1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{amssymb}

3: 

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: 

8: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}

9: %TCIDATA{Created=Thu Jan 16 16:58:19 2003}

10: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Wed Jan 22 14:41:53 2003}

11: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

12: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="DocumentShell" CONTENT="General\Blank Document">}

13: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

14: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=LaTeX article (bright).cst}

15: 

16: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

17: \newtheorem{acknowledgement}[theorem]{Acknowledgement}

18: \newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}

19: \newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}

20: \newtheorem{case}[theorem]{Case}

21: \newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}

22: \newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{Conclusion}

23: \newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}

24: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

25: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

26: \newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{Criterion}

27: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

28: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

29: \newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{Exercise}

30: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

31: \newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}

32: \newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}

33: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

34: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

35: \newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{Solution}

36: \newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{Summary}

37: \newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\textbf{#1.} }{\ \rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}

38: \input{tcilatex}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: \vspace*{-.6in} \thispagestyle{empty}

43: \begin{flushright}

44: ITFA--2003--05\\

45: CFP--2003--01\\

46: \end{flushright}

47: \vspace{.2in} {\Large

48: \begin{center}

49: {\bf On the Classical Stability of Orientifold Cosmologies}

50: \end{center}}

51: \vspace{.2in}

52: \begin{center}

53: \textbf{Lorenzo Cornalba}$^{\dagger}$\footnote{lcornalb@science.uva.nl}\ \ 

54: and\ \ \textbf{Miguel S. Costa}$^{\ddagger}$\footnote{miguelc@fc.up.pt}

55: \\

56: \vspace{.2in} $^{\dagger}$\emph{Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica,

57: Universiteit van Amsterdam\\Valckenierstraat 65, 1018 XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands}\\

58: \vspace{.1in}

59: $^{\ddagger}$\emph{Centro de  F\'\i sica do Porto, Departamento de F\'\i sica\\ 

60: Faculdade de Ci\^encias, Universidade do Porto\\

61: Rua do Campo Alegre, 687 - 4169-007 Porto, Portugal

62: }

63: \end{center}

64: 

65: \vspace{.3in}

66: 

67: \begin{abstract}

68: 

69: \textit{We analyze the classical stability of string cosmologies driven by the dynamics of

70: orientifold planes. These models are related to time--dependent orbifolds, and resolve

71: the orbifold singularities which are otherwise problematic by introducing orientifold planes.

72: In particular, we show that the instability discussed by Horowitz and Polchinski

73: for pure orbifold models is resolved by the presence of

74: the orientifolds. Moreover, we discuss the issue of stability of the

75: cosmological Cauchy horizon, and we show that it is stable to small perturbations

76: due to in--falling matter.}

77: 

78: \end{abstract}

79: \newpage

80: 

81: \section{Introduction}

82: 

83: Over the past year there has been a renewed interest in the study of time--dependent string

84: backgrounds [1--33]. The main objective of this programme is to learn about the origin of the

85: (possibly apparent) cosmological singularity using the powerful techniques of string theory. The logic

86: behind this investigation was to start with an exact conformal field theory, \textit{e.g.} strings in

87: flat space, and to consider an orbifold of the theory with a time--dependent quotient space \cite{HS}. 

88: These simple orbifold constructions were, however, quite generally shown to be unstable by

89: Horowitz and Polchinski \cite{HP} 

90: \footnote{The exception is the null--brane \cite{SimonFigueroa} with extra non--compact directions \cite{LMS2}, 

91: which is an exact and regular bounce in string theory free of singularities. Notice, however, 

92: that this space is not a cosmology since it is supersymmetric and depends on a null, 

93: not a time--like, direction.}. These instabilities are 

94: associated to the formation of large black holes whenever a particle is coupled to the geometry

95: and are non-perturbative in the string coupling. For this reason a perturbative string resolution of 

96: the time--dependent orbifold singularities seems inappropriate. 

97: 

98: In \cite{CC} we investigated the orbifold of flat space--time by a boost and translation

99: transformation. This orbifold suffers from the Horowitz--Polchinski instability. However, 

100: an aditional essential  ingredient of the model was introduced in \cite{CCK}:

101: \textit{the time--like orbifold singularity is an orientifold, i.e. a brane with negative tension}.

102: One of the results that we shall show is that the orientifold provides precisely the non--perturbative

103: string resolution of the singularity, modifying the gravitational interaction in its proximity.

104: In fact, after briefly revising the Horowitz--Polchinski argument and the orientifold cosmology 

105: construction, we shall show in Section 4, with a tractable example in dimension $3$,

106: that \textit{due to the presence of the orientifolds large black holes are not formed.}

107: 

108: In any pre big--bang scenario, there is generically a possible classic instability associated

109: with the propagation of matter through the bounce, which is analogous to the propagation of matter 

110: between the outer and inner horizons of charged black--holes \cite{PenroseSimpson,CH}.

111: Let us consider a perturbation at some finite time in the far past, when the universe is contracting.

112: In the case of orientifold cosmology 

113: there is a future cosmological horizon where the contracting phase ends 

114: (see also \cite{KounnasLust,Q0,Q1}), therefore one needs to worry about such perturbations 

115: diverging at the horizon, thus creating a big crunch space--time.

116: We shall show in Section 5 that such perturbations remain finite (of course, they can grow and 

117: create small black holes, but this does not change the causal cosmological structure of the geometry). 

118: Furthermore, we shall see that the fluctuations that destabilize the geometry are precisely those 

119: that already destabilize the Minkowski vacuum.

120: 

121: \section{The Horowitz--Polchinski Problem\label{HPproblem}}

122: 

123: In \cite{HP}, Horowitz and Polchinski argue that a large class of time

124: dependent orbifolds are unstable to small perturbations, due to large

125: backreactions of the geometry. Their results, which overlap with the string

126: theory scattering computations of \cite{LMS1,LMS2}, do not rely on string

127: theory arguments, and are obtained simply within the framework of classical

128: general relativity.

129: 

130: The argument of Horowitz and Polchinski is quite simple and runs as follows.

131: They analyze the orbifold of $D$--dimensional Minkowski space $\mathbb{M}^{D}

132: $ by the action of a discrete isometry $e^{\kappa }$ where $\kappa $ is a

133: Killing vector, and consider, in the quotient orbifold space $\mathbb{M}%

134: ^{D}/e^{\kappa }$, a small perturbation. This perturbation naturally

135: corresponds to an infinite sequence of perturbations in the covering space $%

136: \mathbb{M}^{D}$, related to each other by the action of $e^{\kappa }$. They

137: consider, quite generally, a light ray with world--line $\Omega \subset 

138: \mathbb{M}^{3}$, together with all of its images 

139: \begin{equation*}

140: \Omega _{n}=\,e^{n\kappa }\Omega \,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

141: \ \ \ \ \left( n\in \mathbb{Z}\right) 

142: \end{equation*}

143: for any integer $n$. The basic claim of \cite{HP} is that, for a wide range

144: of time dependent orbifolds, the backreaction of gravity to the presence

145: of this infinite sequence of light rays $\Omega _{n}$ will inevitably

146: produce large black holes. As we already mentioned, this statement is a

147: claim in pure classical gravity theory and to prove it Horowitz and

148: Polchinski consider the scattering of two light rays $\Omega _{0}$ and $%

149: \Omega _{n}$. They compute, given $\kappa $, the impact parameter $b_{n}$

150: and the center of mass energy $\mathcal{E}_{n}$ of the scattering, and show

151: that, for generic time dependent orbifolds, one has that $G\mathcal{E}%

152: _{n}\gg b_{n}^{D-3}$ for $n$ sufficiently large. The two image particles

153: will be well within the Schwarzchild radius corresponding to the center of

154: mass energy, and will form a black hole.

155: 

156: It is quite clear that, if the above argument is correct, it must hold also

157: for a continuous distribution of light rays 

158: \begin{equation}

159: e^{t\kappa }\Omega \,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

160: \left( t\in \mathbb{R}\right)   \label{HPsurface}

161: \end{equation}

162: since the problematic interactions occur between rays separated by $\Delta

163: t\gg 1$, and therefore should be completely insensitive to the distribution

164: of the essentially parallel light rays when the parameter $t$ varies by $%

165: \Delta t\sim 1$. For continuous values of $t$, equation ($\ref{HPsurface}$)

166: defines a surface $S$ in $\mathbb{M}^{D}$, which we call the

167: Horowitz--Polchinski (HP) surface. Again, the backreaction of gravity to the

168: matter distribution on $S$ should form black holes by the previous argument.

169: On the other hand, the continuous distribution is easier to treat

170: analytically since it is invariant under the action of $\kappa $. Therefore,

171: the full solution with the gravitational backreaction will also have $\kappa 

172: $ as a Killing vector. This fact simplifies explicit computations and

173: therefore, from now on, we will only consider the continuous case.

174: 

175: In the rest of the paper we will be interested exclusively in a specific

176: choice of orbifold, which describes, when correctly interpreted in $M$%

177: --theory, the dynamics of an orientifold/anti--orientifold pair. We postpone

178: the discussion of the correct $M$--theory embedding and the crucial distinction

179: between the orbifold and the orientifold interpretation to section 

180: \ref{orientifold}, and we describe now the orbifold along the lines of \cite

181: {HP}.

182: 

183: We write $\mathbb{M}^{D}=\mathbb{M}^{3}\times \mathbb{E}^{D-3}$ and we

184: parametrize $\mathbb{M}^{3}$ with coordinates $X^{\pm }$, $Y$, with line element

185: \begin{equation}

186: -dX^{+}dX^{-}+dY^{2}\,.  \label{flat}

187: \end{equation}

188: Points in $\mathbb{M}^{D}$ are identified along the orbits of the Killing

189: vector field $\kappa $ which corresponds to boost in the $X^{\pm }$ plane

190: and translation in the orthogonal direction $Y$ 

191: \begin{equation}

192: \kappa =X^{+}\partial _{+}-X^{-}\partial _{-}+\,\partial _{Y}\,.

193: \label{killing}

194: \end{equation}

195: For this special choice of $\kappa $ one has $b_{n}\sim n$ and $\mathcal{E}%

196: _{n}\sim e^{n}$ and the bound $G\mathcal{E}_{n}\gg b_{n}^{D-3}$ is always

197: satisfied for $n$ large \cite{HP}. The directions along $\mathbb{E}^{D-3}$

198: then play no role (except to determine the strength of the gravitational

199: interaction) and we will omit any reference to them, working effectively in

200: three dimensions.

201: 

202: To study the geometry of the HP surface $S$, we parametrize the light ray $%

203: \Omega $ as 

204: \begin{equation*}

205: A^{a}+sV^{a}\text{\thinspace },

206: \end{equation*}

207: where $V^{a}$ is a null vector and $s$ is an affine parameter. If we

208: consider the generic case\footnote{%

209: When $V^{+}V^{-}=0$ the images $e^{t\kappa }\Omega $ correspond to parallel

210: light rays, and do not form black holes.} when $V^{+}V^{-}\neq 0$ then, for

211: some value of $t$, the image ray $e^{t\kappa }\Omega $ will be directed

212: along the null vector\footnote{%

213: It could also be directed along $\left( 1,1,-1\right) $. This case is just

214: the mirror under $X^{\pm }\rightarrow X^{\mp }$ and we do not discuss it.} $%

215: \left( 1,1,1\right) $. This specific light ray on the surface $S$ will

216: intersect the plane $X^{+}+X^{-}=0$ at a point with $X^{+}-X^{-}=2a$. By

217: shifting the variables $s,t,Y$ so that this point corresponds to $s=t=Y=0$

218: we see that the surface $S$ is given by the following parametrization 

219: \begin{eqnarray}

220: X^{\pm } &=&\left( s\pm a\right) e^{\pm t}\, ,  \label{surface} \\

221: Y &=&\left( s+t\right)\, .  \notag

222: \end{eqnarray}

223: \begin{figure}

224: \begin{center}

225: \includegraphics{fig7.eps}

226: \end{center}

227: \caption{The curves given by equation (\ref{surxpxm}),

228: which represent the surfaces $S_a$ for the values of $a$ 

229: indicated in the figure. The surface $S_1$ is clearly

230: singled out, and is the unique null surface.\label{fig7}}

231: \end{figure}

232: The only free parameter which labels different surfaces is the constant $a$,

233: and we will add a label $S_{a}$ to distinguish them. A convenient way to

234: visualize $S_{a}$ is to move to coordinates 

235: \begin{eqnarray}

236: x^{\pm } &=&X^{\pm }e^{\mp Y}\, ,  \label{2dcoord} \\

237: y &=&Y\, ,  \notag

238: \end{eqnarray}

239: so that $\kappa =\frac{\partial }{\partial y}$. Then, since the surface $%

240: S_{a}$ is invariant under $\kappa $, it is given by a curve in the $%

241: x^{+},x^{-}$ plane (see Figure \ref{fig7})

242: \begin{equation}

243: x^{\pm }=\left( s\pm a\right) e^{\mp s}.  \label{surxpxm}

244: \end{equation}

245: This curve can also be viewed as the intersection of the surface $S_{a}$

246: with the plane $Y=0$ in $\mathbb{M}^{3}$. 

247: 

248: 

249: Let us now describe some basic properties of the surfaces $S_{a}$. The

250: induced metric is given by 

251: \begin{equation*}

252: 2\left( 1-a\right) dsdt+\left( s^{2}-a^{2}+1\right) dt^{2}

253: \end{equation*}

254: so it is timelike for all values of $a$ except for $a=1$, when $S$ is a

255: null surface. For $a\neq 1$ the surfaces are smooth for any value of the

256: parameters $s,t$. For $a=1$ the surface is, on the other hand, divided into

257: two smooth parts for $s>0$ and $s<0$ which are joined along the singular

258: line $s=0$. Moreover, the forward directed light cones, which are tangent to

259: the null surface $S_{1}$, lie on one side of $S_{1}$ for $s>0$ and jump

260: discontinuously, along the singular line $s=0$, to the other side of $S_{1}$

261: for $s<0$.

262: 

263: \subsection{The Three--Dimensional Horowitz--Polchinski Problem\label{3dHP}}

264: 

265: As we described in the previous section, we want to understand, in general,

266: the gravitational backreaction to a distribution of light--rays in $\mathbb{%

267: M}^{3}\times \mathbb{E}^{D-3}$ distributed on the surface $S_{a}$

268: parametrized in $\mathbb{M}^{3}$ by (\ref{surface}) and fixed at a point

269: along the spectator directions $\mathbb{E}^{D-3}$. For $D\geq 4$ gravity is

270: non--trivial even in the absence of matter, and the problem is not soluble

271: exactly. In $D=3$, on the other hand, space is curved only in the presence

272: of matter and the problem is tractable.

273: 

274: Recall that the basic question is whether black holes are formed as a

275: consequence of the strong gravitational interactions among the light rays.

276: On the other hand, black holes in three dimensional flat space do not exist

277: in the first place, and therefore it seems that the question is not well

278: posed for $D=3$. This is not correct. In fact, the sign of the formation of

279: a black hole in three dimensions is not the presence of a singularity but

280: the existence, in the geometry, of closed timelike curves. To see this,

281: recall again that, in a two--particle scattering with center of mass energy $%

282: \mathcal{E}$ and impact parameter $b$, a black hole forms when 

283: $G\mathcal{E}\gtrsim b^{D-3}$. For $D=3$ the threshold is then 

284: $G\mathcal{E}\gtrsim 1$ and is independent of the impact

285: parameter $b$. To understand the meaning of this threshold, recall that the

286: geometry describing the propagation of a single light ray in 3D is flat

287: everywhere except along a null line, where curvature is concentrated. The

288: local geometry is completely characterized by the holonomy in $SO\left(

289: 1,2\right) $ around the light ray, which is given by a specific null boost 

290: $U_{1}$. In the presence of a second light ray, we have a second holonomy

291: null boost matrix $U_{2}$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig8}. The combined holonomy $%

292: U=U_{1}U_{2}$, on the other hand, depends on the center of mass energy of the two

293: particles. For small center of mass energies $U$ is a rotation. On the other hand, when

294: the center of mass energy exceeds the threshold value \cite{Gott,Deser,Kabat,Gott2}, $U$

295: becomes a boost and closed timelike curves are formed which circle both

296: particles, as shown in Figure \ref{fig8}. Finally, as shown in \cite{Matschull},

297: one may consider the same dynamics in $AdS_{3}$ space, where black holes

298: exist \cite{BTZ}. One then finds that, at exactly the same threshold, the

299: scattering process creates, in the future, a BTZ black hole.

300: 

301: \begin{figure}

302: \begin{center}

303: \includegraphics{fig8.eps}

304: \end{center}

305: \caption{Scattering of light rays in three dimensions. The holonomies $U_1$ 

306: and $U_2$ are null boosts, whereas $U$ is a boost for center of mass energies

307: greater then a specific threshold. In this case, the geometry has CTC's, as

308: indicated. \label{fig8}}

309: \end{figure}

310: 

311: We now see that the three dimensional problem consists in analyzing the

312: gravitational backreaction to light rays located on the surface (\ref

313: {surface}), and investigating the existence, in the full geometry, of

314: closed timelike curves. As we already mentioned, since the surface $S_{a}$

315: preserves the Killing vector $\kappa $, the full geometry with backreaction

316: will also have the same Killing vector. We will show two things:

317: 

318: \begin{enumerate}

319: \item  The geometry will have closed timelike curves. It is important to

320: stress that we are talking about the \textit{uncompactified} geometry, and

321: not of the one obtained after identifying by $e^{\kappa }$.

322: 

323: \item  If we excise from the spacetime manifold the region where $\kappa $

324: is timelike, then the resulting geometry is free from closed timelike

325: curves. As discussed in \cite{CCK}, the excision is necessary to correctly

326: embed these geometries in $M$--theory. This procedure introduces a boundary

327: in the geometry which corresponds, in string/$M$--theory, to the presence of

328: orientifold planes. We will recall these points more at length in the next

329: section.

330: \end{enumerate}

331: 

332: \section{Orientifold versus Orbifold Cosmology\label{orientifold}}

333: 

334: As we just mentioned, and as discussed in detail in \cite{CCK}, when we

335: embed the orbifold spaces in string/$M$--theory we must excise the regions

336: with $\kappa ^{2}<0$. The space $\mathbb{M}^{3}$ is naturally divided into

337: two regions, $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, where the vector $\kappa $ is

338: spacelike (or null) and timelike, respectively. Since $\kappa ^{2}=1+X^{+}X^{-}$, $%

339: \mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ correspond to the regions $X^{+}X^{-}\geq -1$ and 

340: $X^{+}X^{-}<-1$. We can now consider the quotient manifold 

341: \begin{equation*}

342: \mathbb{M}_{Q}^{3}=\mathbb{M}^{3}/e^{\kappa }=\mathcal{X}_{Q}\cup \mathcal{Y}%

343: _{Q}\, ,

344: \end{equation*}

345: where $\mathcal{X}_{Q}=\mathcal{X}/e^{\kappa }$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{Q}=%

346: \mathcal{Y}/e^{\kappa }$. The action of $\kappa $ is free and therefore the

347: quotient manifolds are smooth. On the other hand, the full quotient space $%

348: \mathbb{M}_{Q}^{3}$, although regular and without boundary, has closed

349: timelike curves which always pass in region $\mathcal{Y}_{Q}$. The space $%

350: \mathcal{X}_{Q}$, on the other hand, does not have closed timelike curves,

351: but does have a boundary.

352: 

353: In the usual time dependent orbifold model, one considers the following

354: compactification of $M$ and $IIA$ theory 

355: \begin{equation*}

356: \begin{array}{ccccc}

357: &  & \mathbb{M}_{Q}^{3}\times \mathbb{T}^{8} &  &  \\ 

358: & \swarrow _{S^{1}} &  & _{\kappa }\searrow  &  \\ 

359: \mathbb{M}_{Q}^{3}\times \mathbb{T}^{7} &  & \overset{TST}{\longleftrightarrow }

360: &  & ?

361: \end{array}

362: \end{equation*}

363: The top line is the $M$--theory vacuum. Going to the left, we are

364: compactifying along a circle $S^{1}$ of the $8$--torus, and we obtain the

365: Type IIA orbifold with constant dilaton. Going to the right, we are

366: compactifying along the Killing vector $\kappa $.

367: The bottom right corner should be related, as usual,

368: by a $TST$ duality transformation to the Type IIA\ orbifold on the bottom

369: left. On the other hand, the IIA supergravity background on the right

370: is quite peculiar, since it has a complex dilaton field. This is 

371: because the vector $\kappa $ is timelike in $\mathcal{Y}_{Q}$.

372: 

373: In \cite{CC, CCK} we have analyzed more carefully the bottom right corner of

374: the diagram and have proposed a related but different compactification of $M$%

375: --theory, which uses crucially non--perturbative objects of the underlying

376: string theory. In fact, it was noted in \cite{CC, CCK} that, if one excises

377: from the $M$--theory vacuum the region $\mathcal{Y}_{Q}$ and dimensionally

378: reduces the space $\mathcal{X}_{Q}\times \mathbb{T}^{8}$ along $\kappa $,

379: one obtains a warped IIA supergravity solution with non--trivial dilaton and

380: RR $1$--form of the form $\mathcal{Z}\times \mathbb{T}^{8}$, where $\mathcal{%

381: Z}$ is a two--dimensional space with boundary. The boundary of $\mathcal{Z}$

382: is singular and corresponds to the supergravity fields of an orientifold

383: plane, which acts as a boundary of spacetime, and has well defined boundary

384: conditions for the string fields. The geometry is best understood after $T$%

385: -dualizing along the $8$--torus and describes then the interaction of a $O8$%

386: --$\overline{O8}$ pair, a system which has also been studied in conformal

387: field theory in \cite{ADSagnotti,Kachru}. We now have a consistent

388: compactification scheme given by 

389: \begin{equation*}

390: \begin{array}{ccccc}

391: &  & \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_{Q}\times \mathbb{T}^{8} &  &  \\ 

392: & \swarrow _{S^{1}} &  & _{\kappa }\searrow &  \\ 

393: \widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_{Q}\times \mathbb{T}^{7} &  & \overset{TST}{%

394: \longleftrightarrow } &  & \widetilde{\mathcal{Z}}\times \mathbb{T}^{8}

395: \end{array}

396: \end{equation*}

397: where we are adding tildes on the spaces to recall that one has to impose

398: specific boundary conditions on the string fields at the boundaries of these

399: spaces.

400: 

401: \section{Reducing to Two Dimensions\label{mysect}}

402: 

403: We now move back to the analysis of the three--dimensional

404: Horowitz--Polchinski problem. As we already mentioned, the full geometry

405: after backreaction will still have a Killing vector. Therefore, upon

406: dimensional reduction, the problem is effectively two--dimensional.

407: 

408: Let then the general form of the metric in three dimensions be 

409: \begin{equation}

410: ds_{3}^{2}=ds_{2}^{2}+\Phi ^{2}\left( dy+A_{a}dx^{a}\right) ^{2}\,,

411: \label{compactification}

412: \end{equation}

413: where $\frac{\partial }{\partial y}$ is the Killing direction. The 

414: three--dimensional Hilbert action reduces to 

415: \begin{equation*}

416: \int d^{2}x\sqrt{g}\left( \Phi R-\frac{1}{2}\Phi ^{3}F^{2}\right) .

417: \end{equation*}

418: The equation of motion for the field strength $F$ is trivial and implies

419: that the scalar field $\Phi ^{3}\star F$ is constant. By rescaling the

420: variables $y$, $A_{a}$ and $\Phi ^{-1}$ we can fix the constant to any

421: desired value (provided it does not vanish) so that 

422: \begin{equation}

423: \star F=\frac{2}{\Phi ^{3}}.  \label{norm}

424: \end{equation}

425: Then, the equations of motion for the dilaton and the metric can be derived 

426: from the action

427: \begin{equation}

428: \int d^{2}x\sqrt{g}\left( \Phi R-\frac{2}{\Phi ^{3}}\right) .  \label{2Dflat}

429: \end{equation}

430: This action is a particular case of two--dimensional dilaton gravity (see 

431: \cite{Noji,2Dgravity} for reviews and a complete list of references), and we

432: will find it most convenient to work in this framework from now on. Only at

433: the end we will connect back to the discussion in three dimensions.

434: 

435: We conclude this section by showing that (\ref{2Dflat}) is also relevant in

436: the study of the interaction of $O8$--$\overline{O8}$--planes wrapped on a

437: $8$--torus, which again is naturally a

438: two--dimensional problem. In general, the system is described

439: by the following massive IIA background 

440: \begin{eqnarray}

441: E^{2}ds_{10}^{2} &=&\Phi \,ds_{2}^{2}+\Phi ^{-1}\,ds^{2}\left( \mathbb{T}%

442: ^{8}\right) \,,  \label{uplift} \\

443: e^{\phi } &=&g_{s}\Phi ^{-\frac{5}{2}},\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \star

444: F_{10}=\frac{2E}{g_{s}}\,.  \notag

445: \end{eqnarray}

446: Then the Type IIA action 

447: \begin{equation*}

448: \int d^{10}x\sqrt{G_{10}}e^{-2\phi }\left( R_{10}+4\left( \nabla \phi

449: \right) ^{2}\right) -\frac{1}{2}\int F_{10}\wedge \star F_{10}

450: \end{equation*}

451: becomes the simple two--dimensional dilaton--gravity action 

452: \begin{equation*}

453: \int d^{2}x\sqrt{g}\left( \Phi R-\frac{2 E^{2}}{\Phi ^{3}}\right)\, ,

454: \end{equation*}

455: which again reduces to (\ref{2Dflat}) after rescaling of $\Phi $. Note that,

456: in conformal field theory, we can construct only a single $O8$--$\overline{O8%

457: }$ pair with specific tensions and charges. This then implies (see \cite{CCK}

458: for more details) that 

459: \begin{equation}

460: El_{s}=2g_{s}.  \label{Evsg}

461: \end{equation}

462: 

463: \subsection{Two Dimensional Dilaton Gravity\label{2D}}

464: 

465: In this section we review some basic facts about 2D gravity which will be

466: useful in the analysis of the action (\ref{2Dflat}).

467: 

468: Two--dimensional dilaton gravity is a natural way to define, in two

469: dimensions, theories with a gravitational sector. The basic fields are the

470: matter fields, as well as the metric $g_{ab}$ and a dilaton field $\Phi $,

471: which should be considered together as the gravitational fields.

472: The action has the general form 

473: \begin{equation*}

474: S_{\mathrm{2D}}\left( g,\Phi \right) +S_{\mathrm{M}}\left( g,\Phi ,\mathrm{%

475: Matter}\right) .

476: \end{equation*}

477: $S_{\mathrm{M}}$ is the matter part of the action, whereas $S_{\mathrm{2D}}$

478: is the generalization of the Einstein--Hilbert term and is given by 

479: \begin{equation*}

480: S_{\mathrm{2D}}=\int d^{2}x\sqrt{g}\left[ \Phi R-V\left( \Phi \right) \right]

481: \,,

482: \end{equation*}

483: where $V\left( \Phi \right) $ is a potential for the dilaton. The equations

484: of motion are easily derived to be 

485: \begin{eqnarray}

486: 2\nabla _{a}\nabla _{b}\Phi &=&g_{ab}\left( 2\square \Phi +V\right) -\tau

487: _{ab}\,\ ,  \label{metric-eq} \\

488: R &=&\frac{dV}{d\Phi }+\rho \,,  \notag

489: \end{eqnarray}

490: where $\tau _{ab}$ and $\rho $ are 

491: \begin{equation*}

492: \tau _{ab}=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{M}}}{\delta g^{ab}}%

493: \,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \rho =-\frac{1%

494: }{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{M}}}{\delta \Phi }.

495: \end{equation*}

496: Moreover, the conservation of the stress--energy tensor $\tau _{ab}$ is

497: modified by the dilaton current $\rho $ to 

498: \begin{equation*}

499: \nabla ^{a}\tau _{ab}+\rho \nabla _{b}\Phi =0.

500: \end{equation*}

501: 

502: The inherent simplicity of the dilaton gravity model lies in the following

503: observations \cite{Kunstatter, Noji, 2Dgravity}. Define $J\left( \Phi \right) $ by 

504: \begin{equation*}

505: J=\int Vd\Phi 

506: \end{equation*}

507: and consider the function 

508: \begin{equation}

509: C=\left( \nabla \Phi \right) ^{2}+J\left( \Phi \right) 

510: \label{Cfunct}\end{equation}

511: and the vector field 

512: \begin{equation*}

513: \kappa ^{a}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\epsilon ^{ab}\nabla _{b}\Phi \,.

514: \end{equation*}

515: Then, whenever $\tau _{ab}=\rho =0$ -- \textit{i.e. }for any \textit{vacuum}

516: solution to the equations of motion -- the function $C$ is constant and $%

517: \kappa $ is a Killing vector of the solution. The first fact follows

518: immediately from the equations of motion which imply

519: \begin{equation}

520: \nabla _{a}C=-\tau _{ab}\nabla ^{b}\Phi +\nabla _{a}\Phi \,(\tau

521: _{bc}g^{bc})\,.  \label{Cvariation}

522: \end{equation}

523: The second fact is proved most easily in conformal coordinates $z^{\pm }$,

524: with metric 

525: \begin{equation*}

526: -dz^{+}dz^{-}e^{\Omega }\,.

527: \end{equation*}

528: Then we have that 

529: \begin{equation*}

530: \kappa _{\pm }=\mp \nabla _{\pm }\Phi 

531: \end{equation*}

532: and the non--trivial Killing equations become $\nabla _{+}\nabla _{+}\Phi

533: =\nabla _{-}\nabla _{-}\Phi =0$, which now follow from (\ref{metric-eq})

534: whenever $\tau _{ab}=0$. Finally note that these equations are equivalent to 

535: \begin{equation*}

536: \partial _{-}\kappa ^{+}=\partial _{+}\kappa ^{-}=0\,.

537: \end{equation*}

538: 

539: Using these facts it is trivial to find all classical vacuum solutions. In

540: fact, whenever $\kappa ^{2}<0$, the metric can be put locally into the form 

541: \begin{equation}

542: ds^{2}=-f\left( x\right) dt^{2}+dx^{2}\,,\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

543: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \kappa =\alpha \frac{\partial }{\partial t}%

544: \,,  \label{sol1}

545: \end{equation}

546: where $\alpha $ is a constant. Then, one has the explicit solution of the

547: equations of motion 

548: \begin{equation}

549: C=\left( \frac{d\Phi }{dx}\right) ^{2}+J\left( \Phi \right) \,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \

550: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ f=\frac{4}{\alpha ^{2}}\left( 

551: \frac{d\Phi }{dx}\right) ^{2}\,,  \label{sol2}

552: \end{equation}

553: which depends only on the constant $C$. Similar equations hold in regions

554: where $\kappa ^{2}>0$.

555: 

556: Let us now analyze the geometry in the presence of matter. For our purposes,

557: we are going to consider only matter lagrangians $S_{M}$ which do not depend

558: on the dilaton, and which are conformal. This implies that 

559: \begin{eqnarray*}

560: &&\tau _{+-} =\rho =0 \,, \\

561: &&\partial _{-}\tau _{++} = \partial _{+}\tau _{--}=0\,.

562: \end{eqnarray*}

563: The simplest example is clearly a conformally coupled scalar $\eta $ with action $%

564: S_{M}=-\int \left( \nabla \eta \right) ^{2}$. The effect of this type of

565: matter is best described by considering a shock wave \cite{CGHS,Lawrence},

566: which is represented in conformal coordinates by a stress--energy tensor of

567: the form 

568: \begin{equation*}

569: \tau _{--}\left( z^{-}\right) =\epsilon \,\delta \left(

570: z^{-}-z_{0}^{-}\right) \,.\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

571: \left( \epsilon >0\right) 

572: \end{equation*}

573: \begin{figure}

574: \begin{center}

575: \includegraphics{fig6.eps}

576: \end{center}

577: \caption{Shock wave solution in two--dimensional dilaton gravity.\label{fig6}}

578: \end{figure}

579: The positivity of $\epsilon $ can be understood by looking at the

580: conformally coupled scalar, for which $\tau _{--}=2\left( \nabla _{-}\eta

581: \right) ^{2}>0$. Recalling from (\ref{Cvariation}) that 

582: \begin{equation}

583: \nabla _{-}C=2\tau _{--}\nabla _{+}\Phi \,e^{-\Omega }=\tau _{--}\kappa

584: ^{-}\,,  \label{Cjump}

585: \end{equation}

586: we conclude that the shock front interpolates, as we move along $z^{-}$,

587: between the vacuum solution with $C=C_{0}$ and the vacuum solution with $%

588: C=C_{0}+\epsilon \kappa ^{-}\left( z_{0}^{-}\right) $ (see Figure \ref{fig6}). As a

589: consistency check note that, since in the vacuum $\tau _{--}$ and $\kappa

590: ^{-}$ are functions only of $z^{-}$, equation (\ref{Cjump}) defines a jump

591: in the function $C$ which is independent of the position $z^{+}$ along the

592: shock wave.

593: 

594: 

595: \subsection{The Case $V=2\Phi ^{-3}$}

596: 

597: We now specialize to the action (\ref{2Dflat}) by taking 

598: \begin{equation*}

599: V=\frac{2}{\Phi ^{3}}\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

600: \ \ \ \ J=-\frac{1}{\Phi ^{2}}\,.

601: \end{equation*}

602: First consider the vacuum solutions. These are easy to obtain by considering

603: the flat metric (\ref{flat}) written in the coordinates $x^{\pm

604: }=X^{\pm }e^{\mp EY}$ and $y=\sqrt{E}Y$, where $E>0$ is a constant with

605: units of energy, 

606: \begin{equation*}

607: \frac{\partial }{\partial y}=\sqrt{E}\left( X^{+}\partial _{+}-X^{-}\partial

608: _{-}\right) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{E}}\,\partial _{Y}

609: \end{equation*}

610: is a Killing direction and $x^{\pm }$ are the two--dimensional coordinates.

611: If one rewrites the metric in the form (\ref{compactification}), it is easy

612: to check the normalization (\ref{norm}) and to compute the two--dimensional

613: metric and dilaton field. The explicit computation is done in \cite{CC} and

614: the result corresponds to the cosmological solution shown in Figure 

615: \ref{fig1}, where the timelike orientifold singularities

616: are at a distance of order $E^{-1}$. For future use, we divide the diagram

617: in various regions I$_{in,out}$, II$_{L,R}$ and III$_{L,R}$, as shown in the

618: Figure.

619: 

620: \begin{figure}

621: \begin{center}

622: \includegraphics{fig1.eps}

623: \end{center}

624: \caption{The cosmological vacuum solution for $V=2\Phi^{-3}$. Regions I$_{in}$, 

625: I$_{out}$ are the contracting and expanding cosmologies, whereas regions II$_{L,R}$

626: are the intermediate regions. Regions III$_{L,R}$ are after the singularities, and 

627: correspond, when uplifted to three dimensions, to the regions where the

628: Killing vector $\kappa$ becomes timelike.\label{fig1}}

629: \end{figure}

630: 

631: Analytic results are simplest in Lorentzian polar coordinates. For example,

632: in the Rindler wedges II$_{L}$ and II$_{R}$, where $x^{+}x^{-}<0$, one uses

633: coordinates $t,x$ defined by $x^{\pm }=\pm xe^{\pm t}$ and obtains the static

634: solution \cite{CC} 

635: \begin{eqnarray}

636: ds_{2}^{2} &=&-dt^{2}\left( \frac{x^{2}}{1-E^{2}x^{2}}\right) +dx^{2}\,,

637: \label{vacuumsol} \\

638: \Phi  &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{E}}\sqrt{1-E^{2}x^{2}}\,.  \notag

639: \end{eqnarray}

640: It is easy to check that the above solution satisfies (\ref{sol1}) and (\ref

641: {sol2}) with 

642: \begin{equation*}

643: C=-E.

644: \end{equation*}

645: As we already discussed in section \ref{orientifold}, these $C<0$ solutions

646: correspond to non BPS $O8$--$\overline{O8}$ geometries when uplifted to

647: string theory with equation (\ref{uplift}). Notice that, given 

648: $E$\thinspace (or equivalently $g_{s}$ by equation (\ref{Evsg}%

649: )), one has no freedom in the solution, which is unique. Therefore, \textit{%

650: no fine tuning is required in the initial conditions for the metric and the

651: dilaton in order to obtain a solution with a bounce and with past and

652: future cosmological horizons.} Recall also that the conformal field theory description

653: of the $O\overline O$ system has two distinct moduli, which are the string coupling and

654: the distance between the orientifolds in string units. We therefore see that

655: \textit{the backreaction of the geometry ties the two moduli with equation (\ref{Evsg})

656: and reduces them to a single free parameter.}

657: 

658: We also notice that the $C=0$ solution is clearly singled out and corresponds to 

659: the supergravity solution of a single BPS $O8$--plane.

660: The $C>0$ solutions do not have a clear interpretation in string

661: theory, and it would be nice to understand this point further. 

662: 

663: Before considering more general solutions in the presence of matter, let us

664: discuss the coordinate change from $x^{\pm }$ to conformal coordinates $%

665: z^{\pm }$. For the sake of simplicity, and since this is all we will need,

666: we write formulae for the case $E=1$. We consider then the change of

667: coordinates 

668: \begin{equation}

669: z^{+}z^{-}=e^{2\Phi }\,\frac{\Phi -1}{\Phi +1},\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

670: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \frac{z^{+}}{z^{-}}=\frac{x^{+}}{x^{-}},

671: \label{confcoord}

672: \end{equation}

673: where 

674: \begin{equation*}

675: \Phi =\sqrt{x^{+}x^{-}+1}.

676: \end{equation*}

677: Then, it is simple to show that the metric becomes conformal 

678: \begin{equation}

679: ds_{2}^{2}=-\frac{dz^{+}dz^{-}}{z^{+}z^{-}}\left( \frac{\Phi ^{2}-1}{\Phi

680: ^{2}}\right) .

681: \label{confmetric}\end{equation}

682: 

683: Finally let us add matter and consider shock wave solutions. Given the

684: discussion in section (\ref{2D}), it is now almost trivial to find the

685: correct geometries, which are given pictorially in Figure \ref{fig3}. In Figure

686: \ref{fig3}a, before the shock wave, we have the vacuum solution with some given

687: value of $E$. After the wave, one has again a vacuum solution, but with a

688: different value $E^{\prime }$. Recall that 

689: \begin{equation*}

690: E^{\prime }=E-\epsilon \kappa ^{-}

691: \end{equation*}

692: where $\epsilon >$ $0$ and $\kappa ^{-}=2\nabla _{+}\Phi \,e^{-\Omega }$

693: must be computed along the wave. As we move in Figure \ref{fig3}a from point $a$ to

694: points $b$ and $c$ along the shock wave, in the direction of increasing $%

695: z^{+}$, the value of $\Phi $ decreases to $0$ at $c$ on the singularity.

696: Therefore $\nabla _{+}\Phi \,<0$ and one has that 

697: \begin{equation*}

698: E^{\prime }>E.

699: \end{equation*}

700: Moreover, in any vacuum solution with $C=-E$, the value of the

701: dilaton on the horizons is $1/\sqrt{E}$, as can

702: be seen from equation (\ref{vacuumsol}) at $x=0$.

703: Therefore, since the value of $\Phi $ is continuous across the shock wave,

704: we notice that the horizon to the left of the wave, where the dilaton has

705: value $\Phi =1/\sqrt{E^{\prime }}$, must intersect the wave between\ the

706: points $b$ and $c$, as drawn.

707: 

708: \begin{figure}

709: \begin{center}

710: \includegraphics{fig3.eps}

711: \end{center}

712: \caption{Shock wave solutions in the cosmological geometry.\label{fig3}}

713: \end{figure}

714: 

715: A particular case of the shock wave geometry is attained when the wave moves

716: along one of the horizons, as shown in Figure \ref{fig3}b. Since $\Phi $ is constant

717: along the horizons, we have that $\nabla _{+}\Phi =0$ and therefore that 

718: \begin{equation*}

719: E^{\prime }=E.

720: \end{equation*}

721: Let us breifly explain why the horizon at a constant value of $z^+$ shifts 

722: as one passes the shock wave. It is easy to see that the horizon in question is given by

723: the curve $\kappa^+ = 0$. In the vacuum, $\kappa^+$ is a function of $z^+$ alone,

724: but in the presence of matter one has that

725: \begin{equation*}

726: \partial_- \kappa^+ = e^{-\Omega} \tau_{--}\,.

727: \end{equation*}

728: Then, since $\Omega$ is constant along the horizons (and therefore along the shock

729: wave) and since $\tau_{--}$ has a delta singularity, the function $\kappa^+$

730: just jumps by a finite constant across the wave, thus explaining the shift in

731: the position of the horizon.

732: 

733: Let us conclude by noticing that the instability of the null orbifold found in \cite{Lawrence}

734: is again a shock wave which interpolates between two different vacuum solutions. 

735: The initial solution is a BPS vacuum ($C=0$), which has a different spacetime structure

736: from the other solutions with $C\neq0$ which are formed after the shock wave.

737: In our case this instability does not arise since we are interpolating between

738: two non--BPS vacua with the same global structure.

739: 

740: \subsection{The Shock Wave Solution in Three Dimensions}

741: 

742: The geometry of Figure \ref{fig3}a corresponds, when uplifted to three dimensions,

743: to the gravitational backreaction to matter distributed along a specific

744: surface, which is the uplift of the shock wave curve. In order to better

745: understand the geometry of this surface, consider first the shock wave

746: without backreaction. From now on we take, for simplicity, $E=1$ and $%

747: E^{\prime }=1+\delta $ for some $\delta >0$. The limiting geometry for $%

748: \delta \rightarrow 0$ is given by Figure \ref{fig2}. The underlying 2D geometry is

749: the vacuum $E=1$ solution, and we have singled out a specific curve, which

750: is given, in the conformal coordinates $z^{\pm }$, by the two segments 

751: \begin{eqnarray}

752: z^{-} &=&-1\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (-\infty <z^{+}<1)

753: \label{cur} \\

754: z^{+} &=&1\,.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

755: (-1<z^{-}<\infty )  \notag

756: \end{eqnarray}

757: 

758: \begin{figure}

759: \begin{center}

760: \includegraphics{fig2.eps}

761: \end{center}

762: \caption{The shock wave before backreaction, both in conformal coordinates

763: $z^\pm$ and in the coordinates $x^\pm$ of equation (\ref{confcoord}).\label{fig2}}

764: \end{figure}

765: 

766: We now uplift this configuration to three dimensions. The vacuum solution

767: becomes, as we emphasized before, nothing but flat space. The curve

768: becomes then a specific surface in $\mathbb{M}^{3}$, whose geometry is most

769: easily analyzed by passing to the coordinates $x^{\pm }$ in (\ref{confcoord}%

770: ). It is simple to see, using the explicit coordinate transformation (\ref

771: {confcoord}), that the curve (\ref{cur}) becomes (see Figure \ref{fig2}) 

772: \begin{equation}

773: x^{\pm }=\left( s\pm 1\right) e^{\mp s}  \label{cur2}

774: \end{equation}

775: for $s\in \mathbb{R}$. The first part of the curve (\ref{cur}) corresponds

776: to (\ref{cur2}) for $s<0$, whereas the second part corresponds to $s>0$.

777: Comparing with (\ref{surxpxm}) we immediately see that this curve

778: corresponds, when uplifted to three dimensions, to the Horowitz--Polchinski

779: surface $S_{1}$. Recall from section \ref{HPproblem} that, among the various

780: surfaces $S_{a}$, the surface $S_{1}$ is special since it is the only null

781: surface, and it is therefore not surprising that we are obtaining exactly $%

782: S_{1}$ from the two--dimensional shock wave.

783: 

784: We therefore conclude that \textit{the geometry of Figure \ref{fig3}a, when uplifted

785: to three dimensions, represents the gravitational backreaction to light rays

786: distributed on the HP surface }$S_{1}$\textit{.}

787: 

788: \subsection{Finding the Closed Timelike Curve}

789: 

790: 

791: We are now in a position to investigate the existence of closed timelike

792: curves in the geometry of Figure \ref{fig3}a. Recall that, without shock wave,

793: the quotient geometry has closed timelike curves that always pass

794: through region III, and that are removed by excising this region. These

795: curves are \textit{not closed in the covering space}, which is flat. In the

796: geometry with the shock wave, we shall see that there are closed timelike

797: curves \textit{already in the covering space}, which could signal an instability. However

798: these curves always pass through region III, and again should be excised.

799: 

800: In order to describe the closed timelike curves, we first need to prove a simple fact.

801: Consider, in $\mathbb{M}^{3}$, two points $A$ and $B$ which are connected by

802: a future--directed timelike curve from $A$ to $B$. Let $x_{A}^{\pm },0$ and $%

803: x_{B}^{\pm },y_{B}$ be the coordinates of these two points in the coordinate

804: system (\ref{2dcoord}) and let us assume that both points are in Region II$%

805: _{R}$, \textit{i.e.} the region with $x^{+}>0$, $x^{-}<0$ and $x^{+}x^{-}<1

806: $. We parametrize the path from $A$ to $B$ as $x^{\pm }\left( s\right)

807: ,y\left( s\right) $, with $0\leq s\leq 1$. First of all, it is easy to show

808: that the full path must be entirely regions II$_{R}$ or III$_{R}$%

809: , because otherwise the horizons in the geometry prevent the curve from

810: returning to region II$_{R}$ without becoming spacelike. Therefore, since we

811: are confined to the right Rindler wedge of the $x^{\pm }$ plane, we may

812: adopt polar coordinates $x^{\pm }=\pm x\,e^{\pm t}$. We want to show that, 

813: \textit{if }$t_{A}>t_{B}$\textit{\ (the point }$A$\textit{\ is after the

814: point }$B$\textit{\ in Rindler time), then any forward directed timelike

815: curve from }$A$\textit{\ to }$B$\textit{\ must go into region III}$_{R}$ 

816: \textit{(the region with }$x>1$\textit{). }To prove this fact, recall first

817: the metric on $\mathbb{M}^{3}$ in the coordinates $x,t,y$%

818: \begin{equation*}

819: dx^{2}-x^{2}dt^{2}+dy^{2}\left( 1-x^{2}\right) -2x^{2}dydt\,.

820: \end{equation*}

821: Consider then the function $t\left( s\right) $. It starts at $t\left(

822: 0\right) =t_{A}$ and it is increasing for small values of $s$. This is

823: because surfaces of constant $t$ are spacelike in region II$_{R}$ (since $%

824: dx^{2}+dy^{2}\left( 1-x^{2}\right) >0$ if $x^{2}<1$) and therefore future

825: directed timelike curves have always $\frac{dt}{ds}>0$ in region II$_{R}$.

826: Now, since by assumption $t_{B}<t_{A}$, the function $t\left( s\right) $ must

827: achieve a maximum for some value of $s$. Then, using the same reasoning, the

828: curve must be in region III$_{R}$ to be timelike, and this concludes the

829: proof. We can actually always construct a future directed timelike curve by

830: connecting the two points $A$ and $B$ with a straight line, provided that we

831: choose $y_{B}$ large enough, as can be seen by direct computation.

832: 

833: We can now prove the existence of a closed timelike curve in the full geometry

834: (\ref{fig3}a). The regions to the left and to the right of the wave are vacuum 

835: solutions which correspond, when uplifted to three dimensions, to regions in 

836: flat Minkowski space. We can then think of the full geometry as follows. Let 

837: $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}$ and $\mathbb{M}^{3}$ be two copies of three--dimensional

838: space which are going to describe the geometry to the left and to the right

839: of the shock wave, and which we parametrize with coordinates

840: \begin{eqnarray*}

841: &&\widetilde{X}^\pm=\widetilde{x}^{\pm }e^{\pm \sqrt{E^{\prime }}\widetilde{y}}\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \

842: \ \

843: \widetilde{Y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{E^{\prime }}}\ \widetilde{y}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

844: \ \ \ \ \ \ (\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}) \\

845: &&X^\pm=x^{\pm }e^{y}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Y=y\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

846: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (\mathbb{M}^{3})\

847: \end{eqnarray*}

848: respectively. The shock wave itself defines

849: surfaces $\widetilde{S}$ and $S$ in the two spaces $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}$

850: and $\mathbb{M}^{3}$. The full geometry is then obtained as follows. Denote

851: the region to the left of $\widetilde{S}$ in $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}$ 

852: by $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}_L$. This corresponds to the part of the 

853: geometry to the left of the shock wave. Similarly, denote 

854: the region to the right of ${S}$ in ${\mathbb{M}}^{3}$ by ${\mathbb{M}}^{3}_R$,

855: which is the region to the right of the wave. The full geometry is then 

856: given by taking the two regions $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}_L$ and

857: ${\mathbb{M}}^{3}_R$ and gluing the two boundaries $\widetilde{S}$

858: and ${S}$ in a specific way. We do not need the details of the gluing, aside

859: from the simple fact that $\widetilde{y} = y$ when connecting $\widetilde{S}$

860: and ${S}$. 

861: \begin{figure}

862: \begin{center}

863: \includegraphics{fig4.eps}

864: \end{center}

865: \caption{A closed timelike curve in the geometry induced by the surface $S_1$.\label{fig4}}

866: \end{figure}

867: Looking at Figure \ref{fig4}, which represents the shock wave solution 

868: in conformal coordinates, choose then the two points $A$ and $B$ as drawn.

869: They will correspond to points on the surface $\widetilde{S}$ with coordinates 

870: $\tilde{x}_{A}^{\pm },\tilde{y}_{A}$ and $\tilde{x}_{B}^{\pm },\tilde{y}_{B}$ and

871: on $S$ with coordinates ${x}_{A}^{\pm },y_A$ and ${x}_{B}^{\pm },{y}_{B}$,

872: where, as we already noticed, one has $\tilde{y}_{A}={y}_{A}$ and $\tilde{y}_{B}={y}_{B}$.

873: As in the discussion in the previous part of this section, we choose $y_{A}=0$ and $%

874: y_{B}$ large and positive.

875: Notice first that, with respect to the geometry ${\mathbb{M}}^{3}_R$ on the right of the

876: shock wave, both points $A$ and $B$ are in region II$_{R}$, whereas they are in 

877: regions I$_{out}$ and I$_{in}$ relative to the geometry $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}_L$ 

878: on the left of the wave. In equations, we have that

879: \begin{eqnarray*}

880: x_{A}^{+} &>&0,\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ x_{A}^{-}<0,\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

881: x_{A}^{+}x_{A}^{-}<1, \\

882: x_{B}^{+} &>&0,\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ x_{B}^{-}<0,\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

883: x_{B}^{+}x_{B}^{-}<1,\,

884: \end{eqnarray*}

885: and

886: \begin{eqnarray*}

887: \widetilde{x}_{A}^{\pm } &>&0, \\

888: \widetilde{x}_{B}^{\pm } &<&0.

889: \end{eqnarray*}

890: This is the key feature which is required in order to have a closed timelike curve. 

891: Let us first concentrate on the right part of the wave. We may just consider the 

892: straight line from $A$ to $B$ in ${\mathbb{M}}^{3}_R$ which is

893: future directed for $y_{B}$ large, and which goes, when projected onto the $%

894: z^{\pm }$ plane as in Figure \ref{fig4}, in the region after the singularity. This

895: is because the point $A$ is after point $B$ in the Rindler time of region II$%

896: _{R}$ ($x^+_B/x^-_B>x^+_A/x^-_A$), and so we can apply the arguments of the first part of the section.

897: Now we consider the region to the left of the shock wave. It is easy to

898: check, by direct computation, that the straight segment from $B$ to $A$ in 

899: $\widetilde{\mathbb{M}}^{3}_L$ is still timelike for large values of 

900: $\tilde{y}_{B}=y_B$, and it is clearly future directed since $B$ is in 

901: I$_{in}$ and $A$ is in I$_{out}$. This closes the

902: loop, as drawn in Figure \ref{fig4}, and we have found a closed timelike curve.

903: 

904: Note that, due to the simple lemma proved above, it must be that our closed

905: curve always goes into region III. Recall though that the boundary of

906: region III corresponds in string theory to the orientifold $O8$--plane, and

907: therefore region III should be excised, as described in section \ref

908: {orientifold}. \textit{The final }$M$\textit{--theory geometry is free of

909: closed timelike curves, and we have then shown that the presence of the

910: orientifolds not only resolves the issues put forward in section \ref

911: {orientifold}, but also cures the instability due to the formation of large

912: black holes.}

913: 

914: \subsection{Discussion}

915: 

916: Let us conclude this section with some comments.

917: 

918: First of all, we can try to consider the geometry induced by light rays on

919: surfaces $S_{a}$ for $-1<a<1$ (so that the surface does not go into region

920: III). This corresponds, in 2D gravity, to matter which couples to the

921: dilaton and to the conformal factor of the metric, and is therefore

922: analytically more complex. Nonetheless, we can understand pictorially, in

923: Figure \ref{fig5}, that the physics is qualitatively unaltered. In particular

924: one can find, as before, closed timelike curves which necessarily have to

925: pass in region III.

926: 

927: \begin{figure}

928: \begin{center}

929: \includegraphics{fig5.eps}

930: \end{center}

931: \caption{A closed timelike curve in the geometry induced by the surface $S_a$

932: for $a<1$.\label{fig5}}

933: \end{figure}

934: 

935: Secondly, it is clear that, in Figure \ref{fig3}a, it is crucial that $%

936: E^{\prime }>E$. This fact, recall, comes from positivity requirements on the

937: stress--energy tensor $\tau _{ab}$. If $E^{\prime }$ had been less then $E$,

938: the graph would have had a different structure. In particular, the horizon

939: of the left part of the geometry would have intersected the shock wave not

940: between the points $b$ and $c$, but between $a$ and $b$. The causal

941: structure of the space, when uplifted to three dimensions, is then quite

942: different and it is easy to show, using arguments similar to those in the

943: previous section, that the 3D geometry has no closed timelike curves.

944: 

945: Finally, let us comment on the general Horowitz--Polchinski problem for $D>3$.

946: In this case, gravity is non--trivial even in the absence of matter, and therefore

947: an exact solution to the problem is probably out of reach. On the other

948: hand, it seems unlikely that a correct guess on the final qualitative features of the 

949: solution can be obtained by looking at the interaction between two (or, for that matter,

950: a finite number) of light--rays. This fact is already true if we just consider the 

951: \textit{linear reaction} of the gravitational field to the matter distributed

952: on the HP surfaces $S_a$. Then, very much like in electromagnetism, it is incorrect 

953: to guess the qualitative features of fields by looking at just a finite subset

954: of the charges (matter in this case), whenever the charge distribution is infinite

955: (this infinity is really not an approximation in this case, since it comes

956: from the infinite extent of the surface $S_a$ due to the unwrapping of the 

957: quotient space). Therefore, to decide if the problem exists in higher dimensions, 

958: much more work is required, already in the linear regime of gravity, but most

959: importantly in the full non--linear setting. Note that \textit{the only case

960: in which the HP argument is fully correct is exactly in dimension $D=3$, where

961: the gravitational interaction is topological and when, therefore, the interaction

962: of an infinite number of charges can be consistently analyzed by breaking it down into 

963: finite subsets}. This indeed is what we find in the previous sections, since 

964: closed timelike curves do appear.

965: 

966: 

967: \section{Stability of the Cosmological Cauchy Horizon}

968: 

969: Another related classical instability which can arise in orbifold and orientifold

970: cosmologies is due to the backreaction of general matter fields as they

971: propagate through the bounce: as the universe contracts, particles will

972: accelerate and will create a large backreaction in the geometry. General

973: instabilities of this type can only be studied in the linearized regime, as

974: opposed to the shock wave geometries which could be analyzed fully,

975: including gravitational backreaction. In fact, in the previous section we concentrated on

976: conformally coupled non--dilatonic matter propagating in the

977: cosmological geometry, and this was possible due to the simple coupling to the

978: two--dimensional gravitational fields $\Phi $ and $g_{ab}$. We now want to

979: consider more general matter fields, either non--conformal or

980: coupled to the dilaton. In the following, we shall concentrate on a scalar

981: propagating in the quotient space $\mathbb{M}^{3}/e^{\kappa }$, which

982: corresponds to a free massive scalar on the covering space $\mathbb{M}^{3}$.

983: Our results will apply to the orientifold cosmology after imposing

984: Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions on the surface $X^{+}X^{-}=-E^{2}$%

985: . These wave functions were studied in \cite{CCK}, and we shall review

986: briefly those results before considering the issue of stability.

987: 

988: \subsection{Particle States}

989: 

990: Let us start with a massive field $\Psi $ of mass $m$ on the covering space $%

991: \mathbb{M}^{3}$, which satisfies the Klein--Gordon equation 

992: \begin{equation}

993: \square \,\Psi (X)=m^{2}\,\Psi (X)\ .

994: \label{KG}\end{equation}

995: We demand that $\Psi $ be invariant under the orbifold action, so that 

996: \begin{equation}

997: \Psi (X)=\Psi (e^{\kappa }X)\ ,  \label{bc}

998: \end{equation}

999: where $\kappa =2\pi i\left( \Delta J+RK\right) $ and 

1000: \begin{eqnarray*}

1001: iJ &=&X^{+}\partial _{+}-X^{-}\partial _{-}\ , \\

1002: iK &=&\partial _{Y}\ .

1003: \end{eqnarray*}

1004: The energy scale $E$ of section \ref{mysect} is given by $E=\Delta R^{-1}$.

1005: Since the quotient space has the symmetry generated by the Killing vector $%

1006: \kappa $, and since the operators $J$, $K$ and $\square $ commute, it is

1007: convenient to choose a basis of solutions to (\ref{KG}) and (\ref{bc})

1008: where the operators $J$ and $K$

1009: are diagonal. We then choose our field $\Psi $ so that 

1010: \begin{eqnarray*}

1011: J\,\Psi (X) &=&p\,\Psi (X)\ , \\

1012: K\,\Psi (X) &=&k\,\Psi (X)\ ,

1013: \end{eqnarray*}

1014: by writing 

1015: \begin{equation*}

1016: \Psi _{p,k}\left( X\right) =\Psi _{p}(X^{+},X^{-})\, e^{ikY} \,.

1017: \end{equation*}

1018: The wave functions $\Psi _{p}$ are functions of Lorentzian spin $J=p$ which also

1019: satisfy the two--dimensional Klein--Gordon equation $\left( 4\partial

1020: _{+}\partial _{-}+\omega ^{2}\right) \Psi _{p}=0$, where $\omega

1021: ^{2}=m^{2}+k^{2}$. They can then be solved in Lorentzian polar coordinates,

1022: as we shall review below, in terms of Bessel functions, which naturally have

1023: an integral representation as a sum of the standard plane waves in the

1024: covering space. In terms of the quantum numbers $p$, $k$, the orbifold

1025: boundary condition (\ref{bc}) becomes simply 

1026: \begin{equation}

1027: \Delta \,p+\,R\,k=n\in \mathbb{Z\,}.  \label{quant}

1028: \end{equation}

1029: Generally, when $R\neq 0$, the spectrum of $p\in {\mathbb{R}}$ is continuous

1030: for each $n$. On the other hand, for the pure boost orbifold ($R=0$), the

1031: spectrum is discrete since $\Delta \,p=n$. This difference is crucial. \ We

1032: shall see more in detail in the next section that, in the general case, 

1033: \textit{it is possible to define particle states that do not destabilize the

1034: cosmological vacuum on the horizons by properly integrating over the various

1035: spins }$p$, whereas in the pure boost case there is an infinite blue shift

1036: as particles approach the tip of the Minkowski cone \cite{HS}. The situation

1037: is analogous to particles propagating in the ``null boost'' and ``null boost 

1038: $+$ translation'' orbifolds studied in \cite{LMS2}. From now on we consider

1039: the general case $R\neq 0$, and we use as quantum numbers $p$ and $n$, thus

1040: labeling the wave functions $\Psi _{p,n}$. 

1041: 

1042: To study the behaviour of the wave functions describing the collapse of

1043: matter through the contracting region I$_{in}$ we first move to light--cone coordinates $%

1044: x^{\pm }=X^{\pm }e^{\mp EY}$ and then to polar

1045: coordinates in the Milne wedge of the $x^{\pm }$ plane $x^{\pm }=t\,e^{\pm Ex}$. This means

1046: that, using the quantization condition (\ref{quant}), the wave function $%

1047: \Psi _{p,n}$ is given by 

1048: \begin{equation}

1049: \Psi _{p,n}\left( X\right) =\Psi _{p}^{\left( \pm \right) }(x^{+},x^{-})

1050: \, e^{i\frac{n}{R}Y} \,,  \label{basicsol}

1051: \end{equation}

1052: where the functions $\Psi _{p}^{\left( \pm \right) }$ have the form 

1053: \begin{equation*}

1054: \Psi _{p}^{\left( \pm \right) }=J_{\pm ip}(\omega |t|)\,e^{ipEx}

1055: \end{equation*}

1056: and where $J_{\pm ip}$ are the Bessel functions of imaginary order $%

1057: \pm ip$. In terms of the quantum numbers $p$ and $n$, the frequency $\omega $

1058: satisfies the mass shell condition 

1059: \begin{equation*}

1060: \omega ^{2}=m^{2}+\left( Ep-\frac{n}{R}\right) ^{2}\ .

1061: \end{equation*}

1062: 

1063: \subsection{Near Horizon Behaviour of the Wave Functions}

1064: 

1065: We are interested in the limit $t\rightarrow 0$ near the cosmological

1066: horizon, so it is convenient to recall the basic functional form of the

1067: Bessel functions 

1068: \begin{equation*}

1069: J_{\pm ip}(\omega |t|)=\left( \frac{\omega |t|}{2}\right) ^{\pm ip}F_{\pm

1070: ip}\left( \omega ^{2}t^{2}\right) \ ,

1071: \end{equation*}

1072: where $F_{\pm ip}$ is an entire function on the complex plane, which has

1073: the expansion 

1074: \begin{equation*}

1075: F_{\pm ip}(z)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty }\frac{(-)^{k}}{4^{k}\,k!\,\Gamma (k+1\pm

1076: ip)}\,z^{k}\ .

1077: \end{equation*}

1078: Then, in terms of the two--dimensional light--cone coordinates $x^{\pm }$,

1079: which are well defined throughout the whole geometry, we have 

1080: \begin{equation*}

1081: \Psi _{p}^{\left( \pm \right) }=\left( \frac{\omega |x^{\pm }|}{2}\right)

1082: ^{\pm ip}F_{\pm ip}\left( \omega ^{2}x^{+}x^{-}\right) \ .

1083: \end{equation*}

1084: These wave functions are well behaved everywhere except at the horizons $%

1085: x^{\pm }=0$, where there is an infinite blue--shift of the frequency. To see

1086: this, consider the leading behaviour of the wave function $\Psi _{p}^{(+)}$

1087: at both horizons ($x^{+}=0$ or $x^{-}=0$) 

1088: \begin{equation*}

1089: \Psi _{p}^{(+)}\sim \left( \frac{\omega |x^{+}|}{2}\right) ^{ip}\frac{1}{%

1090: \Gamma (1+ip)}\ .

1091: \end{equation*}

1092: Near the horizon $x^{-}=0$ the wave function is well behaved and can be

1093: trivially continued through the horizon. Near $x^{+}=0$, on the other hand,

1094: the wave function has a singularity which can be problematic. In fact, close

1095: to the horizon, the derivative of the field $\partial _{+}\Psi

1096: _{p}^{(+)}\propto \left( x^{+}\right) ^{ip-1}$ diverges as $%

1097: x^{+}\rightarrow 0$, and this signals an infinity energy density, since the

1098: metric near the horizon has the regular form $ds^{2}\simeq -dx^{+}dx^{-}$. This

1099: fact was noted already in \cite{HS,Q1}. 

1100: 

1101: A natural way to cure the problem is to consider wave

1102: functions which are given by linear superpositions of the above basic

1103: solutions with different values of $p$. The problem is then to understand if

1104: general perturbations in the far past $t\ll -E^{-1}$ will evolve

1105: into the future and create an infinite energy density on the horizon, thus

1106: destabilizing the geometry. This problem is well known in the physics of

1107: black holes where, generically, Cauchy horizons are unstable to small

1108: perturbations of the geometry \cite{PenroseSimpson,CH}. We will show in the

1109: next section that the problem does not arise in this cosmological geometry.

1110: More precisely, we will show that perturbations which are localized in the $x

1111: $ direction in the far past $t\ll -E^{-1}$ (and which are therefore necessarily a

1112: superposition of our basic solutions (\ref{basicsol})) do not induce

1113: infinite energy densities on the horizons of the geometry, and can be

1114: continued smoothly into the other regions II$_{L,R}$ and I$_{out}$ of the

1115: geometry. 

1116: 

1117: This problem was also considered in \cite{Q2}, where a different conclusion

1118: was reached. We will discuss, at the end of section \ref{last}, the argument of 

1119: \cite{Q2} and describe why it does not apply to physically relevant bounded

1120: perturbations.

1121: 

1122: \subsection{Analysis of Infalling Matter}

1123: 

1124: For simplicity we will set, from now on, $E=1$ and $m=0$ and we will focus

1125: uniquely on the uncharged sector $n=0$, which corresponds to pure

1126: dimensional reduction. The three--dimensional action  

1127: for the massless scalar $\Psi$ reduces, in two dimensions, to 

1128: \begin{equation*}

1129: \int d^{2}x\sqrt{g}\Phi \left( \nabla \Psi \right) ^{2}\,.

1130: \end{equation*}

1131: The scalar field $\Psi $ is therefore conformally coupled, but has a non

1132: trivial coupling to the dilaton, and satisfies the equation of motion 

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: \square \Psi +\nabla \ln\Phi \cdot \nabla \Psi =0\,.  \label{EoM1}

1135: \end{equation}

1136: As in the previous section, 

1137: we analyze this equation in the background described by the vacuum

1138: solution (\ref{vacuumsol}), which is given in regions I$_{in,out}$ by 

1139: \begin{eqnarray}

1140: ds^{2} &=&-dt^{2}+\frac{t^{2}}{1+t^{2}}dx^{2}\,,  \label{vacuumSol} \\

1141: \Phi  &=&\sqrt{1+t^{2}}\,,  \notag

1142: \end{eqnarray}

1143: where $x^{\pm }=te^{\pm x}$. We have seen, in the previous section, that the

1144: solutions to (\ref{EoM1}) are known exactly in terms of Bessel functions,

1145: since (\ref{EoM1}) is equivalent to the equation 

1146: $\left( \square _{\mathrm{Flat}}-J^{2}\right) \Psi =0$,

1147: where $J=-i\frac{\partial }{\partial x}$ is the boost operator in the $%

1148: x^{\pm }$ plane and $\square _{\mathrm{Flat}}$ is the Laplacian with respect

1149: to the \textit{flat metric }$-dt^{2}+t^{2}dx^{2}\,$. A different and more

1150: general approach to the solution of (\ref{EoM1}), which is more in line with

1151: the literature on the stability of Cauchy horizons in black hole geometries,

1152: is to rewrite (\ref{EoM1}) in terms of the field 

1153: \begin{equation*}

1154: \Lambda =\Psi \sqrt{\Phi }\,.

1155: \end{equation*}

1156: A simple computation shows that equation (\ref{EoM1}) becomes 

1157: \begin{equation*}

1158: \square \Lambda +\frac{1}{4\Phi ^{2}}\left[ \left( \nabla \Phi \right)

1159: ^{2}-2\Phi \square \Phi \right] \Lambda =0\,.

1160: \end{equation*}

1161: We now use the fact that, in the vacuum solution (\ref{vacuumSol}), 

1162: equations (\ref{metric-eq}) and (\ref{Cfunct}) with $C=-1$ imply that

1163: $\square \Phi =-2\Phi ^{-3}$ and that $\left( \nabla \Phi

1164: \right) ^{2}=-1+\Phi ^{-2}$. Therefore

1165: the equation of motion becomes 

1166: \begin{equation}

1167: \square \Lambda +\frac{5-\Phi ^{2}}{4\Phi ^{4}}\Lambda =0\,.  \label{EoM2}

1168: \end{equation}

1169: 

1170: As customary, we write the above equation using conformal coordinates

1171: defined in region I$_{in}$. In the sequel, we follow closely the 

1172: beautiful work of Chandrasekar and Hartle \cite{CH}.

1173: We first define, in terms of the coordinates $%

1174: z^{\pm }$ in (\ref{confcoord}), the coordinates $u$, $v$ given by 

1175: \begin{eqnarray*}

1176: z^{+} &=&-e^{-v}\,, \\

1177: z^{-} &=&-e^{-u}\,.

1178: \end{eqnarray*}

1179: The coordinates $u$, $v$ are lightcone coordinates in the $s$, $x$ plane 

1180: \begin{eqnarray*}

1181: u &=&s+x\,, \\

1182: v &=&s-x\,,

1183: \end{eqnarray*}

1184: where $s$ is the usual \textit{tortoise} time coordinate. Recalling (\ref{confcoord}), $s$

1185: is given in terms of $t$ by the expression 

1186: \begin{equation}

1187: s=-\sqrt{1+t^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\ln \frac{\sqrt{1+t^{2}}+1}{\sqrt{1+t^{2}}-1}\,

1188: \label{tortoise}

1189: \end{equation}

1190: and has asymptotic behaviour for large values of $\left| s\right| $ given by

1191: (see Figure \ref{fig9}) 

1192: \begin{eqnarray*}

1193: s &\sim &t\, ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1194: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\ll -1\right)  \\

1195: s &\sim &-\ln \left( -t\right) \, .\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1196: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\gg 1\right) 

1197: \end{eqnarray*}

1198: \begin{figure}

1199: \begin{center}

1200: \includegraphics{fig9.eps}

1201: \end{center}

1202: \caption{The \textit{tortoise} time coordinate $s$ versus $t$, together with the 

1203: asymptotic behaviours $t$ and $-\ln(-t)$ for $t\to -\infty$ and $t\sim 0$.

1204: \label{fig9}}

1205: \end{figure}

1206: The various coordinate systems are recalled in Figure \ref{fig11}a. The metric in

1207: region I$_{in}$ is given, from equation (\ref{confmetric}), by 

1208: $-dudv\,t^{2}\left( 1+t^{2}\right) ^{-1}$, and we conclude

1209: that equation (\ref{EoM2}) reads 

1210: \begin{equation*}

1211: \left( \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial s^{2}}-\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial

1212: x^{2}}\right) \Lambda \left( s,x\right) =V\left( s\right) \Lambda \left(

1213: s,x\right) \,,

1214: \end{equation*}

1215: where 

1216: \begin{equation}

1217: V=\frac{t^2}{4}\frac{\left(4-t^{2}\right)}{\left(1+t^{2}\right) ^{3}}\, .

1218: \label{potential}

1219: \end{equation}

1220: \begin{figure}

1221: \begin{center}

1222: \includegraphics{fig10.eps}

1223: \end{center}

1224: \caption{The scattering potential $V(s)$.\label{fig10}}

1225: \end{figure} 

1226: Finally, we Fourier transform the $x$ coordinate 

1227: \begin{equation*}

1228: \Lambda \left( s,x\right) =\int dp\,e^{ipx}\,\Lambda \left( s,p\right) 

1229: \end{equation*}

1230: to obtain the Schr\"{o}dinger--like equation 

1231: \begin{equation}

1232: \left( \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial s^{2}}+p^{2}\right) \Lambda \left(

1233: s,p\right) =V\left( s\right) \Lambda \left( s,p\right) \,.  \label{ODE}

1234: \end{equation}

1235: 

1236: Let us consider this differential equation in more detail. The potential $%

1237: V\left( s\right) $, shown in Figure \ref{fig10}, has the following asymptotic

1238: behaviour 

1239: \begin{eqnarray}

1240: V &\sim &e^{-2s}\,\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1241: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\rightarrow \infty \right) 

1242: \label{asim} \\

1243: V &\sim &-\frac{1}{4s^{2}}\,\ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1244: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\rightarrow -\infty \right)  

1245: \notag

1246: \end{eqnarray}

1247: and is therefore significant only in the region around $s\sim 0$. 

1248: The scattering potential connects the two regions with $s\ll -1$ and $s\gg 1$ (or $%

1249: t\ll -1$ and $t\sim 0$) where the field $\Lambda $ behaves

1250: essentially like a free scalar in two--dimensional flat space. The potential $%

1251: V$ then connects the past Minkowski region ($t\ll -1$ with metric $%

1252: -dt^{2}+dx^{2}$) to the future Milne wedge ($t\sim 0$ with metric $%

1253: -dt^{2}+t^{2}dx^{2}$).

1254: Since $V$ decays at infinity faster then $s^{-1}$, one can follow the usual

1255: theory of one--dimensional scattering. In particular, following \cite{CH}, we

1256: consider the solutions $F\left( s,p\right) $ and $P\left( s,p\right) $ of (%

1257: \ref{ODE}) which behave like pure exponentials $e^{-ips}$ respectively in

1258: the future $s\rightarrow \infty $ and in the past $s\rightarrow -\infty $%

1259: \begin{eqnarray}

1260: F\left( s,p\right)  &\sim &e^{-ips}\sim \left( -t\right) ^{ip}\,,\,\ \ \ \ \

1261: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\rightarrow

1262: \infty \right)   \label{as} \\

1263: P\left( s,p\right)  &\sim &e^{-ips}\sim e^{-ipt}\,.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1264: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\rightarrow -\infty

1265: \right)   \notag

1266: \end{eqnarray}

1267: Therefore, when restoring the $x$ dependence $e^{ipx}$ of the full solution,

1268: we have, for $s\to\infty$, the plane waves

1269: \begin{eqnarray*}

1270: e^{ipx}F\left( s,p\right)  &\sim &e^{-ipv}\,,  \\

1271: e^{ipx}F\left( s,-p\right)  &\sim &e^{ipu}\,,

1272: \end{eqnarray*}

1273: and, for $s\to-\infty$,

1274: \begin{eqnarray*}

1275: e^{ipx}P\left( s,p\right)  &\sim &e^{-ipv}\,, \\

1276: e^{ipx}P\left( s,-p\right)  &\sim &e^{ipu}\,.

1277: \end{eqnarray*}

1278: As explained in the previous section, the problem is exactly soluble in terms of

1279: Bessel functions\footnote{%

1280: Recall that $J_{\nu }\left( z\right) =z^{\nu }\times \left( \mathrm{%

1281: entire\;function\;of\;}z\right) $. In this paper we choose \textit{%

1282: unconventionally} to take the branch cut of the logarithm along the negative

1283: imaginary axis, so that $z^{\nu }$ and $J_{\nu }\left( z\right) $ also have

1284: a cut on $\func{Re}z=0$, $\func{Im}z<0$. Moreover, the expressions like $%

1285: p^{ip}$ and $\sqrt{p}$ will always be defined using the same prescription

1286: for the logarithm.}, and one has the following explicit form of the

1287: functions $F$ and $P$%

1288: \begin{eqnarray*}

1289: F\left( s,p\right)  &=&\left( \frac{2}{p}\right) ^{ip}\,\Gamma \left(

1290: 1+ip\right) \,\,J_{ip}\left( -pt\right) \,\left( 1+t^{2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{4}%

1291: }\,, \\

1292: P\left( s,p\right)  &=&e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}-\frac{\pi p}{2}}\,\sqrt{\frac{\pi p%

1293: }{2}}\,H_{ip}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( -pt\right) \,\left( 1+t^{2}\right) ^{%

1294: \frac{1}{4}}\, ,

1295: \end{eqnarray*}

1296: where $t=t\left( s\right) $ is defined by (\ref{tortoise}). The function

1297: \begin{equation}

1298: H_{ip}^{\left( 1\right) }=\frac{1}{\sinh\left(

1299: \pi p\right)} \left( e^{\pi p}J_{ip}-J_{-ip}\right)

1300: \label{H1}\end{equation}

1301: is the Hankel function of the first kind, which has the correct asymptotic behaviour 

1302: to ensure that $P(s,p)$ has the desired properties.

1303: 

1304: It is useful,

1305: again following closely \cite{CH}, to consider the general analytic behaviour of $F$

1306: and $P$ as a function of the \textit{complex variable} $p$, at fixed time $s$%

1307: . First it is clear that we must have 

1308: \begin{eqnarray*}

1309: \overline{F\left( s,p\right) } &=&F\left( s,-\overline{p}\right) \,, \\

1310: \overline{P\left( s,p\right) } &=&P\left( s,-\overline{p}\right) \,.

1311: \end{eqnarray*}

1312: \begin{figure}

1313: \begin{center}

1314: \includegraphics{fig12.eps}

1315: \end{center}

1316: \caption{The analytic structure of $F(s,p)$ and $P(s,p)$ as functions of $p$.\label{fig12}}

1317: \end{figure}

1318: Moreover, we recall from \cite{CH} that, whenever the potential has asymptotic

1319: behaviour 

1320: \begin{eqnarray*}

1321: V &\sim &e^{-2\kappa _{-}s}\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1322: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\rightarrow \infty \right)  \\

1323: V &\sim &e^{2\kappa _{+}s}\ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1324: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left( s\rightarrow -\infty \right) 

1325: \end{eqnarray*}

1326: then $F\left( s,p\right) $ is everywhere analytic, except for poles at $%

1327: p=i\kappa _{-}\,\mathbb{N}\ $(with $\mathbb{N}$ being the natural numbers $%

1328: 1,2,\cdots $), and $P\left( s,p\right) $ has poles at $p=-i\kappa _{+}%

1329: \mathbb{N}$. In our case $\kappa _{-}=1$ and, as expected, the function $F$

1330: has poles at $p=i\mathbb{N}$ due to the gamma function\footnote{%

1331: The function $\left( \frac{2}{p}\right) ^{ip}\,J_{ip}\left( -pt\right) $ is

1332: an entire function of $p$, as can be seen from the explicit power series

1333: representation of the Bessel function $J_{\nu }\left( z\right) $.} $\Gamma

1334: \left( 1+ip\right) $. On the other hand, for the case of the specific

1335: potential (\ref{potential}), one has $\kappa _{+}\rightarrow 0$, with the

1336: exponential behaviour replaced with a power law $s^{-2}$. This is a direct

1337: consequence of the fact that the metric distance from a point in region I$%

1338: _{in}$ to the horizon at $s\rightarrow \infty $ is finite, whereas it is

1339: infinite going to past infinity at $s\rightarrow -\infty $. Therefore, the

1340: poles at $-i\kappa _{+}\mathbb{N}$ become infinitely close and are

1341: effectively replaced by a branch cut along the negative imaginary $p$ axis,

1342: as one can check from the analytic expression for $P$. The features just

1343: described, which are shown in Figure \ref{fig12}, 

1344: are generic and do not depend on the details of the potential,

1345: but only on the asymptotic behaviour (\ref{asim}). 

1346: In particular, one has the same behaviour for fluctuations

1347: of \textit{any field}.

1348: 

1349: Let us now consider a general solution $\Lambda \left( s,p\right) $ of (\ref

1350: {ODE}). Since both $F\left( s,\pm p\right) $ and $P\left( s,\pm p\right) $

1351: are bases of the solutions of (\ref{ODE}), one must have that 

1352: \begin{eqnarray}

1353: \Lambda \left( s,p\right)  &=&V_{F}\left( p\right) F\left( s,p\right)

1354: +U_{F}\left( p\right) F\left( s,-p\right)   \notag \\

1355: &=&V_{P}\left( p\right) P\left( s,p\right) +U_{P}\left( p\right) P\left(

1356: s,-p\right) \,.  \label{past}

1357: \end{eqnarray}

1358: The coefficients $V_{F,P}$ and $U_{F,P}$ can be easily computed by recalling

1359: that, given two solutions $f$, $g$ of (\ref{ODE}), the Wronskian 

1360: \begin{equation*}

1361: \left[ f,g\right] =f\dot{g}-g\dot{f}

1362: \end{equation*}

1363: is independent of $s$, where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to 

1364: $s$.

1365: \begin{figure}

1366: \begin{center}

1367: \includegraphics{fig11.eps}

1368: \end{center}

1369: \caption{Figure (a) shows the various coordinate systems in region I$_{in}$.

1370: Figure (b) shows the various ways

1371: to define a solution $\Lambda$. One either gives the functions $V_P$, $U_P$ or the

1372: functions $V_F$, $U_F$, or, alternatively, the functions $\Lambda(s_0,x)$, 

1373: $\dot{\Lambda}(s_0,x)$ at some fixed time $s_0$ along the dotted line.\label{fig11}}

1374: \end{figure}

1375: In particular, one can easily show that 

1376: \begin{equation*}

1377: \left[ F\left( s,p\right) ,F\left( s,-p\right) \right] =\left[ P\left(

1378: s,p\right) ,P\left( s,-p\right) \right] =2ip\,.

1379: \end{equation*}

1380: Therefore we readily conclude that 

1381: \begin{eqnarray}

1382: V_{F}\left( p\right)  &=&\frac{1}{2ip}\left[ \Lambda \left( s,p\right)

1383: ,F\left( s,-p\right) \right] \,,  \label{future} \\

1384: U_{F}\left( p\right)  &=&-\frac{1}{2ip}\left[ \Lambda \left( s,p\right)

1385: ,F\left( s,p\right) \right] \,,  \notag

1386: \end{eqnarray}

1387: together with similar equations for $V_{P}$ and $U_{P}$.

1388: 

1389: \subsection{Behaviour at the Horizons\label{last}}

1390: 

1391: The meaning of the

1392: coefficients $V_{F}$ and $U_{F}$ is quite clearly understood by considering

1393: the value of the field $\Lambda $ on the horizons. Since we are in the limit 

1394: $s\rightarrow \infty $, we use the asymptotic form of $F\left( s,p\right) $

1395: to conclude that (see Figure \ref{fig11}b)

1396: \begin{equation}

1397: \Lambda \left( v,u\right) \rightarrow V_{F}\left( v\right) +U_{F}\left(

1398: u\right) \,,  \label{a1}

1399: \end{equation}

1400: where 

1401: \begin{equation*}

1402: V_{F}\left( v\right) =\int dp\,V_{F}\left( p\right) e^{-ipv}\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \

1403: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U_{F}\left( u\right) =\int dp\,U_{F}\left( p\right)

1404: e^{ipu}\,.

1405: \end{equation*}

1406: To compute the stress tensor due to the fluctuation in $\Lambda $, whose

1407: divergence usually signals the instability of the Cauchy horizon, we also

1408: must consider the derivatives of the field with respect to the coordinates $%

1409: z^{\pm }$ (the coordinates $u$, $v$ tend to $\infty $ on the horizons).

1410: Recalling that 

1411: \begin{equation*}

1412: \partial _{+}=-e^{v}\partial _{v}\, ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1413: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \partial _{-}=-e^{u}\partial _{u}\, ,

1414: \end{equation*}

1415: we conclude that 

1416: \begin{eqnarray}

1417: \partial _{+}\Lambda \left( v,u\right)  &\rightarrow &-e^{v}\partial

1418: _{v}V_{F}\left( v\right) \,,  \label{a2} \\

1419: \partial _{-}\Lambda \left( v,u\right)  &\rightarrow &-e^{u}\partial

1420: _{u}U_{F}\left( u\right) \,.  \notag

1421: \end{eqnarray}

1422: Note that both expressions (\ref{a1}) and (\ref{a2}) are valid \textit{only in

1423: the limit }$( u\rightarrow \infty \mathit{,\ }$ $v\mathit{\ }\mathrm{fixed}%

1424: ) $\textit{\ or }$\left( v\rightarrow \infty \mathit{,\ }u\mathit{\ }%

1425: \mathrm{fixed}\right) $\textit{, and are not approximate expressions for

1426: large but finite }$u$\textit{, }$v$\textit{. }This is because, although the

1427: asymptotic form (\ref{as}) is exactly valid in the limit $s\rightarrow

1428: \infty $, it becomes accurate for $s\gg \overline{s}\left( p\right) $, where

1429: the threshold value $\overline{s}\left( p\right) $ depends explicitly on $p$%

1430: . Given the explicit form of $F$, it is clear that $\overline{s}\left(

1431: p\right) \sim \ln p$ since only in this case is the argument of the Bessel

1432: function $-pt\ll 1$. Therefore, given a function $\Lambda $ which has

1433: support at all momenta, one is not uniformly in the asymptotic region for

1434: all momenta at any large but finite $s$. Only in the limit $s\rightarrow

1435: \infty $ we can use uniform convergence to deduce the expressions (\ref{a1})

1436: and (\ref{a2}), in the sense just described.

1437: 

1438: Finally, going back to the computation of the derivatives $\partial _{\pm }\Lambda $,

1439: one recalls from \cite{CH} that the problematic limits are given by $%

1440: \lim_{v\rightarrow \infty }\,\partial _{+}\Lambda $ and $\lim_{u\rightarrow

1441: \infty }\,\partial _{-}\Lambda $. Concentrating on the first one for

1442: simplicity, we see that we need to consider the expression 

1443: \begin{eqnarray}

1444: \lim_{v\rightarrow \infty }\,\partial _{+}\Lambda  &=&\lim_{v\rightarrow

1445: \infty }\,e^{v}\int dp\,V_{F}\left( p\right) \,ip\,e^{-ipv}  \label{problem}

1446: \\

1447: &=&\frac{1}{2}\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty }\,e^{v}\int dp\left[ \Lambda \left(

1448: s,p\right) ,F\left( s,-p\right) \right] \,e^{-ipv}\,.  \notag

1449: \end{eqnarray}

1450: The physical problem we need to address is the following. Let us

1451: assume that, at some time $s_{0}\ll 0$ in the past, much before the

1452: scattering potential $V\left( s\right) $ becomes relevant, our field $%

1453: \Lambda $ is in some specific configuration given by initial conditions on

1454: the value of $\Lambda $ and of its time derivative $\dot{\Lambda}$ 

1455: \begin{equation*}

1456: \Lambda \left( s_{0},x\right) \,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

1457: \ \dot{\Lambda}\left( s_{0},x\right) \,.

1458: \end{equation*}

1459: We will assume that the functions above are \textit{localized} as a function

1460: of $x$. More precisely, we shall demand that $\Lambda \left( s_{0},x\right) $

1461: and $\dot{\Lambda}\left( s_{0},x\right) $ are such that their evolution

1462: would not lead to an inconsistent behaviour on the horizon in the Milne wedge

1463: of \textit{flat space}, where $V=0$.

1464: It is important to realize that those are the general physical perturbation, since

1465: we are only demanding that they would be regular in flat space.

1466: Let us be more explicit. In the absence of the potential $V$, the solutions

1467: of the massless Klein--Gordon equations are just $\Lambda = \alpha(v) + \beta(u)$,

1468: and the initial conditions $\Lambda$ and $\dot\Lambda$ at

1469: $s_0$ are equivalent to giving the functions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the light--cone

1470: coordinates. Recall though that the coordinates which are regular across the horizon 

1471: are $z^\pm$, and therefore we must demand, in order to have a regular perturbation 

1472: in flat space, that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be well--behaved \textit{as functions of}

1473: $z^\pm$. To see what this means in practice, consider a function of $z^+$ which

1474: has a nice power series expansion $a_0 + a_1 z^+ + \cdots$ around $z^+=0$.

1475: As a function of $v$ this reads  $\alpha(v) = a_0 - a_1 e^{-v} + \cdots$, and this shows

1476: that, aside from the constant part, the function $\alpha(v)$ must decay, for $v\to\infty$,

1477: at least as fast as $e^{-v}$. This fact imposes constraints on the Fourier transforms

1478: of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and, in turn, on the functions $\Lambda(s_0,x)$ and $\dot{\Lambda}

1479: (s_0,x)$. In practice, it is sufficient to require that the Fourier transforms $\Lambda

1480: \left( s_{0},p\right) $ and $\dot{\Lambda} \left( s_{0},p\right) $ do not have

1481: poles in the strip $\left| \func{Im}p\right| <1$. Then the problematic limit 

1482: \begin{equation*}

1483: \frac{1}{2}\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty }\,e^{v}\int dp\left[ \Lambda \left(

1484: s_{0},p\right) \dot{F}\left( s_{0},-p\right) -\dot{\Lambda} \left( s_{0},p\right)

1485: F\left( s_{0},-p\right) \right] \,e^{-ipv}

1486: \end{equation*}

1487: can be computed by deforming the contour in the lower half of the complex

1488: plane, and is determined by the poles of $F\left( s,-p\right) $. In fact,

1489: the leading behaviour of the integral is controlled by the first pole at $-i$%

1490: , which gives an asymptotic behaviour for large $v\rightarrow \infty $ of $%

1491: e^{-v}$. The limit in the above expression then tends to a finite result.

1492: 

1493: In order to better understand the above result, let us review the standard

1494: argument for the instability of the Cauchy horizon, which was followed in \cite{Q2}.

1495: The problem is usually posed by giving initial conditions at past null infinity 

1496: (see also Figure \ref{fig11}b), by giving the functions 

1497: \begin{equation*}

1498: V_{P}\left( v\right) =\int dp\, V_{P}\left( p\right) e^{-ipv}\, ,\ \ \ \ \

1499: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U_{P}\left( u\right) =\int dp\, U_{P}\left( p\right)

1500: e^{ipu}\, ,

1501: \end{equation*}

1502: on which we impose a regularity constraint (say, for simplicity, a

1503: localization condition like the one discussed above, now in the coordinates $%

1504: v$ and $u$). To determine $V_{F}$, $U_{F}$ in terms of $V_{P}$, $U_{P}$ one

1505: uses the expression (\ref{past}) for $\Lambda $ in the equation (\ref{future}%

1506: ) and obtains that 

1507: \begin{equation*}

1508: \left( 

1509: \begin{array}{c}

1510: V_{F}\left( p\right)  \\ 

1511: U_{F}\left( p\right) 

1512: \end{array}

1513: \right) =\left( 

1514: \begin{array}{cc}

1515: A\left( p\right)  & B\left( -p\right)  \\ 

1516: B\left( p\right)  & A\left( -p\right) 

1517: \end{array}

1518: \right) \left( 

1519: \begin{array}{c}

1520: V_{P}\left( p\right)  \\ 

1521: U_{P}\left( p\right) 

1522: \end{array}

1523: \right) \,,

1524: \end{equation*}

1525: where\footnote{%

1526: The coefficients $A\left( p\right) $ and $B\left( p\right) $ satisfy,

1527: generically, the conjugation relations $\overline{A\left( p\right) }=A\left( -\overline{p}\right)$

1528: and $\overline{B\left(p\right) }=B\left( -\overline{p}\right)$, 

1529: and the unitarity relation 

1530: $A\left( p\right) A\left( -p\right) -B\left( p\right) B\left( -p\right) =1$.

1531: Using (\ref{H1}), we have the explicit

1532: expression 

1533: \begin{eqnarray*}

1534: && A\left( p\right) = e^{\frac{\pi }{2}p+\frac{i}{4}\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\pi p}{2}}%

1535: \left( \frac{p}{2}\right) ^{ip}\frac{1}{\sinh \left( \pi p\right) }\frac{1}{%

1536: \Gamma \left( 1+ip\right) }\,, \\

1537: && B\left( p\right) = -e^{-\frac{\pi }{2}p+\frac{i}{4}\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\pi p}{2}}%

1538: \left( \frac{p}{2}\right) ^{-ip}\frac{1}{\sinh \left( \pi p\right) }\frac{1}{%

1539: \Gamma \left( 1-ip\right) }\,.

1540: \end{eqnarray*}

1541: Moreover, in general, the function $A(p)$ will have zeros on the \textit{positive

1542: imaginary $p$--axis} whenever the potential $V$ has a bound state. The explicit expressions

1543: above show that, for our particular potential, there are no bound states.

1544: } 

1545: \begin{eqnarray*}

1546: A\left( p\right)  &=&\frac{1}{2ip}\left[ P\left( s,p\right) ,F\left(

1547: s,-p\right) \right] \,, \\

1548: B\left( p\right)  &=&-\frac{1}{2ip}\left[ P\left( s,p\right) ,F\left(

1549: s,p\right) \right] \,.

1550: \end{eqnarray*}

1551: The above expression shows that both $A\left( p\right) $ and $B\left(

1552: p\right) $ have a cut along the negative imaginary $p$ axis (the limit of

1553: the poles at $-i\kappa _{+}n$ for $\kappa _{+}\rightarrow 0$). The 

1554: full analytic structure of $A(p)$ and $B(p)$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig13}. Since $%

1555: V_{F}\left( p\right) =V_{P}\left( p\right) A\left( p\right) +U_{P}\left(

1556: p\right) B\left( -p\right) $ we conclude that the leading pole of $V_P(p)A(p)$

1557: at $-i\kappa

1558: _{+}\rightarrow -i0$ determines the asymptotic behaviour of the integral in (%

1559: \ref{problem}) to be $e^{-\kappa _{+}v}$. Therefore, the limit $%

1560: \lim_{v\rightarrow \infty }e^{v\left( 1-\kappa _{+}\right) }$ diverges, thus

1561: naively signaling an instability of the horizon.

1562: \begin{figure}

1563: \begin{center}

1564: \includegraphics{fig13.eps}

1565: \end{center}

1566: \caption{The analytic structure of $A(p)$ and $B(p)$.\label{fig13}}

1567: \end{figure}

1568: 

1569: The above reasoning depends crucially on the assumption that the

1570: functions $U_{P}$, $V_{P}$ have a nice Fourier transform (analytic at least

1571: in the region $\left| \func{Im}p\right| <1$), so that the perturbation is

1572: localized on the null directions at past null infinity. If this is the case,

1573: though, expression (\ref{past}) shows that the function $\Lambda \left(

1574: s,x\right) $ is already delocalized (the Fourier transform has a branch cut

1575: due to $P\left( s,p\right) $) at \textit{any finite time }$s\ll -1$\textit{\

1576: much before the scattering potential}, and therefore will concentrate on the

1577: horizons and create an infinite stress tensor. This is clearly not the type

1578: of perturbation we want to focus on, which should be localized in space

1579: before they hit the potential $V$.

1580: Note that, at any finite time $s$, we cannot use, in equation (\ref{past}),

1581: the asymptotic form of $P(s,p)$ for all values of $p$. In fact, the 

1582: explicit form of the the function $P$ shows that one is in the 

1583: asymptotic regime for $|p|\gg s^{-1}$. Therefore, the crucial low

1584: momentum modes which determine the asymptotic behaviour of the wave

1585: function are \textit{never in the asymptotic region for any

1586: finite time $s$}. We then consider the requirement of

1587: localization of $\Lambda \left( s,x\right) $ at times $s\ll -1$ to be the

1588: correct and physically relevant boundary condition to study issues of

1589: stability of the geometry. The reasonings of this section then show that, in

1590: this sense, the Cauchy horizon in perfectly stable to small perturbations.

1591: 

1592: 

1593: \subsection{Discussion}

1594: 

1595: Let us conclude this section with some comments on future research.

1596: 

1597: We have shown that, in the orientifold cosmology, one can define particle--like

1598: perturbations which do not destabilize the Cauchy horizon, and therefore that

1599: the solution is stable against small variations of the background fields.

1600: All the work is done at the classical linearized level. The most pressing

1601: question for issues of stability is the study of the quantum stress--energy

1602: tensor for the field $\Psi$. This is a non--trivial problem due to the non--minimal

1603: coupling to the metric and the dilaton, and only some results are known in 

1604: the literature (see \cite{Noji, 2Dgravity} and references therein). On the other

1605: hand, the problem might be tractable since the exact wave--functions are known

1606: in this case.

1607: 

1608: 

1609: \section{Conclusion}

1610: 

1611: 

1612: In this paper we investigate the classical stability of a two--dimensional orientifold cosmology, 

1613: related to a time--dependent orbifold of flat space--time. We saw, with a specific 

1614: counter example, that the instability argument of Horowitz and Polchinski is not valid once the time--like

1615: orbifold singularity is interpreted as the boundary of space--time. In this specific example, we consider

1616: an exact shock--wave solution of two--dimensional dilaton gravity that uplifts to a distribution of matter 

1617: in the three--dimensional covering space. According to Horowitz and Polchinski this distribution should 

1618: interact gravitationally creating large black holes. Indeed, there are closed time--like curves in the covering space 

1619: geometry of the shock--wave, signaling the three--dimensional gravitational instability.

1620: However, such CTC's are not present if we interpret the singularity as a boundary of space--time, and accordingly 

1621: excise from the geometry the region behind it.

1622: 

1623: The other stability problem addressed in this work is related to cosmic censorship. The presence of naked 

1624: singularities with a Cauchy Horizon has lead many people to believe that such singularities 

1625: never form. Indeed, as for the Reissner--Nordstrom black hole one expects the Cauchy horizon to be unstable

1626: when crossed by matter. We analyze the propagation of a scalar field coupled to gravity in the geometry, 

1627: and show that any localized fluctuation at some finite time in the far past will not destabilize

1628: the horizon. The existence of the time--like singularity does {\it not} imply the break--down

1629: of predictability because of the conjectured duality between the singularity and orientifolds of 

1630: string theory. To leading approximation, the effect of the orientifolds is to enforce a boundary condition

1631: on the fields, which determines uniquely their evolution. 

1632: A more complete quantum understanding of this system is desirable.

1633: 

1634: 

1635: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1636: 

1637: We would like to thank J. Barbon, C. Herdeiro, F. Quevedo and I. Zavala 

1638: for useful discussions and correspondence. LC is supported by a Marie Curie 

1639: Fellowship under the European Commission's Improving Human Potential programme 

1640: (HPMF-CT-2002-02016). This work was partially supported by CERN under contract 

1641: CERN/FIS/43737/2001. 

1642: 

1643: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1644: 

1645: \bibitem{Khoury}

1646: J.~Khoury, B.~A.~Ovrut, N.~Seiberg, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

1647: \textit{From big crunch to big bang}, 

1648: \texttt{hep-th/0108187}.

1649: \\

1650: N.~Seiberg, \textit{From big crunch to big bang - is it possible?},

1651: \texttt{hep-th/0201039}.

1652: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108187;%%

1653: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201039;%%

1654: 

1655: \bibitem{VJ}

1656: V.~Balasubramanian, S.~F.~Hassan, E.~Keski-Vakkuri and A.~Naqvi,

1657: \textit{A space-time orbifold: A toy model for a cosmological singularity},

1658: \texttt{hep-th/0202187}.

1659: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202187;%%

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{CC}  L.~Cornalba and M.~S.~Costa, 

1662: \textit{A New Cosmological Scenario in String Theory}, 

1663: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{66} (2002) 066001, 

1664: \texttt{hep-th/0203031}. 

1665: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203031;%%

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{Nekrasov}

1668: N.~A.~Nekrasov,

1669: \textit{Milne universe, tachyons, and quantum group},

1670: \texttt{hep-th/0203112}.

1671: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203112;%%

1672: 

1673: \bibitem{Simon}

1674: J.~Simon,

1675: \textit{The geometry of null rotation identifications},

1676: \texttt{hep-th/0203201}.

1677: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203201;%%

1678: 

1679: \bibitem{Tolley:2002cv}

1680: A.~J.~Tolley and N.~Turok,

1681: \textit{Quantum fields in a big crunch / big bang spacetime},

1682: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 106005,

1683: \texttt{hep-th/0204091}.

1684: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204091;%%

1685: 

1686: \bibitem{LMS1}  

1687: H.~Liu, G.~Moore and N.~Seiberg,

1688: \textit{Strings in a time-dependent orbifold},

1689: JHEP \textbf{0206} (2002) 045, 

1690: \texttt{hep-th/0204168}. 

1691: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204168;%%

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Elitzur:2002rt}

1694: S.~Elitzur, A.~Giveon, D.~Kutasov and E.~Rabinovici,

1695: \textit{From big bang to big crunch and beyond},

1696: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 017,

1697: \texttt{hep-th/0204189}.

1698: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204189;%%

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{CCK}  L.~Cornalba, M.~S.~Costa and C.~Kounnas, 

1701: \textit{A resolution of the cosmological singularity with orientifolds}, 

1702: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{637} (2002) 378, 

1703: \texttt{hep-th/0204261}. 

1704: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204261;%%

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{Craps:2002ii}

1707: B.~Craps, D.~Kutasov and G.~Rajesh,

1708: \textit{String propagation in the presence of cosmological singularities},

1709: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 053,

1710: \texttt{hep-th/0205101}.

1711: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205101;%%

1712: 

1713: \bibitem{Lawrence}  

1714: A.~Lawrence,

1715: \textit{On the instability of 3D null singularities}, 

1716: JHEP \textbf{0211} (2002) 019, 

1717: \texttt{hep-th/0205288}. 

1718: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205288;%%

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{Gordon:2002jw}

1721: C.~Gordon and N.~Turok,

1722: \textit{Cosmological perturbations through a general relativistic bounce},

1723: \texttt{hep-th/0206138}.

1724: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206138;%%

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{Martinec:2002xq}

1727: E.~J.~Martinec and W.~McElgin,

1728: \textit{Exciting AdS orbifolds},

1729: JHEP {\bf 0210} (2002) 050,

1730: \texttt{hep-th/0206175}.

1731: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206175;%%

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{LMS2}  

1734: H.~Liu, G.~Moore and N.~Seiberg, 

1735: \textit{Strings in time-dependent orbifolds}, 

1736: JHEP \textbf{0210} (2002) 031, 

1737: \texttt{hep-th/0206182}. 

1738: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206182;%%

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{Fabinger:2002kr}

1741: M.~Fabinger and J.~McGreevy,

1742: \textit{On smooth time-dependent orbifolds and null singularities},

1743: \texttt{hep-th/0206196}.

1744: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206196;%%

1745: 

1746: \bibitem{HP}  

1747: G.~T.~Horowitz and J.~Polchinski, 

1748: \textit{Instability of spacelike and null orbifold singularities},

1749: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{66} (2002) 103512, 

1750: \texttt{hep-th/0206228}. 

1751: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206228;%%

1752: 

1753: \bibitem{Buchel:2002kj}

1754: A.~Buchel, P.~Langfelder and J.~Walcher,

1755: \textit{On time-dependent backgrounds in supergravity and string theory},

1756: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 024011,

1757: \texttt{hep-th/0207214}.

1758: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207214;%%

1759: 

1760: \bibitem{Hemming:2002kd}

1761: S.~Hemming, E.~Keski-Vakkuri and P.~Kraus,

1762: \textit{Strings in the extended BTZ spacetime},

1763: JHEP {\bf 0210} (2002) 006,

1764: \texttt{hep-th/0208003}.

1765: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208003;%%

1766: 

1767: \bibitem{Figueroa-O'Farrill:2002tb}

1768: J.~Figueroa-O'Farrill and J.~Simon,

1769: \textit{Supersymmetric Kaluza-Klein reductions of M2 and M5 branes},

1770: \texttt{hep-th/0208107}.

1771: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208107;%%

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{Hashimoto:2002nr}

1774: A.~Hashimoto and S.~Sethi,

1775: \textit{Holography and string dynamics in time-dependent backgrounds},

1776: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 261601,

1777: \texttt{hep-th/0208126}.

1778: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208126;%%

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{Simon:2002cf}

1781: J.~Simon,

1782: \textit{Null orbifolds in AdS, time dependence and holography},

1783: JHEP {\bf 0210} (2002) 036,

1784: \texttt{hep-th/0208165}.

1785: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208165;%%

1786: 

1787: \bibitem{Alishahiha:2002bk}

1788: M.~Alishahiha and S.~Parvizi,

1789: \textit{Branes in time-dependent backgrounds and AdS/CFT correspondence},

1790: JHEP {\bf 0210} (2002) 047,

1791: \texttt{hep-th/0208187}.

1792: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208187;%%

1793: 

1794: \bibitem{Dudas:2002dg}

1795: E.~Dudas, J.~Mourad and C.~Timirgaziu,

1796: \textit{Time and space dependent backgrounds from nonsupersymmetric strings},

1797: \texttt{hep-th/0209176}.

1798: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209176;%%

1799: 

1800: \bibitem{Satoh:2002nj}

1801: Y.~Satoh and J.~Troost,

1802: \textit{Massless BTZ black holes in minisuperspace},

1803: JHEP {\bf 0211} (2002) 042,

1804: \texttt{hep-th/0209195}.

1805: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209195;%%

1806: 

1807: \bibitem{Dolan:2002px}

1808: L.~Dolan and C.~R.~Nappi,

1809: \textit{Noncommutativity in a time-dependent background},

1810: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 369,

1811: \texttt{hep-th/0210030}.

1812: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210030;%%

1813: 

1814: \bibitem{Cai:2002sv}

1815: R.~G.~Cai, J.~X.~Lu and N.~Ohta,

1816: \textit{NCOS and D-branes in time-dependent backgrounds},

1817: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 178,

1818: \texttt{hep-th/0210206}.

1819: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210206;%%

1820: 

1821: \bibitem{Bachas:2002qt}

1822: C.~Bachas and C.~Hull,

1823: \textit{Null brane intersections},

1824: JHEP {\bf 0212} (2002) 035,

1825: \texttt{hep-th/0210269}.

1826: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210269;%%

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{Myers:2002bk}

1829: R.~C.~Myers and D.~J.~Winters,

1830: \textit{From D - anti-D pairs to branes in motion},

1831: JHEP {\bf 0212} (2002) 061,

1832: \texttt{hep-th/0211042}.

1833: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211042;%%

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{Okuyama:2002pc}

1836: K.~Okuyama,

1837: \textit{D-branes on the null-brane},

1838: \texttt{hep-th/0211218}.

1839: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211218;%%

1840: 

1841: \bibitem{Friedmann:2002gx}

1842: T.~Friedmann and H.~Verlinde,

1843: \textit{Schwinger meets Kaluza-Klein},

1844: \texttt{hep-th/0212163}.

1845: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212163;%%

1846: 

1847: \bibitem{BCKR}  

1848: M.~Berkooz, B.~Craps, D.~Kutasov and G.~Rajesh,

1849: \textit{Comments on cosmological singularities in string theory}, 

1850: \texttt{hep-th/0212215}. 

1851: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212215;%%

1852: 

1853: \bibitem{Fabinger:2002jn}

1854: M.~Fabinger and S.~Hellerman,

1855: \textit{Stringy resolutions of null singularities},

1856: \texttt{hep-th/0212223}.

1857: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212223;%%

1858: 

1859: \bibitem{Elitzur:2002vw}

1860: S.~Elitzur, A.~Giveon and E.~Rabinovici,

1861: \textit{Removing singularities},

1862: JHEP {\bf 0301} (2003) 017,

1863: \texttt{hep-th/0212242}.

1864: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212242;%%

1865: 

1866: \bibitem{HS}

1867: G.~T.~Horowitz and A.~R.~Steif,

1868: \textit{Singular String Solutions With Nonsingular Initial Data},

1869: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 258} (1991) 91.

1870: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B258,91;%%

1871: 

1872: \bibitem{SimonFigueroa}

1873: J.~Figueroa-O'Farrill and J.~Simon,

1874: \textit{Generalized supersymmetric fluxbranes},

1875: JHEP {\bf 0112} (2001) 011,

1876: \texttt{hep-th/0110170}.

1877: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110170;%%

1878: 

1879: \bibitem{PenroseSimpson}  

1880: M.~Simpson and R.~Penrose,

1881: \textit{\em Internal Instability in a Reissner-Nordstrom Black Hole},

1882: Int.\ Journ.\ Theor.\ Physics \textbf{7} (1973) 183.

1883: 

1884: \bibitem{CH} 

1885: S.~Chandrasekhar and J.B.~Hartle, 

1886: \textit{\em On Crossing the Cauchy Horizon of a Reissner--Nordstrom Black--Hole},

1887:  Proc.\ R.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ \textbf{A 384} (1982) 301-315.

1888: 

1889: \bibitem{KounnasLust}  

1890: C.~Kounnas and D.~Lust, 

1891: \textit{Cosmological string backgrounds from gauged WZW models}, 

1892: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{289} (1992) 56, 

1893: \texttt{hep-th/9205046}. 

1894: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9205046;%%

1895: 

1896: \bibitem{Q0}

1897: C.~Grojean, F.~Quevedo, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala,

1898: \textit{Branes on charged dilatonic backgrounds: Self-tuning, Lorentz  violations and cosmology},

1899: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 005,

1900: \texttt{hep-th/0106120}.

1901: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106120;%%

1902: 

1903: \bibitem{Q1}

1904: C.~P.~Burgess, F.~Quevedo, S.~J.~Rey, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala,

1905: \textit{Cosmological spacetimes from negative tension brane backgrounds},

1906: JHEP {\bf 0210} (2002) 028, 

1907: \texttt{hep-th/0207104}.

1908: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207104;%%

1909: 

1910: \bibitem{Matschull}  

1911: H.~J.~Matschull,

1912: \textit{Black hole creation in 2+1-dimensions},

1913: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ \textbf{16} (1999) 1069, 

1914: \texttt{gr-qc/9809087}. 

1915: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9809087;%%

1916: 

1917: \bibitem{CGHS}  

1918: C.~G.~Callan, S.~B.~Giddings, J.~A.~Harvey and A.~Strominger,

1919: \textit{Evanescent Black Holes},

1920: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{45} (1992) 1005, 

1921: \texttt{hep-th/9111056}. 

1922: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9111056;%%

1923: 

1924: \bibitem{Gott}  

1925: J.~R.~Gott, 

1926: \textit{Closed Timelike Curves Produced By Pairs Of Moving Cosmic Strings: Exact Solutions}, 

1927: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{66} (1991) 1126. 

1928: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1126;%%

1929: 

1930: \bibitem{Deser}  

1931: S.~Deser, R.~Jackiw and G.~'t Hooft,

1932: \textit{Physical cosmic strings do not generate closed timelike curves},

1933: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{68} (1992) 267. 

1934: %%CITATION = PRLTA,68,267;%%

1935: 

1936: \bibitem{Kabat}  

1937: D.~N.~Kabat,

1938: \textit{Conditions For The Existence Of Closed Timelike Curves In (2+1) Gravity},

1939: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{46} (1992) 2720. 

1940: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,2720;%%

1941: 

1942: \bibitem{Gott2}  

1943: M.~P.~Headrick and J.~R.~Gott, 

1944: \textit{(2+1)-Dimensional Space-Times Containing Closed Timelike Curves},

1945: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{50} (1994) 7244. 

1946: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,7244;%%

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{BTZ}  

1949: M.~Banados, C.~Teitelboim and J.~Zanelli, 

1950: \textit{The Black Hole In Three-Dimensional Space-Time}, 

1951: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{69} (1992) 1849, 

1952: \texttt{hep-th/9204099}. 

1953: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9204099;%%

1954: 

1955: 

1956: \bibitem{ADSagnotti}  

1957: I.~Antoniadis, E.~Dudas and A.~Sagnotti,

1958: \textit{Supersymmetry breaking, open strings and M-theory},

1959: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B  \textbf{544} (1999) 469, 

1960: \texttt{hep-th/9807011}. 

1961: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9807011;%%

1962: 

1963: \bibitem{Kachru}  

1964: S.~Kachru, J.~Kumar and E.~Silverstein,

1965: \textit{Orientifolds, RG flows, and closed string tachyons},

1966: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ \textbf{17} (2000) 1139, 

1967: \texttt{hep-th/9907038}. 

1968: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9907038;%%

1969: 

1970: \bibitem{Noji}

1971: S.~Nojiri and S.~D.~Odintsov,

1972: \textit{Quantum dilatonic gravity in d = 2, 4 and 5 dimensions},

1973: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A \textbf{16}, 1015 (2001),

1974: \texttt{hep-th/0009202}.

1975: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009202;%%

1976: 

1977: \bibitem{2Dgravity}  

1978: D.~Grumiller, W.~Kummer and D.~V.~Vassilevich,

1979: \textit{Dilaton gravity in two dimensions}, 

1980: Phys.\ Rept.\ \textbf{369} (2002) 327, 

1981: \texttt{hep-th/0204253}. 

1982: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204253;%%

1983: 

1984: \bibitem{Kunstatter}  

1985: D.~Louis-Martinez and G.~Kunstatter,

1986: \textit{On Birckhoff's theorem in 2-D dilaton gravity}, 

1987: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{49} (1994) 5227. 

1988: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,5227;%%

1989: 

1990: \bibitem{Steif}  

1991: A.~R.~Steif,

1992: \textit{The Quantum Stress Tensor In The Three-Dimensional Black Hole},

1993: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{49} (1994) 585, 

1994: \texttt{gr-qc/9308032}. 

1995: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9308032;%%

1996: 

1997: \bibitem{Q2}

1998: C.~P.~Burgess, P.~Martineau, F.~Quevedo, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala C.,

1999: \textit{Instabilities and particle production in S-brane geometries}, 

2000: \texttt{hep-th/0301122}.

2001: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301122;%%

2002: 

2003: \end{thebibliography}

2004: 

2005: 

2006: \end{document}

2007: 

2008: