format: text

text:
# Self-similar spherically symmetric cosmological models with a perfect fluid and a scalar field

## 1 Introduction

Scalar field cosmology is of importance in the study of the early Universe and particularly in the investigation of inflation (during which the universe undergoes a period of accelerated expansion ). One particular class of inflationary cosmological models are those with a scalar field and an exponential potential of the form $`V(\varphi )=V_0e^{\kappa \varphi }`$, where $`\kappa `$ and $`V_0`$ are constants. Models with an exponential scalar field potential arise naturally in alternative theories of gravity, such as, for example, scalar-tensor theories, and are currently of particular interest since such theories occur as the low-energy limit in supergravity theories .

A number of authors have studied scalar field cosmological models with an exponential potential within general relativity. Homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models were first studied by Halliwell  using phase-plane methods. Homogeneous but anisotropic models of Bianchi types I and III (and Kantowski-Sachs models) were studied by Burd and Barrow  in which they found exact solutions and discussed their stability. Bianchi models of types III and VI were studied by Feinstein and Ibáñez , in which exact solutions were found. An analysis of Bianchi models, including standard matter satisfying various energy conditions, was completed by Kitada and Maeda . They found that the well-known power-law inflationary solution is an attractor for all initially expanding Bianchi models (except a subclass of the Bianchi type IX models which will recollapse) when $`\kappa ^2<2`$.

The governing differential equations in spatially homogeneous Bianchi cosmologies containing a scalar field with an exponential potential reduce to a dynamical system when appropriate normalised variables are defined; this dynamical system was studied in detail in . In a follow-up paper  the isotropisation of the Bianchi VIIh cosmological models possessing a scalar field with an exponential potential was further investigated; in the case $`\kappa ^2>2`$, it was shown that there is an open set of initial conditions in the set of anisotropic Bianchi VIIh initial data such that the corresponding cosmological models isotropise asymptotically. Hence, spatially homogeneous scalar field cosmological models having an exponential potential with $`\kappa ^2>2`$ can isotropise to the future. The Bianchi type IX models have also been studied in more detail .

Recently, cosmological models which contain both a perfect fluid and a scalar field with an exponential potential have come under heavy analysis . One of the exact solutions found for these models has the property that the energy density due to the scalar field is proportional to the energy density of the perfect fluid, hence these models have been labelled scaling cosmologies . These scaling solutions, which are spatially flat isotropic models, are of particular physical interest. For example, in these models a significant fraction of the current energy density of the Universe may be contained in the scalar field whose dynamical effects mimic cold dark matter. In  the stability of these cosmological scaling solutions within the class of spatially homogeneous cosmological models with a perfect fluid subject to the equation of state $`p=(\gamma 1)\mu `$ (where $`\gamma `$ is a constant satisfying $`0<\gamma <2`$) and a scalar field with an exponential potential was studied. It was found that when $`\gamma >2/3`$, and particularly for realistic matter with $`\gamma 1`$, the scaling solutions are unstable; essentially they are unstable to curvature perturbations, although they are stable to shear perturbations. Curvature scaling solutions  and anisotropic scaling solutions  are also possible. In particular, in  homogeneous and isotropic spacetimes with non-zero spatial curvature were studied.

Clearly it is of interest to study more general cosmological models, and in this paper we shall comprehensively study the qualitative properties of the class of self-similar spherically symmetric models with a barotropic fluid and a non-interacting scalar field with an exponential potential. Self-similar spherically symmetric perfect fluid models with a linear equation of state have been much studied in general relativity . Carr & Coley  have presented a complete asymptotic classification of such solutions and, by reformulating the field equations for these models, Goliath *et al*  have obtained a compact three-dimensional state space representation of the solutions which leads to another complete picture of the solution space. Recently, these models have been further studied in a combined approach . The present analysis can be thought of as a natural extension of this recent work .

The Kantowski-Sachs models appear as a limiting case of the class of spherically symmetric models under investigation, and hence this analysis complements recent analyses of spatially homogeneous Bianchi models . Models with positive spatial curvature have attracted less attention than Bianchi models with zero spatial curvature or negative spatial curvature since they are more complicated mathematically. However, the properties of positive-curvature FRW models  and Kantowski-Sachs models  have been studied previously.

In the next section we shall describe the governing equations of the class of models under investigation. In section 3, compact variables are defined and the resulting dynamical system is derived in the case of spatial self-similarity. A monotone function is obtained. The equilibrium points and their local stability is discussed in section 4. The timelike self-similar case is then considered in sections 5 and 6. The special equilibrium points for values of “extreme tilt” are discussed separately in section 7. The global results and a discussion is given in section 8. Applications in the absence of a barotropic fluid and in the further subcase of a massless scalar field are discussed, respectively, in sections 9 and 10, partially to illustrate the early-time and late-time behaviour of the models.

## 2 Governing equations

We shall consider spherically symmetric similarity solutions in which the source for the gravitational field is a perfect fluid and a non-interacting scalar field with an exponential potential in which the total energy-momentum tensor is given by:

$$T_{ab}=(T_{\mathrm{pf}ab}+T_{\mathrm{sf}ab}),$$
(1)
where

$$T_{\mathrm{pf}ab}=\mu u_au_b+p\left(u_au_b+g_{ab}\right).$$
(2)
The perfect fluid obeys the equation of state

$$p=(\gamma 1)\mu ,$$
(3)
where $`\gamma `$ is a constant satisfying $`1<\gamma <2`$. The scalar-field contribution is given by

$$T_{\mathrm{sf}ab}=\varphi _{,a}\varphi _{,b}\left[\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{,c}\varphi ^{,c}+V(\varphi )\right]g_{ab},$$
(4)
where

$$V(\varphi )=V_0e^{\kappa \varphi }.$$
(5)
Since the fluid and scalar field are non-interacting, we have the following separate conservation laws:

$$_aT_{\mathrm{pf}}^{ab}=0=_aT_{\mathrm{sf}}^{ab}.$$
(6)
The spacetime is self-similar and consequently admits a homothetic vector $`\eta ^a`$. This implies that the matter fields must be of a particular form. Thus, a barotropic fluid must have an equation of state of the form (3) . The energy-momentum tensor of the scalar field must satisfy:

$$_\eta T_{\mathrm{sf}ab}=0.$$
(7)
This implies that

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}\eta ,`$ (8)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\eta }𝒱(\mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (9)
$`𝒱(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`V_0e^{\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )},`$ (10)
where $`\eta `$ is the variable defined by the homothetic vector $`\eta ^a`$, and $`\xi `$ is the similarity variable. When the similarity variable is timelike, we will use the notation $`t\xi ,x\eta `$. The homothetic vector then is spacelike, and we denote this as the spatially self-similar case. When the homothetic vector is timelike, we have the timelike self-similar case, for which $`t\eta ,x\xi `$. A dot denotes differentiation with respect to the similarity variable. Finally, we shall define the new variable:

$$X=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(11)
and for convenience we introduce the new constant

$$k\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\kappa }.$$
(12)
## 3 Spatially self-similar case

In the spatially self-similar case, the line element can be written

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2x}d\overline{s}^2,`$ (13)
$`d\overline{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+D_1^2dx^2+D_2^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (14)
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta ^02\beta ^+},D_2=e^{\beta ^0+\beta ^+}.`$ (15)
The kinematic quantities of the congruence normal to the symmetry surfaces are related to the Misner variables ($`\beta ^0`$, $`\beta ^+`$) as follows:

$$\theta =3\dot{\beta }^0,\sigma _+=3\dot{\beta }^+.$$
(16)
Following , we will work with boosted kinematic quantities ($`\overline{\theta },\overline{\sigma }_+`$)

$$\theta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(2\overline{\theta }+\overline{\sigma }_+\right),\sigma _+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\overline{\theta }+2\overline{\sigma }_+\right).$$
(17)
The reason for this is that it simplifies the constraint obtained from the non-vanishing off-diagonal component of the field equations. The metric functions $`B_1D_1^1`$ and $`B_2D_2^1`$ then have the following evolution equations:

$`\dot{B_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_+B_1,`$ (18)
$`\dot{B_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\overline{\theta }+\overline{\sigma }_+)B_2.`$ (19)
The physical quantities associated with the perfect fluid are as follows:

$`u_{\mathrm{pf}}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^x}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}(1,ve^{2\beta ^+\beta ^0},0,0),`$ (20)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1v^2}{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}e^{2x}\mu _n,`$ (21)
where $`v`$ is the tilt variable, and $`\mu _n`$ is the energy density along the normal congruence. From the conservation equations (6) for the perfect fluid, we have:

$`\dot{\mu }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{3}\left[1+(\gamma 1)v^2\right]}}\left[2\overline{\theta }+(1v^2)\overline{\sigma }_++2\sqrt{3}vB_1\right]\mu _n,`$ (22)
$`\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1v^2}{\sqrt{3}\gamma \left[1(\gamma 1)v^2\right]}}\{\gamma [2(\gamma 1)\overline{\theta }+\gamma \overline{\sigma }_+]v`$ (23)
$`+\sqrt{3}[(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)v^2(2\gamma )]B_1\},`$
and the conservation equation for the scalar field yields

$`\dot{X}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(2\overline{\theta }+\overline{\sigma }_+)X+2kB_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{k}}.`$ (24)
The Einstein field equations then yield the following:
The Friedmann equation:

$`\mu _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[\overline{\theta }^2\overline{\sigma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}3(1+k^2)B_1^2+3B_2^23X^23𝒱\right].`$ (25)
Constraint equation:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma v\mu _n{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\left[1+(\gamma 1)v^2\right]\left(\overline{\sigma }_++\sqrt{3}kX\right)B_1.`$ (26)
Evolution equations for $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_+`$:

$`\dot{\overline{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}[\overline{\theta }^2+\overline{\sigma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }_+3(1+k^2)B_1^2+3X^23𝒱`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(\gamma 1)(1v^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mu _n],`$
$`\dot{\overline{\sigma }_+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}[\overline{\sigma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }_++6k^2B_1^2+3𝒱`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\gamma )+(3\gamma 2)v^2}{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mu _n].`$
From equation (25), by demanding $`\mu _n0`$, a dominant quantity

$`\overline{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\overline{\theta }^2+3B_2^2}`$ (29)
is identified. Thus, we define bounded variables according to

$`\overline{Q}_0={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\theta }}{\overline{Y}}},\overline{Q}_+={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_+}{\overline{Y}}},\overline{C}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}B_1}{\overline{Y}}},\overline{U}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}X}{\overline{Y}}},\overline{W}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3𝒱}}{\overline{Y}}}.`$ (30)
Defining an appropriate density parameter with respect to $`\mu _n`$, the Friedmann equation takes the form:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mu _n}{\overline{Y}^2}}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+k^2)\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2\overline{W}^2,`$ (32)
while the constraint equation becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma v\mathrm{\Omega }_n2\left[1+(\gamma 1)v^2\right](\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U})\overline{C}_1.`$ (33)
By defining a new independent variable

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\overline{Y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}},`$ (34)
the evolution equation for $`\overline{Y}`$

$`\overline{Y}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\overline{Q}_++\overline{Q}_0\left[2(\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right]\right\}\overline{Y}`$ (35)
decouples, and we are left with a reduced set of evolution equations:

$`\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\left[12(1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right],`$ (36)
$`\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Q}_0\overline{Q}_+\left[2(1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right]`$ (37)
$`\left[2k^2\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{W}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\gamma )+(3\gamma 2)v^2}{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right],`$
$`\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{C}_1\left[\overline{Q}_++\overline{Q}_0(\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\overline{Q}_0\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right],`$ (38)
$`v^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1v^2}{\gamma \left[1(\gamma 1)v^2\right]}}\{\gamma [2(\gamma 1)\overline{Q}_0+\gamma \overline{Q}_+]v+`$ (39)
$`+[(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)v^2(2\gamma )]\overline{C}_1\},`$
$`\overline{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Q}_0\overline{U}\left[2(1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right]`$ (40)
$`+2k\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{W}^2}{k}},`$
$`\overline{W}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{W}}{k}}\left\{k\overline{Q}_+\overline{U}+k\overline{Q}_0\left[2(\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right]\right\}.`$ (41)
This system is invariant under the transformation

$$(\tau ,\overline{Q}_0,\overline{Q}_+,\overline{C}_1,v,\overline{U},\overline{W})(\tau ,\overline{Q}_0,\overline{Q}_+,\overline{C}_1,v,\overline{U},\overline{W}).$$
(42)
Furthermore, $`\overline{W}0`$, and by noting the invariance under the transformation $`(\overline{C}_1,v)(\overline{C}_1,v)`$, we can without loss of generality restrict the analysis to $`\overline{C}_10`$. There is also an auxiliary evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\left[2\overline{Q}_0+(1v^2)\overline{Q}_++2v\overline{C}_1\right]+2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Y}^{}}{\overline{Y}}}\right\}.`$ (43)
In appendix A, expressions for some important fluid quantities are given.

### 3.1 Invariant submanifolds

A number of invariant submanifolds can be identified:

* Plane symmetric: $`\overline{Q}_0=\pm 1`$, which implies $`B_2=0`$ (see ).
* Non-self-similar Kantowski-Sachs: $`\overline{C}_1=0,v=0`$ (see ).
* Massless scalar field: $`\overline{W}=0`$.
* No perfect fluid: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$ (and $`v`$ decouples).
* No scalar field: $`\overline{U}=0`$, $`\overline{W}=0`$ and $`k=0`$.

The case with no scalar field was studied in , where the global dynamics of these models was investigated in detail. The resulting state space in this case is effectively three-dimensional and is illustrated in that reference. We note that the only self-similar FRW models are the zero-curvature models which occur both as an equilibrium point in the plane symmetric invariant set (with $`\overline{Q}_0=\pm 1=2\overline{Q}_+`$), and as an orbit in the interior of the state space.

### 3.2 Monotone function

The evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Xi }\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U}`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Q}_0\mathrm{\Xi }\left[2(1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right]`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\gamma )+(3\gamma 2)v^2}{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n,`$
which we note is of the same form as the evolution equation for $`\overline{Q}_+`$ in the perfect fluid case. Noting the form of the constraint (33), we consider the following function $`\overline{M}`$ (cf. ):

$`\overline{M}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{2\gamma }\mathrm{\Xi }^{3\gamma 4}\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }v^2(1v^2)^{(2\gamma )}.`$ (45)
A direct calculation then yields:

$`\overline{M}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(3\gamma 2)(2\gamma )}{\gamma v}}(1v^2)\overline{C}_1\right]\overline{M},`$ (46)
that is, $`\overline{M}`$ is monotonic in both the $`v<0`$ and the $`v>0`$ regions.

When $`v=0`$ the constraint yields $`\mathrm{\Xi }\overline{C}_1=0`$. But since $`\overline{C}_1=0`$, $`v=0`$ is an invariant (boundary) set, if $`\overline{C}_1=0`$ then $`\overline{C}_1=0`$, $`v=0`$ always. Hence on the surface $`v=0`$ and in the interior of the state space $`\overline{C}_1>0`$. Setting $`v=0`$ in the evolution equation for $`v`$ then gives

$`v^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{\gamma }}\overline{C}_1,`$ (47)
which is strictly negative. That is, all orbits in the interior region pass from $`v>0`$ to $`v<0`$ across the surface $`v=0`$ (i.e. the surface $`v=0`$ acts as a membrane). Consequently there can be no closed or recurrent orbits in the interior of the state space.

## 4 Equilibrium points for the spatially self-similar case

We shall display all of the equilibrium points below along with their eigenvalues. We will not present the corresponding eigenvectors explicitly. In what follows, $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ is the sign of $`\overline{Q}_0`$, which indicates whether the corresponding solution is expanding $`(+)`$ or contracting $`()`$. The quantity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\overline{U}^2+\overline{W}^2`$ is the scalar-field contribution to the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. The order of the dependent variables is $`(\overline{Q}_0,\overline{Q}_+,\overline{C}_1,v,\overline{U},\overline{W})`$. The ’$`\pm `$’ suffices on the labels for equilibrium points correspond to the sign of $`\overline{Q}_0`$ (i.e. the value of $`ϵ`$). Equilibrium points that act as attractors are listed in table 1.

### 4.1 No scalar field ($`\overline{U}=0`$, $`\overline{W}=0`$)

#### 4.1.1 K-points

These are special points on the K-rings, defined in subsection 4.2.1. They all have $`\overline{Q}_0=\pm 1`$, $`\overline{Q}_+=\pm 1`$, and all other variables equal to zero.

#### 4.1.2 Flat Friedmann

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{F}`$: $`(ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,0,0,0,0)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\frac{3}{4}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=0`$, $`q_{\mathrm{pf}}=\frac{3\gamma 2}{2}`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3\gamma 2)ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(2\gamma )ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3\gamma 2)ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(2\gamma )ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{4}}ϵ.`$
These points are saddles.

#### 4.1.3 Self-similar Kantowski-Sachs

The state space contains the non-self-similar Kantowski-Sachs solutions as a boundary submanifold. In this submanifold, the self-similar Kantowski-Sachs solution appears as an equilibrium point.
$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{KS}`$: $`(\sqrt{\frac{2\gamma }{4(\gamma 1)}}ϵ,\sqrt{\frac{\gamma 1}{2\gamma }}ϵ,0,0,0,0)`$, $`\gamma <2/3`$.
As this solution is physical only when $`\gamma <2/3`$, we will not consider it further.

### 4.2 Massless scalar field ($`\overline{U}0`$, $`\overline{W}=0`$)

#### 4.2.1 K-rings

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$: $`(ϵ,\pm \sqrt{1\overline{U}^2},0,0,\overline{U},0)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\overline{U}^2`$, $`q_{\mathrm{pf}}=2`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`2ϵ,(2\gamma )\left[\overline{Q}_++2ϵ\right],2(\gamma 1)ϵ+\gamma \overline{Q}_+,0,2ϵ+\overline{Q}_+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{U}}{k}}.`$
Each K-ring corresponds to a one-parameter family of equilibrium points (and hence gives rise to a zero eigenvalue). They are analogues of the Kasner solutions in the case with no scalar field . For each K-ring, there is a subset of future or past attractors.
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$: sources and saddles.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$: sinks and saddles.

#### 4.2.2 M-points

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{\stackrel{~}{v}}`$: $`(ϵ,k^2fϵ,f,\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ,kfϵ,0)`$, $`f=1/(1+k^2)`$, $`\gamma >\frac{6}{5}`$,
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{1,2}=\frac{\gamma \left[(\gamma 1)\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma }k^2\right]\pm \sqrt{(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)+\gamma ^2\left[(\gamma 1)\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma }k^2\right]^2}}{(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)}`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\left(\frac{k}{1+k^2}\right)^2`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`2fϵ,2(1k^2)fϵ,(1k^2)fϵ,F_1(\gamma ,k)fϵ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma v}}\left[2\gamma +(3\gamma 2)v^2+2\gamma v\right]fϵ,`$
These equilibrium points are related to the Milne points $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{M}}`$ in . They are only physical ($`|\stackrel{~}{v}|<1`$) for certain ranges of $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$. For instance, when $`k<1`$ it follows that $`|\stackrel{~}{v}_2|>1`$. When $`k>1`$, these points are saddles. Furthermore, examining the eigenvalues numerically for $`0<k<1`$, it turns out that the points always are saddles.

#### 4.2.3 Curvature-scaling solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{X}_{}^{\widehat{v}}`$: $`(2kgϵ,kgϵ,g,\widehat{v}ϵ,gϵ,0)`$, $`g=1/(\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+k^2})`$, $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$),
$`\widehat{v}_{1,2}=\frac{(3\gamma 4)\gamma \frac{k}{2}\pm \sqrt{(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)+(3\gamma 4)^2\gamma ^2\frac{k^2}{4}}}{(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)}`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{1}{2(1+k^2)}`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1k^2}{k}}gϵ,F_2(\gamma ,k,\widehat{v})ϵ,F_3(\gamma ,k,\widehat{v})ϵ,`$
$`F_4(\gamma ,k,\widehat{v})ϵ,F_5(\gamma ,k,\widehat{v})ϵ.`$
For $`k=1`$ ($`\kappa ^2=2`$) these points coincide with $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{\stackrel{~}{v}}`$, and for $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$) they are unphysical. Note that $`0<\widehat{v}_1<1`$ and $`1<\widehat{v}_2<0`$ only when $`\gamma >4/3`$, assuming $`k<1`$. For $`\gamma <4/3`$, it follows that $`|\widehat{v}|>1`$, and the equilibrium points are unphysical. Numerical evaluation of the eigenvalues shows that these points are saddles.

#### 4.2.4 Equilibrium lines with arbitrary $`v`$

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{v}`$: $`(ϵ,2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }ϵ,0,v,\pm \frac{1}{\gamma }\sqrt{(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)},0)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)/\gamma ^2`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\overline{Q}_+`$ eliminated):

$`0,0,2ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}(2\gamma )ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{U}}{k}}.`$
There are two zero eigenvalues for these points. The first zero eigenvalue corresponds to the fact that we have a line of equilibrium points. The second zero eigenvalue indicates that the equilibria are non-hyperbolic. For $`v=0,\pm 1`$, these equilibrium lines coincide with the various K-rings, see subsections 4.2.1 and 7.2.1, and these exceptional points mark where the K-rings change stability. The higher-order zero eigenvalue of $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{v}`$ corresponds to the eigenvalue associated with the fact that $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$ is a line of equilibrium points (and not to the eigenvalue that becomes zero due to the stability change of $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$), and the corresponding eigenvector is $`\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\overline{U}}{\overline{Q}_+}\stackrel{}{e}_{\overline{Q}_+}+\stackrel{}{e}_{\overline{U}}`$. Perturbing the equilibrium lines $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{v}`$ along this eigenvector, we find that

$`\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2)ϵ\overline{Q}_+,`$ (48)
$`\overline{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2)ϵ\overline{U}.`$ (49)
This is precisely the dynamical system restricted to the invariant set $`\overline{Q}_0=ϵ`$, $`\overline{C}_1=0`$, $`\overline{W}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$. We can explicitly integrate equations (48) and (49). It follows that $`\overline{Q}_+`$ is proportional to $`\overline{U}`$, and the orbits in the ($`\overline{Q}_+,\overline{U}`$) plane consist of straight lines through the origin with additional equilibrium points at $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{v}`$ (where $`\overline{Q}_+=2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }\overline{Q}_0`$), which are thus non-linear saddles.

### 4.3 Scalar field with potential ($`\overline{U}0`$, $`\overline{W}0`$)

There are a number of solutions with a non-zero potential listed below. There are also equilibrium points $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{Z}_{}^{v^{}}`$ with variable values
$`(ϵ,0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1k^2}},v^{},0,\sqrt{\frac{2k^2}{1k^2}})`$, $`v_{1,2}^{}=\frac{(\gamma 1)\gamma \sqrt{1k^2}ϵ\pm \sqrt{(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)+(\gamma 1)^2\gamma ^2(1k^2)}}{(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)}`$,
but these points are unphysical, since either $`\overline{C}_1`$ or $`\overline{W}`$ is imaginary.

#### 4.3.1 Scalar-field dominated solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$: $`(ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,0,0,\frac{1}{2k}ϵ,\frac{1}{2k}\sqrt{3k^21})`$, $`k^2>\frac{1}{3}`$ ($`\kappa ^2<6`$).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{3}{4}`$, $`q_{\mathrm{pf}}=\frac{1}{k^2}(1k^2)=\frac{1}{2}(2\kappa ^2)`$.
Eigenvalues (constraint degenerate):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k^21}{k^2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3k^21}{2k^2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3k^21}{2k^2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{k^21}{2k^2}}ϵ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 4}{2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma k^22}{2k^2}}ϵ.`$
When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, the constraint defines two hypersurfaces ($`\overline{C}_1=0`$ and $`\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U}=0`$), and these hypersurfaces coincide at $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It turns out that the constraint is degenerate ($`G=0`$) at these equilibrium points. Consequently, all eigenvector directions are physical there, so we need to keep all six eigenvalues. For $`k^2=1/3`$ ($`\kappa ^2=6`$) these points coincide with points in the K-rings, and for $`k^2<1/3`$ ($`\kappa ^2>6`$) they are unphysical.
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$: sink when $`\gamma <\frac{4}{3}`$, $`k^2>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$); saddle otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$: source when $`\gamma <\frac{4}{3}`$, $`k^2>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$); saddle otherwise.
We note that $`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponds to the flat FRW power-law inflationary solution .

#### 4.3.2 Curvature-scaling solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Xi }`$: $`(\frac{1}{2kg}ϵ,kgϵ,0,0,gϵ,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})`$, $`g=1/(\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+k^2})`$, $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{2+k^2}{2(1+k^2)}`$, $`q_{\mathrm{pf}}=\frac{1k^2}{2+k^2}=\frac{\kappa ^22}{2(\kappa ^2+1)}<0`$.
Eigenvalues (constraint degenerate):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left[2(\gamma 1)+\gamma k^2\right]gϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\left[k^2+1\pm \sqrt{(k^2+1)(9k^27)}\right]gϵ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(k^2+1)gϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(k^21)gϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left[\gamma (2\gamma )(k^2+1)\right]gϵ.`$
For $`k=1`$ ($`\kappa ^2=2`$) these points coincide with $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and for $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$) they are unphysical. When physical, these points are always saddles.

#### 4.3.3 Friedmann scaling solution

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{FS}`$: $`(ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,0,0,\frac{3k}{4}\gamma ϵ,\frac{3k}{4}\sqrt{\gamma (2\gamma )})`$, $`k^2<\frac{2}{3\gamma }`$ ($`\kappa ^2>3\gamma `$).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\frac{3}{8}(23\gamma k^2)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{9}{8}\gamma k^2`$, $`q_{\mathrm{pf}}=\frac{3\gamma 2}{2}`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3\gamma 2)ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(2\gamma )ϵ,1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left[(2\gamma )\pm \sqrt{(2\gamma )(12\gamma ^2k^29\gamma +2)}\right]ϵ.`$
For $`k^2=\frac{2}{3\gamma }`$ ($`\kappa ^2=3\gamma `$) these points coincide with $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and for $`k^2>\frac{2}{3\gamma }`$ ($`\kappa ^2<3\gamma `$) they are unphysical. When physical, these points are always saddles.

## 5 Timelike self-similar case

In the timelike self-similar case, the line element can be written

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2t}d\stackrel{~}{s}^2,`$ (50)
$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`D_1^2dt^2+dx^2+D_2^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (51)
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta ^02\beta ^+},D_2=e^{\beta ^0+\beta ^+}.`$ (52)
The kinematic quantities of the congruence normal to the symmetry surfaces are related to ($`\beta ^0`$, $`\beta ^+`$) by:

$$\theta =3\dot{\beta }^0,\sigma _+=3\dot{\beta }^+.$$
(53)
Note that for the timelike self-similar case, the symmetry surfaces $`x=`$ constant are timelike, so the normal congruence is spacelike. As for the spatial case, it is convenient to boost the kinematic quantities in order to simplify the constraint :

$$\theta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(2\overline{\theta }+\overline{\sigma }_+\right),\sigma _+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\overline{\theta }+2\overline{\sigma }_+\right).$$
(54)
The evolution equations for the metric functions $`B_1D_1^1`$ and $`B_2D_2^1`$ are

$`\dot{B_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{\sigma }_+B_1,`$ (55)
$`\dot{B_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\overline{\theta }+\overline{\sigma }_+)B_2.`$ (56)
In terms of the coordinates we use, the physical quantities associated with the perfect fluid are given by

$`u_{\mathrm{pf}}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^t}{\sqrt{1u^2}}}(e^{2\beta ^+\beta ^0},u,0,0),`$ (57)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1u^2}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}e^{2t}\mu _t,`$ (58)
where $`u`$ is related to the tilt, and $`\mu _t`$ is the energy density with respect a congruence projected onto the surfaces of symmetry. The conservation equations for the perfect fluid yield

$`\dot{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1u^2}{\sqrt{3}\gamma \left[u^2(\gamma 1)\right]}}\{\gamma [2(\gamma 1)\overline{\theta }+\gamma \overline{\sigma }_+]u`$ (59)
$`+\sqrt{3}[(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)(2\gamma )u^2]B_1\}.`$
There is also an evolution equation for $`\dot{\mu }_t`$, but as it is rather lengthy and not used elsewhere, we will not give it here. The conservation equation for the scalar field is

$`\dot{X}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(2\overline{\theta }+\overline{\sigma }_+)X+2kB_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{k}},`$ (60)
and the Einstein field equations give:
The Friedmann equation:

$`\mu _t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}{u^2+(\gamma 1)}}\left(\overline{\theta }^2\overline{\sigma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}3(1+k^2)B_1^23B_2^23X^2+3𝒱\right).`$ (61)
Constraint equation:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma u\mu _t{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\left[1+(\gamma 1)u^2\right](\overline{\sigma }_++\sqrt{3}kX)B_1.`$ (62)
Evolution equations for $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_+`$:

$`\dot{\overline{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\overline{\theta }^2+\overline{\sigma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }_+3(1+k^2)B_1^2+3X^2+3𝒱`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mu _t),`$
$`\dot{\overline{\sigma }_+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(\overline{\sigma }_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }_++6k^2B_1^23𝒱`$ (64)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3\gamma 2)+(2\gamma )u^2}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mu _t).`$
From (61) and by demanding $`\mu _t0`$ it follows that

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\overline{\theta }^2+3𝒱}`$ (65)
is a dominant quantity. Consequently, we define bounded variables as follows:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\theta }}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}},\stackrel{~}{Q}_+={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_+}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}},\stackrel{~}{C}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}B_1}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}},\stackrel{~}{C}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}B_2}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}},\stackrel{~}{U}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}X}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}}.`$ (66)
The Friedmann equation becomes an equation for the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mu _t}{\stackrel{~}{Y}^2}}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}{u^2+(\gamma 1)}}\left(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{U}^2\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (68)
while the constraint becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma u\mathrm{\Omega }_t2\left[1+(\gamma 1)u^2\right](\stackrel{~}{Q}_++k\stackrel{~}{U})\stackrel{~}{C}_1.`$ (69)
By defining a new independent variable

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\xi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\stackrel{~}{Y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}},`$ (70)
the evolution equation for $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_0[1+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{Q}_+(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{U}^2`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\stackrel{~}{U}(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$
decouples, and we obtain the following reduced set of evolution equations:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})[1+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{Q}_+(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{U}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{U}`$ (72)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+\{(\stackrel{~}{Q}_0+\stackrel{~}{Q}_+)(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{Q}_+){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\stackrel{~}{U}(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ (73)
$`+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0[(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{U}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t]\}`$
$`\left[2k^2\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3\gamma 2)+(2\gamma )u^2}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_0+\stackrel{~}{Q}_++\stackrel{~}{Q}_0[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{Q}_+(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{U}^2`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\stackrel{~}{U}(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\},`$
$`u^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1u^2}{\gamma \left[u^2(\gamma 1)\right]}}\{\gamma [2(\gamma 1)\stackrel{~}{Q}_0+\gamma \stackrel{~}{Q}_+]u`$ (75)
$`+[(\gamma 1)(3\gamma 2)(2\gamma )u^2]\stackrel{~}{C}_1\},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}\{(\stackrel{~}{Q}_0+\stackrel{~}{Q}_+)+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{Q}_+(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{U}^2`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t]\}+2k\stackrel{~}{C}_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(1\stackrel{~}{U}^2),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_++\stackrel{~}{Q}_0[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{Q}_+(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{U}^2`$ (77)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma 1)(1u^2)}{1+(\gamma 1)u^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_t]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\stackrel{~}{U}(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\}.`$
This system is invariant under the transformation

$$(\xi ,\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\stackrel{~}{C}_1,u,\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{C}_2)(\xi ,\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\stackrel{~}{C}_1,u,\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{C}_2).$$
(78)
Furthermore, noting the invariance under $`(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,u)(\stackrel{~}{C}_1,u)`$ and under $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$, we can without loss of generality restrict the analysis to $`\stackrel{~}{C}_10,\stackrel{~}{C}_20`$.

Note that the denominator of the evolution equation for $`u`$ (75) is zero when $`u=\pm \sqrt{\gamma 1}`$. The only way to pass this sonic hypersurface without introducing a shock wave is when the numerator also is zero. This defines a submanifold of the sonic hypersurface, and this submanifold is only physical for the $`u=\sqrt{\gamma 1}`$ case. This severely restricts the global dynamics .

### 5.1 Invariant submanifolds

A number of invariant submanifolds can be identified:

* Massless scalar field: $`V=0`$, which implies $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=\pm 1`$.
* Static: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0,u=0`$ (see ).
* Plane-symmetric: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2=0`$ (see ).
* No perfect fluid: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$ (and $`u`$ decouples).
* No scalar field: $`\stackrel{~}{U}=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=\pm 1`$ and $`k=0`$.

The global dynamics of the submanifold with no scalar field has been studied previously in , where state-space diagrams can be found.

### 5.2 Monotone function

As for the SSS case, it is possible to generalise the monotone function for the perfect fluid TSS case  to the case of a perfect fluid with a scalar field. This is done by replacing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_+`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_++k\stackrel{~}{U}`$ in equation (32) of . Thus,

$`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{Q}_++k\stackrel{~}{U})^{3\gamma 4}\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }u^{2(\gamma 1)}(1u^2)^{(2\gamma )}\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(2\gamma )},`$ (79)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=\left[\frac{(3\gamma 2)(2\gamma )}{\gamma u}(1u^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_1\right]\stackrel{~}{M},$$
(80)
is monotonic in the regions $`u>0`$ and $`u<0`$. Furthermore,

$$u^{}|_{u=0}=\frac{3\gamma 2}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{C}_1,$$
(81)
which is strictly negative. Consequently, as in the SSS case, there can be no closed or recurrent orbits in the interior of the state space.

## 6 Equilibrium points for the timelike self-similar case

We shall display all of the equilibrium points below along with their eigenvalues. We will not present the corresponding eigenvectors explicitly. In what follows, $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ is the sign of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$, which indicates whether the corresponding solution is expanding $`(+)`$ or contracting $`()`$. The order of the dependent variables is $`(\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\stackrel{~}{C}_1,u,\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{C}_2)`$. The ’$`\pm `$’ suffices on the labels for equilibrium points correspond to the sign of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$ (i.e. the value of $`ϵ`$). The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{U}^2+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1`$ indicates the presence of a non-zero scalar field. Equilibrium points that act as attractors are listed in table 2.

### 6.1 No scalar field ($`\stackrel{~}{U}=0`$, $`V=0`$)

The state space contains a number of solutions with no scalar field, as presented below. There is also a solution with variable values $`(ϵ,\frac{3\gamma 2}{4(\gamma 1)}ϵ,0,0,0,0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\frac{(2\gamma )(7\gamma 6)}{16(\gamma 1)^3}`$. As this solution is physical only when $`6/7<\gamma <1`$, we will not consider it further.

#### 6.1.1 K-points

These are special points on the K-rings, defined in section 6.2.1. They all have $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=\pm 1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=\pm 1`$, and all other variables equal to zero.

#### 6.1.2 Static solution

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{T}`$: $`(ϵ,2\frac{\gamma 1}{3\gamma 2}ϵ,0,0,0,\frac{\sqrt{\gamma ^2+4(\gamma 1)}}{3\gamma 2})`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\frac{4(\gamma 1)}{(3\gamma 2)^2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=0`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{3\gamma 2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma }{3\gamma 2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma ^244\gamma +36}}{2(3\gamma 2)}}ϵ.`$
These points are always saddles.

#### 6.1.3 Regular centre

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{C}_{}^{0}`$: $`(ϵ,0,0,0,0,1)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=0`$.
Eigenvalues (constraint degenerate):

$`2ϵ,ϵ,ϵ,ϵ,2ϵ,2ϵ.`$
These points are always saddles.

### 6.2 Massless scalar field ($`\stackrel{~}{U}0`$, $`V=0`$)

#### 6.2.1 K-rings

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$: $`(ϵ,\pm \sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{U}^2},0,0,\stackrel{~}{U},0)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{U}^2`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`ϵ,2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,4ϵ+2\stackrel{~}{Q}_+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}\stackrel{~}{U},0,4ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 2}{\gamma 1}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_+.`$
Each K-ring corresponds to a one-parameter family of equilibrium points (and hence gives rise to a zero eigenvalue). They are analogues of the Kasner solutions in the case with no scalar field . For each K-ring, there is a subset of future or past attractors.
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$: sources and saddles.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$: sinks and saddles.

#### 6.2.2 M-points

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{\stackrel{~}{u}}`$: $`(ϵ,k^2fϵ,f,\stackrel{~}{u}ϵ,kfϵ,0)`$, $`f=1/(1+k^2)`$, $`\gamma >\frac{6}{5}`$,
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_{1,2}=\frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)\frac{2\gamma }{2}\gamma k^2\pm \sqrt{(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)+\gamma ^2\left[(\gamma 1)\frac{2\gamma }{2}\gamma k^2\right]^2}}{2\gamma }`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=f^2k^2`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`2fϵ,(1k^2)fϵ,2(1k^2)fϵ,F_6(\gamma ,k,u)ϵ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma u}}\left[3\gamma 2+(2\gamma )u^2+2\gamma u\right]fϵ.`$
These equilibrium points are related to the Milne points $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{M}}`$ in . They are only physical ($`|\stackrel{~}{u}|<1`$) for certain ranges of $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$. For instance, when $`k>1`$ it follows that $`|\stackrel{~}{u}_2|>1`$. When $`k>1`$, these points are saddles. Furthermore, for $`u=\stackrel{~}{u}_2`$ they are saddles even when $`k<1`$. Examining the eigenvalues numerically for $`0<k<1`$, there are values of $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$ for which the $`u=\stackrel{~}{u}_1`$ points act as attractors. However, this only occurs when $`\stackrel{~}{u}_1>\sqrt{\gamma 1}`$, i.e., when the corresponding equilibrium point is beyond the sonic hypersurface located at $`u=\sqrt{\gamma 1}`$. As it is impossible to cross this sonic hypersurface in a regular way, the $`{}_{+}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ points will not affect the dynamics of the models we are interested in, even though the points are attractors for some values of $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$. This situation is also present in the case without a scalar field .

#### 6.2.3 Curvature-scaling solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{X}_{}^{\widehat{u}}`$: $`(ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{1}{2k},\widehat{u}ϵ,\frac{1}{2k}ϵ,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}k}\sqrt{k^21})`$, $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$),
$`\widehat{u}_{1,2}=\frac{\frac{3\gamma 4}{2}\gamma k\pm \sqrt{(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)+\left(\frac{3\gamma 4}{2}\right)^2\gamma ^2k^2}}{2\gamma }`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{1}{4k^2}`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k^21}{k^2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\left[k\pm \sqrt{43k^2}\right]ϵ,F_7(\gamma ,k,u),`$
$`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 2+(2\gamma )u^2}{2\gamma ku}}\right]ϵ.`$
For $`k=1`$ ($`\kappa ^2=2`$) these points coincide with $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{\stackrel{~}{u}}`$, and for $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$) they are unphysical. Noting that $`k>1`$, these points are always saddles.

#### 6.2.4 Equilibrium lines with arbitrary $`u`$

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{u}`$: $`(ϵ,2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }ϵ,0,u,\pm \frac{1}{\gamma }\sqrt{(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)},0)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)/\gamma ^2`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+`$ eliminated):

$`0,0,ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma }}(2\gamma )ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma }}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{U}}{k}}.`$
There are two zero eigenvalues for these points. The first zero eigenvalue corresponds to the fact that we have a line of equilibrium points. The second zero eigenvalue indicates that the equilibria are non-hyperbolic. For $`u=0,\pm 1`$, these equilibrium lines coincide with the various K-rings (see subsections 6.2.1 and 7.2.1) and these exceptional points mark where the K-rings change stability. The higher-order zero eigenvalue of $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{u}`$ corresponds to the one that indicates that $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$ is a line of equilibrium points (and not to the one that becomes zero due to the stability change of $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$). The corresponding eigenvector is $`\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}}{\stackrel{~}{Q}_+}\stackrel{}{e}_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_+}+\stackrel{}{e}_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$. Perturbing the equilibrium lines $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{u}`$ along this eigenvector, we find that

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{U}^2)ϵ\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,`$ (82)
$`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{U}^2)ϵ\stackrel{~}{U}.`$ (83)
This is precisely the dynamical system restricted to the invariant set $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=ϵ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$. We can explicitly integrate equations (82) and (83). It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+`$ is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$, and the orbits in the ($`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\stackrel{~}{U}`$) plane consist of straight lines through the origin with additional equilibrium points at $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{u}`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$), which are thus non-linear saddles.

### 6.3 Scalar field with potential ($`\stackrel{~}{U}0`$, $`V0`$)

There is a number of solutions with non-zero potential listed below. There are also equilibrium points $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ with variable values $`(\frac{1}{h}ϵ,k^2hϵ,0,0,khϵ,\sqrt{1k^2})`$, $`h=1/\sqrt{1+k^2}`$, $`k^2<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$), but these points are unphysical since $`|\stackrel{~}{Q}_0|>1`$ when $`k>0`$.

#### 6.3.1 Scalar-field dominated solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$: $`(2khϵ,khϵ,0,0,hϵ,0)`$, $`k^2<\frac{1}{3}`$ ($`\kappa ^2>6`$), $`h=1/\sqrt{1+k^2}`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=(23k^2)h^2`$.
Eigenvalues (constraint degenerate):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 4}{\gamma 1}}khϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{13k^2}{k}}hϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{13k^2}{k}}hϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1k^2}{k}}hϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1k^2}{k}}hϵ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\gamma 1)\gamma k^2}{(\gamma 1)k}}hϵ.`$
As in the timelike case, since the constraint is degenerate we must retain all six eigenvalues. For $`k=1/3`$ ($`\kappa ^2=6`$), these points coincide with points in the K-rings, and for $`k^2>\frac{1}{3}`$ ($`\kappa ^2<6`$) they are unphysical.
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$: source when $`\gamma <4/3`$ and $`k^2<2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }`$ ($`\kappa ^2>\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}`$); saddle otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$: sink when $`\gamma <4/3`$ and $`k^2<2\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }`$ ($`\kappa ^2>\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}`$); saddle otherwise.

#### 6.3.2 Potential-dominated solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{Z}_{}^{u^{}}`$: $`(\sqrt{\frac{1k^2}{1+k^2}}ϵ,0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+k^2}},u^{},0,0)`$, $`k<1`$ $`(\kappa ^2>2)`$,
$`u_{1,2}^{}=\frac{(\gamma 1)\gamma \sqrt{1k^2}ϵ\pm \sqrt{(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )(3\gamma 2)+(\gamma 1)^2\gamma ^2(1k^2)}}{2\gamma }`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{2k^2}{1+k^2}`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,(1\pm \sqrt{5})\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,F_8(\gamma ,k),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1u^2)+\gamma (u^22\sqrt{1+k^2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_0u3)}{\gamma u\sqrt{1+k^2}}}.`$
For these solutions, the potential is non-zero, since $`|\stackrel{~}{Q}_0|<1`$. In the context of this paper, these solutions may be unphysical. They are on the boundary and correspond to non-self-similar solutions with a cosmological constant. They are always saddles.

## 7 Equilibrium points at extreme tilt

In addition to the above equilibrium points, there is a number of equilibrium points for which the tilt is extreme, i.e., $`v=\pm 1`$ or $`u=\pm 1`$. These are artifacts of the particular approach that we have adopted, and signify that the coordinates break down. These points are still important since orbits that are asymptotic to them may pass between the spacelike and the timelike self-similar regions (at least at non-vacuum equilibrium points). Furthermore, for submanifolds where the tilt variable is not specified (e.g. the fluid vacuum submanifold), some of these solutions are indistinguishable from similar ones with non-extreme tilt. Equilibrium points in this class that act as attractors are listed in table 3. In what follows, the equilibrium points will be given both in the SSS variables $`(\overline{Q}_0,\overline{Q}_+,\overline{C}_1,v,\overline{U},\overline{W})`$ and in the TSS variables $`(\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\stackrel{~}{C}_1,u,\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{C}_2)`$.

### 7.1 No scalar field

#### 7.1.1 K-points

These are special points on the K-rings, defined in section 7.2.1. They all have $`\overline{Q}_0=\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=\pm 1`$, $`\overline{Q}_+=\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=\pm 1`$, $`v=u=\pm 1`$, and all other variables equal to zero.

#### 7.1.2 C points

In the TSS case there are equilibrium points that resemble the regular centre $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{C}_{}^{0}`$, but have $`u=\pm 1`$.
$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{C}_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(ϵ,0,0,\pm 1,0,1)`$ (TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=0`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ eliminated):

$`ϵ,ϵ,4{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{2\gamma }}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\pm 3}{2}}.`$
These points are always saddles.

### 7.2 Massless scalar field

#### 7.2.1 K-rings

$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{K}_{}^{\pm }`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{K}_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(ϵ,\pm \sqrt{1U^2},0,\pm 1,U,0)`$ (SSS and TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =U^2`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`\mathrm{SSS}`$ $`:`$ $`2ϵ,2(ϵ+\overline{Q}_+),2{\displaystyle \frac{2(\gamma 1)ϵ+\gamma \overline{Q}_+}{2\gamma }},`$
$`0,2ϵ+\overline{Q}_+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{U}}{k}}.`$
$`\mathrm{TSS}`$ $`:`$ $`ϵ,2(ϵ+\stackrel{~}{Q}_+),2{\displaystyle \frac{2(\gamma 1)ϵ+\gamma \stackrel{~}{Q}_+}{2\gamma }},`$
$`0,2\left(2ϵ+\stackrel{~}{Q}_+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{U}}{k}}\right).`$
For each K-ring, there is a subset of future or past attractors.
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{K}_{}^{\pm }`$: sources and saddles.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{K}_{}^{\pm }`$: sinks and saddles.

#### 7.2.2 M-points

a) $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(ϵ,k^2fϵ,f,ϵ,kfϵ,0)`$, $`f=1/(1+k^2)`$ (SSS and TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\left(\frac{k}{1+k^2}\right)^2`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`2fϵ,4fϵ,2{\displaystyle \frac{(5+k^2)\gamma 2(3+k^2)}{2\gamma }}fϵ,`$
$`2(1k^2)fϵ,(1k^2)fϵ.`$
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{+}`$: sink when $`\gamma >\frac{2(3+k^2)}{5+k^2}`$, $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$); saddle otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{}`$: source when $`\gamma >\frac{2(3+k^2)}{5+k^2}`$, $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$); saddle otherwise.

b) $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{}`$: $`(ϵ,k^2fϵ,f,ϵ,kfϵ,0)`$, $`f=1/(1+k^2)`$ (SSS and TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\left(\frac{k}{1+k^2}\right)^2`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`2fϵ,(1k^2)fϵ,2(1k^2)fϵ,2(1k^2)fϵ,0.`$
The zero eigenvalue is due to the fact that these points are the end points of the equilibrium lines $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{H}`$ (see section 7.2.3).
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{}`$: sink when $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$); saddle otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{+}`$: source when $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$); saddle otherwise.

#### 7.2.3 H-lines

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{H}_{}^{}`$: $`(ϵ,Q_+,1+ϵQ_+,ϵ,k(1+ϵQ_+)ϵ,0)`$, $`1<ϵQ_+<\frac{k^2}{1+k^2}`$ (SSS and TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=2ϵ(1+ϵQ_+)\left[(1+k^2)Q_++ϵk^2\right]`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =k^2(1+ϵQ_+)^2`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`2(1+2ϵQ_+)ϵ,2(1+2ϵQ_+)ϵ,(1+2ϵQ_+)ϵ,`$
$`2(1+ϵQ_+)ϵ,0.`$
These equilibria consist of lines of equilibrium points. The eigenvector direction along the lines is $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{e}_{Q_+}+k\stackrel{}{e}_U`$. The end points of the lines are the M-points $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{}`$ at one end and points of stability change on the K-rings $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}_{}^{}`$ at the other end.
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{H}_{}^{}`$: always contains at least a subset of sinks. Solely sinks when $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$); sources and saddles otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{H}_{}^{+}`$: always contains at least a subset of sources. Solely sources when $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$); sources and saddles otherwise.

#### 7.2.4 Curvature-scaling solutions

$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{X}_{}^{\pm }`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{X}_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(2kgϵ,kgϵ,g,\pm 1,gϵ,0)`$,
$`g=1/(\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+k^2})`$, $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$) (SSS),
$`(ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{1}{2k},\pm 1,\frac{1}{2k}ϵ,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}k}\sqrt{k^21})`$, $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$) (TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{1}{2(1+k^2)}`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{C}_1`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`\mathrm{SSS}`$ $`:`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 4}{2\gamma }}\left[\mathrm{sgn}\left(v\right)+k\right]gϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1k^2}{k}}gϵ,F_9(k)ϵ,`$
$`F_{10}(k)ϵ,F_{11}(k,v),\mathrm{where}F_10(k)>0,\mathrm{and}F_{11}(k)>0.`$
$`\mathrm{TSS}`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}(k^21)ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left[kϵ+\mathrm{sgn}\left(v\right)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}[kϵ+\mathrm{sgn}\left(v\right)]{\displaystyle \frac{(3\gamma 4)}{2\gamma }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\sqrt{43k^2}).`$
For $`k=1`$ ($`\kappa ^2=2`$) these points coincide with $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{M}_{}^{\pm }`$. They are always saddles.

### 7.3 Scalar field with potential ($`U0`$, $`W0`$)

#### 7.3.1 Scalar-field dominated solutions

$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,0,\pm 1,\frac{1}{2k}ϵ,\frac{1}{2k}\sqrt{3k^21})`$, $`k^2>\frac{1}{3}`$ ($`\kappa ^2<6`$) (SSS),
$`(2khϵ,khϵ,0,\pm 1,hϵ,0)`$, $`h=1/\sqrt{1+k^2}`$, $`k^2<\frac{1}{3}`$ ($`\kappa ^2>6`$) (TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =3/4`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{Q}_+`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+`$ eliminated):

$`\mathrm{SSS}`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^21}{k^2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{k^21}{2k^2}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 4}{2\gamma }}ϵ,2\overline{W}^2ϵ,2\overline{W}^2ϵ.`$
$`\mathrm{TSS}`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{k}}(13k^2),{\displaystyle \frac{h}{k}}(13k^2),{\displaystyle \frac{h}{k}}(1k^2),{\displaystyle \frac{h}{k}}(1k^2),`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma 4}{2\gamma }}hk.`$
For $`k^2=1/3`$ ($`\kappa ^2=6`$) these points coincide with points on the K-rings $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{K}_{}^{\pm }`$.
SSS:
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$: sinks when $`\gamma >\frac{4}{3}`$, $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$); saddles otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$: sources when $`\gamma >\frac{4}{3}`$, $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$); saddles otherwise.
TSS:
$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$: sources when $`\gamma <\frac{4}{3}`$, $`k^2<1/3`$ ($`\kappa ^2>6`$); saddles otherwise.
$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$: sinks when $`\gamma <\frac{4}{3}`$, $`k^2<1/3`$ ($`\kappa ^2>6`$); saddles otherwise.

#### 7.3.2 Curvature-scaling solutions

$`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{\pm }`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(\frac{1}{2kg}ϵ,kgϵ,0,\pm 1,gϵ,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})`$, $`g=1/(\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+k^2})`$, $`k>1`$ ($`\kappa ^2<2`$) (SSS),
$`(\frac{1}{h}ϵ,k^2hϵ,0,\pm 1,khϵ,\sqrt{1k^2})`$, $`h=1/\sqrt{1+k^2}`$, $`k<1`$ ($`\kappa ^2>2`$) (TSS).
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{2+k^2}{2(1+k^2)}`$.
Eigenvalues (SSS: $`\overline{Q}_+`$ eliminated, TSS: $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+`$ eliminated):

$`\mathrm{SSS}`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k^2+1}\pm \sqrt{9k^27}}{2\sqrt{2}k}}ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(k^21)gϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2kg}}ϵ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(2\gamma )k}}\left[2(\gamma 1)+(3\gamma 2)k^2\right]gϵ.`$
$`\mathrm{TSS}`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}ϵ,(1k^2)hϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}ϵ\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{79k^2},`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{2(\gamma 1)(2\gamma )k^2}{2\gamma }}hϵ.`$
For $`k=1`$ ($`\kappa ^2=2`$) these points coincide with $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$. They are always saddles.

#### 7.3.3 Potential-dominated solutions

$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{Z}_{}^{\pm }`$: $`(\sqrt{\frac{1k^2}{1+k^2}}ϵ,0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+k^2}},\pm 1,0,0)`$, $`k<1`$ $`(\kappa ^2>2)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{2k^2}{1+k^2}`$.
Eigenvalues ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ eliminated):

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,(1\pm \sqrt{5})\stackrel{~}{Q}_0,2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+k^2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_0+\mathrm{sgn}\left(u\right)}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}},`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{(3\gamma 4)\mathrm{sgn}\left(u\right)+2(\gamma 1)\sqrt{1+k^2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_0}{(2\gamma )\sqrt{1+k^2}}}.`$
These solutions are only physical in the TSS region. They are always saddles.

## 8 Global results and discussion

Due to the existence of monotone functions and the fact that there are consequently no closed or periodic orbits in the physical state spaces we can obtain global results for the dynamics by studying the local stability of the equilibria.

Indeed, from the monotone functions obtained in the spatially self-similar (SSS) case (45) and the timelike self-similar (TSS) case (79) we can immediately deduce from the monotonicity principle  that all orbits have $`\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1`$, $`\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U}0`$ or $`\overline{C}_10`$ (or an extreme value for $`v`$) asymptotically in the SSS case (and similarly in the TSS case). Moreover, we can also see immediately that by setting the right-hand-sides of equations (38) and (41) to zero that either $`\overline{C}_1=0`$ or $`\overline{W}=0`$, or if both are non-zero then $`k\overline{Q}_++\overline{U}=0`$; this latter case yields very severe constraints on any possible equilibrium points. In fact, from the local analysis of the equilibria we can determine all of the sinks and sources. In both the SSS and TSS cases a set of massless scalar field models lying on the $`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{K}`$-ring act as sources (i.e., early-time attractors) and a set of massless scalar field models lying on the -K-ring act as sinks (i.e., late-time attractors), and for certain ranges of the parameters (e.g., $`\kappa ^2<2`$) the equilibrium point $`{}_{+}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`U0`$ and $`V0`$, corresponding to the ever-expanding inflationary flat FRW power-law solution , are sinks (i.e., late-time attractors). \[We note that the equilibrium point $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponding to $`ϵ=1`$, which acts as a source, represents an ever-contracting solution and therefore is of less physical importance, although it does serve to classify all of the possible orbits in the state space.\] Hence we have the global results that models that are initially expanding always expand from an initial singularity and always recollapse to a second singularity (when $`\kappa ^2>2`$) or either recollapse or expand forever towards a flat FRW power-law solution (for $`\kappa ^2<2`$). This global behaviour is the same as that for positive curvature FRW models and Kantowski-Sachs models  and for Bianchi type IX models . Models that expand from an initial singularity and recollapse to a second singularity are said to satisfy the positive-curvature recollapse property . Models that expand towards the flat FRW power-law solution isotropise and inflate to the future and are said to satisfy the cosmic no-hair theorem . The time-reverse of the above dynamics is also possible (essentially $`ϵϵ`$; although we have included this in the analysis these models are of less interest physically). Solutions in which the shear and the kinetic energy of the scalar field dominate are analogues of the Kasner and Jacobs solutions , and a rigorous study of the structure of the singularity, which is non-oscillatory, for a general class of analytic solutions of the Einstein field equations coupled to a massless scalar field has recently been presented .

However, there are some aspects of the global dynamics of the self-similar, spherically symmetric models that are different. The complete set of attractors for different values of the parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\kappa `$ are summarised in table 4. Some of these differences are quite subtle. First, we note that the flat FRW power-law inflationary solution corresponds both to a set of non-tilted equilibrium points $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and to points at extreme tilt $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$. There is a bifurcation of the equation-of-state parameter at $`\gamma =4/3`$ in that the power-law inflationary solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a non-tilted attractor $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`\gamma <4/3`$ and an extreme-tilt attractor $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }`$ when $`\gamma >4/3`$. For $`\gamma =4/3`$ there exist lines of equilibrium points with arbitrary tilt $`v`$ (or $`u`$ in the TSS case). This type of $`\gamma `$-dependent behaviour has also been found in Bianchi type V two-fluid models . Second, there exist additional M-point attractors (for $`\gamma >\frac{2(3\kappa ^2+2)}{5\kappa ^2+2}`$, $`\kappa ^2>2`$) at extreme tilt. The significance of these is less clear, although they are important for the matching of orbits and they are related to critical phenomena . We shall discuss this further in sections 9 and 10. We recall that solutions in the SSS region and the TSS region can be matched across the surface of extreme tilt via the equilibrium points with extreme tilt (see earlier and ). In addition, a comprehensive analysis of the matching of solutions would be necessary in order to obtain a complete knowledge of the intermediate dynamics of the models. Clearly the intermediate behaviour of the models under investigation will be quite different to that of the models previously studied.

We note that all of the equilibrium points with non-negligible matter, namely the non-vacuum Flat Friedmann $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{F}`$ and the Friedmann Scaling $`{}_{\pm }{}^{}\mathrm{FS}`$ equilibrium points, are saddles. This means that the perfect fluid is not dynamically important asymptotically. In order to understand the asymptotic behaviour of the models we consequently need only study the vacuum models (i.e., the invariant boundary with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$ in the SSS case and the invariant boundary with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$ in the TSS case). We shall discuss the fluid vacuum models further in section 9. The matter will play an important role in describing the dynamics of the models at intermediate times, and hence the physical properties of the models. We shall illustrate some of the intermediate dynamics in the next two sections. However, in the SSS case we know from the behaviour of the monotone function that the subcase $`\overline{C}_1=0`$ is important asymptotically (in the TSS case the analogous case is $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0`$, leading to the static models ). Moreover, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$, the constraint (33) leads to $`(\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U})\overline{C}_1=0`$. Clearly the invariant set $`\overline{C}_1=0`$ (and $`v=0`$), corresponding to the (non-self-similar) Kantowski-Sachs models, is of vital importance, and knowledge of the dynamics of the Kantowski-Sachs models is crucial for a complete understanding of the dynamics of the models under consideration here. In addition, all of the interesting transient dynamics with non-negligible matter (e.g., the non-vacuum Flat Friedmann and the Friedmann Scaling saddle equilibrium points, as well as the power-law attractors) occurs in the Kantowski-Sachs invariant submanifold. Consequently, we shall study the Kantowski-Sachs models in more detail elsewhere .

We note that a set of massless scalar field models lying on the K-rings act as sources and sinks (i.e., early- and late-time attractors). It is therefore also of interest to study the self-similar, spherically symmetric massless scalar field models more fully. Indeed, such a study will also be of relevance in the study of critical phenomena (see section 10). We shall return to this in future work.

## 9 Fluid vacuum

When there is no barotropic fluid present ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, respectively), the constraint gives rise to two separate invariant submanifolds: either $`\overline{Q}_+=k\overline{U}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=k\stackrel{~}{U}`$), or else $`\overline{C}_1=0`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0`$). The $`\overline{Q}_+=k\overline{U}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=k\stackrel{~}{U}`$) submanifold is particularly interesting, as it contains all the sinks and sources of the more general models under consideration. Furthermore, this submanifold is three-dimensional, and hence lends itself to visual presentation. In addition, the submanifold $`\overline{C}_1=0`$ will be studied in detail in .

### 9.1 Spatially self-similar case

In the SSS case, the reduced dynamical system becomes (eliminating the variable $`\overline{C}_1`$):

$`\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\left[12(1+k^2)\overline{U}^2\right],`$ (84)
$`\overline{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\overline{Q}_0\overline{U}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{1+k^2}}\right)\left[1(1+k^2)\overline{U}^2\right]`$ (85)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{1+k^2}}\right)\overline{W}^2,`$
$`\overline{W}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+k^2)\left(2\overline{Q}_0\overline{U}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\right)\overline{U}\overline{W}.`$ (86)
The equilibrium points of this system are listed in table 5. They constitute a subset of the points listed in sections 4 and 7. In figures 1 and 2, some examples of state-space diagrams for this model are displayed.

### 9.2 Timelike self-similar case

In the TSS case, the reduced dynamical system becomes (eliminating the variable $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\left[\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+k^2}{k}}(\stackrel{~}{Q}_02k\stackrel{~}{U})\stackrel{~}{U}\right],`$ (87)
$`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2k\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{U}{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{1+k^2}}\right)\left[1(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{U}^2\right]`$ (88)
$`+\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{U}{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{1+k^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2\left[(1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2k\stackrel{~}{Q}_0\stackrel{~}{U}){\displaystyle \frac{1+k^2}{k}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_0(1\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right].`$ (89)
The equilibrium points of this system are listed in table 6. They constitute a subset of the points listed in sections 6 and 7. In figures 3 and 4, some examples of state-space diagrams for this model are displayed.

### 9.3 Discussion

In both the SSS and the TSS cases there are always attractors dominated by the kinetic part of the scalar field, corresponding to the K-equilibrium points. Consequently, there will always be solutions that expand from a K-singularity and recollapse to a K-singularity. When $`\kappa ^2>2`$, the M-equilibrium points also are attractors. These correspond to dispersing solutions. Finally, there are $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-equilibrium points, which correspond to power-law inflationary solutions when $`\kappa ^2<2`$. In the SSS case they act as attractors when $`\kappa ^2<2`$, while in the TSS case they are attractors when $`\kappa ^2>6`$.

To summarise, when $`\kappa ^2<2`$ the SSS case contains recollapsing K $``$ K solutions and power-law inflationary solutions K $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is the same situation as for the Kantowski-Sachs models and closed Friedmann models examined in . In contrast, when $`\kappa ^2<2`$ the TSS case contains only recollapsing solutions. When $`\kappa ^2>2`$, both the SSS and the TSS cases contain recollapsing solutions and also dispersing solutions K $``$ M. The asymptotics is thus similar to the fluid-only case , where the generic regular solutions either are recollapsing K $``$ K solutions or ever-expanding solutions K $``$ M. Additionally, when $`\kappa ^2>6`$ the TSS case also contains dispersing K $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ solutions that are non-inflationary.

## 10 Massless scalar field

Critical phenomena in gravitational collapse were first found by Choptuik  in the study of a massless scalar field, and remain an active field of research (see, e.g.,  and references therein). The solution at the threshold of black-hole formation in spherically symmetric radiation fluid collapse, corresponding to $`\alpha =1/3`$, was studied by Evans & Coleman . In  a new class of ‘asymptotically Minkowski’ self-similar spacetimes were presented, which were shown to be intimately related to the so-called critical phenomena which arise in spherically symmetric gravitational collapse calculations .

Here, we present the governing equations for a self-similar massless scalar field in spherical symmetry. In this case, $`\varphi `$ is still of the form

$$\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )+\sqrt{2}k\eta ,$$
(90)
and the corresponding equations are formally obtained by setting $`V=0`$. In the presence of a barotropic fluid we then essentially have a non-interacting two-fluid model , in which the massless scalar field can be identified with a stiff perfect fluid and the two fluids are separately conserved. We can then deduce that the models evolve from the massless scalar field model to the single-perfect fluid model . Hereafter, we shall assume that there is no barotropic fluid present, and that we are investigating a special case of the fluid vacuum model studied above. The massless scalar field equations without perfect fluid are then obtained by subsequently setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=0`$, respectively. This leads to the decoupling of $`v`$ and $`\overline{C}_1`$ in the SSS case, and $`u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$ in the TSS case, respectively. Furthermore, in the SSS case $`\overline{W}=0`$, while in the TSS case, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=ϵ`$ $`(=\pm 1)`$. The remaining dynamical systems are thus three-dimensional systems in $`(\overline{Q}_0,\overline{Q}_+,\overline{U})`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{C}_2)`$, respectively. The constraint leads to two separate regions: either $`C_1=0`$ or else $`Q_+=kU`$. Note that the latter is a special case of the models treated in section 9. Here, we briefly summarise the governing equations for these models and list all of the equilibrium points.

### 10.1 Spatially self-similar case

In the SSS case, the Friedmann equation becomes

$$0=1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+k^2)\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2,$$
(91)
which implies that

$$\overline{Z}1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2=(1+k^2)\overline{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(92)
The constraint becomes

$$0=(\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U})\overline{Z},$$
(93)
and the reduced dynamical system is

$`\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(12\overline{Z}),`$ (94)
$`\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{Z}\left(\overline{Q}_0\overline{Q}_++{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{1+k^2}}\right),`$ (95)
$`\overline{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{Z}\left(\overline{Q}_0\overline{U}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{1+k^2}}\right).`$ (96)
The constraint implies that either $`\overline{Z}`$ or $`\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U}`$ must be zero. When $`\overline{Z}=0`$, both $`\overline{Q}_+`$ and $`\overline{U}`$ are constants (subject to $`1\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{U}^2=0`$), whereby the dynamical system reduces to a single evolution equation for $`\overline{Q}_0`$, and consequently $`\overline{Q}_0`$ is monotonically decreasing. If the constant values of $`\overline{Q}_+`$ and $`\overline{U}`$ do not satisfy $`\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U}=0`$, then the dynamics in the invariant set $`\overline{Z}=0`$ does not intersect with the dynamics in the invariant set $`\overline{Q}_++k\overline{U}=0`$. The latter is contained within the fluid vacuum case studied in the previous section (see figure 1). The equilibrium points of the system are listed in table 7.

### 10.2 Timelike self-similar case

In the TSS case, the Friedmann equation becomes

$$0=1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{U}^2\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(97)
which implies that

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}1\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{U}^2=(1+k^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(98)
The constraint becomes

$$0=(\stackrel{~}{Q}_++k\stackrel{~}{U})(\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{Z}),$$
(99)
and the reduced dynamical system is

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{Q}_+(2\stackrel{~}{Z}\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{2k^2}{1+k^2}}(\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{Z}),`$ (100)
$`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{U}(2\stackrel{~}{Z}\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{2k}{1+k^2}}(\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{Z}),`$ (101)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{C}_2(1+\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\stackrel{~}{Z}).`$ (102)
The constraint implies that either $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=k\stackrel{~}{U}`$. When $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, the dynamical system becomes two-dimensional. The evolution equation for $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ decouples and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$) are monotonic. If the values of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ do not satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_++k\stackrel{~}{U}=0`$, then the dynamics in the invariant set $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ does not intersect with the dynamics in the invariant set $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_++k\stackrel{~}{U}=0`$. The latter is contained within the fluid vacuum case studied in the previous section, and corresponds to the semi-disks at $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=\pm 1`$ in figure 4. The equilibrium points of the system are listed in table 8.

### 10.3 Discussion

The dynamics is different in the various invariant submanifolds. The $`\overline{Z}=0`$ submanifold of the SSS case only contains recollapsing K $``$ K solutions. The dynamics in the $`\overline{Q}_+=k\overline{U}`$ submanifold of the SSS case is more complicated (see figure 1); when $`\kappa ^2<2`$ there are only recollapsing K $``$ K solutions, when $`2<\kappa ^2<6`$ there are recollapsing solutions and dispersing K $``$ M solutions, and when $`\kappa ^2>6`$ there are also singularity-free bouncing M $``$ M solutions, analogous to the bouncing Friedmann – Lemaître solutions. The TSS case only contains dispersing solutions. In the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ submanifold there are K $``$ C solutions, while in the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_+=\stackrel{~}{U}`$ submanifold there are K $``$ M solutions.

## Appendix A Fluid quantities

For the non-tilted ($`v=0`$) equilibrium points of the SSS case, we have given the deceleration parameter $`q_{\mathrm{pf}}`$ with respect to the fluid congruence. The necessary expressions are summarised below.

The expansion of the fluid congruence is given by

$`\theta _{\mathrm{pf}}`$ $`=`$ $`_au_{\mathrm{pf}}^a`$ (103)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Y}e^x}{\sqrt{3}\sqrt{1v^2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{vv^{}}{1v^2}}+2\overline{Q}_0+\overline{Q}_++3v\overline{C}_1\right),`$
and the deceleration parameter, defined by

$`q_{\mathrm{pf}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+3{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\mathrm{pf}}^a_a\theta _{\mathrm{pf}}}{\theta _{\mathrm{pf}}^2}}\right)`$ (104)
is given by

$`q_{\mathrm{pf}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\left[\frac{vv^{}}{1v^2}+2\overline{Q}_0+\overline{Q}_++3v\overline{C}_1\right]^2}}\times `$ (105)
$`(2\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{v(2\overline{Q}_0+\overline{Q}_+)+\overline{C}_1(3v^2)}{1v^2}}v^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+2v^2}{(1v^2)^2}}v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{vv^{\prime \prime }}{1v^2}}(2\overline{Q}_0+\overline{Q}_++v^{})\{\overline{Q}_++\overline{Q}_0[2(\overline{Q}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{U}^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{1+(\gamma 1)v^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_n]\}\{2(\overline{Q}_0\overline{Q}_+)+3v\overline{C}_1\}v\overline{C}_1).`$
## Appendix B Transformation between the SSS and TSS variables

The two sets of variables basically differ only in the choice of dominant quantities (although one has to be careful, as the change of causality may result in sign change). Defining

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Y}}{\overline{Y}}}`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{W}^2}`$ (107)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{C}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}},`$ (108)
the relations between the variable sets become

$`\overline{Q}_0=\zeta \stackrel{~}{Q}_0,\overline{Q}_+=\zeta \stackrel{~}{Q}_+,\overline{C}_1=\zeta \stackrel{~}{C}_1,v=u^1,U=\zeta \stackrel{~}{U},`$ (109)
$`\overline{W}=\zeta \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1},\stackrel{~}{C}_2=\zeta ^1\sqrt{\overline{Q}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1}.`$ (110)
## Acknowledgements

AC would like to acknowledge financial support from NSERC of Canada. MG would like to thank the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Dalhousie University for hospitality while this work was carried out.

## References


text:
# A New Study about the Two Formulations of Conservation Laws for Matter Plus Gravitational Field and Their Experimental Test

## I  The Debate in General Relativity Eighty Years Ago

In 1914, Einstein obtained the conservation laws for matter plus gravitational field in the form

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }(𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu +t_{(G)\nu }^\mu )=0,$$
(1)
$`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ is the energy-momentum tensor density for matter field, Einstein called $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ the energy-momentum pseudotensor density of gravitational field.

Lorentz in 1916  and Levi-Civita in 1917  proposed successively to use

$$𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu (x)+𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu (x)=0$$
(2)
or

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }(𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu +𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu )=0$$
(3)
as conservation laws for matter plus gravitational field, their propositions evoked an important debate  on the correct formulation of conservation laws in general relativity eighty years ago.

The definition of $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ is $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}2\frac{\delta W_M}{\delta g_{\mu \alpha }}g_{\nu \alpha }`$ . This definition has been accepted universally in theoretical physics. It is naturally to define the energy-momentum tensor density for gravitational field by $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}2\frac{\delta W_G}{\delta g_{\mu \alpha }}g_{\nu \alpha }`$ . So Lorentz and Levi-Civita adopted this definition. In the above definition, $`W_M=_M(x)d^4x`$, $`\delta W_M=\frac{\delta W_M}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}\delta g_{\mu \nu }d^4x`$; $`W_G=_G(x)d^4x,\delta W_G=\frac{\delta W_G}{\delta g\mu \nu }d^4x`$; $`(x)=_M(x)+_G(x)`$ is the Lagrangian density of the whole system, $`_M(x)`$ and $`_G(x)`$ are the matter field part and the pure gravitational field part of $`(x)`$ respectively. In General relativity, $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu =\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}\sqrt{g}(R_\nu ^\mu \frac{1}{2}g_\nu ^\mu R)`$. Some people think that $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ is a pure geometric quantity and can not be used as the definition of energy-momentum tensor for gravitational field. This view is incorrect, because the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is both geometric quantity and dynamic quantity in the theory of gravitation, so is $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ .

Eq. (1) can be derived from the local translational symmetry of the gravitational system . There exist the relations

$$t_{(G)\nu }^\mu =2\frac{\delta W_G}{\delta g_{\mu \alpha }}g_{\nu \alpha }\frac{}{x^\sigma }v_{(G)\nu }^{\mu \sigma },\frac{}{x^\sigma }v_{(G)\nu }^{\mu \sigma }=\frac{}{x^\sigma }v_{(G)\nu }^{\sigma \mu }$$
(4)
where $`v_{(G)\nu }^{\mu \sigma }`$ is determined by the Lagrangian density $`_G`$. Eq. (1) can also be derived from Einstein field equations  or from the covariant generalized conservation laws $`𝒯_{(M)\nu ;\mu }^\mu =0`$ . $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ obtained from distinct methods are different, but their difference can always be expressed by the relations: $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }t_{(G)\nu }^{\mu }^{}t_{(G)\nu }^\mu =_\alpha u_\nu ^{\mu \alpha }`$, where $`_\alpha u_\nu ^{\mu \alpha }=_\alpha u_\nu ^{\alpha \mu }`$ or $`u_\nu ^{\mu \alpha }=u_\nu ^{\alpha \mu }`$.

The quantity $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ is a tensor density, but $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ is not. The conservation law Eq. (3) is covariant, but the conservation law Eq. (1) is not. The well-known serious difficulties in connection with $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ do not exist for $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ and Eq. (3) is more in line with the spirit of general relativity .

The logical rationality for the definition of $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ had been acknowledged by Einstein , he also acknowledged that one is not entitled to define $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ as a quantity representing the energy-momentum of gravitational field; but Einstein doubted about the physical meaning indicated by the relation in Eq. (2). He said that “Eq. (2) does not exclude the possibility that a material system disappears completely, leaving no trace of its existence. In fact, the total energy in Eq. (2) is zero from the beginning, and the conservation of this energy value does not guarantee the persistence of the system in any form” ; so he opposed to choose $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ as the energy-momentum tensor density for gravitational field. Care must be taken to that the reason which Einstein opposed $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ is not because of its logical trouble or is not dependent on any experimental result; it is only owing to that he thought Eq. (2) being nonsensical. In the following the identities Eq. (2) is reexamined and a new explanation is given, moreover an experimental test is offered to decide which definition of gravitational energy-momentum tensor density and which formulation conservation laws are correct. It can be shown that Eq. (2) have a plentiful physical contents and might be tested by experiments.

## II Reexamination of the Identities $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu (x)+𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu (x)=0`$ and New Interpretations of Gravitational Wave

Should Eq. (2) cause inevitably a material system disappear completely? This is the crux of the problem. We must point out that it is infeasible to determine solely how a material system changes merely using the conservation law of energy alone. Moreover it is impossible to determine whether this material system disappears completely. The change of a material system must yet obey other laws, such as the conservation law of baryon number, the second law of thermodynamic, etc. Therefore, $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu +𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu =0`$ does not necessarily give $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu =0`$, it only implies $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu (x)=𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu (x)`$.

Eq. (2) shows that the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field must coexist with the energy-momentum tensor of material. Their sum total is equal to zero invariably and their distributional region in space-time is the same. These properties make Eq. (2) have a plentiful physical content which we shall show below, the consequences of these properties would be verified in future experiments. So Eq. (2) is not nonsensical from a physical point of view.

It is worth noting that, $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ and $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ are not independent, they are interrelated by Eq. (4); via definition of $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ and Eq. (4), Eq. (3) can be derived from Eq. (1), and on the other hand via Eq. (4), Eq. (1) can also be derived from Eq. (3), so Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) are not independent either. As a better choice, in this paper we shall follow Lorentz and Levi-Civita to treat $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ , but not $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ , as the energy-momentum tensor density for gravitational field, and to treat Eq. (3), but not Eq. (1), as the conservation laws of energy-momentum tensor density; and we shall treat $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ as a subsidiary quantity, then Eq. (1) represents a number of subsidiary relations. According to Lorentz and Levi-Civita’s formulation of conservation laws, the Einstein’s gravitational equations $`\sqrt{g}(R_\nu ^\mu \frac{1}{2}g_\nu ^\mu R)=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ are interpreted both as field equations and as conservation laws , therefore, except using $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ as the energy-momentum tensor density for gravitational field, all deductions of gravitational field equations remain unchanged. For instance there was still a singularity at the beginning of the present expansion phase of the universe.

The existence of gravitational wave is determined by Einstein’s gravitational field equations, the characteristics of these equations show that the gravitational wave propagate with speed of light .

A great number of people follow Einstein’s viewpoint, they believe that gravitational wave, like electromagnetic wave, is accompanied by radiation of energy. They also believe that this radiation has been verified by PSR 1913 + 16. These views are incorrect. Now let us show that gravitational wave could not transmit energy but could transmit information. The basis for the belief that gravitational wave radiates energy is using $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ and applying the following equation

$$\frac{}{t}_V(𝒯_{(M)0}^0+t_{(G)0}^0)𝑑V=c_St_{(G)0}^i𝑑S_i,$$
(5)
which can be derived from Eq. (1). The surface $`S`$ enclosing the volume $`V`$ is taken in vacuum where $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu =0`$. The right integral in Eq. (5) is interpreted as the amount of gravitational energy transferred by the gravitational wave across the surface $`S`$ in unit time.

If we treat $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ , but not $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ , as the energy-momentum tensor density for gravitational field, new insights about the gravitational wave can be gained from Eq. (3) (or Eq. (2)). Using these equations, it is easy to obtain the identity

$$\frac{}{t}_V(𝒯_{(M)0}^0+𝒯_{(G)0}^0)𝑑V=0.$$
(6)
This identity can also be derived from Eq. (5) via Eq. (4); and inversely Eq. (5) can be derived from Eq. (6) via Eq. (4). Eq. (6) indicates that there are no energy transferred from $`V`$ to outside via the gravitational wave, $`i.e.`$ gravitational wave does not transmit energy. It must be pointed out that although $`𝒯_{(M)0}^0+𝒯_{(G)0}^0=0`$, the values of $`𝒯_{(M)0}^0`$ and $`𝒯_{(G)0}^0`$ may change, they can be transformed to each other.

It should emphasize that, although the gravitational wave does not transmit energy (and momentum), but it could transmit information. When the gravitational wave passes through a space point, the gravitational field, $`i.e.`$ the metric field of this point will change from $`g_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ into $`g_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{r},t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ in the time interval $`(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, these changes in $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ convey the information from the source of gravitational wave. Some people guess that information should be closely bound up with energy, they think that the information without energy must not exist. Their guess is not correct. The gravitational wave is determined fully by Einstein field equations , which are irrespective how to define the energy-momentum tensor density for gravitational field. If we adopt the definition $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}2\frac{\delta W_G}{\delta g_{\mu \alpha }}g_{\nu \alpha }`$ the gravitational wave would transfer information without energy.

When there exists gravitational wave, the space-time metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ must change. This change may be considered as that the metric undergoes a perturbation by writing $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)=\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}(x)+h_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ , $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}`$ is the background metric and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the perturbation; usually $`|h_{\mu \nu }||\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}|`$, the magnitude of $`h_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ reflects the intensity of gravitational wave.

The solution for weak-field approximations of Einstein field equations has been given as $`\phi _\nu ^\mu (\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{4G}{c^4}\frac{(T_\nu ^\mu )_{ret.}d^3x^{}}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}}|}`$ , where $`\phi _\nu ^\mu =h_\nu ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu h`$. From this formula, it is evident that the gravitational wave can be generated only if the energy-momentum tensor of material source is changed in space-time. Let $`R_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{R}}(x)`$ be the Ricci tensors corresponding to $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}(x)`$, $`R_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{R}}(x)`$ must obey with Einstein field equation $`(R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R)=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{(M)\mu \nu }`$ and $`(\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{R}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}\stackrel{}{R})=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\underset{(M)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}`$ respectively. It has been proved that  $`R_{\mu \nu }=\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{R}}+R_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(h)+R_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(h)+\mathrm{}`$, where $`R_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ are composed of the covariant derivatives of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, $`R_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ is the linear term and $`R_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ is in the second degree term. Either of these two equations can be rewritten as

$$\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{R}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}(T_{(M)\mu \nu }+W_{(G)\mu \nu })$$
(7)
Where

$$W_{(G)\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}\{(R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R)(\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{R}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{}{g}}\stackrel{}{R})\}=\underset{(M)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}T_{(M)\mu \nu }$$
(8)
It is suggested to interpret $`W_{(G)\mu \nu }`$ or its average value as the energy-momentum tensor for gravitational wave. But in our opinion, although $`W_{(G)\mu \nu }`$ might be used to express gravitational field’s energy-momentum tensor relative to the background space-time, but it does not indicate the energy and momentum transmitted by gravitational wave. Since $`W_{(G)\mu \nu }=\underset{(M)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}T_{(M)\mu \nu }=T_{(G)\mu \nu }\underset{(G)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}`$ $`(T_{(G)\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ and $`\underset{(G)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{g}}}\stackrel{}{𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu })`$ and $`T_{(M)\mu \nu }(x)+T_{(G)\mu \nu }(x)=\underset{(M)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}(x)+\underset{(G)\mu \nu }{\overset{}{T}}(x)=0`$, therefore at any point of space-time, the total energy-momentum tensor for matter plus gravitational field is identically equal to zero when the gravitational wave generate.

A question then arises as to how gravitational wave can be detected. Although the gravitational wave does not transmit energy, the equation of geodesic deviation remains correct. As a result one can still design the detectors based on the effect of this equation . For instance, Weber’s cylinder can be used to detect the gravitational wave. From the conventional viewpoint, gravitational wave can transmit energy to a detector. But in our viewpoint, when the gravitational wave is received, the oscillation energy of the detector does not come from the gravitational wave, it comes from the local gravitational field where the detector resides. Because the detector is made of matter, let $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ be its energy-momentum tensor density, $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ must satisfy Eq. (2). Therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ represents the increased energy of the detector and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ represents the decreased energy of the local gravitational field; $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ can be calculated from Einstein field equation.

## III An Experimental Test to Decide Which Formulation Is Correct

The microwave background radiation gives us important information of the early epoch of the universe , the discovery and theoretical interpretation of this radiation spurs the cosmology to get ahead. It is believed that there existed also a vast amount of gravitational waves at the earliest epoch of the universe immediately after “big bang”, with the expansion of the universe there should also exist background gravitational waves at present .

The microwave background radiation has the type of spectrum of black body radiation . Do these background gravitational waves also have the type of spectrum of black body radiation? We shall study this question at once. The black body radiation is thermal radiation in equilibrium . Einstein advanced a semi-quantum theory of thermal radiation in equilibrium  and derived the equation

$$\rho (\nu ,T)=\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{e^{h\nu /KT}1}$$
(9)
from his theory. Eq. (9) expresses Plank’s law of radiation.

The Semi-quantum theory of thermal radiation in equilibrium advanced by Einstein is concise and reflect well the essence of this radiation, the key of Einstein’s theory is to think that the radiation wave transmits energy and it is quantized . The prevalent theory assumes that the gravitational wave transmits energy, and the graviton, which is similar to photon, is the quantum of energy for gravitational wave. Therefore Eq. (9) must be also applicable for gravitational radiation. It is possible that this distribution might deform during the evolution of the universe, however, the pattern of spectrum must be yet regular.

On the other hand, according to Lorentz and Levi-Civita’s definition of energy-momentum tensor density $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ for gravitational field and the conservation law Eq. (2), the gravitational wave does not transmit energy, consequently for gravitational wave the concepts such as thermal radiation in equilibrium, the quantum of energy and distribution of radiation energy are all meaningless. These distinguishing features imply that Eq. (9) does not apply for gravitational waves, $`i.e.`$ the background gravitational waves do not tally with the black body radiation or its variety. The types of spectrum of background gravitational waves should not have any regularity, they are the results of random process. Therefore, through the observations of the spectrum types for background gravitational waves, it might provide an experimental test to decide whether gravitational wave transmits energy, $`i.e.`$ it might judge which is the correct definition of energy-momentum tensor for gravitational field, $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ or $`t_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$? And which is the correct formulation of conservation laws for matter plus gravitational field, Eq. (1) or Eq. (3) (and Eq. (2))? We shall wait and see.

## IV Has the Gravitational Energy Radiation Been Verified?

The orbital energy loss of the binary pulsar system PSR 1913 + 16 has been confirmed from the observation of the decrease in its orbital period . This observation has been widely interpreted as verification for energy radiation of gravitational wave. However based on our analysis given above, this interpretation is problematic.

The theoretical basis of the so called verification is Eq. (5). When using Eq. (5) to compute the energy change of PSR 1913 + 16, one always assumes: 1 $`\frac{}{t}_V(t_{(G)0}^0)𝑑V=0`$ and 2 except the orbital kinetic energy and gravitational interaction energy (which belongs to $`𝒯_{(M)\nu }^\mu `$ according to definition), the other kinds of matter energy do not change for this binary pulsar. Evidently the result of computation can not be very accurate based on these assumptions. The ratio of the observed to the predicted damping rate $`\dot{P}_b^{obs}/\dot{P}_b^{pred}`$ for PSR 1913 + 16 is $`1.00032\pm 0.0035`$ , the coincidence between $`\dot{P}_b^{obs}`$ and $`\dot{P}_b^{pred}`$ is overprecise. As another example $`\dot{P}_b^{obs}/\dot{P}_b^{pred}`$ for PSR 1534 + 12 is about $`0.83`$ , the coincidence is less evident. Taking the approximation in calculation of $`\dot{P}_b^{pred}`$ into account, one can not rule out the possibility that the coincidence of observation and prediction for the damping rate $`\dot{P}_b`$ of PSR1913 + 16 might be accidental .

Even if the above coincidence for PSR 1913 + 16 is true, yet it can not fully prove that gravitational wave transmits energy. Because Eq. (5) can be derived from Eq. (6), the same value of $`\dot{P}_b^{pred}`$ may also be obtained from Eq. (6) and $`𝒯_{(G)\nu }^\mu `$ . Since Eq. (6) means that gravitational wave does not transmit energy, it is inevitable to conclude that the gravitational energy radiation has not been verified.