text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The notion of closeness or distance plays an essential role in physics. We frequently encounter the concept in the course of constructing and applying a theory.

The first step of finding out a law of nature is often classifying the objects in question into several categories (e.g., Hubble’s classification of galaxies). For classification, we are tacitly assuming the concept of closeness between the objects to be classified. Next, when we judge the validity of a theory by experiment, we construct a suitable parameter space associated to the theory and check the closeness between the point predicted by the theory and the experimental data-point in the parameter space. Here some kind of distance in the parameter space should be assumed. Finally, when we try to explain an observed phenomenon by a certain model based on a more or less established theory, we need to compare the observational data with the predictions of the model (e.g. the relation between a signal of the gravitational wave and its templates; a comparison of the observational data with the results of numerical simulations based on a model). Again some notion of distance is required in a parameter space suitable for this purpose.

Here we find out a universal setting for comparing “theory and reality”: There should be a parameter space equipped with the notion of closeness. We prepare a set of models (or templates). Each model corresponds to a point in the parameter space, so that the points corresponding to these models are distributed over the parameter space. Now, the observed data define another point in the parameter space. Then we try to find out the model-point that is closest to the data-point.

Thus we realize the significance of establishing a parameter space and a distance/closeness on it according to the problem we need to study.

The same situation occurs in cosmology and spacetime physics. Indeed, we often need to consider a set of Universes, rather than just only “our Universe”: Cosmology itself is a trial for grasping overall, averaged nature of the complicated reality of our Universe in terms of models; when we question why our Universe emerged rather than other possibilities, we are considering a set of Universes. According to the above considerations, thus, it is essential to establish a space of all Universes and a distance/closeness between any two Universes among them.

In a series of investigations, it turned out that we can in fact construct a space of all compact Universes equipped with a sort of distance.

Let $`Riem`$ be the space of all $`(D1)`$-dimensional, compact Riemannian geometries without boundaries333 Throughout this paper, $`D`$ represents the spacetime dimension, so that the spatial section is always $`(D1)`$-dimensional. . On $`Riem`$, we can introduce a measure of closeness in terms of the spectra, a set of eigenvalues of a certain elliptic operator . Here we consider only the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as an elliptic operator. For a given geometry $`𝒢Riem`$, we get the spectra, or a set of eigenvalues of the Laplacian $`\{\lambda _n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}=`$ $`\{0=\lambda _0<\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _n\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}`$, numbered in an increasing order. Since $`\lambda _n`$ has dimension $`[\mathrm{Length}^2]`$, the higher (lower) spectrum in general reflects the smaller (larger) scale properties of the geometry. Therefore the spectra are desirable quantities for describing the effective geometrical structures of the space at each observational scale, e.g. the scale-dependent topology . Let us call this type of representation of geometry in terms of the spectra the spectral representation of geometrical structures .

Suppose $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ are two spaces in $`Riem`$, and let $`\{\lambda _n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{\lambda _n^{}\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the spectra for $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$, respectively. By comparing $`\{\lambda _n\}_{n=1}^N`$ and $`\{\lambda _n^{}\}_{n=1}^N`$ in a suitable manner, we can introduce a measure of closeness between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ of order $`N`$ . It compares two geometries up to the scale of order $`O(\lambda _N^{1/2})`$, neglecting the smaller scale differences (we shall discuss more in detail on this topic in 4.2 and 4.3).

However, it turns out that this measure of closeness $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ does not satisfy the triangle inequality though it satisfies the other two axioms of distance . Even though the triangle inequality is far from a must from the viewpoint of the general theory of point set topology, it is certain that the inequality makes several arguments concise and it makes the measure of closeness more compatible with our notion of closeness.

This problem has been resolved by realizing that the breakdown of the triangle inequality is a mild one in a certain sense, and proving that $`Riem`$ equipped with $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ forms a metrizable space . In other words, it has been justified to regard $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ as a distance provided that a care is taken when the triangle inequality is required in the argument; we also found out the alternative of $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ to be used when the triangle inequality is needed. (See 4.2 and Ref. for more details.) As an immediate consequence, we can even introduce a distance on $`Slice(,g)`$, a space of all possible time-slices of a given spacetime $`(,g)`$. (See Ref. for more details on this point and its application to the averaging problem in cosmology .) From now on, we call $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ the spectral distance.

Following the arguments at the beginning of this section, we have established a parameter space and a distance on it appropriate for spacetime physics: The space of all spaces of order $`N`$, $`𝒮_N`$, which is a completion of $`(Riem,d_N)/_{}`$ is what we had been searching for. (Here $`/_{}`$ indicates the identification of isospectral manifolds . We discuss a physical interpretation of the isospectral manifolds in Section 5. See also Ref..) Because of its nice property, $`𝒮_N`$ can be regarded as a basic arena for the study of spacetime physics. For instance, we can define integral over $`𝒮_N`$ , which would be essential in quantum cosmology.

Being $`𝒮_N`$ at hand, we are now in a position to handle a set of Universes. For definiteness, let us focus on cosmological problems now. In cosmology, we need to judge to what extent a model reflects the real Universe. There is no guarantee whether cosmology is possible, viz. whether a model close to the reality at some instant of time, remains so all the time. From the viewpoint of the spectral representation, this fundamental problem can be visualized as follows: Let $`𝒢`$ be the real Universe at present with respect to a certain time-slicing. Let $`𝒢^{}`$ be a model located in the neighborhood of $`𝒢`$ in $`𝒮_N`$444Here a model means a spacetime (usually it possesses much simpler geometrical structures than reality) along with a certain fixed time-slicing. We here regard an identical spacetime with different time-slicings as two different models.. Then we should investigate the time evolution of $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ and should analyze in what conditions $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ remains small during a certain period of time.

This kind of investigation is now possible since the spectral distance is defined explicitly in terms of the spectra, which have a firm basis both physically and mathematically. What we now need is, thus, to analyze the time evolution of the spectra. In the spectral representation, the spectra $`\{\lambda _n\}`$ are placed in the most fundamental position. Thus, from the purely theoretical viewpoint, too, it is interesting to investigate the time evolution of the spectra in detail.

As a first step, we can understand how the time evolution of the spectra is induced by the evolution of geometry as follows: By evolving an initial $`(D1)`$-dimensional geometry $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h)`$ according to the Einstein equations (in the Hamiltonian form if necessary), we get a 1-parameter family of geometries $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h(t))`$. In principle, then, we can get the spectra for each geometry $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h(t))`$. In this manner, we get a 1-parameter family of sets of spectra $`\{\lambda _n(t)\}`$.

It is more preferable both theoretically and practically, however, if the time evolution of $`\{\lambda _n(t)\}`$ is described (1) solely in terms of spectral quantities, without any explicit reference to the metrical information behind them, and (2) in the form of differential equations of $`\{\lambda _n(t)\}`$ with respect to time.

The key procedure for achieving this goal is to investigate the response of $`\{\lambda _n\}`$ to the change of the spatial metric $`h`$. Since the latter is controlled by the Einstein equations, we thus expect to obtain the spectral version of the Einstein equations. The main aim of this paper is to obtain the fundamental evolution equations for the spectra, by putting this program into practice.

In section 2, we prepare several formulas that are needed in the subsequent investigations. In section 3, which is the main part of this paper, we derive the spectral evolution equations. As basic applications of the results we obtained, we discuss three topics in section 4. In 4.1, we study the spectral evolution of the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe. In 4.2, we study the spectral distance between two Universes that are very close to each other in $`𝒮_N`$. We find out its universal expression in the leading order, which is independent of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor the gravity theory. In 4.3, we investigate the time evolution of the spectral distance between two very close Universes. Section 5 is devoted for discussions.

## 2 Basic formulas for the spectra

Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$ be a $`(D1)`$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold without boundaries. We set an eigenvalue problem for the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`(,g)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=\lambda f`$. Let $`\{\lambda _n\}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ $`:=\{0=\lambda _0<\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}`$ be the set of eigenvalues, or spectra hereafter, arranged in an increasing order. For simplicity of formulas, we assume that there is no degeneracy in the spectra throughout this paper. Let $`\{f_n\}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of real-valued eigenfunctions that are normalized as

$$(f_m,f_n):=_\mathrm{\Sigma }f_mf_n\sqrt{}=\delta _{mn},$$
(1)
where the natural integral measure on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$ is implied by $`\sqrt{}:=\sqrt{det(g_{ab})}`$. Let us note that a set $`\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda _n}}_af_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ forms an orthonormal subset of 1-forms on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$,

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }_af_mg^{ab}_bf_n\sqrt{}=\delta _{mn}.$$
(2)
### 2.1 Spectral components of functions and tensors

Let $`A`$ and $`A_{ab}`$ be any function and any symmetric tensor field, respectively, on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$. It is useful to introduce diffeomorphism invariant quantities $`A_{mn}`$ and $`A_{ab}_{mn}`$ defined as

$`A_{mn}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}f_mAf_n\sqrt{},`$
$`A_{ab}_{mn}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}^af_mA_{ab}^bf_n\sqrt{}.`$
Here, for a quantity of type $`A_{ab}_{mn}`$, we always understand that $`n,m1`$ unless otherwise stated. We note that Eqs.(1) and (2) can be expressed as

$$1_{mn}=\delta _{mn},g_{ab}_{mn}=\delta _{mn}.$$
(3)
We also employ an abbreviated notation

$$A_n:=A_{nn},A_{ab}_n:=A_{ab}_{nn}.$$

For later uses, we develop these notations to

$`A_{lmn}:`$ $`=`$ $`Af_l_{mn},A_{klmn}:=Af_k_{lmn},\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{ab}_{l,mn}:`$ $`=`$ $`A_{ab}f_l_{mn},A_{ab}_{kl,mn}:=A_{ab}f_k_{l,mn},\mathrm{}.`$
We note that, for arbitrary functions $`A`$ and $`B`$

$$AB_{mn}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{mk}B_{kn}.$$
(4)
To show this formula, we insert the $`\delta `$-function into the integral expression of $`AB_{mn}`$, noting that $`\delta (x,y)\sqrt{}_y^1=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}f_k(x)f_k(y)`$.

The following formula is also useful, which relates $`Ag_{ab}_{mn}`$ with $`A_{mn}`$:

$$Ag_{ab}_{mn}=\frac{\lambda _m+\lambda _n}{2\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}}A_{mn}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}}\mathrm{\Delta }A_{mn}.$$
(5)
To show this formula, one modifies the defining equation for $`Ag_{ab}_{mn}`$ with the help of partial integrals, noting that the R.H.S. (right-hand side) should be symmetric in $`m`$ and $`n`$ .

Setting $`m=n`$ in Eq.(5), we get

$$Ag_{ab}_n=A_n+\frac{1}{2\lambda _n}\mathrm{\Delta }A_n.$$
(6)
### 2.2 The variation formulas

We frequently consider the variation $`\delta Q`$ of a certain quantity $`Q`$ below. Here we treat $`\delta `$ as a general variation for the time being. In later applications, the time-derivative (the Lie derivative along a time-flow vector $`t^a`$ in a spacetime picture) is mostly considered as the variation operator $`\delta `$.

Now, noting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=\frac{1}{\sqrt{}}_a(\sqrt{}g^{ab}_bf)`$ for an arbitrary function $`f`$, the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is represented as555 To avoid trivial indices, we flexibly adopt notations such as $`\stackrel{}{u}:=u^a`$, $`AB:=A_{ab}B^{ab}`$, $`\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{v}:=u_av^a`$ and $`A_{}^{}:=A_a^a`$ . We also flexibly choose symbols for the derivative of a function $`f`$, such as $`D_af=\stackrel{}{D}f=_af`$. (Here $`D_a`$ and $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ denote the covariant derivative.)

$$\delta \mathrm{\Delta }f=\frac{1}{2}_a(g\delta g)^af\frac{1}{\sqrt{}}_a(g^{ab}\delta g_{bc}^cf\sqrt{}).$$

Thus, employing the same kind of notation as $`A_{mn}`$, we can introduce the quantity

$$\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}:=f_m\delta \mathrm{\Delta }f_n\sqrt{}=\frac{1}{2}f_m_a(g\delta g)^af_n\sqrt{}f_m_a(g^{ab}\delta g_{bc}^cf_n\sqrt{}),$$

where we note that the variation is taken only for the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and not for the eigenfunctions $`f_n`$, $`f_m`$. We should also keep in mind that $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}`$ is not symmetric in $`m`$ and $`n`$, unlike $`A_{mn}`$, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an operator, and not a function. Noting that $`f_0`$ is a constant function (see Appendix A), it is evident that $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{m0}=0`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{0m}=\frac{\lambda _m}{2}g\delta g_{0m}`$ ($`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$).

With these preliminaries, we now investigate the variations of spectral quantities. We start with the variation of the spectra. From Eq.(B10) in Appendix B, it follows that

$$\delta \lambda _n=\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_n,$$
(7)
which is a basic result of the perturbation theory (“Fermi’s golden rule”).

Now let us investigate the variation of the eigenfunctions. We have a general formula Eq.(B11) with Eq.(B14) (see Appendix B) for the perturbation of eigenvectors. Here we need to specify the factor $`c_n^{(1)}`$ in Eq.(B14). For this purpose, we take the variation of the both sides of Eq.(1) for $`m=n`$. Noting that $`\delta \sqrt{}=\frac{1}{2}g\delta g\sqrt{}`$, we get

$$(f_n,\delta f_n)=\frac{1}{4}g\delta g_n.$$
(8)
In the standard perturbation analysis in quantum mechanics, the inner-product is fixed, and not perturbed, while the eigenfunctions are perturbed. Thus, $`\delta f_n`$ should be perpendicular to $`f_n`$ if $`f_n`$ is normalized. In our case, on the other hand, the inner-product is also subject to the variation because of the presence of the integral measure $`\sqrt{}`$. Thus $`\delta f_n`$ is not in general perpendicular to $`f_n`$, as is clear in Eq.(8). Combining Eq.(8) with Eqs.(B11) and Eq.(B14), we see that $`c_n^{(1)}`$ in Eq.(B14) should be chosen as $`c_n^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4}g\delta g_n`$ in the present case. Thus, we get

$$\delta f_n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_k\mu _{kn},$$
(9)
where

$$\mu _{mn}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}}{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\hfill & \text{for}mn\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}g\delta g_m\hfill & \text{for}m=n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Taking the inner-product of the both sides of Eq.(9) with $`f_m`$, we get

$$\mu _{mn}=(f_m,\delta f_n),$$
(10)
which gives a clear interpretation of the quantity $`\mu _{mn}`$ as the projection of $`\delta f_n`$ to the direction of $`f_m`$.

With the help of Eq.(9), it is now straightforward to show that

$$\delta A_{mn}=\delta A_{mn}+\frac{1}{2}Ag\delta g_{mn}+\underset{k}{}A_{mk}\mu _{kn}+\underset{k}{}A_{nk}\mu _{km}.$$
(11)
In particular, for the case of $`m=n`$, we get

$$\delta A_n=\delta A_n+\frac{1}{2}Ag\delta g_n+2\underset{k}{}A_{nk}\mu _{kn}.$$
(12)
Introducing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}:=\mu _{mn}\frac{1}{4}g\delta g_{mn}`$ (note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}=0`$), Eq.(11) is also represented as

$$\delta A_{mn}=\delta A_{mn}\underset{k}{}A_{mk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kn}\underset{k}{}A_{nk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{km}.$$

It is interesting that this expression is in a similar form as the covariant derivative of a symmetric tensor.

In the same manner, we get a formula for $`\delta A_{ab}_{mn}`$ as

$`\delta A_{ab}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta A_{ab}_{mn}(\delta \mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n})A_{ab}_{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{ab}g\delta g_{mn}A_a^c\delta g_{cb}+A_b^c\delta g_{ca}_{mn}`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _n}}}A_{ab}_{mk}\mu _{kn}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _m}}}A_{ab}_{nk}\mu _{km},`$
and for the case of $`m=n`$, we get

$`\delta A_{ab}_n`$ $`=`$ $`\delta A_{ab}_n(\delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda _n)A_{ab}_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_{ab}g\delta g_n2(A\delta g)_{ab}_n`$ (14)
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _n}}}A_{ab}_{nk}\mu _{kn}.`$
### 2.3 Basic identities

We obtain important relations by taking the variation of the basic identities Eq.(3).

First, we take the variation of the both sides of $`\delta _{mn}=1_{mn}`$. Then, with the help of Eq.(11), we get

$`0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\delta g_{mn}+\mu _{mn}+\mu _{nm},`$
which implies an identity,

$$g\delta g_{mn}=2(\mu _{mn}+\mu _{nm}).$$
(15)
Thus, with the help of Eq.(2.2), we get

$$g\delta g_{mn}=\frac{2}{\lambda _m\lambda _n}(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{nm})\mathrm{for}mn.$$
(16)
On the other hand, no condition is imposed on $`g\delta g_n`$ except for

$$g\delta g__0=2\frac{\delta V}{V},$$
(17)
which follows by an independent argument (see Appendix A).

Now we take the variation of the both sides of $`\delta _{mn}=g_{ab}_{mn}`$ for $`m,n1`$. Then, with the help of Eq.(13), we get

$$0=\overline{\delta g}_{ab}_{mn}(\delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda _n)\delta _{mn}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _m}{\lambda _n}}\mu _{mn}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _m}}\mu _{nm},$$
(18)
where $`\overline{A}_{ab}:=A_{ab}\frac{1}{2}A_{}^{}g_{ab}`$ for any symmetric tensor $`A_{ab}`$.

Thus, we get

$$\overline{\delta g}_{ab}_{mn}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _m}{\lambda _n}}\mu _{mn}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _m}}\mu _{nm}\hfill & \\ =\frac{1}{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _m}{\lambda _n}}\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _m}}\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{nm}\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}mn\hfill \\ \delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda _n\frac{1}{2}g\delta g_n\hfill & \mathrm{for}m=n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
The fact that $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{m0}=0`$ ($`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) suggests us to formally define that $`\overline{\delta g}_{ab}_{m0}=0`$ ($`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$). We adopt this formal definition here for a notational neatness (see Eq.(20) below).

From Eqs.(16) and (19), we obtain a formula for $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}`$,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}=\frac{\lambda _n}{2}g\delta g_{mn}+\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\overline{\delta g}_{ab}_{mn}.$$
(20)
We can also derive Eq.(20) directly from the definition of $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}`$.

We note that Eq.(20) is valid for the case of $`m=n`$ also, due to Eq.(7) and the second equation of Eq.(19). Furthermore, we realize that this formula is also valid for $`m=0`$ or $`n=0`$ on account of the formal definition $`\overline{\delta g}_{ab}_{m0}=0`$ ($`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$).

We now investigate a different type of identities.

We pay attention to the second equation in Eq.(19),

$$\delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda _n=\overline{\delta g}_{ab}_n\frac{1}{2}g\delta g_n.$$
(21)
From this relation, it is straightforward to show a formula

$$A_{ab}\frac{\delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda _n}{\delta g_{ab}}=\overline{A}_{ab}_n\frac{1}{2}A_{}^{}_n,$$
(22)
where $`A_{ab}`$ is any symmetric tensor field.

Let $`u^a`$ be any vector field. Substituting $`A_{ab}=_\stackrel{}{u}g_{ab}`$, the L.H.S. (left-hand side) of Eq.(22) vanishes because of the diffeomorphism invariance of the spectra, so that

$`_\stackrel{}{u}g_{ab}_n`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{u}g_{ab}_n\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{u}_n,`$
$`\overline{D_{(a}u_{b)}}_n`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{u}_n=0.`$ (23)
We now note another identity. Using the basic properties of the covariant derivative $`D_a`$, it is easily shown that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_af=D_a\mathrm{\Delta }f+𝑹_{ab}D^bf,$$

where $`f`$ is any smooth function. In particular, choosing $`f_n`$ as $`f`$, we get

$$(g_{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }𝑹_{ab})^bf_n=\lambda _n_af_n,$$
(24)
i.e. $`_af_n`$ turns out to be an eigenfunction of $`g_{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }𝑹_{ab}`$ with the eigenvalue $`\lambda _n`$. Taking the inner-product of Eq.(24) with $`_af_m`$, we get

$$D_aD_bf_mD^aD^bf_n\sqrt{}=\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}𝑹_{ab}_{mn}+\lambda _n^2\delta _{mn},$$
(25)
or

$$𝑹_{ab}_{mn}=g_{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}+\lambda _n\delta _{mn}.$$
(26)
## 3 Evolution equations for the spectral quantities

Now we investigate the time evolution of the spectra of a space. We have prepared in the previous section basic formulas regarding the responses of the spectral quantities with respect to a change $`\delta g_{ab}`$. When we let $`\delta g_{ab}`$ be of a dynamical origin, thus, we automatically obtain the evolution equations for the spectral quantities.

We consider $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h)`$, a $`(D1)`$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold without boundaries, as a mathematical model of the spatial section of the Universe. For the present purpose, we interprete a quantity $`\delta Q`$ as $`\frac{d}{d\alpha }_{|_\alpha =0}Q(\alpha )`$, and identify the latter quantity with $`\dot{Q}:=_\stackrel{}{t}Q`$, where $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ is a time-flow vector666 See the argument at the end of Appendix B also. . In particular, we replace $`\delta g_{ab}`$, $`g\delta g`$ and $`\overline{\delta g}_{ab}`$ in the previous section with corresponding quantities as

$`\delta g_{ab}`$ $``$ $`\dot{h}_{ab}=2NK_{ab}+2D_{(a}N_{b)},`$
$`g\delta g`$ $``$ $`h^{ab}\dot{h}_{ab}=2NK+2\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{N},`$
$`\overline{\delta g}_{ab}`$ $``$ $`\overline{\dot{h}}_{ab}=2N\overline{K}_{ab}+2\overline{D_{(a}N_{b)}}.`$ (27)
Here $`K_{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature and $`K:=K_{}^{}`$; $`N`$ and $`N_a`$ are the lapse function and the shift vector, respectively.

### 3.1 Evolution equation for $`\{\lambda _n\}`$

First, Eq.(21) becomes

$`\dot{\lambda }_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2N\overline{K}_{ab}_n+NK_n\right)\lambda _n`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`2NK_{ab}_n\lambda _n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(NK)_n,`$
where we used the identity Eq.(23) in the first line, and Eq.(6) in the second line. We note that the shift vector $`N_a`$ does not appear in Eq.(28), reflecting the spatial diffeomorphism invariance of $`\lambda _n`$.

Now, Eqs.(15) and (19) becomes

$`NK_{mn}+\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{N}_{mn}=(\mu _{mn}+\mu _{nm})`$
$`N\overline{K}_{ab}_{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}\lambda _n\dot{)}\delta _{mn}+\overline{D_{(a}N_{b)}}_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _m}{\lambda _n}}}\mu _{mn}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _m}}}\mu _{nm}),`$
where $`\mu _{mn}`$ is given by Eq.(2.2) with $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{mn}`$ replaced by $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{mn}`$.

Eq.(20) becomes

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{mn}=\lambda _nNK_{mn}+2\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}N\overline{K}_{ab}_{mn}+\lambda _n\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{N}_{mn}+2\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\overline{D_{(a}N_{b)}}_{mn}.$$
(29)
Ultimately we are only interested in the dynamics of the spectra $`\{\lambda _n\}`$, which is invariant under the spatial diffeomorphism. The coordinate dependence of other subsidiary variables like $`\mu _{mn}`$, which can dependent on the shift vector $`N_a`$, should not have any influence on the dynamics of $`\{\lambda _n\}`$. Hence we can set $`N_a=0`$ from the very beginning to make formulas simpler. For simplicity we also set $`N=1`$ hereafter.

Now let us investigate the evolution equations for the spectra, Eq.(28), in detail. At this stage, it is useful to develop notations. First, we note that we can expand any scalar function $`A()`$ in terms of $`\{f_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$:

$$A()=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_nf_n().$$
(30)
Then, it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A()=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _nA_nf_n(),$$

where we see that the homogeneous component of $`A`$, $`A_0`$, does not appear in the summation.

The homogeneous component $`A_0`$ is related to the spatial average of $`A`$ over the spatial section $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`A_{\mathrm{av}}:=\frac{1}{V}__\mathrm{\Sigma }A\sqrt{}`$, as

$$A_{\mathrm{av}}=A_0/\sqrt{V}.$$
(31)
Next, let us introduce the quantity

$$(lmn):=f_m_{ln}=1_{mln}=f_lf_mf_n\sqrt{}.$$
(32)
Note that $`(lmn)`$ is totally symmetric in $`l`$, $`m`$ and $`n`$. We can also introduce a similar quantity $`(lmnk):=f_lf_mf_nf_k\sqrt{}`$ , and similarly $`(lmnkh)`$, and so on. However, the quantities of the type $`(lmn)`$ are sufficient since other quantities can be expressed in terms of $`(lmn)`$. For instance,

$$(lmnk)=\frac{1}{3}\underset{l^{}}{}\left\{(lml^{})(l^{}nk)+(mnl^{})(l^{}kl)+(nkl^{})(l^{}lm)\right\},$$

due to Eq.(4).

We note that the quantity of the form $`A_{lmn\mathrm{}}`$ is represented in terms of $`A_l`$ and $`(lmn)`$ since

$$A_{lmn\mathrm{}}=\underset{l^{}}{}A_l^{}(l^{}lmn\mathrm{}).$$

In the same manner, the quantities of the form $`A_{ab}_{kl\mathrm{},mn}`$ is represented in terms of $`A_{ab}_{l,mn}`$ and $`(lmn)`$ because of the relation

$$A_{ab}_{kl\mathrm{},mn}=\underset{l^{}}{}A_{ab}_{l^{},mn}(l^{}kl\mathrm{}).$$

In particular, the quantity of the form $`A_{ab}_{mn}`$ can be represented in terms of $`A_{ab}_{0,mn}`$ as

$$A_{ab}_{mn}=A_{ab}_{0,mn}\sqrt{V}.$$

Keeping the applications to cosmology in mind, it is also useful to introduce the quantities $`ϵ_{ab}`$ and $`r_{ab}`$ defined as

$`ϵ_{ab}`$ $`:=`$ $`K_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}Kh_{ab},`$
$`r_{ab}`$ $`:=`$ $`𝑹_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}𝑹h_{ab}.`$ (33)
Note that $`ϵ_{}^{}=r_{}^{}=0`$. The quantities $`ϵ_{ab}`$ and $`r_{ab}`$ characterize the deviation of the spatial geometry $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },h)`$ from the isotropic geometry.

Now, we note that

$$K_{mn}=\underset{l}{}K_l(lmn),$$

and

$`\overline{K}_{ab}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{2(D1)}}Kh_{ab}_{mn}+ϵ_{ab}_{mn}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{4(D1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(\lambda _m+\lambda _n\lambda _l)K_l(lmn)+ϵ_{ab}_{mn}.`$
Here Eq.(30) has been applied to $`K`$ and we have used Eq.(5).

Thus, Eq.(28) is represented as

$$\dot{\lambda }_n=\frac{2}{D1}\underset{l}{}(\lambda _n+\frac{D3}{4}\lambda _l)K_l(lnn)2\lambda _nϵ_{ab}_n.$$
(34)
This equation is also valid for $`n=0`$, viz. it is compatible with $`\lambda _00`$.

Looking at the R.H.S. of Eq.(34), it turns out that we further need the equations for $`(lmn\dot{)}`$, $`\dot{K}_l`$ and $`ϵ_{ab}\dot{_n}`$ . We investigate them one by one below.

### 3.2 Evolution equation for $`(lmn)`$

Applying Eq.(11) along with Eq.(9) to $`f_l_{mn}=(lmn)`$, we get

$$(lmn\dot{)}=\underset{l^{}}{}\{(lml^{})\mu _{l^{}n}+(mnl^{})\mu _{l^{}l}+(nll^{})\mu _{l^{}m}\}+\underset{l^{}}{}(lmnl^{})K_l^{}.$$
(35)
Here, from Eq.(2.2) with Eq.(29) ($`N=1`$, $`N_a=0`$), $`\mu _{mn}`$ is given by

$$\mu _{mn}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{D+1}{2(D1)}\frac{1}{\lambda _m\lambda _n}_l\left(\lambda _n\frac{D3}{D+1}(\lambda _m\lambda _l)\right)K_l(lmn)+\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}}{\lambda _m\lambda _n}ϵ_{ab}_{mn}\hfill & \text{for}mn\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{2}_lK_l(lmm)\hfill & \text{for}m=n.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 3.3 Evolution equation for $`K_l`$

Now, since $`K_l=(K,f_l)`$, we get $`\dot{K}_l=(\dot{K},f_l)+(K,\dot{f}_l)+(K,f_lK)`$, resulting in

$$\dot{K}_l=(\dot{K})_l+\underset{l^{}}{}K_l^{}\mu _{l^{}l}+\underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}K_l^{}K_{l^{\prime \prime }}(l^{}l^{\prime \prime }l),$$
(36)
where Eq.(10) has been applied. To get the detailed expression for the first term $`(\dot{K})_l`$, we recall basic formulas of the canonical Einstein equations. We note

$$\dot{K}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{D1}{D2}p\frac{D3}{2(D2)}(𝑹+K^2+\frac{D1}{D3}KK)+\frac{D1}{D2}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(37)
along with the constraints

$`𝑹KK+K^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\rho 2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`D^bK_{ab}D_aK+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}J_a`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (38)
where $`\alpha :=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. Here we define the quantities $`\rho `$, $`p`$, $`J_a`$ and $`S_{ab}`$ in connection with the above equations: With the help of the normal unit vector $`n^\alpha `$ of the spatial section, the energy-momentum tensor of matter $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$ can be decomposed into three components: $`T^{\alpha \beta }=T_{_{}}^{\alpha \beta }+T_{_{}}^{\alpha \beta }+T_{_{}}^{\alpha \beta }`$, where each term has the following form,

$$T_{_{}}^{\alpha \beta }=\rho n^\alpha n^\beta ,T_{_{}}^{\alpha \beta }=J^\alpha n^\beta +J^\beta n^\alpha ,T_{_{}}^{\alpha \beta }=S^{\alpha \beta }.$$

(The suffix $``$ implies “perpendicular to the space” and $``$ implies “along the space”.) Here $`J^\alpha `$ and $`S^{\alpha \beta }`$ are spatial quantities and they are uniquely identified to their spatial counterparts, $`J^a`$ and $`S^{ab}`$, respectively. Then $`\rho `$, $`J_a`$ and $`S_{ab}`$ are interpreted as the energy density, the momentum density and the stress tensor of matter, respectively, and $`p:=\frac{1}{D1}S_a^a`$ defines the pressure of matter. (The vector and tensor indices of spatial quantities in this context are lowered and raised by, respectively, the spatial metric $`h_{ab}`$ and its inverse $`h^{ab}`$.)

Now, Eq.(37) can be modified by means of the first constraint equation (Hamiltonian constraint) in Eq.(38). In particular, the following two forms would be useful for our purposes. First, by eliminating $`𝑹`$ from Eq.(37), we get

$$\dot{K}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{D3}{D2}(\rho +\frac{D1}{D3}p)KK+\frac{2}{D2}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(39)
Second, by eliminating the term $`KK`$ from Eq.(37), we get

$$\dot{K}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{D1}{D2}(\rho p)K^2𝑹+\frac{2(D1)}{D2}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(40)
Thus, we obtain the equation for $`(\dot{K})_l`$ based on Eq.(39),

$$(\dot{K})_l=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{D3}{D2}(\rho _l+\frac{D1}{D3}p_l)\frac{1}{D1}\underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}K_l^{}K_{l^{\prime \prime }}(l^{}l^{\prime \prime }l)+\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{V}}{D2}\delta _{l0}(ϵϵ)_l.$$
(41)
In the same manner, based on Eq.(40), we get

$$(\dot{K})_l=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{(D1)}{(D2)}(\rho _lp_l)\underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}K_l^{}K_{l^{\prime \prime }}(l^{}l^{\prime \prime }l)+\frac{2(D1)\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{V}}{D2}\delta _{l0}𝑹_l.$$
(42)
We also note that, from Eqs.(17), (31) and (A2),

$$\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=K_0/\sqrt{V}=K_{\mathrm{av}}.$$
(43)
The first constraint equation in Eq.(38) is translated into

$$𝑹_l+\frac{D2}{D1}\underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}K_l^{}K_{l^{\prime \prime }}(l^{}l^{\prime \prime }l)\frac{1}{\alpha }\rho _l2\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{V}\delta _{0l}(ϵϵ)_l=0.$$
(44)
We also note that, taking the inner-product with $`\frac{1}{\lambda _l}D_af_l`$ ($`l0`$), the Bianchi identity $`D^b𝑹_{ab}\frac{1}{2}D_a𝑹=0`$ turns to

$$𝑹_l+\frac{2(D1)}{(D3)}\frac{1}{\lambda _l}(D^aD^br_{ab})_l=0(l0).$$
(45)
Now, taking the inner-product with $`\frac{1}{\lambda _l}D_af_l`$ ($`l0`$), the second constraint equation in Eq.(38) (momentum constraint) turns to

$$K_l+\frac{D1}{D2}\frac{1}{\lambda _l}\left\{(D^aD^bϵ_{ab})_l+\frac{1}{2\alpha }(\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{J})_l\right\}=0(l0).$$
(46)
Finally, noting that

$$\dot{𝑹}=𝑹^{ab}\dot{h}_{ab}+D^a\left(D^b\dot{h}_{ab}D_a(h^{cd}\dot{h}_{cd})\right),$$

we get

$$\dot{𝑹}_l=\frac{D3}{D1}\underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}K_l^{}𝑹_{l^{\prime \prime }}(l^{}l^{\prime \prime }l)+\underset{l^{}}{}𝑹_l^{}\mu _{l^{}l}\frac{1}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{J})_l2(ϵr)_l,$$

where we used the momentum constraint Eq.(46) to reach the final form.

### 3.4 Evolution equation for $`ϵ_{ab}_{l,mn}`$ and $`r_{ab}_{l,mn}`$

First, we derive the evolution equations for $`ϵ_{ab}`$ and $`r_{ab}`$ ($`N=1`$, $`N_a=0`$),

$`\dot{ϵ}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(S_{ab}ph_{ab}){\displaystyle \frac{D3}{D1}}Kϵ_{ab}r_{ab}+2(ϵϵ)_{ab},`$ (47)
$`\dot{r}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }Kh_{ab}+(D3)D_aD_bK\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{J}h_{ab}`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}𝑹ϵ_{ab}+2D^cD_{(a}ϵ_{b)c}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}ϵrh_{ab}.`$
From Eq.(47) along with Eqs.(9) and (13), we get

$`ϵ_{ab}\dot{}_{l,mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(S_{ab}ph_{ab})_{l,mn}\left(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\right)^{}ϵ_{ab}_{l,mn}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}}K_l^{}(l^{}ll^{\prime \prime })ϵ_{ab}_{l^{\prime \prime },mn}`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _n}}}ϵ_{ab}_{l,mk}\mu _{kn}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _m}}}ϵ_{ab}_{l,nk}\mu _{km}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ_{ab}_{k,mn}\mu _{kl}r_{ab}_{l,mn}2(ϵϵ)_{ab}_{l,mn}.`$
In the same manner, we get from Eq.(48),

$`r_{ab}\dot{}_{l,mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{r}_{ab}_{l,mn}\left(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\right)^{}r_{ab}_{l,mn}{\displaystyle \frac{5D}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}}K_l^{}(l^{}ll^{\prime \prime })r_{ab}_{l^{\prime \prime },mn}`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _n}}}r_{ab}_{l,mk}\mu _{kn}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _m}}}r_{ab}_{l,nk}\mu _{km}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}r_{ab}_{k,mn}\mu _{kl}4ϵ_{(a}^cr_{b)c}_{l,mn},`$
where

$`\dot{r}_{ab}_{l,mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}}\lambda _l^{}K_l^{}(l^{}ll^{\prime \prime })h_{ab}_{l^{\prime \prime },mn}{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}K_l^{}D_aD_bf_l^{}_{l,mn}`$ (51)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}}(\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{J})_l^{}(l^{}ll^{\prime \prime })h_{ab}_{l^{\prime \prime },mn}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}}𝑹_l^{}(l^{}ll^{\prime \prime })ϵ_{ab}_{l^{\prime \prime },mn}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{ab}_{l,mn}+2D^cD_{(a}ϵ_{b)c}_{l,mn}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l^{\prime \prime }}{}}(ϵr)_l^{}(l^{}ll^{\prime \prime })h_{ab}_{l^{\prime \prime },mn}.`$
For convenience, we also present the formulas Eq.(49) and Eq.(50) especially for $`l=0`$:

$`ϵ_{ab}\dot{}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(S_{ab}ph_{ab})_{mn}\left(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\right)^{}ϵ_{ab}_{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K_kϵ_{ab}_{k,mn}`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _n}}}ϵ_{ab}_{mk}\mu _{kn}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _m}}}ϵ_{ab}_{nk}\mu _{km}r_{ab}_{mn}`$
$`2(ϵϵ)_{ab}_{mn}.`$
$`r_{ab}\dot{}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{r}_{ab}_{mn}\left(\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\lambda _m\lambda _n}\right)^{}r_{ab}_{mn}{\displaystyle \frac{5D}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K_kr_{ab}_{k,mn}`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _n}}}r_{ab}_{mk}\mu _{kn}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{\lambda _m}}}r_{ab}_{nk}\mu _{km}`$
$`4ϵ_{(a}^cr_{b)c}_{mn},`$
where

$`\dot{r}_{ab}_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _kK_kh_{ab}_{k,mn}{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K_kD_aD_bf_k_{mn}`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{J})_kh_{ab}_{k,mn}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}𝑹_kϵ_{ab}_{k,mn}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{ab}_{mn}+2D^cD_{(a}ϵ_{b)c}_{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(ϵr)_kh_{ab}_{k,mn}.`$
Eqs. (34)-(36), (41) (or (42)), (43)-(3.3), and (49)-(51) are the fundamental equations for the investigation of the spectral evolution of the Universe.

They form hierarchy equations and we can continue to get equations for higher hierarchies. This hierarchical property is a reasonable consequence since we are looking at the global quantities, and not the local ones. In practical applications, thus, we need to make a suitable truncation. Typically, we get equations of higher order in $`ϵ_{ab}`$ and $`r_{ab}`$ when we continue to go into further hierarchies. We can often regard $`ϵ_{ab}`$, $`r_{ab}`$, and their spatial derivatives are small in cosmological applications. In such cases, the truncation becomes a reasonable approximation procedure.

## 4 Basic applications of the spectral equations

### 4.1 The Friedman-Robertson-Walker Universe

As a basic example, let us consider a closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe.

We set $`ϵ_{ab}=0`$ and $`r_{ab}=0`$. We also set $`\stackrel{}{J}=0`$. From Eqs. (45) and (46), we get $`𝑹_l=0`$ and $`K_l=0`$ ($`l0`$). Then, we get $`\rho _l=0`$ ($`l0`$) from Eq.(44), noting that $`(\mathrm{0\; 0}l)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}\delta _{0l}`$. Eq.(36) along with Eq.(41) imply that $`p_l=0`$ ($`l0`$), noting that $`\mu _{mn}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{mn}K_0/\sqrt{V}`$ in the present case (Eq.(3.2)).

Now, Eq.(34) with Eq.(43) yield

$$\dot{\lambda }_n=\frac{2}{D1}\lambda _n\frac{\dot{V}}{V},$$

thus,

$$\lambda _n(t)=\left(\frac{V(0)}{V(t)}\right)^{\frac{2}{D1}}\lambda _n(0).$$

It is a simple scaling behavior expected from the dimensionality of $`\lambda _n`$.

Noting that $`\mu _{l0}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{l0}K_0/\sqrt{V}`$ (Eq.(3.2)), we get from Eq.(3.3) for $`l=0`$ with Eq.(43),

$$\dot{𝑹}_0=\frac{5D}{2(D1)}\frac{\dot{V}}{V}𝑹_0.$$

Thus,

$$𝑹_0(t)=\left(\frac{V(0)}{V(t)}\right)^{\frac{5D}{2(D1)}}𝑹_0(0),$$

or, noting Eq.(31),

$$𝑹_{\mathrm{av}}(t)=\left(\frac{V(0)}{V(t)}\right)^{\frac{2}{D1}}𝑹_{\mathrm{av}}(0).$$

It is also a simple scaling behavior expected from the dimensionality of $`𝑹`$.

On the other hand, from Eq.(44) for $`l=0`$ with Eq.(43), we get

$$\frac{D2}{D1}\left(\frac{\dot{V}}{V}\right)^2+𝑹_{\mathrm{av}}\frac{1}{\alpha }\rho _{\mathrm{av}}2\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$

or in a more familiar form,

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{1}{(D1)(D2)}\frac{1}{\alpha }\rho _{\mathrm{av}}\frac{2}{(D1)(D2)}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$

where we introduced the scale factor $`a`$ as $`Va^{D1}`$ and the curvature index $`k:=𝑹_{\mathrm{av}}(0)a(0)^2`$.

It can be solved once the matter content is specified.

### 4.2 A universal formula for the spectral distance between two Universes that are geometrically close to each other

The spectral evolution equations developed in the previous sections are of essential significance for the study of spacetime physics along the line of the spectral representation of geometrical structures.

We have the spectral distance $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ as a measure of closeness between two spatial geometries $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ . It measures the difference between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ as the difference of “sounds” of them, i.e. the difference of the spectra.

Then we are given a basic arena for spacetime physics, i.e. the “space of all spaces” $`𝒮_N`$; it is basically a space of all compact Riemannian geometries equipped with $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ .

Since we now have the spectral evolution equations developed in the previous sections, we can investigate the time evolution of $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$. The fundamental importance of such an investigation becomes clear when we take $`𝒢`$ as the real Universe and $`𝒢^{}`$ as a model Universe which is expected to be “close” to $`𝒢`$ . There is no guarantee that the model Universe remains a good model for the real Universe in the future also . Stated in terms of the spectral distance, there is no guarantee that $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ remains small in the future. The detailed investigations along this line would be done separately. Here we only look at some basic features of the evolution of $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ when $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ are very close initially in $`𝒮_N`$.

In this subsection, we derive a universal formula for $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ when $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ are geometrically close in $`𝒮_N`$, which is valid independently of the detailed form of $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ nor the gravity theory. In the next subsection, we discuss its time evolution.

First, it is appropriate to recall basic settings of the spectral representation .

We set the eigenvalue problem on each manifold $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f=\lambda f,$$

then the set of eigenvalues (numbered in increasing order) is obtained; $`\{\lambda _m\}_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`𝒢`$ and $`\{\lambda _n^{}\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`𝒢^{}`$.

Now the spectral distance between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ is defined as

$$d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}\right),$$
(55)
where $`(x)`$ ($`x>0`$) is a smooth function which satisfies $`0`$, $`(1/x)=(x)`$, $`(y)>(x)`$ if $`y>x1`$ and $`(1)=0`$. Then, it follows that $`^{\prime \prime }(1)0`$. However, in order to let $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ detect a fine difference between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ when they are very close to each other in $`𝒮_N`$, we further postulate that $`^{\prime \prime }(1)>0`$. (See Eq. (59).)

In particular, it is convenient to choose as $``$, $`_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{x}+1/\sqrt{x})`$. Then we get

$$d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _n^{}}}\right).$$
(56)
It turns out that $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ does not satisfy the triangle inequality. However, it does not cause a serious problem. Let $`Riem`$ be the space of all $`(D1)`$-dimensional, compact Riemannian geometries without boundaries. Then it is proved that the space $`(Riem,d_N)/_{}`$, where $`d_N`$ is given by Eq.(56), is a metrizable space . (Here  indicates identification of isospectral manifolds .) It justifies to regard $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ as a distance, provided that we are careful when the triangle inequality matters in the argument.

The above property is shown in the following way. Since the breakdown of the triangle inequality turns out to be a mild one in a certain sense , it is expected that one can make a slight modification of $`_1`$ to recover the inequality. Indeed we can find $`_0(x):=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{x},1/\sqrt{x})`$ as a modification of $`_1`$. In this case, Eq.(55) becomes

$$\overline{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}},\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _n}{\lambda _n^{}}}).$$

It is easy to show that $`\overline{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ satisfies all of the axioms of distance, so that it is a distance. Now, one can show that $`(Riem,d_N)/_{}`$ and $`(Riem,\overline{d}_N)/_{}`$ are homeomorphic to each other. Thus, $`(Riem,d_N)/_{}`$ is a metrizable space since $`(Riem,\overline{d}_N)/_{}`$ is a metric space. Let $`𝒮_N`$ be a completion of $`(Riem,d_N)/_{}`$. The definition for $`d_N`$ has a more convenient form than the one for $`\overline{d}_N`$ since the latter includes $`max`$ symbol. Thus, in the actual applications, $`d_N`$ is more useful than $`\overline{d}_N`$. On the other hand, when we need to discuss mathematical properties of $`𝒮_N`$ precisely, $`\overline{d}_N`$ is appropriate.

Let us consider the situation that $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ possess the same topological structure and that they are very close in $`𝒮_N`$. One can imagine that $`𝒢^{}=(\mathrm{\Sigma },h^{})`$ represents the real Universe at some instant of time, and $`𝒢=(\mathrm{\Sigma },h)`$ is a model Universe corresponding to $`𝒢^{}=(\mathrm{\Sigma },h^{})`$. We introduce the difference in the spatial metric

$$\gamma _{ab}:=h_{ab}^{}h_{ab},$$
(57)
and we treat $`\gamma _{ab}`$ as a small quantity.

We regard the model Universe as a reference point, based on which we evaluate several quantities. In particular, we make use of the time-slicings of the model and investigate the time evolutions with respect to them.

Now, from Eq.(21), we get

$$\delta \mathrm{ln}\lambda _n=\frac{\lambda _n^{}\lambda _n}{\lambda _n}=\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n,$$
(58)
where $`\gamma :=h^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$.

Looking at Eq.(55), we see that

$$\left(\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}\right)=\left(1\left(\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2}^{\prime \prime }(1)\left(\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n\right)^2+O(\epsilon ^3).$$

Here we note that $`(1)=^{}(1)=0`$, and $`\epsilon `$ indicates a small quantity in the same order as $`\gamma `$.

Leaving only the leading term, we thus get

$$d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{2}^{\prime \prime }(1)\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n\right)^2.$$
(59)
Here we note the postulation $`^{\prime \prime }(1)>0`$.

It would be also helpful to view Eq.(59) as

$$d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{2}^{\prime \prime }(1)\stackrel{}{𝜸}\stackrel{}{𝜸},$$
(60)
where $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}`$ is a vector in $`𝑹^N`$ whose $`n`$-th component is $`\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n`$, and a standard Euclidean inner-product is implied.

Hence, we get a universal result on $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ when $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$ are very close in $`𝒮_N`$: The leading behavior of the spectral distance $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ is given by Eq.(59) (or Eq.(60)), irrespective of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor of the gravity theory.

In the case of Eq.(56), we have chosen as $``$, $`_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{x}+1/\sqrt{x})`$, hence $`^{\prime \prime }(1)=\frac{1}{8}`$. Thus, we get

$$d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{16}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n\right)^2,$$
(61)
or

$$d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{16}\stackrel{}{𝜸}\stackrel{}{𝜸},$$
(62)
where $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}`$ is the same vector as in Eq.(60).

### 4.3 Time evolution of a small geometrical discrepancy between the real and a model Universes

Here we investigate the time evolution of the spectral distance for the two ‘nearby’ Universes as described in the previous subsection. Taking the time derivative of the both sides of Eq.(56), we get

$$\dot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{4}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}1}{\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}+1}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _n^{}}{\lambda _n}\right)^{}.$$
(63)
Now Eq.(34) can be represented as

$$(\mathrm{ln}\lambda _n)^{}=\frac{2}{D1}\underset{l}{}(1+\frac{D3}{4}\frac{\lambda _l}{\lambda _n})K_l(lnn)2ϵ_{ab}_n.$$

In the cosmological problems, it is often useful to separate the term for $`l=0`$ from the terms for $`l1`$ in the summation like in the above equation: This separation is useful when the Universe is described by a homogeneous geometry plus small perturbations. Noting Eq.(43), we thus get

$$(\mathrm{ln}\lambda _n)^{}=2\left(\frac{1}{D1}\frac{\dot{V}}{V}+\frac{1}{D1}KK_{\mathrm{av}}_n\frac{D3}{4(D1)}\frac{1}{\lambda _n}\mathrm{\Delta }K_n+ϵ_{ab}_n\right).$$
(64)
Let us define

$`H:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{V}}{V}},`$
$`\iota _n:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}{\displaystyle \underset{l1}{}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _l}{\lambda _n}})K_l(lnn)`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}KK_{\mathrm{av}}_n{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{4(D1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _n}}\mathrm{\Delta }K_n,`$
$`\alpha _n:`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ab}_n.`$
Here $`H`$ is an analogous quantity to the Hubble constant; $`\iota _n`$ is attributed to the inhomogeneity while $`\alpha _n`$ is to the anisotropy of the geometry. Then, the formula (64) can be represented more concisely as

$$(\mathrm{ln}\lambda _n)^{}=2H_n,$$
(66)
where

$$H_n:=H+\iota _n+\alpha _n.$$
(67)
The quantity $`H_n`$ can be interpreted as the effective Hubble constant observed at the scale $`\lambda _n^{1/2}`$ since it determines the rate of change of $`\lambda _n`$. Thus, Eq.(67) describes the modification of the effective Hubble parameter at the scale $`\lambda _n^{1/2}`$ due to inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the Universe at that scale.

Leaving only the leading terms in Eq.(63) with the help of Eqs.(66) and (67), we thus get

$$\dot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯},$$
(68)
where $`\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}`$ denotes a vector in $`𝑹^N`$ whose $`n`$-th component is $`\delta H_n:=H_n^{}H_n`$.777 In this subsection, $`\delta Q`$ denotes the difference in a quantity $`Q`$ for two spaces $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$, defined as $`Q`$ for $`𝒢^{}`$ (the second entry of $`d_N(,)`$) minus $`Q`$ for $`𝒢`$ (the first entry of $`d_N(,)`$). Wherever necessary, we employ the notation $`\delta \{\}`$ (rather than $`\delta ()`$) to avoid any confusion with the $`\delta `$-function. On the other hand, from Eq.(66) with Eq.(58), we can derive $`\dot{\stackrel{}{𝜸}}=2\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}`$, which is compatible with Eqs.(62) and (68).

From Eq.(68), we get

$$\ddot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})=\frac{1}{2}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \dot{\stackrel{}{𝑯}}.$$
(69)
Let us introduce $`q_n:=(1+\frac{\dot{H}_n}{H_n^2})`$, which can be interpreted as the effective deceleration parameter at the scale $`\lambda _n^{1/2}`$. Then, $`\dot{H}_n=(1+q_n)H_n^2`$, so that

$$\delta \dot{H}_n=2(1+q_n)H_n\delta H_nH_n^2\delta q_n.$$
(70)
Since $`\delta \dot{H}_n`$ appears in Eq.(69) only in the form of $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \dot{\stackrel{}{𝑯}}`$, it suffices to estimate $`\delta \dot{H}_n`$ by leaving only the leading terms in Eq.(70). First, using Eq.(67), we note that

$$q_n(1\frac{2}{H}(\iota _n+\alpha _n))q\frac{2}{H}(\iota _n+\alpha _n)\frac{1}{H^2}(\dot{\iota _n}+\dot{\alpha }_n),$$

where $`q:=(1+\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2})`$.

Next, it is also straightforward to get estimations

$`(1+q_n)H_n\delta H_n`$ $``$ $`\left[(1+q)\{H(\iota _n+\alpha _n)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}(\dot{\iota _n}+\dot{\alpha _n})\right]\delta H+(1+q)H\delta \{\iota _n+\alpha _n\},`$
$`H_n^2\delta q_n`$ $``$ $`H^2\delta q+2\{(1+q)(\iota _n+\alpha _n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}(\dot{\iota _n}+\dot{\alpha _n})\}\delta H`$
$`2(1+q)H\delta \{\iota _n+\alpha _n\}\delta \{\dot{\iota _n}+\dot{\alpha _n}\}.`$
Looking at Eq.(70), we thus estimate

$$\delta \dot{H}_n\delta \{(1+q)H^2\}+\delta \{\iota _n+\alpha _n\dot{\}}.$$

Finally, we reach the estimation

$$\ddot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})\frac{1}{2}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}\frac{1}{4}(\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma _n)\delta \{(1+q)H^2\}+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \{\stackrel{}{𝜾}+\stackrel{}{𝜶}\dot{\}},$$
(71)
where $`\gamma _n:=\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n`$ is the $`n`$-th component of $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{𝜾}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝜶}`$ are vectors whose $`n`$-th components are $`\iota _n`$ and $`\alpha _n`$, respectively. We note once again the definition of $`\delta Q`$, the difference of $`Q`$ in $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$, in this subsection (see the footnote just after Eq.(68)). The difference in metric, $`\gamma _{ab}`$, is also defined in the same manner (Eq.(57)). Thus, Eq.(71) is symmetric in $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^{}`$, as it should be.

To make a detailed study, we need to investigate $`ϵ_{ab}\dot{}_n`$ and $`r_{ab}\dot{}_n`$ also. It is helpful to note that $`\mu _{mn}`$ in Eq.(3.2) gets simplified in the present case as

$`\mu _{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{V}}{V}}\delta _{mn}+O(\epsilon )`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}H\delta _{mn}+O(\epsilon ).`$
Now, we set $`m=n`$ in Eq.(52). First, let us omit the first and the last terms on the R.H.S. of Eq.(52). Next, we leave only the $`k=0`$ part in the third term, which gives $`\frac{2}{D1}\frac{\dot{V}}{V}ϵ_{ab}_n`$ $`=2Hϵ_{ab}_n`$ with the help of Eq.(43). Next, with the help of Eq.(72), the fourth and the fifth terms on the R.H.S. in Eq.(52) are approximated together as $`\frac{\dot{V}}{V}ϵ_{ab}_n`$ $`=(D1)Hϵ_{ab}_n`$. Finally, with the help of Eqs.(66) and (67), the second term in Eq.(52) yields $`2Hϵ_{ab}_n`$ within the order of magnitude discussed now. Thus, we estimate

$$ϵ_{ab}\dot{}_n(D1)Hϵ_{ab}_nr_{ab}_n.$$
(73)
In a similar manner, we can estimate $`r_{ab}\dot{}_n`$ by Eqs.(53) and (54). We set $`m=n`$ in these equations. Among all the terms in Eq.(54), it is a reasonable approximation to leave only the $`k=0`$ part of the fourth term on the R.H.S., which gives $`\frac{2}{D1}\frac{𝑹_0}{\sqrt{V}}ϵ_{ab}_n`$. (This approximation is especially effective when we discuss the large-scale behaviors (low-lying spectra) such as $`\lambda _n^{1/2}>>c_s\tau `$, where $`c_s`$ is the sound velocity of the matter and $`\tau `$ is the typical cosmological time-scale of interest.) In Eq.(53), we omit the last term on the R.H.S. The third term can be estimated as $`\frac{5D}{D1}\frac{\dot{V}}{V}r_{ab}_n`$ $`=(5D)Hr_{ab}_n`$, while the fourth and the fifth terms together are estimated as $`\frac{\dot{V}}{V}r_{ab}_n`$ $`=(D1)Hr_{ab}_n`$. Finally, the second term yields $`2Hr_{ab}_n`$. Thus, we can estimate as

$$r_{ab}\dot{}_n2Hr_{ab}_n\frac{2}{D1}𝑹_{\mathrm{av}}ϵ_{ab}_n.$$
(74)
Now, we can estimate $`\ddot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ further based on Eq.(71). First, $`\dot{\alpha _n}`$ is given by Eq.(73),

$$\dot{\alpha _n}(D1)H\alpha _nr_{ab}_n.$$
(75)
Second, regarding $`\dot{\iota _n}`$, we go back to the definition of $`\iota _n`$ (Eq.(65)). With the help of Eqs.(35), (36), (41), (66) and (72), it is straightforward to get estimations

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _l}{\lambda _n}}\right)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`O(\epsilon ),`$
$`(lnn\dot{)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2}}H(lnn)+O(\epsilon ),`$
$`\dot{K}_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5D}{2}}HK_l{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{2(D2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}(\rho _l+{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{D3}}p_l)+O(\epsilon ^2).`$
Thus we get

$$\dot{\iota _n}2H\iota _n\frac{D3}{2(D2)}\frac{1}{\alpha }_n,$$
(76)
where

$$_n:=\frac{1}{D1}\{\rho \rho _{\mathrm{av}}_n+\frac{D1}{D3}pp_{\mathrm{av}}_n\}\frac{D3}{4(D1)}\frac{1}{\lambda _n}\{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _n+\frac{D1}{D3}\mathrm{\Delta }p_n\}.$$

With the help of Eqs.(75) and (76), Eq.(71) can be expressed as

$`\ddot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\gamma _n)\delta \{(1+q)H^2\}`$ (77)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \left\{2H\stackrel{}{𝜾}+(D1)H\stackrel{}{𝜶}+\stackrel{}{𝒄}+{\displaystyle \frac{(D3)}{2(D2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\stackrel{}{𝓜}\right\},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{𝒄}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝓜}`$ are vectors whose $`n`$-th components are, respectively, $`r_{ab}_n`$ and $`_n`$.

Eqs. (62), (68) and (77) give us an idea on the factors that influence the validity of a cosmological model.

First, a particular combination $`\gamma _n:=\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n`$ determines the spectral distance $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$. Second, $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}`$ determines the rate of change of $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$, $`\dot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$. Whether $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ decreases or not is governed by the relative directions of $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}`$ in $`𝑹^N`$: One of the criteria for a good cosmological model would be that it makes the quantity $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}`$ negative, or non-negative and small at least. Third, the acceleration, $`\ddot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ is determined by several factors: The difference in the effective Hubble parameter, $`\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}`$, has always a repulsive effect. Even though $`\stackrel{}{𝜸}=0`$ initially, so that $`d_N=\dot{d}_N=0`$ initially, the spectral distance increases if $`\delta \stackrel{}{𝑯}0`$. It is required that the other terms in Eq.(77) as a whole should be negative or at least non-negative and small in order to get a good model.

Let $`\tau `$ be the typical time-scale with which we want to discuss the evolution of the Universe. Then we can summarize the criteria for a good cosmological model as follows:

(C1) $`d_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ is small.

(C2) $`\tau \dot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ is negative, or at least, non-negative and small.

(C3) $`\tau ^2\ddot{d}_N(𝒢,𝒢^{})`$ is negative, or at least, non-negative and small.

## 5 Discussion

In this paper, we have derived the spectral evolution equations of the Universe. A set of these equations forms one of the essential elements of the general scheme of spectral representation : Now we have a space of all spaces , $`𝒮_N`$, equipped with the spectral distance , $`d_N`$, and the evolution equations on $`𝒮_N`$.

The spectral evolution equations are expected to be useful for studying the time evolution of the global geometrical structures of the Universe, since the spectra are especially suitable for describing global properties of a space.

The significance of the spectral evolution equations becomes prominent in situations when we need to handle a set of spaces rather than just one space, e.g. the comparison between the real Universe and its model, the relation between the underlying topological structures and its low energy behavior (scale-dependent topology ), and so on.

As one of the important applications of the spectral evolution equations, we can now investigate a fundamental problem in cosmology: Whether cosmology is possible, viz. under what conditions and to what extent a model reflects the real spacetime faithfully (“The averaging/model-fitting problem in cosmology ).

As the first step in this direction, we have investigated in §4 the spectral distance between two very close Universes and its time evolution. It is interesting that the spectral distance in this situation is universally determined by the quantity $`\gamma _n:=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }_{ab}_n`$$`+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _n`$ at each scale $`n`$, irrespective of the detailed form of the spectral distance nor the gravity theory (Eq.(60)). Even though it is a special case when two geometries are very close to each other in $`𝒮_N`$, this result would still provide us with a basic understanding about what kind of geometrical discrepancies would matter in the context of the validity of a cosmological model for the real Universe. More systematic studies along this line are certainly required, which would be presented elsewhere .

Finally, we make some remarks on the spectral scheme in general. It is a different way of viewing geometrical structures from the standard way of describing them. In this scheme, the geometrical information on a space is represented by a collection of the whole of the spectral information measured by all available elliptic operators on the space . In ordinary cosmological observations, we use a particular observational apparatus so that we naturally get only a portion of the whole geometrical information on the space, according to which apparatus (or mathematically, which elliptic operators corresponding to the apparatus) has been utilized. Thus, it can happen that the geometry of the space cannot be fully identified by using just a single apparatus (some particular elliptic operators). This consideration provides us with a physical interpretation of the isospectral manifolds. From this viewpoint, there is no surprise in the existence of the isospectral manifolds. The spectral scheme describes the scale- and apparatus-dependent geometry of a space in a natural manner. According to what this scheme suggests us, there is no absolute model for the real Universe, rather a good model for reality depends on the observational scale which we are interested in, and on the observational apparatus which we rely on. The smaller scale we pay attention to and the more variety of apparatus we utilize, the closer the model Universe constructed from the data approaches the real Universe.

The author thanks the Ministry of Education, the Government of Japan for financial support. He also thanks Inamori Foundation, Japan for encouragement as well as financial support.

APPENDIX

## Appendix A The zero mode

In our theory, the zero-mode $`f_0`$ of the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is more important than in a usual mathematical context: It is directly related to the spatial volume (Eq.(A2) below), so that it is a dynamical object just as other modes. Hence it is essential to note the basic facts on the zero-mode here for the development of our theory.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_0=0`$, it follows that $`0=f_0\mathrm{\Delta }f_0\sqrt{}=\left(f_0\right)^2\sqrt{}`$, implying that $`_af_00`$. Thus,

The zero-mode of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a constant function, hence there is no degeneracy. (A1)
Now, from Eq.(1) for $`m=n=0`$, it follows that $`1=(f_0,f_0)=f_0^2V`$ on account of (A1). Here $`V`$ is the $`(D1)`$-volume of the space. Thus888 Here we choose the positive squre-root. There is no essential difference even when we choose the negative squre-root instead. For instance, Eq.(17) in §2 remains same.

$$f_0=1/\sqrt{V}.$$
(A2)
Hence $`f_0\sqrt{}=\sqrt{V}`$. From Eq.(1) for $`n=0`$ with Eq.(A2), we get

$$f_m\sqrt{}=\sqrt{V}\delta _{m0}.$$
(A3)
Eq.(A2) can be represented as $`f_0=(\sqrt{})^{1/2}`$. Taking the variation of the both sides of this equation, we easily get $`\delta f_0=\frac{1}{4V^{3/2}}g\delta g\sqrt{}`$. With the help of Eq.(A2), we thus get

$$\delta f_0=\frac{1}{4}g\delta g__0f_0.$$
(A4)
This formula is of the fundamental importance to develop the perturbation theory suitable for our purpose (see Appendix B and §§2.3).

On the other hand, taking the variation of Eq.(A2) directly, we obtain

$$\delta f_0=\frac{1}{2}V^{3/2}\delta V.$$
(A5)
Comparing Eqs.(A4) and (A5) to each other, we get Eq.(17) in §2,

$$g\delta g__0=2\frac{\delta V}{V}.$$

## Appendix B Basic results of the perturbation theory

The perturbation theory is helpful to to analyze the dynamical evolution of the spectra $`\{\lambda _n\}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$. In the present case, however, we need to pay special attentions to the zero-mode as is explained in Appendix A. We here derive basic formulas of the perturbation theory, taking care of the zero-mode. (Up to Eq.(B7) below, we mostly follow the argument in Ref..)

We consider an Hermitian operator999 It can also be regarded as an Hermitian-operator-valued function of $`\alpha `$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameterized by $`\alpha `$ which is analytic in $`\alpha `$ in the neighborhood of $`\alpha =0`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1+\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\mathrm{}`$ (B1)
$`=:`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\alpha \delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }.`$
The operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be arbitrary although we choose it to be the Laplacian in the application.

Let $`\{(\lambda _n^{(\alpha )},|n_\alpha )\}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{(\lambda _n^{(0)},|n^{(0)})\}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of spectra and eigenvectors for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, respectively:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }|n_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _n^{(\alpha )}|n_\alpha ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0|n^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _n^{(0)}|n^{(0)}.`$ (B2)
We understand that $`\{|n^{(0)}\}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ is the normalized set of eigenvectors. On the other hand, we do not specify the normalization of $`\{|n_\alpha \}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ at this stage (see after Eq.(B7) below).

We assume that both $`\lambda _n^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`|n_\alpha `$ are analytic in $`\alpha `$ in the neighborhood of $`\alpha =0`$:

$`\lambda _n^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _n^{(0)}+\alpha \lambda _n^{(1)}+\alpha ^2\lambda _n^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`=:`$ $`\lambda _n^{(0)}+\alpha \delta _\alpha \lambda _n,`$
$`|n_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`|n^{(0)}+\alpha |n^{(1)}+\alpha ^2|n^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.`$ (B3)
We introduce a projection operator $`P_n`$ which projects any vector to the sector perpendicular to $`|n^{(0)}`$:

$$P_n:=1|n^{(0)}n^{(0)}|=\underset{kn}{}|k^{(0)}k^{(0)}|.$$
(B4)
With the help of Eqs.(B1) and (B3), the first equation in (B2) can be represented as

$$(\lambda _n^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_0)|n_\alpha =\alpha (\delta _\alpha \lambda _n+\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta })|n_\alpha .$$
(B5)
The L.H.S. vanishes when multiplied by $`n^{(0)}|`$, indicating that the R.H.S. of Eq.(B5) is perpendicular to $`|n^{(0)}`$. Thus, Eq.(B5) can be represented as

$$(\lambda _n^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_0)|n_\alpha =\alpha P_n(\delta _\alpha \lambda _n+\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta })|n_\alpha $$
(B6)
Due to the presence of $`P_n`$, which removes the zero-mode of the operator $`\lambda _n^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, Eq.(B6) can be expressed as

$$|n_\alpha =C_n(\alpha )|n^{(0)}\frac{\alpha }{\lambda _n^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_0}P_n(\delta _\alpha \lambda _n+\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta })|n_\alpha .$$
(B7)
From here, we need to proceed in a different way from the standard perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. Noting that $`\{|n_\alpha \}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ forms an orthogonal set of bases due to Eq.(B2), we can interpret $`C_n(\alpha )=n^{(0)}|n_\alpha `$ as the factor characterizing the normalization of $`\{|n_\alpha \}_{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}}`$. It should be analytic in $`\alpha `$ around $`\alpha =0`$ with $`C(\alpha )1`$ as $`\alpha 0`$:

$$C_n(\alpha )=1+\alpha c_n^{(1)}+\alpha ^2c_n^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(B8)
In the standard perturbation theory in quantum mechanics, the inner-product of the states is not perturbed. Thus any normalized state $`|A`$ and its perturbation $`\delta |A`$ are always perpendicular to each other, so that usually we can set $`C_n(\alpha )1`$ . In our case, on the other hand, the inner-product itself is perturbed through the integral-measure $`\sqrt{}`$, when we regard $`(f_m,f_n)`$ in Eq.(1) as the inner-product of the “states” $`f_m`$ and $`f_n`$. Thus we should tread $`C_n(\alpha )`$ with care (see the argument after Eq.(8)).

Since $`n^{(0)}|(\delta _\alpha \lambda _n+\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta })|n_\alpha =0`$, we get

$$C_n(\alpha )\delta _\alpha \lambda _n=n^{(0)}|\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }|n_\alpha .$$
(B9)
Eq.(B9) indicates that the both sides should match as analytic functions around $`\alpha =0`$. Hence, taking into account Eqs.(B1), (B3) and (B8), we get

$`\lambda _n^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`n^{(0)}|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|n^{(0)},`$
$`\lambda _n^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`n^{(0)}|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|n^{(1)}n^{(0)}|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|n^{(0)}c_n^{(1)}\lambda _n^{(1)},`$ (B10)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\lambda _n^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`n^{(0)}|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|n^{(l1)}n^{(0)}|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|n^{(l2)}\mathrm{}n^{(0)}|\mathrm{\Delta }_l|n^{(0)}`$
$`c_n^{(l1)}\lambda _n^{(1)}c_n^{(l2)}\lambda _n^{(2)}\mathrm{}c_n^{(1)}\lambda _n^{(l1)},`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`.`$
Now, the R.H.S. of the second equation in (B3) and the R.H.S. of Eq.(B7) should match as vector-valued analytic functions around $`\alpha =0`$. Hence, taking into account Eq.(B8), we get

$`|n^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|k^{(0)}\mu _{kn}^{(1)},`$
$`|n^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|k^{(0)}\mu _{kn}^{(2)},`$ (B11)
where

$`\mu _{mn}^{(1)}`$ $`:=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1_{mn}}{\lambda _m^{(0)}\lambda _n^{(0)}}\hfill & \text{for}mn\hfill \\ c_n^{(1)}\hfill & \text{for}m=n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (B14)
$`\mu _{mn}^{(2)}`$ $`:=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\lambda _m^{(0)}\lambda _n^{(0)}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2_{mn}+\lambda _n^{(1)}\mu _{mn}^{(1)}+_k\mathrm{\Delta }_1_{mk}\mu _{kn}^{(1)}\right)\hfill & \text{for}mn\hfill \\ c_n^{(2)}\hfill & \text{for}m=n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (B17)
We note that Eq.(B9) can be expressed as

$$\delta _\alpha \lambda _n=\frac{n^{(0)}|\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }|n_\alpha }{n^{(0)}|n_\alpha }.$$
(B18)
Thus $`\delta _\alpha \lambda _n`$ should be independent of the normalization factor $`C_n(\alpha )`$. For example, with the help of Eq.(B11), the formula for $`\lambda _n^{(2)}`$ in Eq.(B10) turns out to be

$`\lambda _n^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kn}{}}(\lambda _n\lambda _k)\mu _{nk}^{(1)}\mu _{kn}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_2_n`$ (B19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kn}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1_{nk}\mathrm{\Delta }_1_{kn}}{\lambda _k^{(0)}\lambda _n^{(0)}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_2_n,`$
which is independent of $`c_n^{(l)}`$ ($`l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$).

Mostly $`\alpha `$ is identified with a time-function $`t`$ in this paper. When we interpret the variation $`\delta Q`$ of any quantity $`Q`$ to be a derivative of a corresponding function $`Q(\alpha )`$ at $`\alpha =0`$, only the terms of order $`O(\alpha )`$ (quantities with superscript indices $`(0)`$ and $`(1)`$) in the above formulas are important.


format: text

text:
# Asynchronous accelerator with RFQ injection for active longitudinal compression of accelerated bunches

## 1 Introduction

According to its principle of operation, the asynchronous accelerator (Asynchronac) can be viewed to be a machine in between the following two cases. The Asynchronac can be viewed as a linear accelerator wrapped into a spiral, in which the harmonic number of the acceleration voltage and the equilibrium phase of a bunch relative to the acceleration field can be changed independently. Also, it can be viewed as a separate orbit cyclotron (SOC)  and an asynchronous cyclotron, which has been described earlier .

It is simpler to present the concept of the Asynchronac as a modification of the parameters and the operating mode of a separate orbit cyclotron, without changing its structure (see $`Figure1`$). If $`R`$, the radius and $`f`$, the acceleration voltage frequency in a SOC are selected to be large, such that $`q`$, the harmonic number between acceleration cavities is a large integer at injection:

$$q=\frac{h}{N_c}=\frac{2\pi Rf_{rf}}{N_cV}$$
(1)
(where, $`N_c`$ is the number of resonators in a cyclotron stage and $`V`$ is the speed of particles), $`q`$ would decrease during acceleration as the speed of particles increased, presenting the following possibilities.

First, it is possible to restrict the increase of radii from injection to ejection orbits, by not limiting the increase of the average radius of the machine. Second, it becomes possible to reduce the strength of the bending magnetic fields without restrictions. Third, it is possible to increase the length of drift spaces between bending magnets. And fourth, it becomes possible to independently set the RF equilibrium phase during the acceleration process.

Thus, the creation of non-isochronous or asynchronous mode of SOC operation is provided by having the inter-cavity harmonic number, $`q`$ discretely change on integer values as the beam transits through the sectors and turns. By modifying the magnetic path length in the sectors the hopping of integer $`q`$ values is accomplished. These are the modifications of the parameters and the operating mode of a separate orbit cyclotron, which convert it to become an Asynchronac, with additional new useful qualities. One such important quality is now the ability to axially compress and thus to monochromatize the accelerated proton or ion beam bunches.

Only at low energies rapid changes occur in the speed of particles. Because it is now possible to hop over integer values of $`q`$ in a reasonably sized accelerator radius, the Asynchronac concept can best be applied at energies below $`100`$ $`MeV`$, to produce average beam currents in the hundreds of $`mA`$. Such accelerators, in addition to their stand-alone use for specific applications, can be more useful as the initial injector stage for the production of intense bunches, which are injected into higher energy proton accelerators, such as synchrotrons, linacs or cyclotrons, to produce high and super-high energy intense beams.

In the present study a valuable implementation of the Asynchronac concept is based on the multiple use of modern RFQ linacs (generating large currents at small energy spread) .

## 2 Conditions to creat bunch compression in the asynchronac

The creation of bunch compression in an Asynchronac is made possible by the inherently available independent setting of the RF acceleration equilibrium phase, from one resonator to another. In this case, the continuous differential equation for synchrotron oscillations does not apply. Consequently, the value of the equilibrium phase in each resonator is determined by the expression:

$$\mathrm{cos}\phi _e=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }E_s\pm \mathrm{\Delta }E_r}{2U_nT_z\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi }}$$
(2)
In equation (2) $`\phi _e`$ is the acceleration phase for the synchronous particle in a bunch and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$ is the half width of the natural energy spread of particles, induced in a bunch, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_r`$ is the full width of the desired energy spread to be induced in a bunch as it passes through the periodic resonators.

In an injected bunch, a particle having a higher energy than the energy of the synchronous particle is found normally at the head of the bunch and those having lower energy than the central one are normally at the tail. For this normal case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_r`$ is used with the plus sign in equation (2). However, for the reverse situation where particles having higher energy than the synchronous particle appear at the tail of the bunch, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_r`$ in equation (2) is used with the minus sign.

$`U_n`$ is the amplitude of the acceleration voltage in the n-th resonator. Using electrical and mechanical methods to regulate each cavity channel, the details of which will be described in a separate paper, the acceleration field in any n-th sector resonator’s particle orbit channel can be independently tuned. In equation (2) $`2\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the full phase width of a bunch and $`T_z`$ is the transit-time factor determined by

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/2}$$
(3)
where,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2\pi f_{rf}L_{gap}}{\beta c}$$
(4)
$`f_{fr}`$ is the frequency of the acceleration field in resonators, $`L_{gap}`$ is the full acceleration gap in resonators, $`\beta `$ is the relativistic velocity factor, $`c`$ is the speed of light. Normally $`T_z`$ can be maintained at a constant value if the acceleration gap in a resonator is increased in proportion to the speed of the accelerated beam, which in turn reduces the need to increase the amplitude of the acceleration voltage $`U_n`$.

The energy gain of a central particle in the bunch $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_e`$ after exiting a resonator, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_e=U_nT_z\mathrm{sin}\phi _e$$
(5)
The energy gain for an edge particle, $`a`$, located at the head of the bunch and an edge particle, $`b`$, located at the tail of the bunch are determined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_a=U_nT_z\mathrm{sin}(\phi \mathrm{\Psi })$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_b=U_nT_z\mathrm{sin}(\phi +\mathrm{\Psi })$$
(7)
The equilibrium phase for acceleration is set within the limits of

$$0<\phi _e<(\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Psi })$$
(8)
so that the phase of off-center particles always remains below $`\pi /2`$, and a Gaussian bunch distribution is maintained.

The bunch duration $`\tau _f`$ at the end of any sector (at the space located between two adjacent resonators) is given by

$$\tau _f=\tau _s+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau $$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\frac{S_s}{c}(\frac{1}{\beta _b}\frac{1}{\beta _a})$$
(10)
where $`\tau =\mathrm{\Psi }T/\pi `$, $`S_s`$ is the orbital path length of particles in the sector and $`T`$ is the RF period duration.

In equation (10) if a positive sign is obtained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$, which is when $`\beta _a>\beta _b`$, this describes bunch elongation and an increase in $`\tau _f`$, and if a negative sign is obtained, it describes axial bunch compression, with a corresponding decrease in the value of $`\tau _f`$.

The last case is possible only for the reverse particle configuration, which is when $`\beta _a<\beta _b`$. Here the normal positioning of particles in a bunch is altered. The particles $`a`$, at the head of a bunch, now have smaller energy with respect to particles at the center and the tail, a second condition that supports bunch compression to occur.

If in equation (9) a negative sign is obtained for $`\tau _f`$, it means that over-compression has occurred, after which the normal distribution of particles in a bunch will be restored.

If in a bunch, conditions are found by the proper selection of the equilibrium phase to constantly support the reverse particle distribution, the bunch duration will constantly decrease and overcome the space charge effect, which drives the elongation and transverse expansion of the bunch.

From equation (10) it is evident that to obtain large and negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ it is necessary to have large sector path lengths, $`S_s`$ and a large negative difference in the reciprocals of $`\beta `$. These are the third and fourth conditions to achieve bunch compression in the Asynchronac.

The values of beam injection energy $`E_i`$, initial energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{s,i}`$, injected beam emittance, bunch duration $`\tau _{s,i}`$, the injection radius $`R_i`$, the number of acceleration cavities $`N_c`$, the amplitude of acceleration voltage $`U_n`$ and the RF frequency $`f_{rf}`$, are selected during the conceptual design of the accelerator, based on various technical feasibility considerations. These parameters must $`\phi _e`$ selected beforehand, based on the simultaneous solution of equations (9), (10), (5) and (2), to determine the required value of the acceleration equilibrium phase $`\phi _e`$, so that it produces bunch compression in a given sector and a specific orbital turn.

However, the analytical solutions of the combined equations appear sufficiently cumbersome. Consequently, these cannot be reproduced here, but are found in the computer codes for the calculation and optimization of these parameters.

The control algorithm for the steering of bunches from one sector to the other in the Asynchronac is as follows. As a function of the measured energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{s,i}`$ of the injected beam, the duration of bunches $`\tau _i`$, the design value of the mean path length of the beam in the first sector $`S_{s1}`$ and the selected RF acceleration voltage in the first resonator, the RF phase is set, such that an equilibrium phase $`\phi _e`$ is produced on the rising side of the acceleration voltage, which after the passage of a bunch in the first resonator will cause at once the inversion of particles to occur.

Also, this particle inversion must be sufficiently intense, to reduce the duration of bunches $`\tau _{f1}`$ close to zero at the end of the beam orbit in the first sector. Thus, there are two cases, one which conserves the inverted distribution, and the other which induces over-compression and then restores the normal distribution of particles in a bunch.

For the first case, to obtain a monoenergetic beam in the follow-on second sector, it is necessary to adjust the path length of particles in the first sector $`S_{s1}`$ and to set the equilibrium phase in the second resonator, so that the acceleration takes place on the falling side of the RF field. For the second case, the rising side of the RF voltage is used to obtain a beam of zero energy spread. In this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$ in equation (2) takes on a negative sign and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_r`$ is set to zero. In the desired case of preserving inverse distribution of particles, it is necessary to work only on the rising side of the RF acceleration field. The choices are determined by the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$.

Hence, at the start of the second sector the beam will be monoenergetic and have a bunch length equal to $`\tau _{f1}`$, and at the end of the sector the bunch duration $`\tau _{f2}`$ will increase due to the space charge effect. At the same time this provides the possibility to estimate the effect experimentally.

The equilibrium phase at the third resonator must be set such that the acceleration occurs again on the rising side of the RF voltage, to obtain an inverse particle distribution in bunches, so that at the end of the third sector the bunch duration $`\tau _{f3}`$ reduces again to almost zero. Thus, the process repeats itself, with and without alternating the acceleration mode on the rising and falling side of the RF voltage. For a more graphic presentation the numerical modeling in the following section is provided.

The path length of particles in sectors is set by the parameters of the bending magnetic system, which essentially must change from sector to sector, to provide the desired values of $`q`$ and $`\phi _e`$. To have the possibility of precise tuning and to relieve the maintenance of different mechanical tolerances of the accelerator components and their alignment, we propose to place in the sectors different correction elements. This is in addition to the magnetic lenses for transverse focusing of the beam and a number of beam monitors. In particular, wiggler type magnets will be installed in the straight sections to correct the path length of particles. Finally, evaluations show that in having large beam orbit separation steps and in the other features of the Asynchronac, the mechanical tolerances of accelerator elements and their alignment are relatively relaxed, in the order of $`10^3`$.

The important relaxation of tolerances in the Asynchronac is one of its main advantages, in comparison to other similar accelerator structures, namely, as compared with the isochronous separate orbit cyclotrons . In these the necessity of strictly maintaining the isochronism of particle motion reduces to having tight tolerances, which in practice are difficult to implement. Other important advantages are due to the features of longitudinal bunch compression and strong transverse focusing. As such, it is possible to consider the acceleration of bunches at an equilibrium phase close to $`90^0`$, which in turn, increases the efficiency of acceleration, decreases the number of turns, decreases the beam losses, and increases the number of accelerated particles in bunches.

Basically, the Asynchronac’s deficiency is the uniqueness or unprecedented nature of the sector bending magnetic system. This complicates the standardization of their manufacture and tuning, and somewhat increases the initial commissioning time and manufacturing cost of the accelerator. However, some technical innovations already made, essentially facilitate the solution of these problems. This concern, the fabrication of magnet yokes from iron sheets with the ability to mechanically change the magnetic lengths and the remote control of the magnetic alignment in each sector and turn. The individual feeding of the DC bending magnets and partially the magnetic focusing lenses is straightforward to implement, using modern electronics and computers.

The issues of beam transverse focusing in this study are not considered, since known standard solutions can be utilized, as normally found in strong focusing synchrotrons. In particular, the separate function periodic magnetic structure can be of the FODO type. In the Asynchronac the main difference will be the possibility of having a slowly changing betatron oscillation frequency, in going from one period to another. This will allow to compensate the frequency shift of these oscillations, which is due to different effects, including the space charge effect.

## 3 Configuring RFQ beams for injection into cyclotron

The method of forming short duration bunches from modern high frequency RFQ’s, which produce large current and small energy spread beams, can be modified to produce longer duration bunches at longer inter-bunch spacing, that becomes acceptable for injection in the lower frequency Asynchronac. This technique is based on time compressing the RFQ-produced beam, in which the compression is completed downsteam, at the point of injection into the Asynchronac, as described in $`Figure2(a)`$. $`Figure2(b)`$ shows the resulting single longer bunch produced from a train of shorter RFQ-produced bunches.

Our proposed scheme to produce the required beam compression is as follows. RFQ-produced bunches are initially steering in a RF deflector with a saw-tooth time varying voltage. The saw-tooth period is equal to the period of the Asynchronac’s driving RF frequency. The sequentially more and more deflected bunches pass through a $`180^0`$ shaping magnet with different path lengths, as seen in $`Figure2(a)`$. After which all RFQ bunches within the saw-tooth period coincide at the time focal point, producing full compression of the bunch train into a single longer bunch, at the injection point of the Asynchronac. The RF deflector and the injection point of the Asynchronac are located at conjugate points about the $`180^0`$ shaping magnet.

If the duration of the short bunches in a RFQ is designated by $`\tau _{RFQ}`$ and the period between RFQ bunches is $`T_{RFQ}`$, the time-compression of the bunch train produces a single longer bunch $`\tau _{cyc}`$ for injection into the Asynchronac, given by

$$\tau _{cyc}=m\tau _{RFG}$$
(11)
where the period between injected bunches will be

$$T_{cyc}=mT_{RFG}$$
(12)
in which m is the number of RFQ bunches in a train length equal to the period of the driving saw-tooth ramped voltage.

The path length of any k-th bunch in the train, starting from the RF deflector up the time-focused injection point of all the idealized paths, is obtained by

$$L_k=2[\frac{\text{a}}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _k}+R(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _k+\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _k)\text{a}tg\alpha _k+b]$$
(13)
under the conditions of

$$R(\text{a}tg\alpha _{\mathrm{max}})\text{ }and\text{ }b(R\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}})$$
(14)
The significance of the quantities $`R`$, a, $`b`$, $`\alpha `$ are exhibited in the geometry of $`Figure2(a)`$.

The maximum path length of particles will be

$$L_{\mathrm{max}}=2[\text{a}+b+(\frac{\pi R}{2})]$$
(15)
while the minimum path length is

$$L_{\mathrm{min}}=2[\frac{\text{a}}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}}+R(\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}})]$$
(16)
The separation of maximum and minimum path lengths, under the optimum condition of

$$R=\text{a}tg\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}\text{ }and\text{ }b=R\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}$$
(17)
will be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_{\mathrm{max}}=2R[ctg\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}+\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}co\mathrm{sec}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}]$$
(18)
However, from primary considerations, the separation of maximum and minimum path lengths is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_{\mathrm{max}}=\beta cT_{cyc}$$
(19)
Knowing the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ from equation (19) and inverting equation (18) produces the optimal turning radius $`R_{tr}`$ of beam tracks in the time compression shaping magnet, whereby the overall dimensions and the magnetic field strength are obtained. Thus, the optimum bending radius is given by

$$R_{tr}=\frac{0.5\mathrm{\Delta }L_{\mathrm{max}}}{ctg\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{cos}ec\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}+\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}}$$
(20)
## 4 Results of numerical calculations

A numerical example is worked out to present the key performance features and to indicate a rough cost estimate of the Asychronac. The following parameters are used in the calculation of the numerical example accelerator model. The RFQ linac’s RF system operates at $`350`$ $`MHz`$, producing a proton beam of $`2.0`$ $`MeV`$ energy, an energy spread of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s=2\%`$ and a CW current of up to $`100`$ $`mA`$. The frequency of the acceleration voltage in the Asynchronac is chosen to be $`50`$ $`MHz`$, i.e. to have a seven-fold difference in the frequencies of the acceleration fields, between the RFQ and the Asynchronac. This means that the number of RFQ bunches to be compressed into a single bunch is $`m=7`$.

However, in our example calculation, in order to be able to use two funneled RFQ’s for injection, we have assumed 14 bunches to be compressed into a single bunch for injection, and for the maximum steering angle of the RF deflector, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}=20^0`$ is selected.

Whereby, the following parameter values are obtained

$`\tau _{cyc}=4.0ns`$ $`T_{cyc}=40.0ns`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{max}=78.2cm`$

$`R35.15cm`$ $`b33.0cm`$ a$`=96.6cm`$

The total maximal path length including the magnetic shaping structure will be $`330`$ $`cm`$, and the track length up to the middle of the first resonator will be approximately $`4.4`$ $`m`$. The duration of bunches at the end of the total path length will increase due to the beam’s energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$, by approximately $`2.2`$ $`ns`$, so that the bunch length in the first resonator of the Asynchronac will be

$`\tau _{cyc}=4.0+2.2=6.2ns`$

In the given example of the Asynchronac, operating at a RF acceleration frequency of $`50`$ $`MHz`$, the inter-bunch separation is $`T_{cyc}=20`$ $`ns`$. To match with this spacing, the use of two RFQ’s will be required, each injecting at an inter-bunch spacing of $`40`$ $`ns`$, which when initially combined in a RFQ funnel , will yield the required $`20`$ $`ns`$ inter-bunch spacing.

Incidentally, the Asynchronac geometry permits further increasing the number of injector RFQ linacs in a manner analogous to the conventional method of multi-turn injection. RFQ’s with own bunch-train compressors can inject beams at each sector of the first or subsequent turn. However, each must have a different injected beam energy that matches the orbit’s energy at the point of injection. Thus, successive RFQ’s must have correspondingly higher beam energies.

The bunch-train-compressed beam from a RFQ injector, through the $`180^0`$ bending magnet enters the Asynchronac’s first resonator. $`Figure`$ $`1`$ schematically depicts the Asynchronac structure and the beam orbits, only for the central particles of the first three turns. The orbit radius at injection is $`R_i=3.0m`$, the orbit-to-orbit separation is $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=25cm`$ and the number of resonators is $`N_c=4`$. The number of sectors is also equal to $`N_s=4`$ per beam turn, and since the number of turns is $`17`$, the number of independent channels and magnets is $`417=68`$.

The key design parameters of the Asynchronac for the numerical example are summarized in $`Table`$ $`1`$. Room temperature resonators are used in the design, which increase the machine’s radius. Following the development and operation of modern cyclotron resonators at the Paul Scherrer Institute  and the related designs and models , the operation of these resonators at RF frequencies of $`4050`$ $`MHz`$ and peak voltages of up to $`1.1`$ $`MV`$ can be made available. These resonators have a length of approximately $`6`$ $`m`$, height of $`3`$ $`m`$ and width along the beam of $`0.3`$ $`m`$, and provide a radial operating clearance for orbits of up to $`4`$ $`m`$.

Table 1. Key Parameter Values of an Asynchronac

|  | PARAMETER | UNIT | VALUE |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Beam Spacie |  | Proton |
| E<sub>i</sub> | Injected Beam Energy | $`MeV`$ | $`2.0`$ |
| E<sub>e</sub> | Extracted Beam Energy | $`MeV`$ | $`50.0`$ |
| R<sub>i</sub> | Injected Beam Radius | $`m`$ | $`3.0`$ |
| R<sub>e</sub> | Extracted Beam Radius | $`m`$ | $`7.0`$ |
| N<sub>c</sub> | Number of Acceleration Cavities |  | $`4`$ |
| N<sub>m</sub> | Number of Sector Magnets |  | $`66`$ |
| H | Field Strength in Sector Magnets | $`T`$ | $`0.110.85`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E | Energy Gain per Turn | $`MeV`$ | $`0.043.60`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R | Orbit Turn-to-Turn Separation | $`cm`$ | $`25.0`$ |
| n | Number of Turns |  | $`16.5`$ |
| h | Harmonic Number |  | $`5258`$ |
| L<sub>m</sub> | Length of Sector Magnets | $`m`$ | $`0.755.13`$ |
| L<sub>f</sub> | Length of Drift Spaces | $`m`$ | $`2.29.7`$ |
| $`\tau _f`$ | Duration of Bunches | $`ns`$ | $`6.20.5`$ |
| N<sub>0</sub> | Number of Protons per Bunch |  | $`2.510^{10}`$ |

Thus, an injected bunch duration of $`6.2`$ $`ns`$ is compressed down to$`2.5`$ $`ns`$ at the end of the first sector, using the parameter values of $`U_n=130`$ $`KeV`$, $`T_z=0.95`$, $`\phi =55.8^0`$ and setting the equilibrium phase in the first resonator at $`\phi _e=18.4^0`$. Under these conditions, particles at the head of the bunch will have energy equal to $`2.104`$ $`KeV`$, while at the tail of the bunch, particle energy will be $`1.975`$ $`KeV`$. Particles at the equilibrium phase will have an energy of $`2.039`$ $`KeV`$ and the energy spread of the bunch will be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s=2.104`$ $`KeV`$ Next, particle inversion will take place. At the end of the first sector, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ will be $`8.9`$ $`ns`$, consequently $`\tau _f=6.28.9=2.7`$ $`ns`$, whereby the inversion has been completed and over-compression has occurred. The subsequent processes are easier to observe in $`Figures`$ $`310`$, right up to the achievement of the final proton beam energy of approximately $`50`$ $`MeV`$, which is produced after $`16.5`$ turns in the Asynchronac.

It is observed from the numerical results in these figures, that the process of effective longitudinal beam compression has terminated after the first three turns. The duration of bunches has attained an almost stationary value of about $`0.5`$ $`ns`$ and the final energy spread of the beam $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s`$ ends up to be zero in the Asynchronac.

We now roughly estimate the maximum particle population in a proton bunch, as a function of bunch shortening. In our simplified approach we ignore the intra-beam scattering and wake field effects on bunch lengthening and the axial focusing from the RF acceleration cavities. In the proton bunch’s rest frame, the energy spread due to the bunch electric self-field is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P^2}{2m}=eE_z𝑑z$$
(21)
where $`z`$ is the longitudinal coordinate and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ is the momentum spread. The longitudinal space-charge electric field of the bunch is obtained as

$$E_z=\frac{e}{4\pi \epsilon _0}\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}(1+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{b}{a})\frac{\lambda (z)}{z}$$
(22)
where is the absolute dielectric constant, a and b are the radii of the proton beam and the vacuum chamber, respectively, and $`\lambda (z)`$ is the particle linear density in the bunch. Taking a Gaussian distribution for the bunch linear density

$$\lambda (z)=\frac{N_0}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }e^{\frac{z^2}{2\sigma ^2}}$$
(23)
with $`\sigma =0.7z`$ as the standard value of the bunch length, and inserting expression (22) into equation (21), and after integration within the bounds of the bunch’s initial z<sub>i</sub> and final $`z_f`$ half-lengths, the following formula is obtained for the maximum particle population in a bunch

$$N_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P^2}{2m}\frac{4\pi \epsilon _0}{e^2}\frac{\gamma ^2}{e^{\frac{z_f^2}{2\sigma ^2}}e^{\frac{z_i^2}{2\sigma ^2}}}\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }{1+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{b}{a}}$$
(24)
Using the parameters in the above, and taking for the beam radius $`a=0.5`$ $`cm`$ and the vacuum chamber radius $`b=5.0`$ $`cm`$, the estimated maximum number of protons per bunch is $`N_0510^{11}`$.

From these figures it is seen that the magnetic field in each sector and turn has sufficiently different and not necessarily optimized parameters. To simplify the numerical calculations we assumed that the bending magnets in each sector and turn consist of single whole units, instead of being a number of shorter modular magnets that would serve the required purpose. In making the conceptual design of a specific Asynchronac, the sector and turn magnets will be modularized with optimized parameters, such that the differences among modular magnets will be few, to permit standardizing the manufacturing process.

Rather low values of $`0.10.85`$ $`Tesla`$ are required for the magnetic field strength in each sector and turn. The fabrication of small-sized modular bending magnets at these field strengths is a standard matter. Should the beam’s vacuum chamber need an aperture full width of as much as $`10`$ $`cm`$, this can be easily accommodated, since the turn-to-turn orbit separations will all be equal at $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=25`$ $`cm`$. The lengths of the remaining free drift spaces in sectors and turns, after the allocation of resonators and bending magnets, will be more than $`2.0`$ $`m`$. This will allow not only to freely install focusing magnetic elements and beam monitoring apparatus, but also to provide easily $`100\%`$ extraction of the beam.

A rough estimation of the cost to build and operate the Asynchronac shows that the cost per megawatt of proton beam produced from the Asynchronac is much less expensive by an order of magnitude, as compared to a megawatt of proton beam produced from the high and super-high energy accelerators.

## 5 Conclusion

The primary objective of this paper is to show that the innovated accelerator type, which we refer to as the Asynchronac, has sufficient feasibility features for its implementation, in which an accelerated proton beam of up to $`100`$ $`MeV`$ energy and hundreds of $`mA`$ current can be effectively bunch-compressed. Consequently, it is important to expedite the extension of further multifaceted studies on this concept, to improve the quality of future machines for scientific and applied applications, potentially using this alternative.