format: text

text:
# Counter-example where cosmic time keeps its original role in quantum cosmology*footnote **footnote *The talk presented to International colloquium on the science of time ”Time and Matter” at Venice International University, Italy, August 11-17, 2002

## I Introduction

In the quantization of generally covariant systems, like General Relativity (in any number of dimensions), one has to take into account a fundamental constraint which basically tell us that the total Hamiltonian of the classical system equals zero, $`H0`$. The sign $``$ is used instead of $`H=0`$ to emphasize the fact that although $`H`$ is zero along the classical trajectories, it is still non trivial in a sense that it may have non zero Poisson brackets with other dynamical variables.

In the quantized version of the theory, the physical states have to satisfy the constraint equation $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ which means that those states should be time independent. One believes usually that the expectation values of the Heisenberg equations for operator of any dynamical variable is always zero just by virtue of the constraint equation, i.e. expectation values of all the dynamical variables must be time independent too. Such a situation is interpreted in the literature as the statement (having almost the power of a theorem) that time disappears from quantum gravity. In particular, in the context of quantum cosmology, this statement is formulated as the generally accepted conclusion that there is no possibility to describe the evolution of the universe procceding in the cosmic time.

We will see here that the above conclusions can be premature. This will be done by presentation of an explicit counter-example where cosmic time keeps its original role in quantum cosmology: the expectation values of certain variables have non trivial dependence on the same cosmic time which enters, for instance, in the classical equations of the Friedmann cosmology.

The reason for the recovery of a non trivial time dependence in quantum cosmology, in spite of the fact that $`H`$ equals zero when applied on physical states, lies on the two complementary facts: a) The Hamiltonian is still a nontrivial operator since it must have non trivial commutators in order to reproduce the Heisenberg equations. This means that there must be non physical states $`|N.P.`$ for which $`H|N.P.0`$. b) In our specific model, the physical states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, for which $`H|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ is satisfied, are found to be non normalizable states. This forces us to consider in any case the ”non physical” states of a) in order to define expectation values of relevant operators with the help of a limit process $`|N.P.|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Since for the non physical states $`H|N.P.0`$, non trivial time dependence can appear in the the expectation values of some of the Heisenberg equations.

We will display this interesting phenomenon of the appearance of nontrivial time dependence in quantum cosmology in the context of a Kaluza-Klein model which allows for anisotropic evolution: expansion of 3 dimensions and contraction of the extra dimensions for a physically attractive scenario. In this model, a negative cosmological constant does not let the total volume of the universe grow, while quantum effects stabilize the volume against collapse.

It is important to point out that the appearance of time we display in our model, does not rely on some WKB approximation or on the use of some field variable as time, rather, it is the genuine, original cosmic time which fulfils its natural duty to be the time parameter of the theory even at the intrinsic quantum level. A somewhat related approach which also gives cosmic time dependence for averages of certain dynamical variables in the presence of anisotropy was developed by Kheyfets and Miller in Ref.$`[5]`$. For the generalization of this approach see Ref.$`[6]`$.

## II Description of the model and its classical dynamics

We start from studying a higher dimensional homogeneous totally anisotropic spatially flat cosmological model

$$ds^2=dt^2+\underset{l=1}{\overset{D}{}}a_l^2(t)dx_l^2$$
(1)
which is assumed to be toroidally compact: $`0x_lL_l`$. The scalar curvature corresponding to Eq.(18) is given by

$$R=\frac{2}{V}\frac{d^2V}{dt^2}\frac{D1}{D}\left(\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}V)}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{1}{D}\underset{l<m}{}\left(\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}a_l)}{dt}\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}a_m)}{dt}\right)^2$$
(2)
where $`V=_{l=1}^Da_l`$ ”volume” of the universe. We will assume that the only sources of gravity are a negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and dust. The gravitational action can be written then as

$$S_{gr}=\frac{1}{\kappa }d^Dx𝑑t\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{\kappa }\underset{l=1}{\overset{D}{}}L_lL𝑑t$$
(3)
where $`\kappa =16\pi G`$ and up to a total derivative term, the Lagrangian $`L`$ is given by

$$L=\frac{1}{V}\frac{D1}{D}\left(\frac{dV}{dt}\right)^2\frac{V}{D}\underset{l<m}{}\left(\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}a_l)}{dt}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(a_m)}{dt}\right)^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }V$$
(4)
For simplicity, we choose units where $`\frac{1}{\kappa }_{i=1}^DL_l=1`$ so that

$$S_{gr}=L𝑑t$$
(5)
In addition to the equations derived from (4) and (5) we have to impose the constraint saying that the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is zero (the statement which coincides with the $`00`$ component of Einstein’s equations). The presence of dust affects only the constraint equation which reads

$$H=\frac{1}{V}\frac{D1}{D}\left(\frac{dV}{dt}\right)^2\frac{V}{D}\underset{l<m}{}\left(\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}a_l)}{dt}\frac{d(\mathrm{ln}a_m)}{dt}\right)^22\mathrm{\Lambda }V\mu =0,$$
(6)
where $`\mu >0`$ is a constant which has the interpretation of the dust energy density times the volume V of the universe.

The form of the Lagrangian and the constraint may be simplified to a marked degree if one uses the following parametrization for $`a_l(t)`$

$$a_l(t)=[V(t)]^{1/D}e^{\theta _l(t)}.$$
(7)
Since $`_{l=1}^D\theta _l0`$ one can exclude $`\theta _D=_{i=1}^{D1}\theta _i`$ and proceed with the $`D`$ independent variables: $`V`$ and $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}D1`$. Finally, one can see that the Lagrangian and the constraint take the diagonalized and normalized form

$$L=\left(\frac{d\rho }{dt}\right)^2\rho ^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\left(\frac{dz^i}{dt}\right)^2\omega ^2\rho ^2,$$
(8)
$$H=\left(\frac{d\rho }{dt}\right)^2\rho ^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\left(\frac{dz^i}{dt}\right)^2+\omega ^2\rho ^2\mu =0,$$
(9)
where

$$\omega ^2=\frac{D}{2(D1)}\mathrm{\Lambda };\rho ^2=\frac{4(D1)}{D}V$$
(10)
and

$`z^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\sqrt{D}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2(D1)}}}[\theta _1+\theta _2+\mathrm{}+(2+\sqrt{D})\theta _i+\mathrm{}+\theta _{D1}],`$ (11)
$`i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$ (12)
Notice that the Lagrangian (8) and the constraint (9) are invariant under $`\frac{D(D1)}{2}`$ dimensional symmetry group of translations and rotations of a $`D1`$ dimensional Euclidean space. In particular, the translational symmetry $`z^iz^i+b^i`$ with constants $`b^i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$, gives rise to $`D1`$ conserved quantities

$$F_i=2\rho ^2\frac{dz^i}{dt},i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1$$
(13)
As we will see in what follows, it is very important that the set of quantities $`\frac{dz^i}{dt}`$ (which are the linear combinations of $`\frac{d\theta ^i}{dt}`$) measure anisotropy of the evolution of the universe. In fact, since $`_{i=1}^D\theta _i0`$, all $`\theta _i`$’s can have the same time dependence only if such time dependence is the trivial one, i.e., all of the $`\theta _i`$’s are constants. Therefore, the set of $`D1`$ conserved independent quantities $`F_i`$ measure anisotropy of the evolution of the universe.

It is interesting to note that the constraint may be represented now in the following form

$$H=\left(\frac{d\rho }{dt}\right)^2+U_{eff}^{(class)}(\rho )\mu =0$$
(14)
where the classical effective volume dependent potential appears:

$$U_{eff}^{(class)}(\rho )\frac{F^2}{4\rho ^2}+\omega ^2\rho ^2,F^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}F_i^2$$
(15)
All classical solutions exhibit cosmological singularities. This feature, as we will see below, can be avoided in quantum cosmology in the presence of negative cosmological constant and dust.

## III Minisuperspace quantization and solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation

To produce a quantum theory from the classical one, we have to postulate canonical commutation relations and in addition, the constraint equation (9) has to be imposed as a condition on the wave function of the universe $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The resulting Wheeler-DeWitt equation $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ is the fundamental equation governing the quantum cosmology.

It is convenient to rewrite the Lagrangian (8) and the Hamiltonian (9) in a geometrical fashion

$$L=f_{\alpha \beta }(q)\frac{dq^\alpha }{dt}\frac{dq^\beta }{dt}\omega ^2\rho ^2,$$
(16)
$$H=f_{\alpha \beta }(q)\frac{dq^\alpha }{dt}\frac{dq^\beta }{dt}+\omega ^2\rho ^2\mu =\frac{1}{4}f^{\alpha \beta }\pi _\alpha \pi _\beta +\omega ^2\rho ^2\mu $$
(17)
where

$$q^\alpha =(\rho ,z^i),i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1;f_{\alpha \beta }(q)=diag(1,\rho ^2,\mathrm{},\rho ^2)$$
(18)
are respectively coordinates and metric of our minisuperspace and $`\pi _\alpha `$ are the momenta canonically conjugate to $`q^\alpha `$.

The ambiguity due to operator ordering problem can be taken into account by adding the ”nonminimal” term $`\xi _f`$, where $`_f`$ is the scalar curvature corresponding to the metric $`f_{\alpha \beta }(q)`$ and $`\xi `$ is an arbitrary real constant depending on the operator ordering used. The resulting Wheeler-DeWitt equation reads

$$\frac{1}{\rho ^{D1}}\frac{}{\rho }\left(\rho ^{D1}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\rho }\right)\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{z^{i2}}+\left[\xi \frac{(D1)(D2)}{\rho ^2}4\omega ^2\rho ^2+4\mu \right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(19)
where we have used that the scalar curvature of the minisuperspace metric $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ is $`_f=(D1)(D2)\rho ^2`$.

The inner product for sufficiently regular wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined in the geometric form

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi })=d^Dq\sqrt{|det(f_{\alpha \beta })|}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q)\mathrm{\Phi }(q).$$
(20)
To solve Eq.(19), let us note that the Hamiltonian commutes with the generators $`i\frac{}{z^i}`$ of the symmetry $`z^iz^i+b^i`$ with $`D1`$ arbitrary real numbers $`b^i`$. It is therefore possible to take the solutions of (19) as eigenstates of the generators $`i\frac{}{z^i}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,z^i)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{(D1)/2}}R(\rho )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}F_iz^i\right),$$
(21)
where $`F_i`$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $`i\frac{}{z^i}`$, which is the quantum version of the conserved quantity defined by Eq.(13). The function $`R(\rho )`$ is then determined as the solution of the equation

$$\frac{d^2R}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{D1}{\rho }\frac{dR}{d\rho }+\frac{K}{\rho ^2}R4\omega ^2\rho ^2R=4\mu R,$$
(22)
where

$$KF^2+\xi (D1)(D2)$$
(23)
and $`F^2`$ is defined in Eq.(15). It is possible to regard Eq.(22) as a stationary Schrodinger equation in a $`D`$-dimensional space (with mass of particle $`=1/2`$) with an effective potential

$$U_{eff}^{(quant)}(\rho )\frac{K}{\rho ^2}+4\omega ^2\rho ^2.$$
(24)
Depending on whether (i) $`K>0`$, (ii) $`K=0`$ or (iii) $`K<0`$ the effective potential has an attractive core, is exactly a harmonic potential or has a repulsive core correspondingly. Then $`4\mu `$ in Eq.(22) plays the role of the ”energy” eigenvalue. Since the region $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ is classically forbidden, a physically acceptable solution of Eq(22) has to vanish in this limit. This leads to the quantization of the eigenvalues of the linear operator corresponding to Eq.(22). However, in our situation, it is not very appealing to quantize the energy of dust $`\mu `$ because this is not a dynamical variable. In contrast to this, the conserved quantity $`F^2`$, which is a measure of the anisotropy of the cosmological evolution, can be regarded as the quantized dynamical variable. Using the fact that $`F^2`$ appears linearly in Eq.(22), for a given $`\mu `$, we select the appropriate values of $`F^2`$ such that the operator corresponding to the l.h.s. of Eq.(22) has as its eigenvalue the number $`4\mu `$. Therefore we have different values of $`F^2`$ specifying uniquely the eigenfunctions.

The solution of Eq.(22) is given by

$$R=R_n(\rho )=N_n\rho ^{2s_n}e^{|\omega |\rho ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }(n,\frac{\mu }{|\omega |}2n,2|\omega |\rho ^2),$$
(25)
where $`N_n`$ is a normalization factor, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a confluent hypergeometric function, $`n`$ is a non-negative integer and

$$s_n=\frac{1}{4}[(D2)+\sqrt{(D2)^24K_n}]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu }{|\omega |}2n\frac{D}{2}\right).$$
(26)
The corresponding quantized values of the length of the vector $`F_i`$ are

$$F^2=F_n^2=4\left\{(D2)\left[\frac{1}{4}(D2)\xi (D1)\right]\left[\frac{\mu }{|\omega |}12n\right]^2\right\}.$$
(27)
and $`K_n`$ in (26) is determined by $`F_n^2`$ via Eq.(23). Notice that the direction of $`F_i`$ remains arbitrary.

Avoidance of the cosmological singularity in the context of quantum cosmology can be defined as a statement that the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ as $`\rho \sqrt{V}0`$. In our case, this is possible if $`s_n>0`$, i.e.

$$\mu >(2n+\frac{D}{2})|\omega |.$$
(28)
We see that the presence of enough amount of dust is a necessarily condition for the avoidance of the cosmological singularity. It follows from Eq.(26) that condition $`s_n>0`$ implies also that $`K_n<0`$, that is $`F_n^2<\xi (D1)(D2)`$. Assuming $`D>2`$, this can be achieved for some $`F_n^2>0`$ only if $`\xi <0`$. Notice that $`K_n<0`$ means that the quantum effective potential (24) has a repulsive core.

## IV The Dynamics of Quantum Cosmology Proceeding in Cosmic Time

### A Heisenberg picture

Before studying the problem of defining the role of time in quantum cosmology processes in the framework of our model, it is important to understand some aspects of the classical dynamics. This is of importance since the quantum behavior has to satisfy, in some way, the correspondence principle. In particular, the time dependence of $`z^i`$ is determined by Eq.(13) which implies

$$\frac{dz^i}{dt}=\frac{F_i}{2\rho ^2},i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1.$$
(29)
Eq.(29) can be obtained not only from the Euler-Lagrange equations but also from the Hamiltonian formalism, i.e.

$$\frac{dz^i}{dt}=[z^i,H]_{PB},\frac{d\pi _{z^i}}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(2\rho ^2\frac{dz^i}{dt}\right)=[\pi _{z^i},H]_{PB}=0$$
(30)
where $`\pi _{z^i}`$ is the momenta canonically conjugated to $`z^i`$. Note that although $`H=0`$ along the classical trajectories, $`H`$ has nontrivial Poisson brackets with $`z^i`$. This allows a nontrivial (cosmic) time dependence through Eqs.(30), which provides information not contained in the constraint equation (9).

We will now see that a similar situation appears in the quantum version of the theory, where so far the only thing we have cared about has been the Wheeler-DeWitt (quantum constraint) equation (19). Normally, when quantizing a theory without constraints, the Poisson bracket $`[A,B]_{PB}`$ is replaced by $`i[A,B]`$, where $`[A,B]`$ is the quantum mechanical commutator of $`A`$ and $`B`$. For any operator $`Q`$ which does not depend explicitly on time, the Heisenberg equations hold

$$\frac{dQ}{dt}=i[H,Q].$$
(31)
For our purpose, it is convenient to work in the Heisenberg picture, where operators satisfy Eq.(31), but states are taken to be time independent, that is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=0.$$
(32)
We are interested in a subspace of this space of functions, the so-called ”physical subspace”, in which the constraint equation (19) holds. The consistency requirement that the constraint be preserved in time, is here trivially satisfied because the constraint function $`H`$ coincides with the Hamiltonian. Solution of Eq.(19) has been presented in the previous section, and it is now our purpose to look at the consequences of the Heisenberg equations that determine the evolution of operators defined in the whole space of functions (and not just states satisfying the constraint $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$).

The operator equations that govern the cosmic time dependence of $`z^i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$) are

$$\frac{dz^i}{dt}=i[H,z^i]=\frac{i}{4\rho ^2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{D1}{}}[\frac{^2}{z^{k2}},z^i]=\frac{i}{2\rho ^2}\frac{}{z^i}.$$
(33)
### B Quantum Mechanical Averaging

We are going now to evaluate the averages of $`\frac{dz^i}{dt}`$ and other dynamical variables. However, one should be careful on how averages are defined for wavefunctions (21) since these are normalizable in a continuous way only.

To see that naive manipulations in this case can lead to wrong results, let us consider Eq.(31) together with the subsidiary condition $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. If we assume $`H`$ to be an Hermitian operator, we would get (using the inner product (20)) that $`\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }|Q|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }|\frac{dQ}{dt}|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }|i[H,Q]|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, from where it seems to follow that all averages are time independent. However, the above manipulations are not correct, since the assumption that $`H`$ is an Hermitian operator holds only if the functions considered are not pathological. In fact, the latter is not always true since if we consider, for example, the case $`Q=z^i`$, the state $`z^i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (that enters in the expression $`\mathrm{\Psi }|i[H,Q]|\mathrm{\Psi }`$), where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by (21), is very singular in the limit $`|z^i|\mathrm{}`$. So, the conclusion about the time independence of the expectation values of all canonical operators $`Q(q,\pi )`$, i.e. that $`\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Psi }|Q|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ is always true, has been based on a wrong assumption.

Notice that the $`z^i`$-dependence of the wavefunction (21) (resulting from the symmetry $`z^iz^i+b^i`$) resembles other more familiar example in physics, namely the momentum eigenstate $`|\stackrel{}{p}`$ of a free nonrelativistic particle governed by the Hamiltonian $`H=\frac{\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}^2}{2m}`$. We have in the Heisenberg picture $`\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{p}|\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}=i\stackrel{}{p}|[H,\stackrel{}{x}]|\stackrel{}{p}=i\stackrel{}{p}|(H\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}H)|\stackrel{}{p}`$. Taking into account that $`H|\stackrel{}{p}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m}`$ and assuming $`H`$ is hermition, we get $`\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}\mathrm{?}=\mathrm{?}i(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m})\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}=0`$. The dubious step is actually based on a wrong assumption, when we have taken for granted the hermiticity of $`H`$. The condition for the hermiticity of $`H`$ fails in this case because of the singular behavior of the state $`\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}`$ at large distance and this is the reason why the result is wrong. In fact, we know that the right answer is obtained by replacing $`i[H,\stackrel{}{x}]`$ by $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}/m`$, that leads to the conclusion $`(\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{p})^1\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{p}/m`$. Although the last argument leads to the right result, the method of calculation is not totally satisfactory, since it involves carelessly manipulating infinite factors like $`\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{p}`$, etc. The same conclusion can however be obtained more rigorously by defining

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{p}}\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{p}|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{p}\underset{|\phi |\stackrel{}{p}}{lim}\underset{|\chi |\stackrel{}{p}}{lim}\left[\frac{1}{\phi |\chi }\frac{d}{dt}\phi |\stackrel{}{x}|\chi \right]$$
(34)
provided $`|\phi `$ and $`|\chi `$ are states in the Heisenberg representation which have good enough large distance behavior (e.g. wave packets) so that the integrals appearing in the numerator and denominator in the r.h.s. of (34) are well defined (it means that the states $`|\phi `$ and $`|\chi `$ are not eigenstates of the operators $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}`$ and $`H`$).

Proceeding in the same fashion in our quantum cosmology model, we define in general

$$Q\underset{|\phi |\mathrm{\Psi }}{lim}\underset{|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }}{lim}\left[\frac{1}{\phi |\chi }\phi |Q|\chi \right],$$
(35)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|F_i,n`$ is the eigenstate of the operator $`i\frac{}{z^i}`$ with the eigenvalue $`F_i`$ and the corresponding wavefunction $`\rho ,z^i|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,z^i)`$ is the solution (21 ), (25) of the constraint $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$; $`|\phi `$ and $`|\chi `$ are states in the Heisenberg representation (and therefore static) which have good enough behavior as $`|z^i|\mathrm{}`$, so that the integrals appearing in the numerator and denominator of (35) are well defined. This necessarily implies that these states do not satisfy the constraint, i.e. $`H\phi 0`$, $`H\chi 0`$ although for a given point $`(\rho ,z^i)`$, the wavefunctions $`\rho ,z^i|\phi `$ and $`\rho ,z^i|\chi `$ approach the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho ,z^i)`$ in the limit process appearing in (35).

In particular, when $`Q=\frac{dz^i}{dt}`$, we find

$$\frac{dz^i}{dt}=\frac{dz^i}{dt}\underset{|\phi |\mathrm{\Psi }}{lim}\underset{|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }}{lim}\left[\frac{1}{\phi |\chi }\phi |\frac{dz^i}{dt}|\chi \right],where|\mathrm{\Psi }=|F_i,n.$$
(36)
Using the definition (36) to evaluate the average of (33) in a state of the form given by Eq.(21), we get the result

$$\frac{dz^i}{dt}=\frac{1}{2\rho ^2}_nF_i,$$
(37)
which corresponds exactly with the classical result (29).

In the same way one can proceed to evaluate other averages. In particular, this way of proceeding gives for functions of $`\rho `$ alone, $`Q(\rho )`$:

$$Q(\rho )_n=\frac{Q(\rho )R_n^2(\rho )\rho ^{D1}𝑑\rho }{R_n^2(\rho )\rho ^{D1}𝑑\rho },$$
(38)
where $`R_n(\rho )`$ is determined by Eq.(25). The convergence of $`\frac{dz^i}{dt}`$ implies the convergence of $`\frac{1}{\rho ^2}`$. One can show that $`\frac{1}{\rho ^2}_n`$ is finite provided $`\mu >(2n+1)|\omega |`$ and

$$\frac{1}{\rho ^2}_n=\frac{2\omega ^2}{\mu (2n+1)|\omega |}.$$
(39)
It is interesting to look at the average of $`\frac{d^2z^i}{dt^2}`$ which is given (using Heisenberg equations) by

$$\frac{d^2z^i}{dt^2}=\left(\frac{D4}{\rho ^4}+\frac{2}{\rho ^3}\frac{}{\rho }\right)\frac{}{z^i}.$$
(40)
It turns out that the average of $`\frac{d^2z^i}{dt^2}`$ in a state given by Eqs.(21) and (25) is identically zero provided

$$\mu >2(n+1)|\omega |$$
(41)
One can show that the restriction (41) on the amount of dust is a necessary condition to provide the consistency of the main three items of our above analyzes: the constraint equation $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, the Heisenberg equations and definition of averages.

Recall that the condition (28) is needed if we require that the universe have a zero probability amplitude of having zero volume. Comparing (41) with the condition (28), we conclude that for $`D4`$, the quantum cosmology problem under consideration has a satisfactory solution if the condition (28) is satisfied. We will assume it in what follows.

It is very important also that the condition (28) is a stronger restriction on the amount of dust than is actually needed to provide that the average of the ”volume” of the universe $`V_n=\frac{D}{4(D1)}\rho ^2_n`$ is finite and it turns out to be time independent:

$$V_n=\frac{D}{4(D1)}\frac{R_n^2(\rho )\rho ^{D+1}𝑑\rho }{R_n^2(\rho )\rho ^{D1}𝑑\rho }=\frac{D}{16(D1)\omega ^2}\frac{\mu ^2(2n+1)^2\omega ^2}{\mu (2n1)|\omega |}$$
(42)
In particular, for the ground state, $`n=0`$, $`V_{n=0}=\frac{D}{16(D1)\omega ^2}(\mu |\omega |)`$. The integrals appearing in (42) when they converge of course give a positive result as it must be from the definition of $`V_n`$.

### C The Cosmic Time Dependence of the Expectation Values of the Cosmological Quantities: Some General Results.

To see more clear the above results, let us now represent them in terms of usual cosmological quantities. In the totally anisotropic model (18), the corresponding classical variables are the ”scale factors” $`a_l(t)`$ ($`l=1,2,\mathrm{},D`$) which have been parametrized by means of Eq.(7) in terms of the ”volume” of the universe $`V(t)`$ and $`D`$ functions $`\theta _l(t)`$ ($`l=1,2,\mathrm{},D`$). Remind that due to the identity $`_{l=1}^D\theta _l0`$, only $`D1`$ of the $`\theta _l`$’s are independent . Relations between variables $`V`$ and $`\theta _i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$) and those $`\rho `$ and $`z^i`$ are given by Eqs.(10) and (12).

In quantum cosmology, the average of $`z^i`$, even with the improved definition (35), does not exist and therefore (35) has nothing to say on whether $`z_i`$ is time dependent or time independent. In contrast to this, the average of $`\frac{dz^i}{dt}`$ is well defined and in the present of an anisotropy ($`F_i0`$), it is a nonzero finite constant determined by Eqs.(37) and (39). Then we find that the time evolution of $`z_i`$ is of the form $`z_i=\frac{dz^i}{dt}t+c^i=\left(\frac{1}{2\rho ^2}_nF_i\right)t+c^i`$, where $`c^i`$ are undetermined constants. This yields to the following (cosmic) time dependence of the $`\theta _i`$ variables

$$\theta _i=\alpha _it+\gamma _i,$$
(43)
where $`\gamma _i`$ are integration constants and for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$

$$\alpha _i=\frac{\sqrt{D1}}{D(\sqrt{D}+1)}\frac{2\omega ^2}{\mu (2n+1)|\omega |}\left[(D+\sqrt{D}1)F_i\underset{ji}{}F_j\right]$$
(44)
From the identity $`_{l=1}^D\theta _l0`$ we have for $`\theta _D`$

$$\theta _D=\alpha _Dt+\gamma _Dwhere\alpha _D=\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\alpha _i,\gamma _D=\underset{i=1}{\overset{D1}{}}\gamma _i$$
(45)
Besides, in the classical cosmology one can define $`D`$ expansion parameters $`H_l\frac{1}{a_l(t)}\frac{da_l(t)}{dt}`$. In the quantum version of the theory, we have of course to define the ordering of the operators $`a_l`$ and $`\frac{da_l}{dt}`$. For example, $`a_l^1\frac{da_l}{dt}`$ or $`a_l^{1/2}\frac{da_l}{dt}a_l^{1/2}`$, etc. give quantum mechanically distinct definitions for $`H_l`$. We will choose a definition

$$H_l\frac{d}{dt}(\mathrm{ln}a_l).$$
(46)
Using this definition, the parametrization (7) and results of the previous subsection one can evaluate the expectation values of the expansion parameters $`H_l`$ which turn out to be constants:

$`H_l`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{4(D1)}}\right)^{1/D}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(\mathrm{ln}\rho ^{2/D})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _l}{dt}}\right)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{4(D1)}}\right)^{1/D}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _l}{dt}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{4(D1)}}\right)^{1/D}\alpha _l,`$ (48)
where $`\alpha _l`$ are determined in (44) and (45).

Let us notice that Eqs.(7) and (46) together with the identity $`_{l=1}^D\theta _l0`$ imply that

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{D}{}}H_l=\frac{d}{dt}(\mathrm{ln}V).$$
(49)
Taking average on both sides of Eq.(49), we obtain the result that the sum of the averages of the expansion parameters equals zero, due to Eqs.(48) and (45) or alternatively from Eqs.(38) and (42). This shows that the definition (46) of the expansion parameters is consistent with the quantum stabilization of the volume of the universe, $`V=const`$, Eq.(42).

From (46) and (48), we see that the time behavior of $`\mathrm{ln}a_l`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{ln}a_l=\left(\frac{D}{4(D1)}\right)^{1/D}\alpha _lt+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_l,l=1,2,\mathrm{},D,$$
(50)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_l`$ are arbitrary integration constants.

## V Inflation-Compactification as a Quantum Effect

We will now see that the results of Sec.4 allow to realize a dynamical explanation of the asymmetry in the sizes of extra and ordinary dimensions in the context of quantum cosmology.

At the classical level, there is no difference on whether we use $`a_l`$ or $`\mathrm{ln}a_l`$ as our variables. If Eq.(50) were to hold classically, we could conclude that some dimensions exponentially expand and others exponentially contract, depending on the sign of $`\alpha _l`$, as given by (44) and (45). In our case, the behavior of the universe is intrinsically quantum mechanical and we will refer to a ”quantum inflationary phase” for a given dimension $`l`$ if the expectation value of the expansion parameter $`H_l=const>0`$. Likewise we will refer to a ”quantum deflationary phase” for a given dimension $`l`$ if the expectation value of the expansion parameter $`H_l=const<0`$.

A case of particular interest is when the expectation values of the expansion parameters of three of the dimensions are identical and at the same time the expectation values of the expansion parameters of the remaining $`D3`$ dimensions are also identical. In such a case $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha _3\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _4=\alpha _5=\mathrm{}=\alpha _D\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. Then it follows from the identity $`_{l=1}^D\alpha _l=0`$ that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=3\alpha /(D3)`$ and we get by using Eq.(44):

$$\alpha =\alpha (n)=\pm \frac{2\omega ^2}{D[\mu (2n+1)|\omega |]}\sqrt{\frac{(D3)(D1)}{3}}|F|_n,$$
(51)
$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(n)=\frac{2\omega ^2}{D[\mu (2n+1)|\omega |]}\sqrt{\frac{3(D1)}{D3}}|F|_n,$$
(52)
where $`|F|_n\sqrt{F_n^2}`$ and $`F_n^2`$ is determined by Eq.(27).

Invoking our definitions of quantum inflationary phase and of quantum deflationary phase, we observe that one set of dimensions is in a quantum inflationary phase and simultaneously another set of dimensions is in quantum deflationary phase. This situation is described by the following equations:

$`H_i`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (n)fori=1,2,3;`$ (53)
$`H_j`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(n)forj=4,\mathrm{},D.`$ (54)
According to Eqs.(51) and (52), choosing the three dimensional subspace to be expanding one, we get the simultaneous contraction of the extra dimensions. During this quantum ”inflation-compactification” process, the expectation value of the ”volume” of the universe, $`V`$, remains constant determined by Eq.(42).

## VI Discussion

The minisuperspace model of quantum cosmology we discussed here demonstrates a very interesting feature which is absent, as far as we know, in all other known quantum cosmology models. Namely, a widespread belief that the cosmic time, which one uses in classical cosmology, disappears in quantum cosmology altogether, seems to be not always right. In the presented model we have seen that quantum mechanical averages of certain cosmological quantities can explicitly depend on the same cosmic time which was used in the appropriate classical cosmological model. Short explanation of the essence of the idea was given in the introduction, and for technical details see Sec.4 and Ref.$`[8]`$. Notice that the anisotropy in the evolution of the universe is an essential element which provides this unique feature of our Kaluza-Klein model.

It has been found that quantum effects stabilize the volume of the universe, so that there can be avoidance of the cosmological singularity. The stabilization of volume is consistent with a new quantum effect: existence of a quantum inflationary phase for some dimensions and simultaneous quantum deflationary phase for the remaining dimensions. This effect can be responsible for a visible asymmetry between ordinary and extra dimensions. One can show that the above results also follow if instead of dust we introduce a massive scalar field whose homogeneous degrees of freedom are described quantum mechanically.


text:
# The Effect of Neutron Star Gravitational-Binding Energy on Gravitational-Radiation-Driven Mass-Transfer Binaries

## 1 Introduction

In the general theory of relativity, all forms of stress and energy act as a source for the gravitational field. As a result, the mass of a compact star is the total energy of the star divided by $`c^2`$. As the total energy of a star includes both the rest-mass energy and the negative binding energy, the mass of the star is smaller than the sum of the masses of its component particles. This mass deficit effect is roughly proportional to the star’s compactness, so it is most important for neutron stars. For neutron stars near the upper mass limit, the mass deficit can be as large as 25% of the star’s mass (see for example, Cook, Shapiro & Teukolsky (1994)), depending on the equation of state.

A consequence of the mass deficit is that when a neutron star accretes matter, its mass changes at a rate that differs from the rate that baryons are accreted times the mass of a baryon. This mass deficit effect is then potentially observable through changes in the orbital period of the binary caused by accretion, if the mass accretion rate is known. An important class of binaries where this effect may be observable are binaries in which the mass transfer is driven by angular momentum losses due to the emission of gravitational radiation caused by the orbital motion. In the standard scenario for gravitational-radiation-driven mass transfer (Kraft et al. 1962; Faulkner 1971), the mass deficit is neglected since the primaries are white dwarf stars. However, in binaries where the primary is a neutron star, the effect is in principle observable, and could lead to constraints on the neutron star mass and equation of state. In this paper we will address this issue and discuss the conditions where the relativistic mass deficit’s effects could be detected. The effect described requires very precise timing of the binary’s orbital period in order to be detected, so we will focus our attention on the class of binaries containing an accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar. At present three binaries of this class have measured mass functions: SAX J1808.4-3658 (Wijnands & van der Klis 1998; Chakrabarty & Morgan 1998), XTE J1751-305 (Markwardt et al. 2002) and XTE J0929-314 (Galloway et al. 2002). In addition two more pulsars, XTE J1807-294 (Markwardt et al 2003) and XTE J1814-338 (Strohmayer et al 2003) have recently been discovered, although their mass functions are not yet measured. Precise timing of the X-ray pulse arrival times allows the detection of these binary systems’ orbital periods through the orbital Doppler effect. It is expected (Chakrabarty & Morgan 1998) that future observations will reveal an orbital period derivative.

The effect of changing a neutron star’s binding energy in a binary system has been examined by other authors in other situations. In the case of a binary system without mass-transfer, Spyrou & Stergioulas (2001) considered the changes in a neutron star’s binding energy due to magnetic dipole spin-down and its effect on the orbital period. The magnitude of the effect examined by Spyrou & Stergioulas (2001) is quite small, but may be measurable. In the present paper we allow for mass transfer, which produces an effect that is much larger. While accretion-induced changes in a neutron star’s characteristics have been considered by Spyrou (1988), his model was for a simple Newtonian stellar model and did not consider changes in the orbital period.

In section 2 we review the concept of the binding energy of a star and discuss its value and its derivatives for relativistic models of neutron stars. In section 3 we review the scenario of gravitational-radiation-driven mass transfer and include the mass deficit in the derivation. In section 4 we review the different theories of how the compact binaries of interest may have evolved and discuss which theories would allow the desired measurements of the relativistic effect. Finally in section 5 we discuss the main theoretical uncertainties in this method.

## 2 The Binding Energy of Compact Objects

If we define $`N`$ to be the total number of baryons in the star, $`m_B`$ the mass of a baryon and $`\epsilon `$ the binding energy of the star, then the total mass, $`M`$, of the star is

$$M=m_BN+\epsilon /c^2.$$
(1)
The binding energy is the sum of the star’s gravitational potential energy, the internal energy and the rotational kinetic energy. If the star were to be disassembled into its component baryons, the mass of the baryons would be $`M_0=m_BN`$. For a gravitationally bound system, the binding energy is negative, so $`M`$ is always smaller than $`M_0`$. Using Newtonian arguments, the leading order contribution to the binding energy is $`\epsilon GM_0^2/R`$, so that the mass is given by

$$M=M_0\left(1\epsilon _0\frac{GM_0}{c^2R}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon _0`$ is a constant of order unity. Equation (2) shows that the relativistic correction to the mass of a star scales as the compactness $`GM/(Rc^2)`$. Hence this correction is negligible for main sequence stars and white dwarfs. However, for neutron stars, the compactness can be as large as $`4/9`$. The contribution of the binding energy to the mass can be significant for compact stars.

It is useful to briefly review the concept of mass and binding energy by recalling their definitions for a spherical star in general relativity (see box 23.1 of Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (1973) for an elementary discussion). A zero temperature equation of state (EOS) can be written as equations for $`P(n)`$ and $`ϵ(n)`$ where $`n`$ is the number density of baryons, $`P`$ is the pressure and $`ϵ`$ is the energy density. The energy density includes both the matter’s rest-mass energy density and its internal energy density. Once the EOS is specified, the star’s total mass (using Schwarzschild coordinates) is

$$M=4\pi _0^Rϵr^2𝑑r.$$
(3)
This is the mass which is measured by Kepler’s law when a satellite orbits the star. For this reason, $`M`$ is often called the “gravitational mass”. The baryon mass, $`M_0`$, of the star is given by the volume integral of the baryon number density times $`m_B`$. Since the volume element in Schwarzschild coordinates is $`dV=4\pi r^2\left(12m(r)/r\right)^{1/2}dr`$, the baryon mass is

$$M_0=m_BN=4\pi m_B_0^Rn\left(12m(r)/r\right)^{1/2}r^2𝑑r.$$
(4)
Even in the case of an incompressible fluid, there is a difference between $`M`$ and $`M_0`$ due to the binding energy of the star. These definitions can be extended to rotating stars (see for example, Friedman et al. (1986)). The result is a family of equilibrium stellar models with gravitational masses that depend on the star’s baryon number $`N`$ and its angular momentum $`J`$ (Bardeen 1973).

Consider the accretion of baryons with specific angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ at the rate $`\dot{N}`$ onto a star. Since the gravitational mass is a function of the stars’ baryon number and angular momentum, the rate of increase of the gravitational mass is

$$\dot{M}=\dot{N}\left(\left(\frac{M}{N}\right)_J+m_B\mathrm{}\left(\frac{M}{J}\right)_N\right).$$
(5)
The partial derivatives of the gravitational mass are given by (Bardeen 1973)

$$\left(\frac{M}{J}\right)_N=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{c^2},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the star’s angular velocity, and

$$\left(\frac{M}{N}\right)_J=m_B\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the dimensionless chemical potential (or injection energy) for bringing one baryon from infinity to the pole of the rotating star. Using the metric of an axisymmetric rotating star, given by Friedman et al. (1986)

$$ds^2=e^{2\nu }dt^2+e^{2\psi }\left(d\varphi \omega dt\right)^2+e^{2\mu }\left(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2\right),$$
(8)
the chemical potential is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(e^\nu \right)_p,$$
(9)
where the subscript “p” denotes that the function is evaluated at the star’s spin pole. In the limit of a nonrotating star,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }0}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{1\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}}.$$
(10)
Typical values for the chemical potential for rotating neutron stars can be found in the paper by Friedman et al. (1986), however they define a quantity $`\beta `$ that is related to the chemical potential by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\beta }`$. The chemical potential can be thought of as the specific energy required to bring a particle from infinity to the star. Since a particle at rest at infinity has larger energy than a particle at rest at the surface of the star (due to gravitational redshift), energy is liberated during accretion. The quantity $`1\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the fraction of the energy liberated during accretion.

If we define a dimensionless angular velocity, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\frac{R^3}{GM}}$$
(11)
and a dimensionless specific angular momentum, $`\overline{\mathrm{}}`$,

$$\overline{\mathrm{}}=\frac{c\mathrm{}}{MG},$$
(12)
the rate of change of the star’s gravitational mass due to accretion is

$$\dot{M}=m_B\dot{N}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\frac{GM}{c^2R}\right)^{3/2}\right).$$
(13)
In general, not all of a particle’s angular momentum will be available to be added to the star’s angular momentum. External torques, such as the star’s magnetic field (Ghosh & Lamb 1991) or gravitational radiation (Wagoner 1984; Andersson et al. 1999) from nonaxisymmetric perturbations may remove the angular momentum. It is useful then to introduce a torque parameter $`\eta `$ defined so that if the baryon is in a circular orbit at radius $`r`$ around the star when it is accreted, the specific angular momentum added to the star is

$$\overline{\mathrm{}}=\eta \overline{\mathrm{}}_K,$$
(14)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{}}_K`$ is the dimensionless specific angular momentum of a particle in a circular Keplerian orbit. In the limit of a nonrotating star,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }0}{lim}\overline{\mathrm{}}_K=\frac{rc^2}{GM}\sqrt{\frac{M}{rc^2/G3M}}.$$
(15)
For a rotating star $`\overline{\mathrm{}}_K`$ is given by the quantity $`cL/MG`$, where $`L`$ is the specific angular momentum defined in equation (7) of Cook, Shapiro & Teukolsky (1994). Since the rate that the star’s mass increases will be close to $`m_B`$ multiplied by the rate that baryons are accreted, we will introduce a parameter $`\gamma `$, defined by

$$\gamma =1\frac{\dot{M}}{m_B\dot{N}}=1\mathrm{\Phi }\eta \overline{\mathrm{}}_K\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\frac{GM}{c^2R}\right)^{3/2},$$
(16)
which is roughly proportional to the star’s compactness. The parameter $`\gamma `$ corresponds to the fractional rate of change of the relativistic mass deficit. For a slowly rotating star,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }0}{lim}\gamma =1\sqrt{1\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}}.$$
(17)
Recall that for a non-rotating star, the gravitational redshift, $`z`$, is defined by

$$z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{2GM}{Rc^2}}}1,$$
(18)
so in the limit of spherical symmetry, the parameter $`\gamma `$ is related to $`z`$ by $`\gamma =z/(z+1)`$. For rotating stars, this relationship can be generalised by defining $`z_p`$ as the gravitational redshift from the star’s pole. The parameter $`\gamma `$ is then related to the polar redshift by $`\gamma =z_p/(z_p+1)\eta \overline{\mathrm{}}_K\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(GM/Rc^2\right)^{3/2}`$.

In Figure 1 plots of $`\gamma `$ versus gravitational mass for non-rotating neutron stars are shown for a few representative equations of state. We have chose three traditional neutron star equations of state (labeled C, L and APR) and two simplified quark star (labeled B60 and B80) equations of state. From the Arnett & Bowers (1977) catalogue, we have chosen equation of state C (Bethe & Johnson 1974) which is moderately stiff and L (Pandharipande & Smith 1975) which is very stiff in order to show a typical range of stiffness for equations of state. Equation of state APR (Akmal et al. 1998) makes use of data from modern nucleon scattering experiments and also includes first order special relativistic corrections. The quark star equations of state are constructed in an approximation described in Glendenning (2000) where the quarks’ masses are set to zero and the MIT bag model is used. The number after the letter “B” in the quark equations of state refer to the value of the bag constant, $`B`$, in units of $`\text{MeV}/\text{fm}^3`$.

The effects of rotation are shown in Figure 2, where values of $`\gamma `$ for the APR equation of state are plotted for different spin frequencies $`\nu _s`$ and torque values. The relativistic parameter $`\gamma `$ was computed by evaluating equation (16) after computing the value of the rotating star metric given in equation (8) using an accurate 2D code111The code is available at: http://www.gravity.phys.uwm.edu/rns/  written by Stergioulas and described in Stergioulas & Friedman (1995). This code is, in turn, based on the methods described by Komatsu, Eriguchi & Hachisu (1989) and Cook, Shapiro & Teukolsky (1994). In the case where the accreted matter does not add any angular momentum to the star ($`\eta =0`$), it can be seen in Figure 2 that the function $`\gamma `$ is almost independent of the star’s spin frequency. The plots labeled $`\eta =1`$ correspond to stars where the magnetic field’s effect on the accretion disk is neglected so that the orbits extend down to the marginally stable circular orbit and the accreted matter adds all of its angular momentum to the star. In this case, the effect of the star’s spin is to decrease $`\gamma `$ by a large fraction over the nonrotating case. Since the value of $`\mathrm{}_K`$ has very little angular velocity dependence, it can be seen that the effect of the star’s angular velocity is to approximately shift the curve downwards by an amount linear in the angular velocity. If the torque parameter were negative, the curves would be shifted vertically upwards by an amount linear in the angular velocity. The magnetic disk models of Rappaport, Fregeau, & Spruit (2004) allow material to be accreted without being propellered away from the star while decreasing the star’s angular momentum. In their models, the torque parameter can be negative and have a magnitude which is of order unity. The curves labelled $`\eta =1`$ correspond to this scenario and have an increased value of $`\gamma `$.

Simultaneous measurements of a neutron star’s mass and the parameter $`\gamma `$ have the potential to constrain the neutron star equation of state. Since $`\gamma `$ is defined through the difference of $`\dot{M}`$ and $`m_B\dot{N}`$, accurate measurements of these derivatives would be desirable. Clearly these are not trivial measurements. In the highly idealized case of mass transfer driven by gravitational radiation, there is the potential to make this measurement if enough is known about the companion star. In the next section we review the gravitational-radiation-driven mass-transfer scenario, and discuss how $`\gamma `$ could be measured in an ideal situation. We will also discuss the uncertainties in the physics of the scenario that will likely limit the ability to measure $`\gamma `$.

## 3 Gravitational-Radiation-Driven Mass Transfer

We now review the basic scenario for mass transfer driven by angular momentum losses due to gravitational radiation. The gravitational-radiation-driven mass transfer scenario was first developed (Kraft et al. 1962; Faulkner 1971) to explain the properties of white dwarf binaries with short periods, however the physics also applies to neutron star binaries. In this section we will give a short review of the derivation of the equations including the effects of both mass loss and the neutron star’s binding energy. The derivation of these equations excluding the binding energy effect appears in many sources, such as Rappaport et al. (1982) and Verbunt (1993). We will make use of the following notation: $`M_1`$ is the neutron star’s gravitational mass, while $`M_2`$ and $`R_2`$ are the mass and radius of the companion star. The mass ratio is denoted $`q=M_2/M_1`$. For the ultra-compact systems which are most likely to be of interest, the mass ratio is probably very small.

If there is no mass transfer between the stars, the orbital separation will slowly shrink due to the emission of gravitational radiation. The binary system loses angular momentum at the rate

$$\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_{GR}=\frac{64\pi }{5}q(1+q)^{1/3}\left(\frac{2\pi GM_1}{c^3P}\right)^{5/3}\frac{1}{P}$$
(19)
where $`P`$ is the orbital period. As the stars move closer together the Roche lobe radius of the secondary star shrinks and eventually meets the surface of the secondary, at which point mass will begin to be transfered to the neutron star. Once mass transfer begins, the size of the secondary star is assumed to be the same as the Roche lobe ($`R_L`$). In the Paczyński (1971) approximation, the size of the Roche lobe (and $`R_2`$) is given by

$$R_2=R_L=0.46a\left(\frac{q}{1+q}\right)^{1/3},$$
(20)
where $`a`$ is the distance between the stars. The time derivative of $`R_2`$ is

$$\frac{\dot{R_2}}{R_2}=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{\dot{q}}{q}\frac{1}{(1+q)}.$$
(21)
The secondary loses mass at the rate $`\dot{M_2}`$. Since the secondary is assumed to be a non-relativistic star (such as a white or brown dwarf), we do not need to make a distinction between the gravitational and baryon masses of the secondary. As the secondary loses mass, its radius is assumed to change as

$$\frac{\dot{R_2}}{R_2}=n_{ad}\frac{\dot{M_2}}{M_2}+\left(\frac{\dot{R}_2}{R_2}\right)_{th},$$
(22)
where $`n_{ad}`$ describes the purely adiabatic changes to the star that depend only on the mass loss, while $`\left(\dot{R}_2/R_2\right)_{th}`$ corresponds to changes in the star’s structure due to thermal adjustments. This last term is of order $`1/\tau _{KH}`$, where $`\tau _{KH}`$ is the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale. While in most cases the thermal timescale can’t be neglected, in the case of a cool white dwarf the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale will be long enough that only terms depending on the mass loss rate need to be included in equation (22).

In the most naive model of a degenerate star, $`n_{ad}=1/3`$. However for very low mass white dwarfs with finite temperature and an equation of state including Coulomb repulsion, the values of $`n_{ad}`$ range from -1/3 to 0 (Deloye & Bildsten 2003), depending on the mass, composition and temperature. If the mass and composition are known, the uncertainty in temperature introduces an uncertainty in $`n_{ad}`$ of about 10%.

For now, we will allow the most general mass transfer and assume that only a fraction $`\beta `$ of the mass lost from the secondary is captured by the neutron star. As a result, the baryon mass of the neutron star increases at the rate

$$\dot{M}_{0,1}=\beta \dot{M_2}.$$
(23)
However, the gravitational mass of the neutron star increases at a slower rate, given by

$$\dot{M_1}=(1\gamma )\beta \dot{M_2},$$
(24)
where the parameter $`\gamma `$ (discussed in the previous section) vanishes for newtonian stars and is approximately equal to the neutron star’s compactness.

Since we are allowing for non-conservative mass transfer, angular momentum will be lost. Following the work of Rappaport et al. (1982), we parametrize this angular momentum loss due to non-conservative mass transfer with the parameter $`\alpha `$, so that

$$\left(\dot{J}\right)_{\dot{M}}=\alpha (1\beta )\frac{2\pi a^2}{P}\dot{M_2}.$$
(25)
The parameter $`\alpha `$ encompasses the uncertainty in where the mass is lost. If the mass loss occurs close to the centre of mass (say near the neutron star) then $`\alpha `$ will be very small (of order $`q^2`$, see Podsiadlowski, Rappaport, & Pfahl (2002)), while if the mass loss occurs near the low mass secondary, $`\alpha `$ will be close to unity.

The liberation of energy during accretion due to the effects discussed in this paper also introduce a mechanism for angular momentum loss. During the accretion process, the number of baryons and angular momentum transfered to the star are conserved, while energy is liberated at the rate $`\dot{E}=\beta \gamma \dot{M}_2c^2`$ in the rest frame of the star. However, the star is orbiting the centre of mass at a distance of $`a_1=qa/(1+q)`$. Introducing a parameter $`\delta `$, of order unity, the angular momentum loss due to the orbital motion of the neutron star as the energy is liberated is

$$\left(\dot{J}\right)_\gamma =\delta \beta \gamma \frac{2\pi a^2}{P}\left(\frac{q}{1+q}\right)^2\dot{M}_2.$$
(26)
In the systems of interest, the mass ratio $`q`$ is likely to be very small, so this term will not be of much importance.

Another mechanism for angular momentum loss is magnetic braking, where the donor star’s stellar wind causes the donor to lose angular momentum through a coupling with the star’s magnetic field. If the binary system is tidally locked to the donor’s spin, this causes the binary system to lose orbital angular momentum (Verbunt & Zwaan 1981). We denote this mechanism through a term $`\dot{J}_B`$ which is independent of the mass loss rate. Estimates of the magnetic braking law depend on knowledge of main sequence stellar winds and rotation rates. This type of mechanism is most likely to be of importance if the donor was originally a main sequence star. The effects of different parameterizations of $`\dot{J}_B`$ have been explored by Rappaport, Verbunt, & Joss (1983).

Since the mass accreted onto the neutron star adds angular momentum to the star, this too creates an effective loss of orbital angular momentum. However, since this loss is proportional to $`(R_1/a)^2`$, (where $`R_1`$ is the neutron star’s radius) it is negligible.

Combining together all the different mechanisms for loss of orbital angular momentum, the total angular momentum loss rate is

$$\frac{\dot{J}}{J}=\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_{GR}+\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_{\dot{M}}+\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_\gamma +\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_B.$$
(27)
Since the binary’s orbital angular momentum is

$$J=M_1M_2\left(\frac{Ga}{M_1+M_2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(28)
the change in orbital angular momentum due to rearrangements of the mass is

$$\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{M_1}}{M_1}+\frac{\dot{M_2}}{M_2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\dot{M_1}+\dot{M_2})}{(M_1+M_2)}.$$
(29)
Equations (21), (22), (24), (27) and (29) are a set of equations that allows the mass accretion rate to be written in terms of the angular momentum loss rate due to various processes,

$$\frac{\dot{M_2}}{M_2}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,n_{ad},q)}\left[\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_{GR}+\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_B\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{R}_2}{R_2}\right)_{th}\right]$$
(30)
where the function $`A(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,n_{ad},q)`$ is defined by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5+3n_{ad}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}q(1\gamma )\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{1+q}}(1\beta +\beta \gamma )`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\alpha (1\beta )(1+q){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\delta \beta \gamma {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{1+q}},`$
and it should be remembered that the adiabatic index $`n_{ad}`$ depends on $`M_2=qM_1`$. When $`\gamma =0`$, this equation reduces to the equation derived by Rappaport et al. (1982) for non-conservative mass transfer. In the binary systems of interest $`q`$ is small, so the term proportional to $`\delta `$ is explicitly very small. It should also be remembered that the constant $`\alpha `$ is proportional to $`q^2`$ if the mass loss occurs near to the neutron star, which is the most likely situation.

If we were to ignore changes in the secondary due to thermal adjustments and any angular momentum losses due to magnetic braking, a formula for the orbital period derivative can be derived. (We will the discuss the applicability of these assumptions in the next section.) Making use of Kepler’s law, we find the following equation for the orbital period derivative

$$\dot{P}=\frac{96\pi }{5}\frac{q(1+q)^{1/3}}{B(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,n_{ad},q)}\left(\frac{2\pi GM_1}{c^3P}\right)^{5/3},$$
(32)
where the function $`B(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,n_{ad},q)`$ is defined by

$$B=\frac{2}{13n_{ad}}A.$$
(33)
Making use of the mass function $`f`$,

$$f=M_1\frac{(q\mathrm{sin}i)^3}{(1+q)^2},$$
(34)
the orbital period derivative is

$$\dot{P}=\frac{96\pi }{5}\left(\frac{f(1+q)}{M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\frac{1}{B\mathrm{sin}i}\left(\frac{2\pi GM_{}}{c^3P}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{M_1}{M_{}}\right)^{4/3}.$$
(35)
The predicted values of $`\dot{P}`$ can be written in the form

$$\dot{P}=\frac{𝒟}{B}\times 10^{14}\frac{(1+q)^{1/3}}{\mathrm{sin}i}\left(\frac{M_1}{M_{}}\right)^{4/3},$$
(36)
where the observationally determined constant $`𝒟`$ is defined by

$$𝒟=18.40\times \frac{f_6^{1/3}}{P_3^{5/3}},$$
(37)
and $`f/M_{}=f_6\times 10^6`$ and $`P=P_3\times 10^3`$ s. Values for the constant $`𝒟`$ for the ultra-compact binaries with measured mass functions are given in Table 1. Since the contribution to the period derivative from the relativistic term $`\gamma `$ is quite small, we will typically require 3 significant figures, hence the displayed accuracy in equation (37) and in Table 1. Although the binary mass ratio $`q`$ is quite small for the systems of interest we have explicitly kept the factor of $`(1+q)^{1/3}`$ in the equation for the period derivative since a precise result is required. Present observations of the orbital period are not precise enough to detect such a small period derivative in the orbit of any of the systems listed in Table 1, but observations over a long period of time may allow the detection of the period derivative.

A similar formula for the rate that mass is lost from the companion can be written in the form

$$\dot{M}_2=\times 10^{12}\frac{(1+q)}{A(\mathrm{sin}i)^2}\left(\frac{M_1}{M_{}}\right)^2\frac{M_{}}{yr},$$
(38)
where the constant $``$ is defined by

$$=58.1\times \frac{f_6^{2/3}}{P_3^{8/3}}.$$
(39)
Values for the constant $``$ are given in Table 1. It has already been shown by Chakrabarty & Morgan (1998); Bildsten & Chakrabarty (2001) that the mass transfer rate for SAX J1808.4-3658 is consistent with being driven by gravitational radiation. However, the determination of $`\dot{M}_2`$ is probably no better than order of magnitude, so these measurements can’t be thought of as providing an extra constraint on $`\gamma `$.

## 4 Astrophysical Considerations

The expression for the period derivative derived in the previous section depends on the parameters $`M_1,\mathrm{sin}i,n_{ad},\alpha ,\beta `$, $`\delta `$ and $`\gamma `$. (The mass ratio $`q`$ is not independent, since it is determined once $`f`$ is measured and $`M_1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ are specified.) This expression was derived by assuming that the secondary’s thermal timescale is very long, and that magnetic braking is not operating. We now consider some of the models for the evolution of ultra-compact binaries in order to evaluate in which models there might be a chance of detecting $`\gamma `$.

There are two main scenarios for producing a neutron star X-ray binary with a very short orbital period (see Nelson & Rappaport (2003) for a discussion). In the first scenario, the companion star is a main sequence star and will be denoted MS-NS. The alternative picture is of a white dwarf companion and will be denoted WD-NS.

In the MS-NS scenario, mass transfer from a low mass star occurs near the time when Hydrogen is depleted in its core (Nelson & Rappaport 2003). Both gravitational radiation and magnetic braking (Ergma & Antipova 1999) remove orbital angular momentum from the system, and the orbital periods can evolve down to very short timescales (Podsiadlowski, Rappaport, & Pfahl 2002). In this type of system, magnetic braking could easily be as important as gravitational radiation in the removal of angular momentum. Since the parameters describing magnetic braking are not accurately known, it would not be possible to measure the effect of the $`\gamma `$ term in this type of binary system.

In the WD-NS scenario the white dwarf fills its Roche lobe when the orbital period is very small (3 minutes for example) and gravitational radiation drives mass transfer and increases the orbital period to the range of 40 minutes, reducing the white dwarf mass to very low values of order $`0.01M_{}`$ Rasio, Pfahl, & Rappaport (2000). Magnetic braking is unlikely to be operating in the WD-NS picture, since it is most effective if the donor star has a large radius, and it typically assumes a convective envelope that drive a magnetic dynamo. A more difficult question is whether the white dwarf is being heated, through either being irradiated by the X-ray flux from the neutron star or through tidal effects. If the heating timescale is short compared to the mass-loss timescale, the $`(\dot{R}_2/R_2)_{th}`$ term can’t be discarded. Deloye & Bildsten (2003) have shown that observations of $`\dot{M}_2`$ and $`P`$ for WD-NS systems can constrain possible combinations of WD composition and temperature and have demonstrated that it is possible to use these observations to show that in some cases an adiabatic evolution is consistent with observations.

If a measurement of the orbital period derivative of a WD-NS binary were to be made, and if one assumed that the evolution is adiabatic, equation (35) could be used to constrain a combination of $`M_1,\mathrm{sin}i,n_{ad},\alpha ,\beta ,\delta `$ and $`\gamma `$. In the compact systems most likely of interest, $`q`$ is probably quite small, of order $`0.01`$, so terms of order $`q^2`$ in the function $`A`$ (such as the term proportional to $`\delta `$) can be neglected. If any mass loss take place near the neutron star (say through a propeller mechanism) then the parameter $`\alpha q^2`$ and the $`\alpha `$ term can be neglected. In the function $`A`$, $`\gamma `$ always appears in the combination $`q\beta (1\gamma )`$, so it is essentially this term that we would like to measure. Since $`\gamma `$ could realistically be expected to have a value near $`0.2`$ if we were pessimistic and supposed that $`\beta `$ could be as small as $`0.5`$, the term $`q\beta (1\gamma )4\times 10^3`$. We would then want to know $`n_{ad}`$ to an accuracy of at least $`\pm 0.001`$ in order to have a hope of measuring the combination of $`\beta (1\gamma )`$, which would give an upper limit on the value of $`\gamma `$.

If the WD temperature and composition were known then $`n_{ad}`$ is given by Deloye & Bildsten (2003) as a function of $`M_1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}i`$. For a given WD temperature and composition, a period derivative measurement (along with all of the other assumptions listed in this section) would yield a constraint on a combination of $`M_1,\mathrm{sin}i,`$ and $`\beta (1\gamma )`$. Further constraints on the inclination angle would strengthen this constraint. For example recent observations of SAX J1808.4-3658 by Wang et al. (2001) have made use of a reddening distance technique and models of X-ray heated accretion disks to constrain the binary inclination, depending on the assumed distance to the binary system.

In the equations for the period derivative for mass transfer induced only by gravitational radiation with adiabatic changes to the white dwarf, the value of the $`n_{ad}`$ plays the most important role (along with the inclination angle and the neutron star mass) in determining the binary’s evolution. Ideally, observations of such as system ignoring the relativistic $`\gamma `$ term could be used to constrain ranges of values of $`n_{ad}`$ consistent with an adiabatic evolution for various possible values of $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ and $`M_1`$. Once these values are determined, and expanding equation (31) to lowest order in $`q`$ (assuming that the mass loss occurs near the neutron star) one finds the limit on $`\gamma `$,

$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}({\displaystyle \frac{(5+3n_{ad})}{4}}`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(13n_{ad})}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟\times 10^{14}}{\dot{P}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+q)^{1/3}}{\mathrm{sin}i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_{}}}\right)^{4/3})`$
where we have used the fact that $`\beta 1`$. Although a number of assumptions have been made in deriving this limit, inequality (40) does have the potential to provide an interesting limit on $`\gamma `$. Since the mass ratio $`q`$ is expected to be small (of order 0.01), a meaningful limit will only occur if the terms proportional to $`1/q`$ are similar in magnitude, so that their difference is of order $`q`$. Since $`𝒟`$ is of order unity, only orbital period derivatives of order $`10^{14}s/s`$ will provide an interesting limit on $`\gamma `$, given all of our assumptions. From equation (40) it can be seen that if $`\dot{P}`$ is too small, the maximum allowed value of $`\gamma `$ will be so large as to be an uninteresting limit. If however, $`\dot{P}`$ is too large, the maximum allowed value of $`\gamma `$ will be negative, implying that our assumptions about the physics of the binary are invalid.

As an example, consider the situation where the companion star is a Helium white dwarf with mass $`0.02M_{}`$ and an adiabatic index of $`n_{ad}=0.22`$, consistent with a temperature near $`10^7K`$ as calculated in the models of Deloye & Bildsten (2003). With data for the mass function for XTE J1751-305, inclination angles with $`\mathrm{sin}i0.7`$ give neutron star masses larger than 1.4 $`M_{}`$. Given this range of inclination angles, it is easy to use equation (40) to find the maximum allowed value of $`\gamma `$ for any observed $`\dot{P}`$. These values are shown in Figure 3. This figure can be interpreted by noting that if the binary’s inclination angle were found to be $`\mathrm{sin}i=0.9`$, then a value of $`\dot{P}=3.9\times 10^{14}s/s`$ would be consistent with our assumptions, while a larger period derivative (say $`4.1\times 10^{14}`$) would yield a negative $`\gamma `$ and is inconsistent with our assumptions.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed the effect on the orbital period of changing a neutron star’s binding energy through accretion. We have shown that it is possible, in principle, for an observation of an orbital period derivative and with some knowledge of the donor star to place constraints on possible values of the neutron star’s mass and the binding energy parameter that depend on the binary’s inclination angle. However, there are a number of uncertainties inherent in our method. We will now discuss these potential problems.

Our calculation assumes that the binary’s orbit is given by newtonian physics and have not considered post-newtonian (PN) corrections. However, the 1st PN corrections enter at the level of $`v^2/c^2`$ where $`v`$ is the orbital velocity. Since we are considering wide (from a relativist’s point of view) binaries with separations of the order of $`10^4`$ km, the 1st PN corrections will be about 1000 times smaller than the orbital corrections due to the change in binding energy discussed in this paper.

The model of mass transfer considered in this paper makes use of the Roche model, ignores the spin angular momentum of the secondary, and calculates the angular momentum loss by gravitational radiation in the point particle approximation. The validity of these assumptions has been examined by Rezzolla et al. (2001) for the case of a white dwarf primary. Rezzolla et al. (2001) do an accurate numerical integration to compute the structure of a semi-detached compressible co-rotating binary in hydrostatic equilibrium. They find that Paczynski’s approximation for the Roche lobe radius and the expression for the total angular momentum are correct to about 1% if the secondary star’s spin angular momentum is included. In their computations, they also compute the rate that angular momentum is lost when the secondary’s structure is taken into account and find that the point-particle approximation introduces an error of about 1%. While these corrections are quite small, the relativistic corrections due to the neutron star’s structure are also quite small. For this reason it would be desirable to consider more realistic models such as those computed by Rezzolla et al. (2001).

Larger uncertainties lie in the assumed physics of the binary system. We need to restrict our attention to systems where the donor star is a white dwarf, and the angular momentum loss is strictly through gravitational radiation. It is also important that the donor star is not rapidly heated so that it is possible to assume that the donor’s radius responds adiabatically to mass loss.

If any mass is lost from the binary system, the angular momentum lost could potentially drive a period derivative correction which is larger than the relativistic effect considered here. If the mass loss occurs near the neutron star, (through the propeller mechanism, for example) the effect is not large enough to be of importance for very low mass companions. If mass is lost from a region near the companion, then the large angular momentum loss would make it impossible to measure the relativistic effect.

The gravitational-radiation-driven angular momentum loss discussed in this paper is a continuous process, while the mass transfer onto the star is highly episodic in that matter can be stored in the accretion disk for years before being transfered onto the neutron star. Since our treatment assumes a continuous transfer of mass, measurements of the orbital period derivative would have to be measured over the course of many years before there could be any hope of measuring the relativistic parameter $`\gamma `$.

The orbital frequencies typical for the binaries of interest lie within the bandwidth of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). The dimensionless gravitational-wave amplitude $`h`$ (Thorne 1998) measured by LISA can be written as

$$h\frac{10^{23}}{2^{4/3}}f_6^{1/3}\left(\frac{M_1}{2M_{}}\right)^{4/3}\left(\frac{2\text{hr}}{P}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{2\text{kpc}}{D}\right)$$
(41)
where $`D`$ is the distance to the binary. Using the measured binary parameters for SAX J1808.4-3658, we find that the gravitational-wave amplitude is $`h10^{23}`$, which is well below the “confusion noise” produced by the population of galactic white dwarfs (Nelemans et al. 2001). The low amplitude of the signal is mainly due to the small mass ratio, so we expect that the binaries of the type discussed in this paper will not be detectable by LISA, unless new data analysis techniques are developed which can take advantage of the known positions of the binaries.

In order for the effects of a changing relativistic mass deficit to be observable, very small changes in the binary’s orbital period must be measured. In addition, the rate of mass transfer must be known in order to calculate the magnitude of the relativistic effect. For this reason, we have examined the scenario of mass transfer from a fully degenerate dwarf driven by gravitational radiation, since the mass transfer rate is related quite simply to the binary’s parameters. We have focused our attention on the ms spin-period neutron stars since the prospects for measuring the orbital period for these systems seems most promising. However, the orbital effect of a changing mass deficit also holds for non-rotating stars. In fact, the effects are much simpler in the case of a non-rotating star, since the effects of torquing due to mass accretion are completely negligible.

This research was supported by a grant from NSERC. We would like to thank Saul Rappaport for his very useful comments on the physics in this paper. We also thank Symeon Konstantinidis for pointing out an error in a previous version of this paper.