1: \documentclass[letterpaper]{JHEP3}

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,prd,]{revtex}

3: %\draftcurrent

4: %\input{epsf}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: %\tighten

8: \newcommand{\sect}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

9: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

10: \def\thesection

11: {\arabic{section}}

12: \newcommand{\labell}[1]{{}_{#1}\qquad\label{#1}}  %\label{#1}}

13: \newcommand{\reef}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

14: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.,}\ }

15: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.,}\ }

16: \newcommand{\ssc}{\scriptscriptstyle}

17: \newcommand{\GN}{G_{\ssc N}}

18: \newcommand{\rr}{\rho}

19: \def\IR{{\hbox{{\rm I}\kern-.2em\hbox{\rm R}}}}

20: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

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

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

24: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

25: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\prt}{\partial}

27: \newcommand{\Lam}{\Lambda}

28: \newcommand{\lc}{\ell}

29: \newcommand{\tlc}{\tilde{\lc}}

30: 

31: %====================================================================+

32: \preprint{{\small hep-th/0303035}} \keywords{S-branes, unstable

33: D-branes, rolling tachyons.}

34: 

35: \title{SD-brane gravity fields and rolling tachyons}

36: 

37: \author{ Fr\'ed\'eric Leblond\footnote{E-mail: {\tt

38: fleblond@perimeterinstitute.ca}} \ and Amanda W.

39: Peet\footnote{E-mail: {\tt peet@physics.utoronto.ca}}\\ $^{*}$

40: Department of Physics, McGill University, Montr\'eal, Qu\' ebec

41: H3A 2T8 Canada

42: \\ $^{*}$ Perimeter Institute for

43: Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 Canada \\

44: $^{\dagger}$ Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge,

45: MA 02138 USA \\ $^{\dagger}$ Department of Physics,

46: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7 Canada \\

47: $^{\dagger}$ Cosmology and Gravity Program, Canadian Institute for

48: Advanced Research}

49: 

50: \date{March, 2003}

51: \abstract{S(pacelike)D-branes are objects arising naturally in

52: string theory when Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed on

53: the time direction.  SD-brane physics is inherently

54: time-dependent.  Previous investigations of gravity fields of

55: SD-branes have yielded undesirable naked spacelike singularities.

56: We set up the problem of coupling the most relevant open-string

57: tachyonic mode to massless closed-string modes in the bulk, with

58: backreaction and Ramond-Ramond fields included.  We find solutions

59: numerically in a self-consistent approximation; our solutions are

60: naturally asymptotically flat and time-reversal asymmetric.  We

61: find completely nonsingular evolution; in particular, the dilaton

62: and curvature are well-behaved for all time.  The essential

63: mechanism for spacetime singularity resolution is the inclusion of

64: full backreaction between the bulk fields and the rolling tachyon.

65: Our analysis is not the final word on the story, because we have

66: to make some significant approximations, most notably homogeneity

67: of the tachyon on the unstable branes.  Nonetheless, we provide

68: significant progress in plugging a gaping hole in prior

69: understanding of the gravity fields of SD-branes.}

70: 

71: \keywords{S-branes, rolling tachyons, singularity resolution}

72: 

73: %====================================================================+

74: \begin{document}

75: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

76: %====================================================================+

77: \section{Introduction}\label{section:introduction}

78: 

79: SD-branes in string theory were first studied by Gutperle and

80: Strominger in ref.~\cite{gutperle}. They were introduced as

81: objects arising when Dirichlet boundary conditions on open strings

82: are put on the time coordinate, as well as on spatial coordinates.

83: SD-branes are not supersymmetric objects, which makes them hard to

84: handle but potentially very interesting. The boundary conditions

85: for SD-branes imply that they live for only an ``instant'' of

86: time, and so the worldvolume is purely spatial. SD-branes should

87: not be confused with instantons, because they live out their lives

88: in Lorentzian signature context. Recent discussion of the relation

89: between SD-branes and instantons may be found in section 6 of

90: ref.~\cite{andylastweek}.

91: 

92: SD-branes are especially interesting objects to study in the

93: context of tachyon condensation, which will be the arena of our

94: investigation. SD-branes are indeed inherently related to the

95: general study of time dependence in string theory. One of the

96: original goals of ref.~\cite{gutperle} was in fact to seek

97: examples of gauge/gravity dualities where a time direction on the

98: gravity side is holographically reconstructed by a Euclidean field

99: theory.\footnote{An attempt to find a realization for such a

100: duality is the dS/CFT correspondence \cite{dscft} -- see also

101: ref.~\cite{tale} for an extensive list of references.}

102: 

103: There have been several investigations of SD-branes since they

104: were introduced \cite{gutperle2, KMP, strominger, buchel, roy,

105: sbranes, andylastweek}.  Most of them involve taking the limit

106: $g_s\rightarrow 0$, the regime in which perturbative string

107: computations can be done.  As the tachyon rolls down its potential

108: hill, there is a divergence in production of higher mass open

109: string modes \cite{strominger,strominger3,andylastweek}. This

110: divergence occurs before the tachyon gets to the bottom of the

111: potential well, as it must because there are no perturbative open

112: string excitations around the true minimum of the tachyon

113: potential \cite{vacuum}. Also, the time taken to convert the

114: energy of the rolling tachyon into these massive open string modes

115: is of order\footnote{In later sections we will see that our

116: calculation, which includes gravity backreaction, agrees with this

117: in the sense that the time it takes for the tachyon to decay only

118: slightly depends on the particular value of $g_{s}$.}

119: ${\cal{O}}(g_{s}^{0})$ .  This analysis was done for a single

120: SD-brane using CFT methods; analysis for production of massive

121: closed string modes was also done \cite{OS,maldacena}.

122: 

123: One aspect of SD-brane physics has become clear: that the

124: decoupling limit applied to SD-branes is not a smooth limit like

125: it is for regular D-branes. In particular, as $g_s\rightarrow 0$

126: the brane tachyon becomes decoupled from bulk modes, which were

127: however the most natural modes into which the initial energy of

128: the unstable brane should decay.  Then, the endpoint of the

129: rolling tachyon must include a somewhat mysterious substance

130: called ``tachyon matter'' \cite{sen2}. Consideration of the full

131: problem with $g_s$ finite would presumably eliminate the need for

132: mysterious tachyon matter; this was in fact part of our motivation

133: for this work.  Regarding production of closed string massive

134: modes, at very small $g_s$, it seemed that there was some debate

135: \cite{OS,maldacena} about the form of a divergence.

136: %

137: The results from ref.~\cite{maldacena} make clear that the

138: divergence depends on the number of dimensions transverse to the

139: decaying unstable brane: for unstable D$p$-branes with $p<2$ there

140: was a need to invoke a cutoff to get a finite result.

141: %

142: In any case, unstable brane decay should presumably be a physically

143: smooth process for $\{g_s,\ell_s\}$ finite.

144: 

145: The point of view that we will be taking is to consider a system of

146: $N$ SD-branes, with $g_sN$ large, study the overall centre-of-mass

147: tachyon, and couple it to bulk massless closed string modes.

148: Obviously, it would be nice to understand the full problem including

149: coupling to all massive open and closed string modes, but this is a

150: hard problem beyond our reach.  We will make a beginning here with a

151: quantitative analysis involving only the lowest modes in each of the

152: open and closed string sectors.  We believe that our approach, while

153: ``lowbrow'' by comparison to SFT computations, already shows some very

154: interesting physics.

155: 

156: The punchline of our paper will be this: we find nonsingular solutions

157: for the evolution of the open string tachyon coupled to bulk

158: supergravity modes.  This plugs a gaping hole in our previous

159: understanding \cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP} of the supergravity fields

160: arising from a large number of SD-branes.  All previous attempts at

161: describing SD-branes in the context of supergravity had found that the

162: corresponding solutions were plagued with naked spacelike

163: singularities.  We find that resolution of these singularities is

164: achieved in a conceptually simple way: by including full backreaction

165: on the rolling tachyon.

166: 

167: Our investigation can also be considered to shed light on the

168: question of tachyon cosmology \cite{gibbons} including

169: Ramond-Ramond fields, the effect of which was ignored in previous

170: investigations.  Tachyon cosmology itself may not yet provide

171: realistic models for inflation, nonetheless, see recent work

172: including, {\it e.g.}, refs.~\cite{cosmotachyonK,cosmotachyon}.

173: One of the reasons is that, in the low-energy actions used to

174: describe tachyon cosmology dynamics, there is only one length

175: scale --- the string length.  It would certainly be interesting if

176: a mechanism generating a lower scale for inflation were found

177: within this context. Also, the behavior of inhomogeneities during

178: the later stage of the roll of the tachyon may be a general

179: problem \cite{cosmotachyonK}.

180: %

181: Tachyon cosmology involving brane-antibrane annihilation may be

182: relevant only to a pre-inflationary period, but it is interesting to

183: analyze the dynamics from the ``top-down'' perspective in string

184: theory.

185: 

186: The plan of our paper is as follows. We begin by reviewing in

187: section \ref{section:review} the previous work on gravity fields

188: of SD-branes, and commenting on the nature of singularities found

189: in the past.  In section \ref{subsection:ssss} we discuss

190: pathologies of the solutions found in refs.~\cite{gutperle2,KMP},

191: where only supergravity fields were considered.  In section

192: \ref{subsection:buchel} we move to discussing ref.~\cite{buchel},

193: in which an unstable brane probe was coupled to a $d=4$ SD0-brane

194: supergravity background; we generalized their arguments but still

195: find generic singularities in the probe approximation (exceptions

196: are considered in Appendix~\ref{regular}).

197: %

198: In section \ref{section:newsetup} we set up the full backreacted

199: problem of interest.  The equations are naturally highly nonlinear,

200: and since backreaction is essential we have no desire to ignore it or

201: treat it perturbatively.  We need to use a particular homogeneous

202: ansatz to facilitate solution of the equations of motion, and we

203: discuss implications of the ansatz.

204: %

205: In section \ref{section:numeric} we demonstrate numerical solutions of

206: our backreaction-inclusive equations, and interpret qualitative

207: features found.  In particular, we follow carefully the evolution of

208: both the dilaton and curvature invariants.

209: %

210: Lastly, in the Discussion section we summarize our conclusions, open

211: issues, and directions of future work.

212: 

213: %====================================================================+

214: \section{Singular supergravity SD-branes: Review}\label{section:review}

215: 

216: In the paper \cite{gutperle}, a small number of supergravity

217: solutions, thought to be appropriate for a large number $N$ of

218: SD-branes, were presented. Subsequently, the class of supergravity

219: solutions was widened considerably, simultaneously by two groups

220: (refs.~\cite{gutperle2} and \cite{KMP}).  A later paper showed that

221: these two sets of solutions were equivalent \cite{roy}, by matching

222: boundary conditions on asymptotic fields and finding the coordinate

223: transformation explicitly.

224: 

225: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

226: \subsection{Sourceless SD-brane supergravity

227: solutions}\label{subsection:ssss}

228: 

229: The convention of ref.~\cite{gutperle}, which we will use, is that

230: SD$p$-branes have $(p{+}1)$ worldvolume coordinates.  We call

231: these ${\vec{y}}$. There is also the time coordinate $t$, and the

232: $(8{-}p)$ overall transverse coordinates ${\vec{x}}$.

233: 

234: The most general SD$p$-brane supergravity solutions of

235: refs.~\cite{gutperle2} and \cite{KMP} can then be written in

236: string frame as follows,

237: \begin{eqnarray}

238: \label{bigmetric} ds^{2}_{{\scriptscriptstyle

239: Sp}}&=&F(t)^{1/2}\beta(t)^G\alpha(t)^H

240: \left(-dt^2+t^2 dH^{2}_{8-p}({\vec{x}})\right) \nonumber\\

241: %

242: && +F(t)^{-1/2}\left[\sum_{i=2}^{p+1}

243: \left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{-k_i}(dy^i)^2

244: +\left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{k_{1}+{\tilde{k}}}

245: (dy^{1})^2\right]\, , \nonumber\\

246: %

247: e^{2\Phi} &=& F(t)^{3-p\over2}

248: \left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{-\sum_{i=2}^{p+1}k_i}\ ,

249: \label{solupb}\\

250: %

251: C^{(p+1)}&=& \sin\theta\cos\theta\,{C(t)\over F(t)}\, dy^{1}\wedge

252: \cdots\wedge dy^{p+1}\ ,\nonumber

253: \end{eqnarray}

254: %%

255: where

256: %%

257: \begin{equation}

258: C(t) \equiv \left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{k_1}

259: -\left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{{\tilde{k}}}\,,\qquad

260: F(t)\equiv

261: \cos^2\theta\left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{{\tilde{k}}}

262: +\sin^2\theta\left({\beta(t)\over\alpha(t)}\right)^{k_1} \ ,

263: \label{useful}

264: \end{equation}

265: %%

266: and

267: %

268: \begin{equation}\label{alphabeta}

269: \alpha(t)\equiv 1+\left({\frac{\omega}{t}} \right)^{7-p}\,,\quad

270: \beta(t)\equiv 1-\left({\frac{\omega}{t}} \right)^{7-p}\,.

271: \end{equation}

272: %

273: The supergravity equations of motion will be satisfied when the

274: exponents satisfy the constraints,

275: %%

276: \begin{eqnarray}

277: {\tilde{k}}^2+\sum_{i=1}^{p+1}k_i^2+{7-p\over4}(H-G)^2-4

278: {8-p\over 7-p}&=&0\ , \nonumber\\

279: {\tilde{k}}+\sum_{i=1}^{p+1}k_i-{7-p\over2}(H-G)&=&0\ ,

280: \label{solve}\\

281: H+G-{4\over 7-p}&=&0\ .  \nonumber

282: \end{eqnarray}

283: %%

284: 

285: The general metric above is not isotropic in the worldvolume

286: directions ${\vec{y}}$.  However, from a microscopic point of

287: view, one expects that the supergravity solution would have an

288: isotropic worldvolume. Isotropy in the worldvolume will be

289: restored in the above solution for the choice

290: $-k_2=\cdots=-k_{p+1}=k_{1}+{\tilde{k}}\equiv n$.  Unfortunately,

291: the isotropy requirement excludes SD-brane solutions with regular

292: Cauchy horizon. In fact, the curvature invariants associated to

293: all isotropic solutions diverge at $t=\pm \omega$ and $t=0$.

294: Consequently, although they possess the right symmetries and

295: ``charge'', these solutions do not appear to be well-defined.

296: 

297: Besides, SD-branes should be represented by solutions with,

298: roughly, three distinct regions: the infinite past with incoming

299: radiation only in the form of massless closed strings, an

300: intermediate region with both open and closed strings, and finally

301: the infinite future with dissipating outgoing radiation in the

302: form of massless closed strings. But the supergravity solutions of

303: refs.~\cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP} cannot represent this process,

304: because there are no rules for deciding how to go through the

305: singular regions (see, however, Appendix~\ref{regular} where we

306: show that some anisotropic solutions avoid the pathology).

307: 

308: Nevertheless, the isotropic solutions have a positive feature

309: worth noting: they have the correct asymptotics at large time. In

310: the limit that the functions $\alpha(t)$ and $\beta(t)$ become

311: trivial, part of the metric is simply the Milne universe: flat

312: Minkowski space foliated by hyperbolic sections, \beq

313: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty}ds^{2}_{{\scriptscriptstyle Sp}}=

314: -dt^2+t^2 dH^2_{8-p}({\vec x}) + \sum_{i=1}^{p+2} (d{y}^i)^2 .

315: \eeq On the other hand, there are (at least) two reasons to

316: suspect that the above solutions are not the final word in the

317: SD-brane supergravity story. The first is that there are one too

318: many parameters in the solution, by comparison to expectations

319: from microscopics of SD-branes \cite{KMP}.  A possible explanation

320: for this may be as follows.  In the rest of our paper, we will be

321: showing that the full coupling/backreaction between the

322: open-string tachyon and the closed-string bulk modes is crucial

323: for resolution of spacetime singularities.  It is possible that

324: the freedom in the supergravity solutions may correspond to a

325: freedom in picking boundary conditions for the rolling tachyon ---

326: the coupling to which was not included in

327: refs.~\cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP}.

328: 

329: The most noticeable negative feature of the above solutions is

330: that the isotropic solutions are nakedly singular.  Quite

331: generally, nakedly singular spacetimes arising in low-energy

332: string theory come under immediate suspicion, even though they are

333: solutions to the supergravity field equations.  No-hair theorems

334: are usually what we rely on in order to be sure that we have the

335: unique supergravity solution, but no-hair theorems are never valid

336: for solutions with {\em naked} spacetime singularities.  It is

337: worth noting that it has been shown with an explicit

338: counterexample \cite{emparan} that even no-hair theorems

339: themselves fail for black holes in $d=5$ with mass and angular

340: momentum --- and hence the idea of no-hair theorems in all higher

341: dimensions is under suspicion.  (Nonetheless, with particular

342: assumptions about field couplings, no-hair theorems can be proven

343: for static asymptotically flat dilaton black holes

344: \cite{gibbonshair}. Also, uniqueness of the {\em supersymmetric}

345: rotating BMPV \cite{BMPV} black hole in $d=5$ has been proven

346: \cite{reallbmpv}.)  Even if a no-hair theorem appropriate to the

347: supergravity theory involving SD-branes could be proven, however,

348: the above solutions we have reviewed would be ruled out as

349: candidates because their singularities are uncontrollably nasty.

350: So we have to look elsewhere.

351: 

352: Let us take a brief sidetrip here to comment on the singularity

353: story for supergravity fields of $N{\gg}1$ regular D-branes with

354: timelike worldvolume.  Certainly, the geometry of BPS D3-branes is

355: nonsingular, and there are several other pretty situations known

356: in the literature where branes ``melt'' into fluxes: the sources

357: are no longer needed. However, the disappearance of D-brane

358: sources for supergravity fields only occurs when the branes are

359: BPS.  If any energy density above BPS is added to these systems,

360: singularities reappear: this certainly happens for the D3-brane

361: system.  Also, in the low-energy approximation to string theory,

362: it is misleading to think of supergravity fields of D$p$-branes as

363: simple condensates of massless closed string modes.  The reason is

364: directly analogous to the fact that the Coulomb field of an

365: electron cannot be a photon condensate because the photon is

366: transverse.  Similarly, Coulomb Ramond-Ramond fields of

367: D$p$-branes cannot be represented by supergravity fields

368: alone.\footnote{This is the case even though D$p$-branes are

369: ``solitonic'' in string theory while electrons are fundamental in

370: QED. The straightforward argument we use here depends only on the

371: couplings of the charge-carrying objects to the bulk gauge fields.

372: We thank Abhay Ashtekar for a discussion on this issue.}  This

373: river runs deeper: in the decoupling limit, resolution of dilaton

374: and curvature singularities for $p\not =3$ D$p$-branes is in fact

375: {\em provided} by the gauge theory on the D-branes \cite{IMSY,

376: awpconfproc}.

377: 

378: Let us now get back to our SD-branes.  The supergravity situation

379: looks similar to that for non-BPS (ordinary) D-branes: it seems that

380: brane modes will be required for singularity resolution.  Therefore,

381: we are motivated to try to solve all problems with prior candidate

382: SD-brane spacetimes by solving the coupled system of brane tachyon

383: plus bulk supergravity fields with full backreaction.

384: 

385: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

386: \subsection{Unstable brane probes in sourceless SD-brane

387: backgrounds}\label{subsection:buchel}

388: 

389: The first progress towards the goal of singularity resolution in

390: SD-brane systems was made by Buchel, Langfelder and Walcher

391: \cite{buchel}.

392: % type %

393: We now briefly review what is, for our purposes, the most relevant

394: point of their work.

395: 

396: Essentially, they take the reasonable point of view that the

397: process of creation and subsequent decay of a SD$p$-brane must be

398: driven by a single open string mode: the tachyon field denoted

399: $T(t)$, which lives on the associated unstable D$(p{+}1)$-brane.

400: They use the $p=0$ {\em non}-dilatonic version of the worldvolume

401: % type %

402: action \cite{add1,add2,add3,add4,sen2,sen1}

403: %

404: \beq \label{sourcebuc}

405: S_{brane} = -T_{p+1} \int d^{p+2}y \, e^{-\Phi} V(T) \sqrt{-det \,

406: \left( {\cal P

407: }G_{\alpha\beta}+\partial_{\alpha}T\partial_{\beta}T \right)} +

408: \mu_{p+1}\int f(T)dT\wedge C^{(p+1)}, \eeq

409: %

410: to study the dynamics of the tachyon and its couplings with bulk

411: (closed string) modes.  The operation ${\cal P}$ is for pullback, and

412: $\alpha,\beta=1\ldots(p{+}1)$. In section \ref{section:prelim} we will

413: comment both on the validity of this type of effective action, and on

414: the expected form for the tachyon potential $V(T)$ and the

415: Ramond-Ramond coupling $f(T)$.  For now, we just use it.

416: 

417: The way we look at the calculation of ref.~\cite{buchel} is as

418: follows. Supergravity SD-brane fields should be regarded as

419: arising directly from a large number of unstable branes. Then,

420: using the intuition gained from studying the enhan{\c{c}}on

421: mechanism \cite{enhanconjpp}, it is natural to use an unstable

422: brane probe to study more substantively the candidate supergravity

423: solutions of refs.~\cite{gutperle2,KMP}.  Then, we look for

424: problems arising in the probe calculation.  The idea is that

425: whenever the probe analysis goes wrong, it signals a pathology for

426: the gravitational background. There are at least two ways the

427: probe analysis can signal a problem: infinite energy or pressure

428: density for the tachyon may be induced, ($\rho_{probe}, p_{probe}

429: \rightarrow \pm \infty$), or there might not exist any reasonable

430: solutions for $T(t)$ across the horizon.

431: 

432: So let us consider inserting an unstable brane probe in a

433: background with fields corresponding to the sourceless SD-brane

434: supergravity fields, eqs.~(\ref{bigmetric}), of the previous

435: subsection.  The equation of motion for the open string tachyon

436: is, generally,

437: %

438: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eomt_one}

439: && (-g_{tt})^{\frac{1}{2}} (g_{y^{i}y^{i}})^{\frac{p}{2}}

440: (g_{y^{1}y^{1}})^{\frac{1}{2}} e^{-\Phi}

441: \frac{\partial V(T)}{\partial

442: T}\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}  \nonumber\\

443: + && f(T)\, F^{(p+2)} + \frac{d}{dt}\left( \dot{T}\, V(T)

444: \frac{(g_{y^{1}y^{1}})^{\frac{1}{2}}(g_{y^{i}y^{i}})^{\frac{p}{2}}}

445: {e^{\Phi}\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} (-g_{tt})^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)=0,

446: \end{eqnarray}

447: %

448: where ${\dot{\ }}\equiv d/dt$, our notation for the Ramond-Ramond

449: field strength is $F^{(p+2)}=dC^{(p+1)}$, we have factored out

450: $T_{p+1}$ by including a factor of $g_s$ in $C^{(p+1)}$, and we

451: also defined the following expression, \beq \Delta = 1 +

452: \frac{(\dot{T})^{2}}{g_{tt}}.\eeq

453: 

454: The question needing attention here is whether or not the tachyon

455: field, regarded as a probe,\footnote{The unstable brane will be a

456: probe as long as its backreaction is small and can therefore be

457: treated self-consistently as a perturbation.} is well-behaved when

458: inserted in the candidate supergravity backgounds

459: (\ref{bigmetric}). Ref.~\cite{buchel} provided a clear answer for

460: the case of a $d=4$ SD0-brane with dilaton field set to

461: %

462: zero.\footnote{The authors of ref.~\cite{buchel} also investigated

463: the effect of tachyon backreaction, but the ansatz they used for

464: the supergravity fields was not general enough to handle our cases

465: of interest.  In particular, our general equations {\em do not}

466: reduce to theirs upon consistent truncation. Also, their

467: exposition of their backreaction analysis was {\em extremely}

468: brief.}

469: %

470: Let us now see how this goes.

471: 

472: The $d=4$ SD0-brane background introduced in ref.~\cite{gutperle}

473: has the form, \beq g_{tt} = -g^{y^{1}y^{1}} =

474: -\frac{Q^{2}}{\omega^{2}} \frac{t^{2}}{t^{2}-\omega^{2}}, \;\;\;\;

475: g_{y^{i}y^{i}}=0, \;\;\;\; g_{xx} = \frac{Q^{2}}{\omega^{2}}t^{2},

476: \eeq and \beq F_{2} = Q \epsilon_{2} \,,\quad \Phi=0. \eeq This

477: spacetime metric has a regular horizon (a coordinate singularity)

478: at $t=\omega$, and a genuine timelike curvature singularity at

479: $t=0$. The expressions for the energy density ($T^{t}_{t}$) and

480: the pressure ($T^{y^{1}}_{y^{1}}$) associated with the probe are

481: respectively, \beq \rho_{probe} \sim

482: \frac{V(T)}{\Delta^{1/2}}\,,\quad p_{probe} \sim V(T)

483: \Delta^{1/2}. \eeq

484: 

485: The only time (apart from $t=0$) when the probe limit becomes

486: ill-defined is around $t=\omega$. In fact, in the near horizon

487: limit, the dynamical quantity $\Delta$ satisfies the simple

488: ordinary differential equation \beq \Delta^{2} - \Delta +

489: (t-\omega)\dot{\Delta} = 0. \eeq This has the general solution

490: \beq \Delta = \frac{t-\omega}{t-\omega + g}, \eeq where $g$ is a

491: constant of integration. There are two possible solutions at

492: $t=\omega$: $\Delta=0$ ($g\neq 0$) or $\Delta =1$ ($g=0$).

493: Clearly, the case for which $\Delta =0$ corresponds to the probe

494: limit breaking down since the energy density of the unstable brane

495: diverges. The other possibility, $\Delta=1$, implies that the

496: time-derivative of the tachyon diverges on the horizon. This last

497: case is clearly pathological and cannot correspond to a physically

498: relevant tachyon field solution.

499: 

500: The conclusion is that unstable brane {\em probes} are not

501: well-defined in the SD0-brane background. Not only are they useless to

502: resolve the timelike singularity at $t=0$ but, worse, they appear to

503: generically induce a spacelike curvature singularity on the horizon at

504: $t=\omega$.  That is, if we take the probe story to be a good

505: indicator of the story for the full backreacted problem.

506: 

507: One of our first motivations for the work leading to our paper was

508: to plumb how restricted the conclusions of ref.~\cite{buchel}

509: were. Did this above story work only for bulk couplings of the

510: kind arising for SD0-branes in $d=4$, where no dilaton field

511: appears? Was it true only for the case of SD0-branes, which are a

512: special case for SD$p$-branes since there can be no anistropy in a

513: one-dimensional worldvolume?  Are all timelike clothed

514: singularities turned into naked spacelike singularities by probes?

515: Could we even trust the probe approximation to tell us anything

516: about the solution with full backreaction?

517: 

518: The first generalization we considered was to look at an unstable

519: brane probe in the background of the isotropic SD$p$-brane

520: solutions of ref.~\cite{KMP}.  However, what we saw there was that

521: the naked spacelike singularities remained naked spacelike

522: singularities; the small effect of the probe could not undo that

523: pathology.  Next, we moved to analyzing anisotropic solutions of

524: the form (\ref{bigmetric}), those with regular horizons.  Some of

525: these are actually completely nonsingular; we analyzed the details

526: of the probe computation in those backgrounds, and the specifics

527: are recorded in Appendix \ref{regular}.  The results there are

528: simple to summarize: the solutions with singularities hidden

529: behind horizons do not give rise to conclusions qualitatively

530: different than what we have reviewed here for $d=4$ SD0-branes.

531: The picture therefore remains unsatisfactory.

532: 

533: The upshot, then, is that the probe story does not resolve

534: singularities found for sourceless supergravity SD-brane solutions.

535: So we now move to the full backreacted problem for SD$p$-branes in

536: $d{=}10$, which is the main content of our paper.

537: 

538: %====================================================================+

539: \section{Supergravity SD-branes with a tachyon

540: source}\label{section:newsetup}

541: 

542: In this section we find, in the context of supergravity, the

543: equations of motion associated with the real-time (formation and)

544: decay of a clump of unstable D-branes.  We begin this section by

545: writing the form of the action which we will use in our analysis.

546: We will concentrate on only the most relevant\footnote{Relevant in

547: the technical sense.} modes in both the open and closed string

548: sectors; in other words, we keep in our analysis only the

549: (homogeneous) tachyon and massless bulk supergravity fields.

550: Potentially, the effect of massive modes could be encoded in a

551: modified equation of state for the tachyon fluid on the unstable

552: D-brane.\footnote{We thank Andy Strominger for this suggestion.}

553: We leave for future work the issue of non-homogeneous tachyonic

554: modes, and of massive string modes in both the open and closed

555: string sectors, for the coupled bulk-brane system with full

556: backreaction.  In order to use the supergravity approximation here

557: self-consistently, we will take $g_s$ small but $g_s N$ large, and

558: time-derivatives will be small compared to $\ell_s$.  We will see

559: that it is simple to choose boundary conditions in our numerical

560: integration such that these remain true for all time.

561: 

562: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

563: \subsection{Preliminaries: action and equations of motion}

564: \label{section:prelim}

565: 

566: For this section we will be able to suppress R-R Chern-Simons

567: terms in writing the bulk action.  This is a consistent

568: truncation, to set the NS-NS two-form to zero throughout the

569: evolution of the system of interest, as long as consistency

570: conditions on the R-R fields are satisfied. {\it E.g.} for the

571: SD2-brane system with R-R field $C^{(3)}$ activated, it is

572: necessary to make certain that $dC^{(3)}\wedge dC^{(3)}=0$ in

573: order not to activate the NS-NS two-form and the accompanying

574: Chern-Simons terms.  Other cases are related to this one by

575: T-duality.  Therefore, we allow only electric-type coupling of the

576: SDp-brane to $C^{(p+1)}$ (or equivalently magnetic-type coupling

577: to $C^{(7-p)}$).  Later we will show that this ansatz is

578: physically consistent provided we assume that there is $ISO(p+1)$

579: symmetry along the worldvolume of the SDp-brane, the object we are

580: interested in.  This is equivalent to considering {\em only the

581: lowest-mass tachyon}, {\it i.e.}, not allowing any excitations of

582: the brane tachyon along the spatial worldvolume directions.  Of

583: course, the R-R field strengths are then very simple:

584: $G^{(p+2)}=dC^{(p+1)}$, and the string frame bulk action takes the

585: form \cite{polchinski}

586: %

587: \begin{equation}\label{bulk_action}

588: S_{{\rm{bulk}}}={\frac{1}{1 6\pi G_{1 0}}} \int d^{1

589: 0}x\,\sqrt{-g}\left\{ e^{-2\Phi}\left[{\cal

590: R}+4(\partial\Phi)^{2}\right]

591: -{\frac{1}{2}}\left|dC^{p+1}\right|^{2} \right\} \, ,

592: \end{equation}

593: %

594: where ${\cal R}$ is the Ricci scalar. We use a mostly plus

595: signature. In the above conventions, the R-R field solutions

596: automatically get a factor of $g_s$ (as we mentioned also in the

597: previous subsection), and

598: %

599: \begin{equation}\label{Newton}

600: 16\pi G_{10}= (2\pi)^{7}g_{s}^{2}\ell_{s}^{8}\,,\quad

601: \tau_{Dp}={\frac{1}{g_{s}(2\pi)^{p}\ell_{s}^{p+1}}}.

602: \end{equation}

603: %

604: 

605: Our analytical and numerical results in following sections will be

606: given in {\em string frame}.  If desired, it is easy to convert to

607: Einstein frame -- with metric ${\tilde{g}}_{\mu\nu}$ -- with

608: canonical normalization of the metric and positive dilaton kinetic

609: energy, by using the standard $d=10$ conformal transformation

610: %

611: \begin{equation}\label{string_Einstein}

612: {\tilde{g}}_{\mu\nu} = e^{-(\Phi-\Phi_\infty)/2}g_{\mu\nu}.

613: \end{equation}

614: %

615: Stress-tensors are defined in Einstein frame,

616: %

617: \begin{equation}\label{stress_definition}

618: {\tilde{T}}_{\mu\nu}\equiv{\frac{-1}{\sqrt{-{\tilde{g}}}}}

619: {\frac{\delta S_{{\rm{matter}}}}{\delta {\tilde{g}}^{\mu\nu}}},

620: \end{equation}

621: %

622: with the usual

623: %

624: \begin{eqnarray}\label{stress_tensor_CT}

625: {\tilde{T}}_{\mu\nu}\left[\Phi\right]&=&{\frac{1}{2}}\left[

626: \partial_{\mu}\Phi\partial_{\nu}\Phi

627: -{\frac{1}{2}}{\tilde{g}}_{\mu\nu}

628: ({\tilde{\partial\Phi}})^{2}\right]\, , \\

629: %

630: {\tilde{T}}_{\mu\nu}\left[C^{p+1}\right] &=& {\frac{1}{2(p+1)!}}

631: e^{(3-p)\Phi/2} \left[ {\tilde{G}}_{\mu}^{\

632: \lambda_{2}\ldots\lambda_{p+2}

633: }G_{\nu\lambda_{2}\ldots\lambda_{p+2}} - {\frac{1}{2(p+2)}}

634: {\tilde{g}}_{\mu\nu}{\tilde{G}}^{2} \right].

635: \end{eqnarray}

636: %

637: We can transform to string-frame ``Einstein'' equation using

638: standard formul\ae\

639: %

640: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Einstein_string}

641: && {\tilde{{\cal R}}}_{\mu\nu} -

642: {\frac{1}{2}}{\tilde{g}}_{\mu\nu}{\tilde{{\cal R}}}

643: -{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\partial_{\mu}\Phi\partial_{\nu}\Phi

644: -{\frac{1}{2}}{\tilde{g}}_{\mu\nu}({\tilde{\partial\Phi}})^{2}

645: \right] \\

646: %

647: = &&{\cal R}_{\mu\nu} - {\frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu\nu}{\cal R} +

648: 2\left[\nabla_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\Phi - g_{\mu\nu}\nabla^{2}\Phi +

649: g_{\mu\nu}(\partial\Phi)^{2}\right]. \nonumber

650: \end{eqnarray}

651: %

652: For all matter fields except the dilaton, it is therefore obvious

653: that string frame ``stress-tensors'' take the form

654: %

655: \begin{equation}\label{peasy_string_stress}

656: T_{\mu\nu} = {\frac{-1}{\sqrt{-g}}} {\frac{\delta S_{\rm

657: matter}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}}.

658: \end{equation}

659: %

660: For the dilaton we find

661: %

662: \begin{equation}\label{stress_string_dilaton}

663: T^{\mu}_{\ \nu}\left[\Phi \right] =

664: 2\left[-\nabla^{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\Phi + g^{\mu}_{\ \nu}

665: \nabla^{2}\Phi-g^{\mu}_{\ \nu}(\partial\Phi)^{2} \right] \, ,

666: %

667: \end{equation}

668: %

669: and, obviously, familiar energy conditions for bulk fields are only

670: satisfied in Einstein frame, not string frame.

671: 

672: For the bulk field equations, we must include coupling to the brane

673: tachyon --- this is of course an important point of our paper. Hence,

674: we now turn to the brane action. The brane theory is that appropriate

675: to unstable D($p+1$)-branes, for SD$p$-branes. We consider $N$ branes.

676: At low energy, the overall $U(1)$ center-of-mass tachyon $T$ couples

677: as follows:

678: %

679: \begin{equation}\label{brane_worldvolume_action}

680: S_{{\rm{brane}}} = {\frac{\Lambda}{16\pi G_{10}}} \left\{

681:  \int dt d^{p+1}y \left[ - \ e^{-\Phi} \sqrt{-A}V(T)\right]

682: +  \int f(T)dT\wedge C^{p+1} \right\} \, ,

683: \end{equation}

684: %

685: where the matrix $A_{\alpha\beta}$ is defined as

686: %

687: \begin{equation}\label{A_definition}

688: A_{\alpha\beta} = {\cal{P}}\left(G_{\alpha\beta}+B_{\alpha\beta}

689: \right) +F_{\alpha\beta} +

690: \partial_{\alpha}T\partial_{\beta}T \, ,

691: \end{equation}

692: where ${\cal{P}}$ stands for pullback.  For the constants, our

693: conventions are that  $T$ is normalized like $F_{\alpha\beta}$,

694: and also

695: \begin{equation}\label{constant_convention}

696: \Lambda\equiv {\frac{N\mu_{p+1}}{g_{s}}} (16\pi G_{10}) =

697: (Ng_{s})(2\pi\ell_s)^{6-p}.

698: \end{equation}

699: Notice that $\Lambda$ is proportional to $g_{s}N$.  This will be

700: the {\em sole} continuous\footnote{$\Lambda$ is effectively

701: continuous in the supergravity approximation since $g_{s}N$ is

702: large and all derivatives small in string ($\ell_s$) units.}

703: control parameter associated with the physics of our final

704: solutions for the coupled tachyon-supergravity system.

705: 

706: It is important to know when we can expect to trust the action we

707: use. Our approach consists in assuming that the kinetic terms of the

708: open string tachyon field are re-summed to take a Born-Infeld--like

709: form. Strictly speaking, this has only be shown to be a valid claim

710: late in the tachyon evolution. We refer the reader to ref.~\cite{sen1}

711: for more details on the limits in which

712: this approximation holds (see also ref.~\cite{kutasov2}).

713: %

714: The functions $V(T)$ and $f(T)$ are therefore not known exactly at

715: all times. For definiteness in our numerical analysis, we will

716: choose a specific form and assume that the dynamics of the tachyon

717: is governed by eq.~(\ref{brane_worldvolume_action}). For a

718: SD-brane, we make the choice $V(T) = 1/\cosh(T/\sqrt{2})=|f(T)|$

719: which has been shown to be the correct large-$T$ behavior of the

720: couplings.  Our results turn out to be quite robust, in that their

721: qualitative features do not depend on the precise form of $V(T)$

722: and $f(T)$.

723: 

724: For the remainder of our discussion it will be convenient to use

725: static gauge, which is an appropriate gauge choice for our problem

726: of interest.  Therefore, in the following, we will be rather

727: cavalier about dropping pullback signs.

728: 

729: When we get to solving the coupled brane-bulk equations, it will

730: be convenient to allow for a density of branes, denoted

731: $\rho_{\perp}$, in the transverse space:

732: %

733: \begin{equation}\label{branedensity}

734: \int_{{\rm{brane}}} dt d^{p+1}y \longrightarrow \int_{{\rm{bulk}}}

735: dt d^{p+1}x d^{8-p}x \rho_{\perp} \, .

736: \end{equation}

737: %

738: Therefore our brane action becomes

739: %

740: \begin{equation}\label{brane_action}

741: S_{{\rm{brane}}} = {\frac{\Lambda}{16\pi G_{10}}} \int d^{10}x

742: \rho_{\perp} \left\{ - V(T)\sqrt{-A}e^{-\Phi} + f(T)

743: \epsilon^{\lambda_{1}\ldots\lambda_{p+2}}

744: C_{[\lambda_{2}\ldots\lambda{p+2}} \partial_{\lambda_{1}]}T

745: \right\},

746: \end{equation}

747: %

748: where $\epsilon$ is the worldvolume permutation tensor with values

749: $(0,\pm 1)$.

750: 

751: We are now ready to write down the coupled field equations.  The

752: simplest bulk equation to pick off is the dilaton.  In string frame we

753: see immediately that

754: %

755: \begin{equation}\label{bulk_dilaton}

756: \nabla^{2}\Phi - (\partial\Phi)^{2} + {\frac{1}{4}} {\cal R} =

757: {\frac{1}{8}} \left({\frac{\Lambda\rho_{\perp}}{\sqrt{-g}}}\right)

758: e^{+\Phi}V(T)\sqrt{-A},

759: \end{equation}

760: %

761: and for the Ramond-Ramond field

762: %

763: \begin{equation}\label{bulk_Ramond-Ramond}

764: \nabla_{\mu}G^{\mu\lambda_{2}\ldots\lambda_{p+2}} =

765: -\left({\frac{\Lambda\rho_{\perp}}{\sqrt{-g}}}\right) f(T)

766: \epsilon^{\mu\lambda_{2}\ldots\lambda_{p+2}}\partial_{\mu}T.

767: \end{equation}

768: For the metric equation of motion (string frame ``Einstein''

769: equations), it is convenient to define

770: %

771: \begin{equation}\label{new_einstein}

772: {\cal R}^{\mu}_{\ \nu} = {\hat{T}}^{\mu}_{\ \nu} \equiv T^{\mu}_{\

773: \nu} - {\frac{1}{8}} T^\lambda_\lambda .

774: \end{equation}

775: %

776: Therefore, we have

777: %

778: \begin{equation}\label{hat_dilaton_stress}

779: {\hat{T}}^{\mu}_{\ \nu} [\Phi]= -2\nabla^{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \Phi

780: -{\frac{1}{4}} g^{\mu}_{\ \nu} \nabla^2\Phi + {\frac{1}{2}}

781: (\partial\Phi)^2 g^{\mu}_{\ \nu} .

782: \end{equation}

783: %

784: For the brane stress-tensor, we need to figure out the dependence

785: of $\sqrt{-A}$ on $g_{\mu\nu} $ (the Wess-Zumino term clearly does

786: not contribute). We find

787: %

788: \begin{equation}\label{brane_stress_one}

789: T^{\mu}_{\ \nu}[T] = - {\frac{1}{2}}

790: e^{\Phi}\left({\frac{\Lambda\rho_{\perp}}{\sqrt{-g}}}\right) V(T)

791: \sqrt{-A}(A^{-1})^{\alpha\mu}g_{\alpha\nu} \, ,

792: \end{equation}

793: %

794: \begin{equation}\label{hat_tachyon_stress}

795: {\hat{T}}^{\mu}_{\ \nu} [T] = - {\frac{1}{2}} e^{\Phi}

796: \left({\frac{\Lambda\rho_{\perp}}{\sqrt{-g}}} \right) V(T)

797: \sqrt{-A} \left[(A^{-1})^{\alpha\mu}g_{\alpha\nu} -

798: {\frac{1}{8}}g^{\mu}_{\nu}(A^{-1})^{\lambda\sigma}g_{\lambda\sigma}

799: \right] \, .

800: \end{equation}

801: %

802: The other object we need for the metric equation of motion is

803: %

804: \begin{equation}\label{hat_Ramond_stress}

805: {\hat{T}}^{\mu}_{\ \nu}[C] = {\frac{1}{2(p+1)!}} e^{2\Phi}

806: G^{\mu\lambda\ldots\sigma} G_{\nu\lambda\ldots\sigma}

807: -{\frac{(p+1)}{16}} e^{2\Phi} {\frac{G^{2}}{(p+2)!}} g^{\mu}_{\

808: \nu} \, .

809: \end{equation}

810: %

811: Lastly, for the tachyon we find the equation of motion

812: %

813: \begin{equation}\label{Tachyon_bulk}

814: {\frac{dV}{dT}}e^{-\Phi}\sqrt{-A} - \partial_{\mu}

815: \left[V(T)e^{-\Phi} \sqrt{-A}(A^{-1})^{\mu\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}T

816:  \right]

817: + f(T)\epsilon^{\mu\ldots\lambda}G_{\mu\ldots\lambda} =0 \, .

818: \end{equation}

819: %

820: In the Discussion section we will make some remarks about the

821: robustness of these equations.

822: 

823: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

824: \subsection{The homogeneous  brane self-consistent

825: ansatz}\label{subsection:specific_ansatz}

826: 

827: As pointed out earlier, we are interested in time-dependent

828: processes by which massless Type IIa or Type IIb supergravity

829: fields are sourced by an open-string tachyon mode on the

830: worldvolume of an unstable brane. A reasonable assumption is that

831: the gravitational background generated by backreaction of the

832: rolling tachyon is of the form

833: %

834: \begin{equation}\label{genmet}

835: ds^{2} = -dt^{2} + a(t)^{2} d\Sigma^{2}_{p+1}(k_\parallel) +

836: R(t)^{2} d\Sigma^{2}_{8-p}(k_\perp) \, ,

837: \end{equation}

838: %

839: where the $n$-dimensional Euclidean metric $d\Sigma^2_{n}(k)$ is

840: %

841: \begin{equation} \label{little}

842: d\Sigma^2_{n}(k) =\left\{

843: \begin{array}{ll}

844: %\vphantom{\sum_{i=1}^{n}}

845: d\Omega^2_{n}& {\rm for}\; k = +1\\

846: dE_n^2& {\rm for}\; k = 0 \\

847: %\vphantom{\sum_{i=1}^{n}}

848: d H^2_{n} &{\rm for}\; k = -1\ ,

849: \end{array} \right.

850: \end{equation}

851: %

852: where $d\Omega^2_{n}$ is the unit metric on $S^{n}$, $dE_n^2$ the flat

853: Euclidean metric, and $dH^2_{n}$ the `unit metric' on $n$--dimensional

854: hyperbolic space $H^{n}$.  The corresponding symmetry groups are

855: \begin{equation}\label{symgps}

856: \left\{

857: \begin{array}{ll}

858: %\vphantom{\sum_{i=1}^{n}}

859: SO(n+1) & {\rm for}\; k = +1\\

860: ISO(n) & {\rm for}\; k = 0 \\

861: %\vphantom{\sum_{i=1}^{n}}

862: SO(1,n) &{\rm for}\; k = -1\ .

863: \end{array} \right.

864: \end{equation}

865: For $k{=}\pm 1$ we obviously require that $n\ge 2$.

866: 

867: We note that the ansatz (\ref{genmet}), for $k_{\perp}=-1$ and

868: $k_{\parallel}=0$, appears, after using an appropriate change of

869: coordinates, to be equivalent to that considered for supergravity

870: SD-branes in ref.~\cite{KMP}. One can show that this is actually

871: {\em not} the case. In order to bring solutions of the form

872: (\ref{genmet}) with $-\infty < t < +\infty$ to the form introduced

873: in ref.~\cite{KMP} we must find a change of coordinates such that

874: \beq dt^{2} = d\tau^{2} \,

875: F(\tau)^{1/2}(\beta(\tau)\alpha(\tau))^{\frac{2}{7-p}}\left(

876: \frac{\beta(\tau)}{\alpha(\tau)}

877: \right)^{(k_{1}+\tilde{k})(p-1)/(7-p)}, \eeq where $-\infty < \tau

878: < +\infty$. It turns out that for all values of the parameters

879: associated with the isotropic supergravity solutions, such a

880: change of coordinates does not exist. However, the main feature of

881: our analysis is that we are allowing for modifications of SD-brane

882: physics in the region close to the spacelike worldvolume (the

883: region around $t=0$ for the system of coordinates we use). It

884: should therefore have been expected that our new solutions are not

885: included in those presented in ref.~\cite{KMP}.  However, we do

886: expect the asymptotics to agree.

887: 

888: To be physically relevant, solutions should be asymptotically

889: flat. For example, SD-brane gravity solutions will be such that

890: %

891: \begin{equation}

892: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} \dot{a}(t) = 0\, , \quad

893: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} \dot{R}(t) = 1\, ,

894: \end{equation}

895: %

896: for $k_{\parallel}=0$ and $k_{\perp}=-1$. We will also see in our

897: numerical analysis that only some values of $k_{\perp}$ and

898: $k_{\parallel}$ are allowed. Also, we expect that for the dilaton

899: and R-R field

900: %

901: \begin{equation}

902: \lim_{t\rightarrow\pm\infty} {\dot{C}}(t) =0\,, \quad

903: \lim_{t\rightarrow\pm\infty} {\dot{\Phi}}(t) =0.

904: \end{equation}

905: %

906: By inspection of the tachyon equation of motion (\ref{Tachyon_bulk}),

907: we see that the electric- (or magnetic-) only ansatz referred to at

908: the beginning of this section will be obviously consistent if we only

909: allow worldvolume time-derivatives.  This is tantamount to imposing an

910: $ISO(p+1)$ symmetry on the worldvolume. Ref.~\cite{larsen} argues that

911: spatial inhomogeneities of the tachyon field will play an important

912: role in the decay (a view which is also supported, although using a

913: different line of reasoning, by the results of

914: ref.~\cite{hashimoto,cosmotachyonK}).  It will be interesting to

915: investigate the full importance of such effects in the context of our

916: effective supergravity analysis.  We will include a discussion of the

917: nontrivial issues raised in the Discussion section.

918: 

919: It turns out that the equations for the combined bulk-brane

920: evolution in the time-dependent system are complicated enough to

921: require numerical solution.  For this reason, we will not be able

922: to accommodate the most natural ansatz\footnote{Strictly speaking,

923: instead of being a delta-function distribution, the more general

924: ansatz for the source should be extended ({\it e.g.} a Gaussian)

925: with its size of the order of the string length.}

926: $\rho_{\perp}=\delta({\vec{x}})$. Instead, we will use the

927: ``smeared'' ansatz also used by Buchel et al. in

928: ref.~\cite{buchel},

929: %

930: \begin{equation}\label{Buchel_smear}

931: \rho_{\perp} =\rho_{0}\sqrt{g_{\perp}} \, .

932: \end{equation}

933: %

934: Note that in this ansatz, the implicit time dependence in the

935: transverse metric components is not varied in producing the

936: equation of motion, rather it is only taken into consideration at

937: the end of the calculation.  Also, a smeared brane source does not

938: contribute stress-energy perpendicular to the worldvolume, which

939: is in the directions $t\,,{\vec{y}}$. It should be noted that the

940: effect of using this ansatz will be minimized by using a small

941: value for the density parameter $\rho_{0}$. Of course, the aim

942: when using such an ansatz is to get rid of any brane action

943: dependence on the transverse coordinates ${\vec{x}}$.

944: 

945: We should remark that supergravity solutions corresponding to

946: unstable D-brane systems have been found before \cite{ozetal}.

947: Their solutions are time-independent, a feature which might seem

948: rather unreasonable since they are, after all, supposed to

949: describe unstable objects. Typically, these solutions are nakedly

950: singular; there is no horizon.  For reasons discussed previously,

951: these solutions would therefore justifiably be regarded with some

952: level of suspicion. Possibly, we should really regard these

953: solutions as fixed-time snap-shots of the unstable brane system

954: during its evolution.  They do however reflect one desirable

955: feature: taking into account warping of space in the directions

956: transverse to the unstable branes.

957: 

958: What we really want is a sort of hybrid of that approach -- where

959: transverse dependence is the only dependence -- and what we are doing

960: here -- where time dependence is all there is.  This is something we

961: postpone to a future investigation; remarks on this will be given in

962: the Discussion section.

963: 

964: Let us now get back to the simplified ansatz, and just go ahead

965: and solve it.  We are therefore interested in the precise system

966: of {\em ordinary} differential equations for our coupled

967: tachyon-supergravity system. Using the form $C_{12\ldots

968: p+1}\equiv C(t)$ (which is consistent with our ansatz) the

969: equation of motion for the R-R field (\ref{bulk_Ramond-Ramond})

970: becomes

971: %

972: \begin{equation}\label{RR_ansatz}

973: {\ddot{C}}+ {\dot{C}}\left[(8-p){\frac{{\dot{R}}}{R}}

974: -(p+1){\frac{{\dot{a}}}{a}}\right] = \lambda a^{p+1}f(T)

975: {\dot{T}}.

976: \end{equation}

977: %

978: 

979: Now let us find the dilaton equation of motion. A useful identity

980: is

981: %

982: \begin{equation}\label{R_identity}

983: {\cal R} = 5(\partial\Phi)^2 - {\frac{9}{2}}\nabla^2\Phi +

984: {\frac{(3-p)}{8(p+2)!}} e^{2\Phi}G^2 + {\frac{1}{8}}\left(

985: {\frac{\Lambda\rho_\perp}{\sqrt{-g}}} \right)

986: e^{\Phi}V(T)\sqrt{-A}(A^{-1})^{\lambda\sigma}g_{\lambda\sigma} \,

987: ,

988: \end{equation}

989: %

990: with which the dilaton equation of motion can be written,

991: %

992: \begin{equation}

993: 2(\partial\Phi)^2 - \nabla^2\Phi = {\frac{(p-3)}{4(p+2)!}}

994: e^{2\Phi}G^2 + \left( {\frac{\Lambda\rho_\perp}{\sqrt{-g}}}

995: \right) e^{\Phi}V(T)\sqrt{-A} \left[ 1-{\frac{1}{4}}

996: (A^{-1})^{\lambda\sigma}g_{\lambda\sigma} \right] \, .

997: \end{equation}

998: %

999: This last expression is simply the Einstein frame equation of

1000: motion. So the dilaton in our ansatz satisfies

1001: %

1002: \begin{eqnarray}\label{final_dilaton}

1003: && {\ddot{\Phi}} +{\dot{\Phi}}

1004: \left[(8-p){\frac{{\dot{R}}}{R}}+(p+1){\frac{{\dot{a}}}{a}}

1005: \right] -2{\dot{\Phi}}^{2} \nonumber\\ && = {\frac{(3-p)}{4}}

1006: \left({\frac{e^\Phi {\dot{C}}}{a^{(p+1)}}}\right)^2

1007: +{\frac{\lambda}{4}} e^{\Phi} V(T) \left[(3-p)\sqrt{\Delta} -

1008: {\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}} \right] \, .

1009: \end{eqnarray}

1010: %

1011: This will be used %in the Einstein equations

1012: %

1013: whenever double time-derivatives of the dilaton need to be

1014: substituted for.

1015: 

1016: With $T=T(t)$ we find that the dynamics of the tachyon field is

1017: governed by

1018: %

1019: \begin{equation}\label{Tachyon_motion}

1020: {\ddot{T}} =  \Delta \left\{ {\dot{\Phi}}{\dot{T}} -

1021: {\dot{T}}\left[ (p+1){\frac{\dot{a}}{a}} \right] -

1022: {\frac{1}{V(T)}}{\frac{dV(T)}{dT}} + {\frac{f(T)}{V(T)}} {\dot{C}}

1023: e^{\Phi} a^{-(p+1)}\sqrt{\Delta} \right\} \, ,

1024: \end{equation}

1025: %

1026: where $\Delta = 1 - \dot{T}^{2}$. In this paper we will be

1027: assuming that $|f(T)|=V(T)$, a statement which has been shown to

1028: be correct only at past and future asymptopia.  However, we have

1029: also done numerical experiments which show that some breaking of

1030: this relation at intermediate times (near the hilltop) does not

1031: change the important features of our solutions.

1032: 

1033: We now turn to the equations of motion for the metric components

1034: $a(t)$ and $R(t)$. For the stress-tensors, eliminating second

1035: order derivatives in matter fields, we have

1036: %

1037: \begin{eqnarray}\label{stressed_out}

1038: % time dirn

1039: {\hat{T}}^{t}_{\ t} &\! = &\!

1040:  4({\dot{\Phi}})^{2} -2{\dot{\Phi}} \left[

1041: (p+1){\frac{{\dot{a}}}{a}} + (8-p){\frac{{\dot{R}}}{R}} \right]

1042: + {\frac{(5-2p)}{4}}

1043:   \left({\frac{e^{\Phi}{\dot{C}}}{a^{p+1}}}\right)^{2}

1044: \cr && \qquad\qquad

1045: + {\frac{1}{4}}\lambda e^{\Phi} V(T)

1046:   \left[(7-2p)\sqrt{\Delta}-{\frac{4}{\sqrt{\Delta}}} \right] \, ,

1047: \cr

1048: % parallel dirn

1049: {\hat{T}}^{y}_{\ y} &\! = &\!

1050:  2{\dot{\Phi}} {\frac{{\dot{a}}}{a}}

1051: - {\frac{1}{4}}

1052:   \left({\frac{e^{\Phi}{\dot{C}}}{a^{p+1}}}\right)^{2}

1053: - {\frac{1}{4}}\lambda e^{\Phi} V(T) \sqrt{\Delta}  \, , \cr

1054: % transverse dirn

1055: {\hat{T}}^{x}_{\ x} &\! = &\!  2{\dot{\Phi}} {\frac{{\dot{R}}}{R}}

1056: + {\frac{1}{4}}

1057:   \left({\frac{e^{\Phi}{\dot{C}}}{a^{p+1}}}\right)^{2}

1058: + {\frac{1}{4}}\lambda e^{\Phi} V(T) \sqrt{\Delta} \, .

1059: \end{eqnarray}

1060: %

1061: The components of the Ricci tensor are easily

1062: evaluated:

1063: %

1064: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Ricci_components}

1065: {\cal R}^{t}_{\ t}&=& (p+1){\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}

1066: +(8-p){\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}} \, , \\

1067: %

1068: {\cal R}^{y}_{\ y} &=& {\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}} +

1069: (8-p){\frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\frac{\dot{R}}{R}} + p\left[

1070: \left({\frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2

1071: + {\frac{k_\parallel}{a^2}} \right] \, , \\

1072: %

1073: {\cal R}^{x}_{\ x}&=&{\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}}  +

1074: (p+1){\frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\frac{\dot{R}}{R}}  +

1075: (7-p)\left[\left({\frac{\dot{R}}{R}}\right)^{2}

1076: +{\frac{k_{\perp}}{R^{2}}}\right] \, .

1077: \end{eqnarray}

1078: %

1079: For the (string-frame) ``Einstein'' equations, the time,

1080: longitudinal and transverse components are respectively

1081: %

1082: \begin{eqnarray} \label{magic} (p+1){\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}

1083: +(8-p){\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}} &= & + 4({\dot{\Phi}})^{2}

1084: -2{\dot{\Phi}} \left[

1085:   (p+1){\frac{{\dot{a}}}{a}} + (8-p){\frac{{\dot{R}}}{R}} \right]

1086: \cr &&

1087: + {\frac{(5-2p)}{4}}

1088:   \left({\frac{e^{\Phi}{\dot{C}}}{a^{p+1}}}\right)^{2}

1089:   + {\frac{1}{4}}\lambda e^{\Phi} V(T)

1090:     \left[(7-2p)\sqrt{\Delta}-{\frac{4}{\sqrt{\Delta}}} \right] \,

1091:     , \end{eqnarray}

1092: %

1093: \beq \label{aeq} {\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}} =  -

1094: (8-p){\frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\frac{\dot{R}}{R}} -

1095: p\left[\left({\frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2

1096:        + {\frac{k_\parallel}{a^2}} \right]

1097: + 2{\dot{\Phi}} {\frac{{\dot{a}}}{a}} - {\frac{1}{4}}

1098:   \left({\frac{e^{\Phi}{\dot{C}}}{a^{p+1}}}\right)^{2}

1099: - {\frac{1}{4}}\lambda e^{\Phi} V(T) \sqrt{\Delta} \, , \eeq

1100: %

1101: \beq \label{req} {\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}} = -

1102: (p+1){\frac{\dot{R}}{R}}{\frac{\dot{a}}{a}} -

1103: (7-p)\left[\left({\frac{\dot{R}}{R}}\right)^{2}

1104:              +{\frac{k_{\perp}}{R^{2}}}\right]

1105: + 2{\dot{\Phi}} {\frac{{\dot{R}}}{R}} + {\frac{1}{4}}

1106:   \left({\frac{e^{\Phi}{\dot{C}}}{a^{p+1}}}\right)^{2}

1107: + {\frac{1}{4}}\lambda e^{\Phi} V(T) \sqrt{\Delta} \, . \eeq

1108: %

1109: %

1110: In the end we have a system of five second order coupled ordinary

1111: differential equations for $\{T,C,\Phi,a,R\}$ as functions of $t$.

1112: These are respectively equations (\ref{Tachyon_motion}),

1113: (\ref{RR_ansatz}), (\ref{final_dilaton}), (\ref{aeq}) and

1114: (\ref{req}). For consistency this system of equations must be

1115: supplemented with the first-order constraint

1116: %

1117: \beq\begin{array}{l} \label{fconstraint}

1118: {\displaystyle{

1119: \frac{1}{\lambda e^{\Phi}}\left\{

1120: 2(p+1)(8-p)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{R}}{R} + p(p+1) \left[

1121: \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}+\frac{k_{\parallel}}{a^{2}}\right]

1122: +(7-p)(8-p)\left[

1123: \left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^{2}+\frac{k_{\perp}}{R^{2}}\right]

1124: \right. }}

1125:  \nonumber \\ \qquad\qquad {\displaystyle{ \left. -4\dot{\phi}\left[

1126: (p+1)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+(8-p)\frac{\dot{R}}{R}-\dot{\phi}\right]-\frac{1}{2}

1127: \left(\frac{e^{\Phi}\dot{C}}{a^{p+1}}\right)^{2}\right\} }}

1128: ={\displaystyle{

1129: \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{\Delta}} }}

1130: \end{array}\eeq

1131: %

1132: obtained by plugging eqs.~(\ref{aeq}) and (\ref{req}) in

1133: eq.~(\ref{magic}). Of course, if this last equation is satisfied at

1134: $t=0$ it will be for all times.

1135: 

1136: %====================================================================+

1137: \section{The roll of the tachyon}

1138: \label{section:numeric}

1139: 

1140: We refer to a supergravity SD-brane as the field configuration

1141: generated by a system composed of a large number, $N$, of

1142: microscopic SD-branes. As emphasized in section

1143: \ref{subsection:specific_ansatz}, there is a single continuous

1144: parameter that controls the dynamics of these fields, {\it i.e.},

1145: $\lambda = \rho_{0} \Lambda$. This is the parameter that

1146: determines the relative importance of the unstable brane source.

1147: Clearly, for $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ the open string tachyon

1148: decouples from the bulk fields (no backreaction) and the

1149: corresponding supergravity solutions will presumably be the

1150: singular ones found in refs.~\cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP}.

1151: 

1152: In this section we present solutions with the symmetries of

1153: SD-branes and a non-vanishing $\lambda$. We demonstrate that they

1154: are generically non-singular.

1155: 

1156: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1157: \subsection{Tachyon evolution in flat space}

1158: 

1159: The solutions relevant for SD-brane physics in Type II a,b

1160: superstring theory could be the ones corresponding to an open

1161: string tachyon evolving from \beq \label{bc5} \lim_{t\rightarrow

1162: -\infty} T(t) = +\infty \eeq to \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}

1163: T(t) = -\infty \eeq in a symmetric runaway potential of the form

1164: shown on figure \ref{potential}. Solutions of this type correspond

1165: to the tachyon evolving between two different minima of the

1166: potential. Possible initial conditions (at $t=0$) for these

1167: solutions are of the form \beq \label{bc7} \dot{T}(0) = {\rm

1168: const.} \, , \;\;\;\;\;\; T(0)=0 \, . \eeq Another set of

1169: solutions corresponds to a tachyon evolution with \beq \label{frg}

1170: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} T(t) = \alpha \, \infty \, , \eeq

1171: where $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=-1$ lead to equivalent solutions.

1172: Appropriate boundary conditions for the tachyon (at $t=0$) are

1173: then of the form \beq \label{bc8} \dot{T}(0) = 0 \, , \;\;\;\;\;\;

1174: T(0)= {\rm const.} \eeq In this section we characterize the

1175: supergravity solutions generated by a tachyonic source with the

1176: properties mentioned above. The results we present are for

1177: solutions with boundary conditions (\ref{bc8}) and asymptotic

1178: behavior (\ref{frg}). We have found that the solutions associated

1179: with the boundary conditions (\ref{bc7}) and asymptotic behavior

1180: (\ref{bc5}) have similar qualitative features. Strictly speaking,

1181: our approach to studying real-time evolution in supergravity can

1182: also be extended to more general cases, {\it i.e.}, brane decay or

1183: creation (half SD-branes). \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=potential.eps,

1184: width = 10cm}\caption{Possible form of the open string tachyon

1185: potential $V(T)$ on a SD-brane in Type II a,b superstring theory.}

1186: \label{potential}}

1187: 

1188: In our analysis we use the potential \beq \label{pot12}

1189: V(T)=\frac{1}{\cosh \left(T/\sqrt{2}\right)}\eeq because it agrees

1190: with open string field theory calculations for large values of the

1191: tachyon for unstable D-brane systems in Type II a,b superstring

1192: theory.\footnote{In bosonic string theory the potential is

1193: asymmetric and unbounded from below as $T\rightarrow -\infty$.} It

1194: is not known what the exact potential is for intermediate times

1195: but our solutions are only mildly affected by its particular form.

1196: The expression for the tachyon when $\lambda=0$, {\it i.e.}, when

1197: there are no couplings to the bulk supergravity modes,

1198: is\footnote{We refer the reader to Appendix \ref{flatach} for a

1199: derivation of this expression.}

1200: %

1201: \beq \label{flatfield} T(t) = -\sqrt{2}\;{\rm arcsinh} \left(

1202: -\dot{T}(0) \sinh \frac{t}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \eeq

1203: %

1204: for the boundary conditions (\ref{bc7}). When the boundary

1205: conditions are of the form (\ref{bc8}), the analytic expression

1206: for the tachyon is \beq \label{flatfield2} T(t) = -\sqrt{2}\;{\rm

1207: arcsinh} \left( \sinh \left( -\frac{T(0)}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \cosh

1208: \frac{t}{\sqrt{2}} \right). \eeq Figure \ref{T} shows a tachyon

1209: profile for $T(0)=0.83$ and $\dot{T}(0)=0$. Homogeneous solutions

1210: such as eqs.~(\ref{flatfield}) and (\ref{flatfield2}), derived

1211: from a tachyonic action, correspond to a fluid that has a constant

1212: energy density and vanishing pressure asymptotically (tachyon

1213: matter). We will shortly see how these features are affected by

1214: the inclusion of couplings to bulk modes.

1215: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=tach1.eps, width = 10cm}\caption{The tachyon

1216: field evolution for $\dot{T}(0)=0$ and $T(0)=0.83$.} \label{T}}

1217: 

1218: \subsection{R-symmetry group}

1219: Before presenting the numerical results we comment on the issue of

1220: R-symmetry. As pointed out in ref.~\cite{gutperle}, SD-brane

1221: solutions should be invariant under the transverse Lorentz

1222: transformations leaving the location of the brane fixed. This

1223: corresponds to an $SO(1,8-p)$ R-symmetry.\footnote{The

1224: interpretation in terms of R-symmetry is relevant for the idea

1225: that SD-brane gravity fields are holographically dual to a

1226: worldvolume Euclidean field theory.} This property is embodied in

1227: the supergravity solutions found in

1228: refs.~\cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP} where the transverse space

1229: metric has a factor of the form: $R(t)^{2} dH_{8-p}^{2}$. The

1230: embedding group of the hyperbolic space $H^{8-p}$ is

1231: $SO(1,8-p)$.\footnote{The intuition for the nature of the

1232: R-symmetry group is inherited from the AdS/CFT correspondence. For

1233: example, the metric of a 3-brane is of the form: $ds^{2}=

1234: f(r)\left[ -dt^{2} + d{\vec y}^{2} \right] + 1/f(r)\left[ dr^{2} +

1235: r^{2} d\Omega_{5}^{2} \right]$. The R-symmetry group in this case

1236: is $SO(6)$, a statement that can be traced to the fact that the

1237: near horizon limit of the geometry is AdS$_{5}\times S^{5}$, {\it

1238: i.e.}, the gravitational background dual to the worldvolume field

1239: theory on an ensemble of D3-branes.} This explains why we study

1240: supergravity solutions with $k_{\parallel}=0$ and $k_{\perp}=-1$

1241: in more details.

1242: %

1243: However, the cases with $k_{\perp}=0$ are also candidate solutions

1244: for SD-brane (and, more generally, unstable D-brane) supergravity

1245: solutions. We present an analysis of those and other cases in

1246: section \ref{othercases}.

1247: 

1248: It is suggested in ref.~\cite{gutperle} that the spacelike naked

1249: singularities \cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP} associated with the

1250: supergravity SD-branes could be resolved by using a metric ansatz

1251: that allows for a breaking of the R-symmetry in the region around

1252: the core of the object ($t=0$). The intuition from the AdS/CFT

1253: correspondence comes from ref.~\cite{nunez} which describes cases

1254: of spontaneously broken R-symmetry. Our ansatz as it is cannot

1255: accommodate such an R-symmetry breaking. Presumably, this would

1256: correspond to a time-dependent process by which the R-symmetry is

1257: broken down to $SO(8-p)$ in a finite region. The closest our

1258: ansatz can come to realizing this scenario is if we consider the

1259: cases with $k_{\perp}=0$. Then, the transverse symmetry group is

1260: $ISO(8-p)$, the compactification of which is $SO(8-p)$. We find

1261: that solutions with $k_{\perp}=0$ are {\it regular} and

1262: asymptotically flat. Moreover, as we will see in

1263: section~\ref{othercases}, a generic feature of the $k_{\perp}=0$

1264: solutions is that the effective string coupling

1265: $g_{s}\exp(\Phi(t))$ vanishes asymptotically. We will also remark

1266: on the cases with $k_\perp$ and/or $k_\parallel$ equal to +1,

1267: which all develop big-crunch singularities in finite time.

1268: %

1269: 

1270: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1271: \subsection{Numerical SD-brane solutions}

1272: 

1273: Our ansatz for describing supergravity SD$p$-brane solutions is

1274: %

1275: \begin{eqnarray} ds^{2}_{Sp} &= & -dt^{2} + a(t)^{2}d{\vec y}^{2}

1276: + R(t)^{2} dH_{8-p}^{2}, \nonumber \\

1277: C & =& C(t)\,,\quad \Phi = \Phi(t),

1278: \end{eqnarray}

1279: %

1280: where we have taken $k_{\parallel}=0$ and $k_\perp=-1$ in accord

1281: with the original paper ref.~\cite{gutperle}.  Again, these

1282: supergravity bulk modes will be excited by couplings to an

1283: homogeneous open string tachyon as described in section

1284: \ref{section:prelim}. We consider only homogeneous solutions ({\it

1285: i.e.}, depending only on time).  As discussed earlier, it is

1286: possible that inhomogeneities might play an important role in the

1287: creation/decay process \cite{larsen}, but we are postponing this

1288: issue for now.

1289: 

1290: The resulting system of coupled differential equations for which

1291: we will find solutions is of course highly non-linear. Among other

1292: things, this implies that it is not possible to extract scaling

1293: behavior for the fields from their equations of motion. We could

1294: therefore expect that the behavior of these solutions depends in a

1295: physically important way on the initial conditions for the field

1296: components involved: $a(t)$, $R(t)$, $C(t)$, $\Phi(t)$ and the

1297: source $T(t)$.

1298: %

1299: We will see that the qualitative behavior of the supergravity

1300: SD-brane solutions actually does not depend very much on these

1301: initial conditions.

1302: 

1303: The multiplicity of potential solutions could be large: one

1304: solution would be expected for each set of initial conditions.

1305: Now, for SD-branes the number of solutions is greatly restricted

1306: by the constraint equation (\ref{fconstraint}).  It would appear

1307: natural to consider, as candidate solutions for SD-branes, those

1308: which are time-reversal symmetric around $t=0$.\footnote{We thank

1309: Alex Buchel for pointing out that the time-reversal symmetric

1310: solutions are inconsistent.  In fact, the constraint equation

1311: (\ref{fconstraint}) cannot be satisfied (for the case

1312: $k_{\parallel}=0$ and $k_{\perp}=-1$) with the boundary

1313: conditions: $\dot{a}(0)=0$, $\dot{R}(0)=0$, $\dot{\phi}(0)=0$,

1314: $\dot{C}(0)=0$ and $T(0)=0$.}  In fact, precisely time-symmetric

1315: solutions actually do not exist! That is, unless they have

1316: $k_\parallel=0,k_\perp=+1$, in which case they have R-symmetry

1317: which is markedly in conflict with the proposals of earlier

1318: papers, e.g. \cite{gutperle}.  As we said above, these solutions

1319: with wrong R-symmetry also develop a big-crunch singularity in

1320: finite time.

1321: %

1322: 

1323: In a sense, motivated by inflationary cosmology, the absence of

1324: precisely time-symmetric solutions is not particularly bothersome

1325: to us.  What we mean by this is that it is an extremely fine-tuned

1326: situation to have exactly zero kinetic energy in each of the bulk

1327: fields at $t=0$.  Any small quantum fluctuation of a bulk field

1328: takes us away from time-symmetry.  Therefore, all solutions which

1329: we will exhibit here will have some kinetic energy in one or more

1330: of the bulk fields at $t=0$. And the kick in bulk field(s) at

1331: $t=0$, required to solve the initial constraint, can actually be

1332: made very small by, {\it e.g.}, choosing $R(0)$ large. Such

1333: initial conditions are quite generic: even a little bit of kick in

1334: $a(t)$ alone will suffice to give completely nonsingular solutions

1335: for the entire time-evolution.  The precisely time-symmetric

1336: solutions are however inaccessible; see subsection \ref{trssblar}

1337: for a more detailed exposition of this case.

1338: %

1339: 

1340: Another reason why we find a slight bulk asymmetry at $t=0$ reasonable

1341: relates to particle/string production.  We have of course neglected

1342: such production in our analysis.  It is nonetheless clear that, for a

1343: full SD-brane solution, backreaction will combine with particle

1344: production to make bulk fields naturally {\em a}symmetric.  It is only

1345: in the approximation of zero backreaction that time-symmetry is

1346: possible when particle production occurs, but of course that

1347: approximation cannot be self-consistent.

1348: %

1349: 

1350: Let us now move to the solution of our problem of interest.

1351: Unfortunately we have been unsuccessful at finding analytical

1352: expressions for the bulk modes and tachyon field when their mutual

1353: coupling is non-vanishing ($\lambda\neq 0$). We therefore resorted to

1354: solving the corresponding system of differential equations

1355: numerically.\footnote{Recall that this is the primary reason why it is

1356: so difficult to include ${\vec{x}}$-dependence in our ansatz.}

1357: %

1358: In what follows we show the results associated with a SD4-brane,

1359: and present some interesting analysis of the effect of varying the

1360: initial conditions. We provide general comments for other

1361: SD-branes with $p<7$ and explain how the SD$p$-branes with $p=7,8$

1362: are different. We comment on the robustness of the solutions to

1363: changes in initial conditions. Throughout our analysis we pay

1364: special attention to the impact of varying the initial condition

1365: $\Phi(0)$ on the dilaton, because this controls the string

1366: coupling close to the hilltop.

1367: 

1368: For finding the numerical solutions we fix the initial conditions

1369: at $t=0$, and evolve this data forward in time. Then, we evolve

1370: the same data backward in time from $t=0$. The result is the

1371: solution associated with a full SD-brane, {\it i.e.}, the bulk

1372: fields sourced by the open string tachyon as it evolves from

1373: $t=-\infty$ to $t=+\infty$. In this section we present the results

1374: associated with a SD4-brane with boundary conditions

1375: %

1376: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fullbc} T(0)=0.83 \, , \;\;\;

1377: \dot{T}(0)=0 \, , \;\;\; a(0)=1

1378: \, , \;\;\; \dot{a}(0)= 0.091 \, , \;\;\; R(0)=10 \, , \nonumber

1379: \\ \dot{R}(0) = 0.01 \, , \;\;\; \phi(0)=-1 \, , \;\;\;

1380: \dot{\phi}(0) =0.01 \, , \;\;\; C(0) = 0 \, , \;\;\; \dot{C}(0) =

1381: 0.01 \, , \end{eqnarray}

1382: %

1383: and $\lambda = 0.1\, $. Again, these solutions correspond to the

1384: tachyon rolling up the potential from $T=+\infty$ ($t=-\infty$)

1385: and coming to a halt for $T(0)=0.83$ which corresponds to a

1386: turning point. Then, the tachyon evolves toward the bottom of the

1387: potential at $T=+\infty$ for $t=+\infty$.  This type of tachyon

1388: evolution was considered, for example, in

1389: refs.~\cite{maldacena,andylastweek} where they are called full

1390: S-branes. We could of course have chosen different initial

1391: conditions - including some with less time-asymmetry; these are

1392: used just for the sake of illustration.

1393: %

1394: 

1395: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

1396: \subsubsection{Deformation of the tachyon field}

1397: 

1398: Figure~\ref{T} shows the evolution of the tachyon for the

1399: S4-brane. For $\lambda=0$ (no coupling between the closed and the

1400: open string modes), we find \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty}

1401: T(t) = \pm t. \eeq This observation is suggestive that the tachyon

1402: field might play the role of time itself in cosmological models

1403: driven by brane decay (as proposed in ref.~\cite{sen1}). We find

1404: that this asymptotic behavior for the tachyon survives when

1405: couplings to bulk modes are introduced. In fact, for $\lambda\neq

1406: 0$ we find \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} T(t) = \pm (t +

1407: \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle \pm T}). \eeq The constants

1408: $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle \pm T}$ depend non-trivially on the

1409: boundary conditions at $t=0$ and $p$. For example, as $p$ is

1410: increased $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ decreases. Also, for

1411: large values of $\Phi(0)$ the tachyon deformation from the flat

1412: space case becomes larger. As mentioned in Appendix~\ref{flatach},

1413: for $\lambda=0$ the state of the tachyon for large time

1414: ($t\rightarrow \pm \infty$) is that of a perfect fluid with

1415: constant energy density and vanishing pressure. This is the

1416: so-called tachyon matter. We find that for $\lambda\neq 0$, both

1417: the energy density and the pressure (physical quantities measured

1418: in the Einstein frame) vanish. In other words, the tachyon matter

1419: is clearly only an illusion of the $g_{s}\rightarrow 0$ limit.

1420: 

1421: We consider briefly the effect of varying the initial conditions

1422: $\dot{T}(0)$ and $T(0)$. For half SD-branes ({\it i.e.}, the

1423: future of the full SD-branes) we find that the time it takes the

1424: tachyon to reach the bottom of its potential increases for smaller

1425: values of $\dot{T}(0)$ and $T(0)$. Not only that, for very small

1426: initial velocities the tachyon stays perched at the top of the

1427: potential for a certain period of time. In general, we observe

1428: that it takes less time for the tachyon to reach the bottom of its

1429: potential when we increase $\lambda$. Now, we also observe that

1430: the difference between the curves associated with flat space

1431: ($\lambda =0$) and $\lambda\neq 0$ tachyons decreases as

1432: $\dot{T}(0)$ and $T(0)$ increase. Also, for large negative values

1433: of $\Phi(0)$, $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ becomes very small.

1434: This is simply a reflection of the fact that such cases correspond

1435: to a very small initial string coupling (see below for details).

1436: 

1437: There is another interesting feature of the tachyon when coupled

1438: to the massless closed string modes. Firstly, the time it takes

1439: the tachyon to reach the bottom of its potential is not

1440: significantly altered even when considering large values of the

1441: `coupling' $\lambda$. Finally, we find that as the coupling

1442: $\lambda$ is increased, $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle T}$, or the

1443: deformation away from the flat space tachyon, increases

1444: correspondingly.

1445: 

1446: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

1447: \subsubsection{Time-dependent string coupling}\label{subsec:dildil}

1448: 

1449: The string coupling is given by the expression \beq g_{s} =

1450: e^{<\Phi_{0}>} \,, \eeq where $\Phi_{0}$ is the background dilaton

1451: field in the absence of sources, {\it i.e.}, strings and D-branes.

1452: Typically the presence of stringy excitations will modify the

1453: coupling of the theory, \beq g_{s} \rightarrow g_{s}

1454: e^{\Phi(\eta)}, \eeq where $\eta$ is a spacelike variable for

1455: D-branes and is timelike for SD-branes.

1456: 

1457: For supergravity D$p$-brane solutions the dilaton field is (see,

1458: for example, ref.~\cite{peet}), \beq g_{s}(r) = g_{s} e^{\Phi(r)}

1459: = g_{s} \left( 1+ \frac{c_{p}g_{s}N_{p}l_{s}^{7-p}}{r^{7-p}}

1460: \right)^{\frac{1}{4}(3-p)}, \eeq where

1461: $c_{p}=(2\sqrt{\pi})^{5-p}\Gamma[\frac{1}{2}(7-p)]$. The string

1462: coupling is seen to vary according to whether test closed strings

1463: propagate close or far from the horizon ($r=0$) of these

1464: geometries. For all static supergravity solutions (including

1465: NS5-branes), the asymptotic string coupling is such that\beq

1466: \lim_{r\rightarrow +\infty} g_{s}(r) = g_{s}. \eeq The effect of

1467: supergravity D-branes is therefore to modify the coupling locally.

1468: For $p<3$, it is large close to the horizon and decreases to

1469: $g_{s}$ as $r\rightarrow +\infty$. For $p>3$, the string coupling

1470: is small close to the horizon but increases to $g_{s}$ for large

1471: $r$. The case $p=3$ is special because the dilaton field sourced

1472: by the 3-brane is constant throughout the spacetime. Typically,

1473: the size of the region where the dilaton is not constant depends

1474: on the parameter $g_{s}N$. Large values of this parameter are

1475: associated with larger regions where dilaton perturbations

1476: associated with the brane are noticeable.

1477: 

1478: The solutions associated with supergravity SD-branes induce

1479: dilaton perturbations corresponding to a time-dependent string

1480: coupling, \beq g_{s}(t) = g_{s} e^{\Phi(t)}. \eeq We find that the

1481: time dependence of the dilaton sourced by SD-branes is

1482: qualitatively different when compared to the radial dependence of

1483: the dilaton associated with regular D-branes.\footnote{This is an

1484: other example where features of SD-branes are not simply those

1485: inherited by analytic continuation of D-branes. In fact, a double

1486: analytic continuation ($r\rightarrow i r$ and $t\rightarrow i t$)

1487: of the supergravity D$p$-brane solutions lead to objects with an

1488: imaginary R-R charge. This is unphysical.}

1489: 

1490: Figure~\ref{dilaton} shows the time-evolution of the dilaton

1491: function $g_{s}^{-1} e^{\Phi(t)}$ for a SD4-brane with boundary

1492: conditions (\ref{fullbc}). Typically, the function

1493: $g_{s}^{-1}e^\Phi(t)$ decreases from $t=0$ as $t\rightarrow \pm

1494: \infty$. We find that smaller values of $p$ correspond to larger

1495: asymptotic string couplings.

1496: 

1497: The dilaton field generated by SD-branes has at least two

1498: interesting properties. First, all solutions are such that the

1499: dilaton stabilizes to a constant asymptotically, \beq

1500: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} \Phi(t) = \Phi_{\pm\infty}. \eeq

1501: More generally, the relation between $\Phi_{+\infty}$ and

1502: $\Phi_{-\infty}$ depends on the initial conditions. This last

1503: statement applies to all other bulk fields. Secondly, the

1504: asymptotic value of the dilaton is always smaller than its initial

1505: value at $t=0$, \beq \Phi_{\pm\infty} < \Phi(0). \eeq This implies

1506: that the late/early string coupling ($t\rightarrow \pm \infty$) is

1507: always smaller than the coupling when the tachyon is at the top of

1508: its potential ($t=0$), {\it i.e.}, \beq g_{s} e^{\Phi_{\pm\infty}}

1509: < g_{s} e^{\Phi(0)}. \eeq

1510: 

1511: We find that the qualitative features shown on figure

1512: \ref{dilaton} are preserved when the boundary conditions on the

1513: various fields are changed. Nevertheless, we consider the effect

1514: of varying $\Phi(0)$ in some detail. An interesting quantity to

1515: study is the ratio \beq h =

1516: \frac{e^{\Phi_{\pm\infty}}}{e^{\Phi(0)}}, \eeq which gives a

1517: quantitative measure of how much the initial string coupling is

1518: modified asymptotically. The tachyon profile is not altered

1519: significantly when the initial condition on $\Phi(t)$ is varied.

1520: Nevertheless, we observe that that for large values of $\Phi(0)$

1521: (large initial coupling) the tachyon field reaches the bottom of

1522: the potential well faster. A large initial coupling also means

1523: that the bulk fields relax faster to their stable asymptotic

1524: configuration compared to cases where $\Phi(0)$ is

1525: smaller.\footnote{Obviously $\Phi(0)$ can be taken to have

1526: negative values.} The overall effect on the bulk fields is also

1527: enhanced for larger values of $\Phi(0)$. For example, as the

1528: initial coupling is increased the scale factor $a(t)$ stabilizes

1529: to significantly smaller values (see next section). As for the

1530: dilaton field itself, we find that the ratio $h$ is large for

1531: larger values of $\Phi(0)$. For very small values of the initial

1532: string coupling (large negative values of $\Phi(0)$), the ratio

1533: $h$ approaches unity.

1534: 

1535: In summary, we find that the parameter $\Phi(0)$, {\it i.e.}, the

1536: parameter determining the string coupling when the tachyon is

1537: close to the top of its potential, strongly determines the {\it

1538: importance} of the unstable brane source effect on the

1539: supergravity bulk modes.

1540: 

1541: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=new_dil.eps}\caption{Time dependence of the

1542: function $e^{\Phi(t)}/g_{s}$ for a SD4-brane with boundary

1543: conditions (\ref{fullbc}).} \label{dilaton}}

1544: 

1545: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

1546: \subsubsection{Gravitational field}

1547: 

1548: We now describe the effect of the unstable brane source on the

1549: time-dependent metric components $a(t)$ and $R(t)$.

1550: 

1551: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=scalefac.eps, width = 10cm}\caption{The scale

1552: factor on the worldvolume of a supergravity SD4-brane with

1553: boundary conditions (\ref{fullbc}).} \label{a}}

1554: 

1555: Figure \ref{a} shows the scale factor $a(t)$ on the worldvolume of

1556: a SD4-brane with the boundary conditions (\ref{fullbc}). A general

1557: feature is that away from $t=0$ the scale factor monotonically

1558: decreases from its initial value, $a(0)$, to a stable asymptotic

1559: value, \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} a(t) = a_{\pm\infty},

1560: \eeq with $a_{+\infty}>a_{-\infty}$. The time it takes for  this

1561: scale factor to reach its asymptotic value corresponds roughly to

1562: the time it takes for the tachyon to reach the bottom of its

1563: potential. As pointed out above, for large initial values of the

1564: dilaton, $\Phi(0)$, the asymptotic values of the scale factor,

1565: $a_{\pm\infty}$, become smaller. Correspondingly, when the initial

1566: coupling is weak the effect of the probe on the bulk modes is

1567: small and $a(t)$ stabilizes to a value closer to its initial value

1568: $a(0)$.

1569: 

1570: Figure \ref{Rt} shows the behavior of the metric function $R(t)$.

1571: A generic feature of the supergravity SD-brane solutions is that

1572: \beq \lim_{t \rightarrow \pm \infty} R(t) = \pm (t +

1573: \kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle \pm R}). \eeq The constants

1574: $\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle \pm R}$ are generically larger for

1575: larger values of $p$.

1576: 

1577: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=transscale.eps}\caption{The SD4-brane

1578: transverse scale factor $R(t)$ with boundary conditions

1579: (\ref{fullbc}).} \label{Rt}}

1580: 

1581: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

1582: \subsubsection{Ramond-Ramond field}

1583: 

1584: Figure~\ref{Ct} shows the time dependence of the Ramond-Ramond

1585: form field for a supergravity SD4-brane with boundary conditions

1586: (\ref{fullbc}). Again, the energy stored in this field

1587: (proportional to its time-derivative) goes to zero in

1588: approximately the time it takes for the tachyon to reach the

1589: bottom of its potential. A generic feature of the Ramond-Ramond

1590: field associated with a SD-brane is therefore, \beq

1591: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} C(t) = C_{\pm\infty}, \eeq where

1592: $C_{\pm\infty}$ is a constant. Typically we find that these

1593: constants are smaller for larger values of $p$.

1594: 

1595: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=RRnew.eps}\caption{The SD4-brane

1596: Ramond-Ramond field $C(t)$ associated with the boundary conditions

1597: (\ref{fullbc}).} \label{Ct}}

1598: 

1599: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

1600: \subsubsection{Curvature bounds and asymptotic flatness}

1601: 

1602: The supergravity equations of motion are derived from a worldsheet

1603: calculation by requiring that, at a certain order in perturbation

1604: theory, the beta-functions associated with bulk fields vanish.

1605: Typically, there are higher order (in $\alpha'$) curvature

1606: corrections to the beta-functions. These corrections are

1607: negligible only if the curvature involved is small when measured

1608: with respect to the string length, $l_{s} = \sqrt{\alpha'}$. This

1609: is why our solutions can, strictly speaking, be trusted only if

1610: the curvature involved is such that

1611: %

1612: $\left| {\cal R} \right| , \; \left| {\cal R}_{\mu\nu}{\cal

1613: R}^{\mu\nu} \right| , \; \left| {\cal R}_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}{\cal

1614: R}^{\mu\nu\rho\lambda} \right|$ are small.

1615: %

1616: We verify that this condition is satisfied by studying the

1617: behavior of the time-dependent Ricci scalar of the supergravity

1618: SD-branes,

1619: %

1620: \begin{eqnarray}

1621: \label{curvat} {\cal R}(t) = && 2(p+1)\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} +

1622: 2(8-p)\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}

1623: +2(p+1)(8-p)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{R}}{R} \nonumber\\

1624: && +p(p+1)

1625: \left(\frac{\dot{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}+{\frac{k_\parallel}{a^2}}\right)

1626: %

1627: +(8-p)(7-p) \left(

1628: \frac{\dot{R}^{2}}{R^{2}} + \frac{k_{\perp}}{R^{2}} \right),

1629: \end{eqnarray}

1630: %

1631: where $k_{\perp}=-1$ and $k_\parallel=0$ for the cases of interest

1632: here.

1633: 

1634: A property of the solutions, which is apparent from studying the

1635: evolution of bulk modes, is that of asymptotic flatness. In fact,

1636: we find \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty}

1637: ds^{2}_{Sp} = -dt^{2} +

1638: a_{\pm\infty}^{2} d{\vec y}^{2} + (t+\kappa_{\pm R})^{2} dH_{8-p}^{2} \, , \\

1639: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} \Phi(t) = \Phi_{\pm\infty},

1640: \;\;\;\; \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} C(t) = C_{\pm\infty},

1641: \end{eqnarray} where $a_{\pm\infty}$, $\kappa_{\pm R}$, $\Phi_{\pm\infty}$

1642: and $C_{\pm\infty}$ are constants. Both the first- and

1643: second-derivative of the bulk modes vanish asymptotically. The

1644: resulting brane configuration is then clearly flat for

1645: $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$, as it should be.

1646: 

1647: An important question to answer at this stage is: {\it Which

1648: quantity in the problem sets an upper bound on the curvature for

1649: SD-branes ?} First, we have found that whatever the curvature is

1650: at $t=0$, its absolute value will never exceed it significantly in

1651: the course of the evolution. This is true only for half S-branes

1652: with boundary conditions corresponding to positive derivatives of

1653: the bulk fields. More generally for full S-branes the acceptable

1654: solutions are those with a combination of the boundary conditions

1655: such that \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \left| {\cal R}(t) \right| \

1656: {\rm{small}}\ . \eeq These requirements are certainly attainable

1657: within the self-consistent supergravity approximation we are

1658: considering --- along with the specific ansatz we introduced in

1659: order to be able to solve the equations numerically.

1660: 

1661: %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

1662: \subsubsection{The $p=7$ and space-filling SD-branes}

1663: 

1664: The case $p=8$ should be special because there is no transverse

1665: space into which ``energy'' can be dissipated. The only bulk

1666: fields involved are then the metric component, $a(t)$, the

1667: dilaton, $\Phi(t)$, and the Ramond-Ramond field, $C(t)$. We find

1668: that the time-derivative of the scale factor, $\dot{a}(t)$,

1669: decreases to zero, as $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$, many orders of

1670: magnitude slower than for $p<7$. The scale factor $a(t)$ also goes

1671: to zero after an infinite time (see section \ref{einstein} for a

1672: physical interpretation) which is to be contrasted with the cases

1673: $p<7$ where $a_{\pm\infty} \neq 0$. One would expect that to be

1674: the source of a curvature singularity at $t=\pm\infty$ but it is

1675: not the case. The Ricci scalar for the space filling SD-brane is

1676: \beq {\cal R}(t) = -72 \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}

1677: -\frac{9}{2} \left(\frac{e^{\Phi}\dot{C}}{a^{9}}\right)^{2} +36

1678: \dot{\Phi} \frac{\dot{a}}{a} + \frac{9}{2}\lambda

1679: e^{\Phi}\Delta^{1/2} V(T). \eeq Curvature singularities are

1680: avoided because all time-derivatives in the problem go to zero

1681: faster than the scale factor as $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$. In

1682: particular, the quantity $e^{\Phi}\dot{C}$ goes to zero faster

1683: than $a(t)$ for large time. Also the string coupling slowly goes

1684: to zero asymptotically ($\Phi_{\pm\infty}\rightarrow -\infty$)!

1685: For the Ramond-Ramond field we find the same behavior as for the

1686: cases $p<7$. The only difference is that the relaxation time of

1687: the bulk modes is many orders of magnitude larger than in the

1688: other cases.

1689: 

1690: The functions $a(t)$, $\Phi(t)$ and $C(t)$ associated with the

1691: SD7-brane behave in the same way as the space-filling SD-brane. Of

1692: course in this case there is a transverse space and we find that

1693: the relaxation of $\left| R(t)\right|$ to its asymptotic form

1694: $t+\kappa_{\scriptscriptstyle \pm R}$ takes an infinite amount of

1695: time. In other words, it relaxes to its asymptotic form much

1696: slower than for the cases $p<7$.

1697: 

1698: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1699: \subsubsection{Einstein frame} \label{einstein}

1700: 

1701: Let us end this section with a remark about the physics of our

1702: SD-branes in Einstein frame.  This would be the more natural and more

1703: physical frame to use in discussions of potential uses of rolling

1704: tachyons in the context of cosmology.

1705: 

1706: The transformation from string frame to Einstein frame involves a

1707: multiplicative factor of $e^{-\Phi/2}$ for $d=10$, which is the

1708: dimension in which we are working here.  Now, we have already

1709: commented at length on the behavior of the time-dependent dilaton

1710: field in section \ref{subsec:dildil}.  The essential physics there

1711: was that the dilaton is biggest at the top of the potential hill;

1712: in particular, it stabilizes in the infinite past and future at a

1713: {constant} value smaller than the initial condition at the

1714: hilltop. Dilaton derivatives also remain small at all times during

1715: the evolution.  Therefore, most of the qualitative features of our

1716: solutions will be preserved upon transformation to Einstein frame;

1717: in particular, all solutions remain completely nonsingular.

1718: 

1719: A case that deserves further comments is that of the space filling

1720: SD8-brane discussed earlier. In string frame the metric is written

1721: \beq ds^{2}_{S8} = -dt^{2} + a(t)^{2}d{\vec y}^{2}. \eeq Upon

1722: converting to Einstein frame we get the metric \beq ds_{ES8}^{2} =

1723: -d\tau^{2} + a_{E}(\tau)^{2}d{\vec y}^{2}, \eeq where we have used

1724: a change of coordinate such that $d\tau^{2}=e^{-\Phi/2}dt^{2}$,

1725: and where \beq a_{E}(\tau) = e^{-\Phi(t)/4} a(t). \eeq For the

1726: SD8-brane we found

1727: \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} a(t) = 0 \, , \;\;\;\;

1728: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} e^{\Phi(t)} = 0.

1729: \end{eqnarray} In string frame this implies that the metric

1730: ``closes~off'' at infinity but in the (more physical) Einstein

1731: frame the converse happens, {\it i.e.}, the limit $\tau\rightarrow

1732: \pm \infty$ corresponds to a constant scale factor, \beq

1733: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} a_{E}(\tau) = {\rm const.} \eeq

1734: This is a very sensible result. We mentioned before that, because

1735: of the absence of a transverse space, there appeared to be no

1736: channel into which the energy could go. We therefore find that

1737: asymptotically the energy has gone into inflating the worldvolume

1738: of the SD-brane. In fact, the relaxation time for the

1739: gravitational field is essentially infinite.

1740: 

1741: \subsection{Other classes of solutions} \label{othercases} In this section we

1742: present a more general analysis of the family of solutions with

1743: parameters $\{k_{\parallel},k_{\perp}\}$ associated with the metric

1744: ansatz (\ref{genmet}).

1745: 

1746: \subsubsection{Comment about the numerical analysis} For

1747: $\lambda=0$ there is clearly no source for the the bulk fields.

1748: The equation of motion for the tachyon is then (\ref{theeom}). In

1749: Appendix \ref{flatach} we found analytic expressions for the

1750: corresponding solutions. They have the large time property \beq

1751: \label{asympbe} \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{\Delta}} = {\rm const.} \eeq

1752: However, if we solve eq.~(\ref{theeom}) numerically (using the

1753: same techniques as in section~\ref{section:numeric}) we find that

1754: $V(T)/\sqrt{\Delta}$ appears to become constant but, after some

1755: more time has elapsed, its behavior becomes erratic, {\it i.e.},

1756: it starts oscillating with increasingly large amplitudes. Clearly

1757: this is only an artifact of the numerical analysis. The tachyon

1758: evolution is such that \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} V(T) =

1759: 0, \;\;\; \lim_{t\rightarrow\pm \infty} \sqrt{\Delta} = 0. \eeq

1760: The source of the problem can be traced down to the numerics

1761: having difficulties to evaluate a $\frac{0}{0}$ division at large

1762: times.

1763: 

1764: The same thing happens for $\lambda\neq 0$. The quantity that

1765: becomes ambiguous for large time is then \beq \label{quantity}

1766: \frac{e^{\Phi(t)} V(T)}{\sqrt{\Delta}}. \eeq Again, the problem is

1767: associated with the fact that both $e^{\Phi(t)}\, V(T)$ and

1768: $\sqrt{\Delta}$ are zero for large time. It is important to

1769: resolve this ambiguity because the quantity (\ref{quantity})

1770: directly feeds in the equations of motions for the bulk fields. We

1771: are able to show numerically that (at least for the solutions

1772: considered in this work) for large time \beq \frac{e^{\Phi(t)}

1773: V(T)}{\sqrt{\Delta}} = 0. \eeq Similarly to the $\lambda=0$ case,

1774: past some finite time the behavior of the function

1775: (\ref{quantity}) becomes erratic. To obtain numerical solutions

1776: representing the evolution for all times we did the following:

1777: past the time value where (\ref{quantity}) becomes ill-behaved, we

1778: solve the system of differential equations without a source, {\it

1779: i.e.}, for \beq \frac{e^{\Phi(t)} V(T)}{\sqrt{\Delta}} = 0, \;\;\;

1780: e^{\Phi(t)}V(T)\sqrt{\Delta} =0, \eeq and appropriate boundary

1781: conditions. This introduces negligible errors.

1782: %

1783: 

1784: \subsubsection{Time-reversal symmetric solutions}\label{trssblar}

1785: We consider the time-reversal symmetric solutions, {\it i.e.},

1786: those associated with bulk fields having vanishing

1787: time-derivatives at $t=0$: \beq

1788: \dot{a}(0)=\dot{R}(0)=\dot{C}(0)=\dot{\Phi}(0)=0. \eeq The

1789: constraint equation (\ref{fconstraint}) at $t=0$ is then \beq

1790: \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{\Delta}} = \frac{1}{\lambda e^{\Phi}}

1791: \left(p(p+1)\frac{k_{\parallel}}{a^{2}}

1792: +(7-p)(8-p)\frac{k_{\perp}}{R^{2}} \right). \eeq The LHS being

1793: positive-definite, the constraint can be satisfied if and only if

1794: the metric ansatz contains a subspace of positive curvature. These

1795: consist in five categories of solutions, {\it i.e.},

1796: $\{k_{\parallel},k_{\perp}\}=\{0,1\},\{-1,1\},\{1,-1\},\{1,1\},\{1,0\}$.

1797: We have performed a detailed analysis of these solutions for $p=4$

1798: and $\dot{T}(0)\leq 1/10$. Typically, we find that when the

1799: tachyon has reached a point of its evolution where $|V(T)|\simeq

1800: 0$, labelled $t_{c}$, the solutions develop a curvature

1801: singularity. The behavior of the bulk fields is as follows. The

1802: time derivative of the scale factor is such that \beq

1803: \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} \dot{a} = -\infty, \;\;\;

1804: \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} a(t) = 0, \eeq which corresponds to a

1805: big-crunch singularity on the ($p+1$)-dimensional worldvolume. The

1806: cases $\{k_{\parallel}=-1,k_{\perp}=1\}$,

1807: $\{k_{\parallel}=0,k_{\perp}=1\}$ and

1808: $\{k_{\parallel}=1,k_{\perp}=0\}$ are such that \beq

1809: \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} \dot{R}(t) = -\infty, \;\;\;

1810: \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} R(t) =0, \eeq corresponding to the

1811: transverse spherical space collapsing to zero-size in finite time.

1812: For $\{k_{\parallel}=1,k_{\perp}=1\}$ and

1813: $\{k_{\parallel}=1,k_{\perp}=-1\}$, we find \beq

1814: \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} \dot{R}(t) = +\infty, \;\;\;

1815: \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} R(t) = +\infty. \eeq For $k_{\perp}=-1$,

1816: $R(t)$ goes to infinity faster than $t$. All solutions are such

1817: that \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} \dot{\Phi}(t) = -\infty. \eeq

1818: Generically, the large time behavior of the R-R field is

1819: well-behaved, {\it i.e.}, \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}}

1820: \dot{C}(t) \approx 0, \;\;\; \lim_{t\rightarrow t_{c}} C(t) =

1821: C_{c},\eeq where $C_{c}$ is finite but typically many orders of

1822: magnitudes larger than the constants $C_{\infty}$ associated with

1823: the regular solutions presented earlier. The case

1824: $\{k_{\parallel}=0,k_{\perp}=-1\}$ is special because then the

1825: time derivative of the R-R field diverges as well at finite time.

1826: 

1827: We believe our conclusions to be unaltered for other values of

1828: $p$. We found no evidence that the singularities are resolved when

1829: the time-reversal symmetry is broken.

1830: 

1831: \subsubsection{More regular solutions} Another class of candidate

1832: SD-brane solutions we have studied are those with

1833: $k_{\parallel}=0$ and $k_{\perp}=0$. The results we present for

1834: these solutions are generic, {\it i.e.}, they hold for all $p$ and

1835: reasonable boundary conditions ({\it i.e.}, first derivatives not

1836: too large). Firstly, the solutions are always asymmetric around

1837: $t=0$ since it was shown before that, for consistency, at least

1838: one of the bulk fields must have non-vanishing kinetic energy at

1839: $t=0$. The level of asymmetry will be reduced by having smaller

1840: derivatives of the bulk fields at $t=0$. The corresponding

1841: solutions are regular and asymptotically flat. We find that \beq

1842: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} \dot{a}(t) = 0, \;\;\;

1843: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} a(t) = 0, \eeq and \beq

1844: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} \dot{R}(t) = 0, \;\;\;

1845: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} R(t) = {\rm const.} \eeq In

1846: Einstein frame both scale factors asymptote to non-zero constants.

1847: For the dilaton we obtain \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty}

1848: \dot{\Phi}(t) = 0, \;\;\; \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} \Phi(t) =

1849: -\infty, \eeq {\it i.e.}, the string coupling vanishes

1850: asymptotically. Finally the R-R field behaves like \beq

1851: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} \dot{C}(t) = 0, \;\;\;

1852: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty} C(t) = {\rm const.} \eeq We note

1853: that the relaxation time for these solutions is many orders of

1854: magnitude larger than for the $\{k_{\parallel}=0$,

1855: $k_{\perp}=-1\}$ cases presented earlier.

1856: 

1857: The two remaining cases are $\{k_{\parallel},k_\perp\}$ equal to

1858: $\{-1,-1\}$ and $\{-1,0\}$. We found evidence that the corresponding

1859: solutions are regular and asymptotically flat.

1860: 

1861: 

1862: %====================================================================+

1863: \section{Discussion}\label{section:discussion}

1864: 

1865: Our primary motivation for this work was the general problem of

1866: seeking mechanisms for resolution of singularities in spacetimes of

1867: interest in string theory.  SD-brane supergravity spacetimes presented

1868: in refs.~\cite{gutperle,gutperle2,KMP} create somewhat of a

1869: supergravity {\em emergency} because they are not only singular but

1870: nakedly so.

1871: 

1872: An important first step in the resolution program was made in

1873: ref.~\cite{buchel}, where some effects of unstable brane probes in

1874: these backgrounds were considered.  In particular, the probe

1875: physics was also sick, and taking this analysis seriously led to

1876: an even more dire assessment of the likelihood of singularity

1877: resolution without resorting to the inclusion of massive string

1878: modes in both the open and closed sectors. In our work, then, we

1879: began by plumbing the depths of the probe approach. We found it to

1880: be generally insufficient for our purposes; one reason is that the

1881: probe approximation takes itself out of its regime of

1882: self-consistency.

1883: 

1884: We then launched into an investigation of the physics of the

1885: gravitational fields exerted by SD$p$-branes for general $p$ by

1886: including backreaction. In order to get started on this problem,

1887: we had to make the approximation of considering only the most

1888: relevant open- and closed- string modes, with full gravitational

1889: backreaction taken into account. The equations we derived are

1890: highly nonlinear and couple brane with bulk, so did not lend

1891: themselves to solution analytically.  We therefore resorted to

1892: numerical techniques to search for solutions. Because of this

1893: restriction, we had to use an ansatz which smeared the branes in

1894: the transverse space; this allowed us to turn the equations into

1895: ODE's and integrate them numerically. An essential step was to

1896: begin the numerical integration

1897: %

1898: near the {\em top} of the potential hill, and then reconstruct

1899: asymptopia, which we were able to do successfully. Generically, the

1900: solutions are time-reversal {\it asymmetric}. We have shown that the

1901: time-reversal symmetric solutions with the correct R-symmetry are

1902: unavailable. Given our two-stage approximation (lowest modes, and

1903: smeared ansatz), we found it rather satisfying that significant

1904: progress in the resolution program is already found at this level. In

1905: particular, our solutions for rolling tachyons backreacting on

1906: spacetime are {\em completely nonsingular}, and our approximations

1907: satisfy the fundamental property of self-consistency. We find these

1908: conclusions suggestive of resolution of the SD-brane spacetime

1909: singularity emergency.

1910: 

1911: It is however hard to know for sure whether our nonsingular results

1912: will survive refinement.  Therefore, let us now make some specific

1913: remarks about technical roadblocks we encountered which forced us to

1914: make approximations, their physical consequences, and future outlook.

1915: 

1916: Section~\ref{section:prelim} was where we derived the coupled

1917: tachyon-supergravity equations for a general brane distribution,

1918: assuming Chern-Simons terms are turned off in a consistent

1919: truncation. Our resulting equations are on the one hand remarkably

1920: non-robust, and on the other quite robust. What we mean by

1921: non-robustness is this: our ability to obtain nonsingular

1922: evolution depends importantly on the structure of these equations

1923: of motion. Signs are crucial, coefficients are crucial, and so is

1924: the inclusion of Ramond-Ramond fields.

1925: %

1926: In other words, our nonsingular results are highly specific to the

1927: field couplings arising from the low-energy approximation to

1928: string theory.  Other ``S-branes'' arising from

1929: ``string-motivated'' actions will probably not possess similarly

1930: nonsingular behavior. The positive type of robustness we refer to

1931: is also a desirable property.  What we see manifestly is that the

1932: precise form of the potentials $\{V(T),f(T)\}$ is not important,

1933: apart from the large-$|T|$ behavior which had been derived

1934: elsewhere.  The most obvious refinement of our work here will be

1935: to attack the problem of relaxing the requirement of zero NS-NS

1936: $B$-field.  Allowing $B^{(2)}$ to be turned on will allow us to

1937: break $ISO(p{+}1)$ on the worldvolume and allow inhomogeneous

1938: tachyonic modes --- the importance of which is discussed in

1939: refs.~\cite{cosmotachyonK,larsen} --- and also to turn on more

1940: components of R-R fields.  Inhomogeneities would of course have to

1941: be included in initial conditions, because homogeneous on-shell

1942: tachyons do not couple to non-homogeneous tachyons

1943: \cite{kutasov2}.

1944: %

1945: We have postponed the non-homogeneous problem to the future mainly

1946: because it is messy; our work reported here should be considered a

1947: step in a larger program.

1948: 

1949: The other important approximation we made in our work was in

1950: section~\ref{subsection:specific_ansatz}, where we had to smear

1951: the SD-brane sources in the transverse space to facilitate

1952: integrating the equations numerically by turning them into ODE's.

1953: This limits our ability to fully probe the properties of the

1954: system in which we are interested.  Here we would also like to

1955: record another physical consequence of this ansatz.  Namely, this

1956: restriction has notable, negative, consequences for our ability to

1957: track whether black holes form as intermediate states during the

1958: time evolution of our coupled system including full backreaction.

1959: The issue of black holes was raised in the discussion section of

1960: ref.~\cite{KMP}.  The essential point is that a black hole

1961: intermediate state may arise as an alternative to SD-brane

1962: formation and decay, at least with the half-advanced,

1963: half-retarded propagator.  The fine-tuned nature of the initial

1964: conditions producing SD-branes highlights a reason why integrating

1965: partial differential equations of motion (including dependence on

1966: transverse coordinates) may be particularly difficult numerically.

1967: Or the obstruction to finding the full solution may yet turn out

1968: to be negotiable. It will also be interesting to think further

1969: about particle/string production.

1970: %

1971: 

1972: Let us end with some somewhat speculative remarks.  Typically in

1973: the limit $g_{s} N\rightarrow 0$ the open and closed strings

1974: decouple. This is true in our effective lowest-modes analysis

1975: here, but also explicit in other worldsheet-inspired approaches.

1976: There should also exist a limit (in time) to be taken where only

1977: the open strings survive. From the worldsheet definition of a

1978: SD-brane, it is suggestive that the open string degrees of freedom

1979: would combine to form a Euclidean conformal field theory in $p+1$

1980: dimensions. The same appears true when considering the effective

1981: action of massless open string degrees of freedom on an unstable

1982: D-brane \cite{hashimoto}. In both approaches, however, it is not

1983: clear what the role of the tachyon could be. Physically, it is the

1984: source of a process by which energy is siphoned out of the open

1985: string sector and pumped into the closed string sector. So, in a

1986: sense, the decay of a D-brane through tachyon condensation

1987: corresponds to the decrease of a $c$-function-like quantity on the

1988: gauge theory side. Then, we can entertain the idea that

1989: time-evolution on the gravity side should really be regarded as a

1990: renormalization group (RG) flow on the gauge theory side. From

1991: this viewpoint, formation and decay of a SD-brane would be a

1992: process corresponding to first an {\em inverse} RG flow

1993: (integrating in degrees of freedom) followed by regular RG flow

1994: (integrating out degrees of freedom).\footnote{Similar ideas were

1995: explored in the context of the dS/CFT correspondence (see, for

1996: example, refs.~\cite{andycft,us})} This might be related to the

1997: study of open string tachyon condensation using RG flow in the

1998: worldsheet theory \cite{martinec}.

1999: 

2000: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2001: \vskip0.1\textheight

2002: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2003: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2004: 

2005: The authors wish to thank Alex Buchel, Lev Kofman, Martin

2006: Kruczenski, Finn Larsen, Juan Maldacena, Alex Maloney, Don Marolf,

2007: Rob Myers, Andy Strominger, and Johannes Walcher for useful

2008: discussions. Finally we thank Dave Winters for proof-reading an

2009: earlier draft of this paper.

2010: 

2011: FL was supported in part by NSERC of Canada and FCAR du Qu\'ebec.  AWP

2012: thanks the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and the High-Energy

2013: Theory group of the Harvard University Physics Department, for

2014: hospitality during Fall semester 2002-3 while this work was carried

2015: out.  Research of AWP is supported by the Radcliffe Institute, CIAR

2016: and NSERC of Canada, and the Sloan Foundation of the USA.

2017: 

2018: %====================================================================+

2019: \newpage

2020: %\vskip0.1\textheight

2021: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2022: \appendix

2023: %====================================================================+

2024: \section{Regular KMP SD-brane solutions} \label{regular}

2025: 

2026: Among the supergravity solutions found by \cite{KMP}, there exist some

2027: that are regular on the horizon located at $t=\omega$. This is only

2028: realized for the following values of the parameters, \beq \tilde{k} =

2029: 2, \;\;\; H = \frac{4}{7-p}, \;\;\; G=k_{i}=0. \eeq The corresponding

2030: metric is

2031: %

2032: \begin{eqnarray} ds^{2} = && F(t)^{1/2}\alpha(t)^{4/(7-p)}

2033: \left(-dt^{2}+t^{2}dH_{8-p}^{2}\right) \nonumber\\

2034: &&+ F(t)^{-1/2}\left[\sum_{i=2}^{p+1}\left(dx^{i}\right)^{2}

2035: +\left(\frac{\beta(t)}{\alpha(t)}\right)^{2}\left(dx^{1}\right)^{2}

2036: \right].\end{eqnarray}

2037: %

2038: Because these solutions are anisotropic in the worldvolume

2039: directions, it is not clear that they are physically relevant. We

2040: will nevertheless study some interesting properties not considered

2041: in ref.~\cite{KMP}. For example, the region $t=+\omega$ does {\it

2042: not} correspond to an horizon as suggested by the fact that none

2043: of the metric components either vanish or diverge there. For $p$

2044: {\it odd} the solutions are time-reversal symmetric so the region

2045: $t=-\omega$ is also not an horizon.

2046: 

2047: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2048: \subsection{The region close to the origin}

2049: 

2050: For the anisotropic solutions there is no curvature singularity at

2051: $t=\omega$. It is therefore interesting to consider the behavior

2052: of the metric components and curvature invariants close to the

2053: potentially problematic region around the origin, $t=0$. We

2054: evaluated the curvature invariants: ${\cal R}$, ${\cal

2055: R}_{\mu\nu}{\cal R}^{\mu\nu}$, and ${\cal

2056: R}_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}{\cal R}^{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}$. They

2057: identically vanish for $t=0$. The metric tensor there appears

2058: suspicious (for example, the component $g_{tt}$ diverges) but we

2059: find \beq \label{limit} \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} ds^{2} = - d\tau^{2}

2060: + \tau^{2}dH_{8-p}^{2} + \sum_{i=1}^{p+1}\left(dx^{i}\right)^{2},

2061: \eeq where $\tau=\omega^{2}/t$. The expression (\ref{limit}) is

2062: simply flat space with part of it written in Milne coordinates.

2063: Not surprisingly, we find \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \dot{\Phi}(t)

2064: = 0, \;\;\;\; \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \dot{C}(t) = 0, \eeq which

2065: implies that all stress-energy components vanish in the the region

2066: close to the origin.

2067: 

2068: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2069: \subsection{Horizon physics}

2070: 

2071: We demonstrate that, contrary to previous claims, many of the

2072: anisotropic solutions are actually regular in the {\em full}

2073: range: $-\infty<t<+\infty$.  The anisotropic solutions were

2074: already shown to be non-singular at $t=\omega$ and $t=0$. We now

2075: investigate the region $t=-\omega$ further. Let us introduce the

2076: change of coordinates \beq T = \left( 1 +

2077: \left(\frac{\omega}{t}\right)^{7-p} \right)^{2/(7-p)}t \eeq in

2078: order to make comparison with the results of ref.~\cite{KMP}

2079: easier. For $p$ even, $T=0$ corresponds to $t=-\omega$ while for

2080: $p$ odd we have $T=-2\omega$ when $t=-\omega$. A comment in

2081: ref.~\cite{KMP} is that $T=0$ corresponds to a (non-naked)

2082: curvature singularity. Actually, this is not always the case! For

2083: example, we considered the case $p=1$ and computed the associated

2084: curvature invariants at all times. Figure \ref{fig1} shows the

2085: evolution of the Ricci scalar for the solution with $\omega=1$ and

2086: $\theta=\pi/4$. Clearly, the $p=1$ solution is symmetric under

2087: time-reversal and therefore has no curvature singularity. It also

2088: does not possess any horizon, a feature common to the regular

2089: solutions found in this paper. The qualitative behavior of all

2090: curvature invariants is similar to the Ricci scalar and is quite

2091: generic, {\it i.e.}, it is unchanged for all {\it odd} values of

2092: $p$, $\theta$ and $\omega$. For $p=1$ we obtain \beq

2093: \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \omega} {\cal R} = -\frac{3

2094: 2^{1/3}}{\omega^{2}}\frac{19\cos^{4}\theta -26\cos^{2}\theta +

2095: 7}{\sin^{5}\theta}. \eeq This is finite except for $\theta=0$ in

2096: which case the Ricci scalar diverges like $R\sim

2097: 1/(t-\omega)^{3}$. We also found expressions for two other

2098: curvature invariants (for $p=1$), \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow \pm

2099: \omega} {\cal R}_{\mu\nu}{\cal R}^{\mu\nu} =\frac{9

2100: 2^{3/4}}{2\omega^{4}} \frac{-272 \cos^{6}\theta + 14 + 255

2101: \cos^{4}\theta + 101\cos^{8}\theta

2102: -98\cos^{2}\theta}{\sin^{10}\theta}, \eeq \beq \lim_{t\rightarrow

2103: \pm \omega} {\cal R}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}{\cal R}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}

2104: = \frac{3 2^{2/3}}{4 \omega^{4}}\frac{-112\cos \theta + 28 +892

2105: \cos^{8}\theta -1840 \cos^{6}\theta +1032 \cos^{8}\theta

2106: }{\sin^{10}\theta}. \eeq We found expressions with similar

2107: qualitative behavior for other values of $p$ {\it odd}.

2108: 

2109: For $p$ {\it even} the solutions are not time-reversal symmetric.

2110: As pointed out previously, curvature invariants are finite at

2111: $t=\omega$ but there is a curvature singularity at $t=-\omega$.

2112: These are the spacelike curvature singularities (protected by an

2113: horizon at $t=0$) described in ref.~\cite{KMP}.

2114: 

2115: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=ricci1.eps}\caption{This figure illustrates

2116: the Ricci scalar for the $p=1$ anisotropic SD-brane solution with

2117: $\omega=1$ and $\theta=\pi/4$. The other curvature invariants

2118: behave similarly.} \label{fig1}}

2119: 

2120: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2121: \subsection{Unstable brane probe analysis}

2122: 

2123: As mentioned in section \ref{subsection:buchel}, the motivation

2124: behind considering an unstable brane probe in a background with

2125: singularity problems is to ask if the singular background could

2126: actually be built.

2127: 

2128: The calculations and results of ref.~\cite{buchel} were summarized

2129: in section \ref{subsection:buchel}. In this appendix we generalize

2130: this calculation by probing the $d=10$ {\em anisotropic}

2131: backgrounds presented above, since these are the only ones which

2132: are either non-singular or have singularities (at $t=-\omega$)

2133: shielded by a horizon ($t=0$). We felt this generalization to be

2134: necessary because ref.~\cite{buchel} did not, for example, address

2135: the issue as to how the inclusion of the dilaton might affect the

2136: brane probe calculation.  The unstable brane action is the obvious

2137: generalization eq.~(\ref{sourcebuc}) of the case studied in

2138: ref.~\cite{buchel}.

2139: 

2140: We investigate whether or not an unstable brane probe is a

2141: well-defined object in the vicinity of the region $t=\omega$. In

2142: Einstein frame, the energy density for the probe propagating in

2143: the anisotropic backgrounds is \beq \rho_{probe} =\frac{N

2144: \mu_{p+1}}{g_{s}} f(\Phi) \frac{V(T)}{\Delta^{1/2}}, \eeq while

2145: the pressure corresponds to \beq p_{probe} =\frac{N

2146: \mu_{p+1}}{g_{s}} f(\Phi) V(T) \Delta^{1/2}. \eeq The dilaton

2147: function $f(\Phi)$ was picked up during the transformation from

2148: the string frame to the Einstein frame. It plays no role in the

2149: upcoming analysis because the dilaton is well-behaved, \beq

2150: \lim_{t\rightarrow \omega} f(\Phi)= {\rm const.} \eeq

2151: 

2152: As we saw in section \ref{subsection:buchel}, whenever the probe

2153: analysis goes wrong, it signals a pathology for the gravitational

2154: background.  As we saw, there are at least two ways the probe

2155: analysis can go wrong: it may induce an infinite energy or

2156: pressure density ($\rho_{probe}, p_{probe} \rightarrow \pm

2157: \infty$), or, there might not exist any reasonable solutions for

2158: $T(t)$.

2159: 

2160: For $t\simeq \omega$, the dominant contribution to the equation of

2161: motion for the tachyon is \beq \Delta^{2} - \Delta + \frac{2}{9}

2162: (t-\omega) \dot{\Delta} = 0. \eeq This is solved for \beq

2163: \Delta(t) = \frac{(t-\omega)^{9/2}}{(t-\omega)^{9/2}-g},\eeq where

2164: $g$ is a constant of integration. The solution $\Delta=0$ ($g \neq

2165: 0$) clearly corresponds to the brane probe inducing a curvature

2166: singularity on the horizon. The only physical solution is the one

2167: for which $g=0$ which corresponds to $\Delta=1$. For the

2168: anisotropic backgrounds considered here the metric component

2169: $g_{tt}$ neither vanishes nor blows up at $t=\omega$. The solution

2170: $\Delta=1$ therefore corresponds to a tachyon field for which the

2171: time-derivative vanishes ($\dot{T}=0$) at $t=\omega$. It therefore

2172: appears that there are solutions for the probe evolution that

2173: avoids the pathologies described earlier. This is no surprise

2174: since for these anisotropic backgrounds the region $t=\omega$ is

2175: not an horizon in the technical sense of the term. We repeated the

2176: calculation around the regions $t=0$ and $t=-\omega$. We find that

2177: for both $p$ {\it odd} and {\it even} the unstable brane probe is

2178: not well-behaved at $t=0$, {\it i.e.}, it induces a curvature

2179: singularity there.

2180: 

2181: %====================================================================+

2182: \section{Tachyon in flat space}\label{flatach}

2183: 

2184: We consider solutions to the equation of motion for an open string

2185: tachyon when the massless closed string modes are decoupled. The

2186: relevant equation of motion is \beq \label{eomt_two} \ddot{T} +

2187: (1-\dot{T}^{2})\frac{\partial \ln V(T)}{\partial T} = 0. \eeq

2188: 

2189: \subsection{General solution} Eq.~(\ref{eomt_two}) is a second

2190: order differential equation with a general solution of the form

2191: \beq T(t) = \int dt \; \frac{1 + a^{2}\, V^{2}(t)}{1-a^{2}\,

2192: V^{2}(t)} + b, \eeq where $a$ and $b$ are constants of

2193: integration. To integrate this equation one needs the function

2194: $V(t)$ which would imply that we already know the solution $T(t)$.

2195: Open string field theory has taught us that for $t=t_{c}$ large we

2196: have \beq \lim_{t \rightarrow t_{c}} V(t) << 1, \eeq which implies

2197: that \beq T(t) \simeq \int_{t_{c}}^{t} dt \; (1 + 2 a^{2} V(t)) +

2198: b. \eeq Therefore at large time the tachyon behaves like \beq T(t)

2199: = t + (b-t_{c}) + 2a^{2} \int_{t_{c}}^{t} dt \; V^{2}(t). \eeq

2200: Using the string field theory result \beq \lim_{T\rightarrow

2201: +\infty} V(T) = e^{-T/\sqrt{2}}, \eeq and taking $T(t)\simeq t$

2202: leads to the large time formula \beq T(t) \simeq t -a^{2}\sqrt{2}

2203: e^{-\sqrt{2}t}, \eeq where we have fixed the integration constants

2204: by imposing \beq a^{2}\sqrt{2} e^{-\sqrt{2}t_{c}} + b - t_{c} =

2205: 0.\eeq

2206: 

2207: \subsection{Particular solutions} We consider solutions to the

2208: equation of motion (\ref{eomt_two}) with the potential \beq V(T) =

2209: \frac{1}{\cosh \left(T/\sqrt{2}\right)} \, . \eeq The tachyon

2210: equation of motion becomes \beq \label{theeom} \ddot{T} +

2211: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1-\dot{T}^{2}) \tanh \left(T/\sqrt{2}\right),

2212: \eeq which has a solution of the form \beq T(t) = -\sqrt{2}\; {\rm

2213: arc\, sinh}\; \left( \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \left[ c_{1}

2214: e^{t/\sqrt{2}} - c_{2} e^{-t/\sqrt{2}} \right] \right), \eeq where

2215: $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are constants of integration. We usually

2216: specify boundary conditions at $t=0$, \beq T(0)=-\sqrt{2} \;{\rm

2217: arc\, sinh} \; \left(\frac{\sqrt{2}(c_{1}-c_{2})}{2}\right), \eeq

2218: \beq \dot{T}(0)=-\sqrt{2}

2219: \frac{c_{1}+c_{2}}{\left(4+2(c_{1}-c_{2})^{2}\right)^{1/2}}.  \eeq

2220: The family of solutions characterized by $T(0)=0$ ($c_{1}=c_{2}$)

2221: corresponds to all possible tachyon velocities at $t=0$:

2222: $\dot{T}(0)=-\sqrt{2} c_{1}$. An other class of solutions are

2223: those for which $\dot{T}(0)=0$ ($c_{1}=-c_{2}$). Those correspond

2224: to allowing the tachyon to begin its evolution with

2225: $T(0)=-\sqrt{2}\;{\rm arcsinh} \; \sqrt{2}c_{1}$.

2226: 

2227: The solution we presented are referred to as {\it tachyon matter}.

2228: The stress-energy components (which are independent of the number

2229: of dimensions in the theory) correspond to a conserved energy

2230: density ($\rho \sim V(T)/\sqrt{\Delta} = {\rm constant}$) and a

2231: pressure ($p\sim -V(T)\sqrt{\Delta}$) that vanishes as

2232: $t\rightarrow +\infty$ \cite{sen2}.

2233: 

2234: %====================================================================+

2235: \newpage

2236: 

2237: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2238: 

2239: \bibitem{gutperle} M.~Gutperle and A.~Strominger, ``Spacelike

2240: branes,'' JHEP {\bf 0204}, 018 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0202210].

2241: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202210;%%

2242: 

2243: \bibitem{dscft}

2244: A.~Strominger, ``The dS/CFT correspondence,'' JHEP {\bf 0110}, 034

2245: (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0106113]; %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106113;%%

2246: E.~Witten, ``Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,''

2247: arXiv:hep-th/0106109. %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106109;%%

2248: 

2249: \bibitem{tale}

2250: F.~Leblond, D.~Marolf and R.~C.~Myers, ``Tall tales from de Sitter

2251: space II: Field theory dualities,'' JHEP {\bf 0301}, 003 (2003)

2252: [arXiv:hep-th/0211025].

2253: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211025;%%

2254: 

2255: \bibitem{gutperle2}

2256: C.~M.~Chen, D.~V.~Gal'tsov and M.~Gutperle, ``S-brane solutions in

2257: supergravity theories,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 024043 (2002)

2258: [arXiv:hep-th/0204071].

2259: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204071;%%

2260: 

2261: \bibitem{KMP}

2262: M.~Kruczenski, R.~C.~Myers and A.~W.~Peet, ``Supergravity

2263: S-branes,'' JHEP {\bf 0205}, 039 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204144].

2264: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204144;%%

2265: 

2266: \bibitem{strominger}

2267: A.~Strominger, ``Open string creation by S-branes,''

2268: arXiv:hep-th/0209090.

2269: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209090;%%

2270: 

2271: \bibitem{buchel}

2272: A.~Buchel, P.~Langfelder and J.~Walcher, ``Does the tachyon

2273: matter?,'' Annals Phys.\  {\bf 302}, 78 (2002)

2274: [arXiv:hep-th/0207235]; A.~Buchel and J.~Walcher, ``The tachyon

2275: does matter,'' arXiv:hep-th/0212150.

2276: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212150;%%

2277: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207235;%%

2278: 

2279: \bibitem{roy}

2280: S.~Roy, ``On supergravity solutions of space-like Dp-branes,''

2281: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 025 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0205198].

2282: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205198;%%

2283: 

2284: \bibitem{sbranes}

2285: B.~McInnes, ``dS/CFT, censorship, instability of hyperbolic

2286: horizons, and spacelike  branes,'' arXiv:hep-th/0205103;

2287: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205103;%%

2288: N.~S.~Deger and A.~Kaya, ``Intersecting S-brane solutions of D =

2289: 11 supergravity,'' JHEP {\bf 0207}, 038 (2002)

2290: [arXiv:hep-th/0206057];

2291: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206057;%%

2292: J.~E.~Wang, ``Spacelike and time dependent branes from DBI,'' JHEP

2293: {\bf 0210}, 037 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0207089];

2294: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207089;%%

2295: C.~P.~Burgess, F.~Quevedo, S.~J.~Rey, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala,

2296: ``Cosmological spacetimes from negative tension brane

2297: backgrounds,'' JHEP {\bf 0210}, 028 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0207104];

2298: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207104;%%

2299: V.~D.~Ivashchuk, ``Composite S-brane solutions related to

2300: Toda-type systems,'' Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 20}, 261 (2003)

2301: [arXiv:hep-th/0208101];

2302: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208101;%%

2303: F.~Quevedo, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala, ``S-branes, negative

2304: tension branes and cosmology,'' arXiv:hep-th/0211031;

2305: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211031;%%

2306: N.~Ohta, ``Intersection rules for S-branes,''

2307: arXiv:hep-th/0301095;

2308: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301095;%%

2309: C.~P.~Burgess, P.~Martineau, F.~Quevedo, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala

2310: C., ``Instabilities and particle production in S-brane

2311: geometries,'' arXiv:hep-th/0301122.

2312: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301122;%%

2313: 

2314: \bibitem{andylastweek}

2315: A.~Maloney, A.~Strominger and X.~Yin, ``S-brane thermodynamics,''

2316: arXiv:hep-th/0302146.

2317: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302146;%%

2318: 

2319: \bibitem{strominger3}

2320: M.~Gutperle and A.~Strominger, ``Timelike boundary Liouville

2321: theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0301038.

2322: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301038;%%

2323: 

2324: \bibitem{vacuum}

2325: A.~Sen, ``Fundamental strings in open string theory at the

2326: tachyonic vacuum,'' J.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 42}, 2844 (2001)

2327: [arXiv:hep-th/0010240];

2328: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010240;%%

2329: L.~Rastelli, A.~Sen and B.~Zwiebach, ``String field theory around

2330: the tachyon vacuum,'' Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 5}, 353

2331: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0012251].

2332: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012251;%%

2333: 

2334: \bibitem{OS}

2335: T.~Okuda and S.~Sugimoto, ``Coupling of rolling tachyon to closed

2336: strings,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 647}, 101 (2002)

2337: [arXiv:hep-th/0208196].

2338: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208196;%%

2339: 

2340: \bibitem{maldacena}

2341: N.~Lambert, H.~Liu and J.~Maldacena, ``Closed strings from

2342: decaying D-branes,'' arXiv:hep-th/0303139.

2343: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303139;%%

2344: 

2345: \bibitem{sen2}

2346: A.~Sen, ``Rolling tachyon,'' JHEP {\bf 0204}, 048 (2002)

2347: [arXiv:hep-th/0203211];

2348: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203211;%%

2349: A.~Sen, ``Tachyon matter,'' JHEP {\bf 0207}, 065 (2002)

2350: [arXiv:hep-th/0203265];

2351: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203265;%%

2352: A.~Sen, ``Field theory of tachyon matter,'' Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A

2353: {\bf 17}, 1797 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204143].

2354: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204143;%%

2355: 

2356: \bibitem{gibbons}

2357: G.~W.~Gibbons, ``Cosmological evolution of the rolling tachyon,''

2358: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 537}, 1 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204008].

2359: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204008;%%

2360: 

2361: \bibitem{cosmotachyonK}

2362: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204150;%%

2363: A.~V.~Frolov, L.~Kofman and A.~A.~Starobinsky, ``Prospects and

2364: problems of tachyon matter cosmology,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 545},

2365: 8 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204187];

2366: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205003;%%

2367: L.~Kofman and A.~Linde, ``Problems with tachyon inflation,'' JHEP

2368: {\bf 0207}, 004 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0205121];

2369: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207156;%%

2370: G.~N.~Felder, L.~Kofman and A.~Starobinsky, ``Caustics in tachyon

2371: matter and other Born-Infeld scalars,'' JHEP {\bf 0209}, 026

2372: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0208019].

2373: 

2374: \bibitem{cosmotachyon}

2375: M.~Fairbairn and M.~H.~Tytgat, ``Inflation from a tachyon

2376: fluid?,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546}, 1 (2002)

2377: [arXiv:hep-th/0204070];

2378: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204070;%%

2379: S.~Mukohyama, ``Brane cosmology driven by the rolling tachyon,''

2380: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 024009 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204084];

2381: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204084;%%

2382: A.~Feinstein, ``Power-law inflation from the rolling tachyon,''

2383: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 063511 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204140];

2384: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204140;%%

2385: T.~Padmanabhan, ``Accelerated expansion of the universe driven by

2386: tachyonic matter,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 021301 (2002)

2387: [arXiv:hep-th/0204150];

2388: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204187;%%

2389: D.~Choudhury, D.~Ghoshal, D.~P.~Jatkar and S.~Panda, ``On the

2390: cosmological relevance of the tachyon,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf

2391: 544}, 231 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204204];

2392: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204204;%%

2393: X.~z.~Li, J.~g.~Hao and D.~j.~Liu, ``Can quintessence be the

2394: rolling tachyon?,'' Chin.\ Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf 19}, 1584 (2002)

2395: [arXiv:hep-th/0204252];

2396: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204252;%%

2397: G.~Shiu and I.~Wasserman, ``Cosmological constraints on tachyon

2398: matter,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 541}, 6 (2002)

2399: [arXiv:hep-th/0205003];

2400: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205121;%%

2401: H.~B.~Benaoum, ``Accelerated universe from modified Chaplygin gas

2402: and tachyonic fluid,'' arXiv:hep-th/0205140;

2403: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205140;%%

2404: M.~Sami, ``Implementing power law inflation with rolling tachyon

2405: on the brane,'' arXiv:hep-th/0205146;

2406: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205146;%%

2407: M.~Sami, P.~Chingangbam and T.~Qureshi, ``Aspects of tachyonic

2408: inflation with exponential potential,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66},

2409: 043530 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0205179];

2410: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205179;%%

2411: J.~c.~Hwang and H.~Noh, ``Cosmological perturbations in a

2412: generalized gravity including tachyonic  condensation,'' Phys.\

2413: Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 084009 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0206100];

2414: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206100;%%

2415: T.~Mehen and B.~Wecht, ``Gauge fields and scalars in rolling

2416: tachyon backgrounds,'' arXiv:hep-th/0206212;

2417: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206212;%%

2418: K.~Ohta and T.~Yokono, ``Gravitational approach to tachyon

2419: matter,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 125009 (2002)

2420: [arXiv:hep-th/0207004];

2421: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207004;%%

2422: Y.~S.~Piao, R.~G.~Cai, X.~m.~Zhang and Y.~Z.~Zhang, ``Assisted

2423: tachyonic inflation,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 121301 (2002)

2424: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207143];

2425: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207143;%%

2426: G.~Shiu, S.~H.~Tye and I.~Wasserman, ``Rolling tachyon in brane

2427: world cosmology from superstring field theory,''

2428: arXiv:hep-th/0207119;

2429: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207119;%%

2430: X.~z.~Li, D.~j.~Liu and J.~g.~Hao, ``On the tachyon inflation,''

2431: arXiv:hep-th/0207146;

2432: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207146;%%

2433: J.~M.~Cline, H.~Firouzjahi and P.~Martineau, ``Reheating from

2434: tachyon condensation,'' JHEP {\bf 0211}, 041 (2002)

2435: [arXiv:hep-th/0207156];

2436: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208019;%%

2437: B.~Wang, E.~Abdalla and R.~K.~Su, ``Dynamics and holographic

2438: discreteness of tachyonic inflation,'' arXiv:hep-th/0208023;

2439: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208023;%%

2440: S.~Mukohyama, ``Inhomogeneous tachyon decay, light-cone structure

2441: and D-brane network  problem in tachyon cosmology,'' Phys.\ Rev.\

2442: D {\bf 66}, 123512 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0208094];

2443: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208094;%%

2444: M.~C.~Bento, O.~Bertolami and A.~A.~Sen, ``Tachyonic inflation in

2445: the braneworld scenario,'' arXiv:hep-th/0208124;

2446: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208124;%%

2447: J.~g.~Hao and X.~z.~Li, ``Reconstructing the equation of state of

2448: tachyon,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 087301 (2002)

2449: [arXiv:hep-th/0209041];

2450: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209041;%%

2451: C.~j.~Kim, H.~B.~Kim and Y.~b.~Kim, ``Rolling tachyons in string

2452: cosmology,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 552}, 111 (2003)

2453: [arXiv:hep-th/0210101];

2454: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210101;%%

2455: F.~Quevedo, ``Lectures on string / brane cosmology,'' Class.\

2456: Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 19}, 5721 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0210292];

2457: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210292;%%

2458: G.~Shiu, ``Tachyon dynamics and brane cosmology,''

2459: arXiv:hep-th/0210313;

2460: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210313;%%

2461: J.~S.~Bagla, H.~K.~Jassal and T.~Padmanabhan, ``Cosmology with

2462: tachyon field as dark energy,'' arXiv:astro-ph/0212198;

2463: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0212198;%%

2464: Y.~S.~Piao, Q.~G.~Huang, X.~m.~Zhang and Y.~Z.~Zhang,

2465: ``Non-minimally coupled tachyon and inflation,''

2466: arXiv:hep-ph/0212219;

2467: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212219;%%

2468: X.~z.~Li and X.~h.~Zhai, ``The tachyon inflationary models with

2469: exact mode functions,'' arXiv:hep-ph/0301063;

2470: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301063;%%

2471: G.~W.~Gibbons, ``Thoughts on tachyon cosmology,''

2472: arXiv:hep-th/0301117;

2473: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301117;%%

2474: M.~Sami, P.~Chingangbam and T.~Qureshi, ``Cosmological aspects of

2475: rolling tachyon,'' arXiv:hep-th/0301140;

2476: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301140;%%

2477: C.~j.~Kim, H.~B.~Kim, Y.~b.~Kim and O.~K.~Kwon, ``Cosmology of

2478: rolling tachyon,'' arXiv:hep-th/0301142.

2479: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301142;%%

2480: 

2481: \bibitem{emparan}

2482: R.~Emparan and H.~S.~Reall, ``A rotating black ring in five

2483: dimensions,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 101101 (2002)

2484: [arXiv:hep-th/0110260].

2485: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110260;%%

2486: 

2487: \bibitem{gibbonshair} G.~W.~Gibbons, D.~Ida and T.~Shiromizu,

2488: ``Uniqueness and non-uniqueness of static black holes in higher

2489: dimensions,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 041101 (2002)

2490: [arXiv:hep-th/0206049];

2491: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206049;%%

2492: %G.~W.~Gibbons, D.~Ida and T.~Shiromizu,

2493: ``Uniqueness of (dilatonic) charged black holes and black p-branes in

2494: higher dimensions,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 044010 (2002)

2495: [arXiv:hep-th/0206136].

2496: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206136;%%

2497: 

2498: \bibitem{BMPV}

2499: J.~C.~Breckenridge, R.~C.~Myers, A.~W.~Peet and C.~Vafa,

2500: ``D-branes and spinning black holes,''

2501: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391}, 93 (1997)

2502: [arXiv:hep-th/9602065].

2503: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602065;%%

2504: 

2505: \bibitem{reallbmpv}

2506: H.~S.~Reall,

2507: ``Higher dimensional black holes and supersymmetry,''

2508: arXiv:hep-th/0211290.

2509: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211290;%%

2510: 

2511: \bibitem{IMSY} N.~Itzhaki, J.~M.~Maldacena, J.~Sonnenschein and

2512: S.~Yankielowicz, ``Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with

2513: sixteen supercharges,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 046004 (1998)

2514: [arXiv:hep-th/9802042].

2515: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802042;%%

2516: 

2517: \bibitem{awpconfproc} A.~W.~Peet, ``More on singularity resolution,''

2518: published in the proceedings of {\em Strings 2001} (World Scientific,

2519: 2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0106148].

2520: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106148;%%

2521: 

2522: \bibitem{add1}

2523: A.~Sen, ``Supersymmetric world-volume action for non-BPS

2524: D-branes,'' JHEP {\bf 9910}, 008 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9909062].

2525: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909062;%%

2526: 

2527: \bibitem{add2}

2528: M.~R.~Garousi, ``On-shell S-matrix and tachyonic effective

2529: actions,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 647}, 117 (2002)

2530: [arXiv:hep-th/0209068].

2531: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209068;%%

2532: 

2533: \bibitem{add3}

2534: E.~A.~Bergshoeff, M.~de Roo, T.~C.~de Wit, E.~Eyras and S.~Panda,

2535: ``T-duality and actions for non-BPS D-branes,'' JHEP {\bf 0005},

2536: 009 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0003221].

2537: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003221;%%

2538: 

2539: \bibitem{add4}

2540: J.~Kluson, ``Proposal for non-BPS D-brane action,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D

2541: {\bf 62}, 126003 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0004106].

2542: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004106;%%

2543: 

2544: \bibitem{sen1}

2545: A.~Sen, ``Time and tachyon,'' arXiv:hep-th/0209122.

2546: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209122;%%

2547: 

2548: \bibitem{enhanconjpp} C.~V.~Johnson, A.~W.~Peet and J.~Polchinski,

2549: ``Gauge theory and the excision of repulson singularities,''

2550: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 086001 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9911161].

2551: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911161;%%

2552: 

2553: \bibitem{polchinski}

2554: J.~Polchinski, ``String Theory. Vol. 2: Superstring Theory And

2555: Beyond,'', Cambridge University Press, 1998.

2556: 

2557: \bibitem{kutasov2}

2558: D.~Kutasov and V.~Niarchos, ``Tachyon Effective Actions In Open

2559: String Theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0304045.

2560: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304045;%%

2561: 

2562: \bibitem{larsen}

2563: F.~Larsen, A.~Naqvi and S.~Terashima, ``Rolling tachyons and

2564: decaying branes,'' arXiv:hep-th/0212248.

2565: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212248;%%

2566: 

2567: \bibitem{hashimoto}

2568: K.~Hashimoto, P.~M.~Ho and J.~E.~Wang, ``S-brane actions,''

2569: arXiv:hep-th/0211090.

2570: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211090;%%

2571: 

2572: \bibitem{ozetal}

2573: P.~Brax, G.~Mandal and Y.~Oz, ``Supergravity description of

2574: non-BPS branes,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 064008 (2001)

2575: [arXiv:hep-th/0005242].

2576: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005242;%%o

2577: 

2578: \bibitem{nunez}

2579: J.~M.~Maldacena and C.~Nunez, ``Towards the large N limit of pure

2580: N = 1 super Yang Mills,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 588

2581: (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0008001].

2582: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008001;%%

2583: 

2584: \bibitem{peet}

2585: A.~W.~Peet, ``TASI lectures on black holes in string theory,''

2586: arXiv:hep-th/0008241.

2587: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008241;%%

2588: 

2589: \bibitem{andycft}

2590: A.~Strominger, ``Inflation and the dS/CFT correspondence,'' JHEP

2591: {\bf 0111}, 049 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0110087].

2592: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110087;%%

2593: 

2594: \bibitem{us}

2595: F.~Leblond, D.~Marolf and R.~C.~Myers, ``Tall tales from de Sitter

2596: space. I: Renormalization group flows,'' JHEP {\bf 0206}, 052

2597: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0202094].

2598: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202094;%%

2599: 

2600: \bibitem{martinec}

2601: J.~A.~Harvey, D.~Kutasov and E.~J.~Martinec, ``On the relevance of

2602: tachyons,'' arXiv:hep-th/0003101.

2603: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003101;%%

2604: 

2605: \end{thebibliography}

2606: %====================================================================+

2607: \end{document}

2608: