text:
# Magnification effects as measures of large-scale structure

## 1. Introduction

Gravitational lensing refers to the distortions in images of distant galaxies due to the deflection of light rays by mass concentrations. The distortion on a circular image can be decomposed into an amplification of the size of the image and an anisotropic stretching of its shape into an ellipse. The size amplification is called magnification and the anisotropic stretching is the shear. Gravitational lensing due to galaxy clusters and large-scale structure typically leads to distortions of order 1-10% (e.g. Gunn 1967; Miralda-Escude 1991; Blandford et al 1991; Kaiser 1992; Bernardeau, van Waerbeke & Mellier 1997; Jain & Seljak 1997; Kaiser 1998). In this regime of weak lensing the magnification $`\mu `$ is given by

$$\mu =\left((1\kappa )^2|𝜸|^2\right)^11+2\kappa .$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is the convergence and $`𝜸`$ the complex shear. So far observational studies of weak lensing have largely used the measured ellipticities to estimate the shear and thus the projected mass distribution.

This paper makes the case for using effects of magnification in addition to the shear in mapping dark matter. Magnification leads to fluctuations in the sizes and number densities (in a flux limited survey) of galaxies (e.g. Bartelmann & Narayan 1995; Broadhurst, Taylor & Peacock 1995; Schneider, King & Erben 200). In the context of galaxy clusters the change in number density has been used to constrain the mass distribution, but with less accuracy than the shape measurements (Taylor et al 1998). We argue that for forthcoming blank field surveys the prospects are much better than for clusters to measure both effects of magnification, on sizes and number densities.

(i) Magnification effects, unlike the shear, require control fields to estimate the mean, unlensed size distribution. This had been a limitation for small, arcminute sized, cluster fields, but is automatically done in a blank field survey.

(ii) The signal-to-noise (henceforth $`𝒮/𝒩`$) due to shot noise is somewhat lower for magnification effects than the shear, and this has proven critical in cluster lensing, since a factor of 2 in $`𝒮/𝒩`$ is hard to make up. However field lensing surveys with areas larger than 10 square degrees are mostly in the regime where sample variance or systematics dominate the errors. It is therefore feasible that from forthcoming imaging surveys with good control of systematics (photometric calibration for number density, resolution for sizes, and psf anisotropy for shear) all three lensing measurements can be made. Consistency checks on the different systematics can then be made, the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ on the measured dark matter clustering improved, and new information on halo properties can be extracted.

(iv) Space based imaging surveys will make possible the measurements of sizes with an accuracy hard to achieve from the ground. Such surveys will become feasible over small areas with the Advanced Camera for Surveys on the HST, and over substantial fractions of the sky with a wide field imaging satellite telescope.

The main goal of this paper is to propose that measurements of magnification effects, in particular the effect on galaxy sizes, be an integral part of the lensing agenda for forthcoming imaging surveys: wide area, multi-color ground based surveys like the CFHT Legacy Survey (see www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Science/CFHLS/), the proposed LSST (www.lss.org) and WFHRI (www.ifa.hawaii.edu/ $`\stackrel{~}{}`$kaiser/wfhri) surveys, and especially a space based imaging survey as proposed for the SNAP satellite (http://snap.lbl.gov) which will have the key requirements of small psf and pixels $`0.1`$ arcsecond, photometric redshifts, and survey area exceeding 100 square degrees (G. Bernstein, private communication). The formalism for computing statistical measures of magnification is presented in Section 2. Section 3 provides estimates of the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ expected for measurements of size fluctuations. We conclude in Section 4.

## 2. Statistical Measures of Magnification

### 2.1. Fluctuations in the size distribution

The lensing effect of an overdensity in the mass distribution is to increase the area of a given patch on the sky. The size of a given galaxy therefore increases. The area $`A`$ and characteristic radius $`RA^{1/2}`$ of a galaxy, for $`\kappa 1`$, is then given by:

$$AA(1+2\kappa );RR(1+\kappa ).$$
(2)
Thus the logarithm of the sizes is shifted linearly as $`\mathrm{log}R\mathrm{log}R+\kappa .`$

Following the notation of Jain & Seljak (1997) we introduce the unperturbed metric $`ds^2=a^2(\tau )\left[d\tau ^2+d\chi ^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right],`$ with $`\tau `$ being conformal time, $`a`$ the expansion factor normalized to unity today, $`\chi `$ the radial comoving distance and $`r(\chi )`$ the comoving angular diameter distance. The convergence $`\kappa `$ is a weighted projection of the mass density along the line of sight. It can be expressed as

$$\kappa _i(\widehat{\varphi })=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m_0^{\chi _H}𝑑\chi g_i(\chi )\frac{\delta (r\widehat{\varphi },\chi )}{a},$$
(3)
where $`\chi _H`$ denotes the distance to the horizon. With $`W(\chi )`$ denoting the radial distribution of galaxies in the sample, the radial weight function $`g(\chi )`$ is given by

$$g(\chi )=r(\chi )_\chi ^{\chi _H}\frac{r(\chi ^{}\chi )}{r(\chi ^{})}W(\chi ^{})𝑑\chi ^{}.$$
(4)
The variance in the size fluctuations can be related to the variance in the smoothed convergence by considering the mean size $`\overline{R}_\theta `$ in a circular aperture of angle $`\theta `$. If the unlensed or intrinsic mean size in such an aperture is denoted $`\overline{R}_\theta ^i`$, then we can define the size shift $`\delta R(\overline{R}_\theta \overline{R}_\theta ^i)/\overline{R}_\theta ^i`$. Using equations 2 and 3 the variance of the shift in sizes along different lines of sight can be obtained in terms of the power spectrum of density fluctuations as

$`\delta R^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`36\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}k𝑑k{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _0}}a^2(\chi )`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`P_\delta (k,\chi )g^2(\chi )U^2[kr(\chi )\theta ]d\chi ,`$
where $`U(x)=2J_1(x)/x`$, with $`J_1(x)`$ being the Bessel function of first order.

### 2.2. Cross-correlations induced by magnification

Magnification causes the observed area of a given patch of sky to increase, tending to dilute the number density, but galaxies fainter than the limiting magnitude are brightened and may be included in the sample, thus increasing the number density. The net effect, known as magnification bias, can go either way depending on the slope $`s`$ of the number counts of galaxies $`N_0(m)`$ in a sample with limiting magnitude $`m`$, $`s=d\mathrm{log}N_0/dm`$. Magnification by amount $`\mu `$ changes the number counts to (e.g. Broadhurst, Taylor & Peacock 1995), $`N^{}(m)=N_0(m)\mu ^{2.5s1}.`$ In the weak lensing regime, this reduces to $`N^{}(m)=N_0(m)\left[1+5(s0.4)\kappa \right].`$ Variations in the number density which are correlated over some angular separation are produced due to the spatial correlations of the lensing dark matter. These correlations are difficult to detect since the galaxies have a strong auto-correlation function due to their spatial clustering. However the cross-correlation of two galaxy samples with non-overlapping redshift distributions isolates the effect of magnification bias.

The cross-correlation of a foreground-background galaxy sample can be obtained in the Limber approximation (Moessner & Jain 1998):

$`\omega _\times (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Omega }_m(2.5s_21)4\pi ^2{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _H}}𝑑\chi W_1(\chi ){\displaystyle \frac{g_2(\chi )}{a}}`$ (6)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkkP_\times (\chi ,k)J_0\left[kr(\chi )\theta \right],`$
where the subscripts $`1,2`$ denote the foreground and background populations respectively and $`P_\times (\chi ,k)`$ is the projected galaxy-mass cross-power spectrum. $`\omega _\times (\theta )`$ can also be measured by the quasar-galaxy correlations that have been extensively discussed in the literature. The sizes of background galaxies discussed in the previous sub-section can be used as well; this would alter the equation above only in the numerical coefficient on the right-hand side.

Note that $`\omega _\times (\theta )`$ is a measure of the galaxy-mass cross-correlation. It is the counterpart of galaxy-galaxy lensing, with the difference that the convergence is measured rather than the tangential shear. Hence it provides a more local measure of the galaxy-mass cross-correlation, which in the small scale regime probes the structure of galactic halos. For galaxy clusters one can measure size increases or number counts of background galaxies around individually clusters from high quality data, else they can be stacked like the galaxies. Large catalogs of clusters will soon be available for such measurements, and conversely, mass selected cluster catalogs may be obtainable from these measures of the convergence.

### 2.3. Corrections of high redshift supernovae magnitudes

Recently Dalal et al (2002) have estimated the capability of shear maps to correct the lensing induced dispersion in the measured magnitudes of high redshift supernovae. The idea is the following. Magnification effects contribute to the measured scatter in the magnitudes of high redshift supernovae. Since the lensing contribution can equal or exceed the intrinsic dispersion for supernovae at $`z\stackrel{>}{}1`$, it is valuable to be able to measure the lensing effect along the lines of sight to individual supernovae from another tracer and thus correct the supernovae magnitudes. Dalal et al (2002) needed to assume that the convergence can be reconstructed on arcminute scales from ellipticity data, which may not prove to be feasible as they discuss. Measurements of size fluctuations however could directly map the convergence on arcminute scales around the line of sight to supernovae, allowing for a reduction in the scatter of supernova magnitudes.

The main open questions are: How large is the shot noise effect for a given survey? How strongly is the smoothed convergence estimated from source galaxies correlated with the value along the line of sight to individual supernovae? On arcminute scales ray tracing simulations can be used to estimate how much stronger this correlation is than assumed in the Gaussian limit taken by Dalal et al (2002). Hence a quantitative study is merited to check if one can do better than the reduction of about 10% in the lensing dispersion reported by these authors.

## 3. Signal-to-noise estimates

We use as the primary observable the log of the linear size (such as half-light radius). To measure a lensing signal, it is best to select galaxies on surface brightness which is conserved by lensing (Bartelmann & Narayan 1995). In the following we will assume that photometric redshifts are measured for the galaxies and that the surface brightness is not contaminated by atmospheric or instrumental effects. The number density of usable galaxies will depend on how conservative the catalog selection for a specific instrument and survey will need to be. The $`𝒮/𝒩`$ in the variance on smoothing scale $`\theta `$ using galaxy sizes as an estimator of the magnification is then given in terms of the standard deviation $`\sigma _i`$ in the intrinsic solid angles and the number of galaxies $`N_\theta `$ per circle of size $`\theta `$. For a single field of size $`\theta `$ the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ is:

$$\left(\frac{𝒮}{𝒩}\right)_{1\mathrm{field}}=\frac{\sigma _\kappa ^2(\theta )}{\sigma _i^2(I)/N_\theta },$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _\kappa ^2(\theta )=\kappa ^2`$ is the variance in the convergence with a top-hat smoothing of angular size $`\theta `$, and $`\sigma _i(I)`$ is the standard deviation of the size distribution in a given bin in physical surface brightness. This differs from the corresponding expression for ellipticity measurements because the denominator contains a different $`\sigma _ϵ^2/N_\theta ^ϵ`$ (the signal due to the variance of $`\kappa `$ or $`\gamma `$ in the numerator is equal in the weak lensing regime). From ground based data, the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ for the ellipticity is larger than for the size since psf smearing directly affects the size estimate and affects the shape only at second order. From space based data however it is hard to say a priori whether the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ from shape measures is higher (at least by larger than a factor of two) for a given survey area. In any case, as shown below, on large scales sample variance dominates the statistical errors.

For cosmological measurements, the data size of interest is a wide field survey from which the variance of $`\kappa `$ can be measured over a range of angular scales. Thus there are two angles, the first denoted $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ gives the size of the survey, and the second is the angular scale on which the variance is measured, which we will continue to denote $`\theta `$. Let $`N_f=\mathrm{\Theta }_0^2/\theta ^2`$ be the number of patches of size $`\theta `$ used in the measurement of $`\kappa ^2`$. Thus the total number of galaxies is $`N_t=N_fN_\theta `$. In the following we will assume that the $`N_f`$ patches are uncorrelated. The contribution to the measured variance due to sample variance and the intrinsic scatter in the size distribution is: $`𝒩=\left[\sqrt{2}\sigma _\kappa ^2(\theta )+\sigma _i^2/N_\theta \right]/\sqrt{N_f},`$ where the first term is the sample variance contribution assuming a Gaussian distribution, while the second is the contribution from the intrinsic scatter in the size distribution.

The $`𝒮/𝒩`$ for the measured variance is then given by

$$\frac{𝒮}{𝒩}=\sigma _\kappa ^2(\theta )\frac{\sqrt{N_f}}{\left[\sqrt{2}\sigma _\kappa ^2(\theta )+\sigma _i^2/N_\theta \right]}.$$
(8)
The above estimate ignores the effect of the kurtosis on the sample variance and thus underestimates the sample variance on small scales. The effect can be estimated by using the results of Takada & Jain (2002) who find that the kurtosis parameter defined as $`S_4=\kappa ^4/\sigma _\kappa ^6=3\times 10^4`$ between $`1^{}<\theta <10^{}`$ and falls off on larger scales (see their Figure 9). In the sample variance contribution, the relevant ratio is the standard definition of kurtosis in statistics, $`\kappa ^4/\sigma _\kappa ^4`$, so we need to find the angular scales on which this ratio is of order unity. Over the scales of interest, $`\sigma _\kappa ^23\times 10^4\theta ^1`$, where $`\theta `$ is in arcminutes (Jain & Seljak 1997). Hence we obtain $`\kappa ^4/\sigma _\kappa ^410/\theta (^{})`$, a simple expression that is sufficiently accurate for our purpose. Thus for $`\theta \stackrel{<}{}10^{}`$, the kurtosis term is important and could increase the sample variance by up to a factor of two. However, we will see below that the shot noise term dominates the sample variance term on scales smaller than a few arcminutes. Hence it is only over a small range in angle, and at worst by a factor of two, that we have underestimated the sample variance. Note that analogous expressions to equation 8 hold for the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ from shape measurements (e.g. Jain & Seljak 1997; Schneider et al 1998; Hu & Tegmark 1999).

It is interesting to consider the relative contributions of sample variance and intrinsic scatter to the noise term in equation 8. Again using the approximate relation $`\sigma _\kappa ^21/\theta `$, we see that the shot-noise term scales $`1/\theta ^3`$, while the sample variance scales as $`1/\theta ^2`$. Thus on small scales the shot-noise term dominates, while on scales larger than a few arcminutes (depending on the number density of galaxies) the sample variance term dominates.

Figure 1 shows the predicted variance in size shifts and the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ expected for different survey parameters. We assume a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\sigma _8=0.9`$ and assume that photometric redshifts are available for a source redshift distribution of the form $`n(z)z^2\mathrm{exp}\left[(z/z_0)^{1.2}\right]`$. Varying $`z_0`$ changes the mean redshift of the distribution. The left panel shows the variance in the size shift and the two sources of noise: the intrinsic dispersion of galaxy sizes and sample variance. On scales of order $`1^{}`$ and smaller, the intrinsic dispersion dominates, while on larger scales sample variance is the main source is noise. In the right panel the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ achievable with a filled survey is shown. The middle solid curve assumes a number density of galaxies of 40 per square arcminute, a total area of 100 square degrees and an intrinsic dispersion $`\sigma _i=0.5`$ (Narayan & Bartelmann 1995). This curve shows that high $`𝒮/𝒩`$ measurements can be made on scales of order $`0.1^{}100^{}`$, which corresponds to spatial scales of about 50 Kpc to 50 Mpc. If the level of systematics is not a show-stopper, then one can extend the measurements to larger scales by sparse sampling. For given survey area, sparse sampling would increase the $`N_f`$ term on large scales. Kaiser (1998) uses a power spectrum analysis to examine the best strategy for sparse sampling.

The lower and upper solid curves in the right panel of Figure 1 show the effect of changing the survey area by a factor of ten — the curves shift up and down by the square root of the area. The dashed and dot-dashed curves show the effect on the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ of lower galaxy number density and higher mean redshift of source galaxies, respectively. If the effective number density for which sizes can be measured is decreased to 20 per square arcminute, then the shot noise term on small scales ($`\theta <5^{}`$) lowers the $`𝒮/𝒩`$. For a higher redshift distribution of source galaxies, keeping other parameters constant, the signal is higher, so the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ improves on small scales as shown by the dot-dashed curve. If neighboring fields are correlated, then the sample variance estimate must be revised because the effective number of independent fields of given angular size $`\theta `$ is smaller. As discussed above, this would lower the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ for $`\theta <10^{}`$. It is clear from the range of the effective parameters in the $`𝒮/𝒩`$ explored here that even in a conservative scenario, a survey with area of order 100 square degrees will provide high $`𝒮/𝒩`$ measurements over several decades in length-scale.

## 4. Discussion

What kind of survey would be suitable for measuring the magnification effects discussed in this paper? For the effect of magnification on galaxy sizes, a wide area space based multi-color imaging survey would be ideal. It is challenging for a ground based telescope to overcome the effect of psf smearing on the size distribution, unless one has the luxury of a large enough sample of galaxies with sizes larger than the psf. With appropriate multi-color imaging one can obtain photometric redshifts which can help reduce the scatter in measuring the size variance induced by lensing, allow one to check for intrinsic correlations in sizes and eliminate their contribution if needed. It also allows for the possibility of measuring the evolution of matter clustering by binning the source galaxies in redshift (Jain & Seljak 1997; Hu 1999). With a psf of order 0.1 arcseconds and deep imaging, it is feasible to make size measurements on of order a million galaxies over a 10 square degree area (based on the size vs. magnitude measurements in the Hubble Deep Field by Gardner & Satyapal 2000). This would give adequate $`𝒮/𝒩`$ to measure the variance of the size distribution over a few bins in angle ranging from 1 to 10 arcminutes.

With an area coverage of 100s of square degrees, which would probably be feasible only with a dedicated imaging satellite such as SNAP, one can measure the projected matter power spectrum to a precision of a few percent, measure higher order correlations, and ideally in combination with shear information, get useful constraints on cosmological parameters. On the smallest scales, cross-correlation statistics would probe galaxy halos on scales of a few 10s of Kpc. By combining the magnification measurements with the shear, the density profile of halos can be measured far more accurately than with just galaxy-galaxy lensing, which probes only the integrated mass within radii. Further work is needed to quantify this, explore how small the scales that one can probe are, and check the validity of the approximation of equation 1 on these scales. Magnification effects make possible other useful measures of the non-Gaussian lensing field that have proven difficult to obtain from shear data, such as the skewness of $`\kappa `$ which probes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (Bernardeau et al 1997) and peak statistics which probe the mass function of halos (Jain & van Waerbeke 2000).

The cross-correlation effects of magnification on the number densities of galaxies, and of foreground galaxy position with background galaxy sizes, are in principle easier to measure. This is because these statistics are first order in the lensing convergence whereas the size variance is of second order. The interpretation is more complex in that it involves the relation of a foreground galaxy population with the mass. The main requirements for accurate measurements are photometric redshifts for a large sample of galaxies (to separate the foreground and background galaxies), and high imaging quality as discussed above. For deep imaging data that has a redshift distribution peaked at $`z\stackrel{>}{}1`$, an adequate dataset would encompass 10 square degrees, while an ideal dataset would cover more than a 100 square degrees. The southern strip of SDSS fulfills the requirements outlined above, as do other smaller imaging surveys that are in progress or being planned.

It is hoped that the discussion and results presented here motivate the integration of magnification measurements as part of the scientific agenda of wide area imaging surveys. The precise requirements for a given survey that will enable useful magnification measurements to be made need careful consideration. At the same time work is needed on survey strategy, techniques for combining magnification and shear information, and appropriate statistical measures that can be extracted from the data.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Matthias Bartelmann, Andrew Connolly, Gary Bernstein, Jason Rhodes, David Rusin, Alex Szalay, Masahiro Takada and Andy Taylor for helpful discussions. Comments from an anonymous refereee led to improvements in the paper. This work was supported in part by a NASA-ATP grant and a Keck foundation grant.


format: text

text:
# Time Dependent Solution in Open Bosonic String Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

Time dependent solutions of the open string field theory have been studied very intensively in the last few months. In particular, the solution describing rolling of the tachyon field on non-BPS D-brane or D-brane anti-D-brane pair away from the unstable minimum of the potential to the stable one has been studied very intensively in series of remarkable papers by A. Sen . This problem has been also discussed in  and very recently in two papers .

In this paper we will study this problem from the point of view of the open bosonic string field theory (SFT)  (For review and extensive list of references, see .). We present an exact time dependent solution of SFT that has many properties that we should expect from the rolling tachyon solution. In particular, we will show that in the asymptotic future there are not any states corresponding to the open string fluctuation modes. We will also show that this solution is characterised by initial position and velocity of the tachyon field with agreement with .

In our calculation we will proceed as follows. We will presume that there is solution of the SFT equation of motion that can be written using string field identity field  and any operator of the ghost number one that acts on it. This presumption is crucial for our analysis since then we can easily find an exact solution of the SFT equation of motion and the form of the modified BRST operator. The similar approach for searching of the exact solutions of SFT has been used recently in . Success of this approach strongly support our conjecture that the identity field $``$ is the fundamental object in the string field theory and deserve further study. In particular, this string field theory identity field has been studied recently in many interesting papers .

This paper is organised as follows. In the next section (2) we perform explicit calculation and we find time dependent solution of the SFT. In (3) section we show that there are not any plane-wave modes that propagate about the new background given by the rolling tachyon solution. And finally, in (4) we outline our results and suggest further open questions and problems.

## 2 Calculation

In this section we will solve the string field theory equation of motion. We show that there is an exact time dependent solution that describes rolling of the tachyon from its initial value $`\lambda `$ to the minimum of the potential in the limit $`x^0\mathrm{}`$.

To begin with, we firstly review basic facts about bosonic string field theory, following mainly . Gauge invariant string field theory is described with the full Hilbert space of the first quantized open string including $`b,c`$ ghost fields subject to the condition that the states must carry ghost number one, where $`b`$ has ghost number $`1`$, $`c`$ has ghost number $`1`$ and $`SL(2,C)`$ invariant vacuum $`|0`$ carries ghost number $`0`$. We denote $``$ the subspace of the full Hilbert space carrying ghost number $`1`$. Any state in $``$ will be denoted as $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and corresponding vertex operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the vertex operator that creates state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ out of the vacuum state $`|0`$

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }|0.$$
(1)
Since we are dealing with open string theory, the vertex operators should be put on the boundary of the world-sheet. In the following we will also use double cover of the upper half plane and then we will consider holomorphic fields only. The string field theory action is given

$$S=\frac{1}{g_0^2}\left(\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}I\mathrm{\Phi }(0)Q_B\mathrm{\Phi }(0)+\frac{1}{3}f_1\mathrm{\Phi }(0)f_2\mathrm{\Phi }(0)f_3\mathrm{\Phi }(0)\right),$$
(2)
where $`g_0`$ is open string coupling constant, $`Q_B`$ is BRST operator and $`<>`$ denotes correlation function in the combined matter ghost conformal field theory. $`I,f_1,f_2,f_3`$ are conformal mapping exact form of which is reviewed in  and $`f_i\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ denotes the conformal transformation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ by $`f_i`$. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a primary field of dimension $`h`$, then $`f_i\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=(f_i^{}(0))^h\mathrm{\Phi }(f_i(0))`$. In the abstract language pioneered in , the open string field theory action (2) has a form (For more details, see .)

$$S=\frac{1}{g_0^2}\left(\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }Q\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right).$$
(3)
Let us presume that the solution of the string field theory equation of motion

$$\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}Q\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0,$$
(4)
can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=𝒯_L(),$$
(5)
where $``$ is string field algebra $``$ identity field  that obeys

$$X=X=X,$$
(6)
for any string field $`X`$. The ghost number one operator $`𝒯`$ is defined as

$$𝒯(\mathrm{\Phi }(w))=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C𝑑zt(z)\mathrm{\Phi }(w),$$
(7)
where the integration contour $`C`$ encircles the point $`w`$ of the complex plane counterclockwise and we use the convention that $`t(z)`$ is holomorphic field defined over the whole complex plane via the doubling trick. In upper expression $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)`$ is any CFT operator. And finally, the subscript $`L`$ in (5) means that the integration contour corresponds to the integration over left side of the string. In the complex plane, this contour can be parameterised as $`z=e^{i\sigma +\tau },\sigma (\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ for $`𝒯_L`$ acting on $`|\varphi =\varphi (0)|0`$. For $`𝒯_L`$ acting on any wedge state $`|n`$ the situation is slightly more complicated, for precise discussion of these problems, see very nice papers . For our purpose the definition (7) will be sufficient.

Using results given in  and recently discussed in  we can easily show that the field (5) obeys

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0=𝒯_L()𝒯_L()=𝒯_L()𝒯_R()=𝒯_L(𝒯_L())=\frac{1}{2}\{𝒯_L,𝒯_L\}().$$
(8)
In the same way we get

$`Q\mathrm{\Phi }_0=(Q_R+Q_L)(𝒯_L())=Q_L(𝒯_L())𝒯_L(Q_R())=\{Q,𝒯\}_L(),`$
where we have used the fact that $`Q_R`$ anticommutes with $`𝒯_L`$ and the relation

$$Q_L()=Q_R().$$
(10)
In these formulas the subscript $`R`$ means the integration over right side of the string. And finally, we use the notation

$$[X_L,Y_L]=[X,Y]_L.$$
(11)
Let us presume that the solution of (4) can be written as

$$𝒯_L()=T_L()+\delta T_L(),Q(T_L())=\{Q,T\}_L()=0$$
(12)
and $`\delta T`$ obeys

$$\{Q,\delta T\}_L\frac{1}{2}\{T,T\}_L=0,\{\delta T,\delta T\}_L=0,\{\delta 𝒯,T\}=0.$$
(13)
Then it is clear that (12) is exact solution of the string field theory equation of motion.

Let us consider $`T`$ in the form

$$T=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑wt(X^0(w))c(w),t(X^0(w))=\underset{n}{}a_nX^0(w)^n,$$
(14)
where the normal ordering between $`X^0`$ is understood. In the following we use the convention

$`T_m(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}_zX^\mu (z)_zX^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu },`$
$`X^\mu (z)X^\nu (w){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}(zw),`$
$`c(z)b(w){\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}},`$
$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑zc(z)\left[T_m(z)+\frac{1}{2}T_{gh}(z)\right]},`$
$`T_{gh}(z)=2b(z)c(z)(b(z))c(z),`$
$`T_{gh}(z)c(w){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}c(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{c(w)}{zw}}.`$
Then we obtain from (12)

$`0=\{Q,T\}_L=`$
$`=\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑zc(z)\left[T_m(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_{ghost}(z)\right],{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_2}}𝑑wt(X^0(w))c(w)\}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑wc(w)c(w)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}}t^{\prime \prime }(X^0(w))t(X^0(w))\right],`$
where $`C_1,C_2`$ are integration contours in the complex plane corresponding to the integration over left side of the string. Finally, we have defined $`t^{\prime \prime }(X^0(w))=\frac{d^2t(x)}{d^2x}`$. From the requirement of the vanishing (2) we immediately get two linearly independent solutions

$$t_1(w)=e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)},t_2(w)=e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}.$$
(17)
Now we can ask the question whether the linear combination of these two solutions

$$T=AT_1+BT_2$$
(18)
is exact solution of the SFT equation of motion. It is clear that this operator obeys

$$\{Q,T\}_L=0$$
(19)
and hence it is solution of the SFT equation of motion in the linearised approximation . In order to determine whether the string field $`T_L()`$ is solution of (4) we must calculate following expression

$$\frac{1}{2}\{T_L,T_L\}=\frac{1}{2}\{\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_1}𝑑zc(z)t(X^0(z)),\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_2}𝑑wc(w)t(X^0(w))\},$$
(20)
where $`C_1,C_2`$ are the same integration contours as in the previous example. Now we rewrite (20) as

$$\frac{1}{4\pi i}_{C_1}𝑑w\left[\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C^{}c(z)t(X^0(z))t(X^0(w))\right]c(w),$$
(21)
where the integration contour $`C^{}`$ encircles the point $`w`$ counterclockwise. From upper expression it is clear that we must determine Operator product expansion (OPE) between $`t(z),t(w)`$. Using the well known formula  for the calculation of the OPE between two normal ordered operators $`::,:𝒢:`$ 222In the following we introduce the symbol $`:F:`$ for the normal ordered operator $`F`$.

$$:(z)::𝒢(w):=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}dz_1dz_2\mathrm{ln}(z_1z_2)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta _{}}{\delta X^\mu (z_1)}\frac{\delta _𝒢}{\delta X^\nu (z_2)}):(z)𝒢(w):$$
(22)
we get

$`t_1(z)t_1(w)=:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}::e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle }dz_1dz_2\mathrm{ln}(z_1z_2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\delta _\mu ^0\delta (zz_1)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\delta _\nu ^0\delta (wz_2)\delta _\nu ^0\eta ^{\mu \nu }):e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:=(zw)^2:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:,`$
$`t_2(z)t_2(w)=:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}::e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:=(zw)^2:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:,`$
where we have used

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu (z_1)}}t_1(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\mu (z_1)}}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}=\delta (zz_1){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\delta _\mu ^0e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\nu (z_2)}}t_2(w)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta X^\nu (z_2)}}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}=\delta (wz_2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\delta _\nu ^0e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}.`$
We see from (2) that the OPE between $`t_1(z)t_1(w),t_2(z)t_2(w)`$ are non-singular and consequently

$`\{T_1,T_1\}_L=0,`$
$`\{T_2,T_2\}_L=0.`$
We can also show that

$`t_1(z)t_2(w)=:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}::e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:=`$
$`=(zw)^2:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}:e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}:_wX^0(w)(zw)e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:+\mathrm{}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}_wX^0(w)+\mathrm{}.`$
Using (2),(2),(2) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{T_L,T_L\}=AB\{T_{1L},T_{2L}\}=AB{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C^{}}c(z)t_1(X^0(z))t_2(X^0(w))\right]c(w)=`$
$`=AB{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C^{}}𝑑z\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}_wX^0(w)\right)c(z)\right]c(w)=`$
$`=AB{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w_wc(w)c(w)+c(w){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}_wX^0(w)c(w)=AB{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w_wc(w)c(w)0`$
and hence the linear combination $`AT_1+BT_2`$ is not an exact solution of the string field theory equation of motion. As in (12) we introduce following term

$$\delta 𝒯=AB\alpha ^{}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_1}𝑑zc(z).$$
(28)
From the upper expression we immediately obtain

$$\{\delta 𝒯,\delta 𝒯\}_L=0,\{\delta 𝒯,T_{1,2}\}=0.$$
(29)
We can also easily see that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}\{Q,\delta 𝒯\}_L=\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑zc(z)T_g(z),{\displaystyle \frac{AB}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_2}}𝑑wc(w)\}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{AB}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C^{}}c(z)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}c(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}_wc(w)\right)\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{AB}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{_w}}\left[{\displaystyle _C^{}}𝑑zc(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}\right]c(w)+c(w)_wc(w)\right\}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{AB}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑w_wc(w)c(w).`$
From (2) and (2) we immediately get

$$\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\{Q,\delta 𝒯\}_L\frac{1}{2}\{𝒯,𝒯\}_L=0$$
(31)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=𝒯_L(),𝒯=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑zc(z)\left(Ae^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}+Be^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}\alpha ^{}AB\right).$$
(32)
is exact solution of the SFT equation of motion.

Let us consider following initial condition

$$𝒯(X^0=0)=\lambda c(z),𝒯^{}(X^0=0)=0.$$
(33)
From the second condition we get

$$0=\frac{d𝒯(X^0)}{dX^0}(X^0=0)=c(z)(AB)A=B,$$
(34)
and when we insert this result into the first condition in (33) we immediately obtain

$`𝒯(X^0=0)=c(z)\left(\alpha ^{}AB+A+B\right)=c(z)\lambda \alpha ^{}A^2+2A\lambda =0`$
$`A_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}\left(1+\sqrt{1\alpha ^{}\lambda }\right),A_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}\left(1\sqrt{1\alpha ^{}\lambda }\right).`$
For $`\lambda 1/\alpha ^{}`$ we get

$$A_1\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\left(1+(1\alpha ^{}\lambda /2)\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\left(2\alpha ^{}\lambda /2\right).A_2\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}(1(1\alpha ^{}\lambda /2))=\frac{\lambda }{2}.$$
(36)
For $`\lambda 0`$, $`A_2`$ goes to zero and hence the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ vanishes. On the other hand for $`\lambda 0`$ $`A_1`$ goes to $`2/\alpha ^{}`$. In this case the tachyon field would start to roll even if its initial value and velocity are zero. We mean that in the classical string field theory there is no reason for such a behaviour so that we will not consider the first root $`A_1`$.

To obtain the string field theory action for the fluctuation fields about the classical solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ we insert the general string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into (3). Then we get the string field theory action for the string field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which has the same form as (3) however the original BRST operator $`Q`$ is replaced with the new one

$$Q^{}(\mathrm{\Psi })=Q(\mathrm{\Psi })+\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }(1)^{|\mathrm{\Psi }|}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0=Q(\mathrm{\Psi })𝒯(\mathrm{\Psi }),$$
(37)
using

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒯_L()\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒯_R(\mathrm{\Psi })=𝒯_R(\mathrm{\Psi }),`$
$`(1)^{|\mathrm{\Psi }|}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0=(1)^{|\mathrm{\Psi }|}\mathrm{\Psi }𝒯_R()=𝒯_L(\mathrm{\Psi })=𝒯_L(\mathrm{\Psi }),`$
$`𝒯_L()=𝒯_R(),𝒯(\mathrm{\Psi })=𝒯_L(\mathrm{\Psi })+𝒯_R(\mathrm{\Psi }).`$
As a result we obtain the new BRST operator $`Q^{}`$ in the form

$`Q^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑zc(z)\left[T_m(z)Ae^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}Be^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}+\alpha ^{}AB+\frac{1}{2}T_{gh}(z)\right]}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑zc(z)\left[T_m(z)2A\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)\right)+\alpha ^{}A^2+\frac{1}{2}T_{gh}(z)\right]}.`$
In the next section we will study the fate of the fluctuation modes about the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=𝒯_L()`$.

## 3 Absence of the perturbative states in the asymptotic future

In this section we will analyse fluctuation modes about the solution (32) in the limit $`X^0\mathrm{}`$. According to very nice analysis given in , there should not be any plane-wave perturbative states in the limit $`X^0\mathrm{}`$. We will argue that the same result holds for the fluctuation fields about the string field solution $`𝒯_L()`$. We hope that this conclusion strongly supports our conjecture that (32) really describes rolling the tachyon in the string field theory.

To begin with, we propose following form of the fluctuation field. We conjecture that any fluctuation mode about the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=𝒯_L()`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=F(c^{},b^{},a^{})(𝒯_L()),$$
(40)
where $`F(c^{},b^{},a^{})`$ is ghost number zero operator. The proposal (40) is mainly motivated by recent works  where the fluctuation mode about sliver state in VSFT has been studied. Other aspects of the fluctuation modes about sliver state have been discussed in .

In CFT language the fluctuation field (40) can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑wf(X(w),X(w))\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_1}𝑑z𝒯(z)\right)}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑z\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C^{}}𝑑wf(w)𝒯(z)\right]()=[F,𝒯]_L(),`$
using

$$F_L()=F_R().$$
(42)
Now we will try to find spectrum of the fluctuation modes. By definition, the fluctuation modes obey the linearised string field theory equation of motion formulated about the new background

$$Q^{}\left([F,𝒯]_L()\right)=0\{Q,[F,𝒯]\}_L\{𝒯,[F,𝒯]\}_L=0.$$
(43)
To solve previous equation, we need following formulas

$`\{Q,[F,𝒯]\}_L[F,\{𝒯,Q\}]_L\{𝒯,[Q,F]\}_L=0,`$
$`\{Q,[F,𝒯]\}_L=[F,\{𝒯,Q\}]_L+\{𝒯,[Q,F]\}_L=`$
$`=[F,\{\delta 𝒯,Q\}]_L+\{𝒯,[Q,F]\}_L=\{𝒯,[Q,F]\}_L,`$
where we have used the fact that $`F`$ is the ghost number zero operator and hence has trivial OPE with any ghost field so that $`[F,\{Q,\delta T\}]=0`$.

In the same way we get

$`\{𝒯,[F,𝒯]\}_L=\{\delta 𝒯+T_1+T_2,[F,T_1+T_2]\}_L=`$
$`=\{T_1,[F,T_2]\}+\{T_2,[F,T_1]\}_L=`$
$`=[F,\{T_1,T_2\}]_L=2[F,\{Q,\delta 𝒯\}]_L=0.`$
Then (43) reduces to

$$0=Q^{}(F(𝒯_L())=\{𝒯,[Q,F]\}_L[Q,F]_L=0.$$
(46)
We are interested in the limit $`X^0\mathrm{}`$ so that $`𝒯\frac{A}{2\pi i}𝑑zc(z)e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}`$. Now we would like to show, in the same way as in , that in the asymptotic future there are not any plane-wave states around the tachyon vacuum. Let us start with the operator

$$F=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑wf(w)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑we^{2ik_\mu X^\mu (w)}.$$
(47)
Then (46) gives the condition

$$\left(\alpha ^{}k_ik_j\eta ^{ij}\alpha ^{}k_0^2\right)=k_\mu k_\nu \eta ^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(48)
Note that there is not any contribution from the ghost sector since $`F`$ is the ghost number zero operator and hence has trivial OPE with $`T_{ghost}`$. According to (3) we must calculate following commutator

$`[F,𝒯(X^0\mathrm{})]_L=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑ze^{2ik_0X^0(z)},{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_2}}𝑑wc(w)e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_1}}𝑑wc(w)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C^{}}𝑑ze^{2ik_0X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}\right].`$
In order to obtain nontrivial result we should consider $`k_0`$ in the form

$$k_0=\frac{in}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}},n=1,2\mathrm{}$$
(50)
so we get

$`:e^{\frac{2n}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}::e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:=:\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle }dz_1dz_2\mathrm{ln}(z_1z_2){\displaystyle \frac{2n}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\delta (z_1z){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\delta (z_2w)\right)\times `$
$`\times :e^{\frac{2n}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^{2n}}}:e^{\frac{2n}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(z)}e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}X^0(w)}:.`$
When we insert (3) into (3) we obtain well defined operator and hence well defined fluctuation mode. On the other hand, the condition (48) implies

$$k_ik^i=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}n^2,n=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(52)
so that the spatial part of the momentum is imaginary. This result clearly implies that there are not any fluctuation modes that propagate as plane-wave solutions about tachyon vacuum with agreement with the analysis performed in . It is easy to extend this arguments to other perturbative modes

$$F=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑wO(_wX(w),\mathrm{})e^{ik_\mu X^\mu (w)},$$
(53)
where now the condition $`[Q,F]_L=0`$ implies

$$k_0^2+k_ik^i=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}Nk_ik^i=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}(n^2+N).$$
(54)
As in previous case the requirement of the well defined operator leads to the condition (50) which again implies that spatial components of the momentum are imaginary and hence there are not present any plane-wave excitations. We mean that this result strongly supports our conjecture that the solution given in the previous section really describes rolling tachyon .

## 4 Conclusion

In this short note we have found an exact solution of the open bosonic string field theory that represents the time dependent flow to the tachyonic vacuum. We have seen that this solution is characterised by one parameter $`\lambda `$ so that despite the non-locality of the string field theory action, it does admit time dependent solutions labelled by initial position and velocity of the tachyon field, with complete agreement with recent papers . We have also shown that in the asymptotic future there are not any physical fluctuations about this solution again with the agreement with .

There are many problems and questions that deserve further study. Since we have argued that the solution given in this paper corresponds to the flow of the system to the tachyonic vacuum, we should expect that the string field theory formulated about this solution will have many common with the vacuum string field theory. In particular, we believe that there exist such a string field redefinition that maps the shifted BRST operator (2) in the limit $`X^0\mathrm{}`$ to the pure ghost BRST operator in VSFT .

We have seen that there are not any perturbative fluctuations corresponding to the open string modes about the rolling tachyon solution. On the other hand, it is possible that there could be solutions of the string field theory formulated about rolling tachyon background in the limit $`X^0\mathrm{}`$ that represent closed string excitations or D-branes of various dimensions. If our presumption is correct that these solutions should be related to the sliver states in VSFT. We hope to return to these important and exciting problems in the future.

Acknowledgement This work is partly supported by EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-00122.