abstract: An introductory review of the Randall-Sundrum type II braneworld scenario is presented, with emphasis on the relationship between the density and gravitational wave perturbations that are generated during inflation. The implications of relaxing the reflection symmetry in the fifth dimension are considered. The effects of including a Gauss-Bonnet combination of higher-order curvature invariants in the bulk action are briefly discussed.

# Introduction

A unified description of the origin and very early evolution of the universe that is consistent both with our understanding of unified field theory and astrophysical observations is one of the primary goals of particle cosmology. A synthesis of these two disciplines provides a unique window to high energy physics that would otherwise be inaccessible to any form of terrestrial experiment.

From the observational side, recent years have witnessed rapid advances in the quality and availability of high precision data from numerous cosmic microwave background (CMB) and high redshift surveys. This is resulting in ever more stringent constraints on models of the early universe and the trend is certain to continue in light of the anticipated data that will become available in the near future. Specifically, recent measurements from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) are entirely consistent with a universe that has a total density that is very close to the critical density, implying that the curvature of the universe is very close to spatial flatness . On the other hand, there is by now considerable evidence from a variety of sources – including the CMB power spectrum, galaxy clustering statistics, peculiar velocities, the baryon mass fraction in galaxy clusters and Lyman–$\alpha$ forest data – that the density of clumped baryon and non–baryonic matter can be no more than 30$\%$ of the critical density. Moreover, spectral and photometric data from high redshift surveys of type Ia supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe may be accelerating at the present epoch, thereby requiring the existence of some form of exotic 'dark energy' or 'quintessence' field that contributes the remaining 70$\%$ of the total energy density.

The popular explanation of this diverse set of observations is the *inflationary scenario* , whereby the universe underwent an epoch of very rapid, accelerated expansion sometime before the electroweak phase transition. Inflation is presently the cornerstone of modern, early universe cosmology. (For a review, see, e.g., Ref. ). Not only is inflation able to resolve the horizon and flatness problems of the hot, big bang model, it also provides the mechanism for generating the primordial density perturbations necessary for galaxy formation . In the simplest class of inflationary models, the accelerated expansion is driven by the potential energy arising through the self–interactions of a single quantum scalar field, referred to as the *inflaton* field and denoted $\phi$. If the potential is sufficiently flat and smooth, the field is able to slowly roll towards the minimum of its potential. In this case, the kinetic energy of the field is subdominant and its pressure becomes sufficiently negative for the strong energy condition of General Relativity to become violated. Inflation ends as the field reaches its ground state and the hot big bang model is recovered through a reheating process.

It is now widely believed that the observed large–scale structure in the universe evolved through the process of gravitational instability from density perturbations that were generated *quantum mechanically* during the inflationary expansion. In single field inflationary models, the perturbations are predicted to be adiabatic, nearly scale–invariant and Gaussian distributed. Moreover, inflation results in an effectively flat universe. The current CMB data, most notably from WMAP , supports these predictions whilst simultaneously providing strong constraints on such models . In particular, an anti–correlation between the temperature and polarization E–mode maps of the CMB on degree scales has been detected by WMAP , thereby providing strong evidence for correlations on length scales beyond the Hubble radius .

Despite the success of inflationary cosmology in passing these key observational tests, there is presently no canonical theory for explaining the origin of the inflaton field. Consequently, it is imperative to establish that inflation can arise generically within the context of unified field theory. Superstring theory has emerged as the leading candidate for such a theory of the fundamental interactions, including gravity. Developments over recent years towards a non–perturbative formulation of the theory have indicated that the five, anomaly–free, supersymmetric perturbative string theories – known respectively as types I, IIA, IIB, SO(32) heterotic and ${\rm E}_8 \times {\rm E}_8$ heterotic – represent different limits of a more fundamental theory referred to as M–theory. (For reviews, see, e.g., Refs. ). M–theory was originally defined as the strong coupling limit of the type IIA superstring . However, since its infra–red (low–energy) limit is eleven–dimensional supergravity, it must be more than another theory of superstrings .

Given this change of perspective, it is crucial to study the cosmological consequences of string/M–theory . Supersymmetry implies that a consistent quantum string theory can only be formulated if spacetime is higher–dimensional. Given that these extra dimensions are not observed, some mechanism is required to ensure that they remain undetected. One possibility is that the dimensions are compactified through the Kaluza–Klein mechanism. In this case, tests of quantum electrodynamics limit the size of the extra dimensions to be less than $10^{-17}
\, {\rm cm}$.

On the other hand, a key theoretical development has been the realization that the standard model fields (quarks, electrons, photons, etc.) may be confined to a four–dimensional domain wall or 'membrane' that is embedded in a higher–dimensional space (referred to as the bulk). This picture has developed following the discovery that the quantum dynamics of D–branes can be described by open strings whose ends are fixed on the brane . In string theory, branes are static, solitonic configurations extending over a number of spatial, tangential dimensions. Thus, a $0$–brane may be viewed as a pointlike particle or a black hole, a $1$–brane represents a string, a $2$–brane a membrane, and so forth. In this picture, our observable, four–dimensional universe is interpreted as a $3$–brane. The spatial dimensions tangential to our 3–brane describe our familiar three–dimensional space of length, width and height. The only long–range interaction that propagates in the bulk dimensions is gravitational. In this case, corrections to Newton gravity necessarily arise, but the weak nature of gravity implies that any modifications can not presently be observed below scales of $1 \, {\rm mm}$. In principle, therefore, the extra dimensions may extend over scales that are many orders of magnitude larger than previously thought possible and, depending on the model, may even be infinite in extent. This paradigm shift in our understanding of the observable universe is referred to as the *braneworld scenario*.

The radical proposal, therefore, is that *our universe is a brane embedded in a higher–dimensional space*. The implications for cosmology, and for our understanding of the inflationary scenario in particular, are significant and there is presently a high level of active research in this field. Broadly speaking, the key objectives from the astrophysical and cosmological perspectives are:

$\bullet$ To determine the nature of cosmological solutions that are possible in braneworld scenarios, to investigate their asymptotic early– and late–time behaviours, and to uncover important differences and similarities between braneworld scenarios and conventional cosmologies based on Einstein gravity.

$\bullet$ To establish the conditions whereby inflation may occur, both in the arena of the early universe and at the present epoch (quintessence scenarios) and to determine whether inflation is more or less generic in this new paradigm.

$\bullet$ To investigate the production of scalar (density), vector (electromagnetic) and tensor (gravitational wave) perturbations during braneworld inflation.

$\bullet$ To develop cosmological tests of inflationary braneworld scenarios and determine whether the perturbations generated are compatible with limits imposed by the CMB power spectrum and large–scale structure observations.

Ultimately, such a programme will yield unique information on the dimensionality of the universe.

# Types of Braneworlds

It is impossible in a talk of this nature to fully review the vast body of work in this field. The emphasis from a cosmological point of view has focused on models consisting of a single brane or of two or more parallel branes. (For early papers see, e.g., Refs. ). From an historical point of view, a significant development was the interpretation by Hořava and Witten of the strongly coupled limit of the ${\rm E}_8 \times {\rm E}_8$ heterotic string as M–theory compactified on the eleven–dimensional orbifold $R^{10} \times S^1/Z^2$ . The weakly coupled limit of this string theory then corresponds to the limit where the radius of the circle (as parametrized by the value of the dilaton field) tends to zero. The orbifold $S^1/Z_2$ may be viewed as the segment of the real line bounded by two fixed points on the circle, such that the orientation of the circle is reversed by the $Z_2$ transformation, $y \rightarrow -y$. Gravitational anomalies are cancelled by placing the two sets of ${\rm E}_8$ gauge supermultiplets on each of the ten–dimensional orbifold fixed planes. An effective five–dimensional theory may then be derived by compactifying on an appropriate Calabi–Yau surface .

Cosmological solutions admitted in this theory were found and analyzed . In particular, models where the branes approach and move away from each other were found and interpreted in terms of the pre–big bang scenario, an earlier string–inspired inflationary scenario driven by the kinetic energy of a scalar field . Recently, the idea of interpreting the big bang in terms of brane collisions has been advocated through the 'ekpyrotic' scenario . In these models, the brane dynamics is reduced to an effective four–dimensional theory, where a scalar field parametrizes the brane separation.

A further key development was the proposal that the hierarchy problem of particle physics (namely the problem of understanding why the weak scale is so much smaller than the Planck scale) could be alleviated if the volume of the extra dimensions were to be made sufficiently large . In general, the four–dimensional Planck scale, $m_4$, is related to the $(4+n)$–dimensional Planck scale, $M$, through the relationship $m_4^2 = M^{n+2}V_n$, where $V_n$ is the volume of the compact space. In the model of Ref. , the extra dimensions were assumed to be topologically equivalent to a $n$–torus and a single brane configuration was considered. Pursuing such ideas further, Randall and Sundrum considered two parallel branes, with equal and opposite tension, embedded in five–dimensional Anti–de Sitter (AdS) space, with a $Z_2$ reflection symmetry imposed in the fifth dimension . In this model, the weak scale is generated from a larger (Planck) scale through an exponential hierarchy arising directly from the five–dimensional AdS geometry.

Perhaps of more interest from a cosmological viewpoint is the second Randall–Sundrum 'type II' (RSII) scenario, consisting of a single brane embedded in five–dimensional AdS space . Formally, this model may be interpreted in terms of the first Randall–Sundrum model, where the negative tension brane is taken to infinity. The bulk space may also contain a black hole. In this case it corresponds to the five–dimensional Schwarzschild–AdS solution. The RSII model is interesting because it is simple enough for analytical results to be derived, yet is sufficiently rich for new physics to be uncovered. Indeed, one of the key areas of interest in theoretical physics at present is focused towards the 'holographic principle' . In short, the holographic principle implies that the number of degrees of freedom associated with gravitational dynamics is determined by the boundary of the spacetime rather than by its volume. This follows naturally from the idea that the state of maximal entropy for a given volume, $V$, is determined by the size of the largest black hole that can be contained within $V$ . The AdS/Conformal Field Theory (CFT) correspondence provides a realization of this principle within the context of string theory by establishing a duality between semi–classical $d$–dimensional gravity in AdS space and a quantum CFT located on its boundary . It has recently become apparent that the AdS/CFT correspondence is closely related to braneworld cosmology and the RSII scenario in particular . More specifically, one may view the RSII braneworld as being dual to a CFT (with an ultra–violet cut off) that is coupled to gravity on the brane. Remarkably, when one identifies the entropy, mass and Hawking temperature of the AdS black hole with the entropy, energy and temperature of the CFT, it is found that the Cardy entropy formula of the CFT coincides precisely with the Friedmann equation when the brane passes the black hole event horizon .

We focus on the RSII scenario in the remainder of this talk. Before proceeding, however, it is worth highlighting an alternative class of 'intersecting' braneworlds. Configurations in supergravity theories that describe the intersection of two or more $p$–branes have played a prominent role in advances in string theory . A $p$–brane can be supported, for example, when the components of the antisymmetric form fields that arise in the string and M–theory effective actions have non–trivial flux over the compactifying manifold. Depending on the degree of the form field and the nature of the internal space, such a model may represent the intersection of two higher–dimensional branes (See Fig. c). One specific example is the intersection of two $5$–branes over a $3$–brane . In this picture, our observable four–dimensional universe corresponds to the intersection of the branes. Solutions representing curved (time–dependent), intersecting domain walls were recently found .

# The Randall–Sundrum Type II Braneworld

In the Randall–Sundrum type II scenario, a co–dimension one brane is embedded in five–dimensional AdS space with a $Z_2$ reflection symmetry imposed on the bulk. The action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RSaction}
S=\int_{\cal{M}}   d^5x \sqrt{G} \left[ 2M^3 \hat{R} -\Lambda \right]
+ \int_{\partial {\cal{M}}} d^4x \sqrt{h} \left( \lambda +L_{\rm
matter} \right) ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{R}$ is the Ricci curvature scalar of the bulk spacetime, ${\cal{M}}$, with metric $G_{AB}$, $\Lambda$ is the five–dimensional (negative) cosmological constant, $G \equiv {\rm det} {G}_{AB}$, $h$ is the determinant of the metric induced on the boundary of ${\cal{M}}$, $\lambda$ is the tension of the brane, $L_{\rm matter}$ is the Lagrangian density of the matter on the brane and $M$ is the five–dimensional Planck mass.

The bulk solution has a metric of the form $$\label{bulkmetric}
ds^2 = e^{ -2k |y|} \left( -dt^2 + dx^2_3 \right)
+dy^2$$ for a given constant, $k$. This geometry is non–factorizable due to the presence of the exponential warp factor, in contrast to the standard Kaluza–Klein compactification schemes based on the periodic boundary conditions. Consequently, the fifth dimension $(y)$ may extend to infinity. Imposing four–dimensional Poincaré invariance on the brane world–volume such that the metric corresponds to flat Minkowski spacetime requires the bulk cosmological constant to be fine–tuned with the brane tension : $$\label{RStune}
\Lambda =-24 M^3 k^2 , \qquad \lambda = 24M^3 k  .$$

The remarkable feature of this model is that the graviton equation of motion admits a zero energy ground state solution that is localized around the domain wall. This ground state is naturally interpreted (by a four–dimensional observer) as the four–dimensional, massless spin–2 graviton. A continuum of massive states also arises in the spectrum and these lead to corrections to the form of the Newton potential. However, these corrections fall as the cube of the distance, $r$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Newtonpotential}
V(r) \approx \frac{G_N m_1 m_2}{r} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{k^2r^2}
\right)
\end{aligned}$$ and, if the warping of the bulk geometry is sufficiently strong (i.e. the constant $k$ is sufficiently large), these massive states are suppressed near the brane and are therefore harmless. This indicates that *the curvature of the five–dimensional world effectively determines the four–dimensional physics*.

The cosmology of the RSII scenario arises due to the motion of the brane through the bulk space. An observer confined to the surface of the brane interprets such motion in terms of cosmic expansion or contraction . The 'Friedmann' equation describing the cosmic dynamics may be derived within the context of the thin wall formalism of (five–dimensional) General Relativity. Since we are interested primarily in late–time inflationary dynamics, we focus on the simplest case where the world–volume of the brane corresponds to the spatially flat, Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) metric and consider a pure AdS bulk. The effect of a bulk black hole on the four–dimensional brane dynamics is formally equivalent to that of a relativistic perfect fluid contribution to the energy–momentum tensor and so is rapidly redshifted away by the accelerated motion of the brane.

It is convenient to work with the five–dimensional metric expressed in static coordinates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{staticbulk}
ds^2 =G_{AB} dx^Adx^B =-\frac{r^2}{L^2}dt^2 +\frac{L^2}{r^2}
dr^2 +r^2 dE^2_3  ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $L$ is related to the bulk cosmological constant. The induced metric on the wall then has the desired form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inducedmetric}
h_{AB} =G_{AB} +n_An_B \nonumber \\
ds_4^2 =-d\tau^2 +a^2(\tau ) dE^2_3 ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $n^A$ is the unit normal vector to the brane. Cosmic time as measured on the brane is parametrized by $\tau$, defined such that $$\label{cosmictime}
d\tau^2 =\frac{r^2}{L^2} dt^2 -\frac{L^2}{r^2} dr^2$$ and the radial coordinate of the brane in the bulk space determines the scale factor, $a(\tau )$: $$\label{radial}
r=r \left[ a(\tau ) \right]  .$$

The effective Friedmann equation is then derived directly from the Israel junction conditions : $$\label{israeltwo}
K_{AB} =-4\pi G_5 \left( T_{AB} -\frac{1}{3} T h_{AB} \right) ,$$ where $G_5$ is the five–dimensional Newton constant. These conditions relate the energy–momentum tensor, $T_{AB},$ of the matter confined on the brane directly to the brane's extrinsic curvature, $K_{AB} \equiv {h^C}_{(A}{h_{B)}}^D \nabla_C n_D$. Note that we have taken into account the ${\rm Z}_2$ symmetry in this expression and that $T\equiv T^A_A$ is the trace of the energy–momentum.

Conservation of energy–momentum on the brane then follows as a direct consequence of the Codazzi equation: $$\label{codazzi}
\nabla_B K^B_A -\nabla_A K =
\hat{R}_{BC} G^B_A n^C   .$$ It is straightforward to verify that for the case of a pure AdS bulk geometry, the right–hand side of Eq. () is identically zero. Thus, substitution of the Israel junction conditions () into Eq. () implies conservation of energy–momentum on the brane: $$\label{emconserve}
{^{(4)}} \nabla_{\mu} T^{\mu\nu} =0  .$$ We will further assume that the energy–momentum tensor of the matter on the brane is given by the perfect fluid form $$T^A_B |_{\rm brane} = \delta (y) {\rm diag}
(-\rho , p, p, p, 0) ,$$ where $\rho$ and $p$ represent the energy density and pressure, respectively. Hence, we recover the standard expression of conventional cosmology: $$\label{fluid}
\dot{\rho} +3\frac{\dot{a}}{a} (\rho + p ) =0  ,$$ where a dot denotes $d/d\tau$.

The spatial components of the Israel junction conditions (), as given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spatialcomp}
K_{ij} =- \sqrt{\frac{1}{L^2} + \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}} \delta_{ij}  ,
\end{aligned}$$ are now sufficient to derive the effective Friedmann equation. (The time–time components of Eq. () provide no new information for the model we are considering). We therefore deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dota}
\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2} = \left( \frac{4\pi G_5\rho}{3} \right)^2
-\frac{1}{L^2}  .
\end{aligned}$$

Although the quadratic dependence of the Friedmann equation () may appear to be inconsistent with the Hubble expansion, and particularly with constraints form primordial nucleosynthesis, we must recall that the vacuum brane has a tension, $\lambda$. This implies that the total matter content on the brane can effectively be separated into two components, the dynamical matter, $\rho_B$, and the tension. Substituting into Eq. () then implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quad}
H^2 =\frac{8\pi G_4}{3} \rho_B \left( 1+
\frac{\rho_B}{2\lambda} \right) + \left(
\frac{4\pi G_5 \lambda}{3} \right)^2 -\frac{1}{L^2} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $G_4 \equiv 4\pi \lambda G_5^2/3$. The constant terms are then cancelled by imposing the fine–tuning condition (), resulting in a Friedmann equation of the form $$\label{branefriedmann}
H^2 = \frac{8\pi}{3m_4^2} \rho \left[ 1+\frac{\rho}{2\lambda}
\right]  ,$$ where the subscript '$B$' is dropped for notational simplicity and we define the four–dimensional Planck mass, $m_4 \equiv G^{-1/2}_4$. The standard form of the Friedmann equation is recovered at low energy scales, $\rho \ll \lambda$, whereas the dependence on the energy density is modified to a quadratic form at high energies, $\rho \gg \lambda$.

We now consider the implications of this term for inflationary cosmology.

# Braneworld Inflation

## Scalar Field Dynamics

Eqs. () and () are sufficient to fully determine the cosmic dynamics on the brane once an equation of state has been specified for the matter sources. In what follows, we assume that the brane matter consists of a single scalar field that is confined to the brane and is self–interacting through a potential, $V(\phi )$. The conservation equation () then implies that $$\label{branescalar}
\ddot{\phi} +3H \dot{\phi} +V'=0 ,$$ where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the scalar field. We further assume the slow–roll approximation, $\dot{\phi}^2 \ll V$ and $|\ddot{\phi}| \ll H |\dot{\phi}|$. Eq. () then simplifies to $3H\dot{\phi}  \approx -V'$.

The slow–roll parameters, $\epsilon \equiv -\dot{H}/H^2$ and $\eta \equiv V''/(3H^2)$, may then be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsilon}
\epsilon  \simeq \frac{m_4^2}{4 \pi} \,
\left( \frac{V'}{V} \right)^2 \,
\left[ \frac{1+V/\lambda}{\left(2 + V/\lambda \right)^2} \right] \\
\label{eta}
\eta \simeq \frac{m_4^2}{8\pi} \left( \frac{V''}{V} \right)
\left[ \frac{2\lambda}{2\lambda +V} \right]
\end{aligned}$$ and inflation occurs for $\epsilon < 1$. Self–consistency of the slow–roll approximation requires that ${\rm max}
\{ \epsilon , | \eta | \} \ll 1$. The number of e–foldings of inflationary expansion that occur when the scalar field rolls from some value, $\phi$, to the value, $\phi_e$, corresponding to the end of inflation is given by $$\label{efold}
N \equiv \ln a = \int^{t_e}_t dt \, H
\approx -\frac{8\pi}{m_4^2} \int^{\phi_e}_{\phi}
\frac{V}{V'} \left( 1+\frac{V}{2\lambda} \right) d\phi   .$$

The effect of the brane corrections is to enhance the value of the Hubble parameter relative to what it would be for a given pure Einstein gravity model of the same energy density . This introduces additional friction on the scalar field and further resists its motion down the potential, thereby enabling a steeper class of potentials to support inflation. This is the basis behind the steep inflationary scenario . The quadratic correction relaxes the condition for slow–roll inflation in the RSII scenario relative to the corresponding condition for the standard model. Generically, steep inflation proceeds in the region of parameter space where $\rho \gg \lambda$ and naturally comes to an end when $\rho \approx \lambda$, since the conventional cosmological dynamics is recovered in this regime.

## Density Perturbations

We now consider the generation of scalar and tensor perturbations in RSII inflation. Since many of the issues of perturbation theory in conventional inflationary models have already been covered in lectures at this school, we omit detailed discussions here and focus instead on the differences that arise between the two scenarios. We employ the normalization conventions of Ref. .

We begin by recalling that the scalar perturbations generated during inflation that is driven by a single, self–interacting scalar field are *adiabatic*. The curvature perturbation on uniform density hypersurfaces is then given by $\zeta = H\delta \phi /\dot{\phi}$ and is determined by the scalar field fluctuation, $\delta \phi$, on spatially flat hypersurfaces . Conservation of energy–momentum implies that $\zeta$ is conserved on large scales, a result that is independent of the specific form of the gravitational physics . This implies that the amplitude of a mode when it re–enters the Hubble radius after inflation is related to the curvature perturbation by $A^2_S = 4 \langle \zeta^2 \rangle /25$, where the right–hand side is evaluated when the mode with comoving wavenumber, $k$, goes beyond the Hubble radius during inflation, i.e., when $$\label{kdef}
k(\phi) = a_e H(\phi ) \exp [ -N(\phi ) ]   ,$$ where a subscript 'e' denotes values at the end of inflation and $N =\int dt H (t)$ corresponds to the number of e–foldings of inflationary expansion that elapse between the time when the scale crosses the Hubble radius and the end of inflation \[cf. Eq. ()\]. Finally, the Gibbons–Hawking temperature of de Sitter space determines the magnitude of the field fluctuation, $\langle \delta \phi^2 \rangle = H^2/(4\pi^2)$, and we therefore deduce that the scalar perturbation amplitude has the form $$\label{scalar}
A^2_S = \left. \frac{1}{25\pi^2} \frac{H^4}{\dot{\phi}^2}
\right|_{k=aH}$$ This is given in terms of the potential by $$\label{scalaramp}
A^2_S = \frac{512\pi}{75m^6_4} \frac{V^3}{V'^2}
\left( 1+\frac{V}{2\lambda} \right)^3$$ after substitution of the Friedmann equation (). We see that the amplitude is enhanced over that of the standard scenario by the bracketed term.

## Gravitational Waves

Although to first–order the gravitational waves decouple from the matter, the calculation of the tensor perturbation spectrum is more involved in braneworld cosmology because the perturbations extend into the bulk. In this subsection we review the method of Langlois, Maartens and Wands . To proceed analytically, it is necessary to assume pure de Sitter expansion on the brane and this is a good approximation if the inflation field is slowly rolling. It proves convenient to express the perturbed, five–dimensional metric in the form $$ds^2_5 = {\cal{A}}^2 [-dt^2 + a^2 (\delta_{ij} +E_{ij})dx^i
dx^j] + dy^2 ,$$ where $E_{ij}$ represents the perturbations. The warp factor is given by $${\cal{A}} = (H/\alpha )
\sinh [\alpha (y_h -|y| )]   ,$$ where the Cauchy horizons, $g_{00} (\pm y_h ) =0$, are located at $y=\pm y_h$, and the constant $\alpha =\kappa_4/\kappa_5 = (-\Lambda /6 )^{1/2}$ is determined by the bulk cosmological constant, $\Lambda$. Here and throughout, $\kappa_4^2
\equiv 8\pi m^{-2}_4$ and $\kappa_5^2 \equiv 8\pi M^{-3}$.

The standard approach is to expand the metric perturbations as a Fourier series. In this case, and assuming that any anisotropic stresses are negligible, the linearly perturbed junction conditions () reduce to $$\label{pjunction}
\left. \frac{dE}{dy} \right|_{y=0} =0  ,$$ where $E(t,y; \vec{k} )$ denotes the amplitude of the modes. Assuming a pure de Sitter expansion of the brane world–volume allows us to separate the corresponding gravitational wave equation of motion and then expand the amplitude into eigenmodes such that $E(t, y; \vec{k}) =
\int dm \varphi_m (t; \vec{k}) {\cal{E}}_m (y)$, where $\varphi_m (t; \vec{k})$ and ${\cal{E}}_m (y)$ depend on the world–volume and bulk coordinates, respectively, and $m$ represents the separation constant. It can then be shown that the solution for the zero mode $(m=0)$ is determined in full generality up to a quadrature : $$\label{zerogeneral}
{\cal{E}}_0 =C_1 + C_2 \int^y dy' \frac{1}{{\cal{A}}^4(y')}  ,$$ where $C_{1,2}$ are constants. In general, if a given mode diverges at the Cauchy horizon, it can not form part of the spectrum of orthonormal modes that constitute the basis of the Hilbert space for the quantum field. (Heuristically, this is because such a mode would produce an infinite contribution to the action and so it would cost too much energy to excite it). However, we must specify $C_2=0$ to satisfy the boundary condition () and this removes the divergent part of the zero–mode. Thus, the physically relevant solution for the zero–mode is ${\cal{E}}_0 =C_1$. The non–zero modes are not excited – modes where $m<3H/2$ remain divergent at the Cauchy horizon even when Eq. () is satisfied and modes satisfying $m>3H/2$ remain in the vacuum state during inflation .

The zero–mode, $\varphi_0$, remains constant on super–Hubble radius scales, as in the four–dimensional scenario. The amplitude of the quantum fluctuation in this mode is then calculated by deriving an effective, five–dimensional action for the tensor perturbations and integrating over the fifth dimension. This results in a four–dimensional action that corresponds formally to a massless scalar field propagating in a FRW universe. The standard four–dimensional analysis may then be employed to determine the amplitude if the action is normalized appropriately when integrating over the fifth dimension. This requires that $$\label{Znormalization}
2\int_0^{y_h} dy C_1^2 {\cal{A}}^2
=1$$ and implies that $C_1=\sqrt{\alpha} F(x )$, where $$\label{Fdefine}
\frac{1}{F^2} = \sqrt{1+x^2} -x^2 {\rm sinh}^{-1}
\left( \frac{1}{x} \right)$$ and $x \equiv H/\alpha$. Finally, the tensorial amplitude follows once each polarization state is interpreted as a quantum field propagating in a time–dependent potential : $$\label{symmetrictensor}
A_T^2
= \left. \frac{\kappa_4^2}{50\pi^2}H^2F^2  \right|_{k=aH} .$$ The effects of the brane modifications are parametrized in terms of the 'correction' function $F$. In the low–energy limit ($\rho \ll \lambda,
x \ll 1)$, $F \approx 1$, whereas $F^2 \approx [27H^2m_4^2/(16\pi \lambda )]^{1/2}$ in the high–energy limit.

## The Consistency Equation

Since the scalar field slowly rolls down its potential, the amplitudes of the perturbations are not precisely scale–invariant. These variations are parametrized in terms of the spectral indices, or *tilts*, of the spectra and are defined by $$n_S\equiv 1 + d \ln A^2_S/d \ln k , \qquad
n_T \equiv d\ln A^2_T /d \ln k$$ for the scalar and tensor perturbations, respectively. The scalar spectral index may be expressed in terms of the slow–roll parameters: $$n_S - 1 = -6\epsilon +2\eta  .$$ In the high energy limit $(\rho \gg \lambda , x \gg 1)$, the tilts are given in terms of the potential and its first two derivatives by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scalarindex}
n_S-1 \approx -\frac{m^2_4\lambda}{2\pi V}\left[ 3
\frac{V'^2}{V^2} -\frac{V''}{V} \right] \\
\label{tensorindex}
n_T \approx -\frac{3m^2_4}{4\pi} \frac{\lambda V'^2}{V^3}  .
\end{aligned}$$

It is well known that since the scalar and tensor perturbations share a common origin through the inflaton potential, $V(\phi)$, it is possible to relate them in a way that is independent of the functional form of the potential. (For a review, see, e.g., Ref. ). This relationship is known as the *consistency equation* and, to lowest–order in the slow–roll approximation, determines the relative amplitudes of the tensor and scalar perturbations directly in terms of the tilt of the gravitational wave spectrum: $$\label{consistency}
\frac{A^2_T}{A^2_S} =  -\frac{1}{2} n_T  .$$

Since it is independent of the potential, Eq. () represents a powerful test of single–field inflationary models and, in principle, failure to satisfy such a constraint could be employed to rule out such a class of models. At present, the contribution of tensor perturbations to the large–angle CMB power spectrum is constrained to be no more than 30 $\%$ and, in practice, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to measure the tilt of the tensor spectrum to a sufficient level of accuracy. Nevertheless, a cosmological background of gravitational waves could be detected through their contribution to the B–mode (curl) of the CMB polarization and interest is growing in this possibility in light of the recent detections of polarization in the CMB . In any case, even in the event that such a detection is not made, the consistency relation remains important because it removes a free parameter (usually chosen to be $n_T$) when determining the best–fit models to the data.

Given the importance of the consistency equation, it is clearly of interest to determine the form of the corresponding relations in braneworld cosmologies . We have seen that in the case of the RSII scenario, the amplitudes of the perturbations are modified by the brane effects and these modifications become progressively more important at higher energy scales. Consequently, it is to be anticipated that the form of the consistency equation should reflect these differences. If so, this would provide a potentially observable test of RSII inflation.

In the standard scenario, the consistency equation () is derived by first differentiating the tensorial spectrum with respect to comoving wavenumber, $k$, and then relating a given scale to the corresponding value of the inflaton field through Eq. (). Any dependence on the first derivative of the inflaton potential may then be eliminated by substituting for the scalar perturbation amplitude and any remaining dependence on the inflaton potential itself may be removed by substituting for the tensor perturbation amplitude.

In principle, an identical approach could be followed to derive the consistency equation in RSII inflation. However, given the complicated form of the amplitudes, this is algebraically very difficult (but not impossible) to accomplish. In view of this, we adopt a more elegant approach and proceed by defining a pair of new variables $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defineb}
b \equiv \frac{1}{2} \sinh^{-1} x \\
\label{definebeta}
\beta \equiv \kappa_4 \frac{d \phi}{dN}  ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ is defined after Eq. (). This implies that the Friedmann equation () and scalar field equation () reduce to a first–order, non–linear system of differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dotb}
\dot{b} =- \left( \frac{3\kappa^2_4}{8 \lambda} \right)^{1/2} \dot{\phi}^2
\\
\label{bprime}
\beta =-\left( \frac{8 \lambda}{3} \right)^{1/2}
\frac{b'}{H}  .
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the correction function () arising in the gravitational wave amplitude () depends only on the single variable, $b$, and may be expressed in terms of a single quadrature: $$\label{Fquad}
\frac{1}{F^2} = -4 \sinh^2 2b\int \frac{db}{\sinh^3 2b}   ,$$ whereas the scalar perturbations () depend on $\beta$: $$\label{betascalar}
A_S^2 =\frac{\kappa^2_4}{25\pi^2} \frac{H^2}{\beta^2}   .$$

We are now in a position to derive the form of the consistency equation in this scenario. By employing the definitions (), () and () and substituting Eqs. (), () and () into Eq. (), we find that $$\frac{1}{A^2_T} = 2 \int \frac{d \ln k}{A^2_S}   .$$ Thus, differentiation with respect to comoving wavenumber recovers the consistency equation $$\label{braneconsistency}
\frac{A^2_T}{A^2_S} =  -\frac{1}{2} n_T   .$$

Remarkably, the form of the consistency equation is *identical* to that of standard, single–field inflation. This is particularly surprising given that the gravitational physics is manifestly different in the two scenarios. Formally, this degeneracy between the consistency equations arises because the combination of observable parameters in Eq. () is independent of the brane tension, but it is not immediately transparent from Eqs. (), () and () why this should be so.

# Asymmetric Braneworld Inflation

We now proceed in this Section to consider an extension of the RSII scenario where the $Z_2$ reflection symmetry in the bulk dimension is no longer imposed. This implies that the brane may be embedded in five–dimensional AdS space where the value of the cosmological constant differs on either side of the brane (Fig. ). Similar analyses to those summarized in Sections 3 and 4 may be followed to derive the Friedmann equation and the inflationary perturbation spectra. Here, we omit many of the details and simply highlight the main results.

The spatial components of the junction conditions reduce to $$\label{junction+-}
\left( \alpha_+ +H^2 \right)^{1/2} +\left(
\alpha_- +H^2 \right)^{1/2} =
\frac{\kappa^2_5 \rho}{3}      ,$$ where $$\alpha_{\pm} \equiv -\kappa^2_5 \Lambda_{\pm}/6$$ and $\Lambda_{\pm}$ are the bulk cosmological constants either side of the brane. Dimensional reduction relates the four– and five–dimensional Newton constants: $$\frac{\kappa^2_5}{\kappa^2_4} = \frac{1}{2}
\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}_+} +\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha_-}}
\right)   .$$

Solving Eq. () yields the Friedmann equation : $$\label{friedmann+-}
H^2 =\frac{\kappa_5^4 \rho^2}{36} - \frac{1}{2} \left( \alpha_- +\alpha_+
\right) +\frac{9}{4 \kappa^4_5 \rho^2} \left( \alpha_- -\alpha_+
\right)^2$$ and, as in the symmetric scenario, a brane tension may be introduced in order to recover the required linear dependence on the energy density at low energy scales. Relaxing the $Z_2$ symmetry results in the appearance of the third term on the right–hand side of Eq. (). Note how this term is proportional to $\rho^{-2}$ and becomes negligible at high energies. (However, this does not imply that such a term diverges at very low energies, since the density as shown here represents the total energy density on the brane. This consists of both the matter contributions as well as the brane tension, $\lambda$). It is worth remarking that the Friedmann equation () exhibits an infra–red/ultra–violet duality, in the sense that it is invariant under the transformation of the energy density, $\kappa^2_5 \rho \leftrightarrow
9| \alpha_+ -\alpha_- |/(\kappa_5^2\rho)$.

Since the bulk space on either side of the brane is AdS, the Gauss–Codazzi equation () once more implies that energy–momentum is conserved on the brane and Eq. () therefore remains valid. This is important because it implies that the argument of Section 4.2 may be employed once more to determine the amplitude of the scalar perturbations. Consequently, the amplitude is given by Eq. (), although its specific dependence on the inflaton potential is altered from that of the symmetric scenario due to the additional term arising in the Friedmann equation (). Indeed, substituting Eq. () and the scalar field equation () into Eq. () implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scalar1}
A_S^2 =  \frac{9}{25\pi^2} \frac{1}{V'^2}
\left[
\frac{\kappa_5^4 (V + \lambda )^2}{36} - \frac{1}{2}
\left( \alpha_- +\alpha_+
\right)  \right. \nonumber \\ \left.
\left. +\frac{9}{4 \kappa^4_5 (V + \lambda )^2} \left( \alpha_- -\alpha_+
\right)^2
\right]^3 \right|_{k=aH}
\end{aligned}$$

The tensor spectrum for this model has been calculated in Ref. by extending the method of Ref. . The result is $$\label{tensor+-}
\left. A^2_T =\frac{\kappa^2_5}{50\pi^2} H^2 J^2
\right|_{k=aH}$$ where $$\label{Jdefine2}
\frac{1}{J^2} =  \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha_-} F^2(x_-)}
+ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\alpha_+}F^2(x_+)}   ,$$ the functional form of $F=F(x_{\pm})$ is given by Eq. () and $x_{\pm} \equiv H/\sqrt{\alpha_{\pm}}$. At low energy scales ($x_{\pm} \ll 1$), we find that $J \rightarrow \kappa_4/\kappa_5$, implying that the standard expression is recovered in this limit, as expected.

The consistency equation can be derived in this model . Given the results of Section 4, the simplest approach is to assume *a priori* that the consistency equation has the same form as that of Eq. () and to then verify that this is indeed the case. Let us therefore substitute the scalar and tensor perturbations, Eqs. () and (), directly into Eq. (). We find that $$\label{require1}
\frac{d \ln (HJ)}{d H} \frac{dH}{dN} = - \frac{\kappa^2_5}{18}
\frac{J^2V'^2}{H^4}   ,$$ where we have employed the slow–roll approximation in the form $d\ln k \approx  d \ln a = dN$. Noting that the scalar field equation, $3H\dot{\phi} = -V'$, may be expressed in the somewhat unconventional form $$\label{require2}
\frac{dH}{dN} = - \frac{d H}{dV} \frac{V'^2}{3H^2}$$ then allows us to simplify Eq. () through substitution of Eq. () : $$\label{require3}
H^4 \frac{dH}{dV} \frac{d (HJ)^{-2}}{dH}  = - \frac{\kappa_5^2}{3} .$$ Eq. () represents a *necessary* condition for the consistency equation () to hold. It should be emphasized that this condition applies to any (single field) braneworld scenario, where energy–momentum is conserved on the brane. In general, a given braneworld model may be characterized by the functional form of its Friedmann equation, i.e., by the dependence of the Hubble parameter on the inflaton potential, $H=H(V)$. Once this relation has been established, Eq. () may then be interpreted as a constraint that must be satisfied by the correction function, $J=J(H)$, if the consistency equation is to remain degenerate. To illustrate this, consider the standard scenario, where $H \propto V^{1/2}$. We see immediately that the left–hand side of Eq. () is constant when $J=1$.

It is possible, after some lengthy algebra, to confirm that Eq. () is indeed satisfied for the asymmetric RSII scenario when the correction to the tensor spectrum takes the form given by Eq. () and we therefore conclude that even in this generalized, asymmetric RSII model, the consistency equation remains degenerate : $$\frac{A^2_T}{A^2_S} =  -\frac{1}{2} n_T  .$$

Before concluding this Section, we briefly consider the braneworld model of Ref. , where the brane is embedded in a five–dimensional bulk space with a stabilized radius. This model differs from the RSII scenario in that the Friedmann equation, and therefore the scalar perturbation spectrum, remain unmodified. However, the presence of the fifth dimension becomes apparent through a correction to the tensor spectrum. Thus, one would certainly expect the consistency equation to be modified in this model. However, surprisingly, this is not the case – the correction to the gravitational wave amplitude is given by $J^2=(1-\alpha H^2)^{-2}$, where $\alpha$ is a constant with a numerical value determined by the radius of the extra dimension . One may readily deduce that a correction of this form satisfies Eq. () and, moreover, represents the general solution to Eq. () when the Friedmann equation has the standard form. Thus, we now know of four classes of inflationary cosmologies, modelled on different gravitational physics, where the consistency equation remains robust.

Such a degeneracy implies that the task of identifying the correct inflationary model through observations will be more difficult. On the other hand, although the consistency equation may be interpreted as a prediction of single field inflation, it should be emphasized that it is a prediction relating the *primordial* perturbations. In particular, in the above analyses we have neglected the influence of the bulk space on the subsequent evolution of the perturbations. This is equivalent to assuming that the projection of the five–dimensional Weyl tensor vanishes to linear order. More generally, however, the backreaction of the bulk will perturb the bulk space away from conformal invariance and generate a non–trivial Weyl tensor in five dimensions. This results in a non–local energy–momentum source in the gravitational field equations when projected down to four dimensions . As a result, the background dynamics is altered. The subsequent evolution of the perturbations is difficult to determine in general, because the system of equations is not closed, although it is expected that it will be model–dependent to some extent.

A further assumption that we have made is that the field is rolling sufficiently slowly down its potential. This assumption can be relaxed in the standard scenario by working to the 'next–to–leading' order in the slow–roll approximation. In this regime, it has been shown that the consistency equation () receives modifications : $$\label{hc}
n_T = -2 \frac{A^2_T}{A^2_S} \left[ 1- \frac{A^2_T}{A^2_S}
+ (1-n_S) \right]   .$$ The question that naturally arises, therefore, is whether the corresponding consistency equations in the RSII scenarios receive similar corrections or whether the degeneracy can be lifted by moving away from the slow–roll approximation. The answer to this and related questions must be left for future work.

# Gauss–Bonnet Braneworld Cosmology

As well as developing the framework for testing braneworld inflation through a confrontation with observations, another important task is to enhance the connection of the scenario with string/M–theory. One approach towards this goal is to include combinations of higher–order curvature invariants in the bulk action . Within the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence, such terms arise as next–to–leading order corrections in the $1/N$ expansion of the CFT . The Gauss–Bonnet combination, $\hat{R}^2 -4\hat{R}_{ab}\hat{R}^{ab}
+\hat{R}_{abcd}\hat{R}^{abcd}$, is of particular relevance, given that it is the unique combination in five dimensions that results in second–order field equations in the metric and it also appears as a leading–order quantum correction in the heterotic string theory action .

The extension of the RSII scenario to include this term is presently attracting attention. The five–dimensional field equations admit Schwarzschild–AdS space as a solution and the Friedmann equation may be derived through a variety of methods. These include generalizing Birkhoff's theorem , varying the boundary terms in the action , or by employing the formalism of differential forms . When the bulk space is $Z_2$ symmetric, the Friedmann equation takes the form $$\label{friedmannGB}
H^2= \frac{c_+ +c_- -2}{8\alpha} \,,$$ where $$\label{defc}
c_{\pm} = \left\{ \left[ \left( 1+\frac{4}{3}\alpha \Lambda \right)^{3/2}
+ \frac{\alpha}{2} \kappa_5^4 \rho^2 \right]^{1/2}
\pm \sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \kappa_5^2 \rho \right\}^{2/3}   ,$$ the bulk cosmological constant is $\Lambda$ and $\alpha> 0$ represents the Gauss–Bonnet coupling constant. As in the models discussed above, conservation of energy–momentum on the brane follows directly from the Gauss–Codazzi equations.

Despite the rather complicated form of Eq. (), it is possible to make progress analytically by introducing a new variable, $r$ : $$\label{defr}
\rho \equiv \left( \frac{2b}{\alpha \kappa^4_5} \right)^{1/2}
\sinh r$$ and defining the constant $$\label{defb}
b \equiv \left( 1+\frac{4}{3} \alpha \Lambda \right)^{3/2} \,.$$ Substituting Eqs. () and () into Eq. () then implies that $$c_{\pm} = b^{1/3} \exp(\pm 2r/3)$$ and, as a result, the Friedmann equation () simplifies considerably : $$\label{friedmannrGB}
H^2 = \frac{1}{4\alpha} \left[ b^{1/3} \cosh \left( \frac{2r}{3} \right)
-1 \right] \,.$$

It may be verified that the Friedmann equation () exhibits a quadratic dependence on the total energy density in the low energy limit corresponding to the RSII model. At sufficiently high energies, however, the dependence scales as $H^2 \propto \rho^{2/3}$. The condition for inflation to proceed in this regime is simply that the pressure of the matter be negative, $p<0$. More precisely, slow–roll parameters may be introduced and, in the slow–roll limit where the inflaton potential dominates the brane tension, $\lambda$, they are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsilonGB}
\epsilon &=& \left( \frac{2\lambda}{\kappa_4^2}~\frac{V'^2}{V^3} \right)
\left[ \frac{2b^{2/3}}{27}~
\frac{\sinh (2r/3) \, \tanh r \, \sinh^2 r}{\left[
b^{1/3} \cosh (2r/3) -1 \right]^2} \right] \,, \\
\label{etaGB}
\eta &=& \left( \frac{2\lambda}{\kappa_4^2}~ \frac{V''}{V^2} \right)
\left[ \frac{2b^{1/3}}{9}~
\frac{\sinh^2 r}{b^{1/3} \cosh (2r/3) -1} \right] .
\end{aligned}$$ The terms in the square brackets parametrize the effects of the Gauss–Bonnet contribution. These are monotonically decreasing functions of $r$ and tend to unity from above as $\{ r, \alpha \}
\rightarrow 0$. In this limit, the slow–roll parameters reduce to those of the RSII model. It follows, therefore, that the Gauss–Bonnet contribution tightens the constraints for inflation to proceed relative to the RSII scenario.

A further consequence of introducing a Gauss–Bonnet term is that the spectrum of perturbations is altered. For example, in the high–energy limit where $H^2 \propto \rho^{2/3}$, we find that $A_S^2 \propto H^4/\dot{\phi}^2 \propto
H^6/V'^2 \propto (V/V')^2$. Thus, for the case of an exponential potential, the spectrum is pushed very close to a scale–invariant form . This is interesting given that potentials of this nature generically arises in a number of particle physics inspired settings.

Finally, it would be of interest to determine whether the degeneracy of the inflationary consistency equation is lifted by introducing a Gauss–Bonnet term into the bulk action. To date, the gravitational wave spectrum in this model has yet to be determined. The calculation of the spectrum is more involved than that of the RSII scenario, because the linearly perturbed junction conditions must be employed to impose the necessary boundary conditions on the perturbations.

# Concluding Remark

To summarize, inflationary cosmology based on Randall–Sundrum braneworlds remains a rich environment for future work. The scenario has already revealed unexpected surprises and surely has more to offer. It is well motivated from a string theoretic perspective in view of its close relationship with the AdS/CFT correspondence. It is sufficiently simple to provide a framework for performing analytical calculations and thereby making observational predictions. Thus, it provides a unique window into higher–dimensional physics.

JEL is supported by the Royal Society. It is a pleasure to thank G. Huey and N. Nunes with whom various results presented in Sections 4 & 5 and Section 6 were derived.


abstract: It is often said that in general relativity time does not exist. This is because the Einstein equations generate motion in time that is a symmetry of the theory, not true time evolution. In quantum gravity, the timelessness of general relativity clashes with time in quantum theory and leads to the "problem of time" which, in its various forms, is the main obstacle to a successful quantum theory of gravity. I argue that the problem of time is a paradox, stemming from an unstated faulty premise. Our faulty assumption is that space is real. I propose that what does not fundamentally exist is not time but space, geometry and gravity. The quantum theory of gravity will be spaceless, not timeless. If we are willing to throw out space, we can keep time and the trade is worth it.
author: Fotini Markopoulou
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
bibliography: bib.bib
date: December 1, 2008
title: Space does not exist, so time can.

# The *paradox* of time in quantum gravity

There are two kinds of people in quantum gravity. Those who think that timelessness is the most beautiful and deepest insight in general relativity, if not modern science, and those who simply cannot comprehend what timelessness can mean and see evidence for time in everything in nature. What sets this split of opinions apart from any other disagreement in science is that almost no one ever changes their mind, there is practically no crossing camps on the issue of time. On some days, this makes me wonder if the split is truly on scientific grounds or something deeper. But for the purposes of this essay, we will stay on the fairly hard science and I will argue that time exists and that the problem of time in quantum gravity should be seen as a paradox. Paradoxes are usually resolved when we realize that a certain unstated assumption is lurking in the background which, under closer inspection, we see is false.

*Timelessness.* What is the reason to believe that time does not exist, despite our obvious experience to the contrary? Many books have been written on this and I will just state the bare facts.

General relativity is the theory of spacetime geometry interacting with matter. A spacetime is a 4-dimensional curved manifold with metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and curvature $R_{\mu\nu}$. Matter, for the purposes of relativity, can be succinctly squeezed into the stress-energy tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$. Both metric and matter are dynamical and affect each other: matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter where to go. This is the content of the Einstein equations: $$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}.
\label{eq:EE}$$ $G$ is Newton's constant and $c$ is the speed of light.

There are two points to note here. The first we already made, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is a dynamical field in general relativity, this is a theory of spacetime itself. The second is that $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not quite the correct physical quantity. The Einstein equations are invariant under diffeomorphisms of the spacetime manifold, operations that map spacetime points to other spacetime points. A spacetime point as labeled by a given $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not physical. *Events* are physical, and events are marked by interactions of physical objects. It is photons bouncing off the paper and hitting your retina while you read this essay that make this sentence be part of your past. A given collection of events and the order in which they occurred is physically meaningful but it can be represented by several different metrics, all related by diffeomorphisms. The correct physical quantity is the equivalence class of metrics under diffeomorphisms, usually called a *geometry*.

Now let us consider a pure gravity scenario, a universe with no matter, where the right hand side of equation () is zero. With no physical objects to interact and mark events, diffeomorphisms are allowed to shuffle spacetime points freely. When I write the 3+1 version of equation () – where a spatial geometry, the world at a single instant of time, evolves forward in time – I find that time evolution is a diffeomorphism, that is, it does nothing. The Hamiltonian for the evolution of space is just a constraint. I just discovered that time does not exist.

Remember that we find that time does not exist in a universe of pure gravity. If we allow matter, we can properly define clocks and time. And we live in a universe with matter. The problem is that general relativity allows for pure gravity solutions and there is no way to exclude them in the current setup. We are stuck with timelessness.

*The problem of time.* Timelessness enters in center stage in quantum gravity when quantum gravity is stated as the problem of unifying general relativity and quantum theory. Quantum theory always uses a fixed spacetime. When I fire my laser in the lab there is a clock on the wall which is not involved in my experiment. I do use my clock when I prepare my state and then measure it ten minutes later. It enters the Schrödinger equation as a parameter and allows me to predict the possible outcomes of my experiment. But I don't look at the state of the laser to figure out what time it is, time is a prior notion, external to the quantum mechanical evolution.

Quantum gravity is often seen as the problem of unifying or reconciling general relativity and quantum theory, combining the physics of the very large with that of the very small. There are certainly places where we need both, such as black hole physics, where no real progress can be made without a quantum theory of gravity. The incompatibility of general relativity and quantum theory can be stated in many ways and a classic one is *the problem of time*: adapting the Scrödinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by quantizing equation () gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, $$\widehat{H}|\Psi\rangle=0.
\label{eq:wdw}$$ $|\Psi\rangle$ is the wavefunction of the universe, $\widehat{H}$ is the quantum Hamiltonian constraint and 0 means there is no time.

The problem with this shortest of equations is that we still do not really know what it means. After half a century of hard work, we have candidates for $|\Psi\rangle$ and $\widehat{H}$ but 0 is still causing trouble. The current version of the problem of time can be called *the low energy limit problem*. Let us say you have a $|\Psi\rangle$ and $\widehat{H}$ that you think are the correct ones. They belong to the fundamental quantum theory of gravity, that is, they decribe the world at extremely high energy. How do you test they are correct? There is only one way, to compare with known physics and experiment. You must find the low energy limit of your $|\Psi\rangle$. This is where 0 comes in. Without a background geometry, how do we distinguish low energy from high energy? Defining energy needs not just time but time translation invariance, so without time we don't even know what energy is, let alone what is low energy and high energy.

We now see what the problem of time controversy is: is timelessness an important lesson from general relativity that must be carried over to a quantum theory of gravity or can we allow a microscopic theory with time? If it is the first, how do we get around the above problems? And if it is the second, since any quantum theory of gravity must recover general relativity in the appropriate limit, how does the time of the fundamental theory go away in the limit of pure gravity?

There are candidate quantum theories of gravity of both kinds. Loop Quantum Gravity is a well-known example of an implementation of the Wheeler-deWitt equation and the main challenge it faces is indeed finding the low energy limit of the theory. A prominent example of a quantum theory of gravity with fundamental time is Causal Dynamical Triangulations which gets beautiful low energy results such as the correct 3+1 dimension of the universe as an emergent dynamical property. The theory still has to show gravity in the appropriate limit, so we do not yet know how, and if, the fundamental time can be reconciled with the diffeomorphism invariance of general relativity.

Quantum gravity has been facing the problem of time for half a century. Will it continue to cause trouble for the next half century? Or is the problem of time a fake problem? Could it be a paradox? We arrived at it by putting together true statements from general relativity and from quantum theory and we found a contradiction. Now, either fundamental science is stuck or we just have a paradox that will go away if we find the faulty premise. What can the faulty premise be?

# A world without geometry

It is true that the view of quantum gravity as the unification of general relativity and quantum theory is in many ways becoming outdated. First of all, for the first time observational data *is*, in fact, driving the field of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is not just about black hole physics anymore. Observational cosmology leaves us with 95% of the universe unknown and lots of hard data on the high energy physics of the early universe. Any quantum gravity theorist worth their salt must strive to make a connection between their theory and the data. What is dark energy and dark matter? What is the inflaton and are there remnants of transplanckian physics in cosmology? Is the scale of quantum gravity the Planck scale or something much larger? Second, some kind of unification of general relativity and quantum theory is provided in a number of theories, from string theory to loop quantum gravity and causal dynamical triangulations. The challenge for these theories is now to show they are the correct ones, again by making contact with the known world.

It is then more appropriate to think of the problem of quantum gravity in broader terms: one more situation in physics where we have the low energy theory – general relativity and quantum field theory – and are looking for the high energy, microscopic, fundamental one. This appears pretty similar to things we have done before, for example, in going from thermodynamics to the kinetic theory. Not surprisingly, this significant shift in perspective opens up new routes that may take us out of the old problems.

*Geometrogenesis.* We do not know much about quantum gravity. We expect it to hold at Planck scale energies of $10^{22}$ MeV. This is $10^{20}$ orders of magnitude higher than subatomic physics. Our best tests of quantum field theory are at settings of some $10^{20}$ orders of magnitude cooler than the physics of quantum gravity. In all other cases we know of in physics, it suffices to change energy scales by much less than that for the studied system to undergo a phase transition. Then two things can happen. First, the system can acquire properties that did not exist previously. This is the subject of emergence. For example, if we cool water we get ice. The order of the crystalline structure of ice is an emergent property of the ice phase. Second, but related, almost always the degrees of freedom we use to describe the two phases are different. An example of this is the comparison of fluid dynamics to the underlying theory of quantum molecular dynamics. The first is governed by the continuity and Euler equations and we use notions such as waves to describe the system. At the molecular level we have the Schrödinger equation and the intermolecular potential. Waves are emergent notions, applicable only at the low energy phase. There are no degrees of freedom describing waves at the molecular level.

It is reasonable to expect that quantum gravity will follow a similar pattern. What we currently know is the low energy theory, the analogue of fluid dynamics. We are looking for the fundamental theory, the analogue of the quantum molecular dynamics. Just as there are no waves in the molecular theory, we will likely not find geometric degrees of freedom in the fundamental theory. By analogy with known physics, we should expect that the quantum theory of gravity is not a theory of geometry.

I must emphasize that no geometry does not mean discrete or fuzzy geometry. It means that the most primary aspects of geometry, such as the notion of "here" and "there" will cease to make sense. In fact, we have been grappling with no geometry for a while, in the traditional quantum gravity settings. A quantization of general relativity leads to a quantum superposition of all geometries. What is not often appreciated is that the superposition of all geometries is nothing like a geometry. Take two geometries or, equivalently, two causal structures 1 and 2. Let us say that in geometry 1 event A and event B are close while in geometry 2 they are far. If you are event A, in world 1 you see event B here, in world 2 you see event B there. Now superpose not only 1 and 2 but all possible geometries. B is all over the place. (This is the easy version, I am assuming you can identify A and B in both which, in fact, you generally cannot do since you need the notion of here and there to assign identity). At Planck scale we are not in the semiclassical limit and quantum geometry is not just the quantum fluctuation of the lightcones of the classical world, it is not geometry as we know it. The monstrosity we just created does not even have a sensible notion of here and there, the most basic aspect of geometry. It also does not have a notion of dimension . It's only the fact that we call it "quantum geometry", a combination of two words we understand, that fools us into thinking we comprehend it.

Let us name *geometrogenesis* the process of transitioning from a fundamental quantum theory of gravity without geometry to the known geometric physics. The geometrogenesis scenario is a simple one. At high energy, or in the early universe, there is no notion of geometry or geometric locality. The system can be described in terms of microscopic, quantum degrees of freedom, which we call micro-matter, or $\mu$atter for short. This is not our usual matter; by the same reasoning that we do not expect geometry to be valid more than twenty orders of magnitude below what we can probe, we also do not expect matter to be found intact at the quantum gravity scale. At lower energies, or as the universe cools down, the system dynamically settles near its ground state. This is the geometry plus matter phase, with ordinary matter and the symmetries that characterize the geometry of our deSitter universe.

*Information before geometry.* Having raised the possibility that geometry does not exist at the fundamental level, we now need to find a way to do physics without geometry. This may appear hard because all our physics is done with geometry. But we can use a relational and information theoretic language.

As a first step, let us think of geometry not as an independent entity but as derivative from the properties of matter. We turn around the usual order: a particle is not Poincaré invariant because it is in a Minkowski spacetime, rather, all we can mean by a Minkowski spacetime is that all particles and their interactions are Poincaré invariant. Geometry is a concise way to describe the symmetries of the system. The premise of geometrogenesis is that the symmetries that define geometry arise at low energy. With this in mind, let us give a concrete model of geometrogenesis, specifically of emergent locality and emergent geometry, via symmetries of the ground state of a non-geometric quantum system.

We consider a quantum and finite relational universe: it contains $N$ constituents and only their relations are important. This can be modeled as a network of $N$ nodes $a,b,...=1,...,N$ with a Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{ab}$ attached to each link $ab$. The states on ${\cal H}_{ab}$ are the possible relations between $a$ and $b$. The simplest case is that of two-state links ${\cal H}_{ab}=\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ representing locality or adjacency: $|1\rangle$ state on link $ab$ means the link is *on* and $a,b$ are *local*, while $|0\rangle$ means the link is *off*: $$\includegraphics{off.pdf}$$ $K_N$ is the complete graph on $N$ vertices, i.e., the graph in which there is one edge connecting every pair of vertices, so that there is a total of $N(N-1)/2$ edges and each vertex has degree $N-1$. The total state space of our system is ${\cal H}=\bigotimes^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}{\cal H}_{ab}.$ A generic state of ${\cal H}$ is a superposition of subgraphs of $K_N$. A Hamiltonian operator $H$ will assign energy $E(G)$ to a graph $G$: $E(G)=\langle\Psi_G|H|\Psi_G\rangle.$ The dynamics on this system performs a geometrogenesis transition from the high to the low energy phase.

In , we studied a Hamiltonian that provides an explicit model for geometrogenesis, with locality, translations, etc, being properties of the ground state. In Table 1, we have summarized the properties of the model, which we call *Quantum Graphity*, at high and low temperatures. At high energy, the dynamics is invariant under permutations of the vertices. There is no notion of locality, i.e., the entire universe is one-edge adjacent to any vertex. Said differently, there is no notion of a subsystem, in the sense of a local neighborhood, since the neighborhood of any vertex is the entire $K_N$. The microscopic degrees of freedom, $\mu$atter, are the states of the link spaces. They evolve under the Hamiltonian in a time parameter which plays the same role as lowering the temperature.

The ground state is a graph with far less edges than $K_N$. For the purposes of this essay, the naive geometric interpretation of the ground state graph as a lattice geometry, with distances given by graph geodesics, etc, will be sufficient to see that the ground state is a graph of very large diameter corresponding to a low-dimensional lattice. Permutation invariance breaks to translations. In addition, by enlarging the link state spaces and choosing an appropriate Hamiltonian we obtain matter, photons and fermions, in the ground state via the mechanism of string net condensation of Levin and Wen . Subsystems can be defined as subgraphs of the ground state or, better, as the emergent matter excitations, and the dynamics of the emergent matter is local.

Quantum graphity is an explicit model of geometrogenesis. In addition, in such a model, observable effects of emergent locality such as its imprint on the CMB can be studied . Finding the right dynamics for the desired ground state is ongoing work. I do not want in this essay to discuss the merits and challenges of this model but just use the network based universe to illustrate geometrogenesis.

|  |  |  |
|:---|:---|:---|
| High energy | $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{geometrogenesis}\\
 \longrightarrow\\
\end{array}$ | Low energy |
|  |  |  |
| <embed src="FqxiKn.pdf" /> |  | <embed src="fqxihex.pdf" /> |
|  |  |  |
| $\bullet$ permutation symmetry |  | $\bullet$ translations |
| $\bullet$ no locality |  | $\bullet$ local |
| $\bullet$ relational |  | $\bullet$ relational |
| $\bullet$ no subsystems |  | $\bullet$ subsystems |
| $\bullet$ external time |  | $\bullet$ external and internal time |
| $\bullet$ $\mu$atter |  | $\bullet$ matter + dynamical geometry |

The two phases of quantum graphity.

In summary, we can use a dynamical network of quantum relations to describe a universe without geometry. There is no need to assign any geometric properties to the network, it can simply be thought of as a quantum information processor. In general, an information theoretic perspective is useful in studying emergence of geometry as it allows us to work with dynamical but "disembodied" (or "degeometrized") systems .

We have argued geometry is not fundamental, instead quantum gravity is a theory of geometrogenesis. We also illustrated geometrogenesis in a concrete model. With this in mind, what does our no geometry perspective tells us about time, diffeomorphisms and gravity?

# Keeping track of time*s*

It should now be clear that there are two possible notions of time: the time related to the $g_{00}$ component of the metric describing the geometry at low energy and the time parameter in the fundamental microscopic Hamiltonian. Let us call the first *geometric time* and the second *fundamental time*. In our geometrogenesis context, it is clear that the geometric time will only appear at low energy, when geometry appears. The problem of the emergence of geometric time is the same as the problem of the emergence of space, of geometry. "Time does not exist" refers to geometric time. By making the geometry not fundamental, we are able to make a distinction between the geometric and the fundamental time, which opens up the possibility that, while the geometric time is a symmetry, the fundamental time is real. By distinguishing the two notions of time we may be able to have our cake and eat it: emerging geometric time from fundamental time is not remotely as intractable as dealing with a fully timeless world.

It is important to note that the relation between geometric and fundamental time is non-trivial and that the existence of a fundamental time does not necessarily imply a preferred geometric time.

# We are inside the Universe

The advantage, and the challenge, of the no-geometry perspective to quantum gravity is to understand how the Einstein equations – gravity – can arise in this new context. This would complete the answer to the problem of time, and provide a quantum theory of gravity, and is the final question I want to raise in this essay. A warning is due: since we do not have the completed quantum theory of gravity (yet), this part of the essay is meant to suggest and provoke a discussion rather than convince.

*"Faking" independent geometric degrees of freedom.* One can object to the statement that fundamentally geometry does not exist by pointing out that general relativity has independent geometric degrees of freedom. Doesn't quantum gravity have to have independent microscopic degrees of freedom corresponding to geometry?

This is not true. It is a basic principle of emergence that the collective is often not well described by the dynamics of the constituents. It can appear to have a life of its own and can be described as if governed by rules that are independent of the microscopic constituents. The lesson of "more is different" is that the collective may appear to have independent degrees of freedom.

As an example, think what we mean by society. We have capitalist societies, agricultural societies, totalitarian societies. We can describe the features of each and are not at all confused when we hear phrases such as "our society is addicted to credit" or "society made him do X". But a society does not exist independent of its members. It is the actions, beliefs and expectations of people that form the society. To a certain extend, when things are in equilibrium we can study societies as entities of their own and ignore the people. Out of equilibrium, in turbulent times, we would certainly not be surprised when the actions of individuals are not negligible perturbations to the system but truly affect it.

While this analogy is not perfect, I am suggesting that we can see spacetime geometry as the analogue to society, with the role of individuals played by matter and its dynamics. Near equilibrium, geometry can appear to have independent degrees of freedom. However, that is not really the case, and we next argue that this gives rise to the Einstein equations.

*Gravity and diffeomorphisms.* General relativity is a cosmological theory, meaning that it describes the entire universe. In a cosmological theory all observables refer to information measurable by observers inside the universe. In , we demanded that this is the case and found that this requires modifying the algebra of observables so that they only give truth values in the backwards light cone. In its quantum form, this means that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is unphysical.

We usually think of the Einstein equations as "matter tells geometry where to go and geometry tells matter how to curve". In this essay we have taken a new step: geometry is nothing but the collective organization of emergent matter. This leads to a new way to view the Einstein equations: there is no surprise that $T_{\mu\nu}$ and $R_{\mu\nu}$ are inter-related, they are different facets of the same thing. In quantum graphity, $\mu$atter becomes both geometry and matter. This is a concrete realization of the conjecture of : Starting with a pre-geometric quantum system, extract effective excitations and use the same excitations to describe both the geometry metric field and curvature and the matter stress-energy tensor. Such a unified approach will result in these two not being independent but satisfying the Einstein equations as identities (to lowest order).

If this conjecture is true, the task for the no-geometry perspective is to *explain* the Einstein equations and gravity rather than quantize. If this is indeed the true content of the Einstein equations, then diffeomorphism invariance, the symmetry of the Einstein equations, is nothing more than the expression that we are trapped inside a system that appears to have a life of its own, but really its no more than our collective actions.

The disappearance of geometric time dictated by diffeomorphism invariance may be a statement about being inside the universe and not about whether fundamental time exists.

# We can keep time if we throw out space

In this essay I argued that the problem of time is really a paradox that can be traced to taking spacetime geometry too seriously, beyond its domain of applicability. Timelessness refers only to the geometric time, not the microscopic fundamental time. Fundamental time exists but space, geometry and gravity do not.

In the discussion I clearly left out a number of issues that are essential to the nature of time, such as the role of observers, quantum mechanics or the arrow of time. Partly this is because all of these are subtle and a sensible treatment would require more space than what is available here. But the real reason is that, in my opinion, a non-geometric physics is essential to progress in these fundamental questions and all of these issues should be re-examined in the no-geometry context.

The ultimate background independent theory is not one where the physics is independent of the background but the one with *no* background. Background independence means to make no distinction between geometry and matter and to describe the dynamics of the universe as seen by observers inside it. Diffeomorphisms are not about timelessness but about being inside a dynamical universe, affecting it and being affected by it, constituting it.


abstract: The method of lowest-order constrained variational, which predicts reasonably the nuclear matter semi-empirical data is used to calculate the equation of state of beta-stable matter at finite temperature. The Reid soft-core with and without the N-$\Delta$ interactions which fits the N-N scattering data as well as the $UV_{14}$ potential plus the three-nucleon interaction are considered in the nuclear many-body Hamiltonian. The electron and muon are treated relativistically in the total Hamiltonian at given temperature, to make the fluid electrically neutral and stable against beta decay. The calculation is performed for a wide range of baryon density and temperature which are of interest in the astrophysics. The free energy, entropy, proton abundance, etc. of nuclear beta-stable matter are calculated. It is shown that by increasing the temperature, the maximum proton abundance is pushed to the lower density while the maximum itself increases as we increase the temperature. The proton fraction is not enough to see any gas-liquid phase transition. Finally we get an overall agreement with other many-body techniques, which are available only at zero temperature.
address: $^{a,b}$Physics Department, Tehran University, Tehran Iran
  $^{a,b}$Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Tehran, Iran
  $^{a}$Center for Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, P.O.Box 11365-8486, Tehran, Iran
author: M. Modarres$^{a}$ and H. R. Moshfegh$^{b}$
title:  LOCV Calculation for Beta-Stable Matter at Finite Temperature

# Introduction

The prediction of equation of state of hot and dense nuclear matter has been a subject of growing interest in nuclear physics and astrophysics. Such matter under such unusual conditions, beside of various nuclear physics applications, it is likely to be produced through stellar collapse, supernova explosion, neutron stars etc. \[1\].

On the other hand, it is believed that at extremely high density, deconfinement can take place and the hadronic matter may make a transition to the quark matter. So the properties of transition points depend on the equation of state of hadronic matter.

It is well known that the presence of leptons is also crucial since the star matter have to be equilibrated against the weak leptonic-decay. So the increase of charged leptons with certain baryonic density will finally turns to a large fraction of neutron density. However, other negatively charged baryons such as $\Sigma^-$ hypron may also become energetically more favorable \[2\].

In order to study such systems one needs a good many-body techniques to provide an accurate description of the equation of state, entropy and other thermodynamics variables of hot nucleonic matter.

In a series of papers the lowest order constrained variational (LOCV) method has been developed \[3-8\] for calculating the properties of homogeneous nuclear fluids with realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction. This approach has been further generalized to include more sophisticated interactions such as the $V_{14}$ \[8\], the $AV_{14}$ and the new argonne $AV_{18}$ \[8\] as well as the Reid \[3\] and $\Delta$-Reid \[3\] potentials. For a wide range of models our LOCV calculation agrees well with the results of fermion hypernetted chain (FHNC) calculations where these have performed and for a number of central potentials there is agreement with the essentially exact numerical solutions obtained by Monte Carlo technique \[3\]. Despite this agreement for model problems, there has been some dispute about convergence of LOCV results in calculation employing realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions which are strongly spin-dependent and which, in particular, contain a sizeable tensor force. This argument was tested by us by calculating the energy of the three-body cluster contribution in nuclear matter and the normalization integral $<\psi \mid \psi
>$ both at zero and finite temperature \[4,7\]. It was shown that $<\psi \mid \psi>$ is normalized within one percent and the three-body cluster energy is less than one MeV for $k_f \leq 1.6 fm^{-1}$. Our LOCV calculation is a fully self-consistent technique and is capable of using the well-defined phenomenological potentials such as $\Delta$-Reid (the modified Reid potential with an allowance of $\Delta (1234)$ degree of freedom, see Modarres and Irvine \[3\]) potential. The $\Delta$ state is most important configuration which modifies the nuclear force and it might be at the origin of understanding of three-body forces \[9\]. The results suggest that the LOCV method reasonably describes the nucleonic-matter properties at zero and finite temperature.

On the other hand, our recent calculation at zero temperature \[8\] with $V_{14}$ and $V_{18}$ potentials show the same behavior and a very good agreement was found with more sophisticated calculation such as the fermion hypernetted chain method (FHNC) \[10\].

With respect to the above arguments, in this work we shall attempt to calculate the properties of beta-stable matter at finite temperature by using the Reid and $\Delta$-Reid potential and investigate the behavior of proton abundance with the temperature and density of baryonic matter.

Brueckner theory \[11\] and variational FHNC \[12\] have been also applied to beta-stable matter but only for zero temperature. So we can also compare our result with above calculations.

The paper is planed in the following steps: The beta-stable matter free energy is explained in section II. Section III is devoted to a short description of the lowest order constrained variational method. Finally in section IV we present the results and discussion.

# The beta-Stable matter free-energy

The free energy of beta-stable matter is written as the sum of free energy of the leptonic $(F_L)$ and the baryonic $(F_B)$ parts : $$F=F_L+F_B$$ The nucleons are assumed to interact through one of the realistic N-N interactions i.e. Reid, $\Delta$-Reid and $V_{14}$ potentials. The requirement of charge neutrality implies that we can ignore the electromagnetic interactions and the week interactions are neglected.

The total baryon number density $n_B$ is the sum of the proton and neutron number densities $$n_B=n_p+n_n$$ and the condition of electrical neutrality requires: $$n_p=n_e+n_{\mu}$$ (here we ignore $\tau$ leptons because of its large rest mass respect to two other leptons.)

The leptons form two highly relativistic fermi seas. The contribution to the energy per baryon from these fermi seas is, $$E_L=(\Omega n_B)^{-1}\sum_{i=e,\mu}\sum_{k,\sigma}
[\varepsilon_i(k)+m_ic^2]f_i(k)$$ where $$\varepsilon_i(k)=[\hbar^2k^2c^2+m_i^2c^4]^{1/2}-m_ic^2$$ and $$f_i(k)=[\exp((\varepsilon_i(k)-\mu_i)\beta)+1]^{-1}$$ is the familiar Fermi-Dirac distribution with $\beta={1 \over {K{\cal T}}}$ ($K$ is the Boltzman factor). $\mu_i$ are the chemical potentials of the $i$th pecies of particle.

For zero temperature, $E_L$ can be calculated analytically and it take the following form: $$E_L(T=0)=\sum_{i=e,\mu}{{m_i^4c^5}\over{8\pi^2\hbar^3n_B}}[x_i(1+x_i^2)^{1/2}
(2x_i^2+1)-\sinh^{-1}x_i]$$ where $$x_i={{{\hbar}k_i}\over{m_ic}}$$ and $k_e$ and $k_{\mu}$ are the electron and muon Fermi momenta respectively. The chemical potentials $\mu_i$ (or Fermi seas in case of ${\cal T}=0$) are related through condition of beta stability i.e. $$\mu_n-\mu_p=\mu_e=\mu_\mu$$ For ${\cal T}=0$ the second equality in above equation implies that $$m_ec^2(1+x_e^2)^{1/2}=m_{\mu}c^2(1+x_{\mu}^2)^{1/2}$$ while for ${\cal T}\neq0$ the chemical potentials are fixed by the various particle number densities i.e. $$n_i=(\Omega^{-1}) \sum_{\sigma,k} f_i$$ and the second equality in equation (9) should be fullfiled numerically. It is clear that as far as $\mu_e$ is less than the rest-mass of muon we will not have any muon in the matter.

The first equality in equation (9) is satisfied by minimizing the total free energy respect to the proton number density $n_p$.

Then the leptonic free energy per baryon can be written as $$F_L=E_L-{\cal T}S_L$$ where $$S_L=S_e+S_\mu$$ and $$S_i=K(\Omega n_B)^{-1}\sum_{k,\sigma}(1-f_i(k))
\ln (1-f_i(k))+f_i(k) \ln (f_i(k))$$ Finally we write the baryonic free energy as $$F_B=E_B-{\cal T}S_B$$ where $$S_B=S_p+S_n$$ with definitions of $S_i$ from equation (14) and Fermi-Dirac distribution of equation (6), but with $\varepsilon_i={{\hbar^2k_i^2}\over{2m_i^\ast}}$. $m_i^\ast$ are the proton and neutron effective masses and they will be treated variationally. The baryonic internal energy is $$E_B=T_B+E_B^{MB}$$ where the kinetic energy part has the following form (the baryons are treated non-relativistically), $$\begin{aligned}
T_B=\sum_{i=n,p}{n_i\over n_B}({3\over 5}{{\hbar^2}\over{2m_i}}k_i^2
+m_ic^2)\hspace{2.79cm}if\hspace{1.5cm} {\cal T}=0\nonumber\\
\hspace{3.5cm}=(\Omega n_B)^{-1}\sum_{k,\sigma}\sum_{i=p,n}
[{{\hbar^2k^2}\over{2m_i}}+m_ic^2]
f_i(k)\hspace{1.5cm}if \hspace{1.5cm}T\neq 0
\end{aligned}$$ and $k_n$ and $k_p$ are the familiar neutron and proton fermi momenta, respectively. The many-body energy term $E_B^{MB}$ will be discussed in the next section.

# The LOCV formalism and $E_B^{MB}$ calculation

The calculation follows exactly that of asymmetric nuclear matter calculation of reference \[6\]. We consider an ideal Fermi gas type wave function for the single particle states. Then using variational techniques, we can write the wave function of interacting system as, $$\psi={\cal F}_{\cal T}\Phi^{\cal T}$$ where $${\cal F}_{\cal T}={\cal S} \prod_{i>j} f(ij)$$ The Jastrow correlation functions $f(ij)$ are operators that act on spin, isospin and relative coordinate variables of particles $i$ and $j$ and $\cal S$ is a symmetrizing operator which is necessary, since the $f(ij)$ do not commute. The unitariness of ${\cal F}_{\cal T}$'s usually cause the problem of nonorthogonality of different states. But since at low temperature only the one quasi particle-type states are important and these states have different total momentum, they can be considered to be orthogonal.

Now, using the above trial wave function, we can construct a cluster expansion for the expectation value of the following Hamiltonian, $$H=\sum_i-{{\hbar^2}\over{2m}}\nabla_i^2 + \sum_{i<j}v_{ij}$$ where $v_{ij}$ is a two-nucleon potential that fit the nucleon-nucleon scattering data and deuteron properties. In this work we will mainly focus on the Reid \[3\] and $\Delta$-Reid \[3\] interactions. Since, regarding our previous works, the $\Delta$-Reid interaction can reasonably reproduce the nuclear matter properties \[3,8\]. We will also use the $UV_{14}$ plus density dependence three-body potential in order to compare our result with others \[12\] at zero temperature.

In the cluster expansion series, we keep only the first two terms of energy functional: $$E_B([f])={1\over A} {{<\psi \mid H \mid \psi>}\over{<\psi \mid \psi>}}=
E_1+E_2$$ $E_1$ is independent of $f(ij)$ and is simply the Fermi-gas kinetic energy of baryons $T_B$ which already has been discussed in equation (18). While the two-body energy $E_2$ is written as $$E_2= {1\over {2A}} \sum_{ij}<ij \mid{\cal V}(12)\mid ij>_a$$ where $${\cal V}(12)=-{{\hbar^2} \over {2m}}[f(12)\  ,\  [\nabla_{12}^2\   ,\  f(12)
]]+f(12)v(12)f(12)$$ and the two-body antisymmetrized matrix element $<ij \mid {\cal V} \mid ij>_a$ is take with respect to the single-particle wave function $\Phi^{\cal T}$.

We minimize the two-body energy $E_2$ with respect to the variations in functional $f(ij)$ but subject to normalization constraint \[3,8\], $${1 \over A}\sum_{ij}<ij \mid h^2(12)-f^2(12) \mid ij>_a=0$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
h=[1-{1 \over 2}({{\gamma_i(r)}\over {n_B}})^2]^{-{1\over 2}}
\hspace{1cm}  n-n \hspace{.25cm}and  \hspace{.25cm}p-p \hspace{.25cm}
channel\nonumber\\
\hspace{1.5cm}=1\hspace{6.15cm} n-p \hspace{.25cm} channel
\end{aligned}$$ with ($i=p,n$) $$\gamma_i(r)={4 \over {(2 \pi )^3}}\int f_i(k)J_0(kr) \, d\bf{k}$$ The above constraint forces the cluster series to converge very rapidly and we can approximate $E_2$ by $E_B^{MB}$ i.e. the many-body contribution to the internal energy.

The detail about the Euler-Lagrange differential equations, the boundary conditions and the channel break down of $E_2$ have been discussed in references \[3,6\].

# Results and Discussion

The equilibrium configuration of beta-stable matter is obtained at each total baryon number density $n_B$ and temperature ${\cal T}$ by minimizing the total free energy $F$ with respect to the two-body correlation functions, effective masses and proton abundance $n_p/n_B$ subject to the constraints of equations (2),(3), (9) and (25).

In figure 1 we plot our calculated free energy per baryon number at different temperatures for the Reid and $\Delta$-Reid potentials. This figure can be compared with our previous calculation for pure neutron matter \[5\] (figure 2). It is seen that beta-stable matter has softer equation of state than pure neutron matter and as we expected the free energy per baryon decreases with increasing temperature at constant density. But with increasing the density the free energy shows an increasing trend for given temperature. Inclusion of isobar, increases the free energy and makes it more density dependent.

The relative proton abundance, $y_p={{n_p}\over{n_B}}$, for the Reid and the $\Delta$-Reid potentials at different temperatures is plotted in figure 3. It is seen that $y_P$ increases at low baryon density as we increase the temperature and the maximum value of $y_P$ is pushed to the lower baryon density by an increase in the temperature. This shows that at high temperatures the beta-stable matter with higher proton abundance tends to lower its baryon density. This effect is much larger in case of the $\Delta$-Reid interaction.

The proton abundance peak is due to this fact that the system takes the advantage of the spin-triplet tensor components in the Reid (or $\Delta$-Reid) interaction and by maximizing the proton density at given baryon density makes the free energy lower. Since the $\Delta$-Reid interaction has more repulsive components, like $^1S_0\rightarrow \  ^1D_5$ transition, the peak is happened in lower baryon density.

In figure 4 the proton, electron and muon number density are plotted against baryon number density at $K {\cal T}=5$ and $20$ MeV. We find that $n_e, n_{\mu}$ and $n_p$ increase by increasing temperature at low baryonic density while their maximum values become lower as we increase the temperature. The entropy of proton, electron and muon are plotted versus baryonic density in figures 5 and 6 for the Reid and $\Delta$-Reid potentials at different temperatures. It is seen that the entropy of proton and electron increase very rapidly with increasing the temperature at low densities while for the muon's entropy we find a peak for given temperature. The baryon density in which the muon's entropy becomes maximum goes to lower densities as we increase the temperature.

In figure 7 we compare our beta-stable results for $y_p$ with those of Wiringa et al. (WFF) \[12\] and Baldo et al. (BHF) \[11\] for $UV_{14}$ and ${AV_{14}}$ potentials at zero temperature. We get quite good agreement with them especially at low baryonic densities. For $n_B \geq .5$ the BHF calculation increases while our results and WFF decreases. Our results with Reid and $\Delta$-Reid potentials at zero temperature are also given for comparison.

We would conclude by pointing out that we have carried out a calculation of beta-stable matter using techniques, which we believe to be more reliable than Brueckner calculation especially at higher densities ($n_B \geq 0.2 fm^{-3}$) and it is comparable with the variational hypernetted chain method. It was seen that the extra degree of freedom offerd by beta decay leads to a slight softening of the equation of state, as one would expect. We found that, the maximum values of proton abundance which are predicted by the Reid and $\Delta$-Reid potentials are much smaller than $UV_{14}$ and $AV_{14}$ potentials and they happened in much lower baryonic densities. Increasing the temperature of the beta-stable matter increases the proton abundance in low densities. This effect becomes more stronger when $\Delta$-Reid interaction is considered. In general, the proton fraction is not enough to se the gas-liquid phase transition. It also dose not reach the critical value of about 15 percent needed for the occurrence of direct Urca Processes which believed to be responsible for a fast neutron star cooling \[1\]. However it was shown that the temperature may play a great role to reach to higher percentage of proton abundance and lower baryonic density.

Finally the equation of state of beta-stable is more soften than neutron matter and the effect of temperature may influence the behavior of dense matter and the structure of neutron star.