10km/secMpc`$. By virtue of (64) and (65), for our universe

$$T_{Fl}=\tau _{Fl}(22.2÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25.4})Gyr=(15.5÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25.4})Gyr,$$
(66)
that is, its age in case the universe is flat. Globular cluster data independently give the lower bound of the cosmic age as

$$T_u(12÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16})Gyr.$$
(67)
According to these data, our universe is open if $`T_u=(12÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15.5}0)Gyr`$, it could be either open or closed if $`T_u=(15.5div\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25.4})Gyr`$, and only closed if $`T_u>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25.4})Gyr`$, which is rather improbable. Therefore one can conclude that our universe most probably is open.

Under this assumption we can now obtain a lower bound of the cosmic age, to check the consistency of our estimates. Indeed, using (28), we obtain an estimate of the parameter $`\omega `$ for our universe as

$$\omega <\frac{y^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau _u}=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M\right)^{2/3}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau _u}<2.7\omega _{est}.$$
(68)
This and the basic expression (13) for the solution immediately produce

$$\tau >_0^{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_M\right)^{1/3}}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x^1+x^2+\omega _{est}}}>_0^{1.1}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x^1+x^2+2.7}}0.45,$$

or, by (65),

$$T_u>(10.0÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11.4})Gyr,$$

in a nice agreement with (67).

Finally, to check the consistency of the current cosmological data, we can convert the estimate (61) for an open universe into an upper bound for the state equation parameter $`\nu `$, namely:

$$\nu <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left\{\tau _u^1\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/2}+\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/2}\right]1\right\}.$$
(69)
By (67) taken as the real range of the cosmic age, (65) and (63), for our universe this provides

$$\nu <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}÷\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}.$$

This is almost entirely consistent with the chosen $`\nu =1`$ (pressureless dust), except for a small range of parameters, when the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is close to its minimum observed value $`0.6`$ and simultaneously the cosmic age is close to its maximum of $`16Gyr`$.

### 8.2 Some Generalizations

In conclusion, we point out two possible generalizations of the present study. The first of them deals with the phase transition, that is, with a sudden change of the equation of state, when the value of $`w`$ changes abruptly at some moment of time. This case, as well as the one with a whole sequence of phase transitions, can be investigated in a fashion similar to the above.

The second way to generalize the study is to consider multicomponent matter, when

$$\rho =\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _n,p=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_n,p_n=w_n\rho _n,w_n>1,n=1,2,\mathrm{},N>1,$$

and the components do not interact. That means that the conservation equation in (3) holds for every component separately, yielding $`\rho _n=M_n/a^{3(w_n+1)}`$, $`M_n=\mathrm{const}>0`$, and thus the analog of the governing problem (9) becomes

$$\dot{y}^2=y^{\nu _1}+y^2k\omega +\underset{n=2}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _ny^{\nu _n},y(0)=0,$$

with $`y`$, $`\tau `$ and $`\omega `$ normalized as in (7), (8) using $`w_1`$ and $`M_1`$, $`\nu _n=3w_n+1`$, and $`\mu _n>0`$ being the abundance of the $`n`$th component normalized appropriately. Writing $`y(\tau ,\nu _1,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _N,k\omega )`$ for the solution, we have

$$y(\tau ,\nu _1,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _N,k\omega )>y(\tau ,\nu _j,k\omega )$$

for any pertinent $`j`$; generally, adding every new component enhances the expansion. Assuming $`\nu _1`$ is the smallest of all the powers, we see that at very large times the expansion is described by the one–component equation (9) with $`\nu =\nu _1`$; however, the growth amplitude depends essentially on the whole expansion history, in other words, on all the equations of state.

As for the other results, all the estimates of sec. 4 remain true, including inequalities (33) for the ages of open, flat, and closed universe (of course, the expression for $`\tau _{Fl}`$ depends now on all the parameters involved). The properly generalized transformation property (39) for the open universe solutions also holds; in fact, the number of such independent transformations is equal to the number of matter components, $`N`$.

## Acknowledgment

This work was supported by NASA grant NAS 8-39225 to Gravity Probe B. I am grateful to R.J.Adler for initiating this study, and to him, A.D.Chernin, D.I.Santiago, and R.V.Wagoner for enlightening remarks. I thank the Gravity Probe B Theory Group for numerous discussions of the paper.

## Appendix. Analysis of Power Series of $`A_\nu (k\omega )`$

First we derive expression (50) for the derivatives $`\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)`$. By (49), for $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ we have:

$$\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1/2)}\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^{\nu (2n+1)/2}dx}{\left(1+x^{\nu +2}\right)^{n+1/2}}=\frac{1}{\nu +2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{s^{\frac{\nu (2n+1)+2}{2(\nu +2)}1}ds}{\left(1+s\right)^{n+1/2}}$$

The last integral is one of the known representations of the beta–function $`B(x,y)`$ with the arguments

$$x=\frac{\nu (2n+1)+2}{2(\nu +2)}=\frac{\nu n}{\nu +2}+\frac{1}{2},y=n+\frac{1}{2}x=\frac{2n}{\nu +2},$$

which is easily verified by means of the substituion $`s=t/(1t)`$. Therefore

$$\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\varphi _\nu ^{(n)}(0)=\frac{1}{\nu +2}B(\frac{\nu n}{\nu +2}+\frac{1}{2},\frac{2n}{\nu +2})=\frac{1}{2n}\frac{2n}{\nu +2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\nu n}{\nu +2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2n}{\nu +2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}=$$

$$\frac{1}{2n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\nu n}{\nu +2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2n}{\nu +2}+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)},$$

and this is, in fact, expression (50).

We now prove the asymtotic formula (52) for the coefficients of the seires (50) in the general case. To do that, we use the large argument asymptoitcs of the gamma–function,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)=\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[(z1/2)\mathrm{ln}zz\right]\left[1+O(1/z)\right],z+\mathrm{},$$

and convenient notations

$$u=\frac{2}{\nu +2},v=\frac{\nu }{\nu +2},u+v=1.$$

We thus write:

$$\frac{\varphi _n^{(n)}(0)}{n!}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(un+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(vn+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)},$$
$`(A.1)`$
and then

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(un+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(vn+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)}=\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}(Q_n)\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right]n+\mathrm{},$$
$`(A.2)`$
where

$$Q_n=(un+1/2)\mathrm{ln}(un+1)(un+1)+(vn)\mathrm{ln}(vn+1)(vn+1/2)(n+1/2)\mathrm{ln}(n+1)+(n+1)=$$

$$(un+1/2)\mathrm{ln}(un)+(vn)\mathrm{ln}(vn)(n+1/2)\mathrm{ln}n+O(1/n)=$$

$$n\mathrm{ln}(u^uv^v)+(1/2)\mathrm{ln}u+O(1/n).$$

Intorducing this into (A.2), and the resulting equality into (A.1), we end up with

$$\frac{\varphi _n^{(n)}(0)}{n!}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }n}\sqrt{2\pi u}(u^uv^v)^n\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right]=$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu +2}}\frac{(u^uv^v)^n}{n}[1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)],n+\mathrm{}.(A.3)$$

It remains only to notice that

$$u^uv^v=\left(\frac{2}{\nu +2}\right)^{2/(\nu +2)}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu +2}\right)^{\nu /(\nu +2)}=\frac{2^{2/(\nu +2)}\nu ^{\nu /(\nu +2)}}{\nu +2}=\left(\frac{2}{\nu }\right)^{2/(\nu +2)}\frac{\nu }{\nu +2}=\frac{1}{\omega _\nu },$$

in order to see that (A.3) is identical to (52).

## References

 A.G. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998).

 S. Perlmuter et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999).

 A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys.J. 560, 49 (2001).

 R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P.J. Steinhard, Phys.Rev.Lett. 80, 1582 (1998).

 A.D.Chernin, D.I.Santiago, A.S.Silbergleit, Phys. Lett. A294, 79, (2002) .

 A. Einstein. S.b. der Preussischen Akad. d. Wiss., 1917, 142 (1917).

 D.Kramer, H.Stephani, E.Herlt, M.MacCallum. Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations. Ed. E.Schmutzer. Cambridge University Press, 1980.

 A.Linde. Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology. Harwood, 1990.

 E.W.Kolb, M.S.Turner. The Early Universe. Addison-Wesley, 1990.

 H.Bateman, A.Erdély. Higher Transcendental Functions, vol. 3. McGraw-Hill, 1955.

 Ya.B.Zeldovich. JETP 41, 1609, 1961 (in Russian)

Figure 2. $`A_\nu (km)`$ for nonnegative $`\nu `$:

0 - $`\nu =0`$, 1 - $`\nu =1`$, 2 - $`\nu =2`$, AS - lower bound $`0.5\sqrt{(k\omega )}`$


format: text

text:
# Neutron 𝛽-decay and the quark-mixing CKM-matrix

## 1 Up, charm, top and quark mixing

According to the accepted theory of particles and fields, matter is built from two types of fundamental particles, called quarks and leptons. The strong interaction glues quarks together to hadrons. These quarks are considered to be quantum mechanical mass eigenstates. When such a hadron decays due to the electroweak interaction, the quarks being involved in the process of weak interaction do mix and the mixing is expressed in the so-called CKM-matrix. By convention, the u, c and t quarks are unmixed and all mixing is expressed via the CKM-matrix operating on d, s and b quarks. The Standard Model of elementary particle physics requests that the mixing ends up in a zero-sum, in other words, the CKM-quark-mixing matrix has to be unitary. Unitarity requires that the sum of the squares of the matrix elements for each row and column be unity.

We have studied the mixing of the down quark in the decay of free neutrons. Much to our surprise, with new neutron-decay data the zero-sum of quark-mixing ends up with a significant deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 0.0083(28), which is three times the stated error, an effect that cannot be explained by the current Standard Model of particle physics .

## 2 Neutron $`\beta `$-decay

In the Standard Model, two free parameters describe neutron $`\beta `$-decay. One parameter is the already mentioned first entry $`|V_{ud}|`$ of the CKM-matrix. The other one is $`\lambda `$, the ratio of the vector coupling constant and the axial vector constant. In neutron decay, several observables are accessible to experiment, which depend on these parameters, so the problem is overdetermined and, together with other data from particle and nuclear physics, many tests of the Standard Model become possible. The chosen observables for determining $`|V_{ud}|`$ are the neutron lifetime $`\tau `$ and a measurement of the $`\beta `$-asymmetry parameter $`A_0`$. The lifetime is given by

$$\tau ^1=C|V_{ud}|^2(1+3\lambda ^2)f^R(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_R),$$
(1)
where $`C=G_F^2m_e^5/(2\pi ^3)=1.161310^4s^1`$ in $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ units, $`f^R`$ =1.71482(15) is the phase space factor  (including the model independent radiative correction) adjusted for the current value of the neutron-proton transition energy. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ = 0.0240(8) is the model dependent radiative correction to the neutron decay rate. The $`\beta `$-asymmetry $`A_0`$ is linked to the probability that an electron is emitted with angle $`\vartheta `$ with respect to the neutron spin polarization $`P`$ = $`<\sigma _z>`$:

$$W(\vartheta )=1+\frac{v}{c}PA\mathrm{cos}(\vartheta ),$$
(2)
where $`v/c`$ is the electron velocity expressed in fractions of the speed of light. $`A`$ is the $`\beta `$-asymmetry coefficient which depends on $`\lambda `$. On account of order 1% corrections for weak magnetism, $`g_Vg_A`$ interference, and nucleon recoil, $`A`$ has the form $`A`$ = $`A_0`$(1+$`A_{\mu m}`$($`A_1W_0+A_2W+A_3/W`$)) with electron total energy $`W=E_e/m_ec^2+1`$ (endpoint $`W_0`$). $`A_0`$ is a function of $`\lambda `$

$$A_0=2\frac{\lambda (\lambda +1)}{1+3\lambda ^2},$$
(3)
where we have assumed that $`\lambda `$ is real. The coefficients $`A_{\mu m}`$, $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`A_3`$ are from  taking a different $`\lambda `$ convention into consideration. In addition, a further small radiative correction  of order 0.1% must be applied.

## 3 The experiment PERKEO and the result for $`|V_{ud}|`$

The strategy of PERKEO II followed the instrument PERKEO  in minimizing background and maximizing signal with a $`4\pi `$ solid angle acceptance over a large region of the beam. Major achievements of the instrument PERKEO II are:

* The signal to background ratio in the range of interest is 200.
* The overall correction of the raw data is 2.04%.
* The detector design allows an energy calibration with linearity better than 1%.
* New polarizers and developments in polarization analysis led to smaller uncertainties related to neutron beam polarization.

For a measurement of $`\beta `$-asymmetry $`A_0`$, the instrument PERKEO was installed at the PF1 cold neutron beam position at the High Flux Reactor at the Institut Laue-Langevin, Grenoble. Cold neutrons are obtained from a 25 K deuterium cold moderator near the core of the 57 MW uranium reactor. The neutrons are guided via a 60 m long neutron guide of cross section 6 x 12 cm2 to the experiment and are polarized by a 3 x 4.5 cm2 supermirror polarizer. The de Broglie wavelength spectrum of the cold neutron beam ranges from about 0.2 nm to 1.3 nm. The degree of neutron polarization was measured to be P = 98.9(3)% over the full cross section of the beam. The polarization efficiency remained constant during the whole experiment. The neutron polarization is reversed periodically with a current sheet spin flipper. The main component of the PERKEO II spectrometer is a superconducting 1.1 T magnet in a split pair configuration, with a coil diameter of about one meter. Neutrons pass through the spectrometer, whereas decay electrons are guided by the magnetic field to either one of two scintillation detectors with photomultiplier readout. The detector solid angle of acceptance is truly 2x2$`\pi `$ above a threshold of 60 keV. Electron backscattering effects, serious sources of systematic error in $`\beta `$-spectroscopy, are effectively suppressed. Technical details about the instrument can be found in . The measured electron spectra $`N_i^{}(E_e)`$ and $`N_i^{}(E_e)`$ in the two detectors (i=1,2) for neutron spin up and down, respectively, define the experimental asymmetry as a function of electron kinetic energy $`E_e`$ and are shown in Fig. 2.

$$A_{i_{exp}}(E_e)=\frac{N_i^{}(E_e)N_i^{}(E_e)}{N_i^{}(E_e)+N_i^{}(E_e)}.$$
(4)
By using (4) and with $`<\mathrm{cos}(\vartheta )>`$ = 1/2, $`A_i{}_{exp}{}^{}(E)`$ is directly related to the asymmetry parameter

$$A_{exp}(E_e)=A_{1_{exp}}(E_e)A_{2_{exp}}(E_e)=\frac{v}{c}APf.$$
(5)
The experimental function $`A_{i_{exp}}(E_e)`$ and a fit with one free parameter $`A_{i_{exp}}`$ (the absolute scale of $`A_0`$) is shown in Fig. 2. The total correction for the small experimental systematic effects is 2.04%.

With recent experiments from the University of Heidelberg , we obtain $`A_0`$ = -0.1189(7) and $`\lambda `$ = \- 1.2739(19). With this value, and the world average for $`\tau `$ = 885.7(7) s, we find that $`|V_{ud}|`$ = 0.9713(13). With $`|V_{us}|`$ = 0.2196(23) and the negligibly small $`|V_{ub}|`$ = 0.0036(9), one gets

$$|V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2+|V_{ub}|^2=1\mathrm{\Delta }=0.9917(28).$$
(6)
This value differs from the Standard Model prediction by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 0.0083(28), or three times the stated error. Earlier experiments  gave significant lower values for $`\lambda `$. Averaging over our new result and previous results, the Particle Data Group  arrives at a new world average for $`|V_{ud}|`$ from neutron $`\beta `$-decay which leads to a 2.2 s deviation from unitarity. Usually, $`|V_{ud}|`$ is derived from superallowed nuclear $`\beta `$-decay experiments and this value of $`|V_{ud}|`$ includes nuclear structure effect corrections. Combined with kaon, hyperon- and B-decays, this leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ =0.0032(14), signaling a deviation from the unitarity condition by 2.3 standard deviations . An independent test of CKM unitarity comes from W physics at LEP  where W decay hadronic branching ratios can be used expressed in terms of

$$\frac{Br(Wq\overline{q})}{1Br(W\overline{q})}=(1+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }|V_{ij}|^2).$$
(7)
Since decay into the top quark channel is forbidden by energy conservation one would expect $`|V_{ij}|^2`$ to be 2 with a three generation unitary CKM matrix. The experimental result is 2.032(32), consistent with (6) but with considerably lower accuracy.

## 4 Correlation $`B`$ and a search for right handed currents

Parity is maximally violated in low energy physics. However, we do not have a fundamental justification for parity violation. It is particularly interesting that modern grand-unified theories support a left-right symmetrical universe right after the start of the big bang. Parity violation arises only due to a spontaneous symmetry breaking at some intermediate energy scale. Parity violation is not 100% and right handed contributions in the weak interaction should be found. Measurements of the correlation coefficient $`B`$, the correlation between neutrino momentum and neutron spin, are sensitive to right handed current contributions in the weak interaction. However, we have no evidence for right handed currents so far. The spectrometer PERKEO II has been installed at the new beam position PF1B for a measurement of coefficient B. The basic principle of a coefficient B measurement is to measure the charged decay particles in neutron decay in order to reconstruct the neutrino momentum with respect to the neutron spin. Usually this is done with one electron and one proton detector. PERKEO has one electron detector and one proton detector in each hemisphere. This is an advantage over other experiments because it maximizes the sensitivity on B. What is more, B shows in a reasonable region no energy dependence on the decay electrons. Systematic errors due to the detector response function are small. The proton is measured in coincidence with a decay electron. The $`\beta `$-detectors are made of plastic scintillators. The proton detectors also make use of the $`\beta `$-detectors. The idea is to convert a proton into an electron signal. A proton will be accelerated up to 30 keV and eventually hit a thin foil of carbon. About five secondary electrons will be created and detected with the electron detectors. This method of proton detection was already used by Stratowa et al. . for a measurement of coefficient a. Measurements are underway and first results are expected soon.

## 5 Summary

In summary, $`|V_{ud}|`$, the first element of the CKM matrix, has been derived from neutron decay experiments in such a way that an unitarity test of the CKM matrix can be performed based solely on particle physics data. With this value, we find a 3 $`\sigma `$ standard deviation from unitarity, which conflicts the prediction of the Standard Model of particle physics. This work was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education under contract number 06HD953.


text:
# The Interactive Minority Game: Instructions for Experts

## 1 Introduction

The Minority Game (MG), introduced by Challet and Zhang  as a generalisation of Arthur’s ‘El Farol’ problem , has gained much popularity as a simple yet realistic model of the workings of financial markets. A great variety of work has since been done on the MG , leading eventually to an analytic solution ; these insights have proven particularly useful in justifying the MG as a realistic model of real market situations .

The Interactive Minority Game (IMG) proposes to further this use of the MG in modelling real markets by using the MG to try to gain insight into the behaviour of humans in a simplified market situation. Individual humans compete against the traditional computer-controlled agents, whose characteristics can be fine-tuned through our understanding of the traditional MG: the human player can be presented with a very inefficient and easy-to-predict market, or with one that is much more complex and difficult.

In creating an interface for the game, our emphasis was on simplicity and ease of use: the game should be playable by anyone, from a seasoned MG researcher to someone who comes across the website at random. A number of aspects of the interface may therefore seem a little strange to those who have experience of the MG, and so in this paper we explain the mechanical workings-behind-the-scenes that go into the IMG: firstly, the interface, and secondly, the setup and parameters behind the different choices of game.

## 2 An interactive interface

Fundamentally, the Interactive Minority Game is a minority game like any other. A group of $`N`$ agents must choose between two actions, $`+1`$ (‘buy’) or $`1`$ (‘sell’), with the intention to make the opposite choice to the majority of agents; agents’ decisions are based on the knowledge of which was the minority or majority action of the last $`M`$ turns. However, in order to make the game a little easier to play, we have had to change the presentation (though not the underlying game!) a little for the sake of the human player. The human player not only has the advantage of a greater memory (denoted by $`M_{}`$) than the computer players, but is also given a choice between two different methods of presentation for the information about the game history; in addition, rather than asking the human player for an action (‘buy’ or ‘sell’), we ask them for a prediction on the direction the market is going to take, which corresponds to an action in the underlying game. In this section we explain (and, we hope, justify) in detail all these aspects of the interface.

### 2.1 Views of the market: binary and price-chart

Imagine being confronted by the string of 1’s and 0’s that is given to the regular agents! It is not a particularly pleasant thought, and the human player will clearly demand more. We have provided two different solutions to the problem.

Before we continue, let us recall a few aspects of the MG. At each time step $`t`$, each agent $`i`$ takes an an action $`a_i(t)`$, which allows us to define the $`global`$ action $`A(t)`$:

$$A(t)=\underset{i}{}a_i(t)$$
(1)
This allows us to define the first, simpler view of the game history: the *binary viewpoint*, a set of spins corresponding to $`\mathrm{𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇}\left(A(t)\right)`$ in the the last $`M_{}`$ turns of the game. This is of course identical in information content to the aforementioned string of 1’s and 0’s, but looks nicer! The more interesting viewpoint follows from an idea suggested by Johnson *et. al.*  of a price level, $`P(t)`$, in the MG, defined by

$$P(t+1)=P(t)+A(t)/\lambda $$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ is the market liquidity. We have used this in our *chart viewpoint*, literally a price-chart recording the past values of $`P(t)`$ (see Fig. 1).

Clearly, the binary viewpoint is more suited to games where the player’s gain is also binary, i.e. where $`g_i(t)=a_i(t)\mathrm{𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇}\left(A(t)\right)`$, and the price-chart view is more suited to games with a linear payoff, $`g_i(t)=a_i(t)A(t)`$. This is the practise we have followed in our ready-made games. However, the option to create a custom game allows the user to ignore our advice if s/he feels like it!

### 2.2 Predictions, bets and actions

The reader may have noticed that, rather than being asked to make a choice (‘buy’ or ‘sell’, $`+1`$ or $`1`$, …), the human player is asked to ‘*predict which way you think the market is going to go*’. That is, the user is asked to *predict the majority action*, and their own action (the opposite) is inferred from this—we ask the human player for a prediction $`q_{}(t)=\pm 1`$ and an amount bet on this prediction, $`\omega _{}(t)\{1,3,5,7\}`$ (their *weight* or *market impact*), and their action is then taken to be $`a_{}(t)=\omega _{}(t)q_{}(t)`$.

We apologise if this is perhaps a little confusing for those familiar with the MG! Our concern, as we noted in the Introduction, was to make the game simpler for those who have never encountered the MG before. ‘What way do you think the market will go?’ seemed to us a simpler question than, say, ‘Would you like to buy or sell (do the opposite of what you think everyone else will do)?’ In addition, those unused to the MG might reasonably ask, like Andersen and Sornette in a recent paper , questions such as, ‘Why does buying hurt me if the market keeps rising?’ We would rather avoid such problems!

In summary: although it is a little hidden from view, the player still has to try and perform the minority action. ;-)

### 2.3 Nuts and bolts of the implementation

The game interface consists of a series of PHP files that interact with an underlying C program; the latter calculates the actions of all the computer-controlled agents, and calculates all the relevant and interesting quantities (such as predictability). We hope that the reader will forgive us if we are coy about revealing any more (in particular, about revealing source code); we are willing to reveal the workings-behind-the-scenes but there are a few rabbits-up-our-sleeve that we would like to keep from players for now, so as to make the game more interesting!

## 3 Mechanics and game parameters

The Interactive Minority Game offers a number of possibilities for the human player to pick from. As well as a variety of ‘standard’, ready-made games, there is the option to create a custom game by choosing from various parameters. For those well-versed in MG lore, this could no doubt do with some extra explanation. Parameters particular to the human player are denoted by a subscript asterisk ($``$).

### 3.1 Game parameters and their effects

To begin with, let us summarise the basic parameters of the MG: we have a homogeneous population of $`N`$ agents with memory $`M`$, each with $`S=2`$ strategies. This gives us $`P=2^M`$ as the size of the space of histories given to agents, and we can then define the control parameter $`\alpha =P/N`$. It is this parameter $`\alpha `$ which determines the type of market: a low value creates an extremely inefficient market, easily predictable by the smart human, while a high value of $`\alpha `$ creates a market whose behaviour is close to randomness. The most efficient market (and therefore most difficult to play), i.e. the market with the minimal value of standard deviation $`\sigma ^2/N`$, lies somewhere in the middle at the critical point $`\alpha _\mathrm{c}=0.3374\mathrm{}`$ . For the purposes of our games (custom or standard), we have chosen to make $`M`$ and $`\alpha `$ variables, with other parameters being calculated from these two.

As we have already noted, the human player enjoys the benefit of a larger memory, $`M_{}>M`$, than the computer-controlled agents; we have chosen to set $`M_{}=25`$ for the binary view and $`M_{}=50`$ for the price-chart view. We have also added a parameter particular to the IMG for the human player: the player’s *weight* or *market impact*. Recall from §2.2 that at each time $`t`$ the player is asked for a prediction $`q_{}(t)`$ on the direction the market will take, and the amount they bet on this, $`\omega _{}(t)\{1,3,5,7\}`$. Their action is then taken to be,

$$a_{}(t)=\omega _{}(t)q_{}(t)$$
(3)
Put simply, this amounts to the human player taking an action $`a_{}(t)=\pm \omega _{}(t)`$ rather than $`\pm 1`$; i.e., the player chooses to have a market impact equivalent to that of $`\omega _{}(t)`$ normal agents. The player’s gain per turn is then also proportional to $`\omega _{}(t)`$. Depending on the market phase, this can be an advantage or a disadvantage: it brings the potential of a greater reward if the player can correctly predict the market, but with the potential of a far greater loss if s/he cannot.

We have also used the concept of *minimum weight*, $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$, where we require that $`\omega _{}(t)\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$. We can force the human player to act on a larger scale than the typical agent—equivalent, perhaps, to the actions of a large investment bank rather than an individual trader.

The other new parameter introduced, for custom games, is the length of the *introductory period*, $`T_{\mathrm{𝗂𝗇𝗍}}`$. This is the length of time that the computer-controlled agents play by themselves before the human player joins the game. A long value allows the agents to adapt to the statistically stationary state of the game, while if $`T_{\mathrm{𝗂𝗇𝗍}}`$ is low, the players start off “stupid”, not knowing which of their strategies is better. In the more difficult games (efficient markets), a such a low value is essential as a high value of $`T_{\mathrm{𝗂𝗇𝗍}}`$ makes it completely impossible for a human to compete!

### 3.2 Parameter choices

The IMG allows the player both to pick from a variety of ‘standard’, ready-made games and to create their own custom game. The total choices available to the player are as follows: their *minimum weight*, $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$; the *market phase*, determined by $`\alpha `$; the *agent memory*, $`M`$; the display mode (see §2.1); the payoff (binary or linear); and, in the custom game, the length of the introductory period, $`T_{\mathrm{𝗂𝗇𝗍}}`$.

The custom game allows the choice of a full range of parameters, including some that are not used in our standard games. Minimum weight can be Small ($`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=1`$), Medium ($`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=3`$) or Large ($`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=5`$) absolute values; the market phase varies from extremely crowded ($`\alpha =0.05`$) to crowded ($`0.1`$ or $`0.2`$), the critical point ($`0.34`$) and anticrowded ($`1.0`$ or $`2.0`$). $`M`$ can be 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8; the introductory period can be the full period ($`T_{\mathrm{𝗂𝗇𝗍}}=1000`$), or it can be short (200) or very short (5).

The standard games were set up to create a variety of different market experiences for the human player. *Beginners* is exactly that: a nice and easy game, with $`M=2`$, $`\alpha =0.05`$ and $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=1`$. This is designed simply as a friendly introduction to the IMG and should not be taken too seriously!

The *Newbie Traders* game is a little trickier, with with $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=1`$ and $`M=2`$ as before, but now with $`\alpha =0.2`$.

*Day Traders* is again trickier, with $`M=3`$, $`\alpha =0.05`$ and $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=1`$, while *Chartists* ups the ante still further with $`\alpha =0.2`$.

*Wall Street Gurus* throws the player into a difficult market at the critical point, with $`M=4`$, $`\alpha =0.34`$ and $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=1`$.

*Mission Impossible* is literally that—the player must struggle with a large $`\omega _{}^{\mathrm{min}}=3`$ and an anticrowded market ($`\alpha =2.0`$) full of very intelligent agents ($`M=6`$).

All standard games use the price-chart view with a linear payoff.

## 4 What are we looking for in the IMG?

While clearly the fundamental aim of the IMG (apart from being a fun distraction for the econophysics community!) is to investigate the behaviour of humans in market situations, we should perhaps specify a bit more precisely what we are looking for. Here are a few of the questions we have in mind:

* What sort of performance do we see from humans in different types of market (crowded, anticrowded, critical…)?
* How do humans make their decisions? Do they stick to one strategy or vary their behaviour often?
* How much information do human players give to the market?
* Do they take into account their market impact?

In conclusion, we hope that the IMG, while a very simple and easy game, might provide a fascinating window into what is actually going on inside the heads of real, human, economic agents—surely one of the ultimate econophysical goals!

## References


text:
# References

Parity Violation and Neutrino Mass

Tsao Chang

CSPAR, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA

Hoff Lu Research Institute, Shanghai, 200041, China

Email: tsaochang@yahoo.com

Abstract  Besides the fact of parity violation in weak interactions, based on evidences from neutrino oscillation and tritium beta decay, a natural conjecture is that neutrinos may be spacelike particles with a tiny proper mass. A Dirac-type equation for spacelike neutrinos is further investigated and its solutions are discussed. This equation can be written in two spinor equations coupled together via nonzero proper mass while respecting maximum parity violation.
PACS number: 03.65.-w; 03.30.+p; 14.60.St

Introduction

Parity violation is a specific feature of the weak interactions. It was first discovered by T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang in 1956  and experimentally established by C.S. Wu in beta-transition of polarized Cobalt nuclei . In the standard model, neutrinos are massless. Three flavors of neutrinos are purely left-handed, but anti-neutrinos are right-handed. In recent years, many evidences for neutrino oscillation come from the solar and atmospheric neutrino data have shown that neutrinos have tiny mass (about 1 eV) or mass difference \[3-5\].

If neutrino has a tiny rest mass, it would move slower than light. When taking a Lorentz boost with a speed faster than the neutrino, the helicity of the neutrino would change its sign in the new reference frame. In another word, parity would not be violated in weak interactions. In order to solve this dilemma, The hypothesis that neutrinos may be spacelike particles is further investigated in this paper.

Besides neutrino oscillations, recent measurements in tritium beta decay experiments have presented a value of negative mass squared, $`m^2(\nu _e)2.5eV^2`$ \[6-8\]. Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass squared . These results suggest that neutrinos may be tachyons. The negative value of the neutrino mass-square simply means:

$$E^2/c^2p^2=m_\nu ^2c^2<0$$
$`(1)`$
The right-hand side in Eq.(1) can be rewritten as ($`m_s^2c^2`$), then $`m_s`$ has a positive value. $`m_s`$ is called the proper mass or ”meta mass” since it is different from the rest mass. The subscript $`s`$ means spacelike particle, i.e. tachyon. The negative value on the righthand side of Eq.(1) means that $`p^2`$ is greater than $`(E/c)^2`$ \[10-12\].

A Dirac-type equation for tachyons was investigated by Chodos et al. . A form of the lagrangian density for tachyonic neutrinos was proposed. More theoretical work can be found in Ref.\[14-16\]. In a recent paper, H-B. Ai has given a unified consideration for neutrino oscillation and negative mass-square of neutrinos, which should be paid more attention .
Theory

To follow Dirac’s approach , the Hamiltonian form of spacelike Dirac-type equation for neutrinos can be written in:

$$\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Psi }=c(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Psi }+\beta _sm_sc^2\mathrm{\Psi }$$
$`(2)`$
with ($`\widehat{E}=i\mathrm{}/t,\widehat{p}=i\mathrm{}`$). $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$) and $`\beta _s`$ are 4$`\times `$ 4 matrix, which are defined as

$$\alpha _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\beta _s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\sigma _i`$ is 2$`\times `$2 Pauli matrix, $`I`$ is 2$`\times `$2 unit matrix. The commutation relations are as follows:

$$\alpha _i\alpha _j+\alpha _j\alpha _i=2\delta _{ij}$$

$$\alpha _i\beta _s+\beta _s\alpha _i=0$$

$$\beta _s^2=1$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\beta _s=\beta \gamma _5`$. The spacelike Dirac-type equation (2) can be rewritten in covariant forms by multiplying matrics $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma _5`$. Denote the bispinor function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by two spinor functions: $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$, then Eq.(2) can be rewritten as a pair of two-component equations:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\phi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\chi +m_sc^2\chi $$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\chi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi m_sc^2\phi $$
$`(5)`$
From Eq.(5), the conserved current can be derived:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{j}=0$$
$`(6)`$
and we obtain

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{}{j}=c(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi })$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ are probability density and current; $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is the Hermitian adjoint of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ .

Considering a plane wave along the $`z`$ axis for a right-handed particle, $`\overline{\nu }`$, the helicity $`H=(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p})/|\stackrel{}{p}|=1`$, then Eq.(5) yields the following relation:

$$\chi =\frac{cpm_sc^2}{E}\phi $$
$`(8)`$
When taking massless limitation, $`m_s=0`$, we obtain $`E=cp`$ and $`\chi =\phi `$. Then Eq.(5) should be decoupled and reduced to two-component Weyl equation \[15-16\].

The plane wave can be represented by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)=\psi _\sigma exp[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pzEt)]`$ where $`\psi _\sigma `$ is a four-component bispinor. Substituting this bispinor into the wave equation (2) or (5), the explicit form of two bispinors with positive-energy states are listed as follows:

$$\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ A\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi _2=\psi _{(+)}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(9)`$
and other two bispinors with the negative-energy states are:

$$\psi _3=\psi _{()}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ A\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi _4=\psi _{()}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(10)`$
where the component $`A`$ and the normalization factor $`N`$ are chosen as

$$A=\frac{cpm_sc^2}{|E|},N=\sqrt{\frac{p+m_sc}{2m_sc}}$$
$`(11)`$
For $`\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}`$, the conserved current in Eq.(6) becomes:

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }_1{}_{}{}^{}\gamma _{5}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{|E|}{m_sc^2},j=\frac{p}{m_s}$$
$`(12)`$
Clearly, the ratio $`j/\rho `$ represents the superluminal speed $`u_s`$. For $`\psi _2=\psi _{(+)}`$, the density $`\rho `$ is negative so that it should be discarded. If we consider the negative states as mathematics solutions in the preferred frame, then $`\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}`$ is the only solution with physical identity. It gives a natural choice that antineutrino is right-handed only. If we identify the preferred frame with Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the earth frame can be considered as the preferred frame approximately ($`v/c10^3`$). Further study on the negative states and negative $`\rho `$ may be associated with complicated mathematics under Generalized Galilean Transformation (GGT) (see ), which will not be discussed here. In addition, the pseudo scalar for each spinor satisfies: $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^+\gamma ^o\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$.

Discussion

It has been shown that the spacelike Dirac-type equation (2) reduces to the two component Weyl equation in the massless limit . Notice that Eq.(2) is valid for the right-handed antineutrinos. In order to describe the left-handed neutrino, we now take a minus sign for the momentum operator, then Eq.(2) becomes

$$\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =c(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu +\beta _sm_sc^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu $$
$`(13)`$
Similar to the solutions for Eq.(2), Eq.(13) yields one physical solution for the neutrino: $`\psi _\nu =\psi _{(+)}`$. Therefore, only $`\overline{\nu }_R`$ and $`\nu _L`$ exist in nature.

As is shown in , the energy of a tachyonic neutrino (or anti-neutrino), $`E_\nu `$, could be negative in non-preferred reference frames. With respect to CMBR we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{}}10^3eV`$ in the earth frame since the electron neutrino mass is about $`1eV`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a undetectable effect at present time.

The electron neutrino and the muon neutrino may have slightly different proper masses. It provides a natural explanation why the numbers of e-lepton and $`\mu `$-lepton are conserved respectively at least for low energy experiments.

Comparing with the electron mass, the mass term of the e-neutrino in Eq.(2) is approximately close to zero. Moreover, from the result $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ for Spacelike neutrinos, it means that the mass term in Eq.(2) may be negligible in most experiments. Therefore, spacelike neutrinos behave just like the massless neutrinos. This similarity may also play role at the level of SU(2) gauge theory. Indeed, the hypothesis of spacelike neutrinos is a development of the two-component model of the massless neutrino, in which the reversal of its helicity is completely impossible. On the other hand, if the neutrino has a small rest mass, it would be against the fact of parity violation in weak interactions.

According to special relativity , if there is a spacelike particle, it might travel backward in time. Besides the re-interpretation rule introduced in the 1960’s , another approach is to introduce a kinematic time under GGT, which always goes forward \[21-23\]. Therefore, special relativity can be extended to the spacelike region without causality violation.

Acknowlegement

The author is grateful to G-j. Ni for helpful discussions. Thanks also due to helpful correspondence with H-B. Ai and E. Recami.


text:
# Go┬¨del -type space-time metrics

## 1 Introduction

The G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del metric  was the first known cosmological solution of the Einstein field equations with rotating matter and closed timelike curves. By ‘G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del -type’ metrics we mean a one-parameter family of space-time metrics of the form

$`ds^2=d𝐬^2dz^2`$ (1)
where $`d𝐬^2`$ is the metric of a signature (+ – –) space $`𝒢𝒮`$ with isometry group $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2)`$ . Since $`d𝐬^2`$ is independent of $`z`$ the isometry group of $`ds^2`$ is then $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2)\times \mathrm{}`$ where the factor $`\mathrm{}`$ is the one-dimensional translation group $`zz+`$constant. (The simply transitive subgroup $`SO(2,1)\times \mathrm{}`$ of $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2)\times \mathrm{}`$ shows that G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del -type solutions are four-dimensionally uniform, i.e., spatially uniform and stationary.)

G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del  (footnote 12) derived $`𝒢𝒮`$ by starting with three-dimensional anti-deSitter (adS) space, a space of constant positive curvature and signature (+ – –), realizable as a pseudosphere in a flat $`2+2`$ space, and ‘stretched’ it by a factor $`\mu `$ in the direction of a system of time-like Clifford parallels (= Hopf lines). \[ $`\mu `$ is the ‘one parameter’ of the family of G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del -type metrics; throughout this paper we ignore any trivial overall (scale) factor of $`ds^2`$.\] The ‘stretch’ reduces the the adS-space isometry $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2,1)`$ to $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2)`$ . In section 2 we exploit the fact that the three-dimensional adS space is a group space, namely of $`SO(2,1)`$ , to give an alternative derivation of $`d𝐬^2`$ starting with a group-space metric.

The G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del cosmological solution is the one member (namely with stretch $`\mu =\sqrt{2}`$) of the G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del -type metrics, Eq.(1), for which the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is that of a perfect fluid. In section 3 we show that other amounts of stretch yield cosmological solutions which contain also a uniform magnetic field and a uniform electrical charge density.

## 2 Construction of the metric tensor

Given a matrix representation M of a continuous group G, a metric $`dl^2`$ which is left and right invariant under the action of G is given by

$`dl^2=\mathrm{tr}(dMM^1dMM^1).`$ (2)
\[ Of course this is the Cartan-Killing metric (up to a constant factor), the unique invariant quadratic form of a Lie-group space. \] Insertion of a matrix $`H`$ between $`dM`$ and $`M^1`$ gives a modified metric

$`dL^2=\mathrm{tr}(dMHM^1dMHM^1)`$ (3)
which is still left invariant, but generally no longer right invariant. In fact under right multiplication $`MMg,gG,`$ $`dL^2`$ transforms to

$$\mathrm{tr}(dMgHg^1M^1dMgHg^1M^1),$$

so the only remaining right invariance of the modified metric is under the subgroup of $`G`$ which commutes with $`H`$.

If we take $`G`$ to be $`SO(2,1)`$ (this is G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del ’s ‘hyperbolic quaternion’ group), then $`dl^2`$, Eq.(2), is the metric of a 2 + 1 adS space. To obtain a metric with the isometry group $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2)`$ it suffices to choose an $`H`$ which commutes only with an $`SO(2)`$ subgroup of $`G`$ .

Because $`SO(2,1)`$ is isomorphic to $`SL(2,\mathrm{})`$, we can take

$`M=e^{\epsilon \varphi /2}e^{\sigma _3r/2}e^{\epsilon \psi /2},\epsilon i\sigma _2`$ (4)
where $`\sigma _j,j=1,2,3`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`\varphi ,\psi ,r`$ are real parameters.

The general form of a matrix $`H`$ which commutes with the $`SO(2)`$ subgroup generated by $`\epsilon `$ is

$`H=a+b\epsilon =\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right],`$ (7)
with $`a,b`$ complex numbers. Writing for short

$`\gamma \mathrm{cosh}r,\sigma \mathrm{sinh}r,c\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,s\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (8)
$`(\mathrm{note}\gamma ^2\sigma ^2=1,c^2+s^2=1)`$
we have

$`e^{\sigma _3r/2}\epsilon e^{\sigma _3r/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \epsilon +\sigma \sigma _1`$
$`e^{\epsilon \varphi /2}\sigma _3e^{\epsilon \varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`c\sigma _3s\sigma _1`$ (9)
$`e^{\epsilon \varphi /2}\sigma _1e^{\epsilon \varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`c\sigma _1+s\sigma _3`$
and hence an easy calculation gives

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}2{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{dr}}HM^1& =& a(c\sigma _3s\sigma _1)\hfill & +& b[\gamma (c\sigma _1+s\sigma _3)+\sigma \epsilon ]\hfill \\ 2{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{d\varphi }}HM^1& =& a\epsilon \hfill & & b[\gamma \sigma ,(c\sigma _3s\sigma _1)]\hfill \\ 2{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{d\psi }}HM^1& =& a[\gamma \epsilon +\sigma (c\sigma _1+s\sigma _3)]\hfill & & b.\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
Substituting into Eq.(3) and using tr$`(\sigma _i\sigma _j)=2\delta _{ij}`$ we obtain for $`4dL^2`$

$`(a^2b^2)d\psi ^2+2(a^2b^2)\gamma d\psi d\varphi +(a^2+b^22b^2\gamma ^2)d\varphi ^2(a^2+b^2)dr^2`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`(a^2b^2)(d\psi +\gamma d\varphi )^2(a^2+b^2)(\gamma ^21)d\varphi ^2(a^2+b^2)dr^2`$
$``$ $`\mu ^2(d\psi +\gamma d\varphi )^2\sigma ^2d\varphi ^2dr^2\mathrm{where}\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{a^2b^2}{a^2+b^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mu ^2[d\psi +d\varphi +(\gamma 1)d\varphi ]^2\sigma ^2d\varphi ^2dr^2`$
$`=`$ $`[dt+\mu (\gamma 1)d\varphi ]^2\sigma ^2d\varphi ^2dr^2\mathrm{where}dt\mu (d\psi +d\varphi ).`$
This metric and its curvature are nonsingular at $`r=0`$ if $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are regarded as polar coordinates, i.e., $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi +2\pi `$ specify the same point and $`r`$ is nonnegative. It is the metric of the space $`𝒢𝒮`$ which G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del  (footnote 12) obtained by stretching by the factor $`\mu `$ a three-dimensional anti-deSitter space in the direction of a system of time-like Clifford parallels. \[ For $`\mu =1`$ , hence $`b=0`$ in Eq.(7), Eq.(14) is the metric of the adS space; upon multiplying the first term by $`\mu ^2`$ and then redefining $`dtdt/\mu `$ the metric Eq.(14) for general $`\mu `$ is obtained. \] The metric Eq.(14) was also obtained in  (in their Eq.(38) replace $`\tau `$ by $`t/2`$ and $`r`$ by $`r/2`$ ) by what they call a ‘squash’, rather than a stretch. And finally, it is a special case of the metric (III.14) of , for $`e=1,F\mathrm{and}G=\mathrm{constant}`$ .

Using the metric Eq.(14) for the $`d𝐬^2`$ of Eq.(1),

$`ds^2=[dt+\mu (\gamma 1)d\varphi ]^2\sigma ^2d\varphi ^2dr^2dz^2`$ (15)
is a one-parameter family of metrics with the isometry $`SO(2,1)\times SO(2)\times \mathrm{}`$ . The corresponding metric tensor is

$`g_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \mu (\gamma 1)& 0& 0\\ \mu (\gamma 1)& \mu ^2(\gamma 1)^2(\gamma ^21)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)|\begin{array}{c}0t\\ 1\varphi \\ 2r\\ 3z\end{array}`$ (24)
The Ricci tensor of this metric is found to be

$`R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mu ^2& \mu ^3(\gamma 1)& 0& 0\\ \mu ^3(\gamma 1)& (\mu ^22)(\gamma ^21)+\mu ^4(\gamma 1)^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mu ^22& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
This can be written as

$`R_{mn}=(\mu ^21)u_mu_n\frac{1}{2}(\mu ^22)g_{mn};R_{3\nu }=0`$ (30)
where $`R_{mn}`$ is $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\mu ,\nu `$ restricted to the range $`0\mathrm{}2`$ (i.e., the Roman indices $`m,n`$ take on the values $`0,1,2`$) and $`u^\mu `$ is the unit tangent of fixed-($`\varphi ,r,z`$) lines,

$`u^\mu =(1000),u_\mu =(1\mu (\gamma 1)00).`$ (31)
Note that the curl of $`u_\mu `$ has the nonvanishing component

$`u_{[1,2]}=u_{1,2}=\mu (\gamma 1)_{,r}=\mu \sigma ,\mu r\mathrm{for}\mathrm{small}r,`$ (32)
which means that points at fixed $`(\varphi ,r,z)`$ are rotating at the angular velocity $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}\mu `$ , where positive $`\omega `$ means rotation in the $`+\varphi `$ direction.

It also may be mentioned that when $`\mu ^2>1`$, the metric allows closed timelike curves, for example ‘$`\varphi `$-curves’ (fixed $`t,r,z`$), with $`r>\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{(\mu +1)/(\mu 1)}`$ .

From Eq.(30) it follows that the Ricci scalar is

$`R=R_\nu ^\nu =(\mu ^21)\frac{3}{2}(\mu ^22)=\frac{1}{2}(\mu ^24)`$ (33)
and the Einstein tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }`$ is

$`G_{mn}=(\mu ^21)u_mu_n\frac{1}{4}\mu ^2g_{mn};G_{3n}=0;G_{33}=\frac{1}{4}(\mu ^24)g_{33}.`$ (34)
If $`\mu ^2=2,R_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are of the form $`C_1u_\mu u_\nu +C_2g_{\mu \nu }`$ and so (as observed by G$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$del ) the metric is a solution of the Einstein equation $`G_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }`$ where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu pg_{\mu \nu }`$ of a perfect fluid where its four-velocity $`u^\mu `$ is given in Eq.(31) and its (proper) energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ are

$`\rho =p=\frac{1}{2}.`$ (35)
If the perfect fluid is vacuum (‘cosmological constant’) plus matter then
$`\rho =\rho _{vac}+\rho _{matter}`$ and $`p=\rho _{vac}+p_{matter}`$ so

$`\rho _{matter}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+f}};\rho _{vac}=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1f}{1+f}}\mathrm{where}f={\displaystyle \frac{p_{matter}}{\rho _{matter}}}.`$ (36)
If the matter is dust, f = 0, then $`\rho _{matter}=1;\rho _{vac}=\frac{1}{2}`$ .

## 3 Solutions with $`\mu 0`$

We now show that when $`\mu ^2>2`$, the $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ implied by the metric Eq.(24) and its Einstein tensor Eq.(34) can be realized by adding to a perfect fluid a uniform magnetic field and a uniform electric charge density.

As will be evident later,

$`F_{\mu \nu }=(\delta _\mu ^1\delta _\nu ^2\delta _\mu ^2\delta _\nu ^1)\sigma B;B=\mathrm{constant}`$ (37)
describes a uniform magnetic field in the $`3`$ (‘$`z`$’) direction. The resulting electromagnetic $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$`\stackrel{\mathrm{EM}}{T_{\mu \nu }}`$ $``$ $`F_{\mu \rho }g^{\rho \sigma }F_{\sigma \nu }\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \alpha }g^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \sigma }g^{\rho \sigma },`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`\left(\sigma ^2\delta _\mu ^1\delta _\nu ^1+\delta _\mu ^2\delta _\nu ^2+\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\right)B^2.`$
By using

$`g_{mn}=u_mu_n(\sigma ^2\delta _m^1\delta _n^1+\delta _m^2\delta _n^2);g_{3n}=0,`$ (39)
which can be seen from Eq.(24) and Eq.(31), we can write $`\stackrel{\mathrm{EM}}{T_{\mu \nu }}`$ as

$`\stackrel{\mathrm{EM}}{T_{mn}}=(u_mu_n\frac{1}{2}g_{mn})B^2;\stackrel{\mathrm{EM}}{T_{3n}}=0;\stackrel{\mathrm{EM}}{T_{33}}=\frac{1}{2}g_{33}B^2.`$ (40)
The total $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ of a perfect fluid plus the magnetic field is then

$`T_{mn}=(\rho +p+B^2)u_mu_n(p+\frac{1}{2}B^2)g_{mn}`$
$`T_{3n}=0;T_{33}=(p\frac{1}{2}B^2)g_{33}`$ (41)
and Einstein’s equation for $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ , Eq.(34), is satisfied by

$`\rho =\frac{1}{2}(\mu ^21);p=\frac{1}{2};B^2=\frac{1}{2}(\mu ^22).`$ (42)
Note that $`B`$ is real only if $`\mu ^22.`$ Also note that if $`\mu ^24`$ then $`\rho 3p`$ and a vacuum contribution to $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is not needed.

We now consider Maxwell’s equations, which in terms of ordinary gradients are

$`F_{\mu \nu ,\rho }+F_{\nu \rho ,\mu }+F_{\rho \mu ,\nu }=0;^{\mu \nu }{}_{,\nu }{}^{}=𝒥^\mu `$ (43)
where $`^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{g}F^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`𝒥^\mu =\sqrt{g}J^\mu `$ , where $`g\mathrm{det}g_{\alpha \beta }=\sigma ^2`$ for the metric Eq.(24). The first (‘curl’) equation, which states the vanishing of magnetic four-current, is obviously satisfied by the field Eq.(37), since the only nonvanishing gradient is $`_2(=_r)`$ and all nonvanishing $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ have an index ‘2’. As for the ‘div’ equation, since

$`^{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}g^{22}g^{11}F_{21}=B`$
$`^{20}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}g^{22}g^{01}F_{21}=\mu (\gamma 1)B,,`$ (44)
the only nonvanishing component of $`𝒥^\mu `$ is

$`𝒥^0=^{20}{}_{,2}{}^{}=\mu \sigma B,\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.,J^0=\mu B,`$ (45)
a constant electric charge density. The physical reason for this charge density is that although in the rest frame of the matter the field is pure magnetic, in an inertial (nonrotating) frame with spatial origin fixed at, say, $`r=0`$, there is an electric field in the radial ($`dr`$) direction, with magnitude $`r`$ at small $`r`$ , hence with $`𝐄`$ constant. \[ It might be remarked that in a Friedman (homogeneous, isotropic) cosmological solution a nonvanishing charge density is impossible because it would imply an electric field with nonuniform magnitude and hence a nonuniform (inhomogeneous) electromagnetic stress tensor. \]

This work was partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-0070161 at the University of Wisconsin.