1: \documentclass[12pt,oneside]{article}

2: \input psfig.sty

3: \begin{document}

4: \thispagestyle{empty}

5: \setcounter{page}{0}

6: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

7: 

8: %minore o circa uguale

9: \def\laq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62

10: ex\hbox{$\sim$}}

11: %maggiore o circa uguale

12: \def\gaq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}}

13: 

14: \def\baselinestretch{1.4} \def\tdot#1{{\buildrel{\ldots}\over{#1}}}

15: %\def \tablerule{\noalign {\vskip3truept\hrule\vskip3truept}}

16: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0cm} \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}

17: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.9cm} \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}%

18: 

19: \font\tenbb=msbm10

20: \font\sevenbb=msbm7

21: \font\fivebb=msbm5

22: \newfam\bbfam

23: \textfont\bbfam=\tenbb \scriptfont\bbfam=\sevenbb

24: \scriptscriptfont\bbfam=\fivebb

25: 

26: \def\bb{\fam\bbfam}

27: \def\Rb{{\bb R}}

28: 

29: \newcommand{\vrsmall}{\vrule width 0pt height 18pt depth 15pt}

30: \newcommand{\vrbig}{\vrule width 0pt height 27pt depth 15pt}

31: \newcommand{\vrh}{\vrule width 0pt height -40pt depth 0pt}

32: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial} 

33: \newcommand{\co}{\nabla}

34: \newcommand{\vphi}{\varphi} 

35: \newcommand{\sigmap}{\sigma^\prime}

36: \newcommand{\taup}{\tau^\prime}

37: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}} 

38: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

39: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}} 

40: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

41: \newcommand{\beam}{\begin{mathletters}} 

42: \newcommand{\eeam}{\end{mathletters}}

43: \newcommand{\var}{\rm Var} 

44: \newcommand{\ophi}{\overline{\phi}} 

45: \newcommand{\obeta}{\overline{\beta}} 

46: \newcommand{\om}{\overline{m}} 

47: \newcommand{\opsi}{\overline{\psi}} 

48: \def\p{\partial}

49: \def\mp{m_{\rm pl}}

50: \def\lap{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

51: \def\gap{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

52: \def\lb{\langle}

53: \def\rb{\rangle}

54: \def\fv{{\bf f}}

55: \def\vp{\varphi}

56: \font\tenbb=msbm10

57: \font\sevenbb=msbm7

58: \font\fivebb=msbm5

59: \newfam\bbfam

60: \textfont\bbfam=\tenbb \scriptfont\bbfam=\sevenbb

61: \scriptscriptfont\bbfam=\fivebb

62: \def\bb{\fam\bbfam}

63: \def\Rb{{\bb R}}

64: 

65: 

66: {\hfill{IHES/P/02/22}} 

67: 

68: %{\hfill{\tt hep-th/0204017}}

69: 

70: \vspace{2cm}

71: 

72: \begin{center}

73: {\bf STRING COSMOLOGY AND CHAOS}

74: 

75: \vspace{1.4cm}

76: 

77: Thibault DAMOUR

78: 

79: \vspace{.2cm}

80: 

81: {\em Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, 35 route de Chartres,}\\

82: 

83: {\em 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France} \\

84: \end{center}

85: 

86: \vspace{-.1cm}

87: 

88: \centerline{{\tt damour@ihes.fr}}

89: 

90: \vspace{1cm}

91: 

92: \centerline{ABSTRACT}

93: 

94: \vspace{- 4 mm}  

95: 

96: \begin{quote}\small

97: We briefly review three aspects of string cosmology: (1) the ``stochastic'' approach to the

98: pre-big bang scenario, (2) the presence of chaos in the generic cosmological solutions of the

99: tree-level low-energy effective actions coming out of string theory, and (3) the remarkable

100: link between the latter chaos and the Weyl groups of some hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras.

101: Talk given at the Francqui Colloquium ``Strings and Gravity: Tying the Forces Together''

102: (Brussels, October 2001).

103: \end{quote}

104: 

105: \baselineskip18pt

106: 

107: \newpage

108: 

109: \setcounter{equation}{0}

110: \section{Introduction}

111: A striking prediction of string theory is that its ``gravitational sector'' is 

112: richer than that of General Relativity: it contains several {\it a priori} massless

113: fields in addition to the Einstein graviton (see \cite{GSW, polchinski} for  reviews). 

114: We consider that these fields (notably the dilaton $\phi$, as well as possibly some 

115: of the other stringy partners of the graviton) represent an interesting 

116: prediction  whose possible existence 

117: should be taken seriously, and whose observable consequences should be 

118: carefully studied. 

119: Of course, tests of General Relativity  put severe constraints on such fields, and

120: notably on the dilaton. The simplest way to recover General Relativity at late times

121: is to assume \cite{TV} that $\phi$ gets a mass from supersymmetry-breaking non-perturbative 

122: effects. Another possibility might be 

123: to use the string-loop modifications of the dilaton couplings for driving 

124: $\phi$ toward a special value where it decouples from matter \cite{DP}. 

125: [Recently Ref.\cite{DPV} has explored the phenomenological consequences of

126: a version of this cosmological decoupling scenario where the special value of the

127: dilaton corresponds to infinite bare string coupling.]

128: These alternatives do not rule out the possibility

129: that the dilaton may have had an important r\^ole  in the previous  history of the

130: universe. Early cosmology stands out as a particularly 

131: interesting arena where to study the dynamical effects of the dilaton and of the

132: other stringy partners of the graviton.

133: In this contribution, we wish to discuss two separate attempts at exploring the 

134: cosmological consequences of the richer stringy gravitational sector.

135: 

136: In a first part, we shall briefly review one facet of the pre-big bang (PBB) model 

137: \cite{1,PBB,copeland} of early string cosmology: the  ``stochastic'' approach to the

138: problem of initial conditions \cite{BDV}.

139:  Then we shall summarize some recent work,

140: done in collaboration with Marc Henneaux \cite{DH1,DH2,DH3,DHJN,DHN},

141:  which discovered the generic presence

142: of a chaotic behaviour in string cosmology, and the link of this chaos with the

143: Weyl groups of remarkable hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras ($E_{10}$, $BE_{10}$, ...).

144: 

145: \setcounter{equation}{0}

146: 

147: \section{Stochastic pre-big bang}

148: 

149: A series of papers \cite{1,PBB,BDV,copeland} has developed the so-called pre-big bang (PBB) model,

150: in which the dilaton plays a key dynamical r\^ole.

151: One of the key ideas of this scenario is to use 

152: the kinetic energy of the dilaton to drive a period of inflation of the 

153: universe. The motivation is that the presence of a (tree-level 

154: coupled) dilaton essentially destroys \cite{BS} the usual inflationary mechanism: 

155:  instead of driving an exponential inflationary expansion, a 

156: (nearly) constant vacuum energy drives the string coupling $g = e^{\phi / 2}$ 

157: towards small values, thereby causing the universe to expand only as a small 

158: power of time. If one takes seriously the existence of the dilaton, the PBB 

159: idea of a dilaton-driven inflation offers itself as one of the very few natural 

160: ways of reconciling string theory and inflation.

161: 

162: Let us first recall that, within the PBB scenario, the inflation driven by the kinetic 

163: energy of $\phi$ forces both the coupling and 

164: the curvature to {\it grow} during inflation \cite{1}. This suggests that the 

165: initial state must be very perturbative in two respects: i) it must have

166: very small initial curvatures (derivatives) in string units and, ii) it must exhibit 

167: a tiny initial coupling $g_i = e^{\phi_i /2} \ll 1$.  

168: In conclusion, dilaton-driven inflation must start

169: from a regime in which the tree-level low-energy approximation 

170: to string theory is extremely accurate, something we may call an asymptotically trivial

171: ``vacuum'' state.

172: 

173: 

174: 

175: The first papers on the PBB scenario were assuming that this initial ``trivial'' 

176: vacuum state was, in addition, very symmetric (spatially homogeneous). 

177: Several authors \cite{TW}, \cite{KLB}

178: criticized this ``fine tuning'' of the initial conditions. This led \cite{BDV}

179: to develop a ``stochastic'' version of the PBB scenario that we wish to explain.

180: We shall first follow \cite{BDV} in assuming that the set of considered string 

181: vacua are already compactified to

182:  four dimensions and are truncated to the 

183: gravi-dilaton sector (antisymmetric tensors and moduli being set to zero).

184: As we shall see in the next section, this assumption, mostly chosen ``for simplicity's sake'',

185: turns out to modify in a drastic way the qualitative behaviour of the general (tree-level)

186: stringy cosmological solution near the big-crunch/big-bang singularity. This lesson should

187: be kept in mind when exploring other simplified models of a possible 

188: big-crunch/big-bang transition \cite{KOSST,S02,N02}.

189: 

190: Within this simplified framework, the set of all perturbative string vacua coincides 

191: with the generic solutions of the tree-level low-energy effective action 

192: 

193: \beq

194: S_s = \frac{1}{\alpha^\prime} \int d^4 x \, \sqrt{G} \, e^{-\phi} [R(G) + G^{\mu 

195: \nu} \partial_{\mu} \phi \, \partial_{\nu} \phi] \,, 

196: \label{eqn1.1}

197: \eeq

198: where we have denoted by $G_{\mu \nu}$ the string-frame ($\sigma$-model) metric.

199: The generic solution is parametrized by 6 functions of three variables.  These 

200: functions can be thought of classically as describing the two helicity$-2$ 

201: modes of gravitational waves, plus the helicity$-0$ mode of dilatonic waves. 

202: The idea is then to envisage, as initial state, 

203: the most general past-trivial classical solution of (\ref{eqn1.1}), i.e. an 

204: arbitrary ensemble of incoming gravitational and dilatonic waves. 

205:  

206: The main point of \cite{BDV} was to show how such a stochastic bath of classical 

207: incoming waves (devoid of any ordinary matter) can evolve into our rich,

208: complex, expanding universe. The basic mechanism  for turning such a 

209: trivial, inhomogeneous and anisotropic, initial state into a Friedmann-like 

210: cosmological universe is {\it gravitational instability}

211:  (and quantum particle production as far as

212: heating up the universe is concerned \cite{PBB}). When the 

213: initial waves satisfy a certain (dimensionless) strength criterion, they 

214: collapse (when viewed in the Einstein conformal frame) under their own weight. 

215: As discussed below, when viewed in the (physically most appropriate) string conformal frame,

216: a fraction of these collapses (the ones where  $\sum_a \alpha_a < 0$) 

217: leads to the local birth of  baby inflationary universes 

218: blistering off the initial vacuum. Assuming that the dilaton-driven (power-law)

219: inflation is somehow converted into a hot big bang,

220:  one  then expects each of these ballooning patches 

221: of space to evolve into a quasi-closed Friedmann universe

222: \footnote{This picture of baby universes created by gravitational 

223: collapse is reminiscent of earlier proposals \cite{FMM}, \cite{MB}, 

224: \cite{Smolin}.}.

225: 

226: Though the physical interpretation of such a model is best made in terms of the 

227: original string (or $\sigma$-model) metric $G_{\mu \nu}$ appearing in 

228: Eq.~(\ref{eqn1.1}), it is technically convenient to work with the 

229: conformally related Einstein metric

230: \beq

231: g_{\mu \nu} = e^{-(\phi -\phi_{\rm now})} \, G_{\mu \nu} \, , 

232: \quad \quad 16 \pi G = \alpha^\prime \, e^{\phi_{\rm now}}\,. 

233: \label{eqn2.1}

234: \eeq

235: In terms of the Einstein metric $g_{\mu \nu}$, the low-energy tree-level string 

236: effective action (\ref{eqn1.1}) reads (we  set, here,  $16 \pi G = 1$)

237: \beq

238: \label{1.1}

239: S = \int d^4 x \,\sqrt{g}\,

240: \left [ {R} - \frac{1}{2}\pa_\mu \phi\, \pa^\mu \phi \right ]\,.

241: \eeq

242: The corresponding classical field equations are

243: \beq

244: R_{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} \,\partial_{\mu} \phi \, \partial_{\nu} \phi \, ,  

245: \label{eq1.4} 

246: \eeq

247: \beq

248: \nabla^{\mu} \, \nabla_{\mu} \, \phi = 0 \, .

249: \label{eqn2.3}

250: \eeq

251: As explained in \cite{BDV} a generic solution of these 

252: classical field equations admitting an asymptotically trivial past, i.e. a

253: generic stringy ``in state'', can be

254: described as a superposition of incoming wave packets of gravitational 

255: and dilatonic fields. This ``in state" can be nicely parametrized by three 

256: asymptotic ingoing, dimensionless ``news'' functions $N(v,\theta,\varphi)$, $N_+ 

257: (v,\theta,\varphi)$, $N_{\times} (v,\theta,\varphi)$.  

258:  When  all the news stay always significantly below 1, this ``in state'' will 

259: evolve into a similar trivial ``out state'' made of outgoing wave packets. On the 

260: other hand, when the news functions reach values of order 1, and more precisely 

261: when some global measure (discussed in detail in \cite{BDV}) 

262: of the variation  of the news functions

263:  exceeds some critical value of order unity, the ``in state'' will 

264: become gravitationally unstable during its evolution and  will give 

265: birth to one or several black holes, i.e. one or several singularities hidden 

266: behind outgoing null surfaces (event horizons). Seen from the outside of these 

267: black holes, the ``out" string vacuum will finally look, like the ``in" one, as a 

268: superposition of outgoing waves.

269: However, the story is very different if we 

270: look inside these black holes and shift back to the physically more appropriate 

271: string conformal frame.

272: 

273: It is at this point that the ``simplification'' of considering only the 

274: Einstein-dilaton system (\ref{1.1}) plays a particularly crucial role.

275: Indeed, the  work of Belinsky, Khalatnikov and Lifshitz \cite{BKL} has 

276: shown that the qualitative behaviour of the fields near a generic 

277: cosmological singularity depended very much on the ``menu'' of fields

278: present in the theory. In particular, Belinsky and Khalatnikov \cite{BK}

279: found that (in any dimension) the Einstein-dilaton system admitted a simple

280: ``Kasner-like'' monotonic behaviour near a space-like singularity.

281: [See \cite{AR00}, \cite{DHRW} for  mathematical proofs of this result.]

282: This contrasts with, for instance, the generic behaviour of the pure

283: Einstein system (in dimension $ D < 11$), which exhibits a very 

284: complicated behaviour comprising an infinite number of shorter and shorter

285: ``oscillations'' near a singularity (see below). 

286: 

287: In the Einstein frame, one then

288: finds that the the Einstein-dilaton system leads to a monotonic, power-law-type,

289: ``collapse'' near the big-crunch singularity. This 

290: monotonic behaviour is technically described (in any dimension, and in suitable,

291: Gaussian coordinates) by a spatially inhomogeneous version of the Kasner solution. 

292: We shall

293: give in Eq.(\ref{eq2}) below the Einstein-frame expression of this Kasner-like solution. 

294: Let us indicate here its string-frame version:

295: \beq

296: \label{strkasn1}

297: ds_S^2 \sim -dt_S^2 + \sum_{a=1}^{D-1} (-t_S)^{2\alpha_a (x)} 

298: (E_i^a (x) \, dx^i)^2 \, ,

299: \eeq

300: \beq

301: \label{strkasn2}

302: \phi (x,t) = \phi (x,0) + \sigma (x) \log (-t_S) \, ,

303: \eeq

304: where the spatial string-frame $(D-1)$-bein $E_i^a (x)$ is proportional to the  

305: Einstein-frame $(D-1)$-bein $e_i^a (x)$ of Eq.(\ref{eq2}).

306: The constraints that must be satisfied by  the ``string-frame Kasner exponents'' 

307: read ($1 \leq a \leq D-1$)

308: \beq

309: \label{strrel}

310: \sum_{a=1}^{D-1} \alpha_a^2 = 1 \,, \quad \quad 

311: \sigma = \left( \sum_{a=1}^{D-1} \alpha_a \right) - 1 \,.

312: \eeq

313: 

314: The link between the (spatially varying) string-frame exponents $\alpha_a(x)$,

315: and the Einstein-frame ones $p_a(x), p_{\varphi}(x)$ (introduced below) reads

316: \beq

317: \label{strein}

318: p_a = \frac{\alpha_a(D-2) - {\sigma}}{D-2-{\sigma}}\,,

319: \quad \quad 

320: p_{\varphi} = \frac{\sqrt{ (D-2)}\,\sigma}{D-2 - {\sigma}}\,,

321: \eeq

322: where $\sigma \equiv (\sum_a \alpha_a) - 1$.

323: 

324: When described in the string frame, the 

325: Einstein-frame collapse towards a space-like singularity will represent, if 

326: $\phi$ grows fast enough toward the singularity (more precisely if 

327: $\sum_a \alpha_a < 0$, so that the volume in string units grows) 

328: a ``super-inflationary'' expansion of space (i.e. such that the volume grows like

329: a negative power of $-t_S$, as $t_S \to 0^-$). 

330: The picture is therefore that inside each black hole, the regions near the 

331: singularity where $\phi$ grows sufficiently fast will blister off the initial 

332: trivial vacuum as many separate pre-Big Bangs. The PBB scenario assumes that these

333: inflating pre-big bang patches (which head toward a singularity at $t_S = 0$, where

334: $\phi$ and the curvature blow up) make a ``graceful'' transition toward a (decelerated)

335: Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre hot big bang state.

336: These inflating patches are 

337: surrounded by non-inflating, or deflating  

338: patches, and therefore globally look approximately like

339: closed Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre hot universes. 

340: [See Figures 1 and 2 of \cite{BDV} for sketches of this picture.]

341: One expects such quasi-closed universes to recollapse 

342: in a finite, though very long, time (which is 

343: consistent with the fact that, seen from the outside, 

344: the black holes therein contained must evaporate in a finite time).

345: 

346: This picture has been firmed up by the detailed analysis of the spherically symmetric

347: Einstein-scalar system in \cite{BDV}. However, the weakest part of the entire 

348: PBB scenario is the conjectural assumption that the above power-law big-crunch 

349: behaviour, with a locally growing string coupling, can be ``halted'' by 

350: various non-perturbative effects (particle creation, string loops, ...) and

351: ``reversed'' into a decelerated Friedman-like hot big-bang. For references on this

352: ``bounce'' problem within the PBB scenario see \cite{PBB, copeland}, and for recent work

353: within some string-theory toy models see \cite{KOSST,S02,N02}. We shall, however, see

354: in the following section that taking into account all the (massless) fields entering

355: the low-energy action (and notably the Ramond-Ramond fields) drastically alters

356: the simple behaviour of the fields near a big-crunch singularity. 

357: 

358: 

359:  \setcounter{equation}{0}

360: \section{Chaos in Superstring Cosmology}

361: 

362: 

363:  A crucial problem in

364: string theory is the problem of vacuum selection. It is reasonable to believe that this problem

365: can be solved only in the context of cosmology, by studying the time evolution of {\it generic},

366: inhomogeneous (non-SUSY) string vacua. We have seen in the previous section that the

367: generic (inhomogeneous) solution of the simple Einstein-dilaton 

368: system (\ref{eqn1.1}) displayed (especially when viewed in the string frame) 

369: a rather rich structure. Let us recall that Belinskii, Khalatnikov and Lifshitz (BKL) have 

370: discovered \cite{BKL} that the generic solution of the {\it four-dimensional} 

371: Einstein's vacuum equations had a much richer, and much more complex structure, characterized

372: by a non-monotonic, never ending oscillatory behaviour near a cosmological singularity.

373: The oscillatory approach toward the 

374: singularity has the character of a random process, whose 

375: chaotic nature has been intensively studied \cite{LLK}.

376:  [See \cite{berger} for a summary of the

377: evidence supporting the BKL conjectural picture.]

378: The qualitative behaviour of the generic solution near a cosmological singularity 

379: depends very much: (i) on the

380: field content of the system being considered, and (ii) on the spacetime dimension $D$.

381: For instance, it was 

382: surprisingly found that the chaotic BKL oscillatory behaviour 

383: disappears from the generic solution of the vacuum Einstein 

384: equations in spacetime dimension $D \geq 11$ and is replaced by a 

385: monotonic Kasner-like power-law behaviour \cite{DHS}. Second, as we said above,

386:  the generic solution of the 

387: Einstein-scalar equations also exhibits a non-oscillatory, 

388: power-law behaviour \cite{BK}, \cite{AR00} (in any dimension \cite{DHRW}).

389: 

390: In superstring theory \cite{GSW,polchinski} there are many massless 

391: (bosonic) degrees of freedom which can be generically excited near a 

392: cosmological singularity. They correspond to a high-dimension ($D = 10$ or 

393: $11$) Kaluza-Klein-type model containing, in addition to Einstein's 

394: $D$-dimensional gravity, several other fields (scalars, vectors 

395: and/or forms). In view of the results quoted above, it is a priori 

396: unclear whether the full field content of superstring theory will 

397: imply, as generic cosmological solution, a chaotic BKL-like 

398: behaviour, or a monotonic Kasner-like one. It was found in \cite{DH1,DH2,DH3} 

399:  that the massless bosonic content of all 

400: superstring models ($D = 10$ IIA, IIB, I, ${\rm het}_{\rm E}$, ${\rm 

401: het}_{\rm SO}$), as well as of 

402: $M$-theory ($D=11$ supergravity), generically implies a chaotic 

403: BKL-like oscillatory behaviour near

404: a cosmological singularity. 

405: [The  analysis  of \cite{DH1,DH2,DH3} applies at

406: scales large enough to excite all Kaluza-Klein-type modes, but small

407: enough to be able to neglect the stringy and non-perturbative

408: massive states.]

409: It is

410: the presence of various form fields (e.g. the three form in ${\rm 

411: SUGRA}_{11}$) which provides the crucial source of this generic 

412: oscillatory behaviour.

413: 

414: Let us consider a model of the general form

415: \begin{equation}

416: S = \int \, d^D \, x \, \sqrt{g} \big[ R(g) - \partial_{\mu} \, 

417: \varphi \, \partial^{\mu} \, \varphi \,

418: - \sum_p \ \frac{1}{(p+1)!} \ 

419: e^{\lambda_p \, \varphi} \, (d \, A_p)^2 \big] \, . \label{eq1}

420: \end{equation}

421: Here, the spacetime dimension $D$ is left unspecified. We work (as a 

422: convenient common formulation) in the Einstein conformal frame, and 

423: we normalize the kinetic term of the ``dilaton'' $\varphi$ with a 

424: weight 1 with respect to the Ricci scalar. [Note that this differs of the convention of

425: Eq.(\ref{1.1}) where there was a factor $1/2$.]

426: The integer $p \geq 0$ 

427: labels the various $p$-forms $A_p \equiv A_{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_p}$ 

428: present in the theory, with field strengths $F_{p+1} \equiv d \, 

429: A_p$, i.e. $F_{\mu_0 \, \mu_1 \ldots \mu_p} = \partial_{\mu_0} \, 

430: A_{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_p} \pm p$ permutations. The real parameter 

431: $\lambda_p$ plays the crucial role of measuring the strength of the 

432: coupling of the dilaton to the $p$-form $A_p$ (in the Einstein 

433: frame). When $p=0$,

434: we assume that $\lambda_0 \not= 0$

435: (this is the case in type IIB where there is

436: a second scalar).  

437: The Einstein metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ is used to lower or raise 

438: all indices in Eq.~(\ref{eq1}) ($g \equiv -\det \, g_{\mu \nu}$). 

439: The model (\ref{eq1}) is, as it reads, not quite general enough to 

440: represent in detail all the superstring actions. Indeed, it lacks 

441: additional terms involving possible couplings between the form 

442: fields (e.g. Yang-Mills couplings for $p=1$ multiplets, Chern-Simons 

443: terms, $(d \, C_2 - C_0 \, d \, B_2)^2$-type terms 

444: in type IIB). However, it has been verified in all relevant 

445: cases that these additional terms do not qualitatively modify the 

446: BKL behaviour to be discussed below. On the other hand, in the case 

447: of $M$-theory (i.e. $D=11$ SUGRA) the dilaton 

448: $\varphi$ is absent, and one must cancell 

449: its contributions to the dynamics.

450: 

451: The leading Kasner-like approximation to the solution of the field 

452: equations for $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\varphi$

453: derived from (\ref{eq1}) is, as usual \cite{BKL}, in the Einstein-frame (see above

454: for its string-frame counterpart)

455: \begin{equation}

456: \label{eq2}

457: g_{\mu \nu} \, dx^{\mu} \, dx^{\nu} \simeq -dt^2 + \sum_{i=1}^d \, 

458: t^{2 p_i (x)} \, (\omega^i)^2 \, , \; \;

459: \varphi \simeq p_{\varphi} \, (x) \, \ln \, t \, +

460: \psi \, (x) \, ,  

461: \end{equation}

462: where $d \equiv D-1$ denotes the spatial dimension and where 

463: $\omega^i \, (x) = e_j^i \, (x) \, dx^j$ is a time-independent 

464: $d$-bein. The spatially dependent Kasner exponents $p_i \, (x)$, 

465: $p_{\varphi} \, (x)$ must satisfy the famous Kasner constraints 

466: (modified by the presence of the dilaton):

467: \begin{equation}

468: p_{\varphi}^2 + \sum_{i=1}^d \ p_i^2 - \left( 

469: \sum_{i=1}^d \ p_i \right)^2 = 0 \, , \; \;

470: \sum_{i=1}^d \ p_i = 1 \, . \label{eq3} 

471: \end{equation}

472: The set of parameters satisfying Eqs.~(\ref{eq3}) is topologically

473: a $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere: the ``Kasner sphere''. When the 

474: dilaton is absent, one must set $p_{\varphi}$ to zero in 

475: Eqs.(\ref{eq3}). In that case the dimension of the Kasner sphere is 

476: $d-2 = D-3$.

477: 

478: The approximate solution Eqs.~(\ref{eq2}) is obtained by neglecting 

479: in the field equations for $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\varphi$: (i) the 

480: effect of the spatial derivatives of $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\varphi$, 

481: and (ii) the contributions of the various 

482: $p$-form fields $A_p$. The condition for the ``stability'' of the 

483: solution (\ref{eq2}), i.e. for the absence of BKL oscillations at $t 

484: \rightarrow 0$, would be that the inclusion in the field equations of the 

485: discarded contributions (i) and (ii) (computed within the assumption 

486: (\ref{eq2})) be fractionally negligible as $t \rightarrow 0$. As 

487: usual, the fractional effect of the spatial derivatives of $\varphi$ 

488: is found to be negligible, while the fractional effect (with respect 

489: to the leading terms, which are $\propto t^{-2}$) of the spatial 

490: derivatives of the metric, i.e. the quantities $t^2 \, 

491: \overline{R}_j^i$ (where $\overline{R}_j^i$ denotes the 

492: $d$-dimensional Ricci tensor) contains, as only ``dangerous terms'' 

493: when $t \rightarrow 0$ a sum of terms $\propto t^{2 g_{ijk}}$, where 

494: the {\it gravitational exponents} $g_{ijk}$ ($i \ne j$, $i \ne k$, 

495: $j \ne k$) are the following combinations of the Kasner exponents 

496: \cite{DHS}

497: \begin{equation}

498: g_{ijk} \, (p) = 2 \, p_i + \sum_{\ell \ne i,j,k} \ p_{\ell} = 1 + 

499: p_i - p_j - p_k \, . \label{eq4}

500: \end{equation}

501: The ``gravitational'' stability condition is that all the exponents 

502: $g_{ijk} \, (p)$ be positive. In the presence of form fields $A_p$ there 

503: are additional stability conditions related to the contributions

504: of the form fields to the Einstein-dilaton equations.

505: They are obtained by solving, 

506: \`a la BKL, the $p$-form field equations in the background 

507: (\ref{eq2}) and then estimating the corresponding ``dangerous'' 

508: terms in the Einstein field equations. When

509: neglecting the spatial derivatives in the Maxwell equations in 

510: first-order form $d \, F = 0$ and $\delta \,

511: (e^{\lambda_p \, \varphi} \, F) = 0$, where $\delta \equiv * \, d \,*$ 

512: is the (Hodge) dual of the Cartan differential $d$

513: and $F_{p+1} = d \, A_p$, one 

514: finds that both the ``electric'' components $\sqrt g \, e^{\lambda_p 

515: \, \varphi} \, F^{0 i_1 \ldots i_p}$, and the ``magnetic'' 

516: components $F_{j_1 \ldots j_{p+1}}$, are constant in time. 

517: Combining this information with the approximate results 

518: (\ref{eq2}) one can estimate the fractional effect of the $p$-form 

519: contributions in the right-hand-side of the $g_{\mu \nu}$- and 

520: $\varphi$-field equations, i.e. the quantities $t^2 \, T_{(A)0}^0$ 

521: and $t^2 \, T_{(A)j}^i$ where $T_{(A)\nu}^{\mu}$ denotes the 

522: stress-energy tensor of the $p$-form. [As usual \cite{BKL} the mixed 

523: terms $T_{(A)i}^0$, which enter the momentum constraints play a 

524: rather different role and do not need to be explicitly 

525: considered.] Finally, one gets as ``dangerous'' terms when $t 

526: \rightarrow 0$ a sum of ``electric'' contributions $\propto \, t^{2 

527: \, e_{i_1 \ldots i_p}^{(p)}}$ and of ``magnetic'' ones $\propto \, 

528: t^{2 \, b_{j_1 \ldots j_{d-p-1}}^{(p)}}$. Here, the {\it electric 

529: exponents} $e_{i_1 \ldots i_p}^{(p)}$ (where all the indices $i_n$ 

530: are different) are defined as

531: \begin{equation}

532: e_{i_1 \ldots i_p}^{(p)} \, (p) = p_{i_1} + p_{i_2} + \cdots + 

533: p_{i_p} - \frac{1}{2} \ \lambda_p \, p_{\varphi} \, , \label{eq5}

534: \end{equation}

535: while the {\it magnetic exponents} $b_{j_1 \ldots j_{d-p-1}}^{(p)}$ 

536: (where all the indices $j_n$ are different) are

537: \begin{equation}

538: b_{j_1 \ldots j_{d-p-1}}^{(p)} \, (p) = p_{j_1} + p_{j_2} + \cdots + 

539: p_{j_{d-p-1}} + \frac{1}{2} \, \lambda_p \, p_{\varphi} \, . 

540: \label{eq6}

541: \end{equation}

542: To each $p$-form is associated a (duality-invariant)

543: double family of ``stability'' 

544: exponents $e^{(p)}$, $b^{(p)}$. The ``electric'' (respectively

545: ``magnetic'') stability condition is that all the exponents $e^{(p)}$

546: (respectively, $b^{(p)}$) be positive. 

547: 

548: In \cite{DH1}, it was found that there exists no open region of the Kasner sphere

549: where all the stability exponents can be simultaneously positive. This showed

550: that the generic cosmological solution in string theory was of the never-ending

551: oscillatory BKL type. A deeper understanding of the structure of this generic

552: solution was then obtained by mapping the dynamics of the scale factors, and of the

553: dilaton, onto a {\it billiard motion}. 

554: Let us recall that the

555: central idea of the BKL approach is that the various points in space approximately decouple as

556: one approaches a spacelike singularity $(t \rightarrow 0)$. More precisely, the partial

557: differential equations that control the time evolution of the fields 

558: can be replaced by ordinary differential equations with

559: respect to time, with coefficients that are (relatively) slowly varying in space and time.

560: The details of how this is done are explained in \cite{BKL,DH1,DHN}.

561: Let us review the main result of \cite{DH3}, namely the fact 

562:  that the evolution of the scale factors and the dilaton at each

563: spatial point can be be viewed as a billiard motion in some simplices in hyperbolic space $H^9$, which

564: have remarkable connections with hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras of rank $10$. 

565: 

566: To see this we generalize the previous Kasner-like solution by expressing it in terms

567: of some local scale factors, $a_i$, without assuming that these scale factors

568: behave as powers of the proper time (as was done in (\ref{eq2}) which had assumed

569: $a_i \propto t^{p_i}$). In other words, we now write the metric (in

570: either the Einstein frame or the string frame) as $g_{\mu \nu} \, dx^{\mu} \, dx^{\nu} = -N^2

571: (dx^0)^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{d} \ a_i^2 \, (\omega^i)^2$, where $d \equiv D-1$ denotes the spatial

572: dimension, and where, as above,

573:  $\omega^i (x) = e_j^i (x) \, dx^j$ is a $d$-bein whose time-dependence is

574: neglected compared to that of the local scale factors $a_i$. 

575: Instead of working with the 9 variables $a_i$ , and the dilaton $\varphi$,  

576: it is convenient to introduce the following set of

577: 10 field variables: $\beta^{\mu}, \;  \mu = 1,\ldots, 10$, with, in the superstring 

578: (Einstein-frame) case,

579: $\beta^i \equiv -\ln \, a_i$ ($i = 1, \ldots, 9$), and $\beta^{10} \equiv -\varphi$ where $\varphi$ is 

580: the Einstein-frame dilaton. 

581: [In $M$-theory there is no dilaton but $\mu \equiv i =  1, \ldots, 10$. In the string

582: frame, we define $\beta_S^0 \equiv -\ln ( \sqrt {g_S} e^{-2 \Phi})$

583: and label $\mu = 0, \ldots, 9$.] 

584: 

585: We consider the evolution near a past (big-bang) or future (big-crunch) 

586: spacelike singularity located at $t=0$, where $t$ is the

587: proper time from the singularity. In the gauge $N = -\sqrt g$ (where $g$ is the

588: determinant of the Einstein-frame spatial metric), 

589: i.e. in terms of the new time variable $ d\tau = - dt / \sqrt

590: g$, the action (per unit comoving volume) describing the asymptotic dynamics of $\beta^{\mu}$ as

591: $t \rightarrow 0^+$ or $\tau \rightarrow + \infty$ has the form

592: \begin{equation}

593: S = \int d \tau \left[ G_{\mu \nu} \, \frac{d \beta^{\mu}}{d\tau} \ \frac{%

594: d\beta^{\nu}}{d\tau} - V (\beta^{\mu}) \right] \, ,  \label{eq1'}

595: \end{equation}

596: \begin{equation}

597: V (\beta) \simeq \sum_A \, C_A \, e^{ - 2 w_A (\beta)} \, .  \label{eq2'}

598: \end{equation}

599: In addition, the time reparametrization invariance (i.e. the equation of motion of $N$ in a

600: general gauge) imposes the usual ``zero-energy" constraint

601: $E = G_{\mu \nu} (d\beta^{\mu}/{d\tau}) (d\beta^{\nu}/{d\tau}) +

602: V (\beta^{\mu}) = 0$.

603: The metric $G_{\mu \nu}$ in field-space is a 10-dimensional metric of Lorentzian signature $-++

604: \cdots +$. Its explicit expression depends on the model and the choice of variables. In

605: $M$-theory, $ G_{\mu \nu}^M \, d\beta_M^{\mu} \, d\beta_M^{\nu} = \sum_{\mu=1}^{10} \,

606: (d\beta_M^{\mu})^2 - \left( \sum_{\mu=1}^{10} \, d\beta_M^{\mu} \right)^2$,

607: while in the string models, 

608: %models the metric reads $G_{\mu \nu}^E \, d\beta_E^{\mu} \, d\beta_E^{\nu} = (d\beta_E^0)^2 +

609: %\sum_{i=1}^{9} \, (d\beta_E^i)^2 - \left( \sum_{i=1}^{9} \, d\beta_E^i \right)^2$ in the Einstein

610: %frame, and

611:  $ G_{\mu \nu}^S \, d\beta_S^{\mu} \, d\beta_S^{\nu} = \sum_{i=1}^{9} \, (d\beta_S^i)^2

612: - (d\beta_S^0)^2$ in the string frame.

613:  Each exponential term, labelled by $A$, in the potential

614: $V (\beta^{\mu}),$ Eq.~(\ref {eq2'}),

615: represents the effect, on the evolution of $(g_{\mu \nu} , \varphi)$, of either (i) the spatial

616: curvature of $g_{ij}$ (``gravitational walls''), (ii) the energy density of some electric-type

617: components of some $p$-form $A_{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_p}$ (``electric $p$-form

618: wall''), or (iii) the energy density of some magnetic-type components of $%

619: A_{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_p}$ (``magnetic $p$-form wall''). The coefficients $C_A$ are all found to be

620: positive, so that all the exponential walls in Eq.~(\ref {eq2'}) are repulsive. The $C_A$'s vary in

621: space and time, but we neglect their variation compared to the asymptotic effect of $w_A (\beta)$

622: discussed below. Each exponent $ - 2 \, w_A (\beta)$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq2'}) is a {\it linear

623: form} in the $\beta^{\mu} : w_A (\beta) = w_{A\mu} \, \beta^{\mu} $.  

624: The wall forms $w_A (\beta)$ are exactly the same linear forms as the ``stability exponents''

625: which appeared above; one just need to replace the variables $p_i$ by $\beta^{\mu}$. For

626: instance, one of the ``electric'' wall forms for a $3$-form coupled with $\lambda = 0$  is

627: $w_{123}(\beta) = e^{(3)}_{123}(\beta)=  \beta^1 + \beta^2 + \beta^3$.

628: The complete list of ``wall

629: forms'' $w_A (\beta)$, was given in \cite{DH1} for each string model.  The number of walls is

630: enormous, typically of the order of $700$.

631: 

632: At this stage, one sees that the $\tau$-time dynamics of the variables $ \beta^{\mu}$ is described

633: by a Toda-like system in a Lorentzian space, with a zero-energy constraint. But it seems

634: daunting to have to deal with $\sim 700$ exponential walls! However, the problem can be greatly

635: simplified because many of the walls turn out to be asymptotically irrelevant. To see this, it

636: is useful to project the motion of the variables $\beta^{\mu}$ onto

637: the 9-dimensional hyperbolic space $H^9$ (with curvature $-1$). This can be done because the

638: motion of $\beta^{\mu}$ is always time-like, so that, starting (in our units) from the origin, it

639: will remain within the 10-dimensional Lorentzian light cone of $G_{\mu \nu}$. This follows from

640: the energy constraint and the positivity of $V$ .  With our definitions,

641:  the evolution occurs in the {\it future} light-cone. The

642: projection to $H^9$ is performed by decomposing the motion of $\beta^{\mu}$ into its radial and

643: angular parts (see \cite{Chitre,Misner} and the generalization \cite{Melnikov}). One writes

644:  $\beta^{\mu} =  + \rho \, \gamma^{\mu}$ with $\rho^2 \equiv - G_{\mu \nu} \,

645: \beta^{\mu} \, \beta^{\nu}$, $\rho >0$ and $G_{\mu \nu} \, \gamma^{\mu} \, \gamma^{\nu} = -1$ (so

646: that $\gamma^{\mu}$ runs over $H^9$, realized as the {\it future}, unit hyperboloid) and one introduces

647: a new evolution parameter: $dT =  k \, d\tau / \rho^2$. The action (\ref{eq1'}) becomes

648: \begin{equation}

649: S = k \int dT \left[ - \left( \frac{d \, \ln \rho}{dT} \right)^2 + \left(

650: \frac{d \mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}}{dT} \right)^2 - V_T (\rho , %

651: \mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}) \right]  \label{eq7}

652: \end{equation}

653: where $d \mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}^2 = G_{\mu \nu} \, d \gamma^{\mu} \, d \gamma^{\nu}$ is the

654: metric on $H^9$, and where $V_T = k^{-2} \, \rho^2 \, V = \sum_A \ k^{-2} \, C_A

655: \, \rho^2 \, \exp (-2 \, \rho \, w_A (\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}))$. When $t \rightarrow

656: 0^+$, i.e. $\rho \rightarrow +\infty$, the transformed potential $V_T (\rho ,

657: \mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$})$ becomes sharper and sharper and reduces in the limit to a set of

658: $\rho$-independent impenetrable walls located at $w_A(\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}) = 0$

659:  on the unit hyperboloid (i.e. $V_T = 0$ when $w_A(\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}) > 0$,

660: and $V_T = +\infty$ when $w_A(\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}) < 0$). 

661: In this limit, $d \, \ln \rho / dT$ becomes constant, and one can

662: choose the constant $k$ so that $d \, \ln \rho / dT = 1 $.  The (approximately) linear motion 

663: of $\beta^{\mu}(\tau)$ between two ``collisions'' with the original multi-exponential potential

664:  $V (\beta^{\mu})$ is thereby mapped onto a geodesic motion of $\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$} (T)$

665:   on $H^9$, interrupted by specular collisions on sharp hyperplanar walls.

666:    This motion has unit velocity $(d \mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}

667: / dT)^2 = 1$ because of the energy constraint.  In

668: terms of the original variables $\beta^{\mu}$, the motion is confined to the convex domain 

669: (a cone in

670: a 10-dimensional Minkowski space) defined by the intersection of the {\it positive} sides of all the

671: wall hyperplanes $w_A (\beta) = 0$ and of the interior of the

672:  future light-cone $G_{\mu \nu} \, \beta^{\mu} \,\beta^{\nu} = 0$.

673: 

674: A further, useful simplification is obtained by quotienting the dynamics of $\beta^{\mu}$ by the

675: natural permutation symmetries inherent in the problem, which correspond to ``large

676: diffeomorphisms" exchanging the various proper directions of expansion and the corresponding

677: scale factors. The natural configuration

678: space is therefore ${\fam\bbfam R}^d / {\rm S}_d$, which can be parametrized by the {\it ordered

679: multiplets} $ \beta^1 \leq \beta^2 \leq \cdots \leq \beta^d$. 

680: This kinematical 

681: quotienting is standard in most investigations of the BKL oscillations \cite{BKL}

682: and can be implemented in ${\fam\bbfam R}^d$ by introducing further sharp walls located at

683: $\beta^i = \beta^{i+1}$. These ``permutation walls'' have been recently derived from

684: a direct dynamical analysis based on the Iwasawa decomposition of the metric \cite{DHN}.

685:  Finally the

686: dynamics of the models is equivalent, at each spatial point, to a hyperbolic billiard problem. The

687: specific shape of this model-dependent billiard is determined by the original walls and 

688: the permutation walls. Only the ``innermost'' walls (those which are not ``hidden'' behind others)

689: are relevant.

690: 

691: The final results of the analysis of the innermost walls

692:  are remarkably simple. Instead of the ${\cal O} (700)$

693: original walls it was found, in all cases, that there are only 10 relevant walls. In fact, the seven

694: string theories M, IIA, IIB, I, HO, HE and the closed bosonic string in $D=10$ \cite{boso}, split

695: into {\it three} separate blocks of theories, corresponding to three distinct billiards.

696:  The first block (with 2 SUSY's in $D = 10$) is ${\cal B}_2 = \{$M, IIA, IIB$\}$ and

697: its ten walls are (in the natural variables of $M$-theory $\beta^{\mu} = \beta_M^{\mu}$),

698: \begin{eqnarray}

699: {\cal B}_2: w_i^{[2]} (\beta) &=& - \beta^i + \beta^{i+1} ( i = 1, \ldots , 9), \nonumber \\

700: w_{10}^{[2]} (\beta) &=& \beta^1 + \beta^2 + \beta^3.

701: \end{eqnarray}

702: The second block is ${\cal B}_1 = \{$I, HO, HE$\}$ and its ten walls read (when written in terms

703: of the string-frame variables of the heterotic theory $\alpha^i = \beta_S^i$, $\alpha^0 =

704: \beta_S^0$; see Eqs.(\ref{strein}))

705: \begin{eqnarray}

706: {\cal B}_1: w_1^{[1]} (\alpha) &=& \alpha^1, \; w_i^{[1]} (\alpha) = - \alpha^{i-1} + \alpha^i (i

707: = 2

708: , \ldots , 9), \nonumber \\

709: w_{10}^{[1]} (\alpha) &=& \alpha^0 - \alpha^7 - \alpha^8 - \alpha^9.

710: \end{eqnarray}

711: The third block is simply ${\cal B}_0 = \{ D = 10$ closed bosonic$\}$ and its ten walls read (in string

712: variables) 

713: \begin{eqnarray}

714: {\cal B}_0: w_1^{[0]} (\alpha) &=& \alpha^1 + \alpha^2, \;  w_i^{[0]} (\alpha) = -

715: \alpha^{i-1} + \alpha^i (i = 2, \ldots , 9), \nonumber \\

716:   w_{10}^{[0]} (\alpha) &=& \alpha^0 - \alpha^7 -\alpha^8 - \alpha^9.

717: \end{eqnarray}

718:  In all cases, these walls define a simplex of $H^9$ which is non-compact but

719: of finite volume, and which has remarkable symmetry properties. 

720: 

721: The most economical way to describe the geometry of the simplices is through their Coxeter

722: diagrams. This diagram encodes the angles between the faces and is obtained by computing the Gram

723: matrix of the scalar products between the unit normals to the faces, say $\Gamma_{ij}^{[n]} \equiv

724: \widehat{w}_i^{[n]} \cdot \widehat{w}_j^{[n]}$ where $\widehat{w}_i \equiv w_i / \sqrt{w_i \cdot

725: w_i}$, $i = 1 , \ldots , 10 $ labels the forms defining the (hyperplanar) faces of a simplex, and

726: the dot denotes the scalar product (between co-vectors) induced by the metric $ G_{\mu \nu} : w_i

727: \cdot w_j \equiv G^{\mu \nu} \, w_{i\mu} \, w_{j\nu}$ for $ w_i (\beta) = w_{i\mu} \,

728: \beta^{\mu}$. This Gram matrix does not depend on the normalization of the forms $w_i$ but

729: actually, all the wall forms $w_i$ listed above are normalized in

730: a natural way, i.e. have a natural length.

731: This is clear for the forms which are directly associated with dynamical walls in $D = 10$ or 11,

732: but this can also be extended to all the permutation-symmetry walls because

733:  they appear as dynamical walls after dimensional reduction \cite{DH3,DHN}. When the wall

734: forms are normalized accordingly (i.e. such that $V_i^{{\rm dynamical}} \propto \exp (-2 \, w_i

735: (\beta)$), they all have a squared length $w_i^{[n]} \cdot w_i^{[n]} = 2$, {\it except} for $

736: w_1^{[1]} \cdot w_1^{[1]} = 1$ in the ${\cal B}_1$ block. We can then compute

737:  the ``Cartan matrix'', $ a_{ij}^{[n]} \equiv 2 \, w_i^{[n]} \cdot

738: w_j^{[n]} / w_i^{[n]} \cdot w_i^{[n]}$, and the corresponding Dynkin diagram. 

739: One finds the diagrams given in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.

740: 

741: %\vspace{-30mm}

742: \begin{figure}[ht]

743: \hspace{30mm}

744: \psfig{figure=Fig1.eps}

745: %\vspace{-20mm}

746: \caption{Dynkin diagrams defined (for each $n = 2,1,0$) by the ten wall forms

747:  $w_i^{[n]}(\beta^{\mu}), i = 1,\ldots,10$ that determine the billiard dynamics, near a

748: cosmological singularity, of the

749: three blocks of theories ${\cal B}_2 = \{$M, IIA, IIB$\}$, ${\cal B}_1 = \{$I, HO, HE$\}$ and

750: ${\cal B}_0 = \{D = 10$ closed bosonic$\}$. The node labels $ 1,\ldots,10$ correspond to

751: the form label $i$ used in the text.}

752: \label{fig1}

753: \end{figure}

754: 

755:   The corresponding Coxeter diagrams are obtained

756: from the Dynkin diagrams by forgetting about the norms of the wall forms, i.e., by deleting the

757: arrow in $BE_{10}$. As can be seen from the figure, the Dynkin diagrams associated with the

758: billiards turn out to be the Dynkin diagrams of the following rank-$10$ hyperbolic Kac-Moody

759: algebras (see \cite {Kac}): E$_{10}$, BE$_{10}$ and DE$_{10}$ (for ${\cal B}_2$, ${\cal B}_1$ and

760: ${\cal B}_0$, respectively). It is remarkable that the three billiards exhaust the only three

761: possible simplex Coxeter diagrams on $H^9$ with {\it discrete} associated Coxeter group (and this

762: is the highest dimension where such simplices exist) \cite {Vinberg}.

763: This analysis suggests to identify the 10 {\it wall forms} $w_i^{[n]} (\beta)$, $i = 1, \ldots , 10$ of

764: the billiards ${\cal B}_2$, ${\cal B}_1$ and ${\cal B}_0$ with a basis of {\it simple roots} of the

765: hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras E$_{10}$, BE$_{10}$ and DE$_{10}$, so that the cosmological {\it billiard}

766: can be identified with a {\it fundamental Weyl chamber} of these algebras. Note also that

767:  the 10 dynamical variables

768: $ {\it \beta^{\mu}}$, $\mu = 1 , \ldots , 10$, can be considered as parametrizing a generic vector in the

769: {\it Cartan subalgebra} of these algebras. 

770: 

771: It was conjectured some time ago \cite{Julia} that E$_{10}$

772: should be, in some sense, the symmetry group of SUGRA$_{11}$ reduced to one dimension 

773: (and that DE$_{10}$ be that of type I SUGRA$_{10}$, which has the same bosonic spectrum as

774: the bosonic string). Our

775: results, which indeed concern  the one-dimensional ``reduction''\footnote{Note again that the analysis above

776: concerns generic inhomogeneous solutions depending upon $D$ variables. The strict one-dimensional

777: reduction (one variable only) of M-theory has also been considered, and has been shown to still

778: contain the Weyl group of E$_{10}$ \cite{DH2}.}, \`a la BKL, of $M$/string theories

779:  exhibit a clear sense in which E$_{10}$ lies behind the one-dimensional

780: evolution of the block ${\cal B}_2$ of theories: their asymptotic cosmological evolution as $ t

781: \rightarrow 0$ is a billiard motion, and the group of reflections in the walls of this billiard is

782: nothing else than the {\it Weyl group} of E$_{10}$ (i.e. the group of reflections in the

783: hyperplanes corresponding to the roots of E$_{10}$, which can be generated by the 10 simple roots

784: of its Dynkin diagram). 

785: It is intriguing -- and, to our knowledge, unanticipated 

786: (see, however, \cite{CJLP})-- that the

787: cosmological evolution of the second block of theories, ${\cal B}_1 = \{$I, HO, HE$\}$, be

788: described by {\it another} remarkable billiard, whose group of reflections is the Weyl group of

789: BE$_{10}$. The root lattices of E$_{10}$ and BE$_{10}$ exhaust the only two possible

790: unimodular even and odd Lorentzian 10-dimensional lattices \cite {Kac}.

791: %The relevance of DE$_{10}$ to pure type I supergravity

792: %in 10 dimensions (which has the same bosonic spectrum as the bosonic

793: %string) was also conjectured in \cite{Julia}, where the three rank-$10$

794: %hyperbolic Coxeter diagrams were mentioned.

795: 

796: % We are less sure about the

797: %significance of the fact that the Weyl group of DE$_{10}$ governs the billiard dynamics of the

798: %bosonic string in $D = 10$.

799: 

800: A first consequence of the exceptional properties of the billiards concerns the nature of the

801: cosmological oscillatory behaviour. They lead to a direct technical proof that these oscillations,

802: for all three blocks, are chaotic in a mathematically well-defined sense. This is done

803: by reformulating, in a standard manner, the billiard dynamics as an equivalent collision-free

804: geodesic motion on a hyperbolic, finite-volume {\it manifold} (without boundary)

805:  ${\cal M}$ obtained by quotienting $H^9$

806: by an appropriate torsion-free discrete group. 

807: These geodesic motions define the ``most chaotic'' type of dynamical systems.

808: They are Anosov flows \cite{Anosov}, which imply, in particular, that they are ``mixing''. In

809: principle, one could (at least numerically) compute their largest, positive Lyapunov exponent, say

810: $\lambda^{[n]}$, and their (positive) Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy, say $h^{[n]}$. As we work on a

811: manifold with curvature normalized to $-1$, and walls given in terms of equations containing only

812: numbers of order unity, these quantities will also be of order unity. Furthermore, the two Coxeter

813: groups of E$_{10}$ and BE$_{10}$ are the only reflective {\it arithmetic} groups in 

814: $H^9$ \cite{Vinberg} so that the chaotic

815: motion in the fundamental simplices of E$_{10}$ and BE$_{10}$ will be of the exceptional

816: ``arithmetical'' type \cite{BGGS}. We therefore expect that

817:  the quantum motion on these two billiards, and in particular the spectrum of

818: the Laplacian operator, exhibits exceptional features (Poisson statistics of

819: level-spacing,$\ldots$), linked to the existence of a Hecke

820: algebra of mutually commuting, conserved operators. Another (related) remarkable feature of the

821: billiard motions for all these blocks is their link, pointed out above,

822:  with Toda systems. This fact is probably quite significant, both classically and 

823:  quantum mechanically, because

824: Toda systems whose walls are given in terms of the simple roots of a Lie algebra enjoy 

825: remarkable properties. We leave to future work a study of our Toda systems which involve

826: infinite-dimensional hyperbolic Lie algebras.

827: 

828: The discovery that the chaotic behaviour of the generic cosmological solution of superstring

829: effective Lagrangians was rooted in the fundamental Weyl chamber of some underlying hyperbolic

830: Kac-Moody algebra prompted us to reexamine the case of pure gravity \cite{DHJN}. It was found

831: that the same remarquable connection applies to pure gravity in any dimension 

832: $D \equiv d + 1 \geq 4$. The relevant Kac-Moody algebra in this case is $AE_d$. It was

833: also found that the disappearance of chaos in pure gravity models when $ D \geq 11$ dimensions

834: \cite{DHS} becomes linked to the fact that the Kac-Moody algebra $AE_d$ is no longer ``hyperbolic''

835: for $d \geq 10$ \cite{DHJN}.

836: 

837: The present investigation a priori concerned only the ``low-energy'' $(E \ll

838: (\alpha^{\prime})^{-1/2})$, classical cosmological behaviour of string

839: theories. In fact, if (when going toward the singularity) one starts at some

840: ``initial'' time $t_0 \sim (d\beta / dt)_0^{-1}$ and

841:  insists on limiting the application of our results

842: to time scales $\vert t \vert \lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}

843: (\alpha^{\prime})^{1/2} \equiv t_s$, the total number of ``oscillations'',

844: i.e. the number of collisions on the walls of our billiard will be finite,

845: and will not be very large. The results above show that the number of

846: collisions between $t_0$ and $t \rightarrow 0$ is of order $N_{{\rm %

847: coll}} \sim \ln \tau \sim \ln (\ln (t_0/t))$. This is only $N_{{\rm coll}}

848: \sim 5$ if $t_0$ corresponds to the present Hubble scale and $t$ to the

849: string scale $t_s$. However, the

850: strongly mixing properties of geodesic motion on hyperbolic spaces make it

851: large enough for churning up the fabric of spacetime and transforming any,

852: non particularly homogeneous at time $t_0$, patch of space into a turbulent

853: foam at $t = t_{s}$. Indeed, the mere fact that the walls

854: associated with the spatial curvature and the form fields repeatedly rise up

855: (during the collisions) to the same level as the ``time'' curvature terms $%

856: \sim t^{-2}$, means that the spatial inhomogeneities at $t \sim t_s$ will also be of order

857: $t_s^{-2}$, corresponding to a string scale foam.

858: 

859: Our results on the ${\cal B}_2$ theories probably involve a deep (and not a priori evident)

860: connection with those of Ref.~\cite{BFM} on the structure of the moduli space of $M$-theory

861: compactified on the ten torus $T^{10}$, with vanishing 3-form potential (see also

862: \cite{obers}). In both cases the Weyl

863: group of E$_{10}$ appears. In our case it is (partly) {\it dynamically} realized as reflections in

864: the walls of a billiard, while in Ref.~\cite{BFM} it is {\it kinematically} realized as a symmetry

865: group of the moduli space of compactifications preserving the maximal number of supersymmetries.

866: In particular, the crucial E-type node of the Dynkin diagram of E$_{10}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}) comes,

867: in our study and in the case of $M$-theory, from the wall form $w_{10}^{[2]} (\beta) = \beta_M^1 +

868: \beta_M^2 + \beta_M^3$ associated with the electric energy of the 3-form. By contrast, in

869: \cite{BFM} the 3-form is set to zero, and the reflection in $w_{10}^{[2]}$ comes from the 2/5

870: duality transformation (which is a double $T$ duality in type II theories), which exchanges (in

871: $M$-theory) the 2-brane and the 5-brane. As we emphasized above, dimensional reduction transforms

872: kinematical (permutation) walls into dynamical ones. This suggests that there is no difference of

873: nature between our walls, and that, viewed from a higher standpoint (12-dimension ?), they would

874: all look kinematical, as they are in \cite{BFM}. By analogy, our findings for the ${\cal B}_1$

875: theories suggest that the Weyl group of BE$_{10}$ is a symmetry group of the moduli space of

876:  $T^{9}$ compactifications of $\{$I, HO, HE$\}$.

877: 

878: Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the above ``billiard'' analysis is to provide hints for a scenario of

879: vacuum selection in string cosmology. If we heuristically extend our (classical, low-energy,

880: tree-level) results to the quantum, stringy $(t \sim t_s)$ and/or strongly coupled $(g_s \sim 1)$

881: regime, we are led to conjecture that the initial state of the universe is equivalent to the

882: quantum motion in a certain {\it finite volume chaotic} billiard. This billiard is (as in a hall

883: of mirrors game) the fundamental polytope of a discrete symmetry group which contains, as

884: subgroups, the Weyl groups of both E$_{10}$ and BE$_{10}$ \cite{footnote}. We are here assuming

885: that there is (for finite spatial volume universes) a non-zero transition amplitude between the

886: moduli spaces of the two blocks of superstring ``theories'' (viewed as ``states'' of an underlying

887: theory). If we had a description of the resulting combined moduli space (orbifolded by its

888: discrete symmetry group) we might even consider as most probable initial state of the

889: universe the fundamental mode of the combined billiard, though this does not seem crucial

890: for vacuum

891: selection purposes. This picture is a generalization of the picture of Ref.~%

892: \cite{HM} (as well as, in some sense, of the ``stochastic'' PBB picture reviewed above)

893: and, like the latter, might solve the problem of cosmological

894: vacuum selection in allowing the initial state to have a finite probability

895: of exploring the subregions of moduli space which have a chance of inflating

896: and evolving into our present universe.

897: 

898: \vspace{5mm}

899: 

900: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}:

901: I would like to congratulate Marc Henneaux (Francqui Prize, 2000)

902: for a well deserved recognition, and to

903: thank him for a most pleasant, enriching and 

904: fruitful collaboration. I wish also to thank Marc Henneaux and Alexander

905: Sevrin for organizing an extremely stimulating meeting, and the Francqui Foundation 

906: for sponsoring in such an elegant and generous manner this very timely colloquium.

907:  

908: 

909: \vspace{5mm}

910: 

911: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

912: \bibitem{GSW} M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten, 

913: {\em Superstring theory} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

914: \bibitem{polchinski} J. Polchinski, {\it String Theory}, 

915: (Cambridge Univ. Press, 

916: Cambridge, 1998), 2 volumes; 

917: see erratum at www.itp.ucsb.edu/~joep/bigbook.html,

918: in particular the correction of the misprint in

919: Eq.~(12.1.34b).

920: \bibitem{TV} T.R. Taylor and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. {\bf B213} (1988) 459. 

921: \bibitem{DP} T. Damour and A.M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B423} (1994) 532

922: and Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 26} (1994) 1171;

923: T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53} (1996) 2981.

924: \bibitem{DPV} T. Damour, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano, in preparation.

925: \bibitem{1} G. Veneziano,  Phys. Lett. {\bf B265}, 287 (1991); 

926: M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 1}, 317

927: (1993); Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A8}, 3701 (1993); Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, 2519 (1994).

928: \bibitem{PBB} An updated collection of papers on the pre-big bang scenario is

929: available at {\tt http://www.to.infn.it/\~{}gasperin/}.

930: \bibitem{copeland} J. E. Lidsey, D. Wands and E. J. Copeland,

931: Phys. Rept. {\bf 337}, 343-492 (2000).

932: \bibitem{BDV} A. Buonanno, T. Damour and G. Veneziano, 

933: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 543}, 275 (1999). 

934: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806230;%%

935: \bibitem{DH1}  T. Damour and M. Henneaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 920 (2000); and

936: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003139;%%

937: Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\  {\bf 32}, 2339 (2000).

938: %%CITATION = GRGVA,32,2339;%%

939: \bibitem{DH2}  T. Damour and M. Henneaux, Phys. Lett. {\bf B488}, 108 (2000).

940: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006171;%%

941: \bibitem{DH3}  T. Damour and M. Henneaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4749 (2001).

942: \bibitem{DHJN}  T. Damour, M. Henneaux, B. Julia and H. Nicolai,

943:  Phys. Lett. {\bf B509}, 323 (2001).

944: \bibitem{DHN}  T. Damour, M. Henneaux, and H. Nicolai, in preparation.

945: \bibitem{BS} B.A. Campbell, A.D. Linde and K.A. Olive, 

946: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B355} (1991) 146; 

947: R. Brustein and P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Lett. {\bf B302} (1993) 196.

948: \bibitem{TW} M.S. Turner and E.J. Weinberg,

949: Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 4604.  

950: \bibitem{KLB} N. Kaloper, A. Linde and  R. Bousso, Phys.Rev.{\bf D59} 043508 (1999).

951: \bibitem{KOSST}  J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, N. Seiberg, P. J. Steinhardt,and N. Turok,

952: hep-th/0108187.

953: \bibitem{S02} N. Seiberg, these proceedings; hep-th/0201039.

954: \bibitem{N02} N. Nekrasov, hep-th/0203112.

955: \bibitem{FMM} V.P. Frolov, M.A. Markov and V.K. Mukhanov, 

956: Phys. Lett. {\bf B216} (1989) 272; Phys. Rev. {\bf D41} (1990) 383.

957: \bibitem{MB} V.K. Mukhanov and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} 

958: (1992) 1969; 

959: R. Brandenberger, V.K. Mukhanov and A. Sornborger, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48} 

960: (1993) 1629. 

961: \bibitem{Smolin} L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 9} (1992) 173.

962: \bibitem{BKL} V.A. Belinskii and I.M. Khalatnikov, 

963: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 30} (1970) 1174;

964: I.M. Khalatnikov and E.M. Lifshitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 24}

965: (1970) 76; 

966: V.A. Belinskii, E.M. Lifshitz and I.M. Khalatnikov, Sov. Phys. 

967: Uspekhi {\bf 13} (1971) 745;

968:  V.A. Belinskii, E.M. Lifshitz and I.M. Khalatnikov, 

969: Adv.\ Phys.\  {\bf 19}, 525 (1970); and

970: Adv.\ Phys.\  {\bf 31}, 639 (1982).

971: 

972: \bibitem{BK} V.A. Belinskii and I.M. Khalatnikov, 

973: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 36} (1973) 591.

974: \bibitem{AR00} L. Andersson and A.D. Rendall, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 218}, 479 (2001).

975: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0001047;%%

976: \bibitem{DHRW} T. Damour, M. Henneaux, A. D. Rendall, and M. Weaver,  gr-qc/0202069.

977: 

978: \bibitem{LLK} E.M. Lifshitz, I.M. Lifshitz and I.M. Khalatnikov, 

979: Sov. Phys. JETP 

980: {\bf 32}, 173 (1971); 

981: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

982: D.F. Chernoff and J.D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 134 (1983);  

983: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

984: I.M. Khalatnikov, E.M. Lifshitz, K.M. Kanin, L.M. Shchur 

985: and Ya.G. Sinai, J. Stat. 

986: Phys. {\bf 38}, 97 (1985);  

987: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

988: N.J. Cornish and J.J. Levin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 

989: 55}, 7489 (1997).

990: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9612066;%%

991: \bibitem{berger} 

992: B.~K.~Berger, D.~Garfinkle, J.~Isenberg, V.~Moncrief and M.~Weaver,

993: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf A13}, 1565 (1998).

994: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9805063;%%

995: \bibitem{DHS} J. Demaret, M. Henneaux and P. Spindel, Phys. Lett. 

996: {\bf 164B}, 27 

997: (1985);  

998: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B164,27;%%

999: J. Demaret, Y de Rop and M. Henneaux, 

1000: Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 28}, 

1001: 1067 (1989).

1002: %%CITATION = IJTPB,28,1067;%%

1003: 

1004: \bibitem{Chitre}  D.M. Chitre, Ph. D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1972.

1005: 

1006: \bibitem{Misner}  C.W. Misner, in D. Hobill et al. (Eds), {\it Deterministic

1007: chaos in general relativity}, (Plenum, 1994) pp.~317-328.

1008: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9405068;%%

1009:  

1010: \bibitem{Melnikov}

1011: V.~D.~Ivashchuk, V.~N.~Melnikov and A.~A.~Kirillov,

1012: %``Stochastic properties of multidimensional cosmological models near a singular point,''

1013: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 60}, 235 (1994).

1014: %%CITATION = JTPLA,60,235;%%

1015: 

1016: 

1017: %V.D. Ivashchuk and V.N. Melnikov, Class. Quantum Grav.

1018: %{\bf 12}, 809 (1995).

1019: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9407028;%%

1020: 

1021: 

1022: \bibitem{boso} We included for the sake of comparison the bosonic string model in $D=10$.

1023: Though $D = 10$ is not the critical dimension of the quantum bosonic string, it is

1024: the critical dimension above which the never ending oscillations in its cosmological evolution

1025: disappear \cite{DH2}.

1026: 

1027: 

1028: \bibitem{Kac}  V.G. Kac, {\it Infinite dimensional Lie algebras}, third

1029: edition (Cambridge University Press, 1990).

1030: 

1031: \bibitem{Vinberg}  E.B. Vinberg (Ed.), {\it Geometry II}, Encyclopaedia of

1032: Mathematical Sciences, vol.~29 (Springer-Verlag, 1993).

1033: 

1034: \bibitem{Julia}  B. Julia, in {\it Lectures in Applied Mathematics}, AMS-SIAM, vol. 21,

1035: (1985), p. 335.

1036: 

1037: \bibitem{CJLP} E. Cremmer, B. Julia, H. Lu and C.N. Pope, hep-th/9909099 

1038: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909099;%%

1039: 

1040: \bibitem{Anosov}  D.V. Anosov, Proc. Steklov Inst. N.~{\bf 90} (1967).

1041: 

1042: \bibitem{BGGS}  E.B. Bogomolny, B. Georgeot, M.J. Giannoni and C. Schmit,

1043: Phys. Rep. {\bf 291} (5 \& 6) 219-326 (1997).

1044: %%CITATION = PRPLC,291,219;%%

1045: 

1046: \bibitem{BFM}  T. Banks, W. Fischler and L. Motl, JHEP {\bf 01}, 019 (1999).

1047: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811194;%%

1048: 

1049: \bibitem{obers}

1050: N.~A.~Obers and B.~Pioline,

1051: %``U-duality and M-theory,''

1052: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 318} (1999) 113.

1053: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9809039;%%

1054: 

1055: \bibitem{footnote} With $F$-theory \cite{Vafa} in mind, it is tempting to look for a Kac-Moody algebra with {\it

1056: ultra}-hyperbolic signature $(--+++\cdots)$ containing both E$_{10}$ and BE$_{10}$. According to

1057: V.~Kac (private communication) the smallest such algebra is the rank-$20$ algebra whose Dynkin

1058: diagram is obtained by connecting, by a simple line, the $w_1^{[2]}$ and $w_9^{[1]}$ nodes in

1059: Fig.~ \ref{fig1}.

1060: 

1061: \bibitem{Vafa}  C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B469}, 403 (1996).

1062: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602022;%%

1063: 

1064: \bibitem{HM}  J.H. Horne and G. Moore, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B432}, 109 (1994).

1065: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9403058;%% 

1066:   

1067: \end{thebibliography} 

1068: \end{document}

1069: 

1070: 

1071: 

1072: