1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9: \input harvmac
10: \noblackbox
11:
12: %\draftmode
13:
14:
15: \def\thp{{\theta'}}
16: \def\thpl{{\theta'_L}}
17: \def\thpr{{\theta'_R}}
18: \def\thpg{{\theta'_G}}
19: \def\thplb{{\theta'_{LB}}}
20: \def\thprb{{\theta'_{RB}}}
21:
22: \def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\mathchoice
23: {\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}
24: {\lower.9pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}} {\lower1.2pt\hbox{\cmsss
25: Z\kern-.4em Z}}\else{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}\fi}
26: \def\IB{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em B}}
27: \def\IC{{\relax\hbox{\kern.3em{\cmss I}$\kern-.4em{\rm C}$}}}
28: \def\ID{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em D}}
29: \def\IE{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em E}}
30: \def\IF{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em F}}
31: \def\IG{\relax\hbox{$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm G}$}}
32: \def\IGa{\relax\hbox{${\rm I}\kern-.18em\Gamma$}}
33: \def\IH{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em H}}
34: \def\II{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em I}}
35: \def\IK{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em K}}
36: \def\IP{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em P}}
37: %\def\IX{\relax{\rm X\kern-.01em X}}
38: %this doesn't work
39: \def\IX{{\bf X}}
40: \def\mod{{\rm mod}}
41: \def\ndt{\noindent}
42: \def\p{\partial}
43: \def\pab{\pb_{\bar A} }
44: \def\pb{{\bar \p}}
45: \def\pgp{\pb {g} g^{-1}}
46: \font\cmss=cmss10 \font\cmsss=cmss10 at 7pt
47: \def\IR{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}
48: \def\ap{\alpha'}
49: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
50: \def\frac#1#2{{#1 \over #2}}
51: \def\s{\sigma}
52: \def\t{\theta}
53: \def\OL#1{ \kern1pt\overline{\kern-1pt#1
54: \kern-1pt}\kern1pt }
55:
56:
57:
58: %\BirrellIX
59: \lref\BirrellIX{ N.~D.~Birrell and P.~C.~Davies, ``Quantum Fields
60: In Curved Space,''}
61: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=998621}{SPIRES
62: %entry}}
63:
64:
65: %\KachruAW
66: \lref\KachruAW{ S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi,
67: ``De Sitter vacua in string theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0301240.
68: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301240;%%
69: }
70:
71: %\KachruHE
72: \lref\KachruHE{ S.~Kachru, M.~B.~Schulz and S.~Trivedi, ``Moduli
73: stabilization from fluxes in a simple IIB orientifold,''
74: arXiv:hep-th/0201028.
75: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201028;%%
76: }
77:
78: %\SusskindIF
79: \lref\SusskindIF{
80: L.~Susskind, L.~Thorlacius and J.~Uglum,
81: ``The Stretched horizon and black hole complementarity,''
82: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 3743 (1993)
83: [arXiv:hep-th/9306069].
84: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9306069;%%
85: }
86:
87:
88: %\KachruNS
89: \lref\KachruNS{ S.~Kachru, X.~Liu, M.~B.~Schulz and S.~P.~Trivedi,
90: ``Supersymmetry changing bubbles in string theory,''
91: arXiv:hep-th/0205108.
92: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205108;%%
93: }
94:
95: %\MaloneyRR
96: \lref\MaloneyRR{ A.~Maloney, E.~Silverstein and A.~Strominger,
97: ``De Sitter space in noncritical string theory,''
98: arXiv:hep-th/0205316.
99: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205316;%%
100: }
101:
102: %\SilversteinXN
103: \lref\SilversteinXN{ E.~Silverstein, ``(A)dS backgrounds from
104: asymmetric orientifolds,'' arXiv:hep-th/0106209.
105: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106209;%%
106: }
107:
108: %\ItzhakiDD
109: \lref\ItzhakiDD{ N.~Itzhaki, J.~M.~Maldacena, J.~Sonnenschein and
110: S.~Yankielowicz, ``Supergravity and the large N limit of theories
111: with sixteen supercharges,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 046004
112: (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9802042].
113: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802042;%%
114: }
115:
116:
117:
118: %\BoussoXA
119: \lref\BoussoXA{ R.~Bousso and J.~Polchinski, ``Quantization of
120: four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological
121: constant,'' JHEP {\bf 0006}, 006 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0004134].
122: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004134;%%
123: }
124:
125: %\AcharyaKV
126: \lref\AcharyaKV{ B.~S.~Acharya, ``A moduli fixing mechanism in M
127: theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0212294.
128: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212294;%%
129: }
130:
131: %\SusskindKW
132: \lref\SusskindKW{ L.~Susskind, ``The anthropic landscape of string
133: theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0302219.
134: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302219;%%
135: }
136:
137: %\DouglasUM
138: \lref\DouglasUM{ M.~R.~Douglas, ``The statistics of string / M
139: theory vacua,'' arXiv:hep-th/0303194.
140: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303194;%%
141: }
142:
143:
144:
145: %\GiddingsYU
146: \lref\GiddingsYU{ S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,
147: ``Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,'' Phys.\
148: Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 106006 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0105097].
149: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105097;%%
150: }
151:
152: %\KachruGS
153: \lref\KachruGS{ S.~Kachru, J.~Pearson and H.~Verlinde,
154: ``Brane/flux annihilation and the string dual of a
155: non-supersymmetric field theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0206}, 021 (2002)
156: [arXiv:hep-th/0112197].
157: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112197;%%
158: }
159:
160: %\AcharyaDZ
161: \lref\AcharyaDZ{ B.~S.~Acharya and C.~Vafa, ``On domain walls of N
162: = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills in four dimensions,''
163: arXiv:hep-th/0103011.
164: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103011;%%
165: }
166:
167: \lref\Andreas{A. Karch, work in progress}
168:
169: %\GukovYA
170: \lref\GukovYA{ S.~Gukov, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten, ``CFT's from
171: Calabi-Yau four-folds,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 69 (2000)
172: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 608}, 477 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-th/9906070].
173: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906070;%%
174: }
175:
176: %\KrausHV
177: \lref\KrausHV{ P.~Kraus, F.~Larsen and S.~P.~Trivedi, ``The
178: Coulomb branch of gauge theory from rotating branes,'' JHEP {\bf
179: 9903}, 003 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9811120].
180: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811120;%%
181: }
182:
183:
184:
185: %\FengIF
186: \lref\FengIF{ J.~L.~Feng, J.~March-Russell, S.~Sethi and
187: F.~Wilczek, ``Saltatory relaxation of the cosmological constant,''
188: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 602}, 307 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0005276].
189: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005276;%%
190: }
191:
192: %\FreyHF
193: \lref\FreyHF{ A.~R.~Frey and J.~Polchinski, ``N = 3 warped
194: compactifications,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 126009 (2002)
195: [arXiv:hep-th/0201029].
196: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201029;%%
197: }
198:
199: %\GibbonsMU
200: \lref\GibbonsMU{ G.~W.~Gibbons and S.~W.~Hawking, ``Cosmological
201: Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, And Particle Creation,'' Phys.\
202: Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 2738 (1977).
203: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,2738;%%
204: }
205:
206: %\ColemanAW
207: \lref\ColemanAW{ S.~R.~Coleman and F.~De Luccia, ``Gravitational
208: Effects On And Of Vacuum Decay,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21}, 3305
209: (1980).
210: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,3305;%%
211: }
212:
213: %\MaldacenaRE
214: \lref\MaldacenaRE{ J.~M.~Maldacena, ``The large N limit of
215: superconformal field theories and supergravity,'' Adv.\ Theor.\
216: Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 231 (1998) [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf
217: 38}, 1113 (1999)] [arXiv:hep-th/9711200].
218: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%
219: }
220:
221: %\BrownKG
222: \lref\BrownKG{ J.~D.~Brown and C.~Teitelboim, ``Neutralization Of
223: The Cosmological Constant By Membrane Creation,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B
224: {\bf 297}, 787 (1988).
225: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B297,787;%%
226: }
227:
228: %\BanksNM
229: \lref\BanksNM{ T.~Banks, ``Heretics of the false vacuum:
230: Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay. II,''
231: arXiv:hep-th/0211160.
232: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211160;%%
233: }
234:
235: \lref\freyetal{A. Frey, M. Lippert, and B. Williams, to appear}
236:
237: %\KrausHV
238: \lref\KrausHV{ P.~Kraus, F.~Larsen and S.~P.~Trivedi, ``The
239: Coulomb branch of gauge theory from rotating branes,'' JHEP {\bf
240: 9903}, 003 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9811120].
241: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811120;%%
242: }
243:
244: %\HorowitzNW
245: \lref\HorowitzNW{ G.~T.~Horowitz and J.~Polchinski, ``A
246: correspondence principle for black holes and strings,'' Phys.\
247: Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 6189 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9612146].
248: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612146;%%
249: }
250:
251: %\FlanaganJP
252: \lref\FlanaganJP{ E.~E.~Flanagan, D.~Marolf and R.~M.~Wald,
253: ``Proof of Classical Versions of the Bousso Entropy Bound and of
254: the Generalized Second Law,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 084035
255: (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9908070].
256: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9908070;%%
257: }
258:
259:
260:
261: %\SusskindWS
262: \lref\SusskindWS{ L.~Susskind, ``Some Speculations About Black
263: Hole Entropy In String Theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/9309145.
264: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9309145;%%
265: }
266:
267: %\BoussoXY
268: \lref\BoussoXY{ R.~Bousso, ``A Covariant Entropy Conjecture,''
269: JHEP {\bf 9907}, 004 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9905177].
270: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9905177;%%
271: }
272:
273: %\SusskindDQ
274: \lref\SusskindDQ{ L.~Susskind and E.~Witten, ``The holographic
275: bound in anti-de Sitter space,'' arXiv:hep-th/9805114.
276: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9805114;%%
277: }
278:
279: %\StromingerSH
280: \lref\StromingerSH{ A.~Strominger and C.~Vafa, ``Microscopic
281: Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
282: 379}, 99 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9601029].
283: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9601029;%%
284: }
285:
286: %\DysonNT
287: \lref\DysonNT{ L.~Dyson, J.~Lindesay and L.~Susskind, ``Is there
288: really a de Sitter/CFT duality,'' JHEP {\bf 0208}, 045 (2002)
289: [arXiv:hep-th/0202163].
290: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202163;%%
291: }
292:
293: %\GutperleAI
294: \lref\GutperleAI{ M.~Gutperle and A.~Strominger, ``Spacelike
295: branes,'' JHEP {\bf 0204}, 018 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0202210].
296: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202210;%%
297: }
298:
299: %\SenIN
300: \lref\SenIN{ A.~Sen, ``Tachyon matter,'' JHEP {\bf 0207}, 065
301: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0203265].
302: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203265;%%
303: }
304:
305:
306:
307: %\SusskindSM
308: \lref\SusskindSM{ L.~Susskind and J.~Uglum, ``Black hole entropy
309: in canonical quantum gravity and superstring theory,'' Phys.\
310: Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 2700 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9401070].
311: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9401070;%%
312: }
313:
314: %\RandallTG
315: \lref\RandallTG{ L.~Randall, V.~Sanz and M.~D.~Schwartz,
316: ``Entropy-area relations in field theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0206}, 008
317: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204038].
318: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204038;%%
319: }
320:
321: %\HawkingDA
322: \lref\HawkingDA{ S.~Hawking, J.~M.~Maldacena and A.~Strominger,
323: ``DeSitter entropy, quantum entanglement and AdS/CFT,'' JHEP {\bf
324: 0105}, 001 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0002145].
325: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002145;%%
326: }
327:
328: %\MaldacenaIH
329: \lref\MaldacenaIH{ J.~M.~Maldacena and A.~Strominger,
330: ``Statistical entropy of de Sitter space,'' JHEP {\bf 9802}, 014
331: (1998) [arXiv:gr-qc/9801096].
332: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9801096;%%
333: }
334:
335: %\KachruYS
336: \lref\KachruYS{ S.~Kachru and E.~Silverstein, ``4d conformal
337: theories and strings on orbifolds,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf
338: 80}, 4855 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9802183].
339: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802183;%%
340: }
341:
342: %\BanksFE
343: \lref\BanksFE{ T.~Banks, ``Cosmological breaking of supersymmetry
344: or little Lambda goes back to the future. II,''
345: arXiv:hep-th/0007146.
346: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007146;%%
347: }
348:
349: %\StromingerBR
350: \lref\StromingerBR{ A.~Strominger and D.~Thompson, ``A quantum
351: Bousso bound,'' arXiv:hep-th/0303067.
352: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303067;%%
353: }
354:
355:
356:
357: %\BoussoJU
358: \lref\BoussoJU{ R.~Bousso, ``The holographic principle,'' Rev.\
359: Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 74}, 825 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0203101].
360: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203101;%%
361: }
362:
363: \input epsf
364: \noblackbox
365: \newcount\figno
366: \figno=0
367: \def\fig#1#2#3{
368: \par\begingroup\parindent=0pt\leftskip=1cm\rightskip=1cm\parindent=0pt
369: \baselineskip=11pt \global\advance\figno by 1 \midinsert
370: \epsfxsize=#3 \centerline{\epsfbox{#2}} \vskip 12pt {\bf Fig.\
371: \the\figno: } #1\par
372: \endinsert\endgroup\par
373: }
374: \def\figlabel#1{\xdef#1{\the\figno}}
375:
376: \lref\fischler{ W. Fischler, unpublished. }
377:
378:
379: \lref\GukovYA{ S.~Gukov, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten, ``CFT's from
380: Calabi-Yau four-folds,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 69 (2000)
381: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 608}, 477 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-th/9906070].
382: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906070;%%
383: }
384:
385: \lref\GiddingsYU{ S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,
386: ``Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,''
387: arXiv:hep-th/0105097.
388: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105097;%%
389: }
390:
391: \lref\BeckerGJ{ K.~Becker and M.~Becker, ``M-Theory on
392: Eight-Manifolds,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477}, 155 (1996)
393: [arXiv:hep-th/9605053].
394: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9605053;%%
395: }
396:
397: \lref\PolchinskiSM{ J.~Polchinski and A.~Strominger, ``New Vacua
398: for Type II String Theory,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388}, 736 (1996)
399: [arXiv:hep-th/9510227].
400: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510227;%%
401: }
402:
403: %\GukovYA
404: \lref\GukovYA{ S.~Gukov, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten,
405: %``CFT's from Calabi-Yau four-folds,''
406: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 69 (2000) [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 608},
407: 477 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-th/9906070].
408: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906070;%%
409: }
410:
411:
412:
413: \lref\SilversteinXN{E.~Silverstein,``(A)dS backgrounds from
414: asymmetric orientifolds,''arXiv:hep-th/0106209. }
415: \lref\BrownDD{J.~D.~Brown and C.~Teitelboim,``Dynamical
416: Neutralization Of The Cosmological Constant,''Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
417: 195}, 177 (1987). } \lref\AbbottQF{L.~F.~Abbott,``A Mechanism For
418: Reducing The Value Of The Cosmological Constant,''Phys.\ Lett.\ B
419: {\bf 150}, 427 (1985).} \lref\BrownKG{J.~D.~Brown and
420: C.~Teitelboim,``Neutralization Of The Cosmological Constant By
421: Membrane Creation,''Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 297}, 787 (1988). }
422: \lref\HawkingMY{S.~W.~Hawking and I.~G.~Moss,``Fluctuations In The
423: Inflationary Universe,''Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 224}, 180 (1983).}
424: \lref\ColemanAW{S.~R.~Coleman and F.~De Luccia,``Gravitational
425: Effects On And Of Vacuum Decay,''Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21}, 3305
426: (1980).} \lref\BoussoXA{R.~Bousso and J.~Polchinski,``Quantization
427: of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the
428: cosmological constant,''JHEP {\bf 0006}, 006
429: (2000)[arXiv:hep-th/0004134].}
430: %\deAlwisPR
431: \lref\deAlwisPR{ S.~P.~de Alwis, J.~Polchinski and R.~Schimmrigk,
432: ``Heterotic Strings With Tree Level Cosmological Constant,''
433: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 218}, 449 (1989).
434: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B218,449;%%
435: } \lref\psstw{ J.~Preskill, P.~Schwarz, A.~D.~Shapere, S.~Trivedi
436: and F.~Wilczek, ``Limitations on the statistical description of
437: black holes,'' Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6}, 2353 (1991).}
438: \lref\jmls{J.~M.~Maldacena and L.~Susskind, ``D-branes and Fat
439: Black Holes,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 475}, 679 (1996)
440: [arXiv:hep-th/9604042].}
441: %\PolyakovJU
442: \lref\PolyakovJU{ A.~M.~Polyakov, ``The wall of the cave,'' Int.\
443: J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14}, 645 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9809057].
444: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9809057;%%
445: }
446: %\FengIF
447: \lref\FengIF{ J.~L.~Feng, J.~March-Russell, S.~Sethi and
448: F.~Wilczek, ``Saltatory relaxation of the cosmological constant,''
449: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 602}, 307 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0005276].
450: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005276;%%
451: }
452: %\ChamseddineQU
453: \lref\ChamseddineQU{ A.~H.~Chamseddine, ``A Study of noncritical
454: strings in arbitrary dimensions,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 368}, 98
455: (1992).
456: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B368,98;%%
457: }
458:
459: %\KachruHE
460: \lref\KachruHE{ S.~Kachru, M.~Schulz and S.~Trivedi, ``Moduli
461: stabilization from fluxes in a simple IIB orientifold,''
462: arXiv:hep-th/0201028.
463: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201028;%%
464: }
465: %\FreyHF
466: \lref\FreyHF{ A.~R.~Frey and J.~Polchinski, ``N = 3 warped
467: compactifications,'' arXiv:hep-th/0201029.
468: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201029;%%
469: }
470: %%\DysonNT
471: \lref\DysonNT{L.~Dyson, J.~Lindesay and L.~Susskind, ``Is there
472: really a de Sitter/CFT duality,''arXiv:hep-th/0202163.
473: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202163;%%
474: }
475: %%\CrapsII
476: \lref\CrapsII{ B.~Craps, D.~Kutasov and G.~Rajesh, ``String
477: Propagation in the Presence of Cosmological Singularities,''
478: arXiv:hep-th/0205101.
479: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205101;%%
480: } \lref\gp{ P.~Ginsparg and M.~J.~Perry, ``Semiclassical
481: Perdurance Of De Sitter Space,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 222}, 245
482: (1983).}
483:
484: \lref\gh{ G.~W.~Gibbons and C.~M.~Hull, ``de Sitter space from
485: warped supergravity solutions,'' arXiv:hep-th/0111072.}
486:
487: %\StromingerPN
488: \lref\StromingerPN{ A.~Strominger, ``The dS/CFT correspondence,''
489: JHEP {\bf 0110}, 034 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0106113].
490: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106113;%%
491: }
492:
493:
494:
495: \lref\chu{ C.~M.~Hull, ``de Sitter space in supergravity and M
496: theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0111}, 012 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0109213].}
497: \lref\fone{T.~Banks, ``Cosmological Breaking Of Supersymmetry?,''
498: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16}, 910 (2001).}
499: \lref\ftwo{
500: R.~Bousso, ``Positive vacuum energy and the N-bound,'' JHEP {\bf
501: 0011}, 038 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0010252].} \lref\per{ P.~Berglund,
502: T.~Hubsch and D.~Minic, ``de Sitter spacetimes from warped
503: compactifications of IIB string theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0112079.}
504: \lref\vn{ K.~Pilch, P.~van Nieuwenhuizen and M.~F.~Sohnius, ``De
505: Sitter Superalgebras And Supergravity,'' Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\
506: {\bf 98}, 105 (1985).} \lref\fre{ P.~Fre, M.~Trigiante and A.~Van
507: Proeyen, ``Stable de Sitter Vacua from N=2 Supergravity,''
508: arXiv:hep-th/0205119.} \lref\kallosh{ R.~Kallosh, ``N = 2
509: supersymmetry and de Sitter space,'' arXiv:hep-th/0109168.}
510: \lref\chamblin{ A.~Chamblin and N.~D.~Lambert, ``de Sitter space
511: from M-theory,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 369 (2001)
512: [arXiv:hep-th/0102159].} \lref\susskind{ L.~Susskind, ``Twenty
513: years of debate with Stephen,'' arXiv:hep-th/0204027.}
514: \lref\jmas{
515: J.~M.~Maldacena and A.~Strominger, ``Statistical entropy of de
516: Sitter space,'' JHEP {\bf 9802}, 014 (1998)
517: [arXiv:gr-qc/9801096].}
518:
519: %\StromingerJG
520: \lref\StromingerJG{ A.~Strominger, ``The Inverse Dimensional
521: Expansion In Quantum Gravity,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 3082
522: (1981).
523: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,3082;%%
524: }
525:
526: %\GatesCT
527: \lref\GatesCT{ S.~J.~Gates and B.~Zwiebach, ``Gauged N=4
528: Supergravity Theory With A New Scalar Potential,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B
529: {\bf 123}, 200 (1983).
530: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B123,200;%%
531: }
532: %\LindeSK
533: \lref\LindeSK{ A.~D.~Linde, ``Hard art of the universe creation
534: (stochastic approach to tunneling and baby universe formation),''
535: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 372}, 421 (1992) [arXiv:hep-th/9110037].
536: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9110037;%%
537: }
538: %\RohmAQ
539: \lref\RohmAQ{ R.~Rohm, ``Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking In
540: Supersymmetric String Theories,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 237}, 553
541: (1984).
542: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B237,553;%%
543: }
544:
545: %\DasguptaSS
546: \lref\DasguptaSS{ K.~Dasgupta, G.~Rajesh and S.~Sethi, ``M theory,
547: orientifolds and G-flux,'' JHEP {\bf 9908}, 023 (1999)
548: [arXiv:hep-th/9908088].
549: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9908088;%%
550: }
551:
552: %\KachruGS
553: \lref\KachruGS{ S.~Kachru, J.~Pearson and H.~Verlinde,
554: ``Brane/flux annihilation and the string dual of a
555: non-supersymmetric field theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0112197.
556: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112197;%%
557: }
558:
559: \lref\raph{R. Bousso, ''Adventures in de Sitter space'',
560: hep-th/0205177.}
561:
562: \lref\raphb{ R.~Bousso, O.~DeWolfe and R.~C.~Myers, ``Unbounded
563: entropy in spacetimes with positive cosmological constant,''
564: arXiv:hep-th/0205080.
565: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205080;%%
566: .}
567:
568: %\HalyoPX
569: \lref\HalyoPX{
570: E.~Halyo,
571: ``De Sitter entropy and strings,''
572: arXiv:hep-th/0107169.
573: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107169;%%
574: }
575:
576: %\BalasubramanianRB
577: \lref\BalasubramanianRB{ V.~Balasubramanian, P.~Ho\v{r}ava and
578: D.~Minic, ``Deconstructing de Sitter,'' JHEP {\bf 0105}, 043
579: (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0103171].
580: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103171;%%
581: }
582:
583: %\GarrigaEF
584: \lref\GarrigaEF{ J.~Garriga and A.~Vilenkin, ``Recycling
585: universe,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2230 (1998)
586: [arXiv:astro-ph/9707292].
587: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9707292;%%
588: }
589:
590: \lref\simeon{S. Hellerman, private communication.}
591:
592: %\WittenKN
593: \lref\WittenKN{
594: E.~Witten,
595: ``Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,''
596: arXiv:hep-th/0106109.
597: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106109;%%
598: }
599:
600: %\GoheerVF
601: \lref\GoheerVF{
602: N.~Goheer, M.~Kleban and L.~Susskind,
603: ``The trouble with de Sitter space,''
604: arXiv:hep-th/0212209.
605: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212209;%%
606: }
607:
608: %\ParkQK
609: \lref\ParkQK{ M.~I.~Park, ``Statistical entropy of
610: three-dimensional Kerr-de Sitter space,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
611: 440}, 275 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9806119].
612: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806119;%%
613: }
614:
615:
616:
617: %\ParkYW
618: \lref\ParkYW{ M.~I.~Park, ``Symmetry algebras in Chern-Simons
619: theories with boundary: Canonical approach,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B
620: {\bf 544}, 377 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9811033].
621: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811033;%%
622: }
623:
624:
625:
626:
627: \def\a{\alpha}
628: \def\p{\partial}
629: \def\half{{1\over2}}
630: \def\apm{{\a^\prime}}
631:
632: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
633: %1111111111
634:
635: \Title{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt\hbox{hep-th/0304220}
636: \hbox{SLAC-PUB-9717}\hbox{SU-ITP-03/08}}} {\vbox{
637: \centerline{D-Sitter Space:}
638: \bigskip
639: %\centerline{of}
640: %\bigskip
641: \centerline{Causal Structure, Thermodynamics, and Entropy}
642: }}
643:
644:
645: \centerline{Michal Fabinger and Eva Silverstein}
646: \bigskip
647: \centerline{ \sl SLAC and Department of Physics}
648:
649: \centerline{ \sl Stanford University}
650:
651: \centerline{ \sl Stanford, CA 94305/94309}
652:
653:
654:
655: %\draft
656:
657: %\Title{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt\hbox{hep-th/0304220} \hbox{SU-ITP-}
658: %\hbox{SLAC-PUB-} }} {\vbox{ {\centerline{D-Sitter Space:}}
659: %{\centerline{Causal Structure, Thermodynamics, and Entropy}} } }
660:
661:
662:
663: %\centerline{Michal Fabinger and Eva Silverstein\footnote{$^*$}
664: %{SLAC and Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
665: %94309}}
666:
667: \bigskip
668: \bigskip
669:
670:
671: \vskip .3in \centerline{\bf Abstract} {We study the entropy of
672: concrete de Sitter flux compactifications and deformations of them
673: containing D-brane domain walls. We determine the relevant causal
674: and thermodynamic properties of these ``D-Sitter" deformations of
675: de Sitter spacetimes. We find a string scale correspondence point
676: at which the entropy localized on the D-branes (and measured by
677: probes sent from an observer in the middle of the bubble) scales
678: the same with large flux quantum numbers as the entropy of the
679: original de Sitter space, and at which Bousso's bound is saturated
680: by the D-brane degrees of freedom (up to order one coefficients)
681: for an infinite range of times. From the geometry of a static
682: patch of D-Sitter space and from basic relations in flux
683: compactifications, we find support for the possibility of a low
684: energy open string description of the static patch of de Sitter
685: space.
686: %In studying
687: %the causal structure of D-Sitter space, we find a limit in which
688: %the branes approach the a patch of the horizon of a static
689: %observer for all time as the space approaches de Sitter space;
690: %thmay provide evidence for (and a concrete avenue toward) the
691: %possibility of a description of the de Sitter causal patch in
692: %terms of open strings ending on the horizon.
693: } \vskip .3in
694:
695:
696: \smallskip
697: \Date{April 2003}
698: %\listtoc
699: %\writetoc
700:
701: \vfill \eject
702:
703:
704:
705:
706:
707:
708:
709: \newsec{Introduction and Summary}
710:
711: Flux compactifications play a very important role in string
712: theory. They provide examples of backgrounds with fixed moduli,
713: both in potentially realistic settings with small internal compact
714: spaces \refs{\KachruAW \GiddingsYU \FreyHF \KachruHE \MaloneyRR
715: \SilversteinXN - \AcharyaKV} and in canonical examples of the
716: AdS/CFT correspondence where the compact space is a large Einstein
717: space \MaldacenaRE. In both these cases, a negative contribution
718: to the effective moduli potential (coming from positive scalar
719: curvature, orientifold planes, or 7-branes wrapped nontrivially on
720: 4-cycles in the base of elliptically fibred Calabi-Yau fourfold
721: compactifications of F theory \GiddingsYU) plays off against
722: positive contributions (including energy contained in quantized
723: fluxes) to produce a local minimum. In a natural class of models
724: where we scale up the RR flux quantum numbers $Q_{RR}$ leaving
725: other parameters fixed, the string coupling is fixed at a value of
726: order
727: %
728: \eqn\basicgflux{ g_s\sim 1/Q_{RR} }
729: %
730:
731: In this paper, we will study the entropy of flux
732: compactifications, focusing on the de Sitter case, via a simple
733: relation of de Sitter flux compactifications to deformations of
734: them which we will refer to as ``D-Sitter" spaces. These are
735: spacetimes containing D-brane domain walls surrounding a bubble of
736: a different de Sitter vacuum.
737:
738: We will analyze explicitly basic properties of D-Sitter and
739: corresponding de Sitter flux compactifications, and apply this
740: analysis to obtain two basic results.
741:
742: One of the main results will be a comparison of the entropy
743: carried locally on the D-branes, probed by an observer in the
744: middle of the bubble, with that of the original de Sitter space.
745: This will lead to an interesting string scale ``correspondence
746: point" at which they agree up to order one factors, somewhat
747: similar to the black hole correspondence point studied in
748: \refs{\SusskindWS,\HorowitzNW}.
749:
750: The other main result will be circumstantial evidence pointing toward a low
751: energy open string theory in the de Sitter causal patch, with
752: of order $Q_{RR}$ ways for the open strings to end on the horizon.
753: This evidence will be twofold. First, we will exhibit a set of
754: observers whose causal patch has a static coordinate system for
755: which one can take a limit in which the D-branes of the D-Sitter
756: space approach the horizon as the D-Sitter space approaches the
757: original de Sitter space. Second, we will show that a cutoff of
758: order string scale on $Q_{RR}^2$ D-brane worldvolume field theory
759: degrees of freedom, combined with the basic flux stabilization
760: result \basicgflux, produces an entropy agreeing with the de
761: Sitter entropy. An open string picture of horizons has been
762: advocated in \SusskindSM, and we interpret our results as
763: providing some concrete but circumstantial
764: evidence for this picture, and an avenue toward
765: studying it explicitly to which we hope to return in future
766: work.\foot{Recent examples of other time dependent backgrounds
767: usefully described in terms of open strings have been proposed in
768: \SenIN\GutperleAI\ and many related works.} Of course an open string
769: theory on the causal patch of
770: the perturbative de Sitter solution
771: does not account for decays
772: of de Sitter models \KachruAW\MaloneyRR\freyetal\ (which avoid
773: some of the puzzles
774: raised in e.g. \DysonNT\WittenKN\GoheerVF); we leave
775: for future work the description
776: of these decays from the D-Sitter point of view.
777:
778:
779: Having listed the main results, let us now turn to a
780: more extensive summary
781: of the motivation and the elements of our analysis.
782:
783: In AdS/CFT examples, the physics of the flux compactification is
784: equivalent to that of a large $N$ dual field theory. This
785: provides a holographic description of the background. In
786: particular, the logarithm of the total number of states of the
787: cutoff field theory (which we will refer to as the Susskind-Witten
788: entropy) can be compared to that contained in AdS, and in the
789: simplest case of ${\cal N}=4$ super-Yang-Mills one finds an
790: entropy scaling like $N^2$ on both sides \SusskindDQ.
791:
792: The relatively well understood AdS/CFT examples arise from near
793: horizon limits of brane systems, while generic flux
794: compactifications based on Calabi Yau or orbifold internal spaces,
795: even those that reduce to AdS as opposed to dS or Minkowski space,
796: have not been constructed from such a near horizon limit. Also
797: the simplest AdS/CFT examples have a tunable dilaton, while
798: generically this modulus is fixed (or runs away) in flux
799: compactifications.
800:
801: However, one can still study the entropy $S(\{ Q_i\} )$ associated
802: with a generic flux background as a function of the flux quantum
803: numbers $\{ Q_i \}$. Moreover, one can trade fluxes for branes in
804: a region of the gravity background by introducing a bubble whose
805: wall is made up of D-branes.
806: %
807: % Shifting figure number from 0 to 1
808: \global\advance\figno by1
809: %
810: \ifig\flux{In a compactification of string theory with fluxes, we
811: can locally change the amount flux through a certain cycle by
812: introducing branes wrapped on the dual cycle.}
813: {\epsfxsize2.5in\epsfbox{flux.eps}} In AdS/CFT examples, this
814: procedure produces the gravity dual of the field theory on its
815: Higgs or Coulomb branch, for which BPS states can be followed
816: adiabatically. We can implement this procedure much more widely,
817: applying it to dS flux compactifications where we do not
818: know a field theory dual.
819:
820: In the AdS/CFT case, this procedure could be applied step by step,
821: pulling a small number of D-branes out of the horizon in each
822: step. Then calculating the spectrum of strings stretched to the
823: horizon from the branes would provide a microscopic accounting of
824: the derivative of the Susskind-Witten entropy with respect to flux
825: quantum numbers. It is not yet known how to do this calculation
826: of the stretched string spectrum. One can however pull of order
827: $N$ branes out of the horizon in the gravity dual of a large $N$
828: field theory (as in the simplest example of \KrausHV) and thus
829: transform of order $N^2$ of the entropy into states localized on
830: the D-branes.
831:
832: In this paper, we will evaluate the entropy carried by D-brane
833: bubbles obtained by deformation from dS and AdS flux
834: compactifications, and compare it to the entropy associated to the
835: flux compactifications themselves.
836:
837:
838: To begin, we will analyze the thermodynamic and causal properties
839: of the de Sitter spacetimes containing bubbles (which we will
840: refer to as D-Sitter spacetimes), which turns out to be quite
841: interesting in its own right. In particular, a priori one might
842: think that there is no equilibrium thermodynamic ensemble in which
843: to compute the entropy because the branes separate phases of
844: different dS cosmological constant (and thus naively they feel
845: different temperature on the two sides of their worldvolume).
846: However, as we will see here, by taking into account the
847: acceleration of the brane observer on at least one side and the
848: resulting Rindler temperature, one can identify a well-defined
849: temperature on the D-branes and work consistently in a canonical
850: thermodynamic ensemble.
851:
852: We will determine the causal patches of important classes of
853: observers in the D-Sitter spacetimes. One important type of
854: observer has a static causal patch identical to that of ordinary
855: de Sitter space, so that the deformation from de Sitter
856: to D-Sitter changes only
857: what is behind the horizon for this observer.
858: The observer in the middle of the bubble will
859: also play an important role. This observer's causal patch is not
860: static but has very interesting properties: it contains the
861: D-branes which carry entropy, and at the same time has a smaller
862: horizon area at the moment of time symmetry than the original de
863: Sitter causal patch so that as we increase the brane entropy we
864: decrease the entropy associated with the horizon.
865:
866: For generic
867: D-Sitter spacetimes, we will find that in the canonical ensemble
868: applying to our system,
869: the entropy localized on the
870: branes which is probed by this observer is much smaller than
871: the original de Sitter entropy.
872: Other excitations not localized on the D-branes,
873: such as strings stretching from the
874: D-branes to the horizon of this observers causal patch,
875: are Boltzmann suppressed in the canonical ensemble
876: but perhaps could play a role analogous
877: to that of the states counted in the full Susskind-Witten
878: entropy in the AdS case.
879:
880: However, we will exhibit an interesting ``correspondence point"
881: related to that of \refs{\SusskindWS,\HorowitzNW} at which the
882: D-brane entropy approaches the dS entropy. In this correspondence
883: limit, the Bousso bound \BoussoXY\ also approaches saturation for
884: all positive global times.
885:
886: %For all regimes, when
887: %we take into account the states not localized on
888: %the D-branes our results are
889: %consistent with the possibility that D-Sitter entropy measured
890: %by this observer in the middle of the bubble agrees
891: %with the corresponding de Sitter entropy up to order
892: %one coefficients. It is not
893: %clear a priori why this should be so, but we will explore
894: %it in light of the fact that our D-Sitter deformation
895: %can leave intact a full causal patch of de Sitter space.
896:
897:
898: %It is perhaps suggested
899: %by the fact that one can replace the spacetime behind
900: %the horizon of a dS causal patch with a D-Sitter bubble instead
901: %of the rest of de Sitter space; from this statement plus
902: %the assumption that the horizon of the dS causal patch
903: %encodes the physics behind the horizon one could conclude
904: %that DS and dS entropy should agree.
905:
906:
907: Brane observers have a static coordinate system parameterizing
908: their causal patch, as do observers maintaining a fixed distance
909: from the branes. For these latter observers, one can take a limit
910: in which the branes approach a trajectory tracking a portion of
911: the observer horizon and in which the observer's causal patch
912: approaches that of the original de Sitter space. This latter
913: result may provide a concrete avenue toward realizing the goal of
914: formulating horizon physics via open strings \SusskindSM. Closed
915: strings exiting the horizon effectively have a boundary there, and
916: the relation to D-branes we uncover in this paper may help in
917: formulating this string theory as an open string theory. As we
918: will see, the naive estimate that this putative open string theory
919: has of order $Q_{RR}$ Chan-Paton indices and should be described
920: as a field theory cut off at the string scale gives the correct
921: entropy for de Sitter space once we include the basic relation
922: \basicgflux\ coming from the flux stabilization of the dilaton in
923: real models.
924:
925: This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we will explain
926: the deformation between flux compactifications and D-brane
927: bubbles, share a motivating analogy to our procedure in ordinary
928: AdS/CFT, and briefly discuss the Susskind-Witten entropy of more
929: general AdS flux vacua. In section 3, we turn to the de Sitter
930: case. We explain the causal structure and thermodynamics of the DS
931: (D-Sitter) spacetimes. In section 4, we discuss the thermal
932: equilibrium of the domain walls. In section 5, we determine the
933: entropy carried by the branes as observed by probes sent from an
934: observer in the middle of the bubble, focusing on case of horizon
935: sized bubbles, and explain the ``correspondence point'' at which
936: this is comparable to the dS entropy. In section 6, we
937: analyze Bousso's bound in D-Sitter spacetime. In section 7, we
938: focus on the observers with a static causal patch and present our
939: circumstantial evidence for an open string interpretation. In section 8 we
940: conclude with a summary and some discussion of open questions.
941:
942: Other approaches to the microscopic counting of dS entropy have
943: appeared in \refs{\HawkingDA \MaldacenaIH \StromingerPN \BanksFE
944: \HalyoPX \BalasubramanianRB \ParkQK - \ParkYW}. Other works have
945: recently studied nonperturbative decays of flux compactifications
946: arising when brane bubbles dynamically nucleate \refs{\FengIF
947: \BoussoXA \KachruGS - \freyetal, \MaloneyRR} following
948: \refs{\ColemanAW,\BrownKG} and many other works; a recent
949: discussion of thick wall decays occurs in \BanksNM. In \Andreas\
950: appears an investigation of entropy associated with dS slices of
951: dS space.
952:
953:
954:
955: \newsec{The basic deformation, and warmup AdS Examples}
956:
957: One can rather generally obtain sets of D-branes associated to any
958: flux background by deforming the system to one containing D-brane
959: bubbles as in \flux. The procedure is the following. Let us
960: consider a compactification on $X$ down to $d$ dimensions. Given
961: flux $\int_C F=Q_R$ on a cycle $C$ of the compactification, we can
962: introduce $Q$ D-branes wrapped on a dual cycle $\tilde C$ sourcing
963: the same RR field strength $F$. This set of D-branes is locally a
964: domain wall in the $d$-dimensional spacetime, on one side of which
965: (say the right side) the flux is $Q_R$ and on the left side of
966: which the flux is $Q_L\equiv Q_R-Q$. For these different flux
967: quantum numbers, the rest of the spacetime adjusts itself to solve
968: the equations of motion on each side in the presence of the
969: corresponding quantized flux. Topologically this is always
970: possible, though generically this will lead to time dependent
971: solutions, and in some cases the evolution will take the system
972: out of theoretical control.
973:
974: Our general strategy will be to consider cases where the resulting
975: D-brane system is under control, and to study the entropy of the
976: system both in the original flux compactification and in the
977: D-brane bubble spacetime obtained from this deformation.
978:
979: In black hole physics, one could deform a set of D-branes into a
980: black hole by dialing the 't Hooft coupling $g_sQ$, and in
981: appropriate cases count the entropy precisely using the D-brane
982: worldvolume theory \StromingerSH. While our goal (transmuting the
983: system into a system of D-branes whose states are easier to count)
984: is similar, note that the deformation we are considering is
985: different from that of \StromingerSH. In order to deform from the
986: D-brane bubble spacetime into the original flux compactification,
987: we must shrink the bubble (which generically requires going over a
988: barrier). As we will discuss in the next subsection, this is
989: analogous to moving on the moduli space of the field theory side
990: of AdS/CFT rather than dialing the 't Hooft coupling.
991:
992: This difference with the black hole case of \StromingerSH,
993: combined with the basic difference that there is no unbroken
994: supersymmetry in our de Sitter case, will leave us with less
995: conclusive results than \StromingerSH. Still, we will be able to
996: obtain results similar to the D-brane cases of the black hole
997: correspondence principle \refs{\SusskindWS,\HorowitzNW}, and we
998: will obtain results from flux compactification which are
999: nontrivially consistent with an open string interpretation of the
1000: de Sitter causal patch.
1001:
1002: D-brane domain walls have been applied fruitfully for example in
1003: \refs{\GukovYA,\KachruGS,\AcharyaDZ} to describe important aspects
1004: of the physics of gauge/gravity dual pairs, as well as to studying
1005: nonperturbative decays of flux compactifications arising when
1006: brane bubbles dynamically nucleate \refs{\FengIF \BoussoXA
1007: \KachruGS - \freyetal, \MaloneyRR} following
1008: \refs{\ColemanAW,\BrownKG}. Here, we will apply it to the question
1009: of the microscopic accounting of the entropies associated with
1010: flux compactifications. We will focus on the de Sitter case in
1011: later sections, but here we will begin with the very instructive
1012: case of AdS.
1013:
1014: \subsec{AdS/CFT analogy and motivation}
1015:
1016: In the usual AdS/CFT correspondence, one can deform the gravity
1017: side background smoothly into one in which there are D-branes
1018: separating an AdS region from say flat space \KrausHV. In
1019: the holographic dual field theory, this is a deformation
1020: corresponding to going out on the Coulomb branch of the $U(N)$
1021: ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory. If we consider the entropy
1022: corresponding to simply a count of the total number of states in
1023: the Hilbert space below some cutoff \SusskindDQ, then we can
1024: adiabatically follow the states as we move onto the Coulomb
1025: branch. In particular, for BPS states we expect of order $N^2$
1026: massive off-diagonal BPS ``W boson'' states to be identifiable
1027: after the deformation, and this corresponds to the fact that the
1028: bubble wall of D-branes in the \KrausHV\ model carries entropy of
1029: order $N^2$ from off diagonal stretched strings. Thus in this
1030: case, the BPS states are still visible on the gravity side, but
1031: have become massive stretched string states.\foot{In this example,
1032: the non-BPS states are as always more difficult to follow, and
1033: there appears to be substantial non-BPS entropy available in the
1034: flat region inside the spherical shell of \KrausHV; e.g. one could
1035: put a Schwarzschild black hole there.} In other words, if we had
1036: not known about the full AdS/CFT duality obtained by taking a near
1037: horizon limit, but instead just had the $AdS\times S$ flux
1038: compactification itself, we could still have obtained by this method a
1039: nontrivial microscopic rendering of the BPS Susskind-Witten
1040: entropy of the system in terms of degrees of freedom on D-branes.
1041:
1042: \ifig\ads{Anti D-Sitter space: a D-brane domain wall consisting
1043: of $Q$ D3-branes separates
1044: a region of flux $N_R$ to the right of the wall from a region of
1045: flux $N_L=N_R-Q$ to the left of the wall. For $Q<< N_R$, the difference
1046: in entropy at low energies goes like $2QN_L$, the number
1047: of strings stretched from the branes to the horizon. It is not
1048: known how to calculate this number directly on the gravity
1049: side of AdS/CFT. For $Q$ of order $N_R$, on can count
1050: states localized on the D-branes to obtain an entropy of the same
1051: order in flux quantum numbers as the original anti de Sitter space.}
1052: {\epsfxsize2.5in\epsfbox{ads.eps}}
1053:
1054: One can also study a Coulomb branch configuration corresponding to
1055: taking $Q<<N_R$ branes out of an original stack of $N_R$ branes
1056: and separating them from $N_L=N_R-Q$ remaining branes. This
1057: corresponds in the near horizon region to a domain wall containing
1058: $N$ D3-branes separating a phase of flux $N_R$ from one of flux
1059: $N_L\equiv N_R-Q$. The change in the number of degrees of freedom
1060: as we pull the $Q$ branes away is of order $Q N_L$ and comes
1061: mostly from strings stretching from the domain wall to the horizon
1062: of the Poincare patch. If we could independently count these
1063: strings purely on the gravity side, then this would provide a
1064: microscopic accounting of the derivative of the entropy with
1065: respect to the flux quantum number. It is not known how to do
1066: this counting; in any case in a fixed temperature ensemble these
1067: strings are Boltzmann suppressed. As we have seen, in the AdS case
1068: we can simply trade all of the flux for branes in the flat region
1069: of the \KrausHV\ examples.
1070:
1071: In our de Sitter case, we will also not be able to count such
1072: stretched strings and will instead focus on the question of how
1073: many states are localized on the D-brane wall itself. These
1074: strings alone will be able to saturate the dS entropy in a string
1075: scale ``correspondence point". It would be very interesting to
1076: develop techniques to count the strings stretched to the horizon
1077: in both the AdS and dS cases. We will leave this for future work.
1078:
1079: %There are also lighter non-BPS excitations within the shell in the
1080: %model of \KrausHV, which predicts some interesting physics at low
1081: %energies in the strongly coupled gauge theory which has not been
1082: %much developed.
1083:
1084: An interesting variant on this case is to carry out the same
1085: procedure for situations with fractional branes, i.e. orbifolds of
1086: AdS/CFT \KachruYS\ such as $AdS_5\times S^5/Z_k$. Then although
1087: the flux integrated over the cycle $S^5/Z_k$ is $N$, the total
1088: entropy is $kN^2$ rather than $N^2$ as our naive estimate would
1089: indicate. In this case, one could deduce this from the D-brane
1090: domain wall configuration in the near horizon limit by the
1091: presence of $k$ sectors of wound strings.
1092:
1093: AdS vacua having no known interpretation as near horizon limits of
1094: branes arise from flux compactifications as discussed recently in
1095: various approaches \refs{ \KachruAW, \AcharyaKV}. In the KKLT
1096: models yielding AdS vacua (i.e. before the introduction of the
1097: anti D3-brane which uplifts the AdS to dS in their construction),
1098: the Susskind-Witten entropy as a function of flux quantum numbers
1099: can be estimated. As we will show in \S5.4, the Bousso-Polchinski
1100: mechanism allows one to tune the cosmological constant very
1101: finely, leading to an entropy that can be as large as of order
1102: %
1103: \eqn\entKKLT{ S\sim Q^{{\chi\over 2}+4} }
1104: %
1105: in terms of a flux quantum number $Q$ where $\chi$ is the Euler
1106: characteristic of the Calabi-Yau fourfold compactification of F
1107: theory. The result \entKKLT\ is much larger than the naive entropy
1108: on D-branes of order $Q^2$. However, it is intriguing in its
1109: dependence on the integer flux quantum numbers, perhaps suggesting
1110: a dual gauge theory with many flavors. It is conceivable that this
1111: indicates a phenomenon like that of fractional branes just
1112: reviewed.
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1117:
1118: % BEGINNING OF PASTING
1119:
1120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1121:
1122:
1123:
1124: \newsec{Causal Structure and Penrose Diagrams}
1125:
1126: Let us now move on to our main interest of de Sitter flux vacua.
1127: We will be interested in the entropy carried by the D-branes in
1128: the D-Sitter spacetimes which are deformations of de Sitter space
1129: with D-brane bubbles. In ordinary de Sitter space, each observer
1130: determines a causal patch, and the horizon of area $A$ in this
1131: causal patch has been argued to carry an entropy accessible to
1132: this observer $A/4l_d^{d-2}$ in terms of the $d$-dimensional
1133: Planck scale $l_d$ \GibbonsMU. As we discussed in \S1, we can
1134: deform dS to DS by introducing D-brane bubbles. In this section
1135: we will begin our analysis of these spacetimes by determining
1136: their causal structure, including an explicit specification of the
1137: Penrose diagrams for D-Sitter. This will enable us to determine
1138: the causal patches for various observers which replace the causal
1139: patch of the original de Sitter space for those observers. For an
1140: important class of D-Sitter solutions, there is at least one
1141: observer whose causal patch remains the same as in the original de
1142: Sitter space. For an observer in the middle of the bubble, the
1143: causal patch has a smaller horizon area than the original de
1144: Sitter causal patch, and in the case of a bubble of flat space the
1145: size of the original dS horizon this area shrinks to zero. For
1146: observers maintaining a fixed distance from the branes, there is a
1147: static coordinate system covering their causal patches. This
1148: causal patch has the interesting property that one can take a
1149: limit in which the D-branes approach the horizon for these
1150: observers.
1151:
1152: \subsec{Penrose Diagrams}
1153:
1154: \ifig\instanton{This figure shows a solution of the Euclidean
1155: Einstein's equations, with two regions of different cosmological
1156: constants ($\Lambda_L < \Lambda_R$) separated by a massive brane.
1157: In the thin wall approximation, matching the metrics on two sides
1158: of the brane is done using the Israel junction conditions. By
1159: Wick-rotating the $\theta$ coordinate one obtains a solution of
1160: Lorentzian Einstein's equations which contains two different de
1161: Sitter vacua connected to each other by a brane. We refer to such
1162: Lorentzian solutions as `D-Sitter'. }
1163: {\epsfxsize2.2in\epsfbox{instanton.eps}} %%
1164:
1165: Let us now analyze the causal structure of the D-Sitter spacetimes
1166: which arise as analytic continuations of the Euclidean solutions
1167: from \instanton to Lorentzian signature. These spacetimes contain
1168: a spherical domain wall which first contracts, and then expands
1169: again. The domain wall separates two regions (referred to as
1170: $dS_L$ and $dS_R$) of different cosmological constants
1171: ($\Lambda_L$ and $\Lambda_R$). Our strategy will be to
1172: analytically continue $\theta$ in each of those regions
1173: separately. We will work mainly in the thin wall approximation,
1174: and comment on the thick wall generalization at the end.
1175:
1176: %We are considering a configuration in which a given de Sitter
1177: %space (let us call it $dS_R$ for reasons that will be come
1178: %apparent from the Penrose diagrams) contains a spherical domain
1179: %wall inside of which sits a region of another de Sitter solution
1180: %(which we will call $dS_L$). This bubble geometry, whose Euclidean
1181: %solutions are depicted in figure \instanton, can be thought of as
1182: %taking $dS_R$ and $dS_L$, excising an appropriate bubble out of
1183: %each, and gluing them together consistently with the Israel
1184: %junction conditions as studied in \BrownKG. The strategy will be
1185: %to analytically continue each side of the domain wall separately
1186: %and then paste the corresponding Penrose diagrams together. Each
1187: %side will be a subset of the Penrose diagram for the corresponding
1188: %$dS_\gamma$ ($\gamma=L,R$) space. We will work mainly in the thin
1189: %wall approximation, and comment on the thick wall generalization
1190: %at the end.
1191:
1192: Let us consider one particular side of the Euclidean solution. The
1193: round sphere metric is given by
1194: %
1195: \eqn\sphereone{ds^2 = d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \ d\Omega^2_{d-1}.}
1196: %
1197: After the analytic continuation $\theta \to i\tau + \pi/2$, this
1198: becomes de Sitter space in global coordinates
1199: %
1200: \eqn\globaldesitter{ds^2 = -d\tau^2 + \cosh^2\tau \
1201: d\Omega^2_{d-1}.}
1202: %
1203: It is convenient to define a new time coordinate -- the conformal
1204: time $T$
1205: %
1206: \eqn\conformaltime{{1 \over \cos T} = \cosh \tau, \quad T \in
1207: \left(-{\pi \over 2},{ \pi \over 2}\right),}
1208: %
1209: and to expand $d\Omega^2_{d-1}$ as
1210: %
1211: \eqn\globaldesittertwo{ds^2 = {1 \over \cos^2 T }\ \! \left(- \
1212: \! dT^2 + d\thp^2 + \sin^2 \thp \ \! d\Omega^2_{d-2} \right).}
1213: %
1214: \ifig\desitter{Penrose diagram of de Sitter space. Over each point
1215: in this picture there is an $S^{d-2}$, which degenerates to a zero
1216: size at $\theta' = 0$ and $\theta' = \pi$. Every horizontal slice
1217: is an $S^{d-1}$. The diagonal lines represent light rays
1218: originating from the poles of the $S^{d-1}$ at $T = - \pi /2$. }
1219: {\epsfxsize2.2in\epsfbox{desitter.eps}}
1220: %%
1221: \noindent Now, suppressing the $S^{d-2}$ directions, we obtain the
1222: Penrose diagram in \desitter. Only a part of it will be relevant
1223: for us at this point.
1224:
1225:
1226: In a full global de Sitter, the range of the coordinate $\thp$
1227: would be $(0, \pi)$. In the D-Sitter spacetimes it will be
1228: restricted to
1229: %
1230: \eqn\thetaprimerestriction{\thpl \in (0,\ \! \thplb(T_L)), \quad
1231: \thpr \in ( \thprb(T_R),\ \! \pi)}
1232: %
1233: on the left and on the right, respectively, because of the presence
1234: of the domain wall. We would like to find the precise form of the
1235: time-dependence of the position of the domain wall (or the
1236: `bubble'). In other words, we want to identify the functions
1237: $\thplb(T_L)$ and $\thprb(T_R)$.
1238:
1239: This can be easily done using the original Euclidean solution. Its
1240: embedding $(d+1)$-dimensional flat space may be expressed as
1241: %
1242: \eqn\embeddingone{\eqalign{x_1 &= R \cos\theta \cr x_2 &=
1243: R\sin\theta\cos{\theta'} \cr x_\alpha &= R \sin\theta \sin\theta'
1244: n_\alpha, \quad \alpha = 3 \dots (d+1), } }
1245: %
1246: where $\sum_\alpha n_\alpha^2 = 1$. The coordinates $x_i$
1247: satisfy
1248: %
1249: \eqn\spheretwo{x_1^2 + x_2^2 + \sum_{\alpha = 3}^{d+1} x_\alpha^2
1250: = R^2.}
1251: %
1252: The worldvolume of the domain wall is the intersection of
1253: \spheretwo\ with
1254: %
1255: \eqn\planarcut{x_2 = { \pm \sqrt{R^2 - R_B^2}},}
1256: %
1257: where only one sign on the right hand side should be considered.
1258: From \embeddingone\ and \planarcut\ we obtain
1259: %
1260: \eqn\costhetaprimeone{\cos \theta' = \pm \sqrt{1-{R_B^2 \over
1261: R^2}} \ \ {1 \over \sin \theta} .}
1262: %
1263: After the analytic continuation $\theta \to i\tau + \pi/2$ this
1264: becomes (using \conformaltime)
1265: %
1266: \eqn\costhetaprimetwo{\cos \theta' =
1267: %\pm \sqrt{{R^2 \over R_B^2} -1} \ \ {1 \over \cosh \tau} =
1268: \pm \sqrt{1-{R_B^2 \over R^2}} \
1269: \ \cos T.}
1270: %
1271: %There the position of the domain wall was given by
1272: %
1273: %\eqn\euclideandomainwall{\cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta \sin^2 \thp
1274: %= \left( {R_B \over R} \right)^2, }
1275: %\eqn\euclideandomainwall{R^2 \cos^2 \theta + R^2 \sin^2 \theta
1276: %\sin^2 \thp = {R_B }^2, }
1277: %%
1278: %or alternatively,
1279: %%
1280: %5\eqn\euclideandomainwalltwo{\sin^2 \thp = \left( {R_B^2 \over
1281: %R^2} - \cos^2 \theta \right) \ \! {1 \over \sin^2 \theta}. }
1282: %
1283: %
1284: %After the analytic continuation $\theta \to i\tau + \pi/2$ this
1285: %becomes
1286: %
1287: %\eqn\bubbletrajectory{\sin^2 \thp = \left( {R_B^2 \over R^2} +
1288: %\sinh^2 \tau \right) \ \! {1 \over \cosh^2 \tau}.}
1289: %
1290: Thus we have obtained the explicit time-dependence of the position
1291: of the domain wall
1292: %
1293: \eqn\bubbletrajectoryleft{\cos \thplb (T_L) = \pm \sqrt{ 1-{R_B^2
1294: \over R^2_L } } \ \! \cos T_L,}
1295: %
1296: %
1297: \eqn\bubbletrajectoryright{\cos \thprb (T_R) = \pm \sqrt{ 1-{R_B^2
1298: \over R^2_R } } \ \! \cos T_R.}
1299: %
1300: All combinations of signs are possible here except having a minus
1301: sign in \bubbletrajectoryleft\ and a plus sign in
1302: \bubbletrajectoryright. We will always choose $R_L > R_R$.
1303: %
1304: \ifig\bubbledesitter{D-Sitter spacetimes with a (a) `subcritical'
1305: bubble, $\thprb(T_R) < \pi /2$, (b) `critical' bubble,
1306: $\thprb(T_R) = \pi /2$, and (c) `supercritical' bubble
1307: $\thprb(T_R)
1308: > \pi /2$. In all cases we choose $\Lambda_L < \Lambda_R$, which means $R_L >
1309: R_R$. The shaded regions are absent from the spacetimes. In each
1310: case the two boundary lines of the shaded regions are to be
1311: identified.}
1312: {\epsfxsize5in\epsfbox{bubbledesitter.eps}} %%
1313: %
1314: \noindent The corresponding Penrose diagrams are depicted in
1315: \bubbledesitter.
1316:
1317: Having determined the position of the domain wall for each side in
1318: terms of $T_L$ and $T_R$ respectively, we can now match the two
1319: solutions by determining how the left and right coordinates on the
1320: bubble should be identified. That is, we would like to know which
1321: time $T_L$ at the domain wall corresponds to which $T_R$ at the
1322: same point. Again, this can be easily found using the original
1323: Euclidean solution where (cf. \embeddingone)
1324: %
1325: \eqn\matchingeuclideantimes{R_L \cos \theta_L = R_R \cos
1326: \theta_R.}
1327: %
1328: After the analytic continuation we obtain
1329: %
1330: \eqn\machingtaus{R_L \ \! \sinh \ \! \tau_L = R_R \ \! \sinh \ \!
1331: \tau_R.}
1332: %
1333: Expressed in terms of time $T_L$ and $T_R$ at the bubble this is
1334: %
1335: \eqn\matchingtimes{{1\over \cos^2 T_L}=1 + {R_R^2 \over R_L^2}
1336: \left( {1 \over \cos^2 T_R} - 1 \right).}
1337: %
1338:
1339: These relations are general (given the thin wall approximation).
1340: It is useful to distinguish three types of bubbles depending on
1341: whether the bubble is at the horizon size at $\tau=0$, below the
1342: horizon size, or above. Let us take for simplicity the case that
1343: $\Lambda_L \ll \Lambda_R$. (As we will review in \S5, it is
1344: possible in flux models to discretely tune $\Lambda$ to be very
1345: close to zero \refs{\BoussoXA,\MaloneyRR,\KachruAW}.) This means
1346: that the bubble is superhorizon size from the point of view of the
1347: $dS_L$. From the point of view of the $dS_R$, the bubble can be
1348: subhorizon sized, horizon sized, or superhorizon sized. As
1349: reviewed in \MaloneyRR, these cases correspond to a brane tension
1350: $T_B$ whose square is less than, equal to, or greater than a
1351: critical value
1352: $T_c^2={2(d-2)(d-1)^{-1}(\Lambda_R-\Lambda_L){l_d^{4-2d}}}$
1353: \BrownKG. We will refer to these bubbles as subcritical, critical,
1354: and supercritical, respectively.
1355:
1356: The Penrose diagrams we have determined so far (\bubbledesitter)
1357: had two separate pieces, each corresponding to one side of the
1358: domain wall, along with a prescription for identifying the points
1359: on the bubble wall to join the two pieces together. This might be
1360: sufficient for our purposes since we know how to map the points of
1361: the domain wall from one part of the Penrose diagram to the other.
1362: However, it may still be interesting to see how to construct one
1363: global (and connected) Penrose diagram from the two parts. In
1364: order to do so, we will have to perform a (conformal) coordinate
1365: transformation at least on one side.
1366:
1367:
1368:
1369: Our strategy will be the following. We want to find a global
1370: coordinate system $(\thpg, T_G)$ such that in the left part of the
1371: spacetime $(\thpg, T_G)$ are functions of $(\thpl, T_L)$, and in
1372: the right part of the spacetime $(\thpg, T_G) = (\thpr, T_R)$. We
1373: require that also in the new $(\thpg, T_G)$ coordinate system the
1374: light-cones are at 45 degrees. This means, of course, that the
1375: transformation from $(\thpl, T_L)$ to $(\thpg, T_G)$ must be
1376: conformal, i.e. of the form
1377: %
1378: \eqn\conformaltransformation{T_G + \thpg = f(T_L + \thpl), \quad
1379: T_G - \thpg = g(T_L - \thpl), }
1380: %
1381: where $f$ and $g$ are some functions. We have to make sure that at
1382: the domain wall the coordinates match correctly onto the right
1383: part of the Penrose diagram, where we decided to keep the original
1384: coordinates (i.e. where we chose $(\thpg, T_G) = (\thpr, T_R)$).
1385: This requirement translates into
1386: %
1387: \eqn\matchingone{T_R + \thprb (T_R) = f(T_L + \thplb (T_L), ) }
1388: %
1389: and
1390: %
1391: \eqn\matchingtwo{T_R - \thprb (T_R) = g(T_L - \thplb (T_L) ) ,}
1392: %
1393: where the functions $\thplb (T_L)$ and $\thprb (T_R)$ are given by
1394: \bubbletrajectoryleft\ and \bubbletrajectoryright, and where the
1395: times $T_L$ and $T_R$ are related by \matchingtimes. The
1396: conditions \matchingone\ and \matchingtwo\ determine the explicit
1397: form of the functions $f$ and $g$ in the conformal transformation
1398: \conformaltransformation.
1399: %
1400: \ifig\connected{Another rendering of the Penrose diagrams of
1401: D-Sitter spacetimes with a (a) `subcritical' bubble, $\thprb(T_R)
1402: < \pi /2$, (b) `critical' bubble, $\thprb(T_R) = \pi /2$, and (c)
1403: `supercritical' bubble $\thprb(T_R)
1404: > \pi /2$. In all cases we choose $\Lambda_L < \Lambda_R$, which means $R_L >
1405: R_R$.} {\epsfxsize5in\epsfbox{connected.eps}} %%
1406: %
1407: \noindent The resulting connected Penrose diagrams are in
1408: \connected.
1409:
1410:
1411: So far we have considered the idealized case where the domain wall
1412: is infinitely thin. One can also construct Penrose diagrams for
1413: spacetimes where the domain wall has a finite thickness. The
1414: causal structure is nevertheless very similar to the idealized
1415: case. (This case has been analyzed recently in \BanksNM\ following
1416: \ColemanAW\ in the context of bubble nucleation.)
1417: The analytic continuation of the Euclidean solution
1418: for a thick wall would suggest an exponentially growing
1419: wall thickness in the Lorentzian continuation. However,
1420: as long as the force holding the brane together is stronger
1421: then that coming from the de Sitter expansion, in
1422: the stable Lorentzian solution the brane's
1423: thickness will not grow exponentially and its intersection
1424: with future infinity in the Penrose diagram will be just
1425: a point.
1426:
1427:
1428:
1429: \subsec{Causal Patches in D-Sitter}
1430:
1431: We now turn to the question of the causal patches for observers in
1432: the D-Sitter spacetimes. In the Penrose diagram for ordinary de
1433: Sitter space (\desitter) each point represents an $S^{d-2}$, which
1434: shrinks to zero size at the left and right edges of the diagram.
1435: These edges are natural geodesics on which to place observers
1436: (both in $dS$ and $DS$) which we will refer to as ``left" and
1437: ``right" observers ${\cal O}_L$ and ${\cal O}_R$ respectively. In
1438: $dS$, each of these observers determines a causal patch, the
1439: triangles on the left and right sides of the figure. The static
1440: patch coordinates
1441: %
1442: \eqn\statcoords{ ds^2=-\left(1-{r^2\over
1443: R_{dS}^2}\right)dt^2+{dr^2\over 1-{r^2\over
1444: R_{dS}^2}}+r^2d\Omega^2_{d-2} }
1445: %
1446: reveal a horizon at $r=R_{dS}$. The time coordinate $t$ in the
1447: static patch goes to $\pm\infty$ at the two interior edges of the
1448: triangle (at $T=\pm(\theta'-\pi/2$)), and goes through zero at the
1449: central vertex of the triangle (at $T=0,\theta'=\pi/2$). At
1450: $t=0$, $r=1$ the transverse $S^{d-2}$ has area $A\sim
1451: R_{dS}^{d-2}$. Here sit the states accounting for the de Sitter
1452: entropy according to the ``hot tin can" picture developed e.g. in
1453: \DysonNT\ (which we will briefly review in \S6).
1454:
1455: We would like to know what the analogous results are for the
1456: D-Sitter spacetime. In the D-Sitter spacetime, there are several
1457: interesting classes of observers.
1458:
1459: \bigskip
1460: \noindent{\it Left Observer's Causal Patch}
1461: \bigskip
1462:
1463: Let us first focus on the observer ${\cal O}_L$ in the center of
1464: the bubble in the $dS_L$ part of the space. For subcritical
1465: bubbles and critical bubbles, the right observer ${\cal O}_R$
1466: has the same causal patch as in ordinary $dS_R$.
1467:
1468: In particular, we would like to compute the geometry of the causal
1469: patch and the horizon area of ${\cal O}_L$
1470: %
1471: \ifig\horizon{Calculation of the horizon area of the observer
1472: ${\cal O}_L$
1473: sitting on the left of the Penrose diagram, i.e. at $\theta' = 0$.
1474: } {\epsfxsize2.2in\epsfbox{horizon.eps}}
1475: %%
1476: (see \horizon).
1477:
1478: %
1479: First, we need to find the time $T_L$ when the light ray $\CL_1$
1480: reaches the domain wall,
1481: %
1482: \eqn\hitwallone{\thplb (T_L) = T_L + {\pi \over 2} .}
1483: %
1484: Using \bubbletrajectoryleft\ we can rewrite \hitwallone\ as
1485: %
1486: \eqn\hitwalltwo{{1\over \cos^2 T_L} = \left( 2 - {R_B^2 \over
1487: R_L^2} \right).}
1488: %
1489: This value of $T_L$ translates via \matchingtimes\ into the
1490: following $T_R$,
1491: %
1492: \eqn\hitwallthree{{1\over \cos^2 T_R} = {R_L^2 + R_R^2 - R_B^2
1493: \over R_R^2},}
1494: %
1495: and from \bubbletrajectoryright\ we see that the corresponding
1496: $\thprb$ satisfies
1497: %
1498: \eqn\hitwallfour{\sin^2 \thprb = {R_L^2 \over R_L^2 + R_R^2 -
1499: R_B^2 }.}
1500: %
1501: A short examination of \horizon\ reveals that the horizon are of
1502: the left observer at $T=0$ is given by
1503: %
1504: \eqn\horizonarea{A= |\Omega_{d-2}| R_R^{d-2} \sin^{d-2} (\thprb +
1505: T_R ),}
1506: %
1507: where $T_R$ and $\thprb$ are given by \hitwallthree\ and
1508: \hitwallfour, and where $|\Omega_{d-2}|$ stands for the volume of
1509: a unit $S^{d-2}$.
1510:
1511: Notice that for $R_L>>R_R$, $sin^2\theta'_{RB}\to 1$ so
1512: $\theta'_{RB}\to\pi/2$ while $cos^2T_R\to 0$ so $T_R\to -\pi/2$.
1513: This means $A\to 0$. In general, the horizon area we have
1514: calculated satisfies $A<A_R$, so adding branes (which carry some
1515: entropy) goes along with a decrease in the horizon area. We will
1516: exhibit an explicit relation expressing this tradeoff in \S5.1.
1517:
1518: We can simplify this result to obtain
1519: %
1520: \eqn\simpleA{
1521: A=|\Omega_{d-2}|R_R^{d-2}\left({R_LR_R+\sqrt{(R_R^2-R_B^2)(R_L^2-R_B^2)}\over
1522: R_L^2+R_R^2-R_B^2}\right)^{d-2} }
1523: %
1524: For critical bubbles, $R_R=R_B$ and
1525: $A=|\Omega_{d-2}|R_R^{d-2}(R_R/R_L)^{d-2}$.
1526:
1527: Note that the causal patch we have derived for the left observer
1528: ${\cal O}_L$ is not a {\it static} patch: the proper area of the
1529: bubble wall grows in time and so one cannot find static
1530: coordinates describing the whole left causal patch containing the
1531: bubble. The horizon area also changes as a function of time in the
1532: left causal patch. Both the D-brane entropy and the entropy
1533: associated with the horizon area grow in time for $\tau>0$.
1534:
1535: There is a set of observers whose causal patch is also static;
1536: these are the brane observers and those at a fixed distance from
1537: them, to which we turn next.
1538:
1539: \bigskip
1540: \noindent{\it Static patches in D-Sitter}
1541: \bigskip
1542:
1543: %From the Euclidean solution we see a manifest isometry of the
1544: %whole space along the $\phi$ direction (ADD A $\phi$ COORDINATE TO
1545: %THAT figure FOR USE HERE). We can analytically continue along
1546: %%this direction to obtain a static patch for the brane observer
1547: %. Note from the Penrose diagram that the $\tau=0$ horizon
1548: %area is always zero in this case.
1549:
1550: %Similarly, any observer ${\cal O}_s$ who remains at a constant
1551: %distance from the branes has a static causal patch. This
1552: %observer's causal patch is depicted in the figure . If we take
1553: %a limit where the branes become very {\it subhorizon} sized at
1554: %$\tau=0$, the branes stay close to the horizon of ${\cal O}_s$'s
1555: %causal patch for all times. This limit involves reducing the
1556: %tension and thus the number of D-branes. If we reduce this number
1557: %to zero, then the space reverts back to the original $dS_R$ de
1558: %Sitter space and ${\cal O}_s$'s causal patch is that of $dS_R$.
1559: %This will lead us to an interesting speculation in \S6\ regarding
1560: %open strings at the horizon of de Sitter space.
1561:
1562:
1563: In ordinary de Sitter space, one can identify a certain part of
1564: the space -- referred to as the `static patch' -- in which there
1565: exists a time-like Killing vector field. One can find many
1566: distinct static patches in a given global de Sitter space (cf.
1567: figs. 11 and 12). All of them are however equivalent up to the
1568: action of the de Sitter group $SO(d-1,1)$. Each static patch turns
1569: out to be the causal patch of some observer ( i.e. it is the set
1570: of points which are in both the causal past of at least one point
1571: of the observer's worldline, and in the causal future of some
1572: other point of the observer's worldline).
1573:
1574:
1575:
1576:
1577: We would like to find the static patches in D-Sitter spacetimes.\foot{We
1578: would like to thank L. Susskind for a question leading us
1579: in this direction.}
1580: Of course, in the case of the subcritical bubble (\bubbledesitter (a)),
1581: the causal patch of the right observer will be static,
1582: and it will not contain the bubble at all. Depending on the
1583: precise shape of the bubble, this will also be true for other
1584: observers with $\theta'$ not too far from $\pi$. There can be,
1585: however, more static patches in the D-Sitter space.
1586:
1587: The static patch of the usual de Sitter space (and its natural
1588: coordinate system) can be obtained by an analytic continuation
1589: from the Euclidean de Sitter solution, i.e. from a $d$-dimensional
1590: sphere. One writes the $S^d$ as an $S^1$ fibration over a
1591: hemisphere $S^{d-1} / \IZ_2$ in such a way that there is a
1592: manifest $U(1)$ isometry corresponding to motions along the $S^1$
1593: fiber. The metric on the $S^{d-1} / \IZ_2$ base is chosen to be
1594: independent of the fiber coordinate $\phi_d$. Then by
1595: Wick-rotating $\phi_d$ one obtains a patch of de Sitter space
1596: which is static. The static patch extends up to a horizon, located
1597: at the boundary of the $S^{d-1} / \IZ_2$ (where in the Euclidean
1598: solution the $S^1$ fiber was degenerate).
1599:
1600:
1601: We will repeat this construction here. Eventually, we will
1602: restrict our coordinates to range only up to the place where we
1603: want to place the domain wall. In this way we will obtain one side
1604: of a static patch in D-Sitter.
1605:
1606: Let us choose the following coordinates for the $S^d$.
1607: %
1608: \eqn\spherethree{\eqalign{y_1 &= R \cos \phi_1 \cr y_2 &= R \sin
1609: \phi_1 \cos \phi_2 \cr y_3 &= R \sin \phi_1 \sin \phi_2 \cos\phi_3
1610: \cr &\dots \cr y_d &= R \sin \phi_1 \sin \phi_2 \sin \phi_3 \dots
1611: \cos \phi_{d} \cr y_{d+1} &= R \sin \phi_1 \sin \phi_2 \sin \phi_3
1612: \dots \sin \phi_{d} }}
1613: %
1614: The $\phi_1, \dots \phi_{d-1}$ parameterize the $S^{d-1} / \IZ_2$
1615: base, and the $\phi_d$ is the $S^1$ fiber coordinate.
1616: %
1617: The range of
1618: $\phi_i$ for $i < d$ is $[0, \pi)$, and the range of $\phi_d$ is
1619: $[0,2\pi)$.
1620: %
1621: The metric of the $S^d$ can be written as
1622: %
1623: \eqn\spheremetric{\eqalign{{ds^2\over R^2} = d\phi_1^2 &+ \sin^2
1624: \phi_1 \ \! d\phi_2^2 + \sin^2 \phi_1 \sin^2 \phi_2 \ \! d\phi_3^2
1625: + \dots \cr &+ \sin^2 \phi_1 \sin^2 \phi_2 \sin^2 \phi_3 \dots
1626: \sin^2 \phi_{d-1} \ \! d\phi_d^2. }}
1627: %
1628: By the Wick rotation $\phi_d \to i\tilde t$, we get the metric of
1629: the de Sitter static patch
1630: %
1631: \eqn\staticmetric{\eqalign{{ds^2\over R^2} = d\phi_1^2 &+ \sin^2
1632: \phi_1 \ \! d\phi_2^2 + \sin^2 \phi_1 \sin^2 \phi_2 \ \! d\phi_3^2
1633: + \dots \cr &- \sin^2 \phi_1 \sin^2 \phi_2 \sin^2 \phi_3 \dots
1634: \sin^2 \phi_{d-1} \ \! d\tilde t^2. }}
1635: %
1636:
1637: Now we will consider the spatial geometry at some definite $t={\rm
1638: const. }$ The horizon will be located at
1639: %
1640: \eqn\horizonpositionone{ \sin^2 \phi_1 \sin^2 \phi_2 \sin^2 \phi_3
1641: \dots \sin^2 \phi_{d-1}=0.}
1642: %
1643: Even though this condition looks complicated, it is actually
1644: equivalent to
1645: %
1646: \eqn\horizonpositiontwo{ \sin \phi_{d-1}=0,}
1647: %
1648: because if $\sin \phi_{i} = 0$ for any $i<{d-1}$, the $\phi_{d-1}$
1649: coordinate becomes degenerate, and we may as well say that $\sin
1650: \phi_{d-1}=0$. Given the fact that we chose $\phi_{d-1}$ to be in
1651: $[0,\pi)$, we can rewrite \horizonpositiontwo\ as
1652: %
1653: \eqn\horizonpositiontwo{ \phi_{d-1}={0}
1654: %
1655: .}
1656: %
1657: In terms of the embedding coordinates of the $S^{d-1} / \IZ_2$
1658: %
1659: \eqn\spatialsphere{\eqalign{\tilde y_1 &= R \cos \phi_1 \cr \tilde
1660: y_2 &= R \sin \phi_1 \cos \phi_2 \cr \tilde y_3 &= R \sin \phi_1
1661: \sin \phi_2 \cos\phi_3 \cr &\dots \cr \tilde y_{d-1} &= R \sin
1662: \phi_1 \sin \phi_2 \sin \phi_3 \dots \cos \phi_{d-1} \cr \tilde
1663: y_{d} &= R \sin \phi_1 \sin \phi_2 \sin \phi_3 \dots \sin
1664: \phi_{d-1} }}
1665: %
1666: (which have to satisfy $\tilde x_{d}\ge 0$) the condition
1667: \horizonpositiontwo\ is simply
1668: %
1669: \eqn\horizonpositionthree{\tilde y_{d} = 0.}
1670: %
1671: For $d-1=2$ we could say that the horizon (i.e. the $\tilde y_{d}
1672: = 0$ curve) is well approximated by the union of the Greenwich
1673: meridian and the international date line (see fig. 8). For an
1674: observer living in the US, the world is terminated there, and the
1675: eastern hemisphere does not exist. In higher dimensions, the
1676: $\tilde y_{d} = 0$ curve becomes an $S^{d-2}$ surface dividing
1677: the $S^{d-1}$ into two halves. Only one half has a physical
1678: significance.
1679:
1680: For the reader's convenience, we will also provide an explicit
1681: coordinate redefinition which transforms the metric in the de
1682: Sitter static patch \staticmetric\ into the most standard form.
1683: Notice that using \spatialsphere\ we can rewrite \staticmetric\ as
1684: %
1685: \eqn\staticmetricy{ds^2 = - \tilde y^2_d \ \! d\tilde t^2 +
1686: \sum_{i=1}^d d \tilde y_i^2, \quad \sum_{i=1}^d \tilde y_i^2 =
1687: R^2,}
1688: %
1689: with the indicated constraint imposed on the $\tilde y_i$
1690: coordinates. It is easy to check that with the following
1691: definitions
1692: %
1693: \eqn\redefinition{ t = R\tilde t, \quad r^2 = R^2 - \tilde y_d^2,
1694: \quad \Omega_i = {\tilde y_i \over \sqrt{R^2 - \tilde y_d^2}},
1695: \quad i = 1, \dots (d-1),}
1696: %
1697: the static patch metric \staticmetric\ becomes
1698: %
1699: \eqn\standardmetric{ds^2 = - \left( 1- {r^2 \over R^2} \right)
1700: dt^2 + {dr^2 \over {1 - r^2/R^2} }+ r^2 d\Omega^2.}
1701: %
1702:
1703:
1704:
1705: \bigskip
1706:
1707: Now we can ask where we can place the domain wall inside the
1708: static patch. In the Euclidean solution, the brane could have been
1709: at the intersection of the sphere \spherethree\ with any plane
1710: %
1711: \eqn\plane{a_1 y_1 + a_2 y_2 + \dots + a_d y_d + a_{d+1}y_{d+1} =
1712: {\rm const.}, }
1713: %
1714: such that the radius of the spherical cut is $R_B$. However, we
1715: have Wick-rotated $\phi_d$. Because the definition of $y_d$ and
1716: $y_{d+1}$ contains $\phi_d$, we must set $a_d = a_{d+1} = 0$ in
1717: \plane. Otherwise, the brane would not be static in the `static
1718: patch'. Thus we can express the position of the brane purely in
1719: terms of the $\tilde y_i$ ($i<d$) coordinates defined in
1720: \spatialsphere,
1721: %
1722: \eqn\planetwo{a_1 \tilde y_1 + a_2 \tilde y_2 + \dots + a_{d-1}
1723: \tilde y_{d-1} = {\rm const.} }
1724: %
1725: We can also use an $SO(d-1)$ coordinate redefinition to
1726: transform \planetwo\ into
1727: %
1728: \eqn\planethree{ \tilde y_{d-1} = {\rm const.} }
1729: %
1730: %
1731: \ifig\hemispheres{The shaded surfaces in this figure represent the
1732: spatial geometry on one side of the brane in the static patch at
1733: some definite $t={\rm const.}$ To obtain the full spatial geometry
1734: of the static patch, one needs to glue together two surfaces of
1735: this type. The different cases in this figure are chosen to match
1736: the three possibilities for the right part of the diagrams in
1737: \figs{\bubbledesitter\ and\ \connected}.
1738: %
1739: %
1740: %
1741: } {\epsfxsize5in\epsfbox{hemispheres.eps}}
1742: %
1743:
1744: \ifig\spatial{A schematic picture of the spatial geometry of the
1745: static patch at $t={\rm const.}$ On each side of the brane the
1746: spatial curvature of the horizon is different. The branes are not
1747: really straight, as can be seen from \hemispheres. Note
1748: that as the tension of the branes decreases (moving
1749: from right to left in the sequence depicted here), they approach
1750: a part of the horizon and the static patch approaches that of de
1751: Sitter space ($dS_R$).}
1752: {\epsfxsize3.8in\epsfbox{spatial.eps}}
1753:
1754: Notice that viewed from the embedding space, the brane is
1755: `perpendicular' to the horizon: the brane is at $\tilde y_{d-1} =
1756: {\rm const.}$, whereas the horizon is at $\tilde y_d =0$. In
1757: other words, the brane is at a line (or surface) of a constant
1758: latitude, whereas the horizon has a fixed longitude, namely
1759: $\phi_{d-1} = 0^{\rm o}$ or $\phi_{d-1} = 180^{\rm o}$. The
1760: resulting situation is depicted in \hemispheres, and a
1761: schematic picture of this spatial slice is depicted in \spatial.
1762:
1763:
1764: We have determined how the static patch looks on one side of the
1765: domain wall. Of course, on the other side the situation will be
1766: qualitatively the same, so the only task remaining is to find how
1767: these static patches fit into the global geometry of the D-Sitter
1768: space.
1769:
1770: \ifig\embedding{Embedding of the static patch into the global
1771: geometry of D-Sitter space. Each `cylinder' represents a region
1772: of a definite cosmological constant in D-Sitter space, and its
1773: boundary is the location of the brane. The static patch is the
1774: causal patch of the observer whose worldline is indicated by the
1775: dotted line. The full global geometry of the D-Sitter (with a full
1776: static patch embedded in it) corresponds to two diagrams of this
1777: type, one for each side of the brane.}
1778: {\epsfxsize5.3in\epsfbox{embedding.eps}}
1779:
1780: This question is however very easy to answer. Any observer staying
1781: inside one particular static patch never looses causal contact
1782: with the brane. For this reason in the asymptotic past and the
1783: asymptotic future the observer's worldline must come to the same
1784: point in the Penrose diagram (see \embedding) as some part of the
1785: brane itself. (This does not mean that the observer must actually
1786: touch the brane, a sufficient condition is to stay a finite
1787: distance from the brane at all times.) The whole static patch can
1788: be therefore interpreted as the causal patch of some definite
1789: observer. (Of course, the causal patch cannot be larger than the
1790: static patch because it is impossible to return from behind the
1791: horizon.) The embedding of the static patch into the global
1792: D-Sitter is depicted in \embedding.
1793:
1794: \ifig\babysitter{The Penrose diagram of de Sitter space for $d=2$.
1795: Note that this Baby Sitter has rather special properties since
1796: $S^0 = \IZ_2$. The two vertical edges of the diagram should be
1797: identified because the spatial slice of the global geometry is a
1798: circle. The picture shows one static patch, which is the causal
1799: patch of an observer originating in $A$ and arriving at $B$, and
1800: another static patch, which is the causal patch of someone
1801: starting at $A$ and going to $C$. All the static patches are
1802: equivalent up to actions of the $SO(1,1)$ de Sitter group.
1803: }
1804: {\epsfxsize3.5in\epsfbox{babysitter.eps}} %%
1805:
1806:
1807:
1808:
1809:
1810: For completeness, we include also figures of the static patches
1811: two dimensional de Sitter and D-Sitter. We should
1812: remember, however, that this case is rather special because $S^0$
1813: is not a manifold, but simply just two points.
1814:
1815:
1816: \ifig\babyembedding{The shaded square in this figure shows a
1817: nontrivial static patch in a two-dimensional D-Sitter space. There
1818: are also trivial static patches, the causal patches of observers
1819: living close to $\theta'=\pi$, which do not contain the brane at
1820: all.}
1821: {\epsfxsize4in\epsfbox{babyembedding.eps}} %%
1822:
1823: \bigskip
1824:
1825: \bigskip
1826:
1827: In the next section, we will study the thermodynamic properties of
1828: the brane worldvolume theory.
1829:
1830:
1831:
1832:
1833: % END OF PASTING
1834: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1835: \newsec{Thermal equilibrium of the domain walls. }
1836: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1837:
1838: We will be interested in the thermodynamics of our domain walls
1839: separating two regions of different cosmological constants. One
1840: of the first questions that arises is whether they are in thermal
1841: equilibrium. Naively, one might expect that this would not be the
1842: case because the domain walls are separating regions of different
1843: de Sitter temperatures. We will see, however, that there is a
1844: subtle interplay between the de Sitter expansion and the
1845: acceleration of the branes leading to a well-defined temperature
1846: which is constant in time.
1847:
1848: Let us first consider the most simple case in which the
1849: cosmological constant in the left part of the spacetime vanishes,
1850: and the bubble is critical (\bubbledesitter (b)),
1851: $R_B=R_R$. We would like to know
1852: what will be the response of a particle detector located at a
1853: fixed position on the expanding (or shrinking) domain-wall. From
1854: the point of view of the right part of the spacetime, the detector
1855: is following a geodesic in de Sitter space, and it will see a
1856: constant temperature given by the de Sitter radius $\CT = {1 /
1857: 2\pi R_R }$. From the point of view of the left part of the
1858: spacetime (which is flat), the worldline of the detector is no
1859: longer a geodesic. Instead, it is a hyperbola corresponding to a
1860: constant proper acceleration $a = 1 / R_B = 1 / R_R$. For this
1861: reason, the detector should register a constant Rindler
1862: temperature given by $\CT ={a / 2\pi } = {1 / 2\pi R_R }$. We see
1863: that the two temperatures agree, and the detector can be in a
1864: thermal equilibrium at the temperature $\CT = {1 / 2\pi R_R }$.
1865:
1866: Similarly, the observer ${\cal O}_L$ in the middle of the brane
1867: (\horizon)
1868: observes a thermal bath similar to that arising from the moving
1869: mirror problem as long as the reflection coefficient at the
1870: transition between the two cosmological constants is nonzero.
1871: We will analyze the constraints required to avoid back reaction
1872: from this effect in flux compactifications in \S5.5.\foot{Thanks
1873: to S. Hellerman and S. Shenker for discussions on this point.}
1874:
1875: A very simple result can be obtained also for general D-Sitter
1876: spacetimes. One way to argue for this is to consider the Euclidean
1877: version of the geometry.\foot{We will consider only the Lorentzian
1878: vacuum whose Green's functions can be obtained by an analytic
1879: continuation of the Euclidean Green's functions.} The Euclidean
1880: analog of the detector trajectory is a circle of radius $R_B$, and
1881: for each detector
1882: there is a $U(1)$ isometry of the solution which generates
1883: motions along this circle. For this reason the propagator
1884: $G(\Delta s)$ between two points on the circle separated by a
1885: distance $\Delta s$ along the circle will have a singularity for
1886: every $\Delta s = 2 \pi n R_B$, $n \in \IZ$. Translated into the
1887: Lorentzian geometry this means that the propagator $G(\Delta
1888: \tau)$ between two points on the detector trajectory (separated by
1889: a proper time interval $\Delta \tau$) will have singularities for
1890: imaginary $\Delta \tau$ whenever $\Delta \tau = 2 \pi i n
1891: R_B$, $n \in \IZ$. It can be shown that the presence of these
1892: singularities implies that the detector will register a thermal
1893: radiation at temperature
1894: %
1895: \eqn\temperature{\CT = {1 \over 2\pi R_B}.}
1896: %
1897: (For more details, see for example the discussion related to
1898: equations (3.58) and (3.67) of \BirrellIX.) Because in this
1899: derivation we did not need to specify whether we think about the
1900: detector as being on the left or on the right side of the domain
1901: wall, it is clear that the detector can be in thermal equilibrium.
1902: The corresponding equilibrium temperature is given by
1903: \temperature.
1904:
1905: This temperature \temperature\ is what the brane observer measures
1906: locally. In general, the effective temperature in general
1907: relativity depends on position and on the observer making the
1908: measurement due to blueshifting effects arising from nontrivial
1909: warping by $g_{00}$. As we discussed in the previous section, the
1910: brane observer in the full geometry has a static patch with
1911: effective temperature diverging at the horizon, leading to an
1912: entropy that depends on position on the branes which is dominated
1913: by the region near the horizon and is as difficult to calculate as
1914: that of the original de Sitter static patch due to cutoff
1915: dependence.
1916:
1917: However, other observers such as the left observer ${\cal O}_L$ (\horizon)
1918: can probe entire spatial slices of the D-brane worldvolume by
1919: sending out probes in all directions toward the bubble wall.
1920: Suppose the left observer ${\cal O}_L$ sends a spherically
1921: symmetric probe to the branes which will reach the branes around
1922: the time $\tau=0$. Then because the branes do not coincide with
1923: the horizon for the left observer, $g_{00}\sim 1$ there, and
1924: ${\cal O}_L$ observes the brane degrees of freedom at the local
1925: brane temperature \temperature\ and carrying the corresponding
1926: extensive brane worldvolume entropy to a good approximation. In
1927: the next section, we will calculate this entropy in our D-Sitter
1928: spacetimes.
1929:
1930:
1931:
1932: \newsec{D-brane Entropy as probed by observer ${\cal O}_L$ in critical D-Sitter}
1933:
1934: Given the well-defined thermodynamics we have developed in the
1935: previous section, we can now study the entropy carried by the
1936: D-branes in the D-Sitter spacetimes obtained from flux
1937: compactifications. We have in mind the models \KachruAW\MaloneyRR\
1938: whose relevant properties we will collect here and in \S5.2. As
1939: we will see, the input from the models is relatively simple and
1940: will apply rather generally. In this section, we will focus on
1941: the entropy accessible to probes sent by the observer ${\cal O}_L$
1942: in the middle of the bubble. (In \S7, we will discuss the open
1943: string physics of the static observer ${\cal O}_s$.)
1944:
1945: For simplicity we will here consider critical bubbles with
1946: flux quantum numbers (i.e. D-brane charges) $\vec Q$ separating a
1947: phase of $\Lambda_R\sim 1/R_R^2$ with flux quanta $\vec Q_R$ from
1948: a phase of smaller cosmological constant $\Lambda_L\sim 1/R_L^2$
1949: with flux quanta $\vec Q_L=\vec Q_R+\vec Q$ such that
1950: $\Lambda_R-\Lambda_L$ is of order $\Lambda_R$. This includes the
1951: possibility of $\Lambda_L$ tuned to approximately zero.
1952:
1953: Here we are organizing the quantized RR fluxes into a vector $\vec
1954: Q_\gamma$ (where $\gamma$ refers to the flux vacuum of interest,
1955: so that e.g. $\gamma=R(L)$ refers to the right (left) de Sitter
1956: vacuum respectively in the D-Sitter spacetimes introduced in \S2).
1957: The kinetic term for the RR fields, $\int F\wedge *F$ then
1958: determines the leading $\vec Q_\gamma$-dependence of the potential
1959: energy in a given flux model
1960: %
1961: \eqn\Qprod{
1962: \vec Q_\gamma^2\equiv Q_\gamma^2\equiv \int (F\wedge *F)_\gamma
1963: }
1964: %
1965: We will assume that the moduli other than the dilaton are
1966: stabilized near order one, putting in some order 1 fudge factors
1967: to represent their effects, and we will focus on the dilaton
1968: dependence. So on a torus or toroidal orbifold model
1969: \refs{\MaloneyRR,\KachruHE,\FreyHF} one would obtain simply $\vec
1970: Q_\gamma^2\sim \sum_i q_i Q_i^2$ with $q_i$ of order 1, but on a
1971: general Calabi-Yau the structure will be more complicated. In our
1972: application we will be interested in the gross scaling of various
1973: quantities with the magnitudes $Q_\gamma$.
1974:
1975: Clearly there are many interesting ways to deviate from and refine
1976: these choices, but we will see that these specifications are
1977: sufficient to answer the most basic questions we are interested in
1978: regarding the entropy comparisons. In the following, the symbol
1979: $\sim$ will refer to relations that hold up to coefficients that
1980: are of order one, by which we mean coefficients which do not go to
1981: zero or infinity as we scale up the RR flux quantum numbers.
1982:
1983: \subsec{Model Independent Analysis}
1984:
1985: Let us begin by determining the entropy without inputting any
1986: information about the flux stabilization of the dilaton in the
1987: concrete models. Then in the next subsection we will add the
1988: constraints from the flux stabilization mechanism. A horizon
1989: sized bubble has a tension $T_H$ satisfying \BrownKG\
1990: %
1991: \eqn\horsized{
1992: T_c^2={2(d-2)(\Lambda_R-\Lambda_L)\over{(d-1)l_d^{2d-4}}}
1993: }
1994: %
1995: where $l_d$ is the $d$-dimensional Planck length. Given our
1996: specification that $\Lambda_R-\Lambda_L\sim {\cal O}(\Lambda_R)$,
1997: we can simplify \horsized\ to $T_c^2\sim\Lambda_R/l_d^{2d-4}$.
1998:
1999: The tension of the $D-(d-2)$-branes which form the bubble wall
2000: is\foot{Here the $d-2$ refers to the spatial Neumann directions of
2001: the D-branes in the de Sitter dimensions; the branes wrap cycles
2002: in the internal space whose dependence we are suppressing here.}
2003: %
2004: \eqn\Dtension{T_D= {\alpha Q\over g_sl_s^{d-1}}\sim {\alpha Q
2005: g_s^{{d\over d-2}} \over l_d^{d-1}} }
2006: %
2007: where $\alpha$ is a fudge factor meant to indicate the order one
2008: parameters that affect the D-brane tension;\foot{In
2009: the supercritical MSS models \MaloneyRR, it happens that
2010: $\alpha$ is significantly smaller than
2011: one for models with a cosmological constant
2012: tuned to be much smaller than string scale, so for
2013: such cases we will have in mind the KKLT models
2014: \KachruAW.} in the second form we
2015: have used the relation $g_s^2l_s^{d-2}\sim l_d^{d-2}$.
2016:
2017: Plugging \Dtension\ into \horsized\ leads to the following relations.
2018: %
2019: \eqn\stringunits{
2020: {R_R\over l_s}\sim {1\over{\alpha g_s Q}}.
2021: }
2022: %
2023: The entropy $S_R$ associated with the
2024: $dS_R$ horizon is given
2025: by
2026: %
2027: \eqn\entropy{
2028: S_R\sim {R_R^{d-2}\over l_d^{d-2}}\sim {Q^2\over{\alpha^{d-2}(g_sQ)^d}}
2029: }
2030: %
2031: We are interested in understanding the entropy carried on the
2032: D-branes. The $(d-1)$-dimensional D-brane field theory has an
2033: effective 't Hooft coupling constant which runs with energy scale;
2034: evaluating it at the scale of the temperature ${\cal T_R}\sim
2035: 1/R_R$ we found for critical bubbles in \S4\ gives (using
2036: also \stringunits)
2037: %
2038: \eqn\geff{ g_{eff}^2\sim {Q g_{YM}^2\over {\cal T}_R^{5-d}}={Q
2039: g_s\over ({\cal T}_R l_s)^{5-d}}\sim {\alpha^{d-5}(Qg_s)^{d-4}. }}
2040: %
2041:
2042: In order to proceed, we need
2043: to understand the range of couplings of interest to
2044: us. From \stringunits, we see that if we confine ourselves to the
2045: region
2046: %
2047: \eqn\saneregion{ {R_R\over l_s}\ge 1 }
2048: %
2049: then we have
2050: %
2051: \eqn\saneregionII{ \alpha g_sQ\le 1 }
2052: %
2053: For $d>4$, this means (from \geff) that the effective 't Hooft
2054: coupling $g_{eff}$ is $\le 1/\sqrt{\alpha}$, and we can apply
2055: perturbative field theory.
2056:
2057: For $d=4$, the effective 't Hooft coupling satisfies $g_{eff}\sim
2058: 1$, so we have to look more closely to determine whether we can
2059: reliably study the physics of the D-brane. The effective
2060: Yang-Mills coupling itself (as opposed to the 't Hooft coupling)
2061: satisfies
2062: %
2063: \eqn\gYMefffour{ {(g_{YM}^{(d=4)})^2\over {\cal T}_R} \sim {1\over
2064: Q} << 1}
2065: %
2066: using \stringunits.
2067:
2068: We believe this is enough to give control, as is suggested by the
2069: work on nonconformal versions of AdS/CFT \ItzhakiDD. For $d=4$ our
2070: D-brane is effectively a $D2$-brane (if we suppress the compact
2071: dimensions), for which the Yang-Mills coupling runs to zero in the
2072: UV and becomes strong in the IR. The $D2$-brane solution has three
2073: distinct regions as one moves radially (corresponding to the
2074: worldvolume RG flow). Near the boundary, the solution is highly
2075: curved corresponding to the UV free Yang-Mills theory. At
2076: $g_{eff}$ of order 1, it transitions to a weakly curved region
2077: accessible to supergravity analysis. For the ordinary $D2$-brane
2078: of type IIA theory, it is not until the effective Yang-Mills
2079: coupling $g_{YM}^2/energy$ itself becomes very large that the
2080: solution crosses over to the M2-brane solution. We see from
2081: \gYMefffour\ that since we are interested in $Q\ge 1$ (mostly
2082: $Q>>1$ in fact), $g_{YM}^2/energy \ \ <<1$ and we should expect
2083: results similar to those in the two $D2$-brane regions.
2084:
2085: Of course our D-branes are not literally type IIA D2-branes.
2086: Microscopically, they are IIB D5-branes wrapped on three-cycles of
2087: a compactification manifold in the critical geometric KKLT models
2088: of \KachruAW, and noncritical D-branes of various dimensions
2089: wrapped on cycles of the asymmetric orientifold in the MSS models
2090: \MaloneyRR. They are codimension one objects in the de Sitter
2091: directions. In general, we expect to have distinct $\alpha'$ and
2092: $g_s$ expansions, which for D-brane solutions are controlled by
2093: the effective 't Hooft coupling $g_{eff}$ and $(g_s Q)/Q$
2094: respectively. The large $Q$ expansion is good when the dilaton
2095: $g_s$ is sufficiently weak even if $\alpha'$ effects are
2096: nontrivial. This is true for $g_{eff}\sim 1$ if $Q$ is large,
2097: which is our situation \gYMefffour.
2098:
2099: In this regime, in the large $Q$ limit the entropy on the D-branes
2100: is of the form
2101: %
2102: \eqn\DentropyI{ S_D=f(g_{eff})Q^2 R_B^{d-2}{\cal T}_B^{d-2} }
2103: %
2104: where ${\cal T}_B\sim {1\over R_B}$ is the D-brane temperature
2105: \temperature. (Again, it is worth emphasizing that here we
2106: are discussing the extensive entropy on the D-branes accessible to
2107: measurements performed by the observer ${\cal O}_L$, who
2108: is in causal contact with all points on the branes and sees
2109: the extensive D-brane entropy \DentropyI.)
2110:
2111: Using this relation, we can simplify \DentropyI\ to
2112: \eqn\DentropyII{ S_D=f(g_{eff})Q^2 }
2113:
2114: For future reference we also note here that from \ItzhakiDD\ the
2115: proper thickness of the brane solution
2116: %at $\tau=0$
2117: is of order
2118: %
2119: \eqn\thickness{ L_{branes}\sim l_s g_{eff}^{1\over 2} }
2120: %
2121: (Of course this should not be taken literally for $g_{eff}<1$
2122: since GR will break down in this regime; in this regime we should
2123: expect an effective thickness of order $l_s$.)
2124:
2125: From these relations, we see that if $f(g_{eff})$ is of order one,
2126: the D-brane entropy $S_D$ is
2127: %
2128: \eqn\Dentropynaive{
2129: S_D\sim Q^2,
2130: }
2131: %
2132: and its relation to the $dS_R$ entropy $S_R$ is
2133: %
2134: \eqn\inequ{
2135: S_D << S_R ~~~~~~{\rm for}~~~~~ R_R >> l_s
2136: }
2137: and
2138: \eqn\corrpt{
2139: S_D\sim S_R ~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~~~~~~ R_R\sim l_s
2140: }
2141: %
2142: This latter limit is obtained if
2143: %
2144: \eqn\gcorr{
2145: g_s\to 1/Q
2146: }
2147: %
2148: which in particular means that $g_{eff}$ approaches order one. In
2149: this same limit, the thickness of the brane solution \thickness\
2150: approaches $l_s$. $f(g_{eff})$ is of order 1 for $g_{eff}\sim 1$
2151: in many D-brane systems studied, so we believe this is a
2152: reasonable assumption.
2153:
2154: We will refer to this limit \corrpt\ as the ``correspondence
2155: point'', and will discuss in \S5.6\ its relation to the
2156: usual correspondence point for black hole physics
2157: \refs{\SusskindWS,\HorowitzNW}.
2158:
2159: In \S5.3\ we will find that
2160: in the flux stabilization models the correspondence point is
2161: achievable and arises when $\Lambda_R$ is of order the maximum
2162: classically stable cosmological constant available in the models.
2163:
2164: Applying the formula \simpleA\ for the area of the horizon in the
2165: left observer ${\cal O}_L$'s causal patch, in the case of a nearly
2166: flat bubble $R_L>>R_R$, we can obtain a precise relation
2167: expressing the tradeoff in entropy observed by
2168: ${\cal O}_L$ between the horizon and the
2169: bubbles. Combining \simpleA, \Dtension, and \Dentropynaive, we
2170: obtain
2171: %
2172: \eqn\SAsum{ {R_L^2 \over R_R^2} \left({A\over
2173: |\Omega_{d-2}|}\right)^{{2\over d-2}}+R_B^2R_R^2{\alpha^2
2174: g_s^4\over l_4^2 (d-2)^2}S_D=2(2R_R^2-R_B^2) }
2175: %
2176: This expresses a tradeoff between horizon entropy and brane
2177: entropy for ${\cal O}_L$ at $\tau=0$.
2178:
2179:
2180: \subsec{Model Input: Generalities}
2181:
2182: In this subsection we will collect some of the relevant details
2183: from the flux stabilization models leading to $dS$ vacua. These
2184: models make use of contributions to the moduli potential--coming
2185: from fluxes (at order $g_s^0$ in string frame), orientifolds and
2186: other sources of negative tension arising at order $g_s^{-1}$ in
2187: string frame, and positive contributions to the potential coming
2188: at leading order $g_s^{-2}$ in string frame--to stabilize the
2189: dilaton. All the moduli are stabilized by this type of mechanism,
2190: by orbifolding, or by perturbative and nonperturbative quantum
2191: corrections to the $d$-dimensional effective potential.
2192:
2193: Focusing on the dilaton dependence, the cosmological term to the
2194: first three orders in the $g_s$ expansion is of the form
2195: \MaloneyRR\
2196: %
2197: \eqn\dilpot{ \Lambda_\gamma(g_s)={g_s^{{4\over d-2}}\over l_d^2}
2198: \biggl(a-b_\gamma g_s+{b_\gamma^2\over
2199: 4a}(1+\delta_\gamma)g_s^2+{\cal O}(g_s^3)\biggr) }
2200: %
2201: where the subscript $\gamma$ refers to which $RR$ flux and brane
2202: configuration has been chosen. The third term comes from the
2203: kinetic terms $\int F_{RR}\wedge * F_{RR}$ for the RR field
2204: strengths $F_{RR}$, so
2205: %
2206: \eqn\cterm{{b_\gamma^2\over 4a}(1+\delta_\gamma)\sim Q_\gamma^2. }
2207: %
2208: The other two terms have the following origin in the microscopic
2209: models. For the KKLT models \KachruAW, $a\sim Q_{NSNS}^2$ since
2210: the $H_{NSNS}$ kinetic term arises at order $1/g_s^2$ in string
2211: frame; $b\sim {\chi\over 24}-N_3-N_{\bar 3}$ where $N_3, N_{\bar
2212: 3}$ are the numbers of D3-branes and anti-D3-branes and where
2213: $\chi$ is the Euler character of the Calabi-Yau fourfold in F
2214: theory since the crucial negative term in the potential arises
2215: from the contribution of wrapped D7-branes which contribute
2216: negative D3-brane charge and tension of this order \GiddingsYU.
2217: This latter contribution can be related to the flux background via
2218: a Chern-Simons contribution to Gauss' law \GiddingsYU, giving
2219: %
2220: \eqn\gausslaw{ {1\over 2 g_s^2l_s^8T_3}\int_{M_6}H_{(3)}\wedge
2221: F_{(3)} =-Q_3^{localized}}
2222: %
2223: where $Q_3^{localized}$ is the 3-brane charge coming from all
2224: localized sources (D3-branes, orientifold planes, and wrapped
2225: D7-branes), $T_3$ is the D3-brane tension, and $M_6$ is the base
2226: of the F-theory fourfold compactification.
2227:
2228: For the MSS
2229: models \MaloneyRR, $a\sim D-10$ where $D$ is the total dimension
2230: of the supercritical theory, and $b$ comes from orientifold and
2231: antiorientifold planes and is independent of the flux quantum
2232: numbers.
2233:
2234: In both types of models, we will take $a$ to be finite as we scale
2235: up the RR charges, and thus will include it in the ``order 1"
2236: coefficients we are not keeping track of.
2237:
2238: The parameterization \dilpot\ is useful because as noted in
2239: \MaloneyRR, $\delta=0$ corresponds to a flat solution
2240: $\Lambda_\gamma=0$, and for $0<\delta<{(d-2)^2\over 8d}$ one finds
2241: metastable de Sitter minima with cosmological constants ranging
2242: from zero to
2243: %
2244: \eqn\lammax{{\Lambda_{max}\sim {1\over l_d^2}{{a^{d+2\over
2245: d-2}8^{4\over d-2}(d-2)^2}\over {b^{4\over d-2}d(d+2)^{d+2\over
2246: d-2}}}}.}
2247: %
2248: In this range, the dilaton does not vary much, changing from ${2a/
2249: b}$ to ${8a/ (b(d+2))}$. From \cterm\ and the just quoted range
2250: of $\delta_\gamma$, we see that if we just keep track of the
2251: $Q_\gamma$ dependence
2252: %
2253: \eqn\bQ{ b\sim Q_\gamma }
2254: %
2255: in any $\Lambda\ge 0$ minimum. In particular, since
2256: $0<\delta<{\cal O}(1)$ for the whole range of models, $Q_\gamma$
2257: is of the same order for all $\gamma$ in the discrete family of models for
2258: which $b$ is independent of $\gamma$. This means that the string
2259: coupling
2260: %
2261: \eqn\basicgfluxII{ g_s\sim {1\over Q_\gamma} }
2262: %
2263: is of the same order in all of the models (in particular it does
2264: not change much as we go from one side of the D-brane domain walls
2265: to the other side). Using these relations, we see that
2266: %
2267: \eqn\lammaxstring{ \Lambda_{max}\sim {1\over l_s^2} }
2268: %
2269:
2270: Using \cterm\ for both $dS_L$ and $dS_R$, we obtain a condition on
2271: the D-brane charges required for a domain wall separating $dS_L$
2272: and $dS_R$ if $b$ does not change in the transition:
2273: %
2274: \eqn\Qcondition{
2275: \vec Q^2-2\vec Q\cdot\vec Q_L = {b^2\over 4a}(\delta_R-\delta_L)
2276: }
2277: %
2278:
2279: In general, this condition has many solutions depending on how
2280: $\vec Q$ is oriented relative to $\vec Q_L$. This set of
2281: solutions in general will include a range of $Q\equiv |\vec Q|$.
2282: This range is bounded above by $Q_R\sim Q_L$, since for $Q$ much
2283: larger than this, the condition \Qcondition could not be
2284: satisfied. So for the D-brane walls in flux models, we have
2285: %
2286: \eqn\Qbound{ Q\le Q_L\sim Q_R }
2287: %
2288: (Here we are using the fact that \cterm\ implies that $b$ is of
2289: the order of $Q_L\sim Q_R$ in the range of $\delta$'s we have
2290: discussed above for which dS minima exist.)
2291:
2292: In the KKLT models, there are important other ingredients going
2293: beyond the terms so far listed in \dilpot, which stabilize the
2294: volume modulus $\rho$ of $M_6$ and which also shift the minimum of
2295: the potential in the dilaton direction.
2296:
2297: KKLT start from a no scale model \GiddingsYU\ with complex
2298: structure moduli and dilaton stabilized by a potential which in
2299: components takes the form \dilpot\ in each direction in the scalar
2300: field space. This no-scale potential $\Lambda_{ns}$ satisfies
2301: $\Lambda_{ns}\ge 0$, with $\Lambda_{ns}=0$ solutions given by
2302: setting $D_iW_0=0$ where $i$ runs over moduli other than $\rho$
2303: and where $W_0$ is the classical superpotential given by \GukovYA\
2304: %
2305: \eqn\superpot{ W\sim \int_{M_6}\Omega\wedge (F_3-\tau H_3) }
2306: %
2307: Here $\tau=C_{(0)}+ig_s^{-1}$ is the axion-dilaton and the
2308: superpotential is being evaluated at an orientifold limit of the F
2309: theory compactification where $M_6$ becomes an orientifold of a
2310: Calabi-Yau with holomorphic three-form $\Omega$.
2311:
2312: From our component expression \dilpot\ and the ensuing discussion,
2313: we see that
2314: %
2315: \eqn\bnoscale{ b=2Q_{NS}Q_\gamma ~~~~~~~{\rm
2316: for}~~~\Lambda_{ns}=0. }
2317: %
2318:
2319:
2320: If we start from such a $\Lambda_{ns}=0$ vacuum and change the RR
2321: flux $F$ (as we with to do using D-branes in our present
2322: application), there are two basic cases to consider. One case,
2323: appropriate to the discussion surrounding \Qcondition, is to
2324: consider a jump in flux for which $b$ stays constant and to take a
2325: model we obtain on the other side of the domain wall for which at
2326: the no-scale level $\Lambda_{ns}>0$. Another possibility is to
2327: stay within the set of models given by $\Lambda_{ns}=0$, which
2328: requires $a$ and $b$ to change appropriately to preserve
2329: \bnoscale. For flux jumps in which $\int H\wedge F$ changes, there
2330: must be D3-branes or anti-D3-branes ending on the D5-brane domain
2331: wall in order to preserve the relation \gausslaw.
2332:
2333: In fixing the volume modulus $\rho$, KKLT employ a no-scale
2334: violating contribution to the superpotential such as a gaugino
2335: condensate to obtain an AdS minimum, and anti-D3-branes to kick
2336: the minimum up to a dS minimum. These additions roughly add
2337: %
2338: \eqn\newterms{ \Delta \Lambda\sim -e^K|W_0|^2+T_{\bar 3} }
2339: %
2340: to the scalar potential, where $T_{\bar 3}$ is the tension of the
2341: anti-D3-branes in Einstein frame, and where in the first term we
2342: have used the fact that the solution to the equation of motion for
2343: $\rho$ balances the gaugino condensate superpotential against
2344: $W_0$, leading to a negative contribution of the order of the
2345: first term in
2346: \newterms \KachruAW. It may be possible to eliminate the need for the
2347: anti-D3-brane contribution to $\Lambda$ by making use of
2348: $\Lambda_{ns}>0$ metastable flux vacua in the no-scale model
2349: instead of starting from $\Lambda_{ns}=0$ configurations and
2350: adding anti-D3-branes. We leave a detailed investigation of that
2351: for future work.
2352:
2353: There is a rich set of flux jumps available in this set of
2354: models.\foot{See \freyetal\ for an analysis of decays arising from
2355: brane bubbles in these models.} We will mostly confine ourselves
2356: here to verifying that the correspondence limit \corrpt\ we found
2357: in the model independent analysis is available in flux stabilized
2358: models.
2359:
2360:
2361: \subsec{Model Input: Correspondence Point}
2362:
2363: We would like to understand whether the correspondence point
2364: \corrpt\ at which the D-brane entropy approaches the $dS_R$
2365: entropy is available in the concrete flux models. This requires
2366: simply that
2367: %
2368: \eqn\corrI{ \Lambda_R-\Lambda_L\sim \Lambda_R\sim{1\over l_s^2} }
2369: %
2370: and that there exists a $Q\sim Q_L\sim Q_R$ critical bubble.
2371:
2372:
2373: Consider now the case where $b$ does not change in the flux jumps,
2374: and where $\delta_L$ is approximately zero,\foot{We will explain
2375: how fine the discretuum is more precisely in a future subsection.}
2376: and $\delta_R$ is of order 1. This means $\Lambda_R$ scales like
2377: $\Lambda_{max}\sim {1\over l_s^2}$. Then to have a critical
2378: bubble, we need $T_D^2\sim l_s^{-2}l_d^{2d-4}$ (from \horsized),
2379: which implies $g_s\sim 1/Q$.
2380:
2381: This is satisfied here, as we can see as follows.
2382: The condition \Qcondition\ becomes
2383: %
2384: \eqn\Qcondmax{ Q^2-2\vec Q\cdot\vec Q_L\sim {b^2\over 4a}\sim
2385: Q_L^2 }
2386: %
2387: which means that $Q$ must be of order $Q_L\sim Q_R$.
2388: So in this case we have
2389: %
2390: \eqn\maxcase{
2391: b\sim Q\sim Q_L\sim Q_R.
2392: }
2393: %
2394: Then since at the dS minima $g_s\sim 1/b$, and since $b \sim Q_L$,
2395: we have from \maxcase\ that $g_s\sim 1/Q$.
2396:
2397: So in this case, \gcorr\ is satisfied, and we are at the string
2398: scale correspondence point \corrpt\ where the D-brane entropy
2399: $S_D\sim Q^2$ is of the same order as the $dS_R$ entropy $S_R\sim
2400: Q_R^2$.
2401:
2402: In the KKLT models, we can also obtain the correspondence limit in
2403: the cases where $b$ does change in the flux jumps. For example,
2404: we can consider jumps which preserve $\Lambda_{ns}=0$ at the
2405: no-scale level, and change $W_0$ so as to adjust the negative term
2406: in \newterms. Again, it is possible to start with a nearly string
2407: scale cosmological constant and jump the flux by a $Q\sim Q_R$
2408: D-brane bubble, which means as above that $g\sim {1/Q}$ and the
2409: bubble is critical given our string-scale starting point.
2410:
2411: We have considered critical bubbles in formulating and
2412: exhibiting our correspondence point. One might wonder about the
2413: possibility of subcritical bubbles also saturating the $dS_R$
2414: entropy in some situation. In fact, we can rule out this
2415: possibility for $R_R\ge l_s$ from the basic feature $g_s\sim
2416: 1/Q_\gamma$ in the models. Suppose the possibility existed, which
2417: means we could start from $\Lambda_R\le 1/l_s^2$ with a subcritical
2418: bubble saturating the $dS_R$ entropy. Then increase $Q$ to
2419: obtain a critical bubble (fixing $\Lambda_R$). Since this
2420: increases the D-branes' entropy $S_D$, it would lead to a
2421: contradiction with the result \inequ\corrpt\ which show that for
2422: critical bubbles the entropy is subdominant unless
2423: $\Lambda_R$ is of order the string scale. We must check that this
2424: process of increasing $Q$ to obtain a critical bubble is
2425: possible (i.e. that $Q$ is not somehow constrained to provide only
2426: subcritical bubbles in any case). In the models, we can consider
2427: $Q$ up to of order $Q_\gamma$ as we discussed in \Qbound.
2428: The upper limit $Q\sim Q_\gamma$ is not consistent with a
2429: subcritical bubble, since such a bubble would satisfy
2430: $T_D^2<(\Lambda_R/l_d^2(d-2)$ which would imply
2431: $R_R/l_s<1/(Q_\gamma g_s)$. But since $g_s\sim 1/Q_\gamma$, we
2432: see that this would require $R_R<l_s$ which is outside the regime
2433: of validity of the analysis. As we will see in \S6, this
2434: simple relation $g_s\sim 1/Q_\gamma$ coming from the flux models
2435: also guarantees satisfaction of Bousso's bound.
2436:
2437: \subsec{Model Input: more generic D-Sitter spacetimes}
2438:
2439: If $\delta_R << 1$, we find that there exist cases with
2440: critical bubbles for which $S_D << S_R$, as well as a rich spectrum
2441: of sub and supercritical bubbles.
2442:
2443: Let us begin by estimating how finely spaced the discretuum is in
2444: our situation with many fluxes, following Bousso and Polchinski
2445: \BoussoXA. If the space of fluxes is $\chi$-dimensional, then
2446: %
2447: \eqn\cdef{\rho^2\equiv {b^2\over 4a}(1+\delta_\gamma)\sim
2448: \sum_{i=1}^\chi q_iQ_{\gamma,i}^2 }
2449: %
2450: where $q_i$ are coefficients we are assuming to be of order 1.
2451: This defines a $\chi-1$-sphere of radius $\rho$. Let us consider
2452: a shell between $\rho=Q_\gamma$ and $\rho=Q_\gamma+\eta$. The
2453: volume of this shell is
2454: %
2455: \eqn\volshell{ \eta{{\rho^{\chi-1}2\pi^{{\chi-1\over 2}}}
2456: \over\Gamma({\chi-1\over 2})} }
2457: %
2458: which is roughly the number of points in the shell. Setting this
2459: to one, we obtain the discretuum spacing
2460: %
2461: \eqn\delmin{ \delta_{min}\sim {4a\over
2462: b^2}\biggl({2\Gamma({\chi-1\over 2})\over
2463: Q_\gamma^{\chi-2}2\pi^{{\chi-1\over 2}}}\biggr) }
2464: %
2465: This translates into a minimum positive cosmological constant
2466: %
2467: \eqn\minlam{ \Lambda_{min}\sim {1\over l_d^2}a({2a\over
2468: b})^{4\over d-2}\delta_{min} }
2469: %
2470: with a corresponding entropy
2471: %
2472: \eqn\entlammin{ S_{\Lambda_{min}}\sim {b^{d}\pi^{{\chi\over
2473: 4}(d-2)}Q_\gamma^{{\chi\over 2}(d-2)}\over \chi^{{\chi\over
2474: 4}(d-2)}} }
2475: %
2476: Now using the fact discussed in \S5.2\ that for the KKLT models
2477: $b\sim Q_\gamma\sim \chi$, we obtain an estimate for the entropy
2478: in the class of examples we are considering of the form
2479: %
2480: \eqn\entsimple{ S_{\Lambda_{min}}\sim Q_\gamma^{{\chi\over 2}+4} }
2481: %
2482:
2483: If we consider the right dS , $dS_R$, to have cosmological
2484: constant of this scale $\Lambda_R\sim\Lambda_{min}$, then the
2485: naive D-brane entropy \Dentropynaive\ is very much smaller than
2486: the dS entropy because of the bound \Qbound\ on the flux charge we
2487: can pull out in the form of branes.
2488:
2489: Let us make three
2490: remarks about interpreting
2491: this result. Firstly (as will also be discussed in
2492: \S5.6) in the canonical ensemble taking into account
2493: Boltzmann suppression of heavy states,
2494: in this regime far from the correspondence point,
2495: the DS entropy as seen by ${\cal O}_L$ is less than dS entropy, even
2496: if we include states not localized on the D-branes.
2497: Secondly, as will be discussed in \S7, the entropy
2498: associated with a putative open string theory at the horizon
2499: of the static patch in
2500: de Sitter space agrees with the entropy ascribed to the
2501: horizon of de Sitter space even in cases where it
2502: is very large as a function of flux quantum numbers as
2503: in \entsimple. Thirdly, the formula \entsimple\
2504: appearing here and in AdS flux models may be suggestive of a
2505: field theoretic system
2506: with many flavors.
2507:
2508:
2509: Using the general relations in \S5.2, we can study many D-Sitter
2510: spacetimes. Let us take $\Lambda_L=\Lambda_{min}$ and consider a
2511: pair of representative set of cases for $\Lambda_R<\Lambda_{max}$.
2512: (The case $\Lambda_R\sim \Lambda_{max}$ was studied in the
2513: previous subsection where we saw it gave rise to a correspondence
2514: point where the D-brane entropy is of the order of the $dS_R$
2515: entropy.)
2516:
2517: \noindent{\it Case I: $(\delta_{min}, \delta_{min})$}.
2518:
2519: First let us consider the case where $\Lambda_R\sim\Lambda_{min}$,
2520: that is $\delta_R > \delta_L$ but both of order $\delta_{min}$.
2521: Since $\vec Q_L^2$ and $\vec Q_R^2$ are separated by the minimal
2522: spacing $\delta_{min}$, there is as we just discussed on average
2523: one lattice point in the shell between $Q_R$ and $Q_L$. This
2524: means the average separation between $\vec Q_R$ and $\vec Q_L$,
2525: namely $\vec Q=\vec Q_L-\vec Q_R$, has magnitude of order $Q_R\sim
2526: Q_L$. So for case I, $Q\sim Q_L\sim Q_R$.
2527:
2528: We can compute the size of the corresponding bubble. For this
2529: case, we find that the D-brane tension $T_D$ satisfies $T_D^2\sim
2530: {Q_L^{-{4\over d-2}}}/l_d^{2d-2}>> (\Lambda_R\sim \Lambda_{min})$.
2531: So the bubble is highly supercritical, and $R_B\sim 0$.
2532:
2533: \noindent{\it Case II: $(\delta_{min}, \delta_R\sim 1/Q_L)$}
2534:
2535: Now let us consider an intermediate case in which
2536: $\Lambda_{min}<<\Lambda_R<<\Lambda_{max}$. If we take
2537: $\delta_R\sim 1/Q_L$, then we find \Qcondition\ can be satisfied
2538: for a range of $Q$ from order 1 to order $Q_L$. For d=4, the
2539: former is very subcritical and the latter is supercritical;
2540: in between at $Q$ of order $Q_L^{1/2}$ we find a horizon
2541: sized bubble. Again, the D-brane entropy is generically very
2542: subdominant to the $dS_R$ entropy.
2543:
2544: \subsec{Constraint on the D-Sitter models from back reaction}
2545:
2546: As mentioned in \S4, we must consider the back reaction of the
2547: thermal radiation coming from the accelerating brane. If we model
2548: this as a ``moving mirror'' phenomenon\foot{We thank S. Hellerman
2549: and S. Shenker for discussions on this interpretation.} then we
2550: obtain a temperature felt by ${\cal O}_L$ which is of order
2551: $\rho/R_B$ where $\rho$ is the reflection coefficient for modes
2552: impinging on the brane from the ``left" side; $\rho$ is $\le 1$ and
2553: goes to zero as $\Lambda_L\to\Lambda_R$. The back reaction this
2554: produces on the curvature is of order
2555: %
2556: \eqn\curveback{ \Delta {\cal R}\sim G_N \left({\rho\over
2557: R_B}\right)^d\sim \left({l_s\rho \over R_B}\right)^d{g_s^2\over
2558: l_s^2} }
2559: %
2560: In order to avoid back reaction, we must consider $\Lambda_L\ge
2561: \Delta {\cal R}$. This is easily achieved in the models. Note
2562: that contributions to the stress energy which simply renormalize
2563: the cosmological term can be tuned effectively with our fluxes;
2564: the values for $\Lambda_\gamma$ we quote in the analysis refer to
2565: the resulting total cosmological constant.
2566:
2567: \subsec{On the relation between D-Sitter and de Sitter entropy}
2568:
2569: The concrete results in this section pertain most directly to
2570: D-Sitter space. In this subsection we will explore their relation
2571: to de Sitter space itself. As we have discussed, D-Sitter space
2572: is a deformation of de Sitter space; we
2573: have compared the D-brane entropy $S_D$ probed by ${\cal O}_L$
2574: at $\tau=0$
2575: with the entropy of the corresponding $dS_R$ space, and found it
2576: to agree up to order one coefficients in the correspondence limit
2577: \corrpt. Away from the correspondence limit, the entropy localized
2578: on the D-brane bubble wall itself is parameterically smaller than
2579: that of $dS_R$ \inequ. In these cases, there is room in the
2580: D-Sitter geometry for other states (such as black holes in the
2581: middle of the bubble) but the most entropic of these
2582: states are Boltzmann suppressed in the canonical ensemble
2583: that applies at the temperature of the system.
2584:
2585: %Our results are therefore consistent with the possibility
2586: %that the D-Sitter entropy agrees with the $dS_R$ entropy in all
2587: %cases.
2588:
2589: It would be interesting to understand what the precise
2590: relation between dS and DS entropy is. In the AdS/CFT
2591: cases we discussed in \S1\ and \S2, it is clear
2592: that the deformation between AdS and ADS could be
2593: made adiabatically (in the sense that one
2594: could follow the states of the system even as
2595: they mass up along the Coulomb branch); but there also if we worked
2596: in a canonical ensemble at fixed nonzero temperature the
2597: entropy would decrease as we pull branes far enough out of
2598: the horizon, since the stretched strings then become
2599: Boltzmann suppressed. In our closed cosmology it is
2600: not clear a priori whether one can deform the system
2601: adiabatically, but our result \corrpt\ on the string
2602: scale correspondence point exhibits a
2603: case where the deformation is adiabatic up to order one
2604: coefficients in the canonical ensemble.
2605:
2606: %We will
2607: %mention in this section an argument for the
2608: %agreement of these entropies, though it is
2609: %conditioned on an assumption that we cannot evaluate.\foot{The subject has
2610: %the fascinating but challenging feature that mathematical results
2611: %are not necessarily physical because they can refer to quantities
2612: %inaccessible to any one observer, while physical arguments can be
2613: %made which lack any controlled mathematical formulation.}
2614:
2615: The assertion that the de Sitter horizon area itself should
2616: correspond to an entropy \GibbonsMU\ is based on arguments such as
2617: the following. One is the possibility of trading ordinary matter
2618: entropy for horizon area locally (see \BoussoJU\ for a review).
2619: Another argument based on the static causal patch in dS notes that
2620: the blueshifting of modes toward the horizon of the causal patch
2621: leads to an area's worth of high temperature modes there
2622: \DysonNT\SusskindSM\RandallTG; another way to view this is via the
2623: large acceleration required of an observer to probe the horizon
2624: but stay within the causal patch. (These arguments can be applied
2625: also to the time dependent causal patches such as that we found
2626: for ${\cal O}_L$ in \S3; one obtains different results for the
2627: entropy associated to the horizon for experiments conducted at
2628: different times.)
2629:
2630:
2631: \bigskip
2632: \noindent{\it Observer ${\cal O}_R$ and the physics behind the horizon}
2633: \bigskip
2634:
2635: One intriguing aspect of the D-Sitter geometry is the following.
2636: For the cases of subcritical or critical bubbles, the causal
2637: patch for the right observer ${\cal O}_R$ is the same in DS and in
2638: dS.
2639:
2640: \ifig\xspace{Given the geometry of the static patch of the
2641: observer on the right (at $\theta' = \pi$) to be de Sitter space
2642: ${{\rm dS}_{\rm R}}$, there are still more possibilities for the
2643: global structure of the spacetime. For example, the left part of
2644: the spacetime may be (a) de Sitter ${{\rm dS'}_{\rm L}}$ with the
2645: same cosmological constant, or (b) it may contain a domain wall
2646: and a region of a different cosmological constant. }
2647: {\epsfxsize5in\epsfbox{xspace.eps}} %%
2648:
2649: That is, as illustrated in \xspace, the right causal patch
2650: can be coupled consistently to the left side of D-Sitter or the
2651: left side of ordinary $dS_R$. At the perturbative level, these
2652: are distinct possibilities for the global structure of the
2653: spacetime. In other words, what is behind the horizon of ${\cal O}_R$
2654: at $\tau=0$,
2655: which in ordinary de Sitter space is the $\tau=0$ slice
2656: of another causal patch, can
2657: be replaced by the left side of D-Sitter space. Naively one
2658: might conclude from this that the entropy of ${\cal O}_R$'s
2659: horizon should agree with that of the left D-Sitter space,
2660: inasmuch as this horizon entropy encodes what is behind
2661: the horizon in a given perturbative spacetime background.
2662: However, as we have discussed, the entropy of the left part
2663: of DS as measured by ${\cal O}_L$ in the canonical
2664: ensemble is smaller than $S_R$
2665: away from the correspondence point.
2666:
2667: In any case, up to order one coefficients our result \corrpt\ provides
2668: prima facie evidence for an adiabatic transition from string
2669: scale dS to DS.
2670:
2671: \newsec{Bousso's Entropy Bound}
2672:
2673: Bousso has proposed a bound on entropy going through light sheets
2674: emanating inward from any surface of area $A$ in a spacetime
2675: \BoussoXY\ (for a beautiful review see \BoussoJU). The covariant
2676: entropy bound is expressed in terms of light sheets, which are
2677: lightlike hypersurfaces, emanating from a chosen surface $B$ in a
2678: spacetime, which contract (or at least do not expand). The
2679: conjecture, which has been well tested in a wide variety of
2680: circumstances and proved under some assumptions \FlanaganJP,
2681: states that the entropy on any light sheet of a
2682: surface $B$ in a spacetime will not exceed one quarter of the area
2683: of $B$. As described in \BoussoJU, the conjecture is motivated by
2684: its elegant covariance and by the desire for wide applicability of
2685: the holographic principle. Recently a refinement to take into
2686: account quantum effects has been proposed \StromingerBR. One can
2687: also formulate a related conjecture for partial light sheets
2688: \FlanaganJP, for which the entropy going through is bounded by the
2689: difference of the areas on the two ends. In this subsection we
2690: will analyze both of these conditions in D-Sitter space for
2691: two illustrative light sheets.
2692:
2693: \bigskip
2694: \ifig\bousso{Two light sheets which illustrate the covariant
2695: entropy bounds
2696: in D-Sitter space.} {\epsfxsize4in\epsfbox{bousso.eps}}
2697:
2698: Let us examine first the statement for full light sheets. In
2699: particular, let us study what the bound predicts regarding the
2700: entropy carried by the bubbles in D-Sitter. If we pick a
2701: subcritical bubble in $dS_R$, then one can consider a spherical surface
2702: $B_0$ of area $A_0$ just to the right of the bubbles but still on
2703: the upper left quadrant of the Penrose diagram (see \bousso (a)); for such
2704: surfaces $B_0$ there exists a light sheet emanating toward the
2705: lower left in the diagram. Let us consider this light sheet
2706: for an example of a bound following from a full light sheet.
2707:
2708: According to Bousso's conjecture, the entropy in this light sheet
2709: must not exceed ${A_0/4 l_d^{d-2}}$. This implies that
2710: %
2711: \eqn\Boussobubble{ S_D\sim Q^2 A_0{\cal T}_B^{d-2} < {A_0 \over 4
2712: l_d^{d-2}}}
2713: %
2714:
2715: The area drops out of this relation, which can be rewritten using
2716: $l_d^{d-2}\sim g_s^2l_s^{d-2}$ and ${\cal T}_B\sim 1/R_B$ as
2717: %
2718: \eqn\newform{ g_s^2 < {1\over Q^2}\biggl({R_B\over
2719: l_s}\biggr)^{d-2} }
2720: %
2721: When $R_B$ is of order $l_s$, this becomes
2722: %
2723: \eqn\gcond{g_s^2 < {1\over Q^2}}
2724: %
2725: which is satisfied for flux compactifications in string theory
2726: since \basicgflux\basicgfluxII\ $g_s\sim 1/Q_\gamma$ and
2727: $Q\le Q_\gamma$. If
2728: further we are at the correspondence point $R_R\sim l_s$ for a
2729: critical bubble \corrpt, then $Q\sim Q_\gamma$ so that
2730: $g_s\sim 1/Q$ and Bousso's
2731: bound is saturated for all $\tau>0$.
2732:
2733: Now let us illustrate the bound on partial light sheets going through
2734: the bubble wall \FlanaganJP\ (see \bousso (b)). For example, we can work in the
2735: region where both the left and right sides of the branes are in
2736: the upper right half of the corresponding $dS_L$ and $dS_R$
2737: Penrose diagrams. In this region, there is a light sheet with
2738: areas decreasing as one moves down and to the right on the Penrose
2739: diagram. Let us consider a slightly subcritical bubble. Let us
2740: consider a surface $B_L$ to the left of the bubble with area
2741: $A_L$, and take a partial light sheet heading down and to the
2742: right in the Penrose diagram ending at a surface $B_R$ of area
2743: $A_R$ just to the right of the D-branes, with all of the above
2744: contained in the upper left quadrant. According to the covariant
2745: entropy bound applied to this partial light sheet, we should find
2746: %
2747: \eqn\partialBousso{ {{A_L-A_R}\over 4 l_d^{d-2}} ~~>~~ S_D }
2748: %
2749: If the branes were infinitely thin, then the left hand side of
2750: \partialBousso\ would be zero. In our case, they have a thickness \thickness\
2751: determined by their supergravity solution. Let us introduce this
2752: order of thickness in the right region of the solution (this
2753: provides the most dangerously small contribution to the change in
2754: area). The proper thickness \thickness\ is also the change in
2755: $\tau$ as we go from $B_L$ to $B_R$. Using this and the relation
2756: \entropy\ applicable for our almost critical bubble, we
2757: obtain
2758: %
2759: \eqn\areachange{ e^{-(d-2)\tau_R}{{A_L-A_R}\over l_d^{d-2}}\sim
2760: {L_{branes}\over l_d}\left({R_R\over l_d}\right)^{d-3}\sim
2761: {{(g_sQ)^{{d-4\over 4}}l_s}\over l_d}\left({R_R\over
2762: l_d}\right)^{d-3} \sim Q^2(g_sQ)^{-{3d\over 4}}}
2763: %
2764: Then the condition \partialBousso\ becomes
2765: %
2766: \eqn\partialfin{ Q^2(g_sQ)^{-{3d\over 4}}>Q^2 }
2767: %
2768: which is satisfied in our regime $g_sQ\le 1$ (which follows from
2769: $R_R\ge l_s$ \saneregionII). As before, this bound is saturated
2770: at the correspondence point. Note that in the cases $d>4$ in
2771: which the nominal thickness \thickness\ is substring scale, the
2772: condition \partialfin\ is stronger than we actually need to
2773: satisfy the bound since we should in that case take an effective
2774: thickness of $l_s$.
2775:
2776:
2777:
2778: \newsec{ Static observers, the DS $\leftrightarrow$ dS
2779: deformation, and open strings}
2780:
2781: The left causal patch of ${\cal O}_L$ (\horizon) in D-Sitter and the static
2782: causal patch of ${\cal O}_s$ are each deformations of the causal
2783: patch of ordinary $dS_R$. As we discussed in \S2, this deformation
2784: is reminiscent of the deformation in AdS/CFT taking the field
2785: theory out along its Coulomb branch, and the causal patches of the
2786: observers ${\cal O}_{L, s}$ are reminiscent of the Poincare patch in
2787: AdS/CFT. This is particularly appropriate as an analogy for ${\cal
2788: O}_s$ for which there exists a static coordinate system covering
2789: its causal patch.
2790:
2791: In any situation with a horizon, if there is a perturbative string
2792: description applying to a single causal patch, then since the
2793: worldsheets have boundary on the horizon there may be a dual
2794: channel open string description \SusskindSM\ (see also
2795: \refs{\SenIN, \GutperleAI} for other indications of an open string
2796: description of a time dependent background). A priori it is not
2797: clear how to quantize strings in such backgrounds; the nonlinear
2798: sigma model is nontrivial and the status of the S matrix is
2799: unclear. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate the problem
2800: directly in terms of closed strings because they are in general
2801: off shell when entering or leaving the horizon.
2802:
2803: %\foot{However, the fact that there is a gravitational potential
2804: %barrier coming from $g_{00}$ may produce an effectively weakly
2805: %coupled set of asymptotic closed string states coming in from and
2806: %leaving the horizon.}
2807:
2808: This situation is familiar however from perturbative string theory
2809: in the presence of D-branes, which also inject off shell closed
2810: strings at some locus in spacetime. The relation to D-branes we
2811: have developed in this paper provides support for the possibility
2812: that a consistent open string theory may exist with the strings
2813: ending on the horizon. One piece of evidence was discussed in \S3\
2814: (\spatial):
2815: the observer ${\cal O}_s$ at a fixed distance from the brane can
2816: take a limit where the branes approach a trajectory tracking a
2817: patch of the horizon for all time; this is a limit in which the
2818: static patch for ${\cal O}_s$ in D-Sitter space approaches the
2819: original $dS_R$ causal patch.
2820:
2821: Another piece of evidence arises from the success of the following
2822: simple estimate for the entropy using the relation
2823: \basicgflux\basicgfluxII\ in the flux models. Consider a de Sitter
2824: space with horizon area $A$ coming from a string theory
2825: compactification with flux quantum numbers $\vec Q_\gamma$. Assume
2826: that there is a description of the system in terms of a low energy
2827: open string theory (a field theory) with of order $Q_\gamma$
2828: Chan-Paton factors at the horizon, corresponding to the flux
2829: quantum numbers $\vec Q_\gamma$. Assume further that this field
2830: theory is at a temperature ${\cal T}_{open}$ of order the string
2831: scale (which is suggested by a picture in which the open strings
2832: end at a stretched horizon \SusskindIF\ corresponding to a string scale
2833: cutoff), but somewhat lower than the Hagedorn temperature
2834: such that the divergences associated with that
2835: transition do not come into play. Then the entropy is given by
2836: %
2837: \eqn\Sopen{ S_{open}\sim Q_\gamma^2 A {\cal T}^{d-2}_{open}=
2838: Q_\gamma^2 A{1\over l_s^{d-2}}={A\over l_d^{d-2}}g_s^2Q_\gamma^2 }
2839: %
2840: Now using the basic relation \basicgflux\basicgfluxII\ $g_s\sim
2841: 1/Q_\gamma$ from the flux stabilization of the dilaton, we obtain
2842: %
2843: \eqn\Sopenfin{ S_{open}\sim {A\over l_d^2}\sim S_{dS} }
2844: %
2845: agreeing with the de Sitter entropy up to order one coefficients.
2846:
2847: We can combine the two pieces of evidence we have gathered, and
2848: ask for a D-Sitter space with a bubble wall of $Q_\gamma$ D-branes
2849: and with $R_B$ of order string scale (realizing materially a
2850: string scale stretched horizon containing D-branes). This leads
2851: to a $dS_R$ of order string scale, putting us again at the
2852: correspondence point. However, the result \Sopenfin\ on its own
2853: seems to apply more generally.
2854:
2855: As we mentioned in the introduction,
2856: it is important to understand how the open string
2857: theory we contemplate here (as well as the D-Sitter
2858: analysis more generally) could be extended to
2859: account for the nonperturbative decays
2860: of de Sitter models \KachruAW\MaloneyRR\freyetal.
2861:
2862: Finally let us note that an open string description may also apply
2863: to non-static observers such as ${\cal O}_L$. We have exhibited a
2864: deformation in which branes can be introduced into the left
2865: observer's causal patch; this deformation has the property that
2866: the horizon area at $T=0$ decreases in the process \simpleA,
2867: suggesting again that the branes can be thought of as being pulled
2868: out of the horizon, though in this case there is no static
2869: description and the branes do not track the horizon in the limit
2870: in which we go back to ordinary $dS_R$.
2871:
2872: In summary, our results provide further evidence for the notion
2873: that one can describe the physics of the horizon by open strings.
2874: It is tempting to conjecture that such a description formulates
2875: quantum gravity in
2876: the causal patch for ${\cal O}_s$ (and maybe also ${\cal O}_L$);
2877: however in the cases where de Sitter decays via bubble
2878: nucleation the nonperturbative physics will not be controlled
2879: by the simple causal patch of the perturbative de Sitter
2880: solution \desitter.
2881:
2882: %{\noindent {\it Entropy at the top of the barrier?}
2883:
2884: %A final possibility for interpreting the entropy on the D-branes
2885: %is via the unstable de Sitter solution at the top of the barrier
2886: %separating two flux vacua rather than via the de Sitter minima. In
2887: %studies of decays of dS, stochastic fluctuations to the top of the
2888: %barrier represent the dominant effect for wide flat potentials
2889: %[ref starobinsky]. The probability in this case is given by
2890: %$P\sim e^{S_{top}} e^{-S_R}$ where $S_{top}$ is (in $d=4$) given
2891: %by ${1\over {l_4^2\Lambda_{top}}}$ where $\Lambda_{top}$ is the
2892: %value of the cosmological term at the top of the barrier. This de
2893: %Sitter solution is unstable, but it is conceivable that
2894: %nonetheless the formal entropy $S_{top}$ means something. In
2895: %particular, if we imagine the D-branes as kinks separating the two
2896: %vacua, then the core of the kink solution is at the top of the
2897: %potential and so its states may be more closely associated with
2898: %the top than with the minima. However, in order to have such an
2899: %interpretation it would appear that an entire causal patch of the
2900: %$dS_{top}$ would need to be involved, and this is not evident.
2901:
2902:
2903: \newsec{Conclusions}
2904:
2905: In this paper we have studied a basic deformation of de Sitter
2906: flux compactifications -- by introduction of D-brane domain
2907: walls -- as an approach to the problem of exhibiting the microstates
2908: associated to flux compactifications. We have analyzed many basic
2909: properties of the resulting D-Sitter spaces. In particular, we
2910: determined the causal and thermodynamic structure of the space
2911: from the point of view of four basic classes of observers (the
2912: observer ${\cal O}_L$ in the middle of the bubble, the observer on
2913: the bubble wall, the observer ${\cal O}_s$ at a fixed distance
2914: from the wall, and the observer ${\cal O}_R$ outside a
2915: subcritical bubble
2916: whose causal patch is the same as that of the original de Sitter
2917: space).
2918:
2919: We compared the entropy localized on the D-branes in D-Sitter
2920: space and measured by ${\cal O}_L$ to that associated with the
2921: horizon of the original de Sitter space, and found a
2922: correspondence point at which the entropies agree up to order one
2923: coefficients and at which the Bousso bound is similarly saturated
2924: for all time.
2925:
2926: We found two pieces of circumstantial
2927: evidence going in the direction of an open
2928: string description of the de Sitter causal patch: the static
2929: observer in D-Sitter space has the D-branes approach the horizon
2930: as one takes the limit to the original de Sitter space, and the
2931: basic relation \basicgflux\ leads to the right entropy from the
2932: low energy open string description.
2933:
2934: As we have discussed, this work raises many interesting questions
2935: for future work. One basic question is the counting of strings
2936: stretched from the D-branes to the horizon (and in the global
2937: geometry then stretching back to a causally disconnected region of
2938: the D-brane wall). This calculation, and its analogue in ordinary
2939: AdS/CFT and in more generic AdS flux compactifications, would
2940: provide a microscopic computation of the derivative of the entropy
2941: with respect to flux quantum numbers. Another major question is
2942: the problem of further testing (and more precisely formulating)
2943: the conjecture of an open string description of ${\cal O}_s$'s
2944: causal patch. We plan to pursue this using the limit we discussed
2945: in which the D-branes approach the horizon. Similarly, finding a
2946: way to determine the precise relation between dS and DS entropy
2947: (perhaps by pushing further along the lines discussed in \S5.6\
2948: and \S7, or by studying black holes in D-Sitter space)
2949: is crucial for further progress. Given a clear relation
2950: between D-Sitter and de Sitter vacua, one may be able to study
2951: other aspects of de Sitter physics using the D-Sitter degrees of
2952: freedom. For example, one may be able to study the distribution
2953: and decay dynamics of flux backgrounds
2954: \refs{\BoussoXA,\MaloneyRR,\KachruAW,\SusskindKW,\DouglasUM\freyetal}\
2955: using our D-brane description, or elucidate some of
2956: the conceptual puzzles raised in e.g. \WittenKN\GoheerVF.
2957:
2958: Our approach based on the deformation of flux vacua into
2959: spacetimes containing D-brane bubbles can be applied to many more
2960: situations. For example, the Susskind-Witten entropy of AdS flux
2961: compactifications can be studied as a function of flux quantum
2962: numbers, which leads to similar questions to those discussed here
2963: regarding its interpretation in terms of D-branes. In general,
2964: any time D-brane bubbles can be extracted by deformation from a
2965: spacetime, one can study as we did here their entropy and the
2966: relation of the deformation to the original spacetime.
2967:
2968:
2969: \vskip 1cm \centerline{\bf Acknowledgements} We would like to
2970: thank A. Adams, T. Banks, R. Bousso, A. Frey, S. Hellerman, S.
2971: Kachru, A. Karch, A. Maloney, E. Martinec, J. McGreevy, S.
2972: Shenker, A. Strominger, L. Susskind, and C.Vafa for useful
2973: discussions. The work of E.S. is supported in part by the
2974: Israel-U.S. Binational Science Foundation. The work of M.F. and
2975: E.S. is supported by the DOE under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515, by
2976: the NSF under contract 9870115 and by the A.P. Sloan Foundation, and
2977: that of M.F. by a Stanford Graduate Fellowship.
2978:
2979: \listrefs
2980:
2981: \end
2982: