1: %Topology
2: %
3: % by Janna Levin
4: %
5:
6: \documentstyle[11pt,epsf]{article}
7: \input psfig.sty
8:
9: \def\double{\baselineskip 24pt \lineskip 10pt}
10:
11:
12: \textheight 8.5in
13: \textwidth 6in
14: \oddsidemargin 0pt
15: \topmargin -30pt
16:
17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
22: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
23: \def\cb{{\sc cobe--dmr\,}}
24: \def\ah{{\bf H}^3}
25: \def\es{{\bf S}^3}
26: \def\eu{{\bf E}^3}
27: \def\cq{C(\hat n, \hat n^\prime)}
28: \def\spc{{\xi_{\Phi}}}
29: \def\vx{{\bf \vec x}}
30: \def\vxp{{\bf {\vec x}^\prime}}
31: \def\pow{{{\cal P}_\Phi}}
32: \def\hn{\hat n}
33: \def\hnp{\hat n^\prime}
34: \def\gta{\mathrel{
35: \hbox to 0pt{\lower
36: 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}\hss}\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
37:
38: \def\lta{
39: \mathrel{\hbox to
40: 0pt{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}\hss}\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
41:
42:
43: \def\double{\baselineskip 24pt \lineskip 10pt}
44: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
45:
46: \begin{document}
47:
48: \begin{titlepage}
49:
50: \begin{flushright}
51: %gr-qc/\\
52: %DAMTP
53: \end{flushright}
54:
55: \vspace{.5in}
56:
57: \begin{center}
58: \huge
59: {\bf Topology and the Cosmic Microwave Background}
60:
61: \vspace{.5in}
62: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}
63:
64: \large{
65: Janna Levin}
66:
67: \normalsize
68: \vspace{.2in}
69:
70: {\em DAMTP, CMS, Cambridge University, \\
71: Wilberforce Rd, Cambridge CB3 0WA, U.K.\\
72: j.levin@damtp.cam.ac.uk \\
73: and\\
74: Theoretical Physics Group, Imperial College, London}
75:
76:
77: \vspace{.5in}
78:
79: \begin{abstract}
80:
81: Nature abhors an infinity. The limits of general
82: relativity are often signaled by infinities:
83: infinite curvature as in the center of a black hole, the infinite energy
84: of the singular big bang. We might be inclined to add an infinite universe
85: to the list of intolerable infinities. Theories that move beyond general
86: relativity naturally treat space as finite. In this review we discuss
87: the mathematics of finite spaces and our aspirations to observe the finite
88: extent of the universe in the cosmic background radiation.
89:
90:
91:
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \end{center}
95:
96:
97:
98: \end{titlepage}
99:
100:
101:
102:
103: \tableofcontents
104:
105: \newpage
106:
107: \section{Introduction}
108: \label{introduction}
109: \setcounter{equation}{0}
110:
111: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
112:
113: Is the universe infinite? The universe had a birth and will
114: have a death, whether from old age
115: or a more catastrophic demise through
116: a big crunch. With the advent
117: of general relativity, cosmology has accepted space as an
118: evolving geometry. Although the universe is believed to
119: begin and end a dynamical life, we continue to ascribe
120: a property to the universe that we would never assign to any other
121: natural object, and that is the property of being spatially infinite.
122:
123: The universe is home to a plethora of structures
124: all of which must be finite. It would be
125: untenable to suggest that any physical structure be infinite, yet
126: cosmologists often cavalierly assume space itself is infinite.
127: Yet an infinite universe means an infinite number of stars and
128: galaxies and people. By the
129: law of probability an infinite universe
130: accommodates an infinite number of events each happening
131: an infinite number of times \cite{{lum},{css_cqg}}. Somewhere else
132: in the cosmos, you are there. In fact there are an infinite number
133: of you littering space.
134: An infinite number of us living the same lives and
135: an infinite number living slightly different lives and all range of
136: variants.
137: While this concept of infinity is manageable to some, it
138: reeks of something pathological to others.
139: Is the universe a surreal object, unlike any of its inhabitants, or is it
140: real and physical and limited and finite?
141:
142: If the universe is finite, then light will wrap around the finite
143: space decorating the sky with ghost images, sometimes called clone images.
144: In principle we should be able to see copies of ourselves at different
145: ages in different directions. A kaleidescopic version of `This is your
146: life'. In practice, the universe does not appear to be
147: so small. The universe,
148: if finite, must at least be big. Big enough to house clusters of galaxies
149: and perhaps even bigger than the entire light travel time since the big
150: bang. Therein lies our question. If the universe is finite, how small
151: is it, and how do we measure its shape?
152:
153: The question of the infinite extent of space is often answered
154: dynamically by Einstein's theory.
155: If the
156: amount of matter and energy
157: is underdense then the universe will expand forever,
158: if overdense then the universe will ultimately
159: recollapse to a big crunch, and if critical then
160: the universe will expand forever.
161: To each of these dynamical possibilities corresponds a geometry
162: of spacetime:
163: the underdense cosmos is negatively curved and infinite,
164: the overdense cosmos is positively curved and finite
165: and the critical cosmos is flat and infinite.
166:
167: Each of these three geometries can support topologies with finite volumes
168: without altering the dynamics or the curvature. Multiconnected
169: topologies are often overlooked in favor of the simply connected
170: possibilities. This oversight is encouraged
171: by a limitation of Einstein's theory which elevates gravity to
172: a theory of geometry but does not provide a theory of topology.
173: If unification of gravity with the other forces ever succeeds,
174: topology will inevitably be integrated as a predictive feature of
175: any cosmology. The topology of additional compact dimensions is
176: already understood to be a crucial feature in superstring theories
177: and, in general,
178: discretization of space into topologically finite bundles is a natural
179: consequence of quantization \cite{lum}. No one is good enough at
180: quantum gravity or string theory
181: to make a prediction for the geometry and shape of
182: the whole universe. Still the requirement of extra topologically
183: compact dimensions has become a commonplace notion in fundamental physics
184: even if it seems esoteric in astronomy.
185: The first suggestion of compact extra dimensions began with Kaluza back
186: in Einstein's day and have been dressed up in the modern guise of
187: superstring theories since. Even if we can never see the extent of the
188: large three dimensions, we may be able to look for small extra dimensions
189: to find clues about the geometry of the cosmos.
190:
191:
192: In the absence of a predictive theory we can
193: still explore the mathematical possibilities for a finite universe.
194: This review covers
195: topologies consistent with
196: the standard cosmological
197: geometries
198: and
199: our aspirations to observe
200: the global extent of space in patterns in the oldest historical
201: relic accessible, the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
202: Methods to determine topology from the CMB range from the geometric such
203: as the search for circles
204: in the sky \cite{{css1},{css2},{css_cqg}}and topological pattern formation
205: \cite{{conf},{pat},{imogen}}
206: to the brute force statistical methods
207: such as the method of images \cite{{bpsI},{bpsII}}. These methods will
208: be explained in turn.
209: This review is intended both for mathematicians interested in cosmology
210: and cosmologists interested in the mathematics of topology.
211: Not much will be taken for granted and we will take the time
212: to explain even the standard cosmology.
213:
214:
215:
216: Topology
217: can be observed with the CMB or with the distribution of collapsed objects
218: such as quasars or clusters of galaxies.
219: There are reviews on galactic methods
220: \cite{{galreviews1},{galreviews2}}.
221: To keep the scope of this article manageable we
222: will limit our discussion to searches for artifacts of topology
223: in the CMB and
224: defer a discussion of galactic methods to the reviews
225: in Ref.\ \cite{{galreviews1},{galreviews2},{roukreview}}.
226: (see also Refs. \cite{{ghosts1},{ghosts2}}.)
227: Also, much of the
228: history on topology
229: can be found in an earlier review \cite{lum}.
230: Other accessible reviews can be found in Refs.
231: \cite{{thursweeks},{glennpop}}.
232: Collections of papers for two international workshops can be found in
233: \cite{cqg} and \cite{ctp98}.
234: The observational section in this review will focus on recent
235: methods only, starting where Ref.\ \cite{lum} left off.
236:
237: \newpage
238:
239:
240: \section{Topology and Geometry}
241: \label{mathsection}
242:
243: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
244:
245: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
246: \label{topintro}
247:
248: Cosmic topology aims
249: to deduce the global shape of the universe
250: by experimentally observing
251: a pattern in the distribution of astronomical objects.
252: To do so, it is helpful to first understand the possible topologies from
253: a purely mathematical perspective. The isotropy of the cosmic
254: microwave background radiation implies that the curvature of the observable
255: universe is very nearly constant, so in the present article we consider
256: only manifolds of constant curvature. The homogeneity of the observable
257: universe does not, of course, exclude the possibility that the curvature
258: of space varies enormously on a global scale beyond our view, but because
259: that hypothesis is presently untestable we do not pursue it here.
260: By the same reasoning, we are most interested in multiconnected spaces that are
261: small enough to witness, although
262: theories beyond general relativity, such as string
263: theory, may help us to push beyond those limitations
264: (see \S \ref{extradsect}).
265: There is a previous Physics Reports on cosmic topology which provides
266: an excellent overview of the mathematical principles
267: \cite{lum}. The reader is encouraged to consult that article
268: as well as Refs.\ \cite{{wolf},{ellis}}. We will not repeat these
269: detailed reviews but do survey the same topological methods for
270: completeness and extend the discussion to include some additional
271: modern methods.
272:
273: The global shape of any space, including the ultimate outerspace,
274: is characterized by a {\it geometry} and a {\it topology}.
275: The term {\it geometry}, as used by mathematicians,
276: describes the local curves while {\it topology} describes global features which
277: are unaltered by smooth deformations.
278: A continuous transformation is known as a {\it homeomorphism}, a smooth
279: continuous and invertible map which deforms one manifold into another
280: without cutting or tearing. General relativity is not invariant
281: under homeomorphisms but is invariant under
282: {\it diffeomorphisms}, which amount to a change of coordinates.
283: It is this covariance of classical gravity which underlies
284: the principles of general relativity. Covariance ensures
285: that all observers experience the same laws of physics regardless of
286: the worldline along which they travel and therefore regardless of the
287: coordinate system within which they interpret the world.
288: Relativity does not invoke such a principle with respect to topology.
289: For this reason we do not have a fundamental principle to guide us when
290: contemplating the topology of the universe. We might hope that
291: such a principle or at least a prediction might precipitate
292: from a complete theory of gravity
293: beyond classical. In the meantime, we consider any mathematically
294: allowed topology, restricting ourselves to the constant curvature
295: spaces as indicated by observational cosmology.
296:
297: \subsection{Overview of Geometry}
298: \label{ovgeom}
299:
300: A cosmological principle asserts that the Earth should not be
301: special in location or perspective. Cosmological
302: observations on the largest scales indicate we live in a
303: space with the symmetries of {\it homogeneity}, space is the same in
304: all directions, and {\it isotropy}, space looks the same in all directions.
305: Homogeneous and isotropic manifolds have constant curvature. The
306: $n$-dimensional geometries of constant curvature are the everywhere
307: spherical
308: ${\bf S}^n$,
309: flat ${\bf E}^n$, and hyperbolic
310: ${\bf H}^n$ geometries (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.1}).
311: One natural consequence of curved geometries worth remembering is that
312: the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are greater than
313: $\pi$ on ${\bf S}^n$, exactly $\pi$ on ${\bf E}^n$, and less than $\pi$
314: on ${\bf H}^n$.
315:
316: \begin{figure}
317: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.1.1.ps,angle=-90,width=4.25in}}
318: \vskip 5truept
319: \caption{A homogeneous isotropic space may be spherical (positive curvature),
320: flat (zero curvature), or hyperbolic (negative curvature).}
321: \label{N.2.1.1}
322: \end{figure}
323:
324: In $2D$, all Riemannian surfaces are homeomorphic to the
325: three constant curvature geometries ${\bf S}^2, {\bf E}^2$,
326: and ${\bf H}^2$.
327: The infinite hyperbolic plane ${\bf H}^2$ cannot be drawn properly
328: in $3D$ and so is difficult to visualize. It can be drawn schematically
329: as a surface which everywhere has the curvature of a saddle. A nice
330: way to treat ${\bf H}^2$ is as a pseudosphere embedded in $(2+1)$-Minkowski
331: space. The pseudosphere has the equation
332: $-z^2+x^2+y^2=-1$. The full isometry group of the hyperboloid is
333: $PSL(2,{\bf R})\equiv SL(2,{\bf R})/Z_2$ with
334: $SL(2,{\bf R})$ the special Lorentz group of real
335: $2\times 2$ matrices with unit determinant. The embedding in Minkowski
336: space makes the symmetry group of
337: ${\bf H}^2$ more obvious.
338:
339: The sphere ${\bf S}^2$ can be embedded in
340: Euclidean 3-space
341: as a surface with radius $x^2+y^2+z^2=1$. The isometry group for the sphere
342: is $O(3)$, all orthogonal $3\times 3$ matrices with the absolute value
343: of the determinant equal to one.
344:
345: The plane ${\bf E}^2$ is the infinite surface $(x,y)$ with
346: the Minkowski time coordinate $z$ fixed at unity
347: (see fig.\ \ref{embed}). The Euclidean plane has the
348: full Galilean group of isometries: translations, reflections, rotations
349: and glide reflections.
350: A glide reflection involves a translation with
351: a reflection along the line parallel to the translation.
352:
353: In $3D$, all manifolds are not homeomorphic to the constant
354: curvature manifolds. Instead there are $8$ homogeneous geometries some
355: of which are anisotropic. These $8$ geometries were classified by Thurston
356: in the mathematical literature \cite{{thurclass},{Thurston}}. Cosmologists
357: are more familiar with the equivalent classification of
358: Bianchi into $8$ homogeneous manifolds \cite{Bianchi}.
359: Out of respect for the cosmological principle we will consider the
360: fully homogeneous and isotropic spaces of constant curvature
361: ${\es},{\eu}$, and ${\ah}$. Similar to $2D$, ${\ah}$ can be embedded
362: as a pseudosphere in $(3+1)$-Minkowski space, $\es$ as the sphere and
363: $\eu $ as the plane at fixed Minkowski time.
364: This isometry group
365: of $\es$ is $SO(4)$.
366: The isometry group of
367: $\eu $
368: %is $R^3\times SO(3)$, which
369: is the product of translations and
370: the special orthogonal $3\times 3$ matrices.
371: The isometry group of $\ah$ is
372: $PSL(2,{\bf C})\equiv SL(2,{\bf C})/Z_2$.
373:
374: \subsection{Overview of Topology}
375: \label{ovtop}
376:
377: Topology is the pursuit
378: of equivalence classes of spaces; that is, the classification of
379: homeomorphic manifolds. To a topologist, all surfaces with one
380: handle for instance are equivalent. Thus the doughnut and the coffee cup,
381: in addition to providing a dubious breakfast, provide the quintessential
382: example of equivalent topologies, despite their obviously different
383: geometries (i.e. curves).
384:
385:
386: \begin{figure}
387: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.1.1.1.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
388: \vskip 5truept
389: \caption{The flat 2-dimensional torus is defined by abstractly
390: gluing opposite edges of a square.}
391: \label{N.1.1.1}
392: \end{figure}
393:
394: The doughnut and coffee cup are both manifestations of
395: the 2-dimensional torus (fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.1}),
396: a prototypical multiply connected
397: space. The torus has a finite area, yet has no boundary. When an inhabitant
398: of the torus looks forward (fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.2}), her line of sight wraps around
399: the space and she sees herself from behind. She has the illusion of seeing
400: another copy of herself directly in front of her (fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.3}).
401: Indeed she
402: also sees herself when she looks to the side, or along a 45 degree line,
403: or along any line of rational slope. She thus has the illusion of seeing
404: infinitely many copies of herself (fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.4}). In other words, even
405: though
406: her universe is finite, she has the illusion of living in an infinite
407: universe containing an infinite lattice of repeating objects.
408:
409:
410: \begin{figure}
411: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.1.1.2.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
412: \vskip 5truept
413: \caption{An inhabitant of the 2-torus looks forward and sees
414: herself from behind.}
415: \label{N.1.1.2}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418:
419: \begin{figure}
420: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.1.1.3.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
421: \vskip 5truept
422: \caption{The inhabitant of the 2-torus has the illusion of seeing
423: a copy of herself.}
424: \label{N.1.1.3}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427:
428: \begin{figure}
429: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.1.1.4.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
430: \vskip 5truept
431: \caption{Indeed, the inhabitant of the 2-torus sees a lattice
432: of images of herself.}
433: \label{N.1.1.4}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436:
437: As described below, all multiconnected surfaces can be built by gluing
438: the edges of a fundamental polygon. The torus is built by identifying
439: opposite edges of a parallelogram.
440: If we begin
441: with a flat rectangle, we can bend this flat
442: sheet into three-dimensions to glue the top to the bottom and the left
443: edge to the right. In doing so we have made a torus of revolution
444: as in fig.\ \ref{torus}
445: which is neither flat nor constant curvature. The curvature
446: of the torus clearly varies over the surface. This bending of the
447: torus is an artifact of embedding the surface in $3$-dimensions. A truly
448: flat torus, better known as $T^2=S^1\times S^1$, is content to live in
449: $2D$ with no such bending and projecting into $3D$. The flat torus
450: is akin to the video game with periodic boundary conditions where
451: the left edge is identified with the right edge so that a flat explorer
452: could stick their hand out the right edge only to have it appear poking
453: out of the left edge. The edge in fact is as meaningless to the inhabitant
454: of a flat torus as it is to an inhabitant of the torus of revolution.
455: $T^2$ is truly flat and so has a different geometry from the torus of
456: revolution although they are topologically equivalent, being characterized
457: by the one handle.
458: The genus $g$ of the manifold is a topological invariant which counts
459: the number of handles and holes. The torus has genus $g=1$.
460:
461:
462: \begin{figure}
463: \centerline{\psfig{file=torus.ps,width=1.75in}}
464: \vskip 5truept
465: \caption{The torus of revolution has the same topology as the flat torus
466: but different curvature.}
467: \label{torus}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: The 2-dimensional Klein bottle (fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.5})
471: is similar to the torus, only
472: now the top and bottom of the
473: rectangle are glued not to each other, but each to itself with
474: a shift of half a unit.
475: The traditional way to make a Klein bottle is
476: %Another way to make the Klein bottle is
477: to start with the
478: rectangle, glue top to bottom but glue the left to the right after a
479: rotation through $\pi$.
480: In the present article we use a different (but equivalent)
481: construction (namely gluing the top and bottom each to itself with
482: a shift of half a unit)
483: because it will simplify the construction of flat 3-manifolds
484: in section \ref{threed}.
485: As in the torus an inhabitant has the illusion
486: of seeing an infinite lattice of objects, only now the structure of the
487: lattice is different: it contains glide reflections as well as
488: translations.
489: The truly flat Klein bottle is topologically equivalent to the
490: bottle immersed in $3D$ and pictured in fig.\ \ref{klein}. The embedding again
491: leads to a curved surface and in this case to a self-intersection of the
492: surface. The flat Klein bottle, content to live in $2D$, has no such curvature
493: or self-intersection.
494:
495:
496: \begin{figure}
497: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.1.1.5a.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}\quad\quad
498: \psfig{file=N.1.1.5b.ps,angle=-90,width=2.5in}}
499: \vskip 5truept
500: \caption{Left: The Klein bottle is similar to the torus, only the square's
501: top and bottom edges are each glued to themselves, not to each other.
502: The lattice of images in the Klein bottle is different from
503: that in the torus because it contains glide reflections as well as
504: translations.}
505: \label{N.1.1.5}
506: \end{figure}
507:
508:
509: \begin{figure}
510: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../bk/pics/klein.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
511: \centerline{\psfig{file=klein.ps,width=1.75in}}
512: \vskip 5truept
513: \caption{A surface with the topology of the Klein bottle.}
514: \label{klein}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: These examples generalize readily to three dimensions. A cube (fig.\
518: \ref{cube}) with opposite
519: faces glued is a 3-dimensional torus, or 3-torus.
520: Its inhabitant has the illusion of seeing an infinite 3-dimensional
521: lattice of images of himself and of every other other object in the space.
522: Varying the gluings of the faces
523: varies the structure of the lattice of images.
524: Cosmic topology aims to observe these distinctive lattice-like patterns.
525:
526:
527:
528: \begin{figure}
529: \centerline{\psfig{file=cube.eps,width=1.75in}}
530: \vskip 5truept
531: \caption{3-dimensional lattice of cubes.}
532: \label{cube}
533: \end{figure}
534:
535: \subsection{Tools of Topology}
536: \label{tools}
537:
538: In this preliminary discussion several important concepts have already
539: begun to emerge. The first is the fundamental domain.
540: A {\it fundamental domain} is a polygon or polyhedron from which a manifold
541: may be constructed. For example, fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.1} shows a square fundamental
542: domain for a 2-torus, and fig.\ \ref{cube}
543: shows a cube fundamental domain
544: for a 3-torus.
545: A {\it Dirichlet domain} is a special type of fundamental domain.
546: To construct a Dirichlet domain, pick an arbitrary point in the manifold
547: of interest to serve as a {\it basepoint}. Start inflating a balloon
548: with center at the basepoint (fig.\ \ref{N.1.2.1}) and let the balloon expand
549: uniformly. Eventually different parts of the balloon will bump into
550: each other. When this happens, let them press flat against each other,
551: forming a flat (totally geodesic) boundary wall. Eventually the balloon
552: will fill the whole manifold, at which point it will have the form
553: of a polygon in two dimensions or polyhedron in three dimensions
554: whose faces are the aforementioned boundary walls. This polyhedron is
555: the Dirichlet domain. Gluing corresponding faces recovers the original
556: manifold.
557: Notice that the fundamental rectangular domain for the Klein bottle
558: when glued after a shift of half a unit is not Dirichlet, but when glued
559: after a rotation through $\pi$ is Dirichlet.
560: In some manifolds the Dirichlet domain depends on the choice
561: of basepoint while in others it does not -- more on this later.
562:
563:
564: \begin{figure}
565: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.1.2.1.ps,angle=-90,width=3.in}}
566: \vskip 5truept
567: \caption{Start inflating a balloon, with its center point fixed, and let
568: it expand until it fills the entire space. The resulting polygon
569: (in two dimensions) or polyhedron (in three dimensions) is called
570: a Dirichlet domain. In some manifolds the shape of the Dirichlet domain
571: depends on the choice of the center point; in other manifolds it does not.
572: }
573: \label{N.1.2.1}
574: \end{figure}
575:
576: By identifying the edges of the fundamental domain, a multiconnected space
577: is constructed.
578: Figures \ref{N.1.1.4} and \ref{N.1.1.5}
579: show how an inhabitant of a finite multiply
580: connected space may have the illusion of living in an infinite simply
581: connected space. This apparent space is called the {\it universal
582: cover} and can be thought of as the simply connected manifold with
583: the constant curvature geometry. The fundamental domain is cut from this cloth
584: and glued together while preserving the geometry of the universal cover.
585: So the flat torus preserves the geometry of the universal cover while the
586: torus of revolution does not.
587:
588:
589: The group of {\it covering transformations} is the group of symmetries
590: of the universal cover. That is, it is the group of motions of the universal
591: cover that take images of a given object to other images of the same object.
592: For example, in the case of a torus the group of covering transformations is
593: the obvious lattice of translations. In the case of the Klein bottle the
594: group
595: of covering transformations contains glide reflections as well as
596: translations.
597:
598: In two-dimensions all topologies have been completely
599: classified. We give that classification in \S \ref{twod}.
600: However, in
601: three-dimensions the classification of hyperbolic manifolds remains
602: incomplete although huge advances were made last century.
603: There is a collection of topological invariants which can be used
604: to recognize the equivalence classes of spaces.
605: We have already encountered the {\it genus} of the manifold which
606: counts handles.
607: A group structure can
608: be used to capture handles and thereby detect
609: the connectedness of the space. The most important
610: of these is the loop group also known as the
611: {\it fundamental group} or the first {\it homotopy group}.
612: All loops which can be smoothly deformed into each other
613: are called {\it homotopic}.
614: A loop
615: drawn on the surface of a sphere can be contracted to a point. In
616: fact all loops drawn on the surface of a sphere can be contracted a
617: point. Since all loops are homotopic, the sphere is
618: {\it simply connected}
619: and in fact does not have any handles. If however we draw a loop
620: around the torus of revolution as in fig.\ \ref{torusloops},
621: there is no way to smoothly
622: contract that loop to a point, similarly for a loop drawn around the
623: circumference of the toroid
624: also shown in fig.\ \ref{torusloops} .
625: The torus is therefore {\it multiply connected}.
626: The group of loops
627: is the fundamental group $\pi_1({\cal M})$ and is a topological invariant.
628: In more than $2D$, the fundamental group is not sufficient to determine
629: the connectedness of the manifold. Nonetheless, the fundamental group
630: is a powerful tool.
631: P\" oincar\'e has conjectured that
632: if the fundamental group is trivial, then
633: the $n$-manifold is topologically equivalent to $S^n$.
634:
635:
636: \begin{figure}
637: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../bk/pics/torusloops.ps,width=2.in}}
638: \centerline{\psfig{file=torusloops.ps,width=2.in}}
639: \vskip 5truept
640: \caption{Two homotopically distinct loops around the torus of revolution.}
641: \label{torusloops}
642: \end{figure}
643:
644: A closely related structure is the
645: {\it holonomy group}.
646: The holonomy group can be thought of as the set of instructions
647: for identifying the faces of the fundamental domain.
648: The holonomies act discretely and without fixed point.
649: The holonomy group
650: is
651: a subset of the full
652: isometry group of the covering space.
653: The full symmetries of the universal cover are broken by
654: the identifications and it is customary to represent
655: the compact manifold
656: as a quotient space $G/\Gamma $ where $G$ is the
657: isometry group of the universal cover and $\Gamma $ is the holonomy
658: group.
659: The holonomy group is of extreme utility in the game of cosmic
660: topology. The group provides the set of rules for distributing
661: images throughout the universe and thereby provides
662: the mathematical means by which to determine the geometric distribution
663: of astronomical images in the cosmos. The group is synonymous with
664: the boundary conditions for the manifold and as we will see this is
665: critical for building a prediction for
666: the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.
667:
668:
669: There can be many different representations for the holonomy group.
670: There is often a simplest presentation $\{\gamma_1...\gamma_{n};r\}$
671: where $\gamma_i \in \Gamma$
672: are elements of the group. Implicitly
673: $r=1$ following the semicolon and
674: is a list of all of the relations among the group elements.
675: The most natural presentation for cosmology
676: has a group element, and so a letter,
677: for every identification rule.
678: Such a presentation
679: has many
680: letters and many relations.
681:
682:
683: The holonomies
684: can map the end-point of an orbit to the start of that orbit so
685: that it becomes periodic in the compact space.
686: In other words, a periodic orbit has
687: $x_{\rm end}=\gamma x_{\rm start}$ where $\gamma $ can be a composite
688: word
689: $\gamma=\prod^n_i\gamma_{k_i}$.
690: Each word has a corresponding periodic orbit.
691: %These orbits are not necessarily
692: %unique due to redundancy from the relations which will collapse
693: %some long words to shorter words.
694:
695: \begin{figure}
696: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/sr/embed2.eps,width=2.in}}
697: \centerline{\psfig{file=embed2.eps,width=2.in}}
698: \vskip 5truept
699: \caption{The embedding of ${\bf E}^2$ into $(2+1)$-Minkowski
700: space. The manifold appears
701: as an infinite sheet fixed at $\tau_M=1$.}
702: \label{embed}
703: \end{figure}
704:
705: As an explicit example we return to the canonical torus.
706: We can make use of the embedding of ${\bf E}^2$ in a $(2+1)$-dimensional
707: space.
708: Specifically, the $2$-dimensional coordinate
709: is replaced with the $(2+1)$-dimensional coordinate
710: \be
711: x^a=\pmatrix{\tau_M \cr x \cr y}
712: \ee
713: where $\tau_M$ is fixed at unity as in fig. \ref{embed}.
714: In this coordinate system
715: the holonomy group for the torus is the set of
716: generators,
717: \be
718: T_x=
719: \pmatrix{1 & 0 & 0 \cr
720: L_x & 1 & 0\cr
721: 0 & 0 & 1 },
722: \quad \quad
723: T_y=
724: \pmatrix{1 & 0 & 0 \cr
725: 0&1 & 0 \cr
726: L_y & 0 & 1}.
727: \ee
728: The boundary condition is then $x^a\rightarrow T^a_b x^b$
729: so that identification
730: of the left edge to the right edge results in
731: \be
732: \pmatrix{\tau_M \cr x\cr y\cr}
733: \rightarrow \pmatrix{1 & 0 & 0 \cr
734: L_x & 1 & 0\cr
735: 0 & 0 & 1 } \pmatrix{\tau_M \cr x\cr y\cr}=
736: \pmatrix{\tau_M \cr x+L_x\cr y\cr}
737: \label{leftright}
738: \ee
739: The holonomy group for the torus in this presentation is
740: $\{T_x,T_y;T_xT_yT_x^{-1}T_y^{-1}\}$. The relation
741: $T_xT_yT_x^{-1}T_y^{-1}=1$ is simply the commutivity of the
742: generators and prunes the number of unique periodic orbits
743: and therefore the number of clone or ghost images. Because
744: the generators commute, the periodic orbits (homotopic loops)
745: can be counted symbolically
746: in terms of the number of windings taken around $x$ and around $y$,
747: $(m_x,m_y)$.
748: The number of loops and therefore the number of
749: clone images grows as a polynomial with length.
750: %in the next section (\S \ref{tessellations}).
751: For example, consider the periodic orbit of fig.\ \ref{fund}
752: which has $x_{\rm end}=T_yT_x^2x_{\rm start}$
753: and so winding number $(m_x=2,m_y=1)$.
754:
755:
756: \begin{figure}
757: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/sr/fund0.eps,width=2.in}}
758: \centerline{\psfig{file=fund0.eps,width=2.in}}
759: \vskip 5truept
760: \caption{A
761: periodic orbit on the torus
762: which corresponds to
763: $x_{\rm end}=T_yT_x^2x_{\rm start}$.
764: }
765: \label{fund}
766: \end{figure}
767:
768: The non-orientable Klein bottle
769: first twists the $z$-faces through $\pi$ before
770: identification. The generators of $\Gamma$ for the twisted space
771: are $T_x,R(\pi)T_y$ with $R(\theta)$ the rotation matrix:
772: \be
773: R(\theta)=\pmatrix{1 & 0 & 0 \cr
774: 0 & \cos \theta & \sin \theta \cr
775: 0 & -\sin \theta & \cos \theta}
776: \ \ .
777: \ee
778: All of the multiconnected, flat topologies can be built out of a
779: combination of rotations and these translations.
780:
781: In hyperbolic space, the generators cannot easily be written in functional
782: form but can nonetheless be found with numerical entries in the matrix.
783: The program
784: SnapPea provides the generators explicitly in this embedded coordinate
785: system
786: for a census of known hyperbolic manifolds and orbifolds
787: \cite{snappea}.
788: (Orbifolds can have singular points.)
789: The number of periodic orbits and therefore of ghost images grows
790: exponentially in a compact hyperbolic manifold. The exponential proliferation
791: of images is a manifestation of the chaotic flows supported on compact
792: hyperbolic spaces and discussed in \S \ref{chaossect}.
793:
794:
795: \subsection{Tessellations}
796: \label{tessellations}
797:
798: The modest tools we have introduced go a long way in constructing
799: cosmological models. To summarize we will characterize a manifold by:\par
800: $\bullet $ The {\bf fundamental domain}
801: -- the shape of space around a given basepoint.\par
802: $\bullet $ The {\bf universal cover} -- the simply connected
803: manifold with the same constant curvature geometry.\par
804: $\bullet $ The {\bf holonomy group} --
805: face pairing isometries, i.e.,
806: the rules for identifying the faces
807: of the fundamental domain.\par
808:
809: Armed with these tools, we can begin to visualize life in a finite universe.
810: An important visualization technique comes from a tessellation of the
811: universal cover. Consider the torus again.
812: The flow of an observer or of light can be followed through the compact
813: flat space by conscientiously respecting the boundary conditions and drawing
814: the motion within the fundamental polygon as in fig.\ \ref{fund}.
815: The Dirichlet domain is the set of points
816: \be \{y\in {\cal M}\}\nonumber
817: \ee
818: such that
819: \be d(y,x)\le d(y,\gamma x), \forall
820: \gamma \in \Gamma \ \ .\label{fd}\ee
821: In $T^2$, light
822: travels along straight lines as do all inertial observers.
823: Another faithful representation of $T^2$ which does not distort the everywhere
824: flat nature of the geometry is provided by a tiling picture.
825: Beginning with the fundamental polygon, the periodic boundary condition
826: which identifies the left edge of the rectangle to the right edge for
827: instance can be represented by gluing an identical copy of the fundamental
828: polygon left edge to right edge.
829: This amounts to moving an entire copy of the fundamental domain with
830: $T_x(FD)$.
831: Similarly identical copies can be
832: glued top to bottom
833: $T_y(FD)$
834: ad infinitum until the entire infinite flat plane
835: is tiled with identical copies of the rectangle.
836: In general, the generators of the holonomy group can be thought of as defining
837: an alphabet of $2n$ letters, for $n$ generators and their $n$
838: inverses.
839: The alphabet will vary with different representations, as will the grammar.
840: Usually, though not always, the longer the word
841: built out of the letters $\gamma_i\in \Gamma$,
842: the more distant the corresponding image or tiling
843: in the tessellation picture.
844: Figures \ref{N.1.1.4}, \ref{N.1.1.5}, and \ref{N.1.2.1}
845: demonstrate tessellations.
846: %If there are
847: %$n$ generators and their inverses,
848: %the number of words $N$ grows as
849: %$(2 n-r)^k<N(k)< 2n^k$ where the number of relations prunes
850: %the allowed number of words.
851:
852:
853: These copies are truly
854: identical. If someone stands in the center of one rectangle
855: he will see images of himself standing at the center of every other
856: rectangle. If he moves to the left he will see every copy of himself
857: move left. Because of the finite light travel time, it will take longer
858: to see the more distant images movings. The light from these more distant
859: images takes a longer path around the compact space before
860: reaching the observer, the source of the very image.
861: This creates the pattern of images already described so that the universe
862: is an intricate hall of mirrors.
863:
864: Notice that the tiling completely fills the plane without overlaps or gaps.
865: We can also imagine tiling the plane with a perfect square or even a
866: parallelogram without overlaps or gaps. A flat torus can therefore be
867: made by identifying the edges of these other polygons. All
868: have the same topology and the same curvature but some have different
869: metrical features in the sense that the rectangle is truly longer than it is
870: wide. An observer could line rulers up in space and unambiguously
871: measure that their space was longer than it was wide while an observer
872: in the perfect square would know that their space was equally long and wide.
873: The torus is thus globally anisotropic
874: even though the geometry
875: of the metric is still locally isotropic.
876: The torus is still globally homogeneous.
877: The center could be moved arbitrarily and the
878: fundamental polyhedron redrawn around that center to give an equally valid
879: tiling. Most topologies globally break both homogeneity and isotropy.
880:
881: The holonomies provide the list of rules for identifying the edges of the
882: polygon. So the Klein bottle, while it can begin with the same fundamental
883: polygon as the torus and has the same universal cover, it has a different set
884: of rules for identifying the edges and therefore a different holonomy group.
885: The tiling will be correspondingly different with identical copies
886: glued top edge to bottom edge but left edge to right only after
887: rotating the tile by $\pi$. So the tessellation creates the reflected
888: and translated images specific to the Klein bottle (fig.\ \ref{N.1.1.5}).
889:
890: \begin{figure}
891: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/sr/tile.eps,angle=-90,width=2.in}}
892: \centerline{\psfig{file=tile.eps,angle=-90,width=2.in}}
893: \vskip 5truept
894: \caption{
895: The compact hypertorus can be represented as an identified
896: parallelepiped. Alternatively, the compact topology can be
897: represented
898: by tiling flat space
899: with identical copies of the fundamental
900: parallelepiped. In the tiling picture above
901: only the $(x,y)$ directions are shown.
902: A particular
903: periodic orbit is drawn which corresponds
904: to
905: $x_{\rm end}=T_yT_x^2x_{\rm start}$.
906: }
907: \label{tile}
908: \end{figure}
909:
910:
911: The flat plane can also be tiled by hexagons
912: (fig.\ \ref{N.1.2.1}) as many a bathroom floor
913: demonstrates. The hexagon therefore also reproduces a flat torus.
914: However the
915: general parallelogram and hexagon
916: exhaust the possible convex polygons which can
917: tessellate flat space. If we tried to fill the plane with octagons,
918: we would find that they overlapped at a vertex and could not smoothly
919: fill the plane, as in fig.\ \ref{oct}. If we glue the octagons together without
920: confining them to the plane, they will create a curling surface
921: that tries to have a hyperbolic structure. In fact, the
922: $2D$ hyperbolic plane ${\bf H}^2$ can be tiled by regular octagons.
923: Recall that the angles of a triangle sum
924: to less than $\pi$ in hyperbolic geometry.
925: Since the
926: interior angles of the polygon narrow on the hyperbolic plane, they
927: can be drawn just the right size relative to the curvature scale
928: so that precisely the right number fit around a vertex to fill the
929: negatively curved plane without gaps or overlaps.
930: Notice also, that there is no scale in flat space and there is no
931: intrinsic meaning to the area of the compact torus. It can be made arbitrarily
932: large or small relative to any unit of measure. This is not the case when
933: the surface is endowed with a curved metric. The area is then
934: precisely determined by the topology. The area of the octagon has to
935: be precise relative to the curvature scale to properly tessellate the universal
936: cover.
937:
938: \begin{figure}
939: \centerline{\psfig{file=oct.eps,width=2.5in}}
940: \vskip 5truept
941: \caption{}
942: \label{oct}
943: \end{figure}
944:
945: %\subsubsection{Lit of flat 2D spaces}
946:
947: The topology created by the compact octagon is a double torus
948: $T_2$ where the $2$ refers to the number of handles
949: or genus, g, of the manifold. Hyperbolic $T_2$ is topologically equivalent
950: to the double doughnut of fig.\ \ref{double} which lives
951: in $R^3$ although again $T_2$ has a different
952: geometry, being flat, while the double doughnut is clearly curved.
953:
954:
955: \begin{figure}
956: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../bk/pics/doubletorii.ps,width=2.5in}}
957: \centerline{\psfig{file=doubletorii.eps,width=2.5in}}
958: \vskip 5truept
959: \caption{}
960: \label{double}
961: \end{figure}
962:
963: A connected sum of tori can be constructed to make $T_g$,
964: a flat $2D$ compact surface with $g$ handles. In order to make
965: a $g$ handled object, a polygon with $4g$ edges is needed.
966: The polygons
967: have to be drawn larger relative to the curvature scale the more
968: edges they have in order
969: that the interior angles be thin enough
970: to fit together around a vertex and tile $H^2$. Consequently
971: a relationship emerges between the area of the surface and the topology.
972: The area of the hyperbolic surface can be related to the
973: Poincar\'e-Euler characteristic, $\chi=2(1-g)$ through the
974: Gauss-Bonnet theorem
975: \be
976: A=- 2\pi\chi=4\pi(g-1).
977: \ee
978: Although the area is a topological invariant in $2D$, the lengths need
979: not be fixed. For instance, the asymmetric octagon and the
980: regular octagon have the same topology, namely that of the double
981: doughnut, and the same negative curvature,
982: but they have a different spectrum of periodic orbits.
983:
984: The tessellation of the universal cover is of particular importance when
985: we consider three-dimensional spaces. We simply do not have four dimensions
986: available to us in which to bend the three-dimensional volume and that
987: visualization technique fails us. However, we can still visualize
988: filling the three-dimensional volume with $3D$ tiles which preserve
989: the local geometry of the manifold. Therefore we rely heavily on the
990: universal cover, the fundamental polyhedron and the holonomy group
991: when investigating the topologies of these compact spaces.
992:
993: \subsection{Hyperbolic topologies and Volumes}
994:
995: All 2-dimensional manifolds have been classified, as have
996: flat and spherical 3-manifolds, but hyperbolic 3-manifolds
997: are not yet fully understood.
998: These continue to resist classification although enormous advances were
999: made last century.
1000: An important realization was the rigid connection between metrical quantities
1001: and topological features in hyperbolic three-manifolds.
1002: Metrical quantities describe lengths and would ordinarily fall under the
1003: domain of geometry. Yet in three-dimensions the Mostow
1004: \cite{mp} rigidity
1005: theorem ensures that once the topology is specified, then all metrical
1006: quantities
1007: are fixed for $3$-D hyperbolic manifolds. This means that not only the volume
1008: but also the lengths of the shortest geodesics are immutable for a given
1009: topology.
1010: This is to be compared with $2D$ where a given topology can support an
1011: infinite number of metrics as already described.
1012:
1013: Although the topology fixes the compact hyperbolic
1014: volume, the volume does not uniquely
1015: specify the topology. In other words there can be different topologies
1016: with the same volume.
1017: Because of this powerful link between geometry and topology, compact
1018: hyperbolic manifolds can be ordered according to their volume.
1019: A remarkable result is that compact hyperbolic manifolds form
1020: a countably infinite number of countably infinite sequences ordered
1021: according to volume. A given sequence shows an accumulation of
1022: manifolds near a limiting volume set by a cusped manifold. A cusped
1023: manifold has finite volume but is not compact, having
1024: infinitely long cusped corners which taper infinitely thin.
1025: The cusps are topologically a $2$-torus which is conformally shrunk to
1026: zero down the narrowing throat. The sequence of compact manifolds
1027: are built systematically through the process of Dehn surgery which is used
1028: in the next section to organize the spectrum of topologies. Dehn
1029: surgery is a formal process whereby a torus is drilled out of the cusped
1030: manifold and replaced with a solid torus.
1031: The surgery is taken along a periodic orbit of $T^2$ identified
1032: by the number of windings $(m_x,m_y)$ the orbit takes around
1033: the torus before closure.
1034: The program SnapPea names manifolds according to the number of
1035: windings so that the manifold m003(3,-1) is a compact space constructed by
1036: Dehn filling the orbifold m003 along the periodic orbit with
1037: winding numbers (3,-1).
1038:
1039: The space m003(3,-1) is also known as the Weeks space after the mathematician
1040: who discovered it and coincidentally has contributed to this article
1041: \cite{weekspace}.
1042: The Weeks space is of particular relevance to cosmology since it is
1043: the smallest known manifold with a volume
1044: ${\cal V}\sim 0.94$ in curvature units. The Weeks space displaced
1045: the Thurston space m003(-2,3) which has volume ${\cal V}\sim
1046: 0.98$.
1047: Although the Weeks space is the smallest known manifold it may or may not be
1048: the smallest possible. The current bound on the minimum volume
1049: for any compact hyperbolic manifold is about 0.3 in units of the
1050: curvature radius.
1051: Contrast this with the
1052: flat hypertorus which can be made infinitesimally small.
1053: Again, the rigidity of compact hyperbolic spaces is at work.
1054:
1055: Because of the rigidity of $3D$ hyperbolic manifolds, we can also
1056: characterize a topology by certain volume measures. Very useful quantities
1057: in cosmological investigations are the {\it in-radius} $r_-$ and the
1058: {\it out-radius} $r_+$. The in-radius is the radius of the largest geodesic
1059: ball centered at the origin
1060: which can be inscribed within the Dirichlet domain.
1061: The out-radius is the radius of the smallest geodesic ball
1062: centered at the origin which can
1063: encompass the Dirichlet domain.
1064: The disparity between $r_{-}$ and $_+$ can be taken as a rough indication
1065: of the global anisotropy introduced by the topological identification.
1066: The {\it injectivity radius} is the radius of the largest ball,
1067: centered
1068: at the given point, whose interior embeds the manifold.
1069: %half the length of the shortest geodesic
1070: %at a given point of the manifold.
1071: The Dirichlet domain given by default in SnapPea is centered at a local
1072: maximum of the injectivity radius. In this way it often provides the
1073: most symmetric form for the Dirichlet domain.
1074: Moving the observer away from this basepoint will change the appearance of the
1075: global shape of space observationally.
1076: A somewhat ambiguous but sometimes useful quantity is an estimate
1077: of the
1078: diameter of the manifold. Since the manifold is not isotropic
1079: this is not precisely defined. Nonetheless, one estimation is given by
1080: \be
1081: d_{\cal M}=sup_{x,y\in {\cal M}}d(x,y);
1082: \ee
1083: that is, it is the largest distance between any two points in the Dirichlet
1084: domain.
1085: Notice that it is not a geodesic distance so no periodic
1086: orbit lies along the diameter.
1087: A more well defined diameter is the maximum
1088: distance between two points in the manifold, where the distance is
1089: measured
1090: in the manifold itself, not in the Dirichlet domain:
1091: \be
1092: diam=sup_{x,y} (\inf_{{\rm paths \ connecting}\ x\ {\rm to}\ y}
1093: ({\rm length\ of\ path})).
1094: \ee
1095:
1096: The periodic geodesics are quite important and are closely related
1097: both to the eigenmodes in the space and the distribution of ghost
1098: or clone images. The periodic geodesics can be found with the
1099: holonomy group. The eigenvectors of the holonomy group span a plane
1100: in the $4D$ embedding which intersects the pseudosphere $\ah$.
1101: The line of intersection occurs along the periodic orbit corresponding
1102: to that group element.
1103: A composite element can be thought of as a word formed from
1104: the fundamental alphabet of the presentation.
1105: The fact that the number of words grows exponentially
1106: with length means an exponential growth of long periodic orbits.
1107: The proliferation of periodic orbits, dense in phase space, are the
1108: canonical mark of chaotic dynamics.
1109: This leads us to remark that compact hyperbolic spaces are not just
1110: complicated mathematically but they are truly complex, supporting
1111: chaotic flows of geodesics. Since most cosmological investigations
1112: try to circumvent the chaotic nature of the motions, we mention
1113: chaos only occasionally as we go along. We reserve a final section for a
1114: brief discussion of this fascinating feature. A review of
1115: chaos on the pseudosphere can be found in Ref.\ \cite{bv}.
1116:
1117:
1118:
1119: \newpage
1120: \section{Survey of Compact Manifolds}
1121: \label{overview}
1122:
1123:
1124: Having described the topological principles at work and some
1125: examples, we can compile a list of known manifolds, their geometries
1126: and topologies. The classification is clearly presented in Refs.\
1127: \cite{{lum},{wolf},{ellis}}. We present a different mathematical
1128: approach for variety. The classification is organized by
1129: J. Weeks \cite{jwp} in relation
1130: to four
1131: questions:
1132:
1133:
1134: $1$. What constant curvature manifolds exist?\par
1135:
1136: $2$. How flexible is each manifold? That is, to what extend can we change
1137: a manifold's shape without changing its topology or violating
1138: the constant curvature requirement?\par
1139:
1140: $3$. What symmetries does each manifold have?\par
1141:
1142: $4$. Does a Dirichlet domain for the manifold
1143: depend on the
1144: choice of basepoint?\par
1145:
1146: It turns out that the answers to these questions depend strongly on both
1147: the curvature and the dimension. The remainder of \S \ref{overview}
1148: answers these
1149: questions in each of the six possible cases: that is, in spherical, flat,
1150: or hyperbolic geometry in two dimensions (\S \ref{twod}) or three dimensions
1151: (\S \ref{threed}).
1152:
1153:
1154:
1155: %\subsection{Definitions}
1156: %\label{definitions}
1157:
1158: \subsection{Two-dimensional manifolds}
1159: \label{twod}
1160:
1161: \subsubsection{Overview of two-dimensional manifolds}
1162: \label{twodover}
1163:
1164:
1165: %Another way to classify manifolds is through the process of
1166: %Dehn surgery. Since our need for ever more sophisticated
1167: %mathematical technologies is growing we describe the process
1168: %of Dehn surgery here.
1169:
1170: Every closed surface
1171: may be obtained by starting with a sphere and adding handles
1172: (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.2})
1173: or crosscaps (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.3}).
1174: Each handle is constructed by removing two disks
1175: from the sphere and gluing
1176: the resulting boundary circles to each other (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.2}), and each
1177: crosscap
1178: is constructed by removing one disk and gluing the resulting boundary circle
1179: to itself (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.3}).
1180: Conway found a particularly simple and elegant proof
1181: of this classification; for an illustrated exposition see
1182: Ref.\ \cite{Francis-Weeks}.
1183:
1184:
1185: \begin{figure}
1186: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.1.2a.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}
1187: \psfig{file=N.2.1.2b.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
1188: \vskip 5truept
1189: \caption{To add a handle to a surface, remove two disks and glue the
1190: remaining boundary circles to each other.}
1191: \label{N.2.1.2}
1192: \end{figure}
1193:
1194: The interaction between geometry and topology is a primary theme in our
1195: understanding of 2-manifolds.
1196: The promised interaction between geometry and topology is that each closed
1197: topological surface may be given a constant curvature geometry.
1198: Each closed 2-manifold admits a unique geometry. That is, a surface
1199: which admits a spherical geometry cannot also admit a flat geometry, and so
1200: on.
1201: For an elementary proof see Ref.\ \cite{Shape}. Infinite 2-manifolds,
1202: by contrast, may admit more than one geometry. For example, the Euclidean
1203: plane and the hyperbolic plane are topologically the same 2-manifold.
1204: We organize the surfaces according to the total
1205: number of disks that get removed during the construction
1206: (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.4}).
1207: %[JANNA: FIGURE. N.2.1.4 IS A TABLE WHOSE ROWS ARE THE NUMBER OF DISKS
1208: %REMOVED (0, 1, 2,...) AND WHOSE TWO COLUMNS ARE "HANDLES" AND "CROSSCAPS".
1209: %THE ENTRIES IN THE TABLE ARE THE ILLUSTRATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING
1210: %PARAGRAPHS.]
1211:
1212:
1213: \begin{figure}
1214: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.1.3a.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}
1215: \psfig{file=N.2.1.3b.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
1216: \vskip 5truept
1217: \caption{To add a cross cap to a surface, remove one disk and glue
1218: the remaining boundary circle to itself by identifying antipodal points.
1219: The construction cannot be physically carried out in $R^3$ without
1220: self-intersections, but abstractly the resulting surface has a seam
1221: that looks locally like the centerline of a M\"obius strip.
1222: }
1223: \label{N.2.1.3}
1224: \end{figure}
1225:
1226:
1227: In the case that no disks are removed, we have the sphere.
1228:
1229: In the case that one disk is removed, we draw the sphere-minus-a-disk
1230: as a hemisphere, so that when the boundary circle gets glued to itself
1231: the spherical geometry continues smoothly across the seam from one side
1232: to the other, giving the resulting sphere-with-a-crosscap a uniform
1233: spherical geometry.
1234:
1235:
1236: \begin{figure}
1237: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.1.4.ps,angle=-90,width=2.75in}}
1238: \vskip 5truept
1239: \caption{Topological classification of closed 2-manifolds.
1240: Every closed 2-manifold may obtained from a sphere by
1241: adding either handles (left column) or cross caps (right column).
1242: }
1243: \label{N.2.1.4}
1244: \end{figure}
1245:
1246: In the case that two disks are removed we may have either
1247: a sphere-with-a-handle, better known as a torus, or
1248: a sphere-with-two-crosscaps, better known as a Klein bottle.
1249: We draw the sphere-minus-two-disks as a cylinder. The cylinder has
1250: an intrinsically flat geometry.
1251: You can construct one from a sheet of paper
1252: without stretching, and when you glue its top and bottom of the
1253: rectangle to each other
1254: (for the torus) or each to itself (for the Klein bottle) the flat geometry
1255: continues uniformly across the seams. Thus the torus and the Klein bottle
1256: each has a flat geometry.
1257:
1258:
1259: \begin{figure}
1260: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.1.5a.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}
1261: \psfig{file=N.2.1.5b.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
1262: \vskip 5truept
1263: \caption{A pair of pants can be made from two hexagons. For best results
1264: use hexagons cut from the hyperbolic plane, with all interior angles
1265: being right angles.}
1266: \label{N.2.1.5}
1267: \end{figure}
1268:
1269: In the case that three disks are removed we have a
1270: sphere-with-three-crosscaps,
1271: constructed from a three-way cylinder better known as a {\it pair of
1272: pants}.
1273: The pair of pants may in turn be constructed from two hyperbolic hexagons
1274: (fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.5}), giving it an intrinsically hyperbolic geometry.
1275: When the pants' boundary circles (the cuffs) are glued to themselves
1276: to make the sphere-with-three-crosscaps, the hyperbolic geometry continues
1277: uniformly across the seams. Thus the sphere-with-three-crosscaps also gets
1278: a hyperbolic geometry.
1279:
1280: All remaining surfaces -- those for which four or more disks are removed in
1281: the construction -- may be built from pairs of pants, so all get a
1282: hyperbolic
1283: geometry. In summary, we see that of the infinitely many closed
1284: 2-manifolds,
1285: two admit spherical geometry (the sphere and the sphere-with-crosscap),
1286: two admit flat geometry (the torus and the Klein bottle), and all the rest
1287: admit hyperbolic geometry.
1288:
1289: The next three sections will examine the flat, spherical, and hyperbolic
1290: closed 2-manifolds in greater detail, in each case answering
1291: the four questions raised in \S \ref{ovtop}.
1292:
1293:
1294: \subsubsection{Flat two-dimensional manifolds}
1295: \label{flattwo}
1296:
1297: Manifolds: torus and Klein bottle.
1298:
1299: Flexibility:
1300: The torus has three degrees of freedom in its construction: the height
1301: of the cylinder, the circumference of the cylinder, and the twist
1302: with which the top gets glued to the bottom.
1303: The Klein bottle has only two degrees of freedom in its construction:
1304: the height and circumference of the cylinder. Each end of the cylinder
1305: gets glued to itself, identifying diametrically opposite points,
1306: so there is no twist parameter.
1307:
1308:
1309:
1310: \begin{figure}
1311: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.2.1.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
1312: \vskip 5truept
1313: \caption{The torus has a two-parameter continuous family of symmetries,
1314: consisting of rotations and vertical translations.
1315: }
1316: \label{N.2.2.1}
1317: \end{figure}
1318:
1319: Symmetry:
1320: Continuous symmetries. The torus has a two-parameter continuous family
1321: of symmetries, consisting of rotations and vertical translations
1322: (fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.1}).
1323: This shows that the torus is {\it globally homogeneous}
1324: in the sense that any point may be taken to any other point
1325: by a global symmetry of the manifold.
1326: The Klein bottle has only a one-parameter continuous family of
1327: symmetries,
1328: consisting of rotations (fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.2}). It is globally inhomogeneous.
1329: When diametrically opposite points on a boundary circle are glued to make
1330: a crosscap, the seam is a closed geodesic that looks locally like
1331: the centerline of a M\"obius strip. Points lying on this centerline are
1332: fundamentally different from other points in the manifold.
1333:
1334:
1335: \begin{figure}
1336: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.2.2.ps,angle=-90,width=1.75in}}
1337: \vskip 5truept
1338: \caption{The Klein bottle has continuous rotational symmetry, but
1339: any attempt at vertical translation is blocked by the cross caps.}
1340: \label{N.2.2.2}
1341: \end{figure}
1342:
1343:
1344: Discrete symmetries. As well as its continuous family symmetries, the
1345: torus
1346: has a discrete Z/2 symmetry given by a 180 degree rotation interchanging
1347: the cylinder's top and bottom (fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.3}). The discrete and
1348: continuous
1349: symmetries may of course be composed. The best way to think of this is
1350: that
1351: the complete symmetry group of the torus consists of two disconnected
1352: components: symmetries that interchange the boundary circles and
1353: symmetries that do not. In special cases the torus may have additional
1354: discrete symmetries (fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.4}).
1355: The Klein bottle's discrete symmetry group is Z/2 + Z/2, generated
1356: by vertical and horizontal reflections of the cylinder. Vertical
1357: reflection
1358: interchanges the two crosscaps. Horizontal reflection takes each
1359: crosscap
1360: to itself, but reverses the direction of its centerline.
1361:
1362:
1363: \begin{figure}
1364: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.2.3a.ps,angle=-90,width=1.in}
1365: \psfig{file=N.2.2.3b.ps,angle=-90,width=1.in}}
1366: \vskip 5truept
1367: \caption{The torus always has a discrete Z/2 symmetry given by a half turn,
1368: even if the cylinder's top and bottom circles are glued to each other
1369: with a twist. The Klein bottle has a discrete Z/2 + Z/2 symmetry,
1370: which interchanges and/or inverts the cross caps.}
1371: \label{N.2.2.3}
1372: \end{figure}
1373:
1374:
1375: \begin{figure}
1376: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.2.4.ps,angle=-90,width=4.in}}
1377: \vskip 5truept
1378: \caption{}
1379: \label{N.2.2.4}
1380: \end{figure}
1381:
1382:
1383: Dirichlet domain:
1384: We have seen that the torus is globally homogeneous, so the shape of the
1385: Dirichlet domain does not depend on the choice of basepoint.
1386: On the other hand, the torus has three degrees of flexibility, and
1387: the Dirichlet domain's shape does depend on the shape of the torus.
1388: Typically the Dirichlet domain is an irregular hexagon, but in
1389: special cases it may be a square or a regular hexagon.
1390: The Klein bottle is globally inhomogeneous, so even for a fixed geometry
1391: of the Klein bottle, the Dirichlet domain's shape depends on the choice
1392: of basepoint (fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.5}).
1393:
1394: \begin{figure}
1395: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.2.2.5.ps,angle=-90,width=3.in}}
1396: \vskip 5truept
1397: \caption{In a Klein bottle, the shape of the Dirichlet domain depends
1398: on the choice of basepoint. For example, a Dirichlet domain centered
1399: at the triple arrowhead is a hexagon, while a Dirichlet domain
1400: centered at a single arrowhead is a rectangle.}
1401: \label{N.2.2.5}
1402: \end{figure}
1403:
1404:
1405:
1406: \subsubsection{Spherical two-dimensional manifolds}
1407: \label{sphertwo}
1408:
1409: Manifolds: sphere and sphere-with-crosscap.
1410:
1411: Flexibility:
1412: The sphere and the sphere-with-crosscap have no flexibility whatsoever.
1413: Their geometry is completely determined by their topology.
1414: Here and throughout we make the assumption that spherical geometry
1415: refers to a sphere of radius one. Otherwise these two manifolds would
1416: have the flexibility of rescaling -- they could be made larger or
1417: smaller.
1418:
1419: Symmetry:
1420: The sphere has a symmetry taking any point to any other point, with any
1421: desired rotation. These symmetries form a 3-parameter continuous family.
1422: It also has a single discrete symmetry, given by reflection through
1423: the origin.
1424: The sphere-with-crosscap has a 3-parameter continuous family of
1425: symmetries
1426: taking any point to any other point with any desired rotation and either
1427: reflected or not reflected. It has no discrete symmetries.
1428: Indeed the continuous family already takes a neighborhood of any point
1429: to a neighborhood of any other point in all possible ways, leaving no
1430: possibilities for discrete symmetries.
1431:
1432: Dirichlet domain:
1433: The sphere and the sphere-with-crosscap both have somewhat degenerate
1434: Dirichlet domains (try the inflating-the-balloon experiment in each),
1435: but these manifolds are globally homogeneous so the degenerate Dirichlet
1436: domains do not depend on the choice of basepoint.
1437:
1438:
1439: \subsubsection{Hyperbolic two-dimensional manifolds}
1440: \label{hyptwo}
1441:
1442: Manifolds:
1443: There are infinitely many closed hyperbolic 2-manifolds,
1444: illustrated in fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.4}.
1445:
1446: Flexibility:
1447: All closed hyperbolic 2-manifolds are flexible.
1448: The shape of each manifold is parameterized by the circumferences
1449: of the cuffs of the pairs of pants used to construct it, and
1450: by the twists with which distinct cuffs are glued to each other.
1451: A cuff that is glued to itself to make a crosscap has no twist
1452: parameter.
1453:
1454: Symmetry:
1455: Closed hyperbolic 2-manifolds never have continuous families of
1456: symmetries.
1457: The reason is that each seam (where cuffs are joined together)
1458: is the shortest loop in its neighborhood,
1459: and therefore cannot be slid
1460: away from itself. A seam cannot slide along itself either, because
1461: a pair of pants admits no continuous rotations.
1462: A generic closed hyperbolic 2-manifold also has no discrete symmetries,
1463: but nongeneric ones may have discrete symmetries if the cuff lengths
1464: and twists are chosen carefully.
1465:
1466: Dirichlet domain:
1467: The Dirichlet domain of a closed hyperbolic 2-manifold always depends
1468: on the choice of basepoint. For carefully chosen basepoints it may
1469: exhibit some of the manifold's symmetries.
1470:
1471:
1472: \subsection{Three-dimensional manifolds}
1473: \label{threed}
1474:
1475:
1476: \subsubsection{Overview of three-dimensional manifolds}
1477: \label{overthree}
1478:
1479: Unlike two-manifolds, not all three-manifolds admit a constant curvature
1480: geometry. For a survey of the geometry of 3-manifolds, see
1481: Ref.\ \cite{Tbull}.
1482: Roughly speaking, any closed 3-manifold may be cut
1483: into pieces in a canonical way, and each piece admits a geometry that
1484: is homogeneous but not necessarily isotropic. For a very elementary
1485: exposition of homogeneous anisotropic geometries, see
1486: Ref.\ \cite{Shape}
1487: %Ch. 17 and 18.
1488: For a more detailed but still readable exposition see
1489: \cite{pscott}. The observed isotropy of the microwave background
1490: radiation implies that at least the observable portion of the universe
1491: is approximately homogeneous and isotropic, so cosmologists restrict
1492: their attention to the three homogeneous isotropic geometries: spherical,
1493: flat and hyperbolic. However, as noted earlier, an approximately flat
1494: observable universe is also consistent with a very large universe of
1495: varying curvature.
1496:
1497:
1498: \subsubsection{Flat three-dimensional manifolds}
1499: \label{flatthree}
1500:
1501: Manifolds:
1502: Figure \ref{N.3.2.1} illustrates the ten closed flat 3-manifolds.
1503:
1504: The first is the 3-torus introduced earlier -- a cube with
1505: pairs of opposite faces glued.
1506:
1507: \begin{figure}
1508: \centerline{\psfig{file=N.3.2.1.big.ps,angle=-90,width=4.5in}}
1509: \vskip 5truept
1510: \caption{The ten closed flat 3-manifolds.}
1511: \label{N.3.2.1}
1512: \end{figure}
1513:
1514:
1515: The second and third manifolds are variations on the 3-torus in which
1516: the front face is glued to the back face with a half (respectively quarter)
1517: turn,
1518: while the other two pairs of faces are glued as in the 3-torus.
1519: Other possibilities for gluing the faces of a cube -- for example gluing
1520: all three pairs of opposite faces with half turns -- fail to yield flat
1521: 3-manifolds because the cube's corners do not fit together properly
1522: in the resulting space. See Ref.\
1523: \cite{Shape} for a more complete
1524: explanation.
1525:
1526: The fourth and fifth manifolds are similar in spirit to the first three,
1527: only now the cross section is a hexagonal torus instead of a square
1528: torus.
1529: That is, the cross section is still topologically a torus, but has
1530: a different shape (recall fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.4}). The hexagonal cross section
1531: allows
1532: the front of the prism to be glued to the back with a one-sixth or
1533: one-third turn, producing two new flat 3-manifolds. The side faces are
1534: all
1535: glued to each other in pairs, straight across.
1536:
1537: The sixth manifold, the famous Hantzsche-Wendt manifold, is the most
1538: interesting of all. Unlike the preceding five manifolds, which we
1539: defined
1540: by constructing fundamental domains, the most natural way to define the
1541: Hantzsche-Wendt manifold is to start in the universal cover and define
1542: its
1543: group of covering transformations. Specifically, its group of covering
1544: transformations is the group generated by screw motions about a set
1545: of orthogonal but nonintersecting axes (indicated by heavy lines
1546: in fig.\ \ref{N.2.2.4}). Each screw motion consists of a half turn about an
1547: axis
1548: composed with a unit translation along that axis. Note that this group
1549: of covering transformations does {\it not} take a basic cube to all
1550: other
1551: cubes in the cubical tiling of 3-space. Rather, the images of a basic
1552: cube
1553: fill only half the cubes in the tiling, checkerboard style. Thus a
1554: complete
1555: fundamental domain would consist of two cubes, the basic cube and any one
1556: of its immediate neighbors; images of the basic cube would fill the
1557: black
1558: cubes in the 3-dimensional checkerboard, while images of its neighbor
1559: would
1560: fill the remaining white cubes. But we would really prefer a fundamental
1561: domain consisting of a single polyhedron. To get one we employ the
1562: balloon construction for a Dirichlet domain introduced in Section N.1.2.
1563: Let the Dirichlet domain's basepoint be the center of a basic cube.
1564: As the balloon expands its fills that basic cell entirely, and also fills
1565: one sixth of each of its six immediate neighbors. The resulting
1566: Dirichlet
1567: domain is a rhombic dodecahedron (fig.\ \ref{N.3.2.1}). The face gluings are
1568: given
1569: by the original screw motions along the axes.
1570: Note that this construction of the Hantzsche-Wendt manifold
1571: corrects an error, appearing elsewhere in the cosmological
1572: literature, which takes the three screw axes to be coincident.
1573: This erroneous construction leads to a cube with each pair
1574: of opposite faces glued with a half turn. The cube's corners
1575: are therefore identified in four groups of two corners each
1576: instead of a single group of eight corners. The resulting
1577: space has four singular points and is thus an orbifold instead
1578: of a manifold.
1579:
1580: The seventh through tenth manifolds are again defined by fundamental
1581: domains.
1582: They are similar to the first five manifolds, except now the cross
1583: section
1584: is a Klein bottle instead of a torus. That is, the fundamental domain's
1585: left and right faces are glued to each other as in a torus, but the top
1586: face
1587: (resp. bottom face) is glued to itself with a horizontal shift of half
1588: the
1589: width of the fundamental domain, taken modulo the full width, of course.
1590: This ensures that every cross section is a Klein bottle, which may be
1591: understood as a cylinder with one crosscap at the top and another at the
1592: bottom. The fundamental domain's front face, which is now a Klein
1593: bottle,
1594: may be glued to its back face in one of four ways: plain (seventh
1595: manifold),
1596: interchanging the crosscaps (eighth manifold), inverting the crosscaps
1597: (ninth manifold), or interchanging and inverting the crosscaps
1598: (tenth manifold). Unlike the first six manifolds, these four are all
1599: nonorientable.
1600:
1601: Flexibility:
1602: All ten closed flat 3-manifolds have at least two degrees of flexibility:
1603: the depth of each fundamental domain (fig.\ \ref{N.3.2.1}) may be chosen
1604: independently of its width and height. For some of the manifolds,
1605: for example the one-sixth turn manifold, this is the only flexibility.
1606: Others have greater flexibility: for example the cross section of the
1607: half turn manifold may be any parallelogram, and the fundamental domain
1608: for the 3-torus may be any parallelepiped.
1609:
1610: Symmetry:
1611: All closed flat 3-manifolds except the Hantzsche-Wendt manifold have
1612: a continuous one-parameter family of symmetries that pushes into the
1613: page
1614: in the fundamental domains in fig.\ \ref{N.3.2.1}. These symmetries take each
1615: cross section to a cross section further along, with the cross sections
1616: that fall off the back of the stack reappearing cyclically at the front.
1617: Some of the manifolds have additional continuous families of symmetries
1618: as well. The 3-torus is the most symmetrical, with a 3-parameter family
1619: of symmetries taking any point to any other point.
1620: All ten manifolds have discrete symmetries as well, which
1621: vary from case to case and may depend on the manifold's exact shape
1622: as well as its topology. For example, a cubical 3-torus has a 3-fold
1623: symmetry defined by a one-third turn about one of the cube's long
1624: diagonals,
1625: but a 3-torus made from an arbitrary parallelepiped lacks this symmetry.
1626:
1627: Dirichlet domain:
1628: The 3-torus is exceptional in that its Dirichlet domain does not depend
1629: on the choice of basepoint. It is always the same, no
1630: matter
1631: what basepoint you choose, because there is a symmetry taking any point
1632: to any other point. For the nine remaining closed flat 3-manifolds,
1633: the Dirichlet domain always depends on the choice of basepoint.
1634:
1635: Observational status:
1636: All ten closed flat 3-manifolds are of course completely consistent
1637: with recent evidence of a flat observable universe.
1638: However, if the fundamental domain is larger than our horizon radius,
1639: the topology may, in practice, be unobservable.
1640:
1641:
1642: \subsubsection{Spherical three-dimensional manifolds}
1643: \label{spherthree}
1644:
1645: Manifolds:
1646: This section requires only a minimal understanding of the 3-sphere,
1647: or hypersphere, defined as the set of points one unit from the origin
1648: in Euclidean 4-space. Readers wanting to learn more about the 3-sphere
1649: may
1650: consult
1651: Ref.\ \cite{Shape}
1652: % Ch. 14
1653: for an elementary exposition or
1654: Ref.\ \cite{Thurston}
1655: %section 2.7
1656: for a deeper understanding.
1657:
1658: Spherical manifolds fall into two broad categories. The manifolds
1659: in the first category have very different properties from those
1660: in the second.
1661:
1662: First category:
1663:
1664: The first category manifolds are most easily defined in terms of their
1665: groups of covering transformations, although it is not hard to work out
1666: their Dirichlet domains afterwards. Amazingly enough, their groups
1667: of covering transformations -- which are symmetries of the 3-sphere --
1668: come directly from finite groups of symmetries of the ordinary 2-sphere!
1669: In other words, each finite group of symmetries of the 2-sphere
1670: (that is, the cyclic, dihedral, tetrahedra, octahedral, and icosahedral
1671: groups) gives rise to the group of covering transformations of
1672: a spherical 3-manifold!
1673:
1674: The bridge from the 2-sphere to the 3-sphere is provided by the
1675: quaternions.
1676: The quaternions are a 4-dimensional generalization of the
1677: familiar complex numbers. But while the complex numbers have a single
1678: imaginary quantity $i$ satisfying $i^2 = -1$, the quaternions have three
1679: imaginary quantities $i, j,$ and $k$ satisfying
1680: \ba
1681: i^2 &=& j^2 = k^2 = -1 \nonumber \\
1682: ij &=& k = -ji \nonumber \\
1683: jk &=& i = -kj \nonumber \\
1684: ki &=& j = -ik
1685: \ea
1686: The set of all quaternions $a + bi + cj + dk$ (for $a,b,c,d$ real)
1687: defines 4-dimensional Euclidean space, and the set of all unit length
1688: quaternions, that is, all quaternions $a + bi + cj + dk$ satisfying
1689: $ a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2 = 1$, defines the 3-sphere.
1690:
1691: Before proceeding, it is convenient to note that there is nothing
1692: special about the three quaternions $i, j,$ and $k$.
1693:
1694: Lemma N.3.3.1 (quaternion change of basis). Let $c$ be a 3x3
1695: orthogonal matrix, and define
1696: \ba
1697: i^{\prime} &=& c_{ii} i + c_{ij} j + c_{ik} k \nonumber \\
1698: j^{\prime} &=& c_{ji} i + c_{jj }j + c_{jk} k \nonumber \\
1699: k^{\prime} &=& c_{ki} i + c_{kj}j + c_{kk} k
1700: \ea
1701: then $i^{\prime}$, $j^{\prime}$, and $k^{\prime}$
1702: satisfy the usual quaternion relations
1703: \ba
1704: i^{\prime 2} &=& j^{\prime 2} = k^{\prime 2} = -1 \nonumber \\
1705: i^{\prime}j^{\prime} &=& k^{\prime} = -j^{\prime}i^{\prime}\nonumber \\
1706: j^{\prime}k^{\prime} &=& i^{\prime} = -k^{\prime}j^{\prime}\nonumber \\
1707: k^{\prime}i^{\prime} &=& j^{\prime} = -i^{\prime}k^{\prime}
1708: \ea
1709: Lemma N.3.3.1 says that an arbitrary purely imaginary quaternion
1710: bi + cj + dk may, by change of basis, be written as $b^{\prime}i^{\prime}$.
1711: If the purely imaginary quaternion bi + cj + dk has unit length,
1712: it may be written even more simply as $i^{\prime}$.
1713: A not-necessarily-imaginary
1714: quaternion $a + bi + cj + dk$ may be transformed to
1715: $a^{\prime} + b^{\prime}i$.
1716: If it has unit length it may be written as
1717: $\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)$ for
1718: some $\theta $.
1719:
1720: The unit length quaternions, which we continue to visualize as the
1721: 3-sphere,
1722: may act on themselves by conjugation or by left-multiplication.
1723:
1724: Lemma N.3.3.2 (conjugation by quaternions). Let $q$ be an arbitrary
1725: unit length quaternion. According to the preceding discussion, we may
1726: choose a basis $\{1, i^{\prime},j^{\prime},k^{\prime}\}$ such that
1727: $q = \cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)$ for some
1728: $\theta$.
1729: It is trivial to compute how q acts by conjugation on the basis
1730: $ \{1, i^{\prime},j^{\prime},k^{\prime}\}$.
1731: \ba
1732: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) 1 (\cos(\theta) - i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) &=& 1\nonumber \\
1733: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) i^{\prime} (\cos(\theta) - i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) &=& i^{\prime}\nonumber \\
1734: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) j^{\prime} (\cos(\theta) - i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) &=& j^{\prime} \cos(2\theta) + k^{\prime}
1735: \sin(2\theta)\nonumber \\
1736: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) k^{\prime} (\cos(\theta) - i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) &=& -j^{\prime} \sin(2\theta) + k^{\prime}
1737: \cos(2\theta)
1738: \ea
1739: We see that conjugation always fixes 1 (the north pole), so all
1740: the action is in the equatorial 2-sphere spanned by
1741: $\{i^{\prime},j^{\prime},k^{\prime}\}$.
1742: The equatorial 2-sphere itself rotates about the $i^{\prime}$ axis through
1743: an angle of $2\theta $.
1744:
1745: Compare the preceding action by conjugation to the following action
1746: by left multiplication.
1747:
1748: Lemma N.3.3.3 (left multiplication by quaternions). Let $q$ be an
1749: arbitrary
1750: unit length quaternion. According to the preceding discussion, we may
1751: choose a basis $\{1, i^{\prime},j^{\prime},k^{\prime}\}$ such that
1752: $q = \cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)$ for some
1753: t.
1754: It is trivial to compute how q acts by left multiplication on the basis
1755: $ \{1, i^{\prime},j^{\prime},k^{\prime}\}$.
1756: \ba
1757: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) 1 &=&
1758: 1 \cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)\nonumber \\
1759: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) i^{\prime} &=& -1 \sin(\theta) + i^{\prime} \cos(\theta)\nonumber \\
1760: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) j^{\prime} &=& j^{\prime} \cos(\theta) + k^{\prime} \sin(\theta)\nonumber \\
1761: (\cos(\theta) + i^{\prime} \sin(\theta)) k^{\prime} &=& -j^{\prime} \sin(\theta) + k^{\prime} \cos(\theta)
1762: \ea
1763: We see that left multiplication rotates 1 towards $i^{\prime}$ while
1764: simultaneously rotating $j^{\prime}$ towards $k^{\prime}$.
1765: The result is a screw motion
1766: known as a Hopf flow. What is not obvious from the above computation
1767: is that the Hopf flow is completely homogeneous -- it looks the same
1768: at all points of the 3-sphere.
1769:
1770: All the tools are now in place to convert finite groups of symmetries
1771: of the 2-sphere to finite groups of symmetries of the 3-sphere.
1772: The algorithm is as follows:
1773:
1774: Step \#1. Choose a finite group of symmetries of the 2-sphere.
1775: (The only such groups are the cyclic groups, the dihedral
1776: groups, the tetrahedra group, the octahedral group,
1777: and the icosahedral group. You might also expect a cubical
1778: and a dodecahedral group, but they coincide with the
1779: octahedral and icosahedral groups because the octahedron
1780: is dual to the cube and the dodecahedron is dual to
1781: the icosahedron.)
1782:
1783: Step \#2. Write down the quaternions whose action by conjugation
1784: gives the chosen symmetries. Note that each symmetry
1785: corresponds to two quaternions $q$ and $-q$, because
1786: $q$ and $-q$ act identically when conjugating,
1787: i.e. $q r q^{-1} = (-q) r (-q)^{-1}$.
1788:
1789: Step \#3. Let the quaternions found in Step \#3 act by multiplication.
1790: This action defines the group of covering transformations.
1791: Note that although a quaternion's action by conjugation
1792: always has a pair of fixed points on the 2-sphere,
1793: its action by left multiplication on the 3-sphere is
1794: always fixed point free.
1795:
1796: The preceding algorithm is most easily understood in a concrete example.
1797:
1798: Example N.3.3.4. Consider the so-called {\it Klein four group},
1799: the group of symmetries of the 2-sphere consisting of half turns
1800: about the $i$-, $j$-, and $k$-axes. (Remember that we are in the 3-space
1801: spanned by $\{i,j,k\}$, so the $i$-, $j$-, and $k$-axes play the role of
1802: the traditional $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-axes.) By Lemma N.3.3.2 a half turn
1803: about the $i$-axis corresponds to conjugation by the quaternions
1804: $\pm i$. That is, when $\theta = \pi/2$, the quaternion $i = \cos(\pi/2)
1805: + i \sin(\pi/2)$
1806: acts by conjugation as a rotation about the $i$-axis through an angle
1807: $2\theta = \pi$.
1808: Similarly, the half turn about the $j$-axis corresponds to
1809: the quaternions $\pm j$, and the half turn about the $k$-axis corresponds
1810: to $\pm k$. The trivial symmetry corresponds to conjugation by
1811: $\pm 1$.
1812: Thus the complete set of quaternions is $\{\pm 1, \pm i, \pm j, \pm k\}$.
1813: If we now
1814: let these quaternions act by left multiplication on the 3-sphere,
1815: they give a group of covering transformations of order 8.
1816: (Exercise for the reader: compute the action of each of those
1817: eight quaternions on the basis $\{1,i,j,k\}$.)
1818: It is not hard to see that the fundamental domain is a cube.
1819: The action of the covering transformations shows you that each face
1820: of the cube is glued to the opposite face with a one-quarter turn.
1821: Eight copies of the cube tile the 3-sphere like the eight faces
1822: of a hypercube.
1823:
1824: % Fig.\ \ref{N.3.3.1} applies this algorithm to all finite symmetry groups of
1825: % the sphere, and illustrates the resulting spherical 3-manifolds.
1826:
1827: The following table shows the results of applying the algorithm to
1828: each
1829: finite group of symmetries of the 2-sphere:
1830:
1831: \vskip 15truept
1832:
1833:
1834: {\offinterlineskip
1835: \halign{ \vrule # & \strut\ # & \vrule # &
1836: \ # \ & \vrule # \cr
1837: \multispan{5}\hrulefill\cr
1838: height2pt & \omit & & & \cr
1839: & symmetry group of 2-sphere & & spherical 3-manifold &\cr
1840: height2pt & \omit & & & \cr
1841: \multispan{5}\hrulefill\cr
1842: height2pt & \omit & & & \cr
1843: & cyclic $Z/n$ & & lens space $L(2n,1)$ & \cr
1844: & & & fundamental domain is lens-shaped solid & \cr
1845: & & & &\cr
1846: & dihedral $D_n$ & & prism manifold & \cr
1847: & & & fundamental domain is prism with $2n$-gon base & \cr
1848: & & & &\cr
1849: & tetrahedral (order 12) & & octahedral space & \cr
1850: & & & fundamental domain is octahedron & \cr
1851: & & & 24 of which tile the 3-sphere &\cr
1852: & & & in the pattern of a regular 24-cell & \cr
1853: & & & &\cr
1854: & octahedral (order 24) & & snub cube space & \cr
1855: & & & fundamental domain is snub cube & \cr
1856: & & & 48 of which tile the 3-sphere& \cr
1857: & & & &\cr
1858: & dodecahedral (order 60) & & P\" oincar\' e dodecahedral space & \cr
1859: & & & fundamental domain is dodecahedron &\cr
1860: & & & 120 of which tile the 3-sphere & \cr
1861: & & & in the pattern of a regular 120-cell & \cr
1862: height2pt & \omit & & & \cr
1863: \multispan{5}\hrulefill\cr }}
1864:
1865:
1866: \vskip 10truept
1867:
1868: Second category:
1869:
1870: Second category manifolds do not arise from simple left
1871: multiplication by groups of quaternions.
1872: The simplest second category manifolds are generic
1873: {\it lens spaces}. The group of covering
1874: transformations of a lens space is cyclic, generated by a single
1875: screw motion. For the lens space $L(p,q)$, with $p$ and $q$
1876: relatively prime
1877: integers satisfying $p > q > 0$, the screw motion translates a distance
1878: $2\pi/p$
1879: along a given geodesic, while rotating through an angle $q(2\pi/p)$ about
1880: that
1881: same geodesic. The fundamental domain is a lens-shaped solid, $p$ copies
1882: of which tile the 3-sphere in much the same way that $p$ sectors tile
1883: the surface of an orange. In the special case that $q = 1$,
1884: the screw motion corresponds to left multiplication by the quaternion
1885: $\cos(2\pi/p) + i \sin(2\pi/p)$, so $L(p,1)$ is a first category manifold.
1886: Otherwise $L(p,q)$ is a second category manifold. (Warning: $L(p, p-1)$
1887: is the mirror image of $L(p,1)$ and therefore has the properties of a first
1888: category manifold. It corresponds to right multiplication
1889: by $\cos(2\pi/p) + i \sin(2\pi/p)$ instead of left multiplication.)
1890:
1891: The remaining second category manifolds are defined by simultaneous
1892: left and right multiplication by quaternions. That is, the holonomy
1893: group of each such manifold is a subgroup of a product
1894: $H_1 \times H_2 \times {\pm 1}$,
1895: where $H_1$ and $H_2$ are finite groups of unit length quaternions.
1896: An element $(h_1, h_2, \pm1)$ acts according to the rule
1897: $q \rightarrow \pm h_1 q h_2^{-1}$.
1898: For details, Section 4.4 of \cite{Thurston} and Sections 3 and 4
1899: of cite{newsphere}.
1900:
1901: Flexibility:
1902: Spherical 3-manifolds are rigid; they have no flexibility.
1903: (As in 2-dimensions we make the assumption that spherical geometry
1904: refers to a sphere of radius one. Otherwise all spherical manifolds
1905: would
1906: have the flexibility of rescaling -- they could be made larger or
1907: smaller.)
1908:
1909: Symmetry:
1910: First category manifolds are always globally homogeneous, that is,
1911: each has a continuous 3-parameter family of symmetries taken any point
1912: to any other point.
1913:
1914: Proposition N.3.3.4 (global homogeneity of first category manifolds).
1915: For any two points P and Q in a first category manifold M,
1916: there is a symmetry of M taking P to Q.
1917:
1918: Proof. Think of M as the quotient of the 3-sphere under the action
1919: of a finite group of unit length quaternions $\{g_1 = 1, g_2, ...,
1920: g_{n}\}$.
1921: The point P has $n$ images represented by the quaternions
1922: $\{g_0 x, ..., g_n x\}$, and the point Q has n images represented
1923: by the quaternions $\{g_0 y, ..., g_n y\}$, for some x and y.
1924: Right multiplication by $(x^{-1} y)$ is a symmetry of the 3-sphere taking
1925: the images of P to the images of Q. More generally, right
1926: multiplication
1927: takes every set of equivalent quaternions to some other set of
1928: equivalent
1929: quaternions, so it defines not only a symmetry of the 3-sphere but
1930: also
1931: a symmetry of the original manifold M. Q.E.D.
1932:
1933: Second category manifolds have smaller continuous families of symmetries.
1934: For example, the lens space $L(p,q)$ has a 2-parameter family of continuous
1935: symmetries defined by translations along, and rotations about, its
1936: central
1937: geodesic. Both first and second category manifolds may have discrete
1938: symmetries, which depend on the manifold.
1939:
1940: Dirichlet domain:
1941: The Dirichlet domain of a first category manifold never depends
1942: on the choice of basepoint. Proof: By Proposition N.3.3.4 the manifold
1943: has a symmetry taking any point to any other point, so the manifold
1944: looks the same at all basepoints, and the Dirichlet domain construction
1945: must yield the same result.
1946: By contrast, the Dirichlet domain for a second category manifold
1947: does depend on the choice of basepoint.
1948:
1949: Observational status:
1950: Recent evidence of an approximately flat observable universe implies that
1951: if the universe is spherical its curvature radius may be
1952: comparable to or larger than
1953: our horizon radius. So even though all spherical manifolds are viable
1954: candidates for the topology of the universe, the simplest ones, which
1955: have
1956: large fundamental domains, would be much larger than the horizon radius
1957: and couldn't be observed directly. A more complicated topology, with
1958: a larger group of covering transformations and a smaller fundamental
1959: domain,
1960: would be more amenable to direct observation.
1961:
1962:
1963: \subsubsection{Hyperbolic three-dimensional manifolds}
1964:
1965: Manifolds:
1966: In 1924 Alexander Friedmann published a paper
1967: \cite{Friedmann1924}
1968: complementing
1969: his earlier model of an expanding spherical universe with a model
1970: of an expanding hyperbolic universe. It is a tribute Friedmann's
1971: foresight
1972: that he explicitly allowed for the possibility of a closed hyperbolic
1973: universe at a time when no closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds were known.
1974: Fortunately examples were not long in coming. L\"obell published the first
1975: in 1929 \cite{Löbell1929} and Seifert and Weber published a much simpler
1976: example soon thereafter \cite{SW1932?}. Nevertheless, during the first half
1977: of the twentieth century few closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds were know.
1978: The situation changed dramatically in the mid 1970's with the work
1979: of Thurston, who showed that most closed 3-manifolds admit a hyperbolic
1980: geometry. For an overview, see
1981: Ref.\ \cite{Tbull}. To study
1982: known low-volume closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds, see Ref.\
1983: \cite{snappea}.
1984:
1985: Flexibility:
1986: Unlike closed hyperbolic 2-manifolds, closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds
1987: are rigid; they have no flexibility. As usual we assume
1988: curvature radius one, to suppress the trivial flexibility of rescaling.
1989:
1990: Symmetry:
1991: Closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds never have continuous families of
1992: symmetries.
1993: Truly generic closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds appear to have no discrete
1994: symmetries either, although the symmetry groups of low-volume manifolds
1995: are typically small cyclic or dihedral groups. Nevertheless, Kojima
1996: has shown that every finite group occurs as the symmetry group of a
1997: closed
1998: hyperbolic 3-manifold \cite{Kojima??}.
1999:
2000: Dirichlet domain:
2001: The Dirichlet domain of a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold always depends
2002: on the choice of basepoint. For carefully chosen basepoints, the
2003: Dirichlet domain may display some of the manifold's symmetries.
2004: The Dirichlet domain may also display symmetries beyond those
2005: of the manifold itself; these so-called hidden symmetries are actually
2006: symmetries of finite-sheeted covering spaces.
2007:
2008: \newpage
2009: \section{Standard Cosmology and The Cosmic Microwave Background}
2010: \label{cmbsection}
2011:
2012: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2013:
2014: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
2015:
2016:
2017: In standard big bang theory, the universe is created in a hot energetic state,
2018: a giant primordial soup. The plasma is opaque to light as photons scatter
2019: off hot charged particles.
2020: As the
2021: universe expands, the soup cools and some 300,000 years into our history, the
2022: cosmos cools enough so that light no longer scatters
2023: efficiently and the universe becomes transparent to radiation.
2024: This transition, known as decoupling, marks the time when the
2025: primordial radiation can free stream throughout the universe unimpeded.
2026: Decoupling happens quickly but not instantaneously and the small spread in
2027: time will introduce some complication in our attempts to measure topology as
2028: discussed in later sections. This ancient radiation filling
2029: all of space has cooled today to a mere $2.73{}^\circ$ K, in the
2030: microwave range from which it has acquired the name
2031: the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
2032: As the CMB carries information almost from
2033: the beginning of time, it is a
2034: relic of our deep past.
2035:
2036: The light received at the Earth has traveled
2037: the same distance in
2038: all directions since last scattering
2039: and therefore defines a sphere.
2040: This sphere is known as the surface of last scatter (SLS)
2041: and is only defined relative to a given observer. An alien civilization
2042: in a neighboring cluster of galaxies, if coincidentally also
2043: conducting observations of the CMB today, would receive photons from
2044: its own SLS as shown in fig. \ref{alien}.
2045: This will be particularly relevant to
2046: the circles method of detecting topology described in section
2047: \S \ref{obscirc}.
2048:
2049:
2050: \begin{figure}
2051: \centerline{\psfig{file=alien.eps,angle=-90,width=1.5in}}
2052: \vskip 5truept
2053: \caption{Two different surfaces of last scattering, each centered on
2054: a different galaxy.}
2055: \label{alien}
2056: \end{figure}
2057:
2058:
2059: The famed CMB
2060: carries much coveted information about the
2061: universe. It has been hoped that all local geometric quantities such as
2062: the local curvature, the expansion rate, the nature of the
2063: dark matter, and of the luminous matter, can be extracted from this one source.
2064: Clearly though the data will leave the full set of parameters underdetermined
2065: and a great deal of model dependence is unavoidable. What exactly the CMB can
2066: tell us is being put to the test with the recent high resolution experiments
2067: such as TOCO \cite{toco}, Boomerang and MAXIMA \cite{exper}.
2068: These experiments are consistent with an approximately flat observable
2069: universe. If the universe is hyperbolic, its curvature radius may be comparable
2070: to or larger than the horizon radius. So even though all hyperbolic
2071: manifolds are viable candidates for the topology of the universe, they
2072: may be too large to see, therein is the challenge.
2073: The CMB can also be used to
2074: decipher the global topology as well as fitting these many local parameters.
2075: Though statistical measures of topology are inherently model dependent,
2076: geometric methods are model independent.
2077: The pattern based searches of circles in the sky and topological pattern
2078: formation require no assumptions about the primordial spectrum nor the nature
2079: of the dark matter. However, these searches will likely be plagued by
2080: difficulties of their own and it is unclear if these methods will succeed
2081: without a great deal of refitting.
2082:
2083:
2084:
2085: The standard big bang theory also has a powerful successor,
2086: the standard inflationary theory. The standard inflationary theory suggests
2087: there was a period of accelerated expansion very early in the universe's
2088: history
2089: which dilutes all fluctuations, all matter, and all energy so that the cosmos
2090: suddenly goes from a tumultuous beginning to a nearly flat, empty, and biggish
2091: universe. Inflation is exited when it becomes energetically favorable for the
2092: energy driving the expansion to be released into a renewed soup of high energy
2093: particles and light. This heating of the universe mimics the original
2094: primordial soup
2095: and the standard history of the universe resumes.
2096: There are proponents of inflation who
2097: would revise the big bang still further,
2098: essentially removing the moment of genesis altogether so that inflation is
2099: eternal \cite{{vilenkin},{linde}}.
2100: The universe can be viewed as a ginger root of inflationary patches
2101: each with its own details.
2102: As inflation ends in any given patch, the energy is released to heat that
2103: region.
2104: As far as any given observer is
2105: concerned, the heating epoch on exit from inflation looks like a consequence
2106: of a big bang event.
2107: Since this is all we can ever observe
2108: with the CMB our discussion will apply to any of these early universe
2109: scripts.
2110:
2111: While
2112: theorists still find it tricky to identify a
2113: specific working model of inflation
2114: and to devise a graceful exit to inflation,
2115: it is the favored story to tell and some of the
2116: reasons for this are good.
2117: Inflation elegantly resolves the mysterious homogeneity and isotropy of our
2118: observable universe. Without incredibly precise tuning of the initial
2119: conditions, the universe would tend to be extremely lumpy and would
2120: quickly cool
2121: if underdense or would quickly collapse if overdense. The observational
2122: fact that the universe is billions of years old and still just marginally
2123: curved, if not outright flat, seems special and so unsettling. A more rigorous
2124: and compelling argument is made by Guth in his original paper
2125: \cite{guth0} and many subsequent articles \cite{guth1}.
2126: Our homogeneous and isotropic space becomes remarkably unlikely,
2127: and yet here we
2128: are.
2129:
2130: On the other hand lumpiness seems natural
2131: since the many regions of the universe would not be
2132: in causal contact and therefore should have very different local properties
2133: such as
2134: temperature, density etc.. Yet when we look at the CMB we see that in fact the
2135: temperature appears identical to better than 1 part in $10^5$ even for regions
2136: which would be separated far beyond causally connected
2137: distances. This would
2138: be like finding two ancient civilizations on opposite sides of the Earth with
2139: nearly identical languages.
2140: The civilizations must have been in causal contact.
2141: Likewise two regions of the universe which seem to have equilibrated to
2142: precisely the same temperature must have been in causal contact.
2143: Inflation resolves this situation by
2144: taking a small causally connected region and stretching it so large that it
2145: exceeds the extent of the observable universe today.
2146: The CMB is essentially the same
2147: temperature throughout our patch of the cosmos precisely because it was in
2148: causal contact. The stretching also naturally renders the universe flat.
2149:
2150:
2151:
2152: Another motivation for inflation is that, while it makes the universe on
2153: average homogeneous and isotropic, it also naturally generates
2154: fluctuations about this average.
2155: These minute perturbations are critical for initiating the collapse
2156: of matter into galaxies and clusters.
2157: These seemingly insignificant fluctuations become the catalysts
2158: for all the order and structure we observe in the universe.
2159: Because of the enormous stretching of scales involved, it manages to place
2160: fluctuations even on the largest possible scales and therefore gives a causal
2161: explanation for the seeds of structure formation.
2162: (Another mechanism for generating the all important initial density
2163: fluctuations
2164: is via topological defect models although these have lately fallen into
2165: disrepute \cite{topstrings}.)
2166:
2167:
2168: To emphasize, the beauty is that inflation both explains the average
2169: homogeneity and isotropy as well as giving a prediction for the
2170: deviations from homogeneity, observed both in the CMB
2171: and in the form of galaxies.
2172: It seems a good question to ask , Is
2173: topology consistent with inflation? Precisely as inflation
2174: drives the curvature
2175: scale beyond observational reach, so too will it drive any topological scale
2176: beyond observational reach. The universe may still be finite, only
2177: we'll never know it. Certainly a model of inflation could be concocted which
2178: exited just at the critical moment so that the topology of the universe, and
2179: presumably the curvature too, is just within observation now,
2180: when we also happen to be here to look. However, such a
2181: contraption would be a perversion against the spirit of inflation as a restorer
2182: of naturalness. If an observable topology scale and inflation are to be
2183: conjoined, the reasons must be profound and topology must be an integral part
2184: of the inflationary mechanism. This is conceivable. For instance the cosmic
2185: Casimir effect is the contribution to the vacuum energy due to any topological
2186: boundary. If this effect were to dilute as the topology scale expanded then
2187: one can envision inflation driven by this contribution to the vacuum and ending
2188: precisely as the topology scale became some natural big size and the vacuum
2189: energy became some correspondingly natural small size. To really wrap it all
2190: into one clean package one could even try to explain the seemingly unnatural
2191: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ this way \cite{imogen}
2192: (see also Refs. \cite{{sokolov},{fagundes1}}. Attempts to use compact
2193: topology to aid $\Omega<1$ inflation have also been suggested \cite{css3}.
2194: A related mechanism has been put to use in a model with topologically
2195: compact extra dimensions \cite{sst}.
2196: Another recent argument to justify flatness and local isotropy with
2197: topology and without inflation can be found in Ref.\ \cite{bark}.
2198: Barrow and Kodama found that compact topology can severely restrict
2199: the anisotropies which an infinite universe will allow. Roughly speaking,
2200: the anisotropic modes will not fit in the compact space.
2201:
2202: In any case, the inflationary predictions for the statistical distribution
2203: of fluctuations are often used in fixing the initial fluctuations and so will
2204: be relevant here.
2205: This assumption is a weakness of all statistical
2206: constraints on topology and we will discuss these issues in due course. The
2207: topic for this section is really, regardless of their origin, how do
2208: fluctuations in spacetime translate into temperature fluctuations in the CMB.
2209: And once this has been established, how does topology alter the standard
2210: predictions leaving
2211: an archeological imprint for us to uncover billions of years
2212: later.
2213:
2214: \subsection{Standard Cosmological Equations}
2215: \label{standardeq}
2216:
2217: This section provides a
2218: quick pedestrian review of the CMB and theories for the generation of its
2219: perturbations. There is nothing specific to topology in this section
2220: unless explicitly stated.
2221: Many detailed reviews on the CMB have been written and the reader is
2222: referred to these \cite{{mkb},{hu},{ll},{whu}}. Observing topology in the CMB
2223: is discussed in sections \ref{obstop}, \ref{obsflat}, \ref{obshyp}.
2224:
2225: The gravitational
2226: field in general relativity is determined by the local Einstein
2227: equations
2228: \be
2229: G_{\mu \nu}=8\pi G T_{\mu \nu}
2230: .
2231: \ee
2232: The tensor $G_{\mu \nu}$ describes the curvature and evolution of
2233: the metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ while $T_{\mu \nu}$ is the energy-momentum
2234: tensor and accounts for the matter fields.
2235: (For thorough discussions on general relativity see \cite{{waldbk},
2236: {mtw},{swein}}.)
2237: It is important to note here
2238: that the Einstein equations are local and therefore only
2239: determine the curvature of spacetime and do not fix the topology.
2240: Furthermore the symmetries of $g_{\mu \nu}$ are also local and are
2241: nearly always broken in the manifold by topological identifications.
2242: Today the universe appears to be homogeneous and isotropic on the
2243: largest-scales. The CMB gives tremendous confirmation of these
2244: symmetries since the temperature appears identical in every
2245: direction to better than 1 part in $10^5$.
2246: Homogeneity and isotropy imply that the Earth is not in a privileged position
2247: in the cosmos.
2248: The symmetries of homogeneity and isotropy severely restricts
2249: the class of possible solutions to the Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW)
2250: models defined by the gravitational metric
2251: \ba
2252: ds^2 &=&g_{\mu \nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu \nonumber \\
2253: % &=&a^2(\eta)\left [-d\eta^2
2254: % +{1\over 1-\kappa r^2}\left (dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)
2255: % \right )\right ]\nonumber \\
2256: &=&-dt^2+a^2(\eta)
2257: \left [{dr^2\over 1-\kappa r^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)
2258: \right ]
2259: \label{stanmet}
2260: \ea
2261: where $\kappa=0,-1,1$ corresponds to a flat, negatively curved (hyperbolic)
2262: and positively
2263: curved (elliptical) space respectively (see fig.\ \ref{N.2.1.1}).
2264: Negatively curved space is often termed
2265: ``open'' and positively curved space ``closed'' in reference to their
2266: simply connected geometries. Since we are interested in constructing
2267: compact, multiconnected
2268: spaces, we will avoid the ``open'', ``closed'' terminology.
2269:
2270: The overall scale factor, $a(\eta)$, describing the
2271: expansion of the universe is determined by the energy of matter
2272: through the remaining Einstein equations.
2273: We can always operate in comoving units where the manifold is treated as a
2274: static constant curvature manifold and all of the dynamics is hidden in the
2275: conformal scale factor $a(\eta)$.
2276: An alternative expression for the metric is
2277: \be
2278: ds^2=a^2(\eta)\left [-d\eta^2 +d\sigma^2 \right ]
2279: \ee
2280: with the spatial part of the metric
2281: \be
2282: d\sigma^2=d\chi^2+f(\chi)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)
2283: \label{cosmet}
2284: \ee
2285: where we have used conformal time $d\eta=dt/a(t)$ and
2286: \be
2287: f(\chi) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
2288: {\chi}^2 & r=\chi & {\rm flat } \\
2289: \sinh^2\chi & r=\sinh\chi &
2290: {\rm hyperbolic}\\
2291: \sin^2 \chi & r=\sin\chi &
2292: {\rm spherical} \end{array}\right.
2293: \ee
2294: See also Appendix
2295: \ref{AppendixA}.
2296: %\subsubsection{Evolution equations}
2297:
2298: The dynamical evolution of the space is given by
2299: the Einstein equation determining the scale factor,
2300: \be
2301: H^2+\kappa/a^2={8\pi G\over 3}\rho.
2302: \label{fried}
2303: \ee
2304: The different curvatures correspond to different values of the
2305: global energy density. Traditionally, $\Omega=\rho/\rho_c$ is defined
2306: with $\rho_c$ the critical density required to render the universe flat,
2307: so that
2308: $\Omega>1$ corresponds to $\kappa=1$, $\Omega=1$ corresponds to $\kappa=0$,
2309: and $\Omega<1$ corresponds to $\kappa=-1$.
2310: The curvature radius is $R_{\rm curv}=a/|\kappa |^{1/2}$.
2311: From eqn (\ref{fried}), $8\pi G\rho_c/3=H^2$ so that
2312: $H^2a^2(\Omega-1)=\kappa$ and the curvature radius can be be expressed in
2313: terms of $\Omega$ as
2314: \be
2315: R_{\rm curv}={1\over H\left |\Omega-1\right |^{1/2}} .
2316: \ee
2317: When working in comoving
2318: units we take the comoving curvature radius to be unity for curved
2319: space or $\infty$ for
2320: flat space.
2321:
2322: Conservation of energy requires
2323: \be
2324: \dot \rho+3H(\rho +p)=0 \label{consv}
2325: \ee
2326: for the perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor
2327: $T_\mu^\nu=(\rho,p,p,p )$.
2328: Decoupling occurs during the matter dominated error for which
2329: $p=0$ and so
2330: $\rho\propto 1/a^3$ by eqn (\ref{consv}).
2331: The solution for $a(\eta)$ during matter domination is
2332: \be
2333: a(\eta)\propto \left \{\begin{array}{ll}
2334: \cosh \eta -1 & \kappa =-1 \\
2335: \eta^2/2 & \kappa = 0 \\
2336: 1-\cos\eta & \kappa =1\end{array}\right.
2337: \label{aevolv}
2338: \ee
2339: with the conformal Hubble expansion ${\cal H}=a^{\prime}/a=aH$,
2340: \be
2341: {\cal H}\propto \left \{ \begin{array} {ll}
2342: \sinh \eta/(\cosh \eta -1)
2343: & \kappa=-1 \\
2344: 2/\eta & \kappa=0\\
2345: \sin\eta/(1-\cos\eta) & \kappa=1 \end{array}\right. .
2346: \ee
2347:
2348: In comoving units, the universe is static. In physical units, the universe
2349: expands and the cosmic background radiation redshifts. The physical
2350: wavelength is shifted according to
2351: \be
2352: {\lambda(t)\over \lambda_{\rm initial}}={a(t)\over a(t_{\rm initial})}
2353: \ee
2354: from which the cosmological redshift is defined:
2355: \be
2356: {1+z}={a_0\over a(t)}.
2357: \ee
2358: A subscript
2359: $0$ will always be used to denote values today.
2360: The value of $\eta $ during matter domination
2361: can be written in terms of $\Omega_0$ and the redshift
2362: using $\eta=\int dt/a=\int da/(\dot a a)$ and eqn (\ref{fried}):
2363: \be
2364: \eta =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2365: {\rm arccosh}\left (1+{2(1-\Omega_0)\over \Omega_0(1+z)}\right )
2366: & \Omega_0<1\\
2367: {3\over (1+z)^{1/2}} &
2368: \Omega_0=1\\
2369: \cos^{-1}\left (1-{2(\Omega_0-1)\over \Omega_0(1+z)}\right )
2370: & \Omega_0>1\end{array}\right.
2371: \ee
2372: \cite{kolbturner}.
2373:
2374: If curvature or topology are to be observable, the geometric scales must
2375: be smaller than the diameter of the SLS.
2376: In flat space, there is no natural scale since $R_{\rm curv}=\infty$ and
2377: it would seem a random coincidence if the topology scale just happened
2378: to be observable. In curved space, one might expect the curvature and
2379: topology scales to be comparable. This may not make it any more natural to
2380: observe geometric effects, but it would mean that if curvature is
2381: observable, then topology may be also.
2382:
2383: For the purpose of observational topology it is useful to list
2384: some relevant scales.
2385: The radius of the surface of last scatter is defined as the
2386: the distance light travels between the time of decoupling and today,
2387: \be
2388: D_\gamma=a(t)\int_{t_{d}}^{t_0} {dt\over a(t)}.
2389: \ee
2390: The distance depends on the curvature and evolution of the universe
2391: through eqn (\ref{aevolv}).
2392: In comoving units the
2393: photon travels a distance
2394: \be
2395: d_\gamma={D_\gamma\over a(t)}=\int_{t_{d}}^{t_0} {dt\over a(t)}
2396: =\int_{\eta_{d}}^{\eta_0}d\eta=\Delta \eta
2397: \ee
2398: with $\Delta \eta\equiv \eta_0-\eta_{d}$.
2399: The diameter of the SLS, $2\Delta \eta$, essentially defines the
2400: extent of the observable universe. A loose criterion that can be used
2401: to gauge if
2402: topology will influence the CMB is that
2403: the in-radius be less than $\Delta \eta$.
2404:
2405: The volume enclosed by the SLS is the integral over
2406: $V_{SLS} =\int \sqrt{-g}drd\theta d\phi $. For a radius of $\Delta \eta$,
2407: \ba
2408: V_{SLS} &=& \pi\left (\sinh(2\Delta \eta-2\Delta \eta)\right )
2409: \Omega_0<1 \nonumber \\
2410: &= &{4\pi \over 3}\Delta \eta^3 \quad\quad\quad \Omega_0=1\nonumber \\
2411: &=&\pi\left (2\Delta \eta-\sin(2\Delta \eta)\right ) \Omega_0>1.
2412: \ea
2413: The number of clones of the fundamental domain that can be observed in
2414: a small compact cosmos can be estimated by the number of copies that can
2415: fit within the SLS: $V_{SLS}/{\cal V}_{\cal M}$.
2416: We will often refer back to these scale comparisons in the
2417: coming discussions.
2418:
2419:
2420: \subsection{Fluctuations in the CMB}
2421: \label{fluctcmb}
2422:
2423: Regardless of the origin, there are small deviations from homogeneity
2424: and isotropy which are treated by perturbing the metric
2425: and matter tensors about the FRW solutions. The equations of motion for these
2426: perturbations to linear order are determined by
2427: $\delta G_{\mu \nu}=8\pi G\delta T_{\mu \nu}$. While the equations are
2428: extremely complicated there is one quantity, the
2429: gauge invariant
2430: potential $\Phi$, which
2431: is a coordinate invariant combination of
2432: components of $\delta g_{\mu \nu}$ and
2433: is of central importance for our considerations.
2434: It is so named since in the Newtonian limit it corresponds to the usual gravitational potential.
2435:
2436: The hot and cold spots in the CMB are caused by these perturbations in the
2437: gravitational potential. The fluctuations Doppler shift the photons
2438: generating an anisotropy both at decoupling and as light traverses the
2439: time changing gravitational field.
2440: There are many carefully derived results for the temperature fluctuations in the
2441: literature based on relativistic kinetic theory and relativistic
2442: perturbation theory \cite{{peebk},{ll},{whu}}. Since these topics comprise multiple review
2443: papers on their own, we will not go through the detailed derivations
2444: but will instead try to provide a cohesive, intuitive motivation for
2445: each of the relevant concepts.
2446:
2447: To derive the famous Sachs-Wolfe
2448: effect
2449: \cite{sw}, we followed the pedagogical discussion of White and Hu
2450: \cite{whu}. Photons gain energy and are
2451: therefore blueshifted as they fall into a potential well and lose
2452: energy and are therefore redshifted as they climb out. The Doppler
2453: shifts will cancel in a static homogeneous and isotropic space.
2454: However at the time that the photons last scatter, some photons
2455: will be in
2456: potential wells and some will be in potential peaks. Therefore
2457: this snapshot of the metric fluctuations becomes frozen into the CMB.
2458: It is this snapshot or fossil record we observe.
2459: Energy conservation gives a Doppler shift of
2460: \be
2461: \left.{\delta T\over T}\right |_f -\left.{\delta T\over
2462: T}\right |_i
2463: =\Phi_f-\Phi_i.
2464: \ee
2465: The local gravitational potential
2466: $\Phi_f$
2467: makes an isotropic contribution to ${\delta T/T}$ and
2468: will be left
2469: off hereafter.
2470: By adiabaticity, $aT=$constant, it follows that
2471: \be
2472: \left.{\delta T\over T}\right |_i=-{\delta a\over a}.
2473: \ee
2474: Assuming flat space for simplicity, $a\propto t^{2/3}$ during matter
2475: domination. The shift in $a$
2476: is then
2477: \be
2478: {\delta a\over a}={2\over 3}{\delta t\over t}.
2479: \ee
2480: The shift $\delta t$ can be understood as a shift relative to the cosmic
2481: time due to the perturbed gravitational potential. In a gravitational
2482: potential clocks appear to run slow by
2483: \be
2484: {\delta t\over t}\sim \Phi
2485: \ee
2486: from which it follows that
2487: \be
2488: \left.{\delta T\over T}\right |_f={\Phi_i\over 3}.
2489: \ee
2490: This term is the surface Sachs-Wolfe effect from the time of decoupling.
2491: There is an additional contribution to the temperature fluctuation
2492: known as the
2493: integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect which is accumulated as the photon
2494: traverses space through a decaying potential. Including this latter
2495: contribution the full Sachs-Wolfe effect is
2496: \be
2497: {\delta T(\hat n)\over T}={1\over 3}\Phi(\eta_o \hat n)
2498: +
2499: 2\int^{\eta_o}_{\eta_{\rm SLS}}d\eta
2500: \Phi^{\prime}(\eta,\vx)
2501: \label{sachswolfe}
2502: \ee
2503: where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to conformal time
2504: \cite{sw}. In flat space with ordinary energy, the only contribution
2505: to $\delta T/T$ is from the surface Sachs-Wolfe effect
2506: (the first term in eqn.\ \ref{sachswolfe}).
2507: The ISW
2508: (the second term in eqn.\ \ref{sachswolfe}) makes a significant
2509: contribution to large-scale fluctuations if space is curved and/or
2510: when a cosmological constant dominates the energy density.
2511: In the absence of a significant cosmological constant, the ISW is
2512: important as perturbations decay along the line of sight during
2513: the curvature dominated epoch at
2514: \be
2515: 1+z\sim (1-\Omega_0)/\Omega_0
2516: \label{curvdom}
2517: \ee
2518: for underdense cosmologies. This will prove to be important to
2519: the issue of topology since the ISW may camouflage the conspicuous
2520: marks of topology imprinted in the surface Sachs-Wolfe effect.
2521:
2522:
2523: Therefore the temperature fluctuations observed today can be
2524: predicted from the primordial fluctuations in the metric. The shape of
2525: $\Phi(\eta,\vx)$ will depend on the geometry of space as well as some initial
2526: spectrum.
2527: The perturbed Einstein equations
2528: give the equation of motion
2529: \be
2530: \Phi^{{\prime} {\prime}}+3{\cal H}(1+c_s^2)\Phi^{\prime} -c^2_s\nabla^2 \Phi
2531: +(2{\cal H}^{\prime} +(1+c_s^2){\cal H}^2)\Phi=0
2532: \label{feta}
2533: \ee
2534: where ${\cal H}=a^{\prime}/a$ and $c_s$ is the speed of sound in the
2535: cosmological fluid.
2536: In a matter dominated era
2537: $c_s=0$. The potential is separable and can be written
2538: $\Phi=F(\eta)\Psi(\vec x)$ with $F(\eta)$ the solution to
2539: eqn (\ref{feta}). The $\Psi(\vec x)$
2540: can always be expanded in terms of the eigenmodes to the Laplacian; that is,
2541: \be
2542: {\Phi(\eta,\vx)}=F(\eta) \int d^3\vec k
2543: \ \hat \Phi_{\vec k}\ \psi_{\vec k}(\vec x)
2544: \label{elem}
2545: \ee
2546: with the eigenmodes $\psi_k$ satisfying
2547: \be
2548: \nabla^2\psi_{\vec k}=-k^2\psi_{\vec k}.
2549: \label{eigeneq}
2550: \ee
2551: The Laplacian $\nabla^2=g_{\mu \nu}D^\mu D^\nu$ depends on the
2552: curvature through the covariant derivatives $D_\mu$.
2553: For now we assume all the $k$'s are continuous eigenfunctions
2554: although this will not be the case when the space is topologically
2555: identified.
2556: The $\hat \Phi_k$ are initial amplitudes given by the statistical
2557: profile of the initial fluctuation spectrum.
2558: All assumptions and/or predictions for the initial perturbations are contained
2559: in the $\hat \Phi_{\vec k}$.
2560:
2561: During inflation quantum fluctuations in the field are amplified by
2562: the accelerated expansion. These fluctuations about the ground
2563: state of the field theory are known to be Gaussian distributed. The amplitude of the fluctuations are related to the specific inflationary model
2564: but for the most part are independent of the scale $k$.
2565: So inflation predicts a Gaussian distribution of fluctuations independent
2566: of scale.
2567: Specifically this means the $\hat \Phi_{\vec k}$ are drawn from a random
2568: Gaussian ensemble consistent with
2569: \begin{equation}
2570: \left\langle \hat \Phi _{\vec k}^{*}
2571: \hat \Phi _{\vec k}\right\rangle
2572: \propto{\cal P}_\Phi (k)\delta^3 (\vec k-\vec k^{{\prime} })
2573: \ \ . \label{assume}
2574: \end{equation}
2575: The angular bracket $<>$ denote an ensemble average and ${\cal P}_\Phi$
2576: is the predicted power spectrum.
2577: De Sitter inflation delivers a flat, Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum
2578: which corresponds to ${\cal P}_\Phi =$constant.
2579: Other forms for ${\cal P}_\Phi\propto k^{n-1}$ have been
2580: derived from specific inflationary models
2581: with the spectral index $n\ne 1$ and give tilted as
2582: opposed to flat spectra.
2583:
2584:
2585:
2586: From the preceding we can fully predict $\Phi$ and
2587: therefore $\delta T/T$ given the curvature of spacetime and the initial
2588: spectrum. Armed with this prediction, fluctuations on a given manifold
2589: can be compared to the data. For data comparison it is
2590: customary to consider the correlation function.
2591: Although $\delta T(\vx)/T$ permeates space, we only observe
2592: fluctuations from our SLS at location $\vx=\Delta \eta\hat n$
2593: with $\hat n$ a unit directional vector.
2594: Since the fluctuations are taken to be Gaussian, the correlation function
2595: contains all of the information about the temperature fluctuations.
2596: The ensemble average
2597: correlation function between any two points on the sky is
2598: \be
2599: C(\hn,\hnp)\, = \,
2600: \left\langle
2601: {\delta T\over T}(\hn) {\delta T\over T}(\hnp) \right\rangle.
2602: \label{corrf}
2603: \ee
2604: The theoretically predicted $C(\hat n,\hat n^{\prime})$
2605: can then be statistically compared to the data to estimate the likelihood
2606: a given model is responsible for the world we live in.
2607:
2608: Because fluctuations are observed on a sphere it is customary to decompose
2609: the data into spherical harmonics,
2610: \be
2611: {\delta T\over T}(\hat n)=\sum_{\ell m}a_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m}(\hat n)
2612: \label{sphereharm}
2613: \ee
2614: where the $Y_{\ell m}$'s are the usual spherical harmonics. The
2615: spherical harmonics form a complete set of states on the sphere and
2616: are orthogonal so that
2617: \be
2618: \int_0^{2\pi}d\phi \int_0^{\pi}
2619: \sin\theta d\theta Y_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^*(\theta,\phi)Y_{\ell m}
2620: (\theta,\phi)=\delta_{\ell^\prime \ell}\delta_{m^\prime m}
2621: \ee
2622: and unit normalized.
2623: Using the orthogonality of the $Y_{\ell m}$,
2624: invert (\ref{sphereharm}) to find
2625: \be
2626: a_{\ell m}=\int d\Omega Y_{\ell -m}(\hat n){\delta T\over T}
2627: (\hat n)
2628: \ \ .\label{invert}
2629: \ee
2630: If the probability distribution is Gaussian, then the Fourier correlation
2631: function
2632: \be
2633: C_\ell=\left < \left |a_{\ell m}\right |^2 \right >
2634: \ee
2635: contains
2636: complete information about the fluctuations.
2637: The $<>$ again denotes an ensemble average.
2638: Either non-Gaussianity or the breaking
2639: of homogeneity and isotropy with topological identifications
2640: will mean that the
2641: $C_\ell$'s do not provide complete information. We will
2642: emphasize this in section \S \ref{obshyp}.
2643:
2644: Assuming for now a simply connected topology, homogeneity and isotropy
2645: of the metric allows one to perform an angular average which is in
2646: effect an average over $m$'s without loss of information.
2647: Such an average gives an estimator for
2648: the ensemble average angular power spectrum $C_\ell$,
2649: \be
2650: C_{\ell}=\sum_{m=-\ell}^{m=\ell}|a_{\ell m}|^2/(2l+1).
2651: \label{est}
2652: \ee
2653: Using equation (\ref{invert}) gives
2654: \be
2655: C_{\ell}={1\over (2l+1)}\sum_m\left
2656: [\int d\Omega^{\prime} Y_{\ell -m}(\hat n^{\prime})
2657: \int d\Omega Y_{\ell m}(\hat n)
2658: \left <{\delta T\over T}(\hat n){\delta T\over T}(\hat n^\prime)
2659: \right >\right ]
2660: \ \ .
2661: \label{clong}
2662: \ee
2663: The parameter $\ell $ can be associated with the angular size of a given
2664: fluctuation, with $\ell\sim \pi /\theta$. Large angle fluctuations are
2665: associated with low $\ell$ and small angle fluctuations are associated
2666: with high $\ell $.
2667: The lower the value of $\ell$, the fewer contributions there are to the sum
2668: (\ref{est}).
2669: As a result, the estimator of the true ensemble average is poorer
2670: for low $\ell$ than it is for high $\ell$ where there are many
2671: contributions to the average. This is known as cosmic variance and can
2672: be included as an error bar.
2673: For a homogeneous, isotropic space cosmic variance can be estimated as
2674: \be
2675: C_\ell \sqrt{2/({2 \ell +1})} .\ee
2676: We only have one universe available to measure and we cannot be sure that
2677: our universe is not just a randomly large deviation from average.
2678: It is difficult to interpret the significance of low $\ell$ observations such
2679: as the lack of power in the quadrupole as observed by \cb.
2680: The ambiguity of cosmic variance
2681: is worsened with topological identifications as emphasized in \cite{bpsII}.
2682:
2683:
2684: These are all the tools needed to determine $\delta T/T$ for a specific
2685: theoretical model, the correlation function $C(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)$,
2686: and the angular
2687: average power spectrum $C_\ell$. These predictions can then
2688: be compared with data.
2689: When we come to the influence of topology we will see the increasing importance
2690: of using full sky maps of $\delta T/T$ and the full correlation function
2691: $C(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)$.
2692:
2693:
2694: We have described the scalar modes above.
2695: There are also tensor modes which are gravitational waves and vector modes
2696: which are rotational perturbations and do not grow with time. The
2697: scalar modes are the only ones which couple to the energy density and
2698: pressure and we restrict ourselves to scalar modes hereafter.
2699: Topology may in fact influence the gravitational wave background but
2700: to date this remains unexplored territory.
2701:
2702: The primordial fluctuations catalyze the formation of galaxies and
2703: galaxy clusters. So the minute quantum fluctuations are amplified
2704: into the gigantic structures we see today. The primordial spectrum
2705: can be tested by measuring the fluctuations in the CMB but there are
2706: other manifestations. For instance, the eventual nonlinear growth of
2707: perturbations can be simulated numerically to test theoretical
2708: predictions for structure formation against astronomical
2709: observations. It would be interesting to know if topological features
2710: could sculpt the distribution of structure as well \cite{lb_fractals}.
2711:
2712: In the following subsections we find the eigenmode decomposition in
2713: simply connected spaces.
2714: Perpetuating a cruel prejudice against $\es$ we consider only $\ah $ and
2715: $\eu $. However, the authors of Ref.\ \cite{newsphere} catalog all of
2716: the $\es$ topologies and discuss detection strategies based on the
2717: crystallographic methods.
2718: The motivation for neglecting $\es$ topologies in connection with
2719: the CMB is observational as
2720: there is no outstanding evidence which supports an $\Omega >1$
2721: universe \cite{open}.
2722: The current debate is whether $\Omega=1$ or whether $\Omega <1$.
2723: The future satellites which aim to refine measurements of the CMB intend
2724: to resolve this debate.
2725: The overriding theoretical prejudice is for $\Omega=1$ consistent with
2726: inflation. More
2727: recently the supernova data has drummed up enthusiasm for
2728: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ and $\Omega_m=0.3$ so that the total $\Omega=1$
2729: \cite{saul}.
2730: The recent small angle experiments Boomerang and MAXIMA
2731: corroborate these values if certain prior assumptions constrain
2732: the statistical analysis. More quantitatively, the current numbers
2733: are $\Omega =0.90\pm 0.15$, $\Omega_b h_0^2=0.025 \pm 0.010$
2734: $\Omega_{CDM}h_0^2=0.13\pm 0.10$ and a spectral index of
2735: $n=0.99\pm 0.09$ \cite{balbi} where
2736: the subscript $b$ denotes the baryonic
2737: contribution and the subscript $CDM$ denotes the net contribution
2738: from cold dark matter.
2739: Still, the data are clearly underdetermined
2740: and it is an unresolved issue how many different
2741: models can match the data.
2742:
2743: In Ref.\ \cite{addr} an argument is made for
2744: a constraint on $\Omega_0$ with some model-independence.
2745: They argue that a constraint is imposed if one
2746: requires that a local maximum detected in
2747: the correlation function of large scale structure
2748: ($\sim 100-200h^{-1}$Mpc)
2749: occurs at the same comoving positions at different redshifts.
2750: The argument is independent of both CMB and supernova Ia data, and
2751: favors a hyperbolic universe.
2752: Their result is a cosmology with $\Omega_0=0.9\pm0.15$ (95\% confidence)
2753: (with $Omega_\Lambda$ in the vicinity of $\sim $ 0.65).
2754:
2755: Instead of entering further into the parameter estimation debate, we will
2756: review the recent investigations in cosmic topology which have
2757: focused on the flat and the hyperbolic manifolds.
2758: For an interesting catalog of topologies for more general
2759: Bianchi classes see Ref.\ \cite{bark}
2760:
2761:
2762: \subsection{Observing the CMB}
2763: \label{obscmb}
2764:
2765:
2766: Many billions of years after last scattering, we build the COsmic
2767: Background Explorer (COBE) satellite to confirm the earlier detections
2768: by Penzias and Wilson of the microwave background radiation.
2769: The all sky map generated by the COBE satellite confirmed that
2770: the average temperature was homogeneous and isotropic at
2771: 2.728 ${}^o$ K
2772: %\pm 0.010
2773: and that the spectrum was extremely thermal, a result
2774: that drew spontaneous applause when presented in 1992. The data also
2775: confirmed the theoretical expectation that there are in fact minute
2776: fluctuations as predicted by inflation at the $10^{-5}$ level that
2777: appear to be scale invariant.
2778: COBE measures fluctuations on large scales, $\ell \le 30$. Low $\ell$s
2779: correspond to
2780: fluctuations on scales far outside
2781: the horizon at the time of decoupling and therefore can only be due to
2782: fluctuations in the metric and density.
2783: So COBE
2784: which measures $\ell \lta 30$ is a probe of the largest geometric
2785: features and therefore is quite important as a probe of topology as
2786: well. Causal microphysics becomes important for $\ell \gta 100$.
2787: At these large $\ell$ our calculation of
2788: $\delta T/T$ in eqn.\ (\ref{sachswolfe})
2789: is insufficient as it neglects microphysical effects and
2790: a more detailed analysis is required.
2791: Of particular importance are the high $\ell$ Doppler peaks.
2792: Before recombination, sound waves in the baryon-photon fluid induce
2793: additional Doppler shifts which produce a peak in power
2794: on a scale related to the size of the horizon at the time of
2795: decoupling. The height of the peaks depends on the specific model
2796: parameters. The location of the first peak depends primarily on curvature,
2797: $\ell_{\rm peak} \simeq 220 \Omega_0^{-1/2}$, with some small $H_0$ dependence.
2798: \cb does not measure high $\ell$ fluctuations but two important all-sky
2799: satellites will, Microwave Anisotropy probe (MAP) and {\it Planck Surveyor}.
2800: The recent balloon borne experiments locate
2801: $\ell\sim 200$ and therefore contribute more evidence in favor of
2802: $\Omega_0\sim 1$.
2803:
2804: The task of the Differential Microwave Radiometer (DMR) experiment on
2805: the COBE satellite was to
2806: measure the large angle
2807: anisotropy of the entire sky \cite{{bennet},{smoot}}.
2808: The temperature \cb measures in a given pixel can be written
2809: \be
2810: \left (\delta T\over T\right )_i=
2811: \sum_{\ell m} a_{\ell m} B_\ell Y_{\ell m}(\vec x_i)
2812: +n_i
2813: \ee
2814: where $B_\ell$ is the experimental beam pattern and the noise in each pixel is
2815: $n_i$. The DMR horns are characterized by an imperfect Gaussian beam pattern.
2816: The noise is assumed to be uncorrelated and
2817: Gaussian with mean
2818: $<n_i>=0$ and variance $ <n_in_j>=\sigma \delta_{ij}$.
2819:
2820: \begin{figure}[tbp]
2821: \centerline{
2822: \psfig{file=cobe.eps,width=2.5in}
2823: } \vskip 15truept
2824: \caption{The three panels are, from top to bottom, the combined
2825: data before the dipole is subtracted, the data after dipole subtraction but
2826: before the galactic cut, the map minus both dipole and galactic emission.
2827: Taken from the COBE webpage
2828: at http://space.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/cobe/
2829: }
2830: \label{cobepic}
2831: \end{figure}
2832:
2833: The experiment consists of three pairs of antennae. Each pair measures
2834: the temperature difference in two directions separated by $60^\circ$.
2835: Each antenna has a $7^{\circ}$ beam and the data is smoothed on $10^\circ$.
2836: A full sky scanned was performed several times over 4 years.
2837: The \cb data is provided in the form of 6 maps in 3 frequencies, 31,
2838: 53
2839: and 90 GHz \cite{{smoot},{bennet}}.
2840: Each map has $N_p=6144$ of size $(2.6^o)^2$.
2841: Compressing to resolution 5 pixels, $N_p=1536$ pixels of
2842: size $(5.2^o)^2$, loses no information and
2843: is sometimes implemented in data analysis.
2844:
2845: The observed
2846: $C_\ell$s have been determined from the \cb data by Gorski
2847: \cite{kris}, by
2848: Tegmark \cite{teg}, and by Bond, Jaffe and Knox
2849: \cite{jaffe}.
2850: The monopole ($\ell =0 $) is just the average temperature
2851: itself and can be discarded from the data.
2852: The largest scale anisotropy is the dipole ($\ell=1$) generated by our solar
2853: system's peculiar velocity relative to the CMB. Since this is not
2854: cosmological in origin, the entire dipole is discarded from the data.
2855: The first relevant cosmological observations begin with $\ell =2$,
2856: the quadrupole, and it is curious to note that the measured
2857: quadrupole is low. This may just be cosmic variance in action but compact
2858: manifolds do happen to predict low power on large scales. This is discussed
2859: at length in section \S \ref{obsflat}.
2860: The six maps can be
2861: compressed
2862: into one weighted-sum map
2863: with the monopole and dipole subtracted. A galactic cut
2864: of a region $\pm 20^o$
2865: around the
2866: Galactic
2867: plane is also needed to eliminate Galactic emission.
2868: This finally messaged data is ready for comparison to theoretical predictions.
2869:
2870:
2871: The signal-to-noise of \cb is $\xi=2$. By comparison, the projected
2872: sensitivity of MAP is $\xi=15$ with a resolution of $0.5^\circ$,
2873: a tenfold improvement in signal-to-noise and 30 in resolution.
2874: Planck has even higher resolution but will launch much later.
2875:
2876:
2877: \subsection{Topology and the CMB}
2878: \label{obstop}
2879:
2880: Several aspects of the fluctuation spectrum are altered when the
2881: manifold is multiconnected. The most conspicuous and consistent
2882: signatures of topological identifications are as follows:
2883: (1) Multiconnectedness destroys
2884: global isotropy for all but the projective space and destroys global
2885: homogeneity for all but the the projective space and the hypertorus.
2886: (2) The spectrum of fluctuations is discrete reflecting the natural
2887: harmonics of the finite space.
2888: (3) Since the fluctuations must fit within
2889: the finite space, there is a cutoff in perturbations with wavelengths
2890: which exceeds the topological scale in a given direction.
2891: (4) Geometric patterns are encrypted in the spatial correlations. The
2892: patterns reflect the repeated occurrence of topologically
2893: lensed hot and cold spots.
2894: %The most interesting patterns are the
2895: %emergence of correlated circles in the sky as predicted in Ref. \cite{css1}.
2896:
2897:
2898: The proposed methods of scanning the CMB for
2899: evidence of topology can be split into direct
2900: statistical methods and geometric methods. The direct methods
2901: begin with a theoretical model, compute the temperature fluctuations
2902: as was done in \S \ref{simpflat} and \S \ref{simphyp} for the simply
2903: connected spaces, and determine the likelihood of the model parameters
2904: against the data. There are shortcomings with this brute force approach.
2905: All conclusions are model dependent and there are an infinite number of
2906: models. The model is not just the manifold but also the orientation and
2907: the location of the Earth and the initial primordial spectrum. While
2908: some conclusions can still be drawn there is an appeal to a model independent
2909: attempt at observing topology. That is where the geometric methods come in.
2910: The geometric methods treat topological lensing much like gravitational
2911: lensing. One just observes the lensed images and their distribution to
2912: reconstruct the geometry of the intervening lens. The most amusing example
2913: is the correlated circles of \S \ref{obscirc} although other patterns
2914: can emerge as well as described in \S \ref{obspat}.
2915:
2916: Before preceding to review the known approaches to observing topology
2917: it is worth expanding on point (1) above.
2918: The global anisotropy and inhomogeneity means that the correlation function
2919: depends on the location of the observer and the orientation of the manifold.
2920: Additionally, $C(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)$ depends on both $\hat n$ and
2921: $\hat n^\prime$ and not just the angle between them. As a result,
2922: the angular average performed in the definition of the multipole moments
2923: $C_\ell$ discards important topological information.
2924: The information lost in the angular average
2925: can be quantified
2926: by an enhanced cosmic variance $\left <C_\ell^2 \right>$
2927: \cite{bpsII}.
2928: The correlation function can be decomposed into isotropic and
2929: anisotropic pieces,
2930: \be
2931: C(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)=C^I(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)
2932: +C^A(\hat n, \hat n^\prime).
2933: \ee
2934: By isotropy
2935: \be
2936: C^I(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)=\sum_{\ell} {\ell +1/2\over
2937: \ell(\ell +1)}C_\ell P_\ell(\hat n\cdot \hat n^\prime)
2938: \ee
2939: and by anisotropy
2940: \be
2941: C^A(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)=\int d\Omega_{\hat n}
2942: \int d\Omega_{\hat n^\prime} C^A(\hat n, \hat
2943: n^\prime)P_\ell(\hat n \cdot \hat n^\prime)=0
2944: \ee
2945: so that the anisotropic piece is orthogonal to the Legendre
2946: polynomials.
2947: The expectation value of the estimator for the $C_\ell$ depends
2948: solely on the isotropic piece by construction
2949: \be
2950: \left < \tilde C_\ell\right >={\ell(\ell+1)\over 8\pi^2}
2951: \int d\Omega_{\hat n} \int d\Omega_{\hat n^\prime}
2952: C(\hat n, \hat n^\prime)P_\ell(\hat n\cdot \hat n^\prime),
2953: \ee
2954: but the variance
2955: \be
2956: {\rm var}(\tilde C_\ell)=\left < \tilde C_\ell^2\right >-
2957: \left < \tilde C_\ell\right >^2
2958: \ee
2959: contains anisotropic pieces.
2960: This can be interpreted as very large error bars due to cosmic
2961: variance. As a result, conclusions based on the $C_\ell$'s alone
2962: are weak \cite{{bpsI},{bpsII}}.
2963: Many of the statistical analyses described below do only
2964: examine the $C_\ell$s and so can only rule out a topology but never
2965: really confirm topology.
2966:
2967: However, others have argued that this increased error is not very
2968: large for compact hyperbolic spaces. An argument by Inoue for instance
2969: expresses the variance as the sum of a geometric variance and the usual cosmic
2970: variance. The geometric variance contains the additional variance due
2971: to topology and is intrinsically small \cite{inoueprog}. The smallness of
2972: the geometric variance can be traced to the randomness of the
2973: eigenmodes on compact hyperbolic models (explored further in \S
2974: \ref{numersol}) which generates what Inoue refers to as
2975: geometric Gaussianity \cite{ktinoue}.
2976:
2977: \newpage
2978: \section{Observing flat topologies in the CMB}
2979: \label{obsflat}
2980:
2981: Since the flat spaces are most easily constrained
2982: using the \cb data we begin with them and discuss hyperbolic manifolds
2983: in all their glory separately.
2984: While small universes can be ruled out, it is rather fascinating to
2985: note that
2986: large cases are marginally consistent with the data.
2987: After all, the observed quadrupole is low and
2988: so the infrared truncation in power seen in flat spaces and described
2989: below can actually create a better fit to the data.
2990: However, such a marginal flat space, just
2991: coinciding with the size of the observable universe is unaesthetic
2992: at best. In fact, there is no natural scale for the size of a flat
2993: universe and they are not the favored small universe candidates for this
2994: reason. Still, they provide an important and accessible testing ground
2995: for methods of observation and we discuss them next.
2996:
2997:
2998: \subsection{Direct methods in flat space}
2999: \label{directflat}
3000:
3001:
3002: \subsubsection{Simply connected flat space}
3003: \label{simpflat}
3004:
3005: In flat, simply connected space, the spectrum of fluctuations is well known.
3006: We need to find the elements of eqn. (\ref{elem}) with $F(\eta)$
3007: the solution to eqn. (\ref{feta}).
3008: In flat space ${\cal H}=2/\eta$
3009: and the solution to eqn (\ref{feta}) decays as
3010: $\Phi^\prime\propto \eta^{-6}$.
3011: Consequently,
3012: in flat space $F(\eta)$ is effectively constant and there is no ISW effect
3013: during radiation or matter domination. (There is however an ISW effect
3014: if the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant. This may turn
3015: out to be important in salvaging finite flat models if the universe is
3016: accelerating as the recent supernovae observations indicate \cite{saul}.)
3017: The Laplacian in flat space is simply
3018: \be
3019: \left ({\partial^2_x}+{\partial^2_y}+{\partial^2_z}\right )
3020: \psi_{\vec k}= -k^2 \psi_{\vec k}
3021: \ee
3022: with solutions
3023: \be
3024: \psi_{\vec k}=
3025: \exp\left (i{\vec k}\cdot \vx
3026: \right ).
3027: \ee
3028: The potential of eqn.\ (\ref{elem}) can then be expanded in terms of these
3029: as
3030: \be
3031: {\Phi(\vx)}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d^3 k
3032: \hat \Phi_{\vec k}\exp\left (i{\vec k}\cdot \vx
3033: \right )
3034: \ee
3035: All of the assumptions about the statistics and shape of the spectrum are
3036: contained in the $\hat \Phi_{\vec k}$. All other quantities are
3037: determined by the geometry of the space.
3038: In accordance with the
3039: inflationary prediction the $\hat \Phi_{\vec k}$ are
3040: assigned an independent Gaussian probability distribution
3041: consistent with the flat space normalization
3042: \begin{equation}
3043: \left\langle \hat \Phi _{\vec k}
3044: \hat \Phi^* _{\vec k^\prime}\right\rangle
3045: ={\frac{2\pi^2}
3046: {k^3}}{\cal P}_\Phi (k)\delta^3 (\vec k-\vec k^{\prime })
3047: \ \ \label{assumef}
3048: \end{equation}
3049: \cite{mkb}.
3050:
3051: From eqn. (\ref{sachswolfe}) the Sachs-Wolfe
3052: effect is simply
3053: \be
3054: {\delta T(\hat n)\over T}={\Phi(\hat n)\over 3}.
3055: \ee
3056:
3057: The correlation function between any two points on the SLS is then, from
3058: eqn (\ref{corrf}),
3059: \be
3060: C(\hn,\hnp)\propto \int
3061: {d^3 k\over k^3}
3062: {\cal P}_\Phi
3063: \exp\left(i\Delta \eta \vec k \cdot (\hn - \hnp )
3064: \right )
3065: \label{eq:cnn}
3066: \ee
3067: up to a normalization.
3068: For a homogeneous and isotropic space,
3069: the correlation function depends only on the angular
3070: separation between $\hn$ and $\hnp$. Consequently all the information on
3071: the theoretical sky is in the angular average.
3072: Using the orthogonality relations of the
3073: Legendre polynomials in eqn (\ref{clong}) gives
3074: \ba
3075: C_\ell
3076: &= &
3077: \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int d \Omega \int d \Omega' C(\hn, \hnp) P_\ell(\mu)
3078: \nonumber \\
3079: &=& {4\pi\over 25}\int_0^{\infty}{dk\over k}j^2_l(\Delta \eta k)
3080: {\cal P}_\Phi.
3081: \ea
3082: %where $\mu = \hn \cdot \hnp$.
3083: If we assume the initial fluctuation is a powerlaw
3084: ${\cal P}_\Phi\propto k^{n-1}$, this can be integrated to give
3085: \ba
3086: C_\ell \propto {\Gamma(\ell +(n-1)/2)\over\Gamma(\ell+(5-n)/2)}
3087: {\Gamma((9-n)/2)\over \Gamma((3+n)/2)}
3088: \label{clflat}
3089: \ea
3090: \cite{bondef}.
3091:
3092: As described in
3093: \S \ref{obscmb},
3094: the \cb data has been analyzed over the years by many groups to
3095: determine the $C_{\ell}$'s observed. Statistical likelihood
3096: analyses are then performed to compare the theoretical model
3097: with the \cb data. The infinite, flat model is generally found
3098: to be consistent with the data for a nearly flat power spectrum
3099: ($n\sim 1$).
3100: The question addressed in the next section, is how well finite
3101: flat models match the data. To flash forward, the answer is essentially
3102: that finite flat models match the data well if they are comparable in size
3103: to half the observable universe although some studies have put
3104: even stronger limits as described below. All limits are subject
3105: to caveats based on the
3106: assumptions made about the perturbation
3107: spectrum -- none of which have yet been tested observationally.
3108:
3109: \subsubsection{Compact, flat spaces}
3110: \label{compflat}
3111:
3112: We have already reviewed the standard decomposition of the temperature
3113: fluctuations in a simply connected space. When the manifold is compact and
3114: the SLS exceeds the dimensions of the space, then the global topology
3115: is reflected in the CMB sky.
3116: There are three notable alterations
3117: to the predicted fluctuations when
3118: the manifold is compact: (1) The eigenvalue spectrum is discrete not
3119: continuous. (2) There is a cutoff in the power of fluctuations on wavelengths
3120: which exceed the natural size of the space.
3121: (3) The correlation function $C(\hn,\hnp)$ depends on orientation and
3122: so depends on both $\hn$ and
3123: $\hnp$ explicitly. It is not simply a function of the angular separation.
3124:
3125:
3126:
3127: The exact eigenmodes can be found for all of the 6 compact orientable
3128: flat spaces \cite{{lss},{slsi}}. This allows a direct statistical
3129: comparison of the theoretical predictions for compact, orientable spaces
3130: with the \cb data. With any statistical comparison of a model with the
3131: data, the conclusions are model dependent.
3132: The reader should bear in mind that the bounds quoted assume equal-sided
3133: spaces, $\Omega_\Lambda=0$, and a flat Gaussian distributed
3134: power spectrum.
3135:
3136: The earliest bounds on the hypertorus constrained the topology scale to be
3137: $\gta 0.8\Delta \eta$ \cite{sss} which is still less than the diameter of the
3138: SLS.
3139: There could still be as many as eight
3140: copies of our universe within the observable horizon.
3141: The analysis was later extended to the other
3142: compact, orientable flat spaces where similar bounds were obtained
3143: \cite{{lss},{slsi}}. Stronger bounds were put on the hypertorus by comparing
3144: the full covariance matrix against the 2-year \cb data \cite{deO1}.
3145: The length of a side was set to be $\gta 1.2 \Delta \eta $.
3146:
3147:
3148: The most conspicuous feature in the fluctuation
3149: spectrum is a suppression of power
3150: on large scales since large fluctuations cannot fit into the finite box.
3151: Such an infrared cutoff can be deduced from Cheeger's inequality \cite{cheeger}
3152: \be
3153: k_{min}\ge {h_C\over 2},
3154: \quad \quad h_C=\inf_X{A(S)\over {\rm min}\left (V(M_1),V(M_2)\right )}
3155: ,
3156: \ee
3157: with the infimum taken over all possible surfaces $S$ that divide the space
3158: into two subspaces ${\cal M}_1$ and ${\cal M}_2$ where
3159: ${\cal M}={\cal M}_1\cap {\cal M}_2$. $S$ is the boundary of the two subspaces,
3160: $S=\partial {\cal M}_1=
3161: \partial {\cal M}_2$.
3162: The isoperimetric constant $h_C$ depends on the geometry more than
3163: the topology. Intuitively speaking, in very long thin manifolds
3164: $h_C$ can be quite small leading to a lowered spectrum of eigenvalues.
3165: However, this is highly correlated with thin bottleneck structures and is not
3166: a common feature of spaces with a more regular shape \cite{{cheeger},{buser}}.
3167: From Cheeger's inequality it follows that
3168: all flat hypertori have $k_{min}\ge 2/L$ with $L$ the longest side of the
3169: torus
3170: as argued in \cite{bpsI}.
3171:
3172: Although the cutoff would seem a good indicator of topology, it just so happens
3173: that
3174: the longest wavelength
3175: fluctuation observed, namely the quadrupole, is in fact low.
3176: Some might even take this as evidence for topology \cite{workshop}.
3177: Cosmic variance is also large on large scales.
3178: Consequently, a fundamental domain the size of the observable universe
3179: is actually consistent with the observed \cb $C_\ell$s \cite{lss}.
3180: However, since the fundamental domain has a particular orientation on the sky,
3181: the correlation is not simply a function of the angular separation
3182: between $\hn$ and $\hnp$ as it is in the infinite case.
3183: Therefore conclusions based on the $C_\ell$s alone are weaker than a
3184: statistical analysis based on the full $C(\hat n, \hat n^\prime)$.
3185: The strongest bounds on the hypertorus were placed
3186: by comparing the full
3187: correlation function $C(\hat n, \hat n^\prime)$ to the data.
3188: It was found that $L\gta 1.3 \Delta \eta$ \cite{{deO1},{bpsI},{bpsII}}, which
3189: is still less than the diameter of the observable universe,
3190: $\sim 2\Delta \eta$.
3191: Asymmetric spaces were constrained by de Oliviera-Costa et. al. as described
3192: in section \S \ref{geomflat}.
3193:
3194: %\noindent{\bf Compact Flat Space Spectra}
3195:
3196: Despite the bounds placed on the equal-sided
3197: compact, flat spaces, they still provide an excellent testing ground for
3198: geometric measures of topology. They may also be saved by
3199: $\Omega_\Lambda\ne 0$ models. We compile a list of
3200: all the eigenmodes, eigenvalues and relations for the compact flat spaces
3201: for completeness.
3202: These solutions are taken from Ref. \cite{slsi}. The spectra were also
3203: found in Ref. \cite{sss} for the other compact spaces, however, the critical
3204: relations were overlooked leading to confusion about the cutoff in the
3205: long wavelength modes. It was mistakenly concluded because of the missing relations that in the twisted spaces longer
3206: wavelengths could fit in the fundamental domain
3207: since a wave needs to wrap more than once before coming back to
3208: a fully periodic identification \cite{css2}.
3209: However it was shown in Ref. \cite{slsi}, that these long modes are
3210: forbidden
3211: by the relations among the $\hat \Phi_{\vec k}$, and all of the compact
3212: topologies have roughly the same long wavelength cutoff.
3213:
3214: As a result of the global topology,
3215: all of these spaces are anisotropic and all except for the
3216: hypertorus are inhomogeneous. Topology can be implemented by
3217: imposing the boundary conditions
3218: \be
3219: \Phi_{\vec k}(\vx)=\Phi_{\vec k}(g\vx) \quad \forall g\in\Gamma
3220: .
3221: \ee
3222: Compact topology
3223: always restricts the eigenvalues to a discrete
3224: spectrum:
3225: \be
3226: \Phi(\vec x)=\sum_{\vec k}\hat \Phi_{\vec k} e^{i\vec k\cdot \vec x}
3227: \ \ .
3228: \label{eigensum}
3229: \ee
3230: In additional, relations
3231: are imposed on the $\hat \Phi_{\vec k}$.
3232:
3233:
3234: \begin{figure}
3235: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/flat/paper1/para.eps,width=1.5in}}
3236: \centerline{\psfig{file=para.eps,width=1.5in}}
3237: \caption{Tiling flat space with parallelepipeds.}
3238: \label{para}
3239: \end{figure}
3240:
3241:
3242: Demonstrating the discretization
3243: explicitly for the hypertorus, the identifications of the
3244: cube are expressed in the three boundary conditions
3245: $\Phi(x,y,z)=\Phi(x+L_x,y,z)=\Phi(x,y+L_y,z)=\Phi(x,y,z+L_z)$.
3246: Imposing the first boundary condition on $\Phi(\vec x)$ of
3247: eqn.\ (\ref{eigensum}) gives
3248: $e^{-ik_xx}=e^{-ik_x(x+h)}$ which requires $k_x={2\pi\over l_x}n_x$ with
3249: $n_x$ an integer. The other two boundary conditions provide the discrete
3250: spectrum
3251: \be
3252: k_x={2\pi \over l_x} n_x\quad \quad
3253: k_y={2\pi \over l_y} n_y\quad \quad
3254: k_z={2\pi \over l_z} n_z
3255: \ \
3256: \ee
3257: with the $n_i$ running over all integers \cite{{zel73},{fanghoujun},
3258: {sss}}.
3259: It is clear that there is a minimum eigenvalue and hence a maximum wavelength
3260: which can fit inside the fundamental domain defined by the parallelepiped
3261: \cite{sss}:
3262: \[
3263: k_{\rm min}=2\pi \ {\rm min}\left ( {1\over L_i}
3264: \right )\quad
3265: {\lambda}_{\rm max} ={\rm max}\left (L_i\right)\ .
3266: \nonumber
3267: \]
3268: Although global anisotropy is broken by topology, we can still form
3269: the $C_\ell$s to make a comparison, if incomplete, with the \cb
3270: $C_\ell$s.
3271: Expanding the exponential and
3272: Legendre polynomials in terms of spherical harmonics, the
3273: $C_\ell$ eqn.\ (\ref{clong}) becomes
3274: \be
3275: C_\ell \propto
3276: \sum_{\vec k} \sum_{\vec k'}
3277: {{\cal P}_{\vec k}\over k^3}
3278: j_\ell^2(\Delta \eta k)
3279: \label{eq:cl}
3280: \ee
3281: Three other spacetimes are constructed from a
3282: parallelepiped.
3283: The first twisted parallelepiped
3284: has opposite faces identified with one pair of faces
3285: twisted by $\pi $ before gluing.
3286: The eigenmodes are
3287: $\vec k=2\pi(j / h, w/b,n/2c)$, with the additional relation
3288: $\hat \Phi_{jwn}=\hat \Phi_{-j -w n}\ e^{i {\pi}n}$. The minimum
3289: mode consistent with the relations is $k_{\rm min}=2\pi/L$. The
3290: $C_\ell$s become
3291: \be
3292: C_\ell \propto
3293: \sum_{jwn}
3294: \frac{{\cal P}(k)}{k^3}
3295: \frac{j_\ell(\Delta \eta k)^2}
3296: {2 \ell + 1}
3297: \sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}
3298: |Y_{\ell,m}({\bf \hat k})|^2
3299: ( 1 + e^{i \pi (n+m)}).
3300: \ee
3301:
3302: A
3303: parallelepiped with
3304: one face rotated by $\pi/2$ has
3305: discrete eigenmodes
3306: $\vec k=2\pi(j / h, w/b,n/4c)$, with the additional relations
3307: $\hat \Phi_{jwn}=\hat \Phi_{w -j n}e^{in\pi/2}
3308: =\hat \Phi_{-w -jn}e^{in\pi}=\hat \Phi_{-w j n}e^{i 3n\pi/2}$.
3309: Again the minimum mode is $k_{\rm min}=2\pi/L$.
3310: The $C_\ell$s are given by
3311: \be
3312: C_\ell \propto
3313: \sum_{jwn}
3314: \frac{{\cal P}(k)}{k^3}
3315: \frac{j_\ell(\Delta \eta k)^2}
3316: {2 \ell + 1} \sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}
3317: |Y_{\ell,m}({\bf \hat k})|^2
3318: ( 1 + e^{i (n+m){\pi}/2} +
3319: e^{i (n+m){\pi}} + e^{i 3(n+m){\pi}/2}).
3320: \ee
3321:
3322: The last parallelepiped
3323: has a fundamental domain of volume $2 h b c$ and is thus
3324: a double parallelepiped.
3325: The identification rules involve three rotations through
3326: $\pi$ as shown in \cite{wolf}.
3327: They are
3328: so that $(x,y,z)\rightarrow (x+h,-y,-z)$,
3329: $(x,y,z)\rightarrow (-x,y+b,-(z+c))$, and
3330: $(x,y,z)\rightarrow (-(x+h),-(y+b),z+c)$.
3331: The resultant discrete spectrum is
3332: $\vec k=\pi(j / h, w/b,n/4c)$ with relations
3333: $\hat \Phi_{jwn}
3334: =\hat \Phi_{j-w -n}\ e^{i\pi j}
3335: =\hat \Phi_{-jw -n}\ e^{i\pi(w+n)}
3336: =\hat \Phi_{-j-w n}\ e^{i\pi(j+w+n)}$.
3337: The minimum mode is $k_{\rm min}=\sqrt{2}\pi/L$.
3338: Since the volume of the space is $2L^3$, the
3339: angular averaged long wavelength
3340: is $\sqrt{2}/2^{1/3}\simeq 1.1 $ times the length of the fundamental domain.
3341: The angular power spectrum is
3342: \ba
3343: C_\ell & \propto&
3344: \sum_{jwn}
3345: \frac{{\cal P}(k)}{k^3}
3346: \frac{j_\ell(\Delta \eta k)^2}
3347: {2 \ell + 1} \sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}
3348: Y_{\ell,m}^*({\bf \hat k}) \times \\ \nonumber
3349: &\big(&
3350: Y_{\ell,m}({\bf \hat k}) (1 + e^{i (m+j+w+n)\pi})
3351: + Y_{\ell,-m}({\bf \hat k}) e^{i \ell \pi}
3352: (e^{i (m+j)\pi} + e^{i (w+n)\pi}) \big).
3353: \ea
3354:
3355:
3356: \begin{figure}
3357: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/flat/paper1/hex.eps,width=1.5in}}
3358: \centerline{\psfig{file=hex.eps,width=1.5in}}
3359: \caption{Tiling flat space with hexagonal prisms.}
3360: \label{hexag}
3361: \end{figure}
3362:
3363:
3364: The last two possible compact flat spaces are based on a
3365: hexagonal tiling. With
3366: the opposite sides of the hexagon identified and the prism faces
3367: rotated relative to each other by
3368: $2\pi/3$, the potential can be written
3369: \be
3370: \Phi =\sum_{n_2 n_3n_z} \hat \Phi_{n_2 n_3 n_z}
3371: e^{ik_z z}
3372: \exp {\left [
3373: i{2\pi \over h}\left [
3374: n_2\left ( x -{1\over \sqrt{3}} y \right )
3375: +n_3\left ( x +{1\over \sqrt{3}} y \right )\right ] \right ]}
3376: \label{hexmodes}
3377: \ee
3378: with the eigenmodes
3379: $\vec k=2\pi((n_2+n_3) / h, (-n_2+n_3)/b,n_z/3c)$.
3380: The relations on this space are
3381: $\hat \Phi_{n_2, n_3, n_z}
3382: =\hat \Phi_{n_3, -(n_2+n_3), n_z} e^{i2\pi n_z/3}
3383: =\hat \Phi_{-(n_2+n_3), n_2, n_z} e^{i4\pi n_z/3}$
3384: and lead to
3385: \be
3386: C_\ell \propto
3387: \sum_{n_2n_3n_z}
3388: \frac{{\cal P}(k)}{k^3}
3389: \frac{j_\ell(\Delta \eta k)^2}
3390: {2 \ell + 1} \sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}
3391: |Y_{\ell,m}({\bf \hat k})|^2
3392: ( 1 + e^{i 2(n_z+m){\pi}/3} + e^{i 4(n_z+m){\pi}/3}).
3393: \ee
3394:
3395: Lastly, the prism faces are glued
3396: after rotation by $\pi/3$.
3397: The potential can still be written as (\ref{hexmodes}), with eigenmodes
3398: $\vec k=2\pi((n_2+n_3) / h, (-n_2+n_3)/b,n_z/6c)$
3399: and a set of relations
3400: $\hat \Phi_{n_2, n_3, n_z}
3401: =\hat \Phi_{(n_2+n_3), -n_2, n_z} e^{i\pi n_z/3}
3402: = \hat \Phi_{n_3, -(n_2+n_3), n_z} e^{2i\pi n_z/3}
3403: = \hat \Phi_{-n_2,-n_3, n_z} e^{i\pi n_z}
3404: = \hat \Phi_{-(n_2+n_3), n_2, n_z} e^{i4\pi n_z/3}
3405: = \hat \Phi_{-n_3, (n_2+n_3), n_z} e^{i5\pi n_z/3}$.
3406: The $C_\ell$s are given by
3407: \ba
3408: C_\ell & \propto&
3409: \sum_{n_2n_3n_z}
3410: \frac{{\cal P}(k)}{k^3}
3411: \frac{j_\ell(\Delta \eta k)^2}
3412: {2 \ell + 1} \sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}
3413: |Y_{\ell,m}({\bf \hat k})|^2 \\ \nonumber
3414: &(& 1 + e^{i (n_z+m){\pi}/3} + e^{i 2(n_z+m){\pi}/3}
3415: + e^{i (n_z+m){\pi}} + e^{i 4 (n_z+m){\pi}/3}
3416: + e^{i 5 (n_z+m){\pi}/3}).
3417: \ea
3418: The volume of both of these topologies is $h^2 c \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$.
3419:
3420: In summary, both the $\pi$-twisted and
3421: $\pi/2$-twisted tori have $C_\ell$s that are almost identical to that of the
3422: torus.
3423: The harmonics do show distinctions
3424: between the parallelepiped topologies, but unfortunately
3425: the variations fall well within cosmic variances.
3426: In addition to the damping at low $\ell$, harmonics of the discrete
3427: spectrum create both dips and enhancements extending up to high values of
3428: $\ell$. The dips are a natural consequence of the
3429: discretization and the resultant absence of certain modes in the
3430: spectrum. The enhancements are due to the distribution
3431: of multiple images dictated by the geometry of the fundamental domain.
3432:
3433: As a result of the low observed quadrupole,
3434: the predicted cutoff alone is not enough to rule out compact, flat models.
3435: The likelihood of the $C_\ell$ in the full \cb range was
3436: compared to the relative likelihood of a flat, infinite cosmology in
3437: Ref. \cite{{sss},{lss},{slsi}}.
3438: Compact, flat spaces are
3439: tens of times less likely than their infinite counterparts if the topology scale exceeds about half
3440: the diameter of the SLS.
3441: Since compact topologies do not give isotropic temperature
3442: fluctuations, this lends ambiguity to any likelihood analysis. The
3443: conclusions drawn were quite conservative, ruling out $\ell \gta 0.8 \Delta
3444: \eta$; that is, the length of a side must be $\gta 0.4$ the diameter
3445: of the observable universe. Again, it should be emphasized that these
3446: conclusions are contingent on the correctness of the
3447: assumptions about the initial perturbation spectrum.
3448:
3449: While the angular power spectrum
3450: is sufficient to constrain symmetric, flat topology it is in general a poor
3451: discriminant. The average over the sky fails to recognize the strong
3452: inhomogeneity and anisotropy manifest in these cosmologies.
3453: Direct attacks on anisotropic spaces inspires more geometric approaches
3454: as discussed next.
3455:
3456:
3457: \subsection{Geometric methods in flat space}
3458: \label{geomflat}
3459:
3460: %For $T^3$ they performed a comparison of the $C_\ell$ to the
3461: %data to bound the cell size assuming relative independence on the
3462: %cell orientation for a $20^\circ$ Galaxy cut \cite{deO1}.
3463: %Asymmetric toroidal universes were ruled constrained in Ref. \cite{deO2}.
3464: %Using the 2 year \cb data set they found that rectangular spaces
3465: %must have topology scales in excess of $3000 h^{-1}$ Mpc at the
3466: %95 \% confidence level. The rectangles considered had one dimension
3467: %effectively infinite and either both of the other dimensions compact
3468: %$T^2$ or just one of the other dimensions compact $T^2$.
3469:
3470: One of the first geometric, or pattern driven searches for topology was
3471: initiated in Ref. \cite{deO2}. For an anisotropic hypertorus,
3472: a symmetry plane or a symmetry axis can be identified in the CMB
3473: \cite{{sokolov},{star},{fang}}.
3474: For these asymmetric spaces,
3475: a search for patterns was emphasized in Ref. \cite{deO2}.
3476: They develop a statistic that is independent of cell orientations but is
3477: sensitive to the plane and axis symmetries of the rectangular spaces.
3478: For
3479: anisotropic models there is a stronger dependence on the orientation of the
3480: manifold relative to the Galaxy cut.
3481: The statistic $S(\hat n_i)$ searches for reflection symmetries in a plane
3482: perpendicular to $\hat n_i$ and is defined by
3483: \be
3484: S(\hat n_i)={1\over N_{pix}}
3485: \sum_{j=1}^{N_{pix}}{\left [{\delta T(\hat n_j)\over T}
3486: -{\delta T(\hat n_{ij})\over T}\right ]^2\over
3487: \sigma^2(\hat n_j)+\sigma^2(\hat n_{ij})}.
3488: \ee
3489: $N_{pix}$ is the number of pixels after the Galaxy cut and
3490: $\sigma (\hat n)$ is the r.m.s. error associated with the pixels
3491: in the direction $\hat n$. The object
3492: $\hat n_{ij}$
3493: is the reflection of $\hat n_j$ in the plane with normal $\hat n_i$,
3494: \be
3495: \hat n_{ij}=\hat n_j-2(\hat n_i\cdot \hat n_j)\hat n_i.
3496: \ee
3497: Lower values of $S(\hat n_i)$ corresponds to a higher degree of symmetry.
3498: The temperature fluctuation is computed using the eigenmode expansion and
3499: a flat spectrum. The resultant $\delta T/T$ depends on
3500: six parameters: the three spatial orientations fixing
3501: the domain orientation and the three topology scales.
3502:
3503: The smaller a given direction the more extreme the asymmetry.
3504: In $T^1$ for instance, if the $z$ direction is extremely small,
3505: then the size of fluctuations will be notably smaller in this direction
3506: leading to a map where there is essentially less and less structure
3507: at \cb resolution in this one direction and the structure will be drawn out
3508: on the $(x,y)$ plane. Similarly for $T^2$ there will essentially only be
3509: structure along the large direction and so the pattern will appear to be rings
3510: of fluctuations along the small directions.
3511:
3512: %The distribution of their statistic does not appear to depend much on the
3513: %Galaxy cut.
3514:
3515: Using this statistic, $T^1$ and $T^2$ models were constrained to be greater
3516: than half the radius of the SLS
3517: %$0.5 \Delta \eta$
3518: in their small dimensions. Subsequently, the circle method was
3519: used to study specific asymmetric models \cite{boudcirc} where again
3520: pessimistic conclusions were reached
3521: as discussed in \S \ref{obscirc}.
3522:
3523: \newpage
3524: \section{Observing hyperbolic topologies in the CMB}
3525: \label{obshyp}
3526:
3527:
3528:
3529: %\centerline{\bf The Eigenvalue Problem}
3530:
3531:
3532: The eigenmode decomposition is well known on simply connected $\ah$
3533: and is given in \S \ref{fluctcmb}.
3534: However, when hyperbolic space is fully compact
3535: the decomposition becomes intractable. This is a stronger statement
3536: than simply saying the eigenmodes and eigenvalues are {\it difficult}
3537: to find. It is actually formally impossible to write down the eigenmodes
3538: analytically. The boundary conditions are so intricate they resist
3539: decomposition \cite{bv}.
3540:
3541: The absence of an analytic solution to the eigenmode spectrum can be
3542: directly related to the incipient chaos on compact manifolds.
3543: On simply connected $\ah$ geodesics show the first critical ingredient
3544: for the onset of chaos; that is, extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
3545: The geodesic deviation equation shows that two nearby trajectories
3546: diverge away from each other exponentially quickly:
3547: \be
3548: {D^2\zeta^\mu\over ds^2}=-R^\mu_{\alpha\beta \gamma}u^\alpha
3549: \zeta^\beta u^\gamma
3550: \ee
3551: where $u^\mu=dx^\mu/ds$ and $\zeta^\mu$ is the separation of neighboring
3552: geodesics. Normal to the geodesic flow this becomes \cite{et}
3553: \be
3554: {d^2||\zeta_N^\mu\zeta_{N\mu}||\over ds^2}
3555: =-2\kappa||\zeta_N^\mu\zeta_{N\mu}||
3556: \ee
3557: where $\kappa$ is the curvature. If $\kappa<0$, these geodesics diverge
3558: exponentially and a coordinate invariant Lyupanov exponent can be
3559: interpreted as $\lambda=\sqrt{|\kappa|}$.
3560: Still, there is no chaotic motion on infinite $\ah$ since there
3561: is no mixing and no folding of trajectories. In other words, there is
3562: no loss of predictability as a result of the exponential deviation.
3563: By contrast, when the space is made topologically compact, the mixing
3564: and folding of trajectories is assured and the flows are well known to
3565: be fully chaotic.
3566: An entropic measure of the chaotic flow
3567: can be related to the volume of the manifold through
3568: the Kolmogorov entropy $S_K\propto {\cal V}^{-1/3}$
3569: where ${\cal V}$ is the volume of the spacetime \cite{sinai}.
3570: Notice that if the space is infinite
3571: this entropy vanishes.
3572:
3573:
3574: Chaotic flows on compact 2-dimensional manifolds in particular
3575: have been studied at great length \cite{{bv},{aurichsteiner},{gutz},
3576: {ott}}. The cosmological implications of chaos have only been touched
3577: upon \cite{{css3},{lb_fractals}} and remain a largely unexplored terrain.
3578: By and large, people have tried to obviate the chaotic
3579: flows entirely when analyzing the CMB. Methods include
3580: brute force numerical determination of the modes, the method of
3581: images construction of CMB maps, and geometric methods. We will
3582: discuss a catalog of such studies.
3583:
3584: \subsection{Direct methods in hyperbolic space}
3585: \label{directhyp}
3586:
3587: \subsubsection{Simply connected hyperbolic space}
3588: \label{simphyp}
3589:
3590: Since all of the numerical methods will rely on the expansion of the
3591: eigenmodes on the universal cover, we summarize those results here.
3592: From the standard expansion (\ref{elem}). We need to determine each
3593: of the factors in the decomposition.
3594: In negatively curved space perturbations are time dependent according
3595: to eqn (\ref{feta}) with solution
3596: \be
3597: F(\eta)={5\left (\sinh^2\eta-3\eta\sinh\eta+4\cosh\eta+4\right
3598: )\over \left (\cosh\eta-1\right )^3}.
3599: \ee
3600:
3601: In a negatively curved space the Helmholtz eqn becomes
3602: \be
3603: {1\over \sinh^2 r}\left [
3604: \partial_r\left (\sinh^2r{\partial _r}\right )+
3605: {1\over \sin^2\theta}
3606: {\partial_\theta}\left (\sin\theta \partial_\theta
3607: \right )+{1\over \sin^2\theta}\partial^2_\theta \right]\psi_{\vec k}
3608: =-k^2
3609: \psi_{\vec k}.
3610: \ee
3611: As emphasized in Ref. \cite{lyth}, a complete orthonormal basis for
3612: the simply connected space is formed
3613: by modes with real $k^2>1$ and so the eigenvalue range
3614: is $k^2=[1,\infty]$. These modes vary on a scale below the curvature
3615: radius and are therefore subcurvature modes. Standard causal theories
3616: such as inflation will not seed fluctuations on scales $k<1$ although some
3617: other unforeseen mechanism may.
3618: It is customary to introduce another parameter
3619: \be q^2=k^2-1\ee
3620: with the
3621: range $q^2=[0,\infty]$.
3622: The eigenmodes on $\ah $ can be expressed as
3623: \be
3624: \psi_{q \ell m}=X_{q\ell}(r)Y_{\ell m}(\hat n)
3625: \ee
3626: where the $Y_{\ell m}$'s are the usual spherical harmonics and
3627: the $X_{q\ell}$ are the radial functions
3628: \be
3629: X_{q\ell}={\Gamma(\ell +1+iq)\over \Gamma(iq)}
3630: \sqrt{1\over \sinh r}P^{-\ell -{1\over 2}}_{iq-{1\over 2}}(\cosh r)
3631: \ee
3632: where $\Gamma$ denotes the Gamma function and $P$ denotes the Legendre functions
3633: \cite{lyth}.
3634:
3635:
3636:
3637:
3638: The $\hat\Phi_q$ are drawn from a Gaussian probability distributions
3639: with proper normalization for hyperbolic space
3640: \be
3641: \left <
3642: \hat \Phi_{q\ell m} \hat \Phi^*_{q^\prime\ell^\prime m^\prime}
3643: \right >
3644: ={2\pi^2\over q(q^2+1)}{\cal P}_\Phi(q) \delta({ q- q^\prime})
3645: \delta_{\ell\ell^\prime}\delta_{m m^\prime}
3646: \ee
3647:
3648: We can summarize the Sachs-Wolfe
3649: effect as
3650: \be
3651: {\delta T(\hat n)\over T}=\int d^3{\vec k} \hat\Phi_{\vec k}(\hat n)
3652: L_{\vec k}
3653: \ee
3654: with both the surface Sachs-Wolfe and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe accounted
3655: for in
3656: \be
3657: L_{\vec k}=
3658: \left [ {1\over 3}F(\eta_{sls})+2\int_{\eta_{sls}}^{\eta_0}
3659: d\eta F^\prime (\eta)\right ] \psi_{\vec k}(\vec x)
3660: \ \ .
3661: \ee
3662:
3663: The Fourier multipoles are
3664: \be
3665: C_\ell=2\pi^2\int_1^{\infty}{dk\over k(k^2-1)}{\cal P}_\Phi(k)
3666: \left [{1\over 5}X_{k\ell}(\Delta \eta)+{6\over 5}
3667: \int_{\eta_d}^{\eta_0}dr\ X_{k\ell}(r)F^\prime(\Delta \eta-r)
3668: \right ]^2.
3669: \ee
3670: The \cb data alone tends to favor $\Omega\sim 0.3-0.4$
3671: (see for instance \cite{krzy}) although both very low
3672: $\Omega $ and an $\Omega \sim 1$ are still compatible.
3673: For a long time, the COBE results along with other astronomical
3674: observations \cite{spergelcqg} put low $\Omega $ cosmologies
3675: in the limelight. However, more recent high $\ell $ observations \cite{exper}
3676: in conjunction with the supernovae data \cite{saul} have
3677: pushed public opinion back towards $\Omega=1$ cosmologies.
3678: The recent high $\ell $ observations only examine small patches of
3679: the sky. A full sky map is required to advance topology observations
3680: and so we reserve more commentary until the launch and hopeful
3681: success of the future MAP and {\it Planck} missions.
3682:
3683:
3684: \subsubsection{Cusps}
3685: \label{obscusps}
3686:
3687: There are multiconnected hyperbolic spaces which are not completely
3688: compact (see Ref. \cite{lum} for some examples
3689: such as those of Refs. \cite{{lobell},{seifertweber}}).
3690: For some of these the motion is not chaotic
3691: and it is possible to find the
3692: eigenmodes. One topology of particular interest is the toroidal horn
3693: \cite{{sos},{lbbs}}. The horn is interesting since many
3694: manifolds have cusped corners as stressed by \cite{css2}.
3695: %A cusp is a finite truncation of the infinitely long horn.
3696: Despite
3697: their frequency in a set of generic manifolds,
3698: it was argued in Ref. \cite{css2} that according to the thick-thin
3699: decomposition,
3700: % \cite{thick},
3701: it would very improbable for us to live
3702: in the thin part of the manifold. However, this argument is flawed.
3703: Since the
3704: cusp narrows exponentially quickly, an observer can live in a fat
3705: part of the manifold and still see photons coming from a constricted
3706: part of the cusp.
3707: %What is valid as pointed in Ref. \cite{css2} is that
3708: %the fatter the part of the manifold in which we live, the poorer the
3709: %cusp approximation will be to the fully compact manifold which will
3710: %show the intricacies of the fully chaotic flows.
3711: %[are they right about that?]
3712: However, Olson and Starkman have developed an approximation scheme to study
3713: cusps on full compact manifolds which shows the generic patterns do in
3714: fact persist.
3715:
3716:
3717: \begin{figure}
3718: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/conf/horn.eps,width=2.5in}}
3719: \centerline{\psfig{file=horn.eps,width=2.5in}}
3720: \caption{Embedding of the cusp topology with one of the dimensions
3721: suppressed.}
3722: \label{horn}
3723: \end{figure}
3724:
3725: The cusp is most easily understood in the upper half space representation
3726: of $\ah $ (see Appendix \ref{AppendixA})
3727: \be
3728: ds^2=-d\eta^2+dz^2+e^{-2z}\left (dx^2+dy^2\right )
3729: \label{coordsys}
3730: \ee
3731: with the coordinate transformation
3732: $e^{-z}=\cosh r-\sinh r\cos \theta, e^{-z}x=\sin\theta\cos\phi\sinh r,
3733: e^{-z}y=\sin\theta\sin\phi\sinh r$.
3734: The $(x,y)$ subspace looks like a conformally stretched flat space.
3735: The topological identifications $x\rightarrow x+L_x$ and $y\rightarrow y+L+y$
3736: make a 2-torus which is squeezed in area
3737: by the exponential factor $e^{-2z}$
3738: into a tightening cusp.
3739: Since the subspace is conformally flat, there are no tangled geodesics and
3740: it is possible to decompose the eigenvalues analytically.
3741:
3742: In the coordinate system (\ref{coordsys}),
3743: the temperature fluctuations can be decomposed as
3744: \begin{equation}
3745: {\frac{\delta T}T}(\hat n_y)=\int_0^\infty dq\ \sum_{n_xn_y}\hat \Phi _{qn_xn_y}
3746: (\hat n)N_{qn_xn_y}L_{qn_xn_y} \label{it}
3747: \end{equation}
3748: with the normalization
3749: \begin{equation}
3750: N_{qn_xn_y}=\left( {\frac{2q\sinh (\pi q)}{\pi ^2}}{\frac{(2-\delta
3751: _{n_x0})(2-\delta _{n_y0})}{bh}}\right) ^{1/2}
3752: \end{equation}
3753: and
3754: \be
3755: L_{qn_xn_y}=\left[ {\frac 13}+ 2\int_{\eta _{{\rm i}}}^{\eta
3756: _o}d\eta F^{\prime }(\eta )\right] e^zK_{iq}(Qe^z)\times
3757: \pmatrix{ \sin\left({2\pi n_x\over b}x\right )\cr \cos\left({2\pi
3758: n_x\over b}x\right )\cr}\pmatrix{ \sin\left({2\pi n_y\over h}y\right )\cr
3759: \cos\left({2\pi n_y\over h}y\right )\cr}\ \
3760: \ee
3761: where $K_{iq}$ is a modified Bessel function with imaginary index.
3762: The
3763: entire function is included here in the integration over $\eta $. The
3764: argument of the Bessel function is
3765: $Q^2=4\pi ^2(n_x^2/L_x^2+n_y^2/L_y^2)$. Notice that $q$ is still a continuous
3766: index since the $z$ direction is infinite. There is no cutoff in
3767: the range of $q$ but there is a cutoff in the range of $(n_x,n_y)$.
3768: This cutoff results in a severe suppression of power
3769: as an observer lives nearer the cusp. The suppression appears as a flat
3770: spot in simulations of the \cb sky with concentric rings
3771: of larger and larger structures as the cusp widens \cite{lbbs}.
3772:
3773: A standard likelihood analysis of the $C_\ell$s places the size of the
3774: torus at the location of the Earth to be $\gta \Delta \eta$. This is
3775: not a particularly narrow part of the cusp relative to the SLS but nonetheless
3776: an observer can
3777: still see exponentially
3778: deep down the throat putting large quiet regions in the CMB maps \cite{lbbs}.
3779:
3780: The generic property of flat spots
3781: was tested in Ref. \cite{olsonstark}. They showed that from a typical
3782: location in a cusped manifold m003, flat spots of angular size $\sim 5^\circ$
3783: would be visible for $\Omega_o=0.3$. They conjecture that observable
3784: flat spots on this
3785: scale are typical of cusped manifolds.
3786: To handle the fully compact case Olson and Starkman found a means to
3787: approximate the modes in the cusp without tackling the full eigenmode
3788: solutions.
3789: They consider a horosphere, a sphere within the Poincar\'e representation
3790: of $\ah$, which is tangent to the cusp and passes through the point
3791: on the SLS. On the horosphere, the transformation group simplifies and they
3792: are able to isolate modes.
3793:
3794: The specific space they consider is a cusped manifold, namely m003, constructed
3795: from two tetrahedra with total volume
3796: ${\cal V}\approx 2.0299$. The restriction to the horosphere results in
3797: a hexagonal tiling of $\eu$ and the eigenmodes are reminiscent of those
3798: of eqn (\ref{hexmodes}). Consequently the minimum eigenmode from
3799: the hexagonal tiling provides an estimate for the extent of the flat spot.
3800: Situating the observer at a symmetric point in the manifold they find
3801: that flat spots in the CMB from cusped regions subtend an average angle
3802: of roughly $5^\circ$ for $\Omega_0=0.3$. Larger values of $\Omega_0 $
3803: will naturally diminish the angular scale.
3804: They argue that in general cusped manifolds will show flat spots as
3805: characteristic features in the CMB maps.
3806:
3807:
3808: \begin{figure}
3809: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/cusp/top1_k10n25nd15.ps,width=2.5in}}
3810: \centerline{\psfig{file=top1_k10n25nd15.eps,width=2.5in}}
3811: \caption{Flat spot in a map of the sky in the cusp topology with
3812: scales
3813: $b=h=1$ and $\Omega_0=0.3$}
3814: \label{flatspot}
3815: \end{figure}
3816:
3817: \subsubsection{Numerical Eigenvalue Solutions}
3818: \label{numersol}
3819:
3820: The eigenmodes can always be obtained by brute force numerically.
3821: Three groups have developed numerical methods to isolate a list of
3822: eigenmodes and eigenvalues for a small collection of manifolds
3823: \cite{{inoue},{inouetomita},{inouethesis},{cornsperg},{aurich}}.
3824: A comparison of the simulated CMB sky with the \cb data shows the
3825: specific compact hyperbolic manifolds studied were consistent
3826: with the data. However
3827: all of the statistical analyses
3828: compare only the
3829: $C_\ell$'s and not the full correlation functions.
3830: Using the method of images to simulate the CMB,
3831: a full statistical analysis is performed
3832: by Bond, Pogosyan, and Souradeep as described in section \S \ref{obsmi}
3833: where more negative
3834: conclusions are obtained; namely that the spaces studied were
3835: inconsistent with COBE except for maybe one orientation of the manifold.
3836: It would be interesting if numerical eigenmode constructions
3837: would compare a full
3838: statistical analysis to that performed using
3839: the method of images to check for consistency.
3840:
3841: \centerline{\bf Eigenmodes of the Thurston Space}
3842:
3843: Inoue was the first to find precise eigenmodes on a compact hyperbolic
3844: 3-space for the purposes
3845: of simulating a cosmological model.
3846: (Aurich and Marklof were the first to compute the eigenmodes on an
3847: orbifold \cite{aurichmarklof}.)
3848: His method was based on the direct
3849: boundary element method initially developed by Aurich and Steiner for the
3850: study of $2$-dimensional compact hyperbolic spaces.
3851: The numerical method is based on solving the Helmholtz equation
3852: \be
3853: (\nabla^2+k^2)\psi_{\vec k}(\vx)=0
3854: \label{helm}
3855: \ee
3856: on a compact manifold, i.e.
3857: with periodic boundary conditions on the universal
3858: covering space. Various methods for doing so
3859: include the finite element method and the
3860: finite difference method.
3861: He uses the more precise but numerically more time consuming
3862: method called the direct boundary element method
3863: (DBEM)
3864: also used by Aurich and Steiner to study quantum chaos on
3865: a 2D compact space \cite{aurichsteiner}.
3866: He isolated
3867: the first 36 eigenmodes of the
3868: manifold $m003(-2,3)$ from the SnapPea census, otherwise
3869: known as the Thurston space in homage to the Fields Medalist
3870: W. Thurston.
3871: There are two particularly interesting results.
3872: Firstly he finds a cutoff in the low $k$ eigenvalues and therefore
3873: a maximum wavelength at a value
3874: near the average diameter of the space.
3875: Secondly,
3876: he discovered that
3877: the expansion coefficients of the eigenmodes ($\xi_{qlm}$ below)
3878: are well described as
3879: pseudo-random in behavior
3880: \cite{inoue}.
3881: Despite the long-wavelength cutoff,
3882: the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is able to compensate for low
3883: $\Omega_0$, as expected. Consequently,
3884: assuming an
3885: Harrison-Zeldovich power spectrum,
3886: he finds that the $C_\ell$'s are consistent
3887: with \cb for $0.1 \le \Omega_0 \le 0.6$.
3888:
3889:
3890: \begin{figure}
3891: \centerline{\psfig{file=thursi.ps,width=2.25in}}
3892: \caption{
3893: Dirichlet domain for the Thurston space}
3894: \label{thurs}
3895: \end{figure}
3896:
3897:
3898: As in flat space, the eigenvalues are a discrete subset of the
3899: continuous eienvalues. Since, the eigenmodes of a compact manifold
3900: are a
3901: subset of the eigenmodes on the universal cover (\S \ref{simphyp}),
3902: they can be expanded as
3903: \be
3904: \psi^{\cal M}_{q }=\sum_{\ell m}
3905: \xi_{q\ell m}X_{q\ell}(r)Y_{\ell m}(\hat n).
3906: \label{modexpan}
3907: \ee
3908: The $\xi_{q\ell m}$ can be thought of us as containing the
3909: analogue of the relations found explicitly in flat space
3910: in section \S \ref{compflat}.
3911: The challenge of numerically isolating the modes can be reduced to the
3912: still difficult task of finding the $\xi_{q\ell m}$.
3913: Inoue explicitly finds that the $\xi_{q \ell m}$ behave as random Gaussian
3914: numbers for ($\ell <19$ and $q>9.94$). He extrapolates that this continues
3915: to be true, even more so, for all higher modes and introduces this as
3916: an approximation to determine modes above $k=10$.
3917: A distinction should be made between the random Gaussian
3918: initial conditions
3919: contained in the $\hat \Phi_{\vec q}$ and the random Gaussian behavior of
3920: the $\xi_{\vec q}$. The former is an
3921: assumption which may or may not be true depending on the history of
3922: the universe while the latter is a property of the manifold.
3923:
3924: The DBEM was first used
3925: to find the pseudo-Gaussian random numbers $\xi_{q\ell m}$
3926: for $k<10$ \cite{inoue} and the analysis was then extended to include the
3927: first 36 eigenmodes with $k\le 13$ \cite{inouetomita}.
3928: (As discussed below, it is claimed in Ref. \cite{cornsperg}
3929: that 2 modes were originally overlooked in this method).
3930: A numerical cutoff in the low $k$ spectrum was found at the value
3931: $k_1=5.41$.
3932: The corresponding maximum wavelength
3933: $\lambda_{\rm max}=2\pi/k_1$ can be compared to an approximation for
3934: the diameter of ${\cal M}$ which
3935: he computes as the average of the in-radius and the out-radius.
3936: The manifold has
3937: in-radius $r_{in}=0.535$, out-radius $r_{out}=0.7485$
3938: (and volume ${\cal V}=0.98139$).
3939: This
3940: yields $k_{\rm min}=4\pi/(r_{+}+r_{-})=4.9$, an agreement to within 10\% of his
3941: $k_1$.
3942: There are no supercurvature modes in the Thurston space.
3943:
3944: The pseudo-Gaussian behavior can be interpreted
3945: in a quantum mechanical context \cite{inoue}.
3946: Let the Laplace-Beltrami operator be the Hamiltonian of a quantum system, then
3947: the eigenmode is a wavefunction eigenstate.
3948: Since the underlying classical dynamics is chaotic, it has been conjectured
3949: that the quantum mechanical system will be governed by the predictions
3950: of random matrix theory (RMT) \cite{{berry},{ott}}.
3951: One such prediction is that the square expansion coefficients are
3952: Gaussian distributed if expanded with respect to a generic bases.
3953: In particular, the coefficients should be given by the
3954: Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE)
3955: \be
3956: P(x)={1\over \sqrt{2\pi x}}e^{-x/2}.
3957: \ee
3958: To check this prediction for the modes (\ref{modexpan}), Inoue
3959: first recasts the eigenmodes
3960: in terms of real independent coefficients
3961: $a_{q\ell m}$ and real functions $R_{q\ell m}$ as
3962: \be
3963: \psi^{\cal M}_{q}=\sum_{\ell m}a_{q\ell m}R_{q\ell m}
3964: \ee
3965: where the $a_{q\ell m}$ can be expressed in terms of the $\xi_{q\ell m}$
3966: and the $R_{q\ell m}$ can be expressed in terms of the $X_{q\ell}Y_{\ell m}$
3967: \cite{inoue}.
3968: Following \cite{aurichsteiner}, he examines the statistical behavior of
3969: \be
3970: x={|a_{q\ell m}-\bar a_q|^2\over \sigma_q^2}
3971: \ee
3972: where $\bar a_q$ is the average and $\sigma_q^2$ the variance.
3973: The probability is singular
3974: at $x=0$ and so it is customary to
3975: compare the numerics to the cumulative distributions
3976: \be
3977: I(x)=\int^x_0P(x)dx={\rm erf}(\sqrt{x/2}).
3978: \ee
3979: %The cumulative
3980: %Random matrix theory distribution is computed as
3981: % \ba
3982: % I_\mu(x) &=& \int_0^xdx^\prime P_\mu(x^\prime)\nonumber \\
3983: % &=& {\gamma(\mu/2,\mu x/2)\over \Gamma(\mu/2)}
3984: % \ea
3985: %where $\gamma(y,z)$ is the incomplete gamma function.
3986: To test the RMT
3987: prediction, the numerically determined cumulative distribution are compared
3988: for a goodness of fit. Very good agreement with the GOE prediction is found
3989: confirming Gaussian behavior for the low lying states. The Gaussian behavior
3990: is expected for the highly excited states as a consequence of the classical
3991: chaos but Gaussian behavior for the low lying states is less obvious.
3992: Yet this is in fact what his observations confirm.
3993: He also tests the randomness of the $a_{q\ell m}$ and finds that they do
3994: behave as random variables.
3995: The randomness is not a property of the eigenmodes but
3996: is due rather to
3997: the almost random distribution of images in the
3998: universal cover.
3999: The number of copies of the fundamental domain inside a sphere with
4000: radius $\eta_0$ is
4001: \be
4002: n_1={\pi(\sinh(2\eta_0)-2\eta_0\over {\cal V}}
4003: \ee
4004: giving $n_1\sim 29$ for $\eta_0=1.6$.
4005:
4006: The number of eigenmodes increases as $k^3$ and the number of boundary
4007: elements increases as $k^2$. The task of computing high $k$ modes becomes
4008: unmanageable with this method.
4009: For higher $k$, Ref \cite{inoue} suggests taking the clue
4010: from the behavior of low $k$ modes and approximating the highly-excited states
4011: as random Gaussian numbers with a variance proportional to $q^{-2}$.
4012: Using Weyl's asymptotic formula,
4013: \be
4014: N[q]={{\cal V}q^3\over 6\pi^3}
4015: \quad \quad q\equiv \sqrt{k^2-1}\quad \quad q>>1
4016: \ee
4017: with $N$ an integer.
4018: Since for a CH space the volume is fixed, Weyl's formula effectively
4019: relates the number of states at a given $k$ with a topological feature
4020: of the space. It also allows an estimate of the $k_j$.
4021: The spacing between discrete eigenvalues decreases as the inverse of
4022: $k$ for large $k$ and so approaches a continuous spectrum in the large
4023: limit, as expected.
4024: Weyl's formula
4025: is well obeyed and 30 of the 36 modes show random Gaussian behavior.
4026: Interestingly,
4027: six degenerate states are found
4028: which correspond to a nearly symmetric mode
4029: reflecting the global symmetry of the fundamental domain.
4030: While a linear combination of the
4031: degenerate modes shows Gaussian
4032: behavior again.
4033: This is typical of classically chaotic systems where the classical chaos
4034: leads to a Gaussian behavior in the quantized eigenmodes although
4035: occasionally the global symmetry of the space can surface in the eigenmodes
4036: as non-Gaussian behavior.
4037: (The connection with quantum chaos led
4038: Inoue to use the Selberg Trace Formula to compute eigenvalues for a large
4039: number of CH manifolds \cite{inouetrace}. This method proved to be quicker
4040: and easier to implement numerically.)
4041:
4042:
4043:
4044: The
4045: $C_\ell$'s are calculated
4046: %in the range $2\ge \ell \le 18$
4047: by sewing together the numerically obtained
4048: eigenmodes for the eigenvalues in the range $5.4 \le k\le 13$ with
4049: the above approximation for the expansion coefficients for
4050: $13\le k<20$.
4051: With the assumption that ${\cal P}_\Phi=$constant,
4052: the resultant $C_{\ell }$ is compared with the \cb data
4053: to conclude that the spectrum is consistent with \cb for
4054: $0.2 \le \Omega_0\le 0.6$.
4055: The cutoff in the spectrum due to the minimum
4056: mode $k=5.4$ is buried under the contributions to low $\ell $ power from
4057: the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The ISW becomes important during the
4058: curvature dominated epoch at about $1+z\sim (1-\Omega_o)/\Omega_o$.
4059: They find the contribution from $k \le 13$ modes
4060: to $C_\ell $ for $2\le \ell \le 20$ is 7 \%
4061: for $\Omega=0.2$ and 10\% for $\Omega_o=0.4$. The rest is due to the ISW.
4062: For this reason, the spectra appear to have a gradual peak near the
4063: long-wavelength cutoff or are nearly
4064: flat down to low $k$ and are less severely constrained
4065: for $\Omega\ge 0.1$ than the flat
4066: models of section \S \ref{obsflat} \cite{{inoue},{inouetomita}}.
4067: In fact they find very good agreement with
4068: \cb for $\Omega_0=0.6$, better than other FRW models. In particular,
4069: an alignment of the peak in the \cb data at $\ell\sim 4$ with the peak
4070: due to the cutoff accounts for the better fit.
4071:
4072: The conclusion cannot be stated as proving that the Thurston space is
4073: consistent with the observations, only that it does not appear inconsistent.
4074: A comparison of the full correlation function to the data may not survive
4075: consistency and in fact does not according the method of images analysis
4076: of \cite{{bpsI},{bpsII}}.
4077:
4078:
4079:
4080: \centerline{\bf Eigenmodes of an Orbifold}
4081:
4082: Aurich was able to compute a huge number of eigenmodes,
4083: the first 749, in an orbifold with negative curvature.
4084: Orbifolds can have compact volume but possess points which are
4085: not locally $R^3$. They can also have rotation group elements among
4086: their isometries, unlike manifolds which have no groups with fixed points
4087: in their isometries. In the absence of a predictive theory for the topology
4088: of the cosmos, there is
4089: no convincing reason to omit them from the catalog.
4090: Interestingly, they can have even smaller volumes than the minimum bound
4091: on compact hyperbolic spaces.
4092: %$V_{{\cal O}}\sim 0.7173068$ [?].
4093:
4094: The fundamental cell is a pentahedron which is symmetric along a plane
4095: dividing the fundamental domain into two identical tetrahedra.
4096: This allows a
4097: desymmetrizing of the pentahedron useful for deducing the eigenmodes
4098: following early work \cite{aurichmarklof}.
4099: There are 9 compact hyperbolic tetrahedra and
4100: the one built into the pentahedral orbifold
4101: is known as $T_8$. The volume of $T_8$ is
4102: ${\cal V}_{\rm tetrahedron}\simeq 0.3586524$ which is smaller than
4103: the Weeks space.
4104: The smallest compact hyperbolic tetrahedron $T_3$ has volume
4105: ${\cal V}=0.03588506 $, ten times smaller than $T_8$
4106: and smaller even than the existing bound on CH manifolds
4107: ($V_{\cal M}=5/(2\sqrt{3}){\rm arcsinh}^2(\sqrt{3}/5)\sim 0.167$).
4108: Using the boundary element method
4109: 749 eigenmodes on $T_8$ are obtained.
4110:
4111: Both radiation and matter are included in his analysis which evolves
4112: the metric
4113: perturbations according to the usual adiabatic, linear perturbation theory
4114: and solves $F(\eta)$ numerically.
4115: In his analysis, the eigenmodes are expanded
4116: as
4117: \be
4118: \Phi(\eta,\vx)=\sum F_q(\eta)\psi_q(\vx)
4119: \label{exp1}
4120: \ee
4121: where the $\psi_q$ are the eigenmodes and all of the time dependence is
4122: in $F_{\vec q}(\eta)$.
4123: Notice that in comparison to the standard
4124: expansion \ref{fluctcmb}, he does not
4125: include the usual randomly seeded fluctuation amplitude $\hat \Phi_k$. Instead
4126: all of the initial conditions are absorbed into $F(\eta)$ with
4127: \be
4128: F_q(\eta_i) =\alpha/q^{3/2}
4129: \quad \quad F^\prime_q(\eta_i)=0.
4130: \label{exp2}
4131: \ee
4132: There is however some element of randomness in the sign of the fluctuation.
4133: The eigenfunctions have a freedom in the phase. Since the phase is always
4134: chosen to be real, this freedom results in a $\pm $ ambiguity in the
4135: eigenfunction which is chosen randomly.
4136: The constant $\alpha $ is normalized against the \cb data.
4137: This is consistent with the Harrison-Zeldovich flat spectrum in terms of
4138: normalization but lacks any of the randomness that real fluctuations
4139: would have.
4140: Because the randomness of the temperature fluctuations about the mean is
4141: neglected, it would not be quite right to
4142: interpret the simulated maps of Ref \cite{aurich} in terms of
4143: an actual universe. The advantage however is that the maps
4144: show a random nature
4145: which can only be due to the random character of the modes
4146: themselves. This is important for the reasons discussed at length in the
4147: previous
4148: subsection \ref{directhyp}.
4149:
4150: Since the $C_\ell$ produces a global averaging,
4151: an ensemble average is generated by the expansion
4152: (\ref{exp1})-(\ref{exp2}) even if the standard
4153: random initial fluctuations were ignored. Although
4154: the simulations depend on the location of the observer and the orientation
4155: of the manifold,
4156: this dependency is not examined and the observer
4157: is fixed, offset from the origin.
4158: The $C_\ell $'s are compared to
4159: the $\ell <30$ \cb data, the Saskatoon data around $\ell \sim 100$
4160: \cite{saskatoon} and the QMAP data \cite{qmap}
4161: above $\ell\sim 80$.
4162: All modes are computed up to $k_{max}=55$.
4163: %Since there are 749 of these,
4164: %there is quite a large degeneracy of eigenvalues.
4165: Aurich varies $\Omega_0$ between $0.2$ and $0.6$ and finds reasonable
4166: agreement for $\Omega_0\simeq 0.3-0.4$.
4167: For smaller $\Omega_0$ he
4168: finds that the numerical $C_\ell$ increases too quickly with $\ell$.
4169: We suggest that this is evidence of a long wavelength cutoff in the spectrum.
4170: Although for a lower $\Omega_0$, the ISW is important in terms of building
4171: up the low $\ell$ power, it is also true that the suppression is more
4172: severe. To put it another way, if the constant $\alpha $ were normalized
4173: to \cb at high $\ell$, as it should be in order
4174: to minimize the effects of cosmic variance,
4175: then the steep slope would be seen as a suppression of large
4176: angle power due to the finite extent of the space.
4177:
4178:
4179: \begin{figure}
4180: \centerline{\psfig{file=Cl_Omega_m30_q00_l60.ps,width=2.25in}}
4181: \caption{
4182: This figure was supplied courtesy of R. Aurich.
4183: %cite {as}
4184: The figure shows $T_\ell$ measured in micro-Kelvin
4185: versus $\ell $ as computed
4186: by Aurich and Steiner for an $\Omega_0=0.9$ cosmology with
4187: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.6$. The angular power spectrum $C_\ell $ for the
4188: orbifold is shown in comparison to an infinite topology as obtained
4189: by CMBFAST. The suppression for $\ell > 30$ is only due to the truncation of
4190: the sum over the eigenmodes since only the first 749 eigenmodes have
4191: been taken into account.}
4192: \label{aurcl}
4193: \end{figure}
4194:
4195:
4196: The same orbifold was studied again in Ref.\ \cite{as} where both
4197: a cosmological constant and a smooth dark energy component were
4198: added to the radiation and matter
4199: energy density. The total energy is taken to be nearly
4200: but not quite flat to address the recent results from the small-angle
4201: CMB experiments \cite{{exper},{balbi}}.
4202: They still find a suppression in power
4203: for $\ell \lta 10$, as illustrated in figure
4204: \ref{aurcl}.
4205:
4206: Although the results of Ref. \cite{aurich}
4207: to be at variance with the results of
4208: \cite{{bpsI},{bpsII}} we emphasize again the limitations of comparing only the
4209: $C_\ell$'s. This is expanded upon in section \S \ref{obsmi}.
4210:
4211:
4212:
4213: \centerline{\bf Fast Method for Isolating Eigenmodes}
4214:
4215:
4216: A fast numerical method for obtaining the eigenvalues on compact hyperbolic
4217: manifolds was developed by Cornish and Spergel \cite{cornsperg}. In comparison
4218: to the boundary element method developed by Aurich and Steiner
4219: \cite{aurichsteiner}, it is technically inferior but far quicker and easier to
4220: implement numerically.
4221: The DBEM has only been applied to a few
4222: cosmological spaces, the tetrahedral orbifold of
4223: \cite{aurich}, the Thurston manifold \cite{inoue}, and the
4224: Weeks manifold to name a few \cite{inouetrace}, to name a few,
4225: while the method of
4226: Ref. \cite{cornsperg} allows them to obtain the lowest eigenvalues and
4227: eigenmodes for 12 manifolds, requiring
4228: only the generators as input.
4229:
4230: The method is to simply solve
4231: \be
4232: \Psi_k(x)=\Psi_k(gx)
4233: \ee
4234: using a singular value decomposition.
4235: The eigenmodes are again
4236: expanded in terms of the eigenmodes on the universal
4237: cover $\ah$
4238: as in eqn (\ref{modexpan}).
4239: Random points are selected within the fundamental domain and
4240: all of the images out to some distance are located in the covering space.
4241: For each point $p_j$ there are $n_j$ such images located with the
4242: generators $g_\alpha$. The
4243: $n_j(n_j+1)/2$ boundary conditions are
4244: \be
4245: \Psi_k(g_\alpha p_j)=\Psi_k(g_\beta p_j)
4246: \quad \quad \alpha \ne \beta
4247: \label{bclist}.
4248: \ee
4249: Using the expansion of the eigenmodes in terms of the eigenmodes of the
4250: universal cover \ref{simphyp}, they write (\ref{bclist})
4251: as a collection of difference
4252: equations which they then solve using a standard
4253: singular value decomposition
4254: method for handling over constrained systems of equations.
4255:
4256:
4257: The example they studied in detail is the Weeks space m003(3,-1).
4258: They also looked at the Thurston space and
4259: found agreement with the DBEM method applied by Inoue except they found
4260: 2 new modes missed previously but later confirmed \cite{ktinoue}.
4261: Again, for higher $k$, the number of modes obeyed Weyl's formula well.
4262: Also, the modes were well described by random matrix theory which predicts
4263: the expansion coefficients obey a Gaussian
4264: Orthogonal Ensemble.
4265:
4266:
4267: \begin{figure}
4268: \centerline{\psfig{file=weeksi.ps,width=2.25in}}
4269: \caption{
4270: Dirichlet domain for the Weeks space}
4271: \label{weeks}
4272: \end{figure}
4273:
4274: The Weeks space has a large symmetry group which ensures a large degeneracy of
4275: eigenmodes.
4276: The symmetry group is the Dihedral group of order 6.
4277: They found the first 74 eigenmodes, many of which are degenerate. The higher
4278: the mode, the more degeneracies in agreement with Weyl's asymptotic formula.
4279: A view of the lowest eigenmode in the Weeks space can be found in
4280: figure \ref{cornspergfig}.
4281:
4282: \begin{figure}
4283: \centerline{\psfig{file=escher.eps,angle=-90,width=3.25in}}
4284: \caption{This figure was supplied courtesy of N. Cornish.
4285: %cite {cornsperg}
4286: The lowest eigenmode in the Weeks space is shown. The space
4287: is drawn in the Poincar\'e representation. The three panels
4288: represent different slices through the Poincar\'e ball.
4289: The upper figure shows the slice through the fundamental domain
4290: while the lower figure shows the slice through the eigenmode.
4291: Specifically,
4292: the leftmost panel is the $x=0$ slice, the middle is the
4293: $y=0$ slice, and the rightmost panel is the $z=0$ slice.
4294: }
4295: \label{cornspergfig}
4296: \end{figure}
4297:
4298:
4299:
4300:
4301: Implementing
4302: their eigenmodes in a simulation of a cosmological
4303: model, they compare the numerically generated $C_\ell$'s to the \cb
4304: data \cite{cornsperg}.
4305: Their numerically modeled cosmologies are based on the first 100+ modes of
4306: the following small spaces:
4307: The Weeks space m003(3,-1) with ${\cal V}=0.9427$, the Thurston space
4308: m003(-2,3)
4309: with ${\cal V}=0.9814$,
4310: s718(1,1) with ${\cal V}=2.2726$ and v3509(4,3) with ${\cal V}=6.2392$.
4311: One realization of the Weeks space is shown in figure \ref{weekscirc}.
4312: Generically,
4313: a kind of statistical isotropy prevails even though the spaces are globally
4314: anisotropic. Since the expansion coefficients are pseudo-random, Gaussian
4315: distributed numbers which are statistically independent of $\ell $
4316: and $m$, they generate nearly isotropic eigenmodes and lead
4317: to a kind of isotropy across the microwave sky.
4318: The authors suggest inflation may not be need to explain why the universe
4319: is nearly isotropic.
4320: However inflation is still needed
4321: to explain why local values are so marginally near flat.
4322:
4323:
4324: \begin{figure}
4325: \centerline{\psfig{file=wtot03.eps,width=3.25in}}
4326: \vspace{8mm}
4327: \caption{This figure was supplied courtesy of N. Cornish.
4328: %cite cornsperg
4329: A numerical realization of the CMB in the Weeks topology with
4330: $\Omega_o=0.3$. One pair of matched circles is indicated by the
4331: white lines in this projection.}
4332: \label{weekscirc}
4333: \end{figure}
4334:
4335: A standard likelihood analysis based on 100
4336: realizations of each topology was performed.
4337: A mode cutoff in the spectrum is again evident and
4338: gets worse as $\Omega_0$ is lowered.
4339: For all of the manifolds studied, they find that
4340: \be
4341: \lambda^q_1=(1.3\rightarrow 1.6)D
4342: \label{lq}
4343: \ee
4344: where $\lambda^q_1=2\pi/q_1$ (although it is customary
4345: to define the wavelength corresponding to a given mode as $\lambda^k=2\pi/k$)
4346: which obeys the bound
4347: \be
4348: {4\tilde D\over D^2(\sinh\tilde D+\tilde D)^2}\le k_1^2\le 1+\left ({2\pi\over
4349: D}\right )^2
4350: \ee
4351: with $\tilde D$ the square root of the smallest integer $\ge D^2$.
4352: They do caution that they cannot find modes with $q=[0,1/4]$ using their method,
4353: and so perhaps supercurvature modes lurk.
4354: However the ISW becomes increasingly more
4355: important as $\Omega_0$ is lowered. There is an optimal value where the
4356: two effects compete to create a spectrum with a slight tilt at low $\ell$
4357: and give a better match to the \cb data. For the
4358: Weeks' space this occurs at $\Omega_0=0.3$.
4359:
4360: Additionally, once the spectrum is normalized to \cb they
4361: find that the size of fluctuations on
4362: $8h^{-1}$ Mpc is naturally increased above the value of $\sigma_8=0.6$
4363: for a simply connected universe with $\Omega=0.3$ to a value of
4364: $\sigma_8=0.75$ for the Weeks manifold with $\Omega=0.3$.
4365: The present day cluster abundance seems to imply
4366: $\sigma_8=0.9\pm 0.1$ for $\Omega_0=0.3$ \cite{pen} and so higher values
4367: are desirable.
4368:
4369: They find the $C_\ell$'s have
4370: a better fit to the \cb data with a relative likelihood of
4371: $\sim 20 $ and a better fit to
4372: the large-scale structure date ($\sigma_8$ increases by
4373: $\sim 25\%$). However, as with all of the other statistical analyses they
4374: have applied a weak test by analyzing the angular averaged
4375: $C_\ell$s and not the full
4376: correlation function. Their conclusions can be interpreted as finding the
4377: manifolds are not ruled out by the $C_\ell$ alone.
4378:
4379:
4380:
4381:
4382:
4383:
4384:
4385:
4386: \subsubsection{The Method of Images}
4387: \label{obsmi}
4388:
4389: The fluctuations can be simulated
4390: using the method of images. The correlation
4391: functions can be calculated without the explicit eigenmodes and eigenvalues.
4392: The procedure is to sum the correlation function on the universal cover
4393: over all images out to some large radius. The
4394: more distant images are handled in a continuous approximation.
4395: %with the added refinement of a
4396: %Cesaro resummation technique.
4397: The eigenspectrum can be calculated but the
4398: correlation
4399: functions are obtained to better accuracy for a given order in the sum.
4400: Bond, Pogosyan and Souradeep implemented a detailed method of images
4401: \cite{{bpsI},{bpsII},{bps_texas},{bps_moriond},{bps_cwru}}.
4402: They emphasize that the full
4403: correlation function $C(\hat n, \hat n^\prime)$ must be compared to the
4404: data for a meaningful statistical analysis. The philosophy is to perform
4405: a statistical search for patterns.
4406: They find
4407: two principle effects
4408: (1) anisotropic patterns and (2) a long wavelength
4409: cutoff in the power spectrum.
4410: The patterns appear as spikes of positive correlation when a point on
4411: the SLS and one of its images is correlated. The larger the SLS relative
4412: to the out-radius, the more statistically significant will the patterns
4413: be. If the SLS is smaller than the in-radius then naturally the correlation
4414: function
4415: is very close to that for the simply connected space.
4416:
4417: The angular correlation function $\cq $ is
4418: computed from the spatial two-point correlation function
4419: $\spc\equiv \left <\Phi(\vec x, \tau_{LS})\Phi(\vec x^\prime,
4420: \tau_{LS})\right >$ which can be expressed as
4421: \begin{equation}
4422: \spc=\sum_i\pow(k_i)\sum_{j=1}^{m_i}\Psi_{ij}(\vx)\Psi^*_{ij}(\vxp)
4423: \end{equation}
4424: with the sum over a discrete ordered set with multiplicities $m_i$.
4425: Notice that the $\Psi_{ij}$ obey
4426: \begin{equation}
4427: \left (\nabla^2 + k_i^2\right )\Psi_{ij}=0
4428: \end{equation}
4429: as always, however with the slightly different two-index notation. The
4430: $j$ index accounts for any degeneracies.
4431: The spatial correlation function $\xi^c$
4432: on the compact
4433: manifold ${\cal M}^c$, can be expressed in terms of the spatial
4434: correlation function $\xi^u$ on the universal cover. A derivation
4435: of the relation between $\xi^c$ and $\xi^u$
4436: exploits orthonormality and completeness with the following equations:
4437: \begin{equation}
4438: \int_{{\cal M}}d\vxp \spc^c (\vx,\vxp) \Psi^c_{ij}(\vxp)=\pow(k_i)
4439: \Psi^c_{ij}(\vxp)
4440: \label{spcc}
4441: \end{equation}
4442: \begin{equation}
4443: \int_{{\cal M}^u}d\vxp \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)
4444: \Psi^u_{j}( k,\vxp)=\pow(k_i)
4445: \Psi^u_{j}( k,\vxp).
4446: \label{spcu}
4447: \end{equation}
4448: Since eigenfunction on the compact space must also be eigenfunctions on
4449: the universal cover (although the converse is not true) it follows that
4450: \bea
4451: \int_{{\cal M}^u}d\vxp \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)
4452: \Psi^c_{j}( k,\vxp) &=& \pow(k_i)
4453: \Psi^c_{j}( k,\vxp)\nonumber\\
4454: &=& \int_{{\cal M}}d\vxp \spc^c(\vx,\vxp)
4455: \Psi^c_{ij}( \vxp) \label{e3}.
4456: \eea
4457: Combining (\ref{e3}) with (\ref{spcu}) gives
4458: \be
4459: \int_{{\cal M}}d\vxp \spc^c(\vx,\vxp)
4460: \Psi^c_{j}( k,\vxp) =
4461: \int_{{\cal M}^u}d\vxp \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)
4462: \Psi^c_{ij}( \vxp)
4463: \label{e4}.
4464: \ee
4465: Since
4466: ${\cal M}$ tessellates
4467: ${\cal M}^u$ we can re-express the left-hand-side of (\ref{e4})
4468: as
4469: \begin{equation}
4470: \sum_{g \in \Gamma}
4471: \int_{{\cal M}}d\vxp \spc^u(\vx,g \vxp)
4472: \Psi^c_{ij}( \vxp)
4473: =
4474: \int_{{\cal M}}d\vxp
4475: \left [\tilde{ \sum_{g \in \Gamma}}\spc^u(\vx,g
4476: \vxp)
4477: \right ]
4478: \Psi^c_{ij}( \vxp)
4479: \end{equation}
4480: where in the last step a regularization is needed and denoted
4481: by the tilde above the summation.
4482: Identifying integrands
4483: gives
4484: \begin{equation}
4485: \spc^c(\vx,\vxp)=\tilde{ \sum_{g \in \Gamma}}\spc^u(\vx,g
4486: \vxp)
4487: \end{equation}
4488: and the $\spc^c$ can be calculated as the sum over images in the universal
4489: cover with only a knowledge of the group elements.
4490: The spatial correlation function on the universal cover is known to be
4491: \be
4492: \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)\equiv \spc^u(r)=\int^\infty_0{dq q\over (q^2+1)}
4493: {\sin(qr)\over q\sinh r}{\cal P}_\Phi(q)
4494: \ee
4495: and ${\cal P}_\Phi$ is taken to be a Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum.
4496: This is the core of the method of images.
4497:
4498: The regularizer requires some additional effort.
4499: The correlation function on the universal cover does not have compact support:
4500: \begin{equation}
4501: \int_{{\cal M}^u}d\vxp \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)
4502: =\infty.
4503: \end{equation}
4504: The need for regularization is not a result of the CH space having a large
4505: number of periodic orbits as incorrectly claimed in \cite{css_cqg}
4506: nor is it dues to the chaotic nature of the trajectories but rather is
4507: a result of the correlation function not having compact support.
4508: Even flat spaces require regularization.
4509: The regularized spatial correlation function can be written
4510: \begin{equation} \tilde \xi^u_\Phi(\vx,\vxp)
4511: \equiv \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)-{1\over V_{{\cal M}}}
4512: \int_{g{\cal M}}d{\bf{\vec x}^{\prime\prime}}
4513: \spc^u(\vxp,{\bf{\vec x}^{\prime\prime}})
4514: \end{equation}
4515: for $g $ such that $\vxp$ lies in $g {\cal M}$.
4516: The regularization ensures
4517: \begin{equation}
4518: \int_{{\cal M}^u}d\vxp \tilde \xi^u_\Phi(\vx,\vxp)
4519: =0.
4520: \end{equation}
4521: Finally then,
4522: \begin{equation}
4523: \spc^c(\vx,\vxp)=\sum_{g \in \Gamma}
4524: \tilde \xi^u_\Phi(\vx,\vxp)
4525: =\sum_{g \in \Gamma} \spc^u(\vx,\vxp)-{1\over V_{{\cal M}}}
4526: \int_{{\cal M}^u}d{\bf{\vec x}^{\prime\prime}}
4527: \spc^u(\vxp,{\bf{\vec x}^{\prime\prime}}) .
4528: \end{equation}
4529:
4530:
4531: The regularization prescription is not unique.
4532: The actual limiting procedure
4533: utilized in Ref. \cite{bpsI} sums images up to a radius $r_*$ and then
4534: regularizes by subtracting the
4535: integral of $\spc^u(r)$ over a spherical ball of radius $r_*$:
4536: \be
4537: \spc^c(\vx,\vxp)=\lim_{r_*\rightarrow \infty}
4538: \left [\sum_{r_j<r_*}\spc^u(r_j)-{4\pi\over V_{\cal M}}
4539: \int^{r_*}_0 dr \sinh^2 r \spc^u(r)\right ]
4540: \ee
4541: with $r_j=d(\vx, g_j \vxp) \le r_{j+1}$. The value of
4542: $r_*$ is numerically pushed out to 4 or 5 times the out-radius in order to
4543: get a convergent result.
4544: This procedure
4545: is simpler and does well for large $r_*$.
4546: It also does not require a detailed dependence on the complicated shape
4547: of the fundamental domain.
4548:
4549: An example of the maps they generate using the method of images is shown
4550: in figure \ref{bpsfig}.
4551:
4552: \begin{figure}
4553: \centerline{\psfig{file=sch.eps,width=3.25in}}
4554: \vskip 5truept
4555: \caption{This figure was supplied courtesy of T. Souradeep.
4556: %cite {bps}
4557: The full CMB sky is represented by the two hemispherical caps -- one
4558: in the direction of the South Galactic Pole (SGP) and the other in the
4559: direction of the North Galactic Pole (NGP). The label SHC refers
4560: to a small compact hyperbolic model, namely m004(-5,1).
4561: As well as showing the fluctuations, this figure shows correlated circle
4562: pairs explained in more detain in a following section.}
4563: \label{bpsfig}
4564: \end{figure}
4565:
4566:
4567:
4568: They are also able to estimate the density of states and therefore obtain
4569: a rough estimate of the power spectrum using the method of images. This is
4570: in addition to their primary result of having computed the correlation
4571: function.
4572: When they do estimate the density of states they always find an infrared cutoff
4573: as expected for long wavelength modes.
4574:
4575: This is consistent with the expectations.
4576: For a 3-dimensional CH space there is a bound on Cheeger's isoperimetric
4577: constant of \cite{{chavel},{berard}}
4578: \be
4579: k_{min}\ge h_C/2\ge {1\over d_{\cal M}}\left [ 2\int^{1/2}_0
4580: dt \cosh^2(t)\right ]^{-1} =0.92/d_{\cal M}
4581: \ee
4582: and so there are no supercurvature modes for $d_{\cal M}<0.92 $.
4583: The suppression of power is covered in part by the ISW and so is less prominent
4584: than in flat models.
4585:
4586:
4587: Given their numerical calculation,
4588: they do a Bayseian probability analysis comparing a few
4589: compact hyperbolic cosmologies to the \cb data.
4590: Their analysis represents by far the most complete of the statistical
4591: tests that has been performed and in principle is the most complete
4592: test that can be performed.
4593: They find the compact hyperbolic models they study are inconsistent
4594: with the \cb data for most orientations although for a
4595: small set of special orientations they do find a better
4596: fit than the standard infinite models.
4597: Their results are qualitatively independent of the matter content.
4598: The analysis magnifies the inadequacy of using
4599: the $C_{\ell}$ alone. In particular they point to the
4600: large cosmic variance that results from
4601: the break down associated with isotropy.
4602:
4603: With the assumption of Gaussianity both in the noise and in the raw
4604: $\delta T/T$, the probabilistic comparison used is
4605: \be
4606: {\cal P}(\delta |C_T)={1\over (2\pi)^{N_p/2}\|C_T\|^{1/2}}
4607: e^{{1\over 2}\delta\dagger C_T^{-1}\delta}
4608: \ee
4609: where $ C_T=C(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)$ and $\delta $ is the data.
4610: To numerically
4611: obtain the full correlation function requires an evaluation of the
4612: spatial correlation function at $N_p(N_p+1)N_L^2/2$ pairs of points
4613: where $N_p$ is the number of pixels
4614: and $N_L$ is is the number of points along the line of sight used to
4615: integrate the ISW. They find an $N_L\sim 10$ is satisfactory.
4616: They estimate the likelihood function
4617: \be
4618: {\cal L}(C_T)\equiv
4619: {\cal P}(\bar \delta |C_T)=\int d\delta
4620: {\cal P}(\bar \delta |\delta)
4621: {\cal P}( \delta |C_T)
4622: \ee
4623: with $\bar \delta $ the map which maximizes the conditional
4624: probability and the integration is
4625: performed over all realizations of the simulated sky $\delta $.
4626: The resultant likelihood function they use is
4627: \be
4628: {\cal L}(C_T)=
4629: {1\over (2\pi)^{N_p/2}\|C_N+C_T\|^{1/2}}
4630: e^{{1\over 2}\bar \delta\dagger(C_N+C_T)^{-1}\bar \delta}
4631: \ee
4632: with $C_N$ the noise covariance matrix.
4633: What is actually obtained is model dependent relative likelihoods.
4634: The model-dependent parameters are
4635: ${\cal M}$, the orientation, the location of the observer,
4636: $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$, and the initial assumptions
4637: regarding the spectral shape and character.
4638: The manifolds studied were m004(-5,1), which is relatively small,
4639: and v3543(2,3), which is comparatively large. ($\Omega_\Lambda=0$
4640: always. Adding $\Omega_\Lambda$ relaxes the constraints.)
4641: They varied $\Omega_m=\Omega_0$ over three values arranged so that
4642: the SLS was comparable to the out-radius and varied over 24 different
4643: orientations.
4644: They do leave the observer at the maximum of the injectivity radius.
4645: This location gives the most symmetric perceived shape to the
4646: Dirichlet
4647: domain which one might expect to lead to the most conservative bounds.
4648: It seems fair to assume that
4649: moving the observer to a thinner region in the manifold
4650: for instance will only amplify asymmetries and the constraint on
4651: the correlation function should only be more severe.
4652: However, others have argued that locating the Earth away from the local
4653: maximum of the injectivity radius can increase the likelihood fit of
4654: a CH model to the data. For instance,
4655: to check the effect of the inhomogeneity,
4656: Inoue moved the observing point for the same model m004(-5,1)=Thurston
4657: manifold and performed the Baysean analysis as Bond, Pogosyan, and
4658: Souradeep did. He found
4659: that there are a few choices of the
4660: position and orientation for which the likelihood is much
4661: larger than that of the infinite counterpart \cite{inoueprog}
4662: (as did \cite{bpsII}).
4663: The best-fit positions are scattered in the
4664: manifold and far from the local maximum of the injectivity
4665: radius.
4666:
4667: In any case, the results of \cite{{bpsI},{bpsII}}
4668: are presented as the relative likelihood of a given
4669: model
4670: in comparison with a simply connected hyperbolic CDM model with
4671: the same $\Omega_m=\Omega_0$.
4672: They uniformly find that the compact hyperbolic models have very
4673: small relative likelihoods as compared with the simply connected models.
4674: The rare exception occurred near $\Delta\eta\approx r_{+}$ with a
4675: particular
4676: orientation. The statistical significance is unclear since a
4677: fortuitous
4678: alignment of the measured fluctuations with simulated
4679: topological images could enhance the likelihood when taken over
4680: all realizations which reinforce this correlation.
4681: The authors
4682: defer conclusions to future tests such as the circle method.
4683: Although again, Inoue argues the statistical significance {\it is}
4684: clear. If the $C_\ell$s fit the data poorly, there will be no
4685: orientation of the manifold that leads to an alignment of measured
4686: fluctuations with topological images. Put another way, it may be
4687: unfair to suggest that a good fit to the data is a fortuitous
4688: alignment instead of acknowledging this good fit to be a good fit.
4689:
4690: Bond, Pogosyan, and Souradeep
4691: draw the general conclusion that $d_{\cal M}/2 > 0.7 \Delta\eta$.
4692: The compact models they tested are excluded at the $3\sigma$ level
4693: with the exception of those with very special orientations.
4694: By contrast, if they were to only analyze the statistical likelihood
4695: of the $C_\ell$ they would mistakenly conclude that the compact models
4696: were preferred at the $1\sigma$ level
4697: over the simply connected cosmology. They emphasize
4698: that
4699: the error bars on the $C_\ell$'s are huge because of the exaggerated
4700: cosmic variance in the topologically connected models.
4701: It may also be worth noting here that there is some argument over
4702: the interpretation of these error bars (see Ref. \cite{inoueprog}).
4703:
4704: Due to the global breaking of homogeneity, they find the variance is
4705: spatially dependent. This is another reason to be weary of
4706: conclusions based on $C_\ell$ alone. They found characteristic loud
4707: spots,
4708: that is regions in the sky with larger variance than others.
4709: Loud regions correspond to intersections of the SLS through smaller
4710: regions of the fundamental domain. The regions are geodesicaly small,
4711: that is to say, there are shorter geodesics relative to other regions in
4712: the volume. Unless the region is very very small, the ISW can obscure
4713: this particular feature.
4714: These loud and quiet regions are familiar from the cusp topology
4715: studied in Ref. \cite{lbbs}.
4716: There, even the ISW cannot compensate for the deepest regions
4717: of the cusp.
4718:
4719: Another attitude to take would be to argue that if we do live in
4720: a compact hyperbolic manifold, some orientation is necessarily going
4721: to be much more likely, namely the right one.
4722: The special status of the `correct' orientation for our manifold,
4723: assuming it is compact hyperbolic, was taken seriously
4724: by one of the pioneers in cosmic
4725: topology, Helio Fagundes \cite{{morehf},{morehf2}}. He reasoned that the
4726: particularly significant hot and cold spots in the COBE maps
4727: found by Cay\'on and Smoot \cite{cas} may shed light on the orientation
4728: of the manifold. These loud spots may be patches of high and low regions
4729: in the physical density, as opposed to being just statistical fluctuations.
4730: Since the density fluctuations eventually evolve into large-scale structure,
4731: then the hot and cold spots should correspond to physical
4732: superclusters
4733: and voids respectively. Fagundes used this idea to try to match sources
4734: in catalogs of galaxy superclusters and voids and thereby fix the orientation
4735: and location of the earth in the manifold. His algorithm
4736: begins with a point $P^\prime$ centered on one of the spots
4737: isolated in Ref.\ \cite{cas} as illustrated in the schematic figure
4738: \ref{scheme}. The point $P^\prime \in SLS$. He then
4739: maps ghost images of $P^\prime=\gamma P$ for $\gamma \in \Gamma$
4740: so the $\gamma$ are composite words built from the
4741: face-pairing matrices. He tries to alien the image points with
4742: voids and superclusters for different orientations of the space and
4743: different basepoints, i.e. different locations of the earth.
4744: He performed these scans for
4745: the ten smallest compact hyperbolic manifolds known
4746: \cite{hw}.
4747:
4748: \begin{figure}
4749: \centerline{\psfig{file=scmbFig1.ps,width=2.in}}
4750: \vskip 5truept
4751: \caption{
4752: %cite {morehf}
4753: This figure was supplied courtesy of H. Fagundes. It shows the
4754: fundamental polyhedron as well as a copy of the fundamental polyhedron
4755: that intersects the spherical surface of last scattering. The point of
4756: intersection identifies the original location of a CMB spot in the universe.}
4757: \label{scheme}
4758: \end{figure}
4759:
4760:
4761: \subsection{Geometric methods in hyperbolic space}
4762: \label{geomhyp}
4763:
4764: Given the likelihood analysis of the previous section, should we generically
4765: conclude that all compact hyperbolic spaces must be large relative to the
4766: observable universe? The answer is really ``no''
4767: since there is so much model
4768: dependence in any of the direct methods of the previous section. We
4769: cannot be confident about our assumptions for the initial fluctuation
4770: spectrum, the choice of manifold, the orientation, location of observer,
4771: local parameter values or even the statistics themselves.
4772: Remembering that
4773: there are an infinite number of manifolds to consider and
4774: the ambiguities in the model parameters, statistical conclusions
4775: are limited to the specific.
4776: These attributes beg for a template independent method of searching
4777: for topology. Much like gravitational lensing, we might hope to simply
4778: look at the sky and see evidence of topological lensing without prior
4779: assumptions about the shape of the lens. There is hope for such model
4780: independent observations as exemplified
4781: in the circles in the sky described below.
4782: Generically, we distinguish these
4783: geometric methods which search for
4784: patterns from statistical methods which rely on a specific model.
4785:
4786:
4787: \subsubsection{Circles in the Sky}
4788: \label{obscirc}
4789:
4790: Possibly the nicest geometrical observation made thus far has been
4791: the prediction of
4792: circles in the sky of Cornish, Spergel, and Starkman
4793: \cite{{css1},{css2},{css_cqg}}.
4794: It has quickly become a popular topic in
4795: conversations on
4796: the topology of the universe.
4797: The circles are most easily seen in the tiling representation of a
4798: compact
4799: space. Each copy of the Earth will
4800: come complete
4801: with its own surface of last scatter. If the two images of the Earth are near
4802: enough,
4803: these identical copies of the SLS will intersect.
4804: The intersection of two
4805: spheres occurs along a circle.
4806: Since the observers at the center of the intersecting
4807: spheres are actually just copies of one observer, the circle of
4808: intersection must always come in pairs as
4809: illustrated in fig.\ \ref{circles}. To emphasize,
4810: we will not look up in the sky
4811: and see intrinsic circles in the microwave; that is,
4812: the circle pairs do not have
4813: identical temperatures along a circle but rather the temperature
4814: varies identically when taken along correlated circles
4815: \cite{css_cqg}. An illustration of the location of circle pairs
4816: in a finite flat torus is shown in figure \ref{toruscirc} from
4817: Ref.\ \cite{cornweeks}.
4818:
4819:
4820: \begin{figure}
4821: \centerline{\psfig{file=circles.eps,width=2.in}}
4822: \vskip 5truept
4823: \caption{}
4824: \label{circles}
4825: \end{figure}
4826:
4827:
4828: \begin{figure}
4829: \centerline{\psfig{file=hemi.eps,angle=0,width=3.25in}}
4830: \voffset -0.5truein
4831: \vskip 5truept
4832: \caption{This figure was supplied courtesy of N. Cornish
4833: %cite cornweeks
4834: and shows the northern and southern hemispheres of the microwave
4835: sky in flat hypertorus. There are 13 matched circle pairs indicated
4836: by black lines.
4837: }
4838: \label{toruscirc}
4839: \end{figure}
4840:
4841: The most important aspect of the circles approach is that it applies to all
4842: multiconnected topologies and does not require a template nor any
4843: a priori assumptions
4844: about a model.
4845: All compact spaces will have circles if any part of the geometry
4846: is smaller than the SLS. The radius, number, and
4847: distribution of the circles will vary from space to space and hence
4848: the topology can be reconstructed from the circle pairs.
4849: A distribution of clone images in the Thurston space can be seen in
4850: figure \ref{thurcirc}.
4851: Since the shape of the Dirichlet domain is not a topological invariant
4852: but rather depends on the location and orientation of the observer,
4853: even the Earth's location in the universe can be deduced.
4854:
4855:
4856: \
4857: \begin{figure}
4858: \vspace{60mm}
4859:
4860: \special{psfile=thur.eps angle=-90 hscale=55
4861: vscale=55 voffset=250 hoffset=35}
4862: \special{psfile=thurston3d.ps angle=0 hscale=65
4863: vscale=65 voffset=-170 hoffset=20}
4864:
4865: \vspace{2mm}
4866:
4867: %\begin{figure}
4868: %\centerline{\psfig{file=thur.eps,angle=-90,width=2.5in}}
4869: %\centerline{\psfig{file=thurston3d.ps,angle=0,width=2.5in}}
4870: %\vskip 5truept
4871: \caption{This figure was supplied courtesy of N. Cornish
4872: %cite css_cqg
4873: and illustrates
4874: just how many circles are to be expected.
4875: A fundamental domain for the Thurston space is shown. The distribution
4876: of points mark our clones out to a distance of three times the curvature
4877: radius.
4878: The large points are within one
4879: curvature radius, the medium sized points are within two
4880: curvature radii and the small points are within three curvature
4881: radii. Each of these clones will have a clone surface of last scatter.
4882: The clones which generate circle pairs will
4883: depending on the size of surface of last scatter compared to the
4884: clone distance and therefore depends on the value of $\Omega_0$.}
4885: \label{thurcirc}
4886: \end{figure}
4887:
4888:
4889: A statistical scan of the sky must be performed to draw the
4890: correlated circles out of the maps. The circle pairs will be
4891: completely hidden. To pull them out, consider two rings
4892: each with angular radius $\alpha$ and with relative phase $\phi_*$
4893: centered on arbitrary points
4894: $\vx $ and ${\bf \vec y}$. To test whether these arbitrary rings are
4895: in fact correlated circles of intersection,
4896: the comparison statistic
4897: \be
4898: S(\phi_*)={\left < 2T_1(\pm \phi)T_2(\phi+\phi_*)\right > \over
4899: \left < T_1(\phi)^2+T_2(\phi+\phi_*)^2\right >}
4900: \label{circstat}
4901: \ee
4902: has been proposed
4903: where $<>=\int_0^{2\pi} d\phi $
4904: with S range $[-1,1]$
4905: \cite{css_cqg}. Perfectly matched circles have $S=1$ while an ensemble
4906: of uncorrelated circles will have a mean value of $S=0$.
4907: (Roukema includes the small scale Doppler effect in a slight alteration of the
4908: statistic \cite{boudcirc}.)
4909: Orientable topologies will have clockwise-anticlockwise correlations while
4910: non-orientable topologies will have a mixture of clockwise-clockwise and
4911: clockwise-anticlockwise correlations.
4912: In flat space, matched circle pairs have angular radius
4913: \be
4914: \alpha={\rm arccos}\left ({X\over 2\Delta \eta}\right )
4915: \ee
4916: with $X$ the distance between the Earth and its image.
4917: In hyperbolic geometry
4918: \be
4919: \alpha={\rm arccos}\left({\cosh X-1\over \sinh X\tanh \Delta \eta}
4920: \right ).
4921: \ee
4922: There are no circle pairs if the image is too far for the spheres
4923: to intersect and the
4924: expressions are invalid for $X>\Delta \eta$.
4925: The number of images grows exponentially with $X$ in hyperbolic space
4926: so that
4927: most circles have small
4928: radii, although the statistic works best for large circles.
4929:
4930: Noise will degrade the circle
4931: statistic so that $S\ne 1$. The experimental noise
4932: in each pixel can be approximated as random Gaussian noise
4933: \be
4934: P(n)={1\over \sigma_n
4935: \sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-n^2/2\sigma_n^2}
4936: \ee
4937: with variance $\sigma_n$. The true temperature fluctuations
4938: are also taken to have a Gaussian distribution with variance $\sigma_s$.
4939: The probability for the matched circle is then
4940: \be
4941: P^m(S)dS={\Gamma(N)2^{-N+1}\over \Gamma(N/2)^2}
4942: {(1+2\xi^2)^{N/2}\over
4943: (1+(1-S)\xi^2)^N}(1-S^2)^{N/2-1}dS
4944: \ee
4945: with $\Gamma(N)$ the gamma function and $\xi=\sigma_s/\sigma_n$ is
4946: the signal-to-noise of the detector while $N$ is the number of pixels
4947: [?]. For large $N$, the distribution has a maximum
4948: \be
4949: S^m_{\rm max}={\xi^2\over 1+\xi^2}+{\cal O}(N^{-1}).
4950: \ee
4951: The higher the resolution and the signal-to-noise, the better this
4952: statistic will fare.
4953: If the experimental angular resolution is $\delta \theta $, then there are
4954: $N\simeq 2\pi\sin\alpha/\delta \theta$ data points around each circle of
4955: angular radius $\alpha$. For
4956: \cb, the signal-to-noise ratio is $\xi=2$, $\delta \theta =10^o$ and
4957: $N\simeq 36\sin\alpha $ pixels while for MAP, $\xi\simeq 15$,
4958: $\delta \theta=0.2^o$
4959: and $N\simeq 1800\sin\alpha $
4960: in its highest frequency channel.
4961: Using MAP
4962: parameters, only circles with $\alpha >4^o$ are detectable.
4963:
4964: To make a relative comparison with a probability distribution
4965: for unmatched circles they advocate
4966: \be
4967: P^u(S)dS=
4968: {\Gamma(N)2^{-N+1}\over \Gamma(N/2)^2}
4969: (1-S^2)^{N/2-1}dS
4970: \ee
4971: which is centered at $S=0$ with a FWHM$\simeq(8\ln 2/n)^{1/2}$.
4972: The unmatched probability distribution $P^u$ was derived
4973: by assuming the temperature at each point is an independent Gaussian
4974: random variable. There are some weaknesses in this assumption since
4975: there are known correlations in the CMB.
4976:
4977: Cornish and Spergel applied
4978: the circles test to maps generated with their numerically
4979: isolated eigenmodes of section \ref{directhyp}.
4980: For a realization of the Weeks space they found the uncorrelated ISW
4981: clouded the statistic resulting in a poor match
4982: for circle pairs. To combat this pollution they remove all power in
4983: modes below $\ell=21$ and find a substantial improvement in the match
4984: with values of $S\approx 0.9$. Their expectations for the future
4985: satellite missions are high.
4986:
4987:
4988: The circles method was first applied to simulated maps by Bond,
4989: Pogosyan
4990: and Souradeep using the method of images of section \S \ref{obsmi}.
4991: From
4992: their correlation function they are able to make full sky maps.
4993: Doing so they search for circles using the cross-correlation
4994: coefficient
4995: between fluctuations along two circles $C_1$ and $C_2=g C_1$,
4996: \be
4997: \rho_{12}\equiv
4998: {\left < \delta T(\vx)\delta T(g \vx)\right >
4999: \over \left [\left <\delta T(\vx)^2 \right >
5000: \left <\delta T(g \vx)^2 \right >\right ]^{1/2}
5001: }
5002: \ee
5003: with $\vx\in C_1$ and $g \vx\in C_2$.
5004: A statistical average is implied by the angular brackets. For one
5005: given realization an integration over $\vx $ along the circles is
5006: performed
5007: instead. They find $\rho_{12}$ is in the range $0.6-0.95$ for
5008: $\Omega_0=0.9$ and m004(-5,1)
5009: and $0.2-0.6$ for $\Omega_0=0.6$ for v3543(2,3).
5010: Notice that $\Omega_0$ is selected for each manifold so that
5011: ${\cal V}$ is comparable to the volume of the SLS.
5012: The matches they find are good even at \cb resolution.
5013: The correlations
5014: along circles gets worse as the ISW contribution is enhanced at
5015: low $\Omega_0$.
5016:
5017: In addition to the circular intersections of the boundary of the SLS,
5018: there are
5019: intersections of the volume.
5020: Let S represent the collection of points contained within the SLS. Then the
5021: intersection
5022: of $g S \cup S$ defines a lens-shaped region
5023: (see their figure) in the volume
5024: and must be identical
5025: to the intersection of $S\cup g^{-1} S$.
5026: As long as $r_{-}<\Delta \eta$, then there will be lens-shaped
5027: intersections
5028: of the volumes and
5029: circular intersections of the copies of the SLS.
5030: Since the anisotropy occurs along the entire line of sight,
5031: Bond, Pogosyan and Souradeep
5032: consider the correlations in the full lens-shaped volume.
5033: Based on
5034: the \cb constraints obtained via the method of images
5035: as described in section \S \ref{obsmi} they took
5036: the topology scale
5037: comparable
5038: to the SLS. They argue
5039: that correlations must then be very near the faces of
5040: the Dirichlet domain and so the correlations provide
5041: a quick sketch of the
5042: shape
5043: of the universe \cite{bpsII}.
5044:
5045: The volume intersections are relevant since, contrary to intuition,
5046: they found the ISW is not entirely uncorrelated.
5047: While there are an infinite number of lines of sight which share
5048: at least one common point, there are also pairs of lines which have
5049: segments in common and so an enhanced correlation. Every pair of
5050: lines of sight which are directed toward the center of matched
5051: circles,
5052: necessarily contain segments of identical points
5053: (see fig.) and leads to correlated patterns.
5054: %[still confusing because the photon is not traveling along a constant
5055: %time hypersurface. in other words might be a identical points at a
5056: %given
5057: %time slice but the ISW does not happen at a fixed time slice, not
5058: %instantaneous.]
5059: These substantial
5060: anti-correlated features tend to lie at the centers of matched
5061: circles.
5062: The anticorrelation comes from the interference term between the
5063: surface Sachs-Wolfe effect and the ISW.
5064: As described in section \S \ref{obsmi}, their likelihood
5065: comparison of a handful
5066: of spaces to the existing data led to pessimistic conclusions.
5067:
5068:
5069: Another
5070: application of the circles method using \cb
5071: sought to identify an asymmetric flat 3-space
5072: \cite{boudcirc}. \cb is not ideal for detecting circles in hyperbolic
5073: space since the ISW accounts for most of the power in the
5074: \cb range of detection. However, for flat spaces
5075: with no cosmological constant the sky is determined by the
5076: surface Sachs-Wolfe effect alone without the obscuring effects of the ISW.
5077: Despite the low resolution, \cb might still see circles if we live
5078: in a compact flat space.
5079:
5080: Roukema considered a specific asymmetric torus
5081: which was put forth as a candidate
5082: model to match cluster observations
5083: \cite{{roukemaedge},{roukemablanloeil}}.
5084: Although he used the recent circles prediction to test his hypothesis,
5085: the symmetries of the space and the geometric approach are reminiscent
5086: of the earlier work of \cite{deO2} described in section \S \ref{geomflat}.
5087: Hot X-ray bright gas in large galaxy clusters were used to search for
5088: topological images \cite{roukemaedge}.
5089: Two clusters at redshifts
5090: $z\sim 0.4$ very nearly form a right angle with the Coma cluster
5091: with very nearly equal arms.
5092: On the basis of this geometric
5093: relation, they take a toroidal geometry for the universe to explain
5094: these clusters as topological
5095: images of the Coma cluster.
5096: The distance from the Coma cluster to CL 09104+4109
5097: and the distance from Coma to the cluster
5098: RX J1347.5-1145 are both $\approx 960h^{-1}$ Mpc for
5099: zero cosmological constant.
5100: The third dimension
5101: is taken to be larger than the diameter of the SLS and hence topological
5102: effects from this direction are essentially unobservable.
5103: The size of the small dimension was taken to be roughly
5104: $\Delta \eta/13.2$. Using the circles statistic,
5105: the candidate was ruled out at the 94 \% confidence level, provided
5106: that the cosmological constant is zero.
5107: Specifically, the statistic Roukema used was
5108: \be
5109: d\equiv \left<
5110: { \left({\delta T \over T}\right)_i
5111: - \left({\delta T \over T}\right)_j
5112: \over {
5113: \left\{ \left[\Delta \left({\delta T \over T}\right)\right]_i^2 +
5114: \left[\Delta \left({\delta T \over T}\right)\right]_j^2
5115: \right\}^{1/2}
5116: } } \right>
5117: \label{bstat}
5118: \ee
5119: where $[\Delta(\delta T/T)]_i$ are the observational error estimates
5120: on the temperature fluctuations
5121: $(\delta T/T)_i$ as estimated by the COBE team.
5122: This statistic directly tests the consistency
5123: of temperature values within observational error bars \cite{boudcirc}.
5124: If the ISW effect is treated as noise as in Ref.\ \cite{boudcirc},
5125: the application of the
5126: circles principle using the statistic \ref{bstat}
5127: can still enable rejection of a specific partly compact model
5128: or
5129: show that a model one tenth of the horizon diameter is consistent
5130: with the COBE data.
5131:
5132:
5133: In general, there are obstacles to implementing the circle method in practice.
5134: For one, the much emphasized ISW effect is not correlated
5135: in this way and so can obscure the circle pairs. Other problematic
5136: effects include the velocity and thickness of the SLS.
5137: In Ref. \cite{boudcirc}, it was noted that
5138: many circles are partially lost along with
5139: $20^\circ$ galactic cut and that
5140: both detector noise and foreground contamination posed
5141: difficulties for the circle detections.
5142: Realistically it may not be possible to observe circles even if they
5143: are there and this will be the challenge faced in realistic
5144: analyses of the future satellite data.
5145:
5146:
5147: \subsubsection{Pattern Formation}
5148: \label{obspat}
5149:
5150: Developmental biology and condensed matter physics have long exploited
5151: pattern formation induced by periodic boundary conditions. Since compact
5152: topologies can be understood as a set of intricate boundary conditions,
5153: pattern formation has a cosmological analogue. The
5154: emergence of patterns in the sky are not so clear since many modes
5155: are competing for attention. The superposition of many otherwise
5156: distinct geometric patterns can lead to something apparently random.
5157: The task of geometric methods is to separate the patterns out of the sky.
5158: The statistic of eqn.\ (\ref{circstat}) manages to draw out circles.
5159: Other patterns
5160: in addition to the circles can emerge as described in this section.
5161:
5162: The patterns are best siphoned off a CMB map by scanning for correlations
5163: \cite{pat}. As an example consider a map of the antipodal correlation
5164: \be
5165: A(\hat n)=C_{\cal M}(\hat n,\hat n^\prime)
5166: \ee
5167: which measures the correlation of fluctuations received from opposite
5168: points on the SLS \cite{pat}.
5169: In a simply connected space opposite sides of the SLS should have no
5170: communication between them and a
5171: map of antipody would generate nothing
5172: more than a monopole. It is possible that accidental correlations appear
5173: at random but no geometric structure would emerge.
5174: By contrast, if the universe is topologically connected, then
5175: points on the manifold which seem to be far apart in the tiling picture
5176: may actually be quite close together in the fundamental domain. Therefore
5177: opposite points on the SLS may be strongly correlated, may in fact be
5178: the same point. This is another example of ghost images but in an
5179: antipodal map collections of ghosts are caught and a picture of the
5180: symmetries of the space emerges \cite{pat}.
5181:
5182: \begin{figure}
5183: \centerline{\psfig{file=close.eps,width=2.in}}
5184: \vskip 5truept
5185: \caption{}
5186: \label{close}
5187: \end{figure}
5188:
5189:
5190: The size of a spot can be estimated at the Silk damping
5191: scale below which
5192: fluctuations have smoothed some.
5193: The angular size of these spots are too small for \cb to have detected
5194: but will be visible to the high resolution MAP and {\it Planck
5195: Surveyor}.
5196:
5197: Although the search for pattern formation in correlated maps is model
5198: independent, a zoo illustrating the variety of structures compact
5199: manifolds produce can be built with some simple approximations.
5200: The correlation between two points
5201: on a compact manifold
5202: can be estimated as the correlation they would have on the universal
5203: cover given their minimum separation:
5204: \begin{equation}
5205: C_{{\cal M}}({\hat n},{\hat n}^{\prime })\approx C^U\left[ d_{{\rm min}}(
5206: \vec x({\hat n}),\vec x^{\prime }({\hat n}^{\prime }))\right] \ \ ,
5207: \label{eq:approx}
5208: \end{equation}
5209: where $C^U$ is the correlation function on the universal cover
5210: and $d_{{\rm min}}$ is the minimum distance between the two points in the
5211: topological space.
5212: The estimate is
5213: effectively the lowest order term in the method of images. It is inadequate
5214: for use in a likelihood analysis but is sufficient for predicting the types
5215: of patterns which emerge from topological lensing.
5216: The images of a given point out
5217: to order $m$ are found with the generators of the identifications as
5218: \begin{equation}
5219: \vec y_{k_m,..,k_i}=\prod_i^mg_{k_i}\vec x^{\prime }(\hat n^{\prime })\ \ .
5220: \end{equation}
5221: The image point which lands closest to $\vec x(\hat n)$ determines $d_{{\rm
5222: min}}$.
5223:
5224: As an example, we show the antipodal map for a $2\pi/3$-twisted hexagonal
5225: prism in fig.\ \ref{hexpat2}.
5226: For the
5227: antipodal map we prefer the orthographic projection which shows the genuine
5228: shape of the surface of last scattering
5229: instead of the Aitoff projection customary in
5230: $\delta T({\hat n})/T$ maps.
5231: Notice the clear hexagonal face drawn out by the correlated map.
5232: Since antipody is symmetric under $\pi$, the back is a copy of the front.
5233: For the $\pi/3$-twisted hexagon, if the space is small enough,
5234: pairs of circles appear
5235: in $A(\hat n)$, as
5236: shown in the right-most panel of fig.\ \ref{hexpat2}. These are the circles
5237: in the sky of section \S \ref{obscirc}.
5238:
5239: \begin{figure}[tbp]
5240: \centerline{
5241: %\psfig{file=../../top/pat/hex_.6_pat.ps,width=2.2in}
5242: %\quad\quad
5243: %\psfig{file=../../top/pat/hex2_.24_1_pat.ps,width=2.2in}
5244: \psfig{file=hex_.6_pat.eps,width=2.2in}
5245: \quad\quad
5246: \psfig{file=hex2_.24_1_pat.eps,width=2.2in}
5247: } \vskip 15truept
5248: \caption{Left: Orthographic projection of ${\rm A({\hat n})}$ for a hexagonal
5249: prism with $L= 0.6 \Delta \eta$.
5250: Right: ${\rm A({\hat n})} $ for $\pi/3$-twisted hexagonal prism.
5251: The length of the prism
5252: direction
5253: is $.24$ while $L=1$. There are circles }
5254: \label{hexpat2}
5255: \end{figure}
5256:
5257:
5258:
5259:
5260: A compact hyperbolic space shows distinct patterns.
5261: The compact icosahedron known as
5262: the Best space after the mathematician who identified the manifold
5263: provides the best testing ground \cite{best}.
5264: The map of $A(\hat n)$ is shown in the left of
5265: fig.\ \ref{bestant}. Antipody outlines
5266: pairs of identified triangular faces and also locates
5267: circles. Clearly a symmetry group for the Best space is located in this
5268: map.
5269: Another correlation function is also shown which compares one point on the
5270: SLS to the rest of the sphere. The point selected is a copy of the origin
5271: and so reflects the most symmetric observation of the fundamental domain.
5272: Another example is given by the antipodal map for the Thurston space in
5273: fig.\ \ref{thursant}.
5274: Some of the correlated features such as the arcs
5275: in fig.\ \ref{thursant} may be secondary correlations
5276: and it is not clear they will ever be bright enough to be observed.
5277:
5278:
5279: \begin{figure}[tbp]
5280: \centerline{\psfig{file=besti.ps,width=2.25in}}\vskip 15truept
5281: \caption{Dirichlet domain for the Best space.
5282: }
5283: \label{best}
5284: \end{figure}
5285:
5286: \begin{figure}[tbp]
5287: %\centerline{{\psfig{file=../../top/spots/best_.3_pat.eps,width=2.5in}}
5288: %\quad\quad
5289: %\psfig{file=../../top/pat/best_2.3_corr.eps,width=2.5in}}\vskip 15truept
5290: \centerline{{\psfig{file=best_pat.eps,width=1.8in}}
5291: \quad\quad
5292: \psfig{file=best_2.3_corr.eps,width=2.5in}}\vskip 15truept
5293: \caption{Left: $A(\hat n)$ for the Best space with
5294: $\Omega=0.3$. Right: The
5295: point-to-sphere correlation.}
5296: \label{bestant}
5297: \end{figure}
5298:
5299:
5300: \begin{figure}[tbp]
5301: %\centerline{{\psfig{file=../../top/imogen/thurs_ant.eps,width=2.5in}}}
5302: \centerline{{\psfig{file=thurs_ant.eps,width=2.5in}}}
5303: \vskip 15truept
5304: \caption{Antipody in the Thurston manifold.}
5305: \label{thursant}
5306: \end{figure}
5307:
5308: In fairness, it is difficult to know if any of these patterns will really
5309: be measurable in a realistic experiment with physical complications such
5310: as the thickness of the surface of last scatter, additional Doppler effects,
5311: noise, fictitious correlations etc..
5312: To read the correlations from the future data, real space statistics will need
5313: to be developed which handle smoothings, subtractions of low order multipoles,
5314: noise and fictitious correlations. While some statistics have been promoted,
5315: a realistic approach will likely develop only when the data is actually
5316: available.
5317:
5318:
5319: \newpage
5320: \section{Beyond Standard Cosmology}
5321: \label{extradsect}
5322:
5323: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
5324:
5325: \setcounter{equation}{0}
5326:
5327: \subsection{The twin paradox and compact time}
5328:
5329: So far we have ignored the issue of time. We have explicitly considered
5330: spacelike hypersurfaces $\Sigma$
5331: of constant curvature foliated by a natural
5332: conformal time. Compactification of these surfaces leads to the
5333: pictures we have described without compactifying time. However,
5334: an observer moving on an inertial worldline which is not at rest
5335: with respect to the cosmic expansion will perceive an identification
5336: which mixes spacetime coordinates
5337: as dictated by the Lorentz transformations $\Lambda $ so that
5338: $\bar x=\Lambda x$ with $x=(\eta,\vec x)$ comoving coordinates.
5339: As a result, a compactification of $\Sigma$ in the comoving coordinates
5340: of the form $(\eta,\vec x)\rightarrow (\eta,\vec x+\vec L)$ for instance
5341: will
5342: result is an identification of
5343: a time shift as measured by the non-comoving observer of
5344: $(1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}\left (\eta -\vec \beta \cdot \vec x \right )
5345: \rightarrow (1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}\left (\eta -\vec \beta \cdot (\vec x
5346: +\vec L)\right )$ where $\beta$ is the velocity relative to
5347: $\Sigma$.
5348:
5349:
5350:
5351: \begin{figure}
5352: %\centerline{\psfig{file=../../top/sr/fund2.eps,width=2.in}}
5353: \centerline{\psfig{file=fund2.eps,width=2.in}}
5354: \vskip 5truept
5355: \caption{An observer $O$ at rest with respect to the compact spacelike
5356: hypersurface $\Sigma$ and an observer $\bar O$ moving at constant
5357: velocity with respect to $\Sigma$ on a
5358: periodic orbit of the torus. The orbit
5359: corresponds to
5360: $x_{\rm end}=T_yT_x^2x_{\rm start}$.
5361: }
5362: \label{fund2}
5363: \end{figure}
5364:
5365: As an explicit demonstration, consider the twin paradox
5366: \cite{{jdbi},{jefftwin},{uzan}}. Let $O$ be at
5367: rest in a comoving frame where a flat spacelike hypersurface is compactified
5368: into a torus. Let $\bar O$ be an inertial observer on a periodic
5369: orbit with respect to $O$
5370: as in fig.\ \ref{fund2}.
5371: The periodic orbit will obey the boundary
5372: condition
5373: $\bar x=\Lambda x \rightarrow \Lambda \gamma x$ where $\gamma $ is
5374: the corresponding word.
5375: From \S \ref{tools} we have $\gamma=T_y T_x^2$
5376: (to include the physical time in the embedded coordinates
5377: and in $T_x, T_y$ see Ref.\ \cite{jdbi}).
5378: According to $\bar O$, both space and time points have been identified.
5379: As a result it becomes impossible for $\bar O$ to synchronize her clocks
5380: \cite{peters}.
5381: The lack of synchronicity
5382: will be given by the time component of $\Lambda(1-\gamma)x$ \cite{jdbi}.
5383:
5384: Since both $O$ and $\bar O$ are inertial, by the principles of
5385: relativity, each should believe the other's clocks run slower and therefore
5386: each could expect the other to be younger at their reunion
5387: leading to a paradox.
5388: However, the topological identification breaks the general invariance
5389: and selects a preferred frame, namely the frame in which the topological
5390: identification is purely on $\Sigma$. In that frame clocks can be
5391: synchronized and the volume of space looks smallest. The
5392: observer on the periodic orbit, though inertial, will discover that
5393: their clocks cannot be synchronized and this additional
5394: shift leads them to compute
5395: an older age for their twin.
5396: Both agree the twin at rest with respect to $\Sigma $ is older.
5397:
5398: This simple thought experiment emphasizes that
5399: compact topology selects a
5400: preferred frame, namely the frame in which the
5401: universe looks smallest and in which observers can synchronize
5402: their clocks
5403: \cite{peters} (see also Refs. \cite{lh}).
5404: To generalize to curved space,
5405: $\Lambda$ can be replaced by an appropriate diffeomorphism and
5406: the spacetime topology generalizes to
5407: ${\cal M}_c=R\otimes G/\Gamma$.
5408:
5409: %If quantum gravity can explain the creation of a universe from nothing,
5410: %one might intuitively expect small volume universes to be more likely,
5411: %although this is a difficult prediction to formalize. In any case,
5412: Finite
5413: spaces reverse some of Copernicus' philosophical advances by selecting
5414: a preferred location at the center of the space, a preferred
5415: observer at rest with respect to the compactification and a preferred
5416: time. While Copernicus may have removed us from the center of the universe,
5417: topology
5418: puts some observers back there.
5419: %selects some observer, if not actually us, as special.
5420:
5421: This also raises the question of compactifying time outright.
5422: Probably time could be compactified so that there were closed
5423: timelike curves that were not causality violating. Very
5424: restrictive possibilities would result since only events which could
5425: repeat ad infinitum would obey the boundary conditions.
5426: It would be hard to envision a compact time model being consistent
5427: with the laws of thermodynamics, except perhaps on a cosmological
5428: timescale. The compact time scale would have to be much shorter or
5429: much larger than biological timescales or
5430: no children could sensibly be
5431: born since they would somehow have to grow young again.
5432: A universe could go through a big
5433: bang and eventual big crunch only to repeat the history of the
5434: cosmos with another big bang. The same galaxies, stars and the same
5435: people would be born, live and die. Fated to repeat their
5436: paths ad infinitum. Quantum gravity may reset the initial conditions
5437: at each big bang allowing new galaxies, new stars and new organisms
5438: to form, sparing us from a relentless cosmic boredom.
5439: The fanciful possibility of a compact time magnifies the already strange
5440: and distinct nature of time.
5441:
5442: \subsection{Extra dimensions}
5443: \label{stringsection}
5444:
5445:
5446:
5447:
5448:
5449:
5450:
5451:
5452:
5453:
5454: %\subsection{Quantum Creation of a Universe}
5455: %\label{qcsection}
5456:
5457: Topology it has been suggested is a discrete feature of space
5458: \cite{lum}. As such, it may be better integrated in a quantized
5459: theory of gravity while there is no prediction for topology in
5460: classical relativity.
5461: The earliest attempts at creating a finite universe grew out
5462: of semiclassical quantum cosmology \cite{{carlip},{gibbons},{hfq},
5463: {hfq2}}.
5464: It may seem intuitive that a smaller universe should be easier to
5465: create from nothing than a larger universe. Therefore the probability
5466: for creating a small, finite cosmos may be relatively high, if only
5467: we could compute the wave function. However, technical and conceptual
5468: difficulties dog the semiclassical approach such as defining a measure
5469: on the space of states, normalizing the wave function etc.
5470: A convincing statement about the topology of the universe will very likely
5471: require a fully quantized theory of gravity.
5472:
5473: Interestingly, additional dimensions
5474: have featured prominently in attempts to
5475: quantize gravity. These extra dimensions are always topologically
5476: compact and very small.
5477: While no quantum gravity theory is yet able to predict the topology
5478: of space, the possibility that compact
5479: internal dimensions will have topologically compact external
5480: (that is, large) dimensions is certainly alluring.
5481: Ultimately, a fundamental theory should predict the global topology
5482: of the entire manifold whether it be $3D$ or $11D$. In the meantime
5483: the hierarchy between small and large dimensions remains mysterious
5484: although some recent suggestions have created a bit of a stir
5485: \cite{randallco}.
5486:
5487: Kaluza-Klein theories introduced extra compact dimensions in an
5488: attempt to unify fundamental theories of physics \cite{kk}.
5489: Upon compactification, the radii of the small dimensions behave as scalar
5490: and tensor field theories. More modern string theories naturally
5491: invoke extra dimensions in a manner reminiscent of these early
5492: Kaluza-Klein models.
5493: Recent fervor in string phenomenology has involved compact extra dimensions
5494: of moderate to large size
5495: in an attempt to explain the hierarchy problem in standard particle
5496: physics. The hierarchy problem questions the
5497: disparity in scales from the Planck mass of $10^{19}$ GeV to the
5498: mass of the electron at a few
5499: eV. A unification of fundamental theories has to
5500: naturally justify this span over $25$ decades of energy scales.
5501: As in Ref.\ \cite{glennco} we consider a spacetime with
5502: $4+{\cal N}$ dimensions of the form ${\cal M}=R\otimes M^3\otimes
5503: {\cal M}^{\cal N}$ where $R$ represents time,
5504: $M^3$ is a constant curvature Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric and
5505: ${\cal M}^{\cal N}=G^{\cal N}/\Gamma$ is an
5506: ${\cal N}$-dimensional compact internal space. The
5507: $(4+{\cal N})$-dimensional gravitational action becomes
5508: \be
5509: A=\int d^{(4+{\cal N})}x\sqrt{-g^{(4+{\cal N})}}
5510: {\cal R}^{(4+{\cal N})} M_{*}^2.
5511: \ee
5512: In the simplest Kaluza-Klein picture, integration over the compact
5513: extra dimensions leads to the $(3+1)$-dimensional action we experience
5514: \be
5515: A\sim \int d^4x \sqrt{-g^{(4)}} {\cal R}^{(4)}M_{pl}^2
5516: + ...
5517: \ee
5518: plus additional dynamical terms
5519: where $M_{pl}^2=M_*^{2+{\cal N}}R^{{\cal N}}$ and $R$ is the radius
5520: of the internal dimensions. The hierarchy between
5521: $M_{pl}$ and $M_*$ is large if
5522: $RM_*$ is large \cite{glennco}. The disparity in energy scales
5523: then becomes a dynamical and geometric question.
5524:
5525: The modern ideas inspired by string
5526: theory involve the localization of matter to a $3$-brane nested
5527: in the full $(4+{\cal N})$-dimensional space.
5528: The scale $M_*$ is expected to be $\sim $TeV as predicted
5529: by supersymmetry. Since ordinary matter is confined to a $3$-brane, we would
5530: be unaware of these extra dimensions regardless of their size unless we
5531: try very hard to look for them.
5532: Some laboratory experiments are underway to probe any additional
5533: dimensions which may be lurking there.
5534:
5535: The topology of the compact extra dimensions is not well understood.
5536: There are only a few requirements the internal dimensions must
5537: satisfy in order to break supersymmetry at a physically sensible scale.
5538: The internal spaces fall loosely under the
5539: broad category of Calabi-Yau manifolds.
5540: % \cite{calabi}.
5541: Nearly all topologies investigated so far are
5542: modeled on flat geometries. An outgrowth of cosmic topology has been the
5543: suggestion that these internal dimensions be compact and negatively
5544: curved \cite{glennco}.
5545: The hyperbolic internal spaces have some advantages over flat space
5546: including a less demanding tuning of geometric parameters
5547: and a suppression of
5548: astrophysically harmful graviton modes from the extra dimensions
5549: \cite{glennco}.
5550: Another advantage of the compact hyperbolic extra dimensions
5551: over compact flat extra dimensions may be that chaotic mixing on finite
5552: hyperbolic manifolds could explain the smoothness and flatness of the
5553: large dimensions as argued in Ref.\ \cite{sst}. We briefly discuss
5554: chaos in the next section.
5555:
5556: The profound connection between small dimensions and large
5557: have only begun to be forged. As many times in the past,
5558: cosmology provides a unique terrain in which to test fundamental
5559: theories \cite{hormar}.
5560:
5561: \subsection{Chaos}
5562: \label{chaossect}
5563:
5564: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
5565:
5566: \setcounter{equation}{0}
5567:
5568: We have touched upon the chaotic motions of particles on a compact
5569: hyperbolic space. Chaos refers to the thorough mixing of orbits
5570: which show an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
5571: Geodesics deviate on a surface of negative curvature as mentioned
5572: in \S \ref{obshyp} so that they are extremely sensitive to
5573: initial conditions. The motion becomes fully ergodic upon compactification
5574: of the surface. Formally, chaos in these Hamiltonian systems
5575: means the geodesics equations are nonintegrable; there is no smooth
5576: analytic function which can interpolate between orbits with different
5577: initial conditions.
5578:
5579: Despite the resistance of chaotic systems to conventional
5580: integration methods a great deal about the structure of phase
5581: space can be determined. Much like thermodynamics, chaotic systems
5582: can be understood in terms of a set of states dense in the phase space.
5583: For chaos this set is provided by the collection of unstable
5584: periodic orbits which grow exponentially with length.
5585: All aperiodic orbits can be understood
5586: in terms of this special subset.
5587: The periodic orbits pack themselves
5588: into a fractal set in order to fit within the finite phase space.
5589: Recall the fractional dimension maintains the set
5590: at a finite volume but allows for an infinite area. In this way
5591: fractals try to maximize the information content, so to speak,
5592: while minimizing the volume. The explicit fractal structure
5593: on a compact octagon was isolated in Ref.\ \cite{jdbi}
5594:
5595: Pursuing the analogy with thermodynamics,
5596: entropy can be defined as
5597:
5598: \be
5599: h(\mu)=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}{1\over k}
5600: \sum_i^{N(k)}\mu\ln(1/\mu(k))
5601: \label{genen}
5602: \ee
5603: The calculation goes like this. Draw a fundamental domain. Now use
5604: the generators $g_1...g_n$ to tile $\ah$
5605: with copies. The measure at order $k$ is then defined as
5606: the fraction of the total volume where each tile has
5607: the same volume:
5608: \be
5609: \mu(k)={1\over N(k)}
5610: \ee
5611: and $N(k)$ is the number of unique tiles.
5612: The sum
5613: in eqn.\ (\ref{genen}) reduces
5614: to
5615: \be
5616: h(\mu)= \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}{1\over k} \ln(N(k))
5617: =H_T.
5618: \ee
5619: This is equivalently the topological
5620: entropy, a symbolic entropy which counts the
5621: number of accessible states; that is, closed loops or equivalently
5622: tiles in the tessellation.
5623:
5624: Recall that
5625: periodic orbits can then be counted symbolically with the homotopy group.
5626: We do not distinguish between loops
5627: of varying lengths if they are homotopic.
5628: The spectrum of periodic orbits so defined are therefore a
5629: topological feature.
5630: The number of unique words that can be built of length
5631: $k$ out of a $n$-letter alphabet with $r$ relations
5632: is equivalent to the number of neighbors at order $k$ in the
5633: tiling.
5634: Not all
5635: of these neighbors will be unique. The repeats are accounted for by
5636: the relations and we know that the number of neighbors at order $k$
5637: is bounded by
5638: \be
5639: (2n)k\ge N(k)\le (2n)^k
5640: \label{Nk}
5641: \ee
5642: the lower bound being simple spaces such as the flat nonchaotic torus and the
5643: upper bound the unpruned maximally chaotic case.
5644: The topological entropy of the torus is zero while the entropy of an
5645: unpruned hyperbolic space is $H_T=\ln(2n)$. The compact octagon was
5646: shown to have a topological entropy of $H_T=\ln 7$ \cite{jdbi}.
5647:
5648: Another kind of entropy, the metric entropy introduced in
5649: \S \ref{obshyp},
5650: describes how quickly mixing takes place in a chaotic
5651: system and can be expressed as the sum of the positive Lyapunov
5652: exponents: $h=\sum \lambda $.
5653:
5654:
5655: This is just a taste of a rich area in dynamical systems theory
5656: and the reader is referred to the many excellent texts on the
5657: subject \cite{{ott},{gutz}}.
5658:
5659:
5660:
5661: Although cosmologists gingerly avoid this complex feature of the
5662: dynamics, chaos does have profound and unavoidable consequences.
5663: One of the original motivations for a compact topology exploited the chaotic
5664: motions. The chaotic mixing could lead to a dilution of initial
5665: anisotropies leading to the symmetric universe we observe today.
5666: These initial attempts failed since the space could not
5667: be made small enough to allow for sufficient mixing and still be the
5668: large cosmos we observe today \cite{ellis}.
5669: Variants on this idea fuse the chaotic mixing with an
5670: $\Omega<1$ inflation model where an early episode of chaotic mixing
5671: provides the moderate initial conditions needed to
5672: permit a subsequent inflationary phase to succeed \cite{css3}.
5673:
5674: We have already encountered the
5675: nonintegrability in trying to find eigenmodes on compact hyperbolic
5676: cosmologies. For the initial spectrum of fluctuations, researchers
5677: continue to use the assumption of a flat Gaussian spectrum as motivated by
5678: inflation. Still, since the consistency of inflation and an observably small
5679: topology is shaky, a more consistent approach would be to
5680: examine a distribution of initial fluctuations on a compact space
5681: in the absence of inflation.
5682: The numerical results of \S \ref{directhyp} do suggest
5683: that a Gaussian flat spectrum is in fact natural on
5684: compact hyperbolic spaces, even in the absence of inflation.
5685: While this work is very suggestive, a primordial quantum system has
5686: never been very thoroughly thought through.
5687: Because of the importance of this issue we take a moment to discuss
5688: quantum chaos.
5689: The quantum system is
5690: relevant to our discussion regardless since the expansion of fluctuations
5691: will be analogous
5692: to the expansion of the semiclassical wave function. The stationary
5693: Schr\"odinger equation is the usual Helmholtz eqn (\ref{helm}).
5694:
5695:
5696: The quantization
5697: of the chaotic system is still not fully understood but interesting
5698: features have been conjectured and confirmed.
5699: Reminiscent of the Feynman path integral approach, the wave function can
5700: be thought of as the sum of classical trajectories. Since the classical
5701: trajectories chaotically mix in phase space, it has been conjectured that
5702: the wave function would be a random Gaussian function of the eigenvalue
5703: $q$ with a spectrum given by the Wigner distribution function.
5704: Wigner's function is an attempt to generalize
5705: Boltzmann's formula for the
5706: classical distribution of a statistical system
5707: to a quantum system \cite{wigner}.
5708: It provides a description
5709: of general attributes of wave functions \cite{gutz} and shows how the
5710: function tends to distribute itself over classical regions of phase space.
5711: Notice
5712: the similarity between this suggestion and the method-of-images as well
5713: as the numerical results of Ref \cite{{inoue},{cornsperg}}.
5714:
5715: The nature of the discrete spectrum of energy levels can also be related
5716: to the classical chaos.
5717: As already argued in the numerical work on the eigenmodes of a compact space,
5718: the number of eigenstates can be related to the volume of the space through
5719: Weyl's asymptotic formula. Additional features, such as the spacing between
5720: energy levels, can be directly associated with the underlying chaos.
5721:
5722:
5723: Despite this conjecture of randomness,
5724: distinct remnants of the underlying chaotic
5725: dynamics have been found in the form of scars \cite{heller}. Scars are
5726: regions of enhanced intensity in high $k$ states along periodic orbits.
5727: It is hard to imagine the very high $k$ modes having cosmological significance
5728: since it is the low $k$ modes which probe the largest cosmological distances.
5729: Scaring is expected to be less prominent in low $k$ modes since the width
5730: of the enhancement will be correspondingly more diffuse.
5731: Although diffuse, scars on large scales could provide the small
5732: catalyst needed to order structure on large-scale.
5733: Scarring on a $2D$ double doughnut was investigated in
5734: references \cite{aurichsteiner}. The underlying fractal
5735: structure of periodic orbits on the double
5736: doughnut was studied in detail in Ref.\ \cite{jdbi}. There it was suggested
5737: that the filamentary structure we observe in the distribution of galaxies
5738: may be a consequence of this slight enhancement of the seeds of
5739: structure formation.
5740:
5741: For other important chaos articles see Refs.\ \cite{{ellistavakol},
5742: {detchaos},{gott},{lockhart}}
5743:
5744:
5745: %\vspace{1in}
5746:
5747: \newpage
5748: \section{Summary}
5749:
5750: The creation of the universe is still not well understood.
5751: Clarity on the earliest moments will likely come only with a
5752: fully functional quantum theory of gravity. In the meantime,
5753: we know that space is curved and evolving and most also possess
5754: {\it some} topology. If the curvature of the universe falls within
5755: the observable horizon, then topology may also.
5756: The CMB provides the deepest probe of the universe on the largest-scales
5757: and we have reviewed the many ideas on how to extract the topology
5758: of space from maps of the
5759: microwave sky. The methods fall into two primary categories:
5760: direct statistical methods and generic geometric methods.
5761: The salient features in CMB maps which reveal topology are
5762: (1) a discretization of the sizes of hot and cold spots,
5763: (2) a cutoff in the spectrum for wavelengths too big to fit within
5764: the finite space
5765: and (3) an anisotropic and inhomogeneous distribution of
5766: correlations corresponding to repeated ghost images of the same
5767: spots.
5768: Data from the future satellite missions MAP and
5769: {\it Planck Surveyor} are needed to determine if the CMB does in fact
5770: encode such features. When the new high resolution maps are in hand,
5771: we will have to face the potentially prohibitive difficulty of foreground
5772: contaminations, the thickness of the surface last scattering, and fortuitous
5773: correlations.
5774: If we are lucky enough to surmount these observational trials, we
5775: may be able to see the entire shape of space.
5776:
5777: Still, as many fear, the topology scale may naturally be far beyond
5778: the observable universe. If this is the case, we can turn to
5779: physics on the smallest scales to learn something about what we will never
5780: see on the largest scales. If an ultimate theory of gravity beyond
5781: Einstein's is able to predict the geometry and topology of small
5782: extra dimensions, there is every reason to hope we will learn, if
5783: only indirectly, the geometry and topology of the large dimensions.
5784:
5785:
5786:
5787:
5788: \section*{Acknowledgements}
5789: I appreciate the generous contributions of suggestions, ideas,
5790: and figures from the topology/cosmology
5791: community.
5792: I am grateful to R. Aurich, J.D. Barrow,
5793: J.R. Bond, N.J. Cornish, H. Fagundes, K.T. Inoue,
5794: J-P. Luminet, B. Roukema, D. Spergel and G. Starkman
5795: for useful discussions.
5796: I am especially grateful to Jeff Weeks for his mathematical insight
5797: and his direct contributions to this review. I thank
5798: Theoretical Physics Group at
5799: Imperial College for their hospitality.
5800: This work is supported by PPARC.
5801:
5802:
5803: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgements}
5804:
5805:
5806: \newpage
5807:
5808: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
5809:
5810: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
5811:
5812: \bibitem{lum} M. Lachieze-Rey and J. -P. Luminet, Phys. Rep.
5813: {\bf 254}, 136, (1995).
5814:
5815: \bibitem{css_cqg} N.J.Cornish, D.N.Spergel and G.D.Starkman,
5816: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15} 2657 (1998).
5817:
5818: \bibitem{galreviews1}
5819: J.-P. Uzan, R. Lehoucq, and J.-P. Luminet,
5820: Proceedings of the XIXth Texas meeting, Paris 14-18 December 1998,
5821: Eds. E. Aubourg, T. Montmerle, J. Paul and P. Peter, article-no: 04.25.
5822:
5823: \bibitem{galreviews2} J.-P. Luminet and B.F. Roukema,
5824: Proceedings of Cosmology School held at Cargese, Corsica, August 1998
5825: astro-ph/9901364.
5826:
5827: \bibitem{roukreview}
5828: B.F. Roukema, Bull.Astr.Soc.India, 28, 483 (astro-ph/0010185) (2000);
5829: B.F. Roukema, Marcel Grossmann IX Conference, eds Ruffini et al. (2001)
5830: (astro-ph/0010189).
5831:
5832: \bibitem{ghosts1} L. Z. Fang and H. Sato, Comm. Theor. Phys,
5833: (China) {\bf 2}, 1055, (1983); H. V. Fagundes, {\em Astrophys. J.}
5834: {\bf 291}, 450, (1985); {\it ibid.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 338 },
5835: 618, (1989); H. V. Fagundes and U. F. Wichoski, Astrophys. J. Lett.
5836: {\bf 322}, L5, (1987).
5837:
5838: \bibitem{ghosts2} H. V. Fagundes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 1579,
5839: (1993); R. Lehoucq, M. Lachiese-Rey and J. -P. Luminet,
5840: Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 313}, 339, (1996); B. F. Roukema and
5841: A. C. Edge, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 292}, 105, (1997);
5842: B. F. Roukema and V. Blanloeil, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 15}, 2645,
5843: (1998); B.F. Roukema,
5844: MNRAS, 283, 1147 (1996);
5845: B.F. Roukema \& S. Bajtlik, MNRAS, 308, 309 (1999).
5846:
5847:
5848:
5849: \bibitem{thursweeks} W.P.Thurston and J.R.Weeks, Sci. Am. July 94
5850: (1984).
5851:
5852: \bibitem{glennpop} J.P.Luminet, G.D.Starkman and J.R. Weeks, Sci. Am., April
5853: (1999).
5854:
5855: \bibitem{cqg} The entire issue of
5856: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15} 2589 (1998).
5857:
5858: \bibitem{ctp98} V. Blanl{\oe}il, B.F. Roukema, editors,
5859: Proceedings of the Cosmological Topology in Paris 1998 meeting,
5860: astro-ph/0010170 (2000).
5861:
5862:
5863: \bibitem{css1} N.J.Cornish, D.N.Spergel and G.Starkman, gr-qc/9602039.
5864:
5865: \bibitem{css2} N.J.Cornish, D.N.Spergel and G.Starkman,
5866: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 5982.
5867:
5868: \bibitem{conf} J. Levin,
5869: E. Scannapieco and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15}, 2689,
5870: (1998).
5871:
5872: \bibitem{pat} J. Levin, E. Scannapieco, G. Gasperis, J. Silk and
5873: J. D. Barrow,
5874: {\em Phys. Rev. } { D} {\bf 58} (1998) article 123006.
5875:
5876: \bibitem{imogen} I. Heard and J. Levin,
5877: Proceedings for ``Cosmological Topology'' in Paris
5878: (CTP98), astro-ph/9907166.
5879:
5880: \bibitem{bpsI} J. R. Bond, D. Pogosyan and T. Souradeep,
5881: Phys. Rev. D. {\bf 62} (2000) article 043005.
5882:
5883: \bibitem{bpsII} J. R. Bond, D. Pogosyan and T. Souradeep,
5884: Phys. Rev. D. {\bf 62} (2000) article 042006.
5885:
5886: \bibitem{wolf} J. A. Wolf, {\it Space of Constant Curvature (5th
5887: ed.)}, (Publish or Perish, Inc., 1994).
5888:
5889: \bibitem{ellis} G.F.Ellis, Q.J.R.Astron. Soc. {\bf 16} 245 (1975);
5890: G. F. R. Ellis, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 2} 7(1971).
5891:
5892: \bibitem{thurclass}
5893: W.P. Thurston, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. {\bf 6} (1982) 357.
5894:
5895: \bibitem{Thurston}
5896: W.P. Thurston, ``Three-dimensional geometry and topology''
5897: (Ed: Silvio Levy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1997).
5898:
5899: \bibitem{Bianchi} L. Bianchi, Mem. Soc. It. Della. Sc. (Dei. XL)
5900: 11, 267 (1897).
5901:
5902: \bibitem{snappea} J. R. Weeks, {\it SnapPea: A computer program for
5903: creating and studying hyperbolic 3-manifolds}, Univ. of Minnesota
5904: Geometry Center (freely available at http://www.northnet.org/weeks).
5905:
5906: \bibitem{mp} G.D. Mostow, Ann. Math., Studies {\bf 78}
5907: Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973);
5908: G. Prasad, Invent. Math. {\bf 21} 255 (1973).
5909:
5910: \bibitem{weekspace} J.R. Weeks, PhD thesis, Princeton University (1985).
5911:
5912: \bibitem{bv} N.L. Balazs and A. Voros, {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 143}
5913: (1986)
5914: 109.
5915:
5916: \bibitem{jwp} The mathematical section was contributed largely by
5917: Jeff Weeks who unfortunately was unable to coauthor this paper;
5918: J. Weeks, private communication.
5919:
5920: \bibitem{Francis-Weeks}
5921: G. Francis and J. Weeks, American Mathematical Monthly 106 (1999) 393-399.
5922:
5923: \bibitem{Shape}
5924: J. Weeks, The Shape of Space, Marcel Dekker Inc., 1985.
5925:
5926: \bibitem{Tbull} W.P. Thurston, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. {\bf 6}
5927: 357 (1982).
5928:
5929: \bibitem{pscott}
5930: P. Scott, London Math. Soc. {\bf 15} 401 (1983).
5931:
5932: \bibitem{Friedmann1924}
5933: A. Friedmann, Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik {\bf 21} 326 (1924).
5934:
5935: \bibitem{Löbell1929}
5936: F. L\"obell, Ber. d. S\"achs. Akad. d. Wiss. {\bf 83} 167 (1931).
5937:
5938:
5939: \bibitem{SW1932?}
5940: C. Weber and H. Seifert,
5941: Math. Zeitschrift {\bf 37} 237 (1933).
5942:
5943:
5944: \bibitem{Kojima??}.
5945: S. Kojima, Isometry Transformations of Hyperbolic 3-Manifolds,
5946: Topology Appl., {\bf 29} 297 (1988).
5947:
5948: \bibitem{toco} Miller et al. (TOCO experiment), ApJ 524, L1 (1999).
5949:
5950: \bibitem{exper} P. de Bernardis, et. al, astro-ph/0011469;
5951: J.R. Bond, et. al., astro-ph/0011378; A.H. Jaffe, et.al. astro-ph/0007333;
5952: S. Hanany, et. al. astro-ph/0005123.
5953:
5954: \bibitem{vilenkin}
5955: A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27}{2848}(1983).
5956: % The Birth of Inflationary Universes.
5957:
5958: \bibitem{linde}
5959: A.D. Linde, Mod. Phys. Lett.{\bf A1}{81} (1986);
5960: A.D. Linde, Physics Letters {\bf 175B}{395}(1986).
5961:
5962: \bibitem{guth0} A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D. {\bf 23} 347 (1981).
5963:
5964: \bibitem{guth1} A.H. Guth, Phys. Rep. 333 (2000) 555.
5965:
5966: \bibitem{topstrings} C. Contaldi, astro-ph/0005115.
5967:
5968: \bibitem{sokolov} I. Y. Sokolov, JETP Lett. {\bf 57}, 617, (1993).
5969:
5970: \bibitem{fagundes1} D. Muller, H.V. Fagundes, and R. Opher
5971: {\it in press} Phys. Rev. D
5972: gr-qc/0103014.
5973:
5974: \bibitem{css3} N.J.Cornish, D.N.Spergel and G.Starkman,
5975: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77} (1996) 215.
5976:
5977: \bibitem{sst} G.D. Starkman, D. Stojkovic, and M. Trodden,
5978: hep-th/0106143 (2001).
5979:
5980: \bibitem{bark} J.D. Barrow and H. Kodama,
5981: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 18} 1753 (2001); J.D. Barrow and H. Kodama,
5982: gr-qc/0105049 (2001).
5983:
5984: \bibitem{mkb} V.F. Mukhanov, H.A. Feldman, R.H. Brandenberger, Phys. Re;. {\bf 215}, 203 (1992).
5985:
5986: \bibitem{hu} W. Hu, in ``The Universe at High-z, Large Scale Structure and
5987: the Cosmic Microwave Background'', eds. E. Martinez-Gonzalez and J.L. Sanz
5988: (Springer Verlag) 1995.
5989:
5990: \bibitem{ll} A.R. Liddle and D.H. Lyth, Phys. Rep. {\bf 231}, 1 (1993).
5991:
5992: \bibitem{whu} M. White and W. Hu, Astronomy and Astrophysics .
5993:
5994:
5995: \bibitem{waldbk} R. Wald, {\it General Relativity}.
5996:
5997: \bibitem{mtw} Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, {\it Gravitation}.
5998:
5999: \bibitem{swein} S. Weinberg, {\it Gravitation and Cosmology}.
6000:
6001: \bibitem{kolbturner} E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner,
6002: {\it The Early Universe} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994).
6003:
6004: \bibitem{peebk} P.J.E. Peebles, {\it The Large-Scale Structure of the
6005: Universe} (Princeton University Press, 1980).
6006: %Princeton, New Jersey)
6007:
6008: \bibitem{sw} R.K. Sachs and A.M. Wolfe, Apj {\bf 147}, 73 (1967).
6009:
6010: \bibitem{lb_fractals} J.Levin and J.D.Barrow, Class. Quantum Grav.
6011: {\bf 17} L61
6012: (2000).
6013:
6014: \bibitem{newsphere} E. Gausmann, R. Lehoucq, J.-P. Luminet, J.-P. Uzan,
6015: and J. Weeks, gr-qc/0106033.
6016:
6017: \bibitem{open} A. Dekel, D. Burstein and S. D. M. White, 1996, in
6018: {\it Critical Dialogues in Cosmology}, ed. N.Turok, World Scientific;
6019: N. Bahcall
6020: and X. Fan, {\it preprint} (astro-ph/9804082).
6021:
6022: \bibitem{inoueprog} K.T.Inoue,
6023: Progress of Theoretical Physics, {\bf 106} 39 (2001).
6024:
6025: \bibitem{ktinoue} K.T.Inoue, Phys. Rev. {\bf D} 103001, 1-15 (2000).
6026:
6027: \bibitem{saul} S. Perlmutter, et. al., Ap. J. {\bf 517} 565 (1999).
6028:
6029: \bibitem{balbi} A. Balbi, et. al., astro-ph/0005124.
6030:
6031: \bibitem{addr} B.F. Roukema, G.A. Mamon, S. Bajtlik, submitted Astron.\&
6032: Astroph., astro-ph/0106135 (2001).
6033:
6034: \bibitem{bennet} C.L. Bennett, et al.
6035: ApJ {\bf 391} (1992) 466.
6036:
6037: \bibitem{smoot} G.F. Smoot et al., Ap. J. {\bf 360} 685 (1990);
6038: G.F. Smoot et al., Ap. J. {\bf 396} L1 (1992).
6039:
6040: \bibitem{kris} K. Gorski,
6041: Proc. Moriond XVI,
6042: ed. F.R. Bouchet et. al. (Gif-Sur-Yvette: Editions Fronti\`ers) (1997).
6043:
6044: \bibitem{teg} M. Tegmark {\em Phys. Rev.}
6045: {\bf D 55} (1997) 5895.
6046:
6047: \bibitem{jaffe} J.R. Bond, A. Jaffe and L. Knox,
6048: preprint CfPA-97-TH-11; {\it ibid.} in preparation;
6049: J.R. Bond and A. Jaffe,
6050: Proc. Moriond XVI,
6051: ed. F.R. Bouchet et. al. (Gif-Sur-Yvette: Editions Fronti\`ers) (1997).
6052:
6053: \bibitem{bondef} J.R. Bond and G.P. Efstathiou, MNRAS {\bf 226} 655 (1987).
6054:
6055: \bibitem{lss}J. Levin, E. Scannapieco, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev.
6056: D {\bf 58} (1998) article 103516.
6057:
6058: \bibitem{slsi} E. Scannapieco, J. Levin, and J. Silk, MNRAS
6059: 303 (1999) 797.
6060:
6061: \bibitem{sss} D. Stevens, D. Scott and J. Silk, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
6062: 71} (1993) 20.
6063:
6064:
6065: \bibitem{deO1} A. de Oliveira-Costa and G.F. Smoot, Ap. J. {\bf 448}
6066: 447 (1995).
6067:
6068: \bibitem{cheeger} J. Cheeger, in {\it Problems in Analysis, (A
6069: Symposium in honor of S. Bochner)}, (Princeton University Press,
6070: 1970).
6071:
6072: \bibitem{buser} P. Buser, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. {\bf 36}, 29, (1980).
6073:
6074: \bibitem{workshop} Entire Volume of
6075: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15} (1998).
6076:
6077:
6078: \bibitem{zel73} Ya B. Zel'dovich, Comm. astrophys. Space Sci.
6079: {\bf 5} 169 (1973).
6080:
6081: \bibitem{fanghoujun} L.Z. Fang and M. Houjun, Mod. Phys. Lett. A
6082: {\bf 2} 229 (1987).
6083:
6084: \bibitem{deO2} A. de Oliveira Costa, G. F. Smoot and A. A. Starobinsky,
6085: Astrophys. J. {\bf 468}, 457 (1996).
6086:
6087: \bibitem{star} A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. {\bf 57}, 622 (1993).
6088:
6089: \bibitem{fang} L.Z. Fang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 8} 2615 (1993).
6090:
6091: \bibitem{boudcirc} B.F. Roukema, MNRAS, 312, 712 (2000);
6092: B.F. Roukema, Class. Quant. Grav {\bf 17} 3951 (2000).
6093:
6094: \bibitem{et} G.F.R. Ellis and R. Tavakol, in {\it Deterministic
6095: Chaos in General Relativity}, Eds. D. Hobbill, A. Burd, and A. Coley,
6096: (Plenum Press, New York, 1994).
6097:
6098: \bibitem{sinai} Y.G. Sinai, Sov. Math. Dok., {\bf 1} 335 (1960).
6099:
6100: \bibitem{aurichsteiner}
6101: R. Aurich and F. Steiner, Physica D {\bf 39}, 169,
6102: (1989); R.Aurich and F.Steiner, Physica D {\bf 64} 185 (1993).
6103:
6104: \bibitem{inouetrace}
6105: K.T.Inoue,
6106: Classical and Quantum Gravity, {\bf 18} 629 (2001),
6107: math-ph/0011012.
6108:
6109: \bibitem{gutz} M.C. Gutzwiller, {\it Chaos in Classical and Quantum
6110: Mechanics} (Springer-Verlag New York Inc, New York, 1990);
6111: M.C. Gutzwiller, {\it J. Math. Phys.}, {\bf 12}
6112: (1971) 343.
6113:
6114: \bibitem{ott} E. Ott, {\em Chaos in dynamical systems}, (CUP,
6115: Cambridge, 1993).
6116:
6117: \bibitem{lyth} D.H.Lyth and A. Woszczyna, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52} 3338 (1995).
6118:
6119: \bibitem{krzy} K.M. Gorski, B. Ratra, N. Sugiyama, and A.J. Banday, Ap. J.
6120: {\bf 444} L65 (1995).
6121:
6122:
6123: \bibitem{spergelcqg}
6124: D. N. Spergel, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15}, 2589, (1998).
6125:
6126:
6127: \bibitem{lobell} F. L\"obell, Ber, S\"achs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig {\bf 83} (1931).
6128:
6129: \bibitem{seifertweber} H.Seifert and C.Weber, Math. Z. {\bf 37} 237 (1933).
6130:
6131:
6132: \bibitem{sos} D. D. Sokolov and A. A. Starobinskii, {\em Sov. Astron. }{\bf
6133: 19} (1976) 629.
6134:
6135: \bibitem{lbbs} J. Levin, J.D. Barrow, E.F. Bunn and J. Silk,
6136: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997) 974 .
6137:
6138:
6139: %\bibitem{thick}
6140:
6141: \bibitem{olsonstark} D. Olson and G.D. Starkman,
6142: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 17} 3093 (2001).
6143:
6144: \bibitem{inoue} K.T.Inoue, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 16} 3071 (1999).
6145:
6146: %\bibitem{inoue2} K.T.Inoue, astro-ph/9903446.
6147:
6148: \bibitem{inouetomita} K.T.Inoue, K. Tomita, and N.Sugiyama,
6149: MNRAS {\bf 314} L21 (2000).
6150:
6151: \bibitem{inouethesis} K.T.Inoue, Ph.D. Thesis, astro-ph 0103158.
6152:
6153: \bibitem{cornsperg} N.J.Cornish and D.N.Spergel, math.DG/9906017;
6154: N.J.Cornish and D.N.Spergel, Phys. Rev. D. {\bf 62}
6155: (2000) article 087304.
6156:
6157: \bibitem{aurich}
6158: R. Aurich, Ap. J. {\bf 524} 497 (1999).
6159:
6160: \bibitem{aurichmarklof} R. Aurich and J. Marklof, Physica {\bf D 92},
6161: 101 (1996).
6162:
6163: \bibitem{berry} M.V. Berry, {\it J. Phys. A} {\bf 12} (1977) 2083;
6164: M.V. Berry in {\it Chaotic Behavior of Deterministic
6165: Systems}, eds. G. Iooss, R. Hellman, and R. Stora, Les Houches
6166: Proc. 36 (North-Holland, NY, 1981).
6167:
6168: \bibitem{saskatoon} C.B.Netterfield, M.J.Devlin, N.Jarosik, L.A.Page
6169: and E.J.Wollack, Astrophys. J. {\bf 474}, 47 (1997).
6170:
6171: \bibitem{qmap} A. de Oliveira-Costa, M.J.Devlin, T.Herbit, A.D.Miller,
6172: C.B.Netterfield, L.A.Page, and M.Tegmark, Astrophys. J. Lett.
6173: {\bf 509}, L77, (1998).
6174:
6175: \bibitem{as} R. Aurich and F. Steiner, MNRAS {\bf 323} 1016 (2001).
6176:
6177: \bibitem{pen} U.-L. Pen, Astrophys. J. {\bf 498} 60 (1998).
6178:
6179: \bibitem{bps_texas} J. R. Bond, D. Pogosyan and T. Souradeep, in: {\it
6180: Proceedings of the XVIIIth Texas Symposium on Relativistic
6181: Astrophysics}, ed.\ A. Olinto, J. Frieman, and D.~N. Schramm, (World
6182: Scientific, 1997).
6183:
6184: \bibitem{bps_moriond} J. R. Bond, D. Pogosyan and T. Souradeep, in:
6185: {\it
6186: Proc. of XXXIIIrd Recontre de Moriond}, ``Fundamental Parameters in
6187: Cosmology'', Jan. 17-24, 1998, Les Arc, France.
6188:
6189: \bibitem{bps_cwru} J. R. Bond, D. Pogosyan and T. Souradeep,
6190: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15}, 2671, (1998).
6191:
6192:
6193: \bibitem{chavel} I. Chavel, {\it Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry},
6194: (Academic Press, 1984).
6195:
6196:
6197: \bibitem{berard} P. H. Berard, {\it Spectral Geometry: Direct and
6198: Inverse Problems}, Lec. Notes in Mathematics, {\bf 1207},
6199: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980).
6200:
6201: \bibitem{morehf} H.V. Fagundes, Ap. J. {\bf 470} 43 (1996).
6202:
6203: \bibitem{morehf2} H.V. Fagundes, astro-ph/0007443.
6204:
6205: \bibitem{cas} L. Cay\'on and G. Smoot, Ap. J. {\bf 452} 494 (1995).
6206:
6207: \bibitem{hw} C.D. Hodgson and J.R.Weeks, Experim. Math. 3, 261 (1994).
6208:
6209: \bibitem{cornweeks} N.J. Cornish and J. Weeks, Notices of the American
6210: Mathematical Society, astro-ph/9807311.
6211:
6212: \bibitem{roukemaedge}
6213: B.F. Roukema and A.C. Edge, MNRAS {\bf 292}, 105 (1997).
6214:
6215: \bibitem{roukemablanloeil}
6216: B.F. Roukema and V. Blan loeil, Class. Quant. Grav., {\bf 15}, 2645 (1998).
6217:
6218: \bibitem{best} L.A.Best, Can. J. Math. {\bf 23} No. 3, 451 (1971).
6219:
6220: \bibitem{jdbi} J.D. Barrow and J. Levin, Phys. Rev. A (2001).
6221:
6222: \bibitem{jefftwin} J. Weeks, unpublished.
6223:
6224: \bibitem{uzan}
6225: J.P. Uzan, J.P. Luminet, R. Lehoucq, and P. Peter, physics/0006039.
6226:
6227: \bibitem{peters} P.C. Peters, Am. J. Phys. {\bf 51} (1983) 791;
6228: P.C. Peters, Am. J. Phys. {\bf 54} (1986) 334.
6229:
6230: \bibitem{lh} J.R. Lucas and P.E. Hodgson, {\it Spacetime and Electromagnetism}
6231: (Oxford University Press: 1990) pp 76-83.
6232:
6233: \bibitem{carlip} S. Carlip, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15}
6234: 2629 (1998) and references therein.
6235:
6236: \bibitem{gibbons} G. W. Gibbons, Nucl. Phys. {bf B 472}, 683, (1996);
6237: G. W. Gibbons, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 15}, 2605, (1998).
6238:
6239: \bibitem{hfq} H.V. Fagundes and S.S. e Costa, General Relativity and
6240: Gravitation {\bf 31} 863 (1999).
6241:
6242: \bibitem{hfq2}
6243: S.S. e Costa and H.V. Fagundes, General Relativity and
6244: Gravitation {\bf 33} in press (2001).
6245:
6246: \bibitem{randallco} L. Randall and R. Sundrum,
6247: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} 3370 (1999).
6248:
6249: \bibitem{kk} Th. Kaluza, Situngsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. Kl.
6250: 966 (1921); O. Klein, Z. Phys. {\bf 37} 895 (1929).
6251:
6252:
6253: \bibitem{glennco} N. Kaloper, J. March-Russell, G.D. Starkman,
6254: and M. Trodden,
6255: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} 928 (2001).
6256:
6257: %\bibitem{calabi}
6258:
6259: \bibitem{hormar} G. T. Horowitz and D. Marolf, J.High Energy
6260: Phys. {\bf 9807}, 014, (1998).
6261:
6262: \bibitem{wigner} E.P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. {\bf 40} (1932) 749.
6263:
6264: \bibitem{heller} E.J. Heller, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 53}
6265: (1984) 1515.
6266:
6267:
6268: \bibitem{lockhart} C.M. Lockhart, B. Misra, I. Prigogine,
6269: Phys. Rev. D. {\bf 25} 921 (1982).
6270:
6271: \bibitem{gott} J.Richard Gott, III Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. {\bf 192}
6272: 153 (1980).
6273:
6274: \bibitem{detchaos}{\it Deterministic Chaos in General Relativity}
6275: eds. D. Hobill et al., Plenum Press, Ne w York, 1994.
6276:
6277: \bibitem{ellistavakol} G.F.R. Ellis and R. Tavakol, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 11}
6278: 675 (1994).
6279:
6280: \bibitem{ellisschreiber} G.F.R. Ellis and G. Schreiber, Phys. Lett. A {\bf
6281: 115} 97 (1986).
6282:
6283:
6284:
6285: \end{thebibliography}
6286:
6287: \newpage
6288: \appendix
6289: \section{Appendix: Representations of Hyperbolic space}
6290: \label{AppendixA}
6291:
6292: Because of the recent emphasis on hyperbolic models, we include a
6293: section here on other useful coordinate models for manipulating
6294: $\ah $.
6295: We have already seen two different coordinate systems
6296: for the metric eqns. (\ref{stanmet}) and (\ref{cosmet}).
6297: Another important coordinate system comes from embedding
6298: $\ah $ in the $(3+1)$-Minkowski space as discusssed in \S \ref{ovgeom}.
6299: The Minkowski metric is
6300: \be
6301: d\sigma^2=-dx_0^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2
6302: \ee
6303: The $3D$-hypersurface is constrained to have pseudoradius
6304: \be
6305: -x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=1
6306: \ee
6307: and the curvature radius has been taken to $1$. In Minkowski coordinates
6308: the generators $\gamma \in \Gamma$ take the convenient
6309: form of $O(4)$, orthogonal
6310: $4\times 4$ matrices.
6311: These coordinates can be related to those of eqn.\ (\ref{cosmet})
6312: with the transformation
6313: \ba
6314: x^\mu &=& \pmatrix{x^0\cr x^1\cr x^2\cr x^3}
6315: =\pmatrix{\cosh \chi \cr
6316: \sinh \chi \sin\theta \cos \phi \cr
6317: \sinh \chi \sin\theta \sin \phi \cr
6318: \sinh\chi \cos \theta }.
6319: \ea
6320:
6321: There are several other useful representations of the hyperbolic plane
6322: including the Poincar\'e
6323: ball with
6324: \be
6325: \vec x=\tanh(r/2)\hat n
6326: \ee
6327: with $\hat n$ the usual unit vector in spherical coordinates.
6328: The Poincar\'e ball model maps $\ah$ to the
6329: open ball $\{\vx \in \eu | \vec x\cdot \vec x < 1\}$
6330: with
6331: \be
6332: d\sigma^2={4d\vx\cdot d\vx\over \left(1-{\vx\cdot \vx}\right )}.
6333: \ee
6334: It is useful to know the geodesic distance is
6335: \be
6336: d(\vx,\vxp)={\rm arccosh}\left [1+{2\left |\vx-\vxp\right |
6337: \over (1-|\vx|^2)(1-|\vxp|^2)}\right ].
6338: \ee
6339: All geodesics intersect the boundary orthogonally and are therefore semicircles
6340: or straight lines which are the diameters of the ball.
6341:
6342: There is also the upper-half space representation
6343: $\{\vx \in \eu | x_3>0\}$,
6344: \ba
6345: d\sigma^2 &=& {\left (dx^2+dy^2 dz^2\right )\over z^2}\nonumber \\
6346: &\equiv & d\rho^2+e^{-2\rho}\left (dx^2+dy^2\right )
6347: \label{upperhalf}
6348: \ea
6349: with $e^\rho=z$. This coordinate system is particularly useful
6350: for cusped manifolds which are discussed in \S \ref{obscusps}.
6351:
6352: Finally there is the three-dimensional Klein model with coordinates
6353: \be
6354: \vec x=\tanh\chi\hat n
6355: \ee
6356: which is used often in constructing the Dirichlet domain in three-dimensions
6357: and mapping the periodic geodesics. Geodesics are mapped into
6358: straight lines in this model.
6359:
6360:
6361: \end{document}
6362:
6363:
6364:
6365: \bibitem{meyerhoff}
6366:
6367:
6368:
6369: