text:
# General properties of cosmological models with an Isotropic Singularity

## 1 Introduction

The concept of an Isotropic Singularity (IS) was introduced to the field of mathematical cosmology by Goode and Wainwright in 1985 . Since that time much effort has been directed at investigating the physical consequences of the definition. This paper is devoted to an examination of some of the general properties of cosmological models which admit an IS. Previously published work by the authors, in this area, is reviewed in Section 4. Prior to that, for reference, the definition of an IS is given in Section 2 together with the associated definition of a cosmic time function. A proof follows which details a freedom in the choice of the conformal factor associated with an IS. For cosmologies comprising a fluid flow, the definitions of a fluid congruence which is regular at an IS and a fluid congruence which is orthogonal to an IS are given in Section 3. When a cosmological model admits an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, it is shown that a conformal factor can always be chosen such that the expansion scalar associated with the unphysical fluid flow becomes zero at a given point in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ (with $`T0`$).

In Section 5 the issue of whether or not vacuum cosmologies can admit an IS is investigated. The IS is proven to be a point-like singularity, as one would expect, in Section 6. In Section 7 the Hubble parameter is shown to become infinite at the initial singularity of any cosmological model with an IS. The relationship between the energy conditions and the IS for perfect fluid cosmological models is examined in detail in Section 8.

## 2 Definition of an Isotropic Singularity

Following the introduction of the IS concept by Goode and Wainwright , Scott  amended their definition to remove some inherent redundancies. It is this amended definition which is given in Definition 2.1 and which will be used throughout this paper .

###### Definition 2.1 (Isotropic singularity)

A space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ is said to admit an *isotropic singularity* if there exists a space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$, a smooth cosmic time function $`T`$ defined on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, and a conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$ which satisfy

1. $``$ is the open submanifold $`T>0`$,
2. $`\text{g}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(T){}_{}{}^{}\text{g}`$ on $``$, with $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}`$ regular (at least $`C^3`$ and non-degenerate) on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$,
3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=0`$ and $`b>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }C^0[0,b]C^3(0,b]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0,b]>0`$,
4. $`\lambda lim_{T0^+}L(T)`$ exists, $`\lambda 1`$, where $`L\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}\right)^2`$ and a prime denotes differentiation with respect to T.

The definition of an isotropic singularity is described pictorially in Figure 1. The definition of a cosmic time function \[2, p198\] which is used in conjunction with Definition 2.1, is the one given in Definition 2.2.

###### Definition 2.2 (Cosmic time function)

A function $`T`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ is said to be a *cosmic time function* if $`{}_{}{}^{}T`$ is everywhere timelike on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ with respect to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}`$.

It should be noted that a cosmic time function defines a family of spacelike hypersurfaces {$`T=`$ constant} in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ and hence in $``$. A cosmic time function also increases along every future-directed non-spacelike curve.

Since $`(,\text{g})`$ is the space-time in hand—in our case, typically, a cosmological solution of the Einstein field equations (EFE)—it is usual to call it the *physical space-time*. The conformally related space-time, $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$, is then called the *unphysical space-time*.

Although the definition of an IS, and the arrow in Figure 1, lead one to think of the unphysical space-time being “created” from the physical space-time, it is actually useful to consider the situation in the reverse fashion. In this way, the singularity in the physical space-time should be regarded as arising due to the vanishing of the conformal factor, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$, at the regular hypersurface $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$.

Two noteworthy features of the definition of an IS are that it is coordinate-independent, as well as being independent of the EFE, and hence of the source of the gravitational field.

The conformal factor in the definition of an IS is not unique, as will be proven in the following Proposition.

###### Proposition 2.1

The conformal factor associated with a particular IS can be multiplied by a factor of $`e^{k(T)}`$,

$$\text{i.e., }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(T)=e^{k(T)}\mathrm{\Omega }(T),$$
(1)
where $`k(T)`$ is a $`C^3`$ function of $`T`$ on $``$, and still satisfy the conditions of the definition of an IS.

Proof:
An outline of this proof was given by Goode and Wainwright . If the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ admits an IS, then there exists a conformally related space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ which satisfies the conditions of Definition 2.1. We now create a second unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$ from the given unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ by using the same manifold $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ and a metric $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}`$ which is conformally related to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}`$ by the conformal factor $`e^{k(T)}`$, where $`k(T)`$ is a $`C^3`$ function of $`T`$ on $``$, i.e., $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}=e^{2k(T)}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}`$. Note that the cosmic time function $`T`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ is the same for both $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ and $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$. The metric g of the physical space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ is related on $``$ to the metric $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}`$ of the second unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$ by the conformal factor $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=e^{k(T)}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`\text{g}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2(T){}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}`$. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the physical space-time and the two unphysical space-times.

Entities that exist in the second of the unphysical space-times, $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$, will be denoted by a star and an over-tilde, e.g., $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}`$.

We now check each of the conditions outlined in Definition 2.1.

1. $``$ is still the open submanifold $`T>0`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$.
2. $`\text{g}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2(T){}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}`$ on $``$, where $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}=e^{2k(T)}{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}`$. Since $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}`$ is at least $`C^3`$ and non-degenerate on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$, and $`e^{2k(T)}`$ is a $`C^3`$ positive function of $`T`$ on $``$, it follows that $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}}`$ is at least $`C^3`$ and non-degenerate on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$.
3. The relationship between the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the conformal factor $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=e^{k(T)}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We know that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=0`$ and $`b>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }C^0[0,b]C^3(0,b]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0,b]>0`$. Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0)=0`$, and since $`e^{k(T)}`$ is a $`C^3`$ positive function of $`T`$ on $``$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}C^0[0,b]C^3(0,b]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(0,b]>0`$.
4. $`\stackrel{~}{L}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{})^2}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }+2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }k^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^2k^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(k^{})^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }k^{})^2}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2}+2k^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}+k^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}\right)^2+(k^{})^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}\right)^2}{[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}k^{}]^2}}`$ (4)
It was shown by Scott  that $`lim_{T0^+}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=0`$. Now $`k(T)`$ is a $`C^3`$ function of $`T`$ on $``$, and so $`k^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}0`$ and $`k^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}\right)^20`$, as $`T0^+`$. It follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(T)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2}[1+o(1)]\text{as }T0^+,$$
(5)
and therefore

$$\underset{T0^+}{lim}\stackrel{~}{L}(T)=\underset{T0^+}{lim}L(T)=\lambda (1).$$
(6)

The conditions for $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$ to be an unphysical space-time conformally related to $`(,\text{g})`$ have now been satisfied.

## 3 Fluid flow

The definition of an Isotropic Singularity, as it stands, allows cosmological models to admit an “isotropic” singularity whose singularities are, in no sense, actually isotropic, or quasi-isotropic, or Friedmann-like . For example, the exact viscous fluid FRW cosmology of Coley and Tupper  can be shown to have an IS , and yet the shear and acceleration of the fluid flow are not dominated by its expansion as the singularity is approached, as one would expect with a Friedmann-like singularity. The fluid congruence is not regular at the IS in the Coley-Tupper models, however, which motivated Goode and Wainwright  to include the following additional definition relating to the fluid flow.

###### Definition 3.1 (Fluid congruence)

With any unit timelike congruence u in $``$ we can associate a unit timelike congruence $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that

$${}_{}{}^{}\text{u}=\mathrm{\Omega }\text{u}\text{in }.$$
(7)
* If we can choose $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ to be regular (at least $`C^3`$) on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, we say that u is *regular at the isotropic singularity*.
* If, in addition, $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ is orthogonal to $`T=0`$, we say that u is *orthogonal to the isotropic singularity*.

It is the requirement that the fluid flow be regular at an IS (condition (a) of Definition 3.1), which ensures that the appropriate kinematic quantities behave as one would expect as an “isotropic” singularity is approached . In the remainder of this paper , unless stated otherwise, it will be assumed that any space-time which admits an IS has a fluid flow which is regular at the IS.

It should be noted that, in relation to Proposition 2.1, if the fluid congruence u is regular at an IS, then $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}=\mathrm{\Omega }\text{u}`$ (on $``$) can be chosen to be at least $`C^3`$ on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$. Since $`k(T)`$ is a $`C^3`$ function of $`T`$ on $``$, then $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{u}}=e^{k(T)}{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ is also at least $`C^3`$ on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$. It follows that u is also regular at the IS associated with the second unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$.

In the following proposition we demonstrate how the freedom in the choice of conformal factor associated with an IS (see Proposition 2.1) can be used to ensure that the unphysical expansion scalar $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta `$ is zero when evaluated at a given point $`p`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ with $`T0`$. Goode and Wainwright  have previously examined the case of an irrotational barotropic perfect fluid model which admits an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, and the fluid flow is orthogonal to the family of spacelike hypersurfaces defined by $`T=`$ constant, where $`T`$ is the cosmic time function, and shown that the unphysical expansion scalar $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta `$ is constant (with zero as one possible choice) on the $`T=0`$ hypersurface. Proposition 3.1 shows that a conformal factor can be chosen which sets $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta =0`$ everywhere on this hypersurface.

###### Proposition 3.1

Suppose that the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ admits an IS at which the fluid flow u is regular. Let $`p`$ be a point (with $`T0`$) in the conformally related unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$. Then by the suitable choice of a new conformal factor $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (see Proposition 2.1) we can ensure that

$`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|_p=0.`$ (8)
Proof:
For this proof we will use the conformal structure detailed in the proof of Proposition 2.1.

The expansion scalars $`\theta `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta `$ for the two conformally related space-times $`(,\text{g})`$ and $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ are related by

$${}_{}{}^{}\theta =\mathrm{\Omega }\theta 3\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}T_{,a}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{a}.$$
(9)
The expansion scalar $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ for the second unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\text{g}})`$ is therefore related to the expansion scalar $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta `$ for the first unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ by

$`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{k(T)}{}_{}{}^{}\theta 3k^{}T_{,a}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{}^{a}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`e^{k(T)}[{}_{}{}^{}\theta 3k^{}T_{,a}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{a}],`$ (11)
where this relationship is valid on $``$ (i.e., on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ for $`T>0`$), as well as on an open neighbourhood of $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$. Thus, for $`p{}_{}{}^{}`$ (with $`T0`$), we can arrange to have $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|_p=0`$ by choosing the function $`k(T)`$ such that

$$k^{}|_{T(p)}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{{}_{}{}^{}\theta |_p}{(T_{,a}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{a})|_p},$$
(12)
noting that $`T_{,a}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{a}0`$.

## 4 Previous Results

It is interesting to review the main physical results which have been achieved using the amended version of the Goode and Wainwright definition of an IS given by Scott. It is fair to say that, until recently, the only major issue tackled with great success in this field was the vorticity problem. Goode  showed that if a perfect fluid solution of the EFE with an exact gamma-law equation of state $`(1<\gamma <2)`$ admits an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, then the fluid flow must be irrotational. Scott  has extended this result to include all barotropic perfect fluids with $`1<\lambda <1`$. This result is known as the General Vorticity Result (GVR).

As well as establishing the GVR, Scott  examines in detail, and amends, the definition of an IS, and also determines the form of the conformal factor in terms of the cosmic time function. Amongst other results, Scott provides a rigorous proof that if a perfect fluid (not necessarily barotropic) solution of the EFE admits an IS ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$) at which the fluid flow is regular, then there exists a limiting gamma-law equation of state as the singularity is approached. The limiting behaviour, as the singularity is approached, of an acceleration potential for the fluid flow is also established for barotropic perfect fluids in this category.

Various examples of cosmological models which admit an isotropic singularity at which the fluid flow is regular are presented in the literature. A discussion of these models forms a review paper , which also includes a classification of the models according to the limiting behaviour, as the IS is approached, of their various kinematical properties and tensorial quantities.

Recently the authors have established the Zero Acceleration Result  (ZAR) for solutions of the EFE with barotropic perfect fluid source. This result says that if the fluid congruence of such a solution is shear-free and regular at an IS (with $`1<\lambda <1`$), then the fluid flow is necessarily geodesic.

## 5 Vacuum cosmologies

If a solution of the Einstein field equations admits an IS, then it cannot be a vacuum solutionThis result agrees with the analogous result, by Lifshitz and Khalatnikov \[9, p203\], for the quasi-isotropic singularity.. This is easily seen by contrasting the fact that, globally, a vacuum solution satisfies

$$R_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}R_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}=0,$$
(13)
with the result, by Goode and Wainwright , that as an IS at T = 0 is approached,

$$\underset{T0^+}{lim}R_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}R_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}=\mathrm{}.$$
(14)
In light of this result we henceforth confine our attention to fluid filled space-times.

## 6 Singularity type

In order to gain some insight into the behaviour of the fluid around the singularity in a cosmological model we take a fluid element, which at some finite time is assumed to be spherical, and examine the asymptotic behaviour of this fluid element as we approach the initial singularity back along the fluid flow lines§§§This approach was pioneered by Thorne , but this section is based on MacCallum \[13, p131\].. To do this we look at length scales $`l_\alpha `$ in the eigendirectionsNote that the eigenvectors of the expansion tensor are in the same directions as the eigenvectors of the shear tensor. of the expansion tensor. The length scales $`l_\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =1,2,3)`$ are defined, up to a multiplicative constant, by

$$\frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{},\alpha \text{ not summed},$$
(15)
where $`\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ are the components of the expansion tensor in its eigenframe. An overall length scale (also called the scale factor) is defined by

$$l=(l_1l_2l_3)^{\frac{1}{3}}\text{or equivalently by}\frac{\dot{l}}{l}=\frac{\theta }{3}.$$
(16)
A singularity is defined to be

* a *point-like* singularity if all three $`l_\alpha `$ approach zero,
* a *barrel* singularity if two of the $`l_\alpha `$ approach zero and the other approaches some finite number,
* a *cigar* singularity if two of the $`l_\alpha `$ approach zero and the other approaches infinity,
* a *pancake* singularity if one of the $`l_\alpha `$ approaches zero and the other two approach some finite number.

It should be noted that it is possible for a singularity to be none of the above singularity types. For example, the mixmaster cosmological models have the $`l_\alpha `$ oscillating as the singularity is approached.

From the above choices of singularity type, it would be natural to expect that the IS is a point-like singularity. Indeed, this is alluded to by Tod in a review paper  and proven for the case of a geodesic flow by Nolan .

Before we proceed to prove, in general, that the IS actually is a point-like singularity, we must first establish the following result.

###### Proposition 6.1

Suppose that the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ with a $`C^1`$ unit timelike congruence u admits an IS. We denote the corresponding $`C^1`$ unit timelike congruence in the unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}=\mathrm{\Omega }\text{u}`$. For $`p`$, a vector, $`\text{v}T_p()`$, where v is orthogonal to $`\text{u}|_p`$, is an eigenvector (with eigenvalue $`\kappa `$) of the expansion tensor, $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, of u if and only if it is an eigenvector (with eigenvalue $`{}_{}{}^{}\kappa `$) of the expansion tensor, $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, of $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$.

Proof:
We note firstly that since u is orthogonal to $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, then u is an eigenvector of both $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ with zero eigenvalues. That is, the eigenvalues $`\kappa `$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\kappa `$ are both zero for the eigenvector u.

Now for $`p`$, coordinates $`(x^a)`$ about $`p`$ can be chosen so that $`\frac{}{x^0}|_p=\text{u}|_p`$ and $`\text{g}(\frac{}{x^0},\frac{}{x^\alpha })|_p=0(\alpha =1,2,3)`$. It follows from this that $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{g}(\frac{}{x^0},\frac{}{x^\alpha })|_p={}_{}{}^{}\text{g}({}_{}{}^{}\text{u},\frac{}{x^\alpha })|_p=0`$.

It is readily seen from the form of $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ in these coordinates, that any eigenvectors of $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$, with non-zero eigenvalues, are orthogonal to u, and any eigenvectors of $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$, with non-zero eigenvalues, are orthogonal to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$.

Now consider the vector $`\beta \text{u}+\text{w}T_p`$, where $`\beta 0`$ and $`\text{w}T_p`$ is orthogonal to u. If $`\beta \text{u}+\text{w}`$ is an eigenvector of $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$ with zero eigenvalue, then

$`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}(\beta u^b+w^b)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (17)
$`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}w^b`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (18)
That is, w is also an eigenvector of $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$ with zero eigenvalue.

We recall that the conformal relationship between the expansion tensor, $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, of u and the expansion tensor, $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, of $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{,d}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}.$$
(19)
Now for $`p`$, suppose that v is an eigenvector of $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$ which is orthogonal to u :

i.e. $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b=\kappa v^a`$ (20)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b=\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa v^a(\mathrm{\Omega }>0)`$ (21)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b+{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{,d}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}=\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa v^a`$ (22)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b=(\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{,d}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d})v^a(\text{since }{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b=v^a)`$ (23)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}v^b={}_{}{}^{}\kappa v^a\text{where }{}_{}{}^{}\kappa =\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{,d}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}`$ (24)
i.e., v is an eigenvector of $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$ which is orthogonal to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$.

###### Theorem 6.1

If the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ admits an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, then $`(,\text{g})`$ has a point-like singularity.

Proof:
We recall that the expansion tensor, $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, of u for the physical space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ is related to its unphysical equivalent, $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, of $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ for the unphysical space-time $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$ by the equation

$`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^1{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega })_{,d}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}.`$ (25)
Choose an arbitrary flow line in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ and label it $`\gamma `$. The point $`p\gamma `$ lies on the IS hypersurface at $`T=0`$. We now proceed to construct a local comoving coordinate system $`(s,x^\alpha )`$ in $`({}_{}{}^{},{}_{}{}^{}\text{g})`$. Set $`s=zT`$ along $`\gamma `$, where $`T`$ is the cosmic time function defined on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, and $`z^+`$ is a constant. The coordinate $`s`$ will be strictly monotonically increasing up $`\gamma `$. Now consider a small open tube $`𝒩`$ of flow lines about $`\gamma `$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ and the hypersurfaces, within $`𝒩`$, which are orthogonal to the flow lines. The coordinate $`s`$ will be chosen to be constant across these orthogonal hypersurfaces. Note that the $`s=`$ constant hypersurfaces are not necessarily the same as the $`T=`$ constant hypersurfaces. The constant $`z`$ is chosen so that $`\frac{}{s}|_p={}_{}{}^{}\text{u}|_p`$. On the hypersurface $`s=0`$ we choose spatial coordinates $`x^\alpha `$ which are comoving, i.e., the spatial coordinates along any flow-line remain constant.

One further restriction is placed on the spatial coordinates. They are chosen so that, at the point $`p`$ on the hypersurface $`T=0`$, the coordinate tangent vectors $`\frac{}{x^\alpha }`$ coincide with the three linearly independent eigenvectors, $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v}`$, at $`p`$, of the expansion tensor $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ of the unphysical fluid flow, $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$. The eigenvectors, $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v}`$, are orthogonal to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}|_p`$. The eigenvectors $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u},{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v}`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ at $`p`$ can be extended to form a $`C^2`$ eigenvector frame $`({}_{}{}^{}\text{u},{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v})`$ on $`𝒩`$, where the eigenvectors $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v}`$ are always orthogonal to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$ at any point of $`𝒩`$. For points in $`𝒩`$, other than $`p`$, one would expect that $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v}`$ will not, in general, coincide with $`\frac{}{x^\alpha }`$, although both $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\text{v}`$ and $`\frac{}{x^\alpha }`$ are orthogonal to $`{}_{}{}^{}\text{u}`$. It is certainly true, however, that, along $`\gamma `$

$${}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{0}=1+o(1),{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{\beta }=0,{}_{\alpha }{}^{}v_{}^{0}=0,{}_{\alpha }{}^{}v_{}^{\beta }=\delta _{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+o(1)\text{as }s0^+.$$
(26)
The coordinate tangent vector frame is thus arbitrarily close to the expansion tensor $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ eigenvector frame as we approach $`p`$ down the flow line $`\gamma `$. Since, by Proposition 6.1, the expansion tensor $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ eigenvector frame is the same as the expansion tensor $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ eigenvector frame, it follows that the coordinate tangent vector frame is also arbitrarily close to the expansion tensor $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ eigenvector frame as we approach $`p`$ down the flow line $`\gamma `$. A leading subscript “e” will be placed on any tensor evaluated in the expansion tensor $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ eigenvector frame.

We will now consider the relationship between the components of the expansion tensor $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ in its eigenvector frame and its components in the coordinate tangent vector frame. For $`\alpha =1,2,3`$, Equation (25) can be written

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d},\alpha \text{ not summed.}$$
(27)
The corresponding equation in the eigenvector frame is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }{}_{e}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}={}_{e}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+{}_{e}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}_{e}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{}T)_{d}^{}{}_{e}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}.$$
(28)
As we approach $`p`$ down the flow line $`\gamma `$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$,

$`{}_{e}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}[1+o(1)],`$ (29)
$`{}_{e}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}[1+o(1)],`$ (30)
$`{}_{e}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{}T)_{d}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`({}_{}{}^{}T)_d[1+o(1)],`$ (31)
$`{}_{e}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}[1+o(1)].`$ (32)
It follows that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }{}_{e}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}[1+o(1)]\text{as }s0^+,$$
(33)
and thus

$${}_{e}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}[1+o(1)]\text{as }s0^+.$$
(34)
In the physical expansion tensor, $`\theta _{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}`$, eigenvector frame the length scales, $`l_\alpha (\alpha =1,2,3)`$, are defined by $`\frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }={}_{e}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is not summed. We therefore have the relationship

$$\frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }=\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}[1+o(1)]\text{as }s0^+,$$
(35)
which in conjunction with Equation (27) yields

$`\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`({}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d})[1+o(1)].`$ (36)
Now as we approach $`p`$ down the flow line $`\gamma `$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{}\theta _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}|_p`$, $`lim_{s0^+}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=+\mathrm{}`$ (see Scott ), and

$$\underset{s0^+}{lim}{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}=\underset{s0^+}{lim}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}\backslash \{0\}.$$
(37)
It follows that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}[1+o(1)]\text{as }s0^+`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}(T)_du^d[1+o(1)]`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{ln}l_\alpha )\dot{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega })\dot{}[1+o(1)]`$ (40)
$`(\mathrm{ln}l_\alpha )\dot{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega })\dot{}[1+o(1)].`$ (41)
Thus $`lim_{s0^+}\frac{(\mathrm{ln}l_\alpha )\dot{}}{(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega })\dot{}}=1`$.

Since $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ as $`s0^+`$, L’Hôpital’s rule can be invoked to obtain

$`\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}l_\alpha }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (42)
$`\text{i.e.}\mathrm{ln}l_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }[1+o(1)]\text{as }s0^+`$ (43)
$`l_\alpha `$ $``$ $`0\text{as }s0^+.`$ (44)
Note that the length scales, $`l_\alpha (\alpha =1,2,3)`$, have the same asymptotic form, as one would expect with an IS. Since $`\gamma `$ was an arbitrary flow line, we conclude that all three length scales $`l_\alpha `$ approach zero as the initial singularity is approached back along any fluid flow line. Thus the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ has a point-like singularity.

This theorem shows that if a cosmological model admits an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, then a spherical fluid element which travels backwards in time to the initial singularity, will collapse, approximately isotropically, into a point.

## 7 Hubble parameter

The Hubble parameter is an important parameter in comparing observational data with cosmological theory. It is defined by MacCallum \[13, p97\] as

$$H\frac{\dot{l}}{l}=\frac{\theta }{3},$$
(45)
where $`l`$ is the scale factor.

The behaviour of the expansion scalar, $`\theta `$, can be determined as follows. Equation (38), from the proof of Theorem 6.1, shows that for a cosmological model which admits an IS, at which the fluid flow is regular, the following relationship holds down a fluid flow line:

$$\frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}[1+o(1)]\text{as }T0^+.$$
(46)
Since $`lim_{T0^+}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim_{T0^+}({}_{}{}^{}T)_d{}_{}{}^{}u_{}^{d}^+`$, it follows that

$$\frac{\dot{l}_\alpha }{l_\alpha }+\mathrm{}\text{as }T0^+.$$
(47)
Now

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{l}_1}{l_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{l}_2}{l_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{l}_3}{l_3}}`$ (48)
$`\theta `$ $``$ $`+\mathrm{}\text{as }T0^+.`$ (49)
This result was originally obtained by Goode and Wainwright .

Since the expansion scalar becomes infinite as the singularity is approached along any fluid flow line, it follows that

$$H+\mathrm{}\text{as }T0^+.$$
(50)
## 8 Energy conditions

A solution of the EFE should be “physically reasonable” in order to be a candidate as a model for a real physical system. Although the terminology “physically reasonable” is vague, the standard method for determining whether or not a model is physically reasonable is to test if the energy conditions are satisfied. For a perfect fluid the usual energy conditions are \[2, pp88-96\]:

$`\mu 0,\mu +p0`$.

$`\mu 0,\mu p\mu `$.

$`\mu +p0,\mu +3p0`$.

Scott  has shown that if a space-time satisfies the EFE with perfect fluid source, and the unit timelike fluid congruence is regular at an IS, then there is a relationship between the energy density, $`\mu `$, and the pressure, $`p`$, of the fluid near the singularity. The following two propositions give this relationship precisely.

###### Proposition 8.1 (Limiting $`\gamma `$-law result)

If the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ is a $`C^3`$ solution of the EFE with perfect fluid source, and the unit timelike fluid congruence, u, is regular at an IS ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$), then there exists a limiting $`\gamma `$-law equation of state $`p=(\gamma 1)\mu `$ as the singularity is approached, where $`\gamma =\frac{2}{3}(2\lambda )`$.

###### Proposition 8.2 ($`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$)

If the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ is a $`C^3`$ solution of the EFE with perfect fluid source, and the unit timelike fluid congruence, u, is regular at an IS with $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$, then there exists a limiting equation of state $`p=\frac{2}{3}L\mu `$ as the singularity is approached, where $`L(T)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2}`$, and $`lim_{T0^+}L(T)=\lambda .`$

Using these results, we have determined, in the following corollary, whether, for perfect fluid cosmologies which admit an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, the above energy conditions are satisfied near the singularity.

###### Corollary 8.1

If the space-time $`(,\text{g})`$ is a $`C^3`$ solution of the EFE with perfect fluid source, and the unit timelike fluid congruence, u, is regular at an Isotropic Singularity, then there exists an open neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of the hypersurface $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that the weak and strong energy conditions are satisfied everywhere on $`𝒰`$. Furthermore, if $`1<\lambda <1`$, then the dominant energy condition also holds on $`𝒰`$.

Proof:
Scott  has shown that, for space-times which satisfy the conditions of this corollary, $`\mu +\mathrm{}`$ as $`T0^+`$, and hence $`\mu 0`$ near the singularity.

From the limiting $`\gamma `$-law result of Scott we know that when $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$, $`p(\gamma 1)\mu `$ as $`T0^+`$, with $`\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <\mathrm{}(\gamma 1)`$ . We will prove this case first, then look at the remaining $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ cases.

1. Assume $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

An open neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of the hypersurface $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ can be chosen such that $`\mu >0`$ and $`p(\gamma 1)\mu `$ as $`T0^+`$ on $`𝒰`$.

There are three subcases to examine.

1. Show $`\mu +p0`$ on $`𝒰`$:

    $`\mu +p`$ $`=`$ $`\mu +(\gamma 1)\mu [1+o(1)]`$ (51)
    $`=`$ $`\gamma \mu [1+o(1)].`$ (52)
    Now $`\gamma >\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`\mu >0`$ on $`𝒰`$, with $`\mu +\mathrm{}`$ as $`T0^+`$. Hence $`\mu +p0`$ on $`𝒰`$ and the WEC is satisfied.
    2. Show $`\mu +3p0`$ on $`𝒰`$:

    Proceeding as in case (1a), we can show that

    $$\mu +3p=(3\gamma 2)\mu [1+o(1)],$$
    (53)
    and since $`\gamma >\frac{2}{3}`$, $`3\gamma 2>0`$. Hence $`\mu +3p0`$ on $`𝒰`$ and the SEC is satisfied.
    3. Establish when $`\mu p\mu `$ holds on $`𝒰`$:

    We have already shown that $`\mu p`$ on $`𝒰`$, and so we need to determine when it is also true that $`p\mu `$.

    Since $`p=(\gamma 1)\mu [1+o(1)]`$ as $`T0^+`$ on $`𝒰`$,

    $`p\mu `$ (54)
    $``$ $`(\gamma 1)\mu [1+o(1)]\mu `$ (55)
    $``$ $`(\gamma 1)[1+o(1)]1`$
    $`(\text{since }\mu >0\text{ on }𝒰).`$
    When $`\gamma 1<1`$, an open neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ always exists such that this inequality holds on $`𝒰`$. On the other hand, when $`\gamma 1>1`$, such a neighbourhood never exists, since the inequality is not true in the limit as $`T0^+`$. For the special value $`\gamma =2`$, the inequality may or may not hold in the limit as $`T0^+`$. We conclude that, for $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$, the DEC holds on $`𝒰`$ when $`\frac{2}{3}<\gamma <2(\gamma 1)`$, equivalently, $`1<\lambda <1(\lambda \frac{1}{2})`$.
2. Assume $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$.

This case includes the dust $`(p=0)`$ and asymptotic dust ($`p=o(1)`$ as $`T0^+`$) models. It is readily seen from  that $`p=o(\mu )`$ as $`T0^+`$. Let $`𝒰`$ denote an open neighbourhood of the hypersurface $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that $`\mu >0`$ and $`p=o(\mu )`$ as $`T0^+`$ on $`𝒰`$. Since $`\mu +\mathrm{}`$ as $`T0^+`$, it is clear that $`\mu +p0`$, $`\mu +3p0`$, and $`p\mu `$ on $`𝒰`$. Thus, for the case $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$, the WEC, SEC and DEC are satisfied on $`𝒰`$.
3. Assume $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$.

In this case the limiting equation of state is given by

$$p\frac{2}{3}L\mu \text{as }T0^+,$$
(57)
where $`L(T)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^2}`$, and $`lim_{T0^+}L(T)=\lambda .`$ An open neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of the hypersurface $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ can be chosen such that $`\mu >0`$, $`L<0`$, and $`p\frac{2}{3}L\mu `$ as $`T0^+`$ on $`𝒰`$.

Again there are three subcases to examine.

1. Show $`\mu +p0`$ on $`𝒰`$:

    $`\mu +p`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}L\mu [1+o(1)]`$ (58)
    $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{3}L\mu [1+o(1)].`$ (59)
    Now $`\mu >0`$ and $`L<0`$ on $`𝒰`$, with $`\frac{2}{3}L\mu +\mathrm{}`$ as $`T0^+`$. Hence $`\mu +p0`$ on $`𝒰`$ and the WEC is satisfied.
    2. Show $`\mu +3p0`$ on $`𝒰`$:

    Proceeding as in case (3a), we can show that

    $$\mu +3p=2L\mu [1+o(1)].$$
    (60)
    Now $`\mu >0`$ and $`L<0`$ on $`𝒰`$, with $`2L\mu +\mathrm{}`$ as $`T0^+`$. Hence $`\mu +3p0`$ on $`𝒰`$ and the SEC is satisfied.
    3. Establish whether $`\mu p\mu `$ holds on $`𝒰`$:

    We have already shown that $`\mu p`$ on $`𝒰`$, and so we need to determine if it is also true that $`p\mu `$.

    Since $`p=\frac{2}{3}L\mu [1+o(1)]`$ as $`T0^+`$ on $`𝒰`$,

    $`p\mu `$ (61)
    $``$ $`\frac{2}{3}L\mu [1+o(1)]\mu `$ (62)
    $``$ $`\frac{2}{3}L[1+o(1)]1`$
    $`(\text{since }\mu >0\text{ on }𝒰)`$
    $``$ $`1+o(1){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}.`$ (64)
    An open neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of $`T=0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ does not exist such that this inequality holds on $`𝒰`$, since $`\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{L}0^+`$ as $`T0^+`$. We conclude that the DEC does not hold when $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$, which is what one would expect given our results for the general case (1) when $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

The dominant energy condition may hold when $`\gamma =2`$, but this must usually be examined on a case by case basis. We can, however, state that any perfect fluid space-time with the exact $`\gamma `$-law equation of state, $`p=\mu `$, which admits an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, will satisfy the DEC. For example, the stiff fluid FRW models, and the stiff fluid Mars95 models , admit an IS at which the fluid flow is regular \[7, and references therein\] and satisfy the DEC. On the other hand, perfect fluid models with an equation of state $`p=\mu [1+N]`$, where $`N=o(1)`$ as $`T0^+`$, $`N>0`$, which admit an IS at which the fluid flow is regular, do not satisfy the DEC.

## 9 Conclusion

As in any field, there is a certain amount of “folk lore” in general relativity. In particular, with regard to initial singularities in cosmological models, it has always been assumed that the IS is a point-like singularity and that vacuum space-times were of no concern in matters regarding the IS, in that they could not possess an IS. In this paper we have explicitly proven these two fundamental results. In addition to this we have shown that, near the initial singularity, the weak and strong energy conditions are automatically satisfied by perfect fluid space-times which admit an IS, and that the dominant energy condition is also satisfied given a reasonable restriction on the relationship between the pressure and the energy density. We have provided a detailed proof of the result, formerly stated by Goode and Wainwright, that there is a freedom in the choice of conformal factor associated with a space-time which admits an IS. This freedom was exploited to prove that the expansion scalar associated with an unphysical fluid flow can always be set to zero at a given point in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ by a suitable choice of the conformal factor. Finally, it was shown that the Hubble parameter becomes infinite at an IS.


format: text

text:
# Persistent currents in interacting Aharonov-Bohm interferometers and their enhancement by acoustic radiation

## Abstract

We consider an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer, connected to two electronic reservoirs, with a quantum dot embedded on one of its arms. We find a general expression for the persistent current at steady state, valid for the case where the electronic system is free of interactions except on the dot. The result is used to derive the modification in the persistent current brought about by coupling the quantum dot to a phonon source. The magnitude of the persistent current is found to be enhanced in an appropriate range of the intensity of the acoustic source.

It has long been established, both theoretically  and experimentally , that a magnetic flux which threads an isolated electronic system creates a persistent current at thermal equilibrium. That current, which is equivalent to the thermodynamic orbital magnetic moment of the electrons, arises from the interference of the electronic wave functions, and, as long as the electrons are phase-coherent, survives the presence of reasonably strong static disorder . When the electrons are coupled to a phonon bath, the naive expectation is that the persistent current will diminish, due to loss of coherence, caused by inelastic processes as well as by renormalization effects due to the “dressing” of the electrons by the phonons. However, it turns out that this is not the whole effect. For example, in the case of strongly localized electrons, the coupling to the acoustic waves gives rise to an additional persistent current , brought about by delicate resonant processes , which result in a non-monotonic temperature dependence of the orbital magnetic moment at sufficiently low temperatures. Somewhat related examples are the enhancement of the persistent current in response to an external ac electric noise , and its peculiar behavior under the effect of a nonequilibrium electron energy distribution  or of a periodic oscillating potential .

Here we consider the persistent current $`I_c`$, circulating in the ring of an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer (ABI), connecting two electronic reservoirs having equal or slightly different chemical potentials, $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mu _r`$. This small voltage $`eV=\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _r`$ is not the main source for the deviation from equilibrium in our case. The current is studied also when the system is strongly out of equilibrium due to a coupling to an acoustic source, as in . In order to retain the coherence of the conduction electrons, our results apply only for size-scales small enough to stay coherent at the given temperature. Moreover, the strength of the acoustic source is taken to be such that the additional decoherence due to it is not essential . We take the electronic system to be non-interacting, except at a single ‘site’ on the ABI, dubbed ‘quantum dot’, where the electrons can couple to an external source of sonic (or electromagnetic) waves, and/or experience electronic interactions. (For simplicity, we assume that this site has only a single relevant on-site energy level, $`ϵ_d`$.) Under these conditions, we obtain a general expression for the persistent current circulating around the Aharonov-Bohm ring \[Eq. (2) below\]. This expression does not necessitate a near-equilibrium situation. We then use the result to show that a phonon source, interacting with the electrons on the quantum dot, may lead to a considerable enhancement of the persistent current, and of the related orbital magnetic moment. This acousto-persistent current exists even when $`V=0`$. However, the coupling of the ring to the leads is crucial. Such a relation between the acoustic wave intensity and the orbital magnetic moment opens interesting possibilities for future nano-devices.

Our model system is depicted in Fig. 1. In the steady state, a dc current, $`I`$, is flowing through the ABI. To eliminate spurious circulating currents caused by a geometrical asymmetry of the ring, we calculate the current $`I_c`$, circulating around the ABI ring under the effect of the Aharonov-Bohm flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, by

$`I_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(I_1I_2)|_\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(I_1I_2)|_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (1)
The persistent current with a coupling to one or more electron reservoirs, but without the additional interactions on the dot, has been studied in Refs. .

By using the Keldysh technique , one can find the partial currents flowing in each arm of the ABI. Moreover, when the electrons are non-interacting, except on the quantum dot, one is able to express all the relevant currents in terms of the exact Green function on the dot, $`G_{dd}`$, which includes the interactions and the effect of the couplings between the dot and the other parts of the circuit. This Green function has a self-energy which comes from two sources. The first arises solely from the coupling of the dot to the ring, and is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. This part can be obtained straightforwardly, as it pertains to non-interacting electrons. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ represents the lifetime of the on-site energy level on the dot, turning it into a resonance. The other part of the self-energy, denoted $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}`$, comes from the interactions experienced by electrons residing on the dot , e.g., the coupling to the phonon source. This self-energy also depends on the coupling to the other parts of the circuit. A detailed calculation of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ then yields

$`I_c={\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{i\pi }\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )+f_r(\omega )}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^A}{\mathrm{\Phi }}G_{dd}^A(\omega )cc\right]},`$ (2)
where $`f_{\mathrm{},r}(\omega )=f(\omega \mu _{\mathrm{},r})`$, with $`f(z)(e^{\beta z}+1)^1`$, is the electron distribution on the left (right) reservoir, having the chemical potential $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\mu _r`$). (It is assumed that the two reservoirs are otherwise identical. We also use a unit electron charge, $`e=1`$, and $`\mathrm{}=1`$.) The superscripts $`A`$ ($`R`$) refer to the advanced (retarded) Green functions. Since both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^A`$ and $`G_{dd}^A`$ are even in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, due to additive contributions (with equal amplitudes) from clockwise and counterclockwise motions of the electron around the ring (see e.g. Refs. ), $`I_c`$ is odd in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, as it should. Another important point to notice is that the frequency integration in Eq. (2) is restricted to the band-width of the conduction electrons on the leads. This is because $`G_{dd}^A`$ attains an imaginary part only due to the coupling of the dot with the band states on the leads, i.e. for $`\omega `$ inside the band.

Several physical remarks on Eq. (2) are called for: (i) The small voltage allowed on the system is not essential; the result also holds when $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _r`$. (ii) Equation (2) averages the flux-derivative of the external self-energy over energy, with weights containing the densities of electrons and single-particle states with that energy. However, the flux-derivative of the latter does not appear. This is reminiscent of the equilibrium case, where the persistent current is given by the flux-derivative of the energies, weighed by the populations, without the appearance of the flux-derivative of those, as in Eq. (3) below (see, for example, Ref. ).

Equation (2) holds under four conditions: (i) The interferometer is symmetric, i.e., the left and right couplings of the dot to the interferometer are identical, and so are those of the reference site (see Fig. 1). Otherwise, there appears a term proportional to the asymmetry of the ring, which we omit for clarity; (ii) In order to eliminate the Keldysh Green function $`G_{dd}^<`$, we have used current conservation, $`I_1+I_3=0`$, in conjunction with the ‘wide-band’ approximation , which implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is energy-independent. (iii) The chemical potential difference $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _r`$ is small, and the system is in the linear transport regime. (iv) Last, but not least, is the requirement that the additional dephasing due to the nonequilibrium situation can be neglected.

For non-interacting electrons, our expression for $`I_c`$ is consistent with the result in Ref. . It generalizes the results of Refs.  and  to a steady-state situation. In that non-interacting case, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^A`$ constitutes the entire self-energy of the dot Green function, $`G_{dd}^{0A}(\omega )=1/(\omega ϵ_d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^A)`$. The persistent current then becomes

$`I_c^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{2d\omega }{\pi }\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )+f_r(\omega )}{2}\frac{\delta ^0(\omega )}{\mathrm{\Phi }}},`$ (3)
where $`\delta ^0`$ is the phase of the retarded Green function $`G^R=(G_A)^{}`$ for the non-interacting situation,

$`\mathrm{tan}\delta ^0(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R}{\omega ϵ_d\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R}}.`$ (4)
This phase is identical to the transmission phase (the Friedel phase) of the interferometer . However, this simple relation between the transmission phase and the persistent current ceases to hold when the dot self-energy also contains the interaction-induced part, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}`$, which depends on the flux as well. Thus, interactions eliminate the simple relation between the persistent current and the scattering solution.

Equation (2), which is our first main result, applies to any kind of interactions on the dot, including electron-electron interactions. In the rest of this Letter we apply this general result to study the modification of the persistent current when the dot is coupled to a phonon source. Utilizing again the wide-band approximation , and assuming an interaction between the phonons and the electron residing on the dot which is linear in the phonon coordinates, we find

$`G_{dd}^R(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`iK[(1n_d){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{i(\omega ϵ_d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R)t}e^{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`n_d{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{i(\omega ϵ_d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R)t}e^{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}].`$ (6)
Here $`n_d`$ denotes the electron occupation on the dot . The on-site energy on the dot, $`ϵ_d`$, is now renormalized by the polaron shift, $`ϵ_P=_𝐪|\alpha _𝐪|^2/\omega _q`$, where $`\alpha _𝐪`$ is the electron-phonon coupling and $`\omega _q`$ denotes the phonon frequency. Since this renormalization is temperature- and flux-independent, we will omit it in the following. The other phonon variables are contained in $`K`$, the Debye-Waller factor, and in $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. Explicitly,

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _𝐪|^2}{\omega _q^2}}(1+2N_q)],`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _𝐪|^2}{\omega _q^2}}[N_qe^{i\omega _qt}+(1+N_q)e^{i\omega _qt}],`$ (8)
where $`N_q`$ is the phonon occupation of the $`q`$-mode, which is not necessarily the thermal equilibrium one, but may be tuned externally.

Let us now specify to the case of a weak electron-phonon interaction and not too large $`N_q`$. Expanding Eq. (6) to lowest order in $`|\alpha _𝐪|^2`$, one obtains $`G_{dd}^R(\omega )`$ in terms of the dot Green function of the non-interacting case (i.e., in the absence of the electron-phonon interaction), $`G_{dd}^{0R}(\omega )`$, at the same frequency $`\omega `$, and at frequencies shifted by the phonon frequencies, $`\omega \pm \omega _q`$. As a result, the expression for $`I_c`$ involves the phase $`\delta ^0(\omega )`$ at those frequencies as well. The result is conveniently written in the form

$`I_c=I_c^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }I_c,`$ (9)
where $`I_c^{(0)}`$ is the persistent current of the non-interacting interferometer, Eq. (3) above, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$ is the acousto-persistent current, given, within our approximation, by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c={\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )+f_r(\omega )}{2}}`$ (11)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}[A_q^+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}(\delta ^0(\omega +\omega _q)+\delta ^0(\omega \omega _q)2\delta ^0(\omega ))`$
$`+`$ $`A_q^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}(\delta ^0(\omega +\omega _q)\delta ^0(\omega \omega _q))],`$ (12)
where

$`A_𝐪^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _𝐪|^2}{\omega _q^2}}(1+2N_q),A_𝐪^{}={\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _𝐪|^2}{\omega _q^2}}(2n_d1).`$ (13)
The acousto-induced persistent current, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$, consists of two parts: The first term in Eq. (12) is dominated by the phonon occupations \[see Eq. (13)\], via $`A_𝐪^+`$. The second term depends only on the dot’s occupation, $`n_d`$, and its sign may change according to the relative location of $`ϵ_d`$ with respect to the Fermi energy. The first term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$ shows that by shining a beam of phonons of a specific frequency, the magnitude of the persistent current, and hence of the orbital magnetic moment of the ABI, can be enhanced and controlled experimentally, as long as the temperature of the electronic system and the intensity of the phonon source $`N_q`$ are low enough to retain coherent motion of the electrons. This intensity is also limited by our weak effective interaction approximation. Similar considerations apply to photons. Both the precise magnitude of these effects and the above bounds depend on the detailed geometry of the dot and on the acoustic (or electromagnetic) mismatch. Such calculations go beyond the scope of the present paper.

Equation (12) for the acousto-persistent current is our second main result. It is important to appreciate the difference between this result and the corresponding one found earlier  for the isolated ring. In the isolated ring, the Holstein process  required the emission (absorption) of a specific phonon, with the exact excitation energy of the electron on the ring. In the present case, the coupling to the leads turns the bound state into a resonance, with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R`$ which vanishes when the ring is decoupled from the leads. As a result, there is always some overlap between the tail of the Green function $`G_{dd}^{0R}(\omega )`$ and the Fermi distribution $`f(\omega )`$, yielding contributions from Holstein-like processes via phonons with many energies. Indeed, each contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$ contains the phase $`\delta ^0(\omega )`$, which vanishes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0`$ ($`\delta ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0/|ϵ_d|`$ far from the resonance). In particular, this results in a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$ even at zero temperature: In that limit, if $`ϵ_d<\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _r=0`$, then $`n_d=1`$. Even with no phonons, $`N_q=0`$, the square brackets in Eq. (12) become proportional to $`\delta ^0(\omega +\omega _q)\delta ^0(\omega )`$, reflecting processes which begin by an emission of phonons. None of this remains for the isolated ring, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0=0`$.

To obtain explicit expressions, we now evaluate the frequency integration appearing in Eq. (12). First, since we operate within the linear response regime, the voltage is not essential to our effect and we may safely write in Eq. (12) $`f_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )=f_r(\omega )f(\omega )`$ . Furthermore, we take the electronic temperature to be low compared to all other energies, so that $`f(\omega )\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )`$. Second, we note that the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R`$ takes a simple form when one invokes the wide-band approximation, with a self-energy which is effectively at the middle of the (symmetric) conduction band of the leads . For simplicity, we present results only for the special symmetric ABI (Fig. 1), with the same hopping matrix elements on the left and right branches of the ring, and with the hopping from the ring onto each lead equal to that along the lead. In the absence of the lower arm of the ABI, the self-energy is purely imaginary , $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0`$. Adding the lower branch, the self-energy acquires a real part as well, and both the real and imaginary parts depend on the flux. That dependence can be written in terms of $`T_B`$ and $`R_B`$, the transmission and the reflection coefficients of the reference arm alone ,

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0\sqrt{T_BR_B}\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }/2),`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0\left(1T_B\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }/2)\right).`$ (15)
Third, we take the typical phonon frequency to be much smaller than the large band-width in the leads. With these approximations the frequency-integration in Eq. (12) is easily performed, to yield

$`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^0}{2\pi }}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}[A_𝐪^+(F(\omega _q)+F(\omega _q)2F(0))`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`A_𝐪^{}(F(\omega _q)F(\omega _q))],`$ (17)
where $`F(\omega )`$ is given in terms of $`\delta ^0(\omega )`$, Eq. (4),

$`F(\omega )=\sqrt{T_BR_B}\delta ^0(\omega )T_B\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{sin}\delta ^0(\omega )|.`$ (18)
Note again that the dependence of the acousto-persistent current on the phonon frequency is fixed by the Friedel phase of the dot at that frequency. To leading order in the strength of the electron-phonon coupling, the magnitude of the first term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_c`$ is proportional to $`A_𝐪^+`$, and thus grows linearly with the occupation number of the acoustic modes acting on the dot, $`N_q`$. In fact, the acousto-persistent current contains two types of contributions: the part associated with $`F(0)`$, which simply represents the ’trivial’ Debye-Waller renormalization of the current, and the novel frequency-dependent parts, which reflect the change in the persistent current due to Holstein-like processes.

In summary, we have derived a general expression for the steady-state current circulating in the Aharonov-Bohm ring, which is also valid when there are electronic interactions on the dot. We used this expression to find the effect of an acoustic (or electromagnetic) source on the persistent current. In particular, we found that by controlling the intensity of the acoustic wave in a certain frequency range, one may tune the magnitude of the orbital moment. The same calculation can also apply to the photon-induced persistent current.

This project was carried out in a center of excellence supported by the Israel Science Foundation. It was also partially supported by the German-Israeli Foundation (GIF) and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), within the framework of the German-Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP). We acknowledge helpful discussions with the late A. G. Aronov and with Y. Levinson.


text:
# Gauge Quintessence

\[

## Abstract

We discuss a new model of quintessence in which the quintessence field is identified with the extra-component of a gauge field in a compactified five-dimensional theory. We show that the extremely tiny energy scale $`(3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV})^4`$ needed to account for the present acceleration of the Universe can be naturally explained in terms of high energy scales such as the scale of Grand Unification.

\]

There is an increasing evidence that the energy density of (baryonic plus dark) matter in the Universe is smaller than the critical density . If the Universe is flat, as predicted by the most natural inflation models  and confirmed by the recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies  , an additional dark energy density is necessary to reach $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$. This dark energy seems to be the predominant form of energy in the present Universe, about $`70\%`$ of the critical energy density, and should possess a negative pressure $`p`$. An obvious candidate is represented by the cosmological constant, whose equation of state is $`\rho =p`$. If this is the option chosen by Nature, particle physicists have to face the Herculean task to explain why the energy of the vacuum $`V_0`$ is of the order of $`(3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV})^4`$. Another possibility invokes a mixture of cold dark matter and quintessence , a slowly-varying, spatially inhomogeneous component with equation of state $`p_Q=w_Q\rho _Q`$, with $`1<w_Q0`$. The role of quintessence may be played by any scalar field $`Q`$ which is slowly rolling down its potential $`V(Q)`$. The slow evolution is needed to obtain a negative pressure, $`p_Q=\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2V(Q)`$, so that the kinetic energy density is less than the potential energy density. The quintessence field $`Q`$ rolls down a potential according to the equation of motion $`\ddot{Q}+3H\dot{Q}+V^{}(Q)=0`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble constant satisfying the Friedmann equation in a flat Universe

$$H^2=\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{1}{3M_p^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2+V(Q)+\rho _B\right),$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor, $`M_p=2\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck scale and $`\rho _B`$ is the remaining background energy density.

Since at present the quintessence field $`Q`$ dominates the energy density of the Universe, one can write $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+w_Q\right)H^2M_p^2`$ and $`V(Q)=\frac{3}{2}\left(1w_Q\right)H^2M_p^2`$. Let us assume that the quintessence potential has the parametric form

$$V(Q)=V_0𝒱\left(\frac{Q}{f}\right),$$
(2)
where $`V_0`$ parametrizes the height of the potential. Let us borrow the notation traditionally adopted in inflation model-building by defining a slow-roll parameter $`ϵ=\dot{H}/H^2`$. If the Universe is suffering an acceleration stage because of the quintessence dynamics, then $`\ddot{a}/a=\left(1ϵ\right)H^2>0`$ and the parameter $`ϵM_p^2\left(V^{}/V\right)^2\left(M_p/f\right)^2`$ has to be smaller than unity. This implies that the scale $`f`$ has to be larger than the Planck scale. In turn, the quintessence mass $`m_Q`$ must be extremely tiny since

$$m_Q^2V^{\prime \prime }\frac{V_0}{f^2}H^2\left(\frac{M_p}{f}\right)^2.$$
(3)
The quintessence field has to roll down its potential with a mass comparable (or smaller) than $`H10^{42}`$ GeV!

The extreme flatness of the quintessence field represents a real challenge from the particle physics point of view and there are no completely natural models of quintessence. Supersymmetry is usually invoked to preserve the potential from acquiring large corrections to the mass of the quintessence field. However, the flatness of the potential tends to be spoiled when supergravity  corrections are included . The same problem manifests itself in trying to build-up a satisfactory model of inflation .

Another possibility is to consider the quintessence field as a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson (PNGB) , i.e. the underlying theory possesses a non-linearly realized symmetry and the quintessence field can be parametrized through an angular variable $`\theta =Q/f`$. In the limit of exact symmetry the quintessence field $`Q`$ does not have a potential which is generated only in the presence of an explicit breaking term. The same effect could explain why the quintessence field does couple to ordinary matter more weakly than gravity.

If the quintessence field is a PNGB, its Lagrangian can be written as

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu Q\right)^2V_0\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{Q}{f}\right)\right],$$
(4)
where $`f`$ is the spontaneous breaking scale.

The problem of identifying the quintessence field with a PNGB comes from the fact that the spontaneous breaking scale $`f`$ has to be comparable to the Planckian scale and, therefore, the effective four-dimensional field theory description is expected to break down due to quantum gravity corrections. One should note however that there might be shift symmetries, for example acting on the model-independent axion, which constrain the form of these quantum corrections to be small in some regions of parameter space (see Kim and Nilles in Ref.  and ). The existence of such a symmetry is not imposed from a four-dimensional theory, but it is deduced from the string theory.

To summarize, there are two necessary key steps one needs to take in order to build up a successful quintessence particle physics model. One is to explain the reason why the scale $`V_0`$ – parametrizing the height of the potential – is so tiny and the other is to explain why the overall scale $`f`$ spanned by the quintessence field may be comparable to the Planckian scale without running into trouble with the four-dimensional description. Motivated by similar recent considerations applied to models of primordial inflation , in this short note we would like to show that the extra-dimensional generalization of identifying the quintessence field with a PNGB may help in taking both steps.

We consider a five-dimensional model with the extra fifth dimension compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$ and identify the quintessence field with the fifth component $`A_5`$ of an abelian gauge field $`A_M`$ ($`M=0,1,2,3,5)`$ propagating in the bulk (the generalization to the non-abelian case is straightforward). As such, the quintessence field cannot have a local potential because of the higher-dimensional gauge invariance. However, a non-local potential as a function of the gauge-invariant Wilson line

$$e^{i\theta }=e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle g_5A_5𝑑y}},$$
(5)
where $`y`$ is the coordinate along the fifth dimension, $`0y<2\pi R`$, will be generated in the presence of fields charged under the abelian symmetry

Writing the field $`A_5`$ as

$$A_5=\frac{\theta }{2\pi g_5R},$$
(6)
where $`g_5`$ is the five-dimensional gauge coupling constant, at energies below the scale $`1/R`$, $`\theta `$ looks like a four-dimensional field with Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2g_4^2(2\pi R)^2}\left(_\mu \theta \right)^2V(\theta ),$$
(7)
where $`g_4=g_5/(2\pi R)^{1/2}`$ is the four-dimensional gauge coupling constant. Comparing Eqs. (4) and (7) one identifies the overall scale $`f=\frac{1}{2\pi g_4R}`$ and the field $`Q=\frac{\theta }{2\pi g_4R}`$. Therefore, one can easily see that the overall scale $`f`$ may be comparable to the four-dimensional Planckian scale, $`fM_p`$, if the four-dimensional constant is small enough . For instance, requiring that $`1/R10^{16}`$ GeV imposes that $`g_410^3`$. The higher-dimensional nature of the theory preserves the quintessence potential from acquiring dangerous corrections, and non-local effects must be necessarily exponentially suppressed because the typical length of five-dimensional quantum gravity effects $`M_5^1`$, where $`M_5`$ is the five-dimensional Planck scale, is much smaller than the size of the extra-dimensions.

Let us now turn to the form of the potential. We assume that the potential for the quintessence field is generated radiatively by a set of bulk fields which are charged under the $`U(1)`$ symmetry with charges $`q_a`$. The fundamental hypothesis we make is that these bulk fields possess a bare mass $`M_aR^1`$ and that there is no charged matter with mass below the compactification scale. The masses $`M_a`$ may be generated by some gauge symmetry breaking phenomenon at scales larger than $`R^1`$. For instance, bulk fields may be charged under another abelian factor broken at energies larger than the compactification scale. From the four-dimensional point of view, this is equivalent to having a tower of Kaluza-Klein states with squared masses

$$m_a^2=M_a^2+\left(\frac{n}{R}+g_4q_aQ\right)^2,(n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}).$$
(8)
Borrowing from finite temperature field theory calculations, the $`Q`$-dependent part of the potential can be written as

$$V(Q)=\frac{1}{128\pi ^6R^4}\mathrm{Tr}\left[V(r_a^F,Q)V(r_a^B,Q)\right],$$
(9)
where the trace is over the number of degrees of freedom, the superscripts $`F`$ and $`B`$ stand for fermions and bosons, respectively and

$`V(r_a,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`x_a^2\mathrm{Li}_3\left(r_ae^{x_a}\right)+3x_a\mathrm{Li}_4\left(r_ae^{x_a}\right)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`3\mathrm{Li}_5\left(r_ae^{x_a}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (11)
We have defined

$`x_a`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi RM_a,`$ (12)
$`r_a`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{iq_aQ}{f}},`$ (13)
and in Eq. (10) the functions $`\mathrm{Li}_n(z)`$ stand for the polylogarithm functions

$$\mathrm{Li}_n(z)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^k}{k^n}.$$
(14)
The potential (10) shows many similarities with the potential one obtains in four-dimensional field theories at finite temperature where, in the imaginary time formalism, four-dimensional loop integrals become integrals over the three spatial momenta and a sum over the so-called Matsubara frequencies. The finiteness of the potential at finite temperature is due to the fact that particles with wavelengths smaller than the inverse temperature have Boltzmann (exponentially) suppressed abundances in the plasma. Similarly, the potential (10) is independent of any ultraviolet cut-off. This is because the Wilson line is a global quantity while ultraviolet effects are local.

More crucial for our considerations is the behaviour of the potential when the bare masses $`M_aR^1`$: the overall height of the potential is exponentially suppressed! This can be easily understood by thinking again of the four-dimensional finite temperature case. Particles in the plasma with bare masses $`M`$ much larger than the temperature $`T`$ do not contribute to the effective potential apart from tiny exponentially suppressed contributions. In the very same way, bulk fields charged under the abelian gauge symmetry $`U(1)`$ give an exponentially suppressed contribution to the potential (10) if their bare mass term is much larger than the effective temperature $`T=R^1`$.

Let us, for simplicity, assume that all bare masses $`M_a`$ are equal to a common mass $`MR^1`$. The potential (10) is well approximated by the form (2) with

$$V_0\frac{c}{16\pi ^4}\frac{M^2}{R^2}e^{2\pi MR}=\frac{c}{16\pi ^4}\frac{M^2}{R^2}e^{MM_p^2/M_5^3},$$
(15)
where $`c=𝒪(1)`$ is a numerical coefficient depending upon the charges of the bulk fields and in the last passage we have made use of the relation $`M_p^2=2\pi RM_5^3`$. We discover that the extreme smallness of the height of the potential $`V_0`$ can be naturally explained with a moderate fine-tuning of the parameter $`MR`$. This is the main result of this note. To give a feeling for the numbers, setting $`x_{}=M_5/M_p`$ and imposing the condition (15) gives

$$\frac{M}{M_5}x_{}^2\left(270+12\mathrm{ln}x_{}\right),$$
(16)
which fixes the parameter $`MR`$ to be

$$MR40+2\mathrm{ln}x_{}.$$
(17)
If we do require that the overall scale $`M`$ is smaller than the five-dimensional Planck scale $`M_5`$ in order to avoid dealing with loops of massive excitations of quantum gravity, we have to require $`MM_5`$. This corresponds to a mild constraint on $`M_5`$, $`M_56\times 10^2M_p`$. The problem of explaining the smallness of the energy scale of the quintessence potential is therefore exponentially reduced and requires only a moderate (logarithmic) fine-tuning.

The idea of identifying the quintessence field with a Wilson line has been briefly discussed and disregarded in Ref.  which was devoted to propose an interesting model of primordial inflation where the inflaton field is interpreted as the extra-component of a gauge field in a five-dimensional theory. Ref.  considered the case in which the charged bulk fields do not possess large bare masses. The quintessence mass-squared $`m_Q^2`$ turns out to be of the order of $`\left(f^2R^4\right)^1g_4^2/R^2`$ and an extreme fine-tuning is needed either for the four-dimensional gauge coupling $`g_4`$ or for the radius of compactification $`R`$. Our findings show that such a fine-tuning can be avoided.

In conclusion we have shown that the extra-component of a gauge field in five-dimensions may be a good candidate for quintessence. The flatness of its potential is protected by gauge invariance in the higher-dimensional world and the tiny scale of the potential needed to accommodate the presently observed accelerating phase of the Universe may be naturally obtained if the non-local potential for the quintessence fields is provided by massive bulk fields. Our proposal does not solve however the so–called coincidence problem, that is why the amount of dark energy density is of the same order as the energy density stored in dark matter at the present epoch.

This work was supported in part by the RTN European Program HPRN-CT-2000-00148.