1: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb, twocolumn]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

3: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

4: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

5: 

6: 

7: %\bibliographystyle

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: 

11: \title{Symmetry  Supporting a Transition to Zero Cosmological Constant State}

12: 

13: 

14: \author

15: {E. I. Guendelman \thanks{guendel@bgu.ac.il} and A.  B. Kaganovich

16: \thanks{alexk@bgu.ac.il}}

17: \address{Physics Department, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer

18: Sheva 84105, Israel}

19: 

20: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

21:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: In a number of previous publications we demonstrated that the Two

25: Measures Field Theory (TMT) enables to resolve the old

26: cosmological constant (CC) problem avoiding the Weinberg's no-go

27: CC theorem and together with this TMT agrees with all tests of the

28: Einstein's general relativity and allows inflationary scenarios.

29: Analysis performed in the present paper shows that there exists an

30: intrinsic  symmetry of TMT which emerges in the $\Lambda =0$

31: ground state. This symmetry contains a subgroup of inversion of

32: the sign of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}\to -g_{\mu\nu}$ studied

33: recently by a number of authors as the symmetry imposing zero CC.

34: We show that realization of this idea in TMT is free of fine

35: tuning and has no problems typical to other approaches.

36: 

37: \end{abstract}

38: 

39:    \pacs{04.20.Cv, 11.30.-j}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy

40:                              % Classification Scheme.

41: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

42:                               %display desired

43: \maketitle

44: 

45: If the cosmological constant (CC) indeed equals zero the genuine

46: reason of the exact cancelation of all contributions to the vacuum

47: energy density is the most  intriguing puzzle of

48:  field theory and cosmology. One could expect that there is

49: going to be a chance to solve the old CC problem\cite{Weinberg1}

50: if the CC term is forbidden by some symmetry.  Recently two

51: related approaches have been discussed in literature: one is based

52: on the idea\cite{'t Hooft} to postulate a symmetry with respect to

53: a transformation towards imaginary values of the space-time

54: coordinates $x^{\mu}\to ix^{\mu}$;

55: other\cite{reflection1},\cite{reflection2} postulates  a symmetry

56:  transformation changing the sign of the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}\to

57: -g_{\mu\nu}$. These approaches encounter a number of very serious

58: problems concerning boundary conditions, surviving of  Standard

59: Model, etc..

60: 

61: A softer realization of the idea of a symmetry imposing zero CC

62: consists of the hypothesis\cite{'t Hooft} that such a symmetry

63: emerges only in the vacuum. However in this case the theory must

64: also dynamically provide a zero vacuum energy state without fine

65: tuning. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate that the

66: Two Measures Field Theory (TMT) possesses exactly these features.

67: In fact, in a number of our papers\cite{GK1},\cite{GK2} has been

68: demonstrated that the TMT enables to resolve the old CC problem

69: avoiding the Weinberg's no-go CC theorem\cite{Weinberg1} and

70: together with this TMT agrees\cite{GK3} with all tests of the

71: Einstein's general relativity (GR) and allows inflationary

72: scenarios\cite{GK2}. In the present paper we show that the fine

73: tuning free transition to the $\Lambda =0$ ground state in TMT and

74: the emergence of an intrinsic TMT symmetry group (we call Einstein

75: symmetry) are effects mutually supporting each other.

76: Transformations of the Einstein symmetry involve the inversion

77: $g_{\mu\nu}\to -g_{\mu\nu}$. Here $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric

78: tensor used in the underlying action where the space-time turns

79: out to be non-Riemannian generically. During the process of the

80: transition to the $\Lambda =0$ vacuum state, the Einstein symmetry

81: manifests itself dynamically and in particular $g_{\mu\nu}$

82: oscillates about zero. But the metric tensor in the Einstein frame

83: is always regular.

84: 

85: TMT is a generally coordinate invariant theory where  the

86: effective action for 'gravity $+$ matter' at energies below the

87: Planck scale has  the form\cite{GK1}-\cite{GK3}

88: \begin{equation}

89:     S = \int L_{1}\Phi d^{4}x +\int L_{2}\sqrt{-g}d^{4}x

90: \label{S}

91: \end{equation}

92:  including two Lagrangians $ L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$ and two

93: volume measures $\sqrt{-g}$ and $\Phi$. One is the usual measure

94: of integration $\sqrt{-g}$ in the 4-dimensional space-time

95: manifold equipped with the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. Another  is the

96: new measure of integration $\Phi$ in the same 4-dimensional

97: space-time manifold defined

98:  by means of  four scalar fields $\varphi_{a}$

99: \begin{equation}

100: \Phi

101: =\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon_{abcd}\partial_{\mu}\varphi_{a}

102: \partial_{\nu}\varphi_{b}\partial_{\alpha}\varphi_{c}

103: \partial_{\beta}\varphi_{d}, \quad a=1,2,3,4

104: \label{Phi}

105: \end{equation}

106: 

107: One should pay attention  that {\it the measure} $\Phi$ {\it is

108: sign indefinite}. This fact turns out very important for problems

109: studied in the present paper  and it is a basic difference from

110: the attempts in Refs.\cite{reflection1},\cite{reflection2} to

111: realize a symmetry changing the sign of the volume element. In

112: Measure Theory\cite{signed} a sign indefinite measure is known as

113: "signed measure".

114: 

115: In  TMT it is assumed that the Lagrangian densities $ L_{1}$ and

116: $L_{2}$ are functions of all matter fields,  the metric, the

117: connection but not of the "measure fields" $\varphi_{a}$. In such

118: a case, i.e. when the measure fields  enter in the theory only via

119: the volume measure $\Phi$ in the form as in

120:   the action (\ref{S}),  the theory possesses

121: an infinite dimensional symmetry\cite{GK1}.  One can hope that

122: this symmetry should prevent emergence of a measure fields

123: dependence in $ L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$ after quantum effects are taken

124: into account.

125: 

126: Finally, TMT is formulated in the first order formalism, that is

127: all fields, including also metric, connection and the  measure

128: fields $\varphi_{a}$ are taken as independent dynamical variables.

129: All the relations between them are results of equations of motion.

130: In particular, the independence of the metric and the connection

131: means that the relation between them is not necessarily according

132: to Riemannian geometry. If we were proceed in the second order

133: formalism then the theory would be different from TMT we have

134: studied in Refs. \cite{GK1}-\cite{GK3}, see\cite{Comelli} and

135: references therein.

136: 

137: Except for the listed assumptions we do not make any changes as

138: compared with principles of the standard field theory in curved

139: space-time. In other words, all the freedom in constructing

140: different models in the framework of TMT consists of the choice of

141: the concrete matter content and the Lagrangians $ L_{1}$ and

142: $L_{2}$ that is quite similar to the standard field theory.

143: 

144: Since $\Phi$ is a total derivative, a shift of $L_{1}$ by a

145: constant, $L_{1}\rightarrow L_{1}+const$, has no effect on the

146: equations of motion. Similar shift of $L_{2}$ would lead to the

147: change of the constant part of the Lagrangian coupled to the

148: volume element $\sqrt{-g}d^{4}x $. In the standard GR, this

149: constant term is the CC. However working with the metric

150: $g_{\mu\nu}$ of the underlying action (\ref{S}) we deal with a

151: non-Riemannianin space-time. This is why the relation between the

152: constant

153:  term of $L_{2}$ and the physical CC is very non

154: trivial.

155: 

156: Varying the measure fields $\varphi_{a}$, we get

157: %\begin{equation}

158: $B^{\mu}_{a}\partial_{\mu}L_{1}=0$ where

159: $B^{\mu}_{a}=\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon_{abcd}

160: \partial_{\nu}\varphi_{b}\partial_{\alpha}\varphi_{c}

161: \partial_{\beta}\varphi_{d}$.

162: %\label{varphiB}

163: %\end{equation}

164: Since $Det (B^{\mu}_{a}) = \frac{4^{-4}}{4!}\Phi^{3}$ it follows

165: that if $\Phi\neq 0$ (i.e. except for possible topological defects

166: where $\Phi$ might be zero)

167: \begin{equation}

168:  L_{1}=sM^{4} =const

169: \label{varphi}

170: \end{equation}

171: where $s=\pm 1$ and $M$ is a constant of integration with the

172: dimension of mass. Variation of the metric $g^{\mu\nu}$ gives

173: \begin{equation}

174: \xi\frac{\partial L_1}{\partial g^{\mu\nu}}+\frac{\partial

175: L_2}{\partial g^{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}L_2 =0, \quad

176: \text{where}\quad \xi\equiv \frac{\Phi}{\sqrt{-g}}

177: \label{g-mu-nu-varying}

178: \end{equation}

179: is the scalar field build of the scalar densities $\Phi$ and

180: $\sqrt{-g}$.

181: 

182: We study  models with  the Lagrangians of the form

183: \begin{equation}

184: L_1=-\frac{1}{\kappa}R(\Gamma, g)+L_1^m, \quad

185: L_2=-\frac{b_g}{\kappa}R(\Gamma, g)+L_2^m \label{L1L2}

186: \end{equation}

187:  where $\Gamma$ stands

188: for affine connection, $R(\Gamma,

189: g)=g^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}(\Gamma)$,

190: $R_{\mu\nu}(\Gamma)=R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\lambda}(\Gamma)$ and

191: $R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\sigma}(\Gamma)\equiv \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu

192: ,\sigma}+ \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\sigma}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}-

193: (\nu\leftrightarrow\sigma)$. Dimensionless factor $b_g$ in front

194: of $R(\Gamma, g)$ in $L_2$ appears because there is no reason for

195: couplings  of the scalar curvature to the measures $\Phi$ and

196: $\sqrt{-g}$ to be equal. We choose $b_g>0$ and $\kappa =16\pi G$.

197: $L_1^m$ and $L_2^m$ are the matter Lagrangians which can contain

198: all possible terms compatible with postulated symmetries.

199: 

200: Since the measure $\Phi$ is sign indefinite, the total volume

201: measure $(\Phi +b_g\sqrt{-g})$ in the gravitational term

202: $-\kappa^{-1}\int R(\Gamma, g)(\Phi +b_g\sqrt{-g})d^4x$ in the

203: action (\ref{S}) is generically also sign indefinite.

204: 

205: Applying the Palatini formalism  one can show\cite{GK1}-\cite{GK3}

206: that in addition to the Christoffel's connection coefficients, the

207: resulting relation between connection and metric includes also the

208: gradient of $\xi$. Consequently geometry of the space-time with

209: the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is non-Riemannian if $\xi\neq const.$. In

210: particular, the covariant derivative of $g_{\mu\nu}$ with this

211: connection is nonzero (nonmetricity). The gravity and matter field

212: equations obtained by means of the first order formalism contain

213: both $\xi$ and its gradient as well. It turns out that at least at

214: the classical level, the measure fields $\varphi_a$ affect the

215: theory only through the scalar field $\xi$.

216: 

217: For the class of models (\ref{L1L2}), the consistency of

218: Eqs.(\ref{varphi}) and (\ref{g-mu-nu-varying}) implies the

219: following algebraic equation

220: \begin{equation}

221: (\xi -b_g)(sM^4-L_1^m)+g^{\mu\nu}\left(\xi \frac{\partial

222: L_{1m}}{\partial g^{\mu\nu}}+\frac{\partial L_2^m}{\partial

223: g^{\mu\nu}}\right)-2L_2^m=0 \label{Constr-original}

224: \end{equation}

225: which determines  $\xi(x)$ as a local function of matter fields.

226: Note that the geometrical object $\xi(x)$ has no its own dynamical

227: equation of motion and its space-time behavior is totally

228: determined by the matter fields dynamics via

229: Eq.(\ref{Constr-original}). Together with this, since  $\xi$

230: enters into the matter field equations, it generically has

231: straightforward effects on the matter dynamics through the forms

232: of potentials, variable fermion masses and

233: selfinteractions\cite{GK1}-\cite{GK3}.

234: 

235: With the new metric defined by the transformation

236: \begin{equation}

237: \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=(\xi +b_{g})g_{\mu\nu}, \label{gmunuEin}

238: \end{equation}

239: the connection $\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$ becomes equal to the

240: Christoffel connection coefficients of the metric

241: $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and the space-time turns into (pseudo)

242: Riemannian. This is why the set of dynamical variables using the

243: metric $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ we call the Einstein frame. It is very

244: important that {\it the transformation} (\ref{gmunuEin}) {\it is

245: not a conformal} one since $(\xi +b_{g})$ is sign indefinite. But

246: $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the regular pseudo-Riemannian metric.

247: Gravitational equations (\ref{g-mu-nu-varying}) in the Einstein

248: frame take canonical GR form\cite{GK1}-\cite{GK3}

249: \begin{equation}

250: G_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g}_{\alpha\beta})=\frac{\kappa}{2}T_{\mu\nu}^{eff}

251: \label{gef}

252: \end{equation}

253: where  $G_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g}_{\alpha\beta})$ is the Einstein

254: tensor in the Riemannian space-time with the metric

255: $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and the energy-momentum tensor

256: $T_{\mu\nu}^{eff}$  depends on $\xi$

257:   which is a local function of matter

258:   fields resulting from Eq.(\ref{Constr-original}) rewritten in the Einstein frame.

259: 

260: Let us now turn to intrinsic symmetry of TMT which can reveal

261: itself in a model with only the measure $\Phi$. Indeed, if in

262: Eq.(\ref{L1L2}) $b_g=0$ and $L_2^m\equiv 0$ then

263: Eq.(\ref{Constr-original}) reads

264: \begin{equation}

265: L_1^m-g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial L_1^m}{\partial g^{\mu\nu}}=sM^4,

266: \quad {\text if} \quad\xi\neq 0. \label{Constr-L2=0}

267: \end{equation}

268: If in addition $L_1^m$ is homogeneous of degree 1 in $g^{\mu\nu}$

269: then the integration constant $M$ must be zero. The simplest

270: example of a model for $L_1^m$ satisfying this property is the

271: massless scalar field. In such a case the theory is invariant

272: under the local transformations

273:  \begin{eqnarray}

274: &&\Phi(x)\rightarrow\Phi^{\prime}(x)=J(x)\Phi(x),\nonumber\\

275: &&g_{\mu\nu}(x)\rightarrow

276: g^{\prime}_{\mu\nu}(x)=J(x)g_{\mu\nu}(x) \label{LES}

277: \end{eqnarray}

278: where $J(x)=

279: Det(\frac{\partial\varphi^{\prime}_{a}}{\partial\varphi_{b}})$ is

280: the Jacobian of a transformation

281: $\varphi_{a}\rightarrow\varphi^{\prime}_{a}=

282: \varphi^{\prime}_{a}(\varphi_{b})$ in the space of the scalar

283: fields $\varphi_{a}$. This symmetry was studied in earlier

284: pulications\cite{GK1} where we called it the local Einstein

285: symmetry (LES).

286: 

287: Consider now linear transformations in the space of the scalar

288: fields $\varphi_{a}$

289: \begin{equation}

290: \varphi_{a}\rightarrow\varphi^{\prime}_{a}= A_a^b\varphi_{b}+C_b,

291: \quad a,b=1,2,3,4 \label{linear-trans}

292: \end{equation}

293: where $A_a^b=constants$, $C_b=constants$. Then LES (\ref{LES}) is

294: reduced to transformations of the global Einstein symmetry (GES)

295: with $J=det(A_a^b)=const$. The  feature of the Einstein symmetry

296: we did not discuss before consists in the existence of $\Bbb Z_2$

297: subgroup of the sign inversions when $J=-1$:

298: \begin{equation}

299: \Phi\rightarrow -\Phi, \quad g_{\mu\nu}\rightarrow

300: -g_{\mu\nu}\label{reflection}

301: \end{equation}

302: that, as we will see below, is very important for understanding

303: what happens in the transition to a $\Lambda =0$ state.

304: 

305: LES as well as GES appear to be explicitly broken if $L_1^m$ is

306: not a homogeneous function of degree 1 in $g^{\mu\nu}$, for

307: example as in the model where $L_1^m$ describes a scalar field

308: with a nontrivial potential. The Lagrangian $L_2^m$ generically

309: breaks the Einstein symmetry too. The transformation of GES

310: originated by the infinitesimal linear transformations

311: $\varphi_a(x)\rightarrow\varphi^{\prime}_a(x)=

312: (1+\epsilon/4)\varphi_a(x)$, $\epsilon =const.$, yields the

313: following variation of the action $(\ref{S})$ written in the form

314: $S=\int{\cal L}d^4x$ where ${\cal L}=\Phi L_1+\sqrt{-g}L_2$:

315: \begin{equation}

316: \delta S=\int\left[-\frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial

317: g^{\mu\nu}}g^{\mu\nu}+

318: L_1\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial\varphi_{a,\mu}}\varphi_{a,\mu}\right]\epsilon

319: d^4x. \label{deltaS}

320: \end{equation}

321: The first term in (\ref{deltaS}) equals zero on the mass shell

322: giving the gravitational equation (\ref{g-mu-nu-varying}); recall

323: that we proceed in the first order formalism. Integrating the

324: second term by part, using Eq.(\ref{varphi})  and the definition

325: (\ref{Phi}) of the measure $\Phi$, we reduce the variation

326: (\ref{deltaS}) to $\delta S=\epsilon\int\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}d^4x$

327: where $\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}=sM^4\Phi$ and

328: $j^{\mu}=sM^4B^{\mu}_a\varphi_a$. In the presence of topological

329: defects with $\Phi =0$, Eq.(\ref{varphi}) does not hold anymore

330: all over space-time, and one should keep $L_1$ in the definition

331: of the current: $j^{\mu}=L_1B^{\mu}_a\varphi_a$.

332: 

333: 

334: To present the result in the generally coordinate invariant form

335: one has to use the covariant divergence. However when doing this

336: using the original metric we encounter the non-metricity problem.

337: It is much more transparent to use the Einstein frame

338: (\ref{gmunuEin}) where the space-time becomes pseudo-Riemannian

339: and the covariant derivative of the metric $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$

340: equals zero identically. Thus with the definition

341: $j^{\mu}=\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}J^{\mu}$, using the definition of $\xi$

342: in Eq.(\ref{g-mu-nu-varying}) and the transformation to the

343: Einstein frame (\ref{gmunuEin}) we obtain

344: \begin{equation}

345: \tilde{\nabla}_{\mu}J^{\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}}\partial_{\mu}

346: \left(\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}J^{\mu}\right)=sM^4\frac{\xi}{(\xi +b_g)^2}

347: \label{covar-conserv-J}

348: \end{equation}

349: 

350: As one should expect, when $L_2\equiv 0$ and $L_1^m$ is

351: homogeneous of degree 1 in $g^{\mu\nu}$, i.e. in the case of

352: unbroken GES, the current is conserved because in this case the

353: integration constant $M=0$. Let us consider now more realistic

354: model including gravity as in Eqs.(\ref{L1L2}) and a scalar field

355: $\phi$ with

356: \begin{equation}

357: L_1^m=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu}-V_1(\phi),\quad

358: L_2^{m}=\frac{b_{\phi}}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu}-V_2(\phi)

359: \label{model}

360: \end{equation}

361: The appearance of the dimensionless factor $b_{\phi}$ is explained

362: by the fact that normalizing all the fields such that their

363: couplings to the measure $\Phi$ have no additional factors, we are

364: not able in general to provide the same in the terms describing

365: the appropriate couplings to the measure $\sqrt{-g}$. Generically

366: $b_{\phi}\neq b_g$ that yields a nonlinear kinetic term (i.e. the

367: $k$-essence type dynamics) in the Einstein frame\cite{GK2}. But

368: for purposes of the present paper it is enough to take a

369: simplified model with $b_{\phi}= b_g$ (which is in fact a fine

370: tuning) since the nonlinear kinetic term has no qualitative effect

371: on the CC problem.

372: 

373: The TMT procedure consists of using the least action principle

374: with respect to  all the dynamical variables, as the first step,

375: and in the second step one should rewrite all equations of motion

376: in the Einstein frame.

377: %\footnote{If one to try to make the

378: %transformation to the Einstein frame directly in the underlying

379: %action and vary the new dynamical variables, then the result will

380: %be different. This happens because the transformations making use

381: %the scalar $\xi$ are non-canonical. Therefore acting in this way

382: %we vary the non-canonical variables.}.

383: The field equations of the

384: model (\ref{model}) written in the Einstein frame include the

385: Einstein equations (\ref{gef}) with the energy-momentum tensor

386: \begin{equation}

387: T_{\mu\nu}^{eff}=\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu}-\frac{1}{2}

388: \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}\tilde{g}^{\alpha\beta}\phi_{,\alpha}\phi_{,\beta}

389: +\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}V_{eff}(\phi;\zeta,M),

390:  \label{Tmunueff}

391: \end{equation}

392: where putting $M$ in the arguments of $V_{eff}$ we indicate

393: explicitly that $V_{eff}$ incorporates our choice for the

394: integration constant $sM^4$

395: \begin{equation}

396:  V_{eff}(\phi;\zeta ,M)=

397: \frac{b_{g}\left[sM^{4}+V_{1}\right] -V_{2}}{(\zeta +b_{g})^{2}},

398: \label{Veff1}

399: \end{equation}

400:  and the $\phi$-equation

401: \begin{equation}

402: \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}}\partial_{\mu}\left(\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}

403: \tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\phi\right)+\frac{\partial

404: V_{eff}}{\partial\phi}=0.

405:  \label{phi-eq}

406: \end{equation}

407:   As we

408: will see soon, the $\xi$-dependence of $V_{eff}(\phi;\xi ,M)$ in

409: the form of inverse square like $(\xi +b_{g})^{-2}$ has a key role

410: in the resolution of the old CC problem in TMT. One can show that

411: if quantum corrections to the underlying action generate

412: nonminimal coupling like  $\propto R(\Gamma,g)\phi^2$ in both

413: $L_1$ and $L_2$, the general form of the $\xi$-dependence of

414: $V_{eff}$ remains similar: $V_{eff}\propto (\xi +f(\phi))^{-2}$,

415: where $f(\phi)$ is a function. The fact that only such type of

416: $\xi$-dependence emerges in $V_{eff}(\phi;\zeta ,M)$, and a

417: $\xi$-dependence is absent for example in the numerator of

418: $V_{eff}(\phi;\xi ,M)$, is a direct result of our basic assumption

419: that $L_1$ and $L_2$ are independent of the measure fields.

420: 

421: The scalar field $\xi$ in $V_{eff}(\phi;\zeta,M)$ is determined as

422: the solution of Eq.(\ref{Constr-original}) which reads now

423: \begin{equation}

424: (\xi -b_g)\left[sM^4+V_1(\phi)\right]+2V_2(\phi)=0

425: \label{xi-solution}

426: \end{equation}

427: and it results in the finite form of $V_{eff}(\phi)$:

428: \begin{equation}

429:  V_{eff}(\phi)=

430: \frac{(sM^{4}+V_{1})^2}{4[b_g(sM^4+V_1)-V_{2}]}. \label{Veff2}

431: \end{equation}

432: 

433: For an arbitrary nonconstant function $V_1(\phi)$ there exist

434: infinitely many values of the integration constant $sM^4$ such

435: that  $V_{eff}(\phi)$ has the {\it absolute minimum} at some

436: $\phi=\phi_0$ with $V_{eff}(\phi_0)=0$ (provided

437: $b_g[sM^4+V_1(\phi)]-V_2(\phi)>0$). This happens {\bf without any

438: sort of fine tuning} as $sM^4+V_1(\phi_0)=0$ . When the scalar

439: field $\phi$ rolls down its absolute minimum, the scalar

440: $|\xi|\to\infty$ and, according to Eq.(\ref{covar-conserv-J}),

441: $\tilde{\nabla}_{\mu}J^{\mu}\to 0$. Thus, the

442:  {\em GES explicitly broken in the underlying action, emerges in

443: the vacuum which, as it turns out, has zero energy density. And

444: vice versa, emergence of GES due to $|\xi|\to\infty$ implies,

445: according to Eq.(\ref{Veff1}), a transition to a $\Lambda =0$

446: state}.

447: 

448: Other way to understand what happens when the dynamical evolution

449: of the gravity$+$scalar field $\phi$ -system pushes

450: $|\xi|\equiv|\Phi|/\sqrt{-g}\to\infty$, is to look at the

451: underlying action (\ref{S}),(\ref{L1L2}),(\ref{model}). It is

452: evident that in this limit the second term in (\ref{S}) becomes

453: negligible in comparison with the first one, and therefore the

454: only remaining term which breaks the GES is $-\int V_1(\phi)\Phi

455: d^4x$. However, as $|\xi|\to\infty$, the consistency condition

456: (\ref{Constr-original}) takes the form (\ref{Constr-L2=0}) which

457: is equivalent to the condition $V_1(\phi_0)+sM^4=0$ where $\phi_0$

458: is such a value of $\phi$ that the integration constant $sM^4$

459: compensates $V_1(\phi_0)$ exactly. The constancy of $\phi$ means

460: that this is the stable vacuum state, and as we have seen above it

461: has zero energy density. On the other hand, the appearance of the

462: integration constant $sM^4$ (see Eq.(\ref{varphi})) is the

463: intrinsic feature of TMT resulting from the presence of the

464: measure $\Phi$ in the underlying action. Thus we conclude that

465: {\it the effect of the measure $\Phi$ in the transition to a

466: $\Lambda =0$ state consists in the dynamical damping of all terms

467: breaking the GES}.

468: 

469: To see in more details characteristic features of the transition

470: to a $\Lambda =0$ state it is worth to look at the appropriate

471: cosmological solution in a simple model. Let us consider a model

472: (\ref{L1L2}), (\ref{model}) with $V_1=\frac{1}{2}\mu_1^2\phi^2$,

473: $V_2=V_2^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\mu_2^2\phi^2$; notice that adding a

474: constant to $V_1$ does not effect equations of motion. We take

475: negative integration constant, i.e. $s=-1$, and the only

476: restriction on the values of the integration constant $M$ and the

477: parameters is that denominator in (\ref{Veff2}) is positive.

478: 

479: Consider spatially flat FRW universe with the metric in the

480: Einstein frame $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=diag(1,-a^2,-a^2,-a^2)$, where

481: $a=a(t)$ is the scale factor. Without any sort of fine tuning, the

482: cosmological solution ends with the transition to a $\Lambda =0$

483: state. The characteristic features of this transition are

484: presented in Figs.1 and 2. In the phase plane of the scalar $\phi$

485: (Fig.2) one can see the oscillatory behavior of $\phi$ around the

486: absolute minimum $\phi_0$ where the energy density equals zero

487: (for illustrative purposes the parameters are chosen such that

488: $V_{eff}=(M^2/2b_g)(\phi^2-M^2)^2/(\phi^2+4M^2)$ and $\phi_0=\pm

489: M$). Four graphs in Fig.1 show behavior of components of the

490: metric $g_{\mu\nu}=(\xi +b_g)^{-1}\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ (used in the

491: underlying action where the space-time is non-Rimannian), of the

492: measure $\Phi$ and the scalar in the r.h.s. of

493: Eq.(\ref{covar-conserv-J}).  All these quantities tend zero via

494: oscillations around zero. {\bf Solution with such type of

495: oscillations becomes possible because the GES and its subgroup of

496: the sign inversions} (\ref{reflection}) {\bf emerges near the

497: $\Lambda =0$ vacuum state}. Notice that  the measure $\Phi$ and

498: the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ pass zero  only in a discrete set of

499: moments during the transition to the $\Lambda =0$ state. Therefore

500: there is no problem with the condition $\Phi\neq 0$ used in the

501: solution. Also there is no problem with singularity of

502: $g^{\mu\nu}$ in the underlying action  since $\Phi g^{\mu\nu}$ is

503: always finite. The metric in the Einstein frame

504: $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is always regular because irregularity of

505: $g_{\mu\nu}$ is compensated in Eq.(\ref{gmunuEin}) by singularity

506: of the ratio of two measures $\xi\equiv\Phi/\sqrt{-g}$.

507: 

508: Qualitatively the same relation between the fine tuning free

509: transition to $\Lambda =0$ state and emergence of the GES holds in

510: all  TMT models of the form (\ref{S}),(\ref{L1L2}),(\ref{model})

511: with a non-trivial dynamics and, in particular, in the scale

512: invariant models\cite{G},\cite{GK2}. This will be shown in a

513: longer paper.

514: 

515: We acknowledge M. Lin, E. Nissimov and S. Pacheva for

516: clarification of the meaning of signed measure. One of us (E.G.)

517: thanks M. Duff for discussions on the subject of the paper.

518: 

519: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

520: %\bibliography{}

521: 

522: \bibitem{Weinberg1}

523: S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 61}, 1 (1989).

524: 

525: \bibitem{'t Hooft}

526: S. Nobbenhuis, Found. Phys. {\bf 36}, 613 (2006); G.'t Hooft, S.

527: Nobbenhuis, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 23}, 3819 (2006).

528: 

529: \bibitem{reflection1}

530: R. Erdem, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 621}, 11 (2005); ibid. B{\bf 639}, 348

531: (2006); J. Phys. A{\bf 40}, 6945 (2007).

532: 

533: \bibitem{reflection2} M.J. Duff, J. Kalkkinen, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 758}, 161

534: (2006); B{\bf 760}, 64 (2007).

535: 

536: \bibitem{GK1} See E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, {\it Phys.

537:  Rev.} D{\bf 60}, 065004 (1999) and references therein.

538: 

539: \bibitem{GK2} See E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich,  Phys. Rev. D{\bf }75, 083505

540: (2007) and references therein.

541: 

542: \bibitem{GK3}

543: E. Guendelman, A. Kaganovich,  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A{\bf 17}, 417

544: (2002); {\bf 21}, 4373 (2006); arXiv: 0704.1998 [gr-qc].

545: 

546: \bibitem{signed} D.L. Cohn, {\it Measure

547: Theory}, Birkhauser, Boston, 1993.

548: 

549: \bibitem{Comelli}

550: D. Comelli, arXiv:0704.1802 [gr-qc].

551: 

552: \bibitem{G}

553: E.I. Guendelman, Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 14}, 1043 (1999).

554: 

555: \end{thebibliography}

556: 

557: %\newpage

558: %\begin{widetext}

559: \begin{center}

560: \begin{figure}[htb]

561: \includegraphics[width=16.0cm,height=12.0cm]{together_normal.eps}

562: %\caption{}

563: \nonumber

564: \end{figure}

565: \end{center}

566: %\end{widetext}

567: 

568: 

569: %\begin{figure}[htb]

570: %\includegraphics[width=9.0cm,height=4.0cm]{rho.eps}

571: %\caption{}\label{fig1}\end{figure}

572: %\begin{figure}[htb]

573: %\includegraphics[width=10.0cm,height=7.0cm]{Phi_g00_gii_Current.eps}

574: %\caption{}\label{fig3}\end{figure}

575: 

576: 

577: 

578: 

579: \end{document}

580: