text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)  is an empirical alternative to invoking dark matter as an explanation for the motions of cosmological systems which are subject to very small accelerations. In one formulation the force $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{Newt}}`$ on a point mass $`m`$ is given by Newtonian gravity, but the second law becomes nonlinear in the acceleration $`\stackrel{}{a}`$,

$$\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{Newt}}=m\mu \left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)\stackrel{}{a}\mathrm{where}\mu (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & x1,\hfill \\ x\hfill & x1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The numerical value of $`a_0`$ has been determined by fitting to the rotation curves of nine well-measured galaxies ,

$$a_0=(1.20\pm .27)\times 10^{10}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2.$$
(2)
Because the observed stars and gas contain constituents subject to much larger internal accelerations111For example, were we to think of neutral Hydrogen as a classical planetary system, the proton would be subject to an acceleration of about $`10^{19}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2`$ about the atomic barycenter! it is preferable to view MOND as a modification of the gravitational force at low accelerations. That is, the second law takes its traditional form $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{MOND}}=m\stackrel{}{a}`$, but the actual force is the following nonlinear function of the force predicted by Newtonian gravity,

$$\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{MOND}}=f\left(\frac{F_{\mathrm{Newt}}}{ma_0}\right)\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{Newt}}\mathrm{where}f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & x1,\hfill \\ x^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & x1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
One consequence of MOND is that the velocities of particles in progressively more distant circular orbits approach a constant $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ which depends only upon a galaxy’s mass . For large radius $`r`$ the Newtonian force due to a galaxy of mass $`M`$ is $`F_{\mathrm{Newt}}=GMm/r^2`$. Since $`F_{\mathrm{Newt}}/m`$ must eventually fall below $`a_0`$, relation (3) implies that the asymptotic force law is $`F_{\mathrm{MOND}}=m\sqrt{a_0GM}/r`$. Applying the second law gives,

$$\frac{\sqrt{a_0GM}}{r}=\frac{v_{\mathrm{}}^2}{r}a_0GM=v_{\mathrm{}}^4.$$
(4)
With no dark matter a galaxy’s luminosity $`L`$ should be a constant times its mass, although the constant will depend upon the type of galaxy. Thus one expects $`Lv_{\mathrm{}}^4`$, which is the observed Tully-Fisher relation .

MOND provides an excellent fit to the rotation curves of all known types of galaxies, using only the measured distributions of gas and stars and fitted mass-to-luminosity ratios for gas and stars. The recent review by Sanders and McGaugh  summarizes the increasingly compelling data and lists the primary sources. It is significant that the fitted mass-to-luminosity ratios are not unreasonable . Especially significant is that MOND agrees in detail even with low surface brightness galaxies , objects for which the MOND regime ($`a<a_0`$) applies throughout and for which no detailed measurements had been made when MOND was proposed. On the other hand, some dark matter must be invoked to explain the temperature and density profiles of large galaxy clusters . (It it has been suggested that $`eV`$-mass neutrinos might provide this without affecting the galactic results .) And a very recent analysis of data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey asserts that satellites of isolated galaxies violate MOND when care is taken to exclude interlopers .

The successes of MOND might be a numerical coincidence . They may result instead from galaxy formation and evolution flowing towards some yet-unrecognized attractor solution through conventional physics. Or they might signal a real modification of gravity in the regime of very low acceleration. Although the issue cannot be decided at this time, the number and quality of relevant observations which are technically feasible  indicate that it may be resolved in the near future. If MOND could be convincingly embedded in a larger, metric formulation of gravity, that theory could already be tested against a wide variety of data from lensing , cosmology , and structure formation . As it is, one must make assumptions, whereupon comparison with observation is as much a test of these assumptions as it is of MOND. It is therefore opportune to consider what sort of fundamental theory might reduce to MOND in the appropriate limit.

There is a satisfactory nonrelativistic potential formulation for the relation between the MOND force $`\stackrel{}{F}_{\mathrm{MOND}}=\stackrel{}{}\varphi `$ and the mass density $`\rho _m`$. It is given by the Lagrangian of Bekenstein and Milgrom ,

$$=\rho _m\varphi \frac{a_0^2}{8\pi G}F\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{}\varphi ^2}{a_0^2}\right)\mathrm{where}\mu (x)=F^{}(x^2).$$
(5)
This is very important because it establishes that MOND conserves energy, momentum and angular momentum. However, it does not extend the theory sufficiently to test lensing and cosmology. A generally coordinate invariant, scalar-metric extension exists but it contains dynamical scalar degrees of freedom which can propagate acausally .

We wish here to consider a different possibility. Suppose that general relativity really is the fundamental theory of gravity, but that its effective action contains large quantum corrections from infrared virtual particles. Weinberg showed that infrared effects in quantum gravity are no stronger than those of QED for the case of zero cosmological constant . However, a nonzero cosmological constant would preserve the graviton’s masslessness while subjecting it to interactions of canonical dimension three. Recall that infrared effects become stronger as massless particles are coupled with lower dimension interactions, and that they are already nonperturbatively strong for massless gluons with the dimension four coupling of QCD.

These considerations are the basis for a daring proposal to simultaneously resolve the (old) cosmological constant problem  and provide a natural model of inflation in which scalars play no part. The idea  is that the bare cosmological constant is actually GUT-scale, which leads to an initial period of inflation during the early universe. What brings inflation to an end is the gravitational attraction between the ever-increasing numbers of infrared gravitons ripped out of the vacuum by the rapid expansion. One can follow this process as long as the slowing is weak, and explicit computations confirm that the effect must eventually become nonperturbatively strong .

If this proposal is correct, the post-inflationary universe would be described by the nonlocal effective action which prevails after the breakdown of perturbation theory. We cannot compute reliably in this regime, but nothing prevents one from making guesses about the form of this effective action. The simplest class of guesses which give a plausible end for inflation involve acting the inverse covariant d’Alembertian on the Ricci scalar . We will refer to this as the small potential,

$$\phi [g]\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}R\mathrm{where}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right).$$
(6)
(We use a spacelike metric with $`R_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu ,\rho }^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \mu ,\nu }^\rho +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \sigma }^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \mu }^\sigma `$.) This paper will not consider inflation or the cosmological constant. We shall rather explore embedding MOND in a nonlocal Lagrangian of the form,

$$=\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\left[R+c^4a_0^2\left(c^4a_0^2g^{\mu \nu }\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }\right)\right]\sqrt{g}.$$
(7)
A desirable feature of this class of models is that it involves only the metric. Although the field equations are nonlocal, they do not seem to possess additional graviton solutions in weak field perturbation theory. To see this, expand the metric about flat space as usual,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }.$$
(8)
It is an elementary exercise to show that the Ricci scalar is,

$$R=h_{,\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }^{\mu ,\nu }+O(h^2),$$
(9)
where graviton indices are raised and lowered using the Lorentz metric as usual. Now impose de Donder gauge,

$$h_{\nu ,\mu }^\mu \frac{1}{2}h_{\mu ,\nu }^\mu =0,$$
(10)
to show that the small potential is local in the weak field limit,

$$\phi [\eta +h]=\frac{1}{2}h_\mu ^\mu +O(h^2).$$
(11)
Since the Lagrangian depends upon the first derivative of $`\phi `$, this theory cannot acquire higher derivative solutions in weak field perturbation theory. Indeed, all solutions to the source-free Einstein equations must be solutions to this theory because they have $`R=0`$ throughout spacetime, which implies $`\phi =0`$ as well. The correction term in (7) changes only gravity’s response to sources, without adding new weak field dynamical degrees of freedom. So these models seem worthy of closer study.

In section 2 we derive the form a static and spherically symmetric metric must take to reproduce galactic rotation curves in the MOND regime. We also work out the deflection of light in the weak field limit. In section 3 we employ a formal shortcut to obtain the causal field equations which would come from a Schwinger-Keldysh effective action . We also explicitly demonstrate conservation. The nonlocal field equations are specialized to a static, spherically symmetric geometry in section 4. We first prove, for general interpolating function $`(x)`$, that any MOND terms must drop out of the formula for the deflection of light. This is the decisive point of our analysis because the existing lensing data can only be made consistent with the absence of dark matter if MOND terms contribute . No member of this class of models can therefore represent a phenomenologically viable extension of MOND. However, it is possible to choose the interpolating function $`(x)`$ to reproduce MOND, and we derive the required form. Section 5 explores the model’s impact on cosmology, more to illustrate what can be done with a complete theory than because this model is viable. In section 6 we discuss more general models which might avoid the lensing disaster.

## 2 Phenomenological constraints

MOND was developed as an alternative to halos of dark matter surrounding nearly static, cosmological sources. Far from such a system one would expect the asymptotic geometry to be spherically symmetric and static:

$$ds^2g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu =B(r)dt^2+A(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(12)
We first show that rotation curves fix $`B(r)`$ in the MOND limit but tell us nothing about $`A(r)`$. We then discuss the magnitude of the effect. The section closes by working out the angular deflection of light for a general class of weak field limits.

Let $`\chi ^\mu (t)`$ be the worldline of a test particle moving in the geometry described by (12). If only the gravitational force is significant the particle’s worldline obeys the geodesic equation:

$$\ddot{\chi }^\mu (t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\mu \left(\chi (t)\right)\dot{\chi }^\rho (t)\dot{\chi }^\sigma (t)=0.$$
(13)
The nonzero connection components derived from (12) are,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tr}^t={\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2B}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tt}^r={\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2A}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rr}^r={\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2A}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\theta \theta }^r={\displaystyle \frac{r}{A}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \varphi }^r={\displaystyle \frac{r}{A}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\theta r}^\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi r}^\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \varphi }^\theta =\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\theta ),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \theta }^\varphi =\mathrm{cot}(\theta ).`$ (14)
Now specialize to the case of circular motion,

$$(\chi ^t,\chi ^r,\chi ^\theta ,\chi ^\varphi )=(ct,r,\frac{\pi }{2},\varphi (t)).$$
(15)
With our connection (14) the $`\mu =t`$ and $`\mu =\theta `$ components of the geodesic equation are tautologies. The $`\mu =\varphi `$ component just says $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is constant. Only the $`\mu =r`$ component of the geodesic equation is nontrivial,

$$\frac{B^{}}{2A}\frac{r}{A}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{c^2}=0.$$
(16)
Note that $`A(r)`$ factors out! For circular orbits the velocity has the Euclidean relation to the angular velocity, $`v=r\dot{\varphi }`$. In the MOND limit $`v^2`$ approaches the constant $`v_{\mathrm{}}^2=\sqrt{a_0GM}`$, so the MOND limit for $`B(r)`$ must obey,

$$B^{}(r)\frac{2}{r}\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}}.$$
(17)
It is well at this point to consider the size of things. A large galaxy might have a mass in stars and gas of $`M10^{11}\times M_{}10^{41}\mathrm{kg}`$. Such a galaxy would enter the MOND regime at a radius of about,

$$R_{\mathrm{gal}}\sqrt{\frac{GM}{a_0}}10^{20}\mathrm{m}.$$
(18)
For weak fields we can write,

$$A(r)=1+a(r),B(r)=1+b(r),$$
(19)
where $`|a(r)|1`$ and $`|b(r)|1`$. A useful phenomenological ansatz for the asymptotic behavior of the weak fields is,

$$a(r)\delta _1\frac{GM}{c^2r}+ϵ_1\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}},b(r)\delta _2\frac{GM}{c^2r}+ϵ_2\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{R_{\mathrm{gal}}}\right).$$
(20)
We have just seen that MOND predicts $`ϵ_2=2`$ but says nothing about the other parameters. With just the isolated galaxy, general relativity gives $`\delta _1=\delta _2=2`$ and $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=0`$. If an isothermal halo of dark matter is added, whose density is chosen to reproduce $`v_{\mathrm{}}^2=\sqrt{a_0GM}`$, general relativity gives $`\delta _1=\delta _2=ϵ_1=ϵ_2=2`$.

One might worry that the logarithmic growth of $`b(r)`$ in (20) must eventually invalidate the weak field approximation but this is not a practical concern. For the large galaxy considered previously the small parameters multiplying the $`\delta `$’s and $`ϵ`$’s are,

$$\frac{GM}{c^2r}\frac{R_{\mathrm{gal}}}{r}\times 10^6,\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}}10^6.$$
(21)
The difference $`b(r)`$ from the onset of MOND all the way to the current horizon ($`R_{\mathrm{hor}}10^{26}\mathrm{m}`$) is,

$$b(R_{\mathrm{hor}})b(R_{\mathrm{gal}})\delta _2\times 10^6+ϵ_2\times 10^5.$$
(22)
The weak field regime is therefore applicable throughout the Hubble volume.

Another numerical fact worthing noting is that the natural length associated with the MOND acceleration $`a_0`$ is larger than the Hubble radius,

$$\frac{c^2}{a_0}10^{27}\mathrm{m}.$$
(23)
This has the important consequence that $`ra_0/c^2`$ is negligible on galaxy and galactic cluster scales, so that powers of $`r`$ do not necessarily distinguish “large” and “small” terms. Consider, for example, two possible contributions to the weak fields,

$$\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{R_{\mathrm{gal}}}\right)\frac{GM}{c^2r}.$$
(24)
The left hand term is negligible with respect to the right hand side, even though the latter falls off with $`r`$ whereas the former actually grows.

We can now consider what MOND says about lensing. The angular deflection of light can be expressed in terms of the turning point $`R_0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2_{R_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr}{r}\frac{A^{\frac{1}{2}}(r)}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{r}{R_0}\right)^2\frac{B(R_0)}{B(r)}1}}\pi .$$
(25)
This can be expanded in powers of the weak fields and then simplified using the change of variables $`r=R_0\mathrm{sec}(\theta )`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ $`=2{\displaystyle _{R_0}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{r}{R_0}\right)^21}}}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{a(r)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b(R_0)b(r)}{1\left(\frac{R_0}{r}\right)^2}}+\mathrm{}\right\}\pi ,`$ (26)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta \{a\left(R_0\mathrm{sec}(\theta )\right)\mathrm{csc}^2(\theta )\left[b\left(R_0\right)b\left(R_0\mathrm{sec}(\theta )\right)\right]+\mathrm{}\}.`$ (27)
Substituting the general ansatz (20) gives,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\left(\delta _1\delta _2\right)\frac{GM}{c^2R_0}+\left(ϵ_1+ϵ_2\right)\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(28)
Without dark matter, general relativity ($`\delta _1=\delta _2=2`$ and $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=0`$) gives too little deflection at large $`R_0`$ to be consistent with the frequency of lensing by galaxies. General relativity with an isothermal halo of dark matter ($`\delta _1=\delta _2=ϵ_1=ϵ_2=2`$) is consistent with the existing data . For MOND to be similarly consistent with the data requires the sum $`(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)`$ to be positive and of order one.

## 3 The nonlocal field equations

The ostensible purpose of this section is to derive the field equations associated with (7). We are not going to quite do that for the very good reason that one does not get causal field equations by varying a temporally nonlocal action. To see this, consider the quadratic part of the effective action for a real scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ in flat spacetime,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}d^4y\varphi (y)[^2m^2]\varphi (y)\frac{1}{2}d^4yd^4z\varphi (y)M^2(x;y)\varphi (z).$$
(29)
Here $`M^2(y;z)`$ is the scalar self-mass-squared, which is symmetric under interchange of $`y^\mu `$ and $`z^\mu `$. Taking the variational derivative and ignoring surface terms gives,

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi (x)}=[^2m^2]\varphi (x)d^4x^{}M^2(x;x^{})\varphi (x^{}).$$
(30)
If $`M^2(x;x^{})0`$ for some $`x^\mu =x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ in the past of $`x^\mu `$ then it is also nonzero for $`x^\mu =x^\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ in the future of $`x^\mu `$. Another embarrassing property of the conventional effective action field equations is that their solutions are not typically real even if the associated field operators are Hermitian. This is because the effective action field equations are obeyed by in-out matrix elements of the field operators, and the “in” state may not evolve into the same “out” state.

Both causality and reality can be enforced by employing the field equations of the Schwinger-Keldysh effective action . These are obeyed by the expectation values of the field operators in the presence of the same state, so Hermiticity of the operator implies reality of the solution. In the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism there are two background fields: $`\varphi _+(x)`$ for the evolution forward from the initial state and $`\varphi _{}(x)`$ for the reverse evolution back to it. The quadratic part of the scalar action has the form,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi _+;\varphi _{}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4y\varphi _+(y)[^2m^2]\varphi _+(y)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4y\varphi _{}(y)[^2m^2]\varphi _{}(y)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4y{\displaystyle }d^4z\{\varphi _+(y)M_{++}^2(y;z)\varphi _+(z)+\varphi _+(y)M_+^2(y;z)\varphi _{}(z)`$
$`+\varphi _{}(y)M_+^2(y;z)\varphi _+(z)+\varphi _{}(y)M_{}^2(y;z)\varphi _{}(z)\},`$ (31)
where $`M_{++}^2(y;z)`$ and $`M_{}^2(y;z)`$ are symmetric, and $`M_+^2(y;z)=M_+^2(z;y)`$. The various $`\pm `$ self-mass-squared functions are related by simple rules which alter the $`iϵ`$ terms in propagators and change the sign of some vertices . The Schwinger-Keldysh field equations are obtained by varying with respect to either $`\varphi _+`$ or $`\varphi _{}`$, and then equating the two fields after the variation ,

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi _+;\varphi _{}]}{\delta \varphi _+(x)}|_{\varphi _\pm =\varphi }=[^2m^2]\varphi (x)d^4x^{}[M_{++}^2(x;x^{})+M_+^2(x;x^{})]\varphi (x^{}).$$
(32)
It turns out that $`M_+^2(x;x^{})`$ is exactly equal and opposite to $`M_{++}(x;x^{})`$ whenever $`x^\mu `$ is not in or on the past light-cone of $`x^\mu `$. When $`x^\mu `$ is in the past of $`x^\mu `$ the two terms are complex conjugates, which ensures reality.222Full details can be found in a recent paper on the vacuum polarization of scalar QED in a locally de Sitter background .

Since we do not actually derive either the conventional effective action or the Schwinger-Keldysh version, we will simply employ a trick to extract causal field equations from (7). For the purposes of this paper one may as well regard these equations — rather than (7) — as defining the model. The trick is to act the nonlocal operators backwards whenever they would ordinarily act upon the variation. For example, when $`f[g]`$ is any functional of the metric we write,

$`f[g]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \phi [g]}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}`$ $`=`$ $`f[g]\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta R}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}\right\},`$ (33)
$``$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{\delta R}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}f[g].`$ (34)
It is useful to recall the standard result for varying the Ricci scalar,

$$\frac{\delta R(y)}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }(x)}=\left[R_{\mu \nu }(y)+D_\mu D_\nu g_{\mu \nu }(y)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\right]\delta ^4(yx).$$
(35)
(Here $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative operator.) We recall also the definition of the stress-energy tensor from the variation the matter action $`S_m`$,333This should be local because only gravitons combine the properties (natural masslessness and the absence of conformal invariance) needed to produce a strong infrared effect during inflation .

$$T_{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_m}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}.$$
(36)
Taking $`16\pi Gc^4/\sqrt{g}`$ times the variation of our nonlocal action (7) — in the sense of our trick (34) — gives the following field equations,

$`8\pi Gc^4T_{\mu \nu }=2[\mathrm{\Phi }_{;\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }]+G_{\mu \nu }[12\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ (37)
$`+\left[g_{\mu \nu }\phi ^{,\rho }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }\phi _{,\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }\phi _{,\nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }\right]+\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{2c^4}}g_{\mu \nu }.`$
The symbol $`\mathrm{\Phi }[g]`$ in this and subsequent formulae denotes the large potential,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[g]\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\left(\phi ^{,\rho }^{}\right)_{;\rho }.$$
(38)
Because we have not really derived (37) it is worth while to explicitly verify the important property of conservation. The covariant divergence of each term is,

$`2[\mathrm{\Phi }_{;\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }]^{;\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`+2R_\mu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }.`$ (39)
$`\left(G_{\mu \nu }[12\mathrm{\Phi }]\right)^{;\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2R_\mu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }+R\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu },`$ (40)
$`\left[g_{\mu \nu }\phi ^{,\rho }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }\phi _{,\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }\phi _{,\nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }\right]^{;\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{,\mu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }R\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu },`$ (41)
$`\left(\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }^{}\right)^{;\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`+\phi _{;\mu \nu }\phi ^{,\nu }^{}+\phi _{,\mu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (42)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{2c^4}}g_{\mu \nu }\right)^{;\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{;\mu \nu }\phi ^{,\nu }^{},`$ (43)
and they do sum to zero. The equations (37) are manifestly covariant. If $`1/\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$ denotes the retarded Green’s function they are also causal.

## 4 Spherically symmetric, static sources

This is the key section of the paper. We begin by working out the small potential (6) and the large potential (38) for a general spherically symmetric and static metric (12). Then we give the two independent equations which derive from (37) for this geometry. This is valid for arbitrary $`A(r)=1+a(r)`$ and $`B(r)=1+b(r)`$. In the MOND regime one has $`|a(r)|1`$ and $`|b(r)|1`$, for which case we show that the equations can be simplified without making any assumption about the interpolating function $`(x)`$. In terms of the general weak field ansatz (20), these simplified equations prove that $`ϵ_1+ϵ_2=0`$. It follows from section 2 that no model of the form (7) can be consistent with galaxy lensing. However, it is possible to choose the interpolating function $`(x)`$ so as to reproduce MOND’s success with galactic rotation curves. The section closes by doing this.

The general spherically symmetric and static geometry (12,14) gives rise the following Ricci scalar,

$$R=\frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{AB}+\frac{B^{}}{2AB}\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}+\frac{B^{}}{B}\right)+\frac{2}{rA}\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}\frac{B^{}}{B}\right)+\frac{2}{r^2}\left(1\frac{1}{A}\right).$$
(44)
In this geometry, and acting upon a function only of $`r`$, the covariant d’Alembertian reduces to,

$$\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=\frac{1}{r^2\sqrt{AB}}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^2\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}}\frac{d}{dr}\right).$$
(45)
The differential equation which defines the small potential therefore takes the form,

$$\left(r^2\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}}\phi ^{}\right)^{}=\left(r^2\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}}\left[\frac{B^{}}{B}+\frac{2}{r}(A1)\right]\right)^{}r\sqrt{AB}\left(1\frac{1}{A}\right)\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}+\frac{B^{}}{B}\right).$$
(46)
Assuming the two parenthesized terms vanish at $`r=0`$ we can write,

$$\phi ^{}(r)=\frac{B^{}}{B}+\frac{2}{r}\left(A1\right)\frac{1}{r^2}\sqrt{\frac{A}{B}}_0^r𝑑r^{}r^{}\sqrt{AB}\left(1\frac{1}{A}\right)\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}+\frac{B^{}}{B}\right).$$
(47)
The differential equation that defines the large potential is,

$$_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }\right)=_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\phi _{,\nu }^{}\right)\left(r^2\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right)^{}=\left(r^2\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}}\phi ^{}^{}\right)^{}.$$
(48)
Assuming again that the parenthesized terms vanish at $`r=0`$ we can write,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(r)=\phi ^{}(r)^{}\left(\frac{c^4\phi ^2(r)}{a_0^2A(r)}\right).$$
(49)
And those of its second covariant derivatives we shall need are,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{;tt}=\frac{B^{}}{2A}\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{;rr}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }\frac{A^{}}{2A}\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{A}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{B^{}}{B}\frac{A^{}}{A}\right)\right].$$
(50)
In this geometry only the diagonal components of the field equations (37) are nontrivial. The $`\theta \theta `$ and $`\varphi \varphi `$ equations are proportional to one another, and conservation gives both from the $`tt`$ and $`rr`$ equations the same as for the stress-energy,

$$\frac{T_{\varphi \varphi }}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )}=T_{\theta \theta }=\frac{r^3}{2A}\left\{\frac{B^{}}{2B}\frac{A}{B}T_{tt}+\left[\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{A^{}}{A}+\frac{B^{}}{2B}\right]T_{rr}\right\}.$$
(51)
The system can therefore be defined by its $`tt`$ (times $`A/B`$) and $`rr`$ equations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi GA}{c^4B}}T_{tt}`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{B}}G_{tt}(12\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{2c^4}}A{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{},`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}}T_{rr}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+G_{rr}(12\mathrm{\Phi }){\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{2c^4}}A{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}.`$ (53)
The $`tt`$ and $`rr`$ components of the Einstein tensor are,

$$\frac{A}{B}G_{tt}=\frac{A^{}}{rA}+\left(\frac{A1}{r^2}\right),G_{rr}=\frac{B^{}}{rB}\left(\frac{A1}{r^2}\right).$$
(54)
We now evaluate the derivative of the small potential (47) to leading order in the weak fields, $`a(r)`$ and $`b(r)`$,

$$\phi ^{}\frac{2a}{r}b^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(55)
One might worry that the integral in (47) contributes as well, but note that the integrand exactly vanishes for $`A=B^1`$. This means that the integral cannot contribute much in the regime for which general relativity applies. The integrand is nonzero in the MOND regime, but it is also second order in the weak fields, $`a`$ and $`b`$. We can therefore ignore this term altogether.

In the asymptotic regime we can assume that each derivative adds a factor of $`1/r`$. Hence $`\phi ^{}(r)`$ goes like $`1/r`$ times the small numbers $`a(r)`$ or $`b(r)`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/r`$ is much larger in magnitude than $`\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. By similar reasoning we recognize that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }`$ dominate the other MOND corrections,

$$\left|\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right|\left|\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }\right|\left|\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right|,\left|\frac{A^{}}{A}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right|,\left|\frac{B^{}}{B}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right|,\left|\frac{a_0^2}{c^4}\right|.$$
(56)
In the weak field limit it seems reasonable to assume $`T_{rr}=0`$ while still allowing a nonzero $`A/BT_{tt}=\rho `$. We still don’t know how the two leading MOND terms (56) on the gravitational side of the equations compare with the leading terms from general relativity. Including both gives,

$`2\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}}\rho (r)`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (58)
The first of these equations (57) can be integrated to give,

$$\frac{4}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\frac{2a}{r^2}+\mathrm{}=\frac{K}{r^3}+\frac{16\pi G}{c^4r^3}_{R_{\mathrm{gal}}}^r𝑑r^{}r^2\rho (r^{}).$$
(59)
Adding (58) and (59) cancels the leading MOND corrections,

$$\frac{b^{}}{r}+\frac{a}{r^2}+\mathrm{}=\frac{K}{r^3}+\frac{16\pi G}{c^4r^3}_{R_{\mathrm{gal}}}^r𝑑r^{}r^2\rho (r^{}).$$
(60)
Equation (60) is interesting because it has no dependence upon the still unknown interpolating function $`(x)`$. We can therefore use it to make statements about all models of the type (7). Under the assumption of no dark matter halos, the mass integral must eventually stop growing, in which case the left hand side falls off like $`1/r^3`$. So if $`b^{}(r)`$ goes like a constant times $`1/r`$ then $`a(r)`$ must go like minus the same constant. In terms of the generic ansatz (20) of section 2 we have just demonstrated that all models of the type (7) have $`ϵ_1+ϵ_2=0`$. As discussed in section 2, this means that galaxies without halos of dark matter would give far too little lensing. These models do not give phenomenologically viable realizations of MOND.

It is still interesting to see if the interpolating function $`(x)`$ can be chosen to reproduce MOND rotation curves. For this purpose let us consider a sphere of radius $`R`$ with very low, constant density,

$$\rho (r)=\frac{3Mc^2}{4\pi R^3}\theta (Rr).$$
(61)
If the density is small enough the MOND regime prevails throughout, as in a low surface brightness galaxy. This means that (57) can be integrated all the way down to $`r=0`$ to give,

$$2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\frac{a}{r}+\mathrm{}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4r^2}_0^r𝑑r^{}r^2\rho (r^{}).$$
(62)
We can also use (55) to eliminate $`b^{}(r)`$ in $`r`$ times (58),

$$4\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\phi ^{}\frac{a}{r}+\mathrm{}=0.$$
(63)
Now eliminate $`a(r)`$ by adding (62) and (63), and then use (49) to obtain an equation for the small potential,

$$\phi ^{}\left[1+6^{}\left(\frac{c^4\phi ^2}{a_0^2}\right)\right]+\mathrm{}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4r^2}_0^r𝑑r^{}r^2\rho (r^{}).$$
(64)
For $`r>R`$ the mass integral is constant,

$$\phi ^{}\left[1+6^{}\left(\frac{c^4\phi ^2}{a_0^2}\right)\right]+\mathrm{}=\frac{2GM}{c^2r^2}r>R.$$
(65)
Now recall from section 2 that MOND requires $`ϵ_2=2`$, and we have just seen that any model of the class (7) must have $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$. The weak field limit (55) for the small potential therefore implies we must have,

$$\phi ^{}(r)\frac{6}{r}\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}}+\mathrm{}$$
(66)
It follows that the constant term within the square brackets of (65) must exactly cancel, and that the next order term must involve one power of $`\phi ^{}`$. Working out the algebra gives,

$$^{}(x)=\frac{1}{6}\frac{\sqrt{x}}{108}+O(x)(x)=\frac{x}{6}\frac{x^{\frac{3}{2}}}{162}+O(x^2).$$
(67)
The associated weak fields are,

$$a(r)\frac{4GM}{3c^2r}2\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}},b(r)\frac{8GM}{3c^2r}+2\sqrt{\frac{a_0GM}{c^4}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right).$$
(68)
For the general weak field ansatz (20) of section 2 we have just shown $`2\delta _1=\delta _2=\frac{8}{3}`$ and $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=2`$.

A potentially troublesome point is that equation (65) involves terms of second order in the weak fields $`a(r)`$ and $`b(r)`$,

$$\phi ^{}\left[1+6^{}\left(\frac{c^4\phi ^2}{a_0^2}\right)\right]+\mathrm{}=\frac{c^2}{18a_0}\phi ^2+\mathrm{}=\frac{2GM}{c^2r^2}.$$
(69)
But in (56) we previously neglected such second order terms to derive the simplified equations (57-58) which pertain in the MOND regime. Closer inspection reveals that all of the terms neglected in (56) contribute terms to the left hand side of (69) which are small for $`rR_{\mathrm{hor}}10^{26}\mathrm{m}`$,

$$r\phi ^2\frac{c^2}{a_0}\phi ^210^{27}\mathrm{m}\times \phi ^2.$$
(70)
Note also that one must involve quadratic terms like those of (69) in order to make the weak fields go like the square root of the system’s mass, as MOND predicts.

Enforcing the MOND limit determines only the first two terms in the small $`x`$ expansion of the interpolating function $`(x)`$. There are many ways of extending this to a formula for general $`x`$. The only phenomenological constraint is that we need the MOND corrections to be acceptably small in the general relativistic regime of large $`x`$. For example, we can make $`(x)\frac{14}{3}|x|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ for large $`|x|`$ with the following extension,

$`^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{7}{18}\mathrm{sgn}(x)}{1+\frac{1}{6}|x|^{\frac{1}{2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{9}\mathrm{sgn}(x)}{\left(1+\frac{1}{6}|x|^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^2}},`$ (71)
$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{22}{3}|x|^{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{7}{9}|x|}{1+\frac{1}{6}|x|^{\frac{1}{2}}}}+44\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}|x|^{\frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (72)
For $`|x|1`$ this would typically suppress MOND corrections by some characteristic length of the system divided by $`c^2/a_010^{27}\mathrm{m}`$. If that is not sufficient one can always extend $`(x)`$ differently to obtain more suppression.

## 5 Homogeneous and isotropic sources

Although our relativistic formulation of MOND is ruled out by lensing it seems a pity not to work out the cosmology now that we have the formalism. The exercise also affords a potentially important caveat on just how much a general formulation of MOND can change in passing from the static geometries of galaxies to the time dependent geometry of cosmology. We begin by working out the small and large potentials for a homogeneous, isotropic and spatially flat metric,

$$ds^2c^2dt^2+a^2(t)d\stackrel{}{x}d\stackrel{}{x}.$$
(73)
The nonlocal field equations (37) are next specialized to this geometry. Then the MOND limit is taken. The section closes by considering what happens when matter domination follows a long period of radiation domination.

In this geometry the Ricci scalar is,

$$c^2R=6\dot{H}+12H^2\mathrm{where}H\frac{\dot{a}}{a}.$$
(74)
The small potential is defined by the equation,

$$\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\phi (t)=a^3\frac{d}{dct}\left(a^3\frac{d\phi }{dct}\right)=R(t).$$
(75)
If we define the initial values of $`\phi `$ and its first derivative to be zero, it takes the simple form,

$$\phi (t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}a^3(t^{})_0^t^{}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }a^3(t^{\prime \prime })\left(6\dot{H}(t^{\prime \prime })+12H^2(t^{\prime \prime })\right).$$
(76)
The large potential is defined by the differential equation,

$$_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }\right)=_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\phi _{,\nu }^{}\right)\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)=\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\dot{\phi }^{}\right).$$
(77)
If we again assume null initial values the result is,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\dot{\phi }(t^{})^{}\left(c^2a_0^2\dot{\phi }^2(t^{})\right).$$
(78)
The nonzero components of the second covariant derivative are,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{;00}=c^2\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi }_{;ij}=c^2H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}g_{ij}.$$
(79)
We assume the stress-energy tensor to take the perfect fluid form,

$$T_{\mu \nu }=pg_{\mu \nu }+(p+\rho )u_\mu u_\nu .$$
(80)
Stress-energy conservation implies, $`\dot{\rho }=3H(\rho +p)`$. The nonzero components of the Einstein tensor are,

$`c^2G_{00}`$ $`=3H^2,`$ (81)
$`c^2G_{ij}`$ $`=(2\dot{H}+3H^2)g_{ij}.`$ (82)
We therefore extract two nontrivial relations from the general equation (37),

$`8\pi Gc^2\rho `$ $`=6H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+3H^2(12\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{2c^2}},`$ (83)
$`8\pi Gc^2p`$ $`=2\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+4H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}(2\dot{H}+3H^2)(12\mathrm{\Phi })\dot{\phi }\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{2c^2}}.`$ (84)
As in general relativity, only one of these equations is independent. The second equation (84) follows from the first and stress-energy conservation.

In the MOND regime the interpolating function and its derivative take the forms,

$$(x)\frac{1}{6}|x|,^{}(x)\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{sgn}(x).$$
(85)
For cosmology the argument $`x=(c\dot{\phi }/a_0)^2`$ is negative so the large potential has the same sign as the small potential,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\frac{1}{6}\phi (t).$$
(86)
In the MOND regime we can therefore express (83) as,

$$H\dot{\phi }+3H^2\left(1\frac{1}{3}\phi \right)\frac{1}{12}\dot{\phi }^2+\mathrm{}=8\pi Gc^2\rho .$$
(87)
An additional specialization of great interest to cosmology is the case of a power law scale factor,

$$a(t)=\left(1+H_it\right)^s.$$
(88)
Here $`H_i`$ is $`1/s`$ times the Hubble parameter at $`t=0`$. Substituting into (76) gives the small potential,

$$\phi (t)=6s\left(\frac{2s1}{3s1}\right)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+H_it\right](13s)^1\left[\left(1+H_it\right)^{13s}1\right]\right\}.$$
(89)
At late times only the logarithm matters. In this regime we can also express $`\dot{\phi }`$ in terms of the Hubble parameter,

$$\dot{\phi }(t)6\left(\frac{2s1}{3s1}\right)H(t).$$
(90)
We can therefore write the MOND analog of the Friedman equation for power law expansion,

$$3\left\{1+2\sigma \sigma ^2+2s\sigma \mathrm{ln}\left[1+H_it\right]\right\}H^2(t)+\mathrm{}=8\pi Gc^2\rho (t),$$
(91)
where $`\sigma (2s1)/(3s1)`$. The effect of the logarithm on $`s>\frac{1}{2}`$ power laws is to gradually slow the expansion. This makes rough physical sense if we think in terms of MOND strengthening the force of gravity in the weak field regime.

For the case of radiation domination ($`s=1/2`$ and $`\sigma =0`$) we note that $`\phi (t)=0`$! The large potential also vanishes — exactly, not just in the MOND regime. Hence the equations reduce to those of general relativity, but with the energy and pressure coming from only ordinary matter. This is phenomenologically unacceptable. One of many things that goes wrong is nucleosynthesis.

## 6 Discussion

We have succeeded in embedding the MOND force law in a set of covariant, causal and conserved field equations for the metric. The model suffers from at least two fatal phenomenological problems in which its predictions agree with those of general relativity without dark matter. The deflection of light and cosmology during radiation domination both have this property. Of course these problems do not necessarily mean that MOND is wrong, only that our realization of it is.

Our model consists of corrections which are based on the small potential $`\phi [g]=\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^1R`$. One naturally wonders if it is possible to find a nonlocal scalar potential that avoids the problems with lensing and cosmology while still keeping the MOND force law. For example, one might replace the covariant d’Alembertian with the conformal one,

$$\phi _c[g]\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_c}R\mathrm{where}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_c\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\frac{1}{6}R.$$
(92)
The distinction between         and $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_c`$ disappears in the weak field regime because $`R`$ goes like one power of the weak fields over $`r^2`$. So such a model would still give the MOND force law. Unfortunately it would also give too little lensing precisely because its weak field limit agrees with that of $`\phi [g]`$. Because $`\phi _c`$ vanishes with $`R`$, it would also have problems dealing with radiation domination without dark matter.

The fact that $`R`$ vanishes for a radiation dominated universe means that we should avoid it as the source upon which the nonlocal operator acts. The next most complicated scalar potential would seem to be,

$$\phi _2[g]\frac{c^4}{a_0^2}\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\left(R^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(93)
Because $`\phi _2`$ has roughly two derivatives acting upon two powers of the weak fields, one must also change the Lagrangian,

$$_2=\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\left[R+c^4a_0^2_2\left(\phi _2[g]\right)\right]\sqrt{g}.$$
(94)
The interpolating function $`_2(x)`$ would become linear in the MOND regime.

One interesting thing about our model is that it becomes conformally invariant in the MOND limit. The first hint of this came when all our MOND corrections cancelled out of the formula for the deflection of light. Photons are conformally invariant so they experience no deflection due to conformal transformations of the metric.

To prove asymptotic conformal invariance, note that in the MOND limit ($`(x)\frac{1}{6}x`$ for $`x>0`$) the large potential is,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[g]=\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\left(\phi ^{,\rho }^{}\right)_{;\rho }\frac{1}{6}\phi .$$
(95)
In this limit the field equations (37) take the form,

$$8\pi Gc^4T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{3}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\phi \phi _{;\mu \nu }\right)+R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R+\mathrm{}.$$
(96)
The right hand side is traceless, which means that the linearized theory is conformally invariant.

This sort of asymptotic conformal invariance was also found by Bekenstein and Milgrom . Conformal invariance was certainly not built into either model. For example, the trace of our full field equations (37) is nonzero,

$$8\pi Gc^4T_\mu ^\mu =6\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }R[12\mathrm{\Phi }]+2\phi ^{,\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }+\phi ^{,\mu }\phi _{,\mu }^{}\frac{2a_0^2}{c^4}.$$
(97)
Asymptotic conformal invariance arises from enforcing the MOND limit. Since MOND requires the weak fields to go as the square root of the source mass, it is necessary that terms linear in the weak fields drop out of some component of the field equations. The only distinguished component in a conserved, tensor equation is the trace. Hence terms linear in the weak fields must drop out of the trace of the field equations, which means that the linearized theory is conformally invariant.

If asymptotic conformal invariance is generic it means that no metric-based formulation of MOND can give the required amount of gravitational lensing. It might also bear on the view that the successes of MOND derive from galaxy formation and evolution flowing, through conventional physics, towards some sort of fixed point. This is because critical phenomena and universality are typically characterized by conformal invariance. It might be interesting if the analogy could be pursued sufficiently to generate quantitative predictions.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge conversations with A. Kosowsky. This work was partially supported by DOE contract DE-FG02-97ER41029 and by the Institute for Fundamental Theory.


format: text

text:
# Dependence of Variational Perturbation Expansions on Strong-Coupling Behavior. Inapplicability of 𝛿-Expansion to Field Theory.

## I Introduction

Variational perturbation theory is a powerful tool for extracting non-perturbative strong-coupling results from weak-coupling expansions. It was initially invented in quantum mechanics as a re-expansion of the perturbation series of the action refs

$`𝒜={\displaystyle _{t_a}^{t_b}}𝑑t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}\dot{x}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}x^2V^{\mathrm{int}}(x)\right],`$ (1)
which arises from splitting the potential into a quadratic part $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^2/2`$, with an arbitrary trial frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and an interacting part

$$V_\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{int}}\delta \left[\frac{(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)}{2}x^2+V^{\mathrm{int}}(x)\right].$$
(2)
The perturbation expansion is then performed in powers of $`\delta `$, setting $`\delta =1`$ at the end, and optimizing the result in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ guided by the principle of minimal sensitivity Stevenson . The history and convergence properties are discussed in the textbook Hagen . Due to the prefactor $`\delta `$ in (2), the procedure is often called $`\delta `$-expansion refs . For the anharmonic oscillator, convergence was proved to be exponentially fast for finite finiteg  as well as for infinite coupling strength KleinertJanke ; Guida ; Hagen .

In recent years, the method has been extended in a simple but essential way to allow for the resummation of divergent perturbation expansions in quantum field-theories strong ; epsilon . The most important new feature of this field-theoretic variational perturbation theory is that it accounts for the anomalous power approach to the strong-coupling limit which the $`\delta `$-expansion cannot do. This approach is governed by an irrational critical exponent $`\omega `$ as was first shown by Wegner Wegner  in the context of critical phenomena. In contrast to the $`\delta `$-expansion, the field-theoretic variational perturbation expansions cannot be derived from the action by adding and subtracting a harmonic term as in (2). The new theory has led to the so-far most accurate determination of critical exponents via quantum field theory, as amply demonstrated in the textbook Verena . In particular, the theory has perfectly explained the experimentally best known critical exponent $`\alpha `$ of the specific heat of the $`\lambda `$-transition measured in a satellite orbiting around the earth Lipa .

In spite of the existence of this reliable quantum-field-theoretic variational perturbation theory, the literature keeps offering applications of the above quantum-mechanical $`\delta `$-expansion to quantum field theory, for instance in recent papers by Braaten and Radescu (BR) Braaten ; BraatenBE  and Ramos Ramos  (see also fermions ).

It is the purpose of this paper to show what goes wrong with such unjustified applications, and how the proper quantum field-theoretic variational perturbation theory corrects the mistakes.

## II Review of the Method

Suppose, the function $`f(g)`$ is given by a divergent series expansion around the point $`g=0`$:

$`f_L(g)={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}a_lg^l,`$ (3)
typically with factorial growth of the coefficients $`a_l`$. Suppose furthermore, that the expected leading behavior of $`f(g)`$ for large $`g`$ has the general power structure:

$`f_M(g)=g^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}}b_mg^{\omega m},`$ (4)
where $`\omega `$ is the Wegner exponent of approach to the strong-coupling limit. In quantum mechanics, this exponent is easily found from the naive scaling properties of the action. In quantum field theory, however, it is an initially unknown number which has to be determined from the above weak-coupling expansion by a procedure to be called dynamical determination of $`\omega `$.

Assuming for a moment that this has been done, the $`L`$th order approximation to the leading coefficient $`b_0`$ is given by Hagen :

$`b_0^{(L)}(z)=z^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}a_lz^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+(l\alpha )/\omega }{Ll}}\right),`$ (5)
where the $`zg/\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/\alpha }`$ is the variational parameter to be optimized for minimal sensitivity on $`z`$. A short reminder of the derivation of this formula is given in Appendix A. An application to a simple known function is shown in Appendix B. For a successful application to the quantum-mechanical anharmonic oscillators, the reader is referred to the textbook Hagen . The exponent $`\omega `$ is equal to $`2/3`$ for an $`x^4`$-anharmonic oscillator, and the exponentially fast convergence has a last term decreasing like $`e^{\mathrm{const}\times L^{1\omega }}`$. For the oscillator, the number $`\omega `$ is found directly from the dimensional analysis in Appendix A. As mentioned above, such an analysis will not be applicable in quantum field theory, where $`\omega `$ will be anomalous and must be determined dynamically.

Most often we want to calculate a quantity $`f(g)`$ which goes to a constant in the strong-coupling limit $`f(g)f^{}`$. This is the case for all critical exponents. Then we must set $`\alpha =0`$ in (4) and (5), which implies that for infinite $`g`$:

$`\beta (g)={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}f(g)}{d\mathrm{log}g}}|_g\mathrm{}=0.`$ (6)
If $`\beta (g)`$ is reexpressed as a function of $`f`$, this implies $`\beta (f^{})=0`$, the standard requirement for the existence of a critical point in quantum field theory if $`f(g)=g_R(g)`$ is the renormalized coupling strength as a function of the bare coupling strength $`g`$.

The dynamical determination of $`\omega `$ proceeds now by treating not only $`f(g)`$ but also the beta function (6) according to the rules of variational perturbation theory, and determining $`\omega `$ to make $`\beta ^{}=\beta (\mathrm{})`$ vanish, which is done by optimizing the equation of $`z`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\beta _lz^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+l/\omega }{Ll}}\right)=0,`$ (7)
where $`\beta _l`$ are the coefficients of the expansion of (6) with respect to $`g`$. Minimal sensitivity is reached for a vanishing derivative with respect to $`z`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\beta _llz^{l1}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+l/\omega }{Ll}}\right)=0,`$ (8)
so that $`z`$ and $`\omega `$ are to be found as simultaneous solutions of (7) and (8).

## III Anomalous Dimensions

As mentioned above, a number of authors have applied the $`\delta `$-expansion to field theories. Most recently, this was done for the purpose of calculating the shift of the critical temperature in a Bose-Einstein condensate caused by a small interaction BraatenBE ; Ramos . Since the perturbation expansion for this quantity is a function of $`g/\mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential which goes to zero at the critical point, we are faced with a typical strong-coupling problem of critical phenomena. In order to justify the application of the $`\delta `$-expansion to this problem, BR Braaten  studied the convergence properties of the method by applying it to a certain amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g)`$ of an $`O(N)`$-symmetric $`\varphi ^4`$-field theory in the limit of large $`N`$, where the model is exactly solvable.

Their procedure can be criticized in two ways. First, the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g)`$ they considered is not a good candidate for a resummation by a $`\delta `$-expansion since it does not possess the characteristic strong-coupling power structure (4) of quantum mechanics and field theory, which the final resummed expression will always have. The power structure is disturbed by additional logarithmic terms. Second, the $`\delta `$-expansion is equivalent to choosing, on dimensional grounds, the exponent $`\omega =2`$ in (4), which is far from the an approximate optimal value 0.843 to be derived below. Thus the $`\delta `$-expansion is inapplicable, and this explains the problems into which BR run in their resummation attempt. Most importantly, they do not find a well-shaped plateau of the variational expressions $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(L)}(g,z)`$ as a function of $`z`$ which would be necessary for invoking the principle of minimal sensitivity. Instead, they observe that the zeros of the first derivatives $`_z\mathrm{\Delta }^{(L)}(g,z)`$ run away far into the complex plain. Choosing the complex solutions to determine their final resummed value misses the correct one by 3% up to the 35th order.

One may improve the situation by trying out various different $`\omega `$-values and choosing the best of them yielding an acceptable plateau in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g,z)`$. This happens for $`\omega 0.843`$. However, even for this optimal value, the resummation result never converges to the correct limit. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g)`$ the error happens to be numerically small, only 0.1%, but it will be uncontrolled in physical problems where the result is unknown.

Let us explain these points in more detail. BR consider the weak-coupling series with the reexpansion parameter $`\delta `$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta ,g)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta g}{\sqrt{1\delta }}}\right)^la_l,`$ $`\mathrm{where}a_l`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}K(x)f^l(x)𝑑x,`$ (9)
with

$`K(x)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4x^2}{\pi (1+x^2)^2}},`$ $`f(x)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}.`$ (10)
The geometric series in (9) can be summed exactly, and the result may formally be reexpanded into a strong-coupling series in $`h\sqrt{1\delta }/(\delta g)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta ,g)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}K(x){\displaystyle \frac{\delta gf(x)}{\sqrt{1\delta }+\delta gf(x)}}𝑑x={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_m\left(h\right)^m,`$ $`\text{where }b_m={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}K(x)f^m(x)𝑑x.`$ (11)
The strong-coupling limit is found for $`h0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }b_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xK(x)=1`$. The approach to this limit is, however, not given by a strong-coupling expansion of the form (11). This would only happen if all the integrals $`b_m`$ were to exist which, unfortunately, is not the case since all integrals for $`b_m`$ with $`m>0`$ diverge at the upper limit, where

$`f(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{x}}.`$ (12)
The exact behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the strong-coupling limit $`h0`$ is found by studying the effect of the asymptotic $`\pi /x`$-contribution of $`f(x)`$ to the integral in (11). For $`f(x)=\pi /x`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}K(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+h/f(x)}}𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4+2\pi {}_{}{}^{2}h\pi {}_{}{}^{2}h{}_{}{}^{2}+2h{}_{}{}^{3}+4\pi {}_{}{}^{2}h\mathrm{log}h/\pi }{(\pi {}_{}{}^{2}+h{}_{}{}^{2})^2}}.`$ (13)
The logarithm of $`h`$ shows a mismatch with (4) and prevents the expansion (9) to be a candidate for variational perturbation theory.

We now explain the second criticism. Suppose we ignore the just-demonstrated fundamental obstacle and follow the rules of the $`\delta `$-expansion, defining the $`L`$th order approximant $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta ,\mathrm{})`$ by expanding (9) in powers of $`\delta `$ up to order $`\delta ^L`$, setting $`\delta =1`$, and defining $`zg`$. Then we obtain the $`L`$th variational expression for $`b_0`$:

$`b_0^{(L)}(\omega ,z)={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}}a_lz^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+l/\omega }{Ll}}\right),`$ (14)
with $`\omega =2`$, to be optimized in $`z`$. This $`\omega `$-value would only be adequate if the approach to the strong-coupling limit behaved like $`A+B/h^2+\mathrm{}`$, rather than (13). This is the reason why BR find no real regime of minimal sensitivity on $`z`$.

Let us attempt to improve the situation by determining $`\omega `$ dynamically from equation (6). The result is $`\omega 0.843`$, quite far from the naive value $`2`$. This value can also be estimated by inspecting plots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(L)}(\omega ,h)`$ versus $`h`$ for several different $`\omega `$-values in Fig. 1, and selecting the one producing minimal sensitivity.

It produces reasonable results also in higher orders, as is seen in Fig. 2. The approximations appear to converge rapidly. But the limit does not coincide with the known exact value, although it happens to lie numerically quite close. Extrapolating the successive approximations by an extremely accurate fit to the analytically known large-order behavior strong  with a function $`b_{0,\mathrm{plateau}}^{(L)}(\omega =0.843)=A+BL^\kappa `$, we find convergence to $`A=10.001136`$, which misses the correct limit $`A=1`$. The other two parameters are fitted best by $`B=0.002495`$ and $`\kappa =0.922347`$ (see Fig. 3).

We may easily convince ourselves by numerical analysis that the error in the limiting value is indeed linked to the failure of the strong-coupling behavior (13) to have the power structure (4). For this purpose we change the function $`f(x)`$ in equation (10) slightly into $`f(x)\stackrel{~}{f}(x)=f(x)+1`$, which makes the integrals for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_m`$ in (11) convergent. The exact limiting value $`1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ remaines unchanged, but $`\overline{b}_0^{(L)}`$ acquires now the correct strong-coupling power structure (4). For this reason, we can easily verify that the application of variational theory with a dynamical determination of $`\omega `$ yields the correct strong-coupling limit $`1`$ with the exponentially fast convergence of the successive approximations for $`L\mathrm{}`$ like $`\overline{b}_0^{(L)}1\mathrm{exp}(1.9091.168L)`$.

In the next section we are going to point out, that an escape to complex zeros which BR propose to remedy the problems of the $`\delta `$-expansion is really of no help.

## IV The Myth of Complex Zeros and Families

It has been claimed BelGarNev  and repeatedly quoted RULES , that the study of the anharmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics suggests the use of complex extrema to optimize the $`\delta `$-expansion. In particular, the use of so-called families of optimal candidates for the variational parameter $`z`$ has been suggested. We are now going to show, that following these suggestions one obtains bad resummation results for the anharmonic oscillator. Thus we expect such procedures to lead to even worse results in field-theoretic applications.

In quantum mechanical applications there are no anomalous dimensions in the strong-coupling behavior of the energy eigenvalues. The growth parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ can be directly read off from the Schrödinger equation; they are $`\alpha =1/3`$ and $`\omega =2/3`$ for the anharmonic oscillator (see Appendix A). The variational perturbation theory is applicable for all couplings strengths $`g`$ as long as $`b_0^{(L)}(z)`$ becomes stationary for a certain value of $`z`$. For higher orders $`L`$ it must exhibit a well-developed plateau. Within the range of the plateau, various derivatives of $`b_0^{(L)}(z)`$ with respect to $`z`$ will vanish. In addition there will be complex zeros with small imaginary parts clustering around the plateau. They are, however, of limited use for designing an automatized computer program for localizing the position of the plateau. The study of several examples shows that plotting $`b_0^{(L)}(z)`$ for various values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ and judging visually the plateau is by far the safest method, showing immediately which values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ lead to a well-shaped plateau.

Let us review briefly the properties of the results obtained from real and complex zeros of $`_zb_0^{(L)}(z)`$ for the anharmonic oscillator. In Fig. 4, the logarithmic error of $`b_0^{(L)}`$ is plotted versus the order $`L`$. At each order, all zeros of the first derivative are exploited. To test the rule suggested in BelGarNev , only the real parts of the complex roots have been used to evaluate $`b_0^{(L)}`$. The fat points represent the results of real zeros, the thin points stem from the real parts of complex zeros. It is readily seen that the real zeros give the better result. Only by chance may a complex zero yield a smaller error. Unfortunately, there is no rule to detect these accidental events. Most complex zeros produce large errors.

We observe the existence of families described in detail in the textbook Hagen  and rediscovered in Ref. BelGarNev . These families start at about $`N=6,15,30,53`$, respectively. But each family fails to converge to the correct result. Only a sequence of selected members in each family leads to an exponential convergence. Consecutive families alternate around the correct result, as can be seen more clearly in a plot of the deviations of $`b_0^{(L)}`$ from their $`L\mathrm{}`$ -limit in Fig. 5, where values derived from the zeros of the second derivative of $`b_0^{(L)}`$ have been included. These give rise to accompanying families of similar behavior, deviating with the same sign pattern from the exact result, but lying closer to the correct result by about 30%.

## V Temperature Shift for $`N=2`$ Revisited

Much attention has been paid to a field theoretic model with $`O(2)`$-symmetry BraatenBE ; Ramos ; Hagen2  to calculate in a realistic context the coefficient $`c_1`$, which enters into the temperature shift of the Bose-Einstein condensation parametrized as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c^{(0)}}}=c_1an^{1/3}.`$ (15)
Presently, five coefficients of the relevant perturbation expansion are known for the weak-coupling expansion BraatenBE ; Ramos ; Hagen2

$`F(x)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}}a_nx^n,`$ (16)
whose asymptotic value for $`x\mathrm{}`$ coincides with $`c_1`$: $`c_1=F^{}lim_x\mathrm{}F(x).`$ The known coefficients are $`a_1=13.9707`$, $`a_0=0`$, $`a_1=0.446572`$, $`a_2=0.264412`$, $`a_3=0.199`$.

We would like to offer an alternative resummation result for this series to that in Ref. Hagen2 . It is based on considering the function $`xF(x)`$ containing no negative powers of $`x`$. The desired number $`c_1`$ is the the leading coefficient $`b_0`$ of the strong-coupling expansion

$`F(x)=x\left(c_1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}b_nx^{\omega n}\right).`$ (17)
The result for $`c_1`$ should be unaffected by this modification of the function, and given by the optimized $`L`$th-order approximations

$`c_1^{(L)}(z,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}a_lz^{l1}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+(l1)/\omega }{Ll}}\right).`$ (18)
For the available orders $`L4`$, this set of functions is now inspected for plateaus. For $`L<3`$ there is none. For $`L=3`$ and $`L=4`$, a plateau can be identified unambiguously as the only horizontal turning point solving simultaneously $`_zc_1^{(L)}(z,\omega )=0`$ and $`_z^2c_1^{(L)}(z,\omega )=0`$. The results are

$`L`$ $`=3`$ $`z^{(3)}`$ $`=1.089`$ $`\omega ^{(3)}`$ $`=1.071`$ $`c_1^{(3)}`$ $`=0.940`$ (19)
$`L`$ $`=4`$ $`z^{(4)}`$ $`=2.057`$ $`\omega ^{(4)}`$ $`=0.571`$ $`c_1^{(4)}`$ $`=1.282`$ (20)
Given only two approximations for $`c_1`$ it is unrealistic to attempt an extrapolation to $`L\mathrm{}`$, as done with another selection rule of optima in Ref. Hagen2 , but it is interesting to note that the value of the coefficient for the temperature shift $`c_1^{(4)}=1.282`$ is in excellent agreement with the latest Monte Carlo result of $`c_11.30`$ C1MC .

## VI Renormalization Group and Variational Perturbation

The most convincing evidence for the power of the field-theoretic variational perturbation theory with anomalous dimensions comes from applications to critical exponents in $`4ϵ`$ dimensions epsilon ; Verena . The results obtained turn out to be immediately resummed expressions of the $`ϵ`$-expansions, which can be recovered as a Taylor series. The renormalization group function $`\beta (g)`$ is obtained from the weak-coupling expansion of the renormalized coupling constant $`g`$ in terms of the bare coupling constant $`g_B`$ RenGroup ; Verena :

$`\beta (g,ϵ)=ϵg{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}g(g_B,ϵ)}{d\mathrm{log}g_B}}=ϵg\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{log}g_B(g,ϵ)}{d\mathrm{log}g}}\right]^1.`$ (21)
Due to renormalizability, $`\beta (g)`$ necessarily has the form

$`\beta (g,ϵ)=ϵg+\beta _0(g).`$ (22)
Perturbation theory with minimal subtractions yields the weak-coupling expansion:

$`g=g_B+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_k(g_B)ϵ^k,`$ (23)
where $`f_k(g_B)`$ possesses an expansion in powers of $`g_B`$, starting with $`g_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{k+1}`$. By suitably normalizing $`g`$ and $`g_B`$, the leading coefficient of $`f_1`$ can be made equal to minus one: $`f_1(g_B)=g_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+O(g_B)^3`$. The function $`\beta _0(g)`$ can be expressed in terms of the residue $`f_1(g_B)`$ of the $`ϵ`$-pole in equation(23) alone:

$`\beta _0(g)=f_1(g)gf_1^{}(g).`$ (24)
Recall the standard proof for this based on combining Eqs. (21) and (22) to

$`\beta _0(g)=ϵgϵg_B_{g_B}g(g_B,ϵ),`$ (25)
which becomes, after inserting equation (23):

$`\beta _0\left[g_B+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_k(g_B)ϵ^k\right]=ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[f_k(g_B)g_Bf_k^{}(g_B)\right]ϵ^k.`$ (26)
The limit $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$ leads directly to the property (24).

Another well-known fact is that all the functions $`f_k(g_B)`$ for $`k>1`$ can be expressed in terms of the residues $`f_1(g_B)`$ only Verena . Indeed, taking the derivatives of $`\beta _0(g)`$ in equation (25) with respect to $`g_B`$ and $`ϵ`$:

$`\beta _0^{}(g)_{g_B}g`$ $`=ϵg_B_{g_B}^2g,`$ (27)
$`\beta _0^{}(g)_ϵg`$ $`=g+ϵ_ϵgg_B_{g_B}gϵg_B_{g_B}_ϵg,`$ (28)
eliminating $`\beta _0^{}(g)`$ between these two equations, and inserting the expansion (23), we obtain order by order in $`1/ϵ`$ a recursive set of differential equations for the functions $`f_k(g_B)`$ with $`k>1`$, which are power series in $`g_B`$. If we now expand

$`f_1(g_B)`$ $`=g_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _jg_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{j},`$ $`f_k(g_B)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=k+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\gamma _{k,j}g_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{j},`$ (29)
a solution is readily found, beginning with

$`\gamma _{k,k+1}`$ $`=(1)^k,`$ $`\gamma _{2,4}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\gamma _3,`$ $`\gamma _{2,5}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma _3^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\gamma _4,`$ (30)
$`\gamma _{3,5}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{29}{6}}\gamma _3,`$ $`\gamma _{2,6}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{18}{5}}\gamma _3\gamma _4{\displaystyle \frac{22}{5}}\gamma _5,`$ $`\gamma _{3,6}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{32}{5}}\gamma _3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{39}{5}}\gamma _4,`$ (31)
$`\gamma _{4,6}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{37}{5}}\gamma _3,`$ $`\gamma _{2,7}`$ $`=2\gamma _4^2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}\gamma _3\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\gamma _6,`$ $`\gamma _{3,7}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\gamma _3^3{\displaystyle \frac{551}{30}}\gamma _3\gamma _4+{\displaystyle \frac{59}{5}}\gamma _5,`$ (32)
$`\gamma _{4,7}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{751}{45}}\gamma _3^2{\displaystyle \frac{141}{10}}\gamma _4,`$ $`\gamma _{5,7}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{103}{10}}\gamma _3.`$ (33)
In the renormalization group approach, a fixed point $`g^{}0`$ is determined by the zero of the $`\beta `$-function: $`\beta (g^{})=0`$. The Wegner exponent $`\omega `$ governing the approach to scaling is given by the slope at the fixed point: $`\omega =\beta ^{}(g^{})`$. The two quantities have $`ϵ`$-expansions

$`g^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _jϵ^j,`$ $`\omega `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _jϵ^j.`$ (34)
The coefficients $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\omega _j`$ are determined from the residues $`\gamma _j`$ as:

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=1,`$ $`\alpha _2`$ $`=2\gamma _3,\alpha _3=8\gamma _3^2+3\gamma _4`$ (35)
$`\alpha _4`$ $`=40\gamma _3^3+30\gamma _3\gamma _4+4\gamma _5,`$ $`\alpha _5`$ $`=224\gamma _3^4+252\gamma _3^2\gamma _4+27\gamma _4^2+48\gamma _3\gamma _5+5\gamma _6,`$ (36)
and

$`\omega _1`$ $`=1,`$ $`\omega _2`$ $`=2\gamma _3,`$ $`\omega _3`$ $`=8\gamma _3^26\gamma _4,`$ $`\omega _4`$ $`=40\gamma _3^348\gamma _3\gamma _412\gamma _5.`$ (37)
We can now convince ourselves that precisely the same results can be derived from variational perturbation theory applied to the weak-coupling expansion (23) (and as shown in without  from the expansion of any other critical exponent). We determine $`\omega `$ dynamically solving Eq. (7). We insert for $`\omega `$ an unknown $`ϵ`$-expansion of the form (34). The variational parameter $`z`$ is then adjusted to make (7) stationary. Then, since for $`ϵ0`$ the weak-coupling coefficients of $`g(g_B)`$ in the expansion (23) behave like $`ϵ^{1l}`$, $`z`$ has to scale with $`ϵ`$, so that we may put $`z=\zeta _1ϵ+\zeta _2ϵ^2+\zeta _3ϵ^3+O(ϵ^4)`$, and solve equations (7) and (8) for each perturbative order $`L`$, order by order in $`ϵ`$. This leads to a rapidly increasing number of non-linear and not even independent equations for the unknown $`\zeta _l`$ and $`\omega _l`$, some depending also on the order $`L`$.

Despite these possible complications, the solutions turn out to be well structured and easily obtained. At each $`L`$ to lowest order in $`ϵ`$, the term independent of $`ϵ`$ in (7) and the coefficient of $`ϵ^1`$ in (8) demand that $`\zeta _1=1`$. In addition, they require $`\gamma _{k,k+1}=(1)^k`$ for some $`k`$, in agreement with Eqs. (30). Such conditions imposed on $`\gamma _{k,l}`$ can, of course, not depend on the order $`L`$, but must be enforced in general. Raising the order of $`ϵ`$ in (7) and (8), and imposing $`\zeta _1=1`$ as well as the conditions already established for the $`\gamma _{k,l}`$, all dependences on the $`\omega _k`$ and $`\zeta _k`$ disappear, and we are left with conditions on $`\gamma _{k,l}`$ alone, which reproduce exactly the relations (30) through (33). This shows, that the variational perturbation method is completely compatible the well-known $`ϵ`$-expansions, if the input divergent series has a structure satisfying the renormalization group equation (22).

After having reproduced $`\gamma _{k,l}`$, there are further equations to be solved. Going to the next higher order in $`ϵ`$, either for (7) or for (8), gives a relation involving exactly one of the expansion coefficients of $`ϵ/\omega `$, which are simply related to the coefficients $`\omega _l`$ of $`\omega `$. In this way, the renormalization group results of (37) are exactly reproduced. These solutions are stable in the sense, that with increasing order $`L`$, the expansion coefficients $`\omega _l`$ for $`l<L`$ remain unchanged. This proves, that the variational method produces the same $`ϵ`$-expansions of all critical exponents as renormalization group theory. At the same time this implies that the standard $`\delta `$-expansion which does not allow for the anomalous dimension $`\omega `$ is bound to fail.

It is noteworthy, that several other conditions are automatically satisfied up to some order $`ϵ^L`$, $`ϵ^{L1}`$, or $`ϵ^{L2}`$, respectively. Among them is the variationally transcribed second logarithmic derivative of the weak-coupling series and the derivative thereof:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}h_lz^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+l/\omega }{Ll}}\right)`$ $`=1\omega ,`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}}h_llz^{l1}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+l/\omega }{Ll}}\right)`$ $`=0,`$ (39)
where the $`h_l`$ are the expansion coefficients of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_Bg^{\prime \prime }(g_B)}{g^{}(g_B)}}.`$ (40)
Of some computational benefit is the observation, that with the same accuracy in $`ϵ`$ the first and second derivatives of the variational series (5) themselves vanish (here for $`\alpha =0`$). This means, that the function has a flat plateau. For a typical field-theoretic application with only a few known perturbation coefficients, the plateau is easily found by inspection. Therefore, if the model possesses a well-behaved $`\beta `$-function satisfying equation (22), we expect a reliable result for the anomalous dimension $`\omega `$ if it is chosen such as to produce an acceptable plateau. The ordinate of the plateau is the most promising variational perturbative value for the quantity analyzed to the respective order.

## VII Conclusion

Summarizing this paper we have learned that the so-called $`\delta `$-expansion is inapplicable to quantum field theory, since it does not account for the Wegner exponent $`\omega `$ of approach to the strong-coupling limit. Only the field-theoretic variational perturbation theory yields correct results by incorporating $`\omega `$ in an essential way.

## VIII Appendix A

Here we review briefly how the strong-coupling parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ in (4) and the variational equation (5) for the leading strong-coupling coefficient are found for the anharmonic oscillator with the Schrödinger equation in natural units

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }+gx^{2\kappa }\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (41)
We rescale the space coordinate $`x`$ so that the potential becomes

$`V(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{2/(\kappa +1)}x^2+x^{2\kappa },`$ (42)
any eigenvalue has the obvious strong-coupling expansion

$`E=g^{1/(\kappa +1)}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_l\left(g^{2/(\kappa +1)}\right)^l,`$ (43)
where $`b_l`$ are the strong-coupling coefficients. The aim is to determine them from the known weak-coupling coefficients $`a_n`$ of the divergent perturbation expansion:

$`E={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_lg^l.`$ (44)
The solution of this problem comes from physical intuition, suggesting that the perturbation expansion should be performed around an effective harmonic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^2/2`$, whose frequency is different from the bare value 1/2 in (41), depending on $`g`$ and the order $`L`$ of truncation of (43). Thereafter only the difference between the anharmonic part and the effective harmonic part is to be treated by perturbation methods. The trial frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the effective potential can be fixed later by the consideration, that the resulting quantity of interest should be as independent as possible of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, according to the principle of minimal sensitivity. With the harmonic trial potential $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^2/2`$, the interaction potential (2) reads $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{int}}=\delta \left[gx^{2\kappa }(\mathrm{\Omega }^21)x^2/2\right]`$. The parameter $`\delta `$ organizes the reexpansion and is set equal to $`1`$ at the end. The expansion proceeds from the rescaled Schroedinger equation (41):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta gx^{2\kappa }\mathrm{\Psi }}{\beta ^{N+1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{E}{\beta }}\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (45)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }^21)}`$. To order $`L`$, the energy has the reexpansion

$`E^{(L)}(\mathrm{\Omega },g)=\beta {\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}a_l^{(i)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta g}{\beta ^{\kappa +1}}}\right)^l.`$ (46)
with the well-known weak-coupling expansion coefficients as defined in equation (44). The strong-coupling behavior (43) suggests changing the variational parameter from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`z:=\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\kappa +1}}.`$ In the limit $`g\mathrm{}`$ we obtain the reexpansion which must be optimized in $`z`$:

$`E^{(L)}(z)=g^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}a_l^{(i)}z^{l\alpha }\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Ll+(l\alpha )/\omega }{Ll}}\right)`$ (47)
where $`\omega =2/(\kappa +1)`$ and $`\alpha =1/(\kappa +1)`$. For the leading coefficient of the strong coupling expansion of the ground state energy, Eq.(47) leads directly to the variational equation (5).

## IX Appendix B

In order to gain further insight into the working of the variational resummation procedure, we apply it to the simple test function

$`f(x)=(1+x)^\alpha =x^\alpha \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)^\alpha `$ (48)
with weak coupling coefficients $`a_n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{n}\right)`$ and a leading strong-coupling behavior $`fx^\alpha (1+\alpha /x+\mathrm{})`$, so that $`b_0=1`$. Inserting this information into equation (5), we obtain the variational leading coefficient to $`L`$th order:

$`b_0^{(L)}(z)={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L\alpha }{Ll}}\right)z^{l\alpha },`$ (49)
which is easily transformed into the expression:

$`b_0^{(L)}(z)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{L}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{l}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{L\alpha }{l\alpha }}(1)^{L+l}z^{l\alpha }`$ (50)
Determining the variational parameter $`z`$ according to the principle of minimal sensitivity requires a well developed plateau of $`b_0^{(L)}`$ as a function of $`z`$. For the simple test function, the derivative $`_zb_0^{(L)}(z)`$ can be obtained in the closed form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}b_0^{(L)}(z)`$ $`=(1)^{L+1}{\displaystyle \frac{L\alpha }{z^{\alpha +1}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{L}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}(z)^l\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{l}}\right)`$ (51)
$`=(1)^{L+1}(L\alpha )\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{L}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(1z)^L}{z^{\alpha +1}}}.`$ (52)
This exhibits a flat plateau around $`z=1`$ if the order $`L`$ is much larger than $`\alpha `$. An equally flat plateau is found for $`b_0^{(L)}(z)`$. The value of the leading strong coupling coefficient $`b_0^{(L)}`$ at the plateau is

$`b_0^{(L)}(1)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{L}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L}{l}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{L\alpha }{l\alpha }}(1)^{L+l}=1,`$ (53)
in perfect agreement with the exact result, thus confirming the applicability of the resummation scheme for this class of problems.