format: text

text:
# Isospectrality of spherical MHD dynamo operators: Pseudo-Hermiticity and a no-go theorem

## 1 Introduction

The magnetic fields of stars and planets are generated by the homogeneous dynamo effect in moving electrically conducting fluids . This effect is explained within the framework of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD), but its experimental demonstration was missing until recently. In 1999, the first successful dynamo experiments in Riga and Karlsruhe  opened up a new way for the laboratory investigation of homogeneous dynamos. In connection with the data analysis for the existing experiments and the design of new dynamo experiments there is a growing interest in the spectral properties of dynamos. Of particular interest is the question whether isospectral dynamos can exist. First numerical results on this topic were published in , but rigorous results are still missing.

As a step towards clarification of this issue, we study in the present paper the question whether operator intertwining techniques from quantum mechanics (QM) can be adopted to MHD dynamo models. In case of an affirmative answer we would obtain an efficient tool for constructing isospectral classes of MHD dynamo operators. Otherwise we would get a no-go theorem which would forbid a straight analogy with quantum mechanical models.

Let us start by recalling some essentials of operator intertwining transformations in QM . Two operators $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ are said to be intertwined if there exist operators $`A_+`$ and $`A_{}`$ so that

$$H_1A_+=A_+H_0,A_{}H_1=H_0A_{}.$$
(1)
For the corresponding eigenfunctions $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ holds, up to normalization,

$$\varphi _1=A_+\varphi _0,A_{}\varphi _1=\varphi _0$$

and the operators $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ are isospectral, except for those states that are annihilated by $`A_+`$ or $`A_{}`$. In the case of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators $`H_0=p^2+V_0(x)`$ and $`H_1=p^2+V_1(x)`$ with the momentum operator given as $`p=i_x`$, the intertwining operators can be chosen as first order differential operators

$$A_+=A:=ip+f,A_{}=A^{}=ip+f.$$
(2)
Structural compatibility of $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ with the intertwining relations (1) requires that the function $`f(x)`$ and the potentials $`V_0(x)`$, $`V_1(x)`$ are connected by the consistency conditions

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`V_0+2f^{}`$
$`f^{}+f^2`$ $`=`$ $`V_0E`$ (3)
$`f^{}+f^2`$ $`=`$ $`V_1E,`$ (4)
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`x`$; and $`E`$ is a constant of integration. Linearization of the Riccati differential equations (3), (4) shows that this constant can be interpreted as eigenvalue of the Schrödinger operators $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$

$`H_0\chi _0=E\chi _0`$ for $`f={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0^{}}{\chi _0}},`$ (5)
$`H_1\chi _1=E\chi _1`$ for $`f={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1^{}}{\chi _1}},`$ (6)
where $`\chi _0`$ and $`\chi _1`$ are formal, and not necessarily normalized eigenfunctions of $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$, respectively. They are connected by the product relation

$$\chi _0\chi _1=c$$
(7)
with $`c`$ a non-vanishing constant. It is straightforward to verify that the shifted Schrödinger operators are factorizable in terms of the intertwining operators

$$H_0E=A^{}A,H_1E=AA^{}.$$

First-order differential intertwining transformations of type (2) are known as Darboux transformations  and are widely used to generate isospectral operator classes from given operators with known spectra . In particular, intertwining constructions are a basic ingredient of super-symmetric quantum mechanical models  and their generalizations to pseudo-supersymmetric systems . As it was demonstrated in , a double-intertwining (double commutation) method can provide a tool for inserting additional eigenvalues in spectral gaps of given background Schrödinger and Jacobi operators.

Motivated by the large number of exact results on isospectral classes obtained by operator intertwining constructions, it is natural to investigate whether MHD dynamo operators are also suitable for this technique. For this purpose we study in the present paper the simplest mean-field MHD dynamo configuration — the spherical $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo . In terms of the radial momentum operator $`p=i(_r+1/r)`$ the $`2\times 2`$ operator matrix of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo is given as333A brief outline of the derivation of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix from the MHD mean-field induction equation can be found in Appendix A.

$$\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p^2\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}& & \hfill \alpha (r)\\ & & \\ \hfill p\alpha (r)p+\alpha (r)\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}& & \hfill p^2\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
and lives on the domain

$`𝒟(\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ])`$ $`:=\{\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \psi _1\\ \hfill \psi _2\end{array}\right):\psi \stackrel{~}{},=L_2(\mathrm{\Omega },r^2dr),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=[0,1],\psi (1)=0,r\psi (r)|_{r0}0\}`$
in the Hilbert space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. It describes the coupled $`l`$modes of the poloidal and toroidal magnetic field components in a mean-field dynamo model with helical turbulence function $`\alpha (r)`$. The function $`\alpha (r)`$ does not depend on $`l`$ and we assume that it is real-valued, positive definite, bounded, and sufficiently smooth on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$: $`\text{Im }\alpha =0,0<\alpha c_1<\mathrm{},\alpha C^4(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The idealized boundary condition $`\psi (r=1)=0`$ corresponds to a super-conducting spherical boundary shell and is chosen here to ensure simplicity of the subsequent considerations . For more realistic models with close relation to stellar dynamos, the spherical fluid configurations confined to $`r<1`$ can be assumed as embedded in empty space. The boundary condition should then be replaced by $`\widehat{B}_l\psi |_{r=1}=0`$ with $`\widehat{B}_l=\text{diag}[_r+(l+1)/r,1]`$ (see e.g. ) what will require a more general approach than that presented in the present paper.

Exploring the fundamental symmetry of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix we find in section 2 that $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ acts as a symmetric operator on the Hilbert space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ when this is endowed with an indefinite metric $`J`$. I.e., the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix is a $`J`$symmetric (formally $`J`$self-adjoint) operator

$$\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]=\widehat{H}_l^{\mathrm{}}[\alpha ]:=J\widehat{H}_l^{}[\alpha ]J$$

living in a Krein space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}=\stackrel{~}{}_J`$ . $`J`$self-adjointness is a natural property of operators from different fields of physics. Examples are, e.g., the super-symmetric Dirac operator , $`PT`$symmetric non-Hermitian Hamiltonians in QM  as well as the Wheeler-DeWitt operator for a cosmological Friedman-Robertson-Walker model coupled to a real massive scalar field . Since the recent paper series  of A. Mostafazadeh on non-Hermitian operators with real spectra, $`J`$self-adjoint operators are also known as pseudo-Hermitian operators.

In analogy with the simple quantum mechanical model described above, we base our isospectrality analysis on an intertwining Ansatz for two $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operators with helical turbulence functions $`\alpha _0(r)`$, $`\alpha _1(r)`$

$$\widehat{H}_{l_0}[\alpha _0]EI=\widehat{A}\widehat{A}^{\mathrm{}},\widehat{H}_{l_1}[\alpha _1]EI=\widehat{A}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{A}$$

and intertwining operator matrices $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\widehat{A}^{\mathrm{}}`$ that are first-order differential operators

$$\widehat{A}:=iR(r)p+Q(r),\widehat{A}^{\mathrm{}}:=ipR^{\mathrm{}}(r)+Q^{\mathrm{}}(r).$$

This Ansatz leads to a set of six consistency conditions on the matrices $`R(r)`$ and $`Q(r)`$ which are studied in section 3. It is shown that one pair of conditions fixes the structure of $`R(r)`$ in terms of the helical turbulence functions $`\alpha _0(r)`$ and $`\alpha _1(r)`$. A second pair is equivalent to the symmetry relations $`B=B^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`U=U^{\mathrm{}}`$ on the matrix functions

$`B`$ $`:=`$ $`R^{\mathrm{}}Q`$
$`U`$ $`:=`$ $`R[Q^{\mathrm{}}(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}]=RBR^1R(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}`$
and can be regarded as an implicit consequence of the $`J`$pseudo-Hermiticity of the operator matrices $`\widehat{H}_{l_0}[\alpha _0]`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{l_1}[\alpha _1]`$. (The prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`r`$.) The remaining two conditions can be transformed into a pair of coupled matrix Riccati differential equations (MREs) on $`B`$ and $`U`$.

The consistency of the six conditions is analyzed in section 4 with the help of a step-by-step reduction of their complexity. First, we conclude from the limiting behavior of the MREs for $`r0`$ that the angular mode numbers $`l_0`$ and $`l_1`$ in the two dynamo operator matrices should be connected by the incremental relation $`l_1=l_0+1`$. Then we use the $`J`$symmetry of $`B`$ to derive from the coupled MREs a system of coupled non-linear ordinary differential equations (ODEs) involving the helical turbulence functions $`\alpha _0(r)`$ and $`\alpha _1(r)`$. Analyzing these ODEs we are able to show the existence of an inherent contradiction between them. As implication, we arrive at a no-go theorem which states that the six consistency conditions cannot be fulfilled simultaneously and that, hence, the structure of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrices is not suitable for an operator intertwining technique based on an Ansatz with first-order differential intertwining operators.

In the concluding section 5 we briefly discuss some other methods which could be useful for studying isospectrality issues of the dynamo operator matrix and which possibly could provide a technique to construct classes of isospectral spherical $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operators.

## 2 $`J`$Symmetry of the dynamo operator matrix

In this section, we study the fundamental symmetry $`J`$ of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix (8) what allows us to choose an appropriate Ansatz for the intertwining operators $`A_+`$ and $`A_{}`$.

We start our consideration by introducing the auxiliary operator

$$Q[\alpha ]:=p\alpha p+\alpha \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}$$

defined on the domain

$$𝒟(Q)=\{\varphi :\varphi =L_2(\mathrm{\Omega },r^2dr),\varphi (1)=0,r\varphi (r)|_{r0}0\}$$

in the Hilbert space $``$. The operator $`Q[\alpha ]`$ is a formally self-adjoint444In the subsequent compatibility analysis of the operator intertwining construction we restrict our attention to symmetric (formally self-adjoint) operators. For simplicity, we leave questions of self-adjoint extensions and corresponding generalized boundary conditions  for the bi-component functions $`\psi `$ aside. singular differential operator $`Q=Q^{}`$ which acts as symmetric operator on $``$. In terms of $`Q[\alpha ]`$ the dynamo operator matrix and its formal adjoint read

$$\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q[1]& \alpha \\ Q[\alpha ]& Q[1]\end{array}\right),\widehat{H}_l^{}[\alpha ]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q[1]& Q[\alpha ]\\ \alpha & Q[1]\end{array}\right)$$

so that the fundamental (canonical) symmetry can be obtained as

$$\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]=\widehat{H}_l^{\mathrm{}}[\alpha ]:=J\widehat{H}_l^{}[\alpha ]J,J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Diagonalizing the matrix $`J`$

$$J\eta =S^TJS,S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)$$

we see that $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ is equivalent to the operator matrix

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l[\alpha ]=S^T\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]S=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Q[\alpha 2]+\alpha & & Q[\alpha ]+\alpha \\ Q[\alpha ]\alpha & & Q[\alpha 2]\alpha \end{array}\right)$$

with the property $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l[\alpha ]=\eta \stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l[\alpha ]^{}\eta `$. The fundamental $`\eta `$symmetry of the operator matrix $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ implies that $`𝒟(\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l)`$ could be endowed with the indefinite metric $`\eta `$ so that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ becomes a symmetric operator on $`𝒟(\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_l)`$. Due to the invariance of the signature under the transformation $`S`$ the domain $`𝒟(\widehat{H}_l)`$ can also be endowed with a natural indefinite inner product $`[,]_J`$ defined by the metric $`J`$

$$[x,y]_J:=(x,Jy),x,y\stackrel{~}{}=,$$

where $`(,)`$ denotes the usual inner (scalar) product in the Hilbert space $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. This means that $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ is a $`J`$symmetric operator which acts as symmetric operator in a Krein space555For surveys on operators in Krein spaces (Hilbert spaces with additional indefinite inner product structures) we refer to the mathematical literature . $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}=\stackrel{~}{}_J`$

$$[\widehat{H}_lx,y]_J=[x,\widehat{H}_l^{\mathrm{}}y]_J.$$

From its operator-matrix representation (9) we see that $`J`$ is self-adjoint, involutory and unitary

$$J^{}=J,J^2=I,J^1=J^{}$$

so that $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ is a $`J`$pseudo-Hermitian operator in the sense of .

The eigenvalues of $`J`$pseudo-Hermitian operators are known  to be either real or to come in complex-conjugate pairs. Here we illustrate this property by passing from the eigenvalue problem for the linear operator pencil

$$\widehat{L}_l[\alpha ,\lambda ]\psi :=\left(\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]\lambda \right)\psi =0$$

to the eigenvalue problem $`L_l[\alpha ,\lambda ]\psi _1=0`$ for the associated quadratic operator pencil $`L_l[\alpha ,\lambda ]`$. This pencil can be derived explicitly from the Ansatz

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \psi _1\\ \hfill \frac{1}{\alpha }[Q(1)+\lambda ]\psi _1\end{array}\right)$$

with $`\alpha (r)0`$. As result we obtain

$`L_l[\alpha ,\lambda ]\psi _1`$ $``$ $`\left\{\left[Q[1]+\lambda \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[Q[1]+\lambda \right]Q[\alpha ]\right\}\psi _1=0`$
$`=`$ $`(A_2\lambda ^2+A_1\lambda +A_0)\psi _1=0.`$
The operators

$$A_0:=Q[1]\frac{1}{\alpha }Q[1]Q[\alpha ],A_1:=Q[1]\frac{1}{\alpha }+\frac{1}{\alpha }Q[1],A_2:=\frac{1}{\alpha }$$

are formally self-adjoint on $`𝒟(Q)`$ so that the functionals $`a_j:=(A_j\psi _1,\psi _1),j=1,2,3`$ are real-valued: $`\text{Im }a_j=0`$.

From the quadratic equation

$$(L_l[\alpha ,\lambda ]\psi _1,\psi _1)=a_2\lambda ^2+a_1\lambda +a_0=0$$

we conclude that the eigenvalues of the $`J`$pseudo-Hermitian dynamo operator matrix $`\widehat{H}_l`$ and its associated pencil $`L_l`$ occur as eigenvalue pairs

$$\lambda _\pm =\frac{1}{2a_2}\left(a_1\pm \sqrt{a_1^24a_0a_2}\right).$$

Obviously, the sign of the discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=a_1^24a_0a_2`$ defines whether $`\lambda _\pm `$ are both real or pairwise complex conjugate. The transition from real eigenvalues $`\lambda _\pm `$ to complex ones occurs at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ where the eigenvalue becomes two-fold degenerate $`\lambda _+=\lambda _{}=\lambda _0=\frac{a_1}{2a_2}`$. This general behavior of $`\lambda _\pm `$ confirms the results of numerical simulations , which showed that a scaling of the helical turbulence function $`\alpha `$ leads to a pairwise intersection of real eigenvalue branches of $`\widehat{H}_l`$ and a transition at the intersection points to a pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues.

We note that at the two-fold degenerate points $`\lambda _0`$ of the spectrum with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ a Jordan-Keldysh chain  exists for the linear operator pencil

$$\widehat{L}_l(\lambda _0)\psi =0,\widehat{L}_l(\lambda _0)\chi =\psi $$

as well as for the quadratic operator pencil

$$L_l(\lambda _0)\psi _1=0,L_l(\lambda _0)\chi _1+_\lambda L_l(\lambda _0)\psi _1=0.$$

Both are built up from eigenvectors $`\psi `$, $`\psi _1`$ and associated vectors $`\chi `$, $`\chi _1`$, respectively.

## 3 Consistency conditions and matrix Riccati equations

The fundamental $`J`$symmetry ($`J`$pseudo-Hermiticity) of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix provides a natural Ansatz for an intertwining construction which respects this symmetry:

$$\widehat{H}_{l_0}[\alpha _0]EI=\widehat{A}\widehat{A}^{\mathrm{}},\widehat{H}_{l_1}[\alpha _1]EI=\widehat{A}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{A}.$$
(10)
In general, the operator matrix $`\widehat{A}`$ could be an $`n`$th-order differential operator of the form

$$\widehat{A}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}R_k(r)(ip)^k+Q(r)$$

with $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`R_k(r)`$ and $`Q(r)`$ as coefficients. For simplicity, we restrict our attention in the present paper to the first-order differential operator

$$\widehat{A}=iR(r)p+Q(r)$$
(11)
with $`J`$adjoint $`A^{\mathrm{}}=ipR^{\mathrm{}}(r)+Q^{\mathrm{}}(r)`$. Here we define the $`\mathrm{}`$operation for a given $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`C`$ as

$$C^{\mathrm{}}=JC^{}J=JC^TJ.$$

Asterisk and superscript ”T” denote complex conjugation and transposition, respectively.

Let us introduce the abbreviations

$`K_{0,1}`$ $`:=`$ $`I\alpha _{0,1}\sigma _{}`$
$`M_{0,1}`$ $`:=`$ $`K_{0,1}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{0,1}(l_{0,1}+1)}{r^2}}+EI\alpha _{0,1}\sigma _+`$
with the nilpotent matrices $`\sigma _\pm `$ defined as $`\sigma _+:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`\sigma _{}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)`$. The shifted $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrices in (10) take then the short form

$$\widehat{H}_{l_{0,1}}[\alpha _{0,1}]EI=pK_{0,1}pM_{0,1}.$$
(12)
Substituting (11) and (12) into the intertwining Ansatz (10), making use of commutation relations like $`[p,R(r)]=iR^{}(r)`$ and equating the coefficient matrices of the $`p^2`$, $`p`$, $`I`$ terms we obtain the following six consistency conditions

$`\widehat{H}_{l_0}:`$ $`p^2:`$ $`RR^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=K_0`$ (13)
$`p:`$ $`RQ^{\mathrm{}}QR^{\mathrm{}}R(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}+R^{}R^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=0`$ (14)
$`I:`$ $`QQ^{\mathrm{}}R(R^{\mathrm{}})^{\prime \prime }+R(Q^{\mathrm{}})^{}Q(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}`$ $`=M_0`$ (15)
$`\widehat{H}_{l_1}:`$ $`p^2:`$ $`R^{\mathrm{}}R`$ $`=K_1`$ (16)
$`p:`$ $`R^{\mathrm{}}Q+Q^{\mathrm{}}R`$ $`=0`$ (17)
$`I:`$ $`Q^{\mathrm{}}Q\left(R^{\mathrm{}}Q\right)^{}`$ $`=M_1.`$ (18)
For a successful intertwining construction these matrix equations should be fulfilled simultaneously. So, the main task consists in finding explicit solution sets for (13) - (18). Alternatively, we should obtain intrinsic contradictions within this equation system which could be interpreted as a no-go theorem forbidding this construction for $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrices.

We start our analysis with eqs. (13) and (16). From the tautologies $`RR^{\mathrm{}}R=RR^{\mathrm{}}R`$ and $`R^{\mathrm{}}RR^{\mathrm{}}=R^{\mathrm{}}RR^{\mathrm{}}`$ follows

$$RK_1=K_0R,K_1R^{\mathrm{}}=R^{\mathrm{}}K_0$$

what with

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r_{11}& \hfill r_{12}\\ \hfill r_{21}& \hfill r_{22}\end{array}\right),R^{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r_{22}^{}& \hfill r_{12}^{}\\ \hfill r_{21}^{}& \hfill r_{11}^{}\end{array}\right)$$

yields

$$r_{12}=0,\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _0}=\frac{r_{11}}{r_{22}}=\frac{r_{11}^{}}{r_{22}^{}}.$$
(19)
Hence, we can set

$$r_{11}=|r_{11}|e^{i\gamma },r_{22}=|r_{22}|e^{i\gamma },r_{21}=|r_{21}|e^{i(\gamma +\epsilon )}.$$

Using this and (19) in

$$RR^{\mathrm{}}=K_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \alpha _0& 1\end{array}\right),R^{\mathrm{}}R=K_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \alpha _1& 1\end{array}\right)$$

we find

$$R=e^{i\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _0}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha _0\alpha _1}\left(1+i\mathrm{tan}\epsilon \right)& \sqrt{\frac{\alpha _0}{\alpha _1}}\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
where the phases $`\gamma `$ and $`\epsilon `$ are still undefined.

As next step we analyze Eqs. (14) and (17). It is easily seen that defining the matrices

$$U:=R\left[Q^{\mathrm{}}(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}\right],B:=R^{\mathrm{}}Q$$
(21)
these equations are equivalent to the $`J`$symmetry relations

$$U=U^{\mathrm{}},B=B^{\mathrm{}}.$$

Due to the different symmetry content of $`B`$ and $`Q`$ it is natural to consider $`B`$ as primary structural element of the intertwining construction, and $`Q`$ as a secondary one. So, we perform our subsequent investigation in terms of $`B`$ and $`R`$. Explicitly, the $`J`$symmetry is realized by the matrix structure

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_1+ib_4& b_2\\ b_3& b_1ib_4\end{array}\right),\text{Im }b_k=0,k=1,\mathrm{},4.$$
(22)
Furthermore, we exclude $`Q`$ from (21) to obtain

$$U=RBR^1R(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}.$$
(23)
Introducing the notation $`N:=R^1R^{}`$ and substituting (23) into the symmetry relation $`U=U^{\mathrm{}}`$ yields the additional constraint

$$[B,K_1^1]=N^{\mathrm{}}N.$$
(24)
From eq. (20) we find

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma ^{}I+\left(\begin{array}{cc}q& 0\\ f& q\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0^{}}{\alpha _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^{}}{\alpha _1}}\right)`$ (28)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0^{}}{\alpha _0}}\left(1+i\mathrm{tan}\epsilon \right)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\mathrm{cos}^2\epsilon }}\right]`$ (29)
so that (24) transforms to

$$\alpha _1\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_2& 0\\ 2ib_4& b_2\end{array}\right)=2i\gamma ^{}I+\left(\begin{array}{cc}2q& 0\\ f^{}f& 2q\end{array}\right).$$

Finally, we arrive at the following restrictions on the phase $`\gamma `$ and the components $`b_2`$ and $`b_4`$ of the matrix $`B`$:

$$\gamma ^{}=0,b_2=\frac{2q}{\alpha _1},b_4=\frac{\text{Im }f}{\alpha _1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha _0^{}}{\alpha _0}\mathrm{tan}\epsilon +\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\mathrm{cos}^2\epsilon }\right).$$
(30)
Summarizing the implications of the first four consistency conditions we see that they are free of intrinsic contradictions. From the initially eight arbitrary complex-valued functions contained in the matrices $`R`$ and $`Q`$ only the three real-valued functions $`(b_1,b_3,\epsilon )`$ are still undefined. Together with the helical turbulence functions $`(\alpha _0,\alpha _1)`$ and the constants $`(\gamma ,E,l_0,l_1)^2\times _+^2`$ we expect them to be highly fine-tuned by the remaining two consistency conditions (15) and (18).

Let us study these conditions now. Making use of the definitions of $`U`$ and $`B`$ in (21), their implications

$`Q^{\mathrm{}}(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`R^1U,`$ (31)
$`(Q^{\mathrm{}})^{}(R^{\mathrm{}})^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`R^1R^{}R^1U+R^1U^{},`$
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`(R^{\mathrm{}})^1B`$ (32)
and setting at the end $`RR^{\mathrm{}}=K_0`$, $`R^{\mathrm{}}R=K_1`$ according to eqs. (13), (16), we find that (15) and (18) transform to the matrix Riccati equations (MREs)

$`U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_0UK_0^1U,`$ (33)
$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_1+BK_1^1B.`$ (34)
Similar to the linearization of the scalar Riccati equations mentioned in (3) - (6) of the Introduction, the MREs (33), (34) can be linearized by an Ansatz

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`VW^1,V,W^{2\times 2},det(W)0,`$ (35)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`XY^1,X,Y^{2\times 2},det(Y)0.`$ (36)
As result we arrive at the equation systems

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}V^{}\\ W^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_0\\ K_0^1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}V\\ W\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}X^{}\\ Y^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_1\\ K_1^1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
The $`4\times 2`$ matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{c}V\\ W\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\end{array}\right)^{4\times 2}`$ are defined up to $`GL(2,)\times GL(2,)`$transformations

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{V}\\ \stackrel{~}{W}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}VG_0\\ WG_0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{X}\\ \stackrel{~}{Y}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}XG_1\\ YG_1\end{array}\right),G_0,G_1GL(2,)$$

and can be interpreted as homogeneous coordinates of two points on a complex Grassmann manifold $`G_2(^4)`$ which consists of $`2`$dimensional complex subspaces in $`^4`$ (see, e.g. ). The matrices $`U=VW^1`$ and $`B=XY^1`$ are the corresponding affine coordinates of these points.

Differentiating (37) and substituting $`V=K_0W^{}`$, $`X=K_1Y^{}`$ it is easily seen that the equation systems (37) are equivalent to the second-order matrix differential equations

$`\left(_rK_0_rM_0\right)W`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left(_rK_1_rM_1\right)Y`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (38)
This implies that the matrices $`\stackrel{~}{W}=r^1W`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=r^1Y`$ should be formal (non-normalized) solutions of the eigenvalue equations for the dynamo operator matrices $`\widehat{H}_{l_0}[\alpha _0]`$, $`\widehat{H}_{l_1}[\alpha _1]`$, respectively

$$\widehat{H}_{l_0}[\alpha _0]\stackrel{~}{W}=E\stackrel{~}{W},\widehat{H}_{l_1}[\alpha _1]\stackrel{~}{Y}=E\stackrel{~}{Y}.$$

A comparison with the simple QM model from the Introduction shows that the intertwining operator matrix $`\widehat{A}`$ should be expressible in terms of $`W`$ or $`Y`$, and that $`W`$ and $`Y`$ should be connected by a product invariant like (7). With the help of (31), (32) and (37) we find

$$\widehat{A}=R\left(ipY^{}Y^1\right)=\left(ip+K_0W^{}W^1K_0^1\right)R.$$

In order to obtain the product invariant which connects $`W`$ and $`Y`$, we use a slightly modified version of (23)

$$U=RB^{\mathrm{}}R^1R(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}$$

and substitute from (35) - (37)

$$U=RR^{\mathrm{}}W^{}W^1,B^{\mathrm{}}=(Y^{\mathrm{}})^1(Y^{\mathrm{}})^{}R^{\mathrm{}}R$$

so that

$$W^{}W^1=(R^{\mathrm{}})^1(Y^{\mathrm{}})^1(Y^{\mathrm{}})^{}R^{\mathrm{}}(R^{\mathrm{}})^1(R^{\mathrm{}})^{}.$$
(39)
This equation is of the type $`g=g_1n`$, $`(_rg)g^1=(_rg_1)g_1^1+g_1(_rn)n^1g_1^1`$. Hence, integration of (39) yields the product invariant

$$Y^{\mathrm{}}R^{\mathrm{}}W=C,det(C)0,$$

with $`C`$ a constant non-singular matrix.

So far, we have obtained a $`1:1`$ generalization of the intertwining technique from the simple QM example described in the Introduction to our $`J`$symmetric dynamo operator model. It remains to test whether the MREs of this model are consistent. This will be the subject of the next section.

## 4 No-go theorem

In order to test the pair of MREs (33), (34) for consistency, we make use of (23), (24) as well as the relation

$$N+K_1^1N^{\mathrm{}}K_1=K_1^1K_1^{}=K_1^{}$$

and transform the MRE for $`U`$ \[eq. (33)\] into an equivalent MRE for $`B`$. As result, we arrive at the following pair of MREs

$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`R^1M_0RK_1^1BB+BK_1^{}+\left[NN^{\mathrm{}}+(N^{\mathrm{}})^{}\right]K_1,`$ (40)
$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_1+BK_1^1B`$ (41)
which should be satisfied simultaneously. The corresponding consistency test will be performed in two steps:

* From the limiting behavior at $`r0`$ we will derive a relation between $`l_0`$ and $`l_1`$.
* We will extract from eqs. (40), (41) a system of non-linear ODEs for the helical turbulence functions $`\alpha _0,\alpha _1`$ and for the components $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_4`$ of the matrix $`B`$. By mutual substitutions of these ODEs we will find an inconsistency which can be interpreted as a no-go theorem.

4.1 Limiting behavior at $`r0`$
From the assumed non-singular behavior of the helical turbulence functions at $`r0`$ follows that they can be approximated as

$$\alpha _{0,1}(r0)c_{0,1}+a_{0,1}r+𝒪(r^2),c_{0,1}0.$$

Substituting this approximation in a slightly rewritten version of the defining equation (38) for the matrix $`Y`$

$$\left[I_r^2\alpha _1^{}\sigma _{}_r\frac{l_1(l_1+1)}{r^2}I\left(\begin{array}{cc}E& \alpha _1\\ \alpha _1& E\alpha _1^2\end{array}\right)\right]Y=0$$
(42)
we obtain the estimate

$$Y(r0)r^{l_1}\left(I+\frac{a_1}{2}\sigma _{}r+𝒪(r^2)\right)\left(r^{2l_1+1}C_++C_{}\right),$$

where $`C_+`$, $`C_{}`$ are arbitrary non-singular constant matrices $`det(C_\pm )0`$. Correspondingly, it holds

$`Z:=Y^{}Y^1`$ $``$ $`l_1r^1I+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}}\sigma _{}+𝒪(r),`$ (43)
$`B=K_1Y^{}Y^1`$ $``$ $`l_1r^1I\left[c_1l_1r^1+(l_1+1/2)a_1\right]\sigma _{}+𝒪(r).`$ (44)
Comparison of (44) with (22) shows that the components $`b_2`$ and $`b_4`$ of the matrix $`B`$ vanish at least as

$$b_2,b_4𝒪(r)\text{for}r0.$$

Furthermore, we find with the help of eqs. (28), (29) and (30) that $`q𝒪(r)`$ and, hence, $`a_0/c_0=a_1/c_1`$, as well as $`q^{},f,f^{}𝒪(1)`$ what implies $`N,N^{\mathrm{}},(N^{\mathrm{}})^{}𝒪(1)`$.

We are now well prepared to perform a partial consistency test of (40) and (41) by comparing the singular terms of these equations in the vicinity of the origin $`r=0`$. From the MREs (40) and (41) we find

$`K_1^1K_1^{}ZZ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_0(l_0+1)}{r^2}}IK_1^1ZK_1ZZK_1^{}+𝒪(1),`$ (45)
$`K_1^1K_1^{}ZZ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_1(l_1+1)}{r^2}}I+ZZ+𝒪(1),`$ (46)
respectively. Substituting $`Z`$ from (43) and equating the coefficients of the $`r^2,r^1`$terms we obtain from eq. (45)

$$l_1=l_0+1,a_1=0$$

and, hence, also $`a_0=0`$. Eq. (46) is automatically satisfied, because $`Y`$ is defined by the corresponding linearized equation (42). The incremental relation $`l_1=l_0+1`$ is well known from ladder operator constructions for spherically symmetric Hamiltonians in QM . This is not surprising, because this ladder operator construction can be recovered from the intertwining construction (10) for the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrices by the two-step transition: 1. $`\alpha _0=\alpha _1=\alpha `$, 2. $`\alpha 0`$.

4.2 Systems of coupled non-linear ODEs and their inconsistency
The system of eight coupled non-linear ODEs for the components $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_4`$ of the matrix $`B`$ is easily obtained from the MREs (40), (41), e.g. with the help of the matrix multiplication package of MATHEMATICA©. For our analysis it is sufficient to consider only the simplest four equations of this system, i.e. the $`\sigma _+`$ and $`I`$ projections of (40) and (41):

$`b_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2b_1b_2+\alpha _1(1+b_2^2)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`2b_1b_2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0^2}{\alpha _1}}`$ (48)
$`b_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`b_1^2+b_2b_3b_4^2E{\displaystyle \frac{l_1(l_1+1)}{r^2}}+\alpha _1b_1b_2`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`b_1^2b_2b_3+b_4^2+E+{\displaystyle \frac{l_0(l_0+1)}{r^2}}\alpha _1^{}b_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0^2}{2}}+q^{}q^2.`$ (50)
Equating the right-hand-sides of (47), (48) and using $`b_2=2q/\alpha _1`$ from (30) we are able to express $`b_1`$ as

$$b_1=\frac{4q^2+\alpha _0^2+\alpha _1^2}{8q}.$$
(51)
Taking into account that $`q=_r\mathrm{ln}(\alpha _0/\alpha _1)/2`$ according to (28) and that the helical turbulence functions $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ do not depend on $`l_0`$ or $`l_1`$ we conclude from equation (51) that $`b_1`$ should not depend on $`l_0`$ or $`l_1`$ too. On the other hand, addition of (49) and (50) together with the relation $`l_0=l_11`$ gives

$$2b_1^{}=\frac{2l_1}{r^2}+2q\left(b_1\frac{\alpha _1^{}}{\alpha _1}\right)+\frac{\alpha _0^2}{2}+q^{}q^2$$

what by integration leads to a function $`b_1`$ which depends on $`l_1`$. I.e. the term depending on $`l_1`$ cannot be compensated by a combination of $`l_1`$independent terms. This is an obvious contradiction to (51) and we have to conclude that the consistency conditions (13) - (18) cannot be fulfilled simultaneously. This means that we are lead to the
No-go theorem:
The structure of the MHD $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix is incompatible with an operator intertwining technique which is based on first-order differential intertwining operators.

A similar situation occurs also for three-dimensional spherically symmetric models in QM . There the $`l`$dependent centrifugal term sets so strong restrictions on the form of the allowed potential that an intertwining construction built on first-order differential intertwining operators is only possible for the following three cases: the constant potential $`V(r)=\text{const}`$, the Coulomb potential $`V(r)1/r`$, and the potential of the three-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator with $`V(r)r^2`$. Richer classes of allowed potentials are only found for models in their $`s`$ states, when $`l=0`$. Such states are a priori excluded for the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix due to its construction \[see Eq. (A5)\].

## 5 Concluding remarks

In the present paper, we have tested the MHD $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix for its compatibility with the simplest variant of an intertwining construction based on first-order differential intertwining operators. The operators have been chosen in accordance with the fundamental $`J`$symmetry (pseudo-Hermiticity) of the operator matrix and lead to a set of six matrix equations as consistency conditions. With the help of a step-by-step reduction of the complexity we have extracted their basic structural elements and have shown that they contain an intrinsic inconsistency. So, we have to conclude that the structure of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix is not compatible with the considered first-order differential intertwining Ansatz. This fact is the subject of the formulated no-go theorem.

It remains to test whether intertwining constructions can be built from second-order or higher-order differential intertwining operators. Energy shift operators based on second-order differential expressions are known for harmonic oscillators with time-dependent frequencies and additional $`1/r^2`$term  as well as for the spherically symmetric oscillator and the Coulomb potential . A generalization of the technique to the MHD $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix seems realistic.

Another approach for a clarification of the considered isospectrality problem could consist in a generalization of the Gelfand-Levitan technique for vector-valued Sturm-Liouville problems . Concerning its general structure, the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ is a singular non-self-adjoint matrix Sturm-Liouville operator which by a unitary transformation can be recast into the standard form

$$_rP_2(r)_r+P_0(r).$$

In 1998, Jodeit and Levitan  analyzed the isospectrality problem for matrix Sturm-Liouville operators with $`P_2(r)=I`$ and $`P_0(r)`$ a symmetric matrix. They showed that if two vector-valued Sturm-Liouville problems are isospectral then the eigenfunctions of one problem can be constructed from the eigenfunctions of the other problem with the help of a matrix Gelfand-Levitan transformation. So, a generalization of this technique to Sturm-Liouville problems with non-symmetric $`P_0(r)`$ and $`P_2(r)I_2`$ would naturally cover the isospectrality problem for the MHD $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank G. Gerbeth for numerous discussions and C. Tretter for useful comments. This project was supported by the German Research Foundation, DFG, under grant GE-682/12-1.

## Appendix A Derivation of the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix from the mean-field induction equation

For completeness we sketch here the main steps of the derivation of the $`2\times 2`$ operator matrix $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ for a model with helical turbulence function $`\alpha (r)`$. The outline follows the technique for models with $`\alpha =\text{const}`$ as presented in .

The spherical MHD mean-field $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo in its kinematic regime is described by the induction equation for the magnetic field

$$_t𝐁=\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }(\alpha 𝐁)+\nu _m\mathrm{\Delta }𝐁$$
(A1)
supplemented by the condition $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁=0`$. The magnetic diffusivity $`\nu _m`$ is assumed to be constant and the helical turbulence function $`\alpha `$ to depend only on the distance from the origin $`\alpha =\alpha (r)`$. Decomposition into toroidal and poloidal components $`𝐁=𝐁_𝐭+𝐁_𝐩`$ and setting $`𝐁_𝐩=\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐀_𝐭`$ allows for a decomposition of the induction equation (A1)

$`_t𝐁_𝐭`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }(\alpha \mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐀_𝐭)\nu _m\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐁_𝐭`$ (A2)
$`_t𝐀_𝐭`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha 𝐁_𝐭\nu _m\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐀_𝐭.`$ (A3)
Furthermore, the fields $`𝐁_𝐭`$ and $`𝐀_𝐭`$ can be represented as

$$𝐀_𝐭=𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}F_1,𝐁_𝐭=𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}F_2,$$

where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are single-valued scalar functions which are normalized on the unit sphere $`S^2`$ by the condition

$$_{S^2}F_{1,2}𝑑\omega =0.$$
(A4)
With the help of the relations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}F_1)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Delta }F_1`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\left[\alpha \mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }(𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}F_1)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(_r\alpha )(_rrF_1)+\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }F_1\right],`$
$`\alpha 𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}F_2`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}(\alpha F_2)`$
equations (A2) and (A3) can be rewritten as

$`𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\left[\nu _m\mathrm{\Delta }F_1+\alpha F_2_tF_1\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝐫\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}\left[\nu _m\mathrm{\Delta }F_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(_r\alpha )(_rrF_1)\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }F_1_tF_2\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
It follows that the expressions in the square brackets are functions of $`r`$ and $`t`$ alone which must vanish due to the normalization condition (A4) and its implication $`_{S^2}\mathrm{\Delta }F_{1,2}𝑑\omega =0`$. By re-scaling of $`r`$ and $`t`$ one sets the magnetic diffusivity to unity $`\nu _m=1`$ and the boundary conditions at $`r=1`$.

With the help of a series expansion in spherical harmonics

$$F_{1,2}=\underset{l,m,n}{}e^{\lambda _{l,n}t}F_{1,2}^{(l,m,n)}(r)Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },r^2dr)L^2(S^2,d\omega ),\mathrm{\Omega }=[0,1]$$

one obtains the eigenvalue problem

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_lF_1^{(l,m,n)}+\alpha F_2^{(l,m,n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{l,n}F_1^{(l,m,n)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_lF_2^{(l,m,n)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(_r\alpha )(_rrF_1^{(l,m,n)})\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_lF_1^{(l,m,n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{l,n}F_2^{(l,m,n)}.`$
Here we used the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l=\frac{1}{r^2}_rr^2_r\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}`$ and the fact that due to the symmetry of the dynamo configuration  the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{l,n}`$ depend only on $`l`$ and $`n`$. We note that the normalization condition (A4) implies

$$F_{1,2}^{(l=0,m,n)}=0.$$
(A5)
Finally, the substitutions $`p=i(_r+1/r)`$, $`\psi _{1,2}=F_{1,2}^{(l,m,n)}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },r^2dr)`$ lead to the eigenvalue problem for the $`\alpha ^2`$dynamo operator matrix $`\widehat{H}_l[\alpha ]`$ as it is given in eq. (8) of the Introduction.


text:
# Some Global Results for Asymptotically Simple Spacetimes

## 1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to present some rigidity results for asymptotically simple spacetimes. By a *spacetime* we mean a smooth connected time oriented Lorentzian manifold $`(M,g)`$ of dimension $`3`$, having signature $`(+\mathrm{}+)`$. We use standard notation for causal theoretic notions, e.g., for $`AM`$, $`I^+(A,M)`$, the timelike future of $`A`$ in $`M`$ (resp., $`I^{}(A,M)`$, the timelike past of $`A`$ in $`M`$), is the set of all points that can be reached from $`A`$ by a future directed (resp. past directed) timelike curve in $`M`$. For other basic definitions and results in spacetime geometry and causal theory we refer the reader to the standard references .

Penrose’s treatment of infinity  in asymptotically flat spacetimes (and spacetimes with other asymptotic structures, as well) is based on his notion of *asymptotic simplicity*. A $`4`$-dimensional, chronological spacetime $`(M,g)`$ is asymptotically simple provided there exists a smooth spacetime-with-boundary $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g})`$ such that,

1. $`M`$ is the interior of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, and hence, $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M`$, where $`=\stackrel{~}{M}`$,
2. $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2g`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a smooth function on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ such that (i) $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ on $`M`$ and (ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ along $``$, and
3. every inextendible null geodesic in $`M`$ has a past and future end-point on $``$.

Condition (c) is a strong global assumption, which implies that $`M`$ is null geodesically complete, and ensures that $``$ includes all of null infinity. But it also rules out spacetimes with singularities, and black holes, etc. To treat such cases, condition (c) must be suitably weakened, cf. .

In this paper, we will be primarily interested in asymptotically simple spacetimes which obey the vacuum Einstein equation with cosmological term,

(1.1) $`\mathrm{Ric}=\lambda g.`$
If $`\lambda =0`$ (the asymptotically flat case) then $``$ is necessarily a smooth null hypersurface, which decomposes into two parts, $`^+`$, future null infinity, and $`^{}`$, past null infinity. If $`\lambda >0`$ (the asymptotically de Sitter case) then we have a similar decomposition, except that $``$ is spacelike.

We present here a uniqueness theorem for Minkowski space and for de Sitter space associated with the occurrence of *null lines*. A null line in a spacetime $`(M,g)`$ is an inextendible null geodesic which is globally achronal (meaning that no two points can be joined by a timelike curve). Arguments involving null lines have arisen in many situations, such as the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems , results on topological censorship , the Penrose-Sorkin-Woolgar approach to the positive mass theorem  (and related results on gravitational time delay ), and most recently results concerning the AdS/CFT Correspondence .

Every null geodesic in Minkowski space and de Sitter space is a null line. At the same time, each of these spacetimes, and indeed any spacetime satisfying equation (1.1) (regardless of the sign of $`\lambda `$) obeys the *null energy condition*, $`\mathrm{Ric}(X,X)=R_{ij}X^iX^j0`$, for all null vectors $`X`$. In general, it is difficult for complete null lines to exist in spacetimes which obey the null energy condition. The null energy condition tends to focus congruences of null geodesics, which can lead to the occurence of null conjugate points. A null geodesic containing a pair of conjugate points cannot be achronal. Thus we expect a spacetime which satisfies the null energy condition and which contains a complete null line to be special in some way. The following theorem supports this point of view.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Suppose $`M`$ is an asymptotically simple spacetime satisfying the vacuum Einstein equation (1.1) with $`\lambda 0`$. If $`M`$ contains a null line then $`M`$ is isometric to Minkowski space (if $`\lambda =0`$) or de Sitter space (if $`\lambda >0`$).

Let us give an interpretaton of Theorem 1 in terms of the initial value problem for the vacuum Einstein equation, in the case $`\lambda >0`$. According to the fundamental work of Friedrich , the set of asymptotically simple solutions to (1.1), with $`\lambda >0`$, is open in the set of all maximal globally hyperbolic solutions with compact spatial sections. Thus, by Theorem 1, in conjunction with the work of Friedrich, a sufficiently small perturbation of the Cauchy data on a fixed Cauchy hypersurface in de Sitter space will in general destroy all the null lines of de Sitter space, i.e., the resulting spacetime that develops from the perturbed Cauchy data will not contain any null lines. While one would expect many of the null lines to be destroyed, it is somewhat surprising that *none* of the null lines persist. One is tempted to draw a similar conclusion in the $`\lambda =0`$ case. However, the nonlinear stability of asymptotic simplicity in this case has not been established, and, indeed may not hold, cf.,  for further discussion. In fact at present, Minkowski space is the only known asymptotically simple solution to (1.1) with $`\lambda =0`$ (though evidence is mounting that there are solutions distinct from, but in a suitable sense, close to Minkowski space; by Theorem 1, such solutions would have no null lines). Finally, we note that if $`M`$ is an asymptotically simple and de Sitter spacetime without any null lines then the sets $`J^+(p)`$ will be compact for all $`pM`$ sufficiently close to $`^{}`$. As all such sets in de Sitter space are noncompact, this further serves to illustrate the fragile nature of the causal structure of de Sitter space (see also \[11, Corollary 1\]).

Theorem 1 is a consequence of the *null splitting theorem* obtained in . This latter result establishes the rigidity in general of null geodesically complete spacetimes which obey the null energy condition. We discuss this result in the next section. In section 3 we present the proof of Theorem 1. For results of related interest concerning the rigidity of asymptotically simple spacetimes, see, for example, .

## 2. The Null Splitting Theorem

The statement of the null splitting theorem involves null hypersurfaces. We recall briefly some facts about the geometry of null hypersurfaces; see e.g.,  for more detailed discussions from slightly varying points of view.

A smooth null hypersurface in a spacetime $`(M,g)`$ is a smooth co-dimension one submanifold $`S`$ along which the Lorentz metric g is degenerate. Hence, $`S`$ admits a smooth future directed null vector field $`K`$, which is unique up to a positive scale factor. As is well-known, the integral curves of $`K`$, when suitably parameterized, are null geodesics, and are referred to as the null generators of $`S`$.

The *null expansion tensor* (or *null second fundamental*) $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of $`S`$ measures the variations in the spatial separation of the null generators of $`S`$. Let $`TS/K`$ denote the tangent vectors to $`S`$ mod $`K`$; for each $`pS`$, $`T_pS/K=\{\overline{X}:XT_pS\}`$, where $`\overline{X}=\{YT_pS:Y=X\text{ mod }K\}`$. $`TS/K`$ is an $`n2`$ dimensional vector bundle over $`S`$ ($`n=\mathrm{dim}M`$). For $`\overline{X}`$, $`\overline{Y}T_pS/K`$, define $`h(\overline{X},\overline{Y})=g(X,Y)`$; $`h`$ is a well-defined smooth Riemannian metric on $`TS/K`$. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is defined as, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\overline{X},\overline{Y})=g(_XK,Y)`$, where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $`(M,g)`$; $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a well-defined symmetric bilinear form on $`TS/K`$, unique up to the scaling of $`K`$. By tracing $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with respect to $`h`$, we obtain the null expansion scalar $`\theta =h^{ab}\theta _{ab}`$, which measures the divergence of the null generators towards the future. Along an affinely parameterized null generator, $`s\eta (s)`$, the null expansion $`\theta =\theta (s)`$ satisfies (provided $`K`$ is appropriately scaled) the Raychaudhuri equation for an irrotational null congruence,

(2.1) $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{ds}}=\mathrm{Ric}(\eta ^{},\eta ^{})\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n2}}\theta ^2,`$
where $`\sigma ^2=\sigma _{ab}\sigma ^{ab}`$ , and $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the shear tensor, $`\sigma _{ab}=\theta _{ab}\frac{1}{n2}\theta `$.

We say that $`S`$ is *totally geodesic* if and only if the expansion tensor vanishes, $`\theta _{ab}0`$, or, equivalently, if and only if the expansion scalar and shear vanish, $`\theta 0`$, $`\sigma _{ab}0`$. This has the usual geometric meaning: A geodesic in $`M`$ starting tangent to a totally geodesic null hypersurface $`S`$ remains in $`S`$. Null hyperplanes in Minkowski space are totally geodesic, as is the event horizon in Schwarzschild spacetime.

We now state the null splitting theorem.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`M`$ be a null geodesically complete spacetime which obeys the null energy condition, $`\mathrm{Ric}(X,X)=R_{ij}X^iX^j0`$, for all null vectors $`X`$. If $`M`$ admits a null line $`\eta `$ then $`\eta `$ is contained in a smooth achronal edgeless *totally geodesic* null hypersurface $`S`$.

The simplest illustration of Theorem 2 is Minkowski space: Each null line $`\mathrm{}`$ in Minkowski space is contained in a unique null hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

We make some comments about the proof, which is based on a maximum principle for $`C^0`$ null hypersurfaces, see  for details. First, by way of motivation, note that the null plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ above can be realized as the limit of the future null cone $`I^+(x)`$ as $`x`$ goes to past null infinity along the null line $`\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ can also be realized as the limit of the past null cone $`I^{}(x)`$ as $`x`$ goes to future null infinity along the null line $`\mathrm{}`$. In fact, one sees that $`\mathrm{\Pi }=I^+(\mathrm{})=I^{}(\mathrm{})`$.

Thus, in the setting of Theorem 2, consider the *achronal boundaries* $`S_+=I^+(\eta )`$ and $`S_{}=I^{}(\eta )`$. By standard causal theoretic results , $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ are achronal, edgeless, $`C^0`$ (but in general not smooth) hypersurfaces in $`M`$. Since $`\eta `$ is achronal, it follows that $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ both contain $`\eta `$. For simplicity, assume $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ are connected (otherwise restrict attention to the component of each containing $`\eta `$). The proof then consists of showing that $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ agree and form a smooth totally geodesic null hypersurface. We give some indication as to how this works.

By further properties of achronal boundaries (see especially \[17, Lemma 3.19\]), each point $`pS_{}`$ is the past end point of a null geodesic contained in $`S_{}`$ which is future inextendible in $`M`$, and hence future complete, i.e., $`S_{}`$ is a $`C^0`$ null hypersurface ruled by future complete null geodesics. Similarly, $`S_+`$ is a $`C^0`$ null hypersurface ruled by past complete null geodesics. Now suppose $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ are actually *smooth* null hypersurfaces. Then by standard arguments, based on Raychaudhuri’s equation (eq. (2.1)), $`S_{}`$ must have null expansion $`\theta _{}0`$. Indeed, if $`\theta _{}<0`$ at some point $`p`$ then the null generator through $`p`$ would encounter a null focal point in a finite affine parameter time to the future, forcing the generator to leave $`S_{}`$, which is impossible. (This is the basis of the proof of the black hole area theorem.) Time-dually, $`S_+`$ has null expansion $`\theta _+0`$. Now, let $`q`$ be a point on both $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$. By simple causal considerations one observes that in the vicinity of $`q`$, $`S_+`$ lies to the future side of $`S_{}`$. Using the inequalities $`\theta _+0\theta _{}`$, and the fact that the null expansion scalar can be expressed as a second order quasi-linear elliptic operator acting on some function related to the graph of the null hypersurface, one can apply the strong maximum principle to conclude that $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ agree near $`q`$, c.f., \[8, Theorem II.1\]. Thus, the nonempty set $`S_{}S_+`$ is both open and closed in $`S_{}`$, and in $`S_+`$. Hence $`S_{}=S_+`$, and this common null hypersurface, call it $`S`$, must have vanishing null expansion, $`\theta 0`$. Equation (2) then implies that the shear of the generators also vanishes, and hence $`S`$ is totally geodesic.

The principal difficulty in proving Theorem 2 is in showing that the arguments of the preceding paragraph extend to the $`C^0`$ setting. In fact it is possible to show that $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ satisfy, $`\theta _+0\theta _{}`$, in a certain weak sense, namely, in the sense of smooth *support* null hypersurfaces. Then, as an application of the weak version of the strong maximum principle obtained in  (which includes a regularity assertion), it is again possible to show that $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ agree and form a smooth null hypersurface with vanishing null expansion scalar, cf., \[8, Theorem III.4\]

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

A proof of Theorem 1 in the case $`\lambda =0`$ was given in . Here we give a proof of Theorem 1, different in a number of respects, which accommodates the case $`\lambda >0`$. We also correct a mistake in the proof given in . The proof made use of the erroneous assertion that $`M^{}=M^{}`$ is causally simple (i.e., that the sets of the form $`J^\pm (K,M^{})`$ are closed for all compact $`KM^{}`$). As pointed out in , without some further assumption on $``$, this in principle need not hold. In the proof presented here we circumvent the use of causal simplicity.

The first, and main step in proving Theorem 1, is to show that $`(M,g)`$ has constant curvature. Let $`\eta `$ be the assumed null line in $`M`$, and let $`S`$ be the component of $`I^+(\eta ,M)`$ containing $`\eta `$. By Theorem 2, $`S`$ is a smooth totally geodesic null hypersurface in $`M`$. The null line $`\eta `$ acquires a past end point $`p`$ on $`^{}`$ and a future end point $`q`$ on $`^+`$. We examine the structure of $`S`$ near $`p`$. (A similar structure will hold near $`q`$.) For this purpose it is convenient to extend $`M^{}=M^{}`$ slightly beyond its boundary. Thus, without loss of generality, we may assume that $`M^{}`$ is contained in a spacetime (without boundary) $`P`$ such that $`^{}`$ separates $`P`$. It follows that $`^{}`$ is a globally achronal null hypersurface in $`P`$.

Observe that $`I^+(\eta ,M)=I^+(p,P)`$, from which it follows that $`I^+(\eta ,M)=I^+(p,P)M`$ (where $`I^+(A,X)`$ refers to the boundary in $`X`$). Asymptotic simplicity then implies that the generators of $`I^+(\eta ,M)`$ must have past end points on $`^{}`$ at $`p`$. (A generator $`\gamma `$ of $`I^+(p,P)`$ starting in $`M`$ either extends to $`p`$, or else is past inextendible in $`P`$, while remaining in $`I^+(p,P)`$. In the latter case, $`\gamma `$ meets $`^{}`$ transversely and enters $`I^{}(^{},P)`$, violating the achronality of $`^{}`$.) The generators of $`SI^+(\eta ,M)`$ must coincide with those of $`I^+(\eta ,M)`$, and hence have past end points on $`^{}`$ at $`p`$, as well. Let $`U`$ be a convex normal neighborhood of $`p`$, and let $`A`$ be the “null cone” in $`U`$ generated by the future directed null geodesics in $`U`$ emanating from $`p`$. $`A`$ is a smooth null hypersurface in $`U`$, except for the conical singularity at $`p`$. We can choose a smooth spacelike hypersurface in $`U`$, passing slightly to the future of $`p`$, which meets $`A`$ in a $`2`$-sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By invariance of domain, and the fact that $`S`$ is closed in $`M`$, it is easily seen that the subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ is both open and closed in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$. It follows that all the null geodesics forming $`A`$ correspond precisely to the generators of $`S`$, except, in the asymptotically flat case, for the generator $`\gamma _p`$ of $`^{}`$ with past end point $`p`$. Note in particular, this implies that $`S=I^+(\eta ,M)`$.

Now, set $`N_p=S\gamma _p`$ in the asymptotically flat case, and $`N_p=S\{p\}`$ in the asymptotically de Sitter case. From the above, $`N_p`$ is made up of all the future inextendible null geodesics in $`P`$ emanating from $`p`$. In the asymptotically de Sitter case, $`^{}`$ is spacelike, so $`I^+(p,P)`$ meets $`^{}`$ only at $`p`$. It follows from statements above that $`N_p=I^+(p,P)`$. Suppose, in the asymptotically flat case, that $`I^+(p,P)`$ meets $`^{}`$ at a point $`x`$, say. Then there exists a null geodesic $`\gamma I^+(p,P)`$ with future end point $`x`$ which either extends in the past to $`p`$ or is past inextendible in $`M^{}`$. In the latter case, Lemma 4.2 in  implies that $`MI^+(\gamma )`$, from which it follows that $`MI^+(p,P)`$. But this contradicts the achronality of $`\eta `$. It follows that $`I^+(p,P)^{}=\gamma _p`$, and again we have $`N_p=I^+(p,P)`$. Thus, $`N_p`$ is an achronal boundary, and hence is an achronal edgeless $`C^0`$ hypersurface in $`P`$. Moreover, since the future directed null geodesics in $`P`$ emanating from $`p`$ do not cross and, being achronal, do not have points conjugate to $`p`$, $`N_p\{p\}`$ is the diffeomorphic image under the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}:𝒪T_pPP`$ of $`(\lambda _p^+\{0\})𝒪`$, where $`\lambda _p^+`$ is the future null cone in $`T_pP`$ and $`𝒪`$ is the maximal open set on which $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is defined. Thus, apart from the conical singularity at $`p`$, $`N_p`$ is a smooth null hypersurface. We are justified in thinking of $`N_p`$ as the future null cone in $`P`$ at $`p`$.

The shear tensor $`\sigma _{ab}`$ of $`S`$ in the physical metric $`g`$ vanishes, and so, since the shear is a conformal invariant, the shear tensor $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ab}`$ of $`N_p\{p\}`$ vanishes in the unphysical metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Then by the well-known propagation equation for the shear tensor \[12, Eq. 4.36\], the components $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{a0b0}`$ (with respect to an appropriately chosen frame in which $`e_0`$ is aligned along the generators) of the conformal tensor of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ vanish on $`N_p\{p\}`$. We can now invoke an argument of Friedrich  used in essentially the same situation to prove a cosmic no-hair theorem. By use of the regular conformal field equations, specifically the divergencelessness of the rescaled conformal tensor,

$$_id_{jkl}^i=0,d_{jkl}^i=\mathrm{\Omega }^1\stackrel{~}{C}_{jkl}^i,$$

Friedrich shows that the full rescaled conformal tensor $`d_{jkl}^i`$ vanishes on the future domain of dependence $`D^+(N_p,P)`$ of $`N_p`$. Hence, the conformal tensor with respect to the physical metric vanishes on $`D^+(N_p,P)M`$. Together with equation (2), this implies that $`(M,g)`$ has constant curvature on $`D^+(N_p,P)M`$. In a precisely time-dual fashion $`(M,g)`$ has constant curvature on $`D^{}(N_q,Q)M`$, where $`Q`$ is an extension of $`M^+`$ analogous to $`P`$, and $`N_q`$ is the past null cone in $`Q`$ at $`q`$.

To conclude that $`M`$ is everywhere of constant curvature we need to show that $`MD^+(N_p,P)D^{}(N_q,Q)`$. Since $`S=I^+(\eta ,M)=I^{}(\eta ,M)`$, $`M`$ can be expressed as the disjoint union,

(3.1) $`M=I^{}(S,M)SI^+(S,M).`$
This decomposition follows from \[17, Proposition 3.15\], but can be easily shown directly as follows. Let $`xMS`$. There exists a curve $`\sigma `$ in $`M`$ (not necessarily causal) from $`x`$ to $`yS`$ that meets $`S`$ only at $`y`$. Either $`\sigma I^{}(S,M)\mathrm{}`$ or $`\sigma I^+(S,M)\mathrm{}`$. If the latter holds and $`\sigma `$ is not contained in $`I^+(S,M)`$, then $`\sigma `$ meets $`I^+(S,M)`$ at some point $`zS`$. But since $`I^+(S,M)=I^+(I^+(\eta ,M))=I^+(\eta ,M)`$, $`zI^+(\eta ,M)=S`$, which is a contradiction. Hence, $`\sigma I^+(S,M)`$, and so $`xI^+(S,M)`$. Similarly, $`\sigma I^{}(S,M)\mathrm{}`$ leads to $`xI^{}(S,M)`$, which establishes (3.1).

We now show that each term in (3) is a subset of $`D^+(N_p,P)D^{}(N_q,Q)`$. Trivially, $`SN_pD^+(N_p,P)`$. Consider $`I^+(S,M)J^+(N_p,P)M`$. We claim that $`J^+(N_p,P)MD^+(N_p,P)M`$. If not, then $`H^+(N_p,P)M\mathrm{}`$. Choose a point $`xH^+(N_p,P)M`$, and let $`\nu `$ be a null generator of $`H^+(N_p,P)`$ with future end point $`x`$. Since $`N_p`$ is edgeless, $`\nu `$ remains in $`H^+(N_p,P)`$ as it is extended into the past. By asymptotic simplicity, $`\nu `$ must meet $`^{}`$. In fact, $`\nu `$ must meet $`^{}`$ transversely (even in the asymptotically flat case, since $`\nu `$ starts in $`M`$) and then enters $`I^{}(^{},P)`$. But this means that $`\nu `$ has left $`J^+(N_p,P)`$, which is a contradiction. Hence, $`I^+(S,M)D^+(N_p,P)`$, and by the time-dual argument, $`I^{}(S,M)D^{}(N_q,Q)`$.

Thus, $`M`$ is globally of constant curvature. By the uniqueness of simply connected Lorentzian space forms, Theorem 1 will follow once we show that $`M`$ is simply connected and geodesically complete. In the asymptotically flat case, it is shown in  that $`M`$ is simply connected (in fact, is homeomorphic to $`^4`$). Simple connectivity in the anti-de Sitter case may be established as follows. Each generator of $`S`$ has a past end point at $`p`$ and a future end point at $`q`$. By the structure of $`S`$ near $`p`$ and $`q`$ established above, it follows that $`S\{p,q\}`$ is homemorphic to the $`3`$-sphere. Perturbing $`S\{p,q\}`$ slightly near $`p`$ and $`q`$, we obtain a smooth achronal $`3`$-sphere $`S_0`$ in $`M`$. By an argument similar to one given above, one can show that $`H^+(S_0,P)M=H^+(S_0,Q)M=\mathrm{}`$, from which it follows that $`S_0`$ is a Cauchy surface for $`M`$. (Alternatively, by a suitable modification of arguments in , one can show that $`M`$ is globally hyperbolic. Then, since $`S_0`$ is compact and achronal it must be a Cauchy surface.) Thus $`M`$ has topology $`\times S_0`$, and so is simply connected.

It remains to show that $`M`$ is geodesically complete. Being asymptotically simple, we know that $`M`$ is null geodesically complete, which is essential to the proof of full completeness. Let $`\overline{M}`$ denote Minkowski space in the case $`\lambda =0`$, and de Sitter space in the case $`\lambda >0`$. By standard results, for each $`xM`$ and $`\overline{x}\overline{M}`$, there is a neighborhood of $`x`$ isometric to a neighborhood of $`\overline{x}`$. Since $`M`$ is simply connected, these local isometries can be pieced together, by an analytic continuation type argument, to produce a local isometry $`\varphi :M\overline{M}`$, see, for example, Theorem 8.17 in . (The assumption in \[15, Th. 8.17\] that $`M`$ is complete is not needed to produce the local isometry; it is used only to conclude that $`\varphi `$ is a covering map.)

Let $`x`$ be any point in $`M`$, and let $`\overline{x}=\varphi (x)`$. Then, from the fact that $`\varphi `$ is a local isometry and $`M`$ is null geodesically complete, it follows that any (broken) null geodesic segment in $`\overline{M}`$ starting at $`\overline{x}`$ can be lifted uniquely via $`\varphi `$ to a (broken) null geodesic segment in $`M`$ starting at $`x`$. From this it follows that $`\varphi `$ is onto: Fix $`xM`$ and let $`\overline{x}=\varphi (x)`$. Let $`\overline{\nu }`$ be a broken null geodesic in $`\overline{M}`$ from $`\overline{x}`$ to any other point $`\overline{y}`$. Let $`\nu `$ be the lift of $`\overline{\nu }`$ starting at $`x`$, and let $`y`$ be its final end point; since $`\nu `$ covers $`\overline{\nu }`$, we must have $`\varphi (y)=\overline{y}`$.

To establish geodesic completeness, it is sufficient to show that any unit speed timelike or spacelike geodesic $`\gamma :[0,a)M`$, $`t\gamma (t)`$, continuously extends to $`t=a`$. Let $`\overline{\gamma }=\varphi \gamma `$; $`\overline{\gamma }`$ can be extended to a complete geodesic in $`\overline{M}`$ which we still refer to as $`\overline{\gamma }`$. Fixing $`u_0[0,a)`$ sufficiently close to $`a`$, one easily constructs a $`C^0`$ homotopy of curves $`\{\overline{\sigma }_u\}`$, $`u_0u<a`$, from $`\overline{\gamma }(0)`$ to $`\overline{\gamma }(a)`$, where, for each $`u[u_0,a)`$, $`\overline{\sigma }_u`$ consists of the segment $`\overline{\gamma }|_{[0,u]}`$, followed by a suitably chosen two-segment broken null geodesic $`\overline{\nu }_u`$ from $`\overline{\gamma }(u)`$ to $`\overline{\gamma }(a)`$, such that the length of $`\overline{\nu }_u`$ (in some background Riemannian metric) goes to zero as $`ua`$. The broken null segments $`\overline{\nu }_u`$ can be constructed from the two families of null geodesics foliating a totally geodesic timelike $`2`$-surface containing $`\overline{\gamma }|_{[u_0,a]}`$. By the nature of the lifting procedure, the homotopy $`\{\overline{\sigma }_u\}`$, $`u_0u<a`$ can be lifted to a $`C^0`$ homotopy $`\{\sigma _u\}`$, $`u_0u<a`$, where, for each $`u`$, $`\sigma _u`$ consists of the segment $`\gamma |_{[0,u]}`$, followed by a two-segment broken geodesic $`\nu _u`$ covering $`\overline{\nu }_u`$. The curves $`\sigma _u`$ must have a common final end point $`q`$, say. Since the length of $`\nu _u`$ goes to zero (in the lifted Riemannian metric) as $`ua`$, it follows that $`\gamma (u)q`$ as $`ua`$, i.e., $`\gamma `$ is extendible to $`q`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.

## 4. Concluding Remarks

It is possible to formulate a version of Theorem 1 applicable to anti-de Sitter space. However, since in this case $``$ is timelike, the characteristic initial value problem encountered in the proof of Theorem 1 would become an initial-boundary value problem, and it would be necessary to impose boundary data (namely the vanishing of the conformal tensor) on $``$. In this case one might expect to establish the uniqueness of anti-de Sitter space without the assumption of a null line.

We believe that one should be able to generalize Theorem 1 in certain directions. For example, in the asymptotically flat case, we expect that the vacuum assumption could be weakened to allow for the presence of matter. For instance, if we assume spacetime $`M`$ satisfies the null energy condition, and is vacuum in a neighborhood of $``$, then the proof of Theorem 1 implies the existence of open sets near scri which are flat. If the vacuum region is analytic then it follows that a neighborhood of scri is flat, and so $`M`$ should have vanishing mass. By a suitable version of the positive mass theorem, $`M`$ should be isometric to Minkowski space. Thus, we conjecture that, in the asymptotically flat case, the vacuum assumption can be replaced by the null energy condition and a requirement that the spacetime Ricci tensor falls off at an appropriate rate on approach to $``$. It may also be possible, in the asymptotically flat case, to prove a version of Theorem 1 for *weakly* asymptotically simple spacetimes, which allows for the occurence of black holes. By imposing suitable conditions on the domain of outer communications $`I^{}(^+)I^+(^{})`$ (e.g., that the DOC be globally hyperbolic) one might expect to be able to show that the DOC is flat. To accomplish this, one may be able to exploit the fact that the proof of the null splitting theorem does not actually require the full null completeness of spacetime.

We mention in closing that the null splitting theorem has recently been used  to obtain restrictions on the topology of $`^\pm `$ in asymptotically simple and de Sitter spacetimes obeying the null energy condition.

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on a talk given at the Workshop on the Conformal Structure of Spacetimes, held in Tübingen, April 2-4, 2001. We wish to thank the organizers Jörg Frauendiener and Helmut Friedrich for their gracious hospitality and support. We also wish to thank Piotr Chruściel for comments on an earlier draft.


text:
# Massive bosons and the dS/CFT correspondence

## 1 Introduction

The holographic principle is an attractive and fruitful way of thinking about quantum gravity, which has proven spectacularly successful in its application to the physics of AdS spacetimes. Fuelled by this success it is natural to attempt to find a similar holographic description of spacetimes with positive cosmological constant. However in spite of considerable recent activity , the proposed dS/CFT correspondence remains very much the poor relation of its AdS counterpart. Numerous conceptual issues remain to be addressed, chief among which is the delicate problem of observables in a spacetime with cosmological horizons. The abscence of a controlled de Sitter solution of string theory means that we currently have no concrete input on the CFT side of the correspondence. The precise nature of the correspondence with the as yet unknown CFT has also remained vague; in particular, there are difficulties in attempting to define an AdS-like prescription , . Furthermore though much work has been done on bulk scalars, a CFT description of higher spin bulk fields has remained unexplored.

Here we will address the last issue. Tests of the proposed correspondence can only be performed with our current level of knowledge from the bulk side, and this provides the motivation for seeking a dual description of higher spin bulk fields. In Section 2 we will briefly review the calculation of CFT two point functions corresponding to bulk scalars. In sections 3 and 4 we extend the “S-Matrix” approach to massive spin 1 bulk fields in any dimension and spin 2 bulk fields in $`d=4`$, and find that in each case the two point functions obtained are of the form required for conformal invariance. Section 5 contains a discussion of our results, the issue of unitarity of the boundary CFT, and interesting future directions.

In what follows we will use two coordinatisations of $`dS_d`$. The first which we will refer to as global coordinates is given by

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2$$
(1)
with $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2=\gamma _{ij}d\omega ^id\omega ^j`$, $`\gamma _{ij}`$ the round metric on $`S^{d1}`$. We have set the de Sitter length $`l=1`$. These coordinates cover all of $`dS_d`$. The second set which we will refer to as planar coordinates is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2+e^{2t}d𝐱^2$$
(2)
These cover only half the spacetime, namely the causal past of a geodesic observer. We also define the function

$$z(x,x^{})=\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\mu (x,x^{})}{2}$$
(3)
where $`\mu (x,x^{})`$ is the geodesic distance between two points.

## 2 Bulk Scalars

First we consider bulk scalar fields. We will for simplicity take $`d=3`$. This has been extensively studied in , , , and we will review their results. The equation of motion is

$$(^2m^2)\varphi =0$$
(4)
The limiting behaviour of $`\varphi `$ in global coordinates as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ is

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega })=\varphi _+^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega })e^{h_+\tau }+\varphi _{}^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega })e^{h_{}\tau }$$
(5)
where $`h_\pm =1\pm \nu `$, $`\nu =\sqrt{1m^2}`$. The Wightman function $`G(x,x^{})`$ is vacuum dependent and is a linear combination of the hypergeometric functions

$$F(h_+,h_{};\frac{3}{2};z),F(h_+,h_{};\frac{3}{2};1z)$$
(6)
We consider the amplitude

$$(\varphi ,\varphi )_{}=\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}d^2\mathrm{\Omega }d^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\left[\sqrt{g}\sqrt{g^{}}\left(\varphi (x)\stackrel{}{}_\tau G(x,x^{})\stackrel{}{}_\tau ^{}\varphi (x^{})\right)\right]_{\tau =\tau ^{}}$$
(7)
and find on choosing a particular vacuum

$$(\varphi ,\varphi )_{}=d^2\mathrm{\Omega }d^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\left(b_{}\varphi _+^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\varphi _+^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+b_+\varphi _{}^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\varphi _{}^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\right)$$
(8)
with $`b_\pm `$ vacuum dependent constants (which vanish in the “in” vacuum). The kernels $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ are the correlation functions of CFT operators of conformal dimension $`h_\pm `$ on an $`S^2`$. The constants may be absorbed by a field redefinition for two point functions, though three and higher point functions depend nontrivially on the choice of vacuum . Similarly one may evaluate $`(\varphi ,\varphi )_+`$, $`(\varphi ,\varphi )_+`$ and $`(\varphi ,\varphi )_{++}`$. In particular with one point on $`^{}`$ and one point on $`^+`$, we define $`\varphi ^{\text{out}}`$ with an antipodal inversion relative to $`\varphi ^{\text{in}}`$:

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega }_A)=\varphi _+^{\text{out}}(\mathrm{\Omega })e^{h_+\tau }+\varphi _{}^{\text{out}}(\mathrm{\Omega })e^{h_{}\tau }$$
(9)
and then

$$(\varphi ,\varphi )_+=d^2\mathrm{\Omega }d^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\widehat{b}_{}\varphi _+^{\text{out}}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\varphi _+^{\text{in}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+(+))$$
(10)
When evaluating CFT correlators with one point on each boundary, there is a wider choice of bulk Green functions that may be used in (7), as the bulk Schwinger function is then nonzero. In  the asymptotic behaviour of the bulk Wightman function with one point on each boundary is considered, while in the S-Matrix interpretation of  it is the Feynman propagator that is used. The dependence of CFT correlators on the bulk vacuum is encoded in the asymptotic behaviour of the bulk Hadamard function, as the Schwinger function is vacuum independent.

## 3 Massive Spin 1 Bulk Fields

We will apply a similar analysis to massive spin 1 bulk fields. The two point functions of the boundary operators may be obtained up to a constant factor as the kernels of the bilinear forms obtained from the amplitude (in planar coordinates)

$$(A,A)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}d^{d1}xd^{d1}x^{}\left[\sqrt{g}\sqrt{g^{}}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\left(A_\mu (t,𝐱)\stackrel{}{}_tG_{\nu \nu ^{}}(t,𝐱,t^{},𝐱^{})\stackrel{}{}_t^{}A_\mu ^{}(t^{},𝐱^{})\right)\right]_{t=t^{}}$$
(11)
where $`G_{\mu \nu ^{}}(t,𝐱,t^{},𝐱^{})`$ is the Wightman function of $`A_\mu (t,𝐱)`$

$$G_{\mu \nu ^{^{}}}(t,𝐱,t^{},𝐱^{})=0|A_\mu (t,𝐱)A_\nu ^{}(t^{},𝐱^{})|0$$
(12)
with $`|0`$ a de Sitter invariant vacuum state. The equation of motion for $`A_\nu `$ is

$$(^2(d1)m^2)A_\nu =0$$
(13)
subject to the constraint

$$_\mu A^\mu =0$$
(14)
We solve these equations asymptotically. The constraint equation yields

$$_tA_t(d1)A_t=e^{2t}D_iA^i$$
(15)
(13) yields

$`_t^2A_te^{2t}D^2A_t2e^{2t}D_iA^i(d1)_tA_t+m^2A_t`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (16)
$`_t^2A_ie^{2t}D^2A_i(d3)_tA_i2D_iA_t+m^2A_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (17)
Combining (15) and (16) we see that as $`t\mathrm{}`$

$$A_t(t,𝐱)e^{(r_{}+2)t}A_t(𝐱)+e^{(r_++2)t}A_{+t}(𝐱)$$
(18)
where

$`r_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d3\pm \rho }{2}}`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(d3)^24m^2}`$ (19)
Then from (17)

$$A_i(t,𝐱)e^{r_{}t}A_i(𝐱)+e^{r_+t}A_{+i}(𝐱)$$
(20)
with all corrections suppressed by at least two powers of $`e^t`$. The Wightman function $`G_{\mu \nu ^{}}(x,x^{})`$ satisfies

$$(^2(d1)m^2)G_{\mu \nu ^{}}(x,x^{})=0$$
(21)
subject to

$$_\mu G_\nu ^{}^\mu (x,x^{})=0$$
(22)
When a maximally symmetric vacuum state is chosen $`G_{\mu \nu ^{}}`$ is a maximally symmetric bivector. This means that it may be expressed as the sum of products of a set of preferred geometric objects : the geodesic distance $`\mu (x,x^{})`$ (equivalently $`z(x,x^{})`$); the unit tangents to the geodesic at $`x`$ ($`_\alpha \mu (x,x^{})n_\alpha (x,x^{})`$) and at $`x^{}`$ ($`_\nu ^{}\mu (x,x^{})n_\nu ^{}(x,x^{})`$); and the parallel propagator along the geodesic $`g_\nu ^{}^\mu (x,x^{})`$. $`g_{\mu \nu ^{}}`$ satisfies

$`g_\mu ^\nu ^{}(x,x^{})g_{\nu ^{}\sigma }(x^{},x)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \sigma }(x)`$ (23)
$`g_\mu ^{}^\nu (x^{},x)g_{\nu \sigma ^{}}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu ^{}\sigma ^{}}(x^{})`$ (24)
with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`g_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}`$ the metric at $`x,x^{}`$. $`g_{\sigma \nu ^{}}`$ may be expressed in terms of $`z`$, $`n_\sigma `$ and $`n_\nu ^{}`$ as

$$g_{\sigma \nu ^{}}=2\sqrt{z(1z)}_\sigma n_\nu ^{}n_\sigma n_\nu ^{}$$
(25)
We will now choose the Euclidean vacuum state. This is the unique de Sitter invariant vacuum state where the Wightman function is singular for coincident points but nonsingular for antipodal points on the de Sitter hyperboloid. It would be interesting to examine the rôle of other vacua, but such issues are not explored here. Then the Wightman function is given by

$`G_{\sigma \nu ^{}}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`f(z)g_{\sigma \nu ^{}}+g(z)n_\sigma n_\nu ^{}`$ (26)
$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{d1}}z(1z){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}+2z1\right)u(z)`$
$`g(z)`$ $`=`$ $`f(z)u(z)`$
$`u(z)`$ $`=`$ $`qF(r_++2,r_{}+2;{\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}};z)`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r_++2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r_{}+2)}{2^{d+1}\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+2}{2})m^2}}`$ (27)
The constant $`q`$ is chosen such that the short distance singularity matches that of flat space. Expressing in terms of $`P=2z1`$ and retaining only the terms which contribute to (11) as $`t\mathrm{}`$ we find

$$G_{\sigma \nu ^{}}(x,x^{})=\left[\left(\frac{P^2}{d1}\frac{d}{dP}+P\right)u(P)\right]\left[\frac{_\sigma P_\nu ^{}P}{P}+_\sigma _\nu ^{}P\right]$$
(28)
As $`t\mathrm{}`$, $`P(x,x^{})\frac{e^{(t+t^{})}}{2}|𝐱𝐱^{}|^2`$ and hence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_iP_j^{}P}{P}}+_i_j^{}P`$ $``$ $`e^{(t+t^{})}\left(\delta _{ij^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(xx^{})_i(xx^{})_j^{}}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^2}}\right)`$ (29)
$``$ $`e^{(t+t^{})}I_{ij^{}}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$
Furthermore the coefficient of the leading $`e^{(t+t^{})}`$ term in $`P^1_tP_\nu ^{}P+_t_\nu ^{}P`$ is zero, and hence $`G_{t\nu ^{}}(x,x^{})`$ is suppressed by at least two powers of $`e^t`$, $`e^t^{}`$ relative to $`G_{ij^{}}(x,x^{})`$. The asymptotic behaviour of $`G_{ij^{}}(x,x^{})`$ is determined by the transformation properties of the hypergeometric function (see appendix). We find that

$$G_{ij^{}}(x,x^{})\left(\frac{a_{}e^{r_{}(t+t^{})}}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^{2(r_{}+1)}}+\frac{a_+e^{r_+(t+t^{})}}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^{2(r_++1)}}\right)I_{ij^{}}$$
(30)
$`a_\pm `$ constants. Then inserting (18), (20) and (30) into (11) and ignoring contact terms, we find

$$(A,A)=d^{d1}xd^{d1}x^{}\left(\frac{\widehat{a}_+A_{}^i(𝐱)A_{}^j^{}(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^{2(r_++1)}}+\frac{\widehat{a}_{}A_+^i(𝐱)A_+^j^{}(𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^{2(r_{}+1)}}\right)I_{ij^{}}$$
(31)
where $`A_\pm ^i=\delta ^{ij}A_{\pm j}`$ and

$$\widehat{a}_\pm =\frac{q\rho ^2(r_\pm 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }((d+2)/2)4^{r_\pm +2}}{6\mathrm{\Gamma }(r_{}+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }((1\rho )/2)}$$
(32)
Hence we see that $`A_\pm ^i`$ correspond to a pair of CFT operators $`V_\pm ^i`$ whose two point functions are up to a constant the kernels of (31):

$$<V_\pm ^i(𝐱)V_\pm ^j^{}(𝐱^{})>=\frac{I^{ij^{}}(𝐱𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^{2(r_\pm +1)}}$$
(33)
which is of the form required for conformal invariance111We note that this derivation is valid in any dimension if the mass of the bulk field is such that $`\rho `$ is purely imaginary or $`\rho `$ is real and $`\rho <2`$. If $`\rho >2`$ (as may occur if $`d6`$) then corrections to the leading asymptotic behaviour of the field could in principle contibute to (11), and a more detailed analysis is required. These corrections are nevertheless not expected to change the result. The cases when $`\rho `$ is an integer require a case by case treatment and are explicitly excluded from the discussion.. The conformal dimensions are

$$\frac{1}{2}(d1\pm \sqrt{(d3)^24m^2})$$
(34)
In global coordinates it may readily be verified that the asymptotic behaviour of $`A_i`$ is given by

$$\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}A_i(\tau ,𝛀)=e^{r_{}\tau }A_i^{\text{in}}(𝛀)+e^{r_+\tau }A_{+i}^{\text{in}}(𝛀)$$
(35)
with $`A_\tau (\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ suppressed by two powers of $`e^\tau `$ as before. As $`\tau `$, $`\tau ^{}\mathrm{}`$ we find that $`P(x,x^{})\frac{e^{(\tau +\tau ^{})}}{2}\left(\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}\right)`$, where $`\theta (𝛀,𝛀^{})`$ is the geodesic distance on the $`S^{d1}`$. Also we see that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_iP_j^{}P}{P}}+_i_j^{}P`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\tau +\tau ^{})}}{4}}(_i\theta _j^{}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _i_j^{}\theta )`$ (36)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\tau +\tau ^{})}}{4}}_{ij^{}}`$
$`_{ij^{}}`$ generalises the flat space inversion tensor $`I_{ij^{}}`$ to the unit sphere . We define $`\sigma =\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}`$, the generalisation of the flat space $`|𝐱𝐱^{}|^2`$. Then evaluating the analogue of (11) in global coordinates as $`\tau `$, $`\tau ^{}\mathrm{}`$ we find

$$(A,A)_{}=\frac{1}{2^{d+1}}d^{d1}\mathrm{\Omega }d^{d1}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\left(\frac{\widehat{a}_{}A_{+i}^{\text{in}}(𝛀)A_{+j^{}}^{\text{in}}(𝛀^{})}{\sigma ^{(r_{}+1)}}+\frac{\widehat{a}_+A_i^{\text{in}}(𝛀)A_j^{}^{\text{in}}(𝛀^{})}{\sigma ^{(r_++1)}}\right)^{ij^{}}$$
(37)
where $`_k^{}^i=\gamma ^{ij}_{jk^{}}`$. The kernels are proportional to the two point functions of the CFT operators and are just (33) conformally rescaled to the sphere. Similarly one may evaluate $`(A,A)_{++}`$, $`(A,A)_+`$ and $`(A,A)_+`$, in particular finding the familiar antipodal inversion when one point is on $`^+`$ and one on $`^{}`$.

## 4 Massive Spin 2 Fields

We follow a similar procedure for massive spin 2 fields, which were discussed in . In four dimensions the equation of motion is

$$(^2(m^2+2))\chi _{\mu \nu }=0$$
(38)
subject to the constraints

$$_\mu \chi _\nu ^\mu =0,g^{\mu \nu }\chi _{\mu \nu }=0$$
(39)
and $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ symmetric. Bulk unitarity requires $`m^22`$, with $`m^2=2`$ giving partial masslessness (in general dimension partial masslessness occurs at $`m^2=d2`$ ). We assume $`m^2>2`$. In global coordinates, (38) and (39) read

$`_\tau ^2\chi _{\tau \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{D^2\chi _{\tau \tau }}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}+7\mathrm{tanh}\tau _\tau \chi _{\tau \tau }+(8\mathrm{tanh}^2\tau +2+m^2)\chi _{\tau \tau }=0`$
$`_\tau ^2\chi _{\tau i}{\displaystyle \frac{D^2\chi _{\tau i}}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}+\mathrm{tanh}\tau (3_\tau \chi _{\tau i}+2_i\chi _{\tau \tau })+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}+m^2\right)\chi _{\tau i}=0`$
$`_\tau ^2\chi _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{D^2\chi _{ij}}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}\mathrm{tanh}\tau _\tau \chi _{ij}+4\mathrm{tanh}\tau D_{(i}\chi _{j)\tau }(2\mathrm{tanh}^2\tau m^2)\chi _{ij}2\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau \gamma _{ij}\chi _{\tau \tau }=0`$
$`_\tau \chi _{\tau \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{ij}D_i\chi _{j\tau }}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}+3\mathrm{tanh}\tau \chi _{\tau \tau }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}\tau \gamma ^{ij}\chi _{ij}}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}=0`$
$`_\tau \chi _{\tau i}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{jk}D_j\chi _{ki}}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}+3\mathrm{tanh}\tau \chi _{\tau i}=0`$
$`\chi _{\tau \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{ij}\chi _{ij}}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}=0`$ (40)
and these give the asymptotic behaviour as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$

$`\chi _{\tau \tau }(\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`e^{(q_{}+2)\tau }\chi _{\tau \tau }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+e^{(q_++2)\tau }\chi _{\tau \tau }^+(\mathrm{\Omega })+O(e^{(q_\pm +4)\tau })`$
$`\chi _{\tau i}(\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`e^{q_{}\tau }\chi _{\tau i}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+e^{q_+\tau }\chi _{\tau i}^+(\mathrm{\Omega })+O(e^{(q_\pm +2)\tau })`$
$`\chi _{ij}(\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`e^{(q_{}2)\tau }\chi _{ij}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+e^{(q_+2)\tau }\chi _{ij}^+(\mathrm{\Omega })+O(e^{q_\pm \tau })`$
$`\gamma ^{ij}\chi _{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^{ij}\chi _{ij}^+=0`$ (41)
where

$$q_\pm =\frac{3\pm \sqrt{94m^2}}{2}$$
(42)
Following  it is straightforward to solve for the Wightman function $`G_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}(x,x^{})`$ in terms of $`z`$. Since it is traceless on primed and unprimed indices, $`G_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ may be expressed in terms of a traceless basis of bitensors

$$𝐆(x,x^{})=X(\mu )𝐓^1+Y(\mu )𝐓^2+Z(\mu )𝐓^3$$
(43)
where

$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}+n_\mu n_\nu n_\alpha ^{}n_\sigma ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_{\mu \nu }n_\alpha ^{}n_\sigma ^{}+n_\mu n_\nu g_{\alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}})`$
$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{\mu \alpha ^{}}g_{\nu \sigma ^{}}+g_{\mu \sigma ^{}}g_{\nu \alpha ^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$
$`T_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^3`$ $`=`$ $`4n_{(\mu }g_{\nu )(\alpha ^{}}n_{\sigma ^{})}+4n_\mu n_\nu n_\alpha ^{}n_\sigma ^{}`$ (44)
Defining the functions

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`X+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}Y`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`YZ,`$ (45)
the equations of motion and constraints yield, in terms of the variable $`z`$,

$$\left(z(1z)\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+[c(1+a+b)z]\frac{d}{dz}ab\right)W=0$$
(46)
and

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\left(z(z1){\displaystyle \frac{dW}{dz}}+2(2z1)W\right)`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{40}}\left(8z(z1){\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dz}}+16(2z1)UW\right)`$ (47)
where $`a=q_{}+2`$, $`b=q_++2`$ and $`c=4`$, so in the Euclidean vacuum, $`W=F(q_{}+2,q_++2;4;z)`$ (up to a constant) and $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ are completely determined. It is convenient for our purposes to change basis, and express the Wightman function as

$$𝐆(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{16}(X8Y)𝐐_1+(X+2Y)𝐐_2+Y𝐐_3\frac{1}{4}X𝐐_4+U𝐐_5$$
(48)
The new basis bitensors are

$`Q_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$
$`Q_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`n_\mu n_\nu n_\alpha ^{}n_\sigma ^{}`$
$`Q_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^3`$ $`=`$ $`4z(1z)(_\mu n_\alpha ^{}_\nu n_\sigma ^{}+_\mu n_\sigma ^{}_\nu n_\alpha ^{})`$
$`Q_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^4`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }n_\alpha ^{}n_\sigma ^{}+n_\mu n_\nu g_{\alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$
$`Q_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}^5`$ $`=`$ $`8\sqrt{z(1z)}n_{(\mu }(_{\nu )}n_{(\alpha ^{}})n_{\sigma ^{})}`$ (49)
The leading asymptotic contribution to the Wightman function comes from the $`ijk^{}l^{}`$ component of the $`𝐐_1`$, $`𝐐_3`$ terms. We find

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(X8Y)Q_1+YQ_3\right)_{ijk^{}l^{}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_{}e^{(q_{}2)(\tau +\tau ^{})}}{\sigma ^q_{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_+e^{(q_+2)(\tau +\tau ^{})}}{\sigma ^{q_+}}}\right)\left(_{ik^{}}_{jl^{}}+_{il^{}}_{jk^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{k^{}l^{}}\right)`$ (50)
$``$ $`c_{}e^{(q_{}2)(\tau +\tau ^{})}H_{ijk^{}l^{}}^{}+(+)`$
with all corrections and other components suppressed by at least two powers, and $`c_\pm `$ constants. (50) is traceless at the boundary $`(\gamma ^{ij}_{ik^{}}_{jl^{}}=\gamma _{k^{}l^{}})`$ since $`\chi _{ij}^\pm `$ are traceless there (41). The CFT two point functions are given by the kernels of

$$(\chi ,\chi )_{}=\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}d^3\mathrm{\Omega }d^3\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\left[\sqrt{g(x)g(x^{})}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\sigma \nu }\left(\chi _{\alpha \sigma }(x)\stackrel{}{}_\tau G_{\mu \nu \alpha ^{}\sigma ^{}}(x,x^{})\stackrel{}{}_\tau ^{}\chi _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(x^{})\right)g^{\alpha ^{}\mu ^{}}g^{\sigma ^{}\nu ^{}}\right]_{\tau =\tau ^{}}$$
(51)
A careful counting of powers reveals that (50) provides the only contribution:

$$(\chi ,\chi )_{}=d^3\mathrm{\Omega }d^3\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\widehat{c}_{}\chi ^{+ij}(\mathrm{\Omega })H_{ijk^{}l^{}}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\chi ^{+k^{}l^{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+(+))$$
(52)
Thus the CFT correlators are determined up to a constant as

$$<T_{ij}^\pm (\mathrm{\Omega })T_{k^{}l^{}}^\pm (\mathrm{\Omega }^{})>=H_{ijk^{}l^{}}^\pm (\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})$$
(53)
which are the two point functions required by conformal invariance for traceless symmetric tensor fields of conformal dimension $`\frac{1}{2}(3\pm \sqrt{94m^2})`$ on an $`S^3`$ (the flat space form is given in eg ). The calculation may be trivially modified to planar coordinates, or to involve one point on each boundary. In general we expect conformal dimensions $`\frac{1}{2}(d1\pm \sqrt{(d1)^24m^2})`$.

## 5 Discussion

In conclusion we have tested dS/CFT for higher spin massive bulk bosons. The symmetric traceless tensor representations of $`SO_0(d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1})`$ (the identity component of the Euclidean conformal group in $`d1`$ dimensions) are labelled by $`[s,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$, where $`s`$ is the tensor rank and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the conformal dimension. It is well known ,  that some of these representations may be continued to unitary representations of the universal covering of $`SO_0(d1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2})`$. This is possible if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is real and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d3}{2}},s=0`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`d3+s,s1`$ (54)
That these conditions are violated in the context of dS/CFT by all but a small range of scalar representations has led to the suggestion that the putative CFT dual is nonunitary. However as the boundary CFT is a priori Euclidean, it is more natural to demand the unitary realisation of $`SO_0(d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1})`$ symmetry with no reference made to analytic continuation to Lorentzian signature. Apart from certain exceptional, topologically reducible representations, the unitary symmetric traceless tensor representations of $`SO_0(d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1})`$ (discussed in detail in ) are irreducible and unique up to equivalence. They are given by the following.

The principal series:

$$s=0,1,2\mathrm{};\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{d1+i\sigma }{2},\sigma \text{real}$$
(55)
The complementary series:

$`s=0;\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}<\mathrm{\Delta }<d1(d12)`$ (56)
$`s1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}1}<\mathrm{\Delta }<d2(d13)`$ (57)
In the bulk the principal and complementary series of representations of $`SO_0(d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1})`$ are distinguished by the value of the mass. Taking for example the scalar representations, in $`d`$ bulk dimensions we have $`m^2>(d1)^2/4`$ for the principal series and $`0<m^2<(d1)^2/4`$ for the complementary series. Principal (complementary) series representations in the bulk correspond to principal (complementary) series representations on the boundary. Similar considerations hold for spin 1 and spin 2 ( ,  and references therein). In particular we note that the bulk unitarity bound on the mass of the spin 2 field has a holographic reflection in (57). We conclude that the group theoretic content of dS/CFT is that bulk and boundary representations of $`SO_0(d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1})`$ are unitarily equivalent.

It would be interesting to extend the calculations of CFT correlators to the exceptional representations mentioned above. These should correspond to bulk photons, gravitons and partially massless spin 2 fields, among others. However there are a number of difficulties which need to be overcome: there are subtleties in a de Sitter invariant treatment of massless particles and also a problem with infrared divergences of the Green functions , . Another problem is to obtain a better understanding of field theories based on unitary representations of the Euclidean conformal group (this has been examined in two dimensions in , where novel hermiticity conditions were introduced). It would also be of great interest to find a more precise definition, going beyond the current S-Matrix formalism, of what is meant by dS/CFT.

## 6 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Francis Dolan, Hugh Osborn and in particular Stephen Hawking. This work was supported by the National University of Ireland, EPSRC, and a Freyers Studentship.

## 7 Appendix

Here we relate properties of the hypergeometric function used in the text.

$`F(a,b;c;z)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)}}(z)^aF(a,1c+a;1b+a;z^1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}}(z)^bF(b,1c+b;1a+b;z^1)`$ (58)
$$\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}F(a,b;c;z^1)=1+O(z^1)$$
(59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{dz^n}}F(a,b;c;z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{(c)_n}}F(a+n,b+n;c+n;z)`$ (60)
$`(a)_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}`$ (61)