format: text

text:
# Tilted Pion Sources from Azimuthally Sensitive HBT Interferometry

## Abstract

Intensity interferometry in noncentral heavy ion collisions provides access to novel information on the geometry of the effective pion-emitting source. We demonstrate analytically that, even for vanishing pair momentum, the cross terms $`R_{ol}^2`$ and $`R_{sl}^2`$ of the HBT correlation function in general show a strong first harmonic in their azimuthal dependence. The strength of this oscillation characterizes the tilt of the major axis of the spatial emission ellipsoid away from the direction of the beam. Event generator studies indicate that this tilt can be large ($`>20^{}`$) at AGS energies which makes it by far the most significant azimuthally sensitive HBT signal at these energies. Moreover, transport models suggest that for pions this spatial tilt is directed opposite to the tilt of the directed flow ellipsoid in momentum space. A measurement of the azimuthal dependence of the HBT cross terms $`R_{ol}^2`$ and $`R_{sl}^2`$ thus probes directly the physical origin of directed pion flow.
PACS numbers: 25.75.+r, 07.60.ly, 52.60.+h

preprint: CERN-TH/2000-076,nucl-th/0003022

Two-particle momentum correlations between identical particles are commonly used to extract space-time and dynamical information about the particle emitting source in heavy ion collisions. The basis for this intensity interferometric method is the equation

$`C(𝐪,𝐊)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\left|d^4xS(x,K)e^{iqx}\right|^2}{\left|d^4xS(x,K)\right|^2}},`$ (1)
$`q=p_1p_2`$, $`K=\frac{1}{2}(p_1+p_2)`$, which relates the phase-space density $`S(x,K)`$ of the source to the measured 2-particle correlation function $`C(𝐪,𝐊)`$. Experimental measurements of $`C`$ are usually parametrized in terms of the intercept $`\lambda (𝐊)`$ and the HBT radii $`R_{ij}^2(𝐊)`$ by

$$C(𝐪,𝐊)=1+\lambda (𝐊)\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{i,j=o,s,l}{}q_iq_jR_{ij}^2(𝐊)\right].$$
(2)
In this Cartesian osl-system the relative momentum is decomposed into components parallel to the beam ($`l`$ = longitudinal), parallel to the transverse component of $`𝐊`$ ($`o`$ = out), and in the remaining third direction ($`s`$ = side).

Over the last decade the experimental frontier in studying identical two-particle correlations was defined by more and more differential measurements of the HBT radii $`R_{ij}^2(𝐊)`$. At both AGS  and SPS  energies, the longitudinal ($`K_L`$) and transverse ($`K_{}`$) pair momentum dependence is now well-studied for central and reaction-plane averaged non-central collisions. Most importantly, these studies have led to a detailed characterization of the longitudinal expansion and the transverse radial flow of the reaction zone. The next challenge is a similarly detailed study of the $`R_{ij}^2(𝐊)`$ as a function of the azimuthal orientation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the transverse pair momentum $`𝐊_{}`$ with respect to the impact parameter $`𝐛`$ in non-central collisions. This $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence reveals qualitatively new information about the space-time structure of the source and yields new insights on the underlying nature of flow. In fact, under reasonable assumptions all 10 components of the source’s spatial correlation tensor can be recovered.

An azimuthally sensitive HBT analysis involves all six parameters $`R_{ij}^2`$, all of which are functions of all 3 components of the pair momentum $`K_{}`$, $`Y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ . They provide information about the source in space-time according to the following relations :

$`R_s^2(K_{},\mathrm{\Phi },Y)=S_{11}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+S_{22}\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Phi }S_{12}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (3)
$`R_o^2(K_{},\mathrm{\Phi },Y)=S_{11}\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+S_{22}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+S_{12}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (4)
$`2\beta _{}S_{01}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }2\beta _{}S_{02}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }+\beta _{}^2S_{00},`$ (5)
$`R_{os}^2(K_{},\mathrm{\Phi },Y)=S_{12}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{22}S_{11}\right)\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (6)
$`+\beta _{}S_{01}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }\beta _{}S_{02}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (7)
$`R_l^2(K_{},\mathrm{\Phi },Y)=S_{33}2\beta _lS_{03}+\beta _l^2S_{00},`$ (8)
$`R_{ol}^2(K_{},\mathrm{\Phi },Y)=\left(S_{13}\beta _lS_{01}\right)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }\beta _{}S_{03}`$ (9)
$`+\left(S_{23}\beta _lS_{02}\right)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }+\beta _l\beta _{}S_{00},`$ (10)
$`R_{sl}^2(K_{},\mathrm{\Phi },Y)=\left(S_{23}\beta _lS_{02}\right)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (11)
$`\left(S_{13}\beta _lS_{01}\right)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (12)
The pair velocity $`𝜷=𝐊/K^0`$ arises from the on-shell constraint  $`q^0=𝐪𝜷`$; it mixes spatial and temporal information. $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the spatial correlation tensor

$$S_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu ,\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =x_\mu \overline{x}_\mu ,(\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3)$$
(13)
which measures the Gaussian width in space-time of the emission function $`S(x,K)`$ around the point of highest emissivity $`\overline{x}_\mu =\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ :

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu (K)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4x\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu S(x,K)}{d^4xS(x,K)}}.`$ (14)
It is the inverse of the curvature tensor $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ :

$$S(x,K)N(K)S(\overline{x},K)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu B_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{x}^\nu \right].$$
(15)
This approximation neglects non-Gaussian components of the emission function whose influence on the HBT radii can in most practical cases be neglected . We emphasize that in (13) $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined in terms of Cartesian coordinates in an impact parameter fixed system, in which $`x_1=x`$ is parallel to the impact parameter $`𝐛`$ and $`x_3=z`$ lies in the beam direction.

The general relations (12) separate the explicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence of the HBT-radii (which is a consequence of the azimuthal rotation of the $`osl`$-system relative to $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$) from the implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence of the space-time widths $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\nu (K_{},Y,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (which reflects a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent change of the shape of the effective emission region) . Existing studies of (12) focussed on the detailed interplay between explicit and implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependences in the HBT radii $`R_s^2`$, $`R_o^2`$ and $`R_{os}^2`$ . Here we show, however, that some of the most striking features are found in analyzing the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependences of $`R_{ol}^2`$ and $`R_{sl}^2`$ which so far received less attention .

The following discussion is simplified significantly by the important observation that the implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ is weak. It can be neglected relative to the explicit one given in (12) as long as the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence of space-momentum correlations in the source is small compared to the thermal smearing, and for $`K_{}0`$ it vanishes completely. Studies with the RQMD model  indicate that the first condition works well at least up to $`p_T=300`$ MeV/c for Au+Au collisions at 2 $`A`$ GeV . Beyond such model studies, a simple scale argument illustrates why neglecting the implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence relative to the explicit one has a much wider kinematical region of validity than neglecting the implicit $`K_{}`$-dependence relative to the explicit one in (12): the latter is suppressed near $`K_{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ ($`\beta _{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$), and it multiplies only space-time variances involving $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ which are numerically small in practice. In contrast, the explicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence in (12) leads to prefactors $`\mathrm{cos}(n\mathrm{\Phi })`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(n\mathrm{\Phi })`$ oscillating between $`1`$ and $`1`$ even for $`K_{}=0`$ , and it multiplies the numerically large components of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$. The assumption of vanishing implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence can be checked experimentally , and deviations can be quantified in a full harmonic analysis given elsewhere . Also, while it requires weak transverse flow, there is no such restriction on the longitudinal flow. Qualitatively, the main findings presented here do not depend on this assumption, but it simplifies our presentation and allows for a particularly intuitive geometric picture of the new effect discussed here.

With this proviso, the components $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ in (12) become $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-independent constants which describe the same source being viewed from all angles $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We turn briefly to symmetry considerations at midrapidity. Considering collisions between equal mass nuclei, it can be rigorously shown  that, as a consequence of point reflection symmetry around the spatial origin and mirror symmetry with respect to the reaction plane, five of the off-diagonal components $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ (all except $`S_{13}`$) oscillate symmetrically around zero. Coupled with the condition of vanishing implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence this implies

$$S_{01}=0,S_{02}=0,S_{03}=0,S_{12}=0,S_{23}=0.$$
(16)
These equations and the fact that around midrapidity the average $`\beta _l`$ is zero (although average $`\beta _l^20`$) allow us to write the HBT radius parameters (12) in terms of 5 non-vanishing components only:

$`R_s^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{11}+S_{22}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{22}S_{11}\right)\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (17)
$`R_o^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{11}+S_{22}\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{22}S_{11}\right)\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Phi }+\beta _{}^2S_{00},`$ (18)
$`R_{os}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{22}S_{11}\right)\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (19)
$`R_l^2=S_{33}+\beta _l^2S_{00},`$ (20)
$`R_{ol}^2=S_{13}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (21)
$`R_{sl}^2=S_{13}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (22)
Since the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependences of $`R_s^2`$ and $`R_o^2`$ explicitly separate $`S_{22}`$ from $`S_{11}`$, the emission duration $`S_{00}`$ can now be determined without additional model assumptions , contrary to the case of collisions at $`b=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$.

Given the measured weak $`Y`$-dependence of the HBT-radii , Eqs. (22) can be used in practice also for event samples which are averaged over large $`Y`$-windows symmetric around $`Y=0`$. According to (22), the HBT radius parameters $`R_o^2`$, $`R_s^2`$ and $`R_{os}^2`$ all show second harmonic oscillations of the same strength $`\frac{1}{2}\left(S_{11}S_{22}\right)`$. This is the $`R_{o,2}^{c}{}_{}{}^{2}=R_{s,2}^{c}{}_{}{}^{2}=R_{os,2}^{s}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ rule for second harmonic coefficients ; leading deviations from this rule have been quantified  and provide a consistency check on the assumption of negligible implicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence. More strikingly, $`R_{ol}^2`$ and $`R_{sl}^2`$ display purely first harmonic oscillation at midrapidity which are easier to measure. The expected identical amplitudes for these oscillations provide a further consistency check on our assumptions.

The required $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-binning puts severe demands on the pair statistics. A first observation of azimuthally oscillating HBT radii was reported in . Such measurements require a reasonably accurate determination of the reaction plane; a typical uncertainty of 30 reduces the first and second harmonics in (12) by $`15`$% and $`45`$%, respectively, but these losses can be corrected for .

While the amplitude of the oscillations of $`R_o^2`$, $`R_s^2`$, and $`R_{os}^2`$ are given by the difference between the transverse source sizes in and perpendicular to the reaction plane, that of the oscillations of $`R_{sl}^2`$ and $`R_{ol}^2`$ is given by $`S_{13}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{z}`$. Parameterizing the source by an ellipsoid, a nonzero $`S_{13}`$ corresponds to a tilt in the reaction plane of the longitudinal major axis of the ellipsoid away from the beam direction. It can be characterized by a tilt angle

$$\theta _s=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{2S_{13}}{S_{33}S_{11}}\right).$$
(23)
Rotating the spatial correlation tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ by $`\theta _s`$ yields a purely diagonal tensor $`S^{}=R_y^{}(\theta _s)SR_y(\theta _s)`$ whose eigenvalues are the squared lengths of the 3 major axes.

We illustrate the role of the tilt angle (23) with a tilted Gaussian toy distribution with no space-momentum correlations:

$`S(x,K)=e^{E/T}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2\sigma _x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2\sigma _y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{2\sigma _z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2\sigma _t^2}}\right),`$ (24)
$`x^{}=x\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }z\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta },z^{}=x\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }+z\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (25)
To avoid relativistic complications, the “temperature” $`T`$ is kept small (20 MeV) in the following. Fig. 1 shows the projection of this source onto the reaction ($`xz`$) plane.

Using the model (25) with the parameters of Fig. 1 to randomly generate a set of phase-space points, we constructed a three-dimensional correlation function (with $`4\times 10^5`$ pairs with $`q<100`$ MeV/c) for each of eight $`45^{}`$-wide $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ bins, according to the prescription and code of Pratt . Fitting each with the Gaussian parametrization (2) yields the HBT radii presented in Fig. 2. Treating the ten components of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ as parameters, we perform a global fit with Eqs. (12) on these $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent radii. The fit results are indicated by solid lines in Fig. 2. Application of (23) to the fit results yields $`\theta _s=24.6^{}\pm 0.6^{}`$, in good agreement with the input value $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25}^{}`$. The diagonal elements $`S_{\mu \mu }^{}`$ reproduce, within statistical errors, the input values for the squares of the homogeneity lengths: $`\sigma _x=4.05\pm 0.05`$ fm, $`\sigma _y=4.97\pm 0.04`$ fm, $`\sigma _z=6.97\pm 0.04`$ fm, and $`\sigma _t=4.78\pm 0.45`$ fm. (The larger uncertainty in $`\sigma _t`$ arises from the low $`\beta _{}`$ of the pions in our example.)

While one may escape the effects of transverse flow (which may generate a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent effective source) by selecting pion pairs at low $`K_{}`$, longitudinal flow, which generates $`zp_z`$ correlations, is generally stronger and cannot be cut away. Fortunately, since they are essentially orthogonal to the azimuthal dependences we are discussing, such correlations do not drastically alter the intuitive geometric picture we have discussed – the same source is still viewed from all angles $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

As an example we added a boost-invariant longitudinal flow component in $`z`$-direction to our toy source (scaled so that the collective flow velocity at $`z=\pm \sigma _z`$ is equal to the thermal velocity), leaving the geometry unchanged. This results in (i) an increase in the tilt angle $`\theta _s`$ from 25 to 33 and (ii) a reduction in $`S_{33}^{}`$ from 49 fm2 to 31 fm2. The other components $`S_{\mu \mu }^{}`$ vary negligibly from the scenario without flow. Familiar from the case of azimuthally symmetric HBT, effect (ii) is understood in terms of a reduction in the length of homogeneity due to the flow : HBT correlations arise from particle pairs with close-by momenta; the space-momentum correlations induced by longitudinal flow then imply that they will be close-by in coordinate space as well. The increased tilt is similarly understood, by examining the spatial distribution of emission points for pions with low $`p_z`$. The shaded region in Fig. 1 shows the effective source for pions with $`|p_z|<40`$ MeV/$`c`$; it is clearly less prolate and more tilted than in the case of no flow (contour lines).

n

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-sensitive HBT studies and the measurement of spatial tilt connect for the first time the physics of directed flow with the space-time structure of the source . We consider this an essential step towards a full understanding of the phase-space dynamics of heavy-ion collisions. Although a detailed discussion must await a longer paper, we here shortly touch on the main physics points, using results from a realistic transport model.

We performed simulations of semiperipheral Au+Au collisions at 2 $`A`$ GeV with the RQMD (v2.3) model . The top panel of Fig. 3 shows $`p_x`$ – the average pion momentum in the reaction plane – as a function of momentum $`p_z`$ along the beam axis. Qualitatively consistent with experimental observations , a very weak negative directed flow (“anti-flow”) signal is observed – the average emission ellipsoid in momentum space is tilted to a negative angle with respect to the beam (the direction of directed proton flow defines the positive direction). The magnitude of the collective motion ($`10`$ MeV/$`c`$) is small compared to the typical $`p_T`$ scale ($`200`$ MeV/$`c`$); hence thermal smearing dominates. The bottom panel shows that, while the spatial distribution displays a richer structure than our toy model, it is nevertheless always characterized by a significant positive tilt – opposite the average tilt in momentum space. A full correlation function analysis of the RQMD events  yields qualitatively similar results as those shown in Fig. 2.

This bears directly on the physical causes of directed pion flow at these energies. Detailed transport model studies  have shown that pion reflection from (not absorption by) the nucleonic matter is at the root of directed pion flow at these energies. Focussing on the forward hemisphere, if absorption processes ($`\pi NN\mathrm{\Delta }NNN`$) were dominant in producing pion flow, we would expect an absence of $`\pi `$ emission points in the $`+x`$ quadrant, i.e. a negative tilt in coordinate space and in momentum space. Since it is the point of last scattering (as opposed to the original point of creation) which is relevant for HBT correlations , it is clear that reflection ($`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N`$) from flowing participant or spectator baryons leads to a positive tilt in coordinate space as seen in Fig. 3: the reflected pions “illuminate” the coordinate-space anisotropies of the nucleonic matter. In this simple picture, then, the sign of $`\theta _s`$ immediately distinguishes between these two possibilities.

The arrows in Fig. 3 represent the average momenta of pions for different values of $`z`$. The resulting structure further underscores the importance of pion rescattering: Clearly, the more numerous pions from the high-density region around $`z=0`$ dominate, generating the anti-flow signal seen in experiment. However, pions from the more dilute large-$`|z|`$ region have less opportunity for rescattering and so retain the positive $`p_xp_z`$ correlation of their (flowing) parent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s. Similar considerations generate a sign change in the pion flow as the impact parameter is varied in transport models .

In summary, for non-central collisions all ten components of the spatial correlation tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ are accessible by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent HBT measurements. Based on symmetry and scale considerations we argue that for low $`K_{}`$ the explicit $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependence of Eqs. (12) dominates. Consistency relations allow to check whether this is true in practice. The spatial correlation tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ can then be extracted completely from a global fit to the six $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-dependent HBT radii. At midrapidity, the five nonvanishing components of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ correspond to the four spacetime lengths of homogeneity and a tilt of the source in the reaction plane, away from the beam direction. This tilt, which may be quite large at AGS energies, causes striking and relatively easily measurable first-order harmonic oscillations in $`R_{ol}`$ and $`R_{sl}`$ and can give a direct experimental handle on the origin of pion flow at these energies.

The work of M.A.L. is supported by NSF Grant PHY-9722653 and that of U.H. by DFG, GSI and BMBF.


text:
# Comments on the paper “Polarimetric Constraints on the Optical Afterglow Emission from GRB 990123” by Hjorth et al. (Science, 26 1999)

11institutetext: Theoretical Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Mumbai 400085, India, amitra@apsara.barc.ernet.in  (Received ; Accepted )

## Abstract

GRB 990123 is the most luminous event detected so far, and in an important paper, Hjorth et al. (HJ (1999)) reported an upper limit on the degree of linear polarization of the optical afterglow for this burst ($`P<2.3\%`$). One of the interprtations for this small value of $`P`$ was that the emission was probably due a relativistic jet with ordered magnetic field, and the viewing angle in the lab frame $`\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the jet at the time of the optical emission. We point out that this conclusion resulted from a confusion between the angles measured in the lab frame and in the plasma rest frame. For ordered magnetic field, one would actually obtain a large value of $`P`$ because the above mentioned angle would correspond to a very large angle, $`\theta \pi /2`$, in the plasma rest frame. And this is probably the case with the blazars. On the other hand, it is indeed possible to have $`P0`$ if the magnetic field of GRB 990123 was completely chaotic and the viewing angle was considerably smaller than the semi-angle of the jet.

###### Key Words.:

Gamma rays: bursts – Gamma rays: theory

The above mentioned paper by Hjorth et al. (HJ (1999)) is very important in that it imposes an upper limit on the degree of linear polarization ($`P<2.3\%`$) for the optical afterglow of most luminous Gamma Ray Burst 990123. When corrected for various effects which might affect the true intrinsic polarization, this paper gave a value of $`P=0.0\pm 1.4\%`$, and concluded that “this is consistent with no linear polarization”, and an upper limit of $`P<2.3\%`$ was set at 95% confidence limit.

Hjorth et al. then attempted to interpret this result. Since a spherical fireball too can develop a somewhat clumpy magnetic field structure and may result in a significant value of $`P<10\%`$ (Gruzinov & Waxman GW (1999)), Hjorth noted that the observed low value of $`P`$ is consistent with emission from a spherical fireball. Then they also explored whether such a low value of $`P`$ is consistent with emission from a narrow ultra relativistic jet. Specifically, they considered the possibility whether the observed value of $`P`$ could be very low if the jet is observed at an angle $`\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the jet at the time of optical emission. The reason that they considered this particular value of $`\theta ^{}`$ is the following: For a random GRB event, “for smaller viewing angles, the solid angle decreases and for larger angles the flux drops”. At the time of the optical emission, the estimated value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1020`$ and the corresponding $`\theta ^{}3^{}6^{}`$. To seek an answer to the question mentioned above, Hjorth et al. banked on a work by Celloti & Matt (CM (1994), CM) CM (1994). From Fig. 2 & 3 of CM, Hjorth et al. concluded that the value of $`P0`$ for $`\theta ^{}3^{}6^{}`$, :

“The measured value of polarization is therefore consistent with a small angle between the jet axis and our line of sight”.

We would like to point out here that while arriving at this conclusion, Hjorth et al. confused between the angle measured in the observer’s frame ($`\theta ^{}`$) and the angle measured in the rest frame of the plasma emitting the radiation ($`\theta `$). The absissa of Figs. 2 and 3 in CM is $`\theta `$ and not $`\theta ^{}`$ contrary to what has been considered by Hjorth et al. For small $`\theta ^{}`$, these two angles are connected by the well known special relativistic formula

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta =\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta ^{}}{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$
(1)
Thus for $`\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, $`\theta \pi /2`$! In other words, in plasma rest frame, the small lab frame angle translates into a very large value. Then the Figs. 2 and 3 of CM would suggest a large value of $`P22\%`$ rather than $`P0\%`$. In the most popular classification scheme of the Active Galactic Nuclei, the viewing angle is smallest for the radio selected blazars and they are indeed found to have very high values of $`P1040\%`$. In fact this point was clearly mentioned by CM:

“As already mentioned, relativistic beaming effects, which are believed to affect the emission of blazars, imply that the observed radiation can be emitted at large angles in the plasma frame, even if the line of sight is close to the jet axis. Therefore, these sources could also show high X-ray polarization.”

Thus, the interpretation by Hjorth et al., in the framework of the work by CM, that the absence of polarization is consistent with a jet interpretation is incorrect and resulted from a confusion between angles measured in the lab frame and plasma rest frame. For the so-called galactic micro-quasars, it is believed that the viewing angle of the jet is larger as compared to the radio selected blazars The micro-quasars too display a fairly high value of $`P1015\%`$ which is however, smaller than the average linear polarization observed by the radio-selected blazars (Mirabel & Rodriguez Mira (1999)). And thus these two objects broadly support a scheme in which the degree of linear polarization increases with decreasing viewing angle of the relativistic jet. Physically this implies that a relativistic turbulent astrophysical jets may be endowed with some ordered magnetic field.

Having said this, we emphasize that, if one moves away from the uniform magnetic field configuration of CM, it might indeed be possible that $`P0`$ for a very small $`\theta ^{}`$ for the highly unusual case where there is no large scale ordered magnetic either along the axis of the jet or in a direction perpendicular to it (in such a case, however, it would be difficult to undrstand the phenomenon of jet confinement and acceleration). In particular, if the magnetic field lies in a plane perpendicular to the jet axis and is disordered on large scale, one would obtain zero linear polarization if the jet is viewd along the jet axis. This would be so because there would be total (axial) symmetry around the viewing direction. However, even in this case, if the jet is viewed off-axis, there would be a temporally variable finite $`P`$ which can be parameterized as (Ghisellini & Lazzati GL (1999))

$$P_{max}0.19P_0\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}\right)(0.05\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}1;1^{}\theta _c15^{})$$
(2)
Here $`P_06070\%`$ is the intrinsic synchrotron polarization, $`\theta _c`$ is the semi-angle of the jet, and a radiation spectral index of 0.6 is assumed. Also, now, we have dropped the prime from the lab frame angle. Thus the value can reach $`10\%`$ if the jet is viewed along its edge. This conclusion is reinforced by model of relativistic jet acceletation by supposed completely tangled magnetic field (Heinz & Begelman HB (1999)).

However if supposed GRB jets are to be modelled on their AGN counterparts, it may be necessary to consider the existence of some ordered magnetic field in order to understand jet collimation away from the central engine, and one may look forward to detect even much higher value of $`P`$.

Coming back to the work of CM, it dealt with self Snchrotron Compton model of radiation emission, whereas GRBs afterglows are generally explained as direct Snychrotron emission. For a given magnetic field configuration, the polarizationn is in general higher in the latter case. To conclude, although the result obtained by Hjorth et al. that $`P<2.3\%`$ for the optical afterglow of GRB 990123 is important, the interpretation that this low value of $`P`$ could be understood if the viewing angle is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is incorrect if there is an ordered magnetic field in the jet. On the other hand, such a low value of $`P`$ may occur if the jet magnetic field is completely tangled with no component of field along the axis, and if the viewing angle is much smaller than the semi-angle of the jet. If we accept this latter interpretation, we need to understand the following: If there is usually an ordered magnetic field, over and above small scale chaotic magnetic field, in relativistic turbulent plasma associated with blazars on scales of $`100`$pc or more and for the so called micro-quasars, why the relativistic plamsa responsible for the emission of GRB 990123 was completely turbulent on all scales. Considering all such aspects, it seems that the afterglow of GRB 990123 was more likely to be quasispherical rather than jet type. This is so because even for a quasispherical afterglow, the observed spectral steepening can be explained if it were propagating within a thick presupernova wind (Dai & Lu DL1 (1999)). Yet, we caution that no definitive stand should be taken at this juncture. A broader discussion on the topic of jet collimation, acceleration, magnetic field generation and expected degree of linear polarization is beyond the scope of this research note.


text:
# A minimal model for slow dynamics: Compaction of granular media under vibration or shear

## 1 Introduction

The issue of slow dynamics, rare events and anomalous diffusion is object to ongoing research in statistical physics . One example for an experimental realization of slow dynamics is the compaction of granular materials, being of interest for both industrial applications and research. Many compaction experiments have been carried out in the last decades, see e.g. , but the evolution of density with time is far from being well understood. Recent laboratory experiments concern pipes filled with granular media and periodically accelerated in order to allow for some reorganization . The compaction dynamics was obtained to be logarithmically slow and could be reproduced with a simple parking model . Alternative experiments concern a sheared block of a granular model material (monodisperse glass spheres) and display a similar dynamics . Numerical model approaches, like a frustrated lattice gas (the so-called “Tetris” model)  also lead to this slow dynamic behavior, as well as some theory based on stochastic dynamics . The fact that a peculiar dynamics is reproduced by so many models indicates that it is a basic and essential phenomenon.

Rather than modeling granular systems in all details, e.g. in the framework of molecular dynamics or lattice gas simulations , we will propose a very simple model based on the picture of a random walk in a random energy landscape, for a review see , and even simpler than recent, very detailed considerations in the same spirit . Random walks have been examined, for example, on fractals and ultrametric spaces, where the continuous time random walk was introduced in order to allow a mathematical treatment . If a random walker is situated in a uncorrelated, random, fractal energy landscape, the process is called Sinai-diffusion . The aim of this study is to show that the Sinai model is in qualitative agreement with the compaction dynamics of granular media. An issue not addressed here is a quantitative adjustment which can be reached, for example, by introducing correlations in the EL.

## 2 Summary of the experimental results

The subject of compaction of granular material  has been recently revisited through careful experiments carried out by Knight et al. and Nowak et al. . The experiment consists of a vertical cylinder, full of monodisperse beads, which is submitted to successive distinct taps of controlled acceleration (vertical vibration). The measurement of the mean volume fraction after each tap gives a precise information about the evolution of the compaction. From the first experiments performed with taps of constant amplitude, the increase in volume fraction was found to be a very slow process well fitted by the inverse of a logarithm of the number of taps. Nowak et al.  have then studied the compaction under taps of variable amplitude, and showed that irreversible processes occur during the compaction. Starting with a loose packing, the evolution of the volume fraction is not the same when increasing the amplitude of vibration as when decreasing. The first branch appears to be irreversible, whereas the second is reversible.

We have recently performed a compaction experiment based on cyclic shear applied to an initially loose granular packing . A parallelepipedic box full of beads is submitted to a horizontal shear through the periodic motion of two parallel walls at amplitude $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, see Fig. 1(a). Compaction occurs during this process, leading to crystallisation of the beads in the case of a monodisperse material. The control parameter in this configuration is the maximum amplitude of shear $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (inclination angle of the walls). The measurement of the mean volume fraction $`\varphi `$ shows that compaction under cyclic shear is a very slow process as in the vertical vibration experiments (typically $`5\times 10^4`$ shear cycles or taps). The higher the shear amplitude the more efficient is the compaction (shear amplitudes up to $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}<12.5^{}`$ were examined), when starting with a loose packing of the same initial volume fraction. More surprising results arise when the packing is submitted to a sudden change in shear amplitude. We have observed that a “jump” in volume fraction occurs which is opposite and proportional to the change in $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$. Sudden increase (resp. decrease) in the shear amplitude decreases (resp. increases) the volume fraction (Fig. 1). The response is very rapid (less than 20 cycles) and quasi-independent of the state before the angle change. For more detailed experimental results see .

## 3 The Model

A naive picture that evolves out from the experimental observations is the analogy between the packing of beads and a thermal system seeking for a minimum of energy in a very complex potential-energy landscape . Due to some agitation (shear) compaction occurs and the total potential energy of the packing decreases. Starting from a loose packing at $`n=0`$, the vibrational or shear excitation can be seen as the analog of the temperature in the sense that the excitation allows for an exploration of the phase space. In a granular packing of monodisperse spheres, the absolute minimum of the energy is obtained for a perfect (fcc) or (hc) crystal with volume fraction $`\varphi =0.74`$. If the energy landscape is complex with a lot of different scale valleys or hills, one can understand that an efficient, fast compaction will be obtained with high temperatures: the system is then able to escape the deep local valleys and find a valley with lower potential energy. A decrease of the temperature is then needed to explore local fine-scale minima. The goal of this paper is simply to explore this idea by studying the dynamics of random walkers on a random landscape (the Sinai model), and to show that this very naive picture gives results in qualitative agreement with the experimental observations.

Our model is based on the assumption that all possible configurations of a granulate in a given geometry can be mapped onto an “energy landscape” (EL). Since a simple two-level system (as used to model the dynamics in simple glasses) does not lead to the experimentally observed phenomenology, we assume a fractal energy landscape created by a random walk in energy with phase space coordinate $`x`$. A typical EL with energy $`V(x)`$ is schematically shown in Fig. 2. The stepsize in energy is $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, the mean of the energy landscape is $`V_{\mathrm{mean}}`$ and its absolute minimum is $`V_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Here, the EL is symmetric to its center, in order to allow for periodic boundary conditions in $`x`$. Given some EL, the granulate is now modeled as an ensemble of random walkers diffusing on the EL, with a temperature $`T_{RW}`$. The analog to the density of a granular packing is the rescaled energy of an ensemble of random walkers in the energy landscape

$$\nu =1\frac{EV_{\mathrm{min}}}{V_{\mathrm{mean}}V_{\mathrm{min}}},$$
(1)
which we denote as density in the following. For the (random) initial configuration, the energy will be $`EV_{\mathrm{mean}}`$ so that $`\nu =0`$; for the close-packing configuration, i.e. all RWs are in the absolute minimum, one has $`EV_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and thus $`\nu =1`$. The energy landscape has the size $`L`$, the ensemble of RWs consists of $`R`$ random walkers and $`S`$ is the number of steps performed.

Since the energy of the RWs in the EL corresponds to the potential energy of the packing, we interpret the (constant) stepsize $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ (used here as one possibility for the construction of the EL) as a typical activation energy barrier. The maximum of $`V`$ corresponds to a random loose, local packing density, the mean to the (initial) random close packing, and the absolute minimum to the hexagonal close packing. For one RW, the probability to jump within time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ from one site $`x_i`$ to its neighbor-site $`x_{i\pm 1}`$ is

$$p_\pm (x_i)=\mathrm{min}[1,\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (x_i)/T_{RW})],$$
(2)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (x_i)=V(x_{i\pm 1})V(x_i)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is the only energy scale of the system, we define the dimensionless energy steps $`\delta _\pm ^i=\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (x_i)/\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ and the dimensionless temperature $`T=T_{RW}/\mathrm{\Delta }V`$. Written in dimensionless parameters, the jump probabilities are thus $`p_\pm ^i=p_\pm (x_i)=\mathrm{min}[1,\mathrm{exp}(\delta _\pm ^i/T)]`$, so that a particle always jumps downhill ($`\delta _\pm ^i0`$), but jumps uphill only with a probability $`e_0=\mathrm{exp}(1/T)`$ (for $`\delta _\pm ^i>0`$), at finite temperature. The limits $`T0`$ and $`T\mathrm{}`$ correspond thus to immobile particles or to a homogeneous RW, respectively.

The discrete master equation for the probability density $`n^i(t)`$, to find a particle at time $`t`$ at site $`i`$ of the EL, is

$$n^i(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)n^i(t)=\left[p_+^i+p_{}^i\right]n^i(t)+p_{}^{i+1}n^{i+1}(t)+p_+^{i1}n^{i1}(t)$$
(3)
and is (straightforwardly) simulated with $`R=200`$ random walkers in an energy landscape with $`L=5000`$ sites, if not explicitly mentioned. The time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ corresponds to one Monte-Carlo step but not to one shear-cycle $`n`$. For the sake of simplicity, we measure $`x`$ in units of the distance between neighboring sites $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=x_{i+1}x_i=1`$, and time in units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The diffusion constant of a homogeneous random walk ($`p_\pm =1/2`$ or $`T\mathrm{}`$) is thus $`D=\mathrm{\Delta }x^2/\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$. For a constant occupation probability (initial density $`n_c=n^i(t=0)=R/L=\mathrm{const}.`$), one can extract the diffusion constant $`D_c`$ as function of the temperature, since $`p_\pm =1/2`$ and $`p_\pm =e_0/2`$ occur with equal probability, so that

$$D_c(T)=\frac{1+e_0}{2}=\frac{1+\mathrm{exp}(1/T)}{2}.$$
(4)
In Fig. 3, $`D_c=R_2(t)/\sqrt{t}`$ is plotted against $`T`$ after different times $`t`$, with $`R_2(t)=(x(t)x_0)^2`$. For large $`T`$, the system does not feel the EL and behaves like an ensemble of homogeneous RWs, whereas its behavior becomes subdiffusive after several steps for small $`T`$ when the EL is explored.

In a situation with $`T0`$, after a rather short transient, all RW will occupy a local minimum, a valley ($``$), wheras the unstable local configurations hill ($``$), or left- ($`/`$) and right-slope ($`\backslash `$) cannot be occupied. if $`T`$ is small enough, the random walkers stay trapped. Note that this statement is strictly true for $`T=0`$ or when a fixed number of shear-cycles or taps is implied. In the Sinai diffusion model, for a finite system, the RW will always find the global minimum – the temperature only determines the time-scale of this process . Since the duration of an experiment is limited, the global minimum cannot be found by all particles if the phase space volume $`L`$ is large enough.

## 4 Results and Discussion

In parallel to the tapping experiments by Nowak et al. , we present simulations of our model using a periodic time series for the temperature. The temperature is kept constant for $`S`$ steps and then increased by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.1`$, where it is kept again constant for $`S`$ steps. $`T`$ is initially zero and then raised up to $`T=2`$. From this state, $`T`$ is decreased to zero and the loop is repeated seven times. In Fig. 4, the simulation results are displayed for different $`S`$ as given in the inset. In the initial branch with increasing $`T`$, the density increases and slowly decreases for large $`T`$. This branch is irreversible, but the periodic loops show almost reversible behavior. For very short loops (small $`S`$), the density continuously increases, for longer loops the behavior of the system is reversible. Note that the system also shows hysteretic behavior, the density at decreasing $`T`$ is below the density at increasing $`T`$.

In summary, we presented a very simple model for the dynamics of the compaction of granular media due to an external agitation. Our model is not as detailed as others (parking lot or frustrated lattice-gas models), but it is extremely simple and still shows qualitative agreement with two different types of experiment. Its simplicity allows for future analytical treatments. However, such a simple model arises, besides many others, two major questions: (i) Is it possible to link the real configuration phase space with the an energy landscape? (ii) Is it correct to do the analogy between the experimental external excitations like shear or tapping with a temperature?

## Acknowledgements

S. L. acknowledges the support of the I.U.S.T.I., Marseille and thanks for the hospitality. Furthermore, helpful discussions with A. Blumen and I. Sokolov are appreciated.


text:
# Gravitational instantons and internal dimensions.

## I Introduction

Consistent unified field theories which include gravity appear to indicate that the Universe has more than four spacetime dimensions. An obvious problem which follows is how to interpret these unseen extra dimensions? One approach that has been followed is to postulate that only four of these are observable, the extra dimensions have managed to become compact and are unobservably small. Recently however there has been a tremendous amount of interest in the effective five dimensional cosmologies associated with Branes, in which the fifth dimension can be macroscopic in size, yet remain unobservable at low energies. In general, these compactified spaces are assumed as part of the initial metric ansatz, and the cosmology of such metrics is then determined. Although this is a natural approach to take, it does not address the issue of whether such an initial condition is to be expected in string or M -theory, for example. Is there any way in which we can calculate the probability of the Universe possessing such compact internal dimensions as an initial condition? It would be of great interest if it could be shown that quantum cosmology predicts a manifold with compact extra dimensions as the most likely initial configuration.

Symmetry arguments usually provide a very powerful tool for determining which instanton solutions should provide the dominant contribution (i.e. those with lowest Euclidean action) to the Hartle Hawking path integral , hence providing the most likely background spacetime. An example is the Hawking-Moss instanton, involving a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with potential $`V(\varphi `$). Assuming the potential had a stationary point at some non-zero value they obtained in four spacetime dimensions an O(5) symmetric instanton solution where $`\varphi `$ is constant and the Euclidean manifold is a four sphere.

However, Coleman and De Lucia  obtained an instanton solution of lower action with O(4) symmetry which was non-singular and corresponded to the nucleation of a bubble of true vacuum in a sea of false vacuum deSitter space. It was used in the earliest versions of open inflation , because the interior of such a bubble is in fact an open universe. Hawking and Turok  took these solutions one step further, dropping the requirement for non-singular instanton configurations; they obtained solutions where the scalar field potential increased monotonically from a single minimum. These solutions also allowed for a natural continuation to an open universe which was inflating. Moreover, although the instanton solutions themselves were singular their action was finite. Indeed they demonstrated a family of solutions which had lower action than the more symmetric O(5) solution! The notion that the O(4) symmetry of the Hawking-Turok instanton was responsible for the low action was tested in . Treating the instanton as a foliation of squashed rather than round three spheres, it was found that the O(4) instanton was the lowest action solution within this family. In an interesting paper Garriga  proposed a resolution to the problem of having a singularity in the solution; singular instantons can arise from compactifications of regular higher dimensional instantons when viewed as lower dimensional objects.

In this paper we investigate the nature of instanton solutions for the largest range of cosmologically relevant higher dimensional metrics that have been studied to date. Our results will be of relevance for the study of any higher dimensional model which involves compactifications on Einstein metrics, i.e. models of string cosmology involving compactifications on tori, supergravity compactifications on spheres and string theories where the compactified dimensions are Calabi-Yau manifolds. In particular we will be investigating instanton solutions arising from the metric ansatz,

$`\mathrm{ds}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}\xi ^2+\mathrm{a}_{(1)}^2(\xi )\mathrm{ds}_{(1)}^2+\mathrm{a}_{(2)}^2(\xi )\mathrm{ds}_{(2)}^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{a}_{(\mathrm{T})}^2(\xi )\mathrm{ds}_{(\mathrm{T})}^2.`$ (1)
The only restriction on the $`ds_{(i)}^2`$’s is that they are Einstein metrics on compact manifolds; the Ricci tensor is proportional to the metric. Of the many solutions that exist, we will see how a class of these instantons may be continued to a four dimensional inflating universe, with a number of static extra dimensions.

In general, because of the non-linear nature of the equations, the solutions for the scale factors $`a_i`$ are obtained numerically, and from these we can study the action of the (generically singular) instantons. The most important result we obtain is that the family of singular instantons of this type can provide a local minima of the action for non trivial extra dimensions. However, it turns out that in all the cases we examined the action of these local minima remains higher than that of the corresponding higher dimensional Hawking-Turok instanton. The implication of such a result is important. The symmetry properties associated with the Hawking-Turok instanton appear to determine the most likely instanton configuration, at least for the cases involving Einstein metrics.

The layout of the rest of the paper is as follows: In section II we derive the field equations and action associated with our metric. Section III contains the results of our numerical and analytical analysis and presents the nature of the local minima of the action. It also contains the comparison of these instantons with the equivalent higher dimensional Hawking-Turok case and shows how the latter always lead to a lower Euclidean action. Section IV presents exact solutions for the case of a cosmological constant replacing the scalar field potential. We also mention the analytical continuation of our solutions to a space-time with a lorentzian signature and demonstrate the existence of solutions where the internal dimensions remain static while the four dimensional spacetime is inflating. We draw our conclusions in section V.

## II Derivation of Field Equations

Our starting point is a manifold $``$ which has a metric structure imposed on it, and a scalar field $`\varphi `$ living on it with potential $`𝒱(\varphi )`$. By using the usual torsion free, metric connection on $``$ we can describe the equations of motion for the metric and for $`\varphi `$ which follow from the Einstein-Hilbert action.

$`S_\mathrm{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\eta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2+𝒱(\varphi )\right]+\text{boundary term}.`$ (2)
Here, $`\kappa ^2=8\pi /m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$ (scaled to unity for the rest of the paper), and the boundary terms are such that the action does not contain second derivatives of the metric. $`\eta `$ is the volume form and $``$ is the Ricci scalar of the connection.

As mentioned earlier we consider the manifold $``$ as a foliation in Euclidean time of a product of boundary-less manifolds. At any given time $`\xi `$ we can then write $`(\xi )`$ as a Cartesian product of $`_{(i)}`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}T`$ each with dimension $`n_{(i)}`$, where for convenience we define $`N=n_{(1)}+n_{(2)}+\mathrm{}+n_{(T)}`$. To endow $``$ with a metric structure we start by putting a metric on each of the $`_{(i)}`$, denoted $`\mathrm{ds}_{(\mathrm{i})}^2`$. The metric structure we impose on $``$ then follows by introducing a $`\xi `$ dependent scale factor, $`a_{(i)}`$, for each $`_{(i)}`$; providing information about the relative size of the $`_{(i)}`$ at any given $`\xi `$. The resulting metric is then given by Eq. (1).

This form for the metric is very general. It includes a wide class of metrics commonly considered in cosmology, such as those leading to the Coleman-De Lucia instanton , Kantowski-Sachs instantons , Hawking-Turok instanton , most of the models of string cosmology arising out of compactifications on tori (for a review see ), compactifications of string theory on Calabi-Yau spaces (for a review see ), and some compactifications of Supergravity theories on spheres (for a review see ). For example in  $`T=1`$ and $`_{(1)}`$ is a three sphere with its standard round metric. A more exotic Kantowski-Sachs metric was considered in , there $`T=2`$ with $`_{(1)}=S^1`$, $`_{(2)}=S^2`$.

The equations of motion for the scale factors are derived using the Einstein-Hilbert action, for which we need to calculate the components of the Riemann tensor. This is made simpler by using methods from differential geometry , so we start by defining an orthonormal basis of one forms on $``$.

$`\omega ^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}\xi `$ (3)
$`\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{(i)}\overline{\omega }_{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ (4)
The notation we are using is that barred quantities correspond to properties on the submanifolds $`_{(i)}`$. So, in (3) the $`\overline{\omega }_{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ are an orthonormal basis of one forms with respect to the metric $`\mathrm{ds}_{(\mathrm{i})}^2`$ and $`\overline{\mu }=1\mathrm{}n_{(i)}`$, whereas the $`\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ are in the orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{ds}^2`$. The notation for the orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{ds}^2`$ ($`\omega ^\mu `$) is such that $`\omega ^\mu =\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$, $`\mu =1\mathrm{}N`$. So because $`\overline{\mu }=1\mathrm{}n_{(i)}`$ we find $`\overline{\mu }=\mu (n_{(1)}+n_{(2)}+\mathrm{}+n_{(i1)})`$. This should be unambiguous (although it might not seem so at first glance!) as a barred index always appears on a quantity with a subscript $`(i)`$ saying which $`_{(i)}`$ it lives on.

The connection one forms on the $`_{(i)}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}`$) are taken to be torsion free metric connections,

$`\mathrm{d}\overline{\omega }_{(\mathrm{i})}^{\overline{\mu }}+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{(\mathrm{i})\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}\overline{\omega }_{(\mathrm{i})}^{\overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{(i)\overline{\nu }\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{(i)\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}\overline{\mu },\overline{\nu }=1\mathrm{}n_{(i)}.`$ (6)
The connection forms on $``$ satisfy similar relations

$`\mathrm{d}\omega ^\mu +\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu ^\mu \omega ^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\nu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\mu ,\nu =0\mathrm{}N.`$ (8)
To evaluate the connection one forms we use (3) to find

$`\mathrm{d}\omega ^0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{d}\omega _{(\mathrm{i})}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{(i)}^{}\omega ^0\overline{\omega }_{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}+a_{(i)}\mathrm{d}\overline{\omega }_{(\mathrm{i})}^{\overline{\mu }},`$ (10)
where we have introduced $`\alpha _{(i)}=\mathrm{ln}(a_{(i)})`$ and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`\xi `$. Taking the definition of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu ^\mu `$ in (7) and using (5) for the individual $`_{(i)}`$ we find

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{(i)\overline{\mu }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{(i)}^{}\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}\overline{\mu },\overline{\nu }=1\mathrm{}n_{(i)}.`$ (12)
So, if the indices on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu ^\mu `$ correspond to different $`_{(i)}`$ then that connection form vanishes. We must also take care to note that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ is defined using the basis on $`_{(i)}`$ ($`\overline{\omega }_{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$) whereas $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ uses that on $``$ ($`\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$).

Now that the connection forms on $``$ are known, in terms of those on $`_{(i)}`$, we may calculate the curvature two forms ,

$`R_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu ^\mu +\mathrm{\Theta }_\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_\nu ^\rho \mu ,\nu ,\rho =0\mathrm{}\mathrm{N}.`$ (13)
There is an analogous expression for the curvatures on $`_{(i)}`$, where the appropriate barred connections are used. Using (5) one finds for the curvature forms on $``$.

$`R_{(i)\overline{\mu }}^0`$ $`=`$ $`[\alpha _{(i)}^{\prime \prime }+(\alpha _{(i)}^{})^2]\omega ^0\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ (14)
$`R_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}(\alpha _{(i)}^{})^2\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\nu }}`$ (15)
$`R_{(i,j)\overline{\overline{\nu }}}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{(i)}^{}\alpha _{(j)}^{}\omega _{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}\omega _{(j)}^{\overline{\overline{\nu }}}`$ (16)
The notation for the last equation of (14) is that $`ij`$ and the single barred index corresponds to $`_{(i)}`$ with the double barred index living on $`_{(j)}`$. Again we stress that $`\overline{R}_{(i)\overline{\nu }}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ is defined with the $`\overline{\omega }_{(i)}^{\overline{\mu }}`$ basis, which differs from the basis on $``$ by a factor of $`a_{(i)}(\xi )`$.

Einstein’s equations relate the Ricci tensor to the stress-energy tensor. For the above curvature two forms we use $`R_\nu ^\mu =\frac{1}{2}_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu \omega ^\rho \omega ^\sigma `$, enabling us to calculate the Ricci tensor $`_{\mu \nu }=_{\mu \rho \nu }^\rho `$ and Ricci scalar $`=_\mu ^\mu `$:

$`_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{(1)}[\alpha _{(1)}^{\prime \prime }+(\alpha _{(1)}^{})^2]n_{(2)}[\alpha _{(2)}^{\prime \prime }+(\alpha _{(2)}^{})^2]\mathrm{}`$ (17)
$`_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{(i)}^2}}\overline{}_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}^{(i)}(\mu \nu )`$ (18)
$`_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\mu }}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{(i)}^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{(i)}^2}}\overline{}_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\mu }}^{(i)}\alpha _{(i)}^{}[n_{(1)}\alpha _{(1)}^{}+n_{(2)}\alpha _{(2)}^{}+\mathrm{}]`$ (19)
$``$ $`=`$ $`2\left(n_{(1)}\alpha _{(1)}^{\prime \prime }+n_{(2)}\alpha _{(2)}^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{}\right)\left(n_{(1)}(\alpha _{(1)}^{})^2+n_{(2)}(\alpha _{(2)}^{})^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (20)
$`\left(n_{(1)}\alpha _{(1)}^{}+n_{(2)}\alpha _{(2)}^{}+\mathrm{}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{(1)}^2}}\overline{}^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{(2)}^2}}\overline{}^{(2)}+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (21)
where the repeated $`\overline{\mu }`$ index in (19) is not summed over. The Einstein tensor is defined by $`G_{\mu \nu }=_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }`$, which with the Einstein-Hilbert action (2) leads to

$`G_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2𝒱(\varphi )`$ (22)
$`G_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`G_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\mu }}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2𝒱(\varphi )\text{(no sum)}.`$ (24)
The key breakthrough now is to realise that for (23) and (24) to be consistent then $`\overline{}_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}^{(i)}`$ must be constants for $`\overline{\mu }=\overline{\nu }`$ and vanish otherwise. As we are using an orthonormal basis, this is precisely the statement that the metrics $`\mathrm{ds}_{(\mathrm{i})}^2`$ are Einstein metrics. In fact the equations are independent of what that metric is because the only effect a different Einstein metric has is to change the constant of proportionality between the Ricci and metric tensor, which may then be absorbed into the scale factors (if it is non-vanishing). This means we may replace $`\overline{}_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\mu }}^{(i)}`$ in (19) by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}=0,\pm 1`$ and $`\overline{}^{(i)}`$ in (20) by $`n_{(i)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}`$ without loss of generality, as long as we remember to rescale the action appropriately.

We may also see what boundary terms are required in (2) by integrating the Ricci scalar by parts to find the boundary contribution. The volume form on $``$ is given by the wedge product of the volume forms on the $`_{(i)}`$,

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`a_{(1)}^{n_{(1)}}a_{(2)}^{n_{(2)}}\mathrm{}a_{(T)}^{n_{(T)}}\omega ^0\eta _{(1)}\eta _{(2)}\mathrm{}\eta _{(T)}.`$ (25)
By defining $`V_{(i)}`$ as the volume of $`_{(i)}`$ and $`\beta `$ to be the product of the scale factors we find that the action, including boundary terms, is given by

$`S_\mathrm{E}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{(1)}V_{(2)}\mathrm{}V_{(T)}\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\xi }}\right]_{\xi _S}^{\xi _N}+{\displaystyle d\xi \beta \left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2+𝒱(\varphi )\right]}\right\}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`V_{(1)}V_{(2)}\mathrm{}V_{(T)}\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\xi }}\right]_{\xi _S}^{\xi _N}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n_{(1)}+n_{(2)}+\mathrm{}+n_{(T)}1}}{\displaystyle d\xi \beta (\xi )𝒱(\varphi )}\right\}`$ (27)
$`\beta (\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`a_{(1)}^{n_{(1)}}a_{(2)}^{n_{(2)}}\mathrm{}a_{(T)}^{n_{(T)}}.`$ (28)
In arriving at the second equation we have used the trace of Einstein’s equations (22)-(24) to eliminate the scalar curvature and scalar field kinetic terms. The quantities $`\xi _S`$ and $`\xi _N`$ refer to the range of the $`\xi `$ coordinate, with $`\xi _N`$ being the ‘north’ pole and $`\xi _S`$ referring to the ‘south’ pole of the instanton taken to be $`\xi =0`$. To save writing out the volumes of all the submanifolds we shall call the term in the curly braces of (27) the reduced action.

The preceding calculation shows that for metric (1) to be consistent then the metrics on the $`_{(i)}`$ must be Einstein. Given this, the evolution equations for the scale factors $`a_{(i)}(\xi )`$ depend only on the value of the ‘cosmological constants’ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}`$ and not on the detailed topology or geometry of the manifold. This is potentially very significant, for any statements we can make about the evolution of the scale factors cover a very large class of manifolds, all those admitting an Einstein metric. Whilst there are manifolds which do not admit an Einstein metric due to topological restriction, there is a large range which do. For example, all semi-simple Lie groups have a Killing metric which is Einstein, along with a large class of quotient spaces. It is noted that any given manifold may have more than one Einstein metric, .

## III Numerical solutions and Actions for Instanton configurations.

To make some specific predictions we shall in this section numerically investigate the case where there are just two submanifolds $`_a`$, $`_b`$ with scale factors $`a(\xi )`$ and $`b(\xi )`$ respectively. The dimension of and ‘cosmological constant’ associated with these manifolds are taken as $`n_a`$, $`n_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ respectively. The equations of motion are then,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_a(n_a1)\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_b(n_b1)\beta ^2+n_an_b\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{b^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2𝒱`$ (29)
$`(n_a1){\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+n_b{\displaystyle \frac{b^{\prime \prime }}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n_a2)\left[(n_a1)\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}{a^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_b\left[(n_b1)\beta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{b^2}}\right]+n_b(n_a1)\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2𝒱`$ (30)
$`n_a{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+(n_b1){\displaystyle \frac{b^{\prime \prime }}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_a\left[(n_a1)\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_a}{a^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n_b2)\left[(n_b1)\beta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{b^2}}\right]+n_a(n_b1)\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2𝒱`$ (31)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(n_a\alpha ^{}+n_b\beta ^{})\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{\varphi }}`$ (32)
In solving these equations, we used a simple potential, namely $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2`$, although our results do not qualitatively depend on the exact shape of the potential. The main solutions of interest here are the cases where the south pole is regular and there is a curvature singularity at the north pole . Other cases where both the north and south poles are singular have been studied . We shall not concentrate on these cases here as the interesting features we wish to discuss are found in the case where only the north pole is singular.

As we want the south pole to be a smooth endpoint this places conditions on the scale factors. In order to avoid a conical curvature singularity then only one scale factor may vanish there, with all others approaching a constant. We order the $`_{(i)}`$ such that $`a_{(1)}`$ vanishes at $`\xi =0`$, according to

$`a_{(1)}(\xi 0)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}}{n_i1}}}\xi ,`$ (33)
We see then that we must have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}>0`$ for everything to be well defined and for the solution to be non-trivial.

Before we proceed we need to know what effect the singularity is going to have on the action; in particular, does it remain finite? To decide this we make the assumption that at the singularity the potential is not important, although there are exceptions when exponential potentials are used . We may then integrate (32) to obtain

$`\varphi ^{}(\xi \xi _N)(a^{n_a}b^{n_b})^1.`$ (34)
Now assume a polynomial behaviour for the scale factors near the singularity of the form

$`a(\xi \xi _N)(\xi \xi _N)^pb(\xi \xi _N)(\xi \xi _N)^q.`$ (35)
This is consistent with (29-32) so long as $`(q,p1)`$. Then the dominant behaviour on the left hand side of (29) is $`(\xi \xi _N)^2`$, giving $`n_ap+n_bq=1`$. The volume factor, $`\beta =a^{n_a}b^{n_b}`$ (27), then goes linearly to zero at $`\xi _N`$. Moreover, as $`\varphi ^{}`$ is diverging as $`(\xi \xi _N)^1`$, $`\varphi `$ diverges logarithmically which is slow enough that the linear volume factor renders the singularity integrable for our potential.

We include some representative results below for the case of two Einstein metrics of dimensions $`n_{(1)}=3`$ and $`n_{(2)}=2`$. To be specific we have chosen to take the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}=n_{(i)}1`$, which is the appropriate value for the round metric on S$`^{n_{(i)}}`$. We shall explain the reason for this shortly.

The second of the plots above is a magnification of some structure on the first, showing a minima with negative reduced action. So, just as the Hawking-Turok instanton had a minima in the action so does this new solution which has non-trivial ‘spatial’ topology. The issue we need to address now is which has a lower action and is therefore more likely as initial conditions. For this we need to know the full Euclidean action rather than the reduced action, this means that the volume prefactors in (27) must be found. Naively it may seem that the total action may be made arbitrarily large and negative by choosing the Einstein metrics such that the volume of the manifolds is arbitrarily large. However, a result from Riemannian geometry, Bishop’s theorem  implies that for positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the metric which maximises the volume of the manifold is the round sphere. So by looking at the volumes appropriate for the round metric we are looking at the lowest possible action for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}>0`$ instantons. The volume of S<sup>n</sup> with the round metric is

$`\text{V}ol(\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{n})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ^{\frac{n+1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}}\right),`$ (36)
so for our example of $`n_{(1)}=3`$, $`n_{(2)}=2`$ the total action is $`S_\mathrm{E}=(2\pi ^2)(4\pi )(0.048)=11.9`$, where the reduced action of -0.048 follows from the minima of Fig. 2. We now need to see how this compares to the Hawking-Turok solution in higher dimensions. The starting point is the metric ansatz. This corresponds to (1) with $`T=1`$ and $`\mathrm{ds}_{(1)}^2`$ the round metric on S<sup>n</sup>, which gives the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱(\varphi )}{n(n1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{n}}\right)`$ (37)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+n\varphi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱^{}(\varphi ).`$ (38)
The action is:

$$S_E=\text{V}ol(\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{n})\left((\mathrm{a}(\xi _\mathrm{N})^\mathrm{n})^{}+\frac{2}{\mathrm{n}1}d\xi (\mathrm{a}(\xi )^\mathrm{n}𝒱(\varphi ))\right).$$
(39)
We may get an approximate solution to these equations by following the process laid out in . To start we integrate (38) to find

$`\left(a(\xi _N)^n\varphi ^{}(\xi _N)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\xi _N}}d\xi a(\xi )^n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{\varphi }},`$ (40)
then we make the approximation that at $`\xi _N`$ the constraint equation (29) yields,

$`a^{}(\xi _N)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a(\xi _N)\varphi ^{}(\xi _N)}{\sqrt{n(n1)}}}`$ (41)
The action is then found from (39) by taking the scalar field to be the constant $`\varphi _0=\varphi (\xi =0)`$,

$$S_E\text{V}ol(\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{n})(\frac{2𝒱(\varphi _0)}{\mathrm{n}1}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{n}}{(\mathrm{n}1)}\right)^{1/2}𝒱,_{\varphi _0})\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{a}(\xi )^\mathrm{n},$$
(42)
The next approximation is that $`a(\xi )H^1\mathrm{sin}(H\xi )`$, where $`H^2=\frac{2𝒱(\varphi _0)}{n(n1)}`$. This then leaves us with,

$$S_E(\frac{2𝒱(\varphi _0)}{n1}+\left(\frac{n}{(n1)}\right)^{1/2}𝒱,_{\varphi _0})\frac{I_n}{H^{(n+1)}}Vol(\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{n}),$$
(43)
$`I_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2^n[((n1)/2)!]^2}{n!}\hfill & \text{if n is odd}\hfill \\ \frac{(n1)!\pi }{2^{(n1)}(n/21)!(n/2)!}\hfill & \text{if  n  is  even}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (46)
For example we find, $`I_2=\pi /2,I_3=4/3,I_4=3\pi /8,I_5=16/15`$. For the archetypal harmonic potential, $`𝒱=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2`$, we obtain an estimate for the location of the minima to be $`(\varphi _0)_{\mathrm{min}}n\sqrt{\frac{n}{(n1)}}`$, which is approximately linear in n. The corresponding value for the action is

$$S_{\mathrm{min}}(n)I_n\left[\frac{n1}{n}\right]^{(n1)}Vol(\mathrm{S}^\mathrm{n}).$$
(47)
The full numerical solutions to (37)-(39) are given in Fig. 3, where the reduced action is found for a range of dimensions. The behaviour is well explained by the approximation scheme, which describes the positions of the minima increasing as $`n`$ increases, along with the value of the reduced action which also increases with n.

We are now in a position to compare the total action we found for the product ansatz, -11.9, and this more symmetric case. The example we found before, Fig. 2, was for a six dimensional manifold. the total action of the Hawking-Turok solution in six dimensions is seen from Fig. 3 as $`\pi ^3(0.495)=15.3`$, which is lower. We have checked this for a number of dimensions, using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0`$, and found that although a minima existed it had a higher action than the corresponding Hawking-Turok instanton. Although this is not a proof that the lowest action will not be of the product form, we see no reason to suspect otherwise.

Now let us proceed to investigate analytically the behaviour of the action for a more general class of our instantons to see if we can understand why a minima appears at all. Consider eqn (29). If we take p and q of (35) to both be less than one then, using our knowledge of the asymptotic behaviour of the field and scale factors, we find that near a singular pole this equation becomes,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_a(n_a1)\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_b(n_b1)\beta ^2+n_an_b\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2.`$ (48)
Let us consider the case $`n_a,n_b>>1`$. Then if we multiply eqn. (48) through by $`a^{2n_a}b^{2n_b}`$ we find that the left hand side becomes approximately equal to the boundary term in the action squared. Using this observation we can once more follow through the analysis of Hawking and Turok but this time the analysis will apply to the case of 2 submanifolds. The analysis here is the same as that which lead to (42), except that we must take $`n_a`$, $`n_b>>1`$ in the constraint equation to find

$`S_E=(𝒱,_{\varphi _0}{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒱(\varphi _0)}{(n_a+n_b1)}})V_{(1)}V_{(2)}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{a}(\xi )^{\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{a}}\mathrm{b}(\xi )^{\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{b}}`$ (49)
The next step is to make the approximation that $`a(\xi )H^1\mathrm{sin}(H\xi )`$ and $`b(\xi )=b(\xi =0)=`$constant. The end result is that the action is approximated by the value obtained in (43) multiplied by $`b(\xi =0)^{n_b}`$ and an extra submanifold volume factor. This then explains why a valley is found in Fig. 2 which is parallel to the $`b(0)`$ axis, getting deeper as $`b(0)`$ increases. Clearly the valley cannot keep getting arbitrarily deep, so at some point these approximations break down. We find that the weak link in our chain of reasoning is the assumption that we make about the behaviour of the scale factors as they approach the north pole. For small $`b(0)`$ then we find that $`a(\xi )`$ decreases to zero at $`\xi _N`$, and our approximation works. When $`b(0)`$ is larger than some critical value then instead of decreasing to zero, $`a(\xi )`$ increases and diverges at $`\xi _N`$ and the approximation of treating it as a sine breaks down.

The important point to take away from all this is that some of our types of instanton with a ‘warp product space’ topology have local minima of action in parameter space, but the corresponding Hawking Turok instanton (with appropriate dimensionality) will still dominate over them in the semi-classical approximation to the Hartle Hawking wavefunction.

### A A conjecture.

We have seen that the metric associated with the scale factor which vanishes at $`\xi _S`$ must have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1>0`$, (33). The same constraint does not apply to the other manifolds. If we were to allow $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i>1}0`$ then Bishop’s theorem does not put a limit on the total volume of the $`_{(i>1)}`$; so if the reduced action had a minima with a negative value then (27) could be made arbitrarily negative by increasing $`V_{(i>1)}`$. We would therefore expect that negative values of the reduced action occur only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}>0`$ for all $`i`$. We have checked this for the case of two submanifolds of various dimensions, always confirming this conjecture.

## IV Analytical solutions and analytical continuation.

The equations are simplified considerably if we actually drop the scalar field $`\varphi `$, and replace its potential with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We then obtain the following analytical solutions . The first is given by,

$`a_{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(n_{(1)}1)}\chi }}sin(\chi \xi )`$ (50)
$`n_{(1)}(n_{(1)}1)\chi ^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{i>1}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{n_{(i)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}}{a_{(i)}^2}})`$ (51)
and for $`i>1`$,

$`a_{(i)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}}{n_{(1)}\chi ^2}}},`$ (52)
where $`n_{(1)}>1`$. There is a similar solution when $`n_{(1)}=1`$. It is also possible that $`\chi `$ may be taken as imaginary, in which case the trigonometric function become hyperbolic, rendering the instanton non-compact. One can still create finite size instantons in this case by introducing domain walls at some value $`\xi _W`$. This creates a discontinuity in the gradient of $`a_{(1)}`$ causing the scale factor to decrease, if the wall tension is large enough. We can see that the limiting behaviour $`a_{(1)}(\xi 0)1/\sqrt{(n_{(1)}1)}`$ is consistent with (33) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}=1`$, meaning that the metric is regular at the end points. Equation (52) also shows that if we have $`\chi `$ real then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i>1)}>0`$, and for imaginary $`\chi `$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i>1)}<0`$. Ricci flat submanifolds would mean a vanishing scale factor for that manifold, so in effect they are not present.

The second analytical solution is,

$`a_{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(n_{(1)}1)}\chi }}sin(\chi \xi )`$ (53)
$`a_{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(n_{(2)}1)}\chi }}cos(\chi \xi )`$ (54)
$`(2n_{(1)}n_{(2)}+n_{(1)}(n_{(1)}1)+n_{(2)}(n_{(2)}1))\chi ^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{i>2}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{n_{(i)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}}{a_{(i)}^2}})`$ (55)
and for $`i>2`$,

$`a_{(i)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(i)}}{(n_{(1)}+n_{(2)})\chi ^2}}},`$ (56)
where $`n_{(1)}>1`$ and $`n_{(2)}>1`$ although there is a similar solution when they both are equal to one. As before, if $`\chi `$ is imaginary we require a domain wall to make the instanton compact. This solution also requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)}=1`$ if the instanton is to close off in a regular manner at the ‘north’ and ‘south’ poles.

Although the majority of the instantons considered in this paper do not analytically continue to lorentzian space times where some of the dimensions are compactified we can use these analytical solutions to demonstrate that there are some that do. One subset of the solutions given above is the product of S<sup>4</sup> with S<sup>n</sup>. This can be analytically continued to a four dimensional deSitter space with a static S<sup>n</sup> as the internal manifold.

It should be noted that the static nature of this internal manifold is not stable to perturbations. This is of course the manifestation in this context of the problem of stabilising moduli fields in cosmology. We do not attempt to resolve this difficulty here. Some recent mechanisms for stabilising moduli fields in cosmology can be found in  and .

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we have derived the equations of motion for a specific warp product of general Einstein metrics. The main conclusion we can draw is that instantons which continue to spaces with compact ‘extra’ dimensions of the form considered here do not have lower action than the corresponding higher-dimensional Hawking-Turok instanton. However, non trivial minima of the action do occur if the Einstein metrics all have positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. These results are significant: First, they seem to indicate that the symmetry arguments used by Hawking and Turok in their letter can be applied to higher dimensional cases. Secondly, our analysis applies to a wide range of metrics and cosmological scenarios. Our particular comparison of the instantons involved n-dimensional spheres as our internal compact dimensions. Bishop’s theorem then implies that these will provide the lowest possible action for such spacetimes with compact internal dimensions, hence our results apply to any Einstein metric – they will always be beaten by the corresponding Hawking-Turok instantons. This result strongly suggests to us that if the initial quantum state of the universe were to be described by the ‘Hartle Hawking proposal’ then it would be difficult to explain the presence of extra compact dimensions.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Garriga, S. Gratton, N. Manton and T. Wiseman for useful conversations. EJC, JG and PS are all supported by PPARC. The numerical work was carried out in the UK-CCC COSMOS Origin 2000 supercomputer, supported by Silicon Graphics/Cray Research, HEFCE and PPARC.