text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Clifford algebras (CA) are very important in theoretical and mathematical physics. It is almost impossible to list all its applications but the interested reader can found some of them in references . Now, in order to define the CA of a given vector space $`V`$ one need to endow $`V`$ with a (in general symmetric) bilinear form $`g_{p,q}`$. One interesting fact is that the structure of the CA depends not only on the dimension of $`V`$ but also on the signature of $`g`$. In another words, real Clifford algebras $`Cl_{p,q}`$ and $`Cl_{p^{},q^{}}`$ ($`p+q=p^{}+q^{}=n`$) are in general not isomorphic, that is, when we change the signature we get in general different Clifford algebras. For example, the Clifford algebras $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`Cl_{3,1}`$ are not isomorphic – indeed, in terms of matrix algebras, the former is isomorphic to the algebra of $`2\times 2`$ quaternionic matrices while the latter is isomorphic to the algebra of $`4\times 4`$ real matrices.

Changing the signature of a given space may sound in principle an artificial process but undoubtly it is a very important thing in modern physics. For example, the euclidean formulation of field theories is a fundamental tool in modern physics . Indeed, sometimes it seems to be even crucial, as in the theory of instantons, in finite temperature field theory and in lattice gauge theory. Going from an euclidean to a minkowskian theory or vice-versa involves changing the signature of the metric over the spacetime and in general a minkowskian theory is transformed in an euclidean theory by analytical continuation, that is, by making $`tit`$. The interpretation of making $`tit`$ is not trivial – in relation to this, see  (and references therein) where it was interpreted as a rotation in a five dimensional spacetime.

Despite the ingenuity of an approach like  in interpreting $`tit`$ as a rotation in a five dimensional space, we believe it is unsatisfactory since the use of an additional time coordinate in spacetime appears to us to be meaningless. Indeed it would be much more satisfactory if one could find an approach to describe the signature change where there is no need to introduce extra dimensions. In the case where the problem involves CA the situation is even more problematic since the signature changed CA and the original one may not be isomorphic. A possible way to overcome this situation is to complexify the original real CA since the structure of complex CA depends only on the dimension of $`V`$, but this approach can also be seen as a result of introducing an extra dimension (see below).

The objective of this paper is to introduce an algebraic approach to the change of signature in CA where there is no need to introduce any extra dimension to describe it. The signature change appears as a transformation on the algebraic structure underlying the theory. The idea is to propose an operation that “simulates” the product properties of the signature changed space in terms of the original space or vice-versa. The particular case we have in mind is the one involving the four dimensional spacetime, where we introduce an operation “simulating” the properties of minkowski spacetime in terms of an euclidean spacetime and vice-versa. This operation will be called “vee product” (since it will be denoted by a $``$ in order to distinguish it from the usual Clifford product that will be denoted by juxtaposition). The advantage of this approach is obvious since we can retain the “physics” (the minkowskian properties) in a suitable mathematical world (the euclidean spacetime). The fact that we can define the vee product in terms of the Clifford product means that we can describe the minkowskian properties in terms of euclidean spacetime and vice-versa.

Our approach has been inspired by the work of Lounesto . But there are some differences in the method and interpretation which the reader can compare. Moreover, Lounesto only discussed some problems involving the case of signature change corresponding to opposite signatures, that is, $`(p,q)`$ and $`(q,p)`$. Cases like $`(p,q)`$ and $`(p+q,0)`$ have not been considered by Lounesto and this is the case we have when considering minkowskian and euclidean spacetimes. Some applications of this are discussed here – and some others can be found in .

As an application, we are first interested in this paper in studying the Dirac equation. First of all, the version of Dirac equation we obtain by making $`tit`$ – we shall call it the euclidean Dirac equation – has physical properties that are obviously different from the original Dirac equation – which we shall call the minkowskian Dirac equation. The question we want to address in this context is if it is possible to obtain a new equation that exhibit the same physical properties of the original equation. More specifically, our idea is to write the minkowskian Dirac equation in the euclidean spacetime, which should obviously be different from an euclidean Dirac equation in an euclidean spacetime. Minkowskian and euclidean spacetimes are different worlds, both mathematically and physically speaking, and we want to simulate the minkowskian scenario in an euclidean world. The idea is to write an equation in euclidean spacetime in terms of the vee product such that it is equivalent to the original equation in terms of the Clifford product in Minkowski spacetime. Of course the Dirac equation in terms of the vee product is expected to be different from the euclidean Dirac equation.

In order to introduce our approach we need first of all to take some care. Dirac equation is in general formulated in terms of $`4\times 4`$ complex matrices - the gamma matrices - obeying the relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =2g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ in the euclidean case and $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ in the minkowskian case. This algebra is the matrix representation of the complex Clifford algebra $`Cl_{}(4)`$. On the other hand, this algebra is the complexification of the real algebras $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`Cl_{4,0}`$ associated with the minkowskian and euclidean spacetimes, respectively, that is, $`Cl_{}(4)Cl_{1,3}Cl_{4,0}`$. Moreover, $`Cl_{}(4)`$ is also isomorphic to the real algebra $`Cl_{4,1}`$, while the real algebras $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`Cl_{4,0}`$ \- which are also isomorphic111However $`Cl_{3,1}`$ and $`Cl_{4,0}`$ are not isomorphic, and we shall see how to consider this case also. Anyway, it is not the isomorphism between $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`Cl_{4,0}`$ that matters in this discussion. \- are isomorphic to the even subalgebra of $`Cl_{4,1}`$ . All these facts show that when we complexify the real algebra $`Cl_{1,3}`$ getting $`Cl_{1,3}Cl_{}(4)Cl_{4,1}`$ we are introducing an extra dimension to the minkowskian spacetime such that the extra dimension is of the type of euclidean time. In the same way, when we complexify the real algebra $`Cl_{4,0}`$ getting $`Cl_{4,0}Cl_{}(4)Cl_{4,1}`$ we are introducing an extra dimension to the euclidean spacetime such that the extra dimension is of the type of minkowskian time.

Now, our idea is to not use any extra dimension, and one certain way to do this is to avoid using any of these complexified structures. This can be achieved using the real formulation of Dirac theory due to Hestenes . One can easily formulate the Dirac theory in terms of the Clifford algebra $`Cl_{1,3}`$, which is isomorphic to the algebra of $`2\times 2`$ quaternionic matrices. A Dirac spinor in this way is represented by a pair of quaternions, but rather we prefer to use the form of Dirac equation called Dirac-Hestenes equation in terms of the so called Dirac-Hestenes spinor . The reason for our choice is simple. The Dirac-Hestenes spinor is represented by an element of the even subalgebra $`Cl_{1,3}^+`$ while a Dirac spinor is an element of an ideal of $`Cl_{1,3}`$. Both formulations are equivalent  but if we use the former one we avoid the problem of considering the transformation between different ideals (in fact left and right ideals), which will happen in the latter case, and in order to not do unnecessary work – and even hidden some fundamental facts – we prefer to use the Dirac-Hestenes equation.

As another application, we discuss the problem of finding self-dual and anti-self-dual solutions of gauge fields. Since the group being abelian or not is irrelevant for this matter we shall restrict our attention to the abelian case. As is well-known, in the Minkowski spacetime there does not exist (real) solutions to the problem $`F=\pm F`$, where $`F`$ is the 2-form representing the electromagnetic field and $``$ is the Hodge star operator. However, in an euclidean spacetime this problem has solutions and they are given by $`E=\pm B`$, where $`E`$ and $`B`$ are the electric and magnetic components of $`F`$. Now, using the operation we discussed above, we can define a new Hodge-like operator on Minkowski spacetime such that in relation to this new operator we have self-dual and anti-self-dual solutions for that problem on Minkowski spacetime. Moreover, using this Hodge-like operator we can completely simulate an euclidean metric while still working on Minkowski spacetime. We also show that the relation between those Hodge-like operators is given by the parity operation.

We organized this paper as follows. In section 2 we briefly discuss the Clifford algebras. In section 3 we discuss the transformation from euclidean to minkowskian spacetimes and vice-versa from an algebraic point of view. Our idea is to define a new Clifford product in terms of the original Clifford product that defines the algebra we are working. This new product simulates the algebra of Minkowski spacetime inside the algebra of the euclidean spacetime. Then in section 4 we discuss the minkowskian Dirac equation over the euclidean spacetime using our approach. Of course that one could be interested in the other way, that is, to simulate an euclidean world inside a minkowskian spacetime. Indeed we can consider any other possibility, as we discuss in section 5. Finally in section 6 we discuss how to obtain solutions corresponding to self-dual and anti-self-dual gauge fields and the definition of a Hodge-like operation with many interesting properties.

## 2 Mathematical Preliminaries

There are many different ways to define Clifford algebras , each of them emphasizing different aspects. Our approach has been choosen due to the direct introduction to Clifford product  which will be fundamental in the next sections.

Let $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_n\}`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`^{p,q}`$, where $`^{p,q}`$ is a real vector space of dimension $`n=p+q`$ endowed with an interior product $`g:^{p,q}\times ^{p,q}`$. Writing the quadratic form $`_{i=1}^n_{j=1}^ng_{ij}x_ix_j`$ as the square of the linear expression $`_{i=1}^nx_i𝐞_i`$ and assuming the distributive property we obtain the well-known expression for the Clifford algebra $`Cl(^{p,q},g)Cl_{p,q}`$,

$$𝐞_i𝐞_j+𝐞_j𝐞_i=2g_{ij}$$
(1)
where $`g_{ij}`$ are the metric components. This defines the Clifford product, which has been denoted by juxtaposition.

There is a product $``$, called the exterior product, underlying the Clifford algebra. It is an associative, bilinear and skew-symmetric product of vectors. Furthermore, by applying it to our orthogonal basis we can construct a new vector space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^{p,q})`$ whose elements are called bivectors, i.e., $`:^{p,q}\times ^{p,q}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^{p,q})`$. The skew-symmetric property allows us to extend the definition to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n(^{p,q})`$. In general $`:\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(^{p,q})\times \mathrm{\Lambda }^l(^{p,q})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+l}(^{p,q})`$.
If $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_n\}`$ is a basis of $`^{p,q}`$ then $`1`$ and the Clifford products $`𝐞_{i_1}\mathrm{}𝐞_{i_k}`$, $`(1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_kn)`$ will establish a basis for $`Cl_{p,q}`$ which has dimension $`2^n`$. If $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_n\}`$ is an orthogonal basis then $`𝐞_1\mathrm{}𝐞_n=𝐞_1\mathrm{}𝐞_n`$, which is usually called volume element. It follows that $`Cl_{p,q}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(^{p,q})=_{k=0}^n\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(^{p,q})`$ are isomorphic as vector spaces. Therefore, a general element $`ACl_{p,q}`$ takes the form

$$A=A_0+A_1+\mathrm{}+A_n$$
(2)
where $`A_r`$, called an r-vector, belongs to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^r(^{p,q})Cl_{p,q}`$, $`(r=0,1,\mathrm{},n)`$. More explicitly,

$$A=a_0+a^i𝐞_i+a^{ij}𝐞_{ij}+\mathrm{}+a^{1\mathrm{}n}𝐞_{1\mathrm{}n}$$
(3)
It is convenient to define a projector $`_r`$ as $`_r:\mathrm{\Lambda }(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }^r(V)`$, i.e., $`A_r=A_r`$.
An important property is that Clifford algebra is a $`Z_2`$-graded algebra, i.e., we can divide it into even ($`Cl_{p,q}^+`$) and odd ($`Cl_{p,q}^{}`$) grades. $`Cl_{p,q}^+`$ is a sub-algebra of $`Cl_{p,q}`$ called even sub-algebra. In our example, $`Cl_{3,0}^+=\{1,𝐞_{12},𝐞_{13},𝐞_{23}\}`$ and $`Cl_{3,0}^{}=\{𝐞_1,𝐞_2,𝐞_3,𝐞_{123}\}`$. Some important identities that we will use later are ($`a^{p,q}`$, $`B\mathrm{\Lambda }^r(^{p,q})Cl_{p,q}`$):

$$aB=aB+aB$$
(4)
$$aBaB_{r+1}=\frac{1}{2}(aB+(1)^rBa)$$
(5)
$$aBaB_{r1}=\frac{1}{2}(aB(1)^rBa)$$
(6)
## 3 The Vee Product

Let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`n=4`$. We have five different Clifford algebras depending on the signature: $`Cl_{4,0}`$, $`Cl_{3,1}`$, $`Cl_{2,2}`$, $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`Cl_{0,4}`$. With the (possible) exception of $`Cl_{2,2}`$ the importance of the others in modern physics is more than obvious.

First we shall consider the case involving the algebras $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`Cl_{4,0}`$. Let $`A,BCl_{4,0}`$ and $`AB`$ be its Clifford product. Now we define a new product, which we call a vee product, $`AB`$ simulating the $`Cl_{1,3}`$ Clifford product in $`Cl_{4,0}`$. After the selection in $`^{4,0}`$ of an arbitrary unit vector $`𝐞_0`$ to represent the fourth dimension and the completion of the basis with three other orthonormal vectors $`𝐞_i`$, we define for $`𝐮,𝐯^{4,0}`$

$$𝐮𝐯:=(1)[\mathrm{𝐯𝐮}2(𝐯𝐞_0)(𝐞_0𝐮)]$$
(7)
Using this product and the $`Cl_{4,0}`$ standard basis it is easy to prove that $`𝐞_0𝐞_0=1`$ and $`𝐞_i𝐞_i=1`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), while $`𝐞_\mu ^2=𝐞_\mu 𝐞_\mu =1`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$). Moreover, for $`𝐮,𝐰^{4,0}`$,

$$\mathrm{𝐮𝐰}+\mathrm{𝐰𝐮}=2𝐮𝐰=2(u_0w_0+u_1w_1+u_2w_2+u_3w_3)$$
(8)
but if we use the vee product then

$`𝐮𝐰+𝐰𝐮`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝐰𝐮}+2(𝐰𝐞_0)(𝐞_0𝐮)\mathrm{𝐮𝐰}+2(𝐮𝐞_0)(𝐞_0𝐰)`$
$`=`$ $`2(u_0w_0u_1w_1u_2w_2u_3w_3)`$
A little bit more general case is when one has a vector and a $`k`$-graded element, i.e., $`𝐯`$ and $`B_k`$

$$B_k𝐯=(1)^k[𝐯B_k2(𝐯𝐞_0)(𝐞_0B_k)]$$
(9)
$$𝐯B_k=(1)^k[B_k𝐯2(B_k𝐞_0)(𝐞_0𝐯)]$$
(10)
Now with the help of (6) one can see that $``$ is associative, that is, $`𝐯(𝐮𝐰)=(𝐯𝐮)𝐰`$. Moreover, the vee product preserves the multivectorial structure since

$$\frac{1}{2}[𝐮,𝐯]_{}=\frac{1}{2}(𝐮𝐯𝐯𝐮)=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝐯𝐮}+2u_0v_0+\mathrm{𝐮𝐯}2u_0v_0)=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝐮𝐯}\mathrm{𝐯𝐮})=\frac{1}{2}[𝐮,𝐯]=𝐮𝐯$$

Finally, we can generalize those expression as

$$A_lB_k=(1)^{kl}[B_kA_l2(B_k𝐞_0)(𝐞_0A_l)]$$
(11)
## 4 Dirac equation and vee product

In this section we come to consider the results recently introduced and their applications to Dirac equation. We shall use Dirac-Hestenes equation  as discussed in the introduction. As starting point for our analysis we take the Dirac-Hestenes equation in $`Cl_{1,3}`$

$$\psi \gamma _{21}m\psi \gamma _0=0$$
(12)
where $``$ denotes the Dirac operator, that is,

$$=\gamma _0_0\gamma _1_1\gamma _2_2\gamma _3_3$$

and $`\gamma _\mu `$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$) are interpreted as vectors in $`Cl_{1,3}`$ and $`\psi =\psi (x)Cl_{1,3}^+,xM`$, where $`M`$ is the minkowskian manifold. Now let us to ask a question: How can one simulate the minkowskian Dirac equation in an euclidean formulation? The answer is given for the vee product.

Firstly, multiplying on the right for $`\gamma _{12}`$ we can write (12) as

$$\psi m\psi \gamma _{012}=0$$
(13)
Considering $`\psi Cl_{4,0}^+,xM`$ and using $`𝐞`$-notation for the $`Cl_{4,0}`$ elements, the Dirac equation (13) can be written in the euclidean spacetime using the $``$ product as

$$\psi m\psi 𝐞_{012}=0$$
(14)
where $`=𝐞^\mu _\mu `$ with $`𝐞^\mu =𝐞_\mu `$. Note that $`𝐞_{012}=𝐞_0𝐞_1𝐞_2=𝐞_0𝐞_1𝐞_2`$.
Let us see how this equation appears in terms of the original Clifford product in euclidean spacetime. First we split the Dirac operator in temporal and space parts,

$$\psi =𝐞_0_0\psi +𝐞_i_i\psi $$

Working on the temporal part we have

$`𝐞_0_0\psi `$ $`=`$ $`_0\psi 𝐞_02(_0\psi 𝐞_0)(𝐞_0𝐞_0)`$
$`=`$ $`_0\psi 𝐞_02[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_0\psi 𝐞_0𝐞_0_0\psi )]=𝐞_0_0\psi `$
where we have used $`_0\psi 𝐞_0=\frac{1}{2}(_0\psi 𝐞_0𝐞_0_0\psi )`$ For the space part we have

$$𝐞_i_i\psi =_i\psi 𝐞_i2[(_i\psi )(𝐞_0𝐞_i)]=_i\psi 𝐞_i$$

Therefore

$$\psi =𝐞_0_0\psi +_i\psi 𝐞_i$$
(15)
It is easy to see that

$$\psi =\mathrm{}_M\psi $$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{}_M=_0^2_{i=1}^3_i^2`$, while $`^2\psi =\mathrm{}_E\psi `$ with $`\mathrm{}_E=_0^2+_{i=1}^3_i^2`$.

The massive term in (13) will be

$$m\psi 𝐞_{012}=m𝐞_{12}\psi 𝐞_0$$
(17)
Now we can write an equation simulating the minkowskian Dirac equation in $`Cl_{4,0}`$:

$$𝐞_0_0\psi +_i\psi 𝐞_im𝐞_{12}\psi 𝐞_0=0$$
(18)
If one considers a charged fermion field $`\psi `$ in interaction with the electromagnetic field $`A`$ we will add to the Dirac equation (13) the term $`eA\psi \gamma _{12}`$ where $`A^{1,3}`$, applying the vee product we get

$$A\psi 𝐞_{12}=𝐞_{12}(\psi A2(\psi 𝐞_0)A_0)$$
(19)
It is important to remark that we have never changed the algebra – we have working with $`Cl_{4,0}`$. It can be proved that solutions of (13) are solutions of (18) too. For a general $`\psi Cl_{1,3}^+,xM`$, we get in (13) eight coupled differential equations; transforming this original $`\psi `$ solution to its $`Cl_{4,0}^+`$ version and checking it with (18) we recover exactly the same coupled system.

## 5 The General Case

Lounesto has studied  the case involving the opposite signatures $`(+)`$ and $`(+++)`$. For $`a,bCl_{1,3}`$ the tilt transformation, based in the even-odd decomposition $`Cl_{1,3}=Cl_{1,3}^+Cl_{1,3}^{}`$ first emphasized by Clifford , was defined as

$$\underset{Cl_{1,3}product}{\underset{}{ab}}\underset{Cl_{3,1}product}{\underset{}{b_+a_++b_+a_{}+b_{}a_+b_{}a_{}}}$$

where the subscripts minus and plus are the odd and even parts. We reinterpret this transformation as a new product $`_t`$ given by

$$A_l_{t(3,1)}B_k=(1)^{kl}B_kA_l$$
(20)
The meaning of this expression is that we are defining a mapping from an algebra $`Cl`$ to its opposite algebra $`Cl^{\mathrm{opp}}`$, and it is not difficult to show that $`Cl_{p,q}^{\mathrm{opp}}=Cl_{q,p}`$.
In order to consider the general case, we consider the vee and tilt products. There are indeed some similarities

$$\mathrm{Vee}\mathrm{product}:A_lB_k=(1)^{kl}[B_kA_l2(B_k𝐞_0)(𝐞_0A_l)]$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{Tilt}\mathrm{product}:A_lB_k=(1)^{kl}B_kA_l$$
(22)
It is interesting to see which is the purpose of the term with the temporal component $`𝐞_0`$. The vee product simulates the change of signature as

$$\underset{Cl_{4,0}}{\underset{}{(++++)}}\underset{Cl_{1,3}}{\underset{}{(+)}}$$

where these signs correspond to the square of the canonical basis elements. All the squares change except for the temporal component. If we set up the inverse problem $`(+)(++++)`$, the general expression for the corresponding vee product will be the same. This is very welcome since, for example, we can get back the euclidean Dirac equation from the minkowskian one as in (18) just by using again the $``$ product. The same holds in the opposite direction, of course.
For the tilt product,

$$\underset{Cl_{1,3}}{\underset{}{(+)}}\underset{Cl_{3,1}}{\underset{}{(+++)}}$$

we change all the squares and now we do not need to subtract any temporal term. Again the opposite problem $`(+++)(+)`$ keeps up the same form. For the most interesting cases in physics we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}(++++)& (+)\\ & \\ ()& (+++)\end{array}$$

As we know the change of signature in the same row is done using the vee product and between rows of the same column using the tilt product. Now if we want to do the change in a diagonal way, i.e. $`(++++)(+++)`$ then we will need to compose vee and tilt product. All this products can be extended to anothers signatures. For example

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}(++++)& (+)& (++)& (+)& ()\\ & & & & \\ ()& (+++)& (++)& (+++)& (++++)\end{array}$$

If we want to change the signature along the same row we only need to know the canonical basis element $`𝐞_\mu `$ which doesn’t change its square, then

$$A_lB_k=(1)^{kl}[B_kA_l2(B_k𝐞_\mu )(𝐞^\mu A_l)]$$
(23)
where $`\mu `$’s are not summed. And for the change between rows in the same column

$$A_l_tB_k=(1)^{kl}B_kA_l$$
(24)
As one can easily see there is no condition limiting this work to four dimensions, so our scheme holds in any dimension.

## 6 Other Applications

While in our discussion of the Dirac equation we were interested in simulating “minkowskian properties” in an euclidean spacetime, in this section we are interested in simulating “euclidean properties” in Minkowski spacetime. Therefore in relation to the notation we are interested in simulating the product of $`Cl_{4,0}`$ in terms of the generators $`\{\gamma _\mu \}`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$) of $`Cl_{1,3}`$.

### 6.1 The Hodge Star Operator

The Hodge star operator $``$ in Minkowski spacetime can be written using $`Cl_{1,3}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _5,$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }Cl_{1,3}`$ is a multivector field and $`\gamma _5=\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$ and by the tilde we denoted the reversion operation such that

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_k=(1)^{k(k1)/2}A_k$$
(26)
for $`A_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$.

Using the vee product we can write the Hodge star operator $``$ corresponding to euclidean spacetime in terms of the algebra $`Cl_{1,3}`$ of Minkowski spacetime as222Note that the Hodge operator in euclidean spacetime is denoted by an asterisk while the one in Minkowski spacetime is denoted by a star.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _5.$$
(27)
It is easy to see that $`\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3=\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$ and that $`\gamma _5\gamma _5=1`$ while $`\gamma _5\gamma _5=1`$. In order to rewrite the above expression using the definition of the vee product it is convenient to split $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into even and odd parts, that is, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_++\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm =\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\pm `$, where by the hat we denoted the graded involution, that is,

$$\widehat{A}_k=(1)^kA_k,$$
(28)
where $`A_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$. Now we can write using the definition of the vee product that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _5& =\mathrm{\Phi }_+\gamma _5+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\gamma _5\hfill \\ & =\gamma _5\mathrm{\Phi }_++2\gamma _{123}(\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }_+)+\gamma _5\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+2\gamma _{123}(\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }_{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_+\gamma _5=\gamma _5\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }_+\gamma _0,\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\gamma _5=\gamma _5\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\gamma _0.$$
(30)
We have therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _5=\gamma _5\gamma _0\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _0,$$
(31)
and the euclidean Hodge star operator $``$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\gamma _5\gamma _0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _0,$$
(32)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}=\stackrel{~}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$. Moreover, since the parity operation $`𝒫`$ in $`Cl_{1,3}`$ is given by

$$𝒫(\mathrm{\Phi })=\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _0,$$
(33)
and if we rewrite (32) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _5\gamma _0,$$
(34)
we have that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒫(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(35)
This expression clearly shows that $``$ is written only in terms of operations on Minkowski spacetime.

### 6.2 Differential and Codifferential Operators

In Minkowski spacetime the differential $`\mathrm{d}`$ and codifferential $`\delta `$ operators can be written in terms of Dirac operator $``$ as

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{}\right),\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{}\right),$$
(36)
and such that $`=\mathrm{d}+\delta `$, where $`=\gamma ^\mu _\mu `$ and the right action of the Dirac operator denoted by $`\stackrel{}{}`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}=(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\gamma ^\mu `$. With the above definition we have that $`\delta =\mathrm{d}`$, where $``$ is the Hodge star operator in Minkowski spacetime333One can find different definitions for the codifferential operator $`\delta `$ but this is completely irrelevant for our purpose that is to give examples of applications of our method..

Now we want to write the differential and codifferential operators corresponding to the case of euclidean spacetime using the algebra of Minkowski spacetime. Let us denote these operators by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }`$, respectively, the check being used to distinguish them from their counterparts in Minkowski spacetime. Since the differential operator is defined independently of the existence of a metric structure on a manifold, we have that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}=\mathrm{d}`$; on the other hand, the codifferential operator requires a metric for its definition and therefore we have $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }\delta `$. In order to write the euclidean version of these operators in Minkowski spacetime the recipe is to replace the usual Clifford product by the vee product in formulas (36), that is,

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{}\right),\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{}\right),$$
(37)
The expressions $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^\mu `$ can be calculated as before. We have for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ that ($`i=1,2,3`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k=\gamma ^0_0\mathrm{\Phi }+(1)^k(_i\mathrm{\Phi }_k)\gamma ^i,\mathrm{\Phi }_k\stackrel{}{}=(1)^k\gamma ^i_i\mathrm{\Phi }_k+_0\mathrm{\Phi }_k\gamma ^0,$$
(38)
and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\gamma ^0_0\mathrm{\Phi }+_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^i,\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\gamma ^i_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+_0\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^0.$$
(39)
Now, using the expression for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}`$ given in (37) we see that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{\Phi }& =\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma ^0_0\mathrm{\Phi }+_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^i+\gamma ^i_i\mathrm{\Phi }+_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^0\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^\mu \right)=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi },\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
that is, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}=\mathrm{d}`$ as expected.

On the other hand, using the expression for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }`$ given in (38) we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }\mathrm{\Phi }& =\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma ^0_0\mathrm{\Phi }+_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^i\gamma ^i_i\mathrm{\Phi }_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^0\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\gamma ^0_0\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^i_i\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\left(_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^0_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^i\right)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
and clearly $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }\delta `$, as expected. Using (32) for the euclidean Hodge star operator $``$ written in Minkowski spacetime we have that

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \gamma _0_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _0+\gamma _5\gamma _0_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _0\gamma ^\mu \right)$$
(42)
and therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }& =\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _5_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _0\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\gamma _0+\gamma _5\gamma _0\gamma ^\mu \gamma _0_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _5\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _0\gamma ^\mu \gamma _0_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma _0\gamma ^\mu \gamma _0\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\gamma ^0_0\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^i_i\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\left(_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^0_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\gamma ^i\right)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
and comparing this with (37) we have

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }=\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}=\mathrm{d},$$
(44)
as expected.

### 6.3 Self-Dual and Anti-Self-Dual Solutions of Gauge Field Equations

Since for what follows it is irrelevant whether or not we are considering abelian or non-abelian gauge fields, we shall consider the electromagnetic field – U(1) gauge fields – as an example for our discussion.

Let us consider the free Maxwell equations in Minkowski spacetime,

$$\mathrm{d}F=0,\delta F=0.$$
(45)
These equations don’t have self-dual and/or anti-self-dual solutions, that is, solutions satisfying the conditions $`F=\pm F`$ in the real case. Such solutions are possible in Minkowski spacetime only if we complexify the underlying algebra considering a complex $`F`$. On the other hand, self-dual and/or anti-self-dual solutions of Maxwell equations exist in euclidean spacetime without the need of any complexification. This can be described in our scheme by writing the equivalent Maxwell equations in Minkowski spacetime using the vee product.

The equations

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{d}}F=0,\stackrel{ˇ}{\delta }F=0,$$
(46)
are written in terms of the real Clifford algebra of Minkowski spacetime and admit self-dual and anti-self-dual solutions satisfying $`F=\pm F`$. This condition reads

$$F=\pm \gamma _5\gamma _0\overline{F}\gamma _0=\pm \gamma _5\gamma _0\stackrel{~}{F}\gamma _0.$$
(47)
Now writting

$$F=E+\gamma _5B,$$
(48)
where

$$E=\frac{1}{2}(F\gamma _0F\gamma _0),\gamma _5B=\frac{1}{2}(F+\gamma _0F\gamma _0),$$
(49)
and such that $`E\gamma _0=\gamma _0E`$ and $`\gamma _5B\gamma _0=\gamma _0\gamma _5B`$, we can see that (47) is satisfied for

$$E=\pm B,$$
(50)
which are the usual self-dual and anti-self-dual solutions of the euclidean case but now written in terms of Minkowski spacetime.

## 7 Conclusions

Given the Clifford algebra of a quadratic space with a given signature, we have defined a new product in this structure such that it simulates the Clifford product of a quadratic space with another arbitrary signature different from the original one. We have used this in order to give an algebraic approach to the so called Wick rotation. We have used this new product in order to simulate the product associated with the Minkowski spacetime in terms of the Clifford algebra of the euclidean spacetime. We have also shown how to write the minkowskian Dirac equation in euclidean spacetime and in the other way how to write the Hodge star operator and the differential and codifferential operators corresponding to the euclidean case in terms of Minkowski spacetime, discussing self-dual and anti-self-dual solutions for the gauge field equations in this case.

Acknowledgments: D.M. is grateful to Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), for hospitality and support during the preparation of this work. J.M.P. acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Education contract No. PB96-0384 and the Institut d’Estudis Catalans.


format: text

text:
# Two-dimensional galaxy-galaxy lensing: a direct measure of the flattening and alignment of light and mass in galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Current observations require the existence of dark matter halos for galaxies. However, fundamental parameters such as their total mass and spatial extent are not well constrained. The mass distribution in galaxies is primarily probed via dynamical tracers of the galactic potential on various scales: stars in the inner regions, HI gas in regions outside the optical radius, and orbital motions of bound satellites in the outer-most regions (e.g. Zaritsky & White 1994). Probes of halo structure at radii devoid of any luminous tracers are therefore needed, weak gravitational lensing offers precisely that.

Galaxy-galaxy lensing, the preferential tangential alignment of the images of background galaxies around bright foreground ones, is detected statistically by stacking galaxies. The first observational attempt to look for galaxy-galaxy lensing was made by Tyson et al. (1984). Recent studies have been very successful, and a signal at the 99.5% confidence level was first reported by Brainerd, Blandford & Smail (1996) using deep ground-based CCD data. Several subsequent studies using Hubble Space Telescope images and ground-based data (Griffiths et al. 1996; Dell’ Antonio & Tyson 1996; Hudson et al. 1998; Casertano 1999; Ebbels et al. 2000; Fischer et al. 1999 \[Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS hereafter) commissioning data\]) report unambiguous detection of a galaxy–galaxy lensing signal.

In the method proposed in this letter, additional information that is available but not exploited in current galaxy-galaxy lensing studies is utilized, namely, the light distribution of galaxies selected to be foreground lenses. The general results derived by Schneider & Bartelmann (1997) are used to relate the shear field to the mass multipole moments. We show that the shapes and orientations of the foreground galaxies (probes of the light) can be compared statistically to that of the shear field (probe of the mass), thus providing a direct method to compare the ellipticity of the light to that of the mass as well any potential misalignments between them reliably. These parameters offer an important clue to the galaxy formation process, since they provide a quantitative measure of the importance of dissipation in the assembly of galaxies. Any variation of the flattening of the total mass (predominantly the dark matter component) with radius is a probe of the efficiency of angular momentum transfer to the dark halo and might provide insights into the structure and composition of galaxy halos. With regard to the relative orientation of the light and mass in galaxies, the two components are likely to be aligned on average and any misalignments might occur transiently, for instance, after a violent merger.

The outline of the paper is as follows: in §2, the current status of modeling in galaxy-galaxy lensing studies is reviewed. In §3 the formalism used to extract the shape of the mass distribution is presented, with the application to an elliptical isothermal mass model in §4. The feasibility of detection of the flattening of the mass is examined in §5, and a measure of the alignment of mass and light is discussed in §6. We conclude in §7 with a discussion of the importance of studying shapes of dark halos for understanding key issues in the formation and structure of galaxies and the relation between the luminous and dark component in galaxies.

## 2. Current Status of galaxy-galaxy lensing

The galaxy-galaxy lensing signal is measured ideally from a deep image by selecting a population of brighter (assumed to be foreground) galaxies as lenses and measuring the induced shape distortion in the fainter (background) galaxies. The shear signal obtained from direct averaging in radial bins around the bright foreground galaxies is then stacked to obtain the radial profile of the shear $`\gamma `$ as a function of distance from the lens. This provides reasonable constraints on the circular velocity of a fiducial halo, found to be in the range 210 km s-1 – 250 km s-1 for a typical $`L^{}`$ galaxy, but is found to be fairly insensitive to the radial extent of the halos (consistent with halo sizes in excess of 100h-1 kpc). In analyses to date, the errors are dominated by shot noise and error arising from the unknown redshift distribution of galaxies. However, with forthcoming surveys like the SDSS, which plan to image over a hundred million galaxies in many bands and provide reliable photometric redshifts, the prospects for galaxy-galaxy lensing studies are extremely good (Fischer et al. 1999).

## 3. Extracting shape parameters for the mass distribution

The mass distribution of a lensing galaxy is described by the convergence field $`\kappa (𝐱)`$, defined to be the surface mass-density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐱)`$ expressed in units of the critical surface mass density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. The critical surface mass density depends on the precise configuration, i.e. on the angular diameter distances from the lens to the source $`D_{\mathrm{ls}}`$, observer to source $`D_{\mathrm{os}}`$ and observer to lens $`D_{\mathrm{ol}}`$. It is given by, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_{\mathrm{os}}}{D_{\mathrm{ls}}D_{\mathrm{ol}}}`$. Standard galaxy-galaxy lensing provides a measure of the mass $`M`$ within an aperture, which is given by

$$M=d^2xw(x)\kappa (𝐱),$$
(1)
where $`w(x)`$ is a weight function normalized so that $`d^2xw(x)=1`$. It is chosen to be continuous, differentiable and is required to fall-off rapidly to zero outside the aperture scale $`\beta `$. The shape parameters of the mass distribution are characterized by the quadrupole moments of the convergence $`\kappa (𝐱)`$ within the aperture (Schneider & Bartelmann 1997), which are defined as

$`Q_{ij}{\displaystyle d^2xx_ix_jw(x)\kappa (𝐱)},`$ (2)
This tensor can be decomposed into a trace-free piece $`Q`$ and a trace $`T`$ defined as:

$`Q=Q_{11}Q_{22}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}iQ_{12},T=Q_{11}+Q_{22}.`$ (3)
The ellipticity of the mass $`ϵ_\kappa `$ is then simply,

$`ϵ_\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{(a_\kappa ^2b_\kappa ^2)}{(a_\kappa ^2+b_\kappa ^2)}}e^{i\phi _\kappa },`$ (4)
where $`a_\kappa `$ and $`b_\kappa `$ are, respectively, the major and minor axes of the mass distribution, and $`\phi _\kappa `$ is its position angle relative to the positive $`x`$-axis.

Schneider & Bartelmann (1997) have shown that the multipole moments of $`\kappa (𝐱)`$ computed from the observed shear $`\gamma (𝐱)`$ field. In particular, the quadrupole moments (Eq. ) can be expressed as

$`Q={\displaystyle d^2xe^{2i\phi }\left[g_t(x)\gamma _t(𝐱)+ig_\times (x)\gamma _\times (𝐱)\right]},`$ (5)
where the rotated shear components $`\gamma _t`$ and $`\gamma _\times `$ correspond, respectively, to a tangential and curl-type shear pattern about the center of mass of the lens (see Rhodes, Refregier & Groth 2000 for an illustration). They are related to the unrotated components by,

$`\gamma _t`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\gamma _1+\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )\gamma _2\right]`$
$`\gamma _\times `$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{sin}(2\phi )\gamma _1+\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\gamma _2\right]`$ (6)
where $`\phi `$ is the polar angle from the $`x`$-axis. The associated aperture functions $`g_t(x)`$ and $`g_\times (x)`$ are given by

$`g_t(x)=2V_2(x)x^2w(x),g_\times (x)=2V_2(x),`$ (7)
where $`V_n(x)=x^2_0^x𝑑x^{}x^{n+1}w(x^{})`$. Similarly, the trace part $`T`$ and the mass $`M`$ can also be written as

$`T={\displaystyle d^2xg_t(x)\gamma _t(𝐱)},M={\displaystyle d^2xh_t(x)\gamma _t(𝐱)},`$ (8)
where $`h_t(x)=2V_0(x)w(x)`$.

## 4. Application to the elliptical isothermal model

We consider an isothermal model with concentric elliptical equipotentials (Natarajan & Kneib 1996). The projected potential for this model is $`\psi =\alpha r`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the Einstein radius and $`r`$ is a generalized elliptical radius. If the $`x`$-axis is aligned with the major axis of the potential, the generalized radius is given by $`r^2=\frac{x_1^2}{1+ϵ}+\frac{x_2^2}{1ϵ}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the ellipticity of the equipotentials. The Einstein radius is related to the velocity dispersion of the galaxy $`\sigma _v`$ by $`\alpha =4\pi (\frac{\sigma _v}{c})^2(\frac{D_{\mathrm{ls}}}{D_{\mathrm{os}}})`$, and is of the order of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ for galaxies.

For a weakly elliptical model ($`ϵ1`$), the potential has the form,

$`\psi (𝐱)\alpha x[1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\phi \phi _0)];`$ (9)
where $`\phi _0`$ is the position angle of the potential, and reduces to that of a singular isothermal sphere in the circular limit ($`ϵ=0`$). Current observational limits on ellipticities of halos have been compiled in a comprehensive recent review by Sackett (1999), however, there are no constraints on the dispersion in the shape parameters, therefore, for the purposes of this calculation we have used the central value of $`ϵ=0.3`$. Besides, higher order terms will be approximately $`(0.3)^2=0.09`$ which are still only corrections at the 10% level, consistent with the assumption of small $`ϵ`$.

Restricting our analysis to the weak regime, to first order in $`ϵ`$, the associated convergence $`\kappa =^2\psi /2`$, where $`\psi =\alpha r`$, is given by,

$`\kappa (𝐱){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2x}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\phi \phi _0)],`$ (10)
and the complex shear $`\gamma =\gamma _1+i\gamma _2=[_1^2_2^2+2i_1_2]\psi /2`$ is

$`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2x}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \phi _0)]e^{2i\phi },`$ (11)
The rotated shear components are thus

$`\gamma _t{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2x}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3ϵ}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \phi _0)],\gamma _\times =0,`$ (12)
yielding a tangential shear modulated by an elliptical pattern.

The ellipticity of the underlying mass distribution $`\kappa (𝐱)`$ needs to be related to that of the projected (2-d) potential $`\varphi (𝐱)`$. Using a normalized gaussian as the weight function $`w(x)=e^{x^2/2\beta ^2}/(2\pi \beta ^2)`$, we evaluate the integral for the quadrupole (Eq. ) and monopole (Eq. ) moments of $`\kappa (𝐱)`$,

$`M=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }},|Q|={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}\alpha \beta ϵ,T=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}}\alpha \beta `$ (13)
The ellipticity of the mass (Eq. ) is thus $`ϵ_\kappa =\frac{3ϵ}{4}`$. The ellipticity of the potential $`ϵ_\psi `$, obtained similarly by taking moments of $`\psi `$, is $`ϵ_\psi =ϵ/4`$. Note that the ellipticity of the potential $`ϵ_\varphi `$ computed above is smaller than $`ϵ`$ (by a factor of 4), as it is weighted by the circular gaussian window function. Comparing, the weighted ellipticities, we find that $`ϵ_\kappa >ϵ_\psi `$, as expected since equi-potentials are always rounder than the mass contours.

## 5. Measuring the flattening of the mass distribution

We now show how these results can be used to measure the flattening of the mass distribution. As in ordinary galaxy-galaxy lensing, the galaxy catalog is separated into a foreground and a background subsample, using magnitude, colors or photometric redshifts. The ellipticity of the galaxies in both subsamples is then measured in the by taking second moments of the light distribution. The ellipticities of the foreground sample yields the ellipticity of the light $`ϵ_l`$ associated with each lens. While $`ϵ_l`$ is ignored in ordinary galaxy-galaxy lensing, we instead align the foreground galaxies along their major axes before stacking. We then measure the average ellipticity of the mass $`ϵ_\kappa `$ as described above, by replacing the integrals in equations (5) and (8) by sums over the sheared background galaxies. This yields a measurement of the component of the average ellipticity of the mass, $`ϵ_\kappa `$ parallel to the that of the light, i.e.

$$ϵ_\kappa =\mathrm{Re}ϵ_\kappa ^{}\widehat{ϵ}_l,$$
(14)
where the ellipticities are taken to be complex numbers with $`ϵ=ϵ_1+iϵ_2`$,  denotes complex conjugation, and $`\widehat{ϵ}_l=ϵ_l/|ϵ_l|`$ is the unit ellipticity of the light.

We now compute the uncertainty in measuring $`ϵ_\kappa `$, by taking the square of the mean of the discrete estimators for $`M`$, $`T`$ and $`Q_{}=\mathrm{Re}(Q)`$, and converting back into integrals (Schneider & Bartelmann 1997). In the absence of lensing, we find

$`\sigma ^2[M]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _ϵ^2}{n_bn_fA}}{\displaystyle d^2xh_r^2(x)},`$
$`\sigma ^2[T]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _ϵ^2}{n_bn_fA}}{\displaystyle d^2xg_r^2(x)},`$
$`\sigma ^2[Q_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _ϵ^2}{2n_bn_fA}}{\displaystyle d^2x\left[g_r^2(x)+g_\times ^2(x)\right]},`$ (15)
where $`\sigma _ϵ^2=ϵ_r^2=ϵ_\times ^2`$ is the variance of the intrinsic ellipticity distribution of galaxies ($`0.3^2`$), $`n_b`$ and $`n_f`$ are respectively the number density of background and foreground galaxies, and $`A`$ is the area covered by the survey.

For the elliptical isothermal model with the gaussian weight function, we can evaluate these integrals and find,

$`\sigma ^2[M]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _ϵ^2}{4\pi n_bn_fA\beta ^2}},\sigma ^2[T]={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _ϵ^2\beta ^2}{2\pi n_bn_fA}},`$
$`\sigma ^2[Q_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma _ϵ^2\beta ^2}{4\pi n_bn_fA}}`$ (16)
By propagating these errors in the definition of the ellipticity of the mass (Eq. ), we can compute the signal to noise ratio $`\left(S/N\right)_{ϵ_\kappa }=ϵ_\kappa /\sigma [ϵ_\kappa ]`$ for measuring $`ϵ_\kappa `$, and find, to first order in $`ϵ`$,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_{ϵ_\kappa }`$ $``$ $`4.6\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\kappa }{0.3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{0.5^{\prime \prime }}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_b}{1.5\mathrm{arcmin}^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{0.035\mathrm{arcmin}^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{0.3}{\sigma _ϵ}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{A}}{1000\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Here, we have chosen to scale $`ϵ_\kappa `$ in units of 0.3, which is reasonable given current observational limits on the flattening of dark matter halos (see Table 3 in the Sackett (1999) review and references therein; Buote & Canizares 1998). Additionally, in these scalings, we have used the survey specifications (ellipticity dispersion, number density of foreground lenses $`n_f`$ and the number density of background galaxies $`n_b`$, and approximate observed Einstein radius) quoted for the SDSS commissioning run provided by Fischer et al. (1999), with a modestly expanded area (1000 deg2) from the current area of 225 deg2. In the context of estimating the scatter arising in the mass estimates from galaxy-galaxy lensing due to halo shapes, Fischer et al. (2000) mention in passing that with 10 times more data than the commissioning run, halo shapes can be measured; this figure is comparable to our estimate of the $`S/N`$.

Note that since these numbers have been taken from the SDSS commissioning run (which suffered from poor seeing), are conservative and do take into account several observational errors. The dispersion of 0.3 in the ellipticity distribution includes a correction for the seeing (see for instance weak lensing observations of Rhodes et al. (2000) and Bacon et al. (2000) and references therein). The effect of seeing and noise are also reflected in the modest number density assumed for background sources. Note, however, that in contrast to the case of ordinary galaxy-galaxy lensing, foreground galaxies will need to be sufficiently resolved to measure their shapes prior to alignment and stacking. This could induce some degradation in the signal, but since the foreground galaxies are typically brighter and larger, this effect is expected to be small.

The shape parameters of the mass will therefore be easily detectable with SDSS in the near future (McKay et al. 2000). For the total SDSS area of $`10^4`$ deg2, the significance rises to 15$`\sigma `$. This in fact implies that potentially, even the radial dependence of the flattening can be studied by considering annuli-shaped weight functions (for instance, the difference of two gaussians). Moreover, the degree of flattening as a function of the morphological galaxy type can also be studied.

It is interesting to compare the $`(S/N)_{ϵ_\kappa }`$ expected for measuring $`ϵ_\kappa `$ estimated above with that of the usual galaxy-galaxy lensing $`(S/N)_M=M/\sigma [M]`$ which measures the mass enclosed within an aperture. For the model considered here, we find the following relation,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_{ϵ_\kappa }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.17}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\kappa }{0.3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)_M.`$ (18)
Therefore, shape parameters can be measured with a significance which is smaller but comparable to that of the enclosed mass. Note that for the current SDSS survey area of $`A=225`$ deg2, we find $`(S/N)_M13`$ which agrees roughly with the significance of the reported Fischer et al. (1999) results, when averaged over all radial bins.

## 6. Measuring the alignment of light and mass

Given the good prospects expected from the above results, one can be more ambitious and try to characterize the alignment of mass and light in more detail. We can make use of the amplitude of the light ellipticity $`ϵ_l`$, which we have not used until now. This can be done by grouping the lens galaxies into several $`ϵ_l`$-bins, and computing $`ϵ_\kappa `$ separately for each bin. A more direct approach would be to consider the correlation function of the ellipticities of the mass and light, defined as

$$C_{\kappa l}=\mathrm{Re}ϵ_\kappa ^{}ϵ_l,$$
(19)
where the average is over all lens galaxies, and $`ϵ_\kappa `$ is an estimate of the mass ellipticity of each lens derived from its associated background galaxies. While $`ϵ_\kappa `$ for an individual lens is rather noisy, a significant measurement of $`C_{\kappa l}`$ can be obtained by averaging over a large number of lens galaxies. This correlation function could also be computed for several annuli, and, would therefore, yield a direct measure of the radial dependence of the alignment of mass and light.

## 7. Discussion

The shapes of dark matter halos (see Sackett (1999) for a more comprehensive review) have been probed via many techniques and the consensus from these studies is that the precise shapes offer important clues to both the galaxy formation process and perhaps, even to the nature of dark matter. Cosmological N-body simulations suggest that dark matter halos are triaxial and that dissipation determines their shape. High resolution simulations find that the effect of dissipation (Katz & Gunn 1991; Dubinski 1994) is to transform an initially triaxial halo from prolate-triaxial to oblate-triaxial, while preserving the degree of flattening, yielding on average rounder and more oblate dark halos than those in dissipationless simulations.

Comparing the shape of the mass profile inferred from X-ray data for a sample of ellipticals with that of the light, Buote & Canizares (1994; 1998) find that the dark matter is at least as flattened as the light and is definitely more extended. The origin of the X-ray isophotal twist in the case of NGC720, they argue reflects an intrinsic misalignment of the stars with the dark matter. Keeton, Kochnek & Seljak (1997) incorporate the shape of the light distribution as a constraint in modeling individual lenses (that produce multiple images of background quasars) and find that an additional component of shear is required to match the observations. They speculate that this component could arise from a misalignment between the luminous galaxy and its dark matter halo. Our proposed technique will provide reliable measurements of the shape and orientation of light and mass in galaxies, thereby aiding in the understanding of the coupling of baryons with the dark matter.

We thank Martin Rees and Donald Lynden-Bell for useful discussions. PN acknowledges support from a Trinity College Research Fellowship and AR from the EEC Lensing Network for a TMR post-doctoral fellowship and a Wolfson College Research Fellowship.


text:
# Angular size in “quintessence” cosmology

## 1 Introduction

Recent data from SNe Ia have provided strong evidence for an expanding Universe speeding up, rather than slowing down (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1998). These observational evidences have stimulated great interest in a more general class of cosmological models driven by nonrelativistic matter and a “quintessence” component, i.e., an exotic fluid with an arbitrary equation of state $`p_x=\omega _x\rho _x`$ ($`\omega _x1`$), which probably dominates the bulk of matter in the observed Universe. Examples of these models include the evolving scalar field (Ratra & Peebles 1988; Frieman et al. 1998; Caldwell et al. 1998), the smooth noninteracting component (xCDM) (Turner & White 1997; Chiba et al. 1997), and still the frustated network of topological defects in which $`\omega _x=\frac{n}{3}`$, being $`n`$ the dimension of the defect (Spergel & Pen 1997). Some observational aspects of these models have extensively been analyzed in the literature. For example, Waga & Miceli (1999), combining statistics of gravitational lenses and SNe Ia data have found $`\omega _x<0.7`$ ($`68\%`$ cl) for a spatially flat Universe. Efstathiou (1999), by using high-z Type Ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies, has found $`\omega _x<0.6`$ (2$`\sigma `$) if the Universe is assumed to be spatially flat, or $`\omega _x<0.4`$ (2$`\sigma `$) for universes of arbitrary spatial curvature. Perlmutter et al. (1999) constrained $`\omega _x<0.6`$ ($`95\%`$ cl) using large-scale structure and SNe Ia in a spatially flat geometry. However, although carefully investigated in many of their theoretical and observational aspects, the influence of a “quintessence” component in some kinematic tests like the angular size-redshft relation still remains to be analyzed. In principle, the lensing effect of the expanding Universe may provide strong limits on the free parameter describing this exotic component. Therefore, it is interesting to explore how uncertaints in distance measures of extragalactic objects and their underlying evolutionary effects may alter the standard cold dark matter results.

On the other hand, the existing angular size data for distant objects are until nowadays somewhat controversial, specially because they envolve at least two kinds of observational dificulties. First, any high redshift object may have a wide range of proper sizes, and, second, evolutionary and selection effects probably are not negligible. Indeed, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ relation for some extended sources samples seems to be quite imcompatible with the predictions of the standard FRW model when the latter effects are not taken into account (Kapahi 1987;1989). There have also been some claims that the best fit model for the observed distribution of high redshifts extended objects is provided by the standard Einstein-de Sitter universe ($`q_o=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) with no significant evolution (Buchalter et al. 1998). However, all these results are in contradiction with the recent observations from type Ia supernovae. Indeed, such data seem to ruled out world models filled only by baryonic matter, and more generally, any model with positive deceleration parameter. The same happens with the corresponding bounds using the ages of old high redshift galaxies (Dunlop et al. 1996; Krauss 1997; Alcaniz & Lima 1999).

The case for compact radio sources is also of great interest. These objects seem to be less sensitive to evolutionary effects since they are short-lived ($`10^3yr`$) and much smaller than their host galaxy. Initially, the data from a sample of 82 objects gave remarkable suport for the Einstein-de Sitter Universe (Kellerman 1993). However, some analysis suggest that, although compatible with an Einstein-de Sitter Universe, the Kellerman data cannot rule out a significant part of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane (Kayser 1995). Some authors have also argued that models where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ diminishes and after a given $`z`$ remains constant may also provide a good fit to Kellerman’s data. In particular, by analysing a subset of 59 compact sources within the same sample, Dabrowski et al. (1995) found that no useful bounds on the value of the deceleration parameter $`q_o`$ can be derived. Indeed, even considering that Euclidean angular sizes ($`\mathrm{\Theta }z^1`$) are excluded at 99$`\%`$ confidence level, and that the data are consistent with $`q_o=1/2`$, they apparently do not rule out higher values of the deceleration parameter (Stephanas & Saha 1995). More recently, based in a more complete sample of data, which include the ones originally obtained by Kellermann, it was argued that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ relation may be consistent with any model of the FRW class with deceleration parameter $`0.5`$ (Gurvits et al. 1999).

In this context, we discuss the influence of a “quintessence” component (Q-model) on the angular size-redshift relation. Particular emphasis is given for the critical redshift at which the angular size of an extragalactic source takes its minimal value. In the limiting case ($`\omega _x=1`$), the results previously derived by Krauss & Schramm (1993) for a flat universe with cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) are recovered. For comparison, we also consider the case of an open model dominated by nonrelativistic matter (OM).

## 2 Angular size and “quintessence”

Let us now consider the FRW line element $`(c=1)`$

$$ds^2=dt^2R^2(t)[d\chi ^2+S_k^2(\chi )(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)],$$
(1)
where $`\chi `$, $`\theta `$, and $`\varphi `$ are dimensionless comoving coordinates, $`R(t)`$ is the scale factor, and $`S_k(\chi )`$ depends on the curvature parameter ($`k=0`$, $`\pm 1`$). The later function is defined by one of the following forms: $`S_k(\chi )=\mathrm{sinh}(\chi )`$, $`\chi `$, $`\mathrm{sin}\chi `$, respectively, for open, flat and closed Universes.

In this background, the angular size-redshift relation for a rod of intrinsic length $`D`$ is easily obtained by integrating the spatial part of the above expression for $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$ fixed. One finds

$$\theta (z)=\frac{D(1+z)}{R_oS_k(\chi )}.$$
(2)
The dimensionless coordinate $`\chi `$ is given by

$$\chi (z)=\frac{1}{H_oR_o}_{(1+z)^1}^1\frac{dx}{xE(x)},$$
(3)
where $`x=\frac{R(t)}{R_o}=(1+z)^1`$ is a convenient integration variable. For flat Q-models, the dimensionless function $`E(x)`$ takes the following form

$$E_Q(x)=\left[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_x)x^1+\mathrm{\Omega }_xx^{(1+3\omega _x)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\frac{8\pi G\rho _x}{3H_o^2}`$ is the present day density parameter associated with the “quintessence” component. Observe that the flat constraint condition, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_x=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{8\pi G\rho _M}{3H_o^2}`$ has been explicitly used in the derivation of (4).

Before proceed further, it is interesting to make explicit the connection with some special cases already established in the literature. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0`$, or still if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=1`$ and $`\omega _x=0`$, one obtains from (2)-(4) the angular diameter expression of the Einstein-de Sitter universe (Sandage 1988)

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=\frac{DH_o(1+z)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{2\left[(1+z)^{\frac{1}{2}}1\right]}.$$
(5)
If $`\omega _x=1`$, the Q-model reduces to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe, the details of which has been analysed by Krauss & Schramm (1993). In particular, if the pair $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x)=(1,1)`$, the angular diameter of this Q-model is the same of a flat universe with a pure cosmological constant, namely

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=\frac{DH_o(1+z)}{z}.$$
(6)
We recall that expression (5) yields a well-known result that the angular diameter in Einstein-de Sitter model has a minimum at $`z_m=5/4`$ (Hoyle 1959), whereas (6) shows us that the extreme Q-model, ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x`$)=($`1,1`$), has no minimum at all ($`z_m=\mathrm{}`$). Indeed, for any expanding FRW type cosmology, the typical behavior of the angular size relation is the existence of a critical redshift greater than the above Einstein-de Sitter value. We also observe that a new analytical result is obtained by taking $`\omega _x=1/3`$ for arbitraries values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$. From (2)-(4) one finds

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{DH_o(1+z)}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}}}\{\mathrm{ln}[\sqrt{\alpha }+\sqrt{\sqrt{\alpha }+1}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\sqrt{(1+z)}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\sqrt{(1+z)}}}+1}]\}^1.`$
where $`\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_x}`$.

The expression (2) for $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ cannot be written in simple analytical form, unless the pair of parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$, $`\omega _x`$) take the above mentioned values. For generic cases, the results can be obtained only by numerical treatment.

In Fig.1 we show a log-log plot of angular size versus redshift for flat Q-models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0.7`$ and some selected values of $`\omega _x`$. For comparison we have also considered the standard OM cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$). As can be seen there, for all values of $`\omega _x`$, the angular size initially decreases with increasing $`z`$, reaches its minimum value at a given $`z_m`$, and eventually begins to increase for fainter magnituds. Note also that the standard OM behavior may be interpreted as an intermediary case between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM ($`\omega _x=1`$) and a Q-model with $`\omega _x0.5`$, though its critical redshift is displaced to higher values.

## 3 The critical redshift

As widely known, the existence of a critical redshift $`z_m`$ on the angular size-redshift relation may qualitatively be understood in terms of an expanding space. The light observed today from a source at high $`z`$ was emitted when the object was closer. The relevant aspect here is how this effect may be quantified in terms of the $`\omega _x`$ parameter. To analyze the sensivity of the critical redshift to “quintessence”, we addopt here an approach different of the one applied by Krauss & Schramm (1993) to the case of a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe.

The redshift $`z_m`$ at which the angular size takes its minimal value is the one cancelling out the derivative of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with respect to $`z`$. Hence, from (2) we have the condition

$$S_k(\chi _m)=(1+z_m)S_k^{}(\chi _m),$$
(8)
where $`S_k^{}(\chi )=\frac{S_k}{\chi }\frac{\chi }{z}`$, a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`z`$ and by definition $`\chi _m=\chi (z_m)`$. Observe also that (3) can readily be differentiated yielding

$$(1+z_m)\chi _m^{}=(R_oH_o)^1S_Q(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x,z_m),$$
(9)
where

$`S_Q(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x,z_m)`$ $`=`$ $`[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_x)(1+z_m)+`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_x(1+z_m)^{1+3\omega _x}]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Now, combining equations (8)-(10), we find

$$_{(1+z_m)^1}^1\frac{dx}{xE_Q(x)}=S_Q(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x,z_m).$$
(11)
The meaning of the above equation is self evident. It represents an implicit integro-algebraic equation for the critical redshift $`z_m`$ as a function of the parameters defining the flat Q-models. In general, this expression cannot be solved in closed analytical form for $`z_m`$. However, by taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0`$ in (11), the value $`z_m=1.25`$ is readily obtained as should be expected. The interesting point here is that (11) is quite convenient for a numerical treatment. A similar equation can also be derived for an open cold dark matter universe (OM). We find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1\mathrm{tanh}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1+z_m)^1}^1\frac{dx}{xE_{OM}(x)}\right]=F_{OM}(\mathrm{\Omega }_M,z_m),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and the functions $`E_{OM}`$, $`F_{OM}(\mathrm{\Omega }_M,z_m)`$ are given by

$$E_{OM}(x)=\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_Mx^1\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(13)
$$F_{OM}(\mathrm{\Omega }_M,z_m)=\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z_m)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(14)
In Fig.2 we show the diagrams of $`z_m`$ as a function of the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$, and some selected values of $`\omega _x`$ (at this point the reader should compare our results with the alternative numerical method developed by Krauss & Schramm (1993) for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe). Note that equation (12) has also been used to plot the case for the open universes (solid line). In the former case, the curves show us clearly that all the Q-models belongs to the same class, which contains the case of a pure cosmological constant. The smallest value of the critical redshift is exactly the one given by Einstein-de Sitter universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0`$). This value is pushed to the right direction, that is, for any value of $`\omega _x`$ it is displaced to higher redshifts as the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ parameter increases. For instance, consider that $`\omega _x=0.5`$. By taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0.8`$, we find $`z_m=1.42`$ and $`z_m=1.65`$, respectively. In the opposite extreme ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_x1`$) the critical redshift is finite unless the parameter of the equation of state take the extreme value for a pure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\omega _x=1`$). Note also that for a given value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$, the minimum is also displaced for higher redshifts when the $`\omega _x`$ parameter diminishes. However, we see that the effect is small if the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ is low, say, smaller than 0.2, since the curves are nearly flat and practically coincid below this limit. This coincidence is even more surprizing for $`\omega _x0.7`$. Note that open models driven by cold dark matter (OM) affects strongly the angular size, however, in a somewhat different manner as compared to what happens in a generic Q-model (see Fig.2). In particular, if the density parameters are small, say, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$, smaller than 1/3, the critical redshift is much bigger in the former than in the later. This is easy to understand physically, because at this limit the contibution of the quintessence is small, leading to results close to the flat Einstein-de Sitter universe.

For a large class of Q-models considered in this letter, the critical redshifts $`z_m`$ are displayed in Table 1. The OM results have also been quoted for comparison. The third column with $`\omega _x=1`$ corresponds to a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (see Krauss & Schramm 1993). From these results one arrives to a inevitable conclusion: even neglecting evolution, the redshift at which the angular size is minimal cannot alone discriminate between world models since different scenarios may provide the same $`z_m`$ values. In particular, for the observationally favoured open universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$) we find $`z_m=1.89`$, a value that may also be obtained for Q-models having $`0.85\mathrm{\Omega }_x0.93`$ and $`1\omega _x0.5`$. However, if the angular diameter results are combinated with other tests, some interesting cosmological constraints may be obtained. For instance, at galactic scales, the observed COBE normalized pattern of density fluctuations is more difficult to fit within a low-density open universe than in Q-models (Caldwell et al. 1998). Another real possibility is that the universe is actually in an accelerated expansion state ($`q_o<0`$), as indicated recently by measurements using Type Ia supernovae (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1998). In this case, any model of the standard FRW class is ruled out regardless of its curvature parameter. However, the bidimensional parameter space ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x`$) is still large enough to accomodate Q-models predicting both an acelerated expansion (if $`q_o<\frac{1}{3\mathrm{\Omega }_x}`$), and high values of the critical redshift, say, close to the values of $`z_m`$ given by the open models.

The same analytical procedure developed here may be applied when evolutionary and/or selection effects due to a linear size-redshift or to a luminosity-redshift dependence are taken into account111For a more detailed discussion on these effects see Buchalter et al. 1998 . As widely believed, a plausible way of standing for such effects is to consider that the intrinsic linear size has a similar dependence on the redshift as the coordinate dependence, i.e., $`D=D_o(1+z)^c`$, being $`c<0`$ (Ubachukwu 1995; Buchalter et al. 1998). In this case, Eq.(11) is still valid but the function $`S_Q(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\omega _x,z_m)`$ must be divided by a factor $`(1+c)`$. The displacement of $`z_m`$ relative to the case with no evolution ($`c=0`$) due to the effects above mentioned may be unexpectedly large. For example, if one takes $`c=0.8`$ as found by Buchalter et al. 1998, the redshift of the minimum angular size for the Einstein-de Sitter case ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0`$) moves from $`z_m=1.25`$ to $`z_m=11.25`$. In this way, the minimal is clearly removed for all practical purposes. This result may be a possible explanation why the data of Gurvits et al. (1999), although apparently in agreement with the Einstein-de Sitter universe, do not show clear evidence for a minimal angular size close to $`z=1.25`$, as should be expected for this model. This sort of effect is even greater when an additional “quintessence” component is also considered. In the same vein, since evolution is not forbidden from any principle, we stress that constraints from angular size redshift relation should be taken with some caution.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by the project Pronex/FINEP (No. 41.96.0908.00) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq (Brazilian Research Agency).


text:
# Non-supersymmetric cousins of supersymmetric gauge theories: quantum space of parameters and double scaling limits

## a Introduction and overview of the results

In recent years, notable successes have been achieved in understanding strongly coupled quantum field theories and string theories in various space-time dimensions, by combining old heuristic ideas with the power of supersymmetry. Perhaps most striking amongst these are the results on four dimensional, asymptotically free, gauge theories. In , Seiberg and Witten, and Seiberg, were able to compute the exact quantum corrections to the moduli space of vacua of various $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ gauge theories, using a subtle generalization of Montonen-Olive electric/magnetic duality  valid at low energy. In  a concrete proposal was made, in some particular supersymmetric examples, for the long-suspected string description of gauge theories , particularly when the number of colors is large. Unfortunately, these works rely heavily on very special mathematical properties of supersymmetric theories, and it has been impossible so far to assess their relevance to the non-supersymmetric world.

The purpose of this letter is to provide a framework where the relevance of supersymmetric models for non-supersymmetric gauge theories can be precisely studied. The idea is to consider a class of asymptotically free quantum field theories in two space-time dimensions which are distinguished by the fact that the low energy coupling can be changed by varying mass parameters, which thus play the rôle of Higgs expectation values. Versions of these theories with four supercharges show quantitative similarities with $`N=2`$ super Yang-Mills , and are thus the best possible toy models for the four dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories.

In this work, two main results are obtained. First, we will see that non-supersymmetric versions of the models discussed in  are tractable as well, and do continue to display qualitatively the same physics. The quantum corrections to the space of mass parameters $``$ (which is the analogue of the moduli space of four dimensional gauge theories) can be computed. Convincing evidence is found that the physics unraveled in supersymmetric gauge theories can be relevant in genuinely non-supersymetric models as well. Second, we will show that one can take a double scaling limit, in the sense of the “old” matrix models , when approaching the singularities on the quantum space of mass parameters. This possibility was not anticipated on the gauge theory side, and, if correct in this context, could potentially be of great theoretical interest to understand the field theory/string theory duality in four dimensions.

Our claims will be exemplified in this letter by studying a simple purely bosonic theory displaying a rich physics akin to what was found in the four dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories. The model is a natural generalization of both the $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$ non-linear sigma model and the sine-Gordon model. The fields parametrize the $`N1`$ dimensional sphere $`\mathrm{S}^{N1}`$, and the lagrangian is the sum of the standard $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$ symmetric kinetic term and an additional interaction term which, for $`N=2`$, reduces to the sine-Gordon potential. Classically, this latter term gives a mass $`m`$ to the would-be Goldstone bosons. Quantum mechanically, when $`m`$ is much larger that the dynamically generated “hadronic” mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the theory is weakly coupled and much of the physics can be read off from the lagrangian. On the contrary, when $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, strong quantum corrections are expected. When $`m=0`$ we recover the standard $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$ non-linear sigma model, which has a mass gap and a spectrum made of a single particle in the vector representation of $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$ .

The quantum space of parameters $`_\mathrm{q}`$ can be worked out by using various techniques, including a large $`N`$ approximation. The submanifold of singularities $``$, defined to be the locus in $``$ where some of the degrees of freedom are massless, drastically changes when one goes from the classical to the quantum regime. Typically, either $`_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ locally splits into two, or does not change its shape, but in both cases the low energy physics is different in the classical and the quantum theory. Globally we obtain a hypersurface of singularities $`_\mathrm{q}`$ which delimits two regions on $`_\mathrm{q}`$, one at strong coupling and the other extending to weak coupling. On some regions of $`_\mathrm{q}`$, both a soliton, which is in our model a generalization of the sine-Gordon soliton, and a bound state of the elementary fields, become massless. The physics in the infrared is then governed by a non-trivial conformal field theory, either an Ising model or an $`\mathrm{O}(2)`$ symmetric Ashkin-Teller model. Kramers-Wannier duality exchanges the soliton and the bound state, and inside $`_\mathrm{q}`$ the notion of a topological charge is ambiguous. The dictionary with phenomena in four dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories is the following: our non-trivial CFTs are like Argyres-Douglas CFTs , the sine-Gordon soliton corresponds to a ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole and Kramers-Wannier duality is mapped onto Montonen-Olive duality.

Another aspect of the model is that its $`1/N`$ expansion can be interpreted as a sum over topologies for randomly branched polymers. In particular, for some values of the parameters, the model has an $`\mathrm{O}(N1)`$ symmetry and can be viewed as a $`(N1)`$-vector model with an infinite number of interactions (bonds involving an arbitrary number of molecules in the branched polymers). One can approach the critical surface $`_\mathrm{q}`$ by taking a suitable double scaling limit, which on the one hand gives a description of the model in terms of extended objects (the polymers), and on the other hand defines non-perturbatively a continuous theory of polymers in a fully consistent context. In particular, the model overcomes notorious difficulties with double scaling limits in two dimensions .

## b The model and its semi-classical properties

We will work with a space-time of euclidean signature and write the lagrangian of the model as

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_\mu \varphi _{i,0}_\mu \varphi _{i,0}+\frac{\alpha }{2}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _{i,0}^2\frac{1}{g_0^2}\right)+V_\mathrm{m}.$$
(1)
$`\alpha `$ is a Lagrange multiplier implementing the constraint that the target space is a sphere of radius $`1/g_0^2`$. Without the mass term $`V_\mathrm{m}`$, the theory is made UV finite by simple multiplicative renormalizations of the fields and coupling . In the leading $`1/N`$ approximation, only the coupling constant renormalization is needed, and we will take the renormalized fields $`\varphi _i=\varphi _{i,0}`$, and coupling constant $`g`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{g^2}=\frac{1}{g_0^2}+\frac{N}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=\frac{N}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\text{,}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the UV cut-off, $`\mu `$ is a sliding scale, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the dynamically generated mass scale of the theory. A mass term $`V_\mathrm{m}`$ is characterized by the canonical dimension of the mass parameters and the way they transform under $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$. For example, a magnetic field has canonical dimension 2 and transforms in the vector representation. Once these data are fixed, the explicit form of $`V_\mathrm{m}`$ is deduced from renormalization theory. In our model, the mass parameters will be taken to have canonical dimension 2 and to transform as a symmetric traceless rank two tensor $`h_{ij}`$ (they are like a tensor magnetic field). In general, $`h_{ij}`$ is multiplicatively renormalized; no renormalization is actually needed in the leading $`1/N`$ expansion. By diagonalizing $`h_{ij}`$ we can write

$$V_\mathrm{m}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}h_i\varphi _i^2.$$
(3)
The trace part of $`h_{ij}`$ would correspond to a constant term in the lagrangian, and can thus be taken to be non zero without affecting the physics. We will use the $`N1`$ independent dimensionless physical parameters $`v_i=(h_Nh_i)/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and $``$ will be the $`v`$-space. Using the permutation symmetry amongst the $`h_i`$s, we will restrict ourselves to the region $`^+`$ of positive $`v_i`$s unless explicitly stated otherwise. The classical masses of the $`N1`$ independent elementary fields $`\varphi _i`$, $`1iN1`$, are then $`m_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{v_i}`$.

The model has always $`N`$ $`_{2(i)}`$ symmetries $`\varphi _i\varphi _i`$, and can also have additional $`\mathrm{O}(p)`$ symmetries when $`p`$ of the $`v_i`$s coincide.

Singularities on $`^+`$ are found classically when some, say $`p`$, of the $`v_i`$s vanish. The low energy physics is then governed by a standard $`\mathrm{O}(p+1)`$ non linear sigma model, and the $`p`$ massless states are the $`p`$ classical Goldstone bosons for the breaking of $`\mathrm{O}(p+1)`$ down to $`\mathrm{O}(p)`$. $`_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ in $`^+`$ thus coincide with the hyperplanes $`v_i=0`$.

Quantum mechanically, in the weakly coupled region $`v_i1`$, we can use semiclassical techniques to investigate the spectrum of particles further. It can be shown that a bound state $`\varphi `$-$`\varphi `$ is associated with the operator $`\varphi _N^2=1/g_0^2_{i=1}^{N1}\varphi _i^2`$. We will compute the mass of this state, for any $`v_i`$s, in the next section. One can also show that the model admits solitons connecting the two degenerate minima of the potential (3) at $`\varphi _N=\pm 1/g^2`$. These two minima are related by the spontaneously broken $`_{2(N)}`$ symmetry. All the solitonic (time independent, finite energy) solutions can be explicitly found . In the simple $`\mathrm{O}(N1)`$ symmetric case where $`v_1=\mathrm{}=v_{N1}=v1`$, they correspond to trajectories joining the two poles at $`\varphi _N=\pm 1/g^2`$ along a meridian of the target space sphere. They are standard sine-Gordon solitons of masses $`M_{\mathrm{cl}}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{v}/g^2`$. The semi-classical quantization shows that the solitons are particles filling multiplets of $`\mathrm{O}(N1)`$ corresponding to the completely symmetric traceless tensor representations. The rank $`J`$ tensor has a mass $`M_J=M_{\mathrm{cl}}+J(J+N3)v\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/(2M_{\mathrm{cl}})`$.

## c The large N approximation

A useful technique to study our model is to use a large $`N`$ approximation (for a recent review, see ), where $`N`$ is sent to infinity while the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is held fixed . The large $`N`$ expansion is nothing but a standard loop expansion for a non-local effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ obtained by integrating exactly a large number of elementary fields $`\varphi _i`$ from (1). For our purposes, it will be useful to keep explicitly the order parameter $`\varphi _N=\sqrt{N}\phi `$ for $`_{2(N)}`$ in the action. The effective action for large $`N`$ is then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{eff}}}{N}}={\displaystyle d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi _\mu \phi +\frac{\alpha h_N}{2}\phi ^2\frac{\alpha }{2Ng^2}\right\}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}s\left[\alpha h_i\right],`$ (4)
where $`s[f]=(1/2)tr\mathrm{ln}(^2+f)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/\mu )d^2xf/(4\pi )`$ can be expanded in terms of ordinary Feynman diagrams.

It is useful to compute, in this framework, the masses of the particles we found previously in a semi-classical approximation. At leading order, this is done by looking at poles in the two-point functions derived from (4). In the $`\mathrm{O}(N1)`$ symmetric case $`v_1=\mathrm{}=v_{N1}=v`$, and for $`v>1`$, the $`N1`$ elementary fields $`\varphi _i`$ have a mass $`m_\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{v}`$, and the mass $`m_\mathrm{b}`$ of the $`\varphi `$-$`\varphi `$ bound state (the field $`\phi `$) is a solution of

$$\sqrt{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2v/m_\mathrm{b}^21}\mathrm{ln}v=2\mathrm{arctan}\left(1/\sqrt{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2v/m_\mathrm{b}^21}\right).$$
(5)
$`m_\mathrm{b}`$ is a monotonic function of $`v`$, decreasing from $`m_\mathrm{b}2m_\varphi \left(1(Ng^2)^2/32\right)`$ for $`v1`$ to $`m_\mathrm{b}=0`$ for $`v=1`$. The mass of the $`\mathrm{O}(N1)`$ singlet soliton also goes to zero as $`v`$ goes to one because the two degenerate minima of the effective potential derived from $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ merge at $`v=1`$. More generally, the $`\varphi `$-$`\varphi `$ bound state and the lightest solitonic state will become massless together on the critical hypersurface $`_{i=1}^{N1}v_i=1`$. Near this hyperboloid, the $`1/N`$ expansion has IR divergencies and is no longer reliable. These divergencies are due to the fact that we are near a critical point below the critical dimension. To describe the physics near the critical surface, we must go beyond the $`1/N`$ approximation and sum the most relevant (i.e. the most IR divergent) contributions. This also automatically resolves the difficulties associated with massless propagators in two dimensions. One can show that the low energy effective lagrangian on the critical surface is, in the large $`N`$ limit,

$$L_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _N_\mu \varphi _N+\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{_{i=1}^{N1}1/v_i}\varphi _N^4,$$
(6)
where the interaction, which is proportional to $`1/N`$, must be treated exactly, since the IR divergencies compensate for the $`1/N`$ factors. We thus obtain the Landau-Ginzburg description of an Ising critical point. The field $`\varphi _N`$ is the order operator and the massless soliton corresponds to the disorder operator; they are exchanged by Kramers-Wannier duality. Displacements on the critical surface are associated here with irrelevant operators in the IR.

It is important to note that the $`1/N`$ corrections to the equation of the critical surface itself only suffer from mild logarithmic IR divergencies that can be handled . The existence and form of this surface can thus be reliably studied in a $`1/N`$ expansion. We will see that the critical surface actually intersects with the hyperplanes $`v_i=0`$, and thus join with the other sheet of the surface existing for $`v_i<0`$. The relevant physics is discussed in the following section.

## d The quantum space of parameters

There are regions in the space of parameters where it is easy to see that the classical and quantum hypersurfaces of singularities coincide. When one of the $`v`$s is zero, say $`v_1=0`$, and all the other $`v`$s are large, the low energy theory is an $`\mathrm{O}(2)`$ sigma model of small effective coupling $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Both classically and quantum mechanically, this is a massless theory, and thus $`_{\mathrm{cl}}=_\mathrm{q}=\left\{v_1=0\right\}`$ in this region. However, the physics are not the same: the classical theory of a free massless boson is replaced in the quantum case by the non-trivial CFT of a boson compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$ with $`R^2=4\pi /g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\mathrm{ln}(_{i=2}^{N1}v_i)`$. If $`p`$ of the $`v_i`$s, $`i2`$, decrease, while we stay on the hyperplane $`v_1=0`$, the low energy theory will tend to become an $`\mathrm{O}(p+2)`$ non linear sigma model and thus develop a mass gap. In the large $`N`$ limit, it can be shown that this transition takes place on a surface $`𝔥_{\mathrm{q},1}`$ whose equation is $`_{i=2}^{N1}v_i=1`$, $`v_1=0`$, and that the low energy theory on $`𝔥_{\mathrm{q},1}`$ is an $`\mathrm{O}(2)`$ symmetric Ashkin-Teller model with Landau-Ginzburg potential

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{_{i=2}^{N1}1/v_i}\left(\varphi _1^2+\varphi _N^2\right)^2.$$
(7)
This model is indeed equivalent to a compactified boson for the particular radius $`R=R_{\mathrm{KT}}=2\sqrt{2}`$, and the transition through $`𝔥_{\mathrm{q},1}`$ is nothing but a Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition. A local analysis shows that $`_\mathrm{q}`$ joins the hyperplane $`v_1=0`$ orthogonally along $`𝔥_{\mathrm{q},1}`$, and that going from $`v_1=0`$ to $`v_1>0`$ on $`_\mathrm{q}`$ is equivalent to turning on a relevant operator which decouples one of the two Ising spins in the Ashkin-Teller model. The other spin would decouple in the $`v_1<0`$ region. We see that the Ashkin-Teller model on $`𝔥_{\mathrm{q},1}`$ is made of the coupling of the two Ising models (one for $`v_1>0`$, the other for $`v_1<0`$) found in the preceding section.

It is possible to find a simple equation for $`_\mathrm{q}`$ valid for all values of the $`v_i`$s, positive or negative, in the large $`N`$ limit:

$$_\mathrm{q}:\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{ji}{}(rh_j)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2(N1)},$$
(8)
where $`r`$ is the largest real root of the polynomial $`_{i=1}^N(xh_i)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{2N}`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{2N}`$ can in principle be determined in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by a non-perturbative calculation. The fact that the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition occurs at a strictly positive radius $`R_{\mathrm{KT}}`$ implies $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The shape of $`_\mathrm{q}`$ is likely to be qualitatively reproduced by (8) even for small values of $`N`$, and we have used it to draw Fig. 1, which gives a global picture of the quantum space of parameters of our model in the case $`N=4`$.

## e The double scaling limits

On the critical surface $`_\mathrm{q}`$, the sum of Feynman diagrams of a given topology (i.e. contributing at a fixed order in $`1/N`$) diverges. It is then natural to ask whether it is possible to approach $`_\mathrm{q}`$ and take the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in a correlated way in order to obtain a finite answer taking into account diagrams of all topologies. This is the idea of the double scaling limit , and for vector models the result can be interpreted as giving the partition function of a continuous theory of randomly branched polymers .

Let us consider for example the case of the $`\mathrm{O}(N1)`$ symmetric theory $`v_1=\mathrm{}=v_{N1}=v`$. Near the critical point $`v=1`$, the effective theory is just given by (6) with the relevant perturbation $`(1/2)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(1v)\mathrm{\Phi }_N^2`$. The idea (used in ) is then to eliminate the explicit $`N`$ dependence in the interaction term by using a rescaled space-time variable $`y=x/\sqrt{N}`$,

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle d^2y\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu ^y\varphi _N_\mu ^y\varphi _N+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2N(1v)\varphi _N^2+\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\varphi _N^4\right\}}.`$ (9)
A consistent double scaling limit can be defined to be $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`v1`$, with $`N(v1)3\mathrm{ln}N`$ kept fixed. The logarithmic correction to the naive scaling comes from the fact that the large $`N`$ limit is also a large UV cutoff limit in the $`y`$ variable, and (9) needs to be renormalized, which is done by a simple normal ordering. A similar non-trivial double scaling limit can be defined near the Ashkin-Teller point. For example, for $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`v_10`$, $`v_2=\mathrm{}=v_{N1}=v1`$, the combinations that must be kept fixed are $`N(v1)4\mathrm{ln}N`$ and $`N(vv_11)4\mathrm{ln}N`$. Note that our theory in these limits is free of the inconsistencies found in the standard vector models in a similar context , as can be shown from a straightforward calculation of the 1PI effective action.

## f Other models

It is possible to study other mass terms or/and other target spaces along the lines of the present work. It could also be interesting to perform lattice calculations for this class of models. For example, a mass term $`m_{ij}=m_{ji}`$ of canonical dimension one allows to obtain higher critical points. The quantum space of parameters of a $`\mathrm{P}^N`$ model with mass terms, which has instantons, a $`\theta `$ angle, and exhibit confinement at strong coupling, is also likely to display a rich structure. Finally, it is natural to consider supersymmetric versions of our models. It turns out that the massive version of the supersymmetric $`\mathrm{P}^N`$ model shows quantitative similarities with $`N=2`$ super Yang-Mills . A discussion of these models along with details on the present work will be published elsewhere .

I would like to thank Princeton University for offering me matchless working conditions.